AMA News Article Offers Incomplete (and Thus Misleading) Advice on the Legal Risks of EHRs and other Clinical IT

An article was published in the AMA News by Alicia Gallegos, AMA Medical News staff, entitled "Legal risks of Going Paperless." While it is not clear if these are the official views of the AMA leadership, the article is interesting nonetheless.

It should perhaps have been entitled "Some of the Legal Risks of Going Paperless, excluding the ones that make the health IT industry look bad:"

Legal Risks of Going Paperless
AMA News
March 5, 2012

Electronic medical records are meant to save time and money, but they also can create liability issues for doctors.

By Alicia Gallegos, amednews staff.

Defense attorney Catherine J. Flynn knows how electronic medical records can overwhelm — and often change — the course of a medical liability lawsuit.

In one of her cases, a New Jersey doctor being sued for medical negligence has been accused by a plaintiff’s attorney of modifying a patient’s electronic history. A printing glitch caused the problem, Flynn said, but the accusation has meant extra time and defense costs. Computer screen shots were reviewed, more evidence was gathered and additional arguments were made.

“This has taken a life of its own, and we’ve done virtually no discovery on the medical aspects of the case,” she said. “The cost of the e-discovery alone is in excess of $50,000.”

This is a variation on the theme of plaintiff's lawyers being the cause of EHR problems as I wrote at "Plaintiff's Trial Lawyers Are to Blame for EHRs That 'Tattle' on Doctors - And Harm Patients."

System breaches. Modification allegations. E-discovery demands. These issues are becoming common courtroom themes as physicians transition from paper to EMRs, legal experts say. Not only are EMRs becoming part of medical negligence lawsuits, they are creating additional liability.

Missing is the problem that is most important of all: health IT system defects, poor user interfaces, unreliability, data loss, etc. causing or contributing to medical malpractice that results in patient harm or death. (An example that I personally observed and reported to the FDA MAUDE database is here; there are numerous others in this blog.)

Data breaches are among the most common reasons that electronically stored information lands doctors in court, said Lisa Gallagher, senior director for privacy and security at the Health Information and Management Systems Society, which advocates health information technology

Most common perhaps (a big problem unto itself), but not the most clinically significant problem. Yet the AMA article goes on about this issue for many paragraphs; it's the prime focus of the article.

A 2011 ruling in New York highlights how e-discovery creates a burden for doctors.

During a lawsuit against St. Luke’s Hospital Roosevelt Center, a debate arose about whether the plaintiff should be allowed access to screen shots from a doctor’s computer. Joan Bowman, who sued the hospital for wrongful death on behalf of her husband, wanted to see a computer template used to aid physicians in diagnoses. The hospital said the request was overly broad and oppressive.

But the Supreme Court of the State of New York ordered the release of the screen shots.

“Defendant doctors testified that they utilized these materials in coming to their diagnosis,” Judge Alice Schlesinger wrote. “It is not a stretch to allow counsel to see and understand these materials.”

At this article’s deadline, the hospital’s attorney had not returned messages seeking comment.

The case sets a precedent, said Susan Dennehy, Bowman’s attorney.

“If others want to see screen shots from records, I think they’ll rely on this case,” she said. “It was important to see where the template led you if you put in an inaccurate chief complaint.”

Note the "spin" about the "burden for doctors" of eDiscovery. To the pundits and voluntary adopters: you have gotten what you asked for. To the non-pundit clinicians forced to use health IT: I hate to say this, but you've gotten screwed.

The article then offers a laundry list of how to avoid EHR-related liability:

... As the number of electronic medical records increases, so do certain legal risks, medical liability experts say. Common mistakes doctors make with EMRs and how attorneys recommend that physicians reduce their liability risks:

Mistake: EMRs allow users to move quickly through patient records, but cutting and pasting information makes it easy to paste incorrect information.
Recommendation: Refrain from copying and pasting EMR data, and be cautious when moving from one patient’s record to the next.

Mistake: Computer programs can help doctors make a differential diagnosis, but the templates don’t often include every possible symptom and corresponding medical condition.
Recommendation: Doctors should not become overly dependent on electronic diagnosis aids. Electronic systems are no substitute for hands-on diagnosis.

Mistake: Because EMRs allow physicians to move through patient charts much more quickly than paper charts, attorneys are noticing that some doctors are not being thorough when writing notes electronically.
Recommendation: Physicians should keep meticulous electronic notes on each patient and take time to document each chart.

Mistake: Some practices can fail to safeguard electronic patient data.
Recommendation: Practices should encrypt all information on computer devices and have policy that discourages employees from taking portable devices out of the office.

Mistake: A system may not clearly indicate changes to records.
Recommendation: Physicians should install systems that show transparency when modifications are made and/or have a program lockout period where no more modifications can be made to a record.

Mistake: Doctors may fail to follow notification requirements in the event of a data breach.
Recommendation: Be clear on what your state law requires when a data breach occurs, and make sure employees follow the rules immediately.

Mistake: Doctors may destroy or delete electronic records when a lawsuit is possible.
Recommendation: If doctors suspect they are being sued, they must preserve all electronic data related to the patient in question, including emails, phone messages and computer records.

Missing is this, as is well-covered by almost 8 years of posts on this blog, and elsewhere:

Big mistake: Doctors and hospitals buy and implement experimental technology approved by nobody, of uncertain quality to the point of losing or corrupting data, often with glass-tube black-and-white TV user interface modernity. Such technology is "errorgenic", i.e., it promotes "use error", can mislead, and can promote medical errors.
Recommendation: Hold off until the industry has gotten its act together.

Also missing from the AMA News article is the fact that physicians and hospitals use health IT at their own risk, even if the IT is "certified."

This article is clearly pregnant with omissions and spin that reveal a pro-health IT bias.

-- SS

Three Golden Parachutes and Some Unexpected Sequels

Golden parachutes are an always fascinating aspect of executive compensation in health care.  I have collected three relatively recently revealed stories about golden parachutes given to government and non-profit hospital system CEOs, at least two of which involve unexpected, and also fascinating sequels.  They will appear in order of the apparent size of the parachutes.

Santa Clara Valley Health and Hospital System

Santa Clara Health and Hospital System is a county (government) system of moderate size in California.  Last week, the compensation given its outgoing CEO in 2010 was revealed by the San Jose Business Journal:

Former Santa Clara Valley Health and Hospital System CEO Kim Roberts walked away with an impressive chunk of change when she abruptly left the job in February 2010.

According to a city and county salary report released from the State Controllers Office, the position earned a little over $1 million that year.

A county spokeswoman confirmed that the total included accrued vacation, sick leave and other payments Roberts was entitled to.

The salary was the highest in the Bay Area for public employees in 2010.

Note that

Roberts was hired as CEO in March 2007 with a five-year contract. The agreement included a starting salary of $285,744 with annual salary adjustments, severance and other benefits.

The issue here is that Ms Roberts was the CEO of a local government run health system. Traditionally, the pay given to people in such positions is closely scrutinized by politicians and tax payers, and hence is usually less than that given out by private, non-profit hospital systems, much less for-profit ones. Nonetheless, while it appears that Ms Roberts got something more than $700,000 worth of compensation beyond her usual salary in her last year, the nature of this compensation, and the justification for it is unclear.

Erlanger Health System

The story that got my attention appeared two days ago in the Chattanooga Times-Free Press:

After more than a month of negotiations, Erlanger trustees reversed a previous vote and approved a controversial $728,000 severance package for outgoing CEO Jim Brexler.

Trustees voted 4-4 against the same severance package in December but voted 5-4 to approve it during a 30-minute meeting Monday morning.

More detail about the package:

The approved agreement provides 15 months of severance for Brexler, worth about $713,000. He also keeps his Erlanger health coverage for 18 months, paying his employee portion, a benefit worth about $15,000.

This story is actually a complex sequel. We discussed CEO compensation at Erlanger Health System, an academic medical center affiliated with the University of Tennesse, a year ago. At that time, we noted that a substantial bonus given to then CEO Jim Brexler was based on favorable financial results in the previous year, but did not apparently take into account the more recent decline in the system's finances. That bonus was justified by the typical paean to the leadership's "real expertise in health care" by one member of its board.

By last month, however, Erlanger's finances had deteriorated dramatically. A Free Press article then stated,

Erlanger hospital employees have been asked to take 12 days off in the next two months, consider voluntary buyouts and face possible layoffs as Chattanooga's only public hospital bleeds money.

The hospital has lost more $6 million in the last five months, half of that in November.

The reason for this accelerating misfortune deterioration remain unexplained. Apparently, CEO Brexler had decided to depart, for also unclear reasons, two months earlier:

In October, the hospital announced CEO Jim Brexler would retire at the end of the year.

At that time, the board had voted to give him the severance package described above, but then suddenly began to reconsider after how bad things were became clear:

The board voted earlier this month not to give Brexler a more than $700,000 severance package, but the issue may be brought back up, board members have said.

It was unclear whether the decline in Erlanger's finances had to do with its relationship with another troubled hospital, Hutcheson Medical Center, as described in another Free Press article:

Despite a new board, new management and the infusion of a $20 million line of credit, a struggling North Georgia public hospital continues to lose money.

Erlanger at Hutcheson, formerly known as Hutcheson Medical Center, lost more than $9 million in the first five months of the 2012 fiscal year, which began in July. It lost the most -- $2.7 million -- in September.

Hutcheson board Chairman Corky Jewell could not be reached for comment last week.

The hospital's administrator, Debbie Reeves, and other management personnel were not in the office the week between Christmas and New Year's, according to spokeswoman Haley Johnson.

The publicly funded hospital in Fort Oglethorpe had been losing about $1 million a month, defaulted on a $35 million bond and laid off 75 employees in fiscal year 2011.

In May, Erlanger Health System took over management of the hospital and extended up to $20 million in credit to it.

Apparently inflated compensation to Hutcheson's CEO was also a subject of one of our posts from about a year ago. At that time, we wrote, "despite a major financial loss, lay-offs and service discontinuations, and a bond default," the CEO got "bonus and incentive compensation" in 2009.

So, to summarize, despite major financial problems, Hutcheson Medical Center's CEO got a bonus and incentive compensation in 2009. As its situation got worse, it was taken over in some sense by Erlanger Health System, whose CEO also got a bonus despite increasing financial problems in 2010. Thereafter, the finances of Erlanger really declined, its CEO announced his retirement, and still will collect a golden parachute.

Thus Erlanger Health System's golden parachute for its outgoing CEO symbolizes the anti-gravitational powers of executive compensation. While lavish executive pay is often justified by short-term financial results, health care executives seem to be able to just keep collecting more and more until they have to flee. Health care seems to more and more be run for the benefit of self-interested insiders.

Also, this case demonstrates how skeptical we ought to be of the breathless praise for health care executives and managers and the uncritical touting of their latest advances and initiatives.  (By the way, we posted here, just before it became apparent how badly Erlanger's finances were collapsing, about its breathless advertisement of a "new service excellence program" for Erlanger employees run by the Ritz-Carlton hotel chain.  One wonders whether the attention to the peripheral ahead of core responsibilities this denoted could have been one reason for the system's decline.) 

And we are just working our way up to our big case....

University of Chicago Medical Center

This story actually dates back to 2009, but was first revealed briefly in late 2011, in Becker's Hospital Review,

The other three highest-paid hospital CEOs in Chicago in 2010 include the following:
• James Madara, MD, and Ken Sharigian, University of Chicago Medical Center: $7.9 million
Note: This includes severance for Dr. Madara, who resigned in Oct. 2009. Mr. Sharigian served as the interim in 2010.

A little more detail came out in a side-bar to a story on executive compensation in higher education by the Chronicle of Higher Education:

James L. Madara, dean of the school of medicine and chief executive of the medical center, U. of Chicago
Total compensation: $7,038,944
Mr. Madara’s base salary was $1.3-million, and he received $2.5-million in severance pay.

There was also a hint of why this was so interesting:

Mr. [sic] Madara stepped down after seven years as dean and three as chief executive to return to the faculty. He resigned amid controversy over his management decisions, such as a plan to redirect medical-center patients to neighboring hospitals, according to local news reports.

A little digging shows there was more to it than that. Recall our recent post that discussed the "Urban Health Initiative," a program ostensibly meant to direct some patients, allegedly mainly poor patients, to more appropriate health care venues, allegedly away from the Emergency Department of the university medical center, and again allegedly to make room for patients who need and whose insurance can pay for more lucrative services.

By February, 2009, the Wall Street Journal reported that

In February, two high-ranking doctors quit their administrative posts to protest the plan, saying it could lengthen already long waiting times for patients who visit the ER.

In particular,

The two doctors who gave up their administrative posts in Chicago were Dr. Vanden Hoek, who stepped down as interim chief of emergency medicine, and pulmonology researcher Joe G.N. Garcia, who had been chairman of medicine. The doctors still can practice medicine at the hospital.

About a dozen other doctors from the emergency room and other departments had signed a letter of protest over the hospital administration's plan to reduce the number of beds available to emergency patients in the ER and other units.

Three months later, as reported by Chicago Business,

Some University of Chicago Medical Center faculty members are accusing CEO James Madara of putting hospital finances ahead of research and teaching.

A letter delivered to Dr. Madaar last month and signed by 76 faculty members asserts that, since adding the hospital CEO title in 2006, Dr. Madara has lost focus on his role as a dean of the Hyde Park medical center's vaunted research and academic enterprise. A preocccupation with hospital profits and an 'insular management style' have 'disenfranchised' the faculty, the letter says.

By that month, according to the Wall Street Journal,

More than 190 doctors at the University of Chicago Medical Center signed a letter to trustees protesting plans to reduce the number of beds available to emergency patients as 'unnecessarily risky' and a threat to patient safety.

The plan was put on hold by the university president a few days later. Dr Madara resigned in August.

So, somewhat like the case above, this involved a hospital system CEO who got a very large golden parachute after leaving under fire, not for declining revenue, but for his role in overseeing a program of questionable ethics, one possibly bad for patients, and having lost the confidence of some important proportion of his medical faculty.

He did not, however, go off quietly into the night. His next stop was Leavitt Partners (as noted in this AMA press release), founded by former President George W Bush administration Secretary for Health and Human Services James Leavitt.

As we noted here, Leavitt Partners advertises that it "advises clients that invest in health care and food safety." It does not publicize its client list, but that list apparently includes Alliance Health Networks, whose press release noted that Leavitt Partners "will help it expand its presence in the US health industry and beyond "(look here); and Connextions, Inc, whose press release noted that it would work with Leavitt Partners to " refine existing health insurance exchange models for federal and state governments, as well as private sector organizations that are navigating health care reform law," (look here.)  Mr Leavitt joined the board of Medtronic last year (look here). 

Then, however, he got back into the CEO business.  While still maintaining a role at Leavitt, in 2011, per the AMA release,

The American Medical Association (AMA) today named James L. Madara, M.D., as its new Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer. Dr. Madara will assume leadership of the nation’s oldest and largest physician group on July 1.

That news release noted his past positions,

the Thompson Distinguished Service Professorship and deanship at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, where he was the longest serving Pritzker dean in the last 35 years. Subsequently, he added the responsibility of CEO of the University of Chicago Medical Center, bringing together the university’s biomedical research, teaching and clinical activities.

Perhaps not surprisingly, it did not mention the controversies at the medical center that preceded his resignation, nor his sizable golden parachute, nor his ongoing role at Leavitt Partners.

So, the American Medical Association claims to represent all US physicians and their values. It turns out that its current Executive Vice President and CEO is a former hospital system CEO who departed under fire with a golden parachute beyond any severance package a practicing or academic physician would dream about.  He also is a former and current consultant with a firm lead by one of our better recent examples of beneficiaries of the revolving door.  We have come a long, and the wrong way since the AMA asserted, "the practice of medicine should not be commercialized, nor treated as a commodity in trade." (See this post.)

This story is not just about the ridiculous compensation given to health care executives, and how this provides perverse incentives and suggests that many health care leaders have become insiders who put their self-interest ahead of the health care mission. This story is also about the connectedness of these insiders, and how they appear to control nearly every part of health care.

The Moral of the Stories

Maybe if I write this often enough, it will get some notice.... health care organizations need leaders that uphold the core values of health care, and focus on and are accountable for the mission, not on secondary responsibilities that conflict with these values and their mission, and not on self-enrichment. Leaders ought to be rewarded reasonably, but not lavishly, for doing what ultimately improves patient care, or when applicable, good education and good research. On the other hand, those who authorize, direct and implement bad behavior ought to suffer negative consequences sufficient to deter future bad behavior.

If we do not fix the severe problems affecting the leadership and governance of health care, and do not increase accountability, integrity and transparency of health care leadership and governance, we will be as much to blame as the leaders when the system collapses.

AMA, Deluded on Health IT, Begs For Doctor Penalty Extension - Not Penalty Termination

The American Medical Association (AMA) has become worse than useless:

AMA urges issuance of EMR penalties be delayed

Congressional Quarterly's CQ Weekly (3/14, Zeller) reports that "Congress strongly believes that electronic medical records will bring down the cost of healthcare, so much so that it has passed two laws providing incentives for doctors who upgrade their systems and levying penalties on those who don't."

But, the American Medical Association is urging that the penalties be delayed. Notably, the association "says a Government Accountability Office study released in February bolsters its point that the two laws create competing incentives that contradict each other." [Just our sub-15% approval rating Congress at work - ed.]

The article adds that the Department of Health and Human Services "announced that doctors will face penalties of 1 percent of their Medicare fees if they don't start issuing electronic prescriptions this year," which the AMA says would be a waste because physicians would buy e-prescribing software that they would discard when they install records systems in 2012.

[Lest they face other Medicare penalties for non-"meaningful use" of EMR's - ed.]

Aside from the Congressional mayhem created by conflicts between e-Prescribing and EMR coercion laws, if the AMA were not completely useless, and truly represented physicians (and patients), they'd be pushing not for a delay in penalties, but for their abolition.

This would help return HIT to a sensible voluntary path from the path of irrational exuberance it's now on.

-- SS

Effort to Make Health Insurance Reimbursement Fairer Lead by Director of Insurance Company Accused of Unfair Practices

We previously discussed a legal settlement of charges that UnitedHealth's Ingenix subsidiary manipulated its database of payments to physicians so as to reduce its and other insurers' payments to "out-of-network" physicians. 

One aspect of the settlement was a new initiative to better determine such payments.  Now that effort has been caught up in the web of conflicts of interests that has ensnared health care.  As reported by the Syracuse (NY) Post-Standard,

[New York state Attorney General Andrew] Cuomo obtained $100 million in settlements from 13 insurers, including Excellus, that used the defective reimbursement data supplied by Ingenix, a subsidiary of United Health, the nation’s second biggest insurer. Cuomo’s investigation showed insurers such as Excellus used that data to shortchange New York consumers by as much as 28 percent.

Also, the settlement included

money ... to create FAIR Health Inc., a New York City-based nonprofit that is supposed to come up with a new, fair reimbursement system that will be used by insurers nationwide. FAIR Health has contracted with SU [Syracuse University] to help create that database.

The effort was lead by SU Professor Deborah Freund, "a distinguished professor of public administration and economics. She also is an adjunct professor of orthopedics and pediatrics at Upstate Medical University."

However,

Freund also happens to be listed on the health insurance company’s payroll.


Excellus paid Freund $61,378 last year for serving on its board of directors, according to a financial report Excellus filed with the state last week.

After The Post-Standard spent several days investigating her ties to the insurance company, Freund quit the Excellus board Friday afternoon.

The Post-Standard noted,

But some consumer advocates said it was odd that a paid director of Excellus, one of the companies targeted in Cuomo’s investigation, was playing such an important role.

[Art] Levin, of the Center for Medical Consumers, said it was ironic that one of the people helping to fix a payment system riddled with industry conflicts of interest may have had a conflict of her own.

'This makes no sense whatsoever given that Excellus is part of the settlement,' Levin said.

Chuck Bell, programs director of Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports and an outspoken supporter of the payment reform project, was unaware of Freund’s ties to Excellus.

'I think it’s a concern because consumers do want this to be an entity that is independent of the insurance industry,' Bell said.

Among Freund's defenders was

Dr. Nancy Nielsen, immediate past president of the American Medical Association and a board member of FAIR Health, [who] said the AMA looked closely at Freund’s qualifications and her Excellus affiliation. She said the doctors’ group concluded her expertise is important to the project and was comfortable that there were enough safeguards in place to avoid any conflicts. Nielsen said FAIR Health would have independent experts not tied to the insurance industry review any recommendations from Freund’s research team.

But to add another level of irony, and perhaps conflict of interest, the Minneapolis - St Paul Business Journal just announced

The American Medical Association will use an electronic health records system from Ingenix, the company said Monday.

The Eden Prairie health care information technology said its Web-based CareTracker software will run on an AMA platform currently in beta testing with the Michigan State Medical Society and will launch nationwide later this year.

The platform is touted as a way to improve patient care, clinical efficiency and make administration simpler. CareTracker is the first such system that the AMA will provide to physicians online.

'Ingenix and the AMA will help doctors adopt health IT systems that reduce time spent on administrative tasks and enable them to devote more of their time to patient care,' said Bill Miller, Ingenix executive vice president of health care delivery systems, in a news release. 'Ingenix CareTracker integrates patient medical records and e-prescribing tools into the physician’s workflow. By selecting CareTracker for its platform, the AMA is helping physicians make smarter, more practical decisions about technologies to support their practice.'

Although we often discuss conflicts of interests involving physicians or health care academics who moonlight for drug and device companies, and the effects of these relationships on clinical research and medical education, it seems like the pervasive web of conflicts of interest in health care has entangled just about every kind of health care organization, health care decision-maker, and health care opinion leader.

Thus, we need to be extremely skeptical of just about everyone and every organization claiming to provide health care related goods and services, or whose goal is to improve any aspect of health care. The danger is that such skepticism will lead to cynicism and distrust.

At the least, comprehensive, detailed disclosure of all even indirectly relevant financial and other relationships by all health care decision-makers and opinion leaders at any level, whether they be individuals or organizations, would make it somewhat easier to assess their decisions and opinions.

AMA And Almost 100 Physician Societies Sound Off To CMS On Health IT, Use "F" Word

In a remarkable development, the American Medical Association and nearly one hundred other physician specialty societies submitted a letter to CMS on Mar. 15 (in PDF at http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/399/meaningful-use-comments-15mar2010.pdf).

These organizations wish to prevent physicians from purchasing ill conceived and poorly designed HIT that does not support better practice. The organizations also express deep concern about ominous reporting requirements and overly aggressive timelines, the latter an issue I've written about repeatedly such as in my formal reply to ONC's "Proposed Establishment of Certification Programs for Health Information Technology" at this link.

The entire letter is available at the PDF link above and is quite lengthy, but the section of the letter that immediately caught my eye is this:

... Aggressive timelines and criteria during the initial stage of the incentive program will only serve to undermine this effort. Some government officials have relayed that complex measures and high reporting thresholds are needed to discourage EPs ["eligible professionals" eligible for ARRA money -ed.] from switching back to the use of paper during this transition to EHRs.

We are very troubled by this assertion. Physicians are deeply supportive of and committed to incorporating well-developed EHRs into their practices to improve quality of care delivery, enhance patient safety, as well as support practice efficiencies. [Some are - many are not - perhaps the medical specialty societies need to stop acting as if they speak for all physicians - ed.]

It is also very unlikely that after physicians make a significant up front investment in health IT and changes to their workflow that they will revert back to manual processes.

That assertion, in fact, is not quite true, as in "Failure, De-installation Of EHRs Abound" here. However, coercion through ominous reporting requirements is not going to improve adoption rates and will undermine HIT efforts as well, for example via physician fear of the uses to which the data will be put by a coercive, authoritarian-leaning government.

Now comes what I believe is the most critical passage where the "F" word ("failure") is used:

We believe that the larger concern should be deterring the purchasing of costly EHR products that fail to improve physician workflow, patient care, and practice needs. Industry experts have cited that such failures have adversely affected EHR adoption rates ranging from 50 to 80 percent. [Mission hostile health IT falls into that category - ed.]

Note the acknowledgment of healthcare IT failure.

The letter was a bit weak in the area of patient safety related to HIT. Further, it presented physicians as monolithic eager adopters of HIT (a characterization that is most assuredly false), and minimized the issue of the messiness and Murphy's Law nature of IT installation and maintenance that often make IT a nightmare.

The fact, however, that a letter from the major medical societies challenged the irrational exuberance and beliefs in technological determinism that surround health IT (i.e., that computerization 'automagically' fosters improvement), and used the "failure" word is itself somewhat astonishing.

I was not inventing anything when I began writing about HIT difficulties over ten years ago using the "failure" word, merely reporting the obvious (to those sober about IT) from observation and reports of many colleagues.

It's good to see the rest of the medical world start to catch up with common sense.

-- SS

Addendum: the letter was also signed by the following groups:

American Academy of Dermatology Association
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Home Care Physicians
American Academy of Neurology Professional Association
American Academy of Ophthalmology
American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery
American Academy of Pain Medicine
American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
American Academy of Sleep Medicine
American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists
American College of Cardiology
American College of Chest Physicians
American College of Gastroenterology
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians
American College of Osteopathic Internists
American College of Osteopathic Surgeons
American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Physicians
American College of Radiation Oncology
American College of Rheumatology
American College of Surgeons
American Gastroenterological Association
American Geriatrics Society
American Medical Association
American Osteopathic Academy of Orthopedics
American Osteopathic Association
American Psychiatric Association
American Society for Clinical Pathology
American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
American Society for Radiation Oncology
American Society of Anesthesiologists
American Society of Clinical Oncology
American Society of Hematology
American Society of Nephrology
American Society of Plastic Surgeons
American Thoracic Society
American Urological Association
Heart Rhythm Society
Infectious Diseases Society of America
Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology
Medical Group Management Association
North American Spine Society
Renal Physicians Association
Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions
Society for Vascular Surgery
Society of Hospital Medicine
The Endocrine Society
Medical Association of the State of Alabama
Alaska State Medical Association
Arizona Medical Association
Arkansas Medical Society
California Medical Association
Colorado Medical Society
Connecticut State Medical Society
Medical Society of Delaware
Medical Society of the District of Columbia
Florida Medical Association, Inc.
Medical Association of Georgia
Hawaii Medical Association
Idaho Medical Association
Illinois State Medical Society
Indiana State Medical Association
Iowa Medical Society
Kansas Medical Society
Kentucky Medical Association
Louisiana State Medical Society
Maine Medical Association
MedChi, The Maryland State Medical Society
Massachusetts Medical Society
Michigan State Medical Society
Minnesota Medical Association
Mississippi State Medical Association
Missouri State Medical Association
Montana Medical Association
Nevada State Medical Association
New Hampshire Medical Society
Medical Society of New Jersey
New Mexico Medical Society
Medical Society of the State of New York
North Carolina Medical Society
North Dakota Medical Association
Ohio State Medical Association
Oklahoma State Medical Association
Oregon Medical Association
Pennsylvania Medical Society
Rhode Island Medical Society
South Carolina Medical Association
South Dakota State Medical Association
Utah Medical Association
Wisconsin Medical Society
Vermont Medical Society
Medical Society of Virginia
Washington State Medical Association
West Virginia State Medical Association
Wyoming Medical Society

The Role of the RUC in Medicare's Price-Fixing and Rationing Remains Anechoic

An important part of the noisy and contentious debate about health care reform in the US centers on the role of the government as a provider of health insurance. Some on the left want a government "single-payer" plan to be the only health insurance available. Some left of center want a government "public option" health insurance plan to be available, particularly to those who have trouble obtaining commercial insurance. Some on the right want none of it, and sometimes note that the existing government single-payer plan for the elderly and disabled, Medicare, has important faults that would only become more significant if the plan is extended or duplicated. Yet even critics of Medicare on the right do not seem to want to talk about what may be its worst fault.

The latest example, an op-ed piece by Dr Scott Gottlieb, appeared in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. Dr Gottlieb's main point was that health care rationing by either government or private insurers is inevitable, but that "government does it in far more byzantine and arbitrary ways." In particular,

Consider the $450 billion Medicare program. It provides a model for—indeed its bureaucracy could well end up running—the 'public option' health plan that Mr. Obama wants to offer all Americans under the age of 65. In recent years, Medicare's staff has been aggressively restricting coverage for costly treatments.

This often means limiting access to the costliest technologies. To do this Medicare relies on its rationing and pricing systems.

Gottlieb then cited several examples, "tortured decisions concerning the use of implantable defibrillators," and "the travails of the pharmaceutical company Spracor and its drug Xopenex, an innovative respiratory medicine that competes with the chemically distinct and much cheaper generic albuterol."

Finally Gottlieb decried Medicare's decision making processes applied to costly technologies as "impenetrable." His summation was

There's nothing inherently wrong with a program like Medicare seeking value for taxpayers. But it shouldn't make up the rules as it goes.

Let me first say that I actually agree with Dr Gottlieb's main points. Any government or private health insurance plan ought to seek value for its money. However, how it does so ought to be rational, based on understanding of medicine and the clinical context, and transparent and accountable to the patients on whose behalf such plans pay. "Covert rationing" (as has been well discussed in the Covert Rationing Blog) raises worries that decisions are being made just to save money, not to improve value, and even that decisions are being made without informed consideration of the clinical context, or based on the self-interest of the decision makers, or even that decisions may result from bribery and corruption.

But if Dr Gottlieb is so concerned about Medicare rationing care as a result of opaque and unaccountable decision making, why is he not more concerned about how Medicare controls the prices of physicians' services than about its decisions about a few expensive, high-tech and infrequently used treatments?

We have written again and again about how Medicare has allowed decisions about what physicians are paid for providing various services to be made de facto by an opaque private committee run by the American Medical Association. This decision-making process has lead to relatively generous payments for procedures, versus miserly payments for "cognitive services," (that is, "evaluation and management services," or for physicians interviewing, examining, and counseling patients, making diagnoses, predicting prognoses, and making decisions about treatment.) The resulting perverse incentives are a major reason that primary care has become increasingly unavailable, and for our expensive patterns of care dominated by high-technology and invasive procedures. More detail quoted from a previous post appears below.

As we have discussed, the US Medicare system determines what it pays physicians using the Resource Based Relative Value System (RBRVS). This system determines the pay for every kind of medical encounter according to a complex formula that is supposed to account for physicians' time and effort, physicians' practice expense, and the cost of malpractice insurance. The components of physicians' effort assessed are, in turn, technical skill and physical effort; the required mental effort and judgment; and stress due to the potential risk to the patient.

To keep the system, which was started in 1990, current, requires addition of new kinds of encounters, which means encounters involving new kinds of procedures, and updating of the estimates of various components, including physicians' time and effort. To do so, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) relies almost exclusively on the advice of the RBRVS Update Committee (RUC). The RUC is a private committee of the AMA, touted as an "expert panel" that takes advantage of the organization's First Amendment rights to petition the government. Membership on the RUC is allotted to represent specialty societies, so that the vast majority of the members represent specialties that do procedures and focus on expensive, high-technology tests and treatments. However, the identities of RUC members are secret, as are the proceedings of the group.

This opaque and unaccountable process has resulted in increases outstripping inflation in fees paid for procedures, while fees paid for 'cognitive" medicine,' i.e., for primary care, and for services that involve diagnosis, management of acute and chronic disease, counseling, coordination of care, etc, but not procedures, have lagged inflation. The effects of the RUC have been amplified by the unexplained tendency of commercial managed care and health insurance to track the RBRVS system when making their own payments to physicians.For further details about the RUC, see these posts on Health Care Renewal (here, here, here, here, and here) and important articles by Bodenheimer et al,(1) and Goodson.(2) By the way, why the US Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) relies de facto exclusively on the RUC to control the RBRVS system, and why the AMA made the RUC into a secret organization apparently beholden only to the organization's proceduralist members are unanswered questions.

Our most recent posts about the RUC are here, here, and here. Other bloggers, notably including Dr Robert Centor on DB's Medical Rants, have criticized the RUC. The Society of General Internal Medicine seems to be the only medical society that has criticized the RUC (see this post). Yet even ostensibly conservative and libertarian pundits who decry price-fixing and rationing by Medicare have ignored this vivid and important example of opaque and unaccountable price-fixing and rationing. And ostensibly liberal proponents of public options and single-payer systems have not explained how they would make their rationing more rational, transparent, and accountable, or how simply insuring more patients under Medicare-like programs would not result in even higher costs, poorer access, and worse quality.

The lack of discussion of the RUC remains one of the more striking examples of the anechoic effect. Failing to address why our costs are so high, are access is so poor, and our quality is so challenged will make it likely that any supposed reform effort will only make these problems worse.

References

1. Bodenheimer T, Berenson RA, Rudolf P. The primary care-specialty income gap: why it matters. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 301-306. Link here.
2. Goodson JD. Unintended consequences of Resource-Based Relative Value Scale reimbursement. JAMA 2007; 298(19):2308-2310. Link here.