Better Health: Smart Health Commentary

Featured

Tweet

AHIP, the trade group representing the nation’s health insurers, released a study decrying excessive physician charges.  There’s some amazing stuff in there: office visits being billed at $6200, a lap chole being billed at $9,000 (just for the physician’s portion).  Truly egregious, if true — and that’s the qualifier.

The methodology of this “survey” is not really honest.  They cherry-picked an insurance database looking for the highest billed charges for various CPT codes.  Supposedly they “excluded high charge outliers that may reflect billing or coding errors.”   Really?  How on earth, one wonders, could they have concluded that an office visit billed at 5,000% the medicare rate was not an error?  Were there more outrageous charges that were excluded?  Sounds fishy.

Moreover, the survey is promoted as exposing the outrageous fees that doctors charge, when in no way are these fees representative of physician fees.  Physician fees, as any other group of data points, fall into a more-or-less normal distribution.  There’s a median point around which most practices cluster, and the further out you get the fewer physicians that are charging those fees, high or low.  The cited fees are certainly in the 3+ standard deviation tail of this graph, but you wouldn’t know it from the AHIP press release.

They present these outrageous charges as if they are accurate and as if they represented a widespread abuse of consumers by greedy doctors.

The annoying thing about this is that there is a valid argument to be made that the uninsured do face higher fees than the insured.  This is of course more of a factor with the much-higher hospital costs, but physician fees are also higher for the uninsured.  The reason for this is that insurers demand a discount off the standard fee in order to contract with physicians.  This gives physicians an incentive to crank up their fee schedule as high as they can get away with.

So if UnitedHealth comes to me and offers to pay me 75% of billed charges (I wish!), I need to make sure that my fee schedule puts that figure at a level that is going to return a reasonable per-patient compensation.   This is less of an issue nowadays, since most insurers prefer to settle on a conversion factor and contract by the RVU, or as a percentage of the standard medicare rates (110-150% most commonly).  That’s easier for their billing systems to manage.  So there is less incentive for us to keep charges high.  But still, a few insurance plans like to do the old way, and there are occasional patients who are insured but we don’t have a contract with their insurer.  In those cases, we expect compensation in full, and the insurer usually pays some arbitrary sum that they feel is reasonable, with the patient responsible for the balance.

Does this screw the folks without insurance?  Yes, to a degree.  Most of the uninsured don’t pay a dime.  They just throw out the doctor’s bill, along with the much-bigger hospital bill, and we wind up writing it off as bad debt.  Most hospitals, and our practice, will also write it off as charity if the patient asks for it and can show some hardship.  So the uninsured will get a huge bill, but they very very rarely have to pay a huge bill.

The ultimate solution for this “problem” of the uninsured being “overcharged” is not, as AHIP implies, to somehow regulate physician charges, but to eliminate the uninsured.  Get everybody covered under some sort of insurance plan, and this problem goes away.

Tweet

Tweet

Tweet

From the department of “Credit where it’s due,” in the comments of my post on the Lewin Group, Nurse K pointed out the following:

Come on Shadowfax, you’re blogging about this stuff and you stand to make A TON of money if it goes through…for awhile…until insurance companies decrease your compensation since you’re making more per patient. I know you mentioned this before in like a comment or something, but ER docs stand to benefit (temporarily) probably more than anyone else. HUGE bias on your part.

Much as I (really, really) hate to admit it, she’s absolutely right.  In fact, I’ll go one further: I first got interested in this part of medicine policy because I was mad that I was seeing all these uninsured patients and wasn’t getting paid a thing for my efforts.  I started keeping track of the number of uninsured I saw every day, just as a pet obsession.  It was a sobering number.  After that I started getting a little perspective, talking to patients and seeing their bigger picture, understanding why they were uninsured, learning the particular challenges they faced getting health care, etc.   For me, this cause became something beyond the personal a long time ago and became a moral imperative.

But K is right to note the potential for bias, and it’s fair for me to acknowledge it.  I hope that my integrity on this point is evident.  The fact that I argued in the New York Times for an increase in primary care compensation, with an attendant decrease in the compensation of specialists, including Emergency Medicine, should speak well for my ability to see beyond personal self-interest. (God knows it didn’t make me popular in EM circles!)

This is something which struck me yesterday, reading the med blogs reaction to Obama’s presser.  Quite a few docs mounted their high horse and with great indignation denounced this:

Doctors are forced to make decisions based on a fee payment schedule that’s out there. So they’re looking… if you come in with a sore throat or your child comes in with a sore throat, has repeated sore throats, a doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, “I’d make a lot more money if I took this kids tonsils out.” Now that might be the right thing to do, but I’d rather have that doctor making those decisions based on whether you need your kids tonsils out…

Now it’s a clumsy clinical scenario written by someone who has no clue about medicine.  But it’s a damned fair point.   Bias comes writ large, as in the Walter Reed orthopod who pocket $850K and falsified his research to benefit Medtronic, and it comes writ small, as in the ER doc who sees a small lac and has to decide whether to use a band-aid or a stitch, knowing that the stitches will pay 10x more.  It comes with the cardiologist who has to decide whether to take a low-grade troponin leak to the cath lab.  It comes with the surgeon seeing a patient with unusual abdominal pain and a slightly enlarged appendix on CT (you can observe or just take out the appy; guess which pays more).

Whether there’s a “fix” for that in the current reforms is debatable.  It harms our standing, however, to deny the possible existence of bias and to claim a moral purity that, as a profession, is not justified.  I think and hope that most of us in these ambiguous situations are able to come to the right decision for the patient the vast majority of the time regardless of our economic interests.  The best way to remain credible is to acknowledge the mere potential for bias and move on and debate the salient point.  Making counter-factual arguments that biases do not exist or that we physicians are too awesomely altruistic to ever be influenced by them does nobody any good.

Tweet