Archive for the 'Healthcare System' Category

Robin Hanson on Doctors

Monday, March 24th, 2008

i wash my hands of it

Photo courtesy of sarah

I am visiting GMU. Yesterday, as I was answering email, I heard a class in progress on the other side of the partition by my desk. It was Robin Hanson lecturing about the economics of health care to 20 undergraduates. It was so interesting I ended up listening to about 90 minutes of it. “Do your students know what a great class they’re getting?” I asked Robin during a break. “I don’t know myself,” Robin replied.

I have heard hundreds of professors lecture. I had never heard anything like this. It wasn’t the usual stuff. It wasn’t the usual stuff made entertaining with cartoons or demonstrations or jokes or war stories. Instead, it was a straightforward look at how the medical profession operates, and a lot of it was about how it operates to empower doctors, reduce the power of patients, and reduce health care innovation. Robin traced the history of the profession from the 1800s until today. “What separates a trade from a profession?” he asked his class. Professionals have ethics, he said. Doctors devised a code of ethics. At the top was “first, do no harm.” What does this mean in practice, he asked his class. If a patient dies, does the doctor feel shame? No. If a patient wants a medical procedure that isn’t recommended, does this mean the doctor doesn’t do it? Apparently not. In contrast to the remarkable vagueness of “first do no harm” the rest of the doctors’ ethics code was quite clear: no practice without a license, no advertising, and so on — each item with clear economic implications.

Robin also discussed how little doctors are supervised. A British doctor managed to kill over 200 people before anyone noticed; he was finally caught only because he forged a will. A nurse at a local hospital was assigned measure how often doctors wash their hands. They’re supposed to always wash their hands but many do not. The nurse did the survey, and, as requested, correlated hand washing compliance with death rates. It turned out that the doctor who washed his hands the least had the highest death rate. The nurse reported this. The exceptional doctor had her fired. (more…)

Healthy Kids, Less Crimes?

Thursday, March 6th, 2008

take two and call me in the morning

Photo courtesy of Okko_Pyykko

There’s one issue that hasn’t seen much airtime during the Presidential election, and you probably didn’t even realize its absence. That issue is crime, and it hasn’t come up because it’s just not as scary as it was in the past. In one of the great mysteries of criminology, crime began to fall in 1993 and continued to plummet throughout the 1990s and into the 21st century.

Experts have offered explanations ranging from higher incarceration rates to more cops on the streets to the legalization of abortion (this last theory, put forth by economist Steven Levitt in the best-selling Freakonomics, has since been disproved). But ultimately no one can pinpoint exactly what happened, mostly because no one really knows what causes crime as a broad, social phenomenon. If we can’t explain what causes it, we can’t understand what causes it to decline—and thus politicians can’t take credit for it or offer solutions.

But for all the head-scratching, there is one promising line of inquiry that’s only now beginning to see scholarly attention: the link between peoples’ health as children and their criminal activity as adults. Believe it or not, there’s been relatively little empirical work done to link childhood mental disorders and adult offenses. That’s changing. In November, The American Journal of Psychiatry published a study that asked whether “the national crisis in child community mental health services” contributes to “delinquency,” and whether more robust, timely responses to “youths with mental disorders” can reduce adult crime. The answers were “yes” on both points. (more…)

Government Suppresses Damaging Health Report From American Public!

Monday, February 18th, 2008


              Thanks to Tahoe Sunsets for permission to use this Photo.

The Center for Public Integrity, a public interest investigative journalism organization, has obtained copies of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study of environmental and health data in eight Great Lakes states that was scheduled for publication in July 2007.

The report, which pointed to elevated rates of lung, colon, and breast cancer; low birth weight; and infant mortality in several of the geographical areas of concern has not yet been made public. A few days before the report was slated to be released, it was pulled. Meanwhile, at precisely the same time, its lead author, Christopher De Rosa, has been removed from the position he held since 1992.  The Center for Public Integrity is asking why.

The study, “Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern” was developed by the CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) at the request of the International Joint Commission, an independent U.S-Canadian organization that monitors and advises both governments on the use and quality of boundary waters. The CDC report brings together two sets of data: environmental data on known “areas of concern” — including superfund sites and hazardous waste dumps — and separate health data collected by county or, in some cases, smaller geographical regions. The study does not try to prove cause and effect. Instead, it outlines areas for further study and data collection on the link between pollution and health.”Let’s say we have a superfund site and we also find elevated risk of leukemia in the county — is that related? We don’t know, but people living in the area can logically argue that we ought to find out,” Dr. Peter Orris, a professor at the University of Illinois School of Public Health and one of the peer reviewers of the study told Oneworld.net. (more…)

Ashworth Medical Office Assisting Instructor Cautions You About Writing Prescriptions…

Monday, February 4th, 2008

 
             Thanks to Scarlett Q  for permission to use this Photo.

Many physicians have the medical assistant write out the prescription, and then the physician signs it.  This practice places a significant responsibility on the medical assistant.  My opinion is that it is not good policy to have the medical assistant write out prescriptions.  If the physician in your office does follow this procedure, be absolutely sure that the physician reads what you have written prior to signing the prescription.  This applies especially to prescriptions that are called into the pharmacy.  If the physician has not reviewed the prescription and signed it, then you have just prescribed medications on your own.  Such a situation would have drastic legal and ethical implications for both you and the physician.  Always follow procedures carefully.  If you have concerns about procedures in your office, discuss them with your physician. 

Loretta Maples
Medical Office Assisting Instructor
Ashworth University

Electronic Health Records: We Need A Strategy That Protects Patients…

Thursday, January 17th, 2008


                 Thanks to Corey for permission to use this Photo.

At one point in time, a long time ago (around 2000), I wondered if centralized, government maintained electronic health records was the way to go.  In defense of this position, my arguments revolved around the notions of efficiency and control, in that it was easier for systems to be monitored, maintained, and updated if they were all in one place.  But, as anyone with a technical background could point out, there are significant technical issues behind such a strategy.  It would seem that some people agree: “German doctors say no to centrally stored patient records“.

What I find interesting is the proposed “counter” solution:

As an alternative, the German private doctors’ body is suggesting the use of encrypted USB-sticks. These could be handed over to patients and would carry all relevant patient data, including digital images such as radiographs or CT-scansWow.  I haven’t heard a call for the use of physical based media in quite some time.  Personally, I thought that this line of thinking was disappearing as the feasibility of cloud computing increases and slowly becomes a realistic option.  In all fairness, there are a few other very interesting points raised by the group representing the German physicians. 

Allow hackers to try to and crack the USB system in order to prove that it can be made safe.

Make patients more aware of what information is collected and stored. (more…)

Insurance Companies Stop Paying Due To Hospital Errors…

Wednesday, January 16th, 2008

             Thanks to Kimberly Hurst for permission to use this Photo.

The following Wall Street Journal article should be of great interest to our medical students.  Insurance companies, never on anyone’s sympathy list, have long been complaining that they should not be responsible for paying out insurance claims related to hospital errors.  This position in itself is reasonable; however the issue also contains elements of a slippery slope argument.  Instead of simply refusing accountability for grave errors (mistaken operations, infected blood transfusions, etc.)—industry experts foresee private insurers, much like Medicaid, gradually widening the definition of “errors” to include non-coverage of patient infections alledgedly contracted during a hospital stay.  The CDC states that approximately 99,000 deaths occur annually due to hospital-based infections!  With added pressure being placed on them from the insurance industry, hospitals find themselves under fire for not improving their health safety standards.  In response, hospitals say that increased regulation will only increase health care costs for the patient and further complicate a hospital system already drowning in bureaucracy. 

The medical billing implications are also intriguing.  Due to dense and often confusing medical billing language, many patients are more often than not unaware that they are being billed for hospital errors.  Now that private insurers are beginning to adopt the Medicare model, patients may well be more informed about what exactly is on their medical bill, but hospitals will ultimately have to find new ways to offset the added costs they absorb to raise their infection prevention standards.  As this story continues to unfold, I have a feeling that the patients’ best interests will get lost in the details. 

Ryan Rode
Interactive Services Manager
Ashworth University School of Health Care       

TV Personality Glenn Beck Reflects On Health Care Horror In Infamous Viral Video…

Tuesday, January 15th, 2008

Click here to watch strangely entertaining video!
           Thanks to Kevin Trotman for permission to use this Photo.

I wrote a blog entry on this topic yesterday, then deleted it, as it wasn’t very nice. Kevin, MD’s Dr. Pho has covered 75% of what I wanted to say on his blog today (nicely), here; read his blog entry then come back here for the rest of what I wanted to say:

Glenn Beck’s hospital horror story is getting some attention. Apparently, he had a surgical procedure with marked post-op pain. As physicians tried to control his pain with increasing doses of narcotics, he suffered adverse reactions as a result.

This is one of those amazing occurrences in medicine that makes all of us in Emergency Medicine alternately furious and incredulous, the “Just go to the ER” from a physician who knows the patient much better than the EM doc will, knows what outcome they want, what the patient will need, but cannot be bothered with the 10 minutes of administrative time it’d take for the direct admit to happen. This is what Mr. Beck should have had in the first place, and then a lot of his problems / complaints wouldn’t have happened. He didn’t need the ED, he needed his doctors to take care of their patient.

Mr. Beck was operated on that day in the same facility he was sent back to for re-admission, after having clearly been identified by the anesthesiologist on the case as having significant problems with pain control. (more…)

Health 2.0: Reality Or Hype?

Monday, January 7th, 2008

 
                    Thanks to Ali J for permission to use this Photo.

Health 2.0, like its’ older cousin Web 2.0 and uncle Web 3.0, is getting more and more attention. My colleague Bonnie Andersen pointed out the December 11 Modern Healthcare article, in which the magazine describes the three most important principles of what a Health 2.0 company or application is. 
 
The first principle is the software of a Web 2.0 company has to be Web-based, has to provide a service and that service has to be structured  so that the more people use it, the better it becomes. An example is eBay; as more and more buyers and sellers participate, the broader the eBay  market becomes, which creates more value to the customer. 
 
The second key principle is “harnessing collective intelligence,” which  also is referred to by others as “the wisdom of crowds.” To avail  themselves of this wisdom, Web 2.0 developers must create applications that  are dynamic, with user participation designed into the systems, so that  participation itself becomes an integral part of making the underlying  database more valuable. 
 
The third principle, “Data is the next ‘Intel inside,’  notes that  specialized data, enhanced through analysis performed by the service  provider as well as by the contributions of service users, becomes the core  asset of a Web 2.0 company. Amazon wish lists, for example, are aggregated by Amazon and used as buyer’s guides.
 
Matthew Holt of the Healthcare Blog and co-founder of the Health 2.0 conference is looser in his definition, placing the qualifying emphasis on whether the service or application promotes the healthcare experience as an “ongoing process” rather than a “series of episodic events.”

(more…)

Can Antidepressants Cause Suicide?

Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008

Many parents have said yes. David Healy, a Scottish psychiatrist, prompted by those stories, did a small experiment in which undepressed persons took anti-depressants. About 10% of them started having suicidal thoughts. Drug companies and the University of Toronto (where Healy had been offered a job) reacted very badly to this information, as Healy describes in Let Them Eat Prozac. An article in the latest issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry by David Leon, a biostatistician on the FDA oversight panel, describes why he voted to extend a warning about this from children (< 18 years old) to young adults (18-24 years old). This was the main data:

 

What’s shown is the odds ratio for a report of suicide ideation or behavior, comparing those who got anti-depressants with those who got placebos. (more…)

Pharma, Doctors, Costs: Down Is The New Up In The Health Care System…

Friday, December 28th, 2007


                 Thanks to Gianni for permission to use this Photo.

Daniel Carlat, of the Carlat Report, has an article in the New York Times Magazine.  It’s six pages long, and decidedly anti-Pharma.  But Daniel Carlat isn’t from New York– so why would he have an article published there?

You say: well, where he’s from has nothing to do with it, the New York Times is publishing it because of what he says.

Exactly.

His article, well written and persuasive, stands as is, undisputed because there is no forum in which to dispute it.  I guess it would be nice if the Times would allow me to write an op-ed– you know, in op to the ed– but I guess this blog will have to do.

Carlat is wrong, very wrong, not because he is factually incorrect about his target, but because his target is a straw man.  The problem isn’t Pharma.  It’s doctors.

The article, called Dr. Drug Rep, chronicles his introduction into the world of lecturing for drug companies– a company hires you to give a talk about a topic or drug to a bunch of doctors– and the effects of the lecturing on doctors and himself, and then his pulling out.  For context, Carlat is a fairly famous psychiatrist blogger who is both a sort of watchdog of Pharma, as well as a source of information about psychiatric drugs. 

The general message is that Pharma softly manipulates doctors to act as proxy drug reps, which in turn lends credibility/celebrity endorsement to the Pharma message, and thus influences other doctors to prescribe the medicine.  Ok, I hear you.  I have no beef with Carlat, his point is not unique.

But break it down:

So we don’t want doctors lecturing about the drugs.  Okay.  Well, who do we want?  More reps?  Here’s where it all falls apart, and I defy anyone to contradict me: doctors aren’t studying these drugs on their own. (more…)