Obama wants to tie doctors pay to quality starting next year

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

pathologyDO

MS-3
10+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2012
Messages
1,062
Reaction score
390
According to MSN Money:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/insu...ric-us-overhaul-of-medical-billing/ar-AA8BCxG

"The Obama administration will make historic changes to how the U.S. pays its annual $3 trillion health-care bill, aiming to curtail a costly habit of paying doctors and hospitals without regard to quality or effectiveness.

Starting next year Medicare, which covers about 50 million elderly and disabled Americans, will base 30 percent of payments on how well health providers care for patients, some of which will put them at financial risk based on the quality they deliver. By 2018, the goal is to put half of payments under the new system.

For doctors and health facilities, the system will tie tens, and then hundreds, of billions of dollars in payments to how their patients fare, rather than how much work a doctor or hospital does, lowering the curtain on Medicare’s system of paying line-by-line for each scan, test and surgery.

“We believe these goals can drive transformative change,” Sylvia Mathews Burwell, secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, said in the statement.

The program would be a major shift for hospitals, health facilities and physicians, eventually more than doubling the reach of programs that the U.S. said has saved $417 million and that have been a model for how the government hopes to influence, and slow down, health spending.

Medicare paid about $362 billion to care providers in 2014, the health department said in a statement, making it the biggest buyer of health care services in the U.S. Paying separately for each procedure, called “fee-for-service,” has long been viewed as an inefficient driver of U.S. health spending, which at more than 17 percent of gross domestic product is the highest in the world.

Broad Reach

The Obama administration’s announcement today is the first time the government has ever set specific goals to steer the nation away from fee-for-service payments.

Medicare’s practices are often echoed by private insurers who cover 170 million Americans. If the U.S.’s plan is successful, non-elderly consumers could eventually see cost savings, though they may also find that doctors and hospitals offer fewer services as they seek to cut waste and maintain profits.
Doctors and hospitals are already facing changes under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. About 20 percent of Medicare spending is now paid through programs in which health-care providers either take some financial risk for their performance or at least collect and report measures of their quality, the health department said. Expanding that figure was a key goal of the the law.

At Risk

“The people who are delivering care are increasingly at financial risk for the services that are being rendered,” Dan Mendelson, CEO of Avalere Health, a Washington consulting firm, said in a phone interview. “It’s increasingly likely the physician or the hospital is going to make more money if they provide less care.”

The country’s main lobbying groups for doctors and hospitals said they were on board, at least with the broad idea behind the overhaul. “We support secretary Burwell’s goals and plans,” said Maureen Swick, a representative of the American Hospital Association.

Robert Wah, president of the American Medical Association, said that physicians were worried about additional bureaucracy. “This idea that we’re talking about delivery reform and setting up a system of delivery reform, we’re very supportive of that,” Wah said in an interview in Washington. “The details will be important to see.”

Industry Reaction

Burwell met with about two dozen health industry officials this morning to brief them on the administration’s plan. Participants included executives of Verizon Communications Inc., Boeing Co., UnitedHealth Group Inc., Anthem Inc. and representatives of large hospital chains and physician organizations.

The Affordable Care Act, often criticized by its opponents for not doing much to control health-care costs, created several programs the Obama administration now plans to rely upon to end fee-for-service payments. For example, the law penalizes hospitals with high rates of readmissions of Medicare patients within 30 days of discharging them, and encourages doctors and hospitals to band together and closely coordinate their care, with the aim of reducing redundancies and inefficiency.

Those programs have saved about 50,000 lives and reduced health-care spending by about $12 billion, based on preliminary estimates, the health department said

Members don't see this ad.
 
Obama should be paid in accordance to how well he does his job. That SOB has made it his goal to penalize and demonize the hard-working people in this country, and benefit those who don't deserve anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 29 users
I look forward to the sudden refusal to schedule (or firing of) non-compliant patients.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 35 users
Members don't see this ad :)
The Obama administration wants to pay doctors less under the guise of cost-effective care by installing measurements of quality that do not actually measure anything of substance and the abuse of meaningless use requirements of emrs which are poorly designed, filled with useless notes from ancillary staff and do not communicate with one another so that physicians are forced to repeat tests because they could not easily obtain the records from outside sources.

For doctors and health facilities, the system will tie tens, and then hundreds, of billions of dollars in payments to things out of the doctor's control, such as the way their patients fare, rather than how much work a doctor or hospital does, lowering the curtain on Medicare’s system of paying line-by-line for each scan, test and surgery.

"We believe we can make medicare as worthless to doctors as medicaid. All we care about is the ability to tell the media and the American people that more people are placing their hard earned money in the hands of our insurance executive friends as the populace is forced to pay for worthless insurance that covers little but demands high co-pays and deductibles. We don't mind that this plan will leave them unable to find physicians willing to accept our poverty level reimbursements. " Sylvie Matthews Buwell, secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, said in the statement.

Medicare’s practices are often echoed by private insurers who cover 170 million Americans. If Obama’s plan is successful, non-elderly consumers could eventually see a lack of health care, though they may also find that doctors and hospitals offer fewer services as the government attempts to take the model of paying anesthesiologists 15% of private insurance reimbursement levels to all physicians.

"If we really wanted to decrease the cost of care, we would stop increasing the facility fees for hospitals for the same procedures that can easily be done in an outpatient setting while forcing physicians into the arms of management companies and insurance companies who we hope will improve their methods of robbing physicians without providing value and will start donating some of their ill-gotten gains to our PACs" said a government spokesperson.

The country’s main lobbying groups for doctors and hospitals said they were on board, at least with the broad idea behind the overhaul. “We support anything that gives us more power to marginalize physicians and treat them as replaceable widgets in our healthcare assemblyline,” said Maureen Sick, a representative of the American Hospital Association.

Robert Waht, president of the American Medical Association, said that physicians were worried about additional bureaucracy. “This idea that we don't really give a crap about anything other than getting paid well for a terrible system of codes which adds another layer of bureacracy for physicians, we’re very supportive of that,” Waht said in an interview in Washington.

The Affordable Care Act, often criticized by its opponents for not doing much to control health-care costs, created several programs the Obama administration now plans to rely upon to end fee-for-service payments. For example, the law penalizes hospitals with high rates of readmissions of Medicare patients within 30 days of discharging them despite the fact that many of these readmissions have nothing to do with the quality of care provided by physicians, and is a misguided attempt at forcing doctors and hospitals to band together and closely coordinate their care, with the aim of reducing payments for circumstances beyond their control.

Those programs have saved about 50,000 lives and reduced health-care spending by about $12 billion, based on bull**** numbers pulled out of my ass, the health department said.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 23 users
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who has been following CMS policy for the past couple of years.

It's pretty hilarious though given the number of organizations that have dropped out of the Premier ACO demo, and the growing body of evidence that none of CMS's performance initiatives (readmission reduction program, P4P, etc) have the intended effect. There's also some damning evidence that these policies hurt minority-serving and safety net hospitals more than anyone else.
Can you please explain what premiere accountable care organization is?

Oh, and can I see these damning studies? Any ammunition I could get would help.

btw, I like your icon.
 
Sorry my brain is not working tonight

Premier was CMS's P4P demonstration program (Premier Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration project):

http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=78

I was thinking of the Pioneer program, which is a large scale ACO pilot - and in year two of pioneer a number of programs dropped out:

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2013/08/15/pioneer-acos-disappointing-first-year/

Here are a couple of studies (surgery specific mostly since that's what I know):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24887984

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22455751

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24417309
Thanks! I will read it all when things slow down.
 
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who has been following CMS policy for the past couple of years.

It's pretty hilarious though given the number of organizations that have dropped out of the Pioneer ACO demo, and the growing body of evidence that none of CMS's performance initiatives (readmission reduction program, P4P, etc) have the intended effect. There's also some damning evidence that these policies hurt minority-serving and safety net hospitals more than anyone else.
Wasn't the ACO 'demo' a preliminary version of Obamacare?

Anyway, I could be wrong, but haven't some other states already enacted a similiar initiative, but by themselves and not because of the CMS?
 
Obama should be paid in accordance to how well he does his job. That SOB has made it his goal to penalize and demonize the hard-working people in this country, and benefit those who don't deserve anything.
We're out of two wars, gas is near $2, and unemployment is near 5%. He really sucks all around, amirite?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Class warfare.

No more, no less.
You can't have real class warfare between 99 out of 100 people and the 1 that remains. It's kind of a BS term, as democracies are ruled by majority vote, so asking the 99 to do what benefits them rather than what benefits the 1 person outside their group isn't warfare, it is common sense and self interest.

For the record, I think many of his policies are terrible, but anyone that says "class warfare" has a serious disconnect with how democracy functions, and has gobbled up laughable talking points.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
This definitely will not go through. How exactly are they planning on measuring quality? Suppose a patient is prescribed blood pressure medication and never takes them, is that the doctor's fault now?



According to MSN Money:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/insu...ric-us-overhaul-of-medical-billing/ar-AA8BCxG

"The Obama administration will make historic changes to how the U.S. pays its annual $3 trillion health-care bill, aiming to curtail a costly habit of paying doctors and hospitals without regard to quality or effectiveness.

Starting next year Medicare, which covers about 50 million elderly and disabled Americans, will base 30 percent of payments on how well health providers care for patients, some of which will put them at financial risk based on the quality they deliver. By 2018, the goal is to put half of payments under the new system.

For doctors and health facilities, the system will tie tens, and then hundreds, of billions of dollars in payments to how their patients fare, rather than how much work a doctor or hospital does, lowering the curtain on Medicare’s system of paying line-by-line for each scan, test and surgery.

“We believe these goals can drive transformative change,” Sylvia Mathews Burwell, secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, said in the statement.

The program would be a major shift for hospitals, health facilities and physicians, eventually more than doubling the reach of programs that the U.S. said has saved $417 million and that have been a model for how the government hopes to influence, and slow down, health spending.

Medicare paid about $362 billion to care providers in 2014, the health department said in a statement, making it the biggest buyer of health care services in the U.S. Paying separately for each procedure, called “fee-for-service,” has long been viewed as an inefficient driver of U.S. health spending, which at more than 17 percent of gross domestic product is the highest in the world.

Broad Reach

The Obama administration’s announcement today is the first time the government has ever set specific goals to steer the nation away from fee-for-service payments.

Medicare’s practices are often echoed by private insurers who cover 170 million Americans. If the U.S.’s plan is successful, non-elderly consumers could eventually see cost savings, though they may also find that doctors and hospitals offer fewer services as they seek to cut waste and maintain profits.
Doctors and hospitals are already facing changes under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. About 20 percent of Medicare spending is now paid through programs in which health-care providers either take some financial risk for their performance or at least collect and report measures of their quality, the health department said. Expanding that figure was a key goal of the the law.

At Risk

“The people who are delivering care are increasingly at financial risk for the services that are being rendered,” Dan Mendelson, CEO of Avalere Health, a Washington consulting firm, said in a phone interview. “It’s increasingly likely the physician or the hospital is going to make more money if they provide less care.”

The country’s main lobbying groups for doctors and hospitals said they were on board, at least with the broad idea behind the overhaul. “We support secretary Burwell’s goals and plans,” said Maureen Swick, a representative of the American Hospital Association.

Robert Wah, president of the American Medical Association, said that physicians were worried about additional bureaucracy. “This idea that we’re talking about delivery reform and setting up a system of delivery reform, we’re very supportive of that,” Wah said in an interview in Washington. “The details will be important to see.”

Industry Reaction

Burwell met with about two dozen health industry officials this morning to brief them on the administration’s plan. Participants included executives of Verizon Communications Inc., Boeing Co., UnitedHealth Group Inc., Anthem Inc. and representatives of large hospital chains and physician organizations.

The Affordable Care Act, often criticized by its opponents for not doing much to control health-care costs, created several programs the Obama administration now plans to rely upon to end fee-for-service payments. For example, the law penalizes hospitals with high rates of readmissions of Medicare patients within 30 days of discharging them, and encourages doctors and hospitals to band together and closely coordinate their care, with the aim of reducing redundancies and inefficiency.

Those programs have saved about 50,000 lives and reduced health-care spending by about $12 billion, based on preliminary estimates, the health department said
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I know different hospitals pay doctors differently (how many patients you see versus hourly or w/e), but can you expand on where this is happening? Thanks!

It's already happening now. Close to 20% of current funding is through these programs...they are just talking about expanding them.
 
We're out of two wars, gas is near $2, and unemployment is near 5%. He really sucks all around, amirite?
The two wars we exited were stupid moves. He is a weak leader and everyone knows it.

Gas prices are near two dollars-no thanks to him. He fought fracking (the reason prices are so low) tooth and nail, but he'll sure take credit for it.

Why is unemployment 5.6%? Oh yeah, because of fracking. Something he fought tooth and nail.

Edit: btw, I don't even think that unemployment rate is accurate. It's probably a grossly exaggerated White House statistic.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Take no medicare
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Most of this is through ACOs (accountable care organizations). Basically, instead of getting paid in the traditional prospective/fee-for-service model, a coalition of physicians accept XXX dollars over YYY amount of time to take care of ZZZ number of patients.

So now most of the financial risk is shifted to the providers and off of the payers. If on average you can provide cost-efficient care, you (as a pool) profit.

The other programs that they are seeking to expand do more or less the same - either increase risk for providers (readmission reduction program, non payment for hospital acquired conditions), or try to provide financial incentives for high quality care (P4P).

Okay, that makes sense. Do you know how they are measuring quality? I know you mentioned hospital-acquired conditions. Is the patient held accountable for anything (taking pills on time, diet, exercise, etc.)? Say you have a patient who doesn't want X treatment for religious beliefs, are doctors given any leeway in these cases?
 
You can't have real class warfare between 99 out of 100 people and the 1 that remains. It's kind of a BS term, as democracies are ruled by majority vote, so asking the 99 to do what benefits them rather than what benefits the 1 person outside their group isn't warfare, it is common sense and self interest.

For the record, I think many of his policies are terrible, but anyone that says "class warfare" has a serious disconnect with how democracy functions, and has gobbled up laughable talking points.

It's about marketing, not democracy.

If 99 people are stupid enough to believe an unsustainable system is "free", I really can't feel sorry for them.
 
This should just drive more and more docs into Direct Primary Care....and then when docs are only seeing 600 patients instead of the couple thousand they do now, it'll be interesting to see how much they'll be willing to pay the remaining docs to take the glut of Medicare/Medicaid patients
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Seems to me like this will cost the hospitals tons of money and that extra cost will be removed from physicians salary. Am I wrong?
 
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who has been following CMS policy for the past couple of years.

It's pretty hilarious though given the number of organizations that have dropped out of the Pioneer ACO demo, and the growing body of evidence that none of CMS's performance initiatives (readmission reduction program, P4P, etc) have the intended effect. There's also some damning evidence that these policies hurt minority-serving and safety net hospitals more than anyone else.

Color me shocked.
 
The two wars we exited were stupid moves. He is a weak leader and everyone knows it.

Gas prices are near two dollars-no thanks to him. He fought fracking (the reason prices are so low) tooth and nail, but he'll sure take credit for it.

Why is unemployment 5.6%? Oh yeah, because of fracking. Something he fought tooth and nail.

Edit: btw, I don't even think that unemployment rate is accurate. It's probably a grossly exaggerated White House statistic.

I agree that exiting the wars so quickly was probably a pretty stupid move. Starting them was an even stupider move though.

I also agree gas prices are not because of him, but they also aren't (directly) because of fracking. 5.6% unemployment has little to do with fracking considering the number continues to go down while the frackers are starting to go out of business.

Also, unemployment is not an exhaggerated "white house statistic". It's a very real statistic that the markets agree with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

What's silly to me is that 1/3 of P4P is tied directly into a patient's rating of a doctor.

Let's say a patient is coming in for knee pain for which I can find no cause apart from obesity and I tell them nicely that they need to lose weight and also to stop smoking (something you are now required to do for MU). They don't like the fact that I don't give them a steroid injection and cure their pain immediately, but I did diagnose the issue with their pain. I believe I've done the right thing while they may think I'm just another doctor that doesn't understand.

Think of the last time you went to your favorite doctor and they sent home a ratings card. Did you fill it out? This may be my experience with all the surveys I've compiled over my time doing research, but 5-point Likert scales generally stay in the 3.2-3.8 range because people that are upset rate straight 1's, some people actually do rate and give a mix, and others give rave reviews with all 5's even for services they did not receive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Health care as a percentage of GDP is becoming unsustainable, and things will only get worse. All we know is that current system isn't working, so maybe trying something new will
 
This should just drive more and more docs into Direct Primary Care....and then when docs are only seeing 600 patients instead of the couple thousand they do now, it'll be interesting to see how much they'll be willing to pay the remaining docs to take the glut of Medicare/Medicaid patients
Thats my exact thought... If I have any intention of going into primary care, and crap continues at the way it is going for the next 4 years of school, no way am I going into the mess of insurance crap. DPC all the way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The two wars we exited were stupid moves. He is a weak leader and everyone knows it.

Gas prices are near two dollars-no thanks to him. He fought fracking (the reason prices are so low) tooth and nail, but he'll sure take credit for it.

Why is unemployment 5.6%? Oh yeah, because of fracking. Something he fought tooth and nail.

Edit: btw, I don't even think that unemployment rate is accurate. It's probably a grossly exaggerated White House statistic.
The Saudis and OPEC are intentionally keeping prices low to kill the fracking industry IMO. In a few years, most of the operations will be out of business and they'll crank up oil prices again. The moral of the story is invest in some oil.

I really just don't view him as that bad of a president. He certainly isn't the greatest, but he sure was better than Bush Jr.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Politicians should get P4P, with a percent of pay determined by their approval rating. Let's see how that one would go over...
 
Good. Crappy docs not needed.
 
Good. Crappy docs not needed.

I was going to write out a longer response, but I think I'll just sigh instead.

In short, that's not what's being measured with these metrics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 users
Thats my exact thought... If I have any intention of going into primary care, and crap continues at the way it is going for the next 4 years of school, no way am I going into the mess of insurance crap. DPC all the way.

I honestly think it could be the wave of the future. AtlasMD has done a great job showing that it can be an affordable alternative to the crap that's out there now.
 
I honestly think it could be the wave of the future. AtlasMD has done a great job showing that it can be an affordable alternative to the crap that's out there now.
Yea after I found some stuff from him on here, I went on a crazy research tangent into concierge/DPC. I would be pumped to do primary care if thats how the practice is done. I think personally I would pick up more patients than he has (I would get bored with like sometimes 4 patients a day), but the idea is there, and he does it very cheaply for families - yet pulls in awesome money for a PCP.
 
I also think an interesting free market experiment is the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, which is completely physician-owned and lists its prices on the website ahead of time. $200 pre-surgical appointment, nonrefundable. The rest is the doctor fees (surgeon + anesthesiologist) and the facility fee. When you click on the fine print, it does say that any additional labs or imaging will have to be paid for as well by the patient and aren't in the listed price, but their prices look pretty doggone reasonable to me:

http://www.surgerycenterok.com/pricing/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Also, the idea of taking only 600 patients is appealing, but the guy who originally started the first concierge practice, MD Squared, has already said that if enough physicians start doing that, we'll lose public opinion and then be subjected to laws requiring quotas or other commu- *cough cough* I mean socialist agendas. (Dr. Howard Maron was quoted in an article on the ethics of concierge medicine recently; I googled but can't find the article again).
 
Last edited:
We're out of two wars, gas is near $2, and unemployment is near 5%. He really sucks all around, amirite?

You weren't planning to actually give him credit for all of that were you? Because I don't want to berate you for sloppy thinking but I will if you force my hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
You weren't planning to actually give him credit for all of that were you? Because I don't want to berate you for sloppy thinking but I will if you force my hand.
If you were anyone else I'd bait, but because you're you I'll just be up front and say that was some trolling sarcasm.

Obama? More like Obameh, amirite?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Top