Pull up a chair in my domestic church and let's chat!

I have worn many labels (Not in any particular order): Catholic, Wife, Mom,Gramma, Doctor, Major, Soccer Mom, Military Wife, Professor, Fellow.

All of these filter my views of the world. I hope that like St. Monica, I can through prayer, words and example, lead my children and others to Faith.
"The important thing is that we do not let a single day go by in vain without putting it to good use for eternity"--Blessed Franz J├Ągerst├Ątter

Wednesday, April 08, 2009

When Medical Decisions are Made From Afar

Yesterday I pointed to the danger of making medical decisions without considering the individual patient. Today the Wall Street Journal offers a similar discussion. Here is a snippet:

Doubts about the relevance of quality metrics to clinical reality are even emerging from the federal pilot programs launched in 2003. An analysis of Medicare pay-for-performance for hip and knee replacement by orthopedic surgeons at 260 hospitals in 38 states published in the most recent March/April issue of Health Affairs showed that conforming to or deviating from expert quality metrics had no relationship to the actual complications or clinical outcomes of the patients. Similarly, a study led by UCLA researchers of over 5,000 patients at 91 hospitals published in 2007 in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the application of most federal quality process measures did not change mortality from heart failure.

State pay-for-performance programs also provide disturbing data on the unintended consequences of coercive regulation. Another report in the most recent Health Affairs evaluating some 35,000 physicians caring for 6.2 million patients in California revealed that doctors dropped noncompliant patients, or refused to treat people with complicated illnesses involving many organs, since their outcomes would make their statistics look bad. And research by the Brigham and Women's Hospital published last month in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology indicates that report cards may be pushing Massachusetts cardiologists to deny lifesaving procedures on very sick heart patients out of fear of receiving a low grade if the outcome is poor.

Dr. David Sackett, a pioneer of "evidence-based medicine," where results from clinical trials rather than anecdotes are used to guide physician practice, famously said, "Half of what you'll learn in medical school will be shown to be either dead wrong or out of date within five years of your graduation; the trouble is that nobody can tell you which half -- so the most important thing to learn is how to learn on your own." Science depends upon such a sentiment, and honors the doubter and iconoclast who overturns false paradigms.

I've been in the situation as a physician where I know what the patient needs. She is right in front of me in my office. She has pneumonia. She is not responding to outpatient antibiotics. She needs oxygen. She needs parenteral antibiotics. She needs to be admitted to the hospital. But the insurance company clerk who didn't go to medical school and hasn't laid eyes on my patient but has a wiring diagram for care is refusing to authorize the admission because the policy is to use outpatient antibiotics for forty-eight hours before admission. I finally just sent the patient to the emergency room. They would authorize her admission from there.

Who do you want making the bedside decisions about your care--the doctor who sees you or the health care bureaucrat who knows you only as a statistic?

1 comment:

Rosemary Bogdan said...

The doctor who sees me!!! Good post. I'm so glad you point out these things that are so important for us to realize. Happy Easter.