Reflections on Time Magazine Article “Bitter Pill”

by | Mar 5, 2013 | Accreditation, Corruption, Fraud and Abuse, Oversight, Public Health


“What are the reasons, good or bad, that cancer means a half-million- or million-dollar tab? Why should a trip to the emergency room for chest pains that turn out to be indigestion bring a bill that can exceed the cost of a semester of college? What makes a single dose of even the most wonderful wonder drug cost thousands of dollars? Why does simple lab work done during a few days in a hospital cost more than a car? And what is so different about the medical ecosystem that causes technology advances to drive bills up instead of down?â€
These are some of the important questions raised in Steven Brill’s report on why healthcare costs so much and delivers relatively similar or worse results than other advanced economies. Although the report is long, it is well-researched and we suggest reading through if you really want to understand some of the key drivers of this fundamentally noncompetitive seller’s marketplace.
The joint commission logoIn the Introduction to my 2010 book “UNREADY†I observed that over a 50+ year period that there has been an enormous national cultural change, and that the cultural change in the delivery of healthcare leads the pack. Within a lifetime the healthcare delivery system has morphed from its altruistic patient-centered roots into a highly competitive, bottom-line, profit-centered commercial enterprise. That does not mean that there are not dedicated altruistic folks in today’s healthcare delivery system but painful reality is they have a marginal impact on the system.
Earlier in my career I had the opportunity to have direct responsibility for contracting for state-level delivery of care for the poor. The costs in the support of the Social Security Act (SSA) Title nineteen (19) Medicaid population in the decade 1985-1995 were staggering but pale by comparison to today’s practices. Meetings with the developers of the Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRGs) in the early 1980’s surfaced the issue of gaming the system. The greatest challenge for Medicaid administrators was to match the creative minds of providers and their hired guns and develop an effective system to counter the potential abuses through vigilant contract administration and sound program integrity efforts.
A rapidly evolving cottage industry of “consultants to maximize your reimbursement for provision of care for the ever growing Federal beneficiaries†led to quasi-legal and sometimes patently fraudulent and abusive schemes. On-going aggressive schemes to manipulate the Federal/State matching funds mix was a constant threat to effective stewardship of federal funds.
Apart from the billing abuses other behaviors brought us the “drive-by care†limiting days in the hospital to maximized bundled reimbursement for the organization. Initiating the patient discharge paradigm of “sicker but quicker†and “just in time†delivery of medications and other supplies has contributed to the problem. There were significant changes in Governance of healthcare institutions; the corporatization of the profit and non-profit industry and movement away from local community boards had the effect of transferring important and timely decisions away from the local facility to remote headquarters locations resulting in  less personal interest in the immediate community, boards populated by corporate officers interested in financial gain at the potential cost of patients and many conflicts of interest in the C-Suite.
It seems that the “Wall Street and K Street†MBAs have moved into the lucrative healthcare industry.  My old professor was convinced that inculcating a sense of compassion into those who were professionally trained for making profits was an uphill battle and that they were convinced that “to do good you first had to do well.†While the consequences of Wall Street tend to place the risk at the financial level, those posed by this group place risk on actual lives; as demonstrated in the avoidable 300+ deaths in Post Katrina Healthcare Facilities in New Orleans.
We commend Steven Brill on this article and applaud Time for having the courage to print this in-depth report. One comment we would make is that in this world of short attention spans, we rarely see in depth reporting and coverage that is as comprehensive as this, and unfortunately as a result most will probably not get through the entire article. However, the lack of apparent feedback on other media outlets and even on Social Networks like LinkedIn only demonstrate that even those involved will simply wait for it to blow over, without raising objections that might focus attention on the matter.
In order to summarize a bit, we have pulled out some quotes that underscore the problem of the high cost of healthcare in this country, along with some key examples.
“Diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma at age 42. Total cost, in advance, for Sean’s treatment plan and initial doses of chemotherapy: $83,900. Charges for blood and lab tests amounted to more than $15,000; with Medicare, they would have cost a few hundred dollarsâ€
The joint commission logoHospitals game the system by claiming non-profit status and avoiding income tax. Hospital billing is not connected to the cost of care as it is in other industries because of something called the “ChargeMasterâ€, a price list that is the basis for all billing from these hospitals. The rationale of the pricing is not supported and only certain of the largest clients, like Medicare and large insurance companies negotiate off these rates, insured patients rely on the payers to cover the bills and so do not tend to worry about the actual cost of the treatment. The only true example of tying billing to actual expenses comes with Medicare, where the pricing is dictated by the government. As an example, in the report the patient mentioned above had an insurance policy that covered $2,000 per day for inpatient care. MD Anderson, the Houston-based conglomerate, would not accept that “kind of insurance†and forced the patient to write a check to cover the diagnosis and initial chemotherapy treatments, which totaled $48,900. A week later, he was told to write another check in advance for $35,000 to cover the next round of treatment. Then they kept him waiting in reception for 90 minutes to make sure the second check cleared before beginning treatment.

This outrageous pricing underscores the hubris with which these institutions operate; examples of arbitrarily charging ridiculous prices are rampant in the report, for example:

“Dozens of mid-priced items were embedded with similarly aggressive markups, like $283.00 for a “CHEST, PA AND LAT 71020.†That’s a simple chest X-ray, for which MD Anderson is routinely paid $20.44 when it treats a patient on Medicare, the government health care program for the elderly.â€

The benefits for this pricing become more clear with a top-down look at the situation:

“The hospital’s hard-nosed approach pays off. Although it is officially a nonprofit unit of the University of Texas, MD Anderson has revenue that exceeds the cost of the world-class care it provides by so much that its operating profit for the fiscal year 2010, the most recent annual report it filed with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, was $531 million. That’s a profit margin of 26% on revenue of $2.05 billion, an astounding result for such a service-intensive enterprise.â€

This is just the tip of the iceberg, however, there are several other examples of how hospitals use this “ChargeMaster†to inflate the value of services (often by 10x or more of the Medicare list, which is based on actual costs) using the markups to claim as expenses for non-paying patients. In fact it is this “giving†that is used to justify the high prices, but a deeper look shows the math does not add up. And it also forces 60% of the personal bankruptcies in the country, precisely among those who can afford it least; another stake in the coffin of America’s Middle Class. Meanwhile, these hard-nosed bill collectors offer huge salaries to Hospital Administrators and buy influence to keep prices higher than they should be, while maintaining Charitable Organization status, while driving 99% of revenue from patient bills. For example:

“In December, when the New York Times ran a story about how a deficit deal might threaten hospital payments, Steven Safyer, chief executive of Montefiore Medical Center, a large nonprofit hospital system in the Bronx, complained, “There is no such thing as a cut to a provider that isn’t a cut to a beneficiary … This is not crying wolf.â€

“Actually, Safyer seems to be crying wolf to the tune of about $196.8 million, according to the hospital’s latest publicly available tax return. That was his hospital’s operating profit, according to its 2010 return. With $2.586 billion in revenue — of which 99.4% came from patient bills and 0.6% from fundraising events and other charitable contributions — Safyer’s business is more than six times as large as that of the Bronx’s most famous enterprise, the New York Yankees. Surely, without cutting services to beneficiaries, Safyer could cut what have to be some of the Bronx’s better non-Yankee salaries: his own, which was $4,065,000, or those of his chief financial officer ($3,243,000), his executive vice president ($2,220,000) or the head of his dental department ($1,798,000).

The fact that Congress is deep in bed with these companies does not help either.

“We spend two or three times that much on durable medical devices like canes and wheelchairs, in part because a heavily lobbied Congress forces Medicare to pay 25% to 75% more for this equipment than it would cost at Walmart.â€

Sloan Kettering was mentioned numerous times in the report as one of the few who could lever prices as high as 50% of the “ChargeMaster†price for large insurance companies, because of a good reputation for good clinical outcomes. Most tend to only be able to get around 1/3 of ChargeMaster list. But as facilities consolidate through acquisition and large expansion programs to soak up that excess revenue, the purchasing power of large insurance companies is diminished because of the nature of care: It is a seller’s market limited in many cases to location, without a clear price  list for the consumer prior to care (unless they do not have adequate insurance).

“According to one of a series of exhaustive studies done by the McKinsey & Co. consulting firm, we spend more on health care than the next 10 biggest spenders combined: Japan, Germany, France, China, the U.K., Italy, Canada, Brazil, Spain and Australia. We may be shocked at the $60 billion price tag for cleaning up after Hurricane Sandy. We spent almost that much last week on health care.”

As abusive as the current “fee for service†system is, the combination of expanded ICD-10 and an outcome based reimbursement with less well defined measures leaves an even greater opportunity for more opacity, fraud and abuse. And as seen in this video, the fundamental problem of cost containment is not addressed at all in the polarizing discussion of the Nation’s Healthcare “Reformâ€.
There are two sides to every story, however, how anyone could condone this behavior, with or without the current economic crisis, is incredible. This did not happen overnight, lack of oversight at all levels for three decades has allowed industry enablers to control 20% of the national economy and placed the future of the country’s health delivery system at great risk, not to mention the systematic disregard for the trusting public. Between the avaristic behavior of Wall Street and the Healthcare Industry put all at risk to lose their fortunes, health and well-being.
“The drag on our overall economy that comes with taxpayers, employers and consumers spending so much more than is spent in any other country for the same product is unsustainable. Health care is eating away at our economy and our treasury.â€
“The health care industry seems to have the will and the means to keep it that way. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the pharmaceutical and health-care-product industries, combined with organizations representing doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, health services and HMOs, have spent $5.36 billion since 1998 on lobbying in Washington. That dwarfs the $1.53 billion spent by the defense and aerospace industries and the $1.3 billion spent by oil and gas interests over the same period. That’s right: the health-care-industrial complex spends more than three times what the military-industrial complex spends in Washington.â€
As long as there is a de-facto reward for miscreant behavior within Healthcare industry segments, i.e., fines significantly less than profits derived from explicit fraud, and the ability to remain a preferred supplier, by disclaiming guilt but being willing to pay enormous sums for alleged transgressions, we will continue down this spiral path. Wall Street has no corner on the market of being able to remarkably escape civil, criminal and ethical accountability for its’ actions.

Post Your Comment

0 Comments

Core Topics

Contact Us

*We will never sell or share your contact information” to “Your email address will not be published.