Categories

Above the Fold

HOSPITALS: The specialty hospital party looks like it’s over

Specialty hospitals have made quite a few docs a very tidy penny, (for instance see this debate from the medical hotspot of South Dakota) and there’s been plenty of propaganda from both sides of this debate. But my sense is that the party really is about to end here. Wednesday saw two signal events that confirm my thoughts.

First, an apparently definitive (not that these things are ever definitive in the world of spin that we live in) study from Jean Mitchell in Health Affairs seems to show that the big community hospitals were right all along. Specialty hospitals have been skimming off the healthier wealthier patients, charging Medicare and insurers the most they could and leaving the community hospitals holding the bag. The AHA and its lackeys in Congress have been all over this, hence the moratorium on specialty hospital construction and the soon-to-come reframing of how specialty hospitals get paid (and it won’t be more!).

Now even more confirmation of problems at the biggest kahuna in the specialty hospital pack as MedCath, which had some problems in the past but had seen its stock double over the past year or so, carelessly loses its CEO within 3 weeks of him taking over. Oh and earnings are down and going further down. Now I’m sure this all the fault of the hurricane and they’re not alone–have you seen Tenet’s stock price lately? But clearly things are not going well.

Of course, Medcath has data (represented by its lackeys independent consultants from Lewin) in the same Health Affairs that claims that Mitchell’s methodology is inaccurate, in that she mistakes who is really "owning" these specialty hospitals, and underplays the role of HMOs in shutting out these specialty hospitals from their networks. But they basically say that as doctors are "entrepreneurial" and then say that "we note that physicians’ demands for more clinical autonomy and control over their incomes will not go away if specialty hospitals are ‘banned.’ " In other words, give ’em any fee schedule, rules, organization, whatever, they’re going to find their way around it.

Of course the only way to really fix this is to put the incentives of the payer/insurer and the providers in the same place rather than opposing each other. If Kaiser Permanente had a specialty hospital, then you’d assume they’d figured out that it made financial and medical sense for their entire system. (And I don’t think they do have one). Obviously improved efficiencies are a good thing, but outside out of the pre-paid integrated sector, most of the health care system is engaged in a series of payment games based on figuring out how to stay ahead of the obscure payment code.

So the solution as ever (and I think Medicare is getting there very slowly) is to change the payment rules.  But even that won’t be perfect. But for now, I suspect that the specialty hospital will find itself forgtten in the same health care attic as the physician-owned home infusion center, soon to be joined by the multi-millionaire oncologist.

PHARMA: Lowe on Pfizer

Derek Lowe thinks that for Pfizer, The Tar Pit Beckons. That would be Tar Pit as in La Brea, where dinosaurs got stuck.

Interesting post and some interesting discussion in the comments about why Pfizer is or isn’t going to be like a utility stock down the road. Those of you who want to know more aobut valuations and strategy in the pharma world could do worse than read it!

POLICY: Wal-Mart caught with hand in cookie jar — affixs grin, and says “Look over there!”

So just two days ago, Wal-Mart, which as I’ve pointed out in THCB before, has never really been serious about offering health benefits to its workers given that it makes higher profit margins when it doesn’t, apparently had a change of heart. The change of heart involved giving basically minimum wage the chance to pour their huge amount of extra savings into an HSA, and also to get health insurance (without a maximum benefits cap of a massive $25,000) after only one year of employment — ignoring the fact that Walmart deliberately has some of the highest turnover rates of any large corporation. But while Don McCane from the single payer crowd was not impressed, at least one usually non-free market loony blogger was somewhat convinced. (Note the somewhat jaded comment on Joe’s post from yours truly, in which I said that he was an optimist).

Why was he an optimist?  Because any large or small employer that depends on a low income workforce will do better financially by letting that workforce turn-over quickly and keeping their benefits as low as possible. The Costcos and Starbucks are exceptions and their margins suffer in comparison. Of course when you’re talking about health benefits, you’d also do well to try to get your employee population to be younger and healthier than average, or else America’s former largest employer may be your future model. (as Uwe says, GM is an insurance company that builds cars to defray its health care  expenses). So what did you really expect from the Beast of Bentonville.

Well of course it doesn’t take long to realize that Wal-Mart can’t help but trip over its feet in the PR department, event though it’s barely out of the glow of the minuscule positive spin it was getting. The NY Times gets its hands on the memo that tells the reality: Wal-Mart Memo Suggests Ways to Cut Employee Benefit Costs. What’s the rationale?  Get the unhealthy employees out of there, and also eighty-six the ones that stick around and might collect those benefits. And of course hire McKinsey to tell you about that strategy, because you really need $700 an hour consultants to tell you how to reduce your health care costs using those techniques!

In some ways I have a smidgen of sympathy for Wal-Mart. After all they weren’t even around when the ridiculous employer-based system was created. But it’s only a smidgen. Given that employment based insurance is  what we’ve got, and given that Wal-Mart is one of the planet’s most profitable companies, it could easily take the high road. Alternatively, it  could easily use its political muscle to push for genuine universal health insurance in which everyone (including big corporations) pays a fair share. Instead it just wants to get out of any notion of responsibility, and dump everything on some one else–usually its employees and the taxpayer.

And apparently it’s a family trait.

BLOGS: Dilbert’s creator on blogging

Scott Adams wrote this in his newsletter:

People who are trying to decide whether to create a blog or not go through a thought process much like this:

  1. The world sure needs more of ME.
  2. Maybe I’ll shout more often so that people nearby can experience the joy of knowing my thoughts.
  3. No, wait, shouting looks too crazy.
  4. I know – I’ll write down my daily thoughts and badger people to read them.
  5. If only there was a description for this process that doesn’t involve the words egomaniac or unnecessary.
  6. What? It’s called a blog? I’m there!

The blogger’s philosophy goes something like this:

Everything that I think about is more fascinating than the crap in your head.

The beauty of blogging, as compared to writing a book, is that no editor will be interfering with my random spelling and grammar, my complete disregard for the facts, and my wandering sentences that seem to go on and on and never end so that you feel like you need to take a breath and clear your head before you can even consider making it to the end of the sentence that probably didn’t need to be written anyhoo.

The Dilbert blog is here

POLICY: NY Times opinion on Medicaid

Shorter NY Times opinion on Florida Medicaid: It’s so screwed up that screwing it over more can’t make it any worse, and really Florida Republicans are deserving of our trust, as they’ve proved their fairness to their poorer and darker-skinned citizens so often in their history (as in the 2000 election).

POLICY/CONSUMERS: Privacy and pizza

Here is a fabulous ACLU movie on ordering a pizza in 2010 and the inherent violations of privacy that will be involved. The’ve got the date for the all the medical data far too early though (most stuff will still be on paper then), and actually most of that data use is banned already–unless it’s really for medical uses. Plus there will not be a national healh plan by 2010, even if most lefty ACLU supporters (like me) would favor that! The risk is far greater that employers and their private health plan agents will be "suggesting" that their employees agree to these restrictions (in fact last week one employer added an extra charge for smokers to their health premium)

But you can see where we’re headed without some real safeguards built in, which is why the Health Privacy Project gang are doing such good work. (Even if I diss them from time to time).

POLICY: Cohn and the wanna-be abstinents, by Jonathan Cohn

I was somewhat doubtful about the Harris Poll on abstinence last week. (Non)-Volvo-driving, latte-drinking Jonathan Cohn actually knows something about abstinence. Not that I’m sure what that says about Harvard in the early 1990s but here’s what he told me.
I wonder about the results of that WSJ poll on abstinence.  I strongly suspect the wording gave a skewed result — as in skewed towards abstinence — perhaps because the word "abstinence" makes the idea seem more favorable. I actually researched this very question not long ago for an article.  When you ask about "sex before marriage," rather than abstinence, you get a much different set of results.  Here’s gallup’s tracking on this, up through 2001, the last time they asked the question…

39. There is a lot of discussion about the way morals and sexual attitudes are changing in this country. What is your opinion about this? Do you think it is wrong for a man and a woman to have sexual relations before marriage, or not?

BASED ON — 491 — NATIONAL ADULTS IN FORM A; ±5 PCT. PTS.

Yes, wrong

No, not wrong

No opinion

2001 May 10-14

38

60

2

1998 Nov 20-22

40

56

4

1996 May 28-29

40

55

6

1991 Aug 29-Sep 3

40

54

6

1987 Jul 10-13

46

48

6

1985 Apr 12-15

39

52

9

1973 Jul 6-9

47

43

9

1969 Jul 24-29

68

21

11

And here, for good measure, is a press release from Concerned Women For America (last seen lobbying against Plan B) pointing to the poll as proof of our society’s moral decay:

>Also, an ABC primetime live poll from last year had the number at 61 percent overall saying it’s ok to have premarital sex.  That’s pretty damn close to 60, which gives me confidence that it’s correct.
Now, as for your question whether there are some hypocrites out there, this Kaiser/ABC poll from April 1998 seems to answer that question — in the affirmative:

Q34. Did you have sex before you got married?

Based on those currently or ever married, n=910

66 Yes30 No4 Don’t know/Refused

I also seem to recall CDC data suggesting a much higher figure among people married in the last ten years, although of course that skews heavily by age so that’s not so surprising. Alas, all of this probably means the support for universal health care isn’t as high as the wsj poll suggests.  But, of course, you and I both knew that already…

POLICY/BLOGS: Enthoven coming up on Novack show

Don’t get too used to an unregurgitated Marxist like me saying this, but you should listen to a radio station called 960The Patriot this weekend, as Eric Novack has Alain Enthoven on his show on Sunday from 3-4pm Arizona time. This may be the first time that Eric’s had anyone on who disagrees with him, and I’m looking forward to hearing it. It’ll be in the archives section on Eric’s site later.

Here’s what I wrote about Enthoven and his quarrel with the CDHP crowd.

(I wrote longer wittier stuff in an earlier version of this but Typepad ate it, so I’m giving up for the afternoon. See you Monday!)

assetto corsa mods