Doctor and Nurse Replacement

Medscape recently commented on the case of Natasha Valle from Clarksville, Tennessee (1). Pregnant and scared she went to the local Tennova Healthcare hospital because she was bleeding. She didn't know much about miscarriage, but this seemed like one. In the emergency room, she was examined then sent home. She went back when her cramping became excruciating. Then home again. It ultimately took three trips to the ER on three consecutive days, generating three separate bills, before she saw a doctor who looked at her bloodwork and confirmed her fears. The hospital declined to discuss Valle's care, but 17 months before her three-day ordeal, Tennova had outsourced its emergency rooms to American Physician Partners, a medical staffing company owned by private equity investors. APP employs fewer doctors in its ERs as one of its cost-saving initiatives to increase earnings, according to a confidential company document obtained by Kaiser Health News and National Public Radio (2).

This staffing strategy has permeated hospitals, particularly emergency rooms and intensive care units, that seek to reduce their top expense-physician labor. While diagnosing and treating patients was once their domain, doctors are increasingly being replaced by nurse practitioners and physician assistants, collectively known as midlevel practitioners, who can perform many of the same duties and generate much of the same revenue for less than half of the pay.

However, a working paper, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, analyzed roughly 1.1 million visits to 44 ERs throughout the Veterans Health Administration, where nurse practitioners can treat patients without oversight from doctors (3). Researchers found that treatment by a nurse practitioner resulted on average in a 7% increase in cost of care and an 11% increase in length of stay, extending patients' time in the ER by minutes for minor visits and hours for longer ones. These gaps widened among patients with more severe diagnoses, the study said, but could be somewhat mitigated by nurse practitioners with more experience.

From the hospitals’ perspective, the extra cost, length of stay and increased admissions could add to the bottom line as long as the patient or third-party payer pays the extra costs. However, in many cases the patient is unable to pay and insurers have been looking for cost-cutting in other areas. If third party payers were to refuse to pay for the extra costs or increased litigation resulted from the hospital’s staffing decisions, it seems likely these practices would quickly end.

In the intensive care unit (ICU) corporations and government agencies are replacing physicians with nurse practitioners (NPs) or physician assistants (PAs) sometimes collectively referred to as physician extenders (4). While these entities argue that they have been forced to hire physician extenders due to a supposed physician shortage, the truth is that physicians are being systematically fired and replaced by lesser qualified clinicians on the basis of profit. Although advocates claim that studies show that physician extenders can provide comparable care to physicians, they fail to acknowledge that this research has always been done with supervised NPs. The truth is that there are no studies that show nurse practitioner provide similar safety and efficacy when practicing independently (4). Furthermore, most of the studies that purport to show NP safety have been of retrospective, nonrandomized, and followed patients over very short time frames. These studies were not appropriately designed to show whether NPs, especially practicing independently, can safely and effectively care for critically ill patients. Newer studies have revealed concerning gaps in the quality of care of some nurse practitioners, including increased unnecessary referrals to specialists (5) and increased diagnostic imaging (6).

Strained by the demand for more graduates, training programs for NPs are accepting less qualified applicants and no longer requiring nursing experience to become a nurse practitioner (7). Despite legislation allowing unsupervised nurse practitioners the right to provide medical care to patients, case law has repeatedly demonstrated that NPs are not held to the same legal standard as physicians in malpractice cases (4). Moreover, organizations are not being held responsible when they hire nurse practitioners to work outside of their scope of training (4).

Another concern is the effect of NPs and PAs in the ICU on resident and fellow education. With hours restrictions imposed for trainees the need for meaningful training experiences has never been greater. Studies utilizing NPs have examined patient outcomes which appear comparable to residents and fellows (8). The effect on resident and fellow education remains unknown although the trainees are often satisfied with less work but there may be future costs due to less well-trained physicians (9).

We have already commented on substituting nursing assistants for nurses (10). Not surprisingly, replacing registered nurses with less qualified nursing assistants or licensed practical nurses leads to a lower quality of care with increased mortality (11,12).

The bottom line is that when money is the bottom line, substituting physician extenders for physicians or nursing assistants for nurses makes a great deal of sense in the ER or ICU as long as third-party payers are willing to pay any potentially increased costs and there is a low concern over quality of care and patient outcomes. It is becoming increasingly hard to see a doctor anymore. The effect on resident and fellow education remains unknown although the trainees are satisfied with less work.

One wonders why regulatory organizations such as the Joint Commission, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, ACGME, etc. have taken no action. Regulators need to address policies that place patients at risk. Physicians should support NPs and PAs as well as nurses when appropriate. However, the use of these physician extenders or nursing assistants to replace physicians or nurses may have untoward consequences. The administrative personnel who perceive financial benefits by eroding physician direction and autonomy need to be held accountable for their actions.

Richard A. Robbins MD

Editor, SWJPCCS

References

1. Kelman B, Farmer B. Doctors Are Disappearing From Emergency Rooms as Hospitals Look to Cut Costs. February 13, 2023. Available at: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/988196?src=WNL_trdalrt_pos1_230214&uac=9273DT&impID=5165828 (accessed 4/5/23).
2. Lender Presentation-Public Side. American Physician Partners. November 2021. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23605675-american-physician-partners-redact (accessed 4/5/23).
3. Chan DC Jr, Chen Y. The Productivity of Professions: Evidence from the Emergency Department. National Bureau of Economic Research. October 2022. [CrossRef]
4. Bernard R. The effects of nurse practitioners replacing physicians. Physicians Practice. Jan 30, 2020. Available at: https://www.physicianspractice.com/view/effects-nurse-practitioners-replacing-physicians (accessed 4/5/23).
5. Lohr RH, West CP, Beliveau M, Daniels PR, et al. Comparison of the quality of patient referrals from physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners. Mayo Clin Proc. 2013 Nov;88(11):1266-71. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Hughes DR, Jiang M, Duszak R Jr. A comparison of diagnostic imaging ordering patterns between advanced practice clinicians and primary care physicians following office-based evaluation and management visits. JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Jan;175(1):101-7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. NurseJournal Staff. Nurse Practitioner Career Overview. NurseJournal. March 3, 2023. Available at: https://nursejournal.org/nurse-practitioner/ (accessed 4/5/23).
8. Landsperger JS, Semler MW, Wang L, Byrne DW, Wheeler AP. Outcomes of Nurse Practitioner-Delivered Critical Care: A Prospective Cohort Study. Chest. 2016 May;149(5):1146-54. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Kahn SA, Davis SA, Banes CT, Dennis BM, May AK, Gunter OD. Impact of advanced practice providers (nurse practitioners and physician assistants) on surgical residents' critical care experience. J Surg Res. 2015 Nov;199(1):7-12. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Robbins RA. Substitution of assistants for nurses increases mortality, decreases quality. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2016;13(5):252. [CrossRef]
11. Aiken LH, Sloane D, Griffiths P, et al. Nursing skill mix in European hospitals: cross-sectional study of the association with mortality, patient ratings, and quality of care. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Jul;26(7):559-568. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Kane RL, Shamliyan T, Mueller C, Duval S, Wilt TJ. Nurse staffing and quality of patient care. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2007 Mar;(151):1-115. [PubMed]

Cite as: Robbins RA. Doctor and Nurse Replacement. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care Sleep. 2023;26(4):72-75. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpccs019-23 PDF

Time for a Change in Hospital Governance

The SWJPCCS has been following the case of nine oncologists who filed a lawsuit against the Anne Arundel Medical Center (AAMC), in Annapolis, Maryland, last year (1). The oncologists claimed that the hospital chose profit over the needs of cancer patients, as it slashed oncology care services to cut costs, and both fired and denied them hospital privileges when they complained. At that time, the oncologists were not free to respond because of the ongoing litigation, but now that the lawsuit is over and the dust has settled, they are free to speak, and they contacted Medscape Medical News to tell their side of the story (2).

AAMC is a private, not-for-profit corporation that operates a large acute care hospital in Annapolis, Maryland. It is affiliated with Luminis Health, the parent company of the medical center. Until October 23, 2020, the nine oncologists were employed by the Anne Arundel Physician Group. The oncologists had privileges at AAMC for many years and their “capability as physicians is unquestioned,” according to the court filing made on behalf of the oncologists." AAMC created “a very toxic and difficult interpersonal work environment, and that made it difficult to do patient care," said Carol Tweed MD, who served as the unofficial spokesman for the group. "We would go to them and let them know that we were having difficulty delivering optimal patient care because we didn't have enough staff or the resources we needed for safety — and it got to the point where we were being ignored and our input was no longer welcome." There was a continuing cascade of events, and the oncology group mulled over some ideas as to how to provide optimal patient care. The decision they reached was to discuss running their own practice. Within a week of sending their proposal for setting up their own practice, all nine physicians were fired. “Instead of arranging a discussion, we received termination letters,” "We were terminated without cause.”

The oncologists’ case illustrates several problems with hospital ownership of physician practices. First, the oncologists had signed a contract with a noncompete clause. “The only thing we wanted was to be able to practice in this town,” said Tweed. “And what is important to know is that it was never for money, and that was never our motivation for wanting to form our own practice.” The second problem is that AAMC removed the oncologist’s hospital privileges. Removal of hospital privileges carries a special stigma making it difficult to apply for hospital privileges at other hospitals.

It disturbs me that physicians or physician executives would want to practice and patients would want care from a system where quality of care was alleged to be an issue. That aside, it is clear that the hospital used its position as the credentialing agent to limit competition and solicit patients. "This isn't ethical, but they tried to do everything to keep us from seeing our patients," Tweed said. This is patient choice, but they were telling patients they could not choose us as your doctors.

Below are several solutions which could potentially improve the credentialing process and allow the oncologists and other physicians to practice high quality medicine.

1. Physician candidates should have their contract negotiated by a lawyer or agent experienced in the appropriate areas of labor law. Candidates should not sign a contract with a noncompete clause. Even though such a clause is unlikely to hold up in court, the process of fighting a large healthcare organization is expensive and medical centers have deeper pockets. The hospital administration is not necessarily a physician ally. Even if the administration is easy to work with at present, hospital administrations change and the next administration might be more concerned with profit than quality of care.
2. Credentialing should be a function of an independent medical staff overseen by an elected chief of staff. Mitchell Schwartz, MD was chief medical officer at AAMC until January 2020 and succeeded by Stephen Selinger MD in May 2021. It is unclear what role Dr. Swartz or Selinger played in this dispute. Physician candidates should be wary if the chief of staff seems to represent the hospital administration to the physicians rather than the hospital staff to the administration. Potential physician candidates should request meetings with the chief of staff to assess for themselves their sincerity in working with the medical staff.
3. An independent hospital staff could vote to require administrators to be credentialed. An administrator’s credentials could be removed by a majority physician vote if there is extensive evidence that business decisions jeopardize patient safety. It seems likely that administrators would be less likely to use credentialing as a weapon when credentialing is counterbalanced in this fashion.
4. Physicians witnessing suboptimal patient care in the face of a nonresponsive hospital administration, could use their power as physicians to advise their patients to seek care elsewhere. I personally have seen such a nuclear option lead to hospital closure if sufficient physicians believe the hospital care is inadequate.
5. Healthcare credentialing agencies could become more responsive to physician complaints. This could avoid confusing evaluations such as the Phoenix VA being named to the Joint Commission of Healthcare Organization’s "Top Performer" honor in 2011 but 3 years later being accused of suboptimal care (4).  JCAHO inspections usually are conducted by a retired hospital administrator, physician and nurse. They usually review policies and procedures but rarely meet with physicians, nurses, technicians or clerks directly involved in patient care.
6. State Board of Medical Examiners should concern themselves with quality of care rather than disruptive physicians. In some cases, disruptive physicians advocating for better care are likely justified (4).
7. Insurers, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, could remove the incentive for hospitals to own practices by limiting payments to centers with hospital-employed physicians. These centers have charges that average about 5.8 percent higher than those that do not employ their physicians (5).

These are just a few ideas many of which will be difficult to establish. Regardless, it is time to discard the notion that physicians are just waiting to collude and fix prices but to recognize that hospital administrators have self-granted themselves too much power leading to increased charges and poorer patient care. The time for change in hospital governance is now!

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Editor, SWJPCCS

References

1. Nelson R. Nine Oncologists Sue Medical Center Over Termination. Medscape Medical News. March 23, 2021. Available at: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/947976 (accessed 3/14/21).
2. Nelson R. Free Now to Speak, Nine Oncologists Spill the Beans Over Firing. March 11, 2022. Available at: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/970124?sso=true&impID=4083165&uac=9273DT&src=wnl_tp10n_220312_mscpmrk_eom#vp_1 (accessed 3/14/22).
3. 22 Ill.194 Ariz. 363, 982 P.2d 1277, 15 IER Cases 419 (1999)
4. Robbins RA. The disruptive administrator: tread with care. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2016:13(2):71-9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc049-16
5. Ho V, Metcalfe L, Vu L, Short M, Morrow R. Annual Spending per Patient and Quality in Hospital-Owned Versus Physician-Owned Organizations: an Observational Study. J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Mar;35(3):649-655. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Cite as: Robbins RA. Time for a Change in Hospital Governance. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care Sleep 2022;24(3):43-5. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc013-22 PDF 

Why Complexity Persists in Medicine

This month’s Medical Image of the Month is a cartoon illustrating the complexity of medical billing (1). It illustrates that there are many people involved in the billing process who add nothing medically. However, they do add work, chaos and cost to both the provider and the patient. These along with other administrative costs are likely responsible for the largest portion of increasing healthcare expenses (2). Healthcare costs have far outpaced inflation and inflation adjusted reimbursement to providers has decreased (3,4). Costs of healthcare have become an increasing issue in political campaigns for both National parties. So why is no one doing anything about the issue? The truth is that some are benefitting from the complexity and have a financial incentive to maintain the status quo by opposing change.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and state Medicaids need to accept some of the responsibility for these cost increases. There has been a public sentiment doctors are overpaid, so actions taken by CMS and other government agencies have made physicians an easy target for policies that have led to instability in compensation. The declining income of private practice has led many physicians to flee to employed models (4). Not only has CMS contributed to driving physicians from self-employment by underpaying independent physicians but they have over compensated physician employed by hospitals. CMS estimates that it is now paying about $75 to $85 more on average for the same clinic visit in hospital outpatient settings compared to physician offices (5). Not surprisingly, these and other compensation disproportions have led to higher healthcare spending (6).

So, why does CMS rob the independent physicians to pay the hospitals and large healthcare organizations? An answer might be found in the recent actions regarding site-neutral payments. Many hospitals have bought physician and walk-in clinics to take advantage of the increased compensation from CMS and other insurance carriers. When the Trump administration proposed a “site-neutral” policy where payment would be lowered to hospitals and other healthcare organizations employing physicians, the American Hospital Association (AHA) and Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) sued (7). Government agencies are reluctant to challenge hospital, insurance or pharmaceutical companies and their lobbyists who are powerful and well-funded. This gives the appearance that it is much easier to be tough on independent physicians who are poorly organized, politically weak and not likely to sue.

Political tactics have been taken by the pharmaceutical companies who persuaded Congress not to allow US agencies such as CMS and the Department of Veterans Affairs to negotiate drug prices. It was in 2003, under then President George W. Bush, that Congress added a Part D benefit, through which CMS pays for seniors’ prescription drugs. The enactment followed a controversial House roll call vote, which was held open for several hours as House leaders maneuvered to secure enough votes for passage. One bargaining chip to attract votes from “market-oriented” Congressmen was the so-called “noninterference clause” which banned negotiations between CMS and pharmaceutical companies on drug prices and prevented the government from developing its own formulary or pricing structure. In other words, US Government agencies are forced to pay whatever prices the manufacturers set (8).

Sadly, our professional societies have also contributed to rising healthcare costs. An example is the Joint Commission which was formed in 1951 by merging the Hospital Standardization Program with similar programs run by the American College of Physicians, the American Hospital Association (AHA), the American Medical Association, and the Canadian Medical Association. However, the Joint Commission has become dominated the American Hospital Association which has continually pushed a hospital administrative agenda (9). Standards leading to or encouraging administrative efficiency appear nonexistent. Even our own professional societies have fixated on programs such as Choosing Wisely which emphasizes physicians not performing unnecessary testing or procedures. Although this is important for our patients, it is has not, nor is likely to, make any difference in healthcare costs.

All this is occurring at a time when the hospital-private practice physician partnership has largely dissolved. Hospitals want employed physicians because of the financial benefits of higher reimbursement but also because physicians as employees are much easier to control. As hospitals hire their own physicians, often in open competition with private practice physicians on their staff, the hospitals and private practice physicians are no longer partners but adversarial competitors. It is naïve to believe that hospitals will not take advantage of their position of power to eliminate the private practice competition or make changes to a system such as the complex reimbursement system which has benefited them so greatly. Even something so basic as stating the cost of a procedure has been vigorously opposed by the AHA (10). Similarly, the pharmaceutical industry has opposed transparency or government negotiation on drug prices (11). And why should the any of these healthcare administrators, pharmaceutical companies or insurance companies agree to any change? They are growing rich at the American public’s expense.

Rather than throwing up our hands in disgust or going to our windows, opening them and sticking our heads out to yell – “I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take this anymore!” it is time to do something. However, as physicians we need to realize that we are weak and need help. First, we need to elect political candidates at all levels of government not based on their political affiliation but on their willingness to take action to curb healthcare costs. Second, if the politicians do not take action, we need to hold them accountable by voting for someone else. Third, we should lobby through our professional societies that administrative change needs to happen. If the societies will, we either need to serve in a society leadership role or change the leadership. Fourth, we need to oppose actions to further intrude into or control the practice of medicine at the local hospital level. For example, physician leaders are often chosen by the hospital administration not for their abilities by their amenability to a hospital administration’s agenda. As physicians we have let healthcare become controlled by greedy businessmen and correcting their intrusion into medical practice will be difficult. However, we should maintain hope, the alternative simply costs too much.

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Editor, SWJPCC

References

1. Umar A, Robbins RA. Medical image of the month: complexity of healthcare payment. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2020;20(2):59. [CrossRef]
2. Robbins RA. National health expenditures: the past, present, future and solutions. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2015;11(4):176-85. [CrossRef]
3. Kacik A. Rising prices drive estimated 6% medical cost inflation in 2020. Modern Healthcare. June 20, 2019. Available at: https://www.modernhealthcare.com/providers/rising-prices-drive-estimated-6-medical-cost-inflation-2020 (accessed 1/30/20).
4. Morris SS, Lusby H. The physician compensation bubble is looming. American Association of Physician Leadership. January 16, 2019. Available at: https://www.physicianleaders.org/news/physician-compensation-bubble-looming (accessed 1/30/20).
5. Dickson V. CMS slashes clinic visit payments, expands 340B cuts. Modern Healthcare. November 2, 2018. Available at: https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20181102/NEWS/181109978 (accessed 1/30/20).
6. Baker LC, Bundorf MK, Kessler DP. Vertical integration: hospital ownership of physician practices is associated with higher prices and spending. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014 May;33(5):756-63. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Terry K. Court overturns CMS' site-neutral payment policy; doc groups upset. Medscape Medical News. September 19, 2019. Available at: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/918744?nlid=131645_5401&src=wnl_dne_190920_mscpedit&uac=9273DT&impID=2101100&faf=1#vp_2 (accessed 1/31/20).
8. Lee TL,  Gluck AR, Curfman GD. The politics of Medicare and drug-price negotiation (updated). Health Affairs Blog. September 19, 2016. Available at: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20160919.056632/full/ (accessed 1/31/20).
9. Gaul GM. Accreditors blamed for overlooking problems. Washington Post. 2005. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/24/AR2005072401023.html (accessed 2/1/20).
10. Evans M. Hospitals turn to courts as lobbying fails to block price-transparency proposal. The Wall Street Journal. December 5, 2019. Available at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/hospitals-turn-to-courts-as-lobbying-fails-to-block-price-transparency-proposal-11575551412 (accessed 2/1/20).
11. Parramore LS. Prescription drug costs in Americans are sky-high. And yes, Big Pharma greed is to blame. NBC News. January 2, 2020. Available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/prescription-drug-costs-americans-are-sky-high-yes-big-pharma-ncna1109076 (accessed 2/1/20).

Cite as: Robbins RA. Why complexity persists in medicine. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2020;20(2):60-2. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc006-20 PDF 

The Implications of Increasing Physician Hospital Employment

Several years ago, Dr. Jack had a popular, solo internal medicine practice in Phoenix. However, over a period of about 15-20 years, the profitability of Jack’s private practice dwindled and he was working 60+ hours per week to keep his head above water. This is not what he planned in his mid-50’s when he hoped to be settling into a comfortable lifestyle in anticipation of retirement. Jack eventually closed his practice and took a job as a hospital-employed physician. Jack’s story has become all too common. The majority of physicians are now hospital-employed (1).

The increase in hospital-employed physicians raises at least 2 questions: 1. How can a busy private practice not be profitable? and 2. Is it good to have most physicians hospital-employed? Like Jack, it seems most physicians seek hospital employment for financial and lifestyle reasons. But how can a primary care practice like Jack’s not be profitable when the cost of healthcare has risen so markedly?

To understand why a practice can be busy but not necessarily profitable we need to follow the money. First, reimbursement for private practice has decreased in real dollars (Figure 1) (2). 

Figure 1. Inflation and Medicare physician fee schedule (MPFS) growth in percent from 2006-2017 (2).

Private practice physician reimbursement is the only major cost center that the Centers and Medicaid Services (CMS) has singled out for asymmetrical negative annual fee schedule adjustments. The other major cost centers—hospital inpatient and outpatient, ambulatory surgical centers, and clinical laboratories—all had fee schedule adjustments that were nearly equal to and typically greater than inflation (2). Of course, private insurance companies follow CMS’ lead and so reimbursement to private practice physicians dramatically decreased (3).

In addition, increased requirements for documentation and paperwork were imposed by CMS and quickly picked up by private insurers. These required more physician time and/or the hiring of additional personnel. In addition, there were increasing annoyances and burdens placed on physicians to review and sign forms and prescriptions which already been electronically submitted. Often these annoyances were so the durable medical equipment provider, pharmacy, etc. could be reimbursed. These later burdens now take up to one-sixth of a physicians’ time, decrease office efficiency, and not surprisingly, greatly decrease physician job satisfaction (4).

The second question is whether hospital-employed physicians is a good thing for patients. Although hospitals have argued that hospital-based physicians provide better care, patient outcomes appear to be no different (5). Hospitals have engaged in a number of practices resulting in physicians being financially squeezed. The American Hospital Association (AHA) has lobbied CMS and Congress for payments that are much higher than independent physicians’ offices, assuring hospital profitability. However, under the Trump administration, CMS proposed to pay the same rate for services delivered at off-campus hospital outpatient departments and independent doctors' offices (called site neutrality) (6). This would result in about a 60% cut to the hospitals for these services (7). Not surprisingly, hospitals complained and lobbied Congress to rescind the rule (7). Later the AHA sued CMS challenging the "serious reductions to Medicare payment rates" as executive overreach (8). The case is currently pending before the courts.

Hospitals have also engaged in a number of practices to limit competition from physicians’ offices. First, several have employed a non-compete clause as a condition of obtaining staff privileges. These clauses mean that should a physician leave a hospital, the physician is unable to reestablish a practice within a specified distance of the hospital (often within a radius of 50 miles) (9). Of course, in a metropolitan area this means the physician has to leave the city, or in the case of a large hospital chain, the physician may have difficulty finding areas to practice even in the same state. Second, with the “hospitalist movement” many hospitals have seized on the opportunity to essentially self-refer. That is, the hospitals schedule follow-up appointments with primary care or other physicians employed by the hospitals.

A study documents that healthcare costs for four common procedures rose with increasing hospital physician employment (10). A 49% increase in hospital-employed physicians led to CMS paying $2.7 billion more for diagnostic cardiac catheterizations, echocardiograms, arthrocentesis and colonoscopies delivered in hospital outpatient settings than it would for treatment in independent facilities. CMS beneficiaries footed an additional $411 million.

Although many decry a fee-for-service healthcare system as being too expensive, the increase in hospital-employed physicians seems to only have increased healthcare costs. Action by CMS is needed not only for site neutrality but also a number of other areas to ensure health competition in healthcare.

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Editor, SWJPCC

References

1. Kane CK. Updated data on physician practice arrangements: For the first time, fewer physicians are owners than employees. Policy Research Perspectives. American Medical Association. 2019. Available at: https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-05/prp-fewer-owners-benchmark-survey-2018.pdf (accessed 5/11/19).
2. Cherf J. Unsustainable physician reimbursement rates. AAOS Now. October, 2017. Available at: https://www.aaos.org/AAOSNow/2017/Oct/Cover/cover01/ (accessed 5/11/19).
3. Clemens J, Gottlieb JD. In the shadow of a giant: Medicare's influence on private physician payments. J Polit Econ. 2017 Feb;125(1):1-39. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Woolhandler S, Himmelstein DU. Administrative work consumes one-sixth of U.S. physicians' working hours and lowers their career satisfaction. Int J Health Serv. 2014;44(4):635-42. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Short MN, Ho V. Weighing the effects of vertical integration versus market concentration on hospital quality. Med Care Res Rev. 2019 Feb 9:1077558719828938. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Robbins RA. CMS decreases clinic visit payments to hospital-employed physicians and expands decreases in drug payments 340b cuts. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2018;17(5):136. [CrossRef]
7. Luthi S, Dickson V. Medicare's site-neutral pay plan targeted in hospitals' lobbying. Modern Healthcare. September 25, 2018. Available at: https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20180925/TRANSFORMATION04/180929928/medicare-s-site-neutral-pay-plan-targeted-in-hospitals-lobbying (accessed May 11, 2019).
8. Luthi S. Hospitals sue over site-neutral payment policy. Modern Healthcare. December 04, 2018. Available at: https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20181204/NEWS/181209973/hospitals-sue-over-site-neutral-payment-policy (accessed May 11, 2019).
9. Darves B. Restrictive covenants: A look at what’s fair, what’s legal and everything in between, Today’s Hospitalist. April 2006. Available at: https://www.todayshospitalist.com/restrictive-covenants-a-look-at-whats-fair-whats-legal-and-everything-in-between/ (accessed May 11, 2019).
10. Kacik A. Hospital-employed physicians drain Medicare. Modern Healthcare. November 14, 2017. Available at: https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20171114/NEWS/171119942/hospital-employed-physicians-drain-medicare (accessed May 11, 2019).

Cite as: Robbins RA. The implications of increasing physician hospital employment. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2019;18(5):141-3. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc025-19 PDF 

CMS Penalizes 758 Hospitals for Safety Incidents

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is penalizing 758 hospitals with higher rates of patient safety incidents, and more than half of those were also fined last year, as reported by Kaiser Health News (1).

Among the hospitals being financially punished are some well-known institutions, including Yale New Haven Hospital, Medstar Washington Hospital Center in DC, Grady Memorial Hospital, Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, Indiana University Health,  Brigham and Womens Hospital, Tufts Medical Center, University of North Carolina Hospital, the Cleveland Clinic, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Parkland Health and Hospital, and the University of Virginia Medical Center (Complete List of Hospitals Penalized 2016). In the Southwest the list includes Banner University Medical Center in Tucson, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Stanford Health Care, Denver Health Medical Center and the University of New Mexico Medical Center (for list of Southwest hospitals see Appendix 1). In total, CMS estimates the penalties will cost hospitals $364 million. Look now if you must, but you might want to read the below before on how to interpret the data.

The penalties, created by the 2010 health law, are the toughest sanctions CMS has taken on hospital safety. Patient safety advocates worry the fines are not large enough to alter hospital behavior and that they only examine a small portion of the types of mistakes that take place. On the other hand, hospitals say the penalties are counterproductive and unfairly levied against places that have made progress in safety but have not caught up to most facilities. They are also bothered that the health law requires CMS to punish a quarter of hospitals each year. CMS plans to add more types of conditions in future years.

I would like to raise two additional concerns. First, is the data accurate? The data is self-reported by the hospitals and previously the accuracy of these self reports has been questioned (2). Are some hospitals being punished for accurately reporting data while others rewarded for lying? I doubt that CMS will be looking too closely since bad data would invalidate their claims that they are improving hospital safety. It seems unlikely that punishing half the Nation's hospitals will do much except encouraging more suspect data.

Second, does the data mean anything? Please do not misconstrue or twist the truth that I am advocating against patient safety. What I am advocating for is meaningful measures. Previous research has suggested that the measures chosen by CMS have no correlation or even a negative correlation with patient outcomes (3,4). In other words, doing well on a safety measure was associated with either no improvement or a negative outcome, in some cases even death. How can this be? Let me draw an analogy of hospital admissions. About 1% of the 35 million or so patients admitted to hospitals in the US die. The death rate is much lower in the population not admitted to the hospital. According to CMS' logic, if we were to reduce admissions by 5% or 1.75 million, 17,500 lives (1% of 1.75 million) would be saved. This is, of course, absurd.

Looking at hospital acquired infections which make up much of CMS' data, CMS' logic appears similar. For example, insertion of urinary catheters, large bore central lines or endotracheal intubation in sick patients is common. The downside is some will develop urinary, line or lung infections as a complication of these insertions. Many of these sick patients will die and many will have line infections. The data is usually reported by saying hospital-acquired infections have decreased saving 50,000 lives and saved $12 billion in care costs (5). However, the truth is that hospital-acquired infections are often either not the cause of death or the final event in a disease process that caused the patient to be admitted to the hospital in the first place. If 50,000 lives are saved that should be reflected in the hospital death rates or a savings on insurance premiums. Neither has been shown to my knowledge.

So look at the data if you must but look with a skeptical eye. Until CMS convincingly demonstrates that the data is accurate and that their incentives decrease in-hospital complications, mortality and costs-the data is suspect. It could be as simple that the hospitals receiving the penalties are those taking care of sicker patients. What this means is that some hospitals, perhaps the ones that need the money the most, will have 1% less CMS reimbursement, which might make care worse rather than better.

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Editor

SWJPCC

References

1. Rau J. Medicare penalizes 758 hospitals for safety incidents, Kaiser Health News. December 10, 2015. Available at: http://khn.org/news/medicare-penalizes-758-hospitals-for-safety-incidents/ (accessed 12/11/15).
2. Robbins RA. The Emperor has no clothes: the accuracy of hospital performance data. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care 2012;5:203-5.
3. Robbins RA, Gerkin RD. Comparisons between Medicare mortality, morbidity, readmission and complications. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2013;6(6):278-86
4. Lee GM, Kleinman K, Soumerai SB, et al. Effect of nonpayment for preventable infections in U.S. hospitals. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(15):1428-37. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Department of Health and Human Services. Efforts to improve patient safety result in 1.3 million fewer patient harms, 50,000 lives saved and $12 billion in health spending avoided. December 2, 2014. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2014/12/02/efforts-improve-patient-safety-result-1-3-million-fewer-patient-harms-50000-lives-saved-and-12-billion-in-health-spending-avoided.html (accessed 12/11/15).

Cite as: Robbins RA. CMS penalizes 758 hospitals for safety incidents. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2015;11(6):269-70. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc153-15 PDF