Saturday, June 15, 2024

Being blown off by health care can cost you your life...

Dealing with corporations is hard. Robots answer your calls, but not your questions. They are programmed to give you the information the company wants you to have, not the answers you need. It is very difficult to ever find a “monitored” email address to write to. It is like they don’t want to hear from you (except in the ubiquitous and totally structured “tell us how we’re doing” requests). Charges (as I experienced recently) are posted to your credit card immediately. Refunds, even when they agree to one, can take 45 days (by policy).

People, on the other hand, are almost always good and helpful. If you have the time and patience and willingness to scream “representative” at the phone often enough to actually get one, they mostly are polite, empathic, and usually resolve your problem (unless such resolution is prohibited by company policy). At least they answer your questions. It is amazing but not surprising that companies make it so hard to get to them. After all, they may help you out. Which is not what the company wants; they want your money and you be gone! Robots are also cheaper, thus increasing profit (and unemployment).

NOTE: This is 100% opposite from how it should be; your health care should be all and their profit nothing. I will come back to this.

And so it is with healthcare. In which case it can be a disaster. I don’t mean that the waste of your time and money with other corporations is ok, or even just bad, or that it cannot financially be a disaster. But in health care we are talking about the health and even lives of you and your family. If you can’t get hold of your health care providers, you can’t get seen and cared for, or get the information that you need to do what you need to do, or to be seen elsewhere. This is, again, not the fault of or the result of the actions of the actual people who care for you, who if you can get in to see them or speak to them on the phone are usually very helpful. It is the fault of the system that is structured to prevent you from getting to them, because less use by you results in more profit for them.

That, of course, is at the provider level. At the insurer level, we enter a whole new region of Bizarro World. You get insurance. You find a provider. You see your provider. They recommend a treatment plan. You agree. Now the insurance company, which has a policy requiring “prior authorization” for virtually everything, denies payment. There may not be a good, or even any, medical reason for denying payment, and, if you appeal, they may pay because, after all, there is good medical reason. But denial as a first line response is great -- for them. Most people don’t appeal. They often don’t know that they can, or how to. So, for the insurer, problem solved. Of course, their problem was that they were going to have to pay money, and now they don’t. Your problem? Not solved. And your problem was your health, treatment for your disease. Whoops.

Prior authorization is an effective tool used by insurers to not pay for your care. It is more ubiquitous in “managed care” plans (HMOs, PPOs) than in open insurance plans. Of course, the latter are getting much rarer. It is cheaper for your employer to enroll you in a managed care plan. (Noticing a theme here?) Medicaid the (almost always dreadfully inadequate) public state/federal partnership for covering the poor is mostly (41 states including DC) turned over to managed care. One of the last bastions for fee-for-service, Medicare (the federal insurance plan for the aged, blind, and disabled) is quickly moving in that direction, with over 50% of Medicare patients not enrolled in actual Medicare but rather in “Medicare Advantage” (sic) programs, essentially private HMO-type plans paid for with Medicare funds. Now Medicare patients too can experience the advantages of managed care (like eyeglasses and gym memberships) as well as the disadvantages (like limited provider networks and denials of payment when you actually get sick).

A lot of the burden on privately-insured patients is demonstrated in research by Sukreth A. Shashikumer et al. in Financial Burden of Health Care in the Privately Insured US Population,
JAMA Internal Medicine, May 28, 2024, and summarized in the Health Justice Monitor.  

Among low-income families, mean total health care spending was $3163 in 2007 and $3247 in 2019. Low-income families’ medical burden was 23.5% in 2007 and 26.4% in 2019.  Among higher-income families, mean total health care spending increased from $4071 in 2007 to $5239 in 2019. Higher-income families’ medical burden was 5.4% in 2007 and 6.5% in 2019.

It’s bad for everyone but is, as always, worse for lower income people. This is also described in detail in a recent article by the Associated Press’ Tom Murphy, “Being a patient is getting harder in a strained and complex US health care system” (June 2, 2024), which describes the direct negative impact of insurance company denials on people’s health. The article discusses how some coverage for patient navigators helps, but the core problem is that is in the interest of the insurer to not spend money. Some MA plans like to say that they are enhancing health equity by covering a lot of low-income and minority people. Of course, this is only because the up-front costs are less. Those people pay when they get sick not only with dollars (co-pays, deductibles) but with their health (limited networks, denial of care).

And the majority of Medicaid recipients are children, and they are not immune from being denied care by their insurance companies, as revealed in a report from the General Accounting Office (GAO) and described by Wendell Potter in his “Health Care Un-covered” substack. It reports that insurers use both prior authorization and denial of payment for services, called EPSDT (Early Prevention, Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment) that the law REQUIRES be provided!

Contrasting traditional (real) Medicare with Medicare Advantage is useful here. You pay into Medicare your whole working life. When you are old enough and receive it, traditional Medicare pays for the services you receive (with some important limits, mainly only 80% of hospitalizations, requiring a Medigap plan). Medicare Advantage however, receives the money for your care from Medicare up front. Their incentive, then, is to keep it, by spending as little as possible on your care. That’s it in a nutshell. It is described in more depth in the report from Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), “Taking Advantage: How corporate health insurers harm America’s seniors.”

It is awful how badly corporations treat people. The laws and regulations need to be changed, to require them to provide the goods and services they have been paid for, and to make access for concerns or complaints, including access to actual people, easy. But completely different rules need to be in place for healthcare. If I can’t get through to most companies until Monday, I can live with that. If my credit card company keeps me going through the hoops on the phone for a half hour or more before I can talk to a person, I am only wasting time. But if this happens when I am trying to access health care, I can get very sick or die! Waiting 6 hours to be seen in the ER is not the answer. Neither are prior authorization, denials, and delays, for sick children, vulnerable seniors, poor people, or any of us.

What can we do? Write and call our congresspeople and demand that they eliminate profit-making insurers from healthcare. Perhaps some are not stupid (believing what lobbyists tell them, such as that Medicare Advantage increases equity) or corrupt (gleefully accepting those lobbyists contributions) and actually care about the health of their constituents.

Tell them to sign on to the Improved and Expanded Medicare for All bills in the House (Pramila Jayapal and Debbie Dingell, primary sponsors) and Senate (Bernie Sanders), and to sign the Patients Over Profits pledge being promoted by National Nurses United and other organizations.

Or you won’t vote for them.

Sunday, June 2, 2024

The vicious cycle of corporate profit in healthcare: Less healthcare for you

It is a little difficult to focus on writing about the terrible things happening in US healthcare given all the terrible, existential, threats to the nation and the world. Yet it is not unrelated. The abuses and rapacity of the US healthcare system is a microcosm (although, in this country, a BIG microcosm) of the tremendously damaging outcomes that arise from a system that is based upon the insatiable greed of a few and their willingness to use their wealth to fuel lies, wars, and climate change, and to attack democracy, to further line their pockets.

So it is in healthcare. An industry that is ostensibly devoted to maintaining the health of, and treating and sometimes curing the diseases of, the American people is consistently revealed as nothing more than an industry, devoted to making as much money as possible. Pretty much period. It does not, as an industry, care about your health, or that of your family. This is not to say that the people who provide health care do not; almost uniformly the doctors, nurses, pharmacists, therapists, and others are working hard to do the best that they can for your health, motivated by the commitment that took them into their field in the first place. But fewer and fewer of them are in control of their own practices; most are employed, and even those who work for themselves must almost always work with institutions that are corporate and dedicated to that holiest of holies, the bottom line. (To be sure, there are a few independent practitioners who can deliver their services on their own without the involvement of hospitals, drug companies, insurance companies, etc., but there are few and the care that they can provide is almost always narrow and limited. If that is all you need, you are in luck. For now.)

Revelations continue apace about the extent to which this is true, to which almost all efforts in health care are geared toward garnering profit. There is very rarely news that is good for the health of the public, although it often is for the stocks of the corporations involved, the profits of the private equity companies that often own them, or the salaries of the C-suite executives of those that are “non-profit”. We almost never see a change that is likely to increase the quality, quantity or distribution of healthcare even if it might cost the company more. Quite the contrary, changes almost always involve restricting healthcare in terms of what is available and how much it costs the recipient in various ways (premiums, deductibles, co-pays). We also see a consolidation of ownership, frequently involving vertical integration (where, say, the insurance company owns the providers of care -- as in the case of UnitedHealth and Optum -- and essentially pays itself), an exploitation of public funds and redirecting tax dollars intended for healthcare provision into profit (see Medicare Advantage), and a huge amount of money going into profit and incredibly bloated salaries.

I almost said “ever increasing” profit, but this is not true. The amount of profit is not always increasing, although it remains obscenely large. Sometimes this is interpreted by “the markets” (a benign-sounding euphemism for the rapacious predators that they are) as a problem; even when profits are increasing, but not at the rate investors want them to, insurers and healthcare corporations are pressured to further cut back services and increase premiums and charges, always to the detriment of the health of the American people (as per this Wall St. Journal article).

A good summary of the many ways in which the health of Americans is sacrificed on the altar of profit is a JAMA Viewpoint titled Salve Lucrum: The Existential Threat of Greed in US Health Care” by Donald Berwick, former administrator of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and co-founder of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI). The Latin phrase means “Hail Profit” which Berwick observes was found under a mountain of ash on the mosaic floor of a grand house in Pompeii, and that it would, sadly, be an appropriate motto for many of our healthcare institutions. Berwick goes through the various components of our system, showing how – and how much – they maximize profit by sacrificing health, especially making every effort to tap into “deep pockets” (particularly government-funded programs like Medicare) and avoid the poor, sick, and poorly-insured, even though those often are the people most in need of healthcare.

Medicare Advantage (MA) is the program that takes money from the Medicare trust fund and transfers it to private insurance companies to enroll Medicare beneficiaries in essentially HMOs. MA programs receive more money from CMS than it spends on traditional Medicare beneficiaries and uses some of it to provide services that are attractive and not paid for by traditional Medicare such as glasses, hearing aids, and gym memberships. As with non-Medicare HMOs, some people benefit from the integrated services, absence of co-pays and ease of use, as long as they are happy with the options of providers (always limited). And so long as the services they need are approved by the insurer – remember that MA is not actually Medicare but a set of programs run by private insurance companies that can, and do, deny and delay services, often through a process called “prior authorization”. But whether clients are receiving the healthcare that they need or being screwed out of it, Berwick notes that

By gaming Medicare risk codes and the ways in which comparative “benchmarks” are set for expected costs, MA plans have become by far the most profitable branches of large insurance companies. According to some health services research, MA will cost Medicare over $600 billion more in the next 8 years than would have been the case if the same enrollees had remained in traditional Medicare.

Insurance, including health insurance, companies in the US have always been for-profit with few exceptions (the traditional Blue Cross/Blue Shield, for example, although these have now almost all been converted to for-profit). But the profits that they are making now are extreme. Pharmaceutical companies have always been for-profit and have long been the healthcare industry poster child for overpricing and holding people’s health hostage to their making money. Direct service providers (e.g., hospitals and doctors) have increasingly been acquired by for-profit operations, especially insurance and private equity companies and those that remain officially “non-profit” compete by playing by the same rules as those that are not.

Some of the problems with Medicare Advantage programs have come to the attention of Congress, which is concerned about their exploitation of public funds, but what will come in terms of reform is questionable. Many congresspersons actually believe in the transfer of public funds to private companies. These insurance companies have very deep pockets (from the government) with which to lobby those same officials (kind of like the defense industry). They also cite the increasing percent of Medicare beneficiaries (now over 50%) who have “chosen” MA plans (or, often, been pushed into them by employers, including local governments) as evidence that they are valued. Of course, the healthier you are, the more marginal benefit you get from the MA perks; the sicker you are, the more in need, the more those denials and delays harm your health. And, always, at any given time there are fewer very sick people than those who are relatively healthy, even though serious illness is often in their future.

If Congress addresses MA at all, it is likely to be tweaks around the edges. What, instead, needs to happen is the closure of MA, increasing financing for traditional Medicare to fund ALL health needs for its beneficiaries, regulation of the pharmaceutical industry, and a change to a healthcare financing system, such as Medicare for All, that make the health of the people and not the profit of the corporations, the goal of the system.

Friday, May 3, 2024

Medical errors should not be prosecuted as crimes: Systemic change is needed

As reported recently in MedPage Today, Kentucky has become the first state to pass a law shielding medical professionals from criminal prosecution for clinical errors. This is important. It is a good thing and had the support of many professional organizations. It is not about protecting nurses and doctors who actually commit crimes, as ‘it does not apply to "gross negligence or wanton, willful, malicious, or intentional misconduct."’ For example, the Pennsylvania nurse convicted of murdering patients with insulin would not be covered by this law. But mistakes happen, and while they can have very bad outcomes in the medical setting – including death – when they are not intentional they should not be prosecuted as criminal acts.

The case cited as motivating this law occurred in the neighboring state of Tennessee, and involved a nurse named RaDonda Vaught at Vanderbilt Medical Center. She mistakenly gave a paralytic rather than a sedative with a similar name to a 75 year old woman, causing her death. She did not try to cover it up but reported it immediately, and yet was charged with and convicted of reckless homicide and impaired adult abuse. The outcome, the woman’s death, was terrible, but the criminal charges were neither justified nor functional. Yes, you can bet that the particular nurse would be extra careful the next time she gives medication – although, of course, with the criminal conviction she has lost her nursing license. Maybe it could be a deterrent to other nurses and doctors making inadvertent mistakes? Think about how well this works in other areas, about, for example, how a pedestrian or bicyclist being killed by a car in your town has suddenly made all the other drivers extra careful. Right.

Doctors, nurses, and other health professionals are already careful (barring the rare truly malicious exception, who is not covered by this law). The issue is how to make it increasingly difficult to make mistakes, to make errors. A whole field of health safety and error prevention exists, originally stimulated by the work of W. Edwards Deming and Avedis Donabedian, and including such luminaries as the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) and founders Donald Berwick and Paul Batalden, and Harvard professor Gordon Schiff.  One thing that is clear is that the solution is not draconian punishment of those who have made mistakes. It is mostly (almost all) about systems, about making it difficult (and some day, hopefully impossible) to commit errors. Deming said “To find the mistake is not enough. It is necessary to find the cause behind the mistake, and to build a system that minimizes future mistakes”. Every mistake is a gem, because it offers us the opportunity to discover the cause and to develop systems to prevent that, and similar, mistakes in the future.

Many systems have been developed in many places and areas of healthcare to do this. For example, in pharmacy drug lists, similar sounding or spelled drugs are often distinguished by having the letters that are different capitalized, calling attention to it and making it less likely to prescribe the wrong one. Surgery now almost never takes place without a final “timeout” in which a checklist is gone through with all the operating team present, including “which side are we operating on”! There are many more examples. In the field of occupational health, the first choice in preventing injuries is architectural, e.g., don’t put a big window next to a place on the shop floor where slippery substances are spilled. The second choice is engineering: ok, the window is there, so let’s put up bars across it so if people do slip they don’t go through. The last choice is behavioral: tell the people who work there to be careful! If this last sounds unlikely to be completely successful, it is both the most common and the least effective. Imagine your being responsible for changing the behavior, consistently and always, of a person. Now make that everyone! Think back to drivers…

It is true that many, maybe most, healthcare facilities are and have been working to improve quality and limit the number of possible places that workers can make mistakes, but these procedures are processes and must continually be upgraded and enhanced, primarily by identifying mistakes that continue to be made and figuring out how they can be prevented. Quality improvement is not something that can be “put in place”; it is both a state of mind of individuals and most importantly an overarching commitment on the part of the institution, in all places. Yes, it costs money – but so do the lawsuits that come when it is inadequate, and that should not be the motivation.

Although making money is a strong motivation. Insurance companies, for example, are very good at instituting procedures that make them money. ProPublica recently published an article about Dr. Debby Day, who was one of the physician reviewers at CIGNA, tasked with reviewing the decisions about approving or denying coverage for people’s care, after the initial decision was made by a nurse reviewer (mostly working in the Philippines). CIGNA continually monitored the number of minutes taken for each review, and physicians like Dr. Day were sanctioned or even fired if they took too long. They took too long making decisions that could not only affect people’s health, but their life and death. Your life and death. Your family’s. How were they supposed to keep up with the speedup expectations? ‘“Deny, deny, deny. That’s how you hit your numbers,” said Day, “If you take a breath or think about any of these cases, you’re going to fall behind.”’ This makes CIGNA (and, to be fair ALL the big health insurance companies) money. The speedup is part of it, but the denials are where the real money is made. Denying ‘coverage for a cancer patient or a sick baby’. Your cancer. Your baby.

To be sure, insurance companies as such are not the actual providers of health care, like hospitals and doctors. Except, increasingly through vertical integration, they are – UnitedHealth, for example, owns Optum (and OptumRx, a pharmacy benefits manager). The thing is that they are corporations and are very good at putting systems in place to increase their bottom-line profits, even when that harms the health of – or kills – people who are their clients. So, I think, they should and can be equally effective in putting in place systems that protect and benefit those clients/customers/patients/people.

Hopefully, the type of law passed in Kentucky will become more widespread. This will make it more difficult for the prosecutors and politicians who want to make their “tough on crime” reps by such prosecutions, which is good. But also, hopefully, it will be combined with renewed efforts to strengthen the systems of quality control, and greatly limit the possibility of an individual making a mistake.

The health of people should be the goal of healthcare organizations.

Wednesday, April 17, 2024

It's all corporate now. Why do we stand for it?

"Sick. Help. That’s it!”

“John Q,” played by Denzel Washington, whose son needs a heart transplant which the insurance company has denied coverage for

 

There are still people in health care – admittedly mostly administrators and pundits and some doctors, highly-paid folks who think of themselves as “leaders” rather than “bosses” – who see the restrictions that the health insurance system places on people accessing health care as a good thing. They say that it keeps the lid on health care costs by limiting the use of “expensive and unnecessary” services by people who want “too much” of it. Luckily, for me, I no longer run into those with such views very often, and I like to think that there are fewer of them now.

These are often the same folks who supported, and continue to support, “managed care”, generally thought of as HMOs and PPOs, and their senior partner, Medicare Advantage plans (which are essentially HMOs or PPOs paid for with Medicare dollars). The techniques developed for restricting care in these plans have now been adopted by the health insurance industry overall. “Prior authorization”, which often means “delayed or denied authorization” has become one of the key strategies for restricting your access to health care services.

Restricting your access to health care is presumably not the specific intention of these practices. It would be mostly incorrect to portray health insurance executives as mean, grasping devils rubbing their hands together, like Mr. Burns, the boss in “The Simpsons”, in pleasure at your pain. They are actually mean, grasping devils rubbing their hands together in pleasure at the amount of money that they are making; your pain is incidental. I don’t know how many look like Mr. Burns.

HMOs, or what we now call HMOs, were not always money-grubbing deniers of care. Most of the early ones were consumer cooperatives (with the notable exception of Kaiser-Permanente, developed by Henry Kaiser for employees of his steel company, so he and not the insurance companies would make more money) like Group Health in Seattle, HIP in New York, and Ross-Loos in LA, designed to cut out the insurance companies so that members could get the same care for less money, or more care for the same money.  Without the profit motive in play, truly unnecessary care (sometimes that had been ordered by physicians or hospitals who stood to make money on it) could be avoided, and more necessary care provided. They often contracted with physician practice groups that were owned by the physicians themselves, rather than a corporation that violated the laws against corporate practice of medicine. Kind of vaguely socialist. Kind of good for people. Kind of quaint.

If you’re old enough, you may remember this kind of thing. In the 1980s the Reagan administration sought to expand them (naming them HMOs) as a method of cutting the cost of health care. Or, at least, cutting the costs that were expended in delivering actual health care. The plan involved encouraging insurance companies to buy up and establish their own HMOs, so it wasn’t too long before the reality of a consumer cooperative HMO was, in most places, history. Owned mostly by insurance companies, and increasingly with vertical integration, those dollars formerly “wasted” on providing “unnecessary” health care could now be turned into executive compensation and corporate profit. Some people may think this is a bad trade-off, that making money for corporations instead of providing health care for people is truly waste, but those holding such anachronistic and na├»ve ideas are wrong. At least in the opinion of those controlling the corporations! And their policy apologists.

This innovation was such a success (at making money) that it was expanded to a much wider base of health insurance. The old kind of insurance (often managed by the non-profit Blue Cross/Blue Shield, before they became the for-profit Anthem), that covered people for their health care needs, did not try to beat them down with denials, paid a reasonable amount to providers, and took a reasonable fee for their work, gradually became a thing of the past. These were sneered at as “Cadillac plans” (only when the beneficiaries were union members, of course not when they were executives!)  losing hold with each successive series of union contract negotiations. The executives kept their solid gold Cadillacs while union members and other employees were pushed lower and lower down until their coverage became a shadow of what it formerly was, and they often found themselves denied the care they needed and used to get.

There is a little historical irony here, in that the labor movement sowed the seeds of its own destruction by making health insurance a contract benefit. After World War II, unions in other countries fought to make health care available to all people; in Britain the party that was elected to govern actually had “Labour” in its name and introduced the National Health Service. In the US, the government instituted wage and price controls, so, unable to bargain for higher wages, unions bargained for health insurance as a way to recruit members. It was good for the members, but not so good for the nonunionized workforce. And the bosses liked it too; employer contributions to health insurance are not taxed, whereas wages are. Anyone who thinks that that such things as employer-sponsored health insurance is a “generous benefit” that is not paid for by the employee through lower wages is wrong. So, while the poor and non-unionized ended up on their own, the US labor movement got its members health insurance, often excellent health insurance. For about 30 years.

Now it’s all owned by corporations, the whole shebang. Insurance, providers groups, pharmacies, nursing homes. Many of these corporations are insurance companies, like the biggest, UnitedHealth, which also owns doctor group Optum and pharmaceutical benefit (PBM) manager OptumRx. And I am sure that, while many practices went under because they weren’t paid as a result of a major cyberattack on United subsidiary Change Healthcare, United itself is doing fine, making $8.5B in the first quarter (after all, by not paying those practices, they got to keep their money in the bank paying interest)! Other corporations are owned by private equity funds, which don’t even pretend to have any interest whatever other than maximizing their profit. Indeed, these are arguably even worse since they are sometimes happy to destroy the companies (and thus the services they provide) if that makes them the most.

The idea that a significant part of the cost of health care is overuse of services by patients would be pretty funny if it were not so serious, and for the fact that any such overuse is dwarfed by the number of people not getting adequate care, paying too much (in premiums and deductibles and co-payments and lost wages) for care, or being unable to access care altogether. That is the big problem, and as always it is the lowest income (and disproportionately minority) people who are hurt worst.

And even if you do believe that overuse is a problem, there is no conceivable way that any half-sentient, half-decent human being could possibly believe that money going to corporate and private equity profits is not waste and is a better use than providing health care to people. It is amazing that there any who do, but they include a lot of folks being paid by them – including members of Congress.

So: tell your Congressperson that YOU don’t think so, and that money appropriated for health care for people should be use for that, not raked off by insurance companies and other corporations, and it is their job to make that happen!

Total Pageviews