U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

98–746 PDF 2005

YOU CAN’T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT:

WHAT IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COULD

DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS IN HEALTHCARE?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE

AND AGENCY ORGANIZATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 13, 2004

Serial No. 108–280

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE AND AGENCY ORGANIZATION

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania, Vice Chairman

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

ADAH H. PUTNAM, Florida

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

——— ———

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

RON MARTINSON, Staff Director

SHANNON MEADE, Professional Staff Member

REID VOSS, Clerk

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on September 13, 2004 ..................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Blair, Dan G., Deputy Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management ...... 8

Feinstein, Dr. Karen Wolk, Chair, Pittsburgh Regional Healthcare Initiative; Dr. Neil M. Resnick, director, University of Pittsburgh Institute

of Aging; and Dr. Alan Axelson, medical director, American Academy

of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry ............................................................. 26

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Axelson, Dr. Alan, medical director, American Academy of Child and

Adolescent Psychiatry, prepared statement of ........................................... 46

Blair, Dan G., Deputy Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 11

Davis, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 7

Feinstein, Dr. Karen Wolk, Chair, Pittsburgh Regional Healthcare Initiative, prepared statement of .......................................................................... 29

Murphy, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of .................................................................. 4

Resnick, Dr. Neil M., director, University of Pittsburgh Institute of Aging,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 36

(1)

YOU CAN’T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT:

WHAT IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

COULD DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS IN

HEALTHCARE?

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE AND AGENCY

ORGANIZATION,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Pittsburgh, PA.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in the

City Counsel Room, Greentree Municipal Building, Pittsburgh, PA,

Hon. Tim Murphy (vice chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Davis and Murphy.

Staff present: Ron Martinson, staff director; B. Chad Bungard,

deputy staff director and chief counsel; Shannon Meade, professional staff member; and Reid Voss, clerk.

Mr. MURPHY. The Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization will come to order.

I would like to welcome everyone here today and offer a special

thank you to those who traveled to Pittsburgh specifically to participate in this hearing.

We are here today to look at how the Federal Employee Health

Benefits program can enhance its service to the Federal employees

and serve as a model for improving the performance of the U.S.

health care system as a whole. The FEHB program which has often

been cited as a model for employers’ sponsored health insurance

programs has room for improvement. In improving its service to

employees, the FEHB program, as one of the largest buyers of

health care with about 81⁄2 million participants, is in a position

where it can positively influence the quality and efficiency of the

health care sector throughout the United States.

The U.S. health care system faces major challenges and the

FEHB program must lead by example. As health care costs continue to climb by double digits each year, it is clear that we cannot

continue to do the same thing and expect different results. Open

ended fee for service did not work. Managed care became managed

money and that did not work. We need to make fundamental

changes in the health care delivery system paragon. These changes

would lower costs, improve efficiency and not just give people what

they want, but indeed give them the health care they need. Because the Federal Government is the largest purchaser of health

2

care, we have the opportunity and responsibility to take the lead

in driving these changes.

A recent news report began ‘‘Scott Wallace’s dog Samatha has

computerized health records, his car does too, but he does not.’’

While an individual may get computerized treatment information

on his 14 year old Buick LaSabre, personal computerized health

records that accurately and securely keep a patient’s medical history are simply not available.

The same report told the story of a man whose heart stopped due

to a ‘‘adverse drug event’’ after one specialist prescribed medication

that conflicted with what another specialist had already given him.

It took a third doctor to figure out what the first two had done. Unfortunately, this kind of preventable accident is not an anomaly

under the current system. It is time for the health care industry

to catch up with grocery stores, banks and auto repair shops and

provide individuals with their own computerized health records.

Earlier this year President Bush unveiled his welcomed 10 year

goal of getting most Americans a personal computerized health

record. The President’s new national coordinator for health information technology noted that with the adoption of such information

technology no longer will up to 100,000 people die each year from

medical errors and no longer will we spend up to $300 billion a

year on inappropriate treatment or up to $150 billion a year on administrative waste.

The benefits of computerized health records are substantial. Such

technology will improve the quality of care, reduce the redundancy

of testing paperwork, virtually eliminate prescription errors, prevent adverse effects from conflicting courses of treatment, significantly reduce medical errors and reduce administrative costs.

In announcing his 10 year goal the President admonished the

Federal Government has to take the lead. FEHB program is no exception and should leverage its buying power to support these

goals.

As the Institute of Medicine’s President Dr. Harvey Fineberg

stressed in his testimony before the subcommittee in March, he

said ‘‘The FEHB program could promote data standards and appropriate deployment of information technology providers.’’

There are many other areas where the FEHB program can lead

by example. One area is to expand and enhance high value services. These types of services, such as comprehensive care management, coordination of care, preventative services and end of life

care provide a high benefit at a relatively low cost.

First Health, which administers the largest plan in the FEHB

program, has offered one such high value service, comprehensive

care management. In the program since 2002 and in the private

sector since 2000 First Health testified before the subcommittee in

March that there has been decreased annual claims filed for patients enrolled in care management and a 2003 First Health survey

revealed significant levels of satisfaction with the care management program along with increase in the patient’s understanding

of conditions, self management and productivity.

By adopting aggressive high value services the FEHB program

can serve as an example to the private sector but reaping the rewards for its participants.

3

I am pleased to hear about OPM launching of its new

HealthierFeds campaign and Web site earlier this year, which is

designed to educate and support Federal employees in making

health care decisions. Health literacy is important at preventing illness, equipping the patient with valuable knowledge when questioning a doctor, nurse or pharmacist or when trying to obtain

health information from other public and private sources. The

FEHB program should continue to explore ways to increase health

literacy and set the standard for the health care sector.

I look forward to the discussion from all the witnesses this morning about the various ways of the Office of Personnel Management

through the FEHB program can assume its leadership position in

driving improvements to the U.S. health care system as a whole.

I would also like to thank chairman of the Committee on Government Reform Tom Davis for traveling all the way to Pittsburgh to

participate in this hearing. Also, thanks to all of the witnesses from

Pittsburgh who are going to give us their wisdom throughout the

morning as well.

And I would now like to recognize Mr. Davis for an opening

statement. Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Tim Murphy follows:]

4

5

6

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you, Chairman Murphy.

As all of us here recognize the importance of the FEHB program

to the Federal Government. It is one of the primary recruitment

and retention goals that the FEHB covers over 8.6 million individuals including 2.3 million Federal and postal employees, 1.9 million

Federal annuitants and 4.5 million dependents. The program provided approximately $24 billion in health care benefits last year

alone.

We also recognize it is one of the Nation’s largest purchasers of

health care services. The Federal Government can and should lead

by example to drive improvements in health care for all Americans.

Market orientation and consumer choice have been hallmarks of

the program’s success, allowing consumers to tailor their health

care coverage through individual needs and enabling them to compare the cost benefits and features of different plans.

Health care premiums have increased by an average of well over

10 percent a year since 1998, a trend which promises to continue

into the near future given the increased costs of prescription drugs

and outpatient care. The time for action is here.

There are many areas where the Federal Government can promote high quality, affordable, flexible, responsible health care for

all Americans through the FEHBP, and it must do so particularly

through the hearing today and the issues of promoting preventative

care and the use of health information technology to reduce costs

and medical errors.

I commend this subcommittee for taking a look at this issue

today. I look forward to hearing the testimony of our distinguish

panelists. I look forward to working with all of you as we continue

to explore how the Federal Government can leverage its unique

abilities to see how the FEHBP cannot only continue to be a model

for employer provided health care coverage, but also serve as a

model for improving health care for all Americans.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Tom Davis follows:]

7

8

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you Chairman Davis.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative

days to submit written statements and questions for the hearing

record and that any responses to written questions provided by the

witnesses also be included in the record. Without objection, it is so

ordered.

I also ask unanimous consent that all exhibits, documents and

other materials referred to by Members and the witnesses may be

included in the hearing record, and that all Members be permitted

to revise and extend their remarks. Without objection, it is so ordered.

On the first panel we’re going to hear from the Honorable Dan

Blair, Deputy Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Let me just give a little bio here first.

He is the Deputy Director since December 2001. Prior to this he

served as senior counsel to Senator Fred Thompson of the U.S.

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. He was also a staff director for the House of Representatives Subcommittee on the Postal

Service and minority general counsel for the House of Representatives Committee on Post Office and Civil Service Reform.

Coming from Joplin, Missouri. He received a bachelor of journalism degree from the School of Journalism at the University of Missouri—Columbia and his juris doctorate from the School of Law at

University of Missouri—Columbia in 1984.

And now he lives in Washington, DC.

As you know, it is a standard practice for all who testify before

this committee to take an oath. So if all the witness today could

please stand including those who may be answering questions

later, I’ll administer the oath.

[Witnesses sworn]

Mr. MURPHY. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. And we are ready to proceed.

Well, Mr. Blair, thank you for joining us today. You are recognized for 5 minutes. Please proceed.

You know how the lights work; green means continue, yellow

means windup and red means—well, we will see if we can continue.

Thank you, Mr. Blair.

STATEMENT OF DAN G. BLAIR, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Mr. BLAIR. Thank you, Chairman Davis, Chairman Murphy. I am

glad to be here this morning in Pittsburgh.

I would also like to introduce you to Anne Easton. Anne is our

Senior Policy Analyst in OPM’s Strategic Human Resources Policy

division and will assist me should I get any technical questions. So,

I would indulge the committee to help me rely on her as well.

I am pleased to be here on behalf of Kay Coles James and the

Office of Personnel Management [OPM] to comment on the role of

the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program [FEHBP] in relation to cutting edge health care issues that could impact the delivery of health care services across the Nation.

I have a written statement. I ask that be included for the record.

I’m happy to summarize.

9

To provide a context of our discussion, I want to give you a little

background on the FEHB Program and the role of OPM as Program Administrator.

The FEHB Program provides for the offering of health benefits

for Federal workers, much like large employers’ purchasers in the

private sector. More than 8 million Federal employees, retirees,

and their dependents are covered by the program. OPM administers the Program by contracting the private sector health plans,

offering more than 200 choices to Federal consumers. OPM does

not, however, contract the providers. We don’t process claims, nor

do we do independent clinical research or mandate specific program

initiatives. Those functions are carried out by the private sector

health care plans.

OPM has consistently encouraged those plans to be creative and

responsive to consumer interests and to be innovative in developing

plan-specific programs that would benefit the patients while controlling costs. By working closely with the health plans to improve

the quality of services they offer, we have moved the program forward without locking the health plans into predetermined solutions.

You have asked me today to focus on six cutting edge issues in

the health care arena. I want to highlight our activity in each area.

We are closely monitoring these issues, and we work in these areas

by encouraging and collaborating with our health plans and our

other purchasers of health care services.

First, let me talk about preventive services and chronic care. Our

plans offer excellent preventive services and chronic care benefits.

In the recent year our annual call letters to the carriers has

stressed the importance of both preventive services and comprehensive care for chronic conditions. For example, in our call letter last

year, we strongly encouraged carriers to provide coverage for the

full range of screenings for colorectal cancer, and the carriers’ responses were overwhelmingly positive.

My written statement details some of our collaborative efforts

with the health care community, both Government and private sector, to encourage initiatives on preventive services. One particular

collaboration is with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and Johns Hopkins University to assess the needs of patients

with multiple chronic conditions.

Let me talk about the impact of good health practices on premiums. At OPM, we believe that Federal employees and their families are intelligent health care consumers, and it is to everyone’s

benefit to provide them with sound information. Educating Federal

consumers leads to more patient involvement in health care decisionmaking and subsequently more consumer responsibility and

awareness of costs. To paraphrase a popular advertising line, ‘‘an

educated health care consumer is our best customer.’’

As one way to achieve this goal, OPM last year launched the

HealthierFeds Campaign in support of President Bush’s

HealthierUS Initiative. The campaign places emphasis on educating Federal employees and retirees on healthy living and best

treatment strategies. It established a consumer Web site aimed at

providing information on nutrition, physical fitness, avoidance of

risky behavior, and prevention. We also operate wellness programs.

10

One cutting edge issue we would like to talk about today is pay

for performance. Many health plans who participate in the FEHB

Program engage in techniques that encourage high standards of

quality. Our written statement details a few examples of this work.

However, since FEHB law does not allow for premium differentials

and since OPM contracts with health plans, not providers, we have

no mechanism to reward providers directly for superior performance. However, we will continue to monitor and encourage developments in the industry and will consult with health plans as they

evaluate various approaches and begin to assess best practices.

In your opening statement today you referenced President Bush’s

Executive order for health information technology. In response,

OPM issued a report expressing our intent to explore a variety of

options to speed the nationwide phase-in of health information

technology or HIT. These options are detailed in my written statement.

Finally, I would like to talk about measuring efficacy and value

of alternative treatments. As I’ve mentioned, OPM is a large purchaser of employee health benefits, but we do not perform clinical

research. We do, however, work with health plans and others and

support their efforts. We do not preclude FEHB plans from voluntarily participating in studies, and we encourage them to include

our Federal members in such studies. OPM relies on other Federal

agencies for medical research. For example, for benefits coverage

such as drugs and biologicals, we rely on the Food and Drug Administration.

Further, OPM continues to stress health literacy by encouraging

FEHB enrollees to become more informed about their health care.

We provide information on our Web site and participate in various

groups that stress health literacy, such as the National Quality

Forum and the Quality Interagency Task Force.

In summary, while the primary role of OPM as administrator of

the FEHB program is to contract with health plans to provide

health care coverage for Federal employees, retirees, and their families, we have used our leverage as a major purchaser to facilitate

meaningful efforts by the health plans to improve the quality of

services they provide. Within the framework of this mission, we believe we can and should contribute to the overall efforts to make

and keep the American health care system among the best in the

world.

Thank you again for your invitation to testify. I am happy to answer any of your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blair follows:]

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you.

I will defer now to Chairman Davis for some questions.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Blair, let me ask, health care savings accounts

are something that the Congress has now put into application to

a limited extent in the private sector. I know that OPM has been

looking at this. One of the arguments against it, that I hear from

some of my Federal employee groups and particularly the retired

Federal employees, is that this takes people that are paying into

a larger pool out and their dollars would be out of that, which

would raise costs to other people. Obviously, to the government

workers and the like and it offers a great opportunity for some savings. What are your feelings and what have we done with that?

Mr. BLAIR. We feel that health savings accounts offer a viable alternative and a good option for Federal enrollees. In our call letter

this year we encouraged plans to look at those and to come up with

plans to offer something like that.

We believe that if adverse risk selection should occur that we

could minimize it by adjusting benefits and looking at this over

time.

Federal employees do not migrate dramatically from one plan to

another. So I think should adverse selection occur, we can take

steps over the plan period to minimize anything like that. But

again, I think that this is an example of responding to developments in the health care field. It would improve the way that enrollees utilized their own health care dollars. I think it makes good

sense for enrollees to look at something like that. It is an option

that is being encouraged in the private sector and we should not

deny Federal enrollees that opportunity either.

Mr. DAVIS. Given that the idea of pay-for-performance is beginning to catch on regarding the quality of centered programs, how

can the FEHBP use its leverage to encourage plans to develop innovative approaches to improve it quality?

Mr. BLAIR. Well, it is beginning to catch on. It is a relatively new

concept in the health care field. There are really no standardized

metrics out there.

In addition, since we contract with the insurance plans who then

in turn pay the providers, we really have an indirect impact on

this. However, it is not an insignificant one, and it is something

that we need to continue.

What I think we want to look at is what works best in the field

right now.

A number of the plans out there already have some initiatives

underway in which pay for performance is being utilized. I believe

Blue Cross/Blue Shield has about 20 initiatives out there. And I

want to say that a Blue Cross/Blue Shield affiliate in this area,

Highmark, is engaged in a similar program. CMS is engaged in

looking at pay for performance. And they are a direct provider.

They are a direct reimburser of health care providers as well.

So, I think that there is a lot of activity in this field. There are

no standardized metrics, however, and this is something that,

while we are certainly encouraging plans to move in this direction,

we want to take note of what the best practices are before we

would standardize anything.

20

Mr. DAVIS. With regard to quality measures and critical areas in

hospital care, such as heart attacks, heart failure, diabetes, how

can the FEHBP ensure that such data on providers is in the hands

of every plan member?

Mr. BLAIR. Well what we do is urge our plans to get accredited.

I am told that almost three quarters of plans do receive accreditation.

In addition, we do consumer surveys. But I think that what we

need to do in this area is really move toward what President

Bush’s vision is, and that is an electronic patients’ data file that

will be easily accessible by providers as well as by patients. That

Executive order was issued last spring. And this past summer

OPM issued a report on how we can help the President achieve

that vision over the next decade. And we came up with a number

of interesting ideas.

One of the things that we suggested that we look at is how can

we increase the use of what is called inter-operable health care

technology or health information technology [HIT]. And there are

ideas such as giving incentives so that when the doctor writes a

prescription, that he or she writes that prescription on a hand-held

device which is then transmitted to the pharmacy, which is probably an online pharmacy, and then have the prescription filled and

delivered to the employee. But you would also want to have other

health care providers have access to that information.

You certainly have privacy concerns with this. But as Chairman

Murphy referenced in his statement, it is certainly an area that we

need to go in if we are going to practice medicine in the 21st century in the right way.

Mr. DAVIS. The chairman did note that. It is an information and

transaction process intensive industry. But we choose to spend less

on information technology in health care than in almost any other

sector of the economy. It is not true that it is OPM’s fault, but how

can we make the FEHB Program better? How can we promote this

health information technology? What else can we do at the congressional level?

Mr. BLAIR. Well, I think that what we use here is the information that we have, the ability that we have when we manage the

program. For instance, from our report we would strongly encourage health plans to adopt systems that are based on Federal health

architecture standards. We would encourage those plans to highlight provider directories to indicate individual provider HIT capabilities.

We had about nine recommendations, and I would like to include

those for the record. But basically what we want to do is provide

incentives for health plans to better utilize health information technology.

Right now the fee structure is based such that maybe providing

incentives in the profit area for something like this. Again, this is

not taking place overnight, but this is a direction that we are

going. It is a very exciting area, and I think that it can lead to better health care delivery for everyone.

Mr. DAVIS. OK. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Chairman Davis.

21

Mr. Blair, let me followup on a couple of these issues here.

On the information technology, I have a bill H.R. 4805 which

tries to get electronic prescribing just for Medicare alone with estimates it would save about $27 billion a year plus thousands of

lives. It seems to me we need to be doing some of these things, that

the Federal Government can help fund some of these startups. The

purpose of this hearing, of course, recognizing if we have 8.5 million enrollees just in FEHBP enrollment, we should be the juggernaut that is really driving some change in the Federal Government.

But let us see this information technology issue. What do you see

are the practical barriers out there in the health care delivery system that is preventing them from doing this naturally? We are

talking about saving lives, saving money by doing these things, but

what are the barriers that the Federal Government is going to encounter in trying to enact some of these?

Mr. BLAIR. The FEHB program itself contracts with the health

care plans. We need to encourage the health care plans to encourage those providers to have access and learn and develop and utilize such technology. I would not call that a barrier, but that is the

direction that we would start to encourage the plans to move.

We work with a number of organizations that have both public

and private sector affiliation; the National Quality Forum, the

Quality Interagency Coordination Task Force. All these are areas

in which better technology is being utilized and which advocate for

better use of technology.

The other barriers would be, you know, what do providers on

their own have to do? You know, what do doctors, what are hospitals, what do nurse practitioners, the whole wide range of health

care providers, have out there now, and what access do they have

to technology and how can that technology talk to one another? I

think that would be the challenge in making sure that we have a

system which is truly interoperable and that can benefit the patient.

Mr. MURPHY. One of the things we will have from our next panel

and one of the reasons we are doing this hearing in Pittsburgh, is

that we have some local experts who are moving in some of these

areas and I hope you will be able to stick around to hear that.

But I want to go back to a point here about the pay-for-performance. Can you give me an example specifically how that works?

Now particularly again, thinking here that we are trying to move

81⁄2 million people as being the force behind getting a physician’s

office, hospital, etc., to move toward this, can you give me an example, or walk me through a patient care and how that would work?

Mr. BLAIR. I can, and why do I not provide that for the record

as well. But I have here a Highmark Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and

they had a performance based incentive program. And what they

have done is that they have tried to encourage quality care by reducing variation in care. They share information with physicians

which helped them provide care based on accepted clinical standards, while reducing variations in care. Each physician practice has

a designated plan, a medical management consultant who are experts skilled in process, development and improvement.

22

They estimate that costs for the performance incentive program

members did not increase as fast as the network, and they saw an

average savings of more than $22 million.

And so you can see where although this is still in its infancy,

that pay-for-performance does have the potential for driving better

health care delivery to patients and to Americans across the country.

Mr. MURPHY. Well, let me also ask this technical question. I

know when I was a member of the State Senate and wrote the patient bill of rights we have now in Pennsylvania, one of the barriers

we saw happen with managed care was it was supposed to operate

this way. A medical practice or hospital would see the lump sum

of money to cover 5 or 10 or 50,000 enrollees with the idea being

that if they took good care of those patients, they would save

money and there was an incentive with that, and then otherwise

they would reap the benefits. It is supposed to be, I guess, a quasi

thing of moving in this direction of pay-for-performance, but you

are talking about something entirely different. It is not just if you

do not spend, you get to keep it, you are talking about a whole different area of almost a rewards system for——

Mr. BLAIR. Well, there are financial rewards. But again, in this

area I am told that the metrics are not there yet. And so that is

why before you would want to encourage plans to adopt something,

you want to make sure that there are some standardized metrics

across the board.

This area does have a potential benefit for everyone, but when

you are moving in this area you need to be mindful of the physicians’ injunction to first ‘‘do no harm,’’ and that you want to make

sure that encouraging adoption of any standard that might be national, while we would not want to mandate anything like that, we

would want to encourage plans to do what is right. And before we

do that, though, it seems like there is quite a bit in this field, there

is quite a bit of innovation that people are going in different directions. But this is something to continue to monitor. I think there

is great potential for cost savings, but more so there is better potential for better patient care, and that is what we want to drive.

Mr. MURPHY. And how about this area of using health education

and healthy choices and good health care practices? Again, past

barriers have been health care plans have sometimes thought well

the average enrollee may have that plan for 18 months or so and

then move on into another plan, although here in the Pittsburgh

region we have two carriers, basically, the dominant forces in the

marketplace. But many times it seems the plans really have not

wanted to make investments in prevention and health choice and

health education. How would that work in what you are saying?

Mr. BLAIR. Well, we certainly encourage that through our call

letters. And I think that we have seen good preventive care plans

offered by a wide range of FEHB plans.

Also, each year in the Federal sector we have what is called an

Open Season that you can change plans. And during this Open

Season you have Web-based information, you have plan brochures,

you even have the private sector getting in on this by offering comparisons to other plans.

23

Again, it is up to the individual enrollee to educate him or herself, but there is information out there that can help them place

which health care plan would probably be best to fit their needs.

We encourage that. We think it is a good idea.

Plus, the HealthierFeds Program that we have implemented to

support President Bush’s initiative is another way and we have a

Web site devoted to that.

Underlying this whole concept, though, is taking and assuming

responsibility for your own health care. That the patient’s relationship with his or her doctor, assuming those responsibilities for your

health care, making health care lifestyle changes are all part of an

overall move that you have to assume responsibility for yourself

and educate yourself. The choices are out there. We want to encourage the best education out there. Individual plans will help in

this upcoming Open Season and you’ll see health fairs around the

country. There will be health fairs in individual agencies. I think

we even have one up in the Cannon Caucus Room each year in

which the plans are up there educating Members and staff on what

might be the best choices. But again, I think that’s the hallmark

and one of the high points of the Federal system is this idea of

choice. The idea is that this choice is to be an educated one, and

we provide members with that kind of education to make their best

choices.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, just to followup.

There has been a lot of talk about extending the principles of

FEHBP nationally. One of the problems I have had, representing

a district of 50,000 Federal employees, is if you open the current

FEHB Program to everybody, it just changes the whole mix. Federal employees tend on average to take better care of themselves

than others, and all those things change. But do you think this

model could be used nationally, maybe with separate programs, or

not?

Mr. BLAIR. Well, I think that is a big question. I am not sure I

am prepared to answer that. I would say that the principles underlying the program are something that could stand as a foundation

nationally. And, I think the principles are choice and competition,

no mandates, but encouraging plans to exercise the dynamic of the

marketplace, the dynamic of the health care arena in which new

and innovative things are taking place on a daily basis and channeling that to keep costs at a minimum while providing the broadest range of benefits.

So I think the principles behind the FEHBP certainly can stand

as a foundation for other reforms.

Mr. DAVIS. I mean one of the problems came when the prescription drug benefit plan was passed. As you know, we wanted to ensure that FEHBP remains available for our retired Federal employees. Currently retired Federal employees are treated differently

than active Federal employees in the sense that they can’t deduct

the cost of their health insurance from their taxes. That is a differentiation, and there is a great fear that with the current plan

that was passed by Congress that somehow this benefit would disappear for retired Federal employees. Well, we will just use the

prescription benefit plan. That puts us contrary to the philosophy

of what we passed, which is we are trying to keep the private plans

24

in existence. If the Federal Government has to pick up the tab for

everybody in prescription drugs, the costs are going to skyrocket,

whereas if we can maintain current plans being able to pick up a

portion of those costs, do you have any thoughts on that?

Mr. BLAIR. Well, as you know in our plan offerings right now we

have a self and family option. We do not discriminate between retirees or active employees. Everyone is together in this insurance

pool, and it operates quite well for us and we have no intention of

separating employees from retirees at any point that I am aware

of.

Mr. DAVIS. So that would not happen at least from your perspective?

Mr. BLAIR. I am not aware of any plans in the works to do anything like that.

Mr. DAVIS. We passed that.

Mr. BLAIR. I am sure we would hear from you folks as well.

Mr. DAVIS. Well, we passed a bill in the House that basically said

we wanted to take a look at this benefit for Federal employees and

retired Federal employees. It is sitting in the Senate. It did not include any overall bill because the criticism that somehow Congress

was getting, is that most of the Members of Congress who retire

do not use FEHBP, but there are some that do. And you are set

up with the argument that there are those who oppose the prescription drug benefit plan for different reasons, and you know

Congress wants their own plan, this is not good enough for them.

I just wanted to touch on that and get your assurances, and I appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you.

What I want to get into, and I do not know if you know the technicalities of this, but it has to do with as we are driving some of

these changes, preventive health care and pay-for-performance,

health education, and managing diseases before they reach the

chronic state or the emergency room access state, which is very,

very expensive when you’re doing that, you said there are open enrollment times for Federal employees, so they can go from plan to

plan. What are the rules with regard to dealing with preexisting

conditions? Because some of the complaints I get, for example, in

my office, not from Federal plans but from other ones, are that people say I have to hang on to the insurance company I have even

though the rates are going through the roof because I have a preexisting condition and no one else will accept me. What happens

in the Federal plans when that problem exists?

Mr. BLAIR. Ann, correct me if I’m wrong on this. But we have no

preexisting condition exclusion.

Mr. MURPHY. There’s no barriers?

Mr. BLAIR. You can go from plan to plan to plan. That said, in

the Federal sector you do not see migration between and among

plans very often. It is a pretty stable insurance pool out there in

that you see most people, although we encourage innovation, encourage the competition, but most employees stay with the plan

that they are familiar with and do not change every year.

I think I can provide for the record how many do. And that is

one of the arguments that we have always said that with the

25

health savings accounts that generally speaking the Federal population is a conservative population, not so much politically, but as

in lifestyle choices in terms of not changing things. And, so when

we offer these new benefits, people stand back and wait and see

how they operate.

And, we think that new benefits are important. We think innovations are important. At the same time, we have a very stable population which usually stays with the plan that they know and are

most familiar with.

Mr. MURPHY. It probably helps that they look at exclusions from

preexisting conditions. In the general marketplace I really think

that is one of the things that I hope to achieve, because when you

can exclude preexisting conditions, there is not much incentive for

insurance companies to get out there and really work on patient

education as much if someone does leave a plan, because costs are

going up and nobody else has to take them. So that is probably one

of the good things we have going for us, and I hope we can continue

to help the rest of the Nation do as well.

I know often times politicians are out there saying that everybody should have the Federal plan, too. We should make note that

this is not free for employees, including Members of Congress.

Mr. BLAIR. Exactly.

Mr. MURPHY. We also have to pay for it. I just want the record

to show that.

Mr. DAVIS. Let me also note that even for the use of the Capitol

physician we pay extra on top of FEHBP for that.

Mr. MURPHY. I also want to make sure the record notes that.

I do not have any further questions. Chairman, do you?

Mr. DAVIS. Well, I do not either. We have testimony coming in,

and I hope you will be able to stick around and hear that and review that, because there is some very interesting ideas about how

we can improve not just FEHBP but the total health care system.

And I think that holds some promise for us.

So, I thank you very much.

Mr. BLAIR. Thank you.

Mr. MURPHY. I look forward to this afternoon, you are going to

make announcements about the premium rates?

Mr. BLAIR. It is my understanding that Kay will be making announcements sometime this afternoon, and your staffs are being

briefed as well.

Mr. MURPHY. OK. Thank you very much.

While we are getting ready for the next panel to come up here,

let me go over some of their background so we have that information.

Let us take a couple of minutes while we are getting ready here.

First, we will hear from Dr. Karn Wolk Feinstein. Dr. Feinstein

is the Chair of the Pittsburgh Regional Health Initiative. They

have been doing great work to improve health care in Pittsburgh.

Dr. Neil Resnick, M.D. is a Chief of the division of medicine at

the University of Pittsburgh, co-director of the aging there at the

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. He leads one of the largest and most innovative geriatric programs in the country. He has

more board certified geriatricians than any other programs in the

country, I believe.

26

His medical degree is from Stanford. He has an impressive list

of credentials there, too, and I am excited to have you on board.

And finally, Dr. Alan Axelson, a psychiatrist, founder and president of Intercare, and for the sake of disclosure I should say I used

to be one of his employees, too, prior to coming here. But I asked

him here because of his innovative concepts and things that he is

going to be describing to us.

He is a member of the American Psychiatric Association’s Managed Care Committee, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Work Group on Managed Care. In these capacities

he has participated extensively in the development of level care criteria for these two psychiatric organizations.

Also a well known and renowned writer and public speaker on

various managed care related topics.

I believe we will go with Karen Feinstein. I want to refer to you

as doctor today, we will keep it formal.

STATEMENTS OF DR. KAREN WOLK FEINSTEIN, CHAIR, PITTSBURGH REGIONAL HEALTHCARE INITIATIVE; DR. NEIL M.

RESNICK, DIRECTOR UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH INSTITUTE OF AGING; AND DR. ALAN AXELSON, MEDICAL DIRECTOR, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT

PSYCHIATRY

Dr. FEINSTEIN. And I refer to you as Representative.

Just for disclosure, I do want to say that then Senator now Representative Murphy was part of the Pittsburgh Regional Health

Care Initiative from its inception.

The Pittsburgh Regional Healthcare Initiative is a group of

stakeholders from our area. 42 hospitals, most major purchasers all

four insurance companies who are doing business here now, the attorney general, Representative Murphy who came together around

a certain proposition that: Better health care is available at lower

costs; that it requires work design or redesign at the point of service to eliminate waste, inefficiency and error; it rewards evidencebased best practices; it requires good information on cost and quality, requiring financing, accounting and clinical measurement systems that are far superior to what we have in operation today; that

providers could compete on value and would therefore deliver

value; and, it was founded on a truism: What is good for the patient is good for the payer.

So we started to test out our proposition, our value proposition,

our hypothesis. We started testing it out in a lot of clinical settings

working with providers, mostly in hospital but also ambulatory.

Let me just take one quick example, central line associate blood

stream infection. We have found that in intensive care units where

people are diligent, we’re not talking about high tech technology

doing anything that is state-of-the-art, just basic care, we can bring

central line associated blood infections down almost to zero. How

are we doing it? Simply following protocol vigorously. And, as you

know, the estimates of the cost to this country of central line infections is up to $1 billion; 25 to 50 percent of the people who get

them die.

We have also found that when you break down the costs, which

by the way is a lot of work because of the cost accounting systems

27

we have now in health care, you find that the provider never

makes money on a central line infection. They lose anywhere from

$500 a patient to $42,000 depending on the insurer and the nature

of the patient’s health. But also we found that insurance companies

are picking up a large amount of the cost on an almost avoidable

occurrence, which is central line infection. So we believe that our

proposition seems to be playing out.

And we started out focusing on providers. We are looking at the

point of service. We are looking at people who deliver care. But we

realized we had made a mistake not attending to the role the payers play, the incredible role that payers play in bringing about a

cascading effect to drive this kind of improvement at the point of

service in the quality of care delivered in units by the people who

deliver care.

So we have been collecting examples of perverse payments within

health insurance, which are really quite astounding and we intend

to present to Chairman Davis and Representative Murphy some

more background on this. It is really pretty astonishing how many

things we pay for that reward bad behavior and preventable error

and not good practice.

We think that, obviously, FEHB could vastly change the extent

to which our value proposition is realized. These are just some

ideas.

Plans should be required to pay providers for good and safe care,

and on the other hand not to reward errors and waste such as central line associated blood stream infection. Since we have found in

almost all units where we have attacked this issue, that it can be

brought down to zero, it seems to me that if we were not paying

for these infections, if the insurers were not picking up a lot of the

cost to providers, people would just eliminate them since we can

give you evidence to suggest this is very doable.

Plans need to provide members with available outcome data and

really drive the information flow to their members about the differential outcomes in a way that is much more effective and direct

than we have now. Having members even just go to a Web site and

look it up we think is too indirect. That it should be something that

is made easily accessible because we do have proof, as you know

from PacifiCare and their quality index, 61⁄2 percent of their members moved to the higher performing providers every year. If you

start adding that up year after year, you’re going to get a movement, a reward for those who are providing good care.

We are looking at outcomes here, not processes. I think that is

very important. I do want to suggest this distinction which is important. People will use different processes to get better and learn

from one another.

Plans should be required to accompany the outcome information

with cost comparisons and highlight the high quality low cost providers. As you know, again, with PacifiCare they have had a lot of

success doing that.

One challenge remains. Most hospital accounting systems do not

account the best information and allow you to easily extract this

information, as the physician to my left can tell you. But if this

were required, believe me, they would have activity-based cost accounting systems that would allow them to know what its costs to

28

provide care correctly and what it costs to introduce error and

waste.

And overall, you should be, we hope, rewarding plans that reward value. That we should pay more for those who give us more

value. And we believe that will actually prove our value proposition

that the more you increase quality and safety the lower you are

going to find your costs.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Feinstein follows:]

29

30

31

32

33

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you.

We’ll save questions until the end.

I think that Dr. Resnick, you are next.

Dr. RESNICK. As a geriatrician I’ve been asked to focus on issues

relevant to the concerns of the roughly half million older retirees

in the FEHB, and that’s a wonderful opportunity for someone who

spent their life trying to care for older people in group care, to actually get to talk to people who can effect such a change is a huge

honor.

It is probably important to put the issue in context. Everybody

knows that there is an explosion of older people, but what is less

well appreciated is that chronic disease is the dominate issue in

these people and that, second even less well appreciated, is that

several features of chronic disease differ in older people compared

with younger adults. Few physicians are trained to deal with these

conditions in the elderly. That the number of such physicians is declining at the time the number of old people is increasing. Many

features of the health care system, which is largely optimized for

acute care, will ill suit the needs for older people with chronic conditions.

I’d like to start just saying why chronic disease in older people

differs from that in younger people.

First, older people with chronic disease generally suffer from

more than one concurrently, making the detection and diagnoses

and treatment of the new disease more difficult.

Second, the generally used approach to a given condition may be

contraindicated by the other conditions or by the multiple medications that a patient uses to treat them.

Third, while scientific evidence for chronic disease management

is limited, it is far more limited for chronic disease in older adults

and this impedes development of appropriate guidelines.

Fourth, chronic disease in older adults often occurs in patients

who also have mental impairment or depression. And the impact

of these is exacerbated by the fact that many older adults do not

have a spouse or an advocate and these factors hinder the physician’s ability to complete an adequate evaluation or to ensure adherence to therapy.

Fifth, older patients have much shorter life expectancies which

requires putting risks and side effects in a very different perspective.

Sixth, considering to the issues just mentioned as well as to

ageism, older adults often have different values and goals.

When you put all this together with the multiple possible combinations of coexisting chronic conditions that could occur in an

older person, it’s easy to understand that application of the type of

disease management models currently being developed and advocated at present will be very difficult at best. But it’s worse than

just the problems with chronic illness. Despite the complexity of

chronic illness in older adults, despite the spiraling increase in

their numbers, the number of physicians trained to deal with this

has gone down. There are a variety of reasons, and they’re in my

testimony, but it’s important to note as well that the number of

students are not going into geriatrics as well. Less than 3 percent

34

of U.S. medical students are enrolled in any geriatric course at the

present time.

It has been estimated that if we forced every medical student to

take geriatrics today, that it would take 40 years to have enough

physicians, to educate all the physicians who need to take care of

older people in this country. So we need a way to get out to the

practicing physician, and unfortunately that’s not happened. Fewer

than 1 percent of practicing physicians have any experience in geriatric care, and it’s not going up for the reasons that are outlined

in my testimony.

But it is more than just the complexity of chronic disease and the

lack of access to physicians. Access to appropriate care for older patients with chronic disease also reflects lack of access to institutions. Hospitals often seek to avoid admissions of such patients, especially those who are frail since such patients have a higher risk

of complications, longer stays and nonreimbursed readmissions.

Reimbursement issues also leave many nursing homes to try to

avoid admitting patients who cannot pay privately. Home care programs are closing nationwide. Insurers are eliminating their HMO

Medicare programs, and in the current fee-for-service environment

there is little ability or incentive to coordinate care. The resulting

fragmentation of care and competing incentives increase the difficulty in managing chronic disease, particularly for older patients

who have the most concurrent chronic conditions and the least ability to survive inadequate care.

The result is is a common scenario for older patients, that is to

be referred to one patient physician after another, each of whom

adds a test or a medication which in turn engenders another symptom so that the cycle continues until the patient’s status deteriorates and results in an acute event. The patient is then sent by

ambulance at high cost to an emergency department at higher cost,

and hospitalized at still higher costs.

The hospitalization is generally longer than for younger patients,

more often includes complications and is more often followed by the

need for intensive care, subacute or chronic care. The final result

is an increased likelihood of the worst of everything: An outcome

that neither the patient nor the physician will desire and at a cost

that neither the patient or society can afford.

But the situation is far from hopeless. Studies show that students who begin medical school are attracted to caring for older

adults and the geriatricians are among the most satisfied of medical specialists. Moreover, while the high complications rates among

older adults generate high utilization, neither one of these is inevitable.

In addition, not only are many of the solutions to improve geriatric care relatively inexpensive, but implementing them could decrease the number of emergency department visits, the number

and length of hospitalizations, the number of medications and

which in turn make these interventions at least revenue neutral,

if not substantially cost saving.

What are some potential strategies? Well, in the short term one

recommendation that’s in this paper is to convene a task force of

experts and stakeholders in geriatric care. I think it would be quite

35

easy to assemble what’s already widely known about ways to improve geriatric care. It could be integrated into a coherent system.

The second recommendation would be because this kind of health

modification is not going to be easy and not going to be straightforward and its stakes are high, it is certainly going to be worth

evaluating. And so my second recommendation would be to consider funding a demonstration project, at least one if not more. For

several reasons that are outlined in the testimony, the University

of Pittsburgh Medical Center is very well positioned to do that,

both because of the high proportion of older people in our region,

the high proportion of geriatricians who are available to care for

them, one of the country’s largest portfolios of research expertise

and the fact that we also have an insurance plan so that we can

identify every cost of the care and all of the outcomes.

In conclusion, the need is great. The number of retirees in the

FEHBP is roughly half a million and growing quickly. And the impact is even greater than the numbers would suggest since the

costs are growing more rapidly than the number of retirees and

they soon eclipse the ability of the FEHBP or its current employees

to afford.

In addition, the lack of appropriate chronic care infringes on the

productivity of current workers who must take time off to help

their parents deal with this.

Your goal is laudable. We will do everything we can to help you

with that. Clearly, I hope that this has helped cast some degree of

light on what some of the potential solutions are to what has been

a vexing problems for all of us to solve.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Resnick follows:]

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Dr. Resnick.

Dr. Axelson.

Dr. AXELSON. Thank you.

I am Alan Axelson. I am building on the previous two presenters

because I work with Karen Feinstein at Pittsburgh Regional

Healthcare Initiative and am very concerned.

I do see patients every week, and I am speaking from 30 years

of experience in health care systems. Also, I should say that I am

consultant to Highmark for the past 3 years, the Blue Cross/Blue

Shield franchise carrier in this area.

The thing I want to emphasize is innovative approaches to behavioral health care as part of it, and then I want to present a little bit of data. So I have a PowerPoint presentation. I tried to get

the appropriate music, but the Rolling Stones were aging and could

not make the trip to Pittsburgh, and it is too hard getting the electronic permission.

Traditional behavior health treatment is often considered a separate category of illness, treated separately by a group of specialty

practitioners, often only partially treated through a series of incomplete patient encounters rather than a full comprehensive treatment plan. And many patients with psychiatric illnesses are presenting in primary care offices and are not identified and effectively treated.

Psychiatric disorders often co-occur with medical illnesses and

complicate effective and efficient treatment of those medical illnesses. The issue is, what is the impact and what can be done

about it.

We have heard about the retirees, and certainly that is a major

issue. But the focus is also on the employees. This is the difference

in the average cost of the annual cost of the employee both with

depression and without depression. And you can see that the costs

are about double. And some of those are in direct costs, some are

in prescriptions and certainly in lost productivity.

When you look at depression and the cost of medical illnesses;

back pain, diabetes, headache, migraine and heart failure all increase substantially in costs when there is complicating depression,

particularly when that depression is not appropriately treated.

The Pittsburgh Regional Healthcare Initiative is particularly focusing on the co-occurrence of diabetes and depression and looking

at ways to comprehensively treat them.

The treatment of chronic illnesses is a major opportunity for system improvement. In contrast to the inpatient care we have been

hearing about, this is primarily an outpatient process and is very

high volume. So you have to do things that can apply to large numbers of patients and large numbers of physicians.

Unless treatment is part of an integrated, comprehensive continuing treatment plan, higher costs and sub-optimal outcomes will

be the result. It occurs more frequently in patients that have diabetes so that you have almost a third that have depressive symptoms.

Patients with a psychiatric history, the blood evidence of control of

their diabetes shows that it’s not in control. Then the thing that’s

very interesting is if you treat the depression, the diabetes gets

better, and there are reasons for that have been hypothesized.

45

The annual costs incurred by employers on patients, 225,000 patients, there’s 57 percent increase in the annual medical costs depending on whether there is both diabetes and depression or just

without the depression.

We have the same situation with complications with post-myocardial infarction. We have done a lot to improve the care of myocardial infarction, but the emphasis has been a lot on various aspects of reducing stress, regular exercise, medication compliance.

And this is what is happening in terms of these things in the average patient.

When you look at the patient that is depressed, they fall down

in every area so they are just really not able to follow the treatment plans that their physician prescribes. This has a direct implication. This is a very interesting connection between the depression

inventory, a sign of the issues of depression, and you can see when

they are not depressed, these are the cardiac deaths. When you add

depression, this is the outcome; huge increases in cardiac deaths.

So depression is undertreated, and we have problems with it

here in therapy. What do we suggest? Innovative programs.

The wrong kind of competition has made a mess of the American

health care system. The right kinds can straighten it out. This is

from Harvard Business Review. We should support systems that

are integrated, innovative, information driven and incentive based.

Integrated primary care physicians must effectively connect with

psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health professionals

receiving timely consultations and support. It is just not in the way

the systems are organized today.

Treatment guidelines must be integrated into the daily system of

office-based care. Information about provider performance should

be trustworthy and transparent, available to purchasers and consumers.

Information driven. We need electronic systems and information

shared with imbedded systems of decision support so that we can

use the systems. The information that we have, it is very well supported in medical literature and accepted in terms of treatment

guidelines to be able to have that right there when we are treating

the patient and prompt us to order the tests and to communicate

with our other colleagues.

And it must be incentive based. Physicians are too busy and have

gone through too many ‘‘just do this one more thing.’’ We have to

find systems, pay-for-performance systems, that really do pay and

really get physicians’ attention so that the compensation is related

to participation and the development of quality programs and the

effectiveness of service delivery.

So structuring the Federal benefits program to support these

things would be very helpful, and we would certainly encourage

you to do this so that it motivates physicians and helps them get

on the bandwagon, so to speak, to do the best that they know that

they can do.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Axelson follows:]

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

Mr. MURPHY. I thank the panelists.

Chairman Davis, you want to go first?

Mr. DAVIS. I will try. Probably be a couple of rounds on this.

Dr. Resnick, let me start with you on the geriatric side because

we are all moving to a higher percent of the population being geriatric. That is just a fact. The baby boomers come of age and it puts

tremendous strains on our retirement systems, our health care systems and it sounds like the medical community really at this point

is not getting ready for it.

Dr. RESNICK. Your opening remark made me think that of the

line that becoming an older person is the only minority of which

we will all become a member.

You are exactly right. We do not yet have the tools at hand to

be able to deal with chronic disease in older people. We are just

beginning, we are at the infancy of our ability to deal with chronic

disease in nonolder people, which occurs generally as a single condition, and we have very few pieces of evidence in which doing

what you heard about works. It does seem to work for depression.

It does seem to work for heart failure. It does seem to work for diabetes and asthma. You have heard from Dr. Feinstein how it works

for central line infections. The problem is in older people you aggregate all of those together at one time.

Mr. DAVIS. Everything breaks down?

Dr. RESNICK. That is correct. So, for instance, if you have chronic

lung disease, the guideline says do not use this drug. If you have

heart disease, it says you must use that drug. Well, old people generally have both so what is the physician to do. He cannot comply

with both of the guidelines.

Mr. DAVIS. It is a lawyer’s dream, is it not?

Dr. RESNICK. Well, it is, but it is a physician’s nightmare and a

patient’s nightmare. So the physician cannot do what the few

guidelines available say. Most guidelines are not developed for the

diseases old people have. All of them are unwieldy because they are

way too much in the hectic pace of primary care, and the physician

cannot figure out what to do.

The bigger problem is the patient cannot figure out what to do

because when the physician says here is what I want you to do, the

patient says, ‘‘well, let us see, you told me to do this for this disease and this for this disease and that for that disease and my

other doctor told me.’’ Then the patients who are doing this are

scared. Often they have mental impairment. They have depression.

You put it altogether and it is way beyond the ability of medicine

as it is currently structured to exist. And that is why we think that

a new model would be quite useful. But we believe that a new

model, that the elements for a new model are already at hand and

all they need to be is integrated into a coherent way and tested

out. We do not think we have to start all over from scratch.

Mr. DAVIS. But there is a supply and demand issue. You just do

not have that many physicians that understand this, that are going

into this and you have a rising number of patients?

Dr. RESNICK. That is correct. And that is why the approach that

we advocate is instead of trying to train more geriatricians, which

is useful but will never happen, we need to change the health system in a way that every doctor in American can now apply. And

63

we think that we can form a model literally within a year that

every doctor in American could then follow to take better care of

older patients. In other words, we bring geriatrics into the mainstream of medicine rather than dragging medicine into the mainstream of geriatrics.

Mr. DAVIS. Do the Medicare reimbursements play a role in getting people out of this business basically?

Dr. RESNICK. Major. The Medicare reimbursements.

Mr. DAVIS. And they have paid in some cases when you get into

some of the nursing homes?

Dr. RESNICK. Yes. Yes. And in fact, they conflict with each other,

too. Let me give you an example.

A patient is in a nursing home paid by Medicaid. They have urinary incontinence and they do not have the staff to deal with it.

They put a tube into the bladder. That tube increases the risk of

infection. Now the patient gets an infection. Well, that is no problem for the nursing home because they are going to get transferred

to the hospital for that care. And that is on Medicare. But everybody loses.

The patient could die in the process. They certainly have their

care disjointed and worse, and it is because there are conflicting incentives.

In terms of the amount of reimbursement, huge problem. For the

last 3 years prior to the current one, the care was ratcheted down

and you almost certainly know that the AMA has documented the

proportion of doctors who participate in Medicare. And it was at a

high of 96 percent, and if the last one had gone through this last

time, it would have been down to 75 percent. That is just participating.

And furthermore, much of what doctors do in Medicare is not

paid for. Some of it is denied. And there is no payment for what

patients most need. There are barriers built in.

For instance, if a doctor wants to get a patient into a nursing

home, you have to put them in the hospital for 3 days even if they

do not need a hospitalization.

Now, in the hospital they can get infections and get drugs and

get all sorts of bad things. The cost to society is huge. There is no

point to that. That is from another era.

There are other things. Care coordination is huge, preventive

services are huge, proactive chronic care management is huge.

None of that is paid for by Medicare. Neither is telephone management.

Mr. DAVIS. We are starting to move in that direction getting

some preventive care in Medicare.

Dr. RESNICK. There are for procedures, but the limitations at

present are that nobody asks the patient what you want. So we will

pay for your colonoscopy, but nobody talks to the patient about

what we will do if we find a cancer. And then what we have is the

unfortunate situation where the patient and the doctor are faced

with a cancer there, and the patient says what, you mean you are

going to have to open up my belly and take this out. I do not want

that. I do not have enough time to live. I do not want to have 6

months recovery. And the doctor says I would not do it anyway because you have trouble with your heart and your lungs, and you

64

would not withstand that surgery. So we have paid for a procedure

that had no point in being done. So we expended resources and

caused everybody anxiety because we are not paying for the counseling and determination of the values and goals the patient has.

Mr. DAVIS. We will come back.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you.

Let me followup on something here. This is really pretty incredible testimony you have, and unfortunately it is so often what happens in health care. What I hear a lot of, similar to Chairman

Davis, the people say my health care plan is too expensive, let the

Federal Government take over. And I am sure you have heard that

in psychology and psychiatry, that insanity is doing the same thing

over and over again and expecting different results. And it seems

to be that it is absurd to think just have the Federal Government

pick the tab and continue the way we are doing things.

Dr. Feinstein, you have a chart with you, a totally incomprehensible chart, which I love.

Dr. FEINSTEIN. Yes.

Mr. MURPHY. To get the patient the first dose of medication,

some 700 steps involved with this?

Dr. FEINSTEIN. Yes.

Mr. MURPHY. All of which can result in some error?

Mr. MURPHY. This was documented at Deaconess-Glover Hospital

outside of Boston. And a team from Harvard Business School went

in.

This is what happened when one patient’s medication did not

come on time. One medication did not come on time. The work

around on the part of the nursing staff and the unit staff to get

from the pharmacy the pill that never arrived.

And we wished this was funny, but if you would show this to any

nurse, they will just nod their head, oh absolutely, yes. And that

is why we talk a lot about safety and evidence-based practice, both

of which are safe practices, evidence-based practices are very important. I do not think most people outside of health care, particularly anyone that has ever been to business school, would even believe the chaos that is involved in the administration of health care

at the point of service. None of these professionals have had an

hour of systems theory, work process improvement training other

than maybe something they get stopped on in their job and it is

hardly ever followed through until the next new idea comes along.

But the inefficiency and waste in health care also contributes

very much to the high cost. It also contributes to error and bad

practices.

Mr. MURPHY. I know I have worked at several area hospitals in

Pittsburgh and each one had some different procedure for doing the

same thing. Whenever I raised the question, the most common response is that just the way we do things here. It’s absurd that they

have adapted to that sort of practice.

Dr. Axelson, your testimony it is absolutely incredible in terms

of untreated depression, which first of all has a higher incidence

among these chronic illnesses and yet when it is not treated, the

morbidity and the mortality rate go through the roof. I mean, several times I think the costs were double you said?

65

Dr. AXELSON. Yes. And particularly with myocardial infarction.

Some people say it is more important to treat the depression than

to put the patient on aspirin and beta blockers, that the outcomes

in terms of death in the 6 months following myocardial infarction

is so high.

And the problem is that the general wisdom of the physician is,

yes, no wonder you are sort of sad. Anybody would be sad if you

have this kind of disease.

Mr. MURPHY. I mean you just talking about——

Dr. AXELSON. We are talking about the depression, yes. We are

talking about depression and what we are doing with physicians is

educating them to make the diagnoses of depression and differentiate that from just distress. That the patient that is depressed

needs active treatment for depression by the primary care physician because similar to the geriatric situation, you are not having

psychiatrists in growing numbers being available to care for these

patients, and the patients do not migrate very well. So the emphasis needs to be on developing the skills of the primary care physician and then having just in time consultation for them so they

treat the patients with diabetes and with heart disease and with

lung disease who also have depression and anxiety. Otherwise, you

get this manifold number of tests, bad outcomes, patients are not

satisfied and the physician is frustrated.

Mr. MURPHY. So we add these together. Most health costs come

from those who are chronically ill. And among those who are chronically ill, most of their health care costs come from not treating the

whole patient with regard to their multiple diagnoses.

Dr. AXELSON. Yes.

Mr. MURPHY. In this, I am sorry we were trying to track this

down, we could not get it in terms of knowing what the copayment

is for mental health treatments within the Federal system. I know

with Medicare one of the concerns I have if it is for infections or

heart disease, etc., it is at 80 percent that the insurance picks up

on many of these doctor visits, but only 50 percent for mental

health services.

Dr. AXELSON. That is correct.

Mr. MURPHY. So within that the system is doomed to failure.

And if that same thing exists within Federal employees’ benefits,

I don’t know what is, for example, postal employee etc.; but it is

doomed to failure because we have set up a system that operates

against getting comprehensive treatment.

Dr. AXELSON. Yes. My experience is that the copays are not to

discriminatory in the Federal system. There are some problems

with that. The copays are higher than they are for medical illnesses, but the Medicare is certainly something that is a great discrimination. And physicians, primary care physicians do not code

psychiatric diagnoses because of this concern that they will get the

50 percent reimbursement. And so you get a situation where they

are not paying attention because not only are they not getting paid,

they are getting paid less. And so changing that; I was very disappointed. I know that came up in the legislation about the pharmacy benefit, that was a missed opportunity there.

You cannot get physicians to change their way of practicing if

they think the system is cynically designed to work against them.

66

And that is what I hear from primary care physicians all the time

is you are not paying us for this stuff, you know, nobody wants to

hear about it. If we do bring it up, we and our patients get discriminated again.

So you really need to in bold letters say the FEHB Program

wants behavioral illnesses treated as part of the total system of

health care and not as some very separate system that is handled

a discriminatory way.

Mr. MURPHY. And I know my time’s up, and we will get back to

this. But let me just followup. In terms of the data you were presenting here in terms of these morbidity and mortality and costs

being double or so, is this being done comprehensibly with any

other, for example, private business who has made this move toward treating this comprehensibly, or would any of you know and

are they seeing any savings both in terms of the extra cost of

health care dollars that increase productivity?

Dr. AXELSON. The best company I’m aware of is Bank One in

Chicago that really looks at particularly productivity and treatment

of psychiatric illnesses. And they have showed dramatic improvements in both reduced disability costs, patients being at work and

patients doing more work when they are at work; a thing called

presenteeism. And so it is just beginning to get down into the employer system.

The figures I was giving were for employees, because that is part

of the message to employers. Encourage their employees to take

better care of their health and to expect better care when they go

to the physician.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you.

Chairman Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. I’m intrigued on the geriatric thing. I guess as I get

older I start thinking about these things. The good news is that

people are getting older later, is that not true? People are physically taking care of themselves better?

Dr. RESNICK. Well, it is a mixed picture. One of the biggest

threats to health is decreased exercise and increased weight. And

both are a problem in older people.

Exercise programs are not widely used, even among the elderly

and the middle aged. And the weight of this country is going up.

And what happens is as you get older, much of what happens is

replicated in younger people who weigh too much. So when you

combine obesity with age, you actually end up getting the ravages

of both, and it could backfire that we could be in worse shape than

we would otherwise.

What is happening now when you say that we are getting old

later, that is a reflection of the fact that we are getting better at

treating heart disease and recognizing risk factors such as high

blood pressure. So because we are more aggressive at treating

those, people then do not get the strokes and the debility that they

used to get. Second, we now know that the debility they used to

get are not aging, but diseases. So we look for the cause and treatment.

If people as they age still do not exercise as they should and gain

more weight than they ever have before in the history of this country, then that could undue much of the benefit.

67

Mr. DAVIS. You are probably right. I hang around with a group

that works out. And I see a lot of older people running, more than

I think I would have seen 10 or 20 years ago. But you are right,

a lot of people do not do that.

Dr. RESNICK. That is right. And the other issue is that——

Mr. DAVIS. And they tend to be more of a burden on the system,

are they not?

Dr. RESNICK. That is right. That is right.

Mr. DAVIS. Let me ask, Ms. Feinstein, you talked about paying

for bad behavior not just in the health care system, but do you not

do that with individuals as well, people who choose bad diets, who

are obese, sometimes who smoke. I mean there is discrimination,

I guess, in terms of what they pay, what health insurance companies charge them. You know the smokers and nonsmokers get different insurance rates in some of these areas. But in some of these

other areas you get treated the same when you take care of yourself or not. Is that appropriate incentive?

Dr. FEINSTEIN. Well, I have a personal opinion on that. Not just

speaking for the Regional Health Care Initiative.

Mr. DAVIS. That is fine. I would be glad to hear your opinion. I

would like to hear everybody’s personal opinion.

Dr. FEINSTEIN. This is personal. I do not see why we would not

take that into account as well. I think that there is a contract mutual responsibility for the cost, the high cost of care in this country.

And certainly there is a consumer role in protecting their own

health. You could take it down a chain and, you know, you could

require more and more and more of the consumer. And I think that

for some of the tiered consumer directed health plans, consumers

are expected to choose the best outcome, lower cost option or they

pay for it. I think that’s the beginning of a responsibility that could

spread to other areas.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. I should not say this. I ended up watching the

Jerry Springer Show late one night. There was nothing else on.

The ball games were over. It does not happen very happen. He

brought these tremendously huge people on there that just are, you

know, 400 or 500 pounds. Probably had depression. They probably

had a whole lot of things. But I am just saying, that is where my

health insurance might be.

You have a small group of people eating up most of the money,

and is there not some way to get some incentives to help. Treatment for depression would certainly be part of that. I think that

you made the case on that. And, sometimes before we get back, we

are going to do some talking about this. But also people who make

poor choices ought to be paying more and the people who make

right choices, we ought to be able to get a discount and build that

into the system as well, it seems to me. It is individual. The same

way with health care plans as we look at that.

Dr. FEINSTEIN. It is hard as an employer to know that you are

picking up the cost of people who are taking a smoke break every

half hour.

Mr. DAVIS. Right. Right.

Dr. FEINSTEIN. You are picking up the health costs.

Mr. DAVIS. Of course you have the labels on those things for 40

years and they still sue the companies and blame the companies

68

for it. So nobody wants to take responsibility for anything, and we

are moving in that society. And yet the foundation of freedom is

that people take responsibility for their own actions and their bad

decisions.

We get divided in Washington. You know, does the government

know what is best for people do or should people be allowed to

make their own decisions? And I always come down the side people

should make their own decisions. But a lot of times they make stupid decisions, and there should be some follow on penalty. If not

penalty, not reward for making those decision. That is what freedom is all about.

Dr. FEINSTEIN. Well, and there are some health plans that are

saying if you choose a low volume, poorly performing and high cost

provider, you pick up the difference. You know, we are not. And

that’s a beginning. That is a beginning of a challenge to consumer

responsibility.

Mr. DAVIS. I just know sometimes people can do everything right

and things can go wrong. And I had two melanomas. And I did not

spend a lot of time in the sun, but I am more of your opinion. I

reviewed and caught it early enough each time. One doctor the first

time I had it said, ‘‘You just saved yourself 30 years by finding it.

If it had gone on much later, you know, this moves, it is very, very

nasty.’’

So, you know, educating people is a critical part of this. You talk

about savings in the system, that is probably the best place where

you can start; educating people to make smarter decisions, identify

this earlier. You are right, none of these systems really take that

initiative.

I just want to ask one other question. I had asked this in the previous panel. There is a movement to bring the health care savings

accounts into the Federal system, the FEHBP. My retired Federal

employees really are nervous about that because they think at this

point that is going to raise their premium costs because basically

the folks that would opt for the health care savings account tend

to be the younger workers who are paying into the system and not

using much. Any thoughts on that? It is an ongoing debate in

Washington, and I favored these at the national level. Interested

in your comment.

Dr. FEINSTEIN. Well, I would say it is moving in a direction that

you were kind of going down the road about consumer responsibility; what is the consumer’s responsibility to the point that they can

control their demand for health care, and there are areas where

they can control it, there are areas where they cannot.

My only concern with HSAs is they kind of break the social contract. I mean, they distract from what I think is our, and obviously

this is a biased one because the Pittsburgh Regional Care Initiative

is founded on that, but I think our basic responsibility right now

is to deliver the best care and only the care that is required by a

person’s health situation. And to do that the stakeholders have to

work together. And the HSA distracts from that.

To that extent, you know, if you could convince me that it was

an important driver of quality and delivery at the point of care, I

would be enthusiastic. But it seems to me a bit of a distraction

right now.

69

What the Federal health plan could do, is have a program to

produce this kind of transparency. Even when the consumer wants

to do the right thing for their health, they lack information. There

is an extraordinary lack of information. They do not even know

what procedures cost. In fact, it is kind of scary, the plans often

do not know what procedures cost. Nobody knows what procedures

cost.

As an example, we are in so many ways paying for preventable

bad practice. And to get the information that would allow us, the

clinical and accounting measurement systems that would allow us

to bring that information to the consumer, to me is kind of a first

step, the most important step.

And so, you know, not distracting it, I do believe that consumers

need to be engaged and need to make decisions. HSAs encourage

that, but I worry that if we do not get the information to people,

really good information, they will not be able to make the right decisions; do they need care, do they not need care, where should

they get care and what are their options to, say, surgery, hospitalization and expensive care.

Mr. DAVIS. OK. Let me ask Dr. Axelson, let me ask you another

question, too.

Mental health parity is something that has come before Congress. It has really never come before the House. It has come before

the Senate. Every member supports it, you know, signs on the bill

but they try to keep it from voting because of the rising costs. But

your testimony really says there is a limit in terms in some of

these areas between regular health care and what we would call

the physical health care costs and being able to control the other

side. Can I hear your thoughts on that?

Dr. AXELSON. As soon as we get untangled.

I think that parity is essential. I still would make the same

statement. I think parity for mental health benefits is essential

and the separation in treating them in a discriminatory way is

really not supported economically.

Many people get health care and get reimbursed for paying, they

get payment for behavioral health services just by not putting the

diagnoses down in terms of primary care particularly. When you

have parity you begin to make sense of the system.

The costs that I work to save everyday is not so much the direct

costs in terms of psychiatric care. It is the indirect costs in terms

of inefficient medical care. Because the patient that has an anxiety

disorder is getting a huge cardiac workup or the patient that needs

very thoughtful care in terms of his diabetes, just does not have the

emotional energy to participate in the diabetic care plan because

they are depressed. So we need to address parity.

I talked to Congressman Murphy about it, oh, every month or so

and say what are you doing?

Mr. DAVIS. He talks. He brings it up.

Dr. AXELSON. Oh, I know he brings it up.

Mr. DAVIS. But the other side of it is you get efficiencies in other

areas. Maybe not the health care system or in the economic system

by having people alert and on the job——

Dr. AXELSON. Absolutely.

70

Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. That kind of stuff that you cannot measure directly but there is obviously data from the charts and from

what everybody has said, that is an important.

Dr. AXELSON. The idea of psychiatric care being costly is 15 to

20 years old. We have moved systems. There was a time when, yes,

there was——

Mr. DAVIS. If you just left it in the box?

Dr. AXELSON. Yes. But even now——

Mr. DAVIS. Even in the box it is costly. It is more money out than

you get in.

Dr. AXELSON. But even now that box really is not very constant.

Other measures have been put into place that control those costs.

And so what we need to do is just make a part of the overall system.

Mr. DAVIS. Right. Thank you very much.

Thank all three of you very, very much. It has been very helpful

to me.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you.

I have a couple of things I want to know. Dr. Feinstein, is this,

the chart, the 700 steps, is this part of a published report?

Dr. FEINSTEIN. Yes. It is a Harvard Business School case. It is

called the Deaconess-Glover case. And I am not allowed to hand it

out, but——

Mr. MURPHY. But if you could give us a reference, I would like

to include it in our record, please?

Dr. FEINSTEIN. It is Harvard Business School. They have a whole

case series. And this is called Deaconess Glover.

Mr. MURPHY. OK.

Dr. FEINSTEIN. Part A.

Mr. DAVIS. Chair, I would then ask unanimous consent that be

put in the record. That the staff can find it and put that in. I think

it would be helpful.

Mr. MURPHY. And without objection, so ordered.

Similarly, I would like to ask that we include in the record this

article provided by Dr. Axelson from the Harvard Business Review,

June 2004 in terms of Redefining Competition in Health Care by

Porter and Tiesberg. And without objection, so ordered. We will include that in as well.

I know we are just about out of time here. I just want to really

thank the panel for your comments here. Again, it distressed me

every time we see someone come up and say health care costs so

much, let us have the Federal Government pick up the tab. And

I am fond of saying the Federal Government can provide whatever

you want as long as you let us raise your taxes so we can pay for

it. And providing health care the way it is is not really health care

as much as it is just paying the bill for a system that is broken

and extremely expensive. It is not the answer. And in this election

year, like any other time, people are out there saying we are going

to take your costs off your shoulders and have the government pay

for it, have somebody else do it. We really need to have a tremendous bottom to top, top to bottom innovations in this system which

is actually going to save a lot of lives, keep people out of hospitals

and make them healthier and more accountable on every level. And

it is the very things that the three of you brought up, whether it

71

is for the elderly and how we need to look at them comprehensively

and recognizing at least on the Federal level half a million people

out there can have their health improved is helpful, as well as the

many employees that whatever the level they are in the Federal

Government to look as such things that we think are so simple by

keeping infections down in hospitals. There are a lot of things that

we are paying for and everything. Looking at the comprehensive

aspect of behavioral health is tremendous, too.

So I thank all of you for this. You may have some staff back in

touch with you to get other information for this. We will make sure

to send it to Members of Congress and help them understand that

the issue of saying you cannot always get what you want is a barrier to us, but if I can just continue off the metaphor of this sung,

if you try sometimes you might just find you get what you need.

Because we have to change the system to get people what they

need and stop this system that pays for inefficiency and ill health.

And that is what we’re going to continue to do.

Dr. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Representative Murphy. We like to

hear that.

Mr. MURPHY. Keep up the good work.

And if Members have additional questions for our witnesses, they

can submit them for the record.

I would like to again thank everybody who was here today.

And this hearing is now adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

Æ