There really is no war on doctors. There is a war on patients, and doctors are merely collateral damage. You are an exploitable asset, to be bought and sold like cattle, and with you, the “covered lives” that you “control”. In a perfect world the price of acquisition would include orderly transfer of said control to the new owner, but the world is not yet perfect, so for the time being you must be retained as a proxy for the controlling interests in covered lives. You will have to learn new skills because the management of many covered lives is different than the management of the few, or the one. You will be held accountable for the health of your populations, and you will need to exhibit financial stewardship of the scarce resources allotted by the owners. In other words, your job now is to increase the productivity of the covered lives assigned to you, at the lowest possible cost to your employer, and the clients of your employer. These are classic key performance indicators (KPIs) in any business, and health care is no different.
The established leadership of the medical profession is currently on an all-out crusade to prepare the rank and file for their evolving position in this new world order. In April, NEJM published the recording of a roundtable discussion, moderated by Dr. Atul Gawande, which concluded with the heralding of a “new culture in practicing medicine” where doctors “prioritize our responsibilities as shepherds of scarce social resources to the same extent that we’ve historically prioritized our responsibilities for providing benefit to our specific patients”. To reinforce the argument, Dr. Peter Ubel, in an opinion piece titled “Promoting Population Health through Financial Stewardship”, is proposing to take the ABIM Choosing Wisely campaign to new levels and have doctors “contemplate trading off small clinical benefits for individual patients in order to promote more general societal welfare”. Since institutions have a business imperative “to reduce the amount of care they provide to patients” because of new payment models, Dr. Ubel keenly observes that “[i]f physicians resist these efforts because they feel they owe it to their patients to provide the best care regardless of costs, hospitals may look for other ways to trim expenditures, such as by reducing nursing staff”. If you are a doctor, and especially if you are a patient, the enormity of this statement should give you monumental pause.
Why wouldn’t hospitals auction off original artwork hanging in the lobby instead of firing nurses, is largely beyond me, but this particular flavor of financial stewardship, which is benefiting society by limiting clinical benefits available to its members, is all the rage now. Did you ever wonder why insurance companies seemed to not mind Obamacare requirements to place no limits on lifetime or even yearly maximums? Wonder no more. Last month the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association published the “ACC/AHA Statement on Cost/Value Methodology in Clinical Practice Guidelines and Performance Measures”. It seems that clinical guidelines are going to sport new value ratings that can be used to inform insurers and policy makers engaged in coverage determinations. Based on the World Health Organization (WHO) methodology, spending over $150,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) will be designated as low value care. The American Society of Clinical Oncology is working on its own financial stewardship guidelines, coming soon to your iPhone. Obviously insurers could just restrict coverage based on these ratings, but oh how much better it would be if doctors just refrained from prescribing these treatments on the QT.
For their part, distinguished economists, who practice their dismal science in the health care domain, are also searching for tools to help doctors manage their assigned populations. Writing for the New York Times, Prof. Uwe Reinhardt is lambasting Congress for its reticence to assign formal monetary value to the lives of people. There is implicit bulk valuation when covered lives are transacted, of course, but what you need at the bedside is patient-centered, personalized value estimates for each patient profile. How else will you decide if there is acceptable ROI when contemplating small clinical benefits? There is a rather humorous exercise in demagoguery, mistakenly attributed to George Bernard Shaw, which states that our seemingly moral convictions are not based on principles, as much as they are based on the amounts paid to us for transgressions. Following this irrefutable logical argument, Prof. Reinhardt is suggesting that it’s time for Congress to stop feigning indignation, and that it should take a lesson from the venerable Milton Friedman and put a price on every human head.
Walmart is promising to bring organic food to the masses. Walmart will make organic food affordable for the poor. What a wonderful idea! For Walmart that is. Small organic farmers are going to be forced to accept cheap Walmart prices and increase their “productivity”, or agree to sell their farms to industrial farming corporations. Maybe former organic farmers can get a job at Walmart, stocking shelves with pseudo-organic foods. Before you know it what passes as organic foods will be as lousy as regular foods, only a bit more expensive. Walmart is the future of all commerce because Walmart doesn’t just sell cheap replicas to unsuspecting poor people. Walmart is also nurturing and growing the poverty necessary to attract new customers. And this travesty is precisely the model chosen as the blueprint for fixing health care in America.
Caveat EmptorFor the longest time now I was of the opinion that the entire patient engagement movement is much ado about nothing, either stating the obvious, or demanding the impossible. I changed my mind. The emerging realities of health care in the U.S. are rendering patient engagement imperative, except for those patients who are participating in programs like, say, Penn Passport, a Penn Medicine product advertised as “a great resource for people who value their health care”, which includes Pavilion services complete with “warm cherry cabinetry, soothing earth-toned fabrics, comfortable elegant furnishings and convenient in-room safe” (the safe did it for me). For all others, it will be up to each and single one of us to advocate for ourselves in an essentially adversarial system. Perhaps a new profession will emerge, and perhaps patients would be best advised to bring an attorney to the exam room.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Average Patient, since you are unwilling or unable to properly value your health care, the system will do the valuation for you. To ensure that the services you receive at industry venues are clinically appropriate for your situation, you must engage in independent and sustained research of your condition. This is particularly important if you are poor, old, disabled, very sick, or illiterate. Most of your research can be done on the Internet. If you can’t afford a computer, the public library will provide one for you. If you don’t have a car, most buses will have a stop in proximity to a public library. It is imperative that you keep notes and actively question all therapies offered to you and most importantly, those that are not. You should insist on real-time, online access to your medical records. Not some generic summary, but the full notes outlining the thoughts (if any), differentials and considerations made by those in charge of shepherding your scarce resources.
You could try to find a tiny private practice that is “in-network” with your insurer and pray that they take new patients, or you could scrounge together a few dollars, and go find a cash-only physician that may be willing to advocate for you. But the best thing you can do is to take a more expansive approach to patient engagement, and stand up for yourself and your family in this abject, immoral and underhanded war on the American people. The only thing that stands between you and cheap pseudo-medicine that looks fine from a distance, and full of holes upon closer inspection, is your doctor. No, doctors are not saints, and a few are outright villains, but taking away the ability of your doctor to exercise independent judgment on your behalf, is not intended to benefit you, or society for that matter, unless by society, you mean the six Walmart heirs, and their peers. You may be tempted to think that physicians are wealthy enough and powerful enough to ward off attacks from without and from within on their own. You would be very wrong. And is this really a health risk you are willing to assume? It’s time to engage….