The painful side effects of Obama's healthcare reform - Los Angeles Times

The painful side effects of Obama's healthcare reform - Los Angeles Times:

"Now, I'm well aware that having 47 million people who can't afford medical care is a genuine social problem -- although many of those millions are illegal immigrants, people between jobs and young folks who choose to go insurance-bare. I'm also aware that I can't necessarily have everything I want, whether it's a dozen pairs of Prada boots or a pacemaker at age 99. I know that Medicare is on the greased rails to a train wreck, and not just because of spiraling costs but because doctors are fleeing the system because they're sick of below-cost reimbursements and crushing paperwork. There are ways to solve some of these problems: healthcare tax breaks, malpractice reform that would lower the cost of practicing medicine, efforts to make it easier to get cheap, high-deductible catastrophic coverage, steps to encourage fee-for-service arrangements of the kind that most people have with their dentists.

"In short, as someone who's not getting any younger, I'd like to be the one who makes the 'difficult decision' as to whether I can afford -- and thus really want -- that hip replacement in my extreme old age. Sorry, President Obama, but I don't want 'society'-- that is, government mucky-mucks -- determining that I've got to go sit on an ice floe just because I'm old and kind of ugly, no matter how many fancy degrees in medicine or bioethics they might have."

Nothing like folksy wisdom for understanding and dealing with the complexities of health care reform and modern bioethics. The usual right wing disinformation and misdirection are especially tiresome. So, to the rebuttal:

First pillar of fear mongering on health care reform: rationing. Be afraid, be very afraid. Ignore the rationing (by income and economic class) that's already going on. Ignore rationing by private health insurers. Ignore spiraling costs that will soon have all but the top tiers of income earners on shoe-string insurance plans. Forget all that, just worry about the potential for rationing.


The point of Ms. Allen's piece is that health care will be rationed by using arbitrary clinical parameters to deny care based solely upon costs. Or, she also warns, that some procedures will be denied based upon scientific, non-arbitrary clinical parameters, specifically along the lines of England's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence which publishes guidelines and does medical and economic analyses of medical treatments to determine whether they are worth it to individuals and to society as a whole. I’m sure Ms. Allen finds it infuriating that some all other societies consider how utilization of finite resources affects everyone, not just the well off.

Interesting thing, that concept of “allocating scarce resources.” It is actually one of the centerpieces of medical professionalism developed by the American Board of Internal Medicine, the American College of Physicians and the European Federation of Internal Medicine and adopted by the American Medical Association and many other physician organizations. The Charter states, “The medical profession must promote justice in the health care system, including the fair distribution of health care resources. Physicians should work actively to eliminate discrimination in health care, whether based on race, gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, religion, or any other social category.”

This brings up fear mongering pillar two, always frame the debate as a choice between our current “system” or, the systems of either Canada or England, two countries that, while providing universal health care, because of their parsimony, have performed in international health care outcomes research almost as badly as does the United States! It seems genuinely ludicrous (but convenient for generating insecurity among the under-informed) to set as the benchmark for improving our health care system two countries who only do a bit better than we do. I have yet to see an opinion piece from a conservative decrying the inferior care and long wait times in France or Germany, the top performing countries in the world. That's because they provide excellent care to all of their citizens, have no longer waiting times than our own, have much more satisfied physicians and patients and do it all at a sizeable discount to ours.

Another classic tactic is blaming the poor, the unhealthy, the “other.” On one hand, Ms. Allen laments the imposition of the 47 million uninsured onto our system, and forecasts that it will lead to unacceptable waiting times for those of us already “in.” A few paragraphs later she notes her understanding of the seriousness of the issue of the uninsured, but then posits that many of these 47 million don’t really need or deserve health care insurance as they are illegal immigrants or between jobs, etc. My brother was nearly bankrupted by being “between jobs” and having an illness in his family.


Back to our story. Ms. Allen makes a troubling conflation by muddling together limiting the amount we spend on health care in the last months of life with limiting health care to the elderly. There is a HUGE difference.

Ms. Allen cites the example of the hip fracture treatment President Obama's grandmother received before her death and the pacemaker placed into the 99 year old mother of a town hall audience member as cautionary tales, indicating the "government run" healthcare would allow these patients to simply die because some intellectual, academic physicians in their ivory towers will give the thumbs down sign and demand their euthanasia. How sad that the public's opinion of physicians and medical professionalism has deteriorated so badly that this is their expectation. Or, if not their expectation, but their cynical gambit that others will think this rings true.

Here's the difference: Obama's grandmother was terminally ill with cancer. The questions surrounding her surgery boiled down to whether it would improve her comfort in her last months and whether the surgery would ultimately shorten her life. As it turns out, it appears to have done both, making this a difficult case to slice down the middle as black and white. That's why decisions like this cause ethical dilemmas: there are pros and cons to the decisions. There are sometimes non-operative decisions involving immobilization, aggressive pain management and other palliative measures that avoid the pain Mr. Obama was rightly concerned about. And sometimes these measures, especially in extremely frail elderly patients, are the right measures, because they avoid the very high mortality associated with surgery and other aggressive measures in this population.

The medical team, had they made the decision not to operate, would not have been bureaucrats determined to painfully end the life of an elderly cancer patient, but a compassionate team of professionals, balancing the patient's quality of life in her last months (pain, hospitalization, removal from family and home, etc.), with her wishes and goals - perhaps to see her grandson elected President! When we strive to provide excellent end-of-life care, we balance all of these issues and we counsel our patients and their families as best we can because it is the right thing to do, not because it saves money. We would do it if it cost more: that is apparently the decision arrived at in this case. The calculation was made, as it should always be, based on the goals of the patient and family, not on a corporate balance sheet and potential executive bonus.

The second case, of the 99 year old requiring a pacemaker, is actually not much of an ethical problem. I agree with President Obama that these decisions should not be made based on "spirit," but they certainly can be made based upon clinical guidelines and the individual patient's health status. Regardless of this woman's spirit, if she was a frail 99 year old with advanced chronic heart or lung disease, or with advanced dementia and a feeding tube for nourishment, one would be hard pressed to justify placing an expensive pacemaker or defibrillator into her, but a healthy 99 year old is another matter. It is important to note that Medicare did not deny either of these patients care, as a private insurer may have.

The other inappropriate conflation is the issue of limiting the amount we spend with limiting the amount we spend on treatments without proven benefits or with benefits so limited as to make them frivolous in most senses. If we presume that any guideline that determines a treatment not useful to be rationing, we will be in a world of economic hurt. This is actually the point of Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER), to try to figure out what we do that is costly but adds no value to patient care on one extreme, and figuring out what is relatively inexpensive and saves lives on the other.

Her assessment of the inherent inferiority of screening mammograms every three years compared to annually demonstrates precisely the need for CER: The automatic assumption that more testing means better outcomes. This is actually one of the bigger problems with American medicine, the automatic assumption that doing something, and not just something, but the newest latest most expensive something, is always best. Should the 99 year old patient get the latest greatest pacemaker? Maybe, but having some CER to help us make intelligent judgments should be lauded, not reflexively ridiculed by the anti-intelligentsia.

Update: a link to this item on my dailykos diary and a lively discussion.

Sphere: Related Content