Categories

Above the Fold

HEALTH PLANS: California Blue Cross now accepting Mexican ID

Blue Cross of California, (owned by Wellpoint) has been talking a good game for a while about creating low cost products to help the uninsured. And they have been making some progress, Now they are taking a real and somewhat controversial step in that they are allowing immigrants without documentation other than that issued by Mexican consulates to sign up for health insurance. That’s a move that will have anti-immigrant groups, of which there are plenty in California, hopping mad–they’ve already thrown a fit over the issuing of driving licenses to illegal/undocumented immigrants in the last days of the Davis administration and Arnie the Governator (a not-too-legal immigrant himself back in the day) has promised to revoke that right. But it’s also a move that actually addresses to some extent the problem of uninsurance in the Hispanic population here, which is currently over 34%.

Here’s the press release.

QUALITY/MALPRACTICE: Questioning the accepted wisdom in Pennsylvania

In a slightly embarrassing article for the local state medical society, an article in the Allentown Morning Call suggests that stories of doctors leaving the state because of the malpractice crisis in Pennsylvania are massively exaggerated. Now this is in a state which has raised tobacco taxes to provide public money to pay physicians’ malpractice premiums, because of said crisis. However, the source for this information was organized medicine itself:

    The state medical society’s own statistics — never before disclosed publicly — show a gain of 800 doctors statewide from 2002 to 2003.”I would be willing to admit up to an 800 physician gain since 2002,” said Steve Foreman, who runs the society’s research department. ”But if we’re trading experienced specialists for general practitioners, we have a problem.” Yet here too state statistics show that the specialists hardest hit by rising medical malpractice rates are not leaving in large numbers.The number of neurosurgeons, general surgeons, ob-gyns and orthopedic surgeons in 2002 was 4,721, as measured by doctors who paid their insurance premiums. The number of those same specialists who applied in February for the state’s relief money: 4,665. That’s a loss of 56 specialists, but even 56 may overstate the situation.

Overall the article essentially says that the doctors have sold a bill of goods to the state and that their demands for immunity from lawsuits are invalid. The medical society has responded by saying that experienced older specialists are leaving and are being replaced by newly trained physicians (via Modern Physician):

    In addition, the society said Foreman “cautioned the reporter that Pennsylvania has seen a temporary increase of more than 1,000 doctors in training during the past two years that are included in the total number reported by the newspaper.” Meanwhile Pennsylvania’s licensing board for physicians indicated a drop of approximately 1,400 licenses during the same year the reporter used, the society said. Instead, the reporter chose to ignore the data, resulting in an apples-to-oranges comparison, and creating the erroneous impression that there was a significant increase in actively practicing physicians.

Positioning myself in the neutral ground between the crowd at MedRants and Ross the Bloviator (plus my own contributors Matt Quinn and The Industry Veteran), I end up feeling here like the med-blogger equivalent of the last moderate in the Israel/Palastine conflict. I do think that the malpractice situation needs reform, but I also think that the impact of soaring malpractice rates has been massively overstated by organized medicine, and that most of the cause is due to the price war among insurers in the 1990s. However, the lawyers don’t exactly cover themselves in glory either. What I keep reminding the universe, and what no one ever bothers paying attention to is the fact that anyway you cut it, malpractice itself accounts for well under 1% of health care costs. Defensive medicine, though, does have a big impact, of maybe up to 6-8% of all spending. But of course in general if they do more, doctors and the health care system make more. So parsing out the real incentives behind defensive medicine is very difficult. And this kind of article, which lays bare the aggressive politics on both sides of the conflict, reminds me more of an Israeli air strike in Gaza than a peace meeting at a Norwegian hotel.

POLICY & BLOGGING: MedPundit on insurance and SARS

Sydney Smith at Medpundit is a great med-blogger but sometimes she drives me nuts with her inconsistency, such as in this criticism of Hillary Clinton’s rambling piece in the NY Times magazine:

    Except that SARS wasn’t a disease of poor people. It disproportionately affected healthcare workers. It was spread globally by affluent travellers. And it did its worse damage in countries with the sort of healthcare systems that Senator Clinton prefers to ours – like Canada and China and Singapore.

Hillary may prefer Canada’s system, but her plan didn’t try to introduce anything like it in 1994. And Singapore’s system is the HSA/individual consumer account nirvana that is favored by those who believe in the “real consumer market solution” to health care, a group which usually includes Sydney. And China of course is a third world country without what most Americans would recognize as a health care “system”, other than in the big cities. SARS came from a rural area, I believe.

Sydney also comes out and joins me in calling for reform of the individual insurance market. She refers to this article in the NY Times magazine which is another example of how screwed up the individual insurance market is. The solution? Sydney calls for mandatory individual insurance, in community-rated large risk pools. That sounds supiciously like the system proposed by the Junior Senator from New York when she lived in the White House. Yup, that same Senator that Sydney takes to task for her rambling article and views on Canada.

HOSPITALS: HCA profits cut by lack of paying customers–Congress says “tough!”

Hat tip to Don McCanne for this one. HCS, the largest for-profit hospital chain has cut its numbers because too many uninsured people are coming in the doors and not paying their bills. You can be assured that HCA does not deliberately locate its hospitals in areas where there are lots of uninsured people, and does not shrink in its efforts to extract what it can from its “self-pay” customers, so you can assume that this is a growing problem for all hospitals. CEO Bovender basically makes a not-too-well disguised call for cross-subsidies from the rest of the economy for the uninsured, otherwise known as tax increases and income redistribution.

    “As I have commented on many occasions over the past two years, the most significant challenge the hospital industry faces is the growing numbers of uninsured and under-insured in this country. Hospitals have become the ultimate safety net for health care services for the vast majority of America’s more than 44 million uninsured. Unfortunately, this is a cost the hospital industry is increasingly bearing alone,” stated Jack O. Bovender, Jr., HCA Chairman and CEO. “It is time for all sectors of society, both public and private, health care and non-health care, to participate in solving this societal issue, by providing affordable health insurance for all Americans and more equitably sharing this growing cost to society.”

Of course there is an alternative to tax increases on everyone else to pay for the uninsured’s hospital care. Last quarter Columbia increased its dividend from 2 cents per share to 13 cents per share because of course its shareholders, including its executives, board members, and founders, would benefit greatly from the dividend tax cut–which Bill Frist helped move through the Senate against the advice certain well known commie investors like Warren Buffet. And this year, even though it won’t do as well as it might have done otherwise, HCA is forecasting that it will still make at least as much or more likely even more than the $2.61 a share or $1.3 billion it made in 2003.

Although commies like me who play the stock market less well than Warren Buffet may welcome HCA onto the side proposing national health insurance or coverage for the uninsured, politically this will not wash. In fact because of the promises made elsewhere in the health system via PDIMA, things will actually get worse for providers. Jeanne Scott, who’s latest letter came out this weekend, (but who is still maddeningly not putting them online), explains why:

    The ghosts of 1997’s Balanced Budget Act are still haunting us. That law, originally projected to reduce anticipated payments to all Medicare providers by upwards of $115 billion, has already cut over $400 billion and still counting. Physicians have been staying one step ahead of the battle despite BBA provisions that, if applied as the law requires, should have cut physician Medicare reimbursement by an average of 5% annually over the next 10 years. The docs and their lobby have been particularly successful at political action fundraising designed to sway their Congressional delegations and at mobilizing consumer support with threats of boycotts of Medicare patients that could leave grandma and grandpa without physician care. Last year’s “new and improved Medicare law” (NAIM) rolled back two years of the cuts and actually gave the medical community an extra 1.5% to play with. There is every reason to assume that despite the BBA-projections for further cuts, and President Bush’s reliance on them to pay for his version of Medicare with Rx, that the docs will stave them off as well. So the money has to come from somewhere, why not hospitals?

    Faced with Medicare’s pending bankruptcy, now set for 2019, but looming even sooner, politicians hoping to for success in this fall’s elections, are looking for ways to “save Medicare” and take the credit. What’s the easiest and most immediate target? Your friendly neighborhood hospital, of course.

Of course HCA ain’t exactly your local hospital (or maybe it’s 130 of them), but the implication is the same. And before they look too closely at a solution for the uninsured, does HCA remember one of the ways how the Clinton plan was going to pay for covering the uninsured? A tax on providers, of course.

CORRECTION: A few days back in a story about Bill Frist, Senate Majority leader, I said that his brother Tom Frist Jr was still HCA Chairman. He took that role when Rick Scott was ejected in 1997, but sometime since 1997 he’s handed that role over to CEO Jack Bovender. He is though still on the board and the Frist family still holds large amounts of HCA stock.

TECHNOLOGY: Stents’R’Us and hospitals are scared

Both Boston Scientific and J&J are printing money every time they send another drug-eluting stent off the factory floor. In fact neither of them can keep up with the demand. J&J recently had some production quality problems which may limit its ability to meet demand but that hasn’t stopped its Cordis unit which makes the Cypher stent playing a big part in its recent rise in Q1 profits. Yahoo reports:

    “Cypher, which revolutionized the stent market when it was launched last April, had first-quarter sales of $562 million and held 57 percent of the entire stent market until Boston Scientific’s Taxus coated stent was approved March 4. That forced J&J’s price down to about $2,675 from an original list price of about $3,200.”

Boston Scientific’s Taxus stent has had a stellar launch, and contributed to its stock price going up like a rocket ship in the last 6 months.

However, there are two sides to this picture, and if you are a hospital the other side is not pleasant. Forget for one moment the data that suggests that stents are not cost-effective compared to other types of heart surgery. Everyone’s ignored that and the use of PCTA (angio) and stents has been increasing for years. Of course, if you’re going to have a stent, why wouldn’t you want the latest and greatest, especially if its going to avoid the restenosis and the need for more procedures that’s plagued their use in the past? Well let me suggest who might not want one or sometimes more $3,000 drug-eluting stents to be used in that angioplasty. I’m referring of course to the hospitals that in general are paid a flat fee for each procedure, and are not being given extra money to cover the new and more expensive stents they are buying.

A new report out from the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions makes very sobering reading for hospital executives in light of the demand from doctors and patients for the new drug-eluting stents.

    “The authors found that the average hospital loss per initial DES patient was $1,389 when all sources of payment were considered, whereas BMS and CABG procedures generated $285 and $1,283 in profit respectively. As DES adoption increases and/or the average number of stents per procedure increases, hospital profits decrease. Profits may be maintained until the average number of DES (drug-eluting stents) per procedure reaches 1.8 and the conversion from BMS (metal stents) and CABG are over 80% and 15% respectively.”

You read that right. If the new stents become the standard, hospitals are going to find that if only 15% of CABGs and 80% of traditional stents go over to drug-eluting stents, they are going to find one of their major profit-centers turning into a loss-center.

Needles to say, this is not considered good news in the executive suites of the nation’s hospitals. But who are they to say that the latest and greatest technology should be denied to patients? And will the Congress help? Unlikely according to the other story I’m posting today.

HEALTH PLANS: United’s good news not good enough?

Over at the Business Word Don Johnson notes that the healt plan sector took a nosedive even though United came out with pretty good numbers and forecasts for better numbers to come. Don and I have both been somewhat bearish on the health insurance sector, it looks like short-selling shills The Street.com are joining us, and I’ll give you three reasons why:

1) United says that medical trend is slowing. “Medical claims during the quarter were $90 million lower than the company had expected, bolstering the bottom line.” Short-term this is good news for the health plans, but over time they usually manage to pass on these costs to their customers. And their best years ever (in the last few) have been when premiums have been going up the fastest. It’s when they are in a price war over premiums that they suffer.

2) Health plans are increasing premiums in a market when employment isn’t growing much, and when more employees and consumers are being made “responsible” for more of the premium. So eventually there’ll be a price effect and fewer people will be signing up, and they’ll be signing up for lower premium plans. Ergo there’ll be relatively less revenue in the future.

3) They have failed in their overall mission to control health care costs, so they don’t deserve to have stock that goes up like a helium balloon. (OK this one is purely emotional on my part!)

However, I have been bearish on health plans since December 2004 and Don has since spring 2003! Looking at this chart of United, you might be wise to not trust our judgement implicitly and do your own DD!

TECHNOLOGY: Mittman on Cyborgs, Healthtech on Sensors

Pretty interesting technology column from Robert Mittman over at iHealthbeat. This one focuses on the growing internal interaction between man and machine known as cyborgs. Given that I live in a state run by a guy who imitated a machine better than the previous governor imitated a human, and that anyone with any implanted medical device in some definitions qualifies, I guess we should be paying attention. I particularly like the story of the two batty college professors attempting to live as cyborgs–somehow you get the impression that they weren’t the cool kids in the back of the school bus. But the forecast is that the implantable devices and wearable exoskeletons are going to have a big impact in the next five to ten years.

Meanwhile, in a related field the Health Technology Center had a report out last week on the impact of sensors in the future. The report says:

    In the next five to ten years smart sensors should be able to do such things as automatically activate an implanted insulin pump, release heart medications or regulate the heart rate by real-time monitoring of blood pressure and oxygen saturation, according to the report. The study also examines three other categories of sensor technology: biometric monitoring, point-of-care testing and environmental monitoring.

Showing that all of this stuff is related to the scribblings of obscure (and not so obscure) forecasters, here’s Paul Saffo’s excellent essay on Sensors from 1997.

assetto corsa mods