Category: Uncategorized

Carmona could be logical pick for HHS job

Feb 4, 2009• 2

By Val Jones MD

Merrill Goozner
has been speculating about who will be nominated as the new Secretary
of HHS. He reviewed his most likely candidates (David Cutler or David
Blumenthal), and threw in a “dark horse” potential nominee: Ken Thorpe
(whom I’ve interviewed several times on this blog and spent time with during Obama’s inauguration ceremony).

Tommy Thompson told me that the nominee is likely to be a current or former democratic governor (such as Kathleen Sebelius or Howard Dean).

But I’ve been pondering the “long shot” question and think that
Goozner may have missed a more obvious choice – someone who works with
Ken Thorpe at the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease: former Surgeon General Dr. Richard Carmona.

Calendar: The Haas Business of Health Care Conference Feb. 7th 2009

Feb 4, 2009

My Desktop Economic Indicators

Feb 3, 2009

By John HALAMKA

Economists track changes in the money supply, personal debt, consumer
confidence, and durable goods orders. My signs of economic health are
more subtle.

1. Email volume on nights and weekends

In
good times, people eat out at restaurants. They go to concerts, plays,
and movies. They take weekend trips with the family.

In bad times, they stay at home and email.

For
the past two months, I've received an average of 100 emails between
6pm-12am and another 50 between 12am and 6am. This is double the usual
volume for those hours.

Dr. Who?

Feb 3, 2009• 10

By BOB WACHTER

A study in this week’s Archives of Internal Medicine
by Vinny Arora and colleagues found that vanishingly
few hospitalized
patients could name any of their hospital doctors. Should we care?

I think we should. Vinny
is one of the nation’s up-and-coming researchers in the field of
hospital medicine, and a good friend. In this clever study, she and
colleagues at the University of Chicago interviewed over 2800
hospitalized patients over 15 months. Three-fourths were unable to name
even a single doctor caring for them; of those who “could” name a
doctor, the majority of names were wrong. Sobering stuff.

There
are multiple issues at play here.

At a place like the University of
Chicago Hospital, hospitalized patients on the teaching service are
cared for by gaggles of residents, students, and others who are
increasingly working in shifts and running for the exits because of
duty hours limits.

Cortese said to be candidate for CMS job

Feb 3, 2009• 1

By Sarah Arnquist

The Obama Administration has yet to announce an appointment for the director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). We're not about to start any rumors, but the announcement must be near. The eventual appointee will confront an unenviable number of difficult problems, including state Medicaid programs feeling squeezed by the financial crisis, a Medicare trust fund facing insolvency in a decade, and competing interests in any reform proposal the Obama team may propose.

The folks at the industry newsletter RPM Report think Mayo Clinic CEO Denis Cortese may be at the top of the list. Analyst Ramsey Baghdadi notes:

"Cortese would be an intriguing pick to lead the agency
and seemingly has every qualification to lead the growing Medicare
programs: He's an outsider, he holds a medical degree, he manages a
large health institution and he's helped to implement a number of the
most talked about health reforms at Mayo and made them work. Cortese
also chairs the Institute of Medicine Roundtable on Evidence-based
Medicine."

A Mayo spokeswoman downplayed the idea,
telling the Minneapolis Star Tribune that the executive has not been offered
the job.

Interview with Tracey Moorhead, DMAA

Feb 2, 2009

Tracey Moorhead has been head of the DMAA–Care Continuum Alliance for a couple of years, coming from the pan-healthcare industry group the Healthcare Leadership Council.

DMAA is the trade group for the disease management & population health management crowd–a crowd that has had to take it's lumps of late–including from me, but more significantly from CBO and CMS. Tracey gives DM a very vigorous defense, and is very optimistic about the future of disease management despite the doubts harbored by some members of various house committees.

It's a fun interview, and Tracey gives probably better than she got….Here's the interview

Plus quick shout-out to DMAA's Integrated care Summit on March 29-31 in Austin, TX

Freenomics and Healthcare IT

Feb 1, 2009• 20

By ROBERT ROWLEY

Electronic medical record (EMR) adoption has remained frustratingly low, despite numerous studies
showing improvement in health care delivery resulting from EMR use, measured in many different ways (quality, consistency, cost, etc).

The Obama administration has proposed widespread, even universal, EMR implementation over the next 5 years, though how to accomplish it remains to be seen. The Medicare reimbursement “bump” given to physicians this year to use electronic prescribing is a step in this direction, trying to create incentives.

The biggest barrier to EMR adoption has been cost. Traditionally, EMRs
have been very expensive systems designed to be installed and run
locally in a medical office, or some other local network. Thus, in
addition to the cost of the software itself, they are predicated on the
need to have an entire server system and technical support available to
the practice. The business model used by these traditional EMR vendors
has been to expect the physicians themselves to pay for these systems.

Saving Health Care, Saving America

Feb 1, 2009• 47

So far, Congress’ response to the health care crisis has been alarmingly disappointing in three ways. First, by willingly accepting enormous sums from health care special interests, our representatives have obligated themselves to their benefactors’ interests rather than to those of the American people. More than 3,330 health care lobbyists – six for every member of Congress – contributed more than one-quarter of a billion dollars in the first and second quarters of 2009. A nearly equal amount has been contributed on this issue from non-health care organizations. This exchange of money prompted a Public Citizen lobbyist to comment, “A person can reach no other conclusion than this is a quid pro quo [this for that] activity.”

Second, by carefully avoiding reforms of the practices that drive health care’s enormous cost growth, Congress pretends to make meaningful change where little is contemplated. For example, current proposals would not rebuild our failing primary care capabilities, which other developed nations depend upon to maintain healthy people at half the cost of our specialist-dominated approach. They fail to advance the easy availability and understandability of information about care quality and costs, so purchasers still cannot identify which professionals and organizations are high or low performers, essential to allowing health care to finally work as a market. They do little to simplify the onerous burden associated with the administration of billing and collections. The proposals continue to favor fee-for-service reimbursement, which rewards the delivery of more products and services, independent of their appropriateness, rather than rewarding results. Policy makers overlook the importance of bipartisan proposals like the Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act that uses the tax system to incentivize consumers to make wiser insurance purchases. And they all but ignore our unpredictable medical malpractice system, which nearly all doctors and hospital executives tell us unjustly encourages them to practice defensively.

Most distressing, the processes affecting health care reflect all policy-making. By allowing special interests to shape critically important policies, Congress no longer is able to address any of our most important national problems in the common interest – e.g., energy, the environment, education, poverty, productivity.

Over the last four years, a growing percentage of individual and corporate purchasers has become unable to afford coverage, and enrollment in commercial health plans has eroded substantially. Fewer enrollees mean fewer premium dollars available to buy health care products and services. With diminished revenues, the industry is unilaterally advocating for universal coverage. This would provide robust new revenues. But they are opposing changes to the medical profiteering practices that result in excessive costs, and which often are the foundation of their current business models. And these two elements form the troublesome core of the current proposals.

Each proposal so far contemplates additional cost. But we shouldn’t have to spend more to fix health care. Within the industry’s professional community, most experts agree that as much as one-third of all health care spending is wasted, meaning that a portion of at least $800 billion a year could be recovered. There is no mystery about where the most blatant waste is throughout the system, or how to restructure health care business practices to significantly reduce that waste.

Make no mistake. A failure to immediately address the deep drivers of the crisis will force the nation to pay a high price and then revisit the same issues in the near future. It is critical to restructure health care now, without delay, but in ways that serve the interests of the nation, not a particular industry.

Congress ultimately must be accountable to the American people. The American people must prevail on Congress to revise the current proposals, build on the lessons gleaned throughout the industry over the last 25 years, and directly address the structural flaws in our current system. True, most health industry groups will resist these efforts over the short term, but the result would be a more stable and sustainable health system, health care economy and national economy, outcomes that would benefit America’s people, its businesses and even its health care sector.

Finally, the American people should demand that Congress revisit and revise the conflicted lobbying practices that have so corroded policymaking on virtually every important issue. Doing so would revitalize the American people’s confidence in Congress, and would re-empower it to create thoughtful, innovative solutions to our national problems.

Brian Klepper is a health care analyst and industry advisor. David C. Kibbe is a family physician and a technology consultant to the industry. Robert Laszewski is a former senior health insurance executive and a health policy analyst. Alain Enthoven is Professor of Management (Emeritus) at the Stanford University Graduate School of Business.

A Brief History of the R Word

Feb 1, 2009• 64

By BOB WACHTER

Joseph Stalin

Princeton ethicist Peter Singer’s article in this week’s NY Times Sunday Magazine is creating lots of buzz. It is a classic utilitarian description of the case for rationing – QALYs and all – and a plea for a mature national dialogue about the dreaded R-word.Don’t hold your breath. To understand why, remember the words of Joseph Stalin: “A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.”

A society of grown-ups would read Singer’s article and say,

“Gosh, he’s absolutely right. If we don’t make some hard choices about whether to cover $50,000 palliative chemotherapy to extend a life of an 80-year-old by a few months, then we are choosing not to have enough money to provide universal health insurance, or to ensure that everybody has their pap smears and generic Lipitor (or, while we’re at it, to house the homeless, provide decent public education, or have viable auto companies).”
Rationing is inevitable – as I recently mentioned, talking about whether we should ration is like talking about whether we should obey the laws of gravity. The only question is how we do it. And what better time than now to have this difficult national conversation, being that we’re in the middle of retooling our entire healthcare economy, the fundamental obstacle is finding the money to pay the bill, and we have a president who truly understands the dilemma and is smart and mature enough to lead the discussion.

Yet rationing remains a political Third Rail, the Lord Voldemort of the healthcare policy debate.

The issue is not new, nor are its political trappings. It’s worth understanding a bit of this history to frame today’s debate – and lack thereof.

In 1984, Colorado Governor Richard Lamm famously opined that the elderly had a “duty to die” in order to free up resources for the young. He was vilified.

In 1987, Oregon stepped into the mess that is healthcare rationing, and spent much of the next decade scraping off its metaphorical shoe. In the face of exploding Medicaid costs, the state legislature decided not to fund transplants (including bone marrow transplants) in order to preserve limited funds to cover other services.

This was in the early years of bone marrow transplant, when BMT had a 50-50 success rate for certain types of childhood leukemias (it’s better now), and cost about $100,000. The state did the math, and found that for the same $100K, several lives could be saved by plowing the money into other healthcare needs, including prenatal care. And so BMT became an uncovered service. A perfectly rational decision if you live in Utilitarian, Most-Good-for-the-Most-People, World.

But that’s not the world we live in.

What happened next was utterly predictable. A 7-year-old boy named Coby Howard developed acute leukemia, Oregon denied his BMT coverage under Medicaid, and his mom went ballistic (any parent, including this one, would have done precisely the same thing). The only question was which megaphone she would grab first to make her case: the media, her local congressman, or a lawyer (ultimately, of course, she used all three). Here’s how it sounded on ABC’s Nightline:

[Ted Koppel] began the program with footage of Coby Howard and said: “When the State of Oregon decided to stop funding organ transplants, it allowed this boy to die.” Koppel later asked: “Is the cost of modern medical technology forcing public officials to play God?”

In the end, Coby received his BMT, paid for by private donations, but sadly died later that year. Under the leadership of state senate president (later governor) John Kitzhaber, a former ER doc, and in the face of withering post-Coby criticism, Oregon developed a more explicit rationing plan – of course, it covered BMT. Kitzhaber and his staff later described the pressures they felt after they took on healthcare rationing,

“Our detractors consist mainly of uninformed members of threatened interest groups who delight in comparing the Oregon plan to a perfect world.”

Stalin could have predicted this, of course. The Oregon rationing plan (both the ad hoc decision to deny BMTs and the more explicit “prioritized list” that followed) depended on a hard-boiled tradeoff between a single identifiable life – in this case, a cute child with a determined mother – and many unidentified lives. We’ll never know which kids were saved by better prenatal care, or whose strokes were averted by primary care and hypertension control. These statistical lives make for a pretty dull interview on Nightline – and they don’t blog.

Where do docs fit into all of this? Our ethical model is to do everything we can for the patient in front of us – we are socialized from the first day of med school to believe that the single death is indeed a tragedy (the late Norman Levinsky made this point in a wonderful piece in the NEJM called “The Doctor’s Master”). Although as responsible citizens, we care about society and the unidentified lives outside our office or our ICU, it is not our job to weigh the impact of our choices on them. And, of course, we won’t be sued by society for plundering its resources, but might well be sued by the family of an individual patient who feels that we didn’t do everything possible to save their loved one.

I just finished a couple of weeks on the wards, and once again cared for several patients – cachectic, bedbound, sometimes stuck on ventilators – in the late stages of severe and unfixable chronic illnesses whose families wanted to “do everything.” As I wrote last year, there are limits (like chest compressions) on what I am willing to do in these circumstances, but they are mostly symbolic – basically, I am a bit player in this crazy house, with no choice but to flog the helpless patient at a cost of $10,000 a day in a system that is nearly broke and whose burn rate threatens to ruin our country. Go figure.

Is there anything we can do? The favored solution, a board resembling the UK’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) with the teeth to limit certain new drugs and technologies, is hard enough. But even if we were able to get a NICE-like organization in place (doubtful), that doesn’t really address the brutally tough issue: is our ethical model one in which we do everything possible, irrespective of cost, for every patient when there is any chance of benefit, or one in which we place limits on what we’ll do in order to do the most good for the most people. An American “NICE” isn’t going to limit ICU care for 80-year-olds with metastatic cancer. That will require a much broader public discussion, and even harder choices – since they will need to be made at the bedside.

As Singer notes, every society that rations provides a safety valve for the wealthy disaffected. In the UK, you can buy private insurance that allows you to jump the queue for your hip replacement. Canada’s safety valve is called the Cleveland Clinic. We don’t talk about the percent of our GNP we are spending on Starbucks lattes, or on iPods, or on vacations. People pay for these things out of pocket, and receive no tax advantages when doing so. Given the American ethos of self-determination and consumerism, any rationing plan will need to allow people who can afford care that isn’t covered by standard insurance to buy it with their own money (with absolutely no tax advantage). Two-tiered medicine, sure, but I see little problem with this as long as we are using the money in the communal pool to provide a reasonable set of benefits to the entire population.

How might a thoughtful structure to support rationing be organized in the U.S.? When considering new technologies and drugs, it will probably entail an independent board empowered to make coverage recommendations based on cost-effectiveness, just as NICE has done in the UK. But just as importantly, at the level of individual hospitals or healthcare organizations, there will need to be committees of providers, administrators, and patient advocates that can set and defend limits on care. Such decisions would not automatically mean that grandpa can’t stay on the ventilator, but would mean that ongoing care would no longer be fully covered by insurance. Of course, these decisions would have to be all-but-immune from litigation threat.

Will this happen? Probably not. Twenty years ago, the great Princeton healthcare economist Uwe Reinhardt observed that there are two kinds of rationing: “civics lesson rationing” and “muddling through elegantly.” In the former, a NICE-like federal board, or local panels such as the one I’ve described above, weighs the evidence and makes these tough rationing decisions algorithmically and prospectively. The muddling through option, which Reinhardt felt was far more likely, involves limiting the resources available – the number of ICU beds, or MRI scanners, or CT surgeons – and allowing docs, patients and administrators to duke it out at the bedside. The evidence is that they do a decent job at triaging to provide the most good for the most people.

Of course, these limits are naturally present when resources are truly scarce – like livers for transplantation – and in these circumstances we have developed thoughtful rationing approaches. The point is that health care dollars increasingly resemble livers.

I’m pleased Peter Singer and others have dared to speak of the R-word in public, because it is so central to today’s healthcare policy debate. But will the society that brings you Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck (or, I’m beginning to think, some of our Democratic representatives) deal with it in an effective, mature way? I truly doubt it.

Why not?

Joseph Stalin would know.

More by this author:

Good grief! Will this derail the latest reform push?

Jan 31, 2009• 4

By Matthew Holt

Daschle failed to pay $128,000 in taxes

Didn’t he complete that ridiculously long form about his past that the Obamanations wanted? Daschle may not have had a drunken picture of himself on Facebook but answering away not paying over $100K in tax is going to be tough. Did he think it wouldn’t come up? Now I know it was only a free car & driver, but apparently Daschle took three years to notice that he wasn’t paying for it, and that it counted as income.

On the other hand, if Daschle doesn’t get past this, maybe we’ll get someone to run health care reform who has some slightly better ideas than Daschle’s somewhat sophomorific effort—even if not his political connections.