Michael Fine's Health Care Revolt

Michael Fine, M.D., HealthCare Revolt: How to Organize, Build a Health Care System, and Resuscitate Democracy – All at the Same Time (Oakland, CA: PM Press, 2018).

Dr. Michael Fine is a man on fire. He’s on fire with anger about a healthcare marketplace that serves well to maximize the profits of investors and CEOs, but violates the values of many of those working in it. He’s on fire with enthusiasm about the potential of public health and prevention and about the value of integrated primary care. He’s on fire with determination to work to change our scattered health care marketplace into an actual health care system that could monitor and manage every citizen’s health. And he has concrete suggestions and a vision of how to work toward that end.

And, from what’s recounted here, Dr. Fine has an admirable practical record of implementing health care change on a local level in Rhode Island and in the Scituate area. In Scituate, he organized the non-profit Scituate Health Alliance and worked with residents and local officials to provide primary medical and dental care to all town residents. He envisions small local health care systems like his serving as a model that will show the feasibility of a better health system to both conservatives and liberals and eventually enable scaling up to a better national system. (This is quite reminiscent to me of how the great Nye Bevan, in the middle of the last century, successfully used the model of the Tredegar Medical Aid Society  and similar organizations to plan the NHS at its inception.)

What I liked best about the book is that Dr. Fine has an accurate gut understanding of just how much money we do spend on healthcare and of how harmful it is that we have let the “healthcare” sector balloon to such a large part of our economy. He realizes too how much of this - including many foolish things - is supported by public tax monies. And he really gets that this comes at a huge cost to the other things we could be spending that money on – and spending it on other things instead that are just as important to health would enhance people’s health, not diminish it. As he said in a related interview: “[To improve health,] we need to spend money on education … housing … community development … the environment. These …matter most for health. The paradox is that the more we spend on medical service expenditures that we don’t need, the less we spend on those things. In a certain way, healthcare is at war with health.”

I love Dr. Fine’s suggestion that one of the things we need to do to move toward healthcare improvement is to constantly highlight these costs and the damage done. Once we get to where everyone really understands this, we will have moved a big step forward. Working hard to publicize and delegitimize the cruelly extractive techniques of health care profiteers is worthwhile.

There’s all the difference in the world between making a living, including an excellent living, from people’s medical needs and making a killing from them – and in recent years the balance has shifted where we can fairly say that pharmaceutical companies, large hospital organizations, and many other medical sector big players are doing the latter.  I also like how he points out that “with …few exceptions, no health care market actor has a public portfolio (p. 84).” He’s right, and the corrupt marketplace – what Dr. Fine terms a “wealth extraction system” – has not gotten us to a good place for the public – at all.

So, in some ways, this book is inspiring – but in other ways, it is quite irritating. Dr. Fine is so wrapped up in his own perspective that he often is blind to and discounts the value of those parts of medicine that have not been his personal focus. Although I certainly agree with him that there are too many specialists and too much medical overuse, Dr. Fine seems insultingly unappreciative of valuable, needed services that specialists also offer, suggesting that one of the main ways generalists help their patients is by keeping them out of the clutches of specialists who may injure them. He seems, too, to class highly-paid specialists with high earners like CEOs where in my opinion this is ridiculous (specialists are after all basically pieceworkers and are not really similar to administrators, investors, and pharmaceutical executives – even if you think – and I do - they could rightly earn a bit less). Similarly, although I agree with him that the incorporation of a profiteering infrastructure into Obamacare and its lack of universality diminished its value, it’s unseeing to contend that it helped only a few people and that hardly counted. Dr. Fine grudgingly concedes that he likes that Obamacare funded more preventive services, ignoring the far more important benefits it provided to some of those MOST in need of medical care, those with clinical problems and issues. Dr. Fine should talk to some of the people who literally moved to Medicaid expansion states to save their lives first, before minimizing Obamacare’s benefits.

And, Dr. Fine doesn’t seem to have a grip on how unappealing many of us would find the world he dreams of. “Let’s close all center cities to private cars during normal working hours; let’s find ways to provide incentives for people who are not disabled to use the stairs rather than elevators (p. 71).”  He also suggests heavily taxing industrial food products, as well as the production of wheat, corn and sugar (p.70), oddly suggesting that we don’t need any of these crops any more for human consumption (which is news to me). Many readers, unlike Dr Fine, would have less than zero enthusiasm for living under such a heavy-handed, dictatorial regime and would (I believe fairly) consider some of their freedom lost.

As I read this book, I couldn’t help but compare it to a book by another strong advocate of more primary care, Richard Young’s American Health$care: How the healthcare industry’s scare tactics have screwed up our economy – and our future. Dr. Young is the single other person I can recall being as angry and as perceptive as Dr. Fine about the damage done from monies that could and should be spent on other things for more benefit – including health benefit – but which instead are being sucked away by what he calls the “government-medical-industrial coalition.”

Both really believe in primary care. But Dr. Young also realizes, as Dr. Fine does not, that “prevention” – just as truly as medical care for the sick - has many limits and can itself be a waste of money and inordinately expensive. (His discussion of what costs vs. benefits would be of an imaginary Texas tetanus initiative is sound.) And to Dr. Young, the primary purpose of medical care is care for the SICK.  (No matter how much prevention we have, at some point sickness or injury will happen to all - and this is the crux of medicine.) I recommend reading these two books together, to understand how two capable, decent, intelligent, and sincere doctors can have so much agreement on some things and such intense lack of agreement on others.

I know one thing – if I had to choose one as my primary care doctor, I’d be very comfortable choosing Dr. Young and would absolutely avoid Dr. Fine. Clearly, Dr. Fine would have his own agenda for me (he sees primary care doctors as mostly health nags), but Dr. Young, by contrast, would be responsive to what matters to me and my agenda, so we would be able to work together to manage any ailments in a “minimally disruptive” way that would be actually helpful. And although I personally agree with Dr. Fine’s desire to have more publicly-run, genuinely non-profit healthcare such as community health centers (and ultimately nationalized health care) and to legally rein in health profiteers, there are some definite “stoppers” for me in buying off on his whole vision and signing up to his plan.

Fine’s insensitivity and rigidity in some areas and his impersonality is the reason that if I’m going to introduce a friend to the concept of health care revolt I’ll give them instead Victor Montori’s book: Why We Revolt: A patient revolution for careful and kind care. Dr. Montori’s down-to-earth compassion for the ill inspires more trust, and, like Dr. Fine, Dr Montori too insists on the role of patient as citizen in reforming health care to a system more consonant with patient and physician values, but in a more persuasive way that is more convincing in making me like his healthcare vision.

More Barbarians at the Gates: Private Equity Puts Primary Care in Play

There are still some idealistic physicians who enter primary care practice as a calling.

The usual informal definition of primary care is care which is continuous, coordinated, comprehensive and compassionate.  The official definition used by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) is:

Primary care is that care provided by physicians specifically trained for and skilled in comprehensive first contact and continuing care for persons with any undiagnosed sign, symptom, or health concern (the 'undifferentiated' patient) not limited by problem origin (biological, behavioral, or social), organ system, or diagnosis.

Primary care includes health promotion, disease prevention, health maintenance, counseling, patient education, diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic illnesses in a variety of health care settings (e.g., office, inpatient, critical care, long-term care, home care, day care, etc.). Primary care is performed and managed by a personal physician often collaborating with other health professionals, and utilizing consultation or referral as appropriate.Primary care provides patient advocacy in the health care system to accomplish cost-effective care by coordination of health care services. Primary care promotes effective communication with patients and encourages the role of the patient as a partner in health care.

Private Equity Firms are Buying Out Primary Care Practices

However, an article this week in Modern Healthcare described how primary care in the US is getting a rude surprise.  Apparently, primary care practices are now "in play," (using the terminology for the classic 1987 movie Wall Street, in which Gordon Gekko declared that greed is good).



The argument was that there is

a small but growing number of investments that private-equity firms are making in primary-care physician practices that are ahead of the curve in offering new care delivery and payment models. Investors see an opportunity in being early participants in value-based care, even as the business case is still unclear given mixed results in Medicare's payment and delivery reform demonstrations so far.

But the niche is well-suited for private-equity firms, which feed on uncertainty, said Todd Spaanstra, a partner at Crowe Horwath, an accounting and consulting firm. 

This is not about quality of care, it is about the idea that business people think that "value-based care" and "risk-based contracting" are the current rages, and so there is money to be made investing in entities that seem to fit in with these fashions.

said Slava Girzhel, managing director at KeyBanc Capital Markets. 'There's a lot of discussion about private-equity investing in risk-based models, and I do think we'll see more of that.'

Continuous, coordinated, comprehensive and compassionate care may suffer when the time horizons are not that long, and the owners of the practice are ultimately looking to sell it. 

The long-term opportunity for private-equity firms is the ability to sell these managed-care-savvy medical groups to insurers or health systems, which may pay a premium for the care-coordination expertise and data analytics these practices offer.

Also,

The typical private-equity investment timetable is short—about five years. At that point, the firm would probably look to sell the practice, ideally to an insurance company or a health system, said Dan Hosler, a principal at private-equity firm Sterling Partners.

Furthermore, why private equity may be interested in primary care now, continuing interest will depend on the numbers, not on the benefits to patients

'This is an area where there are winners and losers,' said Dr. Andrei Gonzales, director for value-based reimbursement initiatives at McKesson Health Solutions. 'It's everyone trying to get a slice of the pie that's getting smaller.'

What Happens When the Barbarians are at the Gate

Conspicuously absent from this article was discussion of aspects of the private equity modus operandi which are even more at odds with primary care values than the short time horizon noted above.  We previously warned about the perils of private equity employing physicians (look here.)  The main points were:

-  Private equity is just the new name for leveraged buyout firms (the type of firm described the book, Barbarians at the Gate.)

-  Therefore, when they buy out firms (e.g., the primary care practices discussed above), they use borrowed money.

-  But they leverage in two senses.  Once firms are bought, the private equity owners makes the firms take out further loans, and the money from them may go back to the owners, usually in the form of a special dividend, to pay down the debt originally incurred by the private equity owners.  This leaves the bought out firms heavily in debt, but frees the private equity firm from its original debt.  If the firm is eventually sold, the new buyers take over the debt.  In a worst case scenario, however, the bought out firm goes bankrupt, the private equity's firm stock in it becomes worthless, but the private equity firm need not be responsible for its financial obligations.

-  If the private equity firm desires more money while it still owns the acquired firm, it may sell parts of it off.

-  To make the finances of the acquired firm look more attractive to the next buyer, the private equity firms often undertakes short term cost cutting measures that may involve layoffs, increased workload on remaining workers, etc.

Other dark aspects of private equity are discussed on the Naked Capitalism blog here.

Summary

Primary care physicians thinking about selling their practices to private equity ought to think at least twice before doing so, assuming the physicians are serious about upholding the values of primary care.  Private equity firms are in it for the money, and in the relatively short term.  Private equity firms are unlikely to care about the mission of primary distinct from the ability of primary care practices to make the firms richer.  Therefore, practices owned by private equity may well not provide the best possible care for their patients.  In any case, the physicians working for such practices may be answering to owners who are very explicitly only in it for the money.  They will have become corporate physicians, possibly in the most pessimistic sense of the term.

In general, Dr Arnold Relman reminded us that physicians used to shun the commercial practice of medicine (look here).  Physicians and other health professionals who sign on as full-time employees of large corporate entities have to realize that they are now beholden to managers and executives who may be hostile to their professional values, and who are subject to perverse incentives that support such hostility, including the potential for huge executive compensation.  It is not clear why physicians seem to be willing to sign contracts that underline their new subservience to their corporate overlords, and likely trap them within confidentiality clauses that make blowing the whistle likely to lead to extreme unpleasantness.

Things are likely to be even worse for corporate physicians who are employed by firms owned by private equity. Because of the way private equity operates, primary care practices owned by such firms are liable to be very unstable.  At best, they are liable to be sold to totally new owners in a relatively short time frame, and those owners are likely to be those who will pay the highest price, not necessarily those who will provide the best stewardship for the practices.

Furthermore, primary care practices owned by private equity are likely to end up heavily indebted and subject to strict cost cutting measures that may decrease care quality, decrease access, increase patients' out of pocket costs, and demoralize providers.  Practices acquired by private equity may be broken up and sold as separate pieces.  Should the debt be too high, and the cost cutting not be sufficient, such practices could end up bankrupt and possible completely defunct. 

Do not say I did not warn you.

Physicians need to realize that to fulfill their oaths to put patients first, they have to reduce the influence of rich and powerful organizations with other agendas, like health care corporations, and especially corporations owned by private equity.  The metastasis of private equity into primary care should make us all rethink the notion that direct health care should ever be provided, or that medicine ought to be practiced by for-profit corporations. I submit that we will not be able to have good quality, accessible health care at an affordable price until we restore physicians as independent, ethical health care professionals, and until we restore small, independent, community responsible, non-profit hospitals as the locus for inpatient care.

ADDENDUM (28 April, 2015) - This post was re-published on the Naked Capitalism blog.  

US Senate Subcommittee Asks What the RUC is About

It has been a long time coming, but the issue of how the US Medicare and Medicaid system sets the fees it pays doctors, and hence sets the incentives on doctors that drive their health care decisions, finally got some public attention again.

 The background is complex, and may glaze the eyes of readers hoping for simple solutions to simple problems.  One wonders if the complexity was deliberately created to discourage solutions.  Yet we have created a complex, obscure, opaque health care system.  If we want to meaningfully improve it, we must address its "inside baseball" qualities.  Those already familiar with and interested in the topic, skip the following section.

Background - the Resource Based Relative Value System Update Committee (RUC)

We have frequently posted, first here in 2007, and more recently here,  here, here, and here, about the little-known group that controls how the US Medicare system pays physicians, the RBRVS Update Committee, or RUC.

Since 1991, Medicare has set physicians' payments using the Resource Based Relative Value System (RBRVS), ostensibly based on a rational formula to tie physicians' pay to the time and effort they expend, and the resources they consume on particular patient care activities. Although the RBRVS was meant to level the payment playing field for cognitive services, including primary care vs procedures, over time it has had the opposite effect, as explained by Bodenheimer et al in a 1997 article in the Annals of Internal Medicine.(1) A system that pays a lot for procedures, but much less for diagnosing illnesses, forecasting prognoses, deciding on treatment, and understanding patients' values and preferences when procedures and devices are not involved, is likely to be very expensive, but not necessarily very good for patients.

As we wrote before, to update the system, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) relies almost exclusively on the advice of the RBRVS Update Committee. The RUC is a private committee of the AMA, touted as an "expert panel" that takes advantage of the organization's First Amendment rights to petition the government. Membership on the RUC is allotted to represent specialty societies, so that the vast majority of the members represent specialties that do procedures and focus on expensive, high-technology tests and treatments.

However, the identities of RUC members were opaque for a long time, and the proceedings of the group are secret.  As Goodson(2) noted, RUC "meetings are closed to outside observers except by invitation of the chair." Furthermore, he stated, "proceedings are proprietary and therefore not publicly available for review."

In fact, the fog surrounding the operations of the RUC seems to have affected many who write about it. We have posted (here, here, here, and here) about how previous publications about problems with incentives provided to physicians seemed to have avoided even mentioning the RUC. Up until 2010, after the US recent attempt at health care reform, the RUC seemed to remain the great unmentionable. Even the leading US medical journal seemed reluctant to even print its name.

That changed in October, 2010.  A combined effort by the Wall Street Journal, the Center for Public Integrity, and Kaiser Health News yielded two major articles about the RUC, here in the WSJ (also with two more spin-off articles), and here from the Center for Public Integrity (also reprinted by Kaiser Health News.) The articles covered the main points about the RUC: its de facto control over how physicians are paid, its "secretive" nature (quoting the WSJ article), how it appears to favor procedures over cognitive physician services, etc.

In 2011, after the "Replace the RUC" movement generated some more interest about this secretive group, and its complicated but obscure role in the health care system, the current RUC membership was finally revealed.  It was relatively easy for me to determine that many of the members had conflicts of interest (beyond their specialty or sub-specialty identity and their role in medical societies that might have institutional conflicts of interest, and leaders with conflicts of interest).  

Then that year a lawsuit was filed by a number of primary care physicians that contended that the RUC was functioning illegally as a de facto US government advisory panel.  It appeared that things might change.  However, it was not to be.  A judge dismissed the lawsuit in 2012, based on his contention that the law that set up the RBRVS system prevented any challenges through the legal system to the mechanism used to set payment rates.  The ruling did not address the legality of the relationship between the RUC and the federal government.  And then everything was quiet again, until....

A Senate Committee Takes Up the RUC

Meanwhile, after the attempt at health care reform made by the Affordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare"), which aimed to increase insurance coverage, there has been growing concern that there will not be enough primary care physicians available to manage the larger insured patient population.  So, as reported by the Washington Times, a US Senate committee published a report on this issue:

The United States needs 16,000 more primary care physicians to meet its current health care needs, a problem that will only get worse if nothing is done to accommodate millions of newly-insured residents under President Obama’s health care law in the coming decade, according to a Senate report released Tuesday.

Mirable dictu, the report cited the influence of the RUC as part of the problem:

Mr Sanders said some of the blame appears to rest with a board of 31 physicians who make reimbursement recommendations to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which private insurers frequently adopt as well.

The American Medical Association's Relative Value Scale Update Committee, or RUC, is populated by many more specialists that primary care physicians, multiple witnesses said Tuesday.

'Therefore, it should come as no surprise that it has accelerated higher payments — larger paychecks — to specialists over primary care doctors,' Mr Sanders' report said.

Senator Sanders' subcommittee then held a hearing during which the RUC came up for more criticism, as reported by MedPage Today:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, criticized the American Medical Association's Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC), which develops annual recommendations on physician pay updates for Medicare.

Sanders noted that the RUC is dominated by specialists, whose opinions are accepted by Medicare more than 90% of the time.

'Specialists sitting on the committee determine reimbursement rates,' he said during the hearing on the physician shortage that is anticipated as more people become insured under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). 'We have to look at that.'

Several witnesses identified problems with the RUC:
 

Andrew Wilper, MD, acting chief of Medicine at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Boise, Idaho, told the senators that Congress could mandate further oversight of the RUC and create greater separation between physicians and the boards that dictate their payment rates.

'At a minimum, the public deserves transparency in decision making from the RUC,' Wilper said. 'We should set a process for rate-setting that is not encumbered by conflicts of interest and is not favoring specialties. A rational observer might conclude that the federal government and AMA are plotting to bring an end to the primary care workforce in the U.S.'

Also Modern Healthcare reported (subscription required) that Dr Wilper

described the RUC as 'a secretive group of physicians that wield tremendous influence.'

Furthermore,

Uwe Reinhardt, economics professor at Princeton University, said in addition to adding primary care physicians to the RUC, the panel needs a third party to perform outside audits of the AMA panel's recommendations

However, the AMA was there to provide their usual defense of the RUC, as per Medpage Today,

'The RUC is an independent group of physicians from many specialties, including primary care, who use their expertise on caring for Medicare patients to provide input to CMS [the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services],' RUC chair Barbara Levy, MD, said in a statement. 'More than 300 people participate in a typical RUC meeting and information on the panel is publicly available.'

Levy noted that 'CMS recently adopted RUC recommendations for the creation of codes to recognize the value of the work, often done by primary care providers, in transitioning patients from one care setting to the next.'

The AMA also added two primary care-related seats to the RUC last February: a representative from the American Geriatrics Society and a rotating seat for a practicing primary care physician.

Note that this brief response did not add anything to the more voluminous response the AMA made in 2009 to some of my posts on the RUC, all of which were easily countered (look here).  

 After the hearing, per MedPage Today,

The problems with the RUC are 'one of the more important issues that arose out of this hearing,' Sanders told MedPage Today after it was over. 'I don't think we have the transparency we need.'

Legislation to address the RUC -- as well as other factors exacerbating the PCP shortage -- is expected to come 'quickly' said Sanders.

Comments

I salute Senator Sanders and his subcommittee for addressing the obscure and often quite anechoic topic, getting it some public attention, and at least raising the possibility of a legislative solution.

However, this is just a baby step.  The hearing and report generated minimal media coverage (I included links to the most visible above).  Given that Senator Sanders is widely regarded as well to the left of most of his legislative colleagues, the likelihood that any measure he would craft on this would be passed is minimal.

Meanwhile, questions we have raised again and again, most recently here in 2011, remain unanswered.

 - How did the government come to fix the payments physicians receive? Government price-fixing has not been popular in the US, yet this has caused no outcry.
- Why is the process by which they are fixed allowed to be so opaque and unaccountable? Why are there no public hearings on the updates, and why is there no input from practicing physicians or organizations other than those related to the RUC?
- How did the RUC become de facto in charge of this process?
- Why does the AMA [keep the membership of the RUC so opaque, and] give no input into the RUC process to its general membership?
- Why is the RUC membership so dominated by procedural specialists? Why were primary care physicians, who made up at least a sizable minority of physicians when the update process was started, not represented according to their numbers?
- Why has there been so little discussion of the RUC and its responsibility for an extremely expensive health care system dominated by high-technology, expensive, risky and invasive procedures?

Economists have beaten us over the head with idea that incentives matter.  The RUC seems to embody a corporatist approach to fixing prices for medical services to create perverse incentives for physicians to do more procedures, and do less conversing with and examining patients, examining the best clinical research evidence about their problems, and rigorously thinking about how best to help them.  More procedures at higher prices helps physicians who do procedures.  It may help even more the corporations that provide the devices and drugs whose use is necessitated by such procedures, and the hospitals who can charge a lot of money as sites for performance of procedures.  It may even help insurance companies by driving ever more money through the health care system, and thus allow rationalization for higher administrative expenses as a function of overall money flow.

Yet incentives favoring procedures over all else may lead to worse outcomes for patients, and more costs to patients and society.  If we do not figure out how to make incentives given to physicians more rational and fair, expect health care costs to continue to rise, while access and quality continue to suffer.  

ADDENDUM (1 February, 2013) - see also comments by Brian Klepper on the Care and Cost blog.

ADDENDUM (3 February, 2013) - see also comments by Austin Frakt in the Incidental Economist blog.
 

References

1. Bodenheimer T, Berenson RA, Rudolf P. The primary care-specialty income gap: why it matters. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 301-306. (Link here.)

2. Goodson JD. Unintended consequences of Resource-Based Relative Value Scale reimbursement. JAMA 2007; 298(19):2308-2310. (Link here.)

"Trouble Coming Every Day" as Discussed by our Fellow Health Care Skeptics

With apologies to the late Frank Zappa... even though we are going through the dog days of summer, the parade of health care troubles in the news is never ending, so I thought I would recap some of the more interesting issues discussed by some of my fellow health care skeptic bloggers.

We have discussed the ongoing decline of primary care. On DB's Medical Rants, Dr Robert Centor takes on the topic: "The system has, without consciously meaning to, held primary care in contempt." The result is a "quiet rebellion: of primary doctors.

We have discussed whether the currently fashionable idea of "accountable care organizations" (ACOs) might turn out to be a cover for health care oligopolies. See what Paul Levy, CEO of the Beth Israel/ Deaconess Medical Center said about them in his blog, Running a Hospital.

We frequently talk about the manipulation or suppression of clinical research studies by those with vested interests in the results pointing in a particular direction. On the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog, Dr Howard Brody wondered why the FDA will not even reveal the identities of the clinical researchers who did the studies on which it based its decision to approve the Infuse bone growth enhancement device.

Prof Carl Elliott has done an outstanding job investigating commercially funded and implemented clinical research. Dr Brody reviewed his new book, White Coat, Black Hat.  In the Carlat Psychiatry Blog, Dr Daniel Carlat reviewed Prof Elliott's new article in Mother Jones on how a pharmaceutical company sponsored drug trial went badly awry.

We asked whether the former CEO of a for-profit hospital chain who resigned after the company paid a > $1.7 billion penalty to settle charges of fraud would be a proper candidate to be governor of Florida. After Rick Scott won the Florida Republican primary, Maggie Maher, writing in the Health Beat blog, took on Scott's dubious past as prologue to a worrisome future.

Well I'm about to get sick
From watchin' my TV
Been checkin' out the news
Until my eyeballs fail to see
I mean to say that every day
Is just another rotten mess
And when it's gonna change, my friend
Is anybody's guess

So I'm watchin' and I'm waitin'
Hopin' for the best
Even think I'll go to prayin'
Every time I hear 'em sayin'
That there's no way to delay
That trouble comin' every day
No way to delay
That trouble comin' every day
- Frank Zappa

Harvard Cut Money for Primary Care "Step-Child"

This story, about cuts in the funding for Harvard Medical School's minimal program in primary care, has received little attention in the US. I was alerted to an article about it in the Harvard Crimson by a news article in the British Medical Journal that was picked up by Medscape.

Here are the main points, from the Crimson article,

Harvard Medical School has suspended funding for its Primary Care Division as part of a broader departmental restructuring effort, prompting students and faculty to circulate a petition calling on HMS Dean Jeffrey S. Flier to reaffirm the School's commitment to primary care education.

According to Nancy J. Tarbell, dean for academic and clinical affairs at HMS, the School had provided roughly $200,000 in funding each year to the Division. She said that the Division, which has not been disbanded but whose structure and administration is being reviewed, will remain affiliated with HMS. The Division has always been funded exclusively by the Medical School, according to HMS spokesman David J. Cameron.

'The reorganization of this division is really a narrow administrative issue,' said HMS Dean of Medical Education Jules L. Dienstag. 'It has nothing to do with the commitment of HMS to primary care, which is unchanged, undiluted, and undiminished.'

Nevertheless, as of Thursday afternoon, over 450 individuals had signed the online petition, including students, residents, faculty, and physicians from HMS and its affiliated hospitals. The petition calls for the School's administration to present a detailed plan of action for expanding institutional support despite the budget cut, expand loan forgiveness initiatives that financially enable students to pursue primary care specialties, support efforts to strengthen primary care in a reformed national health care system, and solicit and implement proposals from the HMS community to improve primary care education.

The Division was previously part of the HMS-HPHC jointly administered Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention (DACP), which Tarbell said was recently restructured and renamed as the Department of Population Medicine and placed solely under HPHC's administrative purview in order to better reflect its core research and teaching activities.

Tarbell, who seemed unclear about what actual services were provided by the Division, said that the HMS administration is conducting a 'comprehensive review' of the its programs and that the Division has historically been 'relatively small.'

'When you look at [HMS's primary care initiatives] as a whole, at the big picture, you can't make the argument that funding has decreased for primary care training at HMS,' Tarbell said, adding that the school is expanding its funding this year for a required third-year medical clerkship from $600,000 to $800,000.

But despite administrators' reassurances that primary care education remains a top priority at the Medical School, some students and faculty maintain that the cut sends a negative message about the School's priorities, which they say have traditionally centered on specialty medicine and research. And the petition expressed concern about the future of outreach activities previously coordinated by the Division, including a Primary Care Mentorship Program, if funding or a Divisional home were to be eliminated.

'Primary care, from the perspective of the Medical School, was sort of a stepchild [in the past], and not much was done to provide students with information about primary care careers or to connect them with role models in primary care,' said Susan Edgman-Levitan, executive director at The John D. Stoeckle Center for Primary Care Innovation.

'Harvard's goal has always been to create leaders in medicine, with regards to basic science and new developing fields. Primary care has never really been a major emphasis, although I think on a global basis, Harvard has put a major emphasis on reaching out to the rest of the world,' said Martin P. Solomon, an assistant clinical professor of medicine at the Brigham. 'People like Jim Kim and Paul Farmer are all very important and have had an enormous impact on primary care worldwide, but in our own backyard, Harvard has had very little impact. [Primary care] is not ... glamorous....'

Indicating where the medical school's priorities lie, during the month in which the cuts were announced, Dean Flier took the time to open, and thereby endorse the meeting of ACRE (the Association of Clinical Researchers and Educators). The grandiosely named group promotes unrestricted financial relationships among medical academics and health care corporations, and dismisses those concerned with the effects of these relationships (see our posts here and here).

It is true that the cuts in primary care occurred at a time of general belt-tightening, due to the sudden decline in the value of Harvard University's endowment. However, as reported in a muck-raking article in Vanity Fair by Nina Munk, even the reduced endowment is still the largest of any university in the US.

Furthermore, primary care generated relatively small costs to the university. However, as reported by Vanity Fair, the current financial crisis was generated on the University's tremendous building binge during the years the endowment seemed like it would grow forever:

... the university is facing the onerous financial consequences of over-building. Consider this: Over the 20-year period from 1980 to 2000, Harvard University added nearly 3.2 million square feet of new space to its campus. But that’s nothing compared with the extravagance that followed. So far this decade, from 2000 through 2008, Harvard has added another 6.2 million square feet of new space, roughly equal to the total number of square feet occupied by the Pentagon. All across campus, one after another, new academic buildings have shot up. The price of these optimistic new projects: a breathtaking $4.3 billion.

The University also rewarded the managers of the endowment with pay sufficient to make them very rich.

By the early 2000s, Harvard’s top moneymen were making as much as $30 million to $40 million a year. Finally, in 2003, seven members of Harvard’s class of 1969 wrote a strong letter of protest to the university’s president, Larry Summers. They spoke out loudly, publicly, informing any member of the media who would listen that compensation at Harvard Management Company was 'obscene.'

At other American universities, where investing money for the institution is regarded as a kind of public service, Harvard’s swagger raised deep suspicion. 'Harvard became a bunch of mercenaries,' the chief investment officer of another big private university told me.

Most of these managers decamped, taking the money with them, before the endowment value crashed.

By 2005, Jack Meyer had had enough. After 15 years at Harvard Management Company, frustrated by the circular fights about compensation, and sick of justifying himself to Summers and Rubin, he walked out and started his own giant hedge fund. Shamelessly, he took many of Harvard Management Company’s best people with him, about 30 portfolio managers and traders, along with the chief risk officer, chief operating officer, and chief technology officer. Harvard’s trading floor was decimated.

No one in the current or past Harvard leadership has yet been held accountable for the overspending that seemed predicated on the absurd (at least in retrospect) assumption that the endowment would continue to grow indefinitely.

At some point in the last five years, the men and women who run Harvard convinced themselves that the endowment would grow at double-digit rates forever. If Harvard were a publicly traded company, those people would have been fired by now.

Because of the case of the Harvard endowment, the US Internal Revenue service is reportedly investigating how university endowments were run (e.g., see Reuters).

But meanwhile, primary care, already a step-child, was cut.

The case of primary care at Harvard shows how the leadership of academia, and academic medicine in particular, has become entranced by the glamorous, the glitzy, the high-tech, and the prospects of wealth to be made by their pursuit, while neglecting the core academic and health care missions that are the reasons for the existence of universities and medical schools.

No wonder US health care is in a crisis. Those who want meaningful health care reform should find a way to push academic medicine to uphold its mission rather than enrich and glamorize its leaders, and to allow health care professionals to reaffirm their professionalism (regardless of past interpretations of US anti-trust law to the contrary).

ADDENDUM (5 August, 2009) - see more comments on Harvard's failed governance here on the ACTA Blog.

A Window on the Unworkable Settings in Which Physicians Practice

The Annals of Internal Medicine just published an important problem that helps explain why our health care crisis is so intractable. (Linzer M, Manwell LB, Williams ES, Bobula JA, Brown RL, Varkey AB et al. Working conditions in primary care: physician reactions and care quality. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 28-36. Link here.)

The article arose from the MEMO (Minimizing Error, Maximizing Outcome) study. The study included an initial cross-sectional survey and then longitudinal follow-up of 422 physicians, roughly equal numbers of family practitioners and general internists, in 119 different ambulatory settings in New York City, NY, Chicago, IL, Milwaukee, WI, Madison WI, and smaller towns in WI. The surveys asked physicians about their work-flow and time pressure, the pace of their practice (from calm to chaotic), their ability to control their own work activities, and five aspects of organizational culture (emphasis on quality, emphasis on information and communication, trust, cohesiveness, and alignment of values between physicians and leaders.)

The results showed how bad the practice environment in primary care/ generalist practice has become. Some important points were:

- More than half of the physicians (53.1%) said they needed more time to do physical examinations, and nearly half (47.6%) for follow-up visits.
- Almost half (48.1%) described the pace of their offices as chaotic.
- Substantial majorities of physicians thought their workplaces' organizational cultures were deficient, if not hostile.
- Only 23.7% thought there was a high emphasis on quality.
- Only 28.2% thought there was a high emphasis on communication and information.
- Only 30.6% thought there was a great amount of trust.
- Only 33.9% thought there was high work place cohesiveness
- Only 14.2% thought there was great alignment between the values of leadership and physicians.

So, to summarize, many physicians thought they did not have enough time to take care of each individual patient. Most thought their workplaces were nowhere near calm, and nearly half thought they were chaotic. Few thought that their workplaces emphasized quality or communication and information, or inspired trust or cohesiveness. Very few thought that their leaders' values were aligned with their professional values.

This blog has focused on problems with the leadership and governance of health care organizations. We have discussed leadership that is:
–Autocratic, or “imperial”
–Insulated
–Uninformed about health care context, indifferent to health care values
–Incompetent
–Self-interested
–Conflicted
–Corrupt
We have shown that the governance of health care organizations may be:
- Unrepresentative
- Unaccountable
- Opaque
- Not Subject to Ethical Standards
and that such governance facilitates and enables bad leadership.

I submit that the study by Linzer et al suggests how bad leadership can make the settings in which physicians practice unworkable. It may be that some of the time pressure that physicians face is due to the perverse incentives built into their pay schedules (e.g., see this post), and bureaucratic demands of insurers and government agencies. A fast paced and demanding environment is one thing, however, and a chaotic envirnoment is another. What else would explain chaotic work environments other than bad organizational leadership? Futhermore, how could well lead organizations ignore quality, and fail to inspire trust and cohesiveness? How could good leaders inspire four-fifths of the physicians to say the leaders of their organizations did not value what they value?

This article strongly suggests that we cannot fix the health care crisis simply by changing financing mechanisms or money flows. We can only improve health care by improving the leadership and governance of health care organizations, and by rethinking the size and scope of health care organizations. The most crucial part of health care is what goes on between individual health care professionals and individual patients. Yet our system is composed of endlessly enlarging bureaucracies run by self-interested, often clueless, and sometimes dishonest, if not criminal leaders. This must change, unless we want this crisis to get much, much worse.

The RUCkus Continues: Former Medicare Administrator Calls the "RUC Process" "Incredibly Flawed," and the AMA Chair Says He's "Inaccurate"

We have posted frequently about the role of the RBRVS Update Committee (RUC) in fixing the rates at which Medicare pays physicians. These payment rates have been much more generous for procedures than for "cognitive" services, (that is, services including interviewing and examining patients, making diagnoses, forecasting prognoses, recommending tests or treatments, and counseling patients.) Several authors have suggested that how the RUC fixes payment rates is a major cause of the decline of primary care. (See our previous posts on this here, here, here, here, here, here, and here and important articles by Bodenheimer et al,[1] and Goodson.[2])

An Interview with a former Medicare administrator

Health Affairs just published an interview(3) with Kerry Weems, a recent administrator of the US Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Bush administration, who had some remarkable criticism for the RUC.

Iglehart: The last question I wanted to ask you relates to the Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee [RUC] of the American Medical Association. The AMA formed the RUC to act as an expert panel in developing relative value recommendations to CMS. The twenty-nine-member committee essentially determines, through the relative values it establishes for the codes that form the basis of Medicare payments, how much doctors will earn from providing services to beneficiaries. In recent years the RUC has come under criticism based on the view that its specialty- dominated composition undervalues primary care services and, in some instances, overvalues specialty services. I have two questions, Kerry, regarding the RUC. You have been in government for twenty-six years; have you ever heard of an administration that has seriously questioned the RUC process, and whether CMS ought to somehow internalize it or delegate it to another body?

Weems: I think there is a general consensus that the RUC has contributed to the poor state of primary care in the United States. In many ways the supposition behind the RUC process, behind the whole relative value scale, is incredibly flawed. It's an input measurement system, so it asks, What's the cost of my inputs, and that's how I'm going to price my outputs. It has no relationship to perhaps the market value of what you might buy. So because it's highly procedure based, it's prejudiced against just standard primary care evaluation and management [E&M] visits, because in an E&M visit it's hard to document what happens in the same way that it is when you remove a mole, or perform some other procedure.

So the process itself is flawed. I don't think that we can make a change without a statutory change giving us the ability to do that. But it's something that is drastically needed. You know, it's funny that we talk about better coordination of care and creating the medical home. Well, the place where this can occur is in an E&M visit, which has been highly undervalued by the RUC.

Iglehart: You say that the RUC process is seriously flawed and needs to be overhauled. Was there ever any discussion during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration about doing that?

Weems: There were a number of discussions, but it's a hard nut to crack. Those discussions never ripened to the point where we could say we've got something better.

Iglehart: But you'd anticipate under the Obama administration that those discussions will continue?

Weems: Sure. And, you know, you can even see the early attempts at trying to crack that. Representative [Pete] Stark [D-CA] introduced last year the so-called CHAMP [Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act] bill, in which he proposed to develop a new payment approach that would have provided more money to primary care physicians. He split it up into several different categories. This probably wasn't the right approach, but again, he was trying to work through the problem, trying to provide more money for primary care. His heart was in the right place.

There are a number of important points here.

First, a former CMS administrator charged that the RUC has a substantial role in the decline of primary care in the US. Such charges have been made by well-reputed academics who have analyzed the role of the RUC from the outside. But as we have said before, aspects of what the RUC does are obscure, especially because the proceedings of RUC meetings are not made public. But now someone more directly involved has made the same charges.

Second, a former CMS administrator has called the "RUC process ... incredibly flawed." Even the second Bush administration felt these flaws were sufficient to have "a number of discussions," but found "it's a hard nut to crack." Hence he said that although there is something fundamentally wrong with the "RUC process," the government could not easily fix it.

Yet RUC leadership has repeatedly said that the RUC is merely a private advisory committee which gives recommendations to CMS using its rights to free speech and to petition the government. (Note also that above, Inglehart first said that the RUC was formed as "an expert panel" to make "recommendations." But then he said the committee "determines ... how much doctors will earn.") If the RUC is simply an advisory committee, and CMS did not like the advice the RUC was giving, why couldn't CMS leaders simply ignore the RUC?

Weems' remarks do not make sense if the RUC is merely an outside private group providing advice. But they do make sense if the RUC is acting like a government agency.

So this interview once again raises the question: why does CMS rely exclusively on the RUC to update the RBRVS system, apparently making the RUC de facto a government agency, yet without any accountability to CMS, or the government at large?

A response by the Chair of the Board of the AMA

Within days of this interview, Dr Rebecca Patchin, the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association (AMA), wrote a response to the Weems interview. (Amazingly, the response appeared as a blog post on the Health Affairs Blog.)

First, she implied that a former CMS administrator did not know what he was talking about when it came to the RUC.

In the interview, inaccurate statements were made about the role of the AMA/Specialty Society RVS Update Committee (RUC), which advises CMS regarding the relative levels of reimbursement for different medical procedures performed by physicians.

Now I feel like I am in good company. The leaders of the RUC have charged that I made inaccurate statements about the RUC as well (see post here).

However, Dr Patchin failed to identify any particular statements by Kerry Weems or his interviewer as inaccurate, much less provide any evidence to that effect. Note that while the RUC leaders also charged me with making inaccurate statements, they did not specify any particular statements as inaccurate, much less produce evidence in support of their contentions.

Next, Dr Patchin wrote:

Every time the RUC has been asked to review payments for E&M (evaluation and management) codes, the RUC has sent CMS recommendations that would lead to higher payments.

This may be so, but it ignores an important issue. While the RUC may have made some recommendations to increase payments for cognitive services, it has made many more recommendations to increase payments for procedural services. Furthermore, while payments for individual procedures went up, and the volume of procedures also went up, the global budget for physicians' services, called the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR), resulted in across the board cuts. Since raises for procedures were larger and more frequent than raises for cognitive services, the net effect was that payments for procedures increased relative to cognitive services.

Even more important, it begs that question: what has the RUC done at times when no one asked it "to review payments for E&M ... codes?" After all, the RUC leadership has argued again and again that it is only a private advisory committee (and see below for another such argument). As such, it should be able to choose how often it deals with payments for cognitive services. It should not have to wait to be asked to review them. So why wasn't the RUC reviewing these payments more frequently?

Then, Dr Patchin reiterated:

To clarify: The RUC makes recommendations to CMS, and then CMS makes its payment decisions.

and again,

Bottom line: the RUC makes recommendations, CMS makes payment decisions.

This, once more, begs the questions. Why didn't the RUC make more recommendations to improve payments for cognitive services? Why doesn't CMS get recommendations about payments to physicians from sources other than the RUC? Why doesn't CMS make the process for setting physicians' payments, and updating and revising the RBRVS system more broad-based and transparent? Why did the administrator of CMS feel unable to change or ignore the "RUC process?"

I don't have the capacity to find out the answers to these questions. Answering them might take some investigative reporting, or even a Congressional investigation. Given that physicians' payments are key incentives driving the health care system, and that payments favoring procedures are likely to be a major cause for rising volume and costs of procedures, which, in turn, is likely to be a major reason our health care system is so expensive, why do we know so little about how these payment rates are set?

References

1. Bodenheimer T, Berenson RA, Rudolf P. The primary care-specialty income gap: why it matters. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 301-306. Link here.
2. Goodson JD. Unintended consequences of Resource-Based Relative Value Scale reimbursement. JAMA 2007; 298(19):2308-2310. Link here.
3. Iglehart JK. Doing more with less: a conversation with Kerry Weems. Health Aff 2009; http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.28.4.w688/DC1

No Such RUC - The New England Journal Takes on the Primary Care Crisis, Sort Of

The vast amounts spent globally on health care do not seem to translate into access for many patients, quality care, and improved outcomes. The US, in particular, spends huge amounts, now more than $2 trillion a year, without getting universal access, or superb quality and outcomes. While we spend all this money, the primary care and generalist practitioners on the front lines of care are paid less and less, are increasingly embattled and disgruntled, and their numbers are rapidly thinning.

Although these problems are huge, there is not much clear discussion of them.

Thus, it was encouraging to see the vaunted New England Journal of Medicine, the premier US journal of medicine, take up the issue of the "future of primary care." A few weeks ago, the journal published a series of commentaries on the issue,(1-6) and the transcript of a round table discussion among their authors.(7) It was touted as the views of experts on "the crisis in U.S. primary care."

Unfortunately, although the series acknowledged some surface characteristics of the US health care system that have lead to this crisis, it did not delve further into its causes.

On the surface, a major cause of the crisis is that payments to primary care physicians are so limited that we are driving them out of business, while we pay lavishly for new, high-technology, often risky and invasive procedures.

However, understanding how and why this happens requires dissecting layer after layer of complex details. Doing so can be frustrating, if not eye glazing, and this may be one reason why the discussion of this pivotal issue has been so limited.

The first layer of complexity was implicitly acknowledged, but not discussed in the NEJM series. Bear with me through it.

The First Layer of Causation: Low Payments for Face-to-Face Visits, Rising Overhead

Physicians are paid for each encounter with a patient. Their pay only covers what they do in the presence of the patient, and not other efforts on patients' behalf, e.g., communicating with patients when they are not in the office, communicating with other professionals, paperwork required by insurance companies, etc, etc. Furthermore, pay for office visits is available only in a very small number of categories, and the pay for more complex visits is not commensurate with the increase in time and effort that they require, so that physicians who spend a lot of time trying to deal with complex problems will not be paid commensurate with their work. Pay for office visits has not increased as fast as inflation, and certainly not as fast as the expenses of running physicians' offices, i.e., office overhead, has increased. Thus, to try to maintain income, and to support increasingly complex office operations and overhead, primary care physicians must limit the time they spend with any one patient.

The result is the 15 minute visit for nearly all patients. But it is ridiculous to try to manage complex problems in 15 minute visits. Furthermore, primary care physicians spend hours of unpaid time doing paperwork, communications, etc.

The NEJM special articles dealt briefly with the contrast between how primary care physicians and proceduralists are paid, and the adverse effects of the 15-minute visit. The series coordinator, Dr Thomas Lee, noted that "procedure-oriented specialties offer higher potential incomes."(1) Dr Allan H Goroll decried the "current volume-driven, fee-for-service approaches," the "piecework payment system that perpetuates our 'hamster-wheel' environment."(4) Dr Thomas Bodenheimer asserted that primary care physicians are"overstressed by large patient panels." He blamed this on "the over-burdened 15-minute clinician visit."(3) He mentioned the 15-minute visit three other times in his commentary. In the round table discussion that accompanied the articles, he protested, "it's the tyranny of the 15-minute visit. If you come in to your practice in the morning and you see that you have 12 to 15 15-minute visits in the morning and another 12 to 15 15-minute visits in the afternoon, and you know you can't do it all in 15 minutes...."(7) Finally, in the round table discussion that accompanied the series, Dr Katherine Treadway offered the longest and most impassioned discussion, first explaining the problem,

Since I’ve been in practice a long time and I have an elderly, sick population, that for every hour of face-to-face time, I have another hour, at least, of time that I spend that’s unreimbursed. So, if I’m there for 13 hours, I’m getting paid for about 6 of the hours I’m spending.

and

The RVU system is ...designed for specialty care and single problems. There is nothing in the RVU system that allows you to take into account the fact that you’ve just seen somebody with congestive heart failure, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary disease, renal insufficiency, and diabetes.

Why Are Payments Low for Face-to-Face Visits?

However, none of the commentaries addressed how we got to this pass, or, to continue the analogy above, none dissected the next layer. At best, they seemed to imply that this came about due to the forces of nature or an act of God. For example, in the round table discussion, Dr Lee said,

And I want to go to the payment system next. But do you think — I mean, which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Is it in the water and in the culture, in the educational values? And then the payment system may just reinforce that? Or is it the other way around, the payment system’s where it begins and that’s why it’s in the water?

To which Prof Barabara Starfield could only reply,

Unfortunately, it’s the chicken and the egg cycle. It doesn’t start in any one place.

The Role of the RUC

Actually, one can find the next layer of explanations in one place. The current bizarrely distorted manner in which physicians are paid was the act of people, a few people operating largely in the shadows.

The US Medicare system determines what it pays physicians using the Resource Based Relative Value System (RBRVS). This system determines the pay for every kind of medical encounter according to a complex formula that is supposed to account for physicians' time and effort, physicians' practice expense, and the cost of malpractice insurance. The components of physicians' effort assessed are, in turn, technical skill and physical effort; the required mental effort and judgment; and stress due to the potential risk to the patient.

To keep the system, which was started in 1990, current, requires addition of new kinds of encounters, which means encounters involving new kinds of procedures, and updating of the estimates of various components, including physicians' time and effort. To do so, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) relies almost exclusively on the advice of the RBRVS Update Committee (RUC). The RUC is a private committee of the AMA, touted as an "expert panel" that takes advantage of the organization's First Amendment rights to petition the government. Membership on the RUC is allotted to represent specialty societies, so that the vast majority of the members represent specialties that do procedures and focus on expensive, high-technology tests and treatments. However, the identities of RUC members are secret, as are the proceedings of the group.

This opaque and unaccountable process has resulted in increases outstripping inflation in fees paid for procedures, while fees paid for "cognitive"medicine, i.e., for primary care, and for services that involve diagnosis, management of acute and chronic disease, counseling, coordination of care, etc, but not procedures, have lagged inflation. The effects of the RUC have been amplified by the unexplained tendency of commercial managed care and health insurance to track the RBRVS system when making their own payments to physicians.

For further details about the RUC, see these posts on Health Care Renewal (here, here, here, and here) and important articles by Bodenheimer et al,(8) and Goodson.(9)

The Unanswered Questions

Understanding this layer of the process raises some major questions, whose answers could help dissect the next layers.

• How did the government come to fix the payments physicians receive? Government price-fixing has not been popular in the US, yet this has caused no outcry.
• Why is the process by which they are fixed allowed to be so opaque and unaccountable? Why are there no public hearings on the updates, and why is there no input from practicing physicians or organizations other than the RUC?
• How did the RUC become de facto in charge of this process?
• Why does the AMA keep the membership on the RUC secret, and give no input into the RUC process to its general membership?
• Why is the RUC membership so dominated by procedural specialists? Why were primary care physicians, who made up at least a sizable minority of physicians when the update process was started, not represented according to their numbers?
• Why has there been so little discussion of the RUC and its responsibility for an extremely expensive health care system dominated by high-technology, expensive, risky and invasive procedures?

Of course, since the NEJM series failed to address the role of the RUC in the collapse of primary care, it could not raise, much less begin to answer such questions. The series mentioned the RUC only once, and virtually parenthetically, (by Dr Gorroll, who noted, "the current system "relies on the Relative Value Scale Update Committee [RUC] of the American Medical Association to set values for primary care services, despite the committee's marked overweighting in favor of procedural specialties...."[4]) Despite having written a key article explaining the role of the RUC,(8) Dr Bodenheimer was apparently only asked to write about practice innovations that could somehow compensate for continuing limits on the length of primary care visits.(3) It appears that it remains politically incorrect to question the RUC.

However, failing to understand, or even address the causes of the collapse of primary care will make it all the more difficult to find a way to revive it.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." attributed to George Santayana

References

1. Lee TH. The future of primary care: the need for reinvention. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 2085-2086. Link here.
2. Treadway K. The future of primary care: sustaining relationships. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 2086, 2088. Link here.
3. Bodenheimer T. The future of primary care: transforming practice. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 2086, 2089. Link here.
4. Goroll AH. The future of primary care: reforming physician payment. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 2087, 2090. Link here.
5. Starfield B. The future of primary care: refocusing the system. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 2087, 2091. Link here.
6. Roland M. The future of primary care: lessons from the U.K. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 2087, 2092. Link here.
7. Lee TH, Treadway K, Bodenheimer T, Starfield B, Goroll A. The future of primary care: perspective roundtable: redesigning primary care. Link here.
8. Bodenheimer T, Berenson RA, Rudolf P. The primary care-specialty income gap: why it matters. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 301-306. Link here.
9. Goodson JD. Unintended consequences of Resource-Based Relative Value Scale reimbursement. JAMA 2007; 298(19):2308-2310. Link here.

"An Impending Hurricane of Outrage" About the RUC?

We have posted a number of times, (most recently here, and see links to earlier posts) about the RBRVS Update Committee's (RUC) responsibility for Medicare's relatively poor payments for primary care and other "cognitive" physicians' services, compared to procedures. This imbalance has rippled through all of US health care, affecting how private insurers and managed care organizations reimburse physicians, and generally how the US systems favors procedures over talking, examining, thinking, diagnosing, prognosticating, deciding, and prescribing and super-specialization over generalism and primary care.

The RUC ostensibly is just an advocacy group sponsored by the American Medical Association, yet it seems to be the only source of outside input about physicians' reimbursement used by the US Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Given this influence, it is dismaying that it is secretive, unrepresentative, and unaccountable. Neither its membership nor proceedings are public. It is dominated by proceduralists and sub-specialists. It is unaccountable to US physicians, much less the general public.

We therefore recently commented skeptically about how CMS put the RUC in charge of setting physicians' payments for the patient-centered medical home (PCMH). The PCMH seems to be a newly fashionable concept for reviving primary care. It turns out a lot of other medical and health care bloggers were equally skeptical. In this post on the e-CareManagement Blog, Vince Kuraitis describes physician bloggers as "spewing venom" at the idea of the RUC determining how the PCMH might work. He linked to five blogs other than Health Care Renewal (and the Happy Hospitalist, to whom we linked in the post above), and then noted "you can add me to the list." His final question was, " Are these reactions just a few lone bloggers, or the first whispers of the impending hurricane of outrage? I suspect the latter."

Payments for the Patient-Centered Medical Home Mired in the RUC

We have posted a number of times, (most recently here, and see links to earlier posts) about the RBRVS Update Committee's (RUC) responsibility for Medicare's relatively poor reimbursement of primary care and other "cognitive" physicians' services compared to procedures. This imbalance has rippled through all of US health care, affecting how private insurers and managed care organizations reimburse physicians, and generally how the US systems favors procedures over talking, examining, thinking, diagnosing, prognosticating, deciding, and prescribing and super-specialization over generalism and primary care.

The RUC ostensibly is just an advocacy group sponsored by the American Medical Association, yet it seems to be the only source of outside input about physicians' reimbursement used by the US Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Given this influence, it is dismaying that it is secretive, unrepresentative, and unaccountable. Neither its membership nor proceedings are public. It is dominated by proceduralists and sub-specialists. It is unaccountable to US physicians, much less the general public.

CMS in its wisdom also put the RUC in charge of figuring out how physicians' practices participating in trials of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) would be paid. The PCMH has gotten a lot of buzz lately. It purports to be the modern way to characterize a well-functioning primary care practice. Various powers that be that now want to support primary care seem only interested in supporting such care that fits the PCMH model. Yet putting the RUC, which seems to be the single most important cause of the decline of primary care, in charge of payment for this new version of primary care, appears to be a great case of putting the fox in charge of the hen-house. On the Retired Doc's Thoughts blog, Dr James Gaulte first pointed this out.

The RUC just released its report on how physicians providing medical homes ought to be paid. Now, on the Happy Hospitalist blog, this post dissected how the RUC came up with its recommendations, in all their mind-numbing detail. That blog summarized the results as "punching primary care in the face," and furthermore,

The payment rates that are recommended are insulting and downright degrading. Do they think nobody is paying attention? These people have no business trying to create public policy.

Unless I'm completely off base in my interpretation, if I was an outpatient doc, I would run faster than Forest Gump from this proposed financial disaster.

This is a reminder of what can go wrong with a "single-payer health care system," which is what Medicare is. When the government sets what physicians are paid, which is what happens in Medicare, (and de facto happens for our entire health care system, as private insurance companies and managed care organizations seem to slavishly follow the CMS' lead as engineered by the RUC), the government ought to provide a rational, transparent, accountable method of doing so. The current RUC based system is the opposite, irrational, opaque, and unaccountable. If we don't fix it, we can kiss primary care goodbye, with all the negative consequences that would entail. And further woe unto us if the calls for health care reform lead to "Medicare for all," with the RUC based system intact.

What Influences Advocacy for "Doctor Nurses?"

We have posted many times on the external forces battering primary care physicians (family physicians, general internists, and general pediatricians) in the US. Whenever new fervor for cost cutting arises, the tendency seems to be to call them in as the usual suspects. Thus, primary care doctors have seen their reimbursement lag inflation (see our post here and a post from DB's Medical Rants here), while they are subject to an ever increasing bureaucratic burden aimed at decreasing their supposedly wasteful and overly expensive practices. No wonder fewer and fewer physicians are going into primary care, and more are leaving. They can make much more with less hassle and a "better lifestyle" in other specialties, especially those based on procedures. Yet it is hard to see how our health care system can work with ever fewer, and ultimately no primary care doctors. Health care systems in other countries, which may produce results as good as or better than the US, are much more focused on and supportive of primary care. When no American has his or her own personal physician, who will be able to diagnose their less than obvious problems? Who will be able to manage their inter-related chronic diseases?

Instead of making primary care practice a more workable proposition, however, the current fad is to find other ways to do primary care that do not really involve primary care doctors. For example, an article in the Wall Street Journal addressed the idea of making nurse practitioners get doctorates (but not medical degrees, heaven forfend).

As the shortage of primary-care physicians mounts, the nursing profession is offering a possible solution: the 'doctor nurse.'

More than 200 nursing schools have established or plan to launch doctorate of nursing practice programs to equip graduates with skills the schools say are equivalent to primary-care physicians. The two-year programs, including a one-year residency, create a "hybrid practitioner" with more skills, knowledge and training than a nurse practitioner with a master's degree, says Mary Mundinger, dean of New York's Columbia University School of Nursing. She says DNPs are being trained to have more focus than doctors on coordinating care among many specialists and health-care settings.

One wonders how much nurses will learn from this two year program which might be the shortest doctoral program ever proposed. Primary care physicians, of course, take four years (two mainly classroom, two mainly clinical) to get their degree, and then spend three or more years in post-graduate house-staff clinical training.

Nonetheless, Mundinger seems to imply all that extra training does no good.

A study led by Columbia's Dr. Mundinger and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2000 showed comparable patient outcomes in patients randomly assigned to nurse practitioners and primary-care physicians.

Mundinger partially bases her advocacy of the "Doctor Nurse" on the assumption that nothing can or will be done to make it more possible for doctors to practice effectively in the primary care arena.

Dr. Mundinger, of Columbia, says the primary aim of the DNP is not to usurp the role of the physician, but to deal with the fact that there simply won't be enough of them to care for patients with increasingly complex care needs. As doctors face shrinking insurance reimbursements and rising malpractice-insurance costs, more medical students are forsaking primary care for specialty practices with higher incomes and more predictable hours. As a result, there could be a shortfall ranging from 85,000 to 200,000 primary-care physicians by 2020, according to various estimates.

In addition to training in diagnostic and treatment skills, doctors of nursing practice can have hospital admitting privileges, coordinate care among specialists, help patients with preventive care, evaluate their social and family situations, and manage complex illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease, says Dr. Mundinger, who has been leading the effort behind the National Board of Medical Examiners' planned certification exam.

Note Dr Mundinger's acceptance (the use of the word "fact" above) that the decline of primary care physicians is inevitable. How well two years of training beyond the bachelors degree will prepare these advanced practice nurses to do what used to be done by doctors with at least seven years of training neither Dr Munginger or the article addressed.

In my humble opinion, the solution of our health care problems will not be the "delivery" of "primary care" by people with substantially less training than primary care physicians. The blog DB's Medical Rants has been thoughtfully addressing some of the misconceptions that may underlie this bad idea. One, which DB attributed to "suits" who control but do not really understand health care, is that primary care is basically simple, limited to care of minor acute illnesses and routine prevention based on guidelines. This ignores all the complexity and ambiguity and uncertainty that taking care of the whole patient entails. (See in particular the idea that primary care doctors must deal with the concept of the "long tail.") Primary care really involves dealing with less than obvious, often obscure diagnoses, coordinating management of complex and interrelated chronic illnesses, whose prognoses and response to therapy are difficult to predict, and dealing with intricate biopsychosocial issues. It may be harder and harder for primary care doctors to do these tasks, given that they are not paid to do many of their components, and they are besieged by conflicting and often nonsensical bureaucratic demands. But "doctor nurses" with much less training will find them even harder.

So why does this bad idea continue to gain traction? It may be that the influences behind its advocacy are not as straightforward as they seem. Let us revisit the WSJ article above, and particularly the advocacy of "doctor nurses" by Mary Mundinger.

That name should, in fact, sound familiar to Health Care Renewal readers. While Dr Mundinger is the Dean of the School of Nursing of Columbia University, she has some part-time gigs. In particular, she is on the board of directors of UnitedHealth Group , the large for-profit managed care organization and health insurer. As a director, she is supposed to "demonstrate unyielding loyalty to the company's shareholders" [Per Monks RAG, Minow N. Corporate Governance, 3rd edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. P.200.] For that loyalty, by 2007 she had received (per the company's 2007 proxy) rights to acquire 345,930 shares of UnitedHealth, and in 2006 was paid $73,750 in cash and stock options valued at $412,575. That level of compensation might inspire some loyalty.

Presumably, it is in the interest of UnitedHealth to hold down what it pays for primary care. In fact, the company, like most other managed care organizations and health insurers, has gone along with the physician payment scheme used by Medicare, and de facto controlled by the shadowy RBRVS Update Committee, which has minimized payments to primary care, but paid for procedures much more lavishly (see post here). Thus Dr Mundinger's advocacy for primary care furnished by "doctor nurses," who would be less well trained and paid than primary care doctors, might serve UnitedHealth Group's interests.

But Dr Mundinger's loyalties seem even more complex than that. She has been known as a particular supporter of the former CEO of UnitedHealth, Dr William McGuire. A 2006 Pulitzer Prize winning article in the Wall Street Journal quoted her thus, "We're so lucky to have Bill. He's brilliant."

In fact, we posted often (see these posts here, here, and here from 2006 with links backward) about the hugely lavish compensation afforded to the Dr McGuire, and how this remuneration stood in stark contrast to the stated mission of UnitedHealth Group:

UnitedHealth Group is a diversified health and well-being company dedicated to making the health care system work better. The company directs its resources into designing products, providing services and applying technologies that:
- Improve access to health and well-being services;
- Simplify the health care experience;
- Promote quality; and,
- Make health care more affordable.

Controversy has swirled over the timing of huge stock option grants given to Dr McGuire (see post here), leading to his resignation in October, 2006 (see post here). More recently, McGuire agreed to pay back some of those options, although that would reportedly leave him with more than $800 million worth of options (see post here).

Dr Mundinger's support of McGuire lead two advisory firms, Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) Inc. and Proxy Governance Inc, to suggest that institutional investors not vote for Mundinger in the 2006 election for UnitedHealth board members (see post here.) Thus, she seems better known for her personal loyalty to the CEO whom she was supposed to supervise than her unyielding loyalty to UnitedHealth Group's stockholders.

To make things even more complex, Mundinger also is a member of the boards of directors of Gentiva Health Services, and Cell Therapeutics Inc. Gentiva Health Services provides home care services. Cell Therapeutics Inc is a biotechnology company that develops cancer treatments. Per its 2008 proxy statement, Dr Mundinger received $127,531 in total compensation from Gentiva Health Services in 2007, and has received options to purchase 10,090 shares of its stock. Per its 2007 proxy statement, Dr Mundinger received $92,865 in total compensation from Cell Therapeutics Inc in 2006, and has received options to purchase 23,750 shares of its stock. Thus she has reason to have unyielding loyalty to the stockholders of these two companies. However, these companies' interests, to maximize profits from home care services, and to maximize profits from cancer treatments, conflict with the interests of the UnitedHealth Group to minimize what it spends paying for these services and treatments.

So trying to figure out the influences behind Dr Mundinger's prominent advocacy of "doctor nurses" is well nigh impossible. Dr Mundinger has an amazingly complex set of conflicts of interest. So where do her interests lie? - Improving clinical care and promoting clinical science and teaching (the academic mission of her nursing school)? Increasing UnitedHealth Group's profits by decreasing its payments for health care? Increasing Gentiva Health Services' profits by increasing the payments it gets for home health services? Increasing Cell Therapeutics Inc's profits by increasing what it gets paid for cancer therapies?

And that is, as we have said before, the curse of conflicts of interest in health care. Conflicts lead to confused thought, speech, and action. One cannot tell what interests lie behind the speech and actions of the conflicted. So health care policy advocacy by the conflicted, rather than leading to better health care for all, just leaves us in a fog of doubt and confusion.

But financial ties to various industries, regardless of the conflicts they produce, fuel the imperial pretensions of their academic health care institutions' leadership (see post here). So the universities and their leaders will not give up their conflicts without quite a fight. But the confusion about clinical care, about research, about health policy that swirls out of the ever more pervasive web of conflicts in health care means it's time for that fight to start.