Mar
27

Health care – not a ‘system’ but an Industry.

To say we have a “health care system” is laughable; we actually have is a disconnected bunch of stakeholders who all view health care and the financing thereof through their own distinct lens.  There’s a:

  • heavy emphasis on profit and personal/corporate gain from individuals and organizations ‘serving’ the health care needs of Americans,
  • all subject to direction and oversight by an increasingly overburdened regulatory infrastructure that in turn is
  • directed by legislators who are often beholden to those
  • folks making a living off the “system”.

Any wonder it’s completely screwed up?

Yet we often lose track of these central challenges when thinking about/developing solutions to problems in health care delivery and financing.  Quoting Chris Brigham, M.D, “Many of the challenges we face in workers’ compensation are the results of flawed processes and wrong incentives – that drive certain behaviors – ultimately harming injured workers and society”.

There are a couple resources that help bring things back into focus.

First is the film, Escape Fire: The Fight to Rescue American Healthcare”  www.escapefiremovie.com This is a terrific documentary of a medical industry – not system – with profit-driven, rather than patient-driven care.  It has played on CNN several times during the past month and is available on ITunes and as a DVD.   Our health care costs are approaching 20% of our gross domestic product. We spend $300 billion on pharmaceutical drugs – almost as much as the rest of the world combined. 65% of Americans are overweight and 75% of healthcare costs are spent on preventable diseases that are the major causes of disability and death in our society. It is inexcusable. 

The second is an insightful article “Chronic Pain: Fundamental Scientific Considerations, Specifically for Legal Claims” by Robert J. Barth, PhD which was the lead article in the January / February 2013 issue of the AMA Guides Newsletter.  Barth’s article is an in-depth discussion of evidence and scientific findings indicating eligibility for compensation is the domi­nant factor for chronic pain claims.

With chronic pain the reef on which the ship of workers comp is increasingly likely to founder, Barth’s piece is well worth the read.  The key sentence – Barth quoting from a speech given by the author of a study on back pain – is this:

“Minor trauma was only associated with serious low back pain in a compensation setting.” [emphasis added]

Barth – “None of the surveyed participants who were NOT eligible for compensation developed serious low back pain after minor trauma.”

And there you have it: unequivocal evidence that there’s a huge amount of “secondary gain” driven medical care.

What does this mean for you?

Anyone who thinks there are simple answers to our health care mess is a simpleton. 

 


Mar
20

There is NO OBAMACARE RFID CHIP!

Among the top all time posts on MCM was the one a couple weeks ago about the right wing and nut-o-sphere’s claim that the feds are going to require anyone signing up for health insurance will be implanted with an RFID chip containing their medical and financial records.

As of this am, there were 12.386 views of that post.  I kid you not.

To repeat – there is NOTHING in the PPACA legislation or regulations about any RFID chip.

These conspiracy theorists either intentionally or ignorantly mis-read the PPACA’s Medical Device Registry language – which is clearly intended to track medical devices – hip replacements, pacemakers, spinal cages and the like – to “facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data.” This language – which is quite simple and quite clear is mis-interpreted to imply that we all are going to get a chip implanted somewhere on our persons.

Of course we need to get these devices tracked – many fail, many are recalled, and there are many complications arising from these devices.  Rather than having no way to figure out who has an implant from the Acme Hip Bone Implant Device Co. by sorting thru paper documents, it only makes sense to have a central source that can identify the Acme patients.

Not only is there nothing in any document about this, but the tin-foil hat crazies propagating this rubbish cite a bill that was never even passed (HR 3200) and is not law as their source for this nefarious plot.  And, it has been refuted by Snopes and about a hundred other investigators.

But the monsters-under-the-bed crowd don’t let facts interfere with their claims – oh, no, not this guy.

There have also been a flood of comments from people claiming this is some part of a master plan of the Illuminati, or the FreeMasons, or some other obscure group bent on world domination.  After posting a couple comments, I’ve trashed the rest.


Feb
28

Operation UNITE’s Karen Kelly led off with some of the most disturbing data I’ve ever seen on the impact of opioids in Kentucky and the country.

  • average age of first drug use is 11.  Eleven.
  • in some counties, 50% of children are being raised with no parents in the home.
Operation UNITE is doing terrific work in Kentucky – sponsoring treatment, supporting narcotics enforcement and interdiction, buying drug lock boxes for homes, education of kids and others, sponsoring summer camps, building community coalitions, and drug-free workplace training – among many other initiatives.
And their work is paying off – there’s been a year over year decrease in dispensing of all controlled substances by 11.7% in their area.
There are a wealth of resources available on their site, from videos to educational materials  to news and updates on progress in the battle against opioid abuse.
(I’m moderating a session at the National Rx Drug Abuse Summit with Washington state’s Gary Franklin MD and Amy Lee of Texas DWC  addressing opioids in workers’ comp at their annual meeting in early April.) There are several other sessions addressing opioids, detailing what works, what doesn’t, strategies and results.

 


Jan
15

Flu season and Tamiflu – which one’s more hyped?

It’s full-on panic mode; flu season is upon us, the media’s in a frenzy, and the world is coming to an end.  If you didn’t get your shot, you’re going to be in serious trouble, laid up for weeks with a nasty case of the horribles if not stuck in a hospital ER with tubes dangling from your appendages.

To listen/watch the media, you’d think the Mayans were right about the end of the world, if not precise with the timing or cause of earth’s demise. Then again, this is what (much of) the media does – generate eyeballs/ears by getting us all excited about something or other.  Now that the most recent fiscal crisis is a distant memory, there’s got to be something to get us riled up – so flu it is.

Unfortunately the sensationalism isn’t limited to the illness itself; the enthusiasm for Tamiflu, the equivalent of the mining-after pill for flu sufferers, is similarly hyped.

Through a combination of carefully-orchestrated clinical trials, precisely-written journal articles, and professionally-managed media placement, the makers of Tamiflu have been able to convince many of the drug’s powerful ability to moderate the effects and shorten the duration of the illness. Sounds like a no-brainer, except…

Except the reality is nowhere near as encouraging.  Turns out Tamiflu actually only shortens duration by a day or so, and while it can moderate the worst of the symptoms, isn’t going to get you up and going in no time.  Here’s what the Cochrane Collaboration, perhaps the world’s leading analysts of medical research and intervention concluded after reviewing the research behind Tamiflu:

1. The manufacturer of the drug sponsored all the trials and the reviewers found evidence of publication and reporting biases.

2. The studies did not show that Tamiflu (oseltamivir) reduced the risk of hospitalization.

3. The studies were inadequate to determine the effect of Tamiflu (oseltamivir) on complications.

4. The studies were inadequate to determine if Tamiflu (oseltamivir)  reduced transmission of the virus.

5. The use of Tamiflu (oseltamivir) did reduce the duration of symptoms by about a day.

I bring this to your attention, dear reader, not to scare you even more, but rather to encourage you to learn more about medical miracles/drugs/treatments before signing up.  If you don’t, you may well find yourself poorer, just as sick, and perhaps with a few side effects you hadn’t counted on.

Thanks to Gary Schwitzer at Health News Review for the tip; his blog is a must-read for those seeking the real story behind the mass media’s health hype of the moment.


Nov
28

Sally Pipes on comparative effectiveness: flat-out wrong

Sally Pipes thinks using evidence-based medicine to produce better outcomes and avoid killing patients is “rationing.”

What utter nonsense. Pipes whole piece – in Forbes nonetheless -is rife with errors of fact, contortions of logic, and sloppy research.  Her highly selective parsing of others’ work is nothing short of intentionally misleading.

Here are a few of Ms Pipes’ errors.

“CER advocates say that it’s designed to correct a “market failure.” Right now, they argue, drug firms need not demonstrate that their product is better than those already on the market — only that it is effective at treating the disease it targets. Drug companies have little incentive to compare their products to those made by other firms — as they may not come out on top.”

Actually, CER advocates point to a failure of Congress and then-President Bush, not the “market”. Those elected cretins are the ones responsible for forbidding CMS from considering efficacy or effectiveness when determining how much is paid for a new drug or device (notably missed by Ms Pipes).  Yep, the 2003 Congress and Bush are the ones at fault when they passed the Medicare “Modernization” Act.

After all, why would you, dear taxpayer, ever want the Feds to care about wasting your tax dollars on marginally useful but really expensive drugs or devices?  Nope, far better to force CMS to pay whatever pharma or device manufacturers charge for stuff that might not work nearly as well as something that costs far less.

Ms Pipes goes on to find fault with CER, saying “for starters, doctors don’t always agree on what comparative-effectiveness research is actually telling us”.

No @&%$()*^.  THAT’S WHY WE NEED CER!  There’s waaay too much variation outside accepted practice norms, and this variation kills patients, drives up taxes, and increases employers’ costs.  Newsflash to Ms Pipes, some “doctors” are lousy, profit-seeking, patient-hurting, incompetent, or just plain bad.  Here’s just one example.

Next up; “Back in 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force — another government-run panel of independent experts — revised its breast-cancer screening recommendations by telling women to wait until age 50 before undergoing routine mammograms. Previously, the group had encouraged women to start mammograms at age 40.

One reason the Task Force cited for the change? Cost.”

As if somehow cost is bad?  Another newsflash for Ms Pipes – health care costs are out of control, largely because we do way too many procedures that we should not do. Ever heard of “entitlements”, Ms P?

Also note cost is only ONE FACTOR. Increased risk of cancer from too many radiation screenings received much more attention – as it should.

Why is Ms Pipes so blatantly, obviously, completely in error?   Perhaps an inability to grasp basic concepts of high school science is to blame, or maybe she has really poor reading comprehension.

Of course, neither is the case. Ms Pipes just chooses to ignore facts that run counter to her ideology in favor of made-up conclusions based on nothing more than her ideology. .

Shame on you Forbes.  Your corner of the mainstream media is indeed in decline.


Oct
24

Why health care costs too much

If you go into the hospital for surgery, there’s about a ten percent chance you’ll be back – victim of a surgical infection, gastrointestinal problem, or other complication.

Of course, this being healthcare, (in general) the facility isn’t financially penalized for the problem.  In fact, they’ll increase their revenue – up to $58,000. So, the more re-admissions, the more revenue for the hospital (on average, they get about $1.2 million a year more due to re-admissions).

Fortunately, CMS and a few other payers are taking steps to help hospitals reduce re-admission, with the most important step being a refusal to pay for some re-admissions.  That’s helping to concentrate the efforts of many providers, who are working hard to figure out what causes re-admissions and what to do to forestall them.

That’s not to say that ALL re-admissions are due to hospital error, infection, or other issue – some patients just have problems.

But – and it’s a big BUT – many re-admissions CAN be prevented – BUT absent a financial motivation, there’s just no reason for the hospital and providers to do much to prevent them.  In fact, there’s 58,000 reasons to not try.

Today, our reimbursement “system” rewards excess treatment, expensive technology, over-utilization.  If we are to gain control over our costs and improve our (very mediocre) outcomes, we have to reward good performance and penalize bad – while working with the poor performers to help them improve.

CMS is leading the effort, starting with its decision to not pay for “never-ever” events, continuing with reductions in reimbursement for selected diagnoses, and then expanding to cover more in 2015.  And where CMS leads, other payers will benefit – as hospitals ratchet up their performance, re-admissions for all payers will decline, lowering costs while improving outcomes.

What does this mean for you?

Why are you paying for poor performance by healthcare providers, when you wouldn’t get paid to fix your own work if it was less-than-acceptable?

Time to rethink your provider contracts…

 


Aug
20

Aetna to acquire Coventry

No this is not an April Fools prank. Aetna announcedtoday it will acquire Coventry Healthcare. The transaction is is in cash and stock and is valued at $7.3 billion after accounting for aetna’s assumption of Coventry’s debt.
The deal will give considerable strength in a number of key secondary and tertiary markets particularly in the central Midwest. It also makes Aetna a major power in Part D, strengthens the company’s Medicaid position, and puts Aetna back into the workers comp business.
This last is rather interesting. While Coventry’s workers comp revenues have been pretty much flat for five quarters, it is a big cash generator. However Aerna recently shut down its workers comp business (consisting of a network marketed exclusively thru Coventry) and management of that unit was not interested in the sector.
I’d be surprised if Aetna doesn’t keep their new work comp unit operating; cash is precious as they prepare for a post-2014 world and David Young’s unit has shown itself very good at generating lots and lots of green.
It is quite clear many other operating and administrative operations will see layoffs. Aetna expects $400 million in synergies ie lower costs – and most of that will be in the form of staff reductions.
From the official press release…
Adds growing individual Medicare Advantage business
Substantially increases Medicaid footprint
Improves Aetna’s positioning and reach in Commercial businesses
Adds low-cost product set built on value-based provider networks
Expected to be modestly accretive to Operating EPS in 2013, $0.45 accretive in 2014 and $0.90 accretive in 2015, excluding transaction and integration costs


May
15

$20,728 – your family’s 2012 health care cost

That’s the figure reported by Milliman earlier today.
Yep, almost twenty-one grand just for health insurance and out-of-pocket costs.
The good news (!) is the annual rate of increase was a paltry 6.9%, the lowest trend in a decade.
The bad news? In six years, the average family of four’s premium and out-of-pocket costs will be $31,000. That’s if the inflation rate stays the same; if it reverts to the norm, we’ll see costs pierce the thirty grand level in 2017.
Here’s hoping someone – anyone – finds a solution. We know that Massachusetts’ premium increases are among, if not the, lowest in the country; we also know Medicare’s rate of increase is lower than commercial plans’. Perhaps there is a role for big government; altho I’m hoping private insurers figure out how to control costs without the threat of price caps.
Then again, we’ve tried that – for about fifty years – with pretty poor results
.


May
7

Colbert’s ‘Word’… Debt Panels

Steven Colbert’s one of the funnier people/newscasters out there – and his piece on “Debt Panels” [opens video] is terrific.
Colbert helps us understand the role of finance in the emergency medicine department, a role that has grown significantly over the last couple years along with the rise of the number of uninsureds…
Hat tip to Care and Cost for the head’s up.


Mar
19

Disease mongering…

MRIs used to cost thousands; but today, you can get one for a mere $75 – if you use Groupxx’s coupon (no, I won’t provide a link, that would encourage this behavior).
Today’s virtual in-basket had not one but two notes from colleagues about this fantastic offer, one where you can get an MRI AND a medical consultation, which normally goes for $250, for the tiny sum of $75.
For that, you get “the chance for one of those moments of clarity. We provide you with the opportunity to appreciate and better understand the inner intricacies of parts of your body such as your spine, your joints or your pelvis through an MRI scan.”
Wow, such a deal.
Of course, something could easily appear on that MRI which would lead to more treatment, more bills, and more revenue for the MRI’s owners and the docs doing the “diagnosing”.
Now, I don’t think this is all bad.
Insurers may use these ads as a way to get even lower rates from MRI vendors.

Claims adjusters may want to buy a couple dozen to sock away for that next rash of lower back injuries.
Self-insured employers may even now be getting out their credit cards to reserve a few slots for employees and dependents with undiagnosed musculoskeletal issues.
Isn’t the free market great?
Thanks to Gary Schwitzer and the unnamed colleague for the heads’ up…