March 31st, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Health Policy
1 Comment »
We all agree that improving healthcare quality is a critical goal, but there is no real consensus on how to achieve that goal. In recent years, a “Pay for Performance” or P4P strategy has been put forth by the US government’s Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The gist of the strategy is to pay physicians more or less based on certain disease outcome measures of the patients they treat. So if a physician treats a large group of patients with diabetes, that physician would be paid more/office visits if, on average, those patients demonstrated lower blood sugar levels, lower cholesterol levels, and less evidence of end-organ damage on various tests.
P4P assumes that a patient’s chronic disease outcomes are completely dependent upon the physician. To me, this underlying assumption (that the patient is not involved in his/her own health) is offensive. It is offensive because it assumes that patients are not in control of their lifestyle choices, that their circumstances can be summed up by lab tests, and that their doctor takes all the credit for their hard work to control their disease. It also assumes that patients and families need not be partners in the quest for optimum health – no, that is solely the responsibility of the physician. Ultimately, P4P is disrespectful to patients – it takes them out of the health equation, it presumes that they’re passive participants, and it depersonalizes medicine.
And it gets worse. If physicians are paid more for patients who do well, they will be tempted to “cherry pick” the most motivated and privileged patients. How does this help the patients who need the most help? It will further earmark them for lower quality care.
One of my favorite bloggers, Dr. Richard Reece, echoes my sentiments, further explaining how ludicrous it is to assume that doctors are in full control of patient health outcomes:
People spend 99.9 percent of their time outside of doctors’ offices and hospitals. This time gap is particularly important in patients with chronic disease. Your outcomes depend on how and where you live and work…
Many patients don’t follow doctors’ orders. Many never fill prescriptions, fail to get refills and avoid exercise.
Half-way technologies–stents, coronary bypasses, joint replacements, statins, etc.–don’t eliminate underlying diseases or change their basic pathophysiology. The problem here, of course, is many patients have overblown expectations at what these technologies will accomplish and often return to the behavior that led to the problem in the first place.
Even CMS recognizes the limitations of P4P:
Pay-for-performance is in its early stages of development and a great deal of work still must be done to determine the best method of approaching a comprehensive program.
But that doesn’t stop them from promoting the program to states that are in desperate need of federal funds:
CMS will provide technical assistance to those states that voluntarily elect to implement pay-for-performance programs. We also plan to work with states to encourage that evolving pay-for-performance programs include an evaluation component to provide evidence of the effectiveness of this methodology.
For some further examples of how P4P doesn’t work, check out the following blogs: 1) disaster in the nursing home setting and 2) a summary of recent research studies on the ineffectiveness of P4P by Dr. Poses (via KevinMD).
Then what is the real issue that we’re trying to get at?
Quality care is dependent upon the regular application of evidence-based medicine (EBM) to clinical situations. What is EBM? Every medical decision that physicians make should have a good reason behind it – and that reason, whenever possible, should be based upon scientific evidence that the decision has worked in the past. What I mean is that we spend billions of dollars on medical research to learn the difference between truth and error, and doctors should do their level best to apply the research findings to the care decisions they make each day. Now, keep in mind that there are about 6000 research articles published each day in the medical journals world-wide… so it may come as no surprise that (as Dr. Reece explains):
It’s well-documented doctors only follow preventive and treatment guidelines 50 percent to 55 percent of the time. Moreover, doctors could do a much better job communicating with and educating patients, deploying the Internet (for example) to reach patients when they are outside of the immediate care setting.
So what we really need to do, is support physician education efforts to incorporate the very best research findings into their clinical practice of medicine. How can a physician keep up with all the latest research? I maintain that the government’s efforts would be better spent on hiring physician task forces (to summarize the very latest evidence for the treatment of every disease and condition – and then supply simplified guidelines to docs across the country) than on scheming up ways to penalize physicians for treating patients who are sicker and less willing or able to take control of their health. It would be great if physicians were incentivized to use the latest clinical guidelines in their care of patients – but basing the incentives on outcomes (rather than on applying the guidelines) cuts out the patient’s responsibility as a partner in the treatment. As Dr. Feld rightly points out, quality care based on EBM could be vastly improved through a central EMR.
And what can patients do?
In this new era of consumer directed healthcare, patients need to understand that they really are co-partners with their doctors. A doctor can give you all the best possible advice, but if you don’t take the advice, then that doctor’s work on your behalf may be in vain. I believe that patients should be aware of the care guidelines that doctors use to treat them – and have access to a simple check list to track their own progress. I am personally helping to translate clinical guidelines into consumer-friendly lists for patients so that they can actively participate in, and follow along with, their care plan (so stay tuned for that). Revolution Health is committed to empowering consumers – and helping them to be a full partner on the road to wellness. In fact, we are developing a full suite of su
pportive services (including health coaches, chronic disease management programs, insurance advocates, nurse call lines, physicians available via email, and more) that will make it much easier for them to stay on track. In addition, we are enabling physicians to customize educational information for their patients, and participate (via IT) in a broader relationship with them.
There are many exciting improvements in healthcare currently under development. The Internet will play a central role in connecting patients and physicians to the scientific information that will help them get the best care no matter where they are or which doctor they see. I don’t believe that P4P is anything more than another misguided attempt to “improve healthcare quality” by creating more of the red tape that keeps doctors and patients from meaningful personal interactions.
This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
March 3rd, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Health Policy
5 Comments »
Improving quality in healthcare is an important fundamental goal. New “pay for performance” measures initiated by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid services is a well meaning attempt to provide financial incentives to physicians who demonstrate improved patient outcomes. Unfortunately, this incentive program could backfire.
A recent article in Medical Economics (via Kevin MD) raised the question of “cherry picking and lemon dropping” your way to higher pay. In this frightening scenario, physicians would be tempted to select healthier, more compliant patients for regular treatment in their practices. In this manner, they can demonstrate better outcomes, since the sicker, poorer, or less compliant patients no longer factor into their performance measures. And with the upcoming physician shortage, it really is a seller’s market.
It is critically important for the government programs to allow physicians to accurately risk stratify their patients so that they are not financially penalized for taking care of sicker patients bound to have below average outcomes. The same goes for surgeons, who should not be discouraged from undertaking potentially lifesaving surgeries for patients who are critically ill.
Dr. Kellerman, the president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, reminds us that quality of care is vastly improved by having a central medical home (i.e. one physician who can coordinate care for patients, so they’re not left with a group of disconnected specialists ordering duplicate tests and prescriptions). I personally think that a centralized EMR/PHR controlled by the patient (and located at an Internet based “medical home” complete with disease management tools and the ability to email a physician as needed) would go a long way to improving quality.
What do you think?
This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
March 1st, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Medblogger Shout Outs
No Comments »
Dr. Rob, the author of “Musings of a Distractible Mind,” is really good at explaining difficult concepts. If you haven’t read his description of healthcare’s coding system, you should take a peek. It explains why documenting care is so complicated, how doctors try to “game the system” and what happens to them if they do.
Here’s a small excerpt:
“You see, what you get paid for an office visit is not based on what you do at that visit, it is based on what you document. The more you can document, the higher you can bill… There are several responses to this situation by physicians:
· Undercode to avoid the accusation of fraud
· Use EMR to document more and bill at a more appropriate level
· Code at the higher level without documenting higher and risk audit, jail, etc.
· Stop accepting insurance and just accept cash up front based on your own criteria
· Do other things besides office visits – such as surgical procedures, labs, x-rays, or other procedures that pay much better than the office visit. The pay for EKG with interpretation is nearly as high as that of the decision making that the physician makes that may save the life of the patient.”
So next time your doctor is delayed in seeing you… she’s probably trying to document all the right check boxes and codes for the last patient she treated!This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
February 26th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Expert Interviews
No Comments »
I had the chance to speak with Jim Herndon recently about how the current healthcare climate is affecting orthopedic surgeons. He said that there are 3 things that worry orthopods:
- Decreasing Medicare reimbursement. In 1990, reimbursement for a total hip procedure was $2,200. In 2007, the reimbursement is $1,190. Medicare is planning to further cut reimbursement 30% in the next 4-5 years.
- Increasing malpractice insurance costs. Premiums are steadily increasing. In Boston, the average malpractice insurance is about $50,000/year. In Philadelphia, the cost is $150,000. And if you’re an orthopedic surgeon specializing in spinal surgery, malpractice insurance premiums can start at $250,000/year.
- Pay for performance. No one really knows how this will be applied specifically to surgeons (other than the obvious infection rates), but fears are mounting regarding how to show the best possible performance in one’s practice.
Let’s say that a typical surgeon in Philadelphia pays 33% in overhead (the hospital facilities, staff, etc.). Let’s say that he is also taxed 33% on his income. That means that he’d have to perform 382 hip replacements per year, just to pay his malpractice insurance. That’s almost 2 surgeries/day, 5 days a week, 11 months/year.
So what are surgeons doing? They are reducing overhead by setting up outpatient surgery centers (Dr. Herndon estimates that 60% of orthopedic surgery can be performed in an outpatient setting), they are increasing the volume of surgeries they perform, they are buying radiology facilities where they send their patients for XRays, MRIs etc. (Dr. Herndon explains that Stark Laws don’t prohibit this, so long as the physician takes on the risk of the facility – i.e. that he can potentially make or lose money), and they are financing physical therapy practices that supply therapy to their patients.
Orthopedic surgeons in private practice have become very business savvy in order to survive in this climate. But somehow I feel saddened by all this – the business of medicine is a grim reality that can create a wedge between the physician-patient relationship. A patient is left to wonder about the motivations behind tests and therapies – and perhaps even behind recommendations for the surgery itself.
I guess the second opinion has become more important than ever before?
This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
February 17th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Health Policy, Opinion
5 Comments »
Within the past few years the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) chose to enforce a rule (casually known as the “75% rule”) that resulted in denial of services to many heart, lung, and cancer patients requiring rehabilitation therapies.
CMS was looking for a way to cut costs in rehabilitation facilities, and decided to create a rule whereby these facilities would lose their approval status if they admitted too many patients with certain conditions. The CMS arbitrarily decided that 75% of all patients admitted to inpatient rehabilitation facilities had to have one of 13 diagnoses, or else the rehab facility would not qualify for Medicare reimbursement. Many important diagnoses were not included in those 13, including cancer, heart and lung disease, and many types of orthopedic injuries.
What does this mean? It means that getting admitted to a rehabilitation facility is no longer based on need, but on diagnosis code. Because of the financial pressure exerted by CMS (Medicare is the primary payer for most facilities) these rehab centers cannot afford to be delisted. So they turn away patients in need, for patients who have the “right” diagnosis.
What has this rule done?
- Limited clinical decision making by doctors – a physician is no longer able to recommend patients for acute inpatient rehabilitation purely based on their need for it.
- Decreased choice for consumers – people recovering from heart attacks, cancer or COPD (to name a few) will generally not be offered the opportunity to be rehabilitated in an acute, inpatient setting.
- Reduced quality of care – rehabilitation facilities specializing in oncology or cardiopulmonary rehab will need to divest themselves of aggregated expertise. Since these centers would no longer qualify for Medicare funding, they can’t afford to remain centers of excellence in these fields of medicine. Instead, they will need to turn their attention to the 13 diagnoses that qualify for inpatient rehabilitation.
- Puts lives in danger – patients who are not admitted to acute rehab will be forced to recover in nursing homes (also known as “sub acute facilities”) that do not have the level of expertise to take care of them safely.
The 75% rule is one example of the kinds of decisions that a government sponsored universal healthcare system will make. When one payer (government or non-government) develops a monopoly, their decisions can single-handedly limit consumer choice, prevent physicians from exercising clinical judgment, and decrease quality and safety of care. What will Americans say when the decision to fund organ transplants for people over 65, for example, is denied across the board?
When medicine is no longer applied in a personalized (case by case) manner, and population-wide rules are in effect, we will face ethical dilemmas far surpassing those we already have. A system that serves the needs of many still fails the needs of some – and when we lose the flexibility to “bend the rules” for the exceptions we will lose the best of what American medicine has to offer.
This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
