Tag Archives: medicine

Carnival of Adverse Selection

A Canadian friend once told me that he did not understand the American political system and asked if I could explain it to him. I told him that it was basically an exercise in pest management. On the one hand you have your smarmy rats (Democratic politicians) and on the other you have your vicious rats (Republican politicians). The first kind you don’t even want near you, the second kind you just want to stomp. Either way you’ve got an intractable rat problem, so mostly you just try to ignore them as best you can and get on with your life.

Sometimes though, they crawl across the kitchen counter in broad daylight and then you have to pay attention to them. That happened to me during the last Presidential debate. I was doing my best to ignore it, but we have a radio in the garage with a power switch stuck in the ‘on’ position and the debate was playing in the background. I had it successfully tuned out until they started talking about health care and Romney, who’s turning out to be a particularly nasty little ankle-biter, came with the crazy talk.

Here’s what he wants to do about health insurance:

  • Block grant Medicaid and other payments to states, limit federal standards and requirements on both private insurance and Medicaid coverage. The state can structure a cost-share program however it wants?  It can still shift costs to the Emergency Rooms of Medicare-participating hospitals and to the Medicaid programs of richer states (a kind of internal ‘self deportation’ which already happens to a limited extent)? I can’t imagine what the states might do? These changes are supposed to lead to innovation, and they will – just more the sort of innovation that financial system deregulation allowed.
  • Unshackle Health Savings Accounts by eliminating the minimum deduction requirement and allowing people to use the account funds to pay premiums. HSA’s are a nice product for a very limited income range. If you make too much money or too little to make the tax savings worthwhile, a HSA makes no sense. The proposed changes won’t change that. So, why make the changes? Hang on a minute, I’ll get to that.
  • Allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines. Recall this is the now minimally regulated insurance product. Watch the insurance companies gobble each other up as they try to recruit all those newly available good risks. Watch high risk people get filtered out of the broader  insurance pool as the generous benefit plans become increasingly burdened with these individuals, and the prices for those plans go up and up, in turn prompting lower risk people to leave for cheaper, less generous benefit plans. Will Romney & Co. adequately fund a reinsurance plan to keep this from happening? Not to worry, people with chronic problems can still go to the ER, right? People can preemptively accomplish this adverse selection themselves via purchasing pools, right?
  • Medicare will become a premium support program. The premium support and benefit requirements will be fixed at the current levels in Medicare. If costs go up, the market will determine how people make up the difference. And in time, like gravity takes care of shoddy construction projects (who really needs architects or building codes), the market will take care of things by channeling the high risk people into the more generous plans (Medicare), driving those plans’ costs out of sight and eventually, driving those plans and high risk  people out of the market. I can almost hear the invisible hand slapping – see adverse selection and cost shifting above. (It’s actually worse than that – Medicare has a normative effect that goes beyond its simple economic effects but that is a story too long and tangential for the moment.)

So, why make the changes if they entail all these predictable distortions? Free market fundamentalism is the answer. Markets aren’t a highly effective tool for these guys, they are a moral imperative. So in their view, markets must be good for every application. Just set up a market and have faith; it will solve any problem. Regulation and critical analysis aren’t caution, they’re apostacy. I’d usually ignore this crap, like I ignore people praying for rain, but this is more like praying that your kid gets better from leukemia in lieu of consulting an oncologist. I feel like I’ve at least got to say something.

So, for all who wondered what could be worse than Obamacare – it’s this happy horse shit. These two rats are scampering across the counter in broad daylight with this mess, and they need stomping, (metaphorically of course).

Tagged , , , , ,

Templates

When I was a kid, our family doctor kept my medical record in a card file. He kept everyone’s medical records in a card file, each visit documented on one side of a 3×5 index card. The format gave him about two dozen words to put down the reason for the visit, a few salient physical findings, his conclusions and prescribed treatments. For easy, clear-cut problems, it was plenty of information. For the tough stuff, it was woefully inadequate, and he had to recapitulate the entire history and decision making process with every return visit for those complicated problems.

So, the next generation of doctors moved to dictated medical records. This new tool captured better the details of a patient’s past history and the doctor’s thought process . No return visits needed to be from scratch, the doc. just jumped back into the stream of consciousness where he, or the last treating physician, left off. The problem with the thought-to-paper system only became apparent when our society started to spend ridiculous sums for medical care.

The current pricing and payment system is a modified command system. It’s not optimal for a few elective procedures, like LASIK surgery. But given the practical impossibility of  determining individual value for medical care in all other cases, it is about the best we can do. Payments go with terms, defined processes (whether the type of stitch used or the number of steps in a decision), and sometimes even specific words. To get paid, doctors have to extract the valued information from the stream of consciousness. Or rather, the doctors  need teams of technicians to do the extracting. To compensate, doctors are switching from thought-to-paper to paper-to-thought records, otherwise known as templates.

Templates are forms tailored to individual diagnoses or complaints. Each form has billable terms to check off and short narrative sections for processes that produce a charge. As account sheets, they are wonderful. As a means of communication, they are abysmal. At worst, they are checklists gone bad, outlines for linear thinking. Some doctors even propose using data extracted from digital templates for research and quality control in their practices. Except in very limited circumstances, such endeavours will yield more information about the cognitive/behavioral effects of template usage than anything else.

Still, if doctors can learn to adapt their methods to the use of templates, the forms may help after all. The dictated record has dangers of it own. Because it looks so comprehensive, it encourages passivity. It also codifies miscommunication; it is the doctor’s interpretation of the patient’s words, often set down as from an omniscient narrator(“the patient recalls some chest pain, but was experiencing a number of severe stressors at the time”). A template can convey the reason for a visit, a few physical findings, conclusions and treatments – about two dozen useful words. Templates need intermittent narrative summaries as background, but if doctors can remember to use them like 3×5 cards and are granted the time to do so, we may just be off to a good, fresh start.

Tagged