Archive for the ‘health reform’ Category

The trial lawyers win a big one.

Friday, February 5th, 2010

The Illinois State Supreme Court has overturned caps on “pain and suffering in malpractice cases in Illinois. The caps were $500,000 for suits against doctors and $1 million for hospitals. California has had caps of $250,000 since 1975 and it has stabilized the malpractice insurance market in the state for 35 years. Illinois was notorious as a high malpractice premium state and doctors were leaving the state when the legislature passed this law five years ago. That migration should now resume. I remember one story of an OB GYN who moved across the state line to Indiana. His patients followed him but it was an inconvenience.

Doctors incomes have declined over the past 25 years and this will make Illinois a red letter state for the recruiters from other states. I’m retired but I get job offers almost every week. Some specialties are already showing a significant shortage as medical students are choosing “life style” specialties that don’t require weekend and all night work.

It will be interesting to see what happens in Illinois.

Guidelines, best practices and rationing.

Monday, February 1st, 2010

Jerome Groopman is an oncologist who has written many articles about medicine. He has a good piece in the New York Review of Books, a generally left wing publication. He is writing about “best practices,” which are the basis for many guidelines for care.

One of the principal aims of the current health care legislation is to improve the quality of care. According to the President and his advisers, this should be done through science. The administration’s stimulus package already devoted more than a billion dollars to “comparative effectiveness research,” meaning, in the President’s words, evaluating “what works and what doesn’t” in the diagnosis and treatment of patients.

But comparative research on effectiveness is only part of the strategy to improve care. A second science has captured the imagination of policymakers in the White House: behavioral economics. This field attempts to explain pitfalls in reasoning and judgment that cause people to make apparently wrong decisions; its adherents believe in policies that protect against unsound clinical choices. But there is a schism between presidential advisers in their thinking over whether legislation should be coercive, aggressively pushing doctors and patients to do what the government defines as best, or whether it should be respectful of their own autonomy in making decisions. The President and Congress appear to be of two minds. How this difference is resolved will profoundly shape the culture of health care in America.

Best practices may be derived in two ways. One is by clinical research, usually involving randomized clinical trials. In this sort of study, two groups of patients are chosen to be as alike as possible. One group is randomly selected from the total and given a drug or other treatment under study. The other group is given a placebo. One fact to be kept in mind is that placebos are quite powerful in some situations. They will produce up to 30% measurable improvement in most diseases. This, of course, is psychological but it still works. In World War II, Henry K Beecher discovered an interesting phenomenon while treating wounded troops at the Anzio Beachhead. He found that even seriously wounded men had little pain. When he investigated this, he found that most of them had been in combat in constant fear of death. The wound was seen as an escape from that risk of death and was seen in many ways as a beneficial event. The term “Million Dollar Wound” was a common term used for a wound that was serious enough to remove the wounded man from combat but not so serious that he would die or be crippled for life.

He later studied soldiers who had been seriously injured in other settings, such as road accidents similar to civilian injuries and found that they reacted much more like the civilians than like the combat soldiers. In 1955, he published a famous book titled “The Powerful Placebo.” Those who would choose what treatment should be approved and what should be rationed would do well to keep that in mind. Furthermore, people react in many different ways to the same drug.

The other principle method of writing best practice guidelines is by “consensus.” That means a group of experts meet and discuss their opinions until the group arrives at a recommendation. This may be better than nothing but may also be influenced by the life experiences and prejudices of academics, who comprise most of these expert panels.

Groopman goes on to discuss failures in rigid guidelines and whether the Obama administration plans coercive measures to enforce guidelines that may be faulty.

Medicare specified that it was a “best practice” to tightly control blood sugar levels in critically ill patients in intensive care. That measure of quality was not only shown to be wrong but resulted in a higher likelihood of death when compared to measures allowing a more flexible treatment and higher blood sugar. Similarly, government officials directed that normal blood sugar levels should be maintained in ambulatory diabetics with cardiovascular disease. Studies in Canada and the United States showed that this “best practice” was misconceived. There were more deaths when doctors obeyed this rule than when patients received what the government had designated as subpar treatment (in which sugar levels were allowed to vary).

There are many other such failures of allegedly “best” practices. An analysis of Medicare’s recommendations for hip and knee replacement by orthopedic surgeons revealed that conforming to, or deviating from, the “quality metrics”—i.e., the supposedly superior procedure—had no effect on the rate of complications from the operation or on the clinical outcomes of cases treated. A study of patients with congestive heart failure concluded that most of the measures prescribed by federal authorities for “quality” treatment had no major impact on the disorder. In another example, government standards required that patients with renal failure who were on dialysis had to receive statin drugs to prevent stroke and heart attack; a major study published last year disproved the value of this treatment.

His conclusions are that the coercion may very well be part of the health reform bill although that bill now seems to be on hold. All the parties to these new rules, of course, disclaim any interest in reducing cost by restricting access to free choice in treatments that may not be supported by best practice guidelines. The problem is that randomized clinical trials are only possible in a small proportion of health care choices. Surgery does not lend itself to such trials for obvious reasons although a few have been done. This topic reminds us of the authoritarian tendencies of the “progressive” and the threat to free choice in healthcare.

The Atul Gawande article

Saturday, January 23rd, 2010

The Obama health reformers seem all to be depending on an article in the New Yorker written by Atul Gawande, a Harvard surgeon. I’ve read the article, which is titled “The Cost Conundrum.” He uses as an example, the town of McAllen, Texas. He writes about an entrepreneurial spirit among physicians in this Texas border town.

McAllen has another distinction, too: it is one of the most expensive health-care markets in the country. Only Miami—which has much higher labor and living costs—spends more per person on health care. In 2006, Medicare spent fifteen thousand dollars per enrollee here, almost twice the national average. The income per capita is twelve thousand dollars. In other words, Medicare spends three thousand dollars more per person here than the average person earns.

The first seven pages of this article, I agree with. He tells stories of excessive testing although some of his theories are in conflict. At one point, he dismisses the idea that defensive medicine could have anything to do with cost.

“But young doctors don’t think anymore,” the family physician said.
The surgeon gave me an example. General surgeons are often asked to see patients with pain from gallstones. If there aren’t any complications—and there usually aren’t—the pain goes away on its own or with pain medication. With instruction on eating a lower-fat diet, most patients experience no further difficulties. But some have recurrent episodes, and need surgery to remove their gallbladder.
Seeing a patient who has had uncomplicated, first-time gallstone pain requires some judgment. A surgeon has to provide reassurance (people are often scared and want to go straight to surgery), some education about gallstone disease and diet, perhaps a prescription for pain; in a few weeks, the surgeon might follow up. But increasingly, I was told, McAllen surgeons simply operate. The patient wasn’t going to moderate her diet, they tell themselves. The pain was just going to come back. And by operating they happen to make an extra seven hundred dollars.
I gave the doctors around the table a scenario. A forty-year-old woman comes in with chest pain after a fight with her husband. An EKG is normal. The chest pain goes away. She has no family history of heart disease. What did McAllen doctors do fifteen years ago?
Send her home, they said. Maybe get a stress test to confirm that there’s no issue, but even that might be overkill.
And today? Today, the cardiologist said, she would get a stress test, an echocardiogram, a mobile Holter monitor, and maybe even a cardiac catheterization.

This sounds to me like there is some defensive medicine there. In a population that is obese and heavily Hispanic, a first episode of gallstone colic is an indication for surgery. I completely disagree with him on this. We see asymptomatic gallstones on routine x-rays. Those cases can be safely watched but a patient who is having symptoms may show up yellow from a common bile duct stone the next time. Ditto for the woman with chest pain. We read articles about higher mortality in women because male doctors fail to identify female heart patients correctly. This is because they wrongly assume women don’t get coronary artery disease.

The other place where I disagree is in his solution. I can see why the Obama people liked his prescription.

As America struggles to extend health-care coverage while curbing health-care costs, we face a decision that is more important than whether we have a public-insurance option, more important than whether we will have a single-payer system in the long run or a mixture of public and private insurance, as we do now. The decision is whether we are going to reward the leaders who are trying to build a new generation of Mayos and Grand Junctions. If we don’t, McAllen won’t be an outlier. It will be our future.

His prescription is an end to fee-for-service. Every bureaucrat’s prescription is the same. The control of health care will be centralized and both doctors and patients will lose control.

The third class of health-cost proposals, I explained, would push people to use medical savings accounts and hold high-deductible insurance policies: “They’d have more of their own money on the line, and that’d drive them to bargain with you and other surgeons, right?”
He gave me a quizzical look. We tried to imagine the scenario. A cardiologist tells an elderly woman that she needs bypass surgery and has Dr. Dyke see her. They discuss the blockages in her heart, the operation, the risks. And now they’re supposed to haggle over the price as if he were selling a rug in a souk? “I’ll do three vessels for thirty thousand, but if you take four I’ll throw in an extra night in the I.C.U.”—that sort of thing? Dyke shook his head. “Who comes up with this stuff?” he asked. “Any plan that relies on the sheep to negotiate with the wolves is doomed to failure.”

Yup, that is us doctors; the wolves. No wonder Obama likes this article.

More on cash practice of medicine

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

I have previously posted on the topic of doctors dropping out of Medicare and even private insurance and establishing cash-only medical practices. Here is another study of this phenomenon.

A few health insurers recognize the value of these services and reimburse enrollees for them, but concierge practices usually cater to cash-paying customers. Thus, they may be especially useful to patients who have a consumer-driven health account – such as a Health Savings Account (HSA), a Flexible Spending Account (FSA) or a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) – and to the uninsured.

A major consideration for the HSA patient is the fact that medical fees are grossly inflated by Medicare and insurance companies that draw up contracts with physicians including “discounts” from imaginary retail prices. When I retired from private practice, I had 176 contracts with various insurance companies and HMOs. Medicare will punish a physican who provides a cash discount to a patient. Balance billing is also prohibited.

The result has been reluctance on the part of physicians to see Medicare patents or HMO patients, both of which have poor reimbursement schedules.

* The proportion of people reporting problems seeing their primary care physician rose from less than one-quarter (23 percent) to one-third over the four-year period.
* Nearly one-quarter reported problems taking time from work to see a physician.

Here is one model.

Take DocTalker Family Medicine. This is the Virginia medical practice of Dr. Alan Dappen. Patients can schedule an in-office appointment or even request a house call, but about half of his consults are by e-mail or telephone.

Like an attorney, Dappen bases his consultation fees on the amount of time required. All patients must have an initial face-to-face consultation to establish care. There is no membership fee, but patients who prepay $300 annually receive a discount of about 25 percent. Each five-minute phone consultation or e-mail consultation costs $25. Nonmembers can buy services a la carte for $33.33 per five-minute block after a $150 initial check-up.

The office does not bill insurance companies for services, but most patients can easily file their own claim. Patient records are kept electronically for easy access.

The other common model is the “retainer practice” model.

Concierge medicine is normally associated with personalized services for the wealthy. These services can sometimes be expensive – in some cases more than $2,500 per year per person. However, in suburban Collin County north of Dallas, Texas, physician Nelson Simmons offers a version of concierge service for less than $500 per year. Aimed at small business employees who would otherwise likely be without employer-sponsored insurance, Simmons’ practice has attracted about 70 small business owners who pay $40 per employee per month. In return, employees get same-day primary care services and steep discounts on diagnostic tests and specialist care. Enrollees must pay out-of-pocket for specialist care, surgeries and diagnostic tests – but Simmons negotiates the rates, which are typically much lower than what others pay.

The $2500 usually includes all primary care services for the same annual fee. Doctors are starting to drop out of the old insurance model and this bodes ill for the corporate model of Obamacare.

Health care costs and payments

Tuesday, January 12th, 2010

Here is a chart that illustrates what I have been saying for a while now.

In 1965, most people paid a large part of their health care costs out of pocket. Over the past 45 years, the system we have has assumed more and more of the cost and consumption has climbed accordingly. This is the essence of the health care cost problem and why the Obama-Pelosi approach will not work. They will have to ration and there is no evidence that government is any better at making these choices than the average citizen who knows what is important to him or her.

More analysis is here.

Health reform as rent seeking

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

I have been suspicious of most of the medical organizations pushing health reform of the Obama type. I have previously proposed that the problem with cost that we have is due to the effort to achieve pre-paid care, and ultimately free care. The medical organizations that have been pushing this type reform usually have an ulterior motive. The AMA gave up its credibility in 1986 with RBRVS. That was sold to the primary care organizations as a way to take money from specialists, especially surgeons, and give it to the primary care docs. I remember being told at the time that they were doing it for that reason. Well, it didn’t work. Everybody got screwed in a typical “prisoners’ dilemma” situation.

Now, here we go again and the usual suspects are pushing the same argument.

The Congressional reform proposals are based on a widespread consensus that the current model of fee-for-service payments undercompensate evaluation and management services as compared with procedures and technical services, do a poor job of providing incentives to clinicians for collaboration, do not improve efficiency, are not focused on quality and outcomes, and do little to encourage wellness and prevention.

It is well known by everyone in health care that “wellness and prevention” do not contribute to reduced costs except as general public health trends. If obesity is responsible for increasing levels of type II diabetes, for example, doctors are going to have little effect on that trend, no matter how they might scold patients. However, pushing “wellness and prevention” is a way of trying for a bigger piece of the reimbursement pie.

In fact, every step in the march toward government medicine has resulted in less, not more, money for primary care. That is why primary care physicians are leaving the Medicare program and selling their services, in a variation of the fee-for-service model, to patients for cash. The command economy types will never understand that because they do not understand private business. In their world, everybody works for the government, or academia which is the same thing.

Another shoe drops

Friday, January 1st, 2010

I have been writing here about the failure of health reform as it is currently being concocted. Medicare, which began as a boon to doctors and elderly patients, was always cursed with unrealistic expectations. It destroyed the American health insurance system by converting it to pre-paid care. Now, that model is collapsing.

The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care, will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little.

More than 3,000 patients eligible for Medicare, the government’s largest health-insurance program, will be forced to pay cash if they want to continue seeing their doctors at a Mayo family clinic in Glendale, northwest of Phoenix, said Michael Yardley, a Mayo spokesman. The decision, which Yardley called a two-year pilot project, won’t affect other Mayo facilities in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota.

The “pilot project” will quickly become the norm as the Medicare beneficiaries have little option. Other doctors have been dropping Medicare for the past ten years.

Mayo’s move to drop Medicare patients may be copied by family doctors, some of whom have stopped accepting new patients from the program, said Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a telephone interview yesterday.

“Many physicians have said, ‘I simply cannot afford to keep taking care of Medicare patients,’” said Heim, a family doctor who practices in Laurinburg, North Carolina. “If you truly know your business costs and you are losing money, it doesn’t make sense to do more of it.”

The Mayo Clinic charges for the cash services are a bit higher than others I have seen.

A Medicare patient who chooses to stay at Mayo’s Glendale clinic will pay about $1,500 a year for an annual physical and three other doctor visits, according to an October letter from the facility. Each patient also will be assessed a $250 annual administrative fee, according to the letter. Medicare patients at the Glendale clinic won’t be allowed to switch to a primary care doctor at another Mayo facility.

A few hundred of the clinic’s Medicare patients have decided to pay cash to continue seeing their primary care doctors, Yardley said. Mayo is helping other patients find new physicians who will accept Medicare.

Good luck finding them.

It’s not a bug; it’s a feature.

Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009

Richard Epstein, prominent University of Chicago law professor, agrees with my conclusion that the Senate health care bill will kill private health insurance. I have concluded that the “guaranteed issue” and the “community rating” provisions of the Reid bill are a poison pill to end health insurance as we know it. The result would be a situation in which government single payer would be the only alternative.

Lost in the shuffle has been its intensely coercive requirements on health insurance issuers, especially in the individual and small group markets. Taken together, these restrictions are likely to drive them out of business and run afoul of the constitutional guarantee that all regulated industries have to a reasonable, risk-adjusted, rate of return on their invested capital.

The perils of the Reid bill are made evident in a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that focused on the bill’s rebate program, which holds that once an insurance company spends more than 10% of its revenues on administrative expenses, its customers are entitled to an indefinite statutory rebate determined by state regulatory authorities subject to oversight by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Defining these administrative costs is a royal headache, but everyone agrees that they are heaviest in the small group and individual markets, where they typically range between 25% and 30%, without the new regulatory hassles.

I don’t believe that this is an unforeseen outcome, a “bug.” I think it is a feature. A feature added by leftist staff members of Reid’s office who hold the same antipathy to private insurance that is typical of the left. They have also larded up the most basic mandated benefits with options of little appeal to most purchasers of health insurance. Look at the list.

Next, it’s the government that requires extensive coverage including “ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance abuse disorder services, prescription drugs, rehabilitative and habilitative [sic!] services and devices, laboratory services, preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management, pediatric services, including oral and vision care.” The price squeeze gets even tighter because in every required area of care a collection of government standards will help set the minimum level of required services.

This is what the “gold plated plans” that are to be taxed out of existence contain. Medicare does not offer these services.

The whole intent is to destroy the private insurance market. It’s not a bug; it’s a feature.

Did the Republicans do the right thing ?

Monday, December 21st, 2009

UPDATE: Obama has changed his mind and will put off health care until February. Wow ! If that’s true, there are some Senators who will plucking flak out of their asses for weeks over this and now they get blindsided. Way to go, big guy !

There are lots of post mortems going on this morning. Did the Republicans do the best they could to stop this bill in the Senate ? I think they had a terrible problem and probably did the best they could. They did delay passage until a lot of the public got a good view of the sausage factory. There is another question. Did the Republicans leave the door open by failing to produce an alternative the past 15 years since Clinton failed ?

The choices that they made, or didn’t make, across the last fifteen years are what made all the difference. Between the defeat of Clintoncare and the election of Barack Obama, the Republicans had plenty of chances to take ownership of the health care issue and pass a significant reform along more free-market, cost-effective lines. They didn’t. The system deteriorated on their watch instead. And now they’re suffering the consequences.

There are others who think the bill may still fail in the House but let’s look at the question about the past 15 years. The left, of course, thinks they made a huge blunder. I don’t accept his premise.

At the outset of this debate, moderate Democrats were desperate for a bipartisan bill. They were willing to do almost anything to get it, including negotiate fruitlessly for months on end. We can’t know for sure, but Democrats appeared willing to make enormous substantive concessions to win the assent of even a few Republicans. A few GOP defectors could have lured a chunk of Democrats to sign something far more limited than what President Obama is going to sign.

What ??? I don’t see that at all.

What about Douthat’s charge the Republicans missed a chance for an alternative ?

I think he is wrong. The Republican alternative was always The HMO. In 1973, Nixon signed a bill making HMOs mandatory as an option for all businesses with more than 25 employees.

In more recent years, “managed competition” was the model with other alternatives to HMOs created, like PPOs. These organizations enlist doctors and hospitals who agree to follow rules, chiefly rules about utilization. They may also, especially recently, include discounted prices for services. Those discounts have gotten quite large in recent years so that, in California, a state with heavy managed care, most medical groups were insolvent in 2008. It wasn’t just California as predatory practices left many doctors high and dry.

Managed competition was an aggressive strategy to control costs. It didn’t work. Why ?

The basic failure of all medical insurance the past 30 years is the inclusion of routine care making “health insurance” into “prepaid care.” People would know better than to buy auto insurance that included routine maintenance in the policy benefits. Why ? Because, instinctively, they understand moral hazard. They know that, if your insurance covered oil changes and the damage that might be incurred for failing to change oil, people would be less likely to take good care of the oil in their cars. Not everyone. But enough. Why doesn’t everyone buy one of those home maintenance policies ? Have you tried to get anything fixed under one ?

Now, it looks as though we may get a chance to see if the Democrats’ way is any more effective than the Republican way. I don’t think it will be but it does provide lots of jobs for Democrat functionaries. At least until the money runs out.

The healthcare precipice

Friday, December 18th, 2009

A few days ago, President Obama said the Democrats stand on the precipice of a health reform bill. Truer words were never spoken, at least by him. What is Harry Reid doing ? The theory seems to be to pass something, no matter what it is, so that Democrats can claim success.At one time we had two bills, the Senate version and the House version. Now, no one knows what is in this bill. It is simply amazing. His hurry to pass something may come from his realization that, as time to understand the bill passes, the public likes it less and less. No one knows what it will cost because the CBO has been given false data to analyze.

For some time, I’ve suspected the answer is that congressional Democrats have very carefully tailored their individual and employer mandates to avoid CBO’s definition of what shall be counted in the federal budget. Democrats are still smarting over the CBO’s decision in 1994. By revealing the full cost of the Clinton plan, the CBO helped to kill the bill.

Since then, keeping the cost of their private-sector mandates out of the federal budget has been Job One for Democratic health wonks. While head of the CBO, Obama’s budget director Peter Orszag altered the CBO’s orientation to make it more open and collaborative. One of the things about which the CBO has been more open is the criteria it uses to determine whether to include mandated private-sector spending in the federal budget.

Why is this being done ?

Our federalist system, the separation of powers, our bicameral national legislature, six-year terms for senators, staggered Senate elections, and the Senate’s procedural rules all exist precisely to prevent what Reid is trying to do: ram a sweeping piece of legislation through Congress without due consideration.

This is the fascist way.

Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism enraged the left well before the election of Barack Obama. It might be time to read it again. If you doubt these people are fascists, here is their suggestion for political opponents. If you are a Congressman who does not vote for the favored bill, you should be expelled from Congress. One party rule.

The problem is that it won’t work. The Democrats would be even worse off if they pass it than if it fails.

If Democrats need to appeal to Independents and moderates to hold their majorities, then passing this bill is a terrible idea. The most recent polling shows that 81% of Republicans and 69% of Independents oppose the healthcare plan (with 74% of Republicans and 57% of Independents strongly opposing it). With majorities of Independents strongly opposed to the bill, it’s really hard to imagine any boost in Democratic turnout from passing the plan being enough to surpass the ensuing backlash from Republicans and Independents.

It isn’t even clear that there will be a boost in Democratic turnout. The latest version of the Senate bill holds little appeal for progressives.

Maybe this will teach them that we are not ready for fascism yet.