Health for life

Years ago, the Disease Management Care Blog had a pediatrician colleague who was widely admired for his diagnostic acumen, attention to treatment detail and personalized attention. As further testimony to his reputation, every physician wanted him to be their childrens doctor. The DMCB was one of those lucky docs. The luck ran out, however, when the DMCBs spouse quickly realized that she couldnt get any appointments and even if she did, the physicians clinic routinely ran two hours late.

Persons who read this New England Journal Perspective testimonial on the joy and frustrations of a primary care career should keep that physician in mind.   That reality contrasts with Dr. Finegolds fantasy world of dedicated physicians with limitless time where 1) the personal physician individually guides complex patients through a complex health care system and 2) the doctor patient relationship is fountainhead of professional satisfaction and patient well being. Thats why insurers should pay anything and policymakers should do everything they can to support this vision.

The DMCB sadly disagrees.

Primary care physicians are a precious resource. Theyre not only expensive, they are becoming more rare over time. As a result, use of their time and effort has to be restricted to circumstances when there is no one else who can deal with the paper work, make medication adjustments, work to increase treatment compliance, maximize the insurance benefit, deal with the social issues and provide psychological support. The DMCB thinks there are non-physician professionals who are better at these activities and do can do it far more cheaply. The solution is not more primary care physicians but more primary care physician support.

The DMCB physician colleagues may argue that the doctor-patient relationship is truly Holy Ground. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly apparent that there at too many patients and too few physicians to allow Dr. Finegolds indulgence of being so immersed in their patients lives. The degree of personalized involvement described in this article may be a luxury - like open access to brand drugs, the latest technologies, the priciest specialists or a few extra days in the hospital - that society can no longer afford.

Goin goin gone!

The Disease Management Care Blog recalls years ago when it was walking with some residents and students through a decommissioned wing of a hospital as a short-cut between patient floors.  Our footsteps echoed off the dreary beige tile while we chatted up the likelihood that we could get the next patient home this afternoon.  Then the  DMCB paused and took in the eerie fluorescent silence. "What you see around you," it mused, "is some valuable and unused capital."  The team then resumed the pace. Thats when the DMCB looked at the young docs and said "If we keep it up, theyll need to close another wing!" 

The fly in the ointment.  The monkey in the wrench.  The docs raised hand at a hospital board of trustees meeting.  Call it what you like, but sometimes our most cherished assumptions and best laid plans have a way of going all akimbo.  True to that tradition, curmudgeonly Dartmouth authors Stephen Rauh, Eric Wadsworth, William Weeks and James Weinstein examine the "illusion" of  expecting "lower costs" to come out the back end of a health system system after "quality" is put in the front end. 

The authors real focus is on hospitals and define "quality" as any intervention that reduces the utilization of health care services (versus other definitions). Despite the narrow view, the Disease Management Care Blog believes the article makes an important and yet obvious point: large and small health care organizations have rigid cost structures that cannot be flexed.  As a result, any increase in quality - such as reducing length of stay, admissions, readmissions or surgeries -  mostly results in additional dead space capacity, not bottom line savings.

Clinical improvement can reduce costs is in the general category of supplies and medications.  Unfortunately, those costs are at the margins.  Just because there are fewer readmissions wont mean all those expensive operating rooms. equipment, personnel costs and other administrative overhead will simply go away.  They dont.  Theyll be idle and cost just as much.

Some economists will argue that hospitals can take beds off line and furlough nurses.  Its also been pointed out that multiple health systems can regionally consolidate high-cost low-frequency services.
Unfortunately, the quarter to quarter business cycle facing the typical hospital administrator doesnt really accommodate that kind of wishful thinking.  The only way out is to find other revenue by either charging more or providing other services.

Despite many valiant attempts, the DMCB never managed to close another hospital wing.

Even the modest Disease Management Care Blog has to agree that its recent Patient Centered Primary Care Collaborative webinar on supporting care coordination within the medical home was a huge success.  Not only did it get to learn about the impressive work underway at North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, but the questions from a record 522 listeners helped the DMCB sharpen its focus.

Here’s one of the better questions that was emailed after the webinar was concluded:

What shared savings arrangements can happen on a small scale, for example a 4 doc office?

The (gently edited) DMCB reply:

None.

The month-to month variability in the insurance claims (think 95% confidence intervals) from a small practice makes it practically mathematically impossible to confidently compare an observed dollar amount to a target dollar amount. 

There are methods that can be applied to diminish the variability (such as censoring “excess” claims and using “risk adjustment”) but, at the end of a fiscal year, a lack of documented savings could be the result of either a) poor care coordination or b) an “underpowered” or mathematically suspect claims analysis.  The skeptical insurer will say it was the former and the screwed docs will say it was the latter.  When that happens, docs lose.

This is an example of the “law of large numbers” and why the shared risk arrangements in Medicare ACOs have to be based on a minimum of “5000” persons. By having that many observations, the variability is blunted and measures of central tendency hold up in an actuarial basis.

And then there are the two policy implications.  First of all, shared risk contract involving a relatively small practice is perilously close to the bad old days of capitation and HMOs, vs. the approach of spreading accountability across a large system that is armed with all the requisite care coordination resources  A four person group can’t match that.  Secondly, the insurers have little interest in putting together a payment system that could financially cripple a four person clinical practice, especially if its primary care.

The DMCB will examine accountable-like arrangements for a small group practice in a future post.