Hospitals post their charges: almost indecipherable, but important!

The recent Trump administration order to have hospitals post their prices has been widely covered in the media, along with both headlines and articles that make it clear that these prices list are far from…clear! For example, Robert Pear’s article in the NY Times on January 13, 2019, titled “Hospitals Must Now Post Prices. But It May Take a Brain Surgeon to Decipher Them” , starts:

‘Vanderbilt University Medical Center, responding to a new Trump administration order to begin posting all hospital prices, listed a charge of $42,569 for a cardiology procedure described as “HC PTC CLOS PAT DUCT ART.”

Baptist Health in Miami helpfully told consumers that an “Embolza Protect 5.5” would cost them $9,818 while a “Visceral selective angio rad” runs a mere $5,538.’

The Arizona Star piece on Tucson hospitals had a more moderate title, “Hospitals post prices, but public can find it confusing”, but made the same points. As a physician (if not a brain surgeon!) I think I can figure out what most of these mean, but the point that they are making is that they are hard for almost everyone to understand. The reason, of course, is that they have simply posted online their “chargemasters”, the price list that they supply to insurers (including Medicare and Medicaid), which are based on the nationally used “procedure codes”; these are numbers which identify different treatments that are abbreviated as above. So, the charge at Baptist for a radiologist injecting dye into an artery supplying your intestines is only a little over $5,000, while Vanderbilt charges over $42,000 to do a surgical procedure to close a shunt artery in your heart that is vital to fetal circulation but normally closes spontaneously after birth. The question is, what does all this mean? And what are you and I supposed to do with this information?

Elisabeth Rosenthal, the emergency room physician turned NY Times reporter turned editor of Kaiser Health News, is more optimistic in her Times Op-Ed on January 22, 2019, “Donald Trump did something right”. She acknowledges the opacity of the posted charges to most people, but says it is a great step forward, because they are accessible, at least to those who are academic experts, and can be compared, both one hospital to another (“Maybe, just maybe, a hospital will think twice before charging a $6,000 “operating room fee” for a routine colonoscopy if its competitor down the street is listing its price at $1,000”), and to alternative treatments (“With access to list prices on your phone, you could reject the $300 sling in the emergency room and instead order one for one-tenth of the price on Amazon.”) Obviously, these would not be easily available on your phone now, but her hope and expectation is that third parties will develop apps that will take this nearly impenetrable information and make it easily accessible to people, as apps such as GoodRx® have done for drug prices. She emphasizes the magnitude of this change, since before now these prices have been closely-guarded secrets.

Rosenthal makes a number of other important points that illustrate the fact that this system is not only opaque, but deeply morally corrupt. Hospitals are run as businesses, to make money, even when they are ostensibly “non-profit”. Their CEOs and other executives are mostly businessmen, CPAs and MBAs – even when they are physicians, which sometimes happens, they are usually also MBAs – and are hired for their ability to run a money-making operation that happens to sell health care. And sell it, to your insurance company, at what often seems like deeply discounted prices because they are based on absurdly inflated chargemasters. “You don’t really want to change your charges if you have a Saudi sheikh come in with a suitcase full of cash who’s going to pay full charges,” says one CEO. More important, it allows them to reach agreements with insurers to pay a lot less than the official “price”, which in turn allows those insurance companies to brag to you about how much money they saved you. Rosenthal notes this is farcical, raising prices to make you think that you got a discount (‘If a supposedly $1,000 TV is “on sale” for $80, it’s not really a discount. It’s an absurd list price’), and that it emulates practices in other arenas, such as airlines overestimating their flight times to make it seem like they have a better on-time percent.

At a higher level, Rosenthal points out what is wrong is that these inflated charges do make a difference. Your co-pays and deductibles, if you are insured, are based upon the amount that your insurer pays, so that if they have agreed to pay only 20% of the listed charge, $200 for the TV set instead of $1000, you still may pay more than if you bought it for $80 cash. And certainly more than if the insurer were paying 20% of the old list price, say $500. You pay. You always pay. (See, for example, how insulin manufacturers and insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers, each following their own profit incentives, have made insulin – a life saving treatment for millions of people with diabetes – often unaffordable: Danielle Ofri, “The Insulin Wars”.)

And, of course, there is the nasty little glitch that it is the most vulnerable and most needy, those who are uninsured as well as sick, and often poor, that get charged the full list price, the $1000 for the TV, or the ostensible “uninsured discount”:

When Wanda Wickizer had a brain hemorrhage in 2013, a Virginia hospital billed her $286,000 after a 20 percent “uninsured” discount on a hospital bill of $357,000 — the list price, according to chargemaster charges. Medicare would have paid less than $100,000 for her treatment.

Wait. Medicare? Medicare would have paid a quarter of their list price and a third of what this uninsured person got billed with the “discount”? Yes. And that is a place to start. Hospitals – or the third-party app developers that will let you see these prices on your phone – should be required to list the Medicare-approved payment right next to what they will charge you, or your insurer. That would measurably increase the “light of day”.

Of course, some doctors and hospitals do not want to accept Medicare for this reason – they can charge more money to insurance companies, who pass it on to you in premiums (in addition to your co-pays and deductibles) while claiming to be saving you money. There is a solution to this also, although Rosenthal does not mention it. It is to have everyone in the same insurance program, a single payer, an improved and expanded Medicare for All. This would set the rates and pay them, without co-pays or deductibles for necessary services. Everyone in the same plan would mean that the better educated, wealthier, and generally more empowered would ensure that it worked for them – and thus would work for everyone else, middle-class, poor, and even homeless.

Yes, hospitals and other service providers (physicians, nursing homes, etc.) and drug companies and insurance companies would make less profit. I’m sure that your heart goes out to them (maybe the next requirement could be the posting of the salaries of the C-suite executives at hospitals…). But, after all, what the health care system should be run for, and is run for in every other developed country, is the health of the people, not the profit of corporations.

Amazing, huh? And it could be that way here!

Gangster capitalism and our health: In the US and in the World

There has been a lot written about capitalism. Karl Marx, for example, wrote a multi-volume study of it just about 150 years ago, and since then a lot of the writing has been about what he wrote, supportive and critical. There is no question that it has remained the dominant economic system in the world; it is the linchpin not only of Western “democracies” and totalitarian fascist states but also ostensibly Marxist governments like China. While capitalism has both its defenders and detractors, it is interesting to me that the defenders spend little time defending the amazingly deleterious effects that it has on the quality of life (and even existence of life!) of people, the environment, war, and (to the point of this blog) health.

The problem is that, in pursuit of profit, industries will do and have done almost anything, with no moral compass or conscience, and, worse, with no concern for future generations or the planet. Some of the most obvious and egregious examples in the US at this time include their (largely successful) lobbying of the current administration to roll back on rules to ensure clean air and water and the overall environment so that they (in this case, extraction industries like oil and mining) can further increase their unconscionable profits without worrying about the damage it does. So we have mining and extraction in and near our national parks (“near” is important; air and water do not respect boundaries!), scaling back of national monuments so extraction can take place, poisoning of the water through leaks in oil pipelines (such as Keystone), and poisoning of the air we breathe when fossil fuels are burned. Oh yeah, and the increase in global warming which has already permanently altered the climate and will eventually wipe out life on earth (starting with the lowest lying areas) if nuclear war doesn’t first.

Our health and safety is also constantly at risk from aggressive efforts by corporations to increase their profits. This can take the form of producing unsafe products either because it saves money (e.g., dangerous child toys) or costs a lot to not do (e.g., not having lead in our water or asbestos in talcum powder), or by making important and beneficial (and hopefully safe) medications unavailable to many people because of incredible price increases (for the tip of the iceberg, see “Epi-Pen® and Predatory Pricing: You thought our health system was designed for people’s health?, September 3, 2016). We of course know about the ongoing – and largely successful efforts – of the tobacco industry to increase their profits by promoting a product that kills 400,000 people a year in just the US (mainly from cancer and heart disease), including through promoting it to children (e.g., the cartoon character “Joe Camel” – see Fischer et al, “Brand Logo Recognition by Children Aged 3 to 6 Years: Mickey Mouse and Old Joe the Camel”, JAMA 1991;266(22):3145-3148, December 11, 1991).

One of the most vicious and insidious efforts to compromise our health in the interest of profit has been carried on for more than a half-century by the sugar industry. For decades, under the table, sugar producers funded scientific research into the negative effects of a high-fat diet while ignoring the almost-certainly more detrimental effects of a high-carbohydrate, especially simple carbohydrate – sugar – based diet. Soda pop became the national beverage with incredible impact on the rate of obesity, in the US and internationally. A 12-oz can of Coca-Cola® has 140 calories, so what about that 40oz fountain drink at the convenience store? A 2-liter bottle has 812 calories. That’s a lot. So most health professionals, like doctors, tell people to not drink it, or not very much of it. This is, however, competing against the messaging of the industry, which pushes it a lot, and gets the cooperation of many nutritionists through the use of – wait for it – money! I have written about the corruption (or conflict of interest, to put it nicely) of health organizations like the American Academy of Dietetics and Nutrition (AADN) and the American Academy of Family Physicians being funded by Coca-Cola® and other sugar purveyors and having their ads on their websites (The AAFP, Coca-Cola, and Ethics: Serving the public interest?, August 20, 2010). The ads are no longer there, but you can read about the AADN at the fooducate blog, and if you search sugar on the current AADN website, you will find some pieces on limiting sugar, but as many on the potential risks of artificial sweeteners (which, whatever your beliefs,  the FDA rules as safe) and fats.

Of course, as with the case of tobacco, efforts to limit the sugar market in the US (such as Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s failed attempt to limit the size of sugary sodas in NYC), have led the industry to branch out and increase its efforts to profit in the rest of the world, particularly the developing world. While many countries can be targeted, the biggest markets, China, India, and Mexico, have received special attention. The NY Times has an important exposé  on January 9, 2019, ‘Research details how junk food companies influence China’s nutrition policy”, citing work published in BMJ (“Making China safe for Coke: how Coca-Cola shaped obesity science and policy in China”) and the Journal of Public Health Policy (“Soda industry influence on obesity science and policy in China”) on the role of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI):

…a worldwide organization with a Washington headquarters, funded by many of the biggest names in snack foods, including Nestlé, McDonald’s, Pepsi Co. and Yum! Brands as well as Coca-Cola. It has 17 branches, most of them in emerging economies like Mexico, India, South Africa and Brazil, and promotes itself as a bridge between scientists, government officials and multinational food companies.

But in China ILSI is so well-placed that it runs its operations from inside the government’s Centre for Disease Control and Prevention in Beijing. In fact, when asked to comment on the studies, the ministry emailed a statement not from a government official but from ILSI’s China director.

Thus China’s health policy, which almost entirely focuses on exercise like “Happy 10 minutes” (good for you!) and ignores the dangers of high-calorie sugar-laden foods for obesity (and there is excellent evidence that diet is probably about 80% of the issue, with exercise critical for the other 20%).

There are those who will argue that it is not capitalism itself, but “unfettered capitalism” that is the problem. There is a lot of truth to that. The blind pursuit of maximal profit with no attention at all to the negative impacts on the world around them is not a necessary part of any profit making endeavor. Indeed, the “Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith cautions strongly against this sort of excess, and “the only responsibility of business is to make profit for its stockholders” guru Milton Friedman sort of assumed that they wouldn’t do it.

But they do, and “unfettered” – or corporate gangster capitalism – is what is running the world. And it is not good for our health.

Health Insurance on Demand: radical idea or just another scam?

 “It’s a radical idea.”

I like that. Oooh, what? Radical ideas are often good, even necessary. What is this one?

“On-demand insurance that lets customers buy some of their coverage only if and when they need it, similar to how TV viewers might rent a new release from Amazon instead of paying every month for a pricey cable package they rarely use.”

Huh? Could this be real? If it is such a good idea, why did no one think of this before? Maybe it could be the solution to the problem of the “individual mandate” that has folks so worked up. The argument for that mandate to buy health insurance, a key part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, also known as Obamacare), was that, to work, insurance requires a lot of people who are healthy have to pay in (via premiums) in order for those who have need to have their bills paid when they need it. This is the central principle of insurance underwriting. If not enough people who do not need to use the insurance buy coverage (in the case of health insurance, are healthy, at least that year), or if too many sick people buy it, rates have to be a lot higher. This is true for all types of insurance to work – car (most people have to not have accidents), homeowners (most people have to not have fires), life (most people have to not die in any given year). The practice of assessing risk, called underwriting, is very mathematically complex and there is an entire profession of actuaries who figure it down to the finest detail, but the general concept is simple: there needs to be enough money collected to pay the claims and pay the overhead costs of the insurance company – and, of course, in a for-profit system like the one we have -- make a healthy profit.

Health insurance on demand, buying insurance only once you get sick, is the subject of an Associated Press article that appeared in the NY Times on December 17, 2018. It sounds really exciting: ‘"It's the sort of thing we need entrepreneurs to be doing," said Robert Laszewski, a health care consultant and former insurance executive. "We haven't had a new idea in managed care in I don't know how long.”’ Yes! Finally a new idea! Based on the idea of picking the shows you want instead of subscribing to cable TV! Sort of the same thing. Except, really, not having TV doesn’t kill you.

Or maybe it’s not so new. After all, we have had something like this forever. It’s called “not buying insurance”. Then, when you get sick, you get billed for the whole thing. Of course, this is more than almost everyone but the richest people can afford, thus the key reason for health insurance. Back in the old days – before WW II – health insurance, or really illness insurance – was much less common. It was more like accident, or fire, or life insurance where you paid premiums in case something you really didn’t want to happen actually did happen. On the model of all insurance, you only “won” if you “lost” – if something bad happened to you. This “sickness insurance” came to be known as “major medical”; people paid for their doctor visits in cash (or chickens, or apple pies, or doing chores), but when they got really sick and needed surgery, needed to be hospitalized, then insurance kicked in.

Then, over the next couple of decades, several things happened that together made health insurance, not just “major medical”, a virtual necessity for everyone. More treatments became available for diseases that used to be untreatable; often these were very costly to treat, and required hospitalization and expensive drugs, imaging, and surgery. The causes of many diseases began to be elucidated; perhaps the most significant was the impact of smoking. The first paper identifying smoking as a cause of lung cancer appeared in 1950; in 1964 the Surgeon General’s report made this connection, and warning labels began appearing on cigarette packages in 1965, becoming Surgeon General’s warnings in 1970. High blood pressure (hypertension) only became identified as a disease, a risk factor for heart attack and stroke, in the late 1950s and 1960s. Remember that President Franklin Roosevelt died as a result of a stroke caused, we now understand, by his extremely high blood pressure – but in those days even the President didn’t get treated for hypertension, because it wasn’t recognized as a disease (and there weren’t any drugs for it).

People began to want not only the treatment for diseases that were formerly untreatable but also for early diagnosis of, and treatment of, conditions (like hypertension) that might be asymptomatic but might put them at risk for “the big one”. New diseases, and treatments for them, began to be discovered; indeed, a cynic (me) might say that yesterday’s ‘crock’ (medical slang for a person with imagined symptoms) became today’s sick person once their symptoms were associated with a disease – usually because someone found a diagnostic test for it or drug to treat it, and now could make money selling it.

On July 30, 1965, President Johnson signed the Medicare Act, providing health insurance to those over 65 and the blind and disabled; Medicaid, providing (limited) insurance to a (limited number of) poor people soon followed. Despite vigorous opposition to Medicare by the AMA before it was passed, doctors quickly warmed to this program, since a large portion of the sickest (because of being oldest) population now had health insurance, and they (and their hospitals) could get paid for providing care. Costs skyrocketed. In 1972, Congress declared end-stage renal (kidney) disease to be a Medicare-qualifying condition. Renal dialysis went from being an uncommon intervention (which required consensus of nephrologists, psychologists, ethicists, etc., to determine that an individual’s future prospects made them deserving of it) to available – and paid for – for everyone with kidney failure. It turned dialysis centers into money machines, and nephrologists (who ran and owned many of them) from esoteric specialists to among the highest-earning physicians. It now costs Medicare over $30 billion a year, and some are questioning its ubiquity.

Let me be clear: Access to medical care, particularly prevention, early diagnosis and treatment, as well as kidney dialysis, is a good thing. People should have it. This includes the people who resist the most valuable of medical interventions such as not smoking and getting vaccines. The problem with medical care is the incredible cost, because no one who is making money on it is cutting prices, and the cost of insurance to employers and individuals (including premiums, copays, deductibles) is out of the reach of many. So now we have suggestions like “insurance on demand”, kind of a retro-solution. If it is a solution.

So how does Bind Benefits, the company featured in the article, do it? I don’t know – maybe they can do enough volume of business that they can negotiate lower rates with health care providers, thus meaning the customer pays less. But, then, this is how the insurance market already works – insurance companies work out deals with providers to pay less than the ostensible price. Only the poorest, without insurance, actually get billed the full retail price. And then, unsurprisingly, they can’t pay it, even with repayment plans. Many of their bills get sent to collection agencies that pay cents on the dollar to the original creditor for the opportunity to ceaselessly harass those with the greatest need.

Maybe it is a gimmick to attract the relatively healthy younger crowd. But it will still leave out the most vulnerable, the sickest, oldest and poorest, and the people who need it the most. This has always been the American way, sadly.

Here’s an idea: How about we put EVERYONE in the US on Medicare, and then fund it adequately? It costs more (but not as much more as you might think since the oldest and sickest are already in it), but we STOP paying insurance premiums, copays, deductibles. We limit the profit for the biggest parasites – drug companies, insurance companies (which might administer aspects of Medicare as they do now), health systems, some physicians? We stop pretending health care is like a fire in your house, something you want to be protected against but hope doesn’t happen, and recognize that it is something everyone needs. Not partial measures, like lowering the age for Medicare to 55, or asking people to buy in, or such. Just everyone in the same system, funded by our tax dollars (and a lot less of them than we are spending now). THAT would be an idea.

Everybody in, nobody out!

A "little information" can be dangerous to your health

“A little information can be a dangerous thing.”

I don’t know who first said that; no one seems to. But it is used all the time, and as a physician I both see the impact of that little knowledge on people’s health and the difficulty of striking a balance between providing meaningful information in a form that people can use and oversimplifying to the point of danger. I have worked very hard on honing this skill, and think I do it reasonably well, but I am absolutely certain that I have failed abysmally time and time again. Hopefully, it has not hurt too many people, but who knows?

I have written before that one of my roles, as a friend and family member, is to try to interpret for them what their doctor meant by what s/he told them. Or, more correctly, what my friends and family members think s/he told them. Indeed, a key part of this is trying to figure out what the doctor (presuming they are reasonably competent) might have said that led my friend/relative to think that what they are telling me is what s/he said.

And, just as I make the assumption that these doctors are reasonably competent, I make the assumption that those friends and relatives are reasonably intelligent, or at least not particularly less so than the bulk of the population (side note: I honestly think that, on average they are far more intelligent). This is borne out by the fact that it is not just friends and relatives. From time to time, I overhear conversations between other people about their health. One of the most common places is the locker room at the gym; this is because I am there dressing for long enough to be able to overhear a conversation, and also because, as a retired person, I go in the middle of the day when all the other retired – and, therefore, older, and more likely to have health problems – people are there. Usually the conversation is bi-directional but almost always one of the people is acting as a health consultant to the other, advising based on their personal experience of having had, or having a friend or relative who had, the same thing. Or, and here is where a lot of the danger comes from, something that seems very similar.

[This is the time to review, either via YouTube or its transcription on one of my old blogs, "Eggs Benedict" and "Choosing Wisely": often the best thing to do is nothing, the Woody Allen bit “Eggs Benedict”.]

Things that seem similar may not be the same – or even similar. To a health professional, there is a huge difference between an orthopedist (a bone surgeon) and an orthodontist (a dental specialist who straightens crooked teeth), but to a regular person they sound a lot alike. And it is not only confusion of words; lots of conditions that are very different sound very similar (you know, a lot of diseases end in “-itis”, which just means “inflammation of”). And even conditions that are very similar – or even the same – manifest differently in different people depending upon a lot of personal characteristics (just to name a few: age, sex, weight, co-existing conditions [another term that doctors use all the time that people may not understand], and duration and exact character of symptoms and findings). Lots of stuff is treated differently in its early stages than in its later stages, and often many different treatments are available. Maybe the one the doctor chose for you isn’t the best, and maybe the one you see advertised on TV or the home remedy advised by your aunt will work better. Or maybe not. Maybe, even, there was some scientific rationale behind that choice of treatment.

Which, of course, leads inevitably to a short discussion of direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs, particularly on television. I see these a lot more than I used to, not because I sit around in retirement watching daytime TV but because of the same gym; while I’m on the elliptical I am often unable to choose shows (ones with plots) because someone else has already chosen the program on the group TV, and there are a lot of ads. Many of them for treatments for pretty uncommon diseases. Which is, by the way, a guarantee that they cost a fortune. After all, why advertise on TV, a very expensive proposition, unless you stand to make a lot of money either because a lot of people have the problem your drug treats (e.g., arthritis) or the drug you are selling (clue: anything whose generic name ends in “-ib”, made from recombinant DNA) is so expensive that even a small market will make you a fortune? There is absolutely nothing at all good (and I’ll say that again!) about direct to consumer advertising of drugs on TV (“ask your doctor about whether [incredibly expensive] ‘Blorkamib’ is right for you!”). Except, of course, for the drug company that makes it and advertises it. These ads create unrealistic hope and expectation, create doubt as to whether your doctor is up-to-date on the latest treatments (you know, s/he is busy seeing patients all day so may not see the ads on daytime TV!), and sets you up to expect miracles. (By the way, there are very few of these.) If you must watch such commericials, I suggest you only focus on the fine print possible – often common and very bad – side effects in the small print at the end.

The late, great Hawai’ian singer Israel Kamakawiwo’ole makes a valiant effort on the last cut of his album “IZ” to explain the cause and treatment of the congestive heart failure (along with, and in part caused by, his tremendous obesity) that eventually killed him at the age of 38. It’s a pretty good discussion of the role of oxygen, although it doesn’t quite get it right, but it may have helped some of those who heard it. He had great influence; his recording of “Somewhere over the rainbow” mixes up the lyrics from different verses, but I suspect that for many people, hIZ lyrics are now the ones they know (so if they seem disconnected to you, don’t blame original lyricist Yip Harburg!).

But it is not just singers who have trouble with it; being educated and smart doesn’t make one medically knowledgeable. I know this from treating lawyers, accountants, engineers, English professors, and even medical school faculty in the basic sciences (although the physiologists, unsurprisingly, understand heart failure better than IZ…). It makes it hard to try to convey accurate information, as completely as possible, without losing people’s ability to grok it and without using metaphors that, while intended to help, may unintentionally send folks off to the wrong conclusions. It is important to try, though, and to ask not if people understand (usually they’ll say yes) but what they understood, so you can correct any misinterpretations.

People will probably do what their mother tells them to anyway.

Kickbacks, corruption, and graft are not models for efficiency in health care

‘The Trump administration has labored zealously to cut federal regulations, but its latest move has still astonished some experts on health care: It has asked for recommendations to relax rules that prohibit kickbacks and other payments intended to influence care for people on Medicare or Medicaid.’

So begins the article ‘Trump Administration Invites Health Care Industry to Help Rewrite Ban on Kickbacks’ by Robert Pear in the NY Times, November 24, 2018. The next sentence provides the ostensible motivation for the rule change: ‘The goal is to open pathways for doctors and hospitals to work together to improve care and save money,’ but the sentence immediately after goes to the meat of the issue: ‘The challenge will be to accomplish that without also increasing the risk of fraud.’

The reason that there are anti-kickback laws in any industry is, of course, to prevent fraud. It is bad enough when we discover that a supposed impartial reviewer of a film or a book, or an item we may want to purchase like a car or a computer, is in fact being paid by one manufacturer to recommend their product. It is even worse if it turns out that the product that they are recommending is us, and that someone that we have trusted with our lives and our health, like a doctor, is being paid to send us to a particular lab or x-ray facility or hospital or specialist. Maybe the one we are being referred to is the best one, but it is hard to trust that if we discover that the doctor has a financial interest in that facility, or is receiving a kickback for those referrals. Most people are afraid of this and thus support anti-kickback laws; the exception is always those within the industry who stand to benefit. Surprise! And, it should be noted, it seems to be a core part of the business model of the Trump Organization.

But what about that middle sentence? The one that says that ‘the goal is to open pathways for doctors and hospitals to work together to improve care and save money’? Isn’t that a worthwhile goal? And both the American Medical Association (AMA) and American Hospital Association (AHA) are supporting the proposals. Am I saying that they are crooks or corrupt? Doesn’t it make sense that there can be not only savings but enhanced quality from the efficiencies that can come from such arrangements? How can we realize the efficiencies if doctors and hospitals are prevented from coordination of care?

The answer, as I see it, is “yes, but..”. There should not be unreasonable restrictions to care coordination, provided that they are upfront and obvious to the consumers (patients) such as in health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and the like which use limited panels of doctors, or public hospitals where care is often provided by employed physicians. The core issue, in health care, is to ensure that these arrangements are truly for the benefit of the health of patients, and not mainly to make more money for the providers. When your physician, Dr. Smith, refers you to a particular specialist (Dr. Jones) because they know them and think they are smart, competent and do good work even though another physician across town may have better results by some measures, it may be good or bad but it is honestly being done by Dr. Smith for your benefit. But if you discover that Dr. Jones is paying Dr. Smith for referrals, you might well be chary of the motivation.

There are several important things to remember in this discussion:

1.     Not everyone is, or is likely to become, a crook. There are many, maybe most, individual health care providers (like doctors) who actually care more about people’s heath than profit. There are even some institutional health care providers, hospitals and health systems, that may.

2.     There will always be people and institutions who “push the envelope”, and game the system. They will do everything that is legal, even if it violates the spirit and intent of the law, if it makes them more money. “Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile”.

3.     The looser the rules, the more these people and institutions will game it. There is no reason to suspect that money-grubbing cheaters will be satisfied if given a little more. Think about those (maybe me and you) who routinely feel ok about driving 5-10 MPH above the speed limit on a highway. If the speed limit is 65, we may drive 70 or 75. But if it is 75, we drive 80 or more. Raising the limit on what constitutes corruption will not obviate it.

4.     Carrots don’t work very well to change such behavior, although sticks might work a little better.

Don McCanne recently discussed a study from RAND called ‘Effects of Health Care Payment Models on Physician Practice in the United States’ which described the many different models being employed by various health systems and physician groups in the US, but alertly appened a reference to a NY Times article on October 27, 2018 by Alfie Kohn titled ‘Science Confirms It: People Are Not Pets: Research on the efficacy of rewards tells us that we can’t bribe others into doing what we want’. It reviews the psychological science that there is a difference ‘between intrinsic motivation (wanting to do something for its own sake) and extrinsic motivation (for example, doing something in order to snag a goody). The first is the best predictor of high-quality achievement, and it can actually be undermined by the second. Moreover, when you promise people a reward, they often perform more poorly as a result.’ Indeed, Kohn shows that sticks are not that effective either at changing behavior; I advocate them to some degree because at least they can put the biggest violators in jail!

The Pear article on kickbacks, trying to describe what its supporters see as the good side of loosening restrictions on them, says: ‘‘Federal law generally prevents insurers and health care providers from offering free or discounted goods and services to Medicare and Medicaid patients if the gifts are likely to influence a patient’s choice of a particular provider. Hospital executives say the law creates potential problems when they want to offer social services, free meals, transportation vouchers or housing assistance to patients in the community. Likewise, drug companies say they want to provide financial assistance to Medicare patients who cannot afford their share of the bill for expensive medicines.’ First of all, this is not “likewise”; drug companies who want new customers (and fend off efforts to regulate prices) are different from a hospital or provider offering free or discounted services; extra benefits to attract patients (as opposed to, say, free lunches to attact doctors) are quite different,  provided that these are really free, and the cost is not passed on to Medicare or Medicaid!

There is, in fact, a difference between ‘coordinated care’ and ‘graft’.

Pear also writes ‘‘The Justice Department in April accused Insys Therapeutics of paying kickbacks to induce doctors to prescribe its powerful opioid painkiller for their patients. The company said in August that it had reached an agreement in principle to settle the case by paying the government $150 million. The line between patient assistance and marketing tactics is sometimes vague.’

Vague? This is not vague at all. Creating efficiencies to improve care to patients, and reduce costs, especially to patients, is fine. Kickbacks and graft are not.

Can corporate power continue to keep Americans sick? Maybe the election will help

Do you think that insurance companies should be allowed to deny insurance to people with pre-existing conditions? If not, you are in agreement with most Americans, 81% of whom feel this way according to a survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund, the Harvard School of Public Health, and the NY Times for the report Being Seriously Ill in American Today (the link is to the Commonwealth Fund site discussing the study, and you can download the PDF there). That is a lot of people, and is why most politicians give at least lip service to the idea. Of course, despite the fact that you may have heard Republicans who are currently in Congress saying that they support it as they ran for re-election, the fact is that virtually all of them voted against it when they voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA, Obamacare) and, when that was unsuccessful, to strip it of its major impacts. This protection was one of the most important of ACA’s rules, and is highly valued even by most Americans who profess to hate Obamacare, Obama, love Donald Trump and vote for the Republican Party. And this is, in no small way, a reason for the Democratic takeover of the House.

Sadly for the GOP supporters who want their pre-existing conditions covered, their love is not being reciprocated by their elected officials. As discussed by the President of the Commonwealth Fund, David Blumenthal, in an article in The Hill, 20 Republican-led states, led by Texas, are filing suit against the federal government arguing that they should not have to enforce the ACA’s ban on refusing insurance to people with pre-existing conditions. What is more is that the federal government, under the GOP and the Trump administration’s Department of Justice, is refusing to defend the suit; this means that they are not arguing in favor of the law of the land, but more that they are not defending the right of the American people to have this guarantee. Tough luck, 81% of Americans!

Of course, this would not necessarily mean that people with pre-existing conditions (about 52 million Americans, depending upon a fairly strict definition*) would not be able to get insurance, although it is likely that many (such as those with terminal cancer) would not. It does mean that they could be charged much higher premiums for their insurance, though. This would go back to what is called “individual rating” where the individual’s health risk determines the amount of their premium, as opposed to the “community rating” required under ACA. And, of course, as discussed in another Commonwealth Fund brief this would also impact the premiums of those actuarially deemed to be a greater risk: mainly older people (including those Trump and GOP voters), but also for many conditions, women – the majority of the population! Even the insurance companies are not sure what to do as they set their rates for 2019.

It is clear that President Trump is doing all he can to distract people from the result of the November 6 elections – he is a master of distraction – such as by firing Attorney General Sessions the next morning. But the Democratic House of Representatives will not be confining itself to investigations of him and his campaign, but also moving forward with legislation to accomplish what are seen as “progressive” goals, or goals I would reframe as “actually in the interests of the people of the US, as opposed to the billionaires and large corporations. Health care is the foremost of these. It will start with ensuring that the important provisions of the ACA are kept in place, in particular the protection for those with pre-existing conditions. The House can do this because it is current law, and it can block any Senate effort to change it.

Moreover, the House is likely to work on advancing the goal of “Medicare for All” in the coming session. This is the opinion of Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT), the most well-known advocate for single payer, makes this point clearly in an excellent interview with Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi. This will not pass the GOP-controlled Senate, and may not even pass the House, but the effort will definitely be made and it will have strong support, a big change from the Clinton plan of the 1990s and even ACA when single payer was “not on the table”. Establishment Democrats, beholden to their own very wealthy donors (especially Wall St.) may not be happy to go against corporate America, but they will if they have to and they will have to because their voters want it. As Sanders says, “…it’s wildly popular. And that’s what Democrats have got to do.”

On one side, we have the interests of the vast majority of the American people. There are those without health insurance coverage, including those who would be eligible for Medicaid under ACA if they lived in states that had expanded Medicaid, but have the misfortune of living in Republican-controlled states that did not. This will get better soon, as three states, Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah, just voted to expand Medicaid, and Maine will likely do so now that its soon-to-be-former governor won’t be around to veto it. It is a popular program, even in these “red” states. But those who will still be uncovered in the 14 states that remain is a lot of people. Then there are the people who have insurance, but terrible insurance, with absurdly low annual and lifetime caps, that should not be legal. But they are. Then we have the people who have more “standard” employer based insurance, who are being killed by the premiums, deductibles, co-payments, and co-insurance costs. Then we have those who are on Medicare who are unable to afford a Medicare Supplement policy to cover the things Medicare doesn’t – especially the 20% of the cost, since Medicare covers only 80%. Maybe not so big on a $100 office visit (although $20 is a lot for many people) but a big deal for a $5000 hospitalization.

So how many people is that altogether? I don’t have the numbers, but it is certainly the large majority of the American people. In fact, 90% is probably a conservative guess, which would mean 10% of Americans have insurance with affordable premiums, copays, deductibles, or are so rich it doesn’t matter. Of course, this small group includes not only most legislators, but corporate executives, pundits, and even many liberal leaders. Remember: the median US household income is about $61K, and a household (not individual) income of $150,000 is the top 8% and of $200,000 the top 3.65%!

Who is on the other side? Well, drug companies, consistently the #1 profit industry in the US. Insurance companies, making huge amounts of money skimming from the “health care expense” pool. Large health systems, doing very well, thank you. In other words, incredibly wealthy vested interests and their lobbyists that contribute a lot to politicians. This is not a fair match-up either way, most of the people vs. most of the money.

But maybe the “most of the people” finally have a chance. Wouldn’t that be a refreshing change?