Hospitals, Aviation and Business

Boeing’s recent troubles remind us that in many ways, healthcare is like aviation:

1. They are both highly technical endeavors, guided by highly educated and trained personnel such as physicians and pilots.
2. Even small mistakes can be devastating.
3. Operating margins (operating income/revenue) are very low.
4. Both are led by businessmen not trained in the industry.
5. Some have put profit ahead of safety.

The cockpit of the typical airliner or the multitude of instruments in the typical intensive care unit demonstrates that aviation and medicine are both highly technical. Airline pilots have a minimum of 1,500 hours of flight time. This includes time spent obtaining a private pilot’s license, commercial license, instrument rating, multiengine rating, and airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate. Pilots often have additional in type ratings for turboprop or jet engines. Many have spent time as flight instructors and normally have at least 5 years of experience. A pilot must be over the age of 23 and be able to pass a 1st class medical exam. The military also trains pilots and brings them along faster, usually requiring some time commitment for the training they receive. In addition, they have recurring requirements to train in simulators to practice emergency procedures or when they begin flying new aircraft.

Physicians have four years of medical school after college. After medical school they become residents, a term from the past when the young physician resided in the hospitals. Residency lasts 3-5 years and is often followed by additional training called fellowship. For example, the typical cardiologist spends 3 years in an internal medicine resident, then an additional 3 years as a cardiology fellow. After fellowship, additional training may occur. For example, in cardiology this could be in interventional cardiology, nuclear cardiology, electrophysiology, etc. which are 1-2 years in length. In many cases additional time is spent doing research to become competitive for grants. Many have PhD’s and some have administrative or business degrees such as master of public health (MPH) or business (MBA). Like pilots, recertification is required. Nurses and physician’s assistants are also highly educated. Some have PhD’s and many have master’s degrees. Like physicians, administrative or business degrees are becoming increasingly common. 

Small mistakes can be devastating. Overshooting or undershooting a runway leading to a crash can kill not only the pilot but passengers on board. Poor handling of an emergency such as an engine failure, a door plug dislodging in flight or poor programming of the complex flight computers, such as occurred with the Boeing 737 Max, can be lethal. Similarly, mistakes in care for a sick patient can be deadly. The popular literature is rife with reports of physicians or nurses overlooking a laboratory or x-ray abnormality, giving the wrong medication, falls, or the wrong surgery on the wrong patient.

Although the high education and need for care are well appreciated, what is not so well known is that profit margins are narrow for both aviation and medicine.  Airlines are expected to have a 2.7% net profit margin in 2024 which is a slight improvement from the 2.6% in 2023 (1). Boeing’s net profit margin as of September 30, 2023 was -2.86%. (2). Hospitals began 2023 with a median operating margin of -0.9% and currently have a margin of -10.6% to 11.1% (3). For the three months ending Sept 30, the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN) had a relatively healthy 6.7% profit margin. In contrast, Banner Health was only 1.5%. Hospitals and health systems are estimated to finally break even after several years of losses secondary to the COVID-19 pandemic and higher than expected contract labor costs. The recent median margin data show that essentially half of hospitals and health systems are still operating at a financial loss, with many more just barely covering their costs (3). This means little to no discretionary money. Hospital executives who receive high compensation packages can consume much of this discretionary money. Many would argue that it could be better spent on patient care. 

Both aviation and hospitals are usually led by businessmen. This was not always so. Early airlines and hospitals were usually led by pilots and doctors. Only in the past 50 years have businessmen become involved. The rationale has nearly always been financial. Early aviators cared a great deal about demonstrating that aviation was safe. For example, Boeing Aircraft, founded in 1916 by William Boeing, was considered first and foremost an engineering firm where production of reliable aircraft was most important (4). The emphasis on quality and safety spawned the quote, “If it isn’t Boeing, we aren’t going”. In 1997 Boeing merged with its longtime rival McDonnell Douglas. The new CEO of the merged companies from McDonnell Douglas, Harry Stonecipher, brought a different attitude to the merged companies.

Figure 1. Harry Stonecipher. CEO of Boeing 2001-2, 2003-5.

Stonecipher said, “When people say I changed the culture of Boeing, that was the intent, so that it’s run like a business rather than a great engineering firm. It is a great engineering firm but people invest in a company because they want to make money” (5).  The company became fixated on stock market value and lost sight of the core value of manufacturing reliable, safe airplanes. Boeing is now reaping the decline in quality that was sown by Stonecipher years ago. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) which is supposed to  oversee airplane manufactures has also apparently become slack, allowing Boeing to have major declines in quality (6).

In hospitals we have seen a similar progression. Doctors or nurses were replaced as hospital heads in the later part of the twentieth century by businessmen who often did not understand, and in some instances did not care to understand, the core value of quality patient care. Recently, private equity firms have been acquiring hospitals or portions of hospitals such as emergency rooms or radiology practices. Data on the quality of care has been scant but there have been a multitude of complaints from doctors and nurses. Now, a recent systematic review that included 55 studies from 8 countries concluded that not only has private equity ownership increased over time across many health care sectors, but it has also been linked with higher costs to patients or payers (7). Although results for the 27 studies that looked at health care quality were mixed, the researchers found evidence that private equity ownership was tied to worse quality in 21 (7). This suggests a poorer quality of care. The lack of oversight by a variety of healthcare organizations such as the Joint Commission, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), state departments of health, etc. may be following the FAA example in becoming lax at their jobs.

Hospitals and aviation companies do have one major difference. Hospitals are generally not-for-profit entities that should operate for the public good. Profit is secondary which does not mean that losses can be long tolerated. Aviation companies are for-profit entities where revenue is primary. However, as demonstrated by Boeing, quality is still very important. As more hospitals are acquired by private equity companies, many remain concerned that quality will suffer for the sake of profit. Perhaps in 20 years we will be shaking our heads and lamenting about the decline in the quality of US healthcare the way many are viewing Boeing today.

Richard A. Robbins MD

Editor, SWJPCCS

References

1. https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2023-releases/2023-12-06-01/#:~:text=Airline%20industry%20net%20profits%20are,2.6%25%20net%20profit%20margin)
2. Boeing Profit Margin 2010-2023. Macrotrends. Available at: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/BA/boeing/profit-margins#:~:text=Current%20and%20historical%20gross%20margin,%2C%202023%20is%20%2D2.86%25 (accessed 2/9/24).
3. Condon A, Ashley M. From -10.6% to 11.1%: 34 systems ranked by operating margins. Becker’s Hospital Review. December 29, 2023. Available at: https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/from-10-6-to-11-1-34-systems-ranked-by-operating-margins.html (accessed 2/9/24).
4. Boeing. Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing (accessed 2/9/24).
5. Surowiecki J. What’s Gone Wrong at Boeing. The Atlantic. January 15, 2024. Available at:  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/01/boeing-737-max-corporate-culture/677120/ (accessed 2/9/24).
6. Rose J. The FAA is tightening oversight of Boeing and will audit production of the 737 Max 9. January 12, 2024. NPR. Available at: https://www.npr.org/2024/01/12/1224444590/boeing-faa-737-max-9-alaska-airlines-door-plug (accessed 2/9/24).
7. Harris E. Private Equity Ownership in Health Care Linked to Higher Costs, Worse Quality. JAMA. 2023 Aug 22;330(8):685-686. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Cite as: Robbins RA. Hospitals, Aviation and Business. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care Sleep. 2024;28:20-23. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpccs009-24 PDF

Improving Quality in Healthcare

Figure 1. Dr. Katz is a little jaded about quality metrics (1).

Everyone is in favor of quality healthcare and improving it. However, to date, initially highly touted quality measures prove to be meaningless metrics in about 5-10 years. That is, when the measures are scientifically studied, they are found to be of little worth. The cycle is then repeated, i.e., new and highly touted measures are again selected and found to be useless in 5-10 years. The latest in this cycle may be the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid’s (CMS) Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The theory underlying MIPS has been that paying for quality rather than quantity will incentivize healthcare providers to improve quality. As part of the deal creating the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) MIPS was established as a pay for performance system which promised to improve healthcare while reducing costs. However, healthcare costs have continued to rise (2). Data on improvement in quality has been lacking.

Now, Bond et al. (3) have reported a study suggesting that MIPS incentivization of quality improvement in healthcare quality has questionable benefits. Among US primary care physicians in 2019, MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with performance on process and outcome measures. Bond’s study included 3.4 million patients attributed to 80,246 primary care physicians. Physicians were divided into thirds based on their MIPS score. Compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with the lowest MIPS scores had significantly worse mean performance on 3 of 5 process measures: diabetic eye examinations, diabetic HbA1c screening and mammography screening, but significantly better mean performance on rates of influenza vaccination and tobacco screening. MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with risk-adjusted patient outcomes: compared with physicians with the highest MIPS scores, physicians with the lowest MIPS scores had significantly better mean performance on emergency department visits per 1000 patients but worse performance on all-cause hospitalizations, and did not have significantly different performance on 4 ambulatory care-sensitive admission outcomes. Nineteen percent of physicians with the lowest MIPS scores had composite outcomes performance in the top quintile, while 21% of physicians with the highest MIPS scores had outcomes in the bottom quintile. These findings suggest that the MIPS program may be ineffective at measuring and incentivizing quality improvement among US physicians.

It is unclear why improvement  in intermediate surrogate markers is used rather than improvement in outcomes. Bond’s study measured MIPS scores against ER visits and hospitalizations. Patients, providers, insurers, bureaucrats, politicians, taxpayers- in other words, nearly everyone- would agree that reductions in ER visits and hospitalizations is desirable if it can be accomplished without patient harm. Similarly, reduction in unexpected deaths and improvement in patients’ feeling of well being are goals that all can support. However, the goals of healthcare are different depending on which population is asked. Patients might support their well-being, insurance cost, and provider access as being most important, whereas payors might support costs as most important. Providers might support efficiency of care and reimbursement as important. So ultimately what surrogate markers like MIPS do is choose one point of view which often does not affect outcomes (4).

There are many ways to achieve a goal depending on expertise, resources and patient characteristics. Flexibility in care allows the person most likely to understand the efficiencies of their particular system- the providers- to use their local knowledge to benefit the patients. Outside influences emphasizing surrogate markers, cost, or politics have historically failed. Unless one is willing to accept healthcare shown not to benefit patients as acceptable, MIPS should be eliminated. Replacing MIPS with an equally flawed system set of surrogate markers will likely not help.

It seems that outcome measures offer several advantages over process measures. Outcome measures include unexpected mortality, hospital readmissions, safety of care, effectiveness of care, timeliness of care, efficiency of care, and patient well-being (5). These are all thought to be important by patients, insurers, providers and even politicians. In my view, the process leading to these ultimate outcome goals is less important and the process producing the same or similar results will likely vary between providers and hospitals.

CMS should refocus their quality efforts on outcomes rather than processes which have failed as quality indicators. Physicians must decide whether they wish to continue participation in systems such as MIPS and the accompanying increase in paperwork. Unless something changes the trends of increasing paperwork over meaningless metrics will continue.

Richard A. Robbins MD

Editor, SWJPCCS

References

1. Lehmann C. Comics for Docs: Medical Cartoons Poke Fun at Today's Practices. Medscape. July 15, 2022. Available at: https://www.medscape.com/slideshow/medical-cartoons-6015473#2 (accessed (1/12/23).
2. Kurani N, Ortaliza J, Wager E, Fox L, Amin K. How Has U.S. Spending on Healthcare Changed Over Time? Peterson-KFF Health System Trasecker. February 25, 2022. Available at: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending-healthcare-changed- time/#Total%20national%20health%20expenditures,%20US%20$%20Billions,%201970-2020 (Accessed 1/4/23).
3. Bond AM, Schpero WL, Casalino LP, Zhang M, Khullar D. Association Between Individual Primary Care Physician Merit-based Incentive Payment System Score and Measures of Process and Patient Outcomes. JAMA. 2022 Dec 6;328(21):2136-2146. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Robbins RA, Thomas AR, Raschke RA. Guidelines, recommendations and improvement in healthcare. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2011;2:34-37.
5. Tinker A. The Top Seven Healthcare Outcome Measures and Three Measurement Essentials. Health Catalyst. June 29, 2022. Available at: https://www.healthcatalyst.com/insights/top-7-healthcare-outcome-measures (accessed 1/5/23).

Cite as: Robbins RA. Improving Quality in Healthcare. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care Sleep. 2023;26(1):8-10. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpccs002-23 PDF

Deciding the Future of Healthcare Leadership: A Call for Undergraduate and Graduate Healthcare Administration Education

Good medical leadership is the cornerstone of quality healthcare. However, leadership education for physicians has traditionally been largely ignored, with a focus instead on technical competence. As a result, physicians in many cases have abdicated their role as medical leaders to others, usually businessmen without medical training or expertise, and often a lack of understanding of the human issues inherent to healthcare. Recently, the Southwest Journal of Pulmonary, Critical Care & Sleep published a manuscript, “Leadership in Action: A Student-Run Designated Emphasis in Healthcare Leadership”, describing a curriculum designed to develop future healthcare leaders (1). Hopefully this and similar curricula will prepare physicians in setting direction, demonstrating personal qualities, working with others, managing services, and improving services (2). 

The US suffers from a crisis in healthcare partially rooted in a lack of physician- and patient-oriented leadership which has led to “hyperfinancialization” in many instances. Beginning in the 1980’s there has been an explosion in administrative costs leading to reduced expenditures on patient care but a dramatic rise in total healthcare costs, the opposite of efficient care (3). The substitution of primarily businessmen for physicians as healthcare leaders has at times led to the bottom line being the “bottom line” for assessing success in healthcare. Although it is true that metrics of “quality of care” are often measured, quality of care is hard to define and implement in a way that functionally addresses the concerns of the healthcare system, patients, and physicians. Furthermore, the concept that business personnel acting alone can improve the quality and efficiency of healthcare is difficult to support. It seems to us that the combination of business acumen, an understanding of financial realities, an appreciation of physician needs and their careers, and a deep understanding of the human side of patient care is what is needed. We believe that educating and empowering physician leaders could begin to address this need.

As can be seen in many instances in the country, new medical schools and many training programs are being created as part of, and “report” to, large health care systems, including for-profit, “not-for-profit”, and non-profit organizations(4-6). We must be very cognizant of the potential conflicts in priorities that may occur in such situations, as well as potential opportunities. While a concern could justifiably be that a system or organization focused primarily on finances might neglect the human or science-based aspect of medical training, there could also be opportunities to create leadership training that takes advantage of leadership qualities and skills from both business and medicine. On the other side of the coin, university-based training programs cannot neglect the realities of today’s healthcare system where a facility with administrative and financial issues is required for successful leadership.

We must begin to train physicians to be administrative leaders early in their careers. Leadership training in medical school such as the program described in the article by Hamidy et al (1), and other programs like a residency dedicated to providing a broad medical experience as well as administrative experience under the supervision of physician administrators would be a great start. We already see many physicians in leadership returning to school to complete MBA programs, but training must start earlier if physician leaders are to be successful. The Institute of Medicine has recommended that academic health centers “develop leaders at all levels who can manage the organizational and system changes necessary to improve health through innovation in health professions education, patient care, and research” (7).  To this end, a few healthcare organizations such as the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and UT Tyler are all headed by physicians and could provide the necessary education with administrative emphases on care and financial stewardship, rather than pure profit (8-11). These better trained administrators would hopefully earn the cooperation of their providers and business partners in providing high quality care that is focused on the humanity of our patients, while keeping in mind strong financial stewardship. 

Richard A. Robbins MD, Editor, SWJPCCS

Brigham C. Willis, MD, MEd, Founding Dean, University of Texas at Tyler Medical School of Medicine Medical Center, Tyler, TX USA; Associate Editor (Pediatrics), SWJPCCS

References

1. Hamidy M, Patel K, Gupta S, Kaur M, Smith J, Gutierrez H, El-Farra M, Albasha N, Rajan P, Salem S, Maheshwari S, Davis K,  Willis BC. Leadership in Action: A Student-Run Designated Emphasis in Healthcare Leadership. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care Sleep 2022;24(3):46-54. [CrossRef]
2. Nicol ED. Improving clinical leadership and management in the NHS Journal of Healthcare Leadership 2012;4:59-69. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3cc3/36f891d6a4b47d951b2bd280e46f4687dd5b.pdf (accessed 3/25/22). 
3. Woolhandler S, Campbell T, Himmelstein DU. Costs of health care administration in the United States and Canada. N Engl J Med. 2003 Aug 21;349(8):768-75. [CrossRef] . [PubMed]
4. Banner University Medical Center-Phoenix. https://phoenixmed.arizona.edu/banner (accessed 3/28/22)
5. HCA Healthcare. https://hcahealthcare.com/physicians/graduate-medical-education/ (accessed 3/28/22)
6. Kaiser Permanente School of Medicine. https://medschool.kp.org/homepagJCe?kp_shortcut_referrer=kp.org/schoolofmedicine&gclid=CjwKCAjwuYWSBhByEiwAKd_n_kFPWcSP0Mj_VbqHJEsnwSwT_YkIErrb1PhcWQgQnRI_odNs5qbHZRoCaMIQAvD_BwE (accessed 3/28/22)
7. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Roles of Academic Health Centers in the 21st Century. Academic Health Centers: Leading Change in the 21st Century. Kohn LT, editor. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2004. [PubMed]
8. Mayo Clinic Governance. Available at: https://www.mayoclinic.org/about-mayo-clinic/governance/leadership (accessed 3/25/22). 
9. Executive Leadership Cleveland Clinic. Available at: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/about/overview/leadership/executive(accessed 3/25/22). 
10. University of Nebraska Medical Center. Meet Our Leadership Team. Available at: https://www.nebraskamed.com/about-us/leadership#:~:text=James%20Linder%2C%20MD%2C%20Chief%20Executive,Nebraska%20Medical%20Center%20(UNMC). (accessed 3/25/22). 
11. University of Texas at Tyler. https://www.uttyler.edu/president/about/ (accessed 3/28/22)

Cite as: Robbins RA, Willis BC. Deciding the Future of Healthcare Leadership: A Call for Undergraduate and Graduate Healthcare Administration Education. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care Sleep 2022;24(3):55-57. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpccs006-22 PDF

Why My Experience as a Patient Led Me to Join Osler’s Alliance

There are a number of books and articles written by doctors that relate their own experience as patients. Count this as another although I promise it will not be nearly as entertaining as “The House of God”. Over a month ago I became short of breath and a chest x-ray revealed left lower lobe consolidation. Despite lack of fever, it seemed that an infectious process was most likely, and when multiple tests for COVID-19 were negative, it was felt by my pulmonary physician to be most likely coccidioidomycosis despite a negative cocci serology. After beginning on empirical therapy with fluconazole for nearly a month, I am feeling better.

Most of us know that there is considerable laboratory to laboratory variation in serologic tests for Valley Fever (1). However, when my initial cocci serology was negative, efforts to send it a good reference lab such as Pappagianis’ Lab at UC Davis became nearly impossible. After making an appointment at Sonora Quest and waiting a week for an appointment to get my blood drawn, it was apparently sent to Davis, but when payment was not assured, it was not run. I would have been paid for it out of pocket but there seemed no way to communicate this.

Similarly, it took 3 visits to a commercial outpatient radiology practice, Simon Med, to get a routine chest x-ray. I can understand the need for appointments for CT scans. However, routine x-rays were so backed up that I waited several hours to get a chest x-ray performed although I did get an electronic copy. Fortunately, I am able to read my own chest x-ray and did not need to wait for a radiologist’s report which arrived on a Tuesday after the chest x-ray was taken late on a Friday.

Honestly, I had no idea that our patients were receiving such poor care. Delays of this magnitude go beyond what I view as acceptable. Overall, I think my doctors are great but I have concerns about an overall decline in patient care. It should not take a week to get routine labs drawn. Sick people should not be making multiple trips to get a simple chest x-ray. This may be another symptom of the hyperfinancializaton of medicine where patient care is sacrificed for profit. The hospital labs and x-ray departments of years ago were run by physicians and mostly concerned with patient care and not losing money. Today with businessmen controlling nearly all aspects of healthcare patient care is less important than maximizing profits.

I worry that our businessmen/managers are buying medical practices and directly supervising healthcare professionals. Healthcare is a business to them, no different than selling hamburgers at McDonalds. Their goals of increasing income and reducing expenses to maximize profits while hiding behind the façade of a non-profit organization is quite apparent. However, what is equally clear is that there is a lack of medical knowledge in these medical managers and decisions can be “penny wise but dollar foolish”. Look at the decision to not pay for a more reliable cocci serology which costs $80. They have spent more than this on fluconazole. Bad medicine is usually costly.  

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light many of the inadequacies of business interests dominating medicine (2). Hospitals are overflowing and inadequate personnel with inadequate personal protective equipment are available to care for them. Those remaining providers are expected to just “pick up the slack”.

Although I have long lamented (some say whined) about the businessmen’s mismanagement of medicine, what could we do? Business interests seemed to control the hospitals, the insurance companies, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and the licensing boards. We were being squeezed and trainees just beginning practice were in no position either financially or professionally to confront business interests which could end their career.

I appear to not be the only one who feels way. Last year, Eric Topol MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, wrote a piece published in The New Yorker, "Why Doctors Should Organize” (3). In it, he explained his view that the nation's nearly 900,000 practicing doctors needed to organize to bring back the doctor-patient relationship that existed before the business part of medicine took over its soul. Physician organizations such as the American Medical Association (AMA) represents only about 17% of US physicians, and have done little for medicine as a profession. The next largest, the American College of Physicians, represents internal-medicine specialists. Most of the smaller societies (e.g., ATS, American College of Chest Physicians) represent a subspecialty and have correspondingly fewer members each. The AMA once represented three-fourths of American doctors; the growth of subspecialty societies may have contributed to its diminishment. In any case, there is no single organization that unifies all doctors. The profession is balkanized into different specialties each hostilely eyeing the other specialty organizations.

Therefore, Topol has led the formation of Osler's Alliance (now Medicine Forward) (4). This organization, named for William Osler, hopes to draw together the nation's doctors, who come from different backgrounds, specialties, and political leanings but agree that the way they interact with patients is not what they envisioned when they decided to devote their lives to medicine.

"Such an organization wouldn't be a trade guild protecting the interests of doctors," Topol wrote. "It would be a doctors' organization devoted to patients (5)."Another organizer of Osler's Alliance, Esther Choo, MD, MPH, an emergency physician and professor at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, described physicians' widespread daily feeling that "this can't be the way it's supposed to be," but also a lack of empowerment to make changes (5). That's where the numbers come in, she said. A massive group of physicians standing up against practices could force change.

The first step, Choo said, is to break down the fundamental mission into "bite-sized advocacy (5)." That might entail advocating for answers to why increased documentation demands are necessary and how, specifically, they help the patient rather than dutifully complying with directives for more charting.

The leaders emphasize that membership in the group is not about money, which is why it's only $5 a year. Signing up builds support and allows access to chat streams and information in a broad network. "When you start seeing advertisements for health systems that say, 'We give the gift of time to patients and clinicians,' " answered Topol, "then we'll know we're turning the right corner (5)."

If you are a physician or other provider, you might consider joining Osler’s Alliance. What have you and your patients got to lose? Staying the present course would seem to lead to nowhere.

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Editor, SWJPCC

References

1. Galgiani JN, Knox K, Rundbaken C, Siever J. Common mistakes in managing pulmonary coccidioidomycosis. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2015;10(5):238-49. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc054-15
2. Dorsett M. Point of no return: COVID-19 and the U.S. healthcare system: An emergency physician's perspective. Sci Adv. 2020 Jun 26;6(26):eabc5354. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Topol E. Why Doctors Should Organize. The New Yorker. August 5, 2019. Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/why-doctors-should-organize (accessed 11/30/20).
4. Osler’s Alliance website. Available at: https://oslersalliance.mn.co/about (accessed 11-30-20).
5. Frellick M. Medical Leaders Launch Grassroots Doctors' Alliance. Medscape. November 25, 2020. Available at https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/941623 (accessed 12/30/20).

Cite as: Robbins RA. Why My Experience as a Patient Led Me to Join Osler’s Alliance. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2020;21(6):138-40. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc066-20 PDF

CMS Rule Would Kick “Problematic” Doctors Out of Medicare/Medicaid

Last week CMS announced that beginning January 1, 2020, they assumed a new power to bar clinicians' participation if agency officials can cite potential harm to patients based on specific incidents (1). CMS created this new authority through the 2020 Medicare physician fee schedule. CMS claimed that it had no pathway to address "demonstrated cases of patient harm" in cases where clinicians maintain their licenses (2).

The rule drew criticism from multiple physician groups with none supporting it. The Alliance of Specialty Medicine said CMS has been using "vague and subjective" criteria to evaluate physicians for some time. The new revocation authority "just compounds the problem," the Alliance told Medscape Medical News (2).

In drafting the final version of the rule, CMS rejected many suggestions offered in comments about the revocation authority. The AMA pointed out that CMS hid such a major change in the annual physician fee schedule under the opioid treatment program section (2). The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) said CMS should defer to state medical boards and other state oversight entities regarding issues associated with protecting beneficiaries from patient harm (2). In the final rule, CMS argued that it needs the new revocation authority due to cases where "problematic" behavior persists despite detection by state boards.

During the past week two examples of CMS’ bureaucratic nature were observed in my practice. First, I was told from a durable medical equipment provider that a new CMS requirement was that when reordering patient continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) supplies that I would need to check, initial and date each item from a long list of supplies whether it was ordered or not. Second, an asthma patient was referred to me that was using daily albuterol. I recommended a long-acting beta agonist/corticosteroid combination but was told that the patient must fail corticosteroids alone before prescribing the more expensive combination therapy. Nearly every physician and many patients have seen some nameless and faceless clerk at CMS give them the “ol’ run around”. CMS’ argument that they are improving quality and protecting patients would be more believable if these and the many other instances of bureaucratic overreach were rare rather than common. 

Many “quality” programs have been thrust on clinicians in the past without any demonstrable improvement in healthcare for patients (3). Rather quickly these programs morph from a quality program to a hammer used to control clinicians and suppress dissent. In seems likely that CMS’ new self-assumed authority will be the same. If CMS wishes to improve care, they should deal with examples such as those above and many more instances of time wasting paper work and poor care that they mandate. Two recommendations to reduce these poor decisions are: 1. List the name of the licensed practitioner responsible for each CMS decision; and 2. Establish an efficient appeals process not controlled by CMS. These would reduce the instances of poor, anonymous decision makers hiding behind the anonymity of the CMS bureaucracy and could go a long way in improving patient care.

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Editor, SWJPCC

References

1. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. November, 2019. Available at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2019-24086.pdf (accessed 11/9/19). Scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 11/15/2019 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-24086.
2. Young KD. CMS sharpens weapon to kick 'problematic' docs out of Medicare. Medscape Medical News. November 7, 2019. Available at: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/920994?nlid=132505_5461&src=wnl_dne_191108_mscpedit&uac=9273DT&impID=2159379&faf=1 (accessed 11/9/19).
3. Robbins RA. The unfulfilled promise of the quality movement. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2014;8(1):50-63. [CrossRef]

Cite as: Robbins RA. CMS rule would kick “problematic” doctors out of Medicare/Medicaid. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2019;19(5):146-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc066-19 PDF