Category: Health Care Reform Debate

This American Life HC Reform Part 2

This American Life:

This week, we bring you a deeper look inside the health insurance industry. The dark side of prescription drug coupons. A story about Pet Health Insurance, which is in its infancy, and how it is changing human behaviors—for example, if you have the pet health insurance, you bring your pet to the vet more often, and the vet makes more money and…well, you can see the parallels. And insurance company jargon, frighteningly decoded.

Prologue. Host Ira Glass describes the crazy world of medical billing, where armies of coders use several contradictory different systems of codes…and none of it makes us healthier. (5 minutes)

Act One. One Pill Two Pill, Red Pill Blue Pill.
Planet Money’s Chana Joffe-Walt explains why prescription drug coupons could actually be increasing how much we pay, and prevent us from even telling how much drugs cost. (13 1/2 minutes)

Act Two. Let’s Take Your Medical History.
Alex Blumberg and Adam Davidson recount how four accidental steps led to enacting the very questionable system of employers paying for health care. (11 1/2 minutes)

Act Three. Insurance? Ruh Roh!
Planet Money correspondent David Kestenbaum investigates the growing popularity of pet
insurance, and what it reveals about insurance for people. (14 minutes )

Act Four. Sorry Johnny… It’s Only Business.
This American Life producer Sarah Koenig reports on a very surprising reason why insurance companies dump members, and how this reasoning contradicts President Obama’s argument for what will lower health care costs. (11 1/2 minutes)

Again, a very interesting program to follow up on last week’s episode.

In Act IV, the interview with Uwe Reinhardt is very thought provoking. Specifically, he talks about the power of suppliers (i.e., hospitals) in the insurer-provider tug of war, and about Maryland’s “All Payer System,” which I will try to learn more about and pass along when I do…

MP3 of Part 2

MP3 of Part 1 is not offered directly at the website. You can subscribe to the podcast and then download yourself here: http://feeds.thisamericanlife.org/talpodcast

“Common Sense” Health Care Reform Principles

Uwe Reinhardt Economix Blog

The All-American Wish List for Health Reform

  1. Only patients and their own doctors should decide what clinical response is appropriate for a given medical condition, even if that response involves
    unproven clinical procedures or technology.
  2. Neither government bureaucrats nor private insurance bureaucrats should ever refuse to pay for whatever patients and their doctors have decided to do in response to a given medical condition. An insurer’s refusal to pay for a medical procedure is tantamount to rationing health care.
  3. Rationing health care is un-American.
  4. Cost-effectiveness analysis should never be the basis of any coverage decision by public or private third-party payers in health care, for to do so would put a price on human life — which, in America, unlike everywhere else, is priceless.
  5. Government should not require individuals to purchase health insurance. Such a mandate would violate the constitutional rights of freedom-loving Americans.
  6. Americans have a moral right to life-saving and potentially highly expensive medical care, should they fall critically ill, even if they are uninsured and could not possibly pay for that care with their own financial resources. (Why else would God have created hospitals and their emergency rooms?)
  7. Government should stay out of health care. Specifically, government should not control health care prices, nor should it increase its spending on health care, which is out of control.
  8. Even small reductions to the future growth of Medicare spending — called “cuts” in Washington parlance — unfairly burden the elderly, along with the
    doctors and hospitals that serve them and the manufacturers of health products, lest the pace of technical innovation be impaired.

And so on, and so forth. Any health policy analyst over the age of 40 could easily double the list. It might make for a good parlor game at a bar.

Readers may believe I am jesting. But follow the editorial pages or punditry, especially of the conservative news media, over some time.

The Health Care Blog: How to Rein in Medical Costs, RIGHT NOW

The Health Care Blog: How to Rein in Medical Costs, RIGHT NOW
From Dr. George Lundberg…

“So, what can we in the USA do RIGHT NOW to begin to cut health care costs?

An alliance of informed patients and physicians can widely apply recently learned comparative effectiveness science to big ticket items, saving vast sums while improving quality of care.

1. Intensive medical therapy should be substituted for coronary artery bypass grafting (currently around 500,000 procedures annually) for many patients with established coronary artery disease, saving many billions of dollars annually.

2. The same for invasive angioplasty and stenting (currently around 1,000,000 procedures per year) saving tens of billions of dollars annually.

3. Most non-indicated PSA screening for prostate cancer should be stopped. Radical surgery as the usual treatment for most prostate cancers should cease since it causes more harm than good. Billions saved here.

4. Screening mammography in women under 50 who have no clinical indication should be stopped and for those over 50 sharply curtailed, since it now seems to lead to at least as much harm as good. More billions saved.

5. CAT scans and MRIs are impressive art forms and can be useful clinically. However, their use is unnecessary much of the time to guide correct therapeutic decisions. Such expensive diagnostic tests should not be paid for on a case by case basis but grouped along with other diagnostic tests, by some capitated or packaged method that is use-neutral. More billions saved.

6. We must stop paying huge sums to clinical oncologists and their institutions for administering chemotherapeutic false hope, along with real suffering from adverse effects, to patients with widespread metastatic cancer. More billions saved.

7. Death, which comes to us all, should be as dignified and free from pain and suffering as possible. We should stop paying physicians and institutions to prolong dying with false hope, bravado, and intensive therapy which only adds to their profit margin. Such behavior is almost unthinkable and yet is commonplace. More billions saved.”

My personal opinion is that all of these issues are not solely driven by economics, but just as often by being the path of least resisitance. It is generally easier to do the “next thing,” rather than having difficult conversations about a CABG or intervention or chemo regimen or whatever, and the real risks and benefits to the patient in front of you. So rewarding patient care and outcomes and time spent or simply not rewarding so generously all of these procedures could go a long way as Dr. Lundberg suggests.

Baucus Watch, Public Option issues: Columbia Journalsm Review

Baucus Watch, Part X : CJR:

Columbia Journalism review tries to get reporters to focus on the substance of the Public Option debate, rather than on the horse-race, who’s up, who’s down BS they generally like to cover ’cause it’s easier and more fun. As a reminder of the thinking in general, you can read more about the “weak” vs. “strong” public plan options here.

“To move this story—and it’s an important one—beyond the process of reform to the substance of reform, we offer a few questions for reporters:
• Who will really be able to join a public plan—everyone, or just those who don’t have other coverage or are too ill for insurers to take them on as customers?
• Can workers with coverage from their employers go to a public plan if it’s cheaper? In other words, is there a real choice for everyone?
• How will coverage be financed—by taxpayer dollars, or by premiums from people needing insurance?
• Will the government provide the coverage, as it does for Medicare’s hospital and doctor benefits, or will private insurers provide it, as they do for Medicare’s prescription drug benefit? There’s a big difference here.
• What will the benefit package look like? Which special interests are working to make sure that their latest gee-whiz technology gets covered?
• Will doctors and hospitals be paid the Medicare rates, or something higher?
• If they get the higher rates, then where will the cost-savings come from?
• If private carriers provide the benefits with more of the same inefficient billing costs, where will the administrative savings come from?”

Annals of Medicine: The Cost Conundrum: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

Annals of Medicine: The Cost Conundrum: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker:

A damning look by Atul Gawande at the way we pay for medical care in America. The final three paragraphs of this must read article.

“Something even more worrisome is going on as well. In the war over the culture of medicine—the war over whether our country’s anchor model will be Mayo or McAllen—the Mayo model is losing. In the sharpest economic downturn that our health system has faced in half a century, many people in medicine don’t see why they should do the hard work of organizing themselves in ways that reduce waste and improve quality if it means sacrificing revenue.

“In El Paso, the for-profit health-care executive told me, a few leading physicians recently followed McAllen’s lead and opened their own centers for surgery and imaging. When I was in Tulsa a few months ago, a fellow-surgeon explained how he had made up for lost revenue by shifting his operations for well-insured patients to a specialty hospital that he partially owned while keeping his poor and uninsured patients at a nonprofit hospital in town. Even in Grand Junction, Michael Pramenko told me, “some of the doctors are beginning to complain about ‘leaving money on the table.’ ”

“As America struggles to extend health-care coverage while curbing health-care costs, we face a decision that is more important than whether we have a public-insurance option, more important than whether we will have a single-payer system in the long run or a mixture of public and private insurance, as we do now. The decision is whether we are going to reward the leaders who are trying to build a new generation of Mayos and Grand Junctions. If we don’t, McAllen won’t be an outlier. It will be our future.”

I went to the Dartmouth Atlas web site myself and found this interesting tid-bit:



I think it fits in well with the ethos described in Gawande’s article.

It is much easier to continue aggressive treatment rather than spend time having an honest discussion about the benefits and burdens of continuing treatment.


Thanks to whoever put the link up on the Howard Dean Webinar tonight!



UPDATE: This recent Archives of Internal Medicine article is particularly apporpriate:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/169/10/954

This also, perversely, can make the hospital statistics in mortality look good, as well. As an intensivist, I can get almost ANYONE out of the the ICU and subsequently out of the hospital if I ignore the true outcome for the patient and the family: additional suffering, minimal prolongation of a life at its end, and so on.

My colleagues who do practice best EOL practices know that our ICU and hospital mortality numbers suffer, but I have no doubt that having honest discussions with my patients and families is the right thing to do. You may have heard this for your patients, “Thanks for the straight talk, Doc,” or “Nobody talked to me about my prognosis before.”

Of course, this is not new information, but we still need to do better as physicians:http://www.chestjournal.org/content/128/1/465.full?ck=nck

What’s on my MP3 Player…

…aren’t I cool?

Center for American Progress Events (Audio):

Can Health Reform Deliver for Providers?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 5:13:49 PM
Half-way through this and it’s very good. Dr. Paulus of Geisinger is very impressive..

Medicare’s Lessons for Health Reform
Thursday, April 02, 2009, 1:04:18 PM

Health Reform: “Now is the Time for Action”
Friday, March 27, 2009, 10:59:49 AM
This features Sen. Baucus as opener, then has some good discussion with Paul Begala and Norm Ornstein and Karen Tumulty…

The Ideology and Politics of the Millennial Generation
Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 1:10:51 PM

“The Age of Stupid”
Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 12:12:33 PM

Public Plan Options: Strong, Weak, and MRP?

Courtesy of Health Affairs Blog, and Harold Luft:

“The two options are the “strong” and the “weak” versions of a public plan, referring not to the strength of the proposals, but the power of the public plan. The “strong” version, as advocated by Jacob Hacker, among others, is a near-clone of Medicare adapted for those under age 65. It uses Medicare’s buying power in setting fees for providers, thereby keeping down the premium cost relative to private plans without such leverage. Not surprisingly, providers and private insurers vigorously oppose the idea, which they see as inevitably leading to a “Medicare for all” single-payer system. The proposal has other important features largely tied to parallel changes that need to be legislated for Medicare. Holding out for the “strong” plan risks having a political stalemate kill any chance of reform, but even if passed, it will not transform the health care system. “
….
“A “weak” public plan, as proposed by Len Nichols and John Bertko, would compete with private insurers by being transparent, nonprofit, and well-intentioned. It would follow all the rules required of private plans and not leverage Medicare’s buying power. Such a plan will need public funding to get started, probably bringing the public contracting, employment, and other rules that would hobble its ability to compete. An alternative to the “build your own” version is what many states have developed for their employees: a public plan that designs benefits and provider networks and carries risk, but leaves administration up to contractors.”
….
“I propose an alternative avoiding the weaknesses of both the public solutions such as Medicare for all and current private insurance plans, while building on the strengths of each. It establishes a publicly chartered major risk pool that eliminates the need for the problematic behaviors of private health plans while enhancing choices for providers and patients.

“The new entity would be publicly chartered, but nongovernmental. Independence from direct
congressional oversight means that it avoids being hamstrung by special-interest groups. It has a publicly appointed board with long terms, similar to the Federal Reserve, with even higher expectations for transparency. Aside from some start-up funding, the pool is self-financing.

“The major risk pool would not itself offer coverage directly to consumers; instead, it would offer reinsurance for hospitalization and chronic care — the most expensive components of health care — to health plans, which would sell comprehensive wraparound packages. In my book, Total Cure: the Antidote to the Health Care Crisis, I use the term “Universal Coverage Pool,” or UCP to describe most of these functions. The plan for health reform called SecureChoice in Total Cure has income-based subsidies and other features that may or may not be included in the current legislative discussion. Here I use the term “major risk pool,” or MRP, to describe a more narrowly construed publicly chartered plan.

‘The rationale for the MRP is twofold. (1) By pooling risk for the most expensive and financially threatening components of health care, it spreads risk broadly. Allowing health plans to buy coverage at demographically determined rates, it eliminates significant administrative and marketing expenses. (2) By paying in new ways for what covers, it will transform the delivery system.”

I will admit that this is beyond my amateurish economic capabilities to evaluate well. So, I’ll wait until Hacker or Nichols or others do, and keep you posted…