Greg Whisman is the Chief Medical Officer of CareMore Health, a venerable prepaid medical group caring for seniors. It’s been part of Anthem/Elevance for many years but this year spun off as part of a larger PE backed group called Millennium. We really got into the what and the how of primary care for seniors and, yes, we delved deep into the future of primary care. This is a topic that will never die on THCB and getting a real expert to opine on it was really valuable. This is a great conversation–Matthew Holt
Concierge Care for all: What would it look like?
By MATTHEW HOLT
A few weeks back I wrote an article on what’s wrong with primary care and how we should fix it. The tl:dr version was to give every American a concierge primary care physician paid for by the government. We would give everyone a $2k voucher (on average, dependent on age, medical status, location, etc) and have an average panel of 600 people per PCP.
My argument was that a) this would be cheaper than health care now – due to cutting back on Emergency Department visits and inpatient admissions and that b) it would enable us to pay PCPs the same as specialists (roughly $500K a year). This would mean that many current ED docs, internists, hospitalists etc would convert to being PCPs. I also think that we could and would make better use of the now 400,000 nurse practitioners in the US. We would only need about 600,000 PCPs to make this work. Although it would double spending on primary care, it would reduce health care costs overall. (OK there’s some debate about this but the Milliman study linked above and common sense suggests it would save money).
There are obviously two huge issues with my proposal. First we would have to go through the conversion process. Second, we would have to do something big with the three major players who are sucking at the teat of health care $$ right now—those being big hospital systems and their associated specialists, health insurers, and pharma and device companies.
I don’t think that there will be any problem selling this to most doctors or to the American people.
The doctors know that they are trapped in the current system. This would free them to practice as they want to practice, and to remember why they got into medicine in the first place—to care for their patients holistically.
People know all too well that accessing primary care is both good for them and also very difficult. Wait lists are way too long. In this system primary care would be abundant. And I and many others have only horror stories of how big hospital systems, insurers and big pharma treat them badly. They would much rather have an empowered PCP on their side.
The only concern about primary care for patients is if the PCP is incented to not refer them to needed specialty care. In my system there would be no global capitation or risk to the PCP, and thus no incentive not to refer out. But no reason to refer out unnecessarily. They would do the right thing because it is the right thing. (It has taken Jeff Goldsmith 30 years to convince me of this). So there would be no need for insurance companies to manage primary care at all. No claims, no bills, no utilization management. Instead we should have 600,000 primary care docs paid well and able to manage their practices to do the right thing.
And this would probably involve a ton of variation. There would be PCPs who work in groups. There would be solo. There would be those specializing in specific types of patients (think kids or people with serious diseases or geriatricians). They would all make the same amount of salary but their practice’s revenue and number of patients would be adjusted in a similar way to how we do risk adjustment for Medicare Advantage now, but without the games, and with no profit motive.
This system would create a lot of innovation. PCPs would be responsible for those with chronic conditions. They would have budget from the $2,000 per head (of which they would get roughly $800 as income) to build remote monitoring programs, to use AI, to build teams of assistants and nurses et al.
So can it be done in the US? Yes it already has. I urge you to take the time to read this ingenious ChatGPT summary of the Nuka system in Alaska. (I believe created by Steve Schutzer MD). Nuka went from being a hidebound bureaucratic expensive system–that its patients hated–to being a system with culturally appropriate care that its “consumer-owners” love today. And its costs are lower and outcomes better. There are lots of other examples of similar approaches across the US. Just ask Dave Chase. They just haven’t scaled because the current incumbents have killed them. (One great example is this case in Texas where a hospital chain bought and killed a big primary care group led by Scott Conard because it was costing them $100m a year in reduced hospital FFS admissions).
What we need is to set up the incentives, prod doctors and patients hard to get into these arrangements and let American ingenuity and medical professionalism go at it.
The other side of the equation is the need to reign in the costs of specialty and hospital care. How this would happen is up for debate.
Continue reading…What A Digital Health Doc Learned Recertifying His Boards
By JEAN LUC NEPTUNE
I recently got the good news that I passed the board recertification exam for the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM). As a bit of background, ABIM is a national physician evaluation organization that certifies physicians practicing internal medicine and its subspecialties (every other specialty has its own board certification body like ABOG for OB/GYNs and ABS for surgeons). Doctors practicing in most clinical environments need to be board-certified to be credentialed and eligible to work. Board certification can be accomplished by taking a test every 10 years or by participating in a continuing education process known as LKA (Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment). I decided to take the big 10-year test rather than pursue the LKA approach. For my fellow ABIM-certified docs out there who are wondering why I did the 10-year vs. the LKA, I’m happy to have a side discussion, but it was largely a career timing issue.
Of note, board certification is different from the USMLE (United States Medical Licensing Examination) which is the first in a series of licensing hurdles that doctors face in medical school and residency, involving 3 separate tests (USMLE Step 1, 2 and 3). After completing the USMLE steps, acquiring a medical license is a separate state-mediated process (I’m active in NY and inactive in PA) and has its own set of requirements that one needs to meet in order to practice in any one state. If you want to be able to prescribe controlled substances (opioids, benzos, stimulants, etc.), you will need a separate license from the DEA (the Drug Enforcement Administration, which is a federal entity). Simply put, you need to complete a lot of training, score highly on many standardized tests, and acquire a bunch of certifications (that cost a lot of money, BTW) to be able to practice medicine in the USofA.
What I learned in preparing for the ABIM recertification exam:
1.) There’s SO MUCH TO KNOW to be a doctor!
To prepare for the exam I used the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) review course which included roughly 2,000 detailed case studies that covered all the subspecialty areas of internal medicine. If you figure that each case involves mastery of dozens of pieces of medical knowledge, the exam requires a physician to remember tens of thousands of distinct pieces of information just for one specialty (remember that the medical vocabulary alone consists of tens of thousands of words). In addition, the individual facts mean nothing without a mastery of the basic underlying concepts, models, and frameworks of biology, biochemistry, human anatomy, physiology, pathophysiology, public health, etc. etc. Then there’s all the stuff you need to know for your specific speciality: medications, diagnostic frameworks, treatment guidelines, etc. It’s a lot. There’s a reason it takes the better part of a decade to gain any competency as a physician. So whenever I hear a non-doc saying that they’ve been reading up on XYZ and “I think I know almost as much as my doctor!”, my answer is always “No you don’t. Not at all. Not even a little bit. Stop it.”
2.) There is so much that we DON’T KNOW as doctors!
What was particularly striking to me as I did my review was how often I encountered a case or a presentation where:
- It’s unclear what causes a disease,
- The natural history of the disease is unclear,
- We don’t know how to treat the disease,
- We know how to treat the disease but we don’t how the treatment works,
- We don’t know what treatment is most effective, or
- We don’t know what diagnostic test is best.
- And on, and on, and on…
It’s estimated that there are more than 50,000 (!!) active journals in the field of biomedical sciences publishing more than 3 million (!!!!) articles per year. Despite all this knowledge generation there’s still so much we don’t know about the human body and how it works. I think some people find doctors arrogant, but anyone who really knows doctors and physician culture can tell you that doctors possess a deep sense of humility that comes out of knowing that you actually know very little.
3.) Someday soon the computer doctor will FOR SURE be smarter than the human doctor.
The whole time I was preparing for the test, I kept telling myself that there was nothing I was doing that a sufficiently advanced computer couldn’t accomplish.
Continue reading…Ami Parekh & Ankoor Shah, Included Health
Ami Parekh is the Chief Health Officer & Ankoor Shah, is VP, Clinical Excellence at Included Health. I had a long conversation with them about the philosophy of how we are doing population health and how we fix the system that we have today. I’m arguing for more primary care, but Ami restated it and says, you need somone you trust who is an expert who can help you make decisions. And this might not be a human! How do we change the system, and how does telehealth work now and how will it change? Defining health from the person perspective, not the way the health system wants to define it! Matthew Holt
Matthew Explores the Referral Process
So I thought I would try a little experiment. Following up on a recent primary care visit I got a couple of referrals. I went investigating as to what I could find out about the where to go and what the cost might be. And what the connection if any between my primary care group (One Medical), the facility & specialists I was referred to, and my health plan, Blue Shield. I hope you enjoy my little tour of this part of the online health system–Matthew Holt
Dr Kimmie Ng discusses young onset colorectal cancer
Dr Kimmie Ng discusses cancer with Dr. George Beauregard. Dr Ng heads the Young-Onset Colorectal Cancer Center, at the legendary Dana Farber Cancer Institute, and she treated George’s son who died age 32. Why are these cancers in younger people increasing so quickly? What can we do about it? What is connecting the environment, the immune system, mental health and cancer? What kind of early intervention can we advocate for? A fascinating conversation between two real leaders in this field.
How to Fix the Paradox of Primary Care
By MATTHEW HOLT
If health policy wonks believe anything it’s that primary care is a good thing. In theory we should all have strong relationships with our primary care doctors. They should navigate us around the health system and be arriving on our doorsteps like Marcus Welby MD when needed. Wonks like me believe that if you introduce such a relationship patients will receive preventative care, will get on the right meds and take them, will avoid the emergency room, and have fewer hospital admissions—as well as costing a whole lot less. That’s in large the theory behind HMOs and their latter-day descendants, value-based care and ACOs
Of course there are decent examples of primary care-based systems like the UK NHS or even Kaiser Permanente or the Alaskan Artic Slope Native Health Association. But for most Americans that is fantasy land. Instead, we have a system where primary care is the ugly stepchild. It’s being slowly throttled and picked apart. Even the wealth of Walmart couldn’t make it work.
There are at least 3 types of primary care that have emerged over recent decades. And none of them are really successful in making that “primary care as the lynchpin of population health” idea work.
The first is the primary care doctor purchased by and/or working for the big system. The point of these practices is to make sure that referrals for the expensive stuff go into the correct hospital system. For a long time those primary care doctors have been losing their employers money—Bob Kocher said $150-250k a year per doctor in the late 2000s. So why are they kept around by the bigger systems? Because the patients that they do admit to the hospital are insanely profitable. Consider this NC system which ended up suing the big hospital system Atrium because they only wanted the referrals. As you might expect the “cost saving” benefits of primary care are tough to find among those systems. (If you have time watch Eric Bricker’s video on Atrium & Troyon/Mecklenberg)
The second is urgent care. Urgent care has replaced primary care in much of America. The number of urgent care centers doubled in the last decade or so. While it has taken some pressure off emergency rooms, Urgent care has replaced primary care because it’s convenient and you can easily get appointments. But it’s not doing population health and care management. And often the urgent care centers are owned either by hospital systems that are using them to generate referrals, or private equity pirates that are trying to boost costs not control them.
Thirdly telehealth, especially attached to pharmacies, has enabled lots of people to get access to medications in a cheaper and more convenient fashion. Of course, this isn’t really complete primary care but HIMS & HERS and their many, many competitors are enabling access to common antibiotics for UTIs, contraceptive pills, and also mental health medications, as well as those boner and baldness pills.
That’s not to say that there haven’t been attempts to build new types of primary care
Continue reading…Personal and Professional Choices in PSA Testing: A Teaching Moment
By KELLI DEETER
I was intrigued by Daniel Stone’s piece on THCB in May titled “Biden’s cancer diagnosis as a teaching moment”. In my practice as a board-certified nurse practitioner, I am frequently asked about prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing by my male patients.
Nursing practice and medical practice often get blurred or lumped together. In the state of Colorado, nurse practitioners practice under their own license, and can independently diagnose and treat patients. In some settings where I have worked, I found myself frequently correcting patients who refer to me as ‘doctor’. “I am not a medical doctor, I am a nurse practitioner,” is repeated by me multiples of times per day. In this discussion of PSA testing, I want to share my decisions to order or not to order PSA testing for individuals, based on my nursing training.
It is important to refer to the guidelines for PSA testing recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), and published by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The last updates made to the guidelines were in 2018. It is key to remember that these are guidelines, and that medical doctors, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners use these guidelines in their consideration of the patient. In nursing, a holistic and team approach with the patient’s preferences, history, cultural considerations, and desired outcome are all weighted in decision making for assessment, testing, referral, and treatment. Guidelines are just that, a GUIDE, not an absolute.
Guidelines state that for patients aged 55-69: Screening offers a small potential benefit of reducing the chance of death from prostate cancer in some men. However, many men will experience potential harms of screening, including false-positive results that require additional testing and possible prostate biopsy; overdiagnosis and overtreatment; and treatment complications, such as incontinence and erectile dysfunction… Clinicians should not screen men who do not express a preference for screening. And for patients aged 70 and older: The USPSTF recommends against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer. This does not mean that we as providers should not test men younger than 55 or older than 70. We need to look at each patient case independently of one another and not lump everyone together.
Additionally, patients may not know how to “express a preference for screening”. It is imperative that providers have the allotted time to explore their family history of prostate and other cancers, explain to them the benefits and risks of testing, listen to and discuss their signs and symptoms, perform a digital rectal exam (DRE) if appropriate and agreed on by the patient, take into consideration their medication regimen and their age, as well as if they would want treatment or not. Certainly, if they are symptomatic, and a new medication for their symptoms is being prescribed, or if they are symptomatic and a DRE is obtained that is abnormal, a PSA should be obtained with the patient’s approval to establish a baseline, and a follow-up appointment made with repeat labs or referral, if desired by the patient. If there is a family history of prostate cancer, an early PSA screening test to establish a baseline might be preferable. Again, patient preferences must be taken into account.
People have very different feelings about western medicine and about what they want for themselves and their bodies. We must realize that just because someone has an ever increasing PSA with or without symptoms, they may not agree to a DRE or to referral to urology, surgery, or oncology. As a provider, we should obtain a refusal of recommended care. It is ok to not want testing, follow-up, or treatment, no matter one’s age. In Biden’s case, there had been no PSA testing since 2014, during his vice presidency. The fact that no reason was given is irrelevant, in 2014 he was 72 years old. Guidelines are not to test starting at age 70. The PSA level if drawn may not have aƯected his health outcome or treatment, but it may have affected the outcome of his nomination for the presidency, thus politicizing nursing and medical practice. Pointing fingers now at the past changes nothing. I agree with Stone, that this is a teaching moment: advocate for yourself as a patient, advocate for your patient as a provider, and consider that so much of one’s health is a personal choice and that it should be honored and protected.
I agree with Peter Attia’s contention in his May 24, 2024, A timely though tragic lesson on prostate cancer screening, that the PSA screening guidelines are out of date; the last revision was in 2018. Attia indicates many men remain healthy and live well past the age of 80, and aggressive cancers if caught early and treated, will better benefit the patient’s quality of life and length of life. I would also argue this is true of screening earlier in life, at age 50. Access to health care is an issue for many in our society. Marginalized populations such as the indigent, homeless, geriatric, mentally ill, and incarcerated experience greater disparities, and have a higher risk of missing any PSA testing at all. In my work as a nurse practitioner in the correctional system, for individuals entering jails and prisons this is often the first time they have ever seen a healthcare provider. These individuals often have a history of indigence, homelessness, and/or mental illness. Additionally, new cancer diagnoses are increasing and for men; 29% of new cancer types are prostate.
Age 50 is a milestone for most individuals, and they know they are supposed to get screening for colorectal cancer at this age as well as other screening tests. Consolidating care by capturing a PSA at this same time would establish an early baseline; there is never a guarantee that a patient with healthcare access issues will ever return for another appointment, due to finances, transportation, fear, or other factors. Another consideration for revising the PSA screening guidelines is lowering the threshold for PSA levels based on patient age that drive referral to urology for imaging, and putting simple language into the guidelines to look at a two-fold increase in PSA over 6-12 weeks as likely urgent referral to urology. Initiating early watchful waiting with PSA screening has the potential for saving more lives and maintaining desired qualities of life.
Kelli Deeter is a board-certified family nurse practitioner with 12 years of experience in geriatrics, rehabilitation, correction, women’s health, mental health, and complex chronic care.
Biden’s cancer diagnosis should be a teaching moment
By DANIEL STONE
Joe Biden’s metastatic cancer diagnosis brings together two controversial issues: PSA testing for prostate cancer and presidential politics. To understand what is at stake Americans need basic information about PSA testing, and a frank discussion of the reasoning behind the prostate cancer screening decisions in the former president’s case. The dribble of information we’ve gotten only creates more uncomfortable questions for Biden and his family. The absence of adequate explanation also fails to contribute to public appreciation of these important medical issues.
The prostate, a walnut-shaped gland at the base of the bladder, produces “prostate specific antigen,” or PSA. Chemically classed as a glycoprotein, a sugar/protein aggregate, it leaks from the prostate into the blood, where its level can be measured with routine blood testing.
As men age, the prostate enlarges, increasing PSA levels. Screening tests take advantage of the fact that prostate cancer usually leaks more PSA than normal prostate tissue. And in the case of prostate cancer, the PSA typically rises relatively fast.
Beyond these basic facts, the PSA story becomes hazy. Although an elevated PSA may signal cancer, most men with an elevated PSA have benign prostate enlargement, not prostate cancer. Worse yet for screening, many men with prostate cancer have a mild and slow-moving disease that requires no treatment. They coexist with their disease rather than dying of it. This fact leads to the old adage that prostate cancer is the disease of long-lived popes and Supreme Court justices.
Medical advisory panels view PSA screening with skepticism partly due to the challenges of distinguishing benign PSA elevations from those related to cancer. Confirming a suspected cancer diagnosis requires prostate biopsies that can be painful and can produce side effects. Additionally, once a diagnosis is made, patients who might have coexisted with their disease may needlessly be subject to the harms of treatment, such as radiation and surgery. Finally, the benefits of early treatment of prostate cancer have been difficult to prove in clinical studies.
For all these reasons medical advisory panels have discouraged widespread testing or recommend a nuanced approach with careful discussion of risk and benefits between patients and their
Despite these concerns, the pendulum has swung toward more PSA testing in recent years. One reason is that improvements in radiographic imaging, such as MRI, allow for “active surveillance” that can track early lesions for signs of spread, allowing doctors to distinguish between relatively benign cases of prostate cancer and those likely to progress. Interventions can then be directed more specifically to those at high risk.
In my medical practice, I have generally been an advocate for prostate cancer screening despite the controversy surrounding the clinical benefits. My experience leads me to believe that early diagnosis improves prognosis. But even without improved medical outcomes, patients and their families still benefit from early diagnosis for the purposes of planning. No one wants to be sideswiped by a late-stage symptomatic disease that limits both clinical and life choices.
Continue reading…To Beat Parkinson’s, You Must Stand on Your Head
By WOJCIECH WASILEWSKI
Dear Reader, if you’re looking for something soft and easy, please buy a different book. This one isn’t here to comfort you — it’s here to shake your lazy world, to shock you, to drag you out of the same lethargy I was trapped in for years after being diagnosed. If you feel anger, rebellion, or even a surge of motivation while reading, then it was worth writing this book, each and every hour. Parkinson’s isn’t polite — and I won’t be either. This is my war manifesto against Parkinson’s.
Throughout this book, I use the word “Parkinson” as shorthand for Parkinson’s disease, not as a reference to James Parkinson, the doctor who first described it. If that feels like an oversimplification — I apologize. But trust me, it’s the least important thing here.
People today are searching for real stories — not textbook definitions, sterile medical jargon, or sugar-coated tales of suffering. You won’t find any of that here. What you’ll find instead is something far more valuable: the truth. Raw, unfiltered, sometimes brutal, sometimes even vulgar. Why? Because that’s what this disease really is. That’s the kind of relentless fight you’ll need if you don’t want Parkinson’s to steal your life, piece by piece. I’m not afraid of that fight — and this is exactly what this book is about. I want you to stop being afraid and to believe you can get into this fight too.
This is not a scientific book. I’m not a doctor. I don’t have a PhD. I’m not an “expert” who appears on morning TV. I’m just a patient — like you. Someone who heard the diagnosis and, instead of quietly accepting it and waiting for the end, chose to fight back. And the most important part? After years of struggle, I’m living proof that it can be done. This isn’t theory — it’s my sweat, my pain, my setbacks, and my comebacks. If you want to read the story of someone who curses Parkinson’s out loud every day and refuses to let it win — you’re in the right place.
If you want to hear the voice of someone who tests every possible method to claw back one more day of normal life from this disease, someone who isn’t afraid to speak the truth and take risks — this book is for you. This is my declaration of war on Parkinson’s. And if you’re ready to join me in this fight — come on board. Because to live well with Parkinson’s, you have to completely change your lifestyle. That’s exactly what this book is about.
PARKINSON’S AFFECTS THE YOUNG
I’m talking to you — the person who typed into Google: “Parkinson’s and physical activity,” “diet and Parkinson’s,” “how to stop Parkinson’s,” “can you recover from Parkinson’s,” or “can young people get Parkinson’s.” If you’ve landed here, you’re searching for answers. I’m no miracle worker. I don’t have magic pills or secret formulas. I do have something better though — real strategies that work for me. Not just for me.
This isn’t an academic thesis. This is a battle guide. A survival manual. It’s about resisting this disease, outsmarting it, slowing it down, exhausting it. It’s about clawing back one more day of normal life — and doing it all over again tomorrow.
You know what annoys me the most? That the majority of people still think Parkinson’s is a disease of old men sitting on benches outside their apartment buildings. That’s just not true. More and more young people — people who should have their whole lives ahead of them — are being diagnosed. And then what? Fear. Panic. The crushing feeling that everything is over. Doctors rarely have time to explain what’s really going on. And the internet? It hits you with nightmare scenarios — videos of people shaking so violently they can’t even lift a spoon. Nevertheless, that’s not the full truth about Parkinson’s.
For younger people, Parkinson’s is a completely different fight — a different tempo, a different pressure, a different kind of war. They are the ones who this book is for. For people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, with families, careers, dreams, and plans — all of which Parkinson’s is trying to rip away. We don’t have to let it happen. We can fight back.
WORDS OF CRITICISM FOR THE CRITICS
I can already hear the noise — the mocking, the scoffing, the eye-rolling. Critics saying there’s no scientific proof, that maybe something did work for me but won’t work for anyone else, that it’s all clichés and empty words. Maybe my Parkinson’s is ‘defective,’ they’ll say. Or maybe I don’t even have it. Or I just got lucky and ended up with the soft version — you know, Parkinson’s Lite.
To all the critics who will claim that nothing in this book works, I have only one thing to say: Keep on clucking.
When I first decided to fight Parkinson’s, my condition was declining fast. I had muscle rigidity. I could barely walk. My left arm didn’t swing. I felt that heavy-leg fatigue, and my tremors were intense. I passed out twice — both times collapsing in the bathroom. Then I underwent the FUS procedure, and it significantly reduced the tremor in my left hand. That was the moment I realized I had to change my life. And so began a slow but powerful transformation.
I HAVEN’T WON THE WAR
Let’s be clear, dear Reader: I haven’t won the war against Parkinson’s — not even close. Writing this book, after working full-time as an analyst for eight hours a day, takes a toll on me. Sitting at the computer for hours temporarily worsens my symptoms. Just this morning, I woke up in pain — arms, legs, back, everything.
And what did I do? First I went for a light three-kilometer run. Next I took a freezing cold shower. Then I had a healthy breakfast. These simple steps and just like that — my body came back to life.
Continue reading…
