Archive for September, 2011

Guest Blog: Uncoordinated Care

Andrew Robinson
Friday, September 30th, 2011

Andrew Robinson was a successful New York trial attorney when he was diagnosed with” an incurable form of Leukemia” and told he had “less than five years to live.” That was more than 15 years ago. Despite severe complications, including over 50 hospitalizations, Andrew was the founder and CEO of Patient2Patient a mission based company that developed disease specific WebGuides to help patients learn how to locate and use the medical information, resources and tools available on the Internet. Because of complications from a bone marrow transplant and a diagnosis of a second cancer, Andrew’s struggle as a patient continues. Andrew has spoken at medical conferences throughout the US on a patient’s perspective on health care. He is currently working on a book based on his approach as a patient, entitled The Patient Will See You Now.™

horizontalline

I sit looking at the phone. I’m having a medical problem that needs attention, but I don’t know who to call. Here’s why:

For over 15 years I have been a leukemia, post-leukemia and now once again, a cancer patient. Before my illness I was a New York City trial attorney. I brought those skills to my illness and treatment – the questioning, the thinking, and the forcefulness. I have no problem picking up the phone or sending long emails to my doctors. Working with them, arguing with them, coming up with ideas and solutions. But now, I don’t know who to call.

I was first diagnosed at age 36, Out of the blue – told that I had an incurable form of Leukemia and less than 5 years to live. I tried every available chemotherapy, modified gene therapy, two alternative programs –  none had any effect on the disease. When my doctors told me they had nothing left to offer I found out about a novel form of bone marrow transplant in Israel.

So I moved there with my family for a three month treatment. Due to complication we were there for a year and one-half. Because of high dose steroids both before and after the transplant my back fractured and collapsed.  Eventually my shoulders, elbows and knees all fractured.

All during that time, if I was faced with a problem, I had one primary physician in charge of my treatment. So I knew who to call.

After returning to the US, slowly, but surely, the transplant worked. Over a period of two years my white blood count dropped until it reached the normal range: there was no trace of leukemia. I am a living miracle.

But the complications continued – with auto-immune/ Graft Versus Host Disease (GVHD) problems, infections, dozens of hospitalizations, cataract surgery, double-knee replacement surgery, an exploratory laparotomy…

All this time I have fended for myself in the medical jungle – worked my way through the problems with the help of some tremendous doctors and nurses, family and friends. But things have changed.

Last winter I was diagnosed with tongue cancer. I was suddenly plunged into a whole new realm of doctors, treatments, tests, medications. It felt like I had been transferred to the medical equivalent of the tower of Babel – everyone spoke a different language than I was used to.

I estimate there are a dozen doctors currently involved in my care. My list of medical and emergency contacts, my doctors, their phone numbers and emails, their nurses and office assistants and their emails, four different pharmacies, three different medical supply companies – fills up six pages of notes.

So here I am, looking at the phone and my six pages of notes. I am having a medical problem. It may be severe, and I don’t know who to call.

The reconstructive surgery after my tongue surgery did not go well. So I was left with a hole in the newly built bottom of my mouth and another hole in my neck. Now I am having pain in this area of the bottom of my mouth and some bleeding. It could be related to the surgery, or the plastic surgery, it could be an autoimmune/GVHD reaction or a side-effect from my chemotherapy. Or something else.

The problem is that no one is coordinating my care. Because my bone marrow transplant doctor doesn’t know about tongue cancer and reconstructive surgery; my chemotherapy doctor doesn’t know about mouth GVHD; the surgeon doesn’t know either…

Hopefully, this is a minor problem. Because as difficult as this is, when complications set in after my surgery — pneumonia, infections, blood clots —  my family had no idea who to talk to.  One set of doctors would set out orders. Another set would change or modify the orders. A third set would suggest other changes. There was no one coordinating my care.

But towards the end of my hospitalization something changed. A clinical nurse practitioner stepped in and acted as a go-between between my family and the doctors. She took our questions and concerns and she tracked down the doctors to get the answers we needed. Speaking to the different specialists she helped to clarify and coordinate my treatments.  It was a revelation as to how the system could work for a patient like me with complicated problems running across different specialties.

But that was in the hospital. I don’t have anyone like that now. And I am not unique. There are millions of patients in the US who have multiple chronic and life threatening conditions which makes caring for us extremely complex. Because so much of our care is rendered by specialists, we end up needing someone to act as a coordinator within the system who can help to make sure that the care we are receiving is consistent and coordinated.

I have a terrific internist but his responsibility is not to coordinate my care – and I can’t imagine where he would find the time to do so. What I need is someone a who can coordinate my care as an outpatient – just like the nurse practitioner who coordinated my care when I was in the hospital. Unfortunately there is no one who has this responsibility.

So here I sit, looking at the phone and I don’t know who to call. Well, it’s not so bad. Maybe it will get better. Let’s give it another day and see what happens.

horizontalline

Related Links:

Cost of Care’s 2nd Annual Essay Contest

Inside Health Care
Friday, September 30th, 2011

Inside Health Care posts feature recent blogs/news from the health care professional community and are part of the Center for Advancing Health’s portfolio of free, evidence-based coverage of what it takes to find good care and make the most of it.

horizontalline

Last year, the non-profit organization Costs of Care held an essay contest asking doctors and other care providers to share their mistakes, including times they made decisions that inadvertently led to unaffordable medical bills.  Due to the success of the contest, Executive Director Neel Shah, M.D., M.P.P., has decided to hold the contest again:

“We collected more than 100 stories from patients and care providers across the nation that illustrated the importance of cost-awareness in medicine, and then made these stories part of the public discourse by widely sharing them. The stories generated an impassioned response in the national media, and showed how transparency helps patients financially plan for their care, and also helps doctors keep medical bills affordable…

Ultimately, it will be up to a new generation of physician-leaders to carry this charge. Are we up to the challenge? The evidence is clear but sometimes a good story can be worth 1000 academic papers to catalyze change…”

For more on the essay contest, which is offering a total of $4000 in prizes, and last year’s winners, click here.

Neel Shah, M.D., M.P.P. is the Executive Director of www.CostsOfCare.org and a senior resident in the Massachusetts General Hospital—Brigham & Women’s Hospital combined residency in Obstetrics and Gynecology.  Costs of Care is a nonprofit aimed at helping doctors understand how the decisions they make impact what patients pay for care, giving doctors and patients the information they need to deflate medical bills.

Guest Blog: Price Tags and Haggling in an Exotic Market

Daniela Carusi
Thursday, September 29th, 2011

Daniela Carusi, MD, MSc is an obstetrician/gynecologist practicing in Boston, MA.  She blogs on behalf of Costs of Care, a nonprofit that aims to curb harmful healthcare costs at a grassroots level.  You can follow Costs of Care on twitter at @CostsofCare.

horizontalline

A friend of mine recently took an exotic trip. While shopping in a market, she picked up an appealing item and asked the seller what it cost. She was given a price that seemed high, and paused to consider whether the impulse seemed justified. The shopkeeper grew confused in the silence. Finally he asked my friend, “Don’t you want to know if I can do better?”

Clearly this person was outside of her bargaining comfort zone. Many—perhaps most—Americans are accustomed to paying the price as written on a tag. If you have to ask, you can’t afford it, or so I was told growing up in suburban shopping malls.

American consumers make the same assumptions as they search for transparency in health care costs. Obviously there are charges for these services – they are clearly written on the bills after the services are delivered. So why is it so hard to find out the cost of a service before it is performed? Here it is essential for the customer to understand that the charge and the price paid may be quite different; in fact, they are expected to be different. The health care consumer is not shopping in a chain store whose clerks forgot to stamp the items with their prices. On the contrary, the confused shopper has stumbled into an exotic market without a clue on how to haggle.

I work for a large health care system in a metropolitan area. I am well aware that the amount we charge for services is far higher than the amount we collect from payers. In fact, government payers will often pay 25 cents on the dollar, while private insurance companies will pay more. Still, we rarely receive more than 50 percent of what we charge. The reasoning behind the sky-high price tag always eluded me, and when I saw its effect on my self-paying patients, it infuriated me.

It is no secret that large insurers negotiate payments with health care facilities and providers. We charge a fee, the insurer hands over the pre-negotiated payment, and we do not ask the patient to make up the difference (such a system, known as balance billing, is not permitted where I practice). The patient pays his or her copayment, and the transaction is closed. The same occurs with government payers, though the negotiation seems a touch more one-sided.

This system breaks down for the uninsured patients – either those who have no coverage at all, or those seeking a particular service that is not covered by the insurance policy. The same exorbitant charge will go out to the individual consumer, who will assume (rightly so) that the entire amount is due. Failure to pay the bill lands many an American into financial straits. On a few occasions my billing service has sought permission to send a collections agency after a non-paying patient. Such a decision feels entirely counter to my doctor-patient relationship, one in which I want to support and advocate for my clients.

Once I understood this system I tried to make it feel fair. When I had an uninsured patient, I asked my billing service to charge a discounted amount, calculated by averaging my collections from all payers for that particular service. This met with great trepidation from the billing office. I was informed that it was impermissible for me to charge different amounts to different patients. No one had any problem with the fact that I was going to collect twice as much from the uninsured customer as the insured one. As the shopkeeper, I was expected to throw out the same initial number when asked to charge for my service, but no one was turning to the uninsured patients and saying, “Don’t you want to know if I can do better?”

This is why cost transparency in health care is so difficult. We can’t predict what the final negotiated payment will be without knowing who is paying and what kind of bargaining position that person is in. And no one had taught the individual consumer the rules of the game. Physicians may be criticized for not knowing the costs of the services we order, but there simply is no straightforward answer.

I look forward to the day when health care charges and collections can be both uniform and reasonable. I am thrilled that consumer advocates are seeking clarity in health care costs, but they must understand what all this encompasses. The cost must reflect not only the price of facilities, supplies, high-tech equipment, and service providers, but also the bargaining position of the person who pays.

Do we as health care consumers require a crash course on bargaining? I’ll give it a go for some sparkling jewelry, a piece of furniture, or even tonight’s dinner. But when facing a major illness I’d prefer a price tag, thank you.

horizontalline

Related Links:

The Formidable Complexity of Making (Some) Health Decisions: Book Review

Jessie Gruman
Wednesday, September 28th, 2011

Can we have “evidence-based” care and “shared decision making”? Are they in concert or in competition with one another? Drs. Pamela Hartzband and Jerome Groopman, in essays published over the past few years, have argued that an impending collision between these two perspectives stands to decimate the responsiveness of U.S. health care and undermine patient autonomy.  In their new book, Your Medical Mind: How to Decide What is Right for You, the authors focus their attention on the patient experience in making treatment decisions and in the process, present a rich collection of stories and evidence that strengthen their argument that a crash is indeed imminent.

In Your Medical Mind, Hartzband and Groopman invite us, the public, to understand their concerns by unpacking how scientific evidence – and the lack thereof – plays an often limited and sometimes quite unexpected role in treatment decisions made by doctors and patients: “The effort to reduce medical decision making to numbers is ill-conceived and reductionist, overly simplifying a complex and vexing process that is fraught with conflict and emotion.”

The thesis of the book is that medical decisions are in part driven by established facts and evidence (some spotty and ambiguous), but that personal traits, fluctuating emotions, cognitive biases, health status, personal history and emerging situations also powerfully influence the treatment choices of patients.  To their credit, the authors do not exempt clinicians from being subject to these biases and conditions, but rather describe how sometimes clinician and patient characteristics conflict in shared decision making.

The authors recount stories of people making choices about a range of medical interventions.  They pull from the literatures of health psychology, behavioral medicine, health services research, behavioral economics and decision science to show the patterns through which personal, situational and contextual factors interact over time as these people wrestle with their choices. 

There’s Omar with Hepatitis B who shares carefully with his wife all the details and considerations of treatment as his health declines while waiting for a liver transplant but who delegates to his clinicians decisions about his care prior to the transplant, asking his wife to follow their lead.

There’s Lisa, who took a natural approach to treating her lupus that she later abandoned when she decided to get surgery to correct a painful bone spur and ganglion cyst – and despite her efforts to gather information and make a choice that leads to the best outcome, the surgery is unsuccessful.

And many others.

The authors are good story-tellers and they stick with their subjects over time. The portrayal of the nuances of each individual’s choices – what influences them, how their physicians’ views affect their decisions – reflect the reality of many of us who take seriously our participation in decisions about our treatment.  Doing this is hard work.  Uncertainty about what the right choice is for a given individual can be excruciating, especially when that choice is different from the one our family or physician would make. The arduousness of the process may be the reason so many of us defer to the certainty of our physician’s choice.  We’d prefer not to acquire working knowledge of the complexity or feel the chilly uncertainty that close examination of our options entails. “When a person actively chooses a treatment and the outcome is poor, he or she can feel a deeper sense of self-blame and persistent regret.”

After reading about the deep, thoughtful and sometimes existential deliberations of these individuals, it is hard to imagine that we could be denied the option of participating fully in decisions about our treatment.  The reality is, however, that many of us are denied the kind of relationship with our doctors that allow for the exploration of benefits, risks, values, and preferences described in this book.  We don’t have health insurance.  Our insurance doesn’t cover our chosen treatment.  The FDA hasn’t approved the drug we think we need.  Our clinicians aren’t willing to engage: they don’t have time; they don’t get paid to do this; this is not how they were trained.

Your Medical Mind is not a how-to manual for making “good” medical decisions, despite its title.  If you want guidance on doing that, you’ll have to go to this article where you can see the interviewer try to get the authors to extract some snappy advice from the material they have presented.  If you are looking for the political and practical implications of a growing patient population that wants to actively deliberate about their treatment, you will be disappointed.  Just how can we avoid the impending collision between the blunt instruments of enforced evidence-focused quality improvement initiatives and the expectation that patients can and will engage meaningfully in decisions about our treatments? Perhaps the answers will be found in Hartzband and Groopman’s next book or essay. 

 Your Medical Mind offers an orderly, well-sourced, approachable account of the challenges we and our clinicians face when we are truly engaged in making medical decisions together.  

If you are a person who wants to be involved in making decisions about your care, you will see yourself reflected in these stories – you may recognize patterns and learn about some of your own quirks.  But if you are an advocate for shared decision making, an enthusiast for patient “empowerment” or a clinician working to implement patient-centered care, this book is required reading.  It shows that implementing true shared decision making is not simple, it is not cheap and you can’t just supply a decision support tool and say you’ve done the job.  You need to know just how complicated this is, because in the absence of a practice and policy agenda supplied by Drs. Hartzband and Groopman, it’s up to you to propose one that will prevent the collision. 

horizontalline

Related Links: