June 15th, 2009 by DrRob in Better Health Network
Tags: EMR, Finance, Flaming Moderate, Healthcare reform, Internal Medicine, Policy, Primary Care, Rant
No Comments »
I am a flaming moderate. Yes, I know that is an oxymoron but the fact remains that I am both passionate and moderate in my political opinions.
And I am in the mood to rant, so beware.
Living in the deep south, I often seem like a radical communist to those I see. I frequently get patients asking questions like “So what do you think about Obama’s plans to socialize medicine?”, or “I wanted to get in here before Obama-care comes and messes things up.” I usually smile and nod, but find myself getting increasingly frustrated by this.
The house is burning down, folks. Healthcare is a mess and desperately needs fixing. How in the world can someone cling to old political yada-yaya-yada when people are dying? I am not just talking about the conservatives here because to actually fix this problem we all have to somehow come together. A solution that comes from a single political ideology will polarize the country and guarantee the “fix” to healthcare will be one constructed based on politics rather than common sense.
No, this doesn’t frustrate me; it infuriates me. The healthcare system is going to be handed over to the political ideologues so they can use it as a canvas for their particular slant. In the mean-time, people are going to be denied care, go bankrupt, and die. Yes, my own livelihood is at stake, but I sit in the exam room with people all day and care for them. I don’t want to be part of a system that puts ideology above their survival.
So here is what this radical moderate sees in our system:
- The payment system we have favors no one. Every single patient I see is unhappy with their health insurance to varying degrees.
- Stupid and wasteful procedures shouldn’t be reimbursed. This is business 101; if you don’t control spending, you will not be able to sustain your system. This means that we have to stop paying for procedures that don’t do any good. Some will scream “rationing” at this, but why should someone have the right to have a coronary stent placed when this has never been shown to help? Why should we allow people to gouge the system for personal gain in the name of “free market”? I got a CT angiogram report on patient today who has fairly advanced Alzheimer’s disease. I twittered it and the Twitter mob was not at all surprised. These things happen all the time. The procedures do no good and cost a bundle. The procedure done today probably cost more than all of the care I have given this patient over the past 5 years combined!
- The government has to stop being stupid. Why can’t I give discount cards to Medicare patients? Why can’t I post my charges, accept what Medicare pays me, and then bill the difference? The absurdity within the system is probably the best argument against increased government involvement. Who invented the “welcome to Medicare physical??” I never do it because the rules are utterly complex and convoluted. If the rules can be this crazy now, how much worse will it be when the government takes over? If my medicare patients are confused now, how much more will we all be if the government grabs all of the strings?
- The money is going somewhere. In the past 10 years, my reimbursement has dropped while insurance premiums have skyrocketed. There are more generic drugs than ever and I am no longer able to prescribe a bunch of things that didn’t get a second-thought 10 years ago. Hospitals stays were longer and procedures were easier to get authorize. So where is the money going?? We do know the answer to this question – there is no single culprit. Drug companies were to blame for a while, but now they are going to the dogs; and yet the rates aren’t dropping. The real problem is that there are far too many people trying to capitalize on the busload of money in healthcare. Shareholders, CEO’s, and simple corporate greed has bled money out of the system like a cut to the jugular.
- Docs have to stop being idiots. We like our soap boxes to rant against EMR, malpractice lawyers, drug companies, and insurance companies. We stand on different sides yelling our opinions but don’t come up with solutions. Instead of doing what is right for our patients, we join the punching match of politics. Is EMR implementation important? Duh! There is no way to fix healthcare without it. But the systems out there are designed by engineers and administrators and don’t work in the real life. So why can’t we computerize ourselves? Every other industry did. Why must we cling to the archaic paper chart because we don’t like the EMR’s out there? Aren’t we smart people? Aren’t we paid to solve problems? Stop throwing darts and start finding solutions. Med bloggers are terrible in this – they rant constantly against EMR, but don’t ever say what would work. It’s fun to criticize, but nobody wants to propose an alternative.
- We need to get our priorities right. Healthcare is about the health of the patient. Yes, it is a job for a lot of people. Yes, it is an investment opportunity. Yes, it is a good thing to argue about – whether it is a “right” or not. Yes, it is a major political battleground. But in the end, these things need to be put behind what is most important. As it stands, we are more passionate about these other things than we are about the people who get the care. In the end it is about making people well or keeping them that way. It is about saving lives and letting people die when it is time. If we were all half as passionate about what is good for patients (and we are all patients) as we are about these other issues, we wouldn’t have half of the problems we have.
As a flaming moderate I get to offend people on all sides. We need to fix our system. It is broken. It is not a playground for those who like to argue. It is not a place to be liberal or conservative. This is our care we are talking about, not someone else’s. The solution will only come when we all come to the table as potential patients and fix the system for ourselves.
Is it easy? Heck no. This rant is not meant to show I am smarter than the rest of you; it is meant to get all of us away from the other issues that make any hope of actually fixing our problem remote. Given the fact that we all are eventually patients, our political posturing and plain stupidity may come back to haunt us. No, it may come back to kill us.
*This blog post was originally published at Musings of a Distractible Mind*
June 14th, 2009 by RamonaBatesMD in Better Health Network
Tags: Disclosure, Plastic Surgery, Procedures, Surgery, Wall Street Journal
1 Comment »
Recently the WSJ Health Blog posted “Should Doctors Say How Often They’ve Performed a Procedure?” written by Jacob Goldstein. It references another guest post by Adam Wolfberg, M.D — “Test Poses Challenge for OB-GYNs”
Dr. Wolfberg writes:
None of the published studies of CVS pitted seasoned physicians against novices; what patient would agree to be randomly assigned to an inexperienced doctor holding a long needle? But several reports from individual hospitals demonstrate that the miscarriage rate declined over time as the hospital’s staff became more experienced.
These reports point to a dilemma: CVS mavens got that way by practicing, so their present-day patients benefit at the expense of previous patients.
When I first began my solo practice 19 years ago, patients often asked how long I had been in practice. They ask less often these days. I have never failed to answer.
Patients sometimes ask how many times I have done a procedure, but not often. Early in my practice, and sometimes even now, if it is a procedure I feel a bit uneasy with or haven’t done in a while I will bring the subject up without being asked. After all, some procedures you just don’t do every day or even every month. Some diseases you don’t see every month or even every year.
In my mind, many of the procedures I do are built on basic surgical principles. I withdrew my privileges for microvascular procedures more than 10 years ago. I didn’t get enough patients referred to me to feel that my skills were kept sharp. In private practice, unlike at a university, there are no labs to go do practice work in to maintain those rarely used skills. I have no doubt that I could regain them given the chance, but at what cost (financially or complications).
Because I gave up my privileges for microvascular procedures, it means I have limited my repertoire of reconstructive procedures important in hand, breast, and other work. I tell my patients about them. If a breast reconstruction patient wants a free TRAM flap, then she is referred to someone who does it. If she wants to keep me as her surgeon, is there the possibility she is short changing herself on the outcome? I suppose, but I try (TRY) to be upfront and fair to each patient.
The question asked “should doctors say how often they’ve performed a procedure?” may seem an easy one to answer. If asked, yes. If not asked, should it be part of the consent form? I’m not sure it should for most procedures, but for extremely complex ones, maybe.
What if I did 100 of one type of procedure, but my last one was over a year ago? What if I have done 50 of a second procedure that is closely related in skill-set? What if that number is only 15? What if I have never done one and don’t wish to now, but the patient needs the procedure and is not willing to travel to another hospital? Is it okay that I have “informed” them, but they want to take the risk? How do I define that risk for them?
How many of which procedure is enough to become proficient? How often does it need to be done to remain proficient? Who gets to define proficient? Who gets to define the “magic” number of how many is enough to be proficient? Who get to define how often the procedure needs to be done to remain “proficient”?
As Dr Wolfberg noted
What patient would agree to be randomly assigned to an inexperienced doctor holding a long needle?
So how will these questions be answered?
*This blog post was originally published at Suture for a Living*
June 14th, 2009 by EvanFalchukJD in Better Health Network, Health Policy
Tags: Atul Gawande, Finance, healthcare, Healthcare Costs, McAllen Texas, New Yorker, Reform
4 Comments »
Everyone is reading Atul Gawande’s article in the New Yorker about health care costs. But I think most people misunderstand Gawande’s major point.
Everyone’s At It
The conventional wisdom on Gawande’s piece is this: our problems are caused by bad incentives in our health care system. They encourage doctors to overprescribe care. McAllen, Texas is the poster child of this problem. If we can change the economic incentives, doctors will behave better. They will follow medical evidence, not their bottom lines, and from this will emerge a rational, affordable system.
This isn’t what Gawande is saying.
Gawande went to McAllen expecting to see a microcosm of the American health care system. As expected, he found excessive, even abusive spending, and a culture that encouraged both. But he also found that in nearby El Paso, Texas, medicine wasn’t practiced this way, nor in most other places in the country. And so he came up with a surprising insight. Yes, McAllen is a reflection of what can happen based on the incentives in the system. But if every incentive works this way, why is McAllen such an outlier?
Gawande concluded it had to do with the “culture” of medicine in each community. Most doctors go into medicine to help patients. In Gawande’s visit to McAllen, he heard stories that money had become more important than quality care. What Gawande realized was how important this question of “culture” was to how McAllen became McAllen. It made him think of places that had a completely different culture, like the Mayo Clinic.
The doctors of the Mayo Clinic decided, some decades ago, to put medicine first:
The core tenet of the Mayo Clinic is “The needs of the patient come first” — not the convenience of the doctors, not their revenues. The doctors and the nurses, and even the janitors, sat in meetings almost weekly, working on ideas to make the service and the care better, not to get more money out of patients. . . . Mayo promoted leaders who focused first on what was best for patients, and then on how to make this financially feasible.
Gawande couldn’t believe how much time doctors at the Mayo clinic spent with each patient, and how readily they could interact with colleagues on difficult problems. While it is true, the Mayo Clinic has financial arrangements that make this easier, it is the culture of patient care that dominates, not questions of pay:
No one there actually intends to do fewer expensive scans and procedures than is done elsewhere in the country. The aim is to raise quality and to help doctors and other staff members work as a team. But almost by happenstance, the result has been lower costs.
“When doctors put their heads together in a room, when they share expertise, you get more thinking and less testing,” [Denis] Cortes [CEO of the Mayo Clinic] told me
And this is where Gawande is being misunderstood.
The “cost conundrum” that Gawande talks about is not about how to cut costs, or how to change who pays for health care and how much. It’s deeper than that. Gawande’s point is that we have been fixated for so long on the question of money in health care that we are starting to forget about medicine. By focusing on ever more clever ways to pay doctors, we have systematically undervalued everything that makes for high quality medicine. Things like time with your patient, thinking about his or her problems, consulting with colleagues, and coming up with sound advice.
We discount what he calls the “astonishing” accomplishments of the Mayo Clinic on this score. And instead of designing health care reform around ways to help more hospitals become like the Mayo Clinic, we choose instead to think about money, to focus our attention on how to cut costs in places like McAllen.
Politically, it makes sense – it’s convenient to have a poster child like McAllen to explain why one reform plan or another should become law. But the pity is that in this important time of reform we’re not talking about trying to put the needs of the patients first – to put medicine back in the center of health care. The pity is that in spite of the fact that everyone’s reading Gawande’s article, his most important insight is being misunderstood.
If we continue to be focused on money over medicine, we will lose the “war over the culture of medicine – the war over whether our country’s anchor model with be Mayo or McAllen.”
*This blog post was originally published at See First Blog*
June 13th, 2009 by Shadowfax in Better Health Network, Health Policy
Tags: Atul Gawande, Cost Shifting, Ezra Klein, Finance, Health Insurance, Healthcare reform, Physicians, Policy
No Comments »
Ezra opines a bit on the role of doctors in health care with the strangely misleading headline:
Listen to Atul Gawande: Insurers Aren’t the Problem in Health Care
This wasn’t Gawande’s point at all, and is something quite tangential to Klein’s point:
The reason most Americans hate insurers is because they say “no” to things. “No” to insurance coverage, “no” to a test, “no” to a treatment. But whatever the problems with saying “no,” what makes our health-care system costly is all the times when we say “yes.” And insurers are virtually never the ones behind a “yes.” They don’t prescribe you treatments. They don’t push you towards MRIs or angioplasties. Doctors are behind those questions, and if you want a cheaper health-care system, you’re going to have to focus on their behavior.
Yes, doctors are a driver — one of many — in the exponentially increasing cost of health care. Utilization is uneven, not linked to quality or outcomes in many cases, and may often be driven by physicians’ personal economic interests. All of this is not news, though certainly Atul Gawande wove it together masterfully in his recent New Yorker article. (I’m assuming you’ve all read it — If not, then stop reading this drivel and go read it immediately.) Nobody disputes that doctors’ behavior (and ideally their reimbursement formula) need to change if effective cost control will be brought to bear on the system.
But it’s completely off-base to claim that insurers aren’t one of the problems in the current system. There are two crises unfolding in American health care — a fiscal crisis and an access crisis. I would argue that insurers are less significant as a driver of cost than they are as a barrier to access. Overall, insurers have, I think, only a marginal effect on cost growth, largely due to the friction they introduce to the system — paperwork, hassles & redundancy and internal costs such as executive compensation, advertising and profits. It would be great if this could be reduced, but it wouldn’t fix the escalation in costs, only defer the crisis for a few years until cost growth caught up to today’s level. In the wonk parlance, it wouldn’t “bend the cost curve,” just step it down a bit.
But as for access to care, insurers are the biggest problem. It’s not their “fault” per se in that they are simply rational actors in the system as it’s currently designed. Denying care, rescinding policies, aggressive underwriting and cost-shifting are the logical responses of profit-making organizations to the market and its regulatory structure. Fixing this broken insurance system will not contain costs, but it will begin to address the human cost of the 47 million people whose only access to health care is to come to see me in the ER.
*This blog post was originally published at Movin' Meat*
June 13th, 2009 by RamonaBatesMD in Better Health Network, Health Tips
Tags: Cell Phone Elbow, Cubital Tunnel Syndrome, Nerve Injury, Neurology, Physical Medicine And Rehabilitation
2 Comments »
Last Tuesday, this tweet from @AllergyNotes caught my eye.
Call cubital tunnel syndrome a “cell phone elbow” and you make the front page of CNN.com: http://bit.ly/RaXrt and http://bit.ly/TTRfg
Cubital tunnel syndrome I know, but I had not heard it called “cell phone elbow.” The first link is to the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine article (full reference below). It is an excellent article and well worth reading. The second link is to CNN news article picking up the “cell phone elbow” line.
Cubital tunnel syndrome is a nerve compression syndrome (like carpal tunnel syndrome). In the case of cubital tunnel syndrome, the nerve involved is the ulnar nerve and the location is at the elbow. From the article
… the ulnar nerve as it traverses the posterior elbow, wrapping around the medial condyle of the humerus. When people hold their elbow flexed for a prolonged period, such as when speaking on the phone or sleeping at night, the ulnar nerve is placed in tension; the nerve itself can elongate 4.5 to 8 mm with elbow flexion……..
As with other nerve compression syndromes, the clinical picture is representative of the nerves enervation. In the case of the ulnar nerve, this involves numbness or paresthesias in the small and ring fingers. There may also be numbness of the dorsal ulnar hand which will NOT be present if the ulnar nerve compression is in the Guyon’s canal at the wrist level (distal ulnar nerve compression). If the compression is chronic enough, the symptoms progress to hand fatigue and weakness. The small intrinsic muscles of the hand are important in hand strength needed to open jars. More from the article
Chronic and severe compression may lead to permanent motor deficits, including an inability to adduct the small finger (Wartenberg sign) and severe clawing of the ring and small fingers (a hand posture of metacarpophalangeal extension and flexion of the proximal and distal interphalangeal joints due to dysfunction of the ulnar-innervated intrinsic hand musculature). Patients may be unable to grasp things in a key-pinch grip, using a fingertip grip instead (Froment sign).
It may be an old joke (Patient: Doctor, it hurts when I do this. … Doctor: Well don’t do it.), but in the case of cubital tunnel syndrome it fits. Prevention is key. Prolonged extreme flexion of the elbow (elbows bent tighter than 90 degrees) is not kind to the ulnar nerve. Switch hands or use a head set or blue tooth.
REFERENCES
Q:What is cell phone elbow, and what should we tell our patients?; Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine May 2009 vol. 76 5 306-308 (doi: 10.3949/ccjm.76a.08090); Darowish, Michael MD, Lawton, Jeffrey N. MD, and Evans, Peter J MD, PhD
Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: eMedicine Article, Feb 9, 2007; James R Verheyden, MD and Andrew K Palmer, MD
*This blog post was originally published at Suture for a Living*
