Pontifications About Health Care Reform Written by Insiders Who Benefit from the Status Quo - Worse Than We Think

Perceptions that the US health care system is dysfunctional and needs major reform go way back.  A timeline from the Tampa Bay Times noted President Theodore Roosevelt's proposal for a national health service in 1912.  Nonetheless, as we have discussed endlessly, most attempts at reform failed, and health care dysfunction seems to be getting worse.

One big problem may be that we don't understand how much discussion of health care reform is driven by those who benefit from the status quo. 

A Personal Anecdote

When I began my academic career in 1983, I was often in the audience for talks about how to fix health care by people billed as experts.  Often these talks seemed oddly disconnected from the realities on the ground for a junior assistant professor with a lot of clinical and teaching responsbilities.  Worse, many of the solutions they offered seemed to entail greater burdens for health care professionals, with no obvious compensation other than the warm feeling that we would be benefiting society.  Who else these solutions might benefit was not discussed. 

One talk given a bit later stands out in my memory. On November 29, 2001, one Dr John W Rowe gave the prestigious Levinger Lecture at Brown University entitled "Good Health: Can we Afford It?" (referenced here, see items for 11/14 and 11/16)  As I recall, Dr Rowe spent considerable time scolding us hard working physicians for overuse of medical interventions leading to endless increases in health care costs, and promising more burdensome bureaucratic interventions to rein in our follies.  While promising more burdens on physicians, Dr Rowe did not dwell on how the resulting cost savings might benefit him in his role as CEO and Chairman of Aetna Inc.  Aetna had purchased the notoriously physician-unfriendly US Healthcare, and thus had become a big for-profit health care insurer already known for imposing bureaucratic burdens on physicians in hopes of decreasing their utilization, while increasing the company's revenues (look here).  Were Dr Rowe's pontifications really about improving health care for all Americans, or about justifying his previous management behavior, and perhaps supporting the price of his shares in Aetna? Why was Aetna's public relations given the patina of an academic lecture?

These days, health care professionals continue to be exhorted about health care reform.  Many such pontifications may be not so much about true health care reform as about preserving the fundamental status quo which has benefited and enriched so many insiders. The interests of the pontificators are often less obvious than those of Dr Rowe.  Maybe that is so why there has been so little real reform, and what little reform there has been seems to be under continuous attack.

Two Examples of How Hard It Is to Discover the Interests of Health Care Policy Pontificators

In the last few weeks I posted about two recent ostensibly authoritative pontifications.  One was about ways to address the worsening problem of physician burn-out (see this post). It was written by the CEOs of large, non-profit hospital systems, joined by the CEO of the American Medical Association.  The other was about a health care reform proposal from the prestigious National Academy of Medicine (see this post).  A rather uncritical article in the Washington Post hailed it as a "radical idea" because it was written by "doctors." In both cases, I was skeptical, mainly because many of the proponents had conflicts of interest, mostly undisclosed, that suggested they were already benefiting mightily from the current system.

However, it gets worse.  While I thought my posts were based on reasonable efforts to find undisclosed conflicts of interest affecting the authors of these exhortations, within a few weeks I realized I had missed one important item affecting each.  The lesson is that the web of conflicts of interest that ensnares the insiders who run most of US health care is even more complex and adherent than any of us realizes.

Dr John Noseworthy, Author of the Health Affairs Post on Reducing Physician Burnout: CEO of the Mayo Clinic, But Also Now Nominated to be a Director of Merck

Dr Noseworthy, CEO of the Mayo Clinic, was the lead author of a post in HealthAffairs about reducing physician burnout.  (Oddly enough, none of the proposed action items seemed to involve increasing physician autonomy by reducing the power of managers over health care professionals.)

Two weeks after Noseworthy and colleagues' post appeared, an article on the Minnesota Public Radio website reported that Dr Noseworthy has just been nominated to a seat on the Merck board of directors.  Presumably the possibility of this nomination had been known at the time the post was published.

I had previously written that two of the authors of the Health Affairs post were on corporate boards.  One, Dr Paul Rothman, was already on the board of Merck.  As corporate directors, they have fiduciary responsibilties to promote the revenues of their corporations.  Now it turns out there were at least three such board members among the health system CEOs who had pontificated to physicians about how to reduce their burn-out.

Yet the power of such health care systems, whose management is often mission-hostile, and who often put revenue ahead of physicians' professional values (per the shareholder value theory), is arguably a major cause of physician burnout.  Furthermore, Merck, in particular, has had its share of management misbehavior as demonstrated by a recent $830 million settlement for deceiving shareholders, a mere $5.9 million 2015 settlement for deceptive marketing, and multiple setttlements, cumulatively totaling more than $1 billion, plus one guilty plea for the historic deceptive marketing of Vioxx (see this post).

So to what extent are the authors of this pontification about reducing physician burnout (without really giving physicians much new autonomy) insiders benefiting from the status quo in health care?  It may be more than what we think, even now.

Mr Leonard Schaeffer, Author of National Academy of Medicine Article on Health Care Reform: Member of the Boards of Wahlgreen Boots, Quintiles, scPharmaceuticals, but Also Long-Term Director of Amgen

Mr Schaeffer was an author of the National Academy of Medicine article, now published online in JAMA, about health care reform.  (Oddly enough, none of the "vital directions issue areas" mentioned in the article involved real challenges to the power of large health care organizations, particularly for-profit corporations, or increased autonomy for health care professionals.)

The version of the article published online by the NAM did not include any explicit disclosures of conflicts of interest.  It did note that two authors were full-time employees of health care corporations, one was a consultant to health care corporations, one was a lobbyist for health care corporations, and one was on the boards of health care corporations.  The online JAMA version added more disclosures, but these were incomplete.  In my post, I noted that fully 13 of the 19 authors had major ties to large health care corporations, as employees, lobbyists, consultants or  board members.

In particular, Mr Leonard D Schaeffer was listed in the NAM version as simply affiliated with the University of Southern California, but I found was actually on the boards of Wahlgreens Boots Alliance, Quintiles Transnational, and scPharmaceuticals Inc.  That was still an incomplete picture of his conflicts of interest.

A ProPublica article from February, 2017 recounted how big pharmaceutical companies engaged Precision Health Economics to wage public relations campaigns to try to justify high pharmaceutical prices.  The article noted the following about Mr Schaeffer.  

Amgen has ties to all three founders of Precision Health Economics. Working for other firms, Philipson has twice testified as an expert witness for Amgen, defending the company’s rights to drug patents, according to his curriculum vitae. The other two founders, Goldman and Lakdawalla, are principals at the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics at USC, which received $500,000 in late 2016 from Amgen for an 'innovation initiative,' according to public disclosures. Goldman said the funds were unrestricted and could be used at the center’s discretion. Robert Bradway, the CEO and chair of Amgen, is on the advisory board of the university center, and Leonard Schaeffer, a professor at USC and the namesake of the center, sat on Amgen’s board of directors for nearly a decade.

With funding from Amgen, the Schaeffer Center hosted a forum in Washington, D.C., in October 2015 on the affordability of specialty drugs. Before a panel focused on the new cholesterol treatment, Goldman cautioned against lowering drug prices.

So Mr Schaeffer, in addition to his current board positions, turns out to have had a long relationship with Amgen.  Given that according to the 2013 Amgen proxy statement, Mr Schaeffer retired from the board with at least 28,277 shares of Amgen stock and options for 15,000 more, he may have current financial ties to the company. 

So once again, to what extent were the authors of the 2017 NAM report on health care reform (which did not challenge the influence of large health care corporations over the health of US citizens) insiders benefiting from the status quo in health care?  It may be more than what we think, even now.

Summary

Health care professionals, policy makers, and the public are constantly harangued by apparently unbaised experts about health care reform.  Yet many of these authorities are insiders who benefit from the status quo.  Many of their financial connections to the corporations that make the most money from the US commercialized health care system are not disclosed.  It may take considerable investigation to determine their involvement in a web of conflicts of interest that drapes over the US health care system.

Meanwhile, audiences should demand that those who lecture us about health care reform disclose all their financial conflicts of interest.  Any whiff of deception about their personal interests should suggest intense skepticism. 

True health care reform requires honest discussion of the issues.  Honesty in this case entails complete and detailed disclosure of the discussants' conflicts of interest. Until such honesty is the rule, be very, very careful about taking sanctimonious spiels at face value. 

Who Benefits? - From the Mayo Clinic Explicitly Putting Commercially Insured Patients Ahead of Some Government Insured Patients?

Amidst all the chaotic noise emanating from Washington, DC, little snippets of news keep slipping out reminding us that the US health care system remains monumentally dysfunctional, and that the dysfunction serves the interests of the system's insiders.

Putting Commercially Insured Patients First

On March 15, 2017, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune first reported that the CEO of the august Mayo Clinic had stated in a late 2016 speech to Clinic personnel that henceforth the institution would preferentially accept patients with private insurance over those with public (Medicaid or Medicare) insurance under certain circumstances.

when two patients are referred with equivalent conditions, he said the health system should 'prioritize' those with private insurance.

'We’re asking ... if the patient has commercial insurance, or they’re Medicaid or Medicare patients and they’re equal, that we prioritize the commercial insured patients enough so ... we can be financially strong at the end of the year to continue to advance, advance our mission,' [CEO Dr John] Noseworthy said in a videotaped speech to staff late last year. The Star Tribune obtained a transcript of the speech, and Mayo has confirmed its authenticity.

In response to the Star-Tribune, spokesperson Kari Oestreich stated:

Mayo remains committed to publicly funded patients — who make up half the health system’s business — even with the new policy.

'We can provide the care they require for complex medical issues,' he said. 'However, we need to balance requests from these patients with their specific needs — if it’s necessary for them to come to Mayo — as well as the needs of commercial paying patients.'

CEO Noseworthy felt that the problem was that publicly insured patients did not bring in enough money:

In his speech, Noseworthy said a recent 3.7 percent surge in Medicaid patients was a 'tipping point' for Mayo.

'If we don’t grow the commercially insured patients, we won’t have income at the end of the year to pay our staff, pay the pensions, and so on,...'

Note that this tipping point was apparently reached under the US Affordable Care Act (ACA, or "Obamacare") and had nothing to do with any attempts to "repeal and replace Obamacare" by the current Trump administration.

Was the CEO Just Being Honest?

A variety of people interviewed by the Star-Tribune and other news sources suggested that other hospitals may have previously thought to subtly discourage patients whose insurance coverage was less lucrative for the hospitals. However, what was unusual was that this policy at the Mayo was expressed openly, at least to hospital personnel if not the larger world.

The Star-Tribune reported, without further comment:

'The most interesting thing isn’t that it’s happening, it’s that a high level executive actually said it out loud,' said Mat Keller, who monitors health care policy and hospital finances for the Minnesota Nurses Association.

StatNews reported,

'There is this thought that hospitals treat whoever comes to their door, but this is a statement that lays out what happens,' said Christine Spencer, a health economist at the University of Baltimore. 'It’s a surprise to hear it out loud like that, but hospitals, probably for decades, have engaged in these more subtle attempts to get privately insured patients over Medicaid or the uninsured.'

Maybe CEO Noseworthy is just more honest than leaders at other institutions?


A Violation of Mission

Similarly, some experts also raised ethical concerns about the new  Mayo Clinic policies. For example, as reported by Modern Healthcare,

'A cornerstone of our ethical thinking is you get the same care whether you're rich or you're poor, and we don't triage by the size of your wallet,' Caplan said. 'A wealthy leader like Mayo is sending a grim message not only to other hospitals but to those who rely on Medicare and Medicaid.'

Also, per the Rochester (MN) Post-Bulletin,

Dr. Gerard Anderson, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Hospital Finance and Management who writes many national papers about health care funding, said Noseworthy's directive was like something from a Third World country.

'This is what happens in many low-income countries. The health system is organized to give the most affluent preference in receiving health care. It does not happen in most affluent counties,' he wrote in response to the Star Tribune article. "Hospitals spend nearly all the money they get. If private insurers pay less than public insurers, then it will appear that public payers are paying less than costs. However, what is really happening is that hospitals are spending all the money they receive and those that pay less are accused of not paying the full cost.'

 Putting more lucratively insured patients first seems to violate the Mayo  whose Mayo Clinic Mission 

To inspire hope and contribute to health and well-being by providing the best care to every patient through integrated clinical practice, education and research.

and hence is an example of mission-hostile management.


Moreover, the new policy seemed to directly contradict other policies of the Mayo Clinic:

Mayo Clinic's nondiscrimination policy statement states, 'As a recipient of federal financial assistance, Mayo Clinic does not exclude, deny benefits to, or otherwise discriminate against any person” based on race, gender, religion and other characteristics, including “status with regard to public assistance.' This statement applies to 'admission to, participation in, or receipt of the services and benefits under any of its programs and activities,' through Mayo itself or any contractors.

The system also states on its website that it 'appropriately serves patients in difficult financial circumstances and offers financial assistance to those who have an established need to receive medically necessary services and meet criteria for assistance.'

Note that ideally, the whole purpose of a non-profit organization is defined by its mission.  Non-profit organizations ostensibly raise money, through contributions, and by charging for programs and services, to support that mission.  To repeat, the money is supposed to support the mission.  The money is supposed to be a means to an end.  The mission is not too make money.

So the explicit choice to go against the mission for the purposes of making more money should be a red flag, and should only be justified if there is real peril of immediate financial collapse threatening the whole mission.  I did not see any evidence suggesting such a danger in the articles describing Dr Noseworthy's speech.


A Violation of Non-Discrimination Policies, or Even Laws and Regulations?

It seems possible that the explicit policy to disfavor patients with government insurance vis a vis those with private insurance could violate existing regulations or laws.  For example, per the Rochester (MN) Post-Bulletin, the new Mayo Clinic policy was raising related concerns on the behalf of Minnesota state government.

Minnesota Department of Human Services Commissioner Emily Piper, who oversees the agency that manages the state's MinnesotaCare and Medicaid programs, said she was surprised and disturbed to read the comments that Noseworthy made in an internal message to employees.

'Fundamentally, it's our expectation at DHS that Mayo Clinic will serve our enrollees in public programs on an equal standing with any other Minnesotan that walks in their door,' she said Wednesday afternoon. 'We have a lot of questions for Mayo Clinic about how and if and through what process this directive from Dr. Noseworthy is being implemented across their health system.'

Fear of Catastrophe, or Inconveniencing the Rich?

The new explicit Mayo Clinic policy to disadvantage patients insured by Government programs compared to those insured by commercial insurers has caused some experts to question whether Clinic leadership has proposed mission-hostile, discriminatory, unethical, or even illegal behavior.  Is the threat the Clinic faces justify  taking such actions?

As noted earlier, the Mayo Clinic CEO implied the institution was in danger of running out of money at the end of the year "if we don’t grow the commercially insured patients,..." But was that a serious concern?  Or when he said "we won’t have income at the end of the year to pay our staff, pay the pensions, and so on,..." was he really worried about the ability of the Clinic to pay its top leadership in the style to which they have become accustomed?

The CEO did not present and evidence that the Clinic is in such dire straits that it is likely to go bust this year.  The Clinic does not rapidly disclose details of its finances.  However, the latest Mayo Clinic Facts stated that total revenue from current activities is approximately $10,315,000,000.  The most recently available detailed financial report in the form of a Form 990 filed with the US Internal Revenue Service by the Clinic  in 2014, covering 2013, stated 2013 total revenue as $4,560,196,033. This suggests a greater than 100% increase over four years.  That seems to be an impressive growth rate, not suggesting imminent risk of bankruptcy.

On the other hand, the Mayo Clinic leadership does seem accustomed to living in style.  While Mayo Clinic executive salaries since 2013 have not been disclosed, the same 2014 990 form showed that in 2013 CEO Noseworthy received $2,336,662 in total compensation.  Other executives receiving more than $1 million in total compensation included Trustee and VP Dr William C Rupp ($1,049,333), Assistant Treasurer Paul A Gorman ($1,117,598), Treasurer Harry N Hoffman III ($1,835,134), and former CAO Shirley A Weis ($1,530,320).  In addition, the form included statements that trustees received reimbursements for first-class travel for themselves and spouses; the institution purchased the former chief administrative officer's (CAO) house when she relocated; many leaders received lucrative supplemental retirement plans (whose value was included in total compensation);  inventors including named employees are "entitled to a share of royalties received by Mayo, including instances where such royalties are in the form of equity-based instruments;" named employees received "tax -indemnifaction and gross-up payments," and that named employees included personal services (e.g., maid, chauffeur, chef). This seemed to be pretty rich living for leaders of a non-profit institution whose mission, to repeat is

To inspire hope and contribute to health and well-being by providing the best care to every patient through integrated clinical practice, education and research.

So is the Mayo Clinic about to go bankrupt if it does not move selected patients with less lucrative government insurance coverage to the back of the line?  Or are its executives so used to their remunerative bubble that they simply cannot conceive of trying to control costs to uphold the mission if such stringencies might reduce the money flowing to management?

Similarly, StatNews quoted [Chief executive of the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform Harold] Miller.

'True leadership would be to figure out how to deliver high-quality services at the lowest cost possible,' Miller said. 'If institutions are simply going to say, ‘I’m not going to serve patients unless I get paid more,’ that’s only contributing to the problem.'

Summary

 But these days, the actual leaders of health care organizations have become accustomed to the pay and perks of top executives of big commercial firms.  We have documented again and again the ever rising and increasingly monumental pay of health care CEOs, even of ostensibly non-profit organizations, seemingly out of proportion to their organizations' abilities to help patients' and the public's health.

This has gone on in an era of ascendant neoliberalism.  Krimsky summarized the tenets of neoliberalism in his review of Science-Mart by Phillip Mirowski.

The term neoliberal, which arises from the work of post–World War II economists such as Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and others belonging to the 'Chicago school' of economics and law, has little in common with what is usually thought of as liberalism. The important tenets of neoliberalism, Mirowski says, include such propositions as the following: 'The Market' is a better processor of information than the state; 'politics operates as if it were a market'; 'corporations can do no wrong'; 'competition always prevails'; the state should be 'degovernmentalized' through 'privatization of education, health, science and even portions of the military'; a good way to initiate privatization is to redefine property rights; 'the nation-state should be subject to discipline and limitation through international initiatives'; 'the Market . . . can always provide solutions to problems seemingly caused by markets in the first place'; 'there is no such thing as a ‘public good’'; 'freedom' means economic freedom within the Market. 

The logic appears to be that leaders of organizations that can do no wrong should be entitled to market levels of compensation, however high they may be, and without concern of whether the market is perfect (because all markets are by definition, perfect).  Also, the logic appears to be that corporations that can do no wrong should be immune from questions about actions that appear to not put patients first.

All the distractions in Washington, DC should not put us off how the commercialization of health care in an era of neoliberalism (and managerialism) has led to ever worsening dysfunction, and ever increasing advantages to the insiders within the system.

But where will patients end up in such an era?

We need true health care reform that would enable leadership that understands the health care context, upholds health care professionals' values, and puts patients' and the public's health ahead of extraneous, particularly short-term financial concerns. We need health care governance that holds health care leaders accountable, and ensures their transparency, integrity and honesty.  What we will get is endless resistance to such reform from those who personally profit from the current dysfunctional, and increasingly corrupt system. And the current chaos and dysfunction in government at large is making it easier for those who personally profit to profit even more. 

ACO = Arrogant Clinical or Aggressive Care Oligopoly?

In the 1970s, it was managed care organizations.  In the 1990s, it was vertically integrated health care systems.  In the 2010s, the fashionable concept for improving health care, apparently beloved by left-wing policy wonks and right-wing health care executives is the "accountable care organization." (ACO).  Development of the ACO is funded by the recently passed US health care reform legislation.  The official definition of ACO from the US Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services is: 

An Accountable Care Organization, also called an 'ACO' for short, is an organization of health care providers that agrees to be accountable for the quality, cost, and overall care of Medicare beneficiaries who are enrolled in the traditional fee-for-service program who are assigned to it.

Oddly enough, that seems like it could also describe a 1970s managed care organization, or a 1990s vertically integrated health care system. The only real difference is the idea that the ACO would be paid fees for service. All these similar concepts embody the notion that health care needs to be highly organized into big, bureaucratic organizations to improve quality and access while controlling costs.

Back in August, we warned:

There seems to be a strange and increasing alliance between politically- correct academic theorists and proponents of raw economic power. The theorists' notion of "accountable care organizations" seems to have become a great foil for would-be monopolists, yet the theorists have done nothing to show how their creation would really bring "power to the people." Meanwhile, maybe 'ACO' should stand for 'aggressive care oligopoly.' Meanwhile, be extremely skeptical of the latest health care fad, especially when it is supported both by academics and CEOs.

I am not sure you really heard it here first, but you did hear it here early. Now, three months later, our doubts have become main-stream.

Revisiting Sutter Health

n California, National Public Radio continued to document the increasing market dominance of the Sutter Health system (which we discussed in August here) as it marches toward becoming an ACO:

Through new construction and expanding its doctors' groups, Sutter Health is enhancing its position as one of the most dominant hospital systems in California. In addition, Sutter is further ahead of many competitors in fashioning itself into a so-called accountable care organization, responsible for coordinating care between hospitals, specialists and primary doctors.

A companion article gave examples of how this emerging ACO is becoming increasingly oligoplistic:

Hospital prices in the Sacramento region are among the highest in California, driven in large part by the negotiating clout of the hospital chain Sutter Health.

Over the last decade and a half, Sutter has gradually accumulated hospitals and amassed a roster of doctors who contract exclusively with the company. Sutter is now one of the largest hospital chains in California with 24 acute care hospitals.

'In this Roseville market, which is a big suburban area, the hospital is Sutter,' says John Murray, a veteran insurance broker. 'It's a lock right now. Because Sutter dominates the market, major insurance companies, like Blue Cross and Aetna, can't sell policies that exclude Sutter hospitals and doctors. That dependence means the hospital chain can dictate high prices.'

Concerns about Sutter's market dominance are also increasing:

'As Sutter gets bigger,' says Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Sacramento, 'it can dictate higher prices and is less accountable for ensuring good quality because it has a lock on certain markets.'

Doubts in the New York Times

In the New York Times, Robert Pear reported:

When Congress passed the health care law, it envisioned doctors and hospitals joining forces, coordinating care and holding down costs, with the prospect of earning government bonuses for controlling costs.

Now, eight months into the new law there is a growing frenzy of mergers involving hospitals, clinics and doctor groups eager to share costs and savings, and cash in on the incentives. They, in turn, have deployed a small army of lawyers and lobbyists trying to persuade the Obama administration to relax or waive a body of older laws intended to thwart health care monopolies, and to protect against shoddy care and fraudulent billing of patients or Medicare.

Consumer advocates fear that the health care law could worsen some of the very problems it was meant to solve — by reducing competition, driving up costs and creating incentives for doctors and hospitals to stint on care, in order to retain their cost-saving bonuses.

'The new law is already encouraging a wave of mergers, joint ventures and alliances in the health care industry,' said Prof. Thomas L. Greaney, an expert on health and antitrust law at St. Louis University. 'The risk that dominant providers and dominant insurers may exercise their market power, individually or jointly, has never been greater.'

Skeptical Liberals and Libertarians
Amazingly, while ACOs seem to be supported by many left-wing policy wonks and right-wing health care executives, they have also rapidly engendered skepticism from both liberals on the left and libertarians on the right, and from within government and the private sector. For example, at the end of the NY Times article we find:

Dr. Donald M. Berwick, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, hails the benefits of 'integrated care.' But, Dr. Berwick said, “we need to assure both patients and society at large that destructive, exploitative and costly forms of collusion and monopolistic behaviors do not emerge and thrive, disguised as cooperation.”

Dr Berwick is a well-known advocate of innovative approaches to improve the quality of care, but was tarred as a raving left-winger when he was nominated to his current position.

On the other hand, in the New York Post was an op-ed by Dr Scott Gottlieb:

I warned that the creation of 'accountable care organizations,' which put hospitals in control of all the doctors in their outlying areas, would lead to concentrated power over the provision of medical care -- turning physicians into salaried employees and reducing consumer choices.

Furthermore, he wrote:

Since the ACOs will have local monopolies, they'll also have little incentive to compete for more patients in an open marketplace. Yet this is the only incentive that would spur an ACO to truly innovate and improve its delivery of medical care and offer better services.

Private health plans vie to contract with the best doctors and hospitals, creating market prices for services and competition to improve outcomes. If the ACOs squeeze out this competition, the result will be a de facto 'single payer': Every market will be controlled by a single ACO,....

Dr Gottlieb writes frequently about health care and policy issues, and is a "resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute."

Missing the Main Point: Doctors vs Business Executives as Leaders
At least it did not take long this time for the fundamental flaws in the latest fashionable health care reform effort to get attention. It is really striking that this time around, skepticism is coming from both liberals and libertarians.  Maybe we all have learned something from the failures of managed care and of vertically integrated hospital systems.

A Washington Post op-ed by Steven Pearlstein hinted at one fundamental problem with the ACO concept.

Most reformers believe ...that the best way to deliver affordable quality care is through organizations such as the Mayo Clinic, which coordinate physician and hospital services under one roof and are paid not on the basis of how many procedures they do but on the quality of the care they provide. These organizations tend to rely on salaried doctors, make extensive use of electronic medical records and evidence-based 'best practices,' and, in effect, take on much of the risk traditionally borne by insurers. Several provisions of the new health-care reform law encourage the formation of such 'accountable care organizations.'

Somehow, however, the supposed health care reformers seemed to have overlooked a crucial fact about the Mayo Clinic they are using as a model. The Mayo Clinic traditionally was basically a large physician group practice. It was run by physicians. Even now, the Mayo Clinic's CEO is a physician (Dr John H. Noseworthy) who had a substantial clinical and academic career. The CAO is a nurse, and the three top Vice Presidents are physicians.  I submit the fact that the organization was run by physicians, physicians who once swore to put their patients' clinical care ahead of all other considerations, was crucial to the Clinic's success in taking care of patients as well as maintaining its finances.

However, nearly all of the would-be ACOs we hear about now are centered on big hospital systems, run by business executives who have never taken care of patients, and never swore to put patient care ahead of anything. For example, the most advanced degree possessed by the CEO of Sutter Health is a Master's in Health Administration (see here). Sutter Health does not make biographical information about its top executives particularly easy to find, but according to the most recent (2008) 990 form posted on Guidestar, of its 19 top executives, only 2 had MD degrees. As we have seen time and again on Health Care Renewal, such executives have become extremely good at becoming rich in their jobs. (For example, according to the 2008 990 form, of those 19 executives, all had total compensation greater than $200,000, 16 had compensation greater than $500,000, and 9 had compensation greater than $1 million.) When things go wrong, these royally paid executives may take their golden parachutes and open the exit door, and jump on the slide.

The advent of ACOs reminds me of the advent of managed care. The original managed care organizations, exemplified by Kaiser - Permanante, were also not-for-profit large group practices run by physicians. However, the "managed care organizations" that evolved out of the 1970s law, favored by our glorious former President Nixon, were for-profit corporations run by business executives. Somehow, when legislators seek to promote better health care, the legislation they right often get the crucial details wrong.

The one good thing about ACOs seems to be that they have galvanized liberals and libertarians alike to worry about big, collective, bureaucratic health care organizations run by executives with no clear commitment to putting care of individual patients first.

ADDENDUM (26 November, 2010) - See also comments by David Williams on the Health Business Blog.