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

Latest Posts

President Obama, Childrens’ Tonsils, And Capitalism

Before the election, the right-wing commentators insisted to us that Barack Obama was a closet socialist. They hounded us repeatedly with the notion that Mr. Obama hung out with the likes of Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, and that in fact virtually all of his acknowledged friends and advisors were dangerous leftists. When Mr. Obama innocently told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to “spread the wealth around,” you’d have thought he’d announced his intention to replace the Constitution with the Communist Manifesto.

And the righties have been even more vociferous since President Obama took office. In high dudgeon they beseech us to notice (dear God!) that in six short months he has gathered into the grasping embrace of his government a good chunk of the American economy, from GM and Chrysler, to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to the world’s largest banks and investment houses – and in short order he intends to take over the entire healthcare system, now fully 16% of our economy and growing rapidly.

At the same time (they insist) he is doing everything he possibly can to stifle American business. He is raising business taxes during a deep recession, and is pushing Cap and Trade, which will put American businesses at a huge disadvantage in the world market. They say that the massive deficits Mr. Obama is accumulating at unprecedented rates will place our economy in grave jeopardy within a decade, and that our children and grandchildren will never be able to extricate themselves from the pit of debt he will have left them. They point out that Fidel Castro and Ceasar Chavez, avowed Communists, look at Mr. Obama’s doings with great awe and respect bordering on jealousy. The right-wing commentators say lots of other stuff, too, to prove Mr. Obama is a radical lefty, but for DrRich all these allegations blend together after awhile, and it becomes difficult to recall the specifics. (One thing they hardly ever mention is that the first step in the Great Government Takeover of Everything was taken by President Bush. Mr. Obama has merely accelerated the pace down this path from a saunter to a sprint.)

DrRich must admit that, even for someone as objective and open minded as he is, it can become easy to view the incredible flurry of policy achievements Mr. Obama has pushed through so far, and his aspirations for even bigger ones still to come, and wonder whether, perhaps, this great experiment of unprecedented government spending, and huge new entitlements that will continue on down through the generations, might not be just a tad risky.

And it is even more disturbing to consider that, if one indeed wanted to bring down the American system in order to have the opportunity to remake it from scratch (this time, emphasizing equity of outcomes rather than individual freedom as a central organizing principle), then burdening the system with crushing entitlements and crushing debt would seem to be a pretty serviceable method for achieving it. And this is exactly what the right-wing commentators would have us believe is President Obama’s real aim. (Which is why, they say, they dare commit the very grave sin of publicly hoping President Obama will fail. Only Democrats, it seems, are permitted, with political correctness, to voice such hopes about opposition presidents.)

So even DrRich (a paragon of objectivity) was beginning to have his doubts about Mr. Obama’s real commitment to the American experiment.

But in his press conference last week Mr. Obama allayed all DrRich’s fears, and made him ashamed he had ever entertained such doubts. If he really meant what he said in that press conference, it is impossible for President Obama to be a radical leftist.

Recall his typically eloquent words: “You come in and you’ve got a bad sore throat, or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats. The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out.’”

Now, don’t you feel better? DrRich certainly does.

Of course, certain short-sighted physician groups immediately and unproductively took offense at this comment. There is no reason to. After all, Hillary pronounced 16 years ago that the problem with the American healthcare system is: Too many greedy doctors using too much expensive technology. And that’s pretty much been the sum of it ever since.

So even if Mr. Obama meant to insult doctors with his comment, he was simply restating one of the chief premises dearly held by most healthcare reformers. He wasn’t breaking new ground in any way. So doctors shouldn’t be acutely insulted here. (They should be chronically insulted. )

If there’s anything to regret about Mr. Obama’s statement, it’s that it reveals a sad misunderstanding of one important aspect of how the healthcare system works. Kids with sore throats don’t go directly to the greedy otolaryngologists, the guys who get paid “a lot more money” if they take the kid’s tonsils out. Rather, they go to primary care doctors, often pediatricians, who (if anything) are punished for sending too many kids to the greedy otolaryngologists. (DrRich knows several fine pediatricians, and not one of them any longer possesses those nasty looking tonsil scoops, or whatever those dire instruments are called which are used for removing the offending glands.) So the system is actually geared toward having kids suffer with chronic sore throats until the PCP just can’t ignore the problem any more. The ones who are finally referred to the greedy specialists often really, really need to have their tonsils out. The pediatricians aren’t referring patients for tonsillectomy all willy-nilly, and the greedy otolaryngologists (even if one supposes they always rip tonsils out first and ask questions later) must find other means of paying for their speedboats.  DrRich’s point being: In the real world, using the abuse of tonsils as an example of run-away healthcare spending  just doesn’t work very well.

It seems a shame that Mr. Obama does not have even a basic understanding of the system of incentives that exists today within the healthcare system, especially since he aims to fundamentally change it. But then, since he allows that he hasn’t even personally read the healthcare reform bills he’s urging Congress to make into law, one cannot really expect him to have an intimate understanding of the present system, which he hopes to soon render obsolete anyway. It would be a waste of his valuable time to come entirely up to speed on a system which is apparently in its last days.

Back to the point of this post, and it’s a point that – sad to say – every other commentator seems to have missed. (Proving, once again, how lucky DrRich’s readers are to have him.)

When President Obama declared that greedy physicians will commit surgery on unsuspecting and innocent children just because the reimbursement rate is higher, nobody seems to have noticed that what he was saying was, “Doctors respond to fiscal incentives.”  And since a committed egalitarian like the President would surely not believe that doctors are fundamentally different from every other type of human person, he was really saying, “People respond to fiscal incentives.”

There it is. Mr. Obama explicitly and publicly believes the one thing that no committed Communist or radical leftist is permitted to believe, namely, that people respond logically to fiscal imperatives.

Fundamentally, socialism requires people of ability to work very, very hard for the public good, to support those who cannot or will not work hard, and as a reward they can expect to receive praise from the ruling class.* Knowing their toil is for the good of everybody should suffice as incentive aplenty. This is precisely why radically left-wing social systems (which DrRich has always thought in principle to be a very nice idea) have never worked – and never will work.

For no system of societal organization can work well for long that requires, as a first premise, a fundamental change in human nature.

So right-wingers who have railed against the overt left-wing policies of Mr. Obama, and the more moderate people who have been starting to have their own doubts, should now breathe a great sigh of relief. Whatever else our President may be, he cannot be a committed leftist.

Even though the cost of learning this vital fact was another insult to the basic integrity of doctors, it was really just one more insult superimposed on a world view that defines doctors to be fundamentally greedy and inconsiderate of their patients’ actual needs. No big deal. For the cost of that small price, we now know that President Obama must be – has to be – a committed capitalist after all.

*In practice, of course, those who take risks and work hard for personal gain are never actually praised for their contributions to the public weal, even if those contributions are enormous and stifling. Rather, they need to be demonized; otherwise some would think it unfair to take their hard-won gains from them.

*This blog post was originally published at The Covert Rationing Blog*

A Public Plan Should Pay Doctors & Hospitals Less Than Cost?

With regards to a compromise by Blue Dog Democrats on setting the rates for paying doctors:

Waxman’s committee resumed work Thursday, with the goal of finishing Friday, after a week-and-a-half delay caused by objections from fiscally conservative Democrats. That rebellion was quelled with an agreement Wednesday that would protect more small businesses from a requirement to provide insurance to their employees, and restructure a new public insurance plan so it could pay higher rates to doctors and other providers, among other changes.

What did the the other Democrats have to say about that?

“This agreement is not a step forward toward a good health care bill, but a large step backwards,” 53 Progressive Caucus members said in a letter to House leaders Thursday. “Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates — not negotiated rates — is unacceptable.

Let me get this straight. In a world where Medicare and Medicaid pays less than cost, these Democrats want an option where doctors have the opportunity to lose money for every patient they take care of? If negotiated rates are unacceptable, exactly how is the Medicare rate acceptable. There is a reason why many Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries cannot find a doctor to take care of them. Because the non negotiated rates are unacceptable.
Perhaps our Congressmen and women would like the 300 million Americans to take a yearly vote on the value of their service to this country. No negotiation. Majority salary wins. You just may not like what your constituents are offering you. And you just might quit. How’s that for unacceptable.

*This blog post was originally published at A Happy Hospitalist*

Real Cost Drivers In Healthcare: Prolonging The Lives Of The Elderly

Reducing health spending, as Congress is finding out, is difficult.

Some health economists have pointed to medicalization of common complaints, like erectile dysfunction and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, as one reason. Indeed, Dartmouth researchers, who are cited as favorites of the current administration, feel that an “epidemic of diagnoses” is what’s making us sick.

But, Darshak Sanghavi writes in Slate that this may be a red herring, and clouds what’s really driving up costs, namely, the amount we spend prolonging the lives of the elderly. He points to David Cutler, an adviser to President Obama, and his analysis that “it costs far more to prolong the lives of the elderly ($145,000 per year gained) than the young ($31,600), and the rate of spending on the oldest Americans has grown the fastest.”

None of the current health reform proposals target this, understandably, because it would be politically difficult to tell elderly voters that we need to spend less on their care.

And because of that, Dr. Sanghavi rightly concludes that, no matter what gets passed, “we’re just putting off the day of fiscal reckoning.”

*This blog post was originally published at KevinMD.com*

Interview With Howard Dean At Nurse Ratched’s Place

I love the Internet. It has a way of bringing people closer together. I saw Governor Howard Dean at a town hall meeting in Washington D.C earlier this month. He’s a dynamic speaker. I wanted to ask him some questions, but the place was packed, so I couldn’t get close to him. Not to be deterred, I emailed Governor Dean in hopes of getting a response to a couple of my questions. He not only responded to my email, he agreed to an interview for my blog. See, the Internet really can bring people closer together. I want to thank Governor Dean for stopping by Nurse Ratched’s Place to talk about healthcare reform.

Question: What is your take on the state of our healthcare system? What do you envision for our system, and how do we get there from here? Can America really afford a public option plan?

Answer: Our system is in disarray. We need a system in which the American consumer has real choices, including allowing people under 65 to sign up for Medicare, which is what the public option will look like. That way people can get affordable insurance which can never be taken away, which can’t be denied, and which will follow them through every job, every loss of job, and every move. We can’t afford NOT to have a public option.

Question: How flexible is the public option: will a person be able to move between the public option and private options as their needs and circumstances change?

Answer: People will be able to move back and forth between the public option and private insurance plans as they see fit, up to once a year.

Question: Given your unique perspective as a physician, can you tell us one aspect of the public option that you like and one aspect that you might not be happy with?

Answer: As a physician I would sign up for the public option at once if it is cheaper than what I have now. I would definitely sign my twenty something kids up; it would give them insurance for life at a reasonable cost no matter what they were doing and where they were living.

Question: One of my nursing coworkers wanted me to ask you this question. How will healthcare reform impact nursing workforce issues? Will we see mandated caps on salaries, and how will healthcare reform impact nurse to patient ratios?

Answer: Workforce issues are not addressed in any of the health care options being discussed in Congress. Most Democrats I know favor nurse/patient staff ratios to protect quality of care.

Question: Preventative healthcare is a key component in the healthcare reform debate. What are your thoughts on a proposal that would make the Chief Nurse Officer of the United States Public Health Service the National Nurse? In your opinion, would establishing the Office of the National Nurse have any impact on health promotion or on healthcare reform?

Answer: As a lot of people know, I am a huge supporter of the Office of National Nurse, and since Congress has been slow to act, I am hoping some changes can be made directly by HHS while we await more complete action by Congress.

*This blog post was originally published at Nurse Ratched's Place*

Where Obama Is Right On Health Care Reform

Cost is the enemy here. via the WSJ blog

“If we do not control these costs, we will not be able to control our deficit. If we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket.

…if somebody told you that there is a plan out there that is guaranteed to double your health care costs over the next 10 years, that’s guaranteed to result in more Americans losing their health care, and that is by far the biggest contributor to our federal deficit, I think most people would be opposed to that.

Well, that’s status quo. That’s what we have right now.”

Proponents and supporters can argue forever about whether this is the fault of the free market or the fault of too much or too little government. I happen to believe that what we have today is nothing more than an expected result of the government regulations put in place. No matter how you try and structure regulation, capitalism will exploit it.
Every insurance I am involved with has a beginning and an end. If your house burns down, you get a defined compensation. If your spouse dies, their life insurance pays a defined compensation. If drive your car into a garbage can and dent the hood, your insurance pays a a beginning and an end.
With health care insurance, we haven’t defined an end point. With fee for service, the costs are unlimited, and therefore our health care inflation is unlimited.
With bundled care, the costs are limited, and there fore our health care inflation is limited as well. Some folks believe that you can’t estimate how much it will cost to take care of a patient with diabetes with complications, coronary disease and six other chronic medical diseases. I think we can. And I think we can do it much cheaper than we are doing it today.
The current model is not sustainable. In any third party model, whether it is the government through taxes, or private insurance through premiums, no one is accountable to cost. FREE=MORE makes providers do more. FREE=MORE makes patients do more. I have come to the conclusion you can’t have both fee for service and third party insurance AND not double our expenses in the next 10 years. I personally do not want to spend $25,000 on myself and Mrs Happy’s health insurance in ten years.
Obama is right. This is exactly where we are heading. Remember that $25,000 in health care insurance is $25,000 less in take home pay being withheld by your employer. As long as someone else is paying the bills, FREE=MORE will prevail and we are all screwed.
Either abandon health insurance all together, or abandon fee for service. We can’t have both and survive.

*This blog post was originally published at A Happy Hospitalist*

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