February 18th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Medblogger Shout Outs
1 Comment »
An excellent blog post was forwarded to me for comment – an Internal Medicine physician reflects on his patients’ common underlying condition: isolationism.
Today I saw patients with the following problems:
- A person who had attempted suicide over the weekend
- A person who was possibly acutely suicidal and was abusing narcotics I was prescribing
- A person who is in an abusive relationship and has a severe eating disorder
- A terribly depressed woman in a dysfunctional marriage
- A pre-teen child whose father had suddenly died
My observation from today is that most of these people are isolated. They have difficult situations to face and the people who normally surround them are somewhat uncomfortable, not knowing what to say…
Western culture is obsessed with avoiding suffering. We entertain ourselves to avoid having to face the harsh realities of life. People die and suffer daily, and we are obsessed with the latest TV show, the latest political soapbox, or the latest self-help tool. We feel that the goal of society is to create happy and secure individuals. This is not true. The goal of society is to function as a unit in a healthy way – with the weak parts supported by the strong ones…
What I emphasized to the people I spoke with today was the need to find people who had gone through the same things. Those in the eye of the storm need to hear from people who have gotten to the other side that it is OK to feel the way they feel. Those who have gone through hard times have something huge to offer those who are going through them now – experience. You lose the pat answers when you have suffered yourself.
It is my hope that those who are struggling will find others online here at Revolution Health who can support them, and that those who have made it through to the other side will reach out to help others through our online community. Suffering is not meaningless if you harness it for good – your wounds can heal others.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
February 17th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in News
No Comments »
Microbiologist Charles Gerba has made a career out of scaring people with news of how dirty seemingly innocent surfaces can be. Dr. Gerba has taken media on germ tours of kitchens, bathrooms, and offices, and now in his new research study he finds that office desks have 400x more bacterial colonies than toilet seats. Moreover, he found that women’s desks generally have 4x more bacteria than men’s. He attributes this to women having more makeup and food products in their desks, as well as having greater contact with small children.
Well, before we all become totally grossed out and paranoid, lets think for a minute about this. If there are so many bacteria all around us (even on our desks) and we’re generally not sick, then I guess we shouldn’t all rush out to buy bleach and sanitizers. Other studies suggest that sanitizers disrupt the natural ecosystem around us, creating resistant organisms that are harder to kill.
Personally, I think that precautions should be taken to reduce transmission of viruses and bacterial infections (especially in the hospital environment) but that it is unreasonable, and perhaps even harmful, to wage an indescriminate war on all bacteria everywhere.
If your loved ones are sick, minimize your exposure to their droplets, wash your hands frequently, and sanitize surfaces that they are in direct contact with. Otherwise, if you’re feeling well, I wouldn’t worry too much about bleaching your desk surface.
As one microbiology lab says,
“Support bacteria. It’s the only culture some people have.”This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
February 17th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in News
1 Comment »
A new initiative funded by the health department resulted in the distribution of 150,000 free condoms to unsuspecting subway riders in NYC. The condoms were colorfully labeled with a subway themed wrapper, and handed out by city workers and volunteers in all 5 boroughs.
Condoms are critical for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, but I wonder if the candy wrapper marketing and non-selective distribution methods are contributing to an over-sexualization of society?
Now, I know a lot of you will think I’m being prudish, but I worry about children being over-exposed to sexual content all the time. What does it say to them that subway staff are handing them condoms? Is it just me, or does anyone else think this is a bit much?
Go ahead, let me know!This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
February 17th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Health Policy, Opinion
5 Comments »
Within the past few years the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) chose to enforce a rule (casually known as the “75% rule”) that resulted in denial of services to many heart, lung, and cancer patients requiring rehabilitation therapies.
CMS was looking for a way to cut costs in rehabilitation facilities, and decided to create a rule whereby these facilities would lose their approval status if they admitted too many patients with certain conditions. The CMS arbitrarily decided that 75% of all patients admitted to inpatient rehabilitation facilities had to have one of 13 diagnoses, or else the rehab facility would not qualify for Medicare reimbursement. Many important diagnoses were not included in those 13, including cancer, heart and lung disease, and many types of orthopedic injuries.
What does this mean? It means that getting admitted to a rehabilitation facility is no longer based on need, but on diagnosis code. Because of the financial pressure exerted by CMS (Medicare is the primary payer for most facilities) these rehab centers cannot afford to be delisted. So they turn away patients in need, for patients who have the “right” diagnosis.
What has this rule done?
- Limited clinical decision making by doctors – a physician is no longer able to recommend patients for acute inpatient rehabilitation purely based on their need for it.
- Decreased choice for consumers – people recovering from heart attacks, cancer or COPD (to name a few) will generally not be offered the opportunity to be rehabilitated in an acute, inpatient setting.
- Reduced quality of care – rehabilitation facilities specializing in oncology or cardiopulmonary rehab will need to divest themselves of aggregated expertise. Since these centers would no longer qualify for Medicare funding, they can’t afford to remain centers of excellence in these fields of medicine. Instead, they will need to turn their attention to the 13 diagnoses that qualify for inpatient rehabilitation.
- Puts lives in danger – patients who are not admitted to acute rehab will be forced to recover in nursing homes (also known as “sub acute facilities”) that do not have the level of expertise to take care of them safely.
The 75% rule is one example of the kinds of decisions that a government sponsored universal healthcare system will make. When one payer (government or non-government) develops a monopoly, their decisions can single-handedly limit consumer choice, prevent physicians from exercising clinical judgment, and decrease quality and safety of care. What will Americans say when the decision to fund organ transplants for people over 65, for example, is denied across the board?
When medicine is no longer applied in a personalized (case by case) manner, and population-wide rules are in effect, we will face ethical dilemmas far surpassing those we already have. A system that serves the needs of many still fails the needs of some – and when we lose the flexibility to “bend the rules” for the exceptions we will lose the best of what American medicine has to offer.
This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
February 15th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in News, Opinion
No Comments »
This excerpt from the New Yorker (quoting a Dr. Parillo) captures physician frustration with the process of insurance reimbursements:
Doctors quickly learn that how much they make has little to do with how good they are. It largely depends on how they handle the business side of their practice. “A patient calls to schedule an appointment, and right there things can fall apart,” she said. If patients don’t have insurance, you have to see if they qualify for a state assistance program like Medicaid. If they do have insurance, you have to find out whether the insurer lists you as a valid physician. You have to make sure the insurer covers the service the patient is seeing you for and find out the stipulations that are made on that service. You have to make sure the patient has the appropriate referral number from his primary-care physician. You also have to find out if the patient has any outstanding deductibles or a co-payment to make, because patients are supposed to bring the money when they see you. “Patients find this extremely upsetting,” Parillo said. “ ‘I have insurance! Why do I have to pay for anything! I didn’t bring any money!’ Suddenly, you have to be a financial counselor. At the same time, you feel terrible telling them not to come in unless they bring cash, check, or credit card. So you see them anyway, and now you’re going to lose twenty per cent, which is more than your margin, right off the bat.”
Simplifying the process of insurance billing (and promoting more affordable plans) are important goals in healthcare. I hope that Revolution’s efforts will make things easier for physicians and patients alike. Otherwise we wind up in the unacceptable situation described in this article:
“If it’s not an emergency and you can’t pay for it, you don’t get care.”
Do you think that retail clinics will make basic healthcare more affordable and accessible to patients who are uninsured or underinsured?This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
