Skip to main content

Why We Can't Control Medical Costs.

Most of us are skeptical that insurance companies are devoted to our health.  Answer the following question.  Do you think your insurance company is more interested in your health or in controlling costs?  Pretty tough question, huh?

There is a tension between medical quality and medical costs.  If we had a system that offered perfect quality, it would be unaffordable.  If we imposed rigid cost controls, then medical quality would be compromised.  Where do we draw the line?

 It is clear to most of us that the medical industrial complex is riddled with waste.  Keep in mind that one man’s medical waste is another man’s income.  For example, physicians define waste as excessive charges by hospitals.  Government officials define waste as excessively high drug prices.  Patients define waste as high co-pays and deductibles.  Drug companies define waste as outrageous legal expenses to get drugs to market and to defend against frivolous lawsuits.  Primary care doctors define waste as unreasonably high reimbursement that medical specialists receive.  Keep in mind that most folks don’t feel they are overpaid, but are quick to point to others whom they accuse of being overcompensated.  For example, when a politician floats a proposal to tax the rich, we hope that the definition of rich is anyone richer than we are.

Steak is cheap when someone else is paying for it.

Get the idea?  In summary, medical waste is easily defined.  It is money that someone else earns. 

This is why excising medical waste from the health care system is so difficult.  Who would you trust to decide which waste should be wasted?  The government?  Physicians?  Pharmaceutical companies?  I don’t have an easy answer here.   Part of the solution, in my view, is when patients have a little more skin in the game.  Here’s how this works.

A physician advises an MRI of the back on two different patients.  Patient A has full coverage for the study and would face no out-of-pocket costs.  Patient B has a $5,000 deductible and would have to write the radiologist a big check.

Patient A: “Thank you, doctor. My back has been hurting for over a week.  I’d like to get it done as soon as possible.”

Patient B: “$940!  Can I try those exercises you recommended instead?”

It’s always easier to spend someone else’s money.  Do you find that you order differently in a restaurant when it’s on someone else’s dime?

Comments

  1. There isn't a Radiologist in the country that get's paid $940 for an MRI....unless they own the facility (which does happen, but isn't the typical model).

    Far more typical: The HOSPITAL or ORTHOPEDIST (who, by the way, self refers) charges the insurance or the patient for the MRI. MRI's are expensive, and have a lot of overhead....they are not cheap.

    The Radiologist, on the other hand, will bill/be paid somewhere in the neighborhood of $40 to $100 for the interpretation.

    My opinion: All physicians work hard, and should be paid for their time. Primary care physicians are woefully under compensated for their expertise.



    ReplyDelete
  2. I went to medical school in London in the 1970s under the British National Health service. I then emigrated and spent the next five years as a general Surgery Resident in Seattle, and now practice surgery in the Bay Area. After I arrived here I saw that the basics of the science of medicine and the management of disease were not much different between the countries, but even today, 33 years after I arrived, I am still shocked at the wastefulness of physicians with the Health Care dollar. In St. Thomas' Hospital Medical School in London no test could be ordered and no therapy recommended unless the medical student (or House Officer) could give a clear explanation and justification of the value for the expenditure involved. There was a deep principle at work which stated that no test may be ordered unless the result will directly affect the course of therapy and no treatment may be instigated unless there was a likely chance that the patient would benefit. There was a universal code of belief everywhere I worked before I came to the USA that we do not torture patients in the off-chance they might live a few extra weeks or months.

    I arrived in the USA and everything was quite different. Tests were ordered because apparently nobody trusted anybody's clinical examination and there was a fatuous need to "document" results in the chart. The medico-legal excuse for this is way overstated! I never once heard in five years of Residency an attending questioning the ordering of a lab test or imaging study as to whether it was cost efficient. The most extravagant operations and forms of therapy (and here the almost universal prescription of unbelievably expensive chemotherapy, completely outside clinical trials on virtually dead patients was the most obvious among many causes of the hemorrhage of money and resources) were carried out with nary a whisper concerning the likely effectiveness and whether in view of this the cost could be justified. And, ultimately, I witness to this day patients who back in the UK would be allowed to die pain free of their incurable disease (medical heroin (Diamorphine to us) is a wonderful pain controller for the terminally ill) being presented again and again at Tumor Board where extremely intelligent doctors (again, outside of clinical trials) prescribe drugs priced at $100K a year so the poor patient can waste away in abject misery for a few more weeks and months before their sordid demise. Always we, the doctors, act with our head completely in the sand as if there was and always will be, an infinite amount of money available in the system. Until the training of student doctors starts to include concern for the budget, the inexorable and almost logarithmic rise in Health Care costs will always be with us.

    Physicians complain all the time about the bean counters at HMOs and Insurance Companies and CMS intruding on our clinical decision-making with their cost-based restrictions, but WAKE UP everybody, in the real world cost efficiency matters and there is no magic exception for Medicine. We refuse to practice medicine more judiciously: 350 pound patients still get hip replacements and Internists everywhere buy machines for their offices so they can do procedures inexpertly in order to increase their incomes, 25 year old patients with a spot of blood on the toilet paper get total colonoscopies, etc., etc. and we wonder why the reimbursement for every medical service has plummeted since the early 1990s. We whine about all those big medical corporations and their greed (and they are very, very greedy - like all corporations these days) but I see the enemy, as the saying goes, and the enemy is us.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mark, I want to thank you for your outstanding comments, many of which you will find echoed throughout this blog. I have averred repeatedly that the health care system could be easily reformed using only the funds that are currently used on unnecessary medical care. For some, the definition of unnecessary is somewhat fluid, but most honest practitioners know it when they see it. Politics intrudes since wasteful medical care represents someone's income. I hope we will enjoy the pleasure of reading your insights again.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Our new startup UMA Health is designed to take the excess cost out of healthcare by allowing patients to skip insurance for routine doctor visits and procedures. We offer a transparent marketplace and are available in New York for now. Our vision is to allow patients to know what they will pay ahead of time and never be faced with many future bills or surprises.
    www.umahealth.com

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Most Doctors Choose Employment

Increasingly, physicians today are employed and most of them willingly so.  The advantages of this employment model, which I will highlight below, appeal to the current and emerging generations of physicians and medical professionals.  In addition, the alternatives to direct employment are scarce, although they do exist.  Private practice gastroenterology practices in Cleveland, for example, are increasingly rare sightings.  Another practice model is gaining ground rapidly on the medical landscape.   Private equity (PE) firms have   been purchasing medical practices who are in need of capital and management oversight.   PE can provide services efficiently as they may be serving multiple practices and have economies of scale.   While these physicians technically have authority over all medical decisions, the PE partners can exert behavioral influences on physicians which can be ethically problematic. For example, if the PE folks reduce non-medical overhead, this may very directly affe

Should Doctors Wear White Coats?

Many professions can be easily identified by their uniforms or state of dress. Consider how easy it is for us to identify a policeman, a judge, a baseball player, a housekeeper, a chef, or a soldier.  There must be a reason why so many professions require a uniform.  Presumably, it is to create team spirit among colleagues and to communicate a message to the clientele.  It certainly doesn’t enhance professional performance.  For instance, do we think if a judge ditches the robe and is wearing jeans and a T-shirt, that he or she cannot issue sage rulings?  If members of a baseball team showed up dressed in comfortable street clothes, would they commit more errors or achieve fewer hits?  The medical profession for most of its existence has had its own uniform.   Male doctors donned a shirt and tie and all doctors wore the iconic white coat.   The stated reason was that this created an aura of professionalism that inspired confidence in patients and their families.   Indeed, even today

Electronic Medical Records vs Physicians: Not a Fair Fight!

Each work day, I enter the chamber of horrors also known as the electronic medical record (EMR).  I’ve endured several versions of this torture over the years, monstrosities that were designed more to appeal to the needs of billers and coders than physicians. Make sense? I will admit that my current EMR, called Epic, is more physician-friendly than prior competitors, but it remains a formidable adversary.  And it’s not a fair fight.  You might be a great chess player, but odds are that you will not vanquish a computer adversary armed with artificial intelligence. I have a competitive advantage over many other physician contestants in the battle of Man vs Machine.   I can type well and can do so while maintaining eye contact with the patient.   You must think I am a magician or a savant.   While this may be true, the birth of my advanced digital skills started decades ago.   (As an aside, digital competence is essential for gastroenterologists.) During college, I worked as a secretary