No Comments »
The “Health 2.0″ movement is about “consumer directed healthcare” and proposes to empower patients with online tools and technologies to help them manage their care and take control of their health. Some Health 2.0 initiatives have been quite popular – though many suffer from lack of participation on the part of consumers. Having your own personal health record sounds great – but when you’re the one who has to manually enter the majority of the data into it, only the most motivated patients will participate. Access to online physician ratings is appealing – but when everyone wants to read the ratings, but no one takes the time to complete the ratings questionnaire, the value of the tool is lost.
Over the past few years there have been a number of regularly repeating conferences created to unify key stakeholders around healthcare’s digital agenda – Health 2.0, Health Care Consumerism, The Healthcare Globalization Summit, Health 3.0, New Media Expo, Blog World Expo, Health 4.0, the AMA’s Medical Communications Conference, and more. Thankfully, these disparate groups with overlapping agendas are beginning to consolidate – offering new mega conferences that simplify the learning and relationship-building process.
My observation as an attendee of several of these conferences is that providers and patients are still not coming together as they should. Online healthcare solutions tend to be created in a lopsided manner – either by consumer/patient groups without much provider input, or by providers/health plans/governmental agencies without much patient/consumer input. The result tends to produce two types of products 1) active online groups and tools that facilitate both helpful information and misinformation or 2) products that advance good concepts, but have low participation due to lack of user-friendliness.
The current conference version “arms race” (to attract the most powerful vendors and largest audience possible) is not terribly helpful. Whether you associate with Health 2.0, 3.0 or 4.0 – the bottom line is that the Internet is a powerful force in healthcare. It can provide many different kinds of tools that make valuable contributions to health education, care management, behavior modification, emotional support, and improved quality outcomes. In the wrong hands it can also mislead patients, promote snake oil, sensationalize health news, confound research efforts, misinform, and mislead.
There is no more critical time than this for providers and patients to join forces to guide the development of new online health initiatives. The successful execution of digital health platforms requires a patient-provider partnership – I can only hope that upcoming conferences will embrace this view more fully.
In my next few blog posts, I’ll provide you with some fascinating interviews with key opinion leaders from the recent Consumer Health World mega-conference in Arlington, Virginia. The interviews are as follows, so stay tuned:
1. Skip Brickley, founder of Consumer Health World
2. Joseph Heyman, M.D., Chair, Board of Trustees, the American Medical Association
3. Emme Levin Deland, Senior Vice president, Strategy, New York Presbyterian Hospital
4. Joseph Kvedar, M.D., Director, Center For Connected Health, Partners Healthcare
2 Comments »
Some thoughts to chew on from Grace-Marie Turner:
But expanding SCHIP to cover all children would be a mistake, for four reasons:
1. First, Congress should make sure poorer, uninsured children are covered first. At least two-thirds of uninsured children already are eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid but aren’t enrolled. If SCHIP were expanded to cover children in higher-income families, their parents would rush to the head of the line to get the taxpayer-subsidized coverage. When a “free” government plan is offered, it’s nearly impossible to resist. Poorer children would be left behind as states focus on enrolling higher-income kids.
2. Second, expanding the program would “crowd out” the private insurance many higher-income kids already have. Hawaii offers proof. Earlier this year, the state created a new taxpayer-financed program to fill the gap between private and public insurance in an effort to provide universal coverage for children. But state officials found families were dropping private coverage to enroll their children in the government plan. When Gov. Linda Lingle saw the data, she pulled the plug on funding. With Hawaii facing budget shortfalls, she said it was unwise to spend public money to replace private coverage children already had.
3. Third, putting many millions of children on a government program will quickly lead to restrictions on access to care. A young boy died in Baltimore not long ago from an untreated tooth infection, even though he was enrolled in SCHIP. Few dentists can afford to take SCHIP patients because the program’s reimbursement rates are so low. The boy’s mother couldn’t find a dentist to see him. In Massachusetts’ move toward universal health coverage, more people have insurance, but they are finding that physicians’ practices are often filled, with waiting lists for a new patient appointment at 100 days and counting. Putting more children on SCHIP will add to the program’s financial pressures, making it harder for poorer kids to get care.
4. Finally, government insurance means that politicians and bureaucrats, not parents, make decisions about the care children receive and about what services will or will not be covered.
3 Comments »
Thanks to KevinMD for pointing out a recent NYT article about “etiquette-based medicine.” The author, a psychiatrist, suggests that physicians should use a check list to ensure courteous behavior and that this sort of thing should be taught in medical school. His suggestions were also published in the New England Journal of Medicine:
• Ask permission to enter the room; wait for an answer.
• Introduce yourself; show your ID badge.
• Shake hands.
• Sit down. Smile if appropriate.
• Explain your role on the health care team.
• Ask how the patient feels about being in the hospital.
If this sort of thing isn’t intuitively obvious to a physician then I’d say the blame should rest with his parents not his medical school. I mean, do we really need to teach doctors to knock on doors and smile on cue? Aren’t those sorts of things taught in pre-school?
It grieves me that some of my peers do not display what some might call “normal behavior” when interacting with patients. But I don’t think that’s related to their medical school curriculae – it’s the sad result of a broken healthcare system that wears thin our common human decency. Doctors are exhausted by clinical volume, henpecked by bureaucracy, delirious from lack of sleep, and stressed out by the daily grind of bad news, disease progression, and death. When well-groomed adults of sound mind require a checklist in order to smile appropriately, you know something’s terribly wrong.
Now, I don’t excuse disrespectful behavior – we docs must rise above our natural urge to be irritable at times, and remember that our patients are vulnerable and need our help. But for heaven’s sake… let’s drop the smug check lists and finger pointing. We’re all in this together, and it ain’t pretty.
6 Comments »
By Alan W. Dappen, MD; Steve Simmons, MD; Valerie Tinley, FNP of Doctokr Family Medicine
We are a family doctor, an internist and a family nurse practitioner working on the front line of the American health care system. We share a moral and ethical duty to protect the health of our patients along with all our colleagues who labor daily doing the same.We as Americans are proud of what has long been considered a first-rate health care system. Sadly, this system is broken despite our best efforts. Americans spend much more per capita for care as any other country. The World Health Organization has graded our care as 37th “best” in the world. Even worse, American citizens were the least satisfied with their medical care compared to the next five leading socialized industrialized countries, including England, Germany, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. There are many things wrong. Let’s examine a few:
Primary care medicine in America is gasping for its last breath. Internists, family doctors, pediatricians (whom health experts consider essential to a robust and cost-effective delivery system) are leaving primary care in droves. The number of newly trained generalist doctors has plummeted so fast that extinction of the generalist doctor has been forecasted within 20 years by both the American Academy of Family Practice and the American College of Physicians.
Patients are angry and exasperated with long delays, poor service and confusing and redundant paperwork. To date 17% of us are uninsured and this number will quickly grow in a deepening recession.
Employers face a huge cost burden as health insurance prices go through the roof. CEOs consistently say the runaway costs in health care benefits (which double in price every seven to ten years) threaten the viability of their companies. Since 2000, the number of small businesses offering health insurance has dropped 8%.
Health insurance companies are making so much money that several states have motioned legislation compelling insurance companies to disclose the percentage of premiums spent on actual medical care. Not surprisingly, their lobbyists are resisting. It is not uncommon for insurance companies to keep 30-40% of every dollar for “administration” and profits. Many of these companies are on record reaffirming their commitment to shareholders and short-term profits.
Doctokr (“doc-talker”) Family Medicine is a medical practice that was created to respond to the conflicts and problems listed above. We have worked to resuscitate the soul of the Marcus Welby-style patient-focused physician while adding technology to deliver fast, responsive and informed care. All fees are transparent and time-based and are the responsibility of our patients to pay. All parties that interfere with the doctor patient relationship or increase our costs have been removed from the equation. The practice delivers “concierge level” services: 24/7 access, connectivity to the doctor no matter where our patients are located, same day office visits for those that need to be seen, even house calls for those unable to get to our office. By removing the hurdles and restoring transparency and trust, 75% of our clients get their entire primary care needs met for $300.00 a year.
This post is written by three medical professionals who stopped waiting for someone else to find a solution and are actively changing primary care in ways that dramatically improve quality, convenience and access, while drastically reducing costs. The US deserves excellent health care and it must be done right. To understand why we would bother to “walk the walk,” we ask your indulgence and participation while we “talk the talk.” We hope this format will educate and inform you in ways that move you to participate in your care. Health care is about you, just as much as it about us, because we are all patients. We all have a stake in shaping the inevitable need for reform.
The next upcoming topics:
- Where did the Marcus Welby, MD-style of primary care go and how can we get it back?
- How have you as a patient lost control of your body and health?
- Turning the primary care model upside down: What does primary care need to do to reinvent itself so that it serves its patients without other conflicting interests?
- Begin the exploration of the unexamined assumptions of health care….
Until next week, we remain yours in primary care.
- Alan, Steve, and Valerie
2 Comments »
I’d like to point out an error I made during a more optimistic time in my online career. Last year on my blog I suggested that physician ratings were “here to stay” so physicians should “embrace the inevitable.” What I hadn’t thought through at the time was the fact that virtually no one would use the ratings tools. I had made a fairly narcissistic assumption: that everyone cared so much about their healthcare experience that they were dying to describe it online.
The truth is that any online tool, portal, social network, or health 2.0 application must deliver a compelling “value proposition” to the user, especially if participation requires any degree of effort. It is human nature to take part in activities that reward us for our time. For example, we may slave over a hot stove because we stand to gain a delicious, satisfying meal in the end; we continue to work at jobs that we dislike because the paycheck makes it worthwhile. But why would a patient fill out a lengthy survey about his or her doctor when there’s no obvious value to them in doing so?
A recent article in Slate (h/t to the ACP Internist) makes a compelling case for why physician-rating sites have such low participation rates as to be fairly useless. The return on investment (time spent filling out a long questionnaire) is extremely low, and is worthwhile to only the most irritated patients. And of course, there is no policing of contributions – physicians can rate themselves into the highest quality rankings by logging in as fictional patients.
So does this mean that there are no worthwhile physician rating tools online? The Slate author would have you believe that there are none. However, I would suggest that Castle Connolly’s America’s Top Doctors list is a reliable, if somewhat limited source. Why? Because teams of staff (who are paid by Castle Connolly) do the heavy-lifting, requiring no effort from patients or online raters. Castle Connolly reviewers first request nominations for physician excellence from within a given specialty and region. Peers nominate others for the honor and then the Castle Connolly staff seek corroborative data from surveys sent to physician peers, hospital administrators, and support staff to ensure that nominated physicians are indeed highly esteemed by many of those with whom they work. In the end, about 10% of physicians are fully vetted and included in the list - and I’d say that the selection process is quite sensitive but not specific. In other words, a physician listed in America’s Top Doctors is likely to be excellent, but many excellent physicians are not captured by the methods.
I spoke to John Connolly in a recent interview about how to find a good physician and you may listen to the podcast here. Locating a good doctor is not too difficult – but finding one that will take your insurance (or still has some slots available for new patients) is another story.