Tag Archives: physicians

Single Payer Supported by Majority of Physicians

A shout-out to Dr. Don McCanne for posting the following article from Merritt Hawkins.

Merritt Hawkins
August 14, 2017
Survey: 42% of Physicians Strongly Support a Single Payer Healthcare System, 35% are Strongly Opposed
By Phillip Miller
A plurality of physicians strongly support a single payer healthcare system, according to a new survey by Merritt Hawkins.
The survey of 1,033 physicians indicates that 42 percent strongly support a single payer health care system while 14 percent are somewhat supportive. Over one-third (35 percent) strongly oppose a single payer system while six percent are somewhat against it. The remaining three percent neither support nor oppose single payer.
The results contrast with a national survey of physicians Merritt Hawkins conducted in 2008, which indicated that 58 percent of physicians opposed single payer at that time while 42 percent supported it.
In Merritt Hawkins’ experience, there are four reasons why a growing number of physicians are in favor of single payer. First, they are seeking clarity and stability. The fits and starts of health reform and the growing complexity of our current hybrid system are a daily strain on most doctors. Many of them believe that a single payer healthcare system will reduce the distractions and allow them to focus on what they have paid a high price to do: care for patients.
Second, it’s a generational issue. The various surveys that Merritt Hawkins has conducted for The Physicians Foundation in the past show that younger doctors are more accepting of Obamacare, ACOs, EHR, and change in general than are older physicians As the new generation of physicians comes up, there is less resistance among doctors to single payer.
Third, there is a feeling of resignation rather than enthusiasm among some physicians about single payer. These physicians believe we are drifting toward single payer and would just as soon get it over with. The 14% of physicians surveyed who said they “somewhat” support single payer are probably in this group.
Fourth, there is a philosophical change among physicians that I think the public and political leaders on both sides of the aisle now share, which is that we should make an effort to cover as many people as possible.
However, while single payer has gained acceptance among some physicians, it remains strongly opposed by over one third and strongly or somewhat opposed by over 40 percent. It is still a polarizing issue among physicians and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.
So, if a majority of physicians support single payer, and they are the ones we should listen to when it comes to taking care of our health, and if a growing majority of Americans are coming around to this idea, then the only ones standing in the way are our politicians.
POTUS, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, and the medical-industrial complex of insurance companies, drug companies, and medical device manufacturers are all opposed and are preventing this nation from joining the rest of the developed world in providing health care to ALL its citizens.
And there is one more obstacle in our way: Wall Street investors and their clients who are funding insurance and medical companies, engaging in adverse selection and determining who lives and who dies. Who gets covered and who goes into bankruptcy.
They need to removed from the equation.
Advertisements

Another Scheme to Delay the Inevitable

After my last post on my personal health issue and the debate over the health care bills that now have been shelved, I thought I’d share with you the following article in its entirety that is just another scheme to delay the inevitable fact that we will need and have a single-payer, Medicare for All health care system.

The article came to me courtesy of Don McCanne, former President of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP).

Here is the article:

Healthcare Dive
August 2, 2017
Health reform driving payer-provider partnerships
By Les Masterson
Payers and providers have for decades stayed in their silos, leading to a more fractured and adversarial healthcare system. That relationship, however, is starting to soften for many in the industry. Payer-provider partnerships put the two groups on the same team in hopes of reducing costs and improving care and outcomes through sharing data and better communication.
A major driver of these partnerships is the move away from fee-for-service payments and toward valued-based payments and population health management.
The payer-provider partnerships popping up across healthcare vary in type, size, location and model. There are 50/50 joint ventures with co-branding, and less intensive partnerships like accountable care organizations (ACO), patient-centered medical homes (PCMH), pay for performance and bundled payments.
The first step in these partnerships is building trust between payers and providers.
Another key is communication. (Chuck Lehn, president of Banner Health Network) acknowledged that communicating across systems and platforms between two organizations and healthcare providers requires time, attention and resources.
Caring for the whole patient works best when payers and providers share data, so there is improved care management, better interventions and better analytics around population health.
The two sides can go much deeper into care for patients by going beyond claims. In partnerships, payers shouldn’t have to wait for claims to see how their members are doing and doctors shouldn’t have to hope that their patients tell them when they have received care elsewhere.
In addition to regular back and forth, payers and providers need regular meetings, whether monthly or quarterly, that focus on strategic issues about the partnership, said (James Leatherwood, marketing communications manager at Availity).
One barrier that still needs resolution in partnerships is moving providers away from phone communication.
Leatherwood said a more efficient way is a queue system. In this system, a provider could check the status of all claims and get alerts when they need to provide more information. The system would allow providers to look in one queue, update the claims information and then move on with their day. Payers would have their own queue and would get alerts when providers have questions. This would reduce phone calls and create immediacy.
Leatherwood said the healthcare system is stuck in a “chart chase” between providers and payers, and moving to an automated queue system would be a gamechanger.
“I think in the near-term what we’re going to see is larger healthcare providers are going to be more strategic, working directly with payers. The health plans are going to be more interested not just in working with the staff level, but executive levels,” said Leatherwood.
The third part of a successful partnership is aligning incentives that focus on keeping people healthy and creating a positive healthcare experience, said (Thomas Robinson, partner at Oliver Wyman).
Partnerships must provide patients the right incentives, integration, investment, insight and innovation to work with the plan to deliver improvements across cost, quality, outcomes and experience, said Robinson.
“The point of these partnerships is to create something new, rather than just building the same old offerings with a narrow network. Successful partnerships will take the opportunity to innovate around the product and experience now that the incentives, insight, investment and integration are all for it,” said Robinson.
Aetna and Banner Health agreed on the partnership in October 2016 and have been laying out the groundwork before its launch this month in Maricopa and Pinal counties in Arizona. The two companies hope to expand the program statewide ultimately.
To prepare for the partnership, Tom Grote, who became CEO of Banner/Aetna joint venture in May, told Healthcare Dive that Banner Health and Aetna have developed joint operating committees, including marketing/sales and population health, that include members from both organizations.
The partnership looks to improve consumer experience by fully integrating providers, Aetna and administrative services, while eliminating redundancies in care and administrative problems. Aetna and Banner Health expect streamlining care and services will lead to savings for patients and employers.
(Brigitte Nettesheim, president of transformative markets for Aetna) said the partnerships are about “each side playing to its strengths, aligning incentives and driving scale.”
(Tom Leyden, director II of the Value Partnerships Program at BCBSM) said providers want to be active participants in system transformation.
“This requires ongoing support from the payer and demonstrated evidence of practice transformation and clinic results from the provider community,” said Leyden. “Administration of these programs is an integral aspect of measuring performance.”
Leyden said the payer strives to make the programs as manageable as possible because physicians need to perform many administrative tasks on an ongoing basis. BCBSM regularly solicits feedback from providers during quarterly meetings and phone calls, emails, webinars and in-person meetings on what’s working, what’s not and what needs to be changed.
“If we keep the customer — the end user — in mind and build partnerships with that as our North Star, we believe we will have a more successful, efficient and collaborative health system,” said Grote.
McCanne says they are the ones who control the medical industrial complex, and are part of the problem with our health care system. I agree.
And finally, here is a video from MSNBC with Ali Velshi debating a GOP’er on single-payer and Canada. The GOP’er says Canadians flock to the US for medical care, namely surgery, but Velshi disputes that rather forcefully.
Until we get these defenders of the status quo removed from Congress, we will never have the kind of health care all other developed nations have.
Health care is not a business, health care is a human right.

Texas State House Seeks to Change Rules for Workers’ Comp

As reported this morning by Elena Mejia in the Houston Chronicle, members of a Texas State House committee are calling for major reforms to that state’s workers’ compensation program that would change coverage rules that now leave thousands of workers uninsured.

Yesterday, the House Committee on Business and Industry questioned state Insurance Department officials at length about employers who are now failing to provide coverage and continuing complaints about the state’s designated-doctor program.

Texas was the first and only state to allow employers to opt-out of the statutory workers’ comp system until Oklahoma passed legislation, that has since been ruled unconstitutional by the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Commission.

Testimony given before the committee indicated that participation by physicians in the Designated Doctor Program, in which state-approved doctors examine injured workers to decide claims in disputed cases, has dropped precipitously.

According to Stephen Norwood of the Texas Orthopedic Association, participation is down 67 percent, mostly because the state does not reimburse physicians enough for expenses to travel to remote locations.

Mr. Norwood stated that, “All this time away and expense often unexpectedly to remote locations doesn’t make it feasible for physicians to participate,”… “If you allowed proper specialists to evaluate several workers during same travel, you increase access of workers to more appropriate exams and more efficiency to physicians.”

This testimony caught my eye, as generally, I don’t write specifically about one state, but take an overall, big picture view of the issues surrounding workers’ comp and discuss how medical travel can be implemented to relieve those issues.

This would be a perfect scenario for such implementation, so that injured workers in remote parts of Texas can get their treatment in Mexico that may be less expensive to travel to, rather than to have physicians to take the time and expense to travel to those remote locations.

But I suspect that that solution will elude the Texas legislators like so many other issues have eluded them, such as allowing women the right to have abortions, or the right of all workers to be covered under a mandatory state workers’ comp system that is fair to both injured workers and their employers.

But that would be asking too much of them. Sort of like asking the village idiot from Texas to not think about going to war in two countries at the same time.

 

New York Docs Refuse to Accept Injured Workers

In a video report on New York TV station WNBC-TV, an injured worker was referred to a list of ophthalmologists in Brooklyn by the New York Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB), and all doctors on the list refused to accept workers’ compensation, even though the state’s online database said they did.

The reporter, Chris Glorioso, contacted every doctor on the list and was told the same thing that the injured worker, George Akturk, was told, and even one doctor told Glorioso that they used to accept workers’ comp twenty years ago.

According to the report, the results showed that the state’s list of authorized practitioners was severely outdated.

Although each doctor was listed as a workers’ comp participant, Glorioso discovered,  two-thirds of the offices reported they do not participate in the program.

He also found that thirteen doctors’ offices reported they do accept workers’ comp, but most of them do not perform the kind of retinal surgery prescribed for Akturk.

 Dr Michael Lax, director of the SUNY Upstate Occupational Health Clinic, said the real reason doctors are dropping out of the system is that insurance companies and state regulators increasingly control medical decisions.

In 2010, New York adopted medical treatment guidelines that restrict the medical discretion of specialists.

This is another example of how so-called workers’ comp ‘reforms’ are directed not towards improving the lives of the injured workers, but to save money for the carriers, and that regulators are more interested in restricting medical care than treating the injured worker and getting them back to work faster.

Here is the link to the report and accompanying video:

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/NY-Refers-Injured-Workers-to-Docs-that-Dont-Accept-Workers-Comp-372153352.html

Challenges Remain in Physician Payment Reform

Following up on my post yesterday about shared savings, John O’Shea writes today in the Health Affairs blog, that challenges remain with regard to physician payment reform, now that President Obama has signed the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) in April.

MACRA repeals the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) mechanism of updating fees to the Physician Fee Schedule (PFS).

The SGR has been blamed for causing instability and uncertainty among physicians for over a decade, and that led to 17 overrides of scheduled fee cuts, at a cost of over $ 150 billion.

The passage of MACRA, O’Shea wrote, raises new questions about where the US health care system is headed in the post-SGR world of payment and delivery reform.

Yet, before MACRA was signed into law, HHS Secretary Burwell announced a major initiative calling for 30 % of Medicare payments to be value-based through the use of alternative payment models (APMs) by 2016, and 50% by 2018.

HHS also set a goal of tying 85% of all traditional Medicare payments to quality or value by 2016, and 90% by 2018.

O’Shea reported there are reasons for caution. These policy changes, following calls to move from the current volume-based, fee-for-service (FFS) system to a value-based system that pays for patient outcomes, rather than for individual services, present major challenges to achieving the goal of value-based health care, the goal of any real health reform initiative.

One of the APMs O’Shea discussed is Value-based purchasing (VBP), which is the concept behind APMs, includes a broad set of performance-based payment strategies that attempt to use financial incentives to influence provider performance, such as the Shared Savings Program mentioned yesterday.

Another APMs is the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) [don’t you just love how the government comes up with these abbreviations?], a modified FFS system, which is basically a Pay-for-Performance (P4P) program.

The overall early results of these initiatives, as well as possible flaws, make the long term viability of these models uncertain.

With regard to P4P programs, a 2014 RAND report looked at 49 studies examining the effect of P4P on process and intermediate outcome measures, and found that the overall results were mixed, and that any identified effects were relatively small.

According to the lead author of the study, Cheryl Damberg, “The evidence from the past decade is that pay for performance had modest effects on closing the quality gap.” A basic flaw in the model is the reality that meaningful patient-centered outcome measures remain elusive.

ACOs, as I wrote about yesterday, are another APM; and O’Shea reported that their ability to generate savings to share with participants is so far not encouraging. He points to early results from the Pioneer ACO program that determined that of the 23 ACOs that participated in 2013, only 11 earned any shared savings, which totaled about $41 million. Six ACOs lost a total of $25 million. The results from a similar study in 2014 showed improvement, but the long-term outlook is still unclear.

What is the impact on the practice of medicine?

What O’Shea found was that physicians currently labor under an increasingly burdensome and often meaningless number of reporting requirements that take time away from patients, and fail to help them improve quality of care.

Accordingly, a commentary O’Shea cited from the New England Journal of Medicine said that, “the quality-measurement enterprise in US health care is troubled.”

A recent CMS report, O’Shea mentioned, said that 40% of Medicare providers will face 1.5% cuts for failing to submit data to the Physician Quality Reporting System.

Because of this, many public and private payers are tying larger amounts of provider payments to a growing number of largely meaningless measures.

O’Shea said that there are two areas of concern, given the plethora of payment and delivery reform initiatives: the administrative burden on physicians, and the push towards greater consolidation.

Nearly half, or 46% of doctors who reported said that they felt burned out in 2014. A main reason cited by the physicians was the increasing administrative burden.

What does the mean?

Well, having slogged through an online Health Care Quality course as part of my MHA degree program, the myriad abbreviations mentioned in Mr. O’Shea’s article does not surprise me. CMS and HHS has for years developed all kinds of initiatives and programs to influence and alter behavior of all stakeholders in our health care system.

As “Uncle” Walter Cronkite once said, “America’s health care system is neither healthy, caring, nor a system.” And that was before the passage of the ACA.

But for the purposes of this blog, and in keeping with the point of the last article where it was said that what happens in health care affects workers’ comp. then I think you can agree that these initiatives and programs, while well-meaning, may make things worse in the future, but not because the idea behind the ACA or the law itself is bad, but because we Americans cannot do anything right until we try everything else, a la Winston Churchill.

If that is the case, then believing that by doing the same things over and over again, that by following everyone else off the cliff of unregulated, employer-based, multi-payer health care, and by not opening the workers’ comp system to real alternatives, especially for surgery, then nothing will ever change.

We will continue to see more new initiatives and programs from CMS, and the results will be dismal, and the impact on workers’ comp will be felt eventually. That is, unless you open up your minds to new ways of thinking.

———————————————————————————————————————————-

I am willing to work with any broker, carrier, or employer interested in saving money on expensive surgeries, and to provide the best care for their injured workers or their client’s employees.

Call me for more information, next steps, or connection strategies at (561) 738-0458 or (561) 603-1685, cell. Email me at: richard_krasner@hotmail.com.

Ask me any questions you may have on how to save money on expensive surgeries under workers’ comp.

Connect with me on LinkedIn, check out my website, FutureComp Consulting, and follow my blog at: richardkrasner.wordpress.com. Share this article, or leave a comment below.