This week’s CBS Doc Dot Com features 42-year-old Dara Torres, who has been in five Olympics and won every kind of medal a swimmer can win. She juggles motherhood (her 3-year-old daughter, Tessa, is a gold medalist in being cute), a career, and philanthropy. And to top it off, as she proudly displayed during my interview with her, she has serious abs – world class.
But it wasn’t her abs that impressed me the most. Not nearly. It was the pride she took in her work. She understands that there’s no free lunch, that every one of her achievements has been paved by hard work and attention to detail.
I am always moved by a person who rolls up their sleeves, committed to doing a good job – whatever that job is. When I first started dating my wife, Kate, I took her to one of my favorite Italian restaurants. As we sat at our table, I suddenly saw her eyes well up with tears. She explained that she had been observing a bus boy carefully set a large, round table across from us. Seconds from finishing, he had noticed a small stain on the tablecloth. Rather than hide the spot by covering it up, he had painstakingly removed everything, replaced the tablecloth, and begun setting the table again. She was touched by his work ethic and I by her sensitivity and powers of observation.
Ponzi schemers may hog the headlines but I’ll bet most people still believe in the value of an honest day’s work.
Which brings us back to Dara Torres’ abdominal muscles. They didn’t just appear. She swims for two hours every morning and then does about seventy five minutes of core exercises. The take-home lesson from Dara Torres isn’t about her abs; it’s about the work ethic that lies beneath them.
For this week’s episode of CBS Doc Dot Com, I went back to camp. OK, it wasn’t my camp – Camp Algonquin in Argyle, New York – now defunct, where I spent many an idyllic summer growing up. It was Camp Shane in Ferndale, New York, listed on their website as “The original, longest running weight loss camp in the world” at 41 years and counting.
This is a tough time to be overweight or obese. Last week the Centers for Disease Control announced that obesity-related diseases account for 147 billion dollars in medical costs every year in the United States.
About a quarter of Americans are obese and two thirds are either obese or overweight. Over the past twenty years, obesity in teenagers has increased from 5 percent to almost 18 percent. Obese children and adolescents are more likely to become obese adults. Which brings us back to Camp Shane.
I spent an hour talking to about a dozen kids ranging from ages 11 to 17 who had been gathered into a group by Camp owner David Ettenberg and his wife, Zipora. They came in all shapes and sizes but shared a common sentiment – they felt safe at camp, surrounded by people who accepted them for who they were. It brought tears to my eyes to hear how supportive they were of each other, how open they were about their emotions and fears.
In school other kids often mocked them. There’s no way that would be tolerated at camp – not just by the staff but, more importantly, by the campers. “We’re all in this together,” one boy offered. A girl added, “It’s a safe zone for us.” A teenage girl said “You can wear a bikini without being made fun of.” I asked, “What would happen if you wore a bikini at home?” She answered, “You’d most likely get made fun of and like pushed in a pool. Ah ha, you’re fat.”
A boy told me that kids at his school would ask him, “‘Why are you so massive?’ And like usually I’d just laugh it off but sometimes it does get a little annoying. I’m like, how long until I get back to camp?”
The kids all said they had lost varying amounts of weight at camp through portion control and exercise, a program supervised by pediatrician Dr. Joanna Dolgoff. The challenge has been trying to stay on track once they leave camp and return home.
If they can do it at camp, they can do it at home. But not without the support of parents and schools who have been educated about how to help their children make healthy choices. My good friend, Dr. Mehmet Oz, has launched a wonderful organization called HealthCorps “to help stem the crisis of child obesity through school-based health education and mentoring, as well as community events and outreach to underserved populations.” Click here to see the HealthCorps website.
Click here to see this week’s CBS Doc Dot Com about my trip to Camp Shane.
Doubled over in pain, you stagger into the emergency room and are diagnosed with acute appendicitis. A surgeon leans over your stretcher:
Surgeon: You need an appendectomy.
You: What are my options?
Surgeon: Either I take out your appendix or you die.
Now that’s a conversation people can understand. But what if, instead of whisking you up to the operating room, the surgeon kept talking and invited a few other people into the discussion?
Surgeon: Do you think I should take it out by an open operation or laparoscopically?
You: Huh?
Laparoscopy equipment salesman: You know, cutting you open the old-fashioned way and leaving a big scar or having a tiny incision. Laparoscopy is much better than the open procedure.
Guy who sells scar-removal cream: Wait a minute. Better for whom? Laparoscopy takes fourteen minutes longer.
Hospital administrator: But hospital stay is reduced by 0.7 days on average, patients have less pain, and you can return to work sooner.
Surgeon: Laparoscopy costs more than an open operation while you’re hospitalized but less once you’re home. What’s your co-pay?
You: Doc, my belly’s hurting a lot more now.
Guy who owns shares in a drug company: What if we just treat him with antibiotics?
Surgeon: Don’t be silly. His appendix could burst.
Funeral director: What about doing nothing?
Very smart people are zoning out of the health care reform debate because they think it’s just too complicated.
The latest poll out today from the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health-care-policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente, says only 27 percent of the public has been following the health reform debate closely. Despite this, more than half (56 percent) of Americans think health reform is more important than ever.
Simply put, there are four main goals of the legislation:
Coverage expansion and subsidies. This is where most of the estimated trillion dollar price tag over ten years would go – to expanding Medicaid for uninsured and lower income people and to help people who can’t afford it pay on a sliding scale for insurance through new health insurance exchanges.
Insurance market reforms. This is about fair play in the insurance industry. Advocates want to eliminate practices such as refusing to cover people with pre-existing conditions and jacking up premiums if they’re sick. The most controversial proposal is the establishment of a “public option” – a government insurance plan that would compete against private ones.
Delivery and payment reforms. This is about delivering more effective care at a lower cost.
About 20 percent of the 2.5 trillion dollar annual health care price tag does not contribute to better health.
Prevention. This has been long overlooked in America. Spend a few dollars on foot care for a diabetic and you may prevent a foot amputation and thousands of dollars in expenses.Defining the goals is relatively easy to understand. Implementing them is tough and that’s where people are made to feel stupid – partly by special interest groups who intentionally or unintentionally confuse the debate. Drew Altman, Ph. D., the President and CEO of Kaiser Family Foundation, told me there’s “all kinds of spin, mis-statement of fact and plain old mis-truths being bandied about and the debate is getting nastier and nastier.” He added that people are becoming confused and “it’s beginning to make the public more anxious and antsier.”
Half-truths feed on fear. People are afraid of losing or compromising what coverage they already have. They’re afraid of higher taxes and lower quality of care. Who has the time or patience to read the 1,000-page bill proposed by the House of Representatives? So we rely on summaries and are susceptible to all sorts of misrepresentation. And nobody wants a plan with major faults rammed down their throat in the name of political expediency.
Today’s Kaiser Family Foundation report suggests that the tactics of special interest groups are working. Sixty percent of adults surveyed support a public option. But “(w)hen those who initially support the public plan are told that this could give the government an unfair advantage over private companies, overall support drops to 35 percent. Conversely, when opponents are told that public plans would give people more choice or help drive down costs through competition, overall support jumps to roughly seven in ten.”
It’s in the interest of those who oppose health care reform to make us feel that it’s just too hard to understand. I have certainly felt that way at times over the past year. But the stakes are too high for Americans to bale out on the discussion. Our common sense and sense of fair play are crucial to the national conversation. We should hear out the special interest groups; they often have legitimate concerns and thoughtful analysis. But we need to remember where they are coming from. And we must seek out information from sources that try to be nonpartisan, such as the
Kaiser Family Foundation.
No, you’re not stupid if you’re confused about health care reform. But you may be psyched out. You probably know a lot more than you think – but you may need to do some homework in order to participate in this extraordinarily important national debate. The national debate needs you.
For this week’s CBS Doc Dot Com, I moderate a debate about the public option between Wendell Potter, former head of public relations for Cigna and Rob Schlossberg, Executive Sales Director for BenefitMall. Mr. Schlossberg opposes it and Mr. Potter favors it.
To view the debate on a public option, click here.
To view a brief discussion of for-profit vs. not-for-profit health insurance organizations, click here.
For Janet Adamy’s excellent summary, “Ten Questions on the Health-Care Overhaul,” in the July 21st issue of the The Wall Street Journal, click here.
My Interview With President Obama On Health Care Reform
I met President Obama yesterday. I interviewed him at the White House about his proposals for health care reform. But naturally, as we greeted each other, I asked about his throwing out the first ball at the All Star Game the night before.
“Were you nervous about bouncing the ball?” I asked. He grinned. “I will say it’s actually nerve-wracking,” he said. “When they hand you the ball, there are just a lot of things that can go wrong.” I found that to be a perfect metaphor for his assuming the Presidency of the United States and attempting to overhaul the health care system.
The biggest news from yesterday’s interview: President Obama has changed his position from the campaign trail and now believes that health care insurance should be mandated for all Americans, with a hardship exemption.
Dr. LaPook: Ultimately, philosophically, do you believe that each individual American should be required to have health insurance?
President Obama: I have come to that conclusion. During the campaign, I was opposed to this idea because my general attitude was the reason people don’t have health insurance is not because they don’t want it, but because they can’t afford it. And if you make it affordable, then they will come. I’ve been persuaded that there are enough young uninsured people who are cheap to cover, but are opting out. To make sure that those folks are part of the overall pool is the best way to make sure that all of our premiums go down. I am now in favor of some sort of individual mandate as long as there’s a hardship exemption. If somebody truly just can’t afford health insurance even with the subsidies that the government is now providing, we don’t want to double penalize them. We want to phase this in, in a way that we have time to make sure that coverage is actually affordable before we’re saying to people “go out and get it.”
The interview went very smoothly and fairly predictably until we reached the following exchange:
Dr. LaPook: You’ve said that if doctors have the information, they’ll do the right thing. And generally, I like to — I’m a physician and practicing — I think that’s true. But actually, there are a lot of times when that’s not the case. For example, angioplasties — elective angioplasties, where you open up a clogged artery in the heart. It turns out that about 30 percent of them are unnecessary, that they’re done and you try to open up an artery of the heart, but really it’s no better than medication, and doctors know this, but they still order them.
President Obama: Why are they still ordering them, do you think?
I will admit that he took me by surprise by turning the question on me. Suddenly I was not in a one-way interview, I was in a conversation. Politics aside, it was clear to me that he was listening and he was curious.
Dr. LaPook: I think that because they believe — there’s this thing about — if an artery’s closed. It’s got to be better if it’s open, and it turns out that’s not true. So they have on the one side their intuition as a physician, in their bellies, and then there’s the evidence-based medicine that we talk about, and they clash a lot at times, so how do you make that doctor do the right thing or give him the right incentives?
President Obama: I have enormous faith in doctors. I think they always want to do the right thing for patients. But I also think, if we’re honest, doctors, right now, have disincentives to making the better choices in the situations you talked about. If you are getting paid more for the angioplasty, then that subconsciously even might make you think the angioplasty is the better route to take. And so if we’re reimbursing the physician not on the basis of how many procedures you’re performing but rather how are you caring for the patient overall – what are the outcomes – then I think you start seeing some different choices. And at the very least, you’re not taking money out of physicians’ pockets for making the better choice. So it’s a combination of better information and then, I think, a different system of reimbursement that says, “let’s look at the overall quality of the care of the patient.”
My conversation with President Obama illustrates a crucial focus of the current healthcare debate: figuring out if the American people are getting their bang for the buck when doctors order tests, perform procedures, and prescribe medications. The current buzzwords among doctors and politicians are “evidence-based medicine” (is there proof that something works?) and “comparative effectiveness” (if there’s more than one way to do something, what works best?). An Institute of Medicine workshop about evidence-based medicine began today in Washington, with the following listed as “issues prompting the discussion”:
. “Health costs in the United States this year will be about $2.5 trillion—nearly 17% of the economy.
. The United States spends far more on health care than any other nation, 50% more than the 2nd highest spender and about twice as high as the average for other developed countries.
. Overall health outcomes in the United States lag behind those achieved in other countries.
. Consistent with the per capita figures, many researchers studying the nature of U.S. health expenditures feel that 20% of our expenditures do not contribute to better health.”
Expert groups are currently trying to establish guidelines for reimbursing health expenses based on clear results from well-designed clinical studies. The problem is that for many medical issues, there is no definitive, evidence-based approach. Clinical medicine is often based on inexact, immeasurable tools such as intuition and experience. As doctors, we don’t have the luxury of waiting for the twenty-year study to be completed. We have to treat the patient now, as best we can, without perfect information.
In the absence of definitive data, we will need to account for clinical judgment in an overhauled health care system. What will happen when the doctor suggests something the insurance company says is not indicated? Opponents of a public option for insurance warn about the danger of having a bureaucrat in between the patient and the physician. But that threat already exists in the current system every time an insurance company decides whether to approve a claim. Wendell Potter, former head of Public Relations for Cigna, recently told
Bill Moyers about Cigna’s decision to deny a liver transplant to a 17-year-old girl, Nataline Sarkisyan, even though her doctors at UCLA had recommended the procedure.
A public-relations uproar forced Cigna to reverse its decision; the company subsequently explained its reversal as an exception, saying the surgery was approved “despite the lack of medical evidence regarding the effectiveness of such treatment.”
Ms. Sarkisyan died hours after Cigna’s decision, without having received the transplant.
A critical flaw in the current system – and one that must be addressed in any overhaul – is that the same people who refuse to pay for a recommended course of action are the ones who consider the appeal of that decision. And, lo and behold, they usually end up agreeing with themselves! In more than two decades of medical practice, I have spent countless hours trying to get various services covered by payors. One encounter – when I tried unsuccessfully to get a stomach-acid lowering pill approved for a patient who needed it -ended up as an example of twentieth-century frustration in
Letters of the Century.
Yes, our current health care system is not sustainable and we do need an overhaul. But there is no “exactly how” and we cannot afford to wait for one. There are so many nuances to the moving target of health care and so many unknowns that it is impossible to create a perfect solution on paper. I’ll settle for an imperfect solution that addresses the most important problems first and represents the best efforts of our most thoughtful experts. But it should not be set in stone. It must include provisions to mature gracefully into versions 2.0 and beyond.
Being with the wrong doctor can have grave consequences – literally. As a practicing physician, I’m the first to admit that no doctor is perfect, especially me. I’m in a field that is eternally humbling, with my next mistake potentially hiding just around the corner. The stakes are enormous and the number of tasks I must juggle often daunting. From my point of view, I’m trying my best. But from the patient’s point of view, that may not be enough. So how do you know when it’s time to call it quits with your doctor? Here are ten reasons to make you think twice about continuing with the status quo:
1) You feel your doctor isn’t listening to you.
Listening isn’t waiting to speak. One of my favorite and most beloved teachers, Dr. Alfred Markowitz, once told me, “If you let patients talk long enough, they’ll actually tell you what’s the matter.” Studies show that, on average, doctors let patients talk for 18-23 seconds before interrupting. Patients are allowed to finish their opening statement of concerns about 25 percent of the time.
You want a physician who not only is willing to hear what you’re saying but who’s intrigued by interpreting nuances of words and body language, who notices when you hesitate a millisecond before answering a question that’s hit a hidden sore spot. Don’t be shy about confronting a doctor who isn’t listening. And leave if your concerns aren’t addressed.
2) Your doctor can’t communicate effectively with you.
Your doctor not only needs to be a great listener but has to be able to explain things to you in a way that you can understand. You’ll know it when you don’t hear it.
3) The doctor isn’t taking you seriously.
This is a deal breaker. It may happen if your doctor jumps to a conclusion about the cause of your symptoms before considering other possibilities. Even if you’re a hypochondriac, your hypochondria needs to be seriously addressed. And even hypochondriacs get real illnesses.
4) You have a problem with the office staff.
Office personnel represent the doctor. If they’re unfriendly or unkind then you’re starting off on the wrong foot. And it gets worse if they’re inefficient. Messages must be given to the doctor, insurance forms filed, tests properly scheduled and results reported. Last week, a survey of primary care practices found that patients were not told of abnormal results an average of 7 percent of the time.
5) You’re kept waiting too long.
Doctors can be delayed by unpredictable medical emergencies. But if it happens consistently then the doctor is probably scheduling inefficiently. A clue you’ve been in the waiting room too long: if you pass completely through menopause while waiting to discuss your hot flashes.
6) It takes too long to get an appointment.
Routine annual visits can be scheduled months in advance but new problems and ongoing medical complaints need to be addressed in a timely fashion.
7) The doctor’s too busy.
This may develop over time, as the practice grows. If messages are going unreturned, insist on talking to the doctor. If the problem continues or the doctor always seems to be in a hurry then you may need to find somebody else.
8) Your doctor gets annoyed by questions.
This may be a reflection of other problems listed above such as the doctor being too busy or not taking you seriously. Whatever the cause, it’s unacceptable. Not only are patients entitled to careful consideration of questions, those questions may provide doctors with important clues. “Why do I get a stomach ache every time I eat a slice of toast?” may lead to the diagnosis of celiac disease, a condition in which gluten – a component of wheat, rye, and barley – is toxic to the body. If a doctor doesn’t immediately know the answer, a perfectly good response is, “I don’t know but I’ll research it and get back to you.”
9) Your doctor is too arrogant.
God save us from the brilliant doctors. You probably need to be a B+ student to be smart enough to learn everything you need to be a great doctor. But you also need to be A+ in empathy, listening, carefulness, keeping an open mind, logic, and common sense. Doctors who think they are brilliant scare the heck out of me. I’ve seen them make huge mistakes as they take short cuts or rely on their instincts without seeking help from others or adequately listening to their patients.
10) It just doesn’t feel right.
As with any relationship, sometimes you can’t put it into words but you just know it’s wrong. Don’t fight your instincts.
For this week’s episode of CBS Doc Dot Com, I visit the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City and speak to Erica Friedman, the director of the Morchand Center, where budding doctors are schooled on bedside manner by treating actors pretending to be patients.
It’s no secret that doctors are disappointed with the way that the U.S. healthcare system is evolving. Most feel helpless about improving their work conditions or solving technical problems in patient care. Fortunately one young medical student was undeterred by the mountain of disappointment carried by his senior clinician mentors…
I am proud to be a part of the American Resident Project an initiative that promotes the writing of medical students residents and new physicians as they explore ideas for transforming American health care delivery. I recently had the opportunity to interview three of the writing fellows about how to…
I m often asked to do book reviews on my blog and I rarely agree to them. This is because it takes me a long time to read a book and then if I don t enjoy it I figure the author would rather me remain silent than publish my…
When I was in medical school I read Samuel Shem s House Of God as a right of passage. At the time I found it to be a cynical yet eerily accurate portrayal of the underbelly of academic medicine. I gained comfort from its gallows humor and it made me…
I am hesitant to review diet books because they are so often a tangled mess of fact and fiction. Teasing out their truth from falsehood is about as exhausting as delousing a long-haired elementary school student. However after being approached by the authors’ PR agency with the promise of a…
