The other day, the American Hospital Association, the Blue Cross /
Blue Shield Association, Premera Blue Cross and America’s Health
Insurance Plans (FYI – HPHC is a member and I’m on the Board of
AHIP) released a joint study on public and private payment rates.
study was prepared by Milliman, Inc., one of the nation’s most well
known number-crunching health care consulting firms. Readers of
this blog will not be surprised to learn that the study shows that
Medicare and Medicaid pay a lot less for health care services than the
Blue Cross and private health plans pay. But I must say, even I was
a little surprised by the size of the differential.
In a post here three weeks ago, I explained that I am engaging physician audiences in a conversation about participatory medicine, using a talk and presentation entitled "Confessions of a Physician EMR Champion.”
I “confess” my own misplaced hope in the EMR movement, and that I’m finally embracing the reality that most investments in health IT have not met expectations.
My broad message is that the key lesson of this failure has been that adoption of health IT without understanding the fundamental interactions between people, business process, and technology wastes both human and economic capital.
To be successful, the adoption of health IT by physicians, nurses, and staff must extend communication and health data exchange beyond their practices and bill payers to include the patient and family members, the patient’s team of health and wellness professionals, and ancillary service providers such as pharmacists and lab technicians in the community.
Health IT must be able to support coordination and continuity of care, as well as accountability for doing the right things for patients. I now realize most EMRs are not sufficient to this task, and I was wrong to think they would evolve in this direction.
Americans spend more money on health care than any other nation, but get far less in return, say multiple health care executives in Sunday’sWashington Post.
That’s not news to readers of this blog, but probably is not yet common knowledge among the general American taxpayer. That might change. The news media seems to be writing about this "value gap" more frequently, particularly in citing the growing momentum behind creating a center for comparative effectiveness research to evaluate drugs, devices and treatments to find out what works best.
Defining and measuring value is not easy, but increasingly public and
private health care purchasers are using their market power to demand higher quality care. Whether the science is
ready to support this "value-based purchasing" is the topic at the ECRI Institute’s annual conference today and tomorrow. (I’m attending the conference and will report on it tomorrow.)
The morning after the election, I posted a speculative blog in Health Affairs on three possible scenarios for President-elect Obama’s implementing health reform: folding it into a bold, ambitious emergency legislative package (Complete the New Deal), carving funding out of the current $2.5 trillion national health spend (Braveheart), and postponing implementation until the economy recovers but taking steps now to prepare for it (Wait/Lay the Groundwork).
At the time, the Wait/Lay the Groundwork option seemed 70 percent likely. But with economic conditions worsening, I’m now convinced Obama will probably opt instead for the Complete the New Deal option, and try to implement health reform in the first 120 days of his Presidency, before the health care industry “dragon” can even stir from its cave.
Let’s call Obama’s program The Real Deal. We can already see its contours: an economic stimulus program including highway construction and other state-directed public works, a green energy spending initiative, emergency housing assistance including a foreclosure prevention measure, an auto industry bailout, labor law reform and income supports through tax credits for low income people.
John Sinibaldi, a well-respected health insurance agent in St. Petersburg, Fla., has become prominent in Florida’s broker community because he counsels and services a large book of small business clients and studiously tracks the macro trends that impact coverage for this population. And he’s active in the state’s regulatory and legislative activities.
The other day I dropped him Jane Sarasohn-Kahn’s post that reported on International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans’ survey showing that most employers still want to be involved with health care. John responded with a long description of what the small employers he works with are up against. It’s an illuminating, damning piece. I asked him whether I could post it, and he graciously agreed.
Finally, Mr. Sinibaldi’s message should drive home a key point, echoed by Shannon Brownlee and Zeke Emanuel in the Washington Post over the weekend and Bob Laszewski’s post yesterday.
To be successful, the expansive health care reform discussions that
typically dominate in Washington MUST go beyond the Massachusetts and
California reform efforts. Approaches
that can address waste and cost are just as important as those relating
to universal coverage. Otherwise the resulting solutions will continue
to be out of reach to a sizable portion of the American people,
and the underlying driver of the crisis, out-of-control cost, will
Often the discussions on sites like this are dominated by people who understand health care’s problems deeply but abstractly. For John and his employers, buying health care is a stark, concrete problem that boils down to cutting care arrangements that are affordable for the employers and employees. As he describes it, it’s an increasingly impossible task.
I’ve got news for the folks doing the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans’ survey: Smaller businesses, especially those defined as true small businesses with two to 50 full-time employees, are strapped beyond belief when it comes to paying ever-higher premiums for health care.
Across the board, the 100+ businesses I represent, all of them two to 50 full-time employees, have received increases between 13 percent and 75 percent this year. The average has been around 20 to 24 percent. That’s on top of more than 15 percent average increases last year, the year before, and the year before.
This past Monday and Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal convened an extraordinary conference of about 100 CEOs to develop and recommend issue priorities for the new Administration. (See the participant list here.)
This meeting brought together the nation’s industry power players. Several Senators and Congressional representatives participated, as well as Rahm Emanuel, the President-elect’s new Chief of Staff, and others who advise Mr. Obama.
Based on their business’ core focus, the attendees were assigned into four major areas: 1) Finance and the US Economy, 2) Energy and the Environment, 3) American and the Global Economy, and 4) Health Care.
Then in the General Session that followed, the focus groups’ recommendations were incorporated into a final list and reranked by all the participants. Here’s the graph showing the relative ranking of all issues.
If the burst of new Democratic health care reform proposals is any indication, a fresh breeze of the Obama campaign’s "Yes We Can" optimism is blowing across the nation. Mr. Obama’s team is expected to make health care one of its priorities. First out, though, was Senate Finance Committee Chair Baucus (D-MT), who introduced an aggressive health care reform package that builds on Mr. Obama’s campaign platform of cost controls and extended coverage. Senator Kennedy (D-MA) and Representatives Dingell (D-MI) and Stark (D-CA) are expected to offer proposals soon, and undoubtedly there will be others.
The rub is that Congress’ old-guard lobbying system remains in place. Congress is awash in special interest contributions – $2.8 billion from 15,500 lobbyists in 2007 – that exchange money for influence over policy. When the Democrats retook Congress two years ago, they did not substantively change the lobbying rules.
So it is reasonable to ask whether a new day of governance in the common interest is possible. Can we make progress on health care or on any significant problem – climate change, education, energy policy, finance, the social safety net – without addressing the underlying problem of Congress’ receptiveness to special interest influence?
Sometimes a whisper is more powerful than a shout. Here’s a cartoon from Modern Medicine that shows a Medical Home counseling session between a primary care physician (PCP), a specialist and the health plan. The PCP looks forlorn, while the specialist and the insurer have their backs turned, fuming. It is perfectly true.
Along with changing the way we pay for all health care and creating far greater pricing and performance transparency, we need to turn around the primary care crisis if we hope to substantively improve quality and cost.