President Obama and Proven Health Reform Ideas


Ideas should easily be recognized as not proven. 
  • During an era where legislators are not willing to invest more dollars, there is a good probability of loser and a smaller probability of winner.  
  • With government focused on cost cutting as a top priority since 1983, remaining dollars for meaningful use are more limited.
  • With a for-profit health care design, winners are magnified and losers are further left behind.
  • With strong lobbying by the largest and most organized corporations and associations, the probability of being a loser increases. 
  • As we marginalize the local and the individual, those more organized and largest gain even more. 
  • Ideas should be discussed with respect and not dismissed as "partisanship and special interest opposition"  

    To the President - Congress and others across the political spectrum have treated you poorly, but with this article you have entered a different area - the area of health care Academics. As such Mr. President, you should be willing to review the critique carefully. It is by failures that we learn and ACA has had many failures.
The Winners Are Obvious, But the Losers Fall Behind

Perhaps the words that do not appear in the President's health reform summary give a clue as to the losers. The words primary care, community, rural, underserved, access, cognitive, integrated, and outreach were not included in his work. These are all words that I value most with regard to basic health access - words that I understand as most important when focusing on health reform. The Obama Administration did no better in these areas and added substantially to higher costs of delivery, declines in productivity, burdensome regulation, and marginalization of those delivering care.

Services as a Measure of Health Reform Impact

The American people may also not experience much improvement, as cognitive, primary care, mental health, and basic services are over 65% of the health care services provided each year. Failure to rearrange payments to support the many at the cost of a few was the decision made (or ignored), and with continued consequences. Reforms did result in more insurance coverage of a sort, but this is a small part of access to care - more than negated when the workforce to delivery access is marginalized.

What President Obama Did Not List as Successful Reforms
Reforms did not address the huge burdens that cripple health care. 
  • Insurance cost was not addressed - direct in dollars or indirect in impairment of health care delivery. 
  • Government regulation costs were worsened - direct or indirect. 
  • Reforms did not stop the health care dollars from streaming to administrative and other non-delivery costs. In fact the "reforms" have massively increased these costs.
Failure to Address Corporate Domination of Health Care - The increasing role of health care organizations, drug corporations, and insurance corporations (and their spinoffs) testify to the lack of reform impact. Software and other digital corporations have been added to the corporate benefactors favored by inclusion in health care.

Failure to Address the Concentrations - Reforms did not stop the concentration of most health care dollars and most health care workforce in 1100 zip codes in 1% of the land area where only 10% of Americans are found - leaving most Americans behind in health services and in the economic impact of health care dollars.

Failure to Address the Maldistributions -  Everywhere there are concentrations of patients with Medicare, Medicaid, and other lowest paying plans, there are gaps in primary care, geriatric care, mental health, and basic services. Federal Cause of Shortage Areas Instead of addressing reforms that could have been accomplished, CMS took on quality metrics despite the inability to assign outcomes to a specific physician or to discern a quality physician from the average.

Cognitive/Office/Basic vs Procedural/Technical/Subspecialized - Reforms did not address the massive costs of subspecialty care or stop the flow of MD, DO, NP, and PA away from family practice and primary care to specialty and subspecialty positions. The creation of new types of workforce has only resulted in more new specialties added across MD DO NP PA with more added to each new specialty. To understand the workforce, one need only follow the money.

Perhaps the most important thing to understand about health care reform since 2010 - is how loosely the term is used. If this is all that can be obtained, how will we ever have reform that matters to most of us.

Recent Posts and References 


Rallying One Hundred for Health Access Not MACRA


The Ultimate Government Health Care Paradox - Government must facilitate better EHRs and better health access, not prevent them.

 Government Compromise of Trauma Response
No Positive Spin for the Innovator Tailspin - more claims for innovation successes are apparently attempts to hide failure
Stop the Promotion To Restore Mental Health Access - claims of mental health care reforms or improvements are a stark contrast from the reality of lowest payment, highest complexity of care, unreliable payment, and poor support other than lots of rhetoric





Primary care can be recovered and should be recovered, 
but cannot be recovered when moving the wrong directions

Robert C. Bowman, M.D.        Robert.Bowman@DignityHealth.org

The blogs represent the opinion of the blogger alone.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Another Fine CMS You Have Gotten Us Into

Perhaps we are indeed back to the time of Another Fine Mess (Laurel and Hardy). In a mad rush to implement innovation and to save all possible costs, CMS is creating complications for people that it is most responsible to protect. As PBS and Ken Burns celebrate the legacy of The Roosevelts, it is tragic to see what has become of over a century of effort involving Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and health care equity. The United States has one of the most complex health designs and clearly the various designers often know not what they are doing to others. More cartoons and comedians would find this a ripe area for material if not for the suffering involved. Health and Human Services has a huge role across Social Security and US health care. CMS or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has a dominant role to play in the design of health care in the United States.  CMS can be progressive or regressive. Interestingly CMS has chosen to appear to be progressive and in
Read more

The Essential True Reform Restores Primary Care and Much More

The list of distractions from True Reform are impressive. For decades True Reform has been specifically avoided as primary care worsens within practices and from outside. The demise is most specifically about the financial design. Unless there is a focus on True Reform, there is little hope for Basic Health Access. This may not make as much sense to those outside of family medicine. Family physicians not familiar with AAFP may also be clueless. If you think that you can fix primary care with more technology, more rearrangements, more types of health professional graduates, or more expansions of training - think again. None of these have any hope of working without financial design changes - major changes. The following are various concepts that dominate the discussions at AAFP and primary care meetings and media releases of associations and foundations and institutions. Members, staff, media releases, programs, and personnel have been reviewed.  There is little about Tru
Read more

Innovation Is the Problem Not the Solution for Worsening Health

Image
Innovation is good. Innovation worship is not good. Innovation application without scientific testing or clinical trials is unethical regarding clinical interventions and should be just as prohibited with regard to health policy. Clinical trials can harm hundreds or thousands. Innovative policies can harm millions. It takes a reasonable understanding of health care, health care outcomes, social determinants, and the investments that most improve social determinants to understand the consequences arising from the innovative nightmares past, present, and future. If you review the information sources with a critical eye, you too may find that the innovative policy designs have been disruptive to care, have hurt health care where health care is most needed, have reduced access to care, and have resulted in distortions in the literature. Indeed what is accepted and published in journals seriously lacks consideration of alternative hypothesis, lacks inclusion of many pages of limitatio
Read more