Doctor and Nurse Replacement

Medscape recently commented on the case of Natasha Valle from Clarksville, Tennessee (1). Pregnant and scared she went to the local Tennova Healthcare hospital because she was bleeding. She didn't know much about miscarriage, but this seemed like one. In the emergency room, she was examined then sent home. She went back when her cramping became excruciating. Then home again. It ultimately took three trips to the ER on three consecutive days, generating three separate bills, before she saw a doctor who looked at her bloodwork and confirmed her fears. The hospital declined to discuss Valle's care, but 17 months before her three-day ordeal, Tennova had outsourced its emergency rooms to American Physician Partners, a medical staffing company owned by private equity investors. APP employs fewer doctors in its ERs as one of its cost-saving initiatives to increase earnings, according to a confidential company document obtained by Kaiser Health News and National Public Radio (2).

This staffing strategy has permeated hospitals, particularly emergency rooms and intensive care units, that seek to reduce their top expense-physician labor. While diagnosing and treating patients was once their domain, doctors are increasingly being replaced by nurse practitioners and physician assistants, collectively known as midlevel practitioners, who can perform many of the same duties and generate much of the same revenue for less than half of the pay.

However, a working paper, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, analyzed roughly 1.1 million visits to 44 ERs throughout the Veterans Health Administration, where nurse practitioners can treat patients without oversight from doctors (3). Researchers found that treatment by a nurse practitioner resulted on average in a 7% increase in cost of care and an 11% increase in length of stay, extending patients' time in the ER by minutes for minor visits and hours for longer ones. These gaps widened among patients with more severe diagnoses, the study said, but could be somewhat mitigated by nurse practitioners with more experience.

From the hospitals’ perspective, the extra cost, length of stay and increased admissions could add to the bottom line as long as the patient or third-party payer pays the extra costs. However, in many cases the patient is unable to pay and insurers have been looking for cost-cutting in other areas. If third party payers were to refuse to pay for the extra costs or increased litigation resulted from the hospital’s staffing decisions, it seems likely these practices would quickly end.

In the intensive care unit (ICU) corporations and government agencies are replacing physicians with nurse practitioners (NPs) or physician assistants (PAs) sometimes collectively referred to as physician extenders (4). While these entities argue that they have been forced to hire physician extenders due to a supposed physician shortage, the truth is that physicians are being systematically fired and replaced by lesser qualified clinicians on the basis of profit. Although advocates claim that studies show that physician extenders can provide comparable care to physicians, they fail to acknowledge that this research has always been done with supervised NPs. The truth is that there are no studies that show nurse practitioner provide similar safety and efficacy when practicing independently (4). Furthermore, most of the studies that purport to show NP safety have been of retrospective, nonrandomized, and followed patients over very short time frames. These studies were not appropriately designed to show whether NPs, especially practicing independently, can safely and effectively care for critically ill patients. Newer studies have revealed concerning gaps in the quality of care of some nurse practitioners, including increased unnecessary referrals to specialists (5) and increased diagnostic imaging (6).

Strained by the demand for more graduates, training programs for NPs are accepting less qualified applicants and no longer requiring nursing experience to become a nurse practitioner (7). Despite legislation allowing unsupervised nurse practitioners the right to provide medical care to patients, case law has repeatedly demonstrated that NPs are not held to the same legal standard as physicians in malpractice cases (4). Moreover, organizations are not being held responsible when they hire nurse practitioners to work outside of their scope of training (4).

Another concern is the effect of NPs and PAs in the ICU on resident and fellow education. With hours restrictions imposed for trainees the need for meaningful training experiences has never been greater. Studies utilizing NPs have examined patient outcomes which appear comparable to residents and fellows (8). The effect on resident and fellow education remains unknown although the trainees are often satisfied with less work but there may be future costs due to less well-trained physicians (9).

We have already commented on substituting nursing assistants for nurses (10). Not surprisingly, replacing registered nurses with less qualified nursing assistants or licensed practical nurses leads to a lower quality of care with increased mortality (11,12).

The bottom line is that when money is the bottom line, substituting physician extenders for physicians or nursing assistants for nurses makes a great deal of sense in the ER or ICU as long as third-party payers are willing to pay any potentially increased costs and there is a low concern over quality of care and patient outcomes. It is becoming increasingly hard to see a doctor anymore. The effect on resident and fellow education remains unknown although the trainees are satisfied with less work.

One wonders why regulatory organizations such as the Joint Commission, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, ACGME, etc. have taken no action. Regulators need to address policies that place patients at risk. Physicians should support NPs and PAs as well as nurses when appropriate. However, the use of these physician extenders or nursing assistants to replace physicians or nurses may have untoward consequences. The administrative personnel who perceive financial benefits by eroding physician direction and autonomy need to be held accountable for their actions.

Richard A. Robbins MD

Editor, SWJPCCS

References

1. Kelman B, Farmer B. Doctors Are Disappearing From Emergency Rooms as Hospitals Look to Cut Costs. February 13, 2023. Available at: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/988196?src=WNL_trdalrt_pos1_230214&uac=9273DT&impID=5165828 (accessed 4/5/23).
2. Lender Presentation-Public Side. American Physician Partners. November 2021. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23605675-american-physician-partners-redact (accessed 4/5/23).
3. Chan DC Jr, Chen Y. The Productivity of Professions: Evidence from the Emergency Department. National Bureau of Economic Research. October 2022. [CrossRef]
4. Bernard R. The effects of nurse practitioners replacing physicians. Physicians Practice. Jan 30, 2020. Available at: https://www.physicianspractice.com/view/effects-nurse-practitioners-replacing-physicians (accessed 4/5/23).
5. Lohr RH, West CP, Beliveau M, Daniels PR, et al. Comparison of the quality of patient referrals from physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners. Mayo Clin Proc. 2013 Nov;88(11):1266-71. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Hughes DR, Jiang M, Duszak R Jr. A comparison of diagnostic imaging ordering patterns between advanced practice clinicians and primary care physicians following office-based evaluation and management visits. JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Jan;175(1):101-7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. NurseJournal Staff. Nurse Practitioner Career Overview. NurseJournal. March 3, 2023. Available at: https://nursejournal.org/nurse-practitioner/ (accessed 4/5/23).
8. Landsperger JS, Semler MW, Wang L, Byrne DW, Wheeler AP. Outcomes of Nurse Practitioner-Delivered Critical Care: A Prospective Cohort Study. Chest. 2016 May;149(5):1146-54. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Kahn SA, Davis SA, Banes CT, Dennis BM, May AK, Gunter OD. Impact of advanced practice providers (nurse practitioners and physician assistants) on surgical residents' critical care experience. J Surg Res. 2015 Nov;199(1):7-12. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Robbins RA. Substitution of assistants for nurses increases mortality, decreases quality. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2016;13(5):252. [CrossRef]
11. Aiken LH, Sloane D, Griffiths P, et al. Nursing skill mix in European hospitals: cross-sectional study of the association with mortality, patient ratings, and quality of care. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Jul;26(7):559-568. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Kane RL, Shamliyan T, Mueller C, Duval S, Wilt TJ. Nurse staffing and quality of patient care. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2007 Mar;(151):1-115. [PubMed]

Cite as: Robbins RA. Doctor and Nurse Replacement. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care Sleep. 2023;26(4):72-75. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpccs019-23 PDF

Combating Physician Moral Injury Requires a Change in Healthcare Governance

One of our associate editors, Mike Gotway, emailed me an editorial titled “Burnout versus Moral Injury and the Importance of Distinguishing Them” from Radiographics authored by Sara Sheikhbahaei and colleagues (1). It is well worth reading the full text. However, since Radiographics is not an open access journal and the full text is not available to everyone, I will do my best to summarize Sheikhbahaei’s editorial and expand where appropriate. Nearly every journal (including the SWJPCCS) has published an article and/or editorial on physician burnout. Sheikhbahaei (1) points out that physician burnout is different than moral injury. She uses Talbot and Dean’s (2) definition of burnout as “a pattern of exhaustion, cynicism, and decreased productivity often accompanied by anxiety, cognitive impairment, and diminished functional capacity”. Her editorial points out that “the consequences of burnout are serious and include depression, stress, increased risk of substance abuse, poor self-image, lack of motivation, decreased productivity, poor employee retention, and loss of reputation for the institution”. However, she is also quick to point out that there are corrective measures available, and burnout is generally reversible.

Like post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), moral injury was first described in post-war veterans but is now being expanded to non-veterans and non-military situations. Johnathan Shay (3), who introduced the concept of moral injury as a distinct syndrome differing from PTSD, defined moral injury as occurring when: (a) there has been a betrayal of what is morally right, (b) by someone who holds legitimate authority and (c) in a high-stakes situation. Shay went on to describe moral injury creation as "leadership malpractice".

What distinguishes moral injury from burnout is that it is generally irreversible (1). “The most grievous consequences of moral injury are (a) loss of institutional loyalty (or worse, loss of loyalty to medicine in general), and (b) detachment from the noble ideas that attracted one to medicine in the first place. Such heavy soul wounds leave permanent scars and can cause lifelong feelings of betrayal by the institution. Corrective measures (e.g., changing jobs, increasing vacation time or remuneration, providing psychologic support) may mitigate burnout but cannot heal the permanent wounds of moral injury” (1).

The Radiographics editorial points out that in academic medicine ethical standards are violated by the very entity that instilled them in the first place — academic medicine (1). The tripartite mission of academic medicine (patient care, teaching, and research) has been increasingly supplanted by institutional priorities that focus on control of the clinical practice of physicians; the production and distribution of medicine; and the redistribution of its financial productivity away from the original objectives (1). Academic medicine had been a calling for professionals willing to sacrifice financial gain while seeking fulfillment in research and teaching. This has changed, not because the physicians changed, but because academic medicine changed.

Institutional priorities have diverged from those of physicians and are nearly exclusively molded by financial considerations (1). Countless metrics of dubious relevance, measurement of physician worth by clerical skills and other myopic administrative efforts detract from academic medicine’s true calling of providing the best patient care, education  and research. Health care administration has pursued a business culture to cement administration’s fiscal goals. Worse than simply wasting resources, administration punishes physicians who rebel against their financial structure. To avoid this losing conflict, physicians may impose self-censorship, settle on a daily routine of doing the minimum required to get by, or simply resign. The coup de grace is the feeling of deep betrayal that becomes permanently fixed. It is the physicians’ training at these very institutions that etched the primary moral creed of serving the patient. Now, these same institutions demand that physicians devalue this deeply held moral belief and toe the line for institutional financial gain. 

It is the administration of the institution, and the bureaucracy that results, that causes, defends, grows, and perpetuates physician moral injury. The growth of the administrative bureaucracy is staggering. Between 1975 and 2010, the number of physicians in the United States grew by 150%, but the number of health care administrators grew by 3200% (4). In 2019, Sahini (5) estimated that the United States spent nearly 25% or $1 trillion directly on healthcare administration with some believing that adding the indirect costs makes the true costs closer to 40% (6). These numbers are the source of the old joke from a couple of decades ago that in the future not everyone will have a doctor or nurse but everyone will have an administrator. Unfortunately, that time has arrived.

Sheikhbahaei (1) states that institutions should educate administrators away from emphasizing financial gain to emphasizing excellence in patient care by facilitating clinical practice. Some administrators do, others do not. Resources should be redirected from bureaucratic efforts of little value toward improving health care quality and accessibility, reversing a long-standing trend in the other direction. Those who deliver health care should be shielded from unnecessary tasks. According to Sheikhbahaei this can be achieved by delegating to clinicians some oversight of the medical bureaucracy (1). Although I agree with the sentiment, I disagree with the lack of action. Merely pointing out that there is a problem is not likely to solve it, especially when the beneficiaries of the present system, the administrators, are charged with fixing it. We need to do more than identify and study areas of administrative complexity that add costs to healthcare but do not improve value or accessibility. Administrators have taken the money and run, squandering their chance to deliver quality care at lower prices. Prior to the 1980’s physicians were mostly in charge and did better — they can do better again. However, first they need control. Physicians should demand that regulatory organizations such as the Joint Commission, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, ACGME, etc. remove administrators from control of healthcare. Regulators need to address policies that add costs without patient benefit or improvement in education and research. Leaving healthcare administrators in charge without oversight and accountability will preserve the present system of substandard healthcare, poor accessibility, deficient education, second-rate research, high prices, and “leadership malpractice”.

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Editor, SWJPCCS

References

1. Sheikhbahaei S, Garg T, Georgiades C. Physician Burnout versus Moral Injury and the Importance of Distinguishing Them. Radiographics. 2023 Feb;43(2):e220182. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Talbot SG, Dean W. Physicians are not “burning out”. They are suffering from
3. moral injury. STAT. https://www.statnews.com/2018/07/26/physicians-not-burning-out-they-are-suffering-moral-injury/ (accessed 2/14/23). 
4. Shay J, Munroe J. Group and Milieu Therapy for Veterans with Complex Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. In: Saigh, PA, Bremner JD, eds. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Comprehensive Text. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 1998:391-413.
5. Cantlupe J. Expert Forum: The rise (and rise) of the healthcare administrator. November 7, 2017. Available at: https://www.athenahealth.com/knowledge-hub/practice-management/expert-forum-rise-and-rise-healthcare-administrator (accessed February 6, 2023).
6. Sahni NR, Mishra P, Carrus B, Cutler DM. Administrative Simplification: How to Save a Quarter-Trillion Dollars in US Healthcare. McKinsey & Company. October 20, 2021. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/healthcare-systems-and-services/our-insights/administrative-simplification-how-to-save-a-quarter-trillion-dollars-in-US-healthcare (accessed 2/6/23).
7. Robbins RA, Natt B. Medical image of the week: Medical administrative growth. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2018;17(1):35. [CrossRef]

Cite as: Robbins RA. Combating Physician Moral Injury Requires a Change in Healthcare Governance. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care Sleep. 2023;26(3):34-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpccs008-23 PDF

How Much Should Healthcare CEO’s, Physicians and Nurses Be Paid?

In 2019 the Southwest Journal published an editorial that stated one cause for the rising costs in healthcare was chief executive officer (CEO) compensation (1). Based on 2017 salaries, Peter Fine from Banner Health was the highest paid healthcare CEO in the country with compensation of $25.5 million. In comparison, the CEO of Mayo Clinic Arizona was paid a paltry $1.8 million (2). We decided to do a follow-up, and found that after a dip during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, Mayo raises resumed in 2021. Mayo’s CEO, Dr. Gianrico Farrugia, was paid $3.48 million in 2021 up from $2.74 million in 2020 (3). Dr. Richard Gray, CEO of the Mayo Arizona campus, was paid $1.78 million in 2021, up 26% from the previous year. I shared these numbers with a couple of the Mayo Clinic faculty who were surprised by the amount of compensation their executives were receiving.

Mayo Clinic posted $1.2 billion in net operating income in 2021 (3). More recently, the system reported net operating income of $157 million for the third quarter of 2022 with an operating margin of 3.8 percent. Compensation for Mayo Clinic executives is set by the Mayo Clinic Salary & Benefits Committee and endorsed by the Mayo Clinic Board of Trustees Compensation Committee. Mayo claims not to be a profit-sharing institution and that pay is not linked to doing anything more or less for the patient than what is needed. It is unclear how CEO compensation in the millions fits with this patient care philosophy.

I did a preliminary survey of physicians in the Phoenix area of how much healthcare CEOs should be paid. Not surprisingly, most of these physicians thought that CEOs should be physicians like they are at the Mayo Clinic. Opinions on CEO compensation were all over the board. However, the best answer, in my opinion, came from a retired ID physician. He thought CEOs should be well compensated but should be paid less than senior physicians. His reasoning was that patients come to the Mayo Clinic or other healthcare organizations not because of the CEO, but because of Mayo’s physicians. Lawyers have this figured this out. One of my closest friends is an administrative partner for a large (over 100 lawyers) law firm in Phoenix. He said he is well compensated but paid less than his senior partners. The reasoning was much the same. Clients come not because of his administrative skills, but because of the lawyers. However, he was quick to point out that managing partners do deserve some compensation for their lost income in not practicing law. The compensation committee in these cases is the senior partners.

Some would argue that certain physicians are over-paid. I would agree. Current fee-for-service payment rates for physician visits trace back to the origins of Blue Cross Blue Shield (BC/BS) insurance in the 1930s. At that time, BC/BS rates were set to pay generously for hospitalizations and operations. Payments for so-called “cognitive services” were lower. In the 1960’s Medicare adopted the BC/BS payment model. This disparity has been perpetuated through “Relative Value Units”. Despite recognition by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) of the adverse effects of inadequate payment to some physicians, especially primary care, only limited progress has been made toward correction of the disparity (4). This may be due, at least in part, to treatment of total payment for physicians as a zero-sum game in which decision making is dominated by non–primary care physicians through mechanisms such as the Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) (5). This translates to hospitals, procedure-oriented specialties, and especially some surgical subspecialties compensated in excess compared to more cognitive specialties.

When BC/BS was founded in 1929, one goal of the American healthcare Association (AHA) and the American College of Surgeons was to eliminate the “Doctor’s Hospitals”. These physician-run hospitals were sometimes substandard. However, little progress in eliminating them was made until establishment of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. Many of the “Doctor’s Hospitals” did not meet criteria for Medicare certification. Lack of Medicare and Medicaid payments essentially closed their doors. However, the doctor run hospitals are now making a comeback through surgical centers. Although the AHA has questioned their quality, most have matched or exceeded the quality metrics used by the Joint Commission or other groups and often score better than hospitals in head-to-head comparisons (6). Doctors who run such centers deserve some payment for their administrative efforts.

Nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) serve a vital role in patient care. They deserve to be well paid. However, their education and responsibility are generally less than physicians. For example, 1000 clinical hours are required for nurse practitioner certification which represented about 10 weeks of my internship or about 13 weeks under the current 80-hour work week limit. Similarly, PAs are required to only complete 1600 hours of clinical training. In contrast, physicians complete family practice, internal medicine, or pediatric residencies which require a minimum of 3 years, with most subspecialities requiring an additional 3+ years. Surgical residencies are usually 5 years. Furthermore, there appears to me more risk assumed by a physician. In 2019 there were only 420 malpractice suits filed against nurse practitioners and PAs compared to over 20,000 total medical malpractice suits (7).

Nurses are the backbone of any healthcare organization. Although they usually have less education than physicians, NPs, or PAs, nursing is intense and stressful with nurses assuming a large responsibility and delivering the most beside care. Because patients are close at hand, nurses often make independent care decisions. In Arizona, nurse compensation averaged about $78,330 in 2019 (8). Not surprisingly it is considerably higher in California where the cost of living is higher compensation and averages $113,240. Recently, more nurses are working as traveling nurses, or filling a staffing shortage at a hospital or healthcare facility on a temporary basis. Prior to COVID-19 many nurses were dissatisfied with healthcare working conditions (8). This suggests that nurses may be seeking other employment options that provide them with more control over where and when they work (9). Travel nursing provides these options at a higher pay.

The causes of the overcompensation of CEOs at the expense of historically undercompensating some nurses and physicians have been salary and benefits committees set up under a corporate structure. Under the present system of healthcare governance an executive board appointed or heavily influenced by a CEO appoints a board which appoints a salary and benefits committee. The later committee in turn sets salary and benefits for the organization including the executives. A compensation committee consisting of physician and nursing leaders could more realistically evaluate an individual’s value to a healthcare organization. However, it seems likely that such a change will require mandates from healthcare certifying organizations. Healthcare executives are unlikely to readily relinquish the present system which has rewarded them so generously. Therefore, physicians need to lobby various organizations such as the Joint Commission, the Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC), ACGME, etc. for a compensation system which examines administrative efficiency and addresses areas of administrative complexity that add costs to the health care system without improving accessibility or value. This is in contrast to the present system of rewarding those who serve a for-profit corporate structure rather than improving healthcare in a not-for-profit system.

Richard A. Robbins MD

Editor, SWJPCCS

References

1. Robbins RA. CEO compensation-one reason healthcare costs so much. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2019;19(2):76-8. [CrossRef]
2. Innes S. This Arizona nonprofit health system CEO topped the salary list at $25.5 million in 2017. Arizona Republic, October 23, 2019. Available at: https://pnhp.org/news/this-arizona-nonprofit-health-system-ceo-topped-the-salary-list-at-25-5-million-in-2017/ (accessed 1/16/23).
3. Gamble M. Mayo Clinic defends executive raises. Becker’s healthcare Review. Dec. 8, 2022. Available at: https://www.beckers healthcarereview.com/compensation-issues/mayo-clinic-defends-executive-raises.html ((1/17/23).
4. MedPac. March 2022 Report to the Congress: Medicare Payment Policy. March 2022. Available at: https://www.medpac.gov/document/march-2022-report-to-the-congress-medicare-payment-policy/ (accessed 2/4/23).
5. Magill MK. Time to Do the Right Thing: End Fee-for-Service for Primary Care. Ann Fam Med. 2016 Sep;14(5):400-1. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Pham N, Donovan M. The Economic and Social Benefits of Physician-Led Hospitals. ADP Analytics. September 2022. Available at: https://ndpanalytics.com/wp-content/uploads/PHA-Economic-Impact-Report-092022-Final-R1.pdf (accessed 2/3/23).
7. Chesney S. Do Nurse Practitioners Really Get Sued? Berxi. Aug 16, 2021. Available at: https://www.berxi.com/resources/articles/do-nurse-practitioners-get-sued/ (accessed 2/3/23).
8. 2U Inc. Nurse Salary. Available at: https://nursinglicensemap.com/resources/nurse-salary/ (accessed 2/3/23).
9. Yang YT, Mason DJ. COVID-19’s Impact On Nursing Shortages, The Rise Of Travel Nurses, And Price Gouging. Health Affairs Forefront. January 28, 2022. Available at: https://www.berxi.com/resources/articles/do-nurse-practitioners-get-sued/https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20220125.695159/ (accessed 2/3/23).

Cite as: Robbins RA. How Much Should Healthcare CEO’s, Physicians and Nurses Be Paid? Southwest J Pulm Crit Care Sleep. 2023;26(2):24-27. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpccs007-23 PDF

Improving Quality in Healthcare

Figure 1. Dr. Katz is a little jaded about quality metrics (1).

Everyone is in favor of quality healthcare and improving it. However, to date, initially highly touted quality measures prove to be meaningless metrics in about 5-10 years. That is, when the measures are scientifically studied, they are found to be of little worth. The cycle is then repeated, i.e., new and highly touted measures are again selected and found to be useless in 5-10 years. The latest in this cycle may be the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid’s (CMS) Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The theory underlying MIPS has been that paying for quality rather than quantity will incentivize healthcare providers to improve quality. As part of the deal creating the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) MIPS was established as a pay for performance system which promised to improve healthcare while reducing costs. However, healthcare costs have continued to rise (2). Data on improvement in quality has been lacking.

Now, Bond et al. (3) have reported a study suggesting that MIPS incentivization of quality improvement in healthcare quality has questionable benefits. Among US primary care physicians in 2019, MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with performance on process and outcome measures. Bond’s study included 3.4 million patients attributed to 80,246 primary care physicians. Physicians were divided into thirds based on their MIPS score. Compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with the lowest MIPS scores had significantly worse mean performance on 3 of 5 process measures: diabetic eye examinations, diabetic HbA1c screening and mammography screening, but significantly better mean performance on rates of influenza vaccination and tobacco screening. MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with risk-adjusted patient outcomes: compared with physicians with the highest MIPS scores, physicians with the lowest MIPS scores had significantly better mean performance on emergency department visits per 1000 patients but worse performance on all-cause hospitalizations, and did not have significantly different performance on 4 ambulatory care-sensitive admission outcomes. Nineteen percent of physicians with the lowest MIPS scores had composite outcomes performance in the top quintile, while 21% of physicians with the highest MIPS scores had outcomes in the bottom quintile. These findings suggest that the MIPS program may be ineffective at measuring and incentivizing quality improvement among US physicians.

It is unclear why improvement  in intermediate surrogate markers is used rather than improvement in outcomes. Bond’s study measured MIPS scores against ER visits and hospitalizations. Patients, providers, insurers, bureaucrats, politicians, taxpayers- in other words, nearly everyone- would agree that reductions in ER visits and hospitalizations is desirable if it can be accomplished without patient harm. Similarly, reduction in unexpected deaths and improvement in patients’ feeling of well being are goals that all can support. However, the goals of healthcare are different depending on which population is asked. Patients might support their well-being, insurance cost, and provider access as being most important, whereas payors might support costs as most important. Providers might support efficiency of care and reimbursement as important. So ultimately what surrogate markers like MIPS do is choose one point of view which often does not affect outcomes (4).

There are many ways to achieve a goal depending on expertise, resources and patient characteristics. Flexibility in care allows the person most likely to understand the efficiencies of their particular system- the providers- to use their local knowledge to benefit the patients. Outside influences emphasizing surrogate markers, cost, or politics have historically failed. Unless one is willing to accept healthcare shown not to benefit patients as acceptable, MIPS should be eliminated. Replacing MIPS with an equally flawed system set of surrogate markers will likely not help.

It seems that outcome measures offer several advantages over process measures. Outcome measures include unexpected mortality, hospital readmissions, safety of care, effectiveness of care, timeliness of care, efficiency of care, and patient well-being (5). These are all thought to be important by patients, insurers, providers and even politicians. In my view, the process leading to these ultimate outcome goals is less important and the process producing the same or similar results will likely vary between providers and hospitals.

CMS should refocus their quality efforts on outcomes rather than processes which have failed as quality indicators. Physicians must decide whether they wish to continue participation in systems such as MIPS and the accompanying increase in paperwork. Unless something changes the trends of increasing paperwork over meaningless metrics will continue.

Richard A. Robbins MD

Editor, SWJPCCS

References

1. Lehmann C. Comics for Docs: Medical Cartoons Poke Fun at Today's Practices. Medscape. July 15, 2022. Available at: https://www.medscape.com/slideshow/medical-cartoons-6015473#2 (accessed (1/12/23).
2. Kurani N, Ortaliza J, Wager E, Fox L, Amin K. How Has U.S. Spending on Healthcare Changed Over Time? Peterson-KFF Health System Trasecker. February 25, 2022. Available at: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending-healthcare-changed- time/#Total%20national%20health%20expenditures,%20US%20$%20Billions,%201970-2020 (Accessed 1/4/23).
3. Bond AM, Schpero WL, Casalino LP, Zhang M, Khullar D. Association Between Individual Primary Care Physician Merit-based Incentive Payment System Score and Measures of Process and Patient Outcomes. JAMA. 2022 Dec 6;328(21):2136-2146. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Robbins RA, Thomas AR, Raschke RA. Guidelines, recommendations and improvement in healthcare. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2011;2:34-37.
5. Tinker A. The Top Seven Healthcare Outcome Measures and Three Measurement Essentials. Health Catalyst. June 29, 2022. Available at: https://www.healthcatalyst.com/insights/top-7-healthcare-outcome-measures (accessed 1/5/23).

Cite as: Robbins RA. Improving Quality in Healthcare. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care Sleep. 2023;26(1):8-10. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpccs002-23 PDF

Not All Dying Patients Are the Same

A recent publication in the SWJPCCS by Jones-Adamczyk and Mayer (1) points out how Arizona’s Jesse’s law prevents the appropriate discontinuation of unwanted interventions in dying hospice patients. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and Jesse’s Law is an excellent example. As pointed out by Jones-Adamczyk and Mayer, Jesse’s law should have addressed unreasonable surrogates instead of preventing all surrogates from taking an action that is often in the best interest of a loved one. Jesse’s law is named for Jesse Ramirez who suffered traumatic brain injury in a rollover accident. Traumatic brain injury patients are different from many end-of life patients such as those dying from terminal cancer. Prognosis from traumatic brain injury can be difficult to predict especially early in its course (2). In contrast, prognosis of patients with widely metastatic cancer late in its course generally is not. Identifying futile care requires a great deal of knowledge of medicine and the culture, spirituality and personal preferences of the patient, best determined by a good-faith discussion between the patient’s surrogate and the care givers. The authors of Jesse's law failed to make exceptions for patients who do not want futile interventions such as feeding tubes when it is inappropriate. They are the real culprits in creating chaos in the care of terminal patients near death.

The example of a patient cited by Ms. Jones-Adamczyk and Mayer illustrates the need to modify Jesse’s law. But what should be done in the meantime by patients, surrogate decision makers and ICU teams since they cannot remove a feeding tube without a court order under current Arizona law? Patients should prepare their advanced directives with specific mention of feeding tubes and artificial nutrition. Unfortunately, there seems little alternative for surrogates and ICU teams. Until the law is changed, they will need to spend time trying to convince a court to allow feeding tube removal unless they are willing to act outside the law risking their career, livelihood and even jail time.

The real problem with Jesse’s law is that it removes the most knowledgeable and best decision makers and substitutes the courts. This is part of the trend of those unknowledgeable in healthcare stepping into clinical decision-making (3). This erodes trust in physicians and nurses, may lead to criminalizing appropriate end-of-life care, or worse, prolong the suffering of the dying patient. Arizona patients and care givers deserve better.

Richard A. Robbins MD

Editor, SWJPCCS

References

1. Jones-Adamczyk AL, Mayer PA. Unintended Consequence of Jesse’s Law in Arizona Critical Care Medicine. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care Sleep. 2022;25(5):83-87. [CrossRef]
2. Steyerberg EW, Mushkudiani N, Perel P, et al. Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: development and international validation of prognostic scores based on admission characteristics. PLoS Med. 2008 Aug 5;5(8):e165; discussion e165. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Robeznieks A. How the AMA fights to keep politics out of the exam room. AMA ASSN News. July 19, 2022. Available at: https://www.ama-assn.org/news-leadership-viewpoints/authors-news-leadership-viewpoints/andis-robeznieks  (accessed 11/18/22).

Cite as: Robbins RA. Not All Dying Patients Are the Same. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care Sleep. 2022;25(5):88-89. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpccs052-22 PDF