The gist of my presentation compared the current efforts to launch rockets into space with our healthcare system.
In the space race, there are two major players at this time, United Launch Alliance, composed of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, with decades of experience and strong government relationships, and SpaceX, the Elon Musk company.
ULA is like our current healthcare system — big names, big contracts, major impact on and strong relationships with our federal government — and the rockets cost a lot of money. In fact, ULA could also be compared to the Cancer Moonshot, which also has big names with strong government relationships and has big bucks. The Cancer Moonshot approach of using big data analytics, biologics and CRISPR to edit out the genetic defect are all needed and are all great ideas. They are also shiny objects, and they will most likely cost a lot of money.
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
SpaceX is the upstart that is doing just that. It is based on Elon Musk’s original vision to re-energize the public to space exploration by putting a greenhouse on Mars. This initial vision has become the goal of “enabling people to live on other planets.” He quickly discovered that he could not do it with the rockets developed because they cost too much. So what did he do? He devised a new system/rocket and removed the waste, the waste of throwing away the rocket, resulting in lower costs and making his dream reasonable. Well, he did that and much more. His launches are considerably cheaper than those of the big guys of ULA. His Falcon Heavy is only the latest example:
“The launch contract will cost the U.S. Air Force $130 million, far less than the $350 million average cost of United Launch Alliance’s Delta IV, previously the heaviest lifter in the U.S. arsenal.”
So what does that have to do with healthcare and diabetes in Mississippi?
In 2015, Mississippi ranked first in the nation for overall diabetes prevalence, with more than 333,000 adult Mississippians living with the disease; that’s more than 14.7% of the adult population
Diabetes accounted for more than 1,000 deaths in Mississippi in 2015
In 2013, direct medical costs (e.g., hospitalizations, medical care, treatment supplies) accounted for about $2.4 billion, of which Medicaid spent almost $1 billion.
MS has an estimated 30% of adults with pre-diabetes, creating the potential that more than 600,000 Mississippians are on the path to develop type 2 diabetes
Yet we know that perhaps 80% of type 2 diabetes is preventable. We also know that an estimated 30% of healthcare is waste, fraud and abuse. So that’s roughly $800 million in waste, etc. that if freed up from the system could be applied to the social determinants of health that are driving this disease.
Imagine that, the money to solve the problem is locked up in the system itself.
Why not create a grand mission just like Elon Musk’s mission to Mars. A mission that people can work toward, as they do the incremental changes needed to create the new system to make it happen. Lifting a quote from President Kennedy, I said:
We chose to eradicate every case of lifestyle-related type 2 diabetes and pre-diabetes in the state of Mississippi, for no more than we are spending today on healthcare. We chose to eradicate every case of lifestyle-related diabetes and pre-diabetes, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win.
It’s a heavy lift, no pun intended, and it will take decade(s), but it can be done. It will require new systems, a long-term approach and a lot of small changes to get there. If we created the system to do this with diabetes, we could then apply it to the rest of the preventable issues, for we will have developed solutions for diet, exercise, patient engagement, adherence, appropriate medical care, rural care, urban approaches, personalization and on and on.
It’s likely that when people hear about the growing opioid addiction problem in America, the face that comes to mind is the one commonly shown on TV and in the movies, which is a very broad generalization : the young, strung-out heroin addict living on the streets. Or dying of an overdose.
Heroin abuse is definitely a growing problem in America. But it’s not the only opioid-related issue we’re facing. In 2012, an estimated 2.1 million people were suffering from substance abuse disorders from prescription opioid use, and deaths from accidental overdoses of prescription pain relievers quadrupled between 1999 and 2015. Sales of prescription opioids also quadrupled during this period.
While prescription pain killers are often seen as a gateway drug to heroin among the young, the issue is much broader than just one demographic group. The reality is that the face of opioid addiction could be the soccer mom down the block who has been experiencing back pain. It could be the marathon runner who is trying to come back after knee surgery. It could be your grandmother baking cookies as she works on recovering from hip replacement surgery.
In fact, it could be anyone. And that diversity is what has made prescription opioid addiction so difficult to manage.
Drivers of addiction
What is driving this explosive growth of such a potentially dangerous substance? Part of it, quite frankly, has been the incredible improvements in healthcare over the last 20-some years. Hip replacements, knee replacements, spinal surgery and other procedures that were once rare are now fairly common. More surgeries mean more patients who need pain relievers to help them with recovery.
The greater focus on patient satisfaction, especially as the healthcare industry shifts from fee-for-service to value-based care, has also had some unintended consequences. Physicians concerned about patient feedback from Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures or Medicare Star ratings have additional incentive to ensure patients leave the hospital pain-free. Physicians may prescribe opioids, particularly if patients request them, rather than relying on less addictive forms of pain management.
Here’s how that translates to real numbers. An analysis of 800,000 Medicaid patients in a reasonably affluent state showed that 10,000 of them were taking a medication used to wean patients off a dependency on opiates. This particular medication is very expensive and difficult to obtain – physicians need a specific certification to prescribe it. So it is safe to assume that the actual number of patients using prescription opiates is two to three times higher.
Those numbers aren’t always obvious, however, because the prescriptions may be obscured under diagnoses for other conditions such as depression. Indeed, more than half of uninsured nonelderly adults with opioid addiction had a mental illness in the prior year and more than 20% had a serious mental illness, such as depression, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The result is that, without sophisticated behavioral analytics, it can be difficult to determine all the patients who are addicted to opioids. And what you don’t know can have a significant impact on care, costs and risk.
Complications, risk, and prioritization
Opioid addiction tends to interfere with the treatment of other concerns, especially chronic conditions such as depression, congestive heart failure, blindness/eye impairment and diabetes. As a result, physicians must first take care of the addiction before they can effectively treat these other conditions.
That is what makes identifying patients with an addiction, and prioritizing their care, so critical. Failure to do so can be devastating, not just clinically but financially – especially as healthcare organizations take on more risk in the shift to value-based care.
Take two patients with an opioid addiction who are on a withdrawal medication. Patient A also has eye impairment while Patient B is a diabetic. If the baseline for cost is 1, analytics have shown that Patient A will typically have a risk factor of 1.5 times the norm while Patient B, the diabetic, will have a risk factor of 5 times.
Under value-based care, especially an Accountable Care Organization (ACO) where the payment is fixed, the organization can lose a significant amount of money on patients who are costing five times the contracted amount. For example, if the per member per month (PMPM) reimbursement for the year is $2,000, this patient — who is using this medication for withdrawal from an opiate dependency and is a diabetic — will end up costing $10,000.
It is easy to see why that is unsustainable, especially when multiplied across hundreds or thousands of patients. Yet the underlying reason for failure to treat the diabetes effectively – the opioid addiction – may not be obvious.
Healthcare organizations that can use behavioral analytics to uncover patients with hidden opioid dependencies, including those on withdrawal medications, will know they need to address the addiction first, removing it as a barrier to treating other chronic conditions. That will make patients more receptive to managing conditions such as diabetes, helping lower the total cost of care.
They can also use the analytics to demonstrate to funding sources why they need more money to manage these higher-risk patients successfully. They can demonstrate why an investment in treating the addiction first will pay dividends in the long term with a variety of chronic conditions.
It’s easy to see that opioid abuse in all forms has reached epidemic levels within the U.S. What is not so easy to see at face value is who the addicts are — or could be.
Despite popular media images, the reality is that opioid addition in America has many faces. Some of them may be closer to us than we think. Behavioral analytics can help us identify with much greater clarity who the likely candidates are so we can reverse the trend more effectively.
This article is about opening minds, eyes, hearts and futures. I’m going to take you on a journey into a world where I shine my flashlight into dark corners, challenging norms, introducing ideas and connecting different areas of current players and practice.
Thanks in advance for sharing, caring and daring to think in ways that transform.
Imagine if we could just wave a magic wand and all enjoy mutually delicious sips from the same icy cocktail of healthcare reform. The solutions appear to be so clear and obvious — to everyone except the major players that engage in healthcare.
Why would health systems, medical facilities and specialists willingly leave the B2B payer system and depend on consumer payments? Why would hospitals, big pharma and providers want to compete on price when they can use their political influence and retain greater certainty in a regulated pricing model?
If large self-insured companies contract with health systems directly, could we count on these companies to pass savings directly to their employees, rather than pocket them as profit? Moreover, what would be the fallout on payer pricing to the individual and the fully insured markets? If payer competition was lessened through direct contacting, could health systems ultimately wield pricing leverage in these relationships?
Check out the latest reports on wellness plans and seniors’ use of digital health tools. Why would patients who feel good or are not remunerated financially want to make these consistent, long-term behavior changes?
In a country with a proven history of high obesity and chronic disease rates, why would patients choose to change their lifestyles en masse? What is the motivation for long-term adherence and results?
Okay, then, how do we disassemble a massively interconnected, for-profit health model that is complete with individual and institutional shareholders and bondholders? What about the leftover millions of employees from payers, brokers and insurance agents who are not able to be repurposed into other jobs?
What happens to the rest of the economy when consumer spending from all this unemployment and loss of investment money drops our GDP into the toilet? How would this affect future tax rates for individuals and companies?
We need payers, drug companies, providers and hospitals to lower healthcare costs. But, if they do lower costs, what then?
Instead of being motivated by satisfying shareholders and taking in more profit, will these companies choose to willingly pass on new savings as a result of lower pricing to healthcare consumers? If that’s the case, why haven’t we seen any major industry players going on record to say this?
Enter Will McAvoy from the HBO show “The Newsroom.” The fake TV anchor from ACN said it best with his famous utterance: “The first step in solving any problem is realizing there is one.”
Increased healthcare costs, lower quality, worsening outcomes, fraud, waste, abuse, mass unaffordability, stagnant wages, overutilization, defensive medicine, uber-administration and physician burnout are all too obvious, painful and expensive realities. Yet these are largely the emerging effects of a largely missed core problem:
The chief reason for our healthcare crisis has been political leaders’ lacking the guts to make the tough decisions for our future.
If our current weak, spineless, clueless, ego-driven, special interest capitulating, partisan robots led America during WWII, I fear we’d today be speaking Japanese or German. But the leaders in the 1940s recognized and decisively drew upon the need for all Americans to pull together for the greater good. Our citizens and businesses believed in the vision and greatness of perpetuating a better America for the next generation.
As much as I never thought I’d say it, we actually need greater government oversight in several key areas. It is obvious that large healthcare industries and public players are not simply going to go away or let their built-up leverage shrivel up. Consumers and employers need to stand on more equal footing, which cannot be accomplished solely by the Triple Aim (simultaneously improving the experience of care, bettering the health of the population and reducing per-capita costs).
When I think of great decisions that shaped our country, I think of John F. Kennedy’s decision to land a man on the moon. I think of Lyndon B. Johnson getting the Civil Rights Act passed. I think of Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. I think of Congress passing the 19th Amendment. I think of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal with 100 days of full bipartisan support. And I think of the way America rallied together, had conservation drives and raised war bonds during WWII.
We need those same leadership qualities to better position and deliver affordable, quality healthcare for the next generation. Consumer initiatives and bold plans are good — until special interests hit politicians.
Apart from aspirations of greater political leadership, we need to have a viable model for bringing fairness, accountability and affordability to the current status quo of health care.
ENTER: THE ‘HIT-IQ’ PLAN
HIT-IQ =Health reform by Intelligent augmentation, Transparency, Incentive and Quantity.
HEALTH REFORM:To speed up the ability for all players in the U.S. health system to benefit from reform, the HIT-IQ plan fills the cracks in healthcare reform. It is composed of the following:
INTELLIGENT AUGMENTATION (IA): Also known as intelligence amplification. Think of IA as a computer system or technology that supports and enhances human thinking, analysis, planning and decisions. Yet it allows the control and oversight to remain with humans. An example is Google’s search algorithm that allows us to find what we want online, in just a matter of seconds.
Contrast this with artificial intelligence (AI), where machines are meant to fully reproduce human cognition within a system that functions and learns autonomously in its own domain. True human-free AI is not fully here yet, though portions of AI are coming forward in new technology and solutions.
We now live in a world where much of our data has moved from paper to digital. Big data offers great benefit, yet it still has to be organized, analyzed, prioritized and optimized for a specific purpose. IA is the generator, and when coupled with massive computing power and speed, it allows humans to become far more accurate and efficient in their business and life activities.
In a previous article on AI, I wrote about different companies, each with emerging technologies meant to improve accuracy and efficiency in different facets of healthcare. This includes medical imaging, mental health, risk management, drug discovery, genomics, hospital monitoring and lifestyle management. IBM’s Watson is a great example of IA in healthcare, where doctors can better diagnose and employ the latest personalized evidence-based care.
Help in efficiency can come none too soon. Recent reports show the last three quarters of U.S. worker productivity are at the lowest levels since the pre-stagflation period in the 1970s. According to popular economists, something very interesting is happening. The last six years of great technology has not helped overall productivity — in fact, it has gone backward in a hurry.
This becomes extremely important for healthcare, which, at the end of 2016, will have the highest employment pool of any U.S. sector. Moreover, the pricing of healthcare and health coverage has become unsustainable for many individuals and small to mid-size employers.
A big game of “financial musical chairs” now exists between employer profits, consumers who want to afford healthcare and retain their current standard of living and health companies that want to satisfy shareholders with ever-surging profits.
The big fear of robotic automation and AI is that computers will replace human workers. But I believe IA efficiency makes job elimination en masse an absolute necessity in bringing down the cost of healthcare. Any company’s purpose is to make profit, attain customers and stay competitive — and that does not include keeping people employed. That is, unless the replaced quality, accuracy and value becomes less than when current high levels of human capital were involved.
With what I continue to see coming in IA solutions, I believe it will not be long until we see deep learning and pattern recognition being applied to hiring, work flows, management and core operations — as well as patient intake, diagnosis, m-health data, patient marketing, population health and chronic and acute remote and in-house care management.
The fact that interest rates remain low also bodes well for healthcare companies to make investments in greater levels of integrated technologies that will replace bunches of humans with greater accuracy, efficiency, fewer errors and greater predictability. Let’s not forget this technology operates 24/7/365 with fewer salaries, benefits, sick days, arguments — or the ability to file lawsuits.
But wait…there’s more!
Look for malpractice rates and defensive medicine practices to come down significantly, as expertly designed, optimized, scalable and proven algorithms come into play. As medical malpractice rates drop, health systems and providers will capture that cost difference — and not add them over current net salaries. Et voila! Still lower costs!
It’s not magic, folks; we’re trading off large inefficiencies and human-based error inherent with a large employment pool. There’s a reason medical error is the third-largest killer in America, and big data analysis, predictability, accuracy, greater monitoring and efficiency are precisely what is needed for lower costs, higher quality, greater safety and better outcomes.
Best of all, the system will still be run by humans.
TRANSPARENCY:This is one area where the government must make a mandate across all states. We have seen that without mandated public and easy-to-access transparency, health consumers and employers have absolutely no chance of greater affordability.
Healthcare companies have no interest in making healthcare more affordable to consumers. And, please, don’t be lulled into thinking that just because payers, plans, medical device companies and big pharma/PBMs are working to lower healthcare costs and increase care quality that the savings will be passed on to the consumer in the form of lower, more affordable pricing.
Look at this: United Healthcare’s PATH program is a joint effort for better care outcomes. In 2015, 1,900 providers hit their program marks and were paid a bonus of $148 million, near $78,000 per provider. Sick and diseased consumers are going into bankruptcy and medical debt or are holding holding off seeing doctors because financial constraint — and United is paying doctors bonuses to lower costs that should have never been that high to begin with?
Is this a joke? Providers are being rewarded for doing what is expected anyway, and the consumers (errrr, paying customers) get regularly increased premiums? Take a look at the PATH consumer website; with all the accolades on improving health, help me find where it says United will reward customers by delivering lower prices for their plan’s premium pricing.
Here are needed areas of transparency:
1. An all-claims reporting mandate, from every payer, hospital, facility, doctor, self-insured company and government agency. While the recent ERISA ruling by the Supreme Court caused some setback, the Department of Labor could — and should — push through self-insured entities to report payments through state-mandated requirements.
2. Every hospital, facility, health system and provider should have their full fees, within 90 days for every product or service, be freely and easily available to the public. Any website or app could tie into the API or data to create patient or employer comparison shopping tools.
3. Every individual and company must be able to see what underwriting factors and specific influences went into a payer deciding upon their fully insured plan premium. Line-by-line calculations, each fully explainable.
4. All pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs) should be required to be fully transparent on all fees, kickbacks and bonuses.
5. There must be increased safety when it comes to providers and facilities. There is no reason that circumstances involving doctors, hospitals or medical facilities that have been found guilty of state law violations or have lost or settled in malpractice suits shouldn’t be made clear to consumers.
6. People should be made aware of drug companies’ R&D costs. We’re all sick and tired of the moaning relating to big pharma’s R&D and how our demands for price cuts will kill future new cures and drug development. Okay, then, let’s open those books so we can share in your pain. Hey, greater public appreciation and demand for IA in drug delivery will keep profit margins while bringing down prices.
INCENTIVES:I’d like to meet the geniuses who believe that a healthcare population that is 40% obese, full of chronic disease and is constantly tempted by fast food and sedentary online entertainment is going to make (wait for it) long-term consistent changes by using wellness programs.
Will they do so because doctors (who are compensated by financial incentives or are punished by financial withholding penalties) tell them to do so?
Here’s a toughie: What if we asked doctors and practices to lower their cost to provide care, make less in profits and lower their salaries. Then, we told them they would willingly pass on these newfound monies to reduce pricing for patients because it would be financially healthier for the country’s future.
How do you think our white coat paladins, hospital administrators and health system executives would respond?
This is not rocket science — it is common sense. Studies are very clear that loss aversion related to money is a far better motivator, even than giving them money. Moreover, only 25% of employees find their wellness programs at work to be effective.
In a recent study of 7,600 businesses by Payscale, 73% of employers believe they pay fairly, while only 36% of employees feel the same. And just 21% of the workers believe the company is transparent about pay.
Catching my drift, employers? You can kill three birds with one stone: gaining healthier employees, potentially lowering healthcare costs and improving engagement through greater levels of trust and feeling appreciated financially.
Reward healthcare consumers by tying wellness goals to financial rewards or punishments. (We are talking cash here, folks — not trips, massages or points). Health plans? Same thing. If you want to balance out the risk of sicker members, per enrollment with the ACA mandates, hit up your chronic, pre-chronic and younger members. See how financial incentives and disincentives work there.
If they use wearables and contribute data to you or their provider, they are rewarded financially. If they hit goals on medication adherence, weight loss, lowering cholesterol or blood sugar, give them a paid check rebate. If they have a yearly physical, reward them.
Better yet, show them that future check with all applicable bonuses added together for their rewards. It is a nice, juicy number. Now, deduct 2% of that cash every week they don’t execute — like a melting ice cube. Keep showing them as often as possible what they are going to be missing. Catching my drift?
QUANTITY:Care delivery professionals, facilities and systems will soon have outcomes, patient satisfaction and cost numbers pitted against their service reimbursement levels — and, eventually, against each other. Consumerism is growing and, whether healthcare stays largely regulated in its pricing or not, reimbursement levels at all aspects of the care supply and delivery chain (including on many prescription drugs) will likely decrease.
Moreover, reimbursement via bundled, value-based payments will come to replace the old, perverse, fee-for-service model. Hence, lower payments for the same work means the number of people engaging in healthcare products and services must grow if revenues are to grow.
Healthcare businesses will have to optimize every possible aspect of their business for new and repeat customer engagement and to retain their customer base. Especially important here will be those successful companies who focus on their intangible assets. These include advertising, marketing, sales, goodwill, customer relationships and various expertise that hospitals, providers, payers, drug companies and facilities have, which they can, and should, capitalize upon to their economic advantage.
The companies that get this will shape their precise outcomes through mastering the art of optimization. Learning how to maximize their intangible assets to drive more engagement of current and prospective consumer clients, thus increasing quantity of services and products. They will look at every consumer and business relationship, every past and present contact, every opportunity in current consumer interactions, every supply and distribution channel, every employee and every piece of capital or human capital they have.
Many healthcare companies suffer from tunnel — instead of “funnel” — vision. They believe they provide products or care and are paid for such — and that’s it. But the organizations that recognize they can not only offer more but be more than their basic business offerings will derive greater revenue and profit.
Population health is a great example. It is about more than capturing data from wearables; it is about recognizing the interplay between chronic disease and genetics and the need for screening those who don’t currently engage in healthcare services. It is about tying in mental health for those who are caregivers and don’t take care of themselves. It is about recognizing that, if you work out a medical debt with more than a negotiation but perhaps a thank you card sent after, your name will be more gold than mud.
For direct primary care doctors, it is about offering a rebate to customers who bring new members to your practice. For a health system, it might be coordinating a telehealth counseling visit to a family member grieving because of a loved one’s illness. What about making that extra call to check up on how a patient is doing at home the day after they get home from the hospital?
Perhaps it’s giving a free service. Often, the most self-serving thing a company can do is actually to be selfless. Maybe it is a doctor’s office sending flowers after a successful surgery outcome or even upon a loved one dying. Maybe it is a call from a drug company outbound customer coordinator, just to see how the new medication is working.
Health companies of all types and sizes that replace current limiting beliefs with empowering ones will find themselves on a track toward capturing greater community value, engagement and increasing their market identity. In short, companies that get people to want to engage and help others engage with those same companies will thrive.
Players in healthcare must not forget that consumerism is not a dirty word; it is people putting up their hands saying, “I want to be cared for and find value in that care so that I can feel good about my time and money spent.”
If they have to be cared for because of sickness or an emergency, then that is all the more reason to make patients feel good about you.
It is no longer a healthcare world where providing the service, billing and receiving payment suffices. People and employers are smartening up and recognizing that lower reimbursement, more competition and new options for care and coverage are developing.
Those healthcare companies that can integrate the intangibles in a meaningful, ethical and value-added manner for their current and prospective healthcare consumers will thrive. Increasing quantity of consumers and identifying and rendering necessary services is key (especially in a healthcare business environment that has properly integrated lower costs, greater efficiency through technology and better outcomes).
It will make — and keep — current and future healthcare consumers far happier in the long run. Now that’s some of the best risk management I know about.
Best-selling Author Og Mandino once said: “Always seek out the seed of triumph in every adversity.”
It appears that a small, yet growing number of America’s front line health providers are doing just that. Instead taking on increased risk, greater healthcare bureaucracy and more administration headaches, these medical mavericks have drawn a philosophical line in the sand.
I’m speaking of direct primary care (DPC). For the uninitiated, DPC is an emerging model where general practitioners elect to disassociate from, and no longer bill services to, health payers, including Medicare. DPC practices average between 600 and 800 total patients (vs. the national 2,300-patient average for traditional primary care provider (PCP) patient panels).
This return to front-line doctoring — “sans insurance” — translates into a cost-reduction of as much as 40% in staffing and reduced administrative complexity. Electronic health records (EHR) software finds itself replaced with lighter applications to track, schedule and bill patients. Practices may also choose to use mhealth/telehealth technology to monitor/connect with patients.
Patients in these practices are often those with low to middle incomes, with high-deductible health plans (HDHPs). For this reason, DPC doctors develop network relationships with other local medical specialists and services. The result is patients gaining access to discounted medications, imaging and labs, plus lower service fees from local specialists — all on a cash basis.
And presto! We have a true two-party care relationship, where doctors focus purely on patients, instead of blending in payers as their second healthcare customer.
The median monthly DPC fee for an adult is about $70; and fees for kids are priced between $10 and $20 per child. Many DPC practices also cap monthly family fees. Pricing is independent of pre-existing conditions and current health status and allows for more face-to-face time, as often as needed.
These practices report reducing urgent care and ER visits, plus hospital admits and re-admits. Quality and outcome data has apparently started reaching malpractice insurers, now quoting lower rates for direct vs. traditional primary care practices.
Here is where it gets sticky. DPC is rightly considered a “health service,” both by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and by 16 states. However, under section 223(c) of the U.S. tax code, the I.R.S. wrongly considers DPC a “gap,” or secondary, health plan. Therefore, DPC is not a qualified medical expense — and fees paid by patients are not reimbursable by health savings accounts (HSAs).
The plan is for DPC to show Medicare its mettle — and eventually receive a modest flat fee payment for primary care services offered by a DPC medical home. The legislation includes allowing qualified physicians who have opted out of Medicare to participate in the program. It also serves as a partnering catalyst with Medicare Advantage, in an affordable care organization (ACO)-like structure.
DPC is a disruptive “hot knife” model, whose entry is well-timed to cut through the cold stick of butter called high health costs.
Today, PCP co-pays have gone up to $45, and deductibles are sky high. Many consumers have no idea that at or around the same per-visit patient fee, DPC exists as an option. Employers are just beginning, on a larger scale, to integrate DPC with other options such as HDHPs and self-insured health coverage. Using this new model with self-insured companies makes sense, to hedge risk, lower health costs, improve outcomes and improve quality of care.
One county in North Carolina, which employed a DPC option, saved nearly $1.5 million on yearly medical expenses — on just 800 covered lives! It may surprise you that, apart from HSA standing, there are already early employer adopters who have chosen to pay the monthly DPC fees for employees themselves.
A British Medical Journal study showed patients of Washington state DPC provider Qliance coming in with 35% fewer hospitalizations, 65% fewer emergency department visits, 66% fewer specialist visits and 82% fewer surgeries. DPC benefits appear to not only reduce primary care costs, but lessen the healthcare costs and utilization outside of their practices.
Payer transparency is a significantly important strategy to the future growth and integration of DPC.
We talk about the importance of transparency in hospital pricing to patients, and for drug companies to reveal their true R&D costs. But have you ever stopped to consider the importance of transparency in how payers calculate and price plan premiums for each covered member? Just how much of the premium payment can be carved out as estimated primary care services to be received?
More than ever, healthcare consumer groups and fully insured employers should push health payers for transparency. Because I’ll bet what payers have estimated for per-person primary care usage and costs, adding in the associated patient responsibility portions (co-pays, and any applicable deductible or co-insurance fees) will be much more than an $840 yearly DPC payment.
But wait…there’s more. Don’t forget to have payers deduct an additional…let’s be conservative…1/3 of the Qliance savings percentages for the estimated care cost savings relating to carved-out estimated care outside of primary services.
Next, look at Medicare and do the same thing. But…instead of the wallets of health plan members, think federal budgets, taxpayers, subsidies, growing liabilities and the potential to hold off future tax increases.
Then look at Medicaid for the same reasons, remembering that DPC would certainly create a greater improvement of care quality than Medicaid care providers and facilities. Remember the “triple aim” — cost, outcomes and quality — and that doctors are happier.
DPC injects disruption and greater consumerism into healthcare.
Something interesting happened along the way to transforming our healthcare system. The ACA fell far short of its goals, and America’s care delivery and coverage became even less affordable for millions of employers and individual consumers.
We should know by now that improving quality and pricing for all will not come from laws — specifically, from those who force people into lower-quality Medicaid coverage, and insurance plan exchange options with punishing deductibles; in essence, giving people a broken Christmas toy with a pretty bow on it and pretending they will enjoy it.
No matter how you dress it up, and much money you throw at it: Healthcare coverage is not the same as affordable healthcare.
In the heart of even the toughest situations, there are innately driven people who make bold, fresh choices and take stands — efforts that emphasize principles we know to be just and right, rather than gaining financially on the backs of others’ misery. My hope resides in what Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.”
DPC offers a free-market “injection” into healthcare’s regulated pricing model. If Senate Bill 1989 or a similar law passes, it will provide individuals and companies a better chance to gain better quality, more affordable care. Unlike some DPC purists, I see a future inflow of Medicare dollars to non-enrolled DPC qualified providers as stimulating a transformation where coordinated care begins from outside of the umbrella of big medicine ownership.
Like the plunging penguins who emulate the courageous actions of others, I believe many primary care physicians are looking for the right time to enter a DPC model. Whether that happens individually, through groups, or by strategic partnerships, is up to industry forces. It’s the beauty of filling consumer demand.
Making healthcare services, drugs and coverage affordable to consumers appears completely disconnected from the industry’s mission to improve care quality and outcomes, and lowering health “costs.”
Free market forces are what bring down consumer prices in most every market. Their introduction into U.S. healthcare will likely cause short-term fallout and financial pain within healthcare industries, but it would leave us, and future generations, with a more sustainable, stronger system. We’ve gotten to the point where healthcare bloat and unaffordability will require sacrifice from all involved.
By allowing consumer-friendly models like DPC to enter the regulated world of healthcare, perhaps slowly through the back door, we will see transformation come from within. History has repeatedly shown us that better models fueled by consumer desire rise to the top.
A part of my life allowed me the privilegeof treating nearly 10,000 individual patients. Their openness and trust let me partner with them, deciding on and helping enact a course of care, which often helped change lives.
We lived life together.
Owning a practice means more than just providing necessary healthcare — through ethical and legal means. It allowed me to bring out a greater level of transparency and humanity, while remaining professional. It taught me to always put on a happy face, especially in times of personal stress or upset. I learned to make that one patient in that one moment of time feel like the most important person in the world.
Some may think the majority of patients can’t tell the difference in care and just want their symptom or disease treated. News flash — you’re wrong.
It may seem as though patients are just putting out their time and money, but really they are giving us a high level of trust and control. Depending on the person and problem, we can have significant influence over the course and quality of their lives, as well as the lives of those closely attached to them.
Too often, we forget nine out of every 10 patients makes less than $33,000 in income (see below). Nearly 40% of patients carry medical-related debt, and one-third of those must choose between payment for that debt versus rent, housing or heat. Many of these cash-strapped individuals will only come in and choose to make health a priority within later, irreversible stages of chronic disease.
Most everyone knows our healthcare is in crisis. The solution appears clear: improve care quality, reduce cost, increase safety, grow healthier communities and deliver all this with greater consumer affordability. The advent of healthcare technology will certainly help make much of this possible.
But we must not make the mistake of thinking patients will have the same level of dedication to population health, wearables and medication adherence as we do. Patients care about themselves and those they love. They care about money and their financial future. They care about feeling good and avoiding pain — but the pain can be more than just their symptoms and condition.
Health payers acquired a longstanding, terrible reputation for not caring. Many plan members, who suffer physically, emotionally and financially, felt as though they were treated like just another accounting line item, as if they were just commodities that made the business of healthcare payments go ’round.
We’re at a tipping point. As more risk shifts onto the shoulders of hospitals, providers and affordable care organizations (ACOs), we must not make the same mistakes. Tomorrow’s healthcare will involve and require patient compliance and participation to get the best results.
It is one thing to put technology in place that captures patient-generated health data, but it is quite another to show patients you care about the data. Patients deserve to feel the compassion, caring and humanity in our hearts and actions.
I’ve retired from practice, my career now shifting into the business side of healthcare. I am carefully seeking my next path for the right healthcare company, where I can blend my experience, talents, skills and years of front-line patient experience. The healthcare sector is a target-rich environment, whose underlying industries, more than ever, have a tremendous ability to shape the course and outcomes of human lives.
Technology, big data and Triple Aim aside, we must remember the human condition is more than just condition. It is a place where people reside because they often have lost hope and human support.
In the future of patient data, we must recognize that behind the numbers lives a human life and heart and the potential for physical and emotional improvement.