Doctor-hospital collaboration pushed
Alliances will aid patients, cut costs, White House says
By Noam N. Levey MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration proposed new regulations to encourage doctors and hospitals to collaborate more closely to improve patient care, a major goal of the health-care law the president signed last year. The much-anticipated rules will reward new partnerships, known as accountable-care organizations, that deliver better results for Medicare patients. Ultimately, that could save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by helping patients stay healthier and avoid unnecessary complications, according to proponents who view these new partnerships as one of the most potentially transformative parts of the new law. “We’ve known for a long time that too many Americans fail to get the best care,” Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said yesterday. “It doesn’t have to be this way.”
It remains unclear how many doctors will sign up to start the care organizations. The Obama administration hopes many of the more than 45 million seniors and others who rely on Medicare will ultimately get their care this way; the administration’s early estimates are that about 1.5 million to 4 million people would participate by 2014, generating about $500 million in savings.
Some doctors fear that the new approach will favor larger systems that can afford the computerized databases and other resources needed to coordinate care with hospitals and specialists. American Medical Group Association Vice President Chet Speed said the rigorous requirements for running a care organization and the risk of losing money might discourage many doctors from participating. “That’s going to be a difficult pill to swallow for many providers,” he said. But many experts think the accountable-care organization model could be replicated throughout the nation’s $2.5 trillion health-care system, a process that already has begun as hospitals, doctors and health plans scramble to form alliances.
The models outlined will require participating groups of primary-care doctors to take responsibility for managing the care of at least 5,000 Medicare patients. To make it worthwhile, the federal government would share savings with the Medicare program generated by more-coordinated care. That would mean rewards for providers that can keep down costs by reducing hospitalizations and better-managing chronic medical conditions such as diabetes or heart disease. It would mean losses for groups that fail to achieve the savings. Providers could also lose any savings if they fail to hit quality benchmarks. Doctors would be required to alert their patients if they join a care organization. But the new rules would allow Medicare patients within an organization to choose any physician or hospital, even if the provider is not in their organization.
(Jan Comments
In essence, the proposals presented are good and should probably bring about financial betterment for medi -care as a whole. It shows creative thought and honest effort, elements much needed. Perhaps for the majority of people, it could prove to be a blessing.
Don’t think that I am a candidate for this however as, being the rebel that I am known to be, would not be a good patient. I refuse almost all the so-called helpful tests such as mammograms and bone density. Never take flu shots and refuse pneumonia shots or any other inoculations offered. Not only do I not want any of them, I am most strongly opposed to them as they are almost totally useless for the advertised purpose and instead, foul up the inner eco-system of one’s body interfering with the immune system and even the proper function of the brain.
I resist taking medications. My experience of caring for my mother all those years and railing against the 18 daily meds physicians determined she must take was enough to permanently imprint my brain. Want none of it. She died at 85 years of age in 1995. So pharmaceuticals and surgery are not my first line of defense – - food is. . . as Hippocrates said – - “let food be thy medicine.”
Medicare being what it is (100% allopathic), and my preference running toward an orthomolecular approach, my doctoring is limited by choice. The kinds of insurance available to seniors through Medicare do not pay for or honor “Integrative” medicine as a general rule. It’s a rigged system, but it is the one we’ve got, so you work with what you’ve got, right? Change comes slowly. For discomfort or pain, my preference is “Energy Medicine” with which I am well-served and very grateful as are my kidneys and liver.
For people with a more relaxed attitude regarding medicine, sufficiently more trust in the care providers, and not so fussy regarding the viewpoint on what “health” looks like and how it feels, well – - it should work out okay, you know, bring some positive changes. Way to go. Jan)
