Articles by "health access"
Showing posts with label health access. Show all posts
health is wealth, fitness is beauty, dieting is inspiration, weight loss is recreational learn how to..
Annual graduates continue to increase at rates must faster than population growth or growth of the elderly, yet more sources all expanded have failed to address shortages. Where did the graduates go? Not surprisingly they follow the dollar directions shaped by health policy. GME training produces the wrong physicians for the wrong specialties and the wrong places.
Residency expansions could increase the physician workforce but will not address shortages of workforce, poor retention of graduates where needed, health outcomes improvements, or access to care for Medicaid and Medicare populations falling most behind. Residency expansions will worsen health care costs and will further marginalize physicians in their contracts with employers. New medical schools, residency programs, or nurse practitioner/physician assistant programs should not be promoted as a solution for health access woes. Only substantially more dollars to support more team members in lowest concentration settings will address health access deficits.

Graduate Expansions Fail for Relief of Shortages
  • Residency expansions cannot address shortages. Too few dollars go to the places to allow adequate team members. Only payment changes can address shortages.
  • Residency expansions cannot address poor retention and higher turnover where payments are least, support is least, and complexity is highest. Only payment changes can address these areas. 
  • Residency training continues to produce the wrong specialties for the wrong places. The payment design prevents MD DO NP and PA from remaining within primary care careers and prevents residency graduates from staying within general specialties as taking a fellowship or two results in a great deal more support with less complexity and more team members to share the load.
  • Uses of Medicare and Medicaid dollars for training are not specific to the needs of Medicare and Medicaid patients most left behind. The designs prevent graduates from going to places where such patients are concentrated and prevent the specialties that they most need.
Health Care Cost Acceleration
Expansions of residency positions are promoted by those who most benefit from such expansions. Fewer graduates can help to prevent runaway health care costs.  Nurse practitioners and physician assistants have long been promoted as excellent contributions for primary care, but do as well or better in subspecialty teams. More patients can be seen in more settings and the physicians can focus on the highest revenue areas.
Accelerations of health care costs are a primary mechanism resulting in across the board cuts - cuts that hurt the lowest margin practices. The lowest margins are seen in generalist and general specialty workforce.

Overproduction  
Too many MD DO NP and PA graduates are being produced. The growth far outstrips population growth and growth of the elderly. The result has been employer dominated workforce. This tips the balance greatly toward employers, particularly in areas with the least payment support. Various sources are played against one another and this prevents understanding of the damage done by too many graduates.

Inequities Contribute to Disparities and Poor Outcomes
Residency funding is distributed most inequitably, adding to disparities directly in dollar distributions with further contributions in the products produced. Only 6.5% of residency positions are found in lowest physician concentration counties with 40% of Americans and 43 - 47% of the elderly, poor, and others most left behind.

Residency training design is a great fit for the highest physician concentration places. These include 6 states, 100 counties, and 1100 zip codes that already have top concentrations of physicians. 
Residency is the dominant factor in practice location. About half of residency positions and 45% of physicians are found in 1% of the land area in 1100 zip codes that have the most lines of revenue and the highest reimbursements in each line. These are crafted by payment designs that leaders in top concentrations have largely shaped and protected.

Research has long established that physicians will crowd in to higher concentration places rather than to distribute to places of need.
Too Many Graduates Already

By the end of 1980 the US had 20000 physicians entering the workforce with 1500 for PA and 1500 for NP. Now 30,000 physicians enter the workforce with 20,000 for NP and 9000 for PA. In only a few years there will be more NP and PA than physicians. Each year brings a few thousand more NP graduates with no sign of slowing. New medical schools are being added and new PA programs as well.
The US will never resolve shortages by producing more graduates. Massive expansions have long failed as demonstrated with a 12 times increase in nurse practitioners since 1980 along with a 6 times increase in PA and two doublings of DO graduates plus 25% from international sources plus a 30% increase in MD graduates.



These increases have resulted in little or no increase in primary care and a massive increase in non-primary care workforce. 
Health care institutions, corporations, and businesses prefer to generate more revenue from services, tests, procedures, and evaluations that are paid at much higher rates. It is even better if this has lower overhead. Primary care and basic services are high in overhead and low in revenue. Businesses invest where profit is most likely and payment designs have take away the profit in primary care for decades.

Expansions Fail for Primary Care, Mental Health, and General Surgical Specialties

Despite recent expansions, the collapse of internal medicine primary care, family medicine down to 70% primary care result, and pediatrics down below 40% have resulted in less physician primary care. Each year the US gets less primary care result despite more graduates.

The last doublings of physician assistant and osteopathic graduates resulted in no net gain in primary care workforce. The entire expansion was devoted to non-primary care.




The last few decades of workforce expansion have entirely been in non-primary care highly specialized workforce areas in places with higher concentrations of workforce - where we already overutilize and have costs too high. Too Many and the Wrong Clinicians. The dollars expended follow the workforce to more spent for procedural, technical, hospital, and highly subspecialized leaving less for primary care and basic services.
Primary care spending and spending where people need care has remained stagnant for decades by design. NP and PA also add more specialties and more are added to each new specialty - leaving family practice positions behind - the predominant primary care form for NP PA and DO. 
Even family medicine is no longer immune to payment paucity with over 90% active in FM dropping to less than 70% in the last 15 class years. Family medicine may soon break the 50% mark with less than a majority remaining active and in primary care over their careers. This could begin in the next few class years due to insufficient primary care support, costly complications, and rapid increases in complexity. Burnout is at record high levels due to payment design. 

Primary care turnover costs are estimated to be over $300,000 per lost primary care physician or about twice the cost of loss of NP and PA clinicians, but clinicians turn over at twice the rate of primary care physicians. Worsening morale, productivity, burnout, and turnover result in negative margins.

Flexible workforce follows funding. Once primary care training physicians had no other options, but now they have many hospital, urgent, emergent, and specialty options. NP and PA graduates once had few options, but this is no longer the case. As with physicians, they have more support and more team members and more specialized roles with less complexity and higher salaries - all set up by payment design.

The Evidence All Points to Payment Failure

The evidence points to shortages as the result of payment design. Only the academic community clings to workforce as being shaped by training. Without the dollars injected into the services provided by basic specialties, there can be no resolution of shortages.
The nation needs generalists, mental health, and general surgical specialties now and for decades to come due to aging changes. This is even more important where most Americans are found with lowest concentrations of workforce as there are few other types of specialties. 

These basic services are lowest paid services and remain so by design. The MD DO NP and PA expansions do not reflect any movement toward addressing these workforce areas because of payment design. The failure of massive expansions should have long ago pointed to payment failure.

Payment Failure Fails Most Where Workforce is Most Needed.

Demand increases are greatest in 2621 lowest physician concentration counties that are growing the fastest
  • In population (30% faster for decades)
  • In elderly
  • In chronic diseases
  • In complexity
The Role of Affordable Housing

Americans in higher concentrations are being displaced by city, county, developer, and government designs. Land is most valuable in higher concentration settings. Converting areas of lowest value (affordable housing, older housing, public housing) to highest value is quite profitable. Many participate in these schemes. Articles indicate the worsening shortages of affordable housing across metro areas of the nation.

Destruction of affordable housing in higher concentration settings forces Americans who are older, less healthy, disabled, Veterans, Medicare, Medicaid, and Dual Eligible to go to lowest concentration counties - counties with the least resources and workforce. They bring their worst paying, least locally supportive insurance plans with them. These plans now exclude local providers, often pay less than cost of delivery, and require numerous hoops to jump through to address patient and payer needs. Those who do not want to take care of them include state, federal, and insurance payers. Providers caring for them get penalized by payment design because they care for them.

Concentrations of Patients with Lowest Paying Plans Shape Shortages of Workforce

The lowest concentration counties are shortest in workforce with 40% of the population and less than 13% of health spending. Only 22 - 26% of physicians, clinicians, internists, pediatricians, and general surgical specialties are found in this 40% segment.

In these counties about 46% of local workforce is primary care and 25% are found in general surgical specialties. Practices in these counties tend to have the oldest physicians - also an indication of lack of replacement. These counties have been hit hardest by recent designs that have compromised small practices - particularly the MD DO NP and PA that remain in family practice despite the design.
The specialties important for lowest concentration counties are in decline or are disappearing. In the following graphic the ratio of concentration is noted, followed by active physicians per 100,000, the proportion of the local workforce provided by the specialty, and expected changes.
Family medicine distributes most equitably at 1.18. Psychiatrists are 7 times more likely to be found in the 79 top physician concentration counties as compared to the 2621 lowest physician concentration counties. Family medicine remains at 26 to 32 active family physicians per 100,000 across the US and various divisions. In the very lowest concentration counties, only family practice is found. In top concentrations FM is only 3 - 5% of local workforce. Where policies are most shaped, family medicine is a small fraction. Where health access is most important, family medicine most matters. Family practice NP and PA have similar distribution, but only when staying in family practice positions. 


Only the general specialties provide much care in lowest concentration counties 
and only when they stay general and do not go on for one or more fellowships. 
Note that residents are 150 per 100,000 in the 79 top concentration counties - a level much higher than 115 active physicians per 100,000 from all specialties as found in the 2621 lowest physician concentration counties. It is a great advantage to design a new line of revenue specific to higher concentration settings.
General specialties are in decline and some are collapsing. In recent years, new specialties have replaced old as seen in pulmonary, oncology, and radiology. The new forms of oncology and pulmonary critical care and radiology do not distribute well at all and are replacing the older more general types. This is a reflection of differences in training and lack of distribution of those younger. 

Hospital closures are predominantly in these lowest concentration counties and the closures force the departure of 20 - 30% of local workforce. Care of challenging populations with lesser health results in more penalties - a known consequence of Pay for Performance. 

The loss of a hospital also forces delays in the care of urgent and emergent care needs such as involving trauma, falls, sepsis, acute vascular events, respiratory failure, asthma, allergic reactions, dehydration, burns, and other conditions.There are more ways for children, infants, new mothers, pregnant women, toddlers, teens, and older Americans to die - by design.

Poor Fit All Around

Resident training depends upon medical school selections. Medical schools select the wrong origins for these careers and locations. Medical schools train wrong for these careers and locations. An initial residency is just a stepping stone past these careers and locations. Payment design prevents these careers and locations. 

Just one fellowship that greatly benefits the teaching hospital allows the residency graduate to bypass what is needed to a place with better support, more team members, and less complexity along with higher salary and opportunities for income beyond salary.

The dollars flowing to these lower concentration places are too few to support the workforce - regardless of any training intervention. NO Training Intervention can help until payments are increased for generalist and general specialty services. Only then can more be hired and better supported along with the team members to address the massive and growing shortages.

Movement from 6% of health spending to 12% for primary care is required with nearly all of the additional dollars going to lower concentration counties - and without requirements for additional tasks that distract team members from restoring access.
Additional Funding Is Not Needed for Residency Positions
The last decades of residency expansion have been funded teaching hospitals and the VA.
Once again the most lines of revenue and the top reimbursement in each line goes to teaching hospitals. They have demonstrated the ability to create and sustain residency positions.



no image
health is wealth, fitness is beauty, dieting is inspiration, weight loss is recreational learn how to..
It has become common to promote innovations as solutions without sufficient testing and without really considering the possibility that the intervention might not work as planned. After decades of failure to resolve cost, quality, and access woes across medical error focus, managed care, managed cost, EHR/HIT, PCMH, alternatives to physicians, insurance expansion, and numerous forms of Pay for Performance - the cost, quality, and access problems remain. Telehealth deserves to be critically examined as a solution for rural or underserved populations.



First of all, telehealth will be priced in a way that supports expensive medical personnel, managers, CEOs, and investors. There is no intent for service for those low or no pay or with worst insurance. This will require payment.

Medicare and Medicaid patients will play a major role as they are concentrated in places with lowest concentrations of physicians. Indeed this is a major reason for shortages. These are the places receiving lower payment for the same services in a number of dimensions. Arguably these are the highest value settings. These are settings that have not been given the chance for higher payment across the past four decades. How Can CMS Improve Value In the Most Valuable?

Why not invest in the most valuable rather than a new innovation that will cost more and is not really focused upon access, cost savings, or quality?

Costs

The costs of health care must increase because of telehealth. Someone has to pay for the equipment, personnel, connections, security, and more. 

As with convenience clinics, there will be utilization increases.  This occurs due to the telehealth visit and also as a result of the telehealth visit.

Much of what telehealth can do is pass on the patient to another health care provider. There will be claims of saved lives, but frankly there is no way to actually tell what would have happened. But there will be patients referred for additional care and costs and consequences.




More patients will go from those with minimal symptoms, more will go from those thinking about going for care, and more will go from those who seek care. 

The potential for profit is high with expanded coverage of telehealth services to Medicare and Medicaid and other populations less health literate and less able to navigate the complexities of the care system.

Outcomes
Outcomes will not be improved. Outcomes are not about clinical intervention. Outcomes are about the patient, local, and community factors. Telehealth does not impact these areas and indeed may erode them.
  
Colds and Bronchitis - Americans already access too many antibiotics, often for the possibility of saving 1 day of symptoms in a 10 - 11 day session of illness.

Urinary Symptoms - 70% of the women getting antibiotics will not need them and those who have sexually transmitted diseases or cancers or hormonal reasons for their urinary symptoms will not have a culture or urine test or follow up to state otherwise. 

High Fever - High fever is a complex medical condition that continues to test clinicians that have full access to the patient and family as well as basic tests.

Access

Access barriers will remain. Those in most need of access will not even be able to access telehealth. Accessing prescriptions when needed will also be a problem - a much worse problem since mail order pharmacies and lowest payments for small or independent pharmacies have been depleting pharmacy access. The mail order impact upon local pharmacies is a relevant example to consider regarding the impact of telehealth upon local primary care.

Health literacy and internet literacy fail where access fails because workforce receives too little payment for the costs of delivery too high and accelerating.

Access barriers will likely worsen. Primary care depends upon a mix of underpaid complex services and overpaid simple services. Telehealth will steal the simple dollars that do not require time and team members, leaving the greater challenges for local primary care.

Missing the Complexity of the Interaction

Telehealth is single problem focused and misses the mark addressing patients with multiple areas to consider and multiple areas to address. 

Telehealth is less likely to focus on preventive care, chronic care, or caregivers. 

Telehealth is not going to have a thing about making sure that all with asthma have access to asthma meds regardless of their presenting symptoms. Whatever is learned by the encounter of use for the family or community is not shared for improvement of the family or community.

Who Is For Teleprofit
  • Innovation Bandwagon Promoters
  • Those who desire to profit from Telehealth
  • Primary care providers diverted to telehealth from undersupported primary care with more added to do each year
  • CEOs, recruiters, and managers organizing the telehealth
  • Researchers who want telehealth to look good and fund studies
  • Those who don't care what happens to local workforce
  • Drug companies (doing well by convenience care predicts doing well by telehealth)
  • Dermatologists
 Who Should Not Be for Teleprofit
  • Local primary care practices
  • Local leaders hoping to improve local economic impact
  • Those who understand that dollars diverted from local care can damage local workforce and local outcomes
  • Those seeking value in health care (outcomes / costs)
  • Primary care associations seeking to keep their members active in primary care positions rather than being diverted to numerous other ventures
A Question to Ask Local Community Advocates and Leaders Representing Rural Health, Primary Care, and Local Access

The question is,
  • Do you want local family practice bringing dollars in to your community into a practice or local health system where team members also work locally and spend dollars locally in ways that can help reverse the disparities that actually make outcomes worse
  • Or do you want to ship your scarce local dollars to someone sitting at home in a high concentration setting adding more to health care costs and sucking dollars out of communities that most need dollars - employed by CEOs making much greater sums.
health is wealth, fitness is beauty, dieting is inspiration, weight loss is recreational learn how to..
Family physicians are the most likely to encounter vulnerable populations. Addressing the needs of these populations requires more team members with better support. The team members are the ones most compromised in the past three decades of payments too low and cost of delivery too high made worse by rapid chaotic change.

Family medicine leaders have set up a series of meetings. The track record of these large gatherings is not stellar.  The first of these meetings addressed access. The second of these meetings focused upon vulnerable populations. There is a third planned to address primary care workforce. The result will be more panels, reports, centers, and initiatives. But this will not address access, vulnerable populations, or primary care workforce.



When a single area is important to all of the core missions of family medicine associations, this should be the dominant if not the only focus.

Reports, Panels, Centers, and Grants are what CMS does when it cannot take care of health care delivery. Family medicine associations support more of the same.

"Continuing a long history of tackling disparities in patient care head on, Julie Wood, M.D., M.P.H., AAFP senior vice president of health of the public and science and interprofessional activities, announced the launch of the AAFP Center for Diversity and Health Equity, an initiative that will focus on addressing the social aspects of health care.
"The AAFP has developed its Center for Diversity and Health Equity to take a leadership role in addressing social determinants of health, nurturing diversity and promoting health equity through collaboration, policy development, advocacy and education," Wood told AAFP News."

Expanding access is a requirement for addressing vulnerable populations. 

Vulnerable populations were once considered a small population. Austerity focus and the 21st century addition of 2 trillion more dollars to health care (past 3 trillion now) have conspired to compromise domestic discretionary spending and many if not most of the supports for vulnerable populations.

Austerity focus at the state and federal level and worsening health care costs both act to compromise health care, education, economic, and other outcomes. 

Within health care, the changes also compromise the financial designs for primary care and basic services - the generalists and general specialties that are 90% of local services where care is most needed and where vulnerable populations are most likely to be found. The basic services, especially those delivered where most needed, are the ones that are provided by those least organized. Those most organized will continue to protect their interests. This will send an increasing burden to those who remain to deliver basic services - more patients, more added to vulnerable populations, more elderly, more with mental health needs, more with chronic illnesses, more complexity, less support, fewer team members, and more regulations. Vulnerable populations have no place to go other than to multiply. Family physicians are most prevalent where health access is in greatest need and this is where vulnerable populations are concentrated. Family medicine must fix the financial design for any real hope of addressing access, vulnerable populations, and primary care workforce.

The dominant US designs assure the rapid expansion of vulnerable populations to become the majority of Americans due to
  • Widening disparities in children in multiple outcomes shaping increased numbers of vulnerable populations.
  • Cascades of future impacts due to US children being last or next to last across child well being factors among developed nations.
  • Disparities in education and other spending at the state level with impacts upon health, education, and economic outcomes
  • Disparities in health spending 9 to 1 in favor of 79 top physician concentration counties as compared to lowest physician concentration counties
  • Lowest payments for primary care and basic services services that are 90% of the services where needed
  • Highest population growth (twice the average for decades), highest growth of the elderly, increasing complexity, and greatest increase in demand in 2621 lowest physician concentration counties - making populations more vulnerable (Red counties and a few dozen rural counties with a majority that are minorities and some of the worst disparities)
  • Forced migrations of vulnerable populations (fixed income, disabled, elderly, lower to middle income, Veterans) to lowest physician concentration counties where housing costs are lower and where climate is better for health conditions (43 to 48% of these populations are found in this 40% of the nation's population, The ranks swell to include 45 to 48% of diabetics, those with preventable deaths, smokers, and obese Americans.
  • The tripling of the elderly in the US by 2040
  • Rapid increases in minority populations
  • Closures of rural and small hospitals shaping populations in counties without a hospital and with subsequent declines in local workforce as one of the fastest growing populations in the nation due to more counties added and higher populations in the counties added
  • Cuts in payments to providers serving vulnerable populations from ReaganCare to ObamaCare.
  • Pay for performance (value based, readmission penalties, MACRA)) penalizing providers who serve vulnerable populations as outcomes are more likely to be lower because of the local, resource, patient, community, and other factors present
AAFP should save the dollars for the final forum on primary care workforce.


The promises of CMS and primary care associations and various expert gatherings will not address vulnerable populations, health access, or primary care workforce. This requires more specific efforts. Every dollar that AAFP can generate should be focused upon what will actually address beleaguered primary care team members, vulnerable populations, and health access. There must be no rest from this labor until the payment designs are improved for primary care, for mental health, and for basic services. This critical change must occur where vulnerable populations are more likely to be found - where access and primary care workforce are most compromised.

It is time for True Primary Care Advocates to wake up to historical fact. The only time of progress in these heavily conferenced areas was
  • During the one period of time from 1965 to 1978 
  • When more dollars were being injected into primary care and 
  • When more dollars were being injected to support more team members where health access was most needed via
  • Expansions of Medicare and Medicaid spending, 
  • Spending closely associated with vulnerable populations.
  • It also helped that this was a period of relatively less increase in cost of delivery
  • with increases in payment rates helping to cover the costs of inflation.
The Era of Cost Cutting Since 1980 With Rapidly Increasing Costs of Delivery

Since 1980 the payments have been stagnant and have at times have been cut. In addition, the cost of delivery has gone up due to regulation, turnover costs, higher than inflation costs of supplies and other practice essentials.

The largest practices and systems demand and get higher payments for the same services and even annual escalation clauses. The smallest practices and providers get take it or leave it least paying contracts from payers.

The largest practices and systems demand and get discounts from suppliers - leaving the rest to make up the difference.

The one sure thing since 1980 has been disparities worsened by numerous designs that shape health, education, economics, and children.

Clinging to Past Glory Is Misguided as Only Payment Has Mattered

Appearances have been deceiving. Numerous family medicine interventions looked good at the beginning but have not worked since. Family medicine and primary care associations and leaders still cling to the past. This time of great success when everything worked is the period of 1965 to 1978

The 1965 to 1978 policies are why so many "interventions" appeared to work
  • FM departments and student interest groups in every school, 
  • Student resident conferences, 
  • Primary care schools, and pipelines to primary care and rural practice. 
  • FM reached 30% rural practice location rates by 1980 only to shrink below 20%. Only the hospital based (emergency, hospitalist) remains 26% rural because of better financial designs for hospital based FM grads.
  • All primary care sources have fallen away from primary care - as dictated by the financial design.
  • These all required steadily increasing injections of dollars to support the positions - the positions that once expanded primary care and care where needed. The financial designs fail for the positions and the team members to address health access, vulnerable populations, and primary care delivery capacity.
No training interventions can actually work because of failed payments. Decades of data support the same findings across the vast stretches of America where most Americans fail most in access - then and now. Tracking confirms little change other than names changing, or initials changing behind the name. Rather than patting people on the back for the success of their program or pipeline, it is important to examine what is actually happening nationwide, or across counties left behind, or regarding the practices that address vulnerable populations.

We still have 2621 lowest physician concentration counties that are persisting due to the same lowest paying, least supportive payment plans - compromised to lowest paying levels by those who take advantage in higher concentration settings and those who set payment policies based on their immersion in higher concentration settings.

A better financial design is the major requirement
for access and vulnerable populations and primary care workforce.
Why do family medicine leaders avoid what is critical
to all of the major family medicine missions?


The Primary Care Financies Fight Is THE Fight
For Vulnerable Populations 

Punishing Primary Care with Medical Homes - Higher Costs without Outcomes Improvements

The Least Healthy Counties Across the United States - There Are Many Least Healthy Counties That Share Insufficient Health Workforce, Insufficient Health Spending, Greatest Patient and Population Challenges, and Least Support By Design

The Academic Family Medicine Mismatch - Is family medicine better off under the restraints of academic medicine or would it be better off with control of the entire process of preparation, training, and practice?

Two Forces Shaping Declines in Outcomes in Health and Education - Austerity Focus and Cost Cutting Due to Runaway Health Care Costs

 Mastering Well Being for Residents Physicians and Patients Takes Time - Residents, Physicians, and Patients All Need Time for Sleep, for Learning, and for Reflection

Match Hype Hinders Health Access Solutions - the tiny increase to 3200 for the FM match will yield record low levels of family medicine positions as FM grads have declined from 90 - 95% to less than 70% result over a career. FM needs more grads and a return to 90% remaining in family medicine