R. Knight Steel, MD

The health care system encourages a reaction to episodes that is both costly and inefficient

R. Knight Steel, MD

The future will not be like today. The demographic changes that are so apparent to financial advisers concerned with retirement will have a striking effect on our health care system as well.

Chronic disease is replacing acute disease. Each of us reflects the changes in physiology that accompany the aging process superimposed on which are the decrements in function associated with multiple chronic conditions accumulated over a lifetime. When an acute illness strikes, it does so in a person with a unique physiologic and functional capability. Therefore medical care must be targeted to the special needs of each elder. Care packages require an extraordinary degree of individualization with respect to both the interventions and the site in which they are provided."

Yet the American health care system has failed to recognize these changes, much less address them. Just over two hundred geriatricians receive board certification annually, and when the medical educational system mentions the older individual, usually it is with a focus on a targeted procedure rather than the total needs of the individual.

Acute hospital care is the focus of the educational system, with only the occasional student having an experience in home care or long-term care. Specialists are called on with increasing frequency, but only the rarest provider is able to appreciate the package of care needs of the individual seeking service and to coordinate the interventions to maximize that patient's quality of life.

Medicare Advantage plans were designed with an eye toward providing a more organized approach to care at less cost to both the beneficiary and the system. Clearly the insurance industry can play a most critical role in designing and implementing some of the needed changes in the health care system, but it will not be able to do so alone.

The American health care system is replete with incentives and disincentives. Regrettably, most present-day incentives ensure that many patients will receive less than high quality care. We often pay 20 times as much (hourly rate) for procedures than we pay for coordination of care or for preventive care. People with even the most minor complaint often are transferred from nursing homes to emergency departments. This may be far easier for the staff at the long-term care facility than finding a physician to make a visit or paying for whatever tests and drugs that physician might order — even by phone.

The physician in the emergency department admits the patient to the acute care facility. Does that doctor have an incentive to do so? Might the risk of a malpractice suit if the patient is returned to the long-term care facility be in that doctor's mind as well? Will the attending physician be happy that charges for acute care can be submitted to Medicare? Many of these patients are likely to have a poorer outcome at far higher costs than if they had been cared for in the chronic care facility.

Until the incentives and disincentives are recognized, they cannot be altered with an eye toward improving outcomes while controlling costs. Medicare, designed in the 1960s to pay for acute level care, must rethink its mission.

For example, Leff et al showed that certain types of acute-level care may be delivered outside an acute-care facility at far less expense with equal or better outcomes (Ann Intern Med 2005; 143:798–808). But until the huge incentives to admit an elder to a hospital are appreciated, change will not be forthcoming.

This effort to address the incentives in the system must enlist not only economists but health care administrators, health care researchers, insurance providers, physicians, and other health care providers. Only such a team can assure each of us the highest quality of care at the most reasonable cost.

R. Knight Steel, MD is Chief, Geriatric Medicine, Hackensack University Medical Center and President, Institute for Incentives in Health Care

Among his many accomplishments, R. Knight Steel, MD, has been associate medical director at Monroe Community Hospital (affiliated with the University of Rochester School of Medicine); chief, geriatrics section, Evans Memorial Department of Medicine at Boston University; director of BU's gerontology center; and president of the American Geriatrics Society. He chaired the first Certifying Examination Committee in Geriatric Medicine for both the American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Family Practice. He also served on the Residency Review Committee for Internal Medicine and chaired the group that wrote the first criteria for the training of fellows in geriatric medicine while he worked to revise the general guidelines for internal medicine to include more content in geriatric medicine.

He was the first chair of the Council of Medical Societies of the American College of Physicians, and was chief, Health of the Elderly Programme, for the World Health Organization. He is a founding member of InterRAI («www.InterRAI.org»), a not-for-profit organization comprising an international group of researchers and clinicians dedicated to assuring the best function and highest quality of life to all persons as they age by designing and implementing the most useful scientifically sound assessment tools for the care of older individuals.

The author has been a visiting professor at the Yale University School of Medicine, Harvard University Medical School, Brown University School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, University of California – San Francisco School of Medicine, and numerous other schools. He has published over 100 articles, including one, in the New England Journal of Medicine, reporting the results of one of the first studies on iatrogenic disease. That paper was recently deemed a "classic paper" and republished in the British Medical Journal's Quality and Safety in Healthcare issue in 2004.

He has been the recipient of numerous awards, including the Distinguished Service Award from the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, the Geriatric Medicine Academic Award from the NIH (in the first year it was available), the Milo D. Leavitt Award from the American Geriatrics Society, the Joseph T. Freeman Award from the Gerontological Society of America, and Hackensack University Medical Center's Physician of the Year Award.

Managed Care’s Top Ten Articles of 2016

There’s a lot more going on in health care than mergers (Aetna-Humana, Anthem-Cigna) creating huge players. Hundreds of insurers operate in 50 different states. Self-insured employers, ACA public exchanges, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care plans crowd an increasingly complex market.

Major health care players are determined to make health information exchanges (HIEs) work. The push toward value-based payment alone almost guarantees that HIEs will be tweaked, poked, prodded, and overhauled until they deliver on their promise. The goal: straight talk from and among tech systems.

They bring a different mindset. They’re willing to work in teams and focus on the sort of evidence-based medicine that can guide health care’s transformation into a system based on value. One question: How well will this new generation of data-driven MDs deal with patients?

The surge of new MS treatments have been for the relapsing-remitting form of the disease. There’s hope for sufferers of a different form of MS. By homing in on CD20-positive B cells, ocrelizumab is able to knock them out and other aberrant B cells circulating in the bloodstream.

A flood of tests have insurers ramping up prior authorization and utilization review. Information overload is a problem. As doctors struggle to keep up, health plans need to get ahead of the development of the technology in order to successfully manage genetic testing appropriately.

Having the data is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Applying its computational power to the data, a company called RowdMap puts providers into high-, medium-, and low-value buckets compared with peers in their markets, using specific benchmarks to show why outliers differ from the norm.
Competition among manufacturers, industry consolidation, and capitalization on me-too drugs are cranking up generic and branded drug prices. This increase has compelled PBMs, health plan sponsors, and retail pharmacies to find novel ways to turn a profit, often at the expense of the consumer.
The development of recombinant DNA and other technologies has added a new dimension to care. These medications have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other 80 or so autoimmune diseases. But they can be budget busters and have a tricky side effect profile.

Shelley Slade
Vogel, Slade & Goldstein

Hub programs have emerged as a profitable new line of business in the sales and distribution side of the pharmaceutical industry that has got more than its fair share of wheeling and dealing. But they spell trouble if they spark collusion, threaten patients, or waste federal dollars.

More companies are self-insuring—and it’s not just large employers that are striking out on their own. The percentage of employers who fully self-insure increased by 44% in 1999 to 63% in 2015. Self-insurance may give employers more control over benefit packages, and stop-loss protects them against uncapped liability.