DrRich has pointed out several times that it is very important to our new healthcare system, as a matter of principle, to be able to discriminate against the obese.

The obese are being carefully groomed as a prototype, as a group whose characteristics (ostensibly, their lack of self-discipline, or their sloth, or their selfishness, or whatever other characteristics we can attribute to them to explain how their unsightly enormity differentiates them from us), will justify “special treatment” in order to serve the overriding good of the whole.

The obese are a useful target for two reasons. First, their sins against humanity are painfully obvious just by looking at them, so it is impossible for them to escape public scorn by blending in to the population, unlike some less obvious sinners such as (say) closet smokers, or pedophiles. And second, since true morbid obesity almost always has a strong genetic component, successfully demonizing the obese eventually will open the door to the demonization of individuals with any one of a host of other genetically mediated medical conditions.

Readers who wonder why this is a big deal need to go back and study the original Progressives, for whom some form of genetic purification was an indispensable step toward achieving societal perfection. This was true not only for notorious eugenicists such as Woodrow Wilson, H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and Margaret Sanger, but also for the kinder, gentler Progressives we generally revere even today, such as Theodore Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and even Mohandas Gandhi.

This sort of thinking fell out of vogue, for obvious reasons, after World War II. So it is no longer cool to talk openly about genetic cleansing.

But discriminating against people who have genetic health disorders (in the name of achieving an optimally efficient healthcare system for the purpose of cost saving) would be a start. And the obese have been selected as the most acceptable prototype for such treatment.

In this light, a recent article in the Public Library of Science Medicine Journal has created something of a problem for the anti-obesity movement. This article compared the lifetime cost of healthcare (beginning at age 20) for obese individuals and for smokers to the lifetime cost for non-smokers who maintained a healthy weight. Naturally, the study concludes that the healthy individuals can expect to live longer than the obese and the smokers (84 years vs. 80 and 77 years, respectively). However, the healthy young people will consume $400,000 in lifetime healthcare costs, vs. only $365,000 for fat people and $321,000 for smokers. (The cost savings in the obese and the smokers arise from their relatively premature deaths.) Therefore, healthy people, over their lifetime, are a bigger drain on the healthcare system than the obese and the smokers.

The reason this study presents a problem  is that it appears to contradict a central axiom of our present program. Specifically, it places in some peril our deeply held conviction that the obesity epidemic is one of the major threats to the stability of our healthcare system.

The added costs which the obesity epidemic poses to our healthcare system has become a touchstone, to the extent that it has become acceptable even in polite circles to openly discriminate against, if not overtly disdain and humiliate, the obese. Mississippi is considering legislation to prevent the obese from eating in restaurants. And in Britain, whose healthcare system has been held up as a model for Americans, doctors themselves are saying that obese patients should be barred from receiving medical services. (Though, in defense of his physician colleagues, DrRich wishes to point out that these same medical humanitarians are also calling for the withholding of medical care from the elderly and smokers – so perhaps they are not being unusually unkind to the fat.)

In light of this, what are we to do with this new study which says that obesity saves money for the healthcare system? Do we reverse course, and embrace this “obesity dividend?” Do we encourage supersizing, and, far from refusing to serve them, offer the overweight free second portions? Do we give them deeply discounted heavy-duty suspensions? Better yet, do we give away free Marlboro starter packs to the fat? (Just think how much money we’d save with obese smokers.)

Thankfully, no.

DrRich has pointed out innumerable times the absurdities we find ourselves promoting when the chief purpose of the healthcare system becomes avoiding costs rather than maximizing health, that is, when its chief job is covert rationing. It is therefore gratifying to say that this is one of those cases where we don’t have to engage in such absurdities. Let’s be plain about it: We don’t need to reevaluate our current vilification of obesity (and smoking) just because people who have these conditions may save us money in the long term.

The reason? We don’t care about the long term.

Who cares that, in 50 or 60 years, today’s healthy 20-year-olds are going to cost us a lot of money? They’re likely to be entirely free to our healthcare system for at least several decades. In contrast, today’s obese and today’s smokers, what with their chronic diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, joint replacements, strokes, lung disease, &c., are costing us a lot of money right now.

If we actually cared about the long term, we’d be doing something about the Social Security and Medicare entitlements we’ve already signed up for, which in a little more than 20 years will require confiscating more than 50% of each American paycheck, just in payroll deductions. (Never mind income tax.) Heck, just looking at their pay stubs will probably cause most of today’s healthy 20-year-olds to die of apoplexy by the time they’re 40. In any case, the entitlements we’re obligated to provide will threaten societal disintegration long before today’s healthy young adults ever need elder care. Consoling yourself with the idea of projected long-term savings when you’re facing such a fiscal catastrophe is like consoling yourself with the idea of beautiful spring alpine flowers when you’re directly in the path of an onrushing avalanche. Projected long-term savings are completely irrelevant.

The obesity dividend is just smoke, and can be safely ignored. For the greater good of our social welfare, we’re far better off doing what we’re doing today – castigating and humiliating the obese into right actions, and if that fails, then (following the example provided by the British healthcare system which Dr. Berwick and others urge us to use as a model) discriminating against them when they need healthcare. Once we’ve established this useful prototype, we can apply it to whatever additional groups we can identify as targets of our collective indignation.

Whatever it takes to avoid confronting the rationing issue head on.

Since the late 1990s, American physicians have labored under a set of tortuous documentation requirements imposed upon them by our government. The E&M guidelines (for “evaluation and management”), apply to the documentation that physicians are now obligated to provide in support of their Medicare billing. The E&M guidelines, first instituted in 1995 and revised in 1997, were part of the Clintons’ great fraud reduction initiative. Ostensibly, the strict documentation requirements reduce the opportunity for fraudulent billing.

While doctors initially railed against the E&M guidelines, they now suffer them in relative silence. The E&M guidelines have become, in fact, just one more hurdle which doctors must navigate as they pick their way through the vast obstacle course that now defines the practice of American medicine. Indeed, younger doctors accept the odious documentation requirements as a matter of course, knowing nothing better, just as children born into the direst third-world slums accept their abject poverty without notable complaint.

But occasionally, physicians of a certain age, dimly remembering how it ought to be, will still complain about these guidelines. One of these is revered fellow blogger DB, who (unlike DrRich) is still in the trenches, and must deal with – and try to teach trainees how to navigate through – this abomination on a daily basis. Accordingly, DB is periodically moved to remind us of what he graciously believes to be the unintended consequences resulting from the E&M guidelines, which is to say, DB seeks to remind us that current medical documentation requirements get in the way of good and efficient patient care.

For some, however, even this sort of mild-mannered, exceedingly polite objection is not to be countenanced. One of DB’s correspondents fired back at him:

“The templates are there to serve as a guide, not a hinderance. If you don’t like your “guide” then work to change it. You shouldn’t look at this “guide” as a form of billing, but rather as a guide in making sure you have covered your bases when seeing the patient. Proper documentation can lead to quality care and positive patient outcomes.”

This, indeed, is the official government position on E&M guidelines. It is so official, in fact, that it moves DrRich to wonder whether Cass Sunstein has actually implemented his well-documented anti-conspiracy strategy, and thus has dispatched armies of government-approved agents to monitor and actively counter “untruths” which are unfriendly to government aims, wherever they are found.

In any case, DrRich is not as polite (or as circumspect) as DB, and so he will say it outright.

The E&M guidelines were established for the specific purpose of controlling the behavior of physicians, to further the goals of covert rationing.

First and foremost, they create a Regulatory Speed Trap of the first order, so that with each and every patient encounter the item that will be foremost in the physician’s mind is not the needs of the patient, but in filling out the complex documentation in such a way as to avoid the appearance of committing a fraud. In practical terms, this means filling out the documentation so as to blend in with the masses, so that one’s records will be passed over by the sharp eyes of the greedy forensic accountants (who are paid by commission for detecting instances of substandard documentation, which are now construed as “fraud”), or even worse, by the sophisticated software now being deployed to detect ever-more nuanced gradations of “outliers.”

A classic post by The Happy Hospitalist describes the mysteries of E&M documentation better than any other attempt DrRich has seen. HH’s description of the documentation hoops through which physicians now must jump is detailed enough that it’s actually difficult to read. Which is the point.

Through their utter opacity and complexity, only partially reflected by the 48 pages of dense prose that comprise them, the E&M rules (for “rules” is what they are) in fact greatly magnify the doctor’s opportunity for making inadvertent documentation errors, and thus of producing a “fraudulent” bill. HH’s post nicely demonstrates how writing a progress note according to the E&M rules requires assembling a complicated set of “elements” from Column A and Column B, as from a Chinese menu, for each of four subject areas of the patient encounter – the history, the physical exam, the assessment, and the plan. Then somehow, one must translate the result (which reads like – and often is – a computer-generated form letter) into the proper, fully-supported billing code.

Even if this mess led to a straightforward means of determining proper billing codes (which it does not), it results in a medical progress note that is virtually undecipherable. This means that when another doctor (or even the same doctor on a different day) tries to read the progress notes to figure out what’s been going on with the patient (which used to be the point of medical progress notes, before they became primarily a vehicle for auditors), they cannot. Compliance with the E&M guidelines can thus actively confound patient care.

When the E&M guidelines were first introduced, they were recognized immediately by doctors as a complete abomination. Indeed, the great hue and cry from angry physicians (and the arrival on the scene of a new Republican administration) caused the Secretary of HHS to appoint a special commission to review the E&M guidelines in 2001. The commission concluded that indeed, the E&M guidelines were entirely counterproductive to patient care, and in June, 2002 voted (20-1) to recommend abandoning them altogether.

But HHS declined to follow the recommendations of its own commission, instead leaving the E&M guidelines in force “temporarily,” and vaguely promising to revise them “soon” in order to make them less dangerous to patient care – knowing full well that the saurian lassitude of the bureaucracy would easily outlast the fleeting indignation of the medical community.

(This simple example ought to teach us how difficult it will be to roll-back any of our new healthcare reforms in the future, even ones that are officially deemed to be harmful.)

Accordingly, not only has HHS failed to take (or, alternately, succeeded in not taking) steps to revise the E&M guidelines, they also have vigorously pressed forward with audits and prosecutions for the federal crime of healthcare fraud, based on physicians’ inadequate compliance with them. And, as the bureaucrats must have predicted, there has not been any substantial noise from doctors about revising these guidelines for several years now.

What’s more, there never will be. Save for the occasional exhortation from an old fossil (sorry, DB), the E&M guidelines have been fully absorbed into modern medical practice. They have become normal.

Accordingly, a multi-million dollar industry has sprung up to help physicians better comply with these coding guidelines. Physicians across the country are spending the time and money allotted for their continuing medical education learning to become better accountants, rather than better physicians.

Which brings DrRich to his last point: It is not actually possible to follow the E&M guidelines to anyone’s satisfaction.

There is, in fact, no “correct” way to code, because correct coding is impossible. This verity was proven a few years ago when a group of specialized government-sanctioned coders took a sample of typical doctor-patient visits, coded them according to their own E&M guidelines – and they all got different answers. (The results of this study were published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine in September, 2002.)

Obviously, then, since there is no “right” way to comply with the coding rules, any doctor toward whom the fickle finger of fate points the Feds is very likely to be found guilty of abuse, if not outright fraud. And what we’ve got here is a well-documented, openly acknowledged, peer-reviewed and published Regulatory Speed Trap.

Here’s what happens to doctors who are found to commit coding abuse (which is to say, to any doctors who are visited by Federally-sanctioned auditors):

1) A small sample of their patients’ charts is audited.
2) The error rate (with the auditor determining retrospectively what an error is) is calculated for that sample, then that rate is applied by extrapolation to all the Medicare billing the doctor has done for the past 6 years (the statute of limitations).
3) For each violation in coding the doctor is calculated to have committed during those six years, the doctor must pay a) triple the amount of restitution, and b) $11,000.00 (per coding violation).

It is not unusual for audited doctors to be hit with hundreds if not thousands of coding violations over a 6-year period, and the fines will almost always amount to well over 7 figures, if not 8. Even rich doctors usually can’t afford that kind of damage. However – if it’s just abuse the doctor has committed and not fraud – often the Feds may offer a settlement deal in the low 7 figures.

And here’s what happens if the coding violations are judged to be fraudulent (which, unfortunately, often appears a somewhat arbitrary designation):

1-3) All the above.
4) Jail

In summary, DB makes a very legitimate point, and has made this point several times over several years. Namely, the E&M coding rules are highly counterproductive to patient care. They produce medical records that are fundamentally undecipherable regarding actual medical content, even by medical professionals; and they distract physicians, with every patient encounter, into a fraud-avoidance exercise.

Sadly, however, DrRich does not believe that merely pointing out the harm being caused to thousands of patients each and every day by the E&M guidelines will do any good. Believing that it might do some good to call the Feds’ attention to it assumes that the harm is an unintended consequence, or at least, that it would be considered too high a price to pay.

This, DrRich feels obligated to reiterate, is demonstrably not the case. The Feds know that the E&M guidelines are harmful to patient care. Their own commission came to that very conclusion in 2002. The Feds know that failing to comply perfectly with the E&M guidelines in each and every case does not really indicate fraud and/or abuse, but is the necessary outcome when you institute a complex set of rules that not even the government’s own coders can interpret. Reminding the Feds of these facts, in public, may make them angry, but it will not change their position on E&M guidelines.

That the Feds continue to impose the E&M guidelines on physicians, despite the harm that they know this causes, tells us something very important about their underlying motives. When you are in the business of covertly rationing healthcare, controlling the physicians is Job One. And as George Orwell observed for us, when you want to control the behavior of some population, a critical step is to control the mode, the rules, and even the very language of communication.

That physicians continue to comply with such oppressions, despite the harm they know this causes, and (with notable exceptions) without serious complaint, tells us something important about them, too. DrRich would rather not say what that is.

________________________________

Now, read the whole story.

DrRich explains it all in, Fixing American Healthcare – Wonkonians, Gekkonians and the Grand Unification Theory of Healthcare.

Now on Kindle!

The following is a close approximation of a talk DrRich gave to a gathering of some of the world’s most promising young cardiac electrophysiologists, in Nice, France, on June 15, 2010. He was asked to talk to these young physicians about physician-industry relationships. The organizers of this gathering apparently did not know, as anyone who reads this blog would know, that DrRich should never, ever be allowed an opportunity to influence promising young physicians.  But, what’s done is done.

* * * * * * * *
A worldwide controversy is now roiling over the appropriate relationship between physicians and industry. Superficially at least, this controversy has to do with the undisputed fact that a physician’s relationship with industry can unduly influence his or her behavior.

That is, this controversy is said to be related to the conflicts of interest (COI) that are always inherent, to some degree, in such relationships.

I believe there is a deeper, and far more disturbing, reason behind this controversy, and I will address it in a short while.  But let’s first talk about COI, because it is ostensibly the chief concern, and it is in fact a very important issue.

A COI is present when an individual has a sacred, fiduciary duty (i.e., a duty of trust) to Entity A, but then develops a secondary relationship with Entity B, which (by creating self-interest, competing loyalties, or even just an inability to be objective), threatens to interfere with the primary duty to Entity A.

Physicians, especially academic physicians, have (at various times) at least three primary fiduciary duties that must take priority. These are: a duty to patients when practicing medicine; a duty to students (i.e., actual students, colleagues, or the public) when teaching; and a duty to society (and truth itself) when conducting medical research.  It is clear that ties with specific companies and their products can easily create important COI that may interfere with each of these primary fiduciary duties, and it is equally clear that physicians have commonly allowed this interference to happen.

Far more often than we like to imagine, doctors have allowed bias to creep in when recommending a course of action for their patients, in imparting knowledge to trainees, colleagues or the public, or when designing, analyzing or reporting results of clinical trials. And typically, most doctors who exercise inappropriate bias have convinced themselves that they are really acting in the best interests of their patients, students or society at large. For it is quite difficult to be objective about one’s own COI.

And there is no question that industry has become adept at the gentle art of creating COI among physicians (subliminally whenever possible), and have carefully incorporated the creation of such conflicts into their business models.

Obvious abuses we have all seen include doctors “shilling” for companies or their products at national meetings; clinical guidelines committees seeded with biased members; unbelievable amounts of money (well above “fair market value) being paid to key doctors for consulting services; long advertisements disguised as CME events; and ghost-writing scientific papers, then recruiting prominent physicians to sign on as “authors” after the fact. There are many others.

Such ongoing abuses of our fiduciary duties ought to be deeply embarrassing to us in the medical profession.

And if it’s not embarrassing, it is at least becoming painful. In the US, physicians who are discovered doing some of these things are being called out publicly, being investigated by Congress if not the Justice Department, losing their prestigious academic positions, and having their reputations destroyed. It is hard to be sympathetic toward them.

Despite all the negative attention – both public and legal – that such COI have brought to our profession in recent years, many of us continue to have tin ears.  A recent example, which has caused a stir in the blogosphere if nowhere else, happens to relate to the EP community. (Thanks to Larry Huston of Cardiobrief who did the heavy lifting on this one. )

Recently, the ACC/HRS collaborated in the launch of a new website, called AFibProfessional.org, which is described as “a unique collaboration to address atrial fibrillation for the cardiology community.” The site has only one corporate sponsor – Sanofi, the maker of Multaq.

At the time of launch, all the content on this new website consisted merely of old, recycled material from older ACC and HRS websites, with a single exception. The single exception was a slide lecture by a prominent electrophysiologist, who we all know and love, on “Managing Atrial Fibrillation.”  This lecture makes a strong case for the off-label, off-guideline use of Multaq. The lecture was posted without any COI disclosure statements, though the lecturer, it turns out, has significant financial ties to Sanofi.  When the matter became a public issue, the lecture was pulled from the site, and the ACC promised to investigate. A few days later, the investigation apparently completed to the ACC’s satisfaction, the lecture was reposted, this time with a COI disclosure.

While one hesitates to suggest malfeasance here, it certainly looks bad.  For the ACC and HRS to co-sponsor a brand new website that , by all appearances, is chiefly a vehicle for advertising Multaq suggests, if nothing else, that we in the medical profession, and our professional organizations, still don’t get it. If we don’t police our own COI, it will be policed for us.

What remedy should be applied?  A reasonable approach would be to recognize that physician-industry ties will always bring at least some COI, and to manage the problem by strictly limiting inappropriate COI, and fully disclosing any that remain.

Accordingly, a number of groups – most prominently the Institute Of Medicine – have recently made formal, and tough, recommendations regarding physician-industry relationships. The final “rules” under which we will all have to live are still being negotiated.

But it is highly likely that they will include many if not all of the following:

-    Doctors should not accept any gifts, no matter how small, from industry. These include trivialities such as pens and notepads, and more substantial gifts such as meals and travel.
-    Doctors should not give presentations in which content is controlled or influenced by industry.
-    Doctors should not consult for industry without a written contract, nor should they receive more than “fair market value” for consulting activities.
-    Doctors should not accept drug samples from industry.
-    Doctors who have a financial interest in a product or company should not participate in clinical trials in any capacity that involve that product or company, including patient enrollment, data collection, analysis or reporting.
-    Doctors who have industry ties should not participate in the development of clinical guidelines.
-    Medical schools and professional organizations should not accept direct funding, or attributable funding, for CME.
-    Any interaction with industry will be fully disclosed, and made publicly available.

What this “full disclosure” will look like can be seen in the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, a law which is pending in the US. Under this act,  all “transfers of value” totaling $100 or more in a year to any physician will be reported by each company to the government annually, along with each physician’s identifying information. Such “TOV” includes food, trinkets, entertainment or gifts; travel; consulting fees or honoraria; funding for research or education; stocks or stock options; ownership or investment interest, and any other economic benefit.  This information will be posted on a public, searchable government website. Companies will be fined $10,000 for each incident of an unreported TOV.

You younger physicians will be spending your careers in a COI environment that is significantly different from that which we, your elders, have experienced. Activities that have been acceptable, and even encouraged, will now cause you to be publicly stigmatized, or worse. This matter is in great flux, and you need to pay close attention to it as the rules are changing. In the meantime, you need to choose your interactions with industry very carefully, and very circumspectly.

Everything I have just discussed assumes that the real issue regarding doctor-industry relationships is COI. Indeed, everything I have discussed assumes a particular way of looking at industry relationships, which I will call Theory A. Theory A, goes as follows:

Theory A:

-  Medical progress is Good, and benefits mankind.
-  Industry is responsible for a high proportion of medical progress.
-  Industry-driven progress requires the active participation of physicians.
-  Therefore, a well-managed cooperation between industry and physicians is beneficial to mankind, and ought to be encouraged.

If you subscribe to Theory A you believe that, because well-managed physician-industry relationships benefit mankind, these relationships are good. So, fundamentally, it’s the management of these relationships which is at issue. These beneficial relationships produce unavoidable COI, which we must manage by strictly limiting their extent, and fully disclosing the ones that are left.

On the surface, at least, that’s what the debate is about – where to draw the necessary limits.  But just below the surface, the debate is about something else entirely. Beneath the surface, Theory A is rejected outright.

Today we hear prominent voices telling us that merely managing COI does not go far enough. No amount of COI is acceptable, and ALL physician-industry ties should be prohibited.  Among these is Jerome Kassirer, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, who says, “The ideal handling of COI is not to have them at all.” For these voices, Theory A simply does not apply. Rather, (I submit) they subscribe to Theory B:

Theory B:

-    The greed of medical industry creates excessive costs, and produces far more harm to society than good.
-    Physician-industry alliances strengthen industry, and increase the harm.
-    Therefore, crippling these unholy alliances is critical to the interests of society.

A corollary of Theory B is that it can only be the State’s job to cripple these alliances.

Proponents of Theory B, noting, not incorrectly, that medical industry is chiefly concerned with profits rather than the public good, conclude that industry will always behave in ways that are counter to the interests of society.  While many proponents of Theory B will agree that industry provides at least some benefits, they are convinced that these benefits are far outweighed by the harm they produce. Therefore, Theory B proposes to stifle, if not cripple, medical industry. And a very useful strategy for achieving this goal is to de-legitimize any practical relationships whatsoever between medical industry and physicians.

Proponents of Theory B rarely say what their real goal is. Most of them give lip service to Theory A. One must discern their real motives from their behavior.

Much of that behavior, in practical terms, has to do with controlling the flow of information. Let industry develop whatever it wants (perhaps), but don’t let profit-drunk industry – or its greedy physician spokespersons – instruct doctors and patients on who gets to use industry’s products, or when and how.

That kind of information can only be managed by unbiased sources. Proponents of Theory B invariably refer to government-appointed panels of experts to determine which products of industry are good and bad, and to manage the flow of information about them. Information coming from anywhere else is to be regarded as being charged with bias and greed, and should be ignored, or even suppressed.

Inherent in this viewpoint is the notion that the State is an honest broker, with no bias of its own, except to do what is best for the population. The State, in its disinterested beneficence, is the only civil entity which can pass judgment on which medical information is suitable for general consumption.

But even as a general proposition, no government is an unbiased and honest broker. Politics, according to Harold Lasswell, an early Progressive political scientist, is determining who gets what, when and how. Government officials do not cancel their own human nature when they put on a government name tag. As they go about the business of determining who gets what, when and how, they inevitably – and most often intentionally – create various favored constituencies, fiefdoms, and clienteles to suit their own goal. That goal is to consolidate and expand their own authority. In this way, in the exercise of its political mandate the government always creates co-dependencies, and determines winners and losers. So even in the general case, the government cannot be an honest broker.

But with regard to healthcare, government bias goes far beyond the general case. Healthcare spending is the chief problem governments face today. In the US, projected Medicare expenditures over the next 30 – 40 years will be $35-55 trillion. Numbers like this are deeply destabilizing, and simply cannot be abided, and promise nothing but chaos, revolution, and societal disintegration.

To the State, controlling healthcare spending is an existential problem, a matter of life and death, an issue that justifies any solution that has even a slight chance of working.

Why is the cost of healthcare rising so rapidly? Fundamentally, it is medical progress. Medical progress has greatly increased overall healthcare expenditures. Simply consider, for instance, the many fatal illnesses we have converted to chronic, and chronically expensive diseases – coronary artery disease, kidney disease, HIV/AIDS, various forms of cancer, and heart failure, to name a few.  Medical progress has made great strides in early detection and prevention, and preventive medicine always increases the cost of care.  And thanks at least partly to medical progress, life expectancies are on the rise, and people have many more years to consume healthcare.

Medical progress is very expensive, and the more we have of it the more it costs. The State can only look at medical progress and say, “Medical progress is killing us.”

But it is not politically feasible to come right out and say that stifling medical progress is necessary to the survival of the State. Rather, the State must assert that what it is stifling is greed.

Hillary Clinton gave us the State’s operative formulation in 1993: “There are just too many greedy doctors using too much expensive technology.”  So, to control costs, the State must control the doctors; and the State must control the technology, which is to say, industry.

I submit that an underlying theme within the debate over doctor-industry relationships is a desire to greatly slow or even stop the real threat to the State: medical progress, and the vast expenditures which medical progress produces.

The State has several means for stifling medical progress.  The State can institute increasingly oppressive regulations, which can have the effect of hamstringing industry, but more importantly, has the effect of converting industry to a client of the State, dependent on the State’s favors for its success. The State can demonize industry, trying to convince the public that drug companies and medical device companies are evil entities that would just as soon harm them as help them, and indeed, without the strong hand of the State would prefer to distribute pain and suffering as the more favored pathway to windfall profits. But more to the point of today’s discussion, the State can stifle the doctor-industry relationships that are so critical in steering medical progress in a clinically relevant direction.

So the  interests of industry must be represented as being fundamentally counter to the interests of society, and the doctors who have relationships with industry must be painted as their evil (or, at best, deluded) minions.

Yes, industry is biased, and industry will act on that bias whenever they can get away with it. Industry just can’t help itself. That’s just the way it is.

But the State is also biased. And the State will also act on that bias whenever they can get away with it. The State can’t help itself. That’s just the way it is.

Industry will try to exercise its influence over us by data-driven persuasion, and when that fails they will try to sweeten the persuasion, perhaps even with subtle or not-so-subtle bribes.

But the exercise of persuasion is even more dangerous when done by the State. While the State may also try to influence us with data-driven persuasion, it is very quick to resort instead to propaganda (i.e., the art of information-control by which the unwashed masses are told only what the specialized classes have determined is best for them), and when that fails, the State will resort to its ultimate form of persuasion – the enforcement of new and suppressive regulations at the point of a gun.

So, while industry is indeed biased, and needs to be kept at arms length, de-legitimizing industry altogether would be disastrous.  It would create an open field for extraordinarily powerful forces which are at least as biased, but in the opposite direction. If we value medical progress, we need the balance that industry provides – and that includes not only industry’s products, but its voice.

Medical progress driven by industry-physician collaboration is good for mankind. But that collaboration inevitably creates conflicts. We physicians need to control those conflicts, or the collaboration will be forcibly terminated altogether. Our professional history to date is bleak in this regard, and we only have one chance left to get it right, if that.

But in controlling our COI, we should not allow ourselves to be pushed too far. We should agree to reasonable limits on conflicts, and on full disclosure of any conflicts that remain. But we should draw the line when we are urged to forgo all relationships with industry altogether. We must recognize that industry and its selfish goals provide a necessary counterbalance to even more powerful forces whose goal is to stifle medical progress.

I don’t ask that you accept my synthesis of this problem at face value. I simply ask that you listen to what I am suggesting, and observe for yourself what is happening out in the wild. Then challenge yourself to come up with a better explanation for what you see happening out there. I sincerely hope you can, as I would much rather that my conclusions were not true. So if you do come up with a better explanation, I will greatly appreciate hearing about it.

________________________________

Now, read the whole story.

DrRich explains it all in, Fixing American Healthcare – Wonkonians, Gekkonians and the Grand Unification Theory of Healthcare.

Now on Kindle!

A minor dispute – and an extraordinarily (almost disturbingly) polite one – has developed between the only two other electrophysiologists, that DrRich knows of at least, in the blogosphere. DrRich, being the third, ought to weigh in – not because his “vote” would break the tie, but because (as always) DrRich knows best.

Dr. Wes started it all off with a post noting, with some degree of dismay, that “(b)oth the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Recovery Audit Contractors (RAC) are focusing investigations on Medicare billing for implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) surgery.”  Wes, with an appropriate degree of paranoia, concludes,”Consider yourself warned, criminals,” then recalls the halcyon days when the prospect of spending time in court conjured up for physicians nothing worse than malpractice suits.

Dr. John M. counters with a post whose purpose is to “welcome the upcoming policing of cardiac device implants.” John goes on to chronicle several examples he has witnessed of physicians implanting ICDs when, clearly, they should not have. The investigations of ICD implants by the Feds – and their private counterparts, the RACs – John posits, will serve to root out the bad eggs.

To his credit, John allows right off that his post is published “at the risk of exposing my naivete.”

To which DrRich replies, “Indeed.”

When DrRich was young, his grandmother, an immigrant from the Old Country who never shed her rustic habits, and not owning a motor vehicle, kept an illegal henhouse in her garage, buying the silence of her neighbors with eggs. It was from her that DrRich learned that if a rooster is behaving badly – engaging in hen abuse, for instance, or perhaps chasing grandchildren around the yard – one does not deal with it by sending Uncle George’s pit bull into the henhouse to take care of the offender. While the nasty rooster (never one to avoid a confrontation) might well be taken down, so would a lot of innocent bystanders.

John, you are laboring under the charming delusion that the purpose of these new investigations is to carefully review ICD implants and tease out only those unethical and/or poorly-trained device implanters, who are clearly and habitually engaging in untoward medical practices. If this were the case, then you and Wes and all those other honest EPs would have nothing to be concerned about, and the audits would indeed make the world a better place.

But alas, DrRich must tell you otherwise.

First, he urges you to read about his own experience. DrRich is a bit older than you, John, and was around the first time the Feds decided to conduct such an “audit” of ICD implantations. DrRich – like you, as pure as the driven snow – was absolutely certain he had nothing to worry about. But as matters unfolded, the fact that DrRich is not today writing this blog from a federal prison (do they let you do blogs in the penitentiary?) is more a matter of luck than anything else.

This new “audit” is much more intimidating than the one DrRich endured. That one was done by the relatively benign Office of the Inspector General (part of HHS). This one is being done by the Justice Department. So if they finger you, you are by definition, as Wes suggests, a criminal.

DrRich has talked about the Regulatory Speed Trap many times. Regulations inevitably become obtuse by evolution if not by design, so that, if you are practicing medicine, it is likely that somewhere – in the hundreds of thousands of pages of indecipherable and self-contradictory Medicare regulations – you are guilty of failing to comply with a regulation somewhere or other, and thus are guilty of healthcare fraud – which is a federal crime. The only thing that likely separates you from a convicted (or, more likely, self-confessed as part of a plea bargain) criminal is that the Feds haven’t decided to “audit” you yet.

The Feds know this, of course. The fact that they know it is documented in a recent GAO report entitled “Improvements Needed in Provider Communications and Contracting Procedures.” The GAO report notes that the bulletins which Medicare carriers are required to send doctors periodically (to make sure they understand the regulations) are filled with dense, lengthy and poorly organized prose sufficient to make them unreadable. Even if they were readable, the GAO continues, these bulletins would do doctors little good since they routinely announce new regulatory policies well after the implementation date, when doctors will already have been guilty of violating such policies (and thus committing fraud). Finally, the GAO finds that when confused doctors contact the Medicare call centers for clarification on the regulations, they get the correct answer only 15% of the time. (Even the IRS does substantially better than that.) And the Medicare websites, required under the regulations to clarify everything for the providers, universally lack “logical organization and navigational tools,” and as a consequence are nearly unusable.

So even when a doctor prospectively asks for instruction on how to comply with Medicare regulations (so as to avoid committing healthcare fraud and incurring huge fines and jail time), nobody is able to give him/her a straight answer. For, while it’s easy to look at a provider’s actions retrospectively (as the auditors are about to do), and find something in the dense regulations that makes those actions imperfect, it’s not so easy to tell providers ahead of time how to navigate those regulations in pristine fashion. As the GAO report reveals, nobody knows how to do that.

Now, DrRich is not calling the DOJ evil. The Feds are not being evil when they set out to conduct audits of physicians’ compliance with uninterpretable regulations; indeed, from their way of looking at it they are being humane.

They are only doing what they have to do, which is find a way – any way – to reduce healthcare costs. In this instance they do not really want to label hundreds or thousands of electrophysiologists as criminals, and ruin their careers and their reputations and their lives. They just want to ruin a few, and make sure the other ones know about it. This limited-bloodshed approach will accomplish their goal, which is, to make all the other electrophysiologists think twice (or thrice) before using ICDs again, in anyone, ever.

But in this instance it gets even worse. With this audit, in addition to dealing with the relatively-restrained Feds, electrophysiologists will also be dealing with the slavering RACs.

The RACs are a fun tidbit brought to us by the Medicare Prescription Drug Act of 2003. Under the RAC initiative, private contractors are to be sent out to perform audits of billing already done by insurers, health plans and physicians. The objective is to find “overbillings,” which the providers will have to repay along with penalties. Further, the act explicitly allows for prosecutions to be brought for “fraud and abuse,” even if the providers have repaid any overbillings.

The purpose of the Recovery Audit Contractors is, well, recovery. During the 3-year pilot of the RAC initiative, which took place in only 3 states, over $300 million were recovered. This wonderful success is the reason RACs are being turned loose elsewhere.

The RACs are paid by commission. Essentially they are bounty hunters, and they get to keep 20% of whatever they collect. According to the Associated Press, hospitals and providers are just a tad worried that these contractors, being so generously incented, will prove a little overzealous in their enthusiasm to find fraud. But worried auditees should not look for sympathy from the public. “A little zealotry is what we’re looking for on the part of the taxpayers,” said Leslie Paige, spokeswoman for Citizens Against Government Waste. “We think it’s about time.” Indeed – everybody can get behind fighting fraud, which is what makes the fraud gambit such a powerful tool for covert rationing.

DrRich surmises that it is good to be a RAC, and thinks you should consider buying stock in these companies, if you can. These outfits are about to harvest the vast bounty of obfuscation that Medicare has been carefully cultivating in its regulations for over 40 years, and has been carefully fashioning as fraud-traps for a somewhat shorter period of time. The RACs see the vast herds of physicians (violators one and all) placidly grazing all across the fruited plains, just waiting to be harvested. Their chief problem will be in pacing themselves; showing some restraint so they don’t use up their resources all at once.

And so, in addition to the dogged, officious, unsympathetic countenances of the lawyers employed by the DOJ, electrophysiologists this time around can also look forward to seeing the leering faces of the RACs’ commission-drunk forensic accountants. Electrophysiologists will experience the worst excesses of both worlds – the excesses of the state, and the excesses of unfettered for-profit outfits.

John M. can welcome this if he wants, and DrRich will wish him the very best good luck. DrRich, though, is still a little shell-shocked 15 years after his own encounter with federal audits of medical practices, and is very glad he’s only a spectator, and not a participant, this time around.

________________________________

Now, read the whole story.

DrRich explains it all in, Fixing American Healthcare – Wonkonians, Gekkonians and the Grand Unification Theory of Healthcare.

Now on Kindle!

Dr. Marya Zilberberg has an interesting post on Kevin,MD, speculating on the effect a worldwide oil shortage will have on healthcare, and what we ought to do about it. Marya is herself a notable blogger who has commented here several times (but whose comments, alas, were among those lost when the catastrophe struck), and she is one of the more thoughtful critics of DrRich. Her criticisms are always fact-based rather than ad hominem, and thus she always gets DrRich to thinking. Her post on Kevin, MD had that typical effect.

So DrRich hopes his readers will give Marya at least a little of the credit for what follows.

We as a nation face several apparently intractable problems at the present moment. Indeed, the problems individually seem so unsolvable that it will obviously take some major “outside of the box” thinking to solve any one of them, let alone the whole mess.

DrRich refers, of course, to the following five problems:

1. We as a nation face more than $50 trillion in debt obligations over the next several decades, thanks to Social Security and Medicare alone. This is an obligation we have no prayer of meeting.

2. Thanks to that massive accumulation of debt, we as a nation are mortgaging our futures to foreign nations, principally China. In fact, this totalitarian power will soon have veto authority on any initiative the US proposes to take.

3. We face an apparently growing threat of terrorist attacks whose base of operations (while it may be insensitive to say so) is in the Middle East.

4. Thanks to our profligate use of oil products, we are causing runaway global warming (and anyone mentioning the past decade of global cooling is a global warming denier).

5. As Marya points out, we appear to be drawing ever closer to a worldwide oil shortage that will threaten every aspect of our lives, even our healthcare.

Marya’s post was the key for DrRich.

DrRich, being a conservative American, has previously subscribed to a “Drill, Baby Drill” sort of philosophy. After all, we have oil in the ground, and we need oil to run our economy – so let’s go get it ourselves, instead of paying all that money to Middle Eastern and Venezuelan dictators, who just turn around and give it to terrorists.

But now DrRich sees the error of his ways.

There is a simple and straightforward solution that addresses all five of our intractable problems, indirectly if not directly.

Here it is: Stop drilling altogether. Leave American oil in the ground. And buy up all those other peoples’ oil (and take physical possession of it) – as fast as we can.

The estimated worldwide oil reserve is about 1 trillion barrels. Let’s buy as much as we can of those reserves, and bring it here. At $100 a barrel that’s only 100 trillion dollars, or only twice what we’re obligated to pay for our old farts over the next few decades. But the difference is, when we spend all that money on Social Security and Medicare, all we’ve got to show for it is old farts who are even older. But when we spend that money buying up the world’s oil, we’ve got a corner on the market.

Where are we going to put all that oil, skeptics might ask? Why, we’re going to store it in the rapidly-depleting Ogallala Acquifer, which is capable of holding up to 978 trillion gallons. The world’s oil reserves, if we choose to follow DrRich’s plan, will be right under Kansas and Nebraska – the heartland.

Even if the price of oil rises to substantially higher than $100 per barrel (which it certainly will as the world’s supplies become sequestered beneath Lincoln and Dodge City), it will still be a bargain for us to buy it up. It will be a bargain at any price. After all, we’re already in a debt hole so deep we cannot possibly get out of it. If we’re destined to perish in a sea of debt, we might just as well drown in $500 trillion as $50 trillion of debt. We’ll be just as dead either way.

So we should be delighted to accumulate whatever amount of debt is required in order to corner the world’s oil market. It’s our only hope.

Because, when the only oil left in the world is American oil, we strike back. Our oil will be a precious, life-sustaining commodity, which nobody in the world can do without. Even if energy technology develops to the point where people can really fly around in airships powered by solar batteries, oil will remain precious. Just try building those solar batteries without petroleum products. Marya herself points out that it’s only petroleum products which allow us to do all the remarkable stuff we do every day in healthcare, as well as in every other modern endeavor.

We’ll be able to charge whatever we want for our oil – DrRich (a humanitarian) is thinking merely $1000 a barrel, as a nice round number. We’ll be able to pay China back, and any other of our debt holders, in a trice. And in another trice they will all owe money to us (like in the good old days).

The Middle Eastern terrorists will become defunded.

Since nobody else in the world will be able to engage in hydrocarbon pollution any longer without our say so, we can control worldwide carbon emissions as we see fit, and “tune” the earth’s temperature like a fine clock.

Best of all, since (according to the current plans of our leaders) the American government will remain permanently in the hands of benign progressives, who by definition care very deeply about the people of the world, all this will be done with the most beneficent of intents, which will assure the very best of outcomes.

Of course, none of this will work if it turns out the world’s oil reserves are vastly greater than current official estimates. This might be something to think about, considering that today’s oil reserves are twice what they were in 1980, even though we’ve burned through (and, of course, spilled) 30 years of oil since then. Thankfully, the experts assure us that this time they’re correct. And if we’re not going to listen to the experts, what the heck are we paying them for?

Besides, given our current situation, we have nothing to lose by trying. So: Cap, Baby, Cap!

________________________________

Now, read the whole story.

DrRich explains it all in, Fixing American Healthcare – Wonkonians, Gekkonians and the Grand Unification Theory of Healthcare.

Now on Kindle!

Recently, DrRich wrote a series of posts detailing how the American healthcare system – even before the new reforms kick in – is taking steps to prevent individual citizens from being allowed to spend their own money on their own healthcare. Part of that effort, of course, is to restrict physicians from offering direct-pay medical services to their patients.

DrRich may have given the impression that only primary care doctors are affected by efforts to restrict their practices in this way. If so, he apologizes.

He particularly owes an apology to his friends the dermatologists. Indeed, DrRich has been reminded of an article that appeared in the New York Times a while back, which castigated dermatologists for the sin of establishing direct-pay practices, and in particular, for creating their own brand of a two-tiered healthcare system – one for patients with skin disorders, and one for “cosmetic dermatology.”

As the Times describes it, patients who wish to see a dermatologist for, say, possible skin cancer are put on a waiting list, and when their appointed time finally arrives (generally several months later) they are subjected to modern medical hell. To wit: Upon arriving in a lackluster office, the patient is shelved for a while in an unattractive, poorly lit waiting room equipped with a broken TV, fuzz balls on the floor, old magazines, the unruly children of other patients, and surly office personnel. Eventually the now-even-more-disheartened patient’s name is called by an indifferent nurse practitioner, who, operating from a checklist of questions, will “triage” her to the appropriate patient-category (e.g., acne, fungus, cancer, warts- you know, dermatology stuff), then have her strip in order to fully expose the large organ (i.e., the skin) for which she has sought assistance, hand her a scratchy yellow paper gown to cover her nakedness, and have her wait for some time in a chilly exam room to see His Holiness, the actual doctor. At last the dermatologist arrives, mutters a greeting (or some other ritual uttering), glances at a clipboard, and announces, “Show me your [acne, fungus, cancer, warts];” whereupon, having regarded the cause of cutaneous concern, and having made a professional determination, he either signs the prescription that has been pre-written for him by the nurse practitioner, or schedules a procedure. Then, placing her bundle of clothing into her arms and wishing her a good day, the doctor shoves her out into the hall to finish dressing, as the formal interview is completed, and the exam room is at a premium.

Presumably, one hopes, some dermatology practices not visited by the New York Times might not be quite so bad. Still, anyone who’s been seen by an American PCP lately will nod sympathetically at the dermatology patient’s ordeal.

Now observe what the Times observes when the patient, instead of having an actual skin problem, merely is sagging here and there and wishes to be shorn up. That is, the patient has a cosmetic issue. That is, the patient wants Botox.

The same dermatologist will often have an entirely different setup for these patients. This time the patient is seen immediately, possibly the same day, as dermatologists are sensitive to the needs of their clients who have an impending public engagement, and thus need to look their best. If this patient is to wait at all, she will wait in a modern, tastefully decorated private room. She will then be seen not by a mere nurse practitioner but by an aesthetician, who will do a careful assessment of the sagging parts, and, aside from suggesting more injection sites than the patient might originally have had in mind, will offer a complete program for long-term cosmetic maintenance, which naturally will include quarterly Botoxification. At just the proper moment the dermatologist comes in, greets the patient warmly and reassuringly; then reviews the recommendations of the aesthetician and discusses those recommendations at length with both the aesthetician and the patient, studying the patient’s face in depth as he does so, pointing, nodding, studying, adjusting, all the while smiling confidently. Yes, he indicates, we will all be very happy indeed with the results. Finally the doctor begins to make the now-thoroughly-discussed-and-agreed-upon injections, doing so with the greatest solicitude and sensitivity. The patient is then given as much time as she needs to collect herself, and is invited to “recover” in a room set aside for this purpose, with flattering lighting, soft music, a cappuccino machine, and perhaps a glass of wine. She leaves the office a new person. And, just as the dermatologist has promised, all are indeed very happy with the outcome.

Naturally, the New York Times is scandalized by the dichotomy which its discerning readers will note here. Why should a patient with a mere cosmetic issue be treated so well, when a patient with an actual medical problem, possibly even skin cancer, is treated so shabbily? How can dermatologists openly encourage such a two-tiered system?

DrRich has a word of advice for the scandalized reporters of the New York Times, and any other concerned Americans who are worried that dermatologists, by setting up separate-but-not-equal practices for their two kinds of patients, are moving us one step closer to the dreaded two-tiered healthcare system we all abhor. That word is: Chill.

Allow DrRich to support this friendly recommendation with two observations.

1) We already have a multi-tiered healthcare system, and little or none of it is the fault of dermatologists. It is the fault of human nature. All countries have at least a two-tiered healthcare system, including countries (like Cuba and China) that have specifically embraced egalitarianism (rather than individual autonomy) as the fundamental operating principle. A second tier is necessary if for no other reason than political leaders and other individuals critically important to the collective effort must have somewhere to go for their healthcare.  The second tier, like the poor, will always be with us.

2) When a dermatologist spends Tuesday afternoon in her run-down office, treating people who come to her for bona fide skin disorders like they’re not really patients but widgets on an assembly line, then spends Wednesday in her other, much more amenable offices, treating the merely cosmetically-challenged like they are minor nobility, she is not really engaging in two-tiered healthcare. Not at all. Instead, on Tuesday she is practicing real, true, prescribed-by-society, by-the-book American healthcare, just as our leaders (in their wisdom) have carefully set it up for us, and on Wednesday she is doing Something Altogether Different.

Injecting Botox is officially and formally not part of American healthcare. How do we know this? Because it is not covered by Medicare or health insurance. If you want Botox you’ve got to pay for it your own self, just as you do if you want a TV or a car. So by all that is sacred, injecting Botox is NOT American healthcare.

Furthermore, when one looks at it objectively, injecting Botox is not even really practicing medicine, at least not in any true sense. In actual truth, it takes very little training or expertise to inject Botox. There’s no reason one must go to college, graduate from medical school, or do several additional years of training in dermatology (or any other specialty) to do this. Anyone with a needle and syringe, an alcohol wipe, and access to Botox could do as well. Just find the wrinkle and stick it. If they made the materials available over-the-counter, most folks would do just fine with it.

The sheer arbitrariness by which injecting Botox is deemed by the authorities to constitute the practice of medicine can also be illustrated by considering a somewhat different, equally well-known cosmetic procedure, one that also involves injecting substances through the skin via needles, and that has much more to do with the actual skin itself than Botox injections (which do not really affect the skin itself, but only the muscles under the skin). DrRich speaks, obviously, of the tattoo. But unlike making Botox injections, tattooing requires real skill, knowledge, training, expertise and artistic talent. Most dermatologists simply could not manage a highly technical skill like that.  The point being, of course, that if you were to describe Botox injections and tattooing to a visitor from Mars, then ask him/her/it which of these two dermatological procedures ought to require a medical license and board certification, the Martian would get it wrong every time.

DrRich understands, of course, that while administering Botox is, in practical and objective terms, no more practicing medicine than is applying an ice-pack to a bruised knee, legally it is indeed deemed to be the practice of medicine. Accordingly, doctors in general (and dermatologists in particular), relying on this nonsensical designation, have legally cornered the market on Botox injections. So it’s not like you could just set up a booth at the Mall and hire high school students to do this (as you can for, say, ear-piercing – which, in contrast to Botox injections, is an actual surgical procedure which is intended to result in a permanent structural change in a body part). If you set up a chain of Botox Booths, you would be practicing medicine without a license, which is a serious crime.

But fundamentally, while performing Botox injections may have a certain legal status, in any true sense it is not really practicing medicine.  Not when ear-piercing and tattooing are not. Rather, in real life, injecting Botox is simply an activity some dermatologists may choose to do when they’re not doing real dermatology.

To say it another way, when the dermatologist goes to her “other office” to cater to a self-paying variety of clientele, she is practicing medicine only from the most arbitrary and strictly legalistic viewpoint. In real life, she is doing Something Else. She is engaging in a Pastime.

Doctors, of course, often have Pastimes. That is, they partake in activities other than practicing medicine when they could, in fact, be seeing more patients. Some have taken up golf. Others have started side businesses such as restaurants or software companies. Some do charity work, or go to graduate school for an MBA. Still others have opted to work part time in order to raise their families.

Society generally finds such activities acceptable, and – to this point – does not insist that all doctors forgo all other human endeavors in order to see as many patients as humanly possible, during all their waking hours. While society seems to be moving closer to declaring that doctors owe this duty to the collective, it has not reached this point quite yet.

Until society sees fit to legislate otherwise (which, DrRich supposes, could happen really very soon now), doctors will continue to spend some of their time engaging in hobbies and business or family activities outside of the formal healthcare system. Some may even leave the formal healthcare system altogether in favor of these other activities. DrRich himself has done this. And until society renders it officially illegal for doctors to do so, DrRich respectfully asks that doctors be left alone to celebrate their individual autonomy as granted to them under America’s founding documents, whether it’s by establishing authentic Indian restaurants, setting up Botox clinics, or even becoming direct-pay practitioners.

One last word of advice for DrRich’s dermatology friends: Have fun with your Botox clinics for now, fellas and ladies, but please don’t become too invested in them.  This is definitely a shallow-moat line of business, and the only thing that gives you any protection at all is your aura as highly trained specialists, with special and secret knowledge about an organ (i.e., the skin) which visibly droops when the underlying muscles become lax with age and gravity. A single action by forces entirely out of your control – say, Congress or the FDA – could render your monopoly entirely moot overnight, and you will be instantly priced out of business by hordes of PCPs, nurse practitioners, Botox booths in Walmart, and even home Botox injection kits. So please remember to at least keep your hand in genuine dermatology, or get your MBA, or perfect your long iron shots, or even learn a real skill, like tattooing – but do something that will provide you with a Plan C. Because Plan Botox is definitely a high risk endeavor over the long term.

________________________________

Now, read the whole story.

DrRich explains it all in, Fixing American Healthcare – Wonkonians, Gekkonians and the Grand Unification Theory of Healthcare.

Now on Kindle!

Limiting Individual Prerogatives:

Part 1: The Real Fight Is Just Beginning

Part 2: Hillary Started It

Part 3: Breaking the Doctor-Patient Relationship

Part 4: Medicare Already Does It

Many thanks to a loyal reader, Ivan from Montreal, for calling DrRich’s attention to a recent editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, arguing for more dollars to go to “public health,” as opposed to “healthcare.” The editorial is by David Hemenway, Ph.D., director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center of the Harvard University School of Public Health.

By “public health,” Hemenway appears to mean that branch of academics that deals with promoting the overall health of a community through organized societal efforts. Some effective public health efforts have included vaccination programs, improved sanitation, motor vehicle safety, draining the swamps, limiting public smoking, and the chlorination of drinking water. A few of these efforts have even been advanced by actual public health experts, such as those to which Hemenway refers.

Hemenway’s main argument is that society gets more bang for the buck with money spent on these kinds of public health efforts, than on money spent on healthcare for individual Americans, an argument which is almost certainly true.

But his conclusion, that the distribution of healthcare dollars should be adjusted accordingly, is spurious. All four of the specific arguments he gives to bolster his claim that public health is underfunded are insubstantial, and more importantly, the folks who have given us most of the wonderful public health benefits we all enjoy are actually not the public health experts whom Hemenway wants to fund.

First, Hemenway claims public health is under-funded because people are just too stupid to understand the importance of public health. Specifically, they are incapable of valuing and thus implementing actions whose benefits lie in the future (such as those provided by public health). Hemenway is quick to say that it is not peoples’ fault; they are built that way. He even gives a complex neuroanatomical explanation for the innate inability of folks to plan for the future.

So: This must be why Americans have never landed on the moon, and why they refuse to invest in cancer research, or to fund their 401(k) plans. As Ivan from Montreal points out, this must be why the great cathedrals were never built. Hemenway’s point here is so spurious on its face that DrRich must wonder if it reflects that baseline contempt for the mental capacity of the proletariat, which is so fundamental to Progressive thinking.

Secondly, Hemenway points out that the beneficiaries of public health (being the public) are not identifiable as individuals, and so we (the bovine masses) cannot bring ourselves to care about them, as we care about individuals such as, he suggests, Baby Jessica falling down the well. This additional deficiency of the proletariat puts public health at a major disadvantage.

It is indeed true that humans have more capacity to identify with individual stories than with “populations.” But this issue is not unique to the field of public health. Those raising funds for heart disease research, for instance, deciphered this mystery long ago – since statistics only gets you so far, you need to tweak potential donors’ emotions by advancing the story of the 12-year-old heart transplant recipient. If the academics in public health haven’t been able to figure this out – using the Baby Jessica story to advance their latest theories on well safety, for instance – whose fault is that? (If what Hemenway says is true – that the field of public health “relies almost exclusively on government funding,” that’s where the fault is. Being on the public dole greatly dulls one’s perceptiveness and creativity.)

Thirdly, Hemenway says, “in public health, the benefactors, too, are often unknown.”  That is, whereas medicine has its great public heros – Hemenway suggests DeBakey and Barnard – the great heroes of public health do not get their due. There are doubtless many heroes of public health – the inventor of the flush toilet comes immediately to mind – but unfortunately most of them remain anonymous. The flush toilet’s inventor, for instance, based on current archeological evidence, died in the Indus valley 4600 years ago. Indeed, many if not most of the truly impactful public health advances took place outside the ivory towers of the modern academy.

Hemenway struggles mightily to come up with an unsung hero for modern, academically-based public health, and – and undoubtedly wishing not to remind us of certain well-known, early20th century heroes of the academy who espoused eugenics as the most effective means of achieving public health  – offers up one Maurice Hilleman, who saved countless lives with his development of more than 30 vaccines. Now, DrRich completely agrees that Hilleman was one of the most important scientists of the 20th century, and probably was responsible for preventing more premature deaths than any other person in history, and, certainly, that he is an unsung hero. But it is a bit of a stretch for Hemenway to claim him for one of his own. Hilleman did his vaccine development as an employee of E.R. Squibb, and then, of Merck. That is, his research was funded by private industry, whose primary motive was filthy lucre. If Hilleman is a hero of public health (and DrRich agrees that he is), then his career is an argument for unleashing the capacity of the private pharmaceutical industry, rather than an argument for more government funding.

Fourth, Hemenway laments that public health efforts often meet with fierce opposition from well-placed interests. This is true. Limiting smoking in public places, for instance, required a sustained battle against powerful interests for decades. But here, Hemenway tips his hand a bit too much. He cites a study showing that having a firearm in the house is a risk factor for gun death, and offers up this rather obvious result to illustrate the important work which academic public health can offer, and to decry efforts to de-fund that kind of important research. Now, DrRich does not diminish the importance of research whose aim is to improve gun safety. But he does wonder why Hemenway could only come up with an example of productive research which is just a little more helpful than, say, a study revealing that automobile deaths are more frequent in the U.S. than in Romania (where ox-carts remain a chief mode of transportation). If DrRich were grading this editorial request for funding as a formal grant proposal, he would take points off for the effectiveness of the applicant’s (that is, academic public health’s) prior work.

Hemenway’s fundamental sin is conflating “real” public health with whatever the people with degrees in “public health” are doing. “Real” public health consists of flush toilets, water treatment, draining swamps, pest control, well-lit streets, and the like, and tends to have a lot more to do with good civil engineering and fundamental medical research than with “academic” public health.

Some of what the modern experts in public health are doing, DrRich suspects, is quite important and is worthy of funding. But just because the schools of public health split off from medical schools in the 20th century, and established their own academic fiefdom, and commandeered the name “public health” as their exclusive domain, they ought not commandeer the credit (as Hemenway does here) for inventing and building sewage treatment plants, vaccines, or side airbags. Most of the actual “stuff” that makes public health so effective comes from somewhere else. If there’s to be more funding, give it to the people and enterprises that actually invent and develop that stuff.

Call DrRich a cynic, but he suspects that schools of public health really want more money so they can publish academic papers that will justify – or demand – more invasive governmental action to control private behavior, for the good of the collective. For instance, while DrRich does not know anything about Hemenway himself, he notices that a major interest of his Injury Control Research Center is firearm injury. Nothing wrong with that. But he also notices that the Injury Control Research Center gets a big chunk of its funding from the Joyce Foundation, an organization with a strong, self-professed “anti-gun” (and not merely gun safety, or gun control) agenda. One might be forgiven for wondering whether one of the “public health” agendas of the Injury Control Research Center in this regard might be to help justify stiffer anti-gun legislation. Whatever you may think of stricter gun legislation, diverting healthcare dollars to support one side or the other of a fundamentally political issue does not seem like a good precedent to set.

Let the public health experts get their own funding. Dollars that people pay for health insurance – whether through direct premiums to insurance companies or through tax dollars to Medicare, Medicaid, and whatever else is coming down the pike – ought to go for individual healthcare, and not to any interest group that can assemble an argument that whatever it is they are doing benefits the overall health of the collective. After all, anybody – from gym owners to grocers to game manufacturers to medical bloggers – can do that.

Part 1 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives

Part 2 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives

Part 3 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives
____________

DrRich could go on and on about how our government is intent on restricting the right of individuals to spend their own money on their own healthcare, but (for now, at least) this will be the final post in this series. DrRich has made his point.

Even some of his critics, who have accused DrRich in the past of being overly paranoid on this topic, seem to have gotten it. Some who previously were quite vocal have remained suspiciously silent. Others have fallen back to quasi ad hominem accusations (suggesting, for instance, that DrRich must be a follower of Mr. Beck, with all the horrific connotations that condition entails). And then there is the esteemed Praveen (author of the excellent True Cost Blog), who conceded as follows: “Massachusetts’ attempt to ban direct pay is both unfortunate and unconstitutional. Perhaps you’re right, and the bureaucrats are sneakier than I think.”

So maybe DrRich should just declare victory and move on.

But it is important to make one final point, namely: the notion that our government is intent on limiting our individual healthcare prerogatives is far more than just one of DrRich’s theoretical constructs. Indeed, our government has been acting on this intent for over 15 years. The main case in point, of course, is Medicare.

It has always been recognized that every American citizen “is the proper guardian of his own health,” (Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1873), and accordingly, has a natural right to employ his own individual resources to that end. Roe v. Wade, for instance, was a particularly explicit recognition that a woman has a fundamental right to purchase medical services which she determines to be necessary for her own well-being.

Indeed, when Medicare became law in 1965, Congress also explicitly recognized this right, stipulating that nothing in the new law “shall be construed to preclude [an individual] from purchasing or otherwise securing protection against the cost of any health services.” (DrRich reminds his readers once again that a bold, restrictive statement like this, appearing in legislation, generally heralds an outcome opposite to the statement itself.)

DrRich has already pointed out that under Hillarycare, private medical practice would have been nearly criminalized out of existence. So one ought to expect that the Clinton administration would view an individual right to purchase healthcare as a threat. And indeed, it did. But, as it happens, the erosion of the rights of Medicare “beneficiaries” began even before the Clinton administration. (And even again, DrRich must remind his readers that any universal healthcare plan, even under a Republican administration, will always tend to limit individual liberties.)

In 1991, Medicare administrators published a “carrier bulletin” warning physicians that direct-pay contracts between patients and doctors were strictly prohibited, unless the contract was initiated solely by the patient, and even then, payment rates must be set by Medicare, and further, if the patient later became dissatisfied with that (patient-initiated) contract, Medicare would severely (and retroactively) sanction the physician.

When physicians sued Medicare to prevent this odious new policy from being implemented (Stewart et al. v. Sullivan), the government took the position that it had, in fact, not made any new policy after all, arguing that stuff that shows up in its “carrier bulletin” doesn’t really count. But once this argument was successful in having the lawsuit thrown out in a summary judgment in 1992, Medicare then cynically turned around and immediately made that selfsame new policy “official,” by publishing it in their 1993 Medicare Carrier’s Manual.

But the Feds were still not satisfied. The new, restrictive policy technically still allowed private-pay contracts, as long as the patient initiated them. So the Clinton administration engineered an amendment to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 – Section 4507 – which prohibited any self-pay contracts whatsoever between Medicare patients and their doctors for medical services which are covered under Medicare. Under Section 4507, which is still the law today, if a doctor provides even one self-pay medical service to a single Medicare patient, that doctor is punished by complete banishment from the Medicare program for at least two years.

The federal government was eventually challenged again in court over Section 4507, but that lawsuit was also thrown out in a summary judgment. The rationale the government offered to the court in justifying its restrictions on individuals’ prerogatives, however, is instructive: “…what you will have is a system whereby the rich can buy what they want and those many beneficiaries who are on fixed income will not be able to afford those services” (United Seniors Association et al. v. Shalala). So again, the interest of the collective (“social justice”) was invoked to justify a law which stifles an individual’s fundamental right to purchase medical services he or she determines to be necessary for his/her well-being.

In any case, since 1997 Medicare patients have been able to purchase Medicare-covered services for themselves ONLY if they obtain that service from a doctor who agrees to opt out of Medicare entirely. This severely limits a patient’s opportunity to self-pay for covered services. The fact that Medicare patients can still buy these medical services from direct-pay physicians, however, is one reason the government hates direct-pay practices, and wishes to stamp them out. More importantly, while some primary care physicians have indeed opted out of Medicare in order to establish direct-pay practices, this path is not a realistic option for medical specialists. So in practical terms, the only “covered services” available for self-pay by Medicare patients, on even a limited basis, are primary care services.

There are several legitimate reasons a Medicare patient might want to self-pay for a medical service that is covered by Medicare. If Medicare “covers” heart valve surgery, for instance, a patient might want to pay for a new, minimally-invasive surgical approach that is inadequately reimbursed by Medicare, rather than the big, open-heart surgery that Medicare reimburses fully. Or, one might want to self-pay for “covered” psychiatric care, or for treatment for a venereal disease, in order to keep embarrassing or harmful medical records out of government-controlled databases.

Furthermore, it is important to recognize that just because a healthcare service is “Medicare-covered” does not mean that it will be covered for a given patient. Whether a specific individual is covered is often determined by a “medical necessity” ruling, made by a bureaucrat. Section 4507 essentially precludes a patient’s ability to purchase a denied (but “covered”) medical service, no matter how badly they want it, or believe they need it.

One can argue, and with some merit, that at this juncture denials of medically necessary services by Medicare have been relatively judicious, and therefore that the “Section 4507 rule” has not had much of an actual impact. In fact, it is likely that most Medicare beneficiaries do not even know that this rule exists.

But while its impact might be relatively small so far, the Section 4507 rule has now been in place for 13 years – it is well-established. So, once Medicare begins reducing reimbursements to physicians and hospitals, to the point where they can no longer afford to offer certain services to Medicare patients (and Medicare has just recently begun doing so, specifically, for some cardiac imaging studies), those patients will be left in the cold. Services which are officially “covered” by Medicare, but which are reimbursed at such a low rate that they cannot actually be provided to them, will become unavailable even to Medicare patients who are willing and able to pay for those services.

DrRich’s main point, once again, is that our government has a deep and abiding need to limit our individual prerogatives when it comes to our healthcare, and has been acting on that need for a long time. The principle for these limitations on our individual liberties, the principle of social justice, has already been established, and has survived court challenges.

Extending these limitations on personal liberties to Obamacare, and broadening their usage, will not require any major changes in direction, or principles, or policy, but will merely require an expansion of already existent – and even “venerable” – rules, rules which have been an established part of Medicare for many years.

DrRich has expressed the idea that such restrictions by our government on such fundamental individual liberties are a very big deal indeed, and, in fact, signal an end to the Great American Experiment. His critics admonish him, however, that he makes too much of it, that, presumably, our government in its benign wisdom is just doing what’s best for us.

DrRich begs his readers to forgive him if he sees, in such a reply, even more evidence that the only nation in the history of mankind to be founded on the principles of individual freedom is well on the way to abandoning those exceptional principles, for the sake of the same, soothing-but-empty blandishments that have been offered, throughout human history, by well-meaning people who end up producing – or becoming – tyrants.

____________

Part 1 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives

Part 2 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives

____________

The thing about Progressives is that the characteristic which makes them most endearing (and, which makes them most attractive to the unaware), is the very characteristic which makes them the most dangerous.

Fundamentally, Progressives believe in the perfectibility of mankind, or at least, of society. Indeed, they have discovered the very Program which will lead to the perfect society, a society which will maximize the good of the whole. Their vision is so compelling, and their ends so utterly and undeniably right, that it becomes legitimate for them to engage in whatever means are necessary to achieve it. (Indeed, for those who have been paying attention, “By Whatever Means Necessary” appears to have supplanted “Hope and Change” as the catchphrase of our current political leaders.)

The thing that always trips up Progressives (and their more revolutionary cousins, the Communists), is, of course, human nature. In order for their Program to work, it is necessary for each individual to behave in the prescribed fashion. And, at the end of the day, a substantial proportion of the population (any population) will insist on striving for their own individual benefit, rather than (as the Program requires) for the benefit of the collective.

The major competing system of societal organization – capitalism – recognizes this facet of human nature (i.e., the essential imperfectability of mankind, as manifested by the non-suppressibility of self-interest), and attempts to channel it into relatively productive and non-destructive (but still competitive and individually-directed) behaviors that limit the damage, and maximize the public good to a reasonable degree.

In contrast, Progressives attempt to change human nature to fit their inherently superior Program.

The fact that you cannot change human nature to fit the Program is what makes them dangerous. Their initial wide-eyed optimism that us folks will just “get it,” once they explain it to us, invariably evolves to an essential contempt for our limited intellectual capacity. This contempt justifies all manner of prevarications, to fool us into going along. Even in societies where the tyranny of correct-thinking has gone so far as to elicit the cooperation of the people at the point of a gun (rather than through the preferred methods of “education” or misdirection), the achievement of the predicted perfect society is invariably prevented by the recalcitrance of human nature. (The final realization that not even an all-powerful central authority can make people behave in the prescribed way always produces a nearly psychotic frustration that – in virtually every Communist country – has led to atrocities against various subsets of the recalcitrant people.)

DrRich does not believe there will ever be pogroms in the United States.

But this does not mean that the Progressives will always be kind and gentle as they attempt to achieve their goals. As DrRich sees it, in the U.S. the Progressives have clearly evolved to the “contempt for the masses” phase of their Program, a phase which justifies all manner of techniques – just this side of violence – to get us all to cooperate. Currently they are intent on demonizing their opponents as being racist, stupid, uneducated, selfish, overly dependent on outmoded supernatural beings, violent, and (of course) obese. This demonization is quite useful, since there is obviously no need to address any actual ideas put forth by such as these, even if they were capable of the feat of “ideas.”

Healthcare is, at present, the chief battleground in the war between Progressives vs. non-Progressives in the U.S., and the outcome of this battle will likely determine the success or failure of the entire Progressive Program. And the most fundamental (and emblematic) aspect of this battle is over what to do about the “doctor-patient relationship.”

The classic doctor-patient relationship was a celebration of the primacy of individual rights. And, for over 2000 years (at least since the advent of the Hippocratic Oath) guaranteeing the sanctity of that relationship was the basis of all medical ethics.

Until very recently doctors, patients, philosophers and ethicists recognized that, when you are sick, you are no more capable of navigating a complex and hostile healthcare system than are accused felons a complex and hostile legal system, and you are no less in peril if you run afoul of that system. And, just as the felon has a right to a personal advocate, a professional whose job is to protect his individual interests against the conflicting aims of the “system,” so does the patient. That is (quaint conventional wisdom held), when you are sick, you should be entitled to at least the same protections as when you rob a convenience store. And the doctor-patient relationship was supposed to guarantee you that right.

This is why, throughout the ages, the basic precepts of medical ethics were aimed at guaranteeing the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship. Fundamentally, these ethical precepts required the physician to place the needs of his or her individual patient above all other considerations.

It should be clear to everyone that, under either our “old” healthcare system or the one that Obamacare promises us, this formulation of the doctor-patient relationship cannot be allowed to stand. Neither the insurance executives nor government officials can allow spending decisions – that is, decisions on how to spend their money – to be made by individual patients (and their personal advocates). For this reason, the classic doctor-patient relationship had to go.

And so, in 2002, official medical ethics was formally amended to require physicians (while still giving lip service to their obligation to individual patients) to strive for a “just distribution of healthcare resources.” That is, official medical ethics now makes it ethical for physicians to ration healthcare, covertly, at the bedside – and indeed, makes it unethical for them to fail to do so.

The New Ethics has been enthusiastically supported by medical ethicists worldwide (a field which now seems to be dominated by utilitarians), and worse, has been embraced by all the world’s major medical professional organizations. DrRich has not embraced the New Ethics (on the grounds that it places individual patients at great peril, and destroys the profession of medicine), and neither have many (possibly a majority) of older physicians. But it has been taught in medical schools around the world for over a decade, and in another decade it is likely that the vast majority of practicing physicians will accept as a matter of course that their primary obligation is to control healthcare costs, and only secondarily to try to meet the needs of their individual patients.

The plan, therefore, is for Obamacare to provide physicians with directives from expert panels on which medical services to supply to which patients and when, and for the New Ethics to allow physicians who go along with such directives to live with themselves. The feasibility of this plan depends entirely on physicians acceding to the program.

So, incentives are being put in place to “help” doctors cooperate. Quality measures will be implemented, with “quality” being defined as doctors doing what they’re told, and reimbursement will be tied to one’s quality rating. Possibly more persuasive will be the fact that the Feds can construe the failure to follow handed-down rules, regulations and guidelines, at any time, as a federal crime. (Even doctors who don’t mind being labeled as “substandard quality” – perhaps even considering the label as a badge of honor – will mind going to jail.)

But by whatever means necessary, the happiness of the government is to be the doctor’s first consideration, and not the happiness of their individual patients. The classic doctor-patient relationship is being terminated with extreme prejudice.

To see just how important it is to destroy the doctor-patient relationship, one merely has to observe what is happening to primary care doctors who have the audacity to leave the system, and set up a direct-pay medical practice.

Part of the problem, to be sure, was caused by these doctors themselves. The first few to do so unabashedly catered to rich patients, and to attract the rich, referred to themselves as “concierge” practitioners. This name (and its elitist connotations) have been forcibly affixed to all direct-pay practitioners, even as this style of practice has evolved into a much more democratic form. Today, more and more doctors are starting direct-pay practices (in which patients pay the doctors out of their own pockets) which are easily affordable to anyone who can afford a cell phone or cable TV contract.

While many direct-pay practices offer patients certain benefits they can usually not get from primary care doctors who remain in the approved system (such as phone and e-mail access, same-day appointments, appointments lasting as long as necessary instead of the allotted 7.5 minutes, etc.), the fundamental benefit, to both the patient and the doctor, is that it restores the classic doctor-patient relationship. The physician’s primary obligation is no longer to the 3rd-party overlord, or to the Progressive ideal of social justice, but to the patient.

And while critics (who abound) attack direct-pay practitioners for their elitism, laziness, and greed, their real issue is that direct-pay practitioners are acting as if their primary duty is to their individual patients, and not to the needs of society. This latter fault simply cannot be tolerated.

Having gained nearly complete control over the behavior of primary care practitioners, it is critical for Progressives – in making sure that practice by handed-down “guidelines” is not simply the only legal way to practice, but also the only ethical way to practice – to shut the door to any alternative forms of primary care. Direct-pay practitioners are a menace because they threaten to raise the expectations of both doctors and patients. Perhaps, doctors and patients might tell themselves, there really is a way to maintain individual autonomy within the healthcare system.

The attacks on direct-pay practitioners have followed the usual scheme Progressives follow when they discover a faction they need to suppress. First, they were ridiculed. “For a Retainer, Lavish Care by ‘Boutique Doctors,’” said a headline in the New York Times in 2005. Then, they were demonized, widely attacked for their elitism, laziness, greed, and lack of fundamental medical ethics. In this latter effort, it was not difficult to find fellow physicians – generally, from the medical organizations which promulgated the New Ethics – to lead the attacks. There are countless examples. DrRich will give just two.

Anthony DeMaria, then President of the American College of Cardiology, criticized the practice of direct-pay medicine in an article in the JACC in 2005, saying, “Personally, I do not mind if people acquire yachts or personal trainers if they have enough money, nor would I object if they secured a physician at their beck and call. However, unlike yachts, health care is not discretionary, and everyone should be entitled to the same quality.” As a matter of social justice, direct-pay physicians improve healthcare quality for only some patients, and so have no place in the healthcare system.

In an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Troyen A. Brennan (M.D., J.D., and M.P.H., so we know we’re in trouble) really gets to the point. Referring to direct-pay practices as “luxury primary care,” he notes that “traditional medical ethics is rather poorly equipped to address issues related to luxury primary care.” That is, while “traditional” medical ethics always places the individual patient first, that kind of thinking is now outmoded. “(M)ost ethicists now agree that the financial structure of health care is an important subject for ethical consideration. Access to health care, in particular, is a salient ethical issue.” Direct-pay practitioners threaten (by their elitism and the limited size of their practices), to limit access to primary care, and thus are in fundamental violation of medical ethics.

The argument here, for those who missed it (advanced by fellow physicians no less), is that, of the two competing ethical precepts now established by New Medical Ethics (i.e., the physician’s obligation to the individual patient vs. the physician’s obligation to society), clear primacy is to be given to the physician’s obligation to society. Physicians must (like it or not) participate in covert bedside healthcare rationing. Physicians who take the only path remaining to them that allows them to make the individual patient their primary obligation are to be castigated as ethically deficient.

When ridicule and demonization fail to suppress their opposition, Progressive dogma indicates it’s time to resort to force. The first pass in this regard, of course, is always to render the opposition illegal. (Actual violence is reserved for criminals who persist in their misbehavior, despite more polite efforts to get them to behave lawfully.)

Making direct-pay medical practice illegal has not been accomplished yet, but clear efforts have been made in this regard. Noting with alarm the rise of direct-pay primary care, numerous Congresspersons have issued statements of concern, suggesting that perhaps Congress should look into the propriety of such activities.

Indeed, the first step by Congress has already been taken. In 2003, as part of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, Congress directed the GAO to study and report on the effect of direct-pay practices on Medicare patients. The GAO did so in 2005, and a fair paraphrase of its report is as follows: “The practice of direct-pay medicine is not currently a threat to Medicare patients, because the direct-pay movement is not large enough yet to have an impact. If it does begin to have an impact on Medicare patients, action will have to be taken.” That is, direct-pay medicine was considered OK in 2005 not because it was inherently an ethical and legal form of medical practice, but simply because there were not enough practitioners at that time to significantly affect Medicare patients. The clear implication is that Congress stands ready to pass laws outlawing – or, at least, severely limiting – direct-pay practices, as soon as those practices begin to “impact” the system.

Certain state governments are not waiting for Congress to ban direct-pay practices. The state of Maryland (and a few others) have taken the creative position that, because many direct-pay practices work on a retainer basis, they meet the definition of a health insurance company. And as a health insurance company, to be considered legal entities, they have to have millions of dollars set aside to pay for unforeseen “claims.” (Interestingly, this same argument was not applied to Maryland lawyers, who also often work on a retainer model.) According to the Baltimore Sun, the state’s stance in this regard has already successfully caused several primary care physicians to abandon their plans to become retainer practitioners.

Less devious (but more draconian) than the state of Maryland is the state of Massachusetts (whose universal healthcare system, we’ve all heard, is a preview of Obamacare circa 2015). A bill is under consideration in the Massachusetts Senate (Bill 2170) which requires doctors, as a condition of their licensure, to accept payment rates as determined by the government. If it passes, it will be the first actual legislation in the U.S. to ban direct-pay medicine, if only by making it completely impracticable. (Thanks to Dr. Wes for pointing out this important development.)

Since medical licensing is controlled by the various states, of course, it would take 50 bills like the one in Massachusetts to really get rid of direct-pay healthcare. But there are other ways for the Feds to accomplish the same thing. Now that the federal government directly controls all student loans, for instance, it would be a simple matter to make those loans contingent on agreeing to become primary care doctors working strictly within the government controlled system, or to offer loan forgiveness for doctors who agree to do so, or to rescind favorable re-payment conditions (retroactively, and decades after the fact, if necessary) for doctors who go to a direct-pay model later in life.

DrRich does not really know how the Progressives will actually place the final nail in the coffin of the doctor-patient relationship. All he knows is that they have – well, more than the desire – the deep and abiding need to kill that relationship, once and for all. Unless we the people decide we ought to stop them, this is going to happen.

____________

Part 4 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives