President’s Jottings

HMOs (Health Maintenance Organizations) and Radiologists

After over a quarter of a century of unfathomed “profit oriented” debut in the United States, the deleterious effects of middle-man profiteering business-oriented HMOs are becoming more and more obvious.  Presently there is increasing withdrawal of both patients and doctors from such HMOs, related lawsuits and in many states, legislation is enacted to control their operation. 

In Hong Kong, the problems arising from HMOs are not new, but it is only in the last couple of years that the whole profession and the public are showing their concerns in a big way.

HMOs, no doubt, can fulfil certain society’s primary healthcare needs and may to certain extent, achieve cost-containment.  However, harmful effects of those HMOs operating with capitation, regrettably directing both to the patients and the service providers, are also obvious.  When a “client” is offered ‘unlimited” medical service and treatment for a fixed contribution, and yet the HMO has to make a good profit to support the Chief Executive Officer, the administration and management structure, and to satisfy the shareholders, there is only one approach to such end – contracting the service to doctors at a “low” price.  Worse, it is understood that without the prior approval of the HMO management, most contracted doctors are not allowed to provide complicated services, nor to request for expensive investigations.  Thus both the patients and the doctors may be deprived of their best options, and the doctors’ professional autonomy is eroded.  On the other hand the attending doctors have to bear the responsibility when patients are not treated properly.  Meanwhile the middle-man HMO is walking away with the profit.

Facing the possible mushrooming of these HMOs in Hong Kong, how would radiologists and their professionalism be affected?  It may, therefore, be opportune to appeal to our Fellows – those who have encountered the “imposed restriction” of HMOs; those who have been “involved” with HMOs; those who have heard of the harmful effects from their colleagues – to come forward to tell their experience.  Hopefully, through the data collected, your College could more forcefully express our concern to the profession, the people of Hong Kong and the Administration and urge each party to take the very much needed actions.

In the absence of data, let me postulate one of the possible scenarios.  In a direct way, for those involved with HMOs, because of the capped fees for investigation and radiological examination, our Fellows might be forced to limit the comprehensive scope of examination to cut cost, thus possibly missing less obvious radiological abnormalities/pathology.  In an indirect way, because of cost-monitoring by these HMOs against more costly but essential investigations, requesting of costly essential procedures by our colleagues, like CT and MRI, for the appropriate management, will be omitted.  In both cases, the patients stand to suffer, being denied the full benefit of modern high tech diagnostic tools – all for the requirement of the HMOs’ desired profit.

What can we do?  In a recent communication with the Government, our Legislative Council representative has submitted his views and urged the Secretary for Health and Welfare to introduce laws to prohibit HMOs from interfering with the medical profession’s autonomy.  The Academy has supported this and will voice out her concern.  Your College should do likewise.  Yet there must be other solutions to maintain our professionalism and to provide the best service to our patients.  Your views are therefore most significant.  

18 May 2000                                     Dr. Lilian Leong