ACP: Embracing a culture of cost-effective health care

The following is part of a series of original guest columns by the American College of Physicians.

by Steven Weinberger, MD, FACP

In his column in the June 1 issue of The New Yorker, Dr. Atul Gawande used the example of McAllen, Texas, to illustrate the widely disparate spending on health care around the country. This oft cited article captured the attention of President Obama, who reportedly has made it required reading in the White House. As shown by researchers at Dartmouth and as emphasized by Dr. Gawande, increased spending does not result in higher quality care, and in fact is often associated with poorer quality care.

There are many components of higher cost health care that do not contribute to better patient outcomes, ranging from overuse or misuse of care (e.g., diagnostic testing and expensive therapeutic options) to insufficient emphasis on primary care and prevention. I would like to focus here on just one piece of the puzzle – the overuse or misuse of diagnostic testing.

Concern about potential liability

I believe there are four primary reasons for excessive diagnostic testing, although it is difficult to assess their relative importance. First is the fear of litigation when missing a diagnosis. In the case of McAllen, Dr. Gawande notes that Texas now has caps on pain-and-suffering malpractice awards, so he feels this is an unlikely explanation. Nevertheless, in many settings and for many physicians, the physician’s concern about potential liability should a diagnosis be missed likely does lead to excessive and unnecessary diagnostic testing. The presence of a cap on dollars awarded for pain and suffering may attenuate a physician’s concern about malpractice suits, but it certainly doesn’t eliminate it.

Poor communications

Second is the problem of poor communication across the health care system, which often results in unnecessary duplicate testing when patients are shuttled from one health care provider to another. Universal use of interoperable electronic medical records (i.e., systems that can communicate with each other) would certainly be a major step in alleviating this problem.

Conflict of interest

The third issue, unfortunately, is the conflict of interest when a physician may receive personal financial gain from diagnostic tests that he or she orders. Physician-owned laboratories and other diagnostic services, including diagnostic imaging, are the most important examples. While appropriate diagnostic testing by these physician-owned services may be fine, overuse and misuse driven by the potential for financial gain cannot be condoned.

Concern for health care costs

Finally, although this is a broad generalization, I do not think that physicians have typically embedded concern for health care costs as part of their daily diagnostic decision-making. I do not mean withholding tests that are indicated and cost-effective; I mean avoiding unnecessary testing that adds to cost without contributing to the quality of patient care.

In our medical schools and residency training programs, the emphasis on making a correct diagnosis has not been accompanied by a similar emphasis on the cost, the cost-effectiveness, and the usefulness of the various diagnostic options. Trainees as well as practicing clinicians often order tests without knowing their costs, and without taking into consideration the comparative costs of various diagnostic alternatives. At the same time, physical examination skills have been de-emphasized in favor of more expensive diagnostic studies.

Cultural shift needed

What we need is a change in culture that embraces the appropriate integration of physician-acquired information (i.e., history and physical examination) with diagnostic testing in a way that is evidence-based and takes both absolute and relative costs into consideration. This cultural shift must start with medical student and resident education, and must extend to the level of the individual practicing clinician. Why? Because the health of our health care system depends on it.

Steven Weinberger is Deputy Executive Vice President and Senior Vice President, Medical Education and Publishing, of the American College of Physicians. His statements do not necessarily reflect official policies of ACP.

email

  • Pingback: Web Media Daily – Thurs. June 25, 2009 | Reinventing Yourself...

  • http://www.thehappyhospitalist.blogspot.com Happy Hospitalist

    I agree with everything the doctor said. It’s up to physicians to take back health care. Unfortunately, I think because we live in a money driven world, as long as physician payment models reward doing more, not less, we well get exactly what we pay for. The same goes for hospitals and every other entity that collects money from the Medicare National Bank.

    It’s time we separate the quality (what ever that is) discussion from the financing discussion. I would suggest that while some quality (what ever that is) may save money, other quality (what ever that is) will cost money. I would suggest that it’s not good quality or bad quality that affects health care financing in totality, but rather it’s the financing models themselves that affect financing.

    The government is so concerned about quality (what ever that is) they have left out the only thing that will affect cost. I would suggest that it’s the financing models that should be overhauled. That means scraping the skewed economics of the RVU model and scrapping fee for service. Ultimately, what the government cares about is how expensive is your care. Not how good it is. And the two are independent of each other.

    By the way, Kevin and AMA, I applaud you for opening up your comments. That’s the way it should be in America.

  • Susan H

    Addressing first point, concern about potential liability:
    Rather than debate the costs of a malpractie claim to a physician, even if successfully defended, let us explore potential solutions.

    Malpractice liability insurance cost could be shifted to the patient. Patients could be offered a product by Federal Governent, a standardized ‘malpractice event policy’, similar to the airplane crash policies which used to be vended at airports. Private insurers might find this a profitable offering, if the stats cited by ATLA are accurate, and jump in with competing products, ranging from stripped-down to luxury models.

    Potential patients could be screened by medical care providers based upon the type of ‘malpractice event’ coverage they carry; whether there are high policy payout limits on non-economic damages, whether there is mandatory arbitration agreed upon, whether there is a prearranged compensation of costs agreement (to reimburse physician for malicious prosecution or abuse of process).

    The policy could also spell out details and schedules for disclosure and discovery. It is in best interests of patient and health care provider to get civil litigation settled quickly.

  • http://www.themindrelaxer.com The Mind Relaxer

    Poor communication can really lead to unnecessary duplicate testings, one good suggestion is to embrace the use of electronic records.. it’s about time right? and I agree with that too.

  • CHenry

    Electronic records are a great concept, but unless you plan on something as universally accessible as the old Bell telephone system was, where anyone anywhere can access a patient’s records (with appropriate permissions) then the reality of cost savings will be elusive. There are too many vendors selling too many different products not all of which are interoperable. A data bank with potentially 300 million patients files is probably not beyond imagining, but making it possible for 700,000 physicians and who knows how many hundreds of thousands of hospitals, clinics, laboratories and imaging centers to add and retrieve information reliably–as in lives depending on it–is a completely different and more difficult requirement.

    Getting wrong or no data from a national medical data network is no more useful than getting the same from a paper chart/phone/fax “network.” EHR on a national scale has to be more than an IT industry employment relief measure; it has to work well for those who will be expected to use it regularly, and its costs cannot be prohibitive.

  • Michael Kirsch, M.D.

    The Gawande article was a brilliant expose on the failings of our profession. Physicians need to address 3 questions when advising patients.

    (1) Is the test absolutely necessary?
    (2) Is there a cheaper or less invasive alternative?
    (3) Will the test results have a meaningful impact on the patient’s medical situation?

    http://www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com

  • http://tezcans.blogspot.com/ Ayse

    i am quite familiar with Weinstein’s work; he is well-known and respected with his work in health economics and cost-effectiveness analysis. in addition to changing the culture of medical establishment, we need to change the culture of public at large. we need to better understand the opportunity costs of choices we make and stuff we demand. as a nation we should decide what is more important to us because if we like to continue our acute and chronic medical care expenses at the same speed we are, we have to give up investing and funding scientific and technological advances that made our nation a leader once upon a time. we have to learn to better take care of ourselves and let go when the time comes. we should begin thinking our loved ones left behind to carry the burden of bankrupting medical bills. we cannot have it all.

  • Ayse

    i am quite familiar with Weinstein’s work; he is well-known and respected with his work in health economics and cost-effectiveness analysis. in addition to changing the culture of medical establishment, we need to change the culture of public at large. we need to better understand the opportunity costs of choices we make and stuff we demand. as a nation we should decide what is more important to us because if we like to continue our acute and chronic medical care expenses at the same speed we are, we have to give up investing and funding scientific and technological advances that made our nation a leader once upon a time. we have to learn to better take care of ourselves and let go when the time comes. we should begin thinking our loved ones left behind to carry the burden of bankrupting medical bills. we cannot have it all.
    BTW I love your blog!

  • Rezmed

    How about the demands by patients for explanations, reassurance and placebo testing? In many of these discussions, the desires of our patients for “stuff” – tests, procedures is not being given enough weight. Most patients want that head CT so that they can walk out knowing they don’t have a brain tumor, which the doc knew they did not have. What is worse is that patients expect much more than they did 20 years ago. I think we have to at least suspect that the patients in McAllen, were happier after all those unnecessary tests, and caths compared with the patients up the road.

    Part of the solution is to have a system that can say no. Patients must start paying the cost of dupicate testing, patients must start paying more for tests and procedures that are less evidence based. In our system no one says no, and if they do they usually are taking the path of greater resistance.

  • http://tezcans.blogspot.com/ Ayse

    reliance on testing over time might have created a culture of patients that trust more the lab and radiological tests than their physicians’ opinion.

  • Pingback: edwinleap.com | Medscape Grand Rounds for June 30

  • Jay Moore

    I’d like to agree with Rezmed – there is one thing that Dr. Weinberger doesn’t mention in his article, and that’s the test that is done due to patient demand. When trying to fit five or six patients into an office practice per hour, plus answering phone calls and emails, it is often too easy to simply order a marginally beneficial test that a patient requests rather than trying to convince the patient to “wait and see.” When you treat a patient as a customer in a society where success is driven by a “customer is always right” mentality, it’s pretty tough to say no very often to patients and still maintain a healthy patient base.

  • http://www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com Michael Kirsch, M.D.

    I agree with the above comments that the patients’ demands fuels the cycle of excessive medical care and that harried physicians comply too often. While this is a reasonable explanation, it is our obligation to the patient and to society to provide only the care that’s needed. This would spare billions of dollars and would save patients from the risks of unnecessary medical interventions. I realize how busy we all are and that ordering a CAT scan is easier than having a 10 minute discussion, but this goes to the core of our professional obligations. If we give up on this, then we’re not really doctors.

  • Susan H

    Are you certain pts are not taking cues from docs on testing?
    Any patients with an HSA or flex medical spending account is eager to AVOID extraneous testing. HSA holders are frustrated by the inability to discover pricing for recomended med services, and by the WIDE disparity in test pricing.
    Give patients a little medical and price info, then let them start to decide whether the cost of the test is worth the peace of mind they perceive it will bring.

  • http://www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com Michael Kirsch, M.D.

    I have an HSA, but most Americans don’t. They have no ‘skin in the game’ and have little incentive to verify that the recommended tests and treatments are truly essential. Look what happens in our hospitals. If patients and families had to bear a fraction of the costs of care, then ICU patients destined for heaven wouldn’t be probed by half a dozen consultants, each one generating costs and care that won’t change the outcome.

  • Robert Berry, MD

    I have a direct-pay primary care medical practice with about 60% uninsured and 25% high deductible patients that might help with this discussion.

    Since these patients have no other choice but to pay out of pocket for routine medical care, I have to justify my recommendations to spend their money – or at least try and find the most cost effective diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. While the few commercially insured patients I have sometimes demand MRI’s for their back pain, direct-payers generally want to try conservative therapy for a month or so. And in reality, MRI’s rarely lead to surgery. Same with a lot of tests we do – if we aren’t going to do something with the result, why order it?

    Rather than demanding Prevacid for their heartburn, direct-payers are willing to try Ranitidine 300mg qd (for $4/mo at WalMart) and/or Prilosec OTC.

    Sometimes patients don’t want to take my advice – which is their choice. When I believe that a particular test is necessary I will write the order, write on their discharge instructions to have the test, and have them sign the instructions. It is up to the patient to finance his non-catastrophic medical care. If Americans on average spend $7000/yr on their vehicles, then the vast majority can pay for their everyday medical care if their priorities were in the right place.

    If it is an urgent or emergency situation (like cardiac chest pain or surgical abd), I tell them to go to the ER. If we are going to have single payer, maybe we just need it for hospitalizations. That way the decisions for routine health care will be done more economically.

    Some will argue that patients cannot make these decisions. You’d be surprised. If we take the time to discuss the options and the rationale, they are certainly more able to make these decisions for themselves than some faceless, non-medically trained bureaucrat. We will either decide to let patients make healthcare decisions with their own money or have bureaucrats make decisions for patients with the patients’ money. That seems to be the choice before us now.

    And primary care docs can take the time if we don’t have $160/hr overhead staring us in the face everyday. Since I don’t take insurance, my overhead runs about one-third that. I know another direct pay doctor whose annual overhead is just $80,000 year and spends 30 minutes on average with patients. Direct pay for non-catastrophic care improves quality and substantially reduces cost while enhancing the experience for patient and doctor.

    Perhaps its time to include this information in the national discussion on healthcare.

  • Rob

    I completely agree Susan. I have an HSA with Kaiser Permanente and I’m responsible for the first $2700 of costs, yet it is virtually impossible to get cost/benefit information from doctors. Even though I’ve learned to routinely ask the doctor up front to notify me of additional costs/benefits, I’m frequently ignored and later I receive a large, surprise bill.

    For example, recently I went to the doctor for a sinus problem–recurring sinus infection about 1x/2 years and slight pressure on right side by upper right cheek. Up front, as usual, I explained my interest in understanding costs. The doctor explained a cat scan would be the best tool for diagnosis but expected it wasn’t cheap. The doctor explained they would order one for me and let me investigate the cost to decide if I wanted to get it. Note I was told there was nothing serious to worry about based on my symptoms. (e.g. tumor) Then the doctor sprayed a bit of numbing solution in my nostril and proceeded to stick a flexible scope up my nose. I assumed this was a fancier version of the light they stick up your nose and that it was included in the $100 I already paid for my visit since the doctor said nothing about cost. Weeks later, I was shocked to receive an additional bill for $560 for this tube up the nose “procedure”–which took about 3 minutes–that I discovered was called a nasopharyngoscopy and laryngoscopy. By the way, during the appointment, there was nothing found.

    Is that legal to ignore my requests for pricing information up front and do an expensive test without telling me? It’s akin to taking your car in for an oil change and picking it up with a bill for a complete diagnosis of the car costing $100′s of dollars. I know that’s not legal.

    So, do I have any grounds to deny paying this bill?

Trending