A Guide to Accountable Care Organizations, and Their Role in the Senate’s Health Reform Bill

The accountable care organization has been a model for health care reform, yet its modest success has been limited to a handful of health care systems across the country. However, the accountable care organization model has recently taken on far greater significance since being introduced as one of Medicare’s pilot programs in the Senate’s health reform bill.

The phrase is attributed to Dr. Elliot Fisher of Dartmouth Medical School.  Dr. Fisher has led the Dartmouth Atlas Project — a project that has, for the last 30 years, painstakingly documented the variation in care across the United States. (Click here for an interactive map of some of the Dartmouth Atlas results). The Dartmouth Atlas has focused on both the quality of health care as well as its cost. More importantly, they have reported on the relationship between the two, and their findings are nothing short of an indictment of our current paradigm.

Specifically, their findings illustrate that there exists wide variations in the cost of care across the country, and profoundly, that the regions that spend more per patient do not necessarily obtain better outcomes. So what to do? Dr. Fisher believes he has found at least part of the answer: the Accountable Care Organization, known as an “ACO”.

What is an ACO, and How Does it Differ from Other Payment Reforms?

In his paper “Creating Accountable Care Organizations: The Extended Hospital Medical Staff,” Dr. Fisher acknowledges that the term ACO “grew out of an exchange between he and Dr. Glenn Hackbarth at a MedPAC meeting in November of 2006″. (Fisher, 2006 n. 7). Dr. Fisher’s purpose in writing the aforementioned paper was to help identify the proper “locus for shared accountability” for a patient’s health care. HMO’s and other health insurers are obvious candidates, but as Dr. Fisher notes, HMOs only comprise a small percentage of the current market, and health plans in general have focused on negotiating favorable prices within relatively open networks of providers. (Fisher, 2006, p. 45).  The “medical home” (also referred to as a Patient Centered Medical Home or PCMH) is another candidate, but is taken out of the running by Dr. Fisher because of the untested nature of medical homes, and their requirement of new payment mechanisms. (Id.).

Dr. Fisher notes that a better option already exists: “virtual” organizations consisting of the various physicians that are associated with local acute care hospitals. As Dr. Fisher notes, these physicians are either directly affiliated with such hospitals through their inpatient work, or through the care patterns of the patients they serve.  Dr. Fisher refers to these multi-speciality group practices that are bunched around local hospitals as an “extended hospital medical staff.” He argues that improving quality and lowering cost should be realized by fostering greater accountability on the part of this “extended medical staff.”

In a recent Urban Institute paper on ACOs by Kelly Devers and Robert Berenson (pdf summary here, full pdf here), the authors point to three essential characteristics of ACOs:

1. The ability to provide, and manage with patients, the continuum of care across different institutional settings, including at least ambulatory and inpatient hospital care and possibly post acute care;
2. The capability of prospectively planning budgets and resource needs; and
3. Sufficient size to support comprehensive, valid, and reliable performance measurement. (Berenson, p. 2.).

In exchange for investing in this reformed health care provider structure, the ACO members will  share in the savings that results from their cooperation and coordination. Thus, ACOs can–theoretically–act as a reform tool by incentivizing more efficient and effective care. This would help to combat the current perverse incentives of overutilization and overbuilding of health care facilities and technology.

In 2007, Dartmouth’s Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice headed by Dr. Fisher and Dr. James Weinstein, teamed up with the Brookings Institution’s Mark McClellan to create The Brookings-Dartmouth ACO Learning Network. The ACO Learning Network will serve as a support tool for providers looking to transition to the ACO framework. In the “Overview” section of their site (available as a pdf here), the Brookings-Dartmouth team provide a useful chart comparing the ACO model to other payment reform models such as “bundled payments,” “medical homes” and capitation. Click the image below to enlarge.

Various Extant Structures Utilized

Since Dr. Fisher’s introduction of the ACO concept, the idea has continued to be refined. In their 2007 paper “Accountable Care Systems For Comprehensive Health,” Dr. Stephen Shortell and Dr. Lawrence Casalino envision a broad range of ACOs in addition to the “extended medical staff” originally described by Dr. Fisher. Drs. Shortell and Casalino identify extant organizational structures that could be leveraged to create ACOs, including the Multi-speciality Group Practice (MSGP), the Hospital Medical Staff Organization (HMSO), the Physician-Hospital Organization (PHO), the Interdependent Physician Organization (IPO), and the Health Plan Provider Organization or Network (HPPO/HPPN). (Shortell et al., 2007, p. 10). Below is a table from their paper that organizes the different ACO models while comparing their capabilities. Click the image below to Enlarge.

ACOs In Practice

Building on the Physician Group Practice (PGP) demonstration project that rewarded the provision of quality care with a share of the savings, the Brookings-Dartmouth group propose a “voluntary and incremental” ACO program. (Fisher et al., 2009, p. 2).  The ACO would have to be a legal organization that can receive shared savings, and would have to incorporate primary care physicians who solely practice under the ACO. (Id.). Furthermore, the Brookings-Dartmouth group believes there would have to be at least 5,000 beneficiaries in the ACO for it to be viable. The ACO would provide CMS with a list of their providers willing to participate in the ACO. As discussed above, the beneficiaries would be determined by, among other things, the patterns of patient referrals in the region. However, beneficiaries would not be “locked in” to a given provider. (Fisher et al., 2009, p. 4). The ACO would receive savings if their risk-adjusted, per beneficiary spending levels were below their benchmark. Id.

An Ultra-Simplified Example

A hypothetical independent practice association (IPA) teams up with a community hospital to create an ACO. Medicare determines a benchmark, that is, what it will cost to treat the average beneficiary in that geographic area per year–let’s say $10,000. The physicians submit their traditional claims to Medicare under the RBRVS system while the hospital submits its typical DRG-base claim. Thus, the traditional fee-for-service system remains in place. At the end of the year, Medicare determines if the ACO has provided care for less than $10,000. If they have, the ACO is entitled to share in the cost savings, and the savings are divided among the providers and hospital. Though simple in theory, ACOs become more difficult when attempting to construct payment models that will distribute the savings of the ACO to the individual providers. Shortell provides another helpful chart that lays out some of the options; Click on the image to enlarge.

Criticism of the ACO Model

The strongest criticism that I am aware of is from Dr. Jeff Goldsmith PhD, president of Public Health Services at the University of Virginia. In his Health Affairs article entitled “The Accountable Care Organization: Not Ready for Prime Time,” Dr. Goldsmith recalls previous attempts to at implementing payment reform models based on shared risk:

The problem with this movie is that we’ve actually seen it before, and it was a colossal and expensive failure. During the 1990s, many hospitals and physicians believed that the Clinton health reforms would force them into capitated contracts with health plans. . . . Risk-bearing physician/hospital organizations and hospital-sponsored preferred provider organizations (PPOs) sprang up all over the country. . . . Some of these hospital/physician efforts actually succeeded and survive today. . . . However, these were outliers in an expensive failure.  Employers and patients preferred open panels managed by health insurers to closed panels managed by providers. Billions of dollars were lost.. . . Many of the practice acquisitions were reversed, as hospital systems sought to rein in their expenses and adjust to an open-panel world dominated by point-of-service style health plans

However, the 1990s left behind an expensive legacy:  highly concentrated local provider markets….There were numerous reasons for the 1990s collapse of at-risk hospital/physician partnerships, besides the failure to find willing buyers of their services. These efforts lacked infrastructure, experienced management, as well as reliable and timely cost information to support cost management. They assumed global risk but paid for care on a fee basis, just as Fisher and colleagues propose.  But these hospital-sponsored organizations could neither redistribute income nor exclude their high-cost providers (who inconveniently generate most hospital profits).

Some things have clearly changed in the ensuing decade. . . . A rapidly increasing percentage of physicians, particularly primary care physicians, are now hospital employees.  A larger percentage of the physician community receives hospital subsidies for call coverage. Many of these subsidies are, in fact, extorted from the hospital by specialists in scarce supply, destined to become scarcer.  An entire generation of 80-hour-a-week baby-boomer physicians are retiring and being replaced by younger physicians who want to work 30 hours a week.  You are not going to see a lot of these younger physicians in utilization review committee meetings after hours; they are going to be at their kids’ soccer practices.

What hasn’t changed is the fragmentation of care, the huge disparities in income and political power inside physician communities, and also the level of suspicion that physicians have of their now much more powerful local hospitals.  There is also, sadly, a thundering absence of collegiality – in my view, the central precondition of assuming risk and managing care. This absence is palpable in suburbs and even more pronounced in many “lifestyle dominated” resort communities in the sunbelt.. . .They are “collections” of physicians, not communities.

The hospitals in these areas appear formidable:  they have beautiful campuses,  prestigious boards, and deep financial reserves. . . . But these hospitals have been picked clean of vital outpatient services by their medical “communities.”

….Entire disciplines have disappeared from hospitals: ophthalmology, cosmetic surgery, gastroenterology, urology. Even community-based internists and family practitioners have stopped coming to the hospital; their patients are cared for by hospitalists who work full time inside the hospital.

The result of our previous attempts at ACO-like integrated care, Dr. Goldsmith points out, is that…

. . . .while the hospital has become more involved in subsidizing physician practice, physician communities have drawn away from the hospital and function increasingly independently on a day-to-day basis. Wennberg’s own data show that something like 40% of physicians no longer have any Medicare hospital-related fee income. So squashing hospitals and physicians back together into economic interdependence in a joint hospital/physician economic pool makes no real-world sense.

Dr. Goldsmith goes on to note that there have been some successful ACOs, but that they haven’t been “virtual” in the sense that Dr. Fisher points out, rather, they are

. . . real organizations with P+Ls, medical directors, and management infrastructure. Prominent examples in my home region include Carilion Health System in Roanoke and the Bon Secours Health System in Richmond. Voluntary ACO arrangements, with Medicare and with private insurers, may find enthusiastic partnerships with many of these hospital-sponsored physician groups. . . .

The Senate Bill

In defense of the Brookings-Dartmouth model, the group has gone on record in favor of voluntary ACOs. To Dr. Goldsmith’s relief, the Senate’s health reform plan incorporates ACOs on a voluntary pilot program basis. You can read their rebuttal to Dr. Goldsmith here.  Section 3022 of the Senate bill — which amends Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395) — introduces ACOs under the name “Medicare Shared Savings Program. (View a pdf of the extracted ACO part of Senate bill here).

The Senate’s plan is remarkably similar to the Brookings-Dartmouth model. Under the Senate’s plan, ACOs will be eligible to receive a percentage of the cost savings that they have realized under the traditional fee-for-service Medicare system. The requirements are set forth in section (B)(2). Furthermore, the ACO shall enter into a 3 year agreement with HHS whereby the ACO must agree to contain at least 5,000 Medicare beneficiaries, while being prevented from engaging in risk selection. The ACO must define processes to promote evidence-based medicine and patient engagement, report on quality and cost measures, and coordinate care, such as through the use of telehealth or other remote patient monitoring tools. The ACO must also demonstrate to HHS that it meets the yet-to-be defined criteria for “patient-centeredness”.

Whether ACOs will succeed is impossible to determine with certainty. The panopticon that would be ACO management looking over the shoulders of physicians may be enough to turn off many physicians. Nevertheless, as even Dr. Goldsmith acknowledges, some ACOs have thrived. Moreover, the voluntary ACOs in the Senate’s bill represent a measured approach towards reforming our system without a wholesale transformation. As Dr. Atul Gawande describes in a lesser-cited pre-”Cost Conundrum” article, the most sound approach is often “path-dependent,”  that is, it builds on what already exists. As Dr. Gawande notes:

. . .accepting the path-dependent nature of our health-care system—recognizing that we had better build on what we’ve got—doesn’t mean that we have to curtail our ambitions. The overarching goal of health-care reform is to establish a system that has three basic attributes. It should leave no one uncovered—medical debt must disappear as a cause of personal bankruptcy in America. It should no longer be an economic catastrophe for employers. And it should hold doctors, nurses, hospitals, drug and device companies, and insurers collectively responsible for making care better, safer, and less costly. . .

Whether the shared savings will entice physicians on a large scale is uncertain.  What is certain is that our current fragmented system incentivizes providers to offer neither cost-effective nor coordinated care. Though it is unlikely that physicians and hospitals will flock to ACOs from the start, the vision of ACOs conceived of by the Dartmouth-Group and described in the Senate bill may nevertheless prove itself a useful tool in a larger arsenal of approaches meant to salvage our unsustainable health care system. In other words, the Senate’s approach could provide a path-dependent solution toward the collective responsibility and better outcomes that Dr. Gawande mentions. And as described in the Senate bill, physicians and hospitals will not be offered a new path, but rather a resurfaced path that would retain fee-for-service, while providing a safer and smoother ride for the patient.

Financial Remuneration of Clinical Study Investigators

In November 2009, the Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy, in its White Paper, Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Trial Recruitment & Enrollment: A Call for Increased Oversight, explored payments to investigators — and other potential motivators — to conduct research.  A study in this month’s IRB: Ethics & Human Research explores the impact payments may have on researchers to conduct and complete studies.  In Motivated by Money? The Impact of Financial Incentive for the Research Team on Study Recruitment, Sharon Unger and her colleagues examine the effect financial remuneration has on researchers in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

Taking advantage of a “fortuitous set of circumstances” in which two separate clinical trials with nearly identical inclusion criteria were conducted simultaneously in an NICU in Canada, the authors looked at two issues: 1) whether financial remuneration impacted the rate at which the research team approached parents about research participation, and 2) whether financial remuneration impacted the rate at which parents provided consent to participate.

In the first study (Study A), a placebo-controlled trial involving a medication that was the standard of care for treatment of newborns nearing extubation to prevent apnea of prematurity, members of the research team were financially compensated for their time if they were successful in obtaining parental consent (parents were unaware of this arrangement).  In the second study (Study B), which involved two different forms of noninvasive respiratory support following extubation, there was no financial compensation of the research team.  Both studies had the same recruiting team.  Study A was federally funded, multicentered and high-profile, while Study B was a single-center, unfunded trial.

The payments in Study A were per capita, which, while creating a direct incentive to recruit individual enrollees, is usually not problematic as long as the payment is not excessive.  The Center recommends “that the benchmark for compensation for physician services for research should be comparable payment for time and services for treatment. This will compensate physicians fairly for their time and services, and will assure that there are no hidden bonuses or incentives for physicians to recruit patients into research or to refer them to research rather than treatment.”  As noted in the study, finder’s fees are increasingly considered “ethically problematic;” the Center recommends a wholesale bar on finder’s fees because they can create conflicts of interest that can incentivize investigators to recruit and retain individuals who do not meet the study’s inclusion and exclusion criteria.

As the authors noted, and as acknowledged in the Center’s White Paper, potential enrollees are increasingly vulnerable as increasing numbers of individuals seek to participate in research either as a primary means of access to treatment or as a form of income.  The results of this study indicate a much higher likelihood of approach when there was a prospect of financial remuneration.  These results are concerning, and were anticipated by the Center’s White Paper, which noted the potential for poor compliance with inclusion and exclusion criteria and pressure to enter or remain in a clinical trial.

However, surprisingly, the authors found that, despite the much higher likelihood of approach for Study A than Study B, parents were much more likely to actually agree to enroll their newborn in Study B — for which there was no financial remuneration of the research team.  The authors explored various explanations for this result, including that the research team was overly cautious about giving the appearance that their approach for consent was motivated by financial compensation, or that parents chose to withhold consent  due to the research team’s  increased pressure.

The authors do acknowledge other potential factors — beyond financial remuneration –  that could have affected the study’s results.  For example, parents’ hesitancy to enroll their newborn in a placebo-controlled drug trial could explain the discrepancy between enrollment in the studies.  Likewise, the authors consider that parents may not have been able to differentiate between the two modes of support being investigated in Study B.  In addition, the recruiting team, when presented with the results of the study, did not recall feeling influenced by the financial arrangement of Study A, but did “recall being highly motivated to ensure the success of Study A as it was part of a high-profile, multicentered trial.”

The authors concluded by noting concerns that “there may be a point at which the amount of the financial remuneration or the manner in which it is assigned could negatively impact the ethical conduct of the researcher,” but cautions that these concerns should be balanced with the value of conducting research in patients’ best interests.  This balancing act is considerably important.  As the Center notes,

Research is critical to the advancement of medical treatment and health. It must be structured to produce high quality data that facilitates the assessment of safety and efficacy in the population for whom the treatment will be used. The good of the enterprise requires that the clinical trial system sufficiently balance the costs and benefits to physicians and prospec­tive trial participants to ensure the continued sufficient supply of researchers and subjects. The system must also be imbued with actual and perceived integrity — so that it produces scientifi­cally reliable results, participants are safe, and people trust the system sufficiently to be willing to participate.

Developments in the Law Governing Physician-Owned Ambulatory Surgery Centers in New Jersey

Over the past year, one or the other of my sons has had minor surgery in no less than three of New Jersey’s many ambulatory surgery centers (”ASCs”).  So, I noted with interest the Appellate Division’s recent decision in Garcia v. Health Net in which it affirmed a lower court holding that physicians who make referrals to ASCs in which they have an ownership interest violate the Codey Law, New Jersey’s version of the Stark Law.  The Appellate Division also affirmed the lower court’s decision that, despite the illegal referrals, the physician-owners in the case committed no fraud.  They (along with other physicians-owners across the state) acted in reliance on the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners’ conclusion that the Codey Law’s exception to the self-referral ban for services provided at the referring physician’s medical office applied to ASCs.

In response to the lower court’s holding and heavy lobbying from physicians, the New Jersey State Legislature enacted revisions to the Codey Law which were signed into law in March 2009.  Physicians are now expressly permitted to refer patients to ASCs in which they have a financial interest if they meet a list of conditions, including that: (1) for patients they refer, they personally perform the surgery; (2) they be paid in proportion to their ownership interests, not the number of patients they refer; (3) they and their physician partners make all healthcare decisions, leaving non-physician partners without a say; and (4) they inform their patients in writing of their ownership interest at the time they make the referral.

On the other hand, the Legislature acted to all but put a stop to the establishment of new physician-owned ASCs, with the exception of those which are jointly owned by a general hospital.  Development of hospital– and medical school–owned centers may proceed apace.  Fox Rothschild’s Elizabeth Litten notes  that this “resonates more of long-forgotten certificate of need and health planning policy than it does of the original law’s concern with physician profit motives and overutilization.”  Clearly, the Legislature hopes that the new limits will be good for general hospitals’ financial health.  Professor Frank Pasquale has written here and elsewhere about the concern that ASCs and other niche facilities harm general hospitals by “cherry-picking” lucrative patients and “lemon dropping” those that are more costly.

What about patients?  Should we care whether ASCs are physician-owned or not?  Unsurprisingly, the American Medical Association believes that “physician ownership interests in health facilities, products or equipment can benefit patient care.” Peer-reviewed research suggests that physician-ownership makes no difference in health outcomes, however.  And, as Dean Kathleen Boozang states here, there is evidence that “physicians who hold an equity interest in an entity that provides ancillary health care services, such as a clinical laboratory or MRI, more frequently order those services for their patients, referring them, unsurprisingly, to the entity they own,” although there is no evidence that “this higher use equated to over-utilization.”  I would suggest, admittedly based on a small (and potentially unrepresentative) sample, that, if nothing else, physician-owned surgery centers have better amenities than those that are hospital-owned.  Some of these amenities could easily be done without (orchids in the lobby, souvenir teddy bear); others (popsicles and DVDs in the recovery room) are potentially more significant.

Further Calls for Increased Oversight on Medical Research & Physician Conflitcs of Interest

The Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy has continued to focus on the implications of research funding in patients’ decisions to participate in clinical research, as well as the effects such funding can have on researcher behavior and research results.  In January 2009, the Center recommended that all financial relationships between industry and physicians be publicly disclosed by industry.  And just this month, the Center released its most recent White Paper, “Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Trial Recruitment & Enrollment: A Call for Increased Oversight.”

Similarly, in a November 17 letter to Francis Collins, 100 researchers, academics, and public policy analysts asked the NIH to “fund studies on medical ethics, conflicts of interest in medicine and research, and prescribing behavior” in order to determine the effects of industry-academic relationships on human health.  The letter implores the director of NIH to focus on “the research gap on the effect of conflicts of interest and commercial influence on medical decisionmaking” and to establish a mechanism for funding relevant research.

One of the primary concerns in the researchers’ letter is an issue also identified in a November OIG report, “How Grantees Manage Financial Conflicts of Interest in Research Funded by the National Institutes of Health,” which found that a majority of academic researchers’ conflicts of interest are unreported.   The report flags the potential for extensive conflicts between faculty members and their government-financed research.  In response, the US Senate Finance Committee recently sent letters to several universities requesting such information.  Just yesterday, Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, reacting to national concern about physicians’ and researchers’ financial conflicts of interest, began posting external professional and industry relationships for approximately 2000 faculty members — including service on boards of directors, consulting and related activities, ownership or investment interests, royalties and inventor shares, and additional activities such as lectures and participation in scientific advisory boards and professional societies.

Further research is obviously necessary to determine how financial relationships influence — as the authors of the letter to NIH call it — “the beliefs and behaviors of researchers and clinicians, and the effects of industry-academic relationships on the generation and dissemination of medical knowledge.”  In the meantime, increased oversight of physician-industry relationships by the federal government to evaluate and oversee investigator or institutional conflicts of interest, both for research within and without academic medical centers, is necessary.

More Institutional Health Economics, Please!

Today’s Nobel Prize award for institutional economists Oliver Williamson and Elinor Ostrom is a welcome step toward methodological pluralism in the profession. Both have looked outside markets to understand the organization of economic life. Ostrom is not even an economist–she is a political scientist by profession. As Bob Shiller observes:

This award is part of the merging of the social sciences. Economics has been too isolated and too stuck on the view that markets are efficient and self-regulating. It has derailed our thinking.

According to the NYT, “The Nobel judges, in their description of Mr. Williamson’s and Ms. Ostrom’s achievement, said that ‘economic science’ should extend beyond market theory and into actual behavior, and the two award winners, in their empirical work, had done this.”

There is a great need for more of this type of work in health economics. Joe White’s Markets and Medical Care: The United States, 1993–2005 is one good exemplar of needed work here; he eschews “discussions of how economic theory can be applied to medical care production and delivery” and instead “focuses on ‘the market’ in its actual, not theoretical, form, as it existed in the United States.” White describes case after case where consolidation, not medical need, drove industry structure. He leaves the reader with a clear and convincing image of a space where varying levels of provider and insurer power, not productivity, is the key to understanding changes in the profitability of services. I’ve seen few better brief explanations of rising medical costs than the following: Read more

Alternative Revenue Stream for Private Practice Physicians – Research Investigator

Clinical research is the only way [for a physician in the managed care era] to make a boat payment, quips David Stark, M.D.

With increasing frequency, pharmaceutical and medical device companies are turning to physicians in private practice, rather than academic medical centers, to serve as investigators overseeing the 60,000-odd clinical trials each year, between 80 and 90% of which are funded by industry as opposed to, say, NIH. Academic medical centers are losing the “business,” having fallen from 63% to 26% as the site for clinical research between 1994 and 2004. While it might be argued that trials in the private practice setting produce superior results because they occur under circumstances that more closely resemble how the drug or device will actually be used if approved by the FDA, there are significant risks attendant to this phenomenon that have received too little attention.

The ultimate question is whether physicians can compartmentalize the competing incentives that exist in advising patients about whether to pursue conventional therapy or participate in a clinical trial. This is especially true if the physician is being handsomely compensated for each patient she recruits into a trial, and is exacerbated when the physician also has other financial relationships with the trial sponsor (the drug or device company) for, say, speaking and consulting gigs. Clinical Research in the Private Office Setting — Ethical Issues The recruitment process for clinical trials is the longest and most costly part of the process - prospective participants have to undergo testing to see if they qualify for the study, and federal law requires that they receive significant amounts of information and have ample opportunity to have their questions answered pre-enrollment. A per capita payment contingent upon successful enrollment of the patient will tempt a physician to fudge on this process and enroll unqualified subjects. This not only may put them at risk because they are too sick, but also skew the research results because they’re not sick enough. Bonuses for meeting enrollment goals only make it worse.

Without impugning physician integrity, how realistic it is for physicians to serve in the dual capacity of treating physician and researcher? Studies have repeatedly confirmed “therapeutic misconception” whereby study participants believe, no matter how clearly told to the contrary, that they are “patients” receiving treatment, rather than “subjects” of research who may be receiving a placebo or an experimental drug. This phenomenon is certainly exacerbated when the patient’s treating physician is doubling as the investigator of the clinical trial. Most patients continue to believe that their own personal physician would be driven solely by their best interests. Ironically, some people have more faith in an experimental intervention when they learn that the investigator has a “piece of the action.”

Obviously, significant policy and legal questions arise from this practice, and a more holistic approach to the question of the best way to encourage clinical trials while safeguarding the interests of trial subjects is beyond what I can attempt here. But one possible approach could be drawn from informed consent law — whether statutory or common law, which should require physician disclosure of conflicts of interest to patients. Imagine the beginning of a conversation between doctor and patient/potential research subject:

Doctor: “Just so you know, if you agree to participate in this clinical trial, I get paid $1000 by the manufacturer of the product being tested, but if you don’t, and you just want regular treatment, I’ll only get paid $60 by your insurance company. But, in fairness, that’s because a clinical trial is a lot more work for me….”

But to be honest, I don’t really believe in this solution either. Most recipients of this information either don’t understand it, or have no idea what to do with it, or both. Some fear that too much confusing information might kill trials altogether, which would be a terrible outcome. And there are certainly reasons to fear that such trials are becoming harder to run, to the point where they’re not worth the money. Ultimately, I guess, I want to control how physicians get paid to serve as investigators — the Goldilocks Solution — not too much, and not too little. I want them to be paid just right, so that they are willing to conduct clinical trials, but aren’t tempted to act other than in the patient’s best interest. Of course, what is just right and how to enforce it poses its own problems.

Seton Hall Law School, the author’s employer, is the recipient of grants, donations and endowments from the pharmaceutical industry. No part of the author’s compensation is funded by these gifts.

x-posted at Concurring Opinions

Price-Gouging by Doctors and Hospitals

Mark A. Hall, Professor of Law and Public Health, Wake Forest University

Carl E. Schneider, Professor of Law and Internal Medicine, University of Michigan

[Ed. note: As noted above, we are very pleased to welcome Professors Mark Hall and Carl Schneider to the blog today.]

We cannot reform health care intelligently unless we understand the medical marketplace well. Debates about reform have scrutinized the health-insurance market, but they have neglected a crucially defective feature of the medical marketplace — the way doctors and hospitals charge patients when prices are not set by regulation or by negotiation with insurers.

The Problem

When patients are not protected by large private or public insurers, doctors and hospitals charge them astonishingly more than patients with Medicare or managed-care insurance.  Some price difference would make sense, because insurers offer providers large volume and economies of scale.  But we are not talking about discounts of 10, or 20, or even 30 percent.  Providers routinely double, triple, or even quadruple prices for unprotected patients.  Such huge mark-ups can only be regarded as price-gouging — exploiting market power to charge prices virtually unrelated to actual cost or market value.

A comprehensive analysis of data hospitals report to Medicare shows that, on average, hospitals charge uninsured patients two-and-a-half times more than they charge insured patients and three times more than their actual costs.  In some states mark-ups average four-fold.

Data for physicians’ prices are less comprehensive, but information from office management systems is disturbing.  Across a range of diagnostic and invasive specialty services (echocardiography, coronary catheterization, liver biopsy, upper GI endoscopy, circumcision, flexible sigmoidoscopies, hysterectomy, appendectomy, gall bladder removal, and arthroscopic knee surgery), many physicians in 2003 charged uninsured patients roughly two to two-and-a-half times what insurers paid.  Only primary care physicians appear to be staying within plausible bounds.  They typically charge uninsured patients only one-third to one-half more for basic office or hospital visits than they received from insurers.

Some Excuses

Providers defend themselves in several ways.  First, they call these price differences steep discounts rather than huge mark-ups.  This is almost laughable.  Most providers charge “list prices” to only a small minority of patients (10-20%), so these are hardly a genuine baseline.  Second, providers argue that because they often cannot collect list prices, they are on balance receiving little more than they would receive from insurers.  However, when patients cannot pay inflated bills, doctors and hospitals regularly send them to collection agencies, ruining patients’ credit and bankrupting millions of them.

Third, providers blame the government by claiming that program and accounting rules require them to bill this way.  But governmental agencies have declared that this is not true, and while some rules may still be irksome, rules about billing certainly do not require providers to set their prices as high as they do.  Many tax-exempt (non-profit) hospitals recently wilted under scrutiny and adopted sliding-scale policies for low-income uninsured patients, but these policies do little to help insured patients who are receiving care out-of-network or uninsured patients from the broad middle class.

The Solution

Insurers’ attempts to stop price gouging have failed.  Some large insurers have refused to reimburse out-of-network providers for the full amounts they charge on the grounds that those amounts are not “usual, customary, and reasonable.”  But New York’s Attorney General called this “consumer fraud” because patients were left owing the full bill.  Courts have been little help.  Consumer class-action lawsuits have attacked price gouging by non-profit hospitals, but courts have dismissed most of these cases on various technical grounds.

Government regulation has inhibited price gouging, but only for people covered by government programs.  Medicare, for instance, prohibits doctors from charging Medicare patients more than about 10% over Medicare-approved rates.  But inflated pricing still afflicts the uninsured and privately insured people buying care out of network.  Some reformers simply advocate greater price transparency so that patients know better what to expect when seeking care without the protection of insurers.  But transparency will not fix the structural dynamics of market power that allow providers to charge almost whatever they want.

To help medical markets work better, the government should cap what doctors, hospitals, and other providers may charge patients who are not protected by regulated or negotiated discounts.  The details can be debated and refined, but one approach is to cap charges at, say, 150% of a normal reference rate.  The reference rate could be what Medicare pays, or a weighted average of what larger private insurers normally pay across a region.  Doctors with boutique practices could still charge what they wished for extra concierge services, or perhaps doctors who don’t accept any insurance should be exempted.  Design features are important and tricky, but they should not keep us from setting reasonable bounds within which markets can function.

The Unconventional Economics of Health Care

In a response to one of my posts on the public plan, Tyler Cowen noted that it was “hard to translate” my points into “econspeak.” I agree, and I think that’s one reason why we need to pay attention to “alternative economics of health care,” to use the title of Geoffrey M. Hodgson’s excellent article. In a series of posts over the next few days, I will focus on the many ways in which classical economic reasoning fails in the health care context, and what that means for law.

For an accessible opening example, consider Charles Morris’s description of the “bargaining” between doctors and insurers in his book “The Surgeons.” From a chapter entitled Money, here is a fascinating and counterintuitive insight on the interplay between incentives and medical care:

There is a strongly held opinion, particularly among conservative think tanks, that with multiple competitive private payers, the normal interactions between vendors and payers will gradually create a more efficient health care system. I saw no evidence to support that belief.

Read more

Paging Dr. Gawande: Health Reform Matters

Atul Gawande’s article “The Cost Conundrum” offers a distinctively moral perspective on health reform. It has also become a cause celebre in policy circles. The Obama White House is reading it, leading journal Health Affairs has sponsored a roundtable on it, and pundits across the political spectrum are invoking it.

There are good reasons for all the attention in health reform circles. But there’s a paradox here, too, because Gawande doesn’t believe that changes to health care finance and regulation can deter the wasteful and uncoordinated provider behavior which he sees at the root of the present crisis. I respectfully disagree. Law may not be doing a good job at this now—largely because health care regulators over the past 20 years vastly overestimated the degree to which the market would improve quality and access. But we have a rare window of opportunity to correct for those assumptions. Moreover, without real reform, the profit-obsessed providers who are the villains of Gawande’s piece will systematically outcompete the integrated delivery systems he champions. Gresham’s Law applies in health care, too.

First, some background. Gawande compares a high-cost Texas town (McAllen) with a nearby, low-cost one (El Paso). He finds very little in the McAllen extravagance that is actually improving the longevity or quality of life of its residents. The piece describes in some detail how commercial imperatives affected medical practice in McAllen:

[M]any physicians are remarkably oblivious to the financial implications of their decisions. They see their patients. They make their recommendations. They send out the bills. And, as long as the numbers come out all right at the end of each month, they put the money out of their minds.

Others think of the money as a means of improving what they do. They think about how to use the insurance money to maybe install electronic health records with colleagues, or provide easier phone and e-mail access, or offer expanded hours. They hire an extra nurse to monitor diabetic patients more closely, and to make sure that patients don’t miss their mammograms and pap smears and colonoscopies.

Then there are the physicians who see their practice primarily as a revenue stream. They instruct their secretary to have patients who call with follow-up questions schedule an appointment, because insurers don’t pay for phone calls, only office visits. They consider providing Botox injections for cash. They take a Doppler ultrasound course, buy a machine, and start doing their patients’ scans themselves, so that the insurance payments go to them rather than to the hospital. They figure out ways to increase their high-margin work and decrease their low-margin work. . . .

In every community, you’ll find a mixture of these views among physicians, but one or another tends to predominate. McAllen seems simply to be the community at [the high-cost] extreme.

Gawande describes a market gone wild in McAllen, where doctors would demand “four or five thousand [dollars] a month” or even sex in exchange for routing their patients to certain home health agencies.

How does such a culture of commercialization develop? Gawande is not a social scientist, but he can extrapolate from his own experience. He knows how physicians mentor one another and provide models of care. He also mentions the work of Woody Powell, who examines how certain leading institutions can set the tone for much of an economic community. These “anchor tenants” led McAllen’s “medical community . . . to treat patients the way subprime-mortgage lenders treated home buyers: as profit centers.”

Gawande contrasts McAllen with several centers of excellence in health care, including the Mayo Clinic and a Grand Junction, Colorado network of physicians. Mayo doctors are salaried, and in Grand Junction “the doctors agreed among themselves to a system that paid them a similar fee whether they saw Medicare, Medicaid, or private-insurance patients, so that there would be little incentive to cherry-pick [and lemon-drop] patients.” A local HMO encouraged the Grand Junction doctors to meet and “focus[] on rooting out problems like poor prevention practices, unnecessary back operations, and unusual hospital-complication rates.” As a result, quality improved, cost declined, and Grand Junction Medicaid patients enjoyed higher rates of effective access than average.

It would seem that a health reform ought to focus on encouraging these types of interventions. But in an interview with Ezra Klein, Gawande is strangely agnostic on whether law can change much:

My vantage point on the world is the operating room where I see my patients. And trying to think about whether a public option would change anything didn’t connect. I order something like $20,000 or $30,000 of health care in a day. Would a public or private option change that?

People say that the most expensive piece of medical equipment is the doctor’s pen. It’s not that we make all the money. It’s that we order all the money. We’re hoping that Medicare versus Aetna will be more effective at making me do my operations differently? I don’t get that. Neither one has been very effective thus far.

I think there are several misconceptions in that quote. First, the public option is not designed to displace private insurance. It’s supposed to be a benchmark for private plans, to incentivize them to act more constructively. Second, Gawande is here invoking his own perspective, that of “good” physicians, those who push “the money out of their minds” as they decide courses of treatment. Law, as Justice Holmes reminds us, should be written and interpreted with the proverbial “bad man” in mind, who “cares only for the material consequences which [knowledge of law] enables him to predict.”

Many of the rules of health care finance and regulation address exactly the types of problematic behavior discussed in the article. Niche facilities and imaging centers are at the cutting edge of the commercialization Gawande worries about. Lawyers have debated them for years, and the policymaking is still ongoing. HHS set a moratorium on the development of specialty hospitals in 2003, but it expired. This led to a flurry of interest in administrative action designed to address specialty hospitals’ “cherry-picking” of lucrative patients and “lemon dropping” of costly cases onto other hospitals. Something as obscure as “certificate of need” rules (operating at a state level) have proven critical in determining the spread of specialty hospitals. Reports from the GAO and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission have investigated their impact, while CMS rulemakings have focused on re-assessing payment levels for procedures at ambulatory surgical centers. Antitrust litigation could also play a pivotal role in the struggles between general and specialty hospitals for what Gawande calls the “soul of medicine.”

In the article, Gawande repeatedly talks about “blunting financial incentives” for bad medicine or patient cherrypicking. But that’s exactly the charge of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) in its examinations of developments like niche providers. State policymakers can also reflect these concerns in various ways–adjusting nonprofit status, facilities licensure rules, taxation, and many other legal variables.

In other words, law matters. Sure, all these laws can be bent in ways that favor the further commercialization of medicine. Much of any book on health care finance regulation is a tale of frustrated hopes and dashed ambitions. But this body of law at least provides some tangible guide to past and potential realignments of incentives–something that can’t be said for the appeals to cultural change at the core of Gawandean quietism.

Gawande concedes that “In the war over the culture of medicine—the war over whether our country’s anchor model will be Mayo or McAllen—the Mayo model is losing.” Calls for cultural change just aren’t being heeded—and why should they be? If an insurer develops an extremely effective protocol for dealing with the chronically ill, it will be rewarded by the market with. . . . more expensive, chronically ill patients wanting to sign up for it. As things stand now, providing high-quality care for the chronically ill is a great way to go out of business in virtually any market where your competitors can “skim the cream” of the healthiest half of the population, who only demand about 3% of health care spending. Health reform (including real risk adjustment to properly compensate such plans) can help change that.

Gawande’s “Cost Conundrum” could be to health reform what Sinclair’s “The Jungle” was to food safety. It explains current trends in the commercialization of medicine better than virtually any journalistic work out there. Sadly, it appears that its author is now more inclined to “stay above the fray” than to try to articulate and lobby for the regulatory infrastructure necessary for the cultural change he so eloquently advocates.

X-Posted at: Concurring Opinions.

Atul Gawande: Why McAllen Texas Kant be the answer to health reform

“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end. ”

-Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals^[1]

Atul Gawande has done it again. He has written a piece for the New Yorker that you simply have to read:  “The Cost Conundrum.What a Texas town can teach us about health care.“

Gawande writes that McAllen “is one of the most expensive health-care markets in the country. Only Miami-which has much higher labor and living costs-spends more per person on health care. In 2006, Medicare spent fifteen thousand dollars per enrollee here, almost twice the national average. The income per capita is twelve thousand dollars. In other words, Medicare spends three thousand dollars more per person here than the average person earns.”

El Paso, Texas, similarly situated, spends significantly less- half as much. The why of it is absolutely compelling. And it struck me while reading that what Gawande finds is essentially a medical culture functioning, and incentivized, contrary to Kant’s categorical imperative (see above): the simple moral admonition that one must not merely “use” others.

Might I suggest that it is passing strange to find ourselves, in the midst of such daunting medical, technical, and financial data contained within the  proposed solutions and counter-solutions to arrive at this–a simple (but difficult) age old moral truth?

Pragmatically, as one looks upon the current system of health care and health care finance,  it is well worth quoting Harold Luft from today’s Washington Times: “A redesigned system must create new incentives for those entities so their self-interested behavior leads to a better societal outcome.” Gawande offers examples of systems which provide an infrastructure conducive to Mr. Kant’s imperative.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=1

Clinical Research: When the Compensation Begs the Answer

The New York Times reports that New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram announced a settlement agreement with medical device maker, Synthes, for failing to disclose the financial conflicts of interest of doctors researching its products. Synthes is the maker of the ProDisc, an artificial spinal disk.

The settlement agreement with Synthes was described in the AG’s press release, which quoted Ms. Milgram, as “the first of its kind because of its disclosure provisions, as well as its ban on compensating clinical researchers with company stock. She said the latter provision runs counter to widespread industry practice — a practice she called unacceptable.” Notably, the state pursued the case as a matter of consumer fraud. The premise being that the failure to fully disclose such conflicts constituted such for both human trial subjects and the purchasing public.

In a letter to the FDA, critical of the FDA and cc’d to key members of Congress, Ms. Milgram described the results of the AG’s investigation into the business and research practices of Synthes. The letter states:

The investigation revealed that a majority of the physicians who participated in these clinical trials had significant investments in the products -investments that would have been worthless had the product failed to obtain regulatory approval from the FDA. And, the investigation revealed that Synthes, which acquired ProDisc while the clinical trials were underway, failed to disclose these financial conflicts of interest to the FDA.

Yet, despite the fact that Synthes’ failure to adequately disclose these interests should have been obvious from even a cursory review of its FDA submissions, the FDA did nothing to regulate these conflicts. A number of the disclosure forms were signed and dated, but were otherwise left blank. Others indicated that the clinical investigator had a significant equity interest in the product, but did not attach the requisite details. But the FDA approved Synthes’ applications for premarket approval without any delay or further inquiry into this issue.

Leaving aside for the moment the criticism of the FDA (the State of New Jersey joins a long list of increasingly vocal complainants, including the Program on Government Oversight (citing “dramatically reduced inspections of ‘good laboratory practices’ at facilities that do the earliest testing of medical devices. Such inspections declined from 33 in 2005, to seven in 2007, to just one last year”),  and FDA scientists from the Center for Devices and  Radiological Health, who have openly proclaimed that the FDA “is fundamentally broken.”), it’s worth a moment to consider that Synthes has agreed to “stop paying doctors who are conducting clinical trials of its products with stock or stock options,” and that AG Milgram described the compensation of research doctors with stock as being “apparently common” and a “widespread industry practice.”

Compensating a  doctor with stock or stock options financially tied to the results of his research may well be the antithesis of an impetus for objective clinical research.

The basic proposition is this: you, doctor, are charged with investigating whether or not this medical device is safe and fit and shows efficacy for human use. For doing so, we will give you a portion of the company (stock or stock options) which owns the medical device. If the medical device is efficacious and fit for human use, the company will stand to profit. As a holder of stock and/or stock options in the company, you will be paid a portion of that profit and/or the value of your holdings in the company will increase correspondent to your determination of safety for human use and efficacy. If you determine that the device is not safe for human use and/or not efficacious, your holdings in the company will be worth much less, if not worthless. “Is the device safe for human use and efficacious?” Does an answer of “Yes” surprise anyone?

It is also not an answer to say that the doctors may have merely been compensated in cash and then later converted that cash into stock or stock options independently. My guess is that in constructing these compensation packages, as with most securities matters, timing and knowledge is important. That the stock or stock options must be issued or at least contracted for by the researcher simultaneous with the hiring so as to avoid SEC difficulty regarding the particulars of the researchers’ “inside” and “confidential” knowledge regarding the device and the research itself. Researchers who have purchased interested stock (or who have had stock purchased by others) before news of their research has been made public have often paid a price.

And obviously, once the doctor’s research has been made public, any positive results will have been already reflected in the market price of the stock, all but foreclosing the research doctor from reaping profits tied directly to his research determinations.

As part of A.G. Milgram’s “Assurance of Voluntary Compliance agreement (the Synthes case was handled by Deputy Attorney General Megan Lewis, Chief of the Division of Law’s Affirmative Litigation Section, and Deputy Attorney General Michelle T. Weiner) Synthes must disclose any future payments made by the company to physicians conducting clinical trials on its devices, as well as any investments held by such physicians in the devices they test. A $3 billion global company, Synthes has also agreed to stop paying clinical trial physicians with company stock or stock options.”

Attorney General Milgram said that “the Synthes agreement should serve as a template for the entire industry,” and in her letter to the FDA remarked that she was “hopeful the Synthes terms will become “best practices” for disclosure among medical device makers.”

In addition to signifying her hope, Ms. Milgram announced that her office issued subpoenas “to five major medical device manufacturing companies seeking information about their business practices.”

Physician Shortage in Relation to Compensation

The New York Times has run an article regarding physician shortages and physician compensation that is well worth a read. The Times reports that Obama administration officials

said they were particularly concerned about shortages of primary care providers who are the main source of health care for most Americans.

One proposal - to increase Medicare payments to general practitioners, at the expense of high-paid specialists - has touched off a lobbying fight.

But as the Times article does not give particulars as to physician compensation, it may be of some help to actually look at the numbers.  To do so, I’ve re-posted this blog from a few months back. If, after you’ve looked at the numbers, you would like some explanation as to why they are the way they are, Professor Frank Pasquale’s post, Will Specialist Pay Be a Target of Health Care Reform?, will also serve you well. For an even further look at physician compensation, click here, and for a look at physician shortage matters click here.

Physician Compensation II

Yesterday’s post displayed recent Bureau of Labor Statistic figures concerning physician compensation, and offered a link to recent median physician compensation data approved for use by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for calculations regarding direct graduate medical education under 42 CFR 413.78(f). The producer of this data, AMGA, also offers an interactive physician compensation survey which shows “average” and “starting” compensation for various specialties. A click on the arrow underneath “average” will sort from lowest to highest.

Here below is a list of a few of the CMS approved median physician compensation figures for a number of different specialties. The numbers are taken from the 2008 report.

The median compensation for a practitioner:

• Pediatric & Adolescent, Internal 161,444
• Pediatric & Adolescent, Infect. Disease 174,154
• Family Medicine, w/out Obstetrics 176,280
• Family Med., w/out Obst., Branch* 190,182
• Geriatrics 179,344
• Podiatry: 180,080
• Transplant Surgery, Kidney 368,750
• Dermatology, Branch* 301,111
• Dermatology, Mohs 423,848
• Not neural, Non-Interventionist, Radiology 420,858
• Mammography 540,028
• Orthopedic Surgery, Spine 611,670

*Branch is defined by AMGA as: These specialties have the same basic definition as the main specialty. These physicians located in small satellite or branch offices at least five miles from the main campus. The branch office practices primarily as its own separate entity, and often has different compensation and/or performance expectations than its main campus colleagues, there would be no teaching responsibilities at these locations.

With these numbers, over the course of ten career years, if calculated at a constant rate without regard to future increases in compensation, the median paid “Family Doctor, Branch” will have earned $1,900,182. During those same static ten years, a “Mammographer” will have earned $5,400,280. If the Family Doctor were to consult with the Mammographer at the end of those ten years, she would be doing so with someone who had made $3,500,098 more than she-nearly 3 times as much. If that same Family Doctor were to then consult with someone from the lowest paid of the three categories of Radiologist, Not neural, Non-Interventionist, she would be doing so with someone who had made $4,208,580 during that time-which would be $2,308,398 more than she-or more than twice as much.

Perhaps by way of consolation for the PCP, the Geriatrics specialist and the Pediatric Infectious Disease specialist would have fared worse, and even the Kidney transplant specialist who consults with the radiologist would be speaking with someone who had made a half of a million dollars more than he did.

But perhaps it is not consolation enough; the AMA has reported that the nation faces a shortage of 35,000 to 40,000 Primary Care Physicians.

Medical Imaging: Why Are We Spending So Much?

It is not only the sheer number of medical imaging tests (necessary and unnecessary), such as MRIs, CT scans, and PET scans, that is contributing to the overall cost of medical imaging.  Other factors adding to the fact that insurers’ expenditures on medical imaging are growing at 18-20% annually are the use of older imaging machines, the growing trend of physicians who have ownership interests in imaging machines, and radiologists’ high compensation.

Currently, imaging centers are not required to, but may choose to, become accredited by The American College of Radiology.   Therefore, the age of an imaging machine is not regulated and older machines may produce blurry or poor scans.  This leads to repeat tests and misdiagnoses, which can result in an illness remaining undetected or even unnecessary surgery, as is depicted in the NY Times article.

In the current system, compensation is not based on the quality of the scan and therefore there is no incentive for the facility or physician to purchase a new and very costly imaging machine.  As the Wall St. Journal Health Blog points out radiologists read the scans and the insurer who pays for the scan never sees it to determine its quality. Read more

As the Obama Budget Unfurls, Details About Health Care Reform Emerge

The New York Times has published an article, “Obama Offers Broad Plan to Revamp Health Care” which ably outlines the contours of the emergent health plan–and the way we’ll pay for it. Or at least the way President Obama proposes we’ll pay for it. According to the Times, “Mr. Obama asked Congress to set aside $634 billion in a ‘reserve fund for health care reform.’”

Suffice it to say, for the moment, that there are winners:

Cancer research, a multi-year plan designed to double it; Biosimilars (generic versions of biotech drugs), speeded approval through “a new regulatory pathway” at the Food and Drug Administration;” low-income women, increased access to family planning through Medicaid; and doctors, who will not be subjected to the Medicare cuts in payments scheduled to take effect in 2010 under current law (21% in 2010, 5% for a few years thereafter);

And there are losers:

Drug Companies, an increased discount to Medicaid (from 15.1% to 22.1% of avg. manufacturer’s price); Private Insurers, a cut in payments to Medicare Advantage providers; higher income Medicare recipients, increased prescription drug premiums; Hospitals, a decrease in Medicare payments for those hospitals with a high proportion of re-admits within 30 days of initial release (said to be indicative of  poor initial performance); home health agencies, a $37 billion cut over the next 10 years.

Of course, “loser” is a relative term; and sometimes a gored ox, if it lives, is better than no ox at all. And I would imagine that is easier to bear the loss of  some oxen than it is others: specifically, an increased discount in Medicaid prescription drug pricing, is not the ability of Medicare to bargain for the price of prescription drugs. A topic we wrote about in early January, and a reform which the Obama Health Care campaign plan promised:

“At present, Medicare is itself unable to negotiate drug pricing. In Obama’s campaign health plan, he stated that he would

‘Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug pricing. The 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act bans the government from negotiating down the prices of prescription drugs, even though the Department of Veterans Affairs’ negotiation of prescription drug prices with drug companies has garnered significant savings for taxpayers. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will repeal the ban on direct negotiation with drug companies and use the resulting savings, which could be as high as $30 billion, to further invest in improving health care coverage and quality’ (footnotes omitted).”

My guess is that this is an ox the drug companies are trying to save.

A Shortage of General Surgeons, Rural Hospitals Must Compete

The Washington Post ran a story today, “Shortage of General Surgeons Endangers Rural Americans,” which, as the title suggests, reported on the shortage of general surgeons. The story describes the sort “jack of all (surgical) trades” existence of a general surgeon and reports that “In 1980, 945 newly trained general surgeons were certified in the United States. In 2008, the number was essentially the same — 972 — even though the population has increased by 79 million. In 1994, there were 7.1 general surgeons per 100,000 people. Today there are five per 100,000.”

WaPo reports

“For the one-quarter of Americans who live outside metropolitan areas, general surgeons are the essential ingredient that keeps full-service medical care within reach. Without general surgeons as backup, family practitioners can’t deliver babies, emergency rooms can’t take trauma cases, and most internists won’t do complicated procedures such as colonoscopies. But various forces — educational, medical and sociological — are making them an endangered species.”

“Many young physicians are opting for non-surgical specialties, such as radiology or cardiology, in which they can earn as much money as a surgeon with less grueling and unpredictable hours. Many young surgeons, in turn, choose to concentrate in fields such as transplant surgery or plastic surgery, in which they can make more money and don’t have to face (usually alone) the wide range of problems a generalist faces.”

Importantly, the article discusses efforts to recruit new general surgeons and relative compensation incentives; it recounts how 57 year old Bob Kuhl, who has spent his entire career as a general surgeon in Creston Iowa, threatened to quit 18 months ago because “When the hospital hired Kuhl’s younger partner, it guaranteed him a salary greater than the $185,000 the older man had been making.” The hospital, however, is said to have made arrangements to assure Kuhl “a higher income, too.”

It is perhaps important to note that the recruitment of general surgeons is said to compete with such lucrative non-surgical specialties such as radiology. As posted recently, the median compensation for a not neural, non-interventionist radiologist is $420,858. As noted in another recent post, this level of radiologist compensation has been ably attributed on Ezra Klein’s blog to advances in technology and antiquated fee for service structures:

“Now because of the explosion of imaging, and practice efficiency, these guys are reading 3x the images they did 15 years, and making three times as much.”

The post on Mr. Klein’s blog assures us that “Eventually, payors and Medicare figures things out and start putting pressures on rates. But it takes a while.” Unfortunately, it seems that as hospitals and other medical providers must compete against such “not yet figured out” largesse for the services of newly minted physicians, the damage has been done– and a benchmark has been set.

Next Page »