Thanks to Scott Hensley over at Shots, NPR’s Health Blog, for highlighting this sad but funny video on where we’re going with healthcare. Scary what happens when theory meets reality:
-WesMusings of a cardiologist and cardiac electrophysiologist.
*This blog post was originally published at Dr. Wes*
Joe Boyd hated the Yankees. “Those damn Yankees. Why can’t we beat ‘em?” Then he got the opportunity to save his beloved Washington Senators by making a deal with the devil — giving up his soul in exchange for being transformed into “Shoeless Joe” to propel his team to win the World Series.
Interesting. I think a lot of doctors are making their deal with the devil. They are looking for a small gain in comparison to a long-term of misery. True — Joe Boyd made out in the end, but that will only happen if someone from Hollywood writes our script.
Here’s the problem: At the core of our problems with healthcare is the total lack of cohesive communication. Doctors have no idea what other doctors have done with a patient. Tests get ordered, medications get changed, procedures, hospitalizations, even surgeries are done without communication to other doctors who would benefit from this information. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Musings of a Distractible Mind*
Gosh, a whole lot of huffing over a little word! “Customer.” Okay, now grab a paper bag and breathe slowly and steadily into it. I know it’s hard to hear that word. I am sorry to have caused such trouble.
Some folks misunderstood my last post, thinking that I thought patients should only be considered customers, or that they should be referred to as customers. I never said that, nor did I imply it. I simply said that patients are customers. They are. Medical care is not free, and it is being paid for by the patient (directly or indirectly). Medicine is a business that has been so mismanaged that we are now in a crisis over its financial side. The trouble is the cost of care. Cost implies money is used, and trading money for services or goods is what business is about.
We’ve been spending our dollars on healthcare like a person irresponsibly running up a credit card bill they can’t pay back. The pain doesn’t happen now, it happens down the road when the collectors knock. We can’t order whatever tests we want or prescribe gazillion dollar drugs without remembering somebody will have to pay the bill. Ignoring the business of medicine has gotten us into deep doo-doo. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Musings of a Distractible Mind*
Those of you who’ve read this blog for any length of time know that I have been a pretty strong advocate for healthcare reform. This has been primarily motivated by my passion for universal coverage, but also with my frustration with the cost of the current healthcare system, the generally crummy outcomes, and the overall level of fragmentation in the whole affair.
Even today, I had to repeat blood tests on a cancer patient who came to the ER. He had had blood tests at the cancer center ACROSS THE STREET before presenting, but, so sorry, our computers don’t talk to theirs and it’s after 5pm now, so forget about getting those results.
So it’s with a mixture of enthusiasm and dread that I consider the coming onslaught of accountable care organizations (ACOs). What are ACOs? They’re the buzzword of the day, that’s for sure. Everybody knows they’re the next big thing. They’re coming. We’ll all be in an ACO by next Tuesday for sure. It’ll be nirvana. Right? Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Movin' Meat*
From its inception, Medicare has been agnostic about the effectiveness of different treatments when it sets payment rates. Once a treatment is found to be “reasonable and necessary,” Medicare establishes a payment rate that takes into account complexity and other “inputs” that go into delivering the service. But it is prohibited by law from varying payments based on how well an intervention works.
This would change under a “dynamic pricing” approach proposed by two experts in this month’s issue of Health Affairs. The article itself is available only to Health Affairs subscribers, but the Wall Street Journal health blog has a good summary.
The researchers propose that Medicare pay more for therapies with “superior” results and the same for two therapies with comparable effectiveness. A new service without any evidence on its relative effectiveness would be reimbursed in the usual way for the first three years, during which research would be conducted on its comparative effectiveness. If such research found that the service was less effective than other interventions, Medicare would have the authority to reduce payments. If it was found to be more effective, Medicare could pay more than for other available interventions. The WSJ blog gives an example of how this would work. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at The ACP Advocate Blog by Bob Doherty*
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…
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…
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…
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…
