Welcome to the return of the weregild - your life on the healthcare balance sheet


You may not remember it much, but most of those of us who were forced to endure studying the epic poem, Beowulf were introduced to the concept of the weregild. In the 2007 CGI adaptation of Beowulf, apparently the side plot discussing the weregild was cut to make more time for Angelina Jolie's CGI-enhanced, naked, high heel wearing turn as Grendel's mom. Probably a smart decision by the producers in terms of the box office :)





The weregild was literally a "man price" you paid as compensation for killing someone, and there was a price on everyone from the dregs of society all the way for one prescribed for regicide (killing the king). It's a fascinating social compact that was used to try and temper blood feuds with their cycles of repeat violence and revenge. The Roman Catholic church eventually enacted their own version of "tort reform" on the weregild, condemning it and forcing elimination of the practice near the end of the 1st millennium AD.

From Wikipedia's entry,






The standard weregeld for a freeman appears to have been 200 solidi (shillings) in the Migration period, an amount reflected as the basic amount due for the death of a ceorl both in Anglo-Saxon and continental law codes. This fee could however be multiplied according to the social rank of the victim and the circumstances of the crime. For example, the 8th century Lex Alamannorum sets the weregeld for a duke or archbishop at three times the basic value (600 shillings), while the killing of a low ranking cleric was fined with 300, raised to 400 if the cleric was attacked while he was reading mass.

The size of the weregild was largely conditional upon the social rank of the victim. A regular enslaved man (ceorl) was worth 200 shillings in 9th century Mercian law (twyhyndeman), a nobleman was worth 1200 (twelfhyndeman). The law code even mentions the weregeld for a king, at 30000, composed of 15000 for the man, paid to the royal family, and 15000 for the kingship, paid to the people. An archbishop is likewise valued at 15000. The weregild for a Welshman was 110 if he owned at least one hide of land, and 80 if he was landless.





NOTE: For those interested, there's a fascinating catalog of such fines from the Salian Franks (a German dynasty)here, which covers the price of various offences, ranging from stealing your cow to gang raping your wife


Ok Rob, why are you talking about weregilds on Plastic Surgery 101 anyway?

There were several articles about healthcare I read this week that all kind of intersect at the fringe of the debate on healthcare and got me thinking about the equivalent of the modern weregild.

"A Place Where Cancer is the Norm", which describes Houston's MD Anderson cancer center.

"Cancer Society, in Shift, Has Concerns on Screenings" which describes a pullback from the American Cancer Society on just how effective mammograms and prostate cancer screening (via PSA tests) on affecting death from cancer.











"Can 'bundled' payments help slash health costs?" in USA Today

Sunday Night's 60 Minute's piece (click here to view)on more then $60 billion annual loss to Medicare fraud and how the Feds have been inept at policing it.

An article in Oregon's Statesman Journal, "Government Audits Are Hurting Small Business Owners" describing the federal government's Recovery Audit Contractor(RAC) program for Medicare fraud.

The articles on cancer screening and exotic treatments at MD Anderson hospital to me point towards a more strict cost-benefit analysis coming on cancer treatments. The tertiary chemotherapy drugs and adjuvant radiation treatments described are budget busters with very marginal utility in terms of outcomes. The care described in the article, where chemotherapy treatments were literally thrown against the wall to see what sticks, is not a sustainable model. We're going to asking more and more, "How much are 'x' additional months of this cancer patient's life worth?" in order to balance our health care budget. It is unavoidable that we don't end up with some federal utilization committee who's job it will be to tell us what we cannot do in terms of palliative care for cancer or other chronic diseases. Other countries already do this without much controversy, but President Obama won't touch this with a 10 foot pole.

The USA Today article on bundling payments seems unworkable in situations where physicians are not employees of the hospital or system involved. I would not trust a hospital corporation to distribute that money equitably to independent providers once they have it in their coffer. Would I have access to audit a hospital's books to make sure their accounting is accurate? What's the resolution process for disagreements on the balance sheet? Much like insurers, the temptation for them to slow-pedal payments to collect the interest would be impossible for them to resist. Except in certain "closed system" situations (where all MD's are employees)like the Mayo Clinic, the Cleavland Clinic, or the Kaiser network in California, this bundling would be a unacceptable working situation to most physicians.

The 60 Minutes piece on Medicare shows why no one who is familiar with healthcare believes that the federal government can run a single-payer system. They are unable to investigate or follow up on even the most blatant examples of fraud costing hundreds of billions over dollars a decade.


So what do they do instead? They reauthorize the "RAC" program to aim at providers and hospitals for fraud that may be pennies on the dollar compared to the fraud described in the 60 minutes piece. The feds have outsourced the Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC)program to incentivized companies to autopsy medicare billing going back over 3 years by hospitals and providers where any inaccurate billing (using our byzantine CPT system) is assumed fraudulent and due back with interest and penalties. Analysts expect that inaccurate coding underbills at least as often as it overbills, but do you know what these auditors have produced. What do you get however when you incentivize these companies to claim 8-12% of any recovery (but don't reward refunds)? You get 96%+ of these RAC audits finding overbilling only.

Rob
Readmore »»  

Wat ch Full Length : High Definition


20/20 segment on the tradeoff's in healthcare reform

Good story on some of what you have to give up to expand healthcare coverage. It's not all win-win when you disincentive 20% of the economy.

Hat tip to my partner, Dr. Jason Jack BTW!


Rob
Readmore »»  

Wat ch Full Length : High Definition


McAllen, Texas - America's failing experiment in health care cost control.



There's a collision course of sorts that's been playing out in medicine for the last 25 years. As the costs of health care have consumed more and more of GDP, the system has become unsustainable. Physician salaries bore the brunt of early cost containment with effective pay cuts of 50-60% in real income since the mid 1980's. More recently it's been the patients on the receiving end, with more employers dropping coverage and more people enrolled in high deductible/high copay plans.

An article in the New Yorker Magazine, "The Cost Conundrum - What a Texas town can teach us about health care" profiles McAllen, Texas. McAllen is the most expensive place in the country in terms of annual expenditures on medicare beneficiaries. It illustrates the law of unintended consequences and reinforces the notion that anyone who thinks health care costs will come down with universal coverage is foolish. More coverage = more utilization, particularly when patients do not bare much of the costs themselves out of pocket.

The article also features the behavioral changes of physicians as they've become more entrepreneurial. It's profiled as a negative in the article, but it really should be encouraged. In modern medicine, if you do not run your practice like a business, then your practice will fail. Physicians should be encouraged (when able) to align their entrepreneurial interests with their patients. In many instances this will run you head first into government bureaucracy and established interests as in the case of my office surgery suite. Don't even get me started on the fact that I'd be able to do some procedures in my soon to be accredited office O.R. at 40%+ discounts to Medicare and Blue Cross for what it costs to do in a hospital. You'd think this would be of interest to Medicare and the state of Alabama as it would likely save several hundred thousand dollars annually, but instead it's like talking to a brick wall.

Cosmetic Plastic Surgery practices has been the attentive to economics for a long time, and you're forced to be cost-conscious to maintain that kind of practice. The revenue from the cosmetic procedures I do affords me the opportunity to maintain a busy reconstructive practice on cancer patients.

Rob
Readmore »»  

Wat ch Full Length : High Definition


www.bull#%@*.com - the wild,wild world of hospital rankings




US News and World Reports' (USNWR) annual hospital ranking, akin to their notorious college rankings, is kind of the king of the block for these types of rankings. Keep in mind though, there are hospitals on some of those lists that patients in some of those cities (and even some doctors who work in those hospitals) won't take their dog to, particularly in some urban teaching hospitals. (And No, I'm not naming names!)

The "leapfrog study" indexed by USNWR for rankings reviewed available data from nearly 1300 hospitals and ranked hospitals largely (as I understand it)on 4 endpoints

1. Having intensive care units staffed by specially trained doctors

2. Having computerized order-entry systems for medications and other orders with error-prevention measures

3. Performing procedures such as cardiac catheterization and caring for certain high-risk neonatal conditions

4. Having practices such as those designed to control hospital-related infections and cut down on medication and treatment errors.

It's hard to argue in theory that these are bad goals, but are these the things that patients need/want and is the information we're using to assess it accurate. A number of high profile institutions are typically included on these list which can make some doctors chuckle.


I saw an interesting editorial in the journal, Contemporary Surgery,a commentary on how confusing or misleading it is to try and figure out which hospitals, programs, or physicians are "the best". A quick review of a number of consumer oriented web sites provide significant inconsistencies -- for example, with colon resections for cancer, one hospital was ranked best by two sites but worst by the other site, and the hospital ranked best on that site was ranked worst on another, in a study reported in the journal, Archives of Surgery. Why is this so? There is no standard way of calculating quality differences, thus different sources (despite good intentions)come up with different results for the same hospitals

"What makes the 2007 Toyota Camry Motor Trend’s Car of the Year? Who decides who should be ranked number 1 in college football? Which tastes better: Coke or Pepsi? More importantly, is your hospital any good, and are you any good?...Ask patients to weigh in on their surgical experience or hospital care and you might be surprised to find out what they want (free parking). Or, what they don’t care about (board certification)."

Sites like Healthgrade, purport to offer patients some objective criteria for making comparisons between hospitals. This site ranks hospitals, surgery centers, and nursing homes based on data generated from Medicare records. Hospital rankings are based on 13 AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality) categories that include: decubitus ulcers, death in low mortality DRGs, postoperative hip fracture, and postoperative PE or DVT among others. The rankings are “calculated” by 100 employees in Golden, CO, using Medicare data that hospitals supply. Repeat: your very own hospital supplies the data!


If you want to get an even more confusing way to look at healthcare, you can also check out a site like Vimo.com which purports to give consumers (err......) patients comparisons for the cost of surgical procedures. As most of those numbers represent "funny money" (ie. neither the feds, hospitals, nor insurers expect to pay these imaginary numbers).

Rob
Readmore »»  

Wat ch Full Length : High Definition


Hospitals poised to embrace "pay as you go" for patient care


There's a front page story in today's Wall Street Journal, "Hospitals Demand Cash Upfront From Patients" (login required) outlining the increasingly common practice of hospitals demanding pre-payment for services to be rendered.

I've been noticing this locally for awhile as well. As the amount of "bad debt" has been soaring from patients defaulting on their obligations which are the co-pays, deductibles, & any other part of the cost they're responsible for on their insurance. The really disturbing anecdote in the story surrounding a leukemia patient being treated at MD-Anderson Cancer Center in Houston is a painful reminder of the schizophrenic nature of American healthcare where we try to balance patient care and healthcare economics. It's stories like this that just convince me more then ever that we're hearing the death rattle of our traditional system as we move to some universal healthcare system.

Sympathy aside however, patients do need to understand their financial obligations under their insurance plans. One of the least fun things to do in medicine is to start sending collection notices to patients for unpaid charges from office visits or surgery. As you'd predict, it's much harder to get patients to pay after services are rendered then it is prior. There are very common misperceptions among many patients about how, when, and how much we're reimbursed for services.

I can still remember a massive weight loss patient after gastric bypass refusing to pay her co-payment of $1000 to our office for removing her excess abdominal skin (a panniculectomy or tummy tuck) because she felt like the $700 her insurer paid for 4 hours work and half a dozen post-op visits was enough. I'm a softie on many of these cases and we waive charges frequently (particularly on breast cancer reconstruction, which is a passion of mine) but we've had to become much more attentive to this issue as we see more kinds of cases creeping up.

Rob
Readmore »»  

Wat ch Full Length : High Definition


(Another Democrat) Govenor Ed Rendell tries to raid the Physicians' cookie jar!


Awhile back I'd written about (see here) the Democratic Governor of Wisconsin, Jim Doyle, raiding a trust fund set up (and paid for) by Doctors to stabilize medical-malpractice insurance costs in that state. Why? In order to avoid unpopular budget and spending cuts to balance his budget. That case is still being litigated.

Taking inspiration from his Democratic cohort, Pennsylvania's governor, Ed Rendell (D-Pa) has targeted their state's Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Fund to the tune of $400 million USD to cover deficits in their state's budget. A summary of this can be viewed in the AMA News, here.

This program known as "Mcare" has been successful in partially turning around Pennsylvania's climate for being a horrible state for doctor's to work in re. to med-mal conditions. MCare provides doctors with catastrophic coverage for medical malpractice. Doctors in Pennsylvania purchase $500,000 worth of insurance from a primary carrier and then another $500,000 worth of coverage from MCare. It was also a key component of limited tort reform in that state. On its Web site, the Pennsylvania medical society has posted the question, "Would you continue to practice in Pennsylvania if you no longer received relief (abatement) from MCare?" Nearly two-thirds of respondents said they would not.

FREE ADVICE: Ed, in a state struggling with access problems, I'm not sure that driving away health care providers is the way to go.

Governor Rendell has been progressive in trying to expand health care coverage in Pennsylvania (which is a good thing), but he has been unwilling to make hard spending cuts and unsuccessful in persuading his state legislature to fund his ideas thru taxes on tobacco and business not offering health insurance. He now is trying to play political hardball and quite willing to disrespect the health care providers in his state to do it. An article in today's Pittsburgh Post Gazette quotes the Governor as saying
"If I have to choose between taking care of doctors and taking care of someone who has cancer and doesn't have health insurance, it's an easy choice"
This is an unbelievably cynical "straw man" tactic (ie. setting up false alternatives to make a rhetorical point).

There's no plausible or logical link between Mcare and his political failures, but merely he sees a pot of "easy money" sitting around funding a successful program whose constituents (ie. doctors) don't have the resources to hurt him politically if he steamrolls them.


To Governor Rendell, I ask you:

PLEASE KEEP YOUR HAND OUT OF THE COOKIE JAR!


Rob
Readmore »»  

Wat ch Full Length : High Definition


Popular Posts

My Blog List