Posts Tagged The New York Times

Mr. Orszag, Please Hold the Mayo

While we have spent the last two weeks using our GPS to report the 747 hospitals that the Hospital Value Index™ identified as Best in Value, we noticed over the weekend that Mr. Orszag is still lost with his Atlas.

In the September 27 edition of The New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg reports on the White House’s intensive lobbying efforts to find a Republican Senator to support its vision for health reform. One example cited is a dinner of “lamb loin and Scottish salmon” between Mr. Orszag and Senator Susan Collins, during which Mr. Orszag reportedly e-mailed questions to Dr. Dennis Cortese at the Mayo Clinic.

As articulated here before, the Mayo Clinic has much to recommend it, but low cost, high value healthcare is not among them. Having walked the corridors of hospitals in more than 30 states, I am certain that the medical foundation model is not something that can be replicated successfully throughout America. If, however, Mr.Orszag is bound and determined to use the medical foundation model as the blueprint for national reform, we would again suggest using the GPS to find his way. Using the GPS will point him to the Billings Clinic, which the Hospital Value Index™ reveals produces the highest value of any of the medical foundation or clinic model in the U.S.

Better yet, we would suggest that Mr. Orszag join us at the Voices of Value™ Summit to learn what the 747 Best in Value hospitals have in common that allows them to produce high value care in urban and rural America, in teaching and non-teaching settings, whether for-profit or not-for-profit.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Health Reform on September 30, 2009

A few thoughts on today’s news:

  • As widely reported, the Senate Finance Committee rejected two amendments to Senator Baucus’s America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 to establish a “public option”. The New York Times reported that Mr. Baucus voted against the amendments even though he thinks the public option is a good idea. Senator Baucus, perhaps taking the mantle of Senator Kennedy’s legacy, said, “My job is to put together a bill that will become law. In the Senate that means my job is to put together a bill that gets 60 votes.” It is a pity that more members of Congress fail to remember that is the reason we elected them.
  • In today’s edition of The New York Times, David Leonhardt’s column “’Cadillac Tax’ Offers Opportunity” (at least that is what the title was in the print edition) calls out special interests for subjugating the national interest to their personal interest. As stated previously, I am convinced that shared sacrifice on the part of all Americans is an essential component of comprehensive reform of the healthcare (insurance, delivery, and wellness) system. In particular, Mr. Leonhardt points out that the unions, whose members would likely be disproportionately affected by the “Cadillac Tax”, are vigorously fighting the concept. Calling out the A.F.L.-C.I.O. is serious business at the Old Grey Lady, so credit Mr. Leonhardt with speaking the truth. Mr. Leonhardt points out correctly that limiting the growth in the cost of healthcare is a key goal of reform – I say “correctly” because some folks in Washington have forgotten that is the real issue. Mr. Leonhardt also cites research from RAND Corporation and others that conclude that there is not a difference in health status between those with “Cadillac” plans and “Chevy Malibu” plans. Mr. Leonhardt also quotes Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at M.I.T., as saying, “Taking someone who’s uninsured and giving them insurance unambiguously improves their health”. I am not sure the evidence supports that, which I will discuss in more detail soon.
  • Today’s USA Today headline is “Millions in waste clogging Medicaid” (their capitalization, not mine). I am neither the first nor almost certainly the last to suggest that, if the White House really believes that health reform can be funded by eliminating fraud, abuse and waste, then time’s-a-wasting. Why do we need new legislation if we can address our cost issue with rooting out fraud, abuse and waste? Isn’t that the role the Office of the Inspector General? If the government is certain of the fraud, abuse, and waste and cannot end it, then why do we want the government taking more responsibility in healthcare? Perhaps We, the People, should require the Government to be faithful in the small things before granting them authority over the large things.
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

“10 Steps” vs. “10 Markets”: The Dartmouth Atlas vs. Hospital Value Index™ GPS

Last Wednesday and Thursday, The New York Times published 10 Steps to Better Health Care, an opinion piece by Atul Gawande, M.D., Donald Berwick, M.D., Elliott Fisher, M.D. and Mark McClellan, M.D. Like some who commented on the article, we are not quite sure what the “10 Steps” are.

We do, however, understand that the “10 Steps” are intended to point us to a broader spectrum of markets that might be instructive for understanding reform of the health care delivery system, which has recently been relegated to the background by the White House and Congress.

Once again, however, we think that using a GPS is a better homing device than an Atlas. As described in the article, Dr. Gawande et al. invited healthcare stakeholders from a diverse group of markets for a summit, presumably based upon information gleaned from the Atlas study.

We believe that canvassing diverse marketplaces is essential, so in that respect, we agree with the Atlas approach. At the same time, we think that selecting models for healthcare reform benefits from a robust and transparent analytical framework. As highlighted here before, we believe that the use of old Medicare data leads to erroneous conclusions as compared to more recent all-payer data.

Based upon our most recent Hospital Value Index study, we have identified the Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) with the highest value hospitals.

 

First, we compare the markets cited in The New York Times with the results of our study:

“10 Steps to Better Health Care”, New York Times, Dr.Gawande et al. Hospital Value Index™ Overall CBSA Rank Hospital Value Index™ Mean Index Score
Asheville, North Carolina 214 58.96
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 38 67.72
Everett, Washington 678 48.13
La Crosse, Wisconsin 39 67.68
Portland, Maine 225 58.72
Richmond, Virginia 269 57.33
Sacramento, California 524 51.92
Sayre, Pennsylvania 181 59.63
Temple, Texas 423 53.92
Tallahassee, Florida 202 59.21

We note that, as defined by ESRI, there are 939 CBSAs in the United States. While two of the markets highlighted by Dr. Gawande et al. have great merit, others are average at best. We offer the following markets as a substitute.

 

First, we offer a market ranking for the largest 100 CBSAs in the United States.

Hospital Value Index™ Top Market Rankings –100 Largest CBSAs

Market

Mean Index Score

Charlotte, North Carolina 66.92
Rochester, New York 62.18
Grand Rapids, Michigan 61.92
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 61.91
Knoxville, Tennessee 61.38
Omaha, Nebraska 61.01
Columbus, Ohio 60.42
Virginia Beach-Norfolk, Virginia 59.91
Youngstown, Ohio 59.48
Dayton, Ohio 59.19

We believe that high-performing large markets indicate patterns of practice that are fairly well-ingrained. We do not have objective research to explain the performance, though we know enough about the dynamics of these high-value markets to make educated guesses about the drivers of performance.

 

Second, we offer market rankings irrespective of size.

Hospital Value Index™ Top Market Rankings – All CBSAs

Market

Mean Index Score

Clarksburg, West Virginia 77.99
Maysville, Kentucky 77.26
Mayfield, Kentucky 75.46
Oil City, Pennsylvania 75.01
London, Kentucky 73.94
Billings, Montana 73.93
Williamsport, Pennsylvania 73.82
St. Joseph, Missouri-Kansas 72.02
St. George, Utah 71.36
Sioux City, Iowa-Nebraska-South Dakota 71.09

These markets are more similar in size to those selected by Dr. Gawande et al. Most of these markets are characterized by having only one hospital, which indicates outstanding performance by those hospitals. In turn, that performance may or may not be replicable and/or instructive for the nation as whole.

We remain very hopeful that the White House and Congress will eventually focus on healthcare delivery system reform as a foundation of healthcare reform. When they do, we suggest that a GPS will help us find our way more accurately than an Atlas.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

, , , ,

No Comments

The Trouble with Massachusetts

My mother lives on Martha’s Vineyard.

My wife and I always chuckle to hear her and others islanders refer to Massachusetts as “America”, as if the island has seceded from the Commonwealth and, incidentally, the United States. As I contrast the “reform” plans in Washington with the reality of the Massachusetts Connector from which key parts of the Senate HELP and House Tri-Committee plans are derived, I wonder if all of the residents of the Commonwealth are wondering what “America” is considering.

As outlined in The New York Times article entitled Massachusetts Takes a Step Back From Health Care for All, the Commonwealth has decided that they cannot provide the coverage that they promised. As a result, 30,000 legal immigrants are set to lose their coverage. Coincidentally, The New York Times reports that the Congressional Budget Office estimates House Tri-Committee bill released yesterday will leave only 17,000,000 people uninsured in 2019, of which nearly half would be illegal immigrants. Similarly, both legislators in the House and in Massachusetts believe that a surcharge on the wealthy, aka a tax increase, is the only way to make the math work.

It was not so long ago, even in 2008, when the federal government was in the habit of actually following the laws passed by Congress, such as the United States Bankruptcy Code. In that bygone era, some might have wondered whether the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence might weigh against the “reform” plans fashioned in the House in which a very small minority was hectored into financing benefits for the majority. Others might have pondered whether a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence-like program might constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, which many hold dear when applied to Roe v. Wade. In today’s world, however, federal judges will not uphold the United States Code in the GM bankruptcy, so I am skeptical that they will do so in healthcare reform.

What to do in response? As any good lawyer knows, when the law favors your side, argue the law; when the facts favor your side, argue the facts. The facts are that this great country was established by immigrants. It is my view that the enduring legacy of America has resulted from and depends upon the diversity and vibrancy that immigrants bring, whether physicians or scientists or engineers or farmers or laborers or artists. To think that the immigrant, and especially the legal immigrant, will bear the brunt of failed healthcare reform is appalling. To think that the Democratic Party will deliver the blow is, I suppose, their version of Nixon going to China.

True healthcare reform will not disadvantage the wealthy, and it will not break the back of the immigrant, who not so long ago were you and me. Shame on all of us if we allow that to happen.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Viewpoints on Reform – July 10

As pressure continues to build in Washington this week, several prominent voices are beginning to raise crucial questions:

Meanwhile, many healthcare executives on the provider and payer side wonder when Congress or the White House plan to think about changes to the delivery system itself, as opposed to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Many with whom I have spoken are especially puzzled given the prominent role of Nancy-Ann DeParle in the reform discussions. Ms. DeParle is very familiar with the provider side of healthcare generally, and one of the first real “medical home” delivery systems was built in her  hometown of Rockwood, Tennessee in 1996.

Real reform will only occur with changes to coverage, payment and delivery systems. Any “reform” that does not address all three legs of the stool will not be reform at all.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

$155B Down, $845B To Go

Ceci Connolly reports that Hospitals Reach Deal With Administration in the July 7 edition of The Washington Post. Unnamed sources report that the American Hospital Association, Federation of American Hospitals and the Catholic Health Association agreed to “contribute $155B over 10 years toward the cost of insuring the 47 million Americans without health coverage.” Approximately $100B will come through reduced Medicare and Medicaid payments, while $40B will come through “slowly reducing what hospitals get to care for the uninsured”, which presumably means lower payments to disproportionate share hospitals.

The White House has previously discussed plans to find $600B of “savings” from providers. In that context, the “contribution” by the hospitals of $155B appears to be a significant win, and the stock market seems to agree this afternoon. However, it is difficult to understand how the balance of providers make up the $445B difference.

Even so, hospitals have not fared as well as the pharmaceutical industry, whose “contribution” of $80B will not accrue to the government. In addition, it is likely that their “sacrifice” will be offset substantially or entirely by an increase in the number of new customers because of lower drug prices or the acquisition of health insurance. Along those lines, The New York Times published Sheryl Gay Stolberg and David Herszenhorn’s article Health Deals Could Harbor Hidden Costs on the front page of the July 8 edition.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Healthcare Reform: The New York Times vs. The New York Times

On occasion, I wonder if the editorial page of The New York Times believes that its audience is comprised of the demographic that the rest of the paper touts to advertisers. With respect to healthcare issues, the Op/Ed page is in stark contrast to its healthcare team of Reed Abelson, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Robert Pear and Jackie Calmes.

Compare the following:

  • HELP Is on the Way, an opinion piece published today by Paul Krugman, the economist and Nobel Laureate. The crux of his assertion is that the Senate HELP Committee was unfairly derided in mid-June when it released it first draft proposal; all the Senate HELP Committee had to do was finish drafting the bill, and, magically, the cost of the bill was reduced to $597B. I quote:  “The budget office says that all this would cost $597 billion over the next decade. But that doesn’t include the cost of insuring the poor and near-poor, whom HELP suggests covering via an expansion of Medicaid (which is outside the committee’s jurisdiction). Add in the cost of this expansion, and we’re probably looking at between $1 trillion and $1.3 trillion.” Oh, right, $600B for health reform that does not cover the cost of insuring the poor and the near-poor, which I thought was the point for people like Krugman. Not to worry, “much of the expense can be offset with straightforward cost-saving measures, like ending Medicare overpayments to private health insurers and reining in spending on medical procedures with no demonstrated health benefits”. I am curious whether the “serious health economists” he references think his prescription is just a little too easy; I am sure what serious healthcare executives think.
  • In contrast, the recurring feature “The Work-Up” reflects a more serious view of the issues before the country. For example, read Jackie Colmes’ article Revisions to Health Bill Are Unveiled by Democrats, which more clearly and accurately describes the Congressional Budget Office’s Analysis of the HELP Bill, or her article Obama and Congress Clash on How to Pay for Health Care. Another example is Reed Abelson’s article Insured, but Bankrupted by Health Crises, which we have posted about before.

I am well aware of the historic difference between reporting and editorials, and I hope that the difference between the two is easily distinguishable in this blog. Even so, healthcare reform is too important for Nobel Prize winning economists to use those credentials to make glib policy arguments. Americans, and particularly the uninsured, deserve better.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Why Value in Healthcare is Important

In the June 30 edition of The New York Times, Reed Abelson wrote an article entitled Insured, but Bankrupted by Health Crises. The article focused on the story of an individual forced into bankruptcy based on costs that were not reimbursed under his “limited benefit” policy.

As someone who lives daily on the precipice of medical bankruptcy, I know very well that “limited benefit” policies are just one example of the problem. Healthcare is personal to all of us, of course, and I know that everyone has at least one compelling example of how the healthcare system, broadly defined, has failed them.

In my case, my oldest child has Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD), the most severe form of the many muscular dystrophies. In most cases, DMD is an inherited condition, with the mother as a carrier of the genetic mutation. Boys have a 50-50% chance of inheriting the gene, and girls have a 50-50% chance of becoming a carrier.

DMD is terminal, with an average life expectancy of 19 or 20. To date, there is no cure, and the general progression results in boys being confined to a wheelchair by age 12 or 13. While the boys are “up”, as we refer to it, the only therapies are physical therapy and a steroid regimen to maintain muscle strength as long as possible. Once the boys are “down”, they are relegated to a wheelchair for the rest of their lives. Ultimately, they succumb to the atrophy of the heart or the lung.

You might think that the rarity of the condition would be accounted for in the actuarial tables, and that standard health insurance policies, as opposed to “limited benefit” policies, would cover DMD. Sadly, that is not the case. As a result, I live daily with the words of the Keith Urban song, “But for the grace of God go I”.

Since we learned of our son’s condition, we have been covered under five separate insurance plans: once by United, three times by Blue Cross Blue Shield plans, and once by HealthSpring. Of those five plans, none paid more than $2,500 toward an electric wheelchair, the list (i.e. chargemaster) price for which is north of $50,000. Of those five plans, one did not pay for any physical therapy, while the other four capped the number of visits between 20-24 per year. Of the four plans that provided physical therapy, all of them paid the provider a percentage of charges. Our provider charged $400 per hour. Since we have an HSA, we used our deductible very quickly.

So, why value and not just quality? For many things in healthcare, quality is a given, while for other things, it is “the only thing”. For us, physical therapy consisted of stretches and limited physical activity, my favorite example of which was Wii bowling. Is quality is a key factor to evaluate in playing the Wii? Is It Worth It® to pay $400 an hour to have your child play a Wii?

For you, maybe the relevant example is a blood draw, or an ankle x-ray, or a throat swab for strep – quality should be, and usually is, assumed in those examples. In such a case, the other elements of value, such as price, efficiency, convenience, access, and experience, should be the determining factors in choice. On the other hand, if you need brain surgery, quality is probably the dominant factor in your decision, and price, if you have insurance, the least.

The issue for America at this point in history is that there are relatively few brain surgeries and an abundance of blood draws and ankle x-rays and throat swabs. We can afford to pay premium prices for premium services, but we cannot and should not pay premium prices for commodities. Our goal is to help people figure out the difference between commodities and premium services, and everything in between.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Other Media Viewpoints on Health Reform

  • Lost in almost any media coverage of healthcare reform is a discussion of the Wyden-Bennett bill, a bipartisan effort with the support of 14 Senators; David Brooks remedies some of this with his June 23 column in The New York Times entitled “Something for Nothing”.
  • For a Constitutional perspective of the “public option”, check out “Is Government Health Care Constitutional” by David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Lee Casey in The Wall Street Journal. In addition to an interesting argument based on Roe v. Wade, there is great irony in using the arguments that one Connecticut politician made as a Supreme Court law clerk in 1972 against the arguments that another Connecticut politician is making as a Senator in 2009.
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

, , , ,

No Comments