THCB Spotlights: Todd Clardy, EVP Marketing at Accolade

Today on THCB Spotlights, Matthew interviews Todd Clardy who is the EVP of Marketing at Accolade. Accolade is a company well-known for being in employee/patient advocacy. They’ve created an advocacy model that focuses on creating an outstanding member experience and supporting patients through their whole journey, whether it’s an acute or chronic condition or helping people maintain their health and wellness. Where do Amazon, Google and Haven fit into this space? Find out how many people have got this and how Accolade will be expanding going forward.

The post THCB Spotlights: Todd Clardy, EVP Marketing at Accolade appeared first on The Health Care Blog.

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/34uDZ2w

Changing EMR – Seamless Continuation, Dreaded Chore or Fresh Start?

By HANS DUVEFELT, MD

At the end of the year my patients and I will start over. That is what changing EMRs does to us. I have mixed feelings about data migration, if it even happens.

I will move into a new virtual environment and my patients will take on slightly different appearances, maybe even alter their medical histories. Some will perhaps be asking me to edit diagnoses that have haunted them since we went from paper to computer records almost a decade ago.

With our first EMR, we scanned in a few things from patients’ paper records – sometimes only a few pages from years or decades of first handwritten and later typed notes. Much got lost, because we were doing something we never really had thought through, and we had to do it with a clock ticking: “Hurry, before the Federal incentives go away”. The Feds wanted EMRs because the vision was that more data would help research and population health and also reduce medical errors.

This time, another factor is pushing us forward: The EMR we have will no longer be supported after a certain date, and for an EMR that requires continuous tinkering in order to do basic tasks consistently, that is an untenable scenario. Only yesterday, I was suddenly unable to send prescriptions electronically and it took the national headquarter’s involvement to get me up and running again.

Our old EMR will become “read-only”, and who knows how much structured data will “migrate” from the old to the new system. And some information that should have been structured isn’t, because the old system’s search function was clunky enough that if we couldn’t find the exact word for a rare diagnosis in someone’s medical history, we would give up and choose the generic “neurologic disorder” and then free text the thing we might not even be spelling correctly. That still displayed intelligibly enough while the system was live, but will that migrate to the new system – who knows? Of course, there will be opportunities to correct old mistakes and omissions, as long as there is time…

The only way to view this inevitable transition is as an opportunity to undo old beginner mistakes, bad habits and workarounds. Having worked with two systems in my two clinics, I feel this is a bit like learning a new language or instrument; I know better what functionality I am looking for and will recognize it when I see it – just like a Spanish word I don’t know might look similar to a French word I do know for the same thing.

Wise from my positive experiences of screen sharing, I will bring patients along on this journey. I will be sitting next to each one with my laptop in front of us. I will invite them to update their history and increase the transparency of how I work, because there isn’t enough time in the day to keep the EMR invisible from my patient and then do all that work outside the appointment. Also, this is an era of increasing patient centeredness and I want to embrace that as much as I can.

I am determined to become as expert as possible with the new system so that I can document everything in real time in the visit and use more of my non-patient time in front of the screen to build templates and things like that.

In a way I feel a bit like many, many years ago when, as a student or budding writer, I opened a brand new notebook and put my pen to it for the first time. I loved fountain pens, crisp paper, leather bindings and the potential of all that clean, empty space.

Instead of feeling this EMR change will be a chore, I feel like a new school year or a new writing project is just about to begin.

Hans Duvefelt is a Swedish-born rural Family Physician in Maine. This post originally appeared on his blog, A Country Doctor Writes, here.

The post Changing EMR – Seamless Continuation, Dreaded Chore or Fresh Start? appeared first on The Health Care Blog.

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/2L364pL

Concrete Problems: Experts Caution on Construction of Digital Health Superhighway

By MICHAEL MILLENSON

If you’re used to health tech meetings filled with go-go entrepreneurs and the investors who love them, a conference of academic technology experts can be jarring.

Speakers repeatedly pointed to portions of the digital health superhighway that sorely need more concrete – in this case, concrete knowledge. One researcher even used the word “humility.”

The gathering was the annual symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA). AMIA’s founders were pioneers. Witness the physician featured in a Wall Street Journal story detailing his use of “advanced machines [in] helping diagnose illness” – way back in 1959.

That history should provide a sobering perspective on the distinction between inevitable and imminent (a difference at least as important to investors as intellectuals), even on hot-button topics such as new data uses involving the electronic health record (EHR). 

I’ve been one of the optimists. Earlier this year, my colleague Adrian Gropper and I wrote about pending federal regulations requiring providers to give patients access to their medical record in a format usable by mobile apps. This, we said, could “decisively disrupt medicine’s clinical and economic power structure.”

Indeed, the regulations provide “a base on which innovation can happen,” declared Elise Sweeney Anthony, executive director of the policy office of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Policy, at one session. 

But a base is only that. While Apple has already unveiled an app allowing people to see their health record on their iPhone, as yet there’s no “transformative business model” propelling hospitals to reach out to patients, said Julia Adler-Milstein, director of the Center for Clinical Informatics and Improvement Research at the University of California, San Francisco. Nor is there any indication from her research that many patients are interested.

“It’s still early days,” she added. 

Similarly, Fitbit and Google announced their intent to combine patient-generated health data with clinical information in the EHR well before Fitbit agreed to Google’s $2.1 billion takeover bid. However, researchers studying the implementation requirements for this type of integration see far more than a bit that doesn’t yet fit. 

One challenge for any app using patient-reported health data is standardizing symptom descriptions in a way patients will understand and yet still yields clinically useful results. Not to mention concerns about data validity. (See: “Want to cheat your Fitbit? Try a puppy or power drill.”)

“It’s appropriate to have humility,” said Robert S. Rudin, a senior information scientist at RAND. He added, in language virtually identical to Adler-Milstein’s, “This is still early days.”

A major symposium theme was “proactive health care,” or using patients’ health data to prevent or ameliorate illness. One focus was screening patients for the hodgepodge of food, housing and other non-medical issues known as “social determinants of health” (SDOH).  The process seems straightforward: ask patients about their circumstances, load the answers into a database and apply algorithmic analysis. Out pops guidance for addressing the social and economic factors that account for 40 percent of each individual’s health outcomes, compared to the 20 percent from clinic care.

Once again, however, important elements remain unresolved. Are the questions valid? Can one trust patients’ recall? Does the whole process even improve outcomes? One recent analysis even warned that some “efforts could worsen health and widen health inequities.” 

“I’m not sure we’ve worked out these basic issues,” said Jessica Ancker, an associate professor in Weill Cornell Medicine’s division of health informatics

Of course, academics have their biases (“Further research is needed”), just as entrepreneurs have theirs (“It’s not a bug, it’s a feature”). Not to mention humorist James Boren’s memorable advice to bureaucrats. As I’ve previously suggested, assembling a group of regulators, innovators and evidence-makers to talk candidly with each other might significantly accelerate digital health innovation.

For example, the Google and Ascension Health execs who launched the much-criticized “Project Nightingale”could have have benefited from a blunt warning about big data from Lamiece Hassan, a health data research fellow at England’s University of Manchester.

“People have expectations about what information to share and how that information flows,” she said. “Just because the data are accessible doesn’t make it ethical.”

Michael L. Millenson is president of Health Quality Advisors LLC and adjunct associate professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. This article originally appeared on Forbes here.

The post Concrete Problems: Experts Caution on Construction of Digital Health Superhighway appeared first on The Health Care Blog.

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/2qTz1Ob

Now 30M Comcast Members Can Sync their Care Plan with their TV | Carina Edwards, CEO Quil Health

By JESSICA DAMASSA, WTF HEALTH

Quil Health CEO, Carina Edwards, tells us what’s happening at the digital health startup born from the partnership between Comcast NBCUniversal and Independence Blue Cross. The new “baby” is just about a year old. How’s it fairing? And how involved are the “parents”? Carina talks about the company’s patient engagement platform that connects via phone, web, and cable TV. That means 30 million Comcast subscribers can sync their TV with their Quil app and literally ‘watch’ their care plan along with their Nightly News. Will Al Roker be making another appearance on Quil soon? This, and all the important questions about their business model and client base are answered here!

Filmed at the HIMSS Health 2.0 Conference in Santa Clara, CA in September 2019.

Jessica DaMassa is the host of the WTF Health show & stars in Health in 2 Point 00 with Matthew HoltGet a glimpse of the future of healthcare by meeting the people who are going to change it. Find more WTF Health interviews here or check out www.wtf.health.

The post Now 30M Comcast Members Can Sync their Care Plan with their TV | Carina Edwards, CEO Quil Health appeared first on The Health Care Blog.

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/2QUMr76

From Health Consumers To Health Citizens | Jane Sarasohn-Kahn, THINK Health & Health Populi Blog

By JESSICA DAMASSA, WTF HEALTH

Jane Sarasohn-Kahn, health economist, advisor and author of “HealthConsuming: From Health Consumer to Health Citizen” explains how consumers are getting screwed by the American health system because of the industry’s lack of transparency and lack of privacy laws that protect patient data. Jane weighs in on the consumerization of healthcare, which she believes has put the patient into the position of the “payer” — but without any of the information, buying power, or right to manage their money like a true consumer. How do we, as patients, move from healthcare consumers to “health citizens”? Jane’s done the research, and she’s sharing it here!

Filmed at the HIMSS Health 2.0 Conference in Santa Clara, CA in September 2019.

Jessica DaMassa is the host of the WTF Health show & stars in Health in 2 Point 00 with Matthew Holt. Get a glimpse of the future of healthcare by meeting the people who are going to change it. Find more WTF Health interviews here or check out www.wtf.health.

The post From Health Consumers To Health Citizens | Jane Sarasohn-Kahn, THINK Health & Health Populi Blog appeared first on The Health Care Blog.

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/2OkuPQr

THCB Spotlights: Jeremy Orr, CEO of Medial EarlySign

Today on THCB Spotlights, Matthew speaks with Jeremy Orr, CEO of Medial EarlySign. Medial EarlySign does complex algorithmic detection of serious diseases, working on early detection of cancer and the progression of chronic disease such as diabetes. Tune in to hear more about this AI/ML company that has been working on their algorithms since before many had even heard about machine learning, what they’ve been doing with Kaiser Permanente and Geisinger, and where they are going next.

Filmed at the HLTH Conference in Las Vegas, October 2019.

The post THCB Spotlights: Jeremy Orr, CEO of Medial EarlySign appeared first on The Health Care Blog.

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/37EYNWO

Guerilla Billing – Missing the Gorilla in the Midst

By ANISH KOKA, MD

No one likes getting bills. But there is something that stinks particularly spectacularly about bills for healthcare that arrive despite carrying health insurance. Patients pay frequently expensive monthly premiums with the expectation that their insurance company will be there for them when illness befalls them.

But the problem being experienced by an
increasing number of patients is going to a covered (in-network) facility for
medical care, and being seen by an out-of-network physician. This happens because
not all physicians working in hospitals serve the same master, and thus may not
all have agreed to the in-network rate offered by an insurance company.

This is a common occurrence in medicine.
At any given time, your local tax exempt non-profit hospital is out of network
of some low paying Medicaid plan or the other.

In this complex dance involving patients, insurers and doctors, Patients want their medical bills paid through premiums that they hope to be as low as possible, Insurers seek to pay out as little of the premium dollars collected as possible, and Doctors want to be paid a wage they feel is commensurate to their training and accumulated debt.

Insurers act as proxies for patients when
negotiating with the people that actually deliver healthcare – doctors.
Largely, the system works to funnel patients to ‘covered’ doctors and
hospitals. Patients that walk into an uncovered facility are quickly
redirected. But breakdowns happen during emergencies.

There are no choices to make for patients
arriving unconscious or in distress to an emergency room. It suddenly becomes
very possible to be seen by an out of network physician, and depending on the
fine print of the insurance plans selected some or none of these charges may be
covered.

Physicians that typically prefer banal
chants of “health is care for all” and avoid deep dives into policies
that determine physician reimbursement may want to pay attention to the debate
because it provides a clear picture of the forces currently trying to shape the
conversation about how to value physicians. The news is not good.

Practically speaking, no physician wants the hassle of being out of network. Ethically, few physicians have the stomach for bankrupting patients, and attempting to collect from the uninsured isn’t a desirable brand to cultivate. For those patients left with a balance, its actually illegal on the part of physicians to not attempt to collect. On the inevitable non-receipt of the balance, steep discounts or a write-off follows. So despite the heated rhetoric surrounding physicians ‘fleecing’ patients, the amount of real dollars collected from patients is never mentioned. While this number is hard to ascertain, a good proxy may be medical bankruptcies, which is a relatively rare event. So the amount of smoke that has been generated from, what in absolute terms, is a small fire has little do with patients and everything to do with how we figure out what to pay physicians.

The traditional leverage physicians have employed against insurers is the ability to not accept rates offered by payers. This isn’t unusual – its fundamental to every negotiation between two parties where the laborer isn’t conscripted. A mango seller has a price below which he won’t sell mangos. The negotiation would go much differently if the mango seller was compelled to sell his mangos at some price. The problem for insurers is that the pressure from patients to have in-network doctors is intense. Patients pay steep monthly premiums so they won’t get large, potentially bankrupting health care bills when they need medical care. And so the ability of physicians to not accept a proffered rate is fundamental to the negotiation between insurer and physician. The threat of a doctor being out of network raises the in-network rates. The threat of not getting a mango belie a certain price raises the price of the mango. Not complicated.

Further more, physicians that deliver services during emergencies – anesthesiologists, ER physicians, orthopedic trauma, neurosurgery – have greater leverage than physicians who don’t deliver emergency care. Insurers are far more effective at negotiating with primary care physicians because a primary care physician who chooses not to accept the contract of a certain insurer effectively shuts themselves out of that network. Insurers have no such luck directing patients in times of emergencies. The demand for services in this context is ‘inelastic’, giving physicians significant latitude in negotiating contracts with insurers. This is a giant thorn in the side of insurance companies that complain high medical premiums are a direct result of the high prices they must pay for these services.

‘High’, of course, is a relative term. They think of the rates they pay relative to the rates Medicare pays. Medicare enjoys one of a kind leverage because it is a legislatively created behemoth consolidating the buying power of the entire over 65 population under a government administered and enforced program. That leverage means Medicare rates are significantly lower than private rates, and specialties with greater inelastic demand are able to extract significant multiples of Medicare rates.

Insurance companies would like nothing
more than legislative help that would limit the amount they have to pay
physicians. Their ally in this fight is the simple fact that health care isn’t
quite like selling mangoes. In the healthcare marketplace, vulnerable patients
arrive in emergency departments in extremis with little ability to make choices,
and so many argue this is the very place the government needs to protect
hapless citizens.

The solutions that comes from health
policy/economists is also endorsed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions committee (HELP). This bipartisan group supports federally benchmarked
caps on rates that can be charged that are pegged to the median (50%)
in-network rate for an area. So if a patient happens to be seen by a physician
that is out of network, the insurer would pay the median in-network rate in the
area. But in this plan, there would be no incentive going forward for insurers
who contract at higher than the median in-network rates to stay in-network.
What would be the point? Just drop the contract, since the out of network rate
gets you 50% of the area in-network rates. This creates a race to the bottom
that effects reimbursement rates for all patients.

Figure courtesy of @amychomd

Physicians in practice and in congress
favor a different approach to get patients out of the line of fire: Independent
Dispute Resolution (IDR). The IDR, implemented in New York City in 2015, seeks
to take patients out of the middle by sending disputes between providers and
insurance to binding arbitration. Generally, the effect is that providers and
insurers settle disputes between themselves before a third party gets involved.
The desire to avoid potential third party arbitration also has the effect of
increasing in-network rates. This isn’t theory. The New York legislation
increased in-network provider participation, saved patients money, and lowered
in-network physician rates.

Interestingly, the health policy
community has taken the tack of rejecting the physician endorsed solution, and
accusing supporters in the provider community as greedy shills interested in
profits over patients. A frequently raised point is the fact that some Private
Equity firms own ER groups and are lobbying for IDR and against median
benchmarking. Apparently, any policy that would result in Private Equity
profiting is a bridge too far for the policy community. It goes unmentioned
that in the battle between insurers and doctors, the health policy community
places itself squarely on the side of health insurance company profits.

There is also remarkably little
appreciation for the second order effects of decreasing reimbursement to
physicians expected to be ready for emergencies. The vessel that bursts in your
brain requires a team acting quickly to recognize and treat this emergency.
Will neurosurgeons, anesthesiologists , and emergency medicine physicians of
quality be available at 2 am? Neurosurgeons are likely to choose to avoid being
on call, and recommend transferring patients to facilities with the scale and
infrastructure to keep Neurosurgeons on call for emergencies. Transfers to quaternary
care facilities take time. Time is brain. The amount of brain damage is the
difference between slight weakness of that right hand grip while drinking a
glass of wine at home or a dense paralysis of the entire right half of your
body that translates to a nursing home and a feeding tube.  The potential downsides of policy that
reduces reimbursement to a highly specialized group and thus could reduce
access are not small, but seem to be underappreciated by policy ‘experts’
bending the ear of members of Congress.

Policy experts are experts not because
they have any experience trying to manage and run a physician practice, but
because they are lords of the empiricism found in the peer reviewed literature
of the day.  For some reason this puts
them on a level playing field with the people who run practices and have to
meet payroll every 2 weeks. Its certainly possible the process of running a
business is entirely too narrow a field of view, but its unclear that the
policy experts field of view is more enlightening.

Zach Cooper at Yale has done a lot of work in this space, and one of his paper’s that is cited often is derived from claims data provided by a large private insurer. The general hypothesis of the study is that large profit hungry private firms that own ER practices flung across the nation engage in predatory activity once they acquire a local ER group. This ultimately raises costs to the patient, and thus damages societal welfare as a whole. Using the company websites of the private firms, the researchers were able to divine that the two companies (TeamHealth and EMcare) were involved in a whopping 9% of their national sample. In order to understand how the entry of these firms may impact medical charges and reimbursement, the investigators found a total of 26 hospitals the firms initiated contracts with in the time frame studied.

The authors divine many thing from the
raw data. To support the claim that arrival of the private groups may have
increased out of network rates to fleece patients and improve their leverage
for in-network rates the authors examine the data and conclude: “In Panel
A of Figure 3, the raw data show a clear increase in out-of-network billing
rates at hospitals immediately after EmCare entered.”  The strange thing, however, is that the raw
data of the 16 hospitals there was data on that looked at OON rates after EM
health enters a market, shows a clear temporal association of rates rising
after EM health arrived in only 2 cases. In 4 hospitals, OON rates started to
rise before EM health entered, and in the remaining cases, OON rates were
either unchanged, or were seen to decrease.

The authors proceed to firmer footing
when they discuss the charges billed, because the insurer they are working with
has been nice enough to provide this information for every patient they
received a charge for. They find that the entry of EMcare increases charges by
$556.84 (96%). They note that some of this increase occurred because the
intensity of coding that reflects how sick the patient is increased significantly
soon after EMcare enters. The implication, of course, is made that this
upcoding is improper, yet no support is provided for that assertion. It is just
as plausible that  physicians were
undercoding the severity of patients prior to EMcare entering the market – this
narrative defying possibility goes unmentioned.

The absolute amounts being discussed also
bears attention.  The OON payments that
were paid by insurers after EMcare entered the market increased by $402.67.
Patient cost sharing payments increased by $45. Now it is possible that
patients may have balances beyond these paid charges, but even this amount
comes to $195.  These averages paid here exclude ~ 217,000 claims where insurers
paid nothing because of a claim denial. 
These numbers aren’t zero, but for emergency medical care, these numbers
($195+ $45) are still far south of the average apple watch.

The most vulnerable patients of course,
don’t have health insurance, and aren’t buying apple watches.  For this group, the total potential liability
could range from $578 to $1135.   It
isn’t known what is actually collected from this group of patients as the
administrative costs of trying to collect in this population are not small, and
there is most certainly a reputational cost to bear in the community for
generating these bills.

The underlying assumption that runs
through the paper is that the price being paid for these services is too high
because patients are unable to shop for care in an emergency.   But this ignores the fact that in our
current system, its the insurance company that acts as an agent for the
patient.  They are well aware when they
sign patients up for a health care plan that an out-of-network may happen.  So while much of the focus in this debate is
on the bill generating providers, one wonders how it came to be that that
insurance plans are allowed to sell plans to patients that don’t offer any out
of network coverage.  Should a facility
be considered in-network if physicians that work at the facility are out of
network? Shouldn’t patients be informed of this by their insurance company? The
insurance company is fully aware of the consequences – so why is the bill that
passes through to patients a surprise? The only party with foreknowledge of
what may happen is the insurance company. 
They have every ability to shop on the marketplace, and it is their
failure to secure a contract and then communicate this to their customers that
results in ‘surprise’ bills.

In order to buttress the idea of ‘high’
cost, the paper attempts to use reference Medicare payments.  Its noted that Internists are paid 158% of
Medicare rates, orthopedists 266% of Medicare rates while the rates paid to the
2 ER firms in the paper are 364% and 536% of Medicare rates.  It only serves passing mention that the
average amounts paid exclude 217,000 claims where nothing was paid because the claim was denied.  There is also no mention made of the
difference between elective care provided by orthopedists and internists versus
the almost entirely emergent care provided by ER physicians that is delivered
without consideration of the patients ability to pay.  ER physicians are legally (because of a law
called EMTALA) and ethically bound to take care of patients who arrive in the
ER in distress.  This means they shoulder
a far heavier responsibility for uninsured care than almost any other
specialty.  Most physicians who deliver
care in the outpatient setting require a payment arrangement be made prior to
seeing a patient.  The ER physician has
no such recourse.  Not mentioning this
when discussing rates paid to ER physicians, and other physicians delivering
care in emergencies is a feat of obfuscation and deception.

The researchers and other commentariat
from the policy community also seem to fail at understanding the motivations of
doctors in the current system. I can think of no physicians that want patients
getting these bills.  In the current
third party payer system, opacity is the physicians friend.  Given the reputational cost, and the
administrative cost of trying to collect these bills, physicians more so than
policy wonks are highly motivated for a solution that takes patients out of the
mix and generally endorse the previously mentioned third party arbitration
system.

This is reluctantly analyzed by Cooper
et. al., as well.  Implemented in New
York in 2014, the study finds that the OON rate went from 20% in 2013 to 6% in
2015.  Unimpressed, the authors dismiss
the solution as being “administratively complex and potentially
costly” because it requires patients to know about, and fill out a one
page form if they were to receive a bill. 
This ‘analysis’ misses the fundamental point that IDR results in a huge
drop in the chance these bills are being sent to patients, or that most
disputes are resolved without even involving the IDR.

One is struck by the hubris of the
inevitable conclusions the researchers arrive at based on data provided from
one insurer and an analysis of 2 firms. As noted previously, the raw data
consists of a small handful of hospitals from this already small sample, and
doesn’t even tightly demonstrate the relationship of price to firm entry. Even
if we assume prices rise, the conclusion that consolidation raises prices.
Water, I’m told, is also wet. No data is provided on changes to the local
marketplaces in this small sample during the time studied. Profit seeking is
certainly one plausible explanation, but its also just as possible that a
greater proportion of underinsured or poorly insured patients arriving in the
ER during the same time was responsible for raised rates. Apparently the policy
memory is amnestic to The Dartmouth institute that changed the landscape of
healthcare policy with its reports of regional variation Medicare spending. The
small problem was that this dataset didn’t take into account private insurance
spending. Subsequent publication of data from the economists the insurance
industry uses (Cooper et. al) invalidated the Dartmouth data. Context matters.

So this battle has little to do with
patients.  The rejection of the IDR in
favor of an untested proposal physicians don’t endorse is part of an
ideological battle waged by a group of folks that have decided health care is
too expensive (it is) and that physicians need to be devalued to create a
better system.  Data to support this
ideology conveniently comes from those with an outsize interest in paying less
for physician labor: the insurance industry that pays for healthcare in our
current system.  Given that the only data
the insurance companies really have is the amount that they pay for services
rendered, it should perhaps come as little surprise the conclusions draw from
this data is as weak as it. Importantly, this data has little bearing on what
the right price for these services are, what the best mechanism to get the
right price is, or what the downsides of untried, untested policies are.

There is a real argument worth having
about health care prices and how they can be lowered. A number of regulatory
straitjackets harm competition and creates a landscape of large players that
have kept prices high. Sitting inside the guts of the healthcare system, it is
easy to see rent seekers in every health care sector that proliferate.
Physicians aren’t entirely blameless, and a better more efficient may very well
see many physicians making less, but it would be wise to act more like the
skilled surgeon rather than the butcher to avoid killing the patient.

Anish Koka is a cardiologist in practice in Philadelphia. This article originally appeared on his blog here.

The post Guerilla Billing – Missing the Gorilla in the Midst appeared first on The Health Care Blog.

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/2OJNDrq