New Proposal for End of Life Care in Medicare

The Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee is recommending to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) creation of a palliative (comfort) care model for Medicare recipients who are in advanced states of illness, but not yet ready for Hospice care. These patients reportedly comprise 4% of Medicare beneficiaries, yet account for 25% of annual Medicare expenditures. The purported goal of this proposal is to better allocate our health care dollars as well as improve care for the acutely ill.

In this column I have stressed that more medical care does not necessarily equal better care in the US. We are blessed to have access to some of the most sophisticated medical-technological interventions available. They can be life-saving. They can also be life-extending, but result in painful, low quality life for patients.

What is unique about this proposal is that it includes financial incentives to providers who participate in the process. Under two proposed models, doctors, nurses, and spiritual providers would work to develop and implement a care programs for those in advanced states of disease. "You have to provide sufficient payment to deliver high quality interdisciplinary care," according to Dr. Phil Rodgers, who helped developed the model.

There are some who argue that practicing good medicine should be incentive enough and additional payments should not be necessary.

Since we are already spending nearly 18% of our GDP on health care, it can be argued that we definitely do not need to spend more. However, health care in our society is monetized in a capitalistic “for profit” approach. Therefore, to encourage certain behavior, the providers need a financial incentive. If the result is a net savings as well as improved care, then the system is satisfied.

A 2016 piece written by Dr. Bruce Bartlow of Shasta Critical Care Consultants titled “Ethics of ICU Care for the Elderly” addresses this topic in great detail. The article examines the ethical aspects of how we care for our acutely ill patients.

His premise is consistent with the proposed rules in that it argues that we must be attentive to what results in the best quality of life for the patient. He examines the ethical dilemas that face the children of the elderly as they change roles into the role of caretaking an elderly parent. He shares his experience of the ways in which an individual will change their directions to the physican when the cost comes from their own pocket rather than Medicare or other insurance..

He explains that many people create an Advanced Directive believing that solves the problem of informing their families and physicians of their intentions for end of life care: “ Many AD’s spell out what appears to be a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate order) as follows: “I do not wish life sustaining measures if (a) the burden outweighs the likely benefit, (b) I have irreversible coma, or (c) it will only delay my death.”

When patients sign this, very few of them or their surrogates realize that: (a) They have no idea what burdens (risk, suffering) are headed their way, nor have they begun to consider what amount of damage would be acceptable for what outcome (benefit, quality of life); (b) irreversible coma usually takes weeks to months to predict, and (c) every breath we take delays our death. At precisely what point do we conclude those breaths are no longer in our best interest?”

Health care providers are uniquely positioned to assist families at this critical time if they are well informed. In fact in his own practice Dr. Bartlow proceeds in this manner. “I begin end of life (EOL) discussions, “I’m not asking you to decide if your mother/father lives or dies. Their illness will decide. I’m asking you to tell me what they would be saying if they could: how much they would want me to put them through to attain what quality of life, and what scene they would want at the end. Then I can tell you what I can achieve. If the best I can do is a death they would have hoped for, I’ll tell you how we can get there.” After they get over the shock that it’s not their, but their parent’s choice, almost uniformly they appreciate having the burden lifted.”

It is intriguing to me that that we are not hearing any reporting labeling these proposals as “death panels” like we did during the implementation of the ACA (Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare). The ACA simply included provisions that would pay a primary care provider for having “end of life issues” discussion with a patient as a standard office visit. It will be interesting to see how this action is characterized as the discussion proceeds.

Margaret R. Beck
Margaret Beck  CLU, ChFC, CEBS started her insurance practice in Redding in 1978. As an insurance broker/consultant,  she represents businesses and individuals as their advocate.  She assists in choosing proper products, compliance with complex benefit laws and claims issues once coverage is placed. All information in her column is provided to the best of her knowledge, subject to final regulation by the respective agencies. Questions to be answered in this column can be submitted to [email protected]. Beck's column is also published in the Redding Record Searchlight.
Comment Policy: We welcome your comments, with some caveats: Please keep your comments positive and civilized. If your comment is critical, please make it constructive. If your comment is rude, we will delete it. If you are constantly negative or a general pest, troll, or hater, we will ban you from the site forever. The definition of terms is left solely up to us. Comments are disabled on articles older than 90 days. Thank you. Carry on.

3 Responses

  1. cheyenne says:

    I have read about Right To Try, RTT, laws that are already available in, I believe, 38 states. These RTT laws allow patients to petition the FDA for use of drugs or treatments that are in the experimental stage. The catch is that the FDA has to be studying them already of which there are some drugs that are not included in FDA studies so are not eligible, marijuana for one. I also read where Congress is considering a Federal RTT law that would eliminate the FDA requirement and allow patients to try all experimental drugs. Have you any info on this?

  2. Beverly Stafford says:

    I think I LOVE Dr. Bartlow. How logical. How human. How humane. I was at the imaging center, and the woman checking me in was obviously distressed. I asked what was wrong, and she said she had just had a call from her mother’s physician who wanted to schedule a mammogram for the mother. The mother was 90+ years old, in a hospital, and dying, but the goofy doctor wanted a mammogram. Seemed like a for-profit scheme for that doctor’s pocketbook.

  3. Joanne Lobeski Snyder says:

    Thank you for this thought provoking article. Medical professionals in hospitals deal with death daily and are more familiar with quality of life issues falling major illness. A friend of mine was totally unprepared for the decisions that she was being forced to make about her mom who had suffered a stroke and was in a local hospital. Fortunately she was able to express her frustration and confusion so clearly that an experienced physician met with her and took the time to assess all of issues and considerations of her mothers situation.
    Your quote from Dr. Bartlow was brilliant. Medical science can keep a body alive for a very long time, but is the right thing to do. He suggests a way to frame the important questions about end of life decisions that make total sense.

You must be a subscriber to comment. Click here to subscribe!