Showing posts with label physicians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label physicians. Show all posts

Monday, September 19, 2016

The truth about why the U.S. can’t control healthcare costs

Editor’s Note: Welcome to Medical Economics' blog section which features contributions from members of the medical community. These blogs are an opportunity for bloggers to engage with readers about a topic that is top of mind, whether it is practice management, experiences with patients, the industry, medicine in general, or healthcare reform. The series continues with this blog by Ryan Gamlin, a former health care management consultant and current medical student at the University of Cincinnati. The views expressed in these blogs are those of their respective contributors and do not represent the views of Medical Economics or UBM Medica.

A graphic making the rounds on social media has people talking—plots health spending per capita against the average life expectancy for two dozen countries. The chart has renewed the important conversation around why the United States’ experience is such an outlier, spending more than any other country by a wide margin, effectively proving the adage that “more is not better.”


The question of why the U.S. generates so little value for its healthcare dollar is a persistent source of study and debate. While dramatic changes are underway in how care is financed and delivered, two major structural impediments to moving the U.S. “closer to the curve” are rarely discussed.

The Inverted Pyramid
The U.S. spent less than $300 per person on public health in 2014 (the most recent year for which data is available) – this compared to $9,523 in per-capita total healthcare spending. While this figure is not comprehensive (it does not include things such as corporate wellness programs), the best estimate is that only 3% of all healthcare spending goes towards promoting health, response to health emergencies, and the prevention of illness and injury.

A rational system of health promotion would invest in wellness, rather than reveling in its ability to cure disease, yet under traditional fee-for-service compensation models, prevention has been a business model without profit, and the fractured and often fractious landscape of federal, state, and local public health spending has often left public health agencies without adequate resources and direction to achieve their mission.


The bulk of public health expenditures have been shifted to the state level, creating an inefficient patchwork quilt of programs and initiatives. Funding for public health has been feast or famine, leaving delivering agencies and organizations unable to plan for or execute long-term projects. Much as the tragic I-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis brought the issue of infrastructure under-investment to the public’s attention, Congressional inaction on salient threats to public well-being such as the Zika virus have left Americans in undue danger.

Dependency on the Healthcare Jobs Machine
When healthcare jobs do not increase productivity, the increased real price of healthcare is transmitted, via increased costs of production, to nearly all goods and services throughout the broader economy – a vast “ripple effect” not seen with inefficiency in other jobs sectors.

Unwinding this system quickly would be catastrophic. The U.S. has made a Faustian bargain: a healthcare system that generates fantastic profits for shareholders and delivers well-paying jobs, while straining governments at every level and households across the nation.


While excessive profits are often cited as the cause of runaway spending, it is more important to examine the rampant excesses – the accumulated inefficiencies, myriad costs, large and small – of the system. Healthcare transactions in the U.S. are defined by a complex and unenviable process, during which information and money are transferred between a number of entities, accruing cost and complexity at each step. Each step is marked by administrative duplication.

In the health insurance market, for example, a number of companies offer a similar set of services (charitably, these would include handling claims, answering customer inquiries, and negotiating discounts with facilities and health care providers), yet each organization generates a unique set of transactional and profit totaling in the tens of billions of dollars. With a simplified payment system, insurance – and insurers – would be less complex. Less complex organizations may be run more efficiently, and with a lower managerial burden.

Inefficiency also manifests itself on the provider side. From 1990 to 2012 healthcare jobs grew by 75% -- far faster than patient volumes. Worse, the growth of healthcare administrators far outpaces the rise of the healthcare labor force as a whole; more than 60% of all physician jobs are now purely administrative.

What Lies Ahead
Physicians, for their part, have begun to push back against administrative waste and excess, moving in large numbers to service delivery models like Direct Primary Care – saving themselves and patients the time, frustration, and costs associated with third party payment.


New reimbursement structures, like shared savings and ACOs, will draw provider and payer incentives closer to one another – and it is within these highly aligned arrangements that the efforts of physician stewardship organizations, such as Costs of Care and Choosing Wisely. will likely be most effective.

But with 53% of physician reimbursement tied to fee-for-service, the majority of dollars saved through these efforts are still subject to recapture by insurers, administrators, or other entities, rather than making their way back to patients in the form of lower out-of-pocket costs.

As Holman W. Jenkins pointed out in a recent, devastating, satire of the Mylan Pharmaceuticals Epi-Pen scandal, many of the incentives in the current healthcare system are aligned only with growing the total scale of healthcare expenditures, not shrinking them.

Until we create a system that rewards investment in wellness and healthcare dollars not spent, there is reason to fear that the negative effects of healthcare excesses will continue to be borne by households, businesses, and governments.

Thursday, April 14, 2016

Medicare Seeks Savings And Innovation With A Switch In Doctors' Pay

The Obama administration is recruiting as many as 20,000 primary care doctors for an initiative it hopes will change the way physicians get paid and provide care.

The program, which was announced Monday, will be run by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The aim is to stop paying doctors based on the number of billable services and visits provided to Medicare beneficiaries and instead to tie payments to overall patient health and outcomes.

"We think there will be a high level of interest across states and regions among primary care providers," said Dr. Patrick Conway, the chief medical officer at CMS. "The model aligns with how doctors and patients want to practice medicine."

Under the five-year project, CMS will recruit primary care doctors into two separate payment tracks. Both will include a monthly payment to doctors for each Medicare beneficiary, but the amounts will vary.

The fee for doctors in the first track will average $15 a beneficiary; the physicians will also still be paid for each service they provide. The fee for the second track will average $28; doctors will receive lower fees than those in the first track for each service. (In both tracks, the monthly payments will be higher for patients with more complex health problems.)
 
The idea is that doctor groups will use the payments that aren't tied to specific services to develop different ways to provide care, including telephone and video consultations. They might also use care managers to help patients with their medications and chronic illnesses.

The payment change "really allows them to move away from a visit-based, fee-for-service structure," Conway said on a conference call with reporters.

Doctors who want to participate in the program have to commit to offering patients preventive care, support for chronic illnesses and 24-hour access to health care and health information.

Conway says CMS expects the second track, with lower fees for itemized services, to save Medicare about $2 billion over five years.

The project is based on a pilot program set up under the Affordable Care Act to test new ways to deliver and to pay for health care. The goals are to improving care and cut costs.

Fee-for-service systems encourage too much medical intervention, says Robert Berenson, a fellow at the Urban Institute who has written about medical payment systems. But, he adds, programs that only pay a flat fee for care and result in physicians or hospitals cutting back too much.

"This is an attempt to balance paying for visits at a reasonable rate and then reimbursing substantially for all the other activities that are necessary to provide care," he says, such as phone calls and coordinating with other doctors.

The CMS program is similar to successful health care payment systems in Denmark and the Netherlands that combine fees for itemized services and flat fees per patient.

Berenson says, however, that CMS's goal of including 20,000 doctors may be too high. CMS would be better off working out the glitches in the approach with a smaller number of physician practices before rolling it out more widely.

source

Friday, October 17, 2014

Doctors Still Order Unneeded Tests Despite Malpractice Reform

A new study undercuts the age-old argument from doctors that they have to practice “defensive medicine” due to fears of being sued in a court system they say favors plaintiff patients.

A new analysis by the RAND Corporation of the behavior of emergency room physicians in three states that raised malpractice standards shows doctors still order expensive and often unnecessary medical tests. In this study, malpractice reform laws in Texas and South Carolina had no effect on the use of expensive imaging and a law in Georgia had only a small drop in emergency room charges.

“Physicians say they order unnecessary tests strictly out of fear of being sued, but our results suggest the story is more complicated,” said Dr. Daniel A. Waxman, a researcher at RAND who is the leader author of the study, “The Effect of Malpractice Reform on Emergency Department Care” published in a special article in the Oct. 16 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. The study was funded by the Veterans Affairs Office of Academic Affiliations.

The three states enacted legislation that changed the “malpractice standard for emergency care to gross negligence” which significantly raises the bar for plaintiffs in malpractice cases. Texas’ legislation was signed into law in 2003 by Republican Gov. Rick Perry. In 2005, similar legislation was signed into law by then South Carolina Republican Gov. Mark Sanford and Georgia’s GOP Governor, Sonny Perdue , who also signed the malpractice legislation in 2005.

Rising health care costs have long been part of the argument for enacting such laws with at least one widely cited study saying $210 billion annually is spent on “needless care motivated by fear of malpractice litigation,” Waxman and researchers wrote, citing a 2010 PriceWaterhouseCoopers analysis.

But when researchers looked at nearly 4 million Medicare patient records from more than 1,100 hospital emergency departments from 1997 to 2011, they “did not find evidence that these reforms decreased practice intensity, as measured by the rate of the use of advanced imaging, by the rate of hospital admission, or in two of three cases, by average charges,” Waxman and colleagues wrote.

RAND researchers examined whether doctors ordered either a CT or MRI scan known as advanced imaging, as well as whether the patient was hospitalized after an emergency department visit and the total charges for the visit.

“When legal risk decreases, the ‘path of least resistance’ may still favor resource-intensive care,” RAND researchers wrote in their conclusion. “Our results suggest that malpractice reform may have less effect on costs than has been projected.”

source

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Obamacare Is Making a Difference, But Here's What We Must Tackle Next

Wendell Potter

Although there is no shortage of critics of the Affordable Care Act -- on the far left as well as the right -- it's hard to dispute that the law has benefited millions of Americans. And not just those who have become newly insured over the past year.

President Barack Obama cited some of the impressive statistics last Thursday, the day after the one-year anniversary of the turbulent debut of the Obamacare-created online health insurance exchanges.

"In just the last year, we've reduced the share of uninsured Americans by 26 percent," he said. "That means one in four uninsured Americans -- about 10 million people -- have gained the financial security of health insurance in less than one year."

Approximately 8 million people were finally able to sign up for coverage on the exchanges after the many technical problems were fixed. Many others were able to enroll in health plans on private exchanges or by working directly with an insurance company or agent. As a consequence, the rate of uninsured Americans dropped from 21 percent in September 2013 to 16.3 percent this past April.

Even though open enrollment for the Obamacare exchanges ended in April, people have still been joining the ranks of the insured since then. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the number of newly insured Americans will grow to 12 million by the end of this year.

A significant percentage of those folks were not able to find affordable coverage in the past, and many were not able to buy health insurance at any price because of insurance industry business practices that were outlawed by the ACA. Before Obamacare, insurance companies were able to declare you "uninsurable" if you had a preexisting condition, even conditions you might have been born with.

During the months that health care reform was being debated in Washington, I met many young people who told me they had not been able to buy an insurance policy because of congenital heart defects and other conditions they had had since birth.

Now they can.

That provision and other parts of Obamacare that force insurance companies to be more consumer-friendly benefit all of us, but those sections of the law are rarely mentioned these days, probably because many of them went into effect long before the exchanges were up and running. Here's a partial list:

Insurers can no longer "rescind" our policies when we get sick just to avoid paying our medical expenses;
They must allow our children to stay on our policies until they turn 26 if they can't find jobs that offer coverage;

They can't devote more than 20 percent of our premium dollars to overhead and profits;

They can no longer charge women more than men; and

They can't charge older folks more than three times as much as they charge young people for the exact same policy.

The law also benefits seniors on Medicare by closing the donut hole in the prescription drug benefit and by covering preventive care, including screenings, and it is saving the Medicare program billions of dollars by gradually reducing the extra amounts the government has been paying private insurers to participate in the Medicare Advantage program.

All that said, the law falls short in many ways. While it is reducing the rate of uninsured Americans, it doesn't get us anywhere close enough to the universal coverage that residents of other developed countries enjoy. While the ACA will cut the number of uninsured by half in the coming years, the CBO estimates that 31 million of us will still be uninsured in 2024.

Many of the newly insured are also finding that their choices of health care providers is severely limited in some of the health plans being offered on the exchanges. "Narrow networks" are not new -- they were common in the managed care plans of the 1990s -- but insurers gradually began to broaden their networks after widespread complaints. Now they're making a comeback.

The ACA also allows insurers to sell plans with very high deductibles. They can appear at first glance to be good deals because their premiums generally are lower than plans with more modest deductibles. But many people who enroll in high-deductible plans find out after they get sick or injured that they can't afford to pay their share of their medical bills. Although the ACA does put a limit on out-of-pocket expenses, it still will not prevent many insured families from filing for bankruptcy after a serious illness.

And while the law apparently is helping to keep medical costs in check, it doesn't go far enough. We still spend more per capita on health care than any other country. In that sense, I agree with my former colleagues in the insurance industry: The law doesn't do enough to address the "real cost drivers" of medical inflation. That will require taking on the hospital companies, physician organizations and drug makers in ways the White House and members of both parties in Congress were not willing to do in 2009 because of the political clout they have in Washington. Consequently, much more reform will have to be undertaken in years to come.

source

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

ACOs, other delivery reforms shift job roles at hospitals



Phoenix obstetrician Megan Cheney no longer makes hours of telephone calls on Thursday nights to report routine results of laboratory tests to waiting patients. The calls, however, still get made every week.

A medical assistant with experience in obstetrics and gynecology now handles calls involving routine findings. That has freed time for Cheney to draft the lectures she delivers twice a week to her medical resident trainees. The shift in responsibilities may be minor, a matter of hours in a lengthy work week. But it is one of many underway at Banner Health, where the drive to cut costs has triggered an extensive overhaul of employees' roles and patient care.

Labor is the largest expense for health systems, and Banner officials see potential savings in freeing up their highest-paid professionals—doctors, pharmacists, advanced practice nurses, physician assistants—for work only they are qualified to do. “We certainly don't need physicians calling back on routine results,” said Mindy Smith, chief operating officer of the Banner Medical Group. To do that, Banner is delegating new responsibilities across a team of clinical and clerical workers. Not only has that shifted work from doctors to medical assistants, but also from medical assistants to clerical staff, whose numbers will soon grow in Cheney's clinic to accommodate the domino-like transfer of duties.

New financial incentives
The same strategy is playing out at health systems across the country as new financial incentives to cut costs proliferate under Medicare and private insurance. The focus on more tightly defined roles has grown. Some have done so strictly to cut costs. Others have sought to maximize the efficiency of teams used to manage patients' care. The result has been an ongoing, sometimes uncertain evolution in the daily tasks of healthcare's front-line workforce.

As a result, roles for medical assistants, pharmacy technicians and other workers, including clerical staff, have expanded. Those without extensive medical credentials or a high salary are being asked to work more closely with patients. Advanced practice nurses see primary-care patients. Medical assistants meet with clinic patients to collect basic information once gathered by nurses.

These practices have increased demand for such workers, including occupations with more advanced clinical training such as advanced practice nurses and physician assistants, whose median salaries are nearing $100,000 less than those of physicians. Advance practice nursing hires represent the fastest-growing segment for recruiter Merritt Hawkins, said Travis Singleton, a senior vice president for the firm. Jobs for medical assistants are projected to grow 29% by 2022. Physician assistants and advanced practice nurses will see demand increase 38% and 31%, respectively.

The pressure to squeeze labor expenses has been amplified as health systems invest in workers to more heavily promote prevention and manage medical care, regardless of its location, from hospitals to clinics to homes, and to provide support as patients move between them.

The upfront employee investment, industry executives say, is expected to yield a return by preventing disease complications and costly hospital visits and producing the quality of care required to earn incentives under new payment contracts, such as accountable care. But managing labor costs is a top priority.

Accountable care organizations have hired scores of care coordinators as they launch their efforts. Advocate Health Care in Illinois initially hired 60 coordinators. Partners HealthCare, Boston, doubled its care coordination staff to 50 as it ramped up its early ACO efforts. But that investment can drag down margins. Universal American, a publicly traded insurer that owns the most Medicare accountable care organizations, said its $63 million investment in care coordination and information technology last year eroded its earnings.

Greater investment in care coordination has also intensified efforts to reorganize roles and shift responsibilities, not solely to increase efficiency but to better coordinate medical care among multiple professionals who jointly care for those patients at the highest risk for costly complications.

Care coordination strategies increasingly rely on teams of social workers, health coaches, doctors, nurses, physician assistants and medical assistants who collaborate to provide patient care. A team model seeks to leverage each individual's expertise to increase efficiency, said Dr. Dave Krueger, executive director and medical director for the Bellin-ThedaCare Healthcare Partners.

“We shouldn't be asking the nurse to become an expert on the social work side and vice versa,” he said. “A group of us is going to be taking care of a group of patients. Instead of a doctor with a patient panel, it will be more of a clinic with a clinic panel.”

'Big economic lift'
That care team is expanding to include pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and psychiatrists to tackle medication errors and prevalent but untreated mental illness that can undermine patients' ability to care for themselves. Advocate Health Care soon will add psychiatrists and psychologists to teams that meet with hospitalized patients. Dr. Lee Sacks, chief medical officer for Advocate and chief executive of its physician group, said a 2011 study of its hospitalized patients found one-third had mental health conditions, and those patients spent more time in the hospital and were more likely to return.

Advocate also will add mental-health professionals to emergency-department teams and primary-care clinics, with the hope of improving care and lowering costs. “If we did a better job, there would be a big economic lift,” he said.

But the switch to teams and newly defined roles isn't straightforward or without risk, experts say. Communication breakdowns among team members can compromise care. Tensions may arise as roles are reassigned.

Health systems do not yet know what configurations work best for various patients or settings, and efforts vary as organizations test and tweak different models. “We're experimenting,” Banner Health's Smith said.

Banner has shifted numerous responsibilities to medical assistants, reducing its reliance on registered nurses. Banner now sees an expanded role for registered nurses to work with more complex patients. And Advocate patients who call to speak with a nurse now are triaged to clerical staff unless the request is medical in nature.

New roles, new relationships
Some doctors and other professionals are struggling to adapt to the new roles and new relationships required to make care coordination successful. Older physicians who have long been in the workforce typically struggle more to work within a team after years of independence and more entrepreneurial practice, recruiters say. Conversely, younger doctors are often more eager to make the switch to teams, despite limited training.

Medical groups are looking for cost-effective alternatives to replace retiring physicians as Medicare and private insurers squeeze reimbursement and new financing models grow more common, said David Cornett, a senior executive vice president at Cejka Search, a healthcare recruiting firm. “The initial waves of bundled payments are telegraphing that doctors will be paid less and not more,” he said.

Employers increasingly hire doctors, young or old, who can embrace the common goal of team-based care, Singleton said. They can be difficult to find when training does little to prepare doctors to work collectively. “A team of experts does not equal an expert team,” he said. “We've trained them to work alone, and we're asking them to practice completely differently.”

Banner's Cheney, who joined the same practice where she was a resident until last summer, said she feels more comfortable delegating now that she has built a relationship with a medical assistant. Assigning tasks to the medical assistant clearly can improve her efficiency, but she says she must resist the urge to do more, as was the case when she was a resident. “You're used to doing everything,” Cheney said. “I know the ins and outs of the office. It's been an adjustment.”

Alleviate frustrations
Patients, too, must adjust. Diane Ekstrand, vice president of human resources for Banner, said it was a medical assistant who called to remind her of an upcoming annual physical and who initially discussed her medications, weight and family life during the appointment.

Too little time with a doctor, however, may frustrate many patients. Teams should not be a barrier to appropriate physician visits, said Dr. Bob Williams, a director with consulting firm Deloitte who helps oversee the company's accountable care consulting.

But teams with clearly defined responsibilities can help alleviate workers' frustration and boost job satisfaction, executives and consultants say. Jobs with more responsibility can be more fulfilling and show an employer values workers' expertise and talents. That can be an asset for employers in a competitive labor market, said Jennifer Radin, a principal with Deloitte who specializes in workforce and operations. “Those who are more satisfied are more likely to stay with the organization.”
 

Monday, November 11, 2013

Health Care Reform: The Real Issue

Everywhere someone is talking about Health Care Reform…politicians, consumer groups, and the media.  Big insurance carriers have become a target and are disparaged repeatedly for continuing to raise premiums. 

While everyone focuses on health insurance reform, no one looks at what causes these sky high increases:  the rising cost of health care.  According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, by 2019 health care spending will near $4.4 trillion.  The California Health Care Foundation reported that health care spending is rising three times faster than inflation.  Additionally, Medicare spending is rising 10% annually while enrollment is only increasing by 2.5%.  In 2009, the most recent data, Medicaid spending increased almost 7% while enrollment only increased 2.3%.

As a result, hospitals, outpatient surgery centers, imaging centers, labs, medical groups and pharmaceutical companies seek higher payments from health insurance carriers when negotiating contracts.  Recently, some negotiations have reached impasses that only penalized patients who found themselves unable to visit their doctor or hospital due to a disruption in insurance.  Carriers are caught between politicians who scorn premium increases and providers who ask for higher reimbursements.

There are many culprits driving this high and rising cost of health care.

First is cost shifting.  As Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements decreased by 20% to 30%, hospitals and providers are attempting to shift lost revenue to insurance carriers.  To do so, they have been seeking 25% to 45% increases in coverage.  Yet with the clamor about high insurance costs, there is no way carriers can raise rates to offset these increases should they accept them, nor can they afford to absorb them.  This illustrates a major predicament facing health insurance carriers– lower health care spending and increase premiums, or lower premiums and increase the health care cost burden.

Second is lifestyle choices that result in a higher use of health care services.  It is widely known that 75% of health care costs are associated with lifestyle issues such as obesity, tobacco, and sedentary lifestyles.  These choices lead to chronic issues such as diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure and heart disease that could have been prevented purely by embracing healthier lifestyles.

A third cause is medical technology.

Expensive technology accounts for about one half to two-thirds of spending growth.  Technology is now essentially mandated for compliance to HIPPA laws and is used increasingly by doctors seeking to protect themselves against medical malpractice lawsuits.  Not all this technology contributes to better care.  Technology expenses will only become worse as new tests and more costly equipment emerge.

The fourth cause comes from inefficiencies that result in the unnecessary repetition of services by multiple doctors.  An anesthesia medical group in Los Angeles told me that about 50% of the time they are forced to re-order test results on a rush basis prior to surgery because critical reports have been omitted from the charts.  In another example, I spoke with one individual who sees both his primary care doctor and his oncologist four times a year.  Both doctors draw blood and send it for lab tests.  Recently, he learned that the doctors were running the same tests.  This duplication of draws and tests also doubled costs and insurance claims.  Ultimately, carriers ended up paying double for the same services.

The fifth factor in rising costs is drug company advertising.

Doctors are prescribing more – and patients are taking more – drugs for conditions that didn’t exist a short time ago, conditions like restless leg syndrome.  The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that nearly two-thirds of Americans fill at least one prescription and the average American fills 12 prescriptions annually.  Half of all patients leave a doctor’s office with a prescription.  Yet, these same people ask more questions when buying a car than when they get a prescription for a new drug.  Additionally, patients with multiple doctors often receive a variety of prescriptions for different purposes.  Unfortunately, patients don’t always show their drug lists to each of their doctors.  This often results in new maladies from complications cause by mixing drugs, again, increasing medical care costs.

The last factor is health care fraud.  According to the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association, it is estimated that fraud adds up to 3% of all annual health care spending, that’s $68 billion a year, or more than $180 million daily.  Better fraud prevention can only lower health care spending.

Even with health insurance reform, rising premium costs will prevail until the focus is placed on healthcare reform and these issues are addressed.  Every participant in health care – from patients to doctors to carriers and politicians – must be part of the solution in order to bend the cost curve downward.

source

Sunday, January 13, 2013

New York City Ties Doctors’ Income to Quality of Care

In a bold experiment in performance pay, complaints from patients at New York City’s public hospitals and other measures of their care — like how long before they are discharged and how they fare afterward — will be reflected in doctors’ paychecks under a plan being negotiated by the physicians and their hospitals.

The proposal represents a broad national push away from the traditional model of rewarding doctors for the volume of services they order, a system that has been criticized for promoting unnecessary treatment. In the wake of changes laid out in the Affordable Care Act, public and private hospitals are already preparing to have their income tied partly to patient outcomes and cost containment, but the city’s plan extends that financial incentive to the front line, the doctors directly responsible for treatment. It also shows how the new law could change longstanding relationships, giving more power to some of the poorest and most vulnerable patients over doctors who run their care. 

“I would expect that we’re going to see this become more and more prevalent in compensation arrangements,” said Alan Aviles, president of the city’s Health and Hospitals Corporation, which runs the city’s 11 public hospitals and is the country’s largest public health system, handling more than 1 million emergency room visits a year. 

The corporation’s plan would make doctors’ raises dependent on their performance on quality measures. The details are being negotiated with the doctors’ union, but both sides expect to reach an agreement that incorporates the idea. 

Still, doctors are hesitant, saying they could be penalized for conditions they cannot control, including how clean the hospital floors are, the attentiveness of nurses and the availability of beds.
And it is unclear whether performance incentives work in the medical world; studies of similar programs in other countries indicate that doctors learn to manipulate the system. 

“The consequences in a complex system like a hospital for giving an incentive for one little piece of behavior are virtually impossible to foresee,” said Dr. David U. Himmelstein, professor of public health at the City University of New York and a visiting professor at Harvard Medical School, who has reviewed the literature on performance incentives. “There are ways of gaming it without even outright lying that distort the meaning of the measure.” 

Over the next few years, the federal government will financially reward or penalize hospitals based on how they perform on benchmarks that are believed to be correlated with better patient outcomes. By aligning doctors’ pay to the same benchmarks, city hospitals hope to perform well enough to qualify for federal bonuses. 

Under the proposal, bonuses of up to $59 million over the next three years would be distributed to about 3,300 doctors, and would be given to physicians as a group at each hospital, rather than as individuals, so that even the worst doctor would benefit. They would amount to up to 2.5 percent of salaries, which range from about $140,000 for entry-level primary-care physicians to $400,000 for experienced specialists. 

Dr. Bruce Siegel, president of the National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems and a former head of the hospitals corporation, called the plan “unprecedented for American public hospitals, in terms of scale, in terms of moving us into a new model.” 

Los Angeles County, which has the nation’s second-largest public health system after New York, does not have anything similar, said Dr. Anish Mahajan, director of system planning for the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services. “What an intriguing idea,” Dr. Mahajan said. “That’s something we would hold out as a potential thing we do in the future.” 

Administrators at several private New York hospitals said they were considering incorporating the federal benchmarks into their salary structures, but have not yet done so on a significant scale. 

The public hospital system has come up with 13 performance indicators. Among them are how well patients say their doctors communicate with them, how many patients with heart failure and pneumonia are readmitted within 30 days, how quickly emergency room patients go from triage to beds, whether doctors get to the operating room on time and how quickly patients are discharged. 

Union officials said they were still fighting for wage increases, in addition to performance bonuses. The union has also proposed expanding the indicators to 20, including measures that would give doctors bonuses for going to community meetings, giving lectures, getting training during work hours, screening patients for obesity and counseling them to stop smoking. It has also proposed excluding some patients — like developmentally disabled patients, homeless people and those who have no place to go — from incentives aimed at reducing the time patients spend in the hospital. 

A union official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to upset negotiations, said doctors considered the proposal demeaning. “To say we’ll stick a carrot in front of you and therefore you’re going to be a better doctor is a little disingenuous,” he said. 

In a written statement, Dr. Barry Liebowitz, the president of the union, the Doctors Council S.E.I.U., said it supported performance incentives in theory, if they “will improve patient care.” But he called for a team approach and hinted that the union would demand more doctors and support staff. 

The traditional physician incentive payments, tied to the income they generate for hospitals, have been roundly blamed in recent years for driving up costs. (The hospitals corporation had not used these incentives but, in some cases, had required doctors’ groups to meet minimums for billing.) Studies have found that they can lead to excessive testing and “upcoding,” or diagnosing ailments as worse than they really are, to justify more patient treatment and higher payments. Mr. Aviles said the corporation’s plan would not tie payment to the volume or intensity of care. 

But Dr. Himmelstein said there were still hazards in the city’s plan. He said that when primary-care doctors in England were offered bonuses based on quality measures, they met virtually all of them in the first year, suggesting either that quality improved or — the more likely explanation, in his view — “they learned very quickly to teach to the test.” 

“I think the most interesting finding is, things that were not measured, in a few studies, appeared to have gotten a bit worse,” Dr. Himmelstein said. For instance, patients were not as likely to stick with the same doctor, possibly because they were encouraged to see whichever doctor was available — speed was one quality measure — rather than the doctor who might know them best. In another example, while the doctors reported that they had controlled blood pressure in virtually all their patients, a random survey showed no downward trend in blood pressure or strokes. 

There could have been any number of ways of outsmarting the system, he said: “If you take blood pressures three times and report the lowest, is that lying or merely tipping the numbers in your favor?” 

Dr. Himmelstein also said doctors could try to avoid the sickest and poorest patients, who tend to have the worst outcomes and be the least satisfied. But physicians within the public hospital system have little ability to choose their patients, Mr. Aviles said. He added that he did not expect the doctors to act so cynically because, “in the main, physicians are here because they are attracted to that very mission of serving everybody equally.” 

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Health care reform spurring N.J. physicians to consider large group practices

Some New Jersey physicians may not think all that favorably of the Affordable Care Act, but they are looking to one of its mechanisms to deal with rising overhead, changing reimbursement rates, and other issues.

That's one of the findings of a survey of more than 400 Garden State physicians published Monday by the New Jersey Health Care Monitor.

The survey documents the various ways that the ACA is affecting in-state physicians who are solo practitioners, members of a group practice, or employees of a healthcare facility. These trends include merging with other practices, deciding to practice in another state, and signing on with Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) -- regional consortiums that team doctors and hospitals to improve patient healthcare and reduce wasteful spending.

Who's Afraid of the ACA?

Nearly half of the respondents (48 percent) have a very dim view of the ACA. That tally includes 14 percent that want to see it repealed.

About 10 percent regard the legislation favorably.

What may be most surprising is that almost 33 percent of respondents are taking a wait-and-see attitude toward a law that will directly affect their professional (and possibly their personal lives). Another 6 percent are "not sure" what effect the ACA will have on their practices.

Perhaps the most disheartening finding is that the majority of New Jersey physicians (57.2 percent) said that they would not recommend to a family member that they pursue a career in medicine.

Mergers and Changes

According to the survey, the desire to reduce expenses and increase cash flow rank among the most important factors driving New Jersey physicians to merge or otherwise modify their practices this year.
Specifically, 52.8 percent said they plan to integrate with another healthcare organization -- such as a single-specialty or multispecialty practice, an individual practice association, a hospital system, or a joint venture. Another 33 percent said they plan to hire other practitioners; 12.8 percent said they will contract with a healthcare facility this year; 11.9 percent plan to leave their practice to either join another practice or work under contract with a hospital, and 14.7 percent said they plan to retire.

Saying Goodbye to Garden State

The survey also reports that 11 percent of respondents said they were leaving New Jersey to practice medicine elsewhere. John D. Fanburg, managing member and head of the healthcare practice at Brach Eichler, the Roseland law firm that conducted the survey, said that both Pennsylvania and New York hold advantages over New Jersey.

"In New York there are more payers, the reimbursement is higher" he said. New Jersey has a high cost of living, but the payers pay less because it is perceived to not require or demand higher reimbursement, and in some geographical areas there are a lot of providers, so it's a supply-and-demand issue."

Fanbure continued, "Pennsylvania has tort reform law, but they do not have as many payers. However, the cost of living is less unless you are in the Pittsburgh or Philadelphia area. Overhead is lower, so the margin of profit is greater."

Looking at ACOs

Regardless of what they may think of the ACA, nearly one-third of practitioners are currently considering or have already joined an ACO.

They're making this move for a variety of reasons: Some are reacting to increasing regulation and decreasing reimbursements. Others are looking to cut cost or believe that being a member of a team will boost their competitiveness.

Fanburg explained that ACOs -- according to the Affordable Care Act -- were not merely about containing costs. Rather, "the idea was to compel physicians to agree to reimbursement tied into the quality of care being rendered as opposed to the amount of care being rendered."

"When you are in a larger group with horizontal and vertical providers, he noted, "you can have more impact on the course of treatment."

"In a hospital setting you could see half a dozen different specialists. You need a physician who is overseeing the care of all the patients. There is a certain amount of coordination necessary in order to have a plan in place when patients leave the hospital, to keep the patients out of the hospital."

Fanburg said that the ACO is supposed to provide "the mechanism to enhance and reward that kind of coordination with economic incentives."

"We've been advising our physician clients to consider being with larger groups. It's very hard for the solo or two-person practice."

Guidelines for ACOs are outlined under the Medicare Shared Savings Program of the Affordable Care Act.

Behind the Curve on Merging

Fanburg said, "Physicians on the West Coast have been moving into larger groups for years," but in New Jersey, "many physicians still operate in small group formats of five or fewer physicians in a practice."
"Physicians really need to rethink how they practice medicine." Fanburg also indicated that initial New Jersey Health Care Monitor survey is a "baseline" survey and that Brach Eichler plans to perform the survey twice annually going forward.

"We've been doing more informal surveys over the years. But this is the first with specific questions [for physicians] and casting such a wide net throughout New Jersey." The new survey focuses on the physician for a reason, he explained.

"We have some of the best healthcare offered on the planet in New Jersey, but it comes down to the doctor. For the first time in New Jersey, we are trying to think of the physicians."

The survey was conducted in July and August 2012.

source

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

How Will Healthcare Reform Affect Unnecessary Care?

President Obama's healthcare reform law focuses in part on reducing "unnecessary care," or tests and procedures ordered for reasons other than medical necessity. Despite the goal's good intentions, many physicians object to the push to reduce "unnecessary care," saying reality often forces the hand of providers prescribing care. In some cases, patients need multiple tests to diagnose a difficult problem; in others, the patients request those tests regardless of physician advice. If a patient dies because a physician skipped a test that could have provided a solution, the physician could be sued for malpractice — a costly, time-consuming and stressful process.  

According to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report: 2012 Results, the majority of physicians (67 percent) said they do not plan to reduce the number of tests, procedures and treatments they perform. Only about a quarter of physicians (27 percent) said they would reduce the number of tests and procedures because the guidelines are valid. These numbers do not bode well for this aspect of healthcare reform; despite a push by hospitals and governmental agencies to reduce redundant or avoidable care, a lack of physician support may signal a death knell for the initiative.

Why physicians order unnecessary care
Interestingly, physicians and policymakers seem to be on the same page about the issue of unnecessary care — they just don't agree on a solution. In a nationwide survey of 627 internists and family care physicians published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, 43 percent believed that much of the healthcare received in the United States is unnecessary. Twenty-eight percent acknowledged that they were personally ordering more tests and referring more patients to specialists than they would "ideally like to be."

But acknowledging the problem doesn't mean an end to it. According to the survey, 76 percent of physicians blamed malpractice concerns as the cause of unnecessary care. Eighty-three percent of physicians thought they could be sued for not ordering a test, suggesting that tests are ordered simply to avoid the possibility — however remote — of a lawsuit. Another 52 percent said they ordered excess tests and other procedures because they were under pressure to meet clinical performance measures, which are used to evaluate physicians' job performance.

Forty percent of physicians blamed their workload, saying time constraints made it difficult to determine the cause of medical complaints for many patients. In those cases, they ordered tests to get answers. While most physicians did not admit to personally ordering extra tests to generate more income, they said that "other" primary care physicians would order fewer diagnostic tests if not for the financial incentive. They were even more accusatory towards specialists.

The break-down by specialty
In the Medscape survey, physicians most commonly responded that they would not follow "unnecessary care" guidelines because of defensive medicine or patient welfare concerns. Of those profiled below who believed in the guidelines, cardiologists, internists and family medicine physicians were the most likely to try and prevent unnecessary care. Ophthalmologists, orthopedic surgeons and ER physicians were least likely to trust the guidelines. The statistics below detail how each specialty responded to the question on preventing unnecessary care.

Cardiologists
No, because I am still going to practice defensive medicine: 20%
No, because these guidelines are not in the patient's best interest: 38%
Yes, because they affect my income: 9%
Yes, because they are good guidelines: 32%

Emergency medicine physicians

No, because I am still going to practice defensive medicine: 36%
No, because these guidelines are not in the patient's best interest: 25%
Yes, because they affect my income: 25%
Yes, because they are good guidelines: 14%

Family medicine
No, because I am still going to practice defensive medicine: 23%
No, because these guidelines are not in the patient's best interest: 39%
Yes, because they affect my income: 7%
Yes, because they are good guidelines: 31%

Gastroenterologists
No, because I am still going to practice defensive medicine: 29%
No, because these guidelines are not in the patient's best interest: 40%
Yes, because they affect my income: 9%
Yes, because they are good guidelines: 23%

General surgeons
No, because I am still going to practice defensive medicine: 27%
No, because these guidelines are not in the patient's best interest: 44%
Yes, because they affect my income: 7%
Yes, because they are good guidelines: 22%

Internists
No, because I am still going to practice defensive medicine: 23%
No, because these guidelines are not in the patient's best interest: 31%
Yes, because they affect my income: 9%
Yes, because they are good guidelines: 36%

Neurologists
No, because I am still going to practice defensive medicine: 20%
No, because these guidelines are not in the patient's best interest: 49%
Yes, because they affect my income: 7%
Yes, because they are good guidelines: 24%

Ophthalmologists
No, because I am still going to practice defensive medicine: 21%
No, because these guidelines are not in the patient's best interest: 60%
Yes, because they affect my income: 9%
Yes, because they are good guidelines: 10%

Orthopedic surgeons
No, because I am still going to practice defensive medicine: 30%
No, because these guidelines are not in the patient's best interest: 46%
Yes, because they affect my income: 7%
Yes, because they are good guidelines: 16%

Radiologists
No, because I am still going to practice defensive medicine: 26%
No, because these guidelines are not in the patient's best interest: 47%
Yes, because they affect my income: 9%
Yes, because they are good guidelines: 18%

source

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

With health costs rising, Vermont moves toward a single-payer system

Faced with rising costs and residents still without health insurance, Vermont lawmakers are poised to pass a single-payer healthcare plan, which would reshape how the state's doctors are paid and become the first of its type in the US.

The plan, approved last month by the Vermont House of Representatives, was designed by William Hsiao, an economics professor at the Harvard School of Public Health. Hsiao also designed the single-payer system in Taiwan, and consulted on healthcare reform in seven other countries.

With many states looking for a way to cope with spiraling health care costs, we asked Hsiao to explain how his prescription for Vermont would work.

When Vermont asked you to devise this plan, what were the state’s goals?

Vermont made clear what goals they wanted to achieve: namely, universal coverage. Because under the [Obama healthcare reform] there are still going to be 5 percent of people not covered. Second, they wanted to bring the under-insured up to some common standard benefit package. In Vermont, 15 percent of the people who have insurance have very shallow insurance. Third, they wanted to have a plan that can control cost escalation. And finally, their goal is to move healthcare delivery into an integrated delivery system. That entails integrating prevention, primary care, secondary care, and tertiary care into a vertically integrated healthcare delivery system. That's what just about every state wants to do. This is what often is referred to by the Madison Avenue term, value-based health care.

One of the goals was to cut costs. How does this plan cut costs?

By introducing a single-payer system you remove the administrative expense, so you can get a one-time savings. Over the long run, the savings come from changing the payment system to providers. Right now we pay on a fee-for service basis — in other words, the more you do, the more you get paid. That encouraged doctors to do more — including more tests, more examinations, so forth. We could change the economic incentives for physicians to reward them for healing patients rather than how many services they provide. Second, the savings come from vertical integration of healthcare delivery. That would remove the duplication of tests, reduce drug complications, improve the continuity of care for patients. That would simplify administration, such as recordkeeping. You could share the same records. This is where the savings come from.

Massachusetts was hailed for its health care reform law. How does Vermont’s plan differ from what we have in Massachusetts?
It’s different from Massachusetts. One is, it decouples insurance from employment. The insurance is based on your residency in Vermont. So that means everyone will be covered, every resident of Vermont. Secondly, single-payer removes the administrative hassle confronting hospitals, doctors, nursing homes, and all providers. Massachusetts doesn’t have that. Massachusetts does not have a single-payer plan. That can reduce the cost of health insurance cost by probably 10 percent.

How would this plan affect individual consumers? Would they see any difference in their day-to-day medical care?
There is one standard insurance plan for everyone, and if you want more you could buy the wraparound. Patients would get better coordination and continuity of health services. The other difference is, instead of paying a premium, the premium now would be transformed into a payroll contribution. An employer pays roughly 70 percent of this cost, through a payroll contribution; employees also pay a portion of it. We use modeling methods to show that employers in Vermont would pay less than what they pay under the current system. So would employees. They are going to see health insurance costs reduced.

What will happen to private insurers in Vermont?

Insurance companies in Vermont will have two roles. We propose that the role of the single payer get contracted out by competitive bidding to one company. So it's possible a private insurance company still can operate in Vermont, but they have to win a competitive bid. Second, private insurance companies can provide the wraparound plans.

How does this differ from the Obama health reforms?
President Obama’s plan really does not address the cost-escalation issue. His plan only argues for experimentation. Vermont’s plan says, single payer is the most effective way to get universal coverage as well as control the health care cost escalation.

A survey recently indicated that a quarter of the state's doctors say they would leave if Vermont adopted this plan. What incentive do they have to stay?
We promise that doctors and hospitals will not see an overall reduction in their income. However, we said some highly paid specialists may see their income get reduced some, while the primary care doctors will see their income get increased. Right now, in Vermont as in the whole United States, primary care doctors are underpaid. Some super-specialties like radiology, dermatology, and cardiovascular surgery — they earn three times as much as a primary care doctor. These doctors may see their income get reduced some, and they are the ones threatening to leave, but I feel that is just a fear tactic, because Vermont has very attractive working conditions. These highly paid specialists work at the University of Vermont, or at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Center on the border with New Hampshire and Vermont. These doctors are working in these medical centers not only for money but for other opportunities, including research and prestige. So yes, they may threaten to leave. One, I doubt that, and two, I do not think these medical centers will have trouble recruiting replacements.

Do you think this is something that can be replicated elsewhere?
That is a hard question. Vermont has certain conditions that may make single-payer possible. It is a very progressive state and the grassroots organizations are strong rather than dominated by large organizations. However, some essential elements of single-payer could be slightly modified to make it suitable for other states, depending on other states’ political institutions.

Compared to other countries you’ve worked in, what are the challenges in the US?
There is a commonality among all nations as what they are confronted with. Namely, most countries I had been engaged with found health care costs escalating too rapidly, and they can't sustain their current systems. Some other countries like Taiwan, China, Cyprus, and South Africa, they were like the http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifUS — lack of universal coverage and rapid health cost escalation.

What's unique about the US is that the we spend so much for health care that it has built up very powerful special-interest groups — including the insurance industry, hospital industry, medical associations, pharmaceutical industry. These industries receive so much money, if they only spend one-tenth of one percent of it to fight you, that would amount to more than two billion dollars. You can imagine how many political campaigns they can support. You can imagine how much advertising they can put out on television and radio. That's the difference in the United States. We've let the problem drag on for twenty years and built up such powerful, moneyed special-interest groups.

source

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Say Farewell to the Family Doctor

On tourist maps, it might get eclipsed by the nearby Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library. But St. John's Hospital, a tan, 11-story building, is beginning to cast a long shadow in Springfield, Ill. For several years most of the physicians in this town of 120,000 have been split into teams like kids in a summer-camp color war: SIU HealthCare and The Springfield Clinic, huge medical groups employing 450 doctors between them, have dominated the market for years. But recently, the Franciscan nuns and executives behind St. John's have been trying to put together their own dream team and have bought up some of the few independent medical practices left in this pocket of the Midwest.

The effort is all being laid out in a cramped off-site conference room, where Kelly Ford and a dozen other executives huddle in a buzz of conversation, plotting the next steps in the expansion of Hospital Sisters Health System Medical Group, the network St. John's belongs to. A mosaic of pastel pink, yellow and blue Post-it notes covers one wall, each inscribed with an item from what looks like the world's longest medical shopping list ("Order lab coats/business cards"; "Update insurance contracts"). It adds up to a lot of work for executives like Ford, the director of medical-staff affairs for Hospital Sisters. But the mood in the room is upbeat, and with good reason. In less than two years, the group has grown from just a handful of executives to become a squad of almost 200 doctors and nurse practitioners, recruiting the likes of a pulmonologist from Joliet, Ill., and an internist with hundreds of patients at a big, independent practice across town. "We like to think of ourselves as a fast-moving start-up," says Ford.

Remember the solo family doctor? In places like Springfield, it has become increasingly likely that she's collecting a paycheck from a large regional hospital—and practicing medicine according to the hospital's strict playbook. The experience in Springfield is just a needle prick compared with what's going on nationwide. At least one in six doctors—more than 150,000 nationwide—now works as an employee of a hospital system. And with about half of recent medical school graduates deciding to work for hospitals and many established doctors looking to unload their practices amid the tough economic climate, what was a trickle of change has turned into a torrent. Jim Pizzo, a Chicago-area hospital consultant, says the blistering pace of these mergers is leading some colleagues to joke that there are two types of physicians today: "Those employed by hospitals and those about to be."

Whether they wear suits or scrubs, many medical pros think they're doing the right thing. Hospital executives say they're adapting to the rapid evolution of the health care business, while physicians, fed up with running businesses during the recession, are drawn to the safety of a salary and regular hours. What's less clear is how the fever to buy up local doctors' offices will affect the paper-gowned patients caught in the middle, with many saying they've already seen costs rise or treatment choices dwindle. Consumer advocates say the demise of the neighborhood doctor could turn out to be as big a change for medicine as anything happening at the national level with health care reform. "The story of how well these collaborations will actually work, day after day, hasn't been written yet," says Roland Goertz, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.


The University of Washington is one of a few fast-growing hospital groups in the Seattle area. Frustrated consumers have raised objections about facility fees added to their bills by the expanding hospital chains; in some cases, those fees raised the cost by 65% or more. (The University declined to comment.)

Ruth Taylor, a 44-year-old woman in Bozeman, Mont., started seeing Robert Hathaway as her doctor during college, and she stuck with him through everything from routine blood tests to a kidney transplant. Taylor, a professional nurse with warm blue eyes, describes Hathaway as a "classic small-town doctor" who knew all his patients by name and socialized with them at local basketball games; he was accessible and thorough—even catching a health problem of hers that other doctors had missed. But after Hathaway sold his practice to the local hospital, Taylor says, things began to sour. She was more likely to be assigned to see the physician assistant rather than Hathaway himself. And when she went in for a comprehensive physical (also run by the assistant) in late 2008, she was charged $360, more than double what she'd paid for a workup in previous years. Her insurance covered very little of the higher tab; now, fearful of the cost, Taylor is putting off a mammogram. "When a nurse is skipping out on care she knows she needs," Taylor says, "you know there are problems."

Stories like Taylor's aren't uncommon in Bozeman, a funky, college-kid and retiree paradise surrounded by soaring mountains. Bozeman Deaconess Hospital sits high on a hill outside town, cross-country ski trails circling it like lassos. Five years ago Deaconess, the lone hospital here, didn't own any medical practices. Since then it has gone on such a buying binge that more than half the doctors in town are on its payroll. Hathaway says the arrangement was eventually a godsend for him, letting him avoid the evening ritual of wondering whether his office could eke out enough funds to pay its overhead, and he disputes the notion that he saw his patients less. He acknowledges, however, that rising costs for patients were a troubling side effect. "It was the one thing I lost control of," Hathaway says wistfully.


With only 65 independent practices remaining in the area, doctors are being heavily wooed. One high-profile signing by UNC subsidiary Rex Healthcare: a 23-doctor cardiology practice. Rex executive director Bob Ricker says the expansion will save consumers money by creating efficiencies, like having doctos share billing staff.

Gordon Davidson, chief financial officer at Bozeman Deaconess, says that some price increases have been related to Medicare billing rules; he also says that the hospital's pricing has helped keep doctors from leaving Bozeman. While this isn't the first time that hospitals have tried to buy up doctors' offices, Boze-man's merger drama sheds some light on why the trend is picking up again now. Davidson says that Deaconess first started buying practices when cash-strapped doctors turned to the hospital for help; they did so largely because of Medicare, whose payments have been criticized by doctors for not keeping up with medical inflation. With the 2010 health care reform law aiming to trim $500 billion from projected Medicare spending levels, many doctors' economic anxiety is increasing.

But hospital executives also believe that buying doctors' practices could yield a big payday, thanks to a different provision in the health care law. The law will encourage doctors and hospitals to share some payments when treating each patient; as collaborative teams, they could earn bonuses for holding down costs and meeting quality markers. "The real question for everyone is how that pie—that money—is going to get split up," Goertz says; hospitals think they'll have the upper hand if they employ the doctors that they're sharing their banana crème with. And that's touched off a flurry of mergers everywhere—from Seattle to Roanoke, Va.

Hospitals are also scrambling to get a bigger share of one of the most lucrative arenas of medicine: outpatient surgeries. These options have become popular with patients because they're often cheaper and faster than hospital surgeries and boast lower infection rates (and often, better parking). Timothy Eckels, vice president for government relations at Hospital Sisters in Springfield, says the outpatient-care trend is one factor that jump-started his institution's acquisition boom: "We really could see the writing on the wall." One recent study by health care consultancy Sg2 predicted demand for outpatient surgeries will grow by 22 percent from 2010 to 2019, while growth for hospital-based surgeries will remain flat; another study showed profit margins at outpatient centers are five or six times as high as at hospitals.


Aurora is one of a few health systems that provide most of the health care in Milwaukee. According to independent research, insurers pay doctors here about double what they pay for the same care in Miami or Los Angeles, where large health groups aren't as prominent. Aurora says the system ultimately saves money by coordinating care.

Now that the acquisition spree is in full swing, some experts worry that price increases could become the dominant narrative for patients. When hospitals run medical practices, federal law allows them to add substantial "facility fees" to patients' bills to cover overhead expenses. The new bosses also often rip equipment like X-ray machines and MRIs out of the physician's office, preferring to have patients get those tests from radiologists at the hospital. That, too, can cost patients. A consumer with a high-deductible Aetna plan, for instance, would pay up to $1,400 for an MRI of her back at the University Medical Center at Princeton, N.J., according to data that the insurer makes available to its members. The same scan would cost about a third as much at nearby Radiology Affiliates of New Jersey, a nonhospital facility. Based on a review of insurance databases and state regulatory records, that's a fairly typical price gap. (Barry Rabner, president and CEO of the Princeton system, says the hospital's fees cover expenses like 24-hour staffing and caring for uninsured patients.)

Price increases also have the potential to bleed outward—affecting not only the patients of the absorbed doctor, but also the cost of health care citywide. That's because when hospitals sit down at the bargaining table with insurers, they're almost always able to negotiate higher payment rates for their big groups of doctors than a lone physician with little bargaining power. Fast-growing hospital systems, including Hospital Sisters and Bozeman Deaconess, say that their growth will eventually make care more efficient and bring costs back down, since they'll be able to cut back on unnecessary care and duplicate tests. But Robert Berenson, a fellow with the Urban Institute, a think tank, says the new relationship sets up a vicious cycle: Hospitals become emboldened to ask for 60 or 75 percent price increases one year, and then insurers have to step up premiums to cover costs. "Unless something major changes in how we pay for care," Berenson says, "this could be the Achilles' heel of our health care system."

For some patients, there may be an even bigger headache that comes from all of this consolidation—potentially much less choice in which doctors they see. By their own admission, most hospitals are eager to keep patient referrals under the same corporate umbrella, to save on costs and share medical records but also to boost revenue. The hospitals say they wouldn't force an internist, for example, to refer a patient with heart problems to their own cardiologists, but critics say there's certainly financial pressure. Under a little-noticed regulation that took effect in 2007, hospitals are allowed to pay doctors less if they don't do enough internal referrals.

Doctors in Bozeman and Springfield who granted interviews said they didn't feel pressure to be "team players" with referrals. But some of those who've left large health systems tell a different story, including Mark Callenberger, an orthopedist in Merritt Island, Fla. Callenberger says that the hospital group where he used to work urged him to direct more patients to the MRI machine owned by the hospital. The doctor preferred a more advanced machine at a private practice that he says offered clearer pictures. But after he ignored the recommendations, Callenberger says, the hospital told his office manager to schedule patients at the hospital's MRI anyway, leaving him to perform surgery using "crummy images." (The hospital declined to comment on Callenberger's case but says its doctors can use whatever facilities they choose.) Patients may never know about these power struggles, because doctors aren't required to disclose how they choose specialists. And while patients who ask can always see a specialist outside the network, in practice few are likely to challenge their doctors' judgment, says Bruce A. Johnson, a Denver health care lawyer. "Face it, when we're really sick," says Johnson, "if the doctor tells us to jump off a roof, we'll probably consider doing it."


This eight-hospital chain has recently gotten involved in contract tangles with major insurers in the area over its attempts to negotiate higher fees. A hospital spokesperson attributed the sleep-study discrepancy to the higher overall costs of impatient care; the hospital declined to comment further.

Sometimes the hospital and its doctor jump ship on the patient. As hospital groups get more clout and demand more money in negotiations with insurers, some employers and insurers are now showing a willingness to ax them out of their networks. When Kaiser Permanente went through contract negotiations for 2010, it couldn't reach an agreement with one hospital-owned, 400-doctor network in the Atlanta area, so it dropped them. For Stephannie Owen, a 42-year-old mother of two, that meant losing access to all her family's doctors. Owen, who was being treated for suspected breast cancer, says her primary-care doctor and breast-care clinic refused to keep seeing her, fearful that she'd be unable to pay her higher, out-of-network bills. "It was like they cut ties altogether," she says. "I was really upset and scared." Kaiser Permanente says it opened more clinics in the Atlanta area so consumers could see Kaiser physicians instead, but for Owen, that created some awkward moments. At one point, she says, she wound up being treated in an office in a strip mall.

As more patients face such disruptions, regulators are taking notice. In October, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Health and Human Services met with doctors, insurers and other health officials to discuss the referral and pricing problems that could arise from "accountable-care organizations"— those new groups of hospitals and doctors that will share financial incentives. The Federal Trade Commission will offer guidelines on what's permissible by midyear. But hospitals are already lobbying for accountable-care groups to be exempt from antitrust and antifraud rules, even as they scoop up more and more medical practices. Under current regulations, officials in Washington must green-light all mergers involving companies valued at more than $63 million. But by buying up tiny medical practices one at a time, critics say, hospitals stay below the threshold and avoid getting much attention. And by the time regulators settle on more-formal legal guidelines, those mergers may be hard to undo, says Cory Capps, a Washington economist specializing in health care antitrust issues.

With their expansion a sensitive topic, many hospitals have kept a low profile, declining to discuss their plans and encouraging their doctors to do the same. But in Springfield, the Hospital Sisters system is willing to give us a long, if somewhat stage-managed, tour. A brisk young executive who manages PR is glued to our side as we visit the office of Michael Nenaber, a primary-care doctor who made the switch a year ago. After he signed on, Hospital Sisters quickly moved Nenaber to this new facility. Outside, we find a giant blue sign that identifies the clinic as St. John's Health Center: Prairie Crossing—without mentioning Nenaber's name. Inside, the office is gleaming new, with a TV playing the History Channel in one corner of the waiting area and a crucifix in another. "I'd follow Dr. Nenaber anywhere," says Hazel Jenne, a 90-year-old patient waiting for her husband to be called in for an appointment. In a few months Jenne will get to test that theory again. Across the street a green and white construction trailer and a torn-up plot mark the clinic where Nenaber will be moving in March. Designed by the same architect, the PR manager tells us, it'll be a lot like this office—"but bigger!"

It's clear that transitions like these are sometimes rocky. Last spring Hospital Sisters tried to shift all of its Springfield medical offices to electronic medical records simultaneously. But there wasn't enough tech support to deal with all the problems physicians ran into on day one, and wait times spiked at the system's walk-in locations. Nenaber, a soft-spoken 64-year-old with wire-rim glasses, sounds acquiescent about the situation. "We're getting the hang of these things," he says slowly, sitting at his desk overlooking a gas station and a strip-mall parking lot. But his practice is still waiting for its electronic payoff: While other Hospital Sisters' doctors enthusiastically show off the iPads and iPhones they can use to access and share patient files, Nenaber has a sign tacked to the back of each exam room door urging visitors to "be patient" while he upgrades technology.

At Hospital Sisters, the role model everyone wants to emulate is the Advocate Health Care System in Chicago, a four-hour drive north of here on Interstate 55. That 13-hospital behemoth has been buying doctors' practices for more than a decade, and today it says its patients are healthier, thanks in part to efforts to get doctors to follow uniform guidelines when treating common ailments. Frank Mikell, chief physician executive for Hospital Sisters, says standardization can "make the patient experience dramatically better" through collaboration and a plethora of checklists. Executives here are also hoping to push the needle further—standardizing everything from how long patients wait on hold to the ease of parking at the doctor's office (valets, luxury-restaurant style, are one solution under consideration).

Still, Mikell acknowledges, "doctors don't want follow-the-directions, cookbook medicine." And for many physicians, the idea of following new rules triggers a much larger unease at giving up their independence—a feeling of loss, both for the businesses they built and for their patients. Back in Bozeman, Blair Erb, the sole cardiologist in town, is a picture of resignation as he prepares to sign a contract with Deaconess. "I feel defeated," Erb says, looking around at the office furniture he and his wife, Liz, chose from a catalog years ago. The weathered ranchers and bundled-up women that come through his door mostly express disbelief when they hear that this frank-talking Tennessee native will sell his practice. His staffers say they're not looking forward to the questions the hospital's medical records system will soon prompt them to ask patients. (Do you wear a bike helmet regularly? Do you have a smoke detector?) "We'll try to retain as much professional independence as possible," Erb says, gazing at the hospital building, whose bulk he can see through his window. "But the fact of the matter is, we'll have a new master."


Sutter Health, which recently absorbed a 900-doctor practice in San Francisco, holds considerable bargaining power: One study found that a stay at a Sutter hospital costs 37% more than the state average. A spokesperson says Sutter's prices reflect "other obligations and commitments," like building facilities to withstand earthquakes.

source