58 Hours of CME George Orwell Style

Friend of IP4PI Jane Hughes, MD writes in:

Anyone who thought that things were on hold regarding continued implementation of ACA and the statist move by Medicare via MACRA and its payment scheme called MIPS to centralize and control patient and physician choices needs to read this upcoming offering for unprecedented free CME from one of our premier institutions, Johns Hopkins. Key to centralization is electronic medical records that are interoperable. Read that to mean 24/7 access by government/insurance for data gathering and eventual treatment rubrics. Note that all of these CME hours are not featuring medical or surgical issues, they deal with “educating” and indoctrinating physicians on the advisability of population based care.

This is a sinister turn for the worse. We should have gotten a health plan through in some form to start the dismantling of ACA and trumpet the message that this is the beginning of decentralizing healthcare. Critical to reform of Medicare and getting rid of MACRA is a stable, affordable, and accessible private option.

These sponsoring organizations are proceeding as if nothing has changed. Until Trump appointees get rid of entrenched bureaucrats subversive to the true reform of statist ACA this is no surprise. The collusion with insurance and govt also needs to be exposed. These two forces are insatiable looters of tax monies, people’s premium moneys, individual human dignity, and doctor and physician choices. Note they are offering 58 hours of CME credit/brainwashing. What an impotent feeling to read that even an institution as grand as John Hopkins has succumbed to the George Orwell form of medical care.

Real Patient Lives vs. Corporatized/Government Healthcare, Part IV

The insurance and government dominated system is failing our patients. A physician friend of IP4PI shares this shocking example about the system claiming another victim:

A 59 y/o man presented to my last employed practice, with an almost elephantiasis swelling bilateral legs.  He had pinpoint marks on the skin of his legs.  He held up a jar with what looked like a couple of tiny maggots.  He said, these come out of those holes every so often.  I said how long has this been going on??  He said 1.5 years.  “I’ve mentioned to several doctors, they just shrug and don’t do anything.”  I said we would do something, and called the hospitalist immediately to admit for workup and treatment.  I was directed to the nurse gatekeeper for approval for admission.  What’s wrong, she asked.  “4+ edema in both legs, which are also full of maggots.”  Hmmm, she said.  There is no medicare admissible diagnosis of ‘maggots in legs’.  What about his rising creatinine of 1.7?  Not bad enough to qualify under guidelines.  Call us back if it gets worse.  I did try to do some outpatient workup, but I think the man was disgusted.  He never followed up.  He was dead within the year.

Insurance Contracts that Respect the Patient – Physician Relationship?

Friend of IP4PI Charles “Chip” Smutny, DO writes in:

Does anyone think about or have we even tried to come up with our own physician based contract proposal to insurers that could be a way of negotiating our independence as an alternative to their railroading contracts? Since we know that DPC works, cost less and provides better care more efficiently and that insurance will morph to continue to keep its revenue stream, perhaps we should offer up a contract of our own.

Since we don’t like their offer should we have a counter proposal that requests what we want in a legal document that can be validated and support legal recourse in “a partners agreement” instead of the current “employee-employer contract” and that the insurers must be accountable to in court to this new contract?

Simply stated it might read something like this (with 11 pages of legalese from our lawyers that structures the responsibilities and supports the clarity of the following):

  • patients come first
  • physicians have a right to receive pay for services rendered.
  • insurers pay patients according to their contracts, not physicians
  • patients pay physicians directly
  • patients have the right to decide what they will accept as personal risk in their health and in their financial circumstances.
  • insurers may not interfere in any way with the decision making of the patient in concert with the physician.
  • insurers may not set pricing restrictions on physicians. They may however set limitations in their service contract with the patient on what they will cover in their contract.
  • physicians have the privilege and the right to support their patients in their efforts to obtain quality healthcare delivery and insurance coverage
  • physicians have the right to personal privacy and protect patient privacy by only allowing data stripped of unique identifiers to be collected and stored centrally.   Centralized charting must not contain any unique identifiers other than the physicians delivery of care office information.

Please add on or discuss as you see fit!

This discussion might lead to some sort of standardized counter offer to insurers since so many physicians are afraid to leave that system which has steadily moved toward indentured servitude.