Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
It may take more
This article originally appeared in BMJ USA
In the United Kingdom, as in the United States,
discussions of health care frequently focus on payments for physicians
and the impact these payments might have on patient care. Although they
reimburse for any number of treatments and preventive care visits, many
public and private insurers do not pay physicians to treat patients for
nicotine dependence.1 In this issue of BMJ USA
(p 519), a study by Coleman and his colleagues2 suggests that the promise to pay British general practitioners £15 (about $22)
per smoker who quits is not enough to change the way they treat
patients who smoke. The promised payments were small and were based not
on the provision of treatment, but on the hoped-for results of the
service Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota recently took just that
approach. In May of 2000, the health plan, which covers about two
million members, announced it would routinely pay physicians for
treating nicotine dependence. A diagnosis of tobacco use disorder (ICD
9 code 305.1) is now considered a chronic medical disease. This means
that physicians receive payment for treating a patient with this
diagnosis, just as they would for an office visit by a patient with a
diagnosis of hypertension, diabetes, or other chronic condition. The
number and length of visits are not limited, so physicians and their
patients are free to chart a course of appropriate treatment that makes
sense for them.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota made this policy change for
several reasons. First, there is strong scientific evidence that
physicians can treat nicotine dependence successfully.4 Second, evidence-based standards of care for the treatment of tobacco
users have been produced,
5 6
and these standards have
been widely disseminated and supported by professional organizations. Third, patients clearly benefit from this treatment, realizing decreased morbidity and mortality.
These reasons alone are sufficient to warrant payment for appropriate
treatment of a disease. But there is another: investing in treatment to
help smokers quit can result in reductions in health care
costs.7 The economic issues are not simple, and have been
clouded, for example, by cigarette maker Philip Morris' recent claim
that dead smokers are a financial benefit to society.8 But
healthier people require fewer health care resources, not more.
Treating tobacco use makes sense for patients, physicians, health
plans, and society.
Patients who smoke want and need help quitting, and appreciate
their physician's advice and assistance.9 Smokers have
higher rates of satisfaction with their care when seeing physicians who ask them about their tobacco use than with physicians who ignore the
topic.10 But even with its new policy, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota has seen only a small increase in the number of
office visits for the treatment of smokers. It may be that a lack of
payment is only one of the barriers physicians face in trying to treat smokers.
Medical practice can sometimes be slow to change. Thoughtful physicians
base their actions on their training and may change only in response to
years of consistent research findings that support new treatments.
Extremely busy practices may find it hard to make systematic changes in
the way physicians approach any disease, particularly one as prevalent
as nicotine dependence. Clinicians struggling with difficult staffing
or management issues may find it impossible to make any systematic
change, no matter how well meaning they are.
It is our hope that more and more health plans and national government
insurance programs will change their policies and pay for effective
treatment of tobacco users. It has the potential to save lives and save
money; it is the right thing to do. For a health plan, the short-term
financial risks are minimal, and the potential long-term benefits are
large. But it may be only one of several changes needed to achieve a
widespread improvement in the way tobacco use is treated. It may
require both better training for physicians and systematic support and
encouragement from health care institutions.
It is important to remember that physicians can play another critically
important role in reducing the toll of death and disease caused by
cigarette companies. In addition to treating smokers, physicians can
help their communities stop tobacco companies from addicting youth and
thwarting adults' attempts to quit smoking. By actively supporting
effective public policy measures such as tobacco excise tax increases
and clean indoor air laws, physicians can magnify the impact of their
clinical treatment and make real progress in solving the most important
public health issue of our time.11
Center for Tobacco Reduction and Health Improvement, Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
(marc_manley{at}bluecrossmn.com)
smoking cessation and continued abstinence for at least three
months. Detailed interviews with these physicians3 suggested that many of them had done the financial math and decided that the new payments were inadequate incentive to make changes to
their practice organization. The physicians in the study agreed it
would have been fairer to receive payments for the additional services
they provided to smoking patients.
| 1. |
McPhillips-Tangum C.
Results from the first annual survey on addressing tobacco in managed care.
Tob Control
1998;
7(suppl):
S11-S13 |
| 2. |
Coleman T, Wynn AT, Barrett S, Wilson A, Adams S.
Intervention study to evaluate pilot health promotion payment aimed at increasing general practitioners' antismoking advice to smokers.
BMJ
2001;
323:
435-436 |
| 3. |
Coleman T, Wynn AT, Stevenson K, Cheater F.
Qualitative study of pilot payment aimed at increasing general practitioners' antismoking advice to smokers.
BMJ
2001;
323:
432-435 |
| 4. | Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Smoking cessation practice guideline no. 18. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1996. |
| 5. | Glynn TJ, Manley MW. How to help your patients stop smoking: a National Cancer Institute manual for physicians. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, 1989. |
| 6. | Fiore MC, Bailey WC, Cohen SJ, et al. Treating tobacco use and dependence: clinical practice guideline. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, June, 2000. |
| 7. | Coffield AB, Maciosek MV, McGinnis JM, Harris JR, Caldwell MB, Teutsch SM, Atkins D, Richland JH, Haddix A. Priorities among recommended clinical preventive services. Amer J Prev Med 2001; 21: 1-9. |
| 8. | Czechs debate benefits of smokers' dying prematurely: Philip Morris report stirs some outrage. New York Times, July 21, 2001:B2. |
| 9. | Quitting smoking: Nicotine addiction in Minnesota. St. Paul, MN: Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco, and Minnesota Smoke-Free Coalition, July, 2001. http://www.bluecrossmn.com/HealthAndWellness/pdfdocs/TobaccoReport.pdf |
| 10. | Solberg LI, Boyle RG, Davidson G, Magnan SJ, Carlson CL. Patient satisfaction and discussion of smoking cessation during clinical visits. Mayo Clin Proc 2001; 76: 138-143[Medline]. |
| 11. | Houston TP. The fifth horseman of tobacco control: personal and organisational involvement. Tob Control 1994; 3: 194-195. |
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+