Paying For Mediocrity, But Lots of It

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal opinion page (A17) had a column by Dr. Peter Bach entitled “How Many Doctors Does it Take to Treat a Patient?”.  Dr. Bach recently published a study of Medicare patients in the New England Journal of Medicine looking at how many physicians Medicare patients see.  The results painted a picture of fragmented, expensive and low-quality care.  The average Medicare patient sees seven different doctors in one year, including five different specialists.  These aren’t the sickest patients; these are the average.  Forty percent of patients have seven or more chronic conduction and see on average 11 different physicians.  Does all this care translate to high quality?  Sadly, no.  Fewer than 30% of people with high blood pressure in another national study had it adequately controlled.  Medicare expenditures, ironically, have never been higher, and may reach $500 billion in 2008 in physician services alone.  At the same time, reimbursement to physicians for each service has been flat for several years.

What accounts for a system that is increasingly unaffordable, but at the same time makes physicians feel under-valued?  How do we explain a system that has provided for exploding utilization of services while quality has not reached expectations?  Dr. Bach opines that the problem is the fee-for-service structure of Medicare.  He argues that since Medicare pays per service provided it is subsidizing quantity, not quality.  Patients are therefore shepherded to as many doctors as possible who deliver as many services as possible, with no incentive to coordinate, unify or improve care.

His prescription:  don’t tinker with the system by adding pay-for-performance, the latest policy buzz phrase.  He suggests overhauling the payment structure entirely.  I agree, though I would add that third-party payment for routine care is another fundamental flaw in the system.  When patients don’t pay for their own care prices skyrocket, healthcare is rationed, and quality suffers.  My post next week will review a new book that carries this idea further.

Thanks to my friend Justin K. for pointing me to the story.

More

Does Your Doctor Use an Electronic Health Record?

This week’s New England Journal of Medicine publishes a health policy report about electronic health records (EHRs).  The article reviews the potential benefits of EHRs to patients and to physicians and laments that as of 2005 only about 23% of physicians used them.

The reasons for the slow adoption of EHRs provide an instructive illustration of deep problems in our healthcare marketplace.  EHRs are expensive, but they hold the promise of allowing better patient care, fewer medical errors, and eventual cost savings.  In the delivery of any other good or service a new technology that offers these benefits is adopted quickly and becomes ubiquitous.  That’s why pay phones and LP records have nearly vanished; they were replaced by cell phones and CDs.  Why then the stubborn persistence of paper charts?  The reason is the dysfunctional way in which most healthcare is bought.  The cost of the vast majority of care is paid not by patients, but by third parties, either private insurance companies or government entities.  These payers also set the price that can be charged for services.  Unfortunately, this applies not just for major unforeseen expenses, like catastrophic illnesses or hospitalizations, but also for routine and preventive care.  The effect is that there is no financial incentive for most physicians to increase the quality of the care they deliver, just the quantity.  If the price for the service is fixed, doctors can’t make more by taking better care of each patient; they can only make more by seeing more patients.  So why would doctors invest the time and the capital in an EHR that provides better care?  Any cost savings resulting from better health would benefit the insurance company, not the doctors.  Paper charts after all, are worse for patients, but don’t slow the doctor down.

It’s only when patients pay for their own care that the competition and balance present in all other marketplaces returns to healthcare.  When patients and physicians set the price, patients have a strong incentive to ensure that the care they pay for is excellent, and physicians have a strong incentive to invest in whatever technology will deliver quality care.  That’s why our office had an EHR from the day we opened in 2003.  While national physician groups were lobbying for government or insurance subsidies for EHR purchases, my partner and I simply bought one, confident that what was best for our patients would eventually be best for our practice.

It’s you, our patients, who make possible our EHR and our dedication to old-fashioned attentiveness powered by twenty-first century technology.  Thank you.

Tangential Miscellany:

A happy Father’s Day to all us dads!

More

Acute Bronchitis

“I think I have bronchitis.  I probably need some antibiotics.”

All primary care doctors hear that phrase very frequently.  A patient develops a productive cough that lasts for several days, malaise, and slightly elevated temperature.  Then the patient sees her physician with a clear and predetermined expectation of the correct treatment — antibiotics.  Knowing that antibiotics are not indicated for acute bronchitis, the physician is then forced to balance practicing appropriate evidence-based medicine with satisfying the patient’s expectations.  To some extent, this dilemma of physicians is self-inflicted.  A generation ago, antibiotics were routinely prescribed for acute bronchitis, and an entire group of patients have therefore grown up misinformed by previous physician practice.  The myth that green phlegm necessitates antibiotics also became well-entrenched at that time, leading patients to think that they are being prudent by only demanding antibiotics when their phlegm becomes colored.

Many unseen problems arise when patient expectations deviate from good medical practice.  Unnecessary antibiotic use leads to increasing bacterial resistance, which is now a serious global problem.  Antibiotics can also sometimes cause serious side effects.  But perhaps the most subtle problem is that taking unnecessary antibiotics strengthens the patient’s perception that this is the correct treatment.  The patient would have recovered at the same time regardless of whether any medication was prescribed, but when recovery follows an antibiotic course, the belief that one caused the other becomes unshakable.

I’m certainly not advocating a return to the bad-old-days when physician authority and paternalism ruled supreme and patient preferences were disregarded.  I’m just suggesting that the best care is delivered when the doctor listens carefully and the patient has an open mind.

To that end, here’s a wonderful (and short) review of acute bronchitis written for patients.

Tangential Miscellany:

Two bad trends in our society, our increasing litigiousness and our increasing faith in the potency of vitamins, collide to produce this ridiculous story.

More

For Severe Sciatica, Back Surgery Can Be Considered Sooner

Sciatica is the common term for lower back pain that radiates down one leg.  It is a very frequent cause of missed work and disability.  Sciatica is almost always caused by a lumbar disk that has been pushed out of its normal location and is impinging on a nerve.

The typical treatment for sciatica is anti-inflammatory pain medication and physical therapy.  Most patients recover entirely with this conservative therapy.  For those who continue to have pain, injections to numb the effected nerve frequently provide at least temporary relief.  Surgery is usually only considered as a last resort, when the other treatments have failed.

A new study in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine may change the order in which these interventions are considered.  The trial enrolled people who had severe, disabling sciatica for 6 to 12 weeks, and randomized them to immediate surgery (within two weeks of randomization) or to conservative treatment.

The good news is that a year later, both groups did very well, with little disability and good pain control.  So in the long term, either solution is very good.  Interestingly, in the early surgery group about 10% of patients recovered before surgery could be performed, again highlighting the good prognosis of this disease.  In the group assigned to conservative treatment over a third eventually required surgery anyway because of unremitting pain.

The important difference between the two groups was that the group assigned to early surgery achieved pain relief much sooner than the group assigned to conservative treatment.  While both groups eventually did fine a year after randomization, the surgical group had more prompt relief of symptoms.

So in patients with severe symptoms from sciatica, we should at least start considering surgery sooner, and patients should be reassured that either treatment path eventually yields good results.

More

Don’t Panic about Avandia Yet

A new study in the New England Journal of Medicine has generated a lot of media attention this week (such as this NY Times article).  The study pooled prior randomized studies that compared patients taking the diabetes medicine Avandia (rosiglitazone) to patients taking other diabetes medicines or placebo and looked for differences in rates of heart attack.

The worrisome result was a statistically significant increase in the number of heart attacks in patients taking Avandia compared to patients taking placebo or other diabetes medication.  The magnitude of this increase is difficult to ascertain from the information published in the paper.  Though the media is reporting that the study showed a 40% higher heart attack risk with Avandia, this number is not at all informative.  (For example if 10 in a million placebo patients had heart attacks compared to 14 in a million Avandia patients, that would be a 40% increased risk, but the actual magnitude of the risk is so tiny as to not deserve attention.  If, on the other hand, 10 out of 100 placebo patients had heart attacks compared to 14 out of 100 Avandia patients, that would also be a 40% increased risk, but the absolute magnitude of this risk would be much more worrisome.)

The study has led the FDA to issue this warning to patients and physicians.  The FDA warning notes that this study is very preliminary.  It’s pooled from other studies that weren’t designed to measure heart attack rates, and there are other, conflicting studies.  There are large ongoing trials that will answer this question definitively.  So the FDA isn’t recommending that patients stop Avandia, just that they have a conversation with their doctors.  After all, stopping a medicine that is controlling your diabetes is much more dangerous than any risk discovered in this study.

More

It Might Be More Convenient to Just Keep Coughing

This is another example of a tiny number of irresponsible people imposing a lot of inconvenience on millions of others.  The Associated Press reports in this Forbes article that four East Coast supermarket chains will only sell products containing dextromethorphan (DXM) to customers over 18 years of age.  DXM is a cough suppressant and is very common in over-the-counter cough remedies.  I recommend it all the time.  Why the new restriction?  Apparently some teenagers have been taking DXM in extreme doses in attempts to get high, and five teenagers died in cases that may have been associated with DXM abuse.

This may not have merited my notice if it didn’t follow on the heels of another major cold medicine hassle.  Recently stores and pharmacies have made it necessary to show identification to buy pseudoephedrine, a very commonly used over-the-counter nasal decongestant (the ingredient in Sudafed).  The quantity of pseudoephedrine that can be bought at one time has also been severely limited.  You can imagine what an annoyance this is if you have a few young children at home who always have colds (and infect their parents).  Some winters my family goes through Sudafed by the bucketful, but now we can only buy it by the thimble.  Why would any organization stand between a cold sufferer and his nasal decongestant?  Because some people use pseudoephedrine in drug labs to make methamphetamine (crystal meth).  So because pseudoephedrine might be used to make an illegal drug, your nose has to run a little longer before you get relief. Has anyone done a study to check if this restriction has made crystal meth more difficult to obtain?  I doubt it.  But once in place restrictions like these are never lifted, even if they are totally ineffective.

So I beg all the irresponsible recreational drug using teenagers out there:  Before the next drug fad spreads, please let me know so I can stock up on whatever otherwise-harmless medicine you’re about to yank out of our hands.  Thank you.

More

Human Papilomavirus: The Latest Celebrity Pathogen

Recently human papilomavirus (HPV) has been making a lot of news.  The story involves big business, cancer, government policy, and sex.  I’m surprised HBO hasn’t made a series about it.

HPV is a sexually transmitted virus that causes genital warts, cervical cancer, and has recently been associated with oral cancers.  Merck recently released Gardasil, a vaccine that protects against the strains of HPV that cause most (but not all) of the cases of cervical cancer and genital warts.  A vaccine to prevent cancer!  That alone was newsworthy.  The CDC recommended the vaccine for all girls and women 11 to 26 years of age.  Since then, some state legislatures have mandated vaccinating school-aged girls, which has led to noisy political battles between opponents and supporters of the legislation.

This issue of The New England Journal of Medicine is practically a wall-to-wall HPVfest: three scientific articles, three editorials, and two perspective articles all about HPV.  The studies prove that the vaccine decreases the risk of precancerous cervical abnormalities that eventually lead to cervical cancer, but the magnitude of the reduction was smaller than expected.  This LA Times article has an excellent summary of the issue.  The vaccine is safe, but cervical cancer takes years to develop, so the vaccine’s ability to prevent cervical cancer will be revealed by these ongoing studies years from now.

Meanwhile, until the next germ catches the spotlight, you can expect HPV and Gardasil to continue generating controversy.

More

Getting Better at Treating Heart Attacks

Though heart attacks continue to be the number one cause of death in the United States, the news for treatment and prevention of heart disease keeps getting better.  An article in this issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association examines the rates of death in a multinational study of heart attacks and heart-related acute chest pain.  The study was also covered in this Reuters article.

The news is very encouraging.  As hospitals increasingly adopt evidence-based best practices for treating heart attacks, the rates of death and heart failure have dropped dramatically.  Best practices include immediate angioplasty for heart attacks and medications like beta blockers and aspirin that have been proven to improve survival.

As best practices spread, we can hope that these statistics will continue to improve and that the tragedy of sudden death in middle age from a heart attack will be almost unheard of.

Tangential Miscellany:

This LA Times article discusses the new FDA warning that will be applied to every antidepressant medication, warning of the potential for increased suicidal thoughts or behavior in patients between the ages of 18 and 24 taking antidepressants.  There are two striking things about this story.  This is the first FDA warning that will include explicit consideration of the benefit of the medications.  The warning will state “that depression and certain other serious psychiatric disorders are themselves the most important causes of suicide” and that the benefit of treating depression must be weighed against the risks.  The other surprising issue is that, as far as I know, this is the only time a warning has been issued for multiple different families of medications whose only common characteristic is that they are used to treat the same disease.  Different families of antidepressants work through different mechanisms, and have different side effects, but all of them will carry the new warning.

More

You Can Probably Stop Taking Antibiotics before Seeing Your Dentist

Many patients have been told to take antibiotics before dental procedures.  This recommendation was made to prevent an infection of the lining or valves of the heart called infective endocarditis (IE).  Patients who had leaky heart valves or other heart conditions that were thought to increase the risk of IE were told to take antibiotics before seeing the dentist.

Last week the American Heart Association published new guidelines about which patients should receive antibiotics to prevent IE.  These guidelines are based on the realization that in most patients, dental and other medical procedures are exceedingly unlikely to result in IE, and that antibiotics are more likely to cause harm than benefit in all patients except in those at highest risk for IE.

The only patients for whom preventive antibiotics are now recommended are those with

artificial heart valves
a history of having had IE
certain specific, serious congenital (present from birth) heart conditions, including:
– unrepaired or incompletely repaired cyanotic congenital heart disease, including those with palliative shunts and conduits
– a completely repaired congenital heart defect with prosthetic material or device, whether placed by surgery or by catheter interventions, during the first six months after the procedure
-any repaired congenital heart defect with residual defect at the site or adjacent to the site of a prosthetic patch or prosthetic device
a cardiac transplant which develops a problem in a heart valve

That means the vast majority of the people taking antibiotics before dental procedures can stop.  Obviously, if you’re not sure if this applies to you, check with your doctor.

Thanks to Dr. Yaron Elad for pointing me to the new recommendations.

More

Chondrointin Doesn’t Help Arthritis Pain

I have many patients who swear by alternative therapies that are unproven or, worse, proven not to work.  How should I counsel them?  On the one hand, each individual is unique and it’s possible that what applies to thousands of patients in a study shouldn’t be generalized to the specific patient sitting in my office right now.  On the other hand, we all (I included) have a staggering capacity for self-delusion, and it’s possible that my patient is just engaging in wishful thinking because he sincerely wants the therapy to help.

This week’s Annals of Internal Medicine published a study which offers a case in point.  The study was the most rigorous review of previous studies that tested chondrointin’s benefits for arthritis pain.  The study was also discussed in this editorial in Annals, and it was covered in this LA Times article.

The conclusion of the study was fairly definitive.

Large-scale, methodologically sound trials indicate that the symptomatic benefit of chondroitin is minimal or nonexistent.

Well, that’s that, right?  The only reason to take chondrointin over placebo is if the chondrointin is cheaper.  Nevertheless, many of my patients use chondrointin for arthritis pain and swear by it.  The editorial offers them, and me, some advice.

However, some patients are convinced that it helps, which could be because of a placebo response or even a therapeutic response resulting from enhanced absorption or limited metabolism of chondroitin. Because no frequent or severe adverse effects have been reported, chondroitin sulfate should not be considered dangerous. If patients say that they benefit from chondroitin, I see no harm in encouraging them to continue taking it as long as they perceive a benefit.

So like chicken soup, chondrointin might not help, but it probably won’t hurt.

More