The problem with the US healthcare 'system': THE INSATIABLE PURSUIT OF EVER MORE MONEY BY CORPORATIONS AND WALL ST.

That the US health system is (to quote the opening of an important book*) “broken”, is obvious to almost everyone. It’s a mess. Even calling a “system” is probably incorrect. It costs a tremendous amount of money, generally 2-4x per capita what any other wealthy country spends, and generates far worse public health outcomes (even before the wackadoodle RFKJr became Secretary of HHS) such as longevity, disability-adjusted-life-expectancy (DALE), infant mortality, cancer survival, and almost all other measures. It also is very difficult to access, just getting to see a doctor, as well as financially. This situation has long been true for the poor and much of the working class. It is getting worse as low-income people lose access to Medicaid because of cuts to ACA subsidies or because they live in a state that never expanded Medicaid, and for rural people who are both, on average, older (and thus more likely to have health problems) and poorer. Over time it has increasingly become something that affects working class people, as insurance companies raise their rates, employers become stingier with paying premiums, and, very importantly, as the power of unions has been dramatically eroded by a society concerned only with corporations making the most possible money. It is critical to remember that the health insurance benefits employed workers gained resulted from the struggles of unions, never from the generosity of corporations.

The days of “Cadillac health plans” for unionized workers are long gone, and they are finding themselves in the same pool of too many people seeking too unavailable health care at too unaffordable costs. The new Trump administration plan for the ACA will make things much worse; it may offer lower-cost plans in terms of premiums but with enormous deductibles (‘New A.C.A. Plans Could Increase Family Deductibles to $31,000’, NY Times, Feb 26, 2026). So if you get sick and need care, you’re really screwed, and if you don’t you’re paying insurance premiums for nothing!

And now even those in privileged economic positions, who have money and sometimes even personal access because they are doctors, are finding themselves struggling to access care. People can’t find doctors, especially primary care doctors like family physicians and general internists who can manage their health and the input from various specialists. When they can find them, it is hard to get an appointment. It is very difficult to talk to them, or get a message to them, or speak to anyone who works for them who has any clinical knowledge or understanding. Some people say “I have a good doctor, they respond to my calls, or I can communicate on a health portal,” but these grow fewer. I know physicians who have real difficulties! They need supplies for their insulin pumps, but the insurance companies require notes from their doctors, and it is almost impossible to reach them. I know health care professionals who have heart problems requiring them to wear machines recording their heart rhythm over time, who must wait in lines stretching out the door to see their cardiologists. This is bad, not because they are better educated, wealthier, or health care professionals, but because it is bad for everyone. These people, at least, be able to afford to get a “concierge” doctor who they pay out of pocket, but clearly this is not a solution for most folks. 

We are in the grips of a perfect storm, with insurance companies raising their rates and finding reasons to deny care, a shortage of doctors in many areas, both geographic and by specialty, especially including primary care, with doctors having such speed-up of their work that they scarcely have time to see their patients not to mention respond to calls or notes. We have federal and state governments cutting back public benefits, including not only Medicaid but also Medicare and the VA. Doctors no longer work for themselves where they can make decisions about how to run their practice, and balance work and income, but for giant hospital “healthcare” systems and private equity investors interested only in profit.

Well, you know, maybe “perfect storm” is the wrong analogy. That phrase implies that the bad situation you find yourself in is the result of several unrelated events that come together coincidentally at the same time. This is not the case in the health care crisis. While a lot of things seem to be happening together, they are all manifestations of one single thing:

THE INSATIABLE PURSUIT OF EVER MORE MONEY BY CORPORATIONS AND WALL ST.

That's it. That is 100% of the problem. A lot of effort is spent trying to transfer blame between blameworthy players, with insurance companies saying providers are too greedy, providers saying insurers don’t pay enough. And everyone blames the pharmaceutical industry and even components of that industry – drug manufacturers, giant retail pharmacies, and “PBMs”, the middlemen between drug companies and insurers – blaming each other. But this “it’s not me, it’s them” is all a load of crap. Yes, sometimes one part of the “healthcare” industry is doing better financially than another, sometimes one corporate behemoth puts another out of business, but what is never a major consideration – and I put forward it should be the only consideration – is what improves the health of the American people, as individuals and as a whole. You, the “patient”, the sick person who needs care, is the one player in this whole thing whose interests are not getting the consideration they deserve – which should be ALL of it.

The growing trend, which is the proof of all of this, is the “vertical integration” of the components of the system. This means that the same company is the insurance company, the provider, the drug supplier. It feeds itself sucking out your money at every turn while denying you the care that you need. Several recent posts on the “Health Care Un-covered” substack detail aspects of this, including ‘The Economic Exploitation of Independent Physicians by Insurers’, and recently ‘2025: Big Insurance’s $1.7 Trillion Year’ which shows that while they ARE making these outrageous amounts (from YOUR pocket, whether directly in premiums, co-pays, and deductibles or premiums paid by your employer in lieu of higher wages) the bosses THEY answer to, the sharks on Wall St., are harassing them to do more, charge more, deny more care, because it isn’t enough; they aren’t making enough  profit! They need more!

I said at the beginning of this piece that “almost everyone” realizes that our healthcare system is a mess, and I think this is true. Certainly, those profiting from it, all those insurance companies and health systems and private equity companies and drug companies, know it. They love it. They’re making out like bandits, one might be tempted to say, if only bandits could begin to compete with them in cupidity, heartlessness, and immorality.

The truly infuriating thing is that our governments are in the practice of enabling them, of enhancing their power, of increasing their profits (see, for example, the gargantuan efforts to move US seniors out of traditional Medicare, an efficient and cost-effective single-payer plan to Medicare Advantage, which puts them back at the mercy of insurance companies; see for example Medicare re-enrollment: Time to consider being dissatisfied with a new plan!, Oct 25, 2025). Most legislators and their health pundits who are not the out-and-out-on-the-take corporate enablers that characterize the Republican party are the somewhat-less-but-really-still-on-the-take corporate enablers of the Democratic party!

We regularly hear from even somewhat progressive (not to mention the right-wing) think tanks and academics and legislators that it would be impossible to change the system to truly benefit the health of the American people, and not the pockets of big corporations, even though it has been done in every other wealthy (and many less wealthy) countries in the world. The key change here is to take the profit (or most of the profit, or the possibility of generating ever more profit) out of the health system. The problem is simply NOT that people use “too much” health care and cost too much money; the problem IS simply that insurers and big health systems and Wall St. and drug companies MAKE too much money and are taking the money we pay for health care out of health care!

The only people who are going to speak for the health care needs and interests of the vast majority American people are those people themselves. Demand of your politicians that they commit to single-payer improved and expanded Medicare for All, demand that they pursue policies that actually get more primary care doctors out in practice by decreasing the payment prejudice for subspecialists and banning completely the corporate practice of medicine.

And if they don’t, vote them out!

 

*Joshua Freeman, Health, Medicine, and Justice: Designing a fair and equitable healthcare system, Copernicus, 2015.

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.

Burnout and depression in physicians: Not good for them or for the public's health

For some years now, there has been increasing emphasis in the medical community about “physician burnout”. While there different degrees and kinds of burnout, generally it refers to a feeling among physicians from having little or no enjoyment in their work to feeling unable to continue. At this far extent, it contributes to doctors leaving the direct practice of medicine for a less-stressful area where their medical background is useful (administration or insurance work or consulting) to leaving the profession altogether. It can be for a different career, or, if they are older and more financially able, early retirement. In the case of young physicians, particularly residents who are still doing their post-graduate training, working very long hours and getting paid relatively little – and since many have medical school debt exceeding a quarter of a million dollars, it can be actually little – burnout could prevent them from taking on a full career in medicine.

Of course, burnout can affect any profession, or any job, although that term is mostly used for professionals, who have historically counted on some degree of independence and control of their work lives. Feeling burned out, not interested, overwhelmed, and even resentful is common and maybe even normative in much non-professional wage work, where the assumption is often “of course you are alienated”, selling your labor to a boss whose only interest is in profit and to whom you are only a tool to generate it. It is a more recent phenomenon in the professions, particularly as professionals become essentially employees, and the profession I know most about is medicine.

Historically, physicians have worked very hard, long hours, often through the night, taking call to come in and see people (called, in medical terms “patients”), operate on people, deliver babies. In small towns and rural areas, where there were few other physicians with whom to share call, this was often particularly disruptive to home and family life, not to mention sleep. The compensating plusses were considered to be a good income, a high level of respect from the community, a sense of making a contribution and a difference, and some level of control of your practice. Although, often when coming in in the middle of the night, it might not seem like much control, many or most doctors were self-employed, and even when they became part of larger groups they were among the owners.

Over the last few decades, many things have changed in the practice of medicine, increasing the burdensome characteristics and decreasing the positives. These are mostly related to the increased size of medical enterprises and the corporatization of medical care. On the one hand, in the name of “efficiency” the practice of medicine has become routinized, less varied, less interesting, and sped up. Physicians often feel that they are on a treadmill churning patient visits as if they were widgets, not having the time that they would not only like but would be necessary to understand their patients as people, and to begin to meet their more complex needs – and people are complex, with every aspect of their lives affecting their health. They may be paid more, but they have much less control, and often seem to (and do) spend as much time completing their Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) as in patient contact, and it may feel (correctly) that the purpose of the work that they put into the EMR is aimed primarily at maximizing income and profit for their employers rather than maximizing the health of their patients.

The strategies which have been employed to attempt to address burnout have ranged from the individual (support groups, various therapies) to structural (changing the work situation). Many physicians are seeking to achieve more “work-life balance”, with more time for their families and other non-work life. The ameliorations include shift work (work hard but for a specified period of time, and know when you will be off and that you really will be off), limiting scope of practice, and, certainly, increased reimbursement. But because these “solutions” do not work as well for all specialties, burnout does not affect all specialties equally. Shift work is most effective in specialties in which continuity of care for an individual patient with an individual doctor is not seen as important; thus it works well for emergency medicine, anesthesiology, critical care, and a few other areas. It has also been widely employed in hospital work, with “hospitalists” who care for people who they do not see as outpatients working shifts (including for delivering babies), and has extended to generate yet newer specialties like "nocturnists” and “weekendists”. And has even renamed the doctors who do see people in the outpatient setting as “ambulists”. How well this works depends on who you ask; it is “efficient” for the employer, and the hospitalists know their hospital stuff, but for the patient, not only are you not seeing a doctor who knows you but your hospitalist may change every few days (and nights).

Salaries in medicine are still usually tied to how much the individual physician generates for the organization, which is heavily dependent on how insurers reimburse, and that is far more for surgery and other procedures than for “just” seeing, talking with and examining a person, reviewing lab and x-ray information, and coming to a diagnosis and treatment plan. So doctors who do the latter make less money (family physicians, general internists and pediatricians, psychiatrists) than do proceduralists. Thus, the physicians in the highest paid specialties (particularly those not just highly paid but that have the highest income/work ratios) are more likely to be successful in achieving work-life balance and avoiding serious burnout. And those who have to be most available for the greatest portion of time with the least support, rural family physicians, burnout can be highest. Although these doctors also often retain the most degree of autonomy, with time demands coming from their patients, not the corporations that employ them.

It is also worth talking about serious mental health issues that physicians confront, and especially the continued disincentives for them to receive necessary and appropriate care. A March 30, 2022 Op-Ed in the NY Times, ‘Why So Many Doctors Treat Their Mental Health in Secret’, by Seema Jilani discusses this, and in particular how employers and licensing boards feel free to ask about this, contributing to an atmosphere of stigma so that, in fact, many doctors do not treat their mental health issues at all. It would be outrageous for us to expect doctors to not treat their asthma, heart disease, cancer or myopia, but for mental health conditions this remains a real issue. It is one of the two great examples in medicine of the double-edged sword of “you should do this, but we may punish you for it”. The other is in the area of acknowledging mistakes (or even potential mistakes). There is excellent data showing that admitting and examining mistakes at the institutional level absolutely increases the overall quality of patient care (‘every mistake a jewel’, because we can learn from it; see W. Edwards Deming’s “14 points”). However, physicians who do so risk discipline, license loss or restriction, and even lawsuits. These punitive results (except for egregious cases) should not be there, and most of those who wrote letters to the Times in response to Dr. Jilani’s article (and I) agree that these punitive risks should not face physicians who seek treatment for depression or other mental health issues. Burnout and depression are not the same things, but may, and frequently do, co-exist.

Doctors are privileged workers; they are generally highly paid relative to most people, they still earn a great deal of respect, and they have the opportunity for great personal satisfaction through serving others. But they are often held to the standards of independent professionals while increasingly working for corporations, and they not immune from the stresses of overwork, lack of control, speed-up, and negative aspects of how capital treats its workers.

And they are certainly not immune from mental health issues, and should be able to receive appropriate treatment without inappropriate repercussions.

 

I did not address the issue raised by the recent conviction of a nurse in Tennessee for criminally negligent homicide for accidentally giving a patient the incorrect medication, but obviously this is entirely relevant to the issue of acknowledging errors, and the work situation for health professionals and thus issues of burnout and depression and, indeed incarceration.

A very good discussion of that case, 'Are All Medical Errors Now Crimes? The Nurse Vaught Verdict' appears in Medscape, and I would absolutely endorse this quote from one of the participants:

"A culture of safety is one in which the system that allowed the mistake to happen is changed, not one in which the individual is scapegoated. And a culture of safety correlates with better patient outcomes that we know. This verdict is the opposite." 

Why do we have to wait so long to see the doctor? It's all about the money...

I have seen a number of articles describing the difficulty of getting doctor’s appointments in the era of COVID-19. In many parts of the country it was difficult to get a quick appointment even before the pandemic, but it has become much worse. I hear from friends in a several different cities that they cannot get into their doctors offices for weeks or, commonly, months. This is not OK for routine care; it is certainly not ok when something urgent, or relatively urgent, or even a little bit “needs to happen before I get really sick” is going on. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal by Devorah Goldman (‘The doctor’s office becomes an assembly line’, December 30, 2021) describes a woman who came to her father’s Brooklyn office from New Jersey because she couldn’t get an appointment for 8 months!

There are Emergency Rooms, of course, but waiting (frequently for hours!) in them increases your risk of acquiring COVID infection. And, as in “regular” times, they should be for emergencies, not for care for chronic diseases or minor acute disease. Of course, if you cannot get regular care for your chronic disease, it can become an emergency. And, as I have written before (Emergency services, COVID, and the health system: Your life could well be at risk, Jan 19, 2021), when you have an emergency, like a ruptured appendix, waiting in an ER for hours is also very dangerous, and the more “non-emergent” people waiting the more likely this is to happen. There are Urgent Care Clinics, but these have their own issues: they can only take care of a limited (and variable by location) menu of problems, most of which are those your mother used to take care of, and they may not take your insurance (if you have it). Also the prices and profit margins are very high.

So why are the waits so long, and what can be done about it? Goldman’s emphasis is the takeover of physician private practices by hospital systems and large groups; she notes that, according to the AMA, 75% of physicians owned their own practices in 1983, but by 2018 it was 46%. This is part of the problem; even if an individual physician is compassionate and caring, the big corporation they work for probably is not. Another part is the maldistribution of physician specialists. Studies of efficient and effective health care systems indicate that 40-50%+ of physicians should be in primary care, seeing people for most problems, providing continuity of care for a patient panel, and diagnosing “undifferentiated patients” (those who do not have a specific diagnosis) and caring for them or appropriately referring them. In the US, however, it is less than 30% and dropping. Quite reasonably, subspecialists want to see people with the problems that they know how to take care of; this works well when they are referred by family physicians and other primary care clinicians, and much less well when people have to self-refer, essentially having to diagnose themselves. Such direct self-referral also backs up the subspecialist practices with patients whose problems could have been well taken care of by a primary care clinician (not everyone with a heart needs a cardiologist!) making it more difficult for those with complicated or rarer conditions that need the subspecialist’s care to get in. Medicare’s reimbursement method figures prominently in Goldman’s article; she identifies ways that it tends to give preference (i.e., pays more) to large, and especially hospital-owned, medical groups. And, of course, since COVID the demand for care has gone up, and the number of clinicians available (because of sickness and overwork) has gone down.

Many other articles claim to provide the reasons for this problem, and some even have proposed solutions, but most of them examine only one aspect of it. I am reminded of the old Indian story about the blind men and the elephant, each touching a different part of the beast and thus presuming, based on contact with the trunk, the tail, or a leg, that they knew what the whole elephant looked like. Often this is influenced by the agenda of the writer and whether (like, e.g., Goldman) they get their information mainly from groups like the AMA (“oh, for the days of physician-owned private practice!”), hospital associations (“consolidation is good!”), government agencies (“reimbursement policy is governed by competing needs”), or academics, think tanks, or nonprofits like the Commonwealth Fund, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Pew Trusts, often with their own biases. To me, it is clear what the whole elephant looks like, what is the common factor in this equation, what can be seen behind all of the decisions that have led us to where we are (and continue to make it worse) and, by implication, could show us the way out: Money. Corporate profit.

We live in a profit-driven capitalist society. More than that, we have moved well beyond simple “Adam Smithian” capitalism to what Noam Chomsky identifies as “gangster capitalism”. In this stage, merely making money is not sufficient – the only goal becomes to make ever more money, by any and every means possible, no matter who, or what is destroyed. This includes people, animals, plants and the earth itself -- it hurts, screws, destroys, even though neither those who control it nor their descendants could ever spend it all. Fewer and fewer people control more and more and it would be naïvete to assume this is not the case in health care.

Virtually all the systemic bad things (as opposed to the much less common individual error) in healthcare derive from corporate owners’ efforts to make more money, and to game the system to maximize profit. While huge practice groups owned by hospitals or investors could operate more efficiently to improve both the quality of and access to care for patients, they don’t since they are interested in squeezing every dollar of profit. Conversely, small physician-owned practices couid do better than they do, but often, in pursuit of income, do not care for significant portions (poor, uninsured, badly insured) of the population. Explicitly for-profit (as opposed to ostensibly non-profit, but still fixated on making as much as possible) healthcare entities, whether large hospitals and hospital systems or more ‘niche’ services like dialysis, physical therapy, and long-term care, are the worst. There is certainly plenty of blame to go around – healthcare systems blame insurance companies for not paying them enough and insurance companies blame healthcare systems for demanding too much, but both are seeking to earn money for themselves, not to ensure all people get the highest quality health care.

Pharmaceutical companies are notoriously rapacious. For example, see Aduhelm® (FDA approves Alzheimer's drug against the recommendation of its scientific panel. Be very concerned, June 21, 2021); every (60 million!) Medicare recipient’s Part B payments will now rise $11/month so some Alzheimer’s patients can receive this drug that, though probably ineffective, costs a huge amount (now, graciously, reduced to only $28,200/year!). It was approved by the FDA over the recommendation of its scientific advisory panel in a move completely reminiscent of the fraudulent labeling of Oxy-Contin® described in the film “Dopesick”, which I recently discussed ("Dopesick": The story of the marketing of killer opioids will really make you sick. Don't trust any of them!, Dec 7, 2021).

I have often advocated for a single-payer health insurance system, such as Medicare for All. The advantage of this would be that 1) everyone in the US is covered, and 2) everyone in the US has the SAME coverage, The second is not a minor point, as it means that the educated and powerful will make sure it works, also helping the disenfranchised and disempowered. A universal health insurance system (or something comparably effective) is necessary, but not sufficient. Medicate for All needs to be an improved and expanded Medicare, as described in the bills introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Pramila Jayapal and others.(See this good analysis by Sen. Sanders on the “Vulgarity” of the US health system.) It must be expanded to cover not only everyone but everything (mental health, dental, vision, hearing, long-term care) and improved to cover them completely without co-pays, co-insurance, deductibles. This will eliminate the flaws Goldman describes in Medicare payments.

Since we already spend 2-3x as much per capita on health care as any other wealthy country, including premiums, deductibles, co-pays, government benefits, and the profits and administrative costs sucked out of the “healthcare” pool by insurers and providers, we don’t even need to tax the richest a lot more to pay for it. We just need to spend it on actually providing healthcare! Not that we shouldn’t make the billionaires and corporations pay at least their fair share of taxes; we can use that money to providea adequate housing, food and education to all our people – really, the biggest factors in health.

Don’t get distracted by the circuses and diversions created by those with a profit-motivated dog in the fight. Profit has little place in healthcare. Obscene profit has none.

Corporate control corrupts medicine and reduces healthcare quality

Medicine and health care is always changing, and the pace of change seems to be accelerating. Some of this change is good for people -- some of the new drugs that come out actually help, either a lot of people, or more commonly a few people. Sometimes new treatments are more effective, less painful, shorter, or less debilitating than older ones. And, sometimes, they are not. One thing we can be sure of, though, when we see a new treatment advertised, whether on TV or in a magazine or on a billboard, is that someone is making a lot of money on it.

There has been a great deal of coverage of two of the most important and egregious industries in which large corporations make lots of money at the expense of our health: pharmaceuticals and insurance. They deserve it, and I have written about them often. But another extremely important area where corporatism and corporate culture has taken hold and is expanding is in the ownership and management of hospitals. The most important thing about this increasing corporatism is that it is about making money (even in “non-profit” hospitals), not primarily about providing the health care that people need; of course, if what you need (or can be persuaded to buy) is profitable for the hospital, they’re all about it. For example, new surgical techniques and imaging, and particularly high-margin, low risk procedures like joint repair and replacement in otherwise relatively young healthy people (let’s go for that high school quarterback or 40-something weekend warrior). Not so much problems that occur in people who have multisystem disease, are old, are high risk, or are poor and uninsured. And some stuff – like psychiatric treatment for the most needy, or trauma care, are big money losers. Hate that if you’re a CEO, although might be good if you are a person who needs it.

This trend has been going on for a long time, particularly in large metropolitan areas, where most big hospitals are, and most of them are now part of hospital systems. Of course, big hospitals were always big, but the overemphasis on making decisions based upon money rather than people’s health has been accelerating. And more recently the process has taken over hospitals in smaller communities, including Critical Access Hospitals in rural areas. The Critical Access designation is meant to reflect the geographic isolation of a community, such that travel to the next-closest hospital creates real health risks for the population, and so even if operating it is inefficient, it receives federal support.

This is discussed in an outstanding editorial by Andrea Wendling in the October 2018 issue of Family Medicine, “Times Are Changing”. Dr. Wendling focuses on two major areas, the reinterpretation of the “value” of physicians and the role of family physicians. Family physicians are the most common specialists in rural areas, in part because they can have such a wide scope of practice. They can care for the medical problems of adults and children, deliver babies, provide care for many musculoskeletal problems, mental health, women’s health care, and provide many procedures. At least as important to patients, they can see them in all the venues where they need to be seen – the office, the hospital, the nursing home, and even the patient’s home. Dr. Wendling notes that this is threatened by the corporate perception of physicians’ value, which is their value to the system, measured financially, rather than their value to the health of the community. Yes, you might find it beneficial to have a doctor who knows you, who has cared for you and your family for years, be able to see you in whatever setting you find yourself in, but the system has decided it is more efficient (read “more profitable”) to have your doctor be only an ambulatory care provider, or only a hospitalist.

It is not only family physicians who are affected, although they predominate in rural areas. While some specialists – those that provide care that is not necessarily the most important, but is the most profitable – have always been more highly paid and more sought after by health systems, even they are seeing decreases in their pay and status. It is hard for the family physician to cry for slight cuts in the income and power of doctors (like orthopedists and radiologists) who are making many times what they do, and in fact it is hard for most Americans to cry for the plight of even the lowest-paid doctors. Perhaps it feels like crying for the white men who bemoan their loss of privileges (real and desired) because women and minorities are finally moving the playing field to being, at least a little, more equal. But the corporate influence is far more malignant.

Family doctors believe that their contribution to people’s health is relatively greater than their income. Doctors believe that, whatever their income, they are working to improve people’s health. CEOs and corporations believe that health is a good thing to try to sell, provided we sell the kind that makes money. They do not put the health of the community first; they put the financial well-being of the corporation first. And, not surprisingly, this affects both poor and rural communities the most, because of the limited access to services they had in the first place; an arrogant and self-serving corporation taking over the only hospital in a community does not bode well for the overall health of the people who live there.

And, adding insult to injury, it is not only the dollar-centered approach that is a problem, it is the egos of the local leaders who, emulating their corporate bosses and our political class, think that they as individuals are important and deserve respect and obeisance. I have a friend who led the physician group at a rural hospital when it was taken over by a larger system, and helped negotiate the criteria for bonuses for the medical staff. Soon after, that physician was fired by the local CEO for “embarrassing them”! The doctor got their job back with the help of lawyers, but imagine the gall of that CEO! If what they were doing was right and good, they had no reason to be embarrassed; if they had reason to be embarrassed because what they were doing was corrupt, self-centered, not good for the physicians or for the community’s health, what they were doing was wrong and should have been exposed. I have no doubt that if the people in that town were asked who they valued more, the physician who had cared for them for years or the new CEO put in by a corporation, which one would get more votes. Maybe the CEO would get that of their spouse.

So we have a health care system that is structured to be corrupt, from the insurance companies, to the drug and device makers, to the big health systems, all geared to profit. We have many physicians, in all specialties from the rich and powerful subspecialists to the family physician, who are trying to figure out how to stay on the “good side” of these corporate systems and of the local martinets. We have physician leaders, in hospitals and medical societies and academic departments who often are looking mostly at themselves and how to show that they as individuals are important (like that rural CEO), maybe believing that what is good for them is somehow good for people. Sadly, this is even true in family medicine, no longer the ‘counterculture’[1] its founders, like Gayle Stephens, wrote about, but now often simply other supplicants for corporate largesse.

All of this is at worst immaterial and at best subsidiary. The criteria for whether a healthcare system or aspects of it are good is whether it improves the health of people and the community. We have a long way to go in our healthcare system. And it’s long since time to get started.

---

[1] Stephens GG. Family Medicine as Counterculture. Fam Med 1989; 21(2):103-9.

Are primary care practices prepared for complex patients? Is this even the right question?

The goal for our national policy should be that every person have the best health status that they can. One component of this, although certainly not all of it, is access to high-quality appropriate health care services. This means that people can receive the care that they need, when they need it, and do not receive unnecessary or harmful care. Access includes both financial and physical (geographic) access, and also access to high-quality care (see, for example, "Et qui vendit pellucidum", a recent blog post by my friend Dr. Allen Perkins).

One part of having access is that there need to be sufficient numbers of providers, appropriately trained and distributed to meet those health needs. It also means that those providers should have no reason or incentive to preferentially provide certain types of care rather than others, or care to certain people rather than others. Unfortunately, the profit motive skews this in the US; we have redundancy of profitable services like “cancer centers” and “heart centers” in major metropolitan areas, with hospitals competing for the same pool of patients, while in other areas even primary care is unavailable. We have excess capacity in some areas (every hospital, for example, needs an MRI or patients might go somewhere else, even if the number of MRI scans the population needs doesn’t justify it; providers prefer to take care of less-complex patients – a single joint replacement in an otherwise-healthy 45 year old with an athletic injury is more profitable than, and thus preferable to, doing a joint replacement in an 80 year old with multiple medical problems).

A recent survey of primary care providers in 10 countries by the by Robin Osborn and colleagues from the Commonwealth Fund, “Primary Care Physicians In Ten Countries Report Challenges Caring For Patients With Complex Health Needs”[1], published in the December 2015 issue of Health Affairs (only the abstract is available free on line) sought to determine whether primary care physicians (there are, at least in the US, other providers like NPs and PAs who are not physicians) feel competent to provide various types of care. The 10 countries were all wealthy and highly developed (Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States). All but the US have some form of universal health care, although the way that it is organized (e.g., single-payer government health insurance in Canada, a national health service in the UK, multiple non-profit insurers in several others) varies from country to country. In most countries, “primary care” meant family physicians or GPs, but in others (including the US), it also included general internists and general pediatricians.

The researchers found both similarities and differences by country in the percent of primary care practices that had confidence in their ability to adequately address population health needs, especially those that are increasing because of the aging of the population. For example, the confidence of these practices in managing patients with multiple chronic conditions was generally high (from 70% in Canada to 88% in Germany and the Netherlands; the US was at 76%). Fewer practices were confident in other areas, and there was greater variance. For example, 92% of practices in the Netherlands and 81% in the UK had high confidence in providing palliative care, while Sweden (25%), the US (41%), and Canada (42%) were much lower. Similar variations existed for other services (see table); for example, confidence in dealing with patients with substance use related issues were much lower (from 16% in the US to 41% in the UK).

The authors also surveyed whether practices had a number of characteristics that many experts think are important for being able to effectively and efficiently manage complex patients. These included use of electronic health records (European countries were ahead, but the US and Canada, late adopters, are catching up), team based care, after hours care not requiring visiting the ER (the US is very low), access of patients to their medical records (the US is very high as this is one of the criteria for “meaningful use” payments from the federal government), communication between different hospitals, specialists, and ERs with the primary providers (all over the board including in the US), and many other areas.

Of course, these surveys reflect the experiences of physicians in different countries, and are thus subjective rather than compared to some iconic “gold standard”. People do not know what they do not know, or haven’t experienced, or cannot even imagine; their experiences are context-dependent, and so cannot be directly compared. For example, the survey asked whether physicians thought that (their) “system works well; only minor changes needed”.  Only 16% of US doctors answered positively, with the high being in Norway, 67%. However, in the UK the number was also very low – 22%. How can we interpret that? In all of these countries, save the US, including the UK, everyone is covered. 78% of UK physicians may not believe that their “system works well; only minor changes needed”, but what would they think if the alternative was a non-system like the US where there are large numbers of uninsured people? Would they think that a better system? Probably not, but can’t tell from this data.

Finally, and perhaps most important, the survey does not look at whether there are a sufficient number and appropriate distribution of primary care providers to meet a country’s needs even when the practices are well-organized. It is my impression that the answer to this question is closer to “enough” in most of these other countries; I am certain it is not in the US. In our country, the financial rewards for subspecialization and the “lifestyle” (and sometimes financial) rewards for urban location are major determinants in our distribution of providers across specialties and geography. There are far too few primary care providers as a percentage of all physicians, and while family physicians are far more equitably distributed than other specialists, there are still big geographic disparities. Among the many “solutions” that have been suggested, I believe that only one will work: eliminate, or at least dramatically decrease, the income differential between primary care and subspecialties. This is not as far-fetched as it seems; as I have discussed before, high income for some specialists and procedures are not market-drive but are set by policy; Medicare sets these rates.

As far as geographic disparity is concerned, this is an issue that most effects primary care and a few other specialties (psychiatry, general surgery) since most subspecialists practice only in urban areas where there are sufficient populations to use their services. This also can be addressed by money: pay providers differentially more for more rural practice. We also need to provide financial resources to support these practices not only for income, but for wrap-around care. Support must be provided to these practices so that they can afford the capacity to care for the complex problems addressed in the survey.

A general practitioner from Denmark (not one of the 10 countries surveyed) told me about how his anesthesiologist son-in-law really liked his work. I chuckled about how much he must make. He told me no, actually in Denmark GPs make more. This is a good illustration of how our assumptions are context bound.

It is also the way we need to go in the US.

---

[1] Osborn R, Moulds D, Schneider EC, et al., “Primary Care Physicians In Ten Countries Report Challenges Caring For Patients With Complex Health Needs”, Health Affairs 34, no.12 (2015):2104-2112, doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1018