June 18th, 2009 by John Briley in Health Policy
2 Comments »
Much of the debate this week over health care reform centers on the money: Will reform place undue burden on some silos of the health care sector? Will we need new taxes on the middle class to fund this thing? Will providers choose to pass on added costs (to consumers and others) rather than change habits to become more efficient?
Fair questions, all. This is America and money is king. But far more important right now is enacting measures that require wholesale changes in health care training, delivery, tracking and accountability.
A Bipartisan Model
At a press conference in Washington, D.C., a bipartisan triad of former Senate majority leaders yesterday unveiled a model of what those changes could look like. Former Sens. Howard Baker, Tom Daschle and Bob Dole, all of whom are among the founders of a think tank called the Bipartisan Policy Center, released a broad spectrum of policy suggestions that includes mandatory health insurance for all Americans, zero premiums for people in poverty and a revised payment system that rewards providers who heal the sick and prevent illness in the well.
Baker, Daschle and Dole insist their plan is “budget neutral” – i.e. will break even over 10 years. And, like seasoned parents trying to teach their kids to play nice, they highlighted compromises made in drafting the plan.
Daschle, for example, wanted a public plan (government-run health care) but said he “compromised significantly” on that issue (the proposal as released includes a moderate public plan run by states with federal seed money). Dole opposed mandatory health insurance for every American but he backed away from that.
As Dole said at the briefing, “If we can’t compromise…how can we expect to get a bill passed?”
Nice gestures and sound bites but, as Baker, Daschle and Dole readily acknowledge, they have no legislative power – or riled up constituents lighting up their phones – so it remains to be seen if their goodwill will inspire similar flexibility in current members of congress.
The fairly detailed plan consists of four pillars.
1. Promote high-quality, high-value care by:
- Investing in information technology that will greatly raise efficiency in the system – and reduce medication and hospital errors;
- Developing reliable measurements on how to define “quality care” and how to ensure patients are receiving it;
- Reforming provider payments in Federal programs to reward high-value care;
- Focusing on prevention of chronic diseases – like diabetes and heart disease – by rewarding providers for early recognition of risk factors and effective intervention.
- Investing in the healthcare workforce (for example, through enhanced training and continuing education).
2. Make health insurance available, meaningful and affordable by:
- Guaranteeing coverage, even to the very poor – for example, no premiums for those at or below the poverty line and tax credits for those living at up to 400 percent of the poverty line.
- Guaranteeing access regardless of health status – i.e., no more denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions!
- Creating state or regional insurance exchanges so consumers and businesses could easily comparison shop for plans.
3. Emphasize and support personal responsibility and healthy choices by:
- Mandating purchase of insurance.
- Offering premium reductions for healthy behaviors.
- Creating a public health and wellness fund – $50 billion over 10 years – to invest in evidence-based prevention and wellness programs (through schools, community organizations, state agencies and even employers).
4. Develop a workable and sustainable approach to health care (this is the money part) by:
- Charging companies – 1 to 3 percent of payroll – that do not offer insurance to employees.
- Modernizing delivery and payment systems.
- Reducing payments to home health and skilled nursing facilities “to address overpayment and inappropriate utilization concerns.” This is in line with recommendations from Med PAC.
- Creating an approval pathway for generic versions of biologics.
Looking Beyond the Money
The total plan would cost $1.2 trillion over 10 years. Again, the former senators insist that their plan would pay for itself, through savings from increased efficiencies and fees for certain players.
I will not delve into the money debate because, honestly, it is over my head and best left to experts. But I do know human behavior, and I know that good habits are very hard to establish and bad ones even tougher to break.
And, to me, that means that whatever legislation emerges from congress better include strict and crystal clear requirements to prod insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, nurses et al to act in the best interest of patients, at all times and without loopholes to do otherwise.
Sharing the stage yesterday with the former senators was Mark McClellan, director of Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform and Leonard D. Schaeffer Chair in Health Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution.
McClellan, who has a deep health policy resume, including a stint as Food and Drug Administration commissioner and administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said this about Medicare: “We don’t get there by cutting provider payment rates and assuming they can do the rest. Payments are tied to measureable improvements in value [and] in care.” If your patients get better results and you slow down costs, he added, you get paid more. “Not the opposite like we have today.”
New Standards for Hospitals?
This is soothing to hear, and I’d like to add one brief rant on a related topic: Health care reform legislation must include strong mandates for reforming how we run our hospitals.
In 2008 two patients – one in Brooklyn, N.Y., and another in Goldsboro, N.C. – died in waiting rooms after being neglected for hours by hospital staff. In the Goldsboro case, a security camera records workers sitting in the waiting room playing cards while the patient, who had not been fed or attended to in 22 hours in the hospital, slumps in a nearby chair. In the Brooklyn case, a camera captures a woman collapsing and convulsing on the floor – after 24 hours in the waiting room; two guards and a member of the hospitals medical staff stop to observe her briefly before walking away.
While those tragic cases may be extreme, tales abound nationwide of substandard hospital operations – including medication and procedural errors, physical and sexual abuse of patients, rodent and roach infestation and general filth. Some hospitals in this country have infection rates that top 20 percent, meaning more than one-in-five patients leave the hospital with an infection they acquired during their stay.
Yes, this is only one part of the big picture, and yes, many other silos of the health care system are equally ripe for attention. But I would hope that whatever legislation emerges from congress includes elevated standards for training all hospital staff, not just doctors and nurses, along with strict accountability measures and some way of penalizing hospitals that are not clean, orderly and welcoming to patients.
I caught Sen. Daschle after the briefing and asked him about this issue. He repeated much of what had been said on improving health care in general – tying payment to value, ensuring transparency, and relying on evidenced-based research to set policy – but he also told me this: “We need to encourage hospitals and doctors to use a more episodic [approach] to health care rather than a procedural [approach]. That will help.”
Translation: The system must reward providers who treat the whole patient and improve overall health/outcomes over time. Doctors should be paid to keep people well, not to keep people sick and in treatment, as is often the case under the current system.
June 15th, 2009 by KevinMD in Better Health Network
No Comments »
A 90-year old man with a pancreatic mass, almost definitely pancreatic cancer, was admitted to a hospital.
Surgeon Jeffrey Parks does the initial surgery consult on this terminal case, and recommends hospice care.
The next evening, he’s shocked by the “astounding amount of medicine [that] had been practiced” during the day:
Consults had gone out to GI, oncology, and nephrology. The GI guy had ordered an MRCP and, based on some mild distal narrowing of the common bile duct, had scheduled the patient for a possible ERCP in the morning. A stat CT guided biopsy of the liver lesions had also been done. The oncologist had written a long note about palliative chemotherapy options and indicated he would contact the son about starting as soon as possible. The nephrologist had sent off a barrage of blood and urinary tests.
It’s often said that we spend the most money in the world on futile care, often with little benefit to the patient. The preceding account was that phenomenon in action, replicated thousands of times on a daily basis.
A microcosm of what’s wrong with American medicine indeed.
*This blog post was originally published at KevinMD.com*
May 20th, 2009 by Harriet Hall, M.D. in Better Health Network
No Comments »
There is no question that patients on insulin benefit from home monitoring. They need to adjust their insulin dose based on their blood glucose readings to avoid ketoacidosis or insulin shock. But what about patients with non-insulin dependent diabetes, those who are being treated with diet and lifestyle changes or oral medication? Do they benefit from home monitoring? Does it improve their blood glucose levels? Does it make them feel more in control of their disease?
This has been an area of considerable controversy. Various studies have given conflicting results. Those studies have been criticized for various flaws: some were retrospective, non-randomized, not designed to rule out confounding factors, high drop-out rate, subjects already had well-controlled diabetes, etc. A systematic review showed no benefit from monitoring. So a new prospective, randomized, controlled, community based study was designed to help resolve the conflict.
O’Kane et al studied 184 newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes who had never used insulin or had any previous experience with blood glucose monitoring. They were under the age of 70 and recruited from community referrals to hospital outpatient clinics, so they were likely representative of patients commonly seen in practice. They were randomized to monitoring or no monitoring. Patients in the monitoring group were given glucose meters and were instructed in their use and in appropriate responses to high or low readings, such as dietary review or exercise. They were asked to take four fasting and four postprandial readings every week for a year. Patients in the no monitoring group were specifically asked NOT to acquire a glucose monitor or do any kind of self-testing. Otherwise, the two groups were treated alike with diabetes education and an identical treatment algorithm based on HgbA1C levels.
Their findings:
We were unable to identify any significant effect of self monitoring over one year on HbA1c, BMI, use of oral hypoglycaemic drugs, or reported incidence of hypoglycaemia. Furthermore, monitoring was associated with a 6% higher score on the well-being depression subscale.
So home monitoring not only did no good but it made patients feel worse. Why? Perhaps because they were constantly reminded that they had a disease and worried when blood glucose levels rose, especially when the recommended responses of dietary review and exercise didn’t rapidly lead to lower readings.
We would not accept the results of one isolated study without replication, but in this case the new study adds significantly to the weight of previous evidence and arguably tips the balance enough to justify a change in practice.
The American Diabetes Association still says “Experts feel that anyone with diabetes can benefit from checking their blood glucose.” But they only recommend blood glucose checks if you have diabetes and are:
• taking insulin or diabetes pills
• on intensive insulin therapy
• pregnant
• having a hard time controlling your blood glucose levels
• having severe low blood glucose levels or ketones from high blood glucose levels
• having low blood glucose levels without the usual warning signs
Diabetes experts see the severe, complicated cases and have a different perspective from that of the family physician seeing mostly mild and uncomplicated cases. An article in American Family Physician said
Except in patients taking multiple insulin injections, home monitoring of blood glucose levels has questionable utility, especially in relatively well-controlled patients. Its use should be tailored to the needs of the individual patient.
An editorial in the BMJ pointed out that
Home blood glucose monitoring is a big business. The main profit for the manufacturing industry comes from the blood glucose testing strips. Some £90m was spent on testing strips in the United Kingdom in 2001, 40% more than was spent on oral hypoglycaemic agents.2 New types of meters are usually not subject to the same rigorous evaluation of cost effectiveness, compared with existing models, as new pharmaceutical agents are.
If the scientific evidence supporting the role of home blood glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes was subject to the same critical evaluation that is applied to new pharmaceutical agents, then it would perhaps not have been approved for use by patients.
Conclusion
Home glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes is not justified by the evidence. It does not improve outcome, it is expensive, and it may decrease the quality of life of patients.
Common sense suggested monitoring should improve outcome. We had assumed it would work. Scientists thought to question that assumption. They found a way to test that assumption. New evidence showed that it was a false assumption. In response to that evidence, the practice is now being abandoned. This is how science is supposed to work. Another small triumph for science-based medicine.
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
May 14th, 2009 by DrRob in Better Health Network
No Comments »
I met a urologist from another city recently. Since it had been a much discussed issue recently, I asked him what he thought about PSA testing. His answer was immediate.
“I think PSA testing has been proven to save lives, and I have no doubt it should be done routinely.”
When I mentioned the recent recommendation that prostate cancer screening be stopped after a man reaches 70, his faced turned red. “That report is clearly an attempt by the liberal media to set the stage for rationing of healthcare. It was a flawed study and should not be taken as the final say on the matter.” He went on to recount cases of otherwise healthy 80 year-old men who developed high-grade prostate cancer, suffered, and died.
I chose not to debate him on the subject, but did point out that his view was that of one who sees the worst of the worst. I personally can recall less than ten patients who died of prostate cancer in the fifteen years I have practiced. My view is one that sees a non-diseased general public, and not worst-case scenarios. I also didn’t point out that even the American Cancer Society stopped pushing the test and states, and does not think as highly of the evidence as he does: “Using the PSA test to screen men for prostate cancer is controversial because it is not yet known for certain whether this test actually saves lives.” (1).
But I digress. What really struck me in the discussion was the way he pulled out the idea of rationing as the end-all hell for American healthcare. It is regularly used as a scare tactic for those who advocate a “free market approach” to healthcare. They point to the UK and Canada where people are denied cancer treatment or delayed repair of a ruptured disc resulting in permanent paralysis. Rationing healthcare seems a universal evil, and any step that is made toward controlling cost is felt by some to be a push of the agenda of the Obama administration toward universal health coverage and ultimately rationing.
So what exactly is so bad about rationing? The word itself refers to an individual being given a set amount of a limited resource, above which none will be available. In healthcare, the idea is that each American is given only a set amount of coverage for care and above that they are left to fend for themselves. Those who are either go over their limit or are felt to have a less legitimate claim on a scarce resource will be denied it. This is especially scary for those who are the high-utilizers (the uninsurable that I have discussed previously), as they will use up their ration cards much faster than others. I certainly understand this fear.
But are all limitations put on care really a step toward rationing? Are limits put on care a bad thing? The answer to that is simple: DUH! Of course not! Of course there need to be limits on care! Without control over what is paid for, the system will fall apart. Here’s why:
- Limited Resources – Not only are our resources limited, they need shrinking. The overall cost of our system is very high and has to be controlled somehow. Different interests are competing for resources, and by definition whoever doesn’t win, doesn’t get paid. This means that someone needs to prioritize what is a necessity and what is not.
- Lack of personal culpability by patients – with both privately and publicly funded insurance, the actual cost to the patient is defrayed. They are not harmed by unnecessary spending, so they don’t try to control it. Only uninsured patients are painfully aware of the cost of unnecessry tests.
- Lack of personal culpability by doctors – If I order an unnecessary test or expensive drug, I am not harmed by the waste. For example, it is common practice by emergency physicians in our area to get a chest x-ray on children with fever. Most of this is related to defensive medicine which is understandable in the ER, but clinically the test is often not warranted. Yet the emergency physicians are not really affected by this waste, and the hospital and radiologists are actually rewarded by it if the insurance company pays for it (which they do).
- Incentives for other parties – As I just said, hospitals and radiologists have incentives to have wasteful procedures done. The urologist I spoke to has a huge financial stake in the continuation of PSA testing, as it generates enormous business for him. Drug companies want us to order their more expensive drugs than the generic alternatives. This doesn’t mean any of them are wrong, but they sure as heck won’t fight waste if it harms them financially to do so.
When I was a physician starting out, the insurance companies would pay for pretty much any drug I prescribed. At that time there were very expensive branded anti-inflamatory drugs that were aggressively pushed by the drug companies. When the first drug formulary came around, the first thing that happened was that they forced me to use generic drugs of this type. Before, there was no reason not to prescribe a brand, I had samples, and they were a tiny bit more convenient. But when I changed there was really no negative effect on my patients.
One of our local hospitals just built a huge new cardiac center. Statistically, our area is a very high-consumer of coronary artery stents compared to the national average. Yet there are many cases in which an asymptomatic person will get a stent placed simply because they have abnormalities on their cardiac catheterization. Logically this may make sense, but the data do not suggest that these people are helped at all. Do you think that the hospital wants these procedures halted? Do you think the cardiologists do? Yet if they are truly unnecessary, shouldn’t they be stopped? Couldn’t the $200 million they spent on their state-of-the-art facility be used in better ways? Someone has to be looking at this and making sure the money spent is not wasted.
Without cost control a business will fail, and the same goes for our system. Yet any suggestion at the elimination of clinically questionable procedures is met with cries of rationing. Right now we are not at the point of rationing, and the act of trying to control cost by eliminating unnecessary procedures does not necessarily imply that the end goal is rationing. The end goal is to spend money on necessary procedures instead of waste. I sincerely doubt there is a left-wing conspiracy to push us to deny care where it is needed. I doubt that the American Cancer Society is in favor of rationing.
Let’s just spend our money wisely. It’s just common sense; not an evil plot.
*This blog post was originally published at Musings of a Distractible Mind*
March 19th, 2009 by KevinMD in Better Health Network
No Comments »
In a surprise, President Obama has signaled a willingness to discuss medical liability as part of the health reform process.
Good for him for standing up to the trial lawyers, a core constituency of the left.
That’s a good sign, as the costs of defensive medicine brought on by the broken malpractice system, should be addressed if there is any hope of reducing health care spending.
Trial lawyers like to say that medical malpractice represents “less than one percent of the cost of health care,” but that fails to account for the substantial sum attributed to defensive medicine doctors practice to avoid the threat of malpractice, estimated to be $210 billion annually.
Furthermore, the argument that malpractice reform will harm patients “by limiting their ability to seek compensation through the courts” doesn’t hold water either.
That’s because the current system does a miserable job of compensating patients for medical errors, where more than 50 cents on every compensated dollar goes to pay lawyers and the courts. Not to mention that a typical malpractice trial may last years before an injured patient receives a single penny.
So, don’t believe the arguments of the trial lawyers, who prefer the financial security of the status quo.
Any alternative system, such as no-fault malpractice, mediation, or health courts, will go a long way both to reduce the cost of medical care, and fairly compensate more patients for medical errors at a significantly more expedient rate.
Lawyers are aware of these facts, and to their credit, are going on a preemptive offensive to head off tort reform. If I were the AMA, I would start pro-actively circulating some of the above talking points, rather than reacting to the trial lawyers.
**This post was originally published at KevinMD**
