Costs of Care in the National Press

As the director of Costs of Care and a practicing doctor, I occasionally have the opportunity to offer public commentary on healthcare costs from the doctor's perspective.

I recently spoke with national media about the role (or lack there of) of costs in medical decision making. I'm quoted in last week's New York Times, for a great article entitled "Teaching Physicians the Price of Care".

The same article was syndicated here on National Public Radio, here on Kaiser Health News, as well as several regional newpapers and radio stations around the country. The quote that was used was also picked up for paraphrased versions of the story throughout the blogosphere.

Lastly, an op-ed I wrote aimed at doctors, called "Paying Attention to Patient's Pockets" went online yesterday.

Looking forward to your feedback/comments!

Neel

Cost containment and unfinished business

While the contentious healthcare reform bill enables access to health insurance for 32 million Americans, what about costs and efficient healthcare delivery?

The often-heard criticism of the 10-year, 1 trillion healthcare reform plan is that it simply does not do enough to rein in the cost of treatments. According to a government report released in February this year, healthcare spending grew to a record of 17.3 % of the GDP in 2009, $ 134 billion more than 2008, marking the largest one-year jump in its share of the economy since the government started keeping such records half a century ago.

The question then is, how does ObamaCare plan to deal with the American view of more care is better care? Given that the new healthcare overhaul requires the government to now pick up more of the healthcare tab, can we cope with that? Moreover, how do we convince patients and providers that new procedures, tests, drugs or devices that might save or improve lives really are not always necessary or worth the exorbitant prices?

A stark example of the inefficiency in the system was brought to bear in a recent study published in JAMA about the rise in unnecessary back surgeries. Despite the growing evidence that it does not really work well for patients and increases the likelihood of life threatening conditions like heart attacks, strokes and pneumonia, complex back surgeries have increased 15-fold between 2002 and 2007. In essence, more complex procedures mean higher payments for surgeons. The misaligned financial incentives, the paucity of patient education about less invasive treatment options and the trying-and-everything mentality in medical practice even if we’re not sure it works are all part of the problem.

And it’s not just more back surgeries. More CT scans pose a problem too. A recent study demonstrated the significant overuse of such scans, projecting that 15,000 people die in a given year due to the radiation received from CT scans. Caesarean births have become more common, with little benefit to babies and significant burden to mothers. Men who would never have died from prostate cancer have been treated for it and left incontinent or impotent. Cardiac stenting and bypasses, with all their side effects, have become popular partly because people think they reduce heart attacks.

Overall, the consensus is that culture change is needed to move away from wasteful spending to more efficient healthcare. They include new making doctors more sensitive to costs of care, establishing new payment methods for doctors, more comparative- effectiveness research and penalizing hospitals for inefficiency. The hope is that the Patient-Oriented Outcomes Research institute established by the healthcare Bill, charged with setting the national agenda for the comparative- effectiveness studies, as well as providing more money and disseminating results, will bring some order into the chaos of practicing medicine.

New Takes on Healthcare Costs from the Ground Up

Join thought leaders in medicine, economics, law, and policy at our inaugural Costs of Care panel event, April 21, 2010 at 7PM

more info here:
Institute for Healthcare Improvement listing
Harvard University Gazette listing

Costs Of Care Primer

Check out this SlideShare Presentation:

Costs Of Care Primer

View more presentations from Neel Shah.

Practicing medicine by numbers

Practicing medicine by numbers

In a system of upside down incentives – a fee-for-service payment model that results in doctors doing too much – more tests, more procedures and more treatments, left almost entirely up to a doctors “informed intuition”.

Intuition indeed is necessary in medicine, explains Jerome Groopman, in How Doctors Think, but can lead doctors astray. Numbers on the other hand can help resolve quality variation by data-driven methods.

After years of knowing the benefits of beta-blocker prescriptions, safety checklists and so called ‘evidence based practices’, what keeps doctors from doing what they know? Can we afford to rely on the variability of their good judgment and intuition? Why are quality managing practices like lean and Six Sigma facing so much resistance in the practice of healthcare?

Quite simply put, because we trust our doctors to do what is best for us. Hospitals and physicians that provide less than top-quality care are rarely punished. There is that, and how we pay for healthcare. Volume care is compensated, irrespective of the added value for patients.

In the midst of the country’s struggle to health reform (or lack thereof), this article offers a refreshing look at what can be done right. Brendt James – the champion of the ‘Intermountain way’ challenges doctors to continuously test and tweak protocols, set clinical goals, track patient outcomes and deliver quality care at low costs – offers reason for optimism.

Too many drugs?

Ever wondered about the contents in your medicine cabinet? Or the forces that got you on those prescription medications in the first place?

This NPR editorial does a great job bringing to light how Merck’s Fosamax for ostopenia, a condition deemed treatable by this drug, got into the cabinets of million women across America. And how the marketing of the pill changed the definition of bone disease and sought women to seek unnecessary treatment.

This pharmaceuticalisation phenomenon, meaning the pharma companies quest to turn every research endeavor into a blockbuster drug highlights the manipulative role of drug companies in deciding what constitutes the definition of a disease just so they can market a drug to cure it.

Set against the backdrop of the controversial evolution of ostopenia as a disease, we read
about how pharma companies are vying to get the FDA to sign off on a prescription pill for jet lag! Do we really need a pill for jet lag? Or worse yet, should we let the pharmaceutical industry decide which drugs fit what therapies? With spiraling healthcare costs are we going to let pharmaceutical companies hold the reigns?

More importantly, can we draw the line between treatment, research and development for the greater good versus drugs that are downright redundant?

Healthcare Reform & End-of-life Costs

When President Obama's chief budget deputy Peter Orzag announced the stimulus bill (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009), he mentioned that the U.S. spends $700 billion each year on medical tests that don't help patients get healthier.

Policy analysts have long known that much of this seemingly wasteful spending occurs during emotionally challenging moments at the end of life. We often are willing to spend the most on those who are the sickest--even when it is unlikely to make them better. Given the highly sensitive situations involved, most politicians have been reluctant to touch this issue with a ten foot poll.

At least until now.

The recent healthcare bill drafted by the House takes on the costs of end-of-life care heads-on by providing doctors with financial incentives to counsel patients on creating "advanced directives" (commonly known as "Do Not Rescusitate/Do Not Intubate" orders). Since many patients can be sustained indefinitely on ICU life-support, the bill is meant to save money by reducing so-called "futile care".

However, the normally sympathetic editorial staff of the Washington Post has taken issue with this aspect of the bill, on the grounds that it is unethical to put financial rewards and end-of-life counseling in such close proximity. What do you think?