Category Archives: Reform

Foreign Doctors—A Question of Equity

Posted on by

Consider these two facts:

  • Close to 25 percent of U.S. doctors are foreign-born.
  • Each year, developing nations spend $500 million to educate health care workers who leave to work in North America, Western Europe and South Asia.  As the most recent issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (October 24-31) puts it:  “developing nations are subsidizing healthcare in wealthier nations.”

According to JAMA, “These unchecked flows of health workers leave regions with the greatest health care needs with the fewest workers .  .  . 37% of the world’s health care workers live in the Americas, predominantly in the United States and Canada, yet these countries carry only 10% of the global disease burden. In contrast, Africa is home to only 3% of the world’s healthcare workers, yet it has 24% of the global burden of disease.”

On the other hand, according to the American Medical Association, some
35 million Americans live in areas where there are not enough doctors.
Nationwide, primary care doctors are in short supply, in large part
because they are paid so much less than specialists. Medical students
who know that they will graduate with tens of thousands of dollars in
loans say that they don’t feel that they can afford to become
internists or family doctors.

Moreover, the Kaiser Family Foundation reports that “the
nationwide physician shortage is affecting rural and inner-city
residents the most,” and following 9/11, “restrictions put in place on
foreign doctors who want to practice in the U.S.” have made the
situation worse.

Continue reading →

Patients Managing Chronic Diseases: Not Your Average Consumer

Posted on by

In his new book, Health Care Reform Now!, Kaiser Permanente President George Halverson points out that when you look at the 10 percent of patients running up 70 percent of the U.S. health care bill, you find that most are suffering from one of five chronic diseases: diabetes, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, asthma and depression.

These diseases can be expensive because if they are not monitored properly, they can quickly lead to avoidable hospitalizations—and, in the case of diabetes, avoidable amputations.  One of the most pressing questions health care reformers face today is this: How can we better manage these very expensive diseases—and how can the patient participate in self-management?

Recently, Maggie handed me a Bulletin on Aging and Health from the National Bureau of Economic Research, which includes a synopsis of a paper (penned by James P. Smith of the RAND Corporation) which focuses on one of these chronic diseases—diabetes. Smith’s goal is to explore the relationship among diabetes, socioeconomic status, and the patient’s ability to self-manage treatment.

Of particular interest is Smith’s emphasis on education—which, he concludes, is a major factor in determining first, whether a patient is likely to suffer from diabetes, and secondly whether he or she can successfully self-manage. It’s this second point that I want to address, in part because it provides a good example of how a consumer-based approach to medicine distorts the complexities of health care. 

Continue reading →

Hospitals & Nurses: Behind the Scenes

Posted on by

Recently I’ve begun reading allnurses.com, a website that offers an eye-opening window on conditions in U.S. hospitals.  (I found the site when allnurses reprinted my post about the nursing shortage).

Clearly nurses and doctors know more than virtually anyone else about what is going on in our hospitals, but they also realize that they risk reprisals if they speak out. When I was writing Money-Driven Medicine, I was surprised by how many physicians returned my phone calls. The great majority did not know me; I expected responses from perhaps 20 percent. Instead four out of five called back. To a man and a woman, they were most passionate about what many saw as the declining quality of healthcare. “We want someone to know what is going on,” explained one prominent Manhattan physician as he described how much care had deteriorated in many of New York City’s major hospitals. “But please don’t use my name,” he added. “You have to promise me that. In this business, the politics are so rough–it would be the end of my career.”

Nurses are in an even more vulnerable position. I could not find any who were willing to be interviewed. I e-mailed quite a few, promising anonymity, but not one responded.

On allnurses.com, however, nurses speak freely, knowing that their identities are protected and that their audience is composed of other nurses.  Here is what I have learned from some of the polls and forums on the site:

Continue reading →

Shared Decision Making

Posted on by

In my last post, I talked about the uncertainties of medicine, and suggested that the relationship between doctor and patient must be built on trust.  (See “A Transaction Based On Trust”). I argued that this is why the consumer-driven model of medicine doesn’t work. It assumes that the doctor is a retailer selling his services and that as his customer the consumer must demand the best quality care at the lowest price. Immediately the relationship between buyer and seller begins to sound adversarial, just as it is in the commercial marketplace where “caveat emptor” always applies. 

But the health care market is not like other market places, and the doctor is not a retailer. He or she is a professional who has taken a pledge to put the patient’s interests ahead of his own interests.  For the transaction to go forward, the patient has to believe this. Who would go under the knife, or submit to any painful or invasive procedure if he didn’t trust the doctor? 

At the end of that post, I asked, “But what about the uncertainty of medicine. Does this mean that the patient must simply trust that his doctor has “the right answer?”

Not at all. The relationship between patient and doctor must be based on mutual trust. Just as the patient trusts the doctor to act as a professional, the doctor needs to trust the patient enough to be open with him about the uncertainties of the patient’s condition and the pros and cons of the treatments that they are considering.

Sometimes—but not always—the doctor must tell the patient: “In this particular case I can’t be sure what the best treatment would be. But here are the options and here are the risks and benefits of each.”    

Continue reading →

The Dangers of a “Zagat Guide” to Physicians

Posted on by

Yesterday WellPoint announced
that as of early 2008, a “new online tool” “will allow consumers to
share their physician experiences with others” a la Zagat surveys.
Zagat in fact is partnering with WellPoint on this initiative, and the
format of ratings will be similar to other Zagat products, where
customer anecdotes accompany ratings of different criteria on a 30
point scale. The rated criteria for doctors will be trust,
communication, availability, and environment. Measurements of quality
of care and health outcomes are not included in this rating system, an
omission that Jane Sarasohn-Kahn points out over at HealthPopuli.

Jane is kinder toward this announcement than I am. Neglecting crucial
information about quality misses the point about medicine—that it is
devoted to improving health. As Jerry Flanagan of the Foundation for
Taxpayer and Consumer Rights told USA Today yesterday,
“the fact that a doctor might have a friendly administrator at the
front desk is meaningless if they have a high medical-error rate.” It’s
a bit like having car ratings only address color scheme and seat
comfort: these are nice facts to know, but at the end of the day you
want a car that you can rely on, a consistent performer that does its
job and does it well.

Continue reading →

Universal Coverage –Why Massachusetts is the Last Place to Begin the Experiment

Posted on by

At the Massachusetts Medical Society’s 8th Annual Leadership Forum last Wednesday, Dr. Steven Schroeder, former head of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
and Distinguished Professor of Health and Health Care at the University
of California, San Francisco, told a provocative story about a poll
that asked patients in the U.S. `Canada,  Australia, New Zealand and
the U.K the following question:

“If your personal doctor told you that you had an incurable and fatal
disease, would you accept that diagnosis or seek a second opinion?

  • In the U.S.           91 percent of patients said they would seek a second opinion.
  • In Canada            80 percent                    “        “       “       “     “     “           “ 
  • In Australia          71 percent                  “        “   
  • In New Zealand     51 percent
  • In the U.K.           28 percent 

“You have to love the British,” Schroeder commented. “You can just hear
an Englishman saying ‘Well, Luv, it’s been a good life, hasn’t it? Now
let’s make a pot of tea and discuss the funeral arrangements.”

At the other end of the spectrum, we find the Americans who, Schroeder
noted, “are the only people in the world who expect to live ‘in
perpetuity’.”

Today, I would like to suggest that our expectations as patients help
to explain why we spend roughly twice as much per person on health care
as most developed countries—even when, overall, it’s not clear that our
healthcare is better. In fact, in some areas outcomes are worse.

Continue reading →

Massachusetts Health Reform: The Canary in the Gold Mine?

Posted on by

Advocates for health care reform have been keeping an eye on Massachusetts, hopeful that its new health reform law will serve as a pilot program for the nation.

I’m much less hopeful than I was two days ago.

Yesterday I attended the Massachusetts Medical Society’s Eighth Annual Leadership Forum where I was one of four speakers. This year, the Society (which owns The New England Journal of Medicine)  focused on the cost of health care –with a special emphasis on funding universal coverage in Massachusetts. The new was not good. While the citizens of   Massachusetts believe that everyone has a right to health care (when polled 92% say “yes”), no one wants to pay for universal coverage.   When asked “if the only way to make sure that everyone can get the health care services they need is to have a substantial increase in taxes [should we do it] 55% said “no.”

One speaker at the forum recalled a man who explained why taxpayers shouldn’t have to pick up the bill: “The government should pay for it.” (He didn’t disclose who he thinks “the government” is. )

Continue reading →

The Real Danger of Socialized Medicine by Niko Karvounis

Posted on by

Last week The Washington Post ran a good opinion piece by Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at NIH (and brother of Congressman Rahm Emanuel) on the insidiousness of labeling any and all positions on health care apart from free market fundamentalism as being “socialized” medicine, doomed to failure.

Emanuel notes that “ ‘socialized medicine’ is when the doctors are state employees; when the hospitals, drugstores, home health agencies and other facilities are owned and controlled by the government…” As Emanuel rightly points out, none of the universal coverage proposals being debated in the U.S. today “can be characterized as socialized medicine. None calls for government ownership or control over U.S. hospitals, drugstores or home health agencies, or for making doctors employees of the federal or state governments.”

This is right on the money—maybe even more so than Emanuel intends. Opponents of “socialized” medicine are wrong three times over: not only do most reformers not want socialized medicine, but even European health care systems (often used as examples of socialized medicine) do not meet the criteria outlined above. Further, publicly-run health care carries with it some significant benefits that are evident right here in the U.S.

To dispel the myth of monolithic government-run European health care, look no further than Germany, where most of the population (88%) receives health care through “sickness funds"–non-profit, third-party pools of money devoted to health services. Sickness funds are built on the principle of “subsidized self-governance”: they receive public funding, but the funds must be financially self-sufficient (i.e. be able to govern themselves) and also allow a high degree of freedom on the part of patients and doctors (the former can choose their doctors and hospitals, and the latter have much flexibility in treatments).

Continue reading →

More Thoughts On the Hospital Building Boom

Posted on by

A Startling Insider’s Look at What Happens to Patients Who Stay in the Luxury Suites of a Prestigious Hospital 
             
         

Last week, thehealthcareblog.com (THCB) asked if they could put up my post about the hospital building boom below where I ask “Can we Afford the Waterfalls”– and all of  the other hotel-like amenities that new hospitals are beginning to offer. Do we really need grand pianos, valet parking and all-private rooms—especially in hospitals that don’t yet have electronic medical records? (See my original post here)
         

Quite a few readers at THCB commented, with a number voting “yes” for the
amenities.  But one young doctor said “no”—and then offered this startling insider’s  view of  the care patients do and don’t receive on the luxury floor of one prestigious hospital:

“Maggie’s right-on regarding the disconnect between hospital frills and quality of care…

Continue reading →

Preventing Hospital Errors by Howard C. Berkowitz

Posted on by

I have asked Howard Berkowitz to guest-blog on hospital errors.

Howard is in an unique position to write on this topic because he consults on
medical information systems for hospitals and also has been a long-time
patient. Over the years, he has taken an unusually detailed decision-making role
in his own care for heart diseases and diabetes which, he says, “has kept me
going, with bad heart genetics, at least 17 years more than my father.”

Howard also reports that “when no one else would coordinate my mother’s complex
cancer care, I did so…and I know what it is to preserve the semblance of
life, when only pain remains. Complex pain management is also one of my
interests; too few doctors know that pain should always be controllable.”

As a result of his own health problems and his parents’ illnesses, he has spent
more time in hospitals than anyone would ever want to endure. But unlike
most of us, he understood what was going on. Originally trained in microbiology
and biochemistry, Howard was doing independent research in antibiotic
resistance and working in a clinical laboratory while in high school. He
confesses that, for his 10th birthday, he asked his mother for a copy of the
Merck Index of Chemicals and Drugs. Subsequently, he built the first clinical
computer system for Georgetown University Hospital,
developed virological systems for Electronucleonics’ “hot lab” and developed
cardiac care simulators and for the George Washington University School of Medicine,
Office of Computer-Assisted Instruction. He also developed the first automated blood
bank laboratory tools for the Red Cross.


Full disclosure—he has two patents in process for hospital communications and staff management dedicated to keeping them informed, in real time, of patient needs.
His post follows below.

IF YOU’D LIKE TO COMMENT ON
THIS POST, PLEASE
CLICK HERE TO E-MAIL MAGGIE WITH YOUR THOUGHTS.

Continue reading →