Categories

Tag: Policy

POLICY/INDUSTRY: Money-driven Medicine, a sorta review

I must be getting vaguely famous as I was sent (unsolicited) a copy of a new book by Maggie Mahar called Money-Driven Medicine. On Sunday it was reviewed in the Boston Globe, which fairly accurately portrayed it as an indictment of 30 years of corporate medicine. Here’s the Globe’s conclusion:

The core message of "Money-Driven Medicine" is that the quintessential doctor-patient relationship has been transformed by the requirements of corporate medicine into a retailer-consumer relationship, and every sector of the system is trying to sell its products and services to that consumer and reap profits for its stockholders.This market-driven system, Mahar shows, turns the law of supply and demand on its head. The competition generates excess supply, but that does not lead to less costly medical care. It is the cost of replicated facilities, equipment, products, and services, along with millions spent on marketing and advertising, that keep the cost of medical care in this country soaring

So unlike many others, as this was a book looking at my core topic, I read it cover to cover. It’s a good read and broadly accurate as a narrative. If I had to nitpick I’d complain that Mahar spends too much time quoting other people rather than telling the story herself. I got the impression that being a financial journalist who came to health care as a fresh topic, she was a little over-wowed by what she found — although I guess that means that old middle-aged fogeys like me are too cynical about how badly people in the system behave. But at least the people she quotes at length like Jamie Robinson and Sheryl Scholnick are pretty sensible.

There were also one or two minor gems. I didn’t know that the AMA had a televised presentation opposing Medicare in 1962 immediately after JFK had a rally promoting it in Madison Square Garden—although it’s worth remembering that the AMA (and by extension most doctors) opposed Medicare and universal health insurance basically all through the 20th century. I also missed the fact that the SEC dropped an investigation into Bill Frist’s brothers conduct in the Columbia/HCA scandal immediately before the 2002 elections under pressure from the Administration—but that’s not exactly surprising.

Overall it’s a pretty comprehensive review of the corporatization of the health care system, and probably a pretty good introduction for people who don’t understand health care much. Although I remember another other book very like it written in the 1980s (which I can’t remember the title of) which also decried the new world of the for-profit hospital chains and that was before the most recent round of Columbia/HCA and Tenet undertakings.

Where I disagree with Mahan is that the perversion of medicine by money is somehow a recent thing caused by Wall Street & corporate incentives — sure you could argue that it’s worse now, but the manipulation of the health care system for the ends of power and profit is as old as the economy. And the impact that has had on the quality and cost of medical care is just as crucial, as whatever Tenet, HCA or HealthSouth has been up to. Paul Starr and Michael Millenson wrote much better books about that in the 80s and 90s. On the human issues involved Jonathan Cohn has what promises to be an even more interesting book coming up (although I’ve only seen two chapters)

Meanwhile I’ve given the book to John Irvine, who’s a more recent arrival in health care than I am…so I hope that he’ll be able to do an interesting review later unclouded by my biased perspective.

PHYSICIANS/PHARMA/POLICY: More Friday fun

I was checking out potential book titles when I cam across this site, Health Care for Dummies. Given that I’ve spent some of the week beating up on the AMA, and spent some of yesterday touching on why the health care system looks like it does today—mostly based on Paul Starr’s book. But the real conspiracy theory is much more fun (even if I can’t exactly vouch for the truth). Read on for an amusing Friday diversion.

I’ll see ya back here on Tuesday

 

POLICY/PHYSICIANS: More on the AMA

So why did I get so grumpy with the secretary of the AMA and his talk at TEPR. I actually stood up and asked a long question which he interrupted to tell a bunch of lies about Canada, ignoring that there are lots of other countries with universal health care that do it differently and better. When I finally got to ask about why when ePrescribing was originally mandated for Part B in the house version of the 2003 MMA eRx legislation and ask as to why it mysteriously was left out of the final bill, and what was the AMA’s role in that — well as Neil Versel said to me afterwards “no one dodges the question like the AMA.”

Things he featured prominently………………The uninsurance crisis and how tough that is for doctorsThings he didn’t mention……………………The AMA’s long, long history of opposing universal health insurance including 1994

Things he featured prominently………………The AMA’s proposal for tax credits for the uninsuredThings he didn’t mention……………………That those proposals do almost nothing to reduce uninsurance

Things he featured prominently……………….How Pay for Performance was unfair on doctorsThings he didn’t mention……………………The AMA’s long, long history of opposing quality improvement

Things he featured prominently……………….How Medicare pay rates have fallen by half over timeThings he didn’t mention……………………The vast real increase in physician incomes since 1965

Things he featured prominently……………….How physicians will drop Medicare patients if fees go downThings he didn’t mention……………………The research that shows that this is untrue and an empty threat

Things he featured prominently……………….How other countries government’s paid for doctors’ ITThings he didn’t mention……………………How other countries doctors earn much less than him and his colleagues

Things he featured prominently……………….How the government should pay for physician IT but not mandate its useThings he didn’t mention……………………Every other business has been force to get IT to better serve its customers

Things he featured prominently……………….How Canada has rationing and is going to allow some private medicineThings he didn’t mention……………………That low–middle income Canadians don’t go bankrupt from the cost of health care

Yup, apparently it is just everyone else’s fault and physicians have no need to change anything.

I am on record as wanting doctors to run our health care system. I want physician organizations to get the money and decide its rational allocation . But apparently organized medicine’s response is to bury its head in the sand and demand that the rest of us hand them a blank check, and let’s all pretend it’s 1972 again.

Please please someone tell me that this guy is an anachronism and that he really doesn’t represent physician opinion….or else I will get even more depressed…

Policy: The LA Times on Kaiser Permanente By John Irvine

The smoke appears to be clearing around Kaiser Permanente’s headquarters, where the management is no doubt wondering if the worst is over after this week’s decision
  to close the HMO’s Northern California kidney
  transplant center
. Patients enrolled in the program have been transferred
  to UCSF and to UC Davis. Embarrasingly for Kaiser, there were a few Medicare Part D style snafus with the transition (apparently nobody was picking up at the toll-free number set up for patients.) But all in all, the consensus
  seems to be that Kaiser did the right thing by moving quickly to shut down the
  operation once the extent of the problems became clear.

What happens next? The answer to that question is probably best known by the
  reporters at the Los Angeles Times, who may or may not have something else up
  their sleeves, after the first wave of stories uncovering the scandal. Historically,
  the Times has been tenacious when it comes to pieces like this (For a good example see: the transplant story at UCI
  Medical Center
). The paper won a Pulitzer for
  outstanding public service journalism in 2005 for its series on King/Drew and might well have won another last year if it hadn’t been
  for the Times-Picayune’s
  brilliant coverage of Hurricane Katrina.

The problem for Kaiser is that once a story like this one breaks, a chain reaction
  starts. People get mad. People come forward. E-mails start flying. For reporters,
  the threads begin to unravel. It should go without saying that for a large health
  management organization with a long and varied history, this is not exactly
  an ideal scenario …

The whole emerging Kaiser story of course, has been the topic of lively debate  in the THCB comments section, where the company is far from as unpopular as  one might assume. (Matthew, you’ll note from earlier posts in this thread, is
  a fairly sympathetic observer.) Up from the comments to make life more interesting
  comes a former Kaiser transplant patient who did not particularly care for the
  detached and academic tone of the discussion between some of the posters. Sarah 
  had this to say:

I hate 70% of you. You have no CLUE what you are saying. I am one of those
  patients in the Kaiser Nor/Cal Transplant Program, having had a kidney transplant
  17 years ago. What is coming out about this program is utterly horrifying, and
  how any of you can defend Kaiser or debate the merits of transplants makes me
  ILL. You should be ashamed of yourselves. And I know none of this is coming
  from UCSF or Davis. And I know Dr. Inokuchi personally (she was one of my docs
  at CPMC). And I know the program has been crap since it started (good luck getting
  a call back for a simple question about dental pre-meds).This scandal is far bigger than y’all seem to realize. A lot of people died 
for no reason.

And for my surgery, Kaiser saved a fortune. $40k a year for 17
  years plus health care costs related to dialysis would have been far more than
  the transplant cost plus rejection meds."

POLICY: Do No Evil, Part II.

Here’s my editorial in today’s issue of FH.

This week saw more controversy regarding some of the bad boys of healthcare past
and strong hints that some of the healthcare market stars of the present may
have adopted their bad habits. Criminal investigations into United HealthGroup
and ACS are now following The Wall Street Journal story about their
stock option pricing and Bill McGuire’s huge fortune. Now Caremark has been
subpoenaed, too. Those of you with very long memories may remember Caremark in a
previous life getting into legal trouble as a home infusion operation in the
1980s and being a financial disaster as a physician group roll-up in the
1990s.

Meanwhile, Tenet accepts a death penalty on one hospital and is still
struggling to get out from the malfeasance and its appalling, if not outright
criminal behavior, in Redding, CA, and probably elsewhere. Not that this is the
first time that appalling criminal behavior has been seen from that company,
although it was called NME back when it was kidnapping children into its
psychiatric hospitals.

We won’t do more than mention the name HealthSouth. While they’ve been off
the news lately, it’s worth remembering that the other big hospital chain, HCA,
has paid two of the biggest fines ever for defrauding Medicare, and that the
Senate majority leader’s brother, who happened to be the chairman, had an SEC
investigation mysteriously end in 2002.

So it’s worth asking the question again. Is it just a few bad apples? Or is
the pressure for stock growth from Wall Street incompatible with running a
responsible healthcare company?

Continue reading…

POLICY/PHARMA: Cato calls the Republicans on the Part D deceipt

I approve of government programs done well. Michael Cannon doesn’t approve of them done much at all. We both disapprove of them being done expensively and then having so-called Conservatives in power lie bold face about their costs and enrollment rates. Yup, I’m sending you over to the Cato Institute blog. That might be a first for TPM Cafe, but it’s a great explanation of what’s wrong with Part D.

(Also posted at TPMcafe)

CODA: I haven’t made it thorugh Kling’s book yet, and I had a real problem with Cannon’s — as it missed the point so badly that I didn’t think it was worth reviewing. But with Radley Balko keeping up on the drug war stuff, Cato remains the thinking man’s right wing think-tank.

POLICY: talking about the inefficiencies of the insurance market…

A Commonwealth Fund study from HSC in the latest Health Affairs reminds us that employees in small firms pay 18% more for health insurance when adjusted for value of plan adjusted premiums.  Here’s the full Health Affairs study

Meanwhile, to the surprise of absolutely nobody that’s been paying attention, another study in the same Health Affairs shows that increased competition in the  Medicare risk/Advantage program (i.e. the private plan part of it) is associated with greater use of advertising targeting healthier patients. More from PNHP’s Don McCanne on that.

CONSUMERS/BLOGS: CDHC Conference

Dmitriy did a nice job at his talk at the CDHCC meeting yesterday. You can see his slides here

I was the skunk in the room on a couple of panels. I asked a “question” at the payments and financial services panel, which basically said that HSAs were going to turn doctors into collections agencies….and got surrounded by lots of people afterwards who either agreed with me, or who told me that they were on the point of building the real-time credit guaranteeing, deductible adjudication network that was going to save physicians, and guarantee them that the patients with HDHPs actually pay their bills. They’d better be right, or else the doctors will start thinking that single payer, but one that at least guarantees to pay, is a pretty good alternative!

I was not the only skunk in the room on the Sally Pipes/Grace-Marie Turner debate (!) which I pointed out was as much of a  debate as the Republican Convention. One questioner stood up and said that the pro-HSA crowd (which he was on) would have to prove that they weren’t just about employers cost shifting to employees, or they’d lose the ideological battle. Too bloody right—unfortunately the data is in and that is exactly what’s going on. The PRI guys (Graham and Pipes) want to go to meetings to combat State Senator Sheila Kuhl’s call for single payer—what they are confused about is why the single payer guys think that HSAs are a godsend for their cause. Apparently they think everyone wants to have an HSA and take part in health care “ownership”.

I tried to be a moderate and merely pointed out that the ideologues in the HSA movement are treading on very dangerous ground as Americans love their employer-based insurance and know that there’s not much to replace it with. Just wait till they find out how dreadful life is in the individual market!

HEALTH PLANS/POLICY: RAND study on the individual market puzzles me a little

Here are my longer comments on the RAND study about Consumer making in the individual insurance market published on the web last week by Health Affairs. Somewhat ironically I was interviewed and fairly extensively quoted in this Olga Pierce UPI story (yup, the Moonies got to me!) before I’d read the whole study, so I was mostly venting my prejudices about the individual insurance market as a whole in my comments there. This is a little long, so I’ve put it below the jump — but I think it’s very important.

Continue reading…

assetto corsa mods