Tag: "health care quality"

400 Percent Cost Difference to Treat Prostate Disease

UCLA researchers have for the first time described cost across an entire care process for a common condition called benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) using time-driven activity-based costing. They found a 400 percent discrepancy between the least and most expensive ways to treat the condition.

The finding takes on even further importance as there isn’t any proven difference in outcomes between the lower and higher cost treatments, said study first author Dr. Alan Kaplan, a resident physician in the UCLA Department of Urology.

“The rising cost of health care is unsustainable, and a big part of the problem is that health systems, health care providers and policy makers have a poor understanding of how much health care really costs,” Kaplan said. “Until this is well understood, taxpayers, insurers and patients alike will continue to bear the burden of soaring health care costs.”(UCLA Health)

From the study itself: “Although listed as ‘optional’ in practice guidelines, invasive diagnostic testing can increase costs by 150% compared with the standalone urology clinic visit. Of five different surgical options, a 400% cost discrepancy exists between the most and least expensive treatments.

We know why this happens: Patients are not involved in forming prices in U.S. health care. One solution is reference pricing. Why that has not yet taken of like wildfire is a question that we will be addressing in future entries.

The Kline-Ryan-Upton Republican Off-Ramp from Obamacare

Tomorrow is the day the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in King vs. Burwell, and all the talk is about what Congress will do if the Supreme Court directs the Administration to obey the law by not paying subsidies in the majority of states, which have declined to establish their own Obamacare exchanges and defaulted to the federal one.

The Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed (available by subscription) by John Kline, Paul Ryan, and Fred Upton, who chair committees of jurisdiction in the House of Representatives that will be tasked with proposing a Congressional response to this decision. Here’s what they write:

Let people buy insurance across state lines. Stop frivolous lawsuits by enacting medical-liability reform. Let small businesses band together so they get a fair deal from insurance companies.

5 Myths about Cancer Care

PIC2In this month’s Health Affairs, leading health economists Dana P. Goldman and Tomas Philipson challenge five myths about cancer care. To the right we have an infographic that explains them very clearly.

The most economically interesting one is the fourth. This appears to challenge the notion that we should be skeptical about paying high prices for therapies that might buy only a short time of good life. (In health-economics, we use terms like Quality-Adjusted Life Year [QALY] and Disability-Adjusted Life Expectancy [DALE].)

The classic approach to these calculations was illustrated by Professor Christopher Conover in a recent article:

…[M]ost of the gains were concentrated in the 35-64 age group, which narrows the plausible range of what the average gain in life expectancy might be. Someone who is 60-64 is 7.3 times as likely to die in a given year as someone age 35-39. The reason this matters is that there are reasonably well-accepted rules of thumb about the value of what’s called a quality-adjusted life year (QALY).

Half of Doctors Give Obamacare D or F

Confident DoctorsThe Physicians Foundation and Merritt Hawkins (a physician recruiting firm) have just published their biennial physicians’ survey. The survey interviews over twenty thousand physicians in all fifty states and multiple specialties:

  • Only 19 percent say they have time to see more patients.
  • 44 percent plan to take steps to reduce services or find non-clinical employment.
  • Only 35 percent describe themselves as “independent practice owners,” down from 62 percent in 2008.
  • 53 percent describe themselves as hospital or medical-group employees, up from 38 percent in 2008.

Paying Doctors for Performance Does Not Work

Aaron Caroll, in the New York Times:

doctor-xray-2“Pay for performance” is one of those slogans that seem to upset no one. To most people it’s a no-brainer that we should pay for quality and not quantity.

In Britain, a program was begun over a decade ago that would pay general practitioners up to 25 percent of their income in bonuses if they met certain benchmarks in the management of chronic diseases. The program made no difference at all in physician practice or patient outcomes, and this was with a much larger financial incentive than most programs in the United States offer.

States Spent $7.7 Billion on Prisoners’ Heath Care in 2011

GOV065A new report from the Pew Charitable Trusts reports that 41 states experienced growth in their correctional health care spending from fiscal 2007-2011, with a median increase of 13%. Further:

…state spending on prisoner health care increased from fiscal 2007 to 2011, but began trending downward from its peak in 2009. Nationwide, prison health care spending totaled $7.7 billion in fiscal 2011, down from a peak of $8.2 billion in fiscal 2009. In a majority of states, correctional health care spending and per-inmate health care spending peaked before fiscal 2011. But a steadily aging prison population is a primary challenge that threatens to drive costs back up. The share of older inmates rose in all but two of the 42 states that submitted prisoner age data. States where older inmates represented a relatively large share of the total prisoner population tended to incur higher per-inmate health care spending.

Hits and Misses

Hits and Misses

Hits and Misses

Is ObamaCare Junk Insurance, Especially For Low-Income Americans?

Many of ObamaCare’s advocates believe that the proportion of a household’s income spent on health care is an appropriate measure of how effective health insurance is at doing its job. If a household spends ten percent or more of income on health care, it is said to be “underinsured” by the Commonwealth Fund or the Kaiser Family Foundation. Five percent is the cut-off for low-income households.

According to that standard, ObamaCare fails miserably at insuring low-income households:

In Washington, one in four individuals in households earning less than 250% of the poverty level signed up for a bronze plan with a deductible of $5,000-$6,350 per person and $10,000-$12,700 per family. Even after premiums, these households could face medical costs ranging from 17% to 40% of income before ObamaCare’s non-preventative-care benefits kick in.

Beyond the premium subsidies that the law provides, households earning up to 250% of the poverty level qualify for cost-sharing assistance. It can greatly reduce the deductible that must be exhausted before benefits kick in and, after that, the co-payments required for medical services and prescription drugs. But those cost-sharing subsidies are available only for those who buy silver-level coverage…


Source:Investor’s Business Daily.