OP-ED

Engaging Responsibly In the Health Care Debate

flying cadeuciiWith no apology offered, I will be venturing into a very subjective realm, namely, a characterization of today’s healthcare dialogue and what, in my opinion, might be an improvement.

I would suggest we have fallen into the trap that was partly enhanced by email and blogs, namely, that we can say outrageous things impolitely and without consequence.  With email we tend to be much blunter and impolite than we would be face to face.  On blogs, we can be positively toxic.  It’s like driving in a car with a tinted windshield that no one can see through.  You are anonymous and therefore can act less responsibly.

Another vignette.  I grew up in a very small upstate New York town where everyone knew everyone else.  You used your car horn to beep “hi” or to warn, and not in anger, ever.  When you waved at someone, it was with all five fingers.  And so on.  I think you get my point.

The healthcare debate always has stoked emotions like almost no other.  It is intensely personal, and the stakes are high.  We’re all involved and engaged.

As I’ve written in the past, I first earned my stripes as a lawyer representing my local Blue Cross plan in rate hearings.  These rate hearings always started with “public comment.”  The comment ranged from pure outrage to controlled anger to discontent coupled with suggestions.  What did we pay the most attention to?  Of course, the latter.

In healthcare, this really got rolling in 1993-94, when the Clinton Administration tried to reform healthcare.  Derek Bok has an informative description in Chapter 9 of of a larger work entitled “Public Discourse in America” (Rodin & Steinberg, 2003), where he states that “Interest groups spent large sums communicating with the public, but most of their efforts seemed designed less to inform than to arouse latent fears and anxieties and to reinforce existing views.” One of the points of the larger treatise was to point to sports, where outrageous, disrespectful behavior seemed to be accepted and rewarded.  Actually, as a survivor of the 60’s, I can recall how some of my contemporaries learned that outrageous protest got the most traction.  I think it’s called, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.”

Before 2010, it was bad enough, but then came Obamacare.  The debate, usually divided by party lines, covered no one in glory.  Each side engaged in dreadful misrepresentations.  This escalated into what I call “cartoonization.”  My English teacher would hang me for that one (verbalizing a noun so to speak).  Our President recast the issue from health care reform to health insurance reform.  That unfortunate switch also switched the focus from the delivery of healthcare to its financing.  While financing is important of course, it’s the cost of what we’re financing that has gotten us to where we are today.

So, we had insurers portrayed as the systemic evil.  And from the other side of the aisle, such healthcare experts as Sarah Palin suggested that reasonable end of life initiatives such as living wills were “death panels.”

The idea, not dissimilar to the purpose of a good blog, is to advance intelligent debate on important issues.  That means an exchange of ideas.  Not just one voice howling at the moon.  Usually, with an exchange of ideas comes better perspective.  IF one is listening.  What seems to have happened is that a lot of people are writing vociferously, but not really considering the offered criticisms or alternative views.  THAT is unfortunate, because when that happens, no views are enhanced.

There is a fine article on line by Henry Doss titled “Healthcare Debate in US:  Can We Talk?”  He states:

“The national dialogue is about payment systems, and it should be about cost.  The national dialogue is about expense, when it should be about consumption.  And the national dialogue is about who merits what when it should be about dignity and human autonomy.”

He suggests that our national dialogue is grounded in the absence of trust, and that some degree of trust is needed to move us to the next level.  I applaud and agree with that.  Trust that the critic is coming from a good faith basis for disagreement and that he merits an informed response.  Or as we say in the mediation business, the rules of courtesy and respect will be enforced.  So…

Step One:  Perhaps to start here on this Blog.  It is appropriate to be critical of or even eviscerate a particular aspect of our current healthcare “system.”  But it is irresponsible to do so without also offering partial or complete solutions.  If you are smart enough to eviscerate something as complex as an aspect of healthcare, you also are smart enough to consider, evaluate, and propose solutions or paths to solution.  If you were my Vice President in charge of [fill in the blank] and came to me with a problem or a complaint, I would not hear you out unless you also offered its solution.  A not uncommon business practice.

If you were to do an informal sampling of blogs on healthcare, the angriest often are from physicians.  Understandable given what has been done to the profession over the past 40 years.  BUT…we all  know that physicians usually are the smartest men and women in the room.  They owe us and themselves more than bare criticism.  It IS their system.

Step Two:  People, whether elected officials, providers, insurers, consumers, or bloggers, should take strong positions on healthcare issues.  Commendable.  But there is a developing trend that when such people are criticized, they become immediately defensive and the quality of their responses (if any) suffers.  I have been guilty of just that.  But we have to move beyond that.  Our responsibilities to the “system” demand that we do.  We must take criticism as a huge opportunity to test out the validity of our position.  Welcome it.  It is your opportunity to take your theory out for a ride, albeit on a bumpy road.  Does it work?  Does it need fine tuning?  Maybe it’s good to find out whether you can (with facts and respectful dialogue) successfully respond to the criticism.  Assuming the good faith of the critic for the moment, others may well harbor the same criticism.  Thus you have to deal with it.  Either the critic was wrong, partially right, or right.  Without respectful and thorough dialogue and exchange, you’ll never really know.

This issue is causing buzz.  Huffington Post has an article titled “How to Have a Rational Debate About Healthcare Reform.”  Its suggestion:

It’s easy to demonize those who disagree. We have to stop – right now. People who disagree with me or with you don’t hate America. Nor do they hate the poor. They don’t hate insurance companies, they don’t hate sick people, and they don’t hate capitalism. It’s a myth that only one solution is available or that we can’t disagree about what to do. We should debate this; we should argue with each other passionately. That’s what Americans do.

There was a great 1980 song by Pat Benatar called “Hit Me With Your Best  Shot.”  Appropriately released on her album titled “Crimes of Passion.”  It might be our new anthem in the healthcare dialogue. A welcoming of your best shot (delivered respectfully with positive suggestions to correct) such that I may be better informed.  That I may be saved from a mistake.  That I may write a better article or make a better proposal next time.

I earnestly hope this didn’t sound overly preachy.  But too often I don’t see the constructive back and forth amongst clearly qualified commentators with the goal of reaching a better position.  Perhaps not complete agreement, but a clearer view.

 

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

18
Leave a Reply

10 Comment threads
8 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
13 Comment authors
Keith McCallinAllanTom EmerickHootsbudyanishkoka Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Keith McCallin
Member
Keith McCallin

Oh, for crying out loud.

This article started becoming difficult to read somewhere mid title.

I am sorry but, in the context of the train wreck called the American health care system, this article is just irresponsible for being irresponsive.

Could we all take a trip on over to truecostofhealthcare.net where we will be met by Dr. Belk who will say:

“Hello everyone.  Once again, it’s time for another case study on how our health care industry is robbing us blind.”

Kudos to Dr. Belk. And to Dr. George Dawson, psychiatrist, for his comment below.

Allan
Member
Allan

Anish writes: “Hopefully, my smarter, more experienced colleagues who are actually doing direct primary care can help me out.” Barry has artfully changed the subject from what needs to be done to blaming the physician for the problems we face. [“I think the doctors should take the lead on that.”] He believes that because the physician is the one that leads to hospital admission and testing that the physician should disavow his responsibilities to the patient and work for the government to cut costs (…and to the h-ll with the patient). That of course, is ridiculous. Take note that none… Read more »

Tom Emerick
Member
Tom Emerick

James I am enjoying your articles. In 1975, there were about 2000 companies selling true health insurance in the US…ex supplement policies like AFLACs portfolio. I know huge numbers have gone out of the business: NY Life, Mass Mutual, Metropolitan, Prudential, Mutual of Omaha, etc etc etc. They all exited the business because they couldn’t charge enough premium to cover their claims costs. Do you have any idea how many companies including HMOs are selling true “under age 65” health insurance?

If you care to answer directly my email is temerick479@gmail.com

Thanks,

Tom Emerick

Hootsbudy
Member

I want to say this as politely as possible. This statement is misleading: “Our President recast the issue from health care reform to health insurance reform.” That “recasting” occurred during and as part of the legislative crafting process. It happened when the public option was shouted down. And the opposition did not come from the president. It came from the insurance industry. The individual mandate was not enough. As my mother used to say, they wanted the whole hog and wouldn’t settle for the hams. A public option would have furnished an escape for those unable to afford private insurance.… Read more »

Barry Carol
Member
Barry Carol

@RogueRad – While I think I hear you, let’s look at the argument in the context of the ACA. Most people who lacked health insurance before the ACA was passed either couldn’t afford the premium even if they were healthy or were unhealthy and already sick and couldn’t pass medical underwriting. Now, thanks to the ACA, we have 20 million people who either have Medicaid after expansion of that program or have an ACA exchange plan with help from large subsidies to pay the premium. At the same time, we have quite a few healthy folks who can no longer… Read more »

anishkoka
Member

For the sake of argument, let us say the ACA costs 1.9 trillion dollars. Let us say it is unfunded. Let us also say that it mandates value based payment and alternative payment models that don’t actually improve outcomes or reduce cost , but do threaten the independent practitioner. Let us also say that the the single reason health care cost increased in 2015 relative to the prior 4 years was due to expanded enrollment in Obamacare. All of those statements are unfortunately true. I voted for the ACA under the premise it would expand coverage and reduce healthcare spending… Read more »

Barry Carol
Member
Barry Carol

Anish – I would be open to any number of changes in or replacements for the ACA as long as, at the end of the day, they work for the unhealthy, the already sick and low income people who need subsidies to afford the premium. Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen so far, republicans are all about ACA repeal but their replacement ideas, to the extent they have any, don’t come close to meeting the criteria I suggested they need to meet. I don’t know enough about the direct primary care model to comment on it in any depth but as… Read more »

Barry Carol
Member
Barry Carol

Three relatively simple ideas to improve the ACA are (1) significantly tighten the rules around the special enrollment periods to cut down on gaming the system to get needed care and then drop the insurance, (2) make the income verification process much more robust, and (3) eliminate the income ceiling on eligibility for a subsidy so nobody has to spend more than 9.5% or maybe 10% of modified adjusted gross income for health insurance. The age rating bands could also be increased from 3 to 1 up to 6 to 1 which would more accurately reflect actuarial risk. Younger people… Read more »

anishkoka
Member

All excellent questions/comments. I would never deign to form health policy by myself – so I don’t have good answers for you. Hopefully, my smarter, more experienced colleagues who are actually doing direct primary care can help me out. Here’s a link – https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/04/19/primarycare/KWhFenipdotfHFN0ZZZhrN/story.html. Certainly I don’t think there’s a one size fits all solution – and I didn’t mean to suggest direct primary care would solve every problem with the current health care system. I will say that the ACA was sold as a health care expansion that would cover folks, and curb costs. It would be paid for… Read more »

@RogueRad
Member

Lack of civility is just part of the problem. Yes, it is true that people seem not to have the ability to tackle the ball, not the man. The other problem is that people take attacks on their ideas very personally. You attack their premise, in return they’ll call you an idiot for attacking their premise. The whole healthcare debate strikes me as hypersensitive and self righteous. For example: “How can you question the number of deaths caused by medical errors? Don’t you care about patients?” See the response to Anish Koka’s post “Very Bad Numbers” or the responses to… Read more »

jamesepurcell
Member

Hmmmm…I’m trying to follow you but failing. If you have the information/knowledge to eviscerate something, you surely have the information/knowledge to then move on to constructive alternatives. I agree that bad ideas deserve resection, but then what? So, I respectfully disagree.

@RogueRad
Member

With all due respect Mr. Purcell I don’t think you have given the corollary of your premise sufficient thought. Think about it a bit more. You don’t need an alternative to eviscerate an idea. A bad idea can be a bad idea for its own sake. Otherwise change is always good for its own sake and status quo is always bad for its own sake. Imagine someone proposes a vaccine for malaria. There’s only one problem with the vaccine, they say. It doesn’t work. In defense the manufacturers say “I know this vaccine doesn’t work, but what’s your alternative?” Would… Read more »

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA
Member

I think that you are starting out from a false premise. There really is no debate – the government and big business have won. Physicians have been outmaneuvered at every step of the way. It has reached such absurd proportions that our own professional organizations – the same entities that we pay rather steep dues to – echo all of the big business and big government platitudes and no longer represent front line physicians doing all of the work. The problem has always been that the people who “manage” health care and make all of the decisions know very little… Read more »

LeoHolmMD
Member
LeoHolmMD

The MOC “debate” provides the perfect example of why things have become “uncivil”. A request for reconsideration of onerous, expensive and arguably irrelevant certification requirements was met with extreme arrogance and dismissal. The “debate” got more heated with more traction. This was met with even more arrogance. Now you have physicians who want to basically eliminate the ABMS with extreme prejudice. That type of resentment has to be cultivated. Vitriol and embarrassment are some of the only things you can use when dealing with concentrated unaccountable power in the absence of real engagement. The ABIM had to fold because they… Read more »

Keith McCallin
Member
Keith McCallin

THANK YOU GEORGE!

Finally, the enemy in this room gets recognized.

Paul @ Pivot ConsultingLLC
Member

I’m not a physician, (although I once was a licensed clinical psychologist provider…now an organization psychology consultant)…..but in my view the entire profession of Medicine is (and has been for a long while) being massively transformed….perhaps even assaulted….in a way that deserves….maybe even requires…..passionate push back. If someone forcibly breaks down your door and enters your home civility is not the appropriate response.

William Palmer MD
Member
William Palmer MD

Great, calming attitude Jim. Thank you. If we step way back, what we are trying to do in this health care sector is to allocate both science and art to a yearning public. They cannot wait and they deserve service for all the cash they have thrown our way. We shouldn’t even try to regulate the art part of this as it then vanishes. Eg some of the outcome indices in health care are art. We have to ignore these, other than to try gently to get prices down. Gently I said. The scientists are going to have the upper… Read more »