The Wall Street Journal has been mining a massive Medicare database for an investigative series on Medicare—particularly its costs and abuses and how they reflect problems in the health care system in general. Today it adds a tough page-one story on how the data can help identify bad doctors.
The paper has had to agree not to name doctors in order to use the database, and it’s suing the government to change that. But for today’s story, John Carreyrou and Tom McGinty focus on a Portland neurosurgeon whom they all but say is performing unnecessary multiple surgeries on patients, and they get to name him because he let them do so. That makes this even more of a highwire act:
Medicare database analyzed by The Wall Street Journal reveals that Dr. (Vishal James) Makker has had an unusual propensity for performing such multiple surgeries on the spine. The data show that in 2008 and 2009, Dr. Makker performed spinal fusions on 61 Medicare patients. In 16 of those cases, he performed a total of 24 additional fusions. That gave him an overall rate of 39 additional fusions per 100 initial fusions, the highest rate in the nation among surgeons who performed spinal fusions on 20 or more Medicare patients during those two years.
And it’s clearly not just a Medicare problem, but a private-health insurer one, too. The paper reports Medicare reimbursed Makker for just 11 percent of his billings.
The Journal says this about the database it used to find Makker:
Analysis of the data suggests that it also could be used as a tool to help screen for potentially bad or negligent doctors by identifying suspicious patterns of care.
And it gives us another anecdote, this one for somebody who understandably didn’t want to be named:
For instance, the data reveal that a foreign-born surgeon currently operating in Texas has an unusual number of patient deaths associated with an elective procedure. The surgeon was excluded from both the Medicare and Medicaid programs for nine years in the 1990s after the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health concluded that he had performed unnecessary and inappropriate procedures on seven patients while practicing in New Jersey. In two of the cases, the surgeon inappropriately operated on patients who were nearly dead, and he contributed to a third patient’s death by misdiagnosing his condition, according to a letter the inspector general sent him when he was ousted from Medicare. He was temporarily barred from practicing in New Jersey.
The surgeon relocated to southern Texas in 2005. He currently operates at five hospitals there. In 2008 and 2009, nine of 49 Medicare patients on whom he performed an elective surgery died, three of them within days of the operation, according to the Medicare data. That equates to 18.4 deaths per 100 of the procedures, compared with a national average of 2.4 per 100 for the procedure.
It’s unclear why the WSJ doesn’t tell us what kind of elective surgery this doctor is engaged in. I might want to know if I were having something done in, say, Houston. Perhaps the Journal thought that naming the surgery might make it possible to effectively identify the doctor. It would have been good to name the surgery or explain why they couldn’t do so.
But that’s just a quibble. This story is a classic WSJ leder. I love the detail here and that the Journal clearly did a deep dive on this guy. That helps them give us an idea of how quickly Makker got very rich doing back surgeries:
Dr. Makker, who drives a sporty black Mercedes with “J MAK” vanity plates, attended medical school at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio and did his neurosurgery residency at Rhode Island Hospital in Providence. When he completed his training in 2002, he moved to Portland.
Dr. Makker quickly built a busy surgical practice. By July 2005, his net worth was $8.7 million, according to a document filed in court when he and his wife divorced in 2008. Dr. Makker estimated in a legal deposition in a separate proceeding that he performs between 300 and 500 spinal surgeries a year…
- 1
- 2
Whenever you release money from the public treasury to pay for government boondoggles - (health care, housing, food, farm subisidies, whatever) people will figure out how to game the system.
I never will understand the liberal response to this reality - namely, increasing the role of government.
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 30 Mar 2011 at 11:32 AM
Well, I'm all for exposing "bad" doctors, especially since this drive for "malpractice reform" has all but absolved negligent and even criminal medical practitioners from responsibility for the harm that they do to their patients.
But. Just because a doc does four times the "average" rate of a given surgery does not in any way, shape, or form mean that he is performing excessive surgeries. It may be that s/he is a recognized expert in his field, and s/he gets a lot of the hard cases -- by referral or word of mouth.
Data is great, databases are great, but they need to be used with caution, especially journos, who are prone to highly irresponsible headline mongering on issues they can't bother to understand. Even what appears to be excessive deaths can indicate that the doc is a recognized expert and deals with the sickest of the sick. So let's not run with unwarranted assumptions here.
The proper way to handle that kind of data is to look at the data, see what falls out as excessive, and ***do additional research*** like consulting colleagues and making phone calls and making an effort to understand a medical procedure before running with a front-page story.
#2 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 30 Mar 2011 at 12:28 PM
I agree with James entirely. Having said that, in this case the WSJ did their homework, quoting many patients, citing a trail of high frequency of malpractice claims, and former colleagues that have quit the guy. Also information regarding investigation by the state medical board and by the DOJ. All in all, a pretty sad picture of a doctor that has lost sight (or never had it) of the reasons to go into medicine.
I am all for exposing poor and unethical doctors - as a doctor myself - but completely agree that such exposures should be well researched and fairly presented. These databases are full of errors, and also do not contain many significant pieces of information, most especially complexity measures and also information on how patients have done and how they feel about the results of their procedures.
Finally, it is simply untrue to argue that physician salaries are driving increased health care costs. MD salaries have decreased steadily relative to inflation over the last 20 years. The overall payments to MDs has increased, but the payment per procedure is substantially lower for most interventions. Increasing MD payments reflect increasing numbers of procedures performed - some of which undoubtedly are unneeded. But the real story of increasing health care costs lies with double digit increases in profits for insurers, pharma, and implant companies. Hospitals are also doing much better than providers. And it is wrong to suggest that our trial lawyers aren't adding substantially to costs, without clear benefit in terms of increasing quality.
#3 Posted by Bob, CJR on Wed 30 Mar 2011 at 03:13 PM
How disgusting. Dr. Makker operated on my father and the outcome was poor. As a nurse working in the same institution he once did, I'm horrified. The "hush hush" pattern of the AMA needs to change. Consumers of health care have a right to transparency. Dr. Makker should be prosecuted for his poor performance, unwillingness to turn away poor surgical candidates, and fraud against Medicare. Jail time seems reasonable.
#4 Posted by T. RN, CJR on Tue 5 Apr 2011 at 12:00 AM
^You are disgusting, Dr makker has done 2 surgieres on me, and 1 on my mom, and it all came out great. The OLDER YOU ARE THE SLOWER AND WORSE THE HEALING, a 60 year old does not heal like a 20 year old. Im so tired of this slaming of a great doctor, such bull, he may have to close, and put out all his employyes into the unemployment line? Yah just what we need, one sided articles putting people out of business when they dont get all the information, or bother to talk to all his patients. Im sorry, out of hundres hes got like 80 that has had bad expereince, thats still a 80% success rating, and to me he gets 100%
#5 Posted by dan, CJR on Thu 12 May 2011 at 02:50 PM
Dan, I must laugh that you feel an 80% success rate with a doctor is good. Look at it in the big picture--the masses. What if 20% of all planes crashed? Same numbers, right?
#6 Posted by mike, CJR on Tue 25 Oct 2011 at 03:02 PM