Does AI communicate better than real doctors? If so, why is that?

The New York Times recently ran an article titled “Empathetic, Available, Cheap: When A.I. Offers What Doctors Don’t”, which should be very concerning to the medical profession as it emphasizes three things that they are often not. But probably won’t concern the real decision makers in healthcare – the corporate owners, “health systems”, insurance companies, and private equity. After all, their concern is solely making money, and they are doing just fine, thank you.

The article indicates that AI seems to be responsive to and nice to people, and seems to show respect, concern, and empathy; “seems to” is important, because these are computer programs, not people, and they don’t have any feelings. Nonetheless, people feel better when they are addressed with respect, concern, and compassion. Even if it is programmed and not real. The truth is that doctors and other actual people do not always do so, for a variety of reasons. And they don’t even have the chance to if the patient cannot contact them, which is so common as to be routine these days

For many years, I told medical students that, while they had worked very hard to master the language of medicine, learning idioms, jargon, eponyms, and acronyms so they could fit in and impress their seniors, residents and attending physicians, regular people would not understand them if they spoke like that. They had to be able to translate that back into their first language, English (or whatever their vernacular was). This is an important skill, for without it people (“patients”) won’t understand what you are saying, and won’t know what is going on with them. And that is important. It takes effort, and it takes intentionality – you must want the person to understand what you are saying. That’s is true even if what you are telling them is bad news, something that will make them upset or unhappy.

I thought about this after a recent conversation with a couple of current medical students. I made the points above, about the importance of communicating in a way people can understand, and observed that, in fact, often people did not understand. This was based on, among other things, the number of times I had to try to explain to my patients, as a family doctor, what their specialist was saying. And the number of times I had to try to figure out, as a family member or friend, what my family member or friend’s doctor had been telling them that led them come away with what seemed to be an incorrect understanding of the situation. I have even said “If you assume that no one ever understands anything their doctor tells them, you will be correct a distressing percent of the time”.

The students agreed, but when they gave examples from their experience, I became more concerned.

A surgeon I worked with was unable to get all of the cancer out, but when telling the patient used all kinds of technical and unfamiliar terms, like ‘clean margins’. It was like they were trying to not lie, but to obfuscate what they were saying by talking in words and phrases that were technically true but not meaningful to the patient. I was left, after the surgeon had gone, to try to respond to the patient who asked me ‘What did they just say?’”

Obviously, this should not be the job of the medical student, but of the surgeon. And while it is tempting to say, “Well, they’re surgeons; communication is not their strength” (and while, as a family doctor, I like to think we are better at it), most or all doctors are guilty of this sometimes. (It is also true that it is even harder when you have to acknowledge that the bad news may, in fact, be the result of something you did wrong, but this is a separate area.)

I have recently had experience with close family members who had complications during procedures. One, during an endoscopy, had their blood oxygen level drop and had to have a breathing treatment afterwards, receiving a new diagnosis of asthma. This was upsetting, but at least they were told everything. Another, in a much more concerning episode, had major lung surgery. After the surgery, they had terrible, persistent pain which was not adequately treated. Several months later, visiting another doctor (not the surgeon), they were told that their oxygen level had also dropped severely, as a result of having a pneumothorax, a serious, potentially dangerous condition where air gets into the chest cavity and can partially collapse the lung. More relevant, it can be terribly painful. This might explain why the nurses, following their pain-management algorithms, did not give the patient sufficient pain medication. It is still not clear if they were told their patient had a pneumothorax, but it is definitely clear that the patient, my family member, was not told. They should, of course, have been.

There are a lot of potential problems with AI providing people medical information, some of which are discussed in theTimes article. For one thing, it could be wrong. It doesn’t really know you, and part of the reason that you are consulting the medical AI (or real clinician) is that you don’t actually know either exactly what is wrong with you, or how to put it in terms that will get you the correct answer to your question even if the AI is capable of getting the correct answer. Of course, sadly, the same can be true of real doctors, especially when you don’t actually speak to them; the article leads with the story of a person who wanted advice on how to increase the protein in their diet, and received generic – and unhelpful – answers from the physician on line (presumably a “patient portal”). For all we know, they could have been AI produced.

It would be much better – some of us would say essential – for doctors to communicate fully and honestly with their patients, using language that they can understand, even when the news is not good. And for them to be there, being, well, patient, while their patient tries to formulate questions, and answer them. But there are a lot of reasons that they don’t, or can’t.

A part of it may be that they are poor communicators, or uninterested in having their patients understand everything, especially if it could be embarrassing or take a lot of time. But AI doesn’t have that problem. It is not paid by the patient, and it has no set number of people it has to see in a given amount of time the way that real clinicians do. These actual clinicians often work in hamster-wheel conditions (time spent not only seeing patients but having to do electronic charting aimed at maximizing profit via upcoding as much as possible) which are not the fault of the doctor, but of their employers who are interested in “throughput” to make as much money as possible. Saliently, procedures are relatively well reimbursed but spending the time necessary to talk to a person to be sure that they completely understand what is going on is not. Of course, this is also part of the reason that there are fewer students entering primary care and more are entering better-paid procedure-based specialties.

Having a health care system that valued, and paid for, communication would be good. It would have to start with a system designed to maximize the health of our people, not corporate profit. Yes, there would still be some doctors who communicated poorly, and even made poor medical decisions, but those could be dealt with as individuals, rather than having them intrinsically encouraged by the system.

Doctors could and should do better, and maybe there is a place for AI. But there is no place for profit in healthcare.

Mamdani, universal health coverage, and the scandal of profits over healthcare

First, let me offer congratulations to Zohran Mamdani and the people of New York who elected him. While the news focus is on him, and of course he merits it, it is the “them” that is more important. New Yorkers showed that they want someone who stands with and for them, for their needs, for their ability to afford rent, and healthcare, and education, and food, rather than for the developers and billionaires and financiers (overlapping groups) who have long controlled the city. It should be a wakeup call to the finance-oriented Democrats, not to mention the Republicans who only stand for the oppression of people. Maybe he will be able to deliver on his promise of universal health care in the city, and maybe not, but what he, and they, have shown is that this is something people want. People most assuredly do NOT want the interests of insurance company profit to even be in the same discussion as a value in comparison to their health and healthcare, and they shouldn’t.

What is remarkable is the number of people in positions of power who do. This can, accurately, be attributed both to the financial support insurers give to politicians (and pundits) and the fact that they hang around with each other. Polls have shown that large majorities of Americans support universal health care, and the NYC election was another important such “poll”. But, in fact, things are going in the opposite direction for healthcare and the health of the American people. The party of Snidely Whiplash (PSW) is doing everything it can to make people’s lives worse. They have made it eminently clear that they don’t think all Americans should have health coverage by keeping the government shut down rather than talk about continuing the subsidies for ACA demanded by the Democrats. 

And remember that lots of things besides healthcare coverage affect health – access to adequate food is one of the main ones. So, because, I guess, the PSW so enjoys being mean, they have cut SNAP (food stamps) benefits dramatically, so that more children can go hungry. Twirl that mustache, Snidely! In Tucson, as around the country, food banks that are already overwhelmed will see huge increases in need. We just loaded up the car with boxes of food for the community food bank donated by members of our HOA. They were particularly heavy because of the cans of beans, tuna, chicken, and peanut butter donated especially because the food bank is often out of protein. Which, you may recall, people, and especially growing children, need! You see, grants for the food bank to buy this food from local farmers, which benefitted the farmers as well, have been cut off. Just when you thought we couldn’t be meaner, har har har! 

Government policies that cut aid for food and healthcare are terribly damaging to Americans’ health. Rural hospitals are closing because so many of their patients are covered by Medicaid, which has been dramatically cut. Telehealth programs that might have helped fill that gap are ending. If anyone still believed the private, for-profit sector (as opposed to the volunteer non-profit sector, like food banks) might step into help, they are doing the opposite. Recent insurance company actions have doubled down on limiting access to care, paying for care, and of course caring. Just a few recent actions detailed by Health Care Un-covered include ‘Coverage Without Care: The Cruel Math of Health Insurance Open Enrollment’ and  ‘UnitedHealth CEO Says Company is Cutting Thousands of Doctors Out of Network to Boost Profits‘. You thought it was already hard to find a doctor? The largest health insurance company in the nation doesn’t care; it does care about making more money! Remember that when you see their ads on TV!

Many people – well, pundits, not actual people – say the problem is people need to have jobs, to contribute to the economy. Others, perhaps (?) more well-meaning suggest people need more education about how to choose and navigate the health insurance system so they are not (or are at least less) screwed. Baloney. Read this story on the KFF site about Dr. Lauren Hughes, whose car was T-boned 20 miles from her home. She had injuries including a broken ankle, but the hospital to which she was taken was “out of network” for her insurance, and she ended up with a $64K bill! Dr. Hughes is a highly-educated, knowledgeable, skilled and experienced family physician, who also leads a health policy research group at the University of Colorado. She knows way more about how the system works than most people – heck, than most doctors! And she still was screwed (not just with the ones in her ankle)! Because of her knowledge, role, and indeed clout, and the support of others she was able to get most of the insurance company decision reversed, but good luck if it is you, or someone else who has less of all of those advantages!

The KFF piece is full of phrases that should infuriate, and nauseate, any decent human being, like “out of network”, “surprise billing”, “uncovered care”, “observation status”. These are all strategies (“gimmicks” would minimize their significance) to make more profit for insurance companies by denying you health care. Another recent Health Care Un-covered piece discusses ‘Where Do Our Health Insurance Premiums Go?’, and the answer is profits, stock buy-backs, lobbying, executive salaries. Not increasing coverage or access, decreasing rates; indeed, quite the opposite: as profits go up, so does consumer cost, while access goes down! In any other country, these phrases would be anathema. Every other country that can possibly be considered “wealthy” or even “middle income” (an international classification that almost any American would still see as “poor”) has universal health care. The concept that any person, not to mention a “well-insured”, educated, professional – physician! -- would have such indignities heaped on them and not receive the care they need as a right of their citizenship (and in many countries, even non-citizens) would outrage them. I would like to remind folks of two pieces I wrote long ago, both coincidentally related to films. One thing to NOT worry about: paying for health care -- in France, is from 2012. It discusses the film Le Havre, and how amid the tribulations of being poor, worry about paying for necessary health care was not one of them. The other, from 2009, "Sick Around America": A little bit sickening, talks about TR Reid’s special “Sick around the world” and something from it that has stayed with me.

In each country he [Reid] asked how many of their citizens went bankrupt as a result of health care debts, and they all said none. The most dramatic response was from the President of the Swiss Confederation, a conservative who had originally opposed the Swiss program in the early 90s. “No one,” he boomed in his French-accented English, “why, it would be a national scandal!”

It should be a national scandal here; indeed, it is a scandal that, for so many it is not. The American people know this, and increasingly will be punishing politicians who do not care, or who, with a total lack of not only empathy but any moral or religious compass at all, put the financial profits of insurance companies above the health of our people, when in fact it should have ZERO weight.

Back in 1958, Harry Golden, a writer, humorist, and published of the Carolina Israelite wrote the best-seller “Only in America”. At the time, reviewers’ comments focused on his being a Southern Jew, and on his support for integration (the moral issue of that age). But it is sad to think that nearly 70 years later, “Only in America” refers to the lack of a universal health care system, unique among the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the rich) countries.

It is long past time to change that!