One of the few things that could bring me back from these nether regions to the Covert Rationing Blog, if only for a moment, has happened. The esteemed Dr. Robert Centor, affectionately known as DB in the medical blogosphere, has made a comment on one of my posts, and it is a comment that deserves serious consideration. Further, I find I cannot give his comment appropriate justice by simply answering it with another comment. It requires more.

So, we interrupt this hiatus from blogging in order to give the kind of thoughtful response DB’s comment deserves.

I have been a reader of DB’s blog for several years – substantially longer than the nearly five years I have been writing the CRB. I consider DB to be the voice of internal medicine as it should be practiced. DB is a master of cutting through the fluff to get at the root of what is ailing the practice of medicine today. He has substantially influenced my thinking over the years, and many of DB’s writings have validated (in my mind, at least) certain of my syntheses of some key problems regarding the present state of medical practice. Indeed, out of sheer respect for DB I have dropped in this post the rather haughty 3rd person approach I traditionally use herein.

At one time I was a relatively frequent commenter on DB’s blog, and the exchanges that ensued between us have been some of the highlights of my blogging career (such as it is). But two years ago I stopped posting comments on DB’s Medical Rants, and I stopped making any reference here to DB or his blog. I did so for one simple reason.

It was two years ago that I had my public dust-up with the ACP over the issue of medical ethics. It was a dust-up that drew the notice and disapprobation of some individuals quite well placed within the ACP leadership. Knowing that DB is a member of the ACP’s Board of Regents, I feared that if I continued acting as if I were one of his “blogging buddies” it might reflect poorly on him. The ACP (an organization of which I was a proud member for over 25 years, quitting only when they published their New Medical Ethics in 2002) badly needs voices like DB’s. Indeed, the fact that they value his voice gives me hope. So, out of respect for him, and in consideration of what I guessed were his best interests, I stopped interacting with DB and his blog altogether, though I have remained a regular reader. I realize that, realistically, what I may do or not do almost certainly has no effect whatsoever on DB’s relationship with the ACP, but it was something I felt I needed to do.

In any case, that self-imposed avoidance has now been made moot by DB himself.

In his comment DB takes exception to one (or more likely, several) of my recent posts. I will reproduce his entire comment here:

“First, I admit to bias as a member of the ACP Board of Regents.

DrRich (whom I like and admire) has used a technique that we all use. He has established a straw man and beat that straw man into submission.

ACP advocates strongly for high-value, cost-conscious care (HVCCC). In fact a recent Annals article – Appropriate Use of Screening and Diagnostic Tests to Foster High-Value, Cost-Conscious Care – http://www.annals.org/content/156/2/147.abstract – very explicitly attacks low value high cost care.

Advocating for HVCCC does not mean advocating for rationing based on cost alone.

As DrRich always states, we have covert rationing and we believe that rationing has no relation to value.

ACP has challenged all physicians to avoid medications and tests that do not have high value. How is that “herd medicine”?

Please review the recommendations in the recent Annals article and tell us where we have developed recommendations for cost reasons only.

I admire your debating skills, but in my opinion you are not addressing the same question that we are addressing. I speak from clinical experience. I see too many tests ordered that cannot help the patient. I see too many treatments that cost too much without a clear advantage over less expensive treatments.

We should strive for high value care for all our patients. We should eschew low value expensive care for most patients (of course one can construct exceptions to this generalization). Let’s not let hyperbole confuse the issue. We cannot afford unnecessary expenses. We challenge you to define unnecessary. I think you can.”

I believe DB has misunderstood my main argument. This is not his fault. I have been accused more than once of being somewhat obtuse. So let me state it very explicitly:

1) It has been determined that individualized decision making by doctors and patients is the problem, and to resolve this problem clinical decisions need to be centralized.*
2) Obamacare renders much individualized decision making illegal, and establishes formal mechanisms for centralized decision making.
3) The ACP’s New Medical Ethics, whether by intention or not, has allowed agents of the Central Authority to argue that individualized decision making is unethical.
4) Centralized decision making will likely yield better results for the collective, better results for the “average” patients, but suboptimal results for people on the wrong side of the distribution curve – and terrible results for people on the tail of the curve. DB himself has written about this tail.

____

* From the book “New Rules,” by Berwick and Brennan:

“Today, this isolated relationship [between doctor and patient] is no longer tenable or possible. . . Traditional medical ethics, based on the doctor-patient dyad, must be reformulated to fit the new mold of the delivery of health care. . . The primary function of regulation in health care. . .is to constrain decentralized individualized decision making.”

____

There is nothing in my argument that says physicians should avoid attempting to practice high-value medicine. Obviously, they should. There is nothing in this argument that says it is wrong or counterproductive for the ACP (or other professional organizations) to devise publications, guidelines, opinions, or any other kind of aid to assist doctors in making appropriate clinical decisions that will minimize waste for society and harm to their patients. Doing these things is good for the healthcare system and for mankind.

What is wrong is a system that says that centrally-generated clinical “guidelines” must be followed to the letter by all doctors for all patients under all circumstances, and that failing to do so is both illegal and unethical.

The document to which DB refers me – an attempt by the ACP to assign values to certain clinical services – is a good one, and I am sure clinicians should find it helpful. I can’t help but believe that he sent me to this particular document because it explicitly calls out implantable defibrillators (the development of which played a significant role in my professional career) as a high-value medical service. That’s very nice.

But this fact leads me to use, as an example of what I’m talking about, the abuse of ICD guidelines by the Central Authority. A year ago an article appeared in JAMA complaining that 22% of ICD implants did not meet the guidelines. That number (which seems about right to me, if guidelines were being treated as just that) was widely castigated as evidence that doctors were engaging in widespread abuse of this expensive medical device. This was followed, 2 weeks later, by an announcement that the Department of Justice was conducting an investigation of guideline violations by ICD implanters. As a first step in this investigation, the DOJ elicited the cooperation of the Heart Rhythm Society – the professional organization of electrophysiologists – and the HRS let out that it was effectively gagged from further comment or action on behalf of its members for the duration of the investigation.

The specific part of the ICD guidelines that produced the majority of the “violations” was not that ICDs were being used in people who did not really need them. Rather, it was that ICDs were being implanted earlier than the Feds preferred for people who, everyone agreed, should have an ICD. That is, implanters were not waiting the full mandated 4 – 6 weeks after a heart attack, or after heart failure was diagnosed, before implanting ICDs in some of their patients. Two points about this: First, there are clearly individuals who should receive their ICDs within the first month of a heart attack or heart failure diagnosis, despite what the guidelines say. (For instance, if the patient also has an indication for a pacemaker – not an uncommon thing – following the guidelines would require first implanting a pacemaker, then, a few weeks later, doing a second invasive procedure to replace it with an ICD). Second, the clinical evidence supporting this 4 – 6 week waiting period is based on two fundamentally flawed studies, and constituted the weakest part of the clinical evidence regarding ICDs, and while it is now apparently considered settled science if not gospel, it was originally considered highly controversial when the guidelines first appeared.

We don’t know what the results of the DOJ’s investigation will be. Perhaps nothing will come of it and no electrophysiologists will go to jail this time.

Here’s what we do know:

- Doctors are expected to follow clinical guidelines to the letter, with every patient, whether it makes sense for an individual or not.
- Doctors who are not following centralized guidelines to the letter are behaving illegally, and the DOJ – that’s the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE people, and not HHS or Medicare – will investigate, and at least threaten criminal prosecution.
- Doctors who are not following centralized guidelines to the letter are behaving unethically. (Go back and re-read the commentary from the press and from other physicians, especially physicians who strongly support Obamacare’s centralized decision making, about the ethics of these ICD-guideline-violators.)
- Such legal and ethical intimidation will prevent doctors from “violating” guidelines for their individual patients who are a standard deviation or two away from the mean, and who clearly need an exception.

That’s my argument. The activities of the ACP, vis a vis establishing helpful studies of the relative clinical value of various clinical actions, or even guidelines for clinical practice (if treated as actual guidelines), are to be lauded and not criticized, and I so laud them.

The ACP has not instituted herd medicine, nor advocated it explicitly, to my knowledge. My only criticism of the ACP has to do with their altering the precepts of medical ethics to make it ethically compatible for doctors to go along with herd medicine. The Central Authority on its own volition has taken it the rest of the way – to where it’s unethical NOT to go along with heard medicine. This “adjustment” of medical ethics is just what the Central Authority needed in order to validate its policy of centralized decision making, and the ACP provided it. The glee on the part of the government’s agents in response to the ACP’s New Ethics is palpable.

I still find this a sad, sad thing for the profession, and especially for patients. I also find it very sad for the ACP itself which, by producing the kind of helpful resources to which DB has referred us, would continue to be a great force for good – were it not for this one very basic, very fundamental, very critical, and therefore utterly tragic flaw.

On the same day that DrRich published his post about the American College of Physicians’ new Ethics Manual, Rob Stein of NPR’s Health Blog did the same thing. In his post, Mr. Stein took particular notice of the ACP’s admonition to physicians that, in order to practice medicine ethically, they must practice parsimoniously.

DrRich flatters himself to believe that he may be the one who called Mr. Stein’s attention to this remarkable terminology. Mr. Stein had contacted DrRich just prior to the New Year’s holiday for his reaction to the new Ethics Manual – and DrRich responded with a lengthy e-mail containing a substantial riff on the ACP’s usage of “parsimonious” (a riff that was not dissimilar to the one appearing here on the CRB a few days later).

In any case, whether DrRich had anything to do with his focus or not, Mr. Stein (being a reporter instead of a mere ranter) actually interviewed several persons of interest regarding this curious terminology. Dr. Scott Gottlieb of the American Enterprise Institute and Daniel Callahan of the Hastings Center appeared sympathetic to DrRich’s take on “parsimonious,” that is, that this word, at best, carries some very negative connotations under any circumstance, but particularly when it is used in the context of providing healthcare to people who need it. (DrRich himself was not mentioned in the NPR article. This undoubtedly shows good judgment on the part of Mr. Stein, who has his reputation to think of.)

The most interesting response to Mr. Stein’s questions on “parsimonious” was offered by Dr. Virginia Hood, current president of the ACP. She strongly defended the use of the word, saying, “Parsimonious is a good word in the sense that it means that you use only what’s necessary. I don’t see a particular problem with that. Maybe it has some connotations where people think frugality or being parsimonious is the same as being mean or inadequate. But I don’t think that is the real meaning of that word.”

So the mystery raised by DrRich in his last post is apparently resolved. When the ACP says “parsimonious” it turns out they are not referring at all to the “theory of parsimony” (or Occam’s Razor), the theory which states that when there is more than one explanation for a series of observations, one must always default to the simplest available explanation. It seems a shame that this is not what the ACP was referring to. While it would have been terribly misguided for the ACP to make an unqualified demand that doctors apply the theory of parsimony to all questions that arise in medical practice, at least they would have seemed somewhat sophisticated in doing so. For many academic papers have been written about the theory of parsimony, and some of them border on the esoteric.

But astoundingly, that’s apparently not what the ACP meant at all. It turns out that what they meant was, in fact, parsimonious. Dr. Hood purports to believe that “the real meaning of the word” is “efficient.” But she should know that it is not. According to Roget’s II New Thesaurus, parsimonious is “ungenerously or pettily reluctant to spend money.” Webster’s New World Dictionary gives “stinginess, extreme frugality.” Other sources DrRich has found list similar definitions, such as: excessively unwilling to spend, penny-pinching, miserly, sparing, grasping, tight, close, niggardly, illiberal, mean, avaricious, covetous, rapacious and tight-assed. Only one source even mentioned the word “efficient,” and it was the 15th or 16th meaning. The dictionaries make it clear that being “parsimonious” is not a thing to be admired.

Students of philosophy, religion, and psychology have known, at least since Dante, that a vice is a virtue carried to extremes. The vice of lust is a perversion of the virtue of love. Servility is a perversion of humility. Recklessness is a perversion of courage.

And parsimony (or miserliness, or stinginess, or any of the many synonyms that exist for this very common vice) is a perversion of thrift. We do not celebrate the addled stalker because his vice is rooted in a perverted form of love. We ought not celebrate parsimony because, despite its perversion into something awful, it is based on efficiency.

Notwithstanding Dr. Hood’s protests to the contrary, when the ACP admonishes physicians, as a matter of ethics, to provide healthcare parsimoniously, that is not a good thing.

While Dr. Hood may herself not be a lexicographer, DrRich thinks we can be fairly certain that, for a document like the ACP’s Ethics Manual, before final publication each and every word is carefully parsed, analyzed and considered by a number of astute and highly educated individuals. Indeed, one notes that the lead author of this document is an attorney, and attorneys are notorious for understanding every nuance of every word they allow into written documents. One would assume that this is especially true for a word which is so important to the message that it is being placed in a special call-out box, so nobody will miss it. It is simply not believable that “parsimonious” – which describes a well-known vice – managed to slip into this document inadvertently as a synonym for “efficient,” as Dr. Hood suggests. That explanation, of all the possible explanations, is simply not credible.

So perhaps Dr. Hood misspoke, and “parsimonious” really was referring to the theory of parsimony after all, and she either did not realize this (not being a lexicographer), or simply forgot. The only other credible explanation, which Dr. Hood indignantly denies, is that the ACP actually does mean for doctors to practice medicine parsimoniously – with all its negative connotations – and that her present dissembling is merely dissembling.

As it happens, DrRich has a brief history with Dr. Hood. Two years ago, the Covert Rationing Blog and the ACP Advocate Blog were both named as finalists for a Medical Weblog award in the category of Health Policy and Medical Ethics. So DrRich suddenly found himself in an ethics competition with the very organization that had published the notorious “New Physician Charter on Medical Professionalism,” and thus had destroyed the very foundation of medical ethics.  He could not resist the opportunity to publicly challenge the ACP, under the spotlight (and protection) of the Medical Weblog competition, to an open debate on medical ethics.

You can read all about the ensuing exchange here. What may be of some interest for our present purposes is that it was Dr. Hood herself – at the time the Chairperson of the ACP’s Committee on Ethics, Professionalism, and Human Rights – who finally drafted the ACP’s public response to DrRich. And interestingly, in her response (which was heavy on condescension but light on logic) Dr. Hood invoked the need for parsimonious care. So the ACP’s use of this word was not a momentary oversight; instead it has been rolling off their collective tongues for years, as a descriptor for what they consider to be the ideal approach to the practice of medicine.

Another aspect of that Medical Weblog competition between DrRich and the ACP is more to the point at hand, namely, the interesting manner in which the ACP finally beat DrRich out for the award. The way the competition works is that a short list of finalists is determined by a committee of judges, and then for two weeks anyone who is interested can vote for their blog of choice. The voting system allows only one vote per IP address (so if 20 people all vote from their computers tied into a company network, only one vote is counted). During the voting period, a running tally of results is shown to anyone who cares to see it.

Clearly, given the public spectacle DrRich had made regarding the righteousness (or lack of it) of the ACP’s stance on medical ethics, it would have been deeply embarrassing for the ACP to lose this medical ethics contest. So it was probably troubling to that organization when DrRich mounted a substantial lead early on, and held that lead for two weeks, right up until the last three hours before the voting ended, which, as it happened, occurred at midnight on Sunday, February 14. Then, late on Valentine’s night, when most normal people were with their loved ones doing, well, Valentiney things, apparently a large number of ACP members spontaneously rousted themselves from their activities, logged on to their computers, and voted for the ACP – just enough of them to overtake DrRich, and then to maintain a steady 10 – 20 vote lead for the remaining hour or two of the voting period.

DrRich is not relating this story because he is bitter, nor is he complaining. (This blog won the Medical Weblog award the following year, so there is nothing for DrRich to complain about.) Rather, he was and is deeply amused by these events, and he relates this story for a very pertinent reason – namely, for the purpose of illustrating the shortcomings of the “theory of parsimony.”

For what are the possible explanations for the ACP’s stunning last minute victory? One explanation is that, in the waning moments of Valentine’s Day, members of the ACP finally got around to voting. This is of course possible. These are internal medicine specialists, and many of them are the guys (and girls) you knew in college who looked forward to football Saturdays because the library would always be so much quieter. So it is indeed possible that the ACP membership had entered into their iPhones, weeks earlier, a reminder to vote for the ACP at 11:59 PM on Sunday, February 14. Perhaps they figured they would be logged on to their computers at that moment anyway, reading the latest research on the complement cascade.

Another possible explanation is that someone affiliated with the ACP, realizing how deeply embarrassing it would be to lose an ethics contest to a pain in the ass like DrRich, figured out a way to defeat the voting system’s firewall, and to enter the precise number of votes they needed at the last minute in order to gain a victory and save face. We have seen examples in electoral politics, over and over again and perhaps as recently as last Tuesday night in Iowa, that in close contests it is best to withhold a bolus of the votes you control until the last minute, when you know just how many votes you need.

DrRich is not accusing the ACP of anything, of course, as he has no direct proof that they behaved badly – just a series of observations that have more than one possible explanation. But he admits to finding it delicious that a straightforward application of the theory of parsimony – always choosing the simplest explanation for a series of observations – leads us to the conclusion that agents of the ACP apparently cheated in order to win an ETHICS contest.*

_____

*If they actually did this, of course, some would say it would indicate that the ACP has disqualified itself from ever establishing ethical rules for anyone.  But actually, it would simply be another illustration of utilitarian ethics, where important ends always justify whatever means are necessary to achieve it.

_____

Since we know beyond doubt that the ACP would never have done such a thing, and that the ACP won that competition fair and square, DrRich has therefore just demonstrated that applying the theory of parsimony, after all, will often enough lead to incorrect conclusions, and therefore the ACP ought not demand that doctors apply it as a matter of course in all questions of life and death.

So either way, whether the ACP’s use of the word “parsimonious” was supposed to indicate that doctors ought to be stingy and miserly in delivering medical care, or whether they were obligating doctors to always apply Occam’s Razor to medical decisionmaking, delivering parsimonious medical care is a very bad idea, and certainly ought not to be an ethical mandate for physicians.

The leadership of the ACP ought to know this. Indeed, Occam’s Razor suggests that they do know this, which would be the simplest explanation for why, when challenged on their choice of the word “parsimonious,” they insist that they mean the one thing that makes no sense whatsoever.

The American College of Physicians published the Sixth Edition of its Physicians Ethics Manual yesterday. Regular readers may find it surprising to hear DrRich say that there is little objectionable in it, and actually much to admire – that is, when it is considered as it is written, as a stand-alone document.

But of course, when it comes to statements of medical ethics in the New Millennium, one cannot rely on the face value of the written word. For the purpose of the modern medical ethicist is to supply a plausible justification for the covert rationing of healthcare. That is, they need to make it ethically justifiable (if not ethically mandatory) for doctors to ration their patients’ healthcare at the bedside. Because statements of medical ethics cannot just come out and say that, ethicists must compose these statements quite artfully, so that when somebody (like DrRich) calls them on it, they can indignantly deny any such thing.

Therefore, DrRich submits, an accurate interpretation of the ACP’s New Ethics Manual requires an exegesis – that is, it requires that we go beneath the actual words, that we explore the derivation of this text, in order to discover its true underlying meaning. Fortunately, this process will be pretty straightforward, and will not require us to have a working knowledge of Latin, Greek or Hebrew. Plain English will do, as long as we keep the true aim of the modern medical ethicist in mind.

Accordingly, we need to begin this exercise by reminding ourselves of what that true aim is. This was probably stated most clearly in a quote DrRich has used before, by Dr. Berwick and his co-author Dr. Troyen Brennan (another ACP ethics maven) in their 1995 book, “New Rules.” To wit: “Today, this isolated relationship [between doctor and patient] is no longer tenable or possible. . . Traditional medical ethics, based on the doctor-patient dyad, must be reformulated to fit the new mold of the delivery of health care. . . The primary function of regulation in health care. . .is to constrain decentralized individualized decision making.”

That is, the primary aim of the new medical ethics is to get doctors to stop focusing on the specific, unique needs of their individual patients, and instead to focus on what is best for society – which means acceding to centralized, collectivized decision making (the opposite of the decentralized, individualized decision making which the ethicists are pledged to constrain). For doctors to do so, of course, will utterly violate the primary ethical precept which the profession has followed for more than two millennia, and so, obviously, if only for the sake of appearance, will require some revision of those ethical precepts to accommodate the new reality.

And that is the program of the modern medical ethicist.

They have been at this for a long time (at least since the early 1990s), and the Sixth Edition of the ACP Ethics Manual – despite its largely benign language and even occasional retrograde pledges to the needs of the individual patient – advances the true aims of the medical ethicists to a new level. DrRich will provide three lines of evidence to support this contention.

First,

in its section on “Professionalism,” the new Ethics Manual defers specifically to a foundational document written by the ACP and published in 2002 entitled, “Medical Professionalism in the New Millennium: A Physician Charter.” That Charter, which DrRich has critiqued in detail, established a new ethical precept which physicians must now follow – and to which they must give equal weight to their ancient duty to the best interests of their patient. That new precept is to social justice – to a just distribution of healthcare resources.

To understand the real import of this new ethical precept – which is introduced in the Charter in a determinedly bland manner – we must do a brief exegesis of the Charter itself. Notably, the first sentence of the Charter, which attempts to explain just why such a new charter on medical professionalism is needed in the first place, says, “Physicians today are experiencing frustration as changes in the health care delivery systems in virtually all industrialized countries threaten the very nature and values of medical professionalism.”

While this sentence obviously expresses the utter frustration doctors were feeling at being coerced – at the time mainly by health insurers – to withhold expensive but potentially useful healthcare services from their patients, the document itself never spells this out. Indeed, after this passionate opening sentence, no reference to any particular frustration is made again. Rather the document immediately retreats into a bland prose, and one looks in vain for the authors to spell out the cause of the dire frustration that demands a restatement of medical professionalism.

But even though the document seems strangely reticent to say what frustration produced the very impetus for its creation, we can rely on the fact that the document must be designed to cure this mysterious frustration (whatever it is), and further, that the only substantial change in the document was an addition to the code of medical ethics, adding the requirement that physicians work for social justice. Making social justice an ethical mandate for individual physicians, one can only surmise, might help relieve some of the guilt (and some of the frustration) physicians feel when they are forced to engage in bedside rationing against their patients.

The blandness of the Charter is intentional, and was added at the last minute to “soften” the blow. In an ACP policy conference held in the summer of 2001, a much more inflammatory draft of this new Charter was presented to the membership for discussion. That penultimate version made the actual intent of the document far more explicit. It said that when making decisions regarding individual patients, doctors must “be aware that the decisions they make about individual patients have an impact on the resources available to others.”  In other words, it explicitly instructed bedside rationing. To the dismay of the ethicists who had presented the draft, several ACP members at that conference reacted quite negatively to it. (Who knew that doctors still gave so much weight to ancient, outdated ethical precepts?) Because of the uproar, the language of the document was softened before its official publication. While its import remained entirely unchanged, the document was “blanded-up.” In particular, the sentence explicitly spelling out just what the authors meant by “social justice” was removed. In making their final revision, however, the authors of the Charter managed to overlook the passionate tone of that (suddenly incongruent) opening sentence, and thus left an everlasting clue as to what the document was really intended to do.

To summarize, by the turn of the millennium doctors were being coerced to withhold healthcare from their patients at the bedside, and thus to violate their time-honored primary professional directive. The intent of the 2002 Charter on medical professionalism was to repair the problem (i.e., to cure the “frustration”), not by confronting the forces of evil doing the coercion, but rather, by simply changing medical ethics to make bedside rationing OK. And that’s just what the document did, though only after careful re-editing to make this radical change to medical ethics sound as benign as possible.

By explicitly endorsing the 2002 Charter on medical professionalism, the Sixth Edition of the ACP Ethics Manual thereby endorses healthcare rationing at the bedside – but it does so quietly, at arm’s length, so as not to stir up unwanted passions.

Second,

the publication of the new Ethics Manual is accompanied by an editorial written by Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, a celebrated medical ethicist, the brother of Rahm, and a special advisor on health policy to the White House. It is widely believed that Dr. Emanuel will have a lot to say about which medical experts are going to be appointed to Obamacare’s GOD panels (Government Operatives Deliberating) – the panels that will establish the formal “guidelines” to determine which patients will get what, when and how, “guidelines” which doctors will have to follow in every particular, or be subject to fines, loss of profession, and imprisonment.

It is therefore instructive that Dr. Emanuel is effusive in his praise of this new ACP Ethics Manual. He is especially delighted that the authors have placed a statement into a special “call-out” box, so nobody can miss it, demanding that physicians, as an ethical duty owed to society, must practice efficient, parsimonious, and cost-effective healthcare.

Emanuel notes that “These positions on efficiency, parsimony, and cost-effectiveness constitute an important shift, if not in ethics then in emphasis.” Dr. Emanuel need not dissemble. It’s a shift in ethics all right – just look at the title of the document.

In other words, dear reader, we have Dr. Emanuel, one of the Supreme Beings who will be directing the GOD panels, declaring that, thanks to the new ACP Ethics Manual, doctors have now fully accepted the proposition that it is a matter of medical ethics for “cost-effectiveness” – as determined by panels of hand-picked experts – to decide whether their patient will receive a potentially beneficial medical service.

(Judging from Dr. Emanuel’s reaction to their work product, if any of the authors of this new Ethics Manual had hoped their participation might serve as their audition for one of the GOD panels, it appears their strategy might work out just fine.)

Third,

the Ethics Manual contains the injunction that doctors practice medicine “parsimoniously.”  While Dr. Emanuel is enamored by and delighted with this word, DrRich finds it at least a little disturbing.

One might speculate that by this word the ACP’s medical ethicists mean to say that doctors ought to arrive at a care plan by applying the “theory of parsimony,” best known as Occam’s Razor. If so, they are urging doctors to error.

The theory of parsimony says that when a series of observations has more than one plausible explanation, the simplest of the available explanations should be considered the “best.” This method usually works quite well when one is devising a theory to explain some phenomenon whose explanation is not a matter of dire urgency. So, for instance, any cave man from the Paleolithic Age who was fond of Occam’s Razor would have concluded, from available observational data, that the sun revolves around the earth. This conclusion was wrong, but little harm was done by it. And when it became important for us to get the movements of the heavenly bodies right (for instance, when we decided to send men to the moon), we first took care to collect additional observational data (just to make sure), and thereby we discovered just in time (a mere few hundred years before launch) that, for a million years or so, our original conclusion had been mistaken.

But Occam’s Razor is less well suited for making medical decisions, that is, in cases where current clinical evidence is consistent with more than one explanation. Here, it is likely that with some effort a discoverable, definitive, correct answer could be achieved, and it is at least possible that always choosing the “simplest” possible explanation would lead the doctor to take action (or more likely, to withhold medical services) that would cause the patient to suffer harm. Sometimes the theory of parsimony can be applied to good effect in the practice of medicine; other times it will be a disaster. Deciding when to use it is a matter of medical judgment and medical experience, best decided locally by a specific doctor on behalf of a specific patient.

The theory of parsimony clearly should not be applied as a matter of course to all medical questions, perhaps not even in most medical questions. So it would seem a shame for the ACP’s Ethics Manual to decree (“without qualifiers,” as Dr. Emanuel approvingly notes) that as a matter of medical ethics, doctors must always do so.

But perhaps the authors were not referring to the “theory of parsimony” at all. Perhaps they were just using “parsimonious” as a synonym for “efficient.” If this is the case, their error was more along the lines of a Freudian slip. For “efficient” and “parsimonious” are simply not good synonyms. Better synonyms for parsimonious would include:

• excessively unwilling to spend,
• ungenerous,
• penurious,
• penny-pinching,
• miserly,
• sparing,
• grasping,
• tight,
• close,
• niggardly,
• illiberal,
• mean,
• avaricious,
• covetous, or
• tight-assed.

Efficient is to parsimonious as fondness is to lust, or as a gentle spring rain is to a deadly deluge. They may be in the same genus, but are of entirely different species.

Since the real synonyms for parsimonious are all quite descriptive of bedside healthcare rationing, DrRich submits that this carefully chosen and strongly praised word is every bit as appropriate to the occasion as Dr. Emanuel indicates. This is EXACTLY how our Central Authority wants doctors to practice medicine – parsimoniously.

In conclusion,

the wording of the new ACP Ethics Manual itself may be, with a few notable exceptions, inoffensive. But when we take the time to explore the derivation of this text, when we consider it in light of the overarching program of modern medical ethicists, and in light of the interpretations now being assigned to it by agents of the Central Authority, it is not difficult to discover its true meaning and its true significance. This document helps establish an ethical mandate for doctors to follow centralized clinical directives to the letter, and doctors who fail to comply will be guilty not only of some legalistic violation of “guidelines,” but also of behaving unethically. And almost anyone will tell you that unethical doctors are the lowest form of life; for them no punishment is too harsh, and the tiniest mercy is too kind.

This, of course, is just what we should have expected.

A key goal of the Central Authority, as it contemplates how best to run our healthcare system, is to do whatever it can to stifle medical progress. Medical progress usually means introducing new drugs or new medical devices, which are often very expensive in themselves, and worse, which often threaten to improve the survival of some category of patients with chronic disease. So typically, medical progress greatly multiplies the costs of healthcare, and all the Central Authority gets in return is more chronically ill people to contend with. For this reason, suppressing medical progress is a critical aspect of covert healthcare rationing.

It goes without saying that a major tactic in achieving this goal is to demonize the drug companies. If the pharmaceutical industry can be made out to be sufficiently evil, corrupt, greedy, and callous to the needs of the people, then it will become the duty of our leaders to constrain them, and in so doing, to limit their ability to develop and introduce new products. This is easily done by adding daunting new regulations, or by piling on oppressive new taxes, or by legislating “windfall profits” penalties, or by using the threat of the regulatory speed trap to threaten them with massive fines or imprisonment. It is indeed fortunate for the Central Authority that the drug companies are, in fact, not the most fastidious members of the corporate community, and that their actions and methods often suggest many fruitful avenues for demonization.

One such avenue that is particularly fruitful, since it recruits the public squarely into the camp of the prosecutorial horde, is to show how the corrupt pharmaceutical industry feeds at the trough of the American taxpayer.

A few years ago, to specifically document this sort of reprehensible behavior, the New York Times pointed us to the case of Dr. Laszlo Bito and the anti-glaucoma drug Xalatan.

In the early 1980s Dr. Bito, a researcher at Columbia University, made a key discovery about a new class of substances that could potentially treat glaucoma. His research was funded with American tax dollars through the National Institutes of Health.

Subsequently, the pharmaceutical giant Pharmacia purchased the rights to Bito’s discovery for a mere $150,000. Based on Bito’s tax-supported work, eventually Pharmacia released the anti-glaucoma eyedrop preparation Xalatan. Xalatan rapidly became a worldwide best-seller, yielding as much as $500 million in sales per year. For their part in this unalloyed success story, Columbia University has netted over $20 million in licensing fees and royalties, and Bito himself became a millionaire.

Meanwhile American glaucoma sufferers are forced to spend upwards of $50 every six weeks for a tiny vial of the drug, which costs the company only a small fraction of that amount to produce, and whose discovery the glaucoma sufferers paid for with their own tax dollars. And, as if to guild this already brazen injustice, Pharmacia makes Xalatan available in Canada, France, and most other countries around the world (where taxpayers decidedly did not support the discovery of the drug), for less than half what American patients pay for it.

It seems, the Times points out, that the American taxpayers are the only parties in this little scheme who reap no financial return on their investment. All they got were some expensive eyedrops.

And so, drug-company demonizers would have us conclude, this is a particularly egregious example of how the evil pharmaceutical industry is ripping us off. Not only are the drug companies mercilessly profiteering from sick Americans (which indeed is their openly-admitted business model), but they are also picking the pocket of every American by using our tax dollars to invent new drugs, then selling those drugs back to us at exorbitant prices. This, one could reasonably argue, is at least as sociopathic as anything the tobacco companies ever did. (The tobacco companies, in contrast, at least had the good graces to eventually stop claiming that their products were beneficial to one’s health.)

And (we in the great unwashed are all supposed to agree), if this reprehensible behavior doesn’t give our government the right to control the prices charged by drug companies, one would be hard pressed to say what does.

DrRich certainly doesn’t want to absolve the pharmaceutical industry of all responsibility for drug prices that seem obviously too high, or for the striking disparities we see in the prices they charge for their drugs between the U.S. and other countries. He has read the complex justifications, published by apologists for the pharmaceutical industry, as to why drugs in Canada cost so much less than in the U.S., and why a tablet whose actual manufacturing cost is five cents is sold to our elderly sick for five dollars. DrRich thinks that, despite all the pretty explanations the pharmaceutical industry gives for these “seeming disparities,” drug companies simply do what every other industry does – they charge the highest price the market will bear, for each market in which they participate. If they didn’t do this, they would be abrogating their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders.

There is much not to like about high drug prices, or the fact that people in other countries reap the benefits of American research for far lower prices than Americans do. And it is reasonable for us to seek to address these pricing issues. But as we address certain inequities in drug pricing, we should be careful that in doing so we don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. So if we’re going to alter the arrangement we have with the pharmaceutical industry, let’s be clear on how that arrangement works, and why we set it up in the first place to operate as it now does.

Consider once again the glaucoma drug Xalatan, and consider how Dr. Bito’s discovery was actually used by Pharmacia.

Bito did not discover a finished product. Instead he discovered a new concept for reducing intraocular pressure (that is, for treating glaucoma), and demonstrated that it could be effective – but the specific compound he discovered was not marketable. In fact, it was so highly irritating when applied to the eye that it was simply not suitable for human use. (DrRich does not understand why the drug companies are the evil players in this story, when Columbia University so obviously allowed research to proceed in their facilities in which irritating substances were intentionally placed into the eyes of bunnies or other cute animals.) Indeed, Bito’s new compound was so impressively unusable that, before Pharmacia bought the rights, his discovery had been offered to and rejected by a host of other drug companies as being completely infeasible.

So when Pharmacia finally agreed to pay for the rights to Bito’s patent, they took on an expensive risk that, some estimated, had less than a 5% chance of achieving success. Pharmacia assumed the difficult task of developing a brand new synthetic molecule that would have all the benefits described by Bito, but at the same time would not have the prohibitive side effects. There was no assurance at all that such a molecule could ever be developed, and the cost of searching for one would dwarf the cost of purchasing Dr. Bito’s compound in the first place.

If such a thing turned out to be feasible, then the company then would have to conduct painstaking and extraordinarily expensive human research trials, and if successful, would then have to shepherd their new compound through a time-consuming and costly regulatory gauntlet – which explains why the vast majority of promising new drugs fail to ever gain FDA approval. That their efforts were ultimately successful does not diminish the fact that, when Pharmacia agreed to invest the time, money and opportunity cost to develop Dr. Bito’s discovery, the company was committing itself to an expensive and extremely risky proposition, with no assurance of making a profit or even recouping their losses. It was, in fact, a very long shot.

The folks occupying Wall Street ought to remind themselves that the cool products they are using each day (such as the iPhones they use to organize their flash demonstrations) all came about because the profit motive – and only the profit motive – encouraged some entrepreneur to risk his/her time, treasure, and sacred honor on some new idea. And for each risk-taker who becomes a millionare or billionare, thousands of others achieve only modest success – or fail altogether. (That’s why it’s called “risk.”) But the lure of big profits drives the whole system, and accounts for American progress.

Bito’s (tax supported) idea was a promising one, but the challenge of developing that idea into a product that was useful to patients and that could be brought to market was very expensive and highly risky. Pharmacia took on that risk (all of which was borne by its shareholders, and not by taxpayers) only after difficult, internal corporate soul-searching. If not for the prospect of making enormous profits if this risk worked out, the company (like several other drug companies did in this particular instance) certainly would have walked away.

Before 1980, it is likely none of this would have happened. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 was passed expressly to encourage the further development of federally financed, university-based basic research. Until then, a large proportion of basic university research was never “translated” into useful medical products. Such translation of basic research was recognized by Congress to benefit society not only by advancing the practice of medicine, but also by stimulating the overall economy. So industry was actively encouraged to take on the risk of developing promising ideas that came out of federally-funded research. And the profit that greeted successful enterprises was designed to be the one thing that would lure industry into taking that risk.

So when the Times “discovers” a company “profiteering” from work done with tax dollars, it should not be a revelation, nor should it be an unmistakable sign that the company is inherently evil or dishonest. Nor does the company’s activity in this regard give us a justification to arbitrarily restrict its profits. Rather, that’s simply the deal we taxpayers (through our elected officials) have made with the drug industry. We made this deal because we felt it would benefit American society, the American economy, American patients, and quite probably, us as individuals. Of course, if we want to change that deal now, it is within our rights to do so.

Without Bayh-Dole, perhaps patients with glaucoma would still be getting surgical therapy and wearing those coke-bottle eyeglass lenses instead of just using eyedrops. And if we wish to allow the Central Authority to put the brakes on such medical advances (ostensibly to prevent unseemly profiteering, but actually to stifle medical progress), we certainly can. It’s how covert rationing works.

But we shouldn’t vilify the drug companies for taking us up on the deal we offered them, back when we were thinking more clearly.

A recent article in the New York Times discusses the growing controversy regarding whether nurses who have earned a doctorate degree in nursing practice ought to be addressed, by patients or others, as “doctor.”  The article touches upon several salient aspects of this controversy, but unfortunately does not resolve any of them.

According to the article, most doctors think nurses – even ones with advanced degrees – should not be awarded this honorific. Only physicians ought to be referred to, in any clinical setting, as “doctor.”

The reason, of course, is entirely altruistic. If the nurses are called “doctor,” it will confuse patients; they won’t know what’s going on, or who’s in charge. This kind of reasoning is entirely consistent with physicians’ well-known and unremitting efforts to make sure every patient understands exactly what is going on, at all times. Clearly, nurses calling themselves “doctor” will undermine such noble efforts.

There are other issues to consider. The Times portrays Dr. Roland Goertz, chairman of the board of the American Academy of Family Physicians (and presumably a doctor of medicine, but this is unspecified), as fretting that, should nurses be allowed to wrest control of the title “doctor” from the real doctors, the real doctors would experience a “loss of control of the profession itself.”

Dr. Kathleen Potempa, president of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (and presumably a doctor of the nursing kind, but also unspecified) counters that nurses are getting doctorates not to take over the healthcare system or screw with doctors’ heads, but merely to boost their education and stay current. There is, she says, a lot for nurses to learn about these days.

But despite such soothing words from one of nursing’s luminaries, the Times notes that doctors remain alarmed. Nurses are really getting their doctorate degrees, physicians happen to know, to boost their credentials to practice independently – making their own diagnoses, initiating their own treatment plans, writing their own prescriptions, &c. Several states already allow them to do so. Louis J. Goodman, chief executive of the Texas Medical Association, is not fooled: “This degree is just another step toward independent practice.”

But the Times article ends with another demurral from Dr. Potempa: “Nurses are very proud of the fact that they’re nurses, and if nurses had wanted to be doctors, they would have gone to medical school.” (As if, DrRich can hear a few of his colleagues muttering, they could have gotten in.)

So, as DrRich says, the New York Times succeeds in rubbing some of the sore spots created by this controversy, but does not resolve anything. In fact, the article merely dances around the real issue, and leaves it entirely untouched.

You are therefore fortunate, Dear Reader, that you have DrRich to explain the whole matter to you. In fact, here are the six things you really need to know about the doctor-nurses controversy:

1) Nurses who decorate themselves with a doctorate degree in nursing practice have every right to refer to themselves as “doctor,” just as any other doctor in any other field has that right. DrRich was reminded of this fact several years ago, when he was severely admonished at a parent-teacher conference by his child’s history teacher for failing to address her as “doctor.” (This was after DrRich had ascertained that this person could probably not name a single event in American history that had occurred prior to 1860. But then, her degree was in “education,” rather than in the subject matter she taught.) And consider this: there are “doctors” wandering our streets whose degrees are in fields of endeavor whose names end in the word “Studies.” If these souls deserve to be called “doctor,” then nurses – who actually know a lot of very useful things – certainly do.

2) It is not the nurses’ fault that the doctors of old, when they finally became tired of being referred to as “barbers” or “chirurgeons,” and wanting a more distinctive name for themselves, commandeered the generic and widely-used title of “doctor.” No doubt they were very impressed with themselves at the time for having gained an education beyond that necessary to create a decent tonsure, but still. It is as if football players had decided to usurp the term “athlete” as referring only to themselves, and then complained when race car drivers began calling themselves the same thing. (The football players would have a point, of course, but on the whole their behavior would be unreasonable, not to mention unseemly.)

3) It seems just a tad disengenuous for physicians to complain because nurses calling themselves doctors might confuse some patients. Doctors themselves have not been particularly assiduous about disabusing their patients of various confusions. Doctors have yet to explain to their patients, for instance, that according to recently adopted precepts of medical ethics, they are obligated to covertly ration their medical care at the bedside. As a result, patients still think their doctors’ primary obligation is to them. This sort of “confusion” seems far worse, to DrRich, than a little confusion about who is a doctor and who is not. (Besides which, evidence suggests that many patients will always labor under the notion that all female health professionals are nurses, and all males are doctors – and so their confusion about who is who is pretty standard stuff.)

4) DrRich knows that you family practitioners out there have bigger things to worry about, but what the heck is the story with Dr. Roland Goertz*, chairman of the board of your professional society? Can it be he’s actually worried that nurses calling themselves doctors will lead to doctors losing control of their profession? What control is that? Gentlemen and ladies, you have elected a chairman who thinks that you family practitioners still have control of your profession! What are you people thinking?

____

*DrRich notes that Dr. Goertz is aptly named. The original, according to the Song of Roland, also sacrificed himself fighting a futile rear-guard action against vastly superior forces.

____

5) Dr. Potempa, president of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, seems like a very reasonable person, and perhaps doctors (the physician kind) might be able to work with her. But DrRich has noticed that there are several different professional societies representing nurses, and some are less mild-mannered and less “reasonable” than others. The nursing organization which perhaps most directly represents those kinds of nurses whom doctors are most concerned about (i.e., nurses who become “doctors” and then want to be addressed that way) is the American College of Nursing Practitioners. The ACNP is much less demure than is Dr. Potempa’s organization about its long-term goals, which it has publicly expressed in a Strategic Plan published in 2005. Anyone examining this plan will note right away that it has been published in ALL CAPS, which, by tradition, indicates a shouting, in-your-face, screw-you sort of an attitude. In this manifesto, the ACNP states (among other things) that “INTERDISCIPLINARY NON-HIERARCHICAL TEAM CARE IS THE HIGHEST QUALITY OF CARE” (i.e., we’re not taking any guff, or orders, from you know-it-all doctors, rather we will practice as fully independent agents); and declares that their goals will not be met until nurses are “PRACTICING WITHOUT RESTRICTION IN EVERY SECTOR OF HEALTHCARE DELIVERY” (i.e., there are no limits to our scope of activity). Overall, this document is breathtaking in its breadth, straightforwardness, and attitude. This Strategic Plan, DrRich points out to his physician friends, reveals what the nurse practitioners are really up to.

And it’s just what you thought.

6) There is an overriding fact that renders all of the above entirely moot. It does not actually matter what doctor-nurses call themselves, or even that there is such a thing as doctor-nurses. It does not matter that the ACNP appears to be a predatory organization. It does not matter that Dr. Goertz may suffer from an acute lack of clues, or that Dr. Potempa seems like a nice lady.

None of this matters, Dear Reader, because Obamacare, the law of the land, has promulgated a new definition of Primary Care Practitioner. By law, today, physicians who practice primary care medicine, and doctor-nurses, and nurse practitioners (not to mention various other forms of non-physician medical personnel), are all PCPs. They are all equally qualified under the law.

It is a done deal. Only the details need to be worked out.

It is not convenient to acknowledge this fact. Primary care physicians and their professional organizations would rather not think about the implications. It means that the American Academy of Family Physicians is fundamentally an obsolete organization, as are its officials, such as Dr. Goertz. It means nearly the same for the American College of Physicians. Neither of these organizations is about to admit that. Furthermore, if this fact were to be acknowledged by the academic programs which are training our primary care physicians, they would become obligated to inform their applicants that the 8-10 years of medical training they are signing up for will place them in the same position, legally speaking, as a nurse practitioner (or, if they want to cushion the blow a little, as a doctor-nurse). This is truly an inconvenient truth. So it is being publicly ignored.

And so primary care doctors, and their professional organizations, go on pretending that the big issue facing primary care doctors is what these new-style PCPs will call themselves. And they are happy to fulminate about that issue to reporters from the New York Times. It seems safer than facing the truth.

But the truth is still the truth, and only the primary care doctors who face up to it will stand a chance of bucking the system, and maintaining their professional standards.

DrRich has heard several primary care physicians argue that their training is just so much better than the training of a doctor-nurse that it’s absurd to suppose those lesser professionals can offer equivalent care. This would certainly be true if primary care doctors actually did the things their training prepared them for. But if they continue following the path the system has laid out for them in recent years – avoiding the management of hospitalized, acutely ill patients altogether; seeing the outpatients who constitute their entire practice at a rate of one per 7.5 minutes; spending that 7.5 minutes making chits on Pay for Performance checklists from On High; sending anyone who actually seems a little sick to the emergency room or to a specialist – it is actually difficult to see what the big drop-off will be if doctor-nurses are doing the job.

When DrRich’s 15-year-old automobile displays some horrible new symptom, he wants a well-trained and experienced mechanic to diagnose the problem and fix it the right way. But if he’s only taking it to one of those 10-minute places for an oil change and a filter, it’s fine with him if the technician just learned the job last Tuesday from Stu. Primary care doctors have allowed themselves to be converted into Jiffy Lube. The training advantage they have over doctor-nurses matters less and less.

The Central Authority is assembling panels of experts to determine which medical decisions are to be made under which circumstances for which patients, and all it asks of doctors is to follow their instructions to the letter. Further, the Central Authority has determined that doctor-nurses will be very, very good at following those instructions – better than physicians, almost without a doubt. Indeed, the nurses’ lesser training – enough to allow them to recognize common conditions, and also enough to teach them that medicine is extraordinarily complex and there’s a lot they don’t understand and never will – is aimed at rendering them satisfied to comply with the directives handed down by panels of experts, and to be very thankful they can do so. Their reduced training is a decided advantage to the Central Authority.

To the Central Authority, the role of an ideal “practitioner” will be much better filled by a nurse, whose training is brief, to the point, focuses on following treatment plans, and is not burdened by centuries of professional pride and embarrassing oaths to dead Greek gods.

Primary care doctors who still value their professional pride, oaths, &c. had better light out for the territories while they still can, and quit worrying about the doctor-nurses (who soon enough will have big problems of their own).

Doctors need to face what is happening to their profession, and avoid getting distracted by battles over nomenclature. If they want to maintain their professional integrity, they will need to clearly distinguish themselves from the checklist checkers and the guideline followers, and demonstrate how the individual expertise and the personalized care they offer will be a big advantage to many patients.

If primary care doctors believe they really do add value to patient care over and above whatever nurses can provide, then they had better learn to articulate exactly what that value is. And once having articulated it, they will need to organize themselves to deliver and market that value, at a reasonable price, to the people they expect to pay for it.

And the “people they expect to pay for it” had better be their patients – because the Central Authority and other third party payers have made crystal clear precisely what they want, expect, and will tolerate from a PCP. What that is, of course, is complete compliance with central directives, and an end to the annoying expectations physicians have traditionally expressed for individual decision-making.

And as for those within the Central Authority, DrRich humbly suggests they carefully read the ANCP manifesto, and ask themselves whether the object of their affection, when finally won, is going to prove quite the demure, compliant little partner they’ve been pining for all this time.

From all appearances, Republican voters are desperate for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to throw his hat into the ring, and announce that he’s running for the Republican nomination for President. And, while the governor has made dozens of absolutely definitive statements utterly denying that he is going to run, he nonetheless seems quite happy to continue relentlessly teasing his supporters with the possibility. (Just the other night he gave a speech at the Reagan Library in which he discussed foreign policy and other topics not notably relevant to running his state. What’s up with that?)

There are several good reasons Governor Christie gives for not running. He promised the voters of New Jersey that he would stay in office and do everything he could to fix the fiscal disaster that his predecessors created there. He notes that he doesn’t have the fire in the belly which, apparently, one must have for this sort of contest. He does not have very much experience with governance, and has said repeatedly he does not feel ready to become the leader of the free world.

None of these reasons, of course, are dispositive, and all of them could be dispensed with very quickly. Governor Christie is pissing off so many people in New Jersey so quickly that it is not inconceivable that, if he asked them politely, the majority would soon give him a pass on all his promises, and bid him Godspeed in his new endeavors. Fires in the belly, it is said, come and go, and one might just show up at any time. And as for feeling ready to become the leader of the free world, well, the bar there has been lowered so much in the past couple of years that even DrRich – who balked at the responsibility of becoming secretary of his book club – would no longer be intimidated at the prospect. I mean, what the heck?

And so, despite all his denials and all the reasons he gives for staying out, it remains entirely possible that Governor Christie may still get in the race.

DrRich is alarmed by this possibility. And so should we all be, as Governor Christie’s potential candidacy poses a very great threat to us all.

You see, dear reader, the governor is just too damned fat.

Our leaders have just spent nearly three years demonizing the obese, and convincing we the people that fat people, by virtue of their unsightly and self-induced rotundity, are a grave threat to the well-being of each of us.

Here is what we have been taught: Aside from the obvious negative characteristics of fat people (their sloth, gluttony, laziness, selfishness, &c.), and the fact that they are unpleasant to behold and inconvenient to encounter (they are slow, they take up too much space in the grocery aisles and on buses, and they sweat more than you and me), and the fact that obesity is contagious so that fat people should be isolated and shunned, and the fact that the obese probably account for global warming, and thus will ultimately be responsible for untold death and destruction; aside from all these undeniable truths, the obese consume far more than their rightful allotment of healthcare resources, which, per force, leaves much less healthcare available to us holier persons. They are, in fact, trying to kill us.

Demonizing the obese is critically important to the program we have embarked upon in America. Obamacare may give the Central Authority the legal standing to control the personal behaviors and personal choices of individual Americans, but it does not give them the moral authority to do so, nor the ability to actually enforce that control. Americans, despite 50 years of indoctrination to the contrary, still value their individualism, and will still balk – or worse – when they perceive their personal freedoms are being taken away.

The obese are supplying our leaders the vehicle they need for breaking down this last barrier. For, if everyone can agree that obesity is evil, and so are the people who allow themselves to become fat (despite all the “help” they get from expensive public service announcements, calorie counts posted in restaurants, and lectures from First Ladies), then how can we object when our leaders are forced to take stronger measures to “encourage” better behavior, or, if necessary, to punish their behavior?

By virtue of their now-universally-accepted state of sinfulness, the obese are fair game for whatever actions the Central Authority deems necessary to cause them to either lose weight or pay for their sins. From appearances, such measures are likely to begin with taxing soft drinks and Twinkies and whatever other foodstuffs the experts (in their wisdom) deem to be illegitimate sources of calories. But really, the sky’s the limit. For instance, under the undeniable proposition that it costs more energy to move a fat person from point A to point B, whatever the mode of transportation, the obese could be subjected to a special carbon tax, based on their BMI. The periodic mandatory “weigh-ins” such a tax would require would serve the useful purpose of public humiliation, an important incentive to weight loss.

Further humiliations could be visited upon the fat by designating special isolated areas in the workplace (ideally, an area fully exposed to the elements) for fat people to consume their calories. This latter strategy, of course, is derived from the same restrictions placed on smokers, and can be legitimized by the same sort of logic. That is, the authorities can invoke the prospect of second-hand obesity* to induce fear and loathing of the fat, and cause them to become socially isolated.
______
*The “scientific” conclusion that obesity is contagious, i.e., that those who associate with the obese are more likely to become obese themselves, has been proffered by academics employing the same kind of statistical legerdemain used to blame global warming on fat people. Clearly, obesity has now become so toxic to the survival of mankind that any paper submitted to a medical journal which offers some new reason to despise the fat – no matter how absurd – will be cheerfully accepted by the editors, and published with great fanfare.
______

It goes almost without saying that the ultimate censure would simply be to withhold healthcare services from fat people. This is a strategy that is already being employed by the British healthcare system,  a system we are urged by many of our leaders, such as Dr. Berwick, to employ as a model.

The great benefit of taking the demonization of the obese to its logical conclusion, of course, is that by doing so, the Central Authority will have established the very important precedent of selectively enforcing certain rules, based on a person’s behavioral habits*, in order to achieve Social Justice.

_____
*While demonizing the obese is considered legitimate by many because fat people “choose” to become fat through their selfish behavior, it is nonetheless true that becoming truly obese (as opposed to becoming merely overweight) is almost always strongly mediated by genetic and metabolic factors. Blessed with the same genes and metabolisms, many of us svelter, more holy individuals would also have become fatties.
____

This is a truly critical precedent to set. This precedent will ultimately allow our Central Authorities to restrict, control and tax virtually any human behavior they can claim may lead to an increased risk of healthcare expenditures. Such behaviors may include (in addition to obvious things like smoking and alcohol consumption), one’s choice of occupation, participation in sports, hobbies, hours spent or miles traveled on the highways, and how well you follow the lifestyle changes prescribed by your PCP in your annual, very-strongly-encouraged, “free” wellness checks. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of any choice one makes in daily living that does not, in some manner, impact on one’s likelihood of requiring medical services, and which thus would not be subject to central control.

All this will become possible because Americans are willing to accede to the demonization of their obese neighbors.

So now we see why Governor Christie must not run. Think of the damage he could do!

The prospect of a fat man campaigning for President – an endeavor which everyone admits takes an incredible amount of initiative, intelligence, energy, and a robust constitution – would itself undermine important “truths” about fat people upon which we base much of our (hard won) hatred of them. Worse yet, if Governor Christie actually managed to secure the Republican nomination, there’s an excellent chance that a majority of voters would actually cast their ballots for him! And he might actually become President!

What would that say about the general acceptability of obese people in our society?

Governor Christie’s candidacy would do untold damage to the critically important obesity paradigm which our leaders have painstakingly established over the past few years, and thus, would seriously damage their entire program.

And it is for this reason that Governor Christie must not run.

Note: DrRich now realizes that he has made a major mistake by writing this post, and here offers an apology and a weak explanation for his error.

It is a good thing that DrRich is not the only cardiac electrophysiologist writing in the medical blogosphere. If he were, the public would no doubt believe that all electrophysiologists are arrogant, self-important, sarcastic blowhards who insist on expressing themselves in the third person. Fortunately, that DrRich is uniquely afflicted in this manner, and that at least two out of three electrologist appear to be not only brilliant but also reasonably normal people, is nicely demonstrated by the offerings of Dr. Wes and Dr. John M on their respective blogs.

Both of these relatively socially acceptable electrophysiologist bloggers have seen fit to comment on the Million Hearts Initiative, recently introduced with great fanfare in the pages of the New England Journal of Medicine by Drs. Thomas R. Frieden, M.D., M.P.H., and Donald M. Berwick, M.D., M.P.P., on behalf of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The Million Hearts Initiative aims to prevent a million heart attacks and strokes over the next five years.

The critiques of both Dr. Wes and Dr. John M regarding the Million Hearts Initiative are insightful and well-written, and both offer cogent analyses of the shortcomings of this program. DrRich strongly recommends both for your perusal.

Dr. John M is largely sympathetic with the aims of the Million Hearts Initiative, but finds that at least some of the methods proposed by DHHS to prevent all those heart attacks and strokes are unlikely to do much good. And more importantly, Dr. John notes, the MHI manifesto entirely ignores one of the most important (possibly THE most important) measures to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, namely, exercise. Dr. John M is an avid cyclist, and has personal experience with the benefits of exercise. How, he asks incredulously, can you design a major program to prevent cardiovascular events and leave out exercise?

DrRich (who, being a runner for going on five decades, has himself invested much blood, sweat and tears to the proposition that exercise is good for you), also finds this ommission to be quite remarkable. But as usual, DrRich has developed a theory to explain it. Both Dr. Frieden and Dr. Berwick, judging from the string of letters trailing behind their names, are public health experts. Public health experts are known for taking snippets of data from typically flawed clinical trials and, stringing together a chain of mathematical assumptions and conjectures longer than their post-nominal decorations, calculating how many people will be saved (or killed) if this or that public policy is initiated (or withheld). Obviously, for the Million Hearts Initiative, Frieden and Berwick needed to assemble a package of policy interventions whose calculations, when properly jiggered, show that there will be precisely one million beneficiaries. By including exercise in their program (and in their calculations), they would clearly have boosted the results to some awkward and difficult-to-promote value. The “One-Point-Eight Million Hearts Initiative” would just not have had the proper flair.

Like the President says, John, it’s just math.

Dr. Wes is somewhat less charitable toward these eminent public health experts than is Dr. John. John, while criticizing their methods, attributes high motives to them. Wes, on the other hand, is quite cynical about their motives. (In fact, if it were not for his total lack of blustery, third-person-y verbosity, Dr. Wes’ post might well have been written by DrRich.)

Wes suggests that the Million Hearts Initiative is the Feds’ way of distracting the public from noticing that they are doing everything they possibly can to restrict patients’ access to cardiologists, and to restrict spending on cardiovascular medicine.

It is, in fact, striking (at least to cardiologists like DrRich, Dr. Wes, and Dr. John) that this major policy initiative to save a million hearts has no place in it for cardiologists. Cardiologists are never mentioned in the manifesto itself, except obliquely to indicate that their services will not be required. Cardiologists, of course, take care of patients who have already developed significant heart disease. So what the public health experts are telling us is that they are only interested in stopping heart attacks and strokes in people who are apparently disease-free. There’s nothing wrong with that, of course. Preventive medicine is extremely important in cardiovascular disease.

But still. It is at least arguable that the quickest way to prevent a million heart attacks and strokes would be to target those patients who have the highest risk for these events, namely, people with known cardiovascular disease. Cardiologists dedicate their lives to preventing catastrophic events in these high-risk patients – and a tremendous amount of clinical evidence suggests they’re pretty good at it. While the only thing we ever hear these days about stents and implantable defibrillators is that cardiologists over-use them (and so the DOJ is launching criminal investigations to intimidate doctors into using them less frequently), when these kinds of technologies are used appropriately – as they most often are – they are proven to save lives.

But this is most decidedly not what the government’s public health experts are trying to prove. They want nothing to do with actual doctors practicing medicine in the trenches, fighting to save patients with active disease. Rather, they are out to show that the healthcare system can do just fine without all those fancy specialists and all their expensive procedures. They are aiming to advance the Progressives’ long-term agenda of showing that all the really important stuff in healthcare can be accomplished with much cheaper public health initiatives.

As DrRich has pointed out, it is our duty as citizens to maintain our wellness, and the the Million Hearts Initiative is simply the latest initiative by which the Central Authority will help us fulfill that duty. Those who by their own shortcomings develop heart disease or stroke, despite all the wonderful preventive help they receive through programs such as this, have manifestly failed  to fulfill their duty to society and will just have to get by the best way they can. And doctors such as cardiologists, who made the mistake of choosing careers dedicated to caring for such slackers, should not expect to be taken seriously, or overly respected, by the public health experts who are doing the really important work, or by any policy makers for that matter.

None of us cardiologists, nor our patients, should be surprised at being excluded from the Million Hearts Initiative. And won’t we feel bad when the results are in, and it turns out that millions of hearts can indeed be saved without any participation by the heart specialists?

So: Can the public health experts really save a million hearts with the specific steps they say they will take? Examining the strategy which Drs. Frieden and Berwick have laid out in their document, it certainly does not appear so. But, as it turns out, that result will be amenable to “tailoring,” and so the actual values they obtain in their results will be of little consequence.

The Million Hearts Initiative proposes to save a million hearts by doing the following:

A) Make “providers” report more regularly on how well they make little chits on checklists. (These are pretty much the same checklists the providers are already using; it’s the improved reporting standards that will save lives.)

B) Use electronic medical records to track and improve the behavior of providers and patients. (It is not clear exactly how this is supposed to work, though it is easy to imagine many rather spooky initiatives that might be taken, given the creation of a centralized database tracking, among many other intimate details, everybody’s long-term behavioral habits.)

C) Assemble groups of providers into “care teams,” which will somehow employ tag-team counseling efforts to get patients to improve their lifestyles. (Revealingly, it is this gang-nagging, and not novel life-saving technologies, which the public health experts refer to in their document as “clinical innovation.”)

D) Reduce smoking and second-hand smoke. (Fine, but this is merely one of the behavioral changes about which oppressed patients will be mercilessly “counseled” – see Item C.)

E) Get trans-fats out of the food supply. (DrRich has no objection here either, except to note that it was the same public health experts who, 40 years ago, demanded that trans fats be introduced into the food supply in order to crowd out saturated fats.  This is one example of why, when you’re a Progressive, history has always begun just 10 minutes ago.)

And F) Institute a population-wide salt restriction. (This amounts to yet another huge experiment to be perpetrated on the population at large. With luck, after 10 or 20 years this experiment may finally reveal who’s right – the experts who say that a general, population-wide sodium restriction will reduce net mortality, or the experts who say such a sodium restriction will increase mortality. Right now there’s plenty of data to argue for either outcome.)

Will doing these things really save a million hearts? Not in real life. All these things, taken together, don’t amount to very much in terms of actually accomplishing anything useful. But in the final analysis, the public health experts will have a decided advantage. It is plain that, while proving that hearts are actually “saved” by such measures will in fact be impossible, it will be equally impossible to disprove it. This situation is entirely analogous to the one in which the Administration insisted that President Obama’s stimulus package “saved” eight million jobs – since there is no way to prove or disprove that any jobs (or hearts) would have been lost had you done the other thing, any old claim is just as good as the next.  In such situations, the faction which gets to analyze the final data (in this case, those selfsame public health experts) can manipulate the statistical evidence any way they must to “prove” what they aim to prove.

Heck, they probably have their final report written up already.

Readers are advised to forget about saving a million hearts. Instead, save only one. Don’t smoke. Get plenty of exercise. And don’t eat so damned much. And should you develop heart disease despite your best efforts (which happens all too frequently despite what you’ve been told), pray that you can still find a cardiologist who has not been intimidated into withholding those expensive, modern medical therapies that really have been proven to save hearts, and lives.

While Grand Rounds is normally the highlight of everybody’s week here in the medical blogosphere, this time it’s different. This week, we are all – each and every one of us  – completely distracted by the most wonderful sense of expectation and joy, to the exclusion of virtually every other human emotion. For DrRich, at least, the feeling puts him in mind of the giddy anticipation he experienced on, say, his 5th Christmas eve, when he was still young enough to consider Santa Claus a magical-but-real agent of earthly delights. (This was before DrRich realized that Santa, being obese, is actually a great menace to society.)

For this, dear reader, is the week when President Obama will turn his considerable powers of intellect, at long last, to the issue of jobs. The President indicated to us more than a month ago that he would, in his own good time, present to us his program for fixing the horrific and prolonged unemployment problem which now affects most American families in some way. And thus realizing that a solution is finally at hand, we in the great unwashed masses have waited, as patiently as we could, through earthquakes, hurricanes, Martha’s Vinyard vacations, and numerous pre-season football games, for the President to tell us the Answer. And, summoning together a Joint Session of Congress – a venue most often reserved for declarations of war and similar life-altering policy initiatives, thus confirming the momentous nature of his coming words – he will finally proclaim to us the Good News, a mere two days from now. One can cut the anticipation with a knife.

So, while it is indeed an honor to be hosting Grand Rounds during this historic week. DrRich must admit to finding it a little difficult to concentrate his efforts. No doubt readers will likewise find it a challenge to turn their attention away from the Big Event long enough to peruse the following posts – the best of the medical blogosphere this week.

But be assured that there is good stuff to follow. So, if you find yourself incapable of focusing your attention on Grand Rounds at the moment, simply bookmark this page, and return to it once your sense of soaring happiness returns (as it inevitably must) to a more normal state. Be assured that this week’s entries are timeless enough to outlive your ecstasy (an emotion which – alas! – to be effective, must always be transient).

So let us begin.

____

DrRich – having been informed not long ago, by an actual U.S. Attorney who at that moment had him under a form of official duress, that the DOJ is well aware of this blog and the general tenor of its content – always likes to mention early in any long post (so that his minders do not have to read the whole thing) any items that might be helpful to the Administration. Accordingly, we open Grand Rounds this week with the announcement, posted in The Examining Room of Dr. Charles, of the 2011 Charles Prize for Poetry. Dr. Charles has been hosting this prestigious contest – which seeks and awards excellence in poetry touching on health, science or medicine – for some time now, and it has proven to be an exceedingly popular annual event.

In addition to the significant intrinsic merits that accompany the Charles Prize for Poetry, DrRich must note that Dr. Charles is also awarding a not-inconsiderable cash prize to the winners. That is, he is creating what, in our present economic environment, must be considered damned-near jobs. Encouraging employment in the career of poetry is something, DrRich thinks, the President should seriously consider before Thursday night, lest he be tempted to make the huge mistake of attempting to whip up enthusiasm yet again for Green Jobs. (In the wake of the collapse just last week of the heavily-government-subsidized and heavily-Obama-promoted Solyndra Company, and of at least two other companies that received large federal funds for Green Jobs, treading that dead ground again would merely reveal that he is entirely bereft of ideas.) The Administration ought to thank DrRich, and especially Dr. Charles, for this critically important advice. Encouraging poesy, instead of Green Jobs, would demonstrate the kind of new thinking we are all looking for from our President at this critical juncture.

At Dr. Malpani’s Blog, Dr. M. outlines his 3-step approach for helping his patients understand the intricate concepts of in-vitro fertilization. First, you describe how the thing is supposed to work when everything is functioning normally (the “thing” in this case being the human reproductive system). Then, you describe to the patient where the system is breaking down in his/her case. And finally, you describe the options available for mitigating the breakdown. Dr. Malpani’s system, which he points out is generalizable, is aimed at creating a consensus for action when faced with a complex problem.

DrRich will only remark that Dr. M’s system, which works well enough for problems based in human physiology, is proving pretty worthless for problems based in the more social sciences, such as economics. This is because of a fundamental disagreement, among the debaters, on how the economy is “supposed to work when everything is functioning normally.” Progressives and conservatives have very different ideas about this. So Dr. M’s approach, which requires both logic and a fundamental consensus on what constitutes “normal” behavior, is unsuitable to non-physiologic systems.

Dr. Val at Better Health posts a recent interview with Dr. Dori Carlson, president of the American Optometric Association, regarding the importance of screening children for subtle but significant vision problems. (Dr. Val and Dr. Dori are referring here to the kinds of vision problems that involve optics, and not the kind suffered by our political leaders.) The type of gross vision screening which is conducted by most schools misses the majority of these vision problems in children, and those undetected vision problems not infrequently lead to impaired learning. Also, they often lead to misdiagnoses and inappropriate treatment, likely including the misdiagnosis of ADHD. (Missed vision problems constitute only one of the causes for the explosion in ADHD diagnoses in recent years. A more common cause, in our overly-feminized schools, is being a boy. Indeed, as nearly as DrRich can tell, being a boy today is a disease; they have drugs for it and everything.) In any case, if you are a parent of a school-aged child, you should strongly consider having your child’s vision checked by an ophthalmologist or optometrist – especially if somebody wants to put him on Ritalin.

Henry Stern at InsureBlog tells us the good news and bad news about a new study related to heart attacks. He notes that heart attack victims are receiving definitive therapy in American hospitals much more quickly than they were just a few years ago. And when you are having a heart attack, minutes count – the longer that coronary artery is occluded, the more permanent damage is done to your heart, and the higher your odds of death or disability. So the diminished delay to treatment is good news. As usual, though, there is bad news attached. DrRich, always the sunny optimist, does not wish to repeat the bad news. You can go to the InsureBlog to read it for yourself.

The ACP Internist reports a study showing that 80% of today’s doctors look up on-line information in front of their patients. DrRich, who admits to being an Old Fart, does not find this surprising, since young physicians these days are, well, young. And young people are on-line all of the time, reporting their every trivial thought and mundane action instantaneously to the Cloud. (If Andy Warhol were alive today he’d be talking about our 15 minutes of anonymity.) But you don’t have to be a young doctor to take up these new habits. It appears from this new survey that doctors of all age groups have ritualistically placed an LCD screen between themselves and their patients. In so doing, they have awarded to those distant, expert panels – the ones spinning out all those guidelines, pay-for-performance checklists, marching orders, &c – their appropriate and rightful physical position, that is, directly interposed between doctor and patient. This is more than mere symbolism, but the symbolism is delicious.

But, dear reader, please do not be too critical of today’s doctors. If you yourself were a savvy modern physician, realizing that you could go to jail if you do what you think is medically appropriate before checking with the Authorities to find out if it is also allowable, you’d have a computer screen in front of your face too, and you’d be looking stuff up in front of your patients the entire time they were blathering on about their symptoms or whatever. DrRich worries for the 20% of doctors (likely, his fellow Old Farts) who haven’t “gotten it” yet.

Beth Gainer at Calling the Shots makes an important observation about the two classic narratives to which all victims of breast cancer are assigned – the narrative of the triumphant hero, and the narrative of the courageous and noble victim. Ms. Gainer’s observation is that most women with breast cancer do not fit either of these prescribed narratives. Many women are thus left feeling guilty or diminished when they find that their experience is not meeting with society’s expectations. Ms. Gainer is absolutely correct, and indeed, her observation is generalizable. The same thing occurs whenever society’s designated narrative-makers assign a range of permissible attitudes, thoughts and behaviors to any defined group. Mercy on any member of the group who falls outside those designated norms.

David E. Williams at the venerable Health Business Blog addresses the question of how we – society – will cope with the next big trend in the drug industry – the development of “niche” drugs, drugs that are suitable for only a relatively small number of patients and which, therefore, are exceedingly expensive to develop and market. David goes directly to the real question – the problem of niche drugs makes the issue of healthcare rationing unavoidable.

So far, of course, we are doing our healthcare rationing covertly, and in the case of niche drugs that usually means interpreting clinical results in such a way as to minimize their potential benefits. We do this by saying that Drug X “only increases survival by 4 months,” and ignoring the fact that “4 months” is an average value, and that while many patients have no benefit at all, a non-negligible minority may live a lot longer. The question, “Is it worth $50,000 for only four more months of life?” is different from the question, “Is it worth $50,000 to have a realistic shot at living several extra years?” Covert rationing causes us to frame the question in such a way that the answer to any question beginning with “Is it worth. . .” is always, “no.”

At the Road to Hellth, Douglas Perednia, one of the best analysts of health policy writing today, looks at the rationale for the onerous penalties which are required under Obamacare for hospitals whose patients are readmitted at higher than the average readmission rates. Perednia describes the bogus math which the Feds are apparently using to determine what appropriate readmission rates ought to be – and points out the irony of requiring doctors to behave in an “evidence-based” fashion, while the Feds themselves are using frivolous statistics to dole out the equivalent of the NCAA Death Penalty to our hospitals.

Steven Seay, PhD discusses what ought to be second nature to any clinician – applying the principles of the scientific method to clinical practice. That is: gather the necessary data to formulate an hypothesis; institute therapy based on that hypothesis; measure the results of that therapy; revise the hypothesis to reflect this new data; repeat as necessary. This is the way clinical practice should be done. DrRich is happy to learn that it is still apparently OK for clinical psychologists to function in this manner. For physicians, especially PCPs, the scientific method has become forcibly compressed to: make a diagnosis; treat according to the guidelines. While the patient might not do so well with this new method, the physician will be OK, since “quality” will be measured according to one’s compliance with the guidelines. Measuring the actual results of the treatment, of course, would only lead to trouble, and in most cases will be avoided.

James Gault, MD, of the blog Retired Doc’s Thoughts, is a long-time champion of classical medical ethics (as opposed to the New Age medical ethics now formally espoused by all the major professional organizations).  As such, Dr. Gault often deconstructs arguments being published by modern medical ethicists supporting these New Age ethics, which require doctors to act for the benefit of the collective rather than for the benefit of their individual patients. In this post, Dr. Gault gives a very effective what-for to Professor Fuchs of Stanford, who, once again, has published a paper advancing the bankrupt argument that what’s good for the collective is necessarily good for the individual. These kinds of vapid arguments may fool the Whippersnappers, but they’re not fooling us Old Farts.

The ACP Hospitalist notes that, according to the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, a “grey market” is developing for life-saving medications that have been in severe short supply for the past few years. A grey market, DrRich thinks, is like a black market, but less illegal – though it is possible they are referring to Old Farts who are merchants. In any case, the ISMP says the grey market is price-gouging hospitals that need those important drugs, and have nowhere else to buy them. The solution, according to the ISMP, is (among other things) to empower the FDA to manage drug shortages and tighten regulations for drug distribution.

The growing, widespread shortage of important medications is indeed a bad problem. We should look for a solution to this problem. Shortages of any product occur when it costs companies more to make the product than they can get for it in the marketplace. Onerous regulatory policies by the FDA which, in the name of product safety, have greatly increased the cost of doing business for pharmaceutical companies, along with recent de facto price controls on generic drugs, have combined to make it economically unfeasible for drug companies to expend large resources to manufacture these drugs. It seems doubtful that piling on even more regulations will improve the situation. And attacking the grey markets will simply drive them further into the dark (since black markets are nature’s way of providing a product when governments act to limit it). Given the expected 500,000 pages of new regulations being conjured up out of the Obamacare legislation, drug shortages are merely the first of many critical medical shortages we will be seeing in the coming years. So it will be instructive to watch how our leaders handle this problem.

In any case, from the job-creation standpoint, DrRich believes there will be many employment opportunities in coming years in sundry black markets related to healthcare. Many skills will be needed, some of which should be quite exciting!

At the Prepared Patient Forum, Trudy Lieberman writes a post entitled “Health Insurance, Meet the Jolly Green Giant,” in which she discusses the new, patient-friendly labels that are supposed to accompany health insurance policies under Obamacare beginning no later than 2014. The labels sound like a good idea, but as Ms. Lieberman points out, there will be problems. For instance, for the Feds to mandate transparency in labeling is unlikely to be all that helpful when, at the same time, they often mandate utter secrecy on the part of providers (for instance, in creating severe anti-trust penalties for doctors who reveal the fees they have negotiated with insurance carriers). But as always, results are far less important than simply meaning well.

Sharp Incisions, a blog written by a self-described “fledgling” medical student, has sent in an affecting post about scrubbing in on a unique surgical case – the harvesting of six vital organs for transplantation from a patient who has been declared brain dead. DrRich prays that Dr. Incisions will maintain for a long time the same sense of wonder and gratitude, expressed in this post, for the gift of life.

A medical student who blogs anonymously at the D.O.ctor Blog, describes her first experience participating in cardiopulmonary resuscitation when it actually counted. DrRich, who in his days as a cardiac electrophysiologist ran hundreds of these things, and who became convinced over the years that three people was the optimal number to run a “code,” admits to being a little taken aback by this student’s description of the event, which sounds like it must have been as complex to coordinate as a Busby Berkeley production number. No wonder she was a little astonished by her experience. DrRich supposes that this must be the new-style CPR mandated by some new guideline or other, and would not be surprised to learn later this week that CPR procedures requiring 15 participants is part of the President’s new Jobs Plan.

Speaking of sudden death, one of DrRich’s recurrent themes here on the CRB is that sudden death is a great boon to our healthcare system (since not only is sudden death itself very cheap, but also it tends to remove individuals who would otherwise continue collecting Social Security, and who tend to have expensive chronic heart disease), and that therefore the government will tend to stifle the prevention of sudden death any time it can. Accordingly, Dr. Wes tells us that the Feds are about to further limit the use of the Zoll wearable defibrillator. Doctors have taken to using this device in high-risk patients during the first month or so after a heart attack, since guidelines specify that ICDs (implantable defibrillators) must not be implanted during this interval. Since sudden death is particularly likely during that first month, the Zoll device is being used as a “bridge to ICD.” Obviously, sudden death being the healthcare system’s friend, this must not be permitted. And so, Dr. Wes points out, soon it will not be.

At the HealthAGEnda Blog of the John A. Hartford Foundation, Marcus Escobedo describes how his father is coping with the decisions that need to be made as he deals with recurrent prostate cancer. Helping elderly patients deal with health issues is the thrust of Mr. Escobedo’s work at Hartford, and his new personal experience, he tells us, drives home the point. Specifically, Escobedo works to assure that elderly patients are considered to be more than just the sum of their disease and their age. DrRich is sorry to have to point out that no less an expert on American healthcare than President Obama has explicitly disagreed with this approach, and on national television to boot. Perhaps when he said this the President was suffering under the influence of teleprompterpenia, and perhaps if he had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Escobedo over a beer in the Rose Garden, he would possibly begin to revise his position to one that is more compatible with the mission of the Harford Foundation. On behalf of America’s Old Farts, DrRich would certainly hope so.

Dr. Thomas Pane writes in the Business, Surgery & Medicine Blog about tantrums, specifically, the kind occasionally thrown by surgeons in the operating suite. His post carries an important Labor Day lesson for anyone who hopes to make a career in the medical field in the coming years, so pay attention:

Everyone can agree that throwing tantrums in the operating room is never a good thing, and that quite often, it is a very bad thing. But Dr. Pane points out that, counterproductive as tantrums often are, they are nonetheless not the worst possible way in which a surgeon can express his/her utter frustration at a bureaucracy that blithely conspires to disrupt surgical procedures at critical moments. He reminds us, once again, that the biggest handicap one can ever have when working in an environment in which bureaucratic mud has fouled every gear is: giving a sh*t. So, while Dr. Pane may or may not agree, here’s the lesson: If surgeons would simply adopt the apathetic, indifferent attitude that classically characterizes long-term survivors in work environments mired by bureaucracy, all would be well.

Jaqueline writes Laika’s MedLiblog, a blog dedicated to medical information science. She submits a post entitled, “PubMed’s Higher Sensitivity than OVID MEDLINE… & other Published Clichés,” in which she shows how medical researchers doing literature searches for, among other things, meta-analyses, will stumble upon various “anomalies” in their searches of the PubMed and OVID databases, and then write additional, CV-padding papers about those anomalies. Jaqueline points out that these so-called “anomalies” are actually well-documented “clichés,” which are well-known to information specialists and anyone else who is competent in doing comprehensive literature searches. In other words, Jaqueline has documented that these meta-analysis researchers are rank amateurs at doing the most critical step in conducting meta-analyses – searching the literature for all the appropriate published studies. DrRich has always mistrusted meta-analyses, and Jaqueline has helpfully identified yet another reason to justify such mistrust. He thanks Jaqueline, and whoever planted those database anomalies which allow us to identify potentially incompetent meta-analysis researchers.

Nicholas Fogelson of Academic OB/GYN writes about taking care of the dying Jehovah’s Witness patient, or rather, taking care of the Jehovah’s Witness patient whose illness is potentially curable but who is dying because he or she refuses to accept blood products. DrRich can attest to how very difficult it is for a doctor to respect a patient’s religion when doing so results in their death. Dr. Fogelson’s description of his evolving attitude regarding this dilemma is compelling.

Need to be uplifted after reading the above post? Read Jordan Grumet’s submission from his blog, In My Humble Opinion. It’s brief and beautifully written, and it reminds us that sometimes our efforts as doctors – which all too often seem futile – can pay off in unimagined ways.

Pranab at the Scepticemia blog points to a news story about a medical school in Mumbai selling seats (that is, entry to medical school) to the highest bidder. He strongly objects to this practice, even though he postulates that his objection will make some of his readers call him “a leftist commie” (which DrRich finds to be the most common kind). DrRich does not agree with Pranab’s (tongue-in-cheek) conclusion that it is America’s fault that Mumbai medical schools are selling seats. (It is actually only George Bush’s fault.) But DrRich does agree entirely that the practice itself is an abomination. Indeed, we can all agree that entry to any career which requires a high degree of skill, talent, and/or intelligence ought to depend on merit, and nothing but merit. Can we not? Good.

____

DrRich will end by noting that he is finishing this Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Edition of Grand Rounds during the waning moments of Labor Day, which causes him to fondly recall those long-ago days of yesteryear, when the U.S. still had plenty of steel mills and DrRich was a card-carrying member of the United Steelworkers of America, and the thought of attending medical school had not yet penetrated his still-empty head. And he recalls how, while he was working one day as a lowly laborer, a union boss came over to him to explain (after DrRich had complained about it) the utility of his spending three painful days moving a large pile of slag, employing only shovel-and-wheelbarrow technology, from one location to another – AND THEN BACK AGAIN.  Now, those were the days when we knew how to make jobs!

Say, whatever happened to those steel mills, anyway?

DrRich considers it his responsibility to point out to his readers certain truths related to modern American healthcare which may not be obvious to everyone, and which the fine people in the mainstream press choose not to mention.

Be honest. If it weren’t for DrRich, would you be aware that the only reason Obamacare became the law of the land is that the private insurance companies needed it in order to have any hope of long term survival?  Would you understand that the Progressive healthcare system to which we are now legally committed inherently requires all of the following things (while loudly proclaiming the opposite): ending the classic doctor-patient relationship; preventing individuals from spending their own money on their own healthcare; killing off the practice of primary care medicine; to the furthest extent possible, limiting preventive medicine; and stifling medical innovation?

One thinks not.

And so, DrRich hopes you will pay attention as he reveals yet another poorly-appreciated truth about our new healthcare system. Namely, it has become the case that maintaining your own wellness is not merely something which would be desirable, something you ought to do, or at least something you ought to want to do. It is now your duty.

You owe it to society to maintain your wellness, to take every step at your disposal to keep yourself from needing to consume healthcare resources. You owe it because healthcare is now a collective responsibility. And if your chosen actions (or inactions) cause you to become unwell, and if your unwellness causes you to consume healthcare resources which otherwise might have been available to individuals who (unlike yourself) became ill through no fault of their own, and if such faultless individuals subsequently suffered or died as a consequence of your failure to honor your duty, well then – that would make you no different from any other common criminal whose selfish actions produce harm to their innocent victims.

Maintaining your wellness is not a nice-to-have; it is your non-negotiable obligation.

You have been told that your wellness is very important to the caring people who will run our new healthcare system. And indeed, it is. So you will, by law, be “entitled” to annual, detailed “wellness checks,” provided by a dedicated team of healthcare workers, who will assess (and record) your efforts to maintain your own wellness, and then will give you all the instruction you need to alter whatever suboptimal behaviors you are displaying. The results of these annual wellness checks will be entered into a federally-approved universal electronic medical record, so that any healthcare provider, anywhere, at any time, will have a complete record of the trajectory of your state of wellness over the years – and of the degree of your compliance with the instructions you have received for maintaining that wellness.

Of course, if you elect to forgo the annual wellness checks to which you are entitled, that information (i.e. that you cared so little for your wellness that you couldn’t be bothered to do anything about it) will also be maintained in the universal electronic records.

Then, when you become ill 10 or 20 years from now, your records can be consulted to decide to what extent your illness can be considered self-induced. For, when resources are scarce, the only moral thing to do is to distribute them according to who is the most deserving.

Most readers are now thinking that DrRich is paranoid. Guilty as charged. However, DrRich’s paranoia, regarding the kinds of behaviors of which our Central Authority is capable, is based on hard experience. Indeed, it is evidence-based.

Still, DrRich is enough of a realist to understand that it is unreasonable to ask his readers to just trust him here. Instead, let’s examine patterns of behavior, regarding supposedly self-induced disease, which our society is already displaying. The best example, one which DrRich has written about extensively, is obesity.

We are witnessing a sustained and ongoing campaign to demonize the obese. Consider: While we are universally urged to stifle any impulsive speech or sentiments which, by any stretch of the daintiest of sensibilities, might make any member of any group (however you choose to define a group) the least bit uncomfortable, it is perfectly OK to castigate the obese, loudly and often. We can say about the obese anything we like.  Screw their feelings. It is perfectly fine to insist that it is the obese – gluttonous, lazy, self-indulgent, slothful fat people – who are driving our healthcare spending off a cliff. It is acceptable to publish ridiculously flawed papers in respected scientific journals proving that global warming is caused by the obese (thus pinning upon them the responsibility for upcoming catastrophes of unimagined proportions), and demonstrating that obesity is a contagious disease (which will justify any actions we may choose to take to concentrate the obese into special camps).

A person’s choice to allow themselves to get fat already justifies more than mere words of castigation. Under the British Health Service (the model to which Dr. Berwick and other of our current healthcare heroes openly aspire), the obese (along with smokers, another group of selfish sub-humans who use an unfair share of healthcare) are now being removed from the waiting lists for medical services.* By virtue of their obesity (and the lack of social responsibility their obesity indicates), fat people have forfeited their equal access to healthcare.

___
*Removing the fat from the waiting lists has at least two beneficial effects. It punishes them, of course, for their selfish refusal to maintain their own wellness. But it also reduces the long waiting lists that exist in Britain for medical services, closer to the target waiting times which the government has been promising its citizens for decades.
___

Demonizing the obese has many advantages. Chief among these is that the obese are easy to spot. In contrast to the Jews of Nazi Germany, one does not have to sew a Star of David to their jackets to know which individuals are wrecking the culture. By just walking down the street (not that fat people do all that much walking, lazy SOBs) they reveal themselves, by their unsightly corpulence, to be one of those people who are ruining the healthcare system for the rest of us. And we svelter, more worthy citizens can look upon them with the scorn they deserve.

Especially now that we have so many programs and policies aimed at preventing obesity – putting apple slices in Happy Meals, publishing calorie counts in restaurants, being lectured at by First Ladies and skinny movie stars, &c., – anyone who still chooses to remain obese despite all this abundant assistance must be especially contemptible.

Perhaps most useful of all, in the long run, is the fact that real, honest-to-goodness, health-threatening obesity almost always has a strong genetic component. When we learn to demonize the obese, we are learning that wellness is a duty even if your genes (or some other force that is largely beyond your control) mitigates against it.

The obese, therefore, are the perfect target. Thanks to them, we are teaching ourselves that it is right and proper to disdain individuals who are leading less than exemplary lives.

Once we have learned this lesson well, it should be relatively easy for us to apply the same kind of disdain to others who who fail to honor their duty to maintain their own wellness. Most of these scurrilous individuals will not be so obvious to spot as fat people.  But at the end of the day, they will reveal themselves in the ultimate manner – they eventually will fall sick. And by their diseases we shall know them.

For the past several years, our healthcare experts have been busy declaring more and more illnesses to be “preventable.” And if an illness is preventable, and an individual fails to prevent it – well, what more do you need? That person has obviously failed to perform their sacred duty to society, and has forfeited any claim to the healthcare we more deserving people can expect.

The list of illnesses which are officially preventable now includes coronary artery disease, heart failure, kidney failure, diabetes, stroke and many kinds of cancer. And just a week or two ago, Alzheimer’s disease was added to the list.

It is possible that in a decade or so, if you acquire an illness from this growing list of “preventable” medical disorders – especially if your annual wellness checks reveal that you have gained weight since college, or you habitually fail to exercise at least 90 minutes per day, or that you imbibe less than one or greater than two alcoholic beverages per day – you may be triaged to Tier B healthcare. Tier A will be reserved for people who obviously care more than you do about wellness, and about their duty to society. Just as obesity does today, the state of your health will demonstrate your true commitment to the perfect society to which we all aspire.

For, when it is your duty to maintain wellness, your illness reveals a grave dereliction.

In the wake of another sudden death in a another young athlete, the question arises – as it does after each of these tragic events – whether all young athletes should be screened for occult heart disease before participating in sports. It appears, for instance, that 16-year-old Wes Leonard had an underlying heart condition which likely could have been identified with a simple echocardiogram.

The question is controversial, and accordingly, even the professionals disagree. The European Society of Cardiology and the International Olympic Committee, for instance, recommend screening every young athlete with electrocardiograms (ECGs), and if the ECG is abnormal, following with an echocardiogram. But the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology do not recommend screening ECGs, and advocate only a medical history and physical examination – which will notoriously miss many if not most of the occult cardiac conditions that produce sudden death in young athletes.

To DrRich, of course, sorting through the controversy is mere child’s play. Allow him to explain.

The problem in answering this question stems solely from our failure to clearly identify what we wish to accomplish in establishing such a screening policy.

Those who advocate widespread screening stress the horrific nature of sudden death in vital young people.  They can fully articulate their argument simply by pointing to the awful video of young Wes scoring the winning basket to cap off a perfect season, then moments later, collapsing and dying. The scene is just too gut-wrenching to watch. Clearly, we should all want to do whatever we can to prevent such scenes from ever happening again. If Mr. Leonard had had an echocardiogram, it is likely that this tragedy might not have happened – and that should be argument enough for a widespread screening program.

For a good articulation of the alternative point of view we can begin by turning to DrRich’s colleague, Dr. Wes. Wes points to the experience of a Detroit area hospital that screened 5200 young student athletes, and identified three who had cardiac abnormalities which placed them at risk for sudden death. In finding these three individuals, the screeners not only performed ECGs on all 5200 students, but also performed nearly 1000 echocardiograms on students with suspicious ECGs, and in the process identified at least 30 students who needed even further evaluation (and possibly treatment). Evaluating these other, possibly false-positive cases not only cost money, but also subjected these young students to medical risk. Dr. Wes estimates the overall cost of this screening process at well over $600,000, and Wes is being very conservative in his assumptions.  As a result of this well-intentioned effort, it appears that several kids were told not to participate in sports any more; it is not clear that any lives were actually saved.

As it happens, a report from Israel this week in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology substantiates Wes’ suspicions. According to this study, the national mandatory cardiac screening program for athletes, instituted in Israel in 1997, seems not to have reduced the incidence of sudden death in young athletes at all. The incidence of sudden death was 2.6 per 100,000 athlete-years both before and after the mandatory screening was instituted.

Does this mean that screening does not save any lives? No. It is certain that some individuals are spared sudden death thanks to this aggressive type of screening program – just not enough to affect the overall statistics. This result illustrates that when you are dealing with an event that has such a low incidence of occurrence, it is extraordinarily difficult to prove that your intervention is producing a statistically significant reduction in that incidence.

Furthermore, by definition, screening programs of any type (whether it’s screening for sudden death in athletes or screening for breast cancer) don’t change outcomes. All they do is identify people at some degree of increased risk. To change the outcomes, you have to find a way of treating the at-risk individuals you’ve identified with some process that is sufficiently effective, that itself does not worsen outcomes, and that the at-risk individual is willing and able to employ.

In the case of screening young athletes, to effect a reduction in the rate of sudden death you must either convince the young person to give up sports (not only organized sports, but all athletic activities), or find a way to make the underlying heart condition go away. DrRich understands that some of his readers might not have experience in trying to convince dedicated young athletes to stop what they’re doing and become bookkeepers, but the fact is that informing them of the risk is not always perfectly effective in changing their behavior. And while most of the cardiac conditions that produce a risk of sudden death in these young people can be managed to one degree or another, they generally are not “cured” or mitigated to the extent that athletic activity becomes risk-free.

So, while occasional individuals are likely to benefit substantially from these screening programs, if you look at it from the collective point of view these programs appear to do little or no measurable overall good, despite the high cost.

So this brings us back to the original question – should routine cardiac screening of athletes be performed? It seems clear, to DrRich at least, that the answer is: It depends on what you are trying to accomplish.

If you are asking the question from a collective viewpoint, wherein “society” will be paying the bills for the screening procedures, and thus will not have that money any longer to spend on other healthcare services that might yield a more substantial result, it is obvious (since there is no measurable benefit but a high cost) that such screening should not be done.

But if you are one of the individuals – or the loved one of such an individual – who is concerned about having a readily identifiable cardiac condition which places you at risk for sudden death, and would be willing to change your behavior if you are found to be at high risk, it would be entirely reasonable for you to want cardiac screening, and furthermore you should have every opportunity to avail yourself of that screening.

So what we have here is that very common circumstance, which modern medical ethicists insist never ever occur, wherein what is clearly best for an individual is equally clearly not best for the collective.

This situation, DrRich thinks, is analogous to the situation with smoke detectors. Smoke detectors clearly save lives here and there – we have all heard anecdotes about a family being aroused to safety by a smoke detector. But proving that the overall incidence of death from fire has been significantly reduced in the era of smoke detectors seems difficult if not impossible. And if it were society’s job to buy smoke detectors for every individual, then society would – rightly – determine that the cost is not worth the insubstantial benefit.

Yet, everybody has smoke detectors. Why?

Simply, everybody has smoke detectors because it is NOT society’s job to pay for them. The individual does. And the individual does not care that smoke detectors cost $1.2 million per life saved. They only care that the life saved, potentially, is theirs, and that owning the smoke detector that might just save their life does not cost them $1.2 million, it only costs them $19.99.

The issue of screening young athletes would be resolved if we made screening ECGs readily available to individuals for $10 at Walmart, and a follow-up echo (if needed) for $50, also at Walmart. Then individuals who decide that they wanted to know if they’re at risk for sudden death could do their own cost-benefit analysis, and if the potential benefit is worth a few dollars to them, they could buy the screening for themselves.

So screening young athletes for underlying cardiac conditions seems like a pretty good idea, just like smoke detectors seem like a pretty good idea. Where we go wrong is by making such screening a medical service, and therefore making it the responsibility of the collective to pay for it (if indeed it is to be purchased), and furthermore, making it next to impossible – and soon illegal – for individuals to pay for it themselves.

From the collective point of view, paying for the screening of young athletes makes no more sense than would collectively purchasing smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, fog lights, back-up cameras, home security systems, and a host of other personal safety-enhancers that people will happily pay for themselves, but which would be ridiculously wasteful to pay for collectively.

Which just goes to illustrate a general rule: The more stuff we collectivize, the less stuff we’ll have.

In his last post, DrRich analyzed whether the young Wisconsin doctors who stood out on street corners proudly offering fake “sick excuses” to protesting teachers were engaging in an act of civil disobedience. DrRich respectfully kept an open mind on this question, but after careful deliberation concluded that it is very unlikely that their actions constituted classic civil disobedience as espoused by Thoreau or Gandhi.

Instead, these doctors were, in a professional capacity, lying. They did not lie in any truly malicious way, however. They lied because they have been trained to believe in a higher cause than mere professional ethics, namely, the cause of social justice. They lied in full confidence that telling lies to advance such a noble cause is a natural duty of the medical profession. They never expected to be criticized for it (except perhaps by Rush Limbaugh and sundry teabaggers and the like), and they almost certainly will be stunned into indignant incoherence if they end up actually receiving the full punishments their actions allow.

But what really interests DrRich is the near-perfect silence we have seen from the mainstream news media regarding this sad episode. While it’s easy to find stories about the phony sick excuses all over Fox News and conservative websites, major outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, CBS and NBC – sources one might expect to express at least some sympathy for these doctors and their work to advance a just cause – have reported next to nothing about it. When a left-leaning mainstream outlet does report on the episode (for instance, this article appearing in the Atlantic), rather than expressing any support for the Wisconsin doctors, they express at least mild dismay. It seems plain to DrRich that the mainstream media wish the whole thing hadn’t happened, and that perhaps their silence might help it go away as soon as possible.

So here we’ve got a small cadre of youthful and idealistic physicians, behaving in a manner entirely consistent with what they’ve just learned during their medical training, and not only are they facing formal investigations and potential punishment, but also the very people and organizations whom they were surely counting on for support have retreated into an embarrassed silence, or worse, criticism.

What gives?

What gives, DrRich thinks, is the great discomfort being experienced by left-leaning people and organizations by such a blatant, public display of the New Medical Ethics and its ultimate implications. That is, while they don’t actually object to the fact that the doctors were committing professional fraud for the advancement of what passes for social justice, they wish they hadn’t done it out in the open.  Calling attention to the fact that doctors will lie so readily might cause folks to want to take a closer look.

And since lying doctors are part of the plan, such scrutiny might turn out to be inconvenient. You see, Dear Reader, whether the payer is a private insurance company or the Feds, a principle mechanism of healthcare cost-cutting is to coerce the doctors to ration healthcare at the bedside. As a result, many more times per day than one would care to think, doctors are being placed into the unfortunate position of deciding, not whether to lie, but to whom to lie. Do they lie to the insurance companies and Medicare (in order to give one of their patients a needed medical service which, according to insurance company rules or government “guidelines,” they may not have)? Or instead, do they lie to the patient (usually committing a lie of omission, in which they fail to tell patients about some needed and available but forbidden medical service)?

The answer is – both. DrRich, as usual, backs up his outlandish generalizations with data:

Item 1: In a survey conducted by the American Medical Association’s Institute for Ethics, published in the April 12, 2000, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, 39% of American doctors admitted that they sometimes or very often manipulated reports to their patients’ health plans so their patients might gain coverage for needed medical care. These manipulations included exaggerating the severity of the patients’ condition, changing the billing diagnosis, or reporting symptoms the patient did not have. And 72% admitted using one of these tactics at least once in the past year. More than a quarter said that gaming the system was necessary in order to provide high quality care to their patients, and 15% asserted that it was ethical.

This survey elicited a deluge of criticism against the cheating doctors. Ethicists called for doctors to stop applying “insular” ethical norms and to begin using the norms that professional ethicists have long established against lying to health plans (which are busily engaged in covert rationing). Similarly, the AMA and the American College of Physicians have published strongly worded statements opposing the manipulation of reimbursement rules. And the federal government has made such “misstatements” to health plans a federal crime, punishable by huge fines, jail terms, and loss of license.

That doctors continue to do this anyway, DrRich has heard some physicians express, reflects that many physicians consider lying to a health plan to be a sin on par with the sin of lying to the SS when they knock on the door to ask if you are hiding a family of Jews in the attic.

Item 2: Another survey, published in the July/August, 2003, issue of Health Affairs, reported that nearly 33% of American doctors admit that they routinely withhold from their patients pertinent information about optimal medical treatments, because they suspect the patients’ health plans won’t cover those treatments. In response to this survey, the American Association of Health Plans, the group representing the very organizations that were pulling out all the stops to make sure that doctors do exactly what this study confirms they are doing, expressed shock at these results, and told the AMA News at the time that AAHP officials “actually find it difficult to believe that that’s going on.” (They found it difficult, no doubt, because they observed just how rapidly spending was still accelerating.) Meanwhile, the authors of the study could only conclude (with seeming surprise) that doctors are “rationing by omission” on their own volition.

These two surveys reveal some of the confusion and frustration being felt by doctors as a result of coercion to withhold medical services, and the guidance they’re getting from their professional organizations as to what to do about those rules. How are they to square those rules and that guidance with their time-honored obligation to always do what’s best for their patients?

So what’s a doctor to do when a patient needs a treatment but they know the health plan won’t pay for it? There are only three choices:

1) Tell the health plan whatever you must in order to get the needed treatment for the patient.
2) Don’t tell the patient about the treatment since they can’t have it anyway.
3) Tell the patient about the treatment they need, and then tell them they can’t have it.

The most truthful thing would be to choose Door Number 3. After all, a patient has a right to know what medical treatment he needs, whether or not he’s allowed to have it. Informing a patient that his insurance won’t pay for the needed treatment gives him useful information. It lets him know that his health plan is not adequate to his needs and gives him an opportunity to respond appropriately to that information. For instance, a patient might appeal to the health plan directly, seek intervention by his local Congressperson, or ask his employer (who is the health plan’s true customer), to intervene on his behalf. He can even raise the funds to pay for the therapy himself (and if he is not a Medicare patient perhaps it will be legal for him to purchase it).

What patients actually do when doctors choose Door Number 3, however, is to beg, demand, threaten, implore, and plead for the doctor to do something to fix things, since after all, it is the doctor who started the problem in the first place by insisting that this forbidden therapy is the only one that will do. So, the moment doctors choose Door 3, they are placed under incredible pressure to go back and choose again – Door Number 1, their patients are communicating to them, is actually the correct choice. This, plus wanting to avoid all the anguish and drama that follows telling the truth, leads doctors who are inclined to lie to health plans (and thus risk angering the entities that determine their ability to make a living, not to mention committing a federal crime), to choose Door Number 1 in the first place. If doctors are not inclined to risk their livelihoods and freedom by deceiving health plans, they will probably simply default to Door Number 2 – rationing by omission.

The above two items reflect the proportion of doctors willing to admit in a survey which group they routinely lie to – health plans or patients. Most of the other doctors, one suspects, would just rather not say.

Item 3: In 2000, the AMA filed an amicus brief with the Illinois Supreme Court on behalf of a Dr. Portes, asserting that doctors have no duty to inform their patients when health plans have given them financial incentives to withhold medical care. Apparently a patient of Dr. Portes died of a heart attack shortly after the doctor allegedly refused to refer him to a cardiologist. As it turned out, the patient’s health plan apparently had agreed to pay the doctor’s medical group 60% of any funds not used on referrals to specialists. A lower court in Illinois had found that Portes had a duty to disclose this financial relationship to patients, since it might clearly impact their interpretation of his medical recommendations, and Portes appealed. In this appeal, the AMA sided with the doctor.

The AMA said in its amicus brief that the obligation imposed on doctors by the lower court amounted to an “insurmountable burden,” since it was hard for doctors to keep track of all the sundry ways that health plans might induce them to behave in this way or that way, and besides, the need to disclose would impinge on the doctor’s valuable time with the patient and therefore disrupt the doctor-patient relationship. Interestingly, the AMA’s own Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA) had previously written that, “physicians must assure disclosure of any financial inducements that may tend to limit the diagnostic and therapeutic alternatives that are offered to patients….” In explaining why its amicus brief differed from the opinion of its own Ethics Council, the AMA explained that its CEJA standard was just an ethical one and not a legal one.

So what we have here is: a) A health plan induces doctors to withhold medical care; b) a doctor acts on that inducement; c) as a result, predictable harm comes to a patient; d) after which, the doctor and the AMA declare that he shouldn’t have to inform patients of all relevant information because; e) to do so would harm the doctor-patient relationship.

This is all just too precious for words.

One can easily see how very confusing it has become for doctors to decide just when they must lie, and whom they must lie to.

Obviously, doctors are now in a position where, just to get by, it behooves them to lie repeatedly to either patients, or to insurers, or both. Their ethical obligation to always be straight with the patient has been turned on its head by the new ethical obligation to do what’s right for the collective.  In more cases than doctors – or the insurance companies and government health plans which (between them) “own” the doctors lock, stock and barrel – would like to admit, lying has become a way of life for many in the medical profession. It is not something they’re proud of (well, at least the older ones aren’t proud of it). It’s just something that is necessary for survival. Most doctors, to their credit, hate this. It’s one of the reasons so many doctors are so frustrated with their lot.

In any case, this is not a truth to which anyone would like to call the public’s attention. So for those callow youths in Wisconsin to don their white coats and go out to the street corners, in front of the cameras, to commit lie, after lie, after lie, and to do so with such obvious pride, and such obvious confidence that what they were doing was not only right but was expected of them as members of the medical profession – that indeed, they could do no less – was to call unwanted attention to what has become an unfortunate truth about our healthcare system and what it has done to our doctors.

No wonder the mainstream media largely ignored this embarrassing episode. Fortunately, the public (despite the best efforts of Fox News) still has not realized how generalized the problem is. The sooner Fox stops fulminating about it and moves on to whatever the next left-wing travesty turns out to be, the better. And perhaps no permanent harm will yet be done to the public’s perception of the truthiness of the medical profession.

Two years ago, for instance, DrRich was “invited” to testify as a witness before a federal grand jury in a matter involving one of his consulting clients. While under oath, DrRich was caused to understand that the Feds (at least certain members of the DOJ) are well aware of this blog, and of the general tenor of its content. The impression left by this experience makes DrRich doubt whether many of his fans come from that particular precinct.

Further, the CRB has been the victim of two targeted denial-of-service attacks just in the last several months. Perhaps this is a common experience for healthcare bloggers, but then again, perhaps not. Finally, there’s the fact that last May (some readers may recall) a nasty hacking exploit completely trashed the CRB at the server level, resulting in the loss of the first three years of DrRich’s endeavors here (which, some have said, is the greatest tragedy to befall posterity since the burning of the Library at Alexandria).

And so, Dear Reader, while DrRich is certainly happy to be hosting Grand Rounds for the fourth time, and is particularly delighted with the quality of postings which he has the honor of featuring this week, it occurs to him that hosting an event with such high (and well-deserved) visibility might draw certain “extra attention” here.  So perhaps you had better read this quickly.

_____

We begin with HealthAGEnda, the John A. Hartford Foundation blog, which is posting a remarkable series of articles by Amy Berman, a senior program officer at that foundation, who has recently been diagnosed with an incurable form of breast cancer. Ms. Berman discusses very openly and frankly both the good and the bad aspects of the American healthcare system she is encountering  as she deals with this likely fatal illness. In this post, the second in a series, Ms. Berman talks about her ordeal in confirming what she already strongly suspected was a very bad diagnosis, and describes the comfort she experienced, while “meeting the enemy,” from compassionate but frank healthcare professionals. She had a much less favorable experience, which she describes in her first post, demonstrating just how devastating it can be for a patient to encounter a one-size-fits all physician. The impact such an encounter has on a patient who needs real medical help is especially relevant in an era in which doctors are being urged (coerced) into following just such an approach. Ms. Berman is an extremely brave and gracious woman, and the important insights she is providing in her efforts to chronicle her illness ought to be read by every health professional.

Henry Stern of Insureblog discusses the documented, systematic mistreatment of the elderly under the British National Health Service. Stern points out that while similar mistreatment of the elderly also happens in the American healthcare system, here it is sometimes not systematic, but rather is most often due to sloppiness or inadvertent error, and further, when it happens remedial actions (such as lawsuits) are often available. In contrast (evidence suggests), treating the elderly badly in the NHS seems to have become virtual policy. DrRich, of course, longtime president and sole member of Future Old Farts of America (FOFA), is confident that nothing of the sort will ever happen here in the U.S. where the government always has our best interests in mind, and he is sure that when government officials refer to the NHS as an ideal to which we should all aspire, they are probably not talking about this part of it.

Writing on a related topic, Julie Rosen of Bedside Manner tells about steps doctors and families can take to resolve disagreements on how aggressive one ought to be when deciding on the use of certain treatments for elderly and mentally incapacitated patients. DrRich finds Ms. Rosen’s recommendations appropriate, since all of them take place at the local level, with full participation of the patient’s loved ones, and do not (explicitly, at least) involve the heavy hand of any Central Authority.

And still speaking of the role of authority in deciding on aggressive treatments, The ACP Internist posts a news report about a court-ordered spinal operation on a 16-year old who was injured during a wrestling competition. Neither the young man nor his parents wanted the operation, which they feared might cause paralysis.  (Apparently, they were actually paying attention during the “informed consent” process.) Further, as the mother apparently demonstrated in a video shown on local TV, her son had a “full range of motion” prior to surgery. Nonetheless, the young man was removed to protective custody, and the court-ordered surgery was performed (apparently successfully, thank goodness, or else this might have turned into a controversial decision). One hopes the judge, in making his determination that the family was not acting reasonably, was not swayed by their expressed partiality to herbal medicine and homeopathy. Wacko as such practices may be, they do not appear particularly relevant in this case, given the family’s seemingly cogent argument that the risk/benefit calculation, as it had been presented to them by medical professionals, simply did not meet their threshold for such aggressive treatment. Apparently, it met the state’s.

The ACP Hospitalist offers a post from a doctor at Grady Hospital entitled: “10 ways to know that the nurses hate you.” These 10 clues as to nurses’ disapprobation are both amusing and true. However, after observing for over 30 years the kinds of behaviors to which nurses are forced to resort when they see that things are greatly amiss, but at the same time they are powerless to directly intervene, DrRich thinks this post more accurately ought to be entitled, “10 ways to know that the nurses think you are killing your patients.” The nurses may or may not actually hate the doctor for it, but they wish he/she would stop – and here are 10 ways in which they may often express that wish.

While some states are big troublemakers (and you know who you are), others are moving to implement provisions of Obamacare just as the Central Authority has decreed. Louise from Colorado Health Insurance Insider tells us that Colorado Senate Bill 168 was introduced last week to create the nonprofit healthcare cooperative which is required by all states under Obamacare. (Shouldn’t somebody tell the Colorado state senators that writing long tracts like this in ALL CAPS is considered impolite, as it is the documentary equivalent of shouting?) Louise notes that the healthcare cooperatives mandated by Obamacare may help to reduce the number of uninsured, but adds that Obamacare “will do little to address a range of other problems, including rising healthcare costs, the unaffordability of healthcare even for people who have health insurance, over-utilization of care, and the problems created when we link health insurance to employment.” While these are all legitimate points, regular readers will know how little DrRich himself goes in for such grousing.

Obamacare, after all, does so much! As a case in point, David Harlow at HealthBlawg writes about Accountable Care Organizations, a new entity which figures prominently under Obamacare, and which will be a chief vehicle for controlling the cost and quality of healthcare (i.e., for controlling physicians’ behavior). A lot of scary things have been written about ACOs (including, truth to tell, things written here at the CRB), but Harlow points out that ACOs might not turn out to be such a bad idea after all. For evidence, he points to some of the successes realized by AQCs (Alternative Quality Contracts) in Massachusetts, under admittedly favorable practice environments, and notes that some of these successes might be translated directly to ACOs. DrRich hopes he is right. But it is a little worrisome that nobody, including Harlow (as he himself allows), really knows what ACOs will end up looking like. Their structure is, as we speak, being fought over by numerous federal agencies (like a carcass being fought over by a pack of dogs), and among these agencies (DrRich shudders to contemplate) is the Department of Justice. But Mr. Harlow knows far more about this stuff than DrRich, so let’s all hope for the best. Short of defanging Obamacare, that’s about all one can do.

Amy Tenderich of Diabetes Mine submits a guest post from Valentine’s Day, written by Wendy Strgar, entitled “Healthy Sex, Healthy Love.” Ms. Strgar, who is known in some circles (circles of which DrRich himself is innocent) as a “loveologist,” and who markets the sexual-aid products to prove it, actually makes a pretty convincing argument that sexual activity can be an important part of reducing one’s risk for all sorts of medical problems. So: Are you one of those folks who has thought about having more sex, but you’re just not sure the pay-off is worth all the trouble? Read this post.

Dr. Pullen at DrPullen.com posts about the problem of anti-personnel mines, which continue killing and maiming innocent people all over the world, and for decades after hostilities cease. He rightly thinks the US ought to do more to resolve this problem, and in particular, he decries apparently serious suggestions some have made that we ought to deploy mines on our southern border to prevent illegal crossings. DrRich agrees with Dr. Pullen, but does not believe that mining the U.S. border will ever become a serious consideration (unless it is to prevent American citizens from sneaking southward to receive black market healthcare).

Doug Perednia at The Road to Hellth is writing a fascinating series on the wonders of Pay for Performance. In this, his second offering, Perednia provides some pretty overwhelming evidence, including evidence from studies which proponents use to justify P4P, that P4P demonstrably does nothing useful. Actually, DrRich should qualify that statement: It does nothing useful in terms of improving clinical outcomes. What it does do (as Perednia demonstrates) is to forcibly distract physicians from listening to their patients, to fully consume all the time allotted for a patient visit, and to actively discourage other forms of doctor-patient interactions which might lead to additional healthcare expenditures. So despite a now-well-documented lack of any improvement in patient outcomes, P4P is in fact achieving its actual designed ends, and thus must be counted a great success.

Dr. Joe Smith, who writes the Dr. Unplugged blog (a Medscape blog which requires free registration), travels the globe seeking out emerging technologies related to wireless healthcare. In his latest article Smith laments the fact that, so far, the healthcare consumer has completely missed out on the ongoing wireless revolution, a revolution that has greatly empowered consumers in virtually every other economic sphere. He concludes that despite this slow penetration, wireless technology inevitably will also transform the lives of healthcare consumers. DrRich agrees that this outcome is indeed inevitable, but thinks it may take a while. Resistance to the empowerment of individual healthcare consumers is deeply entrenched, massively well-funded, extraordinarily powerful, amazingly ruthless, and very widely distributed (from the beltway to the bedside). Such resistance is akin to the all-pervasive power of the Church 500 years ago, a power that was eventually broken, but that required the technology (printing press), the killer app (Bibles printed in the vernacular), the catalyst (Martin Luther’s 95 theses), the poorly-expressed but ultimately deep-seated desire of the populace for the knowledge being offered, and the fortitude to persevere through 300 years of reformational bloodshed. So, yes, history ultimately will win out with regard to wireless healthcare, but one fears it may take more than just the healthcare equivalent of the iPod or Facebook to see it happen.

The anonymous author of The Notwithstanding Blog is a Canadian medical student with a background in economics. In the short time this blog has been around, he (or she) has done some very cogent writing applying economic insights to medicine. The featured post describes why medical ethicists (despite their constant yammering about honoring the autonomy of the individual) almost always decide specific ethical questions the other way, that is, against individual autonomy. DrRich, in his ham-fisted style of analysis, always tends to blame this phenomenon on the fact that Progressives in recent decades have largely taken over the Ethicists’ house, just as they have taken over in most academic fields, and that Progressives as part of their DNA must always come down on the side of the collective. But Dr. Notwithstanding offers what is likely a better explanation, based on economics (the science of human behavior) instead of on political ideology. As you’ll see, in addition to being an original thinker Dr. N is an engaging writer. You should give this blog a try.

In stark contrast to Notwithstanding’s anonymous blog is Carolyn Roy-Bornstein‘s eponymous one. Here she describes one of the absurdities doctors see every day with the modern-day electronic medical records which are being adopted all over the place, with great fanfare (and with public subsidies), to streamline healthcare, reduce redundancy, eliminate waste, and assure quality care. Namely, while these new electronic records may greatly simplify the lives of the federal regulators and the forensic accountants who keep track of which doctors are being naughty and which are being nice, they often gum up the works for the people on the ground who are actually trying to take care of sick people. EMRs can do this in many ways, and Dr. R-B nicely describes one of them: She laments the reams of redundant, boilerplate, tree-killing verbiage these records spit out, each and every day, for each and every patient, a characteristic which makes the formerly simple task of figuring out how the patient’s doing today a constant challenge, a perpetual exercise in patience and persistence. and a powerful attractor for medical errors. She ends by speculating whether it might make things easier to have somebody sing these records to her. A nice thought, but DrRich thinks it would not help. What you’d get is an early Phillip Glass composition, in which the same nonsense phrases are repeated over, and over, and over, and over. . .

The Happy Hospitalist discovers that latex examination gloves (powdered, one-size-fits-all, Spic and Span brand), are available at 10 for one dollar at the local dollar store. His discovery suggests a couple of things. As Happy points out, hospitals which are expected to survive on Medicaid payments now have someplace to shop. And, if you want to bring down the cost of healthcare products and services, simply make them available for direct purchase by consumers.

Carolyn Thomas of Heart Sisters writes of journalist Melissa Mia Hall who died in her Texas home in January after avoiding medical help for her severe and persistent chest pain (regarding which she wrote a running commentary to friends – and ultimately to posterity – via e-mail). Ms. Thomas concludes that had Ms. Hall had health insurance (which she did not), she likely would have done more than just document the progression of her fatal heart attack. DrRich has no personal knowledge of Ms. Hall, and so cannot contradict this conclusion, nor does he wish to. However, a recent survey by the American Heart Association showed that in 2009, only 50% of women (regardless of insurance status) said they would call 911 if they thought they might be having a heart attack. DrRich, who has long lamented the feminization of men in our society, now utters his dismay at the converse – the masculinization of women. Ladies, if you have symptoms suggestive of a heart attack, don’t try to tough it out. Call 911.

Steven Wilkins of The Mind Gap tells how sessions of culturally-sensitive “storytelling” can break down certain cognitive barriers for some patients, and more fully engage them in their medical treatment. Wisely, Wilkins is not suggesting that beleaguered PCPs develop a stable of appropriate yarns they can spin for their recalcitrant patients during the 7.5 minutes the Central Authority has allotted for each “patient encounter.” Rather, he has several helpful suggestions for incorporating such storytelling into existing systems, which would leave the doctors alone to do what they’re paid for – making little electronic chits on Pay for Performance checklists.

Vineet Arora at FutureDocs talks about the universally-recognized phenomenon of the over-ordering of radiological diagnostic tests, which is detrimental both to patients’ health and to the healthcare budget. She discusses the many reasons too many of these tests are ordered. It boils down to the fact that the healthcare system provides physicians with extraordinarily strong incentives, at many levels, NOT to rely on their clinical judgment, but instead, in order to optimize their odds of professional survival, to just go ahead and get the test. Unfortunately the solutions Dr. Arora suggests to this difficult problem do not hinge on restoring the doctor’s clinical judgment as a legitimate decision-making tool. (This is no fault of hers; to restore respect for the doctor’s clinical judgment would require a wholesale change in how the healthcare system now operates.)  Instead, she suggests counterbalancing the strong coercions doctors feel to order too many of these tests, with new, and equally strong, coercions not to. Laboratory rats faced with similar, unresolvable imperatives to respond to two opposite stimuli, of course, quickly die of the stress.

Dinah from Shrink Rap notes that the FDA is about to take an action that may effectively render electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) a thing of the past. Specifically, the FDA is likely to reclassify ECT machines (which have been in clinical use since long before the FDA controlled such things) as Class II medical devices. If so, then for these devices to remain on the market, the two companies that manufacture them would have to conduct expensive new clinical trials to document safety and efficacy within 30 months. Observers judge that these companies would not have the resources to do so. ECT is a highly controversial procedure, and there are vocal groups which are trying to ban it – but for some patients with severe depression, Dinah points out, ECT has been a very effective and potentially life-saving last resort therapy. These unfortunate patients, apparently, can now join all the others whose response to various treatments resides in the tail of the standard distribution curve, and for whom the tailored, individualized therapy they require will no longer be an option.  So they will just have to make do with the guideline-driven treatments that suit the average patient just fine. Nonetheless DrRich predicts this change can be implemented with minimal outcry, since severe depressives, being often imbued with great inanition, likely won’t complain very vociferously about it.

Speaking of shrinks, Philip Hickey of the Behaviorism and Mental Health Blog writes about his observations regarding how and why “mental illness” has become such a growth industry. He says, “’Mental illness’ is a spurious explanatory concept whose purpose is to medicalize for profit the ordinary problems of human existence which our ancestors tackled and resolved without drugs for thousands of years.” While DrRich might not buy his entire thesis, there is much more truth in what Hickey says than one would like to think.  Among other things, when healthcare becomes a right, then the more struggles of the normal human experience we decide to turn into a medical diagnosis, the more it becomes society’s obligation to alleviate those normal struggles. There is a natural endpoint to this process of over-medicalization, of course, but it is not pleasant to contemplate.

Dr. Wes speculates on what is really different about the new pacemaker leads which recently have been declared officially MRI-safe by the FDA. Wes suggests that much of the extraordinarily expensive and time-consuming effort that was made in obtaining the “MRI-safe” label had more to do with the incredible regulatory maze that had to be navigated, than with any actual engineering changes. DrRich, who a few years ago was peripherally involved as a consultant in a similar effort (with a different company), declares Dr.Wes’ speculation to be likely pretty accurate. But fear not, for Medicare will be reimbursing the manufacturer for its regulatory ordeal for many years to come.

The venerable DB of DB’s Medical Rants offers a timely rant about how those who create the clinical guidelines which dictate the practice of modern medicine often do so inadvisedly, and sometimes with their own (possibly cryptic) agenda in mind, and as a result of such guidelines, patients may die. DrRich himself has covered this same topic lately. DB’s commentary hits the mark.

Paul S. Auerbach of the Medicine for the Outdoors Blog provides this post on cholera vaccines. It turns out that cholera vaccination is a little less than straightforward, and given the relatively small amount of vaccine available worldwide, would not be suitable for wide-scale use. So as far as cholera prevention goes, pray for sanitation.

Rich Elmore and Paul Tuten at HealthcareTechnologyNews write the wonderful news that the Direct Project has launched. The Direct Project, they tell us, is an implementation of a secure, health-related e-mail standard designed to “allow health practitioners to securely exchange health data, medical records digitized to be easily shared between doctor’s offices, hospitals, benefit providers, government agencies and other health organizations, all across America.” This sounds like a pretty good idea, except perhaps for the “government agencies” part, since, for many of us, these are the very folks we’d least want looking at our most private personal information. As for the patients themselves, it is not clear whether they also will have ready access to all this extremely secure information about their own health, or whether instead they will have to wait until the information finally shows up on Wikileaks.

February 24 – DrRich has been petitioned by the authors to issue a correction for this last item. In order to do complete justice to them, DrRich reproduces their suggested correction in its entirety:

“The Direct Project encrypts the information being transmitted.  No one other than the intended received can get the information.  There is nothing stored using the Direct Project technologies – it serves only as a transport mechanism to enable, for example, a provider to securely send information to a consulting physician.  The goal is to replace the pervasive fax machine with something more secure, more modern and able to be used by healthcare stakeholders with the most basic technology (internet access and a PC) up to the most sophisticated user of an electronic health record.”

DrRich thanks the authors for correcting any misapprehensions he may have inadvertently introduced.  To be clear, when the Feds get your personal health information, and when you have difficulty obtaining it yourself, that will not be the fault of Direct Project, whose purpose is merely to assure that the data gets sent only to the person/agency which is targeted to receive it, and no one else.  DrRich leaves it as an exercise for his readers to determine whether his original commentary may still offer any value.

____

Thanks for speed-reading Medical Grand Rounds this week.

Next week Grand Rounds will be hosted by The Examining Room of Dr. Charles.

____

From the ominously-titled book, “New Rules,” by Donald Berwick MD and Troyen Brennan MD:

“Today, this isolated relationship [between doctor and patient] is no longer tenable or possible. . . Traditional medical ethics, based on the doctor-patient dyad, must be reformulated to fit the new mold of the delivery of health care. . . The primary function of regulation in health care…is to constrain decentralized individualized decision making.”

Unfortunately, Dr. Berwick’s straightforward formulation of the appropriate role of the individual physician in our reformed healthcare system is not isolated to thinkers of the Progressive persuasion. The notion that most clinical decisions can be usefully made by a centralized authority is attractive even to some conservatives.

For example, a few years ago the noted economist Arnold Kling strongly defended the idea. “My own view is that a remote third party probably can use statistical evidence to make good recommendations for a course of treatment.”

Now, Kling is no far-left radical, pushing for centralized control of healthcare (and everything else). Indeed, he is now with the Cato Institute, and before that he taught economics at George Mason University. So he has earned his conservative and/or libertarian chops.

And to be fair, he is not really calling here for “remote third parties” to have final authority on what’s best for individual patients. Rather, he thinks patients should make that decision for themselves, weighing the recommendations of data-driven guidelines promulgated by remote experts, against the ego-toss’d recommendations from their all-too-fallible doctors, or, as Kling sarcastically refers to them, their “heroic personal saviors.” (Such sarcasm, regular readers will know, is as abhorrent to DrRich as it probably is to you.) Kling is saying: trust patients, armed with good evidence-based recommendations handed down from experts, to make the right decisions for themselves.

In concept even DrRich supports this latter notion. Indeed, a chief theme of this blog has been that doctors have been coerced into such a compromised position by the government and the insurance carriers that wise patients will no longer simply trust their doctors’ advice explicitly. As things now stand, patients who place full reliance on their doctors, assuming that they’ll get all the information they need to make good medical decisions, are putting themselves in peril. Smart patients will seek out all the information they can about their own medical conditions, so they can confirm that their doctors are indeed presenting them with all their reasonable options, and so they can more intelligently evaluate those options. And certainly, expert-endorsed guidelines would be an important part of that research.

But Kling’s remedy – that patients rely on the treatment recommendations made by expert panels as a remedy to the conflicted advice being doled out by their own doctors – is seriously flawed.

The first flaw, of course, is the idea that remote third parties, wielding evidence-based data, can make good treatment recommendations for individual patients. Evidence-based guidelines, almost by definition, are designed to improve the average outcome across a population of individuals, and are specifically designed not to optimize outcomes for each individual within that population.

Second, Kling apparently assumes that the remote third parties who are producing evidence-based treatment recommendations will be acting in a completely objective and unbiased manner. But this can never be the case. A major theme of the Covert Rationing Blog this past year has been to demonstrate that a) clinical science is probably the least exact of the sciences; b) the design and interpretation of clinical studies is inevitably attended by significant bias; and c) therefore, no matter who is producing them – whether it is medical professionals or GOD panelists (Government Operatives Deliberating) – these guidelines will always be produced with a particular agenda in mind. To assume that such agendas will be primarily – or even remotely – related to optimizing the outcomes of individual patients will often be a serious error.

Third, the idea that patients, even very intelligent patients armed with “perfect information,” can by themselves reliably sort through the morass of conflicting evidence and conflicting opinions that invariably inform any set of clinical recommendations (whether made by vaunted teams of completely objective experts from on-high, or by one’s inherently flawed, conflicted and ego-driven personal physician) is simply false. This would be the case even if the healthcare system were perfectly aligned to help patients. Which, of course, it is not. (It is aligned to affect the covert rationing of healthcare.)

Finally, while the advice patients get from their doctors is indeed biased, more and more it is biased (thanks to heavy-handed coercion) in favor of those same central authorities that are commissioning the expert panels.

As a result, patients – especially when they are sick and least able to fend for themselves – are generally incapable of negotiating the gratuitous complexities and hidden hazards laid out before them by a hostile healthcare system, a system which silently prays they will, in frustration, just go buy themselves some alternative medicine remedy, then crawl under a bush and die while contemplating their qi. Indeed, patients are as incapable of successfully navigating such a system as are accused felons of navigating a complex and hostile legal system that’s bent on sending them away for 15-20 years.

It is for this very reason that accused felons are assigned an advocate, an individual who is ethically and legally obligated to take their part, to help them navigate all the legal hazards, to do everything possible to see they are treated fairly, and that they are given every reasonable chance to prove their innocence. Lawyers, as much as we physicians might like to castigate them, are absolutely critical to a civil society.

And this is the reason why patients (according to traditional, though now quaint, medical ethics) are also supposed to have a personal advocate, an individual who is obligated to take their part, to help them navigate all the medical hazards, to do everything possible to see that they are treated fairly and that all available medical options are made open to them, and that they are given every reasonable chance of a good clinical outcome. Patients, in other words, need doctors who are devoted to the classic precepts of their profession. Such doctors, as much as Kling and others might like to diminish their importance, are also absolutely critical to a civil society.

But, as we have seen, and as has been publicly celebrated by Dr. Berwick and others, severing the classic doctor-patient relationship has been Job One under our system of covert rationing – whether that rationing is managed by insurance companies or by the government. Doctors simply cannot be allowed any longer to place their patients first. They’ve got to place the needs of their true masters first. They’ve got to keep the government and the insurers happy or they’re out of a job. They are no longer permitted to tailor clinical choices to best fit their individual patients, but they are simply to apply treatment directives as they are handed down by (from now on, government-appointed) panels of experts.

And this brings us back to Kling. DrRich of course agrees with his notion that patients ought to be armed with the high-quality information they need to determine their own medical destiny. DrRich can even agree that relying solely on the information provided by today’s doctor is generally not advisable. But DrRich cannot agree with the reason it’s not advisable. Doctors aren’t so much inherently flawed by ego and other intrinsic character flaws (at least, no more than any other group of humans), as they are operating under duress, under imposed constraints, and under external coercions that systematically and purposefully prevent them from discharging their professional obligations.

Nor can DrRich agree with Kling’s proposed solution. No centralized set of recommendations, evidence-based or not, can fix this problem for patients – especially when the expert bodies that make those recommendations are controlled by the same entities that have, with malice aforethought, killed the medical profession for the express purpose of stripping patients of their advocates, and therefore, of their medical options.

DrRich has trouble seeing a solution to this problem that is not radical. He does not see how doctors can resume their rightful place as their patients’ advocates and remain in what has become of the traditional healthcare system. Perhaps enough doctors to make a difference will leave the traditional healthcare system, shedding themselves of the third parties who now control their behavior, and re-establishing their practices (and revitalizing their profession) with a new commitment to the doctor-patient relationship. If not, then perhaps some brand new profession will establish itself (call it “personal healthcare advocates”) to fill the great void that threatens the safety of every American patient.

So yes, let individual patients weigh all the evidence and choose the healthcare option that suits them best. But unless they have a personal advocate to help them navigate the morass of biased choices – whether that advocate is their PCP like it’s supposed to be, or some new variety of professional advocate – those options will be limited to whatever healthcare is deemed best by the central planners.

A fine economist such as Dr. Kling should realize that a remote third party can no more make good recommendations for individual patients trying to survive in the rough and tumble of the healthcare system, than can a remote third party make good recommendations for individual businesses trying to compete in the rough and tumble of the marketplace. It is one thing for Progressives to hold to such a notion. It is far more disturbing to see respected conservative thinkers doing so.

It should by now be obvious to everyone that, in its great push to take over the American healthcare system, our government will do everything it must to eliminate private practice physicians. This is necessary because Obamacare (or any government-controlled healthcare system) simply cannot operate unless physicians cooperate completely with the Central Authority. Physician behavior absolutely must be controlled, and so doctors who insist on acting independently must either be reeducated or eliminated.

(Don’t get too exercised about DrRich’s language here – he is talking mainly about forcing recalcitrants into early retirement, or career changes. The other kind of “elimination” probably will not become necessary.)

Accordingly, under Obamacare all doctors are to be driven into federally-sanctioned organizations that will operate strictly under government directives. The current parlance for such an organization is the “Accountable Care Organization.”

The ACOs will be run by administrators who (theoretically) will become expert at navigating the morass of rules and regulations now being conjured up under Obamacare.  These administrators will interpret the rules and regulations in such a way as to determine The Way It Must Be Done, and then will pass The Way It Must Be Done down to the ACOs’ clinical chiefs (doctors who perhaps used to practice medicine, and maybe still do, a little, but who are now mainly brevet administrators), and the clinical chiefs will finally pass the restrictive rules of engagement down to the doctors who will actually take care of the patients. These doctors, struggling in the trenches, will attempt assiduously to follow those rules without exception, if they would like to keep their jobs as well as avoid a federal fraud rap. The patients, of course, will get whatever they get, but always with official assurances that whatever it is they get, it will be of the highest quality.

As DrRich has pointed out, doctors have very little leverage under this kind of system. Not only do they have the full weight of the federal government pushing them toward their fate as functionaries within ACOs, but they also are being pushed to so assimilate by their own professional organizations. Indeed, thanks to the New Age medical ethics which their professional organizations have promulgated on their behalf, joining collectives such as ACOs is about to become the only ethical way of practicing medicine. (DrRich has shown that this is explicitly so, and that Dr. Berwick agrees.) Doctors who try to make a go of it on their own will not only be practicing extra-legally, but also extra-ethically.

So this is where we are headed.

But we’re not there yet. Far too many physicians are still fundamentally independent-minded; there is still a lot of work to be done to get all the doctors to assimilate into the Borg.

And a major step in this direction will be to eliminate Independent Practice Associations. While the systematic emasculation of IPAs has been going on for years, it is to accelerate rapidly under Obamacare.

IPAs are groups of doctors who own independent medical practices, and who join together to provide bulk services to health insurers at rates of payment that are negotiated collectively. IPAs have a long and respected history for over a half-century. But they have been on the Fed’s hit list since at least the Clinton administration.

The rules under which IPAs must operate in legally negotiating with insurance companies have become complex, illogical, restrictive, arbitrary and ultimately ironic. The full weight of the federal government has been brought to bear against IPAs, apparently to protect the large and powerful health insurance companies, not to mention government health insurers, against “price fixing” by independent doctors – while simultaneously imposing price fixing by those same insurers upon the IPA physicians .

So: not only is it a violation of anti-trust for two random doctors to have a cup of coffee and mention anything to each other about their respective reimbursement rates, it is also illegal for fellow members of an IPA (who are joined together in collective bargaining with insurers) to do so. Indeed, the only kind of negotiation that is apparently allowed (“apparently” because the actual rules are not explicit but implied, and change arbitrarily depending on which administrators are running the Federal Trade Commission) is called the “messenger model” of negotiation.  The messenger model is necessitated by the fact that physician members of the IPA are not allowed to communicate with each other about rates, so each IPA must hire a “negotiator” who communicates between individual physician IPA members and the insurer. Furthermore, physicians are not allowed to declare to the insurer what level of reimbursement they will accept (because that would be price fixing), but rather, they can only hear the proposed reimbursement rates from the insurer, and accept or reject them. And in recent years, rejecting the offer by insurers, especially government insurers, has sometimes been determined also to be physician price fixing. This system, for reasons unfathomable to DrRich, is NOT to be considered price fixing on the part of the insurers.

DrRich is not sure he has this entirely right, because it is far more complex than he has allowed, and indeed, the rules are manifestly changeable and unclear, even to professional IPA negotiators.

In fact, it has proven to be very easy (and progressively easier as the years have gone by) for IPAs to get into serious trouble with the FTC, and incur massive fines, for “violations” that are not only fundamentally harmless to any party, but that had been perfectly acceptable behaviors in the recent past. To get the full flavor of the runaway prosecutorial zeal with which the FTC has been acting against IPAs, DrRich strongly recommends that you read this article in the December Reason Magazine by S. M. Oliva. (Many thanks to concerned reader Robert R. for pointing DrRich to this article.)

When the FTC decides to prosecute an IPA for price fixing or other violations-du-jour of the negotiating process, the IPA’s only reasonable course of action is to cave in immediately, sign a consent decree, pay the always-huge and always-arbitrary fine, and then abjectly accept whatever reimbursement rates the insurance company is willing to pay. This resolution to federal charges is unattractive, but at least it gives the IPA some chance of continued survival.

And if you don’t like the terms of the consent decree being imposed upon you, for God’s sake keep your mouth shut about it. When the director of a Colorado IPA recently told the press that her organization had done nothing materially wrong, but had signed the consent decree because they simply could not afford to fight the FTC in court (a truism for any IPA), the FTC sanctioned her as an individual, and barred her from negotiating with insurance companies for two years (effectively ending her career, simply for exercising her right of free speech). Even one of the FTC’s own commissioners, in a dissenting opinion, agreed that this latter action had been a travesty. (It was carried out nonetheless).

And so, operating a medical practice in an IPA has been a pretty dicey thing for several years now.

But Obamacare escalates the risk to a whole new level.

While dealing with the FTC is itself a decidedly nasty proposition, it’s nothing compared to dealing with the Justice Department. And Obamacare brings the DOJ into the fight to eliminate “price fixing” by doctors. That is, a violation of arbitrary and unpredictably changeable rules during IPA negotiations is not just a civil matter anymore, but is potentially (at the discretion of the Feds) a criminal matter.

It looks more and more like the handwriting is on the wall for IPAs, or for any independent, private practice physician who wants to take care of insured patients.

So, once again, DrRich begs his physician friends to consider the alternatives. Think about getting out now, dropping out of the system altogether while you still can, and establishing a direct-pay practice before that, too, is rendered illegal. The window of opportunity is closing.

And, sadly, you may want to re-read DrRich’s helpful suggestions regarding black market healthcare, as that may become the only viable alternative to the Borg – and much sooner than DrRich had previously thought.

DrRich is amazed at all the attention being paid to the impending mid-term election.

Breathless commentators speculate endlessly whether Republicans will take over the House and Senate, or just the House; and small-time operatives who in the heat of battle blurt out words like “whore,” or “bitch” (it truly is the Year of the Woman!), or inflammatory phrases like “punishing our enemies,” are subjected to endless public psychoanalysis. The angst is palpable.

For those of us interested in healthcare reform the coming election is an interesting sideshow, but it will not substantially change the cascade of events that has been set in motion by a) history, b) the election of Mr. Obama and his dogged persistence in passing his healthcare legislation by whatever means necessary, and c) the implications of the election of New Jersey Governor Christie a year ago.

As DrRich has said to his readers countless times, the real meaning of Obamacare is that the job of covertly rationing America’s healthcare is being formally transferred from the insurance companies (which have had quite enough, and which did everything they could to see that Obamacare became law), to the government. That transfer of the responsibility for covert rationing to the government is merely the natural culmination of 50 years of history. And the fortuitous election of Mr. Obama is merely the particular event (like the dropping of a crystal into a supersaturated solution) that finally brought a historical inevitability to fruition.

But the election of Governor Christie – now that was a real Wild Card. Christie’s election revealed (to DrRich, at least) that the government’s takeover of covert rationing (which, obviously, requires a government takeover of healthcare) may not be the end of the story.

At this point, some of DrRich’s readers undoubtedly think he is referring to Christie’s conservative economic outlook; his willingness to take on public employees, teachers, and others whose unions, over the years, coerced and/or bribed corrupt politicians into awarding them unsustainable entitlements that are incompatible with a stable society. They think DrRich is referring to the fact that, if even the people of very-blue New Jersey are willing to elect such a conservative Republican, then the Progressive agenda (and hence Obamacare) must actually be in real trouble.

While there may indeed be something to this argument, it’s not at all what DrRich is referring to.

Rather, DrRich is referring to the fact that the voters of New Jersey, at a time when Mr. Obama’s popularity was still quite high, chose to violate a pattern they had established over the manifold generations, chose to knock the stars out of alignment, chose not to return to office Mr. Corzine, the incumbent Democrat in a strongly Democratic state, who was strongly supported by President Obama himself, and instead chose to break with all of history, with all tradition, with their primeval instinct, and with their common sense, and elect instead – a fat guy.

Electing a fat man, DrRich must point out, was not incidental. Corzine cagily made it a campaign issue by running campaign ads reminding New Jersey voters that Mr. Christie was obese, and that he was not. Mr. Christie himself was driven by this tactic into a public admission that he indeed was quite overweight (and offered the lame suggestion that his obesity was irrelevant to the job he was seeking).

Any voter pulling the lever was necessarily thinking, “fat guy, or skinny guy?” And they, with malice aforethought, picked the fat one.

This was absolutely stunning. The implications are too far-reaching to exaggerate.

For a long time now – but especially since the beginning of the Obama Presidency – a concerted and sophisticated campaign to begin “culling out” the obese has taken place. This campaign has been conducted with great energy by everyone who matters – the government, academia, various covertly-funded consumer groups, and numerous industries and enterprises whose success depends on lots of fat people becoming desperate to lose weight. We have been assured that the obese are fat by choice, and that as a result, by their own volition they have allowed themselves to become a threat to humanity (by, among other things, increasing global warming), and most especially, a threat to the fiscal stability of our healthcare system and therefore our nation.

The message is clear: If we don’t get the obesity epidemic under control we are lost as a people. (Historians may find it interesting to note that this epidemic was greatly accelerated in 1998, when the NIH changed the definitions of “overweight” and “obese” from a BMI of 28 and 32, respectively, to a BMI of 25 and 30. The very next morning, tens of millions of previously healthy Americans woke up to find themselves fat. Even more than most epidemics, this one developed with the speed of a tsunami.)

Obamacare – which places the control of the healthcare system into the beneficent hands of our political leaders – finally provides the tools to eliminate this scourge. It will take some tough love. But for the good of America (and, who knows? possibly for the good of the obese themselves) we’ve got to do it.

Central to our efforts to save our country is the conviction that the obese are different, and while they may be potentially salvageable as worthy humans, in their present state (posing as they do such an existential threat to the rest of us), they need to be (at the very least) ostracized.

Perhaps the most telling example of just how far we had come in this regard occurred in July, 2009, when President Obama named Dr. Regina Benjamin as Surgeon General. When it appeared from certain pictures and television images that Dr. Benjamin may be somewhat overweight, critics pounced immediately. How can one become the epaulet-wearing Head Doctor of All America, in the middle of a life-threatening obesity epidemic no less, and be fat? No fat person should ever rise to any position of prominence (where he or she could potentially become a role model for young Americans) – much less this particular position.

It must have brought a tear of joy to the anti-obesity crowd to learn that being obese now so demonstrably trumped being: a) an African American, b) a woman, c) a hero who dedicated herself to providing medical care to the Katrina-ravaged poor, and d) strongly supported by President Obama himself.

But all this progress (and all this hope) was dashed just a few months later by the voters of New Jersey, when they chose to elect a fatty.

When an obese Republican can be elevated to such a position of prominence and responsibility, and by a Democratic electorate to boot, the anti-obesity campaign has been set back by decades. That a rotund candidate could emerge victorious despite such an onslaught – and not, as the breathless conjectures of our professional punditry suggest, a Republican resurgence – is the real threat to healthcare reform.

A government-run healthcare system permits – nay, demands! – that we declare to the obese that their unsightly physiques are no longer a matter of personal choice, but are now a matter of legitimate public concern. The choices they are making – that is, their gluttony, sloth and all other manner of self-indulgence – are placing unwanted and unsustainable demands on us purer, svelter, fellow-citizens.

More importantly, ostracizing the obese sets an important precedent for our wise leaders to restrict, control and tax virtually any human behavior they can claim may lead to an increased risk of healthcare expenditures – which, really, encompasses virtually any human behavior you can think of. Furthermore, successfully dehumanizing the obese will establish that our society may, whenever it needs to, discriminate against the lower economic classes (since these classes are well known to indulge in becoming overweight). And finally, since obesity (despite our decision to blame it on personal failings) is largely determined by genetic predisposition, our success in dehumanizing the obese will give us a useful tool which we can later employ to withhold healthcare expenditures for other genetically-mediated medical conditions.

It is clear that successfully demonizing the obese is a vital pillar of Obamacare.

Now perhaps, Dear Reader, you can see why the election of Christie in New Jersey was such a potential catastrophe. It is his obesity, rather than his Republicanism, that poses such a threat to healthcare reform and thus to the Obama administration.

It was the result of the New Jersey election a year ago, and not the results of the impending mid-term election (which will merely add an exclamation point to New Jersey’s declarative statement) that changed the landscape. Clearly, the anti-obesity movement, despite concentrated, coordinated and sustained efforts to make overweight Americans feel subhuman, has failed. The election of Christie – wherein the electorate of a Democratic state has raised up to prominence a fat guy, despite the damage that does to the long-term prospects of Obamacare – was the real blow.

For if We the People (even that part of “We” who are Democrats) refuse to follow the dictates of the Central Authority as it attempts to educate us on Right Thinking, then the passage of Obamacare cannot actually represent the culmination of Progressive history. It means that the final chapter has not yet been written, and real hope remains for those of us who do not buy into the Progressive program.

And this is true whatever the results of Tuesday’s election. Thank you, New Jersey.