February 25th, 2009 by Dr. Val Jones in Primary Care Wednesdays
6 Comments »
By Steve Simmons, M.D.
Last week my partner wrote about The Funnel, and illustrated how patients are squeezed through a healthcare system that focuses on specific problems without allowing enough time to treat patients as individuals. We have shown how frustrating this is for doctors and demonstrated that a shortage of primary care physicians is a reality. However, we don’t believe it’s too late to reverse this foreboding trend. Today, my partner and I at doctokr Family Medicine are building a practice to care for our patients as individuals first. We have also added our voice to a growing chorus of physicians sounding ever louder, explaining the necessity of a healthcare system that places the art of caring for patients first.
The next time you sit in a doctor’s waiting room, look around and consider what, and more importantly who, you see. You might see a sick child or his worried mother. Our healthcare system does not see two people, rather it sees a 5-digit CPT and ICD-9 code. ICD-9 (International Classification of Diseases) codes were originally created by the World Health Organization (WHO) to track diseases across the globe. Today, CPT codes (designating patient difficulty) are combined with the ICD-9 codes by third-party providers to standardize the reimbursement process. Although over 17,000 ICD-9 codes exist to classify various illnesses, there is no code for compassion. More concerning, the system does not allow any time to ease the worries or fears of a mother.
The focus of a primary care doctor’s medical practice should be on the art of patient care. An individual should be treated as a whole and not the combination of their individual problems. But, a time may come when we must focus on one specific medical problem and seek the help of a specialist; such as an endocrinologist for diabetes or an orthopedist after an accident. Yet, without a primary care physician to coordinate our care and speak on our behalf, a patient’s wants and needs as an individual might not be considered in reaching a particular treatment decision. I can speak as a doctor, son, or patient when I say that anyone’s health can suffer at the hands of brilliant physicians working without the guidance of a coordinating physician who knows us well.
My mentor in medical school was an experienced family physician near retirement who offered me the following insight. There are two types of doctors and I would consciously or sub-consciously choose which one to be. One type of physician makes medical problems central in their patients’ lives and thus forces the individual to revolve around their problems. The other type works to keep the patient’s life central and tries to make problems rotate around the individual.
Those policy makers determining the future of healthcare should follow my mentor’s advice. Today’s health-care system has devolved to focus solely on problems and disease, often to the detriment of individuals and families. As decision-makers explore revamping our current healthcare system they could continue, unaware, in this same direction. But, I have to believe they would choose the other direction if they could remember how it feels to sit in a doctors waiting room surrounded by other people – individuals all. Nothing will change the fact that healthcare is ultimately about people, and not codes or a specific problem. Healthcare should help patients and their primary care doctors make good health and wellness decisions while basing them on an individual as a person.
Until next week, I remain yours in primary care,
Steve Simmons, MD
February 11th, 2009 by Dr. Val Jones in Primary Care Wednesdays
4 Comments »
By Steve Simmons, M.D.
Last week, my partner wrote about a game played between doctors and insurance companies. After reading his post, I recalled the time I first learned that modern medicine was something altogether different than what I had expected. I began my career as a primary care physician in 1996. Fresh out of residency, I was optimistic, naïve, and unaware that a very real game was being played. As time passed, I became a player in this game, but slowly realized that something of value was lost by my patients trying to translate their insurance coverage into health care. Likewise, the struggle to interpret the healthcare system for my patients caused me the same frustration that has led many doctors to leave primary care today.
Early in my practice I was eager to begin my career, relieved that my training was over. However, my training in the game had just begun. To my consternation, insurance company demands soon usurped the time I spent on everyday clinical problems. Often, I’d find my office stacked deep with charts waiting for my review and approval, a consequence of an insurance company changing a drug formulary involving dozens of patients. It seemed a day couldn’t pass without administrative staff requiring an explanation for a treatment I had already recommended so they could arrange pre-authorization.
Insurance coding was not taught in medical school or residency, yet it’s the primary language used to communicate with insurance companies. I needed to learn this ‘skill’ on the fly, using a code book to translate each medical diagnosis into a five digit number, with an additional number serving as a cipher to explain the type of work I had done for a patient. This code book does not contain some diagnoses and many of its diagnostic codes inaccurately describe medical conditions, causing inevitable mistakes that led to non-payment.
In Money-Driven Medicine, Maggie Mahar describes the 1990s as the time of HMOs, when reimbursement became paradoxical. Then, an HMO gave a primary care physician $10 a month per patient, regardless of what we did or did not do for that patient. If we saw our patient in the office we kept the co-pay, but nothing else was reimbursed. If we admitted a patient to the hospital, we received $0, resulting in lost office time, lost opportunities to see other patients, and lost revenue.
Some wonder why primary care physicians don’t go to the hospital anymore. Here’s why: They can’t afford to leave the office. They must stay put and move people through their office, which resembles an assembly line, if they want to stay financially afloat. When I observed that the only way to earn money caring for someone in an HMO was to never see them, my partner looked at an older colleague, smiled, and said, “He finally got it.”
Navigating nonsensical limits and rules became infuriating. One young man, brought to me by his tearful father, was hearing voices. Soon into my exam I realized he suffered from a mental illness. His plan stipulated the patient only could initiate mental health benefits, not a family member. However, the voice was telling him not to call; yet he agreed to see a psychiatrist if someone else would call. I spent well over an hour pre-authorizing his mental health benefit.
Examples include physical illnesses too. I diagnosed a cancer in a woman whose HMO offered only one specialist; someone I would not have consulted. With no choice, I referred her. Days later, she returned in tears stating that she would never see someone who knew less about her problem than she did. I agreed and spent the rest of the afternoon wrangling with her insurer to get a different specialist approved.
When I moved to the Washington DC area, I left primary care. For ten years I worked in urgent care, earning a steady paycheck while avoiding overhead expenses. I could go home without being followed by the constant frustration of trying to untangle impossible knots. Yet, I missed the opportunity to build relationships with my patients and was not using the skills I had developed. When given the chance to work in primary care again without the endless hassles, I seized it. Today, I am gratified to have returned to my calling. It is more rewarding to practice medicine outside of the current insurance model and I remain thankful to my partner at doctokr Family Medicine for the opportunity to do so.
Today, much is lost between patients and doctors. If physicians and patients could connect without so many distractions, primary care would, again, resemble a calling more than a job and the primary care shortage would not be reaching a crisis point. Too much time and effort is spent on a game controlled by endless rules and regulations; time that could be focused on the patient — who should be the true focus, after all.
Until next week, I remain yours in primary care,
Steve Simmons, MD
February 4th, 2009 by Dr. Val Jones in Primary Care Wednesdays
1 Comment »
Dr. Val’s note: My friend and co-blogger Alan Dappen is going to prepare a series of posts to expose the convoluted billing and procedural tactics that primary care physicians adopt to survive the ever decreasing reimbursements that would otherwise put them out of business. Below is his introductory post – others will follow each Wednesday morning here at Better Health. Enjoy!
###
The Doctor’s Huddle
By Alan Dappen, M.D.
On the great gridiron of healthcare, the team of primary care providers is leaning inward, supportively embracing one another. They have huddled together for 15 years, calling plays against their opponent, the Insurance Team. The two-minute warning has sounded and the Physician Team is losing. The Physician’s play book pieces together strategies culled from cocktail party conversations, doctor conventions, office staff meetings, back hallways of hospitals, online blogs, and a plethora of practice management magazines; routinely circulated offering grand strategies to teaching doctors how to tackle the Insurance Team. The rising mantra is “Hit them again! Harder! HARDER!”
This game began in the 1980s, when concerns that rapidly inflating healthcare costs would consume all the U.S. gross national product within the foreseeable future unless something was done. Insurance companies lobbied regulators and advertised to the public not to socialize healthcare. Most people sighed relief when laws were passed granting insurance companies broad powers to regulate the price of care. Little did these politicians realize that they inadvertently were “socializing” care by handing the keys to the health care gold mine to Team Insurance’s privatized, for-profit model.
Up until this point, the healthcare system had experienced 40 years of run-away costs. Patients with insurance hadn’t worried about the costs of care. Inside of this cash rich environment, many important innovations occurred but employers, who subsidized most of the cost, questioned the sustainability of paying for it. All the while, physicians, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and medical suppliers eagerly reassured the patients: “Since you aren’t worried about the price, then no one else should worry about it either. We’ll pass the bill to the insurance company–they pay what we ask.”
This modus operandi came to a screeching halt in the late ‘80s, when the aforementioned game began, and Team Insurance was allowed to fix prices via preferred provider contracts. Insurance providers understood that the key to these contracts was not to change the rules for patients, who needed to perceive their care as virtually free so that they would continue to seek care.
Instead, Team Insurance spelled out new game rules in contracts for physicians, where the physicians “negotiated” to accept roughly 50% of their customary rate in order to be listed in the insurance company’s Preferred Provider Directories. These rules were never acceptable to physicians. Docs refusing to sign contracts rudely were awakened by the new world order when 95% of their trusted clients refused to return until they could say, “Yes we are preferred providers.” And, “Yes, all you have to pay us is your co-pay.”
Patient expectations remained unchanged. Quality of service, patience, time to explain oneself, attention to wellness, review of multiple issues, meaningful personal relationships, prescriptions, detailed explanations of risks and benefits of treatments, reviews of other possible ideas in a differential diagnosis, labs, call backs with results, and introductions to specialists were never connected to a price for patients before. After all, haven’t physicians had spent 40 years reassuring patients, “Don’t worry your silly little head about the price.” This time the boomerang came right back at physicians who suddenly were demanded to deliver all the same service for half the price.
The power of “owning” the patient for a $20 co-pay is not lost upon the insurance team. Every year, as they hand out new contracts, these insurance companies congratulate their preferred doctor players for their work, quality, and dedication and try to not rub in the following truth, “We own the doctor and we own the patient. Any doctor who dares not sign our next annual contract for less money will find themselves without patients. Remember, for the patient the big thing that counts is that you can say yes to the $20.00 co pay. Now sign on the dotted line.”
Every “negotiated” dollar saved from paying Team Physician means smiles all around for Team Insurance and their fans (shareholders.) Price fixing initially did control costs, but only for about five years. The U.S. now is back on the trajectory of health care pricing doubling every 7-10 years.
So what’s going on in those primary care huddles? The game plays are called out: “More work, less money, patient demands, protection from malpractice, keep smiling … Somehow we’re going to make somebody cough up our money …Hit them again harder! Let’s do it! On one, break.”
Up next, I’ll show you some of the plays physicians have put into place to survive. And why you the patient might feel like the football. Play along, with us. Hup one, Hup two, hike!
Until next time, I remain yours in primary care,
Alan Dappen, M.D.
January 28th, 2009 by Dr. Val Jones in Opinion, Primary Care Wednesdays
No Comments »
By Steve Simmons, M.D.
When I graduated from the University of Tennessee’s Medical School sixteen years ago, my last act as a student was to take the Oath of Hippocrates with my classmates and 98% of the other medical students graduating in the United States that year. This oath still resonates within me today and connects me to all physicians reaching back over 2,500 years to the time of Hippocrates.
Implicit in an oath is the understanding that the profession chosen will require more sacrifice than the average vocation, that the occupation’s rewards should be more than a paycheck, and that a paycheck would impart less value than the enrichment gained from nobly serving others. The high standard which society holds physicians to is still accurately described by the Hippocratic Oath. Regardless of what changes seep into our profession from outside influences, doctors will always be held to the ideals written in the Hippocratic Oath.
When I was a young medical student, the hope that becoming a physician would bring value and meaning to my life was more rewarding than thoughts of job security or financial stability. This helped propel me and my classmates through many long nights of study. One sentiment oft-heard in my medical school, and I suspect many medical schools today, was that no one would put up with ‘this’ just for money–usually stated prior to a re-doubling of the effort to get past a particularly challenging task. Painful physical effort often was required, such as waking at 3AM to make hospital rounds, or spending 24-hour long shifts stealing naps and bathroom breaks, sometimes even working over 100 hours a week during demanding rotations. Steven Miles, a physician bioethicist, wrote, “At some level, physicians recognize that a personal revelation of moral commitments is necessary to the practice of medicine.”
I would proffer that few students would endure the sacrifices necessary to graduate without understanding this point.
In Paul Starr’s 1982 book, The Social Transformation of American Medicine, he stated that in the future the goal of the health industry would not be better health, but rather the rate of return on investments. This unfortunately has come to pass. Arguably, medicine now is controlled by CEOs and other executives in the health industry — individuals who are not expected to take an oath. Physicians, remaining loyal to the Oath, are an unwitting weak and junior partner in today’s health care industry. Worse, doctors are now employees, often seen as interchangeable parts with one doctor considered no different than another. Third party providers in the health care industry fail to place any value on the personal interactions between doctor and patient. It may be better that the CEOs of health insurance companies are not required to take an oath, since many are on record, admitting loyalty to the share-holder alone with profits their first consideration.
Before the Great Depression, only 24% of the U.S. medical school graduates were given the Oath at graduation. Does this suggest they were less ethical? I don’t think so. I believe the increased use of the Oath demonstrates a growing awareness on the part of our educators that business has taken a controlling interest in the practice of medicine and that their graduates should be reminded that society still expects them to deliver on the noble promises of the past. Hippocrates’ Oath helped pry medicine away from superstition and the controlling interests of Greece’s priesthood in the fifth century B.C. Hippocrates plotted a course towards science using inductive reasoning while his Oath anchored his fledgling art on moral truths unassailable even today. I suspect he would see little difference between those profiting within the priesthood of his day and those monopolizing healthcare today. He would find familiarity in those putting forth their difficult-to-decode rules of reimbursement, recognizing these rules as intentionally confusing, pejorative, and detrimental to patients and physicians alike while profiting those few in control.
How would Hippocrates advise today’s students and physicians when shown how monetary realities have finally subsumed us all? He might remind us that money was not our motivation in pursuing this career and show us how a return to the reverence for our art, embodied by the Oath, could become a modern conveyance to the ideals of the past. By regaining our reverence for what motivated and guided us through medical school and residency we should find ample courage to do whatever is necessary. Much is needed to wrest control of today’s broken healthcare system from those making huge profits…. and an oath can remind us why it is important.
Until next time, I remain yours in primary care,
Steve Simmons, MD
January 21st, 2009 by Dr. Val Jones in Primary Care Wednesdays
4 Comments »
By Alan Dappen, M.D.
“Doc, you’re the best! You saved my life, and my wife’s. You delivered my kids and brought them through sickness — time and again. I trust you, and can confide in you … Hey, wait a minute … Are you still a Preferred Provider?”
This is a statement I heard all too often as a primary care doctor beholden to third-party providers. When a long-time patient asked this question, I felt like the mythological Damocles, who precariously sat beneath a sword suspended by a horse hair, for if I answered “No” to that question of “Are you a Preferred Provider” the sword would fall, swiftly.
No matter skill, knowledge, talent, caring, quality, experience, price or level of trust of their current primary care practitioner, 90-95% of patients who ask “Are you my preferred provider?” paradoxically will exit one primary care provider’s office to entrust the decisions of their day-to-day health care to another physician picked by their insurance company, even though this new doctor may be a stranger who signs a contract to do the job for less money.
For decades now patients have been led, like lemmings, by the belief that the vast majority of healthcare is virtually free because they have health insurance usually wholly and partially funded by someone else, like their employers of the government. Furthermore, patients trust that the providers of this health insurance know what is best for their care.
Because someone else is footing the bill, we as patients have absolved ourselves of the responsibilities associated with finding and consuming good care. Instead, the hope of getting what appears to be virtually free health care trumps all other considerations of care, whether it is quality, level of expertise, convenience or accessibility. Few of us are immune to wanting to get something for less, or better yet, something for nothing. This behavior leads to moral hazards, which are most easily explained by the WIFM (“What’s in it for me”) concept, and best exemplified by the way we eat at a buffet, drink at an open bar, or most recently by how the banks flocked to the sub-prime market to make easy, big money.
In health care, these moral hazards mean patients do not hold themselves accountable for finding the quality of care they desire at a price that makes sense. Instead, patients often rush for more health care believing that more care is better care; or to specialists because this means more competent care; or to more tests because this translates to more comprehensive results; and finally to more drugs and more treatments because these mean a longer, happier life. And patients do so because they believe their care is “free.”
Most patients are loathe to believe the numerous studies contradicting many of these beliefs. Due to the set up of the current “free” care healthcare system, patients are shielded from the actual costs of care, so they do not carefully consider these costs when assessing care. Take, for example, that a new chemotherapy drug for colon cancer cost $40,000, and yet only adds an average 1.5 months onto a patient’s life. Or that the newest brand name antidepressant costs 6 times more than its older, generic cousin (Prozac), with no evidence that it works any better. And finally, consider this example: a 70 year-old man with severe, irreversible chronic end-stage heart and renal failure, who has been bed-ridden for 3 months with numerous deep bed sores, and whose family demands “keep him alive no matter the cost.”
Unfortunately, the WIFM game doesn’t end with the patient. Imagine the beauty of running a business when all your customers say, “Don’t worry, just send the bill to Mom (the employer) and Dad (the government) and they’ll pick up the tab.” It is not rocket science to understand how this led physicians to a business model that guaranteed customers as long as they played by the providers’ rules; nor to understand how drug companies produce more and more “me too” drugs that offer no advantages over generic precursors but cost 6 times more; nor to see primary care physicians moving to specialization, with little difference in training compared to primary care while doubling or tripling fees; nor insurance companies keeping 30-40% of all collected money for “administration, policing, and profits,” and their executive team pocketing exorbitant rewards, like the United Health Care CEO who amassed almost $2 billion in just a few years. How dare he?!
This then is the systemic toxic effects of our health care system. The moral hazard of free healthcare binds us into one big dysfunctional family. Whatever happens, let’s make sure someone else is paying for care.
Here’s the rub: insurance has a social value for protection against large or chronic, recurring costs to help ensure your financial well-being. Primary care, on the other hand, is something all of us need, on average 1-2 hours a year and a can cost the patient as little as $300. What minimal cost to pay for staying healthy today, building for a healthy tomorrow, and ideally decreasing our need for more expensive healthcare later on. Yet few are willing to pay only a little bit today for their day-to-day care – no matter its level of quality, accessibility or convenience, unless it is “free.” So, in a world of moral hazards, what is going to happen to typical primary care?
Stay tuned and we’ll review the dirty little secrets primary care plays to survive and why it really does matter to you.
Until next time, I remain yours in primary care,
Alan Dappen, M.D.
