Reply
Wed 25 Jul, 2007 08:58 am
Doctor Shortage Hurts
A Coverage-for-All Plan
By ZACHARY M. SEWARD
July 25, 2007; Page B1
BOSTON -- Tamar Lewis runs a makeshift hair salon out of her one-bedroom apartment in Roxbury, a low-income neighborhood here. She's 24 years old and has been cutting hair since she dropped out of high school in 2002. Until recently, she never had health insurance.
"Good thing I never snipped one of these off," Ms. Lewis jokes, wiggling 10 fingers. Earlier this month, she signed up for state-subsidized insurance under a new Massachusetts law that aspires to universal coverage. The plan costs her $80 a month.
But it takes a lot more than an insurance card to see a doctor in this state.
On the day Ms. Lewis signed up, she said she called more than two dozen primary-care doctors approved by her insurer looking for a checkup. All of them turned her away.
Her experience stands to be common among the 550,000 people whom Massachusetts hopes to rescue from the ranks of the uninsured. They will be seeking care in a state with a "critical shortage" of primary-care physicians, according to a study by the Massachusetts Medical Society released yesterday, which found that 49% of internists aren't accepting new patients. Boston's top three teaching hospitals say that 95% of their 270 doctors in general practice have halted enrollment.
For those residents who can get an appointment with their primary-care doctor, the average wait is more than seven weeks, according to the medical society, a 57% leap from last year's survey.
The dearth of primary-care providers threatens to undermine the Massachusetts health-care initiative, which passed amid much fanfare last year. Newly insured patients are expected to avail themselves of primary care because the insurance covers it. And with the primary-care system already straining, some providers say they have no idea how they will accommodate an additional half-million patients seeking checkups and other routine care.
"Health reform won't mean anything for the state's poor if they can't get a doctor's appointment," says Elmer Freeman, director of the Center for Community Health, Education, Research and Service in Boston. And even though people with subsidized insurance, like Ms. Lewis, can consult specialists within the plan's network without prior authorization from a primary-care doctor, they need such approval to visit a specialist who isn't in the network.
State officials have acknowledged the problem. "Health-care coverage without access is meaningless," Gov. Deval Patrick said in March.
As it happens, primary-care doctors, including internists, family physicians, and pediatricians, are in short supply across the country. Their numbers dropped 6% relative to the general population from 2001 to 2005, according to the Center for Studying Health System Change in Washington. The proportion of third-year internal medicine residents choosing to practice primary care fell to 20% in 2005, from 54% in 1998.
A principal reason: too little money for too much work. Median income for primary-care doctors was $162,000 in 2004, the lowest of any physician type, according to a study by the Medical Group Management Association in Englewood, Colo. Specialists earned a median of $297,000, with cardiologists and radiologists exceeding $400,000.
At the same time, the workweek for primary-care doctors has lengthened, and they are seeing more patients. The advent of managed care in the mid-1990s added to the burden as insurance companies called on primary-care doctors to serve as gatekeepers for their patients' referrals to specialty medicine.
In Massachusetts, the state-subsidized plans, collectively called Commonwealth Care, are provided by private insurance companies. Patients can choose from among six options. Residents who make between one and three times the poverty level ($48,000 for a family of three) are now eligible for coverage under the plan. Doctors are reimbursed by insurance providers -- at below-market rates comparable with Medicaid reimbursements.
The doctor-shortage problem in Massachusetts is especially acute at community health centers, which are likely to face the largest influx of newly insured patients. A product of Lyndon Johnson's antipoverty initiatives of the 1960s, health centers accept any patient, regardless of ability to pay. Seventy percent of their patients nationwide live below the poverty line.
In the Jamaica Plain neighborhood of Boston, all three community health centers have placed a temporary freeze on primary-care enrollment because they don't have enough doctors. Dorchester House, a community health center in southeast Boston, had nearly 55,000 primary-care visits last year to its 21 doctors and nurse practitioners.
"We've barely got room to treat anyone else," says Patrick Egan, the center's medical director. "We're pushing it already."
Nationwide, 13% of family-medicine positions are unfilled at federally financed health centers, according to a study published last year in the journal JAMA. One internal-medicine vacancy at Dorchester House has gone unfilled for the past three years.
Under the Massachusetts initiative, residents who don't get covered will pay a penalty on their state taxes, and companies with more than 10 employees will face a fine for each worker to whom they don't provide insurance. The law officially took effect on July 1, but the state won't impose any penalties until next year.
Ms. Lewis signed up for Commonwealth Care on July 3. Her search for a primary-care doctor has been instructive. "I thought insurance was supposed to be some kind of great thing, but it hasn't changed" anything, she says. Pointing down the block at the Whittier Street Health Center in Roxbury, she says, "I guess that's where I'll go."
WSJ
Re: Doctor Shortage and Universal Health Care
Miller wrote:On the day Ms. Lewis signed up, she said she called more than two dozen primary-care doctors approved by her insurer looking for a checkup. All of them turned her away.
This bit seems to be at odds with your headline for this thread.
On the one hand the article seems to be saying that there are not enough doctors around. On the other hand, there are apparently enough doctors (if there are 24 primary-care doctors approved by her insurer, it doesn't really sound like a "shortage of doctors"), but they are not making enough money.
Two different problems entirely.
The doctors approved by her insurance plan aren't taking on any more patients and the plan is lacking in numbers of physicians who'll be willing to take on more patients.
Well, and since always points out to the long waiting in countries with universal health (I go to my family doctor/primary-care physician and get an appointment within hours. If not so urgent, at least the next day), obviously seven weeks isn't long .... in a state, with only 550,000 people with an insurance "aspired to universal coverage".
Miller wrote:The doctors approved by her insurance plan aren't taking on any more patients and the plan is lacking in numbers of physicians who'll be willing to take on more patients.
So it's not a "shortage of doctors", but rather a shortage of doctors approved by her insurance plan?
Okay. Change the insurance plan. She has to pay $80 per month? Raise the premium. Make it $90.
There you go.
But.... maybe the problem is to be found here:
Quote:Median income for primary-care doctors was $162,000 in 2004, the lowest of any physician type, according to a study by the Medical Group Management Association in Englewood, Colo.
Maybe it's rather a "shortage of doctors who want to work for as low an income as $162,000 per year?"
Miller wrote:Quote:The advent of managed care in the mid-1990s added to the burden as insurance companies called on primary-care doctors to serve as gatekeepers for their patients' referrals to specialty medicine.
WSJ ONline
Hopefully, as the health plans are modified, there will be less need for the primary care docs to do that gate-keeping.
I think it'd be hard to deny that there is an overall shortage of general practitioners in North America. The effect varies, but I think there is good evidence of that shortage.
I certainly don't agree with everything in
this article, but this
Quote:According to a study by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the number of medical students choosing family medicine has dropped by half between 1998 to 2003. Even as the demand for family doctors increases, medical students are eschewing general practice in favor of better paying and more glamorous specialties. According to an AAFP study, in 1999, the average American pediatrician saw 122 patients per week and earned $137,800 per year, while the average gastroenterologist saw 90 patients per week and earned $299,200. Since the average American medical student is graduating with $120,000 in debt, it's not hard to see why family medicine is losing its appeal.
is hard to get past.
BBB
For 10 years in the 1970s-1980s, I was a representative of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists (UAPD). There were times when I was in strong disagreement with the polices of the doctor leadership and I only stayed to pursue my goal of giving doctors the processes and power to protect the medical interests of their patients. Some doctors realized what was happening to them via the HMO movement. Most didn't for a long time and it was too late to stem the tide of power of the insurance companies and the HMOs industry.
One of those policies of the UAPD as well as the American Medical Association was to control the number of doctors in medical schools. The theory was that a surplus of doctors would lower the income of the existing doctors, mostly in private practice. The political strategy was to lobby congress to close at least one of the U.S. medical school to discourage the increase in medical students. This was the origin of the doctor shortage in the U.S. This occurred about the same time as women were entering medical schools in larger numbers. I haven't kept up on the medical school situation since leaving the UAPD, but I don't know if any new medical schools were established since that time.
The result was that more foreign born-trained doctors came to the U.S. to practice at the same time the HMOs were expanding. This brain drain from other, mostly poorer countries, was devastating to the sick people in those countries, already having shortage of doctors.
It is disgusting that commercial-corporate medicine self-interest trumped the medical needs of the US and of the world. We are paying the price now and will continue to do so until policies change.
BBB
Number Of Students In U.S. Medical Schools Remains Constant
Number Of Students In U.S. Medical Schools Remains Constant
Sep 9, 2005
JAMA
The enrollment at U.S. medical schools has changed very little over the last 10 years, according to an article in the September 7 issue of JAMA, a theme issue on medical education.
By JAMA, Barbara Barzansky, Ph.D., and Sylvia I. Etzel, of the American Medical Association, Chicago, examined the status of a number of variables related to medical education that represent areas that recently have been in flux or have potential impact on health care delivery. The study compared selected results of the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) Annual Medical School Questionnaire between 2004-2005 and 1994-1995. The questionnaire was sent to the deans of all 125 LCME-accredited medical schools. The response rate was 100 percent in both years.
The authors found that the number of medical students in 1994-1995 and in 2004-2005 remained constant, at about 67,000. The number of full-time faculty members increased from 90,016 in 1994-1995 to 119,025 in 2004-2005 (a 32 percent increase). In 2004-2005, 68 percent of all first-year medical students were residents of the state in which the medical school is located and an average of 43 percent of 2005 graduates remained in the same state as the medical school for graduate medical education; results were similar in 1995. In 2004-2005, night call was less common in the family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, and psychiatry clerkships compared with 1994-1995.
"A number of factors may have contributed to this increase [in faculty size]. Some disciplines, such as genetics and emergency medicine, increased well beyond the average, perhaps indicating a newly-defined need for this expertise for patient care or research. In addition, during 2002-2003 medical schools derived 35.9 percent of their total revenue from faculty practice and 32.6 percent from grants and contracts (including direct and facilities/administrative costs). Maintaining these revenue streams requires considerable faculty effort and has provided some of the impetus to increase the size of the faculty," the authors write.
"Many of the variables that we have examined, including faculty size and the geographic pipeline into medical school and residency training, may be affected by factors external to the medical school. Understanding these interrelationships will be critical in addressing important issues in medical education and health care today and in the future," the authors conclude.
Quote:The enrollment at U.S. medical schools has changed very little over the last 10 years, according to an article in the September 7 issue of JAMA, a theme issue on medical education.
Totally incorrect. Over the past 10 years, we've seen significant increases in the number of osteopathic schools and the number of medical students matriculated on these campuses.
These are the schools that are now supplying significant numbers of practicing family physicians in many rural areas of the U.S.A.
Are osteopaths considered medical professionals in the United States?
Interesting.
~~~
More osteopath graduates won't help the Canadian medical professional shortfall, but maybe it'll help the U.S.