Doctors’ Fees, Incentives & Greed

doctors feesAfter the last post, readers wanted more discussion about doctors’ fees; how doctors bill for services they provide.

  • Are fee codes just a fancy way to track services?
  • How do fee codes get created?
  • Why does the government pay doctors?

Teams of bureaucrats and doctors create fee codes. The fee-code-committee learns about services that patients need. The committee works out a fee so that providers can offer the needed service.

Let’s consider a few examples.

I work in a tiny rural office. We still offer venipuncture (blood draws) for routine lab tests.

I bill $3.45 for a venipuncture in my office. My staff draws the blood.  The fee was closer to $5 before it was cut in 2012.

If you’ve had a blood test, is the set up and time required only worth $3.54?  After repeated cuts to this fee, most patients now have to drive into a lab for bloodwork.  Some rural patients drive over an hour for tests.  When government cuts fees for drawing blood below what it costs to hire a phlebotomist, then doctors are forced to stop providing office venipuncture.

Another example. We offer ECGs (electrocardiogram – checks your heart) in our rural office.

I get paid $4.45 to interpret the ECG plus $6.60 to cover the cost of the stickers to attach the leads, paper, machine purchase/maintenance. Staff performs the test.

At this point, a business minded person would question my sanity. There’s no way I can cover the costs of the test for $11.05. They’re right. When our machine dies, we will not be able to afford a replacement. In fact, we probably should stop doing them now.

Fees Meet Needs

Fee codes get made to meet service needs. Fees solve specific patient care access problems. Fees have to cover the costs required to offer the service or doctors – small business owners – cannot provide the service.

One final example. Consider driving to the hospital to examine a newborn baby.

It costs around $7-10 for gas + $20-$25 for parking + $?? for mileage =  $30-$35 just to get to the hospital. The drive, baby exam and charting takes between 60-90 minutes if I rush. I bill OHIP $52.

I earn less than $20 per hour to provide this service. I still have to pay my staff, lease, licences, etc. in the order of 35-40% of my billings. As much as I love new babies – and I LOVE new babies! – I cannot afford to provide this service. This is one reason why so few family doctors spend their days providing care in hospitals now.

Fee codes direct patient services

Just like grocery store specials encourage shoppers to purchase certain vegetables, fees encourage doctors to perform certain services. Shoppers could purchase other veggie’s. Doctors could perform other services. Shoppers buy veggies on sale because it makes good sense, not because shoppers are greedy or selfish. Doctors are encouraged to provide services that the government values with an appropriate fee.

But what about patient need? What if there isn’t a fee, or the fee is too low, and patients still need the service?

Great question! Doctors still provide the service if they can. Just like we still provide venipuncture and ECGs in our office, doctors will still try to provide the services simply because patients need them.  Then physicians will plead with the government for an appropriate fee for the service.

That’s what this fight with the government is all about. Hoskins slashed fees for new patients, after hours care, weekends, on-call and a trailer load of other important services. Patients need those services. Fee cuts harm patient care.

 

I hope this helped. I’d love to hear your thoughts about fees, incentives and greed. Please let your MPP know that Wynne’s fee cuts harm patient care. Thank you!

photo credit: newsfeed.time.com

 

Healthcare’s Only Hope (is NOT Government)

healthcare's only hopeHealthcare loves new ideas that promise even a glimmer of improvement. Every new approach brings hope that maybe this will fix healthcare.

We believe that some one, or some thing, will put everything right.

Like Princess Leia, we believe our only hope exists but disagree on where to find it. (Video clip: “Help me Obi Wan Kanobi you’re my only hope.”)

We can organize fads or solutions by the level at which they promote their change.

Individuals

Some believe specific providers will deliver an ideal healthcare system. We just need nurse practitioner led clinics; more nurses, nursing assistants, more doctors…

All providers overlap in the services they provide. But healthcare’s far too diverse for us to believe one type of provider can be healthcare’s only hope.

Teams

‘Team care’ used to guarantee thoughtful nods from audiences. Specialized teams promised to solve everything from education to quality and efficiency. They help. But they don’t make individuals and organizations obsolete.

Organizations

Many pundits believe something like Kaiser Permanente offers healthcare’s only hope. Organizations and process solutions hold promise for operational efficiency. KP seems to deliver great patient service and holds collectivist values many find attractive in Canada. But they only serve select populations and have had to close down in some locations.

Social Institutions

  • Military?
  • Private business?
  • The free market?
  • Organized religion?
  • Unions?

 Government

Should we place our only hope in government?

If so, which level of government?

  • Municipalities don’t get enough help from the province.
  • Provinces continually ask for help from the feds, so clearly they can’t provide healthcare by themselves either.

Maybe a national plan would solve everything, like the British NHS we copied in the 1960s?

John Roberts served as a Liberal cabinet minister in the Trudeau and Turner governments.  In 2003, he wrote an essay in Searching for the New Liberalism: Essays in Renewal. He wrote that since the 1930s,

“…government departments multiplied and expanded, and a plethora, almost uncountable, of crown corporations was established.” 

Government was poor, however, at managing for a variety of reasons — the political processes of government militate against flexibility, decentralization and the delegation of responsibility; personnel management, an essential instrument of management, remains largely outside the hands of political direction; government does not have profit as a bottom line objective and therefore finds it difficult to apply as a means of bureaucratic control; the objectives of government are as mixed and as varied and as contradictory as the members of society.  These amorphous purposes, the lack of precision in purposes, make public management cumbersome rather than streamlined.”

Roberts, a believer in big government, says government cannot manage because:

  • Government resists flexibility, decentralization or delegation
  • Government struggles with personnel management
  • It has no bottom line for bureaucratic control (unlike profit in business)
  • There are too many objectives
  • Purposes are amorphous and imprecise

Healthcare’s Only Hope?

Here are some steps we might consider instead of searching for Obi Wan:

1. Stop looking for healthcare’s only hope. It does not exist. Complexity requires complex solutions.

2. Empower providers. Explore how ALL PROVIDERS can work to the full scope of their expertise. Not just nurses and pharmacists (as the latest only hope for healthcare). Doctors could supervise other providers in large clinics much like dentists.

3. Liberate, don’t regulate. Instead of saying “You can’t do that” we should say, “Show me how well you can do it.” Let individuals, teams, organizations and social institutions prove their worth in the results they deliver.

4. Challenge veto power and special interests. We are immobilized in a system where every stakeholder can insist why everyone else cannot do something or change the way they currently work. Everyone has veto power. Everyone can say “No” – Regulatory colleges, unions, associations, hospitals, and special interests.  No one allows anyone freedom to prove their worth.

5. Innovate, experiment and learn. Stop thinking healthcare is so concrete, so specialized. Most things do not have ONE obvious answer. Focusing on innovation, experimentation and outcomes could move us beyond our devotion to rigid ideas of evidence (logical positivism) without falling into postmodern relativity.

6. Challenge hegemony wherever it exists. Arbitrary governing authorities that regulate, legislate and manipulate healthcare according to their own vision of utopia guarantee stagnation.

7. Get government out of management. Only pride, power-lust or ignorance insists government manages best. Bureaucrats are not business leaders. Healthcare deserves the best leadership and management expertise available. Youthful poli-sci grads are great for many things, just don’t ask them to manage healthcare.

8. Empower Patients. They’re smart. For the most part, patients do not need, or want, to be passive, obedient recipients of healthcare largess. Patient empowerment and accountability offers a huge untapped opportunity to reform healthcare.

9. Diversify labour. Who, besides the unions, benefits from having 98% of the hospitals unionized in Ontario?

After we tackle these issues, we could examine hospital ownership, public health mandate, CCAC, LHINs, and much more, all within a national insurance plan like Medicare.

What to you think? Are we searching for healthcare’s only hope? Are we putting too much faith in government to save us? Are we hoping to find some other super-solution for all that ails healthcare?

 

Societal Opinion of Doctors

Societal Opinion of DoctorsAre doctors knights, knaves or pawns? Are they altruistic agents devoted to public service? Selfish conniving opportunists? Or hapless dupes, lacking agency or judgment? Are they conflicted villains?

Societal opinion dictates whether government policies are permissive, punitive or prescriptive (see JAMA article – 1st page only “Societal Perceptions of Physicians – Knights, Knaves, or Pawns?”). Opinion polls place doctors as valued members of society. But opinions change faster than fashion.

The British Economist, Julian Le Grand, discussed this in his book Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy: Of Knights and Knaves, Pawns and Queens.

The JAMA authors write:

“Le Grand’s work on post-World War II British social policy found that perceptions of human motivations gradually transformed, with the prevailing view of the typical British citizen morphing from knight to knave as the costs of maintaining an expensive welfare state increased.” (JAMA)

Knight – one on whom the dignity of knighthood is conferred because of personal merit or exemplary service to country

Knaverogue, scumbag, lowlife 

Pawn – a person manipulated or used to some end.  A puppet, tool or dupe

As money runs out, perceptions change.

Do doctors have a vision for healthcare? Do they know how to improve things for patients? Does anyone have a vision?

Healthcare uses up almost ½ of Ontario’s budget. Still people cry out for even more coverage (e.g., drugs). The system will fail without significant change.

Options:

  • More public monopoly (more accurately, monopsony )? More taxes? User fees?
  • Insurance driven (expensive) employee benefit plans? Like USA?
  • Out-sourced public offerings? More private management of the government monopoly?
  • European approaches? Everyone, except North Korea, allows citizens choice. Is it un-Canadian?
  • Public system with wait-time guarantee (i.e., government pays for care out of state if state can’t provide service)?

Doctors need to develop opinions about options. They need to speak with patients and local decision makers.

Le Grand’s comments aside, what doctors say and do drives societal opinion of them. As we run out of money (Ontario Will Eventually Have to Pay the Piper, Globe and Mail), what will physicians do?  What do doctors envision will improve the system?

If you work in healthcare, what’s your vision? If you’re a patient, what do you think needs to change?

Physicians have a choice. Come up with a positive vision to benefit patients or get bulldozed by policies based on societal perception of you as a pawn or knave. What will it be?