August 19th, 2009 by Toni Brayer, M.D. in Better Health Network, Opinion, True Stories
No Comments »
Dear President Obama,
I am in favor of Health Care Reform and I agree with you that universal coverage and eliminating the abuses that both patients and doctors have suffered at the whim of the for-profit insurance industry must be curtailed.
But I also want you to fix Medicare. Medicare is so bureaucratic that expanding it in its current form would be the death knell for primary care physicians and many community hospitals. The arcane methods of reimbursement, the ever expanding diagnosis codes, the excessive documentation rules and the poor payment to “cognitive, diagnosing, talking” physicians makes the idea of expansion untenable.
May I give you one small example, Mr. President? I moved my medical office in April. Six weeks before the move I notified Medicare of my pending change of address and filled out 22 pages of forms. Yes, Mr. Commander in Chief…22 pages for a change of address. It is now mid-August and I still do not have the “approval” for my address change.
I continue to care for my Medicare patients and they are a handful. Older folks have quite a number of medical issues, you see, and sometimes it takes 1/2 hour just to go over their medications and try to understand how their condition has changed. That is before I even begin to examine them and explain tests, treatment and coordinate their care. Despite the fact that I care for these patients, according the Medicare rules, I cannot submit a bill to Medicare because they have not approved my change of office address.
I have spent countless hours on the phone with Medicare and have sent additional documentation that they requested. I send the forms and information “overnight, registered” because a documented trail is needed to avoid having to start over at the beginning again and again. I was even required to send a signature from my “bank officer” and a utility bill from the office. Mr President, I don’t have a close relationship with a bank officer so this required a bank visit and took time away from caring for patients…but I certainly did comply.
I am still waiting to hear from Medicare. At my last call they said they had not received yet another document, but when I gave them the post office tracking number, they said it was received after all. They could not tell me when or if they will accept my address change.
I have bills stacking up since April and I just found out that they will not accept them if they are over 30 days old. I have cared for patients for 5 months and will not receive any reimbursement from Medicare. The rules state I cannot bill the patient or their supplemental Medicare insurance either.
Believe me, Mr. President, I commend you for taking on such a huge task. Please also know that Medicare reform is needed along with health care reform.
A loyal American ,
Internal Medicine (aka: primary care) physician
*This blog post was originally published at EverythingHealth*
August 12th, 2009 by Happy Hospitalist in Better Health Network, True Stories
No Comments »
Day in, day out, it’s like a broken record. Patient comes in with uncontrolled diabetes. Patient gets sick. Patient gets patched up. Patient could care less about their health. Patient goes home to live another day, before coming back in a month. Everyday you just accept the reality of reckless self destruction, do your best to help them while they pretend to care and then send them on their way.
Except when a patient actually shows some interest in their health. Let me give you an example. I was asked to consult on a woman with shortness of breath, unbearable heartburn, aches and pains, low energy and sleep apnea. This woman weighed close to 400 pounds. Her husband was close to that as well. Together I sat them down and talked to them for darn near an hour. We talked about all the complications that come with folks in their age group. I asked them if they had a plan for success. What their motivations were. What their goals and expectations were.
They talked about how their exercise regimen. When I tried to pin down exactly what they were doing and how much and how often, it turns out that the twice a week walk around the lake was their idea of trying. They swore up and down about the their appropriate food choices, until they admitted that their biggest problem was not what they eat, but how much they eat. For an hour I heard about how hard it was. About how frustrating it was not to see any success. About how life wasn’t fair.
And then I met their polar opposites. A man and his wife both pushing 300 pounds. He was admitted with cellulitis of the leg. But both had lost a combined 220 pounds in just seven months. I was floored. 220 pounds? That put the biggest smile in the world on my face that day. I congratulated them probably 20 times.
I asked them, “I have so many patients who just can’t find a way to lose weight. How and why did you do it?” The answer was exactly what I expected.
“We had to. We were always tired. I was always hurting. I could barely walk. My wife could barely move. We considered gastric bypass but they wouldn’t do it without first doing six months of diet and exercise. Now I’m not even considering surgery. We went through our cupboards and we got rid of all processed foods. We eat healthy. We control our portions.”
Their motivation was their own. They realized they didn’t want to live their current reality. They took the initiative to make positive change in their lives and were basking in the glory of their success. What was the difference between these two couples? It was their attitude. One couple chose to make excuses for their plight. The other was doing something about it.
*This blog post was originally published at A Happy Hospitalist*
August 11th, 2009 by Paul Auerbach, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Tips
No Comments »
One of the most dangerous times for a patient is during the transition, or “handoff,” between providers. This is due to a number of reasons. First, the original provider(s) may not relay all the information he or she knows about the patient to the next provider(s). Second, the accepting team may take it for granted that everything is known about the patient, and therefore not take a complete history or perform an adequate physical examination. Third, if the patient initially looks good, the accepting providers may be lulled into a false sense of security, and not anticipate a deterioration in the patient’s condition.
We know this problem to exist in the hospital setting. Survey of doctors-in-training suggests that handoffs may commonly lead to patient harm. Last year (2008) in September, there was a blog written by Elizabeth Cooney in the Boston Globe that stated, “a 2006 survey of resident physicians at Massachusetts General Hospital found that handoffs commonly lead to patient harm, according to an article in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.” More than 50 percent “of the 161 medical or surgical residents who responded to the anonymous survey said they recalled at least one occasion in their last month-long rotation when a patient suffered from flawed handoffs.” Approximately “one in nine said the harm that resulted was significant.” The respondents said that “if the patient was coming from the emergency department or from another hospital, problematic handoffs were more likely.”
This holds true in the field. Unless the new treatment team makes the assumption that they need to begin their assessment of the patient’s condition from scratch, they are more likely to make a mistake. Obviously, such caution depends on the possible severity of the patient’s condition and the rescue/environmental situation. If I can get a decent handle on a patient’s condition, and there is little or no risk of me missing something, I will tailor my questioning and examination to suit the circumstances. However, I always start from the position that something has been hidden from me, of course not intentionally, and that the patient’s initial assessment has underestimated the problem(s).
I cannot begin to tell you how many times I have found something that was missed, or have accepted the care of a patient just as he or she began to “crash.” This is in no way a criticism of others, just a common fact of medical care. Previous rescuers may have been tired, the conditions may not have been conducive to a full examination, the patient may have been withholding information, or the situation may have just taken its natural course and worsened. Regardless, it’s my responsibility to learn what I can as quickly as I can about my patient, so that nothing slips through the cracks.
Here are some simple rules to follow:
1. If the situation permits, ask your new patient to repeat his or her history. If they are reticent to engage in a long conversation, at least try to get them to relate current relevant events.
2. Repeat as much of the physical examination as you can. Explain to the patient that you have assumed their care, and that in order to do the best that you can on their behalf, it’s important for you to understand their issues and to be able to monitor their progress based up the exam.
3. Assume that until you have talked to the patient or otherwise obtained a comprehensive history, and performed a physical examination with your own hands, eyes, and ears, that you do not know as much about your patient as you could.
4. If a patient is under your care for a prolonged time, or if you are managing a situation prone to rapid or undetected deterioration, interview and examine your patient as often as is necessary and practical. If you must be absent from a patient for a longer period than is prudent between examinations, delegate the responsibility to someone else.
image of leg splinting courtesy of www.princeton.edu
This post, Dropping The Ball In Patient Care: Provider Handoffs, was originally published on
Healthine.com by Paul Auerbach, M.D..
August 10th, 2009 by DrRob in Better Health Network, Opinion
1 Comment »
Let me kick the hornets’ nest again. I still have misgivings about sending information like this to my patients:
How does one not trained in what to overlook interpret the above? To me, this lab result is entirely expected for this patient – given the other medical history that is there. My concern is that this will either cause unneeded worry, or it would prompt a phone call to ask about labs that I would be quick to accept. Yes, there are times when this may help the doctor who overlooked abnormal tests in error, but the majority of abnormal lab values are not significant. The vast majority are insignificant. I’d put the rate at nearly 10:1.
When we e-mail patients their lab results, we have two options: to send the actual report, or send an abbreviated form of it. Here is what I sent this patient (for these actual labs):
I had a woman complain to me when I didn’t send her this “sanitized” version of her thyroid labs. She didn’t understand the lab report and just wanted my explanation. Which would you rather have? Do patients really need to know their MCHC, RDW, RBC count, and absolute eosinophil count? Do they want to? I don’t care about those numbers 99.9% of the time I look at them.
Here’s another example:
“Doctor! I am really worried about my Bun Level and Carbon dioxide levels. I read that these can all mean I am dehydrated! They also can mean I am going into kidney failure. I don’t want to go on dialysis! And what about the monocytes and MPV levels? One website I saw said this could mean leukemia.”
Sound outlandish? Sound like something that won’t happen much? Wrong. We spend a very large amount of time explaining these basically normal (MPV?? Absolute Monocytes??). All lab tests need to be put in the perspective of the patient’s age, disease state, race, and medications they are taking. They also need to be seen as a single point on the graph and so must be looked at in comparison with previous lab tests. How would I interpret this? Normal.
Do you, my readers, REALLY want to see the absolute monocyte counts and MPV?
Here’s another:
Look at all the extra information put at the bottom of the lab report. What does it mean?
Most of this is fluff meant to keep the lawyers happy. The average patient will not quite know where to look here and will either just be confused by it or become anxious and want to question this as being abnormal. ”I thought you said my diabetes control was good, but the diabetes test was high according to this!” or “A hemoglobin of 6.5 is dangerous, isn’t it?” I have had both of these comments from patients.
Here’s a typical echocardiogram report:
What percent of patients want all of this? I don’t! I really could care less about everything above the “Impression” section from the cardiologist. I was not even aware that pressure had a halftime. None of these findings are significant.
The cardiologist has to include all of these in his note for herself because of documentation requirements and because the fine details mean something to her. But they mean nothing to me, and I would prefer just getting the “Impression” sent to me. Why should patients be different from me?
Wouldn’t you rather get from me something that says: “Your echocardiogram looked good”?
I really think that giving full access to all information opens a hornet’s nest of its own. We will spend a lot of time educating our patients to the nature of medical information and medical terminology. Again, I am fine with having folks who feel they need this information; but I am a little skeptical that they really do need it.
I don’t need most of this stuff, and would be much happier if I got only what I asked for.
*This blog post was originally published at Musings of a Distractible Mind*
August 6th, 2009 by GruntDoc in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion
1 Comment »
The Happy Hospitalist, generally an excellent blogger, wrote yesterday about how salaried docs must be delivering better care than those greedy FFS docs, because the Cleveland Clinic does a terrific job with docs on a salary. I suspect their excellent outcomes have nothing to do with reimbursement model and a lot more to do with systems and a strong gatekeeper model.
He totally missed the elephant in the room in the Big Group Clinic model: who gets the money for doing the work.
He cites as an example a GI doc who left the Clinic for independent practice and quadrupled his income. Let’s say he’s working as hard as he did in the Clinic; is he billing more than the Clinic did? I doubt the Clinic wasn’t billing the usual amount for the work, so 3/4 of this docs’ billing went where?
I suspect it went into the overhead of the Clinic. This isn’t a knock on them, it works for their group, so fine. Other groups do essentially the same thing. It’s legal and morally defensible, and some docs don’t mind being salaried.
Salaried docs in a big Multispecialty Clinic have different incomes, but not as radically disparate as the non-clinic model. As a way to somewhat equalize RVRBS issues it works (I wouldn’t want to be in the room when salaries come up, though).
What salaries do not do is get docs to work harder, see more patients. Some docs are very dedicated, motivated people who would work for rent and grocery money. Others on a salary would do the minimum: if every patient is more work and more liability without more pay, well, why work more/harder? As an incentive to produce nothing beats getting paid for it.
(This isn’t an endorsement of excessive or un-necessary procedures; there are greedy jerks in all professions).
Also, a happy side effect of getting paid for what you do rather than for having a pulse is those who work hard resent those that don’t (but who would make the same on salary) a whole lot less. Way less inter-group stress.
Salaries aren’t all bad, but they’re not the Key to Great Healthcare.
Discolsure: I’ve worked ED’s both ways, and much prefer fee for service.
*This blog post was originally published at GruntDoc*
