My hospital just changed the rules. And all I have to say is, it's about friggen time. The explosion of physician owned specialty hospitals is the direct result of the skewed profit gradients built into the payment schemes of the Medicare National Bank. Procedural medicine has an inherent built in profit stream that makes it a lucrative venture. Owning the equipment allows you to collect facility fees, DRG fees and all the other fees that drive procedural medicine. The explosion of specialty hospitals is a direct result of that profit gradient. There's a reason you don't see cellulitis hospitals springing up everywhere. You can't stick a needle, catheter, camera or scalpel into cellulitis.
Let me tell you how the real world works. Procedural medicine subsidizes internal medicine and psychiatric services. Before hospitalists came along, medical patients were often (and can still be ) money losers for hospitals. Hospitalists help hospitals lose less money on medical patients. They make up the difference by collecting their procedural gravy train. When specialty hospitals opened up, they started siphoning off the gravy train. What full service hospitals were left with was the low paying, money losing services.
To make matters worse, specialty hospitals would divert no pay or low pay (general assistance/Medicaid) to the full service hospital so as not to take up a bed for their good insurance paying patients. What you have left is a process in place that not only takes all the subsidizing good paying procedural admissions and diverts them to the physician owned hospital, but you also have a full service hospital that is used as a, pardon the expression, a dumping ground for the no and low paying insurance folks.
My hospital changed rules. Finally. And I applaud them for standing up for themselves. They have created an exclusive contract to provide procedural cardiac services with one aligned group of cardiologists. They have not revoked admitting privileges to the specialty hospital docs. Physician credentialing software will prevent them from doing their procedures. They will simply not credential them for procedures. This is a fantastic move as it has removed the back up plan for the no and low insurance patients. No longer will my hospital be bullied by the financial incentives that drive self referrals. It's all or nothing.
I see this referral pattern, not infrequently as a hospitalist. Some primary care docs still use our group intermittently. For most it's all or none. But there are some who use us for their uninsured folks. Their Medicaid folks. Their difficult patients with difficult families. At some point that needs to change. As professionals, we should not subject ourselves to the use and abuse by others. Respect says so.
With the new policy, my hospital may lose some good insurance paying procedures, but the vast majority of them were already being diverted to the physician owned hospital. At least now, our hospital won't be there to pick up the scraps. The low paying, no paying diverts. Congratulations for finally taking a stand.
Now, I wait for the games to begin. The egos. The lawsuits. The hard feelings.
It's all about money. None of this would ever happen if all illness were created equal. I have blogged about this extensively in the past. If you are a pneumonia patient, you should be pissed that the hospital values the bypass surgery patient far more economically than they do you. You are simply a financial headache for them. A loss leader. But, they want your experience to be a good one, so when you must come back for your 4 vessel bypass, you will want them as much as my hospital will then want you.
The take home message? All illness is not created equal. You, as a patient, are defined as a money loser or profit center based on your DRG. It's really quite sad, but we get exactly what the system says we should.
Welcome to hospital medicine in America.



Excellent post! Kudos to your hospital for taking a stand. If you wouldn't mind pardoning my ignorance, could you expand upon this statement...
ReplyDelete"They have not revoked admitting privileges to the specialty hospital docs. They will simply not credential them for procedures. This is a fantastic move as it has removed the back up plan for the no and low insurance patients. No longer will my hospital be bullied by the financial incentives that drive self referrals. It's all or nothing."
If one of the specialty hospital's doctors has his/her credentials removed for procedures at your hospital, how is he hurt, if the only procedures that he was doing in your facility were the low/no pays? Can he not still refer to your hospital for admission, and let one of your contracted cardiologists do the procedure? What's the loss to the specialty guy? If the low/no pays are in the end still not being admitted to the specialty hospital, how do they feel the pain?
I'm sure there is an obvious answer along the lines of referral/admission/procedure rules, but please humor a layman.
There will be many games played out in the months ahead. I am going to sit back and watch how it all plays out. It should be very interesting, to say the least.
ReplyDeleteMoney. Politics. And then patients. That's the order of importance I see in all this.
So if an uninsured patient comes in and the doc in question is on call and he can't do any procedures. That's going to work out great.
ReplyDeleteHey, joe. I admitted this guy. He needs a cath, but I don't have the "credentials". Good luck, with all of that.
that seems like economic credentialing. i thought you favored competition, but i guess not. why do you think it is appropriate for the hospital to limit the physicians who are appropriately trained to do the procedures?
ReplyDeleteit generally is really tough to remove privileges once granted (appropriately imo). if you do something that the administration doesn't favor, i gues they can just take away your credentials. that's a dangerous road to start down.
what happens if this group pisses off the administration? the other group gets emergency approval for privileges suddenly? is this the group you mentioned was doing echocardiograms for money or was that another group?
what did the hospital get from the group in exchange for this protectionism?
what if the patients want the other physicians?
anon, I am all for competition. But the current system of DRG is not set up for competition. Competition should increase quality and decrease prices. But the DRG system, insurance system, and pay-per-service system does not decrease prices. There is no competition in health care because third parties are paying it. The big profit gradients that create specialty hospitals simply siphon off that profit without decreasing the cost of care. Leaving the mental health and internal medicine money losing reimbursments to fend for themselves.
ReplyDeleteSo yeah, I'm for competition, but only in so much as it's ability to increase quality and decrease prices. There are many specialties (path, rad, ER, hospitalists) that have exclusive contracts with hospitals to provide service. You could argue that other specialties should be no different. There is some benefit to exclusivity contracts in building trusted relationships going forward. Obviously, when those relationships are broken, there will be many others waiting in the wings to take the place, when there is money to be made.
One could reverse the question and ask why the specialty hospital does not credential other cardiologists in town to practice at their hospital? To take their uninsured/Medicaid patients over to do the heart cath and bypass surgery at the specialty hospital. Why do they not allow that to happen? If you want to play the game, then it should be played fairly. Both ways.
You bring up some good issues about what to do if the patient wants their cardiologist. They will always be able to see their cardiologist, they just won't be able to do the procedures. I'm sure there will be many an ambulance ride between hospitals as patients/doctors play passive aggressive games. I see it already in other specialties. It's a turf battle. And it's a turf battle because the cardiology procedures,pay a gazillion relative dollars to both docs and hospitals. And everyone wants to protect their piece of the pie. And this is where I'm going to sit back and watch the order of importance play over the next few months: Money, Politics, Patients
The ambulance rides are probably not going to go to the specialty hospital. Why would they transfer when they could write on the chart every day. "Patient needs cath or patient needs echo." If they are the admitting they make the call for a transfer or discharge. They will say in my opinion the risks outweigh the benefits of transfer since a similar facility is on site and make the case manager figure it out. Meanwhile they will have 2-3 week or longer stays for Medicaid patients while a pissing match ensues waiting for the other hospital group to finally take them. I don't think its nearly as smart a move as you make it out to be. You know as well the hospital group is just itching for the hospital to burn enough bridges, so they can ask for the absolute moon when its time to negotiate a new contract.
ReplyDelete