U.S. Plans Stealth Survey on Access to Doctors
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — Alarmed by a shortage of primary care doctors, Obama administration officials are recruiting a team of “mystery shoppers” to pose as patients, call doctors’ offices and request appointments to see how difficult it is for people to get care when they need it.

The administration says the survey will address a “critical public policy problem”: the increasing shortage of primary care doctors, including specialists in internal medicine and family practice. It will also try to discover whether doctors are accepting patients with private insurance while turning away those in government health programs that pay lower reimbursement rates.

Federal officials predict that more than 30 million Americans will gain coverage under the health care law passed last year. “These newly insured Americans will need to seek out new primary care physicians, further exacerbating the already growing problem” of a shortage of such physicians in the United States, the Department of Health and Human Services said in a description of the project prepared for the White House.

Plans for the survey have riled many doctors because the secret shoppers will not identify themselves as working for the government.

“I don’t like the idea of the government snooping,” said Dr. Raymond Scalettar, an internist in Washington. “It’s a pernicious practice — Big Brother tactics, which should be opposed.”

According to government documents obtained from Obama administration officials, the mystery shoppers will call medical practices and ask if doctors are accepting new patients and, if so, how long the wait would be. The government is eager to know whether doctors give different answers to callers depending on whether they have public insurance, like Medicaid, or private insurance, like Blue Cross and Blue Shield.

Dr. George J. Petruncio, a family doctor in Turnersville, N.J., said: “This is not a way to build trust in government. Why should I trust someone who does not correctly identify himself?”

Dr. Stephen C. Albrecht, a family doctor in Olympia, Wash., said: “If federal officials are worried about access to care, they could help us. They don’t have to spy on us.”

Dr. Robert L. Hogue, a family physician in Brownwood, Tex., asked: “Is this a good use of tax money? Probably not. Everybody with a brain knows we do not have enough doctors.”

In response to the drumbeat of criticism, a federal health official said doctors need not worry because the data would be kept confidential. “Reports will present aggregate data, and individuals will not be identified,” said the official, who requested anonymity to discuss the plan before its final approval by the White House.

Christian J. Stenrud, a Health and Human Services spokesman, said: “Access to primary care is a priority for the administration. This study is an effort to better understand the problem and make sure we are doing everything we can to support primary care physicians, especially in communities where the need is greatest.”

The new health care law includes several provisions intended to increase the supply of primary care doctors, and officials want to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of those policies.

Federal officials said the initial survey would cost $347,370. Dr. Hogue said the money could be better spent on the training or reimbursement of primary care doctors. The White House defended the survey, saying a similar technique had been used on a smaller scale in President George W. Bush’s administration.

Most doctors accept Medicare patients, who are 65 and older or disabled. But many say they do not regard the government as a reliable business partner because it has repeatedly threatened to cut their Medicare fees. In many states, Medicaid, the program for low-income people, pays so little that many doctors refuse to accept Medicaid patients. This could become a more serious problem in 2014, when the new health law will greatly expand eligibility for Medicaid.

Access to care has been a concern in Massachusetts, which provides coverage under a state program cited by many in Congress as a model for President Obama’s health care overhaul.

In a recent study, the Massachusetts Medical Society found that 53 percent of family physicians and 51 percent of internal medicine physicians were not accepting new patients. When new patients could get appointments, they faced long waits, averaging 36 days to see family doctors and 48 days for internists.

In the mystery shopper survey, administration officials said, a federal contractor will call the offices of 4,185 doctors — 465 in each of nine states: Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia. The doctors will include pediatricians and obstetrician-gynecologists.

The calls are to begin in a few months, with preliminary results from the survey expected next spring. Each office will be called at least twice — by a person who supposedly has private insurance and by someone who supposedly has public insurance.

Federal officials provided this example of a script for a caller in a managed care plan known as a preferred provider organization, or P.P.O.:

Mystery shopper: “Hi, my name is Alexis Jackson, and I’m calling to schedule the next available appointment with Dr. Michael Krane. I am a new patient with a P.P.O. from Aetna. I just moved to the area and don’t yet have a primary doctor, but I need to be seen as soon as possible.”

Doctor’s office: “What type of problem are you experiencing?”

Mystery shopper: “I’ve had a cough for the last two weeks, and now I’m running a fever. I’ve been coughing up thick greenish mucus that has some blood in it, and I’m a little short of breath.”

In separate interviews, several doctors said that patients with those symptoms should immediately see a doctor because the symptoms could indicate pneumonia, lung cancer or a blood clot in the lungs.

Other mystery shoppers will try to schedule appointments for routine care, like an annual checkup for an adult or a sports physical for a high school athlete.

To make sure they are not detected, secret shoppers will hide their telephone numbers by blocking caller ID information.

Eleven percent of the doctors will be called a third time. The callers will identify themselves as calling “on behalf of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.” They will ask whether the doctors accept private insurance, Medicaid or Medicare, and whether they take “self-pay patients.” The study will note any discrepancies between those answers and the ones given to mystery shoppers.

The administration has signed a contract with the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago to help conduct the survey.

Jennifer Benz, a research scientist at the center, said one purpose of the study was to determine whether the use of mystery shoppers would be a feasible way to track access to primary care in the future.

The government could survey consumers directly, but patients may not accurately recall how long it took to get an appointment, and their estimates could be colored by their satisfaction with the doctor, researchers said.

I'm not sure how trying to schedule appointments qualifies aas spying, but the problem here is simply that the availability of doctors is not a government issues. The problem isn't the methods used to get the data; it's that the government doesn't need the data in the first place.

Agents of the government collecting information about a third party via subterfuge and misinformation seems to me to be the very definition of spying.

Not at all. The "spies" are simply doing what any normal citizen can do at any time. Collecting information that's publicly available is never spying.

If the government were prying into doctors' confidential records I'd be concerned about spying.

My concren with this is that time, effort, and money are being wasted researching the status f healthcare when the government has no business worrying about the status of healthcare at all.

In that case, we'll have to agree to disagree, since I've little interest in quibbling over what the definition of "spying" is.

Well, it's a combination of artificial limits on the number of doctors, and the fact that general practice is getting priced out of profitibility due to de facto price controls set by government programs.

If you do become a doctor (getting past the AMA's artificial limit), you're essentially crazy to choose general practice over a specialty.

Well, it's a combination of artificial limits on the number of doctors, and the fact that general practice is getting priced out of profitibility due to de facto price controls set by government programs.

If you do become a doctor (getting past the AMA's artificial limit), you're essentially crazy to choose general practice over a specialty.

Well, it's a combination of artificial limits on the number of doctors, and the fact that general practice is getting priced out of profitibility due to de facto price controls set by government programs.

If you do become a doctor (getting past the AMA's artificial limit), you're essentially crazy to choose general practice over a specialty.

My opinon:

This "study" is going to be a threat to defame the doctors via public opinon. The study is going to work off the premise that doctors should be seeing X amount of people per hour, and will more than likey just multiply that number by the amount of doctors. The result will be given out of context to raise public ire against "fat cat doctors" who are "intentionally creating a shortage" and "limiting the peoples access to their right to health care". I'm sure I missed some buzzwords but you get the general concept of the incoming smear campagin. Typical for this administration, but perhaps now these special interest groups won't be eager to make a deal with this devil in an attempt to carve out their own little deals now that Obama has turned on so many of them.

It's not a smear campaign if it's true. I mean, you realize doctors really are intentionally creating a shortage, right? The AMA is staffed by doctors, last time I checked.

Why do the Doctors give the AMA so much power? Well more than likely it's because the AMA is an advocacy (union) for the doctors. Doctors give the AMA money, AMA lobbies to get beneficial legislation. Will that connection be explored? Doubtful. The smear will be against the doctors themselves.