August 26th, 2009 by Nancy Brown, Ph.D. in Better Health Network
No Comments »
Research reported in Family Relations by Lisa Strohschien (University of Alberta) challenges the notion that parenting practices diminish after divorce. In a large longitudinal study Dr. Strohschien found that divorce did not change parenting behavior for most parents.
The study used data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NSLCY) to compare the 208 families that divorced between data collection points to the 4,796 households that remained intact. The study compared nurturing, consistent and punitive parenting between the households.
The findings suggested that most parents maintained very stable parenting practices, and it was only a few parents who were overwhelmed, unable to cope, and became less nurturing, inconsistent, and punitive.
These results are extremely important because for years family courts have poured money into mandatory parenting classes for divorcing parents (called things like “putting children first”), when in fact, most parents do not need the classes. The parents that may be unable to parent consistently are the parents who need the support, but these results suggest they are the minority.
I would suggest that a post-divorce interview with the children would help identify the parents who need the support, as children are very capable of reporting what they need after divorce, and are conscious of when a parent is punitive and no longer invested in their well-being.
This post, Divorce Doesn’t Change Parenting Behavior, was originally published on
Healthine.com by Nancy Brown, Ph.D..
August 26th, 2009 by DrRob in Better Health Network, Opinion
No Comments »
Something touched a nerve yesterday. I kind of lost my composure when someone tried to defend the insurance industry and responded out of emotion – perhaps putting aside some reason in the process.
I used to get mad at myself or embarrassed when this happened, but now I stand back and try to analyze my reaction. What is it that touched a nerve in me? Why did I feel so strongly? We don’t feel things without reason, and my reaction doesn’t necessarily betray weakness on my part, it shows the depths of my emotion. That passion usually comes from something – most of the time it is personal experience; and my personal experience says that insurance companies are causing my patients harm. That makes me angry.
I don’t think the people in the insurance industry are bad people. I think vilifying people is the easy way out. The people there feel like they are doing the right thing, and are no less moral than me. But I do not think the way to fix our system is through letting them do their business as usual in the name of “free market.” Defending the current system of insurance ignores some obvious problems in our system:
1. They are financially motivated to withhold services
If you hire a contractor to work on your house, how wise is it to pay them 100% in advance? You have just given them financial incentive to do as little work as possible, as it will maximize their profits to do so. The insurance industry is in such a situation; despite any good intention, they are put in a position to decide between profits and level of service. It is much better to pay more for better service, not worse; but that is what we have done with health insurance companies.
2. They have been given the ability to withhold services
If all United Health Care (for example) did was to provide insurance, they would not be vilified as they are. But since the only data available for medical care was the claims data they hold, they were put in a position to control cost. This was sensible initially, as they had both the data and the means (denying unnecessary care) of cutting cost. It’s OK that women aren’t kept in the hospital for a week after having a baby. It’s OK that I can’t prescribe expensive brand-name drugs when there is a reasonable generic alternative. There was a whole lot of fat to cut, and they did a good job cutting that fat.
The problem came when all the fat was gone and they were used to big profit-margins. Once there was not any more unnecessary care to cut, they had two ways to keep their profit-margins: increasing premiums or cutting services. They did both. Both of these have hurt my patients.
- Patients have had premiums increased or have been dropped because they were diagnosed with medical problems. I have had patients beg me “don’t put that in my record,” as they know a diagnosis of diabetes or heart disease will be disastrous. I am then caught between the pleas of my patients and the demands of honestly practicing and documenting my care.
- I do what I can to follow evidence-based standards, but there are times when people fall out of the norms. Medicine is not science, it is applied science. This means that I am trying to take an individual and somehow match them with the scientific data. Sometimes it works, but everyone is different. If something is true 90% of the time, 10% of the people will be exceptions to the rule. I have repeatedly been told by “gnomes” (people with minimal medical education who sit in front of a computer screen with a protocol for care) what “good medicine” looks like. They see things as black and white when it is just not that way. This has caused people to be unnecessarily hospitalized, it has required them to get unnecessary tests to follow their rules. There is no arguing with people in front of computers.
3. They covertly ration
Dr. Rich Fogoros (whom I recently met) has coined this phrase to explain what happens in our system. Because it doesn’t look good to deny necessary care, insurance companies (including government-run ones) resort to making things exceedingly complex. This makes it look like care is being offered, but not taken advantage of. What does this mean?
- The burden of proof is put on the provider to show the tests ordered are necessary. The assumption is that a test will be denied unless the doc can prove otherwise.
- Tests are sometimes inappropriately denied. They then can be appealed, but the appeal process is even more difficult than the initial approval process, and so some people give up. Every time someone gives up, less is paid out by the insurance company and their profits go up.
- The rules for coding and billing are so complex, that it is very easy to make mistakes. This means that an appropriate test ordered by a doctor that is not perfectly coded doesn’t get paid for. The patient gets the bill and must get the doctor to appeal the denial. This appeal process, again, is difficult.
Because of this, I have to hire staff whose sole task is to learn all of the rules of the different insurance carriers (including public ones) and then play the game properly with them so that we get as few denials as possible. I probably spend $70-80 thousand per year to deal with the frustratingly complex system we have.
————
I have health insurance. I do understand why it needs to exist, but I also see how harmful the current state can be to my patients. I get frustrated with Medicare and Medicaid as well, but that is not my point. Just because government run insurance has problems doesn’t do anything to change the problems with private insurance. The fact that you can be killed by firing squad doesn’t make the gallows any better.
The cost of care has gone up dramatically over the past 10 years while my reimbursement has dropped. Where is that extra money?
But the system is very broken right now. It needs to be fixed. Things need to be changed in both the private and public sector. When I was in DC I made the point that our ship is sinking and we are arguing about who will be the captain. The problems in our system are not simply who is writing the checks.
Honestly, I don’t really care who writes the checks. All I want is for the system to reward good care and to stop hurting my patients. Those who deny the reality of either of these problems will invariably draw my ire.
*This blog post was originally published at Musings of a Distractible Mind*
August 26th, 2009 by AlanDappenMD in Primary Care Wednesdays
No Comments »
Health care’s most important problem (and repeat ad nauseam) is the cost. How do we make health care affordable, cost less, and not inflate three times faster than the background economy? While politicians and insurance companies rant and rave about saving health care from the top down, there is a nascent movement of doctors who are approaching the same puzzle from the bottom up.
What I mean by the bottom up is that doctors and patients are working together to build an independent system whereby they solve the typical day-to-day, or primary care, problems of health care without anyone else’s help or permission. From the bottom up also means that patients expect to be in control of their day-to-day care. This means paying for the service directly, which is the only real way to gain control. It means doctors are employed by the client, have transparent pricing, look the patient in the eye to explain the charge, and are better able to justify the cost. For the bottom-up means competition and a drive towards quality improvement and pricing that will cost a lot less than having ten people between you and getting what you need.
Here’s a simple example. You have a bladder infection. You had these exact symptoms a year ago so you know what’s wrong and what you need. Yet you’re held hostage by the health care “system” and are unable to get the medicine that has worked in the past. You’re not alone: these type of infections account for 8.3 million doctors visits a year, primarily among women of reproductive age.
Here are three potential ways that this common problem could be handled:
1. The Existing Model: Your symptoms of burning and frequent urination coupled with barely being able to leave the bathroom are funneled though the appropriate gauntlet: receptionist, scheduler, in window, nurse, doctor, out window, billing specialist, insurance company, payment administrator, adjustor, and finally paperwork mailed to you acknowledging payment. Along the way you’re likely to get a urinalysis and several urine cultures.
Since you’re not paying for these tests, under insurance you don’t mind and consider this “good care.” Your co-pay is $20. The insurance company pays $60 for the visit and the lab tests add another $30. You’re given three days of antibiotics and the problem’s resolved. The cost is $110.00 and 5 hours of your time assuming no major delays in getting into the office.
2. The Reformed Model: This would look very similar to the above system, but might include layers of oversight, fraud detection, pay-for-performance measurers, and “quality” assessment reviews, if one is to believe the rhetoric of people talking about “fixing” health care. Universal coverage likely will delay the wait time to be seen. The current delay for seeing a family practice physician in Massachusetts (the closest thing we have to Universal Coverage) is 63 days.
It’s difficult to believe that this added oversight can reduce costs but let’s pretend it pays for itself by eliminating the unnecessary labs that evidence based standards repeatedly say provide no added benefit to outcome for simple bladder infections. Cost: at minimum $110.00 and your time: at least 5 hours for a three day treatment of antibiotics.
3. The Bottom-Up Model: Patient calls her doctor who answers the phone and listens to the story. This diagnosis repetitively has been shown to be most accurately diagnosed through history alone. Exam without other contributing factors is not helpful. Urine and cultures are not more sensitive or specific than the history. The antibiotics are called to the pharmacy. Because you and your doctor know each other and work together to get you the best health care at the best price … and you care about the price … your doctor might say “By the way I’ll call in a ten-day supply of antibiotics so you can keep a reserve treatment in the future whenever you get this again. This would give you two additional treatments in the future.
Before the conversation with your doctor, he sends you a follow-up email offering an overview of the diagnosis and complications when you should contact him. Cost: $45. Time from call until taking the first pill: 1 hour.
Do the math. Eight million cases times $110.00/ UTI infection case/year. Don’t forget the human toll of 40 million human hours/year wasted in the funnel (link). The lawyers will want to add a value for pain and suffering too.
Compare this to a direct pay system — innovation wave one from the bottom-up, where you can reach your doctor day or night or even a weekend, take your dose of a prescription within an hour of calling, and have a reserve treatment for the future when inevitably you get the infection again. Imagine being treated like an adult. Frankly, $45 for the convenience is a steal compared to what’s being subsidized now.
Not all cases of bladder infection are cured through this simple formula, but seeing them in the office doesn’t reduce this chance either. Conservatively, more than half of the cases could be done this way, meaning hundreds of millions of dollars saved each year on this diagnosis alone. Don’t forget the guesstimated 20 million hours of lost productivity, plus the lost opportunities of railing about how someone else should “fix my health care.”
Going forward, we’ll see what the bottom up has to say about upper respiratory illness, poison ivy, low back pain or tick bites.
Until next week, I remain yours in bottoms-up primary care,
Alan Dappen MD
August 25th, 2009 by DrRich in Better Health Network, Opinion
No Comments »
When Sarah Palin uttered the fateful words, “Death Panels,” she unleashed the holy wrath of the great unwashed masses, and as a result caused many of our more complacent legislators to abruptly bestir themselves into a higher state of arousal, if not outright agitation. Palin’s accusation caught more than a few of them utterly unawares, and embarrassingly flatfooted.
They felt, no doubt, like they were in that dream where you unaccountably find yourself naked in a crowd. But this time, rather than reaching to hide their sadly exposed nether parts, they reached instead for their pristine copies of HR 3200. One could almost pity them, desperately rifling through the 1100 virgin pages, wondering whether perhaps they should have tried to read that monstrosity earlier after all, and muttering to themselves, “Death panels? This damned thing has death panels?”
But DrRich is here to reassure them. First, as he has recently pointed out, there was in fact no reason for them to waste their time trying to read HR 3200. It was not designed for reading, comprehensibility, or (for that matter) imparting any actual information of any sort.
And second, HR 3200 contains no death panels. (In their state of stark panic, of course, and anxious to rid the bill of anything that might smack of death panels, our legislators quickly moved to strike Section 1233 from the bill, apparently because that section contains the phrase “end-of-life care.” But actually, Section 1233 talks about end-of-life counseling, and not death panels. Nothing in HR 3200 creates death panels.)*
The very notion of death panels seems to have many supporters of healthcare reform nonplussed. How can someone as inarticulate and obviously illiterate as Sarah Palin get away with accusing our highly-educated healthcare reformers of setting up such a thing as death panels? Really, what are death panels anyway? And even more perplexingly (since, after all, Republicans are capable of anything), why do so many Americans believe her – even, apparently, hundreds of thousands of Americans who were enlightened enough to vote less than a year ago for President Obama?
This question ought to greatly concern any of our elected representatives who support healthcare reform and who plan on being returned to Congress.
When Sarah Palin said, “Death Panels,” she was dropping one last, tiny crystal into a supersaturated solution. Her words took what had been an amorphous and even chaotic sense of unease about healthcare reform, and immediately crystallized it into an organized latticework of directed rage and fear. So the real question (for politicians hoping to seek re-election) is not how Sarah Palin came to be savvy enough to know just the right words. (Perhaps she was just “lucky,” or perhaps – and DrRich suspects this is the real explanation – she is a lot smarter than her critics allow.) Rather, the real question is: What put the rabble in such a supersaturated state to begin with? Why did the absurd-on-its-face idea of “death panels” so resonate with them? What made those words galvanize their shapeless disquiet into a solid mass of resistance?
DrRich is very sorry to have to tell his friends of the Democratic persuasion the sad truth – it was President Obama who created this circumstance. Sarah Palin may have named the death panels, but before she ever thought of the phrase, President Obama had already described them in some detail.
He described their function, how they would operate, and who they would target. During the past 6 months President Obama has actually offered several short discussions on what a “death panel” might be expected to accomplish. But perhaps the most instructive example is the one he gave on ABC television during his June 24 National Town Hall meeting.
DrRich refers, of course, to the famous question about the 100-year-old woman who received a pacemaker. The questioner pointed out that her grandmother had badly needed a pacemaker, but had been turned down by a doctor because of her age. A second doctor, noting the patient’s alertness, zest for life, and generally youthful “spirit,” inserted the pacemaker despite her advanced age. Her symptoms resolved, and Grandma continues to do well 5 years later. The question for the President was: Under an Obama healthcare system, will an elderly person’s general state of health, and her “spirit,” be taken into account when making medical decisions – or will these decisions be made according to age only?
President Obama’s answer was clear. It is really not feasible, he indicated, to take “spirit” into account. We are going to make medical decisions based on objective evidence, and not subjective impressions. If the evidence shows that some form of treatment “is not necessarily going to improve care, then at least we can let the doctors know that – you know what? – maybe this isn’t going to help; maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain pill.”
(DrRich will give President Obama the benefit of the doubt regarding his suggestion that a 100-year-old women who needs a pacemaker might be better off with a pain pill. Despite the way he is portrayed on the cover of Time Magazine, Mr. Obama is not actually a doctor, and cannot be expected to understand that using a “pain pill” to treat an elderly woman who is lightheaded, dizzy, weak and possibly syncopal because of a slow heart rate might justifiably be considered a form of euthanasia rather than comfort care. DrRich does not believe the President was intentionally suggesting the old woman’s death should be actively hastened by means of a pain pill. At the same time, DrRich’s advice to this still-spry 105-year-old Grandma is: since pacemakers usually need to be replaced every 6 – 7 years, you’d better think about having your 5-year-old pacemaker replaced right now, before the Obama plan has a chance to become law.)
President Obama’s answer in this case tells us several things. 1) There will be a panel, or commission, or body of some sort, that is going to examine the medical evidence on how effective a certain treatment is likely to be in a certain population of patients. 2) This (let’s call it a “panel”) panel will “let the doctors know” whether that treatment ought to be used in those patients. (”Letting the doctor know” is a euphemism for “guidelines,” which itself is a euphemism for legally-binding and ruthlessly enforced directives.). 3) “Subjective” measures (such as a physician’s clinical judgment as to an individual’s likelihood of responding to a therapy as the panel says they will – or, for that matter, a person’s “spirit”) ought not to influence these treatment recommendations, since that kind of subjective judgment is what got us into all this fiscal trouble in the first place. 4) But being that our government is a compassionate and caring one, palliative care will be made available in the form of pain control, even while withholding potentially curative care.
So, according to the President, we will have an omnipotent “panel,” acting at a distance and without any specific knowledge of particular cases, that will tell a doctor whether he/she can offer a particular therapy to a particular patient – or whether, instead, to offer a “pain pill.” His description of this process, offered with variations over the past several months in several venues, has obviously made quite an impression among the people. Of course, Mr. Obama is widely known to be a gifted communicator.
In any case, all that remained was for Sarah Palin to give the President’s panel a catchy name. And when she did, the American people (without reading HR 3200 or any other piece of legislation) knew exactly what she was talking about. They knew, because President Obama himself had been spelling it all out for them in plenty of detail for six months.
Indeed, it seems to DrRich that, if not for Mr. Obama’s having so carefully laid the groundwork, Palin’s accusations of “death panels” would have fallen flat. It would have been regarded by most people as the absurdity Democrats insist that it is, rather than the epiphany it turned out to be.
* There are no death panels in HR 3200 because creating them there would have been entirely superfluous. If we are to have death panels, or any entity that might pass as one, the provision for such a panel is already the law of the land. It was made so earlier this year (conveniently, before anybody started paying attention) in the Stimulus Bill, which created the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.
DrRich has described before how the CER Council will perform cost-effectiveness calculations, then coerce physicians, through one form of federal subterfuge and intimidation or another, to employ the least expensive therapies (thus enforcing “cost”, while shouting “effectiveness”).
It is called a CER Council, and not a death panel. But if you should develop a fatal illness which you might have survived had you been allowed to receive a treatment that the Council has deemed cost-ineffective, then you might be forgiven for thinking of the CER Council (from your insular, personal, narrow-minded, self-interested point of view), as a death panel. But there are no death panels in HR 3200, and Sarah Palin should be ashamed of herself for suggesting otherwise.
*This blog post was originally published at The Covert Rationing Blog*
August 25th, 2009 by Paul Auerbach, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Tips
No Comments »
We are still in fire season in the U.S., and with persistent hot, dry and windy conditions, may see quite a few more conflagrations this summer and into the autumn. The fires that can be attributed to human behavior occur for the same reasons year in and year out, whether they are accidental or intentional. So, we will face them, and knowing what to do before they happen can be a prerequisite for survival.
Of course, fires occur worldwide, and there is much to learn from the experience of others. Some months back, there was an interesting commentary in the news during fire season in Australia that pondered the question, “Why did so many die in Australian bushfires?” Here is a paraphrasing of the response:
“Yes this is awful – devastating to the psyche. For Australia, this is bigger than the twin towers and we cannot blame an external agency. Much of it we did ourselves. All over central Victoria, it was the worst fire weather by far that has ever been experienced. Temperatures were above 40 degrees centigrade (105 degrees fahrenheit) for days, there was no significant rain for months, and there were strong to gale force winds straight out of the central desert for days.
It seems that most people who died actually did so trying to flee at the last moment. They died on the open or in cars, especially in crashes along the roads or running into fallen trees. Even before the fires hit, it was so hot that eucalyptus trees were dropping large branches everywhere.
Many who survived in the fire storm did so in prepared or ad hoc refuges and bunkers or inside their houses, leaving their homes only when the houses were burning but the main fire had passed.
The problem was that in some areas the winds were so strong that houses were torn apart by the wind, leaving no option but to be in the open. As usual, many of the injured did not have suitable clothing. For some, the attire of shorts and thongs may have been fatal. The fires were so hot that they melted alloy wheels on cars. Many, if not most, people living in the area at least evacuated their children, and the elderly and sick. Most houses were relatively well prepared for ‘normal’ fires. This is a semi-rural area, so people had water, pumps, mobile and fixed sprays, and plans. The problem was that they had no chance to use them, because everything happened so fast and was so intense.
The area was beautiful-the sort of dangerous beauty that comes from houses situated amongst trees. The area is a mountain ash forest. Many of the trees around the houses are stringy barks and cyprus pines, all of which become explosive in fires. There was ember spotting as many as five miles ahead of the main fire front. The actual fire winds were over 100 kilometers per hour. At times, the main fire front moved at 30 to 40 kilometers per hour.
Some persons commented that one of the most bewildering aspects of ‘Black Saturday’ was the disconnect between the general and, ultimately, prophetic warnings issued by authorities beforehand and the absence of specific information when the fires overwhelmed communities. But really! There is not some celestial fire watcher able to communicate with everyone and tell them what to do! Phones were out, the emergency call (000) was overwhelmed (1800% over normal call volume) and the operators were actually listening to people die without being able to help.
There have been so many extraordinary stories of bravery and good luck, but it is really difficult to put it all into perspective. People everywhere seem to be really quiet and depressed. There is a constant barrage of awful vision on the TV that keeps on reinforcing the horror. Really well known people are dead. So many kids and complete families.”
Key points for those who will one day face the prospect of encountering a wildland fire:
1. The thermal intensity of a wildland fire is beyond imagination. It is far better to be away from the heat than to try to shelter within it and try to survive. Escape routes should not be left to serendipity or improvisation. Anyone who lives in an area that is vulnerable to wildfire should have a plan for when and how to escape.
2. One needs to understand fire behavior, and how to avoid panic. Last minute attempts at self rescue are often marked by tragedy.
3. The wildland-urban interface is growing. The minority of homeowners subject to wildland fire risk have properly cleared their property of remediable fire hazards, and likely are not completely prepared to protect their lives and dwellings.
4. Warning systems are not infallible, and resources are easily overwhelmed. Everyone needs to take personal responsibility for being on the lookout for wildfire, and for his or her response to an encroaching blaze.
5. The aftermath of most natural catastrophes can be as devastating as the event. Entire communities and populations are affected, so we share the responsibility to prevent fires, report them promptly, protect our family and friends, and assist response teams in doing their jobs to suppress fires.
This post, How To Survive A Wildfire: Lessons From Australia, was originally published on
Healthine.com by Paul Auerbach, M.D..
