Physician Pay Redistribution: A False Sophie's Choice

Sophie's Choice is a novel by American author William Styron, whose plot ultimately centers around a tragic decision Sophie was forced to make upon entering the Nazi concentration camp: on the night that she arrived at Auschwitz, a sadistic doctor made her choose which of her two children would die immediately by gassing and which would continue to live, albeit in the camp.

While not of the same gravity,  I have seen the discussion by policy wonks about physician payment reform evolving into a smackdown between primary care physicians and specialty physicians for the remaining coins tossed on the health care floor.

James Hamblin MD, The Atlantic magazine's health editor, recently published an article entitled "When the Best Hospitals are the Worst," that assumes prestigious hospitals are the "worst" because they fail to train an adequate number of primary care physicians relative to the federal subsidy they receive for training residents:

But many hospitals aren't using that money to do what the taxpayers most need. 158 of them produce zero graduates that go into primary care. The worst offenders, in terms of the number of primary-care physicians produced, are the hospitals we hold in highest regard. 

To bolster his point, he references another article from the July-Aug 2013 issue of the wonkish Washington Monthly by demographer Phillip Longman entitled "First Teach No Harm."  Both Hamblin and Longman claim the following:

The nation’s residency programs are producing too many of the wrong kinds of doctors in the wrong places, while not producing enough of the kinds of doctors we most need to sustain the U.S. health care system.

Specifically, the programs turn out too many specialists who go on to practice in places where such doctors are already in oversupply, and where, according to numerous studies, they often inflate health care spending by engaging in massive amounts of unnecessary surgery and other forms of over-treatment. 

While both Hamblin and Longman make excellent points about the work conditions of today's primary care physician's, they veer into dangerous territory when they pile on the assumption that the problem with our nation's health care delivery and cost problem is the distribution of dollars between different types of physician training programs.  American's need doctors - all kinds of them - thanks to the ever-growing and aging population.  What they don't need is the mushrooming and very costly administrative overhead that plagues physicians today.

Here's a radical thought: all physicians should be paid a respectable and competitive salary commensurate with their years of educational investment and competitive training and receive the quality training they need to do their work.

But rather than acknowledging this fact, Hamblin and Longman want us to make a false Sophie's choice: picking which types of physician training programs should receive federal funds based on the types of physicians they train, rather than working to improve the lot of all physician training programs to assure excellent doctors in the years ahead for our health care system.

Perhaps rather than wondering how to redistribute $13 billion dollars of educational funding for medical residencies that flows to all residency programs, Hamblin and Longman should ask how we should cut the mushrooming and incredibly costly administrative overhead of our system that already  stood at $320 billion (and counting) way back in 2003?  How much is that overhead expanded thanks to the introduction of over 110 government agencies created by our new health care law?  Which bean counter should be fighting with the other bean counters for their share of administrative dollars?  Which new data miner, quality coordinator, hospital administrator, database operator, or government agencies that share similar functions (like the PCORI and AHRQ agencies) yet provide no care should be fighting to save themselves?

Maybe rather than peeling the dollars from any doctor's training pocket as he charges down the hallway to see the next patient in his 14-hour day, we should determine how to peel the even larger amount of dollars held in the pockets of the five administrators trailing him.

This is our real health care system cost Sophie's choice.

And doctors of all specialties would be wise to remind Congress and their respective medical associations of this fact.

-Wes

The Costs of Not-so-Shared Decision Making

This week's New England Journal of Medicine contains a perspective piece by Emily Oshima Lee, M.A., and Ezekiel J. Emanuel, M.D., Ph.D. entitled "Shared Decision Making to Improve Care and Reduce Costs." The original paragraph of the piece sets the tone:

"A sleeper provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) encourages greater use of shared decision making in health care. For many health situations in which there's not one clearly superior course of treatment, shared decision making can ensure that medical care better aligns with patients' preferences and values. One way to implement this approach is by using patient decision aids — written materials, videos, or interactive electronic presentations designed to inform patients and their families about care options; each option's outcomes, including benefits and possible side effects; the health care team's skills; and costs. Shared decision making has the potential to provide numerous benefits for patients, clinicians, and the health care system, including increased patient knowledge, less anxiety over the care process, improved health outcomes, reductions in unwarranted variation in care and costs, and greater alignment of care with patients' values.

However, more than 2 years after enactment of the ACA, little has been done to promote shared decision making. We believe that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should begin certifying and implementing patient decision aids, aiming to achieve three important goals: promote an ideal approach to clinician–patient decision making, improve the quality of medical decisions, and reduce costs."

What a nice, lovely, fuzzy bunny.  Who couldn't want such "shared" decisions in complex medical care?  Especially nice simple teaching aids for Medicare's top 20 procedures printed at the "8th grade level" that are "brief?"

Doctors, don't you know that this will become simply another box to check on your EMR for Medicare reimbursement? 

And yet the benefits of cost savings that these "shared" decision making tools' will have on health care are assumed, especially when deployed nationwide, despite what the authors claim.  Note that the 2011 Cochrane Collaborative review of the 86 studies they reference said nothing about cost savings.

Doctors know this and so do the authors.

Why else would the authors require a cudgel to impose their "shared" decision making benefit if other real life clinical doctors fail to follow along?

"Providers who did not document the shared-decision-making process could face a 10% reduction in Medicare payment for claims related to the procedure in year 1, with reductions gradually increasing to 20% over 10 years. This payment scheme is similar to that currently tied to hospital-readmissions metrics."

Ms. Lee and Dr. Emanuel, in their zeal to impose their Progressive mindset upon America's physicians have forgotten several important tenets of health care delivery:

• First, decisions made in medicine are each unique to a patient's constellation of medical problems, socioeconomic and cultural background, age, gender, religious beliefs, etc.  In other words: decisions are made in concert with an individual's situation, and not based on the government's desire (necessarily) for cost savings (even if it is couched in euphemisms such as "shared decision making").


• Second, actual cost information (both out-of-pocket and real health care system costs) for patients and doctors will remain shrouded  in secrecy since payers rely on obfuscation of actual cost information to extract their portion of fees before patients receive any value for their dollar.  Also, other similar pay-for-performance measures have already uniformly flopped at demonstrating cost savings.  Then imagine for a moment if the cudgel for shared decision making is imposed.  The potential for a 10-20% Medicare physician fee cut on top of a 30% Sustainable Growth Rate cut that is likely to reappear in 2014 will be untenable for US physicians. 


• Third and very importantly, the ACA legislation has created a whole new "institute" of salaried individuals within government called the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) to develop the authors' soon-to-be-mandated decision aid materials while another branch of government already exists to produce such education aids called the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).  Wouldn't our health care system benefit far greater from cost savings by not duplicating services already performed by another government agency? How much, exactly, will the PCORI cost us?


• Fourth, the push to re-invigorate the mass-production of physicians via three-year medical school curricula while simultaneously failing to increase residency slots assures poorer trained, inexperienced doctor-patient discussions about complicated medical issues, not better ones. Shared does not mean better.


• Finally, liability risks remain for doctors caught in these unenviable mandates that fail to recognize the individual complexities of an individual patient's care.  Until doctors sense a modicum of effort for liability reform, they will continue to offer care that exposes both themselves and their patient's to the path of lowest legal risk, irrespective of what teaching aids they give to patients.

Doctors and the AMA should demand transparency in the cost of creating and funding the PCORI and its shared decision making materials, yet another layer in the runaway middleman health care behemoth emerging as the front lines of health care delivery are systematically decimated. 

If that doesn' t matter to all of us, then share away.

-Wes

One for the Price of Two

If you want to grow the expense of health care delivery in America very quickly, then create two government agencies to do the same job.

From the 28 September 2011 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, we read about a small paragraph in our new health care law that created the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). From that same article, here's the PCORI's mission:

PCORI responds to a widespread concern (eds note: emphasis mine. Really? What about the internet?) that, in many cases, patients and their health care providers, families, and caregivers do not have the information they need to make choices aligned with their desired health outcomes.

PCORI funding is set at a total of $210 million for the first 3 years and increases to approximately $350 million in 2013 and $500 million annually from 2014 through 2019. With more than $3 billion to spend between now and the end of the decade, PCORI will support many studies encompassing a broad range of study designs and outcomes that are relevant to patients, aiming to assist people in making choices that are consistent with their values, preferences, and goals.

We should recall that there is an agency in the federal government that already does this called the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ). The mission statement of this agency reads:

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) mission is to improve the quality, safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of health care for all Americans. Information from AHRQ's research helps people make more informed decisions and improve the quality of health care services. AHRQ was formerly known as the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research.

(From another page on the same website:

AHRQ Agency Staff: Approximately 300.
Fiscal year 2010 Budget: $372 million.
Fiscal year 2011 Budget Request: $611 million
Research: Approximately 80 percent of AHRQ's budget is invested in grants and contracts focused on improving health care.

Ahem. Could someone please tell me why there are two agencies doing the same thing and how on earth they're different?

Wouldn't cutting one of them be a good way to save about $500 million per year for America's taxpayers?

-Wes