Better Health: Smart Health Commentary Better Health (TM): smart health commentary

Article Comments (1)

How To Use Lack Of Research As A Rationing Tool

If President Obama’s healthcare bill is passed there is certain to be an increase in taxes, an increase in the budget deficit and a rationing of healthcare.

The President promised an increase in funding for preventative medicine. The term preventative medicine should mean discovering a disease process before it manifests itself through its complications. After discovering the disease it should be treated in the best possible way available.

The federal government is going to spent billions of dollars expanding a bureaucracy to further evaluate best practices. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality was created to standardize the practice of medicine. The organization encouraged medical specialty organizations to write guidelines for the care of diseases in their specialty. A National Clearing House was created that published these guidelines. These guidelines are to be updated every five years.

I was suspicious of the intent of the AHRQ. Medical knowledge changes at about 10% per year. I believe that physicians in a specialty area have an obligation to physicians in all specialties to help them keep current. Guidelines are usually devoid of clinical judgment.

I was afraid the AHRQ would use guidelines as a weapon to punish physicians who were not current.

I was chair of the AACE guidelines for the treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. I was also the co-chair for AACE’s guidelines for hyper and hypothyroidism, thyroid nodules and thyroid cancer.

My goal was to help primary care physicians understand the Clinical Endocrinologists’ interpretation of the state of the art diagnosis and treatment of endocrine diseases. AACE had no ulterior motive. I hoped the AHRQ had no ulterior motives.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is a branch of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. USPTF started writing its own guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of many diseases. The USPTF does not seek input from subspecialty groups. The panel selects major articles on diseases from the literature and grades these articles. From the grading of the selected articles it develops guidelines on the use of procedures and treatments.

There are several problems with this method of developing guidelines. There is a danger that the best articles are not selected by non experts in that disease. There is also a danger that the natural history of the disease is overlooked. The natural history of many diseases is not considered in many “major” articles.

A vivid example of this is in the Women’s Health Initiative.

The most important defect in the USHPTF guidelines is it disregards the most important element of medical care, namely physicians’ clinical judgment.

The USPFS guidelines disregard clinical judgment and the patient physician relationship. In fact they destroy these critical elements in the therapeutic relationship between physician and patient.

USPHTF guidelines have rationed access to care for several years. President Obama is extending the USPHTF’s scope in rationing healthcare.

“Think Congress is regretting having allocated over a billion dollars to let the government generate studies to tell us what medical tests and procedures should be covered under Obamacare?”

I am most familiar with the US Preventive Services Task Force’s guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. I did not recognize one expert in the task force’s panel to evaluate the evidence for the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis.

The panel might be experts in evaluating the statistical power of the clinical studies chosen. However if clinical studies were not done to evaluate diagnosis and treatment of males with osteoporosis the USPHF conclusion would be there is no evidence for this diagnosis and treatment. The government would not approve bone density studies for elderly men even though there is an abundance of clinical evidence that hip fractures are as common in men as they are in women.

Most large clinical studies are funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Most of the osteoporosis studies have been done on women. Therefore there are no large studies in males. There it is easy to arrive at the conclusion that there is no evidence for diagnosing and treating males. The government will not pay for the evaluation and treatment of males for osteoporosis.

Experts in osteoporosis who understand the natural history of osteoporosis would disagree. The panel of U.S. Preventative Task Force did not ask osteoporosis experts for an opinion about the guidelines and disregarded the guidelines written by experts in the area.

Similar defects occurred with the USPTF’s recommendations for breast cancer. The breast cancer recommendations reviewed only 10 studies. The reviewers admit their conclusions cannot be generalized to individual forms of breast cancer and different groups of patients.

No sooner had the Health and Human Services Department’s U.S. Preventative Services Task Force recommended against mammography for women under 50 than Secretary Kathleen Sebelius rushed to say don’t worry. The decision had “caused a great deal of confusion and worry among women,” she said, promising that no policies would change.”

Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said no policy would change today. It will change in the near future. The bankrupt State of California already has changed its policy.

“Although women ages 50 and older will still be eligible, women ages 40-49 will no longer be screened.”

I will have more to say about the USPHTF and its Breast Screening Guidelines in the future.

In the meantime watch what they do. Don’t listen to what they say.

*This blog post was originally published at Repairing the Healthcare System*

You may also like these posts

    None Found

Read comments »

One Response to “How To Use Lack Of Research As A Rationing Tool”

  1. GoldmanSachsFun says:

    I am surprised that an diabetes doctor let his politics permeate his opinion of the AHRQ? We know that over 50% of the time patients don’t receive the standard of care and I would be interested to know what the numbers are like in his practice?

    If he had given any research or documentation to his claims (the CBO for example predicts 130 billion dollar drop in the deficit) so he lost all credibility in his first few sentences. Does his practice have better outcomes than the standard of care? Is he worried that he will lose income for practicing medicine that makes huge profits but doesn’t increase lifespan or other measurable outcomes?

    This blog seems to be a little bit behind the times. Quality matters and is here to stay. Guys you not only lost the election but large employers and other purchasers know that what we have been paying for doesn’t work.

Return to article »

Latest Interviews

IDEA Labs: Medical Students Take The Lead In Healthcare Innovation

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…

Read more »

How To Be A Successful Patient: Young Doctors Offer Some Advice

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…

Read more »

See all interviews »

Latest Cartoon

See all cartoons »

Latest Book Reviews

Book Review: Is Empathy Learned By Faking It Till It’s Real?

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…

Read more »

The Spirit Of The Place: Samuel Shem’s New Book May Depress You

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…

Read more »

Eat To Save Your Life: Another Half-True Diet Book

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…

Read more »

See all book reviews »

Commented - Most Popular Articles