Controlling the cost of health care by doing the right thing

The cost of health care and ways to decrease it are a recurring drumbeat in politics, including on this blog. However, I like many others, have also emphasized the need to increase access to necessary health and medical care to all people who need it, and to create social conditions that decrease the burden of ill health. Federal efforts have finally come up with the Affordable Care Act (ACA, Obamacare), passed in 2010, and since 2012 object of continued efforts by Republicans in Congress and in those states in which they control the governor’s office and state house to repeal or gut it. In states, most effort is focused on Medicaid, which is funded by both federal and state money. In some states, most notably Oregon (“The Oregon Lottery: Far from enough, but at least they are doing something”, July 19, 2012), this effort has been combined with increasing access; in most it has just been about cutting expenditures.


On August 4, 2013 (“Why poor people choose ERs: we need a system designed to meet everyone’s needs”), I wrote about an article from Health Affairs ¹that studied the reasons that poor people use hospital emergency rooms “inappropriately” for care, to the frustration of the ERs, primary care doctors, payers (in this case, where patients were either uninsured or covered by Medicaid, mostly government) and health policy experts. The 3 major groups of reasons were quality (perceived quality, which I believe is not valid), cost (a matter not of overall cost but out-of-pocket cost to the user at the time of service) and convenience, which I argue is a misleading word for describing a place that is actually open and will see you when you can get there.  “…it is not “convenient”,” I wrote, “to wait 6 hours in an ER to be seen; if this is better than the alternative, the alternative is seriously flawed!”


What would be a mistake, however, would be to presume that it is just inappropriate use of health services by poor people that drives up the cost of care. Indeed, this is only a small part of the “excess” cost (defined as “cost in excess of what would be needed to be provide quality care to everyone) in the US. Another good definition of “excess cost” might be the additional cost per capita spent in this country compared to many other developed countries whose health outcomes are much better than ours. For this, there are different reasons. I have discussed many of them in earlier posts, and they include procedures that didn’t need to be done, over-utilization of high-technology, under-utilization of primary care, and poor geographic distribution of medical care. To a large extent, these are summarized by the two quotes I used in The high cost of US health care: it's not the colonoscopies, it's the profit”, July 28, 2013: “Using health care as a driver of corporate economics as opposed to a public good is the fundamental cause of our medical inflation,” (Richard Wender, MD) and “The US health care system is not designed to get you the care you need, it is designed to get you the care that someone can make a profit giving you.” (Lee Green, MD).


There are other causes as well. One big one, referred to above and discussed at some length in “To improve health the US must spend more on social services”, December 18, 2011, is the fact that the US does not provide anywhere near the overall social service safety net that other developed countries do. In those other countries there is much more spent to ensure that people have adequate food, housing, education, and a living wage, which are all drivers of health status.


Another big cause, though, are our preferences, our desires, as consumers, for “all that money can buy” when it comes to our health. While this may be especially true when, as health economists often point out, it is not directly your money, but your insurance company’s, I know plenty of cases in which families have wiped out their life savings, wiped out their retirement accounts, wiped out the money that could have supported the survivors (especially true when the patient was the primary breadwinner) in pursuit of “one more” vain attempt at cure. I do not mean to suggest that treatments with reasonable probabilities of meaningful benefit should be withheld. Nor do I mean to blame just the individuals and families; clearly in most of these cases there were doctors and other health professionals holding out hope (“well, maybe we could try another bone marrow transplant and it might help”) without making sufficiently clear what both what they meant by “help” and what the odds were of success.


Yet, many doctors (including me) and hospitals will tell you that they have often recommended against interventions because they have little or no likelihood of meaningful benefit, and often a significant risk of harm, only to be told by the patient and/or family that they want to “do everything”. Often these people suspect that if they had more money, or if they were a different color, or if they were in a “better” hospital, the providers wouldn’t be suggesting that they forgo further intervention. I don’t doubt that this is sometimes justified, and I’m sure that if a patient has enough money to spend there will be someone, somewhere, whether “quack” or a “legitimate” medical center, who will take it to “do something”. But this doesn’t make it right or good. I have not seen such studies but would not be surprised if it were shown that many of those with the most resources are among those with the most unpleasant deaths; our culture values intervention, and they have the money to find some who is willing to make a profit intervening.


Everyone dies. We would all like, and like for our loved ones, to live as long as possible if our lives have meaning – some physical and/or intellectual function, some ability to contribute to or benefit from others. We would like, and like for our loved ones, to be comfortable and pain-free as we approach death. We don’t want to think that money which could help us or our loved ones is being “saved” just so it can be used to provide services to others who are richer or louder. But when something will not “help” in any meaningful way that we understand it, and which may hurt, it should not be done, and we should demand that it not be done. Not doing is often more appropriate and more powerful than doing. We must shame health care providers who advertise and promulgate interventions that are unproven, or will not help, or will harm, because they can make a profit doing it.


If we are to get to this place as a society, where the US health care system is one designed to get you the care you need rather than to get you the care that someone can make a profit giving you, we are going to have to change our attitudes. And that change of attitudes and behavior needs to start at the top of the social and economic scale, not at the bottom. No unnecessary stents for President Bush, no “executive physicals”, no inappropriate end of life interventions for the wealthy. Where the “best” in healthcare is not defined as the “most”, but the most effective and most appropriate.


A health system in which health and health care for everyone is the goal of our society.

1  Kangovi S, et al., “Understanding Why Patients Of Low Socioeconomic Status Prefer Hospitals Over Ambulatory Care” , Health Aff July 2013   vol. 32  no. 7  1196-1203; doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0825  

Creating team based care: are non-physician providers more effectively used in primary or subspecialty care?

The shortage of primary care physicians in the US, which I have often discussed (most recently in “When is the doctor not needed? And who should take their place?”, January 5, 2013), has become a national theme. The Robert Graham Center of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) has done much of the work in documenting this shortage, such as in the article “Projecting US Primary Care Physician Workforce Need” by Petteson, et al., discussed in my post “Health reform, ACA, and Primary Care: Is there still a conundrum?”, December 24, 2012. Essentially the problem is we have too few primary care doctors for the current population, the demand for them will continue to grow, and the rate of production (medical students entering primary care specialties) is below that even needed to replace those who retire. The growth in demand is a result of (in order of impact): population growth, aging of the population, and a more-or-less-one-time blip from increasing coverage under ACA (although for the latter, the people with a need for care were already there; it is just that with having insurance they will be able to seek it more easily).

 In a recent issue of Health Affairs, Green and colleagues argue that “Primary Care Physician Shortages Could Be Eliminated Through Use Of Teams, Nonphysicians, And Electronic Communication “.^[1] This is not a new concept; it is a central component of what is known as the “Patient Centered Medical Home”. The article suggests that many functions now carried out by physicians can be done by others, ranging from nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants, to nurses, to others on the health care “team”. It also suggests that many problems that now require face-to-face communication (trips to the doctor’s office) could be done by phone or “virtually”, such as by structured email or web-based visits. Thomas Bodenheimer and his colleagues in San Francisco have done much of the work in this area, most recently published in Annals of Family Medicine “Estimating a Reasonable Patient Panel Size for Primary Care Physicians With Team-Based Task Delegation”.[2]

Green, et al., use computer simulation models to estimate the “panel size” (number of patients that can be cared for per doctor) by the employment of such techniques; they add calculations for “pooling” of physicians, that is, sharing of patients among a group of doctors. This allows greater efficiency by “smoothing out the bumps” that may occur when one physicians has more or fewer patients coming in for same-day care or not showing up for their appointments by allocating them among the group. Using these statistical models they estimate that the ability of patients to access care (get in to be seen) would be dramatically increased by the implementation of such policies.

The work done by both the Green and Bodenheimer groups is convincing, and provides a model for more efficient primary care practice that would help to address the problems our country faces from having too few primary care doctors. Indeed, these approaches utilize the “crisis” as a way to actually improve both access to and quality of patient care. There are, however, challenges to implementation of this model. One is payment; while health systems in many parts of the nation have demonstrated that it is possible to restructure their practices to achieve these advantages, this is most effective in settings in which the provider is also the insurer (notably Kaiser). In those parts of the country where this model of care is less prevalent, where most payment to medical providers is “fee for service” for face-to-face visits to doctors, there is not only no incentive to change, there is a large negative financial incentive since any non-face-to-face care is, essentially given out free.

A second challenge is that such models only work where there is a large enough concentration of patients and providers to achieve the benefits of scale; as with most such analyses, it leaves out the needs of rural populations. Some large systems, such as Geisinger in Pennsylvania, have been successful in creating such efficiencies in their clinics in rural areas, but Geisinger is atypical; there are not many like it. In addition, it is a financially integrated system (like Kaiser) – that is, it is also the payer -- and it works in a relatively-densely populated rural area of northeastern Pennsylvania, not like the vast empty frontier counties of the West.

It is interesting to me that so much of this emphasis on efficiencies, and particularly the use of professionals other than physicians to provide care, has been on primary care. This, I am sure, is due in part to the need for primary care in all settings, while much specialty care can be centralized in larger cities. It is also because there is not a shortage of many non-primary-care specialists for the needs of the population (although there are for some, such as general surgery, especially in non-urban areas). The reason usually given for this non-shortage is largely that these specialists make so much more money than primary care doctors, so medical students are attracted to them. To the extent that some specialties also have more regular work hours and a limited scope of work, it may also increase their attractiveness.

The limited scope of work (although not, necessarily, less difficult work, especially when considering surgical interventions) also makes them, in many ways, more appropriate fields to use non-physician professionals than primary care. This is the reverse of the usual assumptions that sub-specialists are seeing difficult problems, while primary care providers see mostly colds and blood pressure checks. In fact, primary care is complex, as it sees both undifferentiated patients and those with multiple chronic diseases. Most specialty care is more routine, seeing a much more limited set of diagnoses with a more limited set of interventions; for the typical subspecialist, less than a half dozen diagnoses may account for 80% of visits, while for a family doctor the top 20 are probably 30%. Thus, the breadth of knowledge and skills in making complex decisions and appropriately prioritizing problems, require a level of sophistication and training not taught or developed in most other health professionals (family nurse practitioners are one other provider group where there is at least an effort to have this breadth of training). It is, then unsurprising that most of the tasks suggested for nurses and others to increase the efficiency of primary care practices have limited scope: maintaining disease registries, calling for recommended preventive care, screening a small set of diagnoses.

This type of narrow, in-depth scope of work is much more characteristic of subspecialty care, and it is one of the reasons why expanded-scope nurses and physician’s assistants have found so much use in these practices. They follow people with congestive heart failure for cardiologists or diabetes for endocrinologists, they manage chemotherapy recipients for oncologists, they use algorithms to care for people in intensive care units, they do pre- and post-operative care for orthopedists and other surgeons. And they do not go outside of the set of diagnoses and treatment options with which they are familiar; following the model of the physicians with whom they work, when a patient’s problem is not in their narrow area, it is referred.

The targeted but limited expertise of such nurse specialists have explains why they function so well clinically in subspecialties. What explains why it works financially is that the doctors (or hospitals, or health systems) that employ them are reimbursed at subspecialist physician rates (already very high) for work that is done by others; thus they can afford to pay such “physician extenders” relatively well compared to folks working in primary care. Reimbursement for “teams” follows the model of reimbursement for physicians: care for a limited set of diagnoses in a detailed way, especially when it involves procedures, is paid much better than management of complex sets of interactive diagnoses.

Unfortunately, the problem with such practice is challenging because the same person often has multiple conditions, and interventions that help one may make another worse. While efforts to build teams, and have each professional work at the “top of their license”, is important, so is payment. As long as primary care is reimbursed at lower rates it will continue to face challenges in recruitment of physicians, nurses, and other team members. 

We need to develop and implement great strategies for team-based care. We also need to dramatically decrease the ratio of income for subspecialists and their subspecialist teams relative to those working in primary care.

---

[1] Green LV, Savin S, Lu Y, “Primary Care Physician Shortages Could Be Eliminated Through Use Of Teams, Nonphysicians, And Electronic Communication”, Health Affairs, 32, no.1 (2013):11-19

doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1086

[2] Altschuler J, Margolius D, Bodenheimer T, Grumbach K, “Estimating a Reasonable Patient Panel Size for Primary Care Physicians With Team-Based Task Delegation” , September/October 2012 vol. 10 no. 5396-400 doi:10.1370/afm.1400