Posts tagged Health Policy
Options for Healthcare. What Else is There?
0Scottsdale – Alternatives to government-run healthcare are being discussed now more than ever. It is true, there are some good things about the new bill, but most Americans are unhappy about the new law, which is seen by many as government over-reaching. I ran into an interesting article posted November 8, 2010 on the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) website.
The article is written by Alieta Eck, MD, who is a member of the AAPS and has testified before the Joint Economic Committee of the US Congress about ways to improve the delivery of health care in the United States. She practices medicine with her husband in Piscataway, NJ and has founded a free clinic for the poor and uninsured that currently cares for 300 to 400 patients per month, utilizing donated services from volunteer physicians and nurses.
She outlines 4 important principles based on her experience:
- First, involves the average patient paying his doctor directly for services rendered. She believes this would drastically reduce paperwork, preserve patient-physician confidentiality, and reduce costs and prices which would be kept down by competition.
- Second, would include all patients obtaining a health insurance policy, non-cancelable for unforeseen major medical maladies and accidents. A requirement would make these policies carry the coverage and deductible that fits a family budget. States would merely oversee that contract terms are met, but not mandate what conditions are to be covered.
- Thirdly, develop a safety net of non-governmental charity clinics scattered throughout every state with each clinic deciding ways to determine the eligibility of those seeking free care.
- Fourth (and I added it here), the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1996 provides free medical malpractice coverage for professionals who volunteer at any free clinic. Dr. Eck believes that doctors freed from the specter of frivolous lawsuits can offer common sense care leaving compliance up to the patients.
Dr. Eck discusses, in her article, the experience at the Zarephath Health Center in central New Jersey. The center uses volunteer physicians and nurses to provide free care to the poor. Patients include the homeless, the mentally ill, the jobless, undocumented immigrants and even patients with Medicaid cards.
She reports that physicians there diagnose and care for patients with acute and chronic illnesses. The patients are treated with kindness by those who are willing to donate their time. Impressively, she reports the cost of providing services comes to $15 per patient visit compared to $150 per patient visit at a federally qualified clinic in the neighboring town.
She mentions that the latter clinic has huge bureaucratic administrative overhead and collects funds from federal and state governments, as well as patients. The government run clinic is constantly asking government for more money.
It did not take much to convince me we need other options with this new healthcare law. The fear many people have is that so much bureaucracy has been build into the system. This may provide some with government jobs, but the level of inefficiency will drive up costs, increase wait time, frustration and patient dissatisfaction. Doctors, even plastic surgeons, will feel it too, since we are the ones who have to hear and manage patient complaints, and not the administrators. Based on the points she has made, her recommendations are sensible and cost-efficient. For more insight on the subject, I suggest you read her entire article.
Health reform without tort reform hurts all Americans!
0
Save America! Give us tort reform!
Santa Barbara – Several months ago, the Congressional Budget Office completed an analysis of the effects of Tort Reform proposals on the costs to our health-care system which could save the country $54 billion over 10 years. Despite these findings, and the general belief that tort reform will save even more tax payer money by reducing costs of defensive medicine (up to $200 billion dollars according to the American Medical Association) – I am not aware of any significant tort related amendments in the current health reform bills.
Sadly, it is the American public that will continue to pay what I call the “tort premium”, which is spent on health-care and has nothing to do with actual “health care”, but instead goes to cover litigation expenses. However, Americans have realized that reform to the medico-legal system should be part of health-care reform. According to Phillip K. Howard, an attorney and chairman of Commongood.org, “83% of Americans believe that as part of any health care reform plan, Congress needs to change the medical malpractice system.”
It is interesting to contrast what appears to be a lack of interest in Congress for Tort Reform to the savings that could be achieved if only medical malpractice reform would be passed. The Congressional Budget Office has some important recommendations for Congress in their updated analysis of tort reform proposals (addressed to Senator Orrin Hatch), which I recommend every American read. The document can be downloaded as a PDF at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) website.
The CBO recommendations include a cap on non-economic damages, a cap on punitive damages, a reasonable statute of limitations, replacement of joint-and-several liability with a fair-share rule, and modification of the collateral source rule to allow evidence of income from health/auto/life insurance and/or workers compensation to be introduced at trials or to require that such income be subtracted from awards decided by juries.
“I think that this is an important step in the right direction and these numbers show that this problem deserves more than lip service from policy-makers,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, after receiving the report from the CBO. “I look forward to having a continued comprehensive dialogue on this critical issue with CBO”, said Mr. Hatch. The findings by the CBO provides momentum to press for tort reform to be included President Obama’s health care legislation.
Supporters of tort reform argue that the expense drives up the price of medical care, limits access to health-care, and leads to defensive medicine, in which doctors order unnecessary tests to make sure they won’t get sued. The support for tort reform reflects growing awareness that reform will allow better management of health care systems, a reduction of costs and increased access to medical care. Tasks which are likely impossible when physicians go through the day thinking about how to protect themselves from lawsuits.
Opponents of medical malpractice reform say it is unfair to limit awards to individuals injured by medical negligence. Trial lawyers argue that they are champions of malpractice victims. However, a study in the New England Journal of Medicine (2006) outlines that under the current system 54 cents of the malpractice dollar goes to lawyers and administrative costs. Harvard Law Professor, Michelle Mello said, “It would be hard to design a more inefficient compensation system.”
According to Mr. Howard’s Wall Street Journal article, “a few thousand trial lawyers who are blocking reform that would benefit 300 million Americans.”
Most Doctors Oppose Healthcare Reform, consider Quitting.
3
Doctors oppose health care reform.
Scottsdale – If you are a patient, you have to wonder why so many doctors oppose health care reform. An article in Investors.com reports the result of a recent poll of physicians and the results are not good for the future of medicine. In fact, the poll indicates that two out of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Congress. An even greater concern is that hundreds of thousands of physicians would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if the legislation is approved.
This poll contradicts the claims the White House and the American Medical Association — both which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.
In my opinion, there are several reasons why physicians oppose this reform. Most doctors have their patients best interest in mind. Physicians believe that they and their patients are the best people to make decisions about an individual person’s health care options. If a government plan is created, there is no doubt that a significant portion of the decisions will be made by the bureaucratic machinery designed to manage such a system. Those critical medical decisions will have a huge impact on individual patients life and potentially their doctors too. After looking at the current 2,000 page bill before Congress, you can be sure that the bureaucratic machine that has been conjured up is of colossal proportions. The most significant goal of the current legislation is to lower the costs of health care. Most likely, the bureaucrats will opt to provide the least costly options for patients while avoiding the expensive ones. The costs will matter and it will not matter to the bureaucrats whether the procedure they approve is the best indicated medical treatment for the patient.
Physicians fear that non-medical personnel in charge of managing decisions will force their patients to accept less costly therapy that, in some cases, may be less than optimal and even worse, could be below the standard of care. The proponents of the reform would argue that the system is not designed to provide less than standard care. However, it is inevitable that in such a large health care bureaucracy, whether intentional or not, some patients are not going to be diagnosed or treated in a timely manner as they attempt to access health care through all the “natural red tape” that is typically associated with government-run programs. Delays in diagnosis or treatment is what I and others have predicted will be the number one cause of morbidity and mortality in the population if this bill is enacted. If this occurs, physicians will be left out of the decision making process and will be powerless to protect their patients, but will likely be blamed for poor outcomes. This chain of events will increase the likelihood of malpractice suits and increase the costs of practicing medicine in America.
Another reason for opposing this current legislative reform is the significant lower rates of reimbursement for hospitals and physicians. For instance, the Senate Bill requires physicians to accept below Medicare reimbursements for services in the later years of the plan. This is required in order to keep the overall costs of the bill around 900 Billion. Expenses for doctors and hospitals, on the other hand, are going to continue to rise as much as 40 percent while reimbursements drop. The most likely outcome is that physician practices and hospitals will not be solvent under this plan and many will have no other choice than to close their doors. Already hundreds of hospitals have shut down during this economic downturn. If this continues, then a crisis the likes of which has not been seen in this country will occur with regards to access for specialty care and possibly even for general medical care that will devastate the population.
Diminishing reimbursements will also contribute to the access crisis by lowering the number of doctors graduating medical schools. This will lead to less and less physicians available in the future to replace retiring physicians and the crisis will get worse as we get older. The fact is that medical school is expensive and a lower reimbursement will cause many new graduates not to be able to pay loans back for a lot longer period that previous generations. This and other financial pressures will make medicine even less attractive to future generations.
There is no significant tort reform in the legislation. This compounds the problem tremendously. Physicians already fear that they will not be able to influence the bureaucratic decision-making process, that they will no longer be able to advocate the best treatments for their patients, and that they will not be able to protect their patients once a decision on how to proceed with care is made by the managing personnel. As the new medical environment evolves under this plan it will likely become more dangerous to practice medicine for the average physician. As other doctors retire or move on, the remaining physicians will have to see more patients in less time, receive less reimbursement for more work, and take more risks with less rewards. Eventually, this will leave doctors in a vulnerable position of being overworked, underpaid and unhappy. Physicians already live in fear of litigation and without the ability to protect their medical practice and life-long investments many will be pushed out of the business.
More than 800,000 doctors were practicing in 2006, according to government statistics. Projecting the poll’s finding onto that population, 360,000 doctors would consider quitting if the legislation goes through as planned.
Tort Reform numbers for healthcare don't lie.
0Scottsdale – as the health debate heats up in D.C. , I found some interesting numbers we should all keep in mind about what makes health care so expensive! I think that if we fall asleep on this one, we’ll all suffer in the end. This information can be found in the online journal, Politico.
- According to a study by the Harvard School of Public Health, 40% of medical malpractice suits are without merit.
- The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) estimates unlimited excessive damages adds between $70 billion and $126 billion to health care costs every year.
- According to HHS, doctors order $60 billion worth of unnecessary tests, procedures and other forms of defensive medicine – in large part to protect themselves from abusive lawsuits – per year.
- The Congressional Budget Office estimates that limiting non-economic damages – awards for “pain and suffering” – would reduce medical liability insurance rates by 25% to 30%. Lower liability premiums mean lower health care costs.
- The Congressional Budget Office completed an analysis of the effects of Tort Reform proposals on the costs to our health-care system which could save the country $54 billion over 10 years.
Americancourthouse.com commented on this article: “Trial lawyers lobby is desperate to scare Americans into believing the medical liability reform will limit their access to the courts in the event of a true medical mistake. But the only thing it will limit is the ability of trial lawyers to walk away with Powerball-sized legal fees”.
I can assert that during my training in surgery about 50 percent of the actions taken , in terms of ordering tests and other labs, were to cover against some uncommon causes in the differential of the disease. In some cases we ruled out even very rare conditions just to close the door against potential liability. It is unlikely that health care costs will go down without tort reform.






