July 13th, 2009 by KevinMD in Better Health Network, Health Policy
1 Comment »
Those on the left will pretty much sacrifice everything to attain their goal of universal coverage.
But, in this well-reasoned piece by conservative economist Tyler Cowen, expanding coverage won’t necessarily control costs, which is a more imperative issue. The bandied about means of cost control, such as electronic medical records, cutting provider payments, and preventive care, all will have little nor no impact in controlling costs.
Take physician reimbursements, for instance, a favorite target of health reforms. According Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt, a favorite son among policy wonks, cutting physician pay by 20% would only reduce spending by 2%.
Furthermore, under the current payment system, simply cutting provider reimbursements will only give more of an incentive to do more procedures to make up for lost revenue.
The hard truth is that care will be rationed, and that’s something the Obama administration is unwilling to admit. Indeed, as Mr. Cohen writes, “if we aren’t willing to take even limited steps to conserve resources, we shouldn’t be spending any more money elsewhere.”
Cost control first before universal coverage, and therein lies the central contention of the debate.
And the worst case scenario, as progressive blogger Ezra Klein correctly surmises is, “that the final bill will include a pricey expansion of coverage paired with a speculative and uncertain set of cost controls.”
*This blog post was originally published at KevinMD.com*
July 1st, 2009 by James Herndon, M.D. in Health Policy, Opinion
2 Comments »
[Dr. Jim Herndon is a past president of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, and chair emeritus of the department of orthopaedic surgery at Partners Healthcare]
***
The challenges of health care reform are enormous. To expect that the vast array of problems that exist today will be corrected or solved in a couple of months is totally unrealistic. Witness the moving target of announced changes and options occurring daily in the press and media in general. And add to the confusion…these changes are being developed at the top (Congress and the White House)…not from the bottom up (from doctors, nurses and other health care providers, and importantly, patients). In their place are the powerful lobbyists…the health insurance industry, the hospital industry, the drug industry and even organized medicine (AMA)…who wield their influence over our policy makers by all sorts of tangible (financial donations) and intangible (spouses of leaders on corporate boards) pressures.
I must admit, although occasionally said without real meaning…I don’t hear an outburst of support for the essential mission/purpose of health care…the health of our citizens…”the patient comes first”. Where is the patient…who is supposed to come first…in this national debate?
Everyone knows that health care is expensive. In 1970 health care spending consumed 7% of the Gross Domestic Product. In 2009 health care spending is consuming 16% or more of our Gross Domestic Product. It is increasing more rapidly than inflation. Yet, as a nation, we have not…in all these years…had a serious conversation about Americans’ health. Where is it in our list of priorities? I don’t think we know. From recent events we do know it is lower than the need to remove Saddam Hussein from power…it is lower than bailing out investment companies and banks…it is lower than stabilizing the mortgage market…and it is lower than bailing out two automobile manufacturers. I am not knowledgeable enough to question the priority of the bailouts of banks and financial institutions or the mortgage companies…but I do question the priority of removing another country’s dictator or bailing out two automobile manufacturers instead of allowing them to proceed through bankruptcy in our court system…over health care reform.
Too often in my lifetime I have seen the importance of health care reform pushed down the list of priorities over other needed programs…to wait for another day. How important is the patient, the health of Americans today? How far are we going to push the profession of medicine from “a calling”…a profession, as President Obama states to “a business”. It is known that patients trust their doctors, but not our health care system. When will patients begin to trust their own doctors less? It will happen if and when they believe doctors are more “concerned with the pulse of commerce” rather than the “pulse of their patients”. I submit we are getting very close to this tipping point…in losing the trust of our patients and society in general.
There is no unanimity of opinion regarding the health care reform debate…amongst Democrats, amongst Republication…amongst the public…amongst physicians in general…and orthopaedic surgeons specifically. I asked a few young physicians in an orthopaedic residency program their opinions about the health care reform debate. All believed that every American should have basic health care insurance coverage. Obvious to them, it would include coverage for care of patients with acute fractures or patients with severe pain or loss of function. They admit not knowing much about the “public option” and the swirling politics going on. They also were not comfortable with defining what situations or problems would not be covered by insurance…although they agreed that some restrictions above “basic care” would have to be implemented.
Their responses reminded me that in 1990, when I was in graduate school for an MBA…we had a class debate about whether health care was a right or not of all citizens? Although the discussion was lively and some felt health care was a privilege, the class conceded that health care was a right of all citizens…admitting historically it was considered a privilege for the few who could afford it, but then (1990 or earlier?) health care had become a right for all in the US. I then asked a few of my colleagues who enjoy leadership positions in the field of orthopaedic surgery their opinions regarding health care reform. They also could not agree on the issues of this debate.
One area where they did agree was that academic medical centers are not well positioned for the future…especially those that depend on state funding. We have already witnessed this in Massachusetts where apparently the state has decreased funding to some teaching hospitals that traditionally have cared for a large number of uninsured. Now that most citizens have insurance, they are seeking their care in other hospital emergency departments. My colleagues also agree that physicians will receive lower payments for specific treatments or participate in “bundled” payments to the entire healthcare team/facility for comprehensive care of the patient.
Otherwise my colleagues disagreed. On the one side some support the public option and universal coverage…although “the devil is in the details”. For this group they have become tired…like so many American physicians…with the convoluted way we finance health care and the associated paper trail/documentation overload. The system has made some patient conditions profitable and others not profitable…described by one as “perverted incentives”. These physicians (me included) are angry at the loss of our professionalism as hospitals and physicians chase dollars and not the health needs of each patient and the public. On the other side (against public option), my colleagues have some agreements…most orthopaedic surgeons are supportive of care of the uninsured and underinsured, especially for patients presenting with acute problems to hospitals’ emergency departments. Most also agree that there needs to be a serious realignment of incentives and improved collaboration of hospitals and doctors.
But they have many disagreements…including the provision of elective care. They argue…with good reasons…that with continued rising costs to practice medicine (rent, electronic records, employee wages and benefits, malpractice insurance, increased personnel requirements for the administration/paperwork overload) and continued reductions in reimbursement (Medicare, for example, pays an orthopaedic surgeon today approximately 50% of the reimbursement it paid for a total hip replacement in 1990)…it is becoming increasingly problematic to provide elective care for the underinsured and uninsured. They commonly ask…”How can you provide care that costs more than any receipts”?
Other disagreements include: the single payor system…they don’t believe it will work; although well-intended, they believe these reforms will result in overall lower quality of care for patients; that emergency departments will still be used by those with insurance because patients can see a physician at the patients’ convenience and avoid long delays to see a doctor in his/her office…for example there is a 40-day wait to see an orthopaedist in his/her office in Boston; the continued tremendous demands by American patients to have the latest technology, the latest treatment…even if evidence for its use is unknown; skepticism about the prevention of disorders that have a genetic basis, i.e. osteoarthritis…in the foreseeable future; the simple fact that to reduce errors and overuse/misuse of tests by an electronic medical record and computer physician-order system will cost enormous amounts of increased spending in the short term…before cost savings are eventually realized… and to draw attention to one specific unsolved problem area…Workers’ Compensation…where orthopaedists, daily, see ineffective treatments being used and large numbers of patients on disability.
Briefly, the follow are factors that have led to increased and inefficient health care in the US: high administrative costs; overuse of services and new technology; an increased prevalence of chronic disease; tremendous geographic variations in care; increased payments not resulting in improved quality; a continually high number of medical errors and complications; a broken professional liability system; a shift in costs from the uninsured to the insured; a predominant third-party payer system; overuse and misuse of care; focus changing from the patient to the pocketbook; insurance company abuses (cherry-picking healthy patients, denying care of patients with chronic disease, deliberately lowering the normal of “usual and customary” fees…to name a few); and continued issues of fraud and abuse, especially in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
Finally I would like to close with the official position of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) on health care reform: “Any changes to the health care financing and delivery system…the well-being of the patient must be the highest priority. The AAOS strongly supports reform measures…that provide individuals with patient-centered, timely, unencumbered, affordable and appropriate health care and universal coverage while maintaining physicians as an integral component to providing the highest quality treatment”.
The AAOS is opposed to a single-payer health system or even a federal health care authority. The AAOS suggests “a number of tax initiatives…that will level the playing field and make health care coverage more affordable”. There should be “adoption of policies that restore equity and enhance market competition”. The AAOS also “strongly believes that patient empowerment and individual responsibility are necessary components of health care reform. Health choices should be recognized and preventive care should be promoted”.
June 28th, 2009 by Happy Hospitalist in Better Health Network, Health Policy
No Comments »
You may think all is well in Canada. A land where FREE=MORE has been granted a birth right. It has been said many times before: You have three endpoints for which to strive for. Cheap, Quality or Quick. Pick any two. You can not have all three. It seems that Canada has decided to sacrifice Quick. You can always guarantee cheap health care. You simply stop paying for it. That’s called rationing. Getting in line and waiting is a classic form of rationing used by governments all across this land of ours.
In fact, as a resident in training at a VA facility, I saw first hand how rationing of care occurred using waiting as the tool of choice. Schedules blocked at 5-8 patients. Leaving when the clock struck 4. Scheduling dead patients. Yes folks, that actually happened. As an inpatient, technologists would finish their day on their terms. Getting studies after hours was impossible. Patients would wait for days to get an echo or a doppler. I once had an xray technologist refuse to come in, from home, in the middle of the night to take a chest xray on a crashing ventilator patient. The fact that the VA would not staff an overnight xray technologist was simply ridiculous. Try to get anything done on a holiday. Not only impossible but the hoops one had to travel through to attempt it would make Obama cry if he had any idea what the government run care was doing to his Vets.
Wait times is rationing, no matter how you look at it. You can find the link to the Fraser Institute on Canada’s Wait times here at Dr Hal Dall’s blog. I want to thank him for pointing it out. It is a fascinating look into the discrepancies in Canada’s health care, in spite of the equality for all mantra of social solidarity. Here is an excerpt from the research.
Finally, the promise of the Canadian health care system is not being realized. On the contrary, a profusion of research reveals that cardiovascular surgery queues are routinely jumped by the famous and politically-connected, that suburban and rural residents confront barriers to access not encountered by their urban counterparts, and that low-income Canadians have less access to specialists, particularly cardiovascular ones, are less likely to utilize diagnostic imaging, and have lower cardiovascular and cancer survival rates than their higher-income neighbours. This grim portrait is the legacy of a medical system offering low expectations cloaked in lofty rhetoric. Indeed, under the current regime—first-dollar coverage with use limited by waiting, and crucial medical resources priced and allocated by governments— prospects for improvement are dim. Only substantial reform of that regime is likely to alleviate the medical system’s most curable disease—waiting times that are consistently and significantly longer than physicians feel is clinically reasonable.
*This blog post was originally published at A Happy Hospitalist*
May 11th, 2009 by KevinMD in Better Health Network
No Comments »
One question that occasionally comes up is whether doctors should be paid a flat salary or not.
Currently, the majority of physicians are paid fee-for-service, meaning that the more procedures or office visits they do, the better they are reimbursed. This, of course, gives a financial incentive to do more, without regard to quality or patient outcomes.
One proposed solution is simply to pay doctors a flat salary, with bonuses for better patient outcomes.
Well, according to a recent Kaiser/NPR poll, that idea is a no-go for patients. 70 percent of patients think its better that a “doctor gets paid each time they see you,” while only 25 percent think a yearly salary is better.
As an aside, I find it interesting that any public poll result that goes against the progressive health policy agenda is considered a “weak opinion,” but really, this isn’t a surprising result.
Economist Uwe Reinhardt hinted at the cause when he said that most Americans believe “that they have a perfect right to highly expensive, critically needed health care, even when they cannot pay for it.”
Perhaps the public believes that a salary is similar to the capitation debacle in the 1990s, where doctors were paid a fixed fee, which gave them an incentive to deny care. And any perceived attempt to restrict care will be met with visceral opposition by the American public.
Which again shows how difficult it will be to engage patients with any dialogue that involves cost control.
*This blog post was originally published at KevinMD.com - Medical Weblog*
March 10th, 2009 by Dr. Val Jones in Health Policy
4 Comments »
I attended a conference entitled, “Lessons From Abroad for Health Reform in the U.S.” at the Kaiser Family Foundation on March 9th in Washington DC. The event was sponsored by the Galen Institute and the International Policy Network, both of whom are politically rightward-leaning non-profit organizations.
I wasn’t sure what to expect from the conference, and assumed that speakers would offer a blend of pluses and minuses culled from Canadian and European healthcare reform experiences. I have to say that the pluses were hard to come by – and that the minuses were so provocative that I have decided to repeat them here for you, and let you make what you will of them.
Switzerland – Lessons About Insurance Mandates
Dr. Alphonse Crespo, an orthopedic surgeon who practices in Lausanne, Switzerland, described what sounded like the utter decimation of a perfectly good healthcare system. He said that in the 1960s Swiss healthcare was decentralized and quality-oriented. The government provided subsidies for health insurance for the poor, and subsidized public hospitals who took care of the poor and/or uninsured at a 50% rate. Overall, according to Dr. Crespo, Swiss healthcare was efficient, effective, and had high patient satisfaction ratings.
In 1994, socialism came into vogue and reformers called for a redistributive model of healthcare, with centralization of infrastructure and electronic medical records systems that would be compatible with those in use by other European countries. Mandatory insurance was introduced, which shifted disproportionate power to third party payors. The payors focused primarily on cost containment measures and profitability, rather than expanding access to quality care. Regional hospitals were forced to merge with larger ones or else shut down. Wait times increased, lengths of stay decreased, and there was an increase in “critical incidents” (i.e. medical errors) by 40%.
In 2002 the health insurers decided that “more doctors result in higher costs” and successfully lobbied for a cap on the total number of physician licenses, so that in order to practice medicine, a physician would need to take over the practice of a retiring physician or one who died.
In 2008, the third party payors attempted to legislate their ability to decide which physicians could practice within the healthcare system, and which would be excluded from coverage. This did not sit well with patients, and they voted for “freedom of choice” in a referendum on the issue. Fortunately, they blocked the insurer move to ban certain physicians from insurance coverage. Unfortunately, the insurers succeeded in forcing a reduction in reimbursement for basic laboratory testing by 20%, thus forcing physicians to close their labs and send samples to a centralized location. Apparently physicians are planning to strike in Lausanne and Bern next week over this issue.
Dr. Crespo argued that the unforeseen consequence of the move to compulsory insurance was the emergence of a powerful cartel of health insurers without any apparent cost savings, and a measurable decrease in care quality. In fact, Switzerland’s healthcare system rapidly plummeted from 4th place in the Euro Health Consumer Index, to 8th place over the course of a few short years.
He concludes:
“Once cartels have entrenched themselves, there is no easy way to dislodge them. Americans should think twice before opting for compulsory insurance, unless they believe that cartelized and rationed healthcare is really in the best interest of patients.”
**You may view materials from Dr. Crespo’s lecture here.**
In my next post I’ll review what the Canadians had to say about their healthcare system.
