Tag: Medicare

The War Between the States

Nov 10, 2010• 3

By MICHAEL TURPIN

Christmas is the time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell government what they want and their kids pay for it. ~Richard Lamm

The day after a mid-term tidal wave of anti-incumbency sentiment swept through Congress resulting in the GOP reclaiming a controlling majority in the House and closer parity in the Senate, a seemingly contrite President Obama took personal responsibility for his party’s dismal showing at the polls. In a carefully worded conciliatory message, the President shared that, “the American people have made it very clear that they want Congress to work together and focus their entire energies on fixing the economy.”

Newly minted House Majority leader, John Boehner, subsequently reconfirmed that the GOP would not rest until Congress had reined in government spending. This would be partly achieved by deconstructing the highly unpopular and “flawed” Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – a “misguided” piece of legislation that would actually increase costs for employers thereby reducing the nation’s ability to jump-start an economy that relies on job creation and consumer spending. In Boehner’s mind, government is not unlike the average American, overweight – it’s budget deficits bloated by the cost of financial bailouts, Keynesian stimulus spending and failure to discuss the growing burden of fee for service Medicare.

The President’s failure to acknowledge healthcare reform in his speech was interpreted by many as deliberate and only served to cement the perception that in Washington, it will impossible to have constructive dialogue around the imperfections and potential unintended consequences of PPACA. The White House’s resolve to defend its hard-fought healthcare legislation is likely to extend the polarizing partisanship that has come to characterize Congress. The impasse may very well spark a two-year period of bruising, bellicose finger-pointing over how to fix rising healthcare costs.

Money and Healthcare Reform

Nov 5, 2010• 24

By JANE ORIENT, MD

Congress handed the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) some assumptions, the computers came up with the mix of adjustments needed to give a magic number under $1 trillion in 10 years, and the “Affordable Care Act” (ACA) emerged.

The “affordable” trillion apparently means net additional federal government expenditures, with the Treasury envisioned as one big pot of liquid gold. All the revenue gets mixed in, and the financial engineers turn the valves to direct the outgo. Less will go into some channels (“savings”), and more into others.

Numbers are thrown about—but where’s a spreadsheet of the money flows? The President couldn’t exercise a line-item veto even if he had one because there aren’t any line items. For example, how can you budget for each of the new bureaucracies if you don’t even know exactly how many there are (159—more or less)? And are they counted in the $1 trillion cost?

Swamp Creature

Nov 5, 2010• 10

By JEFF GOLDSMITH

Many people forget that before Washington DC was our nation’s capital, it was a pestilential swamp, whose few hardy residents regularly succumbed to tropical diseases like malaria. It was virtually uninhabitable in the summer (some say it still is), and like Houston and New Orleans, really began to boom only after the advent of affordable air conditioning. It is also a political swamp, infested with lobbyists and special interests, and Washington “lifers” – commentators, political operatives, consultants, intellectuals and bureaucrats who outlive increasingly fragile Presidential administrations. The electorate despises Washington, and sends waves of “outsiders” (e.g. ordinary Americans) to drain the swamp.

Though President Obama signed it into law in March, the new Affordable Care Act of 2010 is a swamp creature. Written by an exhausted Congress, half beast, half plant, the ACA is a seething, octopus-like tangle of well meaning but opaque government projects intended to expand health coverage and fix the health system’s numerous problems. Far more than “insurance reform”, it sprawls over and touches virtually every corner of our $2.5 trillion health system, bringing change, uncertainty and a ton of taxpayer dollars. It also has sunk its taproots deep into the national treasury and extends its feeding tentacles to an obese and hungry industry that already claims 17% of the national wealth.

A new wave of Republicans are about to hit town, fired up by their stunning mid-term election victory and control over the House of Representatives. One of their campaign pledges is to kill the swamp creature. They will shortly charge off into the swamp to try and kill it, like the British army tried to kill Francis Marion. In doing so, they expose themselves to a whole bunch of hidden hazards, including the beast itself. Handled thoughtlessly, the Republican campaign against health reform could damage the party’s prospects in 2012, even if the economy continues to sputter.

The Republican Landslide and the Affordable Care Act

Nov 3, 2010• 39

By GLENN LAFFEL, MD

After their resounding triumph in yesterday’s midterm elections, House Republicans will likely act on their promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the health reform bill President Obama signed into law last March.

Their efforts could be blocked by the Democratically controlled Senate or, if necessary, by a veto from the Big O himself. But the Boehners might still get the final say, since they have the power to halt appropriations funding for large swaths of the law.

These realities have health-industry groups, some of whom vigorously supported Democratic efforts to pass the law, cozying-up to the GOP like a Snuggie on a cold winter night.

Private insurers want Congress to nix that $70 billion tax that will be levied against them beginning in 2014. They’d also like lawmakers to permit them to widen the rating bands which cap the amount of money they can charge older enrollees.

Insurers and providers want Congress to add a tort reform rider to the law, preferably one that protects physicians against malpractice lawsuits if they adhere to best practice guidelines. Drug companies want to kill the proposed Independent Payment Advisory Board, whose job it is supposed to be to control the rate of growth in Medicare spending. The Board’s recommendations would, after all, likely include reduced federal spending on prescription drugs which is very bad for their business.

Yet these same groups are worried sick that Republicans might go too far in their zeal to repeal the deal. The baby in the bathwater for these trade groups is the individual mandate: a provision in the law that requires most Americans to carry health insurance.

Dismantling the Cottage Industry

Nov 2, 2010• 33

By MARGALIT GUR-ARIE

Last week I went to see a doctor about an EHR. Dr. Greene (not his real name) is a typical solo primary care physician in a typical small town in the typical middle of nowhere. Four hours from the closest airport and miles and miles of winding roads, cow pastures and corn fields away from medical centers of excellence. Dr. Greene is in his late fifties and has been practicing medicine for over thirty years in the same location. He works six days per week and missed “two and a half” days of work since he hung his shingle up and never missed a Rotary Club luncheon. Dr. Greene is planning on practicing for ten more years and now, he wants to go electronic.

Dr. Greene’s practice is located in a small and spotless one-story building with large windows and an open floor plan. We sat down at a white laminate round table in the kitchen during his lunch break. His wife of many years is his office manager and the only other employee is a nurse who doubles as front office receptionist. His shortest appointment is for 30 minutes and new patients, who are scheduled for 1 hour, come at the end of the day just in case it takes longer than planned. His notes, written on special gold colored paper in nicely rounded cursive font, are concise and neatly organized by visit date. Like most doctors who use paper charts, he doesn’t code his visits. He checks diagnoses and procedures on a sparse super-bill devoid of any numbers. His wife and office manager takes it from there and all his claims go out electronically every day.

So That’s How The Rates Are Set

Oct 29, 2010• 9

By PAUL LEVY

The Wall Street Journal published a very important article this week. Written by Anna Wilde Mathews and Tom McGinty, it is entitled, “Secrets of the System: Physician Panel Prescribes the Fees Paid by Medicare.

Here’s the lede:

Three times a year, 29 doctors gather around a table in a hotel meeting room. Their job is an unusual one: divvying up billions of Medicare dollars.

The group, convened by the American Medical Association, has no official government standing. Members are mostly selected by medical-specialty trade groups. Anyone who attends its meetings must sign a confidentiality agreement.

Yet the influence of the secretive panel, known as the Relative Value Scale Update Committee, is enormous. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversee Medicare, typically follow at least 90% of its recommendations in figuring out how much to pay doctors for their work. Medicare spends over $60 billion a year on doctors and other practitioners. Many private insurers and Medicaid programs also use the federal system in creating their own fee schedules.

How Come Comparative Effectiveness Research is All the Rage?

Oct 27, 2010• 18

By KENT BOTTLES, MD

Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) is suddenly a hot topic at all the health care conferences. How come? Everybody agrees that we have to decrease per-capita cost and increase quality. Why? Government programs like Medicare and Medicaid foot more than 50% of our nation’s health bill, and if everything stays the same these programs will go belly up (bankrupt) in 8 years. Big problem.

Health and Human Services (HHS) has defined comparative effectiveness research as conducting and synthesizing research comparing the benefits and harms of different interventions and strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor health conditions in “real world” settings. In other words, CER is figuring out what treatments, tests, and drugs work and which ones don’t work.

John E. Wennberg spent a whole career at Dartmouth studying American medicine, and he comes to the startling conclusion that 60% of Medicare is spent on supply sensitive care (physician visits, consultations, imaging exams, and hospital and ICU admissions) and 25% on preference sensitive care (PSA tests, mammography, and elective surgery). Although we assume that this care is based on solid scientific evidence, Wennberg states that “medical science is virtually silent on such matters” as how often to see a patient, what test to order, and whether to admit a patient to the hospital or ICU. Some evidence based medicine experts state that only about 20% of what physicians do is based on sound science.

How Reform Law Funds Itself, Strengthens Medicare, and Cuts the Deficit: Part 1

Oct 22, 2010• 58

By MAGGIE MAHAR

The Mainstream Media Rarely Tries to Explain the Congressional Budget Office’s nearly unbelievable claims that the Patient Protect and Affordable Care Act can:

1) Pay for itself

2) Provide coverage for 32 million uninsured Americans

3) Trim this nation’s deficit by some $143 billion over the next ten years

And, that’s not all. Medicare’s Trustees say that the reform legislation puts Medicare on the road to financial solvency–while limiting co-pays and beefing up benefits.

You might well ask: How can this be? How can we provide insurance for an additional 32 million people, improve Medicare, and simultaneously save money?

The media has not been a great help in answering these questions. This is, in large part, because the good news lies in the details—dozens and dozens of details. Fleshing out the myriad ways that the ACA generates new revenues while reining in health care spending would take up far too much time on a cable television show—and way too much space in most newspapers.

The Politics of Health Reform

Oct 19, 2010• 44

By JOHN GOODMAN, PhD

There will be two national elections before the new health overhaul is substantially implemented (in 2014) and a third election the year it is supposed to be implemented.

Question: Will the voters reward office holders who supported the Affordable Care Act (ACA), or will they vote for their opponents? In thinking about this question, forget all the public opinion polls. Can you predict the outcome based on what you know about political science alone?

My prediction: Supporters of the new law are going to get creamed. As I explained at my own blog the other day, there are four reasons: The law violates two bedrock principles of coalition politics that have been successful for the past 80 years; it abandons core Democratic constituencies; and it ignores the fundamentals of the politics of the health care sector.

Franklin Roosevelt’s First Principle of Successful Coalition Politics: Create benefits for people who are concentrated and organized, paid for by people who are disbursed and disorganized.

The ACA violates this principle in spades. The main beneficiaries are many (but not all) of the new law are 32 million to 34 million newly insured people who otherwise would have been uninsured. Far from being organized and focused, most people in this group do not even know who they are. Indeed, it is probably fair to say that never in American history have so many benefits been conferred on so many people who never even asked for them!

Medicare Costs Rise, Health Outcomes Suffer When Seniors Are Over-Medicated

Oct 19, 2010• 6

By NAOMI FREUNDLICH

The problem of elderly people taking too many medications is not new, but continues to pose a serious risk to health as well as contribute significantly to rising Medicare costs. The fact is that nearly 20% of adults aged 65 years and older who are not hospitalized take 10 or more medications daily. This number is not the result of shoddy care, but rather achieved when doctors simply follow practice guidelines for several common, co-existing conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure and depression, for example. If you look at all seniors (those both in and out of the hospital) the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists reports that the average 65-69 year old takes nearly 14 prescriptions per year; by ages 80-84 that number averages an astounding 18 prescription drugs per year.

What’s troubling is that instead of improving the health of seniors, evidence is growing that the more medications an elderly person takes, the more likely he is to experience falls, cognitive decline, loss of mobility, depression and even cardiac problems. These adverse drug effects may be mistaken for Alzheimer’s disease or other dementias too. The bottom line: Experts estimate that up to one-third of the elderly in our communities may be over-medicated and some 20% of their hospital admissions are due to adverse drug events. The costs related to over-medication in the elderly are thought to exceed $80 billion each year.

Although the problem of so-called “polypharmacy” among seniors results in significant economic and public health costs, little has been done to remedy the problem. In fact, in a recent commentary in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Jerry Avorn, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and author of the book “Powerful Medicines,” says that “many aspects of the US health care system act to discourage optimal prescribing” for the elderly.

For example, elderly Americans are highly underrepresented in the clinical trials for many of the drugs that doctors commonly prescribe for them. Seniors may metabolize these medications differently and they are often more sensitive to side effects and counter-indications with other drugs than younger people. They also take many more drugs (often all at the same time) than any subjects who take part in controlled clinical trials. Disturbingly, doctors sometimes end up prescribing a new medication to treat the adverse effects of a pill the elderly patient has been taking for years.