Robert Pearl – The Health Care Blog

THCB Gang Episode 118, Thursday March 2

Mar 2, 2023

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) on #THCBGang on Thursday March 2 at 1PM PT 4PM ET are DiME CEO, & Olympic rower for 2 countries Jennifer Goldsack, (@GoldsackJen); writer Kim Bellard (@kimbbellard); benefits expert Jennifer Benz (@Jenbenz); and Suntra Modern Recovery CEO JL Neptune (@JeanLucNeptune). Today we have also a special guest –former Permanente Medical Group CEO Robbie Pearl @robertpearlmd, who is not shy with his opinions!

You can see the video below & if you’d rather listen than watch, the audio is preserved as a weekly podcast available on our iTunes & Spotify channels.

THCB Gang Episode 50, Thursday April 15

Apr 15, 2021

Well the half-century is up for #THCBGang and it’s been a lot of fun bantering with some of the cognoscenti of health tech, business & policy over most of the last year.

For #50 we had a special guest. Robert Pearl, (@RobertPearlMD) former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group, noted commentator, and author. He joined me, along with regular gang members policy expert consultant/author Rosemarie Day (@Rosemarie_Day1), policy & tech expert Vince Kuraitis (@VinceKuraitis), and Suntra Modern Recovery CEO JL Neptune (@JeanLucNeptune).

There was a little discussion of Robert’s new book Uncaring (although there’ll be more about that on THCB later) and a lot of discussion about his experience at Kaiser Permanente, what went right, what went wrong and why it never traveled nationwide–and what that all means for a new generation of medical groups. And we didn’t forget the vaccine rollout, and even whether it was safe to be on a plane!

You can see the video below live and the audio will be on our podcast channel (Apple/Spotify) from Friday — Matthew Holt

Medicare Advantage: Moving toward a Better Model for American Health Care

May 8, 2014• 6

By Robert Pearl, MD

Despite the political angst, the doomsday predictions and a very rocky launch, the Affordable Care Act has enabled more than 8 million Americans to acquire insurance coverage through the public exchanges.

Health insurance increases the probability that patients will access the medical care they need. And my colleagues at Kaiser Permanente are already seeing some positive stories emerging as a result.

They’ve shared dozens of stories with me about patients with undiagnosed medical problems who are now receiving treatment. In particular, I enjoyed hearing about two new patients in Northern California who’ve benefited from being insured.

They came in with life-threatening cancer: One, a mother with a uterine malignancy, and the other, a young man with a testicular mass. Both had gone years without medical care because they were unable to afford it. And now – thanks to medical coverage, early diagnosis and successful treatment – both will live.

But expanding access to health insurance is only the first step. Improving health care delivery is the next step in this journey.With all the acrimony in our nation’s capital, bipartisan agreements are few and far between.

Medicare Advantage may be the one platform on which both parties can stand. Examining this program and why it has proven so successful offers us insights into where we as a nation might choose to go.

Medicare Advantage: A History Born from Necessity

Since the Medicare program was created in 1965, the federal government has been insuring citizens over the age of 65.

This original form of Medicare, called traditional Medicare, was and remains a “fee-for-service” program. That means the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) – the agency that administers the Medicare program – pays individual physicians for the services they provide to Medicare beneficiaries.

Think of a service as an office visit, a test or a procedure. The price for those services is determined by the agency’s Physician Fee Schedule.

Beginning in 1978, Medicare beneficiaries had a second option. They could enroll in private Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) under a “risk contract” between CMS and the HMOs.

Too Many American Physicians Or Too Few?

Feb 7, 2014• 11

By Robert Pearl, MD

The goal of the Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare,” is to make affordable, quality health care coverage available to more Americans. But how many physicians will America need to satisfy this new demand?

The debate over doctor supply rages on with very little conclusive evidence to prove one case or the other.

Those experts who see a shortage point to America’s aging population – and their growing medical needs – as evidence of a looming dearth in doctors. Many suggest this shortage already exists, particularly in rural and inner city areas. And still others note America maintains a lower ratio of physicians compared to its European counterparts.

This combination of factors led the American Association of Medical Colleges to project a physician shortage of more than 90,000 by 2020.

On the other side of the argument are health policy experts who believe the answer isn’t in ratcheting up the nation’s physician count. It’s in eliminating unnecessary care while improving overall productivity.

The solution, they say, exists in the shift away from fee-for-service solo practices to more group practices, away from manually kept medical records to electronic medical records (EMR), and away from avoidable office visits to increased virtual visits through mobile and video technologies. Meanwhile, they note physicians could further increase productivity by using both licensed and unlicensed staff, as well as encouraging patient self-care where appropriate.

The Doctor Divide: Global And Domestic Insights

Among the 34 member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the U.S. ranks 30th in total medical graduates and 20th in practicing physicians per 1,000 people.

Despite these pedestrian totals, there is one area where the U.S. dominates. It ranks first in the proportion of specialists to generalists – and there’s not a close second.

These figures don’t resolve the debate on America’s need for physicians but they do reveal an important rift in the ratio of U.S. specialists to primary care practitioners.