Medicare Cut for Doctors Now Official
Medicare Cut for Doctors Now Official
CVS has noticed that big PBMs are now making all their money on mail-order pharmacy, particularly from dumb clients who can’t be bothered to cross check what the PBM is charging for mail-oder generics with the price they can get at (say) Drugstore.com. So the chain stores “logical” next step is to buy the second biggest mail order pharmacy — Caremark —and get the attached smoke screening benefits management organization thrown in with the deal. The NY Times (surprise surprise) is focused on the wrong end of the deal, thinking that Caremark is a “middleman”. But the key is that all the profitability of PBMs comes from their mail order pharmacies, now that the rebating game is drying up.
And that profit comes from selling generics with huge mark-ups. So when Wal-mart puts CVS’ margins on their retail store cash business under threat, it’s not a stupid defensive move to acquire a big mail order house. On the other hand they’d better hope for better luck than the last time (part of) Caremark — the then PCS— was bought by a drug store. Rite-Aid bought PCS in 1998 for $1.5 billion, and sold it for $1 billion to Advance Paradigm in 2000.
But the Medpartners/Caremark guys, ten years after their disastrous foray into physician management, aren’t dumb. The generic mark-ups are about the last place the PBMs have to run to maintain their incredibly profitable business. And that party will end too, when the employers wake up.
Given what the stock has done since they changed their focus to the small PBM they found that they owned by accident in the late 1990s, it looks to me that they’re sneaking out at the top.
UPDATE: Apparently the top wasnt quite as high as some punters this morning thought it was. Caremark opened at 54 spent most of the day at 51 and then fell when the final offer was revealed at 48 and change.
Oops. I missed the fact that Grand Rounds was three years old last week. It’s third birthday was hosted superbly by Enoch over at his blog on Healthline. He even included a post from me—despite the fact that I didn’t send one in! But truly one of the best Grand Rounds for a long time.
Boston Magazine has interesting article about the NEJM. Not the least of the issue is how the local medical society uses it as a cash cow. Well worth a read.
Here’s the full transcript from the David Gratzer interview—if you prefer the podcast version I’ve linked to it here. There are lots of comments there too.
Matthew Holt: This is Matthew Holt, and we’re back with another podcast on the Health Care Blog, and today my guest is David Gratzer. David is a psychiatrist who is still practicing psychiatry, but is also, part-time, a Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and has written a new book called "The Cure", subtitled "How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care." David, welcome to the Health Care Blog.
David Gratzer: Good afternoon.
Matthew: Let me start off, David. Obviously, with your subtitle, you’re a proponent of free markets in health care, but you come at this from a couple of interesting backgrounds. One is that you’re a Canadian who has moved down to the U.S., to practice medicine down here. The other one, which I found was very interesting is, at the very start of the book, in the introduction, you raise the entire issue of what it’s like to be somebody who has a relative, in this case your wife, who has no insurance in the U.S. and needs medical care. You raised the issue of your wife’s treatment, and I hope she’s fine now, without being overly personal about her, how did you end up in the situation that you were in the U.S. without insurance? David: Well, it certainly was an unfortunate circumstance. A lot of people go without insurance for a variety of reasons. I had access to American health care, but not access to American health insurance. My wife had, as you know from the start of the book, injured her back on the bunny trail on a ski trip. She tells the story slightly differently involving a large mountain, gale-like winds, and heroic efforts on her part. But she had ruptured a disc in her back, and she, as a result, needed surgery. And I’d certainly read much about the American health care system, but what came across me then was not just the confusion about pricing, and I talk about the foot-and-a-half-long bill that I had received, which, as a doctor, I could see was completely inscrutable. But also just the issues around quality.
There we were, trying to find a neurosurgeon, and I went to the Internet and found no information. I went about calling neurologists and trying to get their opinions on neurosurgeons in western New York. So I have a greater appreciation of the frustration that millions of Americans, not just those, incidentally, without insurance. I think even if you’re insured, health care is such a black box of uneven quality, of difficulty gathering basic information, and at the end of the day you’re left with ever-rising prices, with inscrutable bills. I wanted to start the book that way because even though I think there’s greatness in American medicine, and I think one should never lose sight of that, and there’s never been a better time to be, frankly, a patient or a doctor than today, I also wanted to emphasize, literally from page one of the book, that there were huge problems with American health care. And, that even though I took a free market approach to looking at reforms, I wasn’t going to undermine that or downplay that. Matthew: And I understand that. Were you living in the U.S. as a resident at the time? David: I was actually, as I am now, dividing my time. I opted not to get health benefits when I joined the Manhattan Institute. To provide the answer to the insurance question, that’s why. Matthew: The reason I raised that is, and to get to the nitty-gritty of it, you’re not going to get any argument from me about the U.S. health care system having many, many problems, but you’ll get an argument from me about the solution to that. But one of the things that I find curious, from those people that are on the right – the thinking libertarians, to tease my colleagues at the Cato Institute about being, and I think you voice a similar opinion in the book, is the solution to the problem of access. There are many different ways you can talk about solving the problem around pricing and transparency, and getting to understand what people are purchasing, and I think people agree that there needs to be more of that, however it comes out. But the question is, how do you get people to not be uninsured? And I think you’re basically suggesting a voluntary solution here. Do you want to say a bit more about what you think the solution is to dealing with the lack of insurance?
Yesterday saw the official launch of HealthTrain, the Open Healthcare Manifesto. Dmitriy Kruglyak has been working on this for some time with a large group of collaborators, and I have joined several others to sign on. The manifesto lays down some principles for how the new media of social networks and open access to publishing technology (e.g. blogging) ought to be used within health care. It’s an interesting and common sense filled set of guidelines which I hope will give the concept of “open healthcare” some visibility and some direction.
So instead of perusing my blog today, I hope that instead you’ll read the manifesto (It’s only about 12 pages).
Poor Chris Selecky of Lifemasters. I had a brief chat with her at a DM conference in August and she was heading to the beach (happily) after selling the company to Healthways. Or so she thought. But then that merger fell apart, mainly because LifeMasters was making less money on a contract than it thought it would.
Now things have gotten much worse. As reported by Vince Kuratis at Better Health Technologies. Selecky announced that Lifemasters has pulled out of its Medicare Health Support project in Oklahoma.
A central factor in their decision was the unexpected medical needs of the Oklahoma project population. These are "really, really sick patients. It takes a lot more to get them under control." She explained that the Oklahoma population included many patients with five or more comorbidities. She pointed out that the rural nature of the population led to unexpected results. Lifemasters found that the population was significantly medically underserved — people had not been receiving appropriate medical care in the past. Arranging for needed care would lead to higher medical costs for Medicare and would prevent Lifemasters from achieving required cost savings.
The entire DM industry is hanging on Medicare Health Support and has really been talking it up. More importantly an even bigger industry is sitting behind MHS expecting that Medicare will start paying for in home monitoring as a consequence. Remember that Forrester thinks that’s going to be a $35bn market in less than 10 years, with Medicare paying most of the freight.
But several studies over the years have suggested that DM improves quality but has found it hard to prove that it saves much money. The response of the DM industry has been, to quote Al Lewis, “let’s go surfing”. in other words, do it anyway and let the academics worry about the savings. And they’ve convinced some health plans that this works.
But to get Medicare, the big kahuna to pay for DM , they’re going to have to persuade the taxpayers’ agent that spending money on DM will reduce the amount spent elsewhere in the system. If the answer is that we’re not spending enough on health care, and we should spend more, and DM will help us do that, then it’s hard to imagine that DM will get the positive response it’s looking for in a world in which everyone’s budget in Medicare is under pressure.
(Hat tip to the ever wonderful Jane Sarasohn Kahn for pointing this one out to me!)
If you read this headline, what would you think was going on?
Perot Systems Walks Off With Indiana Hospital’s Patient Data
The story is that an employee of Perot which runs the IT systems for Sisters of St. Francis (a hospital chain in Indiana and Illinois) took patient data on CDs home (or somewhere) and left them in the bag when s/he changed their stuff into another bag. It’s unclear as to where or for how long the CDs sat in the employee’s original bag, but it was later returned to the hospital.
It looks like just another “IT guy goes home with data, mislays it” story. So why the headline that suggests that one of the nations biggest outsourcers is stealing its clients’ data — which it’s already got on its servers anyway? Sloppy reporting or not, the guys at Perot will want to clarify this ASAP!
Don Kemper from HealthWise essentially invented the concept of information therapy–the idea that every contact between patients and the medical system should come with an actual prescription for information. I think it’s an incredibly important concept, so I talked with Don in this podcast
about how it got started and where we are, as more and more technology becomes available. (Trascript available in a few days)
I’d never heard of EECP as a treatment for heart disease. Apparently it works, according to this UCSF analysis. But Debra Braverman’s letter to the NY Times says it all (other than mistaking the drug industry for the medical device business):
A full course of EECP costs Medicare a fraction of one stenting procedure and offers physicians and hospitals very little and the pharmaceutical industry nothing. EECP does, however, offer patients substantial relief and improvement in quality of life without risk of heart attacks or death, unlike the drug-coated stents in widespread use, despite the little scientific evidence of long-term benefits.
Meanwhile does anyone know if Dean Ornish’s program is routinely reimbursed by Medicare? Because if the tax payer is buying stents that dont really work as advertised, perhaps we should also be funding alternatives.
Meanwhile, apparently the latest wisdom is that angioplasty is essential within a few hours of a heart attack. And where did this inspired piece of medical wisdom come from? It was developed in the socialized health care havens of Denmark and Sweden. But we’re told that patients there are left to die; apparently not necessarily so!