November 17, 2024

Todays Economist: Uwe E. Reinhardt: American Health Care as a Source of Humor

DESCRIPTION

Uwe E. Reinhardt is an economics professor at Princeton. He has some financial interests in the health care field.

From time to time I stand accused of injecting humor into my public presentations on health policy in the United States. As a German-born economist, I find it hurtful.

Today’s Economist

Perspectives from expert contributors.

Germans pride themselves on their lack of humor. Economists, for their part, pride themselves on being practitioners of the dismal science. We are the professional buzzkills who put caveats on any good news.

Now imagine both traits packaged into one human being: you have yours truly. It is not that I inject humor into our otherwise august debate on health policy. Rather, the health system in the United States is in many ways so risible that it comes across as droll even when a dour German-born economist describes it.

One of those risible moments occurred this week when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services of the Department of Health and Human Services delivered a giant spreadsheet on hospital charges and payments.

The spreadsheet has data in 65,536 rows and 12 columns. It covers, for each of more than 3,000 hospitals, charges and payments for the 100 most frequently billed inpatient cases, along with the average covered charges hypothetically billed by those hospitals for those cases.

The distribution of this giant spreadsheet instantly brought headlines in major daily publications, telling the world that billing charges for a given case vary widely among hospitals even within one city.

Really?

Why was this news? That charges vary enormously among hospitals surely must have been known for many years. As early as 2004, for example, Lucette Lagnado of The Wall Street Journal reported that on the paper’s front page.

I recall producing from her data, for a 2006 paper, “The Pricing of U.S. Hospital Services: Chaos Behind a Veil of Secrecy,” the following slide. More such wondrous charges can be found in Ms. Lagnado’s article.

Readers of this blog may recall several posts on the pricing of hospital services, commenting on such variations.

Perhaps the news in this case was that at long last the government had bestirred itself to publish data on which it had been sitting for decades. Indeed, why it had not done so eons ago is an intriguing question.

Part of the data in the government’s daunting spreadsheet could potentially be useful to prospective paying patients. The other part is useful mainly as a source of humor.

What Medicare Actually Pays: For each hospital listed in the spreadsheet, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services show in Column K the average case payments that Medicare actually made to that hospital in 2011 for the 100 most frequently billed cases in the government’s “medical severity-adjusted diagnosis-related grouping,” known as MS-DRG, a classification of inpatient cases. These actual payments are the total payments the hospital received for the case not only from Medicare itself but from patients in the form of co-payments, or from third parties, such as Medigap insurers that cover co-payments otherwise due from patients.

I described an excellent synopsis of Medicare’s MS-DRG classification system and how it sets the payment rate per MS-DRG case in an earlier post.

In principle, patients paying out of pocket could use the actual Medicare payment for an MS-DRG rate as benchmarks by which to gauge the reasonableness of whatever a hospital may charge them for that type of case.

For example, in Column K of Row 28,067 of the spreadsheet, readers learn that for MS-DRG 249 “Perc Cardiovasc Proc W Non-Drug-Eluting Stent w/o MCC” Medicare paid North Shore Medical Center in Miami an average case payment of $13,301 in 2011.

If a paying patient treated or to be treated at North Shore Medical Center can understand the sometimes arcane case descriptions listed in Column A of the spreadsheet, this information might be helpful in haggling with the hospital over its detailed bill before or even after the procedure.

From Column J, Row 28,067 of the spreadsheet, the patient also learns that North Shore Medical Center’s average covered charges for MS-DRG 249 came to $99,275, or 7.5 times what Medicare pays.

So what have we here? What are these charges?

In a handsome graphic comparing Medicare reimbursement (the actual Medicare payment) with average covered charges, a Washington Post blog post described the latter as “average cost.” But costs is exactly not what these “average charges” reflect.

“Average charges” in the United States hospital business are pure fiction — and a funny fiction, at that. They are simply list prices few patients ever pay. Indeed, if any hospital in the United States ever were paid its charges for every patient, its profits would be truly embarrassing.

To appreciate why, it may be helpful to say a word about the so-called chargemasters of hospitals.

Average Covered Charges: Under the tab “Documentation” in the Excel workbook, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services define “average covered charges” as “the provider’s average charge for services covered by Medicare for all discharges in the DRG. These will vary from hospital to hospital because of differences in hospital charge structures.”

In composing a bill for an inpatient case, a hospital’s computers find the charge for a particular service, procedure or manufactured good in the hospital’s huge chargemaster. The latter is a  detailed listing of the hospital’s list prices for myriad procedures and products.

Under the mantra that rules American health care, that “one size does not fit all” — this, in a country that invented one-size-fits-all franchising like McDonald’s and Holiday Inn — the structure and detail of chargemasters are hospital-specific and vary considerably among hospitals. In a detailed study in 2005, the consulting firm Lewin Group noted that hospital chargemasters may contain anywhere from 12,000 to 45,000 distinct items, depending on the hospital.

To see a live example of such a chargemaster and to appreciate how useless its contents would be to a lay person, readers may wish to consult the 2012 chargemaster of Dameron Hospital in Stockton, Calif. I chose it because it happened to pop up in a Google search.

Hospitals update their chargemasters continuously, under the overall supervision of the hospital’s chief financial officer and often with the help of outside consultants.

Here is how, in 2004, the chief financial officer of California’s UC Davis Health System, a 30-year veteran of hospital financing, described this process of updating to The Wall Street Journal:

There is no method to this madness. As we went through the years, we had these cockamamie formulas. We multiplied our costs to set our charges.

Even a German-born economist cannot suppress a smirk at this amazing feature of American health care, a feature whose production engages so many deadly serious adults, including an armada of deadly serious outside consultants.

Even funnier are the protestations by hospital executives that hardly anyone ever pays these fictional prices, which prompted me to offer the following technical definition: “ ‘Charges’ are the prices that a totally inebriated foreign billionaire would pay a U.S. hospital if his wife were not around to control the bloke.”

While it may be true that hardly anyone ever pays these hospital charges, Steven Brill reported not long ago that some and perhaps many hospitals actually bill uninsured American patients with some means and then hound them for payment. That, of course, is not funny.

In the end, though, it is not at all clear to me why anyone should care about the fictitious “average covered charge” figures reported by the Medicare agency. What exactly is a prospective patient to do with this metric?

Nor is it clear to me what all the excitement in the news media was about.

It just made this dour German-born economist laugh out loud once again.

Article source: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/american-health-care-as-a-source-of-humor/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Economic Scene: Negotiating Election Headwinds

Maybe it’s not the economy, stupid.

White House officials have begun to entertain the idea that they can run for re-election without being able to point to a strengthening economy. For one thing, they may not have a choice. For another, they believe that recent Republican budget proposals have given President Obama an opportunity to draw contrasts in which he is more in line with most voters.

The clearest statement of this idea has come from David Plouffe, Mr. Obama’s top political adviser. “The average American does not view the economy through the prism of G.D.P. or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers,” Mr. Plouffe said at a recent Bloomberg Breakfast here. “People won’t vote based on the unemployment rate. They’re going to vote based on: ‘How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?’ ”

Not surprisingly, Republicans seized on the comment to say the White House was out of touch. They are preparing to follow the path of not only Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign, but also — in slogans, if not policies — Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, which coined “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Mr. Obama’s advisers, meanwhile, are looking for lessons from re-election bids that overcame a first-term rise in unemployment, like those of George W. Bush, Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower, Republicans all. That’s a turnabout from the Obama team’s initial plan to base its re-election campaign on the economy’s progress since 2008.

The White House approach certainly does come with caveats. Mr. Obama and his aides are well aware that the economy is the biggest threat to his re-election. Their 2012 campaign will be filled with talk of the economic crisis the administration inherited. And administration officials say they will continue to push for steps to put people back to work, like road construction, that Congressional Republicans have blocked.

But you can already see how the White House strategy is affecting the fights that it chooses to have and, by extension, the economic and political risks it takes.

In the debt ceiling talks, Mr. Obama has not made new stimulus his top priority. He has instead pushed for a grand bargain that would sharply reduce the deficit. His calculation seems to be that any stimulus he could win from Republicans would have only a minor effect on job growth — and come with a political cost.

By now, many Americans are at best skeptical of stimulus. If Mr. Obama argued for more temporary tax cuts and spending, he might be able to increase popular support for such measures and make them a bigger part of a debt ceiling deal. (For the deficit to fall, the steps would obviously have to be offset by larger spending cuts or tax increases.) Yet by pushing for new stimulus, he would also tie himself ever closer to the troubled economy and the unpopular policies to help it.

His attempt at a big deficit-reduction package — which seemed to come back from the dead on Tuesday — allows him to project a different image. He takes on the moderate role of fiscal conservative, looking to cut spending and increase taxes on the affluent. The refusal of many Republicans to consider such a package, Mr. Obama noted last week, puts them to the right of most Republican voters, polls show. House Republicans have opposed any tax increase and have instead proposed an overhaul of Medicare.

So far, many political observers believe Mr. Obama has played his hand well. Amy Walter, political director of ABC News, wrote this week that the president’s approval rating — 48 percent, hardly stellar — was still “remarkably high given the level of economic pessimism.”

Yet the White House strategy of not trying absolutely everything in its power to lift economic growth has drawbacks, politically and economically.

The stimulus of the last three and a half years has mostly worked. The best six months of economic growth, in late 2009, came on the heels of the maximum effort from the Federal Reserve, Congress and the White House. Late last year, the Obama administration persuaded Republicans to agree to a smaller stimulus package, which extended jobless benefits and temporarily cut the payroll tax for households, as part of the deal to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Still, the economy continues to struggle. That’s the normal pattern after a giant debt bubble pops. A full recovery takes years and years. Consumers and businesses remain reluctant to spend. The less aggressive the government is in filling the void, the weaker the recovery tends to be.

White House officials are no doubt correct that the most ambitious ideas — say, a huge new federal program to rebuild roads, bridges and other infrastructure — have no political chance. They are also correct that economic policy would have been more aggressive if they had been able to dictate legislation. And those of us outside the debt ceiling negotiating room cannot fully know what is and isn’t possible.

But there do seem to be options within the realm of plausibility, and it is not too late to pursue them. The negotiation over the debt ceiling is, after all, a negotiation.

One option would be an immediate extension of the payroll tax cut, which is set to expire on Jan. 1, to give consumers and businesses more confidence. By waiting until the end of the year to announce an extension, Washington would end up paying all of the budgetary cost without getting the full economic benefit.

Perhaps the most intriguing idea is a 2010 proposal from Mr. Obama to give a $5,000 tax credit for each net new worker that a business hires. The credit aims at the economy’s main problem — a lack of jobs — and its annual cost is a mere $35 billion, easily offset by longer-term cuts to domestic programs or the military. Yes, it died in Congress last year. But given the ongoing slump, does abandoning the idea make sense?

Four years after the mortgage-bond market first quivered, the share of Americans with jobs has again fallen to its recent nadir. Yet Washington is occupied with another crisis, one that’s entirely self-imposed. The bond market would be ecstatic if the federal government simply lifted its debt ceiling, as it always has before. Congress can make this problem go away whenever it wants.

The jobs crisis is different. Solving it will take a whole lot of work. Right now, there are not many people trying to do that work.

E-mail: leonhardt@nytimes.com; twitter.com/DLeonhardt

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=fea1e6f7e2fb61711dd343fff4fea2a8

Critic’s Notebook: At Video Game Convention, a Crowded Field of Winners

Still, it is physically impossible for one person to see or play even a quarter of the coming games on offer. So all week everyone talks to one another, even direct competitors, about what they’ve seen and how they’ve felt about it. Usually a consensus emerges about the standout game or two.

Not this year. While there was buzz surrounding one hardware announcement, Nintendo’s new Wii U console, expected next year, no single game came out of nowhere to become the talk of the show.

But don’t interpret that as a sign of creative stagnation. Quite the opposite. Instead, the overall level of quality among the top publishers was so consistently high that a few games stood out because they were subpar rather than because they looked great.

We’ll spare those the harsh glare of ridicule until they’re released. Instead, here we’ll follow the games that most impressed in a crowded field. (Two caveats. First, three truly elite developers — Blizzard, Rockstar and Valve — didn’t show their coming titles at E3 at all. Second, the sheer size of the show prevented me from spending quality time with several publishers, among them Atari, Capcom, Konami, Namco Bandai, Sega and THQ.)

Now on to the good stuff.

BATTLEFIELD 3 This is the first military combat game in a long time that will give Activision’s juggernaut Call of Duty franchise a run for its money. Based on initial impressions, Battlefield 3 may be the most realistic-looking shooter yet. It is being developed by DICE of Sweden, a studio with an excellent track record, and is set amid a conflict between Russia and the West in the near future. (To be published by Electronic Arts on Oct. 25 for Windows, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.)

BATMAN: ARKHAM CITY This is the sequel to the best comic-book game yet, 2009’s Batman: Arkham Asylum. Developed by Rocksteady Studios, Arkham City is meant to outdo its predecessor in every way. Rather than a single island, the Dark Knight will have an entire precinct of Gotham City to explore and defend. Mark Hamill is back as the voice of the Joker, and Catwoman will be the playable character for about 10 percent of the game. (Warner Brothers; Oct. 18; Windows, 360 and PS3.)

BIOSHOCK INFINITE In narrative depth and intellectual ambition, Infinite appeared to be the top of the class at E3. Developed by Irrational Games, it appears to take place in the same fictional universe as the acclaimed BioShock (though that has not been confirmed). Instead of a city under the Atlantic, the milieu is now a floating metropolis called Columbia, set about a century ago. Infinite looks to mix blood-pumping action with a deeply philosophical story line about community and the role of the individual. (2K Games; 2012; Windows, 360 and PS3.)

CALL OF DUTY: MODERN WARFARE 3 Mixing military realism and over-the-top set-piece fabulism, Call of Duty has become one of the most lucrative and culturally important game franchises. In the first scene shown at E3, you are an American commando infiltrating and destroying a Russian submarine during a naval battle in New York Harbor. If that sounds wild, consider that the next scene was an explosion-riddled shootout amid hurtling subways in the London Underground. (Activision; Nov. 8; Windows, 360 and PS3.)

DEFIANCE The demonstration of this near-future shooter was most notable for what will not make it into the final product. In the presentation one developer on an Xbox 360 was actually playing online with another developer on a PlayStation 3. Microsoft and Sony are the Hatfields and McCoys of the game world, so this was stunning. The point the producers were trying to make, successfully, was that this is technologically possible. Unfortunately, neither Sony nor Microsoft will allow anyone to ship a cross-console game at retail. More’s the pity. (Trion Worlds; Windows, 360 and PS3; no announced release date.)

FINAL FANTASY XIII-2 Don’t ask why the sequel to Final Fantasy XIII isn’t called Final Fantasy XIV. O.K., fine: in its infinite wisdom, Square Enix had already used the XIV moniker for a separate game. The point is that XIII-2 seems poised to correct the design flaws that made XIII so frustrating. Most important, this game will actually let the player make some choices about where to go and what to do. (Square Enix; early 2012; 360 and PS3.)

FRUIT NINJA KINECT I ran into this game by accident, and it provided the most fun I had in three minutes all week. The only downloadable game on this list, Fruit Ninja will already be familiar to the more than 25 million people who have played it on mobile phones and tablets. On Kinect, instead of tracing your finger across a screen to slash open the flying produce section, you can use your whole arm. Haiiii-ya! (Halfbrick Studios; this summer; Xbox Live.)

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=a2c7cc8d2a02ff4d5f6c514ab2dd40ee