July 13th, 2011 by Stanley Feld, M.D. in Better Health Network
1 Comment »
The primary stakeholders in the healthcare system are patients and physicians. The incentives for patients and physicians to save money are non existent. The secondary stakeholders have taken advantage of non existent incentives to create a healthcare system that generates ever increasing costs.
Patients and physicians are the only stakeholders that can control costs. They initiate the use of the healthcare system’s resources.
Healthcare costs for medical procedures such as an MRI or CT scan have been found to vary by as much as 683% in the same town, depending on which physicians patients choose, according to a study by Change: Healthcare.
The implication is that individual physicians are responsible for the differences. Most physicians do not own MRIs, CAT scanners or PET scanners. Secondary stakeholders own the equipment. They price the procedures and profit from the equipment, not the physicians. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Repairing the Healthcare System*
June 26th, 2011 by Toni Brayer, M.D. in Health Policy, Opinion
1 Comment »
An article by Brian Klepper and Paul Fischer at Health Affairs has me all fired up. Finally these two health experts are calling it like it is. The Wall Street Journal, New York Times and EverythingHealth have written before about the way primary care is undervalued and underpayed in this country and how it is harming the health and economics of the United States.
A secretive, specialist-dominated panel within the American Medical Association called the RUC has been valuing medical services for decades. They divvy up billions of Medicare and Medicaid dollars and all insurance payers base their reimbursement on these values also. The result has been gross overpayment of procedures and medical specialists and underpayment of doctors who practice primary care in internal medicine, family medicine and pediatrics). These payment inequities have led us to a shortage of these doctors and medical costs skyrocket as a result. As Uwe E. Reinhardt says, “Surely there is something absurd when a nation pays a primary care physician poorly relative to other specialists and then wrings its hands over a shortage of primary care physicians.”
Klepper, Fischer and author Kathleen Behan make a bold suggestion. Let’s quit complaining about the RUC and their flawed methodologies. Let’s quit admiring the problem of financial conflicts of interest and the primary care labor shortage. It’s time for the primary care specialty societies, Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at ACP Internist*
June 19th, 2011 by BobDoherty in Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
“Doctors, with the consent of their patients, should be free to provide whatever care they agree is appropriate. But when the procedure arising from that judgment, however well intentioned, is not supported by evidence, the nation’s taxpayers should have no obligation to pay for it.”
So argues Dr. Rita Redberg, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, in a provocative op-ed published in the New York Times. She writes that Medicare “spends a fortune each year on procedures that have no proven benefit and should not be covered” and offers the following examples:
“Medicare pays for routine screening colonoscopies in patients over 75 even though the United States Preventive Services Task Force, an independent panel of experts financed by the Department of Health and Human Services, advises against them (and against any colonoscopies for patients over 85), because it takes at least eight years to realize any benefits from the procedure.”
“The task force recommends against screening for prostate cancer in men 75 and older, and screening for cervical cancer in women 65 and older who have had a previous normal Pap smear, but Medicare spent more than Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at The ACP Advocate Blog by Bob Doherty*
June 18th, 2011 by Stanley Feld, M.D. in Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
The sooner President Obama’s Healthcare Reform Act (Obamacare) is repealed the faster we will be able to get on with healthcare reform that will work for all stakeholders. President Obama figured that 30 existing and successful integrated medical care organizations would be in the first group of clinics to join and be included in his Accountable Care Organization (ACO) system of care.
ACOs are a critical part of Obamacare’s goal to provide affordable, universal and quality healthcare. ACOs are really HMO’s on steroids. ACOs are supposed to be better versions of HMO’s. The public and physicians despised HMO’s because of its control over patient choice and access to care. President Obama thinks Medicare will save over $500 billion dollars a year with ACOs. Unfortunately for President Obama, neither the CBO nor the Medicare actuaries believe it.
So far at least 4 of President Obama’s premier integrated healthcare organizations have Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Repairing the Healthcare System*
June 14th, 2011 by DavidHarlow in Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
There has been a significant outcry against the proposed ACO regs: everything’s wrong and nothing’s right about them, or so some would have us believe. (The comment period is still open, and CMS is still soliciting input; much of the outcry is a form of posturing and negotiation … not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
Today’s “nattering nabobs of negativism” focus on: the estimated price tag for complying with the regulatory requirements (IT and other infrastructure incuded), the slim chance of success by ACOs in righting the wrongs of decades of bloat in the health care system, the premature pledging of allegiance to an idea only partly proven through the PGP demo, the likelihood of failure due to the whole endeavor’s being tied to FFS reimbursement, on the one hand, and due to exposure of ACOs to downside risk, on the other, the unreasonable reliance on dozens and dozens of quality measures . . . and the list goes on. For further detail, see, e.g., David Dranove’s recent post decrying unproven theories baked into the ACO program (with a link to info on the PGP demo’s results, and differing interpretations of those results; check out the lively discussion in the comments to Dranove’s post on The Health Care Blog), Jeff Goldsmith’s opposition to ACOs as conceived in the ACA (and alternative proposal discussed in the linked post), and Mark Browne’s search for a few good quality measures. (This has been a recurring theme for me as well; I would love to find six or eight meta-measures that predict all others; Mark links to the AHA’s comments on the ACO rule, which are worth a read). Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at HealthBlawg :: David Harlow's Health Care Law Blog*
