Announcement

Collapse

Facebook Forum Migration

Our forums have migrated to Facebook. If you are already an iMSN forum member you will be grandfathered in.

To access the Call Room and Marriage Matters, head to: https://m.facebook.com/groups/400932...eferrer=search

You can find the health and fitness forums here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/133538...eferrer=search

Private parenting discussions are here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/382903...eferrer=search

We look forward to seeing you on Facebook!
See more
See less

Physician quality ratings

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Physician quality ratings

    I wonder how this topic has stayed out of the media or why it isn't being discussed more by physicians and ... well ... us.

    Last night I was at a book club meeting where one of the physician members admitted that they were now giving their patients 1 year to "lose weight, quit smoking or get their diabetes under control" or they "wouldn't be able to see them anymore". Insurance companies new quality measures rate physicians by the patient outcomes and apparently, these 3 (and I think blood pressure) are top issues. Physicians, of course, have not real control over what their patients eat, whether they quit smoking or exercise and can do no more than guide patients. They will, however, be dinged financially for their patients' lack of compliance...several thousand dollars.

    I was horrified by this and talked to dh ... who ... gulp ... confessed that he no longer takes HIV patients who are actively abusing drugs. He refers them to the cities. He said he doesn't want patients who are non-compliant, develop multi-drug resistance, and take large quantities of time that are likely not re-imbursed. He will take any patient actively in a drug rehab program of some kind, but if they "come to his office high", that's it ... and he tells them from the start. They are referred out for HIV care and they are always welcome back if they get their drug problem under control. Active drug abuse correlates with very poor drug compliance and increased issues. I was pretty upset with him at first, but I started to understand his point-of-view because I know how busy he is, that he goes above and beyond for his patients (coming in at night or on weekends even when he isn't on call or might not be reimbursed) and I, too, wonder where he would pull the extra time to handle patients who are active drug abusers .... He also feels that this ratings system is coming for specialists too.

    So ... what happens to those of us who are imperfect? I'm overweight ... it isn't my doctor's fault. Actually, my doctor is overweight too. LOL. I guess he and I will both be trucking out to the a public clinic somewhere for healthcare?

    What do you guys think about this? Who will see imperfect patients? Why aren't doctors making a big public issue about this?

    Kris
    ~Mom of 5, married to an ID doc
    ~A Rolling Stone Gathers No Moss

  • #2
    This is a huge provision in the PPACA that is flying low on the radar, but has huge possible fallout for physicians. When I start my "series" on the PPACA provisions, this was one I had in mind (sorry, it's been delayed due to residency apps and such!) Here are some of the applicable resources on this provision:

    http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/index.html

    #1: Linking Payment to Quality Outcomes (2012)
    #2: Paying Physicians based on Value, not Volume (2015)
    Last edited by scrub-jay; 09-10-2012, 10:29 AM.
    Wife to PGY4 & Mother of 3.

    Comment


    • #3
      DH can't stand docs who are insurance "gatekeepers." It's the reason we switched to concierge medicine for our family healthcare.
      Married to a peds surgeon attending

      Comment


      • #4
        Wow. This is f'd up
        Wife to Hand Surgeon just out of training, mom to two lovely kittys and little boy, O, born in Sept 08.

        Comment


        • #5
          It is messed up, but I don't blame the doctors at all. (And I'm overweight, so I'd be impacted.) They're cutting doctors' pay left and right, and we can't expect them to run their businesses without trying to be profitable. It's better to have doctors who can see some patients than have a bunch of bankrupt doctors who can see none.
          Laurie
          My team: DH (anesthesiologist), DS (9), DD (8)

          Comment


          • #6
            This isn't an entirely bad system, just not the way it is expected to be implemented. Many of the European countries do similar systems to reward quality improvements, but most of the ones I've read about are more bonus-structure, not pay-restriction.
            Wife to PGY4 & Mother of 3.

            Comment


            • #7
              This is what happens when we pass a 2,000 page piece of legislation that only legislators claim to understand. The ACA is so complex that portions are only being discussed as people are coming to realize the actual effect they will have on an individual's right to care. So many parts of the ACA have no help of improving access to care or to improving health. We're going to have more and more patients without medical homes, when the goal we set out to achieve was exactly the opposite.
              -Deb
              Wife to EP, just trying to keep up with my FOUR busy kids!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Deebs View Post
                This is what happens when we pass a 2,000 page piece of legislation that only legislators claim to understand. The ACA is so complex that portions are only being discussed as people are coming to realize the actual effect they will have on an individual's right to care. So many parts of the ACA have no help of improving access to care or to improving health. We're going to have more and more patients without medical homes, when the goal we set out to achieve was exactly the opposite.
                Part of the document was to publish a consumer website that explains the provisions in non-legalese, but very few people have browsed the website. I suggest the timeline as a good start. Although there is more information for provisions that have already been implemented, it is definitely a good start to understanding the law because it is a hodge-podge of random provisions. http://www.healthcare.gov/
                Wife to PGY4 & Mother of 3.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I know the website well and appreciate the resource. My point is simply that I don't think any piece of legislation should be 2000 pages. Did every legislator read that? Understand it? Did their constituents? It frustrates me. If I ran the world, we would have worked to pass one piece or portion at a time and chunked it into several pieces of legislation (I also understand the political realities of why that wasn't done, but a girl can dream). I have a friend who works for a temple in Saint Louis. Her job is to promote the ACA in her community. She is working for a religious organization, being provided federal funds, for the purposes of "selling" legislation. It's just messed up IMO.

                  When I was getting my MPH, the HIPAA was the big piece of legislation adapted. My favorite part of that is the confidentiality forms we all have to sign for every provider we see falls under the Paperwork Reduction section. Things that make you go hmmmm...
                  -Deb
                  Wife to EP, just trying to keep up with my FOUR busy kids!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Deebs View Post
                    When I was getting my MPH, the HIPAA was the big piece of legislation adapted. My favorite part of that is the confidentiality forms we all have to sign for every provider we see falls under the Paperwork Reduction section. Things that make you go hmmmm...
                    Nice...
                    Kris

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Deebs View Post
                      I know the website well and appreciate the resource. My point is simply that I don't think any piece of legislation should be 2000 pages. Did every legislator read that? Understand it? Did their constituents? It frustrates me. If I ran the world, we would have worked to pass one piece or portion at a time and chunked it into several pieces of legislation (I also understand the political realities of why that wasn't done, but a girl can dream). I have a friend who works for a temple in Saint Louis. Her job is to promote the ACA in her community. She is working for a religious organization, being provided federal funds, for the purposes of "selling" legislation. It's just messed up IMO.

                      When I was getting my MPH, the HIPAA was the big piece of legislation adapted. My favorite part of that is the confidentiality forms we all have to sign for every provider we see falls under the Paperwork Reduction section. Things that make you go hmmmm...
                      You are absolutely correct, the PPACA is literally a hodge-podge of provisions, some that relate to other provisions and some that are completely unrelated. When someone asks me whether I support the law or not, my answer is always "yes and no" because there are so many elements to consider.
                      Wife to PGY4 & Mother of 3.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Ha. NSGs would be outta business if their patients did not smoke, were not overweight, did not have high blood pressure, did not drink to excess (talk about a life habit that results in head injuries!) and did not do coke. These things keep them in their bread and butter.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I was thinking today about all of the poor life-style choices that are the bread and butter of orthos too.
                          Kris

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            But here is the question - when this is implemented, by what standards will each specialty be judged? Maybe surgeons' quality will be linked to surgical outcomes whereas primary care providers will be linked to "preventable" lifestyle-related conditions? Also - how will this impact where a physician practices? If you are looking for quality improvement, how does this change where a physician will practice (healthy areas or unhealthy areas)?? I don't think all of the standards have been published (or decided) for each specialty type, I'll keep looking however.
                            Wife to PGY4 & Mother of 3.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              There is already something that is falling into place that will/does effect surgical specialties/pay. I'm fuzzy on the exact stuff, so someone with more knowledge can correct me. What I understand is that medicare? now offers or will offer a one time fee for a particular surgical procedure. This must be divided up between surgeon and anesthesiologist. If all goes swimmingly, awesome. If not? Any additional money comes out of the pockets of the surgeons. So low risk patients are better, obviously ... but if your low risk patient has a complication (infection, etc) you pay for the subsequent treatment out of your money until it's all used up.

                              Whether that will eventually become the way private insurers do things remains to be seen ... my guess is yes.

                              It looks like the only people who will be able to get decent healthcare someday are the CEOs of healthcare companies and politicans (who I hope our spouses will put on a waitlist )

                              Kris
                              ~Mom of 5, married to an ID doc
                              ~A Rolling Stone Gathers No Moss

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X