Selasa, 04 Oktober 2011

Doctor Nurse Redux

Way back in 2008 we riddled "When is a Doctor not a Doctor?". The answer: when they are a nurse.

It seems the more things change the more they stay the same.

Now the N. Y. Time is asking "When does a nurse want to be called Doctor?"

When Sue Cassidy went to a clinic because of pain in her ear, a woman with a white coat and stethoscope entered the exam room and said "I am Dr. Patti McCarver and I am your nurse."

Dr. McCarver calls herself a doctor because she returned to school to earn a doctorate last year, one of thousands of nurses doing the same recently. Doctorates are popping up all over the health professions, and the result is a quiet battle over not only the title “doctor,” but also the money, power and prestige that often comes with it.
Let's face it. Calling someone Doctor has much more prestige than calling someone nurse, therapist, or even attorney. There is a certain "cachet" about the title . . . Doctor.

Unless of course the title is preceded by the word witch.

It seems that doctors, the REAL doctors, are taking exception to the use of the word doctor by anyone that isn't a REAL doctor.

This battle is not new.

Medical doctors have often sought to differentiate themselves from osteopathic doctors and chiropractic doctors and fought to exclude these medical practitioners from their inner circle. In some states only a medical doctor has authority to write a pharmaceutical prescription but those lines have blurred in recent years.

The deeper battle is over who gets to treat patients first. Pharmacists, physical therapists and nurses largely play secondary roles to physicians, since patients tend to go to them only after a prescription, a referral or instructions from a physician. By requiring doctorates of new entrants, leaders of the pharmacy and physical therapy professions hope their members will be able to treat patients directly and thereby get a larger share of money spent on patient care.

As demand for health care services has grown, physicians have stopped serving as the sole gatekeepers for their patients’ entry into the system. So physicians must increasingly share their patients — not only with one another but also with other professions. Teamwork is the new mantra of medicine, and nurse practitioners and physician assistants (sometimes known as midlevels or physician extenders) have become increasingly important care providers, particularly in rural areas.

But while all physician organizations support the idea of teamwork, not all physicians are willing to surrender the traditional understanding that they should be the ones to lead the team. Their training is so extensive, physicians argue, that they alone should diagnose illnesses. Nurses respond that they are perfectly capable of recognizing a vast majority of patient problems, and they have the studies to prove it. The battle over the title “doctor” is in many ways a proxy for this larger struggle.
As the demand for primary care increases the medical community responds by finding ways of accommodating the demand by creating a new level of primary care provider.

Meanwhile those entering medical school that are looking at four years of intense training followed by an additional three to five years of residency and internship before they can fly solo are abdicating the role of primary care in favor of a specialty. They are asking themselves why they should spend 7 - 10 years in school plus accumulating a ton of debt only to earn a little more than a school teacher when they are finally ready to fly solo.

A primary care nurse practitioner or physician's assistant can perform many of the same duties of a primary care doctor. The minimum training for a nurse is two years. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics nurses earn an average of $65,000.

A nurse practitioner usually has 2 years of additional training beyond a nursing degree and earns an average of $85,000 per year.

Roughly the same amount of time is required to become a physicians assistant and a similar pay scale applies.

Nurse practitioners and physicians assistants earn about half of what a primary care physician earns, but this goes beyond earning power.

There is a real need for primary care providers and that need will only increase over the next few years. This is especially true in light of our aging population and the advancing wave of baby boomers.

If medical students opt for specialty practice over primary care the doctor shortage will only get worse.

Twenty-three states allow nurses to practice without a physician’s supervision or collaboration, and most are in the mountain West and northern New England, areas that have trouble attracting enough physicians.
It is time to rethink our view of primary care. More education does not equate to better care.

Senin, 03 Oktober 2011

Anthem out of the Wood(s)

Normally, we wouldn't bother posting about something that, after all, affects so few people, but I think there are some interesting lessons here.

Via email from Anthem:

"Wood Anesthesia and Pain Management, LLC, in Wood County, Ohio, has chosen to terminate its provider contract with Anthem effective 10/25/11 ... Consequently, Anthem members may be billed by Wood Anesthesia and Pain Management for any balance not covered by Anthem. However, since our members do not have a choice of anesthesiologists for surgeries performed at Wood County Hospital, Anthem will apply the equivalent of any member liability amounts" [emphasis added]

Anthem goes on to say that, although they'd really like to have hammered out an agreement that would keep the gas-passers in-network, the carrier has an obligation to its members (and, of course, its shareholders) to "negotiate a contract that will keep their health care costs as affordable as possible."

Remember: health care costs drive health insurance costs.

As we've previously discussed, "hidden providers" like anesthesiologists (and radiologists, etc) often have no incentive to belong to any network, and this case graphically illustrates why: "members do not have a choice of anesthesiologists for surgeries performed at Wood County Hospital." This is often (generally?) the case at most hospitals, and is one reason that folks are surprised (and not in a good way) when they are balance-billed for services rendered where no negotiations are possible.

It's fashionable to bash the carriers for heavy-handedness (and, frankly, they often deserve it), but here we have a very public airing of the specific problem.

I also got a bit of a smirk from this:

"[P]ayment for services will be issued to the member, who will then be responsible for making payment to Wood Anesthesia and Pain Management."

Nice.

This serves two purposes: first, the provider is going to have to go after the patient directly in order to be paid. One wonders how well that will work out. Second, and not-unrelated, is the fact that these patients will now see first-hand how much this part of their medical procedure really cost. One of the biggest problems with our current system (and, of course, the gummint-run ones, as well) is that the patient is insulated from the true cost of care. We know how much that oil change costs, because we foot that bill. And we know how much those peas cost, because we bought the can ourselves. But when health insurance (or the government) becomes an intermediary, the price is obscured and distorted.

What a great teaching moment.

Minggu, 02 Oktober 2011

Important Medicaid Case in Supreme Court

Just a quick heads-up on a case the Supreme Court has already accepted for review this term - it's known as Douglas v. Independent Living Center.

The issue in simplest terms, is whether Medicaid recipients and providers can sue a state for failing to pay the rates required by the Medicaid Act. Well, that seems straightforward enough . . . before, that is, one takes into account the actual law and the courts' reading of the law.

The linked article reveals some of the complications - for example, that the Ninth Circuit previously ruled the State of California "failed to produce evidence that it complied with requirements that do not appear in the [federal] statute." Huh?

With all the attention given this term to the probable hearing of the Obamacare appeal, other important insurance-related issues such as Douglas v. Independent Living Center aren't getting any air time. This case is worth following because of its potential to increase the cost of Medicaid--even before the increase in Medicaid cost that will result from Obamacare.

Jumat, 30 September 2011

Cavalcade of Risk #141: Call for submissions

Jay Norris hosts next week's CavRisk. Entries are due by Monday (the 3rd).

NB: We're now using this submission tool: The BC WorkAround

Once there, you'll be asked to provide:

■ Your post's url and title
■ Your blog's url and name
■ Your name and email
■ A (brief) summary of the post ("Remarks")

At the bottom of the form, you'll see a drop-down menu; simply select "Cavalcade of Risk" then press "Submit" and you're good to go.

And PLEASE remember: ONLY posts that relate to risk (not personal finance tips and the like).

Thanks!

Kamis, 29 September 2011

Seniors Need to Pay Their Fare Share

A few weeks ago President Obama proposed a new tax on seniors that use THEIR OWN MONEY to purchase what he considers a rich Medigap plans. If you have a "first dollar" Medicare supplement plan, such as Medigap plan F, Obama believes you should pay more than anyone else for Medicare Part B.

On September 19, 2011, as part of his deficit reduction proposal, President Obama recommended charging a 30 percent surcharge on Part B premiums to new beneficiaries that purchase Medigap policies with “near firstdollar” coverage, beginning in 2017

I don't know about you but that doesn't sit well with me.Medicare cuts

The Medicare Trust Fund Lie

Where does he think he has the right to tell me how to spend MY money? After all, they took money from us for years to pay for Medicare. Money that was supposed to be safely stored in a trust fund.

Only recently did Washington finally admit there is no trust fund, it was all a lie. They spent almost every dime we "invested" and now they want more.

I don't think so.

More Rocket Surgeon Ideas from Washington

Some of the other big ideas from DC include:

bar Medigap policies from paying the first $550 in cost-sharing liability and limit coverage to 50 percent of the next $4,950 before the plan could cover 100 percent of beneficiaries’ out-of-pocket costs.

CBO estimates this policy would achieve $53.4 billion in savings over 10 years, if implemented in 2013.

An alternate approach, described by CBO in its 2008 report Budget Options, Volume 1: Health Care, and would impose a 5 percent excise tax on all Medigap insurers

Let's think about this a moment.

If WE pay more out of pocket that will save the GOVERNMENT money.

Apparently they believe we won't go to the doctor when we are sick if we have to pay for it.

That's like saying I need new brakes on my car but I won't get them fixed because my car insurance won't pay for them.

Their second proposal is just as goofy. If the government places a 5% surcharge on Medigap carriers guess who pays that tax?

The people who buy the policies.

We believe that Medigap plan F is a good plan but there are better VALUES to be found in plan G and plan N.

We also believe Washington has no right to tell us what we can and cannot buy and how we should spend OUR money when it comes to health care and health insurance.