Uncategorized

Imagining the Possible

Bruce PyensonThe emperor we call American healthcare is wearing no clothes—or perhaps too many clothes. The  United States spends too much on healthcare. More than 25% of our healthcare dollars are wasted on unnecessary utilization. With this in mind, we recently completed research that identifies where that waste resides. Our analysis offers a target for how far the country might go in weeding out waste. We used the top-performing health systems as a basis, employing actuarial models to extrapolate results for the entire country. Our “16 to 12” model is a standard you can use to measure healthcare reform proposals. It can help you quickly identify defenders of different pieces of the status quo—and defenders of the absurd. In the few weeks since “16 to 12” came out, we’ve heard an almost universal reaction: “Of course you’re right, but [fill in special interests] won’t let it happen.” That’s amazingly positive—maybe we can actually reach consensus on fixing the system.

Framing the vision

In 2006, approximately 16% of the gross domestic product was spent on healthcare. Even if the United States were to reduce its healthcare expenditures to 12% of GDP, we would still spend far more than any other country. Is this possible? Our reduction is less than many estimates of healthcare waste. It’s also more than the annual spending on motor vehicles—4% of GDP could power a new American century.

Numbers for a growing consensus

Opposition to waste seems universal, from President Obama to Senator Max Baucus. They join a chorus of other voices, from CEOs and medical trade organizations to employer groups. Let’s take them all up on this point by quantifying opportunities for reductions in waste.

The table below offers a detailed inventory of efficiencies by service category, for one year’s costs. For example, inpatient services in 2008 cost an estimated $500 billion. Our working efficiency model reduced that by 38% to $311 billion.

Picture 4

These reductions are based on evidence-based best practices, including reducing unnecessary imaging and surgeries, better managing inpatient admissions, increased reliance on generic drugs, embracing primary care and certain electronic transactions, and other 20th-century (not even 21st-century!) management practices.

We’re proposing that healthcare payers (governments, employers, and individuals) could reallocate more than half a trillion dollars each year to other priorities.

The saved money could be used in other sectors, such as increased wages and infrastructure investment initiatives, and possibly even toward deficit reduction, reduced taxes, funding Medicare, etc.

The money saved could also stimulate the economy. And even though we’re working with 12% as the target model, we think it can get even lower than that.

Economic stimulus programs will likely increase healthcare spending, especially by federal and state governments. The 12% target may have to fight that surge, but we’re not talking about speculative long-terms gains, such as getting all Americans to exercise and reach a healthy weight.

What will the new system look like?

Although the healthcare system is typically divided into three categories—physicians/healthcare professionals, hospitals, and prescription drugs—our vision directly benefits patients.

We point to patients consistently receiving attention and care, according to treatment plans based on evidence-based medicine.  All patients’ interactions will be streamlined through administrative systems, along with expanded hours via e-mail and phone access. We also suggest that the average patient will be more informed about choosing the appropriate care due to the reduction in costs; in turn, fewer medical errors should occur.

Another big change in the desired model is the re-engineering of hospital care.

Hospitals would operate on a 12/7 (12 hours a day, seven days a week) or 24/7 basis. While many hospitals currently don’t provide diagnostic treatment services on weekends or after standard business hours, that would change under this vision.

We believe hospitals can do a much better job lowering their readmissions. A separate report estimates that 18% of Medicare hospitalizations result in readmission within 30 days. A majority of those are potentially avoidable.

Our report didn’t delve deep into prescription drugs, but we suggest that there are efficiencies to be found in improvements to the FDA approval process and in a more widespread embrace of generic drugs.

It’s important to point out that we can become even more efficient than this vision. For example, we can dramatically improve end-of-life care, fix medical malpractice, and reduce administrative costs on better than a pro-rata-with-claims basis—all things that could push healthcare spending below 12% and improve the patient experience.

Winners and losers

Given this demanding vision, hospitals and other providers who don’t adapt to an efficiency- and quality-driven system will lose out.

For the nation, this vision offers more winners than losers. Patients and consumers would be the biggest winner and the U.S. economy overall would benefit. Employers would minimize the yoke of expensive benefits that has made it difficult to compete with leaner companies in other countries.

Proposals for healthcare reform now have the glamour of springtime fashions. Our 16% to 12% vision measures what’s under these emperors’ new clothes.

Pyenson, Fitch, Goldberg, Imagining 16% to 12%. 2009. Available online at http://www.milliman.com/expertise/healthcare/publications/rr/pdfs/imagining-16-12-RR02-01-09.pdf

Lead author Bruce Pyenson, FSA MAAA, is a Principal and Consulting Actuary with Milliman, an actuarial and consulting firm with offices worldwide. Kate Finch RN serves as a Principal and Management Consultant with Milliman. Sara Goldberg, FSA, MAAA serves as Consulting Actuary with the firm.

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

18
Leave a Reply

18 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
15 Comment authors
BruceHealth Plan VeteranJennifer Njackson sActuary Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Bruce
Guest
Bruce

As co-author of “16 to 12,” I wanted to thank all the posters — both supporters and especially the critics, who have raised some great points and issues. Best of luck to you all.

Nate
Guest
Nate

wonder if someone came on THCB spamming conservative propoganda if their links would stay up. It’s the exact same post cut and paste every couple days.

Actuary
Guest
Actuary

A little perspective for jackson s The above CEOs aggregate salaries are about $200M (of which they probably pay about $60M to Uncle Sam). Healthcare spending in the US for 2007 was about $2.4T. So .0083% of health care dollars are spent on CEO salaries, or $1 of every $12,000 spent on healthcare. Where is the mention of Hospital CEOs salaries? I know this is a stratch, but what about food companies salaries — millions in the US go hungry, and how come its not a “right” to have food, the US spends more on food than any other country,… Read more »

Health Plan Veteran
Guest
Health Plan Veteran

In my years of health plan experience, I’ve seen a number of actuarial consulting studies with findings similar to those presented here (regards to Ron Harris, one of your Milliman colleagues). There is tremendous potential to reduce what the US spends on health care. The issue has always been and continues to be what specific action steps need to take place, and how much cost will need to be incurred, to realize the potential savings. The lack of a unified payer approach is one of these obstacles. Only on a collective basis can the patients and dollars involved reach critical… Read more »

Jennifer N
Guest
Jennifer N

A NEW STUDY SHOWS THAT SINGLE-PAYER REFORM WOULD BE A MAJOR STIMULUS FOR THE US ECONOMY and would provide:
** 2.6 Million New Jobs,
** $317 Billion in Business Revenue,
** $100 Billion in Wages, and
** $44 Billion New Tax Revenues
You can find out more about this study here: http://www.CalNurses.org/
The press release is here: http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/2009/january/nurses-to-congress-expanding-medicare-could-reverse-job-losses-and-repair-our-broken-healthcare-system-and-safety-net.html

jackson s
Guest
jackson s

The huge insurance company profits—BILLIONS EACH YEAR—could provide quality healthcare for millions of people. We need to get the insurance companies OUT of healthcare . The only solution is a NON-PROFIT SINGLE-PAYER HEALTHCARE SYSTEM – and the single payer should not be an insurance company or a group of insurance companies. HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY PROFITS IN 2007: • UnitedHealth Group — $ 4.654 BILLION. UnitedHealth Group owns Oxford, PacifiCare, IBA, AmeriChoice, Evercare, Ovations, MAMSI and Ingenix, a healthcare data company • WellPoint — $ 3.345 BILLION. Wellpoint owns BLUES across the US, including Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, Blue Cross… Read more »

Actuary
Guest
Actuary

Using these numbers, the Admin. cost for all but government is 9.3% of premium, assuming Medicare/Medicaid is at 3% (up front admin., which leads to add’l waste & fraud).

Nate
Guest
Nate

Jeff’s link reminds me of those ads with the very pretty girls that want to meet me now, click with hope but always end with disappointment. Jeff, no study has ever claimed administration cost more then unnecessary care. Administration runs 5-10% of claims, unnecessary care around 20-30% depending on who you believe. I would suggest you look up the term HMO as you apparently have no clue what one is. At their peak they had around 25% of the market, considerably lower today. Further the nature of HMOs put them at the forefront of administrative innovation, HMOs like Kaiser and… Read more »

Jeff
Guest

More than half of our healthcare cost is waste according to a study by Price Waterhouse Coopers. Most of this is in “administration”. The paper pushing HMOs and pre-authorization craze is burying us.
Check out my blog entry at http://pharmastats.blogspot.com/2008/04/12-tillion-wasted-each-year-in-our.html for more details and links to the study.

rbar
Guest
rbar

That’s what i say all the time here – we are spending billions on stuff with no or little benefit. Dr. Lippin, I am a physician and I have never treated “joblessness” or “poverty”. What I work up, treat and see treated by others all the time are: anxiety symptoms/overobservation of normal physiology, nonsensical, commercially promoted self diagnoses (patients reporting “restless legs”, their actual description not even remote to the actual (mostly benign) disorder, patients reporting “GERD” as a symptom), and patients pushing for imaging studies that are nonsensical. It is true, the US is medicalized – and if we… Read more »

Healthcare Guru
Guest

This is a good scenerio anaysis. In principle the cost can be reduced even further. The question is how to implement. The key to reduction of healthcare cost is ethics and value. How would you control the over diagnostic and over treatment, how would you reduce the administrative waste? I recall – and hope I read it write – that there are 1 exec mgr for every 7 doctor. That is quite a waste – is it not. Note that these are only execs which of course would then far more underlings. Focus on just that would reduce huge cost.… Read more »

Dustin Lipson
Guest
Dustin Lipson

By using the “top performing health systems as a basis”, is the notion that you wrap the benefits of reduced practice pattern variation (by using the “best practice”), lean/quality initiatives, effective use of HIT, all into one? How have you defined “top performing”? By medical outcomes vs. dollars spent on care? The approach seems novel, but the level of detail provided here is too high level for it to be a meaningful discussion piece.

Merle Bushkin
Guest

Sid,
The issue isn’t that our costs are too high. Virtually everyone agrees they are. The question is what to do about it – and this seemingly arbitrary analysis could lead to wrong, and even stupid, actions!

Sid
Guest
Sid

Maybe they are pulling numbers out of thin air but at least they are in line with the rest of the world. I hear the US System spends 16%+ on health. That is a lot! More than everyone else, unless my sense of numbers is off. What a waste, what a waste. The US system is a bit bundle of not-good use from what I hear.

Merle Bushkin
Guest

Perhaps others understand your analysis but it is not at all clear to me. It appears that you are pulling numbers out of the air!
Are you arbitrarily picking 12% of GDP as a target and then spreading it over your categories or are you starting with the categories, applying some magical formula to them that represents waste and then arriving at 12%