October 28th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Health Policy, Opinion
1 Comment »
MedPage Today issued a special report on a rising trend: cash-only medical practices. I guess I’m ahead of the curve, since I’ve been seeing a cash-only primary care physician for 2 years now – and I love it.
Dr. Alan Dappen is available to his patients 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, by phone, email and in person. Visits may be scheduled on the same day if needed, prescriptions may be refilled any time without an office visit, he makes house calls, and all records are kept private and digital on a hard drive in his office.
How much would it cost to have the luxury of a personal physician on-call for your every whim?
Would you believe only about $300/year?
What’s Dr. Dappen’s secret to success? He accepts no insurance, keeps his overhead low, offers full price transparency, has physician extenders who work with him, and charges people for his time, not for a complex menu of tests and procedures.
“I believe in doing what is necessary and not doing what is not necessary. The healthcare system is broken because it has perverse incentives, complicated reimbursement strategies, and cuts the patient out of the billing process. When patients don’t care what something costs, and believe that everything should be free, doctors will charge as much as they can. Third party payers use medical records to deny coverage to patients, collectively bargain for lower reimbursement, and set arbitrary fees that reward tests and procedures. This creates a bizarre positive feedback loop that results in a feeding frenzy of billing and unnecessary charges, tests, and procedures. Unlike any other sector, more competition actually drives up costs.”
After building a successful traditional family medicine practice in Fairfax Virginia, Dr. Dappen felt morally compelled to cease accepting insurance so that he could be free to practice good medicine without having to figure out how to get paid for it. He noticed that at least 50% of office visits were not necessary – and issues could be handled by phone in those cases. Phone interviews, of course, were not reimbursable by insurance.
“The physical exam is a straw man for reimbursement. Doctors require people to appear in person at their offices so that they can bill for the time spent caring for them. But for longstanding adult patients, the physical exam rarely changes medical management of their condition. It simply allows physicians to be reimbursed for their time. Cutting the middle man (health insurance) out of the equation allows me to give patients what they need without wasting their time in unnecessary in-person visits. This also frees up my schedule so that I can spend more time with those who really do need an in-person visit.”
Health insurance is certainly necessary to guard against financially catastrophic illness. And the poor need a safety net beyond what Dr. Dappen can provide. But for routine care, “concierge medicine” can make healthcare affordable to the middle class, and reduces costs by at least 50% while dramatically increasing convenience. For the right patient, this is a welcome relief from having to wait to be seen by in-network providers or from being billed non-preferred rates as an uninsured individual. I applaud Dr. Dappen for his efforts in healthcare reform, and look forward to a movement where costs are driven down by putting patients back in the payer seat.
September 16th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Health Policy, News
No Comments »
I was glad to to hear from Wendy from wendysbattle.com … like my friend, she is battling stage IV colon cancer. Unlike my friend, she lives in Ontario and has no assistance to pay for her chemotherapy. In a jaw dropping video from a cancer press conference in Ontario, Wendy and 2 other colon cancer patients testify about being denied coverage for standard of care colon cancer therapy. Wendy says that Ontario has valued her life at less than $18 thousand dollars.
In a recent interview with Senator Mike Kirby, I learned that one of the major problems facing the Canadian healthcare system is the cost of expensive new drugs. The universal system was designed to have patients pay out of pocket for their medicines and have the government cover almost everything else. When this health insurance strategy was created, drugs were very inexpensive. However, with all of the technological advances in medicine – diseases like HIV/AIDS and cancer have become chronic, manageable illnesses with expensive treatment price tags. And now, the lack of drug coverage is shifting unmanageable costs directly to the patient. Sadly, Wendy is one of many victims of lack of drug coverage in Canada.
All this to say that the grass is not really greener in Canada – especially for cancer patients.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
August 30th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Health Policy, Opinion
3 Comments »
Labor Day was founded in the late 1800’s as a way to thank
American workers (as Peter J. McGuire, a cofounder of the American Federation
of Labor put it): “who from rude nature have delved and carved all the grandeur
we behold.” There is some debate
about who originated the concept of the holiday, but one truth remains:
“All other
holidays are in a more or less degree connected with conflicts and battles of
man’s prowess over man, of strife and discord for greed and power, of glories
achieved by one nation over another. Labor Day…is devoted to no man, living
or dead, to no sect, race, or nation… It
constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to
the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.”
Resident physicians are on my mind with Labor Day
approaching. I know that they are toiling away in hospitals across the nation,
and many of them do not get to take Labor Day off for vacation. Physicians work for 3-7 years after
graduating from medical school, and are paid (on average) about the equivalent
of a home health aide or a medical secretary but work about twice the hours
during residency. In fact, if you calculate
out the salary by the hours they work, resident physicians are paid about $9
-$10/hour which is roughly $1.50 more than minimum wage.
Not surprisingly, resident physicians have joined unions to
lobby for more reasonable wages and caps on the number of hours they must work
per week. The national cap is now at 80
hours per week – about 20 hours more than a truck driver is allowed to work
(for “safety reasons”). Research from Harvard
suggests that errors made by overworked residents increase by 700% when they
have worked more than 24 hours in a row.
Residents from the University of New Mexico, for example, received wages in the lowest 1% for resident physicians in their region, and
were denied a salary increase until they recently joined forces with CIR (the Committee of Interns and Residents) to
negotiate more reasonable salaries and working conditions. The New
Mexico contract adds one more CIR chapter to the more
than 70 hospitals — each with multiple residency programs — that are part of
CIR.
Founded in 1957 to improve patient care and resident working
conditions, CIR has remained true to those two goals throughout the decades. In
1975, CIR won an end to every other night on-call in New
York City, and created the first-ever Patient Care Fund in Los Angeles, where
residents could purchase equipment or create innovative programs to help
patients. Campaigns to prevent needle stick accidents by moving to safer needles,
or needle-less equipment, have also improved working conditions for residents.
CIR has been on the forefront of safe and humane work hours
for residents, helping to win the 80 hour regulations in New York State
in 1989, which became the foundation for the 2003 national guidelines. But
evidence shows that this is still too many hours, and so the advocacy around
hours continues unabated.
So please have safe travels on your Labor Day weekend – we
wouldn’t want you to wind up at a hospital where the residents work more than
24 hours in a row for ~$9/hour. Resident
physicians are one group of laborers who don’t have much to celebrate yet this
Labor Day. But with CIR’s help, next
year might be a little brighter.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
July 31st, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Health Policy, News
1 Comment »
Two sad cases were reported lately – one by Medgadget in which a young child with Treacher Collins syndrome was denied a special bone-implanted hearing aid. Children with this genetic syndrome usually have normal intelligence, though their appearance reflects underdeveloped facial bones. Apparently her insurance company would pay for the procedure to install the hearing aid, but the $15K device was not covered in her parents’ insurance policy. Her parents could not afford the device, and the child has little hope of developing the ability to speak normally without the aid.
The second case was of Britain’s most elderly woman – a 108 year old who was told that she’d need to wait 18 months to receive a hearing aid from the National Health Service. Mrs. Beal is wheelchair bound, and unable to communicate without a hearing aid. Her favorite hobby is listening to music. Doctors say that she is unlikely to live long enough to receive the new hearing aid.
These two cases demonstrate that care is rationed in both a free market healthcare system, and a government run single payer system – and that rationing affects the disabled and the elderly first. This is the sad inevitability of limited resources, with only the independently wealthy enjoying the best of what healthcare can offer. Perhaps charity alone will hear the cries of these hearing impaired individuals?This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
July 23rd, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Opinion
No Comments »
Many European countries have “presumed donor policies” where (unless otherwise stipulated) the untimely demise of one of its citizens results in potential organs for those on organ transplant waiting lists. In other words, the default assumption is that you want to be an organ donor should you die in an accident.
Britain is now undergoing internal debate over whether or not to institute a presumed donor policy. On the “no” side is Scotland and the Conservatives – suggesting that the government has no right to an individual’s remains. On the “yes” side are the Liberals and the British Medical Association – reminding the “no’s” that people are free to opt out, and that studies show that 70% of people have not formally registered to donate their organs even though they state that their wish would be to donate their organs in the event of sudden death.
Spain has been very successful with their presumed donor policy – doubling organ donations after enacting it into law. Austria quadrupled their organ donations after following suit.
I think that Europe’s presumed donor policy is a good idea and I would personally endorse a similar policy in the US, so long as next of kin had veto power. What do you think?This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
