Another Bad Editorial Decision and more.....

I am on record recently pointing out how top medical journals have evolved to the point that they are posting a continuous stream of opinion pieces of variable quality.  It is not uncommon to find that from week to week diametrically opposed views on topics are published.  The most alarming trend in the posting of business views; usually along the lines that there needs to be continuous business reform in health care.  These are basically opinion pieces looking for a political foothold.  The precedent of course is managed care.  After it gained a political foot hold in the Clinton administration it became a business worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

In the case of managed care it was sold as widespread "reform".  After 30 years of managed care rationing the per capita health care costs in the USA are quite unbelievable when compared with even the next most expensive system ($9,086 in USA versus $6,325 in Switzerland).  The other top ten nations are seriously outdistanced.  Rather than acknowledge managed care as just another political flop there are endless editorials on how it really slows the growth of health care.  There are editorials of how it is really a success despite these outrageous numbers and nearly complete hegemony by managed care and insurance companies.  It is difficult to see how responsible editors of medical journals can continue to publish this pro-business propaganda.  They are certainly more circumspect about making these pages a sounding board for the pharmaceutical industry.

The largest divergence when it comes to health care costs is a managed care propensity for a disproportionate focus on mental health and psychiatric services.  This is nothing new.  It has been well documented since the  Hay Group found that from 1988 to 1997 that a total value of health care benefits for over 1,000 large U.S. employers declined by 10%.  Of the decline general health care benefits declined by 7%, but behavioral health benefits declined by 54%.  Behavioral health is managed care speak for mental health and psychiatric services.  Those same services dropped from 6% to 3% as a total percentage of health care costs.  While general medical services increased by 27% outpatient mental health services dropped by 25%.  Mental health benefits from employer based health insurance dropped by 50% between 1988 and 1998.  The true costs of managed care rationing have never been seriously examined.  There is an obvious conflict of interest when the government basically invents and industry based on a flawed political theory and the system floats based on these invented special interests.  

I did not really think that these opinion pages could be any worse until I happened to open up JAMA Psychiatry the other to do some reading while I ate my Wheaties.  I ran across an article called "What to do when your managed care firm says no."

The answer from my experience is nothing - you are basically out of luck.  In my experience managed care companies don't care if you live or die.  They don't care if you have the world's worst eating disorder.  They don't care if you have tried to kill yourself while intoxicated and your psychiatrist is saying that you will absolutely use alcohol, heroin, methamphetamine, dextromethorphan or any number of drugs immediately if you are not sent to treatment after acute stabilization.  They don't care if you need a longer period of time in the hospital.  They don't care if you have been committed for a suicide or homicide attempt.  I am not saying all of this just because it is true.  I am saying it to point out something that is often overlooked.  Why would a managed care company or MCO care?  They have never met you and have no personal responsibility to you.  As a business, especially in the new era of business management - they basically have a responsibility to make money for their shareholders.  The caring aspect of MCOs is really a public relations stunt.  They involve your doctor and make it seem like their decision - is your doctor's decision.   They waste your doctors time in order to make it seem like their refusal to pay for your care is somehow a conjoint decision with your doctor.

But back to the article.  Here we have a managed care insider giving advice to patients and physicians on how to deal with their denials.  I would consider this all tongue in cheek advice if it was not sitting right there in JAMA Psychiatry.  I will focus on a most familiar scenario denial of inpatient care.  This is a case of a hospitalization for schizophrenia where "the hospital tells the mother that it is time to discharge her son because the MBHO (Managed Behavioral Health Organization) says so and has an appointment for her son to be seen a month after discharge" (p. 1109).  The author suggests that in the case of this dispute the vendor will have a formal appeals process and that will include "a review by a psychiatrist not on the MBHO's payroll."  That has not been my experience.  The review is generally done by psychiatrists a long distance away.  They may not be licensed in the state where the patient is hospitalized.  The ones I have talked with are either openly hostile, pretending to be on your side, or clueless about the severity of inpatient problems.  Keep in mind that most psychiatrists do not practice in inpatient settings beyond their training years.  I have never seen a study that looked at whether these reviewers were actually treating very ill psychiatric inpatients - but from my conversations I think they were not.

The author goes on to say that the family can then apply to the employers benefits manager to apply leverage to the MBHO and have leverage in the case of inadequate care.  What is wrong with that picture?  For starters any sequence of events where clinical decisions are being made by business types is by definition - inadequate care.  Secondly, there is an inherent conflict of interest when your employer and an insurance company they are contracting with start negotiating your medical or psychiatric care.  Once again - neither of them has a responsibility to you for giving you the best possible medical advice.  They are giving you a business decision that saves them both money and calling it a medical decision.  The MBHO is protected against liability from that decision by federal law.  Your employer is protected by saying it was the decision of the MBHO and not them.  If you really think that your employer is interested in your personal health, go talk to the decision maker in person and note their level of interest.

The final vignette provided by the author is there to justify managed care.  It has been their war cry since day one and that is excessive utilization.  In this case we are lucky to have Big Brother watching in the case of psychotherapy delivered so inexpertly that the therapist states: "I am this patient's only friend so she needs to to keep seeing me."  This was after years of treatment.  I think that we can  all breathe a sigh of relief that an MBHO being paid millions plus incentives to ration psychiatric care can identify the worst therapist in the USA after years of therapy.  It is a miracle of modern management.

When you have editors who accept this level of an article it is a direct insult to anyone who has personally dealt with these companies and who knows what is going on.  It is a direct insult to the medical profession and physicians who have dedicated their lives to learning complex, highly technical profession to suggest that they should be clerical workers and work for free as employees of managed care companies.  It is an insult to desperate patients and their families who put up with all of paperwork, inefficient billing and arbitrary denials of care.

If the editors of medical journals are not bright enough to question the accuracy of a piece like this or they have not had the clinical experience of dealing with the constant harassment of managed care companies - they should defer the commentary section to somebody who knows what they are talking about.

Better yet - time for a moratorium on business and political commentary in medical journals.  When you try to complete with blogs - keep in mind that you are competing with a low standard.  That turns out to be no competition at all.  


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Reference:

1: Essock SM. What to Do When the Managed Care Firm Says No.  JAMA Psychiatry. 2016 Sep 28. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.2409. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 27680607.

Supplemental -  The 4 x 6 Card on Real Health Care Reform

No room for this in the original above.  The solutions to businesses and business managers making medical decisions about your health care is like most political quagmires in this country - very simple.  You can fit it on a 4 x 6 inch index card.

It goes like this:

1:   All managed care (MCO, MBHO) decisions are between the patient and the company.  The doctor is out of the loop.  The doctor advises the patient, the company says yes or no on the payment.  The doctor may have an alternative or the doctor may not.

2:  The doctor does no appeals , paperwork, reviews with the MCO.  Why would he/her?  The doctor does not work for the MCO and does not get paid for all of the time it takes to engage in what are business processes.  The doctor should not care what anything costs the MCO.  They have a tower of MBAs with nothing else to do but figure that out.

3:  The same process is true for PBMs (pharmacy benefit manager) - the pharmacy equivalent of MCOs.  The doctor does not work for the PBM and does not get paid for all of the extra time each day to essentially justify their decisions.  PBMs have another tower of MBAs with nothing else to do but price drugs to their advantage. 

4:  The MCO is liable for damages related to any of their financing decisions that result in harm to the patient.  No federal exceptions.

5:  Each state has an independent arbitration board comprised of physicians who are actively practicing in the discipline where the decision is being appealed.  The physicians are all actively screened for conflict of interest like the Medicare Peer Review Organizations that found there was no excessive use of mental health services or anything else in about 1998.  The arbitration board should contain only physicians - no insurance company insiders dedicated to shield the managed care industry.  Direct appeals by the public should be encouraged with the same amount of vigor that the public is actively solicited to complain against their physicians.   

Steps 1-5 above would assure physician recommendations in the best interest of you the patient rather than the financial interest of the managed care organization.  Unfortunately with Managed Care 3.0,  the rationing in many cases has been internalized.  Today physicians can be in a clinic or hospital setting that has internal case managers telling them what to do.  When managed care companies rationed some places out of business they were very successful in acquiring medical groups and facilities.  In other words; the doctors, the hospitals, the clinics and the pharmacies are all owned and run by the managed care company or a shell company.  They all get their marching orders from people in the management class pretending to be medical experts.

That should be a major problem - but in the manner of Orwell - if you use the term health care reform a thousand times - most people believe it happened.

WIll Integrity Save Psychiatry?

The answer is - it  depends on how it is applied.

In the last two days, I have seen the integrity argument pulled out.  Allen Frances is still using his bully pulpit on the Huffington Post, where it seems that anything critical of psychiatry is readily posted.  In this case, he used the text of a blogger and the timeline created by this blogger to illustrate how there was no disclosure of a conflict of interest by a group of researchers, one of whom was the chair of the DSM-5 Task Force.  The APA investigated this and acknowledged the non-disclosure of the conflict of interest.  Apparently the acknowledgement in the form of an apology from the research group and the investigation by the APA is not enough for these critics.  The blogger Dr. Nardo suggests that an "outside panel" be appointed to review his findings and the original materials again.  I cannot think of how an "outside panel" could be convened.  I have never really seen an objective analysis by an outside panel and wonder who might be selected.  And yes I am suggesting that any outside panel would naturally have a significant conflict of interest.  There appear to be many critics of psychiatry and only weak defenders.

He refers to a post by an anonymous web professional Neuroskeptic who summarized the state of things in his post as there being "no smoking gun."  He also concludes that the idea of a psychiatric critics benefiting from book sales with the same theme suggests "by which logic, every author in history has had a financial conflict of interest in their own ideas." As a student of conflict of interest that IS a logical conclusion, especially when I see links to two of Dr. Frances' books listed right below the Huffington Post article.  It is also an obvious fact that people routinely deny that applies to all human endeavors.  If I am heavily invested in any subject my "ideas" can be counted upon to be fairly subjective and consistent with my self interest whether that is academic or financial.  That is why I have read thousands of articles in Science, Nature, and medical journals in the past three decades and very few have panned out.  At a larger level it is why Ioannides could declare that most published research is false.  It is why you can count on seeing significant side effects from practically every medication approved by the FDA as safe and effective.  So yes, I am afraid that same standard applies to the critics as well as the people doing the heavy lifting and trying to prove something in the first place.  I would even take it a step further and suggest that the same transparency rules should be applied.  How much money can you make as a critic of psychiatry or the DSM?  My guess is plenty.

Both Dr. Frances and Dr. Nardo seem to be suggesting that all of the conflict of interest issues of academic psychiatrists and the way the APA handles them is sending psychiatry to hell in a handbasket.  This is a historically incorrect view of the dismantling of psychiatry in the United States.  Every day people in this country are getting inadequate psychiatric care.  It has nothing to do with the ethical behavior of academic psychiatrists.  It has a lot to do with the fact that the APA is not a very politically savvy organization and there are massive conflicts of interest interfering with the delivery of psychiatric care.  Here are a few scenarios:

1.  A depressed or psychotic but nonfunctional person is discharged from the emergency department because of a lack of "acute dangerousness" criteria.  The family is outraged but they are told: "Look there is nothing we can do because he/she is not imminently dangerous to themselves.  Upon further investigation the state has a "gravely disabled" criterion in the commitment statutes but it is practically never used.  They find that local hospitals and courts never use that criteria because the patients admitted are too difficult to treat and place.

2.  A person with acute alcohol and benzodiazepine withdrawal is sent home from the ER with a bottle of lorazepam and advised how to detoxify themselves.  They go home and take the entire bottle to get high.

3.  A person with alcoholism and depression is admitted for suicidal behavior.  She was intoxicated, depressed and staring at a handgun.  The next day the attending physician is contacted by a psychiatrist/utilization reviewer from the insurance company who has concluded the patient is no longer suicidal and they can be discharged.  He will no longer authorize payment for inpatient treatment. 

4.  A pharmacy benefit manager refused to refill a 2 week prescription by a patient's psychiatrist.  They have the pharmacist faxes a form to the psychiatrists office saying that they will only accept a 3 month prescription.  The psychiatrist takes time to explain first to the pharmacists and then 2 different people at the PBM (total time 30 minutes) the rationale for not giving a large supply of medication to a chronically suicidal patient.  The PBM refuses to change their position.

5.  A managed care company refuses to cover psychotherapy provided by a psychiatrist.  The psychiatrist explains that he is an expert in this type of therapy and the patient has been referred to him by the patient's primary psychiatrist.  The managed care company authorizes 3 "crisis sessions".  

6.  A person completes a PHQ-9 scale in their primary care clinic and they score an 18.  They see their primary care physician and say they would like to see a therapist.  They are told to take an antidepressant and to come back in two weeks to fill out another PHQ-9.  Total time of the visit is 5 minutes.

7.  A person is seen in their primary care clinic and in 20 minutes is told by their nonpsychiatric physician that they have bipolar disorder.  They are prescribed quetiapine, citalopram, and divalproex.  Within several days they are too sedated to function at work.

The are just a few examples of thousands of people everyday who are receiving grossly inadequate care based on a specific ethical principle of physician behavior.  That is the physician makes an assessment and prescribes care in what he or she believes is the best interest of the patient.  That is the contract.  There is no insurance company or government bureaucrat involved.  There is no restricted access to mental health care or pretending that primary care physicians are psychiatrists.  There is no remote "assessment" by a physician employed by a managed care company that prioritizes the financial well being of that insurance company or pharmacy benefit manager over the patient.  In fact,  I do not understand how that is ethical behavior at all.

That is the basis of the decline of psychiatry in this country.  It has taken a proportionately larger hit than any other specialty.  It is documented in detail on this blog and in E. Fuller Torrey's recent book.  The adventures or misadventures of academic psychiatrists are relevant only insofar as the APA seems to use the President of the APA as a position that academics cycle in and out of.  The idea that "psychiatrists in the trenches" are poorly represented by such a system is accurate with two possible exceptions that I can think of.  Psychiatrists in the trenches are also poorly represented by criticism of academic psychiatrists and their conflict of interest agreements and personal employment contracts.  It does nothing to address the central problems of the specialty, provides no tools that front line psychiatrist can use against all of the real conflicts of interest they face on a day by day basis, and is generally demoralizing.  Before any critics suggest that I am supporting a "whitewash" - put yourself in the position of a psychiatrist who has just put in a 12 hour day taking care of 20 inpatients and putting up with passive aggressive and aggressive MCO and PBM reviewers who have been wasting your time and interfering with your care.  You go home to read the paper and suddenly there is a major story of how unethical psychiatrists are - based on the appearance of conflict of interest.  You try to remember that last time you saw a CME event that was sponsored by a pharmaceutical company.  Then you check your files to make sure you have enough CME credits for relicensure.  As an added piece of information that same psychiatrist doesn't really care about Section 3 in the DSM-5 or the issue of dimensional versus categorical diagnoses.  They have not blinked an eye with the release of DSM-5 and won't in the future.

That is how the psychiatrist in the trenches experiences this academic exercise in conflict of interest.  I say if you want to pull out an ethical argument and use that to help front line psychiatrists, it needs to be focused on the obvious targets in managed care and the government bureaucracies that support them.

You know - the real forces dismantling psychiatry (very effectively I might add) over the past three decades.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

The Real Conflicts of Interest in Medicine and Psychiatry Today

I noticed some confusion around the GSK article that was recently posted.  I decided to start the New Year examining conflicts of interest (COI) in medicine and psychiatry because they are widespread.  These COI are much more widespread than the press or politicians have stated.  That is because there are more players than physicians involved and these other players are hardly ever mentioned. You would never realize that by reading the papers largely because COI is always described as a problem with physicians.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

My goal is to outline as many as possible and hopefully readers here will be able to fill in any that I might have missed.  Because I am just one guy working in his spare time, it will not be an encyclopedic listing but it will be more comprehensive than you will find anywhere in the press or possibly the existing medical literature.  It will also be more comprehensive than the typical political analysis that usually suggests that the only relevant conflicts of interest have to do with physicians making money or prescribing drugs in exchange for certain rewards.  As you will see, these may be some of the least important conflicts of interest.

A good starting point is this diagram I made that looks at all of the important conflicts of interest that impinge on physicians.  The diagram is not exhaustive. (click to enlarge)

Not all of the links are drawn and there are many smaller entities involved that have not been graphed. As you can see I have 13 major areas here that directly impact on physicians.  It is important to keep in mind the main goal or interest is the practice of medicine.  It flows from an ethical relationship with a physician.  That relationship is defined as the physician acting toward the patient in a way that is only in the best interest of the patient in exchange for a professional fee.  The modern relationship makes an important distinction in that the physician needs to be practicing scientific medicine.  The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has a policy statement with some useful definitions.  The APA defines the primary interest as "the highest level of evidence based practice, ethically based and scientifically valid research, and quality continuing education for the benefit of patients, the profession and society."  They define secondary or personal interests such as personal, financial, or professional that:  "may inhibit, distract, or unduly influence their (physicians) judgment or behavior in a manner that detracts from or subordinates the primary interest of patients and may be perceived by some as undermining public trust."  Six examples of situations that may require vigilance to prevent conflict of interest issues are given and 5 of 6 can be seen as derivative of physician relationships with the pharmaceutical industry.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) definition of conflict of interest is: "a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest."  Note that the IOM makes no distinction about conflict of interest versus the appearance of conflict of interest.  It turns out that the appearance of conflict of interest is the common standard that is used to indict the medical profession.  The classic example that is typically given in the media is the influence of pharmaceutical representatives on physician prescribing behavior.  The recent GSK disclosure confirms that that pharmaceutical representatives were paid based on the number of product prescriptions that the physicians they visited actually wrote.  The idea is that promotional items of widely variable value (pens to pizza to golf outings to trips) and free samples led to increased prescriptions.  Free samples provided to clinics was probably also a major factor and became a mainstay for many patients with limited or no mental health benefits.  Typical press coverage suggests that the results of this type of conflict of interest are widespread and certain, but I would suggest that the great majority of physicians including many of those who were paid consultants by the pharmaceutical industry were not laboring under any conflict of interest.

Consider for a moment the conflicts of interest (COI) listed across the top of the diagram starting on the left with Managed Care COI.  I have reviewed those conflicts of interest in great detail in previous posts.  As an example consider the conflicts of interest in this post on how physician employees are managed by managed care companies.  In all cases, there is a direct conflict of interest between physicians interest and the interest of the company and its managers.  In every situation that I am aware of the physicians lose.  That is typically viewed as a plus by the business managers running the company because it allows them to do whatever they want to do in terms of closing clinics and programs, firing physicians, firing support staff, coming up with business based performance metrics that are divorced from clinical reality, and denying care when they want to.  When the conflict is framed as entitled doctors being managed for the first time in order to be fiscally responsible - apart from the obvious rhetoric the real impact on patients is lost.   That has included the rationing of psychiatric services, the destruction of inpatient psychiatry services, the elimination of psychotherapy services, and the wholesale shifting of care for people with the severest forms of mental illness to deficient state operated services and correctional facilities.

Managed Care COI is almost always transacted by an army of intermediaries.  There are so-called physician reviewers or utilization reviewers who look at records from a distance and second guess physicians actually treating the patient.  They can say that they don't think a patient needs a particular service such as hospitalization and the patient is invariably discharged.  These days many hospitals owned by managed care companies employ non-physician case managers who function the same as utilization reviewers and tell physicians when to discharge patients from the hospital.  This review process represents what I consider to be the largest conflict of interest affecting the decision making process in medicine and it is the least transparent.  You are not likely to hear about it until you or a family member are hospitalized and you are told that it is "time to go" based on an insurance company decision.  You can see from the diagram that this COI is enmeshed with federal and state governments, think tanks, and some of the other managed care rationing tactics - Pharmaceutical Benefit Manager COI and Insurance Company COI.  All of these bureaucracies can produce insurmountable obstacles to physicians trying to care for patients by denying diagnostic and treatment modalities and denying appropriate settings for care.

Staying on the Managed Care COI for a moment what do some of the other relationships imply?  A full description of those relationships would require several books to explain.  This all started about 30 years ago as a concerted anti-physician movement.  Several political forces had an interest in making the argument that the reason for the high cost of American medicine was that physicians were greedy and they did too many procedures.  The federal government set up a complex subjective billing and coding system to slow down physicians.  It was a mechanism that could be used to investigate and prosecute anyone who seemed to be billing too much.  They initially enforced these totally subjective rules with the FBI.  At some point in the late 1990s, they allowed managed care organizations to internalize this process and control over physicians using this mechanism was handed off to managed care.  Today it allows a managed care companies to look at the documentation of patient care, decide that the notes don't meet criteria for a certain bill, and retrospectively demand payment for reimbursed services based on the number of other people seen for that problem.  The relationship between managed care companies and governments allows them to reimburse whatever they want for a service and demand back as much as they want.  No other professionals have private industry and governments stacked against them in this manner.  It is a motivating force for psychiatrists to not accept government backed insurance at a higher rate than other physicians.

Managed Care COI also means that it is practically impossible for a physician to appeal a decision by a managed care company.  The appeal is to another doctor who is employed by that company.  Any attempt to go outside of the company to a state insurance board is usually not productive.  State insurance boards are after all generally run by political appointees who are insurance industry insiders.  There are no neutral parties who are free of conflict of interest who can decide an appeal of an insurance company decision.

Practically all of the major entities represented on this chart operate in a similar manner to the managed care and insurance company conflicts of interest.  They are business entities who have woven themselves deeply into the political system at all levels and they can generally do what they want to do in terms of running the US Health Care system.  In most cases they treat physicians with impunity and tolerate professional groups only so far as they can co-opt some of their ideas and make it seem like they have an interest in quality care.  They have also used their influence to introduce cost-effectiveness rhetoric into places where it makes no sense.  That is especially true for psychiatric services where many have simply been shut down because they were not "cost-effective" enough.    

Some of the other entities on the diagram are more subtle.  Journalistic COI has a few sources.  Certainly journalists have no interest in patient care or treatment standards.  They do have an interest in selling stories and in some cases books.  They have an interest in influencing people.  Many of the stories I have commented on this blog over the past year were clearly rhetorical.  Many were also the product of ignorance.  Psychiatry is the only field in medicine, where non-experts don't hesitate to put their opinion in the New York Times and the New York Times doesn't hesitate to print it.  One of the most read posts on this blog in the past year was about a Washington Post article that I critiqued for many of these reasons.

Professional Organization COI is also an interesting one.  Consider the APA represents roughly 40,000 psychiatrists but only about 40% are actual members.  When the American Board of Medical Specialties decided that they would introduce a new and onerous procedure to certify physicians in an ongoing manner instead of for life, the APA clearly sided with the ABMS despite widespread dissatisfaction by the membership.  The conflict of interest considerations here are considerable and heavily financial.  There is no scientific evidence that the proposed ABMS recertification process is a valid approach.  There is certainly no evidence that a less onerous approach that would be less stressful to physicians would not achieve the goal of ongoing professional education and public safety.

The next time you read a story in the press about wealthy physicians being paid off to prescribe unnecessary medications or to perform unnecessary surgeries, pull up the COI diagram and print it out.  The truth is that physicians are caught in a web of conflict of interest.  Those conflicts of interest are generally set up to ration services to patients; ration or deny reimbursement to physicians; maximize the profits of middlemen (MCOs, HMOs, PBMs, Insurance companies); make politicians, think tanks, journalists and critics look good; and distribute a large chunk of the health care dollar to people who are not involved in providing the services.  The impact is the greatest by far in the area of psychiatric services but at some level it affects all of medicine.  The impact on physicians is also significant.  All of the pressures on physicians as a result of these conflicts of interest widen dissatisfaction with the field and increase burnout.  Both of those factors can potentially impact physician availability and intellectual resources necessary for optimal performance.  So if your physician looks burned out - he or she may well be.  It is probably directly related to doing an additional 2 or 3 hours of work every day to satisfy the requirements of all of these extraneous conflicts of interest.  Of course that is all generally unreimbursed time.  How would most workers react to putting in a full day and then an additional 2 - 3 hours off the clock to satisfy the requirements of some outside company?  It is like working for free for another company.

That is the real cost of conflict of interest and one of the reasons that health care premiums are essentially another tax on all Americans.

Happy New Year!

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice; Lo B, Field MJ, editors. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2009. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22942/ 

The Real Problem With Managed Care Research

You know the kind of research I am talking about.  The research that shows that managed care is more cost effective and higher quality than fee for service.  This stuff has been out there since the 1990s.  Is there really research like that out there or is it little more than a political exercise?  We have more than a few clues thanks to recent analysis of a Health Affairs article by Kip Sullivan.  The article is titled: "The ‘Alternative Quality Contract,’ Based On A Global Budget, Lowered Medical Spending And Improved Quality"  Sullivan points out that the title of this article is misleading because it suggests that the managed care intervention here "lowered medical spending and improved quality" in the title, but in the body of the work the authors state:

"Our findings do not imply that overall spending fell for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts in 2009-2010."  

and a paragraph later:

"This result makes it likely that total Blue Cross Blue Shield payments to groups in 2010 exceeded medical savings achieved by the group that year."  

Sullivan's analysis here is dead-on, especially the idea that "medical savings" can be parsed from overall savings when there is suddenly a large managed care infrastructure.  From some of the places where I have worked, this means bringing in a raft of middle managers who provide no service and generate no income to "manage' the people who are actually providing the care.  In some settings that could mean a "manager" for every 5 - 10 physicians.   If your goal is to cut reimbursement to the providers by just paying them less or sending them fewer referrals while adding a costly overhead of a number of managers who think they can translate their ideas about business into better clinical care - that seems like a recipe for higher costs, record physician dissatisfaction, and disregard for professional quality based guidelines.  Sullivan points out that this specific problem in managed care research has been around since the 1990's

The "higher quality" issue is as interesting.     I encourage anyone interested to download the paper because it is only free until Sunday June 30.  As you read it, take a look at the table labeled "Exhibit 4".  It is a table of quality care measures across both the control groups and the intervention groups.  Although many of the variables are easily defined a couple of issues appear to be clear.  Many seem to be process variables.  In other words, just keeping track of variables and making sure that you are ticking them off gives you more credit.  This is standard procedure in a managed care environment with more case managers.  They can literally be assigned to remind physicians or ward teams to do tasks on a time frame that gives them credit for the process variable.  More administrative manpower should equate to a larger percentage of process variables.

I note that within the quality variables there are two that apply to psychiatry - Depression: Short Term Rx and Depression: Long Term Rx.  There are no significant differences across that study period at the P<0.05 level.  This is interesting at a couple of levels.  First, if this is actually the number of depressed people treated the change after the managed care intervention is not significant.  Secondly, what measures are used to make this determination.  Are these actually depressed people or are they patients scoring above a certain cutoff on a PHQ-9 rating scale?  Third, is the change in percentage of patients treated a legitimate quality marker?  Aren't we more interested in retention in treatment and actual treatment of individual patients treated into remission rather than a cross sectional look at the percentage of patients treated?

The scientific concerns about this paper are numerous.  Like all research (and I mean all research) there are political implications.  The defined intervention here of the Alternate Quality Contract, is basically a primary care physician as gatekeeper model that consumers rejected over a decade ago.  At that point in time, managed care organizations realized that they would need to compete on the basis of providing direct access to specialty care without primary care referrals.  The adaption of the MCOs was to hire their own specialists and build speciality clinics.  The article describes this as basically the "patient centered medical home" (p 1886).   I wonder if the average consumer realizes that the medical home is really a primary care gatekeeper system from the past?

I can't help stressing the importance of article like this one and all research that purports to save money with larger administrative structures that are there in a large part to supervise physicians rather than create administrative efficiencies.  There is no better example than the non-existent mental health system for what this kind of rationing and administrative excess can create.  Diverting money from the direct provision of clinical care into complicated forms of administrative overhead needs to be measured accurately in all of these studies.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

AMA, DOJ, and managed care all on the same side?

That's right and they are all potentially aligned against doctors.

The lesson from the 1990's and again in the early 20th century was that politicians who were not competent to address health care reform in any functional way could come up with all sorts of off-the-wall-theories.  One of the most off-the-wall theories was that widespread health care fraud was a major cause of health care inflation.  It stands to reason if that is the case that is true, the perpetrators would be easy to find and put out of business.  To borrow typical language of the Executive branch it was a War on Healthcare Fraud.

To anyone who did not endure it, it is now a well kept secret.  The tactics of the government used in those days - entering clinics and doctors offices in an intimidating manner and taking out boxes and boxes of charts for review by special agents who were "coding experts" and then assigning some tremendous fine based on alleged "fraud" have been expunged from most places.  I sent two Freedom of Information Act requests to involved federal agencies and was told that information "did not exist" even after I provided the front page from one of the documents with the name of the agency.

It was quite a spectacle and it had doctors everywhere running scared.  After all, the interpretation of notes and linking them to billing documents was entirely subjective.  If a handful of notes was reviewed and bills were actually sent through the mail - racketeering charges via RICO statutes were possible and the fines would skyrocket to the point that nobody could ever pay them.  Federal prison was a possibility.  All for having a deficient note?

What followed was a carefully orchestrated set of maneuvers to render beleaguered physicians even weaker.  A decade of millions and millions of hours wasted on worthless documentation out of paranoia of a government audit.   Whose notes actually "fit" the government criteria?  The notes varied drastically from clinic to clinic and year to year in the same clinic.  And then a masterful stroke.  The government probably realized that their micromanagement of progress notes as leverage against physician productivity was probably undoable.  It would take far more agents than the budget would allow and they would no longer be able to demonstrate "cost effectiveness" in terms of recovered funds on the DOJ web site.

At that point they were able to turn this political device over to managed care companies who could selectively apply it anyway they wanted.  Some physicians noted that their documentation and coding scores by internal audit could be the best in the organization one year and the worst then next even though they had not changed any of their paperwork practices.  These audits to assure compliance with federal guidelines quickly became a mechanism for managed care organization (MCOs) to deny payment and "downcode" a practitioner's billing based on their review of chart notes.  Incredibly the MCO could deny payment for a block of billing submitted or pay much less than what was submitted.  Where else in our society can you decide to pay whatever you want for a service rendered?  That is the kind of power that the government gives MCOs.

Enter the new "partnership" to deal with health care fraud.  It is basically a coalition of the same players who have been using the health care fraud rhetoric for the past 20 years.  The DOJ, FBI, HHS OIG, large insurance companies and managed care corporations.  This quote says it all:

"The joint effort acknowledges the limitations of each health care insurer relying solely on its own data and fraud prevention techniques.  After a 2010 summit, 21 private payers and government agencies discovered that they were victims of the same scams.  As a result, the participants pledged to ban together against fraud."

The HHS Secretary chimed in:

"This partnership puts criminals on notice that we will find them and stop them before they steal health care dollars."

The newly elected psychiatrist-AMA president Jeremy Lazarus advises:

"Claims coding and documentation involve complicated clinical issues and the analysis of these claims requires the clinical lens of physician education and training."

Good luck with that Dr. Lazarus and heaven help any physician who gets caught under the managed care-federal government juggernaut.  And who protects physicians against those who are defrauding them by non payment or trivial payment for services rendered based on a totally subjective interpretation of a chart note?  Nobody I guess.  I guess we will continue to deny that is possible and a common occurrence.

This can only happen in a country where the government provides businesses with every possible bit of leverage against physicians and where most political theories about health care reform are pure fantasy.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Charles Feigl.  New public-private partnership targets health fraud.  AMNews August 20, 2012.