The December 17 issue of Business Week had a provocative headline—The Coming U.S. Doctor Shortage: Health-care reform will mean 30 million more patients—and bigger crowds in waiting rooms. I thought the positioning of this piece played into the 'fear of health care reform' camp that looks at the nation's health as a zero sum game. If you give minimal coverage to all, the rest of us with insurance will suffer. But the piece did raise some interesting points:

• In 1997, lawmakers placed a cap on the number of medical residencies in order to contain costs under Medicare, which pays for most of these training slots.Medicare pays $100,000 a year per residency, at a total cost to the program of about $9 billion. The funding began in 1965 when the U.S. was preparing to extend government health coverage to 19 million elderly Americans. As the Medicare rolls grew—to 45 million by the end of 2008—a cap was placed on the number of medical residencies to control spending.
• According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, last year there were nearly 17,000 fewer primary-care doctors than needed in inner-city and rural areas. The Association of American Medical Colleges predicts that by 2025 there will be a shortage of as many as 159,300 doctors.
• An amendment to the health-care reform bill—proposed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Bill Nelson (D-FL.)—would add 15,000 residencies at a cost to Medicare of about $1.5 billion to anticipate and prepare for this shortage

What caught my attention in the article was this handy chart—showing the growing demand for services and the almost-flat supply line. I believe we can flatten the demand line for physicians and increase the supply line with just a few policy changes.

On the demand side, if we encourage individuals to take more control of their own health care, demand for physician time will decline. There are also a variety of technological substitutions for physician office visits and an array of non-physician health professionals that can fit the bill.


On the supply side, there are two major ways to enhance supply. First, use technology to increase physician productivity—less paperwork, e-health to extend reach, and more. The other way is to pay primary care physicians more. Payment policies have favored procedure-oriented specialists—and the physician’s choice of specialties reflects this.

The headline in the February 20, 2010, edition of The Los Angeles Times tells a story, "Consumers who buy individual health policies feel trapped. They have few options other than dropping coverage as insurers raise rates and slash benefits. Insurers blame the soaring cost of medical care and the churn of customers in the individual market."

No argument from me; for individual and small group health insurance policies, the rates—and rate increases—are crazy. But, the insurers' complaint about churn is spot on. Until we have universal health care coverage for 95% or more of the population, this ‘shift the risk’ game will continue. There is nothing that consumers or insurers can do about it. Solutions? Only two.


1. The government provides catastrophic health insurance for everyone, and/or


2. Employers are required to provide—and individuals are required to buy—health insurance.


Hopefully, our representatives in Washington will eventually understand these basic health care financing principles.

The burden of uncompensated care looms large for most health care organizations—especially with the press pronouncing the "death" of health care reform. For the most part, the term 'health care reform' refers to some package of legislation that has two elements—increasing the number of Americans with some form of health care coverage (particularly catastrophic coverage) and putting in provisions to reduce overall U.S. health care costs. The first is of particular interest to health care provider organizations and the second to small employers like my organization.

Now, you may be like one of my many friends who is celebrating the death of the current set of health care reform proposals. You may say that the free market alone is enough to both reduce costs and provide expanded coverage (one leading to the other)—by having individuals pay for their own health plans and health services. While I'm a fan of many free market elements in health care reform (including consumer vouchers for purchasing plans), I would caution those of you in that camp that the free market alone won't solve the coverage and cost challenges that face us (for many reasons too numerous to list here).

The rumors of the death of any health care reform proposal are going to continue to destabilize any organization in the health service delivery system that is not solely a private pay operation. The rising number of uninsured and inexplicably underinsured Americans will overwhelm the charitable capacity of the delivery system without some paradigm shift. But, I would caution my friends in the health care field to realize that we can't afford universal coverage without cost containment. It's just not a fiscal possibility.

And, as a small employer that provides health coverage to our team, I can state unequivocally that no health care bill will cause increasing stress—both financial and ethical. Over the past two years at OPEN MINDS, we have had two proposed increases in the cost of health care coverage—15% in 2008, and 40% in 2009. So, I wasn't surprised (though the press seemed shocked) at the recent decision by Anthem to raise their premiums by 30-39%.

I hope you'll join me in pushing our representatives of both parties to take action—to move toward a system of universal coverage (even if only for catastrophic coverage) and to come up with rational solutions to reducing health care costs.