1.

Hey Kids!! Musings of a Distractible Mind is part of a healthy breakfast, is loaded with anti-oxidants, and it supports a healthy immune system.


Since You Asked…

by Rob on April 15, 2009 · View Comments

in American Medicine,Best Of,The Healthcare Problem

Vote This Post DownVote This Post Up (+5 rating, 5 votes)
Loading ... Loading ...

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan who cited my post on the uninsured, I’ve gotten a lot of new comments on that subject.  While my post was just a gripe about the problem, the comments were mainly focused on solutions.  How do you fix the problem?  I even got an e-mail specifically asking me what I would do to deal with the problem of the uninsured.

You have to realize that I’m basically chicken (as are most doctors).  I like to point the finger and avoid the fingers of others.  It’s much easier to gripe than to fix things.  It’s much easier to criticize than it is to say things that can be criticized.  But I will break from the safe position of critic and give some thoughts on what I think needs doing on the problem of the uninsured/underinsured.  Those who doubt the reality of this problem have only to spend a few days in primary care physician’s office to realize that it a huge problem that is getting worse.

So here are my suggestions:

1.  The government has to take on tasks that are in the best interest of the public.

Preventive healthcare should be paid for.  This could be done via public health clinics, but having having some sort of preventive health insurance for the uninsured would not have much overall cost (compared to the whole of healthcare) and would potentially save money.

There certainly is debate as to what prevention is really worth it (the PSA test debate is a good example), but some prevention is clearly beneficial (immunizations, Pap Smears).  Simply building a relationship between people and primary care physicians also has benefits by itself.

The overall goal is to improve the overall health of the American public.  Promote behavior that deals with problems when they are still small or before they happen at all.  Just visiting a PCP isn’t the solution by itself, but it is probably a necessary component to achieve a healthier public.

2.  Promote proper utilization

One of the main costs to any system, public or private, is overutilization of services.  Any solution that does not somehow look at utilization will automatically fail.  More care costs more.

Here are areas of increased utilization:

  • Emergency room visits for non-emergencies.
  • Visits to specialty physicians for primary care problems.
  • Unnecessary tests ordered – more likely in a setting where the patient is not known.
  • Patient perception that “more care is better.”
  • Nonexistent communication – ER doesn’t know what PCP is doing, PCP doesn’t know what happened at specialist or in the hospital.  This causes duplication of tests.

Solutions to these problems include:

  • Better access to primary care or other less costly care centers
  • Increase the ratio of primary care to specialists
  • Care management for high utilizing patients
  • Public education (not through the press but through better public health).
  • Promoting connections between information systems – better IT adoption would help, but that IT must communicate.
  • Make the malpractice environment less frightening to doctors.  A large amount of questionable care is given to protect physicians from lawsuits.  (A good example is PSA Testing.  Even though recent studies question the benefit, many doctors fear that not ordering them will expose them to risk should the patient develop prostate cancer).

How does this help the problem of the uninsured?  It reduces the overall cost of non-catastrophic care, which makes either public or private insurance focused on this more feesable.

3.  Fix problems with Pharma

Medication costs are a huge problem to my uninsured and insured populations.  There are many reasons for this, but some of them are simply due to a bad system.  For example:

  • Medication discount programs cannot include Medicare patients.  Why should I be able to give a discount card to my patients with private insurance, even my uninsured, but not Medicare patients?
  • High cost of generic drugs.  When a drug goes generic, there is usually only a slight drip in the price.  The system allows only limited competition for price, so the cash price remains high.  Encourage cost competition.
  • Drug Rebates.  This raises the overall cost of drugs to everyone.  Rebates are sent to insurance companies by drug companies for inclusion on the formulary.  It pretty much looks like extortion.  The cost of these rebates is not absorbed by Pharma, it is passed on to those who aren’t covered by insurance companies getting the rebate.  These need to be eliminated.
  • Get rid of direct to consumer marketing of drugs.  This is pure capitalism that encourages over-utilization.

All of these programs would allow reduced overall cost of medications, which would make either drug coverage more possible or make the cash price of drugs more affordable.

4.  Address Conflicts of Interest

Insurance companies are largely publicly-traded companies.  This means that their main business goal is to maximize profits by either cutting their costs or increasing revenue.  Having them the ones managing care is like putting the kid in charge of the cookie jar.  Insurance companies should get back to the business of insuring.  Care management is certainly important to control overutilization, but that should not be done by those who could profit from it (insurance companies, hospitals, physicians).

Insurance companies promote themselves as healthcare companies.  They don’t provide care, and they shouldn’t.  Perhaps there needs to be a third-party that does care management – I am not certain – but it is clear that good care management would greatly reduce overall utilization and profiteering.

How does this help the uninsured?  It reduces the footprint of the insurance industry on healthcare as a whole, which should bring down the cost if insurance.  It should let insurance companies compete solely on cost, not on provider pannels or other services they shouldn’t be giving in the first place.  If insurance costs less, there are less uninsured.

5.  Focus on the “uninsurable”

5% of Americans account for over 50% of the overall cost of care (reference).  These are the uninsurable people – those who are truley expensive to treat.  There needs to be very close management of these people.  Leaving them uninsured doesn’t reduce cost, it just shifts it to hospitals and local government.  It also leaves them unmanaged.  Of the waste in healthcare, the likelihood is that a very large percent of it is in the high-utilizers (by definition).  These people need management, either in a “medical home” or by some sort of care management.

There you have it.  Follow these rules and everything will be fine.

Yeah, right.  Alright everyone, have at it!  Tell me what you think, but don’t be a chicken: criticism should be accompanied by an alternative solution.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!Share This Post

Post to Twitter

Subscribe to Musings of a Distractible Mind by Email
  • "Unnecessary tests ordered - more likely in a setting where the patient is not known"

    Is there anything that patients can do about this without making the doctor mad? Should patients be asking "which lab tests are you ordering?" and, if it's not one we recognize, "why?" I'd rather trust my doctor to do the right thing than have him think I'm second-guessing everything he does. But I just learned that my RD ordered a test for HLA-B27Ag. No wonder my lab work was $200 more than normal! This is a test for something that typically affects (1)men, (2) onset ages 20s-30s, (3) main symptom: lower back pain. I do not fit ANY of these criteria. I don't have any idea why this test was run and honestly feel that the guy was just running up my bill. How can the patient help control these costs?
  • Rob
    Burnsey: The "Medical Home" is NOT a home for sick people. I'd freak out at that idea too. At the present time, healthcare is paid for based on episodic care. The more you are seen, the more the doctor or hospital gets paid. Any coordination of care effort is not only unreimbursed, it actually decreases the pay of those who do it. While many of us bite the bullet and do the right thing, it seems odd that a system would promote uncoordinated care and increased utilization of services by paying more for that. The "Medical Home" is a concept where a physician - presumably a primary care physician - would be somehow be compensated to oversee care and do whatever possible to prevent unnecessary illness, services, and hospitalizations. It stops penalizing doctors who try to do the right thing and instead gives them reward for doing what's right for the patient and for the system as a whole.

    One of the reason people haven't jumped on this faster than they have is that they see it as an issue of greed on the part of the doctors. The problem is that the docs in the best position to help the patients in this way are the ones least able to afford a decrease in income: the primary care docs. PCP's get 1/2-1/8 of the pay of specialists, and many of them are simply leaving because of the way the system is going.

    So for you, you could have someone who has incentive to make sure you get the preventive services, blood tests, and medications you need to stay away from the ER and minimize hospital stays. As it is now, the system pays more if we do a bad job with you. The medical home tries to right that wrong.
  • Burnsey
    "These people need management, either in a “medical home” or by some sort of care management."

    I don't see any comments about this particular line, but it scares the bejeezus out of me. I happen to have AIDS and have been HIV positive for 20 + years, so I fall into that “uninsurable” category. Could you tell me exactly what a "Medical home" would entail? Because quite frankly it doesn't sound too far removed from the camps. Are you advocating putting people like me away like they did Typhoid Mary? Where and how, exactly, would you "place" people in one of these homes? Quite frankly I enjoy living with my husband, even if he and I have a tougher time getting insured (or even if we cost the rest of the population a little extra money), I hardly think being put in a "medical Home" sounds reasonable. I think suggestions like this particular one are quite scary.

    Not to mention when you place someone in a "medical home" don't you then take over the cost of housing, food, and other costs? Or would we just use those detention camps the Bush Administration had built for FEMA and Homeland Security? Would I have my freedom to move about the country, or would I be checked in without the ability to check out? Medical Home sounds a lot like detention facility or better a medical prison.
  • Rob
    piper: Unfortunately, catholic hospitals, along with other non-profit hospitals, are subject to the other insanity in the system and have to play harsh or not at all. That money to hospitals (which two of our hospitals are spending as well), won't go toward good things, it goes to increase profit-centers like cardiac procedure units. It's not profitable to do good.

    Beowulf: No, 5% is not the % of the "uninsurable," I just used it to demonstrate the lopsidedness of spending. I would bump that number to 10% or even 15% of people who have chronic illness. Many (most) of them are of Medicare age, so "uninsurable" is a misnomer. The bottom line is that we need to control the cost in a small segment through better management of these high cost patients. Any problems with the system (such as over-utilization and poor communication) are amplified in them, and so savings would also be more dramatic.

    T Joey: I actually initially wasn't against the DTC marketing, as they had some good in educating the public. The problem is that it gives the public a slanted view of things - slanted toward views that would recommend buying lots of products from Pharma.

    RLS is real and treating it can be dramatic, but education of physicians would be far more fruitful than the public. The problem with that, of course, is that they are limited in educating physicians as well. They may not be well-liked, but the have to be able to advertise somehow.
  • T Joey
    After writing about my "theory" on Restless Leg Syndrome I actually looked it up to check my hypothesis. I guess it is real and serious - sorry if I've belittled anyone's condition. However, I seek to use this example to demonstrate the foolishness of those ads.

    They led me to ridicule a condition because they don't represent the condition accurately and couldn't in a 30 second ad. I was left to imagine who could have such a condition and my brain equated restless with a child's energy level being unspent - ie the leg being restless because the person was lazy and leaving the energy (too many calories) unspent.
  • T Joey
    I think one of the best items you've identified is the ban on direct marketing of drugs to consumers (patients are who see doctors, consumers see commercials). I think the the relationship between drug company and patient should have a very big barrier in front of it: the doctor.

    Listening to the ads I can only think that they are: a) suggestive - possibly inducing psychosomatic symptoms b) frightening - the side effects and the gravity of them can not be digested in a 30 second add, and c) a costly redundancy - how much are those ads costing the company and why not save on that budget entirely and let the doctor do what he is trained to do and will do anyway - he'll get your drug out to the marketplace if it is the appropriate remedy. If it isn't the appropriate remedy may it would worthwhile seeing if there is a better use of your R+D dollars. I'm sure the good doctor can correct me but I'm 99% convinced Restless Leg Syndrome is a your legs begging lazy people to go for a walk.

    I can only imagine the seed that gets planted into people's heads as they head to the doctors office with a legitimate symptom thinking they'll be treated with Brand XYZ's new drug only to be written a Rx for something different causing frustration on the part of the consumer questioning the care being "sold" to them as they forget they are a patient of a doctor who has been trained to prescribe prescriptions appropriately.

    Besides, I hate those ads on top of what I can only imagine the harm they are doing to the health care system.
  • beowulf888
    Yikes. Because I used less-than, greater than characters, I lost crucial sentence in my previous comment. Let me restate it without href symbols: "I suspect that the percentage of uninsurable rises from a small percentage in the under-25 age cohort, to 99-percent in over-50 age cohort."
  • beowulf888
    Only 5 percent are uninsurable? I suspect that the percentage of uninsurable rises from a small percentage in the age 50 age cohort. A couple I know just moved back to the States -- she had a good job waiting for her, and he quit his job overseas to move back with her. At the last minute, after she had moved, her job offer was withdrawn. She happens to be pregnant. She's uninsurable, because pregnancy is a "pre-existing" condition. As for myself, I've been a otherwise healthy Type I diabetic for 40 years now. I'm uninsurable because of my pre-exisiting condition. God help me if I lose my job and my group-health plan. Unless insurance companies are forced to insure everyone regardless of their health history, health care will remain broken.
  • piper
    Ellipse, The catholic hospital I'm sure is non-profit, which means that they have to pour any profits back into the hospital complex itself or buy new equipment, provide charity care, etc. The ideal scenario, IMHO.
  • ellipse
    In my midwestern smallish (100K) town the clinics - who are closely tied to specific insurance plans - have for several years been on a very expensive construction binge.

    The municipal hospital closed, but the two local private clinics and the medium sized catholic hospital have each embarked on several large construction projects in the past 2-3 years. The big dog has made a major hospital addition, built 2 large satellite clinics and four large specialty clinics in my town alone. The smaller player clinic has also built a second clinic & the catholic hospital has also added beds.

    This has to be adding to healthcare costs, a lot of new buildings all w/ new furniture & equipment .

    No one is even trying to control costs. NO ONE.
  • Rob
    CB: Yes, it sounds like expanding on these points may be worth it for other posts. Great comments all around. Gives me more to write about (hopefully with better grammar).
  • CB
    Great post. I'm pretty sharp on everything from the financial crisis to drug policy reform, a plethora of resource conflicts and the farm bill, but I haven't been masochistic enough to try to wrap my head around health care. This is the clearest, most concise and accessible 'proposal' I've seen for shaping up the system -- especially the 5%/50% uninsurable comment (although I'd like to know more about the privacy, quality and cost issues with that kinda of managed care)

    You should keep this as a mini working project and maybe toss it to some health care economists to give you some rough projected savings/cost figures and potential results/repercussions.
  • Brad
    I followed Andrew Sullivan's link to this blog. You have some good ideas, I guess my question on the "uninsurables" question is, what is the payment mechanism? It's obviously in the best interests of every healthcare provider, insurance company, etc. to do nothing and let "somebody else" deal with the problem. In states that do have risk pools, the problems tend to be that the price is unaffordable for many people, or enrollment is limited by the state's budgetary situation.

    There's also the issue for drugs that are on patent most other OEDC countries have either price controls or a single entity (the govt. healthcare system) as the only buyer, so the pharma company has limited pricing power in spite of their market exclusivity. Depending on whom you ask, either 1) americans are subsidizing pharma R&D for the entire world (not sustainable) or 2) the patent laws and regulatory barriers (is the FDA being overly cautious at great expense to the consumer?) give american consumers a very bad deal.

    The problem is made worse by there not being a generic or similar scheme for biologicals (for example, there's no such thing as generic insulin, so if your prescription benefit only covers generics, you're out of luck).
  • Matthew
    You make some great points. I think, in general, a social work type of preventive care and a managed care model would be great. Perhaps it's a combination of case workers, nurses and nurse practitioners who could help the low utilizers and the high utilizers with preventive care. I'm a high utilizer as I'm HIV positive. But now that my health is on track, I could be seeing a nurse practitioner instead of my regular doctor with that person conferencing with my doctor to be sure everything is okay. I'd actually enjoy this since I think an NP would be more accessible than my doctor. Also, the case manager could make sure the patients were coming in on a regular basis to just check up whether high or low utilizers.
  • Marty
    JScarry needs more fiber in his diet.
  • I enjoy it when I see typos in your blog. It makes you seem real and approachable. And it gives me hope for my child who has difficulties with spelling.
    My $.02
  • Rob
    I don't know what you are talking about. I see "cited" up there.

    Yeah, I edited it. I git that one wrong a lot. Remember, however, that the enemy of better is best. If you don't read something worth reading simply because of a grammatical error, then perhaps you miss out on some good ideas.

    Yes, I know I wrote "git" on purpose.

    Oh yes, and thanks for the correction. I hope you enjoy other cites.
  • JScarry
    It's CITED not sited.

    I found you through Google Reader's suggestions. But after reading the first line of the first post I stopped reading.

    I know it's just a blog, but you should use language correctly if you want people take you seriously.
  • Bo
    aaarghh.....you are so very right about all those things---but the problem seems so herculean. I have such poor faith that I simply cannot imagine all the right pieces falling into place at some point...
  • Lauren
    I enjoyed your suggestions and believe you have good suggestions on all fronts. I have been trying to write the Senate requesting consideration that health insurance be banned from being 'for profit" (your #4), but unfortunately, "their email box was filled". Yes, I'm sure, and therefore the senators who get insurance-lobbyist kickbacks don't get to hear my suggestion that healthcare should be non-profit.

    I hope that someone important receives your suggestions. What you have offered are not impossible solutions; they are simply unpalatable for those who want to get rich on "healthcare" (industry as a whole). I'm not talking about paying the doctors appropriate salaries; I'm talking about the same thing you discuss in #4. Real pharma is not that expensive; other countries have inexpensive quality meds which prices are increased here for high profit margins.

    Everything has boiled down to profit-making. Care has declined unless one pays extraordinary prices. Even 'an average middle class American' care bare minimum care or even bare minimum instructions how to take care of himself/herself. These instructions certainly aren't coming from quality media - this needs to come from an authoritative, trustworthy source.

    Congress needs your voice. Can you get through to them?
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: