Don’t Get Sick

By Evan Falchuk

Some people are upset or wringing their hands about this bufoonish speech by little-known representative Alan Grayson from Florida.  All of them – including Grayson – are taking themselves way too seriously.

And they – like reformers and their opponents – are missing what’s important in health care.  They’re all fixated – as they have been from the beginning – on who pays for health care, and how.  It’s a problem that long pre-dates this latest reform effort.  Its impact was well documented in Atul Gawande’s (thoroughly misunderstood) article in the New Yorker.

Gawande showed how our fixation in America on money — rather than medicine — was creating the very problems we are trying to solve.  Money has become the central organizing principle of our system and efforts to reform it.  And so as reformers focus on ever more clever ways to pay for medical care, they continue to systematically undervalue everything that makes for high quality medicine. Things like time with your patient, thinking about his or her problems, consulting with colleagues, and coming up with sound advice.

So the focus on a “public plan” or the arcana of insurance underwriting completely misses the mark.

Your care may be paid for by a private insurer or a public one.  Your coverage may be called a “Cadillac” plan or a high deductible plan.  You may be uninsured.  But there are some things that will be virtually certain if you get sick regardless of who and pays for your care and how:

The majority of your medical visits are going to feature face-to-face contact with your doctor of 15 minutes or less.  Your care is going to be fragmented, with information about you stored in paper files, electronic records, and the memories of the doctors you have seen.   You’re going to be on your own, facing important decisions, with too few places to turn to for help.

It’s bad, and in my experience, almost everyone I talk to on this subject has some personal experience with health care that looks just like this.

What’s even more troubling is what happens to many of them.

Studies show that 15% or more of patients have their diagnosis missed, delayed or wrong. Others have found that the biggest driver of this poor quality are the cognitive errors that happen when you make complicated decisions with fragmented information and restricted time.  Our own data at Best Doctors show that more than half of patients end up with the wrong treatment.

It’s not clear if the current effort to focus on money over medicine will succeed or not.  But for those who have become engaged in health care because of it, there is an opportunity to lead a renewal of thinking about health care in America.  We need to refocus on what is really important when you’re sick.  That your doctor is able to spend the time with you that you need.  That he or she is able to think about you, answer your questions, help you understand your condition.  That you are sure you have the right diagnosis and treatment, and the best chance to get well.

UPDATE: Dr. Bob Centor, who does some of the best blogging on this kind of ‘re-thinking’ of health care has a post up on this point that’s well worth reading.

  • Daniel Capurro
    Dear Evan,
    Although I agree with many of your ideas presented in this post, I disagree with some of the assumptions that you mention in the NY Times comments that brought me to this blog.

    On your comment posted on the NY Times website about Mammography for breast cancer screening, you say that "and the options are either deny my mom a potentially life-saving mammogram". There is a clear error in the statement. According to the 2009 Cochrane Systematic Review on the effectiveness of breast cancer screening using mammography, screening between the ages of 40 and 49 is associated with a Risk Ratio (or Relative risk) for Overall Mortality of 1.07, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.98 to 1.16. This means that our best estimate is a non significant INCREASE in mortality. So your assertion should be : the options are either deny my mom a potentially life-threatening mammogram, which I would say it is rather logical when you are making population-level decisions, as the USPSTF aims to.

    I would be happy to continue this discussion by email
  • Thanks, Daniel, you raise a good point. The issue is where (and how) you draw that line between public health and individual health.

    I don't intend to disagree with the work of the USPSTF on this important subject. Rather, to point out that once their recommendations have been made, they will inevitably become political, as they have. Politics and health care do not mix well. In spite of the valid public health rationale you raise, what will happen is that the politicians will not allow these recommendations to underpin public policy.

    And it will be precisely because the idea that someone is denying someone's mom a potentially "life saving" mammogram is a whole heck of a lot easier to understand that the idea that someone is preventing mom from having a potentially "life threatening" mammogram.

    But all of this the reformers have wrought by their fixation on cost cutting rather than improving the quality of medical care.

    Thank you for your thoughtful comment and the opportunity to correct my error and clarify my point.

    Evan
  • Evan,

    Thanks for pointing me to this post -- you are of course spot on! I actually happen to be an advocate for a single payer system, where the "productivity" of a physician, measured by the quantity rather than the quality of the encounters, is taken out of the equation. I believe that one of the bigger problems we are seeing in the medical profession is that of demoralization because everything has been reduced to money. What happened to professional pride and compassion as values? I wrote about it in one of my early blog posts here, if you care to read more of my rants:

    http://evimedgroup.blogspot.com/2009/06/reduce-...
  • Hi Marya,

    Thanks for commenting. There's room for advocates of all stripes on the See First Blog!

    I agree wholeheartedly with your point that one of the great ironies of modern medicine is that we have the best treatments and technologies at any time in history. And yet, the values of high quality medical care are being corroded away. I agree it is because of a misguided focus on money over medicine.

    The only suggestion I would make to you on the single-payer concept is that this problem doesn't magically disappear if you replace dozens of payers with just one. That one payer still has to deal with the issue of cost, and still has to make the same trade-offs. Now, if that single-payer could be of the enlightened sort that will focus on the quality of medicine, rather than its unit cost, who could be opposed to it. But alas human fallibility seems to suggest this may not be the case.

    It is still a fair point and I very much appreciate you raising it here.

    Evan
blog comments powered by Disqus
  • "Medicine is learned by the bedside and not in the class room. Let not your conception of manifestations of disease come from work heard in the lecture room or read from the book: see and then research, compare and control. But see first."
    - Sir William Osler, MD
    The Father of Modern Medicine
  • Connect


    Via RSS


    On Twitter

    Subscribe via Email

  • Follow Us on YouTube:

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • Categories

  • Archives