Many of us are concerned about the cost of medical care,
particularly in the US. We are also concerned about the care that we, ourselves
or our families and friends receive. We want the diagnostic tests and
treatments we get to be likely to benefit us and to not cause us harm. Or, if
there is chance that we may be harmed, that the probability and degree of
benefit exceeds the probability and degree of harm. Sometimes there can be a
tension here: we want to spend less
on health care globally (and certainly less on the portion that just goes into
the pockets of big corporations, like pharmaceutical companies and device
manufacturer, insurers and huge health provider networks), but don’t want to scrimp on things that may
benefit us. Especially when we are
well-insured and not paying for it directly out of our pocket.
Fortunately, there are many times when these two different
interests come together, when tests or treatments that are costly are also of
no benefit to us, and may cause us harm. The problem is that sometimes our
doctors recommend them to us anyway, or, frankly, we ask for them (because we’ve
read about it on the Internet or seen an ad on TV or because a doctor
recommended it for our Cousin Shirley who had the same thing, or at least
something that sounded a little the same). How can we, as patients, know when
our doctors are recommending a test or treatment that is not indicated for us,
will not benefit us, may even cause us harm? How do we know when we are
appropriately advocating for ourselves as opposed to asking for something
inappropriate? It is not easy, but we can try.
One answer is NOT to reject all medical recommendations for
diagnosis or treatment, to assume that something “natural” is always right.
Medicine can do a lot; it can treat a lot of illnesses that can cause you to
suffer or die prematurely. There are many tests that are proven useful or
valuable for making diagnoses. Another is to not reject things simply because
they cost money (difficult when you don’t have much and they cost a lot), but
also not to ask to have them because you have
money (or insurance). To a great extent it is asking your doctor questions, asking
about the degree of benefit, hoping that they are up to date, trying to question
what the likely benefit is from another test or treatment, especially if
costly. It also, sadly, means understanding if the doctor themselves, or a
company they work for, stands to make profit on the test or treatment, since
this creates a conflict of interest (but certainly does not mean that it always
or usually isn’t appropriate).
There is an entire medical literature on medical overuse,
and your doctor should be familiar with it, or at least the most egregious
overuses that are in her/his field. A recent article in JAMA Internal Medicine , “Update on Medical Practices That Should
Be Questioned in 2015”, by Morgan et al., reviews some of these.[1]
The authors reviewed the literature on articles published in 2014, and came up
with 104 that at least one of the 3 thought was very important, and 33 that all
agreed were very important. The article reports on the “Top 10”, because this
is a nice, round number and because it seems to be a manageable number of
things for doctors to remember. Just these 10 represent a lot of excess tests
and excess expense.
I will summarize some of these 10 (the ones I feel are most
relevant; you can find them all in the article), both to remind doctors and
other health care providers who might not have seen it, and because other
readers may have had these tests recommended. Before doing so, it is important
to review the difference between a screening
test, done on the general population (or a subset of it) who don’t have any
symptoms, and a diagnostic test, which
may be the same test done on someone with symptoms related to what that test
tests for. Frequently a test is useful for diagnosis for someone with symptoms
but in someone without may not only be of little use, but find “false positives”
that end up leading to more testing with more cost and greater risk.
- There Is No Benefit to Screening for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis. None, for screening. Ultrasound or other tests may be of value for people with TIAs or other symptoms.
- Screening Pelvic Examinations Are Inaccurate in Asymptomatic Women and Are Associated With Harms That Exceed Clinical Benefits. Again, none, for screening. You can’t screen for ovarian cancer. I have been trying to convince my residents of this for years, despite their being often taught otherwise by OB-Gyns. This is the part where the provider puts his/her hands inside. It is NOT the same as a Pap smear, which is recommended for screening.
- Head Computed Tomography Is Often Ordered but Is Rarely Helpful. Often finds clinically insignificant abnormalities. Also, often repeated with no added benefit. (“A retrospective cohort analysis reviewed 130 patients admitted for any cause at least 7 times during a 1-year period to a tertiary care center. Patients received a mean of almost 7 CT scans, including 3 head CT scans. More than one-third (36%) of head CT scans were ordered to evaluate for altered mental status. Only 4% (7/127) of head CTs had clinically significant findings that resulted in a change in management.”)
- Thyroid Cancer Is Massively Overdiagnosed, Leading to Concrete Harms. Study is from S. Korea, where they screen for it.
- There Is No Benefit to Paracetamol (Acetaminophen) for Acute Low Back Pain. “The median times to recovery were 17 days in both of the paracetamol groups and 16 days in the placebo group.” This does not mean we should be using opioids, though. In fact, when we give opioids for good reasons, like postoperative pain…
- Postoperative Opioid Use Continues Past the Postoperative Period.
Some
overuse comes because practices once felt to be appropriate, but now shown not
to be, are being taught to trainees, who either don’t know or are loathe to
disagree with their instructors. Some comes, consciously or not, from the
potential for providers to make money. Another recent JAMA Internal Medicine[2]
study looked at family medicine and internal medicine residents who saw “secret
shoppers”, standardized patients who were requesting inappropriate imaging. About
25% of the time the tests were ordered, which could be seen as either bad or
good (75% of the time they weren’t). The study also showed no difference
between those residents who got significant feedback and those who didn’t, and
similar (and generally good) techniques of communicating to the patients why
these were not indicated. An interesting wrinkle is that some of the tests
chosen (MRI or CT for new-onset uncomplicated low back pain) were imaging
studies not recommended by the American
Academy of Family Physicians and American
College of Physicians (Internal Medicine) as part of the “Choosing Wisely” campaign, but are
not recommended against by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
in their “Choosing Wisely recommendations. Of course, orthopedists stand to
benefit from doing surgery on these patients. (By the way, among the
recommendations of the AAFP is not doing screening pelvic examinations!)
What
is the social justice issue here? After all, tests and treatments that are not
indicated should not be done on anyone, regardless of financial or insurance
status, racial or ethnic characteristics. Indeed, one could argue that those
with more money or better insurance would be the most
likely recipients of extra tests. But poorer, or less well-insured, people
often don’t get the tests and treatments that they actually need (which has
often been discussed in this blog; see for example Dead
Man Walking: People still die from lack of health insurance, November 17,
2013), while tests and treatments are overused for others. This creates the
(accurate) perception of a two-class health care system, and the (sometimes,
perhaps, less accurate) perception that the disadvantaged are, in addition to not
getting care they need, are not getting discretionary care that benefits the
wealthy. Also, the more money spent globally on unnecessary medical care, the
less available for necessary non-medical initiatives (housing, food, education)
that would actually create better health.
A
single payer system would not in itself achieve this goal, but it would create
far more equity in the allocation of healthcare dollars, and at least eliminate
the profit motive that might impact the recommendations of some providers and healthcare
institutions.
[1] Morgan
DJ, Dhruva SS, Wright SM, Korenstein D, Update on Medical Practices That Should
Be Questioned in 2015, JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Dec 1;175(12):1960-4. doi:
10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5614.
[2] Fenton
JJ, Kravitz RL, Jerant A, et al., Promoting Patient-Centered Counseling to
Reduce Use of Low-Value Diagnostic Tests: A Randomized Clinical Trial, JAMA
Intern Med. Published online December 07, 2015.
doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.6840
No comments:
Post a Comment