WhiteCoat

Archive for January, 2009

Welcome All Over Again

Friday, January 9th, 2009

THIS IS A “STICKY POST” THAT WILL REMAIN AT THE TOP OF THE BLOG TEMPORARILY
MORE RECENT POSTS CAN BE FOUND BELOW

———————————————————————————

To those of you who have followed me from my old blog … welcome back.

To everyone who has followed a link to this blog from EP Monthly … welcome.

I go by the pseudonym of WhiteCoat. I’m a practicing ED physician who has a blogging addiction. I started writing a blog called WhiteCoat Rants about a year and a half ago. If you haven’t read anything I’ve written before, I imported about 100 of my better posts from my previous blog into this one so that you have something to do if you’re bored one night. Just click on the “Archives” dropdown tab to the right and pick a month. A couple of my personal favorites were also among my first posts. See Chinese Pager Torture and Mr. Wayne. The most popular post on my previous blog was/is one of my caffeine rants titled Do Not Use These Medical Abbreviations! I repeatedly catch flak for that post, but working in the ED I can take it.

Emergency Physicians Monthly and I decided to combine forces to bring our readers the best of EP Monthly’s written publication and a good look at the medical blogosphere. My old readers can check out all the great articles that EP Monthly has to offer and EP Monthly’s readers can put up with my ranting. Great deal, huh?

You can find out a little more about me in the “About” link up to the right. You can also find a lot of great medical blogs in the “BLOG LINKS” link at the right. I organized them by category, so feel free to forward them to your friends in other specialties. There’s some great writing going on out there. If you have a medical blog and want to be included in the list, just drop a comment in the comments section. I’ll try to update the list regularly.

My last blog overshot any expectations I ever had about readership. I hope that I’ve got what it takes to  make this new blog even more successful.

Now it’s time for me to get to work …

A Loophole for Medical Bankruptcy

Thursday, January 8th, 2009

In 2005, special interest groups pushed for, and obtained, changes in the bankruptcy laws that made it more difficult to eliminate debt in bankruptcy proceedings.

An article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal Health Blog notes that the Obama administration intends to change bankruptcy laws again – this time making it easier for patients filing medical bankruptcy to “wipe the slate clean.”

Toward the end of the “Obama-Biden Plan” contained on change.gov, one of the goals of the administration is the following:

Reform bankruptcy laws to protect families facing a medical crisis: Obama and Biden will create an exemption in bankruptcy law for individuals who can prove they filed for bankruptcy because of medical expenses. This exemption will create a process that forgives the debt and lets the individuals get back on their feet.

The WSJ article cites an expert that gives the reasoning behind the medical exemption:

Those revisions “were geared toward people who had been irresponsible spenders,” Jacoby said. “People with serious medical problems do not fit that model.”

Aaaaah. I see.

If you are irresponsible with your health, smoke like a fiend for 20 years, develop lung cancer or a heart attack, and run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, that’s permissible. You can run up millions of dollars in debt by being irresponsible when you drink and drive, get into a car accident and break your neck. That, you shouldn’t have to pay for. But if you buy too much crap with your credit card, you’re on the hook, pal.

What will happen bankruptcy laws are changed to allow a loophole for elimination of medical debt?

People just won’t pay their medical bills and will create as much debt as possible – knowing in advance that they will never have to pay for it.

How do you think medical providers will respond to patients with chronic medical problems and high debt loads? You connect the dots. I’m beginning to see where this whole “medical credit score” is coming into play. It really is going to be used to decide whether or not to provide elective care to patients.

One of the commenters to the WSJ article cited a post from John Goodman’s Health Policy Blog on this issue that is worth the read. Interesting how “medical bankruptcy” is defined.

The whole concept is just another way to push the notion that health care should be “free.” As I noted just a couple of days ago, I think that advancing this theme is the wrong way to go.

But if we’re heading down that road, I think Obama-Biden ought to take it a step further. Create a loophole in bankruptcy law that allows for elimination of back taxes and medical school student loans.

Then you’ll see the first hand effect of your dumb idea.

Radical Ideas to Improve the House of Medicine #2

Wednesday, January 7th, 2009

man-holding-skinQuestion: Who cares most about the cost of medical care?
Answer: The ones that have to pay for it.

Idea #2 for improving the House of Medicine:

Force patients to “Get some skin in the game

Providing all patients with any available medical care all the time will result in nobody getting much of anything most of the time. Free medical care for all is a sure way to bankrupt our system and our country.

If medical care is provided at no cost to everyone, several things will happen:
1. Rationing will occur
No entity, not even our powerful government, can afford to provide costly care at no cost to everyone that asks for it. Expensive diagnostic testing and treatments will be cut back, then they will be eliminated. As more people get older, demand will increase, and rationing will become more pronounced. It is inevitable and I guarantee it will happen if we head down this road.
2. Quality will decline
Just like with the government-run systems now, there will be no incentive to improve the quality of the hospital rooms or the medical care. If it costs money, why bother paying for it? Remember, our country’s checkbook has is overdrawn to the power of 10 right now.

Goes back to the engineer’s triangle. These market forces will never change.

Patients have to become consumers. Educated consumers.

The funny thing is that patients are already educated consumers. We just have to expand that education a little. Look at a couple of examples of how things work now:

  1. Patients with commercial insurance will do whatever testing they or the physician believe is “necessary” … that is … until they find out that someone else won’t pay for it. If a patient can’t get a pre-authorization for an MRI, the patient won’t get the MRI done.
  2. If physicians write for a prescription that isn’t covered under Medicaid, we will get a call from the pharmacist asking to substitute another medication that is covered – otherwise, the prescription isn’t filled. In fact, it has been my experience that patients would rather receive a free prescription for an essentially useless medication (Amantadine) than have to pay for a more effective prescription (Tamiflu – although even the effectiveness of Tamiflu is now waning).
  3. Then there’s the classic example of the patient who would rather wait three hours to be seen in the ED than pay $1 for a pregnancy test. When the care doesn’t cost anything, why shouldn’t you take advantage of it? The only thing that the care “costs” you is the time you spend waiting.
  4. For all of you with insurance who met your deductibles last year – think of your mindset last month. Didn’t you want to get all of your medical testing and treatment done before the end of the year so you didn’t have to pay the deductible?

Happy Hospitalist is dead on with his FREE=MORE mantra.

How do we fix the problem?

Make patients pay for their medical care.

Free market, people.

The free market can’t work if we don’t know the prices of a product, though. You can’t bargain shop at a grocery store if the prices aren’t there. Before we force patients to pay for their medical care, we have to force medical providers to post the prices they charge … for everything … in plain English. Now THAT would actually be a useful “Hospital Compare” web site.

From bypass surgery down to a box of Kleenex. Level 1 through Level 5 including examples of what I get for each level charge. Anywhere you want to stick a scope – I want to know what it’s going to cost me before I see you. Yeah, consultants included. The embarrassment of charging $129 for a box of Kleenex will bring down the price immediately. If providers charge more than their posted prices, they get fined/sued for consumer fraud. For major surgeries, let patients shop around for the best price – if price is important to them. Heck, go overseas and do the medical tourism thing if you want.

We look through 6 different grocery circulars each weekend so that we can save 10 cents on a head of lettuce. We do days of research to find out which flat screen TV gives us the best picture at the lowest cost. There is a whole industry in valuing cars based upon their make, model, mileage, accessories so that buyers can comparison shop. Yet, we think nothing about paying widely disparate prices all over the country for a fairly standard hip replacement surgery.

Why? Because we have NO idea what the surgery costs and we don’t care because someone else is paying for it.

If it was coming out of my pocket and I could pay $10,000 less for the same surgery by flying to a less-populated medical center in the US, I’d be booking the next flight. Want to stop all this saber rattling going on in Boston hospitals right now? (hat tip to Kevin, MD) Start a pricing war. Post a newspaper ad showing the prices that Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women’s Hospital charge, then compare those prices to Tufts and other hospitals in the area. Sure, there will be some that will pay a premium for the “name brand,” but I bet there will be a lot more patients that would opt for “generic care” at a “generic”price.

With educated consumers making responsible decisions all over the country, some medical centers would notice that their volumes are down for certain elective surgeries. If their prices were public knowledge, the medical centers would then have to go back to the engineer’s triangle. Do they try to increase their volume by advertising a lower price, higher quality, or faster service? Those that offer lower prices will have more business. A hospital may have a “pioneer” that performs a newfangled surgery, but if the outcomes are the same as with the old fashioned surgery, the hospital is going to have to do one heck of a marketing job to get people to pay extra for it.

Forcing patients to have some skin in the game would cut back a lot on repetitive testing and futile care, as well.

Family members want futile care (i.e. “everything done”) on the 102 year old contracted great great grandfather with metastatic cancer and decubitus ulcers galore? No problem. Just provide the hospital with a retainer of $25,000 – kind of like a lawyer gets. Grandpa will get the latest and greatest ventilator with all the bells and whistles on it. “Everything” really will be done. He’ll get preoperative clearance from the best of the best. He’ll get daily surgery to debride the decubiti. He’ll get a colonoscopy to make sure that he doesn’t have a colon cancer that someone might have missed 65 years ago. Did you say he looked like he was having trouble breathing? That demands an immediate CT scan of the chest because he might have a pulmonary embolism. Actually, make that a 64 bit coronary scan to check for calcifications in his heart vessels as well. Bypass surgery could be in his future. The hospital could even do daily PSA tests to assess how quickly his cancer is spreading. You want futile care, folks? You got it. But YOU’RE the one paying for it. Heck, a hospital could probably burn through that $25,000 retainer in a day or two. But … once the retainer runs out, you have three days to find another hospital or the nonsense stops, great great grandpa gets put in hospice care, and they make him comfortable so he can die in peace.

Want an unnecessary ultrasound done every week to assess how your 10 week old fetus is coming along? You got it. That will be $500 in cash up front. You want daily ultrasound scans? Won’t make any difference in the management of your pregnancy, but you can probably get a 9AM appointment every day of the week. In fact, hospitals might just get those cards like they give out at Dunkin’ Donuts – buy 5 fetal ultrasound scans, get the 6th one free. That will be $2,500. Yes, hospitals take Visa. Oh, forgot to tell you, though – you will have to pay extra for the radiologist to read the test results.

Of course, once people start noticing that testing and care is cheaper elsewhere, prices would come down rather quickly. Hospitals can’t keep the doors open without money from patients to pay their bills.

One example – an MRI in the US costs an average of $1200. An average MRI in Japan costs $98. Most of us would probably skip an MRI of the shoulder to figure out what was causing all that pain if it cost $1,200. If you could get the MRI for $300, would you do it? What if the MRI only cost $100? How about if the MRI cost $50?

How we get consumers to have an interest in cost-cutting doesn’t really matter.

Maybe it’s forcing insurance companies to have a minimum copay of 25% for all care provided on any insurance policy.

Maybe it’s just someone taking the time to compare the costs of “comprehensive” insurance versus “major medical” insurance with people paying “out of pocket” for basic medical care and generic medications.

Maybe it’s offering consumers a “reward” of a 10% rebate cash for any money they save in obtaining less expensive medical care. You’re on dialysis? Instead of hemodialysis three times a week, do peritoneal dialysis at your home and save the government $10,000 per year. At the end of the year, the government will send you a check for $1000 in cash – no strings attached. Then, in addition to the grocery ads, patients would be searching through the health care ads for the cheapest prices.

Win-win situation.

Wouldn’t it be odd to hear a patient ask “do I really need that CT scan done?”

Free Care – Heading in the Wrong Direction

Tuesday, January 6th, 2009

No sooner did I hit the “publish” button for the previous post than did a recent news story catch my eye. Ties right in with the post.

In the January 2, 2009 NY Times there was the following article:  Hospitals Picked to Offer Patients Free H.I.V. Tests. Emergency departments in some states now are getting the “privilege” of offering free HIV testing … in addition to all of the other services they perform.

As if we don’t have enough to do with increasing numbers of patients, decreasing staffing, decreasing numbers of emergency departments, and decreasing reimbursement for the services we provide. Now we’re setting up side clinics while patients wait for stroke care so that we can give a free HIV test to anyone that wants them.

First of all, no one needs to see a physician to do an HIV test.Get the kit here and send it in. This specific kit costs $30.

The real issue is who will pay for the testing.

If states think that free HIV testing is so important, set up a desk in the lobby of every court house and every state and county office building … or every attorney’s office (after all, attorneys are way more important than doctors) … or every state senator’s office. Hand free tests out at the grocery stores with the pictures of your governor on them and an internet link to campaign contributions.

Apparently providing free testing isn’t that important for the states, though. It’s only important when someone else pays for the right … er, um … responsibility.

We’re heading the wrong way with this idea. Providing more “free” goodies from the emergency department just further entrenches the idea in people’s minds that medical care should be free.

Forcing emergency departments to perform one more nonessential task that has no relation to a patient’s presenting complaint is just another way to delay care, waste money, encourage more Joint Commission regulations, and cost patient lives.

Radical Ideas to Improve the House of Medicine #1

Monday, January 5th, 2009

lucy-doctor-standI’ve been thinking a lot about how to improve the house of medicine.

I have several ideas that are going to get put into several posts over the next week or so.

Here’s idea #1.

People’s perception of medicine as a “free” service has to change.

I won’t go into the discussion about whether health care is a right. It’s like a gun control argument or an abortion debate. Everyone just digs in their heels and shouts at the other side. Strange how the ones who would be forced to provide this “right” to others have different views than the ones who demand the “right,” though, isn’t it?
See also this post about, even if healthcare is a “right,” why – just like every other right afforded to Americans – it shouldn’t be an absolute right.

Whether or not healthcare is a right doesn’t really matter for this idea, though.

What would happen if we did away with licensing of medical professionals and certification of medical facilities? When you think about it, licensing only serves two purposes: it allows the state to extract money from a class of people trained in a given art and it allows for regulation of those classes of people. Ditto for certification. You can argue all day that certification and licensing improve “safety”. I can give you just as many examples of how that argument doesn’t work.

What if we let anyone hang out a shingle and practice medicine out of their garage or their living room? With all the physician extenders performing the tasks that used to be performed solely by physicians, we’re heading down that road already. Get rid of the incremental steps. Jump in head first.

Let my 11 year old forget her paper route and practice medicine – just like Lucy on the Peanuts. She may only make 5 cents per patient, but she would still get paid for her services.

What effect would opening the practice of medicine to everyone have?

Anyone could receive health care from anyone.

Access would improve immediately.

Any patient could choose to go to their kid, the neighborhood witchdoctor, Reverend Bubba, the local Rolfer, or their good ol’ family physician.

But … with no regulation of the medical industry, consumers would then be forced to make a value judgment about the care they receive. It may be a bargain to get psychiatric help from Lucy for 5 cents, but how reliable is what she tells you? Would you rather pay a little more to speak to a psychiatric nurse? Or would you rather pay the “big bucks” to talk to a psychiartist?

We can pay high school kids minimum wage to work in a medical clinic and treat patients for “free.” Patients have access. Patients have timely care. Everything is great. If you want to pay some money, you can see the nurse practitioner and if you want to pay more money, you can see the physician. Maybe there’s a new physician that wants to build a practice and is only charging the going rate for a college grad. That doctor will probably get more patients. Free market at work. Want to sell more product – lower the cost.

To make extra money, someone could set up a couple of beds out in the garage with IV poles and a TV set. That would cost you very little. Would you pay more to be taken care of in a hospital? How about having a nurse tend to your needs? Is it worth more to you if the hospital is deemed “better” at the government’s “Hospital Compare” site? Would you pay more to go to a hospital that is certified by JCAHO? Maybe, maybe not. But the consumer is the one who has to do the research and decide.

If we give patients unlimited availability to health care, then everyone can have “free” or nearly free care. That’s when market forces kick in. If you want a specialist, you have to pay for it. All that training doesn’t come cheap. Maybe the college grad can do a colonoscopy on you for $25, but if you want someone with experience, you have to pay more. Some people will only go to the “best of the best” and those practitioners will be able to charge premium prices.

Once people had access to health care, there wouldn’t be a need for a lot of health care insurance. Then we could get back to what insurance was intended for – catastrophes. Major heart attack? Open heart surgery? Neurosurgery? You could get less experienced practitioners providing your health care “right” to you for free at a county hospital or you could pay a healthcare insurance premium for the more experienced ones to perform surgery at that cushy suburban hospital. Everything is up to the consumer.

Just like everything else in this world, if you can’t afford the premium prices, you’ll still get care – it just won’t be the “best” care.

People on welfare don’t get to live in five star hotels. You can’t use food stamps to eat out at expensive restaurants. Not every accused criminal has a right to representation by Johnnie Cochran or his progeny.

Access to health care shouldn’t be any different, but right now it is the only industry in which, for the most part, the best practitioners get paid the same amount as the worst practitioners. Aside from climbing the academic ladder, there is little financial incentive for most health care professionals to be better in the field. The emphasis is on how quick you can do your job. That has to change.

Removing licensing requirements for the practice of medicine may sound extreme, but extreme changes are what we need before the system collapses.

You can now commence your flaming in the comment section.

Recently on Twitter:

  • Annals of EM: Gov't rule designed to limit CT scans in ERs is unreliable, invalid and inaccurate.
    11:38 AM Feb 22nd from web
  • @doctorwhitecoat, if you enjoyed Tintinalli's article on Saudi Arabia, check out EPM's sister publication, EPI. http://t.co/e1HBFBey
    16:05 PM Feb 15th from web