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 14th, 2009 by EvanFalchukJD in Better Health Network, Health Policy
4 Comments »
Everyone is reading Atul Gawande’s article in the New Yorker about health care costs. But I think most people misunderstand Gawande’s major point.
Everyone’s At It
The conventional wisdom on Gawande’s piece is this: our problems are caused by bad incentives in our health care system. They encourage doctors to overprescribe care. McAllen, Texas is the poster child of this problem. If we can change the economic incentives, doctors will behave better. They will follow medical evidence, not their bottom lines, and from this will emerge a rational, affordable system.
This isn’t what Gawande is saying.
Gawande went to McAllen expecting to see a microcosm of the American health care system. As expected, he found excessive, even abusive spending, and a culture that encouraged both. But he also found that in nearby El Paso, Texas, medicine wasn’t practiced this way, nor in most other places in the country. And so he came up with a surprising insight. Yes, McAllen is a reflection of what can happen based on the incentives in the system. But if every incentive works this way, why is McAllen such an outlier?
Gawande concluded it had to do with the “culture” of medicine in each community. Most doctors go into medicine to help patients. In Gawande’s visit to McAllen, he heard stories that money had become more important than quality care. What Gawande realized was how important this question of “culture” was to how McAllen became McAllen. It made him think of places that had a completely different culture, like the Mayo Clinic.
The doctors of the Mayo Clinic decided, some decades ago, to put medicine first:
The core tenet of the Mayo Clinic is “The needs of the patient come first” — not the convenience of the doctors, not their revenues. The doctors and the nurses, and even the janitors, sat in meetings almost weekly, working on ideas to make the service and the care better, not to get more money out of patients. . . . Mayo promoted leaders who focused first on what was best for patients, and then on how to make this financially feasible.
Gawande couldn’t believe how much time doctors at the Mayo clinic spent with each patient, and how readily they could interact with colleagues on difficult problems. While it is true, the Mayo Clinic has financial arrangements that make this easier, it is the culture of patient care that dominates, not questions of pay:
No one there actually intends to do fewer expensive scans and procedures than is done elsewhere in the country. The aim is to raise quality and to help doctors and other staff members work as a team. But almost by happenstance, the result has been lower costs.
“When doctors put their heads together in a room, when they share expertise, you get more thinking and less testing,” [Denis] Cortes [CEO of the Mayo Clinic] told me
And this is where Gawande is being misunderstood.
The “cost conundrum” that Gawande talks about is not about how to cut costs, or how to change who pays for health care and how much. It’s deeper than that. Gawande’s point is that we have been fixated for so long on the question of money in health care that we are starting to forget about medicine. By focusing on ever more clever ways to pay doctors, we have systematically undervalued everything that makes for high quality medicine. Things like time with your patient, thinking about his or her problems, consulting with colleagues, and coming up with sound advice.
We discount what he calls the “astonishing” accomplishments of the Mayo Clinic on this score. And instead of designing health care reform around ways to help more hospitals become like the Mayo Clinic, we choose instead to think about money, to focus our attention on how to cut costs in places like McAllen.
Politically, it makes sense – it’s convenient to have a poster child like McAllen to explain why one reform plan or another should become law. But the pity is that in this important time of reform we’re not talking about trying to put the needs of the patients first – to put medicine back in the center of health care. The pity is that in spite of the fact that everyone’s reading Gawande’s article, his most important insight is being misunderstood.
If we continue to be focused on money over medicine, we will lose the “war over the culture of medicine – the war over whether our country’s anchor model with be Mayo or McAllen.”
*This blog post was originally published at See First Blog*
June 6th, 2009 by Berci in Better Health Network
No Comments »
Who has never heard about Jay Parkinson, founder of HelloHealth service, the first online medical practice? Now please meet Dr. Hodge, the first iPhone doctor.
Hodge’s start-up Personal Pediatrics aims to equip a fleet of self-starter pediatricians in major metro areas with iPhones, cloud-based practice software and the marketing know-how to court new parents, families and corporate health programs alike. The company’s plan points to a growing trend of doctors returning to what was once a mainstay of the profession: the house call.
Hodge has already established that the iPhone doctor model works — after more than a decade working in a pediatrics office in St. Louis, Missouri, where she saw up to 35 patients a day for about 10 minutes each, Hodge traded in the patient assembly line to launch Personal Pediatrics. That was three years ago. Back then she had her laptop and Palm Treo in tow.
I have to mention one thing first. The whole health 2.0 movement is not about transforming the healthcare system into an online service, but there are more and more people who want to reach healthcare services through online or mobile applications.
If there are no patients who want to be online, no doctors will build such services. That’s how it works.
*This blog post was originally published at ScienceRoll*
June 6th, 2009 by eDocAmerica in Better Health Network
4 Comments »
One of the reasons eDocAmerica exists is to empower patients to take more control of their own health care. A wonderful group of people, patient advocates, physicians and other professionals alike have created a broad platform for this “e patient” movement, called Participatory Medicine. This group was originally assembled by Tom Ferguson, MD, an esteemed colleague who died after a courageous battele with Multiple Myeloma, and has since continued to meet. They created an excellent blog site, e-Patients.net that anyone who is interested in this subject should visit regularly.
Participatory medicine is a cooperative model of health care that encourages and expects active involvement by all connected parties (healthcare professionals, patients, caregivers, etc.) as integral to the full continuum of care. The ‘participatory’ concept may also be applied to fitness, nutrition, mental health, end-of-life care, and all issues broadly related to an individual’s health. This group is forming a society, the Society of Participatory Medicine and, soon, there will be a web site where interested parties can join and “participate” in the discussion. The society’s first president is Alan Greene, MD, author of popular Pediatric website Dr.Greene.com. In addition, the Society is founding a new journal, the Journal of Participatory Medicine. The Journal will bring together the best available evidence and examples of participatory medicine to:
a) Make a robust case for its value to people – sick or well –, advocates, and health professionals
b) Serve as a meeting place and rallying point for those at the leading edge of participatory medicine
c) Engage, inform and include those who have been involved in, or practicing, participatory medicine. We aim to advance both the science and practice.
The mission of the Journal is to transform the culture of medicine to be more participatory; and we believe that doing so, as the saying goes, will take a village – perhaps even a large metropolitan area! JPM constitutes a major investment of time and talent in community development. The journal will be entirely electronic, using the Open Journal System platform of online publishing. Yours truly, along with Jessie Gruman, the founder and president of the Center for Advancing Health (CFAH), an independent, nonpartisan Washington-based policy institute funded by the Annenberg Foundation, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and other foundations, will serve as Co-Editors in Chief of this new journal. We expect to publish our first issue of the Journal sometime in the fall of this year.
This is an exciting group of talented, engaged people who have the capacity to create something that will make a major difference in our health care system. eDocAmerica has a powerful collaborative opportunity here to participate with other key individuals and groups to help change health care!
Your comments and opinions are always welcome…
*This blog post was originally published at eDocAmerica*
May 30th, 2009 by DrRich in Better Health Network, Opinion
No Comments »
Earlier this year, DrRich offered several potential strategies for doctors and patients to consider, should healthcare reformers ultimately decree it illegal for Americans to seek medical care outside the new universal system. This eventuality (i.e., making it a crime to spend your own money on your own healthcare) may not be as far fetched as one might think at first glance, since in societies where social justice is the ultimate goal, such individual prerogatives must be criminalized.
At that time, DrRich offered several creative solutions to this problem, including offshore, state-of-the-art medical centers on old aircraft carriers, and combination Casino/Hospitals on the sovereign soil of Native American reservations. A reader subsequently offered the possibility of simply establishing institutions something like the “Cleveland Clinic Tijuana,” i.e., cutting-edge medical centers just south of the border. (This solution would have the added advantage of encouraging the government to finally close the borders once and for all, employing whatever means it might take, including military patrols, minefields, and missle-armed drone aircraft.)
As entertaining as it might be to imagine such solutions, a readily available, though much more mundane, solution exists today – medical tourism.
Medical tourism, where one travels outside one’s country in order to obtain medical care elsewhere, is a booming business. A number of superb state-of-the-art medical centers expressly aimed at attracting medical tourists have been established in the Middle East, Singapore, India, China and elsewhere in Asia. These institutions cater to citizens of the world whose own healthcare systems cannot (or will not) provide in a timely fashion (or at all) the level of care patients may desire. They offer modern hospitals, numerous amenities, luxurious accommodations, attentive nursing care, top-notch doctors – and they do it all for a tiny fraction of what the same care might cost (if you can even find it) in the U.S. and other “first world” nations.
Obviously medical tourism is not particularly feasible for medical emergencies such as heart attack or stroke, or for chronic illnesses such as diabetes, congestive heart failure, or Parkinson’s disease, which require frequent visits and long-term management. What is feasible is to become a medical tourist for those one-time medical services that can be scheduled and planned, for which there is a long waiting period at home, or which is simply too expensive in one’s own country. Such medical services often include coronary artery bypass surgery, hip replacements, knee replacements, and numerous minimally-invasive and not-so-minimally-invasive surgical procedures. In other words, medical tourism to a large extent is something one does for elective (i.e., non-emergency) surgery.
It ought not be a surprise, therefore, that the first organization of American physicians to issue a formal policy statement regarding medical tourism is the American College of Surgeons.
The reaction of American surgeons to medical tourism ought to be obvious. They hate it. Elective surgical procedures – the very procedures for which Americans become tourists – are the bread and butter of most surgical specialties. And here go their prospective patients, off to Singapore for their lucrative bypass surgeries. American cardiac surgeons, for instance (already underemployed, thanks to American cardiologists throwing stents at every tiny coronary artery indentation they they can justify as a “blockage”), are nearly apoplectic at the idea.
It’s always fun to read formal policy statements which attempt to deliver an entirely self-serving message whose essence is, “We hate this and if you do it we’ll hate you,” but in which it is necessary to deliver the message in a polite, politically correct, non-judgmental, helpful and even friendly manner.
The surgeons in general have made a good effort, as you can see if you’d like to read the policy statement for yourself. It’s pretty much what you would expect – “Go ahead and have your knee replaced in Timbuktu if you want to. It’s your right, so go ahead and devil take the hindmost. Just don’t come crying to me when things go south a month later.” Only, of course, the surgeons employ the obligatory very polite and professional tone.
DrRich is struck by two aspects of the surgeon’s policy statement on medical tourism.
First, the surgeons begin with a litany of dire warnings regarding all the medical considerations one must take into account before trusting one’s health to foreign medical hands:
“Some of the intangible risks include variability in the training of medical and allied health professionals; differences in the standards to which medical institutions are held; potential difficulties associated with treatment far from family and friends; differences in transparency surrounding patient discussions; the approach to interpretation of test results; the accuracy and completeness of medical records; the lack of support networks, should longer-term care be needed; the lack of opportunity for follow-up care by treating physicians and surgeons; and the exposure to endemic diseases prevalent in certain countries. Language and cultural barriers may impair communication with physicians and other caregivers.”
These are all very important considerations. DrRich notes, however, that these very same considerations (even the warning about endemic diseases, once one allows for the MRSA infections which are secretly “endemic” in some American hospitals) must also be taken into account before agreeing to receive care even in an American institution. It may be that these considerations are more an issue in top-notch foreign hospitals than in your average American hospital, but DrRich is not convinced this is the case, and the surgeons do not provide any evidence that it is. That is, DrRich sees this very good advice as being equally applicable whether one is considering becoming a medical tourist, or just a typical American patient.
Second, and most astoundingly, DrRich notes – not so much with interest, but more with awe – that the surgeons are beseeching their patients to consider just how difficult it might be to launch a malpractice suit against foreign doctors. (DrRich himself does not know how difficult this would be. Given that we are being so strongly urged these days to merge the American legal system with international law, it might not be much of a problem for long.) Indeed, the potential difficulty in suing foreign doctors appears to be the chief differentiator, and the primary argument in favor of good-old-American-surgery. The surgeons, in essence, are saying, “Let us do your surgery, because we’re easier to sue if we screw up.”
This, from the very body of American physicians who are most at risk for malpractice suits, and who traditionally have been most vociferous in favor of malpractice reform.
DrRich can only shake his head in wonderment. If medical tourism is viewed by surgeons as such a dire threat that they are formally embracing medical malpractice suits as their chief weapon against it, then medical tourism must have already caught on far more than most of us realize.
Which means, of course, that when healthcare reform takes place, medical tourism will likely enter a phase of truly explosive growth.
And so, Dear Reader, thanks to this critical clue provided by our friends in the American College of Surgeons, DrRich can confidently offer yet another nugget of investment advice. He formally recommends the medical tourism industry – now in its infancy – as an area ripe for growth.
*This blog post was originally published at The Covert Rationing Blog*
