January 11th, 2021 by Dr. Val Jones in Health Policy, Opinion
3 Comments »
Because science is advancing our understanding of medicine at an exponential rate, physicians and surgeons have been turning to subspecialization as a means to narrow their required domains of expertise. “Carving out a niche” makes sense in a profession where new research is being published at a rate of two million articles per year. Just filtering the signal from the noise can be a full time job.
However, the consequences of narrowing one’s expertise is that you lose flexibility. For example, an orthopedist who has subspecialized in the surgical management of the shoulder joint doesn’t keep her skills sharp in knee replacement surgery or other general surgical procedures that she once performed. Neurologists who focus on movement disorders become comfortable with a small subset of diseases such as Parkinson’s, but then close their doors to patients with migraines or strokes.
The continued march towards ultra-subspecialization has been a boon in urban and academic centers, but has left spotty expertise in surrounding areas and small towns. And now, the COVID-19 pandemic has unmasked the biggest downside of niche medicine: a hardening of the categories that prevents many physicians from being able to help in times of crisis. Retina specialists, plastic surgeons, rheumatologists, and radiation oncologists (to name just a few) may want to help emergency medicine physicians (EM), internists (IM), and intensivists (CCM) expand their reach as COVID cases surge and hospitals become overwhelmed. But what are they to do? They are not trained to manage airways, place central lines, or monitor renal function, and legitimately fear legal repercussions should they attempt to do so.
Medicine is fundamentally based upon apprentice-style learning – this is why we undergo years of residency training – to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with more senior experts and learn their craft under close supervision. Upon graduation from medical school, physicians are deemed ineligible to treat patients until they have practical experience under their belts. The old adage: “see one, do one, teach one” is the bedrock of how we train. So now, there needs to be a pathway available for those who have completed residency to re-train to meet the demands of this crisis and others.
Perhaps it’s a radical idea to consider pairing subspecialist physicians with current frontline COVID-19 doctors – but turfing patients to “non physician practitioners” or NPPs when access is limited to an emergency medicine specialist, internist, or intensivist, seems to be the current plan. I believe that medical school and internship are a solid foundation for COVID management (common to all physicians), and that given a designated EM, IM, or CCM mentor, the willing subspecialists will be able to follow protocols and take on new challenges rapidly and with excellence. I hope that the government will issue more detailed “good Samaritan” type laws to protect mentors and their subspecialty partners from frivolous law suits in times of COVID (those in place are for volunteer positions only), and that the house of medicine, led by the AMA and other sub-specialty organizations, will pave the way for rapid cross-disciplinary instruction and certification.
Going forward, there should be opportunities for post-residency, mid-career physicians to complete fellowship programs outside of their sub-specialty’s usual offerings. An ophthalmologist should have the ability to spend a year studying pulmonary medicine, for example, if they want to moonlight with an ICU physician in the future. In our current system, it is very difficult to obtain a fellowship after significant time has elapsed since one’s residency training. While there are a few “re-entry programs” for physicians who haven’t practiced clinical medicine for years, there is no path established for those who simply wish to switch specialties or assist outside of their specialty in a time of crisis.
I am not arguing that a fellowship should be considered equivalent to a residency program. We may need to create a new type of physician certification that allows fellowship-trained physicians from unrelated residency programs to operate under the license of an agreeable mentor/sponsor already established in the field by virtue of medical school and residency training. This would open up employment opportunities for over-specialized physicians, while not threatening those who are residency-trained in the field. In essence, this would allow physicians to operate in the way that NPPs have been for decades, and get subspecialty physicians off the bench and into the fight against COVID and perhaps into underserved areas more effectively as well.
For those subspecialists who have become disillusioned with their field, but still enjoy medicine or surgery – their talent could be retained if there were a path to re-training. An estimated 20% of physicians would change their specialty if they could. Currently, physicians have few clinical options if they no longer wish to practice in the field in which they completed a residency. I suspect that sweeping physician burnout rates (highest among mid-career physicians) could be improved by providing opportunities for “reimagining” themselves – and course-correcting to rekindle the scientific and clinical passion that led them to apply to medical school in the first place.
This would require some mental and regulatory flexibility – which could be a good side effect of the otherwise dreadful COVID pandemic.
June 11th, 2012 by Dr. Val Jones in Health Policy, Opinion
1 Comment »
I don’t read The Economist frequently enough to be sure that I dislike its entire staff of writers, but I have been repeatedly disappointed by its health coverage. In this latest article, “Squeezing Out The Doctor” the writers describe the increased healthcare needs of an aging western civilization, combined with a relative shortage of physicians to care for seniors. The conclusion? This is a “win” for patients.
Now, in case you find that conclusion as irrational as I did, let me summarize how they arrived there. The argument goes something like this: doctors have been unfairly controlling the practice of medicine for the past century, and now with the oncoming flood of patient need (and relative MD shortage), they won’t have time to do everything they have in the past. Physicians will therefore be forced to narrow their scope and outsource many of their current tasks to nurses and support staff. This is a win for patients because they will have shorter wait times for care and lower healthcare costs with the same care quality because most of what doctors do can be replicated by ancillary staff. At last we will be able to remove the self-important, over-educated, control freak physicians from the delivery of healthcare!
Oh, here’s another great idea: why don’t we improve our school systems by squeezing out the teachers? Who needs teachers when mature students could train others in the same subject matter? Most of what teachers do is just baby sitting, right? We could easily outsource that to daycare centers or teens with a little baby sitting experience. The few teachers we retain should be reserved for only the most difficult cases: severe learning disabilities. Just think of the cost savings in teacher salaries! Imagine the improved access to schools if we didn’t have to adhere to some arbitrary teacher to student ratio. What a win for students. The only possible downside is that teachers may lose some of their current social standing, but so what?
The oncoming physician shortage will not bring the glorious improvements in healthcare delivery touted by The Economist. More likely it will create a two-tiered system whereby the poor and underinsured will get a substandard level of care. If you think that only doctors balk at long hours for low pay, try pitching that deal to nurses. They are just as savvy as physicians about personal economics. Having them take over primary care under the current (or worsening conditions) will burn them out just as quickly and nurses will specialize or quit nursing in droves. There is no magical, “let’s just get someone else to do it for less” model in healthcare when we’re already scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of ROI for providers of any stripe.
Physician scarcity can be ameliorated by setting doctors free to spend more of their time in patient care, and less of it on distractions (such as excessive documentation for coding and billing purposes). But the solution is not necessarily outsourcing that work to someone else. It’s killing it all together. Radical idea? My practice is doing that now and growing a thriving business to boot.
Primary care doesn’t have to be expensive. Most patients need less than a full hour of a physician’s time per year, an annual cost of about $350. In my practice, we bill for our time and we spend it however it makes best sense for the patient – via phone, email, office visit, or house call. It’s in our interest to see as many patients as possible, and therefore we are increasing access to services. Office wait times are non-existent because many issues can be handled via phone (patients are not required to come to the office for every and any request for the sake of billing).
What’s the catch? We don’t accept insurance. Patients can submit claims to their carrier for reimbursement for our out-of-network services, but we have opted out of public and private insurance plans so that we can spend our time with patients instead of coding, billing, and being beholden to third party documentation requirements and regulations. This system works marvelously for any patient open-minded enough to see that a high deductible health insurance plan (for catastrophic coverage only) saves them thousands per year in premiums, while their primary care “out of pocket” will cost a few hundred or less. The math works for all. Access is improved, costs decrease, quality is maintained.
Now that’s a true win for patients.
October 3rd, 2011 by RyanDuBosar in Research
1 Comment »
Dermatologists spend their days telling patients to avoid the sun and their careers striving to practice in it. They’re leaving the Midwest and mountain states to practice in the southern and western U.S.
To evaluate the migration patterns of dermatologists from residency to clinical practice, researchers reviewed data from the American Academy of Dermatology’s membership database. They looked at 7,067 dermatology residents who completed training before 2005 and were actively practicing in 2009. Results appeared at the September issue of the Archives of Dermatology.
Most graduates from Middle Atlantic and Pacific census divisions relocated Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at ACP Internist*
September 21st, 2011 by Michael Kirsch, M.D. in Opinion
No Comments »
All of us have been to fast food establishments. We go there because we are in a hurry and it’s cheap. We love the convenience. We expect that the quality of the cuisine will be several rungs lower than fine dining.
We now have a fast medicine option available to us. Across the country, there are over 1000 ‘minute-clinics’ that are being set up in pharmacies, supermarkets and other retail store chains. These clinics are staffed by nurse practitioners who have prescribing authority, under the loose oversight of a physician who is likely off sight. These nurses will see patients with simple medical issues and will adhere to strict guidelines so they will not treat beyond their medical knowledge. For example, if a man comes in clutching his chest and gasping, the nurse will know not to just give him some Rolaids and wish him well. At least, that’s the plan.
Primary care physicians are concerned over the metastases of ‘minute-clinics’ nationwide. Of course, they argue from a patient safety standpoint, but there are powerful parochial issues worrying physicians. They are losing business. They have a point that Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at MD Whistleblower*
July 30th, 2011 by DavidHarlow in Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
The UnitedHealth Center for Health Reform and Modernization released a white paper today on Modernizing Rural Health Care. To quote from the UHG presser,
- [The paper] projects an increase of around 5 million newly insured rural residents by 2019 – even as the number of physicians in rural America lags
- Quality of care is rated lower in rural areas in 7 out of every 10 health care markets; both physicians and consumers in rural areas more likely to rate quality of care lower than those in urban and suburban markets
- Innovations in care delivery – particularly telemedicine and telehealth – can absorb future strain on rural health care systems
The paper inventories the current state of health care for the 50 million Americans living in a rural setting — and it’s not pretty. The question, of course, is why does rural health compare unfavorably to urban health metrics, and what can be done to improve matters? Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at HealthBlawg :: David Harlow's Health Care Law Blog*
