March 12th, 2009 by Stacy Stryer, M.D. in Health Policy
No Comments »
By Stacy Beller Stryer, M.D.
I vividly remember my firsts in medical school – my first patient with cystic fibrosis who was so air hungry that he couldn’t even speak, my first teen who was constantly admitted to the hospital with an infection due to a genetic disorder that would eventually kill him, and my first 3 year-old patient with sickle cell anemia who almost died because her spleen decided to sequester many of her red cells. They were my firsts, but they certainly won’t be my lasts.
On March 9th, however, President Obama took a major step toward helping these children and so many others just like them. It gives me hope that someday there will be a few lasts. On Monday, he signed an executive order which relaxed restrictions on embryonic stem cell research and allowed federal funding for such projects. This is big. It reverses an almost 8 year policy that severely restricted such funding and the ability to use embryonic stem cells.
Embryonic stem cell research will open up the doors for potential cures and treatments for diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, and for traumatic injuries, such as those that involve the brain and spinal cord. But the potential benefit of stem cells isn’t just for adults. Discoveries from embryonic stem cell research could save many lives and significantly reduce the suffering of children with a whole variety of diseases. Many medical centers, such as the University of Cincinnati, are or will soon be greatly expanding their stem cell research programs because of this policy change.
Why are embryonic stem cells so important for research? These cells are truly amazing because they have the ability to turn into any other cell in the body, such as blood cells, nerve cells, islet cells (which make insulin in the pancreas), or even entire organs. Plus, these cells can continue to duplicate, or make more of themselves, which is wonderful for both research and eventual treatment. Think about a newborn, that starts out as a single cell which then continues to replicate and differentiate until it becomes a fetus. It is truly a miracle and is the reason embryonic stem cells are so important.
Researchers at the University of Cincinnati want, through new research, to successfully treat fatal and other serious genetic disorders. Other medical centers will use embryonic stem cells to search for treatments for illnesses such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, muscular dystrophy, and traumatic injury. The list goes on and on. Results will not occur overnight. It will be a long, expensive time intensive process. Through this process, researchers hope to learn how cells differentiate into specific types of cells and how genes turn certain cells on and off. The ultimate goal is to successfully repair or even replace ineffective, damaged and abnormal cells.
Some people are against the use of embryonic stem cells in research and treatment because they believe that, even though it can save lives, it also ends a life. This is an issue everybody has to think about on a personal and individual level. Currently, federal guidelines require embryo stem cells to come from extra embryos that were made when a couple underwent in vitro fertilization but were not used and, if not used for research, would simply be thrown away.
March 11th, 2009 by SteveSimmonsMD in Primary Care Wednesdays
3 Comments »
Over the centuries, many societies have elevated the medical profession in thought and deed. Not that long ago this was true in the U.S., when our citizens showed more respect for doctors as professionals and fellow citizens than is demonstrated today. Now, everyone seems to agree that healthcare reform is drastically needed, and many are speaking out. Yet, the frank indifference to the opinions of doctors by those outside the medical profession mutes the voice and counsel of doctors on the subject. The AMA (American Medical Association) and many other physician groups are speaking out on reform, but their voice is diluted by a cacophony of assumptions, opinions, and by legislation existing and proposed. A new healthcare system has been formed, in large part, without seeking the input of those needed to make it work: practicing physicians.
Recently, I overheard a discussion regarding healthcare reform while eating lunch at a local restaurant. The debate hinged on who is most qualified to make healthcare-related decisions. The following consensus was reached: no one today should complain about the government taking over healthcare because allowing insurance companies to make all the decisions in the past resulted in a broken healthcare system. Those surrounding this particular lunch table agreed that the time had come for government to have their turn, while opposition could best be characterized as siding with the insurance companies. I wonder: can the debate really be so simply framed?
Saddened by the realization that such a discussion could be loudly and passionately debated without mentioning doctors, I resisted the urge to point out that physicians had made the healthcare decisions before insurance companies gained control. The fact physicians were not even mentioned attests to the sad truth that for many people doctors are merely seen as one part of a broken healthcare machine. Most physicians see their lot differently, and consider themselves as being in a veritable state of conflict with health insurance companies; however, our participation in a failing healthcare system has afforded these very same companies with the opportunity to put physician’s faces on their failed practices, with public opinion supporting this assumption.
Regardless of your opinion on Medicare, this last major government intervention into healthcare can help illustrate the very point that I am trying to make. On May 20, 1962, President Kennedy argued for Medicare, addressing a crowd of 20,000 at Madison Square Garden. The President was televised gratis by the three major networks reaching an additional 20 million people in their homes. Two days later, the AMA rebutted his argument, purchasing thirty minutes on NBC, with their speaker reaching an estimated audience of 30 million people. This broadcast, more far-reaching and influential than the President’s, delayed the proposed Medicare system by several years. Forty-seven years ago, people in this country wanted to know what doctors had to say before major decisions regarding healthcare were made. Today, they do not.
As the discussion about healthcare reform continues, practicing physicians must be heard from to interject real medical experience into the debate and, hopefully, guide the future of healthcare by influencing legislation existing and proposed. I am trying to remain optimistic despite the concern I feel in noting that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, section 3000 (pages 511, 518, 540-541) exemplifies the minimization of medical practitioners, using terminology like “Meaningful” ‘USERS’ to describe physicians.
The question is now raised: what should medical practitioners do to be heard, to influence healthcare reform, to play a leadership role in this time of change? When I write next time; I will share some of our ideas, put them on the table, if you will. But, I would encourage you to proffer those suggestions that you might have. It appears we can either speak up now or choose to be “meaningful” later.
Until next week, I remain yours in primary care,
Steve Simmons, MD
March 10th, 2009 by Dr. Val Jones in Health Policy
4 Comments »
I attended a conference entitled, “Lessons From Abroad for Health Reform in the U.S.” at the Kaiser Family Foundation on March 9th in Washington DC. The event was sponsored by the Galen Institute and the International Policy Network, both of whom are politically rightward-leaning non-profit organizations.
I wasn’t sure what to expect from the conference, and assumed that speakers would offer a blend of pluses and minuses culled from Canadian and European healthcare reform experiences. I have to say that the pluses were hard to come by – and that the minuses were so provocative that I have decided to repeat them here for you, and let you make what you will of them.
Switzerland – Lessons About Insurance Mandates
Dr. Alphonse Crespo, an orthopedic surgeon who practices in Lausanne, Switzerland, described what sounded like the utter decimation of a perfectly good healthcare system. He said that in the 1960s Swiss healthcare was decentralized and quality-oriented. The government provided subsidies for health insurance for the poor, and subsidized public hospitals who took care of the poor and/or uninsured at a 50% rate. Overall, according to Dr. Crespo, Swiss healthcare was efficient, effective, and had high patient satisfaction ratings.
In 1994, socialism came into vogue and reformers called for a redistributive model of healthcare, with centralization of infrastructure and electronic medical records systems that would be compatible with those in use by other European countries. Mandatory insurance was introduced, which shifted disproportionate power to third party payors. The payors focused primarily on cost containment measures and profitability, rather than expanding access to quality care. Regional hospitals were forced to merge with larger ones or else shut down. Wait times increased, lengths of stay decreased, and there was an increase in “critical incidents” (i.e. medical errors) by 40%.
In 2002 the health insurers decided that “more doctors result in higher costs” and successfully lobbied for a cap on the total number of physician licenses, so that in order to practice medicine, a physician would need to take over the practice of a retiring physician or one who died.
In 2008, the third party payors attempted to legislate their ability to decide which physicians could practice within the healthcare system, and which would be excluded from coverage. This did not sit well with patients, and they voted for “freedom of choice” in a referendum on the issue. Fortunately, they blocked the insurer move to ban certain physicians from insurance coverage. Unfortunately, the insurers succeeded in forcing a reduction in reimbursement for basic laboratory testing by 20%, thus forcing physicians to close their labs and send samples to a centralized location. Apparently physicians are planning to strike in Lausanne and Bern next week over this issue.
Dr. Crespo argued that the unforeseen consequence of the move to compulsory insurance was the emergence of a powerful cartel of health insurers without any apparent cost savings, and a measurable decrease in care quality. In fact, Switzerland’s healthcare system rapidly plummeted from 4th place in the Euro Health Consumer Index, to 8th place over the course of a few short years.
He concludes:
“Once cartels have entrenched themselves, there is no easy way to dislodge them. Americans should think twice before opting for compulsory insurance, unless they believe that cartelized and rationed healthcare is really in the best interest of patients.”
**You may view materials from Dr. Crespo’s lecture here.**
In my next post I’ll review what the Canadians had to say about their healthcare system.
March 10th, 2009 by KevinMD in Better Health Network
No Comments »
Patients don’t choose the days they get sick.
There are several studies, specifically dealing with heart attacks, showing that the mortality rate increases when a patient visits the hospital during the weekend.
It appears that the same goes for upper GI bleeding. MedPage Today discusses a recent study showing that “patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage had a 22% increased mortality risk on weekends, and those with peptic ulcer-related hemorrhage had an 8% higher risk.”
Staffing issues, leading to delayed endoscopies, appear to be chief culprit. Minutes count in cases of GI bleeding, so the delay is a likely explanation for the higher mortality rates.
Especially in community hospitals, doctors often cover for one another, and in general, there are less physicians available. Short of having more doctors on call, a prospect that faces long odds as hospitals are loathe to pay specialists for additional call, I’m not sure what can be done to rectify this statistic.
One suggestion is to have so-called “bleed teams,” where staff can be quickly mobilized to respond solely to acute GI bleeds. But again, this likely would require more staff, and it’s dubious that hospitals are willing to bear the additional cost.
**This post was originally published at KevinMD.com**
March 10th, 2009 by CodeBlog in Better Health Network
No Comments »
One of our patients came off sedation and was extubated.
A few hours later, the doctor came by to assess the patient’s mental status. He asked,
“How old are you, Mr. Smith?”
The patient replied, “I was born in 1924.”
It wasn’t really the answer the doc was looking for, so he asked again,
“But how old are you?”
And the patient looked up at the doctor and said,
“You do the math.”
**This post originally appeared at Gina Rybolt’s CodeBlog.**
