The Amazing Maze of US Health Care

Hoops

The recently passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) does much to promote long term reform of the way physicians are paid for their services.

But could something be done now to simplify the system for both patients and their doctors?

Many health care policy experts tout the current payment system as a major contributor to distorted incentives within the current health care delivery system

Fee for service reimbursement promotes more procedures, surgeries, images, etc. at the expense of patient listening time.

So the PPACA implemented a number of pilot programs to promote efforts to develop more global approaches to reimbursement.  I have discussed some of these in previous posts.

Payment reform now

But there may be intermediary steps that can be taken now to simplify a system that makes sense to no one; sometimes not even the insurers who administer them.

Example one – payment confusion.

A patient, someone I know well, gets a referral from their doctor for physical therapy.  Since I have had some experience with physical therapy and with health insurance, she asks my opinion.  I advise her to go on line to her insurance carrier’s webs site and check if certain physical therapists are in her network.  She does that and identifies a physical therapists in the network and close to her home.

Again, acting on my advice, she calls in advance to confirm that the practitioner still is contracted with this insurance carrier.  She is reassured and schedules a series of appointments.  Several weeks later she gets an Explanation of Benefits (EOB to the cognoscenti) and the insurer has paid nothing.

Her immediate reaction is to cancel all of her remaining appointments.  I persuade her to contact customer service and she if she can get a better explanation than that offered by her Explanation of Benefits.  She is told that the doctor is an out of network doctor and consequently she is liable both for an out of network deductible and for “balance billing” – charges over and above the amount negotiated and approved by the insurance carrier.

“How can this be?” she says to me.  “I looked the provider up on the carrier’s web site, I called the therapist, I don’t understand.”

We got on the phone together and I was able to learn from the customer service agent that this therapist was, in fact, signed up as an HMO provider, a PPO provider, but not as an “Open Access” provider.  Many carriers have developed “open access” networks that are less restrictive than the traditional HMO networks.

The patient contacted the therapist who was more than willing to clear this administrative oversight.

But why should she?

This was a small physical therapy office with only two full time professionals.  They need to hire a support staff that will keep track of all of these different provider reimbursement agreements for each of the countless insurance carriers that she may or may not encounter.

Each reimbursement arrangement will have its own peculiarities, its own administrative procedures and its own customer service contacts.

For whom does this make sense?  Certainly not the patient and certainly not the provider.  Yet, isn’t that who this system is supposed to serve?

Example two – payment confusion

A patient goes for his annual heart check up with the same practice he has always used.  Only this time, the bill is not paid in full as it has been in the past.

The initial inquiry to customer service yields a response similar to patient one – this is an “out of network” provider and the patient must pay the out of network deductible.  Further probing by me elicits some additional information.  This practice is a “participating” provider, but not a “preferred” provider”.  This is more than a bit confusing, because this member has always had PPO coverage.  PPO means Preferred Provider Organization.  What is going on?

What changed is the patient.  He got older, he retired and he enrolled in Medicare.  He still retained the same insurance.  He is one of the lucky few who have employer sponsored health insurance as a retiree.

But some clause somewhere in those provider reimbursement agreements means that the same insurance paid when he was under 65, but not over 65.

A better approach

It is time we developed a single reimbursement methodology for all providers.

That does mean that all providers get paid the same.

It does mean that each provider is paid the same amount regardless of who he or she treats.  Within that system, there can be different degrees of patient responsibility for different groups.

The system may decide that a provider in a rural area may get paid more or less than a similar doctor in an urban area.  It would endeavor to pay those providers with better performance more than those who could not meet the outcome targets.  There could be many other differentiators but one theme will prevail – doctors will know and understand the system they are getting reimbursed by.  And it will not inconvenience patients.

Doctors can opt out of the system, but they cannot pick and chose insurance carriers.  If they are outside of the system their patients will be 100% responsible for all expenses they incur.  The insurance carriers will have no responsibility.

That is the kind of payment reform that would make a real difference.

Photo Credit: Flickr, The Smithsonian Institute

When you are up to your neck in alligators, its hard to remember that someone needs to drain the swamp.

The American Alligator

Last week, I wrote about the tax on “Cadillac plans”.  This past week, BHO reached an agreement with labor unions, the primary voice of the opposition to taxing so-called “Cadillac plans”.  The tax is still there.  My suggestion didn’t seem to make it into the discussion.  I was busy dealing with alligators.  That’s my day job.

One of our carriers had a computer glitch (a nice euphemism) that disrupted coverage for many people.  Here is a typical example of the kind of fires we had to put out – a woman went to the doctor’s office and the doctor could feel a lump in her breast but would not order a mammogram because the office had contacted the insurance carrier and had learned (incorrectly) that she had no coverage.

These incidents prompted me to wonder.  If we had a single payer health care system, couldn’t we have the same problems?

After all, we will certainly still have computers.

But we won’t have people moving from plan to plan because they changed jobs.  We won’t have people losing coverage because they lost their job, or because they got sick, lost their paycheck and therefore could not afford their health insurance premium.

Doctors and hospitals will know who is paying their bills and therefore might show a bit more patience with administrative errors.  After all, if a computer error like that should occur in a single payer system, it likely would affect a high percentage of their patients.

There would hopefully be a sense of shared crisis, not one that abandons people in a time of acute need.

Oh, and the tax compromise reached recently.  It is still a bad idea.  Now it is just an acutely complicated bad idea.

And it will do absolutely nothing to make our health care system less fragmented, less chaotic, and more humane.

It just lets in more alligators and stops up the drain even more.

This morning driving to work I listened to a story on NPR Morning Edition.  It described the effort to build Charles Babbage’s Difference Engine – a mechanical predecessor to today’s computer.  Babbage died before he could ever complete his machine but modern engineers have recreated it.

The analogy with health care struck me.  Congress is building a Babbage machine in an era of super computers.

And we dare to call it progress?

Charles Babbage Difference Engine

In a recent report on National Public Radio (NPR) about a gang  rape in Rcihmond, CA, one person asked the question. “Where has all the humanity gone?”

The same question  can be asked in the current debate on national health care reform.

Is this our big tent? Photo by JL McGee

Where has all the humanity gone?

We are talking about Americans here

The politicians are wiling to deny undocumented immigrants access to the proposed Health Insurance Exchange.  But that is not enough for some.  They are afraid that hospitals will use federal funds to treat undocumented immigrants in the emergency rooms.

Aren’t some of these very same conservatives, also Christians?  Aren’t they familiar with the story of the Good Samaritan?  In case they forget, the moral of that story is doing good to your enemies.  Oh that’s right, Christian values don’t apply to government, because government funds are involved.  Unless, of course, its abortion.  Then then “Christian” values apply because government funds are involved. Read the rest of this entry »

There is nothing simple about our health care maze.  Fixing it is not easy.

I prefer to look for the simple.  The complexity will evolve naturally.

Congress prefers to start with the complex and make it more so.

Spreading the medical risk

There  are two major challenges to fixing the customer side of the health care mess – spreading the medical risk and spreading the financial costs.

Spreading medical risk requires that everyone be in the system.  That spreads medical risk evenly between the sick and the healthy.  That can be accomplished by a system of automatic eligibility or a system of required enrollment.

Automatic eligibility describes a single payer system.  All citizens are enrolled by virtue of their citizenship.  To draw from known models, automatic enrollment describes Part A Medicare, Department of Defense medicine, and to a lesser extent, the Veterans Administration.

Funding for those programs is separate from enrollment and may or may not rely on direct participant financing.

A system of mandatory enrollment implies a system of mandatory participant financing.  That is where we bump into the second challenge.

Spreading the financial costs

How do we transfer money from those who have it to those who need it? Read the rest of this entry »