As hospitals are forced to innovate, anatomic pathologists and medical laboratories will need to adapt to new healthcare delivery locations and billing systems
As new challenges threaten the survival of many hospitals worldwide, medical laboratories may be compelled to adapt to the needs of those transforming organizations. Those challenges confronting hospitals are spelled out in a recent report from management consulting firm McKinsey and Company with the provocative title, “The Hospital Is Dead, Long Live the Hospital!”
A team of analysts led by McKinsey senior partner Penny
Dash, MB BS, MSc, looked at nine trends affecting hospitals in North America,
Europe, Asia, and other regions. These trends, the authors contend, will force
hospitals to adopt innovations in how they are structured and how they deliver
healthcare.
Here are nine challenges hospitals face that have
implications for medical laboratories:
1. Aging Patient Populations
“Patient populations are getting older, and their needs are becoming more complex,” McKinsey reports, and this is imposing higher cost burdens. The US Census Bureau projects that by 2030 approximately 20% of the US population will be 65 or older compared with about 15% in 2016.
The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reports that this age group accounts for a disproportionate share of healthcare costs. In 2014, CMS states, per-capita healthcare spending was $19,098 for people 65 or older compared with $7,153 for younger adults.
The Census Bureau graphic above illustrates how the age of the US population is changing. People are living longer, and as Dark Daily reported in May, this could present opportunities for medical laboratories and anatomic pathologists, as early detection of chronic diseases affecting older patients could ultimately reduce treatment costs. (Photo copyright: US Census Bureau.)
2. Patients Are Behaving More Like Consumers
“Patients—along with their families and caregivers—expect to
receive more information about their conditions and care, access to the newest
treatments, and better amenities,” McKinsey reports.
Clinical advances are increasing the range of treatments that can be performed in outpatient settings, McKinsey reports. The authors point to multiple studies suggesting that patients can receive better outcomes when more care is delivered outside the hospital. Dark Daily has often reported on the impact of this trend, which has reduced demand for in-hospital laboratory testing while increasing opportunities for outpatient services.
4. Move Toward High-Volume Specialist Providers
Compared with general hospitals, specialized, high-volume “centers
of excellence” can deliver better and more cost-effective care in many
specialties, McKinsey suggests. As evidence, the report points to research
published over the past 12 years in specialist journals.
Some US employers are steering patients to top-ranked providers as part of their efforts to reduce healthcare costs. For example, Walmart (NYSE:WMT) pays travel costs for patients to undergo evaluation and treatment at out-of-state hospitals recognized as centers of excellence, which Dark Daily reported on in July.
UnitedHealthcare’s new preferred lab network also appears to be a nod toward this trend. As The Dark Report revealed in April, the insurer has designated seven laboratories to be part of this network. These labs will offer shorter wait times, lower costs, and higher quality of care compared with UnitedHealthcare’s larger network of legacy labs, the insurer says.
5. Impact of Clinical Advances
Better treatments and greater understanding of disease
causes have led to significantly lower mortality rates for many conditions,
McKinsey reports. But the authors add that high costs for new therapies are
forcing payers to contend with questions about whether to fund them.
As Dark Daily has often reported, new genetic therapies often require companion tests to determine whether patients can benefit from the treatments. And these also face scrutiny from payers. For example, in January 2018, Dark Daily reported that some insurers have refused to cover tests associated with larotrectinib (LOXO-101), a new cancer treatment.
6. Impact of Disruptive Digital Technologies
The McKinsey report identifies five ways in which digital
technologies are having an impact on hospitals:
Automation of manual tasks;
More patient interaction with providers;
Real-time management of resources, such as use of hospital beds;
Real-time clinical decision support to enable more consistency and timeliness of care; and
Use of telemedicine applications to enable care for patients in remote locations.
All have potential consequences for medical laboratories, as Dark Daily has reported. For example, telepathology offers opportunities for pathologists to provide remote interpretation of blood tests from a distance.
7. Workforce Challenges
Many countries are contending with shortages of physicians,
nurses, and allied health professionals, McKinsey reports. The authors add that
the situation is likely to get worse in the coming decades because much of the current
healthcare workforce consists of baby boomers.
An investigation published in JAMA in May indicated that, in the US, the number of active pathologists decreased from 15,568 to 12,839 between 2007 and 2017. In January, Dark Daily reported that clinical laboratories are also dealing with a generational shift involving medical technologists and lab managers, as experienced baby boomers who work in clinical laboratories are retiring.
8. Financial Challenges
In the United States and other countries, growth in
healthcare spending will outpace the gross domestic product, the McKinsey
report states, placing pressure on hospitals to operate more efficiently.
9. More Reliance on Quality Metrics
McKinsey cites regulations in Canada, Scandinavia, and the UK that require hospitals to publish quality measurements such as mortality, readmittance, and infection rates. These metrics are sometimes linked to pay-for-performance programs, the report states. In the United States, Medicare regularly uses quality-of-care metrics to determine reimbursement, and as Dark Daily reported in July, a new Humana program for oncology care includes measurements for medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups.
The McKinsey report reveals that several trends in
healthcare are forcing healthcare leaders to adopt new strategies for success.
The report’s authors state that their “results show that contemporary
healthcare providers around the world are facing several urgent imperatives: to
strengthen clinical quality; increase the delivery of personalized,
patient-centered care; improve the patient experience; and enhance their
efficiency and productivity.”
These pressures on hospitals typically also require
appropriate responses from clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups
as well.
Clinical laboratory test claims make up a substantial proportion of all claims filed each year. Thus, any effort to streamline or reform claims adjudication and administration in the US will alter how labs and pathologists conduct business
Clinical laboratory managers and anatomic pathologists know how costly and complex the US healthcare system can be. However, expenses associated with care and treatment are only part of the total picture. Resources devoted to paperwork and administrative costs apparently increase overall expenditures associated with healthcare to a much higher degree than is generally known.
That’s according to several studies The New York Times reported on in July.
US Administrative Costs Higher than All Other Nations
One study conducted by The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 2003 estimated administrative costs account for approximately 30% of all healthcare expenditures in the US. The researchers examined data from 1999 to reach those conclusions. In today’s economy, those numbers are higher. On average, $5,700 of every $19,000 that US workers and their employers pay for family coverage each year goes towards administrative costs.
A 2014 study published by Health Affairs compared administrative costs for US hospital expenditures to those of seven other countries: Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Scotland, and Wales. This study evaluated data from 2010/2011 and found that hospital administrative costs in the US far exceed rates in other nations. According to the study, administrative costs accounted for:
25.3% of total hospital expenditures in the US;
19.8% in the Netherlands;
15.5% in England; and,
12% in Canada and Scotland.
According to the Health Affairs study, more than $150 billion could have been saved in 2011 by reducing per capita spending for administrative costs to the levels observed in Canada and Scotland.
“The extraordinary costs we see are not because of administrative slack or because healthcare leaders don’t try to economize,” Kevin Schulman, MD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Duke University, and co-author of the Health Affairs study told The New York Times. “The high administrative costs are functions of the system’s complexity.” (Photo copyright: Duke University.)
Complexity of Payer System Partly to Blame
One reason for the costliness in the US healthcare system is the myriad of payers that healthcare organizations have to grapple with to receive payment. Private health insurers and public health programs like Medicare and Medicaid, each have their own procedures, regulations, and forms that need to be submitted to receive payments. This translates to more employee time devoted to billing.
Another factor driving costs is the staff time devoted to the collection of debts. A 2017 Health Affairs study examined medical claims data from 88,000 healthcare providers contracted with Athenahealth to determine the percentage of bills paid within one year from the initial service.
The study found that 93.8% of patient bills under $35 were paid within a year. However, that percentage decreased as the patient obligation increased:
90.5% of patients paid bills between $35 and $75 within one year;
83.7% paid bills between $75 and $200 in the same time period; however,
When bills increase to $200 or more, just 66.7% were paid within a year’s time.
Providers wrote off approximately 16% as abandoned or bad debts, with an additional 17% going to collection agencies.
Another study, published in Health Affairs in 2009, surveyed 895 physicians about the time they spent dealing with administrative tasks. On average, physicians reported spending 43 minutes per workday interacting with health plans. This number is the equivalent of three hours/week and almost three weeks/year. Those numbers have reportedly increased since then.
EHRs Do Not Reduce Administrative Costs, Contrary to Belief
Efforts have been made to reduce administrative costs in the US healthcare industry. One such measure involved increased use of certified electronic health record (EHR) systems, which the federal government spent billions of dollars promoting and incentivizing providers to adopt on the claim that EHRs would reduce healthcare costs, in part by removing most of the paperwork.
However, a 2018 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported the adoption of EHRs did not reduce administration costs. Researchers at Duke University and Harvard Business School utilized a cutting-edge accounting method to determine the administrative costs within a large academic healthcare system that was using a certified EHR.
Their study determined the administrative costs for processing a single medical bill ranged from $20 for a doctor visit to $215 for an inpatient surgical procedure. These costs accounted for 3%-25% of total professional revenue for the provided services.
“We need to understand better how complexity is driving these enormous costs within the system, costs that do not add value to patients, employers, or providers,” noted Barak Richman, JD, PhD, Duke University School of Law and Margolis Center for Health Policy, one of the study’s authors.
Clinical Lab Test Claims a Major Portion of Administrative Costs
Nevertheless, administrative costs are a necessary part of doing business and not always as negative as perceived. An article published by Health Affairs in 1992 divided administrative costs in the healthcare industry into four categories:
Transaction-related: claims processing, billing, admissions, and tracking employee hiring/terminations;
Benefits Management: quality assurance, plan design, statistical and internal analyses, and management information systems;
Selling and Marketing: strategic planning, underwriting, and advertising; and,
Regulatory and Compliance: waste management, licensing requirements, and discharge planning.
“We hope that this work is the first step toward informing policy solutions that could reduce these non-value-added costs largely hidden within the healthcare system,” Schulman stated in a Duke University news release.
The issue of costly paperwork and administrative expenditures is significant for the clinical laboratory profession as lab test claims make up a substantial portion of all medical claims filed annually. Efforts to streamline or reform claims adjudication and administration will have an impact on the way clinical labs and anatomic pathology groups conduct business in the future.
Identifying patients who will likely develop prolonged concussion symptoms could lead to new clinical laboratory tests and personalized medicine treatments
Researchers are homing in on a new diagnostic assay for concussion that could potentially generate significant numbers of test referrals to the nation’s clinical laboratories. This innovative work is targeting how concussions are diagnosed and treated.
Each year, thousands of children receive sports-related injuries, including concussions. There are ways for anatomic pathologists and hospital medical laboratories to diagnose concussions; however, testing can be invasive and doesn’t always reveal a complete picture of the injury state.
Additionally, about one third of children with concussions develop prolonged symptoms. However, when prescribing treatment plans, physicians have been unable to predict which patients are likely to recover quickly versus those who will have a longer recovery.
Now, researchers at Penn State College of Medicine (Penn State) believe they have discovered five microRNAs in saliva that could be used to identify patients who will likely experience prolonged concussion symptoms even one month after the initial injury.
The study also found that certain materials in saliva can help diagnose the severity of concussions and could hold the key to more effective clinical laboratory tests and personalized medicine treatments.
The Penn State researchers published their study results in JAMA Pediatrics, a publication of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
Concussion Leading Sports-related Brain Injury
There are approximately 3.8 million sports and recreation-related traumatic brain injuries in the United States each year and the majority of those cases are concussions, according to The Concussion Place. Most concussions treated in emergency rooms are due to falls, motor-vehicle related injuries, being struck by an object, assaults, or playing sports.
Also known as mild traumatic brain injuries (mTBI), concussions are caused by blows or jolts to the head or body that cause the brain to move with excessive force inside the skull. The sudden impact damages brain cells and causes chemical changes within the brain that alter normal functioning. Though usually not life threatening, the damage can be serious and linger for months.
Symptoms of concussion include: headaches, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, balance problems, confusion, memory problems, sleep disturbances, and double or blurry vision. Symptoms usually occur immediately, but could take days or even weeks to appear.
Identifying Severity/Predicting Prolonged Symptoms of Traumatic Brain Injuries
After a concussion occurs, brain cells release small fragments of genetic material known as microRNAs while they attempt to repair themselves. A portion of these microRNAs appear in the injured person’s blood and saliva.
In order to determine whether these microRNAs could be used to determine the severity of a traumatic brain injury and predict whether prolonged symptoms would occur, the prospective cohort study researchers gathered saliva samples from 52 concussion patients between the ages of seven and 21:
The average age of the subjects was 14;
Twenty-two of the participants were female;
They were all athletes; and,
The majority of the samples were collected one to two weeks after the initial injury.
The researchers examined distinct microRNAs in the samples and identified some that enabled them to predict how long a patient’s concussion symptoms might last. In addition, they found one microRNA in children and young adults that accurately predicted which subjects would experience memory and problem-solving difficulties as part of their symptomatology.
The researchers also evaluated the concussion patients using the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT-3), Third Edition. Physicians use this questionnaire to assess the symptoms and severity of concussions. The researchers also asked the parents of the concussed patients for observations about their children’s symptoms.
During follow up visits, which occurred at four- and eight-week increments following the original assessment, the Penn State researchers collected additional saliva samples and re-evaluated the patients using SCAT-3.
New Biomarkers Based on MicroRNAs Instead of Protein
“There’s been a big push recently to find more objective markers that a concussion has occurred, instead of relying simply on patient surveys,” Steven Hicks, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa., one of the study researchers, told Penn State News.
“Previous research has focused on proteins, but this approach is limited because proteins have a hard time crossing the blood-brain barrier. What’s novel about this study is we looked at microRNAs instead of proteins, and we decided to look in saliva rather than blood,” he noted.
According to Steven Hicks, MD, PhD (above), who worked on the Penn State College of Medicine study, microRNAs could be more accurate than the traditional questionnaire when diagnosing and forecasting the effects of concussions. “The microRNAs were able to predict whether symptoms would last beyond four weeks with about 85% accuracy,” he told Penn State News. “In comparison, using the SCAT-3 report of symptoms alone is about 64% accurate. If you just go off the parent’s report of symptoms, it goes down to the mid-50s. In this pilot study, these molecular signatures are outperforming survey tools.” (Photo copyright: MD Magazine.)
The goal of this research was to develop a way to definitively ascertain that a concussion had occurred, predict the length and type of symptoms, and then use that data to improve and personalize care for children and young adults who have had a concussion.
“With that knowledge physicians could make more informed decisions about how long to hold a child out of sports, whether starting more aggressive medication regimens might be warranted, or whether involving a concussion specialist might be appropriate,” Hicks told MD Magazine. “Anytime we can use accurate, objective measures to guide medical care, I think that represents an opportunity to improve concussion treatment.”
Further research and clinical trials will be needed to solidify the effectiveness and accuracy of these new biomarkers. However, a rapid, non-invasive saliva test that can determine the severity of a concussion, and predicted whether prolonged symptoms will likely occur, would be widely used and could be an important assay for clinical laboratories. Particularly those associated with hospital medical laboratories and emergency rooms.
Recent studies exploring the economics behind the high price of US healthcare independently point to the price of labor, goods, services, administrative costs, and pharmaceuticals as primary reason why the US spends almost twice as much as peer countries on healthcare
It is regularly reported that the cost of healthcare in the United States is notably more expensive that in most developed nations. Overutilization of medical services in this country is often given as a reason why this is true. But the findings of a new research study suggest that the reason healthcare in the US is expensive is not due to overutilization. Rather, it is because of the much higher prices American patients pay for services, including clinical laboratory testing.
This recent study contradicts the claims of some experts who say overutilization is to blame for the high cost of healthcare in the United States. The research was conducted by researchers at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in Seattle and the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine. They attribute the overarching factor in high healthcare costs not to high utilization of services—such as clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology testing—or increased rates of illness.
Instead, the researchers found that it’s simply a matter of higher prices for healthcare delivered in this nation, compared to other healthcare systems around the globe. This is what makes America’s healthcare system so expensive. And, lacking financial incentives for stakeholders to lower prices, these researchers suggest that continued high costs could negatively impact providers’ quality of care.
High Cost of Diagnostic Services, including Medical Laboratory Testing
The IHME/UCLA researchers published their findings in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), in which they argued that increases in US healthcare cost are independent of increases in:
Disease prevalence;
US population age;
Use of healthcare services; or,
Overall population size.
Joseph L. Dieleman, PhD, Assistant Professor at IHME and lead researcher on the investigation, stated, “After adjustments for price inflation, annual healthcare spending on inpatient, ambulatory, retail pharmaceutical, nursing facility, emergency department, and dental care increased by $933.5 billion between 1996 and 2013—from $1.2 trillion to $2.1 trillion.”
Data produced by the study identified one overlying factor in increased spending—increased prices. According to Dieleman, health spending in 2015 “reached $3.2 trillion and constituted 17.8% of the US economy.”
In an editorial response to Dieleman’s investigation, also published in JAMA, Patrick H. Conway, MD, MSc (above), President and CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina in Durham, stated that “the United States is on an unsustainable growth path in terms of healthcare costs and must get costs under control.” He added that data from Dieleman’s study has important implications for quality of healthcare, which may include medical laboratory diagnostics. (Photo copyright: Duke University.)
Price Spirals and Artificial Price Hikes: No Real Incentive for Regulation
Pricing for medical care is notoriously opaque. Patients are often unaware of the cost of services until the bill arrives. This lack of transparency prevents patients from comparing prices between healthcare providers and medical laboratories.
To try and create some cost transparency for consumers, Conway noted that some states, such as Maryland and Vermont, have adopted multi-payer payment models or all-payer rate settings. However, there could be resistance to such reforms, according to some experts.
No Incentive to Lower the Prices of Medical Services
An opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, Keith Lemer, CEO, WellNet Healthcare Group, shared a similar view. He stating that insurers and preferred provider organizations (PPOs) have no “natural incentive to keep provider prices down.” Lemer looks at the Affordable Care Act and its establishment of a medical loss ratio rule, which “requires insurers covering individuals and small businesses to spend at least 80 cents of every premium dollar on medical expenses.”
Lemer uses the cost of a routine blood test as an example, stating that when providers raise costs of such tests, “insurers can charge higher premiums, while also boosting the value of their 20% share,” which goes “towards administrative costs and profits.”
Lemer argues that the deck is stacked against consumers, and that the medical loss ratio “encourages insurers to ignore providers” artificial price hikes,” while attracting customers “with the promise of steep discounts through their PPO plans.” The resulting affect is what Lemer calls a “price spiral” that’s difficult to escape.
In comparison to 10 other high-income countries the US spends “approximately twice as much,” Papanicolas noted. She added that despite the higher spending in the US, the nation “performs poorly in areas such as healthcare coverage and health outcomes.”
To illustrate the difference in average costs, Papanicolas and colleagues listed “comparison prices” on a series of healthcare services between countries in 2013. For example, the price of a single computed tomography (CT) scan varies widely:
$896 (US);
$97 (Canada);
$279 (Netherlands); and,
$500 (Australia).
The high prices of clinical laboratory (AKA, pathology laboratory in Australia) diagnostics have already caused a sharp decline in the use of important imaging utilization and are at risk of affecting other aspects of clinical pathology, such as anatomic pathology (histopathology in AU) services.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Health Research Institute’s annual medical cost report predicts 2018 medical costs will rise by 6.5% and that “price continues to be a major driver of healthcare costs” that are outpacing the economy. PwC recommends “increasing collaboration across the industry” to address the growing issue of rising medical costs and shift the burden of cost away from patients.
Clinical Laboratories Contribute to High Costs
Although US healthcare cost is a topic of intense conversation, little change may come if there is no incentive to change. Each of the recent JAMA published articles ends on the same repeated note: a plea for active debate among policy makers, healthcare providers, patients, insurers, and politicians, with the goal of decreasing healthcare costs, without sacrificing patient care.
This is also true for clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology stakeholders, which are critical aspects of the healthcare continuum, and therefore, contribute to the overall financial burden on healthcare consumers.
Some experts in medical community question value of health screenings of older patients with shortened life expectancies, though many aging adults are skeptical of calls to skip tests
What does it mean when a credible health organization makes the assertion that there is an “epidemic” of clinical laboratory testing being ordered on the nation’s elderly? Clinical laboratory leaders and anatomic pathologists know that lab tests are a critical part of screening patients.
Health screenings, particularly those for chronic diseases, such as cancer, can save lives by detecting diseases in their early stages. However, as consumers become more engaged with the quality of their care, one trend is for healthcare policymakers to point out that many medical procedures and care protocols may not bring benefit—and may, instead, bring harm.
No less an authority than Kaiser Health News (KHN) also is questioning what it calls an “epidemic” of testing in geriatric patients. Since medical laboratory tests are part of many screening programs, a rethinking of what tests are necessary in older patients would likely impact clinical laboratories and pathology groups going forward.
Treatment Overkill or Necessary Clinical Laboratory Tests?
That opinion is supported by a 2014 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Internal Medicine. The researchers concluded, “A substantial proportion of the US population with limited life expectancy received prostate, breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening that is unlikely to provide net benefit. These results raise concerns about over screening in these individuals, which not only increases healthcare expenditure but can lead to patient harm.”
Yet, seniors and their family members often request health screenings for themselves or their elderly parents, even those with dementia, if they perceive doing so will improve their quality of life, KHN noted.
Cary Gross, MD, Professor of Medicine and Director of the National Clinician Scholars Program at Yale University, told Kaiser Health News patients “well into their 80s, with other health conditions” are unlikely candidates for the many routine health screening tests administered to elderly patients. Were this to become a trend, medical laboratories could see a drop in physician-ordered screening tests. (Photo copyright: Yale University.)
Meanwhile, an earlier study in JAMA Internal Medicine found older adults perceived screening tests as “morally obligatory” and were skeptical of stopping routine screenings.
In its series, KHN noted two studies that outlined the frequency of screening tests in seniors with limited life expectancies due to dementia or other diseases:
According to the American Journal of Public Health, nearly one in five women with severe cognitive impairment are still getting regular mammograms;
Likewise, 55% of older men with a high risk of death over the next decade still receive PSA tests for prostate cancer, the 2014 JAMA Internal Medicine study found.
“Screening tests are often done in elderly patients as a knee-jerk reaction,” Damon Raskin, MD, a board-certified internist in Pacific Palisades, Calif., who also serves as Medical Director for two skilled nursing facilities, told AgingCare.com.
Correct Age or Correct Test?
While a movement may be afoot to reduce screening tests in older patients, a one-size-fits-all answer to who should continue to be tested may not be possible.
“You can have an 80-year-old who’s really like a 60-year-old in terms of [his or her] health,” Raskin noted. “In these instances, screening tests such as mammograms and colonoscopies, can be extremely valuable. However, I’ve seen 55-year-olds who have end-stage Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s disease. For those individuals, I probably wouldn’t recommend screenings, for quality of life reasons.”
However, for the general population, researchers have emphasized that the focus should not be on whether physicians are ordering “unnecessary” lab tests, but whether they are ordering the “correct” tests.
A 2013 study published in the online journal PLOS ONE analyzed 1.6 million results from 46 of medicine’s 50 most commonly ordered lab tests. Researchers found, on average, the number of unnecessary tests ordered (30%) was offset by an equal number of necessary tests that went unordered.
“It’s not ordering more tests or fewer tests that we should be aiming for. It’s ordering the right tests, however few or many that is,” senior author Ramy Arnaout, MD, Harvard Medical School, Assistant Professor of Pathology and Associate Director of the Clinical Microbiology Laboratories at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, stated in a news release. “Remember, lab tests are inexpensive. Ordering one more test or one less test isn’t going to ‘bend the curve,’ even if we do it across the board. It’s everything that happens next—the downstream visits, the surgeries, the hospital stays—that matters to patients and to the economy and should matter to us.”
Since the elderly are the fastest growing population in America, and since diagnosing and treating chronic diseases is a multi-billion-dollar industry, it seems unlikely that such a trend to move away from medical laboratory health screenings for the very old will gain much traction. Still, with increasing focus on healthcare costs, the federal government may pressure doctors to do just that.
