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 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.

The recent announcement that President Obama would dispatch “secret shoppers” – agents of the government posing as patients with either private insurance or Medicare/Medicaid, who would call primary care physicians’ offices to document how long it takes to receive appointments – had many PCPs quite upset.

PCPs were upset despite the fact that the administration assured them that the President’s spies were only aiming to help. In particular, the secret shoppers were going to document that America has a PCP shortage, presumably so that government programs of some sort could be devised to fix that shortage. (They would also document, bye the bye, that patients with government insurance have a more difficult time getting appointments with PCPs.) Apparently, however, the outcry from insulted PCPs was so great that the administration quickly decided to scrap the secret shoppers program – for now, at least.

It is obvious that what the administration claimed they wanted to measure is already well known. Yes, there is indeed a PCP shortage. And yes, PCPs (being, on average, intelligent persons) are relatively slow to schedule patients whose insurance is known to result in a financial loss – if they schedule them at all.

Therefore, equally obviously, there must be some other motive for the administration to have devised this secret shopper program.

The real motive, DrRich submits, was to establish with actual data that: a) we have a two-tiered healthcare system, in which patients on government insurance plans sometimes have more difficulty obtaining medical care, and b) doctors (even the universally-beloved PCPs) are greedy and untrustworthy. Such results, with expert handling, would have served to move some American citizens a little closer to accepting a single-payer healthcare system. It would also serve to convince a few people that, seeing as how physicians behave so badly, perhaps it is not really necessary to have a doctor as your PCP.

All in all, the secret shopper program would have been a few hundred thousand dollars well-spent.

Still, DrRich can only shake his head in wonderment that his PCP friends expressed such great dismay over such a small thing as the secret shopper program. It is as if, after the Titanic struck the iceberg, a delegation of passengers was dispatched to berate the Captain because the turn-down service seemed slow that night.

How is it possible for PCPs to be so indignant about such a trivial thing as secret shoppers, when the very means of their livelihood – their chosen career – is at an end? For it is plain to anyone who cares to look that primary care medicine as we know it is dead. It lingered for years in a moribund condition, and its obituary was finally published last year in the Obamacare legislation.

Primary care’s cause of death was a culmination of two fatal disorders. Firstly, the healthcare system itself – well before the Obama administration came along – slowly smothered primary care into oblivion.

Consider the reduced condition to which the healthcare system – especially the government payers – eventually drove the primary care doctor: Their pay is determined arbitrarily by Acts of Congress, like workers in the old Soviet collectives. They are directed to “practice medicine” strictly according to directives (quaintly called “guidelines”), handed down from on high by panels of sanctioned experts, and accordingly PCPs are enjoined from taking into account their professional experience, or their specific knowledge of their individual patients. They are limited to 7.5 minutes per patient “encounter,” and the content of this brief encounter is determined by sundry Pay for Performance checklists, so as to strictly limit any interactions with their patients that do not meet the approved agenda. Their every move must be carefully documented according to incomprehensible rules, on innumerable forms and documents, that confound patient care but that greatly further the convenience of the stone-witted bureaucrats who are employed specifically to second-guess every clinical decision and every action they take. Worst of all PCPs have been charged with being the primary mediators of covert, bedside healthcare rationing, and to this end have been pressed to nullify the classic doctor-patient relationship by the healthcare bureaucracy that determines their professional viability, by the United States Supreme Court*, and by the bankrupt, new-age ethical precepts of their own profession.

____
*Pegram et al. vs Herdrich(98-1940), 530 US211 (2000)
____

By such insults, even before Obamacare became the law of the land, primary care medicine had been reduced to one of the most frustrating, enervating and demeaning endeavors a physician could imagine.  Many if not most practicing PCPs are looking to either retire early or change careers, and medical students – even the most idealistic ones – are avoiding primary care in droves, especially if their training exposes them to the palpable despair radiated by actual primary care physicians.

But the second fatal disorder has nothing to do with policy or politics. Even if doctors had perfect control of the healthcare system and the political realities, primary care medicine (as we know it) would still be in trouble. This is because of an axiomatic truth revealed by the annals of human progress, to wit: As knowledge increases and technology improves, activities that used to require the services of highly-trained experts become available to non-experts who have much less training. A lot of what PCPs have traditionally done – check-ups of well patients, screening for occult disease, controlling cholesterol, advising on diet, weight loss and exercise, managing routine hypertension and diabetes – really can be reduced to a series of guidelines and checklists, which can be adequately followed by individuals with much less training than these doctors receive.

When any area of expertise evolves to this level, it is inevitable (in a free economy) that lesser-trained individuals will inherit it. This event greatly increases productivity, makes the services in question more readily available to many people at lower cost, and (ideally) frees up the experts to take on more challenging endeavors. While this kind of transition is nearly inevitable, it is often painful and disruptive. The pain and disruption are being experienced by PCPs today.

DrRich agrees with fellow blogger Wade Kartchner that primary care medicine has advanced to the point where it really would make sense to turn over many of the routine, mundane, and reducible-to-checklist tasks that PCPs typically perform to non-physicians. PCPs who are fighting against this inevitability are wasting their time and energy. They are fighting both history and the laws of economics, so in the end it is a losing battle. It is time for PCPs to move on.

It is of course immaterial whether you agree with DrRich on this point. It is immaterial because this is how the Central Authority sees it.

Having painstakingly reduced you PCPs to tools of the state – whose chief job is to follow the guidelines and place chits on the checklists, &c. – it is only natural for the Central Authority to eventually notice that you really don’t need all that training to do the kind of job they have invented for you. Nurses – who can be “trained up” much more rapidly than you, who will work for much less money than you, and who (they think) will be much less recalcitrant about following handed-down directives than you – will fill the gap. And you, doctor, can go pound salt.

So it was really only a formality for the Obamacare legislation to make the death of primary care official. And the new law, accordingly, did so by stating explicitly that PCPs and nurse practitioners are now equivalent, one and the same. They are both PCPs under the eyes of the law. The actual language of the obituary is as follows:

The term ‘primary care practitioner’ means an individual who —

(I) is a physician (as described in section 1861(r)(1)) who has a primary specialty designation of family medicine, internal medicine, geriatric medicine, or pediatric medicine; or

(II) is a nurse practitioner, clinical nurse specialist, or physician assistant (as those terms are defined in 9 section 1861(aa)(5))

What this means is that today there are two pathways to becoming a PCP. You can spend four years in college, four years in medical school and three years in a clinical residency – or you can go to nursing school and do another year or two of clinical training. Given this established fact, one could hardly fault patients for questioning the common sense (if not the intelligence) of a healthcare worker who, at this point in the history of medicine, would choose the former pathway.

And so the issue is decided. PCPs: by virtue of your specialty you have been formally (and legally) reduced to the status of a nurse-equivalent. Your specialty, as you have known it, is dead.

Among other things, this means that the secret shopper gambit – when it is finally implemented – is just not worth worrying about. It’s only a way to convince a few more Americans that their PCPs are essentially worthless, and that they’d be just as well off having a nurse practitioner do the job. So don’t sweat the secret shoppers. Forget them.

Instead, you need to decide what you’re going to do about the demise of your chosen career.

In his next post, DrRich offers you some friendly advice in this regard.

Everyone agrees that national spending on healthcare is on a trajectory to bankrupt America during the lifetimes of even Old Farts like DrRich. And therefore, most folks* agree that we ought to do something to reduce our national spending on healthcare.
____
*The reason it’s only “most folks” who agree is that, apparently, some folks are still partial to the Cloward-Piven strategy, and continuing to spend on healthcare as we are doing today is the quickest and surest way to get there.
____

Unfortunately, our national “discussion” on how to achieve this reduction in healthcare spending has devolved into a spectacle of accusations and counter-accusations, vituperation, abuse, and scurrility. Accordingly, not much useful has so far been achieved. Worse, the back-and-forth contumelies lobbed by the various interest groups in this national discussion have created a general sense among the public that the problem is so confused and chaotic, so rifled by conflicts of interest, and so very complex, as to be fundamentally unsolvable.

This general sense of despair is entirely unnecessary. DrRich is here to assure his readers that the problem of healthcare spending is not only solvable, but that it is destined to be solved – and within the lifetimes of many of us.

Furthermore, there are four ways (and only four ways) in which this inevitable reduction in healthcare spending can be achieved. By knowing these four methods of solving the problem, it is entirely possible – as we listen to all the debating, fighting, and reciprocal castigations, aspersions, distortions and lies being cast by and amongst the various interest groups – to understand which method is actually being espoused by which parties. If you happen to be partial to one method over another, this kind of knowledge can help you determine to whom you should offer your support.

And so, in the way of providing yet another remarkable service to his readers, DrRich is pleased to describe the four ways to reduce healthcare spending.

Method One: Make all healthcare spending the responsibility of the individual.

This is the method by which most of mankind has paid for healthcare for all but a few decades of the millions of years we have graced (or plagued) the planet: If you want or need healthcare (and if it exists), simply pay for it yourself. Proponents of this method offer two general arguments to support their position – an ethical one, and a practical one.

It is fundamentally unethical to insist that an individual’s healthcare services must be provided by others – claiming that healthcare is somehow intrinsically different from any other product or service which the individual may wish to acquire (such as food, clothing, housing, and iPADs) – because insisting on such a thing will place an unjustifiable burden on one’s fellows. Much of a person’s health (and therefore, of a person’s healthcare needs) is determined by lifestyle choices, so it is only right and proper for the individual to bear responsibility for those choices. Demanding that one’s fellow citizens take that responsibility for such personal choices is fundamentally unethical – and requiring them to do so will inevitably lead to tyranny by some Central Authority.

Method One also holds that, by returning the purchase of healthcare back into the realm of actual market forces, the laws of supply and demand will determine which services are actually needed, and what the rightful price for those services ought to be. So from a practical standpoint, Method One will at last recruit the efficiencies of the marketplace into the healthcare system, and bring the cost of healthcare services down to a level which individuals can actually afford. (And if people can’t or don’t want to pay for healthcare services, they are more likely to begin making lifestyle choices that will lower their odds of having to do so.) But whether or not individuals can afford medical services, at least the spending on those services will no longer be the burden of society – and the fiscal doom we now face will be cured.

Opponents of Method One point out that, inevitably, there will be individuals – and likely many, many individuals – who simply will not be able to afford to pay for healthcare services which are needed, and which are readily available for a price, and will therefore suffer preventable pain, disability, and death. Without some kind of public support for healthcare, heart-rending tragedies will abound, our civilization will become coarsened, anger will build, and insurrection will become a constant threat.

Method Two: Make all healthcare spending the responsibility of a Central Authority.

Method Two holds that, for straightforward ethical reasons, healthcare is a fundamental right; that whether one receives a healthcare service – a service that can relieve pain or prevent disability or death – ought not to depend on one’s ability to pay, but that healthcare services ought to be equally available to everyone. The only way to achieve this goal is to collectivize and centralize healthcare decisions and healthcare spending.

For proponents of Method Two, healthcare services are indeed fundamentally different from all other human needs – food, clothing, etc. – since the kind and the amount of healthcare services one needs are much less a matter of individual choice, but are foisted upon one by fate. Burdening individuals with the need to pay for such arbitrary and uncontrollable costs is not only unethical, but destabilizing.

Requiring individuals to pay for their own healthcare is destabilizing because, if a person’s lifetime of work and saving can be wiped out in an instant by an unexpected illness, people will be much less willing to work hard, take risks, and otherwise engage in the economic activities that drive our society. “Healthcare security,” which can only be provided by collective efforts, is thus necessary to a robust and sustainable civilization.

The methods by which healthcare costs can be controlled under a centralized system are straightforward. Obamacare, for instance, does so by explicitly empowering a (nearly) all-powerful Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) with all macro-level healthcare spending decisions. Furthermore, “guidelines” promulgated by various other expert panels will control spending at a more granular level, by determining which specific services doctors will be permitted to offer to which patients, and under what circumstances. Doctors will be strictly held, under the threat of criminal prosecution, to these guidelines. Finally, recognizing implicitly that many healthcare needs are indeed determined by individual lifestyle choices rather than purely by chance, public health experts will advance enforceable policies that will determine what and how much we eat, when and how long we sleep, what products we acquire and how we use them, and what activities we are permitted to perform where. (The public health experts are off to a very good start in this effort!) If everyone within the healthcare system (and in our society) will simply follow the multitudinous directives laid out by the legions of sanctified experts, costs will at last be contained, and all will be well.

Regular readers will understand that there is no need for DrRich to reiterate in any detail here the arguments that have been raised by opponents of Method Two. These arguments can be summarized simply as follows: Method Two inevitably leads to tyranny.

Method Three: Provide strictly limited public support for basic healthcare services, with individuals responsible for the remainder.

Method Three attempts to combine the benefits of Methods One and Two, while avoiding their major disadvantages. Method Three recognizes that paying for all of one’s own healthcare is beyond the means of many individuals, and that therefore a modern, civil society ought to provide at least some healthcare to at least some of its citizens. At the same time, Method Three recognizes that the public funding of all healthcare is beyond the means of society, will inevitably lead to ruin, and that (both for these practical reasons and for ethical reasons) individuals ought to be responsible for paying for at least some of their own healthcare.

Numerous configurations are possible under Method Three. The key to controlling costs is that the dollars which society will spend on healthcare for individuals must be strictly defined and strictly limited, and cannot be open-ended. Method Three ought to assure that individuals will have ready access to, and the means to pay for, basic healthcare services, and that the chances of being financially ruined by a catastrophic illness are very low, but at the same time that most individuals should not and cannot rely entirely on public funding for their healthcare.

Examples of “Method Three” configurations include the detailed three-tiered solution that DrRich proposed in his book; the Ryan plan, which would limit Medicare expenditures by providing seniors with a fixed amount of money – on a means-tested sliding scale – with which to purchase their health insurance of choice; and, at least arguably, the original conception of Medicare, in which it was at least legal, if not expected, for seniors to pay for additional, non-covered medical services with their own funds (an option which is now very difficult, and often illegal).

How is the battle shaping up?

As DrRich sees it, Method One is simply a non-starter. For all practical purposes, and for good or bad, we moved irreversibly beyond a purely self-pay healthcare system over 60 years ago. So the real battle is between Method Two and Method Three. The feud between these two methods is going to be a bloody one.

The key difference between these two methods – both practically and philosophically – is whether individuals will be permitted to pay for at least some of their own healthcare with their own money. For reasons DrRich has laid out previously, it is imperative under Method Two that all healthcare decisions and all healthcare spending be centralized. There can be no compromise on this.  The moment a compromise is made, we will inevitably wind up under a Method Three healthcare system.

Proponents of Method Two do not like DrRich (and have said so many times), because he has concluded (and often repeats) that, viewed objectively, the only logical reason these people fight so hard to keep individuals from being required (or even permitted) to assume at least some financial responsibility for their own healthcare, is that their actual prime objective must be something other than to fix the healthcare system and control healthcare expenditures. Rather, their actual prime objective must be, and can only be, to centralize the control of our society. The healthcare fiscal crisis is merely the most expedient vehicle to achieve this prime objective. (Progressives mean well, as DrRich has said many times, but their plan for a perfect society is always based on the need for all of us in the great unwashed masses to subsume our individual prerogatives in favor of the dictates of the enlightened leadership. Unfortunately, history teaches us that this plan never works out well.)

If this battle is ever resolved, therefore, it will hinge on whether individual Americans retain the legal right to purchase healthcare services with their own money. DrRich admits that this conclusion, regarding the essence of our ongoing healthcare debate, is not one which has been remarked by many other commentators on healthcare policy. It is, nonetheless, the case. An objective observer who pays close attention to the machinations of the nameless bureaucrats who are currently writing the rules and regulations under which Obamacare will finally be prosecuted will see that it is so.

What about Method Four?

There is little reason to spend much time discussing the fourth and final method for controlling healthcare expenditures. Nobody is a proponent of this method, so nobody discusses it. However, Method Four, at this moment, seems to be the most likely outcome. Indeed, at this moment it is our default method of choice.

Method Four is formulated as follows: Our skyrocketing healthcare expenditures are the chief driver of our national debt. Our national debt burden, unless we get control of it by controlling healthcare expenditures, will inevitably destroy our civil society. At the same time, our modern, sophisticated and very expensive healthcare system utterly requires a complex, modern, organized, high-tech society in which to function.

Therefore, our skyrocketing healthcare expenditures ultimately provides its own cure. Once society collapses, “healthcare services” will revert back to the roots-and-poultices methodologies that served mankind so well for millions of years. And healthcare, as well as other modern geegaws like cable TV and the Internet, will no longer be a fundamental human right, but will become a mere afterthought (if a thought at all) in a more primitive kind of society where life is nasty, brutish and short.

So, not to worry.

As President and sole member of Glorious Old Farts of America (GOFA), DrRich is acutely aware of the many ways our healthcare reformers – even prior to the birth throes of Obamacare – have subtly laid the groundwork for ushering us old timers to Our Great Reward in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Whether or not Obamacare has death panels, if you are an old fart you’d better pay attention to what our compassionate leaders have in store for us.

Can Advance Directives be Salvaged?

How To Sell Assisted Suicide

Ethicist-Assisted Suicide

On Killing the Elderly

Why People Think Obamacare Has Death Panels

In the epic debate that has played out recently between Shadowfax and DrRich over the transcendent implications of the IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board), Shadowfax accused DrRich of being one of those unsophisticates who refer to the IPAB  as a “death panel.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. DrRich does not use – has never used – the term “death panel” to refer to any of the multitude of expert commissions created by Obamacare, whose charge will be to dispassionately examine the scientific evidence in order to determine which patients will get what, when and how. These bodies, in fact, will be explicitly aiming to optimize the medical outcomes of the entire population (titrated to the amount of money we’re allowed to spend on healthcare), and not actively prescribing death for anyone.

Judging from the histories of governments which have adopted a collectivist philosophy, if death panels should appear on the scene they will not be aimed at determining which patients may live or die. That job, of course, will fall to the doctors at the bedside, who will offer or withhold medical services according to the dictates (i.e., “guidelines”) handed down by those sundry expert commissions. Rather, any death panels which eventually materialize will more likely be aimed at keeping those doctors themselves (and any other functionaries whose job is to do the bidding of the bureaucracy) in thrall.

So why has the term “death panel” caught on to such an extent that conservatives so often use it as shorthand to express what they see as the “sense” of Obamacare, and Progressives so often use it to accuse rational and mild-mannered critics of Obamacare (such as DrRich) of belonging to the Neanderthal persuasion?

While most would blame Sarah Palin for coming up with this unhelpful phraseology, it is DrRich’s view that President Obama himself must carry at least an equal part of the blame. If Progressives have not created death panels, they at least created the environment in which those words, when Ms. Palin first uttered them, immediately caught fire.

As readers will recall, Ms. Palin first used the fateful words, “death panels” as the Obamacare legislation was being slowly and painfully shoved through a surprisingly reluctant Democrat Congress. And as a result she caused many of our more complacent legislators to abruptly bestir themselves into a higher state of arousal, if not outright agitation. Palin’s accusation caught more than a few of them utterly unawares, and embarrassingly flatfooted.

They felt, no doubt, like they were in that dream where you unaccountably find yourself naked in a crowd. But this time, rather than reaching to hide their sadly exposed nether parts, they reached instead for their pristine copies of the monstrous Obamacare legislation which had been laid before them, and which they famously (and understandably and logically) never read. One could almost pity them, desperately rifling through the 2700 virgin pages, muttering to themselves, “Death panels? This damned thing has death panels?”

But in fact, their initial instincts were correct as regarded the advisability of actually reading the legislation. There was in truth no reason for them to waste their time. DrRich has subsequently read large swatches of the thing, and he can assure one and all that it was not designed for reading, comprehensibility, or (for that matter) imparting any actual information of any sort.

And besides, Obamacare contained no death panels, so had they read the bill they would not have discovered any. (In their state of sudden and stark panic, however, our newly-aroused legislators quickly moved to strike the section the bill that provided for end-of-life counseling, which, of course, had nothing to do with death panels.)

The very notion of death panels seems to have many supporters of Obamacare nonplussed. How can someone as inarticulate and obviously illiterate as Sarah Palin get away with accusing our highly-educated healthcare reformers of setting up such a thing as death panels?  And even more perplexingly why did so many Americans believe her – even, apparently, hundreds of thousands of Americans who had been enlightened enough to vote for President Obama less than a year earlier?

DrRich thinks it is this: When Sarah Palin said, “death panels,” she was dropping one last, tiny crystal into a supersaturated solution. Her words took what had been an amorphous and even chaotic sense of unease about healthcare reform, and immediately crystallized it into an organized latticework of directed rage and fear. So the real question is not how Sarah Palin came to be savvy enough to know just the right words. (Progressives know that even a distinguished panel of monkeys, given enough time and enough typewriters, will eventually produce King Lear.) Rather, the real question is: What put the rabble in such a supersaturated state to begin with? Why did the absurd-on-its-face idea of “death panels” so resonate with them? What made those words galvanize their shapeless disquiet into a solid mass of resistance?

DrRich is very sorry to have to tell his friends of the Progressive persuasion the sad truth. For it was President Obama himself who created this circumstance. Sarah Palin may have first named the death panels, but before she ever thought of the phrase the President had already described them in detail.

During his first year in office, President Obama offered several homilies relating just what a “death panel” would look like. He described their function, how they would operate, and who they would target. Perhaps the most instructive example is the one he gave on ABC television during his June 24, 2009 National Town Hall meeting.

DrRich refers, of course, to the famous question put to him by the granddaughter of a 100-year-old woman who had received a pacemaker. The questioner pointed out that her grandmother had badly needed this pacemaker, but had been turned down by a doctor because of her age. A second doctor, noting the patient’s alertness, zest for life, and generally youthful “spirit,” went ahead and inserted the pacemaker despite her advanced age. Her symptoms resolved, and Grandma was still doing quite well 5 years later. The question for the President was: Under Obamacare, will an elderly person’s general state of health, and her “spirit,” be taken into account when making medical decisions – or will these decisions be made according to age only?

President Obama’s answer was clear. It is really not feasible, he indicated, to take “spirit” into account. We are going to make medical decisions based on objective evidence, and not subjective impressions. If the evidence shows that some form of treatment “is not necessarily going to improve care, then at least we can let the doctors know that – you know what? – maybe this isn’t going to help; maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain pill.”

DrRich will give President Obama the benefit of the doubt regarding his suggestion that a 100-year-old women who needs a pacemaker might be better off with a pain pill. Mr. Obama is not actually a doctor, and cannot be expected to understand that using a “pain pill” to treat an elderly woman who is lightheaded, dizzy, weak and possibly syncopal because of a slow heart rate might justifiably be considered a form of euthanasia rather than comfort care. DrRich does not believe the President was intentionally suggesting the old woman’s death should be actively hastened by means of a pain pill. Indeed, given that repeated falls from lightheadedness would likely have led to a hip fracture, a pain pill might eventually have been just the thing for granny had the pacemaker been withheld.

Still, President Obama’s clear and unflinching answer in this case tells us several important things. 1) Under Obamacare, there will be at least one panel, or commission, or body of some sort, that is going to examine the medical evidence on how effective a certain treatment is likely to be in a certain population of patients. 2) This, let’s call it a “panel,” will “let the doctors know” whether that treatment ought to be used in those patients. (“Letting the doctor know” is a euphemism for “guidelines,” which itself is a euphemism for legally-binding and ruthlessly enforced directives.) 3) “Subjective” measures ought not to influence these treatment recommendations. Non-objective parameters – such as the doctor’s medical experience, intuition, or personal knowledge of the patient; or the patient’s “spirit,” or will to live, or likelihood of tolerating and complying with with the proposed proposed treatment; or even extenuating circumstances that might increase or decrease the success of the proposed treatment – simply cannot be evaluated or controlled by expert panels, and thus must be discounted. 4) But since our government is a compassionate and caring one, and wishes to reduce unnecessary suffering, palliative care will be made available in the form of pain control, even while withholding potentially curative care.

What the American public accurately heard the President say was that we will have an omnipotent “panel,” acting at a distance and without any specific knowledge of particular cases, that will tell a doctor whether he/she can offer a particular therapy to a particular patient – or whether, instead, to offer a “pain pill.”  His description of this process, repeated with variations over the next several months in several venues, obviously made quite an impact on the people.  Of course, Mr. Obama is widely known to be a gifted communicator.

In any case, all that remained was for Sarah Palin to give the President’s panel a catchy name. And when she did, the American people knew exactly what she was talking about. They knew, because President Obama himself had been spelling it all out for them in plenty of detail for six months.

Indeed, it seems to DrRich that, if not for President Obama’s having so carefully laid the groundwork,  Palin’s accusations of “death panels” would have fallen flat. It would have been regarded by most people as the absurdity that Progressives insist that it is, rather than the epiphany it turned out to be.

Progressives who strenuously object to its usage in reference to the expert commissions created by Obamcare can blame Sarah (or, for that matter, DrRich) if they want to – but by all rights they should actually be taking up the matter with their dear leader, who is the chief source of the misapprehension, if misapprehension there be.

For some time now, numerous loved ones and dear friends have been advising and occasionally urging DrRich that, perhaps, it has become a bit inappropriate, and even unseemly, for him to continue in his longtime position as President and sole member of Future Old Farts of America (FOFA). For a not unsubstantial interval DrRich ignored this advice, feigning incipient deafness. But finally, after some focused study of that which these days returns his gaze in the mirror, and reluctantly concluding that maybe his loved ones have a point (and not wishing to seem Cranky), DrRich has reluctantly decided to resign from (and therefore disband) FOFA.

DrRich is pleased to announce that he has accepted a new position as President and sole member of Glorious Old Farts of America (GOFA).

And it is in this new capacity that DrRich has become alarmed at some of the dire warnings now being sounded by respected leaders of the Democratic Party, to the effect that the Republicans’ proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2012, released last week by Congressman Paul Ryan (who serves, DrRich believes, as Deputy Whippersnapper of the House Republican caucus), proves that Republicans are trying to kill old people.

Article 3, Subsection 4(D) of the GOFA charter clearly states: “All things being equal, we would prefer that Old Farts not be killed.”

Therefore, as President of GOFA, DrRich feels obligated to make some sort of public response to the Ryan budget, and to our ever-vigilant Democrat friends’ assertion that it is aimed at producing lethal harm to old people. DrRich’s important position in GOFA, of course, means that his opinion on this matter ought to carry serious weight in any high level discussions about this proposed budget.

By carefully studying the thoughtful commentary being offered by GOFA’s Democrat friends, DrRich has ascertained that Ryan’s proposed budget apparently will kill old people by “ending Medicare as we know it.”  DrRich does not find this a compelling argument, since Medicare as we know it is already being ended, by Obamacare, which is now the law of the land. Strangely, Democrat leaders are not claiming that Obamacare also kills old people.

So, as is all too often the case, the logic being offered up for public consumption by our political leaders does not hold up to simple analysis, which places DrRich into the position of having himself to provide the logical analysis of the question at hand.

DrRich, to be clear, frames that question thusly: Which plan for Medicare most threatens to kill old people? And he finds abroad in the land three distinct plans for Medicare: Medicare “as we know it,” Medicare under Obamacare, and Medicare under the Ryan budget. Let us analyze dispassionately how each proposes to kill the elderly.

Medicare As We Know It. Medicare as it is being operated today is generally popular with GOFA’s constituency, and most old people would like to continue things just as they are. And if you are one of those elderly Americans who is above, say, 75 years of age, chances are you would do just fine under Medicare as we know it. That is, odds are that you would live out your allotted years, and finally die from your heart disease or cancer only after enjoying every modern contrivance our healthcare system has devised.

However, if you are substantially younger than that, there is a real chance that your demise will be related to more systematic causes. This is because Medicare, if it were to continue just as it is today, would drive the U.S. into insolvency within a couple of decades, leading to cultural collapse, societal upheaval, &c. Our modern healthcare system (any modern healthcare system), being totally dependent upon a robust, complex, reasonably stable and technologically advanced society, would cease to exist. All of today’s life-prolonging therapies would either become very scarce, or would disappear altogether. And unless there arises out of the ashes a new culture which is centered upon ancestor worship, odds are that what little healthcare is available would not be disproportionally offered to the very old.

As DrRich sees it, continuing Medicare as we know it would ultimately result in most of our elderly dying much earlier than they do today.

Medicare Under Obamacare. Obamacare promises to prevent a Medicare-induced societal collapse by centralizing virtually all healthcare decisions, thus controlling expenditures. Government-appointed “experts” will decide which medical services ought to be offered to which patients, and will publish those decisions as “guidelines” (a euphemism for “directives”), which will be followed to the letter by doctors who wish to continue their careers and stay out of jail.

DrRich has argued herein that such a system will do great harm to many individuals in all age groups, and will effectively end the Great American Experiment. (Unlike some, DrRich would consider this latter result to be a bad thing.) But our question at the moment is more focused: Will old people be killed disproportionally under Obamacare?

DrRich thinks the answer is yes. First, “guidelines” have the most merit when they are applied to patients whose only (or main) disease is the one to which the guideline applies. For patients with multiple serious ailments, or who are beginning to suffer from various motor and sensory disabilities related to aging, the response to (or ability to follow) standardized treatment directives may be far less than supposed. The reduced ability of doctors to tailor therapy to individual needs (without incurring the undifferentiated wrath of the Central Authority) may thus prove particularly harmful to the elderly.

Second, our leadership class has already anticipated that merely centralizing all healthcare decisions will be insufficient to avert a fiscal disaster, and that more stringent controls will have to be employed. While they do not like to discuss such contingencies publicly, when they do, they make it clear that the elderly will have a reduced priority for healthcare services. That is, there will be age-based rationing.

Third, it is plain that Obamacare will attempt to make it illegal for elderly Americans (or any Americans) to go outside the system to purchase their own healthcare. Old farts will get what the Central Authority says they will get, and nothing more.

DrRich believes Obamacare would end up being pretty tough on the elderly, and that many old people will die earlier than they would die today.

Medicare Under The Ryan Plan. The Ryan plan offers to allow anyone who is 55 or older to remain on Medicare as we know it today. For those currently younger than 55, when they reach the age of Medicare they will be given a suite of health insurance plans to choose from, and will be given a certain amount of money by the government to use to support their premiums. This system is quite similar to that currently offered to many federal employees.

The amount of premium support will be based on the wealth of the individual. The poor and the sick, Ryan insists, will get full premium support, and indeed will end up with “better” health insurance than they would get today under Medicare. Wealthier individuals will have to pay a much higher proportion of their own insurance premiums.

The Ryan plan in its current form is little more than an outline, and DrRich would need to see details before feeling warm and fuzzy about it. But fundamentally it takes medical decisions away from a Central Authority and places those decisions back into the hands of patients. Further, it not only allows but insists that people (who can afford it) spend at least some of their own money on their own healthcare. Also, patients under the Ryan plan will be legally permitted – even encouraged – to purchase any additional healthcare they want, any time they choose. This plan restores individual autonomy (and its twin, individual responsibility) to American healthcare.

Undoubtedly, the insurance companies under the Ryan plan would be no less evil than they are today, and would do harm to patients every chance they get. But (as DrRich has amply demonstrated) so will the Feds, and it is far easier and far less dangerous for doctors and patients to fight insurance companies than the Central Authority.*

____
*DrRich hastens to remind his readers that health insurance companies will want no part of a plan such as Ryan’s. Ryan’s plan would require these companies to continue operating under their current, broken business model. After fighting so hard for Obamacare (which converts insurance companies essentially to public utilities), the insurance industry will not give up its victory without a fight – especially if doctors keep insisting on publishing articles showing that old farts can do just fine after receiving intensive medical care. DrRich thinks the health insurance industry will watch the progress of the Republicans’ budget proposal carefully, and if they perceive it has any chance of success, will do whatever they need to do to stifle it.
____

Would elderly people die earlier under the Ryan plan? Those who are deemed wealthy enough to contribute to their own health insurance premiums, and who as a result choose to become under-insured, may certainly die earlier. DrRich supposes this is what the Democrats mean by “killing old people,” since he can find no other rationale to support such a statement.

The Bottom Line. Ultimately, the worst thing that could happen to us old farts would be for the current Medicare system to continue as it is, without any meaningful fiscal reforms. The two other plans for Medicare both promise to control government expenditures on healthcare, and thus promise to avoid the societal collapse (and mass elderly casualties) that likely would be produced by doing nothing.

Obamacare accomplishes this by placing healthcare decisions into the hands of government-chosen “experts” who will determine the management of individuals from a great distance, and by giving the elderly a lower priority in unavoidable rationing schemes.

In contrast, the Ryan plan proposes to avert catastrophe by placing elderly individuals in the position of having to choose (and in many cases partially pay for) their own health insurance product, and then live with those choices.

Speaking on behalf of the entire GOFA organization, DrRich would rather his fellow old farts die as a result of their own personal choices in a plan like Ryan’s, than die as the first victims of the societal upheaval, or through the tyranny, promised by the other two options.

DrRich trusts that his position as President of such an august organization will render his opinion in this matter dispositive.

____

This is the third in a series of articles on End-of-Life Care and Covert Rationing.  The first two articles can be found here and here.
____
In his previous post, DrRich attempted to satirize the lame attempts of certain payers to “inform” certain of their “covered lives” that, among all the wonderful options available to them under their truly comprehensive health plans, the medical service of physician-assisted suicide would be compassionately offered and cheerfully paid for. DrRich even offered, thoughtfully as usual, some free though invaluable advice to payers on how they ought to go about marketing assisted suicide as a cost-saving strategy, and to do so in a far more sensitive and less ham-fisted way than they have managed so far.

If the mark of good satire is that at least some readers will have difficulty discerning whether the satirist is serious or not, then DrRich is feeling genuinely Jonathan Swiftian today.  For some of his readers (one of whom e-mailed, “I can’t believe what I just read. This is sick.”) have taken his modest proposal for selling assisted suicide at face value.  This is not the first time DrRich has made unfortunate impressions upon readers through his (possibly inept) use of irony. Sadly, it almost certainly will not be the last.

But assisted suicide being such an important and ethically charged topic, DrRich feels obligated to clear things up once and for all. So what follows is DrRich’s honest assessment of the advisability of physician-assisted suicide, in which he will attempt to forgo entirely any satire or irony (though he admits to having great difficulty in controlling his sarcasm).

DrRich believes that physician-assisted suicide is a very, very bad idea.  He has two major reasons for this belief.  On a purely practical realm, embracing and systematizing physician-assisted suicide under any healthcare system that is actively engaged in rationing (whether overtly or covertly) will almost surely lead to some terrible abuses of the practice. In this regard you can either use your imagination, or read the history of Europe in the first half of the 20th century.

His second objection to physician-assisted suicide is based on a consideration of ethics. DrRich admits to being on shaky ground here because: a) he is not formally trained in ethics, and b) it appears for all the world that those who are formally trained in ethics have universally concluded that physician-assisted suicide is perfectly OK in every way.

Debating with modern medical ethicists, at least if you are merely a layperson, is mostly a losing proposition.  This is not because ethicists are intellectually (or even ethically) superior, but rather because they are adept in couching their arguments in arcane twists of logic and webs of jargon that make their arguments difficult if not impossible for the uninitiated to follow.  This technique, of course, places novices like DrRich in the position of having little choice but to accept the ethical bottom line without really understanding how the bottom line was reached. It reduces medical ethicists to a priesthood, and medical ethics to received knowledge.

But DrRich maintains that advancing unintelligible ethical arguments is, well, unethical.

So DrRich will now present his understanding of the chain of logic by which modern ethicists justify physician-assisted suicide – and its close cousin, euthanasia.  (If any of you actual ethicists out there object to this analysis, and can explain where DrRich is wrong in clear language, DrRich will be all ears. Absent the clear language, though, you can pound salt.)

Modern ethicists argue as follows:

Point 1: Our society has already decided that the autonomy of the individual patient is the overriding ethical consideration in making end-of-life decisions. We formalized this determination when we decided – by overwhelming consensus – that an individual has a right to refuse medical treatment even if that treatment is very likely to save their life. Therefore, individual autonomy is the universally agreed-upon controlling ethical precept.

And in adopting this controlling precept, we have already firmly decided that passive euthanasia – allowing nature to take its course by withholding treatment at the request of the patient – is ethical.

Point 2: There is no ethical distinction between passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. That is, whether we let death occur by withholding effective medical care, or by actually doing something to help death along a bit, we’re taking an action that hastens death either way. Ethically, both of these actions are equivalent. So, once we decide that individual autonomy is the overriding concern, we must also allow for active euthanasia when a patient wishes it.

Point 3: Once active euthanasia is deemed ethical, there can be no further ethical objection to the lesser act of physician-assisted suicide.  If it is ethical for a doctor him/herself to bring on the death of a patient who requests it, there can be no objection to doctors preparing the suicide machine and handing the patient the switch.

The striking thing here (to DrRich, at least) is that in establishing the ethical case for physician-assisted suicide, we necessarily also establish – as a veritable pre-condition – the ethical case for physician-provided euthanasia. Whether the patient says, “Help me to take my own life,” or “Take my life for me,” modern medical ethics supports the physician who replies, “Roll up your sleeve.”

For those who don’t see a problem with this, DrRich refers you to the Dutch system, where, in full accordance with modern medical ethics, the rules permit both physician-assisted suicide and active euthanasia for patients who request it. Reports on the results of the Dutch system (reports which both sides have used to bolster their respective opinions on either the glories or the travesties of such a system) do point out one striking finding – hundreds of times each year, acts of *involuntary* euthanasia are occurring. That is, patients are being killed under the Dutch healthcare system at the hands of their doctors, without their explicit permission. All these patients, it is claimed, are being euthanized for entirely humane reasons.

What do our friends the medical ethicists have to say about such involuntary euthanasia? Well, it turns out that it’s OK with many if not most of them. Ethicists don’t like to tell us that their chain of logic doesn’t end with Point 3.  But once we make the principle of individual autonomy the overriding consideration in determining end-of-life ethical issues, the same chain of logic takes us directly to Point 4.

Point 4: Since honoring the ethical precept of individual autonomy makes voluntary euthanasia available for patients with intractable suffering, it would be unethical to withhold the same benefit from suffering patients who are too incapacitated to give their permission. Their incapacity should not restrict them from a good that is available to others, for to do so would be discriminatory and inhumane. To cure this problem, the boon of active euthanasia can and must be performed, even without the patient’s explicit permission, in incapacitated patients whom “reasonable people” would agree are suffering too much. Therefore, involuntary active euthanasia is also ethical.

This conclusion, of course, leaves us in a place where others (i.e., “reasonable people,” like doctors or other agents of the Central Authority) can decide for an individual what constitutes intractable suffering, and further, can decide when such an individual is simply too incompetent to know that euthanasia is the best thing for them. Some of you, of course (hello, ethicists!) think this is just a fine idea. Most apologists for the Dutch system apparently do.

But DrRich maintains that under our system of covert healthcare rationing, where doctors are under extreme pressure to do the bidding of the third party payers (private insurers and the government) who determine their professional viability, and where the payers are under extreme pressure to reduce cost, and have already displayed in numerous ways their willingness to permit suffering and death among their subscribers in order to do so, then opening the door for physician-assisted suicide (let alone physician-administered euthanasia, whether the patient requests it or not), would inevitably lead to some nasty abuses, and would ultimately serve to undermine our civil society. DrRich is too politically correct to use the “other” N-word, but he will take this opportunity to remind his readers that such a thing has already happened, in what recently had been perhaps the world’s most cultured and educated society, within the memory of millions of living people.

DrRich believes that the principle of individual autonomy is vitally important, and indeed it is the foundation of American culture. However, no single ethical principle, no matter how important, can be allowed to overrule all other ethical principles in all other circumstances.  By nature, ethical precepts are often in conflict, creating what is called an ethical dilemma. And (DrRich humbly submits) it is supposed to be the job of ethicists to help us work through those ethical dilemmas, to find the right balance between competing principles, and not simply declare that no dilemma actually exists, because Ethical Precept A is the only one we need to pay attention to.

Individual autonomy is critically important to American culture – and the fact that we must fight to preserve individual autonomy in the face of covert healthcare rationing is indeed the underlying message of this blog – but in no other aspect of our culture do we let it absolutely rule. The autonomy of individuals needs to be checked, and we indeed limit it. This is the fundamental reason that governments are necessary in the first place.

The reason we have laws (supposedly) is to make sure that the behavior of individuals acting in their own interest, especially those who have accrued power (for instance, by accumulating great wealth, by acquiring large weapons, or by becoming heads of state), does not abrogate the natural rights of other individuals. Indeed, most of the political fights we have – between Democrats and Republicans or progressives and conservatives – are to determine where to place those limits, on individuals and on the collective, to best encourage a robust society that honors individual autonomy but that also encourages reasonably equal opportunities for individual fulfillment (i.e., “happiness.”) The main purpose of our public discourse, then, is to find the right balance between the rights and needs of individuals and the rights and needs of society as a whole.

So for ethicists to say, “Individual autonomy is all there is to it, and we have no choice but to follow that principle to wherever it may lead us,” is not only completely irresponsible and dangerous, it also flies in the face of our culture’s history and our everyday experience.  The cost to society not only should but must be taken into account as we consider institutionalizing physician-assisted suicide (let alone voluntary or involuntary euthanasia).  In DrRich’s opinion, ethicists who argue that we need not consider the cost to society in making end-of-life policy have declared themselves unworthy of the title and they ought to be completely ignored.

The cost to our society of institutionalizing and systematizing physician-assisted suicide, especially while we are still covertly rationing healthcare, would be severe and potentially lethal. Within the next decade or two, if things do not change, we likely will be facing cost pressures emanating from our healthcare system that will gravely threaten the survival of our culture. With an existential threat such as this, can we really refrain from slowly transforming the request for assisted suicide from an option to a duty? Can the Central Authority really stay its hand when it has the capability of directing its agents at the bedside to perform euthanasia on unfortunate (and unproductive) citizens who are too “incapacitated” to understand it’s the only thing to do?

DrRich, who opened this post with a promise to avoid irony, apologizes. For when all is said and done, it is deeply ironic that by steadfastly clinging to the ethical precept of individual autonomy at the end of life, within in a paradigm of covert healthcare rationing, we will very likely end up by completely devaluing the inherent worth of individuals.

At least until we solve the fiscal problems within our healthcare system, we simply should not embrace assisted suicide – no matter what we may think of the ethics of the act itself – and we should fight efforts to make it acceptable. The cost to our society would be far too high.

If people want to commit suicide and if medical ethicists insist that assisted suicide is OK, then let the ethicists do the assisting. DrRich has relatively little to say against ethicist-assisted suicide. But, at least as long as covert rationing is the chief operating principle of the American healthcare system, for the love of God keep the doctors out of it.

____

This is the second in a series of articles on End-of-Life Care and Covert Rationing.  The first article can be found here.

____

In the summer of 2008, the Oregon Health Plan (the Medicaid plan in Oregon) injudiciously sent a letter to lung-cancer patient Barbara Wagner denying coverage for the expensive chemotherapy her doctor had recommended, and offering instead to cover palliative care “including doctor-assisted suicide.”

Despite the fact that there were plenty of distractions at the time (including a presidential election and the world’s economy on the brink of Armageddon), that letter unleashed a firestorm of public outrage. (If you have forgotten the outrage, simply Google the search terms “Barbara Wagner” and “suicide.”) Indeed, the outrage was sufficient to penetrate even the dulled sensibilities of the Oregon Health Plan’s executives. One Jim Sellers, a spokesman for the Oregon Health Plan, admitted to ABC News that “the letter to Wagner was a public relations blunder and something the state is ‘working on.’”

It is clear that the Oregon Health Plan executives were at least a little blindsided by the general reaction to their ham-handed denial letter. Denial letters, after all, are a routine activity, and they always list (as an aid to the patient) services which the third party payer judges to be reasonable alternatives to the denied care. While in this case the denied service which Ms. Wagner sought offered some reasonable hope for prolonged survival, and the service being held out by the Oregon Health Plan as an alternative (to say the least) did not, that’s really not so much different from the content of more “routine” denial letters. The difference is one of degree, and not of substance. So, Oregon Health Plan executives must surely have wondered, “What’s the big deal?”

One must try to be understanding of such insensitivity. It is a fundamental task of health plans – whether run by Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance companies – to deliver unpleasant news to people whose lives are at stake, and it is normal (even necessary) for those who are charged with this task either to grow thick skin or to develop the traditional indifference of bureaucrats. It is perfectly predictable that such thick skin or indifference might dull one’s ability to discern subtle differences in degree among various denials of services, subtle differences that might call for more artful phraseologies than those employed in this instance by the Oregon Health Plan. The failure to recognize the need for a more artful denial letter, Mr. Sellers appeared to say, was the only problem in the case of Ms. Wagner. The solution, he therefore suggested, is certainly not a substantive change in any policy, but better public relations.

Those who ran the Oregon Health Plan must have been particularly disheartened to learn that even vocal proponents of physician-assisted suicide immediately began criticizing their ill-considered denial letter. To so blatantly juxtapose the reality of healthcare rationing with the “option” of assisted suicide seriously undermines the chief argument advanced publicly by the end-of-life movement, namely, that assisted suicide is merely an individual autonomy play, and is not in any way a cost-saving tool.*

_____
*Preserving the ethical precept of individual autonomy is the basis upon which modern utilitarian ethicists always build their defense of doctors ending the lives of their patients, whether it be by physician-assisted suicide, passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, and even involuntary active euthanasia. DrRich will elaborate on this ethical defense in a future posting.
_____

In other words, whether or not you embrace physician-assisted suicide, everyone seems to agree that offering it up as a covered medical service at the same time you are denying potentially life-prolonging therapy is both insensitive and unseemly.

And so – as a public service to those in the government and the private sector alike who are running healthcare organizations and thus who are (as a matter of course) severely challenged in trying to understand simple human emotions, to patients like Ms. Wagner who may suffer true physical harm by exposure to such institutional callousness, and to the rest of us who simply would appreciate not being confronted so blatantly by the dark abyss that underlies our healthcare system – DrRich offers the Central Authority and private insurers some friendly advice on the right way to sell physician-assisted suicide.

1) Don’t Seem So Anxious.

Sure it’s easy to get excited about physician-assisted suicide. All you need to do is look at your own data. Whether you are trying to make ends meet over at CMS, or running a private health plan, it’s likely that a huge proportion of your spending goes to patients who are in the last year of life. Enticing these end-of-lifers to choose assisted suicide (which you can accomplish in a sufficiently tasteful way for about $100) is such an attractive proposition that it’s indeed become very hard to make yourself appear reasonably circumspect about it. At the very least, if you run an organization like the Oregon Health Plan, where assisted suicide is “available” at no additional cost to patients who choose it, it’s difficult not to push the idea when the opportunity arises. Otherwise how can you be sure the patients will know all their options for end-of-life care?

But doing even that much is a mistake. If you don’t believe that, simply look at the small firestorm the Oregon Health Plan created with their straightforward and helpful “reminder” letter to Ms. Wagner. As a result of the Oregon Health Plan’s inept attempt at informing patients of their options, neighboring states that appeared ready to pass their own assisted-suicide laws immediately had second thoughts about it. It should now be clear even to health plan bureaucrats that seeming overly interested in assisted suicide, or even mentioning the option to patients (at least while simultaneously denying potentially lifesaving therapy) is a very counterproductive idea.

A much more subtle approach is required.

2) Publicly Disavow Any Interest In Assisted Suicide.

Think about Tom Sawyer whitewashing the picket fence. Ole Tom didn’t get all his friends to paint that fence for him by asking for their help, or by overtly trying to sell or cajole them on the idea. Instead, he got them to do the job by pretending he wasn’t the least bit interested in having them do it, by ignoring them altogether, and making himself seem completely absorbed in the delightful task. By the time Tom was done, his friends were begging for a turn, and even giving him wondrous gifts (such as dead cats on a string) to bribe him for a chance to participate.

What you need to do is pretend that encouraging assisted suicide – even if it’s a covered service that patients ought to be made aware of – is the farthest thing from your mind. Instead, you are completely invested in and insistent upon providing full-service end-of-life care, with all the bells and whistles and no holds barred; and – while patients of course have the option to exercise their individual autonomy as they see fit – you take great pride in squeezing every last instant of life out of those elderly, used-up, chronically ill bodies that present themselves in your ICU, no matter what the cost to the patient and family in terms of pain, suffering, humiliation and anguish. It is your mission to stave off death to the bitter end, come what may, and you’re proud of it.

3) Have Somebody Else Push It.

In the meantime, clear the path for agencies and interest groups which are dedicated to the end-of-life movement. There are plenty of them out there. Have them do the selling for you.

Make sure they have access to your patients and patients’ families, especially in the ICU setting. Allow them space for educational displays; provide them some private space where they can talk to interested patients and families; see that hospital social workers are aware of and will enable their activities. In the meantime, make it clear that you do not endorse or encourage their efforts, and indeed wish they would go away, but you are providing such groups with access in your dedicated interest of full transparency, and your commitment to patient choice. If patients choose to avail themselves of such information, you will do nothing to stop them.

4) Make the Advantages To Assisted Suicide Seem Real.

There’s no need for you to talk up the advantages of assisted suicide – let the end-of-life proselytizers do the talking for you. All you have to do is to make their arguments seem accurate. The great part is, that’s just a matter of maintaining business as usual.

The end-of-life zealots will tell patients that assisted suicide is a way of asserting some measure of control over the dying process, of holding on to some level of personal dignity at the very end. So simply make sure your end-of-life care continues robbing patients of any semblance of dignity and control.

They’ll tell patients that assisted suicide will end pain and discomfort and suffering when all hope of recovery is gone. So simply continue with inadequate pain control** and half-hearted comfort measures, and keep the ICU as hectic, loud, scary and impersonal as possible.

____
**Maintaining inadequate pain control will continue as a matter of course as long as the Central Authority continues sending the DOJ after the occasional pain-management doctor. Whether the target physician is actually engaging in analgesic excesses is unimportant to the goal of making any American doctor afraid of aggressively controlling their patients’ pain, for fear of becoming a target themselves.
____

The end-of-life proponents will tell the patients themselves that assisted suicide will finally bring comfort to their long-suffering family and friends, whose lives have been “so disrupted by your prolonged illness.” And make sure all those family and friends continue suffering long, by keeping those ICU waiting rooms hot, cramped, noisy, uncomfortable and smelly.

You get the idea. Simply make sure the arguments of the end-of-life proponents have teeth. You’re good at that.

5) Tell Patients to Consult With Their Doctors First.

That’s right. Refer patients to their doctors, their supposed personal advocates, the selfsame individuals you yourself have long since fatally compromised (by grabbing control of their individual professional viability). Assuming you have placed sufficient cost-cutting pressures on doctors, then their willingness to encourage (or at least not discourage) assisted suicide will be substantial. So when patients do consult with their doctors, the doctors will not undermine your subtle efforts, but will become your partners in convincing those approaching end-of-life to just be reasonable.

6) Make Physician-Assisted Suicide Legal, But Not Reimbursable.

You’re going for the Botox model here. You do not want physician-assisted suicide to be merely another hush-hush medical procedure, conducted quietly and almost secretly in a typical doctor’s office, so that people can pretend it doesn’t exist. Rather, you want to establish it as something that’s front and center, something people will want and ask for and go out of their way to seek. You want to encourage doctors to establish inventive business models for assisted suicide,  just as the dermatologists have done with their Botox clinics.

Accomplishing this, of course, will require assisted suicide to be made legal everywhere (and not just in Oregon and a few other progressive states), but at the same time will require you to NOT make it a reimbursable medical service. For once it’s made reimbursable it will become subject to typical Medicare price controls, which thus will keep prices high and limit innovation. And in this once instance, you will not want to limit innovation.

Just think of the possibilities: One envisions physician-assisted suicide becoming established as a “life cycle event” like a wedding or Bar Mitzvah, where the right atmosphere, the right spirituality, and the right tone come together to create an unforgettable, uplifting experience for everyone. Some assisted suicides will take place in a doctor’s office, of course, but why not in a place of worship, a favorite city, a resort, a mountain top, a rocky coast – a casino? Why not allow the prospective decedent to actually hear the eulogies and experience the tearful tributes before actually engaging (ritually) in the Act? Why not partner with the new deathcare industry you will be unleashing (talk about job creation!) to wrap this final “healthcare service” into a comprehensive package along with funeral services, grave sites and headstones, elaborate obituaries, and full coverage on Facebook, Twitter, and UTube?  Why not engage American media to celebrate the event with a new mode of reality programming (one that is sure to garner a massive share of viewers)? Why not, at last, GUARANTEE every American their 15 minutes of fame (even if it’s their last 15 minutes)? Why not convert what is today an antiseptic, impersonal and frightening process into one that makes everybody say, “Yes! That’s the only way to go!”

The beauty is that this sort of model will convert what is today, at best, merely the option for assisted suicide into something that’s expected – a true destination event, a natural part of life. Indeed, not opting for assisted suicide, at a certain point in one’s life, will come to be seen as unusual, unreasonable, greedy and selfish. And when granny begins to spend more time in a doctor’s office or (worse) in a hospital, where frequent visitation is expected and other family inconveniences are generated, some loving grandchild will pat her precious wrinkled hand, and say, “Granny, you know, it’s getting to be about that time. Wouldn’t a last weekend in Vegas be just the thing?”

So, if you play your cards right – passively encouraging the end-of-life movement in its effort to spread the word, while making the alternative (i.e., not committing suicide) as nasty and foul an option as possible, and also while coercing doctors and encouraging families to view assisted suicide as the most advantageous modus exodus one could ever imagine – well, the “right” to assisted suicide will shortly become the expectation and even the duty for assisted suicide.

If you who run government or private health plans will just follow DrRich’s simple program, you will have accomplished all this without seeming crass and self-serving, as you most certainly do each time you send somebody a letter like the one you sent the unfortunate Ms. Wagner.

____

This is the first in a series of articles on End-of-Life Care and Covert Rationing.  The second article can be found here.

____

It is easy to have missed it, because it went by so quickly.

On January 1, the White House announced a new policy that would have paid doctors for discussing end-of-life planning during their Medicare patients’ annual “wellness visit.” Under this policy, physicians would be paid to encourage their patients to establish an advance directive, which would guide medical care if the patient became incapacitated from illness, and could no longer make medical decisions for him/herself.

But on January 5, the new policy was suddenly revoked. It was revoked, CMS lamely explained, because it had not been implemented using the correct process. But, as anyone would know who watched Congress make Obamacare the law of the land, this could not possibly have been the real reason.

The real reason, of course, has to do with the firestorm this new policy threatened to unleash, just as the House of Representatives was about to be taken over by the cretinous opposition party.

As regular readers will recall, the Obamacare bill originally included similar language on advance directives. Physicians were supposed to urge their patients, repeatedly if necessary, to establish advance directives, and their success in extracting advance directives from their patients was to be one of the “performance measures” by which doctors would be judged to be in good or bad standing with the Central Authority.

But then Sarah Palin said “death panels,” and a furor ensued. The provision on advance directives was quickly removed from the Obamacare legislation, as if Congress was admitting that Ms. Palin had been correct and they had been caught out.* Similarly, the effort last month to reinstate the provision failed to stick for fear of criticism at a bad time.

_____
*The original advance directive provision in Obamacare, of course, had nothing whatsoever to do with “death panels,” since there are no panels of any sort involved in establishing advance directives. Rather, the entities that some might call death panels, and which DrRich has chosen to call GOD panels (Government Operatives Deliberating) – that is, panels of distinguished experts that will determine, by means of “guidelines,” which patients will get what, when and how – remain fully operative within Obamacare.
_____

DrRich has nothing against advance directives, and indeed, thinks they are a good idea – in concept, at least. Advance directives allow patients to establish beforehand, usually by a written document, what kinds of medical treatment they would or would not want should they fall victim to a serious, life-threatening illness that leaves them unable to express their wishes. Advance directives are supposed to work by providing guidance to their physicians, who, in their fiduciary capacity, are charged with acting in the patient’s best interest.

A well-constructed advance directive allows patients to choose to spare themselves from demeaning, undignified, painful or otherwise undesirable medical procedures and treatments, should they become incapacitated at a later date. “Well-constructed” implies that the advance directives are clearly and concisely written, that they honor the ethical and legal norms approved by society, and that they provide the physician with clear guidance.

But it is more difficult to write a “well-constructed” advance directive than might at first meet the eye. The major problems are two-fold: Advance directives often express imperfect knowledge, and they are often imperfectly expressed. These limitations mean that in appropriately exercising an advance directive, often the physician cannot follow them to the letter, but must interpret them according to the circumstances at hand.

A healthy and relatively robust individual cannot always know how he or she will feel years into the future, when illness strikes and it is time to exercise an advance directive. Every doctor has seen critically ill patients who, despite having advance directives to the contrary, unhesitatingly choose to be attached to a ventilator when the time comes, for instance, rather than face certain imminent death. So experienced doctors know that advance directives do not always indicate what patients will actually choose to do when the time to make a choice is upon them.

They also know that, while conscious patients have the opportunity to repeal their advance directives, unconscious or incapacitated patients do not.** So, in exercising an advance directive, the conscientious physician interprets that directive in light of many other factors, such as, her personal knowledge of the patient, the opinions of family as to what the patient would want done, and the chances of a long-term recovery if the therapy being considered is used. Then she will negotiate with responsible family members an approach that appears to meet the patient’s presumed desires.

____
**Conscious patients can repeal their advance directives in theory. DrRich has witnessed actual doctors, however, arguing vociferously against using a medical therapy that a sick patient now desperately wants, because years ago the patient signed an advance directive expressing aversion to that therapy.
____

Therefore the advance directive in many cases is an important part of the decision-making process, but it is not the only part. The appropriate use of an advance directive requires the doctor to behave as a true patient advocate, to selflessly place the desires expressed in the directive in context with everything else that might affect the patient’s true and current wishes, and then make a recommendation that, to the best of his or her ability, honors those wishes.

Unfortunately, doctors can no longer act primarily as their individual patient’s advocate. Indeed, physicians are officially enjoined (by the New Ethics formally adopted by their own professional organizations) to give the needs of society at least equal consideration. And so, as has demonstrably happened with other “guidelines” in medicine, it is inevitable that advance directives will be reduced to a legal edict, which must be followed to the letter if the physician wishes to remain clear of the Department of Justice.

The likelihood that there will be no room for interpretation means that constructing just the right kind of advance directive for yourself – one that will be precisely suitable to any contingency that may occur – has become extremely difficult. If you get the details just a little bit wrong for the circumstances that actually arise, the price you pay may be very heavy. It would be better to have no advance directive at all than to have one that is misleading or ambiguous. Advance directives must be written with extreme care, and only after long, thoughtful consideration.

That is not how the government would have it, however. For many years now, the Feds, under the Patient Self-Determination Act, requires hospitals to inform patients about advance directives at the time of every hospital admission, and to invite them to sign one. To say this is a less than ideal time to implement an advance directive would be something of an understatement. Asking a patient to sign an advance directive at the time of hospital admission, often by including it in the pile of routine and mind-numbing legalistic documents which patients must sign if they want to receive medical care, and often with no more guidance than that provided by the admissions clerk (who might explain, “This tells the doctors you don’t want to be kept alive on a machine like a vegetable,”) tells us something about whether the true motive for advance directives is to protect the patient’s autonomy – or to reduce costs.

Having the discussion in a doctor’s office these days, sadly, might not be much better. The Central Authority knows that squeezing what really ought to be at least a 30-minute discussion into a 10-15 minute office visit already packed with Pay for Performance requirements (while providing the added threat of punishment if the physician fails to extract an advance directive from the patient), will yield, at best, a signature on a boiler-plate document.

But despite the slap-dash method by which such a document may be implemented, it is a document whose language – when the time comes – will be exercised with all the legalistic exactitude of a contract attorney by any doctor who knows what’s good for him.

DrRich thinks that Americans are right in being suspicious of the big push they are seeing to urge advance directives upon them. Invoking “death panels” in this regard is utterly inappropriate, but the end result will suffice. It is good that we have all been given pause.

Still, the concept of advance directives is a good one, and DrRich thinks most Americans might do well to have one. Despite the damage that is being done to them, DrRich thinks advance directives can be salvaged. To this end, DrRich suggests several steps we can all take in executing an advance directive that will actually do what we want it to do:

1) Don’t be pressured into implementing an advance directive by anybody whose career depends on keeping the Central Authority happy. Unfortunately, this likely includes your doctor if you are not paying your doctor yourself.

2) Don’t sign a boiler-plate document. These likely will have been drafted with the interests of the Central Authority in mind, with the help of very smart lawyers, and when these documents are called into use in all probability they will be interpreted for the convenience of the Central Authority.

3) Try to keep your advance directive from showing up in an electronic medical record. Write it yourself, and store it where your loved ones can find it when they need it. Give a copy to your spouse, your children, and perhaps (if you have a direct-pay doctor who works only for you) your physician. This way, since your advance directive will not be immediately available to hospital personnel if you are suddenly incapacitated, no unfortunate and irreversible decisions regarding the aggressiveness of your medical care can be made until your loved ones are notified.

4) Write your advance directive as a general guideline, with as few specifics regarding particular types of medical care as possible. You should assume that any type of treatment you mention in a negative light will be withheld under any and all circumstances, including circumstances you may not be aware of in which you would want that treatment.

5) You are not writing your advance directive for the doctors (it is most tragic that we can no longer trust doctors in this regard!); you are writing it to help your loved ones make the right decisions for you, perhaps despite the doctors. So your goal should be to clarify your general desires for your loved ones. Discuss your advance directive with your loved ones after you have written it, and ideally, before you have written it. Your written words will remind them of your wishes when the time is right.

Lest you think, Dear Reader, that  DrRich is merely being sarcastic  here (and why would anyone think so?), he is not. DrRich himself has an advanced directive that attempts to follow these rules. The document is stored at home with his important papers. Mrs. DrRich knows where to find it, and knows DrRich’s general feelings regarding these matters. With the guidance he has provided, DrRich trusts her and his children to make these important decisions for him. For anyone who is interested, DrRich’s advance directive is reproduced, in its entirety, at the end of this post. (The general language, which has been adapted and revised by DrRich for his own use, was originally suggested to him by a good friend who is a superb internal medicine practitioner.)

So. Advance directives are a very good idea, but unfortunately, have been identified by the Central Authority as a potentially powerful cost-cutting tool. Even before Obamacare, certain HMOs were refusing to reimburse hospitals or doctors that provided medical care that seemed to go against specific language contained in an advance directive. That, of course, was child’s play. Now that the Central Authority has gotten hold of them, advance directives will likely be treated the same way as other guidelines are now treated in medicine, that is, as edicts, and thus as vehicles for the criminal prosecution of medical personnel who deign to “interpret” them.

This means that if you wish to take advantage of the benefits which advance directives can provide, you will have to proceed very, very carefully.

____

DrRich’s Advance Directive:

If I am able to communicate my wishes by any means whatsoever, then I wish to make my own decisions regarding my own healthcare. If, despite my ability to communicate, my condition makes it inconvenient to fully inform me of my situation and all my treatment options, then until such time as it becomes sufficiently convenient to do so, I want everything possible to be done to sustain my life and effect a recovery.

In the event of an incapacitating illness in which I cannot communicate, the basic guideline initially should be to do everything possible to sustain my life and effect a recovery.

After a reasonable period of time (in general, I would consider a week to be reasonable) if no progress has been made in the recovery of my mental function, and the likelihood of mental recovery is judged to be small, then withdrawal of life-sustaining care should be strongly considered. To help my wife and/or children with this decision, I would like to have an evaluation by a neurologist to help clarify the prognosis.

If improvement in my mental status has been made, then efforts to sustain my life and affect a recovery should be continued.

If at any point in my care there is a period of at least two weeks in which I am persistently unable to carry out meaningful communications sufficient to make my own wishes known (in the opinion of my family members and the neurologist), and the likelihood of mental recovery is judged to be small, then I would consider the withdrawal of life-sustaining care to be a blessing.

While DrRich is a conservative American, and has made plain the difficulties he has with the Progressive program in general and with Progressive healthcare reform in particular, at times he is forced to admit that, on occasion, the Progressive way of looking at the world has certain merits. And as DrRich contemplates a question that has been bothering him lately, a question that no doubt plagues many American physicians who (unlike DrRich) are still toiling away in the trenches, he finds that this is one such occasion.

That question is: Just who are the people writing all those clinical guidelines – the  “guidelines” physicians are now expected to follow in every particular in every case, on pain of massive fines, loss of career, and/or incarceration?

DrRich is quick to say that the act of creating clinical guidelines is not inherently evil, and indeed, back in the day when guidelines were merely guidelines (instead of edicts or directives that must be obeyed to the last letter), creating clinical guidelines was a rather noble thing to do.

But today, we have physicians clamoring to become GOD panelists (Government Operatives Deliberating). These aristocrats of medicine will render the rules by which their more inferior fellow physicians, the ones who have actual contact with patients, will live or die. Clearly positions of such authority will be very desirable, and so, as one might predict, they are being vigorously pursued. And we are seeing candidates audition for these panels with efforts ranging from amateurish to ruthless. It puts one in mind of the early-season contestants on “American Idol.”

We see them vociferously extolling, in every public venue they can find, the idea of “fly by wire” medicine, whereby every decision physicians make will be determined not at the bedside but by the best and the brightest experts, acting at a distance. The experts will distribute rules of action based on only the best scientific evidence (“best” being determined by those selfsame experts). The directives they hand down will be models of actionable simplicity,spelled out so unambiguously that even doctors born, raised, and trained in the Midwest or the South will be able to follow them.  (And if the doctors refuse to cooperate sufficiently, non-physician medical professionals will be able to do the job.) We see them writing scientific papers that spin the evidence in such a way as to generate conclusions which will be soothing to the Central Authority. We see them editing medical journals in order to make certain that the correct conclusions are published, and the incorrect ones are not. We see them taking control of professional organizations, and using their positions to promulgate changes in medical ethics that advance the Borg-ification of medicine, and to formally endorse Obamacare on behalf of American physicians who, for the most part, were against doing so.

These people have gained great prominence within our healthcare system, and practicing physicians will be dealing with them and the consequences of their actions for many years to come. While the natural impulse of us typical American doctors may be to simply marvel at the wonder of it all, shake our heads resignedly, and go about our increasingly distressing business, it may behoove us to take a closer look at these individuals, to attempt to understand them a little better. After all, their activities in the near future promise to greatly impact our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

So – who are they, anyway?

This, dear reader, is where the Progressive mode of thought comes in handy. DrRich refers, of course, to the Progressive doctrine of Diversity.

Diversity, for those who pretend not to know, is perhaps the chief mechanism by which Progressives attempt to control the behavior of the population.

Recall that the Progressive program is to create the perfect society. The Progressive elite know just how to do this, of course, but individuals within every population throughout human history have insisted upon acting in their own self-interest, which is counterproductive to the collective goal. In past efforts to perfect human societies, such individual recalcitrance has been dealt with by means of concentration camps and pogroms and the like. “Diversity,” we all should admit, is a much kinder and gentler approach to curing the problem of individualism.

Specifically, the doctrine of Diversity defines the range of permissible behaviors and thoughts for a given group of people within a society. The numerous celebrations of Diversity we see all around us invariably turn out to be strategies to reinforce those allowable ranges of thought and behavior. In this way, members of a particular group who begin behaving and thinking outside the allowable range can be quickly identified and dealt with, either through correction (which brings them back into the group), or through vilification (which marginalizes them). It is easy to become confused about this, since classically “diversity” means something other than “conformity.”  (As a general rule, if you want to know what Progressives are really up to, listen to what they say and then look to see if their deeds are actually working toward the opposite thing.  DrRich thinks that much of the time you will find that they are.)

In any case, while in general DrRich does not approve of Diversity as it is being practiced today, he finds that the concept might be useful in attempting to answer the question at hand.

Specifically, DrRich refers to his theory that physicians (like any humans) tend to end up in careers that best suit their underlying personalities and proclivities, and so physicians in a given specialty will tend to think and behave like other physicians within that specialty, and unlike physicians in other specialties. If this theory has any merit (and let us call it the Diversity Theory of Physicians), it will allow us to make some generalizations about the characteristics of individuals who have chosen specific kinds of medical careers. DrRich stresses that he is aiming to make generalizations only, and while those generalizations might help enlighten us to a modest degree regarding, say, what sort of physician will end up on the GOD panels, they can tell us nothing about particular individuals.

With that annoying disclaimer out of the way, let us examine some ways in which the DTP reveals Truth. An obvious example is the specialty of psychiatry, which tends to attract doctors who are, perhaps subliminally, concerned that they are just a little crazy themselves. As it happens, it often turns out they are correct. In DrRich’s experience, and in the experience of just about anyone who has encountered more than a handful of shrinks, these fine physicians, on average, display an astonishing degree of off-the-wall psychopathology. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

Emergency room doctors have short attention spans and are afraid of commitment.

Endocrinologists get their jollies by sitting alone in cramped offices, parsing tremendous volumes of laboratory data from blood tests, which they claim reflect moment-to-moment variations in hormone levels, and from this arcane evidence are able to parse out (so they say) subtle glandular difficulties. If endocrinologists were not physicians they would be accountants; the more aggressive endocrinologists (who are identifiable by the dirty glance they give you if you happen to interrupt their lonely cogitations) might be forensic accountants. (How anybody could specialize in any organ that just sits there, perhaps secreting various invisible substances, but otherwise not doing anything whatsoever,  DrRich will never understand.)

Orthopedic surgeons are former jocks, or wish they were, and the ones who end up replacing hips in old ladies instead of patrolling the sidelines at college football games are often very frustrated individuals.

Party animals who manage to gain entrance to medical school often end up as anesthesiologists.

Cardiologists like to envision themselves (and would like others to envision them) as living on the edge. After all, they put catheters into damaged coronary arteries in patients on the brink of heart attacks, and, through their skillful manipulations, open those arteries and save lives. They are the extreme sportsmen of medicine, so they believe. But really, their jobs are ones of relative security, predictability and instant gratification. What they do in the cath lab actually is pretty rote, and it provides them with immediate, concrete results. They can even show the “before” and “after” pictures to the person they just saved, who will then heap praise and shed tears of gratitude upon them. But any time fixing a particular artery looks a little too risky, they call a cardiac surgeon right away. This pattern of behavior suggests to DrRich that their aggressive personnas and glory-seeking activities are actually masking an underlying insecurity.

It would not be fair of DrRich to psychoanalyze all these other specialists – who have done nothing to provoke him – without also doing the same for electrophysiologists. All electrophysiologists started out as cardiologists, of course, so they have that going for them. But to really understand electrophysiologists, one must invoke the principle of sublimation. To sublimate is to channel an underlying negative tendency to some activity that partially gratifies that tendency, but that is considered worthwhile by society. So, for instance, people with a tendency toward pyromania may become volunteer firefighters. People with sadistic tendencies may become prison guards. Foot fetishists can become shoe salesmen. Compulsive liars can become novelists.

Who, then, become electrophysiologists?

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, when DrRich was practicing, what electrophysiologists mainly did was to try to prevent sudden death in patients who had a high risk of dying suddenly from cardiac arrhythmias. And in order to find the optimal therapy for these patients, it was necessary to induce, intentionally and repeatedly, cardiac arrests under controlled conditions. This was done in an effort to find an antiarrhythmic drug that would prevent the induction of cardiac arrest. This behavior we euphemistically called “serial drug testing.”  Fortunately, this procedure is no longer necessary, since the implantable defibrillator has been perfected and is now widely available for high-risk patients (if you can get it paid for).

While it has been widely remarked that those early-day electrophysiologists were a very strange group indeed, most of us who did this serial drug testing ended up successfully absorbed into normal society, and today (as far as DrRich can tell) we are for the most part generally pretty harmless. But DrRich sometimes finds himself wondering what might have become of some of us (some in particular more than others) if we had not had this remarkable opportunity to sublimate what one might speculate to be some rather unpleasant tendencies. And what is to become of that young person today who has whatever those unfortunate tendencies might be, and who, 30 years ago, might have found release as an electrophysiologist? One must not think too deeply about this.

Let us now turn our attention to those would-be GOD panelists, and see if we can decipher what kind of people these might be. Admitting that what follows – and, for that matter, what has just been said – amounts only to an educated guess, DrRich submits that the GOD panelists are people you already know well, if you have worked within the American healthcare system.

These are the kids you knew in college who studied all the time and got straight A’s in all the hardest courses, buttered up their teachers, then aced their MCATs. For them the hardest part about applying to medical school was in deciding which of the many schools that accepted them they should attend. Likely, they chose one of the Ivy League ones. Their first two years of medical school – the didactic years – were much like their college experiences. They studied hard, aced all the exams, and were generally acknowledged by both faculty and peers to be at the very top of their class.

Then they reached their clinical years, and things changed. They still knew more information than anyone else, and in fact their information base continued to expand. They read all the journals, and could always quote new research findings chapter and verse. They could conjugate the Krebs cycle on demand (or whatever it is you do with the Krebs cycle), and could recite precisely which enzyme that new drug inhibited, and could say why doing so made it OK to eat pizza again.

But what they could not do was be a good doctor. They had no instinct for it; no ability to get the patients to tell them the important information; no ability to read a patient’s facial expression, or phraseology, or body language, those signs that reveal the real truth. They had no ability to discern useful information from the flood of partial and contradictory clinical evidence that is always pouring in from several sources. When time was of the essence, they had no capacity to figure out what was going on or what they should do about it. They could not adjust to changing clinical situations on the fly. In an emergency they were paralyzed, trying to match the quickly evolving situation in front of them with the static words on the printed page. And often they were klutzes.

They were perfectly cut out to learn medicine, but lousy at actually doing it. What was worse, some of their colleagues who were mediocre in the book-learning department suddenly blossomed into highly competent clinicians on the wards, and quickly became recognized as rising stars by attending physicians, while they themselves were repeatedly chastised, or ignored.

And it just wasn’t right. It just wasn’t fair. They had worked harder than everyone else, had twice the brains as those others, and had learned the material three times as well. But the way God set it up, they just weren’t good doctors.

Many of these unfortunate souls quickly left clinical medicine, and branched off into research, academics, or administration. Most of them did quite well for themselves, because they really are very smart. But they never really got over their frustration and anger over their unjust  failures on the clinical wards, a place where their obvious inferiors lorded it over them. They have now spent years engaging in cognitive dissonance, convincing themselves that their apparent failure was an illusion, merely a sign of having been subjected to the anti-intellectual, shoot-from-the-hip, do-it-quickly-and-make-more-money environment that is American healthcare. After all, how could they be sub-optimal physicians when they are clearly far more intelligent and knowledgeable than the supposed “stars?” If the healthcare system had been arranged differently, in such a way as to make the cowboys behave the right way, they would have proven themselves to be the best clinicians in the land.  It is a bitter, bitter pill.

These are the guys, DrRich thinks, who are chomping at the bit for the opportunity to sit on the GOD panels. They would dearly love the chance to utilize their superior intellectual firepower, to distill the clinical research data, to digest it painstakingly and thoroughly (not haphazardly and on the fly like those others), to put down on paper the RIGHT way of practicing clinical medicine -  and to have the authority to do it in such a way (backed up by the full force of the Central Authority) that those lesser doctors will HAVE to do it their way, at long last.

The point of all this psychoanalytic guesswork is to suggest that the GOD panelists, even the GOD panelists who are physicians, will have no sympathy for the idea that the practice of medicine should be individualized to any degree whatsoever. The idea of individualizing medical care, rather than practicing by formula from a book, is what caused these people the most uncomfortable moments in their professional lives. Far from being sympathetic to the idea, they will probably be more hostile to it than the non-physicians on the GOD panels. When somebody on the panel suggests that, perhaps, we should give the doctor a little more leeway on this particular issue, these physicians will speak up and say, “Listen. I’ve been there and you haven’t. These doctors don’t need any more rope, unless it’s to bind them even tighter.” They were themselves shown no quarter, in the tough arena of clinical medicine where outcomes (and not process or book knowledge) is the only mark of success, and they will offer none in their turn.

DrRich cannot prove any of this, of course. He is just theorizing, based on his own personal observations and prejudices, having observed many of these whiz-kids in his 25 years of teaching medical trainees, and watching where they wound up. He could, of course, be wrong.

In any case, for allowing him to carry on in this manner DrRich owes one more expression of gratitude to his Progressive friends, whose doctrine of Diversity supplies the necessary substrate, and the ethical “cover,” for mercilessly stereotyping selected groups of what otherwise might turn out to be individuals.

This week, the Archives of Internal Medicine published four (four!) articles assaulting the legitimacy and the importance of the JUPITER trial, a landmark clinical study published in 2008, which showed that certain apparently healthy patients with normal cholesterol levels had markedly improved cardiovascular outcomes when taking a statin drug.

Superficially, at least, the JUPITER study appears to have been pretty straightforward. Nearly 18,000 men and women from 26 countries who had “normal” cholesterol levels but elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were randomized to receive either the statin drug Crestor, or a placebo. CRP is a non-specific marker of inflammation, and an increased CRP blood level is thought to represent inflammation within the blood vessels, and is a known risk factor for heart attack and stroke. The study was stopped after a little less than two years, when the study’s independent Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) determined that it would be unethical to continue. For, at that point, individuals taking the statin had a 20% reduction in overall mortality, a dramatic reduction in heart attacks, a 50% reduction in stroke, and a 40% reduction in venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. All these findings were highly statistically significant.

This study is noteworthy because it is the first large randomized trial to show that taking a statin can markedly reduce the incidence of some very nasty cardiovascular outcomes in people who are considered to have “normal” cholesterol levels. (Notably, typical LDL cholesterol levels among primitive hunting/gathering cultures is around 50 mg/dL, instead of the 100 – 120 mg/dL we consider to be normal. These primitive folks have an extremely low incidence of cardiovascular disease, so maybe humans’ optimal cholesterol level is much lower than we now think. On the other hand, the low risk of cardiovascular disease among hunters/gatherers may instead be related to the fact that many of them are consumed by various species of carnivores before they’re 30.)

To be sure, the JUPITER trial was far from perfect. Because of its design, it could not (and did not) tell us whether the beneficial outcome is specific to Crestor, or is a class effect of all statins (which seems very likely). It did not tell us whether reducing CRP levels is itself beneficial, or even whether using CRP as a screening tool is actually helpful. (The people enrolled in this trial tended to have several other risk factors, such as being overweight, having metabolic syndrome, and smoking, and it is not clear how much additional risk elevated CRP levels really added in this population.) And this trial did not tell us the risks of lifelong, or even very long-term, Crestor therapy.

But JUPITER did tell us something that is very useful to know, and with a very high degree of statistical surety: Giving Crestor to patients similar to the ones enrolled in this study can be expected to result in significantly and substantially improved cardiovascular outcomes, and in a relatively short period of time.

If medicine were practiced the way it ought to be – where the doctor takes the available evidence, as imperfect as it always is, and applies it to each of her individual patients – then the incompleteness of answers from the JUPITER trial would present no special problems. After all, doctors never have all the answers when they help patients make decisions. So, in this case the doctor would discuss the pros and cons of statin therapy – the risks, the potential benefits, and all the quite important unknowns – and place the decision in the perspective of what might be gained if the patient instead took pains to control their weight, exercise, diet, smoking, etc. At the end of the day, some patients would insist on avoiding drug therapy at all costs; others would insist on Crestor and nothing else; yet others would choose to try a much cheaper generic statin; and some would even opt (believe it or not) for a trial of lifestyle changes before deciding on statin therapy. In other words, there is a range of reasonable options given the limitations of our knowledge, as there often is in clinical medicine. As time goes by, more scientific evidence is often brought to bear and clinical decisions can become more informed. But whatever the state of the evidence, doctors and patients can generally get by without violating too severely any ethical or medical precepts that would cause objective and neutral observers to complain very much.

But in recent years, and especially now, as we bravely embark on our new healthcare system, this is not how doctors will practice medicine. Instead, they will practice medicine by guidelines. These guidelines (which, in modern medical parlance, is a euphemism for “directives”) are to be handed down from panels of experts, identified and assembled by members of the executive branch of the federal government.

And this makes the stakes very high when it comes to a clinical trial like JUPITER. For guidelines do not permit a range of actions tailored to fit individual patients (consistent with the uncertainties inherent in the results of any clinical trial). Instead, guidelines will seek to take one of two possible positions. That is, under a paradigm of medicine-by-guidelines, the results of clinical trials generally cannot be permitted to remain imperfect or nuanced or subject to individual application, but must be resolved by a central panel of government-issue experts into a binary system – yes (do it) or no (don’t do it). In the case of JUPITER, the guidelines must decide whether or not to recommend Crestor to patients like the ones enrolled in the study, at a potential cost of several billion dollars a year. It should be obvious that the answer which would be more pleasant to the ends of the central authority, and  by a large margin, would be: No, don’t adopt the JUPITER results into clinical practice.

However, the expert panels which are called for by our new healthcare legislation have not been formulated yet, and we are still operating under the “old” rules. So, still subject to all the duress which is created by unfortunately-resolved clinical trials like this one, the FDA, somewhat reluctantly, approved the use of Crestor for JUPITER-like patients in late 2009. That approval, of course, is subject to review by the new expert panels, whenever they are assembled.

This, DrRich submits for your consideration, is likely what instigated the almost violently anti-JUPITER issue of the Archives this week. DrRich theorizes that what we’ve got here is a bunch of wannabe federally-sanctioned experts, auditioning for positions on the expert panels. What better way to get the Fed’s attention than to let them know that you are of the appropriate frame of mind to assiduously seek out scientific-sounding arguments to discount the straightforward and compelling, but fiscally unfortunate, results of a well-known clinical trial?

Of the four papers appearing in this week’s Archives, three are more-or-less legitimate academic articles that make reasonable points, but do no harm to the main result of JUPITER. The fourth is a straightforward polemic, which has no place in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and whose very presence, DrRich believes, very strongly suggests that the editors of the Archives themselves must be auditioning for the Fed’s expert panel.

So as not to bore his readers any more than necessary, DrRich will make short work of the three reasonably legitimate articles in this issue. One pointed out that JUPITER did not tease out the real importance of CRP levels, or whether lowering those levels is useful. This is true, but that fact does not touch the main conclusion of JUPITER. Another article was a meta-analysis which incorporated several other primary prevention trials using statins, and concluded that there is no overall benefit to statins in primary prevention patients. Aside from the usual problems inherent in meta-analyses, a) the JUPITER study looked at a specific population of primary prevention patients not addressed by these other studies, and b) since JUPITER is the first study to show a benefit in using statins for primary prevention, it is a foregone conclusion that if you assemble enough of the previous, negative studies and lump them together with JUPITER in a meta-analysis, you will be able to dilute the results of JUPITER sufficiently to achieve an overall negative result. Actually doing such a meta-analysis, then, is merely an exercise in math, not in revelation.

The third article criticized the JUPITER DSMB for stopping the trial earlier than originally planned. The DSMB, however, had no real choice in the matter – ethically or legally – given the striking statistical significance of the benefit seen with Crestor. When a patient signs an informed consent agreement to participate in a clinical trial, part of that “contract,” a part required by law, is the statement to the effect that if information comes to light during the course of the study that might impact a patient’s willingness to continue participating, that information must be made available. The fact that the Crestor branch of the study was found to have markedly improved survival, fewer strokes and heart attacks, etc., than the placebo branch, clearly constitutes such information. Stopping the study when they did was not “premature;” continuing the study would have been illegitimate. This is why independent DSMBs exist in the first place – to protect the rights and welfare of the research subjects under the fiduciary agreement that comprises informed consent.

The fourth article is more striking (and more fun) than the other three. Interestingly, it is categorized by the Archives as an “Original Investigation,” despite the fact that it describes no investigation of any kind whatsoever – original or derivative. It merely revisits the data from JUPITER (in a spectacularly biased manner), and offers a spate of ad hominem attacks, alleging bias to the point of corruption, without any supporting evidence, against JUPITER’s sponsor, its investigators, and most astoundingly, the chair of the DSMB (who is a well known and highly respected figure, especially known and revered for his complete objectivity and lack of bias). If such an article has any place at all in a peer-reviewed medical journal – which DrRich doubts – it ought to be clearly labeled as an opinion piece, and not as a piece of original research. Whatever it may be, it’s not that.

But the most delicious aspect of this fourth article is that two of its authors, including its lead author, are members of a fringe medical group known as The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics (THINCS), whose stated mission is to “oppose” the notion that high cholesterol and animal fat play a role in cardiovascular disease. Members of THINCS also take an extraordinarily strong position opposing statins for any clinical use whatsoever. (One might actually assume that, since JUPITER shows that cardiovascular outcomes can be improved by statins in people with normal cholesterol levels, the THINCS would embrace the study as evidence that perhaps cholesterol is not as important as it’s cracked up to be. But apparently, this argument is completely negated by the fact that statins were the vehicle for making it. Many in the anti-statin crowd would object to statins even if they were proven to cure heart disease, cancer, baldness, and obesity AND produced fine and durable erections upon demand.)

The best part of all this is that the astounding anti-cholesterol, anti-statin bias of the authors was not disclosed in their article – whose main thrust, again, was to criticize the disclosed biases of the JUPITER investigators.

The excellent Pharmalot blog noted this irony, and contacted Rita Redberg (editor of the Archives) and Michel de Lorgeril (THINCS-master and prime author of the fourth article) to ask them why the association with THINCS was not disclosed.

Redberg:

“I’m not clear this is an undisclosed conflict. The policy mentions a personal relationship that could influence one’s work. I think that could be a big stretch. My initial impression is the group has an intellectual message, but doesn’t fit as a personal relationship that could effect the authors’ work.”

de Lorgeril:

“[While it is] very important to disclose financial [emphasis DrRich's] conflicts of interest that can influence our way of working and thinking about cholesterol and statins, there is so far no obligation to provide a CV each time we publish any thing…May I underline the fact that being a member of THINCS – not a group of terrorists, mainly a club of very kind retired scientists with whom I have interesting and open discussion – is not a conflict of interest?”

DrRich may be old fashioned, but he thinks that being a member of an “out there” group like THINCS, which appears to advance selected and distorted data on its website aimed at furthering its stated mission of “opposing” (not investigating or questioning) the cholesterol hypothesis and the use of statins, might make one prone to a bit of bias when writing a broadside critiquing a study like JUPITER, and loudly criticizing anyone associated with that study for their bias. This sort of bias (demonstrably rooted in a willingness to select/ignore/distort data in order to make a preconceived point) is likely to be as strong as any that might accompany, for instance, receiving a stipend from a statin company for participating in clinical research. Membership in THINCS may not preclude one from writing such an article, but DrRich thinks the association at least ought to be disclosed, just as financial relationships must be disclosed.

DrRich has a hard time explaining how this can happen with a prestigious medical journal like the Archives. But like Sherlock Holmes says, when you have eliminated the impossible (such as, the idea that this article deserved to be published in its current form), whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

And this is why DrRich can only conclude that several of the authors appearing in this week’s issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine, along with its editor, are in the mode of ingratiating themselves to the sundry officials and czars within the Obama administration who will be assembling the expert medical panels, those panels which will be making the momentous decisions that will determine the flow of hundreds of billions of dollars, and (forgive me) of life and death.

We wish them the best of luck in their audition, and will be monitoring the memberships of the new panels with interest, to see if any of our new friends are ultimately successful.

__

DrRich critiques more arguments for withholding Crestor here.

__

_Sources:

_{de Lorgeril M, Salen P, Abramson J, et al. Cholesterol lowering, cardiovascular diseases, and the rosuvastatin-JUPITER controversy. A critical reappraisal. Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170:1032-1036.}

_{Kaul S, Morrissey RP, Diamond GA. By Jove! What is a clinician to make of JUPITER? Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170:1073-1077.}

_{Ray KK, Seshasai SRK, Erqou S, et al. Statins and all-cause mortality in high-risk primary prevention. A meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials involving 65 229 participants. Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170:1024-1031.}

_{Green L A. Cholesterol-lowering therapy for primary prevention. Still much we don’t know. Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170:1007-1008.}

________________________________

Now, read the whole story.

DrRich explains it all in, Fixing American Healthcare – Wonkonians, Gekkonians and the Grand Unification Theory of Healthcare.

Now on Kindle!

____________

Part 1 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives

Part 2 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives

____________

The thing about Progressives is that the characteristic which makes them most endearing (and, which makes them most attractive to the unaware), is the very characteristic which makes them the most dangerous.

Fundamentally, Progressives believe in the perfectibility of mankind, or at least, of society. Indeed, they have discovered the very Program which will lead to the perfect society, a society which will maximize the good of the whole. Their vision is so compelling, and their ends so utterly and undeniably right, that it becomes legitimate for them to engage in whatever means are necessary to achieve it. (Indeed, for those who have been paying attention, “By Whatever Means Necessary” appears to have supplanted “Hope and Change” as the catchphrase of our current political leaders.)

The thing that always trips up Progressives (and their more revolutionary cousins, the Communists), is, of course, human nature. In order for their Program to work, it is necessary for each individual to behave in the prescribed fashion. And, at the end of the day, a substantial proportion of the population (any population) will insist on striving for their own individual benefit, rather than (as the Program requires) for the benefit of the collective.

The major competing system of societal organization – capitalism – recognizes this facet of human nature (i.e., the essential imperfectability of mankind, as manifested by the non-suppressibility of self-interest), and attempts to channel it into relatively productive and non-destructive (but still competitive and individually-directed) behaviors that limit the damage, and maximize the public good to a reasonable degree.

In contrast, Progressives attempt to change human nature to fit their inherently superior Program.

The fact that you cannot change human nature to fit the Program is what makes them dangerous. Their initial wide-eyed optimism that us folks will just “get it,” once they explain it to us, invariably evolves to an essential contempt for our limited intellectual capacity. This contempt justifies all manner of prevarications, to fool us into going along. Even in societies where the tyranny of correct-thinking has gone so far as to elicit the cooperation of the people at the point of a gun (rather than through the preferred methods of “education” or misdirection), the achievement of the predicted perfect society is invariably prevented by the recalcitrance of human nature. (The final realization that not even an all-powerful central authority can make people behave in the prescribed way always produces a nearly psychotic frustration that – in virtually every Communist country – has led to atrocities against various subsets of the recalcitrant people.)

DrRich does not believe there will ever be pogroms in the United States.

But this does not mean that the Progressives will always be kind and gentle as they attempt to achieve their goals. As DrRich sees it, in the U.S. the Progressives have clearly evolved to the “contempt for the masses” phase of their Program, a phase which justifies all manner of techniques – just this side of violence – to get us all to cooperate. Currently they are intent on demonizing their opponents as being racist, stupid, uneducated, selfish, overly dependent on outmoded supernatural beings, violent, and (of course) obese. This demonization is quite useful, since there is obviously no need to address any actual ideas put forth by such as these, even if they were capable of the feat of “ideas.”

Healthcare is, at present, the chief battleground in the war between Progressives vs. non-Progressives in the U.S., and the outcome of this battle will likely determine the success or failure of the entire Progressive Program. And the most fundamental (and emblematic) aspect of this battle is over what to do about the “doctor-patient relationship.”

The classic doctor-patient relationship was a celebration of the primacy of individual rights. And, for over 2000 years (at least since the advent of the Hippocratic Oath) guaranteeing the sanctity of that relationship was the basis of all medical ethics.

Until very recently doctors, patients, philosophers and ethicists recognized that, when you are sick, you are no more capable of navigating a complex and hostile healthcare system than are accused felons a complex and hostile legal system, and you are no less in peril if you run afoul of that system. And, just as the felon has a right to a personal advocate, a professional whose job is to protect his individual interests against the conflicting aims of the “system,” so does the patient. That is (quaint conventional wisdom held), when you are sick, you should be entitled to at least the same protections as when you rob a convenience store. And the doctor-patient relationship was supposed to guarantee you that right.

This is why, throughout the ages, the basic precepts of medical ethics were aimed at guaranteeing the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship. Fundamentally, these ethical precepts required the physician to place the needs of his or her individual patient above all other considerations.

It should be clear to everyone that, under either our “old” healthcare system or the one that Obamacare promises us, this formulation of the doctor-patient relationship cannot be allowed to stand. Neither the insurance executives nor government officials can allow spending decisions – that is, decisions on how to spend their money – to be made by individual patients (and their personal advocates). For this reason, the classic doctor-patient relationship had to go.

And so, in 2002, official medical ethics was formally amended to require physicians (while still giving lip service to their obligation to individual patients) to strive for a “just distribution of healthcare resources.” That is, official medical ethics now makes it ethical for physicians to ration healthcare, covertly, at the bedside – and indeed, makes it unethical for them to fail to do so.

The New Ethics has been enthusiastically supported by medical ethicists worldwide (a field which now seems to be dominated by utilitarians), and worse, has been embraced by all the world’s major medical professional organizations. DrRich has not embraced the New Ethics (on the grounds that it places individual patients at great peril, and destroys the profession of medicine), and neither have many (possibly a majority) of older physicians. But it has been taught in medical schools around the world for over a decade, and in another decade it is likely that the vast majority of practicing physicians will accept as a matter of course that their primary obligation is to control healthcare costs, and only secondarily to try to meet the needs of their individual patients.

The plan, therefore, is for Obamacare to provide physicians with directives from expert panels on which medical services to supply to which patients and when, and for the New Ethics to allow physicians who go along with such directives to live with themselves. The feasibility of this plan depends entirely on physicians acceding to the program.

So, incentives are being put in place to “help” doctors cooperate. Quality measures will be implemented, with “quality” being defined as doctors doing what they’re told, and reimbursement will be tied to one’s quality rating. Possibly more persuasive will be the fact that the Feds can construe the failure to follow handed-down rules, regulations and guidelines, at any time, as a federal crime. (Even doctors who don’t mind being labeled as “substandard quality” – perhaps even considering the label as a badge of honor – will mind going to jail.)

But by whatever means necessary, the happiness of the government is to be the doctor’s first consideration, and not the happiness of their individual patients. The classic doctor-patient relationship is being terminated with extreme prejudice.

To see just how important it is to destroy the doctor-patient relationship, one merely has to observe what is happening to primary care doctors who have the audacity to leave the system, and set up a direct-pay medical practice.

Part of the problem, to be sure, was caused by these doctors themselves. The first few to do so unabashedly catered to rich patients, and to attract the rich, referred to themselves as “concierge” practitioners. This name (and its elitist connotations) have been forcibly affixed to all direct-pay practitioners, even as this style of practice has evolved into a much more democratic form. Today, more and more doctors are starting direct-pay practices (in which patients pay the doctors out of their own pockets) which are easily affordable to anyone who can afford a cell phone or cable TV contract.

While many direct-pay practices offer patients certain benefits they can usually not get from primary care doctors who remain in the approved system (such as phone and e-mail access, same-day appointments, appointments lasting as long as necessary instead of the allotted 7.5 minutes, etc.), the fundamental benefit, to both the patient and the doctor, is that it restores the classic doctor-patient relationship. The physician’s primary obligation is no longer to the 3rd-party overlord, or to the Progressive ideal of social justice, but to the patient.

And while critics (who abound) attack direct-pay practitioners for their elitism, laziness, and greed, their real issue is that direct-pay practitioners are acting as if their primary duty is to their individual patients, and not to the needs of society. This latter fault simply cannot be tolerated.

Having gained nearly complete control over the behavior of primary care practitioners, it is critical for Progressives – in making sure that practice by handed-down “guidelines” is not simply the only legal way to practice, but also the only ethical way to practice – to shut the door to any alternative forms of primary care. Direct-pay practitioners are a menace because they threaten to raise the expectations of both doctors and patients. Perhaps, doctors and patients might tell themselves, there really is a way to maintain individual autonomy within the healthcare system.

The attacks on direct-pay practitioners have followed the usual scheme Progressives follow when they discover a faction they need to suppress. First, they were ridiculed. “For a Retainer, Lavish Care by ‘Boutique Doctors,’” said a headline in the New York Times in 2005. Then, they were demonized, widely attacked for their elitism, laziness, greed, and lack of fundamental medical ethics. In this latter effort, it was not difficult to find fellow physicians – generally, from the medical organizations which promulgated the New Ethics – to lead the attacks. There are countless examples. DrRich will give just two.

Anthony DeMaria, then President of the American College of Cardiology, criticized the practice of direct-pay medicine in an article in the JACC in 2005, saying, “Personally, I do not mind if people acquire yachts or personal trainers if they have enough money, nor would I object if they secured a physician at their beck and call. However, unlike yachts, health care is not discretionary, and everyone should be entitled to the same quality.” As a matter of social justice, direct-pay physicians improve healthcare quality for only some patients, and so have no place in the healthcare system.

In an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Troyen A. Brennan (M.D., J.D., and M.P.H., so we know we’re in trouble) really gets to the point. Referring to direct-pay practices as “luxury primary care,” he notes that “traditional medical ethics is rather poorly equipped to address issues related to luxury primary care.” That is, while “traditional” medical ethics always places the individual patient first, that kind of thinking is now outmoded. “(M)ost ethicists now agree that the financial structure of health care is an important subject for ethical consideration. Access to health care, in particular, is a salient ethical issue.” Direct-pay practitioners threaten (by their elitism and the limited size of their practices), to limit access to primary care, and thus are in fundamental violation of medical ethics.

The argument here, for those who missed it (advanced by fellow physicians no less), is that, of the two competing ethical precepts now established by New Medical Ethics (i.e., the physician’s obligation to the individual patient vs. the physician’s obligation to society), clear primacy is to be given to the physician’s obligation to society. Physicians must (like it or not) participate in covert bedside healthcare rationing. Physicians who take the only path remaining to them that allows them to make the individual patient their primary obligation are to be castigated as ethically deficient.

When ridicule and demonization fail to suppress their opposition, Progressive dogma indicates it’s time to resort to force. The first pass in this regard, of course, is always to render the opposition illegal. (Actual violence is reserved for criminals who persist in their misbehavior, despite more polite efforts to get them to behave lawfully.)

Making direct-pay medical practice illegal has not been accomplished yet, but clear efforts have been made in this regard. Noting with alarm the rise of direct-pay primary care, numerous Congresspersons have issued statements of concern, suggesting that perhaps Congress should look into the propriety of such activities.

Indeed, the first step by Congress has already been taken. In 2003, as part of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, Congress directed the GAO to study and report on the effect of direct-pay practices on Medicare patients. The GAO did so in 2005, and a fair paraphrase of its report is as follows: “The practice of direct-pay medicine is not currently a threat to Medicare patients, because the direct-pay movement is not large enough yet to have an impact. If it does begin to have an impact on Medicare patients, action will have to be taken.” That is, direct-pay medicine was considered OK in 2005 not because it was inherently an ethical and legal form of medical practice, but simply because there were not enough practitioners at that time to significantly affect Medicare patients. The clear implication is that Congress stands ready to pass laws outlawing – or, at least, severely limiting – direct-pay practices, as soon as those practices begin to “impact” the system.

Certain state governments are not waiting for Congress to ban direct-pay practices. The state of Maryland (and a few others) have taken the creative position that, because many direct-pay practices work on a retainer basis, they meet the definition of a health insurance company. And as a health insurance company, to be considered legal entities, they have to have millions of dollars set aside to pay for unforeseen “claims.” (Interestingly, this same argument was not applied to Maryland lawyers, who also often work on a retainer model.) According to the Baltimore Sun, the state’s stance in this regard has already successfully caused several primary care physicians to abandon their plans to become retainer practitioners.

Less devious (but more draconian) than the state of Maryland is the state of Massachusetts (whose universal healthcare system, we’ve all heard, is a preview of Obamacare circa 2015). A bill is under consideration in the Massachusetts Senate (Bill 2170) which requires doctors, as a condition of their licensure, to accept payment rates as determined by the government. If it passes, it will be the first actual legislation in the U.S. to ban direct-pay medicine, if only by making it completely impracticable. (Thanks to Dr. Wes for pointing out this important development.)

Since medical licensing is controlled by the various states, of course, it would take 50 bills like the one in Massachusetts to really get rid of direct-pay healthcare. But there are other ways for the Feds to accomplish the same thing. Now that the federal government directly controls all student loans, for instance, it would be a simple matter to make those loans contingent on agreeing to become primary care doctors working strictly within the government controlled system, or to offer loan forgiveness for doctors who agree to do so, or to rescind favorable re-payment conditions (retroactively, and decades after the fact, if necessary) for doctors who go to a direct-pay model later in life.

DrRich does not really know how the Progressives will actually place the final nail in the coffin of the doctor-patient relationship. All he knows is that they have – well, more than the desire – the deep and abiding need to kill that relationship, once and for all. Unless we the people decide we ought to stop them, this is going to happen.

____________

Part 4 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives

DrRich has decided it is time to begin studying the 2700-page healthcare reform bill that the Senate passed on December 24, as that is the bill which will actually become the law of the land. In the fall, DrRich had spent quite a bit of time with the House bill. This was such a painful and useless exercise that DrRich decided he would not waste any more of his time with proposed legislation, but instead (as Nancy Pelosi has wisely suggested) would wait until Congress passed a bill so he could find out what’s in it.

Now, DrRich does not have the stamina to study the new law all at once, as a whole. He must bite off little pieces. And the first thing he sought in embarking on his study of our new healthcare system was evidence of how the new law would rescue the Primary Care Physician.

This is important, since everyone acknowledges that we have a severe shortage of PCPs already, and when we add 32 million Americans to the rolls of the insured, that shortage will become extremely acute. Further, we know that very few medical school graduates are deciding to become PCPs, and further, that the PCPs who are in practice today are becoming older rapidly, and many may not be around in 10 years (or even in 10 months, once this reform bill passes).

As we all have heard, our President and his Congress have explicitly recognized the problem, and have frequently explicated on the need to build up and support our beleaguered primary care workforce. They have promised that their healthcare reforms will aggressively address this issue. And it is largely due to this promise that prominent physician organizations, like the AMA (which really represents a relatively small minority of the medical profession) and the American College of Physicians (which represents a large proportion of internists, of whom many are PCPs), have come out in support of the President’s reform efforts.

DrRich believes, of course, that for the Feds to suddenly make themselves the champions of PCPs, after spending nearly two decades systematically rendering primary care medicine a completely untenable proposition for American physicians, would be an unlikely outcome for any reform bill. Just to remind his readers, here’s what DrRich has previously observed about the carefully engineered plight of the American PCP:

“Their pay is determined arbitrarily by Acts of Congress, not by what they’re worth to their patients or to the market, and indeed in this way PCPs have a lot in common with workers in the old Soviet collectives.

They are directed to “practice medicine” by guidelines and directives which are handed down from on high; guidelines which, being forcibly based on what is called “evidence-based medicine,” necessarily address the average response of some large group of patients to the treatment being considered and do not allow much if any latitude for an individual patient’s needs; and which are often promulgated less to assure the excellent care of patients and more to further the agenda of various and competing interest groups, professional, governmental and otherwise.

They are limited to between 7.5 and 12.5 minutes per patient encounter (depending on the third party that controls a given patient’s medical care), and the content of what must occur during those 7.5 minutes is strictly determined by sundry Pay for Performance checklists, so as to strictly limit any interchanges between doctor and patient that do not meet the approved agenda for such encounters.

Their every move must be carefully documented according to incomprehensible rules, on innumerable forms and documents, that confound patient care but that greatly further the convenience of healthcare accountants and other stone-witted bureaucrats who are employed specifically to second-guess every clinical decision and every action the PCP takes.

They are expected to operate flawlessly under a system of federal rules, regulations and guidelines that cover hundreds of thousands of pages in immeasurable volumes that are never available in any readily accessible form. If they do not operate flawlessly according to those rules, regulations and guidelines, they are guilty of the federal crime of healthcare fraud. Furthermore, the specific meanings of these rules, regulations and guidelines are not merely opaque and difficult to ascertain, but indeed they are fundamentally indeterminate – that is, no individual or group of individuals in existence can say what they mean. So, PCPs operate under a massive quantum cloud of rules as best they can, but their actual status (regarding healthcare fraud) is, like Schrodinger’s cat, fundamentally unknowable – until the “box is opened” (typically through criminal prosecution), whereupon the meaning of the rules is finally crystallized in a court of law, and doctors who had been practicing in good faith find that they have at least a 50- 50 chance (like the cat) of learning that they are actually professionally dead.

Worst of all, PCPs have been charged with the duty of covertly rationing their patients’ healthcare at the bedside, and they have been pressed to nullify the classic doctor-patient relationship, by the healthcare bureaucracy that determines their professional viability, by the United States Supreme Court, and by the bankrupt, new-age ethical precepts of their own profession.”

How does our new healthcare law propose to “fix” these problems? DrRich can find two proposed solutions in the Senate bill.

First, the new law promises to address some of the pay discrepancy which punishes doctors for going into primary care specialties. It is unclear to DrRich how much this new pay fix will bring to PCPs. He will merely observe that, until now, the Feds have intentionally rendered primary care medicine such a soul-wrenching, personally and professionally demeaning endeavor that it has pushed most PCPs beyond mere anger, frustration, or resignation. Many of them are desperately looking for any practicable exit strategy. And to DrRich’s thinking, since it is not primarily their relatively low income that has caused all this anguish, a mere boost in income cannot overcome it.

But, of course, that’s for the PCPs themselves to decide.

Second, the new law proposes to fund new training opportunities for PCPs. This also sounds nice. But DrRich wonders what effect these new training programs will have, when the training programs that already exist cannot come close to filling their slots.

DrRich contends that these two stated “fixes” for manufacturing more PCPs cannot possibly provide an actual solution to the PCP shortage, and further, that the authors of the Senate bill cannot possibly believe they will. And so, DrRich decided to look a little deeper.

The answer to the PCP shortage – at least, the answer our political leaders are actually relying upon – is revealed deep in the Senate bill, in Section 5501, where the definition of “Primary Care Practitioner” is actually provided. Note, first of all, that once this bill becomes the law of the land, “PCP” will no longer mean “primary care physician,” but rather, will mean “primary care practitioner.”

And here’s how the new law defines Primary Care Practioners:

The term ‘primary care practitioner’ means an individual who —

(I) is a physician (as described in section 1861(r)(1)) who has a primary specialty designation of family medicine, internal medicine, geriatric medicine, or pediatric medicine; or

(II) is a nurse practitioner, clinical nurse specialist, or physician assistant (as those terms are defined in 9 section 1861(aa)(5))

And so, to his readers who are primary care physicians, DrRich must report that the real “fix” your political leaders have envisioned for the PCP shortage has been to declare you and nurse practitioners to be functionally (and legally) equivalent. This, DrRich submits, is all you need to know.

Having painstakingly reduced you unfortunate practitioners of primary care medicine to tools of the state – whose job is to follow the guidelines and place chits on the checklists which are handed down from on high, and to fill out the electronic forms which are designed not to advance patient care but to convenience the healthcare accountants who will thereby judge your “quality” – it is only natural for the central authority to eventually notice that you really don’t need all that training to do the kind of job they have invented for you. Nurses – who can be “trained up” much more rapidly than you, who will work for much less money than you, and who (they think) will be much less recalcitrant about following handed-down directives than you – will fill the gap. And you, doctor, can go pound salt.

DrRich must hasten to add, by the way, that, regarding the nurse practitioners, he believes the Feds have miscalculated. DrRich knows a lot of nurse practitioners and greatly admires their professionalism. He believes that “PCP” has been so successfully demeaned that many fewer nurse practitioners than our political leaders think will actually jump at the opportunity to become one (especially when you take into account the liability you assume when you become a PCP in a non-tort-reform paradigm like the one our leaders have made for us). Trusting in their common sense, DrRich will leave the nurse practitioners to their own wise counsel.

To his primary care physician friends, who have bravely held on, clinging to the promises made by our political leaders that their noble efforts will not go unrewarded, and to the assurances made by their own professional organizations that all will be well once the system is reformed, DrRich is forced to say: Told you so.

He also reminds you that it is still not illegal to opt out, and urges you to consider that it soon might be.