Tag: Health Care Reform

Value (Outcomes/Cost)–A Unifying Concept for Health Reform?

Dec 30, 2010• 5

By RICHARD REECE, MD

In health care, stakeholders have myriad, often conflicting goals, access to services, profitability, high quality, cost containment, safety, convenience, patient-centeredness, and satisfaction.

-Michael Porter PhD, Professor, Harvard Business School

Those who support the new health reform law and those who seek to repeal it look at the new law through vastly different ideological lenses. Each ideological camp has its own implacable, rarely movable spin on what’s important.

But, according to Thomas Lee, MD, associate editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and networks president for Partners Healthcare System in Boston, the search for value (outcomes relative to cost) unites and provides a path forward for competing ideological interests.

In Lee’s words, “The value framework offers a unifying framework for provider organizations that might otherwise be paralyzed by constituents’ fighting for bigger pieces of a shrinking pie (“Putting the Value Framework to Work,” New England Journal of Medicine, and December 23, 2010).

As an ideological and idealistic concept, I would like to think a utopian vision focusing on value is achievable. But I remain dubious because of the nature of American culture. I am also skeptical partly because the concept originates in Boston, which has the highest health costs in the nation but which has scanty evidence that its outcomes are superior. Finally, I am leery because it takes large organizations with interoperable and expensive electronic systems that communicate with each other to measure value (outcomes/costs) for a bewildering number of different diseases with different outcome dimensions (survival, degrees of health recovery, time to return to work, side effects, pain, complications, adverse effects, sustainability, long term consequences) all measured over a longitudinal time frame among diverse stakeholders. Bringing such scattered data points into a single focus with a common understanding among diverse participants over a long time frame strikes me as nearly impossible.

High Stakes Health Reform – Employers: In or Out?

Dec 15, 2010• 18

By MICHAEL TURPIN

It’s high noon for private healthcare. Over the last decade, large, medium and small employers that procure and manage over $1T of private healthcare spend for an estimated 180M Americans have been engaged in an expensive game of Texas Hold ‘Em – – wagering with and against a continuum of stakeholders that all seem to possess more powerful hands. As providers consolidate, insurers retrench and the government wrestles with obligations of an uncontrolled fee for service Medicare, the costs of staying at the final table are taking its toll.

To many veteran observers, it appears that employers may be on the brink of folding their cards. As finance and HR professionals consider the table stakes and costs to remain in the game, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has suddenly provided a potential golden opportunity to step away from a fifty year obligation without incurring onerous near term financial consequences.

As individuals and small business have continued to lapse into the ranks of the uninsured, those small and mid-sized businesses choosing to continue to offer health insurance are coming to the realization that the Affordable Care Act will not result in the moderating of double digit medical trends. In the near term, some contend costs will continue to rise by much as 25-40% before the launch of 2014’s guarantee issue health exchanges.

Larger employers are already cynical to whether reform will actually work for them or against them. Bigger firms and collectively bargained plans are beginning to understand that if small and mid-sized employers drop out of offering private healthcare, the decline of employer plans will leave them as the sole remaining source for private insurance cost shifting. As the cards are turned, the outcomes are far from certain – – and as we have come to discover, business hates uncertainty.

The Libertarian Mind

Dec 3, 2010• 9

By RONALD PIES, MD

“It is an eternal obligation toward the human being not to let him suffer from hunger when one has a chance of coming to his assistance.” –Simone Weil

Libertarianism is much in the news these days, as the political divide in the U.S. seems to widen almost before our eyes. Before providing a rough, notional definition of “libertarianism”, I should offer readers some caveats. First, I am not a political scientist, professional philosopher, or economist, though scholars in these fields have offered many pointed critiques of what is loosely called libertarianism (see references). Furthermore, as a psychiatrist, I am trained to diagnose individuals whom I have professionally examined. I am not in the habit of “diagnosing” movements, ideologies, or political groups; indeed, the idea of doing so is clearly outside the purview of medical or psychiatric practice.

Nonetheless, as a lecturer on bioethics and humanities, it is impossible for me to read the platform and proclamations of the Libertarian Party without drawing some tentative conclusions as regards the nature of this movement; its psychological underpinnings; and its ethical implications for the poorest and sickest among us—those sometimes referred to as “the destitute sick.”

I do not propose to “psychoanalyze” particular individuals, or to speculate on the motives of political figures who figure prominently in American politics. And, because the term “libertarian” has such a wide range of meanings, I will focus my attention on the official platform of the Libertarian party, which is very lucidly spelled out in a publicly-available venue (http://www.lp.org/platform). For the most part, I will deal with the Libertarian party’s position on health care and social support systems, while offering some tentative impressions on the “psychology” of libertarian theory.Continue reading…

The Ryan/Rivlin Plan

Nov 29, 2010

By JOHN GOODMAN, PhD

Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Alice Rivlin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), have proposed an entitlement spending reform plan that is striking both for its boldness and its left-right-coming-together origins. There are a number of interesting parts, but I want to focus on the three most important:

Medicare would, for the first time, be transformed into rational insurance. Beginning in 2013, all enrollees would be protected by a $6,000 cap on out-of-pocket expenses; in return they would pay for more small expenses on their own.
After a decade, people newly eligible for Medicare would receive a voucher to purchase private insurance instead. The value of the voucher would grow at the rate of growth of GDP plus 1% (note: for the past four decades, health care spending per capita nationwide has been growing at about GDP growth plus 2%).
Medicaid would be turned into annual block grants to the states. The value of the block grants would also grow at GDP growth plus 1%.

Bottom line verdict: This is a good proposal that deserves serious attention. To guarantee its success, however, more needs to be done to (1) allow the private sector to control costs through economic incentives, competition and entrepreneurship and (2) allow young people to save for the growing share of expenses they will be expected to bear.

How Does This Plan Compare with the Affordable Care Act (ACA)? Given that Ryan has been previously attacked by Paul Krugman and others on the left because of his ideas about voucherizing Medicare, a natural question arises. How does the Ryan/Rivlin slowdown in Medicare spending compare to the health reform bill Congress passed last spring — a bill supported by some of the very people attacking Ryan?

“Don’t Litigate, Innovate.”

Nov 29, 2010

By ROBERT LASZEWSKI

What if a Republican governor and a Republican legislature had the ability to implement their version of health insurance reform and the federal government would have to pay for it? It’s a great idea. And I’m thrilled to say that a bi-partisan bill has already been introduced in the Senate by Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Scott Brown, R-Mass., that would help facilitate exactly this end.

First, let’s review section 1332 of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to realize how states are already — at least eventually — given the ability to innovate in this manner. Here is a simplified summary:

A state may apply to the Health and Human Services secretary for a waiver of all or any requirements with respect to the insurance exchanges, mandates, and subsidies with respect to health insurance coverage within that state for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2017.
The secretary has to provide for an alternative means by which the aggregate amount of the tax credits and subsidies, which would have been paid on behalf of participants in the exchanges, would instead be paid to the state for purposes of implementing their own version of the law.
The secretary may grant a request for a waiver only if the secretary determines that the state plan will provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive as the coverage defined under the new law and offered through similar exchanges established by the states.

Health Care and the 2010 Midterms

Nov 8, 2010• 15

By ROBERT LASZEWSKI

The election has given us a Republican House and a still Democratic controlled Senate. But, instead of Democrats having the 60 Senators they had when health care was passed in December, they will have a slim majority in the new Congress of 53 seats when the two Independents who caucus with them are counted.

Exit polls clearly show an anti-health care law sentiment. Exit polls done for the AP found 48% of Tuesday’s voters want the new health care law repealed, 31% want it expanded, and 16% want it left as is.

Remember those swing Democratic House votes that were on the fence over the health care bill last March? Most who voted for it are out of work this morning—and all but 11 of the 34 of them who voted against it also went down to defeat. Why did even those who voted against the new health care law lose their jobs? Because of one vote they all had in common–they voted for Pelosi as Speaker.

An issue, guaranteed

Nov 8, 2010• 16

By PAUL LEVY

I don’t mean this in a partisan way, but it is really distressing to read this New York Times article about Republican plans to dismantle parts of the recent health care bill by using the appropriation powers of the House of Representatives. I say this because of the unintended consequences that will result if they are successful in this approach. Let me give an example.

I think one of the most important aspects of the law is “guaranteed issue” of health insurance: Insurance companies will no longer be permitted to use pre-existing medical conditions as a bar to coverage. A concomitant of guaranteed issue is the individual mandate, the requirement that all people purchase health insurance. Why?

Left to their own, insurers will impose pre-exisiting conditions types of restrictions because they understand the moral hazard aspect of insurance. Healthy people provide an actuarial balance to sick people. If people only buy insurance when they need care, the risk profile of the insured population rapidly swings, upsetting the actuarial calculations used to establish premiums. So, if these restrictions are outlawed, everybody needs to be in the risk pool. Accordingly, you have to ban optional insurance.

But look at this quote from the article cited above:

Republican lawmakers said, for example, that they would propose limiting the money and personnel available to the Internal Revenue Service, so the agency could not aggressively enforce provisions that require people to obtain health insurance and employers to help pay for it.

I think the Republicans know that guaranteed issue is popular with Americans, and so they do not directly want to repeal that provision of the new law. But what will happen if healthy people start to opt out of getting insurance, only to return when they get sick? The system will quickly get out of balance. Ironically, this will only cause premiums to rise. I don’t understand why the Republicans would want that to happen, and I fail to see a strategic political advantage arising from that result.

This makes me wonder if they have thought this through completely and whether they understand the unintended consequences of their proposed actions.

Paul Levy is the President and CEO of Beth Israel Deconess Medical Center in Boston. Paul recently became the focus of much media attention when he decided to publish infection rates at his hospital, despite the fact that under Massachusetts law he is not yet required to do so. For the past three years he has blogged about his experiences in an online journal, Running a Hospital, one of the few blogs we know of maintained by a senior hospital executive.

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!

Doctors, Hospitals and the Yankees

Oct 19, 2010• 5

By ROB LAMBERTS, MD

Joe Boyd hated the Yankees.

“Those damn Yankees. Why can’t we beat ‘em?”

Then he got the opportunity to save his beloved Washington Senators by making a deal with the devil – giving up his soul in exchange for being transformed into “Shoeless Joe” to propel his team to win the World Series.

Interesting. I think a lot of doctors are making their deal with the devil. They are looking for a small gain in comparison to a long-term of misery. True, Joe Boyd made out in the end; but that will only happen if someone from Hollywood writes our script.

Here’s the problem: at the core of our problems with healthcare is the total lack of cohesive communication. Doctors have no idea what other doctors have done with a patient. Tests get ordered, medications get changed, procedures, hospitalizations, even surgeries are done without communication to other doctors who would benefit from this information. The conduit of communication is this:

Doctor: “So, how have you been doing over the past few months?”

Patient: “Didn’t you get the notes from the hospital? I was in for two weeks. I had a heart attack and a stroke and now I am in rehab for both of these.”

Doctor: (checks chart uncomfortably) “No, I didn’t hear about it. Why don’t you tell me about it….”

Situations like this happen daily at my office. Patients are started on medications by specialists without my knowledge. Lab tests are done that I have no access to. Huge changes happen in the lives of the patients for whom I have cared for over a decade, and I get nothing. Even consults I order are done without any communication back to me. On the other side of things, my patients are hospitalized without any consideration of the care I have been giving over the past decade. Patients are treated as if their care starts from scratch every time they enter a new venue.