There are several reasons why I believe that most doctors are unhappy with the direction that health insurance reform is taking. I address several of these reasons in my oped in today’s NY Post (September 23rd, 2009). I will also outline them here. Suffice it to say that adding more patients to the health care turnstiles and promising them access to quality physicians when there is a growing doctor (and nurses) shortage and a growing doctor (and nurse) discontentment is problematic at best. The blanket of health insurance that Congress and the president envision is not long enough to cover the body of health care. If we pull it down to cover the toes, the head will be exposed. If we stretch it to cover the uninsured without dealing with cost or the doctor shortage, we will end up taking care away from those who currently have it and need it (the elderly and the disabled to name two groups who are endangered). Remember, physicians who aren’t functioning well have a negative impact on health care.

Reasons for doctor discontentment:

• No meaningful tort reform is included in any of the current bills under consideration in Congress. No shared liability with insurances or the government, no caps on pain and suffering, no review boards to limit nuisance suits, no “loser pays” allowance, despite the fact that physicians win the vast majority of suits.
• No significant subsidies to primary care education, despite the fact that there has been a decline in those choosing primary care of over 50% over the past decade.
• Big cuts to Medicare and Medicaid payments to doctors and hospitals of hundreds of billions of dollars in the bills, despite the fact that doctors are already cut to the bone in terms of increasing expenses and decreasing reimbursements.
• Cuts in payments for procedures and mechanical devices will put more pressure on doctors as patients express their (deserved) discontent, and there is nothing a doctor can do.

Dr. Marc Siegel is an internist and associate professor of medicine at the NYU School of Medicine. He is a FOX News medical contributor and writes a health column for the LA Times, where he examines TV and movies for medical accuracy. Dr. Siegel’s new Ebook: Swine Flu; the New Pandemic, will be published in early October. Dr. Siegel is also the author of “False Alarm: The Truth About the Epidemic of Fear“ and “Bird Flu: Everything You Need to Know About the Next Pandemic.” Read more at www.doctorsiegel.com

In the current push for national health insurance, expensive overuse of technology based on the defensive practice of medicine by doctors is being overlooked. Yet doctors often over-order tests and treatments for fear of missing a remote diagnosis. Doctors are afraid of being sued by the same aggressive trial lawyers who lobby Congress against real reform. Keep in mind that it isn’t just a dreaded error like removing the wrong kidney that motivates doctors to practice defensively, it is the fear of lawyers and having to meet with them as part and parcel of responding to arbitrary lawsuits. Doctors who have done nothing wrong can be targeted with frivolous suits that drag them into the lawyer’s office. The process of having your records scrutinized in an effort to determine how well you’ve documented things and if you’ve made errors can be instructive, but it can also be humiliating. This process can alter the way a doctor practices as he or she struggles to avoid the nightmare of legal exposure in future.

Though 98,000 people die in U.S. hospitals every year from medical mistakes, at the same time according to a recent Harvard study, 40 percent of malpractice lawsuits are not legitimate, though they lead to 15 percent of the money paid out. Often times the doctors who are sued did nothing wrong, while those who make mistakes too often escape retribution.

Most malpractice cases are won by doctors, but not before they endure the protracted painful process of meeting with lawyers. Many doctors quit medicine or become even more defensive and order more and more unnecessary tests as a result. I remember when the best urologist and one of the top cardiologists at my hospital quit practice abruptly because of extended lawsuits where they weren’t at fault.

On the defense side, lawyers may milk doctors for billable time, and on the plaintiff side, ambulance chasers thrive, creating and exploiting frivolous cases for profit. Many patients get unnecessary operations because of defensive medicine. C-section is on the rise and is vastly overdone because of doctors fearing lawsuits. There is a culture of fear that motivates doctors to practice defensively, which causes costs to skyrocket.

With the possible rationing of care that may occur in the name of cost control under an expanded system, malpractice could skyrocket as more and more tests and procedures are denied yet doctors continue to be blamed when something goes wrong. It is especially problematic that neither insurers nor the government have direct legal responsibility while at the same time turning down tests. Most doctors are too busy and too scared of being singled out to band together to protest this uneven system.

What is the solution? One solution is to create state review boards like Michigan or Tennessee to limit frivolous lawsuits. Doctors and lawyers can serve on these boards together and provide a barrier to nuisance suits. More peer review in the hospitals is also a good idea, regular mortality and morbidity conferences where doctors behavior is examined without the direct fear of lawsuits.

Capping pain and suffering awards would seem like a simple enough solution, but some patients truly deserve a high reward if they’ve been badly mistreated by a physician (as when the wrong organ is removed or a diagnosis is blatantly missed). A better initial approach is to target nuisance suits for destruction.

It is estimated that tort reform can lead to an initial savings of 2% on health care costs, without even considering the billions of dollars that will be saved by decreasing the defensive practice of medicine (based on overuse). But even with tort reform, the current plans for health insurance reform combined with decreased reimbursements to hospitals and doctors will lead to more and more patients being seen in shorter periods of time. This will lead to more and more medical mistakes, and more and more malpractice.

There hasn’t been much of a push yet to combine tort reform with the current health insurance reform initiative being considered by Congress. This could change. The Democrats could decide to add some tort reform (probably Caps to pain and suffering) as a sweetener to a bitter pill (or bill). This might cause more physicians to support the current health reform, but would do nothing to correct the larger problem of physician dissatisfaction, overwork, attrition, and scarcity, all of which lead to medical mistakes.

Plus, simply capping pain and suffering is not a guarantee that doctors will see their liability insurance premiums lowered. In California in the 1980s, when a cap on pain of suffering to $250,000 was first initiated, there was no overall savings to physicians. Instead, the insurance companies made more profits. It took an additional law to ensure that the savings was transferred to physicians in terms of lower premiums.  

It is the current insurance-oriented climate for practicing medicine that must be changed before doctors (and their patients) will reach any kind of comfort level or be able to cut costs in a reasonable way. Insurance of both kinds (private and public) is the problem, not the solution. Costs spiral upward because of doctors’ fear of malpractice and rush to see more and more patients in a short period of time amid shrinking reimbursements. The easiest way to do this if you’re a primary care doctor is to quickly refer a patient to a specialist of for an expensive test, jacking up costs. At the same time, patients are inclined to overuse their health insurance because they don’t pay for each procedure or as many have put it, because patients don’t have any “skin in the game.”

Tort reform is essential and must include not only caps on pain and suffering and reflected decreases in liability premiums, but also a way to ferret out nuisance suites. I am in favor of more peer review in the hospitals as well as a lawyer and doctor staffed board in every state to review claims before they are brought. I strongly believe that private insurance companies as well as the government (Medicare and Medicaid), should incur liability themselves for tests they decline.

But I do not think that any of this should be done as a way to manipulate physicians to support a kind of health reform that is not in our best interest, or in the best interest of our patients.

Dr. Marc Siegel is an internist and associate professor of medicine at the NYU School of Medicine. He is a FOX News medical contributor and writes a health column for the LA Times, where he examines TV and movies for medical accuracy. Dr. Siegel is the author of “False Alarm: The Truth About the Epidemic of Fear“ and “Bird Flu: Everything You Need to Know About the Next Pandemic.” Read more at www.doctorsiegel.com

Last week, I published an oped in the Wall Street Journal where I pointed out that extending health insurance (especially with a government option) to the entire population would be problematic unless the problem of doctors opting out of insurance under the current system is addressed.

In other words, health insurance doesn’t automatically mean health care, especially if you lack the caretakers to accept it.

This oped produced a firestorm of responses, from  letters to the Journal to hundreds of responses to the WSJ blog which published an abbreviated version, to hundreds of emails to my personal account. I discussed my oped on Fox News and Fox Business. Most of the responses were positive, and Rush Limbaugh read my oped on his radio show and praised it. The NY State Commissioner of Health is going to meet with me to discuss ideas.

Among my critics, some people lost sight of the point that I have not dropped Medicare myself, in fact I pointed out in the article that I take care of many Medicare patients who have left other doctors they were happy with because they dropped out.

Another criticism was that I don’t provide solutions. That is a fair comment, though my father always taught me that a person’s first responsibility is to identify a problem before considering solutions. In any case, here are some preliminary ideas that could help primary care doctors and keep them from opting out of an expanding system:

* Subsidize education and provide incentives for choosing primary care medicine as a career.
* Provide tax incentives for seeing Medicaid and perhaps Medicare patients.
* Do NOT take Medicaid funding away from hospitals to increase reimbursement to private physicians because this will have little impact and because taking care of Medicaid patients – who are often the sickest due to poverty – requires the kind of network you only find at the hospital and associated out-patient clinics.
* Increase physician reimbursement and decrease paperwork.
* Consider a system where insurance is less pervasive and is focused more on prevention and emergencies, with high deductibles to discourage overuse. The middle ground between prevention and emergency intervention can involve negotiated prices between doctor and patient, the way it used to be. Health Savings Accounts should also be considered.

Dr. Marc Siegel is an internist and associate professor of medicine at the NYU School of Medicine. He is a FOX News medical contributor and writes a health column for LA Times, where he examines TV and movies for medical accuracy. Dr. Siegel is the author of “False Alarm: The Truth About the Epidemic of Fear“ and “Bird Flu: Everything You Need to Know About the Next Pandemic.”  Read more at www.doctorsiegel.com

I want to know what you think.

Eight states are considering passing legislation that would require random drug testing for people to receive food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare.

Click here to read the article, “States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients”

Supporters of this legislation feel that it’s necessary in response to an ever-growing population of Americans applying for government-funded aid as a result of the economic downturn. These lawmakers feel it would help to identify the potential health risks and the probability of those receiving aid getting back on their feet when the economy turns around — and that it would also send a clear message: In America, you don’t get something for nothing.

Why not get tested? Millions of Americans are drug tested at random for their jobs every day — the same Americans whose taxes are funding government assistance programs like food stamps, unemployment and welfare. And as American citizens, we need to take responsibility for our own well-being and that of our families.

Now, I’m not getting down on the millions of Americans who may be down on their luck, or for whatever reason, must rely on government aid to help them through tough times while they try their best to get back on their feet. But then if that’s the case, a random drug test should not be a problem, right?

But there are two sides to every argument — and there may be a couple of questions worth asking when considering this proposal …

What about the unintentional effects that limiting aid to a family — especially one with children — may have in failing to provide them with necessities as basic as food on their plates? We don’t want to punish the children for their parents’ actions. But then, in some cases, with severely drug-addicted parents, how can we be sure that the money is going to support the children, rather than to support the habit?

Just last year, a contest in southern California called “There Ought to Be a Law,” yielded a disabled 16-year-old winner whose life challenges inspired his proposal of legislation to mandate random drug testing for all pregnant women on welfare. R.J. Feild was born weighing just 2 pounds, 2 ounces with traces of heroin, marijuana, methamphetamine, alcohol and cocaine in his system due to his mother’s drug use while she was pregnant.  And while the “R.J.’s Law” never made it into legislation, it brought to light an important issue.

But then what happens to people who test positive for drugs while on public assistance? Would the states flat-out refuse help forever, or would they help them get into a rehabilitation center to kick the habit? Right now, most states can’t even meet their Medicaid requirements for people to get routine health care. Perhaps a better plan might be to pump the government aid they would normally receive directly into rehabilitating them.

So I’d like to know what you think, because at the end of the day, we’re the ones funding these programs.

Lisa Medina, 22, of Michigan, was born with Tessier Cleft, a congenital defect that has left her underdeveloped face slashed wide-open on both sides – from her roofless mouth to the empty spaces where her eyes should have been, reports mlive.com.

First, Medicaid told her they wouldn’t cover her next surgery because it was cosmetic. When they finally realized it was a medical necessity, Medicaid said it couldn’t pay for an out-of-state surgery – and Medina’s doctor is based in North Carolina.

What do you think? Have you ever struggled with an insurance company to pay for a needed medical procedure?