August 28th, 2009 by Jonathan Foulds, Ph.D. in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
I’ve been bemused by the debate on healthcare reform taking place in the U.S. right now. I used to thing that the single topic that people talk the most nonsense about is sport. You know, my sport is better than your sport, my team is better than your team etc. All good fun, but usually nonsense. And then I’ve watched pundits on TV and heard ordinary Americans talk about healthcare reform and wow….its got the sports conversations beaten for absolute gibberish.
So despite a reluctance to get involved because I recognize it’s an extremely complicated issue, I now feel compelled to say a few words. Part of it is because unlike most of the people expressing an opinion, I’ve worked and been a patient in the healthcare system in a country with “socialized medicine” (UK) and I also currently work and am sometimes a patient in the United States healthcare system.
So lets start off with a few basics. The United States has some of the most highly trained healthcare staff and by far and away the best healthcare technology in the world. Just to give an example, there are more scanners (MRI, PET, SPECT etc) within a 15 mile radius of my office in central New Jersey than in the whole of Scotland (population about 5 million). And the United States spends far more on healthcare than any other country in the world. But despite that vast wealth of resources that befits the worlds greatest economic power, the United States falls way down the league table on basic objective measures of health outcomes, and similarly down the league on patient satisfaction with healthcare. There are really very few people, (who have looked further than the end of their own nose into this issue) who don’t acknowledge there’s a very serious problem.
For many in the United States, the problem is not so apparent. So if, like me, you and your immediate family are fortunate enough to be relatively healthy, and to be covered by a relatively good employment-based health insurance package, then it may seem OK. It’s when you get very sick, or are unfortunate enough to lose your job, that some of the basic problems with the U.S. system become more apparent. It’s when you get sick that you may find that your policy doesn’t cover the kind of treatment you need, or has a high deductible (amount you have to pay before the insurance takes over). And its when you lose your job and have to start paying out of pocket for health insurance that you realize it is extremely expensive. And of course if you have a gap in coverage and get sick then the new insurer may refuse to cover your “pre-existing condition”.
To me, the single time in your life when you don’t want added financial stress is when you are sick. But many aspects of the U.S. system direct coverage and services to those who need it least (healthy, young ,well insured employees) and become a nightmare for those who need good healthcare most (aging, sick unemployed people). Now when you talk to people in countries like Britain about this, they are generally appalled and quickly see the problem. But one of the things that has surprised me most about the debate in the United States is that a significant proportion of people here seem to really believe that the old “survival of the fittest” philosophy is appropriate here. The attitude seems to be something like: “If someone gets sick and didn’t have the fore-thought to get adequate health insurance to cover the treatment, then that was their own fault. Why should I work my ass off to look after my family and their healthcare needs for some lazy unemployed person to get healthcare for free?”
So somewhere deep in the psyche of many Americans there is a basic belief that healthcare (insurance) is just like auto insurance….something we are all individually responsible for, and if we cant afford it, that’s tough. Many do not believe that healthcare access for all is a basic requirement of a civilized society (like roads and schools).
So President Obama and others who are currently trying to change the U.S. healthcare system have a tough task ahead. It is currently being made much tougher by some bizarre reporting on this topic by the right wing media (Fox etc). We hear weird stories about “death panels” of government bureaucrats who will decide which sick people should have the plug pulled on their healthcare under government healthcare. We hear weird stories that in countries with socialized medicine it’s the government, not the doctor who decides on what treatment is provided. Well I can tell you that I never saw “Big Brother” interfering in doctors’ clinical practice until I came to the United States. In this country it is bureaucrats working for health insurance companies, generally with no medical qualifications, who deny coverage for appropriate medical treatment hundreds of thousands of times a day.
Often coverage is not denied on clinical grounds, but rather for a whole series of “technical” reasons (wrong diagnostic code, doctor not part of that health insurance plan, pre-existing condition, patient already used annual entitlement for that type of care, patient had that treatment already for longer than policy will pay, treatment carried out at a non-approved facility [go to one 30 miles away], patient hasn’t completed the 6-monthly confirmation of details form, health insurance company doesn’t cover that type of illness/service etc etc). But the underlying strategy is to make it so difficult to get a treatment covered and paid for, that fewer people will go for treatment, and fewer doctors will provide certain procedures because it is so much hassle for them to get paid for it. So the insurance companies hire more people to try to find ways to deny coverage and payments, and doctors have to employ billing specialists to figure out how they can get paid for providing treatment. And the result is an extremely inefficient beaurocratic mess.
Surely a country like the United States can do much better than this?
Now you might be wondering what any of this has to do with smoking? Well one link is that many health insurance policies in the United States do not cover a range of interventions they call “preventive” or “wellness enhancing” interventions. Frequently that means that patients cannot get tobacco dependence treatment (medicines or counseling) covered and so they don’t get the treatment. This is despite the fact that such treatment is one of the most cost-effective clinical interventions available. So an important part of the new proposals for healthcare reform is an increased emphasis on preventive healthcare. This is certainly a step in the right direction.
This post, A Scottish View Of US Healthcare Reform, was originally published on
Healthine.com by Jonathan Foulds, Ph.D..
August 25th, 2009 by DrRich in Better Health Network, Opinion
No Comments »
When Sarah Palin uttered the fateful words, “Death Panels,” she unleashed the holy wrath of the great unwashed masses, and as a result caused many of our more complacent legislators to abruptly bestir themselves into a higher state of arousal, if not outright agitation. Palin’s accusation caught more than a few of them utterly unawares, and embarrassingly flatfooted.
They felt, no doubt, like they were in that dream where you unaccountably find yourself naked in a crowd. But this time, rather than reaching to hide their sadly exposed nether parts, they reached instead for their pristine copies of HR 3200. One could almost pity them, desperately rifling through the 1100 virgin pages, wondering whether perhaps they should have tried to read that monstrosity earlier after all, and muttering to themselves, “Death panels? This damned thing has death panels?”
But DrRich is here to reassure them. First, as he has recently pointed out, there was in fact no reason for them to waste their time trying to read HR 3200. It was not designed for reading, comprehensibility, or (for that matter) imparting any actual information of any sort.
And second, HR 3200 contains no death panels. (In their state of stark panic, of course, and anxious to rid the bill of anything that might smack of death panels, our legislators quickly moved to strike Section 1233 from the bill, apparently because that section contains the phrase “end-of-life care.” But actually, Section 1233 talks about end-of-life counseling, and not death panels. Nothing in HR 3200 creates death panels.)*
The very notion of death panels seems to have many supporters of healthcare reform nonplussed. How can someone as inarticulate and obviously illiterate as Sarah Palin get away with accusing our highly-educated healthcare reformers of setting up such a thing as death panels? Really, what are death panels anyway? And even more perplexingly (since, after all, Republicans are capable of anything), why do so many Americans believe her – even, apparently, hundreds of thousands of Americans who were enlightened enough to vote less than a year ago for President Obama?
This question ought to greatly concern any of our elected representatives who support healthcare reform and who plan on being returned to Congress.
When Sarah Palin said, “Death Panels,” she was dropping one last, tiny crystal into a supersaturated solution. Her words took what had been an amorphous and even chaotic sense of unease about healthcare reform, and immediately crystallized it into an organized latticework of directed rage and fear. So the real question (for politicians hoping to seek re-election) is not how Sarah Palin came to be savvy enough to know just the right words. (Perhaps she was just “lucky,” or perhaps – and DrRich suspects this is the real explanation – she is a lot smarter than her critics allow.) Rather, the real question is: What put the rabble in such a supersaturated state to begin with? Why did the absurd-on-its-face idea of “death panels” so resonate with them? What made those words galvanize their shapeless disquiet into a solid mass of resistance?
DrRich is very sorry to have to tell his friends of the Democratic persuasion the sad truth – it was President Obama who created this circumstance. Sarah Palin may have named the death panels, but before she ever thought of the phrase, President Obama had already described them in some detail.
He described their function, how they would operate, and who they would target. During the past 6 months President Obama has actually offered several short discussions on what a “death panel” might be expected to accomplish. But perhaps the most instructive example is the one he gave on ABC television during his June 24 National Town Hall meeting.
DrRich refers, of course, to the famous question about the 100-year-old woman who received a pacemaker. The questioner pointed out that her grandmother had badly needed a pacemaker, but had been turned down by a doctor because of her age. A second doctor, noting the patient’s alertness, zest for life, and generally youthful “spirit,” inserted the pacemaker despite her advanced age. Her symptoms resolved, and Grandma continues to do well 5 years later. The question for the President was: Under an Obama healthcare system, will an elderly person’s general state of health, and her “spirit,” be taken into account when making medical decisions – or will these decisions be made according to age only?
President Obama’s answer was clear. It is really not feasible, he indicated, to take “spirit” into account. We are going to make medical decisions based on objective evidence, and not subjective impressions. If the evidence shows that some form of treatment “is not necessarily going to improve care, then at least we can let the doctors know that – you know what? – maybe this isn’t going to help; maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain pill.”
(DrRich will give President Obama the benefit of the doubt regarding his suggestion that a 100-year-old women who needs a pacemaker might be better off with a pain pill. Despite the way he is portrayed on the cover of Time Magazine, Mr. Obama is not actually a doctor, and cannot be expected to understand that using a “pain pill” to treat an elderly woman who is lightheaded, dizzy, weak and possibly syncopal because of a slow heart rate might justifiably be considered a form of euthanasia rather than comfort care. DrRich does not believe the President was intentionally suggesting the old woman’s death should be actively hastened by means of a pain pill. At the same time, DrRich’s advice to this still-spry 105-year-old Grandma is: since pacemakers usually need to be replaced every 6 – 7 years, you’d better think about having your 5-year-old pacemaker replaced right now, before the Obama plan has a chance to become law.)
President Obama’s answer in this case tells us several things. 1) There will be a panel, or commission, or body of some sort, that is going to examine the medical evidence on how effective a certain treatment is likely to be in a certain population of patients. 2) This (let’s call it a “panel”) panel will “let the doctors know” whether that treatment ought to be used in those patients. (”Letting the doctor know” is a euphemism for “guidelines,” which itself is a euphemism for legally-binding and ruthlessly enforced directives.). 3) “Subjective” measures (such as a physician’s clinical judgment as to an individual’s likelihood of responding to a therapy as the panel says they will – or, for that matter, a person’s “spirit”) ought not to influence these treatment recommendations, since that kind of subjective judgment is what got us into all this fiscal trouble in the first place. 4) But being that our government is a compassionate and caring one, palliative care will be made available in the form of pain control, even while withholding potentially curative care.
So, according to the President, we will have an omnipotent “panel,” acting at a distance and without any specific knowledge of particular cases, that will tell a doctor whether he/she can offer a particular therapy to a particular patient – or whether, instead, to offer a “pain pill.” His description of this process, offered with variations over the past several months in several venues, has obviously made quite an impression among the people. Of course, Mr. Obama is widely known to be a gifted communicator.
In any case, all that remained was for Sarah Palin to give the President’s panel a catchy name. And when she did, the American people (without reading HR 3200 or any other piece of legislation) knew exactly what she was talking about. They knew, because President Obama himself had been spelling it all out for them in plenty of detail for six months.
Indeed, it seems to DrRich that, if not for Mr. Obama’s having so carefully laid the groundwork, Palin’s accusations of “death panels” would have fallen flat. It would have been regarded by most people as the absurdity Democrats insist that it is, rather than the epiphany it turned out to be.
* There are no death panels in HR 3200 because creating them there would have been entirely superfluous. If we are to have death panels, or any entity that might pass as one, the provision for such a panel is already the law of the land. It was made so earlier this year (conveniently, before anybody started paying attention) in the Stimulus Bill, which created the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.
DrRich has described before how the CER Council will perform cost-effectiveness calculations, then coerce physicians, through one form of federal subterfuge and intimidation or another, to employ the least expensive therapies (thus enforcing “cost”, while shouting “effectiveness”).
It is called a CER Council, and not a death panel. But if you should develop a fatal illness which you might have survived had you been allowed to receive a treatment that the Council has deemed cost-ineffective, then you might be forgiven for thinking of the CER Council (from your insular, personal, narrow-minded, self-interested point of view), as a death panel. But there are no death panels in HR 3200, and Sarah Palin should be ashamed of herself for suggesting otherwise.
*This blog post was originally published at The Covert Rationing Blog*
August 17th, 2009 by DrRob in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion
2 Comments »
Death panels. They are all the trend these days.
I went to Home Depot to look for some, but couldn’t find any. There was some drywall of doom, tiles of the abyss, and sheet rock of destruction, but no panels. I guess the Obama administration has bought them all.
Honestly, I am not sure what the “death panel” fuss is about. Everyone dies. There are times it is a surprise, but many times it is expected. When it is expected, shouldn’t people plan for it? Shouldn’t we encourage people to plan for it?
The focus of a physician is twofold: to prolong life and to minimize suffering. We practice preventive medicine to keep the person from avoidable pain and/or death. The younger the patient is, the more we call their death things like tragic, pointless, and distressing. We go to great lengths to save the life of someone who has many potential years ahead.
But there is a point when things change. There is a point when the focus shifts from quantity of life to quality of life. There is a time after which a death is no longer tragic, but instead the end of a story. My focus as a physician shifts from trying to find and prevent disease, to maximizing function and minimizing pain. When does this happen? It depends on the health of the patient. But eventually, ignoring one’s inevitable end becomes more tragic than the end itself.
I had a man in my practice who had advanced Alzheimer’s disease. I cared for him before he started his decline, and so had a good chance to know both him and his family. They were people of strong faith, accepting the hard things in life as being from the hand of God. The children took their father’s condition not as a horrible burden, but an opportunity to pay back the man who had given them so much. There was no fear of illness or death.
His wife died fairly soon after I started caring for them. He grieved greatly when she died, but was so surrounded with the love of their children that his grief was short. He spoke often of her in subsequent visits, talking about her as if she was not far away.
As he became increasingly short in his memory, my relationship with their children grew. You can tell a lot about people from their children, and these children were a dazzling crown of honor to these two lovely people.They always came asking good questions, patiently dealing with their father’s confusion, anxiety, and occasional outbursts. Together we worked to maximize his quality of life. When I suggested we stop cholesterol medication and cancer screening tests, they understood. Our focus would not be on the length of life, but the quality of time they could spend with their father.
I was shocked, therefore, when the report of his admission to the hospital came across my desktop. He had chest pains and some difficulty breathing. In the emergency room, a plethora of lab tests, x-rays, and other studies were done. The hospitalist physician on call felt there was a good possibility of heart attack or pulmonary embolism (blood clot to the lung). My patient was sent to the ICU, where he underwent CT angiography, serial lab tests, and even a stress test to rule out heart problems.
I was mystified as I read these reports; the family clearly understood that prolonging his life wasn’t the goal. The patient was ready to die and join his wife, and the children were very comfortable talking about his eventual death. These reports made absolutely no sense with what I knew of this man and his family.
He looked his normal self when he came in to my office for a hospital follow-up. I questioned the daughter about the details of the admission, which she recounted carefully. Then I paused and asked her, “Can I ask you one more thing?”
She smiled at me, “Of course, Dr. Rob” she said gently.
“I was honestly a little surprised when I read about your father’s admission to the hospital. It seems like they pulled out all the stops, even putting him in the ICU. Did they ask you if this is what you wanted? I thought that you wouldn’t want to be that aggressive.”
She thought about what I said and a puzzled expression slowly appeared on her face.
“Did you ask to have everything done, or did you just follow what the doctors at the hospital told you?” I asked.
“They didn’t ask us. We just did what they told us we needed to do.” she said, now scowling slightly.
I explained to her that they need to make their wishes known in advance. If they don’t say anything, the doctors will assume that you agree with what they are doing. As I told her this, she nodded and looked down sadly.
“It’s OK what you did” I reassured her. I patted her father on the shoulder and added, “he looks great now. I am glad I get to see him again. I just want you to know what to do if it happens in the future. You never know what will happen, and I’d hate for him to suffer needlessly.”
This one short hospital stay undoubtedly amassed a bill many times that of all my bills over the 12 years I saw him in my office. My years of care, long conversations, and real personal connection built with this man and his family are worth only a fraction of a few days of unnecessary care. This care was not demanded by the family. It was not done because of denial or ignorance; it was because the family wasn’t prepared for the mechanics of the hospital stay. I never had that conversation with the family until after this event.
Politicians have labeled this merciful conversation as an act of rationing. That is not only ignorant, it is shameful. Talking to people about end-of-life issues will certainly save money. But it’s a contemptible step to imply that this money is saved by killing the elderly. It’s more wrong to make money off of keeping them alive unnecessarily than it is to save money by letting them die when they choose.
This is politics at its ugliest – taking a provision that will reduce suffering and help people and pervert it to be used as a tool to scare the people it will help. The discussion about healthcare has been subverted by those who want poll numbers.
Shame on you.
*This blog post was originally published at Musings of a Distractible Mind*
