Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Jews and the NBA


Yes, of course it is true that Jews have been disproportionately awarded Nobel Prizes (I don't have one, it's true, but lots of Jews do.) And it's true that the 19th century saw seminal figures such as Marx, Freud, Kafka, and Mendelssohn have inordinate influence.  Jews are certainly important.

But often overlooked, even today after the Donald Sterling kerfuffle, is the seminal influence of Jews on pro basketball. Who remembers that the Commissioner was Maurice Podoloff? The Warriors owner was Eddie Gottlieb? That Red Auerbach was Jewish? Who remembers that, I ask you?

Who remembers that the Philadelphia Warriors began as the Philadelphia Sphas – South Philadelphia Hebrew Association basketball team? Who remembers that David Stern was the the league in-house lawyer before he became commish? Look what he did, after all. Guess what religion Adam Silver has to be, although I've never heard it mentioned – that's right, never heard it mentioned!

Back then, way back then, the college game had lots of Southern teams. Kentucky, even with Pat Riley against Texas Western – all white! But blacks were taking their place steadily in the less-established pro game, and Jews knew that discrimination was a bad thing. They also knew quality when they saw it, and they respected the game and the people who played it. And I'm not even mentioning Goose Tatum.

Pro basketball has led the way in so much or race relations, n'est-ce pas? When I wrote my acclaimed freshman essay at Harvard, “Mr. Basketball, or Why I Hate Bob Cousy,” (available on personal request), even then in 1959, I proffered Elgin Baylor as the next superstar, and didn't even think to mention that he was African-American. Of course, unconsciousness, c'est moi. But even so, there he was at the top of the heap in my mind (a Jewish mind, no?). I didn't see that among the many assets that Cousy had going for him in Johnny Most's mind and the editors of Sports Illustrated was his whiteness, but still. The league has been a model for good race “relations.”

So, I ask you, is it a coincidence that the NBA has been a model for race recognition, or race progressivity, and that it has such a Jewish heritage and presence, and I haven't given more than a hint of the Jewish influence, really. Red Holtzman, gotta be Jewish. Dolph Schayes, Lenny Rosenbluth, Wilt Chamberlain in the Borscht Belt. Sheldon Raiken. OK, maybe not Sheldon. Reds Sherr.

Why don't we hear more about that, that you can count on Adam Silver, after all, he's Jewish? Why don't we hear that? Is it because of the overreach of AIPAC? Or, maybe, I guess you gotta say, maybe because Donald Sterling appears to be Jewish? Yeah, maybe good to keep the whole Jewish thing on the low-down.

Well, at least we have to say, we haven't heard anything about Sterling the Jew. I look at Jabbar and Kevin Johnson lavishing praise on Adam Silver and I think, that's great. Matter of fact, do you think Kevin might be Jewish?

budd shenkin

Monday, April 28, 2014

High Deductible Health Plan - Big Article is Published

OK, sports fans, I have opined here at some length on the nefarious character of High Deductible Health Plans – HDHPs. Now, at long last, my definitive article has been published.


And here is the AAP News article announcing the new policy:


High-deductible health plans discourage primary care visits, services for children

  1. Alyson Sulaski Wyckoff, Associate Editor



The federal government should consider restricting high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) to adults because the plans discourage families from seeking primary care for their children, according to an updated AAP policy statement.
High-Deductible Health Plans (Pediatrics 2014;133:e1461-e1470Abstract/FREE Full Text), from the AAP Committee on Child Health Financing, reviews the pros and (mostly) cons of HDHPs and suggests how the plans could be improved.

The economics

More than 5 million people younger than 20 years are enrolled in HDHP plans. A 2013 survey found 20% of small companies and 40% of large ones offered an HDHP plan to its employees, with 20% of all employers having an HDHP as the only choice. In addition, such plans increasingly are used by companies employing mostly low-income workers.
To receive government approval, the 2013 plans required a minimum deductible of $1,250 for an individual and $2,500 for a family. Total out-of-pocket expenses (not including premiums) were capped at $6,250 for an individual and $12,500 for a family. While the Affordable Care Act (ACA) allows for basic preventive services in nongrandfathered plans with no cost-sharing, related services administered during those well visits generally are subject to the deductible.

Pros and cons

Among the positive features, the plans are simpler to implement; offer lower premiums than conventional plans; may be an incentive to living healthier; and can be combined with a health savings account (HSA) or a health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) to allow consumers to pay for qualified out-of-pocket medical expenses on a pre-tax basis. Overall, HDHPs result in lower use of health care services.
Figure
Dr. Shenkin
For families with young children, however, many aspects of these plans pose “significant concerns,” according to the policy, because parents have an incentive to avoid doctor visits.
“They’re reluctant to come in, they seek more telephone care, they’re reluctant to complete referrals, and they’re reluctant to come back for appointments to follow up on an illness,” said Budd Shenkin, M.D., M.A.P.A., FAAP, lead author of the policy. “So it really interferes severely with continuity of care.”
The result can be unexpected consequences, particularly for children with chronic conditions, said Thomas F. Long, M.D., FAAP, chair of the Committee on Child Health Financing. He worries about all the care required by children with congenital abnormalities or other special needs.
Figure
Dr. Long
“If it’s going to cost them out-of-pocket money, they may say, ‘Well, it’s just a cold, I don’t need to see the doctor.’ And ‘just a cold, turns into ‘just pneumonia,’” Dr. Long added.
Some families who do not qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford the deductibles can be caught in the middle.
“If you’re in the working class … you’re just making it. Your kid gets sick, and you really have to think, ‘Is my child $150 sick?’ Because that $150 has a huge meaning to you,” said Dr. Shenkin. He believes the plans place families in a “terrible position” and conflict with principles of the patient-centered medical home.
There also is concern about families of children with special needs who forego chronic care management if it’s not covered, said Dennis Z. Kuo, M.D, M.H.S., FAAP, member of the AAP Council on Children with Disabilities. That could include critical medications, outpatient lab testing, imaging services and specialty care visits, depending on the plan.
Figure
Dr. Kuo
“It needs to be recognized that for children with special needs, their families will likely have little to no control over the amount of care they need,” said Dr. Kuo.
For many of them, a medical event or diagnosis could be unexpected, he added. “Their child may seem healthy at first and if they elect to utilize a high-deductible plan, they’re going to get hit financially very hard if something does happen.”

Other concerns

Pediatric offices face administrative burdens when families don’t understand the plans’ payment structure, said Jill Stoller, M.D., FAAP, chair of the AAP Section on Administration and Practice Management Executive Committee.
Figure
Dr. Stoller
“Most insurers don’t have computer systems where we can … find out ahead of time what the parents should owe for that visit. So you end up submitting your claims and having to wait to find out how it gets adjudicated, then billing it out to parents. So there’s a big delay. It impacts cash flow in the practice.”
Dr. Stoller also worries about parents holding back on physician visits: “It’s scary,” she said. “How much are parents going to decide to put off because of cost-sharing?”

Recommendations

If HDHPs continue to be offered to families with children, AAP policy recommendations include the following:
  • Permit a generous number of primary care visits without the deductible and exempt some key procedures.
  • Eliminate deductibles for children with special needs.
  • Require employers to fund HSAs and HRAs at high levels.
  • Include all elements of the medical home in the benefit package.
  • Insurance companies should devise procedures to allow offices to determine the complete bill at the time of a visit; issue debit or credit cards to patients with HSA and HRA accounts; compensate practices for the additional overhead; and encourage preventive visits.
  • Primary care offices should assign a staff member to answer parents’ questions.
  • Policymakers should pursue alternative strategies to reduce health care costs without affecting primary care.

Budd Shenkin

Sunday, April 20, 2014

A Sad Tale in a Teaching Hospital


My father's friend was Sy Axelrod. Sy was a doctor like my Dad. Their third doctor friend was George Silver, and all three were Lefties from Philadelphia who trained in the 30's and 40's when the most basic ideologies had yet to be settled. Sy established the University of Michigan School of Public Health and the field they called “medical care,” to distinguish it from things like sanitation and epidemiology. “Medical care” was about the organization of medical care services. Most of the Medical Careniks wanted socialization of medical care, but they never got that far. As far as they could get was prepaid care, which became HMOs, which entailed large organizations instead of small offices.

Sy had a bracelet he wore, which said, “In case of illness, take me to the nearest teaching hospital.” That was the best way he thought one could deal with the variation of health care quality one finds in the field. Or, as my father used to say, “Every family needs at least one doctor in each generation, to protect them from all the bad care out there.”

Sy was a good Dean; he looked out for his professors and his students. He had a sense of mission, and he realized that the products that he sent forth would be his legacy. One of his professors was Avedis Donabedian, who devoted himself to the issue of quality of care; no one had done much on this until Donabedian. I remember Sy saying, “He's got his handle on this now; he finally understands it.” It was Donabedian who distinguished three levels of quality ascertainment: structure, process, and outcome. Without the structure – like properly trained clinicians – you were unlikely to produce good medical care; without good processes – doing a strep test before you decide whether or not to treat – you were unlikely to be producing good results; but of course the ultimate value of care was in the outcome, but that was very hard to measure.

They believed that the pinnacle of excellent medical care was at the great teaching hospitals; for them, it was the University of Michigan University Hospital. They had all the structural elements necessary to produce great care. Their professors were excellent and did great research. They were intelligent people who could discuss concepts and who agreed with Donabedian's concepts of quality. The house staff were highly selected and motivated. Everything was in place at the University of Michigan.

Then Donabedian got sick. I forget what his affliction was, but he was cared for at, naturally, the University of Michigan. What he found there as a patient was a disaster. Every element of process quality that he defined was violated. Coordination? Forget it. Continuity? Non-existent. Etc. He and Sy were vexed and bemused, but it was too late in their careers to think much more about it.

My Dad, on the other hand, had left the University of Pennsylvania setting early in his career, unhappily so. He was told that there was no room there for a Jew, and he found his place elsewhere in Philadelphia, getting his revenge by living well, and getting research grants and heading a teaching program independently. He bacame a world-renowned neurosurgeon with an attitude problem. Like, he thought all the NIH grants went to friends of the reviewers, although my Dad got his share. Nonetheless, he was right, there is a problem of safety-first with peer-reviewed grants. He also got his revenge by having a CT scanner before the less-nimble University got theirs, and giving them middle of the night appointments.

One time, my Dad was brought in as visiting professor in neurosurgery at the Cleveland Clinic for a week. He came back and said, “That's where you should go if you get sick!” Their secret? “They don't have any residents!” All they did was focused on patient care; that was their proclaimed goal, not the traditional three-legged academic medicine stool of teaching, research, and (lastly) patient care. As a clinician, my Dad's opinion differed from Sy's. My Dad got his coronary bypass operation at the Episcopal Hospital where he had led the staff for years, and got his atrial ablation at the Lankenau Hospital outside Philadelphia, and his aortic valve fixed there as well. His final caretaking institution was the long term care unit right in his retirement home. No academia for my Dad.

My Dad was a sensitive and argumentative sort, and very much the neurosurgeon. Sy on the other hand, had pride in his academics. Sy thought my Dad didn't understand all the relevant points, and my Dad wasn't going to take any shit from an academic. They parted ways in acrimony. It was really a shame; the three couples, the Axelrods, the Shenkins, and the Silvers, had spent many good times together, and it just ended like that. Dad said how can you take my views so unseriously and disrespect me, and Sy said if you're going to say mean things, how can we be friends. It ended.

Now, years later and here on the West Coast, you would think the medical care issues would be different, but they're not. My wife's ex-husband Bruce, the father of my step-children and the grandfather of Lola, a very nice man who has been an attentive father and grandfather and a thoughtful ex-husband, unfortunately has esophageal cancer. After local oncologic treatment he had his surgical excision at UCSF in an eight hour procedure. I have no doubt that the surgery was excellent, but five out of ten nodes were positive for cancer, and there was local invasion. Such a disappointment.

He went home and lost weight, and then after a few weeks started retching uncontrollably. He went for care back to UCSF and got … a resident, wouldn't you know. A pompous resident. A resident who didn't see why he had to be admitted; after all, it wasn't something that needed an operation right away, I guess he thought. A resident who while he talked turned away from Sara, Bruce's daughter, who is the physician for this generation of the family. It was hard to contact the attending physicians who had operated on Bruce; they were signed out to the residents.

But Bruce was eventually admitted, after spending an interminable time in the dark interior holding area next to the ER, with curtains separating four patients, the others having to listen to Bruce's retching. After two days, on Friday no one rounded on him. Sara discovered by looking at the chart that his sodium was down to 130, too low. She tried to contact the residents who were taking care of him but was unsuccessful. Today on Sunday the sodium is down to 128 and he had not been rounded on by the time Sara finished her own rounds on her patient. Sara had the nurse on the floor page the residents three times and they finally responded that they had 40 patients to round on, had been going since 6:30 AM, and he just wasn't their highest priority. The nurses told Bruce's wife that he might be discharged today. Sara told them not to accept discharge with a sodium so low. Besides which, Bruce has a jejunal tube inserted for feeding and no one has taught his wife how to use it. And of course there is still little discussion of a diagnosis – why is he retching? There appears to be no game plan. Bruce had been scheduled to see the oncologist at UCSF to see if any further chemotherapy would be helpful, but that was the day he was admitted, and there has been no contact from that office.

American medicine is sick, clearly. The system is unarticulated. UCSF doctors are great in what they do, for the most part, but as an institution they don't take care of patients very well. My Dad had it right – we need more Cleveland Clinics. There are calls for “centers of excellence,” and they would be great. But large institutions can go off on their own tangents for their own purposes and lose track of the individual mission of medicine. Residents need to be trained, but throwing them in the pool as asking them to swim might not be the best training regimen. I could go on about academic institutions, I guess, by why do that? Just to say, my Dad probably had it right, and here we are with the same problem all these years later. I feel so bad for Bruce, and for all the other patients who have to endure the ill effects of poor organization.

Budd Shenkin

Monday, March 24, 2014

My Pen Pal Alla, and My Friend Victor Lvov

 
From my American Academy of Pediatrics, Section on Administration and Practice Management (SOAPM) listserve:

Budd,

Don't forget, that there were very few reasons for someone to be kicked out of medical school in my times...

Killing someone, applying for leaving Soviet Union as an "enemy of people" or... failing the very important for all physicians communist ideology class. We had 4 years of internal medicine studies, 4 years of surgical studies, 4 years of military training studies (we all graduated as second lieutenants of the soviet army reserves) but all 6 years of mandatory brainwashing where we had to take detailed notes of all historic publications (Marx, Engels, Lenin) and modern (Brezhnev's "literary" writings along with the party resolutions and other documents). I was able to swing though the dialectic materialism, historic materialism, scientific atheism and communist philosophy courses by doing research on philosophical views of Avicenna, but even the great Maimonides was able to save me from the history of Communist Party in my freshmen year and Political Communism in my senior year. Our 3 mandatory graduation exams were: (a) Medicine, (b) Public Health, (c) Political Communism. And that is on top of all the similar brainwashing through grammar, middle and high school.... To be allowed to present my PhD thesis I had to take another 3 exams:  specialty (i had to do two there - dermatology and medical genetics), foreign language (I can tell you one day how I was GIVEN that exam) and communist philosophy. 

...In 1989 despite of losing everything, uprooting everything and coming to the US with retired parents, 5 yo son, 2 suite cases per person, $90 per person in a pocket, and a dream, I did feel very optimistic. Scared - the lives of 3 people were depending on how I will be able to survive in this new country, on me and me alone - but optimistic. The best description of that feeling was that I had nothing to lose except for my own (socialist) chains, but I could get the whole world (of American dream).

Alla Gordina

And I responded to Alla:

Alla:
Here is the story of my friend from Russia, Victor Lvov. 

Victor was a dear, warm friend, although we didn't socialize.  He came from St. Petersburg.  I met him when he was our neonatologist at Summit Hospital in Oakland, and I was the Chief of Pediatrics.  We worked together for years, with the warmest relationship ever. 

Victor had been a wunderkind (sorry, German word) and got his doctorate before he was 20, probably.  He was friends with the Saint Petersburg chief of police and they went fishing together.  Victor then published samizdats on the real statistics of public health, not the false ones published by the authorities.  He was told not to do this but persisted.  One day he got a call from his friend the chief of police that was very impersonal, telling him he was an enemy of the state, how could he do this anti-social activity, and that he, his wife, and his young child had to leave the Soviet Union within 24 hours.
Victor hung up the phone and thought, "He is saving me from the Gulag."
Within 24 hours Victor was in Boston with a few suitcases and his family and no money, knowing maybe one person, I think.  He was rescued by the local Jewish agency and was soon working on polishing floors with other Jewish refugees and had a small apartment for his family.  He knew no English.
Within 18 months he had mastered English and passed the medical exam.  He moved to San Francisco and started a neonatology fellowship and in a few years wound up with the Oakland neonatology group.  He was a great doctor, and was soon circulating figures that showed that Summit Hospital had the largest concentration of neonatal syphilis in the country.  We also had outstanding diagnosis and treatment results.  We completely rocked.
By the nineteen-nineties Victor and Barry Phillips, the head of the Children's Neonatology Group, had started the Heart to Heart program linking Children's Oakland to St. Petersburg Children's Hospital Number One as sister hospitals, with neonatology and pediatric cardiology and cardiac surgery.  Then a team from Children's was slated to come to St. Petersburg to consult for a few weeks.  There was a hitch -- the St. Petersburg group said that they could come, but Victor could not receive the Visiting Professor title because of his history.  Barry Phillips stood up and said, if that didn't happen, there would be no exchange at all.
Victor was then appointed as Visiting Professor and returned to St. Petersburg with the highest honors.  Victor was the true victor.  You can imagine!  Many exchanges followed back and forth, and I was lucky enough to be one of the personnel in the exchange.
Several years later I made rounds one morning at Alta Bates Hospital nursery and hadn't seen Victor in a few months.  Gil Duritz, the chief of neonatology at Alta Bates (and father of Adam Duritz, lead singer of Counting Crows) said to me, "Did you hear about Victor?"
I said, "No, what?"
Gil said, "He died last week."
"What???!!"
"He wasn't feeling well for about a month and finally checked with a doctor.  He had lymphoma.  He did within one week."
That is the story of my friend Victor Lvov.

Budd Shenkin

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

The Ukraine

Dear readers, please allow me a somewhat disjointed post, perhaps, in the interest of topicality:

 
I have had a vigorous conversation with members of my family on the Ukraine.  My brother-in-law Jim is very conservative, tends strongly toward the ideological and even the pontifical, but for all that is a very nice man, and one with whom I seek reasoned agreement.  Sometimes it’s possible.  There’s something to be said for conversations within family where you can maintain an emotional equilibrium and appreciation for seriousness of purpose.
Jim thinks the West has been weak, Obama terribly so, and that the Soviets – I mean the Russians – have been more or less invited to be aggressive.  I read The Obamians by James Mann two weeks ago, and I see that Obama has wanted to be fresh and non-postVietnamian, and to lead to an era where everyone understands win-win.  I also have read others who say, lots of luck with that!  See my friend Michael Nacht’s oped on that point of view: http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Why-Putin-sees-little-risk-in-Ukraine-aggression-5318810.php.  Michael negotiated with the Russians on nuclear disarmament in the Clinton Administration and he just shakes his head with the memory.
On the third hand, I’m reading cold-warrior Bob Gates thoroughly engrossing and so-far inadequately reviewed (they just look for dirt to dish) new book “Duty,” and he says that in recent decades the United States has treated Russia with disrespect, insensitivity, and arrogance.  Wow, coming from Gates.  The “Ugly American” is an image that will not die.  (“Ugly American” as popularly conceived; actually, as drawn by Eugene Burdick, the Ugly American was actually a positive person who happened to be physically unattractive, I think, but his aggressive colleagues in the CIA and American business have garnered the stereotype.  I mention this only to show a modicum of erudition.)  In that sense we have goaded Putin to assert himself when the opportunity and perhaps necessity has arisen.
That all being said, what I said to Jim was, I still think we'll just have to see.  It's not all over in a fortnight.  The Crimea is historically Russian, and it is unrealistic to ask Russia to give up their warm water port.  Perhaps they have been paranoid and worried that it would go away when it wouldn't, but this move of theirs ensures that they will keep it, and Putin shows strength domestically in the way he is doing it.  But at the same time he will be losing abroad and be more isolated, but perhaps there is some splendor in that.

I actually doubt anything more will happen.  Over the longer and more important term, the major job will be to get a functioning democracy going in Ukraine, a formidable task given the Ukrainian kleptocracy that has put other kleptocracies to shame.  Yanukovich seems to have had palaces, for God’s sake; Yulia Tymoshenko was a thief, too, who probably actually did belong in jail, I figure.  Here’s the question: can the technocrats produce a government that allows the country to move forward?  That's the real challenge.
You remember the intercepted phone call of Victoria Nuland's when she said, "Fuck the EU."  A noble sentiment, that.  Attention focused on the expletive and her attitude toward an ally, but titillating as that was, the key was that she was talking about helping to get a real government going.  That's what Putin objected to, all the meddling of the US.  Her seeking good government was interpreted by Putin as meddling to achieve a Western ally.  Both were correct.  What Putin misses is that the US would have liked to have Russia as an ally as well – that’s the win-win perspective that has gone missing in the KGB perspective.

The biggest problem really is Putin's Russian economy.  It grows but doesn't reach modernity.  It remains a resource state, a petrostate, and typical of these states, doesn’t sufficiently develop human capital.  What is to be gained by grabbing more territory, if that territory is simply some glory and some rustbelt?  If people in the new territory continue to be impoverished compared to the people across the border, Putin will lose.  That's what has motivated the Ukrainians - they see the Poles across their border with good lives, and they themselves are stuck in the muck.  That's why a good government is essential.  (For an over-rated exposition of the centrality of good government in economic progress, see: Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, by Acemoglu and Robinson.)

Not to be too Marxist, but the economy will tell the tale.  I think my brother-in-law Jim on the Right will join me in that assessment.  Right meets Left?

Budd Shenkin

Saturday, March 1, 2014

The Problem is Price, not Utilization

OK, stop me if you’ve heard this before, but I understand we have some new readers, so here are the latest horror stories from my AAP Section on Administration and Practice Management colleagues on the Listserve:

From Sue:

OK...this goes deep into You are $#%^ kidding me, right?

So, I slipped getting of our hot tub a few weeks ago (yes, one extra glass of champagne) while we were at our beach house in NJ. It was 11:30 at night, laceration on my forehead below my hairline. If I had dermabond at home, probably would have glued it, but I didn't. Wouldn't stop bleeding, no "urgent care" open, so I decided to head to the local ER in Cape May Courthouse for a few stitches. I hate over-utilizing healthcare resources, but really had no choice.

Here's the CRAZY COST OF HEALTHCARE!

The ER billed Aetna 
99283 (level 3 emergency service)...to say, Yep, you need a few stitches $725.00.
I had a $200 copay, and Aetna paid $503.24
they also charged a 12013 (repair superficial wound) an additional $725.00 of which Aetna paid $703.24
along with some supplies for nominal charges paid about $50.

ALL total: Aetna paid $1,256.12 for my FIVE stitches and I paid $200. 
Total paid:  $1,456.12

NOW, I get a bill for the ER physician services who are NOT participating with Aetna, asking me for an additional $254.80 for the amount Aetna wrote off and didn't pay them.

No WONDER we are having so much trouble with the insurance companies trying to send everyone to the Urgent care centers. 
This is LUDICROUS!

Sue

But not to be outdone, Michael:

Ah, c'mon Sue.  Your E.R. billing department must be staffed by amateurs if that's all they charged - I'd say that only deserves a "$#"  kidding me :)

When our son got a nice scalp laceration at night and we took him to the E.R. for staples, how's this for a "$#^!@&*^#)(&" kidding me:

E.R. "Emergency Service" charge - $1,906
E.R. "Surgery-Skin" charge - $1,235
E.R. "Supplies-Sterile" - $557 (I'm guessing this is for the stapler and two staples applied)
E.R. "Supplies-Non Sterile" - $160 (this must have been for the H20 flush to clean the wound prior to the staples)
Doctor "Emergency Service" - $284 (the only reasonable charge of the bunch)
Doctor "Surgery-Skin" - $533

So a grand total of almost $5,000 charged for ten minutes of history, exam, and anticipatory guidance,  some water flushed by a nurse (actually I think it might have been a nursing tech), and the doctor putting the staple gun against his scalp for 10 seconds to pop in two staples.   Since I knew this doctor and I hadn't seen him in awhile we probably spent more time catching up then was spent on medical care.

Obviously the insurance PPO discount got it down significantly.    I need to call the billing office on my day off and have some fun seeing how they justify such ludicrous charges.


The policy implications:

While these true stories are amazing on their face, I believe that they are emblematic of what the real problem is with high costs of health care in the US.  The problem is not overutilization, it is high prices, and creative billing by hospitals, and also some doctors.
When reforms to lower health care costs are proposed, a prime question needs to be: would the proposed reform attack those high prices?  Or is the proposed reform something that would diminish utilization more, make utilization “more efficient” (e.g., reduce duplicated tests), or put more burden for paying onto the patient?  If a reform doesn’t attack prices, it is slashing at a peripheral issue only.

Note also from Sue’s post the complicity of the insurance company.  Some say they should be our agents to keep costs down.  But high prices in one sector leads to high prices in another.  If the insurance company has a set margin and it pays out more for care, it raises its premiums so it can collect more, and its profit will be a percentage of that higher number.   As a result, the insurance company and its executives make more money.  This phenomenon, then it collects more in premiums, and the companies and the executives make more.
This is precisely what happened in the auto industry, as UAW and management scratched each other’s back.  Only competition from abroad brought changed that situation.  Bring on more Indian radiologists on call at night!
budd shenkin

Sunday, February 16, 2014

On National Guidelines and Recommendations

 
My pen pal on the SOAPM (Section on Administration and Practice Management for the American Academy of Pediatrics), Peter Pogacar, posted this article about the recent de-recommendation of mammograms: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/opinion/why-i-never-got-a-mammogram.html?_r=0

This article tells of misadventures of the author’s mother in getting her mammograms, being led astray and confused by findings and doctors and a system that were confused, scattered, uncompassionate, and not patient-centered.  She also talks about being distrustful of doctors because something similar happened to her when her son had a rare condition and the doctors were unsure and, it seems, disorganized. 
This raises a general question: can blanket recommendations – “guidelines” -- really work?
I have a friend who does mammograms as his almost exclusive province of work.  He is skilled and very sensitive to people and patients, and very careful.  The situation of vagueness, misdiagnoses, lost in the system, I'll call you in the next week or so to tell you whether you will live or die -- none of this would apply to my friend Jonny's patients.
So, because the national "average" is poor -- there are lots and lots of doctors and services that suck, we know -- does that mean that one should not get mammograms at Jonny's office?
This is the problem with general guidelines.
Take the case of PSA tests.  They are recommended against for many of the same reasons as mammograms.  But I have a urologist friend Joel.  I have full confidence that if my PSA rose -- it hasn't, thank you God-- but if it did, Joel and I would figure out what to do.  If I had higher anxiety, so be it.  I don't believe in willful ignorance.  Just because a busy and insensitive and perhaps a rather stupid and crass doctor somewhere else (many are, unfortunately) couldn't handle it, does that mean Joel and I shouldn't get this test?
Or take the new guidelines for statins and the treatment of lipid disorders.  My friend Steve is a lipidologist; that's pretty much all he does these days, because he likes to specialize.  He is livid about the new recommendations, as are many.  He gets personal -- the head of the committee is a Doctor Stone, and Steve tells me that people in his department in Chicago, I think it is, refer to him as "Pebbles."  Steve says the recommendations are so un-nuanced that they are virtually worthless.  Much of it looks at the "evidence-base," to the exclusion, Steve says, of reasoned clinical judgement.  Just because something hasn't been "thoroughly studied" doesn't mean you can't make judgements.  Maybe some issues are just too complex to have a national guideline.  Maybe some things really need to be looked at individually by good doctors.  It's too bad there are bad doctors out there who will do unreasonable things.  It's too bad that some drugs will be taken by millions of people and cost a lot.  But does that really apply to the individual situation?
Finally, take me.  I think I'm a pretty smart guy at times.  Years ago the Hepatitis A vaccine made its entrance to our scene.  I thought, great!  Now people can go to Mexico and eat oysters without getting a 5cc shot in the butt every few months.  But no!  "National guidelines" said that "everyone should not get this vaccine."  It was not "cost effective."  Hepatitis A "was not a lethal disease."

Well, not cost effective for whom?  I had well-off patients, and I was well off enough that $100 was OK to spend to avoid getting yellow and shrinking up and laying dormant for six months.  Just because every public agency in the country and some insurance companies didn't want to pony up the money didn't mean that in individual cases it didn't make sense.  Then they found that the incidence of disease in California was high enough to recommend it.  Then they decided to recommend it nationally.  Hell, it made sense to begin with!
And then we need to remember this: "guidelines" are issued by committees, people who get together, disagree, and finally come to on agreement with a statement that does not include the minority opinions of the group, nor the members of the group who quit in disgust at what was going on (this happened to the lipid group.)  These are compromise documents that suppress minority opinions.  Most breakthroughs and smart thoughts are at first minority opinions, often minority opinions of one.
So, pardon me if I take national recommendations with a couple of teaspoonfuls of salt.  I'm finding a good doctor, and I'm talking to him personally, I'm demanding good care, and the females in my family are going to avoid dying of breast cancer if it's at all possible.

Budd Shenkin