Categories

Category: Health Policy

Economics Lessons from the Subcontinent: India’s Coronary Stent Policy

By ANISH KOKA MD

It is commonly believed that deliberate, careful price regulation by enlightened technocrats trumps the haphazard and chaotic regulation of prices imposed by the free market—especially when the market is subject to greed and corruption.

A most interesting case study challenging that belief comes courtesy of the largest Democracy in the world: India.

In 2017, an arm of the Indian Government, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) took action to control the price of coronary stents in India by capping their retail price.  The problem that stimulated this action was their exorbitant price that made them unaffordable to many Indians.

The retail prices of US made drug-eluting stents ranged from Rs 80,000 – 150,000 (~$1000 – ~$2000), while the price of Indian made drug-eluting stents ranged from Rs 45,000 – 90,000 (~$600 – ~$1200).  Considering that a good job for 90% of the Indian labor force pays about Rs 180,000 per year, these prices put most coronary stents out of the reach of a vast swath of the populace.

What regulators knew, however, was that the price point at which coronary stents were being imported into India was a fraction of the price being charged to Indians.  The up-charge had everything to do with what happened after the stent was brought onto Indian soil: The Indian subsidiary of the US stent manufacturer would sell its product to a domestic distributor that would then employ all means necessary to ensure their stent was chosen by cardiologists to be implanted.

Continue reading…

A Change in Tactics

By ROBERT PRETZLAFF MD, MBA

Those that advocate for change in healthcare most often make their case based on the unsustainable cost or poor quality care that is sadly the norm. A 2018 article in Bloomberg highlights this fact by reporting on global healthcare efficiency, a composite marker of cost and life expectancy. Not remarkably, the United States ranks 54th globally, down four spots from 2017 and sandwiched neatly between Azerbaijan and Bulgaria. Unarguably, the US is a leader in medical education, technology, and research. Sadly, our leadership in these areas only makes our failure to provide cost-effective, quality care that much more shameful. For the well-off, the prospect of excellent accessible care is bright, but, as the Bloomberg article points out, as a nation our rank is rank. Anecdotally, I can report that as a physician I am called upon with some regularity to intervene on the behalf of family and friends to get a timely appointment or explain a test or study that their doctor was too busy to explain, and so even for the relatively well-off, care can be difficult and deficient.

The cost of care frequently takes center stage in arguments advocating change. The recognition that health care costs are driving unsupportable deficits and limiting expenditures in other vital areas is very compelling. Therefore, lowering the cost of care would seem to be an area in which there would be swift consensus. However, solutions to rein in costs fail to address the essential truth that most of us define cost subjectively. Arguments about the cost of care divide rather than unify as the discussion becomes more about cost shifting than controlling overall cost. Further, dollars spent on healthcare are spent somewhere, and there are many who profit handsomely from the system as it is and work aggressively sowing division to maintain the status quo.

Poor quality and access are additional lines of argument employed to win support for change. These arguments fail due to a lack of a commonly accepted definitions of quality and access to care. Remedies addressing quality and access issues are frequently presented as population level solutions. Unfortunately, these proposals do not engage a populace that cares first and foremost about their access to their doctor. The forces opposed to change readily employ counterarguments to population-based solutions by applying often false, but effective, narratives that population-based solutions are an infringement on a person’s fundamental freedoms. In that counterargument is the key to improving healthcare.

Continue reading…

Are Bipartisan Agreements on Health Care Possible?

By KEN TERRY 

Republicans and Democrats are seen as poles apart on health policy, and the recent election campaign magnified those differences. But in one area—private-sector competition among healthcare providers—there seems to be a fair amount of overlap. This is evident from a close reading of recent remarks by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and a 2017 paper from the Brookings Institution.

Azar spoke on December 3 at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the conservative counterpart to the liberal-leaning Brookings think tank. Referring to a new Trump Administration report on how to reduce healthcare spending through “choice and competition,” Azar said that the government can’t just try to make insurance more affordable while neglecting the underlying costs of care. “Healthcare reform should rely, to the extent possible, on competition within the private sector,” he said.

This is pretty close to the view expressed in the Brookings paper, written by Martin Gaynor, Farzad Mostashari, and Paul B. Ginsburg. “Ensuring that markets function efficiently is central to an effective health system that provides high quality, accessible, and affordable care,” the authors stated. They then proposed a “competition policy” that would require a wide range of actions by the federal and state governments.

Continue reading…

THCB Exclusive–Trump appoints Holt to run VA

Today Donald Trump pulled a big surprise. He changed the much criticized appointment for his new VA head from over-effusive physician Rear Adm. Ronny Jackson to well known lefty health blogger Matthew Holt. When asked why he wanted Holt to run the VA Trump said, “Look, I’m pretty smart and I’ve appointed now only the best people like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo to run our foreign policy. If I appoint someone else I like, how can I fire him quickly? That Holt guy seems to hate me, and he’s never stayed in one of my hotels, so he’s perfect for the VA–I hear that the accommodation is a bit rough, not exactly a ten.”

When THCB asked Holt why he agreed to take the job running the VA, he suggested that it had a lot to do with his English roots. “As most of my followers know I grew up in England and like the concept of everyone suffering together in a government funded and provided socialized National Health System. The VA and its fellow traveler the DOD is the only health system like that in America and it’s a brilliant place to start”. When asked about his likely future polices for the VA, Holt suggested that massive expansion was the key initiative. In a written statement, his VA spokesman noted “Given the utter lunacy of the Trump Administration and the crazy warmongers now running the show, the chances of total war versus North Korea and Iran are very high. So essentially everyone in the country will soon be called up to the military, which means that soon eventually everyone will be a Veteran. And if Trump loses in 2020, by 2021 we’ll be at war with the Russians so either way my theory pays off.”

Holt was on the Charlie Rose show last week when he told Rose about his philosophy for the future. “When everyone in the country is part of the VA, we can shut down that ineffective and expensive private health system, and instead everyone can get their care the way I think is best. And if they don’t like it Rasu Shrestha will send them their records using the Lighthouse Blue Button Carrier Pigeon system, and we’ll give them a row boat to head to Nepal or somewhere.

When TCHB reached him for comment, Cato health spokesman Michael Cannon said, “if you are going to expand this universal health care stuff, you might as well give it a real go. Lucky for me, I have bone spurs…”

The Price of Progress

No one knows who Bennie Solis is anymore.

He had the misfortune of being born in the early 1960s marked for death. He had a rare peculiar condition called biliary atresia – a disease defined by the absence of a conduit for bile to travel from his liver to his intestinal tract. Bile acid produced in the liver normally travels to the intestines much like water from a spring travels via ever larger channels to eventually empty into the ocean. Bile produced in the liver with no where to go dams up in the liver and starts to destroy it.

That the liver is a hardy organ was a fact known to the ancient Greeks who told the tale of the punishment given to the god Prometheus for stealing fire from the gods. Chained to a mountain, an eagle would feast on his liver by day. The liver would regenerate by night to allow the eagle a full meal on its return making this a truly eternal punishment.

So it is that the poisoned human liver remarkably continues to function to allow beautiful appearing normal children to be born. It would make the eventual discovery of the disease all the more painful. How could that beautiful child harbor something so black inside?

When Bennie was born, every child with his condition had one fate. Death.

And it did not come slowly. As the liver becomes progressively damaged and scarred, the flow of blood through the liver is impeded. The obstructed blood, seeking a way to return to the heart, travels through collateral channels. These vessels, normally minute and invisible in the esophagus and the stomach, now become engorged and thin walled and prone to rupture. Complicating matters even further, the body lacks clotting factors that were normally synthesized by the liver, giving blood the consistency of water. The horrors only multiply. Blood pours from the mouth and rectum when vessels rupture, free fluid fills the abdominal cavity, the lack of bile in the intestine means fat isn’t absorbed, and the body starves. When death mercifully does intervene, it arrives as the liver completely loses its ability to manage toxins, sending the children into a coma.

Continue reading…

ACA Repeal and the Ethics of Belief

An elderly patient presents to a physician with symptoms of pneumonia. The physician ignores accepted medical standards of care and chooses to believe the patient suffers from a cold or flu. The patient dies of pneumonia. What evidence informs our beliefs, or how we arrive at our beliefs, is as important as what they are.

In 1877 a Cambridge mathematician and philosopher, William Kingdon Clifford, published an essay titled, “The Ethics of Belief.” 1 In it, Clifford imagined a ship owner “about to send to sea an emigrant ship” that he knew “was old, and not overwell built at the first.” Knowing the ship had possibly become unseaworthy, he realized he ought he to have “her thoroughly overhauled and refitted.” Despite this knowledge, the ship owner succeeds in convincing himself that since the ship had “gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms” it would do so again. If the ship goes “down in mid-ocean and told no tales” what, Clifford asked, shall we say of the owner? “Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men.” Though the ship owner may have come to believe in the soundness of his ship, “the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him,” because the owner, “had no right to believe on such evidence was before him.” “He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation,” but by “stifling his doubts.”

Continue reading…

Men, Women and Health Care Pricing Theory: Speaking Different Languages

flying cadeuciiMen and women in the United States think very differently about health care costs. When I talk about the topic, it’s common for me to see half of my listeners zoning out — the male half. Why? Well, because women make or influence 90 percent of the health care decisions in this country, according to a study by the American Academy of Family Physicians. Of course, men go to the doctor. But they make fewer health care decisions, and they don’t think about pricing the same way women do.

Women are more in touch with health care pricing and more affected by it than men. Women own reproductive health. Women make pediatricians’ appointments and run elder care. Women nag their spouses, be those spouses husbands or wives or none of the above, to get their cholesterol checked, to pick up a prescription, to go to that physical therapy appointment.

So when we talk about shopping for health care, about our business, we’ve grown accustomed to having dudes say “Hm, interesting, can we talk about wearable devices?” or “We have some big data, we’re not really interested in the prices.” At the same time, women tell us how excited they are that we’re attacking opacity in health care pricing.

Continue reading…

About Hastert’s “Known Acts:” The Indifference Is As Disturbing as the Crime

Screen Shot 2016-06-04 at 8.34.26 AM

This past April 8th federal prosecutors made known former Republican House Speaker, Denis Hastert, sexually molested at least four boys while employed as an Illinois high school wrestling coach beginning in the 1960s.  Prosecutors said there was “no ambiguity” about these abuses.  They were, they said, “known acts.”1 While the news was disturbing sexual and all other forms of child abuse is commonplace.  According to the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study, one in four girls and one in six boys are sexually assaulted before they reach the age of eighteen.2  It cannot be a surprise therefore that even a member of Congress molested young boys. 

Also not surprising is how frequently child abuse, if made known, is not revealed until many years later.  Rumors about Hastert’s behavior persisted for years, for example, they were floated during 2006 when Congressman Mark Foley was forced to resign for forwarding soliciting e-mails and sexually suggestive instant messages to teenaged boys.  It was not until last year Hastert’s actions nearly fifty years ago became known albeit accidentally.  What banking officials and eventually the FBI wanted to learn, pursuant to the PATRIOT Act and other federal laws, was why Hastert made multiple $50,000 bank withdrawals over two years.  Hastert initially told officials he was buying vintage cars and stocks.  He then explained he did not think banks were safe and then argued he was the victim of extortion.  None of these explanations were true.  Eventually, the FBI learned Hastert was paying a victim for his silence. 

Like Hastert, Jerry Sandusky was convicted in 2012 on 45 counts dating back to 1994.  It has recently come to light Penn State paid a settlement stemming from Sandusky’s abuse in 1971.  Predatory behavior exhibited by thousands of Catholic priests were also not made known for decades.  Jerry Savile engaged in wide spread pedophilia undeterred for over six decades including abusing boys under hospice care.  The Boy Scouts held “perversion files” for nearly a century.  Abuses at New Your City’s Horace Mann School made known a few years ago date back to the 1960s.  The Boston Globe has recently reported hundreds of children were molested over many decades at at least 67 elite private schools in New England.  USA Swimming’s “Hall of Fame” coach Rick Curl’s 1980s sexual abuse of a female teenage swimmer was, at the time, allegedly made known to his employer, the University of Maryland.  The university never reported the abuse to Maryland state officials.  Curl was not convicted until 2013. 

The Curl case is particularly noteworthy because it did earn the unprecedented attention of one member of Congress, Representative George Miller.  Mr. Miller was the former chair and then ranking minority member of the House Committee on Education and Workforce.  Mr. Miller became interested in the Curl case in part because the committee’s jurisdiction includes student safety.  Though the Committee refused Mr. Miller’s request to hold a hearing, after a lengthy investigation of USA Swimming by Mr. Miller’s staff, the Committee, under Mr. Miller’s sole signature, forwarded an 11-page letter to the FBI in July 2014 requesting the agency “fully investigate USA Swimming’s handling of both past and present cases of child sexual abuse.”  Mr. Miller’s letter stated, “it has become clear that child sexual abuse and sexual misconduct have plagued USA Swimming since its inception in 1980.”  (USA Swimming is the creation of the Congress’s Amateur Sports Act of 1978.)  The letter noted USA Swimming had banned more than 80 coaches for child abuse.  Most were not banned until after 2009 despite “the fact,” the letter stated, “that some of them have engaged in sexual abuse for decades.”  Mr. Miller argued USA Swimming’s banning of coaches was insufficient because coaches continued to coach just elsewhere.  In summary the letter stated, “the FBI’s engagement on these issues is of the utmost importance,” because, “the USA Swimming process allows predators to prey with impunity.” 

A month later the FBI responded.  In three brief paragraphs the FBI stated, “representatives recently met with USA Swimming officials and discussed applicable federal violations associated with child exploitation matters,” and “provided information to assist in USA Swimming’s effort to educate their membership regarding the sexual exploitation of children.”4  It appears the FBI took no further action.  In June 2013 Mr. Miller also requested the GAO investigate the abuse of student athletes’ participation in swim clubs.  The GAO report was not published until May 2015, or several months after Mr. Miller retired.  The GAO admitted it “did not assess the effectiveness of any of the selected athletic programs’ policies.”  The report’s conclusion simply stated the “GAO makes no recommendations in this report.”5  It’s worth noting, recently another USA Swimming Hall of Fame Coach, Joe Bernal, was banned for life for sexual misconduct.

Mr. Miller’s efforts stand out as the exception.  Over the past seven weeks, or since Hastert’s offenses were made known, the current House Speaker Paul Ryan has not issued a single press release condemning Hastert.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has also been silent, as has Senate Democratic Leader Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.  As was the case during the Sandusky scandal, no Congressional hearings are planned.  Despite the fact they are from the same state and four of the last eight Illinois governors have gone to prison, President Obama as well has been silent.  When asked on April 27th, the day Hastert was sentenced, if the White House had any reaction, Press Secretary Josh Earnest stated, “I don’t have a specific response to that.  Obviously, this is part of our criminal justice system carrying out its mandate.”  When asked in May 2015 after Hastert was indicted, Earnest’s response was equally apathetic.  “Nobody” he said, “derives any pleasure” from Hastert’s “legal troubles.”6     

The failure by senior government officials to condemn Hastert is matched by the health care media and professional health associations’ failure to report the health consequences resulting from childhood sexual abuse.  These consequences are extreme.  Child abuse survivors frequently suffer lifelong, and life shortening, health effects resulting from excessive rates of alcoholism, depression and other psychiatric disorders including the severe trauma disorder, DID, or Dissociative Identity Disorder (previously known as Multiple Personality Disorder), illicit drug use, obesity, sexually transmitted diseases, cancer, heart, lung and liver disease and suicide.  Survivors can also exhibit a constellation of social problems including criminal behavior, dysfunctional parenting including inter-generational abuse, homelessness, prostitution and other at-risk sexual behavior.  Not surprisingly, one of Hastert’s victims died of AIDS in 1995.  In sentencing Hastert on April 27th, Federal District Court Judge Thomas Durkin recognized this reality when he stated, “the abuse was 40 years ago, but the damage lasts today.”  “It’s hard to look at Mr. Cross [one of Hastert’s victims], now in his late 50s, and know,” Judge Durkin stated, “that this [abuse] happened when he was 17 and he is still damaged.”  The CDC estimates the total lifetime estimated costs associated with just one year of confirmed cases of child abuse at approximately $124 billion.7

Despite well documented life-long adverse health effects, when the Chicago Tribune, The New York Times, The Washington Post and others reported Hastert’s “known acts,” one would expect these would be reported by health and health care news organizations.  They have not.  For example, Inside Health Policy, Kaiser Health News, the Morning Consult, Politico Pulse and RealClearHealth, organizations that report daily or twice daily on a wide range of health, health care and public health issues, have made no mention of the health consequences and health care costs.  During the Penn State scandal I asked a Harvard-educated editor of one of the these publications why she was not reporting on  Sandusky.  I was told his behavior was a criminal matter and unrelated to health care or public health.  To further the point, The New England Journal of Medicine, the Altarum Institute, an organization dedicated to “solving complex systems problems to improve human health,” and Health Affairs all refused over the past month to publish versions of this essay.8  Among numerous health care associations, the American Public Health Association (APHA) and the American Medical Association (AMA) have also been silent.  The APHA’s website makes no mention of Hastert and the AMA’s website still notes Hastert as the 2006 recipient of the AMA’s Nathan Davis Award for his “outstanding contributions” “to promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of the public health.”9    

The indifference by senior federal officials and the health care industry is also the norm.  Over the past  decade Diane Champe, a childhood sexual abuse survivor, cancer survivor and beneficiary of over two decades of DID therapy, and I have worked, unsuccessfully, to interest members of Congress, Congressional committees, the White House, and numerous others in addressing child abuse, or at least discuss the issue publicly.10  I meet Diane in 2007 while doing health policy work for the then House Majority Leader, Mr. Steny Hoyer.  Diane scheduled an appointment with me to ask why the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was not researching DID, a disorder that frequently afflicts victims of child abuse.  I inquired and learned NIMH was not funding DID research.  NIMH still does not fund DID research.11

In efforts to meet with members of Congress over the past decade we have either received no response or were told, for example by Representative Elijah Cummings’ office (Cummings is currently the ranking minority member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee), that he only meets with constituents.  We did meet with Diane’s representative, Chris Van Hollen, and his staff.  After discussing survivors’ issue over several months we failed to interest his office in any number of a wide range of inter-related issues including the need improve child abuse reporting and data collection, the need to improve related clinical research and treatment including diagnosis and treatment of DID, the need for further protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act and other legal protections for survivors.  Concerning this last issue, Hastert could not be criminally prosecuted as a child molester because the statute of limitations for this crime had expired.  Hastert’s victims could have pursued him in civil court only because Illinois has comparatively liberal “window laws.”  In many states a victim’s “window” to pursue their perpetrator in court closes quickly.  For example, in New York the window closes five years after the victim turns 18.  When the 2013 documentary, “Pursuit of Truth: Adult Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse Seeking Justice,” was released, a film specifically about the inability of survivors to seek and receive justice, we hoped it would serve to stimulate discussion.  We were wrong.  We tried to present the film to relevant Congressional committees, at White House, to Maryland State legislators and, among others, to the American Bar Association’s Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence.  No one was interested.12  Our only success, or related success, was in attaining pro bono legal counsel from a well-established DC law firm.  Years later we learned the firm supported our efforts largely because the attorney we initially solicited was, while serving as an altar boy, molested by his priest.   

In the federal government’s sentencing recommendation, prosecutors wrote, “He [Hastert] made them feel alone, ashamed, guilty and devoid of dignity.”  “All of them carry the scars [the] defendant inflicted upon them.”  “It is profoundly sad,” prosecutors wrote, the abuse was inflicted by “a man whom they trusted and whom they revered as a mentor and coach.”  In sentencing Hastert to 15 months in prison, Judge Durkin stated, “nothing is more stunning than having the words “serial child molester” and “Speaker in the House” in the same sentence.”13  It is “profoundly sad.”  It is not “stunning.”  With one exception, the fecklessness of the Congress, the White House, the health care media and leading organizations does not disappoint.  The indifference, the ongoing neglect, the failure to even make public comment is exactly what Stanley Tucci’s “Spotlight” character, Mitchell Garabedian, meant when he stated,”if it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse one.”  As for Diane’s work she is now dedicating all her time to opening a community center in inner-city Baltimore to provide non-clinical, social support services to adult survivors.    

Notes

1.  An overview of the Hastert case is contained in the “Government’s Position Paper as to Sentencing Factors,” at: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2798113/Hastert.pdf.

2.  Information regarding the ACE study is at: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/acestudy/prevalence.html.

4.   Mr. Miller’s letter and the FBI’s one page response is at: https://cdn.swimswam.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/USASwimming-GMLettertoFBIandFBIResponse-1.pdf.

5.  The GAO report is at: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-418.

6.  See: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/04/27/press-briefing-press-secretary-josh-earnest-4272016 and https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/05/29/press-briefing-press-secretary-josh-earnest-52915.

7.  See: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childmaltreatment/consequences.html.

8.  Searching The New England Journal of Medicine’s website using the phrases, “child sexual abuse” and “childhood sexual abuse” yields no related research articles.   

9.  See: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/awards/nathan-davis-awards-outstanding-government-service/past-recipients-nathan-davis-awards.page.

10.  For information concerning Diane’s work, go to: https://www.edcinstitute.org/.

11.  If you search NIH’s RePORT for “Dissociative Identity Disorder” the response is “did not match any documents.”  See:  http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0201_child_abuse.html and http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childmaltreatment/consequences.html.

12.  See: http://www.pursuitoftruthfilm.com/.  Lynn Rosenthal, who served up until earlier this year as  the White House Adviser on Violence Against Women, did watch the documentary with a few office colleagues but refused to present the film to a wider White House audience.   

13.  See: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-pdf-transcript-of-sentencing-of-dennis-hastert-20160427-htmlstory.html.

ACO 101: Koka Completely Misses The Mark on Medicare ACOs

Recently, Anish Koka, MD, a Cardiologist from Pennsylvania, posted his anti-Accountable Care Organization (ACO) manifesto here on The Health Care Blog.  Koka argues that ACOs don’t work and are doomed to fail because they were designed by non-practicing physician policymakers and academics in ivory towers. He appears to be basing his judgment on a commercial ACO contract that only pays him $4 per month extra for care coordination and requires that he meet specific quality measures. He is also conflating his experience in a commercial ACO with Medicare ACOs, and interprets the initial results of one Medicare ACO program to mean that all ACOs are a failure. Finally, he relays an anecdote of caring for one of his patients, Mrs. K, a patient with chronic illness who doesn’t want to take her medication.

In his post, Dr. Koka calls out “well-meaning, hard-working folks that own a Harvard Crimson sweater…[whose] intent is to fundamentally change how health care is provided.” As luck would have it, I do own a Harvard Crimson sweater, and I’d like to respond.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 gave the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) the authority to create ACOs in two forms. One, the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP), is a large program that does exactly what its name says: it allows physicians and care organizations to share savings with CMS based on their previously-expected health care spending. The other was the Pioneer ACO model run by the CMS Innovation Center (CMMI). This five-year experiment was intended to test if physicians and care organizations could bear both upside and downside risk while still delivering high quality care. The Pioneer ACO program has ended as planned, and CMMI has incorporated its findings from the model thus far into the Next Generation ACO model. Any other ACO program is a non-governmental agreement between a private insurer and group of health care providers that is neither designed nor controlled by CMS or any other part of the government. 

Dr. Koka’s main point of criticism appears to be with the terms of a commercial, non-Medicare, non government ACO with which he contracts. Commercial ACOs tend to have stricter, less-generous terms for physicians; a 2014 study in the American Journal of Managed Care found that commercial ACO contracts were more likely to include both downside risk and upfront payments. CMS cannot be held responsible for the terms of an ACO contract between Dr. Koka and a private insurer, but I’ll leave that aside for now.

Dr. Koka cites a recent Harvard study on the first year and a half of results from the MSSP as evidence for the failure of ACOs. This study looked at Medicare claims data for two cohorts of practices–one starting mid-year in 2012 and one starting on January 1, 2013, through the end of 2013. In short, the mid-year 2012 cohort delivered a small amount of savings per beneficiary, and the 2013 cohort achieved a negligible amount of savings. Additionally, some quality measures showed improved performance, while others were the same as the control group. I do not interpret these results as a “failure” at all. These are early results from a generous program that is easing physicians and care organizations into accountable care by limiting the amount of risk that they must take on at first. Equivalent or better-quality care was delivered, along with small savings.

Leavitt Partners, a health care consulting firm, has been tracking and reporting on Medicare and commercial ACOs since 2010. In their recent report on the early takeaways from the MSSP results, they highlighted that physician group-led ACOs tended to do a better job than hospital-only ACOs, and that ACOs residing in high-cost markets were more likely to generate shared savings. Based on all of these findings, I cannot agree with Dr. Koka that Medicare ACOs are a failure, and I certainly cannot extrapolate from commercial ACOs to Medicare.

The evidence is widespread and irrefutable that our current payment and delivery system has resulted in the highest health care costs in the world, along with some of the lowest-quality care.  We simply cannot continue to pay doctors and hospitals on an unrestricted fee-for-service basis. ACOs are the beginning of a massive shift in how we deliver, pay for, and measure health care in order to address these cost and quality issues.

Dr. Koka also fails to acknowledge a critical point about ACOs: they are generally designed with the Primary Care Physician (PCP) as the central care coordinator versus a specialist. PCPs are best situated to coordinate care for their patients and manage preventive care and population health measures. A more expensive specialist like Dr. Koka should not be the physician responsible for coordinating patient care in an ACO–it makes little sense. One reference point comes from The Accountable Care Guide for Cardiologists from the Toward Accountable Care Consortium. They highlight PCPs and good teamwork as critical central elements in any ACO. [7]

He also does not acknowledge that it takes time to get accountable care and care coordination right. A PCP or primary care organization is not going to have the tools they need or the right contracts in place with specialists and hospitals on day one. The processes and technology for effectively managing an ACO take time. The initial results from the MSSP prove this out.

Let’s say we assume for the sake of argument that Dr. Koka is right; that ACOs don’t work, and they are a colossal waste of time. Even then, his proposed solution is more than a bit ham-handed. There is no agreement among either the American public or the health care system that we should directly ration care. I suggest that we start by making PCPs the gatekeepers to specialists like Dr. Koka rather than asking him to spend many hours coaxing a patient to take her medications. Undoubtedly, this is what his commercial ACO intended. We need to do a better job of delivering the right care at the right time, from the right physician, nurse, or other provider–yes, this is care coordination.

And if all else fails, well, there is one easy, proven way to slow the growth of health care costs: making a blunt cut in reimbursement rates to providers, as we saw in the Budget Control Act of 2011. I am almost certain that Dr. Koka would not welcome another cut like this.

If Dr. Koka would like to avoid this last-ditch option, perhaps it is time to partner with primary care organizations and see how he can help them to be a successful ACO…and allow Mrs. K’s PCP and case manager or health coach to field those Saturday calls.

As avid followers of federal health policy will know, this week CMS released the notice of proposed rulemaking for the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015. The MACRA encompasses a massive shift in Medicare physician payment. The bad news for Dr. Koka? Accountable, value-based care is not going away anytime soon. The good news is that the proposed payment and delivery system models include more flexibility for physicians and will better reward them for high quality care.

In my opinion, the best news is that the MACRA provides a clear path for our public health care system to move away from fee-for-service once and for all. I hope that Dr. Koka can reconcile himself with a world where care providers, in partnership with patients, are asked to be more accountable for the high cost of health care. At a minimum, I hope that the difference between commercial and Medicare ACOs is now clear.

Lisa Bari is a Master of Public Health candidate at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and previously worked in health IT. She loves primary care health policy, health care payment reform, interoperability, and health data APIs. She never thought she’d own a Harvard sweatshirt. You can find her on Twitter @lisabari.

ACO 101: Koka Completely Misses The Mark on Medicare ACOs

Recently, Anish Koka, MD, a Cardiologist from Pennsylvania, posted his anti-Accountable Care Organization (ACO) manifesto here on The Health Care Blog. [1] Koka argues that ACOs don’t work and are doomed to fail because they were designed by non-practicing physician policymakers and academics in ivory towers. He appears to be basing his judgment on a commercial ACO contract that only pays him $4 per month extra for care coordination and requires that he meet specific quality measures. He is also conflating his experience in a commercial ACO with Medicare ACOs, and interprets the initial results of one Medicare ACO program to mean that all ACOs are a failure. Finally, he relays an anecdote of caring for one of his patients, Mrs. K, a patient with chronic illness who doesn’t want to take her medication.

In his post, Dr. Koka calls out “well-meaning, hard-working folks that own a Harvard Crimson sweater…[whose] intent is to fundamentally change how health care is provided.” As luck would have it, I do own a Harvard Crimson sweater, and I’d like to respond.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 gave the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) the authority to create ACOs in two forms. One, the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP), is a large program that does exactly what its name says: it allows physicians and care organizations to share savings with CMS based on their previously-expected health care spending. The other was the Pioneer ACO model run by the CMS Innovation Center (CMMI). This five-year experiment was intended to test if physicians and care organizations could bear both upside and downside risk while still delivering high quality care. The Pioneer ACO program has ended as planned, and CMMI has incorporated its findings from the model thus far into the Next Generation ACO model. [2] Any other ACO program is a non-governmental agreement between a private insurer and group of health care providers that is neither designed nor controlled by CMS or any other part of the government. 

Dr. Koka’s main point of criticism appears to be with the terms of a commercial, non-Medicare, non government ACO with which he contracts. Commercial ACOs tend to have stricter, less-generous terms for physicians; a 2014 study in the American Journal of Managed Care found that commercial ACO contracts were more likely to include both downside risk and upfront payments. [3] CMS cannot be held responsible for the terms of an ACO contract between Dr. Koka and a private insurer, but I’ll leave that aside for now.

Dr. Koka cites a recent Harvard study on the first year and a half of results from the MSSP as evidence for the failure of ACOs. [4] This study looked at Medicare claims data for two cohorts of practices–one starting mid-year in 2012 and one starting on January 1, 2013, through the end of 2013. In short, the mid-year 2012 cohort delivered a small amount of savings per beneficiary, and the 2013 cohort achieved a negligible amount of savings. Additionally, some quality measures showed improved performance, while others were the same as the control group. I do not interpret these results as a “failure” at all. These are early results from a generous program that is easing physicians and care organizations into accountable care by limiting the amount of risk that they must take on at first. Equivalent or better-quality care was delivered, along with small savings.

Leavitt Partners, a health care consulting firm, has been tracking and reporting on Medicare and commercial ACOs since 2010. In their recent report on the early takeaways from the MSSP results, they highlighted that physician group-led ACOs tended to do a better job than hospital-only ACOs, and that ACOs residing in high-cost markets were more likely to generate shared savings. [5] Based on all of these findings, I cannot agree with Dr. Koka that Medicare ACOs are a failure, and I certainly cannot extrapolate from commercial ACOs to Medicare.

The evidence is widespread and irrefutable that our current payment and delivery system has resulted in the highest health care costs in the world, along with some of the lowest-quality care.  [6] We simply cannot continue to pay doctors and hospitals on an unrestricted fee-for-service basis. ACOs are the beginning of a massive shift in how we deliver, pay for, and measure health care in order to address these cost and quality issues.

Dr. Koka also fails to acknowledge a critical point about ACOs: they are generally designed with the Primary Care Physician (PCP) as the central care coordinator versus a specialist. PCPs are best situated to coordinate care for their patients and manage preventive care and population health measures. A more expensive specialist like Dr. Koka should not be the physician responsible for coordinating patient care in an ACO–it makes little sense. One reference point comes from The Accountable Care Guide for Cardiologists from the Toward Accountable Care Consortium. They highlight PCPs and good teamwork as critical central elements in any ACO. [7]

He also does not acknowledge that it takes time to get accountable care and care coordination right. A PCP or primary care organization is not going to have the tools they need or the right contracts in place with specialists and hospitals on day one. The processes and technology for effectively managing an ACO take time. The initial results from the MSSP prove this out.

Let’s say we assume for the sake of argument that Dr. Koka is right; that ACOs don’t work, and they are a colossal waste of time. Even then, his proposed solution is more than a bit ham-handed. There is no agreement among either the American public or the health care system that we should directly ration care. I suggest that we start by making PCPs the gatekeepers to specialists like Dr. Koka rather than asking him to spend many hours coaxing a patient to take her medications. Undoubtedly, this is what his commercial ACO intended. We need to do a better job of delivering the right care at the right time, from the right physician, nurse, or other provider–yes, this is care coordination.

And if all else fails, well, there is one easy, proven way to slow the growth of health care costs: making a blunt cut in reimbursement rates to providers, as we saw in the Budget Control Act of 2011. I am almost certain that Dr. Koka would not welcome another cut like this. [8]

If Dr. Koka would like to avoid this last-ditch option, perhaps it is time to partner with primary care organizations and see how he can help them to be a successful ACO…and allow Mrs. K’s PCP and case manager or health coach to field those Saturday calls.

As avid followers of federal health policy will know, this week CMS released the notice of proposed rulemaking for the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015. The MACRA encompasses a massive shift in Medicare physician payment. The bad news for Dr. Koka? Accountable, value-based care is not going away anytime soon. The good news is that the proposed payment and delivery system models include more flexibility for physicians and will better reward them for high quality care.

In my opinion, the best news is that the MACRA provides a clear path for our public health care system to move away from fee-for-service once and for all. I hope that Dr. Koka can reconcile himself with a world where care providers, in partnership with patients, are asked to be more accountable for the high cost of health care. At a minimum, I hope that the difference between commercial and Medicare ACOs is now clear.

Lisa Bari is a Master of Public Health candidate at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and previously worked in health IT. She loves primary care health policy, health care payment reform, interoperability, and health data APIs. She never thought she’d own a Harvard sweatshirt. You can find her on Twitter @lisabari.

1 https://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2016/04/25/the-aco-delusion/

2 http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/05/12-aco-paper/impact-of-accountable-careorigins-052015.pdf

3 http://www.ajmc.com/journals/issue/2014/2014-vol20-n12/aco-contracting-with-private-and-public-payers-a-baseline-comparative-analysis

4 http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMsa1600142

5 http://leavittpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/MSSP_ACOs_takeaways_whitepaper_final.pdf

6 http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/press-releases/2015/oct/us-spends-more-on-health-care-than-other-nations

7 http://www.ncmedsoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ACO-Guide_Cardiologist_052814_reduced-file.pdf

8 http://www.cbpp.org/research/how-the-across-the-board-cuts-in-the-budget-control-act-will-work

9 http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/politico-pulse/2016/04/exclusive-andy-slavitt-on-macra-214014