THCB

Categories

Above the Fold

The Doctor is…Overbooked

• 17

By EVAN FALCHUK

At the New York Times’ City Room Blog, Joel Cohen writes:

my wife and I are convinced that all medical students should have to pass Overbooking 101 before they can become doctors.Again and again, we arrive at a doctor’s aptly named waiting room on or before the scheduled time, only to learn that three or four others sitting there have been given the same appointment.

He says doctors need to understand the impact of this on their patients.  I agree, but not just because it’s annoying.

A typical doctor sees thirty patients a day.  Some see even more.

Reflect on that math.  If your doctor sees 30 patients a day, that’s 150 a week, 600 a month, maybe 7,000 a year.

It means that if it’s been even two months since you last saw your doctor, he has probably seen more than a thousand people since your last visit.  It’s why there’s often that moment of disconnect when you see your doctor.  You’re living every day with the fears and anxieties of your medical condition, but your doctor can’t quite place which one of the worried patients you are.  So you have to remind him why he ordered that extra test a few months ago, why you switched medications the last time you were there, how he already ruled out that possibility the last time he saw you.Continue reading…

Paul Ryan Still Doesn’t Get It

• 99

By ROBERT REICH

Republican House Budget chief Paul Ryan still doesn’t get it. He blames Tuesday’s upset victory of Democrat Kathy Hochul over Republican Jane Corwin to represent New York’s 26th congressional district on Democratic scare tactics.

Hochul had focused like a laser on the Republican plan to turn Medicare into vouchers that would funnel the money to private health insurers. Republicans didn’t exactly take it lying down. The National Republican Congressional Committee poured over $400,000 into the race, and Karl Rove’s American Crossroads provided Corwin an additional $700,000 of support. But the money didn’t work. Even in this traditionally Republican district – represented in the past by such GOP notables as Jack Kemp and William Miller, both of whom would become vice presidential candidates – Hochul’s message hit home.

Ryan calls it “demagoguery,” accusing Hochul and her fellow Democrats of trying to “scare seniors into thinking that their current benefits are being affected.”

Scare tactics? Seniors have every right to be scared. His plan would eviscerate Medicare by privatizing it with vouchers that would fall further and further behind the rising cost of health insurance. And Ryan and the Republicans offer no means of slowing rising health-care costs. To the contrary, they want to repeal every cost-containment measure enacted in last year’s health-reform legislation. The inevitable result: More and more seniors would be priced out of the market for health care.Continue reading…

Earth to Republicans: You Are In Big Political Trouble Over the Ryan Medicare Plan

• 6

By ROBERT LASZEWSKI

It should now be clear to Republicans they are in trouble over the Ryan Medicare plan.

Yesterday, they lost a seat in a solid Republican New York House district. Their candidate had benefited from lots of money and House leadership attention. The big issue was the Ryan Medicare plan.

All month, Republican Presidential candidates have been walking a tightrope over the Ryan plan–don’t embrace it but don’t criticize it either for fear of offending the base who will drive the primary outcomes next year. You only had to watch the Gingrich implosion to see what happens if you fall off that tightrope.

Next the Senate will take up the Ryan budget. Senate Democrats can’t wait for a vote on it and are making the Ryan Medicare plan the central issue. Already, at least three Senate Republicans have said they will not vote for the House budget over the Medicare issue. Leader McConnell, sensitive to its political vulnerability, has told Senators they are free to vote their conscience on this one.Continue reading…

Medicare should pay less & differently

• 1

Easy to say. Rita Redberg from UCSF points out in the NY Times that Medicare pays for loads of procedures that we know are a waste of money. After all the COURAGE trial a while back showed that stents were a waste of money, and we put in more stents now than when the data were released. This shouldn’t be much of a surprise–we ignore the evidence all the time in making health care decisions. Brian Klepper in his wonderful but probably ineffective crusade to abolish the RUC shows that CMS (and therefore Medicare’s) payment methodologies are fundamentally flawed–yet we can’t fix them either. So it’s easy to say Medicare should pay less and pay differently but the political will is just not there yet. It’s lucky the Chinese are so generous.

Stifling Primary Care: Why Does CMS Continue To Support The RUC?

• 20

By BRIAN KLEPPER, PAUL FISCHER, MD, & KATHLEEN ANNE BEHAN

Last October, the Wall Street Journal ran a damning expose about the Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC), a secretive, specialist-dominated panel within the American Medical Association (AMA) that, for the past two decades, has been the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS’) primary advisor on valuation of medical services. Then, in December, Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt followed up with a description of the RUC’s mechanics on the New York Times’ Economix blog. We saw this re-raising of the issue as an opportunity to undertake an action-oriented campaign against the RUC that builds on many professionals’ work – see here and here – over many years.

We have focused on rallying the primary care and business communities to pressure CMS for change, and are contemplating a legal challenge. But the obvious question is why these steps are necessary. Why doesn’t CMS address the problem directly? Why does it continue to nurture the relationship?

The Negative Consequences Of The RUC

There is overwhelming evidence that the RUC has used flawed and capricious methodologies. It has systematically under-valued primary care and operated without regard for financial conflicts of interest. Its influence has compromised care quality and facilitated the primary care labor shortage. The Chair of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) is on record before a Congressional Committee describing its harmful characteristics. We know that the valuations it recommends – and CMS accepts – are major contributors to unnecessary utilization and cost. Former CMS Secretary Tom Scully has publicly condemned it as “indefensible.”

In studying the RUC closely, we have come to believe that the structure of CMS’ relationship with the RUC has violated the management and reporting requirements of a “de facto” Federal Advisory Committee. Meanwhile, the nation generally and publicly funded health care programs specifically are under intense fiscal pressures that have resulted, at least in part, from the runaway health care costs associated with the RUC’s influence.Continue reading…

We Need a Liberal Immigration Policy to Support Health Care Reform

• 2

By DAVID E. WILLIAMS

Over the last decade, the United States has intentionally made itself less attractive to immigrants, forgetting that immigration has been a huge driver of the country’s economic success. In a recent article (America needs a 21st century immigration policy), leading entrepreneurs, executives and investors including Steve Case and Sheryl Sandberg said:

To some, the link between immigration reform and economic growth may be surprising.  To America’s most innovative industries, it is a link we know is fundamental.

The global economy means companies that drive U.S. job creation and economic growth are in a worldwide competition for talent.  While other countries are aggressively creating policies and incentives to attract a highly educated workforce, America has stagnated.  Once a magnet for the world’s top minds, America now faces a “reverse brain drain” and is no longer the first choice for many entrepreneurs creating new companies and jobs.

America needs a pro-growth immigration system that works for U.S. workers and employers in today’s global economy.  And we need it now.Continue reading…

An Alternative to Malpractice

• 12

By JOHN GOODMAN

About three decades ago, University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein proposed a radical alternative [gated, but with abstract] to our system of malpractice liability. He called it “liability by contract.” The idea: let patients and doctors voluntarily agree in advance how to resolve things if something goes wrong.

In nonmedical fields, Epstein’s idea is actually quite commonplace. Contracts for performance often have provisions detailing what the parties will do if something goes awry. If the parties disagree, contracts often spell out dispute resolution procedures (such as binding arbitration).

One version of this idea in medicine has already been tried. For years, hospitals asked admitting patients to sign a form agreeing not to sue the hospital or the doctors, no matter how negligent they were. When these forms showed up at the courthouse, however, judges routinely dismissed them on the grounds that the patients were too sick, too scared and too uninformed for there to have been a true meeting of the minds.

My colleagues and I at the National Center for Policy Analysis believe we have found here and here. Let the state legislature decide on the minimum elements (including the amount of monetary compensation) that must be in such contracts in order to make sure patients are fairly protected. Then widely publicize these elements so that people generally understand (before they get sick) what will happen if they opt out of the malpractice system. Courts would be required to accept these contracts as binding.

Continue reading…

Do We Have Any Clue How to Cut the Cost of Healthcare?

• 60

By ROBERT WACHTER, MD

At the Society of Hospital Medicine’s annual meeting last week in Dallas, Lenny Feldman of Johns Hopkins presented the results of a neat little study. His hypothesis: physicians given information about the costs of their laboratory tests would order fewer of them.

Feldman randomized 62 tests either to be displayed per usual on the computerized order entry screen or to have the cost of the test appear next to the test’s name. Some of these were relatively inexpensive and frequently performed tests. After randomization, for example, the costs of hemoglobins ($3.46) and comprehensive metabolic panels ($15.44) were displayed, while TSHs ($24.53) and blood gases ($28.25) were not. He also randomized more expensive tests: the costs of BNPs ($49.56) were displayed, while hepatitis C genotypes ($238.62) were not.

The educational intervention was surprisingly powerful. Over the six-month study, the aggregate expenditures for each test whose costs were displayed went down by $15,692, while non-displayed tests had a mean increase of $1,718. Over the entire group of 31 tests whose costs were shown to physicians, costs fell by nearly $500,000.

Coincidentally, last week’s Archives of Surgery reported the results of an intervention aimed at decreasing lab ordering on the surgical services of Rhode Island Hospital. There, simply announcing the service’s overall expenditures on non-ICU laboratory tests for the prior week at a house staff conference led to significant savings: $55,000 over an 11-week study period.

Have we found the Holy Grail, the key to flattening the cost curve? A little physician education leads to increased awareness of the cost consequences of their choices and, voila, our economy is rescued from the brink of disaster. How nice.Continue reading…

Numbers Instead of Letters

• 5

By KARI GORDER

780.4: Dizziness and Giddiness.

Deep breath: I still felt out of place. I turned the engine off. Quietly, I promised myself: once you get commissioned, maybe after you go through ODS, they’ll give you a Geneva Conventions ID card and you can stop showing your driver’s license at the gate. You’ll have a uniform and you won’t be the only one on base wearing jeans. You won’t have to be on a guest list.

I got out of my car and walked inside. The National Naval Medical Center was a labyrinth, but this was my third and final physical—putting a bow on the package, as my recruiter had told me—and I knew my way to the health center. As I sat between two men waiting for their pre-deployment physicals, I couldn’t have felt less proud. An academic in a hornet’s nest. But, I promised myself: one day you’ll deploy too—as a doctor—and serve your country. One day you’ll use the Arabic you spent four years in college studying. You’ll be able to tell your children that you fought in war. You’ll justify your departure from the intelligence community: to be one who does, not one who says. I thought of a picture hanging in my bedroom. Deep breath.

The path to a military scholarship for medical school is lengthy: background investigations, essays, fingerprinting. Letters of recommendations from current or retired officers; my grandfather wrote mine. A personal interview with a current military physician: I got taken out to lunch by a Navy doctor who also happened to be a reality star, and then got mentioned in a gossip blog. And of course, a slough of physicals. Today I was to go over the results of my blood work from the previous appointment, and sign the appropriate forms. My insurance company had faxed over the entirety of my medical records, including my broken arm at the age of 7. I was tying the bow. I wiped my palms on my jeans.Continue reading…

NPfIT Blazing the Trail

• 5

By MARGALIT GUR-ARIE

The National Audit Office (NAO) in the UK has recently published a report evaluating the status of “The National Programme for IT in the NHS” (NPfIT). The program is a very ambitious top down initiative to deploy Health Information Technology across all NHS facilities in an attempt to provide an electronic care record for every patient in the UK. The blunt conclusion of the report states that “The original vision for the National Programme for IT in the NHS will not be realized” and “This is yet another example of a department fundamentally underestimating the scale and complexity of a major IT-enabled change programme”. Is this gloom ridden report in any way pertinent to our own quest for an EHR for every patient by 2014? Of course not. We don’t have a Socialist system where the government can decide on a particular EHR product, buy it, contract billions of dollars in services, and force all hospitals and doctors to install it and use it in their facilities on a government dictated schedule.

Instead, the United States Government is building a National EHR, and I find the business model fascinating. No, the Feds did not hire a team of software developers, did not set up a business entity and didn’t even hire a defense contractor to do all these things. Instead, they legislate and engage in a flurry of rule makings which are then applied in quick succession, like giant levers, to the delivery side of our health care system. This is nothing short of brilliant.Continue reading…

assetto corsa mods