Grass Roots: It's Time To Take Action on MOC

As many long-term readers of this blog are aware, because of concerns over its coercive nature, I have been investigating the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program implemented in large part by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) since studying for my third round of re-certification.  As part of that investigation, I have uncovered what appears to be a carefully crafted propaganda campaign using poor scientific methods, non-practicing authors from think-tanks, the veterinary profession, and the ABMS/ABIM hierarchy to serve as "evidence" of the program's legitimacy, as well as much more troubling financial dealings of the ABIM and the ABIM Foundation.

I brought these concerns to the leadership at the Heart Rhythm Society via an email left on their website on 2 January 2015 that included a link to my investigation of the ABIM's tax records.  The Heart Rhythm Society's office as closed at that time (they returned 5 January 2015), but I never received a response to that email initially.  So I called the Heart Rhythm Society on the 14th of January and asked to speak with Mr. James Youngblood, their President and CEO, about my concerns regarding the ABIM. I seems he was unavailable at the time but I was assured they had found the email and that I would receive a response  "in 24-48 hours." Yesterday I received the email and this is what he said:

"Sorry for the delay in responding to your email request. We appreciate the information you shared and your opinion in this matter.  Regarding your follow-up voice message inquiring about what the HRS offers in support of ABIM-MOC, HRS provides the opportunity for members to earn up to 42 MOC medical knowledge points on a complementary basis. (Opportunity for MOC points expires 10/15/15)

We have extensive additional information provided at http://www.hrsonline.org/Education-Meetings/Maintenance-of-Certification#16575

We have provided ongoing feedback to the ABIM around our concerns with their approach to the MOC program. We will continue that dialogue.

With regard to an financial concerns with ABIM, we will continue to monitor the situation closely and inform our members should any action be required.

Thanks, J

James H. Youngblood
Chief Executive Officer
Heart Rhythm Society
NEW ADDRESS:
1325 G St. NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
(Phone numbers redacted)
www.HRSonline.org

It seems the very public outcry by practicing physicians over the entire ABMS/ABIM-MOC program is being met with little action despite the evidence of its corrosive effects on our profession of medicine. Therefore, I have decided to begin a grass roots effort to ask my own professional medical society, the Heart Rhythm Society, to immediately cease their promotion and marketing of the ABMS/ABIM MOC program and instead to turn their considerable resources to removing the corrupt ABMS MOC program from the Affordable Care Act. To that end, I am now circulating a petition for Heart Rhythm Society members (and other interested practicing physicians) to sign to send a clear message to our society's leadership that we need more than words, we need action, to stop the use of this unproven and unethical MOC program that has been foisted without evidence of its effectiveness for improving patient care upon practicing US physicians. Anything less is unacceptable, given what we now know about the program.

I would ask that Heart Rhythm Society members who agree with this petition to sign it and designate their membership status with the Heart Rhythm Society in the "Notes" section and then send it on to your colleagues. 

It is time we send a strong message to our professional organizations that we demand more than words in response to our deep concerns with the ABMS/ABIM MOC program.

Thank you -

-Wes

The Tradeoffs of Obamacare

A few from above, from Saurabh Jha, MD (Twitter: @roguerad):

The biggest trade-off is between a constitutional republic, with all its checks and balances, and a centrally-planned healthcare.  The two are fundamentally incompatible.  The future will yield many more convulsions.  Many more Halbigs.

The optimism surrounding the ACA, summed up by President Obama's promise "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," gave many the impression, myself included, that healthcare reform can be Pareto optimal; a win-win for all.

Regrettably, trade-offs are a fact of life.  Which means there are winners and there are losers.  This is not unusual.  But by not acknowledging the trade-offs we have created resentment in the losers, and widened the partisan chasm.

Read the whole thing.

-Wes

An Insider's Guide to a Health Care Policy White Paper

Do you want to "raise awareness" of how physician quality and value information impacts health care decision making?   Do you want to spin your data via the Associated Press internationally?

Just have the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation pay for a survey!

We all know how great surveys are, especially when you design it to "raise awareness" for the low, low price of $604,454!

For that price, you get:

(1) A nice glossy white paper that contains a concerned patient looking away while she's being examined by a doctor on the cover
(2) Lots and lots of numbers and scientific-looking charts.
(3) An NORC Press release (After all, it was laundered through the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Policy Research!)
(4) A republishing of your "key points" by a few business-minded online health care journals eager to demonstrate relevance of using "quality measures" to determine health care "value."
(5) An opportunity to collaborate "on all aspects of the study!"

See how easy it is to make sure you get your major points out there to the decision makers!  (Never mind that a quality physician means many different things to many different people - stop being a perfectionist, okay?)

Look, these guys did a survey with 25% response rate that totaled a whopping 1002 people - or about 0.000000317 of the current US population!  Heck, no bias there, right?  Then they add a few "sampling weights" and calculate the survey response rate using the important sounding American Association of Public Opinion Research's Method 3!

What's that?  You're not familiar with Method 3?  What kind of scientist ARE YOU???? 

Here. Let me help:  If Method 1,2, or 4 doesn't get you the desired number, you use Method 3!  The survey response rate for Method 3 is calculated from the handy, dandy Response Rate Method Calculator where:

I = Complete Interviews
R = Refusal and Break Offs
NC = Non-contacts
O = Other
e = the estimated cases of unknown eligibility that are eliglible! (In other words, a guess)
UH = Unknown Household
UO = Unknown Other

Using these definitions , the "Method 3" calculation for the survey response rate becomes:

I / (( I+P) + (R + NC + O) + e(UH + UO))

See? And that response rate, according to the white paper, after applying "sampling weights" had "an overall margin of error" of  "+/- 4.0 percentage points, including the design effect resulting from the complex sample design."

 Heck ya, I'm seeing accuracy there, aren't you?

These days, it's really important that lots of people see these data so policy makers (who have about as much scientific wattage as an LED), can turn to them to create controlling policy and regulations that benefit those who make - you got it - the policy and regulations!  Especially in US health care.  That's because doctors are getting a bit unruly and need to understand why they must fall in line on all this physician quality measurement stuff.  Perhaps one of the introductory paragraphs of the published white paper says it best:

"Major investments are being made in health care systems like Accountable Care Organizations and in tools like Physician Compare. Similarly, health insurers and employers are exploring new benefits designs that incentivize consumers to select providers and hospitals that provide the highest-quality care while reducing costs through value-based provider networks and tiered health plans."

So there you have it!

It's important that we all understand just how critical these surveys paid for by political organizations will be to health care in the years ahead.  Spin, you see, is everything.  Thank goodness the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (who's CEO, by the way, has also partnered on other publications about patient safety and medical professionalism with members of the American Board of Internal Medicine and National Quality Forum) can show us the way!

I feel so reassured that this is the caliber of science being used to shape US health care now.

Seriously.

What could go wrong?

-Wes

Three Health Care Trends Patients Will Notice in the New Year

As we enter the New Year, I like to reflect on where we've been and where we're heading in medicine. By far and away, this is the most tumultuous time I have ever experienced in health care.  Doctors and nurses appear stressed and downtrodden, administrators are running scared, desperate to seem "value-added," and patients are scrambling to get seen in these last two days of 2013.

It's strange really.

I thought I'd try to make some realistic predictions of what patients should expect in the year ahead now that the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (PPACA) begins to sink it's tap root into the American medical system.

Triage

With the sudden expansion of the patient pool without a relative expansion of the physician pool, patients can expect a greater degree of triage to occur in medicine when they need to see a doctor. Triage will occur in many ways, but will fall along two lines: (1) treat the most urgent then (2) the most lucrative. Like it or not, these priorities will drive care for most medical facilities, especially our newly minted Accountable Care Organizations (aka, large hospital systems and care networks).  Specialists will become purely  proceduralists, internists and family practice doctors will see specialty follow-up and manage a team of nurse practitioners and "physician extenders," and these care extenders will become the front line care team for the more common ailments. In effect, follow-up specialty care will shift down the health care "food chain" to those less specialized in the name of improving "efficiencies" in health care. Some will argue this is cherry- picking lucrative patients and procedures, others will see this as a survival necessity for health care systems squeezed for revenue. Call it what you will, but realize it's another unintended consequence of the changes taking place in our health care market today.

Costs

There is no question that out-of-pocket costs (both direct and hidden) for health care will continue to rise for patients.  Given the recent holiday season, most Americans are strapped for cash at the beginning of the year.  But insurer's want their first installment for coverage as early as 10 January 2014.  Hidden in their premium will be a 2% tax added to the every insurance plan's premiums, plus a $2 fee that goes to the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) created by our new health care law.  As I've previously pointed out, the costly PCORI replicates functions already performed by the Agency for Health Care Quality and Research (AHRQ). The PCORI's budget is also scheduled to mushroom from $350 million to over $500 million annually in the years 2014-2019 with patients paying directly for this government agency thanks to this added fee.  And what do they get in return from the PCORI?  A wealth redistribution scheme to pay for even more "patient-centered" research redundancy.

Patient's take-home pay will also be reduced for middle-class individual tax filers earning more than $200,000 and families earning more than $250,000.  This is because they will pay an added 0.9 percent Medicare surtax on top of the existing 1.45 percent Medicare payroll tax. They’ll also pay an extra 3.8 percent Medicare tax on unearned income, such as investment dividends, rental income and capital gains.

Finally, patients will quickly begin to understand what the terms "deducitible," "co-pay," and "co-insurance" mean when it hits their pocketbooks.  My bet: they won't be happy about it.

Finally there's the issue of health insurance subsidies actually being tax credits.  As reported in the Wall Street Journal:

The federal subsidies that will help many people pay for their coverage are actually tax credits tied to their income. They will go to people making as much as 400% of the federal poverty rate—in most states, $94,200 for a family of four in 2013. The more you make, the smaller your subsidy. The subsidy process "will all be part of the tax computation," says Judy Solomon, of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

People can choose to receive these credits as monthly payments that flow to their insurers over the course of the year. But if they do this, and the subsidies turn out to be too large—if the consumer's income was higher than expected and she should have received a smaller subsidy than was dispersed—the recipient may need to repay at least part of the overshoot.

To avoid this situation, people should report major changes in income to their exchange website when they occur. Consumers who know in advance that their income may fluctuate can also take "less financial support," meaning a smaller subsidy upfront, or opt for a lump sum at year's end, says Cheryl Fish-Parcham, of the consumer group Families USA. 

The government giveth and the government taketh away.   Hey, someone has to pay for all of this bureaucracy.

Confusion

The difficulties experienced with the government's HealthCare.gov website will have their trickle-down effects felt in 2014.  Given the number of vendors involved in development of the site, and their unwillingness to claim responsibility for the site's shortcomings, patients who registered on the site are likely to have little recourse for their difficulties readily apparent.  Social workers will be saddled with helping these patients, along with their other duties.  As if they don't have enough to do already.

Doctors will be introduced (perhaps "force-fed" is a better verb) to the "new and improved" ICD-10 coding scheme in 2014.  With bureaucracy run amok in medicine, this is another hassle foisted upon physicians and care-givers.  Compliance with the scheme is now a pre-requisite for physicians to be paid properly.  Expect more screen time, cursing,  and less patient-care time from your doctor as a result.

Insurers will be even more aggressive with denials based on insurance industry-developed "coverage decisions."  Doctors and patients alike will continue to find this frustrating as insurers must assure their profit margins.

So as we begin the New Year, strap in, and get ready for Health Care 2014.

We're all going to be taken for quite a ride by the changes ahead.  Rest assured, though, that there are still many doctors and nurses out there who will try to help ease their patients' burdens in such a stressful time for everyone.

-Wes



  

With Obamacare: Remember the Challenger

By now, the Obamacare insurance exchange debacle is old news. Our attention spans are so short, we're on to the next disaster.  So we sit before our TVs and enjoy the Humana ads with a smiling senior pointing to a whiteboards with their insurance plan name, or watch the news sponsored by Unitedhealth or Walmart's pharmacy department. Everyone's got a cheaper plan these days with more benefits than the other guy, and the good news never ends for you, according to our insurance companies.

Sign up people. No worries.

Even if they take you to the cleaners.

It was interesting reading the piece over at Kaiser Health News asking why a couple without kids has to buy dental insurance for children they don't have. Or  the free colonoscopy "catch" never discussed in the Obamacare ads that promoted by the law's proponents. More and more of these not-so-little details are not  as pretty and "free" as everyone had hoped, but it's what we as a nation have approved, hidden in the new law we never read.

Shame on us.

Shame on our legislators.

But we must take a different perspective now that it's becoming crystal clear what central control of health care delivery means.  I think most Americans have been incredibly tolerant of the rollout (and even appreciate the effort involved) since they have a rudimentary understanding of how complicated health care has become in America and how vital it is to our economy.

But I sense (like many others) that Americans' patience is growing thin.  People are wondering how will things be fixed?  How long will it take?  Will I have to pay a penalty for something so fraught with problems?  Who's responsible?  Whom can I call?  Can they be trusted?  Is this going to be how the rest of the health care coverage rollout happens? 

Years ago, millions of people watched the US space shuttle Challenger explode into a million tiny pieces on a crystal clear day shortly after its launch.  We were shocked at first, then deeply saddened, for our idealized notion of the space program so advanced and amazing quickly evaporated before our eyes.  We grieved with the crew's families as we watched in horror the events replayed on TV again and again and again. 

But then what happened?  Investigations followed.  Video tapes were reviewed.  A root cause analysis was undertaken.  Ideas were tested, the O-ring problem identified, and slowly, carefully, changes were made to the shuttle program.  New parts were engineered, other parts scraped.  More thorough testing than ever before occurred.  Then re-testing.  And slowly, cautiously, the shuttle program resumed, one baby step at a time.

And no one ever took a complicated shuttle launch for granted again.

So, too, should it be with our new health care law.

We should remember these lessons we learned from the Challenger disaster.  The Healthcare.gov rollout debacle was no less anticipated and certainly no less spectacular.  We need a root cause analysis of this mess.  We need to identify the problems and fix them if they can be fixed or scrap what can't.  We should stop and ask ourselves what of this law should continue, and what should be scraped.  We should ask the difficult questions and if it truly is in our best interest to proceed with certain parts, test and retest that which remains to make sure the systems are secure and the program functional.  And most of all, we should ask now if this whole grand health care idea is likely to be truly cost effective and sustainable for our nation before rushing ahead toward another disaster.

Because, like the Challenger, it's people's lives we're talking about here, not some stupid website catastrophe.

-Wes

Obamacare 2016: Happy Yet?

From Bradley Allen, MD in the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal this morning:

"The forecast shortage of doctors has become a real problem. It started in 2014 when the ACA cut $716 billion from Medicare to accommodate 30 million newly "insured" people through an expansion of Medicaid. More important, the predicted shortage of 42,000 primary-care physicians and that of specialists (such as heart surgeons) was vastly underestimated. It didn't take into account the ACA's effect on doctors retiring early, refusing new patients or going into concierge medicine. These estimates also ignored the millions of immigrants who would be seeking a physician after having been granted legal status.

It is surprising that the doctor shortage was not better anticipated: After all, when Massachusetts mandated health insurance in 2006, the wait to see a physician in some specialties increased considerably, the shortage of primary-care physicians escalated and more doctors stopped accepting new patients. In 2013, the Massachusetts Medical Society noted waiting times from 50 days to 128 days in some areas for new patients to see an internist, for instance.

But doctor shortages are only the beginning.

Even before the ACA cut $716 billion from its budget, Medicare only reimbursed hospitals and doctors for 70%-85% of their costs. Once this cut further reduced reimbursements, and the ACA added stacks of paperwork, more doctors refused to accept Medicare: It just didn't cover expenses.

Then there is the ACA's Medicare (government) board that dictates and rations care, and the board has begun to cut reimbursements. Some physicians now refuse even to take patients over 50 years old, not wanting to be burdened with them when they reach Medicare age. Seniors aren't happy."

Medicaid in 2016 has similar problems. A third of physicians refused to accept new Medicaid patients in 2013, and with Medicaid's expansion and government cuts, the numbers of doctors who don't take Medicaid skyrocketed. The uninsured poor now have insurance, but they can't find a doctor, so essentially the ACA was of no help.

The loss of private practice is another big problem. Because of regulations and other government disincentives to self employment, doctors began working for hospitals in the early 2000s, leaving less than half in private practice by 2013. The ACA rapidly accelerated this trend, so that now very few private practices remain."

Read the whole thing (subscription required, sorry).  Not surprisingly, it's not pretty.

-Wes

When We Conflate Health Care With Medical Care

From Marilyn M. Singleton, M.D., J.D.:

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying all the wrong remedies.” -Groucho Marx

The politics of selling the Affordable Care Act (ACA) focuses on promising health and wellness. Somehow, having “coverage” is supposed to get you to a primary care doctor, who will keep you healthy. And if he doesn’t, he will be held accountable by not being paid.

The fact is that “healthcare reform” is not going to cure America’s health problems.

Physicians, think tanks, and politicians are pointing out a myriad of problems with ACA. But most of them miss the main point, which starts with calling it “healthcare reform.” The term, and the conversation about it, conflates health care and medical care. But they are not the same thing. Individuals are in charge of their own health care. Physicians provide medical care to those who become sick.

(Read the rest, especially the comments)

As I and others see the problems with "wellness initiatives" promoted by politicians and the insurance industry as cornerstones of our efforts to cut costs in our medical system, we should consider if institutional financial incentives will thwart any effort to achieve cost savings as physician productivity quotas are increasingly turned to as the driving force de rigueur for hospital profitability. Unfortunately, physicians are losing their ability to be stretched much further, especially as they struggle to keep up with the mushrooming number of inefficient certification and data-entry requirements, flooded e-mail in-boxes, and coding requirements necessary to continue practicing medicine in our new "reform" era. Then add the increasingly frequent hassles doctors are experiencing with their patients' insurance claim denials that go on for months. Medical care suffers as a result. Even our frontline force for quality medical care, nurses, are being stretched thin as many of their ranks are either let go or recruited as cleaning crews on top of their other patient care responsibilities.

Meanwhile, the insurance companies are recording record profits as Americans pay more and more into our system.

But, hey, thanks to the Electronic Medical Record and health care "reform" it sure is easy to order another colonoscopy in the name of "wellness" and "health care," right?

-Wes

The IRS, NSA, and Justice Department Scandals and What They Mean for HIPAA

As my head reels at the implications of the IRS scandal mushrooming in Washington, the IRS's recently disclosed ability to access e-mails without warrant, the intricacy of the NSA PRISM wiretap techiques that includes their ability to acquire tech firms' digital data, and even the Justice Department's ability to secretly acquire telephone toll records from the Associated Press, I wonder (as a doctor) what all this means for the privacy protections afforded by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) in our new era of mandated electronic medical records.  Are such privacy protections credible at all?

It doesn't seem so.

Now it seems everyone's health data is just as vulnerable to federal review as their Google search data.  This is not a small issue.  We have already seen that discovering "leaks" of personal health information has produced some very handsome rewards for the feds, so it is not beyond reason to think that HIPAA might also be a funding tool for our government health care administration disguised as a beneficent effort to protect the health care data of our populace.

But even more concerning is the role the IRS scandal has for America's health care system.  After all, the Affordable Care Act is ultimately funded by the IRS by administering some 47 tax provisions.  These include the right to levy a penalty against businesses and individuals who don't provide or acquire insurance and determining how to distribute annual subsidies to 18 million people who make less than $45,000 a year and thus qualify for subsidies in buying health coverage. In addition, the agency will collect taxes on medical devices and a surtax on people making more than $200,000 a year, as well as conducting compliance audits of tax-exempt hospitals.

We are left to wonder: given the IRS's recent actions in favor of one political party, could other aspects of our evolving health care system be similarly politically targeted?  What if the government agencies turn a disapproving eye on physician-run hospitals or independent concierge medical practices?  What if the market place emergence of a two-tier health care system is systematically crushed?  For these types of concerns we instinctually rely on a fair, beneficent government, but these latest revelations challenge that assumption.

To the political class, the ends always justifies the means.  Now, we're seeing that the means includes stealth digital tracking, e-mail browsing, and wiretaps.

Health care data protection by HIPAA?

Meh.

We should think about the far-reaching implications of what we're seeing from our government agencies as we turn the reins of health care financing over to them lock, stock, and barrel.  Perhaps Peggy Noonan said it best:

What does it mean when half the country—literally half the country—understands that the revenue-gathering arm of its federal government is politically corrupt, sees them as targets, and will shoot at them if they try to raise their heads? That is the kind of thing that can kill a country, letting half its citizens believe that they no longer have full political rights.

Those who think this is just business as usual are ahistorical, and those who think nothing can be done, or nothing serious should be done, are suffering from Cynicism Poisoning.

In the blink of an eye, HIPAA privacy protections now seem small.

Very, very small.

-Wes

Addendum: Thanks to @BillHart46 for pointing me to this: Suit Alleges IRS Improperly Seized 60 Million Personal Medical Records

Health Care Reform Three Years Later - An Insider's Assessment

It’s been three years since the Patient Protection and Accountable Care Act (PPACA) became law.  There have been widely divergent opinions published by journalists on the impact of the law for Americans: from a rose-colored account from the New York Times, to a not-so-peachy account published at Reason.com.  Few doctors have ventured into this discussion.

The Need for Health Care Cost Reform

I should start by saying that I am biased.  I grew up in the days of an idealized image of the physician –where doctors were still held in relatively high esteem by our society.  I had to think this way for I was joining the system.  Back then, like now for the younger doctors, medicine was a still considered a calling, not just a job.  The unspoken code was that it was the patient above all else: screw the establishment, screw hospital loyalty, screw the drug company – if they couldn’t help your patient, you’d take them elsewhere.  So hospitals courted doctors.  Drug companies courted doctors.  Insurance companies courted doctors.  But the truth be known, doctors weren’t the apple in everyone’s eye, patients were.  And doctors enjoyed the limelight – so much so, that a few in our ranks succumbed to the greed, too.  After all, like now, patients paid everyone’s bills.

But health care costs for patients became increasingly hard to cloak.  Insurance companies, in the business of making the expensive seem cheap, needed an exit strategy.  The new hospital buildings, multi-million dollar corporate earnings, drug innovations costing tens of thousands of dollars, and the aging population that was growing too quickly weighed heavily on the entire system’s sustainability.  Something had to be done.

The First Steps

So without belaboring the obvious: we created Health Care Reform as we know it.  Health Care Reform wasn’t just the PPACA, though, but rather a carefully orchestrated series of legislative achievements that laid the groundwork for payers to offload the costs of health care on to the only other entity that could pay these high costs: our government. 

The process (as we have seen) first involved an expensive, multibillion computer roll-out that was part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  These computer systems promised “cost savings” by “improving efficiencies” of care.  Information systems were sold as our salvation from cost excesses like $15 Tylenols.  Corporate America (and their political lobbyists) bought it and so did the government.  To keep doctors quiet, doctors were promised $44,000 a piece to install computers in their offices.  Little did they realize their payments from government to private offices were to be slashed forty percent in the same legislation and computers would be required to bill the government.  So, the $44,000 actually went to doctors’ new employers.  Doctors were thanked for their services with a new $700-dollar iPad and a treasure trove of Meaningful use regulatory benchmarks that slowed patient care rather than sped it.

Our New "Reform"

Next came the PPACA, our signature health care law.  The law was spun as a way to save health care costs while adding 34 million more uninsured patients to the system.  Pulling heart strings was much more palatable politically than the much needed reality of fiscal restraint.

But we should admit that our health care system has flaws when it comes to the uninsured.  To prove the health care reform’s benefits, the easy-to-sell low-risk coverage for young adults was given as a loss leader to the new health care law's Health Care Happy Meal.  This benefit was universally welcomed by all because it was needed.  Yeah, it cost a bit more to provide this insurance, but in the scheme of things, the cost of this health care was relatively cheap to provide.  It was (and remains) a win-win. But our attachment to this part of the law may be a clever way to buy us off.

Preventative services, provided for free, were also included in the PPACA.  But this is a problem because nothing is free in health care.  Proving preventative services for free perpetuates an expectation that everything will be free in health care and have no consequences.  After all, preventative services take time and time for care providers overloaded with more and more patients entering the system is our most precious commodity.   Others argue that catching problems early will save money but the proof that this makes a difference to health care costs is really just a delightful narrative.  In fact, even the annual physical’s benefit to our health care has been called into question – especially when we recognize its value to the system compared to the benefits derived for the patient.

And people have argued that the PPACA has already reduced costs.  While I am not an economist, I really can’t speak to this.  I am just a worker and observer.  These days I see four or five administrators where, just a few short years ago, we had one.  I see fewer nurses with less experience caring for more patients now.  I see bigger buildings but fewer patient beds as wards are consolidated.  I see hospital-system employers with hiring freezes that are laying off workers in anticipation of upcoming costs imposed by the new law. 

How's the Quality?

And then there’s the overall quality of care.  I can’t say I really see a difference from five years ago.  Sure, I see things being done faster by fewer.  I see computers moving information around like never before.  But is the care to our patients really better?  I see reams and reams of documentation made not for the patient’s benefit, but for bureaucrats and bean-counters more interested in our use of computers than our patients.  I see better communication between doctors improved with the EMR, but has this translated to better care delivery? Not always. And when it comes to quality, the New York Times editors cited the example that health care in America is cheaper because Medicare patients have fewer re-admissions since the PPACA was enacted.  But they also failed to note that hospitals receive financial incentives to reward this behavior.  They claim this is “better coordination of care” while ignoring the fact that patients are labeled with scarlet A’s and shunted to health care facilities that don’t "count" as re-admissions.  They also failed to mention the effects of the higher costs that patients see from their higher insurance premiums.  Cha-ching.

What's Ahead

In the end, health care reform is still about the money for the system rather than the real needs of most patients.  We are cutting costs to corporations by inflating our Health Care Hindenburg with cheaper hydrogen.  We have spun a narrative of providing more care for more people with less cost while ignoring the shear forces and telltale weather patterns of cost concerns that blow our way and threaten our ship's buoyancy.  

Some doctors have leapt from the ship.  More will certainly follow.  Others remain silent yet quietly discontented; they do their job as just job now, marking time with little incentive for doing more.  They have become the common workforce drone  increasingly asked to do more by those who go home at 5pm and have no liability for the care they provide.  More risk with less reward has been the mantra for care providers in health care reform.  The stress is growing for everyone.   Unfortunately, the doctors that leave will soon be back-filled by well-meaning young physicians with fewer hands-on hours of training that have been sculpted by an educational system dependent on tenured med-school professors complicit with our new progressive mindset. 

Health care reform is here, alright, doing what it's always done: spinning reform without real reform for three years (so far) and counting.

-Wes

Physician Burnout: Meet Patient Safety

The majority of doctors in America today care deeply about their patients.  After all, they're the ones that have personal relationships with them.  They're the ones who sit with them, speak with them eye to eye, feel their pain, and witness first-hand the scourge of disease on the human body and psyche.

But you'd never know this from the Patient Safety Movement.  From day one when the Institute of Medicine report entitled "To Err is Human" was published in 1999,  the nebulous "98,000 preventable deaths" number was circulated far and wide by media outlets.  Strangely, this important publication was never made available free to physicians for review.   But instantly, the media took notice of this sound bite.  Breathless outrage ensued.  Hospitals took notice.  Even doctors and doctors' associations noticed.  Worse yet, we were still told by the media and their self-appointed safety enthusiasts that "medical errors kill enough people to fill four jumbo jets a week."  But to everyone's credit, we all did some real soul-searching.

So change came to our industry.  Overnight, enough bureaucrats to bury the number of doctors in America three-fold were hired as patient safety do-gooders.  Entire new organizations hell-bent on imposing their vision for the future of patient safety sprang up to guide large hospital organizations to their vision of patient safety nirvana.  None were as influential as the organization called the Institute for Hospital Improvement (IHI) run by the soon-to-be knighted-as-acting-CMS-directorship, Donald Berwick, MD who made a cozy sum from the safety scare.  This is the same "institute" that still provides mandated safety training to hospital systems across the US even today.

But a strange thing has happened.  Despite their best intentions, after ten years of trying with more administrative hires and scores of new imperatives thrust on doctors and nurses with hours of carefully-constructed safety courses, and scores of white papers and media stories, not much has changed.   To be fair, not all efforts have been worthless, but self-reflection on the negative consequences of this movement have been limited.

And in its place, physician burnout has exploded.

But this morning, I saw a glimmer of hope.  People might be starting to do some introspection.

Take a minute and read Bob Wachter's post.  It is a prescient view of the problems created by well-intentioned (but misguided) initiatives that ultimately fall on America's physicians and nurses to implement:

The lack of evidence that all our hard work is paying off is also contributing to burnout. Several influential papers (such as here and here), using the IHI’s Global Trigger Tool methodology, have documented continued high rates of harm; one study of 10 hospitals in North Carolina showed no evidence of improvement between 2002 and 2007. On top of that, a steady drumbeat of studies (beautifully chronicled by Brad Flansbaum) demonstrates that nearly every policy intervention that we thought would work (readmission penalties, “no pay for errors,” pay for performance, promotion of IT, resident duty-hour reductions) has either failed to work, or has led to negative unanticipated consequences. For people who have given their hearts and souls to making the system work better for patients, the result is more demoralization. 

My second major concern about patient safety stems from the Affordable Care Act (ACA), one of whose main goals, paradoxically, is to place a premium on value over volume. You’d think that the patient safety field would benefit from such a law (which also includes significant new spending on safety), and perhaps it will… eventually. But in the short term, the ACA is yet another speed bump on the road to a safe system. 

Just as physicians are overwhelmed and distracted, so too are hospital CEOs and boards. As the healthcare system lurches from its dysfunctional model to a (God willing) better place, healthcare leaders are scrambling to be sure that their organizations have seats when the music stops. The C-suite and boardroom conversations that, a few years ago, were focused on how to make systems better and safer now center on whether to become Accountable Care Organizations, how to achieve alignment with the medical staff, what the insurance exchange will mean for our reimbursement, and the like. To the degree that people remain interested in improved value, here too the emphasis has shifted from the numerator of the value equation (quality, safety, patient experience) to the denominator: cutting costs.

Read the whole thing again and think about what he's saying and what's coming unless real change that improves the burden these safety initiatives have on doctors and nurses occurs.

"Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone.  They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot." 

- from"Big Yellow Taxi" by Joni Mitchell

-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

The End of Our Health Care Happy Meal

With the publication in the New York Times of how taxes would be affected because of the Affordable Care Act, our health care Happy Meal was officially pulled from the menu.

Suddenly, the colorful trinkets and tchotchkes that were the first items pulled from the health care law's brightly colored bag are now being followed by a hefty bill that most people aren't too happy with paying: their personal tax bill.

The political backlash was so swift, so sure, that even the White House noticed.
 
So how did the White House respond?

... Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has the power to adjust how much is withheld from paychecks for tax purposes — for all taxpayers or just for some.  By doing so, Geithner could ensure paychecks reflect the White House position that wealthier taxpayers with annual income higher than $250,000 see their taxes rise. Geithner at the same time could leave withholding tables where they are for the middle class, ensuring those workers don’t see a higher cut from their paychecks.

But America's doctors should remind the White House why this is not a good idea.  After all, Congress uses this kick-the-can-down-the-road approach with us each time they grant a reprieve to the scheduled physician pay cuts mandated by law as part of the Medicare sustainable growth rate adjustments contained within the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

Look where this approach has gotten physicians: each year, since 1997, CMS threatens to cut Medicare payments to physicians some 2.5%. Instead of making the cuts each year as directed by law, Congress caved to political pressure and has delayed the cuts year after year.  But the cuts don't go away: they're just added the the following year's paycut amount.  Now the amount has grown to nearly 30% or so with no easy solution in sight.

Imagine what could happen to America's patients if the same approach delay tactic for collecting taxes to pay for our new health care entitlement law is taken.  Can America's health care cost crisis really afford this political approach that ignores reality?

I'm just a doctor, but methinks this idea of leaving withholdings from people's paychecks unchanged is not a good idea just so the White House can dodge a political bullet. 

Since the White House and democratically-controlled Congress helped push our new law through, they should deal with its ramifications responsibly.  To do otherwise is fiscally irresponsible and risks making our horrible health care cost crisis even larger.

-Wes

The Empty Chairs

It's the skit I would have liked to see by either political party:

The Independent Payment Advisory Board

Eastwood: "So, would each of you like to introduce yourself to the American Public?"

* silence *

Eastwood: "How many of you are licensed physicians?"

A few raise their hands.

Eastwood:   "Really, that's all?  (Mumbles under his breath, "Wow."   He continues:  "How many of you are men and how many are women?"

* silence *

Eastwood: "Given there are 50 states in the United States, could you tell us in which state each one of you live?"

* silence *  As if no one wants to admit where they live...

Eastwood: " If one of you gets sick, are there only 14 people who vote or does someone else gets picked?"

* silence *

Eastwood: "How many of you have parents still living over 75?"

A few hands are raised.

Eastwood: "How many of you are less than 35 years of age?"

* silence *

Eastwood:  "How many of you have ever told someone they have cancer and then cared for them?"

* silence *

Eastwood:  "How many of you received grants of any kind from the US government?  Any of you stand to receive benefits from the US government of any kind?  Might one of those benefits include health care for you or your family?"

* silence *

Eastwood: "Do any of you carry the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene for breast cancer or does anyone in your family?"

* silence *  Some appear confused by the question.

Eastwood: "Would each of you share your religious affiliation with America?  Any atheists amongst you?"

* silence *

Eastwood:  "Well, it seems we're not getting too far.  I guess we'll conclude there and ask the American people what they'd like to ask you..."

* Opens microphone to responsible voices... *

-Wes

Once Again, With Feeling

What If Obamacare Were Found Unconstitutional.

Just sayin'.

Sleep well tonight folks, tomorrow will be the beginning of a whole new... well, something.

-Wes

When the Government Puts Prices on Patients' Heads

Recently, another predictable Trojan-horse provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act appeared that promises to pit doctor versus patient by literally placing a price on patients' heads:

Twenty-thousand physicians in four Midwest states received a glimpse into their financial future last month. Landing in their e-mail inboxes were links to reports from Medicare showing the amount their patients cost on average as well as the quality of the care they provided. The reports also showed how Medicare spending on each doctor’s patients compared with their peers in Kansas, Iowa, Missouri and Nebraska.

The “resource use” reports, which Medicare plans to eventually provide to doctors nationwide, are one of the most visible phases of the government’s effort to figure out how to enact a complex, delicate and little-noticed provision of the 2010 health-care law: paying more to doctors who provide quality care at lower cost to Medicare, and reducing payments to physicians who run up Medicare’s costs without better results.

Of course, no real assessment of physician "quality" is taking place with this scheme nor any outcome assessment.  "Quality" as it is defined in this scheme consists of only an electronic review of patient costs, doctor billing codes, and the patient characteristics of  age, gender, Medicaid eligibility, and medical conditions.   No government entity will actually observe and assess any physician in practice to determine their "value" to the system.  Instead, patients electronically determined to be "low-cost" will be heralded as favored electronic "value" benchmarks.   Even the health care law's original physician cheerleader, former Administrator of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Donald Berwick, MD, was taken back:

“We do have to be cautious in this case. It could lead to levels of gaming and misunderstanding and incorrect signals to physicians that might not be best for everyone.”

Ya think?

-Wes

When Autocracy Rules

Given the number of sections of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that read "The Secretary shall...", today's single-handed overruling by the Secretary of Health and Human Services' Kathleen Sibelius of the FDA's recommendation to permit the emergency contraceptive Plan B One-Step to go over-the-counter based on years of scientific analysis, should put us on notice. Recall that Ms. Sibelius has no medical or scientific degree. To my knowledge, today's action is unprecedented.

Could the FDA, with their requirements for funding from pharmaceutical companies to review cases like this, have a conflict of interest in regards to their decision?

Of course.

But such an autocratic, non-scientific veto by a single individual in charge of the entire United States' health care policy smacks of dictatorial power and should not be taken lightly by the scientific community or the citizens of this great country.

-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

Big Brother to Attend the 2012 ACC Meeting in Chicago

Last year, I became concerned about using RFID tags to track doctors at our annual scientific sessions for "planning" purposes. In return, the ACC explained why (really) this was necessary and how they will "take your concerns in consideration" for future meetings.

Suffice it to say, this year, RFID tags will be used again. From the ACC Scientific Session registration page:

RFID badge scanning technology will be utilized at ACC.12 to better understand attendee/delegate educational interests and preferences to assist with future planning. No personal information is stored in the RFID badge, only an ID number. Exhibiting companies that choose to rent RFID readers to analyze attendee movement in their booth will NOT be provided with attendee names or personal contact information. Only organizational affiliation, clinical focus, and city/state/country information will be provided.

So don't be concerned. After all, this year there's something more that's even better!

Big Brother will be watching.

Yes, doctor, please enter your Medicare NPI number at the time of registration so the government can track you, too.

Why does the government need to do this? We're told:

A provision (Editor: Caution - 323 pages!) within the 2010 federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) requires healthcare companies to disclose any transfer of value to a healthcare provider to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services beginning in 2012. The ACC requests its U.S. healthcare provider attendees supply their publicly-available NPI number so that companies may comply with the above provision.

So companies will have your individually-identifiable Medicare NPI number anyway. You, dear doctor, will be tracked, courtesy of the US government, RFID tag or not.

We should ask ourselves some probing questions about this activity:

1. What in heaven's name is "affordable" to America's health care system about this action? Is it the development of a tracking database? Are our nation's doctors historically untrustworthy in their dealings with industry when attending educational scientific sessions?
2. Is this action required because patients will be harmed or placed at risk by this educational activity?
3. Will other professional and political conferences be similarly tracked?
4. How much does this tracking cost the American taxpayer? Will it cost more to collect the data and analyze it than is saved by tracking meal expenses? In other words, is it cost-effective?

Oh, and one last question:

Are US taxpayers aware they are funding this type of activity?

Well if they weren't, they certainly are now.

-Wes

G.O.M.E.R.

Get. Out. Of. My. Emergency. Room.

Courtesy of your state Health Care Authority. Oh, but at the same time, make sure you're educated about the symptoms of heart disease and stroke.

-Wes

They Can Build It, But Will They Come?

There's an interesting bet being played out across America right now, one that I'm really not sure how it will play out. It is that of continued consolidation and construction in the hospital industry.

Just at a time when the economy is in the doldrums, unemployment is at a steady nine percent or more, and people are paying more for their health care than ever before, we see large hospital systems growing and building at an unprecedented pace. Like squirrels hoarding their nuts for the winter in a panic before the icy winds of winter descend, big hospital systems are building, building, building.

Winter, of course, comes in 2014 for the hospital industry. That's when, according to our recently passed health care bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, kicks in with its employer mandate. As it stands now, in 2014 all large employers with over 50 employees will have to purchase health insurance for their employees, or pay a $2000-per-employee fine.

It doesn't take many Betz cells to know what will happen when employers who presently pay $8000-$9000 per employee for health care benefits suddenly get the opportunity to pay a $2000-per-employee "fine." Do the math: for an employer with 3000 employees, they pay about $65.5 million for the health care benefits they're currently providing compared to a $6 million dollar "fine." Seems like a nearly 10-fold savings to me! Now THAT, ladies in gentleman, is one heck of a beneficial fine!

But just before 1 January 2014, Americans would have had to pick their OWN untested insurance plan from one of those offered by an insurer or the US government. These plans will carry certain prerequisites for coverage mandated by someone really smart on such matters in Washington DC, so be sure to read the fine print. If history is any guide, the govenment will want to make sure people have some "skin in the game" with their health care costs, so a larger portion of people's personal income will go toward paying for that insurance, whether it's constitutional or not to do so. That, you see, is the Grand Plan.

But will people come at the same pace to our great health care empires of the future?

No one knows.

But there sure are lots of things being done to make sure they do. Like "free" preventative health care screenings or free "Welcome to Medicare" physicals touted by policy makers as the new way to save money in health care.

Seems logical to me. (Not really.)

What policy pundits in the health care space don't get is that people don't want to think about being sick. They don't think much about their health care needs at all. They prefer Nascar. This is just human nature. We pay plastic surgeons to stay young. We pay health food stores huge sums of money to eat healthy foods. We exercise until we're blue in the face to keep our weight off. And for goodness sakes, we wear lots of facial products. (For the record, it is good to exercise and eat correctly to improve longevity, but let's be real: this simply delays the inevitable). My point is that people, given their own druthers, would prefer to spend their money on just about anything else besides health care.

And there will sit our Great Empirical Palaces to health care taking care of those who really have no choice but to succumb to the forces of nature: the Expensive Ones. The hospital systems that are located in affluent areas will get cold hard cash above and beyond the mandated insurance coverages to do so and likely survive. Those that cater to the indigent and less fortunate will either have to fold, or become like Cook County hospital in Chicago: a bureaucratically run institution with two separate boards trying to out-manuever the other in a political cat-and-mouse game of who gets to tell the taxpayers of Illinois what they're on the hook for and a shining example of fiscally-strapped public health care if there ever was one.

Which, of course, is what our large non-profit hospital systems are banking on: when the rubber meets the road, you'll want your health care like you want your facial products: nothing but first class for you.

But will people be able to afford such care?

They might not have a choice since the alternative health care option to this conundrum, the independent physician, is rapidly shrinking away in favor of the Grand Plan.

But the big question behind it all, of course, is this:

In the end, when we have no choice, will we really be able to afford all this product?

-Wes