Attached a very interesting article published today on the HEALTH AFFAIRS web site.
It contains a thorough and very readable analysis of the Medicare payment and SGR quagmire.
Several important quotes stand out:
* "Eliminating the SGR targets and permanently freezing Medicare physician fees at the 2009 level would cost $276 billion between 2011 and 2020."
* "The SGR system was supposed to give physicians incentives to practice more efficiently and thus gain higher fee increases, or at least avoid decreases. But the incentives don't work for individual physicians."
* "Medicare has a total cost problem, not just a physician cost problem."
The proposed solutions in my opinion could boost the role of primary care physicians:
"Whatever happens to the SGR targets, there is general agreement that long-range savings will require other reforms in the current payment system. Incentives for physicians are driven not just by the overall level of Medicare prices, but also by the prices for specific services. MedPAC and others have contended that certain services are "overvalued": The price is too high relative to the difficulty of providing the service or the physician's overhead costs.
Because overvalued services can be profitable, physicians have incentives to furnish more of them, while the system discourages the delivery of primary care and other undervalued services. Over time, misaligned incentives can even affect career choices, driving physicians into specialties with the most profitable services. CMS has been taking action on its own to correct some of these pricing problems, and further changes are mandated in the new health reform law.
Many observers argue that Medicare needs to move beyond the basic idea of paying physicians for each service that they provide to each patient. Paying service by service may encourage the fragmentation of care and the delivery of unnecessary services.
There are numerous proposals for payment changes that would promote integrated care delivery and encourage cost-effective medical treatment. One option is the bundled payment, a single payment to a provider for all services related to a specific disease or condition during some fixed period. Another is to encourage the development of accountable care organizations (ACOs), networks of physicians and other providers that would accept responsibility for the overall care of a population of Medicare patients, perhaps in return for a fixed per capita payment."
As family physicians we must realign and recalibrate our medical practice and learn to collaborate to meet the demands of integrated healthcare delivery.
The use of electronic health records and the development of a PCMH is one important step in this process.
Its just a matter of time until fee-for-service will be replaced by bundled payments. Escaping from the reality is not a solution and organized medicine seem to do just that.
Happy 4th of July.
Yours
Bernd
Paying Physicians For Medicare Services
06/25/2010
It is widely agreed that the existing payment system is broken. Congress has again enacted a short-term fix to a long-term problem that it will have to revisit.
What's the issue?
Congress has voted to halt and delay for six months a scheduled 21.5 percent cut for physician fees under Medicare that had gone into effect in June 2010. The change gives physicians a 2.2 percent rate increase retroactive to June 1. But unless a longer-term solution is found, this short-term "doc fix" will expire November 30, 2010, at which point the previously scheduled reduction will kick in.
This latest episode represents the fourth time this year that scheduled Medicare fee cuts to physicians have been averted at the last moment--or even later. A longer-term repair is needed, but will be costly for U.S. taxpayers.
A Broken System: There is widespread agreement that the existing system for paying for physician services under the Medicare program is broken. Under current Medicare rules, intended to restrain growth in spending, payments to physicians have been subject to supposedly "automatic" cuts for a number of years. However, Congress has consistently postponed those cuts and instead raised physician fees or held them constant.
The latest scheduled cut for physician fees was the 21.5 percent reduction that took effect in June. In May, the House passed a proposal to provide rate increases in 2011 and 2012, followed by an even sharper 35 percent rate cut in 2012. But the Senate was unable to pass similar legislation, contained within a long-stalled bill to extend unemployment benefits and provide Medicaid assistance to the states. Instead, the Senate approved the six-month, 2.2 percent rate increase in late June.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) was for a time holding June bills, pending possible congressional action, but as of June 18 it had begun paying doctors' bills at the reduced rates required by current law. When it became clear that the Senate would not be able to approve the longer-term House bill, members in the House voted on June 24 to adopt the shorter Senate version, and President Obama signed it on June 25.
The Problem Is Money: A permanent "doc fix" that would override both pending and expected automatic cuts in future years could add as much as $276 billion to federal spending over the next decade. There is no agreement in Congress on how best to make the fix or on how to pay for it, whether by raising taxes, cutting other federal spending, or simply adding the amount to the federal deficit. This brief describes the likely options for congressional action in the months and years ahead.
What's the background?
Medicare pays physicians using what is called a fee schedule, or list of prices. This list sets a fixed maximum price for each type of service, such as an office visit, a particular surgical procedure, or a specific diagnostic test. Current law requires CMS to update these prices each year.
In computing the annual update, CMS starts with an estimate of inflation but then adjusts this amount upward or downward, depending on how rapidly overall spending for physician services has been growing. If spending has stayed within set targets, physicians get a bonus--a price increase greater than inflation. But if spending has exceeded the targets, the updated prices may rise more slowly than inflation or even be reduced.
The current system of spending targets was put into place by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The aim was to give physicians an incentive to restrain the growth in the number of services they furnished to patients, and to discourage them from providing higher-price services in place of lower-price ones.
The spending targets are set using a "sustainable growth rate" formula, often referred to as the SGR. The formula is complicated, but its basic goal is to keep spending for each beneficiary from growing faster than the per capita increase in the gross domestic product (GDP). GDP growth is included in the formula on the theory that it is not sustainable for Medicare physician spending to grow faster than the national economy.
Hope Not Realized: The expectation that this payment system would control spending was not realized. In the first few years under the 1997 rules, physician spending did stay within the targets, and physicians were rewarded with price increases greater than inflation. For 2002, however, the update formula in the law required a reduction in physician fees of almost 5 percent. Congress allowed the reduction to take effect. But when the formula dictated a further reduction for 2003, Congress overrode the Balanced Budget Act rules and approved a small fee increase.
That action set a precedent that has continued to this day. In each year since 2003, although the statutory formula would have led to a fee cut, Congress has instead granted an increase or at least frozen the rates and prevented a decrease.
Although Congress has repeatedly intervened to prevent rate cuts, it has never changed the formulas that dictate these cuts. Each time it has set the fee increase, Congress has specified that fee updates for later years should be computed as if it had not acted. What's more, Congress has never modified the SGR targets themselves.
Meanwhile, the number of services that physicians provide has been growing steadily, and the services are increasingly costly and complicated. That means that there has been a widening gap between actual spending each year and the amount allowed by the targets. Under the law, this ballooning deficit is supposed to be recouped by even steeper automatic rate cuts in the future.
Payment Cuts Kick In: In November 2009, CMS announced that under the formula, physician fees for 2010 would be 21.5 percent less than 2009 levels. The cut would have been even larger except for two factors. First, CMS on its own made some changes in the methods used for setting the targets. Second, the law limits how much fees can be reduced in any one year. However, cuts not made in 2010 would simply carry over into future years. Unless the law is changed, by 2014, rates could be about 40 percent less than 2009 levels.
Why has Congress consistently acted in this "Perils of Pauline" fashion, overriding automatic cuts on a short-term basis nine times so far? The answer is that a longer-range fix could greatly increase the federal deficit. Congress relies on the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to measure the budgetary impact of proposed legislation. The CBO establishes a "baseline," projections of future spending and revenues that assume all current laws will be enforced. The baseline includes all of the physician cuts scheduled to take effect in future years, which will produce substantial savings for Medicare.
As a result, legislation that overrides future cuts would be "scored" by the CBO as increasing the deficit, in contrast with the current baseline. Eliminating the SGR targets and permanently freezing Medicare physician fees at the 2009 level would cost $276 billion between 2011 and 2020.
Postponing the cuts month by month or year by year, as Congress has done, has a smaller apparent budgetary impact. Yet even the six-month rate increase most recently passed by the House and Senate was scored as costing more than $6 billion, although the bill included savings provisions to offset that amount. Unless something is done before the end of this year, Congress will, once again, encounter pressure to avoid even bigger rate cuts in 2011 and later years.
Fixing The "Doc Fix": Few members of Congress wish to see physician payments slashed, and many would prefer to see some permanent "fix" so that they would not have to revisit the issue. Yet there are also mounting concerns about the overall size of the future federal deficit. In this context, many members on both sides of the aisle are reluctant to enact a costly fix without finding some way of paying for it.
What Are The Longer-Range Options?
Now that another short-term fix has been passed, Congress has several longer-range options. It could do nothing and let future cuts take effect. It could drop the SGR system and simply freeze future rates or let them rise with inflation. It could keep the current system but adopt various proposed modifications. It could adopt other fee schedule changes that might help slow spending growth. Or it could develop entirely new ways of paying for physician services.
Do Nothing: Congress could simply allow scheduled fee reductions to take effect. Without a fix, physician payments would drop as much as 40 percent from 2009 levels over the next several years. Although the government would save money, there are concerns about the potential impact that such large cuts would have on Medicare beneficiaries' access to health care. If Medicare rates fall too far behind those paid by private insurers, physicians might turn away current Medicare patients or stop accepting new ones. That would be more likely to happen if physicians have enough non-Medicare patients to make up for the income losses. The best guess is that physicians' ability to replace Medicare patients with those who have private insurance is likely to vary by geographic area and physician specialty.
Another possibility is that physicians would make up for lower Medicare fees by increasing the volume or intensity of services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries. However, it is unlikely that such "behavioral" changes could offset a 40 percent fee cut.
Whatever the potential effects of rate cuts might be, some people contend that the entire SGR approach has proved unworkable. The SGR system was supposed to give physicians incentives to practice more efficiently and thus gain higher fee increases, or at least avoid decreases. But the incentives don't work for individual physicians.
The problem is that if some doctors provide extra services, they will make more money in the short term than those who don't--yet the resulting penalties fall on everyone. Because of these perverse incentives, critics contend, aggregate spending targets may never be workable and should be replaced by more-focused cost containment methods.
Abandon The Sustainable Growth Rate System: Congress could decide to eliminate the formula that ties fee updates to trends in spending growth. Those who favor this step argue that since Congress is unlikely ever to allow the full scheduled rate cuts, it would be better and arguably more honest to take the full budgetary hit at once, instead of year by year. With no system in place for updating the fee schedule, Congress might at some point come up with a better approach.
A contrary view is that repeated short-term fixes to the SGR system are actually preferable. If the threat of rate cuts were permanently removed, Congress would never get around to fixing the system.
Others have suggested shelving the problem for some years, rather than a few months at a time, in the hope that additional breathing room would make it possible to develop a consensus around more comprehensive reforms in the system. But even that kind of half-measure would cost a great deal. For example, the CBO estimates that freezing the rates through 2014 would raise the deficit by $89 billion.
Make Long-Term Modifications To The SGR System: There are numerous proposals on the table to continue the current system of SGR targets, but with various modifications. CMS could simply wipe the slate clean and base future targets on actual current spending levels. In effect, past overspending would be forgiven, offering physicians a new chance to restrain spending but threatening them with penalties in the future if they failed to do so.
This approach, known as "rebasing," would be almost as costly as getting rid of the targets altogether. And rebasing would not correct the distorted incentives in the current system. Over time, physicians might once again ramp up service delivery until the formula dictated rate reductions.
Other options include setting separate spending targets for different services, different geographic areas, or even specific providers or groups of providers. For example, Congress could allow more spending growth in services such as primary and preventive care, while clamping down on such fast-growing areas as x-rays and other imaging services.
Another approach might be to establish separate targets for areas with lower and higher average per capita spending. Physicians in some areas deliver or order far more services for Medicare beneficiaries than do physicians in other areas, and there is little evidence that patients in high-volume areas have better health outcomes. Geographically based targets would arguably focus on constraining spending in high-cost areas.
Although these options are more focused than the current system, there is still a risk that they would penalize some efficient providers or reward some inefficient ones. To prevent this, updates or targets could be set for specific providers.
Under one proposal, CMS could identify physicians who provide or order an unusually high number of services and could reduce fee updates for those who fail to change their behavior. Any such option would be controversial. It would require extensive data collection and some consensus on how to distinguish inefficient providers from those who are treating difficult cases.
Finally, payment targets could be broadened to include a wider scope of services. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has suggested that if payment targets are retained, they should apply to all health care sectors. MedPAC notes: "Medicare has a total cost problem, not just a physician cost problem." In this view, systemwide targets could pressure physicians, hospitals, and other actors to collaborate in order to reduce unnecessary or duplicative services.
Make Other Payment Reforms: Whatever happens to the SGR targets, there is general agreement that long-range savings will require other reforms in the current payment system. Incentives for physicians are driven not just by the overall level of Medicare prices, but also by the prices for specific services. MedPAC and others have contended that certain services are "overvalued": The price is too high relative to the difficulty of providing the service or the physician's overhead costs.
Because overvalued services can be profitable, physicians have incentives to furnish more of them, while the system discourages the delivery of primary care and other undervalued services. Over time, misaligned incentives can even affect career choices, driving physicians into specialties with the most profitable services. CMS has been taking action on its own to correct some of these pricing problems, and further changes are mandated in the new health reform law.
Many observers argue that Medicare needs to move beyond the basic idea of paying physicians for each service that they provide to each patient. Paying service by service may encourage the fragmentation of care and the delivery of unnecessary services.
There are numerous proposals for payment changes that would promote integrated care delivery and encourage cost-effective medical treatment. One option is the bundled payment, a single payment to a provider for all services related to a specific disease or condition during some fixed period. Another is to encourage the development of accountable care organizations (ACOs), networks of physicians and other providers that would accept responsibility for the overall care of a population of Medicare patients, perhaps in return for a fixed per capita payment.
Many people think these approaches could eventually yield real savings. Still, it could take many years for CMS to develop new payment systems and for providers to form the organizations that can receive the payments. In the interim, most Medicare physician services will still be paid on a fee-for-service basis. And Congress will still face the task of balancing budgetary concerns with the goal of maintaining access to quality care for Medicare beneficiaries.
What's next?
Because the six-month fix has now been signed into law, Congress will have to revisit the issue before December 1, 2010. Senate leaders are still hoping to negotiate a longer-term fix that would be part of a larger jobs and Medicaid assistance package for the states. The coming days and weeks will determine whether Congress is likely to consider more-permanent payment reforms, or take other steps to thwart a looming, major doctors' fee cut in an election year.
Resources
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, "Payment Policies under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2010: Final Rule," Federal Register 74, no. 226 (Nov. 25, 2009): pp. 61738--62188.
Congressional Budget Office, "Budgetary Effects for an Act to Provide a Physician Payment Update, to Provide Pension Funding Relief, and for Other Purposes (as provided by staff on June 18, 2010)."
Congressional Budget Office, "CBO Estimate of Changes in Net Federal Outlays from Alternative Proposals for Changing Physician Payment Rates in Medicare," April 30, 2010.
Congressional Budget Office, Letter to Rep. John Spratt, Chairman, House Budget Committee, on potential effects of reductions in physician payment rates, March 27, 2009.
Crosson, Francis J., et al., How Can Medicare Lead Delivery System Reform? (New York: Commonwealth Fund, November 2009).
Government Accountability Office, "Medicare Physician Payments: Trends in Service Utilization, Spending, and Fees Prompt Consideration of Alternative Payment Approaches." Statement before Health Subcommittee, House Energy and Commerce Committee, July 25, 2006.
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, Report to the Congress: Assessing Alternatives to the Sustainable Growth Rate System (Washington: MedPAC, March 2007).
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, Report to the Congress: Medicare Payment Policy (Washington: MedPAC, March 2010).
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Friday, July 02, 2010
Urgent Care Centers
Attached an excellent and very interesting article written by John Dorschner highlighting the proliferation of Urgent Care centers within the Baptist Health system in South Florida.
The proponents of urgent care centers emphasize the improved access and reduced costs of care versus ER care.
One UM Family Medicine faculty teacher is being quoted too:
``The residents now going out on their own -- two or three are going to work for urgent care companies and five or so are going to larger, already established practices,'' Roberts said. ``That's just the way things are.''
I beg to differ and passionately disagree with the opinions stated.
Why? Because Urgent Care may be " cheaper" compared to emergency room visits BUT it does contribute to the fragmentation of care, the absence of care coordination and will further reduce urgently needed cash flow in primary care clinics.
Unfortunately, insurance companies seem to like the concept too. Therefore, urgent care and walk-in clinics are popping up all over Miami even in my neighborhood.
Do they provide better care ? Absolutely not!! For care coordination and continuity of care they "refer" the tough cases to family doctors because they Urgent care docs want to deliver quick fixes and have no time for history taking gibberish.
I am afraid that in search for the easy and quick buck family medicine residents will prefer those urgent care clinics.
So what can we do? Join the urgent care bandwagon? No!! We must focus on the development of collaborate practice models, develop medical homes and contract with employer groups demonstrating better and more cost-effective care.
Otherwise, we will contribute to the steady increase in healthcare costs and the fragmentation of healthcare deliver.
That's NOT just the way things are!
Looking forward to your comments.
Yours
Bernd
Posted on Fri, Jul. 02, 2010
Baptist Health makes urgent care push
BY JOHN DORSCHNER
jdorschner@MiamiHerald.com
With primary care increasingly hard to access, Baptist Health South Florida keeps expanding its urgent care centers in Miami-Dade and Broward -- and offending the chief executive of the huge Memorial Healthcare System in the process.
Urgent care -- providing faster, simpler treatment than hospital emergency rooms -- has proven to be a successful model for the prosperous Baptist system, even while smaller urgent care shops in South Florida have slid into bankruptcy.
``They're doing very well,'' said Patricia Rosello, chief executive of Baptist Out-Patient Services.
Indeed they are. Baptist Out-Patient, which includes diagnostic and imaging services, earned $52.3 million on $142.7 million in patient revenue in fiscal 2009, according to audited statements. That's a 36 percent rate of return -- and 40 percent of the $131.3 million in net income earned by the entire system, which has five hospitals.
Baptist is not alone in seeing a huge need for primary care. Many chain pharmacies stores in South Florida -- including Walgreens and CVS -- now have walk-in clinics, usually staffed by nurse practitioners who can dispense simple prescriptions for such things as antibiotics.
Aventura Medical Center, an HCA facility, is taking a slightly different tack, opening a primary care clinic in Miami Lakes operated by physicians it employs. It keeps regular doctor's hours -- daytime, Monday through Friday.
The hospital is looking cautiously at widening the service. ``We will expand geographically only as it makes strategic sense and will continue to build physician practices in communities where there is a need for primary care,'' said Aventura spokeswoman Robyn Kane.
LONGER HOURS
Baptist Medical Plazas offer broader services and longer hours -- generally 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily, with board-certified physicians always on duty, generally with X-rays and other tests available because the centers include outpatient diagnostic and imaging services.
Baptist now has 13 centers, with more on the way. It entered Broward last year, in Coral Springs. Its latest, opened in May, is in Davie, at Griffin Road and University Drive -- an area dominated by Memorial, the prosperous government healthcare system that dominates South Broward.
Memorial has focused on its hospitals, having only one urgent care center, in Pembroke Pines. Still, Memorial Chief Executive Frank Sacco was not happy to see Baptist's advertising in Davie: ``You'll find compassionate Baptist Health doctors and nurses. . . Broward, it's time to get treated better!''
Sacco sent a letter last month to Memorial staff: ``Such statements are offensive to thousands of dedicated and accomplished healthcare professionals. . . . It disappoints me to see Baptist Health South Florida disparage all of us.''
Baptist's Rosello says no attack was intended against Memorial.
The centers have been using the same line in their Miami-Dade advertising for the past three years: ``It's time to get treated better.''
Baptist surveys show that 90 percent of its urgent care patients walk out the door within two hours of entering, Rosello said. That's much better than lengthy waits that occur in most emergency rooms.
``We started the centers to decompress the emergency room,'' Rosello said. Baptist Hospital's, in particular, was often crammed with patients waiting for treatment. ``But then it became its own business,'' he said.
One reason: Most insurers discovered that pushing people toward urgent care is cheaper than ER visits. Baptist's own health plan for employees, for example, requires a $50 co-pay for urgent care versus $100 for an ER visit.
In the fall, another Baptist center will open in western Broward, at Dykes Road and Pines Boulevard, Rosello said. Next year, a Brickell facility is expected to open near the intersection of U.S. 1 and the Rickenbacker Causeway. Another six may open in the next three years, Rosello said.
TOUGH MARKET
Baptist's pineapple logo has become a recognizable symbol, even in Broward, where many South Dade residents moved after Hurricane Andrew in 1992. But many lesser-known centers have struggled in the market.
ER Urgent Care Centers had three facilities in South Florida. In 2004, when a reporter visited one of them, in Hallandale Beach, there were no patients. ``Our biggest problem is getting the public educated,'' said an executive of the firm. It filed for bankruptcy in 2008.
In Broward, Alan Roberts, a physician, operated three Sunshine Medical Centers, including one in downtown Fort Lauderdale, but ended up selling them to Concentra, a Dallas-based nationwide system that has the financial heft to market to patients and get good deals from insurers.
Another chain, Jacksonville-based Solantic, has 30 locations in the state, including four in Broward.
Roberts, who now teaches part time in the University of Miami family medicine program, said urgent care is only going to get bigger, because low reimbursement rates aren't enough for primary care doctors to open solo practices.
``The residents now going out on their own -- two or three are going to work for urgent care companies and five or so are going to larger, already established practices,'' Roberts said. ``That's just the way things are.''
© 2010 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.miamiherald.com
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/02/v-print/1711396/baptist-makes-urgent-care-push.html#ixzz0sZzFUpSe
The proponents of urgent care centers emphasize the improved access and reduced costs of care versus ER care.
One UM Family Medicine faculty teacher is being quoted too:
``The residents now going out on their own -- two or three are going to work for urgent care companies and five or so are going to larger, already established practices,'' Roberts said. ``That's just the way things are.''
I beg to differ and passionately disagree with the opinions stated.
Why? Because Urgent Care may be " cheaper" compared to emergency room visits BUT it does contribute to the fragmentation of care, the absence of care coordination and will further reduce urgently needed cash flow in primary care clinics.
Unfortunately, insurance companies seem to like the concept too. Therefore, urgent care and walk-in clinics are popping up all over Miami even in my neighborhood.
Do they provide better care ? Absolutely not!! For care coordination and continuity of care they "refer" the tough cases to family doctors because they Urgent care docs want to deliver quick fixes and have no time for history taking gibberish.
I am afraid that in search for the easy and quick buck family medicine residents will prefer those urgent care clinics.
So what can we do? Join the urgent care bandwagon? No!! We must focus on the development of collaborate practice models, develop medical homes and contract with employer groups demonstrating better and more cost-effective care.
Otherwise, we will contribute to the steady increase in healthcare costs and the fragmentation of healthcare deliver.
That's NOT just the way things are!
Looking forward to your comments.
Yours
Bernd
Posted on Fri, Jul. 02, 2010
Baptist Health makes urgent care push
BY JOHN DORSCHNER
jdorschner@MiamiHerald.com
With primary care increasingly hard to access, Baptist Health South Florida keeps expanding its urgent care centers in Miami-Dade and Broward -- and offending the chief executive of the huge Memorial Healthcare System in the process.
Urgent care -- providing faster, simpler treatment than hospital emergency rooms -- has proven to be a successful model for the prosperous Baptist system, even while smaller urgent care shops in South Florida have slid into bankruptcy.
``They're doing very well,'' said Patricia Rosello, chief executive of Baptist Out-Patient Services.
Indeed they are. Baptist Out-Patient, which includes diagnostic and imaging services, earned $52.3 million on $142.7 million in patient revenue in fiscal 2009, according to audited statements. That's a 36 percent rate of return -- and 40 percent of the $131.3 million in net income earned by the entire system, which has five hospitals.
Baptist is not alone in seeing a huge need for primary care. Many chain pharmacies stores in South Florida -- including Walgreens and CVS -- now have walk-in clinics, usually staffed by nurse practitioners who can dispense simple prescriptions for such things as antibiotics.
Aventura Medical Center, an HCA facility, is taking a slightly different tack, opening a primary care clinic in Miami Lakes operated by physicians it employs. It keeps regular doctor's hours -- daytime, Monday through Friday.
The hospital is looking cautiously at widening the service. ``We will expand geographically only as it makes strategic sense and will continue to build physician practices in communities where there is a need for primary care,'' said Aventura spokeswoman Robyn Kane.
LONGER HOURS
Baptist Medical Plazas offer broader services and longer hours -- generally 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily, with board-certified physicians always on duty, generally with X-rays and other tests available because the centers include outpatient diagnostic and imaging services.
Baptist now has 13 centers, with more on the way. It entered Broward last year, in Coral Springs. Its latest, opened in May, is in Davie, at Griffin Road and University Drive -- an area dominated by Memorial, the prosperous government healthcare system that dominates South Broward.
Memorial has focused on its hospitals, having only one urgent care center, in Pembroke Pines. Still, Memorial Chief Executive Frank Sacco was not happy to see Baptist's advertising in Davie: ``You'll find compassionate Baptist Health doctors and nurses. . . Broward, it's time to get treated better!''
Sacco sent a letter last month to Memorial staff: ``Such statements are offensive to thousands of dedicated and accomplished healthcare professionals. . . . It disappoints me to see Baptist Health South Florida disparage all of us.''
Baptist's Rosello says no attack was intended against Memorial.
The centers have been using the same line in their Miami-Dade advertising for the past three years: ``It's time to get treated better.''
Baptist surveys show that 90 percent of its urgent care patients walk out the door within two hours of entering, Rosello said. That's much better than lengthy waits that occur in most emergency rooms.
``We started the centers to decompress the emergency room,'' Rosello said. Baptist Hospital's, in particular, was often crammed with patients waiting for treatment. ``But then it became its own business,'' he said.
One reason: Most insurers discovered that pushing people toward urgent care is cheaper than ER visits. Baptist's own health plan for employees, for example, requires a $50 co-pay for urgent care versus $100 for an ER visit.
In the fall, another Baptist center will open in western Broward, at Dykes Road and Pines Boulevard, Rosello said. Next year, a Brickell facility is expected to open near the intersection of U.S. 1 and the Rickenbacker Causeway. Another six may open in the next three years, Rosello said.
TOUGH MARKET
Baptist's pineapple logo has become a recognizable symbol, even in Broward, where many South Dade residents moved after Hurricane Andrew in 1992. But many lesser-known centers have struggled in the market.
ER Urgent Care Centers had three facilities in South Florida. In 2004, when a reporter visited one of them, in Hallandale Beach, there were no patients. ``Our biggest problem is getting the public educated,'' said an executive of the firm. It filed for bankruptcy in 2008.
In Broward, Alan Roberts, a physician, operated three Sunshine Medical Centers, including one in downtown Fort Lauderdale, but ended up selling them to Concentra, a Dallas-based nationwide system that has the financial heft to market to patients and get good deals from insurers.
Another chain, Jacksonville-based Solantic, has 30 locations in the state, including four in Broward.
Roberts, who now teaches part time in the University of Miami family medicine program, said urgent care is only going to get bigger, because low reimbursement rates aren't enough for primary care doctors to open solo practices.
``The residents now going out on their own -- two or three are going to work for urgent care companies and five or so are going to larger, already established practices,'' Roberts said. ``That's just the way things are.''
© 2010 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.miamiherald.com
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/02/v-print/1711396/baptist-makes-urgent-care-push.html#ixzz0sZzFUpSe
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Arizona Law For Florida and Medical Practice
Attached an important and troubling article from today's Miami Herald pointing out that "Florida Republican leaders have begun crafting anti-illegal-immigrant legislation modeled after an Arizona law that has incited widespread protests and fueled national and international debate over U.S. immigration policies.
Under the proposed bill, police would have broad power under state law to ask suspects for proof of legal residency."
I am strongly opposing such legislation and urge my specialty society to raise concerns regarding this bill as it pertains to the way family physicians practice medicine.
I often (even today) encounter patients, mostly uninsured, who are reluctant to go to the hospital because of their residency status fearing a backlash, or possible investigation by the immigration authorities.
Today I referred a Haitian patient to Publix to benefit from a FREE Metformin program. She asked me if she would have to provide a form of identification because she has no papers. I reassured her that she should not worry.
What will happen IF we have such a discriminatory law on the books? More undocumented immigrants will avoid doctors but will be taken by ambulance to emergency rooms for preventable illnesses instead. Who will pay? The taxpayer!
Just the debate of such a law in the legislature will trigger additional pressure on our State which already has to deal with a massive and continuous oil spill, high unemployment and a jittery tourism industry. Do we need anything else to shut down!!
Looking forward to your comments.
Yours
Bernd
Posted on Sat, Jun. 26, 2010
Florida GOP risks Hispanic anger with Arizona-like crackdown
Cristina Silva
Miami Herald/St. Pete Times
TALLAHASSEE — Florida Republican leaders have begun crafting anti-illegal-immigrant legislation modeled after an Arizona law that has incited widespread protests and fueled national and international debate over U.S. immigration policies.
Under the proposed bill, police would have broad power under state law to ask suspects for proof of legal residency, said Rep. William Snyder, a Republican from Stuart who plans to introduce the legislation in November.
"We have significant components from the Arizona bill that I plan to incorporate,'' he said. "We have the beginnings of it.''
The effort, which would be filed for consideration during the March legislative session, is already drawing broad support within the GOP.
Majority leaders in the Florida Senate and House said a new approach is needed to address the federal government's failure to temper illegal immigration.
It has the backing of both leading Republican gubernatorial candidates -- businessman Rick Scott and Attorney General Bill McCollum, whose office is helping to draft the bill.
Snyder, a former police officer, said the proposed legislation is needed to protect undocumented immigrants, who are vulnerable to abusive employers and violent criminals.
"This is a human right issue,'' he said. "They don't enjoy the same rights and privileges that you and I do. The solution is to enforce the laws that currently exist and to discourage people from coming here to `find a better life' when in fact they just come here and are victimized.''
Immigrant advocates and Hispanic lawmakers alike called the measure an unconstitutional assault on minority communities.
"The reaction is, 'What? This is ridiculous,' '' said Neelofer Syed, a Tampa immigration lawyer from Pakistan. "It is supposed to be that you are legal until you are proven guilty. This law is like, `We think you are guilty unless you establish that you are innocent.' ''
Rep. J.C. Planas, a Republican from Miami, called it an election-year stunt.
"I don't understand how anyone can think the Arizona law is good for Florida,'' said Planas, chairman of the Florida Hispanic Legislative Caucus. "It is a huge waste of police resources to start doing these things.''
Senate and House leaders said immigration reform is ripe for passage.
"What we want to do is encourage legal immigration and discourage illegal immigration,'' said incoming Senate President Mike Haridopolos, who cautioned that any changes will be shaped by how the Arizona law is put into practice after it takes effect next month.
Republican leaders in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Minnesota, South Carolina and Michigan have made similar vows to mirror Arizona's immigration law, amid growing criticism that the federal government has not adequately protected the nation's borders.
Civil rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have filed legal challenges to the legislation, and President Barack Obama's administration is expected to follow suit.
Critics questioned why Florida lawmakers would consider replicating Arizona's untested immigration strategy while legal challenges are still pending.
"Rep. Snyder's proposal solves nothing, exploits public concern over immigration and just creates new problems,'' said Howard Simon, executive director of ACLU Florida.
The tension has become a rallying point for candidates on both sides of the political spectrum.
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Alex Sink has highlighted her Republican opponents' support of the law in stump speeches.
"She was opposed to the law in Arizona,'' said campaign spokeswoman Kyra Jennings. "She believes it unfairly discriminated against American citizens. She would veto that type of legislation.''
Championing tougher immigration laws is a risky election strategy, said George Gonzalez, a University of Miami political science professor.
"It is a way to channel people's anger and frustration about the labor market onto a group and to take advantage of it, too,'' he said.
But it could also anger Hispanic voters, an important constituency in Florida's increasingly diverse political landscape, Gonzalez said.
Florida's estimated illegal immigrant population ranks third in the nation. Arizona places seventh. But while Florida's undocumented population has dropped by 10 percent during the past decade, Arizona's climbed by 42 percent.
"None of this is foolproof,'' Gonzalez said. "It could blow up in the Republicans' faces either way.''
Snyder said he doesn't want his law to stir up the same accusations of racism that hounded Arizona's decision.
His law would be refined, he said, because it would only allow law enforcement officials to inquire about immigration status during a potential arrest or traffic violation. In Arizona, officers are required to request legal documentation during any lawful stop if ``reasonable suspicion'' exists.
Coming up with the precise language will be difficult, conceded Snyder, who recently defended his views on Fox News. ``Reasonable suspicion makes people nervous,'' he said.
But he vowed his final draft would apply equally to all illegal immigrants, regardless of skin color or ethnicity.
"I've never in my 32 years been accused of using the `N' word or being racially motivated,'' he said. "No one who knows me would say I have a racist bone in my body.''
Under the proposed bill, police would have broad power under state law to ask suspects for proof of legal residency."
I am strongly opposing such legislation and urge my specialty society to raise concerns regarding this bill as it pertains to the way family physicians practice medicine.
I often (even today) encounter patients, mostly uninsured, who are reluctant to go to the hospital because of their residency status fearing a backlash, or possible investigation by the immigration authorities.
Today I referred a Haitian patient to Publix to benefit from a FREE Metformin program. She asked me if she would have to provide a form of identification because she has no papers. I reassured her that she should not worry.
What will happen IF we have such a discriminatory law on the books? More undocumented immigrants will avoid doctors but will be taken by ambulance to emergency rooms for preventable illnesses instead. Who will pay? The taxpayer!
Just the debate of such a law in the legislature will trigger additional pressure on our State which already has to deal with a massive and continuous oil spill, high unemployment and a jittery tourism industry. Do we need anything else to shut down!!
Looking forward to your comments.
Yours
Bernd
Posted on Sat, Jun. 26, 2010
Florida GOP risks Hispanic anger with Arizona-like crackdown
Cristina Silva
Miami Herald/St. Pete Times
TALLAHASSEE — Florida Republican leaders have begun crafting anti-illegal-immigrant legislation modeled after an Arizona law that has incited widespread protests and fueled national and international debate over U.S. immigration policies.
Under the proposed bill, police would have broad power under state law to ask suspects for proof of legal residency, said Rep. William Snyder, a Republican from Stuart who plans to introduce the legislation in November.
"We have significant components from the Arizona bill that I plan to incorporate,'' he said. "We have the beginnings of it.''
The effort, which would be filed for consideration during the March legislative session, is already drawing broad support within the GOP.
Majority leaders in the Florida Senate and House said a new approach is needed to address the federal government's failure to temper illegal immigration.
It has the backing of both leading Republican gubernatorial candidates -- businessman Rick Scott and Attorney General Bill McCollum, whose office is helping to draft the bill.
Snyder, a former police officer, said the proposed legislation is needed to protect undocumented immigrants, who are vulnerable to abusive employers and violent criminals.
"This is a human right issue,'' he said. "They don't enjoy the same rights and privileges that you and I do. The solution is to enforce the laws that currently exist and to discourage people from coming here to `find a better life' when in fact they just come here and are victimized.''
Immigrant advocates and Hispanic lawmakers alike called the measure an unconstitutional assault on minority communities.
"The reaction is, 'What? This is ridiculous,' '' said Neelofer Syed, a Tampa immigration lawyer from Pakistan. "It is supposed to be that you are legal until you are proven guilty. This law is like, `We think you are guilty unless you establish that you are innocent.' ''
Rep. J.C. Planas, a Republican from Miami, called it an election-year stunt.
"I don't understand how anyone can think the Arizona law is good for Florida,'' said Planas, chairman of the Florida Hispanic Legislative Caucus. "It is a huge waste of police resources to start doing these things.''
Senate and House leaders said immigration reform is ripe for passage.
"What we want to do is encourage legal immigration and discourage illegal immigration,'' said incoming Senate President Mike Haridopolos, who cautioned that any changes will be shaped by how the Arizona law is put into practice after it takes effect next month.
Republican leaders in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Minnesota, South Carolina and Michigan have made similar vows to mirror Arizona's immigration law, amid growing criticism that the federal government has not adequately protected the nation's borders.
Civil rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have filed legal challenges to the legislation, and President Barack Obama's administration is expected to follow suit.
Critics questioned why Florida lawmakers would consider replicating Arizona's untested immigration strategy while legal challenges are still pending.
"Rep. Snyder's proposal solves nothing, exploits public concern over immigration and just creates new problems,'' said Howard Simon, executive director of ACLU Florida.
The tension has become a rallying point for candidates on both sides of the political spectrum.
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Alex Sink has highlighted her Republican opponents' support of the law in stump speeches.
"She was opposed to the law in Arizona,'' said campaign spokeswoman Kyra Jennings. "She believes it unfairly discriminated against American citizens. She would veto that type of legislation.''
Championing tougher immigration laws is a risky election strategy, said George Gonzalez, a University of Miami political science professor.
"It is a way to channel people's anger and frustration about the labor market onto a group and to take advantage of it, too,'' he said.
But it could also anger Hispanic voters, an important constituency in Florida's increasingly diverse political landscape, Gonzalez said.
Florida's estimated illegal immigrant population ranks third in the nation. Arizona places seventh. But while Florida's undocumented population has dropped by 10 percent during the past decade, Arizona's climbed by 42 percent.
"None of this is foolproof,'' Gonzalez said. "It could blow up in the Republicans' faces either way.''
Snyder said he doesn't want his law to stir up the same accusations of racism that hounded Arizona's decision.
His law would be refined, he said, because it would only allow law enforcement officials to inquire about immigration status during a potential arrest or traffic violation. In Arizona, officers are required to request legal documentation during any lawful stop if ``reasonable suspicion'' exists.
Coming up with the precise language will be difficult, conceded Snyder, who recently defended his views on Fox News. ``Reasonable suspicion makes people nervous,'' he said.
But he vowed his final draft would apply equally to all illegal immigrants, regardless of skin color or ethnicity.
"I've never in my 32 years been accused of using the `N' word or being racially motivated,'' he said. "No one who knows me would say I have a racist bone in my body.''
Shorter Work Days For Doctors
Attached a link to an important NEJM article http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMsb1005800 entitled "The New Recommendations on Duty Hours from the ACGME Task Force."The goal of the ACGME's new approach to duty hours is to foster a humanistic environment for graduate medical education that supports learning and the provision of excellent and safe patient care.
At the heart of the ACGME's proposed changes is the recognition that the least-experienced residents need to be treated differently than more experienced ones. The plan recommends that first-year residents be limited to 16-hour shifts, and those in the second year and above work continuously for no more than 24 hours. They can stay an additional four hours to facilitate patient handoffs to another doctor. Currently residents are allowed to work up to 30-hour shifts.
The guidelines also include detailed expectations about direct supervision of younger residents by more experienced ones, in the hopes that a supervising doctor would catch any error before it affects a patient, according to Dr. Nasca.In addition, the ACGME will step up its monitoring and enforcement of the requirements, conducting on-site visits of each institution annually beginning in July 2011. The site visits are likely to cost each institution about $12,000 to $15,000, according to Dr. Nasca.
Those programs that don't comply with the rules could ultimately lose accreditation and be forced to disband.
I strongly support the proposed changes and call upon my colleagues to do the same.
Our patients deserve the same assurance about the quality of service as millions of airline passenger do already: strictly enforced duty hours for pilots, checklists before take-off and landing, elimination of human errors and the relentless pursuit of excellence.
We must change the way we do business! Our patients deserve it!!
Yours
Bernd
At the heart of the ACGME's proposed changes is the recognition that the least-experienced residents need to be treated differently than more experienced ones. The plan recommends that first-year residents be limited to 16-hour shifts, and those in the second year and above work continuously for no more than 24 hours. They can stay an additional four hours to facilitate patient handoffs to another doctor. Currently residents are allowed to work up to 30-hour shifts.
The guidelines also include detailed expectations about direct supervision of younger residents by more experienced ones, in the hopes that a supervising doctor would catch any error before it affects a patient, according to Dr. Nasca.In addition, the ACGME will step up its monitoring and enforcement of the requirements, conducting on-site visits of each institution annually beginning in July 2011. The site visits are likely to cost each institution about $12,000 to $15,000, according to Dr. Nasca.
Those programs that don't comply with the rules could ultimately lose accreditation and be forced to disband.
I strongly support the proposed changes and call upon my colleagues to do the same.
Our patients deserve the same assurance about the quality of service as millions of airline passenger do already: strictly enforced duty hours for pilots, checklists before take-off and landing, elimination of human errors and the relentless pursuit of excellence.
We must change the way we do business! Our patients deserve it!!
Yours
Bernd
Saturday, June 12, 2010
University of Miami and Professional Ethics
John Dorschner's very well written article reveals the disturbing facts surrounding the hiring of Charles Nemeroff,MD.
I am deeply troubled by UMs response emphasizing its " unflinching commitment to scientific integrity."
Whom are they kidding? It sets a bad example for medical students, researchers and residents at the University of Miami who are supposed to learn medical ethics and professional conduct from their teachers. Does the UM administration really believe that Nemeroff's transfer to Miami constitutes a clean slate to continue his work for the NIH? I hope not.
I am grateful that someone is calling it what it is: hypocrisy on steroids.
Yours
Bernd
==============================================================================
Senator tells University of Miami he's `troubled' over hiring
BY JOHN DORSCHNER
jdorschner@MiamiHerald.com
Sen. Charles Grassley has written a strongly worded letter to University of Miami President Donna Shalala saying he is ``disturbed'' and ``troubled'' by actions surrounding UM's hiring of a psychiatrist-researcher under investigation by a federal agency.
The letter from the Iowa Republican, dated Monday, was sparked by a Sunday story in The Chronicle of Higher Education about the relationship between psychiatrist Charles Nemeroff, now head of UM's department of psychiatry, and Thomas R. Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, who led a yearlong project to toughen policies against conflict of interest.
On Wednesday, UM issued a brief statement: ``The University of Miami is responding to the inquiry from Senator Grassley and will continue demonstrating its unflinching commitment to scientific integrity. UM works tirelessly to advance the quality of its teaching, research, and clinical care programs while maintaining the highest ethical standards in all that we do.''
The National Institute of Health said Insel was unavailable for comment.
Grassley and his staff have been investigating Nemeroff, once head of psychiatry at Emory University in Atlanta, because he received millions of dollars from drug companies while doing what was supposed to be impartial research for the National Institutes of Health on drugs made by the companies paying him.
Grassley reported Nemeroff received $2.8 million from GlaxoSmithKline and other drug makers over seven years for promoting drugs like GSK's Paxil. Emory eventually asked him to step down as head of psychiatry and suspended his work on major NIH grants.
E-MAILS
The Chronicle story said Insel ``quietly helped'' Nemeroff get hired at UM.
In summer 2009, when UM was thinking of hiring Nemeroff, Medical School Dean Pascal Goldschmidt e-mailed Insel saying that Nemeroff had said Insel would be able to provide a ``confidential opinion'' on him, according to documents released by the Senate Finance Committee.
Insel responded that he could not provide a formal, written recommendation because of NIH rules, but ``I can discuss informally by phone. Happy to do this,'' he wrote in an e-mail.
Goldschmidt told The Herald last fall that he thought Nemeroff was a talented researcher but didn't want to hire him if he couldn't get NIH funding.
The Chronicle article quotes Goldschmidt as saying Insel assured him that the Emory ban on Nemeroff's NIH grant activity for two years didn't carry over to Miami, and that Nemeroff would be able to apply for NIH funding as soon as he took his new job.
Goldschmidt was quoted in the Chronicle as saying that the Emory ban on Nemeroff's grant activities was due to ``political pressure that the university was under.''
SEEKS DOCUMENTS
In Monday's letter, Grassley wrote that he was ``troubled'' by that comment.
``President Shalala, I hope that you would agree -- contrary to Dr. Goldschmidt's views that disciplining researchers for failing to disclose conflicts of interest is merely a political issue -- that enforcing federal conflict of interest policy involves ethical and legal issues that ensure taxpayer trust.''
Grassley demanded Shalala produce five types of documents concerning Nemeroff, UM and NIH grants.
In last fall's Herald story, Goldschmidt called Nemeroff ``an exceptional psychiatrist and an exceptional scientist who has one issue in which he recognizes he made a mistake,'' by not informing Emory how much he received from pharmaceutical companies.
In March, UM started a transparent process, in which outside companies' pay to UM doctors is now listed on a website. Nemeroff is not listed there because the information concerns the period before he started last fall, the university has said.
Nemeroff told The Herald last fall that he decided in retrospect he should have declared drug makers' payments to him, but he thought Emory's regulations didn't require it.
The Chronicle article includes e-mails, also obtained by The Herald, indicating that Nemeroff and Insel were trying to get together at conventions and had each other's cell phone numbers.
When Nemeroff e-mailed Insel that he was taking the UM job, Insel wrote back: ``Congrats on a new position! Should be a new beginning.''
Insel told The Washington Post on Tuesday that he didn't have ``any great relationship'' with Nemeroff, and believed the psychiatrist's actions were ``so outrageous, he became the poster boy for conflict of interest.''
On Wednesday, Bernard Carroll, former head of psychiatry at Duke University and once Nemeroff's boss, told The Herald that he found Insel's comments to the Post ``disingenuous'' because the two have known each other since the early 1990s and Nemeroff helped Insel find a job at Emory.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/10/v-print/1672327/senator-tells-um-hes-troubled.html#ixzz0qgeVJdj6
I am deeply troubled by UMs response emphasizing its " unflinching commitment to scientific integrity."
Whom are they kidding? It sets a bad example for medical students, researchers and residents at the University of Miami who are supposed to learn medical ethics and professional conduct from their teachers. Does the UM administration really believe that Nemeroff's transfer to Miami constitutes a clean slate to continue his work for the NIH? I hope not.
I am grateful that someone is calling it what it is: hypocrisy on steroids.
Yours
Bernd
==============================================================================
Senator tells University of Miami he's `troubled' over hiring
BY JOHN DORSCHNER
jdorschner@MiamiHerald.com
Sen. Charles Grassley has written a strongly worded letter to University of Miami President Donna Shalala saying he is ``disturbed'' and ``troubled'' by actions surrounding UM's hiring of a psychiatrist-researcher under investigation by a federal agency.
The letter from the Iowa Republican, dated Monday, was sparked by a Sunday story in The Chronicle of Higher Education about the relationship between psychiatrist Charles Nemeroff, now head of UM's department of psychiatry, and Thomas R. Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, who led a yearlong project to toughen policies against conflict of interest.
On Wednesday, UM issued a brief statement: ``The University of Miami is responding to the inquiry from Senator Grassley and will continue demonstrating its unflinching commitment to scientific integrity. UM works tirelessly to advance the quality of its teaching, research, and clinical care programs while maintaining the highest ethical standards in all that we do.''
The National Institute of Health said Insel was unavailable for comment.
Grassley and his staff have been investigating Nemeroff, once head of psychiatry at Emory University in Atlanta, because he received millions of dollars from drug companies while doing what was supposed to be impartial research for the National Institutes of Health on drugs made by the companies paying him.
Grassley reported Nemeroff received $2.8 million from GlaxoSmithKline and other drug makers over seven years for promoting drugs like GSK's Paxil. Emory eventually asked him to step down as head of psychiatry and suspended his work on major NIH grants.
E-MAILS
The Chronicle story said Insel ``quietly helped'' Nemeroff get hired at UM.
In summer 2009, when UM was thinking of hiring Nemeroff, Medical School Dean Pascal Goldschmidt e-mailed Insel saying that Nemeroff had said Insel would be able to provide a ``confidential opinion'' on him, according to documents released by the Senate Finance Committee.
Insel responded that he could not provide a formal, written recommendation because of NIH rules, but ``I can discuss informally by phone. Happy to do this,'' he wrote in an e-mail.
Goldschmidt told The Herald last fall that he thought Nemeroff was a talented researcher but didn't want to hire him if he couldn't get NIH funding.
The Chronicle article quotes Goldschmidt as saying Insel assured him that the Emory ban on Nemeroff's NIH grant activity for two years didn't carry over to Miami, and that Nemeroff would be able to apply for NIH funding as soon as he took his new job.
Goldschmidt was quoted in the Chronicle as saying that the Emory ban on Nemeroff's grant activities was due to ``political pressure that the university was under.''
SEEKS DOCUMENTS
In Monday's letter, Grassley wrote that he was ``troubled'' by that comment.
``President Shalala, I hope that you would agree -- contrary to Dr. Goldschmidt's views that disciplining researchers for failing to disclose conflicts of interest is merely a political issue -- that enforcing federal conflict of interest policy involves ethical and legal issues that ensure taxpayer trust.''
Grassley demanded Shalala produce five types of documents concerning Nemeroff, UM and NIH grants.
In last fall's Herald story, Goldschmidt called Nemeroff ``an exceptional psychiatrist and an exceptional scientist who has one issue in which he recognizes he made a mistake,'' by not informing Emory how much he received from pharmaceutical companies.
In March, UM started a transparent process, in which outside companies' pay to UM doctors is now listed on a website. Nemeroff is not listed there because the information concerns the period before he started last fall, the university has said.
Nemeroff told The Herald last fall that he decided in retrospect he should have declared drug makers' payments to him, but he thought Emory's regulations didn't require it.
The Chronicle article includes e-mails, also obtained by The Herald, indicating that Nemeroff and Insel were trying to get together at conventions and had each other's cell phone numbers.
When Nemeroff e-mailed Insel that he was taking the UM job, Insel wrote back: ``Congrats on a new position! Should be a new beginning.''
Insel told The Washington Post on Tuesday that he didn't have ``any great relationship'' with Nemeroff, and believed the psychiatrist's actions were ``so outrageous, he became the poster boy for conflict of interest.''
On Wednesday, Bernard Carroll, former head of psychiatry at Duke University and once Nemeroff's boss, told The Herald that he found Insel's comments to the Post ``disingenuous'' because the two have known each other since the early 1990s and Nemeroff helped Insel find a job at Emory.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/10/v-print/1672327/senator-tells-um-hes-troubled.html#ixzz0qgeVJdj6
Conservative Cheerleaders
06/12/10
Letter To The Editor
RE: Conservatism's cool, Miami Herald 06/12/2010
Nicholas Rohrhoff, Chairman of the Medical Student Section of the FloridaMedical Association claims that young people should evaluate conservative principles, including limited government.
Well,he may be unaware that many of his peers, including medial students like him at the University of Miami, significantly benefit from government intervention into medical education.
For example, many students rely on government subsidized loans to finance their education. He also seems to forget that most physician training is subsidized by the federal government.Today less than 5 percent of medical school revenues comes from tuition and fees. Instead, medical schools rely heavily on federal and state support. Once medical students receive their degree they continue with their Graduate Medical Education, i.e. residency or specialty training. The largest source of funding for graduate medical education is the federal Medicare program, which reimburses teaching hospitals for both the direct cost of operating these programs. Florida’s Medicaid program also provides funding to graduate medical education.
I hope that he appreciates that having received government funding and subsidies for his medical education and training he is also guaranteed a much higher earning potential than many other Americans. But may be not, because now he wants lower taxes too!
I really have a hard time to understand this conservative hypocrisy. For me its nothing else but an expression of egocentric individualism. So, please try your best and be a good doctor but stay away from political cheerleading.
Bernd Wollschlaeger,MD,FAAFP,FASAM
16899 NE 15thAvenue ,North Miami Beach, FL 33162
Phone: 305-940-8717
===============================================================================
Conservatism's cool
BY NICHOLAS J. ROHRHOFF
NJROHRHOFF@MED.MIAMI.EDU
In mid-term elections, voter turnout defines success. To win, it is imperative to target likely voters and mobilize sympathetic yet diffident constituencies to the polls. Barack Obama's successful courtship of young voters in 2008 cast John McCain's GOP as the party of yesterday -- a group of old, white men out of touch with an increasingly diverse and engaged youth -- never to regain electoral clout.
This was not a triumph in the battle of ideas.
Because the adolescent prerequisite of peer affirmation to consider anything persists in this age group, conservative policies were not even entertained by many young voters as potential solutions to America's problems.
The Obama campaign manipulated this phenomenon brilliantly by wooing young voters not with policy prescriptions but retail politics. Before the Iowa caucuses, he skipped an AARP event to attend a hip-hop concert. And he was far ahead of other candidates in high-tech outreach through e-mail, YouTube and social networking media. The results were a 135-percent increase in the Democratic youth vote from 2004 and an electoral prize that set him on a trajectory to the White House.
In the general election Obama was the candidate with whom young voters would rather have a beer. Reporters who covered both campaigns marveled at how many more young volunteers the Obama campaign had at the ready. Supporting him became the cool thing to do.
His personal appeal to the demographic drew them to his party. Gallup Poll data indicate that in 2000, 36 percent of young voters identified themselves as Democrats and 35 percent as Republicans. In 2008, 45 percent in that age group indicated affiliation with the Democratic Party -- only 26 percent with Republicans.
This support extended from politics to policy. The same poll reported 69 percent of young voters said the government should do more to solve problems whereas only 27 percent said government does too much. In both style and substance, conservatives had lost touch with the next generation of Americans.
How then to make conservatism cool again? Enter former Florida House Speaker and current Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Marco Rubio. It is reasonable to suggest that Rubio would not want to collect votes based on the perception that he is the coolest candidate. He is, by all accounts, a serious policy person. His book, 100 Innovative Ideas for Florida's Future, was accompanied by ``idea-raisers'' held across the state where citizens could contribute their views.
Appearing a decade younger than his 38 years as he effortlessly transitions from English to Spanish and back, he plays flag football and is married to a former Miami Dolphins cheerleader.
When asked recently about the notion that he was the Republican Obama, referring to the president's recent slide in the polls, he quipped, ``I'm not sure people even want to be the Democrat Obama these days.''
Still, he would win any poll -- in a landslide -- on which candidate young voters would most like to join for a beer.
Yet his distaste for identity politics is clear: He defines himself simply as a conduit to advance a set of ideas that has made this country the greatest in the history of the world. In a less Herculean task but one of no less consequence, he could serve as the catalyst to broaden the appeal of conservatism to incipient voters.
Rubio seeks election to the U.S. Senate to stand up to the Obama agenda and offer a clear alternative. A Harvard Institute of Politics poll released in March suggests there is an opportunity to persuade young voters with that platform. Only 38 percent of young people approve of President Obama's handling of the deficit and a majority disapprove of his management of the economy (51 percent) and healthcare (53 percent).
Most telling, just 14 percent of those polled attending a four-year college believe that it will be easy to find a job after graduation.
In 2008, voters under 30 made up 14 percent of Florida's electorate. Gov. Charlie Crist's decision to run as an independent amplifies the importance of each of those votes. Though young people are unlikely to vote in mid-term elections, in this three-way race they could be decisive. Rubio trails Crist in a recent St. Petersburg Times/Miami Herald/Bay News 9 poll by just 3 points.
Rubio has been presented as a plausible counterweight to the president for many reasons -- the most significant comparison may manifest in the electoral etiology of his meteoric rise. An aggressive approach will lead young people to evaluate conservative principles -- limited government, low taxes, and boundless opportunity -- on the merits.
If his overtures succeed, a statewide electoral victory propelled by young voters could begin a movement that energizes, modernizes and unifies the Republican Party before returning them to power in Washington.
Nicholas J. Rohrhoff is chairman of the Medical Student Section of the Florida Medical Association and a student at the University of Miami School of Medicine.
Letter To The Editor
RE: Conservatism's cool, Miami Herald 06/12/2010
Nicholas Rohrhoff, Chairman of the Medical Student Section of the FloridaMedical Association claims that young people should evaluate conservative principles, including limited government.
Well,he may be unaware that many of his peers, including medial students like him at the University of Miami, significantly benefit from government intervention into medical education.
For example, many students rely on government subsidized loans to finance their education. He also seems to forget that most physician training is subsidized by the federal government.Today less than 5 percent of medical school revenues comes from tuition and fees. Instead, medical schools rely heavily on federal and state support. Once medical students receive their degree they continue with their Graduate Medical Education, i.e. residency or specialty training. The largest source of funding for graduate medical education is the federal Medicare program, which reimburses teaching hospitals for both the direct cost of operating these programs. Florida’s Medicaid program also provides funding to graduate medical education.
I hope that he appreciates that having received government funding and subsidies for his medical education and training he is also guaranteed a much higher earning potential than many other Americans. But may be not, because now he wants lower taxes too!
I really have a hard time to understand this conservative hypocrisy. For me its nothing else but an expression of egocentric individualism. So, please try your best and be a good doctor but stay away from political cheerleading.
Bernd Wollschlaeger,MD,FAAFP,FASAM
16899 NE 15thAvenue ,North Miami Beach, FL 33162
Phone: 305-940-8717
===============================================================================
Conservatism's cool
BY NICHOLAS J. ROHRHOFF
NJROHRHOFF@MED.MIAMI.EDU
In mid-term elections, voter turnout defines success. To win, it is imperative to target likely voters and mobilize sympathetic yet diffident constituencies to the polls. Barack Obama's successful courtship of young voters in 2008 cast John McCain's GOP as the party of yesterday -- a group of old, white men out of touch with an increasingly diverse and engaged youth -- never to regain electoral clout.
This was not a triumph in the battle of ideas.
Because the adolescent prerequisite of peer affirmation to consider anything persists in this age group, conservative policies were not even entertained by many young voters as potential solutions to America's problems.
The Obama campaign manipulated this phenomenon brilliantly by wooing young voters not with policy prescriptions but retail politics. Before the Iowa caucuses, he skipped an AARP event to attend a hip-hop concert. And he was far ahead of other candidates in high-tech outreach through e-mail, YouTube and social networking media. The results were a 135-percent increase in the Democratic youth vote from 2004 and an electoral prize that set him on a trajectory to the White House.
In the general election Obama was the candidate with whom young voters would rather have a beer. Reporters who covered both campaigns marveled at how many more young volunteers the Obama campaign had at the ready. Supporting him became the cool thing to do.
His personal appeal to the demographic drew them to his party. Gallup Poll data indicate that in 2000, 36 percent of young voters identified themselves as Democrats and 35 percent as Republicans. In 2008, 45 percent in that age group indicated affiliation with the Democratic Party -- only 26 percent with Republicans.
This support extended from politics to policy. The same poll reported 69 percent of young voters said the government should do more to solve problems whereas only 27 percent said government does too much. In both style and substance, conservatives had lost touch with the next generation of Americans.
How then to make conservatism cool again? Enter former Florida House Speaker and current Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Marco Rubio. It is reasonable to suggest that Rubio would not want to collect votes based on the perception that he is the coolest candidate. He is, by all accounts, a serious policy person. His book, 100 Innovative Ideas for Florida's Future, was accompanied by ``idea-raisers'' held across the state where citizens could contribute their views.
Appearing a decade younger than his 38 years as he effortlessly transitions from English to Spanish and back, he plays flag football and is married to a former Miami Dolphins cheerleader.
When asked recently about the notion that he was the Republican Obama, referring to the president's recent slide in the polls, he quipped, ``I'm not sure people even want to be the Democrat Obama these days.''
Still, he would win any poll -- in a landslide -- on which candidate young voters would most like to join for a beer.
Yet his distaste for identity politics is clear: He defines himself simply as a conduit to advance a set of ideas that has made this country the greatest in the history of the world. In a less Herculean task but one of no less consequence, he could serve as the catalyst to broaden the appeal of conservatism to incipient voters.
Rubio seeks election to the U.S. Senate to stand up to the Obama agenda and offer a clear alternative. A Harvard Institute of Politics poll released in March suggests there is an opportunity to persuade young voters with that platform. Only 38 percent of young people approve of President Obama's handling of the deficit and a majority disapprove of his management of the economy (51 percent) and healthcare (53 percent).
Most telling, just 14 percent of those polled attending a four-year college believe that it will be easy to find a job after graduation.
In 2008, voters under 30 made up 14 percent of Florida's electorate. Gov. Charlie Crist's decision to run as an independent amplifies the importance of each of those votes. Though young people are unlikely to vote in mid-term elections, in this three-way race they could be decisive. Rubio trails Crist in a recent St. Petersburg Times/Miami Herald/Bay News 9 poll by just 3 points.
Rubio has been presented as a plausible counterweight to the president for many reasons -- the most significant comparison may manifest in the electoral etiology of his meteoric rise. An aggressive approach will lead young people to evaluate conservative principles -- limited government, low taxes, and boundless opportunity -- on the merits.
If his overtures succeed, a statewide electoral victory propelled by young voters could begin a movement that energizes, modernizes and unifies the Republican Party before returning them to power in Washington.
Nicholas J. Rohrhoff is chairman of the Medical Student Section of the Florida Medical Association and a student at the University of Miami School of Medicine.
Friday, May 28, 2010
AMA Advocacy
Attached two examples how the American Medical Association advocates on behalf of physicians. I encourage you to renew your AMA membership to support those efforts which are helping us to practice medicine.
Have a great Memorial Day Weekend.
Bernd Wollschlaeger,MD,FAAFP,FASAM
AMA Outreach Recruiter
FTC Delays Red Flags Rule
The Federal Trade Commission on May 28 announced it would delay enforcement of the Red Flags Rule from June 1 to Dec. 31, 2010.
The commission cited congressional consideration of legislation that would affect the scope of entities covered by the rule to require businesses to take specific steps to minimize identity theft. For instance, S. 3416, introduced on May 25 in the Senate, would exempt health care practices with 20 or fewer employees, as well as accounting and legal practices of similar size.
Covered health care professionals under the bill include physicians, dentists, podiatrists, chiropractors, physical therapists, occupational therapists, marriage or family therapists, optometrists, speech therapists, language therapists, hearing therapists and veterinarians.
The commission in its announcement urged Congress to quickly act "to pass legislation that will resolve any questions as to which entities are covered by the rule and obviate the need for further enforcement delays. If Congress passes legislation limiting the scope of the Red Flags Rule with an effective date earlier than December 31, 2010, the Commission will begin enforcement as of that effective date."
The American Medical Association, which on May 21 filed a lawsuit to prevent the FTC from applying the rule to physicians, applauded the delay. "We call on the FTC to exempt physicians from the rule completely."
The extension is a promising sign that the AMA lawsuit caught the attention of the FTC, the association says. "Last November, a federal court blocked the rule from being applied to attorneys after the FTC was found to be extending its regulatory power beyond that authorized by Congress. We hope this latest extension will be long enough for the FTC to take a good, hard look at the rule and finally exclude physicians from this unjustified and burdensome regulation of medicine."
AMA eVoice Logo
eVoice® Alert
May 28, 2010
Tell Congress enough is enough!
Congress failed to address this year’s Medicare physician payment cut before the June 1 deadline next week. Although the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation at the last minute to suspend cuts for another 19 months, the U.S. Senate left for a week-long Memorial Day recess without taking action. When Congress returns from their vacation on June 7, the Senate is expected to take up the House-passed bill.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services already issued instructions to its contractors to postpone processing claims for Medicare physician services provided on or after June 1 for 10 days to provide time for Congress to complete its action and overturn the scheduled cut retroactive to June 1.
The new proposal being considered by Congress would provide payment updates of 2.2 percent for the remainder of 2010 and an additional 1 percent increase in 2011. However, in 2012 the SGR formula will once again go into effect and payments will be cut by an estimated 33 percent!
Congress needs to hear from you! Call your representative and senators today using the AMA’s toll-free grassroots hotline at (800) 833-6354 or send them an e-mail. Urge them to end their mismanagement of these important health care programs, and honor their commitment to military families and older Americans.
It is long past time for Congress to find a long-term solution to the SGR that does not create an even bigger problem in the future. Enough is enough!
Have a great Memorial Day Weekend.
Bernd Wollschlaeger,MD,FAAFP,FASAM
AMA Outreach Recruiter
FTC Delays Red Flags Rule
The Federal Trade Commission on May 28 announced it would delay enforcement of the Red Flags Rule from June 1 to Dec. 31, 2010.
The commission cited congressional consideration of legislation that would affect the scope of entities covered by the rule to require businesses to take specific steps to minimize identity theft. For instance, S. 3416, introduced on May 25 in the Senate, would exempt health care practices with 20 or fewer employees, as well as accounting and legal practices of similar size.
Covered health care professionals under the bill include physicians, dentists, podiatrists, chiropractors, physical therapists, occupational therapists, marriage or family therapists, optometrists, speech therapists, language therapists, hearing therapists and veterinarians.
The commission in its announcement urged Congress to quickly act "to pass legislation that will resolve any questions as to which entities are covered by the rule and obviate the need for further enforcement delays. If Congress passes legislation limiting the scope of the Red Flags Rule with an effective date earlier than December 31, 2010, the Commission will begin enforcement as of that effective date."
The American Medical Association, which on May 21 filed a lawsuit to prevent the FTC from applying the rule to physicians, applauded the delay. "We call on the FTC to exempt physicians from the rule completely."
The extension is a promising sign that the AMA lawsuit caught the attention of the FTC, the association says. "Last November, a federal court blocked the rule from being applied to attorneys after the FTC was found to be extending its regulatory power beyond that authorized by Congress. We hope this latest extension will be long enough for the FTC to take a good, hard look at the rule and finally exclude physicians from this unjustified and burdensome regulation of medicine."
AMA eVoice Logo
eVoice® Alert
May 28, 2010
Tell Congress enough is enough!
Congress failed to address this year’s Medicare physician payment cut before the June 1 deadline next week. Although the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation at the last minute to suspend cuts for another 19 months, the U.S. Senate left for a week-long Memorial Day recess without taking action. When Congress returns from their vacation on June 7, the Senate is expected to take up the House-passed bill.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services already issued instructions to its contractors to postpone processing claims for Medicare physician services provided on or after June 1 for 10 days to provide time for Congress to complete its action and overturn the scheduled cut retroactive to June 1.
The new proposal being considered by Congress would provide payment updates of 2.2 percent for the remainder of 2010 and an additional 1 percent increase in 2011. However, in 2012 the SGR formula will once again go into effect and payments will be cut by an estimated 33 percent!
Congress needs to hear from you! Call your representative and senators today using the AMA’s toll-free grassroots hotline at (800) 833-6354 or send them an e-mail. Urge them to end their mismanagement of these important health care programs, and honor their commitment to military families and older Americans.
It is long past time for Congress to find a long-term solution to the SGR that does not create an even bigger problem in the future. Enough is enough!
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
AMA Advocates For Fair Medicare Reimbursement
Attached an urgent appeal by our AMA to call upon legislators to finally address and resolve the flawed Medicare physicians formula.
Now its time to unite and support our AMA in its effort. I call upon the FMA leadership to stop all of its efforts to undermine our AMA and to focus on the pragmatic resolution of real and not imaginary problems. Physicians deserve our attention to their problems.
Yours
Bernd
AMA Outreach Recruiter
eVoice® Alert
May 18, 2010
AMA opposes SGR proposal
Based on conversations with policymakers, the AMA cannot support an emerging proposal to address the flawed Medicare physician payment formula. The result in five years would be steeper cuts for physician practices, making it much more difficult—if not impossible—to achieve the objective of permanently repealing the “sustainable growth rate” (SGR).
It is our understanding that a draft proposal developed by the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate congressional leadership would provide for statutory updates of 2.2 percent for the remainder of 2010 and an additional 1 percent increase in 2011. Short-term positive updates are no doubt attractive. From 2012 through 2014, physician updates would be determined by two expenditure targets that were proposed by H.R. 3961. We believe updates during this period would likely produce modest increases for E&M services and no less than a freeze for other Medicare services. In 2015, physician payments would be scheduled to revert back to the current SGR formula with a projected cut of no more than 37 percent. While this cut would result in a 2015 conversion factor in line with that projected under current law, the update baseline will continue to fall during these five years as a result of the underlying SGR formula. By 2015, we believe that the price tag to permanently repeal the SGR, or even to extend the proposed 2012-2014 policy, could exceed $500 billion.
The AMA fully appreciates the fiscal challenges confronting Congress and our nation today. The cost of permanently eliminating the currently scheduled Medicare cuts is approximately $250 billion. For the last several years, Congress has chosen short-term remedies that have resulted in larger future physician payment cuts and made it much more expensive to scrap a formula that Democrats and Republicans have both said should be repealed. Five years ago, the price tag for repealing the SGR was $49 billion.
Twice this year, Congress has allowed 30-day extensions to expire, creating turmoil for patients and physicians because a 21 percent cut became the operative policy. On June 1, the current extension will expire again.
Failure by Congress and the Obama Administration to properly solve this issue will intensify access problems for seniors and military families enrolled in the TRICARE program, and severely undermine implementation of recently enacted health system reform legislation. An existing physician shortage will be magnified and steeper cuts will prevent practice and delivery innovations.
Everyone in the health care community and Congress would like to see this problem go away. However, the AMA believes that greater long-term insolvency is too steep a price to pay for a temporary solution. We believe that policymakers must once again go back to the drawing board and make the tough decisions necessary to provide the funding to fulfill the obligations made to Medicare patients and military families, without steep cuts for medical services.
Contact your members of Congress. Urge them to pass legislation to avert a 21 percent cut on June 1 without increasing the cost of a permanent solution, and preserve access to medical services for Medicare patients and military families. We should not mortgage the future of the private practice of medicine. Growing the problem is not the solution!
Now its time to unite and support our AMA in its effort. I call upon the FMA leadership to stop all of its efforts to undermine our AMA and to focus on the pragmatic resolution of real and not imaginary problems. Physicians deserve our attention to their problems.
Yours
Bernd
AMA Outreach Recruiter
eVoice® Alert
May 18, 2010
AMA opposes SGR proposal
Based on conversations with policymakers, the AMA cannot support an emerging proposal to address the flawed Medicare physician payment formula. The result in five years would be steeper cuts for physician practices, making it much more difficult—if not impossible—to achieve the objective of permanently repealing the “sustainable growth rate” (SGR).
It is our understanding that a draft proposal developed by the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate congressional leadership would provide for statutory updates of 2.2 percent for the remainder of 2010 and an additional 1 percent increase in 2011. Short-term positive updates are no doubt attractive. From 2012 through 2014, physician updates would be determined by two expenditure targets that were proposed by H.R. 3961. We believe updates during this period would likely produce modest increases for E&M services and no less than a freeze for other Medicare services. In 2015, physician payments would be scheduled to revert back to the current SGR formula with a projected cut of no more than 37 percent. While this cut would result in a 2015 conversion factor in line with that projected under current law, the update baseline will continue to fall during these five years as a result of the underlying SGR formula. By 2015, we believe that the price tag to permanently repeal the SGR, or even to extend the proposed 2012-2014 policy, could exceed $500 billion.
The AMA fully appreciates the fiscal challenges confronting Congress and our nation today. The cost of permanently eliminating the currently scheduled Medicare cuts is approximately $250 billion. For the last several years, Congress has chosen short-term remedies that have resulted in larger future physician payment cuts and made it much more expensive to scrap a formula that Democrats and Republicans have both said should be repealed. Five years ago, the price tag for repealing the SGR was $49 billion.
Twice this year, Congress has allowed 30-day extensions to expire, creating turmoil for patients and physicians because a 21 percent cut became the operative policy. On June 1, the current extension will expire again.
Failure by Congress and the Obama Administration to properly solve this issue will intensify access problems for seniors and military families enrolled in the TRICARE program, and severely undermine implementation of recently enacted health system reform legislation. An existing physician shortage will be magnified and steeper cuts will prevent practice and delivery innovations.
Everyone in the health care community and Congress would like to see this problem go away. However, the AMA believes that greater long-term insolvency is too steep a price to pay for a temporary solution. We believe that policymakers must once again go back to the drawing board and make the tough decisions necessary to provide the funding to fulfill the obligations made to Medicare patients and military families, without steep cuts for medical services.
Contact your members of Congress. Urge them to pass legislation to avert a 21 percent cut on June 1 without increasing the cost of a permanent solution, and preserve access to medical services for Medicare patients and military families. We should not mortgage the future of the private practice of medicine. Growing the problem is not the solution!
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Health Insurance Companies
Dear Friends and Colleagues:
Attached you find an article from today's New York Times highlighting how health insurance companies are trying to (re) shape the rules of the new health care law thereby potentially mitigating its adverse impact on their profitable business model.
The impact of the new health care law depends on regulations needed to interpret it and more than 40 provisions of the law require or permit agencies to issue rules.
Two of these rules are at the heart of the new conflict fought by insurance lobbyists.
One bars insurers from carrying out an “unreasonable premium increase” unless they first submit justifications to federal and state officials. Congress did not say what is unreasonable, leaving that to rule writers. Another provision, effective Jan. 1, requires that a minimum percentage (85%) of premium dollars be spent on true medical costs related to patient care — not retained by insurers as profit or used to cover administrative expenses. Insurers must refund money to consumers if they do not meet the standards, known as minimum loss ratios.
Therefore, insurance companies will make every effort to reclassify ANY expenses as activities " that improve health care quality” for patients.
Thus, insurers are lobbying for a broad definition of quality improvement activities that would allow them to count spending on health information technology, nurse hot lines and efforts to prevent fraud. They also want to include the cost of reviewing care by doctors and hospitals, to determine if it was appropriate and followed clinical protocols.
As physicians we should SUPPORT narrowing these definitions of quality improvement activities, limited to those that produce measurable benefits to individual patients.
Otherwise, insurance companies will continue to pad their bottom lines, continue to find reasons to increase insurance premiums and make it more difficult for the average American to pay for health care.
Its time that physician organizations STOP criticizing the new law and point the finger at the real culprit: insurance companies!
Yours
Bernd
Health Insurance Companies Try to Shape Rules
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — Health insurance companies are lobbying federal and state officials in an effort to ward off strict regulation of premiums and profits under the new health care law.
The effort is, in some ways, a continuation of the battle over health care that consumed Congress last year.
Insurance lobbyists are trying to shape regulations that will define “unreasonable” premium increases and require them to pay rebates to consumers if the companies do not spend enough on patient care.
For their part, consumer groups say they worry that their legislative victories could be undone or undercut by the rules being written by the federal government and the states.
The health care overhaul provides a classic example of how the impact of a law depends on regulations needed to interpret it. The rules deal with relatively technical questions but go to the heart of the law, pushed through Congress by President Obama and Democratic leaders with no Republican support.
More than 40 provisions of the law require or permit agencies to issue rules. Lobbyists are focusing on two whose stated purpose is to ensure that consumers “get value for their dollars.”
One bars insurers from carrying out an “unreasonable premium increase” unless they first submit justifications to federal and state officials. Congress did not say what is unreasonable, leaving that to rule writers.
Another provision, effective Jan. 1, requires that a minimum percentage of premium dollars be spent on true medical costs related to patient care — not retained by insurers as profit or used to cover administrative expenses. Insurers must refund money to consumers if they do not meet the standards, known as minimum loss ratios.
Michael W. Fedyna, vice president and chief actuary of Aetna, underlined the importance of this issue, saying no other aspect of the law would be so “influential in shaping the future of the health care marketplace in the United States.”
The definition of medical loss ratio will “determine the willingness of health plans to enter new markets and remain in existing markets,” he said.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, said the definition would be just as important for consumers and small businesses.
“The health insurance industry has shifted its focus from opposing health care reform to influencing how the new law will be implemented,” he said.
The law requires insurers to spend a minimum percentage of premiums on health care services and “activities that improve health care quality” for patients.
Insurers are eager to classify as many expenses as possible in these categories, so they can meet the new test and avoid paying rebates to policyholders.
Thus, insurers are lobbying for a broad definition of quality improvement activities that would allow them to count spending on health information technology, nurse hot lines and efforts to prevent fraud. They also want to include the cost of reviewing care by doctors and hospitals, to determine if it was appropriate and followed clinical protocols.
Some consumer advocates, like Carmen L. Balber of Consumer Watchdog, favor a strict, narrow definition of quality improvement activities, limited to those that produce measurable benefits to individual patients.
Alissa Fox, a senior vice president of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, said that if the definition is too narrow, “health plans will come under enormous pressure to cut back quality improvement activities, including highly effective programs to reduce hospital infection rates.”
But Charles N. Kahn III, president of the Federation of American Hospitals, a trade group, said he feared that the quality improvement category would become a “catchall for a wide variety of expenses not directly related to patient care.”
Under the new law, insurers in the large group market are generally supposed to spend 85 percent of customers’ premiums on “clinical services” and quality-enhancing activities. The minimum is 80 percent for coverage sold to individuals and small groups.
Insurers and insurance regulators say that some companies will be unable or unwilling to meet the new standards.
Attached you find an article from today's New York Times highlighting how health insurance companies are trying to (re) shape the rules of the new health care law thereby potentially mitigating its adverse impact on their profitable business model.
The impact of the new health care law depends on regulations needed to interpret it and more than 40 provisions of the law require or permit agencies to issue rules.
Two of these rules are at the heart of the new conflict fought by insurance lobbyists.
One bars insurers from carrying out an “unreasonable premium increase” unless they first submit justifications to federal and state officials. Congress did not say what is unreasonable, leaving that to rule writers. Another provision, effective Jan. 1, requires that a minimum percentage (85%) of premium dollars be spent on true medical costs related to patient care — not retained by insurers as profit or used to cover administrative expenses. Insurers must refund money to consumers if they do not meet the standards, known as minimum loss ratios.
Therefore, insurance companies will make every effort to reclassify ANY expenses as activities " that improve health care quality” for patients.
Thus, insurers are lobbying for a broad definition of quality improvement activities that would allow them to count spending on health information technology, nurse hot lines and efforts to prevent fraud. They also want to include the cost of reviewing care by doctors and hospitals, to determine if it was appropriate and followed clinical protocols.
As physicians we should SUPPORT narrowing these definitions of quality improvement activities, limited to those that produce measurable benefits to individual patients.
Otherwise, insurance companies will continue to pad their bottom lines, continue to find reasons to increase insurance premiums and make it more difficult for the average American to pay for health care.
Its time that physician organizations STOP criticizing the new law and point the finger at the real culprit: insurance companies!
Yours
Bernd
Health Insurance Companies Try to Shape Rules
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — Health insurance companies are lobbying federal and state officials in an effort to ward off strict regulation of premiums and profits under the new health care law.
The effort is, in some ways, a continuation of the battle over health care that consumed Congress last year.
Insurance lobbyists are trying to shape regulations that will define “unreasonable” premium increases and require them to pay rebates to consumers if the companies do not spend enough on patient care.
For their part, consumer groups say they worry that their legislative victories could be undone or undercut by the rules being written by the federal government and the states.
The health care overhaul provides a classic example of how the impact of a law depends on regulations needed to interpret it. The rules deal with relatively technical questions but go to the heart of the law, pushed through Congress by President Obama and Democratic leaders with no Republican support.
More than 40 provisions of the law require or permit agencies to issue rules. Lobbyists are focusing on two whose stated purpose is to ensure that consumers “get value for their dollars.”
One bars insurers from carrying out an “unreasonable premium increase” unless they first submit justifications to federal and state officials. Congress did not say what is unreasonable, leaving that to rule writers.
Another provision, effective Jan. 1, requires that a minimum percentage of premium dollars be spent on true medical costs related to patient care — not retained by insurers as profit or used to cover administrative expenses. Insurers must refund money to consumers if they do not meet the standards, known as minimum loss ratios.
Michael W. Fedyna, vice president and chief actuary of Aetna, underlined the importance of this issue, saying no other aspect of the law would be so “influential in shaping the future of the health care marketplace in the United States.”
The definition of medical loss ratio will “determine the willingness of health plans to enter new markets and remain in existing markets,” he said.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, said the definition would be just as important for consumers and small businesses.
“The health insurance industry has shifted its focus from opposing health care reform to influencing how the new law will be implemented,” he said.
The law requires insurers to spend a minimum percentage of premiums on health care services and “activities that improve health care quality” for patients.
Insurers are eager to classify as many expenses as possible in these categories, so they can meet the new test and avoid paying rebates to policyholders.
Thus, insurers are lobbying for a broad definition of quality improvement activities that would allow them to count spending on health information technology, nurse hot lines and efforts to prevent fraud. They also want to include the cost of reviewing care by doctors and hospitals, to determine if it was appropriate and followed clinical protocols.
Some consumer advocates, like Carmen L. Balber of Consumer Watchdog, favor a strict, narrow definition of quality improvement activities, limited to those that produce measurable benefits to individual patients.
Alissa Fox, a senior vice president of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, said that if the definition is too narrow, “health plans will come under enormous pressure to cut back quality improvement activities, including highly effective programs to reduce hospital infection rates.”
But Charles N. Kahn III, president of the Federation of American Hospitals, a trade group, said he feared that the quality improvement category would become a “catchall for a wide variety of expenses not directly related to patient care.”
Under the new law, insurers in the large group market are generally supposed to spend 85 percent of customers’ premiums on “clinical services” and quality-enhancing activities. The minimum is 80 percent for coverage sold to individuals and small groups.
Insurers and insurance regulators say that some companies will be unable or unwilling to meet the new standards.
Friday, April 02, 2010
Politicization of Medicine
Well, Florida doctors never stop surprising me. Here comes another kicker: a Florida Urologist posted a note on his officer door that reads ""If you voted for Obama…seek urologic care elsewhere."
I have plenty of issues with the health care legislation but it passed by majority vote and its the law of the land. Even though, I favor a single-payer system I accepted the legislation. My patients often ask me about MY opinion and I let them know but I always listen carefully what THEY have to say because I favor dialogue. Is dialogue such a bad word now? What happened with the concept of political discourse?
According to David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson from the University of Minnesota,http://www.co-operation.org/pages/contro-pol.html ,the purposes of political discourse includes
" (a) clarifying citizens' understanding of the issue, (b) helping citizens reach their best reasoned judgment as to which course of action will solve a problem, (c) increasing citizen participation in the political process, and (d) socializing the next generation into the procedures and attitudes they need to be active citizens."
The authors emphasize that
" Thomas Jefferson, and the other founders of the American Republic, considered political discourse to be the heart of democracy. Jefferson believed that instead of the social rank within which a person was born, the basis of influence within society should be discourse in a free and open discussion characterized by conflict among ideas and opinions. He noted, "Differences of opinion lead to inquiry, and inquiry to truth."
Unfortunately, we are far removed from this process and the further we deteriorate the more we degrade what generation before us tried to build.
A sad but true state of affairs.
I hope that the next sign a doctor will post in his office will read, " I welcome your opinion and your well-being should be my primary concern."
Yours
Bernd
OrlandoSentinel.com
Dr. Jack Cassell: Sudden celebrity
Mount Dora doctor's anti-Obama stance sparks firestorm nationwide
Urologist stands firm, appears on national news as blogosphere erupts over sign telling Obama voters to go elsewhere
By Stephen Hudak, Orlando Sentinel
April 3, 2010
MOUNT DORA — Doug Bell isn't a patient of Dr. Jack Cassell's, but he almost wishes he were.
The Sorrento salesman heard about the firestorm over a sign that the Mount Dora urologist posted on his office door — it reads, "If you voted for Obama…seek urologic care elsewhere" — and wanted to see it himself.
"We need more people like him to speak out and take a stand against Obama-care," said Bell, 37, who snapped a picture of the sign Friday with his camera phone and planned to post it on his Facebook page.
Reaction was swift and passionate to news of Cassell's declaration as friends and foes weighed in online and over the phone, emailing and calling the doctor's office in Mount Dora to commend or castigate him.
Fueled by Internet sites such as the Drudge Report and the Huffington Post, which linked subscribers to theOrlando Sentinel story, Cassell received invitations to appear on several national radio and TV programs, notably Neil Cavuto's Fox News show and AC360, a CNN news and commentary program hosted by Anderson Cooper. He appeared on Fox and accepted Cooper's invite Friday night.
Not everyone was a fan.
"If I was one of his patients, I would not walk away, I'd run," said Patsy Robertson, 73, of Winter Springs, a Democrat and retired nurse. "He does not need to be taking care of people's lives if that's his mentality."
Cassell, a registered Republican, believes the sharply partisan, health-care overhaul pushed through by Democratic members of Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama will harm his practice and thus his patients.
He was applauded for his chutzpah by many who dubbed him a hero.
"Doctor Jack's a true American patriot," said Dan Evans, 34, a Georgia truck driver who detoured from a delivery in Apopka to shake the doctor's hand only to find the medical office is closed on Friday afternoons.
Sandra Boynton, 68, a retired Florida nurse now living in Idaho, described Cassell's sign as "repugnant" behavior.
"As a nurse, I was taught you don't refuse care to anyone based on anything that's your personal views," she said. "I simply cannot imagine any nurse behaving in this self-centered manner. This man is a disgrace to his profession."
Cassell told the Orlando Sentinel that he has not refused to treat any patient for his or her political views and does not quiz patients about their politics, but he also does not plan to take the sign down.
"I have plenty of Obama supporters in my patient base and we have a lot of political discussions. I'm not cutting anybody out of their care. I'm not refusing care on the basis of their political beliefs," he reiterated in an exchange with Cavuto. "I hope that more and more Obama supporters come through to find out what all the fuss is about because I think we have to do something about this."
But Cassell's former medical partner in Eustis, urologist Dr. James Young, 57, a self-described liberal Democrat, said a patient's politics should be no more important to a doctor than his favorite baseball team.
"It'd be like me saying I'm not going to treat a Cubs fan," said Young, a lifelong fan of the St. Louis Cardinals. "There are a number of thoughtful doctors who feel like Jack and probably a like number who feel the exact opposite, but they're not going to put a sign on their door. As doctors, our chief concern should always be what's best for the patient."
Cassell's story, picked up by The New York Times and driven by broadcast reports and conservative talk-show giant Rush Limbaugh, generated hundreds of e-mails and phone calls to the Orlando Sentinel from Web readers across the nation, a firm majority of whom not only support the doctor's view but also his right to voice them on his office door.
"I think he's saying, ‘If you voted for Obama, you made a decision and that decision has consequences,' " said Dr. William Crowley, 76, a retired neurologist living in Texas, who praised the doctor for provoking a discussion.
Margaret Taormino, 72, a retired social worker living in Tavares, expressed a common sentiment about Cassel.
"My husband and I don't need a urologist," she said, "but if we ever do, he's our guy."
Stephen Hudak can be reached at shudak@orlandosentinel.com or 352-742-5930.
I have plenty of issues with the health care legislation but it passed by majority vote and its the law of the land. Even though, I favor a single-payer system I accepted the legislation. My patients often ask me about MY opinion and I let them know but I always listen carefully what THEY have to say because I favor dialogue. Is dialogue such a bad word now? What happened with the concept of political discourse?
According to David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson from the University of Minnesota,http://www.co-operation.org/pages/contro-pol.html ,the purposes of political discourse includes
" (a) clarifying citizens' understanding of the issue, (b) helping citizens reach their best reasoned judgment as to which course of action will solve a problem, (c) increasing citizen participation in the political process, and (d) socializing the next generation into the procedures and attitudes they need to be active citizens."
The authors emphasize that
" Thomas Jefferson, and the other founders of the American Republic, considered political discourse to be the heart of democracy. Jefferson believed that instead of the social rank within which a person was born, the basis of influence within society should be discourse in a free and open discussion characterized by conflict among ideas and opinions. He noted, "Differences of opinion lead to inquiry, and inquiry to truth."
Unfortunately, we are far removed from this process and the further we deteriorate the more we degrade what generation before us tried to build.
A sad but true state of affairs.
I hope that the next sign a doctor will post in his office will read, " I welcome your opinion and your well-being should be my primary concern."
Yours
Bernd
OrlandoSentinel.com
Dr. Jack Cassell: Sudden celebrity
Mount Dora doctor's anti-Obama stance sparks firestorm nationwide
Urologist stands firm, appears on national news as blogosphere erupts over sign telling Obama voters to go elsewhere
By Stephen Hudak, Orlando Sentinel
April 3, 2010
MOUNT DORA — Doug Bell isn't a patient of Dr. Jack Cassell's, but he almost wishes he were.
The Sorrento salesman heard about the firestorm over a sign that the Mount Dora urologist posted on his office door — it reads, "If you voted for Obama…seek urologic care elsewhere" — and wanted to see it himself.
"We need more people like him to speak out and take a stand against Obama-care," said Bell, 37, who snapped a picture of the sign Friday with his camera phone and planned to post it on his Facebook page.
Reaction was swift and passionate to news of Cassell's declaration as friends and foes weighed in online and over the phone, emailing and calling the doctor's office in Mount Dora to commend or castigate him.
Fueled by Internet sites such as the Drudge Report and the Huffington Post, which linked subscribers to theOrlando Sentinel story, Cassell received invitations to appear on several national radio and TV programs, notably Neil Cavuto's Fox News show and AC360, a CNN news and commentary program hosted by Anderson Cooper. He appeared on Fox and accepted Cooper's invite Friday night.
Not everyone was a fan.
"If I was one of his patients, I would not walk away, I'd run," said Patsy Robertson, 73, of Winter Springs, a Democrat and retired nurse. "He does not need to be taking care of people's lives if that's his mentality."
Cassell, a registered Republican, believes the sharply partisan, health-care overhaul pushed through by Democratic members of Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama will harm his practice and thus his patients.
He was applauded for his chutzpah by many who dubbed him a hero.
"Doctor Jack's a true American patriot," said Dan Evans, 34, a Georgia truck driver who detoured from a delivery in Apopka to shake the doctor's hand only to find the medical office is closed on Friday afternoons.
Sandra Boynton, 68, a retired Florida nurse now living in Idaho, described Cassell's sign as "repugnant" behavior.
"As a nurse, I was taught you don't refuse care to anyone based on anything that's your personal views," she said. "I simply cannot imagine any nurse behaving in this self-centered manner. This man is a disgrace to his profession."
Cassell told the Orlando Sentinel that he has not refused to treat any patient for his or her political views and does not quiz patients about their politics, but he also does not plan to take the sign down.
"I have plenty of Obama supporters in my patient base and we have a lot of political discussions. I'm not cutting anybody out of their care. I'm not refusing care on the basis of their political beliefs," he reiterated in an exchange with Cavuto. "I hope that more and more Obama supporters come through to find out what all the fuss is about because I think we have to do something about this."
But Cassell's former medical partner in Eustis, urologist Dr. James Young, 57, a self-described liberal Democrat, said a patient's politics should be no more important to a doctor than his favorite baseball team.
"It'd be like me saying I'm not going to treat a Cubs fan," said Young, a lifelong fan of the St. Louis Cardinals. "There are a number of thoughtful doctors who feel like Jack and probably a like number who feel the exact opposite, but they're not going to put a sign on their door. As doctors, our chief concern should always be what's best for the patient."
Cassell's story, picked up by The New York Times and driven by broadcast reports and conservative talk-show giant Rush Limbaugh, generated hundreds of e-mails and phone calls to the Orlando Sentinel from Web readers across the nation, a firm majority of whom not only support the doctor's view but also his right to voice them on his office door.
"I think he's saying, ‘If you voted for Obama, you made a decision and that decision has consequences,' " said Dr. William Crowley, 76, a retired neurologist living in Texas, who praised the doctor for provoking a discussion.
Margaret Taormino, 72, a retired social worker living in Tavares, expressed a common sentiment about Cassel.
"My husband and I don't need a urologist," she said, "but if we ever do, he's our guy."
Stephen Hudak can be reached at shudak@orlandosentinel.com or 352-742-5930.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Medicaid and Healthcare in Florida
Currently, we focus on healthcare insurance reform expanding access to million of uninsured Amercian's but we fall short in reforming healthcare delivery. We MUST focus on cost containment, quality and outcome improvement too.
Unfortunately, many of my colleagues in organized medicine focus on the "panacea" called Tort Reform to reduce to costs resulting from "defensive medicine." I seriously doubt that this approach will provide the cost reduction needed to save our healthcare system. Meanwhile, Florida Senate members call for
" a federal Medicaid waiver to permit the state, through legislative enactment, to limit annual spending on the Medicaid program to the amount appropriated in the state budget. The waiver request shall include authorization for the legislature to make changes to optional eligibility groups and services in order to prevent spending more in any fiscal year than is appropriated. In addition the waiver shall request authority to revise the benefit structure and delivery system to allow Medicaid recipients to be integrated into the private insurance market through the use of state vouchers. The wavier shall include a provision to require Medicaid recipients with higher incomes to participate in program costs through coinsurance and deductibles and to be provided incentives for cost effective utilization of the health care system."
This serves as an example for "soft" rationing by capping Medicaid and "allowing" Medicaid recipients to seek coverage on the private "market" utilizing vouchers. . This will jeopardize Medicaid and force patients to hunt for benefits among private HMOs, which can control and limit services as they want.
Instead, the medical home model is a viable alternative moving the savings back to the physicians in the Medical Home.
A good friend of mine got it right, " Someday, when nothing is left but employed physicians attached to corporate HMOs then maybe docs will get the message that the Medical Home was a good idea."
Unfortunately, many don't get it because they are (mis)lead by ideologues who set politics before policy.
Yours
Bernd
Unfortunately, many of my colleagues in organized medicine focus on the "panacea" called Tort Reform to reduce to costs resulting from "defensive medicine." I seriously doubt that this approach will provide the cost reduction needed to save our healthcare system. Meanwhile, Florida Senate members call for
" a federal Medicaid waiver to permit the state, through legislative enactment, to limit annual spending on the Medicaid program to the amount appropriated in the state budget. The waiver request shall include authorization for the legislature to make changes to optional eligibility groups and services in order to prevent spending more in any fiscal year than is appropriated. In addition the waiver shall request authority to revise the benefit structure and delivery system to allow Medicaid recipients to be integrated into the private insurance market through the use of state vouchers. The wavier shall include a provision to require Medicaid recipients with higher incomes to participate in program costs through coinsurance and deductibles and to be provided incentives for cost effective utilization of the health care system."
This serves as an example for "soft" rationing by capping Medicaid and "allowing" Medicaid recipients to seek coverage on the private "market" utilizing vouchers. . This will jeopardize Medicaid and force patients to hunt for benefits among private HMOs, which can control and limit services as they want.
Instead, the medical home model is a viable alternative moving the savings back to the physicians in the Medical Home.
A good friend of mine got it right, " Someday, when nothing is left but employed physicians attached to corporate HMOs then maybe docs will get the message that the Medical Home was a good idea."
Unfortunately, many don't get it because they are (mis)lead by ideologues who set politics before policy.
Yours
Bernd
Sunday, February 28, 2010
FMA and AMA
OOPEN LETTER TO THE DCMA LEADERSHIP:
According to the published summary of a recent Board of Governors meeting, the Florida Medical Association is actively pursuing a reevaluation of its relationship with the American Medical Association. "We also began the process of a very serious and methodical reassessment of the FMA’s relationship with the AMA. Specific time will be set aside at the spring Board meeting to continue the discussion. Please feel at liberty to share your thoughts on the FMA-AMA relationship with me."
In this context the Board also tried to pass a bylaws change making the FMA President Chair of the AMA Delegation. This attempt to undermine the AMA delegations role did not pass. Furthermore, the Florida AMA Delegation did not support Dr. David McKalip run for office in the AMA , but the FMA Board of Governors overturned their decision. This is the same Dr.McKalip who was forced to step down as President-elect of the Pinellas County Medical Association, apologizing profusely for forwarding an e-mail image that portrayed President Barack Obama as a witch doctor in a loin cloth and headdress with bones in his nose. In a statement, the Florida Medical Association said it found "the actions by Dr. Mc Kalip to be hurtful and in poor judgment" but he still remains on its board ( District C, David M. McKalip, M.D., St. Petersburg). At that time he said that he is taking a year's leave of absence from a leadership role at the American Medical Association. He also planned to take a lower public profile in the health care reform debate. Instead, he was celebrated by the Tea party activities and spoke at several meetings. Now the FMA is using him as the ideological bulldozer to destabilize the AMA and Dr. Miguel Machado, a neurosurgeon and former DCMA President, runs for FMA leadership office spearheading the separation from the AMA.
Whats the goal? The FMA want to take the lead to form a new and "pure" national medical organization based on their ideological principles.
Its just astounding that physicians never miss an opportunity to divide the House of Medicine. That's the reason why I left the FMA .
There are many other important issues we should focus on to help physicians to survive and succeed in the rapidly changing healthcare environment. We need leaders who base their decisions on rational thought but not partisanship and ideologies.
I call upon each you to challenge the FMA and Dr. Machado to clearly and publicly state their support for the AMA and their policies. Furthermore, they should assure each and every AMA member that they refrain from dividing the House of Medicine and that they stop collaborating with other state medical organizations(s) to create a separate national medical organization. Dividing us just plays in the hands of our political opponents. As a loyal DCMA and AMA member I expect that my county medical society supports my right to be represented by the AMA and to stop supporting candidates who undermine the important function and role of the AMA. Otherwise, I have no other choice but to relinquish my DCMA membership effective immediately!
Its your choice to unite or to divide the House of Medicine.
Yours
Bernd
Immediate Past DCMA President
According to the published summary of a recent Board of Governors meeting, the Florida Medical Association is actively pursuing a reevaluation of its relationship with the American Medical Association. "We also began the process of a very serious and methodical reassessment of the FMA’s relationship with the AMA. Specific time will be set aside at the spring Board meeting to continue the discussion. Please feel at liberty to share your thoughts on the FMA-AMA relationship with me."
In this context the Board also tried to pass a bylaws change making the FMA President Chair of the AMA Delegation. This attempt to undermine the AMA delegations role did not pass. Furthermore, the Florida AMA Delegation did not support Dr. David McKalip run for office in the AMA , but the FMA Board of Governors overturned their decision. This is the same Dr.McKalip who was forced to step down as President-elect of the Pinellas County Medical Association, apologizing profusely for forwarding an e-mail image that portrayed President Barack Obama as a witch doctor in a loin cloth and headdress with bones in his nose. In a statement, the Florida Medical Association said it found "the actions by Dr. Mc Kalip to be hurtful and in poor judgment" but he still remains on its board ( District C, David M. McKalip, M.D., St. Petersburg). At that time he said that he is taking a year's leave of absence from a leadership role at the American Medical Association. He also planned to take a lower public profile in the health care reform debate. Instead, he was celebrated by the Tea party activities and spoke at several meetings. Now the FMA is using him as the ideological bulldozer to destabilize the AMA and Dr. Miguel Machado, a neurosurgeon and former DCMA President, runs for FMA leadership office spearheading the separation from the AMA.
Whats the goal? The FMA want to take the lead to form a new and "pure" national medical organization based on their ideological principles.
Its just astounding that physicians never miss an opportunity to divide the House of Medicine. That's the reason why I left the FMA .
There are many other important issues we should focus on to help physicians to survive and succeed in the rapidly changing healthcare environment. We need leaders who base their decisions on rational thought but not partisanship and ideologies.
I call upon each you to challenge the FMA and Dr. Machado to clearly and publicly state their support for the AMA and their policies. Furthermore, they should assure each and every AMA member that they refrain from dividing the House of Medicine and that they stop collaborating with other state medical organizations(s) to create a separate national medical organization. Dividing us just plays in the hands of our political opponents. As a loyal DCMA and AMA member I expect that my county medical society supports my right to be represented by the AMA and to stop supporting candidates who undermine the important function and role of the AMA. Otherwise, I have no other choice but to relinquish my DCMA membership effective immediately!
Its your choice to unite or to divide the House of Medicine.
Yours
Bernd
Immediate Past DCMA President
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Words That Kill!
Words That Kill!! Hatred in America
"We need to address it as if it [Progressivism] is a cancer. It must be cut out of the system because they can not coexist. … You must eradicate it.”
In his speech on Saturday at CPAC (conservative Political Action Committee) in Washington, DC, the conservative news commentator Glenn Beck brought his chalkboard. He wrote the word "Progressivism" on it and said, "This is the disease." "Progressivism is the cancer in America and it's eating our Constitution, and it was designed to eat the Constitution - to progress past the Constitution," Beck said. He said that the only difference between a communist and a progressive is that communists seize power through revolution and progressives through evolution. "We don't want to evolve," Beck shouted. "It's big government. It's a socialist utopia." "We need to address it as if it is a cancer. It must be cut out of the system because they can not coexist. … You must eradicate it," Beck told the cheering crowd of conservatives.
The message is clear. Progressive are the enemy. We must get rid of them. Progressives are like cancer and cancer need to be dealt with.
No, this is not taken from a textbook of Hitler's Germany but it is being broadcasted in the United States of America in 2010! There will be those who will take it literally and act accordingly. From Timothy Mc Veigh, the Oklahoma city bomber, to A. Joseph Stack III,the suicide pilot, who targeted the IRS building in Austin. There will be more on the waiting list of right-wing homegrown American terrorists who will strike sooner or later. Hate mongers like Glen Beck may provide the disciples of hatred the ideological ammunition to strike. Its now open season on Progressive, and anyone can pick whom they consider a Progressive. So, because I am a Progressive , I am now a target, too?
When do we learn to stand up against hatred, intolerance and prejudice? What else has to happen before its too late?
Yours
Bernd
"We need to address it as if it [Progressivism] is a cancer. It must be cut out of the system because they can not coexist. … You must eradicate it.”
In his speech on Saturday at CPAC (conservative Political Action Committee) in Washington, DC, the conservative news commentator Glenn Beck brought his chalkboard. He wrote the word "Progressivism" on it and said, "This is the disease." "Progressivism is the cancer in America and it's eating our Constitution, and it was designed to eat the Constitution - to progress past the Constitution," Beck said. He said that the only difference between a communist and a progressive is that communists seize power through revolution and progressives through evolution. "We don't want to evolve," Beck shouted. "It's big government. It's a socialist utopia." "We need to address it as if it is a cancer. It must be cut out of the system because they can not coexist. … You must eradicate it," Beck told the cheering crowd of conservatives.
The message is clear. Progressive are the enemy. We must get rid of them. Progressives are like cancer and cancer need to be dealt with.
No, this is not taken from a textbook of Hitler's Germany but it is being broadcasted in the United States of America in 2010! There will be those who will take it literally and act accordingly. From Timothy Mc Veigh, the Oklahoma city bomber, to A. Joseph Stack III,the suicide pilot, who targeted the IRS building in Austin. There will be more on the waiting list of right-wing homegrown American terrorists who will strike sooner or later. Hate mongers like Glen Beck may provide the disciples of hatred the ideological ammunition to strike. Its now open season on Progressive, and anyone can pick whom they consider a Progressive. So, because I am a Progressive , I am now a target, too?
When do we learn to stand up against hatred, intolerance and prejudice? What else has to happen before its too late?
Yours
Bernd
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Why We Need Health Care & Health Insurance Reform?
The attached ABC news report highlights the fact that the largest health insurers in America have declared more than $12 billion worth of profits in 2009 but are requesting premium increases of anywhere from 20 percent to over 50 percent!
It was a banner year for health insurers. While those profits were coming in, 2.7 million of the companies' customers lost their insurance. Health insurance companies are dropping "unprofitable" patients and demand higher premiums from their remaining customers who cannot afford dropping their insurance. Meanwhile, CEOs and shareholders are collecting big paychecks, bonuses and profits.
What can be done? We must pass comprehensive health care reform now even without bipartisan support. Any reform proposal must contain provisions curbing the insurance companies profit margins, strip health insurance companies of their antitrust exemption, creating an health insurance exchange for those self-employed seeking insurance coverage, eliminating preexisting condition exclusions, full transparency of health insurance companies cost and expense structure and mandatory comprehensive insurance coverage. We also should support a strong public option!
We have to stop the bleeding now!
Yours
Bernd
Administration Says Insurance Companies Pull in Profits While Raising Premiums
By KATE SNOW, DAN HARRIS, HANNA SIEGEL and BRADLEY BLACKBURN
Feb. 18, 2010—
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius railed against the insurance companies today for raising premiums at a time when companies still post profits.
"The five largest insurers in America have declared more than $12 billion worth of profits in 2009," Sebelius said at a news conference. One of those companies, WellPoint, is a for-profit company that owns Anthem Blue Cross of California. They are about to increase rates on coffee shop owner Jesse Fink.
Come May, he'll pay $325 more per month to insure his family.
"I felt like it was extortion. I felt like it was a crime. They had you by the throat and if you don't like it leave. That's not right," said Fink.
2009 a Record Year for Insurance Company Profits
it was a banner year for health insurers. While those profits were coming in, 2.7 million of the companies' customers lost their insurance and the average premium for health insurance went up -- 5.5 percent for family coverage and 2.6 percent for individual coverage, according to the Kaiser Employer Health Benefits Survey.
Today, the government pointed to examples in six states where insurers request premium increases of anywhere from 20 percent to over 50 percent.
Companies Say Higher Medical Costs Mean Higher Premiums
The insurance companies see it differently. Though in most states, the companies don't dispute the numbers in the government report, but they say the requests for higher premiums were not driven by profit.
Insurance Companies Say They're Losing Money
Brad Fluegel of Wellpoint told ABC News, "What we're experiencing in California is very rapid increases in medical costs."
And as more healthy people lose their jobs and drop their insurance coverage, more sick people -- the most expensive patients -- remain in the insurance pool.
Other insurers say they are actually losing money right now. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan estimates they lost $280 million last year and by law have to ask for an increase in premiums to cover their losses.
"We're not prospering here. Our reserves have declined for 5 straight years. We're paying out $1.20 for every dollar we collect in premiums. We're losing hundreds of millions a year on only 7% of our total membership," said Andrew Hetzel, spokesman for Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield.
Critics Say Insurers Are Dropping Unprofitable Patients
Critics of the companies don't buy it. "While everyone else seems to be in a recession, the private health insurance companies are making a tremendous amount of money," said Jackie Schechner, the National Communications Director for Health Care For America Now.
How could that happen? Schechner says the companies essentially get rid of customers who aren't going to make them any money -- old, sick, or high-risk patients. That way, healthy customers are still paying high premiums but the insurance companies have to make fewer big payouts. If that accusation were true, the companies could be in violation of the law.
"They raise rates and companies can't afford to cover their employees anymore" says Schechner. "People try to go out and get insurance in the private market and it's just entirely unaffordable for them because the prices of premiums are so high. And if you can get something you can afford and the premiums are low, chances are it's going to be lousy coverage and it's not going to actually give you the health care benefits you need."
Schechner says the answer is health care reform. That's one point that the critics and insurance companies can agree on. Brad Fluegel of Wellpoint said, "We're eager to have a fact-based, rational debate about the drivers of these issues and what we can do to fix them."
The trouble is that the insurance industry and the Obama administration have very different ideas about what that reform should look like.
Copyright © 2010 ABC News Internet Ventures
It was a banner year for health insurers. While those profits were coming in, 2.7 million of the companies' customers lost their insurance. Health insurance companies are dropping "unprofitable" patients and demand higher premiums from their remaining customers who cannot afford dropping their insurance. Meanwhile, CEOs and shareholders are collecting big paychecks, bonuses and profits.
What can be done? We must pass comprehensive health care reform now even without bipartisan support. Any reform proposal must contain provisions curbing the insurance companies profit margins, strip health insurance companies of their antitrust exemption, creating an health insurance exchange for those self-employed seeking insurance coverage, eliminating preexisting condition exclusions, full transparency of health insurance companies cost and expense structure and mandatory comprehensive insurance coverage. We also should support a strong public option!
We have to stop the bleeding now!
Yours
Bernd
Administration Says Insurance Companies Pull in Profits While Raising Premiums
By KATE SNOW, DAN HARRIS, HANNA SIEGEL and BRADLEY BLACKBURN
Feb. 18, 2010—
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius railed against the insurance companies today for raising premiums at a time when companies still post profits.
"The five largest insurers in America have declared more than $12 billion worth of profits in 2009," Sebelius said at a news conference. One of those companies, WellPoint, is a for-profit company that owns Anthem Blue Cross of California. They are about to increase rates on coffee shop owner Jesse Fink.
Come May, he'll pay $325 more per month to insure his family.
"I felt like it was extortion. I felt like it was a crime. They had you by the throat and if you don't like it leave. That's not right," said Fink.
2009 a Record Year for Insurance Company Profits
it was a banner year for health insurers. While those profits were coming in, 2.7 million of the companies' customers lost their insurance and the average premium for health insurance went up -- 5.5 percent for family coverage and 2.6 percent for individual coverage, according to the Kaiser Employer Health Benefits Survey.
Today, the government pointed to examples in six states where insurers request premium increases of anywhere from 20 percent to over 50 percent.
Companies Say Higher Medical Costs Mean Higher Premiums
The insurance companies see it differently. Though in most states, the companies don't dispute the numbers in the government report, but they say the requests for higher premiums were not driven by profit.
Insurance Companies Say They're Losing Money
Brad Fluegel of Wellpoint told ABC News, "What we're experiencing in California is very rapid increases in medical costs."
And as more healthy people lose their jobs and drop their insurance coverage, more sick people -- the most expensive patients -- remain in the insurance pool.
Other insurers say they are actually losing money right now. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan estimates they lost $280 million last year and by law have to ask for an increase in premiums to cover their losses.
"We're not prospering here. Our reserves have declined for 5 straight years. We're paying out $1.20 for every dollar we collect in premiums. We're losing hundreds of millions a year on only 7% of our total membership," said Andrew Hetzel, spokesman for Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield.
Critics Say Insurers Are Dropping Unprofitable Patients
Critics of the companies don't buy it. "While everyone else seems to be in a recession, the private health insurance companies are making a tremendous amount of money," said Jackie Schechner, the National Communications Director for Health Care For America Now.
How could that happen? Schechner says the companies essentially get rid of customers who aren't going to make them any money -- old, sick, or high-risk patients. That way, healthy customers are still paying high premiums but the insurance companies have to make fewer big payouts. If that accusation were true, the companies could be in violation of the law.
"They raise rates and companies can't afford to cover their employees anymore" says Schechner. "People try to go out and get insurance in the private market and it's just entirely unaffordable for them because the prices of premiums are so high. And if you can get something you can afford and the premiums are low, chances are it's going to be lousy coverage and it's not going to actually give you the health care benefits you need."
Schechner says the answer is health care reform. That's one point that the critics and insurance companies can agree on. Brad Fluegel of Wellpoint said, "We're eager to have a fact-based, rational debate about the drivers of these issues and what we can do to fix them."
The trouble is that the insurance industry and the Obama administration have very different ideas about what that reform should look like.
Copyright © 2010 ABC News Internet Ventures
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Doctors versus Medicare
Attached a very interesting article from Saturday's Miami Herald emphasizing the issue of cost-control in healthcare and the resistance by physician groups to accept the inevitable truth: we must bend the cost curve, otherwise someone will bend it for us!We definitely need to shift our paradigm of thinking: from quantity to quality, from volume to value, from physicians- centered to patient-centered care. Now is the time to discuss and resolve the issue. Politicians from both parties must understand that concessions may only provide short-term gains but represent long-term loss. Lets not miss this opportunity.
Yours
Bernd
==============================================================================
Cardiologists battle Medicare over payment cuts
BY JOHN DORSCHNER
jdorschner@MiamiHerald.com
RICK NEASE / MCT
In a striking example of the conflict between controlling healthcare costs and providing quality service, a group of South Miami cardiologists has written a letter to patients complaining that huge cuts in Medicare rates may force many heart specialists out of business or mean reduced services for their patients.
The doctors of South Miami Cardiology said that on Jan. 1 Medicare reduced ``reimbursement for cardiac services on average by 40 percent. This is unrelated to the current healthcare reform, which is planning an additional 21 percent reduction, effective March 1.''
In fact, none of the cuts are related to the healthcare reforms before Congress. They're Medicare actions required by existing laws in an attempt to moderate doctor pay while not going broke -- a painful issue that reveals how difficult any kind of reform can be when strongly entrenched interests disagree on what should be done.
In this case, the nation's outraged cardiologists filed a federal lawsuit in Miami and have persuaded 50 members of Congress to co-sponsor a bill to rescind the cuts.
Some healthcare experts like the cuts.
``I'm not at all sympathetic with the cardiologists,'' said Robert Berenson, a doctor who was once in charge of Medicare payment policy and now is a fellow with the Urban Institute. ``Studies show they make well over $400,000 a year'' -- more than twice what a family practice physician earns.
In fact, Medicare is reducing pay to cardiologists as part of a rebalancing plan in which primary care doctors will get a 7 percent increase. ``This system is much more fair,'' said Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. ``It's not the savior for primary care, but it's a start.''
Heim finds it ``disingenuous'' that the cardiologists' letter blames reform proposals for their rate cuts.
Most of the cuts involve expensive imaging diagnostics, like $800 nuclear stress tests. Studies show that when physicians have expensive imaging machines in their office, they tend to prescribe far more tests.
That's particularly true in Florida, where a study by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, found that in-office imaging per senior cost $472 in 2006 -- eight times more than in Vermont.
Still, cardiologists say the changes have been devastating. Manuel Abella, a cardiologist in a large group practice in West Kendall, said he and his colleagues have been forced to lay off 15 people, cut salaries 10 percent and eliminate health insurance.
`BASIC TOOLS'
``When a patient comes in and says he has chest pains, you have to have state-of-the-art technology,'' said Romeo Majano, one of the three South Miami cardiologists who sent the letter. ``These are basic tools of our trade, and it's imperative patients have access to them.''
``This technology has greatly improved care,'' said Jack Lowen, president of the American College of Cardiology. ``We've seen a 30 percent reduction in morbidity and mortality in heart disease over the past 10 years.''
``The most affected, of course, will be the patients,'' the South Miami cardiologists warned in their letter, ``as cardiologists will be either forced out of business or forced to drastically increase the number of patients seen, most likely with physician assistants or nurse practitioners to help manage the increased volume.''
The cardiologists say that if Medicare won't pay for, say, a nuclear stress test in a cardiologist's office, the patient will have the test performed at a hospital where it might cost three to five times as much.
Medicare spokeswoman Ellen Griffith said, ``It is difficult to compare payments head-to-head because services may not always be directly comparable.'' Hospitals often get paid more for a service because they must be open around-the-clock and by law must provide coverage for the uninsured in their emergency rooms.
Berenson at the Urban Institute looks at it this way: ``If the hospitals are getting paid too much, the answer is to reduce their payments.'' He doubted the cardiologists' threat of giving up Medicare patients, noting that oncologists made a similar threat several years ago when they saw certain payments taken away and it didn't bear out.
For years, Republicans were leaders in the movement to curtail soaring Medicare costs. Tommy Thompson, secretary of health and human services under President George W. Bush, has frequently given speeches that Medicare costs must be brought under control or aging baby boomers would bankrupt the plan.
But in recent months, as the reform debate intensified, Republican leaders warned that the proposed bills would cut seniors' benefits. A poll this month by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 48 percent of those over 65 are opposed to the reform bills while 37 percent support them.
In fact, for the past 12 years, under the Clinton, Bush II and Obama administrations, Medicare has been ordered to find ways of curtail costs without reducing quality of care. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 required physician payments by Medicare to be adjusted annually so that the program didn't go broke.
Every year since 2003, Congress has listened to doctors' complaints and halted pay cuts. Each postponed cut gets added to the next year's calculation and this year all doctors are facing a 21 percent reduction. Congress postponed the cuts until March 1, when they take effect unless lawmakers take action.
Meanwhile, Medicare made a second set of calculations -- about how to split up the budgetary pie among doctors. Both Republicans and Democrats have agreed for some time that primary care is a key to improved healthcare -- because these doctors can coordinate treatment and reduce unnecessary tests and repetitive care.
A 2009 study by Medpac, a federal group that studies Medicare costs, found that, even adjusted for severity of illness, cardiology patients going to a doctor with imaging equipment in his office were twice as likely to get a test as those seeing doctors with no equipment.
Going further, Medicare surveyed physicians about their costs. Based on those findings, Medicare decided to reduce overall payments to cardiologists by 13 percent over four years -- while payments for their imaging services were cut by 30 or 40 percent.
`ERRONEOUS'
The ACC complained that the survey data for cardiologists was based on 55 interviews -- out of 20,000 in private practice. It called the resulting data ``patently erroneous and unreliable.'' When Medicare refused to budge, the ACC filed a lawsuit on Dec. 28.
The government argued that the courts did not have jurisdiction over a Medicare fee dispute. The judge agreed. The cardiologists have now gone to Congress, where lawmakers have a history of reversing Medicare pay cuts to pacify providers.
Griffith, the Medicare spokeswoman, said the agency is ``confident that the policies we have adopted are the most appropriate and will enhance overall access to physician services for beneficiaries. . . . If we find that there are unintended adverse consequences . . . we will have the opportunity to revisit them as part of the annual rule-making.''
Yours
Bernd
==============================================================================
Cardiologists battle Medicare over payment cuts
BY JOHN DORSCHNER
jdorschner@MiamiHerald.com
RICK NEASE / MCT
In a striking example of the conflict between controlling healthcare costs and providing quality service, a group of South Miami cardiologists has written a letter to patients complaining that huge cuts in Medicare rates may force many heart specialists out of business or mean reduced services for their patients.
The doctors of South Miami Cardiology said that on Jan. 1 Medicare reduced ``reimbursement for cardiac services on average by 40 percent. This is unrelated to the current healthcare reform, which is planning an additional 21 percent reduction, effective March 1.''
In fact, none of the cuts are related to the healthcare reforms before Congress. They're Medicare actions required by existing laws in an attempt to moderate doctor pay while not going broke -- a painful issue that reveals how difficult any kind of reform can be when strongly entrenched interests disagree on what should be done.
In this case, the nation's outraged cardiologists filed a federal lawsuit in Miami and have persuaded 50 members of Congress to co-sponsor a bill to rescind the cuts.
Some healthcare experts like the cuts.
``I'm not at all sympathetic with the cardiologists,'' said Robert Berenson, a doctor who was once in charge of Medicare payment policy and now is a fellow with the Urban Institute. ``Studies show they make well over $400,000 a year'' -- more than twice what a family practice physician earns.
In fact, Medicare is reducing pay to cardiologists as part of a rebalancing plan in which primary care doctors will get a 7 percent increase. ``This system is much more fair,'' said Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. ``It's not the savior for primary care, but it's a start.''
Heim finds it ``disingenuous'' that the cardiologists' letter blames reform proposals for their rate cuts.
Most of the cuts involve expensive imaging diagnostics, like $800 nuclear stress tests. Studies show that when physicians have expensive imaging machines in their office, they tend to prescribe far more tests.
That's particularly true in Florida, where a study by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, found that in-office imaging per senior cost $472 in 2006 -- eight times more than in Vermont.
Still, cardiologists say the changes have been devastating. Manuel Abella, a cardiologist in a large group practice in West Kendall, said he and his colleagues have been forced to lay off 15 people, cut salaries 10 percent and eliminate health insurance.
`BASIC TOOLS'
``When a patient comes in and says he has chest pains, you have to have state-of-the-art technology,'' said Romeo Majano, one of the three South Miami cardiologists who sent the letter. ``These are basic tools of our trade, and it's imperative patients have access to them.''
``This technology has greatly improved care,'' said Jack Lowen, president of the American College of Cardiology. ``We've seen a 30 percent reduction in morbidity and mortality in heart disease over the past 10 years.''
``The most affected, of course, will be the patients,'' the South Miami cardiologists warned in their letter, ``as cardiologists will be either forced out of business or forced to drastically increase the number of patients seen, most likely with physician assistants or nurse practitioners to help manage the increased volume.''
The cardiologists say that if Medicare won't pay for, say, a nuclear stress test in a cardiologist's office, the patient will have the test performed at a hospital where it might cost three to five times as much.
Medicare spokeswoman Ellen Griffith said, ``It is difficult to compare payments head-to-head because services may not always be directly comparable.'' Hospitals often get paid more for a service because they must be open around-the-clock and by law must provide coverage for the uninsured in their emergency rooms.
Berenson at the Urban Institute looks at it this way: ``If the hospitals are getting paid too much, the answer is to reduce their payments.'' He doubted the cardiologists' threat of giving up Medicare patients, noting that oncologists made a similar threat several years ago when they saw certain payments taken away and it didn't bear out.
For years, Republicans were leaders in the movement to curtail soaring Medicare costs. Tommy Thompson, secretary of health and human services under President George W. Bush, has frequently given speeches that Medicare costs must be brought under control or aging baby boomers would bankrupt the plan.
But in recent months, as the reform debate intensified, Republican leaders warned that the proposed bills would cut seniors' benefits. A poll this month by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 48 percent of those over 65 are opposed to the reform bills while 37 percent support them.
In fact, for the past 12 years, under the Clinton, Bush II and Obama administrations, Medicare has been ordered to find ways of curtail costs without reducing quality of care. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 required physician payments by Medicare to be adjusted annually so that the program didn't go broke.
Every year since 2003, Congress has listened to doctors' complaints and halted pay cuts. Each postponed cut gets added to the next year's calculation and this year all doctors are facing a 21 percent reduction. Congress postponed the cuts until March 1, when they take effect unless lawmakers take action.
Meanwhile, Medicare made a second set of calculations -- about how to split up the budgetary pie among doctors. Both Republicans and Democrats have agreed for some time that primary care is a key to improved healthcare -- because these doctors can coordinate treatment and reduce unnecessary tests and repetitive care.
A 2009 study by Medpac, a federal group that studies Medicare costs, found that, even adjusted for severity of illness, cardiology patients going to a doctor with imaging equipment in his office were twice as likely to get a test as those seeing doctors with no equipment.
Going further, Medicare surveyed physicians about their costs. Based on those findings, Medicare decided to reduce overall payments to cardiologists by 13 percent over four years -- while payments for their imaging services were cut by 30 or 40 percent.
`ERRONEOUS'
The ACC complained that the survey data for cardiologists was based on 55 interviews -- out of 20,000 in private practice. It called the resulting data ``patently erroneous and unreliable.'' When Medicare refused to budge, the ACC filed a lawsuit on Dec. 28.
The government argued that the courts did not have jurisdiction over a Medicare fee dispute. The judge agreed. The cardiologists have now gone to Congress, where lawmakers have a history of reversing Medicare pay cuts to pacify providers.
Griffith, the Medicare spokeswoman, said the agency is ``confident that the policies we have adopted are the most appropriate and will enhance overall access to physician services for beneficiaries. . . . If we find that there are unintended adverse consequences . . . we will have the opportunity to revisit them as part of the annual rule-making.''
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Should We Stop Healthcare Reform Now?
Should We Stop Healthcare Reform Now?
After the election in Massachusetts many predict the collapse of the health care reform efforts. President Obama seems to seek a scaled back version, which is acceptable for Republicans who are blocking ANY reform efforts. But why do we need health care reform NOW? Lets look at the facts: If nothing will happen healthcare spending will continue to outpace the growth in the rest of the domestic product by at least 2.5% annually. Despite the overall slowdown in national health spending growth in 2008, increases in this spending continue to outpace the growth in the resources needed to pay for it! At that rate health spending will absorb 40% of GDP by 2050! The suggested reform proposal will provide 30 Million uninsured Americans adequate coverage requiring about $800 Billion to $1 Trillion in federal subsidies over the next decade. This represents only 3% of the $35 Trillion projected by actuaries to be spent on U.S. health care in the coming decade in the ABSENCE of reform. The relatively small $ 1 Trillion investment in preventing the surge of neglected chronic disease will save Trillions of healthcare dollars normally spent for the emergency room care needed to serve the growing numbers of uninsured! We need to invest money in order to save money!!!
Furthermore, health care insurance companies know very well that the initial rise in health care stocks, on expectations that the Massachusetts’s vote might derail health care reform, may symbolize a pyrrhic victory only! Even though, the reform package included mandated coverage for everyone, regardless of health status, it also offered to heavily subsidize the health care for 30 million Americans who are currently uninsured. This potential financial windfall may not materialize. Insurance companies are very well aware that selling insurance package to employers has slowed because of rising premiums, which reflect rising health care expenditures. The insurance companies must have an interest to bend the cost curve and to expand insurance coverage to offer competitive products. Insurers may gamble with their financial future by supporting the Naysayer because without an overhaul of the insurance industry and the health care market they may face an even bleaker future, which will force draconian government intervention to cut costs.
Therefore, we must support rational reform efforts and President Obama should stop pandering to the opponents of any meaningful reform efforts. We have to act now to avoid a future financial crisis!
Bernd Wollschlaeger,MD,FAAFP,FASAM
After the election in Massachusetts many predict the collapse of the health care reform efforts. President Obama seems to seek a scaled back version, which is acceptable for Republicans who are blocking ANY reform efforts. But why do we need health care reform NOW? Lets look at the facts: If nothing will happen healthcare spending will continue to outpace the growth in the rest of the domestic product by at least 2.5% annually. Despite the overall slowdown in national health spending growth in 2008, increases in this spending continue to outpace the growth in the resources needed to pay for it! At that rate health spending will absorb 40% of GDP by 2050! The suggested reform proposal will provide 30 Million uninsured Americans adequate coverage requiring about $800 Billion to $1 Trillion in federal subsidies over the next decade. This represents only 3% of the $35 Trillion projected by actuaries to be spent on U.S. health care in the coming decade in the ABSENCE of reform. The relatively small $ 1 Trillion investment in preventing the surge of neglected chronic disease will save Trillions of healthcare dollars normally spent for the emergency room care needed to serve the growing numbers of uninsured! We need to invest money in order to save money!!!
Furthermore, health care insurance companies know very well that the initial rise in health care stocks, on expectations that the Massachusetts’s vote might derail health care reform, may symbolize a pyrrhic victory only! Even though, the reform package included mandated coverage for everyone, regardless of health status, it also offered to heavily subsidize the health care for 30 million Americans who are currently uninsured. This potential financial windfall may not materialize. Insurance companies are very well aware that selling insurance package to employers has slowed because of rising premiums, which reflect rising health care expenditures. The insurance companies must have an interest to bend the cost curve and to expand insurance coverage to offer competitive products. Insurers may gamble with their financial future by supporting the Naysayer because without an overhaul of the insurance industry and the health care market they may face an even bleaker future, which will force draconian government intervention to cut costs.
Therefore, we must support rational reform efforts and President Obama should stop pandering to the opponents of any meaningful reform efforts. We have to act now to avoid a future financial crisis!
Bernd Wollschlaeger,MD,FAAFP,FASAM
Monday, January 18, 2010
What can we learn from Israel's efforts in Haiti?
Attached a video link to a CNN report contrasting Israels disaster response in Haiti with the US response.
In the words of Dr.DiGennaro, a Broward county physician, "it makes you almost embarrassed being an American."
Currently, the Israelis run the only fully functioning hospital in Haiti!
Its another example that we fail to understand that disaster and emergency preparedness is not measured by the amount of $$ we throw at the problem AFTER the fact but to continuously prepare and train teams of professionals in emergency and disaster response measures.This does not require a lot of money but dedicated leadership and commitment!
In 2006 I have witnessed the training of the Israeli team on a military base and participated in multiple training sessions myself. I can attest to the fact that they have mastered the art of perfection; each step is documented in a manual and everyone knows how to work in a team and per checklist.
Why we can't do it here? Because we are talking the talk instead of walking the walk. In October 2001 I was appointed by then Governor Bush to the Emergency and Disaster Preparedness Taskforce and urged on multiple occasions to follow the Israeli model. Nothing happened. Yes, we have special teams but too few and far apart. We need local teams that train on a quarterly basis and manage their own equipment and supplies. Do we need to learn another painful lesson from the next natural disaster or do we have to memorize the phone # of the Israeli team instead?
Kudos to their bravery and tireless efforts.
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2010/01/18/dnt.cohen.haiti.patients.dying.cnn
Bernd
In the words of Dr.DiGennaro, a Broward county physician, "it makes you almost embarrassed being an American."
Currently, the Israelis run the only fully functioning hospital in Haiti!
Its another example that we fail to understand that disaster and emergency preparedness is not measured by the amount of $$ we throw at the problem AFTER the fact but to continuously prepare and train teams of professionals in emergency and disaster response measures.This does not require a lot of money but dedicated leadership and commitment!
In 2006 I have witnessed the training of the Israeli team on a military base and participated in multiple training sessions myself. I can attest to the fact that they have mastered the art of perfection; each step is documented in a manual and everyone knows how to work in a team and per checklist.
Why we can't do it here? Because we are talking the talk instead of walking the walk. In October 2001 I was appointed by then Governor Bush to the Emergency and Disaster Preparedness Taskforce and urged on multiple occasions to follow the Israeli model. Nothing happened. Yes, we have special teams but too few and far apart. We need local teams that train on a quarterly basis and manage their own equipment and supplies. Do we need to learn another painful lesson from the next natural disaster or do we have to memorize the phone # of the Israeli team instead?
Kudos to their bravery and tireless efforts.
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2010/01/18/dnt.cohen.haiti.patients.dying.cnn
Bernd
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Florida Doctors Lead The Fight Against Change
Dear Friends and Colleagues:
An article in today's (12/29/2009) New York Times, "Health Lobby Takes Fight to the States," reports that Florida is debating a proposed amendment to its state constitution that would try to block, at least symbolically, much of the proposed federal health care overhaul on the grounds that it tramples individual liberty. Its 42 co-sponsors, all Republicans, were almost all recipients of outsized campaign contributions from major health care interests, a total of about $765,000 in 2008. Last year, for example, the drug industry poured more than $20 million into political contributions in states around the country. In California alone, the industry spent an additional $80 million on advertising to beat back a California ballot measure intended to push down drug prices. The idea of amending state constitutions to block the core of the federal health care legislation, including the requirement that individuals and businesses buy insurance, began at the conservative Goldwater Institute in Arizona, the state where the first such measure will appear on the ballot next year. The states where the amendment has been introduced are also places where the health care industry has spent heavily on political contributions in recent years, according to figures from the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Over the last six years, health care interests have spent $394 million on contributions in states around the country; about $73 million of that went to those 14 states. Of that, health insurance companies spent $18.2 million, according to the institute. In Florida, where health interests have given a total of about $32 million over the last six years, the state medical association has become an especially important backer of the proposed amendment. In contrast to the American Medical Association, the Florida Medical Association has come out firmly against the current Congressional proposals, and a spokeswoman said the Florida group had embraced the proposed state amendment “to protect Florida from being forced into a federal government mandate that would hurt patients.” Dr. Madelyn E. Butler, president elect of the Florida Medical Association, said, “We are trying to ameliorate the effects of national health care reform on the State of Florida.” James Greer, chairman of the Florida Republican Party, said he too supported the proposal, which could be on the ballot in 2010 or more likely in 2012. Whatever its legal weight, Mr. Greer said, its mere presence on the ballot would give it political force. Its time that doctors stand up against those powerful interest groups. In some areas in Miami (Hialeah) the Uninsured rate has surpassed 50%. Many of my patients will be forced to drop health insurance coverage in 2010 because they cannot afford the high premiums. One of my family members was told that her back pain constitutes a pre-existing condition and her employer informed her that his small group insurance premiums will increase if he decides to continue providing coverage for her. As physicians we have the moral obligation to protect our patients interests and to stand up against the powerful and mighty insurance industry. Enough is enough!
Have a Happy New Year.
Yours Bernd
An article in today's (12/29/2009) New York Times, "Health Lobby Takes Fight to the States," reports that Florida is debating a proposed amendment to its state constitution that would try to block, at least symbolically, much of the proposed federal health care overhaul on the grounds that it tramples individual liberty. Its 42 co-sponsors, all Republicans, were almost all recipients of outsized campaign contributions from major health care interests, a total of about $765,000 in 2008. Last year, for example, the drug industry poured more than $20 million into political contributions in states around the country. In California alone, the industry spent an additional $80 million on advertising to beat back a California ballot measure intended to push down drug prices. The idea of amending state constitutions to block the core of the federal health care legislation, including the requirement that individuals and businesses buy insurance, began at the conservative Goldwater Institute in Arizona, the state where the first such measure will appear on the ballot next year. The states where the amendment has been introduced are also places where the health care industry has spent heavily on political contributions in recent years, according to figures from the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Over the last six years, health care interests have spent $394 million on contributions in states around the country; about $73 million of that went to those 14 states. Of that, health insurance companies spent $18.2 million, according to the institute. In Florida, where health interests have given a total of about $32 million over the last six years, the state medical association has become an especially important backer of the proposed amendment. In contrast to the American Medical Association, the Florida Medical Association has come out firmly against the current Congressional proposals, and a spokeswoman said the Florida group had embraced the proposed state amendment “to protect Florida from being forced into a federal government mandate that would hurt patients.” Dr. Madelyn E. Butler, president elect of the Florida Medical Association, said, “We are trying to ameliorate the effects of national health care reform on the State of Florida.” James Greer, chairman of the Florida Republican Party, said he too supported the proposal, which could be on the ballot in 2010 or more likely in 2012. Whatever its legal weight, Mr. Greer said, its mere presence on the ballot would give it political force. Its time that doctors stand up against those powerful interest groups. In some areas in Miami (Hialeah) the Uninsured rate has surpassed 50%. Many of my patients will be forced to drop health insurance coverage in 2010 because they cannot afford the high premiums. One of my family members was told that her back pain constitutes a pre-existing condition and her employer informed her that his small group insurance premiums will increase if he decides to continue providing coverage for her. As physicians we have the moral obligation to protect our patients interests and to stand up against the powerful and mighty insurance industry. Enough is enough!
Have a Happy New Year.
Yours Bernd
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Doctors in the News
Well, I guess we can add another "present" under the Christmas tree.
Attached more information about the Zachariah saga which keeps getting juicier and more embarrassing.
Why does greed and lust for power seem to affect doctors more than others?
Because we do not speak up and thereby nurture those behaviors.
Its time to change our approaches and question the format and structure of our organizations.
Merry Christmas
Bernd
Print This Article
Posted on Thu, Dec. 24, 2009
2 Broward doctors settle insider trading case
BY DAN CHRISTENSEN
browardbulldog.org
The former chairman of the Florida Board of Medicine and another Fort Lauderdale physician have agreed to pay substantial sums to settle federal civil charges of insider stock trading.
Dr. Mammen P. Zachariah, appointed to the board of medicine by Gov. Jeb Bush in 2004, and Dr. Sheldon Nassberg allegedly reaped illegal windfalls by acting on stock tips supplied by Mammen Zachariah's brother, prominent Broward heart specialist and major Republican fundraiser Dr. Zachariah P. Zachariah.
Zach Zachariah, who has raised millions of dollars for Republican causes and candidates, including both presidents Bush, faces similar charges, but has declined to settle his case. A federal magistrate has set trial for Aug. 23, 2010.
That trial promises to offer a unique look at Republican fundraising and how political access is bought and sold. Among the expected highlights is witness testimony from two of South Florida's better-known corporate chieftains -- The Geo Group's George Zoley and Phil Frost, formerly of IVAX.
The Zachariah brothers and Nassberg, all of whom practice at Fort Lauderdale's Holy Cross Hospital, were named in a May 2008 civil complaint brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint accuses them of collecting more than a half-million dollars in illegal profits during a fraudulent stock-trading scheme in 2005.
Without admitting or denying the government's allegations, Mammen Zachariah, 61, agreed to pay nearly $136,000 in what a judge labeled ``ill-gotten gains,'' plus an equal amount as a civil penalty. Nassberg, an endocrinologist, agreed to similar payments totaling $52,668. He admitted no wrongdoing. Both men are required to pay up by the end of the month.
The final judgments signed by U.S. Magistrate Linnea Johnson on Wednesday also include permanent injunctions that restrain both doctors from future securities law violations.
Zach Zachariah, another past chairman of the Florida Board of Medicine, is alleged to have used nonpublic information to buy and sell shares of two unrelated Florida companies, Miami-based generic drug maker IVAX and Sarasota's Correctional Services Corp. (CSC).
Zachariah was on IVAX's board of directors in July 2005 when company chairman Phil Frost informed him that IVAX had agreed to be acquired by Teva Pharmaceuticals for $26 a share. Within minutes, Zachariah bought 35,000 IVAX shares for about $21 a share, the SEC said. At the time of the alleged purchase, company insiders were forbidden from trading in IVAX stock.
Zachariah also allegedly tipped off his brother, who bought 2,000 IVAX shares for about $23 a share on the last trading day before the deal was announced in July 25. Zachariah allegedly used inside information to make even more money trading shares of CSC, which was acquired by The GEO Group of Boca Raton in 2005. According to the SEC, the Zachariah brothers and Nassberg turned $380,000 in quick profits.
The government says Zachariah acquired that inside knowledge in a couple of ways. One was through his son Zachariah ``Reggie'' Zachariah, who worked in GEO's mergers and acquisitions department. Reggie Zachariah has denied under oath tipping off his father to the deal. Another was through Zachariah's own moonlighting work for GEO. The SEC says Zachariah made ``millions of dollars'' as a corporate consultant, service provider and lobbyist for GEO, a giant prison contractor once known as Wackenhut Corrections.
Zachariah, who owns a $2.3 million home on the Intracoastal Waterway in secluded Sea Ranch Lakes, said under oath last winter that he was paid to provide access for GEO chief executive George Zoley to top federal and state Republican politicians.
Those politicians include former President George W. Bush, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, former Florida Senate President Tom Lee and House Speaker Alan Bense and former attorney general Charlie Crist, now Florida's governor.
Dan Christensen, a former Miami Herald reporter and columnist for The Daily Business Review, is founding editor of BrowardBulldog.org, a nonprofit online-only newspaper.
Attached more information about the Zachariah saga which keeps getting juicier and more embarrassing.
Why does greed and lust for power seem to affect doctors more than others?
Because we do not speak up and thereby nurture those behaviors.
Its time to change our approaches and question the format and structure of our organizations.
Merry Christmas
Bernd
Print This Article
Posted on Thu, Dec. 24, 2009
2 Broward doctors settle insider trading case
BY DAN CHRISTENSEN
browardbulldog.org
The former chairman of the Florida Board of Medicine and another Fort Lauderdale physician have agreed to pay substantial sums to settle federal civil charges of insider stock trading.
Dr. Mammen P. Zachariah, appointed to the board of medicine by Gov. Jeb Bush in 2004, and Dr. Sheldon Nassberg allegedly reaped illegal windfalls by acting on stock tips supplied by Mammen Zachariah's brother, prominent Broward heart specialist and major Republican fundraiser Dr. Zachariah P. Zachariah.
Zach Zachariah, who has raised millions of dollars for Republican causes and candidates, including both presidents Bush, faces similar charges, but has declined to settle his case. A federal magistrate has set trial for Aug. 23, 2010.
That trial promises to offer a unique look at Republican fundraising and how political access is bought and sold. Among the expected highlights is witness testimony from two of South Florida's better-known corporate chieftains -- The Geo Group's George Zoley and Phil Frost, formerly of IVAX.
The Zachariah brothers and Nassberg, all of whom practice at Fort Lauderdale's Holy Cross Hospital, were named in a May 2008 civil complaint brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint accuses them of collecting more than a half-million dollars in illegal profits during a fraudulent stock-trading scheme in 2005.
Without admitting or denying the government's allegations, Mammen Zachariah, 61, agreed to pay nearly $136,000 in what a judge labeled ``ill-gotten gains,'' plus an equal amount as a civil penalty. Nassberg, an endocrinologist, agreed to similar payments totaling $52,668. He admitted no wrongdoing. Both men are required to pay up by the end of the month.
The final judgments signed by U.S. Magistrate Linnea Johnson on Wednesday also include permanent injunctions that restrain both doctors from future securities law violations.
Zach Zachariah, another past chairman of the Florida Board of Medicine, is alleged to have used nonpublic information to buy and sell shares of two unrelated Florida companies, Miami-based generic drug maker IVAX and Sarasota's Correctional Services Corp. (CSC).
Zachariah was on IVAX's board of directors in July 2005 when company chairman Phil Frost informed him that IVAX had agreed to be acquired by Teva Pharmaceuticals for $26 a share. Within minutes, Zachariah bought 35,000 IVAX shares for about $21 a share, the SEC said. At the time of the alleged purchase, company insiders were forbidden from trading in IVAX stock.
Zachariah also allegedly tipped off his brother, who bought 2,000 IVAX shares for about $23 a share on the last trading day before the deal was announced in July 25. Zachariah allegedly used inside information to make even more money trading shares of CSC, which was acquired by The GEO Group of Boca Raton in 2005. According to the SEC, the Zachariah brothers and Nassberg turned $380,000 in quick profits.
The government says Zachariah acquired that inside knowledge in a couple of ways. One was through his son Zachariah ``Reggie'' Zachariah, who worked in GEO's mergers and acquisitions department. Reggie Zachariah has denied under oath tipping off his father to the deal. Another was through Zachariah's own moonlighting work for GEO. The SEC says Zachariah made ``millions of dollars'' as a corporate consultant, service provider and lobbyist for GEO, a giant prison contractor once known as Wackenhut Corrections.
Zachariah, who owns a $2.3 million home on the Intracoastal Waterway in secluded Sea Ranch Lakes, said under oath last winter that he was paid to provide access for GEO chief executive George Zoley to top federal and state Republican politicians.
Those politicians include former President George W. Bush, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, former Florida Senate President Tom Lee and House Speaker Alan Bense and former attorney general Charlie Crist, now Florida's governor.
Dan Christensen, a former Miami Herald reporter and columnist for The Daily Business Review, is founding editor of BrowardBulldog.org, a nonprofit online-only newspaper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)