GUEST BLOG - What Can Doctors Do to Combat Business Malfeasance in Health Care?

Dr Gene Dorio is a an internist and geriatrician in California, described in the Los Angeles Times as an "old school physician."  He would welcome discussion with anyone interested in his proposal.  Please email him directly at grd51 at aol dot com, or email me for forwarding.    

As a Health Care Renewal reader, learning of medical business malfeasance irritates my moral conscience, yet lack of legal intervention frustrates my inner core.

I am chairman of the Department of Medicine at a small community hospital in Southern California, and as I battle the Administration during Medical Executive Committee meetings, I am a lone voice. Some of my colleagues nod their heads, while others later tell me of their support, but few vocally nor in writing openly give their opinion. Why?

Most fear hospital financial retaliation, but I also know they don’t have time to formulate an opinion. You would think well-educated doctors who daily advocate on behalf of patients would be better attuned to being involved in our great medical debate. Because they have remained silent, “big business” jumped in and took over financial medical decision-making.

Using our medical license is the business scheme they use to make their money. With sophisticated business techniques, they have shut out doctors and dangled dollars as we all jump for their “carrots.” That successful business model and attitude is outside the realm of doctor’s poor business and public relations sense, with the noose continually tightening.

Realizing business would be nowhere without our medical license is our trump card...which we haven’t played yet!

What can we do? Logically, bring their business malfeasance forward on blogs (like Health Care Renewal) with the hope physicians and the public will be upset. It does stir the pot for some of our colleagues, but for the most part, doctor attention is now focused on just trying to survive. The public is rendered helpless by the continually confusing medical legalese by the well-financed business propaganda machine. This is where our frustration arises, as the backlash-opinion tsunami of their business outrage never materializes, especially from doctors.

Therefore, my first thought for a possible solution is focus on the public, clarifying the legalese, and use abhorrent stories of business abuse and patient care sacrifice for business profit. We must make them the villain.

Secondly, organize physician writers into a small group launching a “counter offensive” against their propaganda. The public still highly respect physicians and gravitates to their opinions and stories. With the right motivated people, they would think-tank refined opinions for the national spotlight.

Thirdly, network with national blogs and magazines, and city-printed newspapers for article publication as op-eds, letters to the editors, journal articles, and personal stories.

Fourthly, and probably the hardest, not get discouraged.

Health Care Renewal defines the problem, but not always the solution. Even when there might be solutions, they must be broadcast and directed at a higher level to ignite public opinion.

If you think this might be worthy for 2013 (as if we aren’t all busy enough!), I will be happy to spearhead this project with those advocate colleagues and idealists who might be interested.

Our profession is under assault from big business, and finding clarity is the shield we need to defend society and our patients.

Dr Gene Dorio

Corporate Medicine Marches On - Putting Revenue Ahead of Patients

The ongoing transformation of physicians from independent professionals to corporate employees has attracted considerable recent media attention.

The Ranks of Corporate Physicians Grow

Several articles noted examples of the rush to corporate medicine.  In early November, Anna Wilde Matthews wrote in the Wall Street Journal about the push by for-profit health insurer/ managed care organization/ hospital chain Humana to hire more physicians to provide direct patient care. 

The insurer said Monday it is spending around $500 million in cash—or $850 million including debt—to acquire Metropolitan Health Networks Inc, a Boca Raton, Fla., company that operates health-care-provider networks serving people on Medicare, Medicaid and other plans. 

Also,

Humana also said its Concentra unit had acquired 55 primary-care practices in 2012.
Between direct employment, owning stakes in practices, or close contracting that also involves providing services to the doctors, Humana said it had close ties with around 2,300 physicians, and it planned to add 300 to 400 next year.

An article in Bloomberg in mid-November noted how several large for-profit hospital chains were seeking to hire physicians to provide direct patient care.

This year, HCA increased the number of doctors it employs through acquisitions and direct hiring by about 150 to 200 for a total of 3,200, said Samuel Hazen, president of operations for HCA, on a conference call Nov. 1 with analysts. The Nashville, Tennessee-based company plans to continue expanding the number of doctors it employs, though at a slower pace than over the past several years, he said.

Tenet spokesman Rick Black said acquiring physician practices is part of the company’s effort to 'ensure our hospitals provide the medical services needed by the communities they serve, and to foster the development of ongoing clinical initiatives that improve the quality of care that is delivered to patients and control costs.' He declined to comment on how many physicians Dallas-based Tenet has added through acquisitions.

Focusing on cardiology, the article highlighted a larger trend,

In Wisconsin, the number of heart doctors in private practice has declined to 11 percent from 62 percent of cardiologists in 2007, according to the American College of Cardiology, whose main offices are in Washington.  The trend is similar nationwide. The number of heart doctors working for U.S. hospitals has more than tripled, while the number in private practice has fallen 23 percent over five years, the ACC said. 

An article in the American Medical News provided the big picture,

Only 36% of practicing physicians will hold a practice ownership stake by the end of the 2013, down from 57% in 2000, according to Accenture’s analysis of data from the American Medical Association and MGMA-ACMPE.

These and several other articles began to describe the adverse effects of having physicians employed by corporations to take care of patients.  

Excess Costs

The Bloomberg article noted that the rush to employ physicians is

creating a new dynamic that threatens to raise the price of health care, even as the federal government and states strain to keep a lid on costs.

Under Medicare’s tangled payment system, hospitals get higher reimbursements than individual doctors for cardiology treatment, as they do for other specialty services, in some cases as much as three times more. At the same time, the added bargaining power gained by controlling more of the heart care in a geographic market has given large hospital systems added leverage in negotiating reimbursements from insurers, such as UnitedHealth Group Inc and WellPoint Inc.

'Clearly, in the short run, it raises costs,' said Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, a Washington-based nonprofit research group. 'We have a case where a physician becomes employed by a hospital and now a payer, like Medicare, has to start paying more.'

Specifically,

Medicare, the U.S. government’s health program for the elderly and disabled, pays a hospital $400 for an echocardiogram, $180 for a cardiac stress test and more than $25 for an electrocardiogram, according to data from the American College of Cardiology. At a private physicians office, Medicare pays $150 for an echocardiogram, about $60 for a cardiac stress test and $10 for an electrocardiogram.

Doctors Pressured to Put Revenue Ahead of Patients' Welfare

A far more serious concern is that physicians who are now reporting to corporate executives will be pushed to actions that increase corporate revenue even if they put patients at risk.  The Bloomberg article noted,

While they may gain more stable incomes, doctors often have less freedom over how they care for their patients under strict hospital protocols. Some doctors are also under pressure to see more patients each day when they are employed by a hospital, ...

Two major examples of investigative journalism provided concrete examples of employed physicians enticed with incentives for making decisions that put revenue ahead of patients' interests, or threatened for doing the opposite.  An article in the New York Times provided these examples

Bonuses for Early, Possibly Premature Discharge

One Florida primary care physician said he could earn a $5,000 bonus for keeping patients in the hospital for less than three days, according to a lawsuit he filed this year. Hospitals, which are typically reimbursed a fixed amount of money for treating a specific illness, can make more money if patients stay for shorter periods of time.

Bonuses for Ordering Possibly Unnecessary Tests

Last month, the Justice Department reached a $9.3 million settlement with Freeman Health System, a hospital group in Joplin, Mo., which was rewarding doctors it employed partly based on how many tests they ordered. 

Pressure to Refer Patients Only to Other Physicians Employed by the Same Corporation
 

Other physicians say they are pushed to ignore what is best for patients by referring them to doctors working for the same hospital. Dr. Victoria Rentel, a family practice doctor near Columbus, Ohio, recalled feeling pressured when she was employed by a local hospital to send her patients to doctors there for tests and procedures.

'I routinely got reports about the money I kept in the system,' Dr. Rentel said, detailing how much revenue she was generating for the hospital through in-house referrals.

Also,

In Boise, doctors are pressured to refer only within their own system, according to St. Alphonsus in its complaint. It reported a 90 percent drop in admissions to its hospitals by physicians employed by St. Luke’s.

Incentives for Possibly Unnecessary Admissions

The Times article provided evidence that physicians were pressured to admit patients regardless of need,

Health Management Associates, a for-profit hospital chain; EmCare, a Dallas-based emergency room staffing company for hospitals; and other hospitals have disclosed that they are the subjects of federal investigations. Regulators are looking into whether the hospitals improperly pressured physicians to admit patients.
 

According to two emergency room doctors who worked at Carlisle Regional Medical Center in Pennsylvania, the message could not have been clearer: more patients needed to be admitted. 

The doctors were employed by EmCare, whose parent company was later acquired by the private equity firm Clayton, Dubilier & Rice in 2011 as part of a $3.2 billion deal. EmCare, in turn, was under contract to provide emergency room doctors for the hospital, which is owned by Health Management Associates. In interviews, doctors said that hospital administrators created targets for how many patients they should admit. More admissions translated into more dollars for the hospital. 

Dr. Jean-Paul Romes, one of the physicians, recalled getting phone calls in the middle of the night questioning why he had not admitted an older patient whose hospitalization he could easily have justified. 'The pressure to admit was so high,' he said. Dr. Romes left the hospital last year.

How Incentives for Unnecessary Admissions are Disguised

A major report on the famous muck-raking CBS television program 60 Minutes provided more detail about how Health Management Associates prettied up apparent demands to increase hospital admissions, no matter what.  The reporting was based on interviews with "more than 100 current and former employees," and featured an on air discussion with three former HMA physicians and one former HMA administrator, a video clip of a deposition by a former HMA executive vice president, and an interview with a former director of compliance with HMA.

All asserted that HMA pressured physicians to increase admissions to an arbitrary proportion of emergency department patients, at times between 16 ad 20 percent.   Several alleged that physicians who failed to meet that "benchmark" were threatened with termination of their jobs.  For example,

[Dr] Cliff Cloonan: My department chief said, we will admit 20 percent of our patients or somebody's going to get fired.

A former executive vice president of HMA contended that the admission quotas came from the very top of corporate leadership.

In August, a former executive vice president of the hospital chain - John Vollmer - testified under oath in a deposition, that HMA's aggressive admission policies came directly from the top: CEO Gary Newsome.

[John Vollmer: Mr. Newsome's thought was that an average of 16 percent was accomplishable at all hospitals or more and we should seek to do that and make that happen.]

Vollmer, who was also fired by HMA, became angry when the company lawyers challenged him.

[John Vollmer: I did my duty by informing HMA that what they are doing is wrong. You can't require them all to have 16 percent admission rates and beat up doctors and administrators and all these folks over it when you are doing it to increase your revenue for the facility.
HMA attorney: I'm going to move to strike what you just said.]

By using such a benchmark, the hospital executives seemed to be trying to maintain "plausible deniability" that they meddled in individual treatment decisions.  No one accused executives of directing the admission of a specific patient.  However, there seems to have been no way for a doctor to achieve the "benchmark" without unnecessary admissions.

[CBS Correspondent] Steve Kroft: They're saying, 'You will admit these people whether they're sick or not, whether they need to be hospitalized?'
[Dr] Scott Rankin: Correct--
[Dr] Cliff Cloonan: They never phrase it that way. They did say admit 20 percent. The reality of that is that there's only one way that that can happen. And that is if it is arbitrary. That is, if you do admit patients that don't need to be admitted.

Furthermore, the hospital corporation seemed to disguise the admission imperative as part of quality assurance.  This supposed quality assurance was administered through commercial health care information technology, "corporate wide computer software called Pro-MED which was installed in every emergency room. HMA says it was designed and approved by medical experts to improve the quality of patient care."  However,

The computer program also generated printed reports like this one evaluating each doctor's performance and productivity. On this document the doctors who hit corporate admissions goals received praise from company managers. Those who didn't knew it.

[Dr] Cliff Cloonan: The primary purpose of the scorecard was to track how you were doing in terms of revenue generation based on number of tests ordered and number of patients admitted to the hospital.
[Dr] Scott Rankin: It has nothing to do with patient safety and patient care. It has everything to do with generating revenues.

They say that when a doctor decided send to an emergency room patient home, the computer would often intervene, prompting the doctor to reconsider.

[Dr] Jeff Hamby: The minute I hit 'Home', it says, 'Qual Check.' And then it comes up with a warning, 'This patient meets criteria for admission. Do you want to override?'
[CBS Correspondent] Steve Kroft: What was the reaction from the administrators if you overrode the computer?

[Dr] Jeff Hamby: It was like being called to the principal's office.

Summary

Recent articles in the media have shown that physicians are increasingly practicing medicine as corporate employees (look here).  It is not clear how physicians in this situation can make sure they are always putting the interests of their individual patients ahead of other interests, including their corporate leaders' interests in increasing revenue and enriching themselves.  The most recent media reports discussed above add to the evidence that corporate physicians are constantly pressured to put short-term revenue generation ahead of patient welfare, and that they may specifically be pushed to admit patients unnecessarily, order unneeded laboratory tests, and discharge patients prematurely to satisfy corporate dictates.  One new wrinkle in this latest set of reports is how corporate executives may try to pretty up what they are doing by cloaking their actions within the quality assurance rubric, thus corrupting another important and well-intentioned component of health care.

The American Medical Association once declared "the practice of medicine should not be commercialized, nor treated as a commodity in trade." (Look here)  Despite such historic but now seemingly forgotten exhortations, and a complete lack of evidence of any benefits of the corporate practice of medicine to patients' or the public's health that might outweigh its obvious risks, the new movement to make every doctor a corporate employee marches on. 

A false hope of some resistance to it was just raised by that same American Medical Association in its new "AMA Principles for Physician Employment," but this only provided the ambiguous advice,

A physician’s paramount responsibility is to his or her patients. Additionally, given that an employed physician occupies a position of significant trust, he or she owes a duty of loyalty to his or her employer. This divided loyalty can create conflicts of interest, such as financial incentives to over- or under-treat patients, which employed physicians should strive to recognize and address.

How physicians could strive to recognize and address the inherent strong conflict of interest remains a mystery. 

Worse, while the principles recognized that physicians may be asked to sign "agreements or understandings (explicit or implicit) restricting, discouraging, or encouraging particular treatment or referral options," but rather than condemning such restraints on physicians' autonomy to give patients the best possible care, the principles only suggested that they "are disclosed to patients."

Furthermore, while the AMA response has been weak-kneed at best, I am not aware of any stronger responses from any other professional societies, or from state licensing boards, physician accrediting organizations, or any other organizations that are supposed to be concerned about patient's and the public's health, or about physicians' professionalism.

As I have said before, we need to challenge the notion that direct health care should ever be provided, or that medicine ought to be practiced by for-profit corporations. I submit that we will not be able to have good quality, accessible health care at an affordable price until we restore physicians as independent, ethical health care professionals, and until we restore small, independent, community responsible, non-profit hospitals as the locus for inpatient care.

The Rise of the Corporate Physician, and the "Metastasis of Big Corporations"

Public discussion has raised more questions over the last few months about physicians taking care of patients as corporate employees. 

More Physician Practices Taken over by Large Corporations

This year, more stories have appeared about large corporations taking over physician practices.  In February, there was an account of efforts by competing nominally non-profit health insurance company Highmark and nominally non-profit hospital system UPMC in Pittsburgh in a "race to gobble up private physician practices," per the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.  In March, the Washington Post featured a first-person account of what it is like for a physician in a private practice to try to hold out against the trend towards corporate practice.  In May, the Los Angeles Times noted how for-profit dialysis provider Da Vita purchased a large, but already for-profit operator of physician groups.  In October, Reuters reported how the recently announced acquisition by giant for-profit insurance company UnitedHealth of the biggest Brazilian for-profit managed care company will result in UnitedHealth owning an operating a Brazilian network of hospitals and clinics.

Concerns about Concentration of Market Power and Prices

In an increasingly financialized country, the media has featured concerns that the trend towards corporate physician practice might result in increasing market power for a few large corporations, and hence increased prices.  For example, in August, Anna Wilde Matthews reporting for the Wall Street Journal, noted

 Hospitals say the acquisitions will make health care more efficient. But the phenomenon, in some cases, also is having another effect: higher prices. 

As physicians are subsumed into hospital systems, they can get paid for services at the systems' rates, which are typically more generous than what insurers pay independent doctors. What's more, some services that physicians previously performed at independent facilities, such as imaging scans, may start to be billed as hospital outpatient procedures, sometimes more than doubling the cost.
 
The result is that the same service, even sometimes provided in the same location, can cost more once a practice signs on with a hospital.

Major health insurers say a growing number of rate increases are tied to physician-practice acquisitions. 

As Ms Matthews also reported for the Wall Street Journal, state regulators are beginning to worry about acquisitions of doctors' practices by hospital systems may drive up prices.

California's attorney general has launched a broad investigation into whether growing consolidation among hospitals and doctor groups is pushing up the price of medical care, reflecting increasing scrutiny by antitrust regulators of medical-provider deals.

Concerns about Care Quality

Concerns about whether physicians who must practice under the command of corporate executives will be able to put patient care ahead of corporate interests are also appearing, but not yet as prominently.

For example, Steve Twedt, writing for the Pittsburg Post-Gazette in September, looked into whether the multiple practice acquisitions by the area's two biggest ostensibly non-profit health care corporations might affect patient care.  He first noted "competition between Highmark and UPMC for doctors, and health care overhaul that is steering doctors into larger systems...."  Then he suggested that this has lead to marked discontinuities in patient care when physicians switch employment,

Out of the blue, people will learn their doctor has left a practice with little or no explanation, and without a forwarding address. When a physician effectively disappears, the cause usually is tied to the physician's employment contract, says a local health care attorney.

These cases of apparently vanishing physicians may be due to the contracting practices of physician employers, particularly large health care corporations.  The lawyer Mr Twedt interviewed explained,

most physician contracts now contain clauses that prohibit doctors from soliciting patients if they leave a practice.

While it's not always clear what constitutes 'solicitation,' it generally means departing physicians cannot contact their patients to invite or entice patients to follow them to their new location. They also cannot take their patient list with them, since that is property of the practice.

'I would imagine the doctor wouldn't contact them because he can't, or he doesn't have their address,' said Mr. Cassidy.

Contracts also often require that doctors cannot practice medicine within 10 miles of the previous practice office, and sometimes the required distance is even greater. Nor can they give out information about the practice they're leaving. Violating these contract terms could mean a financial penalty, such as loss of severance pay.

Finally, and most troubling, cardiologist blogger Dr Melissa Walton-Shirley recounted in some much more colorful language some consequences of cardiology practices which were acquired by large hospital systems.  She noted...

 

Referral Decisions Influenced by Management Edicts, but Maybe Not Patients' Needs

 

Physicians may be

sweating bullets over whether they are going to hit their benchmarks to retain their salaries. My anxious friends are now calling me for more referrals and more practice support.  They take any transfer I give them....

They may

 morph from human flesh into a Rubik's cube of relative value units (RVUs), the formula through which all future salaries and bonuses are calculated.

Resulting Loss of Continuity

Independent cardiologists opened office doors to find their patients who were anticipating decisions on timing of defibrillators, caths, or medical therapy had undergone testing at other facilities. Those tests were interpreted by cardiologists who were in no way connected to their care, their referrals to unfamiliar testing venues now incentivized by hidden contractual microformulas. They were evaluated far away from the familiar eye of their long-time cardiologists.

Summary

Back in the day, most physicians who took direct care of patients did so out of practices they or other physicians ran and owned.  The majority of physicians who took care of physicians as employees worked for the military or the Veterans Administration, or took care of patients only part-time as faculty of medical schools.  In a country increasingly prodded by market fundamentalism, the last few years has seen a major change in health care:  more and more physicians are taking care of patients as employees of large corporations, more often for-profit.

 I should add, though, that the recent push towards corporate practice was not just due to market fundamentalism, but also seems to in part be due to provisions of the recent attempt at US health care reform, the Affordable Care Act, which called for care by large organizations called accountable care organizations (ACOs).   However, like some other major changes in health care in the US over the last few years pushed by the increasing dominance of large corporations, this one happened without any rigorous assessments of whether the benefits for individual patients or public health would outweigh the harms, and justify the costs. 

Justified by the realization, now mostly forgotten, that health care is nothing like an ideal free market (look here), direct health care used to be almost entirely provided by health care professionals, often working in small, non-profit community hospital settings.  In fact, the American Medical Association used to condemn the corporate practice of medicine.  In addition, the corporate practice of medicine used to be illegal in many US states (look here).

We have changed all that, without too much thought, and without any rigorous assessment.  Now it seems increasingly likely that these changes are just increasing health care costs, and probably will cause worsening patient care and will worsen patients' and the public's health. 

As Dr Melissa Walton-Shirley wrote more vividly,

Monopolies never meant to be planted in gardens so small grew like bull thistles, literally overtaking all the good things that small community medicine had to offer. They are now barely recognizable small towns with the crabgrasslike metastasis of big corporations....

Will there be time to rethink this headlong rush before our health care options are restricted to that provided by one of a few huge corporations?  

True health care reform would reverse the trend to organize health care within ever larger, more bureaucratic, more monolithic, more dominant organizations.  Such reform is unlikely to happen until we see the nadir produced by the current bandwagon. 

Paging Doctor EBDITA - How Private Equity May Push Hospitals to Put Revenue Ahead of Patient Care

Issues raised by the increasing influence of private equity firms in the direct care of patients were illuminated by a series of articles about the for-profit hospital chain HCA.

Quality Problems

The articles highlighted a series of concerns about quality problems affecting the chain's patients. 

Cardiac Overtreatment

First, a New York Times article described problems in the care of cardiac patients. 

HCA, the largest for-profit hospital chain in the United States with 163 facilities, had uncovered evidence as far back as 2002 and as recently as late 2010 showing that some cardiologists at several of its hospitals in Florida were unable to justify many of the procedures they were performing. Those hospitals included the Cedars Medical Center in Miami, which the company no longer owns, and the Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point. In some cases, the doctors made misleading statements in medical records that made it appear the procedures were necessary, according to internal reports.

More specifically, at one hospital, cardiac catheterizations seemed to occur to often: "about half the procedures ... were determined to have been done to patients without significant heart disease." Two patients at another hospital had severe adverse effects after cardiac procedures that seemed unnecessary in retrospect. There were "incidents at Bayonet Point where patients were treated for multiple lesions, or blockages, even when 'the second lesion (or third) did not appear to have significant disease....' [In] 'several cases'  ... patients were treated even though their arteries did not have significant blockages." Then,

HCA brought in an external company, CardioQual Associates of Franklin, Mich., in 2004 to examine medical records from Bayonet Point. In a confidential memo prepared in December 2004 and reviewed by The Times, CardioQual concluded that as many as 43 percent of 355 angioplasty cases, where doctors performed invasive procedures to open up a patient’s arteries, were outside reasonable and expected medical practice. Worse, the investigation revealed that some physicians had indicated in medical records that the patients had blockages of 80 to 90 percent when a later, more scientific analysis of a sampling of cases revealed the blockages had ranged from 33 to 53 percent.

Possible Undertreatment of Acute Illness

Then, a second NY Times article found that

HCA decided not to treat patients who came in with nonurgent conditions, like a cold or the flu or even a sprained wrist, unless those patients paid in advance. In a recent statement, HCA said that of the six million patients treated in its emergency rooms last year, 80,000, or about 1.3 percent, 'chose to seek alternative care options.'

Of course, the problem with this approach is that it is not always possible to tell how severe an acute illness is without a more complete evaluation than can be done in emergency department triage. There is anecdotal evidence that HCA turned away some patients who actually had serious illness:

Regulators in several states have taken HCA hospitals to task over screening out patients too aggressively, including situations where the screening missed serious conditions.

In early 2010, an uninsured patient who entered HCA’s TriStar Skyline Medical Center in Nashville, complaining of 'pain when breathing,' was sent away. An hour and a half later, at another hospital, the same patient was found to have pneumonia, according to the results of a Medicare investigation. Regulators cited Skyline for having 'failed to ensure that an appropriate medical screening examination was conducted.'

This year, the Office of Inspector General fined HCA’s Northside Hospital in St. Petersburg, Fla., $38,000 for sending home a feverish patient with an artificial heart valve. Two days later, the patient reappeared with the flu and severe respiratory problems. The following day, he died.

Undertreatment of Bed Sores

The second Times article also suggested that decreased nurse staffing at HCA hospitals lead to worse treatment of bed sores (decubitus ulcers):

Experts say there is often a direct correlation between bedsores and the quality of hospital staff levels. 'Staffing is critical,' said Courtney H. Lyder, the dean at the UCLA School of Nursing and an expert on wound care. 'When you see high levels of wounds, you usually see a high level of dysfunctional staff,' he said.

HCA owned eight of the 15 worst hospitals for bedsores among 545 profit-making hospitals nationwide, each with more than 1,000 patient discharges, tracked by the Sunlight Foundation using Medicare data from October 2008 to June 2010. HCA’s West Houston Medical Center and CJW Medical Center in Richmond, Va., landed near the top of the list.

HCA says it has increased its nursing staff at its hospitals each year over the last five years. But an examination of lawsuits shows bedsore problems have been persistent at several HCA facilities. In Portsmouth Regional Hospital in New Hampshire, a 60-year-old woman died in 2009 after her bedsores went untreated for three days and became infected, according to a wrongful-death lawsuit filed in the spring of 2011 in federal court against the hospital.

One HCA hospital

was cited twice by Florida regulators, in 2008 and 2010, for having inadequate numbers of nurses on its staff to oversee wound care for patients. During the 2010 examination, regulators noted that Memorial had less than the equivalent of two full-time nurses who specialized in wound care to treat the 132 patients who required aid.

'The system of treatment for wound care places patients at risk for additional medical complications,' the examiners said.

So, in summary, there is reason for concern about overtreatment of cardiac disease, and undertreatment of acute illness and bedsores at HCA hospitals. However, no hospital and no doctor is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes, and many decisions can be questioned in retrospect. Instead

Putting Money Ahead of Quality

Instead, the articles suggested they were part of a pattern in which concerns about short-term revenue trumped concerns about patient care.

Cardiac Procedures to Generate More Revenue

The article about cardiac care noted that one of the physicians who allegedly was doing too many cardiac procedures

was highlighted by the hospital in a 2009 business plan as being the most profitable doctor at the facility. 'Our leading EBDITA MD,' the plan described him. (Ebitda, or earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, is a measure of corporate earnings.)

On the other hand, according to the Tampa Bay Times, some of the doctors whom HCA suspended for doing too many percutaneous cardiac revascularization procedures charged that the issue was that

far from concern over the cost of stents — Bayonet Point was upset that stents were replacing more expensive bypass surgeries.

The first NY Times article also suggested that HCA executives did their best to keep the issue quiet so as not to affect revenue. First,

HCA declined to provide evidence that it had alerted Medicare, state Medicaid or private insurers of its findings, or reimbursed them for any of the procedures that the company later deemed unnecessary, as required by law.

Also,

HCA also declined to show that it had ever notified patients, who might have been entitled to compensation from the hospital for any harm.

The Times uncovered internal HCA communications suggesting that obfuscation was deliberate:

In January 2005, David Williams, who was then the chief executive of Bayonet Point, wrote in an e-mail: 'Clearly, we have protected ourselves under the peer review umbrella and have released very little information.' The recipients of his message included Dan Miller, who then oversaw HCA’s hospitals in western Florida, and Charles R. Evans, a Nashville executive who was president of all of HCA’s hospitals on the eastern side of the country.

In his response, Mr. Evans thanked Mr. Williams for the update and asked for a 'summary as to the business impact.'

Furthermore, as the last sentence above indicated, review of internal emails suggested that executives were more worried about revenue than quality of care or patient outcomes:

A review of those communications reveals that rather than asking whether patients had been harmed or whether regulators needed to be contacted, hospital officials asked for information on how the physicians’ activities affected the hospitals’ bottom line.

Avoiding Caring for Poor Patients in the Emergency Department

On the other hand, the impetus for triaging away apparently less acutely ill patients from the Emergency Department was to avoid such patients who could not pay. The second NY Times article noted there was a way for supposedly less ill patient to get Emergency Department treatment,

Patients whose ailments were not deemed urgent were told to go somewhere else, like a free clinic, or that they could be treated if they paid the co-payment for their insurance or around $150 in cash.

In addition, there is reason to think that HCA management pushed health care professionals to put off increasing numbers of patients, regardless of their clinical problems,

Several former emergency department doctors at Lawnwood Regional Medical Center in Fort Pierce, Fla., said they frequently had felt compelled to override the screening system in order to treat patients.

Also,

'Physicians had a really, really hard time with it,' said Dr. J. Patrick Pearsall, who worked for an emergency physician group based in Houston that worked in HCA hospitals. When the doctors failed to meet the hospital’s goals for how many patients should be considered emergencies, 'they really started putting pressure on.'

One emergency room doctor who worked at an HCA Florida hospital said doctors had been told they had targets to hit. The doctors’ concerns about the screening policy were acknowledged in an e-mail reviewed by The Times that was sent to the doctors at the hospital in early 2008 by an outside company that worked in the emergency room.

The doctors were told HCA’s regional executives were 'quite intent on pursuing this program at least for the time being and fully expects us to comply. Their expectations are that approximately 15 percent of all patients are to be screened and of those screened no more than 35 percent overridden.'

Keep in mind that variations in patient populations over time and across geographic areas means that the proportions of more and less severely ill patients showing up at individual Emergency Departments will vary substantially. Pressuring health care professionals to turn away a minimum percentage of people will make it very likely that at some times severely acutely ill patients will not be seen.

So it appears that at HCA, patients sometimes were overtreated, and sometimes were undertreated, and that executives trying to increase revenue may have been more responsible for both than simple human error.

Finally, there is reason to think that the take-over of HCA by private equity (that is, leveraged buy-out) firms further increased the for-profit corporation's emphasis on short-term revenue leading to worsening quality of care.

Private Equity Pushed for Even More Short-Term Revenue

The second NY Times article first noted,

During the Great Recession, when many hospitals across the country were nearly brought to their knees by growing numbers of uninsured patients, one hospital system not only survived — it thrived.

In fact, profits at the health care industry giant HCA, which controls 163 hospitals from New Hampshire to California, have soared, far outpacing those of most of its competitors.

The big winners have been three private equity firms — including Bain Capital, co-founded by Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate — that bought HCA in late 2006.

HCA’s robust profit growth has raised the value of the firms’ holdings to nearly three and a half times their initial investment in the $33 billion deal.

The financial performance has been so impressive that HCA has become a model for the industry.

Note that the private equity firms extracted a considerable amount of cash from HCA at the time they turned it back into a publicly held for-profit corporation:

In 2010, buoyed by robust growth in profit, HCA was able to issue billions of dollars in debt that was used to pay funds overseen by the three buyout firms nearly $1 billion in dividends — each. In the spring of 2011, in one of the most closely watched public offerings since the financial crisis, HCA became a public company once again. Its three buyout owners each sold another $500 million worth of stock, allowing them to recoup all their initial investment.

By thus increasing the new public corporation's debt load, they further increased pressure on its executives to bolster short-term revenue.

However,

As HCA’s profits and influence grew, strains arose with doctors and nurses over whether the chain’s pursuit of profit may have, at times, come at the expense of patient care.

Summary:  Why No Hospital Should be For-Profit?

Among all developed countries, I believe only the US has such a high proportion of for-profit hospitals, and physicians employed by for-profit corporations to take care of patients.

However, in summary, this case shows there is evidence that
- The management of one for-profit hospital chain was pushed to focus even more on short-term revenue by a leveraged buy-out engineered by private equity firms
- This focus lead management to pressure health care professionals to increase revenue, even if that required over- or under-treating patients
- The resulting over- and under-treatment likely harmed patients.

As a Tampa Bay Times editorial put it,

the allegations suggest a disturbing pattern of endangering patients, and they again expose the weaknesses of a health care system driven by volume and profit rather than efficiencies and patient outcomes.

In a column in Forbes, Steve Denning warned,

The hospitals owned by private equity are making money in the short-term at the expense of Medicare and the economy. But when the private equity firms depart, as they plan to do, they leave the hospitals with a load of debt, dispirited doctors and nurses, and a bankrupt Medicare system, with serious questions as to whether overall care has been maintained, let alone improved.

The current bonanza for private equity from milking Medicare is a bubble that cannot be sustained.

We have noted how health care organizations have increasingly been "financialized," lead by executives who put short-term revenue generation ahead of all other goals, including good patient care. Furthermore, hospitals are increasingly likely to be formally for-profit, and hence likely to be lead by such executives. Worse, hospitals are increasingly likely to be owned by private equity firms, further increasing the emphasis on short-term money making. Even worse, physicians are now more frequently employed by such organizations, which may pressure them to do what it takes to increase revenue, no matter what the effect on patients' and the public's health.

The probably effects on the quality of care, access, and costs are obvious.

In my humble opinion, before the health care bubble bursts, we need to challenge the notion that direct health care should ever be provided, or that medicine ought to be practiced by for-profit corporations. Before market fundamentalism became so prominent, many stated prohibited the corporate practice of medicine, and the American Medical Association forbade the commercialization of medicine. It is time to heed that wisdom. I submit that we will not be able to have good quality, accessible health care at an affordable price until we restore physicians as independent, ethical health care professionals, and until we restore small, independent, community responsible, non-profit hospitals as the locus for inpatient care.

As Todd Hixon wrote, surprisingly in Forbes,

I believe a big part of the answer lies in changing the idea that health care should be a path to riches. There are professions, like university teaching and research, where a big part of the motivation is helping people and gaining respect in the community. If we could shift the balance for health care providers in that direction, solving problems like the one manifest at HCA would be a lot more possible.

True health care reform will require an end to market fundamentalism in health care.

Note - See also comments by Paul Levy in the Not Running a Hospital Blog.

Private Equity, Obfuscatory Advertising, and Making Health Care a Commodity: Lessons from Cerberus Capital Management

The use of advertising by Steward Health Care, currently a regional hospital system here in New England, continues to provide lessons about how public relations and marketing may be used to shape the health care policy debate.  Stand by because the story is convoluted.

Steward Promotes "New Health Care," Whatever That May Be

This week, Commonwealth reported on Steward's latest high profile advertising campaign in the Boston area,

Steward Health Care is using the Olympics to hone its image. The Boston-based chain of 10 community hospitals, many of which were on the verge of going under when Steward acquired them, is running a series of ads on WHDH-TV (Channel 7) during Olympics coverage that cast the company as a delivery system for a new type of world-class health care.

While visible, the advertisements are notably vague. One features

a Steward employee who says she believes 'world class health care is here.' Another of the initial ads features individual doctors and technicians pledging to be stewards of 'the new health care,' which is the tagline for all of the Steward ads.

What the 'new health care' means is never fully explained in the ads

One local health care expert

Paul Levy, the former CEO of Beth Israel Deaconness Medical Center, said he thinks the ads are part of a campaign by [Steward Health Care owner] Cerberus [Capital Management] to make Steward more attractive to would-be buyers. 'This has very little to do with anything other than establishing the image and the brand of the Steward hospitals so when the day comes when Cerberus sells the company it will be better received in the public markets,' Levy said.

The article had noted that

Cerberus Capital Management, a New York private equity firm, owns Steward,...

So it is possible that no one at Steward really has any idea what sort of "new health care" the organization is promoting

Steward's CEO Promotes Health Care as a Commodity

However, there is reason to think that the top leadership of Steward, and probably of Cerberus Capital Management, the private equity group that owns it, actually does have a clear idea what new health care they are promoting.

Almost simultaneous with the Commonwealth article and the Olympic advertising campaign an interview appeared with Steward's CEO in Fortune. CEO Dr Ralph de la Torre first pitched medicine as science,

A lot of us physicians went into medicine because we loved the art aspect of it. There wasn't a lot of real hard-core science when many of today's doctors went into medicine. It was your intuition, your abilities, the gestalt of what was going on. But something happened in medicine along the way. It started becoming a real science, and a lot of studies have come out that guide what we do and how we do it. We as a society need to understand that science has to guide our practice of medicine. Not everyone with a headache needs a CAT scan; not everybody with a sprained ankle needs an MRI.

This sounds like it could be an affirmation of evidence-based medicine, the approach that attempts to base medicine on systematic search for and critical review of the best clinical research, among other things. However, De la Torre takes it a big step further, citing:

In deference to those who love the individual hospital, you have to look back at America and the trends in industries that have gone from being art to science, to being commodities. Health care is becoming a commodity. The car industry started off as an art, people hand-shaping the bodies, hand-building the engines. As it became a commodity and was all about making cars accessible to everybody, it became more about standardization. It's not different from the banking industry and other industries as they've matured. Health care is finally maturing as an industry, and part of that maturation process is consolidation. It's getting economies of scale and in many ways making it a commodity.

Apparently Dr De la Torre does not see a distinction any longer between health care, or to use an old-fashioned word, medicine, traditionally considered an art or practice of caring for individual patients, and making automobiles on an assembly line. Dr De la Torre may be deeply misinterpreting evidence-based medicine, which is about evidence from clinical research, but also much more. Consider how the Cochrane Collaboration discusses it:

Evidence-based health care

Evidence-based health care is the conscientious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients or the delivery of health services. Current best evidence is up-to-date information from relevant, valid research about the effects of different forms of health care, the potential for harm from exposure to particular agents, the accuracy of diagnostic tests, and the predictive power of prognostic factors [1].

Evidence-based clinical practice is an approach to decision-making in which the clinician uses the best evidence available, in consultation with the patient, to decide upon the option which suits that patient best [2].

Evidence-based medicine is the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The practice of evidence-based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research [3].

[1] Cochrane AL. Effectiveness and Efficiency : Random Reflections on Health Services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1972. Reprinted in 1989 in association with the BMJ. Reprinted in 1999 for Nuffield Trust by the Royal Society of Medicine Press, London, ISBN 1-85315-394-X.[2] Gray JAM. 1997. Evidence-based healthcare: how to make health policy and management decisions. London: Churchill Livingstone.
[3] Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. 1996. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 312: 71–2 [3] [Full text]

Note the emphasis on making decisions for individuals based on what is best for each, and the integration of evidence from clinical research with clinical expertise. This is far from commoditization.

Nonetheless, Dr De la Torre seems to envision "new health care" like a 1930s automobile assembly line, with the physicians and other health professionals cast as assembly line workers, and the patients cast as automobiles.

Our next example may provide some explanations for this point of view.

Steward's Advertising Raises Questions of Whose Hands Should be on Health Care

As we discussed earlier, Steward Health Care has been working on acquiring a struggling local Rhode Island hospital system, and in doing so is in a dispute with the statewide non-profit Blue Cross health insurance company. Steward had been putting daily full-page advertisements in the local paper. A recent version (27 July, 2012), had this text:

RHODE ISLAND TO BLUE CROSS:
GET YOUR HANDS OFF OUR HOSPITALS

With 80% of the market under its control, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island thinks it can decide which hospitals survive or fail. The people of Rhode Island beg to differ.

For the past decade, they've watched Blue Cross starve Landmark Medical Center of its funding. And this year, when Blue Cross issued an ultimatum to terminate the hospital, Rhode Islanders heard enough.

In a poll conducted this week by John Marttila, a nationally recognized leader on public attitudes concerning health care, 76% of respondents said that Blue Cross shouldn't be allowed to use their monopoly to dictate the fate of Rhode Island hospitals. They also felt, by a 2-1 margin, that if Landmark did indeed close, Blue Cross would be to blame.

However, soon after, investigative reporting by the Providence Journal's Ms Felice Freyer revealed that maybe the poll should have been interpreted differently. Not unexpectedly, Ms Freyer revealed the poll to have been "commissioned by Steward." Its basic results were really:

Just over half the respondents knew that Landmark was being sold to Steward, and of those, 58 percent did not have an opinion, 29 percent supported the sale, and 13 percent opposed it. However, among those who knew about the sale and also live in northern Rhode Island, the approval rating was higher –– 37 percent support the sale, with 15 percent disapproving and 48 percent having no opinion.

The pollster than provided prompting, perhaps in an attempt to get results more favorable to its client:

One of the questions starts with this statement: 'Blue Cross Blue Shield provides health insurance to 80 percent of Rhode Island. By refusing to negotiate on reimbursement rates, Blue Cross can essentially determine if hospitals in the state stay open or if hospitals close.' Based on that statement, 76 percent of respondents agreed that 'Blue Cross should not be allowed to use its monopoly to dictate which hospitals stay open and which close their doors.'

Unfortunately, it appears that the prompting statement was perhaps not fully accurate:

In 2011, Blue Cross covered 66 percent of Rhode Islanders with private health insurance, not 80 percent, according to a report by the Office of the Health Insurance Commissioner.

Blue Cross denies that it has refused to negotiate.

'We have negotiated in good faith and have offered a fair contract to Landmark Hospital that is consistent with our reimbursement arrangements for other independent hospitals,' Blue Cross said in a statement. 'Unfortunately, Steward has been unwilling to enter into a contract under those conditions.'

While they touted probably methodologically biased survey results, Steward's local advertising campaign's headline might prompt some people to think about whose hands should really be on their health care. The advertising tries to limit this question to Blue Cross' influence. However, one might also ask whose hands control Steward Health Care?

Whose Hands are on Steward Health Care?

As the Commonwealth article above pointed out, Steward Health Care is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cerberus Capital Management, a New York based private equity firm.

Cerberus' top leadership includes
- CEO Steven A Feinberg, who, as we noted previously, was listed as number 21 on a list of the 25 most powerful businessmen in 2007 by Fortune, at that time running through Cerberus 50 companies with total revenues of $120 billion.  On Wikipedia, his net worth was estimated as $2 billion in 2008.
- Chairman John W Snow, who, as we noted previously, resigned as Treasury Secretary in the administration of President George W Bush "in 2006 only because it was revealed that he had not paid any taxes on $24 million in income from CSX, which had forgiven Snow's repayment of a gigantic loan that the company had made to him," according to Chareles Ferguson in Predator Nation.
- Chairman, Cereberus Global Investments J Danforth Quayle, the controversial former US Vice President during the George H W Bush administration.

Furthermore, Cerberus Capital Management, which wholly owns Steward Health Care, owns several other businesses.  As we noted here, these include, DynCorp (see their web-site), which has been called one of the "leading mercenary firms," by an article in the Nation.  As reported by Bloomberg, DynCorp, and hence indirectly about Cerberus, and Steward Health Care, in 2011 settled accusations that it overbilled the US government for construction work in Iraq.   Furthermore, as we noted here, Cerberus also owns the biggest manufacturer of firearms and ammunition in the US. As reported by BusinessWeek in 2010, Cerberus owns 13 brands of fire-arms and munitions under the umbrella Freedom Group.

So while Cerberus Capital Management would like us to believe that Rhode Island residents question the hands of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Rhode Island on a struggling local hospital system, it seems to be trying to avoid questions about whose hands would be on the hospital system were Cerberus Capital Management's subsidiary Steward Health Care to acquire it. 

Summary

So, to recapitulate this winding story....   A regional hospital system has been pushing its "new health care" idea.  However, its former surgeon CEO promotes new health care as commoditized health care, assembly line health care, in which doctors become assembly line workers and patients become widgets.  This seems bizarre until one realizes that the CEO actually works for a huge private equity firm whose goal is to make a lot of money in the short-term.  Standardized, commoditized health care is likely to be cheaper to provide than individualized health care.  Private equity firms thrive by cutting their subsidiaries' costs, and then selling them quickly, sometimes before the long-term consequences of these cuts become apparent.  (Look here.)

So there are two lessons.

To repeat the lesson from our earlier post, everybody, doctors, other health care professionals, health policy makers, patients, and the public ought to be extremely skeptical of the marketing and public relations efforts of big health care organizations.  Based on the examples above, they ought to be particularly skeptical of organizations that are overtly for profit, and/or have a clear focus on short-term revenue generation.  As a society we need to think about how to best counter these biased, incomplete, sometimes grossly deceptive efforts to manipulate public psychology and opinions through our rights to free speech and a free press.

To add a lesson, everybody, doctors, other health professionals, health policy makers, patients and the public ought to be extremely wary of the ongoing corporatization of medicine and health care.  Corporate leaders who often get large incentives for maximizing short term revenue are likely to be enthused about turning our health care into a commodity.  Doctors and health care professionals should not want to be assembly line workers, and patients surely should not want to be widgets. 

"Cogs in the Corporate Machine" - More on the Plight of Corporate Physicians

We discussed last week some of the perils of the latest trend towards the corporatization of medicine, practicing physicians becoming employees of hospital systems, including for-profit corporate systems.  A recent article in Medscape Business of Medicine included a striking anecdote about the life of a corporate physician.

Controlling Referrals by Contractual Provision
It started with the revelation that some employed physicians may sign contracts that obligate them to refer patients within the corporate system, even if that is not in their best interests:

Victoria Rentel, a family physician in Columbus, Ohio, joined a hospital-owned group several years ago. At first, nearly everything went fine. There were a few glitches: she'd occasionally order tests or consults at competing facilities, either for patient convenience or because of health plan coverage. When the hospital's administrators found out, they told her it was a violation of her contract; but that didn't stop her because she knew the hospital never enforced this provision.

A Non-Compete Clause, Even for a Laid-Off Physician

It also included the observation that corporate physicians may be abruptly laid off. Worse, being laid off means having to leave town, because apparently even laid-off physicians are still obligated by non-compete clauses in their contracts:

Then, out of the blue, she was informed that the hospital was going to close her practice within 45 days. She knew this wasn't her fault; the recession had hit the hospital hard, and it was laying off nearly half of the primary care doctors in her group. Still, it was a hard pill to swallow.

Making matters worse, her contract's noncompete clause prohibited her from going to work for any of the other healthcare systems in town. To avoid legal sanctions, she joined the student health service at Ohio State University.

Signing Contracts Without Understanding Them
The article's introduction emphasized the problem of physicians signing onerous contracts, perhaps without fully understanding them or without getting adequate legal advice:

Many other physicians -- especially those who, like Rentel, were previously in private practice -- complain about their jobs. In some cases, it's because physicians rushed into the arms of a hospital without looking carefully at their contracts or asking the right questions during their job interviews.

Cogs in the Corporate Machine

The introduction ended ominously:

Ultimately, the loss of control over their own professional lives is what irks employed doctors the most if they used to be in private practice. But some doctors also get the sinking feeling that they've become cogs in the corporate machine.

'The reality is that when you work for a hospital system, you're a service line,' says Rentel. 'And because primary care reimbursement is relatively low, you're a service line that feeds more lucrative service lines.'

Oddly enough, after that striking beginning, the article peters off into a discussion of some "gripes of employed physicians," which either soft-pedaled or failed to include the issues listed above.

The specific issues, and the general response of physicians to their role as corporate wage slaves deserve further consideration.

Signing Bad Contracts

First, the notion that physicians frequently sign contracts, particularly such important contracts as their own employment agreements, without reading them, without clearly understanding them, and without obtaining competent legal counsel is very disturbing.   A physician who signs a contract without reading it, understanding it, and getting competent legal advice about it is at best naive to the point of foolishness. 

My late father, an attorney, done told me to "never sign a contract you haven't read and understood."  Contracts are - surprise - enforceable legal documents that may involve surrendering important rights.  One should never sign a contract without being satisfied that its benefits outweigh its harms.

It could be that physicians who so blithely sign contracts are exhibiting learned helplessness.  Maybe they feel somehow pressured to apparently voluntarily agree to doing something that ultimately will harm them.  I am not sure that simply declaring on a blog that we will have to unlearn our helplessness if we are ever to save medicine and health care will do much to solve what may be a fairly deep problem.  But we must do so.

In addition, contracts are valid if entered into voluntarily.  It may be that some physicians truly sign contracts under duress.  Those contracts may not be valid, and could be challenged if they were so signed (again, if physicians are willing to unlearn their helplessness enough to get the counsel of a competent attorney.)

Stopping "Leakage" Possibly Unethically, Maybe Illegally?

The physician in the example above apparently had a contract provision which was violated simply by referring patients to competing facilities.  This appears to be an extreme way for a hospital to deal with the problem of "leakage," that is, the financial problem to the hospital caused when patients are referred outside the system.  Note that we discussed (here and here) the example of a for-profit hospital system with a large number of physician employees pushed to choke off "leakage" of patient referrals outside the system.

Although leakage may pose financial problems for hospitals, fighting leakage may lead to ethical problems.  Physicians are supposed to decide how to manage patients, and specifically to decide where to refer patients in the patients' interests, not just to keep money flowing to the health care system. "Leakage reduction" may possibly threaten physicians' first commandment, to make decisions to maximize benefits and minimize harms to individual patients, before all other considerations.

Worse, in the example cited in the Medscape paper, the leakage reduction was apparently implemented not by just trying to persuade doctors to keep patients within the system, but by a contract provision that somehow forbade referrals out of the system.  That may have not only been unethical, but it could have been illegal.  

The "Stark Law" (Title 42, Chapter 7, Subchapter XVIII, Part E, Section 1395 of the US Code) generally prohibits basing referral decisions on payments.  Full-time employed physicians are exempt from some of its provisions, but only if the physicians' "amount of remuneration under employment" "is not determined in a manner that takes into account (directly or indirectly) the volume or value of any referrals by the referring physician."  Therefore, were the contract referred to above to have forbidden outside referrals on pain of termination or reduction in remuneration, it could potentially violate this law. 

There have been rumors that physicians have been pushed to sign contracts that could so violate the Stark Law, but the published example above makes this a real possibility.

Physicians ought not to sign contracts that seem to limit referrals under penalty of pay reduction or termination, which may be both unethical and illegal.  Any physician presented with or who has signed such a contract ought to consult a competent attorney.

If hospitals and hospital systems are trying to force physicians to make referrals based on the hospitals' financial advantage instead of in the best interests of patients, that is reprehensible.  If these organizations are trying to do so via contractual provisions, this deserves investigation, including investigation by the relevant law enforcement agencies. 

Don't Be a Corporate Cog

This article underscores my previously expressed fears about how making physicians into corporate employees may remove the last barriers preventing patients from becoming corporate financial cannon fodder.  Physicians' most central professional value is to put patients' interests first.  Practicing physicians who practice as corporate employees are at risk of being pressured, or even threatened under the cover of contract enforcement to put their corporate employers' revenues ahead of patients' interests. 

Physicians should not let their patients, and their own values be so threatened.  Physicians who have inadvertently, foolishly, or under duress signed contracts that could threaten their professionalism and their patients' welfare need to do the right thing and challenge these contracts, or else there will soon be nothing left of the medical profession, and no one left to ethically care for patients. 

The Rise of the Corporate Physician - the End of the (Health Care) World As We Know It?

In discussing how concentration and abuse of power threatens health care professionals' values and professionalism, we have discussed how ostensibly academic institutions value faculty more for their earning power than their academic abilities.  We have discussed how financial relationships between physicians and drug, biotechnology, device and other companies risk abuse of entrusted power.  But up to now, I have been comforted by the hope that physicians in small independent practices who do not have such conflicts of interest are trying to uphold their professional values, even as they were buffeted by the perverse incentives imposed by managed care organizations/ health insurance companies and government insurance (e.g., US Medicare whose payments are controlled by the RUC).

However, a recent article in SmartMoney suggests that the end of the independent physician is nigh:

Remember the solo family doctor? In places like Springfield, it has become increasingly likely that she's collecting a paycheck from a large regional hospital—and practicing medicine according to the hospital's strict playbook. The experience in Springfield is just a needle prick compared with what's going on nationwide. At least one in six doctors—more than 150,000 nationwide—now works as an employee of a hospital system. And with about half of recent medical school graduates deciding to work for hospitals and many established doctors looking to unload their practices amid the tough economic climate, what was a trickle of change has turned into a torrent. Jim Pizzo, a Chicago-area hospital consultant, says the blistering pace of these mergers is leading some colleagues to joke that there are two types of physicians today: 'Those employed by hospitals and those about to be.'

So we are seeing physicians who practiced solo or in physician-lead, physician-run group practices becoming employees of large health care organizations. And here on Health Care Renewal, we know how most large health care organizations are run.

This appears to be an unintended consequence of our recent US health care "reform" law:

But hospital executives also believe that buying doctors' practices could yield a big payday, thanks to a different provision in the health care law. The law will encourage doctors and hospitals to share some payments when treating each patient; as collaborative teams, they could earn bonuses for holding down costs and meeting quality markers. 'The real question for everyone is how that pie—that money—is going to get split up,' Goertz says; hospitals think they'll have the upper hand if they employ the doctors that they're sharing their banana crème with. And that's touched off a flurry of mergers everywhere—from Seattle to Roanoke, Va.

The name of these supposedly collaborative organizations, which are turning out to simply be hospital systems which have purchased physicians' practices and now employ physicians, is "accountable care organizations," which now appears ironic at least.

The article detailed some of the adverse effects to be expected when accountable care organizations become hospital systems with employed physicians providing patient care.

Increased Costs with Decreased Care

Ruth Taylor, a 44-year-old woman in Bozeman, Mont., started seeing Robert Hathaway as her doctor during college, and she stuck with him through everything from routine blood tests to a kidney transplant. Taylor, a professional nurse with warm blue eyes, describes Hathaway as a 'classic small-town doctor' who knew all his patients by name and socialized with them at local basketball games; he was accessible and thorough—even catching a health problem of hers that other doctors had missed. But after Hathaway sold his practice to the local hospital, Taylor says, things began to sour. She was more likely to be assigned to see the physician assistant rather than Hathaway himself. And when she went in for a comprehensive physical (also run by the assistant) in late 2008, she was charged $360, more than double what she'd paid for a workup in previous years.

Imposition of Dysfunctional Health Care Information Technology

On this blog, Dr Scot Silverstein frequently posts about how poorly designed and implemented commercial health care information technology may have harms that outweigh any benefits, and how these systems are rarely objectively evaluated. Employed physicians are likely to be required by their new executive overlords to use commercial health care IT that benefits the managers and their strategies, but may not benefit patient care:

Last spring Hospital Sisters tried to shift all of its Springfield medical offices to electronic medical records simultaneously. But there wasn't enough tech support to deal with all the problems physicians ran into on day one, and wait times spiked at the system's walk-in locations. Nenaber, a soft-spoken 64-year-old with wire-rim glasses, sounds acquiescent about the situation. 'We're getting the hang of these things,' he says slowly, sitting at his desk overlooking a gas station and a strip-mall parking lot. But his practice is still waiting for its electronic payoff

Increasing Prices by Providing Care in the Hospital

Now that the acquisition spree is in full swing, some experts worry that price increases could become the dominant narrative for patients. When hospitals run medical practices, federal law allows them to add substantial 'facility fees' to patients' bills to cover overhead expenses. The new bosses also often rip equipment like X-ray machines and MRIs out of the physician's office, preferring to have patients get those tests from radiologists at the hospital. That, too, can cost patients. A consumer with a high-deductible Aetna plan, for instance, would pay up to $1,400 for an MRI of her back at the University Medical Center at Princeton, N.J., according to data that the insurer makes available to its members. The same scan would cost about a third as much at nearby Radiology Affiliates of New Jersey, a nonhospital facility. Based on a review of insurance databases and state regulatory records, that's a fairly typical price gap

Increasing Prices by Market Domination

Price increases also have the potential to bleed outward—affecting not only the patients of the absorbed doctor, but also the cost of health care citywide. That's because when hospitals sit down at the bargaining table with insurers, they're almost always able to negotiate higher payment rates for their big groups of doctors than a lone physician with little bargaining power

Despite the usual spin provided by the would-be monopolists:

Fast-growing hospital systems, including Hospital Sisters and Bozeman Deaconess, say that their growth will eventually make care more efficient and bring costs back down, since they'll be able to cut back on unnecessary care and duplicate tests

I am sure that the 19th century robber barons made the same pitch about increasing efficiency. Of course, the efficiency mainly benefits the insider managers.

By the way, of course, the hospital systems own public relations machines and lobbyists are now busy attacking any restrictions on such concentrations of power, while the hospital managers figure out how to game the system to increase their market domination before the regulators notice:

As more patients face such disruptions, regulators are taking notice. In October, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Health and Human Services met with doctors, insurers and other health officials to discuss the referral and pricing problems that could arise from 'accountable-care organizations'— those new groups of hospitals and doctors that will share financial incentives. The Federal Trade Commission will offer guidelines on what's permissible by midyear. But hospitals are already lobbying for accountable-care groups to be exempt from antitrust and antifraud rules, even as they scoop up more and more medical practices. Under current regulations, officials in Washington must green-light all mergers involving companies valued at more than $63 million. But by buying up tiny medical practices one at a time, critics say, hospitals stay below the threshold and avoid getting much attention. And by the time regulators settle on more-formal legal guidelines, those mergers may be hard to undo, says Cory Capps, a Washington economist specializing in health care antitrust issues.

Excess and Unnecessary Utilization via "Leakage Control"

With big hospital systems now owning physician practices, and practicing physicians directly answering to executives, the push will be on to maximize use of the most lucrative services. Once the hospital systems have made employees out of the physicians, it is easy to pressure their own employed physicians to refer patients to the hospital units that can bill most lucratively:

By their own admission, most hospitals are eager to keep patient referrals under the same corporate umbrella, to save on costs and share medical records but also to boost revenue. The hospitals say they wouldn't force an internist, for example, to refer a patient with heart problems to their own cardiologists, but critics say there's certainly financial pressure. Under a little-noticed regulation that took effect in 2007, hospitals are allowed to pay doctors less if they don't do enough internal referrals.

Doctors in Bozeman and Springfield who granted interviews said they didn't feel pressure to be 'team players' with referrals. But some of those who've left large health systems tell a different story, including Mark Callenberger, an orthopedist in Merritt Island, Fla. Callenberger says that the hospital group where he used to work urged him to direct more patients to the MRI machine owned by the hospital. The doctor preferred a more advanced machine at a private practice that he says offered clearer pictures. But after he ignored the recommendations, Callenberger says, the hospital told his office manager to schedule patients at the hospital's MRI anyway, leaving him to perform surgery using 'crummy images.' (The hospital declined to comment on Callenberger's case but says its doctors can use whatever facilities they choose.) Patients may never know about these power struggles, because doctors aren't required to disclose how they choose specialists. And while patients who ask can always see a specialist outside the network, in practice few are likely to challenge their doctors' judgment, says Bruce A. Johnson, a Denver health care lawyer. 'Face it, when we're really sick,' says Johnson, 'if the doctor tells us to jump off a roof, we'll probably consider doing it.'

Note that we discussed (here and here) the example of a for-profit hospital system with a large number of physician employees pushed to choke off "leakage" of patient referrals outside the system.

Summary

The overarching problem is that employed physicians now must answer to managers and executives who may put financial goals, and their own enrichment, ahead of physicians' values, and specifically will choose increased revenue over providing the best possible care to individual patients:

. Executives here are also hoping to push the needle further—standardizing everything from how long patients wait on hold to the ease of parking at the doctor's office (valets, luxury-restaurant style, are one solution under consideration).

Still, Mikell acknowledges, 'doctors don't want follow-the-directions, cookbook medicine.' And for many physicians, the idea of following new rules triggers a much larger unease at giving up their independence—a feeling of loss, both for the businesses they built and for their patients. Back in Bozeman, Blair Erb, the sole cardiologist in town, is a picture of resignation as he prepares to sign a contract with Deaconess. 'I feel defeated,' Erb says, looking around at the office furniture he and his wife, Liz, chose from a catalog years ago. The weathered ranchers and bundled-up women that come through his door mostly express disbelief when they hear that this frank-talking Tennessee native will sell his practice. His staffers say they're not looking forward to the questions the hospital's medical records system will soon prompt them to ask patients. (Do you wear a bike helmet regularly? Do you have a smoke detector?) 'We'll try to retain as much professional independence as possible,' Erb says, gazing at the hospital building, whose bulk he can see through his window. 'But the fact of the matter is, we'll have a new master.'

So I for one do not welcome our new executive overlords.

We have posted about numerous examples of health care organizational leaders who put their own enrichment ahead of the mission. Now even ostensibly non-profit hospital systems are increasingly competing against for-profit systems. We have seen, as noted above, an example of a for-profit system that seems to betting everything on a business strategy to reduce "leakage" of patient referrals.  We can expect that non-profit hospital systems will have to act more like for-profit systems, and the perverse financial incentives given the managers of all hospital systems will lead to pressure on physicians to forgo their responsibilities to provide the best care to individual patients in favor of actions that will bring in the most money in the shortest time.

We seem to be witnessing the rise of the corporate physician, the rise of a physician who must first answer to managers who never committed to putting patient care first, who may have no sympathy for physicians' core values, who may receive huge incentives to maximize short-term revenue no matter what. Such a rise of corporate physicians would be unprecedented in the US, and I believe in any developed country.

The rise of the corporate physician would require patients to put their trust in corporations, rather than individual doctors, in the era of the global financial collapse, in the new gilded age.

We may be seeing the end of health care world as we know it. The upcoming brave new world of health care may be worse that we can imagine.

What is to be done? - I rarely have ventured into specific policy suggestions, but I think that the consequences of the well-intended "accountable care organization" blunder may be so severe that I must so venture now. We must derail the movement towards "accountable care organizations." Any movement to make organizations more accountable cannot do so by making most professionals into employees answering to the sorts of ill-informed, incompetent, self-interested, conflicted or even corrupt leaders that we have been writing about for more than six years on Health Care Renewal.  We need to make it impossible for for-profit companies to employ physicians to take care of patients.  Maybe we need to think about making it impossible for for-profit companies to provide patient care at all, and for for-profit companies to sell health insurance.  Meanwhile, we need to ensure the accountability, integrity, transparency, and honesty of leaders of health care organizations.

If we do not reverse the current trends, anyone who wants good health care may have to look for it somewhere other than in the US.