The Path of Five Fallacies

Roger collierNo, it’s not one of those Chinese operas from the Chairman Mao years, but rather my reaction to a recent  report from the prestigious Commonwealth Fund.  “The Path to a High Performance US Health System,” and its accompanying technical documentation, forecast savings for a “comprehensive set of insurance, payment, and system reforms that could guarantee affordable coverage for all by 2012, improve health outcomes, and slow health spending growth by $3 trillion by 2020.”

On a positive note, both the report and the technical documentation are well worth reading.  The report assembles in a single “system” most of the proposals currently being talked about by HHS Secretary-nominee Kathleen Sebelius and senior staff in the White House Office of Health Reform, while the technical documentation provides a comprehensive analysis of costs and savings that might result from these changes.

So, should we have confidence that the proposed “system” can get us close to universal coverage and make a $3 trillion dent in health care costs? Unfortunately not.

While the Commonwealth Fund report contains many sensible ideas, the conclusions are undermined by five major fallacies.

Fallacy Number One:  Small businesses will accept a “play-or-pay” proposal that forces them to pay a minimum of seven percent of payroll for health care.

There are practical reasons why play-or-pay won’t be effective, but the biggest obstacle is political feasibility. While a seven-percent levy might seem modest to businesses that currently pay much more for coverage, it’s inconceivable that such a proposal in the middle of a recession would produce other than fierce opposition from NFIB and its allies. Unless health care reform is incorporated in a budget reconciliation bill—unlikely since it would upend the Senate tradition of compromise—it will require sixty yea votes, something that small businesses can pretty much guarantee to prevent. (The Commonwealth Fund seems to have forgotten that business lobbyists helped defeat California’s reform bill that called for just a four percent levy.)

Fallacy Number Two:  The insurance industry will allow the creation of a “public plan” to compete with their own offerings—a plan that the Commonwealth Fund estimates will drive provider payments down by as much as thirty percent compared to traditional FFS insurance, and attract up to two-thirds of the individual and group markets.

Oh, s-u-r-e! Given that for most insurers this is a bigger threat even than the 1993 Clinton bill (where at least insurers had the possibility of turning themselves into managed competition entities), the reality is that the public plan proposal is even less likely to succeed than play-or-pay. The assumption that it would be the only FFS plan sold through the proposed insurance exchange is especially likely to leave AHIP leaders foaming at the mouth. Providers are unlikely to be too eager to go along with a proposal that slashes payment rates by thirty percent, either. (And, as I’ve noted previously it’s not that certain that public programs are superior to private coverage.)

Fallacy Number Three:  Government spending on IT of $120 billion over ten years will yield savings of almost $200 billion.

A huge coup for IT lobbyists! There are certainly strong arguments for electronic medical records (no one wants to be on the receiving end of one of those nasty drug-drug interactions), but the forecast savings are unlikely to be anything but illusory. Integrated health care systems like Kaiser may be able to achieve savings (hopefully, given the $4 billion that Kaiser has sunk into its own IT project), but the great majority of US providers have neither the same level of integration nor the same incentives. A more realistic view is found in last year’s Congressional Budget Office report on health care issues, “By itself, the adoption of more health IT offers many benefits, but it is generally not sufficient to produce substantial cost savings because the incentives for many providers to use that technology to control costs is not strong.” (By the way, did anyone in the White House think to ask their own Budget Director, Peter Orszag, who oversaw the preparation of the CBO report, before deciding to spend $19 billion on health care IT?)

Fallacy Number Four:  Establishment of a “Center for Comparative Effectiveness and Health Care Decision-Making” will cut expenditures by more than $600 billion over the next decade.

H-m-m-m. While it’s hard to argue against something that seems so sensible (we’d all prefer our docs to know what works best), the savings projection seems wildly optimistic. The $600 billion estimate assumes that more intrusive (but unfunded) public program claims processing procedures will dramatically change provider behavior. We all know from the Dartmouth Atlas reports that there’s lots of room for improvement, but without the control over resources that the UK’s NICE enjoys, it’s hard to believe that those high-cost providers in Miami (and elsewhere) will go along with slashing their incomes (see Fallacy Number Five). And as the CBO report notes: “it would probably take several years before new research on comparative effectiveness could reduce health spending substantially.”

Fallacy Number Five (perhaps the biggest fallacy of all): Providers and patients will behave the way the Commonwealth Fund (and most of the rest of us) would like them to.

Unfortunately, this piece of wishful thinking is at odds with the incentives in our current supply-driven health care system. Outside of entities like Geisinger, Kaiser, and the Mayo Clinic, improvements in provider efficiency are likely to cut incomes, not increase them. It’s no coincidence that areas with the greatest physician and hospital densities have the highest health care costs. In a health care version of Parkinson’s Law (“Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion”), availability of resources—whether high-tech imaging equipment or physician time—means that the resources will be utilized in patient care. Unless we can change the incentives—or control the introduction or distribution of new resources—we will never solve the health care cost problem.

Roger Collier was formerly CEO of a national health care consulting firm. His experience includes the design and implementation of innovative health care programs for HMOs, health insurers, and state and federal agencies.

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

Categories: Uncategorized

Tagged as: ,

26
Leave a Reply

26 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
16 Comment authors
http://www.cntm.md/books.php?2172lvJeffrey RodmanjrossiDeron S.surfy65 Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
http://www.cntm.md/books.php?2172lv
Guest

dampen your entire running shoe featuring icy temperatures water in order to maintaining a lot of other water spots or it may be models.

Jeffrey Rodman
Guest

The government interference in healthcare will not solve problems long term. Just like Social Security and Medicare this programs will suffer from not having enough financial resources, funded through tax dollars, to support the program and the inevitable cuts will come. A better solution is to allow faith-based and community-based health clinics to care for their own citizens within the community. Government grant funding could help these ministries and non-profits but these clinics are most effective when they are supported with local funds by individual contributors and local foundation grants. In my work with Here-4-You Christian Grant Consulting I meet… Read more »

MD as HELL
Guest
MD as HELL

rbar, The diagnostic overkill is affordable for everyone. Now that the California supreme court has ruled that plans do not have to pay out of network payors anymore than they pay in-network payors, people are free to not pay at all since they are in no network and have never agreed to pay anyone. Why would anyone agree to be taxed to death to pay for something they can steal now fair and square? Millions of people consume healthcare services simply because it costs them nothing. Have you seen a scooter commercial or a lift chair commercial lately? “No cost… Read more »

Christopher George
Guest
Christopher George

In general, the “really smart” people in Academic Medicine like to teach because they don’t like the long relentless hours of medical practice. They are there to avoid practicing medicine. ( Let the residents do the work! )They may not make the income that the presumably not so “really smart” doctors in private medicine make, but they do much less work per dollar they are paid. If Partners did our entire nation”s healthcare our collective bill would probably double.

rbar
Guest
rbar

I think you are very wrong, jrossi. I encounter very many academic and non-academic physicians. The very high earners very often (not always) excel in social networking, ruthless efficiency (often neglecting details) and specialization on procedures with high reimbursement. Some of them are shoddy clinicians. Most (not all) really smart and excellent people are in academics where they earn less (but usually well from 150 K up), because they enjoy teaching, research and intellectual stimulation (not doing the umptieth cardiac cath for the day). JRossi, show me the professions in which you are basically guaranteed to take home 150 K… Read more »

jrossi
Guest
jrossi

Ezra Klein’s comment posted above by Peter is key. One of the major factors in high doctor salaries is the fact that medicine competes with other fields for the services of the energetic, talented people who go into medicine. These people are just not going to do primary care for 100k a year because they could do much better doing something else. You can’t induce these people to become general surgeons for 200k a year. If we want to continue to attract smart young Americans to medicine, we have to pay them one hell of a lot of money. If… Read more »

Deron S.
Guest

The problems in healthcare are simply a manifestation of problems in society as a whole. Greed, selfishness, and myopic thinking are the core problems, not MRI machines, administrative waste, etc. Those are just symptoms. Until we decide as a country that we want to get back on track, we will continue down this unfortunate path. Freedom and diversity, two things that make this country great, will also be our downfall if we don’t step back and look at ourselves. I don’t like having a doomsday attitude, but I’ve engaged in the same conversations about medical homes, HIT, shifting reimbursement from… Read more »

surfy65
Guest
surfy65

George,
You hit the nail on the head. Doctors must be at the heart of the system. Insurance companies should not be the decision makers.
The core problem of our healthcare today is….millions of non-medical people are in the system. By keeping all of them in the system, we simply can not achieve any meaningful reform.

Christopher George
Guest
Christopher George

Peter, The salaried ones are not making what the dozens of “mid-level” hospital or insurance company vice presidents are making. This is nothing like the top eschlon of hospital, legal, drug device, workers are getting. (You really have to love those organisational charts!) The surgeons in private practice have overhead in their offices where they see the patients post-operatively. If you were to look at healthcare, or the economy at large, I don’t think you would pick them as the most overpaid considering the training, education, and long hours specialists work… Doctors are only a small slice of the many… Read more »

Peter
Guest
Peter

Christopher, what about surgeons and specialists (highest paid) practising in hospitals, do they (fairly) pay for overhead or is it absorbed into the overall hospital system? I do agree that the more lawyers we have it seems the higher the fees and the less we have of affordable access. I would support limiting lawyers before I would support limiting docs.

Christopher George
Guest
Christopher George

Peter, Generally speaking, physician payments are often not corrected for expenses which makes them seem high. Physician overhead in a private office is often over 50%. This anomaly leads do-gooders to think that salaried clinic operations where overhead is much higher and patients are much healthier is more “cost-effective”. In our town, once you are actually sick you leave the University associated clinic and find a doctor that will actually help you. Once private practice is obliterated, we will discover this. Why isn’t this (modest)salary model a good one for lawyers? We have over half the lawyers in the world,… Read more »

Christopher George
Guest
Christopher George

The point of my comment is that lots and lots and lots of people are making a lot more money from medicine than doctors, so if we are going to reduce doctors pay, lets also reduce all the other people profiteering from medicine as well. All I ever hear about is cut the doctor’s pay.
If the hospital president or the insurance company president or the trial lawyer or drug company exectutive’s pay was tied to the doctor’s pay there would be a strong incentive to increase the doctor’s pay.

Peter
Guest
Peter

MD makes a good point, we compete world wide for medical staff. I can see paying specialists less in order to pay PCPs more but when playing with incomes you have to be very careful. I would hope that docs go into medicine for more than the pay but balancing pay with skill and workload is very critical. Here is a story about Indian doctors that we need to be mindfull of: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16774871 I do think we can attract more less wealthy people into medicine by paying their schooling in return for flexibility as to where they practice. Here is… Read more »

MD as HELL
Guest
MD as HELL

Who do you think is going to practice medicine in your world, Mr. George? Not only will US medical schools have vacancies, but foreign medical graduates will stay home. The cost of care will go down, however, since only the exceptionally desperate will submit to treatment for anything. You will have universal coverage: Everyone will run for cover.

Christopher George
Guest
Christopher George

If we limited all players in medicine to a low multiple of a primary care income, all of the other problems would solve themselves. Private insurance would disappear. Insurance executives don’t work those twenty hour work weeks to be paid like a slave. Hospitals would shed employees. Even without high priced executives, hospitals would function just fine. Trial Lawyers would go back to car accidents and suing Netflix. The hospital lawyer would become a high turnover sort of clerkship for a year or two until the new graduate could find a real job. Sixty Minutes would be unable to find… Read more »