The Obama administration is ramping up the campaign against medical fee for service and claiming they want to pay for quality not quantity of care. See. Dr.Paul Hsieh (of the blog We Stand Firm) remarks about that issue here. It is really about cost control.
Quoting the economist, Arnold Kling:
"Keep in mind that there is no perfect system for compensating doctors. For example, if you pay them a fixed amount of money per patient, then their incentive is to see a lot of healthy patients and avoid the sick ones. If you pay them a fixed salary, their incentive is to work short hours. If you pay them for “quality care,” that means that a central bureaucracy, comparable to IPAB, has to define the meaning of quality."
Of course it is all about incentives.
And remember Goodhart's Law- when a measure become a target it looses its value as a measure.Further many of the so-called quality targets do little to enhance patient care and some can be harmful,remembering the four hour pneumonia rule.
The various rent-seeking special interest groups and certain members of the progressive medical elite have considerable control of the current narrative and we will hear more about the horrors of fee for service and nothing about the incentives physicians face in a capitated system or as employees of large vertically integrated health care conglomerate..
Friday, January 30, 2015
Monday, January 26, 2015
Are patients pawns on the chess board of population medicine?
They would seem to be at least so it appears to be in the presentation of the "population medicine approach" of by Dr. Harold Sox,former editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine, former president of the American College of Physicians (ACP) and former chair of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, offered in the November 13 ,2014 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
Here is my thumbnail summary of what Dr. Sox wrote in describing how the population medicine approach would work.The major important diseases would be identified as would methods for their prevention. With that knowledge in hand , then funds could be transferred across patients and disease processes so that the maximal overall health benefit could be achieved.In this process it might well be that sometimes funds would be diverted away from the testing and treatment of some so that the preventive measures could be funded and then " in a few generations" the benefit would be fully realized.He is explicit regarding the fact that in the short run some people would be harmed although he does not seem to explain why it would be only the short run as would not new preventative measures always be formulated and have funds diverted to their execution.The population medicine advocates claim the approaching of each patient strictly as a individual is "obsolete" and are promoting a statistical medicine that claims to be capable of provided the greatest health benefit to the greatest number.Practicing physicians know how difficult it can be to recommend what might be best for the individual patient,the "populationists" glibly claim to know what is best for everyone.
In chess, pawns or for that matter any piece, might be sacrificed in executing a strategy of placing the opponent 's king in checkmate. Is it the case that individuals might be sacrificed in executing a strategy of maximizing the health of the specified population as measured by some metric such as quality adjusted life years (QALY) per dollar spent ? After careful study and multiple re-reads of Dr. Sox's article my answer to the question posed in this commentary's title is yes.The patients are the pawns on the chess board of population medicine.
Here is my thumbnail summary of what Dr. Sox wrote in describing how the population medicine approach would work.The major important diseases would be identified as would methods for their prevention. With that knowledge in hand , then funds could be transferred across patients and disease processes so that the maximal overall health benefit could be achieved.In this process it might well be that sometimes funds would be diverted away from the testing and treatment of some so that the preventive measures could be funded and then " in a few generations" the benefit would be fully realized.He is explicit regarding the fact that in the short run some people would be harmed although he does not seem to explain why it would be only the short run as would not new preventative measures always be formulated and have funds diverted to their execution.The population medicine advocates claim the approaching of each patient strictly as a individual is "obsolete" and are promoting a statistical medicine that claims to be capable of provided the greatest health benefit to the greatest number.Practicing physicians know how difficult it can be to recommend what might be best for the individual patient,the "populationists" glibly claim to know what is best for everyone.
In chess, pawns or for that matter any piece, might be sacrificed in executing a strategy of placing the opponent 's king in checkmate. Is it the case that individuals might be sacrificed in executing a strategy of maximizing the health of the specified population as measured by some metric such as quality adjusted life years (QALY) per dollar spent ? After careful study and multiple re-reads of Dr. Sox's article my answer to the question posed in this commentary's title is yes.The patients are the pawns on the chess board of population medicine.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Maybe the health care supply curve slopes upwards and more ACA bait and switch
See here for a review of a recent NEJM article that supplied data indicating that the temporary increase in Medicaid fees which was part of ACA may have increased access to medical care.So as Medicaid professional fees increase more services are supplied.
From Nov 2012 to July 2014,
" [t]he availability of primary care appointments in the Medicaid group increased by 7.7 percentage points, from 58.7% to 66.4%, between the two time periods. The states with the largest increases in availability tended to be those with the largest increases in reimbursements, with an estimated increase of 1.25 percentage points in availability per 10% increase in Medicaid reimbursements (P = 0.03). No such association was observed in the private-insurance group. During the same periods, waiting times to a scheduled new-patient appointment remained stable over time in the two study groups."
So now that the Medicaid fee increase has elapsed and fees will be cut should we not see a decrease in availability? The specter of more folks on Medicaid and fewer docs likely to see Medicaid patients is part of why this article talks about the great bait and switch of ACA.We see more of a distorted version of social justice emerging from Obamacare.
From Nov 2012 to July 2014,
" [t]he availability of primary care appointments in the Medicaid group increased by 7.7 percentage points, from 58.7% to 66.4%, between the two time periods. The states with the largest increases in availability tended to be those with the largest increases in reimbursements, with an estimated increase of 1.25 percentage points in availability per 10% increase in Medicaid reimbursements (P = 0.03). No such association was observed in the private-insurance group. During the same periods, waiting times to a scheduled new-patient appointment remained stable over time in the two study groups."
So now that the Medicaid fee increase has elapsed and fees will be cut should we not see a decrease in availability? The specter of more folks on Medicaid and fewer docs likely to see Medicaid patients is part of why this article talks about the great bait and switch of ACA.We see more of a distorted version of social justice emerging from Obamacare.
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Is Maintenance of Certification (MOC) part of ACA and who put it there?
The short answer is :
Yes, MOC has been implanted into the legislative structure of ACA and for many (most?) practicing physicians this is really breaking news and for those of us who oppose the ABIM's MOC program, may mean bad news.
Dr. Wes explicates how the Maintenance of Certification has been made part of Obamacare in his recent blog entry in which he questions the viability of an alternative "Board" to challenge and hopefully replace the ABIM's widely criticized MOC program.Does the letter of the law with its establishment of MOC in some aspects of Medicare preclude the replacement of ABIM's MOC with some less onerous process by a rival organization?
"The Affordable Care Act (ACA) modified Sections 1848(k) and 1848(m) of the Social Security Act which defines how CMS pays physicians for their services. Section (k) is the section that defines how a "Quality Reporting System" is to be set up (with subsection (4) requiring the "Use of Registry-based Reporting") and Section (m) defining physician incentive payments physicians might receive if quality reporting occurs properly. (Sadly, those CMS incentive payments do not cover the cost of participating in MOC for most of us.)
Section (k) was modified by the ACA to include the ABMS MOC program as a "physician registry." The registry was "defined" as requiring all four parts of the MOC program created by the ABMS, including the much-maligned "practice improvement modules" that have been described by the physician community as overly time-consuming, irrelevant ...."
After re-reading of the relevant sections, it is not clear to me exactly what penalty a physician would incur by forgoing MOC. I welcome any input regarding that.
ABMS's MOC program is part of the law and what ever alternative organization set up to do some version of less onerous MOC is not part of the law and IMO the political clout of the rank and file real physicians is likely not up to the task of changing the law.
Dr. Wes, see here, raises interesting questions about possible collusion between principals in certain organizations and CMS, those certain organizations being some of the ones which would benefit financially from the statutory establishment of MOC in ACA.
Medical certification boards would obviously profit from the MOC process being quasi mandatory or tied in in real ways to a physician's compensation. Dr. Wes focuses on two physicians with ties to ABIM and ABIMF and CMS and the National Quality Forum which incidentally receives significant funding from CMS.
[An interesting aside is that a member of NQF's Board is Liz Fowler, currently a VP at Johnson and Johnson and someone who played a major role in the drafting of ACA. See my earlier commentary entitled "Who Wrote Obamacare and where is she now?") Ms. Fowler has been described , accurately in my opinion, as the poster girl for the revolving door in regard to government and major health care players.It seems that some of the prominent medical elite know how to open the doors as well.}
Quoting Dr. Wes:
"Troubling concerns of collusion of ABIM board members with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the National Quality Forum (which receives the bulk of its revenues from grants supplied by CMS) exist. Christine Cassel, MD, who is the current President and CEO of the National Quality Forum, was President and CEO of the ABIM from 2003 to 2013 and ultimately responsible for the $2.3 million dollar luxury condominium purchase by the ABIM Foundation in December, 2007....."
Dr. Wes then chronicles the job history of the current ABIM CEO, Dr. Richard Baron who was associated with ABIM and then left to be a full time employee of CMS from 2011 -2013 and came home to his current ABIM's six figure salary.
Again quoting Dr. Wes:
"Which leads to the question: how much influence did the ABIM leadership have in establishing a continuous money stream for itself and its Foundation during the writing and mark-up of the Affordable Care Act? (see pages 247 and 844-845 of this large pdf). Clearly, there should be public record available to this effect and physicians should inspect this record before creating an alternate MOC pathway"
The fact that the term "professionalism" is found in ACA may be significant.. ABIMF has been promoting their particular version of professionalism for several years such promotion being the major stated goal of that organization. Unlike traditional medical ethics the ABIMF professionalism embeds the obligation of social justice and an obligation for physicians to act not only for the individual patient but for some collective,which operationally could be a given ACO or HMO. Has or will ACA make the ABIMF's sea change professionalism "the law of the land"?
Statutory language does not appear by a random process.Public choice theory tells us to look at who might profit from a given law or regulation and often you will find who was responsible for it. Cui bono.
Yes, MOC has been implanted into the legislative structure of ACA and for many (most?) practicing physicians this is really breaking news and for those of us who oppose the ABIM's MOC program, may mean bad news.
Dr. Wes explicates how the Maintenance of Certification has been made part of Obamacare in his recent blog entry in which he questions the viability of an alternative "Board" to challenge and hopefully replace the ABIM's widely criticized MOC program.Does the letter of the law with its establishment of MOC in some aspects of Medicare preclude the replacement of ABIM's MOC with some less onerous process by a rival organization?
"The Affordable Care Act (ACA) modified Sections 1848(k) and 1848(m) of the Social Security Act which defines how CMS pays physicians for their services. Section (k) is the section that defines how a "Quality Reporting System" is to be set up (with subsection (4) requiring the "Use of Registry-based Reporting") and Section (m) defining physician incentive payments physicians might receive if quality reporting occurs properly. (Sadly, those CMS incentive payments do not cover the cost of participating in MOC for most of us.)
Section (k) was modified by the ACA to include the ABMS MOC program as a "physician registry." The registry was "defined" as requiring all four parts of the MOC program created by the ABMS, including the much-maligned "practice improvement modules" that have been described by the physician community as overly time-consuming, irrelevant ...."
After re-reading of the relevant sections, it is not clear to me exactly what penalty a physician would incur by forgoing MOC. I welcome any input regarding that.
ABMS's MOC program is part of the law and what ever alternative organization set up to do some version of less onerous MOC is not part of the law and IMO the political clout of the rank and file real physicians is likely not up to the task of changing the law.
Dr. Wes, see here, raises interesting questions about possible collusion between principals in certain organizations and CMS, those certain organizations being some of the ones which would benefit financially from the statutory establishment of MOC in ACA.
Medical certification boards would obviously profit from the MOC process being quasi mandatory or tied in in real ways to a physician's compensation. Dr. Wes focuses on two physicians with ties to ABIM and ABIMF and CMS and the National Quality Forum which incidentally receives significant funding from CMS.
[An interesting aside is that a member of NQF's Board is Liz Fowler, currently a VP at Johnson and Johnson and someone who played a major role in the drafting of ACA. See my earlier commentary entitled "Who Wrote Obamacare and where is she now?") Ms. Fowler has been described , accurately in my opinion, as the poster girl for the revolving door in regard to government and major health care players.It seems that some of the prominent medical elite know how to open the doors as well.}
Quoting Dr. Wes:
"Troubling concerns of collusion of ABIM board members with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the National Quality Forum (which receives the bulk of its revenues from grants supplied by CMS) exist. Christine Cassel, MD, who is the current President and CEO of the National Quality Forum, was President and CEO of the ABIM from 2003 to 2013 and ultimately responsible for the $2.3 million dollar luxury condominium purchase by the ABIM Foundation in December, 2007....."
Dr. Wes then chronicles the job history of the current ABIM CEO, Dr. Richard Baron who was associated with ABIM and then left to be a full time employee of CMS from 2011 -2013 and came home to his current ABIM's six figure salary.
Again quoting Dr. Wes:
"Which leads to the question: how much influence did the ABIM leadership have in establishing a continuous money stream for itself and its Foundation during the writing and mark-up of the Affordable Care Act? (see pages 247 and 844-845 of this large pdf). Clearly, there should be public record available to this effect and physicians should inspect this record before creating an alternate MOC pathway"
The fact that the term "professionalism" is found in ACA may be significant.. ABIMF has been promoting their particular version of professionalism for several years such promotion being the major stated goal of that organization. Unlike traditional medical ethics the ABIMF professionalism embeds the obligation of social justice and an obligation for physicians to act not only for the individual patient but for some collective,which operationally could be a given ACO or HMO. Has or will ACA make the ABIMF's sea change professionalism "the law of the land"?
Statutory language does not appear by a random process.Public choice theory tells us to look at who might profit from a given law or regulation and often you will find who was responsible for it. Cui bono.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)