Categories

Tag: Kim Bellard

About That New Generation of Clinicians

By KIM BELLARD

I saw a report last week – Clinician of the Future 2023 Education Edition, from Elsevier Health – that had some startling findings, and which didn’t seem to garner the kind of coverage I might have expected.  Aside from Elsevier’s press release and an article in The Hill, I didn’t see anything about it.  It’s worth a deeper look.

The key finding is that, although 89% say they are devoted to improving patients’ lives, the majority are planning careers outside patient care.  Most intend to say in healthcare, mind you; they just don’t see themselves staying in direct patient care.

We should be asking ourselves what that tells us.

The report was based on a survey of over 2,000 medical and nursing students, from 91 countries, as well as two roundtable sessions with opinion leaders and faculty in the United States and United Kingdom.  Since I’m in the U.S. and think most about U.S. healthcare, I’ll focus mostly on those respondents, except when they’re not split out or where the U.S. responses are notably different.

Overall, 16% of respondents said they are considering quitting their medical/nursing studies (12% medical, 21% nursing), but the results are much worse in the U.S, especially for medical students – 25% (nursing students are still 21%).  That figure is higher than anywhere else. Globally, a third of those who are considering leaving are planning to leave healthcare overall; it’s closer to 50% in the U.S.

Tate Erlinger, vice president of clinical analytics at Elsevier, noted: “There were several things [that] sort of floated to the top at least that caught my attention. One was sort of the cost, and that’s not limited to the U.S., but the U.S. students are more likely to be worried about the cost of their studies.”  Overall, 68% were worried about the cost of their education, but the figure is 76% among U.S. medical students (and for UK medical students).  

Having debt from their education is a factor, as almost two-thirds of nursing students and just over half of medical students are worried about their future income as clinicians, with U.S. medical students the least worried (47%).

It’s worth noting that 60% are already worried about their mental health, and the future is daunting: 62% see a shortage of doctors within ten years and 64% see a shortage of nurses. Globally, 69% of students (65% medical, 72% nursing) are worried about clinician shortages and the impact it will have on them as clinicians.

Where it gets really interesting is when asked: “I see my current studies as a stepping-stone towards a broader career in healthcare that will not involve directly treating patients.” Fifty-eight percent (58%) agreed (54% medical, 62% nursing). Every region was over 50%. In the U.S., the answer was even higher – 61% overall (63% medical, 60% nursing).

Dr. Sanjay Desai, one of the U.S. roundtable panelists, said: “I know this might evolve as they go through their education, but 6 out of 10 in school, when we hope that they’re most excited about that career, are looking at it with skepticism. That is surprising to me.” 

Me too.

Continue reading…

Rube Goldberg Would Be Proud

By KIM BELLARD

Larry Levitt and Drew Altman have an op-ed in JAMA Network with the can’t-argue-with-that title Complexity in the US Health Care System Is the Enemy of Access and Affordability. It draws on a June 2023 Kaiser Family Foundation survey about consumer experiences with their health insurance. Long stories short: although – surprisingly – over 80% of insured adults rate their health insurance as “good” or “excellent,” most admit they have difficulty both understanding and using it. And the people in fair or poor health, who presumably use health care more, have more problems.

Health insurance is the target in this case, and it is a fair target, but I’d argue that you could pick almost any part of the healthcare system with similar results. Our healthcare system is perfect example of a Rube Goldberg machine, which Merriam Webster defines as “accomplishing by complex means what seemingly could be done simply.”   

Boy howdy.

Health insurance is many people’s favorite villain, one that many would like to do without (especially doctors), but let’s not stop there. Healthcare is full of third parties/intermediaries/middlemen, which have led to the Rube Goldberg structure.

CMS doesn’t pay any Medicare claims itself; it hires third parties – Medicare Administrative Contactors (formerly known as intermediaries and carriers). So do employers who are self-insured (which is the vast majority of private health insurance), hiring third party administrators (who may sometimes also be health insurers) to do network management, claims payment, eligibility and billing, and other tasks.

Even insurers or third party administrators may subcontract to other third parties for things like provider credentialing, utilization review, or care management (in its many forms). Take, for example, the universally reviled PBMs (pharmacy benefit managers), who have carved out a big niche providing services between payors, pharmacies, and drug companies while raising increasing questions about their actual value.

Physician practices have long outsourced billing services. Hospitals and doctors didn’t develop their own electronic medical records; they contracted with companies like Epic or Cerner. Health care entities had trouble sharing data, so along came H.I.E.s – health information exchanges – to help move some of that data (and HIEs are now transitioning to QHINs – Qualified Health Information Networks, due to TEFCA).

And now we’re seeing a veritable Cambrian explosion of digital health companies, each thinking it can take some part of the health care system, put it online, and perhaps make some part of the healthcare experience a little less bad. Or, viewed from another perspective, add even more complexity to the Rube Goldberg machine. 

On a recent THCB Gang podcast, we discussed HIEs. I agreed that HIEs had been developed for a good reason, and had done good work, but in this supposed era of interoperability they should be trying to put themselves out of business. 

HIEs identified a pain point and found a way to make it a little less painful. Not to fix it, just to make it less bad. The healthcare system is replete with intermediaries that have workarounds which allow our healthcare system to lumber along. But once in place, they stay in place. Healthcare doesn’t do sunsetting well.

Unlike a true Rube Goldberg machine, though, there is no real design for our healthcare system. It’s more like evolution, where there are no style points, no efficiency goals, just credit for survival. Sure, sometimes you get a cat through evolution, but other times you get a naked mole rat or a hagfish. Healthcare has a lot more hagfish than cats.

I’m impressed with the creativity of many of these workarounds, but I’m awfully tired of needing them. I’m awfully tired of accepting that complexity is inherent in our healthcare system.

Continue reading…

Y2Q and You

By KIM BELLARD

Chances are, you’ve at least somewhat concerned about your privacy, especially your digital privacy.  Chances are, you’re right to be.  Every day, it seems, there are more reports about data beeches, cyberattacks, and selling or other misuse of confidential/personal data.  We talk about privacy, but we’re failing to adequately protect it. But chances are you’re not worried nearly enough.

Y2Q is coming. 

That is, I must admit, a phrase I had not heard of until recently. If you are of a certain age, you’ll remember Y2K, the fear that the year 2000 would cause computers everywhere to crash.  Business and governments spent countless hours and huge amounts of money to prepare for it. Y2Q is an event that is potentially just as catastrophic as we feared Y2K would be, or worse. It is when quantum computing reaches the point that will render our current encryption measures irrelevant.

The trouble is, unlike Y2K, we don’t know when Y2Q will be.  Some experts fear it could be before the end of this decade; others think more the middle or latter part of the 2030’s.  But it is coming, and when it comes, we better be ready.

Without getting deeply into the encryption weeds – which I’m not capable of doing anyway – most modern encryption relies on factoring unreasonably large numbers – so large that even today’s supercomputers would need to spend hundreds of years trying to factor.  But quantum computers will take a quantum leap in speed, and make factoring such numbers trivial. In an instant, all of our personal data, corporations’ intellectual property, even national defense secrets, would be exposed. 

“Quantum computing will break a foundational element of current information security architectures in a manner that is categorically different from present cybersecurity vulnerabilities,” warned a report by The RAND Corporation last year.

“This is potentially a completely different kind of problem than one we’ve ever faced,” Glenn S. Gerstell, a former general counsel of the National Security Agency, told The New York Times.  “If that encryption is ever broken,” warned mathematician Michele Mosca in Science News, “it would be a systemic catastrophe. The stakes are just astronomically high.”

The World Economic Forum thinks we should be taking the threat very seriously.  In addition to the uncertain deadline, it warns that the solutions are not quite clear, the threats are primarily external instead of internal, the damage might not be immediately visible, and dealing with it will need to be an ongoing efforts, not a one-time fix.

Even worse, cybersecurity experts fear that some bad actors – think nation-states or cybercriminals – are already scooping up troves of encrypted data, simply waiting until they possess the necessary quantum computing to decrypt it.  The horse may be out of the barn before we re-enforce that barn. 

Continue reading…

GoodWill’s Lessons for Health Care

By KIM BELLARD

The New York Times had an interesting profile this weekend about how Goodwill Industries is trying to revamp its online presence – transitioning from its legacy ShopGoodwill.com to a new platform GoodwillFinds — in the amidst of numerous other online resellers.  It zeroed in on the key distinction Goodwill has:

But Goodwill isn’t doing this just because it wants to move into the 21st century. More than 130,000 people work across the organization, while two million people received assistance last year through its programs, which include career navigation and skills training. Those opportunities are funded through the sales of donated items.

Moreover, the article continued: “Last year, Goodwill helped nearly 180,000 people through its job services.” 

In case you weren’t aware, Goodwill has long had a mission of hiring people who otherwise face barriers to employment, such as veterans, those who lack job experience or educational qualifications, or have handicaps.  As it says in its mission statement, it “works to enhance the dignity and quality of life of individuals and families by strengthening communities, eliminating barriers to opportunity, and helping people in need reach their full potential through learning and the power of work.”

As PYMNTS wrote earlier this month: “Every purchase made through GoodwillFinds initiates a chain reaction, providing job training, resume assistance, financial education, and essential services to individuals in need within the community where the item was contributed.” 

I want healthcare to have that kind of commitment to patients.

Healthcare claims to be all about patients. You won’t find many that openly talk about profits or return on equity. Reading mission statements of healthcare organizations yield the kinds of pronouncements one might expect.  A not-entirely random sample:

Cleveland Clinic: “to be the best place for care anywhere and the best place to work in healthcare.”

Continue reading…

There Needs to Be an “AI” in “Med Ed”

By KIM BELLARD

It took some time for the news to percolate to me, but last month the University of Texas San Antonio announced that it was creating the “nation’s first dual program in medicine and AI.” That sure sounds innovative and timely, and there’s no question that medical education, like everything else in our society, is going to have to figure out how to incorporate AI. But, I’m sorry to say, I fear UTSA is going about it in the wrong way.

UTSA has created a five year program that will result in graduates obtaining an M.D. from UT Health San Antonio and a Master of Science in Artificial Intelligence (M.S.A.I.) from UTSA. Students will take a “gap year” between the third and fourth year of medical school to get the M.S.A.I. They will take two semesters in AI coursework, completing a total of 30 credit hours: nine credit hours in core courses including an internship, 15 credit hours in their degree concentration (Data Analytics, Computer Science, or Intelligent & Autonomous Systems) and six credit hours devoted to a capstone project.

“This unique partnership promises to offer groundbreaking innovation that will lead to new therapies and treatments to improve health and quality of life,” said UT System Chancellor James B. Milliken.

“Our goal is to prepare our students for the next generation of health care advances by providing comprehensive training in applied artificial intelligence,” said Ronald Rodriguez, M.D., Ph.D., director of the M.D./M.S. in AI program and professor of medical education at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. “Through a combined curriculum of medicine and AI, our graduates will be armed with innovative training as they become future leaders in research, education, academia, industry and health care administration. They will be shaping the future of health care for all.”

Dhireesha Kudithipudi, a professor in electrical and computer engineering who was tasked with helping develop the university’s AI curriculum, told Preston Fore of Fortune:

In lots of scenarios, you might see AI capabilities are being very exaggerated—that it might replace physicians and so forth. But I think our line of inquiry was guided in a different way, in a sense how we can promote this AI physician interaction-AI patient interaction, bringing humans to the center of the loop, and how AI can enhance care or emphasize more patient centric attention.

OK, fabulous.  But, you know, computers have been integral to healthcare for decades, especially the past 15 years (due to EMRs), and we don’t expect doctors to get Masters in Computer Science. We’re just happy when they can figure out how to navigate the interfaces. 

To be honest, I was expecting more from UT.

Continue reading…

THCB Gang Episode 129, Thursday July 6

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) on #THCBGang on Thursday July 6 at 1pm PST 4pm EST were futurist Ian Morrison (@seccurve); writer Kim Bellard (@kimbbellard); health economist Jane Sarasohn-Kahn (@healthythinker); & patient advocate Robin Farmanfarmaian (@Robinff3);

Two special guests joined us today, Bob Rebitzer, these days at Manatt Health & brother Jim Rebitzer Professor at Boston University’s Questrom School of Business. We discussed their new book “Why Not Better & Cheaper“

The video is below. If you’d rather listen to the episode, the audio is preserved from Friday as a weekly podcast available on our iTunes & Spotify channels

Not The Last of Them

By KIM BELLARD

I’m seeing two conflicting yet connected visions about the future. One is when journalist David Wallace-Wells says we might be in for “golden age for medicine,” with CRISPR and mRNA revolutionizing drug development. The second is the dystopian HBO hit “The Last of Us,” in which a fungal infection has turned much of the world’s population into zombie-like creatures.

The conflict is clear but the connection not so much. Mr. Wallace-Wells never mentions fungi in his article, but if we’re going to have a golden age of medicine, or if we want to avoid a global fungal outbreak, we better be paying more attention to mycology – that is, the study of fungi.

We don’t need “The Last of Us” to be worried about fungal outbreaks.  The Wall Street Journal reports:

Severe fungal disease used to be a freak occurrence. Now it is a threat to millions of vulnerable Americans, and treatments have been losing efficacy as fungal pathogens develop resistance to standard drugs. 

“It’s going to get worse,” Dr. Tom Chiller, head of the fungal-disease branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, warns WSJ.

A new study found that a common yet extremely drug resistant type of fungus — Aspergillus fumigatus – has been found even in a very remote, sparsely populated part of China.  Professor Jianping Xu, one of the authors, points out: “This fungus is highly ubiquitous — it’s around us all the time. We all inhale hundreds of spores of this species every day.”

We shouldn’t be surprised, because fungi tend to spread by spores  In fact, according to Merlin Sheldrake’s fascinating Entangled Life: How Fungi Make Our Worlds, Change Our Minds, and Shape Our Futures, fungi spores are the largest source of living particles in the air. They’re also in the ground, in the water, and in us. They’re everywhere.

That sounds scary, but without fungi, we not only wouldn’t be alive, we never would have evolved.

Continue reading…

Would You Picket Over AI?

By KIM BELLARD

I’m paying close attention to strike by the Writers Guild Of America (WGA), which represents “Hollywood” writers.  Oh, sure, I’m worried about the impact on my viewing habits, and I know the strike is really, as usual, about money, but what got my attention is that it’s the first strike I’m aware of where impact of AI on their jobs is one of the key issues.

It may or may not be the first time, but it’s certainly not going to be the last.

The WGA included this in their demands: “Regulate use of artificial intelligence on MBA-covered projects: AI can’t write or rewrite literary material; can’t be used as source material; and MBA-covered material can’t be used to train AI.” I.e., if something – a script, treatment, outline, or even story idea – warrants a writing credit, it must come from a writer.  A human writer, that is.

John August, a screenwriter who is on the WGA negotiating committee, explained to The New York Times: “A terrible case of like, ‘Oh, I read through your scripts, I didn’t like the scene, so I had ChatGPT rewrite the scene’ — that’s the nightmare scenario,”

The studios, as represented by the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP), agree there is an issue: “AI raises hard, important creative and legal questions for everyone.” It wants both sides to continue to study the issue, but noted that under current agreement only a human could be considered a writer. 

Still, though, we’ve all seen examples of AI generating remarkably plausible content.  “If you have a connection to the internet, you have consumed AI-generated content,” Jonathan Greenglass, a tech investor, told The Washington Post. “It’s already here.”  It’s easy to imagine some producer feeding an AI a bunch of scripts from prior instalments to come up with the next Star Wars, Marvel universe, or Fast and Furious release.  Would you really know the difference? 

Sure, maybe AI won’t produce a Citizen Kane or The Godfather, but, as Alissa Wilkinson wrote in Vox: “But here is the thing: Cheap imitations of good things are what power the entertainment industry. Audiences have shown themselves more than happy to gobble up the same dreck over and over.” 

Continue reading…

A Life Well Lived, Fights Well Fought

By KIM BELLARD

I first became aware of Casey Quinlan in 2017, when she published an article in Tincture, which I was helping to edit.  In it, she discussed how she’d had her medical history and advance directive tattooed on her chest, out of frustration with the lack of health information exchange in healthcare.  As she said, “ALL. THOSE. FUCKING. FORMS. ON. CLIPBOARDS.”

Well, I thought: she sounds like an interesting person. 

I started following her on Twitter, enjoying her outspokenness and agreeing with many of her points of view.  Then early in the pandemic Matthew Holt started THCB Gang podcast, and I got to participate in many of them with her as a co-panelist. It was sometimes hard to get a word in edgewise, but when she was on we always knew it was going to be an extra-lively session.  And the stories she could tell…

I never met Casey IRL.  I never worked with her. I never even had a one-on-one conversation with her, unless you count Twitter replies.  There are large parts of her life that I don’t know anything about.  But, boy, the force of her personality, the strength of her will, the sharpness of her intellect, and the fearlessness of her spirit were always clear. 

She fought her cancer as fiercely as she lived her life generally.  We knew the end was inevitable, but it nonetheless was hard to imagine.  There have been outpourings of support on Twitter, on CaringBridge, and elsewhere. I have to mention in particular the efforts of Jan Oldenburg, who was there with her near the end and also took on the various bureaucracies on Casey’s behalf when Casey was no longer able to. 

Casey’s passing is a loss to her friends, her followers, and the patient community at large.  And to those of us who got to know her even a little bit.