Medicine and Social Justice

"Abandoning ship": is debunking ineffective screening and therapy removing hope or just removing risk?

2012-01-28T06:54:00.000-08:00

Sometimes I think I sound like a real medical nihilist, since many of my blogs have been about purported treatments that are ineffective, dangerous, done too often, and cost a lot of money (Cardiac stents and profit-driven corruption: do anti-fraud rules address the problem?, December 24, 2010; Greed, corruption and medical procedures: ignoring or suppressing the evidence?, August 12, 2011; Men’s Health? Women’s Health? Valid screening opportunities or “Hallmark Holidays”?, March 15, 2011). It is a somewhat distressing feeling. I am a doctor; I want to help people, to relieve their suffering, to help facilitate the cure of their diseases. More than that, I am a family doctor, and have a strong preference for prevention, for early detection of disease when it is still treatable rather than waiting for it to be too far gone for treatment to be effective. In addition, I have regularly criticized our health non-system for leaving out too many people, creating financial disincentives for them to seek care early. This leads to their waiting until their diseases become so uncontrolled that they present to the emergency room, then require admission and costly care, making it worse for them (most important) and more expensive for everyone. So I think prevention and early intervention is a really good thing, and it would be great to have tests that could identify disease early in its course so that we can change its trajectory.

But because I want these things to be true doesn’t make them true, as I discuss in the recent post Avastin®, Plan B®, and Magical Thinking, December 31, 2011. Because we can screen you for something doesn’t mean that we should; because a test can be done doesn’t mean that it is a good test. "A good test", in my opinion, is one that has sufficient sensitivity (rate of being positive when a condition is present) or specificity (rate of being negative when a condition is absent) to tell us whether a you have a disease, or if it matters. Because it can be done also doesn’t mean that it is cost-effective. Because a treatment exists doesn’t mean it is a good treatment, a safe treatment, an effective treatment. And, as with most things being sold, the greater the publicity and advertising around it, the more it means someone will be making money on it, which does not exclude its being of benefit, but is certainly not the same thing.

Sometimes, when evidence is discovered that a test or treatment is not of benefit, eventually we stop doing it. "Eventually", however, may be a lot longer than you might think. In a recent “Viewpoint” in JAMA, Prasad, Cifu, and Ionannidis address “Reversals of established medical practice: evidence to abandon ship”[1]. They note that while “Ideally, good medical practices are replaced by better ones, based on robust comparative trials in which new interventions outperform older ones and establish new standards of care. Often, however, established standards must be abandoned not because a better replacement has been identified but simply because what was thought to be beneficial was not.” They go on to discuss a number of treatments that have been “standard of care” but were shown by good, randomized controlled trials, to be ineffective or even dangerous (not to say expensive). These include stenting of coronary arteries for stable coronary artery disease (CAD), postmenopausal hormone therapy to prevent CAD, vertebroplasty for osteoporotic fractures, bevucizamab for breast cancer.

Scarily, but unsurprisingly, “true believers” continued to defend these interventions even after the evidence was clear (their livelihoods depend upon it), and in many cases these treatments continue to be offered and performed. “There are thousands of clinical trials, but most deal with trivialities or efforts to buttress the sales of specific products,” and it is only “Rarely [that]…some investigators find the courage to test established ‘truths’ with large, rigorous randomized trials”. Prasad and colleagues have done many of these latter trials; indeed John Ioannidis is the “guru” of debunking treatments with poor evidence (see David H. Freedman’s article in the November 2011 Atlantic “Lies, damned lies, and medical science.”) The authors have some suggestions, including limiting the role of manufacturers (of drugs, devices, tests) from conducting the trials on them, although they should pay for them: “Large trials of new innovations should be designed and conducted by investigators without conflicts of interest, under the auspices of nonconflicted scientific bodies. Instead of designing, controlling, and conducting the trials, manufacturers may offer the respective budget to a centralized public pool of funding, keeping the trial design and conduct independent.”

Prevention and screening are also subject to the lure of magical-thinking-compounded-by-the-greed-of-the sellers. Screening for prostate cancer with the use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is a good recent example about which I have written (while the lack of effectiveness of treatments for prostate cancer is would be included in the group of ineffective therapies that Prasad and colleagues have written about). Pap smears are pretty good screening tests for cervical cancer, but most other cancer screening tests (even mammograms and colon cancer screening, probably the next best) are not nearly as good. Every time there is a recommendation to decrease the frequency of screening (Pap smears, mammography) or not do them at all (PSAs or pelvic exams) there is an outcry from people who think that something has been taken from them. In a scientific sense, what has been taken is unnecessary testing that doesn’t lower their risk of bad outcomes, costs money, and can have significant morbidity when positive screens need additional, more invasive tests, to follow up. But, in a more metaphysical sense, what has been taken is hope, the idea that there is something that they can do that will prevent something bad from happening to them. Something that, while perhaps a little risky (if you understand or believe it), is relatively easy. And also, frankly, something someone else, rather than you, can do. Not like, say, dieting or giving up smoking or exercising. And this false concept is encouraged by half-truths promulgated by passionate advocates of interventions with limited proven benefit, whether traditional allopathic or “alternative”.

Even public health advocates sometimes get so passionate about the health benefits of what they are advocating that they may miss other issues. For example, consider a recent discussion on a progressive public health listserve about “portion control” (limiting the amount eaten at one sitting). This is an important and effective method of addressing obesity, which is in fact a major health problem in this country, but the discussion raised many other issues. These included concerns about “blaming the victim” -- expecting self-control (difficult enough) from people who had historically not had that control in the face of major initiatives by fast-food purveyors to push large portions. Another was the economics involved in asking poor people to pay “more for less” while corporations continue to make huge profits from them. It can, and often is, as difficult for public health advocates to recognize problems arising from their positions and passions as it is for providers or manufacturers to back off from theirs.

The difference, of course, is that the former are really invested in the health of the public, while the latter are invested mostly in, well, their investments.

[1] Prasad V, Cifu A, Ioannidis JPA, Reversals of established medical practices: evidence to abandon ship”, JAMA 4Jan2012;307(1):37-8.

One thing to NOT worry about: paying for health care -- in France

2012-01-21T06:04:00.000-08:00

I recently saw the film Le Havre, a film set in that French city and made, in French, by Finnish director Aki Kaurismäki. It was a very good film, generally well-reviewed (here is the New York Times review), and part of its appeal for me is its unabashed portrayal of working-class people as the central characters. One of the plots involves the illness of the female lead, Arletty, who suffers severe abdominal pain, is brought to the hospital, and is told that it will be terminal (although, the doctor observes, “miracles do happen”.) I don’t need to share any more of the plot, because what I found striking was really incidental to it.

Kaurismäki goes to some length to depict both the poverty and dignity of his characters. It is an imaginable working class poverty -- this is not the Mumbai of Slumdog Millionaire – but it is certainly poverty. Arletty’s husband is a shoeshine man; they live on an alley off a small street in a house that evokes the apartment of Ralph and Alice Kramden on The Honeymooners. When he sees his wife in such pain, her husband’s main concern is how he will get her to the hospital. He goes to the street to ask a shopkeeper if he can use her phone (they don’t have one), and she offers to drive them.

What is not a concern is whether they can afford her medical care. As I am used to being in the US, to caring for people of limited means, of seeing people in the free clinic who cannot afford to go to the doctor or people admitted to the hospital when they finally show up in the emergency room with disease that is far gone because they haven’t sought care, I found this a bit jarring. I was waiting for Arletty to protest that it was “nothing” (she has been in some denial already), for fear that they couldn’t afford medical care. But she doesn’t, and he says nothing about it, and goes off to find transportation. We could see the same thing in an American movie, and we would expect the same thing in our own lives – when your wife is really sick, you take her to the hospital, you worry about the bills later.

Except that wasn’t why. They weren’t worried about the bills. Because it was France. With a national health insurance system, where everyone, even the wife of a self-employed shoeshine guy living in a tiny house off an alley, has health coverage. In the film, Arletty is in the hospital for several weeks, but of all the issues that occur, how the couple will pay for it never comes up. Not at all. It is not even a thought in their minds. But it is a thought in mine, and I keep having to remind myself that it is not part of the plot because it is not an issue that French people have to concern themselves with. The illness, yes. Whether she will survive, yes. Whether he will earn enough money each day to buy dinner, yes. But not how to pay for several weeks of hospitalization. Amazing.

There was another aspect of the healthcare portrayed in the film that struck me. The hospital was simple and unostentatious. It looked a little dated, old-fashioned, like the houses and the shops and the working-class lives of the characters, even though the film and its theme are contemporary. Maybe this is also something about France. The hospital is clean, freshly-painted, with clean linen, and private rooms, and IV poles and doctors and nurses. But it is simple. The ceilings are not high, there is not expensive art on the walls, or carpets, or hallways twice as wide as they need to be. It is functional. It is not third-world, but it is basic. It is pretty unlike my hospital, or most of the hospitals that we see in the US (except some of the oldest public institutions). If someone with private health insurance saw this hospital in, say, Kansas City, they would be unimpressed. They might rather, next time, seek one that was “nicer”. Fancier. With really good hotel accommodations. This is what we look for in the US, what we expect. Surely this is what they lose in such national-health-insurance countries as France.

I checked this with a friend, who is from Canada. He said that this is the way hospitals in Canada are; clean, and functional, but not fancy. He told me he was shocked when his wife had a baby in Kansas City and there were hardwood floors. What for, he wondered? Of course, we know what they are for. They are to help to provide a competitive advantage, to make people choose one hospital over another. For the same reason that hospitals buy new MRI scanners when the hospital down the street has one that is underutilized. Why they have fundraisers to be able to support their cancer center, to attract people with cancer (and, of course, insurance!) to them, rather than to the perfectly good cancer center across town. Why, as depicted in a recent New York Times “Opinionator” by Ezekiel Emanuel and Stephen D. Pearson (“It costs more, but is it worth more?”), hospitals such as Mayo Clinic are building their own billion-dollar proton-beam accelerators to treat cancer when there are more than enough in the country to treat the relatively small number of people who require this kind of cancer therapy.

Because, in the US, healthcare provision functions much more as a business than as a social good. The “product” is healthcare for people, but the product is only of value when it can be sold to those who can pay. We have hospitals that compete for some of our people, while there are others who can barely get care. This competition model can work, just as it works for other products – vendors compete for those who can afford it and ignore those who cannot. If we want healthcare to be an industry, a business, rather than health care.

Le Havre is a very good film, and it does not shy away from social issues. In fact, it addresses many of them. But access to health care is not one, it is not Sicko! The themes I discuss here are just in the background of the film,and I imagine they are not even noticed by French audiences. Or Finnish ones. Being able to afford medical care is not an issue in those places.

Which is as it should be.

It’s definitely not about the bike – but is it even about ACOs?

2012-01-14T06:47:00.000-08:00

One of the major features of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the idea of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). The final regulations from Medicare were issued in October, 2011, so the creation of ACOs seems to be moving forward. ACOs will be groups of primary care doctors, specialists, hospitals, and possible other providers who act together to provide comprehensive care, and receive either more money from Medicare (and probably, eventually, other payers) or, at least, smaller reductions in payments. The only thing that is definitely required to form an ACO is a group of primary care doctors, but since groups of primary care doctors rarely have sufficient capital to fund the necessary infrastructure, so it is likely that almost all will include at least one hospital.

The stated purpose behind encouraging ACOs is to increase quality. It is easy enough to see how quality could be improved in our non-system of health. Because the bar is so low, there are tremendous opportunities that come from lack of organization and coordination of care. Hospitals get paid for caring for people who are admitted. Thus, up to a point (the point at which payments do not exceed costs), they want admissions. Patients prefer to stay healthy, or at least healthy enough to not have to be admitted to the hospital, and hopefully their primary care doctors support this goal. Hospitals have already started being financially penalized by not receiving reimbursement from Medicare for readmissions for the same problem they were discharged for, or complications of that problem. Managing this issue will require the ACO to have not only financial relationships with primary care doctors, but often with long-term care facilities as this is where patients are discharged to – and return to the hospital from.

Fisher, McClellan, and Safran, in their New England Journal of Medicine article “Building the Path to Accountable Care” (December 29, 2011; may require subscription)[1], identify five “challenges” to implementing ACOs with suggestions for how to overcome them. The challenges are providing timely and useful data, overcoming transition costs, gaining consumer support, learning what works and using that knowledge to inform policy and practice, and clarifying the path forward. Their suggested approaches to solving them are largely based upon what is being done in existing integrated health systems (such as Kaiser and Geisinger). This makes sense, as these systems were the model for ACOs and are often relatively cost effective, but it will require major restructuring for other such systems to develop in ways that can work as well. The authors do not address a major challenge for ACOs, which is that every patient will be identified with a particular ACO (based on the physician from whom they receive the majority of their primary care) and that ACO will be held financially responsible for that patient’s costs, but that the patient will be free to receive service from outside that ACO. This is a political decision, intended to avoid the criticism that the ACO program is just “managed care” in new clothes by ensuring that the program will not “restrict” people. Of course, it is a huge flaw. If a patient is not happy with the care they receive from members of their “identified” ACO, whether that is for “good” reasons (denying unnecessary, excess, risky procedures, hospitalizations, etc.) or “bad” reasons (less than the best quality), the patient can go elsewhere and receive that service from someone else. And if Medicare deems it unnecessary or excessive, it is the “identified” ACO that will receive the financial penalty, not those providing the service.

The authors’ final challenge, the vaguely worded “clarifying the path forward”, is about future changes, including (from their table) “Create meaningful alternatives to fee for service for all providers.” This is a good idea, and not a new one. It means that rather than have the provider (hospital or doctor) paid for each particular service, the payment is tied to something else. Most simply, it could be a global fee for providing care to a patient, as the capitated payments in traditional HMOs. This allows practices to budget their resources, and also allows patients to get care in the way they need it. If a doctor is being paid a set amount in advance, there is no financial incentive for them to require a person to have to take off from work, travel, park, and wait to be seen when that person has a question that can be answered by phone or email. You would only have to be seen in person if either you or the doctor thought that there was a reason to do so. The disincentive under the current fee-for-service system is that the doctor doesn’t get paid unless you are seen in person. In addition, the ACA law envisions paying more for higher quality (or less for lower quality). So why were these “meaningful alternatives” not included in ACA? Again, political, and the question is “what will change the politics in the future?”

In another NEJM “Perspective”, “Achieving accountable care – “it’s not about the bike” (published online on December 28, 2011), Walker and McKethan argue that it is the skills and competencies of providers, rather than the structure of the systems, that will determine the success of ACOs. Their metaphor is from Lance Armstrong’s memoir, in which Armstrong acknowledges the importance of having a great bike but says that “Although advanced equipment is very important, winning depends more on athletes' riding skills, physical conditioning, and race-day effort.” Cute, but obvious; any athlete with enough money (and all top cyclists have backers with enough money) can buy the best bike, but it is his or her skill and dedication that leads to victory – or not. Is it, however, a good metaphor for medical care? “If an ACO were a bicycle,” Walker and McKethan write, “its wheels, spokes, and gears would be the criteria used by payers such as Medicare to determine providers' eligibility, the methods used to assign patients to a given ACO, and the manner in which financial bonuses are calculated.” They then go on to discuss at some length what ACOs will need to do to “…compel and equip the athletes riding them…” (meaning providers) to do what is necessary, for “…accountable care will depend on a care team's identification of and action on the specific needs and preferences of the individual patient, deploying the most relevant, tailored interventions and supportive services to address patients' specific needs, circumstances, and preferences.”

Sound good? It is an appropriate metaphor in that structure alone will not guarantee success, but it loses strength after that. ACOs are not bicycles, and providers are not athletes. Most important, “success” in the arena of healthcare should not be about “winning”, about “beating” the other “competitors”, but about development structures, methods, practices, and reimbursement procedures in which everyone receives the best, most appropriate care. In which we all win.

And that is going to be one of the big challenges, because neither of these commentaries addresses the fact that not everyone in our country is going to be part of an ACO, and not everyone in our country has health coverage. Those people who do have coverage have found their premiums, co-pays, and deductibles increasing and their benefits diminishing. ACOs are (at least initially) a program for Medicare recipients, but all we hear from Congress and pundits is that “Medicare costs too much” and that these costs need to be scaled back, so unquestionably the emphasis of programs like ACOs will be on reducing cost.

I have often noted that much of the excess cost in this country is from providing unnecessary, or even harmful, care, and so there is not necessarily a conflict between saving money and increasing quality. But people are different, with different diseases and needs and wants, so there will need to be flexibility. And those who are most disenfranchised will remain outside the pale.

[1]Fisher ES, McClellan MB, Safran DG, “Building a path to accountable care”, N Engl J Med 29Dec2011;365:2445-2447

Cui bono? Is healthcare financing about funding providers or caring for patients?

2012-01-08T06:35:00.000-08:00

.
In a recent blog, GME funding must be targeted to Primary Care, December 10, 2011, I wrote about the fact that the financial interests of hospitals lead them to choose to support residency training positions which are not necessarily (or often, or usually) in those specialties that the nation most needs. I urged that funding from the government for graduate medical education (primarily through supplements to Medicare and Medicaid) include mandates as to the proportions of trainees in different specialties, with a strong emphasis on training more primary care physicians. This is only one area, however, in which the financial incentives to hospitals, and indeed all health providers including physicians, do not always jibe with the healthcare needs of our population.

A recent spate of news articles has discussed changes in the organization and financing of healthcare services. The New York Times recently covered the conflict between the governor of the state of New York, Andrew Cuomo, and the mayor of New York City, regarding the potential conversion of Emblem Health to a for-profit company (Bloomberg Predicts Fair Deal if Health Insurer Gets For-Profit Status, by Thomas Kaplan, December 23, 2011). Cuomo wants it because it could bring as much as $1B in tax revenue to state coffers; Bloomberg is concerned because Emblem is the insurer of the majority of municipal employees and he expects such a move will drive premiums up. But, as the title of the article suggests, he thinks they can work it out. Between them. For the benefit of both the city and state governments. Not, however, for the people insured by Emblem. Emblem was created by a merger of Group Health Insurance (GHI) and Health Insurance Plan (HIP) of Greater New York, two early not-for-profit HMOs, or managed care organizations. Except they were created before either term, HMO or managed care, existed. Back in the 1950s, these were consumer cooperatives, where it was recognized that by cutting out the (for-profit) insurance company middleman, people could have more care for the same money, or the same care for less money. No wonder the majority of city employees enrolled.

Over time, rebranded by the Reagan administration with the new name of “HMO” or managed care, became the de facto standard for US health care coverage. Why Republicans could buy into this vaguely populist or socialist concept was that the new HMOs would increasingly be owned by for-profit insurance companies, which they could literally buy into as shareholders. The savings that came from managing care would now accrue to the insurer, not the patient-owner-members. Many of the long-standing HMOs of the early period (e.g., Los Angeles’ Ross-Loos) were purchased by insurance companies, but there were a few holdouts that remained consumer cooperatives (e.g., Group Health of Seattle and the groups that became Emblem). And then, as we remember, came the consumer backlash against HMOs in the late 1990s, with people furious at the restrictions these organizations put on their access to health care. The mistake, however, was thinking that the problem was the organization of care with requirements for only approved therapies, relatively “closed panels” of doctors and hospitals, and capitated payments. The problem was that they were, and are, mostly owned by for-profit corporations, which increase their profits every time care is denied. This is a very different incentive than when the owners are the patients themselves through a cooperative.

As time went on, even the non-profit HMOs and other non-profit groups like the Blue Cross / Blue Shields that are not part of the for-profit Anthem/Wellpoint, have had to act like for-profits to compete. The advantages have all been for the insurers, which remain very profitable, not for the patients, who find both many of the same restrictions they bridled at in the past, and, in addition, increasing premiums, co-payments, and deductibles. If Emblem becomes for-profit, Michael Bloomberg may be able to work a deal where the city government is spared a major premium increase, but the city workers who are insured by Emblem will not be so lucky. In a typically excellent “Quote of the Day”, Don McCanne, MD, discusses the fact that the National Business Group for Health (NBGH) is predicting major increases in deductibles for all employees. As reported in an article in the Nashville Tennesseean, “High deductible plans on the rise”, by Tom Wilemon, December 27, 2011, “Helen Darling, its [NBGH] president, predicts that by 2016 the majority of all health plans will have high deductibles.” McCanne notes correctly that the members of NBGH are the nation’s largest corporations, mostly Fortune 500 companies, which have historically had the best health insurance coverage for their employees. If these deductibles – the amount a family has to pay out-of-pocket before any insurance coverage kicks in – rise to $1500 a year, it will be much worse for those working for smaller, less prosperous companies.

McCanne also comments on reports from the AMA that Highmark, the large Western Pennsylvania Blue Cross / Blue Shield affiliate, will be purchasing its own health system, where it will be able to profit on both ends, or, at least not pay as much for care. He observes that this will enhance its financial status, but not benefit patients, who will be preferentially locked into care at West Penn. The greatest complaints are from the competing University of Pittsburgh Health System, which believes it will Iose patient revenue from such an arrangement. So the conflict here is between the benefit for one health system versus another. It is not benefit for state versus city government as in the Emblem case, but it is still not about the health of the people. It continues to be about how the money from healthcare is distributed among the various players, including as insurance companies, hospitals and doctors.

My hospital, the University of Kansas Hospital (UKH), has done very well financially. In the most recent “Book of Lists” sent to subscribers to the Kansas City Business Journal (not on line; a copy will cost you $65, or $169.95 for immediate download!), it had the greatest revenue in the Kansas City area, at over $2.5B, more than $1B ahead of #2. The physicians who staff the hospital, faculty of the University of Kansas Medical Center, are seeking a restructuring of the current affiliation agreement to share more of that revenue with the doctors. As one of them, I do not disagree with the concept that the physicians, whose work generates much of the revenue, should share more equally, but, as with West Penn and University of Pittsburgh, this is about who gets what, not about how to provide better healthcare for less money to more people.

Health industry consulting groups, such as the Advisory Board, warn hospitals that there will be major cuts to their income resulting from federal budget cuts and programs such as pay-for-performance (P4P) and “value based purchasing” (this is “value” in the economic sense, that is cheaper, rather than having anything to do with “values”, such as caring for the sick!) Hospitals like UKH worry about whether their up-to-this-point successful strategy of investing in the highest-profit “product lines” such as heart disease and cancer will continue to work in the changing reimbursement system. They sense a pressure, as do physicians, to enter into “health systems”, collaborations, to maximize efficiency and profit (or at least not make much less than they are). There is a certain irony in pressures to re-create the managed care era.

But, because that “re-creation” is still about how hospitals, doctors, and insurers can make money, not about how we can provide the best health care for the most people, it is re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. If, when, we hit that proverbial iceberg and the ship goes down, many people will be hurt. Sure, just as on the Titanic, it will be the poor people on the lowest decks who get hit the worst. Then, the middle class. And even some of the rich, and some of the officers will go down. But, if you are a betting person, you bet on the most privileged being the most likely to survive; you would have been right in on the 1912 sinking of the boat, and you’d be right 100 years later in health care.

One day maybe we will develop a health policy that engenders behaviors that are about providing the best health to all of our people.
.

"How Doctors Die"; post on Zocalo Public Square by Ken Murray

2012-01-04T07:22:00.000-08:00

I would like to call your attention to a superb post on "Zocalo Public Square" by Dr. Ken Murray, "How Doctors Die." It addresses what doctors want for themselves when they are dying, which is generally much LESS intervention.

I would suggest that if patients knew that doctors felt this way, rather than that we were trying to "deny" something to them or their relatives, it might be much more effective.

Avastin®, Plan B®, and Magical Thinking

2011-12-31T07:15:00.000-08:00

“Magical thinking” is believing something is true because you want it to be true even when there is strong evidence that it is not. It is normal in young children. They believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and conjurer’s tricks. This is in part because adults encourage them to, and because they do not know the evidence and they haven’t enough brain maturity to make the connections. Beyond a certain age, however, it is not normal. Yet we do it all the time.

It is common enough in politics, for sure. A wise expert (OK, me) once said “Data is only useful if it confirms your preconceived notions”. Otherwise, hearing the data that should demonstrate that you are wrong only confirms your pre-existing beliefs because it reminds you of why you believe it. The evidence is the evidence, and sometimes it is inconclusive and subject to different interpretations depending upon one’s perspective. That’s what makes horse races. Sometimes it is conclusive, but leads to a different conclusion than the one that you want to hear.

Religion is different; it is, by definition, based on faith. It becomes confusing, for me, when this is complicated by searching for evidence (e.g., the Catholic Church searching for evidence of a miracle in order to sanctify someone), but at bottom it is about faith. Some people have lost their faith in the religion in which they were brought up because of seeing contradictory evidence in the world, others have reconciled that evidence with their beliefs, others manage to separate the evidence from their faith, and still others reject all the evidence of their senses if it contradicts their faith. We have classic examples of this last, with lecturers in the early European medical schools reading from Aristotle on anatomy, ignoring the visual evidence provided by the cadavers being dissected in front of them that demonstrated that what Aristotle described was wrong. Luckily for anatomy and medicine, the schools were able to move on from this, in part because Aristotle, while revered, was not a Christian expert. It was rougher for Galileo when he demonstrated that the earth rotates around the sun.

I understand people’s interest in believing to be true things that the evidence demonstrates is not. It is comforting, it offers hope, and it can offer consistency. I wish, sometimes, I had more of it. My son died 9 years ago from completing suicide. If I believed that there was an afterlife, and that he was somewhere happily being cared for by my mother, who died over 30 years ago, it would make me feel better. After all, she was a wonderful, nurturing person, a kindergarten teacher who loved children, and she died just after he turned 2, so never got to see him grow up. It would be great to believe that they were getting to know and enjoy each other now. But I don’t.

Nonetheless, I am sure there are things that I believe that are contrary to the evidence. Certainly, things I believe that have conflicting evidence. Like that people are good, that the world can be a better place, that the ‘better angels’ of our nature may overcome selfishness and greed and hypocrisy and meanness. Sometimes that belief is sorely tried. It has been a particularly hard couple of years as the perpetrators of the greatest worldwide financial crisis have gotten off and maintained and increased their wealth while hundreds of millions of their victims have had their lives ruined, with no end in sight. And with whole cohorts of politicians and pundits advocating that these perpetrators be spared any penalty while slashing any programs that benefit their victims.

For most of us, and in most societies, there are limits to what we tolerate because of people’s beliefs. We do not, as a rule, accept that a false belief, a delusion, about another is an excuse for murder. Of course, if that false belief is on the part of the government that sends young people to war and to kill, it is accepted. And for many zealots, of many beliefs and causes, whether Islamic terrorists or anti-abortion murderers, there is a portion of the population who will accept it.

One group that has good reason to want to believe in things for which there is no evidence is those who are threatened with death from a disease for which there is no effective, “approved”, treatment. Cancer, for instance, or AIDS. In the 1980s and 1990s, AIDS advocacy groups pushed for quick FDA approval for drugs to fight a disease that was killing lots of people. To some degree it happened, and luckily those drugs were effective, and better drugs were developed, and today AIDS is most often a chronic disease. When a study showed that bevacizumab (Avastatin®), an anti-cancer drug created through recombinant DNA that had positive effect for some other cancers such as colorectal cancer, was also effective in prolonging the lives of women with metastatic breast cancer for a few months (not curing them), the large breast-cancer advocacy community pushed the FDA for early approval. It was approved. But then more studies appeared that showed it was not effective. Several of them. And the FDA, appropriately based upon the evidence, withdrew their approval. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of California then decided it wouldn’t pay for it. Yes, much of the motivation was financial – it costs $90,000 per year to treat a patient (except less, really, because few last a year), but it was based on the evidence. Would you pay $90,000 for a drug that didn’t work? How about spending that on treating someone else with a drug that doesn’t work? But having someone else pay for it for you (your insurance company and those other people who are paying premiums)is less painful. There was a big uproar. BC/BS (and Medicare) are now again paying $90,000 a year for treatment of breast cancer with a drug that doesn’t work.

On the other hand, kowtowing to true believers can have the opposite effect. It can lead to restricting access to a drug that does work. This has occurred recently with Plan B One-Step®, “the morning-after pill” which effectively provides emergency contraception if taken within 72 hours (maybe more) of unprotected intercourse. Approved for women 17 and over without a prescription, this form of the hormone levonorgestrel is kept “behind the counter” so those under 17 cannot get it. It doesn’t make sense, since girls under 17 can and do have unprotected sex and get pregnant. It is also safe. So, recently the FDA, examining all the evidence, recommended that it be made available without a prescription and sold “over the counter”. Then Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius overruled, in an almost unprecedented action, the FDA’s recommendation. There was no science or evidence behind the Secretary’s action. Her stated reason, that younger women cannot understand the instructions, would, if one wanted to believe it, be an unreasonable standard. Can they understand the instructions to prevent adverse effects from ibuprofen or acetaminophen? Is the risk of pregnancy in these girls less than the risk from taking Plan B incorrectly? Nonsense. It is a political judgment, pandering to the belief of those who magically believe that because they don’t want young girls to have sex they won’t as long as contraception is not available to them to “encourage” it.

People read and support things that agree with what they think. I do not delude myself into thinking that what I write in this blog “converts” people; I recognize that people who read and like it probably already agree with me. But I do try to present evidence. And sometimes readers challenge me on my interpretation of the evidence (see, for example, the comments on Fluoridation: Dental health for all, October 26, 2011). One of the hardest things for physicians to do is to “un-learn”, to change the beliefs that they have had for years or decades when new information shows that what they believed is wrong. It is hard for them, and harder for the lay public, to understand that doing something was the right thing in the past because of the best evidence at the time, but is the wrong thing now. And what we think is the right thing now, based on the best evidence available, not be true in the future. That is how science evolves.

But magical thinking should have nothing to do with it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, yes. And in support of a tradition which Dilbert correctly points out is only a random point in time (and despite his use of "oxytocin" when he may have meant "oxycodone"):

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Index to Medicine and Social Justice year 3, 12/2010-11/2011

2011-12-25T07:28:00.000-08:00

General Medical

Friday, December 24, 2010, Cardiac stents and profit-driven corruption: do anti-fraud rules address the problem?

Saturday, January 15, 2011, Risk, Primitive Reactions, and Human Health Behaviors

Tuesday, March 15, 2011, Men’s Health? Women’s Health? Valid screening opportunities or “Hallmark Holidays”?

Sunday, June 19, 2011, The real face of lack of access to health care

Wednesday, July 13, 2011, Direct-to-Consumer Advertising and the Role of Advocacy Organizations: Two Threats to Evidence Based Testing

Friday, August 12, 2011, Greed, corruption and medical procedures: ignoring or suppressing the evidence?

Saturday, October 8, 2011, Healthful Behaviors: Why do people adopt them? Or not?

Friday, September 16, 2011, Unintended pregnancy and health disparities

Wednesday, October 26, 2011, Fluoridation: Dental health for all

Friday, October 14, 2011, PSA redux: The USPSTF finally recommends NOT getting it!

Tuesday, November 8, 2011, MRIs, clinical judgement and access to health care: Where is the money best spent?

Health Policy

Saturday, December 18, 2010, ACA, ACOs, and Meaningful Competition

Wednesday, January 5, 2011, Solving Medicare costs and the budget deficit: primary care, cost-effectiveness, and universal health coverage

Friday, February 25, 2011, We are moving in the wrong direction: the health care crisis and American hubris

Sunday, February 13, 2011, Freedom abroad, health at home: experiments in preventive health care

Tuesday, May 17, 2011, Insurance company profits up and patient care down

Saturday, June 25, 2011, The cost of health care: Prevention and Indication “creep”, drugs, and the Sanders plan

Tuesday, July 19, 2011, "Reforming" Medicaid, or Cutting Medicaid: No shortage of folks to cast the first stone

Friday, July 1, 2011, Medicare: We need to expand it, not cut it!

Wednesday, August 31, 2011, Steps toward a solution: Time to put Single Payer back "on the table"

Thursday, August 18, 2011, "Health in All" policies to eliminate health disparities are a real answer

Saturday, August 6, 2011, Cook County Hospital: Health care for the poor or poor health care?

Thursday, September 22, 2011, Legislating Public Health and Medical Care

Thursday, October 20, 2011, No way to run a hospital, no way to run a healthcare system

Tuesday, November 15, 2011, Troubled hospitals, troubled health care system: Not just in Brooklyn

Tuesday, November 1, 2011, Michael Marmot, the British Medical Association, and the Social Determinants of Health

Primary Care

Wednesday, February 2, 2011, Outing the RUC: Medicare reimbursement and Primary Care

Saturday, February 5, 2011, AMA response to "Outing the RUC"

Saturday, February 19, 2011, The challenge of expanded Medicaid and the dearth of primary care physicians
Monday, May 30, 2011, Primary Care, Medical School Debt, and US Health Needs: Analysis from the Graham Center
Saturday, June 11, 2011, EMRs and Primary Care: The good, the bad, and the challenges

Sunday, October 2, 2011, Are primary care physicians fees a major contributor to the high costs of US healthcare? No.

Medical Education

Tuesday, March 22, 2011, US Medicine and Medical Education: The Good Part

Wednesday, March 9, 2011, The Education of Health Professionals and Prospects for Transformation (Guest post by Seiji Yamada, MD)

Sunday, April 17, 2011, Do resident work hours limits create better physicians?

Monday, June 6, 2011, Comments on Free Medical Schools

Sunday, June 5, 2011, Would free medical schools increase primary care?

Sunday, July 31, 2011 Training Rural Doctors: The KU Salina Program

Monday, July 25, 2011, Evaluating the Communications Skills of Potential Medical Students: Looking at the "Whole Person"

Family Medicine in the Era of Health Reform (3 part series)

Monday, May 23, 2011, Family Medicine in the Era of Health Reform - 3

Wednesday, May 11, 2011, Family Medicine in the era of health reform - 2

Thursday, May 5, 2011, Family Medicine in the era of health reform

Medical Ethics

Saturday, April 9, 2011, Conflict of interest 2: Clinical practice guidelines and Deans

Friday, April 1, 2011, Conflict of interest reporting

Thursday, July 7, 2011, Physician Oaths and Social Responsibility

Thursday, August 25, 2011, What is the ethical role for physicians in the "business" of health care?

Thursday, September 8, 2011, "The Doctor's Dilemma": Balancing needs of individual patients and responsible stewardship of health resources

Social Justice

Thursday, December 30, 2010,Immigration and the US: Happy New Year

Sunday, December 12, 2010, Tax Breaks for the "Masters of the Universe" or for the rest of us?
Friday, December 3, 2010, Matthew Freeman Memorial Lecture, Dec 6, 2010

Thursday, March 3, 2011, Fighting for freedom abroad -- and at home

Thursday, April 28, 2011, Perception and reality of economic inequality

Saturday, April 23, 2011, "Cabaret" and "Inherit the Wind": Will we again reap what is being sowed?

Monday, September 26, 2011, Shall we be callous or shall we be people? There is hope.

Friday, November 25, 2011, Veterans Day, the “Bonus Army”, and honoring veterans by actions, not words

The Tucson shootings

Thursday, January 27, 2011,The Devil Inside: Access to Mental Health Care in the United States (Guest post by Robyn R. Liu, MD)

Friday, January 21, 2011, Tucson is worth struggling for...(Guest post by William Bemis)
Sunday, January 9, 2011, The Arizona shootings: When will we ever learn?

Links to other blogs

Monday, February 28, 2011, Common Sense Family Doctor blog: Maybe PSA's time has finally come -- to an end!

Wednesday, February 9, 2011, Education in Medicine: The characteristics of future physicians

Tuesday, February 8, 2011, Non-preventive Health Screenings: Common Sense Family Doctor

Saturday, March 26, 2011, Common Sense Family Doctor: Coronary CT: nonindicated and costly screening test

Friday, April 15, 2011, Disincentives to rural practice: from "Training Family Doctors" blog

Other

Tuesday, June 14, 2011, Barbara Starfield

Wednesday, July 6, 2011, New blog and post

To improve health the US must spend more on social services

2011-12-18T06:22:00.000-08:00

That the US spends far more, in total and per capita, on health care than any other country is a well-established fact which no one bothers to deny. That this expenditure has not brought us greater health is also established fact, although many still find this hard to believe, or don’t want to believe it. That we do not have the “best health care system in the world”, or even close, or even, actually, a health care system at all, is also demonstrably true. This does not stop a larger percent of the population, and particularly the very privileged sector represented by politicians, from maintaining that untruth.

However, in a provocative op-ed in the New York Times (“To fix health care, help the poor”), Elizabeth H. Bradley and Lauren Taylor argue that it is only when health care is viewed in its most narrow sense that the US spends more than other countries. Their study of 30 countries expenditures, “Health and social services expenditures: associations with health outcomes”[1], “…broadened the scope of traditional health care industry analyses to include spending on social services, like rent subsidies, employment-training programs, unemployment benefits, old-age pensions, family support and other services that can extend and improve life.”

Essentially, their data shows that having services available to people that improve the quality of their lives, or, more important, decrease the negative health impact of the adverse circumstances into which they are born, develop, and live, lessens disease burden and improves health. This then decreases the costs of providing medical care to them. For example, they note, “The Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program tracked the medical expenses of 119 chronically homeless people for several years. In one five-year period, the group accounted for 18,834 emergency room visits estimated to cost $12.7 million.”

Bradley and Taylor indicate that among industrialized countries, the US ranks #10 in total health + social service spending , and is one of only 3 that spend more on health care than on all other social services. This means that, in addition to not getting the preventive or early-intervention health care that they need, Americans are at higher risk of illness and more ill when they come to medical attention. They may not be homeless, although obviously this dramatically increases their risk. People may not have adequate food, not have adequate warmth (see the discussion of “excess winter deaths” in Michael Marmot, the British Medical Association, and the Social Determinants of Health, November 1, 2011), not had a safe environment. They likely had far too little income. Many of them are children, and many of those, and often their parents before them, have had an inadequate education. A large number of the determinants of health are antenatal, and many more are in the early years of life. The other group at high risk of both adverse health outcomes and the poverty-related social deficits that influence them, are the elderly. So what do we see in the US? Threats to cut Medicare, cut Social Security, cut education.

This wouldn’t affect everyone equally, of course. Only the most vulnerable. Or, at least, the more vulnerable. The wealthy, of course, are unlikely to be inadequately housed, inadequately nourished, inadequately educated, and, in a tautology, inadequately employed. Another recent study, from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), called “Divided we stand: why economic inequality keeps rising”, demonstrates rising inequality in income as indicated by the difference between the income of the top 10% and bottom 10%. “The income gap has risen even in traditionally egalitarian countries, such as Germany, Denmark and Sweden, from 5 to 1 in the 1980s to 6 to 1 today. The gap is 10 to 1 in Italy, Japan, Korea and the United Kingdom, and higher still, at 14 to 1 in Israel, Turkey and the United States. In Chile and Mexico, the incomes of the richest are still more than 25 times those of the poorest, the highest in the OECD, but have finally started dropping. Income inequality is much higher in some major emerging economies outside the OECD area. At 50 to 1, Brazil's income gap remains much higher than in many other countries, although it has been falling significantly over the past decade.”

In the report’s “country note” on the US, it observes that “The United States has the fourth-highest inequality level in the OECD, after Chile, Mexico and Turkey. Inequality among working-age people has risen steadily since 1980, in total by 25%. In 2008, the average income of the top 10% of Americans was 114 000 USD, nearly 15 times higher than that of the bottom 10%, who had an average income of 7 800 USD. This is up from 12 to 1 in the mid 1990s, and 10 to 1 in the mid 1980s….Income taxes and cash benefits play a small role in redistributing income in the United States, reducing inequality by less than a fifth – in a typical OECD country, it is a quarter. Only in Korea, Chile and Switzerland is the effect still smaller.” Of course, comparing deciles is deceiving; as the Occupy Wall Street movement emphasizes, the concentration of wealth is in the top 1%, and economist and NY Times columnist Paul Krugman (“We are the 99.9%”, November 24, 2011) and others point out that most of that wealth in the US is in the top 0.1%! The wealthiest 400 families in the US own as much as the bottom 50% of the population.

One obvious result of the rising inequality in the US is the increase in the overt control that this wealthy class exerts over the political process, through direct lobbying, political contributions, employment after and between stints of government service, and control of media. The “corporate personhood” decision by the US Supreme Court in Citizens United simply codified and protected this inequality. But income inequality in itself is not sufficient to lead to the destruction of the social safety net that exposes increasing numbers and percents of people to ravages that adversely affect their health. It also requires extreme selfishness and disrespect, so that billionaire people and corporations pay little in tax, and governments are purposely squeezed so that they have neither the will nor the resources to provide services.

The findings of Bradley and Taylor are not news to the public health community, of course, which is very familiar with the social determinants of health and the positive impact that investment in basic social supports has on the health outcomes of both populations and individual people. Investment is required to see future benefit, and the investment that we need, and are not making, is in education, is in nutrition, is in housing. It is far more than a shame. It is shameful.

[1 Bradley EH, Elkins BR, Herrin J, Elbel B.,Health and social services expenditures: associations with health outcomes, BMJ Qual Saf. 2011 Oct;20(10):826-31. Epub 2011 Mar 29

GME funding must be targeted to Primary Care

2011-12-10T06:39:00.000-08:00

Much of the cost of training physicians is currently borne by Medicare (and, to a lesser extent, Medicaid). This is known as Graduate Medical Education, or GME, funding, and it pays some, all, or more than all (depending upon the hospital and based upon a complicated formula discussed on May 25, 2009, Funding Graduate Medical Education) of the cost of training residents in the various specialties that comprise medicine. For those unfamiliar with medical education, graduation from medical school, while it confers the MD (or DO, Doctor of Osteopathy) degree and the title “doctor”, no longer permits practice in any of the US states. A least one, and in some states two, years of residency (“GME”) is required for licensure, and most doctors complete an entire residency of 3 or more years to make them eligible for certification as a specialist in a field (eg, family medicine, general surgery, internal medicine, psychiatry, etc.). Fellowship training is requires addition years beyond the core residency to become a sub-specialist – for example, those who complete an internal medicine residency can then do additional years to become a cardiologist, gastroenterologist, endocrinologist, etc.

Medicare augments its payments to institutions (usually hospitals, although there are a few consortia and federally-qualified health centers) with two types of payments, Direct GME which is intended to pay residents’ salaries and cost of teaching, and Indirect ME which is for the additional costs that training hospitals bear for a variety of reasons. (In addition to the piece linked above, see also Training rural family doctors, Nov 5 2010; PPACA, The New Health Reform Law: How will it affect the public's health and primary care?, Apr 22,2010; Primary Care and Residency Expansion, Jan 7, 2010.) These payments have been the cornerstones for funding residency education. Because the amount is tied to the percent of Medicare patients in a hospital, rather than the total number of patients cared for in hospitals or outpatient settings, it could be (and has been) argued that funding GME should be done comprehensively and separately from Medicare. The most persuasive argument is that private insurers should also contribute to GME (they don’t, although Medicaid does in some, but not all, states). On the other side, many fear that uncoupling GME funds from Medicare would make it easier for a Congress looking at ways to cut the budget to cut GME than having it as part of Medicare.

Except this year, with exceptionally high pressure to cut the budget, Medicare is not even sacrosanct, although, as I have recently argued, (Medicare: A lifeline, not a Ponzi scheme, Dec 2, 2011) most of the proposals to cut it across the board by tactics such as raising the age of eligibility are poorly conceived. So there are now proposals to cut the funding from Medicare for GME. Unsurprisingly, this has created great anxiety in the community of academic health centers, and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), which has strongly supported expansion of GME residency slots, is quite alarmed (Preserve Medicare support for physician training, revised Oct 2, 2011). The Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), which accredits institutions that sponsor residency programs and, through its subsidiary Review Committees (RCs), each individual specialty and subspecialty, has done a study that shows that cuts in residency positions have already occurred and more major cuts are threatened if Medicare decreases its funding ("The Potential Impact of Reduction in Federal GME Funding in the United States: A Study of the Estimates of Designated Institutional Officials”). ACGME CEO Thomas Nasca, MD, is quoted by AAFP News Now as saying “We will actually reduce the number of physicians who are trained in the United States at a time when all workforce studies are demonstrating a mounting deficit of physicians….That will place us in a position where our physician-to-population ratio in 2020 and beyond is below (that of) most of the developed countries in the world." The study found that “With a 33 percent reduction in GME funding

68.3 percent of responders said they would reduce the number of core residency positions,
60.3 percent would reduce the number of subspecialty fellowship positions,
4.3 percent would close all core residency programs, and
7.8 percent would close all subspecialty programs.”

Because there are many more “core” residency positions than subspecialty fellowship positions, these would be disproportionately affected by across-the-board cuts. In addition, residency programs in primary care, which are not as profitable to the sponsoring institution, are even more likely to be cut despite the service that they provide to patients, especially those most in need. Perry Pugno, M.D., M.P.H., AAFP vice president for education, notes in that same article that "…any cuts to GME that go across the board are going to hurt primary care -- especially those of us who disproportionately take care of adults with chronic illnesses….In communities where primary care residency programs are present, those programs become the access point for the poor and disenfranchised of the area.” He says that it's not unusual for family medicine residency programs to see patients who live both in poverty and with numerous chronic illnesses. "The payment for taking care of those patients is so low that the local medical community often doesn't want to provide that care…But residency programs take all comers."

The key issue that Pugno is addressing is one that is very important issue and is not usually made explicit in national policy discussions: our current method of allocating Medicare GME funds to institutions (hospitals) rather than to individual residency programs tends to encourage funding the funding of positions in specialties that most profit those hospitals. The interests of the American people, in regard to the kinds of specialists they need, are not necessarily (and I would argue in fact are not) the same as the interests of the hospitals that sponsor residencies. Hospitals like to fund specialties whose trainees’ work enhances their revenue (e.g., cardiology fellows, who can increase the number of profitable procedures that are done) or at least decrease their loss (e.g., emergency medicine residents, who can fill gaps in seeing patients in emergency departments). Indeed, when hospitals can afford to, they often augment Medicare GME with their own funds to create more such positions. This is about their own financial interest, and does not take into account whether or not the US needs more cardiologists or ER docs, or more family physicians and general surgeons.

This contrast between the interests of the hospital (what kind of residency positions are most beneficial to its bottom line) and the needs of the population, is, of course, a subset of the larger tension. We train doctors in highly-specialized tertiary care academic health centers, while they will mostly practice in the community. There are a number of reasons that this is not brought up more often. For the general lay public, including most members of Congress and their staffs, it seems like a subtle difference. For experts, such as the AAMC, the issue is that they represent the interests of the medical schools, and want to have those interests seen as also representing the interests of the US population. Of course, they do not always, especially the interests of the most rural, poor, minority and other underserved portions of that population.

I think we need to use every opportunity to make this issue more clear and open. While it is probably true that it is a mistake to decrease federal funding for GME, it is absolutely necessary to increase the support for primary care and, in particular family medicine. And this will only happen if GME funding is explicitly tied to requiring it to be spent on primary care programs, and “prevents substitutions”.

Medicare: A lifeline, not a Ponzi scheme

2011-12-02T19:36:00.000-08:00

In an earlier post (Medicare: We need to expand it, not cut it!, July 1, 2011), I commented on the proposals from politicians such as Wisconsin representative Paul Ryan and Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman to limit Medicare. I quoted economists Austin Frakt and Aaron Carroll (as cited by Paul Krugman (“Medicare saves money”, NY Times June 12, 2011), from their post on the Incidental Economist, that “…right now Americans in their early 60s without health insurance routinely delay needed care, only to become very expensive Medicare recipients once they reach 65. This pattern would be even stronger and more destructive if Medicare eligibility were delayed.” It is a stupid idea, more designed to engender the political support of people who do not think the issue through than to practically save money.

There are other similar proposals to “fix” Medicare that fit the same pattern: they superficially seem to make sense, but are actually nonsense. One of the most popular is the idea that we exclude “wealthy” seniors from Medicare, or, at least, require them to make a significant financial contribution. This contribution could consist of premiums paid to Medicare that were tied to income (or wealth, more relevant for retired people but much harder to assess accurately) or co-payments for services, again tiered to income. This seems to make sense – why not? There are many well-to-do elderly; why should currently-working people, who are struggling to make ends meet, have to pay for their care?

One reason is that the reason that Medicare is an “entitlement” because these people have paid for it in advance by their taxes during their working lives. Some of this is from the specific Medicare deduction that comes from each of our paychecks, which supports only “Part A” (coverage for hospital care), as well as from the general income tax revenue that pays for “Part B” (doctors) and “Part D” (drugs). People pay into these plans during their working lives, and draw the benefits when they need it when they are older. This is, in principle, what “saving” is about, but it goes beyond an individual retirement plan to cover everyone. This is the nature of social insurance.

Governor Perry of Texas, a Republican candidate for the presidential nomination (perhaps, if we are lucky, soon to be former candidate), called Medicare (and Social Security, vide infra) “Ponzi schemes”. : “Perry: I think every program needs to stand the sunshine of righteous scrutiny. Whether it’s Social Security, whether it’s Medicaid, whether it’s Medicare. You’ve got $115 trillion worth of unfunded liability in those three. They’re bankrupt. They’re a Ponzi scheme.” They are not. A “Ponzi” scheme involves taking one person’s property (money), and using it to pay off previous investors, who are seeking to make money on their investments. Medicare (and Social Security) are social insurance programs where the benefit is understood to be care (in the case of Medicare) or [minimal] income (in the case of Social Security). The entire beauty of both of these programs is that they involve everyone. Thus the well-to-do as well as the poor and the people in the middle have a stake in keeping the program running and effective.

If we were to exclude certain sectors of the population from receiving benefits from either of these programs, it would undermine the collective investment that we as a society have in each other. The better off, better educated, more empowered now fight for these programs because they are beneficiaries, and results in their being in place for those who are not so privileged. It is probably this very sense of mutual interdependence that makes ideological conservatives oppose them, but such opposition is short-sighted. The reason for having social insurance programs that make us interdependent is that – we are interdependent. The society, in the US (and, arguably worldwide) requires not only healthy, educated, productive workers but also consumers who are able to purchase goods and services. Billionaires like Warren Buffett call for higher taxes on the wealthy (an idea picked up on by President Obama) because they understand that a prosperous society requires contributions from everyone. We ARE in it together.

If we were to exclude only the very wealthy from benefits under these programs (say the top 1%), it would not hurt them financially, but it would hurt the rest of us because these very powerful people would no longer have a personal stake in supporting such programs. And, of course, it would save essentially no money; the corollary of the enormous concentration of wealth in a small number of people is that there are not very many of them. Thus, if they never drew a single dollar of benefit from Medicare (or Social Security) the programs would not be any better off. In order to save money, we would have to exclude a lot of people beyond the very wealthy (10%? 20%? 30%? of the population), and this would be then excluding a large section of the population, and truly reduce support.

More recently, Jane Gross writes in the NY Times about “How Medicare fails the elderly” (October 16, 2011). Her emphasis is not on excluding people from coverage, but rather on not covering services that do not enhance, and often decrease, recipients’ quality of life. Medicare pays for many services that fall into this area, and the reason has rarely to do with the desires of the patients themselves. “Of course, some may actually want everything medical science has to offer. But overwhelmingly, I’ve concluded in a decade of studying America’s elderly, it is fee-for-service doctors and Big Pharma who stand to gain the most, and adult children, with too much emotion and too little information, driving those decisions.” Among the treatments that she notes that Medicare pays for but are usually not medically indicated (especially in the old, debilitated, and demented) are feeding tubes, many forms of surgery (particularly abdominal and joint replacement) and “tight” control of Type II diabetes. All of these treatments have high risks and rarely prolong life while significantly decreasing its quality.

Gross notes that when these complications arise patients often need long-term, very expensive (she cites costs for her mother 8 years ago of $14,000 a month!) care in nursing homes, which Medicare does NOT pay for. Medicaid will, but only after the senior has exhausted all their resources (including savings house, etc., and then only in some nursing homes which are willing to take Medicaid reimbursement, and these are often not those of highest quality). Thus, by paying for the performance of procedures that do not help, Medicare leads patients into worse quality of life at high cost.

Clearly, the motivations of the drug and device makers, hospitals and physicians and nursing homes are often (in some cases usually or always) financial, but this is not the case for the family members, who mostly want to “do the best” for their parent or relative. However, given unclear guidance by their physicians, or incorrect information from any source, they may associate “doing something” with “doing the best thing”; often “doing the best thing” is not doing “something”. If Medicare did not pay for unnecessary and potentially harmful procedures, there would be little motivation among providers to do them, and it would not only save money but more important improve the health care and preserve the dignity and quality of life of people in their last years.

There is a solution to the potential bankrupting of Medicare. One: Pay for only medically necessary and indicated services. Two: revise the Medicare fee schedule to maintain the payment for primary care services but decrease excessive payment for high cost specialty services. Three: Expand Medicare to include everyone. Then we all have a stake, right now.

Veterans Day, the “Bonus Army”, and honoring veterans by actions, not words

2011-11-25T08:12:00.000-08:00

We recently celebrated Veteran’s Day, an opportunity to honor the men and women who have served the rest of us, putting their lives on the line, in the wars that our nation has fought. It was a numerologically special day, November 11 this year, being 11/11/11. While I have opposed almost all of the wars fought in my lifetime, as stupid and often motivated by the same greed on the part of the wealthiest that so clearly determines the behavior of our nation, I have only admiration and respect for those who put their lives on the line. The history of the world is often the history of wars, usually one more senseless than the last, and it is the history of the regular people who serve, and are killed, or wounded, or mutilated, or survive apparently intact.

Veteran’s Day began as Armistice Day, with the signing of the peace after WW I, a model for a brutal war that slaughtered millions for no good reason. I live in Kansas City, home of the nation’s WW I Museum, and it is a must-see for anyone who has not studied this first modern war, with millions soldiers dying in trenches; with the first large-scale wartime use of airplanes, with poison gas, with all the other viciousness that people were able to devise. There are some who prefer the use of name “Armistice Day” because it signifies “peace”; I am willing to celebrate our veterans without celebrating, or even condoning, the wars that took the lives of so many of their comrades.

We have not always honored veterans, and we do not do so now. “Honored” in words, sure; honored in deeds, in providing services for them to re-integrate into civilian society and find jobs, even to provide the health care that they need to treat the wounds, physical and mental, that they suffered in battle, not so much. Perhaps the most ignominious and dishonorable treatment of veterans was the attack on the “Bonus Army” of 1932. In 1924, Congress had issued “bonus certificates” to these veterans, but there was a catch – they were not redeemable until 1945. This was not of much help to the men who had “won the war” but were suffering unemployment during the depths of the Great Depression. Over 43,000 people, as many as 20,000 veterans plus members of their families, were camped in Washington DC parks, to demand payment of these bonuses. (It is of interest that President Coolidge had vetoed the bonuses in 1924 with the statement that "patriotism... bought and paid for is not patriotism," before Congress overrode his veto!) Tiring of all these dirty and ragtag families camped on public property (and, of course, the reminder that they brought of the broken promise), on July 28, 1932, President Hoover send the army to break up the encampment and rout them.

That is correct. The President of the United States sent active duty army troops, under the command of General Douglas MacArthur and assisted by Majors Dwight Eisenhower and George Patton, to attack its own veterans. You didn’t learn this in school? Maybe it wasn’t really that important. Right. It happened. From Wikipedia:

“At 4:45 p.m., commanded by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the 12th Infantry Regiment, Fort Howard, Maryland, and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, supported by six battle tanks commanded by Maj. George S. Patton, formed in Pennsylvania Avenue while thousands of civil service employees left work to line the street and watch. The Bonus Marchers, believing the troops were marching in their honor, cheered the troops until Patton ordered the cavalry to charge them—an action which prompted the spectators to yell, "Shame! Shame!"

After the cavalry charged, the infantry, with fixed bayonets and adamsite gas, an arsenical vomiting agent, entered the camps, evicting veterans, families, and camp followers. The veterans fled across the Anacostia River to their largest camp and President Hoover ordered the assault stopped. However Gen. MacArthur, feeling the Bonus March was a Communist attempt to overthrow the U.S. government, ignored the President and ordered a new attack. Fifty-five veterans were injured and 135 arrested….During the military operation, Major Dwight D. Eisenhower, later President of the United States, served as one of MacArthur's junior aides.Believing it wrong for the Army's highest-ranking officer to lead an action against fellow American war veterans, he strongly advised MacArthur against taking any public role: "I told that dumb son-of-a-bitch not to go down there," he said later. "I told him it was no place for the Chief of Staff." Despite his misgivings, Eisenhower later wrote the Army's official incident report which endorsed MacArthur's conduct.”

That’s right. They used poison gas on WW I veterans, many of whom were suffering the effects of gas attacks during the war. Eisenhower, who may look like the “good guy”, was mainly concerned about the seemliness of the army’s Chief of Staff (MacArthur) leading the attack on Anacostia, not the attack itself.

The country was in a Depression. The more than $3 Billion that was owed these veterans was a lot of money for the government during the Depression. Not a good reason to not pay it. Just as it is not a good reason for us to cut back benefits for veterans today, in our own “recession”. In 1930, the Veterans Administration was created, combining several “veterans’ homes” and hospitals. After WW II, when the bonus checks would have come due for the WW I veterans, the GI Bill was passed, granting veterans the opportunity to get needed benefits, including an education delayed by the war. These benefits are regularly eroded by Congressmen who give fine speeches on November 11, but care as much about the actual people who fought our wars as much as Presidents Hoover and Coolidge did. In fact, President Coolidge’s statement about “patriotism” justifying not paying the bonuses would never be uttered by a current-day politician, but the actions of the Congress, which overrode the veto, would not either. We do not have enough money in the US, the story goes. We need to work down the deficit. By taking the money from the most needy, from the poor and the working class and the middle class, including our veterans; certainly not from the wealthiest.

The deficit was created by politicians doing the bidding of the <0.1% of the population who control most of our wealth, cutting their taxes to increase their wealth. And, oh yes, fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, killing and maiming and creating new veterans who can barely get the help that they need. And, of course, insuring that the 0.1% have every dollar of ours that they lost for us replaced – to them, not us, we pay the bill – and more, is far more important than providing health services and education and jobs for the veterans, or for anyone else.

We would (I think) not send the Army to attack a veterans’ encampment today, but who knows? The people who had fought WW I were honored by our people in those days as heroes even as much or more than our current veterans, and yet our President sent the Army to attack them with cavalry, tanks, and poison gas. Recent history shows us there is no depth of calumny and duplicity to which defenders of the status quo will not go to achieve their ends; remember the military history of #1 hawk Richard Cheney (he had none; he was doing “more important” things during the Vietnam war). Remember the defeat of Senator Max Cleland of Georgia by an opponent who questioned his patriotism and toughness because the Senator had raised questions about the war in Iraq? Sen. Cleland was a decorated Vietnam veteran who had lost both legs and an arm in that war; his opponent had not served.

And, unlike after WW I or WW II, without a draft, with a large group of young people who can find no other jobs, most of us are no longer involved in paying the human price of war. This is the focus of As Fewer Americans Serve, Growing Gap Is Found Between Civilians and Military by Sabrina Tavernise in the NY Times, November 25, 2011. “`What we have is an armed services that’s at war and a public that’s not very engaged’ said Paul Taylor, executive vice president of the Pew Research Center. `Typically when our nation is at war, it’s a front-burner issue for the public. But with these post-9/11 wars, which are now past the 10-year mark, the public has been paying less and less attention.’”

This separation means that, while politicians laud their service on Veterans’ Day, the actual veterans, after serving and suffering from real wounds both physical and mental, are returning to a society that has no jobs, and is investing less and less in their care. What we need to see is more action on behalf of veterans, and on behalf of the American people. Instead, what we see from too many of our hypocritical Congressmen and “leaders” who sing the praises of our veterans while cutting their benefits, are actions that would make Calvin Coolidge proud.

Troubled hospitals, troubled health care system: Not just in Brooklyn

2011-11-15T18:02:00.000-08:00

In Seeking a Cure for Troubled Hospitals in Brooklyn, NY Times, November 10, 2011, Nina Bernstein reports on the challenges faced by not-for-profit hospitals in that part of New York City. In 1980, she notes, Brooklyn had 26 hospitals, while now it has 15. It has 41% fewer acute-care beds, with a ratio of 2.1/1000 people (national average: 2.6, NY State 3.1, Manhattan 4.7). Five of the largest remaining hospitals are in danger of closing; these hospitals account for 83,000 admissions, 325,000 emergency room visits, and 760,000 clinic visits per year. There is no way, the article makes clear, that the 3 public (2 city and 1 state) hospitals in the borough can come close to making up this deficit should those hospitals close. But they may, because they are running in the red, and there is no reason to think that, even if President Obama’s Health Reform stays intact, this will change. They largely care for Medicaid patients, and Medicaid both doesn’t pay enough to cover a hospital’s costs, and is targeted for cuts because it accounts for such a large portion of state budgets.

The reason is that these hospitals care for poor people, as the original title of the article in the Times’ print edition, “Brooklyn’s ailing hospitals and care for the poor”, made clear. The problem, however, is not unique to Brooklyn; it confronts hospitals all over the country. “Brooklyn shows the acute stage of a problem that has vexed the nation for years: how to sustain delivery of major medical care to the poor.” Even more, the fact that increasing portions of the population are uninsured or poorly insured, and that the focus in of the federal deficit reduction process is to further cut payments for Medicare as well as Medicaid, the trend is likely to continue and to increase. From the point of view of hospitals, the issue is whether they will survive or not survive, largely dependent upon where they are located and their ability to attract the decreasing number of well-insured patients. While those who run successful hospitals like to congratulate themselves on being such good managers, the article notes the observations of Alan Sager of Boston University, a long-time student of hospital closings across the country, that “what best predicted that a hospital would be closed was not inefficiency, but location in a minority neighborhood.”

This is not at all surprising; indeed, it tracks with everything else that has been going on in our society: services for the most needy are cut back and ultimately disappear, while services for the least needy get more and more available, marketed, extensive (and expensive) as providers of those service seek to make themselves attractive to a shrinking, privileged market. The problem is that for this to be OK, one has to accept the idea that healthcare access should be determined by the market, rather than that they should be available for everyone in the society. This means that hospitals will close, and providers will not practice, in areas that have high concentrations of people who are poor, uninsured, underinsured, and members of minority groups. But those hospitals that do survive, in higher-income neighborhoods, will compete in the areas that are high-profit “product lines” so that they, and not their competitors, will attract that market segment. Such product lines can include elective and cosmetic surgery, but they also include areas such as heart disease and cancer care because payers (driven by the federal payer, Medicare) reimburse hospitals at rates far above their costs for providing care for these conditions, but not for others. Thus, capacity is overbuilt, resulting in greater capacity (for example, for cancer treatment for the insured) than is needed for the population because each hospital wants to be the one who makes the big markup on chemotherapy drugs.

But, of course, there is much less access to care for the same conditions for people without insurance, or even for those whose conditions are not in the “high profit” group. And the lack of access to preventive care, to primary care, to care of conditions in their more treatable stages, means that the people who enter the “ailing hospitals” of Brooklyn or elsewhere, are farther along in their diseases and more expensive to treat, so that caring for them drives the hospitals deeper into debt. And this creates a downward spiral. For a patient described in the article “Surgery revealed a strangulated hernia so far gone that cutting out life-threatening infected tissue left an open wound…but before Mr. Hutchins could be released, the hospital had to get him a portable wound pump. At hospitals that pay suppliers promptly, administrators say, the device typically gets same-day delivery. At Wyckoff, it took a week.” And, since “…last year, Medicaid cut by 31 percent what it would pay for a case like his,” the hospital loses even more money providing his care for an extra week.

In poor neighborhoods, almost all services have more limited availability. This may make sense, say, for upscale restaurants, or clothing stores. It is much more problematic when those communities do not have food stores. Or healthcare. It is, however, the result of applying a competitive market model to healthcare, leading to overcapacity for a portion of the population and a deficit or absence of care for another part of the population (based on wealth, location, and type of condition). This is why most other countries with the resources have made the decision to provide access to health care to all their people, rather than ration based on the market, which by definition leaves out the people at the bottom who cannot pay. Our healthcare nonsystem reinforces these inequities, which are more than unfair, they sap the ability of our country to have a healthy and productive workforce.

There are solutions, but not the ones being suggested by some for Brooklyn (“…expunge the hospitals’ debt of more than $1 billion, partly at taxpayer expense, and then let large for-profit companies take over the facilities and restructure patients’ care,” which sounds an awful lot like “bail out the bankers and financiers with public funds”. The solutions are to create a national health system, a system which guarantees healthcare access for everyone. Most cost effectively, a single-payer system. It can be done, for not much more than we now spend, because of the excess waste and profit built into our reimbursement methodology. It can be driven by the federal government because the federal government is the largest payer for health care.

In an article on the reopening of the national physician database (After protests, national doctor database reopens — with a catch), Alan Bavley of the Kansas City Star quotes Senator Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, as saying “This agency needs to remember that half of all health care dollars in the United States comes from taxpayers, so the interpretation of the law ought to be for public benefit.” That half of all healthcare dollars is as much, on a per-capita basis, as most other OECD countries spend altogether, and it is what drives reimbursement (for cancer chemotherapy or diabetes or asthma) in this country. It would be great if Sen. Grassley would take the lead in ensuring that not only the physician database, but all of healthcare services provided with dollars from taxpayers, is “for public benefit” and not private profit.

The general counsel for one of the threatened Brooklyn hospitals is quoted by Bernstein as saying “We stay open at the grace and generosity of our vendors.They know it will eventually get better, because we have to have hospitals. Otherwise, we’ll have sick and dying people lying in the streets, and nobody wants that.” But the solution is not just to patch up Brooklyn’s, or anywhere else’s, acute problems; it is to fix the broken system and perverted incentives.

MRIs, clinical judgement and access to health care: Where is the money best spent?

2011-11-08T07:16:00.000-08:00

“Sports medicine said to overuse MRIs”, by NY Times health reporter Gina Kolata, October 29, 2011, begins by reporting on an unpublished (as far as I can tell) study by an orthopedic sports medicine physician from Florida, Dr. James Andrews, who scanned the shoulders of 31 asymptomatic, uninjured professional baseball pitchers and found that all were read as “abnormal”. The article goes on to quote a long list of leading sports medicine physicians who find fault with the overuse of MRI scans in both professional and casual athletes. They are particularly concerned that doctors substitute the readings of these scans for history and physical examination and professional judgment. One problem is, according to Dr. Bruce Sangeorzan from the University of Washington, is that the MRI “...is a very sensitive tool, but it is not very specific.” Sensitivity and specificity are terms that refer to the characteristics of a test. The more sensitive a test, the more likely it is to find something that is actually wrong; the more specific the test, the more likely it is to be normal when there is not actually something wrong. Dr. Sangeorzan’s point is that the MRI scan is likely to be abnormal even when there is no actual problem with the person.

This assessment is echoed by most of the physicians interviewed. “‘It is very rare for an MRI to come back with the words “normal study,”’ said Dr. Christopher DiGiovanni, a professor of orthopedics and a sports medicine specialist at Brown University. ‘I can’t tell you the last time I’ve seen it.’” The article profiles a person who injured his knee skiing and had two different doctors tell him that the MRI (ordered even before he was examined) indicated he had a torn anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and needed surgery. Another orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Freddie H. Fu of the University of Pittsburgh, found he had no tear using a more sensitive MRI – which he ordered because, after seeing the patient, his story and exam was inconsistent with a torn ACL: “He could never have continued skiing with a torn A.C.L. The diagnosis ‘made no sense,’ Dr. Fu said.”

Such overdiagnosis can lead to excess surgery, with all the concomitant risks of these procedures. One concern is the financial conflict of interest that can exist. The physician who reads the MRI gets paid a fair amount, and the owner of the machine (which may be a hospital or a physician or group of physicians, either radiologists or orthopedists) get paid even more for doing the scan. And, if there is surgery, both the surgeon and the facility (hospital or outpatient surgicenter) where it is done make money. The other issue is that both doctors and patients believe that technology is “better” in most cases, and want both a definitive diagnosis and treatment. The danger, of course, is that the diagnosis may wrong and/or the treatment unnecessary.

Many of us have been told by a car mechanic that we needed a repair (new brakes, transmission, valve job), a diagnosis often made with the assistance of computer technology. Sometimes we have brought the car to another mechanic to have the diagnosis confirmed, and sometimes been told that the procedure was not necessary. Then we get angry and believe the first mechanic was a “thief”, out to make money. The reality is, however, that even if they are, all it costs is money; the car may not have needed new brakes quite yet, but the new brakes are not going to harm it. The same is not true for surgical intervention on a knee or shoulder or any other part of the body. Replacing the parts of a human-constructed car is different from cutting into and replacing the parts of a person. While both can have complications from being done badly, surgery on a person can have complications even when done right.

The counterpoints to this article are in the same issue of the NY Times. They are a series of letters addressing “The debate over routine mammograms”, which evidence the fascination that the public has with “making a diagnosis”. Some were written by representatives of advocacy organizations, who repeat the idea that saving a life is worth any cost; “The $5 billion spent annually on mammography screening is worth it to the women who are saved,”, one of these letters declares. This argument is flawed on many levels. Sure, if I am “saved” by having had a mammogram (putting aside, for the moment, any other questions of false-positive tests, treatment options, etc., and assuming the mammogram alone is the reason for my salvation), I am pleased. But $5 billion? Could we have done it for $2.5 billion? Or could we do a better job for $10 billion? Am I unhappy because I had a negative mammogram but the money spent on doing these tests meant that it wasn’t spent on treatments for something I do have, perhaps diabetes, or drug addiction, or for prevention through prenatal care or efforts to ban indoor smoking?

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends routine mammogram screening (“screening” means in women who are asymptomatic, and does not include those who have had previous cancer or abnormal mammograms or lumps or bleeding, etc.) every two years. In my hospital, we are trying to set the criteria by which our electronic medical record will remind us to do screening. Initially, we decided to use USPSTF guidelines. But now some physicians are saying that they think we should order mammograms yearly. Oh. If we are not going to use the recommendations based upon the most thorough use of the existing data, why yearly? Why not every six months? Every week?

Well, in part it is cost. To screen every woman every week would cost a lot. But it would also be inconvenient for those women. And there are, in addition to complications of treatment, results of questionable screening tests to further define what is going on, and these add more costs, discomfort, uncertainty, and risk. I have discussed these issues, with particular emphasis on another screening test that the USPSTF has recommended against using at all, the PSA test for prostate cancer, in recent blogs, most recently PSA redux: The USPSTF finally recommends NOT getting it!, October 14, 2011. For mammography, if less frequent routine screening of everyone with targeted screening of individuals who are at high risk, can have the same positive results without the high costs, both financial and in terms of risk to people, that is a better strategy.

Most important, however, is that arguments such as “The $5 billion spent annually on mammography screening is worth it to the women who are saved,” pretends that such spending occurs in a bubble. There is limited money, and it is getting more limited since the financial crisis and is likely to get worse with the “cut, cut, cut” attitude toward programs for the most vulnerable being the apparent mantra in both Congress and the states. Even in the best times for the economy, there were millions of people not getting the most basic health care, not getting well-established screening tests done, not getting treatments that were proven effective for conditions that they had (and maybe didn’t know they had) because they didn’t have access – insurance, geographic access, access from the perspective of cultural, language and health literacy, whether they were “legal” or many other factors. As these cuts increase, those millions are joined by millions, tens of millions, more. Access for everyone to proven effective interventions must be a priority over access for some to possibly effective interventions, and certainly over access for anyone to those where the danger exceed potential benefit.

The very same issue of the NY Times contains a column by Charles Blow, “America’s exploding pipe dream”, in which his words-to-table ratio is even less than usual, emphasizing the data in the table he attaches. But here are some important words: "We have not taken care of the least among us. We have allowed a revolting level of income inequality to develop. We have watched as millions of our fellow countrymen have fallen into poverty. And we have done a poor job of educating our children and now threaten to leave them a country that is a shell of its former self. We should be ashamed." Clearing up that shame, taking care of the “least among us”, should be our watchword.

Michael Marmot, the British Medical Association, and the Social Determinants of Health

2011-11-01T18:56:00.000-07:00

The social determinants of health are real and profound. They are the aspects of life outside the medical office and hospital, outside of drugs and surgery, that affect our health. Income differences, education differences, and differences in social cohesion, to name a few, have been extensively described in the literature and have even made some headway in the medical curriculum at many schools. Addressing health disparities is a major focus of our Healthy People 2020 effort. Recognizing and addressing the social determinants of health has been, and will continue to be, the primary focus of this blog. A few recent posts addressing this topic include Healthful Behaviors: Why do people adopt them? Or not? October 8, 2011 and "Health in All" policies to eliminate health disparities are a real answer, August 18, 2011, and a little longer ago, Social Determinants, Personal Responsibility, and Health System Outcomes, September 12, 2010.

Some of the most important work in the area of social determinants of health has been done by the British physician and epidemiologist Sir Michael Marmot, whose “Whitehall” studies, begun decades ago, showed that health status was associated with socioeconomic class. He has continued this with his recent work “Fair Society, Health Lives”[1]. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that it was under Dr. Marmot’s recently-completed tenure as President that the British Medical Association (BMA) issued its report “Social Determinants of Health: What Doctors Can Do”, in October 2011. It is more interesting that Dr. Marmot, in his introduction to the report, notes that “ … as I mentioned in my presidency acceptance speech, I was surprised at being approached to be president at all,” because “My work has been focused on inequalities in health where I have emphasised the circumstances in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age rather than anything specifically to do with health care provision. I have emphasised not just the causes of health inequalities—behaviours, biological risk factors—but the causes of the causes. The causes of the causes reside in the social and economic arrangements of society: the social determinants of health. More than that though more recently my work has looked at what can be done to address these issues across the life-course.”

Many of us in medicine, even on this side of the Atlantic, were thrilled that the BMA had chosen Dr. Marmot as its president precisely for these reasons. The current report shows that this was well-placed enthusiasm, for it marks a the commitment of the BMA to improving the health of the British population even, and perhaps especially, when that requires physicians to work outside of their “usual” venues. That is, when the work requires collaboration with other professionals, particularly educators but also social service agencies, to be effective. And to exercise their roles as community leaders, not simply purveyors of drugs, operations, and individual advice: “We recognise that not every doctor has the opportunity to change the social determinants of health throughout the life course of individual patients and have thus included other ways in which they can make a difference, as doctors working as community leaders.”

“Social Determinants of Health: What Doctors Can Do” presents conceptual models and large-scale goals, as well as principled statements of how physicians must act to create conditions of social justice and reduce the gradient of health disparity that results from different life circumstance. For example, it takes from “Fair Society, Healthy Lives” the following set of policy objectives that physicians and their organizations should work towards:

A - Give every child the best start in life

B - Enable all children, young people and adults to maximise their capabilities and have

control over their lives

C - Create fair employment and good work for all

D - Ensure healthy standard of living for all

E - Create and develop healthy and sustainable places and communities

F - Strengthen the role and impact of ill health prevention

(These are expanded upon in “Annex A”, beginning on p. 26)

However, the paper goes beyond these generalities and provides specific examples of programs that have been and are in place in different communities across Britain that have made an impact on these areas. The BMA commits that they “will keep examples of effective actions on our website, and encourage the World Medical Association to garner international examples, to aid doctors seeking ways to make a difference.” One example of this two-phased approach of identifying the problems and seeking examples of solution is in “The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty report”, whose main findings of direct impacts included:

- Countries which have more energy efficient housing have lower excess winter deaths (EWDs).

- EWDs are almost three times higher in the coldest quarter of housing that in the warmest quarter.

- Around 40% of EWDs are attributable to cardiovascular diseases.

- Around 33% of EWDs are attributable to respiratory diseases.

- Mental health is negatively affected by fuel poverty and cold housing for any age group.

- Cold housing increases the level of minor illnesses such as colds and flu and exacerbates existing conditions such as arthritis and rheumatism.

- Cold housing negatively affects dexterity and increases the risk of accidents and injuries in the home.

Main findings of indirect impacts:

- Cold housing negatively affects children’s educational attainment, emotional well-being and resilience.

- Fuel poverty negatively affects dietary opportunities and choices.

- Investing in the energy efficiency of housing can help stimulate the labour market and economy, as well as creating opportunities for skilling up the construction workforce.”

They then describe a program in Manchester that is working to addresses this problem.

Another intervention is occurring in an impoverished part of England, where the “Bromley-by-Bow Centre aims to serve the local community by providing a wide range ofservices and activities, which are integrated and co-operative in nature. They host the local GP surgery, a variety of social enterprises, a children’s centre, artists’ studios, a healthy living centre, and provide adult education courses, care and health services for vulnerable adults, outreach programmes and a range of advice services. This approach enables GPs to refer patients to services that help to tackle the social determinants of ill health, including welfare, employment, housing and debt advice services.”

A society can never achieve a significant improvement in health, or decrease health disparities, unless it consciously and forthrightly addresses the social determinants of health. Physicians can be leaders in this effort, or they can sit comfortably in their offices and hospitals tending to the individual health problems of people that could have been prevented before. Dr. Marmot says

“During my tenure I have been struck, but not surprised, by members’ utter commitment to

improving the health, not just of individual patients, but of society as a whole….As the year progressed I could see more and more how my tenure at the BMA and my work on the social determinants of health were a perfect fit. Time after time I was faced with examples where doctors were working tirelessly to increase fairness and social justice by acting on the social determinants of health to reduce health inequalities.”

That makes me proud of my colleagues in Britain and in the BMA, but these are also characteristics of many doctors in the US. And of many medical students, who are driven by their desire to make a difference. The US is not the UK (we don’t, for one really big example, have a national health service or even a national health insurance program!), but we have real needs and real caring people, including physicians. We just need to keep focused on health and how to improve it and not be dissuaded by tangential issues. We need to maintain the energy and idealism of medical students and ensure that it grows, rather than withers, thoughout their careers.

[1] Marmot M, Allen J, Goldblatt P et al (2010) Fair Society, healthy lives: strategic review of health inequalites in England post 2010. London.

Fluoridation: Dental health for all

2011-10-26T17:04:00.000-07:00

Fluoridation of the water supply is one of the great public health benefits of the 20^th century. It is also one of the persistently more controversial. Ideological opposition (to “the government” doing anything) has mixed with paranoia (they are poisoning us) to create a pretty sustained grass-roots movement, one that has blocked this effort in many places in the country. Now, according to Lizette Alvarez’ article in the NY Times “Looking to save money, more places decide to stop fluoridating the water” (October 14, 2011), saving money has been added to these arguments. The threat is that communities which have had the benefits of fluoridated water will lose them. This is apparently the what is happening in Pinellas County, Florida (the Clearwater/St. Petersburg area), as well as in Fairbanks, Alaska.

The situations in Florida and Alaska may well be different, however. The decision in Fairbanks is apparently tied to the relatively high levels of naturally-occurring fluoride in the water there, which would make fluoridation an unnecessary cost. In Florida, however, the decision seems to be driven by cost as well as the same issues I note above. “I’m in opposition to putting a medical treatment into the public drinking water supply without a vote of the people who drink that water,” said Norm Roche, a newly elected Republican county commissioner who spent 10 years doing policy research for the county Water Department and who led the turnaround effort. “We had a dozen to 15 doctors, dentists, dental hygienists and chemists here who want us to continue this practice but who could not agree themselves on how best to use fluoride.” The article does not further define what Mr. Roche means by “how best to use”, leaving us to imagine if this is an issue of putting it in the water vs another method (fluoridated toothpaste, fluoride treatments at home, fluoride varnishes by health providers) or disagreement as to whether it should be used at all.

In fact, the medical and dental community are pretty much in agreement that fluoride is good for preventing tooth decay, and that dental caries are a major cause of disability both medically and socially. It is hard for a child with a toothache to concentrate at school, not to mention the teasing that can come from having a mouthful of rotting teeth. This latter continues into adulthood; people with bad teeth (or no teeth) are seen as less smart and less competent, and are less likely to be hired in most jobs.

Fluoride works. In my “middle years”, my Chicago dentist had a pretty good idea of my age because he knew when the water in New York City, where I grew up, was first fluoridated. My “6-year molars” were covered with filled cavities (necessitating, all those years later, a lot of restoration work by him), while my “12-year molars”, which erupted after fluoridation, were almost cavity-free. I sure remember getting all those cavities filled, before dentists had high-speed drills or used anesthesia for such a simple, common procedure. My childhood self would certainly advocate for fluoride to prevent that discomfort!

There are, indeed, side effects to high levels of fluoride, whether naturally occurring or otherwise. The main sign of “fluorosis” is “marble teeth disease”, with “grotesque” brown staining of the teeth. It was an investigation into this condition in Colorado Springs in 1909 that led to the discovery both that the cause was high fluoride levels in the water, and that these teeth had virtually no decay (“The Story of Fluoride”, from the National Institutes of Dental and Craniofacial Research). This led to work that identified a level of fluoride that could be added to drinking water that was sufficient to prevent decay but too low to produce this condition.

After spending most of my life in New York and Chicago, one of the most dramatic things to catch my attention early in my stay in San Antonio, Texas, were the young children with stainless steel teeth, whose mouths distressingly reminded me of “Jaws”, the James Bond villain (albeit without the points!). I soon learned two things: 1) the stainless steel teeth were the result of having a great pediatric dental program at our dental school which could fix the mouths of children whose “baby teeth” had all rotted out, allowing them to be both pain-free and able to eat, and 2) the water in San Antonio was not fluoridated, which was a major cause (in combination with other behaviors, such as use of sugared drinks in baby bottles, feeding sugared soft-drinks to young children beyond the bottle years, and “bottle propping” which leaves the milk – and milk sugar – in the baby’s mouth) of the decay the led to the need for such repair. While only a small percentage of children in San Antonio had such stainless steel teeth, a very large percentage had significant and disabling tooth decay.

I also discovered that efforts to pass fluoridation had been defeated in San Antonio on at least two occasions in the past few decades. The opposition was largely from right-wing, John Birch Society, anti-government groups, but also included those who were from the other end of the political spectrum but believed in “natural” health, and thus opposed addition of fluoride. In 2002, an initiative spearheaded by the Mayor of San Antonio, finally led to passage of fluoridation for that city. During this campaign, virtually all the major politicians, all the dentists, physicians, and public health people, and most of the foundations and money were for the initiative. Nonetheless, it passed by only 52% of the vote. The good news here, I guess, is that it is an example of the power of regular people, not very well funded, to resist change being imposed on them. Unfortunately, it was contrary to their health interests.

As I note, the opposition was not solely from the right. During my time in San Antonio, I frequently attended open meetings of a group of progressives in a local Mexican restaurant. Primarily mainstream liberal Democrats, and including the late San Antonio New Deal mayor and newspaper columnist, Maury Maverick, the group was diverse, including socialists and “Greens” and even libertarians, whose interests in lack of government restrictions and privacy invasions gave them common cause. These last two groups, the Greens and libertarians, were opposed to fluoridation. The national Green presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, on a stop in San Antonio, even came out in opposition to the initiative. As a health care provider, I did my best to argue for the benefits of fluoridation, but was unable to win them over.

One argument made they made (at least the libertarians) was that “fluoride might be beneficial, but the government should not put it in our water supply”. Parents could use fluoridated toothpaste or fluoride rinses on their children’s teeth, or bring them to the dentist for fluoride varnish. Well, they could, but often they didn’t, and it was the children who would suffer the caries and their long-term consequences. Indeed in the ‘90s a new syndrome, dubbed “yuppie baby carie syndrome” was identified in children of well-off parents who made their infant formula with bottled water. (The causes of caries from bottle propping and unfluoridated water are well-described in the Wikipedia entry on “Early Childhood Caries”.) Of course, the spread of bottled water to a much wider socioeconomic group makes this even a bigger potential problem. Indeed, some water from natural springs contains minerals, sometimes including fluoride, while the bigger mass-products products from Coke – Dasani – and Pepsi – Aquafina – are municipal tap water that has been “purified” and thus do not. (This does not even begin to touch on all the environmental costs of bottled tap water, from plastic bottles to transporting tap water from one part of the country to another, but that’s another story.)

San Antonio, and more recently San Diego, are victories for fluoridation, while many cities, such as Wichita, remain unfluoridated, and others, such as Pinellas County and Fairbanks are going the other way. If Fairbanks has sufficient natural fluoride, then supplementation is an unnecessary cost. For those communities without adequate natural fluoride, it is a big mistake.

No way to run a hospital, no way to run a healthcare system

2011-10-20T19:08:00.000-07:00

In a feature article in the NY Times on October 2, 2011, “Nowhere to go, except room 516” (retitled “Stuck in bed, at hospital’s expense” on-line), John Leland tells the story of Raymond Fok, a man admitted to a NYC hospital for a stroke while on his way to his kidney dialysis appointment, and hospitalized for 19 months. The reason for his extended hospitalization was not his medical illness. Although that illness was very significant, including both his kidney failure requiring dialysis and the stroke that resulted from bleeding into his brain, these are common conditions which almost never lead to hospitalization for more than a couple of weeks. Most often people in such situations are discharged to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) for rehabilitation, although occasionally people who recover very well and have a supportive family can go home, often with home-based physical therapy.

The reason that Mr. Fok did not leave the hospital was because there was nowhere for him to go. An undocumented resident of the city in which he had lived for 23 years, he was uninsured and ineligible for publicly-funded coverage (eg, Medicaid). No nursing home, skilled nursing, or rehab facility would take him without a source of funding. Although only 58, had he been legally in the US, he would have been eligible for Medicare because of his need for kidney dialysis. It was not just that his family didn’t have money; they were not to be found. He had limited information to share with them, and it was a year before a family member was “discovered” visiting him. His wife and 2 sons are also undocumented, although his 18 year old daughter, born in the US, is a citizen. Finally he did go home, after accumulating a cost to New York Downtown Hospital of $1.4 million. Medicaid did end up paying for some of it. About $114,000, or 10%. The hospital absorbed the rest of the cost.

New York Downtown is in an area in which there are many immigrants, a large percentage of whom are not in the US legally. The hospital may not have many patients whose length of stay, and cost of care, are quite as much as Mr. Fok’s, but they certainly end of caring for a much higher percent of people who can and do pay little or nothing as do hospitals in neighborhoods that are more well to do neighborhoods (although, it turns out, Mr. Fok and his family live in Brooklyn, a long distance from NY Downtown). It seems a little unfair, kind of like a roll of the dice or a game of Russian roulette, that this hospital should have to bear the cost of his care because he ended up there.

It would not be unfair if the hospitals in New York, or in the United States, were “all in it together”. If they were not in competition with one another. If getting paid for services were not dependent on the luck of whether the people who need care are insured, or eligible for insurance. But that is not the case. In Canada, for example, most hospitals are not publicly-owned, but they are funded by a global budget negotiated with the health ministry of the Province in which they are located. And, of course, Canadian Medicare is a single-payer national health insurance program that means that all people are covered by insurance.

In the United States, however, hospitals compete. Rather than having a rational basis for creating health resources – enough beds, enough x-rays and MRI and CT machines, enough operating rooms, etc. – for the population of a community, it is “every hospital for itself”. In more densely populated communities, services are frequently duplicated (or triplicated, or quadruplicated!) A community of a certain size may “need”, say, one MRI machine. But if a particular hospital has that MRI machine, it gives them a competitive advantage over other hospitals; now each other hospital “needs” one. So we have too many. Thirty years ago the federal government supported local “PSRO”s that made such decisions, but they were very unpopular (with the “losers”). Today we have each hospital trying to build bigger, fancier units for the care of certain profitable conditions like cancer or heart disease, in hopes of attracting patients (insured patients, of course) to their institution rather than to a competitor. That is, we build an oversupply of resources to care for certain conditions (the ones for which reimbursement is profitable) and for certain patients (those who live in metropolitan areas and are insured).

On the other hand, we have communities, primarily rural communities, where there are no hospitals, and where people have to drive long distances for care. The state of Kansas is among those with the largest number of “critical access” hospitals, usually very small and the only ones in the county. They are rarely profitable, but are kept alive because they receive both county funds and enhanced reimbursement from government payers (Medicare and Medicaid). Despite this extra funding, the majority are losing money; if only operating revenue is considered, most are (see the graphics).

What kind of a health system is this? In urban areas we overbuild capacity of beds, imaging systems, and the like, and hospitals compete for paying patients, especially those whose diseases, such as cancer and heart disease, have a high-margin of profit. In rural areas, patients often have to commute long distances for care. The result is that if you are insured and have a high-profit-margin disease, you are a sought after customer; if you are not, or live in a rural area, you are probably out of luck.

And, if you are such a patient and no one wants to pay for you but you find your way to the hospital, like Raymond Fok, then the hospital is out of luck. This is no way to run healthcare. It is no way to run a society.

PSA redux: The USPSTF finally recommends NOT getting it!

2011-10-14T17:37:00.000-07:00

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the independent group of physicians and scientists who make recommendations to the government, medical community, and American people on the value of screening tests, recently came out with a new recommendation on the use of laboratory tests for Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) in screening for prostate cancer. It recommended AGAINST it --in their terms, a “D” recommendation. Previously, USPSTF had recommended against PSA screening for men over the age of 75, but had not taken a position for or against screening in younger men (an “I” recommendation, insufficient evidence to recommend for or against screening).

My belief is that this is a good, appropriate, and very overdue recommendation which will come as no surprise to those who have read this blog for some time. I, and guest authors, have addressed this issue several times (PSA Screening: What is the value?, Mar 21, 2009; PSA Screening: “One of Medicine's Great Success Stories"?, Oct 27, 2009 (by Robert Ferrer);, Men’s Health? Women’s Health? Valid screening opportunities or “Hallmark Holidays”?, Mar 15, 2011). In addition I have often linked to and cited the work of Kenny Lin, MD, who writes the Common Sense Family Doctor blog, and resigned from the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research (AHRQ) as a member of the USPSTF support team in November, 2010, over his perception that these recommendations were being delayed by political considerations. Dr. Lin has also written about PSA testing often (including "It is time to stop this [PSA] June 21, 2011, PSA testing: will science finally trump politics? Feb 28, 2011) and has recently addressed the new recommendations on Oct 7, 2011, Shannon Brownlee on the pros and cons of early cancer screening.

Of course, a lot of people do not think that this recommendation is a good thing. Two large groups, in particular, oppose the new recommendations: urologists and others who earn their livings treating prostate cancer and “advocacy” groups, supported by many high-profile (as well as just regular folks) men who have survived prostate cancer. Many of these men are quoted in Gardner Harris’ NY Times article “US panel says no to prostate screening for healthy men”, October 7, 2011. One of those who is quoted (actually not in the published NY Times piece, but in another version of Harris’ article published in the Seattle Times, is my colleague Brantley Thrasher, MD, Chair of the Department of Urology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, who said, "It appears to me that screening is accomplishing just what we would like to see: diagnose and treat the disease while it is still confined to the prostate and, as such, still curable."

I like Brant Thrasher, I think he is a good and knowledgeable doctor and great surgeon, but I strongly disagree with him on this one. As much as we would like, and believe me as a family doctor I would like, and Kenny Lin would like, a test that could find disease early while it was still curable and make a difference in people’s live, PSA is not that test and, at this point prostate cancer is not that disease. These are two separate issues, so let’s take them separately.

PSA is not a good test. Yes, it is often, maybe usually, elevated in men with prostate cancer. Of course, in some men with prostate cancer it is not above the “normal” cutoff. This has led some advocates of PSA screening to suggest use of “PSA velocity”: check it yearly and watch the rate of rise rather than the absolute value. But the bigger problem for PSA as a screening test is that it is often elevated in men who do not have prostate cancer but just have a big prostate (“hypertrophy”, almost universal in men above a certain age), or even DO have cancer, but the very-slow-growing-that-is-not-going-to-kill-you-before-you-die-of-something-else kind, which is by far the most common variety. These men are subjected to ultrasounds, biopsies, and treatments that cause significant morbidity (impotence, incontinence of urine, and “radiation proctitis” of the rectum and anus, developing congestive heart failure from hormone treatment, to name a few) with no benefit. Baylor physician and panel chair Virginia Moyer notes in the Times article that “This test cannot tell the difference between cancers that will and will not affect a man during his natural lifetime. We need to find one that does.” In 2010, Richard Ablin, PhD, who discovered the a prostate specific antigen (but not the PSA test) in 1970, called use of the test “a public health disaster” and “not much better than a coin toss.” (“The Great Prostate Mistake”, NY Times, March 9, 2010.

But the bigger issue is that there is no good evidence that treatment of any kind – surgical, radiation, hormonal – makes any difference in the outcome of prostate cancer. Surgeons like Brant Thrasher think it does, and he may be some day proven correct , at least in some circumstances, currently there is much more evidence supporting that it doesn’t than that it does. If you have the common, less-aggressive kind of prostate cancer, you won’t die from it, with or without treatment. If you have the rarer, highly-aggressive kind, you will probably die from it, with or without treatment. The Times article notes that “…advocates for those with prostate cancer promised to fight the recommendation. Baseball’s Joe Torre, the financier Michael Milken and Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, are among tens of thousands of men who believe a P.S.A. test saved their lives.” They may believe it, but they are probably (I obviously don’t have access to their medical records) wrong. The test diagnosed prostate cancer, they were treated for prostate cancer, and they are alive. QED. But it’s false logic, an association that doesn’t demonstrate cause. If they are alive now, they would be alive (at least as far as the prostate cancer is concerned) without the treatment. And they wouldn’t have those “little” problems like incontinence and impotence that seem like a small price to pay for not dying of cancer, but are a big price if the treatment didn’t make any difference. The famous folks who have died of prostate cancer, like Frank Zappa, died despite treatment.

The Times quotes Thomas Kirk, of Us TOO, the nation’s largest advocacy group for prostate cancer survivors, saying “The bottom line is that this is the best test we have, and the answer can’t be, ‘Don’t get tested.’” He’s wrong. That is the answer. We not only need a test that can distinguish the “bad” kind of prostate cancer that will kill you from the kind that probably won’t, we need treatments that evidence shows makes a difference in survival and quality of life if you do have the bad kind. In the meantime, getting tested is likely to create more harm than benefit.

Healthful Behaviors: Why do people adopt them? Or not?

2011-10-08T08:10:00.000-07:00

While I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist, I am both a family physician and a person. As such, I have observed human behavior for a long time. I have noted some psychological behaviors seem to be very common in the people that I have met both personally and professionally. I won’t say that they are “human nature”, since this phrase almost always refers to something that the speaker believes in or finds dominant in his/her environment, and is usually very culturally bound. However, they are common. One of these is the tendency to deny the magnitude of risk inherent in the risky things we do (or the risks we take because of things we don’t do). At the same time, we magnify the degree of risk inherent in the things we pride ourselves on not doing (or doing, when we see doing them as if beneficial, and not doing them as risky). As a corollary, we are likely to criticize those who adopt the risky behaviors that we do not, or do not adopt the beneficial behaviors that we do. That is, judging others is easy.

Perhaps because many of these potential risks are to our health and safety, these attitudes are common in health care and public health workers. Health professionals who do not smoke, and have never smoked, often severely condemn those who do. But alcohol? A little wine is good for you, right? Maybe, but it depends on who you are. If you have a tendency towards alcoholism, or are pregnant, or are going to drive, it is not good for you. Or for others. Public health workers can strongly advocate for wearing bicycle and motorcycle helmets, and using infant car seats, but it is just possible that once or twice they were late for something and drove too fast or too carelessly. And hopefully didn’t have an accident, but could have, and certainly increased their risk for it. From a risk/benefit point of view (fire trucks and ambulances and police aside), being late for work is NEVER a reason to drive faster or more carelessly; in fact, because there is a natural temptation to do so, conscious governance of that temptation is the beneficial behavior.

The utility of adopting a healthful, or not adopting an unhealthful, behavior is complex. It depends on the likelihood of something bad happening, how bad that thing is, and how many people it affects. So eating unhealthful food and not exercising is bad, but mainly for the person (and their immediate family) if they get sick or die. Smoking in public places, and even more, driving less than carefully or under the influence of alcohol or drugs potentially affects more people. Not immunizing your children because it allows you prevent a common but unpleasant effect (getting a lot of shots) and possibly a bad but extraordinarily rare long-term effect (whether real, like Guillain-Barre from swine flu shots or not, like autism[1] must be balanced against both the risk of their acquiring the disease and its sequelae, as well as the impact on the overall population that results if lots of children, not just yours, are unimmunized.

Not long ago I saw a patient in her early 30s who was pretty obsessed with getting breast cancer. She had no particular risk factors (no first-degree female relatives with it), but had previously talked a physician into ordering a mammogram when she was just 28 (it was normal), and wanted another one. We discussed the risk, but she was pretty fixated on breast cancer. We also talked about other risks, of much more concern to me than to her: smoking 2 packs of cigarettes per day, having 3 different sexual partners and rarely using condoms, and having untreated hypertension. I suggested, strongly but I hope appropriately, that all of these were much greater risks to her health than was breast cancer. I don’t know that I got through.

I imagine that it is pretty easy for health professionals to agree with me about the relative risks for this woman. Why she was so concerned about breast cancer rather than her real risks is another question. Some obsessive neurosis? Excessive effectiveness of breast cancer awareness advertising? I’d suggest that in large part it is about personal responsibility, about whether she would have to take action to prevent a bad outcome. If she were really worried about the risk from blood pressure, from smoking, from unprotected sex with multiple partners (and she should be), she would have to do something, take some action to change her life, to take medicine, to give up an addiction. This would be hard. On the other hand, since there are no clear behaviors she would need to change to avoid breast cancer, this is a safer – that is, less challenging – thing to be concerned about, to be fixated on.

Are the rest of us so different? Even those of us who have almost no dangerous or risky habits or behaviors (are there such? If we apparently have none, there is a fair chance that we might be suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder, also a potential risk!) Besides, some of us may always take care to wash our hands when using the restroom (and even use our elbows to turn off the water, as I saw a very young man do in a public place the other day), but take the risk of riding our bicycles on public thoroughfares. Or we may practice what we believe to be healthful eating, and may regularly ingest herbs and give our children vitamins that there is little or no data to support doing, but not give them immunizations.

Reducing health risk is also impacted by societal memory, or the lack thereof. This has been examined in the case of abortion rights, where younger women who have grown up during a period when abortion was legal (if increasingly unavailable, largely resulting from the campaign of terror from violent anti-abortion forces) do not see the urgency of fighting to continue it. It also often true in the case of HIV/AIDS, where young people who did not grow up seeing all their friends die of the disease before effective treatment was available may find themselves adopting the same high-risk behaviors. Or for those who never saw the devastation of epidemics of pertussis or diphtheria, or of measles, or of awful outcomes from Hemophilus influenza infections, to not see immunizing their children as critically important.

In addition, when we as individuals have good outcomes (or don’t have bad ones) we may tend to think it is deserved rather than attributing it to good fortune. We haven’t had car accidents because we are good drivers, not because we are lucky. We think we are healthy because we bike to work, or “eat right”, not because we are young and in a low-risk group. When we are older, we may believe that we are less ill than our friends because we do healthful things like yoga or take certain herbs, not because we lucked out in not getting cancer (or being born into a family with resources who could feed us well and educate us and provide us with other advantages) See also Social Determinants, Personal Responsibility, and Health System Outcomes, Sept 10, 2010).

I am not going to say “let s/he who is without sin cast the first stone”. I would, rather, ask all of us to recognize that an honest appraisal of our own risk behaviors is a first step to understanding those of others, and to helping them, and helping our society, achieve greater health.

[1] Data on vaccines presented at the recent American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) meeting suggest the chance of an adverse vaccine outcome is approximately equal to the chance of winning the lottery, and that of dying from a vaccine about equal to spontaneously having quadruplets.

Are primary care physicians fees a major contributor to the high costs of US healthcare? No.

2011-10-02T07:57:00.000-07:00

A recent article in Health Affairs by Miriam J. Laugesen of Columbia University and Sherry A. Glied of the Department of Health and Human Services has generated a lot of attention. “Higher Fees Paid To US Physicians Drive Higher Spending For Physician Services Compared to Other Countries”[1] looked at the amount paid to 1) primary care physicians for office visits, and 2) orthopedic surgeons for hip replacements, in the US, and compared them to five other countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom). The study also looked at overall physician income in those countries, and at a variety of factors that contribute to both. These factors include the mix of public (primarily Medicare in the US) and private insurance and the ratio of what private insurance pays relative to the public payer, cost and extent of medical education, and overhead expenses. They noted the relative income of primary care physicians to orthopedists in the various countries. Their stated reason for this study is that “The differential in spending on physician services is greater than the overall difference in total health spending between the United States and other nations.”

The concept that a significant portion of the US’ extremely high health care costs is due to high physician reimbursement has long been widely accepted, but the assertion that a part of the blame lies with high primary care incomes is rather new, and is the part of this article that has engendered the most attention. Robert Pear’s NY Times piece on September 7, 2011, “Doctor Fees Major Factor in Health Costs, Study Says” and the response letter from the American Medical Association (AMA) addressed the first part (both/all specialities). The second issue, the article’s focus on the fees of primary care physicians generated pushback from the president of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), Roland Goertz, who issued strong criticism of the implication that it is primary care physicians who account for the high cost of US healthcare (AAFP President Refutes Claims That Primary Care Physician Incomes Contribute to High Health Care Costs.) More basic information on the economic issues and assumptions that inform this kind of work are described quite clearly by Uwe Reinhardt in a Times “Economix” column on September 18, 2011, “The role of prices in health care spending”.

So what does the Laugesen and Glied study really show? It does show that primary care physicians in the US makes more than primary care physicians in the five other countries, and in some cases a good bit more. It also shows that orthopedic surgeons in the US make a lot more than orthopedic surgeons in other countries. These differences are not due primarily to seeing more patients (patients in those other countries have more visits than do primary care physicians than those in the US, averaging 5.95 per capita per year to the US’ 3.8, and orthopedists do not do significantly more procedures) but rather to the higher fees paid by private insurance in the US.

The study also shows, very significantly, and as emphasized by Dr. Goertz, that the ratio between the income of orthopedists and primary care doctors is much higher in the US than in those other countries. This bolsters the argument that, to the extent doctors’ fees contribute to the high cost of health care in the US, it is much more because of specialist rather than primary care, reimbursement. The authors of the study note that “Most other countries, however, have moved further away from fee-for-service

than the United States has”, and that “Where physicians may charge fees above the national schedule, the practice is consistently more common among orthopedic surgeons than among primary care

physicians, regardless of country.”

A key finding of the study that also supports Goertz’ argument is that [my bold] “Overall, fees paid by Medicare to US physicians for office visits are comparable to those paid by public insurers in several other countries, and fees paid by US private insurers are slightly higher than those paid by private insurers in other countries. In contrast, fees paid by public payers to orthopedic surgeons for hip replacements in the United States are considerably higher than comparable fees for hip replacements in other countries, and fees paid by private insurers in the United States for this service are double the fees paid in the private sector elsewhere .” This is exacerbated by the fact that “In general, Americans are very low users of office visits and relatively high users of hip replacement surgery.”

US orthopedic surgeons earned at least 50% more than those of other countries, and the ratio of primary care to orthopedist income was the lowest in the US, 42%, compared to 60% in other countries. The authors note that “The differences in incomes relative to fees provide more confidence in the overall comparability of the data. They suggest that higher US fees are a consequence not only of higher practice expenses, but also of higher rewards for the skill and time of physicians.” The authors also address the greater cost of medical education to the individual in the US, but conclude that the increased reimbursement more than compensates for this difference. Work by the Graham Center (see figure) shows that medical student specialty choice is highly tied to projected income.

One factor not addressed in most of the commentary on this article is that the authors of the study say “In the United States this definition [of primary care] includes family practice, general practice, internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, and pediatrics.” They do this despite the fact that “this” refers to the immediately preceding sentence, which presents the 2008 definition from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) of a “primary care physician as one who does not limit practice to certain disease categories”. This definition certainly does not include obstetrics/gynecology (OB/GYN). Why, then, do they include OB/GYNs? Unsurprisingly, the answer is largely political; the argument in the US was that many women receive their “primary care” from their OB/GYN. This logic, however, is deeply flawed. To the extent that women do so, they are not receiving comprehensive primary care, because OB/GYNs care for conditions involving the reproductive system and women are more than their reproductive tracts. Lest this be seen primarily as a matter of my personal sensitivity as a family physician, there is a very important issue because including them can dramatically skew the income data. As OB/GYNs are largely surgeons, their fees and income are much higher than those of the other specialties that are actually primary care, and raise the measured income of “primary care” physicians when they are included.

Laugesen and Glied show that “US primary care physicians earn about one-third more than do their counterparts elsewhere” but that “…neither public insurance nor private insurance generalist physician fees for basic office visits are much higher in the United States than in many of the comparison countries. Instead, US primary care doctors do somewhat better overall mainly because a much larger share of their incomes is derived from private insurance. In other countries where private primary care practice is permitted, the market share of this form of practice is relatively small.” They go on to say, however, that “For orthopedic surgeons, the story is quite different. US orthopedic surgeons earn much higher incomes than do their counterparts abroad, and there are more such surgeons per capita here than almost anywhere else. In consequence, comparison countries spend only about one-quarter as much as the United States spends on orthopedic surgeons. Rates of hip replacement surgery are not higher in the United States than elsewhere, although rates of other procedures performed by orthopedic surgeons may be. Much of the difference in earnings appears to be due to differential fees. Public-sector fees for hip replacement surgery in other countries are about half as high, on average, as Medicare fees in the United States.”

Finally, the ratio of primary care physicians (essentially all general and family physicians) to specialty physicians in other countries is much higher than in the US, so this is also an area in which their costs are lower. That is, more care is provided by primary care doctors and less by more expensive (even in those countries) specialists. Thus, the problem with health costs in the US is not the high cost of primary care. It is the private for-profit marketplace and the excessive fees paid by private insurance for surgical procedures and other specialty care that drives physicians’ fees to be so much higher in the US.

Among the many other changes that we need in our health system, two important ones are increasing the percent of our physician workforce that is primary care, and creating greater equity in the reimbursement among physicians.

[1] Health Affairs, 30, no.9 (2011):1647-1656

Shall we be callous or shall we be people? There is hope.

2011-09-26T14:05:00.000-07:00

This is a repost from yesterday from my other, non-medical, blog "Life the Universe, and a Few Things". I have gotten some positive feedback on it, so have decided to post it to MSJ as well.

Charles Blow, who appears every Saturday in the New York Times, is one of my favorite columnists. He is terse and articulate. His column always features a fascinating graphic with data that presents additional insight into his topic. Sometimes his topic is overtly political, as when he recently wrote about the disappointment many, including African-Americans, feel in President Obama. Frequently it is about people, especially poor people, especially children, and the incredible challenges that they face in this land of “everything for the rich and squeeze the most needy”. His colleague, Nicholas Kristof, often writes about the plight of children in the rest of the world. Between them, we learn a great deal of about the desperate situation of so many, as in Kristof's On Top of Famine, Unspeakable Violence, September 25, 2011.

So, on September 24, 2011, it was uplifting to have a column presenting something good happening for these children, It Takes a Village. Blow describes his visit to the Dorothy Day Apartments on Riverside Drive in West Harlem, a “former drug den” converted in 2003 to housing for destitute and homeless families. Most of the adults were drug addicts or are HIV victims or mentally ill or all these. He writes about the cheerfulness of the design of the entire building (including the art gallery on the top floor with views of the Hudson River), of the yoga done by “wee little legs that barely have kneecaps” on mats placed in a courtyard that was previously 6 feet deep in garbage. It has been successful by any measure – no teenage pregnancies, successful graduations from high school and entry into college, and done at a cost far less than “housing” people in prison, shelters, or mental hospitals.

Blow quotes Lady Bird Johnson saying “Where flowers bloom, so does hope”. I am reminded of the song (taken from a poem by James Oppenheim written in 1911) “Bread and Roses”, “Yes, it is bread we fight for, but we fight for roses too!” The poem is associated with the women who struck the textile mills in Lawrence, MA in 1912, and since the name of many projects and organizations, including an “integrated arts” high school in Harlem. If I am disappointed in anything in Blow’s column, it is that he fails to mention who Dorothy Day was. Day, who died in 1980, co-founded the Catholic Worker movement in 1933, “a nonviolent, pacifist movement that continues to combine direct aid for the poor and homeless with nonviolent direct action on their behalf”. If anyone wonders if Catholics are focused only on anti-abortion, anti-contraception, and child abuse, or whether there are those practicing the precepts contained in the New Testament rather than greed, prejudice, and selfishness, the Catholic Worker Movement is a good place to start. We are very fortunate to have such a center, Shalom House, in my town of Kansas City, KS.

On the same page as Blow’s op-ed is one by Theodore R. Marmor and Jerry L. Mashaw, who are academics rather than columnists. “How do you say ‘Economic Security”?” discusses the situation in the Depression in 1934, and how the government was seen as the vehicle for helping those in need to achieve a dignified life. They talk about how the discussion has changed in the last 50 years. “In 1934, the focus was on people, family security and the risks to family economic well-being that we all share. Today, the people have disappeared. The conversation is now about the federal budget, not about the real economy in which real people live.“ They go on to say that “In 1934, the government was us. We had shared circumstances, shared risks and shared obligations. Today the government is the other — not an institution for the achievement of our common goals, but an alien presence that stands between us and the realization of individual ambitions. Programs of social insurance have become “entitlements,” a word apparently meant to signify not a collectively provided and cherished basis for family-income security, but a sinister threat to our national well-being.”

There were selfish bad guys with lots of money in 1934. But they were unable to control the debate, hard as they tried, with their control of the media (Hearst newspapers, anyone?). Somehow today they do. Occasionally, there is a burst of hope, the mass rallying of regular people to contribute to and work for Barack Obama in 2008, and the dashing of hope as this figure too seems to serve those with the most power. Marmor and Mashaw conclude “Over the last 50 years we seem to have lost the words — and with them the ideas — to frame our situation appropriately. Can we talk about this? Maybe not.”

I’d like to say “maybe yes”. Maybe we can look at the Dorothy Day Apartments and the Catholic Worker movement and Shalom House and the dozens of groups called “Bread and Roses” and the thousands of organizations and millions of people who really want to make this country and this world a better place for actual people, and have hope. And, if we want to look back for inspiration, let me offer a few passages from FDR’s “Four Freedoms” speech of January 6, 1941:

“The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are:

Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.
Jobs for those who can work.
Security for those who need it.
The ending of special privilege for the few.
The preservation of civil liberties for all.
The enjoyment -- The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living….

Many subjects connected with our social economy call for immediate improvement. As examples:
We should bring more citizens under the coverage of old-age pensions and unemployment insurance.
We should widen the opportunities for adequate medical care.
We should plan a better system by which persons deserving or needing gainful employment may obtain it….

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor -- anywhere in the world.”

Are we now such a different people that such aspirations are no longer possible? I hope not.

Legislating Public Health and Medical Care

2011-09-22T16:38:00.000-07:00

It is pretty tempting, if you are a legislator and don’t like something, to try to pass a law against it. You can always find a constituency to support you, because there are people who will support almost anything. If you are lucky enough you can find a well-off and powerful constituency, or set of advocacy organizations, and then you are more likely to be successful (ref: see almost all laws passed by the Congress). Health and medical care are no exceptions; bills and laws that impact on public health and even how providers interact with their patients are increasingly common.

Some laws are very good for the public health: banning smoking in public places; requiring cars to have seat belts, airbags, and other safety features; requiring vaccination against infectious disease for entry into school. But the plethora of regulations governing the funding of health care providers from Medicare and Medicaid, the kind of documentation that needs to be submitted, and the rules that need to be followed (generally termed, collectively “compliance”) is bewildering. Complying with all the rules put forth put forth by federal agencies (including different division of Health and Human Services, as well as the Department of Justice and the Department of Treasury) requires large providers to have full-time “compliance officers” and small ones to operate at their peril. Then add in state and local regulations. These regulations are often contradictory, so complying with one violates another. The blame is usually placed on the bureaucrats that write these regulations, but in fact many of these bureaucrats are quite aware of these contradictions, but have no option, because the laws that they have to write regulations to implement are often very prescriptive. Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences!

This law, never to my knowledge passed by any legislative body, has a major impact on those that are passed, and this impact is just as true in laws regulating public health and medical practice. These effects are most serious when the law in question is passed to address a political agenda rather than to improve health. A famous example is the “gag rule” implemented in the early GW Bush years that prevented providers receiving federal funds from discussing the option of abortion with their patients. (Overturning this rule was a major, and under-recognized, accomplishment of the early Obama administration.) A more recent example is the law passed in Florida (and now, thankfully, blocked from implementation by a federal judge) that would prohibit physicians and other medical providers from discussing gun safety with their patients. Let me be clear: the limitation was not on gun possession or use, but on doctors and nurses and public health officials talking to people about the risks that guns in the home posed to their children and themselves and how to keep the guns that they had more safe to limit accidental discharge, injury and death. Guess what organization pushed this law? If you said “the NRA”, you’re right, but it was a “gimme”. And of course it was signed by the governor, former “health care” magnate Rick Scott, who as CEO of Columbia/HCA led the company in paying huge fines for Medicare fraud.

Those are the easy ones to find fault with. But, just as with the “compliance” issues described above, efforts to impose “good” medical practice can be flawed. Vaccine safety and benefit is a big topic I will probably post a separate piece on (short answer: get them), but there are many others. One example is the bill introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), along with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), that would require practitioners who prescribe opiates to have 16 hours of continuing medical education (CME) in their use every 3 years. This is motivated by a serious concern for the abuse of opiates, including re-sale by those receiving prescriptions, which leads to many deaths each year (and in which West Virginia leads the nation). There is no question that this is a huge problem.

We have seen two movements, often in conflict with each other, in recent times. One is the increase in the advocacy for patients with chronic pain to receive adequate treatment; the other is concerned with addiction and prescription drug abuse. Unfortunately, as in West Virginia, the same populations are often afflicted by both. Chronic pain often occurs in those who do physical labor, but people from these same populations are the ones often dying of overdose. The problem is that the same drugs that reduce pain also (initially) get people “high”, and in time create physical addiction where the “positive” effect of the “high” is replaced by pain and misery just from not having the drug. Ideally, there would be a pain reliever that was effective, did not cause any pleasurable symptoms (other than relief from pain), and was non-addictive. We don’t have one.

Will requiring this CME of physicians reduce the problem? I think that it will decrease the number of prescriptions written for opiates, and thus maybe the amount of potentially-abusable narcotics circulating in the community, but perhaps not through the intended mechanism. There is no question that there is a lot that many providers could learn about proper use of opiate pain relievers by taking such courses. One example is the use of long-acting pain relievers (methadone, sustained release patches, long-acting morphine) whose slow release controls pain while decreasing the “high” that results from a sudden infusion of narcotic. (An exception is the most widely-prescribed – and advertised, which might be related – long acting pain reliever, Oxy-Contin®, 30% of which is release immediately, making it more popular among drug abusers than other long-acting opiates.) Another is the use of the “pain contract” that limits a patient to receiving opiates from one physician, at determined intervals, refuses to ever refill if a person is found to be receiving prescriptions from multiple sources, and may require urine tests to be sure that s/he is not using other unprescribed substance.

However, for this plan to work it would require that physicians and other providers want to prescribe narcotics. Obviously some do. Many of these do so because they are concerned about the chronic pain so many patients are in; there are pain medicine specialists who come from a variety of medical backgrounds: anesthesiology, psychiatry, family medicine, internal medicine. There are certainly others (relatively few) who are “Dr. Feelgoods” who make their living prescribing narcotics and other controlled drugs in large amounts, knowing that they will be abused. But the reality is that most doctors find chronic pain patients, well, a chronic pain. They find it difficult to feel certain who is a “legitimate” pain patient and who is “abusing”, or selling, their pain medications. Or who is a “legitimate” chronic pain patient whose family members are using, or selling, that person’s pain medication, leading to both the spread of narcotics in the community and having the patient continue with unrelieved pain. These are the patients who, whether “legitimate” or “abusers”, call the office all the time for refills, call in the middle of the night, yell at the staff because they are in pain (or withdrawing from narcotics, or find their livelihood that comes from selling them is threatened). Most providers would be willing to not take the CME, and have a good excuse to not prescribe opiates, and be free from all these problems. This is, according to testimony at the recent convention of the American Academy of Family Physicians, already happening in some places. Of course, that will also mean reduced access for people who do have chronic pain.

I once lived in a moderately large condominium. I had kids, as did a couple of others, but the majority of residents were older, with no children in their homes. The association would sometimes pass rules that restricted what children could do, especially when the working parents couldn’t make the meetings. These rules affected my children and penalized me. My position was that the association’s rules should be limited to things that affected the safety of the building and maintained its property values, not just anything that 51% of the owners could agree upon. Legislatures, whether federal or state or local, can pass any law that they can get a majority to agree on (with the obvious exception of the US Senate, where apparently, at least with the current President, it requires 60% votes – 59% wouldn’t do it). It doesn’t matter how dumb the laws are, or how much they conflict with existing law, or how much trouble they cause the bureaucrats who have to write the regulations, or how confusing or sometimes impossible it becomes for folks to comply with them all. Unless the courts strike them down, they are law (thank goodness for separation of powers!).

But because you can pass a law or rule about something doesn’t always make it a good idea to do so, whether you are a legislature or a condominium association. Because the Law of Unintended Consequences is always present.

Unintended pregnancy and health disparities

2011-09-16T20:27:00.000-07:00

.
In "Health in All" policies to eliminate health disparities are a real answer, August 18, 2011, I discussed the work of Steven Woolf, MD, as it relates to health disparities. The major point of that piece is that the health and mortality differences between groups, particularly racial groups, in the United States accounts for an enormous number of excess deaths. If that gap were closed, and everyone in the US had the same age-adjusted death rate as whites, the number of lives saved would far exceed those saved by all medical care. Indeed, it would far exceed the number of lives saved even by public health interventions, at least as narrowly construed. Many of the social interventions that Woolf and colleagues indicate would be necessary to decrease disparities could be thought of as “public health” in a broader sense, because they would improve the public’s health, but in general eliminating poverty and raising educational levels are not part of the narrower public health construct.

In “Unintended pregnancy in the United States: incidence and disparities, 2006”, published on-line-before-print in Contraception, Lawrence B. Finer and Mia R. Zolna of the Guttmacher Institute report on the disparities in a particular group, women of reproductive age, in relation to unintended pregnancy. They combined data from several sources, “…on women's pregnancy intentions from the 2006–2008 and 2002 National Survey of Family Growth… a 2008 national survey of abortion patients and data on births from the National Center for Health Statistics, induced abortions from a national abortion provider census, miscarriages estimated from the National Survey of Family Growth and population data from the US Census Bureau,” to assess rates of unintended pregnancy and disparities between groups, and compared this data to rates in 2001.

They found that the percent of unintended pregnancies remained high, with a slight increase (from 48% to 49% of all pregnancies) from 2001 to 2006. The actual rate increased from 50 to 52 unintended pregnancies for every 1000 women aged 15-44. There was a significant decrease in the rate of unintended pregnancies in women 15-17 years old, but this group still had the highest rates (79%, down from 89%). While the fact that an increased percentage of pregnancies in such young women were intended is not necessarily a good thing, the overall pregnancy rate per 1000 decreased from 47 to 42 in this group. The rates of unintended pregnancy went down with age, but all other age groups had an increase in their rates from 2001-2006, the largest in women 18-24. To say this again: the rates of unintended pregnancy went up in each age group except 15-17, but that group still had the highest rate, with rates decreased in each older age group.

The most important finding was the disparity in the rate of unintended pregnancy by characteristics other than age: by race/ethnicity, by income, and by educational level. The unintended pregnancy rate for women with less than a HS diploma (80 per 1000) was more than 2.5 times that of college graduates (30); the rates for women who were HS grads and those with “some college” were in between. The rate for Black women (91) and Hispanic women (82) was also 2-3 times that of white non-Hispanic women (36). Income, perhaps, had the greatest disparity: the rate for women at <100% of poverty (132) was more than 5 times the rate for women >200% of poverty (24).

OK. This is a lot of data, and maybe it is hard to follow. But the main point is simple: these are staggering differences, and they are difference based upon the same social factors that Woolf and his colleagues address. The magnitude of these differences overwhelms all the other factors that affect this rate. The women whose resources make them least able to economically provide for unplanned children are most at risk of having them.

The percent of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion also decreased, from 47% to 43%, with the greatest decrease (from 47% to 41%) in women 20-24, but rather than being a positive, this decrease is much more likely to reflect the decreased availability of abortion services than a shift in attitudes toward abortion. That is, a larger number of children are being born as a result of unintended pregnancy to families that will have difficulty caring for them. In addition, these families are getting less and less aid from public sources because the same folks who are against abortion and the protection of the “unborn” are also against social services that will help the families of the born.

This study was also the basis for the excellernt column “Failing Forward” by Charles Blow in the NY Times on August 27, 2011. He makes these points very strongly, commenting on the policies that restrict access to abortion while effectively punishing the children:

“This is what we’re saying: actions have consequences. If you didn’t want a child, you shouldn’t have had sex. You must be punished by becoming a parent even if you know that you are not willing or able to be one. This is insane.”

As in all of Blow’s columns, he includes a telling graphic, here showing the “States of Child Hunger”, the rate and raw number of children in food-insecure households. There are over 17 million hungry children in the US, or 23.2% of all children. The highest rate is in DC, the lowest in North Dakota. After DC (32.3%), perhaps surprisingly, is Oregon (29.2%). However, after that, unsurprisingly, come the usual suspects , many of the states most commonly associated with poor social supports and frequently conservative Republican leadership: Arizona, Arkansas, Texas, Georgia, Mississippi, Nevada, South Carolina, Florida. Most of the New England states are clustered near the bottom (good) end of the list.

The whole thing is not good. Too many poor and hungry children, too little education, too little opportunity for too many women and their families. Too many people and families caught in the multiple challenges of poverty, poor education, and racial/ethnic minority status, all of which are independently associated with health disparities, and which are synergistic in their effect when found together. This is not a society to be proud of. This is a society that needs great change, and it is the change perhaps we’d hoped for with the election of President Obama.

Frequently, the comic strips (not even the overtly “political cartoons”) capture it best. Here is a link to a “Non Sequitur”, by Wiley Miller. Check out September 4, 2001, with the adventures of super “hero” “CongressMan”. Laugh. And then cry.

"The Doctor's Dilemma": Balancing needs of individual patients and responsible stewardship of health resources

2011-09-08T16:46:00.000-07:00

.
On August 25, 2011, in What is the ethical role for physicians in the "business" of health care?, I cited the commentary of Reuben and Cassel in JAMA “Physician stewardship of health care in an era of finite resources”. They identify the various levels at which physicians, physician groups, payers, and government can act to influence the cost/benefit of health care decisions. A similar issue is addressed recently by Victor Fuchs in the New England Journal of Medicine “The doctor’s dilemma – what is appropriate care?”[1] He notes that:

“…organizations representing more than half of all U.S. physicians have endorsed a ‘Physician Charter’ that commits doctors to ‘medical professionalism in the new millennium.’ The charter states three fundamental principles, the first of which is the “primacy of patient welfare.” It also sets out 10 ‘commitments,’ one of which states that ‘while meeting the needs of individual patients, physicians are required to provide health care that is based on the wise and cost-effective management of limited clinical resources.’ How can a commitment to cost-effective care be reconciled with a fundamental principle of primacy of patient welfare?”

He goes on to point out that some very expensive technologies benefit people while some do not or even cause harm, and many can benefit some people but are used too widely. He notes that, for example, “U.S. patients, on average, get almost three times as many magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] scans as Canadian patients; there is no evidence that this large differential can be explained by national differences in the medical condition of patients or that it results in significant national differences in health outcomes.” This doesn’t mean that your MRI was not indicated, nor that there may be Canadians who did not get MRIs that were indicated, but it does mean that on balance we in the US are doing too many for the degree of benefit received.

Fuchs also addresses health insurance. He notes that, as many policy critics have observed, it is often not the patient but a third-party insurer who pays the bills (with the obvious, and glaring, and unconscionable, exception of the uninsured). Therefore, there is much less incentive on the part of the physician to not order expensive tests than if the patient were paying. I know this to be true. With underinsured or uninsured patients, especially in the free clinic I volunteer in, we minimize the use of unnecessary laboratory tests and maximize the use of generic medications on the “$4 list”. These practices are – or should be -- standard care in all patients. Working in the free clinic setting helps teach our volunteer physicians, as well as our volunteer learners, how to practice more cost-effective medicine. But it is not in itself enough. The free clinic still has major problems getting patients the care they need when they do need an MRI or CT, or a medication that is not available generically, or a specialist evaluation, or an expensive test (and for uninsured people virtually all procedures are expensive!), or a hospitalization.

So I also know that Fuch’s next point, criticizing those “policy experts [who] think that if patients had “more skin in the game” — that is, had less insurance — the problem would be solved. It would not,” is correct as well. He points out that even those who advocate this position agree there must be a cap on how much a patient should be liable for out-of-pocket (what? $5000?), but that “the extreme skew in annual health care expenditures, with 5% of individuals accounting for 50% of spending in any given year, means that many health care decisions, and especially those involving big-ticket interventions, will be made by and for patients whose costs have exceeded the cap.” The greatest expenditures are for people who need the greatest expenditures, and will be above any acceptable cap. Most people will not be, but most health dollars are not spent on the care of most people; they are spent on this small minority (which, as I have pointed out in Red, Blue, and Purple: The Math of Health Care Spending, October 20, 2009, any of us could join at any time!).

In a similar vein, policy pundits, many of the same ones who talk of “skin in the game”, talk about “freedom of choice” and allowing people to choose the kind of insurance that best meets their needs. Right. In Social Determinants, Personal Responsibility, and Health System Outcomes (September 12, 2010), I observe that all of those making such suggestions (the “Four Ps”: pundits, policymakers, politicians, and professionals) are not likely to be ever in the uninsured group. However, even they, even the doctors, have a difficult time figuring out insurance options. So imagine how it is for others, for most people? As highlighted by Lauri Martin and Ruth Parker in JAMA (“Insurance expansion and health literacy”)[2], for those who are less educated, for the 90 million Americans who have limited health literacy, choosing the “right” plan will be virtually impossible, a total crap-shoot.

What this means is that while large-scale comparisons, like MRIs between the US and Canada, can tell us there is something wrong, they cannot solve the problem. Nor can average expenditures of insurance companies, though again they can tell us a lot. But we must realize that we cannot solve the problem by limiting the individual access of individual people rather than attending to medically-appropriate guidelines that apply to all people. We need more fences, and fewer reins[3].

Ultimately, the contradiction between the commitment to the “primacy of patient welfare” and limiting the use of expensive technology is real, and the ability of physician organizations to put them into the same document without helping to explain how to resolve this “dilemma” is sloppy policy, and unfortunately often characteristic of them. Not just of physician organizations; indeed, given the scope of fine-words-with-no-action (or negative action) prevalent in the political sector, these physician groups are to be commended for calling for action. In “Dr. King weeps from his grave”, NY Times, August 26, 2011, Cornel West observes the same distinction between the actions called for and undertaken by the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the words spoken by those who have built his memorial. “King weeps from his grave. He never confused substance with symbolism. He never conflated a flesh and blood sacrifice with a stone and mortar edifice.”

The conclusions of Dr. Fuchs, and of Drs. Reuben and Cassel, are not very different. We do not need words, or proclamations, we need system change. In Fuchs’ words: “…when physicians are collectively caring for a defined population within a fixed annual budget, it is easier for the individual physician to resolve the dilemma in favor of cost-effective medicine. That becomes ‘appropriate’ care. And it is an ethical choice… because if all physicians act the same way, all patients benefit.”

[1] Fuchs V, “The doctor’s dilemma – what is appropriate care”, N Engl J Med 18Aug2011;365(7):585-7.

[2] Martin LT, Parker RM, “Insurance expansion and health literacy”, JAMA 24/31Aug2011;306(8):874-5.

[3] Grumbach K, Bodenheimer T, “Reins or fences: a physician’s view of cost containment”. Health Aff (Millwood). 1990 Winter;9(4):120-6

Steps toward a solution: Time to put Single Payer back "on the table"

2011-08-31T18:59:00.000-07:00

During the health reform debate, one option we were assured was never seriously “on the table” was “single payer”, or Medicare for All. President Obama, who as a senator had indicated his support for this solution, backed away from it as fast as he could. In this he was undoubtedly encouraged by his many advisors, who have also encouraged bank bailouts, “compromise” on the debt ceiling, etc. (see June 18, 2009,“No Single Payer”: Sebelius – making policy for the powerful). This is not to say that there were not supporters of single payer within government; there were and are. HR 676, “The Improved and Expanded Medicare for All” act, principally sponsored by Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, had nearly 100 co-sponsors in the House. Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont introduced a single-payer bill in the Senate. Vermont, in fact, has become the first state to move toward a form of single payer on a statewide basis.

As anyone who has been reading this blog for any amount of time knows, I am a strong advocate of single payer. (A few of the many MSJ references: April 28, 2011 Perception and reality of economic inequality; July 22, 2010, Improving quality and access still requires coverage for all; April 10, 2009, Does the nation need a clear policy on a right to basic health care?).

My reasons for support of single payer are several:

It covers everyone. No one is left out. There is no complex system of “these people get coverage this way, those people get coverage that way, and those people (too bad) are left out altogether.”
It provides a uniform benefit package. Everyone can get the care that they need, without concern about whether they are covered. In our current system, even many people who are insured have inadequate coverage. In addition, to the extent that the society decides to limit access to unproven or detrimental (see #5 below) or even “too expensive” care, no one gets it.
It saves money. Off the top, it saves the profit being taken out of the system by insurance companies and other for-profit businesses. It saves even more money by eliminating all that being spent by those companies to deny care claims and by providers of care to try to get paid (see A Modest Proposal: Bribe the Insurance Companies, August 23, 2009).
It puts us all in it together. This is a core method of ensuring social justice. The more educated and empowered among us will work to make sure that they get good care, and this benefits everyone.
It provides the basis for ensuring quality, by having a degree of control over what gets reimbursed, and therefore what gets done. It may not ensure quality by itself, but it is almost a necessary component.

In 1964, President Johnson signed the Medicare Bill in Independence, MO, giving cards #1 and #2 to former President Harry Truman, who had fought for national health insurance in the late 1940s and lost, and his wife Bess.Forty-seven years later, Medicare has proven its importance in providing a single-payer program for seniors. It is the largest payer in the country, and the rates that it pays for services determine those paid by other insurers. While expanding Medicare to everyone should be the centerpiece of health policy, it has instead become the target of proposals to cut coverage to those who already receive it, particularly from the right. This has led to a lot of bad ideas from politicians such as Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (see Medicare: We need to expand it, not cut it!, July 1, 2011).

The “poster child” for a single payer system is Canada, which has had it since the early 1970s. Based on the principle of social solidarity, not often apparent in the US, the Canadian federal government set the criteria for the program (which is also called “Medicare”) and the individual provinces set the specific terms and fund it. There is local (provincial) autonomy within the boundaries established by the federal government (see December 14, 2009, Tommy Douglas and the Canadian Health System; May 27, 2010, Universal Coverage and Primary Care: The US needs both). Several recent articles have addressed the degree to which changes in the primary care system to create “medical homes” in Ontario, Canada’s largest province, have enhanced the quality of patient care, access of patients, lowered cost, and increased the income of primary care physicians (see Rosser et al, “Progress of Ontario's Family Health Team model: a patient-centered medical home” [1]). It is critical to note that this Family Health Team program was really only possible on such a scale because Ontario, like the rest of the country, has a single-payer system.

The importance of increasing, or at least not decreasing, the income of primary care physicians relative to other specialist, has been addressed in several other posts. What about all physicians, as a group? The AMA and other physician groups were, after all, largely responsible for the defeat of Truman’s national health insurance program and were major opponents of the US Medicare and Medicaid programs. Surveys by Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP, see especially “Single Payer National Health Insurance”) have shown increasing support for single payer among the physician community, with universal health coverage being supported by a majority of US doctors in 20 (Support for national health insurance among US physicians: 5 years later [2]).

A new study may help to persuade physicians that single-payer systems are actually in their financial interest. Writing in August 2011 in Health Affairs, Morra and colleagues report that “US Physician Practices Versus Canadians: Spending Nearly Four Times As Much Money Interacting With Payers”[3] (hyperlink to abstract). The title basically says it all. While both Canadian and US physicians spent time (translated into money!) interacting with insurers, the single payer in Canada and hundreds of payers in the US, about patient benefits and payment, the staff of US physicians spent 10 times the amount of time in such activities as did their Canadian counterparts. The authors estimate the cost to US physicians at $82,975 per physician per year, nearly 4 times the $22,205 cost to Ontario physicians. In addition, these costs fall disproportionately highly on small physician practices, which are more likely to be primary care. They conclude that “If US physicians had administrative costs similar to those of Ontario physicians, the total savings would be approximately $27.6 billion per year.”

From a financial point of view, we have an apparent dilemma in the US. The cost of Medicare is very high and creates financial threats to the economy. The reimbursement from Medicare to providers is often too low to make them a desirable payer. But there is a solution. It involves getting control over costs. First, do not pay for harmful or questionable interventions, do not pay major markups to generate excessive profit for private companies, and use the large scale of government purchasing to get good prices for drugs, unlike the boondoggle of Medicare Part D, the prescription drug program in which Medicare pays retail prices to pharmaceutical companies.

The solution is also to emphasize more primary care and prevention (October 18, 2010 Lower Costs in Grand Junction: More Primary Care, Less High Tech). The next steps will be harder, for they will involve making difficult decisions about the cost/benefit ratios of different types of care, particularly as the availability of new, expensive, high-tech interventions provide allure, if not always results.

The way not to do this is for policies restricting access for a part of the population (working and poor people) to be made by another part of the population (big businesses, politicians, and lobbyists) who will not be affected by those decisions. A single-payer system in which we are all covered by the same benefits does not automatically save money, but at least makes it possible.

[1]; Rosser WW et al, “Progress of Ontario's Family Health Team model: a patient-centered medical home”, Ann Fam Med. 2011 Mar-Apr;9(2):165-71.

[2]Carroll A, Ackerman R “Support for national health insurance among US physicians: 5 years later” Ann Int Med 1Apr2008;148(7):566-7.

[3] Morra D, et al, “US Physician Practices Versus Canadians: Spending Nearly Four Times As Much Money Interacting With Payers”, Health Affairs August 2011 vol. 30 no. 8 1443-1450.

What is the ethical role for physicians in the "business" of health care?

2011-08-25T18:02:00.000-07:00

Health care is a complex business. “Business” in the sense of “a human endeavor”, but also as “an organization seeking to make a profit.” Over the last several decades we have seen increases in the portion of health care delivery services that are formally organized as “for profit”. Hospitals, especially, have undergone such changes, joining the ranks of long-term care facilities, pharmaceutical companies, device makers, home health agencies, and insurance companies that have always been primarily “for profit”. Indeed, most physician practices, whether solo, small-group, or large group, are for-profit, organized into “professional” or “limited liability” corporations.

“For profit”, however, means that these organizations pay taxes, but because an organization is “not-for-profit” does not mean it behaves significantly differently. Not-for-profits are granted this status because a significant part of their activity is providing a public good, and their income-over-expenses (profit, which we can call “margin” to be less confusing) is not owned by shareholders but is rather intended to be re-invested to further enhance that public good. But not-for-profit hospitals generally follow very similar business practices to for-profit. They have to “compete for market share”. While they may have a mission, they often cite the mantra “no margin, no mission” as they invest in high-margin product lines (heart disease, cancer, neurosurgery) to attract more paying customers. Rather than, say, spending that money providing their wonderful care for free or at great discounts to the poor and uninsured. Or expanding their provision of high-need but low-margin services (primary care, obstetrics, pediatrics, psychiatry). The salaries paid to management of not-for-profit hospitals and professional personnel are often as high as those paid by for-profits (who, after all, have to maximize profit to please their shareholders, so want to keep costs, largely salaries, down).

So what is reasonable profit in health care, for companies that are for-profit? Should there be any? Does competition with for-profits distort the behavior of non-profits or would they act in the same ways if they had to compete only with other non-profits? Is competition good or bad? And what about doctors? Do they behave differently in their practice if they are salaried or have an incentive to make profit? Is this a good thing or a bad thing? So many questions!

In their commentary “Physician stewardship of health care in an era of finite resources” (JAMA 27Jul2011; 306(4):430-1), David B. Reuben and Christine K. Cassel address some of these issues. They start by noting that “Although there are varying opinions about the quality of health care in the United States, there is consensus that it costs too much.” I would guess that this is probably true, but may be as far as it goes. I suspect that each individual player or industry dependent upon health care dollars is unlikely to think it is their part that costs too much. It’s those other guys!

Reuben and Cassel focus on physicians. Not on how much physicians earn (salary or profit), but how they choose to spend health care dollars, because “Health care costs are directly related to decisions made in clinical practice”. They go on to say that “These decisions are difficult to influence because they are made in the context of individuals who are often sick and vulnerable, with little understanding of the potential benefits and risks of diagnostic and therapeutic options. Patients seek help from physicians and physicians chose careers to provide this help, or at least the hope of it. Because of this relationship, it is futile to expect that changing physicians' behavior through evidence and shared decision making alone will solve the problem of high health care costs. Alternative approaches will be necessary.”

Cassel, the President and CEO of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM, the organization that certifies internists; not to be confused with the American College of Physicians, ACP, the internal medicine professional organization), is both a geriatrician and a medical ethicist. I have heard her discuss physician stewardship in individual cases, arguing that the use of resources ordered by an individual physician for an individual patient should not be based on issues other than the benefit and risk for that patient, since the physician and patient have no control over what money “saved” might be used for. (My patient and I cannot decide to not do expensive interventions and instead use the money for housing the homeless or feeding the hungry – unless s/he is that rare person paying all the costs out of pocket -- all we can decide is whether to do those interventions or not.) Savings have to be looked at on a more global level, with a shared understanding of what those “saved” dollars will be used for.

The contribution that Reuben and Cassel make in this piece is to provide something of a taxonomy of physician stewardship, examining the various levels at which it can occur beyond that of individual patient decisions. These include the “highest” level, of national and state policy where spending decisions (initially, one presumes, via Medicare and Medicaid) should be based on evidence of benefit and consistency with national policy objectives (such as, I imagine, Healthy People 2020). The second level is that of payers (insurers) who would choose to pay for interventions that are shown to be beneficial (and presumably cost effective) rather than those that are ineffective or marginal. They suggest that rather than charging high deductibles and co-pays for services that are known to be beneficial and cost-effective, they simply do not pay for those that are not. This makes sense; why should insurers pay even a significant portion of procedures that are of little or no benefit while excluding such things as hearing aids that are of great benefit and (relatively) inexpensive?

The third level that they address is the practice level, where groups of physicians can use evidence to guide their group decision making and decrease inappropriate variation in physician practice. An example of this would be the use of a limited drug formulary emphasizing generic medications (this could also occur at the insurer level). Finally, there is the individual patient level; while making cost-effective decisions at this level can be more complex, it can certainly be done. While it is certainly unfair to ask a sick person to decide upon the choice of having, or not having, a medical intervention that they can scarcely understand so that saved dollars may possibly benefit some unnamed person more, it is quite a different thing to educate people about the impact of their health decisions, especially before they become critically ill. Advance directives, such as living wills, are one method, but there are many others.

What is clearly unethical and unacceptable is for physicians to encourage patients, sick or well, to undergo a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention because the physician stands to gain financially from doing it. Unfortunately, this happens. Sometimes it is done consciously, but often it is because the physician who does the procedure (and will happen, coincidentally, to benefit financially from doing it) truly believes it is of benefit. To not believe it would, in fact, be cognitive dissonance. Although there are increasing numbers of procedures being called into question for everyone, there are far more that are of benefit to some people but not to others. It is the ability of physicians to distinguish between these people and present recommendations honestly and free of financial bias that will make the biggest difference. The fact that there are still many physician-owned for-profit hospital and “surgi-centers” in which the doctors benefit financially not only as the providers but as owners of the facility from more procedures being done argues that we have a long way to go. (See also my commentary in an earlier post, Greed, corruption and medical procedures: ignoring or suppressing the evidence?, August 12, 2011.)

The greed of human beings is not going to be wished away, whether they are physicians or lay corporate executives; whether of for-profit or not-for-profit companies. The taxonomy of Reuben and Cassel is useful for thinking about these issues, but it is only comprehensive – and thoughtful and balanced – regulation that can be sufficient impetus to make these changes happen.

"Health in All" policies to eliminate health disparities are a real answer

2011-08-18T19:07:00.000-07:00

.
At the recent American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) sponsored National Conference of Family Medicine Residents and Students (NCFMRS) held in Kansas City (hey, it can be an advantage to live in the Capital of Family Medicine!), I had the pleasure of hearing Dr. Steven Woolf’s presentation “Health Disparities and the Role of the Family Physician”. I have previously cited (eg, Economics and Disease Prevention, February 13, 2009) the work of Dr. Woolf, a professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) College of Medicine. He is one of the most distinguished health services researchers in the country, and a clear and articulate speaker.

His presentation, appropriately for residents and students, began with a description of the role of the family physician in the care of both individual patients and the communities in which they practice. He noted the major health toll exacted by “personal health behaviors”, headed by tobacco (accounting for 400,000 deaths per year) and including diet/activity (300,000), alcohol (100,000), microbial agents (90,000), toxic agents (60,000), firearms (35,000), sexual behaviors (30,000), motor vehicles (25,000), and illicit use of drugs (20,000, presumably not counting licit use of prescribed drugs). Note that, of these, only microbes are in the usual “traditional” area of medicine. His point was that to truly improve health the practitioner needs to go outside the hospital or office to the community, where these causes of ill health are located. “Health in All” policies include transportation, land use, built environment, taxes, housing, agriculture, environmental justice, etc. As an example he notes that 2.3 million (2.2%) of continental US households are more than a mile from a supermarket and do not have access to a vehicle. While Russell Shorto’s “Opinionator” piece in the NY Times July 31, 2011, “The Dutch way: bicycles and fresh bread” points out that one advantage of using bicycles as much as the Dutch do is that you can’t carry more than a day’s worth of groceries so that the bread can be fresh and preservative-free, this is not the way of things in the US; poor access to healthful food is a big contributor to poor health.

Woolf then went on to demonstrate the familiar (but maybe not to residents and students) data on the remarkable health disparities that exist in the US, particularly by race, socioeconomic status, and educational level (although also by geography, language, and other characteristics). For example, the attached table shows a 24-29% disparity between the age-adjusted mortality rates of white and black males over the period from 1991-2000. The other table shows that the health status of college graduates is much better than that of people with some college, which in turn is much better than HS graduates who have been health than those who have not graduated from HS. These disparities are truly remarkable and should be intolerable. Woolf notes that while most of our current research is focused on finding treatments that are effective, we would save far more lives if we were to focus, instead, on equity by eliminating the health disparities gap.

In a “thought experiment” that he published with colleagues in the American Journal of Public Health in 2007, “Giving everyone the health of the educated: an examination of whether social change would save more lives than medical advances”[1], Woolf demonstrates that even if we attribute all reduction in mortality over to medical advances (nowhere near true; most are due to the types of societal change generally characterized as “public health”, such as clean water, sanitation, and cleaner air), eliminating the disparities that exist on the basis of educational level would dwarf that change, as shown in this table.

But our society spends virtually all of its research dollars on developing new treatments that then are available to only a portion of our population, and have relatively little effect even on those who receive it. Big PhARMA spends $32 Billion/yr. While the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), spends $28 Billion/yr, primarily on developing new treatments, HHS’ Agency for Health Quality and Research (AHRQ), which looks at systems and utilization, receives only $300 million/yr.

Woolf and colleagues have also developed a great new tool for visually looking at the impact of disparities on health on a state and county level. Called the “County Health Calculator” (http://chc.humanneeds.vcu.edu), it allows you to pick a state or a county and compare its income level and educational level to that of the entire country (for states) or the entire state (for counties), or one state or county to another. It also presents the “best” and “worst” levels (for state or county), and allows (this is really neat!) you to use a “slider” to move the indicator to find out how changing the educational or income levels up or down would affect mortality. That is, you can see how many more lives would be saved – or lost – if your state (or county) had the income or educational levels of the average, best, or worst state (or county).

The results are truly amazing. In Kansas, for example, the two suburban Kansas City area counties are almost polar opposites. Johnson County has the highest level of education, measured as % of adults with at least some college, at 78%, and income, measured as % of adults in households that have a “basic income” (defined as at least 2x the poverty level), 86%. Wyandotte County is near the bottom, with a “some college” education level of 39% and a “basic income” level of 56%. (Statewide levels in Kansas are 58% for education and 70% for income.) Using the slider, we discover that if Wyandotte County’s basic income level of 56% were raised to Johnson County’s 86%, 201 or 28% of deaths would be averted per year. If the “some college” education level were to go from the actual 39% to Johnson County’s 78%, it would result in a reduction of 272, or 38%, in the annual death rate!

No drug comes close to this. No treatment of any kind comes close to this. If a new drug were shown to reduce mortality from a disease by 5%, or even 1%, it would get incredible advertising – hundreds of millions of dollars – and huge publicity, in both the scientific and lay press. But the simple fact that so many more deaths could be prevented, so many lives could be improved, by addressing the social determinants of health, is scarcely covered, and hardly funded at all.

We are in thrall to, primarily, the pursuit of corporate profit, but also to a “scientific” perspective that sees new discoveries as the true goal of research rather than “moving the bar” and changing the actual outcomes for actual people. Eliminating health disparities, which improve health and decrease the death rate, will also “bend the cost curve” in ways that only improving access will not. In one of his slides, Woolf presents data from Milstein, et al, in a 2011 Health Affairs article [2] demonstrating that over the next 25 years neither providing coverage nor coverage + access to care, but only both plus “protection” – addressing behavioral and environmental risks – will do so.

There is no contest to the value of a dollar spent on changing social conditions as opposed to finding “more effective” treatments. There is also no contest in where we actually spend our money. There is something rotten in the state, and it isn’t the state of Denmark.

[1] Woolf S., et al., “Giving everyone the health of the educated: an examination of whether social change would save more lives than medical advances”, Am J Public Health. 2007;97:679–683

[2] Milstein B et al., “Why behavioral and environmental interventions are needed to improve health at lower cost”, Health Affairs 2011;30:823-832

Greed, corruption and medical procedures: ignoring or suppressing the evidence?

2011-08-12T19:23:00.000-07:00

One of the challenges for physicians who seek to advocate for patients by championing cost-effective, evidence-based medicine is opposition from the medical community itself. Physicians and other health care providers, as individuals, may practice evidence-free medicine, continuing to do things that have been shown not to work, to cost more than treatments that are equally effective, and sometimes to do harm. Sometimes this comes from ignorance of the evidence, because it may seem to be too hard to keep up. Sometimes it is because practitioners have “always” done it this way”, taught years or decades ago by their teachers. Or they may think that “their” patients are different from the ones who were studied; that “their” practice has shown them what works; that there is an “art” of medicine separate from the science. Maybe they are sometimes right, but usually they are wrong.

Yes, many important studies from which evidence-based guidelines are derived do not include all types of patients. For years poor and minority people were the main substrate for research (see “Tuskeegee”). More recently, perhaps in overcompensation, poor and minority people have been left out of research trials, which funders interested in health disparities (including the National Institutes of Health, NIH) are trying to change. But the fact that the patients you take care of were not included in these studies is not sufficient evidence for the results not applying to them. And, importantly, providers caring for exactly the population of patients who were studied are no less likely to ignore the results.

It is good to learn from your teachers. Hey, I’m a teacher. But new evidence emerges, and your patients count on you to be aware of it, to use it, to be on top of the knowledge that they cannot be. Does it take time? Sure. But that is the job. And for doctors that is one of the reasons that they are well-paid. To keep up. But what about one’s own personal experience? Experience is a good guide, in the absence of other evidence, but rarely does one provider have sufficient experience to have stronger evidence than large clinical trials. Moreover, “anecdotal” experience (“I once had a patient who X treatment didn’t work for”, or more likely “I once had a patient where Y treatment worked great”) has its own pitfalls. Mainly, it is usually wrong, even in the context of that individual provider’s practice. We have a tendency to remember the unusual, and to remember that for use in our future practice rather than the usual. I remember, while working in an urgent care center before the advent of “rapid step tests”, I had to review yesterday’s throat culture results. I would see a positive result and say “Ha! I knew that patient had strep!”, but not consider all the negative tests on patients for whom I may have thought the same thing. This is why we do large clinical trials. The “art” of medicine is important, especially in areas where there is no, or insufficient, evidence, and in translating that evidence into what the patient should do. The art of medicine is not, however, in ignoring the evidence.

Much more serious, however, is when greed causes physicians refuse to abide by the evidence because it shows that something that they are doing, which makes them money, is not indicated. This too can be subconscious, because if you have been doing a procedure for a long time believing it works, it is hard to suddenly change your mind because of new evidence. It is easy for your subconscious to deny that this resistance has anything to do with your own economic benefit, and is rather the result of your knowing it works. But when large groups of physicians, professional societies, get involved, it is no longer subconscious. It is financial protectionism pure and simple.

A good example of this is the recent opposition to recommendations by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) suggesting how the Food and Drug Administration should make rules governing the use of medical devices. Some manufacturers and physician groups began to criticize them before they were even published (“Study of medical device rules is attacked, unseen”, Barry Meier, NY Times, July 28, 2011). The failure of many medical devices currently on the market, including artificial joints and defibrillators, was the impetus for this report. The IOM, a group of independent physicians and scholars convened by the National Academy of Sciences, are tasked with making recommendations on a wide variety of medical issues. Many of their most well-known reports focus on quality and patient safety, such as “To Err is Human: building a safer health system”. As Meier reports, a business group representing many of the device manufacturers went for the old “the best defense is a good offense” strategy and attacked the rules before they were promulgated. It is self-serving, but not surprising: “With millions of dollars of product sales at stake, the experts said, it is not surprising that the device industry and others would want to avert what they see as potentially restrictive new rules. Still, the lobbying has taken on a tone akin to Washington infighting over an issue like bank regulation, rather than patient health, they said.” Guess what? With millions of dollars at stake, it is exactly like attacking new bank regulations rather than focusing on patient health! (For those who are interested, the actual IOM recommendations on medical devices, Medical Devices and the Public’s Health: The FDA 510(k) Clearance Process at 35 Years is available on line.)

Of greater concern than these actions by the Washington Legal Foundation (additional information available in Wikipedia), a “pro-business group”, representing the self-interest of manufacturers, is the involvement of physicians. WLF’s attorney, Richard Samp, “… said his organization took action after the issue was brought to its attention by a lawyer who works at a firm that represents device makers. Shortly after filing its petition, the legal foundation was contacted by an official of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, which represents doctors who perform joint replacements, who congratulated it for ‘taking the bull by the horns,’ Mr. Samp said.”

This is not the first time that orthopedics organizations (which for some reason choose to use the British-style diphthong “orthopaedics” despite being Americans who do not make a practice of using other medical diphthongs such as haemorrhage, oesophagus, anaemia or oedema) have chosen to attack evidence-based rules by political means. When, back in 1995, the Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research (now the Agency for Health Quality and Research, AHRQ) issued evidence based guidelines that recommended that certain popular (and remunerative) surgeries for back pain were not very effective, the orthopedic groups were able to convince Rep. Henry Bonilla (San Antonio) to introduce legislation to de-fund the agency! (“Agency’s report provokes a revolt”, by Neil A. Lewis, NY Times September 14, 1995).That’s playing hardball! However, the procedure, vertebroplasty, was overused, usually didn’t work and often caused harm. Interestingly, mounting evidence of its inutility continues to this day, recently for vertebral fracture in the British Medical Journal[1] [2], the results of which summarized by the editors of Journal Watch General Medicine.[3]

I don’t want to pick especially upon orthopedists (or orthopaedists), although as high-income procedural specialists, they have been involved in more than their share of these issues. Many of the IOM’s recommendations involve procedures done by other specialists, including cardiologists. Indeed, we need to applaud the work of the academic cardiologists who have done the studies that show that many of these procedures that constitute a major source of income for their practicing colleagues (the pâté and vichyssoise if not the bread and butter) are not indicated.

The researchers doing this work are some of the true heroes of medicine. Those who hold on to evidence-free procedures because they make a lot of money from them need to be careful that they do not join the villains.

[1] Staples MP et al. Effectiveness of vertebroplasty using individual patient data from two randomised placebo controlled trials: Meta-analysis. BMJ 2011 Jul 12; 343:d3952. Medline abstract (Free)

[2] Wilson DJ. Vertebroplasty for vertebral fracture: On the basis of current evidence, cannot be recommended as the first line treatment. BMJ 2011 Jul 12; 343:d3470

[3] “The results do not support routine use of vertebroplasty in patients with vertebral compression fractures, including those with recent-onset pain or severe pain at baseline. Strengths of this meta-analysis include its use of individual patient data and the blinding of patients to vertebroplasty or sham procedures. As noted by the authors, lack of blinding overestimates treatment benefit, which casts doubt on the results of a recent nonblinded randomized trial that suggested vertebroplasty is superior to conservative treatment (JW Gen Med Sep 2 2010).”

Cook County Hospital: Health care for the poor or poor health care?

2011-08-06T18:59:00.000-07:00

I am a family doctor, and I did my residency training at Cook County Hospital in Chicago in the late 1970s. After a few years in Arizona, I worked as an attending physician there for another 14 years. When I tell people that, I get a lot of responses like “Oh! That must have been something!” They are thinking, I guess, that it was an endless stream of gunshots, a constant flood of the worst that they can imagine in their Emergency Rooms. It wasn’t, at least not all. Don’t get me wrong – the Emergency Room was incredibly busy, there were lots of gunshots and other traumas, and no matter where you worked there was an endless stream of people. But mostly it was doing medicine, family medicine, with people who were usually poor and usually sick and usually in need and usually not able to access care anywhere else.

David Ansell, MD, captures much of the story of “County” in his recent book of the same name.[1] It starts with his arrival as a new intern in 1978. He was part of a group of medical students from Upstate Medical School, the State University of New York medical school in Syracuse, he and 3 others in internal medicine and one in pediatrics. They had decided that they would train as a group, to support each other, and do it in a setting where they would be able to make a difference in the health care of people in need. Cook County was the place they chose, and it was no coincidence. The need was there and there was a “critical mass” of house staff with similar commitment, including me; I had started two years earlier.

The year before I came as an intern, in 1975, the House Staff Association – our union – had gone on strike. The issues were entirely about patient care, and the Hospital and its Governing Commission refused to negotiate over them. It wasn’t that they had something against unions; the County’s employees were almost all unionized and they probably would have talked about wages and traditional issues of working conditions. But when the residents defined “working conditions” as including EKG machines on the wards and nurses available to start IVs, the County wouldn’t consider negotiating. A dozen of these striking residents ended up in Cook County Jail after the politicos at the County Board got an injunction against the strike. (Ironically, one of these became, several years later, the medical director of the hospital in the Jail.) A year after Ansell got there (and after I left) in 1980, control of the hospital passed from a quasi-independent Health and Hospitals Governing Commission to become directly under the County Board, eliminating any impediment to the Board members using it as it had always been – a jobs program for their supporters.

Ansell does an excellent job of documenting the challenges facing the hospital in those years, even while telling enough “horror” or “gross out” stories to keep readers and reviewers interested. Abigail Zuger, MD, gives it a pretty good review in the New York Times (“Their zeal changed lives, if not the system”) although she doesn’t like his writing as well as that of Fitzhugh Mullan (“White Coat, Clenched Fist”[2]) or others. On the other hand, my father liked his writing style a lot.

Ansell’s story goes beyond the years of his residency, for he became an attending physician at County. He worked there for many years (when I got to know him best), before leaving to become Chair of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital in Chicago and then to his current position as Medical Director of Rush University Hospital, back across the street from where he started. He traces the long saga of the hospital. On the downside, political machinations and exploitation of the hospital and the people it served, and, on the up side, the improvements in patient care and hospital quality. For example, when I started the Emergency Room had 2 attendings who worked day shift, and the senior doctor in the ER at night might be a 2^nd-year medical resident; 10 years later it was a well-staffed ER with many attending physicians and an ER residency program. There still was and continues to be a very long wait.

The later part of the book describes the regular turmoil creates by politics at County as well as the efforts of Ansell and others to provide the best possible care to their patients, individually and as a group. County physician staff were, for the most part, incredibly dedicated both to the care of their own patients. They did whatever they could to make the hospital a good, or at least, better place for health care for the entire population that depended – and still depends -- on it. Even when that meant going head to head with the County Board and their hand-picked administrators. And that, of course, is the story.

Was – is – Cook County Hospital (now reconstituted in a new building as John H. Stroger, Jr., Hospital) a “hell-hole”, where patients received substandard care from inadequately trained physicians, in physical disastrous conditions? Or was it the only place in town where the poor, largely minority, people of Chicago could come and receive care after being overtly or covertly turned away from other sources of care? Both, certainly, although the former is much much less true than it was 30 years ago; the latter is a little less true. Not every patient who came to County was personally turned away somewhere else, of course. It was known in the community and in their family that this was the place people could go and get care, and amazingly often, get respect from doctors like Ansell.

From a lot of the doctors and other staff. Yes, some of the staff was callous, but unlike at many university teaching hospitals, the medical staff were usually concerned more about the future of the patients than about their careers; unlike in many community hospitals, they cared for everyone, not just those from a certain background, socioeconomic status or degree of “social acceptability”, or at least ability to pay.

Do I have criticisms of Ansell’s book? Sure; everyone has their own experience, and while David and I overlapped for much of our careers, and certainly, I hope, in our social concerns, I do find some things missing. Reading County one might think that all of the “good guys” and all of the good programs were in Internal Medicine. Certainly many of them were, from Quentin Young, MD, the Internal Medicine Department Chair for many of those years and still a dedicated health activist, to the plethora of committed physicians he describes and many others. But the physicians in department family medicine also played a major role.

Family medicine at Cook County? Under the leadership of Jorge Prieto, MD, Family Medicine was the pioneer for getting County doctors out of the “hulk squatting in faded splendor” on Harrison St. into the community. Dr. Prieto only agreed to take the chair of the department if the hospital agreed to set up a clinic in the Latino community. The South Lawndale Health Center, where I trained, is still there, although expanded into much bigger quarters and known as the Jorge Prieto Health Center. An entire network of community clinics was set up (and later largely dismantled), an effort led by Family Medicine. For many years, training at Cook County in Family Medicine defined urban family medicine, along with a few other programs such as Montefiore in the Bronx and San Francisco General. That is another story. David Ansell has written his book about County, and it stands on its own.

Cook County Hospital, then and now (as Stroger), is a publicly funded hospital that cares for the neediest people in the city. Is it often second class care? Maybe, but that is a step above no care, which is the reality for many people in cities and counties and states without publicly funded health care.

[1] Ansell, DA. County: Life, death and politics at Chicago’s public hospital. Academy Chicago. 2011.

[2] Mullan, F. White Coat, Clenched Fist: The Political Education of an American Physician, Macmillan, 1976.

Training Rural Doctors: The KU Salina Program

2011-07-31T20:28:00.000-07:00

Among the many forms of disparity in access to health care, the imbalance between rural and urban/suburban areas in terms of physician and other healthcare provider workforce is one of the most obstinate. The problem has been well-documented and been discussed by myself and others on a number of blog posts (e.g., Primary Care, Medical School Debt, and US Health Needs: Analysis from the Graham Center, May 31, 2001, Training rural family doctors, November 5, 2010). While the latest data from the Census Bureau show that the percentage of Americans living in rural areas has dropped from the 20% I have often cited to 16% in the 2010 census (as reported by Hope Yen for the Associated Press in Rural US disappearing? Population share hits low), 16% is not yet “disappeared”. In addition, the percent of doctors working in these areas (which I have previously cited at 9%) is almost certainly lower as well, given both retirements of older doctors and the low level of interest in entering even primary care (requisite for rural practice), not to mention rural practice itself, among graduating medical students and residents.

The problem of lack of availability of health care in many rural areas is further complicated by the aging of the rural population, which is associated with increased need for health care. There are wider reasons to fear the loss of rural doctors. Rural medical practices not only enhance health directly, they provide income and economic development for a community (jobs), and may indeed be one of the key determinants (along with schools) of why some rural communities will survive while others slowly disappear. We need strategies to increase the number of students matriculating in medical schools who are interested in rural practice, and strategies for encouraging and supporting them to enter family medicine (which is the main medical field that works in rural areas, although there are also roles for other primary care doctors such as general internists and general pediatricians, and some specialists, particularly general surgeons).

This is why the fact that the University of Kansas Medical School (KUSoM) is opening a 4-year medical school campus in the small central Kansas city of Salina is big news, not only in the state (as in reports from the Kansas Health Institute [KHI]) but nationally (as demonstrated by front-page coverage in the New York Times and on NPR). Like many state medical schools, KUSoM has long had a regional campus, in Wichita, where a portion of medical students have done their third and fourth (“clinical”) years of training. That campus will be expanded to have 8 new first-year students this year, and 28 beginning next year, who will spend 4 years in Wichita. But the bigger news is in Salina, a north-central Kansas city of just under 50,000 whose previous opportunity for fame as the place where Bobby McGee “slipped away” in Kris Kristoffersen’s song itself slipped away when Janice Joplin, in the most widely-known version, sang it incorrectly as “Salinas” (well, she was from Texas and lived in California!) [OK. I HAVE IT ON GOOD AUTHORITY THAT I AM WRONG AND IT WAS ALWAYS SALINAS. OH WELL, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD STORY.]. Eight students per year will spend their entire 4 years in Salina, making it the smallest city to have a 4-year campus and making the “New Salina med school campus unique in US” according to Dave Ranney of the KHI. Or almost unique; Indiana University School of Medicine has done something similar, expanding a first-two-years campus in Terre Haute to 4 years. The KUSoM Wichita campus has done a good job of producing primary care doctors who practice in rural Kansas compared to most places, but Wichita is the largest city in Kansas, not in itself at all rural.

A.G. Sulzberger notes in his piece, “Small town doctors made in a small Kansas town” (NY Times, July 23, 2011) that “when one visitor from the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, an accrediting body whose approval was considered a major hurdle, [s/he]remarked with surprise that the area was not just cornfields.” Of course not! Kansas is the Wheat State! That aside, Salina, on the banks of the Saline River in the Smoky Hills, does sit in the middle of an agricultural region. Indeed, it is the home of the Land Institute, a wonderful organization dedicated to developing a perennial prairie grass that will produce an economically-usable grain, that I take every opportunity to direct people to.

The perspective of New Yorkers aside, Salina is not really a small town. A 4-year curriculum equivalent to that in KC or Wichita would be impossible in too small a town because the community must have at least the “core” specialists of internal medicine, pediatrics, surgery, obstetrics-gynecology, and psychiatry as well as family medicine. Salina is a prosperous town with a large enough medical community to support all the “core” clerkships that medical students need to take in their 3^rd year, as well as faculty to lead the small groups for Problem-Based Learning (PBL) sessions, and to support the basic biomedical science education. All of the materials for the modular curriculum for the first two years of medical school is available on-line, and the fact that all lectures are podcast means that Salina students will have the option of emulating many Kansas City-based students and not attend them all. But if they do, they will be directly tied in via high-quality, high-resolution interactive TV, and will even be able to ask questions of the KC-based lecturer just as if they were in the room.

The CEO of Salina Regional Medical Center, Micheal Terry, is quoted by Sulzberger as saying “When they go off to the ritz and the glitz and pick up a spouse from the big city, it’s always hard to get them back to small-town America.” Even if you think that the ritz and glitz of Kansas City and Wichita do not make them New York or Paris (but you should visit these cities before judging), it is not just “how you gonna keep ‘em down on the farm after they seen Paree”. Medical students are usually in their 20s, at the age where they often meet their spouses, and they meet them where they live. If that is in Kansas City or Wichita, it is more likely that the spouse will be from that area and unwilling to move to a rural area, or have a job that precludes them from doing so. If the Salina program is successful, it could be a model for decentralizing even more of the KUSoM curriculum to other Kansas cities, and of course for other states.

But how will we know if it is successful? In the very short term, we will see how the students and their teachers assess the experience, as well as student performance on exams. In the relatively short term (4 years), we will see whether they mostly enter primary care programs, and some years after that, whether the indeed enter rural practice. We don’t know, of course, whether, even if they do, it will actually increase the number of students entering rural practice, because some already do. Since the students were admitted first and then those who wanted to go to a rural site chose Salina, there is at least a possibility that 8 students who would have entered rural primary care practice anyway are matriculating in Salina, and we just took 8 additional suburban students in Kansas City who will not. We hope this is not the case, and look forward to expanding the program.

In any case, it will be extremely important if it demonstrates that medical education can be decentralized and effectively taught in smaller communities, and that it can be done with high quality and in a setting that does not demand relocation to major metropolitan areas. With this new setting, we have to make sure that our admission process favors students who are most likely to become rural primary care physicians. If we do that well, we may really have something here!

Evaluating the Communications Skills of Potential Medical Students: Looking at the "Whole Person"

2011-07-25T20:00:00.000-07:00

As US medicine is becoming increasingly seen as more impersonal and technological, there is an unsurprising reaction among the people it serves. While Americans unquestionably value the benefits of high-tech interventions (at least for themselves and their loved ones – maybe not so much for others), they also want doctors who will listen to them, understand them and care about them. There is a definite sense that technical skill is great but the decision about how and to whom to apply that skill requires understanding the person, not just the disease and the potential intervention.

Most people are not in a good position to evaluate physician skill on a technical basis. Most studies on this topic have found that in general people assume quality – they assume the knowledge and skill of their doctors, and of the hospitals in which they practice. This is why hospitals and practices often compete on the basis of “hotel” services -- is there a nice lobby, is the place modern and impressive, are the rooms big, is the food good -- as well as issues such as “are complaints addressed”. When people are unhappy with their medical provider, doctor or hospital or other, it is usually because they had a bad outcome or because they didn’t get the “service” that they wanted. All of us can relate to that, but these are not always the result of “bad medicine” being practiced. Not getting the service you wanted may be medically appropriate if that service was not indicated or even potentially harmful. The bad outcome may be because the provider didn’t do a good job, but it could just as well be because there was inherent risk in both the procedure done and the underlying disease that it was intended to treat. Indeed, it may be that the potential benefits of the procedure were oversold and the risks minimized; when people are suffering they are often likely to look at potential benefits and not so much at risk. It is therefore the job of the provider to make clear what the benefits are most likely to be (not just “best case scenario”). A cure? How often? An improvement? How much? A longer life? How long? And in what condition? And what are the risks? And costs? This, of course, gets back to communication.

On the whole, medical students have not been selected for communication skills. Sure, admissions committees value them, but they are not “make or break” the way test scores are. Most medical school faculty have a variation on the (true) story I heard from a colleague; the interviewer, a high tech physician, wrote on the applicant’s interview form “Great scores, zero interpersonal skills. Admit.” Unfortunately for the applicant, arguably more fortunately for his/her future patients, those interpersonal skills were so poor s/he finally failed out when s/he moved from the test-taking years to the actual patient care years.

A new medical school in Roanoke, VA, the Virginia Tech Carrilion School of Medicine, is formally integrating assessments of communication skills into its admissions process, as described in the NY Times July 11, 2011, New for Aspiring Doctors, the People Skills Test. The particular method that they are using is the “Multiple Mini-Interview”, or MMI, in which applicants have a series of 8-minute discussions with an interviewer who presents them with a problem – an ethical issue, a values conflict, a team dynamic – and looks for how well the interviewee is able to approach the problem, to think about, and to express their concerns. There is no “right answer”; “Candidates who jump to improper conclusions, fail to listen or are overly opinionated fare poorly because such behavior undermines teams.” This is not the traditional model for selecting doctors, who are classically opinionated, the “boss”, and so sure of themselves as to often be accurately characterized as arrogant. The article indicates that many other medical schools are looking at this system, originally developed at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, or another similar one.

Of course, there was a response to this article and not all of it was positive. Most of the letters published in the Times on July 18 were critical in one way or another. Several were from physicians, but I will not mention the specialty for fear of feeding stereotyping (if you are interested in knowing, following the link above). While one writer set up a straw man to attack: “Charm won’t save a patient’s life,” which confuses (presumably on purpose) the ability to communicate and work with others as “charm”, other letters suggested that their authors had familiarity with the specific test, the MMI. They perceived flaws in the test, suggesting that it might overselect extraverts compared with introverts and be disadvantageous for the applicant “…with less ‘real world’ experience or an applicant with fewer resources who may have less experience navigating ethical discussions,” or that it “may ‘weed out’ talented applicants who have the compassion and capacity for great “people skills” but have not had the time or opportunity to nurture them.” Another worried “that the stressful mini interviews might screen out not bullies, but mildly awkward people who would be fine when dealing with real patients and nurses.”

Another writer was generally supportive, but worried that “…while speed ethics tests are at best an intriguing experiment, at worst they are the latest gimmick”. This person suggested that “Medical schools might try looking at the whole person.” Of course, “looking at the whole person” is exactly what Virginia Tech Carilion and other medical schools are trying to do, whether using the MMI or other methods of assessment. They are trying to get instruments to measure that “whole person” beyond the ability to score well on multiple-choice tests, which have, after all, long been the cornerstone for deciding who gets into medical school. Our “charm” writer suggests that the answer is to “select brilliant students, and then cultivate their social skills.” Of course, all the data suggests that “brilliance” aside, it is much easier to teach knowledge and technical skill (the whole point of the medical education experience) than it is to teach social skill, as demonstrated by the elegant work of Dr. Robert Sade and colleagues, “Criteria for the Selection of Medical Students”[1], published in the Annals of Surgery in 1985.

Much other research has demonstrated that the traditional methods of selection (high test scorers, mostly from privileged backgrounds) predict success in the first two years of test-based education but not at all in the clinical years or in practice. MMI also has a research basis; Dr. Harold Reiter, the McMaster professor who developed it says “…candidate scores on multiple mini interviews have proved highly predictive of scores on medical licensing exams three to five years later that test doctors’ decision-making, patient interactions and cultural competency.”

Perhaps the MMI is not the best tool for assessing communication and teamwork skills, but it is a good one, and those are important skills. Those skills, as Dr.Sade identified, are among those we should be selecting for. If the applicant has “less ‘real world’ experience” but has “…not had the time or opportunity to nurture them,” maybe it is important for them to do that and find out if they are capable before they are accepted to medical school.

The correlations we will ultimately need to have to see if our methods of medical student selection are good or not will not be with performance on multiple choice tests. They will look longer term at specialty choice, practice location and at the benefit to the health of the patients they care for. Most important will be the overall health of our population. In the meantime, we should at least accept medical students who have the basic interpersonal skills to communicate effectively with another human being.

[1] Sade RM, et al. Criteria for selection of future physicians. Ann Surg. 1985 February; 201(2): 225–230

"Reforming" Medicaid, or Cutting Medicaid: No shortage of folks to cast the first stone

2011-07-19T19:22:00.000-07:00

Jeff Colyer, MD, the Lieutenant-Governor of Kansas, has been leading an effort for Governor Sam Brownback to “reform” Medicaid for the state. This is of concern because the state faces the same budget crunches that are faced by most states and the relatively high cost of Medicaid as a percent of the state budget (about 22% in Kansas). Gov. Brownback wants to cut $200-400 M in Medicaid expenditures and is looking for ideas on how to do so. In the Fiscal Times, Blair Briody’s piece Medicaid’s Ticking Bomb Could Wipe Out State Budgets discusses the challenges states face with increased enrollment in Medicaid (6.5% in 2009) because of job losses resulting from the same economic crisis that has state revenues down. Of course, there is another solution, but (like most new Republican governors) Gov. Brownback and his legislature are firmly opposed to increasing revenues (ie, taxes)

Dave Ranney, reporting for the Kansas Health Institute, covered the second of two (so far) public forums, held in Wichita and led by Lt Gov. Colyer and attended by Secretary of the Department of Health and Environment Bob Moser, MD (Moser is a family physician; Colyer is a plastic surgeon). In Medicaid forum generates long list of reform ideas Ranney lists many of the ideas identified by working groups. They include:

• Enact policies that discourage non-emergency visits to emergency rooms.
• Remind families of their moral obligation to at least share in the costs of caring for frail elders.
• Reward behaviors that improve health. Discourage those that do not.
• Increase the numbers of nurse practitioners in the state’s rural areas.
• Let Medicaid beneficiaries know how much their services cost.
• Do more to promote “living wills” and hospice care, less to promote nursing home care.
• Limit families' ability to switch managed care providers more than once a year.
• Do more to encourage businesses to hire disabled people.
• Approach companies like Home Depot and Lowe’s about helping people with disabilities make their homes accessible; installing wheelchair ramps, for example.
• Foster home-like homes for frail seniors or disabled people who might otherwise move to a nursing home.
• Reduce the potential for fraud and abuse by not allowing family members to be paid for caring for elderly relatives.
• Close one or both of the state hospitals for people with severe developmental disabilities.
• Find ways to better coordinate patient care.

Something is missing from this list. That would be any suggestion that the state has a responsibility to provide quality health care to Medicaid recipients. Of course, that might cost a lot more, not less money. Some of these ideas are reasonable, like asking Home Depot and Lowe’s to help people, encouraging businesses to hire the disabled, and developing “home-like homes” (I love that; as opposed to ‘non-home-like homes’, or ‘home-like non-homes’?) for frail seniors and disabled people. They might even help some folks, but they are unlikely to save Medicaid much money. Others, such as increasing the number of nurse practitioners in rural areas, are good ideas, but without a strategy that addresses how are of little use. Nurse practitioners do not locate in rural areas for the same reasons that physicians do not: because they are often from urban areas and can make more money in urban areas, particularly working in subspecialties rather than primary care. Paying them more to work in rural areas might be effective, but that also would cost more money.

Closing the state hospitals for people with severe developmental disabilities would probably save money, but only if adequate services can be provided for them in the community. Whoops, that will also cost more money. And that money will be vulnerable every year, especially when there is a budget shortfall. We have experience in this area. Several decades ago, across the country, we closed state mental hospitals because we could provide better mental health care in community mental health centers while giving the patients a better shot at a higher quality of life. Unfortunately, after “de-institutionalization” (as it was called), federal and state governments ratcheted down funding for community mental health services. The result? Lots of homeless, under-treated, mentally ill people. It is not clear to me that those with severe developmental disabilities will even do as well.

Doing more to promote “living wills” and hospice care might be good for many people, Medicaid or not, as would finding ways to better coordinate patient care. Of course, nursing homes are businesses, and state government wants to be business-friendly.

The most obvious characteristic of the list is that most of the suggestions fall squarely in the category of “blaming the victim”. They are mean-spirited and reflect a definite sense that the people who are receiving Medicaid are, by and large, irresponsible, manipulative, and wasteful. Certainly they are not anything like the people making the suggestions! Thus, we should limit their ability to change providers and we should emphasize the importance of families taking care of their elders (whether those families have any resources or not; whether they have families or not). In the cases where they do have families we need to reduce the potential for fraud and abuse by not allowing family members to be paid for caring for elderly relatives, enact policies that discourage non-emergency visits to emergency rooms, let beneficiaries know how much their services cost. How these would save money without hurting the health of beneficiaries is not made clear. What if the providers are not meeting the patients’ health needs? What if the frail elders (and here I assume that we are talking about people who receive both Medicare and Medicaid, known as “dual-eligibles”) do not have families, or if their families are without resources? What if they do have families and now those family members cannot go out and get a job because they are caring for frail elders but we won’t pay for it? And what is the point of reminding them what their benefits cost? It is presumably health care providers who order the tests and treatments, and these are based, presumably, on medical need.

It is actually, by and large, a pretty ugly list. Maybe we should remind the members of these citizens’ panels what their benefits cost. Are they paying out of their pockets for their health care, or do they have insurance? Is there anything more morally acceptable about receiving inappropriate, medically unjustified, non-evidence-based health care if one is insured by something other than Medicaid? Or is not receiving appropriate, medically justified, evidence-based health care more acceptable if one is on Medicaid? In my last post I cited the June 28, 2011 NY Times article, “New prostate cancer drugs extend lives but raise costs”, in which Andrew Pollack notes that Medicare is going to look into whether to pay for drugs that may extend life for a few months but cost upwards of $90,000 per course of treatment, but that “…some patient advocates and politicians portrayed the review as a step toward rationing.” I hope that these are not the same people who are advocating rationing for those who are poor.

Because that is what Medicaid patients are. Poor. Not all poor people get on Medicaid, of course. In most states, including Kansas, only poor people who are children and their mothers, severely disabled people, or people in need of long-term care, are on Medicaid. Not undocumented people, not childless adults no matter how poor or in need of health care. But everyone on Medicaid is poor. If there were any poor people on these panels, whether or not they were Medicaid recipients, you can be sure that these suggestions did not come from them. There is not a single working-class, middle-class, professional or upper-class member of any of these panels who would want to change places with these poor people so that they can get Medicaid. It is so much easier to judge others.

The reality is that the most useful suggestions will not save much if any money, and most of the rest are mean. In an Op-Ed in the Wichita Eagle, state Rep. Jim Ward (D-Wichita) suggests that the cuts first “Do no harm”. He states it is from the Hippocratic Oath, which it is not really (see Physician Oaths and Social Responsibility, July 7, 2011), but it is a good idea. Another really good idea is close management of the sickest, highest-cost, highest-risk patients using health coaches or promotoras (such as those described by Dr. Atul Gawande in The hot spotters: can we lower medical costs by giving the neediest patients better care?” and discussed by me in Freedom abroad, health at home: experiments in preventive health care, February 13, 2011).

The necessary step to both maximizing health and minimizing cost is to have a single-payer system so that we are all in the same program, so that cutting your benefits cuts mine. Then we can make wise decisions on the most medically appropriate, as well as cost-effective, way to spend that money.

Direct-to-Consumer Advertising and the Role of Advocacy Organizations: Two Threats to Evidence Based Testing

2011-07-13T20:02:00.000-07:00

Two recent “Commentaries” in the same issue of JAMA address different challenges to the implementation of evidence-based practice guidelines. One, “Direct-to-consumer cardiac screening and suspect risk evaluation” by Lovett and Liang[1] addresses the challenges posed by the potential for profit that occurs when companies market screening tests direct to the consumer (DTC) that may not be indicated, may not be indicated for the people who it is marketing to, or may even be harmful to the recipients of such screening. This harm can, of course be physical, as in untoward events, or in risks inherent in the further procedures for those who “screen positive” but turn out to have been “false positives”. The harm is also financial, for there is a cost to doing these tests – to the individual (sometimes) or to their insurer; in the latter case, whether that insurance is public (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid) or private, the cost is to all of us. And, of course, that cost is the reason for such marketing, as it is what translates into profit for the company selling the test.

In the case of cardiac screening, Lovett and Liang, using the recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF/AHA), describe heavily-marketed tests that can cause more harm than benefit to the many people who are not in the narrowly-targeted group for whom the tests are indicated; other tests which have valid indications although, again, in the appropriate populations; and finally tests for which there is little or no evidence. The marketing of these tests can incur anxiety or fear in people who have no reason to be worried about these conditions and may occur outside the physician-patient relationship, thereby not allowing people to get the physician’s analysis of the results even when the test is indicated, and cost a great deal of money. This is particularly true when a possibly-positive test needs to be followed up with a number of other tests to rule it out, this time covered by insurance. They make several suggestions for how DTC companies should be regulated. They conclude that, “DTC cardiac testing may pose more harm than benefit to many consumers. Oversight efforts are needed to protect the public from inappropriate testing and to ensure that the health care dollar is spent on care promoting health in an evidence-based fashion.” I would say that is a mild suggestion!

The issue raised by the other article is probably more insidious; because it lacks the obvious profit motive present in DTC marketing, we may be less wary. In “Health advocacy organizations and evidence based medicine”[2], Sheila Rothman examines the tendency for groups that are created around a single disease (e.g., breast cancer, epilepsy, autism, etc.) to push for screening tests, diagnostic tests, and treatments for “their” disease whether or not there is evidence to support their use. In response to an Institute of Medicine (IOM) survey that sought to identify what tests and treatments should be included in a basic benefits package, “They contended that EBM [evidence-based medicine] should serve merely as an aid in medical decision making, not as the basis for it. Outcome data, they insist, should not limit patient choice or restrict available services.” This is truly remarkable. These groups are basically saying “our disease is so important we should screen everyone, everyone who screens positive should have diagnostic tests, and everyone who has it should be able to get any treatment that they want, even if there is weak or no evidence for its efficacy. And, of course, someone else should pay for it.” This would probably be unreasonable if there was only one such disease, but there are hundreds and each is the “most important” for its advocacy organization. The reason that this is more insidious is that these groups are not seeking to make a profit on these tests and treatments (usually); they are (usually) functioning as advocates for people who are truly suffering.

However, the fact that people are truly suffering does not mean that society should screen large numbers of low-risk people for all of these conditions. There are, of course, some things that we should and do screen everyone for. We screen all newborns for a set on genetic or congenital conditions for which identification makes all the difference. Two good examples are congenital hypothyroidism (in which the newborn thyroid doesn’t function) and phenylketonuria (in which the newborn lacks the enzyme to break down a certain protein). Undetected (and thus untreated) these lead to serious disease, mental retardation and death. Detected, and easily treated (by thyroid hormone replacement and avoidance of phenylalanine-containing foods, respectively) the child can lead a normal life. But every condition with an advocacy organization is not one of these, nor are the screening, diagnostic tests, and treatments so straightforward.

Sometimes, these advocacy groups may indeed have a financial interest in a test or treatment, but even when they do not, they may push for policies that allow physicians to prescribe expensive brand-name drugs even when generic drugs have not been tried. Or to demand the availability of expensive but unproven treatments: “’Autism Speaks’ criticized insurance companies that refused to pay $300 000 for 4 years of applied behavior analysis therapy for toddlers, despite a lack of evidence of effectiveness.” That is a lot of money even if we know a treatment is effective, but it is an awful lot when we do not. The issue is that this organization is focused only on people with “its” disease, and has no concern for what the money could otherwise be used for to treat other people with proven therapies. Maybe this is their role, but there is no reason that the rest of society must buy into this logic.

Cancer, of course, has the strongest set of advocacy organizations, and breast cancer is far and away the leader. I wrote about the issue of advocacy versus evidence regarding the most recent USPSTF recommendations for screening in Breast Cancer Screening and Evidence-based Medicine, November 25, 2009. More recently I looked at these issues, including both breast and prostate cancer screening, in Men’s Health? Women’s Health? Valid screening opportunities or “Hallmark Holidays”?, March 15, 2011. In this context, the Food and Drug Administration recently approved several new drugs for metastatic prostate cancer. The cost can be over $90,000 for each treatment cycle and might exceed $500,000. In the June 28, 2011 NY Times article, “New prostate cancer drugs extend lives but raise costs”, Andrew Pollack notes that Medicare is going to look into whether to pay for these drugs, but that “…some patient advocates and politicians portrayed the review as a step toward rationing.” Excuse me? Don’t we already have rationing based on whether or not one has money or insurance? I recently addressed this in my recent post The real face of lack of access to health care, June 19, 2011. It is not ok for “patient advocates” to advocate for some people to get any kind of treatment paid for by someone else (e.g., Medicare) when everyone who has that medical need is not able to get care. And since there will be more things to spend money on than there is money, there needs to be a more rational system than “Me first!” This system is the use of evidence-based guidelines.

Rothman concludes her commentary:

“However valuable independent advocacy organizations are for a democratic society and however important their services provided to targeted populations, their advocacy positions and the related underlying assumptions must be scrutinized with the same diligence as those of other stakeholders. There should be no automatic assumption that all health advocacy organizations deserve special standing or represent the common good.”

And for good reason, because they probably do not.

[1] Lovett KM, Liang BA, “Direct-to-consumer cardiac screening and suspect risk evaluation “,JAMA 2011Jun23/29;305(24):2567-8.

[2] Rothman SM, “Health advocacy organizations and evidence based medicine”, JAMA 2011Jun23/29;305(24):2569-10.