Feeling The Price Chasm

Even Anita and my routine medical expenses this past month show how our leadership from the top down miss the key flaw with our U.S. healthcare system.

It's like in the satirical novel Catch-22 where the (anti) hero Yossarian tends to airman Snowden aboard their WW2 bomber which has been hit by anti-aircraft fire. Yossarian painstakingly treats a serious but non-life threatening leg wound while unaware that beneath his flak jacket the dying Snowden's abdomen has been blown apart.

In similar fashion, President Obama touts a new system to tie more payments to the quality - not quantity - of health care services rendered. He echoes health secretary Sylvia Burwell's similar recipe offered up on Jan. 26, '15.  This implicitly implies that our main issue is one of over-treatment, "wrong" treatment or even waste, and data shows this to be false as I repeatedly highlight, including in my previous post. Americans already see doctors 40% less and are hospitalized 20% less often than in other developed countries so how is excessive "quantity" a big problem? Yet our bills run over twice as high.

Neither Mr. Obama nor Ms. Burwell nor any legislative leader has said anything about our core problem - grotesquely high prices of medical services and goods compared to anywhere else in the world.

So about our own March medical purchases, these involved office visits to a dermatologist, an orthopedic surgeon and an ophthalmologist for routine eye exams. All providers are highly rated and attended to us well. We paid them out of pocket as it counted towards our deductible in our health savings account.  Our rates were negotiated by our insurer Aetna, which were below "usual and customary charges" or what they would take up front from a cash paying customer without insurance.

Most Americans would consider what we paid to be very reasonable. That's part of the problem as they have no idea about the rates for medical services and goods abroad. Though reports like the 2013 IFHP comparative price study are available, listing our own payments as below and what they'd have been in Germany, France and India puts it all in a personal context:

1) Eye exam: We paid $235 for an eye exam and glasses / contact lens prescription by an ophthalmologist. The cheapest option would have been a $95 eye exam by a Costco optometrist purely to get glasses or contacts - no detailed exam for any other potential trouble.

According to an Oct. 2011 IBES study in France an eye exam costs between 25 and 40 euros (p. 35, or $35 - $55) and in Germany it is free if you buy glasses or contacts from that specialist. If you don't charges vary, averaging around 40 euros. In India an eye test by an optician is free if you buy glasses or contacts from them. Now get this: I paid only $66 for a pair of glasses with progressive lenses and free eye exam in India last year, though charges would have been $150 - $200 had I opted for top line glasses.  For my father-in-law a couple of years ago I had a detailed eye exam for macular degeneration by Pune's top eye specialist for $50.  Routine screening was for $15 - $25. In sum eye exams in France and Germany cost about a fourth, and in India about a tenth of what we paid in U.S.A.

2) Dermatologist: First, most dermatologists were booked solid for two months or had closed their practice to new patients as they were so busy. But one was available within a week. The standard office visit which included some cortisone shots lasted 15 minutes with the doctor and another 15 minutes with a nurse and for paperwork with the office staff. The charge was $262 but our payment was $181 at Aetna's negotiated rate. The doctor also prescribed a generic steroid ointment clobetasol propionate that cost us $40 at our CVS pharmacy.

In France the dermatologist fee would be 25 euros and coupled with the cortisone shots the total bill would be under $50. In Germany it may have been $70.  In Pune, India a reputed dermatologist charges $7 for office visits (and $20 for house calls) and along with cortisone shots we'd have paid $12 - $14. And that ointment that cost us $40 at "negotiated rates?" I discovered I had that exact same one, only a branded product called Tenovate made in India by the reputed GlaxoSmithKline that cost - get this - $2 for the same quantity. In addition as per Indian law the packaging had this price printed on it to prevent overcharging.

3) Orthopedist: The complaint was leg pain. The diagnosis after physical examination and taking three X rays was osteoarthritis worsened by some undesirable exercises. The treatment was avoiding those exercises, wearing a knee brace and taking ibuprofen tablets for a few days. The list charges for this 45 minute visit (15 minutes with the doctor, and the rest with X rays technicians, assistant and billing clerk) were $380 though we paid $220 at Aetna's negotiated rates.

In France an orthopedist will charge 25 euros and an uninsured visitor will pay about 45 euros for X rays (locals pay less) bringing the total to about $90.  In Germany the doctor may cost about $20 more, so overall cost is $110. In Pune, India a top orthopedic surgeon Dr. Dudani charges $6 - $12 per visit depending on where you see him, and X rays cost $5 - $15 in private facilities bringing the total to $11 - $27.

So there you have it. Our March personal medical expenses in U.S.A. for routine treatment were 2 - 3 times what we'd have paid in West Europe even without any state subsidies, and ten or more times those in India.  And it would be all traditional fee for service in those other places as well, with none of those quality versus quantity approaches that seem to be distracting Mr. Obama and his health administration.

Write and Wrong

There are - finally - more articles in the popular media exposing price gouging as the root cause of high US health costs.  But two big concerns remain.

First, such writings are still too few and far between to sufficiently penetrate public consciousness to create the political climate and pressure for reforms that align health prices with other countries.  Besides, the message continues to be drowned out by the flood of red herrings and misinformation put out by pundits funded by the health industry, and naively accepted by the media.

For example, type something like "why are US health prices so high" into Google search and you'll get a stream of articles and quotes blaming unnecessary care or treatment for high costs.  This "quantity" argument is quite false since Americans in aggregate get far less care than Europeans in terms of doctor visits (40% less) and hospitalization (20% less) according to OECD health data. This dwarfs any "excess" care Americans receive in the likes of MRIs, heart bypasses and knee replacements. There are also the many sins of omission - you'll see very few articles in health journals on US pricing anomalies, and none that honestly analyze the reasons for them, or how they can be addressed.

Second, and a bigger concern is that even articles sounding the alert on prices contain serious mistakes about root causes and where the money goes, which derail the quest for best solutions.  Why does this happen? One reason is that the authors have spent so much time unearthing and exposing the fact of overpricing that they've little left over to go into tedious research about the reasons.  Most or all authors happen to be "outsiders" getting little help (or even deliberate misinformation) in quest of answers from health experts and academics beholden to their industry.

There's also a psychological mindset as we tend to ascribe the best motives to our doctors who typically care deeply about their patients.  We (wrongly) transfer this trust in doctors to their powerful associations like the AMA that seek to maximize their members' benefits.  To achieve such objectives these bodies manipulate the political system to the extent it lets them, even at heavy cost to the overall economy or societal welfare.  Writers who don't see this are giving a free pass to our doctors while blaming greedy management, bureaucrats, insurers, drug companies and trial lawyers with less benign personae.  While all these players contribute to higher prices the maximum benefit goes to doctors, so the most needed reforms  will cause their earnings to drop.  And conversely, avoiding reforms opposed by doctor groups almost guarantees continuance of overpricing. 

 Here to my mind are five examples of some welcome facts mixed with misstatements and oversight that can lead away from good solutions:

1) Steven Brill in his famous Mar. 4 / Feb. 20, '13 "Bitter Pill" Time article admirably exposed outrageous charging by US health providers.  He further drove home this message in various media interviews, including on Jon Stewart's Daily Show on Feb. 21.  His biggest mistake lay in ignoring his own dictum of "following the money" to declare that "Everyone in health care makes money (from overpricing) except for doctors."  He says most of the excess money goes to the hospitals' top executives, citing hospital CEO salaries even in "non-profit" University hospitals that are multiples of those of their university presidents.  Actually, under 1% of large hospital revenues typically go towards C-Suite (including CEO) salaries.   Also, administrative heads of departments in hospitals are not bureaucrats but invariably senior doctors in a dual role.

So where do most of hospital excess revenues (i.e., those over and above what their European counterparts would take in for equivalent services) go?  A lot of it goes to doctors either in the form of salaries or perks hidden (for PR and tax purposes) as expenses. About the latter, think of lavish family vacations passed off as conferences, luxury cars expended as work vehicles, and payments on large homes treated as home offices.  Hospitals zealously guard their books which is why Brill who spent most of his energies digging into details of overpricing may not have grasped how the money is really spent.  Other than excess compensation there are of course other big buckets of unnecessary expenses or inefficiency as well.  These include bottlenecks due to regulations or union contracts, administrative costs due to a complex insurance system and fear of litigation, and sheer ineptness in a system devoid of market competition.

2)  Bill Keller, former executive editor of The New York Times and as well informed a person as any, acknowledged how even he was led to believe that high US health costs were due to too much care.  As he wrote in the Times' "Carrots for Doctors" on Jan. 27, '13 he finally learned the true culprit was prices.  His main point was that pay-for-performance (P4P) will do little to improve "our absurdly priced, underperforming health care system" and he did well to highlight the role of pricing. 

But Keller remains mistaken about the true cause of overpricing (which is managed scarcity of doctor supply and the market power of hospitals) and ways to correct this.  He is duped by the doctors' propaganda of "the high price of malpractice insurance being a favorite, and genuine culprit."  (It actually averages just 3.2% of doctors' revenue according to this site.)  He also over-emphasizes the role of single payer systems in keeping prices down, suggesting a damaging converse that in its absence (as it's "politically unpalatable") we must live with high prices.  See examples in the point below to debunk this.

3) Ezra Klein has been key in mainstream coverage of pricing issues as in his Mar. 3, '12 "Why an MRI Costs $1,080 in America and $280 in France".  However, his views like in his Feb. 25, '13 Wonktalk with Sarah Kliff discussing Brill's Time article overemphasizes the need and role of "rate-setting" as the answer.  Rate-setting is where the government, typically in a single payer system according to Klein, lays down the rates that hospitals can charge for various services and procedures.  This implies that prices can only be brought down significantly if we bring about a single payer system, which is a non-starter with Republicans.  While I'm all for single payer which can solve a lot of problems it is by no means the only viable option.

A parallel route can achieve similar or better results while being acceptable (at least in theory) to Republicans and free market thinkers.  This includes introducing real competition through trade, allowing new hospitals with disruptive business and operational models be set up and letting the supply of doctors rise.  Take the example of top Indian and Thai hospitals with prices that are a third of European hospitals (or a sixth of what US hospitals typically get) that are magnets for medical tourism.  Their prices are not determined by any kind of rate-setting but by market forces, and unlike US hospitals they disclose their "real" prices for various procedures and services up front.

4) Scott Gottlieb in his "The Doctor Won't See You Now..." March 14 Op-Ed in the WSJ lambasts Obamacare for "making the local doctor-owned medical practice a relic."  He says this happens because Obamacare (a) favors hospital owned accountable care organizations (ACOs), (b) replaces fee-for-service with flat pricing, and (c) is "mandating all medical offices install expensive IT systems."

 Dr. Gottlieb rightly questions the savings potential of ACOs, and the long standing anomaly of Medicare paying higher rates for services by doctors as hospital employees than those in private practice.  But most of his remaining narrative is flawed.

Rates paid to US doctors in private practice are multiples of those paid to their European counterparts - it's just that prices for doctor services in hospitals is more egregious.  So it isn't a case of hapless doctors being so squeezed as to throw up their hands in private practice, but of being lured into hospitals with even more lavish pay packages and shorter hours.

Flat pricing is what takes away the incentive for wasteful and unneeded care, not to talk of stopping to reward bad care and medical mistakes with more fees for additional services.  World class hospitals abroad that attract medical tourists have flat pricing. This enables them to quote up front for surgical packages, in contrast to the hideously opaque US pricing system.

The government is right to use the carrot (subsidies for conversion) and stick (lower payments for holdouts) policy to get medical establishment to migrate to electronic health record keeping (EHR).  It improves efficiency, makes prior patient history easily accessible and exchangeable for better treatment, lowers costs long term and reduces medical mistakes.  Thanks partly at least to the government push over half of doctors and 80% of hospitals have switched to EHRs, up from 17% and 9% respectively in 2008.

5) Lisa Krieger in her Feb. 5, '12 "Cost of Dying" in Mercury News exposed overpricing without even realizing it as she was focused instead on unnecessary end of life care for her 88 year-old father. She doesn't question the $323,000 charges at Stanford Hospital for 10 days of stay with mostly standard tests and care.  Just the stay in their intensive care unit (ICU) was billed at $25,000 per day.  Ms. Krieger sympathizes with the hospital for receiving "only" $67,800 from Medicare ($6,780 per day!) so that, according to her, they'd need to make up their losses by overcharging private insurers. 

In contrast my 94 year-old father-in-law was taken to one of Pune's (India) best hospitals - Ruby Hall Clinic - this past month.  He was there for eight days receiving essentially the same treatment and tests as described by Ms. Krieger for her father.  It included MRI's, CT Scans, pathology tests, feeding tube, oxygen mask, round the clock nursing care, etc.  He too was in the ICU, in the cardiac care section (CCU) with a deluxe private room.  He passed away after eight days despite all efforts.  There isn't a more upright, decent and engaging person than he was, but that's another story.  His total bill as a private and cash paying patient was about $3,000, or $400 per day, that too at the most upscale and priciest hospital by Pune standards.  That's 6% of the rate at which "stingy" Medicare paid Stanford Hospital, or 1% of what Stanford would have charged an uninsured patient.

Our sky-high health care prices and resultant financial and budgetary morass is an offshoot of a corrupt legislative environment influenced by powerful medical interests.  While the popular media articles drawing long overdue attention to such prices are welcome, the above examples show the need for much more in-depth reporting of the true reasons and fixes for this.  Only then can public awareness and outrage rise enough to force politicians to act.

Obamacare Lives, Now Let Trade Really Heal Health Care

The US Supreme Court verdict on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is out and largely upholds key provisions.  These include the mandate to have insurance (though only as a form of a tax rather than as a more drastic coercion.)  So Obama and the Democrats should be celebrating. 

But this law and the judgement focus on health coverage for everyone, and barely touch the biggest problem affecting most Americans, which is the high and soaring cost of health care.  This puts a huge burden on payers, hamstrings international competitiveness of US labor, and squeezes out public investments in education, scientific research, infrastructure, and even defense.  Moreover it threatens to devastate public budgets with future escalations. 

Heeding our advice in a WSJ Op-Ed four years ago would have already made a huge difference today.  As I said earlier, trade is critical to rescuing our dysfunctional health care system.  To see why, look at the dominant cause of high costs and how trade corrects this with speed and efficacy that can't be matched by other options, while maintaining or improving the quality of care.

Why is health spending in the US so high? This is the topic of a special writeup by OECD accompanying "Health at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators", addressing it more honestly than the US experts and academics with industry ties. Simply put, the key reason is outrageous prices that are 2-3 times those in "expensive" West Europe, not to speak of much higher multiples of Asia's best providers.

And what causes providers to over-price?  It is largely their market power arising from an artificially constrained doctor supply and a lack of hospital competition.

For decades private doctor bodies have determined the number of residencies that control the number of doctors entering the profession. This flies in the face of a free market for jobs. Then in 1997 a Gingrich/Republican controlled Congress in the guise of spending control further helped doctor cartels by capping all future medical residencies at 1996 levels. The US has 2.4 doctors per 1000 people, compared to the OECD median of 3.4. Even this doesn't reflect the true differences in availability, as US doctors on average spend less time seeing patients. This is due to more of their time being wasted dealing with complex insurance plans, regulations and payment procures, and other steps to protect themselves in a litigious environment. The US also has a higher proportion of women doctors (who typically work shorter hours). 

The market power of our hospitals enables them to be paid almost $4,000 per hospital day compared to under $700 for West European hospitals, according to the 2011 Comparative Price Report by IFHP (P.8) Hospital consolidations since the early 1990s have jacked up prices, in combination with a faulty "cost plus" payment system that rewards or at least condones inefficient and wasteful operations. A February 2006 RWJF report finds (p. 4) that 90% of MSAs (metropolitan areas) face concentrated markets.  The situation is worse in less populated areas where payers may have to accept prices set by the only hospital in the area.

Are there other reasons for high prices?  Sure there are, like private insurance complexity and middleman inefficiencies that add about 15% according to a 2003 Woolhandler, et al, study published in NEJM. Then there are lesser factors like malpractice burden and cross-subsidy for write-offs for unpaid treatment of the uninsured, but these tend to be little more than red herrings or excuses.  Malpractice premiums are only 3.5% of revenues and 7% of income according to a Health Affairs May 2006 study based on AMA data that is arguably skewed to play up such costs. And for unpaid hospital bills, they're just $49B (USA Today, May 9, '11, that too at the vastly inflated list prices) as compared to hospital receipts of $759B (Table 128 of Health, 2011 by CDC). So they contribute less than 5% to prices. In sum the main reason for our excessive prices is that providers can get away with them, aided by market power and supply scarcities.

Trade can transform this health care landscape, with speed and efficacy unmatched by any alternatives.  This trade should take several forms, allowing foreign providers to (a) come to the US and practice medicine, (b) set up hospitals here, (c) deliver health services remotely, and (d) treat US patients sent abroad to them.  These are explained below:

About increasing doctor supply internally, after - and if -  plans are put in motion to educate and train more doctors, it will take a decade before the first of them enter practice.  Then it will take another decade or more for the deficit to be corrected. In contrast well conceived trade planning allows us to set standards and allow in highly qualified foreign doctors so we have enough within a year or two, augmenting our supply by up to 200,000 doctors to attain European averages. And yes, we can still put in place long term plans to internally meet doctor supply needs in the more distant future.

Establishing more domestically run hospitals will not suffice because it's not just a matter of increasing competition among more of their own. Their managers need to unlearn the ways they've operated all this while, and then internalize and implement radically different procedures. Second, they'll be weighed down by their own legacy of suboptimal decisions and agreements with constituents like health worker unions.  In contrast, foreign management can far more easily adapt their low cost systems to accommodate US regulations and circumstances. It's the concept of reverse innovation that will have US hospitals seeing foreign managed competitors operating beside them at a third of the cost and impel them to follow suit.

Thanks to global connectivity and broadband, remotely delivered services already include diagnostic reports by radiologists ("nighthawking") based in other countries, though only if they're US trained and certified. The concept should be vastly extended by allowing a broad swathe of highly qualified foreign doctors to take US board exams (just like domestic doctors who complete residency here).  They should then be licensed to serve US patients, including through videoconferencing. Such consultations will cost a fraction of US rates, and the enhanced availability may eliminate any waits or need for prior appointments.  Patients may have a US based nurse to assist in physical examinations and use of local equipment. This concept of telehealth in domestic settings has already proved to work well, with even better outcomes than for in person visits, according to a June 25, 2012 report in FierceHealthIT. It should work just as well with foreign doctors.

Medical outbound travel abroad for much cheaper treatment with same or better quality has now become well known.  The fraction of US patients availing this is still quite low because it is limited to the uninsured and the self-payers, since insurers have been reluctant to offer this for fear of legal exposure. All this can change if Medicare and Medicaid start sending patients abroad, while passing on some cost savings to them. Private insurers following exactly the same standards and procedures will have some legal protection against allegations of negligence, and malpractice caps will further encourage them to offer this.  Other than direct savings, medical travel options will also siphon off domestic demand for procedures, likely increasing leverage of payers in negotiating rates with US providers.

How much can all this save?  Our combined proposals make them nearly as trade-able as goods, so trade in health services can drop US prices to levels in Germany or the Netherlands that (like us) don't have a single payer system. Such price drops should cause our expenditures as percent of GDP to decline the same way.  For the US it was 17.9% in 2010 and presently rising to 19.6% of GDP per CMS projections of health expenses (2011-2021), as compared to the German and Dutch 12% in 2010, and about 14% by 2021.

The impact of actually reversing our rising trend and instead lowering expenditures from the projected 19.6% to say 15% of GDP by 2021, will be monumental.  It will mean our total national health expenditure of $2.59 trillion in 2010 rises to $3.66 trillion in 2021 instead of the projected $4.78 trillion, and per capita expenditure of 8,402 in 2010 rises to $10,790 in 2021 instead of to $14,100.  Since CMS projects that half of the total expenditure is met by public funds (with two thirds of that from the federal budget) this would mean annual taxpayer savings of $560B in 2021 of which $370B are in the federal budget.  This should please Democrats and Republicans alike as it goes a long way to let us to keep entitlements and development programs while not raising taxes or the deficit.

What then stands in the way of such trade?  It's the special interests in the health industry of course, in particular the providers who have influence in both parties though more so among the Republicans.  But countervailing pressures to balance budgets without raising taxes may (finally) give the impetus for change, even if it is after election season.  Obama has been opportunistically attacking Romney on outsourcing during his time at Bain. So both candidate may find it difficult to appear open to a new form of trade regardless of its merits.  Fortunately, November is not far away, and after that embracing trade by whoever wins is the best way to progress from widening the blanket of care through insurance to solving the even bigger problem of affording it.

Trade Can Cover All, Regardless Of Verdict

Trade can be key to solving our health related financial morass, though its best path of introduction and usage depends on a much awaited Supreme Court judgment on ObamaCare.

Objective legal experts say that the law including the mandate for everyone to have insurance is a valid exercise of federal authority and should be upheld.  But Bush v, Gore (2000) or Citizens United (2010) show that the conservative majority can go out of its way to help out the party that put them on the bench.

Regardless of the Court challenge the health law and other reforms have a vital shortcoming.  They hardly address the massive and surging healthcare costs that swamp our budgets and drag down our economy.  The two political sides have opposite priorities on publicly funded care.

Obama and the Democrats pushed through affordable care for all without a way to pay for it, particularly in outer years as projected expenditures escalate. The Republicans led by Paul Ryan want to limit public expenditures through fixed payments to future Medicare recipients or block grants to states for Medicaid. This likely transfers cost escalations to hapless patients and shreds the safety net.

Both sides are beholden to industry interests (though Republicans probably more so than Democrats) and hence are unwilling to address over-pricing as a root cause of rampant health costs.  With Medicare and Social Security slipping closer to insolvency, there is public pressure on lawmakers and leaders to maintain entitlements while controlling budgets. And it can all be accomplished with trade in a combination of its four forms.  These are (a) allowing medical services to be remotely delivered from abroad, (b) sending patients for treatment abroad, (c) letting foreign providers set up hospitals here, and (d) bringing in foreign doctors.

By importing market competition and best practices worldwide, trade can lower US medical prices to 120% - 130% of those in West Europe, instead of the 200%-300% presently, with same or better quality.  As trade and its benefits take hold the savings will show up as a flattening of the total expenditures in nominal dollars rather than a sudden dramatic dip.  Health expenses as a proportion of GDP will trend down slightly (instead of going up steeply as per historic extrapolation and current projections), approaching those in Europe. This frees up immense resources to avoid future tax hikes even after extending health care to the currently uninsured.

Yes, medical trade promises extreme benefits, though the precise manner in which it is deployed and utilized depends on the forthcoming supreme court decision.  There are two broad scenarios.

 If Obamacare is upheld in its entirety then everyone is required to have insurance and most will comply.  The economic issue for payers and insurers is to keep down the premiums or the cost per covered member.  All the four modes (kinds) of trade contribute substantially to this.  Legislative and regulatory steps to allow such trade will lower prices and make the burden manageable for taxpayers and private employers. 

What if Obamacare is largely upheld but the individual mandate is struck down? It creates a new problem of some people not buying insurance unless and until they get sick, which upends insurers who are required to keep premiums low.  But as it turns out the same path of deploying trade mitigates this problem and combines well with other ways to address it. 

An April 5, 2012 article in BusinessWeek describes how "Obamacare Can Live Even If The Mandate Dies."  It primarily talks about alternative ways to prod healthy people to get insurance and points out how penalties under the mandate are quite light anyway.  It proposes converting the stick of the insurance requirement into a carrot of a tax credit for those who do buy it in advance.  Another option is having a limited open enrollment period for buying cheap insurance or higher prices for late enrollment.

Trade complements these measures by greatly lowering the price of medical services and hence the corresponding premiums, making healthy people more willing to enroll. Also, for those who still don't enroll till they are seriously ill, the cheaper treatment means that insurers take a smaller hit when they are forced to cover preexisting conditions.

 There's the other possibility (I wouldn't bet on it but you never know) that the Supreme Court will invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act. This would leave the uninsured in the same plight that they are in now.  Here trade still can and should be used to lower the price of care for those do have insurance.  But in addition intelligently deployed trade can transform care for the uninsured who currently face neglect or crippling bills if they get sick. 

Best of all, it can be done by the state government by changing their own regulations without need for federal action, and with no additional budgetary burden.

This is because the laws and rules about establishing medical facilities, who can practice medicine and prescribe drugs, malpractice caps and the licensing process are all largely state subjects.  The state can allow and facilitate trade and even accredit some agencies to enable their residents to access foreign medical services with some assurance of quality.  Moreover if this is done at a much lower price point, the uninsured can afford to easily self-pay in full for these services.

In my April 7, 2011 post is a narrative of how such services can be availed.  A patient could walk into a clinic staffed with a nurse for an instant video conference "visit" with a good primary care or specialist doctor sitting in India. The doctor "examines" the patient with the help of the local nurse, prescribes medicines, diagnostics and treatment as required, and this office visit costs $25 - $40.  Even preventive care and routine physicals can be easily availed this way.  MRIs and CT scans?  These could be done by US based foreign managed centers with data transmitted to and reported upon by Indian radiologists at $200 - $400 a pop, as compared to $1,000 - $2,500 presently paid to US providers.  X-rays and even blood lab tests can be offshored for comparable savings.

Medical travel to reputed foreign facilities, preferably through agencies vetted by the state government, can be a viable option for major treatment.  Heart surgeries, angioplasties, and hip or knee replacements can be performed abroad for $10,000 - $15,000 all inclusive, as compared to $40,000 - $100.000+ that US hospitals charge for uninsured patients.  These much lower expenses can be met by many of the uninsured without driving them to financial ruin.

In other words the state governments here would be easing their laws and regulations to enable external competition to make prices plummet without sacrificing quality.  With or without Obamacare this will bring us closer to affordable health care for all, without burdening taxpayers. 

Do Our Doctor Imports Hurt Their Home Countries?

The US has only about two thirds of Europe's per capita availability of doctors.  This scarcity is the largest cause of severe overpricing of medical services that underlies the US health care crisis.  Any sensible policy should massively expand the domestic pipeline of doctor supply, but there's a decade's gap between initiating such long overdue measures and boosting the ranks of trained doctors.

The immediate solution is to import highly qualified and experienced doctors from accredited medical institutions around the world that can be put in place in as little as a year or two. Attracting such doctors is easy as actual US physician earnings are about thrice those in Europe and tenfold over their peers in developing countries.  Setting high standards and requiring these foreign doctors to clear the same board exams as domestic doctors should address any real or feigned concerns about quality of care.

Objectors also cite the plight of countries like India (a front page WSJ story on July 30) whose best doctors are ideal candidates because of their qualifications, salary differential, and fluency in English.  They say India already has much fewer doctors per capita, and its populace will suffer further hardship if the US poaches their top medical practitioners.  Such concerns by US doctors and their proxies are probably self serving and hypocritical, aimed at preserving their "scarcity premium" and thwarting competition in their home turf.  It is like US workers opposing imports out of professed solidarity with foreign workers toiling in sweat shops.

I had briefly countered in my June 27, 2010 post that remittances to, and investments in their country of origin by immigrant US doctors should by themselves generate enough resources to train several more doctors.  But in our collaborative work Prof. Jagdish Bhagwati has been questioned about this "brain drain" even by some policy advisers with legitimate concerns about the donor countries.  So here's more elaboration for why the benefits of this free flow of doctors should exceed the costs for a donor country like India:

1. Remittances finance replacement doctors.  As compared to the US, India is not only far more cost efficient in medical treatment but also in training doctors.  And it's not just because US and Canadian medical schools absurdly require entrants to be college graduates, unlike medical schools elsewhere that only require completion of high school.  It's also that quality education in India costs only 10%-20% annually of the tab in USA.  So while the 11 or more years of post high school that it takes to get a doctor through residency in the US costs about $600,000, training to the same level in India in 7 years costs about $40,000.

Consider now remittances and money flow benefits by emigrant doctors which have never been tracked separately.  There are various estimates of remittances by all Indian emigrants, but a US Congressional report has private remittances from the US to India at $3.2B as quoted on Feb. 25, 2011 by the Economic Times.  This comes to 5%-6% of worldwide remittance inflows from the Indian diaspora, estimated by the Indian government to be $40.8B in the eight months from April to December of 2009.  According to the 2009 American Community Survey of the US Census Bureau (S0201) there are 2.6 million Indian immigrants of which 1 million are full time workers, so the annual remittance per worker is $3,200.

But the mean earnings of an Indian worker are $80,000 while doctors average over 4 times this. Taking remittances in the same proportion of earnings, an emigrant Indian doctor would remit $12,000.  Even if we scale this down to half (Prof. Bhagwati thinks the well-off Indians here may not send to relatives back home at the same rate and may instead simply bring them over) that is $6,000 annually. Over a 25 year career span in the US that's $150,000 in remittances alone - enough to train four new Indian doctors for every exported one.  These numbers exclude informal or illegal remittances like hawala transactions - the reason a World Bank report regards official estimates to considerably underestimate actual money flows.

2. Benefits of shared expertize and enhanced country brand.  We saw how countries that banned or restricted emigration during the Iron Curtain years limited the development and vibrancy of their own skilled workforce.  Conversely, the free flow of ideas, knowledge and experience between emigrant Indian professionals and their home country counterparts has enriched and raised professional, including medical, standards in India.  Then there are perceptions in the US.  One in 20 doctors here is of Indian origin which is a reason why patients think well of, and are comfortable with them. That can significantly boost medical tourism to India if and when constraints of politics and worries about legal exposure abate.

3. Outsized contributions by doctors returning home. Indian doctors in the US get first hand experience in the world's best system in terms of quality of health care (even if it's also the least cost effective.)  They have it so good here that in terms of percentage very few return home. But those that do have an immensely positive and transformational impact on Indian medical care.  Most of the top private medical hospitals in India have been founded or are headed by doctors who have practiced in the US or UK.  These include the Apollo Hospitals Group founded by Dr. Pratap Reddy, Escorts and now Medanta - The Medicity set up by Dr. Naresh Trehan, the Asian Heart Institute headed by Dr. Ramakanta Panda, and Narayana Hrudayalaya established by Dr. Devi Shetty.  Within such hospitals are prominent US and UK trained doctors who are renowned for their specialist surgical expertise and have trained many other doctors.

In sum, a free movement of doctors should be a win-win for both the US and the donor country.  Not all imported doctors will come from developing countries, of course.  The enormous earnings differential between the doctors in the US and other first world countries will persist to some extent even if and when US doctor scarcities are addressed.  This will ensure that many doctors from Europe including the most affluent countries like UK, Germany and France will come to the US if they're allowed to practice here.

---------------

Aside: Some other useful background readings and links:

• A 2006 overview of skilled Indian migration to developed and gulf countries by Binod Khadria.
• American FactFinder of the US Census Bureau for US population, demographic and economic data.

How Trade Can Transform US Health Care

 [This post is part of my ongoing collaboration with Prof. Jagdish Bhagwati.]

Imagine that lawmakers come together to solve the health care (and budget) crisis by taking all the steps outlined in my last post.  Intrinsic to their plan is the critical role of trade in health services to achieve quick results.

There are four ways in which such trade occurs. "Arm's length" services are typically found online: The provider and the patient can be physically far apart. In medical travel patients go to doctors elsewhere. A third way is by foreign entities creating and staffing hospitals in the US. Finally, foreign doctors and other medical personnel can be brought to the US to tend to patients here.

A narrative below illustrates how wisely implementing a comprehensive trade policy in health services can transform our health care experience and costs.

Jane isn’t feeling well and goes to a facility staffed by two nurses.  This has some typical medical examination rooms which also include a couple of large LCD screens and a video cam that allow for Skype like videoconferencing.  A nurse asks Jane for the reason for her visit then ushers her into one of these rooms.  The screens lights up and Jane is instantly in video conference with Dr. Gupta, an experienced and highly qualified primary care physician based in India.  Dr. Gupta has cleared the rigorous medical board exams set by the US state Jane resides in, and is licensed to practice telemedicine here. 

It feels as if Dr. Gupta is in the same room as Jane, except that the nurse does all the examining under his directions and reports her findings.  Dr. Gupta then prescribes medication, treatment and follow-up visits if needed.  Also, if Jane needs a specialist like a cardiologist, Dr. Gupta instantly connects her to one.  Cardiologist Dr. Sharma appears on the second screen.  Dr. Gupta briefs Dr. Sharma about Jane and either stays on or hands off to Dr. Sharma who then “examines” Jane with the nurse’s help before prescribing treatment.  Any imaging tests ordered (MRI, PET, CAT, X-Ray) are digitally transmitted and reported on by a certified India based radiologist.


Jane’s insurer pays $10 - $15 for each doctor.  This is twice their domestic rate, and enough incentive for them to have obtained US certification and practice telemedicine.  The insurer also pays $15-$20 to cover the US nurse’s and the facility maintenance charges.  The cost of a typical visit ranges from $25 for a PCP to $45 for a PCP-specialist combo, which is just a third to a sixth of normal US payments. 

Since it is all digitally captured, Jane has the option of saving and retaining her consultation, or having it deleted for privacy reasons.  If she likes these doctors she can ask to see them specifically and schedule future visits accordingly.  She can also anonymously rate them, for the benefit of health authorities and other patients.


If Jane needs a major surgery like hip or knee replacement or a heart bypass, she and a companion can go on an all expenses paid trip to India.  She is treated at a top Indian hospital with a safety record at par or better than US hospitals, and recuperates in a five star hotel before returning home.  Her insurer pays a third in all of what it costs for the procedure in the US.  The incentive for Jane to go is high quality (and even pampered) care with lower chances of complications, and a waiver of all deductibles and co-pays.


Of course, in a majority of situations medical travel is not feasible.  Jane then goes to a new local hospital that is run by a foreign chain that has combined high quality with low cost in hospitals in its home country.  It incorporated its efficiency and superior practices into its US holdings, and is profitable even on reduced Medicare and Medicaid payments. 


When Jane needs to see local doctors she goes to highly experienced and qualified foreign doctors who have been certified to practice after clearing all US board exams.  They are no longer required to undergo US medical residency which was the main impediment to augmenting doctor supply.  Even after Medicaid rate cuts these doctors seeing such patients make many times what they earned back home, and happily accept all patients.


Then there’s Jane’s friend Mary who is very distrustful of foreign health care providers and insists on “all-American” care.  Even Mary is now much better off.  Thanks to the increased supply of providers she no longer has to wait to see her US doctors.  They’re also more attentive now and no longer spurn Medicare or Medicaid patients even after the reduction of rates.  The same holds for her local US hospital that seems to be improving its quality and cost efficiency by learning from the foreign transplants.  Having less market power it too now accepts lower insurer rates.

 So benefits of the trade in health services flow not just to those who directly avail of them, but also to the rest that don’t.  Moreover, the gains come quickly, as early as in 2012, with almost full effects in place in 3-5 years.  As compared to this, purely domestic solutions, for example, of increasing the supply of doctors will take a decade to even begin showing some effect. 

Also, although federal orchestration and coordination is clearly preferable, a lot of the benefits can be availed at the states level by their own legislative and executive action.  That is because many of the impediments to trade in health services originate in, or are at least addressable through state enactments.  These include licensing requirements of qualified foreign doctors, permission to set up hospitals, who can prescribe drugs, and limits of legal exposure.

What will be the impact of such trade on American jobs?  Thanks to the ongoing and projected scarcities among health care providers their loss of jobs will be minimal.  Some like the doctors are likely to see their outsize earning premiums over their European counterparts decrease significantly but will still earn handsomely.  Other medical personnel in short supply may also lose a chunk of their overtime earnings, but are very unlikely to lose their jobs.  In contrast the jobs outside of the health industry should increase since reduced health care overhead makes US labor more attractive to employers.  This should vastly outweigh any decrease in health jobs.

Apart from service improvements and expanded coverage, what are the potential savings?  A lot depends on how this trade is allowed and which modes are emphasized.  But broadly speaking, the “US premium” on the price of health services can easily be brought from the present over 100% to about 30% over the prices in Europe.

Chastened medical providers who presently sneer at Medicaid rates and threaten to turn away Medicare patients if the rates are reduced may instead vie for this business.  In addition to lower domestic prices due to competition, there will be direct savings from off-shored services.  All told, the total US health expenditure can drop from a NHE projected $3.3 trillion in 2014 by over $1 trillion annually, with more than half of this being public funds of CME and the states.  Even in 2012 if action is taken right away to qualify foreign providers, telemedicine and medical travel can kick in to yield relatively painless savings of about $50 billion.

------------
Dec. 21, 2012 update: Telemedicine within the US is now maturing - see The Atlantic Dec. 11, 2012 article. The same thing can be done with foreign based doctors.

Do This To Fix Health Care And Our Budget

Lawmakers and officials now seem serious about ballooning health care costs, but they're still not addressing the root issues.  They are unaware (or choose to ignore) that the major problem is of overpriced care, not excessive or even wasteful care.

This is actually good news per my previous post, as the fixes for price distortions are relatively straightforward and painless.  That is, except for special industry interests who have bought and wielded a lot of influence.  But they may finally be trumped by public angst, and by other players that benefit from reforms and can compensate lawmakers to do the right thing (more on that in a subsequent post).

So what exactly should be done?  Here's the recipe, in two parts.  The first and major part lowers prices by correcting the scarcities as well as the lack of competition and innovation that have caused US health care to be over twice as expensive as in Europe.  The second part is common sense steps to reduce waste and foolish splurging of resources for minimal benefit.

Here's the road map to lowering prices while increasing availability of resources to expand coverage:

• Increase the supply of doctors as I detailed in my Sept. 11, 2010 post.  This involves expanding medical schools and setting up new ones, both of which allow entry directly from high school with applicants meeting core requirements through AP classes.  Increase the number and support for residencies, while eliminating those caps imposed by doctor dominated bodies like the ACGME and the RRCs whose members benefit from scarcities.  There are over 40% more doctors in Europe on average than in the US.  A change in policy will start increasing domestic supply of doctors after about 10 years, so it is important to import doctors in the mean time, per my June 27, 2010 post.  This should ideally be orchestrated at the federal level, but failing that the states can make changes in licensing requirements on their own. 

• Leverage telemedicine, especially with qualified foreign doctors who can be allowed to treat US patients, as described in my April 30, 2010 post.  This will add to patients' convenience while removing the need for a significant chunk of US doctor office visits and costly readings by US diagnostic radiologists.  Apart from direct savings from payments to foreign providers that are a fraction of US rates, this will expand the availability of US physicians and lower prices here as well. 

• Allow and encourage more hospitals to be set up, particularly those managed by reputed foreign chains, per my June 8, 2010 post.  Cost effective innovations and practices from abroad can really help, in addition to the necessity of competition.  US hospitals should never have been allowed by anti-trust authorities to consolidate as they did since the early 1990's. That has allowed them to jack up prices as there are few alternatives for payers and patients, and 90% of even metropolitan areas in the US now face low or no competition among hospitals.

•  Encourage and allow medical travel abroad as described in my May 13, 2010 post.  The facilities and support infrastructures for this are largely in place so the benefits kick in much faster than through other measures.  Apart from direct cost savings that can be up to 90% for a destination country like India, this again diverts some demand for US hospitals and doctors.  That reduces some of the market power and scarcity premium in pricing in the US, and allows for lower rates here.  If HHS / CMS takes the lead on medical travel for major, "standard" surgeries this will enable private insurers to follow suit while considerably reducing their own legal exposure.  That's because if they strictly follow or exceed the same protocols as the government, juries are far less likely to find against them when there are adverse outcomes.  (These are inevitable when large numbers of patients are involved, even if the complication and mortality rates in world class foreign hospitals are lower than in the US.)

While I have stressed addressing doctor scarcity above there are also current and looming shortages of other types of health care workers like nurses and physical therapists.  These have a much smaller impact on health costs, but should also be addressed through expansion of training facilities and enhanced intake.  We may need even more nurses to take over some tasks presently performed by physicians, including locally helping patients who "see" their doctors through telemedicine.

Here's the second part, the ways to reduce inefficiencies and wasteful practices that receive more media coverage and commentary by pundits:

•  Allow drug importation and for Medicare to directly negotiate prices of drugs that it pays for.  There's no valid reason to protect a system where US prices are twice as high as anywhere else.

• Use comparative effectiveness research to guide treatment, particularly when paid for with public funds.  Factor in cost effectiveness as is explicitly done by the NHS in UK.  Substitute fee-for-service with capitation or global payment.  Counter Palin type "death panels" misinformation and encourage sensible end of life planning.  Some sensible cuts by states like New York and by Washington should be adopted by others.

• Enact tort reforms, limit debilitating lawsuits by having more efficient forms of legal redress, impose malpractice caps and lighten needless regulatory or work rules burden on providers. (About the last, some onerous work rules may for example stem from union agreements that only lightly benefit health workers but severely throttle hospital operations.) The actual impact of legal exposure is likely less than what Republicans and providers claim, but Democrats conceding on this may enable broader bipartisan agreement.

•  Electronic health records.  Wellness and preventive programs.  Smoking cessation.  Obesity control and healthy living.  Atul Gawande's Checklist Manifesto.  Other innovations in practice of medicine.  Yes, yes, yes.  And motherhood and apple pie.  By all means do all this, as supplemental to - not instead of - other necessary measures.

What about single payer, or a "Medicare for all" type of program?  This can avoid the inefficiencies of private insurers offering a complex array of plans and needing to make a profit.  They, in the words of Joseph Stiglitz also spend a lot of resources in marketing, administration, and in figuring out how to cover people who don't need much treatment, and to keep out those who do.  Single payer is particularly helpful in countering the market power of providers in a situation of scarcity or lack of competition.

Conversely, an expanded provider supply through actions as in the first part above can make private insurance more viable, as in the Netherlands or a parallel system as in Germany.  Such a system could be allowed to co-exist in the US with a basic public plan, with choices of more lavish private plans.  Those opting for them can be helped with payments through risk category based government vouchers or credits that equal offsetting average savings in public funds. 

Overall, steps of both types should be pursued in tandem but those enhancing provider supply and lowering prices at part one above offer easier and bigger savings as well as service improvements.  For quick results turning to international trade in health services is essential, as I'll elaborate in a later post.

Moreover, this supply side approach that enhances competition should be more acceptable (in theory at least) to Republicans who control the House and vigorously oppose the single payer route.  Given political will, these changes in health care are administratively quite easy to implement, and help solve the budgetary crisis far better than other more widely bandied options.

Can Superbugs Doom Medical Travel?

Domestic providers can gleefully celebrate.  the UK journal Lancet Infectious Diseases on August 11 has raised the alarm of antibiotic resistant bacteria being spread across the world by patients receiving medical treatment in India and Pakistan.  The article specifically voiced concerns about medical travel.  Mainstream media like the WSJ on August 12 have picked up the refrain. 

This has created an uproar in India, with political leaders crying foul and the Indian health establishment downplaying the report.  Ulterior motives and underhanded means have been ascribed to the drug company Wyeth (now part of Pfizer) that sponsored the study, and to western providers who tend to undermine medical travel.  Even a  lead author of this article, India based Kartheyan Kumarasamy who also published an earlier alert in March, said the warnings had been overblown.

"It's all hype and not as bad as it sounds," he said, adding "The conclusion that the bacteria was transmitted from India is hypothetical. Unless we analyze samples from across the globe to trace its origin, we can only speculate."  The LA Times on August 13 quoted US experts who called the threat overblown, and the NY Times on August 11 similarly had them "put it in perspective."

Professor Jagdish Bhagwati and I have conferred after his contact on this with policy makers in India as well as some American protectionists who regularly spar with him on trade issues.  Here are our views on four key aspects of this story:

Is the study exaggerating the dangers, and should the Western medical experts be trusted to give unbiased opinions?  Sadly, it will likely be several months or even years before the validity of the concerns raised by the study are strongly established one way or the other.  We should certainly listen to Western experts but be aware that medical travel is a threat and unwelcome competition for many Western providers.

They do not have a good track record of honest assessment.  Many have exploited patient anxieties over medical travel by playing up, distorting or even inventing risks of substandard care, lack of recourse if anything goes wrong, dying in a strange land, etc. For example, in my June 11, 2009 post I described how the NY times Op-Ed on medical travel by three US doctors was biased and misleading, while seemingly objective.

Another factor that should give their audience pause: Many of these experts are warning, not just against medical travel to India, but against medical travel abroad, period.  In sum, all these views should be carefully weighed against facts, potential conflicts of interest or industry allegiances, and counter-arguments.

Will this affect the flow and growth of medical tourism to India?  Many medical travelers and policy makers may subscribe to "When in doubt, don't."  So some impact on the patient traffic to India seems inevitable, even if fears (after a long time, to the point above) are ultimately found to be misplaced or highly exaggerated.  The world isn't always fair.  But the damage can be considerably mitigated and result in net benefits for Indians if effective and prompt action is taken by the health authorities and hospitals.  This brings us to the next question.

What corrective steps should be taken in India?  Antibiotic overuse and abuse is an endemic problem here, perhaps more so than in the West.  This is largely behind the creation of superbugs.  The current spotlight should jolt the Indian authorities into cleaning house and raising awareness among the general population of providers and patients.  It can become a case of the small medical travel tail wagging the large Indian health care dog, to everyone's benefit.

Indian health authorities can also join Western efforts to encourage and facilitate development of more new drugs to combat gram negative bacteria like the NDM-1 superbug.  Though two existing drugs are presently effective it is vital to have more in the pipeline.  Many experts have also stressed the need for the tracking, collection and transparency of data on outbreaks of drug resistant bacteria in hospitals and the general populace.

Tens of thousands of medical travelers from the West have been treated in India in the past year.  Indian health authorities can coordinate efforts to reach these former patients and offer free testing for pathogens in their home countries.  This will allow treatment and reassure against the risk of spread of superbugs in those countries, while building a database that guides further policy and actions.  This will involve some costs and the home countries are likely to agree to bear part or most of them.  Managed properly, this is certainly money well spent. 

The findings, whatever they are, should be widely shared and made public.  Honesty and transparency is likely the best policy that will build confidence and credibility over the long term.  Even more importantly, it's the right thing to do. 

Tertiary care hospitals popular with medical travelers can take effective steps like: a) Further strengthening or emphasizing infection control practices (though the top ones already have infection and complication rates that are far lower than in the US overall), b) Sharing verifiable statistics and practices with patients and health agencies, and c) Keeping and treating medical travelers separately (and perhaps by country of origin) from the Indian patients.  This isolation could be decried as discrimination or special treatment reserved for more privileged medical travelers if not handled properly.  But it can be truthfully positioned as an infection control measure, and a two way street that also protects Indian patients from pathogens (like MRSA) possibly carried by foreigners.

Should and will this story significantly damp medical travel in general?   Certainly not.  While India is logically a premier medical travel destination because of high quality and low cost of care, it is by no means the only one.  Medical travelers having misgivings about India can look to other destinations like Malaysia, Singapore or even Turkey as alternatives with many good JCI accredited facilities.  They are likely not as cheap as India but still offer enormous cost savings and offsetting advantages of better amenities and visitor friendly infrastructure outside of the hospitals and hotels.

So even in the worst case scenario, while the numbers may change slightly, our overall case for medical travel laid out in my May 13 post remains as strong and compelling as ever.

Costly Nelson Eye On Free Trade

In 1801 Horatio Nelson put a telescope to his blind eye to disregard signals to retreat from a naval battle.  His valor resulted in a crucial victory over the French fleet.  But the US turning a Nelson eye on solutions through free trade in health services is an act of cowardice and cynicism.

The "W" Bushies are also guilty of such neglect after the benefits of trade grew with the proliferation of world class medical facilities abroad, and the advent of the internet and better communications.  But the failure of Obama's team is more poignant when new laws covering the uninsured add to overall costs, as well as to the scarcity (and resultant leverage) of domestic providers.   

On trade in health services, Prof. Bhagwati and I in mid-2008 highlighted promising approaches and reiterated these in my December 2009 post. Four subsequent posts have elaborated on each category (or mode) and quantified potential savings.  The overall picture is compelling.

Highly qualified foreign doctors who have cleared the required US medical board exams can remotely consult through video-conference with a nurse at hand to assist with the patient, if necessary.  Diagnostic radiology does not even need direct patient contact.  This type of telemedicine can easily replace a fourth of primary care visits and diagnostic radiology readings, as well as a tenth of specialist visits, and all at a fifth of the cost.  This will not only help meet the crisis of additional demand due to health reforms and an aging populace, but also save $16B in 2006 terms.  This translates to $267B of savings over the next 10 years, $133B in public funds.  Even the states can authorize telemedicine within their areas, if the federal government doesn't act.

 In medical travel, US patients go to reputed hospitals abroad for major surgeries and medical procedures, often performed by US or UK trained doctors, at a fraction of the cost.  The movement can receive a huge fillip if lawmakers and the leadership reduce legal exposure through legislation, create protocols and procedures to select and qualify foreign hospitals, and identify procedures to be covered.  They should also send publicly funded patients and lay down the incentives for such patients to volunteer, so that private insurers can follow suit and get legal cover.  There are some 30 major procedures costing $300B in 2007 terms that are suitable for medical travel.  Assuming a fourth of these are off-shored the savings are $57B annually in 2007, which comes to $950B over the next 10 years, half of this in public funds.

The third way of trading in health services is to allow and encourage foreign entities to set up hospitals here.  This will allow under-served areas to be covered and introduce greater competition in MSAs, 90% of which face highly concentrated markets for hospitals.  But most importantly, this will bring badly needed reverse innovation to the egregiously expensive and inefficient US hospital system.  Policy changes needed include easing the process and shortening the time line for approval, creating standard guidelines and norms for facilitating this, and doing away with state regulations holding up such hospital creation.  The resultant savings due to competitive pressures and forced changes bringing US costs halfway down to European levels (or "just" 1.5 times instead of being twice as high) are $175B in 2007.  This comes to $2.73 trillion over the next 10 years, with $1.36 trillion of this in public funds.

The final piece is allowing highly qualified foreign doctors trained in one of the pre-approved list of accredited foreign institutions to practice in the US, without going through a US residency.  Other conditions can be imposed on them, like requiring them to clear the required US board exams, or tying their visas to practicing in designated under-served areas.  This will immediately boost doctor supply and should be undertaken in parallel with expanding the domestic pipeline that will start having an impact in 10 years. The US has 2.4 doctors per 1000 people compared to the OECD average of 3.4.  Boosting this US ratio from 2.4 to 3.0 will require 200,000 additional doctors, but this increased number will ensure better access by patients, as well as reduce the scarcity related prices for doctor services.  If these prices go down by 23.5% to the Medicare rates dictated by the (never implemented) SGR formula that are still generous by European standards, then the savings are $79B in 2007.  That is $1.26 trillion over the next 10 years, with $630B of this in public funds.

Therefore apart from the vital increase in access to badly needed services by US patients, the total savings from all four modes of trade are estimated at $5.2 trillion over the next 10 years.  Nearly half of this or $2.6 trillion will be in public funds.  To get some perspective, compare this with the $1 trillion projected added cost of the health reforms bill that created such a firestorm among Republicans.  Had they faced the trade option squarely (requiring them to face down their health industry lobbies which is why they didn't, of course) we'd have saved substantially even after the passage of health reforms.

There is hope yet.  Dr. Donald Berwick's appointment as Director of CMS (during Congressional recess, over Republican objections) is a positive development.  He has studied and talked extensively about the merits of foreign health systems, including Britain's.  If he can look not just at these systems, but to them for solutions (and carry the political will of the Obama team with him) then a lot of these desirable measures can become reality.

Trade of course is not the only answer.  Several unrelated domestic policy initiatives can make a huge difference (more on these later.)  But its potential and benefits are so large that Obama and the lawmakers should urgently look at it - with their good eye for a change - and act accordingly.

Savings Through Free Trade - Medical Travel

Medical travel is the second (and most talked about) of the four modes of trade in health services envisaged under GATS. It's also popularly called medical tourism, a term the industry wants to change, to stress the more serious treatment aspect over any incidental entertainment or sightseeing.

While the first mode telemedicine described earlier is an alternative for some doctor office visits, medical travel does the same for some costly inpatient hospital procedures. Its potential was touched upon in our December 10 overview. Here's a further and updated look.

The main reason for outbound US medical travel are cost savings, which can be up to 90% for a destination country like India. This holds even for procedures performed by US or UK trained and certified doctors in JCI accredited hospitals, with outcomes at least as good as back home. Naturally, only patients who have strong financial or other incentives (not just to save their insurers or employers money) will opt to go.

So far almost all US medical travelers have been the self-payers, either the uninsured or those coming for cosmetic or dental procedures not covered by their insurance. This is a sliver, estimated by Deloitte to be 878,000 in 2010, of the total potential clientele. After all, even among the uninsured who are 15% of the populace or 45 million, less than a third can afford to pay the still significant sum up front for travel and treatment abroad.

Medical travel's ability to significantly address US health costs will be unlocked only if the largest payers (private insurers, employers and public agencies) sign on. They can induce their patients to voluntarily opt for medical travel by passing on some of the savings. But they haven't done so yet. Why?

Private insurers and employers are most worried about legal and PR exposure if some surgeries abroad end badly (which is inevitable, even if complications occur at much below US rates.) These payers fear multimillion dollar lawsuits in which capricious juries may side with their "home boy" plaintiffs regardless of the merits and the precautions taken. Even a few "jackpot" awards can wipe out the entire savings, not to mention any fallout from adverse publicity. In analogy to G.W. Bush paraphrasing the IRA on terrorism, trial lawyers just have to get lucky once, while defending payers have to win (almost) 100% of the time. Given the almost random outcomes of jury trials, successfully defending all cases is a tall order, and in any event involves high legal costs.

Prior safeguard or dispute resolution agreements are of limited value as courts may rule that patients cannot waive their basic right to sue in US courts. Then there's the problem in getting patients to volunteer through financial rewards, like passing along a portion of the savings to them. Even when it's purely voluntary, such financial incentives can be portrayed in malpractice lawsuits as coercive or unduly influencing patients.

There are also other reasons why private insurers hesitate to embrace medical travel:

• Fear that the lure of financial gain may cause patients otherwise hesitant or on the fence about undergoing procedures to go for them along with the medical travel option. This can increase expenses and offset some of the savings. (This is largely fixable through a proper screening, eligibility and incentive design process.)
• Collective inertia among the oligarchs (the major insurers) who feel that their launch of such an initiative will trigger similar actions by their rivals. Thus their potential gains are reduced through the resultant competitive activity, so the effort isn't worthwhile.
• Where insurers are merely administering plans and passing on the costs, say to the self-insured employers, they may have little incentive to push such innovation.
• Insurers are aware that health reformers will push them to lower rates, and are holding such options in hand to use only when these exigencies arise.

The government agencies like CMS have neither legal exposure nor many other private payer concerns as an impediment to the medical travel option. Juries identifying with taxpayers are less likely to award huge payments to plaintiffs that come out of public funds. Public agencies also lack the motive to profit from misdeeds or to cut corners to save money that can form the basis for punitive damages.

But the government and the lawmakers have very different, political and protectionist reasons for staying clear of medical travel. US providers portray foreign medical travel in protectionist terms as loss of American business and jobs. They also raise concerns (sometimes ignoring the facts) about the quality of treatment overseas, and lack of recourse of aggrieved patients to US courts. Their most potent weapon of course is their lobbying and financial clout with Congress and the administration. It's primarily for this reason that you don't hear anyone in CMS, HHS, the rest of the Obama administration as well as in Congress seriously considering the medical travel option.

All this may change as sky high prices, domestic supplier shortages, the health costs related crises in federal and the states budgets, and public awareness trumps the current political nexus. If the government acts effectively on medical travel this will not only save taxpayer funds and benefit publicly funded patients, but also pull along the private payers on this. Here's how:

• Medicare and Medicaid should create protocols to select and qualify foreign providers, identify procedures to be covered, offer financial and other incentives for patients to volunteer, track and disseminate quality and outcomes information, redress treatment problems, etc.
• Private insurers and employers strictly following the same (or better) practices and procedures will get legal cover from adverse outcomes beyond their control. Besides, if the government agencies are doing it, then private payers will also be shielded from adverse publicity or allegations of insidious motives.
• The lawmakers and the administration should pass measures reducing legal risks and costs for public and private payers adopting and implementing this option in good faith. These steps can include laws to restrict jury shopping, requiring arbitration by bodies set up for the purpose, limiting damages and imposing malpractice caps. Such laws will need to be carefully crafted to avoid being struck down as unconstitutional by the courts.

So what are the expected savings from medical travel other than for cosmetic, dental and medically unnecessary procedures? Prof. Jagdish Bhagwati and I looked at all the major surgical procedures and identified 30 that are suitable for medical travel to places as far as Asia. These cost at least $25,000 each, are commonly performed, involve standard techniques, have quick recovery times, and are typically one-time surgeries.

In 2007 these 30 procedures cost a total of $300B. Assuming 25% of patients of these procedures opt for medical travel, the direct savings are $57B annually. The data sources, assumptions and basis for calculations are described in the footnote below. This does not include the effect of lower US prices as a result of competition, or medical travel for smaller procedures to Mexico from border areas like California and Texas. It also excludes possibilities from ideas going as far back as 1993, like hospital ships catering to coastal cities like New York.

Over the next 10 years the savings come to $950B, about half in public funds. Looked another way, these direct savings in public funds from medical travel alone meet half the projected cost of the recently enacted health care reforms.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: Data sources, assumptions and calculations leading up to the projected savings from medical travel:

1) The online query system HCUPnet (part of AHRQ in HHS) is used to get the statistics on all hospital procedures. This includes the aggregate charges for all hospital stays, their breakdown by procedures under the simplified CCS categories, the number of each principal procedure and mean charges per procedure. These are for the latest available year (2007).

2) HCUP only has hospital charges (billing), not the actual payment to the hospital, which is less than what is charged. On the other hand HCUP charges do not include the physician (surgeon, anesthesiologist, etc.) fees that make up almost a fourth of the total payment, which we need. So we need a factor to reduce the charges to actual estimated payments, and then add back payments to physicians.

3) To get the factor in (2) above we compare the aggregate civilian hospital charges for all stays nationally ($1,032B obtained from HCUP) with the actual hospital expenditures obtained from the NCHS (CDC / HHS) Health publication, 2009 ($696B from Table 127, less $38B for VA hospital expenses, equals $658B). This gives us the overall conversion factor of 64% to convert charges into actual payment received by hospitals. We then take physician fees to be added to be 30% of hospital payments, or 23% of the total payment.

4) From the list of the top 200 procedures in HCUP nationally we select 30 that meet our selection criteria. These include a minimum cost of $25K in the US, no need for a subsequent procedure / trip, short recovery time allowing the patient to return to the US within a month, and only highly standardized procedures (e.g., excluding cancer treatment where better US care may be available.)

5) Our total cost of overseas treatment is based on package rates (including air travel and hotel stay while recuperating) to the most popular JCI accredited medical travel destination hospitals in India with US or UK certified / trained physicians. Savings for other destinations like Singapore, Turkey or Costa Rica will be lower.

They've Protected Us From Health Reforms

It's champagne time for reform opponents. Scott Brown's win over Martha Coakley puts to rest any lingering fears of health care changes that seriously damage interests of any major health industry players. Of course, all of them support the "right" reforms that won't diminish their own prosperity.

But any meaningful measure that cuts expenses (possibly excepting EHRs and tech savings, which are therefore over hyped) adversely affects some influential participant. And full reforms that tackle the whole trillion dollars of annual waste and overpayment to bring US costs in line with West Europe will likely take a big bite out of all players' earnings.

Now any effective reform proposals relating to cost controls have been stymied and even the weak Senate version of the health bill may not be passed into law. It's a remarkable outcome given the public outcry and election rhetoric over soaring health costs and uninsured Americans a scant year ago. To paraphrase a pundit, the industry hasn't just dodged a bullet, they've dodged a cannon fusillade. The credit for this upshot goes to many, as listed and recognized below:

• The Congress. Apart from Republican lawmakers firmly in their pocket the industry got vital support from "centrist" Democratic senators who refused to let their 60 votes block a filibuster. It's sound economics. The industry collectively needs just a fraction of a percent of its trillion dollars of excess revenues to have billions of dollars to buy or influence crucial lawmakers. Methods can range from outright bribery (underpaid lawmakers come cheap) to legitimate campaign contributions and threat of funding opponents in weak re-election bids. Now the Jan. 21 Supreme Court ruling undoing many campaign finance reforms and restrictions adds to the power of special interests.
• Good RNC and industry sloganeers. Terms like death panels and socialized medicine are catchy regardless of accuracy. Slogans like "don't let a bureaucrat come between me and my doctor" or "government takeover of health care" played well as if government loves paying patients' bills. Never mind that it's like Haitians earthquake victims protesting about aid groups coming between them and their rescue. The Roves and Cheneys managed to, say, link Saddam's Iraq with 9/11 attacks in the public mind. Their compatriots while outside of government used the same approaches to sow voter misgivings about health reforms.
• President Obama. In the 2008 elections John McCain was weakest on reforms ideas and most likely to maintain the status quo. But Obama too has proved to be sufficiently inept, unlike Hillary Clinton who was the biggest threat to the existing system. He didn't use his bully pulpit and vaunted oratory skills to whip up public opinion and preempt lawmakers (especially "centrist" Democrats) from opposing big reforms. He gave a free pass to doctors, hospitals and trial lawyers in cost control, and made easy deals with drug makers who escaped government negotiating drug prices or allowing cheaper re-imports. Why? Because he was eager for industry (rather than public) support for changes aimed largely at private insurers who are a small part of the cost equation.
• The media. Journalists and pundits seem to have been diverted from health factors leading to high costs (high provider prices, doctor scarcities, hospital concentration, unnecessary treatment, malpractice burdens, etc.) to mainly the issue of private insurer practices, the public option and covering of the uninsured. That took the heat off most other interest groups. And as countries like The Netherlands (top ranked by Consumer Health Powerhouse) show, even private insurance is very compatible with an excellent health care system, so long as you ensure an adequate supply of providers. Though incomplete it's also useful to see the OECD health head's September 2009 report comparing the US health care system with others.
• Practitioners as writers. Health groups have their own members whose writings project views and can protect collective well-being. For example, Dr. Atul Gawande's (seen here on TV) long New Yorker article from a year ago that so impressed President Obama ignored high provider prices (twice those in Europe). It instead focused on much smaller contributors to overall US health costs - unnecessary tests and treatment - and offered no solutions. In another long article ("Testing, Testing) of Dec. 14, 2009 he advocates intensive experimentation that can postpone roll out of reforms tackling pricing and costs by years if not decades. Other US doctors and the AMA have dissed competing medical travel overseas while ostensibly evaluating it objectively. Of course, all or most writings aren't self-serving by any means.
• Enemies helping enemies. Expedience makes strange bedfellows. Doctors and hospitals hate trial lawyers and want tort and malpractice reform. Yet it is mainly fear of US "jackpot" lawsuits in case anything goes wrong that holds back private insurers from medical tourism that lowers costs for them and their customers. Hospitals and doctors also complain about heavy regulation. But it is regulatory barriers that largely prevent more hospitals from being established and offering competition. Or prevent highly qualified foreign doctors from practising in the US and easing the acute doctor shortage. This greater supply and competition would have enabled insurers and payers to secure better rates. Doctors traditionally support Republicans. But is is Democratic bias against free trade and "jobs going overseas" that hold back Medicare or Medicaid (who face less legal exposure than private insurers) from using medical tourism to save taxpayer dollars.
• The "independent" voter. The latest climbdown on health reforms has come because of the Democratic loss of Kennedy's senate seat. It is considered heretical and political suicide to question the wisdom of the voter. But as the Massachusetts election shows, many voters can blame the wrong party for failed legislation. More union households voted for Scott Brown than for the Democratic Martha Coakley. They feared a tax on their "Cadillac" health plans even though they were exempted before the election. They also failed to make the connection between lowered health costs and higher take home pay. The "independent" voters may be those who are free from letting their choices be guided by rationality or self-interests.

Where do we go from here? Paul Krugman strongly argues on Jan. 22 for House Democrats "to do the right thing" by passing the Senate version of the bill and possibly ironing out some parts through reconciliation. This view is echoed in today's NYT editorial. This is quite a happy state of affairs for the health industry since the Senate bill is quite favorable to them overall, and was decried as a sellout by liberals a short while back.

A simple but somewhat drastic alternative is suggested by Ezra Klein to lower the Medicare age from 65 down to 50 and to double the income limits for Medicaid recipients. Such a bill can pass through the reconciliation process in the Senate that requires only 51 votes, instead of the 60 to overcome a filibuster. It doesn't address many aspects of private insurance reform like dropping of coverage, denial due to preexisting conditions and coverage caps. Yet it hits private insurers by advancing a single payer model for more Americans. However, this idea is unlikely to be acted upon. We may even see little change till after the mid-term elections.

In sum the health industry can collectively relax a bit and thank the folks listed above who helped thwart more serious reforms.