More residency slots: Good, but not going to solve the primary care shortage...

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, recently announced that it will be funding an additional 440 residency positions in 135 hospitals in 37 states. This is a good thing, and a step in the direction of reducing the glaring shortage of physicians in the US. CMS already funds most of the residency positions, something which is probably not intuitively obvious to those not involved in post-graduate medical education, but it is so even if it is not clear why (as opposed to, say, Congress directly appropriating such funding). This is important because while you are a doctor (physician) on graduation from medical school, you can’t obtain a license to practice anywhere without residency training (e.g., family medicine, pediatrics, surgery, psychiatry, radiology, etc.). Thus, past efforts to increase the number of physicians by increasing the number of medical schools (or the class size in existing medical schools) fail, because the residency pipeline has been static. It has only, perhaps, decreased the number of international medical graduates filling those positions. 

CMS further states, per this piece in MedPage Today, that 2/3 of those slots will be in primary care and psychiatry, two areas in which the shortage of physicians and other clinicians is particularly acute. This is also good, but will continue to have limited impact, at least until we see exactly which specialties are getting those positions. “Primary care” is not a specialty in which there is a residency; usually the term is used to include family physicians, general pediatricians, and general internists (as well as those general practitioners who completed only one year of post-graduate training, ie., internship, when that was sufficient to receive a license). The problem is mostly with internal medicine. After completion of a 3-year internal medicine residency, the large majority (about 80%) of graduates go on to complete a fellowship in an internal medicine subspecialty (cardiology, nephrology, pulmonary medicine, endocrinology, etc.). They do not practice primary care. In addition, about half the remainder become hospitalists, caring for people in the hospital only, leaving only a small number of internal medicine residency graduates to practice primary care. While many pediatrics graduates also sub-specialize or become hospitalists, the percents are much lower. On the other hand, about 90% of family medicine graduates practice outpatient primary care. In addition, it likely includes OB/Gyn which is not primary care.*

It would be good if we could get an accurate accounting. There are “general medicine” or “primary care medicine” residency programs among the internal medicine programs which produce higher percentages of primary care outpatient practitioners -- but still not all, or even close to the 90% of family medicine. We need to know if the new CMS positions that are designated “primary care” include internal medicine; if they do, obviously the output, the number of new outpatient primary care doctors, will be significantly lower. Why should they be unclear about this? It is in the interests of many institutions to keep it fuzzy. Medical schools have long reported on the percent of their graduates entering primary care, and they have included all those entering internal medicine (and sometimes OB/Gyn or even Emergency Medicine) as well as pediatrics and family medicine, inflating the percent that is ostensibly primary care. This practice has been called “the Deans’ lie”. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), quoted in the MedPage Today piece, has a similar reason to obfuscate the truth; their members are those same medical schools (and the teaching hospitals associated with them) and their leaders, both in AAMC and in the individual schools, are overwhelmingly non-primary-care subspecialists.

One of the main reasons for the shortage of primary care physicians, and thus this purposely-inaccurate effort to paper over the dearth of them, is that, while physicians overall make much more than the average person, there is a great disparity in income between the specialties, often being 4-5 times as much for certain specialists as others. The shortage of primary care physicians and psychiatrists that this change is making a small effort to rectify is very likely because pediatricians, family physicians and psychiatrists are on the low end of the physician income scale. The table below, from “PhysiciansThrive.com”, is one example, although it may actually understate the income of the top specialties.

 

 

The lowest-paid physicians are doing well compared to most Americans, but they often come out of school with $250K + debt, which is, of course, owed with compound interest. The income gap between specialties has to be narrowed, and some studies suggest that if primary care physicians made 70% of what other specialists do, money would largely cease to be an issue in student specialty choice. But how could we do that? Isn’t it really complicated?

Well, not as much as you might think. A recent installment of the New York Times feature “The Ethicist” responds to the question from a reader “Should I Feel Bad About Joining a Concierge Medical Practice?”. This in itself is a complex, but separate, question. However, the Ethicist notes in their response that one of the reasons it is hard to find a primary care physician is that 

‘Medicare, which effectively anchors compensation levels throughout the health-care system, reimburses physicians according to “relative value units,” and those are largely determined by an advisory committee dominated by specialists. Procedures are valued more than conversations.’

I was surprised to see this addressed in this column; while it is absolutely true, it is rarely discussed. The comment makes 3 points which together drive the income disparity:

1.     CMS sets reimbursement rates for Medicare, but it essentially drives all reimbursement as insurance companies use Medicare rates (or multiples of them) to determine their own payments.

2.   These Medicare rates are set by “relative value units”, or RVUs, so that some sort of equivalence can be made. For example, how many comprehensive examinations by a primary care doctor or assessments by a psychiatrist or chest x-ray interpretations by a radiologist is worth one gall bladder removal by a surgeon or joint replacement by an orthopedist? This is essentially dividing up a pie of set size; when one “gains” another “loses”.

3.  While CMS sets these RVU ratios, they usually rely upon the recommendations of a little-known group called the “RUC”, appointed by the AMA. As the Ethicist notes, this committee is overwhelmingly specialists. And, so, not surprisingly, the distribution of the pieces of the pie tend to favor those specialists, and, indeed, procedures are valued more than conversations. And “conversations” kind of minimizes the communication between people (patients) and their primary care doctors, as people’s stories greatly inform both the diagnosis and the best treatment (and the one the patient is going to accept and follow through on), and are essential for the patients to know what is going on. And presumably interactions with psychiatrists are more than simple “conversations”. (I have written about the RUC several times, including Doctors' incomes and patient coverage: both need to be more equal, Jan 26, 2014 and Pay primary care more: Kennedy may be getting this one right!, July 23, 2025.) 

So there is a clear-cut way to fix these disparities: CMS simply needs to adjust the RVU basis, increasing the value of “conversations” and really thinking and assessment and decision making relative to procedures. Of course, this means the highest-paid subpspecialists would make less than they do now, and so they are going to fight it, as are their organizations and groups like the AAMC. But really, even if they take a significant cut, they are a long way from the Food Bank!

The question is: Will CMS do this? Pressure from you, the people who can’t get into a doctor, is definitely going to help!

 

*Primary care is comprehensive care of the needs of the patient, with referral to specialists when needed; internists and geriatricians and pediatricians limit the ages of their patients but they provide comprehensive care for them. While some women only see an OB/Gyn, they only provide care for a woman’s reproductive tract, not comprehensive care.

 

The WiSER program to erode your Medicare coverage: Not WISE for you!

While much about American health insurance is infuriating, starting with it treating the healthcare system as a vehicle for making money rather than providing healthcare, “prior authorization” (PA) is one of its most infuriating, and dangerous, practices. It means that before you can get the treatment your physician has recommended, indeed often before you can see the physician you want, the insurance company must authorize it. This practice is ubiquitous in commercial health insurance, including “Medicare Advantage” (MA), a program that allow an insurance company to collect the money allocated for you by Medicare. This means that if you receive a terrible diagnosis, such as lung cancer and your oncologist recommends a specific treatment, it is entirely possible that they will deny coverage for it, especially if your cancer is rare, or requires an expensive drug. You can file an appeal, but even if it is eventually granted, the process takes time, and meanwhile you are sick and your cancer is advancing.

But if you have Traditional Medicare (TM), this has not been a problem. TM covers virtually all doctors and hospitals in the country, covers most treatments, and does not subject the individual to PA, or decide that another (usually cheaper and possibly less effective) treatment, or even no treatment might be better for you. Or that a different doctor or hospital that is “in network” (for them) would be a better choice even if their track record is inferior. The absence of PA is a major reason why many health experts recommend TM over MA. 

Back in January, 2023 I wrote about the proposed ACO/REACH program at CMS (Privatizing Medicare through "Medicare Advantage" and REACH: The Wrong Way to Go!), which would allow companies (many owned by private equity) to purchase primary care practices, and voilà!, all those doctors’ patients were now in the company’s ACO and subject to restrictions on their care, including PA, without having to do anything at all and thinking they were safe because they were in TM! The REACH name was dropped but the program still continues; a friend in northern NJ was just informed he is now part of an ACO because they have acquired his doctor’s practice!

And other assaults on TM and the patients it covers continue. If you live in Arizona, as I do, or in 5 other states (New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington), even if you have TM you will suffer the indignity and damage of PA as Medicare implements a 6-year “pilot program” called WiSER (Wasteful and Inappropriate Services Reduction). No longer will you be able to get any Medicare-approved procedure from any Medicare-accepting doctor at any Medicare-accepting hospital (ie, virtually all doctors and hospitals). Medicare will contract with private companies that will utilize artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to decide whether you can get the treatment. As with ACO/REACH, you have no choice, as participation is “voluntary” by state, but not by individual Medicare recipient. Actually, then it is worse than ACO/REACH, which you could get out of by changing your primary care physician (provided you could find another one!); WiSER will require you to move out of state!

Maybe the AI algorithms know better than you or your doctor. After all, isn’t reducing wasteful and inappropriate services a good thing? If you believe that the high cost of health care is the result of your using inappropriate and wasteful services, you might want to consider that the companies Medicare contracts with to do the PA will be paid “based on a share of averted expenditures.” That is, they will be paid on commission, receiving a percentage of the money saved by denying your care! But that won’t affect their decisions at all, right?

In reality, the use of “inappropriate and wasteful services” by you and your family and friends is not the reason for the high cost of health care. The reason is the enormous administrative costs of the US healthcare system, including the huge amounts made by for-profit insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies (and the eight-figure salaries of their CEOs and other executives), as well as health care providers (hospitals and health systems and the physicians, usually employed by them). This is a system found nowhere else among wealthy countries, every single other one of which comprehensively covers the care of all their people at much lower per-capita cost.

Bringing PA into Medicare is not “wiser”. It is the exactly wrong way to go. What we need is the expansion of Medicare to include everyone in the US, birth to death, and the improvement of that system by covering all health needs, including mental, dental, hearing, vision, and eliminating the 20% hospital co-pay Medicare recipients now are responsible for (and must buy Medigap insurance to cover). The “administrative costs” now being taken out of the “healthcare” system by companies would more than pay for it.

We would then have a system designed to provide health care for the American people, not profit for corporations. Imagine that!

 

adapted from a piece originally written to be a guest essay in the Arizona Star, but not published 

Pay primary care more: Kennedy may be getting this one right!

I have recently written strong criticisms of Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and his positions on a number of issues, including most importantly vaccines (see RFK, Jr.: The Secretary of Health and Human Services is Dangerous to Your Health!). Not only is he wrong about vaccines being dangerous, he is in fact creating major danger by discouraging their use. The polio vaccine essentially eliminated a disease that was a major scourge in the US as well as the rest of the world, as did the measles vaccine. Many other vaccines protect our children – and adults – from other serious viral diseases like influenza, COVID, mumps, chicken pox, rubella, shingles, and human papillomavirus (HPV) which causes cervical cancer, as well as bacterial diseases including diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and Hemophilus influenza b. The last is something most people have not heard of, but early in my career was a major cause of morbidity and death in infants and young children from meningitis, pneumonia, and epiglottitis, which caused their throats to swell rapidly and choke off their breathing. Many others have articulately expressed this concern, including the pediatrician Perri Klass in the New York Times. While these diseases affected people of all social classes, they were more prevalent among the poor and minority groups such as the people I cared for at Chicago’s Cook County Hospital. Indeed, research has demonstrated tremendous benefits from vaccines on the health of children and other populations that go far beyond just the decrease in the specific diseases that they target to decreasing all-cause mortality!

Kennedy is wrong about many other things, if not all of as of such immediate potential danger as urging people to not get vaccinated. These include nonsense like suggesting that people who eat right and exercise won’t get disease, that raw (unpasteurized) milk is better for you, and that “natural” is always better (which, even if we could agree on a definition of “natural”, it isn’t). One recent example is his arguing for Coke to use “natural” cane sugar rather that high-fructose corn syrup, both of which are sugar and have calories and in large amounts are bad for you.

But there turns out to be one area where Kennedy and I seem to agree, which is the need to take concrete action to increase the number of primary care physicians. Lots of people, including politicians, healthcare providers, and health policy experts, express concern about the shortage of primary care, but have done nothing to address the real cause of this problem – that primary care physicians (and the nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants working with them) get paid a lot less than do physicians in other specialties. Kennedy appears to be doing something other than wringing his hands. On several occasions I have written about the RUC, the AMA committee that decides how to divide up the pie of Medicare dollars among specialists by deciding how much each thing doctors do is worth relative to other things that they do. (Changes in the RUC: None.. How come we let a bunch of self-interested doctors decide what they get paid? July 21, 2013, Doctors' incomes and patient coverage: both need to be more equal July 26, 2014, and most recently, Not enough primary physicians OR Nurse Practitioners: It's the money, stupid!, June 27, 2024).

Not to get too technical, there is a set amount of Medicare dollars and the RUC decides (or recommends to CMS, which almost always accepts those recommendations) how many physical exams, say, are equivalent to one gall bladder surgery, considering (theoretically) both difficulty and time. This makes a tremendous difference in physician income and, I would argue, specialty choice by medical students. And, over the years, the amount of time it takes for doctors to do some things, particularly procedures, changes. Colonoscopies used to be estimated to take an hour and a quarter, but now are routinely done in 30 minutes. Cataract surgeries take a fraction of the time that they once did. This can result in physicians billing for more procedures than the model assesses as possible in a day. In contrast, the time it takes for a physical exam, or to listen to an interpret a person’s story, hasn’t changed significantly. The composition of the RUC, according to the AMA, represents all specialties, but its membership has a low proportion of primary care doctors – five of the 32 seats. Unsurprisingly, then, specialist-performed procedures are valued more highly than cognitive work. And, very important, these rates (relative value units) do not affect only Medicare payments – virtually all insurers pay based upon Medicare rates, so it is the whole health system! Prior to this new regulation, alternative models for allocating payment have been developed, such as this 2025 publication from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).

So, now, maybe, a change. The NY Times reports that, buried in an 1800-page HHS regulation, are proposed changes in the RUC methodology that would benefit primary care. This would be real action! In addition to reassessing these relative values, the action would also look at the current practice of reimbursing more for the same procedures done in a hospital than in a doctor’s office, a major way that hospitals make money. And, for those who think “of course it costs more to do something in a hospital”, this is a technicality; it simply means that the hospital owns the practice or clinic. So two, say, skin biopsies performed in similar doctor’s offices across the street from each other are now reimbursed at very different rates if one is owned by a hospital. This is absurd and inequitable, and getting rid of it makes terrific sense!

The diffusion of medical services to people and communities is primarily driven not by the health needs of the populations in different areas but by the potential to make the most money for health care providers. These are largely, and increasingly, hospitals and health systems, as well as enormous insurance-company and private-equity owned practices rather than individual or small group physician-owned practices. So, we get enormous hospital campuses and medical facilities in major cities and wealthy suburbs and little or nothing in poor neighborhoods and rural areas. This should change. The only reason for decisions about what healthcare services to provide and where to provide them should be the health needs of people, and not on how much profit can be made.

The new HHS regulation will be a big step in this direction if it redirects Medicare (and thus all insurer) funds to primary care, and does not preferentially favor hospital-owned practices. To the extent that he is responsible for it, Kennedy should be congratulated. However, while it is a big step, it is not a solution. The next, necessary, step is a universal health insurance program where every single person is covered and covered by the same system, and where establishment (and closure) of health facilities, and the services that they provide or do not, is entirely based on the health needs of the people. Of course, there will be a lot of resistance – highly paid specialists will resist the proposed HHS reimbursement changes, and the institutionalized powerful insurance companies and other big players who are making lots of money from “healthcare” will oppose more comprehensive changes. Indeed, they already are, with highly funded social media campaigns against universal health care.

We are glad for this first step, but we need to keep fighting to get a comprehensive health program – like those of every other wealthy country!

Insurers in trouble for the wrong reason: Wall St. wants them to rip you off for even MORE!

There is good news and bad news regarding health/medical insurance. Let’s start with the good:

In his Substack, “Health Care Uncovered” from August 8, 2024, Wendell Potter reports that “Wall St. is disenchanted with Medicare Advantage Plans”. This is good news in the sense that it is good when anyone is disenchanted with these plans, or any aspect of the for-profit health insurance industry. Potter notes that both CVS/Aetna and CIGNA disappointed Wall St. investors with inadequate (from their point of view) profits, compared to a year ago. I also am disenchanted, but for different reasons than Wall St. I am upset that these for-profit insurers continue to rake off such a huge amount of money that was intended, by the workers and employers who paid it, to be spend on actually delivering health care. Investors are upset that these health insurers are not raking in even more.

Potter notes that Aetna president Brian Kane resigned as a result, but appropriately writes:

I am much more concerned about the health and well-being of the 4.3 million people enrolled in CVS’s MA plans and the 6.2 million in Humana’s plans. Sadly, most will find they’re trapped in a circle of hell created by the insurance industry, unable to stay in their current Medicare Advantage plan but also unable to return to traditional Medicare because of what for them will be unaffordable Medicare supplemental policies (most of which are sold by the same big insurers that sell MA plans). Seniors have six months from the date they’re eligible for Medicare to buy a supplemental (Medigap) policy to cover out-of-pocket expenses. If they’ve been enrolled in an MA plan longer than six months, they’ll have to go through medical underwriting. That means that if they’re being treated for much of anything or, God forbid, have a “preexisting condition,” they’ll have to pay an arm and a leg for Medigap policy.

A similar piece of good news is not particularly about Medicare Advantage plans, but the overall health insurance industry/scam, in a story about data-analytics firm MultiPlan (‘Revenues Down and Stock Battered as Data Firm Faces Scrutiny’, NY Times, August 16, 2024). This one is a little harder to understand than the CVS/Aetna and CIGNA stories. They are about the fact that while they are making beaucoup bucks, it is not as much as investors would like. In the MultiPlan case, we have a company that worked for insurers to get reimbursements down (that is, to pay doctors and other healthcare providers less) and made money from it. For example, if a doctor billed $100 and MultiPlan told the insurer to only pay $50, that’s more money for the insurer (and MultiPlan), and the patient can be on the hook for the other $50. (Of course, it’s never only $100, or $50.) Since they do this mainly for “out of network” care the amount that you (the patient) can get stuck with having to pay can be – a great deal. (This can happen even when you choose an “in-network” doctor and hospital, since other doctors – like in the ER, or radiology, or even the “assistant surgeon” – can be out of network. And the ambulance almost always is).

This article was a follow-up to an earlier exposé in the NY Times ‘Insurers Reap Hidden Fees by Slashing Payments. You May Get the Bill.,’ April 24, 2024, in which the amount the patient could get stuck having to pay was as much as $100,000 – or more. The good result of this first article was a lot of opprobrium aimed at MultiPlan, resulting in some insurers being more reluctant to use them (because of the bad publicity, not because they save them money; apparently they can use other less-notorious data analytics firms to save them money), so MultiPlan is in trouble as the more recent NY Times article documents. Good. I love to see them in trouble.

The bad news is that it is likely to be you and other regular people who are screwed. There is already evidence that the pressure from investors to go back to making not just great but obscene profit margins is affecting CIGNA, CVS/Aetna, and other insurers, who are denying more claims, making it even harder to get the care that you need. Potter notes that

Humana said last week it planned to jettison “a few hundred thousand” of its Medicare Advantage enrollees that have become unprofitable. CVS says it will get rid of about 10% of its MA enrollment, which would be around 430,000 of America’s seniors and disabled people.

That’s a lot of seniors who will lose their medical coverage. I have often been critical of Medicare Advantage plans (sometimes called, more accurately, Medicare Dis-Advantage), which are NOT Medicare but are private insurance plans, usually HMOs or PPOs, paid for by Medicare funds. One of the major reasons for my criticism is that because they are private insurance, they can (and often do) deny coverage for care even when the care is approved by Medicare. Recent legislation has required these MA plans to cover Medicare-approved care, but in fact they still often deny claims. Indeed, it is often the modus operandi for these companies. They may approve the claim if you appeal, but the vast majority of clients do not appeal, and probably don’t even know that they can. If fined by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) it becomes a “cost of doing business.”

But the “jettisoning” of hundreds of thousands that Potter refers to illustrates another big problem with MA. As with all insurance – not just medical – companies make money by collecting premiums and paying as few claims as possible (although medical insurance companies seem to have taken this to the extreme). One effective way to do this for healthcare is to insure healthy people. They, or their (usually former, if they’re on Medicare) employer pay the premiums but they don’t cost much money in claims. And they love getting free eyeglasses and hearing aids and gym memberships, which cost the insurance companies very little. The problem is that sometimes previously healthy people get sick, and this becomes more and more common as they age. Remember that in any given year approximately 5% of the people account for about 50% of healthcare costs, but they are not necessarily the same people the next year. Some folks get better, some folks get worse, and some really sick people die. MA plans have long “encouraged” their sickest (= most costly) patients to consider switching to traditional Medicare. Now they will be more than encouraging; they’ll drop those high-cost “losers”. Maybe you.

The MultiPlan case got good (that is, bad) coverage from the original April NY Times investigation, which resulted in it losing business as reported by that newspaper in August. But the insurers will get another data analytics firm to try to screw doctors and other providers, and the patient, you, will still be caught on the hook for many of those dollars. The system is not set up to help or protect you, and it has relatively few sanctions against companies whose business model is to find any way to screw you that will make them more money, and to use that money to hire lawyers and others to find the loopholes and to pay the politicians to ensure that they are not closed too tightly.

It’s kind of like a sport where one team able and willing to bring in ringers, violate the rules, commit all sorts of fouls and infractions, and at worst get a slap on the wrist for it. Not a fair game, but heck, that team’s owners are paying off the referees and the league.

There’s another way to do it. Absolutely strict regulation to ensure the interests of patients are the ones that are protected, and protecting the profits of the insurers is given zero weight. Penalties that are strictly enforced, and draconian and include going out of business. Even better: prohibiting profit making in any healthcare endeavor. In some countries, like Switzerland, there are private insurers, but they all have to offer the same comprehensive product, charge the same rates, and be non-profit. So how do they compete? Customer service, can you imagine!?

I like that approach!

Primary Care, Private Equity, and Profit: How to ensure poor quality care for the American people

 I -- and many others -- have written (frequently and recently) about the abuses of for-profit companies, and especially private equity companies, and “non-profits” that act like for-profits in health care (Private equity, private profit, Medicare and your health: They are incompatible, May 11, 2023; Privatizing Medicare through "Medicare Advantage" and REACH: The Wrong Way to Go!, Jan 20, 2023; "Private Equity": Profiteers in nursing homes, Medicare Advantage, DCEs, and all of healthcare, Sept 16, 2022). But despite our efforts, it doesn’t get any better. Indeed it gets worse.

Drs. David Himmelstein, Steffie Woolhandler, Adam Gaffney, Don McCanne, and John Geyman, have been leaders in the campaign for a national health insurance plan (e.g., Medicare for All), published an article 18 months ago in ‘The Nation’ (March 31, 2022) titled ‘Medicare for All is Not Enough’. They go through the ways in which the ownership of our health system has changed, particularly over the last decade, to focus on profit for the private owners rather than “health care”. That is to say, while a single-payer Medicare for All program would be a great thing and would limit the negative impact that for-profit insurance companies wreak on our collective health – which is considerable – as long as for-profit companies continue to own, and to increase their share of, our actual health delivery systems (hospitals, nursing homes, pharmacies, and physician practices) there will be terrible consequences, with those single-payer dollars flooding into investors’ pockets rather than patient care.

Insurance companies like United Health and giant pharmacy firms like CVS own large portions of our practice and health delivery sector. And the role of private equity companies and investors, with their “buy ‘em and burn ‘em” approach to acquisition and profit, in taking over our delivery system is at least as terrifying. As the authors state:

At least UnitedHealth and CVS plan to stay in business for the foreseeable future, and may be constrained by the worry that substandard care will damage their reputation. Private equity companies face no such constraints. They promise investors quick profits, and often sell off the businesses they’ve bought within five years, often after stripping their assets and loading them with debts that hobble future operations.

On top of who will own our care provision, there also is the issue of who will provide the care. Most developed countries, with more rational health delivery systems, rely on primary care physicians and other clinicians far more than the US does. In those other countries primary care is at least 30-40% of the physician workforce, while here it is closer to 20% and dropping, an issue I have written about often (see, for example, What is the problem with Primary Care? The US health system!, March 22, 2022).  Primary care clinicians – family physicians, pediatricians, and general internists, and the NPs and PAs who work with them – can provide not only cost-effective care but care that is comprehensive, continuous, and reassuring to people and families because they know the person who is providing it and have a relationship with them. And the cost-effectiveness is not (only) about the fact that they earn less money (see below) but because they are in a position, as a result of taking care of the “whole person” and having a long term relationship, to more wisely utilize resources when necessary. Nonetheless, there is a definite shortage of primary care clinicians, as anyone who has tried to find one recently, because they moved, or their physicians retired or had their practice bought out by a large company like Optum (a subsidiary of United Health Care, which has become UHC’s major profit center as documented by former insurance executive Wendell Potter in his “Health Care Un-covered” substack) or, sometimes in response, went into a “concierge” or “boutique” practice, can testify. Elisabeth Rosenthal, editor of Kaiser Health News, documents this in a recent piece in the Washington Post, “The Shrinking Number of Primary Care Physicians is Reaching a Tipping Point”. She notes that “fewer medical students are choosing a field that once attracted some of the best and brightest because of its diagnostic challenges and the emotional gratification of deep relationships with patients.” And she makes the important point that

One explanation for the disappearing primary-care doctor is financial. The payment structure in the U.S. health system has long rewarded surgeries and procedures while shortchanging the diagnostic, prescriptive and preventive work that is the province of primary care.

Don’t forget that one. Rosenthal discusses the terrible experience of colleague Bob Morrow, MD, who, under financial pressure, finally had to sell his decades-old practice, and then, watching how the new owner ran it (suffice it to say, not in the best interests of the patients), leave medicine. Morrow is not a depressed person, but reading about what has happened to him and thousand of other primary care doctors is enough to make you depressed.

In a data-driven “Report Card” on primary care in the US, the Milbank Memorial Fund ranks it poorly on all front, although not on the quality of the physicians:

This first national primary care scorecard finds a chronic lack of adequate support for the implementation of high-quality primary care in the United States across all measures, although performance varies across states. The scorecard finds:

1.      Financing: The United States is systemically underinvesting in primary care.

2.      Workforce: The primary care physician workforce is shrinking and gaps in access to care appear to be growing.

3.      Access: The percentage of adults reporting they do not have a usual source of care is increasing.

4.      Training: Too few physicians are being trained in community settings, where most primary care takes place.

5.      Research: There is almost no federal funding available for primary care research.

The  report card, created for Milbank by the Robert Graham Center (the policy arm of the American Academy of Family Physicians, AAFP), not only identifies these deficits, but also the importance of solving them for the health of the American people. 100,000,000 people without a primary care doctor, only able to see a physician (if they can see any physician) who has a narrowly focused, disease-based practice is a real problem. We need those specialists for when we are diagnosed with a particular condition that requires their expertise, but they are often not knowledgeable about conditions outside it. Moreover, the primary care clinician does not only care for many conditions; much more important is that they care for the person who has those conditions.

The report also endorses the conclusions from the National Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) from 2021, recommending that the US:

1. Pay for primary care teams to care for people, not doctors to deliver services.
2. Ensure that high-quality primary care is available to every individual and family in every community.
3. Train primary care teams where people live and work.
4. Design information technology that serves the patient, family, and interprofessional care team.
5. Ensure that high-quality primary care is implemented in the United States.

Finally, for the moment, an effort is actually being made in Congress to try to increase the number of primary care clinicians.  In an uncommon bipartisan effort, the bill is cosponsored by Bernie Sanders (I, VT), chair of the Senate HELP Committee and Roger Marshall, MD, an OB/GYN and conservative Republican from Kansas, as reported by Jake Johnson in Common Dreams, Sept 14, 2023. It’s a good thing to have bipartisan support, but it is, sadly, unlikely to have a major effect on increasing the primary care physician supply. Funding in the bill – about $6 billion -- goes mainly to Community Health Centers (CHCs), especially Federally-Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). These centers can be, and usually are, good. They provide care to lower-income people and communities where access to other clinicians is difficult. Republicans like them because they are not actually “government” programs, but responsible only to their boards of directors. But, while they often rely heavily on primary care, and expanding them will increase the number of jobs for primary care clinicians, it does nothing to increase the supply of those clinicians, to convince medical students to enter family medicine, pediatrics, and general internal medicine instead of much higher-paying subspecialties.

I mention money, the Milbank report mentions money. It is a lot about money. It is increasingly difficult to convince students to enter fields where their income is likely to be a fraction of that of subspecialists (even if much better than that of most Americans), especially in the context of huge educational debt (frequently over $250K), and the lack of respect given by the medical profession and often the society at large to primary care. And, not at all to be minimized, the takeover of so many practices by for-profit corporations and private equity, with situations like Dr. Morrow’s becoming the norm rather than the exception. Some subspecialties make 2-3 or more times that of primary care doctors, which makes it increasingly difficult for students to decide to enter primary care. And while some of these subspecialties have grueling work hours (e.g., general surgery) others have much more circumscribed work hours, often shift work and little call.

There IS certainly something the federal government could do. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) sets the relative reimbursement for physician services (office visits, procedures, etc.) and virtually all private insurance companies reimburse based on multiples of the Medicare rate (traditionally more, but now often less). So all CMS has to do is to revise its fee schedule, increasing the relative value of primary care visits relative to procedures. Of course, there will be great opposition from other specialists; indeed the “RUC”, a non-government committee that advises CMS on this ratio is completely dominated by subspecialists (Changes in the RUC: None.. How come we let a bunch of self-interested doctors decide what they get paid?, July 21, 2013). CMS is not required to follow the recommendations of the RUC although it usually does; CMS could ignore or adjust what the RUC recommends, or reconstitute the membership of the RUC to have more primary care doctors. Primary care physicians do not need to make as much as the highest-paid subspecialists (indeed neither do those subspecialists!) but the difference needs to be decreased. Studies have indicated that if primary care doctors earned 70% of what subspecialists do, income would no longer be a significant factor in specialty choice.

Addressing this income gap is critical for increasing the number of primary care clinicians. Then there is a lot else to do, like getting for-profit corporations and private equity out of healthcare altogether.

 

For a “humorous” depiction of the takeover of primary care by for-profit companies like Optum, check out this short piece by the brilliant Dr. Glaucomflecken: https://twitter.com/i/status/1706339952857149895

Access to healthcare: More primary care and no financial barriers for anyone

A recent study by Matthew Toth and Lauren Palmer from the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) evaluated the impact of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Financial Alignment Initiative (FAI) on access to primary care by those people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. These people are called “dual-eligibles” and represent about 13% of Medicare recipients. The FAI aimed to increase coordination of care, and the authors discovered that it did increase primary care access, to some degree, in 6 of the 9 states in which this demonstration project was implemented. In one state where it did not, Washington, eligibility for the program required people to have multiple morbidities (chronic diseases), and so the authors speculate that it increased access in other states for “healthier” dual eligibles.

There is nothing wrong with this study, or the program it studies, insofar as they go. But it raises two major issues. The first is that the program is yet another example of how the federal government continues to tinker around the edges of a completely flawed healthcare system by experimenting with one program after another that might possibly help, to some degree, a small portion of our population. This is not to say that the people who were studied, those eligible for both Medicare (by age or disability) and Medicaid (by poverty) are not deserving of better access to care and care coordination; certainly, they are. But we all are. Because we have some people who are eligible for Medicare and some people who are eligible for Medicaid and lots of people who are eligible for neither, and many people who are uninsured, and many more are grossly underinsured, we have fragmented our population and made financial access both unwieldy, far from comprehensive, and incredibly expensive. If this study (maybe) shows that the improvement in access was more for those “dual-eligibles” without multiple morbidities, is this bad? Well, it’s bad that they weren’t getting coordinated care in the first place!

Here I need to take a break, before going on to the second issue, to put in a word or two for our medical insurance companies and large hospital systems. They are not doing badly. Indeed, the outrageous excess cost of our health system, two to three times (or more) per capita than other OECD countries despite leaving large numbers of people uncovered, is due almost entirely to their profit-taking. They are doing well, thank you, along with the drug manufacturers, even while rural and inner-city safety net hospitals are going broke taking care of poor and uninsured (and sick) people, and millions of Americans go without care or receive inadequate care. The words – I’ll go with two – are rapacious thieves.

The second issue is that while financial access, being covered by adequate insurance, is very important, it is only part of the picture. The other part is having doctors (or other appropriate clinicians) who are available to see patients. This is the other area in which the US (and, in fairness, a few other countries including Canada) are failing. Have you tried to get an appointment to your primary care clinician lately? Maybe you can get in easily, but if so you are the exception. Most people have to wait weeks or months. If they go to the ER, they wait many hours, even for urgent or emergent problems. It would be good to be able to see a doctor who knows you, and knows your history, right? Instead of someone in an Urgent Care Center. I can answer all of these for people I know (or me) and the answers are not positive, and these are folks who are well insured and live in a major metropolitan area, not in a rural one or an inner-city health care desert! In Canada, there are suggestions that the way to fix the wait is to – wait – privatize health care! Hah! Come on down and see how that works here!

Why is it that people cannot get appointments to see primary care clinicians? Shouldn’t there be enough? Years ago on Saturday Night Live, Don Novello portrayed a character called Father Guido Sarducci who offered a “5-minute university”, where you were only taught what you would remember years later anyway. For Economics, it was “supply and demand”. So if there is so much demand for doctor visits, especially primary care visits, why is there not enough supply to meet it? This is, as you would guess, kind of complicated

Obviously, there are not enough primary care clinicians, either as a whole or as a percent of all physicians. If there were enough, you could call your doctor and get in today if you were sick or had a worsening problem. Like on TV (pick your favorite FP/GP show). So we don’t have enough. This is all about money. To some degree, it is about doctors wanting to make as much as they can. This results in far too small a proportion of graduates entering primary care, since they can make two or three times as much in some other specialties, which is enough to convince even many who liked the idea of primary care that, especially with their debt load, they liked anesthesiology more. We are at about half the percentage of primary care that we should be. For this I blame the system that pays other specialties so much more (or primary care so much less). In addition, the distribution is poor – not enough doctors in rural areas, or certainly poor urban areas, but all concentrated in more wealthy urban and suburban areas.

Ultimately this is all about the corporatization of health care, and the treatment of providers as widgets in a factory. Put this many in clinics, make sure that they are totally booked and have no room for anyone who needs to get in on short notice, put others in the hospital, put others in urgent care or ERs. Have no flexibility in the system because if you have the capacity to expand when needed, that means that at other times you have down time, and that is unacceptable for making maximum corporate profit. Of course, this is not good for your health, which is better when you can see a doctor who knows you, especially when you are sick and couldn’t plan two to eight weeks ahead of time (or more!) to make an appointment.

Creating doctors and other health professionals takes many years, and cannot change on a dime, but it will never change if that change doesn’t start. If we care about people’s health and healthcare, we need to dramatically decrease the difference between what primary care and other specialist income so it doesn’t discourage students from choosing primary care. We need to ban for-profit corporations (or ostensibly non-profit systems that act like for-profits) from being in our health system at all. All of health care and its components should be about ensuring better quality health for our people, not making money for businesses.

The usual pattern in the US is to have funding for public services cut by politicians who are receiving money from private corporations, to the point that they do not function well at meeting public needs. Then those same politicians say “privatize!” and they do and the cost goes way up and the public needs are still not met, because, well, that’s not what private enterprise is there for. (See this good video by Brittlestar on why privatization is not a good choice for Canadian healthcare.)

Jimi Hendrix said “Castles made of sand fall into the sea eventually”. But our health care system is not built on sand. It is built on rocks of intransigent corporate profit, and it is not going to change without a fight. You and your health don’t count as much as big business making money.  So there. Pick up the gauntlet, and fight for yourself, your family, your community.