• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Medicare Variation Revisited: Is Something Wrong with McAllen, Texas, or Is Something Wrong with Medicare?

    Health economists and policy analysts have long known that Medicare spends much more, per patient, in some parts of the country than in others. In fact, the primary project of a large research group at Dartmouth is devoted to analyzing the geographic patters in Medicare spending.

    Last year, Atul Gawande brought this phenomenon greater public attention with an article in The New Yorker on medical care in the areas of McAllen and El Paso, two regions in Texas that have superficially similar demographics but vastly different levels of per-patient Medicare spending. However, several recent studies suggest that the regional variation might be the result of Medicare’s payment systems and that privately insured patients experience less variation in treatment levels, perhaps sacrificing quality of care.

    Many policy wonks tend to assume that the lower levels of spending are the correct levels, and the higher levels are due to high levels of wasteful health care. The Dartmouth group attributes the variation to differences in “practice patterns”—essentially, regional variations in physician culture that lead to more unnecessary care in the more expensive locations. Dr. Gawande, who interviewed doctors and hospital administrators in McAllen (but not in El Paso), attributed the difference to “the culture of money,” which led doctors to recommend more intensive procedures to more patients than absolutely necessary.

    Underlying both of those explanations is the assumption that physician behavior is to blame, not anything about the Medicare program. Indeed, the researchers use Medicare data not because they are interested in Medicare as such, but because Medicare datasets are easily available, and they might be reasonable if there are no systematic differences between how physician treat Medicare patients and how they treat other patients.

    But is that assumption valid? Can we really assume that Medicare data is a valid sample for analyzing treatment of all patients? Or is this just a case of “looking where the light is better”? Might the pattern look different for non-Medicare patients? If so, the problem might not be doctors in certain areas but in the Medicare program itself and the way it adjusts payments for different areas.

    An article published this week in the journal Health Affairs by Luisa Franzini, Osama I. Mikhail, and Jonathan S. Skinner suggests that the difference between McAllen and El Paso investigated by Dr. Gawande might really be a feature of Medicare, not of local physician culture. They obtained data on treatment of patients in both locations covered by Medicare and also data on patients in both locations covered by a private, non-profit insurance company—Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas.

    What they found calls into question the assumptions that health policy wonks have been making for years: While Medicare indeed spends almost twice as much more per patient in McAllen than in El Paso, Blue Cross spends about the same in both places. In fact, Blue Cross’s per-patient spending was actually slightly lower in McAllen. These findings persisted for overall spending, as well as for spending on specific types of services and several specific diseases.

    This confirms results found by other researchers looking at the same question on a nationwide basis. Andrew Rettenmaier and Thomas Saving (a former Medicare trustee) found that state-by-state variation in per-patient Medicare spending was not strongly correlated with total per-capita health care spending. In addition, Rong Yi found that regional variation in spending on privately insured patients was closely correlated with measures of disease burden. And Tomas Philipson and colleagues found that geographic variation in health care utilization is substantially larger for patients in government programs compared to those insured in the private sector.

    Why the difference? Philipson and colleagues point out that economic theory suggests that private insurers are less able to control prices but have stronger incentives to restrain utilization while keeping patients (their customers) satisfied. Franzini and colleagues point out that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas, like most large private insurers, implements disease management programs for patients with chronic disease—programs that both improve patient health and reduce hospital visits, emergencies, and other sources of excess cost. Medicare does not provide, or reimburse for, disease management services; these services are available to Medicare patients only if they enroll in private-sector Medicare Advantage plans that provide them.

    Furthermore, private insurers have substantial incentives to root out fraudulent bills. Fraudulent billing, if undetected, not only hits their bottom line but would force them to raise premiums and lose business to competitors that can better prevent fraud. Medicare, on the other hand, has little incentive to prevent fraud and devotes only a small amount of resources to that end. Indeed, the areas with the highest per-patient spending figures are often those with the highest levels of known fraud.

    It appears from the evidence that the large variation in Medicare is not indicative of something deeply wrong with the way health care is delivered throughout the system even outside of Medicare but rather an indication that something is deeply wrong with Medicare. Not the doctors and not the patients—but with Medicare’s payment system, service mix, and incentives.

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Medicare Variation Revisited: Is Something Wrong with McAllen, Texas, or Is Something Wrong with Medicare?

    1. Barbara Jo, Ph. D., says:

      Mr. Book you are so right – - many things are wrong with Medicare!

      Firstly, by age 19 I began paying for Medical Insurance and continued to do so only to find that at age 65 Medicare was mandated by the Government. Now we are looked upon as seeking entitlements and I never intended for the Government to be responsible for my Medical Care. When I brought this to the attention of my Republican Congressman at a Town Hall Meeting, he replied that if I didn’t like it, I could pay for it privately.

      Medicare does make payments differently. Given that there were no available services in California to meet my necessary treatment, I recently went to Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN where the services were superior and the Physicians were Professors. As I just completed my billing, the charges in CA are by and large two to three times that of those of Mayo Clinic so the Medicare Approved is usually greater in CA where the services & medical equipment don’t compare to those at Mayo Clinic.

      Given that you have a number of articles addressing problems of Medicare, I need to bring to the attention of someone who can address the issue of the Claim Processing for Medicare. A Major Problem is that now with all the “CHANGE”, the Medicare Website is in constant flux given the entire re-programming (unnecessary) and it is becoming Dysfunctional. I contacted them about the problems and they replied by email with directions to Telephone and that can take 20 to 45 minutes. (So then, why re-program the Website?) Furthermore, one wonders how they can even keep track of costs for budgeting. The current Medicare processing is causing inordinate waste. I have a pending email question to Medicare asking why they can’t simply put the claim information on the Website and no reply to date. My secondary Medical Insurances are no problem – perhaps Medicare Processing would be better privatized.

      If you have any interest in the details of this matter, please contact me.

    2. Pingback: Tweets that mention The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. -- Topsy.com

    3. Jeff Kreisberg Dalla says:

      Medicare may be the patsy, but the greedy physicians are the ones driving up costs by gaming the system. The valley docs have the reputation of being amongst the greediest. Medicare must do a better job policing its payments, and the rest of us in medical education must do a better job rooting out the applicants who are going into medicine for the wrong reasons.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×