Consumer Directed Healthcare

By TARA PARKER-POPE

A growing chorus of discontent suggests that the once-revered doctor-patient relationship is on the rocks.

The relationship is the cornerstone of the medical system — nobody can be helped if doctors and patients aren’t getting along. But increasingly, research and anecdotal reports suggest that many patients don’t trust doctors.

About one in four patients feel that their physicians sometimes expose them to unnecessary risk, according to data from a Johns Hopkins study published this year in the journal Medicine. And two recent studies show that whether patients trust a doctor strongly influences whether they take their medication.

The distrust and animosity between doctors and patients has shown up in a variety of places. In bookstores, there is now a genre of “what your doctor won’t tell you” books promising previously withheld information on everything from weight loss to heart disease.

The Internet is bristling with frustrated comments from patients. On The New York Times’s Well blog recently, a reader named Tom echoed the concerns of many about doctors. “I, as patient, say stop acting like you know everything,” he wrote. “Admit it, and we patients may stop distrusting your quick off-the-line, glib diagnosis.”

Doctors say they are not surprised. “It’s been striking to me since I went into practice how unhappy patients are and, frankly, how mistreated patients are,” said Dr. Sandeep Jauhar, director of the heart failure program at Long Island Jewish Medical Center and an occasional contributor to Science Times.

He recounted a conversation he had last week with a patient who had been transferred to his hospital. “I said, ‘So why are you here?’ He said: ‘I have no idea. They just transferred me.’

“Nobody is talking to the patients,” Dr. Jauhar went on. “Everyone is so rushed. I don’t think the doctors are bad people — they are just working in a broken system.”

The reasons for all this frustration are complex. Doctors, facing declining reimbursements and higher costs, have only minutes to spend with each patient. News reports about medical errors and drug industry influence have increased patients’ distrust. And the rise of direct-to-consumer drug advertising and medical Web sites have taught patients to research their own medical issues and made them more skeptical and inquisitive.

“Doctors used to be the only source for information on medical problems and what to do, but now our knowledge is demystified,” said Dr. Robert Lamberts, an internal medicine physician and medical blogger in Augusta, Ga. “When patients come in with preconceived ideas about what we should do, they do get perturbed at us for not listening. I do my best to explain why I do what I do, but some people are not satisfied until we do what they want.”

Others say the problem also stems from a grueling training system that removes doctors from the world patients live in.

“By the time you’re done with your training, you feel, in many ways, that you are as far as you could possibly be from the very people you’ve set out to help,” said Dr. Pauline Chen, most recently a liver transplant surgeon at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the author of “Final Exam: A Surgeon’s Reflections on Mortality” (Knopf, 2007). “We don’t even talk the same language anymore.”

Dr. David H. Newman, an emergency room physician at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center in Manhattan, says there is a disconnect between the way doctors and patients view medicine. Doctors are trained to diagnose disease and treat it, he said, while “patients are interested in being tended to and being listened to and being well.”

Dr. Newman, author of the new book “Hippocrates’ Shadow: Secrets from the House of Medicine” (Scribner), says studies of the placebo effect suggest that Hippocrates was right when he claimed that faith in physicians can help healing. “It adds misery and suffering to any condition to not have a source of care that you trust,” Dr. Newman said.

But these doctors say the situation is not hopeless. Patients who don’t trust their doctor should look for a new one, but they may be able to improve existing relationships by being more open and communicative.

Go to a doctor’s visit with written questions so you don’t forget to ask what’s important to you. If a doctor starts to rush out of the room, stop him or her by saying, “Doctor, I still have some questions.” Patients who are open with their doctors about their feelings and fears will often get the same level of openness in return.

“All of us, the patients and the doctors, ultimately want the same thing,” Dr. Chen said. “But we see ourselves on opposite sides of a divide. There is this sense that we’re facing off with each other and we’re not working together. It’s a tragedy.”

 

By BENJAMIN BREWER, M.D.

With gas prices hovering around $4 a gallon, my patients are cutting back on medical care.

A 59-year-old woman decided not to have a mammogram this year. At her age, she should be screened for colon cancer, too, but she is holding off until she becomes eligible for Medicare at 65.

Despite having some medical insurance as a self-employed cleaning woman, she is pinching pennies by scrimping on preventive care. If she develops cancer of the colon or breast she won’t have saved anything. This year she is taking her chances. 
 
Rising deductibles, stiff drug co-payments and increasing prices for just about everything are forcing some hard choices about health. Care that doesn’t strike patients as critical is getting delayed. As the economy squeezes my patients, they are showing up sicker.

A patient quit smoking so he could afford gas for the 40 mile commute to work in a packaging plant. He has been living paycheck to paycheck for years and his rent just went up. I was glad that something finally motivated him to stop smoking.

The bad news was that he came to the office with severe pneumonia two days after refusing to let an E.R. doctor admit him to the hospital. My patient was afraid of the expense and all the time he would go without pay from work.

To make matters worse, he didn’t fill the antibiotic prescription he was given either. The $50 co-payment was unaffordable, he said. This is a case when an insurer would have been better off picking up the antibiotic tab to avoid a larger expense. But there’s no easy way for a doctor to override a plan’s co-pay or to let an insurer know its rules are about to make something very expensive happen.

When the patient came to see me, his condition had deteriorated. I persuaded him to let me admit him to the local hospital. He was in such bad shape that he was soon transferred to the ICU of a large medical center. His care will end up costing tens of thousands of dollars.

It was no surprise to me to read recently that claims severity and costs for health insurers took an unexpected jump this year. Many patients are not able to bear even a moderate expense to save their insurance companies the cost of major claims.

A 53-year-old patient couldn’t avoid a trip to see me when his finger was fractured in a log splitter. After X-rays and having his fingertip sutured together, the man required several trips to the office for dressing changes and monitoring for infection.

He’s been unable to work as a laborer in the month since he got hurt. With no money coming in, he’s racked up $200 in office co-payments for visits that his insurance won’t be covering. We’re carrying his balance until he can get back to work.

He isn’t the only one in arrears. As a result of lean times, accounts receivable from uninsured patients in my practice is trending up. About 5% of our patients are uninsured.

Patients are still having babies at the same rate. But elective procedures, preventive exams and compliance with prescriptions are all down.

Some of my patients are taking themselves off medications. Just last week I encountered patients who stopped their cholesterol medication and urinary incontinence medications. I’m getting fewer refill requests for E.D. drugs, like Viagra, too.

I noticed an uptick in patients canceling appointments and just not showing up over the last few weeks. More people are asking for advice over the phone and trying to avoid an office visit.

Many of our patients travel 20 or 30 miles to see us, and I think gas prices are affecting no-show and cancellation rates, particularly with low income patients.

My total number of office visits is off 5% from last year. Another indication of the slowdown is that I’m getting my nursing home rounds done. I’m pretty well caught up on my daily deluge of paperwork, too. When things are busy, I almost never get those things accomplished.

It occurred to me in an idle moment that I would be a lot busier if the $600 government stimulus checks had been spent on a basket of basic primary care services. That would have paid for 130 million people to have had most of their health needs met for a year. Instead, folks around here seem to be spending more on $4 gas.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121675678304374527.html?mod=2_1566_topbox

 

Will Giving Doctors More Money to Coordinate Care Pay Off?

By JULIE APPLEBY
July 14, 2008

States, the federal government and private insurers are experimenting with an idea to cut costs and make patients happier: Paying primary-care doctors extra money to oversee and coordinate patients’ care.

The pay boost rewards doctors who reshape their practices to recreate an era when a trusted family physician helped patients through hospitalizations, coordinated specialist care and provided routine screenings. Such efforts may save money by reducing hospitalizations, ER visits and disease.

Dubbed “medical homes,” the concept is a modern twist on an idea first promoted in the 1960s. Under most pilot projects being tested, primary-care doctors who have established medical homes will receive additional fees ranging from just a few dollars a month per patient to more than $35,000 a year per doctor from states, Medicare or other insurers.

Medicare this year will choose eight states to test whether paying primary-care doctors more per month to treat patients with chronic illnesses in medical home settings results in better care and lower costs than traditional practices.

The concept aims to change rushed doctor’s appointments and fragmented specialist care by creating patient care “teams,” which could include nurse practitioners, nutritionists or other medical staff. Medical homes also offer longer office hours, electronic medical records and same-day appointments.

The idea is that patients would turn to a trusted adviser, either the doctor or another team member, for preventive and routine care and rely on that person to help coordinate needed screenings, specialist visits and other care, says Terry McGeeney, head of TransforMED, a subsidiary of the American Academy of Family Physicians that helps doctors create such practices.

While health maintenance organizations and managed care companies aimed for such coordination, many didn’t pay doctors adequately for it, instead rewarding them financially for restricting care, says McGeeney. Under medical homes, he says, doctors won’t prevent patients from seeing specialists or ordering tests.

It’s not clear how well such plans will work. North Carolina saved $231 million in 2002-03 by setting up medical homes in its Medicaid program.

Joseph Antos, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, says no one argues with the goal, but: “If all we’re doing is rearranging the deck chairs on the medical Titanic, and spending more money, that’s clearly not something we want to do.”

The idea appeals to doctors such as Joseph Mambu, who set up his Pennsylvania practice as a medical home. They recreate “the old-fashioned doctor who has the time to get to know you,” he says. “This is our last, best hope to save primary care.”

Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

Study leads to debates on mandates

By Kay Lazar
Globe Staff / July 8, 2008

A long-awaited report concludes that 12 cents of every $1 paid for health insurance in Massachusetts goes toward 26 state-mandated benefits, from maternity and mental healthcare to infertility and diabetes services.

Graphic Estimated spending on mandated benefits
Statewide, the price tag is $1.3 billion a year, says the report released yesterday by the Division of Health Care Finance and Policy. It was commissioned in 2006 as part of the state’s near-universal health insurance law.

Insurers and small business groups said the findings show that mandates are helping to drive up costs, making coverage unaffordable as many businesses and workers struggle. The business groups said the mandates translate to roughly $1,300 annually per employee in a family healthcare plan.

But some mandates are also required under federal law, the report said, meaning that employers would have to offer those benefits even if the state mandates were not in place. Excluding such benefits, the report concludes that the cost of the state’s mandates would be no higher than $687 million a year, or roughly 6 cents of every $1 paid for health insurance.

State lawmakers are now considering proposals that could require employers to add more benefits, including expanded mental healthcare coverage.

“It’s getting harder and harder for both employees and employers to pay healthcare costs,” said Dr. Marylou Buyse, president of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, which represents most of the state’s health insurers.

“We believe there should be a moratorium on all new mandates until healthcare costs rise at the same rate as general inflation,” she said. “Right now, healthcare costs are about two to three times the rate of inflation.”

The report’s authors reviewed health studies about the various mandates and estimated that most of them are cost-effective. But they suggested that regulators may consider removing some that are not considered the standard of care, such as bone marrow transplants for treatment of breast cancer. The report also noted that just five of the mandates - maternity, mental health, home health, preventive care for children, and infertility services - account for 80 percent of the total cost of the mandated benefits.

Advocates for universal health coverage said these conclusions show that regulators and lawmakers are not going to be able to wring significant cost savings from slashing existing benefits.

“Healthcare costs are going to require serious grappling of root causes of cost inflation, which are not these mandated benefits,” said Brian Rosman, research director at Health Care for All, a nonprofit that lobbies for affordable healthcare and pushed for the state’s 2006 landmark health insurance overhaul.

The law included a moratorium on adding mandated health benefits until the state published a report detailing the costs of existing mandates. The report released yesterday effectively lifts that moratorium.

The report did not calculate the cost of mandatory prescription drug coverage, which is being phased in this year.

Small business owners say that that mandate alone is likely to boost costs by another 3 to 4 percent.

“Legislators think companies are all big businesses who can afford to pay, and that’s not true,” said Bill Vernon, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business, which represents small business owners.

Vernon said small business owners are bearing the brunt of the state mandates because most larger companies are exempt from state insurance rules under federal law.

He said healthcare costs are typically the second- or third-largest employer expense and that mandates make it tough for small companies to tailor their coverage to the benefits that would most help their employees.

“Perhaps the employees want something else, like higher pay or more 401K contributions,” he said. “It’s the [lack of] flexibility that really irritates small business owners.”

 

By JIM ABRAMS 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration said Monday it will delay paying doctors for treating Medicare patients in early July to give Congress more time to block a scheduled 10.6 percent fee cut.

The move by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services doesn’t block the cut, scheduled to take place Tuesday. It’s up to Congress to decide that.

But to give Congress more time to act, the agency will instruct its contractors to delay the processing of any physician or non-physician Medicare claims for health care services given during the first 10 business days of July. Claims for services received on before June 30 will be processed as usual.

CMS will not be making any payments at the 10.6 percent reduced rate until July 15, at the earliest, agency spokesman Jeff Nelligan said. The delay in processing claims probably means that claims that would have been paid in mid-July will be delayed up to a week, the agency estimates.

Another option would have been to issue on-time payments at the lower rate and pay the rest later after Congress fixes the problem.

Congress, facing the prospect of millions of angry seniors at the polls in November, will be under tremendous pressure to act quickly when it returns to Washington the week of July 7 to prevent the cuts in payments for some 600,000 doctors who treat Medicare patients. The cuts were scheduled because of a formula that requires fee cuts when spending exceeds established goals.

But Senate Republicans and the White House are in a standoff with Democrats seeking to cut subsidies to insurance companies that provide Medicare coverage to “pay for” easing the payment cuts to doctors. There’s no guarantee the standoff will be broken soon.

Lawmakers on all sides promise that if the impasse goes on and doctors receive the lower payments, they’ll get repaid retroactively through automatically reprocessed claims. That’s more difficult than it sounds, given the millions of Medicare claims that have to be processed every day. A comparable situation that occurred in early 2006 took six months to fully fix.

HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt had promised Friday that his agency “will take all steps available to the department under the law to minimize the impact on providers and beneficiaries.” On Monday, the department used its administrative tools to delay implementing the scheduled 10.6 percent cuts.

Democrats on Capitol Hill say that the administration is following existing anti-fraud rules that require a two-week delay before most Medicare payments to doctors can be paid anyway. Republicans say the real issue is processing of claims, not the payment of them.

Almost every year, Congress finds a way to block the automatic Medicare cuts. But last week the Senate fell just one vote short of the 60 needed to proceed to legislation that would have stopped the cut.

In a particularly vitriolic exchange, Democrats and Republicans blamed each other for what Dr. Nancy H. Nielsen, president of the American Medical Association, said has put the country “at the brink of a Medicare meltdown.”

“Seniors need continued access to the doctors they trust. It’s urgent that Congress make that happen,” the AMA said in ads taken out in Capitol Hill newspapers read by members of Congress and their aides.

Doctors have complained for years that Medicare payments have failed to cover rising costs.

This year, majority Democrats homed in on cutting the Medicare Advantage program, which is an ideological issue for both parties. The Bush administration and Republicans like Medicare Advantage because it lets the elderly and disabled choose to get their health benefits through private insurers rather than through traditional Medicare. Democrats argued that government payments to the insurers are too generous.

The White House warned that President Bush would be urged to veto a bill that contained cuts to Medicare Advantage.

That didn’t stop the House last Tuesday from approving the legislation 355-59, well above the margin needed to override a veto. Every Democrat supported it, and Republicans, bucking their president, voted 129-59 for it.

Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Andrew Taylor contributed to this report.