COVID-19 and protecting healthcare workers

The world, and the US, have entered unchartered waters in recent history as a result of the COVID-19 epidemic. Obviously, the deaths of people who would not otherwise have died is the most important. The real economy (forget the stock market) is a disaster; in this country 3.3 million people applied for unemployment insurance benefits one week only to have it double to 6.6 million the next – the previous high was less than 700,000. The responses of governments – national, state, local – to the epidemic, and the degree to which they rely on actual science, is another huge issue.  Here I seek to address one part of the crisis, one tension, the protection of health care workers, including doctors and nurses.

For starters, we have the issue of the actual health of these individuals. The reason for placing special emphasis on the protection of them is not because they are better or more important people than others, but because we need them to care for the sickest of us, those whose illness means that they cannot safely “shelter in place”, and need to come to urgent care centers, doctors’ offices, emergency rooms, and hospitals. Health care workers, particularly in hospitals, are personally more vulnerable because they have ongoing, repeated exposures to the virus. Greater levels of virus, from one or multiple exposures, increase the risk that a person will not only become sick, but become sicker, as discussed in ‘These Coronavirus exposures might be the most dangerous’ by Joshua Rabinowitz and Caroline Bartman in the NY Times April 1, 2020, and healthcare workers in hospitals have repeated exposures.

In addition, of course, we need these people to care for the sick, because they are the ones with the skills and training to do so. Thus, they need to be protected as much as possible. The news has been full of stories of this not happening, of hospitals not providing necessary Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to its providers, and even punishing those who bring their own (with the bizarre idea that it is not fair to the other workers who do not have it). Our healthcare providers need to be protected, not punished for identifying flaws in the system (Nicholas Kristof, April 2, 2020, ‘”I Do Fear for My Staff,” a Doctor Said. He Lost His Job.’). Doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers have often been lauded by the public (the practice of applauding out the window, begun in Italy, is especially touching), but punished by their employers. (Others, such as Capt. Brett E. Crozier of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, are also being punished by their bosses for doing the right thing.) And these people are, although health professionals, also people, with families and with risk (Sandeep Jauhar, ‘In a Pandemic, Do Doctors Still Have a Duty to Treat?’. Heroes are great, but dead heroes are still dead, fired heroes are still fired, and dead or sick healthcare workers cannot provide care to others.

One of the most elementary pieces of PPE is in great shortage: the effective N-95 masks that every healthcare worker, certainly those in the hospital, should have on all the time. Some of this is because our overall national response has been anemic, and production has not ramped up quickly enough, and some is because hospitals have adopted the “just in time” approach to acquiring equipment popularized by corporations like Toyota and Ford. It may work for cars, and it may be profitable and efficient for hospitals in normal times, but like so much of our “normal” capitalist system it is fatally (quite literally) flawed when stressed by a real crisis. This fault has been augmented by individual profiteering -- well over a month ago the staff in my local Home Depot laughed when I asked about them; they told me they had all been bought up when COVID-19 began in China, by “entrepreneurs” who sold them to Chinese on eBay. True? I can’t know, but there sure were none available. One thing that the rest of us can do is to ensure that essentially ALL new N-95 masks should be available for healthcare workers, especially those in hospitals. Other people should not be wearing, not to mention hoarding or scalping them. Don’t get some to wear when you go out. Stay home. Especially if you’re symptomatic. Stay away from others. Social distancing is something we can practice, and healthcare workers cannot. What about other masks, “surgical masks”? They won’t protect you much if at all from acquiring the virus, but may help (if you can find them, or else use a bandana) protect other people from getting the virus from you if you are infected but asymptomatic. Of course, if you are symptomatic, you should not be going out at all -- unless you are so sick and short of breath that you urgently need to go to the hospital, in which case, wear a mask.

Sometimes this balance between our own self-interest (I need to go out and an N-95 mask protects me) and society’s interest (healthcare workers need the N-95 masks) is difficult, but it is decision that should not be hard. You, me, or our family members, may be the ones who would have been cared for by that doctor or nurse if they weren’t lying in the next bed because they didn’t have the mask we wore to the grocery store.

But some other decisions are harder, like deciding who should get access to a ventilator when there are far too few for everyone who needs one. In their generally good opinion piece (April 1, 2020), Protect the Doctors and Nurses Who Are Protecting Us: They need immunity from lawsuits and prosecution for triage decisions, Cohen, Crespo, and White argue for laws to protect doctors making difficult decisions protection from lawsuits or criminal charges for making them. This is a very good idea. They make two very important points. The first is that there need to be formal criteria established for triaging access to scarce resources so that we do not just have individual doctors making individual decisions, but rather following well-thought-out guidelines. The other is that those decisions need to be legally protected. They cite   

A Maryland statute [that] makes health care providers “immune from civil or criminal liability” for actions they take “in good faith” during a declared “catastrophic health emergency.” According to the Maryland Attorney General’s Office, this statute immunizes clinicians who follow state-approved ventilator allocation protocols, “regardless of the negative consequences arising from the withdrawal of a patient’s ventilator.”

This is a good idea, and one that should be adopted by all states.

But these writers also note that “Denying some patients short-term ventilation, against their wishes, will probably cause them to die when they might have gone on to live long and healthy lives with the treatment. But it will also make limited numbers of ventilators available to other patients who are more likely to survive.” Fortunately, this is not yet really the situation we are in, having to decide which “people who might have gone on to live long and healthy lives with treatment” should be left to die. But we will be, and are in places like New York, in a situation in which decisions will have to be made that deny some patients who would NOT have gone on to lead long and healthy lives ventilation to allow their use for other patients who are more likely to survive.

People who have pre-existing terminal diseases from which they would have died anyway, or those with dementia who are never going to have normal healthy lives (and cannot make their own decisions) will be, and should be, the last people to receive ventilator treatment. Hopefully, this will not be “against their wishes” (or those of their family, if their dementia makes it impossible for them to express those wishes), because they recognize the sense of this. When people have a terminal disease, and/or are suffering from dementia, coming to grips with dying and when it is time to say “enough” even if there WERE sufficient ventilators, is something that should have been addressed already, by the patient, family, and physicians. Of course, none of this argument should suggest that criteria other than pre-existing health status and the likelihood of a full recovery should be considered in allocating resources; certainly not income, wealth, insurance status, race, disability of any kind that is not associated with an expectation of dying soon, or even age in and of itself.

COVID-19 has affected, or will affect, (as the southern hemisphere enters winter) the whole world. We are all in it together. In fact, of course, we are always all in it together, but the pandemic has exposed the flaws in individualistic arguments. I am not going to write that we can “beat this” because I don’t know, but we can behave in wise and responsible ways to keep the terrible consequences a little less terrible.

Medicare payments to doctors: the big issue is the underpayment for primary care

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) just published how much money individual doctors get paid from Medicare. This initial version is without names, but undoubtedly the names will eventually be revealed. Enough information is available for Reed Abelson and Sarah Cohen, who wrote the article for the New York Times on April 9, 2014 “Sliver of Medicare Doctors Get Big Share of Payouts”,   to identify many of the specialties and locations. About ¼ of all Medicare payments, the article tells us, go to about 2% of all doctors. “In 2012, 100 doctors received a total of $610 million, ranging from a Florida ophthalmologist who was paid $21 million by Medicare to dozens of doctors, eye and cancer specialists chief among them, who received more than $4 million each that year.” The largest amount of money was accounted for by office visits, $12B, but this was for 214M visits, with an average reimbursement of $57, in contrast to the Florida ophthalmologist, or to the “Fewer than 1,000 radiation oncologists, for example, received payments totaling $1.1 billion.”

Much of the discussion in the article, and in the comments attached, relates to why so few doctors get so much of the $77B Medicare pays out each year. There are, obviously, concerns about fraud; not only is Medicare seemingly fixated on looking for fraud everywhere but there is good evidence that it has occurred, at least historically. For example a highly paid (by Medicare) Florida ophthalmologist is apparently linked to a previous Medicare fraud scandal in which there was some implication of New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez. “The Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services, which serves as a federal watchdog on fraud and abuse for the agency, released a report in December recommending greater scrutiny of those physicians who were Medicare’s highest billers.” I would have to say that this is a much wiser, fairer, and probably more productive strategy than simply trying to find largely unintentional errors in coding for outpatient visits, or checking each hospital admission to see if it could have been an “observation”, which is reimbursed less because it is considered outpatient status, as is done by Medicare’s Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs, or as I have called them, bounty hunters). Also, as I have previously discussed, these efforts are harmful to the patient in a direct financial way; as an “outpatient”, a Medicare recipient in the hospital has much higher out-of-pocket costs than if they are admitted as an inpatient. This is, of course, why CMS wishes to limit some stays, but if a person medically needs to be in the hospital, Medicare should pay for a hospitalization, and not play these games that not only financially penalize the hospital and doctors but more importantly the patient.

The other big area discussed is whether, if not exactly fraud, there is substantial difference in practice (e.g., getting CTs before each procedure, using more expensive drugs, etc.) that some specialists who are highly reimbursed by Medicare are doing more of than others. In addition, the question is “are they doing more procedures” or doing procedures with less strict indications? It is worth looking at; there is no guarantee that, even if some doctors are doing more procedures, having looser criteria for them, using more expensive drugs and tests, that this is not the better way to practice, but there is no guarantee that it is the better way to practice. If some doctors are outliers in their specialty, and their practice characteristics “happen” to end up making them a LOT more money than others, then this is certainly a reasonable basis on which to look more closely at how they are practicing, and what is the evidence basis of appropriate practice.

A third issue is that many of the recipients of the most money from Medicare, particularly oncologists (cancer doctors) and ophthalmologists are using very expensive drugs, which they have to buy first and which Medicare reimburses them for. Thus, this skews their reimbursement upward even though the money (or most of it) does not go to the doctor, but rather to the pharmaceutical company. The article refers to a drug called ranibizumab, injected into the eye by ophthalmologists monthly for age-related macular degeneration. It is very expensive, as are many drugs which are made through recombinant DNA (a lot end in “-ab”) used by oncologists, neurologists, rheumatologists, and gastroenterologists as well. One comment notes that he as a physician only makes 3% on the drug. While it can be argued that this is a significant markup (for example, making $3000 on a $100,000 drug), and that this doesn’t include the doctor’s fee for administering it (substantial), it is unfair to count the full cost of the drug as income for the doctor. Of course, it is income for someone (the pharmaceutical company) which suggests there needs to be substantial investigation into pricing of these drugs. And, of course, if a physician is found to be using a lot of a drug where he (or she) makes a 3% markup rather than prescribing an equally effective drug (if there is one) where there is no markup profit, this would be a bad thing.

However, the most important thing revealed by this data, I believe, is the enormously skewed reimbursement by specialty. It is an excellent window into the incredible differences in reimbursement for different specialties, with the ophthalmologists, radiation oncologists, etc. making huge incomes while primary care doctors (and nurse practitioners) are making $57 for an office visit. This is major. The fact that Medicare pays so fantastically much more for procedures (and, as a note, it is likely that all of the doctors, including the 202 family doctors in the highest-paid 2%, are getting it for doing a lot of procedures) leads to private insurers paying similarly more. And makes these specialties very attractive to medical students because they are lucrative (and often, though not in the case of many surgical specialties, involve fewer hours of work). Which leads to fewer primary care doctors, and a dramatic shortage in this country.

Medicare could change this. It could dramatically, not a little bit, change the reimbursement for cognitive visits to be closer to the payment for these procedures. If it did, so would private insurers. If the income of primary care doctors was 70% of that of specialists (instead of say, 30%) data from Altarum researchers and from Canada suggest that the influence of income on specialty choice would largely disappear. More students would enter primary care, and in time we would begin to see a physician workforce that would be closer to what this country needs, about 50% doctors actually practicing primary care.

It is fine if CMS and the OIG look at these highest billing doctors to make sure that they are not committing overt fraud. It is also fine to look at them and see if they are using criteria for procedures that are not supported by current evidence, or doing too many other tests, or taking kickbacks. It is also a good idea to look at the cost of drugs, especially the portion going to the drug company, as well as the markup for physicians, and to re-present the data excluding that portion of the money the doctor does not get (goes to the pharmaceutical company) from their income.

But the most important result of this report should be to be shocked at the way Medicare enables the continued practice of reimbursing for procedures at such high levels, and to kickstart a complete revision of the Medicare fee schedule to bring reimbursement for different specialties into better balance.

That would be a great outcome!