Jane Sarasohn Kahn’s column in iHealthbeat about the impact of the Medicare bill on ePrescribing shows her being a touch cynical about the political process. But don’t worry about it affecting her analysis. Jane explains in detail why nothing will really happen in terms of Federal ePrescribing before 2009, with only passing reference to the AMA, luddites and dinosaurs. She also has some interesting takes on activities on the state level, particularly in Massachusetts. I do think that its overly optimistic to think that this kind of voluntary effort can get more than a few cities or states well on the way to ePrescribing. However, we should have some good answers within 18 months as to whether these efforts really save money. If they do, pressure will increase on other providers to adopt ePrescribing too.
INDUSTRY: Better fewer, but better!
This barely needs repeating but, just in case you weren’t sure, the New England Journal of Medicine article called Surgeon Volume and Operative Mortality in the United States confirms that the more surgery surgeons do, the better they are at it. And of course the less likely their patients are to die. Medrants has some opinions and comments about this, but it’s worth remembering that to my knowledge the Brits and the Canadians (and probably others) keep their number of surgeons and specialists artificially low. This has the side-effect of keeping them very, very busy. Given this report that appears to be a feature rather than a bug.
PS Small non-cash prize awarded to reader who can identify the author of the original title of this post. (Be honest now, NO Googling please!)
POLICY: Malpractice reforms–coming up next, maybe.
Fresh from triumph in the Senate if not in Baghdad, Bush went out next for medical malpractice reform. This goes along with the Republican ideology of sticking it to those Democrat-lovin’ trial lawyers improving the climate for business. However, the businesses who tend to get their issues on the front burner with these Republicans are a little more influential to the President’s core base (anyone for energy?) than the AMA. And the physicians just got a Medicare raise out of the recent bill. While the actual words malpractice suit stick in the throat of any self-respecting doc like an unswallowed fishbone, there are two cautionary thoughts they might have:
One, malpractice isn’t that big a deal. It’s been a while since I looked at this but by my recollection malpractice costs in all its forms add a trivial percentage to overall health care costs. And a study about a decade ago showed that there was more malpractice than malpractice suits (even though half the suits were about care that wasn’t malpractice). With the IOM reporting on quality in health care not being as amazing as the AMA would have you believe, this is not a shut and dried case in the doctors’ favor.
Two, getting this type of reform passed is very hard. It just died in Pennsylvania despite the governor’s promise, and the level of political capital required for national reform is unlikely to be expended by the Administration before their 2005 inauguration (which in turn depends on their winning the peace, or lack of it, in Iraq). But that’s not too bad for the Republicans. As Jeanne Scott knows, a lawyer joke always covers an embarrassing pause on the hustings. Of course, you may have noted that one of those potential Presidents on the other side may perhaps also have an interest here!
POLICY: Medicare morning-after round-up, with update
So a plethera of information about the Medicare bill emerges after the long weekend. The weekend instant pundit talk shows that I saw claimed it was a triumph for the President, with the odd real conservative crying into his egg-nog. Bush though decided that going on a lay-over at Baghdad would be more helpful to his re-election, and I think the Prez got the issue right (if not the policy–but this is a health care blog, Matthew!) Meanwhile, Milt Freudenheim in the NY Times reminded everyone that the competition aspect of the law is mostly irrelevant and elsewhere they found a ton of seniors in Florida who think they got stiffed. Over at Democrat blog DailyKos the previous ignorance of and about the bill has been replaced by a bitter screed showing that the rural care aspect of the bill takes money from big-city hospitals (serving Democrats) to rural ones (serving Republicans). While you should take a pinch of salt with that analysis, you should also consider what happens if the AAMC gets riled. Those big-city academic names have a lot of clout in American health care.
Elsewhere Forrester research (log-in as a guest allowed) believes that the bill will have immediate consequence in three other areas
- More drug discounting via new discount cards. Why? Medicare PBMs wanting to get going in 2006 will give deep discounts now to learn seniors’ online behavior, demographics, and drug history. Allow me some doubt on this one, as the PBMs have shown only moderate interest in cash pay cards so far and seniors have little interest in letting them know about those issues! And even if they knew, where in the bill does it say "restrictive formulary" or "co-marketing arrangement".
- Redefine the market for hospital services as Medicare requires more quality data. Forrester says this will change hospital behavior and help healthcare IT firms. Maybe. But quality measures have been around and been meaningless before and its the IOM rather than politically maleable CMS that tends to drive this, albeit slowly
- Not slow the development of specialty hospitals despite the 18 month moratorium. Agreed.
- See a boom in health savings account (HSAs) and CDH. I’m still very unconvinced that employers are biting at this. And remember that MSAs (same as HSAs) cannot logically contain enough health care spending to be effective in restraining health care costs, whatever optimistic conservative theorists believe. It’s called "insurance" for a reason even if you are a self-insured employer.
Still, while I often find Forrester over-optimistic on the pace of change, they are doing the right thing, which is looking for wrinkles in the Bill that will start changing behavior of market players. So keep looking into the folds of the bill’s flesh both politically and business-wise.
UPDATE: Harvard Professor Bob Blendon (health care’s leading political analyst) gives his take on NPR. Overall, young people like what they’ve heard; seniors hate it, but it won’t matter politically until 2005.
