MPS Meeting on Emergency Department Congestion

From the Flyer for this Meeting - Not an indication that MPS has anything to do with the opinions that follow. 

I attended the Minnesota Psychiatric Society 2019 Fall Program last weekend. The theme was addressing Minnesota’s Mental Health Access Traffic Jam: Coming Together to Build a Better Roadmap. That traffic jam has been there for the duration of my career in Minnesota and that is approaching 30 years. 

When I looked at the agenda and the speakers my first association was “stakeholders”. That jargon has found its way into the administration of medical and psychiatric systems over the past 20 years. It is basically a codeword to suggest that administrators, politicians, and everybody in between somehow has a “stake” in medical care and the relationship of physician has with the patient and their family is peripheral to all of these outsiders.  Nothing could be farther from reality – but that is the attitude we have to deal with from politicians and administrators.

The keynote speaker was the director of Psychiatric Emergency Services at the Denver Health Medical Center – Scott Simpson, MD. He was not able to make and his presentation was given by a colleague - Kristie M Ladegard, MD. Denver Health is a 525 bed Level I Trauma center. Psychiatric Emergency Services has a 17-bed psychiatric unit and a 60-bed detox unit.  The Emergency department also has mobile crisis services and consultation services.  For the last data they had in 2013 a little over half of their emergency visits were for “depression, anxiety, or stress reactions”. About 40% were for substance use disorders. An additional 20% were for psychosis or bipolar disorder. As expected, suicidal ideation led to a more complicated disposition plan. The incidence of delirium in elderly patients remaining in the emergency department and the high mortality rate of missed delirium was discussed. Factors leading to boarding in the emergency department were discussed. An interesting approach to substance use treatment was the “No Wrong Door” approach. Using approach intake for substance use treatment occurred right in the emergency department or at other points of contact within the medical system.  Medication Assisted Treatment for opioid use disorder was also started in the ED, with buprenorphine inductions. That resulted in a greater number of inductions and greater percentage of people retained in treatment.

Emergency services lecture also talked about four goals of implementation including access, quality, cost, and provider resiliency. The most interesting method discussed knew the end of the lecture was Dr. Simpson’s paper on single session crisis intervention therapy (1). The specific techniques are given in the open access paper in reference number one, and they should be familiar to people who are involved in crisis intervention especially with people who are suicidal in those situations. It was part of the overall message that I don’t think is emphasized enough. That message is-interventions need to be incorporated into the clinical assessment and not compartmentalized into the few minutes at the end. Experienced clinicians should be able to forgo entire sections of a standard template if an intervention is necessary and they can use the time to provide it.

There was a complementary panel in the afternoon that consisted of two psychiatrists and two emergency medicine physicians in a dialogue about what each discipline wanted to tell the other. Early in my career it was often a source of conflict. There always questions about “inappropriate admissions” psychiatry. Those questions faded away without any psychiatric presence in the emergency department. People were admitted to my service irrespective of their associated medical complexity. It was often my job to determine whether or not they needed to be transferred to a medical or surgical service. With this panel there was not a lot of controversy. Much of the concern had to do with nursing home and group home patients being sent to the ED with no hope that they could be placed anywhere quickly. The ED physicians had a very valid argument that it is no environment for boarding people until placements are available. The spaces are confining and there is very little to do. Communication about these patients and what the outpatient staff’s expectations are is critical. One of the psychiatric panelists pointed out during the session that all of the presentations indicated that additional beds within the system were necessary - but the state and managed care representatives were denying that basic fact.  This was later denied by a state representative who tried to say that there are a lot more beds that are not being counted but the basic fact is that just in terms of state hospital beds Minnesota ranks 49/50 states.

There was a Forensic Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) team representative there as well. There are currently 56 ACT teams in 43 counties in the state of Minnesota. There are approximately 90 patients per team. The FACT team specializes in seeing patients with severe mental illness who also have probation officers. The leader that team talk briefly about forensic cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Therapy focuses on a number of maladaptive cognitions that typically promote repetitive criminal behavior. One example was the error of “super optimism” or “negative consequences of this behavior do not apply to me”. Since the therapy for repetitive criminal behavior is generally considered futile to try to locate literature on this type of therapy but was not successful. The psychiatrist who headed the FACT team also talked about the importance of “felony-friendly housing” and “felony-friendly supportive services”. Both of the social features are critical for stabilizing people in the community but these resources are rare.

On the darker side there were presentations from both the MN Department of Human Services and managed care representatives.  Not a great deal of detail was provided by DHS.  They briefly described improvement in the physical environment of their forensic units.  They gave the current bed capacity of Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center (AMRTC) – the largest non-forensic state hospital.  They described the number of facilities for the treatment of psychiatric and substance use disorders as including AMRTC, 6 much smaller Community Behavioral Health Hospitals (CBHHs), 5 Community Addiction Recovery Enterprise (CARE) programs, and 4 Minnesota Specialty Health System (MSHS) Programs.  AMRTC has a 96-bed capacity and has been under significant stress since a Priority Admission Statute allowed county sheriffs to send patients who were incarcerated but mentally ill as direct admissions. That results in longer lengths of stay for committed patients in community hospitals.  Compared with previous statistics provided by Kylee Ann Stevens, MD - Chief Medical Officer, Minnesota Department of Human Services, the bed capacity at AMRTC has decreased from 110 to 96 beds.  A newer Child and Adolescent Behavioral Unit is being built but there is no net increase in bed capacity.  There was no comparable data to the January 2018 post beyond that.

The DHS presentation emphasized the 40% of the patients at AMRTC Did Not Meet Criteria (DNMC) to be there. As a Medicare PRO reviewer for Minnesota and Wisconsin one of my jobs was to review patient stays in their hospitals and determine if they were actively being treated or it was more of a rehabilitative stay. The point at which clear progress was not occurring was an endpoint beyond which hospital care was no longer covered. The problem is that this is an almost totally subjective determination in patients with chronic mental illnesses.  If for example a person is highly aggressive and no medical treatments have worked – is that an acceptable end point to say they should no longer be hospitalized. I don’t think that it is. I have concerns about the robustness of the 40% figure for DNMC.  They presented some graphs of a Continuous Improvement Project that increased patient flow and decreased the DNMC to 19%.  Some external validation that large community acute care hospitals like Regions and Hennepin County medical Center were noticing the effect of this project would have been useful.

DHS also presented a few slides about “innovation” within the system.  They discussed Lean Six Sigma training as adding value in that it provides business skills to clinicians and leads to innovation. I remember they told me the same thing when we got that training in the managed care company where I worked. The problem is that managed care companies don’t really want to hear any ideas from physicians at least none that are not reflected back from management.   There were three bullet points on Michael’s Game, Ligature Mitigation, and Harnessing the Power of the EHR.  They suggested the Michael’s Game was useful to treat delusions for the purpose of competency restoration.  The only available literature I could find suggests it is useful to try cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in people with psychosis, especially if there is little familiarity with the technique. Ligature Mitigation is basically a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) mandate to ensure the safety of the inpatient environment by policies and environmental inspection.  It seems more like a requirement than innovation.  In terms of the power of the electronic health record – I think there is finally a consensus that it is more of a burden than anything else. If there is some power there within the state hospital system – please demonstrate that.

There were a number of other speakers from the managed care industry and affiliated organizations.  There were diagrams about patient flow in the ED and what service availability can do to reduce ED congestion.  There were no inpatient psychiatrists there. The people with the most insight into the problem were absent.  After being an inpatient psychiatrist myself for 22 years I thought about why that might be.  Inpatient docs after all are subjected to all of the unrealistic expectations of everyone else.  Toward the end of my inpatient career I was being sent patients with severe medical problems and either no psychiatric disorders or stable psychiatric disorders.  I was getting these folks because everybody knew that they would get the care they needed – and the case managers who were ordering hospitalists to discharge people would be out of the loop. Inpatient psychiatry became a place where in addition to acute care psychiatry – everybody’s problems could be worked out there. And I had the added advantage of a case manager sitting in my team meeting reporting back to administrators on whether I got people out in 4 or 5 days.  The discharge process was intolerable because there were no discharge resources.  The availability of state hospital beds and group home beds were all shut down by many of the agencies represented in the room. Managed care was responsible for the intolerable work environment and a policy of discharging people before they were stable in order to optimize billing.  Basically, many of the people in the room who created the problem were now saying they could solve it. And I have heard these refrains for the past 20 years.

In a form of ultimate irony, there was a rumor at the meeting that one of the Twin Cities metro hospitals was going to be shut down by the managed care company that owned it taking another 105 psychiatric and substance use beds off line.  Since this question entered the Q & A session it seemed more than a rumor.  There was no comment from the managed care people.  

Besides the ACT psychiatrists there was another bright spot.  Dave Hutchinson, the Hennepin County Sheriff described the progress he was making at the policing level. Deputies were getting crisis intervention training (CIT). He made the point that I think a many don’t consider – crisis calls about obvious psychiatric problems that are being observed by the public go to the police twenty-four hours a day. He described the toll on the police including the statistic that 80% of officers who are involved in the use of deadly force – never return to work.  The jail in Hennepin County – like everywhere is inhabited by a large number of people with mental illness. Sheriff Hutchinson was very clear about the fact that this is a suboptimal situation and he would prefer that these people are in settings where they can get adequate care.

At the end of the session, I met briefly with one of my former residents.  She was a panelist for the meeting. She asked me what she was missing: “It seems that all indications point to needing more beds.”  I reassured her that she didn’t miss a thing.  It was the elephant in the room.  I have seen two decades of smoke and mirrors about why more beds aren’t necessary. It doesn’t seem that the state of Minnesota is any closer to recognizing that this is a real problem. It doesn’t seem that professional psychiatric organizations are any closer to confronting managed care or opaque state bureaucracies about how they are at the minimum unhelpful to people with serious mental illnesses and at the maximum harmful.

    

George Dawson, MD,

References:

1:  Simpson SA. A Single-session Crisis Intervention Therapy Model for Emergency Psychiatry. Clin Pract Cases Emerg Med. 2019;3(1):27–32. Published 2019 Jan 10. doi:10.5811/cpcem.2018.10.40443D

2: Khazaal Y, Favrod J, Libbrecht J, et al. A card game for the treatment of delusional ideas: a naturalistic pilot trial. BMC Psychiatry. 2006;6:48. Published 2006 Oct 30. doi:10.1186/1471-244X-6-48.   

3: Melnick ER, Dyrbye LN, Sinsky CA, et al. The Association Between Perceived Electronic Health Record Usability and Professional Burnout Among US Physicians [published online ahead of print, 2019 Nov 12]. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019;S0025-6196(19)30836-5. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.09.024



Supplementary:

There are many estimate of optimal bed numbers and Minnesota does not come close on a number of them.  The Treatment Advocacy Center has a number of documents on their site that list Minnesota as 40/50 in 24 hr hospital inpatient and rseidential treatment setting beds, 41/50 in inpatient beds, and estimates that the state needs to add 1,165 beds to the system to establish an adequate base rate of available beds.

This document from the Pew Charitable Trust looks only at state hospital beds and shows Minnesota at 3.5 beds per 100,000 population with a ranking of 49/50 states.  

At least two panels of experts have concluded that 50-60 publicly funded beds per 100,000 is necessary to provide the same level of medical services and wait times for psychiatric patients in emergency departments as medical/surgical patients. 

Do Anti -Torture Arguments Apply To Some Utilization Review Decisions?

In a previous post on psychiatry and torture, I pointed out the American Psychiatric Association's official position paper on torture.  It states unequivocally that psychiatrists should not be involved in  torture and describes the premises for that argument.  As any reader of this blog knows, I have described the impact of managed care on psychiatry including the fact that managed care has had a disproportionate effect on the field probably because of widespread biases against psychiatry, psychiatrists, and patients with psychiatric disorders and addictions.  Some would cite the subjective nature of the field, but the abuses I have seen occur in areas where  there is limited subjectivity such as inpatient and treatment settings where there are unequivocal and severe disorders.  Obvious examples would be people with psychotic disorders who are engaged in unsafe activities due to delusions and/or hallucinations or a person compulsively drinking 1.75 liters of vodka per day despite having numerous auto accidents and nearly freezing to death because of intoxication.  Every psychiatrist I know is aware of cases where these people have been denied care by an insurance company based on an arbitrary decision made by a remote reviewer who has no responsibility to the patient in question.  Although many of these patients are oblivious to their plight and would be content to proceed with no treatment, many are highly distressed.  They are distressed because they know that proceeding with no treatment places them at risk on several fronts and the basic act of being denied coverage causes them a great deal of distress.

That lead me to the thought: "Is this distress the equivalent of torture?"  As always that depends on the definition.  Post 911, the United States has used various definitions of torture including some that rationalize actual physical blows to a person as not constituting torture.  Timelines of various Department of Justice memos with these interpretations are available and I will not get into them here.   There are obvious problems with not calling a coercive beating torture.  A more widely accepted definition is available from the United Nations:

1:  For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

In this case, torture is defined as potentially mental suffering with no physical component.  Since the UN is dealing with torture inflicted by states there is the expected implication of states in the process and the cases of lawful imposition of pain and suffering inflicted by states.  The definition is also limited to obtaining information that a person wants to keep undisclosed or coercing them to do something they do not want to do.  A more general dictionary definition from Webster's would be:

To afflict with severe pain of body or mind.

Part of the convenience to businesses denying psychiatric care is the stereotype that these are just minor medical conditions, that treatment is elective, or that treatment does not meet some arbitrary business criteria like "failing outpatient treatment first" or "we don't do medical detox in a hospital".  The pain involved with mental illness is an abstract concept to anyone who has not experienced it or who has not be involved in trying to treat it.  I don't think it has been studied.  You won't see anyone asking the question:

How painful was it to learn that your insurance company would not fund for the treatment of your mental illness or substance abuse problem and realize that you would be losing your home, spouse, children, job, etc?

Professionals treating the patients in question also avoid the issue of psychic pain.  It can be more easily dealt with as the expected anxiety or depression of an adjustment disorder rather than unnecessary suffering inflicted by a third party.  Some professionals will address it as grief from the expected losses.  But most often it is just glossed over as business as usual. The legal system has already indemnified managed care systems from any liability for decisions that lead to injury removing them further from the consciousness of patients, their families and the providers in question.  The physicians involved are conflicted - they know they are powerless given the legal landscape and further they don't want to make any waves with the companies who might be paying them.  We have culturally removed one of the most toxic factors in our health care system - the denial of care from consideration.

Like all psychiatrists, I have had to pick up the pieces when the proposed treatment plan is denied and all of the secondary problems come into play.  Suddenly I am talking with a person who not only has a severe psychiatric problem and/or addiction, but they are now homeless or without a job or a family.  It is the worst care scenario from the perspective of comprehensive care and it is up to me and my colleagues to piece together a suboptimal plan.   The outcomes of those suboptimal plans are rarely very good.  The best that I usually hope for is that they can be safe for a long enough period of time to find other resources to deal with their chronic mental illness or addiction.  In some cases the expected worst case scenario occurs and if the patient is lucky they are readmitted and there is another chance to try to obtain funding from their managed care company.  There is a good chance the proposed plan will be refused again.

At what point is the human suffering involved in this sequence of events recognized?  At what point does a change in the system need to occur.  Steven Sharfstein, MD made this decision when he was the President of the APA and he banned the participation of psychiatrists in any step of the interrogations occurring in the mid 1990s to this date.  Is that a step that psychiatry should consider in managed care settings?  Should we eliminate psychiatrists from sitting in a remote office and reading notes about the care of one of these severely ill patients and making a decision that favors the insurance company that they work for?  Psychiatric professional societies have adapted to the cultural blindness of the culpability of insurance companies when they legitimize medical decisions by making sure that some psychiatrists are in these reviewer positions.  I guess  the thinking was that they could suspend their loyalty to their employer to make decisions in the best interests of patients and the profession.  History has clearly showed that things don't work that way.  I have had some reviewers tell me that their decisions were based on a set number of days irrespective of anything I would tell them about illness severity or complications.

I can understand the obvious counterargument to my position that the denial of care is a form of torture.  It can be argued that the patient is not a passive player and that they have a "choice" about whether they continue to have severe symptoms, continue to use drugs and alcohol, or continue to harm themselves.  The idea that all of these problems are based on conscious voluntary choices remains an unrealistic business approach to mental illnesses and addictions and not reality.  There is also the business as usual argument.  That is - this is the way we have done things for the past 30 years with the help of politicians even though it does not contain costs and it provides poor quality care.  It that really enough justification for creating more stress on already distressed patients?

At what point do we all acknowledge that denied psychiatric care results in more mental pain and suffering and takes psychiatrists out of decisions that are in their patients best interest?


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA




Graphics Credit:

Graphic is downloaded from Shutterstock per their standard agreement.  It is entitled "Depressed man in a tunnel" by the artist hikron.

Holding Tank Or Psychiatric Unit?

In the event that it is not obvious, the bulk of my career was spent as an acute care psychiatrist.  I staffed inpatient psychiatric units for about 22 years in one of the most acute care facilities in the largest Metro area in the state of Minnesota. That meant that most psychiatric emergencies, especially those involving aggressive behavior were generally brought to this facility and I was one of a handful of inpatient psychiatrists who would be seeing that person. In order to do that work even reasonably well there has to be a reasonable environment. I am an expert in that environment and this post is about how that environment deteriorated as a direct result of government and business intervention that was designed to turn healthcare over to the business community and out of the influence of physicians.

Before I get into those details, let me describe my current perspective on inpatient psychiatric care from the vantage point of an outpatient psychiatrist.  In October of this year, I will have been working in an outpatient setting for a total of 10 years. I have seen hundreds of people who were detained or admitted to inpatient psychiatric units over that period of time. I always ask them what their care was like and the reviews are never positive.  The most common term that I hear as a description is that it was a "holding tank."  They describe incredible boredom, very brief contacts with staff, and the role of the psychiatrist as asking them if they were suicidal or not. Many of them knew they could adopt a game strategy: "I knew if I said I was not suicidal they would let me go and they did." They often tell me that arbitrary medication changes were made to medications they may have been taking for a number of years. Their psychiatrist or physician was rarely contacted. Follow up in these circumstances is not very good.  They discharge prescriptions were rarely filled and often they did not get an explanation for the medication changes.

My experience trying to get care for people who need inpatient care has been equally unsatisfactory.  I have been overruled by non-physicians working in emergency departments when I referred people in who needed acute care.  There is nobody in the world or the history of the world who knows more about who needs inpatient care than me. I have been unable to refer people for electroconvulsive therapy with severe depression and suicidal thoughts, even directly to the hospital where I used to work. I have been sent severely ill and unstable people to take care of in an outpatient setting - who should have been treated on an inpatient unit.  That level of care in unacceptable to me both as a professional who knows the field and as a family member who wants anyone with mental illness in my family to get the same care and resources as somebody who goes to the emergency department with chest pain.  They currently do not.

How did inpatient psychiatric care fall to such abysmal depths?  Basically by stealing the decision making ability from the physicians who were trained to make the decisions. The decisions I am talking about include treating the patient in a particular setting, the treatments and specific medications offered, and what their overall treatment trajectory would be. Beginning in the 1990s it was possible for an insurance company to deny treatment based on whatever basis they decided and sustain no liability for a wrong decision.  At that time a physician employee or contractor could just call the hospital, have a cursory discussion with the attending physician, and deny care. To illustrate how that works here is one of my typical conversations with one of these "utilization reviewers" from that time. The conversation refers to no specific case but represents an amalgam of these reviewer conversations:

Utilization Reviewer (UR):  "Hello I am Dr. X calling to review the care of Mr. Patient Y.  Why is he on your inpatient unit?"
Me: "He has longstanding depression and for the past two months has been drinking a fifth of vodka per day.  On the day he came in his wife found him sitting at their kitchen table with a loaded firearm saying he was going to kill himself.  He is currently being detoxified and treated for depression."
UR: "He needs to be sent to detox."
Me: "The county detox unit is a social detox with no medical coverage and they refuse to take anyone with suicidal ideation or behavior."
UR: "He needs to be sent to detox".
Me: "Did you just hear what I said?"
UR: "Is he suicidal RIGHT NOW?"
Me: "He has been under my care for less than 24 hours and at this time is at extremely high risk for immediate relapse and high risk for recurrent suicidal behavior. He needs stabilization."
UR: "But is he suicidal RIGHT NOW?"
Me:  "I don't understand what you mean. He has no access to a firearm right now. He is in a hospital."
UR: "Then we are done here. We are not going to cover the hospitalization."

Having many conversations like the one above over the years set the tone for the demise of inpatient care. At one point it was easier to recruit psychiatrists to be utilization reviewers because it was an easier job with no liability and predictable hours compared to psychiatrists trying to actually provide the care.  This process remains one of the greatest unspoken conspiracies in the history of American healthcare and it is the reason for the red transition arrow in the above graphic. It is also the reason why we began incarcerating people with severe mental illness rather than treating them.  It is how county jails are now opening jail facilities that they are calling mental health units. It "saves" any insurance company that adopts these polices a significant amount of money and puts all of the people who should be treated in a safe and supportive environment at risk for that profit to the company.

Holding tank is a term, that has come full circle.  We owe it all to the managed care  industry.


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

The Equifax Hack - Implications for Corporate Medicine

A couple of days ago it became general knowledge that Equifax, one of the major credit reporting agencies in the US was hacked and information on up to 143 million people was exposed.  To make matters worse, the theft occurred from the company's own identity theft monitoring division called TrustedID Premier.  Like most identity theft prevention companies they charge a monthly fee for monitoring your credit transactions and monitor credit card transactions  by number.  They generally store more personal identification information than is found on a typical credit report.  According to Bloomberg financial news Social Security numbers, addresses, driver’s license data, and birth dates were available to the hackers.  It took a few days but the agencies eventually picked up on the fact that Equifax was going to provide a year of free credit protection in return for a waiver that the person getting the protection was not going to sue the company.  The Bloomberg piece quotes an attorney saying that Equifax could be facing and $70 billion in claims and a multibillion dollar class action lawsuit has already been filed.  It goes on to point out that the consumers are limited by arbitration, but in practical terms they are also limited by the sheer scope of trying to collect damages from massive corporations.

I have followed consumer reporting since it all started back in the 1970s.  Originally it was just one company and the data was held in a safe.  With the evolution of information technology in the 21st century the landscape has evolved into three national credit reporting agencies Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion.  There are longstanding concerns about the accuracy of the data they keep in credit reports, the rating system, consumer access, and dispute resolutions.  The fact that all of the information is stored under Social Security Number identifiers is significant for two reasons.  One is the promise that Congress made to the American people when Social Security was introduced - the the Social Security Number would never be used as a national identifier.  At the most it would be used within the government for identification purposes.  Today all credit reporting information is linked to SSNs and the numbers are bought and sold on the black market by the tens of millions.  Reason two is that this is this wholesale loss of control over the SSN has been the single most important cause of identity theft.

According to the US Department of Justice - 17.6 million people or about 7% of the US population over the age of 16 was a victim of identity theft in 2014.  Although half of these incidents are rapidly resolved with minimal losses the scope of the crime results in total losses to victims of $15.4 billion.  The DOJ study shows that social consequences of the theft (life stress) are a direct correlate with the length of time that it takes to resolve the incident.  Commercial losses are estimated to be about twice of the loss to victims.  The typical way that a victim of identity theft learns about the problem is that they are notified by a business.  There is no standard protocol for dealing with the problem.  A minority of people report it to the police and if they do they are likely to receive a police report number.  Businesses in general were very lax in doing anything about the theft.  The usual recommendation is complete the affadavit that the consumer did not take the money himself, but now hacking and identity theft is so common that the federal government has a special website to be of assistance called IdentityTheft.gov.

Most Americans would find that the wholesale facilitation of identity theft would be infuriating enough on its own merit.  But consider for a moment that they general processes that resulted in this problem are generally applied to any number of businesses including health care.  A few of the common points are listed in the table below.  The only possible difference is that data breaches of health care systems are much more common.

Industry	Credit Reporting	Managed Care
Invented by Congress?	Yes	Yes
Protected by state and federal laws and regulations?	Yes	Yes
Use Social Security Numbers as unique identifiers?	Yes	Yes
Legally mandated limits on privacy?	Yes	Yes
Mandated use by every citizen – no opt out?	Yes	Yes
Civil Liability limited by law?	Yes	Yes

The parallels are uncanny and the results are the same.  Large protected industries that at some level can trade in consumer privacy and generally act with impunity.   Like the explicit and implicit protections against lawsuits that the credit reporting industry has - the managed care industry is protected from lawsuits by ERISA.  Managed care companies themselves can essentially do what they want in terms of reimbursing doctors, paying for medications, setting rates and copays.  They set their own standards and advertise these standards as quality.  The real quality these businesses add is negligible to less than negligible. To get treated in these systems prospective patients need to agree to play by all of these limitations including the fact that medical and private information will be released to any payers and "protected entities", including companies that may be interested in selling the patient a product to treat one of their chronic illnesses.

I never cease to be amazed at how passive Americans are when it comes to allowing elected officials to barter way their privacy rights and money to businesses.  The credit reporting industry did not exist before a few entrepreneurs convinced Congress it was a good idea and and the legal and regulatory landscape was set to to favor those businesses to the point that they are essentially monopolies.  With few exceptions, the consumer needs to pay for the information that they are collecting on him or her if they are interested in the reports and then again if they are making a significant financial deal.  They are not allowed to opt out of a system that puts them at risk all of the time.  It is easy to see how these systems engender a fatalistic and in some cases nihilistic attitude in many Americans. 

That is not likely to change until elected officials stop treating their citizens like they are cannon fodder for the businesses they invented in the halls of Congress.      

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA




Reference:

Polly Mosendz and Shahien Nasiripour.  Equifax’s Hacking Nightmare Gets Even Worse For Victims https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-08/equifax-s-hacking-nightmare-gets-worse-thanks-to-arbitration-clause  September 8, 2017, 6:38 PM CDT



Attribution:  Graphic at the top dowmloaded from Shutterstock per their standard agreement.  Artist is TippaPatt  - labelled as: "Digital alarm icon and low angle view modern office buildings in blue tone with network connection concept, smart city and wireless communication network, IOT internet of things conceptual image."


Supplementary:

Jerri-Lynn Scofield.  Wolf Richter: Worst US Consumer Data Hack Ever? Equifax Confesses.  naked capitalism.  September 11, 2017.

Good article on how to protect yourself from the Equifax hack and a good quote on how to view your relationship with credit reporting companies:

"And remember: you’re not their customer; you’re their product."

Burnout Industry Just Doesn't Get It

I was sent a long list of burnout interventions from a colleague today.  It was quite amazing.  Opinion pieces on Burnout. TED talks on burnout.  Books, videos, and web-based resources on burnout.  All with the message: "Physicians - in the event that you could not figure this out yourself - here is what you can do to alleviate burnout."   The disease model of burnout, except in this case we are not treating with with medication or surgery we are using life style modification.  What is wrong with this picture?

It turns out there is plenty wrong with this picture.  The biggest problem of course is that all of the factors that lead to burnout flow from incompetent management.  We have had a surplus of that in the past 30 years with no end in sight.  I would venture a guess that in all of my time in practice, I have seen about 1 manager who I would consider to be competent.  Nobody working for him was at risk for burnout.  More importantly, the most important protective factor against burnout has also become a casualty of bad management.  That factor is collegiality.  I could regale the reader with stories from my past on how much work I and my teammates did in various medical and surgical settings.  But I think that most people in working settings realize how much better the job and the day goes if they are working with bright, knowledgeable and highly motivated people.  A sense of humor is always a plus and I am convinced that at least some of the physicians I worked with were some of the funniest people I have met anywhere.

Rather than more stories, I will get right to the point about how bad management subverts collegiality.  Very early in the process, managers sold the idea that "there are some slackers in the group and therefore we need to introduce a way to measure productivity."  I was skeptical.  I looked around the room and did not see any slackers.  The statement appeals to those who are competitive by nature or anyone who wants to make sure that everyone is working as hard as they feel they are.  The next part of the process was adapting a very crude systems and after several missed starts applying it to everyone.  Even then I was quick to point out that it looked like 95% of the group was working hard and the only difference were the correction factors applied to the work units.  At that point I was told that this was not an academic exercise and we were now on this system whether I liked it or not.  Over the years, the calculations fluctuated and everybody did the same job, but now we were all cast as competitors rather than  colleagues.  In the end the productivity system was just a manipulation, more hoops to jump through as management made us less and less efficient with a series of roadblocks.

The second step is to set some arbitrary rules about how individual productivity affects the entire group.  In other words, penalize everyone up front and let the group know that this "holdback" in earned wages would be paid out only if everyone  made their productivity requirements.  I have never seen that rule applied to any other group of employees.

The next step is to set up some kind of arbitrary and meaningless employee evaluations.  Solicit random anonymous comments from any staff working with the physician employee and have them defend this one-sided criticism in their annual evaluation as if it is  true.  Have the physician who is working 60-70 hours a week, teaching, and doing independent educational activities select some goal at work that they will quickly forget until the next annual review.  All of the steps so far have served to isolate physicians and create a general paranoia about who might be making negative comments about them.  Paranoia is never good for collegiality.

Top this entire mess off with a primary school disciplinary system with a very low threshold.  Nurse Cratchett says that a physicians was too "curt" with her and suddenly that physician is called into the Chief of Staff's office and told that they are a disruptive physician.   Furthermore, that physician is advised that they have "one strike" against them and if they accumulate two more strikes they are "out".  There is no appeal process or due process.  If Nurse Cratchett complains - it must be legitimate and that conclusion based solely on the opinion of one person and supported by the Chief of Staff - stands.

At this point collegiality is gone and the physicians are further isolated from other non-physician staff.   Anyone can "report" them and that report will be taken seriously whether it is true or not.  The physician-administrators are no longer colleagues but hostile flunkies of the business hierarchy.

The final step was a stroke of genius by the incompetent managers.  For about 30 years managed care companies have had physicians reviewers sitting in a different state - remotely viewing records and telling the physician who is actually treating the patient - that patient must be discharged from the hospital or in some cases treatment for substance use disorders or outpatient psychiatric treatment.  In the last 10 years managers decided to have their own on site case managers, sitting in rounds and team meetings telling the physicians when to discharge patients.  If the physician doesn't go along with them they are reported to the medical director.  That creates additional problems and possibly another accusation of being a disruptive physician.

I have been talking about this sequence of events since I started writing this blog.  I recently encountered some resistance for the first time.  A colleague suggested that since burnout in physicians in other countries exists - there must be more to it than managed care.  I think that misses the point at a couple of levels.  First, it is possible that there are other bad managers - managed care companies certainly don't have a monopoly but they are highly standardized so that the onerous management practices that you find in one will certainly exist in another.  The literature on burnout in other cultures is small at this point and in some cases non-specific.  In other cases there is clear overlap.  But as I think more about this argument it seems lacking.  It seems like finding burnout and bad management practices in other countries can be used to rationalize the existence of ultimate bad management or managed care.  Secondly, bad management of personnel is just one aspect of bad management in general.  Does management ever do anything positive from an intellectual or creativity perspective?  Apart from one physician manager, I have not seen a single positive management outcome after observing a significant number of these people.

In fact,   if managed care administrators could not treat physicians like production workers they would have absolutely nothing going for themselves.  Nothing at all.



George Dawson, MD, DFAPA



References International Physician Burnout:

1: Jesse MT, Abouljoud M, Eshelman A, De Reyck C, Lerut J. Professional interpersonal dynamics and burnout in European transplant surgeons. Clin Transplant. 2017 Apr;31(4). doi: 10.1111/ctr.12928. Epub 2017 Mar 19. PubMed PMID: 28185307.

2: Głębocka A. The Relationship Between Burnout Syndrome Among the Medical Staff and Work Conditions in the Polish Healthcare System. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2016 Dec 31. doi: 10.1007/5584_2016_179. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 28039665. 

3: O'Kelly F, Manecksha RP, Quinlan DM, Reid A, Joyce A, O'Flynn K, Speakman M, Thornhill JA. Rates of self-reported 'burnout' and causative factors amongst urologists in Ireland and the UK: a comparative cross-sectional study. BJU Int. 2016 Feb;117(2):363-72. doi: 10.1111/bju.13218. Epub 2015 Jul 30. PubMed PMID: 26178315. 

4: O'Dea B, O'Connor P, Lydon S, Murphy AW. Prevalence of burnout among Irish general practitioners: a cross-sectional study. Ir J Med Sci. 2016 Jan 23. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26803315. 

5: Tomljenovic M, Kolaric B, Stajduhar D, Tesic V. Stress, depression and burnout among hospital physicians in Rijeka, Croatia. Psychiatr Danub. 2014 Dec;26 Suppl 3:450-8. PubMed PMID: 25536981. 

6: Misiołek A, Gorczyca P, Misiołek H, Gierlotka Z. The prevalence of burnout syndrome in Polish anaesthesiologists. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2014 Jul-Aug;46(3):155-61. doi: 10.5603/AIT.2014.0028. PubMed PMID: 25078767. 

7: Kravitz RL. Physician job satisfaction as a public health issue. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2012 Dec 14;1(1):51. doi: 10.1186/2045-4015-1-51. PubMed PMID: 23241419; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3533582. 

8: Putnik K, Houkes I. Work related characteristics, work-home and home-work interference and burnout among primary healthcare physicians: a gender perspective in a Serbian context. BMC Public Health. 2011 Sep 23;11:716. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-716. PubMed PMID: 21943328; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3189139. 

9: McKinlay JB, Marceau L. New wine in an old bottle: does alienation provide an explanation of the origins of physician discontent? Int J Health Serv. 2011;41(2):301-35. Review. PubMed PMID: 21563626.

The Documentation Fallacy

"If it isn't documented it didn't happen!"

That is the documentation fallacy in a nutshell.  At first it seems like an obvious truth.  A silence falls on the crowd, everyone looks at the floor, and we move on.  Fallacy accepted.  I have seen the scene play out a thousand times, scripted by unimaginative attendings.  It is also scripted by administrators and attorneys who have a lot more invested in the process.  I can still recall a malpractice scenario in one of my throw away journals in residency.  A malpractice attorney walks in to depose an internist.  The patient in question is a diabetic who has lost his right leg to gangrene.  The attorney is questioning the doctor about wound care provided to the patient.

Attorney:  "Reading from your notes doctor what leg did you treat when you saw the patient."
MD:  "I treated the patient's left leg."
Attorney:  "Are you absolutely sure.  Did you document treatment of the left leg?"
MD:  "Yes I am sure - you can read it right here in the notes."

Case closed.  The attorney was hoping for no right or left designation in the original chart and an easy malpractice settlement.

This is a powerful vignette about why documentation needs to occur and how it can be protective in terms of risk management and avoiding malpractice litigation, but is it really that simple?  To take a look at the fallacious aspects of that statement requires an examination of what I call the period of excessive and useless documentation.  I will provide a couple of anchor points.

The first is my neurosurgery rotation in both my third and fourth years in medical school.  I was on a very busy neurosurgical service at Froedtert Memorial Hospital in the early 1980s. The hospital was brand new and there was a question of what services would be located there,  Neurosurgery and Neurology occupied an entire floor.  The team consisted of two senior neurosurgery residents, two general surgery interns, a general intern, and a medical student.  The residents spent a great deal of time in the operating room with the staff neurosurgeons and efficiency was critical to the entire operation.  We had to round on 20-30 intensive care unit (ICU) and general beds and discuss it with the residents by 10AM in a conference room.  All of the daily documentation had to be done by that time, because all day and night long there were calls to the emergency department (ED) and the ICU.  The ED consults involved a brief walk over to Milwaukee County Medical Center - the next building to the east (in those days) on the grounds.

A standard hand written progress note on a non-ICU patient on this service in those days was "Afebrile, VSS, wound looks good - no signs of infection."  We of course checked all of the wounds, labs, vital signs and did other focal exams as necessary.

Flash forward to just before 911.  I am sitting in a conference room with colleagues from my multispecialty group. We are listening to a presentation by a billing and coding specialist on all of the bullet points that are necessary to complete a note.  The examples shown are notes of about 300 to 500 words in length.  We are told that unless all of the bullet points are ticked off or commented on we could be prosecuted for billing fraud.  Not only that, but if a "fraudulent" bill goes out in the mail we could be prosecuted for mail fraud and possibly conspiracy under the anti-racketeering RICO statutes.  There had been several high profile prosecutions of health care organizations and individual practitioners with FBI involvement at the time.  We were told that our healthcare organization at the time now had an internal compliance bureau that would audit all of our notes to make sure the bullet points were checked of to avoid the large multimillion dollar fines and of course jail time.  A racketeering charge could result in federal prison time.  Clinical notes used by physicians had suddenly been usurped for an entirely different purpose - legal leverage by government agencies and businesses.  That leverage is used to deny payment, ration services, and generally exhaust physicians so that they don't have time to fight these tactics.

Flash forward a third time.  The year is 2009.  I am now sitting in a large multispecialty committee meeting on documentation and hospital oversight.  We are given several hospital progress notes that are 16-18 pages long.  That is a single progress note from one day that is 18 pages long.  We are told that several physicians are routinely compiling notes this long.  I say compiling because the electronic health record being used allows physicians to rapidly pull data in to the note from many places in the chart to rapidly build the note.  It also allows physicians to build their own custom templates and phrases to add to the note.  The note looks terrible because it is a mix of fonts and spacing - a great example of the primitive state of the electronic health record (EHR) that persists right through to today.  All of the notes are designed to meet billing criteria determined by the federal government rather than demonstrate contact with an intelligent life form.  EHRs - even fabulously expensive ones seldom produce a coherent, readable document and may even spread that incoherence over a ream of paper if you ask for the records.

That has been the progression of excessive and useless documentation as I have experienced it in my career.        

But here's the reality.  If I spend 60 minutes with a patient and don't tick off some bullet points that don't really apply to what I am doing - don't think for a minute that "if it isn't documented it didn't happen."  Try that experiment yourself.  Sit down and have a one hour conversation with a friend and then decide how you are going to document what happened.  I have been a student of Communication Theory since I read the first paper by Shannon And Weaver and and have never seen an adequate discussion of optimal information transfer between two people or how it should be recorded.  The only way to get to the content would be a verbatim recording or transcript and that would contain a lot more information than is typically contained in one of my notes.  I could try to approximate that by writing an 18 page note but let's also assume that like most doctors you have 5 - 10 minutes to document something.  It is obvious the vast majority of communication that happens will not be documented.  In psychiatry there is the added issue of people who say: "I want to talk about this but I don't want you to put it in the medical record."  That information is generally very sensitive and in some cases is considered privileged psychotherapy information separate from the medical record and unavailable to other providers.  It is still a question of what gets documented, but what is documented is still information depleted relative to the original conversation.

Now - let's consider what the US government and by default most insurance companies want physicians to do.  For a standard outpatient assessment of varying intensities there are a number of  "bullet points" required to meet billing criteria.  That means that a certain number of them need to be checked off.  If they are - the bill can be submitted.  There are huge quality problems with that approach.  I previously posted the questions that I ask about sleep to practically all of the patients I see for evaluation whether they have a primary sleep compliant or not.  On a lot of outpatient forms a sleep complaint is a single check box.  On the most widely used screening tool by managed care organizations for their collaborative care approach - the single question is:  3. Trouble falling or staying asleep, or sleeping too much.  The choices are "not at all", "several days", "more than half of the days", and "nearly every day".

Think about that sleep screening question for a moment.  It is important because a lot of managed care clinics have it right in their electronic health record.  The patient may check it off on a tablet and it is imported into their record  on an ongoing basis.  After all of that whiz bang technology what do we know?  We know that the patient has one of three sleep problems (even a physician with a paper form could circle one and immediately upgrade the quality of information).  And we know approximately how many days per week the problem exists.  Go back to my sleep questions and compare the information content.  And yet these managed care settings are highly likely to have somebody sitting in a meeting, looking slightly annoyed and endlessly voicing the Documentation Fallacy and the importance of these checklists.  In the case of the questionnaire and many if not all template approaches - it was documented and you don't really know what happened.

In addition to poor quality, low information content, reduced direct patient contact time, and excessive time taken to generate - notes that are designed for billing and administrative purposes are also a drain on the environment. On current hospital medical records systems  they take up disc space.  Not as much as imaging data, but when you look at the graphic at the top of this page - all of these low quality, information poor notes are piling up by the tens of thousands every day.  Contrary to the traditional use - for relevant historical data and to learn what previous physicians were thinking - we currently have exabytes of data that is so information poor it is generally never seen again.  It was viewed once by a billing and coding specialist and once by an insurance company and then it is banished to one of the storage arrays that are running 24/7 - never to be read again.  More importantly - never to be read by a doctor again.  Thirty years of stakeholder meetings got us here in the first place.  If physicians cannot finally assert themselves - the profession will continue to do this scutwork till the end of time.

So when you hear the Documentation Fallacy uttered - feel free  to gasp and roll your eyes.    



George Dawson, MD, DFAPA



Supplementary 1:

The American College of Physicians is the only physician professional organization to take a stand on the unnecessary administrative burden placed on physician in the United States.  That is a very recent position and a departure from the usual positions taken by professional organizations that physicians should be prepared to fall into lock step and do whatever documentation that governments or insurance companies or electronic health record manufacturers want them to do.  You can read Putting Patients First by Reducing Administrative Tasks in Health Care: A Position Paper of the American College of Physicians at this link.  It is obviously a politically correct approach that is basically a call to stakeholders.  Stakeholders with a conflict of interest like looking for any excuse to not pay or pay less will not be motivated to change 30 years of what amounts to physician exploitation.

A quote from that position paper:

"Related work by Sinsky and colleagues (46), also discussed earlier, focused on how physician time is allocated in ambulatory care and found that physicians spent 49.2% of their time on EHR and desk work, versus 33.1% on direct clinical face time with patients and staff."


Supplementary 2:

I posted this a while ago on some additional documentation that psychiatrists were supposed to do about quality to avoid payment penalties.  If you follow the link Physician Quality Reporting System you will be taken to the APA web site.  Note in the right column a heading called  View the list of 2017 MIPS Individual Quality Measures.  A click on that link leads to a long list of various "quality measures" and how to report them.

Supplementary 3:  

I have not had time to go through all of the documents on the APA web site but a number of them are written by the NCQA and NQF.  Neither of these organizations would be considered as quality initiatives by physicians.  In my opinion, the NCQA started as a managed care heavy organization and I am sure any objective analysis of the outcome measures would illustrate that.  The NQF started by political mandate and I am sure carries forward the usual political biases of all of the self declared health care experts sitting in Congress.  So how do they end up as further reasons for more documentation by physicians who are cranking out so much paperwork that they have no time to see patients?  And how do they end up on the web page of a physician professional organization?

A telling statistic from the NQF web site: "30% of NQF endorsed measures are developed my medical specialty societies."  Where do the rest come from?

Attribution:

Graphic at the top is from Shutterstock per their standard licensing agreement.  Credit is
"Stack of the old paper documents in the archive." by Loginova Elena.

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.