Blog

 

Two Articles on Health Care Reform

Friday, October 29, 2010 // Uncategorized

9/3/2009 8:16:02 AM

My patients are always asking me what I think about health care reform.  Of course, I’ve been thinking about this for a long time.  I’m putting my thoughts together and that will be the subject of a future post.  In the meantime, here are a couple of articles of interest from the Wall Street Journal.

Fixing Health Care Is Good for Business

How many aspiring entrepreneurs are stuck in dead-end jobs because of health concerns?

You have probably heard the horror stories about President Barack Obama’s health-care proposals leading to rationed care and bankrupt businesses and governments. Those claims are flat wrong. The real horror story is not what health-care reform will bring. It’s what’s already happening.

There has been a lot of talk about the 47 million Americans who do not have health insurance. But health-care reform is just as important to the majority of Americans who have health insurance now. Absent reform, the price of an average family’s insurance will nearly double over the next decade—to $25,000 from $13,000.

No less troubling are the stories I hear from CEOs, entrepreneurs and workers. Rising health-care costs are crushing American companies—particularly small businesses that are the source of much of our economic vitality.

In 1960, U.S. firms spent 1.2% of their payroll on health insurance. In 2006, they spent 9.9%. Costs rising at this rate are unsustainable and put U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage to foreign companies that almost universally have lighter health-care burdens. It also destroys U.S. jobs.

Last month, the nonpartisan Rand Corporation released a study that looked at 37 industries from 1987 to 2005 and concluded that excess health-care costs were causing significant job losses as well as revenue and output losses for many American industries. After controlling for other factors, sectors with the highest percentage of employer-sponsored health care (such as the automotive industry) had worse performances than industries in which employer health coverage is uncommon.

These escalating costs have been passed on to the middle class in the form of higher prices and flat wages. Money that would have gone to raises has instead been spent on health-care premiums that have doubled over the past nine years.

The cost pressure is particularly acute for small businesses, which, on average, pay 18% more per worker than large firms for the same health-insurance policies. They pay more because they have a smaller risk pool and have to absorb higher broker fees and administrative costs per worker. As a result, many small businesses don’t offer health coverage. Just 49% of firms with three to nine workers and 78% of firms with 10 to 24 workers offered health plans in 2008, while 99% of firms with over 200 workers did.

It’s hard to know how much health-care costs affect small businesses. But it is clear that rising costs don’t help them. In the third quarter of 2008, half of all private-sector job losses occurred in companies with fewer than 20 employees.

The pernicious price of runaway health-care costs also has a dampening effect on entrepreneurship.

How many aspiring owners of businesses are locked in jobs they don’t like for fear that striking out on their own would cause them to lose their health insurance? The Small Business Majority, a national advocacy group, estimates there are as many as 1.6 million.

In the short term, health-care costs pose a major problem for companies and their employees. In the medium and long-term, these costs pose serious challenges to our economy. This year, health-care expenditures are expected to account for about 18% of our GDP. Without reform, that share is projected to rise to 28% in 2030 and to 34% in 2040. When one out of every three dollars is spent on health care, we will face a situation in which companies can no longer provide insurance. At the same time, if we don’t address rising federal health-care costs, we will likely face either much higher taxes or unsustainable deficits that could spike interest rates and threaten capital formation.

Neither option is a future any of us wants to contemplate.

It is clear that demographic and structural trends are leading us toward worse health care and higher costs for employers, workers and governments. But America has a chance to avoid that fate. President Obama has articulated three broad criteria for reform. Reduce costs, protect Americans’ choice of doctors and insurance plans, and assure quality and affordable health care for any American who wants it.

The bills working through Congress are moving in the right direction, and despite some setbacks, this nation is closer to fundamental health-care reform than we have ever been.

We must keep moving forward. We are in a twilight period, that precious moment before a problem becomes a crisis. What we do in the coming months will play a big role in determining America’s competitiveness and prosperity for decades to come. There is a path toward a more sustainable and prosperous future for America. It’s imperative that we take it. The alternative is frightening.

Mr. Locke is U.S. secretary of Commerce.

Sorting Fact From Fiction on Health Care

Current congressional proposals would significantly change your relationship with your doctor.

In recent town-hall meetings, President Barack Obama has called for a national debate on health-care reform based on facts. It is fact that more than 40 million Americans lack coverage and spiraling costs are a burden on individuals, families and our economy. There is broad consensus that these problems must be addressed. But the public is skeptical that their current clinical care is substandard and that no government bureaucrat will come between them and their doctor. Americans have good reason for their doubts—key assertions about gaps in care are flawed and reform proposals to oversee care could sharply shift decisions away from patients and their physicians.

Consider these myths and mantras of the current debate:

Americans only receive 55% of recommended care. This would be a frightening statistic, if it were true. It is not. Yet it was presented as fact to the Senate Health and Finance Committees, which are writing reform bills, in March 2009 by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (the federal body that sets priorities to improve the nation’s health care).

The statistic comes from a flawed study published in 2003 by the Rand Corporation. That study was supposed to be based on telephone interviews with 13,000 Americans in 12 metropolitan areas followed up by a review of each person’s medical records and then matched against 439 indicators of quality health practices. But two-thirds of the people contacted declined to participate, making the study biased, by Rand’s own admission. To make matters worse, Rand had incomplete medical records on many of those who participated and could not accurately document the care that these patients received.

For example, Rand found that only 15% of the patients had received a flu vaccine based on available medical records. But when asked directly, 85% of the patients said that they had been vaccinated. Most importantly, there were no data that indicated whether following the best practices defined by Rand’s experts made any difference in the health of the patients.

In March 2007, a team of Harvard researchers published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that looked at nearly 10,000 patients at community health centers and assessed whether implementing similar quality measures would improve the health of patients with three costly disorders: diabetes, asthma and hypertension. It found that there was no improvement in any of these three maladies.

David Gothard

groopman

groopman

Dr. Rodney Hayward, a respected health-services professor at the University of Michigan, wrote about this negative result, “It sounds terrible when we hear that 50 percent of recommended care is not received, but much of the care recommended by subspecialty groups is of a modest or unproven value, and mandating adherence to these recommendations is not necessarily in the best interest of patients or society.”

The World Health Organization ranks the U.S. 37th In the world in quality. This is another frightening statistic. It is also not accurate. Yet the head of the National Committee for Quality Assurance, a powerful organization influencing both the government and private insurers in defining quality of care, has stated this as fact.

The World Health Organization ranks the U.S. No. 1 among all countries in “responsiveness.” Responsiveness has two components: respect for persons (including dignity, confidentiality and autonomy of individuals and families to make decisions about their own care), and client orientation (including prompt attention, access to social support networks during care, quality of basic amenities and choice of provider). This is what Americans rightly understand as quality care and worry will be lost in the upheaval of reform. Our country’s composite score fell to 37 primarily because we lack universal coverage and care is a financial burden for many citizens.

We need to implement “best practices.” Mr. Obama and his advisers believe in implementing “best practices” that physicians and hospitals should follow. A federal commission would identify these practices.

On June 24, 2009, the president appeared on “Good Morning America” with Diane Sawyer. When Ms. Sawyer asked whether “best practices” would be implemented by “encouragement” or “by law,” the president did not answer directly. He said that he was confident doctors “want to engage in best practices” and “patients are going to insist on it.” The president also said there should be financial incentives to “allow doctors to do the right thing.”

There are domains of medicine where a patient has no control and depends on the physician and the hospital to provide best practices. Strict protocols have been developed to prevent infections during procedures and to reduce the risk of surgical mishaps. There are also emergency situations like a patient arriving in the midst of a heart attack where standardized advanced treatments save many lives.

But once we leave safety measures and emergency therapies where patients have scant say, what is “the right thing”? Data from clinical studies provide averages from populations and may not apply to individual patients. Clinical studies routinely exclude patients with more than one medical condition and often the elderly or people on multiple medications. Conclusions about what works and what doesn’t work change much too quickly for policy makers to dictate clinical practice.

An analysis from the Ottawa Health Research Institute published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2007 reveals how long it takes for conclusions derived from clinical studies about drugs, devices and procedures to become outdated. Within one year, 15 of 100 recommendations based on the “best evidence” had to be significantly reversed; within two years, 23 were reversed, and at 5 1/2 years, half were contradicted. Americans have witnessed these reversals firsthand as firm “expert” recommendations about the benefits of estrogen replacement therapy for postmenopausal women, low fat diets for obesity, and tight control of blood sugar were overturned.

Even when experts examine the same data, they can come to different conclusions. For example, millions of Americans have elevated cholesterol levels and no heart disease. Guidelines developed in the U.S. about whom to treat with cholesterol-lowering drugs are much more aggressive than guidelines in the European Union or the United Kingdom, even though experts here and abroad are extrapolating from the same scientific studies. An illuminating publication from researchers in Munich, Germany, published in March 2003 in the Journal of General Internal Medicine showed that of 100 consecutive patients seen in their clinic with high cholesterol, 52% would be treated with a statin drug in the U.S. based on our guidelines while only 26% would be prescribed statins in Germany and 35% in the U.K. So, different experts define “best practice” differently. Many prominent American cardiologists and specialists in preventive medicine believe the U.S. guidelines lead to overtreatment and the Europeans are more sensible. After hearing of this controversy, some patients will still want to take the drug and some will not.

This is how doctors and patients make shared decisions—by considering expert guidelines, weighing why other experts may disagree with the guidelines, and then customizing the therapy to the individual. With respect to “best practices,” prudent doctors think, not just follow, and informed patients consider and then choose, not just comply.

No government bureaucrat will come between you and your doctor. The president has repeatedly stated this in town-hall meetings. But his proposal to provide financial incentives to “allow doctors to do the right thing” could undermine this promise. If doctors and hospitals are rewarded for complying with government mandated treatment measures or penalized if they do not comply, clearly federal bureaucrats are directing health decisions.

Further, at the AMA convention in June 2009, the president proposed linking protection for physicians from malpractice lawsuits if they strictly adhered to government-sponsored treatment guidelines. We need tort reform, but this is misconceived and again clearly inserts the bureaucrat directly into clinical decision making. If doctors are legally protected when they follow government mandates, the converse is that doctors risk lawsuits if they deviate from federal guidelines—even if they believe the government mandate is not in the patient’s best interest. With this kind of legislation, physicians might well pressure the patient to comply with treatments even if the therapy clashes with the individual’s values and preferences.

The devil is in the regulations. Federal legislation is written with general principles and imperatives. The current House bill H.R. 3200 in title IV, part D has very broad language about identifying and implementing best practices in the delivery of health care. It rightly sets initial priorities around measures to protect patient safety. But the bill does not set limits on what “best practices” federal officials can implement. If it becomes law, bureaucrats could well write regulations mandating treatment measures that violate patient autonomy.

Private insurers are already doing this, and both physicians and patients are chafing at their arbitrary intervention. As Congress works to extend coverage and contain costs, any legislation must clearly codify the promise to preserve for Americans the principle of control over their health-care decisions.

Dr. Groopman, a staff writer for the New Yorker, and Dr. Hartzband are on the staff of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and on the faculty of Harvard Medical School.

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit

www.djreprints.com

0 Comments
 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *