How to Rate the New Health Care Changes

The Affordable Care Act contains a series of provisions that are phasing in, as scheduled, until the final period of complete implementation in 2014. Now, with the advent of 2011, several provisions take effect which start to change things for all of us. I give each change a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" rating below.

• New rule for tax-free savings accounts. If you have an HSA, like I do, so called non-prescription "over-the-counter drugs" that are not actually prescribed by a doctor are no longer eligible to be paid from that account. This is the kind of rule that might look good to a bureaucrat, but to me it is ridiculous. People now will be calling for prescriptions for their Tylenol, resulting in wasted time and money by all of us. Instead of saving money, this will be a fiasco.  Thumbs down!

• Health-insurance companies “medical loss ratio”. Plans will now be required to spend at least 80 to 85 percent of the premium for actual medical care and quality improvements for patients, instead of administrative costs. Those that fail to do so will be required to issue a rebate to their customers beginning in 2012. The US Department of Health and Human Services says on www.HealthCare.gov that this will protect up to 74.8 million insured Americans from unreasonable rate increases. Last year, in 2010, we saw large increases from insurance companies who were attempting to pad their revenue before this provision took place. Thumbs up!

• Closing the Medicare drug coverage “doughnut hole.” Drug companies are now required to provide a 50 percent discount on brand-name prescription drugs to Medicare recipients who fall into the coverage gap in the Part D drug plans. Also, federal subsidies will be phased in for generic prescriptions in the Part D coverage gap. This gap will be progressively be closed over the next 10 years. It would be better to require competitive bidding by these companies, but this is a step in the right direction. Thumbs up!

• Medicare bonus for Primary-care physicians and general surgeons. These doctors will receive a 10 percent bonus payment for treating Medicare patients, which should help to encourage better access, although it is not enough, in my opinion to make much of a difference. Thumbs up!

• Preventive care for Medicare recipients. In a big change of philosophy, seniors will now be able to get free preventive services that include annual checkups and personalized prevention plans. No more waivers! Thumbs up!

• Medicare Advantage changes. Medicare recipients are eligible each year to choose private insurance companies for their care, a system called Medicare Advantage. We have all seen the adds! In the past, these plans were eligible for payments that were higher than ordinary Medicare, and these costs were born by increased premiums for all Medicare beneficiaries. Now, Medicare Advantage payments will be tapered down over the next few years to eliminate this subsidy. The new law has already resulted in higher premiums for many Medicare Advantage plans, but it prohibits these plans  from raising cost-sharing requirements higher than what is required under traditional Medicare. Thumbs up!
 
• Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation. This center is already up and running and has launched multiple initiatives to test new ways of delivering care to patients that reduce costs and maintain or improve quality. One idea is an Accountable Care Organization (ACO), which is a new entity in which health-care providers can work together to contract for and manage care. Work is already under way here in Whatcom County to try and build such a system! Thumbs up!

• Community Based Care Transitions Program. One of the most expensive problems in health care, that also is a sign of poor quality is the readmission of discharged patients to the hospital right after they are sent home. This program seeks to improve care for seniors after they leave the hospital, by coordinating care and connecting patients back to services in their communities. Thumbs up!

• Medicaid incentives for prevention of chronic disease. The plan includes grants for states to help begin support services for Medicaid (low-income) recipients to cope with chronic problems, such as tobacco use, weight control, and various health conditions. Thumbs up!

All in all, things are slowly moving in the right direction. More details here:  http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/index.html 

What's In It for Me? What are our obligations to each other?

As what passes for a health care debate rages all around us, I have come to realize that between the polarized extremes there exists a very important group of people who are the key to what will happen this fall, and that is the large group of Americans who have health insurance and who are worried they may lose advantages in any reform. All of the noise in our media is an attempt to reach this group, who are likely asking, "What's in it for me"?

I believe that those who currently have health insurance and good access to medical care would be well advised to support proposed health care reform for the following reasons:

• They may lose their insurance coverage! Right now, 14,000 insured people lose their coverage every day when they lose their job or the employer cannot continue to afford benefits, and that number is expected to increase greatly with current trends.
• Business can't afford the increasing costs! Under the current system, costs are expected to double during the next 10 years.
• Young people are priced out of the system! Those looking for work at the beginning of their careers are most likely to get jobs without benefits, leaving them uncovered and raising the cost for all others.
• Insurance often does not work when you need it, even if you have it! The for profit system is full of people who work hard to "ration your care" by figuring out how not to pay for things.
• The payment system must be reformed! Our current mess of a non system is caused by the payment incentive and lack of incentives we now have.
• Quality is often lacking! A sad and poorly understood fact is that even people with good insurance get the recommended care they should have only about 1/4 of the time. The care is not organized in a way that allows most doctors to manage their patients the best way possible.
• They may lose their doctor! Very few medical students are going in to the primary care disciplines, due primarily to the fact that they cannot afford to. Retiring family doctors are not being replaced. Reform which supports primary care is crucial to attracting the best and brightest into primary care.

When all is said and done, however, thinking just about ourselves misses one of the most important reasons for reform. Perhaps the most important thing to consider is, what are our obligations to each other? Our entire American society is engaged in global competition with all the countries on earth for the innovations, jobs, products and benefits of the world to come. We must have a society with well educated, healthy and productive citizens to secure the benefits of the future. Our companies need a level playing field that does not saddle them with the unequal and exorbitant costs of a failed system.

If the the future is scary to you, it is really not because of the risk of changing, but because we might not change. Don't be fooled.

How Does The Patient-Centered Medical Home Transform Health Care Delivery?

Can Patient-Centered Medical Homes Transform Health Care Delivery? The answer is clearly yes, and that is a point I have tried to emphasize, but I often get asked by those less familiar with the subject, how does this really make a difference?

The basic idea in a nutshell is that in order to be effective and add value, health reform must deliver a new delivery system built on a solid foundation of primary care. There are two barriers to this happening:

• We are losing primary care providers, and very few new doctors are in the pipeline to replace them
• The way primary care doctors are paid is inadequate and dysfunctional, so that they are not paid for the work that patients truly need and want them to do.

The medical home is an approach to primary care organized around the relationship between the patient and their personal physician. It is is primary care that is "accessible, continuous, comprehensive, family-centered, coordinated, compassionate, and culturally effective.” It has now been endorsed by important, independent health care think tanks, such as the Commonwealth Fund.

In 2007, four primary care specialty societies, representing more than 300,000 primary care specialists, issued a joint description of the Principles of the Patient-Centered Medical Home:

• A personal physician;
• A whole-person orientation;
• Safe and high-quality care (e.g., evidence-based medicine, appropriate use of health information technology);
• Enhanced access to care; (e.g., phone visits, secure web visits, group visits with appropriate use of health information technology);
• payment that recognizes the added value provided to patients and insurers who have a patient-centered medical home.

Today, few Americans say they have a source of care with these features, but I am proud to say that my medical group, Family Care Network, has made wonderful progress to become a full fledged Patient-Centered Medical Home for our patients. We now know what works. There is no excuse to delay. If we do not move forward in this effort, we will continue to reap the whirlwind of spiraling costs and plummeting value. Primary Care will disappear. Now is the time.

The need has never been greater

My grandfather was a physician in general practice at the beginning of the last century, before the Flexner Report revolutionized medical training and brought medical education into the scientific age. His office was in the bottom of the family home. My grandmother would open the door, folks would come in, and the agenda was whatever was on the mind of the person who came. There was no phone interuption (there were no phones!), record keeping was easy (20 years on one 3 by 5 card), and most modern therapies had not yet been invented.

Today, many physicians in primary care continue to practice in the same basic style as my grandfather. They wait in their office to see what comes, and are only paid for this visit "piece work". It is as if the telephone was never invented, much less the Internet! They do not manage their patient panel in such a way as to improve their overall care, because they do not have the tools to know how the group is doing, and indeed, they may not even have thought about it.

Recently, Dr. Kevin Grumbach, professor and chair of the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, has renewed the call for a thorough "Revitalization of Primary Care". He correctly notes that the traditional model of primary care has not been very well supported by payers, purchasers or government agencies, and that people are turning away from it. In a recent article, he is quoted as saying, "This model of 19th-century practice -- of the doctor in the office and patients coming in -- is not going to work in the 21st century. We have come to the proverbial fork in the road." He identifies physician payment reform as one of the first steps we must take in revitalizing primary care, to provide the personal medical home. This is the work that we have been engaged in at Family Care Network.

Dr. Grumbach notes that the worsening shortage of primary care physicians is fueling "medical homelessness," which leaves patients without adequate access to primary care services and patient-centered medical homes. This is particularly tragic, since the ratio of primary care doctors to the population is the only statistic that has ever been shown to correlate with both improved health care quality and decreased cost of care. We must change now. The need has never been greater.

How the US Health Care System falls short, and what to do about it!

When most people in the public at large think about our health care situation in the United States, it is usually with regard to the high cost of health insurance premiums. Quality is assumed by most people to be present. Assessment of quality in the US was recently undertaken by the Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System, which has now summarized their results as the National Scorecard on U.S. Health System Performance. This is the first-ever comprehensive assessment of health care outcomes, quality, access, efficiency, and equity in one report. It is no surprise to me that the finding ofthis report show that America's health system falls far short of what we need, especially considering that the US pays more per capita than any other nation on earth.

Across 37 indicators of performance, the U.S. achieves an overall score of 66 out of a possible 100 when comparing actual performance to achievable benchmarks, or a "D+". The following graph shows the score for the US in the major areas observed.

Click Graph to Enlarge

These results clearly show that not only is cost a problem, and not only do we have about 45 million people who are not covered, but our results for the money spent fall far short of what is needed and achieveable.

I have included a link to the report in this blog, but I believe that the messages from the Scorecard are clear:

Preventive and primary care quality deficiencies undermine outcomes for patients and contribute to inefficiencies that raise the cost of care. These deficiencies are to be expected in a system that chronically underfunds primary care, and does not pay doctors for proven primary care strategies such as electronic medical records, chronic disease registries, telephone management followup, web messaging and quality benchmarks. Universal coverage and participation are essential to improve quality and efficiency, as well as access to needed care.
Quality and efficiency can be improved together, and we must look for improvements that yield both results. Failure to coordinate care for patients over the course of treatment put patients at risk and raise the cost of care. This is especially acute with patients who do not have a "Personal medical home". Policies that facilitate and promote linking providers and information about care will be essential for productivity, safety, and quality gains. Financial incentives posed by the fee-for-service system of payment as currently designed undermine efforts to improve preventive and primary care, manage chronic conditions, and coordinate care. We need to devise payment incentives to reward more effective and efficient care, with a focus on value. Research and investment in data systems are important keys to progress. Investment in, and implementation of, electronic medical records and modern health information technology in physician offices and hospitals is low—leaving physicians and other providers without useful tools to ensure reliable high quality care. By emphasizing adequate payment for primary care, savings can be generated from more efficient use of expensive resources including more effective care in the community to control chronic disease and assure patients timely access to primary care. The challenge is finding ways to re-channel these savings into investments in improved coverage and system capacity to improve performance in the future.

Setting national goals for improvement based on best achieved rates is likely to be an effective method to motivate change and move the overall distribution to higher levels.
Our health system needs to focus on improving health outcomes for people over the course of their lives, as they move from place to place and from one site of care to another. This requires a degree of organization and coordination that we currently lack. It also requires that each person have a "personal medical home" with a primary care physician office team.

This Scorecard is a snap shot of the vital signs of our health system. It is not a pretty picture! Our rising costs and deteriorating coverage require leadership to transform the health system.

I say, let's start by adequately funding all primary care, so that we begin with the basics - adequate access for early care, chronic disease care and preventive care. This personal medical home, supported by state of the art medical records, can then be the organizing central point for improving communication and reforming the health care system.