Accountable Care Organizations and the Potential Upcoming Crisis in Primary Care
By Mary S LaMoreaux, CPA, CFP, PFS
Provisions in the Affordable Care Act set up a system where Medicare would pay doctors to join together to give coordinated care to patients under an Accountable Care Organization (ACO). There are many different models of Accountable Care Organizations but it usually includes a payment system that gives doctors incentives to keep patients healthy by paying doctors a flat fee for a patient, then paying a bonus for “medical cost savings.” It uses quality measures to determine if the doctor is “saving” Medicare money.
When the Accountable Care Organization (ACO) model was first conceived It was based on the theory that if you find a problem early, it will cost less to fix it. Taking care of cancer at Stage 1 is cheaper than at Stage 4. You do this by testing often and early.
The ACO system sounds like a good plan, but it has 3 basic flaws. The first flaw: on average, 75% of a person’s health care costs are encountered in the last 2 years of life. You will always have those last 2 years of life. Everyone dies. So, you are increasing longevity, which is a good thing, but this will likely not decrease costs over the long term.
The second and main problem is that there is a finite number of primary care doctors and the primary care doctor is necessary for this program to work. This reality does not cause a problem for people who already have a primary care doctor, it causes a problem for the people who do not have a primary care doctor. For instance, say you are a person who does not get sick very often. You go to urgent care when you have a sinus infection and that’s about it. You work too hard to go sit in a doctor’s office for three hours when you are not sick.
Then you start to have some stomach problems so you go to a gastroenterologist. He gives you a colonoscopy and removes a polyp that comes back with cancer on it. The gastroenterologist says you need surgery, so you call a surgeon. The surgeon says he can do the surgery but it cannot be done at a surgery center, you have to stay overnight in a hospital. The hospital requires you to have a primary care doctor sign off before they will admit you. You call the primary care doctor and he either says he is not taking any new patients or he says he can fit you in 3 to 6 months from now. I know doctors do not like this type of progression, but it is what makes sense to people who are not in the medical field, the patients. If you do not have connections to a primary care doctor, you are going to struggle.
What does this progression have to do with the ACO? The thing with an ACO is that the doctor does not get paid his bonus unless he meets the metrics. Primary care doctors don’t make a lot of money in the first place, but without the bonus, they barely pay overhead. The metrics the doctors must meet include things like making sure a certain percentage of patients get their mammogram and colonoscopy on time.
Primary care doctors are now concerned about teaching health promotion and education. These are all noble goals to promote longevity, but the system also insists that the primary care doctor correctly complete the notes in the Electronic Health Records, which means the primary care doctor spends more time looking at the computer than at the patient. The actual care of the patient, especially the patient that cannot get a primary care doctor, has been lost in this system.
The third flaw in the ACO system is that it incentives even those who have primary care doctors to visit urgent care or the hospital emergency room--because they think their primary care doctor is too busy.
Trying to get patients out of the emergency waiting room was one of the primary reasons we were told that the Affordable Care Act must be passed. However, as the primary care doctors are now too busy to see their patients, except for the 3-month or 6-month check-up, people do not think to call them when they are sick. They go to urgent care when they have the flu, and the emergency room when they think they have something worse.
I am not blaming the primary care doctor for this, I am blaming the system that has been set up by the government. Medicare likes the ACO model and has made some proposals to increase access to people in low-income and rural areas, and generally improve it, but the core problems are that there are not enough primary care doctors and they are not being used in the most efficient way.
Between the Great Resignation, and the fact that most doctors want to specialize because they can make a better living without having to work crazy hours, the system is breaking for the ordinary American who does not have or does not want a primary care doctor.
I do not see a solution to the lack of primary care doctors, but the problem must be recognized before a solution can be worked on. Preferably it will be recognized and worked on before it reaches a crisis.
Mary S LaMoreaux received her Bachelor's degree in Accounting from Marquette University in Milwaukee, WI in 1982 and became a Certified Public Accountant at that time, She became a Certified Financial Planner in 2000, and Personal Financial Specialist in 2010, Mary owns a full-service accounting firm and has worked advising doctors and their practices in Lake County, Florida for over 25 years. Mary received her Masters degree in Theology in 2018 from St. Leo University, Lake City, FL.
What’s gross behavior?
On Deming's Hell and Hailstone Numbers
There is a fair amount of upper-level manipulation of the American medical industry. It lives on the premise that it is good, and what is wrong with it are factors external to its purpose and vision. It perceives that its ability to survive depends on the values held by the public at large. Therefore, it engages in propaganda and subterfuge to manipulate the public.
The first principle, often credited with a tip of the hat to Josef Stalin, is "Divide and Rule." I am struck by how the medical world is riven with strife today. Doctors are set upon NP's; PA's on doctors and nurses - and the expansion of the scope of practice of other licensed professionals is used as a club to frighten all. Patients perceive that the system is broken, and are manipulated to direct their anger at targets in a manner which benefits the system controlling the current mess.
I notice that the old epithet "leave the doctors on their golf courses" appears. I laughed. I have not played golf since an adolescent, and I am not a member of a golf club nor buy tee time, as it is simply too expensive. I am not alone. I believe that golf is a rarely played enjoyment by doctors, other than perhaps on vacations. I have not had one of those since residency. Too expensive.
On Deming's Hell: W. Edwards Deming was a student of management several decades ago. He offered the perspective that failures in a process are mostly due to management's failure to improve processes, and rarely due to individual worker deficiency. Here are several of Deming's principles:
* Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for the work force asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the work force.
* Eliminate work standards (quotas) on the factory floor. Substitute leadership.
* Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers, numerical goals. Substitute leadership.
In the current management world, these suggestions would provoke surprise, outrage, and perhaps even cries of "socialism!" They are certainly heretical to the culture of medical management.
Deming's Hell is a term I use to describe the deliberate choice of management to blame systemic defects beyond the power of the work force, upon individuals in a work force. If there is a bad outcome, identify and publicize the individual "at fault" and use them as a scapegoat for systemic failure.
Police shootings? "Bad Cops" Poor education? "Selfish teachers." Bad medical process? "Lousy doctors!" We are trained to turn on OURSELVES to cull a miscreant from a herd, rather than blaming a system for producing a bad outcome. That way, management does not experience disquiet or need to change.
Hailstone Numbers - an intriguing concept we don't have to look at here in detail, but it represents a sequence on numbers that wildly go up and down, almost appearing random. When they go high, they can go very high. And they make a reasonable model for executive compensation - it goes up and down in unpredictable fashion. But you get to keep the "up" stuff, the $300,000 bonuses. So competition and "success" goes along with the cash you get, and supporting the system is the pathway to golden random bonuses.
These are some of the overarching elements that make the system bad, keep the system bad, and are used to fleece the patient.