Curing Medicare

Book Review.This might seem like a curious title for a blog post but it reflects a very serious national need. Medicare is the central method for financing medical care for those over 65. It brings major value but it has serious deficiencies. We are frequently reminded that the Medicare Trust Fund will shortly run low of money. Enter Dr Andy Lazris a gerontologist with over 25 years of experience caring for the elderly. In his book – Curing Medicare – he lays out the issues that truly need to be addressed if America’s seniors are to “Age Gracefully.”

Dr Lazris and I live in the same community but had never met nor knew of each other. A retirement community executive, knowing I was writing a book about primary care, urged me to meet him. Before our meeting the next week, I ran into an acupuncturist I have known for some time. He also spontaneously suggested I meet Dr Lazris and so did the CEO of a major nursing home chain. Each said Lazris was a terrific doctor, a humanist, a real “gem” and an all-around nice guy. With such a buildup it would have been easy to be disappointed. But I certainly was not.

Although he sees any adult patient, his practice is largely composed of elderly individuals living in retirement communities, assisted living or nursing facilities. He limits his practice to about 600 patients so each can get the time needed and deserved. He is at once humorous and wise, light hearted and dead serious. He clearly understands the needs of the elderly and likewise understands how Medicare works – including how it impedes care and encourages aggressive care when a more benign or palliative approach would be better medicine and certainly more humane. As he puts it, “sometimes less is more.”

Curing Medicare should be a must read by anyone who is over 65 and anyone who has loved ones that are growing older, in other words it is important for most of us to understand what he teaches us. Medicare has been a major medical and financial boon to most elderly individuals but it has some serious deficiencies and it behooves us to understand them. Dr Lazris writes from his personal experience and gives many patient vignettes to back up his observations. A major point is that it is often best to not diagnose and treat aggressively (or “thoroughly” as he puts it) but to use a more palliative approach. But Medicare in both its payment systems and its regulatory approach essentially dictates aggressive medicine, indicated or not. Whether in the home, an assisted living facility, a nursing home or the hospital, the pressures are for being “thorough”, often to the patients’ detriment if not outright harm. And such aggressive diagnosis and therapy are what make costs go sky-high. These and other problems are fully presented and discussed in a way that we can all understand and appreciate along with his commonsense recommendations for reforming Medicare.

Recently, Health and Human Services secretary Silvia Burwell announced that Medicare will shift from the current fee for service reimbursement methodology to one that rewards value, i.e., reduced costs yet improved quality. On the surface that appears like a responsible direction. But is it? In an Op-Ed in the Baltimore Sun, Dr Lazris lays out some critical issues that lead one to question the HHS rationale. He uses points and concepts discussed in detail in his book so a quick read at this link will be of interest to many potential book readers.

Overall, Dr Lazris presents us with an elegant approach to the care of the elderly, one that he personally uses as best he can despite the restrictions imposed by Medicare’s payment and regulatory dictums. He offers us commonsense suggestions on how Medicare could be vastly improved, offering patients much better quality of care yet at the same time offering Medicare (and our tax dollars) enormous savings. I recommend his book highly.

Next Time - Another book review - I Am Your Doctor by Jordan Grummet

Time - The Impediment to Being a Good Primary Care Doctor

Did you get more than a few minutes with your doctor at your last visit? Probably not. Why not? Not enough time.

The primary care physician (PCP) is the most broadly yet deeply focused care giver and as such is the backbone of the healthcare system. But to do this work effectively requires time – time which all too often is not adequately available. Lack of time is a real impediment to the best possible care.

What constitutes primary care and who are the primary care physicians? They are the first responders, the first line of care, and very frequently the patient’s confidant on all matters related to health and often more. The PCP is often the first physician contacted because of the long standing patient - doctor relationship but also because the PCP tends to be more readily available than a specialist who does not know you. The PCP needs to know a broad and deep range of medicine and at the same time needs to know when it is time to consult a specialist. And if you have a chronic illness, the PCP should also ideally coordinate all of the various specialists, tests, imaging and procedures that you might require. It is this coordination of the care over the long term that will mean better care at a lower cost.

The PCP deals with most problems/ illnesses with a broad yet deep expertise and knowledge and so is able to diagnose and treat most common and many not so common diseases and problems, including most chronic illnesses. He or she is well versed in the continuity of care for chronic complex illnesses, is in the best position to refer when indicated, and to coordinate care of chronic illnesses or referral for an acute issue. The PCP is or should be focused not just on disease but on the person with the disease, on wellness and disease prevention by means of immunizations, screening (recognizing risk- reward rationales)  and behavior modification – diet, stress, exercise, smoking, etc.

But there are serious issues in Primary Care.                                                                                

There are too few primary care physicians, too few medical school graduates choose primary care as a career and there are too few residency slots after medical school for primary care training.

Today the PCP needs to be “efficient.” This means that it is more efficient to just give an antibiotic for a sore throat than to reassure the patient (and perhaps the parent) that it is likely caused by a virus; that the antibiotic will do no good and could even have some undesirable side effects and that time is the best medicine. But it takes time to do reassurance. And if not done thoroughly, the patient likely will go away unhappy that he got “nothing.” So do the quick thing and give the antibiotic. And add in for good measure – “This should do it!” or “It is good you came in today to be treated.” It also means that the PCP needs to see as few Medicaid patients as possible since Medicaid pays so poorly. And although much can be done over the telephone or with email, preventing a trip to the office or even the ER, the efficient PCP wants to avoid both since there is no payment for either.

PCPs are frustrated. Some see the glass half full and many see it as half empty. Those that see it half empty are quickly selling their practices to the local hospital. Others are trying new payment methods. Either way, PCPs know they are not doing just the “simple stuff” as so often portrayed but the very complex. Many patients have multiple chronic conditions, are on many prescription drugs, have various functional incapacities as a result of aging, and often have problems rooted in family dynamics or their own cultural norms and traditions.  The good PCP understands that the essence of care is the bond that they develop over time with each patient. This is the bedrock of the profession. But the current “culture” of medicine expects high technology to be the answer, imposes financial frustrations and is always threatening malpractice litigation. This combination, but mostly payment issues, has led to a fragmentation of care and the overuse of specialists, specialty care without coordination and an over reliance on technology. The good PCP, despite all of the frustrations, still understands that that bond with the patient is key, the very heart of their medical practice, the basis of their own satisfaction in their career and (as stated in a book review  on primary care) “the essence of a well-functioning medical care delivery system.”

PCPs are departing private practice in droves. Traditionally a newly minted physician would borrow funds to start a private practice or would enter an already established practice in town. In 2000, it is estimated that about 60% of physicians were in a private practice. This had dropped to about 40% by 2012 and perhaps to 33% by 2013. It appears that the rate of decline in private practices is increasing with no apparent end in sight. In 2000, about 20% of PCPs were employed by hospitals; today that is up to about 40% and growing rapidly.

Why the rapid change? Some of it is a change in the desires of the new generation of physicians. They have a desire for more personal and family time and a professional life with fewer administrative obligations, no concerns about borrowing large sums to begin a practice, and a steady paycheck. But this change to employed status is also about the current convoluted billing requirements of practice, the administrative complexity of running a business plus being a physician, and the always changing regulatory requirements.

But there are definite tradeoffs. Most important is autonomy. Physicians over the years have valued their autonomy but when one works for a corporation, no matter how benevolent, it will have its own rules and regulations. Autonomy is lost. And although the administrative burdens are lessened the physician is still expected to cover his or her own salary and expenses which means still seeing many patients per day, 24-25 or more to meet productivity standards. So shifting to hospital employment does nothing to gain time – time to listen, to prevent, to coordinate chronic care and to just think.

Your primary care physician requires time – time which all too often is not available. This issue will be a major topic going forward in this continuing series on the Crisis in Primary Care of which this is the seventh installment.

The next post will consider who chooses to become a primary care physician.

 

Causes of the Crisis in Primary Care

The Crisis in Primary Care –Part 2

Primary care physicians (PCPs) have too little time per patient which means too many referrals to specialists, too little time listening and thinking, no time to delve into the stress or emotional causes of many symptoms and substantial frustration by PCP and patient alike.

In my last post in this continuing series on primary care, I described a patient with a straight forward if unusual symptom who was bounced from specialist to specialist at great expense, with no one offering a diagnosis, with no resolution of her symptoms and with no physician ever exploring the actual underlying causes of her symptom – stress related to a long ago family issue. Why did this happen? Because the PCP had only 15 minutes, not enough time to listen and to think and from there delve into her psyche.

Why so little time? The short answer is the insurance system, attempting to manage costs through price controls. Medicare has for years set a low reimbursement rate for regular office visits to the primary care physician. Commercial insurance always follows Medicare’s lead and has done likewise. Reimbursement rates have remained fairly steady for a decade or more (Medicare has very recently begun to raise rates a bit as a result of the Affordable Care Act) but office costs have risen each year. Overhead includes not just the nurse and receptionist but also the billing and coding people, accounting and legal needs, malpractice and disability insurance, health care insurance for the staff, supplies and rent and utilities for the office. With costs rising and income steady, the PCP tries to “make it up with volume.” This means seeing more patients per day, usually about 24-25, often even more. In order to see that many, the PCP has generally stopped seeing his or her patients in the hospital or ER and has shortened the time per visit – most visits being about 10-12 minutes of actual “face time” with the patient.

This is enough time for a strep throat, a quick blood pressure medication check or possibly to diagnose and treat Lyme disease. But it is not enough time to deal with a more subtle problem like the patient described in the last post experienced. It is not time to explore family issues, personal stress or anxiety that so often lead to or accompany symptoms and sickness. This lady had a straight forward issue that primary care physicians encounter frequently and those that are experienced know well what it implies. But it still requires time – time to carefully listen to the patient’s story, time to put it into the context of the patient’s life situation, time to do an examination and then some time to think about how to proceed. And once the management decision is made, it takes time to talk to the patient, reassure her and yet explain that she should call should are any further concerns arise – and to come back soon for a further follow-up and attention to the underlying issues.

The situation is compounded when the PCP has a patient with multiple chronic illnesses who is taking multiple prescription medications. Chronic illnesses like diabetes, heart failure, chronic lung disease, kidney failure or multiple sclerosis by their nature are difficult to manage, persist for the patient’s lifetime (some cancers excepted) and are inherently expensive to treat. These patients need very close attention and often need the benefit of a team approach to care. The diabetic patient for example may need an endocrine consult at some point, a podiatrist, an ophthalmologist, a nutritionist and an exercise physiologist, to say the least. But any team needs a quarterback and this is or should be the primary care physician. But here again, care coordination by the PCP requires time, the one thing the PCP most lacks in today’s reimbursement environment. The result is fragmented chronic illness care, disjointed care and care that is much more expensive than it needs to be. From a total healthcare system perspective, this is critical because chronic illnesses consume 75 – 85% of all claims paid by insurers.

But with little time to listen and think, the action step of many PCPs, as with the patient described last time, is to send the patient to a specialist. Indeed, according to an article in the Archives of Internal Medicine, about nine percent of all visits to PCPs result in a specialist referral, far far higher than truly necessary. This is up from about five per cent a decade earlier; 41 million referrals per year then compared to 105 million in 2010. Something needs to be done. The push for accountable care organizations, medical homes, population health and a switch from fee for service to a salaried or capitated system are noble but unless the PCP is given time and enough of it, these changes – no matter their apparent utility – will prove valueless.

Meanwhile, fewer and fewer medical school graduates choose to enter primary care. They are smart and see that PCPs are very busy and very frustrated. They know that given the PCP’s average income it will take many years to pay off their high educational debt load.

PCPs are looking for ways out of their dilemma. Many are retiring early. Others are closing their practices and beginning to work for the local hospital. But the hospital wants the physicians to earn their keep. That means high productivity. So it is still 24 – 25 patients per day, albeit without the administrative hassles of a private practice.

It is clear that the resolution will not come from commercial insurers, not from the government insurances (Medicare, Medicaid), nor will it come from the Affordable Care Act. It will likely be in the actions and decisions of the primary care physician himself or herself to change the paradigm to allow and encourage better quality of care with lessened frustrations for doctor and patient alike.

For starters, many PCPs need to look carefully at their practice patterns and determine if they can adjust their own workload by maximizing the talents of their team of nurses, nurse practitioners and others and with better use of technologies. This requires a change in thinking about how to organize the practice and who does what and when.

Beyond that, some PCPs have decided to no longer accept insurance. Instead they expect the patient to buy care directly. And since they no longer have the expense of coding, billing and collection (one estimate of this is $58 per patient visit!) they can charge a quite reasonable amount. This can take the form of a set fee for any visit, a sliding scale depending on the type of visit and its length, or of a set amount for all care for the year, a retainer-based (concierge) approach. In each of these models and others the patient replaces the insurer as the actual customer of the physician and as such has a more appropriate professional-client relationship. The patient also becomes a purchaser of services directly and thus begins to ask questions, to challenge and in general to bring down the costs of care while receiving a higher level of quality along with greater satisfaction and less frustration for both doctor and patient.

These are but a few of the approaches being taken by PCPs today in an effort to overcome the current non-sustainable business model so that they can not only give better quality of care but reduce their sense of frustration and increase their patients’ satisfaction.

In the posts to follow I will review what primary care is all about; the characteristics of a good primary care physician and a true healer; who does primary care and why and why not; the critical role of the PCP in managing chronic illnesses; the need to listen and think – both requiring time; the use of teams in the primary care doctor’s office; the importance of care coordination, wellness promotion and disease prevention; the current non-sustainable business model; what approaches are being taken to overcome the current business model; and finally how primary care can once again take its rightful place as the backbone of the American healthcare system offering superior quality, outstanding service and greatly reduced overall costs.

The next post in this series will address the critical shortage of primary care physicians.

The Meaning And Depth of the Primary Care Crisis

The Crisis in Primary Care – Part 1 of a Series

The primary care physician (PCP) should be the backbone of the American healthcare system. But primary care is in crisis – a very serious crisis. The first statement is my considered opinion and I will attempt to convince you of its truth. The second sentence is a simple fact.

Accounting for only 5% of all health care expenses, the PCP can largely control the “if and when” of the other 95% and hence can be the one to best affect quality of care and the totality of costs. This crisis limits the effectiveness of the primary care physician such that care quality is nowhere near what it could be or should be and the costs of care have skyrocketed.

This crisis is the most pressing and frankly most urgent issue in health care delivery today. Healthcare delivery must be restructured – now - so that everyone but especially older adults with multiple chronic illnesses can obtain quality, compassionate, cost effective care. And this means having a committed primary care doctor who has the time along with the knowledge and experience to deliver the care needed.

This is the first of a series on the crisis in primary care that will appear over the coming weeks and months.

To be effective, the PCP needs, of course, to be well educated, well trained and up to date. This is necessary but not sufficient. He or she can be more effective with an appropriate team approach that puts the patient in the center of the equation – the patient centered medical home concept. He or she also needs to be a deep listener and needs to think extensively. Listening and thinking require time and for those patients with one or more chronic illness, the PCP needs to quarterback all of the other providers involved with the patient’s care. This also takes time. Time is the element that has been lost in the past decade or more for the PCP. Without the time to listen, the full picture of a person and their illness does not emerge. Without time to think, the diagnostic process suffers immensely. Without time to listen, the PCP is no longer a healer but rather a well-paid care giver. Without time to think, the PCP is quick to send the patient off to a specialist. Without time, the opportunity for outstanding preventive care is diminished. And without time to coordinate all of the specialists and other providers that are required for someone with a serious chronic illness, the care becomes disjointed, quality suffers and expenses rise.

A patient story may help elicit the meaning and the depth of the problem.

Monica is 68, married, retired, on Medicare and in generally good health. She has a PCP who she sees intermittently. She began to have a strange sensation in her right chest described as a sort of shooting sensation, almost electrical or vibrational in nature that stretches from high up in her right mid chest down as a narrow line over her rib cage and just onto the abdomen. It seems to be immediately under the skin. It starts intermittently and ends at no set time. There is nothing she has found to make it start nor stop. She visited her PCP and offered this description, adding that she was concerned that maybe it was her heart. The doctor asked additional questions and did an exam and an electrocardiogram. All were normal save the description of the sensation.

The PCP was now about out of time for that 15 minute visit. Here was a fork in the road, two paths to choose between. Given that Monica was concerned about her heart, the PCP chose the path to send her to a cardiologist for further evaluation. The cardiologist found nothing abnormal but nevertheless suggested a stress test and an echocardiogram. Both were normal. The cardiologist suggested since the sensation crossed over to the upper abdomen, maybe it would be a good idea to see a gastroenterologist. The GI doctor found nothing. Nevertheless he ordered a CT scan of the abdomen. All was normal except that in her uterus there was a small cystic structure. The radiologist read it as a probably benign cyst but – feeling the need to be cautious –recommended Monica visit a gynecologist. The gynecologist also said it looked benign but just to be on the safe side, she could remove it. Monica would be out of the hospital the same day and feeling fine in a day or so! The cyst was just that, a benign cyst. Monica still had the strange sensation in her chest and no one had found an answer for her.  But given that it seemed to run in a line with an electrical sort of feeling the gynecologist suggested that maybe it was a nerve issue. So she visited a neurologist who of course found nothing, commenting that nerves run around the chest, not up and down.

Monica illustrates the problem so common today in primary care. The PCP did not truly listen to the patient. And he did not stop and think the issue out carefully. He had no time because there was a waiting room full of patients and he needed to see about 24 to 25 each day. So instead, he took the easier path and referred the patient to a cardiologist since this seemed at least logical given that the strange sensation was in the chest and the patient was personally concerned about heart disease. Had he followed the other side of the fork in the road and had listened long enough and then thought about it he would instead have concluded that the patient was hypersensitive to minor – albeit real – sensations. He would have offered reassurance that it did not represent a life concerning ailment. He would have said that it was real but of no concern. He might have offered a few weeks of a low dose anti-anxiety medication, offered further reassurance and told her to return in two weeks for a follow-up. At the follow-up he would have explored the issues producing anxiety or stress in her life – financial, marital, a disruptive child, an overbearing in-law. Had he done so he would have soon discovered that Monica was deeply concerned and feeing guilt about a family issue. What Monica really needed was assistance to overcome her sense of guilt and shame – not months of specialist hopping. Anxiety and stress are often components associated with a physical symptom and these can only be addressed with more time to carefully listen and then time to respond with suggestions.

But this was not the way it was to be for Monica. She was shipped from doctor to doctor, test to test, even an operation yet with no one really listening enough to figure out her problem. All each specialist could do was say it wasn’t in their “organ system” and left her with a sense of floundering and without a sense of closure from any physician. Each one said it wasn’t in their sphere – not the heart, not the stomach, not the nerves, etc. And the “surgery went fine.” But she still had the unpleasant sensation. So it resulted in far less than adequate medical care and obviously cost a king’s ransom. Neither was necessary. But that is what all too often happens today. And, I assure you, Monica’s saga is not uncommon.

Monica’s experience is all too common and results largely from the PCP’s lack of time – time to listen and time to think. The result is less than adequate care, certainly not humane care, not healing care and very high costs.

In the next post, I will address the causes of this crisis in primary care.
 

Cheap Drugs From Canada– Good Idea?

The price of drugs comes from a perverse system and what you as a patient pay is equally perverse. Let’s consider a few examples.

Older people often develop actinic keratosis on their scalp as a result of years of ultraviolet rays from the sun. They can progress to skin cancer so it is good to treat them. A dermatologist can remove them with liquid nitrogen or the individual can apply a prescription drug that kills the cells in the AKs. The drug most commonly used for decades is an anticancer drug – 5-flurouracil or 5-FU. Applied topically it can be very effective. 5-FU was developed before I went to medical school which is now 50 years ago. It is obviously off patent and not difficult to manufacture. But the branded topical called Efudex costs about $300 retail. Wow! There is a generic but it is also expensive, albeit at half the price of about $150. It is a large tube and will last a long time but it is a lot of money none the less. It is not a high volume drug and there are only two manufacturers so the competition is minimal enough to keep the price high. And even with the generic, there is a large middleman profit between what the manufacturer sells it for and what the pharmacy ultimately charges you (or your insurer.)

Staying with dermatoligic issues, rosacea can be cosmetically bothersome with redness, papules, acne-like pustules on the face and coarsening of the nose (rhinophyma.) Its cause is unknown and there is no really good treatment. One approach has been to use an antibiotic called doxycycline taken orally in the usual “antibiotic” dose of 100mg. It seems to have an anti-inflammatory effect rather than an antibiotic effect in the skin and often can clear the face. It is a very inexpensive capsule at about 30 cents each. But it can also have an adverse effect on the bacteria in the gut and possibly lead to overgrowth of yeasts. A new approach is a 40mg capsule branded as Oracea which is both regular doxycycline and a sustained release form so that the blood level stays low and relatively constant over the day; perhaps it will have less likelihood of adverse problems. It has been tested and found to be reasonably effective for rosacea and hence approved for market by the FDA. But it is on patent and costs about $10 per dose or $300 per month– a drug that the patient will probably have to take forever to keep their face clear. That adds up – fast. Instead one might consider using the standard 100mg doxycycline but only for a few days whenever a flare-up begins. Low cost and limited side effects, if any.

Steroid creams are commonly used for rashes. I was once given a prescription for betamethasone for a small rash. Why betamethasone rather than over the counter hydrocortisone? “It is stronger and will work faster,” said my doctor. But, since I had a high deductible insurance policy, I had to pay the entire bill which proved to be a remarkable $67. An over the counter tube of hydrocortisone at the same pharmacy, enough to last a whole family for years and years, costs only $1.98. Sometimes it pays to accept a slower cure.

Let’s say you need an acid suppressor for reflux esophagitis [acid reflux or GERD.] There are multiple drugs called proton pump inhibitors on the market, some off patent and now over the counter and others still on patent and only available by prescription. They are all effective. The differences among them are minimal. Your doctor could tell you to go to the grocery store and pickup Prilosec for about $30 for a month’s supply. Or, he or she could give you a prescription for Nexium. It would cost about $150 for a two week supply. But your insurance will pay for it except for your co-pay of, say, $15. So your doctor will probably suggest Nexium since it will cost you less. But the overall system is paying out a huge amount more than necessary. What a perverse system. 

If you are the one paying for the drug because you have a high deductible plan or no plan at all then you start to ask questions. Sometimes you can find a generic equivalent like the fluorouracil example but sometimes the generic is still expensive. That is you might start to look elsewhere. 

What about buying drugs from Canada? Same drug but at a better price. I checked PharmacyChecker.com and found the topical fluorouracil branded Efudex for $75 including $10 for shipping. That is a lot better than the generic price here of about $150 and way better than Efudex at about $300. For the doxycycline, using the same web checker, I found a 50mg dosage (albeit not sustained release) that costs about $17 per month. Oracea 40 mg capsules can be found in Canada for about $2.00 each if you buy more than 50 at a time. Both are quite a difference from $3600 for a year’s supply. Nexium can be found for about $1.00 a pill, way less than in the United States but it is just as easy to go to the local grocery store and buy Prilosec for much less still. As for betamethasone, it is $25 with a $10 shipping fee. A lot less but over the counter hydrocortisone is still only $1.98! 

But buyer beware. We have a very carefully monitored market in the United States through the FDA. We benefit greatly from its regulations and its careful scrutiny of each new drug before it can be marketed. IN the United States, the drug can be traced from the manufacturer to the distributor to the pharmacy to you so you can be certain it is the real thing. And companies that manufacture overseas must follow the same stringent requirements as in the USA in order to sell here. The FDA's concern is not to protect the drug companies profit from competition but to protect us (you and me) from the unscrupulous. The concern is that the drug bought from Canada (or elsewhere) may not actually be the drug it is said to be. Witness the highly expensive drug Avastin used to treat certain cancers. A counterfeit was somehow entered onto distribution in the USA from somewhere else- except that it was not Avastin. It was not a drug at all. A lot of unsuspecting doctors and patients were duped. So it behooves us to carefully balance the pros and the cons.  

Why does it cost less in Canada or other countries for the same drug? Because the other countries tell the drug company that it can only sell the drug at a set upper price limit. If that limit is still within the pharmaceutical manufacturer’s marginal cost per unit of drug, then they will agree and sell at that level. In America, we are effectively paying for the entire R&D cost of bringing a new medication to market along with the company’s marketing cost and still giving it a huge profit potential. Rather than import the drug from Canada, we should just expect the company to sell here for the same price as there. But they do not have to and so they do not. Right now, Americans effectively pay for the R&D costs of new drugs while others get a discount because their governments insist. So should ours. It would bring the price down and negate the need to look to Canada or elsewhere.

How to do that without imposing price controls or getting the government into further regulatory policies. I wrote in the Future of Health Care Delivery that the federal government should simply say that it (through it drug purchases via Medicare, Medicaid, the military and Veterans Administration) will only buy medications from drug companies that sell it for the same price here as overseas. The drug company still can sets whatever price it wants but since the government buys at least half of the drugs sold in the USA, it should have an impact and quickly.

 

Have You Had Your Colonoscopy Yet? –A Ludicrous Colonoscopy Rule and the ACA

“An ounce of prevention” we all know is good medicine. An example is colonoscopy. It was time for mine so after some lengthy procrastination I called and set up an appointment which I soon found a perfectly good reason to postpone for a few weeks. A common occurrence. The government wants me (and you) to not procrastinate, at least not because of the cost. The Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) makes an effort to get more people to get preventive care screening by requiring that there be no deductibles or co-pays for defined screening and prevention services. Sounds good. But,  in this Part 8 of my Medicare series, there may be a catch, as I soon learned.

The concept and purpose of colonoscopy is to find a polyp and remove it before it turns into cancer. Colon cancers arise from polyps. Polyps are common but only a minority of polyps progress to cancer. But if removed they obviously cannot become colon cancer. Colon cancer is the third most common cancer in men and women in the USA with about 150,000 new cases per year, behind only lung, breast and prostate cancers. And it causes about 50,000 deaths per year. Prevention obviously makes sense.

On my appointed day I arrived at 8:25am having had clear liquids for 24 hours and the effects of a very strong purgative. I was pleased that part was now over. The receptionist seemed like she already had a long day but was nevertheless efficient. By 8:35 I was in a cubicle getting into my procedure gown. Thelma – a wonderful nurse and nurse administrator who had come out of retirement for the intellectual stimulation of working with people – reviewed my pre-completed history and kept up a patter while another nurse deftly inserted an IV. The senior anesthesiologist came by and then the gastroenterologist, Dr Kester Crosse. I was whisked off to the procedure room, slipped off to sleep and awoke back in the cubicle. Dr Crosse came by to say that the procedure went smoothly, that he found a polyp which looked benign and that he had removed it. The pathology report would be back in few days. Another cheery nurse chatted with me and my wife for about fifteen minutes; her medical purpose was to be sure I did not aspirate before fully regaining alertness. When she was satisfied that I was really awake and alert she let me get up and get dressed. We walked out at 9:32am. Most everyone at Digestive Diseases Associates had been friendly, all had been competent and all had done their job effectively. Very efficient and satisfying to me.

The Medicare and Medigap statement came in a few weeks. Dr Crosse had billed $964. Medicare reduced this to $327.61 as per its formula. In other words, Medicare says a colonoscopy is worth about $328 and it paid its portion of that amount or $262. The doctor is not allowed to “balance bill” me for the rest of what he had originally charged. In order to participate with Medicare he, by contract, has to accept the price Medicare determines. Since Medicare generally pays about 75% of covered services, the bill next went to my Medigap provider (Carefirst Blue Cross/BlueShield in my case.) They did not pay the remainder stating correctly that I have a high deductible policy. So the doctor’s office sent me a bill for the $65.57. I paid it. But what about the new Medicare rule in the ACA/Obamacare that there are to be no co-pays or deductibles for such preventive services?

A check of the www.healthfinder.gov  web site stated that colonoscopy was covered by the ACA and that   “If your doctor finds polyps inside your colon during testing, these growths can be removed before they become cancer.”

I decided to call the doctor’s billing office to check. After the clerk talked to her supervisor she called back to say that I was correct that there was to be no deductible if it was a simple “screening” colonoscopy. But since the doctor had found and removed a polyp it became a therapeutic procedure. Medicare and Medigap (and apparently commercial insurers as well for those under 65) do not recognize this as a preventive screening procedure under the ACA guidelines. Hence I was on the hook for the remaining $65.52. By chance I was at a breakfast shortly after with a senior person at Blue Cross who confirmed that, yes, this was the rule. I also received a facility charge (nurses, procedure room, equipment, cleaning, etc.) of $695; Medicare reduced that to $391. This left a Medigap portion of $78.15 but again it was my responsibility to pay. Finally were the anesthesiologist s’ bills totaling $975. Medicare reduced that to $150, paid $65 leaving me with a bill of $66. So altogether it cost me just under $250 to have the colonoscopy and the peace of mind that all is in order. Not a bad value.

Admittedly $250 was not a huge amount of money but it strikes me as strange, to say the least, for Medicare rules to say that, since Dr Crosse removed a polyp while doing the colonoscopy, then it was no longer a preventive/screening procedure.

As an aside, I happen to be a big believer in high deductibles. I think that Medicare should be totally changed so that everyone (except the financially challenged) should be required to have a high deductible. That would engage patients into more dialogue with their physicians and lead to better quality at lower cost. I have posted and written an op-ed in the Washington Times about this concept.

But that is not what Congress set into law in the ACA, i.e., Medicare recipients would not pay deductibles for specified preventive screening, including colonoscopy. The whole point and purpose of the colonoscopy is to look for polyps and to remove them if found. It makes little common sense to claim that polyp removal changes the procedure from screening to therapy and therefore not eligible for the no deductible rule. Admittedly, my argument can be challenged. For example, a screening test for cholesterol would have no deductible but the drug treatment for high cholesterol would of course be another matter. Similarly, if a mammography detects probable breast cancer, the subsequent treatment would not be covered with no deductible. But in the colonoscopy example, the procedure is underway, the doctor finds a polyp and, as part of the process, removes it. Maybe there should be a separate bill just for the polyp removal part and a deductible for that portion. The facility charge would be the same except for sending the specimen off to pathology and I doubt the anesthesia was any longer or more complicated as a result of the polyp removal.  So most of the deductibles would be eliminated as per Congressional intent.

I wonder what our elected representatives really intended – or maybe they never really thought about the details.

 

A “Grand Bargain” To Improve Quality and Decrease Medicare Costs

There are just a few key reasons why Medicare has become inordinately expensive. There is no end in sight for cost escalation. But there are some obvious solutions and they all begin with chronic illnesses.

Chronic illness – diabetes, heart failure, cancer, chronic lung disease, etc. – are increasing at exponential rates; are caused largely by lifestyle behaviors; and consume 70-85% of all claims paid. Medicare enrollees tend to have chronic illnesses; 85% have at least one and 50% have three or more and many are taking 5-7 prescription medications. Any attempt to control costs must begin with chronic illnesses. 

Is there a good solution to the Medicare cost rise issue? Are there approaches that could be instituted now that would have an immediate impact on improving quality of care and thereby reduce costs? There are and could be the basis of a “grand bargain.” Here are five workable suggestions. 

1) The first recommendation is to recognize that one is never too old to benefit from sound preventive measures. Most chronic illnesses are related to excess calorie consumption, lack of exercise, chronic stress and tobacco. And aging leads to impaired mobility, vision, hearing, dentition and cognition. So Medicare should strengthen the wellness, health and preventive programs with specific funding to PCPs to engage in detailed, in depth preventive care. The new annual preventative care session built into the Affordable Care Act (ACA/Obamacare) is a good start in this direction but it must be augmented since a single yearly session is not sufficient to deal with the serious lifestyle issues leading to and exacerbating these chronic illnesses. This will improve health now and substantially bring down costs in the longer term.

2) The second recommendation is to recognize that older individuals with multiple chronic illnesses on multiple prescription medications who may have visual, hearing, mobility and cognitive impairments cannot be effectively diagnosed and treated in short time periods. There must be time – to listen, think, prevent and treat. This means adequate reimbursement per visit to spend the time required. And it means Medicare must pay the PCP sufficiently and specifically to provide chronic illness care coordination. This must be done in a way that is a quid pro quo – higher reimbursements but only in return for the care the patient needs and deserves. This will markedly improve quality, substantially reduce costs and do so immediately. It means the PCP must substantially reduce his or her case load from today’s 2000 plus to no more than 1000 (and preferably substantially less) so as to have the time required for each patient. (Many believe that it best to convert from a fee for service to a fixed reimbursement system, capitation system or a salaried approach. That is probably a good idea but only if the system grants the PCP the critical needed time per patient, i.e., assignment of a limited number of patients or a large enough payment per year per patient so as to keep the total number of patients under care low enough to give the time needed.)

3) The third recommendation is that Medicare should reconsider its approach to hospital care alternatives. For example, today a patient becomes eligible for nursing home care only if he has been hospitalized for three or more days. Costs could be dramatically reduced if a patient could be sent directly to a well-qualified nursing home by his PCP who certifies in writing as to appropriateness. Similar consideration should be given to home antibiotic administration and other home care alternatives which mean better quality and lesser costs. 

4) The fourth recommendation, somewhat of an alternative of the second, begins with the realization that primary care is generally not expensive. Indeed when Medicare originated, it was the patient’s responsibility to pay for primary care and should be again. Medicare should institute high deductibles with the opportunity for a health savings account (HSA) to pay for primary care with tax advantaged dollars. Patients begin to ask questions and challenge recommendations when they are paying for primary care directly. They can request more time per visit and pay for it through their HSA. Both have the result that the care quality goes up and the overall cost to Medicare goes way down because the patient gets the time needed by the PCP to give good care, avoid excess testing and avoid the reflex to refer to the specialist unless really appropriate. The patient-doctor relationship is corrected to being a direct contractual relationship leading to better care at much lower cost. Most studies suggest that the deductible needs to be high enough to be meaningful, often about $1000 or more. This could be reduced for those of lesser means. Given the importance of preventive care, that might be excluded and continued to be paid for by Medicare. High deductibles will be politically difficult. But high deductibles are available thought the private plans for Medigap and for the Part D prescription drug policies so the precedent is there. This would lead to a much more responsible use of the entire system with better care and much reduced costs.  

Meanwhile, many PCPs are switching to a direct pay system where they no longer accept Medicare and either expect to be paid per visit by the patient or be paid a flat annual amount (retainer). Medicare is losing these physicians now who are providing better care but at a cost to the patient. Better that Medicare reexamines its policies and adapts now. 

5) The fifth recommendation relates to end of life care. Americans believe in individualism and the right to whatever care is available, damn the expenses. And physicians are trained to treat death as an obstacle to be surmounted rather than to be accepted as ultimately inevitable. This plays out eventually towards the end of life where “one last” drug, procedure, etc. is proposed or requested or both. Generally this occurs because the physician has not engaged in a constructive, honest and empathetic conversation with the patient well ahead of time and ongoing. This is fundamentally irresponsible use of the medical care system by both patient and doctor. Much better is reasoned, empathetic discussion between patient (and family) and the doctor followed by humane, compassionate active support and emotional care – in other words, death with dignity. End of life discussions are not only logical but humane. And it must be stressed that this recommendation has nothing to do with so called “death panels” or some nefarious means of rationing care. 

Each of these recommendations incorporates a balancing of rights and responsibilities. The first offers the enrollee added wellness and preventive services but it must come with the responsibility to use them effectively. The second grants the PCP added revenue per patient but only for the commitment to take the needed time with patients and of offering extensive preventive services and chronic illness care coordination. This of course means limiting the total number of patients under care per PCP. The third grants a new approach to paying for alternative care but only provided that it is certified as appropriate. The fourth places the responsibility for first dollar coverage on the patient/enrollee but with it must come a right to a better doctor-patient contractual relationship – one that the patient can void if the response is not adequate for the dollars expended. And the fifth recommendation places a responsibility on patient and doctor alike to have in depth and rational discussions regarding end of life options and needs while expecting Medicare to pay not only for the discussion time but also for the option selected. 

These five recommendations could have a major impact on Medicare expenditures, beginning immediately. The real benefit of course is that these recommendations will improve health care quality while leading to more satisfaction by patient and doctor alike. It would be a valuable “Grand Bargain.”

 

 

Medicare and the Continuing Loss of Primary Care Physicians

Primary care physicians (PCPs) have been marginalized by Medicare for decades with low reimbursement rates for routine office visits which has led to the 15-20 minute office visit with 10-12 minutes of actual “face time” and a panel of patients that well exceeds 2000.  

Is there a good solution to the Medicare cost and quality issues? Setting aside either the Democrats’ approach to basically enact price controls by ratcheting down reimbursements or the Republican’s plan to re-structure Medicare to a defined contribution plan, albeit not for ten years, are there approaches that could be instituted now that would have an immediate impact on improving quality of care and thereby reducing costs? There are, but in this Part 6 of my Medicare series, we first need to understand one of the major issues facing Medicare today – the crisis in primary care.  

A 10-12 minute interaction means no time for the PCP to truly listen, no time to prevent, no time to coordinate and no time to just think. This has in turn meant that whenever a patient has a slightly more complex issue, one that is not easily recognized in a short time frame, then the PCP is quick to refer to a specialist. It is this very act that dramatically drives up expenditures with added tests, imaging and procedures along with the specialist’s fees. Medicare has been exceptionally short sighted in this regard and as a result is the prime culprit in the rapidly rising costs of care.  

Further, this lack of time being reimbursed means that two critical quality care needs area left largely unattended. The first is offering extensive preventive care and the second is coordinating the care of the patient with chronic illness. Recall that 85% of Medicare enrollees have at least one chronic illness and 50% have three or more. These are mostly the result of years of adverse behavior patterns but it is never too late to begin preventive care so time spent here is valuable for better health quality and ultimately reduced costs. And those with a chronic illness need to have their team of caregivers coordinated – every team needs a quarterback and the PCP is the obvious choice. But Medicare does not reimburse for this critical function which when done correctly means less reliance on specialists, tests, procedures and prescriptions. The result of this low reimbursement for routine visits and lack of reimbursement for either extensive preventive care or chronic care coordination over the years is a PCP shortage, many current PCPs no longer accepting Medicare, and the remaining PCPs trying to see 24 to 25 patients or more per day, each for 15 minutes despite the patient’s complex problem list. And this means less than stellar patient care in many instances. 

The result is a real problem facing Medicare right now - the rapid loss of primary care physicians (PCPs) who will no longer accept Medicare. In 2009 there were 3700 physicians that opted out of Medicare; the number rose to 9500 in 2012 according to CMS in a Wall Street Journal article; this on top of the shortage of PCPs across the country, with no end in sight. The ACA does include an extra 10% increase to primary care providers but this will probably be too little, too late. And if the mandated 27% across the board physician cut in reimbursement is ever implemented by Congress (it probably never will be but Congress refuses to clarify itself) then it is reasonable to expect that there will be a mass exodus from accepting Medicare reimbursements by all physicians, not just PCPs. 

What is the fix? As long as fee for service predominates in the payment system, Medicare needs to increase its reimbursement of PCPs in a manner that ensures that they will offer the patient more time per visit. Time to listen, to prevent, to coordinate and to think. And in a capitated system, Medicare (or its agent) needs to pay enough per patient per month/year to insure that each PCP does not have more than a maximum of 1000 patients (even fewer if the practice is largely geriatric) so that there can be adequate time per patient encounter. 

The next post will highlight some specific recommendations for Medicare to enact that would improve quality and reduce costs.

 

 

Republicans’ Medicare Fix – Defined Benefit Becomes Defined Contribution

The Republicans’ proposals for Medicare are quite different than the Democrats’ in that they begin with fundamental structural changes that will convert Medicare from a defined benefit to a defined contribution plan. The Democrat’s plan, see my last post, approaches the fix mainly with price controls.  

Politicians realize that Medicare will not be able to continue on its current track. Something has to change since the country will simply not be able to afford the inexorable growth and expenditures. But politicians do not like to take away entitlements so proposals generally are couched in vague terms and often with positions that are unrealistic.  

Congressman Paul Ryan, chair of the House Budget Committee and the Republication Vice-Presidential nominee in 2012, presented a proposal about two years ago embedded in the House budget proposal. It was passed in 2011 in the House with all no votes from Democrats and died in the Senate. But then, after negotiations with Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat, they offered a joint bipartisan plan, one that few other Democrats have endorsed. The essence is to allow individuals to stay with original Medicare or select a plan from a private insurer that offers the same benefits as Medicare. It has no effect until 2023, i.e. only affecting those less than age 55 today. At that time, the age of Medicare eligibility would gradually rise over ten years from age 65 to age 67. Second, each beneficiary could choose to remain with traditional Medicare or chose a plan from a private insurer. The government would pay a set amount (“premium support”) towards either original Medicare or the private plan; the individual would have to pay any overage. The amount of premium support, according to the proposal, would be equal to the second lowest plan among the competing insurers, including Medicare, during the first year. Individuals of limited means would be able to purchase at discounted rates. The annual rate of rise of premium support would be limited to the rate of rise of the GDP plus 0.5%. This means that if expenses and hence premiums rose at a greater clip, the individual would have to shoulder the excess. In short, the Republican (or the  Wyden-Ryan) plan counts on competition in the marketplace to drive down costs. In practice, this is very similar to the way the Part D drug benefit works today. Thus Republicans point to the success of Part D to bolster their claim. The Democrats fault this plan in that if costs are not controlled, the onus falls on the enrollee, the one most vulnerable, especially in older ages, and not the insurer nor the government. 

Since the Republicans also state that they would repeal or largely repeal the ACA, then the added benefits to Medicare enrollees found in the ACA such as the annual health and wellness review and the preventive care/screening at no cost would presumably be repealed along with the IPAB and the enhanced reimbursement to PCPs. Presumably although silent on the issue, the Republican plan would also be to cut physician reimbursement by the formula driven 27% (or whatever amount is calculated in the future) of the SGR although, again, it is is very unlikely that either Republicans or Democrats will ever allow this to  happen. 

The end result of the Republican’s plan (or Ryan-Wyden bipartisan plan) would be to cut the rate of growth of Medicare to about 3.5%, the same as the Democrats’ plan but using a much different methodology. 

Two approaches, two very different methodologies, each attempting to achieve some slowing of the rate of rise of Medicare cost escalation. Both have pros and cons. Some thought that after the 2012 election, the parties would come together and develop a widely bipartisan plan endorsed by many on each side of the aisle but that has not happened nor has there even been reasoned attempts at bipartisan compromise – too bad because it is surely needed. Our elected representatives should come together to find a path forward rather than bicker and look for “points” to score against each other. That is not governing nor is it what they were elected to do.  

The next post will describe how Medicare could improve primary care quality and reduce costs beginning immediately.

 

 

Democrats Fix For Medicare –Price Controls

The two party’s approaches are quite different. The Democrats’ plans are contained generally in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and for the most part are based on rate or price controls. This is Part 4 of my series on Medicare.  Politicians realize that Medicare will not be able to continue on its current track. Something has to change since the country will simply not be able to afford the inexorable growth and expenditures. But politicians do not like to take away entitlements so proposals generally are couched in vague terms and often with positions that are unrealistic. 

The most commented upon action today from the ACA/Obamacare is that the payments to Medicare providers will be reduced over ten years by $716 billion. These include reductions in hospital reimbursements and reductions in payments for Part C plans (Medicare Advantage.) 

These cuts were instituted to free up dollars for other aspects of the ACA. Some would call this “robbing Peter to pay Paul.” But others would argue that it is simple prioritization of the funds available; kudos to those who accepted the responsibility for making the difficult decision. Basically these are “price control” mechanisms but price controls rarely work; Medicare has used them for decades with obvious inadequate results. And as demonstrated over the years, providers will make up the difference with more visits, procedures, hospitalizations, etc. The proponents note that the plan only reduces payments to the providers; it does not cut benefits. How reducing provider payments will not ultimately result in less for the beneficiaries is a legitimate question. 

Physician payments were scheduled to be cut by about 27 percent December 31, 2012. This was based on a formula established in 1997 called the Sustainable Growth Rate. It goes into effect unless Congress explicitly exempts it. Over the years, Congress has repeatedly given such an exemption but only for a short time, allowing themselves to claim that eventually they would enact the cuts and use them to offset budgets. And true to form, Congress (Republicans and Democrats alike) – after the election –created another short term exemption. Hardly a satisfactory way to govern.   

The ACA recognizes that there is a shortage of primary care physicians (PCP) and that PCPs are under reimbursed. To this end, PCP reimbursements will be increased by about 10% over a few years’ time. Just how this increase corresponds with the 27% reduction or whatever number in the future is unclear. 

The ACA also creates some new benefits for enrollees. Chief among them relates to prevention and wellness. Each enrollee is allowed an annual extensive preventive medicine evaluation with no deductibles and no co-pays. Medicare also pays the full cost of screening such as mammography and colonoscopy, cholesterol tests, etc. along with appropriate vaccinations. An interesting sidelight – if a colonoscopy detects a polyp which is removed during the procedure, that converts it to a therapeutic procedure with deductibles and co-pays.  

The ACA created the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) whose job it will be to recommend steps to save dollars within Medicare without reducing benefits or without expecting beneficiaries to pay more - a tall order. They will be nominated by the President, ratified by the Senate, have prolonged terms and their recommendations become effective unless Congress votes them down en bloc, i.e., no cherry picking. Republicans have criticized this plan as allotting too much power in a small group of individuals not accountable to anyone. Democrats counter that the structure allows them to be honest brokers unaffected by competing constituencies.  

Recently, there has been controversy within Democratic circles. Howard Dean, a physician, former presidential primary candidate and Democratic Party chair, recently wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that the IPAB should be repealed because it will not control costs, will become essentially a rationing organization and will lead to much added bureaucracy in medical care delivery. He added that rate setting has never worked in the past forty years. Within two days, Peter Orszag, former director of the Office of Management and Budget for President Obama retorted to the contrary on Bloomberg View. Clearly it is controversial.  

Altogether, the Democrat’s plan is projected to reduce annual Medicare cost escalation from the currently expected about 4% to about 3.5% per year over the coming decade. This may not seem like much but compounded each year it really adds up. 

In my next post, the Republicans’ plan – quite different from that of the Democrats.