Healthcare reform lessons from small town America

“Any plan that relies on the sheep to negotiate with the wolves is doomed to failure.”

— "The Cost Conundrum: What a Texas town can teach us about health care," The New Yorker

We know health care cost growth must be contained. It's hampering our competitiveness, bankrupting families and hamstringing state and federal budgets. But any hope for a systems solution gets tangled in the political struggle that pits free marketry against creeping socialism in every area of community life.

But what if the free market chose something that looked more like "socialized medicine" — and it worked?

That's one intriguing possibility found in surgeon Atul Gawande's New Yorker article, which looks at high-cost and low-cost health care systems around the country. In light of the evidence, none of the leading theories about why costs grow out of control account for dramatic health care cost and quality differences among otherwise similar communities.

Looking at McAllen, Texas, one of the most costly healthcare markets in the nation, Gawande found that "the primary cause of McAllen’s extreme costs was, very simply, the across-the-board overuse of medicine." What's more, overutilization was not producing better outcomes there or elsewhere.

Two economists working at Dartmouth, Katherine Baicker and Amitabh Chandra, found that the more money Medicare spent per person in a given state the lower that state’s quality ranking tended to be. In fact, the four states with the highest levels of spending—Louisiana, Texas, California, and Florida—were near the bottom of the national rankings on the quality of patient care.
[...]
In an odd way, this news is reassuring. Universal coverage won’t be feasible unless we can control costs. Policymakers have worried that doing so would require rationing, which the public would never go along with. So the idea that there’s plenty of fat in the system is proving deeply attractive. “Nearly thirty per cent of Medicare’s costs could be saved without negatively affecting health outcomes if spending in high- and medium-cost areas could be reduced to the level in low-cost areas,” Peter Orszag, the President’s budget director, has stated.

But what, exactly, accounts for the fat?

Gawande looks at, but finds little evidence to indict, the usual suspects: Government, consumers with little skin in the game, greedy hospitals and insurance companies, unhealthy habits and skewed provider incentives. Instead, he points to a culture shift in the culture of medical practice that mirrors a change in society.

A focus on money, not healthy communities.

The article suggests that physicians are not equipped — with training or data — to focus on the financial considerations of their decisions, while the business orientation of hospitals and insurance companies requires them to focus on

whether they are losing money or making money. They know that if their doctors bring in enough business—surgery, imaging, home-nursing referrals—they make money; and if they get the doctors to bring in more, they make more. But they have only the vaguest notion of whether the doctors are making their communities as healthy as they can, or whether they are more or less efficient than their counterparts elsewhere.

According to Gawande, Stanford sociologist Woody Powell — studying why certain regions became leaders in biotechnology while similar centers did not — has formulated a theory of economic development which holds that "anchor tenants" define the character of an economic community, just as anchor tenants in a mall do. By setting certain collaborative community norms, anchor tenants encouraged successful communities, while those aiming to dominate did not.

Powell suspects that anchor tenants play a similarly powerful community role in other areas of economics, too, and health care may be no exception. About fifteen years ago, it seems, something began to change in McAllen. A few leaders of local institutions took profit growth to be a legitimate ethic in the practice of medicine. Not all the doctors accepted this. But they failed to discourage those who did. So here, along the banks of the Rio Grande, in the Square Dance Capital of the World, a medical community came to treat patients the way subprime-mortgage lenders treated home buyers: as profit centers.

The difference between McAllen and Grand Junction, Colorado, one of the nation's lowest-cost markets with some of the highest quality-of-care scores, may be the difference between a culture focused on money versus one focused on a healthy community.

[Y]ears ago the doctors agreed among themselves to a system that paid them a similar fee whether they saw Medicare, Medicaid, or private-insurance patients, so that there would be little incentive to cherry-pick patients. They also agreed, at the behest of the main health plan in town, an H.M.O., to meet regularly on small peer-review committees to go over their patient charts together. They focussed on rooting out problems like poor prevention practices, unnecessary back operations, and unusual hospital-complication rates. Problems went down. Quality went up. Then, in 2004, the doctors’ group and the local H.M.O. jointly created a regional information network—a community-wide electronic-record system that shared office notes, test results, and hospital data for patients across the area. Again, problems went down. Quality went up. And costs ended up lower than just about anywhere else in the United States.

Grand Junction’s medical community was not following anyone else’s recipe. But, like Mayo, it created what Elliott Fisher, of Dartmouth, calls an accountable-care organization. The leading doctors and the hospital system adopted measures to blunt harmful financial incentives, and they took collective responsibility for improving the sum total of patient care.

It almost sounds like socialism, except Grand Junction is politically a very conservative community. Go figure.

— Charlie Quimby

Comments

[Jackie Diaz]

I appreciate this article even though I live in San Diego County, CA. This article gives a clear and true answer that is not being heard. I wonder why no one in the government has openly discussed similar methods of overcoming the financial issues with reasonable solutions across the board? I know we have a lot of very smart people in this country. I pray that each one will begin to think on making economic growth through appropriate resources; growth that helps everyone especially those in need.