Opinion: Some Common Stents

Below, a guest post by Dr. Nortin M. Hadler, MD MACP MACR FACOEM
Professor of Medicine and Microbiology/Immunology, School of Medicine University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Attending Rheumatologist, UNC Hospitals

The 5-year mortality for a well man after his first heart attack has dropped from 50% to 5% in one generation. The line of people who are taking credit for this happy turn of events is very long. At the head of the line stand the cardiovascular surgeons and interventional cardiologists. They bask in the praise of the media and of their celebrity patients who consider them saviors. If you have survived one of these modern medical miracles unscathed, you feel blessed to live in such a medically advantaged community. If symptoms return, it seems so reasonable to return to this technological fountain. If you survived scathed or ultimately succumb, it means that even modern medical miracles were no match for the magnitude of your affliction.

Continue reading

“Slow Medicine”

Below, Kent Bottles, M.D. reflects on the difference between “slow medicine” and what he calls “UCLA medicine.” (For the full post, see “Kent Bottles’ Private Views” )

“I have been thinking about the difference between slow medicine and UCLA medicine. It has made me realize how complex and difficult it is to transform American health care so that we lower per-capita cost and increase the quality of our lives. And yet we must achieve these two goals.

“Slow medicine is practiced by a small, but growing subculture whose pioneer and spokesperson is Dr. Dennis McCullough, author of the book My Mother, Your Mother: Embracing ‘Slow Medicine,’ The Compassionate Approach to Caring for Your Aging Loved Ones. Slow medicine is a philosophy and set of practices that believes in a conservative medical approach to both acute and chronic care.

“McCullough describes slow medicine as ‘care that is more measured and reflective, and that actually stands back from rushed, in-hospital interventions and slows down to balance thoughtfully the separate, multiple and complex issues of late life.’ Shared decision-making, community and family involvement, and sophisticated knowledge of the American health care system are some of the slow medicine practices that sharply contrast with UCLA medicine.

“UCLA medicine is the status quo where the hospital is the center of the medical universe; where care is often uncoordinated and hurried, and where cure is the only acceptable outcome for both patient and physician. I call it UCLA medicine because the CEO of that well-regarded medical center was quoted in a New York Times Sunday Magazine article as saying, ‘If you come into this hospital, we’re not going to let you die.’   This is a statement that puzzles me as an old time anatomic pathologist.”

I would add that I find the UCLA CEO’s statement more than puzzling; I find it frightening.

I can’t help but think of the doctor who explained: “Once you’re in the hospital, you’re in ‘the system.’”  I imagine a prison door closing behind me. I am now in a place where people no longer ask me what I want.  Instead, they tell me:  “This is what we’re going to do.”

Of course, Bottles goes on to acknowledge that “there are times (serious acute illness correctly diagnosed where there is an evidence-based treatment that has a good chance of success) when I hope I am treated in UCLA’s ICU or operating room by UCLA specialists. However, there are also times as I get older that I hope I end up living in the Kendal-at-Hanover retirement community cared for by a wise and experienced geriatrician like Dennis McCullough and the community’s nurse practitioner; I want my providers to take things slowly and listen to what I want out of life.”

Comparing the Fiscal Commission’s Proposals to the Accountable Care Act

Today, “The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform” a bi-partisan group that President Barack Obama appointed earlier this year, released the final version of a report recommending ways to rein in the budget deficit.  I’m not going to try cover all of the Commission’s proposals in this post, but I think it’s important to compare how the Accountable Care Act reins in Medicare spending to the Commission’s more Draconian approach.

The commission takes aim at healthcare for seniors by hiking co-pays and deductibles for Medicare patients without considering what patients can afford. Under these proposals, many middle-class Medicare beneficiaries will not be able to afford health care. Those who are sickest would suffer most. The report then blindly freezes and ultimately cuts Medicare payments to all physicians–ignoring the fact that, today, some are underpaid for essential services.  Finally, it calls for reinstating the dreaded sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula as a benchmark for reducing reimbursements to physicians, beginning in 2015.

Friday, the 18-member panel will vote on the plan. If 14 members of the group say “yea,” it will go to Congress for its consideration.  

 How the Fiscal Commission Would Reduce Medicare Payments to Doctors: The commission’s co-chairs, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, released an outline of the report on November 10 which called for "modest reductions" in Medicare reimbursement for physicians, but did not specify an amount. Today's full-fledged report unveils the numbers.

Continue reading

How the ACA Saves Money & Raises Revenues–Numbers You Can Count On

Today, a group of progressive think tanks released their response to the deficit: Investing In America's Economy: A Budget Blueprint for Economic Recovery and Fiscal Responsibility. As Naomi indicates below, the report represents a collaborative effort by Demos, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) and The Century Foundation (TCF). Here, I’m focusing on how we can rein in health care spending, but I urge you to read the entire report. It makes it clear that we don’t need the austerity budget that the conservative Peterson-Pew Commission proposes. Instead, we should be focusing on jobs and growth.

Commenting on “Investing in America’s Economy” over at Think Progress, Matt Yglesias highlights a major theme: “No Cost Shifting.” He quotes the report: “Policies that simply shift costs from the federal government to individuals and families may improve the government’s balance sheet but may worsen the condition of many Americans, leaving the overall economy no better off.”

Continue reading

Maggie Mahar Contributes to New Deficit Reduction Blueprint

The Century Foundation in a collaborative effort with Demos and the Economic Policy Institute has produced a new report entitled: “Investing in America’s Economy: A Budget Blueprint for Economic Recovery and Fiscal Responsibility.” The blueprint prioritizes a strong economic recovery because widespread job creation and robust economic growth are essential to successful deficit reduction. The report also singles out health care costs as one of the prime drivers of growth in our national debt, and with contribution by Maggie Mahar, proposes a variety of policies that will reduce the growth of these costs. According to the blueprint report, these changes would not only help reduce the deficit, but could also improve the quality of care and reduce costs for businesses and families.

Bob Wachter Reflects on Hospital Safety

Over the past two weeks, Bob Wachter, Associate Chairman of the Department of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, has published two provocative posts on hospital errors and patient safety on The Health Care Blog (THCB) (www.thehealthcareblog.com)

The first post, which appeared on November 22, focuses on  a breakthrough article in the New England Journal of Medicine, a candid  report of a case in which Dr. David Ring, a prominent Harvard hand specialist at the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH),  performed the wrong operation on a 65-year-old woman. She needed a trigger finger release, but received a carpal tunnel release, an entirely different operation. In the November 11 issue of the NEJM, Ring described his own error, with safety expert Gregg Meyer providing commentary. http://prod.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcpc1007085   

“This was a breakthrough for the Journal,” Wachter notes, “the first time in its storied 86-year history that the Case Records of the MGH published such a report. But it was not the first opportunity the NEJM had to publish such a piece… that occurred a decade earlier. The story of the path from then to now reflects the evolution of the patient safety movement. It’s a story I know well since it involved one of the lowest points in my professional life”

Continue reading

Palliative Care and Hospice Care: Transforming the American Way of Dying (In Iowa, If Not in New York) Part 1

Summary: Below, I write about Palliative Care: Transforming the Care of Serious Illness (Jossey-Bass, 2010), an outstanding collection of essays edited by Diane E. Meier, Stephen L. Isaacs and Robert G. Hughes. In this post I also focus on a a Dartmouth Atlas report, released just last week, spotlighting geographic variations in access to hospice care.  

Often, hospice and palliative care are confused. They are alike in that both hospice and palliative care emphasize  relieving suffering and improving the quality of the patient’s life. But while hospice care is designed for those who are clearly dying, palliative care provides comfort and pain relief for anyone who is seriously ill, regardless of their prognosis—whether a cancer patient who hopes to go into  remission, or a patient who is expected to live for years with a chronic disease such as heart failure or Alzheimer’s.

Continue reading

“We Don’t Have to Go After the Middle Class” in Order to Reduce the Deficit

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) is a member of the President’s bi-partisan commission on deficit reduction, but she’s not happy with the proposals put forward by the commission’s Co-Chairs, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. They would reduce the deficit by cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and health care for the military.

“Social Security is not part of the deficit problem,” Schakowsky declares. “To take it out on the elderly, who have an average income of $18,000  [including social security, pensions, investment income]  . . .  I think that is, frankly, immoral,” she adds. “The average benefit is $14,000 a year. Nobody’s getting rich.”

Continue reading

Peterson-Pew on HealthCare: Who “Shares” in the Sacrifices? Seniors & Physicians

As I read the report that the Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform released yesterday,  two recommendations caught my attention:

“A permanent freeze on payments to [all] Medicare physicians

“Increase Medicare retirement age to 67”

The first proposal offers a crude solution to a problem that the Affordable Care Act addresses in a far more intelligent way, giving the Secretary of Health and Human Services the discretion to raise payments for “undervalued services” and lower payments for “overvalued services.”  The truth is that Medicare underpays many doctors, particularly primary care physicians, geriatricians, palliative care specialists and general surgeons. This is one reason why we have a serious shortage in these areas. At the same time, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission has pointed out that we over-pay for certain services, and because they are so lucrative, they tend to be done too often. Past experience shows that when fees were trimmed for certain imaging services, volume leveled off.

As for lifting the Medicare retirement age to 67, does the Commission realize how many uninsured 62–year-olds are hanging on, counting the days and months until they turn 65?  Gathering the votes to pass the second proposal would mean going up against every lobby that protects older Americans.

The Draft of the Co-Chair’s Proposal

Late yesterday afternoon, I saw a much more detailed document–the “Draft Co-chair’s Proposal” for addressing the deficit.    The authors begin by touting the Commission’s report as a “sensible, real plan” that “requires shared sacrifice.”  But as I began reading the section on healthcare, it didn’t take too long to figure out who would be making the sacrifices:  sick seniors and doctors are expected to offer themselves up.  The health care corporations that feed at the trough of an extravagant health care system are barely asked to contribute.  Indeed, the Peterson-Pew report calls for slashing taxes for corporations from 36 percent to 25 percent.

Continue reading