More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Maggie Kozel, M.D.

GET UPDATES FROM Maggie Kozel, M.D.
 

Why Medicaid Cuts Harm Us All

Posted: 07/05/11 05:56 PM ET

I usually write about health care reform from a pediatrician's viewpoint, but what grabbed my attention recently was a story my husband, Randy, told me about an adult in his practice -- a patient on Medicaid.

Randy is a neurologist in a private practice and Medicaid patients come from every corner of Rhode Island to see him. They make this cumbersome pilgrimage because he is a member of a dying breed: Randy still accepts Medicaid. He does this for $27.

That is not a copay; that is the total per patient reimbursement he gets from the state. It is clearly not a good deal for Randy, who will start losing money about 10 minutes into the visit. And it is often not a good deal for his patients, who may have to travel a very circuitous route to receive simple, appropriate care. But it is also a terrible deal for taxpayers. The American taxpayer needs to understand how this Medicaid patient ended up in Randy's office.

Randy's patient was a slightly overweight, balding man who would hardly stand out in a crowd if it weren't for his obvious reliance on a medical escort to gently help him move about and answer questions. His speech was clear but simple, and he stayed on message: "My toe hurts." They had driven about 75 miles to deliver this message.

Randy spoke directly to his new patient, slowly teasing essential information out of a person whose most reliable verbal tools were "yes" and "no." This unhappy fellow had had a sore toe for several days and was trying not to bear weight on it. The only symptom the staff at his group home noticed was that he seemed to be losing his balance. One morning he was so distracted by the discomfort that he stumbled in the shower, causing a minor cut on the toe. They were not surprised to see that the injured toe was swollen and tender.

Medicaid, like every other public and private payment program in our fee for service (FFS) system is based on a model of productivity -- high patient volume -- rather than quality. Fee schedules provided by Rhode Island's Department of Human Services indicate that a primary doc could have expected a reimbursement of $20.50 if she saw this Medicaid patient in her office. Physicians who accept Medicaid often feel pressured to increase patient turnover by speed-reading records, keeping conversation to a minimum and quickly offering a prescription or tests.

If there is any reasonable way to put an "urgent" slant on the situation, the primary care doctor can completely avoid a money-losing office visit by referring the patient to an emergency room. In this case, "loss of balance, difficulty walking" provided the admission ticket for this patient to be referred directly to a local ER. From the primary doc's perspective, the underinsured patient will still get medical attention and the local hospital, rather than the doctor, will now be absorbing the cost.

It is the very nature of an urgent care setting to emphasize quick, decisive action over conversation -- especially with a patient who is slow of thought and speech. This man's ER encounter ($92 for the provider plus "institutional" fees for the hospital) consisted of little more than a hurried doctor considering the reason for referral and ordering a CT scan of the head ($156) to rule out an intracranial cause, like a stroke or tumor, for his loss of balance. With that test normal, the patient was referred to a neurologist to sort out the strange mystery of why he could not walk.

Two weeks later, sitting face to face with this man, Randy slowly, methodically pieced together this story; what it lacked in detail it more than made up for in focus: the quiet man who would not walk was not concerned that he was losing his balance or even that he fell in the shower. His toe just really hurt, and it had been hurting for what he felt was a very long time.

The records Randy received were flimsy, but he noticed that the patient was on allopurinol, a treatment for gout. As any first year medical student can tell you, gout is a very painful form of arthritis that is caused by high uric acid levels in the blood that deposit as crystals in the joint, causing pain that has been described as a fiery volcano in the ... you guessed it.

The most common site of gouty arthritis is the big toe. Randy stooped to help the wincing patient off with his tennis shoe and tube sock. There, where a normal toe should have been, was a swollen, angry Mt. Vesuvius.

A flare-up of gout should have been promptly managed by a properly reimbursed primary care physician. Instead, the total cost erupted as steadily as the condition and included three weeks of unnecessary pain, a whopping dose of radiation and expensive medical encounters that accomplished nothing. Finally, there is the cost that is at the heart of the taxpayer's problem: the cost to Randy that the $27 did not cover. This unfunded cost is what drives the expensive game of medical hot potato we play with underinsured patients.

Our current FFS system, which rewards productivity, tests and procedures rather than quality, is wasteful and ineffective at every step for all patients, but is particularly harsh for Medicaid patients. We have to move out of our narrow FFS mindset to appreciate what other models of care -- like medical homes and federally funded community health centers -- have to offer. We -- the sweet, slow-thinking man with the fat toe, the new mother with lots of questions, the frail, worried senior with a handbag full of medications, the overweight child, the conscientious physician, the small business owner, and yes, the U.S. taxpayer -- desperately need a smarter, more cost-effective healthcare system. Simply cutting programs like Medicaid is like putting a Band-Aid on a gouty toe.

 
 
 

Follow Maggie Kozel, M.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/barkingmd

 
 
  • Comments
  • 6
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sunnybunny
02:25 PM on 07/07/2011
I'm sorry, but even if you spent an entire hour with this patient figuring out that his gout was what was making his toe hurt, (which was a matter of putting together the existing information) $27. should be plenty sufficient reimbursement - why is your time so valuable just because you are a doctor? I'm sure someone here can enlighten me.
01:28 PM on 07/10/2011
Not even taking into account the possibility that the doctor might be managing a potentially disabling or life-threatening disorder, that $27 covers the doctor's time, pay for the staff, rent on the building, pays all the insurance, staff workers compensation/health/ pension, etc. Your mechanic gets paid a lot more than that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sunnybunny
02:23 PM on 07/11/2011
Really? you know where a mechanic gets paid more than that? Tell me and I'll let all the mechanics I know look for a job there.When you are charged for labor on a bill that price includes the overhead - mechanics don't get paid that much when they work by the hour. Those that do make a lot actually get paid by the job, and the labor is charged by the average time it takes to complete that job.So if it takes them more time to complete it it doesn't pay more but usually it takes less. So if you consider that most doctors visits are actually very short - time wise you are coming out ahead. It apparently is relative to what you would be making if you were seeing a different patient? I get that there's overhead, and I get the crucially important nature of it ( which I could relate to charging high prices for water after a hurricane) With that sort of thing, It disappoints me to think that it's that much about the money
09:03 AM on 07/06/2011
What a familiar story. Those of us who spend the time actually talking to patients to figure out the problem are penalized financially because we don't do a lot of expensive tests. What will we do when people wake up to find that there are not enough neurologists and primary providers left to care for a growing and aging population?
06:40 PM on 07/05/2011
This is one more story that is supposed to get us crying out for justice instead there is another million stories that need justice and then ten's of millions of stories worldwide? We have let the -Liberals- talk us into a health care system that helps everybody thereby helping nobody, so when -You- want to blame somebody for this mess blame a liberal???