Solving the Crisis in Healthcare Requires Solving the Crisis in Primary Care

There is a crisis in the provision of primary care in the United States. If you are a patient, a primary care doctor, an insurer, an employer or a policy maker, this crisis is exceptionally important to you. The crisis means that Americans do not get the level or quality of healthcare that they deserve and need. This crisis is the major reason that healthcare in total is so expensive and why costs keep rising. This crisis needs to be fixed and fixed as quickly as possible. Fortunately, a solution exists that is within reach. It will be a disruptive and transformative change so it will not come easily to a profession that is “conservative” by nature. My new book Fixing The Primary Care Crisis, addresses all of these issues in easy to read language.

Contrary to what many assume, PCPs are much more than providers of “simple” stuff. They are more correctly specialists that deal with the very complex. Comprehensive primary care includes wellness and health maintenance, prevention and risk management strategies, attending to the episodic events that occur in life, and especially the care of those with complex chronic illnesses including coordination of care when a specialist is needed. It also includes developing a strong relationship between doctor and patient, building trust along the way and offering true healing. This means that the PCP can competently handle the vast majority of our health needs. To appreciate this is to begin to understand why the current system just does not and cannot work and why it needs to change.

The fundamental problem is that primary care doctors (PCPs) care for too many patients with too many short visits per day, and as a result do not have the time they need to provide high level care. They need time to listen, time to think, time to give quality preventive care and time to offer care of complex chronic illnesses and to coordinate care for those actually do need a specialist referral. They also need to be able to build a trusting relationship with the patient and to offer true healing, something that also takes time. In other words, they need time to practice their profession, something they currently are unable to do fully or effectively.

This crisis has led to a culture of highly frustrated doctors who feel they are on a never ending treadmill, and are leaving private practice or retiring early. It means that patients are equally frustrated at the long waits, short visits, high costs and no sense of being listened to, of not receiving empathy, of not being actually cared for. The crisis means that there are currently not enough primary care doctors, and it will only get worse because students in medical school see the impact of this crisis and choose not to enter primary care as a result.  It’s a downward spiral that needs to be reversed.

The crisis began a few decades ago when insurers, beginning with Medicare, held reimbursement rates low (cost control through price fixing). At the same time, doctors’ office costs were rising. In order to meet basic overhead expenses while maintaining their incomes, PCPs began to see more and more patients per day. The average PCP’s income in 1970 was slightly more than today (in inflated dollars) but the PCP was seeing only one half the number of patients as today. Now, with about 25 or more patients per day, a visit is often only 15 to 20 minutes: actual “face time” with the doctor is just 8-12 minutes. If you’ve been a patient recently, I’m sure you’ve experienced this. While this amount of time is long enough for a simple problem, it is much too short for someone with a complex issue, or someone with multiple chronic diseases and taking multiple prescriptions. And it is not nearly long enough for an elderly person with impaired vision, hearing or cognition. There is no time for compassion, to build trust or to be a healer. Since there is too little time, the tendency is to send a patient off for tests or to a specialist when a bit more time with their history would provide the answer. There is not enough time to discuss lifestyle changes, meaning it is easier to just write a prescription and hope for the best. It is these steps that are the major cause of higher and higher medical care costs in the United States: unnecessary referrals, unnecessary tests, unnecessary X-rays and unnecessary prescriptions. And with it has come the loss of the close and trusting doctor-patient relationship and the lack of true healing.

When PCPs do have time, they can develop a trusting relationship and then give superb preventive care. This type of care will reduce serious chronic illnesses in the future, the diseases that today account for 75-85% of all medical costs. When they do have time, PCPs can treat the vast majority of issues brought to them by their patients without the need for specialist referrals or excessive testing. When PCPs do have time, they can coordinate the care of those patients that truly do need to be referred, ensuring high levels of quality at a reasonable cost. When PCPs do have the time, they can appreciate the underlying stress and anxieties that propel so many illnesses and trips to the doctor. When PCPs do have time, they can give truly proactive preventive care – population health - by reaching out now rather than waiting for the patient to arrive with a problem.

To address this crisis, both patients and PCPs will need to take charge and change the paradigm of primary care. Government will not do it. Insurers will be slow at best to do it although there are some examples to the contrary that we’ll explore in this book. A few enlightened employers are beginning step up as we shall also explore. But if there is to be real change—change that works—it will take PCPs and patients to force the issue. Patients need to demand the time they deserve. PCPs need to be able to give them the necessary time. This means fewer patients per PCP. Patients will need to migrate toward doctors that have 800 or less patients (compared to today’s standard of 2500 or more) and can therefore give them more time as needed.  The actual number per doctor should depend on the demographics of the doctor’s patient panel (the doctor’s patient load)—for example, a panel of mostly older individuals with chronic illnesses means fewer patients. Fewer patients means more time for each patient and much better access to the PCP. We’ll take a look at what some innovative physicians, insurers, and employers are doing—separately—to transform primary care and bring it back to being “relationship medicine” with a heavy emphasis on health and wellness and the care of complex chronic illnesses in addition to typical episodic primary care: true comprehensive primary care. One of many innovations is to not accept insurance and charge a reasonable amount per visit according to a posted price list. Another is using some form of “direct primary care” (DPC).  DPC comes in many variations and is known as membership, retainer or concierge medicine, but in essence it means charging a flat rate by the month or year for all primary care services, reducing the number of patients under care to about 500 and offering same or next day appointments for as long as necessary and access to the PCP via his or her cell phone twenty four hours per day and via email. It means comprehensive primary care not just episodic care: attention to health and wellness, reduction of risk factors, preventive actions, intense management of chronic illness and coordination of specialist care when needed and a return to relationship medicine with trust and healing. The latter is essential if we want to move from a reactive to proactive approach to healthcare. That means much improved care quality and satisfaction, and lessened frustrations for patients and doctors alike. Often it means generic medications at wholesale prices and laboratory and radiology at deeply discounted rates. Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, DPC is not just for the elite, the rich or the 1%. In fact, it can be quite reasonable – “blue collar” –  and, when DPC is combined with a high deductible health insurance policy (which is much less expensive than typical policies,) the savings for patients are substantial and the total costs of all care decline quite dramatically.

Among other options is capitation, as in some Medicare Advantage plans, but where the payment to the PCP is sufficient per patient that he or she can afford to have a reasonable total number of patients. Another is for insurers to create incentives for reducing patient numbers. Yet another is for employers to create their own primary care clinics with a low employee to physician ratio or to offer a payment into a health savings account (HSA) to purchase the membership in a direct primary care practice. One additional example is to place extensive primary care resources for the management of the “sickest of the sick,” often the socioeconomically disadvantaged with insurance via Medicaid – a team of PCP, nurse practitioner, nutritionist, mental health therapist, etc. We will explore each of these and other options.      

In all of the examples cited in the last two paragraphs where the PCP to patient ratio is reduced to a manageable level, the care quality goes up and the total costs of care come down very substantially. Throughout Fixing The Primary Care Crisis, we’ll look at the details of how that can be.

Fixing The Primary Care Crisis explains the crisis and its origins. It details what outstanding primary care can be for patients and society as a whole. It explains how and why illness has changed from the acute infectious diseases of the past (e.g., typhoid, pneumonia) to complex chronic illnesses (e.g., heart failure, diabetes with complications, kidney and lung disease) of today and why chronic illnesses now constitute 75-85% of all healthcare costs. It reviews how healthcare insurance went from covering unexpected expensive medical care (“major medical” and the catastrophic) to now include primary care; how employers have adjusted their assistance by expecting employees to pay a larger and larger portion of premium plus co-pays and deductibles. It then delves into some of the approaches referenced above that are being taken to return primary care to true relationship-based medicine.

Finally the book ends with a chapter that gives explicit recommendations to patients, doctors, insurers, employers and academic medical center leaders to effectively transform primary care to achieve the outcome of the very best care in a cost effective manner that improves quality yet reduces the total costs of care.

Together, this crisis can be solved with much better care, much improved satisfaction, much less frustration by patient and doctor alike, much less total money spent and with many more students selecting to become primary care physicians thus resolving the PCP shortage. It will be a win for everyone. But the change will only occur if and when patients become educated and then advocate for the new paradigm.  Fixing The Primary Care Crisis provides the information needed to make that transformation happen.

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.

 

The Coming Disruptive and Transformational Changes in Health Care Delivery

There will be some very disruptive and some transformational changes in the way health care is delivered, not as a result of reform, but as a result of the drivers of change described previously. They included an aging population, an obese society, shortages of doctors, and emerging consumerism, among others.                       

I interviewed in depth about 150 medical leaders from across the United States to collect information and then distilled it down to a few key observations for my book “The Future of Health Care Delivery - Why It Must change And How It Will Affect You.”. 

As a result of those previously discussed drivers of change, here is some what we can expect to occur in the coming years. 

First, there will be many more patients needing substantial levels of medical care. These won’t be just any patients but two specific groups that are growing rapidly. Americans are aging. “Old parts wear out” and there are impairments in vision, hearing, mobility, bone strength, dentition and cognition that become more prevalent with age. And of course our society has many adverse lifestyles such as consuming too much of a non-nutritious diet, being sedentary, being chronically stressed and 20% still smoke. These all lead to chronic illnesses like diabetes type II, heart failure, cancer, chronic lung and kidney disease, etc. So there will many more individuals with chronic illnesses. The especially sad thing is that many of these individuals will be moderately young as a result of obesity since one third are overweight and another one third are frankly obese. (And now that the AMA has specifically listed obesity as a disease rather than just a predisposer to disease, then the number of Americans with chronic illnesses jumps dramatically.) This increase in chronic diseases and the impairments of aging will have huge impacts on care delivery.           

Of course, more and more care is and can be done out of hospital. But with many more patients in need of care for serious chronic illnesses, there will be a need for more high tech hospital beds, ICUs, ORs, and interventional radiology. This is different than the mantra of recent decades which proclaimed that there are too many hospitals and too many beds. Now it is the just the reverse. This too is a big change. 

But building new hospitals or new wings or renovations costs a lot of money. So does technology such as the electronic medical record, new CT or MRI scanners, and the needed technology for the operating rooms or radiation therapy equipment. To garner the required money, hospitals will need to access the capital markets. What will smaller hospitals do that have less ability to enter the credit markets? Merge with larger systems to get access to capital. So there will be more and more smaller hospitals merging into larger systems. Indeed there will be few stand alone community hospitals in the coming years. This is quite a disruptive change. 

There is already a shortage of primary care physicians and this will undoubted accelerate since few are entering primary care today after medical school and training.  In part to compensate, there will be greater use of NPs and PAs, especially in primary care. Notwithstanding the debate as to whether NPs can serve as well as MDs in primary care, they can be very effective and allow the MD to do what he or she is best at doing. Together they can create an excellent team.  

Primary care doctors are caught in a catch 22. They are in a non sustainable business model. Reimbursements from insurers have stayed level for years but office and other expenses have gone up each year. So in order to keep their personal income at least flat, they need to “make it up in volume” by seeing more patients. This means no longer visiting their patients in the hospital and in the ER. Instead they wait for the hospitalist or the ER doctor to call with reports. And they shorten the time with each patient so they can see 24 to 25 patients or even more each day.  

But seeing this many patients means they cannot give comprehensive preventive care  and cannot adequately coordinate the care of their patients with chronic illnesses – two of the key things a PCP should be doing for optimum quality care. It is the absence of time – time to listen, time to prevent, time to coordinate and time to just think – that is the critical issue. 

There are at least two approaches PCPs are taking to counter this dilemma. One is to no longer accept insurance and rather expect patients to pay a reasonable fee at each visit. Pay at the door. It cuts out a lot of haggling with the insurer and means they can spend more time with the patient. Importantly, it recreates a normal, typical professional-client relationship since the patient, not the insurer, is paying the doctor directly.  But this is certainly a disruptive change to not accept your insurance! It is like going back a few decades.   

Another approach gaining rapid popularity is to switch to retainer based practices, sometimes called concierge or boutique practices. The basic concept is to limit one’s practice to 500 patients rather than the typical 2000 or more. This means more time per patient. So in return for a fixed fee of about $1500-2000 per year the PCP agrees to be available by cell phone 24/7 and by email. He or she will see you in the office within 24 hours of a call. You get as much time as needed for the problem at hand. And the PCP will visit you in the hospital, the ER or the nursing home – maybe even do a house call.

The result is better quality. But there is more. Since the doctor now has the time – the patient now gets much more preventive care attention. And if a patient has a chronic illness, the PCP will take the very real time needed to coordinate that care. This will mean much better care from the specialists and will avoid unnecessary tests, scans and procedures. Better care at less expense.  – One more very disruptive and I would say transformational change occurring in medical care delivery.

 

 

 

Transformational and Disruptive Changes to Healthcare Delivery

More chronic illnesses, more old age impairments, consumers demanding more quality and convenience, physicians no longer in typical private practice, and high deductible health care polices are each about to cause major changes in the practice of medicine and how it is delivered to patients.  

Health care delivery will change substantially in the coming years. This is not because of reform but rather due to a set of drivers that are exerting a great push and pull to the delivery system. Some of these changes will be quite transformational and some will be very disruptive of the status quo. What are those drivers?

One of the most important is that there will be many more individuals with chronic illness. The Milliken Institute offered a white paper a few years ago on chronic illnesses and noted that nearly one half of Americans had one or more chronic illnesses, most of them preventable and  which were costing the economy over $1 trillion per year and rapidly rising.  

These are diseases like diabetes with complications, heart failure, cancer, or chronic lung disease. What is apparent is that they are mostly due to adverse lifestyles. Eating a non-nutritious diet -- and too much of it combined with a sedentary existence leads to obesity. One third of Americans are overweight and another one third are frankly obese. Add to this chronic stress and that 20% still smoke and there is an effective recipe to produce chronic illnesses. Chronic illnesses will make up a greater and greater proportion of all medical ailments as time goes on. And of course they are more difficult to manage, generally last a lifetime and are inherently expensive to treat (although there is much that can be done to reduce the costs of care.) 

A second driver of change is the aging of the population. The American society is growing older and just like a car:  “Old parts wear out.” Aging brings on impaired vision, impaired hearing, impaired mobility, impaired bone strength and impaired cognition among others - all as best we know today, not due to adverse lifestyles but are tied into the aging process. 

Consumerism is becoming – finally – more and more of a driver of change. Patients are coming to expect to be treated like a valued customer - “the patient is no longer willing to be patient any more.” What do the patients want? They want service, good service. They are expecting high levels of quality & safety. Most important of all is respect, respect for their person, confidentiality, and the care quality. But also patients want convenience & responsiveness. They want appointments in short order, no long times in the “waiting room,” nor put on indefinite telephone hold. They want interaction by email and other electronic methods.   And patients increasingly expect to have the information gap closed– they expect the playing field between patient and doctor to be much more level in the future. 

Professional shortages are major drivers of change in the delivery system. There have been shortages of nurse and pharmacists noted for more than a decade. There is a growing shortage of primary care physicians (PCPs) and also general surgeons. These shortages are more acute in rural and urban poor areas. 

Combined with shortages are changes in professional aspirations and lifestyles. Today physicians want and expect to have more time for family and recreation. And they no longer want to run their own private practices. They prefer to be employed with little if any administrative burdens. Indeed the number of PCPs in a typical private practice arrangement has declined precipitously in recent years.  

These are but a few of the drivers that will change the delivery of health care in dramatic ways in the years ahead. I discuss them in much more detail in The Future of Health Care Delivery – Why It Must Change and How It Will Affect You with data obtained through over 150 in-depth interviews of medical leaders from across the country. Clearly physicians, patients, hospitals, insurers and employer/government sponsors will be challenged to adapt.

 

 

America Has A Health Care Paradox

We have a real paradox in American healthcare. On the one hand we have exceptionally well educated and well trained providers who are committed to our care. We are the envy of the world for our biomedical research prowess, funded largely by the National Institutes of Health and conducted across the county in universities and medical schools. The pharmaceutical industry continuously brings forth life saving and disease altering medications. The medical device industry is incredibly innovative and entrepreneurial.  The makers of diagnostic equipment such as CAT scans and hand held ultrasounds are equally productive. 

A few examples.  The science of genomics is revolutionizing medical care in profound ways such as producing targeted cancer drugs, predicting later onset of cardiac disease, offering prognostic data to guide cancer treatment, rapidly identifying a bacteria and its antibiotic susceptibility and suggesting how our diet can actually impact our genes through the science of nutragenomics. 

The pharmaceutical industry has brought us the likes of statins to reduce cholesterol, drugs to prevent blood clotting, and the targeted therapies for cancer. The device industry has created, for example, a potpourri of new approaches that have transformed cardiac care. These include angioplasty, stents, pacemakers, intracardiac defibrillators and now even the ability to insert a prosthetic aortic valve through a catheter rather than doing it via open surgery. And we can now noninvasively image organs in incredible detail and learn about physiology with molecular imaging.

So we can be appropriately awed and proud and pleased at what is available when needed for our care.

But, on the other hand, we have a dysfunctional health care delivery system.

Our current delivery system focuses on acute medical problems where it is reasonably effective. But it works poorly for most chronic medical illnesses and it costs far too much. When the famous bank robber, Willie Sutton, was asked why he robbed banks he replied “that’s where the money is.” In healthcare the money is in chronic illnesses – diabetes with complications, cardiac diseases such as heart failure, cancer and neurologic diseases. These consume about 75-85% of all dollars spent on medical care. So we need to focus there.

These chronic illnesses are increasing in frequency at a very rapid rate. They are largely (although certainly not totally) preventable. Overeating a non-nutritious diet, lack of exercise, chronic stress, and 20% still smoking are the major predisposing causes of these chronic illnesses. Obesity is now a true epidemic with one-third of us overweight and one-third of us frankly obese. The result of these adverse behaviors is high blood pressure, high cholesterol, elevated blood glucose followed by to diabetes, heart disease, stroke, chronic lung and kidney disease and cancer.

And once any of these chronic diseases develops, it usually persists for life (of course some cancers are curable but not so diabetes or heart failure). These are complex diseases to manage and expensive to treat – an expense that continues for the rest of the person’s life.

What is needed is aggressive preventive approaches  and, for those with a chronic illness, a multi-disciplinary approach, one that has a committed physician coordinator. Providers (and I refer here mostly to primary care physicians), unfortunately, do not give really adequate preventive care in most cases. And they generally do not spend the time needed to coordinate the care of those with chronic illness – which is absolutely essential to assure good quality at a reasonable cost.

When a patient is sent for extra tests, imaging or specialists visits the costs go up exponentially and the quality does not rise with the costs. Indeed it often falls. But primary care physicians are in a non-sustainable business model with today’s reimbursement systems so they find they just do no have enough time for care coordination or more than the basics of preventive care. Nor do they have the time to listen carefully or think deeply about a problem; so the response is to send the patient for a test or to a specialist.

So our paradox is that we have the providers, the science, the drugs, the diagnostics and devices that we need for patient care. But we have a new type of disease – complex, chronic illness, mostly preventable, for which we have not established good methods of prevention nor do we care for them adequately once the disease develops. And all of this is exacerbated by an insurance system that puts the incentives in the wrong places. The result is a sicker population, episodic care and expenses that are far greater than necessary.