Monday, 4 April 2005

Princess Health and One Hospital System Will Stop Aggressive Collection Tactics Targeted at the Uninsured. Princessiccia

Princess Health and One Hospital System Will Stop Aggressive Collection Tactics Targeted at the Uninsured. Princessiccia

Meanwhile, from the Minnesota Star Tribune, the state Attorney General's office has secured an agreement fromthe large Fairview Health Services system that it will stop aggressive collection tactics targeted at people without health insurance, and will start offering discounts off its "rack rates" to them. Sounds like a good idea, too. Previously, the Attorney General reported that "Fairview had become so narrowly focused on profits that bill collectors were sent after patients who didn't owe money or could have qualified for its patient-aid programs."
Perhaps these two small stories offer some little bit of hope that we can get away from the sort of culture described by the doctors surveyed by ACPE (see my post below), where "ultimately, the bottom line corrupts absolutely."
Princess Health and  One Hospital System Will Stop Aggressive Collection Tactics Targeted at the Uninsured.Princessiccia

Princess Health and One Hospital System Will Stop Aggressive Collection Tactics Targeted at the Uninsured.Princessiccia

Meanwhile, from the Minnesota Star Tribune, the state Attorney General's office has secured an agreement fromthe large Fairview Health Services system that it will stop aggressive collection tactics targeted at people without health insurance, and will start offering discounts off its "rack rates" to them. Sounds like a good idea, too. Previously, the Attorney General reported that "Fairview had become so narrowly focused on profits that bill collectors were sent after patients who didn't owe money or could have qualified for its patient-aid programs."
Perhaps these two small stories offer some little bit of hope that we can get away from the sort of culture described by the doctors surveyed by ACPE (see my post below), where "ultimately, the bottom line corrupts absolutely."
Princess Health and A Revival of Physician-Run, Group Model Managed Care?. Princessiccia

Princess Health and A Revival of Physician-Run, Group Model Managed Care?. Princessiccia

In Florida, there are now a couple of "provider-sponsored organizations," which seem to be sort of a revival of the old physician-run, group practice model of managed care. The new organizations are nominally for-profit, but "the idea is to create a system in which a large group of physicians can deliver high-quality care under the direct supervision of physicians, not administrators trying to maximize profits." Sounds promising. See the story in the Miami Herald.
Princess Health and  A Revival of Physician-Run, Group Model Managed Care?.Princessiccia

Princess Health and A Revival of Physician-Run, Group Model Managed Care?.Princessiccia

In Florida, there are now a couple of "provider-sponsored organizations," which seem to be sort of a revival of the old physician-run, group practice model of managed care. The new organizations are nominally for-profit, but "the idea is to create a system in which a large group of physicians can deliver high-quality care under the direct supervision of physicians, not administrators trying to maximize profits." Sounds promising. See the story in the Miami Herald.

Saturday, 2 April 2005

Princess Health and Major ACPE Survey on Unethical Business Practices in US Health Care. Princessiccia

Princess Health and Major ACPE Survey on Unethical Business Practices in US Health Care. Princessiccia

The results of a very important survey have just been published by the American College of
Physician Executives (ACPE)
. A summary of survey data is here. The full article, entitled "Unethical Business Practices in US Health Care Alarm Physician Leaders," is here. An American Medical News article summarizing some aspects of the results is here.
Basically the ACPE designed the survey to determine "how have physicians - along with other health care providers - responded to the universal seep of commercial imperatives into the modern practice of medicine." It surveyed about 1500 ACPE members (a 21% response rate). Of those responding, 10.1% were CEOs or the like, 28.8% were at the vice-president, CMO, COO, CIO level or similar, 17.9% were medical directors, 24.5% had academic leadership positions, and 18.6% were practicing physicians, consultants, or house-staff.
The results that were most striking and relevant to the issue of external threats to physicians' professionalism were as follows.
  • A large majority of respondents were quite concerned about "unethical business practices affecting US health care today." (54.6% were very concerned, 35.6% were moderately concerned).
  • Significant proportions of responders were concerned about unethical business practices within their own organization. (33.1% thought that there were one or more physicians in the organization "involved in unethical business practices;" 11% thought there was a board member "involved in unethical business practices;" 14.2% thought there was a non-physician administrator "involved in unethical business practices.")
  • The majority, 53.8%, could identify another health care organization in their community "involved in unethical business practices."
  • Although most, 70.1%, said that their organization had a written code of ethical behavior, only 59.7% of them said the code was actually enforced.
  • A large majority, 80.8% agreed that "professional organizations need to promote tougher ethical standards."
  • Most respondents evinced concern about a variety of unethical practices by physicians. In addition, most were concerned about board members or non-physician executives with conflicts of interest (33% very concerned, 33% moderately concerned about the former, 34% and 32%, the latter.) Most were concerned about board members or non-physician executives accepting gifts from vendors (27% and 29% re the former, 34% and 32% re the latter.)
  • Finally, when asked who was responsible "for sowing the minefield through which today's physicians have to try to pick a righteous path," they named a variety of types of large health care organizations, health care plans and health insurers, pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, hospitals and health system, and malpractice attorneys.
  • Finally, respondents provided some pithy comments."Our health care system is designed to encourage unethical behavior by its misplaced financial priorities." "Current medical practice on a corporate level is schizophrenic." "Ultimately, the bottom line corrupts absolutely!" "'Business ethics'... an oxymoron?"
In summary, although its small response rate is a limitation, this survey begins to quantitate the scope of some of the issues we have discussed on Health Care Renewal. It suggests that our concerns about threats to physicians' professionalism due to concentration and abuse of power are not exaggerated. If physician executives are this worried, it suggests that doctors in the trenches may be even more so.
Now the question is how can we get the folks with these concerns together, and figure out what to do about them?
Princess Health and  Major ACPE Survey on Unethical Business Practices in US Health Care.Princessiccia

Princess Health and Major ACPE Survey on Unethical Business Practices in US Health Care.Princessiccia

The results of a very important survey have just been published by the American College of
Physician Executives (ACPE)
. A summary of survey data is here. The full article, entitled "Unethical Business Practices in US Health Care Alarm Physician Leaders," is here. An American Medical News article summarizing some aspects of the results is here.
Basically the ACPE designed the survey to determine "how have physicians - along with other health care providers - responded to the universal seep of commercial imperatives into the modern practice of medicine." It surveyed about 1500 ACPE members (a 21% response rate). Of those responding, 10.1% were CEOs or the like, 28.8% were at the vice-president, CMO, COO, CIO level or similar, 17.9% were medical directors, 24.5% had academic leadership positions, and 18.6% were practicing physicians, consultants, or house-staff.
The results that were most striking and relevant to the issue of external threats to physicians' professionalism were as follows.
  • A large majority of respondents were quite concerned about "unethical business practices affecting US health care today." (54.6% were very concerned, 35.6% were moderately concerned).
  • Significant proportions of responders were concerned about unethical business practices within their own organization. (33.1% thought that there were one or more physicians in the organization "involved in unethical business practices;" 11% thought there was a board member "involved in unethical business practices;" 14.2% thought there was a non-physician administrator "involved in unethical business practices.")
  • The majority, 53.8%, could identify another health care organization in their community "involved in unethical business practices."
  • Although most, 70.1%, said that their organization had a written code of ethical behavior, only 59.7% of them said the code was actually enforced.
  • A large majority, 80.8% agreed that "professional organizations need to promote tougher ethical standards."
  • Most respondents evinced concern about a variety of unethical practices by physicians. In addition, most were concerned about board members or non-physician executives with conflicts of interest (33% very concerned, 33% moderately concerned about the former, 34% and 32%, the latter.) Most were concerned about board members or non-physician executives accepting gifts from vendors (27% and 29% re the former, 34% and 32% re the latter.)
  • Finally, when asked who was responsible "for sowing the minefield through which today's physicians have to try to pick a righteous path," they named a variety of types of large health care organizations, health care plans and health insurers, pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, hospitals and health system, and malpractice attorneys.
  • Finally, respondents provided some pithy comments."Our health care system is designed to encourage unethical behavior by its misplaced financial priorities." "Current medical practice on a corporate level is schizophrenic." "Ultimately, the bottom line corrupts absolutely!" "'Business ethics'... an oxymoron?"
In summary, although its small response rate is a limitation, this survey begins to quantitate the scope of some of the issues we have discussed on Health Care Renewal. It suggests that our concerns about threats to physicians' professionalism due to concentration and abuse of power are not exaggerated. If physician executives are this worried, it suggests that doctors in the trenches may be even more so.
Now the question is how can we get the folks with these concerns together, and figure out what to do about them?
Princess Health and More Unrest Over the New NIH Ethics Rules. Princessiccia

Princess Health and More Unrest Over the New NIH Ethics Rules. Princessiccia

The Washington Post reports yet more unrest among top NIH employees about the new ethics rules.
  • Another prominenet leader is stepping down because he can't comply with the new rules. James F. Battey, the Director of the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communicative Disorders, said "I manage a family trust ... which supports the education of my father's seven grandchildren, and it contains assets I'm told I'd have to divest. This would cost a lot of money, and I can't do that to my family."
  • A dissenting group of "senior agency scientists," complained that they would have to get permission for practically any outside activity, "whether paid or not, from singing in a jazz group to selling art or jewelry, from volunteering at charity organizations to membership in a school or community organization...." from the NIH. "It is intrusive and scary. It suggests the NIH owns our lives away from work."
  • Ashani Weerarartna of the National Institute on Aging was told she could not accept a $200 train ticket from a "physicians' education group" to present a paper. "I felt awful. I had to call and tell them to find someone else."
  • Furthermore, NIH workers complained that they "cannot hold executive postions - even on a volunteer basis - with trade or professional organizations..." Regarding this, Robert L. Nussbaum, Chief, Genetic Disease Research Branch,National Human Genome Research Institute, said "But what I'm really worried about is backlash from the organizations.""We will be cut off, disenfranchised from our academic colleagues."
An interesting theme here, in my humble opinion, is how those who complain about the new regulations seem to exaggerate their impact.
  • Let's start with Dr. Battey, who also does seem to represent a very special case. I would imagine he could continue to manage his family trust himself if he were willing to sell individual stocks of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Why that would be so expensive is unclear, unless he chose some very bad investments. Furthermore, he could re-invest the money in say, mutual funds that specialize in pharma or biotech. On the other hand, he could simply hire a professional money manager.
  • The dissenting NIH employees seem to have exaggerated the effect of the regulations, as summarized here, on outside activities unrelated to their work at the agency.
  • If the meeting were so important, why couldn't Weerarartna ask the NIH to pay her way, or pay her own way? On the other hand, was the "physicians' education group" actually a commercial CME source, or was it funded by pharma or biotech money?
  • Why couldn't Dr Nussbaum participate in some way other than an "executive" role in the organization? If those "executive positions" were the only members not to feel "cut off, disenfranchised" from this organization, why would anyone want to be a member of it?
Again, let me reiterate, NIH leaders have the privilege of working for what many consider to be the world's premier biomedical research institution. In holding such positions, their speech and actions ought to reflect their scientific knowledge and their commitment to the public good. Major personal financial involvements with outside entities, especially for-profit manufacturers of pharmaceuticals and devices, raise questions about whose interests they are really serving. As Director Zerhouni has said, "It is undermining in a profound way � more profound than I personally realized at the beginning of the process � the integrity of our research and our ability to maintain public trust in our research.�
If NIH salaries are too low to attract competent scientists and physicians, they should be raised. But an NIH position should not be license to seek lucrative after-hours employment for industry.