Posts Tagged ‘rationing’

Obama is losing the PR war on health care

Friday, July 10th, 2009

This column in the NY Post by an Obama supporter misses the point but does show he is in trouble.

When asked to choose the best reason to support health-care reform, 34 percent chose “it will provide stable health coverage that can’t be taken away.” Only 12 percent chose “pay less in premiums,” and 7 percent chose “it will grow the economy.” Eighteen percent said that “health care is a moral right.”

The survey found that “42 percent of people who are currently covered changed coverage at least once in the last five years. For 57 percent of them, this change was involuntary. Among those who are currently covered, 38 percent said they are worried that they will lose coverage over the next five years.”

But that’s not what he is doing. He is telling people he will cut costs by rationing.

Obama’s central message so far has focused on the promise of lower costs for health coverage and more accessibility. But the poll (conducted by the Benenson Strategy Group) suggests that these aren’t the most potent issues.

In fact, a mere 29 percent of respondents agreed with the promise that their premiums would go down as a consequence of reform. And regarding “accessibility,” only 9 percent said that in the last five years they were without coverage all or most of the time.

Moreover, when asked, “Who do you think will benefit most from reform?” a whopping 60 percent chose “other people, but not [me].”

The majority of the country may have been dumb enough to elect him but they’re not this dumb. Mickey Kaus says It’s Obama’s own fault for raising the issue of cost and then getting into the whole issue of “effectiveness research.”

WaPo’s Alec MacGillis notes that Obama’s health care reformers
are clearly spooked by the notion that they could be accused of denying, for example, hip surgery to an 80-year-old.
If so, they largely have themselves to blame. They brought it up! It wasn’t the Republicans who billed health care reform as a cost saving, budget-balancing measure that would start to deny payments for treatments deemed “ineffective,” or (as one acolyte put it) when “a person’s life, or health, is not worth the price.” And to think when they heard that people started to worry about rationing! Fancy that.

The subject has now become rationing and that is not a debate they want to have with Canada next door publishing horror stories every week.

Total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, fell from 17.9 weeks in 2004 back to the 17.7 weeks last seen in 2003.

So, you want to wait 17 weeks to see a GP. What do you suppose the wait will be for a hip replacement ? Well, the average for all orthopedic surgery is 38 weeks and that includes minor procedures like wrist ganglion that I treat with a heavy book or aspiration.

The median wait for a CT scan across Canada was 4.8 weeks. British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia had the shortest wait for CT scans (4 weeks), while the longest wait occurred in Manitoba (8 weeks). The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.1 weeks. Patients in Ontario experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (7.8 weeks), while Newfoundland residents waited longest (20 weeks). The median wait for ultrasound was 3.9 weeks across Canada. Alberta and Ontario displayed the shortest wait for ultrasound (2 weeks), while Prince Edward Island and Manitoba exhibited the longest ultrasound waiting time (10 weeks).

The other subject that is not being mentioned is the fact that no one is going into general surgery anymore. That’s an exaggeration but the number of people completing general surgery residencies has not increased in 20 years and many of them go into subspecialties with better lifestyles. There were fewer surgeons being certified by the American Board of Surgery in 2008 than in 1981. The type of “reform” that Obama has in mind, with steep reductions in compensation for specialists, will cause a crash in the number of surgeons, just as has happened in Canada.

If you don’t believe that, ask Natasha Richardson.

The Democrats’ health bills

Tuesday, June 9th, 2009

UPDATE #2: The substance of the bill is now coming out and seems similar to the leaks from last weekend. I’m still not sure this is going to pass this year as it seems very sketchy in details. Public opinion may not be more receptive in spite of rhetoric to the contrary. Obama has a political event scheduled today in Wisconsin to support his health care bill but an inadvertent truth slipped into the Washington Post article about the trip.

States such as Wisconsin have lower medical costs because they are predominantly white and middle class, he said. The notable exception is Milwaukee, with its “poverty corridor,” he said. “Nobody wants to talk about the fact that if you want to deal with health care you have to deal with poverty.”

Nobody wants to talk about the real drivers of high healthcare costs. Of course, they also do not mention how many of the Green Bay elderly move to warmer states as they age.

UPDATE: Obama seems to be making a serious effort at a single payer health care bill this year. The details were secret but now seem to be leaking out and the bills, themselves, may be reported out soon. Whether this will actually pass is still in doubt but there are several sites doing a good job of analyzing the two versions of the legislation, for the House and the Senate.

Here is one analysis. The mandatory rule is one that Obama opposed in the primary debates but seems to have adopted. The free rider is a serious problem that needs to be addressed but, as always, the devil is on the details.

The Kennedy-Dodd bill would create an individual mandate requiring you to buy a “qualified” health insurance plan, as defined by the government. If you don’t have “qualified” health insurance for a given month, you will pay a new Federal tax. Incredibly, the amount and structure of this new tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and Health and Human Services (HHS), whose only guidance is “to establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage (as so defined).”

This should be unconstitutional as the taxing power resides with Congress. Of course, COngress can delegate but this is extreme, even for Democrats. My concern is with the type of insurance to be mandated. If this is a basic catastrophic plan, I’m for it, but I doubt they can leave well enough alone.

The Kennedy-Dodd bill would also create an employer mandate. Employers would have to offer insurance to their employees.

Once again, the idea has merit but it will no doubt increase unemployment just as the French have created high unemployment by onerous rules for discharging employees. I thought the idea was to get employer-related insurance ended to free up the job market and reduce the anxiety that losing a job meant losing health insurance. McCain tried to suggest this in the campaign but could never explain it.

In the Kennedy-Dodd bill, the government would define a qualified plan:
All health insurance would be required to have guaranteed issue and renewal, modified community rating, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime or annual limits on benefits, and family policies would have to cover “children” up to age 26.

The House bill outline is consistent with but less specific than the Kennedy-Dodd legislative language. The House bill outline would “prohibit insurers from excluding pre-existing conditions or engaging in other discriminatory practices.” I will keep my eye on what “other discriminatory practices” means in the legislative language. Does that mean that a health plan cannot charge higher premiums to smokers?

Here is the camel’s nose under the tent. Other sections of the bill will ban insurance rating for risky behavior.

A qualified plan would have to cover “essential health benefits,” as defined by a new Medical Advisory Council (MAC), appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The MAC would determine what items and services are “essential benefits.” The MAC would have to include items and services in at least the following categories: ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and new born care, medical and surgical, mental health, prescription drugs, rehab and lab services, preventive/wellness services, pediatric services, and anything else the MAC thought appropriate.

This appears parallel but is less specific for now: “Independent public/private advisory committee recommends benefit packages based on standards set in statute.” I find the “standards set in statute” interesting. It suggests that provider and disease interest groups will have two fora in which to lobby for their benefits to be mandated: Congress, and the advisory committee.

Here comes the politics. I spent years on the California Medical Association’s Commission on Legislation. We lost most of those battles because every provider group, from inhalation therapy to alternative medicine freaks, was in there promising contributions if the legislator would only vote for this one little item that was crucial to their group. I might add that the Republicans were the worst in voting for the weirdo alternative health bills.

Health insurance plans could not charge higher premiums for risky behaviors: “Such rate shall not vary by health status-related factors, … or any other factor not described in paragraph (1).” Smokers, drinkers, drug users, and those in terrible physical shape would all have their premiums subsidized by the healthy.

The House bill outline says it would “prohibit plans [from] rating (charging higher premiums) based on gender, health status, or occupation and strictly limits premium variation based on age.” If the bill were to provide nothing more, this would appear to parallel the Senate bill and preclude plans from charging higher premiums for risky behaviors.

More politics. This is what kills health care cost control. Eventually, you end up with conventional care being rationed and the alternative stuff approved because it is “cheaper” and people want it.

The medical crisis is here

Monday, December 15th, 2008

The NY Times has an article about the impending doctor shortage that should finally end the myths about doctors but won’t. In 1993, the Clinton health plan was rejected by a public that was pretty satisfied with its health care, no matter what the single payer enthusiasts say. I was still in practice and, while the burden of bureaucracy was growing, medical practice was still pretty satisfying.

The year before, I had finally bought an office computer system. I have been a computer user since the PC first appeared. I was a programmer and engineer before I went to medical school but, in those days, unless you had a job in a big company, computers were something you saw in the movies, like “2001, A Space Odyssey.” A surgical practice did not need the primitive computer billing programs of the 1980s as they were directed to a high volume of small charges. Surgeons tend to see fewer office patients and many of those office visits do not generate charges (or didn’t then), at least for general surgeons. The office patients were either new patients, who might not be charged separately for the visit if they were scheduled for surgery, or post-op patients whose visit was included in the global fee for the surgery. I also had a policy, adopted from the surgeon with whom I had been first in practice, of not charging post-op cancer patients. In fact, I rarely charged post-op patients at all on the theory that, if they had a problem, I wanted to see them again and wanted to put as few obstacles to another visit as possible. This avoided potential dissatisfied patients and it established a relationship that patients usually do not have with the surgeon. They knew who I was and might come back with a new problem. General surgeons rely on referrals and it was helpful to have the satisfied patient know my name if something came up in the future.

I finally bought a computer billing system (It cost $36,000 plus the computers) because they had gotten more sophisticated and, by 1991, I had 276 contracts with various insurance companies and HMO organizations. That was the era of the “HMO without walls.” Insurance companies and for-profit HMOs had learned that they could sign contracts with individual doctors, or with groups of doctors, and use these contracts to control costs. The contracts were complicated and many had different provisions that had to to be tracked or there could be a refusal to pay or even a penalty. In one instance, I found that sending a patient to the closer medical lab for a wound culture resulted in a $500 dollar fine for me from the HMO. The lab fee was $36. The result of that incident was that I refused to see HMO patients in my second office in San Clemente, even if the patient lived in San Clemente. I could not rely on my office staff to always get the patient to the correct lab or x-ray office.

The second consequence of this incident, and others like it, was that I bought the computer and linked it to the other office. This way, my staff could enter the patient’s insurance information and get a list of all the rules for that particular HMO or PPO. Since I left practice in 1994, it has only gotten worse. For primary care physicians, it has gotten a lot worse. Fees have been cut and bureaucracy has increased. I am now part of that bureaucracy for the Workers Compensation system, as I do reviews of cases that are not being treated within guidelines established for this system. The reason why there are such complex guidelines is the amount of fraud and waste in the system, now much reduced since the reforms began five years ago in California.

What has been the result for the nation as a whole ? Primary care physicians have been less well paid and have been deluged with bureaucracy. As a result, they have been leaving the field. I tell medical students that, if they plan to enter primary care, they should get an MBA as they will be managing nurse practitioners and physician assistants. More and more of the primary care is being delivered by these “physician extenders.” Some physicians are natural managers. Many don’t go to medical school to do this and they simply avoid the field or retire early if possible.

We’ll see if Obama and the people around him recognize this. They strike me as a bunch of theorists and academics who will not understand this problem.

Health Reform – France III

Friday, May 16th, 2008

How is reimbursement accomplished ?

The carte vitale changed a system based on paperwork to one with a very modern and efficient methodology. Prior to electronic billing, the patient had to obtain treatment or prescription forms called feuilles de soins from the doctor, attach any stickers (vignettes) from the pharmacist, which identify the class of drugs dispensed, plus a certificate from the employer (attestation annuelle), or a certificate of unemployment from the national office, and submit them all to the local CPAM. A few weeks later, a statement of amounts to be reimbursed would be received, followed eventually by the money. In 1998, 1.2 billion feuilles de soins were submitted.

If the doctor has the proper card reader (and in 2001 when the report was written, it was a problem), the card is swiped and the proper form goes electronically to the CPAM. Confidentiality is assured because a second card, issued to the doctor and called Carte Professionnel de Sante, or CPS, is required for transmission. Card holders have the right of access to the database where their records are kept by the CPAM.

In 1999, in response to a perception that 25% of French citizens postponed care due to financial concerns, and another 150,000 were still not covered, another system was added for the poor. Couverture Maladie Universale or CMU, now covers a million people who receive free care. There is CMU de base, which enrolls people who are not covered by NHI into CNAMTS and which covers all residents of France regardless of employment status.  This provides free care. A second level, called CMU complementaire covers the supplement for those earning less than 3600 FF per month (as of 2001 before the Euro).  This could be considered analagous to our system in which poor Medicare recipients are eligible for Medicaid payment of the deductable or co-payment.

Applicants must register at the CPAM and those eligible for CMU complementaire, may select a mutuelle to manage the co-payment. Once granted, the free care is valid for a year, after which the person must reregister. The person receives a carte vitale and the care is the same although they must select physicians from Sector 1 who accept the fee schedule (conventionne). Prescriptions, hospital care, some dental care and eyeglasses are included. CMU assurance complementaire covers 4.7 million.

British expatriates living in France can apply for CMU and the rules are described here. That site is one for advice to British retirees living in France and is interesting for other aspects of life in France.

The system is not foolproof as this message board for British retirees shows.

Here is more timely information about enrollment, again from the point of view of British retirees moving to France. This is a very large group and some areas in the southeast have completely English-speaking villages.

Providers

Free choice of doctor is assured, a feature of the French system that is very attractive to us as we are losing that very feature of the American system. The French can go to any doctor, can go to specialists directly without a “gatekeeper,” and can choose a public or private hospital. The private hospitals do not have to accept the government rates and generally require payment at the time rather than wait for the reimbursement from CNAMTS.  Doctors may only advertise in “The Yellow Pages” and there is none of the marketing we see here. Health organizations and private clinics are allowed to advertise (some in the Paris Metro) and all doctors must post their fees. Patients are free to change doctors and seek second opinions. Appointments with GPs are 15 to 30 minutes and direct payment encourages the doctor to treat the patient as an equal, unlike HMOs in the US and NHS hospitals in the UK. Free choice of hospital is also the rule.

Fees

In 1997, 99.6 % of physicians were in Sector 1 or 2. Of these, 74% were in Sector 1, 83% of GPs and 62% of specialists. The Sector 1 physicians are contracted with the NHI and are paid from the negotiated fee schedule ( NGAP ), which is revised annually. By agreeing to the fee schedule, Sector 1 physicians become eligible for pension and sickness benefits. Sector 2 physicians may set their own fees but do not have the pension and sickness benefits. The additional fees, above the national fee schedule, are the responsibility of the patient. When this reform was established in 1980,  Sector 2 became popular, especially with specialists, but initially only 7.5%  joined Sector 2. By 1997, Sector 2 had 57% of physicians and access to the category was limited. This may have been the result of Sector 1 fees not keeping pace with inflation. In 1998, 51% of physicians were specialists (49% GP)  and 75% of GPs were in private practice. Specialists were more likely to be employed by clinics and teaching hospitals but 68% were still in private practice. Many medecine liberale (fee-for-service) GPs are practicing in cabinets liberaux, a one physician office with a small staff. Group practices are more common in urban communities.  Many GPs list themselves as medicins de famille or family doctors and care for entire families. The fee for one of these visits is quite modest, about 11 pounds sterling in 2001.

There is a gatekeeper-like system that is optional and is called medecins referent.  The patient, by giving up the right of free specialist consultation, is rewarded with waiver of the co-payment and the physician receives the co-payment directly from the CPAM. GPs who agree to become medecins referent receive a capitation fee for each new patient. They must use generic drugs for 10% of their prescriptions and additional record keeping is required so only 13% of GPs have agreed to join. There has been considerable resistance from both GPs and specialists, who fear restricted referrals.

There are between 1,000 and 2,000 municipal medical centers with salaried physicans. They are operated by municipalities, trade unions, mutuelles (a remnant of pre-war medicine) and are important in caring for the poor. The institution of the CMU may affect these centers as Medicaid affected county hospitals in the US after 1965.

About 40% of doctors are union members and there are three unions; Confederation des Syndecats Medicaux Francais (CSMF), the pre-war organization; Federation de Medecins de France (FMF), a small federation which broke the resistance to the 1980 reform by signing up, and Medecins generalistes de France (MG-France). These were formerly professional associations but have become unions and are not averse to direct action when provoked. They negotiate fee schedules with CNAMTS each year and concern themselves with professional issues such as regulations and hospitals.

Hospitals

There is a daily hospital charge, forfait hospitalier , although patients may request direct payment for hospital care, called tiers payant, or “one-third to pay”. This is based on the ticket moderateur, a schedule of co-payments.

ticket moderateur —    Co-payment based on Securite Sociale payment schedule

Consultation fee during hospital stay——-20 %

Hospital treatment————————— 20% most cases

Doctor’s fees (specialist and GP)————30%

Paramedic fees and lab fees—————– 35%

Medicines with blue vignette —————65%

Medicines with white vignette ————–35%

Vital or expensive drugs ———————-0%

Ease and comfort drugs (non-prescribed)–100%

Other expenses and transport—————–30%

Private hospitals may charge what they wish (although patients are reimbursed at the national rate) and payment is required at the time.  All hospitals have a fixed charge per day, called taux/forfair journalier, which is a “hotel costs” charge for room, board, etc. US hospitals used to bill this way until the stupidity of insurance companies required itemized billing and set off wild inflation in hospital bills. Children, maternity patients and war veterans on pension are exempt from this charge. Advance approval for some services, such as dentistry, physical therapy and prosthetics is required.

Some cases are eligible for exemption for co-payment. Serious medical conditions such as diabetes, cancer and AIDS are exempt. The exemption pertains only to the diagnosis and other conditions require co-payment.  A cancer patient with appendicitis, for example,  must pay the regular rate for the surgery. More complex services and hospital stays over 31 days are also exempt. The exempt class of patients, such as children, maternity and war pensioners are the third category.

Types of hospital

Two thirds of hospital beds are in public hospitals. The Hospital law of 1991 gave the public hospitals autonomy and the larger hospitals and teaching hospitals are public. In 2000, there were 1,050 public hospitals with 323,098 beds (or 5.5 per 1000).  They included Regional Hospitals, usually in cities and most have medical schools. There are 29 of these. Hospital Centers, which are in Department capitals, and hey tend to provide what we would call tertiary care, such as mental health or cancer treatment. Local hospitals are the third level and correspond to Level III hospitals in the US.

There are private non-profit hospitals, many of them specialized centers such as the 20 cancer centers. They tend to concentrate on long-term care and special care. They have similar rules and financing to public hospitals although staff membership may be restricted. In 1998, there were 24,782 beds in such institutions.

Private for-profit hospitals are mostly acute care and do a lot of surgery. Many are small although there has been a trend to consolidation. In 1998, there were 98, 813 beds in such hospitals and they have 20% of hospital capacity.

The public hospitals tend to have salaried doctors and France has a smaller proportion of hospital-based specialists than other European countries. Private hospitals tend to be staffed by fee-for-service specialists and the public hospitals have been short-staffed, often hiring foreign doctors to fill positions. Since there is no problem with delays and queues for care in public hospitals, the political issue seen in the UK does not exist in France. It is simply a matter of choice.

Hospital budgets have been under strain in recent years and, since 1984, have been under a global budget process. Since 1996, regional hospital associations ( ARH) have established budgets at a more local level based on need. France was the first country to adopt Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) which became a controversial Medicare reimbursement reform in the US in 1986.  Private hospitals sign contracts with the regional agencies, Schema regionale d’organisation sanitaire, or SROS. Private hospitals are paid on a combination of per diem and fee-for-service. They do not have a central budget like the public hospitals. All the hospitals, including the public institutions, are judged by patients on cleanliness and food quality. Semi-private and private rooms are the rule. There are no wards.

Emergency Services

Pompiers medicaux are the equivalent of paramedics with special training but are not at a level with physicians.

Service d’Aide Medicale Urgente (SAMU) is an ambulance service that is in radio contact with physicians and may involve physicians in the ambulance. There is a high hourly charge that is waived if the patient is admitted to the hospital. If they do not go to the hospital, they are responsible for the copayment of 30%. If they are not a member of Securite Sociale, they are responsible for the entire fee. If they have a mutuelle, it may pay the co-payment. American trauma physicians have been critical of the care of Princess Diana because the ambulance team remained on scene for over 30 minutes before deciding to transport her to the hospital. This may be a feature of SAMU care, which does often treat patients at the scene.  American trauma care strongly supports the protocol of “scoop and run,” which discourages any attempt to stabilize a patient at the scene of an accident except for airway management.

Pharmacy and laboratory

Pharmacies are on every corner in France. Reimbursement requires a doctor’s prescription and is determined by the color of the vignette unless it is a “vital” drug. Both Securite Sociale and mutuelles provide payment so much of the cost may be covered for prescribed drugs. Approval of drugs is through Objectif National des Depenses d’Assurance- Maladie (ONDAM), a national agency, and Commission de la Transparence. There is price regulation although France has always had an excellent pharmaceutical industry. Spending targets are set and penaltes may be levied for violation.

Laboratoires are private and are recognized by display of a blue cross. Results go to the patient, not the doctor, to assure free choice.

French consumption of health services is the highest in Europe. In a 1998 survey of 23, 035 persons, chosen by household, 33% had visited a doctor at least once in the previous month, 19% a GP, 8% a specialist and 6% both. In 1994, mandatory practice guidelines (see my post on Evidence-Based Medicine), were introduced. They are called References Medicales Opposables (RMO) and are mandatory although an attempt to fine doctors for violating them was ruled unconstitutional. In 1998, use of RMOs resulted in a health spending budget below projectons and a “bonus” was provded to GPs. It was protested by the medical associations for rewarding provision of less care but I don’t know if anyone refused to accept it. The same method is often used by HMOs to reward compliance with guidelines for utilization.

Implications for US reform 

I have never been a patient in the French medical care system. I do know that French surgery is of the highest quality and the entire laparoscopic surgery movement originated there and in Germany. In 1987, Eddie Joe Reddick, a Nashville surgeon and good ol’ boy, was vacationing in Paris with his wife. Bored with museums, he got permission to observe surgery in a Paris hospital. What he saw revolutionized American surgery. He returned and got a friend,  Barry McKernan, to teach him laparoscopy. Within a year, surgeons were taking laparoscopy courses, many from McKernan (as I did in 1988), to learn the new technique. In 1992, I attended a laparoscopy meeting in Bordeaux to learn the newest techniques which were still coming from French surgeons. They have remained at the forefront of world medical advances.

The French system has many similarities to our own. It is complex but the components are similar to those of our own system and that fact may permit  integration of gradual changes and allow alteration to respond to problems. The basic reform in France was the Securite Sociale, similar to our Medicare program in 1965. One of the proposals for reform has been to adapt Medicare to the entire population. One way to do this would be to use the existing health insurance industry as the French use the mutuelles, to handle copayment and administration. Health insurance in the US is not really insurance. Employers use insurance companies to administer self-payment programs. Insurance companies have become “administration service organizations.” This is not that much different from the non-profit CNAMTS, which has a board composed of employers, unions and physicians. One difference that may be necessary is to get rid of the adversarial role of the Federal Trade Commisson toward doctors and their organizatons. Any fee negotiation has been banned for 30 years and that inhibits any attempt to deal with for-profit HMOs which are destroying the medical profession, especially in California were they are triumphant. Poor care and bankruptcy for medical groups has been the legacy of for-profit HMOs.

The use of the electronic carte vitale alone would reduce overhead for medical practices by 75%. Estimates of costs of administration for American medicine probably exceed the entire budget for French healthcare. The French have been having problems with cost but much of that comes from factors unrelated to health care, such as the 35 hour work week and the cost of unemployment which discourages employers from adding staff. With a more vibrant economy, the cost of the French healthcare system would be far less than our own as a percent of GDP, and would relieve the burden on manufacturers. Unions would probably resist letting go of their health plans that they administer and have a sense of entitlement to since they were often the trophy of negotiation and even strikes.

Straight single payer with no co-payment, like the Canadian system, will never work here. We are not a people who will accept queues and overt rationing.  The French system looks enough like our own that a transition would be less painful and could be gradual. It already has the Medicare basic format that it shares with Securite Sociale.