Author Archives

lauramontini

Drawing a Hard Line on Resident Work Hours

Nov 26, 2011• 6

By Sammy Almashat, MD, MPH and Sidney Wolfe, MD

Last year, Public Citizen and other groups filed a petition – the second in 10 years – calling on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to take over responsibility for enforcing medical resident work hours from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). This past September, the Obama administration denied our groups’ petition on the grounds that the ACGME is the appropriate entity to handle the issue, an identical argument to one put forward by the Bush administration nine years earlier to justify the denial of our first petition.

Both petitions were filed as a result of the long-standing failure of the ACGME to adequately protect residents from the proven deleterious effects of long work hours. Six years after the ACGME implemented the first limits on resident work hours in 2003, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded an exhaustive 12-month review examining the existing system of medical training and the evidence regarding fatigue, resident physicians, and patient safety. The IOM concluded that the 2003 ACGME rules were not adequately protective and that major changes were needed, including a limit of 16 hours in a row for all resident work shifts.

In response, the ACGME updated its guidelines in 2010, but unfortunately, the new rules failed to incorporate the majority of the IOM’s recommendations. The rules limited medical interns ― first-year residents ― to 16-hour shifts but inexplicably allowed all other residents to continue to work up to 28 hours straight. There is no biological rationale to support the notion that residents suddenly become able to withstand the adverse effects of extended shifts upon completing their first year of residency. In addition, the new rules, in permitting averaging over several weeks to achieve the 80-hour weekly limit, continued the practice of allowing residents to work 100 or more hours in certain weeks.

Are Doctors Becoming Obsolete?

Nov 26, 2011• 9

By David Shaywitz, MD, PhD

The idea that physicians are going to be far less important in the medicine of the future seems to be a central assumption of many next-generation health companies, an assertion that, like undergraduate Shakespeare productions set in the present day, may once have felt daring and original, but now seems merely tedious.

The logic goes something like is: Patients are accustomed to seeking insight from their doctors but doctors are far less good at providing this advice than most patients realize. As more consumer-based tools for managing health become available, patients will recognize that they now have the means and the motivation to take care of their health better than their physicians, and medical care will move directly into their hands.

Arguably, a form of this already happens today, as patients make extensive use of non-prescription products (e.g. the Vitamin Shoppe reported net sales of $750 million in fiscal year 2010), non-traditional practitioners (e.g. total revenue received by chiropractors is estimated by Hoovers to be about $10 billion), and seek medical advice from friends on Facebook (which may have directly saved at least one life).

What these data don’t convey, however, is something I’ve had the privilege to experience first-hand: Doctors enjoy an exceptionally durable bond with patients — especially those patients with chronic illnesses. The level of trust reported by patients for their physicians is remarkable, and the role of physician as trusted adviser is difficult to overstate. It’s a huge burden to manage disease on one’s own, and it’s generally reassuring to know your physician is with you at every step — something I believe still happens, by the way, although obviously not in every case.

More BYOD Worries

Nov 25, 2011• 1

By John Halamka, MD

I’ve written about the increasing trend to Bring Your Own Devices (BYOD) to work and the accountability it brings to the CIO.

Every day I receive articles highlighting the increasing risk of mobile devices on the network:

The explosion of Android malware

The hacking of Siri

The vulnerabilities of the iPad

It’s very clear that in 2012 and beyond we will have to move beyond policy-based controls and we’ll have to implement technology based controls that may cost up to $10 per device per month. Given our 1000+ mobile devices, that could be a $150,000/year increased operating expense to protect consumer devices brought from home.

In many ways, 2012 at BIDMC will be the year of increased compliance and we’ve just named an interim Senior VP of Compliance to build an enterprise-wide compliance team.

CIOs – it’s time to tell your CFO to expect an unplanned 6 figure expense to protect your institutional data while at the same time embracing the mobile devices that will enhance productivity and user satisfaction.

Massachusetts and Hawaii Offer the Most Cost-Effective Health Insurance Coverage

Nov 23, 2011• 28

By Al Lewis

What makes a state’s health insurance successful for its citizens? It should be affordable, it should cover a lot of people, and it should manage its members well, keeping people healthy as measured both by preventive care as well as actual health outcomes.

It turns out that, using those criteria, the state with the highest Health Insurance Success Score (HISS) is Massachusetts. One would expect high quality, good outcomes and of course close to 100% coverage in the Bay State, but it also — quite surprisingly — ranks 5^th in affordability, as described below.

Hawaii is a very close second. (One could also argue that Hawaii’s circumstances are unique and non-comparable because that state differentially attracts and retains healthy residents, but the analysis eschewed all subjectivity and second-guessing of the data.) Texas is last, one point behind Arkansas. In both the best and worst listings, there is a noticeable gap between the two states at the extremes and their respective runner-up pelotons.

FTC Commissioner: Accountable Care Organizations Will Likely Lead to ‘Higher Costs and Lower Quality Health Care’

Nov 23, 2011• 6

By Avik Roy

In August, I wrote about how hospital monopolies are the biggest driver of health costs that nobody talks about. These powerful hospital chains know that insurers have no choice but to accept their jacked-up rates, and the cost of health insurance goes up whenever it suits their needs. Now, according to remarks by Federal Trade Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch, it turns out that accountable care organizations—one of Obamacare’s most touted policy gizmos—could make this problem far worse. “The net result” of ACOs, says Rosch, “may therefore be higher costs and lower quality health care—precisely the opposite of its goal.”

Rosch spoke last Thursday before the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Fall Forum, where he lambasted the “unintended consequences” of Obamacare’s headlong rush into the buzzword-filled land of accountable care organizations. ACOs, you will recall, are meant to improve the degree to which various physicians treating the same patient cooperate with one another. In theory, this would lead to better, more integrated care and reduced waste. In reality, ACOs will also stimulate mergers between hospitals and physician groups, worsening the problem of provider consolidation.

ACO’s purported savings shift costs to private insurers

The Congressional Budget Office, much to the dismay of Obamacare’s advocates, didn’t put much stock in ACOs, projecting that the law’s new Medicare ACO initiative would save $5.3 billion over ten years: eight-hundredths of one percent of Medicare’s projected spending over that period. “In other words,” Rosch points out, “the savings to Medicare from the ACO program are no more than a rounding error. Yet even the CBO’s modest cost savings projections are likely overstated.”

My Minute with Andy Rooney

Nov 22, 2011• 5

By Michael L. Millenson

Pat Mastors, a patient safety advocate, has written a clever blog post called, “A Few More Minutes with Andy Rooney.” Channeling the curmudgeonly tones of a 60 Minutes commentary, it begins:

I died last week, just a month after I said goodbye to you all from this very desk. I had a long and happy life – well, as happy as a cranky old guy could ever be. 92. Not bad. And gotta say, seeing my Margie, and Walter, and all my old friends again is great.

But then I read what killed me: “serious complications following minor surgery.”

Now what the heck is that?

The blog goes on to have Rooney ask for someone to find out what actually killed him. This has offended some respondents who, blinded by their own biases, think a writer using a celebrity’s death to push for information that could be used to improve care is the same thing as accusing his physicians of negligence or hauling Rooney’s family into court to publicly disclose private details.

Don’t you hate people like that?

OK, that was a cheap Andy Rooney imitation. But as it happens, I did have a phone conversation with Rooney about patient safety. It came right after the Institute of Medicine released its landmark report, To Err is Human, in November, 1999. The appalling toll of medical errors wasn’t exactly a secret back then, but doctors and hospitals had gotten used to publicly tut-tutting about the “price we pay” for medical progress every time a new study came out and then going back to doing exactly what they’d been doing before.

The Super Committee Failure—What’s Next?

Nov 22, 2011• 16

By ROBERT LASZEWSKI

The stock market today was shocked, simply shocked, that the Super Committee didn’t come up with a debt deal.

I don’t know why. Republicans can’t vote for more taxes unless they’re willing to get “primaried” from the right and risk losing their seat. Ditto for Democrats who would face the same punishment from their base if they voted to change the sacred defined benefit entitlements without at least getting tax concessions from the Republicans.

Obviously, neither side has a lot of statesmen in their ranks who would actually be willing to compromise.

A Few More Minutes with Andy Rooney

Nov 21, 2011• 38

By Pat Mastors

“I died last week, just a month after I said goodbye to you all from this very desk. I had a long and happy life – well, as happy as a cranky old guy could ever be. 92. Not bad. And gotta say, seeing my Margie, and Walter, and all my old friends again is great.

But then I read what killed me: ‘serious complications following minor surgery.’

Now what the heck is that?

Nobody gets run over by a ‘serious complication.’ You don’t hear about a guy getting shot in the chest with a ‘serious complication.’ Sure, I didn’t expect to live forever (well, maybe only a little bit), but I was sorta going for passing out some Saturday night into my strip steak at that great restaurant on Broadway. Maybe nodding off in my favorite chair, dreaming of reeling in a 40-pound striper. You know, not waking up. This whole ‘death by complication’ thing is just so, I don’t know … vague and annoying.

Here’s something else that bothers me. This note I got a few days ago from a lady who says she’s a fan. She talked to a reporter at a national newspaper the other day. Asked the reporter, basically, what kind of complication ‘’did me in’? The reporter said ‘No idea what killed him. Unless someone dies unusually young, we don’t deal with the cause of death.’

Now I know reporters have lots to do. I was one myself before they started paying me to just say what I think. But I guess what this reporter means is, if I was 29 instead of 92, they mighta thought it was worth asking why I went in for minor surgery and died of ‘serious complications.’

Florida Sanctions Top Medicaid Prescribers, After a Shove

Nov 18, 2011• 10

By Tracy Weber and Charles Ornstein

At Dr. Huberto Merayo’s bustling psychiatry practice in Coral Gables, Fla., hundreds of poor patients on Medicaid walked away each year with prescriptions for powerful antipsychotic drugs.

Merayo’s prescriptions for the drugs totaled nearly $2 million in 2009 alone, state records show.

The 59-year-old psychiatrist is also in demand by the makers of these drugs. He’s earned more than $111,000 since 2009 delivering promotional talks for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly & Co. and Pfizer, according to ProPublica’s database of drug-company payments to doctors.

This year, Florida regulators finally challenged Merayo’s enthusiasm for the pricey drugs, which are used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. A state review found he hadn’t documented why patients were prescribed the pills and had given them to patients with heart ailments or diabetes despite label warnings.

In May, Florida summarily ended his contract with Medicaid. But the action, though decisive, followed years of high prescribing by Merayo, according Florida’s own statistics. And he was booted only after public questioning by U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who had asked states to investigate such cases.

Merayo’s situation is one of at least three in which Florida allowed physicians to keep treating and prescribing drugs to the poor amid clear signs of possible misconduct.

The state’s responses were marked by head-scratching errors, including the misspelling of Merayo’s name on official documents, and lengthy delays.

In another example, Florida allowed Dr. Joseph M. Hernandez of Lake City to continue prescribing narcotic pain pills to Medicaid patients for more than a year after he was arrested and charged in 2010 for trafficking in them.