Categories

Tag: Policy

POLICY/QUALITY: Reclaiming the right to die; book review by Mitchell Berger

Mitchell Berger volunteered to write a review of  William Colby’s, Unplugged: Reclaiming Our Right To Die in America (2006, American Management Association, 272 pp., $24.95 hardcover), and an excellent review it is too:

High-profile legal cases such as those involving Karen Ann Quinlan, Nancy Cruzan and Terri Schiavo and their families coupled with improvements in medical technology have forced growing numbers of patients and their family members, health care providers, judges, lawyers and legislators to confront difficult end-of-life dilemmas. Because of his own background as an attorney for the Cruzan family for four years, supporter of the hospice movement and contributor to the 1990 Patient Self-Determination Act, which requires hospitals to inform patients in writing about health care advance directives such as living wills, attorney William Colby, author of Unplugged: Reclaiming Our Right to Die in America, brings unique insights to his discussion of these cases, evolving medical technology and the overarching issue of end-of-life care in America.

Colby’s book includes an extensive discussion of the Quinlan, Cruzan and Schiavo cases. He describes how relatively recent advances in scientific knowledge, such as an improved understanding of brain function, brain death and vegetative states and advances such as cardiac defibrillators, artificial respirators, feeding tubes, percutaneous endocscopic gastronomy (PEG) tubes (a method of providing nourishment to patients using a tube inserted through an endoscopic procedure which is simpler than standard feeding tube insertion), have led to new challenges as society struggles to reconcile the benefits of these technologies with respect for the individual’s quality of life and right to live and die in a manner reflecting their beliefs. Colby devotes an entire chapter of his book to explaining the ethical and medical issues associated with feeding tubes and PEG; he explains how PEG tubes, originally intended for pediatric patients, are now used routinely in cognitively impaired elderly persons who can no longer eat on their own.

While many people would want every reasonable measure taken to prolong and maintain their life regardless of their condition, many others would not want to live in a state where they are no longer able to respond to their loved ones and the world around them. When Nancy Cruzan, then a 25-year old Missouri woman, was left in a persistent vegetative state following a car wreck in 1983, her father authorized insertion of a feeding tube. Colby explains that in a persistent vegetative state a patient may be awake and even smile or move their eyes, however these movements are completely involuntary and in fact the patient has “no thinking, no feeling, no consciousness” (p. 10). When it became clear as first months and then years went by that Nancy Cruzan would never recover from her condition, Cruzan’s family tried to act on their shared “belief that  [she] would want the feeding tube removed” (p. 89). After many years of legal proceedings both in Missouri and at the federal level, including a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1990, the family eventually was granted the right to remove the feeding tube based on evidence of what Nancy Cruzan herself would have wanted. Extensive publicity surrounded this case – indeed the Cruzan family allowed PBS’ Frontline to document their experiences — and Colby describes how the Cruzan family’s experience altered public opinion about end-of-life care both in Missouri and elsewhere and encouraged Missouri Senator John Danforth and others to sponsor the Patient Self-Determination Act.

In perhaps the most interesting portion of his book (Chapters 1-3), Colby provides an informative and balanced discussion of the most recent and perhaps controversial end-of-life care case involving Terri Schiavo. Unlike Nancy Cruzan’s family, Schiavo’s relatives were bitterly divided about what she would have wanted and what was best for her. Colby discusses his own approach to death and dying issues and even includes his own health care power of attorney as an example for others (Chapter 10; Appendix). However, he also notes the limitations of laws and legal documents. For instance, Colby describes the “institutional glide path” which dictates that many hospital patients will receive “aggressive,” often unwanted end-of-life medical care; the “glide path” reflects the tendency of health care providers and institutions to treat patients in customary, technology-intensive ways due to such factors as medical education, institutional culture and fear of litigation.

To help ensure that the end-of-life care we receive reflects our values and desires, Colby emphasizes the importance of talking at length with family members, friends and health care providers about how we would want to be cared for if our capacity to make our own decisions should ever be impaired by illness or injury. This dialogue will help ensure that our family members and health providers are not forced to confront complex dilemmas in tense and emotional circumstances with their loved one’s wishes unclear.

Colby is a strong supporter of hospice as one option for end-of-life care. Indeed, he serves as a Senior Fellow of the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization in Washington, D.C., and the foreword to his book is contributed by that organization’s chief executive officer. He explains the rise of hospice care, which he characterizes as a “hidden jewel,” and notes that growing numbers of patients are opting for hospice (750000 of 2.5 million Americans who died in 2005). Hospice emphasizes communication between patients, families and health care providers, symptom relief and palliative care (Chapter 15).

Though he clearly has strong opinions, Colby’s book is fair and even-handed in his treatment of the major legal and ethical issues and he includes chapters devoted to concerns about expanded recognition of the “right to die” expressed by religious organizations and persons with disabilities. The book is well-researched and well-documented, with numerous end notes, citations to outside sources, suggestions for further reading and contact information for such relevant organizations as the National Family Caregivers Association and National Institute on Aging. Overall, Colby’s book provides readers with excellent background about the key legal and scientific issues, good ideas for how to approach end-of-life care and strong motivation for initiating these sometimes awkward but critically important conversations with family members and health care providers.

POLICY: An Outcomes Primer by Eric Novack

THCB welcomes back regular contributor Dr. Eric Novack, who has something to say about outcomes as well as some recent snide comments made about orthopedic surgeons by a certain other poster on the site. In addition to blogging for THCB in his (oh so rare) free time, Eric is also the host of The Eric Novack show, which airs every Sunday on KKNT 960 AM in Phoenix. You can find an archive of his recent shows here.   

An Outcomes Primer

By ERIC NOVACK M.D.

Many in medicine view those of us in orthopedics as the ‘dumb bone doctors’Sd2 (or, according to the IV, much worse than that). Much of this stems from the basic idea that fracture care, or broken bone treatment, seems very straight-forward. Oh, but wait…

So here is a brief sense of how difficult it can be to evaluate outcomes even in the ‘simple’ area of a broken wrist. And, how it can be absurd to make the surgeon completely responsible?

The first question we need to ask is, “what outcome are we measuring”? Are
we going to look at (a) has the bone healed? (b) how ‘good’ does the
xray look- i.e. how close to ‘perfect’ are the bones lined up? (c) how
is the patient’s function, and at what point after injury do you
measure- months, years?

THCB is big on functional outcomes, so let’s just say that we care about wrist function 1 year after injury. But what kind of function? Range of motion? Return to work? Return to sports?

I’ll
make it easy and say we’ll leave that to the patient and simply ask
about satisfaction with ability to return to pre-injury functioning.

Stick
with me- I know we are looking at the easy area of a broken bone. So,
we are trying to determine functional outcomes 1 year after a wrist
fracture.

Here is one way to look at the factors impacting the outcome:

1. Patient
factors – age, motivation to get better, willingness to listen to
medical advice and follow recommendations, nutritional status, other
medical conditions, previous injuries, secondary gain issues (workers’
comp, lawsuits), body’s response to injury (i.e. inflammatory response
to trauma)

2. Injury factors—severity of injury force (e.g. trip
over dog vs. 60mph motorcycle crash), location of fracture (e.g.
involving joint cartilage), degree of displacement (i.e. how ‘bad’ the
xray looks), associated soft tissue injuries, associated injuries
impacting treatment and rehab decisions

3. Surgeon
factors—appropriate decision making, surgical technical skill,
doctor-patient communication (discussing injury, options, risks, and
expectations)

Rhetorically (and not), I ask- how much of the outcome can the surgeon possibly control?

The
answer, of course, is only the ‘surgeon factors’, which I will claim
generally make up a relatively small piece of the total outcome pie.

So
I say again (and again)- until I can get some converts… the future of
quality improvement lies not in just trying to identify ‘best
practices’ that can be difficult to prove and identify and can change
every few years—but rather in identifying what are the WRONG approaches
for conditions (much easier to get agreement here), and emphasizing the
importance of communicating appropriate expectations to patients.

POLICY/TECH: Foodscapes ( cool word, huh!)

More from the IFTF meeting on Global Health….

Food production is a 200 year old paradigm dominated by producers. Food producers are going to have to deal with increasingly active bio-citizens. More than 70% of Americans identify themselves as environmentalists, while only 5% actually act on that in their shopping choice. And even being an environmentalist consumer is difficult, even if there is transparency about where the food came from, how it was grown and what resources were devoted to it. One site (experimental) is iBuyRight which will allow people to scan products with their cell phone and know all about what that food came from.

If health gets to the center of how we treat food, then this bio-citizenship trend may impact everyone  That make make the boundaries of the corporation more porous. That will make things like socially responsible investment mainstream, we may see more impact on trust and branding of products, which may provoke more regulation. Food is no longer social, it’s more and more political, and changing behavior is going to be a major struggle. So can we improve the way individuals behave, but we also need a wider system change (or at least need to develop one). Lots about individual responsibility versus system change.

My comment: All these theories and information are getting lots of attention, but all the indicators (eating, obesity, fat/sugar consumption, etc, increased pollution, etc, etc) are all getting worse….and all the advertising/marketing is mostly going the wrong way.

QUALITY/TECH/POLICY: IFTF meeting on the Global Health Economy

I’m at an IFTF meeting on the Global Health Economy. IFTF has gone a little off into left field on the “health” issue since I left. They’re slowly coming back relating “health” back to the health care system (the stuff that we care about THCB), but the meeting is about personalized health, people opting out of the health care system, “body hacking” and how companies can sell to the health market (which primarily means food!). More later…

POLICY: The times they are a changin’?

By THOMAS R.LEITH

I am not quite sure what to make of this. In this past Sunday’s (18-Jun-2006) edition of the St. Louis (my fair city) Post Dispatch on Page 1, above the fold, was a story headlined  Is your doctor paid to keep you healthy? Probably Not.

Typically, physicians get paid only when their patients receive care, and more complex care often brings bigger paychecks. At the same time, doctors complain that paltry payments for office visits force them to rush through checkups instead of educating patients about their illnesses, medications and healthy living – all of which might lower future medical bills.

It’s a system that gives doctors little financial incentive to keep patients well. And, experts say, it might be contributing to dangerous, unnecessary care as well as high medical bills.

So, the writer (Mary Jo Feldstein) has got the problem identified. Good. The rest of the story is about three things:

  1. Medicare Advantage (“like” an HMO)
  2. Disease Management & Care Coordination
  3. Essence, a Medicare Advantage plan owned by a big medical group here in St. Louis

The article speaks glowingly about “better quality at a lower cost”, acknowledges in passing that Medicare Advantage beneficiaries all go to doctors chosen by the plan, but then (get this) does not dwell on the restriction of “choice”. This is uncharacteristic of this newspaper. Wow. Oh, and Maggie Mahar’s book gets yet another plug in the article. I thought she’d like to know that.Then on the front page of today’s (22-Jun-2006) WSJ, above the fold is a story (sub req’d) about how the New York State Medicaid department has discovered Disease Management. In a deal struck between the state and Mount Sinai Hospital, their outpatient clinics were designated “Diagnostic and Treatment Centers” which brought higher Medicaid reimbursements. In return Mount Sinai runs a DM program around CHF, and the state’s total Medicaid payments to Mount Sinai Hospital have fallen. But this is evidently OK with the hospital: they have been running at 95% capacity, and would much rather have a bed filled by (say) a commercially-insured ortho patient than by a Medicaid CHF patient. Evidently things are working as expected. The government of New York State has begun to pay docs to keep patients — OK, they’re not healthy. Healthier. Or at least out of the hospital and more functional.So? With attitudes towards the loss of “choice” changing evidently among patients and (significantly) the press, and with a new apparent willingness to pay doctors and allied pros to think and talk to and teach patients, maybe — just maybe the stage is being set for a resurgence of `70s idealistic Managed Care Organizations. Toss in a handful of transparency, shake it up a bit, let it marinate a few years and it could be we have an environment where the Enthoven Plan doesn’t look so revolutionary. Or scary.

OFF-TOPIC: Torture day 2006

Today is Torture day 2006. That’s not an invitation for people to do more of it despite what our current Adminstration thinks. instead it’s UN International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. I’ve supported a London Charity called The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture for years, and I invite you to check out their web site. Whatever your political views this is an organization that but for the accident of birth we might all need.

 

POLICY: Universal Health Care in San Francisco…well not exactly

My buddy Laura Locke has a nice article in Time about San Francisco’s Latest Innovation: Universal Health Care. This one’s closer to the George Bush agenda than gay marriage—and I’m pretty sure that we’ll all have accepted gay marriage long before we’ve got to genuine universal health insurance. Essentially it’s about redirecting funds from the City and County back to the city and county health facilities, and making the uninsured pay into a pool. Not a bad start given that a City can’t do much, but it’ll run into trouble, just as I explained a while back when the proposal first came out because it’ll mean small low-wage businesses will have to pay more.

HOSPITALS/POLICY: MY 2 cents on the non-profit conundrum….incentives matter more than labels

Here’s my follow up to Maggie’s interesting piece and it’s the editorial in FierceHealthcare later today

The non-profit hospital world has been in the news lately, and this week a study of all the studies ever done on the non-profit/for-profit contrast came out in Health Affairs. The story is pretty well known and the study confirmed that non-profit hospitals offer a little more charity care, and have slightly lower costs than for-profits. But then again, there are three factors that make those results a little less than great. First is that location matters and the non-profit category includes a great number of hospitals that are in unfavorable locations, like inner city areas and poor rural counties. Second, the behavior of their for-profit competitors over the years has tended to center on the border between scandalous and criminal. And far too many non-profits have been imitating that behavior, such as New Jersey’s St. Barnabas, which settled with the government for as much as it could afford for apparently over-charging Medicare by over $500m. Third, for-profits have stayed at around 15% of hospital beds for decades and aren’t expanding their market share much. So the main issue is how do hospitals overall behave.

The truth is that whatever the label put on an organization, in an environment where doing more and charging more brings more profit/margin, there will always be institutions and people within them that will fall temptation to taking the easy (and fraudulent) way to more money. Proponents of self-reform may point to the improvements in quality brought about with no financial incentives which were reported by IHI last week, but until we create incentives for organizations to do well by doing the right thing, the label will be largely irrelevant.

PHYSICIANS/POLICY: Brian Klepper on the end of life as we know it, or something like that

Brian Klepper was recently up at Medscape bemoaning the lack of physician leadership in righting the troubled ship of our health care system, and challenging physicians to do better.

He got lots of feedback, not all of it as negative as you’d think, and he had his own response. All well worth reading.

On the other hand, HSC says that in real terms we’re paying physicians substantially less than in 1995. I suspect that most of that pay "cut" was in the 1990s, and things seem to be picking up again, but — as one reader asked me — there is not that much good data on physician incomes, and in real terms they did very well between 1960 and 1990.

assetto corsa mods