You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
Talk of Rationing Healthcare begins
2009-04-27
Washington -- Obama administration officials, alarmed at doctor shortages, are looking for ways to increase the number of physicians to meet the needs of an aging population and millions of uninsured people who would gain coverage under legislation championed by the president.

The officials said they were particularly concerned about shortages of primary-care providers who are the main source of health care for most Americans.

One proposal -- to increase Medicare payments to general practitioners, at the expense of high-paid specialists -- has touched off a lobbying fight.

Family doctors and internists are pressing Congress for an increase in their Medicare payments. But medical specialists are lobbying against any change that would cut their reimbursements. Congress, the specialists say, should find additional money to pay for primary care and should not redistribute dollars among doctors -- a difficult argument at a time of huge budget deficits.

Some of the proposed solutions, while advancing one of President Barack Obama's goals, could frustrate others. Increasing the supply of doctors, for example, would increase access to care, but could make it more difficult to rein in costs.

The need for more doctors comes up at almost every congressional hearing and White House forum on health care. "We're not producing enough primary-care physicians," Obama said at one forum. "The costs of medical education are so high that people feel that they've got to specialize." New doctors typically owe more than $140,000 in loans when they graduate.

Lawmakers from both parties say the shortage of health-care professionals is already having serious consequences. "We don't have enough doctors in primary care or in any specialty," said Rep. Shelley Berkley, Democrat of Nevada.

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, said, "The work force shortage is reaching crisis proportions."

Even people with insurance are having problems finding doctors.

Miriam Harmatz, a lawyer in Miami, said: "My longtime primary-care doctor left the practice of medicine five years ago because she could not make ends meet. The same thing happened a year later. Since then, many of the doctors I tried to see would not take my insurance because the payments were so low."

To cope with the growing shortage, federal officials are considering several proposals. One would increase enrollment in medical schools and residency training programs. Another would encourage greater use of nurse practitioners and physician assistants. A third would expand the National Health Service Corps, which deploys doctors and nurses in rural areas and poor neighborhoods.

Sen. Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, chairman of the Finance Committee, said Medicare payments were skewed against primary-care doctors -- the very ones needed for the care of older people with chronic conditions like congestive heart failure, diabetes and Alzheimer's disease.

"Primary-care physicians are grossly underpaid compared with many specialists," said Baucus, who vowed to increase primary-care payments as part of legislation to overhaul the health-care system.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal panel, has recommended an increase of up to 10 percent in the payment for many primary-care services, including office visits. To offset the cost, it said, Congress should reduce payments for other services -- an idea that riles many specialists.

Dr. Peter J. Mandell, a spokesman for the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons, said: "We have no problem with financial incentives for primary care. We do have a problem with doing it in a budget-neutral way. If there's less money for hip and knee replacements, fewer of them will be done for people who need them."

The Association of American Medical Colleges is advocating a 30 percent increase in medical school enrollment, which would produce 5,000 additional new doctors each year.

"If we expand coverage, we need to make sure we have physicians to take care of a population that is growing and becoming older," said Dr. Atul Grover, the chief lobbyist for the association. "Let's say we insure everyone. What next? We won't be able to take care of all those people overnight."

The experience of Massachusetts is instructive. Under a far-reaching 2006 law, the state succeeded in reducing the number of uninsured. But many who gained coverage have been struggling to find primary-care doctors, and the average waiting time for routine office visits has increased.

"Some of the newly insured patients still rely on hospital emergency rooms for nonemergency care," said Erica L. Drazen, a health policy analyst at Computer Sciences Corp.

The ratio of primary-care doctors to population is higher in Massachusetts than in other states.

Increasing the supply of doctors could have major implications for health costs.

"It's completely reasonable to say that adding more physicians to the work force is likely to increase health spending," Grover said.

But he said: "We have to increase spending to save money. If you give people better access to preventive and routine care for chronic illnesses, some acute treatments will be less necessary."

In many parts of the country, specialists are also in short supply.

Linde A. Schuster, 55, of Raton, N.M., said she, her daughter and her mother had all had medical problems that required them to visit doctors in Albuquerque.

"It's a long, exhausting drive, three hours down and three hours back," Schuster said.

The situation is even worse in some rural areas. Dr. Richard F. Paris, a family doctor in Hailey, Idaho, said that Custer County, Idaho, had no doctors, even though it is larger than the state of Rhode Island. So he flies in three times a month, over the Sawtooth Mountains, to see patients.

The Obama administration is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into community health centers.

But Mary K. Wakefield, the new administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, said many clinics were having difficulty finding doctors and nurses to fill vacancies.

Doctors trained in internal medicine have historically been seen as a major source of frontline primary care. But many of them are now going into subspecialties of internal medicine, like cardiology and oncology.
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#18  We have known for more than 50 years that fairly simple computer programs are much better at medical diagnosis than doctors. This is because we know that people are naturally poor at solving complex problems.

Give someone a problem to solve and they hypothesize and then test their hypothesis. If the test disproves the hypothesis then they move on to the next hypothesis. Until the test(s) 'confirm' the current hypothesis (ie diagnosis).

This is both an inefficient(wasteful) and error prone - none of the untested hypotheses are tested - way of solving problems.

A much better way to solve diagnosis type problems is to start with a large number of hypotheses and then work through eliminatory tests, most eliminatory test first.

It's almost impossible to teach people to do this with a large number of hypotheses, despite people claiming they can.

Computer programs can do this easily and with much greater sophistication than I have described.

The big impediment to the use of such programs is doctors have fought tooth and nail against them, and to maintain their provider monopolies. Not least because it makes most of their training mostly a waste of time.

The other problem is no one has figured how to make money off them. Curing patients isn't a very profitable business.
Posted by: Phil_B   2009-04-27 23:19  

#17  Years ago I read an estimate that all the money paid to all US physicians on an annual basis is dwarfed by the money it takes to process all the medical/healthcare paperwork in this country.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2009-04-27 21:41  

#16  The medical profession itself is very, very slowly morphing into something that reflects the realities of the nation today. At the turn of the last century doctors were driving ambulances. When I was a tad they were driving to your house in Cadillacs, making house calls. I think that ran you $10, and if you came to the office it was $5.

Medical insurance distorted that pay-as-you go cost structure. Rather than paying by the visit, you're now paying by the procedure -- there's a whole book of them with 5-digit codes, each with a Medicare-approved payment. So opening your mouth and saying "aaaah" now gets reimbursed at $12.50 and you bending over for the fickle finger makes the doctor $18.75. But the patient doesn't have to worry about it because the insurance company's paying, right?

On top of which, naturally, the docs support a fair-sized chunk of the legal profession, and now we're anticipating supporing the politicians, party hacks, and their relatives and hangers on, all dipping their beaks into that 8.5 percent of the economy. (That figure's probably out of date, since the last I looked it up was about 10 years ago.)

Patients seldom actually see doctors anymore. Their time's too precious because they've got to churn out procedures in enough density to cover the overhead of the office, the staff, the insurance, the affiliations, and the continuing education. There used to be a nurse sitting in the doc's office, greeting patients and occasionally assisting the doc as he was setting Little Johnny's broken arm there in the office prior to driving him (in the Cadillac) to the hospital if he didn't have the stuff to produce the cast himself in his GP office. The nurse is gone, replaced by a 19-year old with a student loan for her year's course in medical office administration. Registered nurses never touch bedpans anymore, LPNs are a dying breed, and the stinky work is done by medical techs who're actually glorified EMTs.

The GPs of my youth are now replaced by internal medicine practices, and increasingly we're seen by nurse practitioners, PAs, or even paramedics.

I have no idea what the medical profession is going to look like 50 years from now. I suspect it's not going to be pretty and I'm positive it's going to be a lot more complicated than it is today.
Posted by: Fred   2009-04-27 19:50  

#15  none taken. With that rub-in V1agra, a lot less of us will be "Yanks" anyway
Posted by: Frank G   2009-04-27 18:44  

#14  Yep, It rather obvious here in Brownistan that you Yanks* need Tort law reform more than you need government rationed treatment!

* No offence meant.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2009-04-27 17:26  

#13  A good point, gromky, we do entice them. Of course when they come here they've signed a statement saying they're going to go back. Then they don't.
Posted by: Steve White   2009-04-27 16:57  

#12  Well said, gromky.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2009-04-27 13:54  

#11  Haha, stealing the world's most talented people by offering them an unlimited platform for growth is the entire story of America.

"Imperialism" would be taking doctors by force; we just make such a kick-ass country that everyone wants to live here voluntarily.
Posted by: gromky   2009-04-27 13:51  

#10  I have to wonder how much the way in which so many western-trained Arab engineers and doctors end up in Islamist terrorist groups or political organizations isn't just a sorting algorithm. The ones who are disposed to adjust to modern/Western values tend to *stay* in the countries they trained in, while the ones who can't handle the cultural milieu go home and make trouble wholesale.
Posted by: Mitch H.   2009-04-27 12:55  

#9  ....and no way I could have adapted to life in Peshawar, Tehran or Addis Adaba.

No adaptation worries Dr. White, they're all coming to a community near YOU!
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-04-27 12:28  

#8  One part of this that we don't talk about much is how we strip the third world of good doctors for our own system.

I call it imperialism. A century ago we took the raw resources from the third world, now we take their smart people.

Young doctors in Pakistan, India, Ethiopia, etc. come to our country to train (usually in third tier programs), and decide that life is better in Newark than in Peshawar (no, reeeallly?) So they stay and work as doctors here rather than return to their home countries.

Think about that: to pull that off they have to be pretty-darned smart. They need to learn English well enough to pass the entrance exam to their med schools (almost all the instruction in every third world medical school is in English). Then they have to improve their English well enough to pass the visa exam. They have to be good enough at their studies to pass the USMLE exams to come to the U.S. Then they have to perform well enough in the residency programs to graduate in good standing. They almost certainly have come on an H-1, J or equivalent visa, so now they have to find a way to stay here, usually by taking a position in a community that qualifies for a waiver -- e.g., Newark, Detroit, all the garden spots in our country.

I have a fair amount of respect for them: there's no way I could have learned Urdu or Pashto well enough to learn medicine in those languages, no way I would learn those languages well enough to use them in daily life, and no way I could have adapted to life in Peshawar, Tehran or Addis Adaba.

We could expand our medical schools by 5 to 10% over the next ten years, but you can't move too quickly, as it takes time to gear up the instruction and clinical opportunities. That expansion would cut into the need for foreign MDs, but it costs a lot more since right now, of course, the foreign countries are bearing a substantial amount of the cost.

Again, imperialism.
Posted by: Steve White   2009-04-27 12:26  

#7  New doctors typically owe more than $140,000 in loans when they graduate.

Difficult to pay off school loans and lawyer up for tort lawsuits fights to the tune of $200-250k per year. Shakespear was correct about the lawyers.....what was it, nearly 500 years ago?
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-04-27 12:24  

#6  Doesn't malpractice insurance have an influence? Perhaps some type of Tort reform would help to lower the cost to the doctor.
Posted by: bman   2009-04-27 12:20  

#5  And treating them like a Private entering basic training...

Now that you mention that..if my memory serves me right we are witnessing another 'power' game. IIRC back when the baby boomers hit the demographic climb is when doctors started to see real income increases as demand out paced supply. About the same time, another major social event, the Vietnam commitment showed DoD it too had a serious doctor shortage. DoD budgeted, built and equipped a DoD medical college but was told by the Guild national medical accreditation board that it would not give graduates accreditation. Seems they viewed the potential flood of doctors that the college would start to generate would undermine their now lucrative earning power. Remember they set the limits on how many students that a particular education/hospital program can generate. Of course this is the same time the Donks were starting to exploit the anti-war movement for power. The two naturally allied to kill the program.

This is not a question of pure capitalism vs socialism with the power of the Guild accreditation board to choke the number of graduates as they have for decades.

Throw in that today a registered nurse with a masters degree probably has a greater body of medical knowledge than what we called a doctor eighty years ago. Maybe we need to evaluate exactly what real skill and knowledge is needed to accomplish what tasks before we simply accept
"facts" in the argument of shortages and needs.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-04-27 12:08  

#4  Dear Mr. White, re: #2.....

You say "But of course, we don't do that."

Check that headline again, okay? Maybe we don't do that NOW, but, you want to bet your house that it's not in the cards?
Posted by: AlanC   2009-04-27 11:52  

#3  The only real solution is to increase the pool of Doctors, nurses, ect. and there is no way to do that that doesn't cost money (recruiting, training, pay sound familiar?). And treating them like a Private entering basic training or overworking them will NOT encourage them to stay in the field. Nor will the increasing need for liability insurance to fight off the lawyers.
Posted by: tipover   2009-04-27 11:45  

#2  "We have to increase spending to save money."

Spoken like a Democrat.

More health care does not save money. Better health care does not save money.

Read that again: better health care does not save money, it costs money and it costs more money in the long-term.

If you doubt that, try this intellectual experiment (don't do this in real life) --

1. Stop making insulin.

2. Count the future dollars you save when all the brittle diabetics have died.

But of course, we don't do that. Instead we have insulin and a dozen other expensive medicines. We have dialysis and renal transplants. We have heart surgery. Retinal surgery. Endocrinologists. Home blood glucose meters. We have a big, big chunk of our health care system dedicated to the care of people with diabetes.

That's as it should be. But it all costs money, and the better you do at it, the more it's going to cost, because the diabetics will live longer. As they do, they consume more health care dollars.

That's why Dr. Grover at the AAMC is dead-wrong. We will never save money. We'll spend it, and if we do so intelligently, people will live longer and better.
Posted by: Steve White   2009-04-27 11:26  

#1  A double-edged sword. This is a problem as many primary-care doctors refuse to see Medicare and Medicaid patients because of the low reimbursement rates. Trying to find a doctor really burns people who have paid Medicare insurance for years only to be denied care until they need emergency help through the ER, then find they can't find a doc to do follow up. Even health professionals are exasperated. We now have quite a few H1B doctors named Mo to fill the slack. The words of the Glasgow docs, "Those who cure you will kill you", come to mind.
Posted by: Thealing Borgia 122   2009-04-27 11:24  

00:00