The Health Care Blog – Page 813 – Everything you always wanted to know about the Health Care system. But were afraid to ask.

Above the Fold

A NY Times guest (inadvertently) spanks its professionals

Jun 21, 2010• 26

By Matthew Holt

A couple of weeks back two New York Times reporters (Abelson & Harris) decided to take on the orthodoxy of the Dartmouth school. Frankly their efforts reminded me of England’s performance in the world cup so far—abject and inept and leaving the fans hoping for much better. Within a few hours the mainstays of Dartmouth (Fisher & Skinner) responded correctly accusing Gardiner and Harris of shaky reporting. Although that original article was particularly muddled, there are indeed legitimate questions about some of the Dartmouth research, raised by serious academics (including on the august pages of THCB), but few of those made their way into the hodgepodge that was that original article. And now in their response to the response, Abelson & Harris have descended further into the mire.

The new argument is basically this. Yes, the Dartmouth academics have done all the corrections to regional data that the NYTimes duo accuse them of not having done. But they’re not available on the website within a click, not always portrayed in the maps in the Atlas, and (horror of horrors) you’d have to read Health Affairs to find out what they’d done. And that some of the academics who read Health Affairs hadn’t carefully looked at the maps which showed unadjusted data.

So now it’s not an academic issue or a misstatement. It’s an issue of poor user interface design! Well I guess we’re used to that in health care!

Op-Ed: Health Care For Profit

Jun 20, 2010• 36

By JOHN GOODMAN, PhD

I’ve noticed at The Health Care Blog quite a few people are obsessed with the role of profit in the health care system. Many apparently believe that for-profit entities have no legitimate role in an ideal world and that all organizations should be nonprofit.

My own view, interestingly enough, is the exact opposite. Were I a Health Care Czar, I would remove the nonprofit status from almost all health care organizations and force them to be for-profit under tax law. I would be willing to consider some exceptions here and there, and in special cases allow for-profits to set up nonprofit subsidiaries. But the vast majority of all patients in my ideal world would be dealing with for-profits — in getting health insurance and in getting medical care. And in return they would get lower-cost, higher-quality care.

Why do we have such radically divergent views on this subject? As so often happens in public policy, much confusion is caused when people are not familiar with basic economic principles. In this case, the antiprofit folks are confused about (1) the economics of capital, (2) the economics of competition and (3) the economics of motivation in complex social systems.

Suppose the government builds a hospital and plans to have the entity be self-sustaining (all operating costs are to be paid from expected revenues). Following conventional public sector accounting, the cost of the capital needed to build the hospital will be treated as zero. (Afterall, all we need is for the Treasury to write a check.) And even though the plan to cover costs with patient revenues is far from certain to pan out, the accountants will also ignore the cost of that risky decision.

This example is Exhibit A in my case for abolishing the nonprofit status of hospitals.

Nope. Won’t Happen.

Jun 20, 2010• 50

By MAGGIE MAHAR

Friday, June 18, the Senate aproved a plan that blocks a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments to physicians; the axe was scheduled to fall that day. Leadership on both sides of the aisle pushed for the reprieve; it will remain in place for six months. The measure will now need to be considered by the House, which in May approved a fix that would last longer. If the House agrees–and it is all but certain that it will–the 21 percent cut wil be replaced with a 2.2 percent pay hike. The bill will not add to the deficit. The proposal is fully offset by changes in Medicare billing regulations, antifraud provisions and the tightening of some pension rules, eliminating Republican objections that it would push the federal government deeper into debt.

In six months, Congress will have to consider the matter once again, just as it has ever year since 2003. This is the third time this year that Congress has averted Draconian cuts to physician’s payments. What, you might wonder, is going on? Here is the backstory: in 1997, Congress enacted a so-called “sustainable growth rate” (SGR) mechanism to keep Medicare physician reimbursement rates in check. Congress has never allowed the full cuts called for under the SGR formula to take effect and it never will.

Why don’t legislators simply repeal the cuts to doctors’ fees that they have been postponing for years? Why just put off the measure for another six months?

Because too few of our elected representative possess the chutzpah to stand up and say that blind across-the-board cuts were an extraordinarily dumb idea in the first place.

AMA and Congress: Playing “Chicken” Again

Jun 20, 2010• 1

By JANE M. ORIENT, MD

Nine times in the past eight years, Congress has, at the last second, delayed the automatic cuts in doctors’ Medicare fees that it decreed some 13 years ago to prevent Medicare spending from outpacing other consumer expenditures.

The AMA threatens that doctors, especially primary care doctors, will stop accepting Medicare patients if the cuts go through. Congress hurtles toward the head-on collision, citing runaway budget problems. Doctors are kept in suspense, their claims held in abeyance while carriers wait for Congress to fix the problem retroactively if it has missed its deadline. The AMA claims credit when the wreck is averted, and urges doctors to continue paying their dues while it feverishly works for a permanent “fix.” Only the AMA, it implies, stands between Congress and certain disaster.

Every time cuts are postponed, the next scheduled cut gets deeper. It’s like a balloon mortgage payment in reverse.

And the controversy gives columnists another occasion to rail against those greedy overpaid doctors, unwilling to assume a bit of shared sacrifice despite the economic downturn.

Doing Their Homework: Times Reporters Respond in Dartmouth Atlas Spat

Jun 20, 2010

By MERRILL GOOZNER

Over the weekend, the two New York Times reporters who challenged the core findings of the Dartmouth Atlas of Health stuck to their guns in a detailed response to the rejoinder to their critique. The Dartmouth Atlas, which documents regional variation in Medicare spending, provides the intellectual underpinning for assertions by health care reformers (including those in the White House) that 30 percent of all health care spending is wasted and does not improve either the quality or outcome of care.

The Times‘ original critique (see this GoozNews post) contained three main ideas:

The Dartmouth researchers fail to adjust their maps for regional variations in prices;
The Dartmouth researchers fail to adjust their maps for illness burden; and
The assertion that more spending leads to worse outcomes is not borne out by the data. In some cases more spending leads to better outcomes.

Some of this back-and-forth may sound like a quibble over language. Is it “30 percent” of health care is wasted or “up to 30 percent,” as the Dartmouth researcher now state in public? Reed Abelson and Gardiner Harris provide a link to the original 21-page response to their queries. “We think the 30 percent estimate could be too low,” the Dartmouth researchers wrote in a highlighted section.

On the other hand, the Times reporters appear to be taking a step back on the price issue. They went back to David Cutler, the Harvard health care economist whom they originally quoted. Cutler told them that the original 2003 articles by John Wennburg and Elliott Fisher of Dartmouth that appeared in the medical literature did, in fact, adjust for price. “But he said he agreed with the Times assertion that most of the atlas’s maps and rankings, as distinct from the group’s academic work, are not fully adjusted for prices,” Abelson and Harris wrote.

Notably, Cutler is now hedging his bets on the “30 percent is waste” argument. “Some believe that number is higher, and others think that it’s lower,” he wrote in the latest Health Affairs. “But there is little disagreement that health care is characterized by enormous waste.”

In my view, it is the dispute over quality that really needs to be explored by other researchers and policymakers. Eliminating waste ought to improve quality. It has always been true in manufacturing that reducing steps and reducing waste not only reduces costs, but it improves the quality of the finished product.

There’s no reason to think it won’t be true in delivering a complicated service like health care, which some have compared to building and flying jet airplanes. Doing more than necessary to get the job done will only increase the possibility that errors will occur in the process, which in health care translates into more complications, further costs and, in some cases, lost lives.

Yet the Times reporters continue to assert through their dissection of the Dartmouth data that more spending on more services may actually result in higher quality. They go back to the original research — the two studies published in 2003 — to make their point:

The researchers are incorrect in saying that the results of those 2003 studies were “all in the same direction.” In fact, two of the various measures of quality and mortality cited in the articles actually seemed to show that more spending could correlate to better care. [footnotes 2 and 3] Heart attack patients in the most expensive regions, for example, were more likely to receive necessary beta blockers – a positive correlation between spending and quality. Similarly, hip fracture patients experienced “a small decrease in mortality rates” in more expensive places – another positive correlation.

We have very poor metrics for measuring quality of care, and one of the examples they cite shows why. Giving beta blockers is a “process” measure. We know from clinical trials that giving beta blockers after a heart attack improves outcomes. But does it improve outcomes the same in regions where the ratio of obesity-related heart attacks to stress related heart attacks differ? Does it have the same effect in regions with higher proportions of mild heart attacks (because they are more likely to use a sophisticated blood test to categorize chest pains as a heart attack) than it does in a region with a higher proportion of serious heart attacks?

These are the confounding variables that no data set can capture adequately until it fully reflects both the diagnoses of the incoming patients as well as the care delivered. The Dartmouth Atlas data, which relies on Medicare claims, falls far short of that goal. And the Times reporters, by trying to re sift the data to make a counterpoint, only add another blind man’s hands on the elephant in the room — the absence of electronic data about the actual medical conditions of the patients behind those Medicare claims.

Merrill Goozner has been writing about economics and health care for many years. The former chief economics correspondent for the Chicago Tribune, Merrill has written for a long list of publications including the New York Times, The American Prospect and The Washington Post. His most recent book, “The $800 Million Dollar Pill – The Truth Behind the Cost of New Drugs ” (University of California Press, 2004) has won acclaim from critics for its treatment of the issues facing the health care system and the pharmaceutical industry in particular. You can read more pieces by Merrill at GoozNews, where this post first appeared.

Final EHR Certification Rule Announced By ONC

Jun 19, 2010• 13

By DAVID HARLOW

A surgeon can’t operate without the proper equipment. A clinician can’t achieve meaningful use of electronic health records without an EHR that is designed to improve patient care and practice efficiency. — David Blumenthal

This week David Blumenthal, Steve Posnack and Carol Bean of the ONC announced the publication of the final (albeit temporary) EHR certification rule. The actual publication date in the Federal Register will be June 24. (Here is the display copy of the EHR Certification Rule; a permanent rule will be forthcoming later this year.)

The technical standards were glossed over on a conference call with ONC this afternoon; the focus, instead, was on getting testing and certification rolling. Organizations or consortia may apply for recognition as testing and/or certification organizations as soon as the rule is published; the goal is to have these entities approved by the end of the summer, so as to keep this train moving. Notably, CCHIT will have to apply, along with everyone else, and CCHIT-certified EHRs are not grandfathered (despite the requests of many commenters.)Continue reading…

AskDrRob (ADR): LOL, EHR, Oprah

Jun 19, 2010• 4

By ROB LAMBERTS, MD

It’s been a very long time since I did an Ask Dr. Rob post. It’s also been a long time since I shot a spitball out of a straw and hit someone behind the ear during social studies class. I realize that just because it’s been a long time since I’ve done something, it doesn’t mean the world is better off with me doing it again.

Still, there have been some interesting questions that have come up and I think it’s time they should be answered. They are both along the same line:

Question 1: What is the difference between health care and healthcare? I see that you contribute to the Health Care Blog, but you write about healthcare all of the time. What’s the deal?

Question 2: What is the difference between EMR and EHR? It seems that some people feel that it is vile and uncouth to call it “EMR”, only accepting people who call it “EHR” into their secret societies of people who are smarter than everyone else. What’s the deal?

To Space or notto Space

These two questions focus on a very important issue in our society:
the place of grammatical elitism in modern society. You see, the folks who write “health care” are very suspicious of those who write “healthcare,” as they feel that they wantonly leave out spaces between words and endanger the very fabric of the space time continuum by doingso. The “healthcare” camp, on the other hand, thinks that the “health care” crew is just dealing with pent-up frustration from being pottytrained (potty trained) too late and becoming the laughingstock (laughing stock) of the daycare (day care) center.

Alere interviewed at AHIP

Jun 19, 2010• 3

By Matthew Holt

At the AHIP conference in Vegas earlier this month I sat down with the CEO of Alere, Tom Underwood, and long-time friend of The Health Care Blog, Gordon Norman (Alere’s SVP of Innovation). I asked Tom about the services they provide within personal health support and their recent acquisition of RMD Networks.

Gordon got the big question: does disease management program really work? Tom got the easy questions about the future of the business.

Job Post: THCB Editorial

Jun 19, 2010

THCB is looking for talented interns to
assist with editorial, research and web production tasks as our web
site undergoes a major expansion. Perfect for a grad or med student
with an interest in journalism, public policy, and/or the business of
health care. Work out of a great home
office location in the Princeton area or remotely, convenient to both Princeton
University and UMDNJ. Reasonable train ride from midtown Manhattan. Production and research
opportunities may also be available in our San Francisco offices for
qualified candidates.

The Primary Care Workforce: Help is on the Way

Jun 18, 2010• 28

By GLENN LAFFEL, MD, PhD

The best electronic health record on the planet isn’t going to help anybody unless a physician uses it. The HITECH incentive scheme should enhance the woefully poor EHR uptake rates among US providers, as should innovative vendor business models that remove cost-barriers which have prevented many from getting in the game.

But there’s an even more fundamental issue, which is a looming manpower shortage among the ranks of US primary care physicians, a topic we’ve covered numerous times, most recently here. There simply aren’t enough physicians to use those EHRs!

Communities across the nation have long suffered from a lack of PCPs. The problem is expected to worsen as baby boomers age and the number of medical students who enter primary care continues to drop. If nothing is done to change current trends, the Association of American Medical Colleges estimates our country will be short 21,000 and PCPs in 2015 and a whopping 47,000 in 2025.

Now, finally, something is being done. And while it may not be enough, it certainly points us in the right direction. More importantly, it sets a precedent for future interventions by the federal government.

This Wednesday, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced $250 million worth of new investments designed to support the training and development of more than 16,000 new primary care providers over the next five years. The investments were mandated by the Affordable Care Act, that controversial health care bill signed into law by President Obama in March.