Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Phil B.FontanarosaMD, Deputy EditorIndividualAuthorStephen J.LurieMD, PhD, Fishbein FellowIndividualAuthor
In Reply: I agree with Mr Jost that Medicare
uses fraud and abuse enforcement to achieve what private insurers accomplish
through active cost management. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages.
Jost applauds the government's antifraud efforts, while I worry that the political
seductiveness of blaming fraud for Medicare's failings distracts us from more
fundamental reforms. I am also not as confident about HCFA's success. Historically,
Medicare costs seesaw with those of employer-based coverage, with cross-subsidies
usually running from private sector to public sector but sometimes reversing
(as when Medicare was overpaying health maintenance organizations who enrolled
healthier-than-average beneficiaries). One can attribute the bulk of Medicare's
current comparative advantage neither to the Balanced Budget Act's1 overcorrection of previously generous reimbursement
nor to aggressive fraud enforcement but to the fortuitous and lamentable fact
that Medicare does not cover outpatient prescription drugs, which have overtaken
hospitalization as the largest item of expense for many private insurers.
Jost also overstates my criticisms. With respect to fraud and managed
care, I agree that fee-for-service reimbursement continues to dominate Medicare,
and that Congress and HCFA have made serious attempts to accommodate the different
concerns that arise in prepaid arrangements. As happened with antitrust enforcement,
however, it will take time for prosecutors to learn the nuances of new forms
of health care financing and delivery. Moreover, an unaddressed problem is
that, for the foreseeable future, we will live with a mixed system in which
physicians treat patients under both sets of incentives and therefore receive
conflicting signals. With respect to oversight of institutional providers,
my point is that the ways in which the Office of Inspector General and Department
of Justice deal with large corporations and with individual physicians are
different, but those differences need to be made explicit.
I am sympathetic to Dr Hieb's predicament, which highlights the administrative
burdens borne by individual practitioners and captures the angst of physicians
facing accountability without control. Hieb's comparison between physicians
and officers on nuclear submarines is particularly apt. Maintaining safety
in "high-reliability" industries depends on reporting and responding to errors
and near-errors in an expert, supportive, and systematic fashion. Power imbalances,
administrative overload, and punitive sanctions—all features of Medicare
fraud enforcement—are antithetical to this process.
Sage WM. Fairness in Fraud and Abuse Enforcement—Reply. JAMA. 2000;283(10):1289–1290. doi:10.1001/jama.283.10.1287
Create a personal account or sign in to: