The medical home is reform without objections, so far

By | November 23, 2009, 10:13am PST

Summary: A health policy based on the medical home is going to be a lot more intrusive than the present fee-for-service model. If the medical home is to save money, and lives, that team will need power to enforce what’s good for you.

There is one type of health reform that, so far, has received little publicity and no political objections.

It’s called the medical home. (Picture from the American Academy of Family Physicians.)

Physicians have been talking up the concept since the 1960s, and at its heart it is pretty simple. Charge for wellness and create a team, headed by a physician, that can deliver it.

When people like Larry Green, who heads the American Board of Family Medicine, talk about moving toward a “blended payment” model he’s advocating for this team approach to care.

Many doctors’ groups support the medical home, but getting from here to there is not easy. Doctors are basically being asked to create a new business, with a new set of employees, and to do this they need start-up capital.

The AAFP magazine Family Practice Management published an article last month with 10 suggested steps for getting that capital.

These start with using existing medical codes to generate more revenue from each patient visit, hiring more nurses and medical assistants, then using these people to increase the number of patients you “see” each day. Wash, rinse, repeat.

If this sounds like gaming the system to generate revenue, it reads like this to me, too. But this revenue has a purpose. The article suggests that capital go into an Electronic Health Record (EHR) system, a “patient portal” through which customers access health data, and links to other helpful electronic resources.

One idea of the $19.2 billion HITECH stimulus cash is that it helps doctors pay for these computer resources so they don’t need to game the system to get the money. But they still have to build scaled businesses.

Only after doctors have their office and systems right should they focus on high-cost patients, the article continues. A lot of alligators need to be slain before you drain this swamp.

From the patient point of view, you’re going to be given a lot more control over your care, you’re going to have a lot more appointments with people other than the doctor, but you’re going to get more face time with people trained to help you.

It’s that face time that can end disputes like the present one over pap smears and other tests. You will have people you can discuss these issues with, people who have access to your medical records, people who will have the time to listen to you as well as talk.

Now that you know the good news, here is the bad news:

  1. The financial success of a medical home is based on nagging. You get the data, you get access to the people, but money is only saved when you take the advice.
  2. It takes money and business transformation to get from here to there. Running a team takes money and organization. Either doctors become businessmen or go to work for people who are. Either they buy and build systems they need or they associate with others who have them.

A health policy based on the medical home is going to be a lot more intrusive than the present fee-for-service model. The team will know if you smoke, how much you drink, what you eat, even what you’re likely to die of, based on a whole lot of data.

If the medical home is to save money, and lives, that team will need power to enforce what’s good for you. It could come from an adjusted insurance rating, based on your observed lifestyle, with the higher fee going to your medical home.

Or the medical home needs the power to force you out for non-compliance.

The medical home, in the end, offers the promise of lower costs and personal attention, in exchange for your willingness to be bound by your doctor’s advice on what’s good for you.

Do you still like the medical home?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Disclosure

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a journalist, writer and part-time futurist for over 30 years. At the present moment I run only a personal blog in addition to my ZDNet open source blog. DanaBlankenhorn.Com has the subtitle The War Against Oil. In the past I have used it to write about political history, e-commerce, personal matters, some ideas related to open source, and The World of Always On, which is the idea of using sensors, motes and RFID to turn WiFi links into platforms for applications which live in the air. My IRA account at Schwab holds a few tech shares, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials, but there are no open source companies in it. I don’t even own any CBS stock.

Biography

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist since 1978, and has covered technology since 1982. He launched the Interactive Age Daily, the first daily coverage of the Internet to launch with a magazine, in September 1994.
8
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Where do you find the care givers?
Ken_z 23rd Nov 2009
It's far easier to develop interesting concepts about improving
health care with things like a medical home than it is to bring a
working group of experienced medical professionals to reality.

Costs of education for the non-doctor professional, as well as
comparative low pay, makes some key professions not that
desirable to those who patients would like to see treat them.

A fair example is my wife, an Australian trained Physical
Therapist. Her training was for 3 ten month years. Weekdays
were full days (8 to 4) and Saturday mornings (8 to 12) in the
dissecting rooms for the first two years. Year 3 was heavy level
patient work in all types of hospitals in her city. No time for
the liberal arts studies so that was delegated to high school.

At the same time a US trained therapist went 4 years, with less
professional class hours, or patient contact. These days you
get a BS Degree (well named) and then go to Graduate School
for a Masters. Twice the number of school years, more than
double the costs.

And soon you'll need to get a PhD in order to work in the
profession. Do they REALLY believe that real Doctors (MDs) will
call them "Doctor"? LOL!

So can anyone explain why a really bright individual would want
to put up with all the cost and wasted time in order to make far
less money than they could in, say, Accounting? Remember,
we're talking about really bright kids.

Right now we need to spend as much time looking at the
potential for finding and developing more medical
professionals than we are now, and ensuring that the non-
physician workforce continues to grow with talented people at a
rate that at least matches the country's needs.
0 Votes
+ -
Medical Home
thinking about consequences 23rd Nov 2009
This path is already being broken. At my company, the $56/paycheck credit for not taking a company medical insurance plan has been replaced with a $20 credit IF you participate in a company-sponsored "wellness" program. You have to have a screening (on company time) - weight, BP, pulse, cholesterol, etc., and agree to monitoring of the same. If overweight and/or out of shape, you are "encouraged" to sign up for a weekly "encouraging" phone call from a nurse - basically your nag call you cited.

Am I likely to do better with the company-sponsored nag and the $20/paycheck (pre-tax) incentive? Probably, but I don't like it at all. I also don't like the cut in pay I took from the old system.

But I would sure rather go down this road than a bankrupting government conventional program like Medicare, Medicaid, and the new public option.
0 Votes
+ -
Why does it matter?
DanaBlankenhorn 23rd Nov 2009
Why is it better for you to be forced into doing something by a private entity -- the insurance company, your employer -- than by a public entity?

You have some control over the public entity through politics. You have no control over the private entity, especially if the entire industry is engaging in conduct you deplore.

This has always struck me as silly. United Healthcare is not necessarily more ethical than Medicare. People don't even like it as much.
0 Votes
+ -
Why does it matter?
thinking about consequences 23rd Nov 2009
1) I'm not forced by my employer. I can simply forsake the $20/paycheck and not have any interference.
2) I can also vote with my feet. I can go to another employer or insurance company who offers different terms.
3) With the government, the only way to vote with my feet is to leave the country.
4) Political control of a public entity is much more difficult than high school civics theory implies. Just as the "debate" over health care reform has shown, effectively presenting your case to the politicians who decide is not cheap (I'm respectfully assuming the politicians are not out and out bought by vested interests).
5) As social workers at Children's Services and post-natal parenting visits by nurses have shown, government entities will do their best to make sure you comply with their idea of how you should behave, and make your life miserable if you believe/behave differently. A private company or insurance firm does not yet have the same leverage - and labor laws sometimes get in the way when they try.
0 Votes
+ -
Certainly
DanaBlankenhorn 23rd Nov 2009
1. Not going to be that easy. When insurance is a mandate, which it is in even the most current health reform proposal, you can't save that money.
2. No insurer is going to take a bad risk, and employers will also be reluctant. It will be very hard to change jobs.
3. As a citizen it is your option to leave. But you also lose the protection of our laws.
4. We do have a problem with vested interests, one that will grow if the Supremes decide, as expected, that corporations are persons with full free speech rights in the public square.
5. An important element in mandated coverage is to give the insurance companies precisely the control you fear.

If we're to have a mandate, I prefer also having a public option. If we're not to have a mandate, then there's no point in the exercise, because that's the system we have now.

Thanks for a thoughtful series of posts. I hope others engage as intelligently.
0 Votes
+ -
This is not new to many...
thinking about consequences 23rd Nov 2009
Dana

You're probably not old enough to remember, but I do. Flight attendants (were called stewardesses back then) had to meet weight and age requirements. Those who failed gracefully went to ground jobs. Those who failed and protested got fired.

Time was (for most workers) when you felt too sick to work, you had to bring in a doctor's note to your employer to prove it. Some teachers may still be required to do so. The military still is in most cases - either show up for duty or be at sick call in medical.

Military medical has another healthy behavior clause called "Due to own misconduct" or DOM. Have a few too many, get in an accident, and the investigating officer gives you a DUI. The DUI is an automatic DOM finding, so any medical care you get as a result of the accident is out of your own pocket. Go to jail, and the jail time doesn't count. No pay, no benefits. 2 DUIs (in a career) and most service branches give you your walking papers. One positive pee test has the same result. Overweight and don't get back under soon enough - admin discharge.

Police and fire departments have similar strict standards, but like the military, have alsways had problems with enforcing health rules against senior members.

And that will be the biggest problem with medical homes - even enforcement of consequences for unhealthy behavior.
0 Votes
+ -
Good Post
DanaBlankenhorn 23rd Nov 2009
It reminds me of a MASH episode from 1977, "The MASH Olympics."

The ostensible reason for the event was that a soldier wanted to re-enlist but couldn't if he didn't lose weight.

Good talkback. (I think that particular episode may have been when MASH jumped the shark, but that's another story we'll talk about another time.)
0 Votes
+ -
Sometimes the military is rather ignorant when it comes
to their "tables for health". A friend's son was denied
promotion for a while because he weighed more than the
tables indicated he should, for his height. Some months
later he was able to get a BMI from an Army Doc and was
BELOW the required percentage. Finally got his
promotion, but the ignorance before that was sufficient to
keep him from considering the Army for a career.

I can also remember when I was in the Navy in the last
half of the 60s, our ship had an exceptional engineering
officer - a Naval Academy graduate and I think he was on
the football team. Big fella and probably out of the
"range". If the quality of an officer is important he would
have made Admiral.
0 Votes
+ -
It's far easier to develop interesting concepts about improving
health care with things like a medical home than it is to bring a
working group of experienced medical professionals to reality.

Costs of education for the non-doctor professional, as well as
comparative low pay, makes some key professions not that
desirable to those who patients would like to see treat them.

A fair example is my wife, an Australian trained Physical
Therapist. Her training was for 3 ten month years. Weekdays
were full days (8 to 4) and Saturday mornings (8 to 12) in the
dissecting rooms for the first two years. Year 3 was heavy level
patient work in all types of hospitals in her city. No time for
the liberal arts studies so that was delegated to high school.

At the same time a US trained therapist went 4 years, with less
professional class hours, or patient contact. These days you
get a BS Degree (well named) and then go to Graduate School
for a Masters. Twice the number of school years, more than
double the costs.

And soon you'll need to get a PhD in order to work in the
profession. Do they REALLY believe that real Doctors (MDs) will
call them "Doctor"? LOL!

So can anyone explain why a really bright individual would want
to put up with all the cost and wasted time in order to make far
less money than they could in, say, Accounting? Remember,
we're talking about really bright kids.

Right now we need to spend as much time looking at the
potential for finding and developing more medical
professionals than we are now, and ensuring that the non-
physician workforce continues to grow with talented people at a
rate that at least matches the country's needs.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix