More residency slots: Good, but not going to solve the primary care shortage...

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, recently announced that it will be funding an additional 440 residency positions in 135 hospitals in 37 states. This is a good thing, and a step in the direction of reducing the glaring shortage of physicians in the US. CMS already funds most of the residency positions, something which is probably not intuitively obvious to those not involved in post-graduate medical education, but it is so even if it is not clear why (as opposed to, say, Congress directly appropriating such funding). This is important because while you are a doctor (physician) on graduation from medical school, you can’t obtain a license to practice anywhere without residency training (e.g., family medicine, pediatrics, surgery, psychiatry, radiology, etc.). Thus, past efforts to increase the number of physicians by increasing the number of medical schools (or the class size in existing medical schools) fail, because the residency pipeline has been static. It has only, perhaps, decreased the number of international medical graduates filling those positions. 

CMS further states, per this piece in MedPage Today, that 2/3 of those slots will be in primary care and psychiatry, two areas in which the shortage of physicians and other clinicians is particularly acute. This is also good, but will continue to have limited impact, at least until we see exactly which specialties are getting those positions. “Primary care” is not a specialty in which there is a residency; usually the term is used to include family physicians, general pediatricians, and general internists (as well as those general practitioners who completed only one year of post-graduate training, ie., internship, when that was sufficient to receive a license). The problem is mostly with internal medicine. After completion of a 3-year internal medicine residency, the large majority (about 80%) of graduates go on to complete a fellowship in an internal medicine subspecialty (cardiology, nephrology, pulmonary medicine, endocrinology, etc.). They do not practice primary care. In addition, about half the remainder become hospitalists, caring for people in the hospital only, leaving only a small number of internal medicine residency graduates to practice primary care. While many pediatrics graduates also sub-specialize or become hospitalists, the percents are much lower. On the other hand, about 90% of family medicine graduates practice outpatient primary care. In addition, it likely includes OB/Gyn which is not primary care.*

It would be good if we could get an accurate accounting. There are “general medicine” or “primary care medicine” residency programs among the internal medicine programs which produce higher percentages of primary care outpatient practitioners -- but still not all, or even close to the 90% of family medicine. We need to know if the new CMS positions that are designated “primary care” include internal medicine; if they do, obviously the output, the number of new outpatient primary care doctors, will be significantly lower. Why should they be unclear about this? It is in the interests of many institutions to keep it fuzzy. Medical schools have long reported on the percent of their graduates entering primary care, and they have included all those entering internal medicine (and sometimes OB/Gyn or even Emergency Medicine) as well as pediatrics and family medicine, inflating the percent that is ostensibly primary care. This practice has been called “the Deans’ lie”. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), quoted in the MedPage Today piece, has a similar reason to obfuscate the truth; their members are those same medical schools (and the teaching hospitals associated with them) and their leaders, both in AAMC and in the individual schools, are overwhelmingly non-primary-care subspecialists.

One of the main reasons for the shortage of primary care physicians, and thus this purposely-inaccurate effort to paper over the dearth of them, is that, while physicians overall make much more than the average person, there is a great disparity in income between the specialties, often being 4-5 times as much for certain specialists as others. The shortage of primary care physicians and psychiatrists that this change is making a small effort to rectify is very likely because pediatricians, family physicians and psychiatrists are on the low end of the physician income scale. The table below, from “PhysiciansThrive.com”, is one example, although it may actually understate the income of the top specialties.

 

 

The lowest-paid physicians are doing well compared to most Americans, but they often come out of school with $250K + debt, which is, of course, owed with compound interest. The income gap between specialties has to be narrowed, and some studies suggest that if primary care physicians made 70% of what other specialists do, money would largely cease to be an issue in student specialty choice. But how could we do that? Isn’t it really complicated?

Well, not as much as you might think. A recent installment of the New York Times feature “The Ethicist” responds to the question from a reader “Should I Feel Bad About Joining a Concierge Medical Practice?”. This in itself is a complex, but separate, question. However, the Ethicist notes in their response that one of the reasons it is hard to find a primary care physician is that 

‘Medicare, which effectively anchors compensation levels throughout the health-care system, reimburses physicians according to “relative value units,” and those are largely determined by an advisory committee dominated by specialists. Procedures are valued more than conversations.’

I was surprised to see this addressed in this column; while it is absolutely true, it is rarely discussed. The comment makes 3 points which together drive the income disparity:

1.     CMS sets reimbursement rates for Medicare, but it essentially drives all reimbursement as insurance companies use Medicare rates (or multiples of them) to determine their own payments.

2.   These Medicare rates are set by “relative value units”, or RVUs, so that some sort of equivalence can be made. For example, how many comprehensive examinations by a primary care doctor or assessments by a psychiatrist or chest x-ray interpretations by a radiologist is worth one gall bladder removal by a surgeon or joint replacement by an orthopedist? This is essentially dividing up a pie of set size; when one “gains” another “loses”.

3.  While CMS sets these RVU ratios, they usually rely upon the recommendations of a little-known group called the “RUC”, appointed by the AMA. As the Ethicist notes, this committee is overwhelmingly specialists. And, so, not surprisingly, the distribution of the pieces of the pie tend to favor those specialists, and, indeed, procedures are valued more than conversations. And “conversations” kind of minimizes the communication between people (patients) and their primary care doctors, as people’s stories greatly inform both the diagnosis and the best treatment (and the one the patient is going to accept and follow through on), and are essential for the patients to know what is going on. And presumably interactions with psychiatrists are more than simple “conversations”. (I have written about the RUC several times, including Doctors' incomes and patient coverage: both need to be more equal, Jan 26, 2014 and Pay primary care more: Kennedy may be getting this one right!, July 23, 2025.) 

So there is a clear-cut way to fix these disparities: CMS simply needs to adjust the RVU basis, increasing the value of “conversations” and really thinking and assessment and decision making relative to procedures. Of course, this means the highest-paid subpspecialists would make less than they do now, and so they are going to fight it, as are their organizations and groups like the AAMC. But really, even if they take a significant cut, they are a long way from the Food Bank!

The question is: Will CMS do this? Pressure from you, the people who can’t get into a doctor, is definitely going to help!

 

*Primary care is comprehensive care of the needs of the patient, with referral to specialists when needed; internists and geriatricians and pediatricians limit the ages of their patients but they provide comprehensive care for them. While some women only see an OB/Gyn, they only provide care for a woman’s reproductive tract, not comprehensive care.

 

The vicious cycle of corporate profit in healthcare: Less healthcare for you

It is a little difficult to focus on writing about the terrible things happening in US healthcare given all the terrible, existential, threats to the nation and the world. Yet it is not unrelated. The abuses and rapacity of the US healthcare system is a microcosm (although, in this country, a BIG microcosm) of the tremendously damaging outcomes that arise from a system that is based upon the insatiable greed of a few and their willingness to use their wealth to fuel lies, wars, and climate change, and to attack democracy, to further line their pockets.

So it is in healthcare. An industry that is ostensibly devoted to maintaining the health of, and treating and sometimes curing the diseases of, the American people is consistently revealed as nothing more than an industry, devoted to making as much money as possible. Pretty much period. It does not, as an industry, care about your health, or that of your family. This is not to say that the people who provide health care do not; almost uniformly the doctors, nurses, pharmacists, therapists, and others are working hard to do the best that they can for your health, motivated by the commitment that took them into their field in the first place. But fewer and fewer of them are in control of their own practices; most are employed, and even those who work for themselves must almost always work with institutions that are corporate and dedicated to that holiest of holies, the bottom line. (To be sure, there are a few independent practitioners who can deliver their services on their own without the involvement of hospitals, drug companies, insurance companies, etc., but there are few and the care that they can provide is almost always narrow and limited. If that is all you need, you are in luck. For now.)

Revelations continue apace about the extent to which this is true, to which almost all efforts in health care are geared toward garnering profit. There is very rarely news that is good for the health of the public, although it often is for the stocks of the corporations involved, the profits of the private equity companies that often own them, or the salaries of the C-suite executives of those that are “non-profit”. We almost never see a change that is likely to increase the quality, quantity or distribution of healthcare even if it might cost the company more. Quite the contrary, changes almost always involve restricting healthcare in terms of what is available and how much it costs the recipient in various ways (premiums, deductibles, co-pays). We also see a consolidation of ownership, frequently involving vertical integration (where, say, the insurance company owns the providers of care -- as in the case of UnitedHealth and Optum -- and essentially pays itself), an exploitation of public funds and redirecting tax dollars intended for healthcare provision into profit (see Medicare Advantage), and a huge amount of money going into profit and incredibly bloated salaries.

I almost said “ever increasing” profit, but this is not true. The amount of profit is not always increasing, although it remains obscenely large. Sometimes this is interpreted by “the markets” (a benign-sounding euphemism for the rapacious predators that they are) as a problem; even when profits are increasing, but not at the rate investors want them to, insurers and healthcare corporations are pressured to further cut back services and increase premiums and charges, always to the detriment of the health of the American people (as per this Wall St. Journal article).

A good summary of the many ways in which the health of Americans is sacrificed on the altar of profit is a JAMA Viewpoint titled “Salve Lucrum: The Existential Threat of Greed in US Health Care” by Donald Berwick, former administrator of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and co-founder of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI). The Latin phrase means “Hail Profit” which Berwick observes was found under a mountain of ash on the mosaic floor of a grand house in Pompeii, and that it would, sadly, be an appropriate motto for many of our healthcare institutions. Berwick goes through the various components of our system, showing how – and how much – they maximize profit by sacrificing health, especially making every effort to tap into “deep pockets” (particularly government-funded programs like Medicare) and avoid the poor, sick, and poorly-insured, even though those often are the people most in need of healthcare.

Medicare Advantage (MA) is the program that takes money from the Medicare trust fund and transfers it to private insurance companies to enroll Medicare beneficiaries in essentially HMOs. MA programs receive more money from CMS than it spends on traditional Medicare beneficiaries and uses some of it to provide services that are attractive and not paid for by traditional Medicare such as glasses, hearing aids, and gym memberships. As with non-Medicare HMOs, some people benefit from the integrated services, absence of co-pays and ease of use, as long as they are happy with the options of providers (always limited). And so long as the services they need are approved by the insurer – remember that MA is not actually Medicare but a set of programs run by private insurance companies that can, and do, deny and delay services, often through a process called “prior authorization”. But whether clients are receiving the healthcare that they need or being screwed out of it, Berwick notes that

By gaming Medicare risk codes and the ways in which comparative “benchmarks” are set for expected costs, MA plans have become by far the most profitable branches of large insurance companies. According to some health services research, MA will cost Medicare over $600 billion more in the next 8 years than would have been the case if the same enrollees had remained in traditional Medicare.

Insurance, including health insurance, companies in the US have always been for-profit with few exceptions (the traditional Blue Cross/Blue Shield, for example, although these have now almost all been converted to for-profit). But the profits that they are making now are extreme. Pharmaceutical companies have always been for-profit and have long been the healthcare industry poster child for overpricing and holding people’s health hostage to their making money. Direct service providers (e.g., hospitals and doctors) have increasingly been acquired by for-profit operations, especially insurance and private equity companies and those that remain officially “non-profit” compete by playing by the same rules as those that are not.

Some of the problems with Medicare Advantage programs have come to the attention of Congress, which is concerned about their exploitation of public funds, but what will come in terms of reform is questionable. Many congresspersons actually believe in the transfer of public funds to private companies. These insurance companies have very deep pockets (from the government) with which to lobby those same officials (kind of like the defense industry). They also cite the increasing percent of Medicare beneficiaries (now over 50%) who have “chosen” MA plans (or, often, been pushed into them by employers, including local governments) as evidence that they are valued. Of course, the healthier you are, the more marginal benefit you get from the MA perks; the sicker you are, the more in need, the more those denials and delays harm your health. And, always, at any given time there are fewer very sick people than those who are relatively healthy, even though serious illness is often in their future.

If Congress addresses MA at all, it is likely to be tweaks around the edges. What, instead, needs to happen is the closure of MA, increasing financing for traditional Medicare to fund ALL health needs for its beneficiaries, regulation of the pharmaceutical industry, and a change to a healthcare financing system, such as Medicare for All, that make the health of the people and not the profit of the corporations, the goal of the system.

Medicare Advantage, Direct Contracting Entities, and other scams to transfer your money to insurance companies

In my post DTC Advertising on TV illustrates the corruption and inequity of the US medical care system (March 6, 2021) I talked a little about advertisements for Medicare Advantage (MA), an alternative to traditional Medicare (TM, not ™) that involves an insurance company taking over your Medicare and you maybe paying additional money to, essentially, be enrolled in their HMO or PPO, with its concomitant advantages and disadvantages to you personally. Advantages include a variety of additional services that are not currently included in TM (they should be, but this is a different issue), such as vision care (or at least glasses), hearing aids, and sometimes dental care. This can save you money. The disadvantages are, essentially, the same as those for any HMO or PPO – a limited “network” of physicians and hospitals (and big charges for which you are liable if you go out of network) and, related to that, a limited geographic area in which your network applies. This is not generally a big issue for the occasional traveler (emergencies are usually covered) but can be a big problem for those who split their time between two or more areas. Plus, it doesn’t protect you from “surprise medical bills”, as they are called in Congress (which discusses them but has yet to enact anything to protect you from them). These occur when, while both your doctor and hospital are “in network”, someone else --  the ambulance company, some doctors caring for you (say, the group that staffs the Emergency Department, or the surgeon assisting your surgeon) are not. They can – and do – then send you big bills. This should be a caution.

Why I am bringing this up again now is that the pace and frequency of solicitations for people to abandon TM and enroll in MA have greatly accelerated because we have entered the “open enrollment” period, when people with Medicare can change their insurer or plan type, and the MA plans, mostly owned by insurance companies, really want you*. This is why in addition to adding more former NFL quarterbacks to their ads (Joe Theismann, who is only my age, joins the 78-year-old Joe Namath), you have (if you are of Medicare age) been getting dozens of information packets in your mail for the plans available in your area – almost all of which pick names and design their envelopes and otherwise do their best to make it look as if they are official and from Medicare (I was going to share the link to one with a name that prominently features “Medicare”, but I figured why advertise them?)  They’re not. And they’re being successful. As documented by the Kaiser Family Foundation, MA plans had an 8% increase from 2018 to 2019 and a 15% increase from 2019 to 2020. Advertising really pays off! And, boy, does it pay! Thanks to your generosity (well, Congress’ generosity, on your behalf, or at least using your money) MA plans (and, by the way, “Medicare Advantage” is the official term specified in the legislation, in case you had any doubts about the influence of insurance companies over Congress) get paid a lot more than the government pays on your behalf to TM. For starters, their administrative overhead – comparable to that of most private insurers – is about 13.2%. Is that a lot? Well, the overhead for TM is about 1.8%! Some sources have cited the overhead for “Medicare” as about 3% -- still a lot better – but that is because it is combining the two. And, of course, as MA increases as a share of Medicare that figure will continue to rise.

MEDPAC, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent agency created by the federal government to monitor and recommend on issues related to Medicare, notes that MA plans receive more money from Medicare but spend less on providing patient care to their members, costing Medicare an additional $8B. So it is definitely worth pursuing your business! Unless, of course, and this was the reason for the asterisk (*) above following really want you, you are sick. Then you would cost them money, and they would rather that you switch to regular TM. Which would be better for you, of course, but it would have been better for you to have never been in MA. This is a core part of their business strategy: attracting healthy seniors who will not cost them much money with the lure of cheap glasses and hearing aids and such (“cherry picking”) and then getting rid of those beneficiaries who really get sick and would cost them a lot of money (“lemon dropping”). All this is an effort to improve their “Medical Loss Ratio”, which is to say decrease the % of the money that they collect which they have to spend on actually taking care of you. If it sounds weird or offensive (and it is both) that their spending money on what they are supposed to be in the business of doing is called “loss”, it is a term that comes from the overall insurance industry. The % of homeowner’s premiums that have to be paid out to clients because their homes burn down, or auto insurance premiums that have to be paid if you are in a car wreck, is called the loss ratio. Of course, you don’t expect (and certainly don’t hope) to be in a car wreck or have your house burn down, but you do (or should) expect to receive medical care. Indeed, a more apt comparison to your house burning down might be made to “major medical” – coverage for costly hospitalizations – but in fact most people will need those if they live long enough. Much more about the cost of MA and the reasons for it can be found in the Health Affairs Blog posts of September 29 (Medicare Advantage, Direct Contracting, And The Medicare ‘Money Machine,’ Part 1: The Risk-Score Game), and 30 (Medicare Advantage, Direct Contracting, And The Medicare ‘Money Machine,’ Part 2: Building On The ACO Model) by Rick Gilfilan and former CMS administrator Donald Berwick. Another article on MA can be found in Consumer Reports.

Since not everyone who would be a good health risk is forgoing TM for MA, a new scam (excuse me, option!) has been developed by CMMI, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, a branch of CMS, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which has been granted authority to implement such changes as they (or the insurance company lobbyists) can come up with without needing further Congressional approval. This one is Direct Contracting Entities (DCEs). A company, particularly a health system or medical group, may send people a complicated letter telling them that (for their benefit!) the group has enrolled them in a DCE. The client has the choice to opt out, but this is disguised in complex legal language, and the benefits(!) are so strongly sold, that many people do not.  Remember, this is not being sent to folks who are in MA, but those who have purposely and specifically chosen TM and NOT MA. Thus, they are not expecting that their providers will try to enroll them, backdoor, in a plan that, while it has benefits(!) – like those of MA – also lets insurance companies (wait, how di I get to an insurance company? I thought I was in TM!) collect a lot more money from CMS – like under MA! What a cool idea! If you resist MA because you are more concerned about your healthcare than insurance company profits, CMMI will find a way to allow you to help the insurance companies anyway! A lot more can be learned from a short (15 minute) youtube presentation by PNHP (Physician’s for a National Health  Plan) member Ana Malinow.

Medicare, along with its parent, Social Security, is the most popular government program in the nation, and for good reason. It actually provides important benefits to the taxpaying American people. Instead of paying out lots of extra money to Wall St. and insurance companies, Congress should expand the benefits available under TM to include all necessary health care, including dental care, vision care, and hearing care. Instead of forbidding Medicare to negotiate drug prices with BigPharma and the Pharmacy Benefits Mangers (PBMs) that control access to drugs, Congress should ENCOURAGE and REQUIRE it. Finally, it should extend all these Medicare benefits to EVERYONE in the country, not just the elderly and disabled.

This would be what the American people need.  But if you want to have this, you are going to need to shout it from the rooftops – and write letters to Congress -- to be heard over the sound of cash flowing from insurance companies into your Congresspeople’s pockets.

Then go to pnhp.org and sign the petition asking Sec. Becerra to close the DCE program!

Killing our children: Guns, mortality and morality

There is really nothing to write about at this time other than the ongoing carnage in our nation as a result of angry young men (always men!) shooting up their schools, most recently (at least at the time of this writing) with the death of 17 students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS in Parkland, FL. It is hard to write through the tears. This should not be going on. Many people have written pieces on the subject -- sad, or angry, or articulate, or all of these. One of the most moving appeared in the New York Times on February 18, 2018, by a man named Gregory Gibson whose son was killed in a school shooting 25 years ago. The online headline, “A message from the club no one wants to join”, is different from, and in this case is much weaker than, the print headline: “Why wasn’t my son the last victim?”

Why indeed? Twenty-five years ago. And since then, countless school shootings, and other mass murders (such as, if we needed reminders, the Las Vegas country music concert, the Pulse nightclub in Orlando and the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, TX) have occurred, and every parent, every family member, wants to know why the most recent prior child to die was not the last, instead of their child. People are terrified; a friend, a rational physician, embarrassedly admits to looking online for Kevlar backpacks for his children. He does international “mission” work and is taking his 14-year old daughter to Africa; when people ask him if he is worried about her safety there, he says “no”, but he is worried about her safety attending school two miles from his home in an affluent suburban community in the US. His day job includes being a leader for the quality program in his hospital, where he searches the actual data for root and contributing causes to problems; he wonders why this country cannot do the same for gun violence. Arizona Star columnist Dave Fitzsimmons expresses similar fears for his children.

This country could, but so far it shows no sign of doing so. Gibson quotes the author Chester Himes commenting on the lynching of 14-year old Emmett Till in 1955 that “The real horror comes when your dead brain must face the fact that we as a nation don’t want it to stop.” Himes was talking about lynching, but it is clear that the same can be said today, more than 60 years later, about school shootings. We don’t want it to stop. Because, if we did, we would do something about it.

Of course, we do, most of us. Various surveys, asking the question in different ways, find different percentages, but always large majorities, of Americans want stricter gun laws, often up to 90%. Even most people who are members of the NRA and/or are registered Republicans want limitations on who can buy guns based on mental illness and other criteria (always “me, and people like me”, but not the people like you) and some kinds of guns or gun modifiers (like “bump stocks”, used by the Las Vegas shooter to turn his AR-15 semi-automatic – and by the way almost all these shootings involve AR-15s) and armor-piercing bullets. No, the “we” who don’t want to stop it, in this case is, beyond a small minority of zealots, the even smaller minority of those who are politicians, in Congress, in the Executive Branch, and in our statehouses.

Why would they do this? Or, rather, not do anything about gun violence? Well, there is a small minority of this small minority who are, themselves, zealots whose interpretation of the Second Amendment is such that our dead children are just collateral damage in pursuit of the higher cause of unrestricted gun ownership. But, for most, opposition to even the most rational restrictions is tied to money, specifically to money from the NRA. A staffer for Jimmy Kimmel, Bess Kalb, looked at how much each of the Senators and Congresspeople tweeting their sadness and condolences took from the NRA, noting that “In the 2015-2016 election cycle alone, GOP candidates took $17,385,437 from the NRA,” (quoting a tweet from Republican National Convention chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel), and that “This is NOT counting the $21 million given to President Trump.” Another article documents the individual contributions, led by $4.4 million to Thom Tillis (R-NC, or, excuse me, R-NRA).

These legislators, and sadly even the President, when not crying their hypocritical crocodile tears and then voting with the NRA to kill any sort of gun reform, talk instead about the need to focus on mental health. This, by the way, is a good idea; the mental health system in this country is terrible; insurance companies cover it inadequately, those who are not insured and need public facilities find them cut back yearly, and there is no shortage of news stories focusing on a poor mentally-ill person pushed out of a treatment facility found wandering the street, or worse. Our jails and prisons have become our new mental hospitals, documented, for example, in this comprehensive Atlantic article from 2015, “America’s largest mental hospital is a jail”. However, it is not the diagnosed mentally ill who commit these murders and mass murders. Most such murderers do not have a diagnosis, although they probably suffer from “anger management disorder” (not in the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), but “intermittent explosive disorder“ will be in DSM-V). This is important because it is the angry who commit these murders. An article in Slate by Laura L. Hayes from 2014,”How to Stop Violence; Mentally ill people aren’t killers. Angry people are”, contains this persuasive data:

80 to 90 percent of murderers had prior police records, in contrast to 15 percent of American adults overall. In a study of domestic murderers, 46 percent of the perpetrators had had a restraining order against them at some time. Family murders are preceded by prior domestic violence more than 90 percent of the time.

Hayes concludes that “Violent crimes are committed by people who lack the skills to modulate anger, express it constructively, and move beyond it.” Sadly, this also describes many of the most virulent opponents of gun control.

If anything could be even more sad than the fact that the mass killing of our children is tacitly endorsed through inaction by our political leaders, it is that it is only one face of the epidemic that is child mortality in the US. This January, Ashish P. Thrakar and colleagues published “Child Mortality In The US and 19 OECD Comparator Nations: A 50-Year Time-Trend Analysis” in the journal Health Affairs. The picture was bleak. The first sentence of their Abstract summarizes their findings: “The United States has poorer child health outcomes than other wealthy nations despite greater per capita spending on health care for children.” Guns are part of it, and the “social determinants of health”, a sanitized way of saying that in the richest country in the world there are millions of children with inadequate food, housing, warmth, safety, healthcare, and educational opportunities, are ultimately the other causes. We may be the richest country in the world, but we are also the most unequal in the developed world, and the increases in the wealth of the top 0.1% does not “trickle down” to those in need.

Indeed, even the outrageous and disproportionate child mortality rates in this country are not the whole story. As I have noted before (Rising white midlife mortality: what are the real causes and solutions?, November 14, 2015; Tom Petty, the opioid epidemic and changing structural inequities in the US, January 23, 2018) the US is the only wealthy country in which mortality rates are rising, a completely shocking finding since, of course, it didn’t used to be true. And this rising mortality is driven by the white non-Hispanic population (although, it must continue to be said, that the absolute mortality rate of minorities, and especially African-Americans, still exceeds that of whites), and more particularly, poor whites.

In a terrific effort to try to explain to the international community what is happening in the US, Steven Woolf recently wrote an editorial for the BMJ, Failing Health of the United States. He notes the causes of the increases in mortality (more than opioids, more than guns, although these are major contributors), provides data, and proposes solutions. “In theory,” he says,

…policy makers would promote education, boost support for children and families, increase wages and economic opportunity for the working class, invest in distressed communities, and strengthen healthcare and behavioral health systems.

Politicians need to address these issues, and they need to be made to do so. By us, the people they are supposed to work for, not the huge money contributors like the NRA. But we can only do this if we stay angry, and stay organized. We cannot heed calls to “not talk about this now” while families are grieving, because it will, based on history, not be very long before it happens again.

It is our job and we must take it on. 

Legislating Public Health and Medical Care

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.