Scrolling through my morning feed I happened upon this article about a physician’s suicide: Doctor’s Death an “inconvenience”for patients. Suicide has become an epidemic among physicians. Blog posts are rampant regarding this fact and most suspect that the loss of respect and control physicians have experienced in their careers over the last thirty years contributes mightily to the despair of practice.[1,2,3,4]
The callousness apparent in the article reminded me of less horrendous, but similar instances in my own practice and stories from other doctors who have taken vacation or had to reschedule patients due to unforeseen circumstances. I have been upbraided by patients who wanted to know why I had the audacity to spend time with my family or take a personal day when they needed to see me. This is amplified by my new contract which features “allowed time off” instead of “paid time off”. Not only do patients not value the time I need to replenish, but my system punishes me for doing so. If I never take time off, then I make more money for them and me. The importance of play in innovative thinking and better patient care is forgotten in the greed of corporate money-making.
As my daughter enters the arena of healthcare as a third year medical student, I hope the joy in patient care outweighs the sometimes callousness of corporate and patient expectations.
My ongoing regular posts regarding the daily aggravations and irritations of being a PCP.
Remember the Prior Authorization that I requested for my patient who had been on multiple anti-arrhythmics and saw a cardiologist who, after trying other medications, put her back on just digoxin and said to keep her on that? — Irritation #1– Well, Cigna decided, because apparently they know more about cardiology than the cardiologists and specifically they understand treatment of the individual better than a cardiologist who evaluated her, that she does not need the digoxin and refused the prior authorization.
REALLY? REALLY? Now my staff and I have to try to get her an expedited appeal.
It seems like every day some entity wants to question my medical judgement. I am not a perfect doctor but in the grand scheme of things, I know my patients’ health needs better than their insurance company, the government, or their employers. The constant interruptions by individuals who want to believe their algorithms fit every patient does little to serve patient care and much to reduce my efficiency. To make a point of how often this occurs, I’ve decided to TRY to document each interruption, within the confines of my limited time. Here is todays irritation:
PBM (pharmacy benefit manager) requires a PA (prior authorization) to refill digoxin. Patient has been on digoxin forever. It is a med that is rarely used anymore, though was once commonly prescribed for congestive heart failure or rhythm control. Unfortunately it has some negative side effects and typically there are better drugs for the conditions it is used to treat. However, in this case, patient came to me on digoxin. I sent her to a cardiologist to see if she could substitute another drug. She was intolerant to other medications and ultimately the cardiologist felt that digoxin was the least risky choice and continued it. This was last checked as recently as two years ago.
For those of you who are not geeks, or not healthcare geeks, I have spent the last week in Chicago at the biggest HIT (Health IT) “geek-out” in the world. Some 42,000+ people gathered in Chicago for the annual HiMSS (Health Information Management Systems Society) meeting. It is truly an overwhelming experience. On the first full day of the conference I got lost twice. Not an auspicious start.
As a member of the Connected Patient Committee for HiMMS, I participated in the Patient Engagement Symposium which brought together individuals passionate about using HIT to improve health in patients and communities. ONC representative Lana Moriarty (Office of the National Coordinator) spoke to the government’s goals along these lines. E-patient Dave Bronkart, a celebrity among patients passionate to change our healthcare system into a patient-centered and patient-empowered one, came to watch his personal physician discuss changing care models and shared decision making. Amy Gleason of CareSync presented the patient’s viewpoint when it comes to dealing with multiple portals. The highlight of the day was a call to action, voiced below in the video by Regina Holliday, well-known advocate for patient access to medical records. The “call” was made by Dr. Farzad Mostashari, former National Coordinator for Health Information Technology at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. On the day before the conference began, CMS (Center for Medicare Services) proposed dropping the Meaningful Use (MU) requirement in Stage 2 (of three) from 5% of patients being able to view, download or transmit their medical records to ONE patient. Most individuals in the patient advocacy arena feel this proposed change sends a message to health systems and providers that patient access to their records is either no longer a priority or special interests have pushed this change of heart. This seems particularly odd in an environment of increased encouragement of patient involvement in their own healthcare. Dr. Farzad, e-patient Dave, Ms. Holliday, and myself are just a few of the many individuals who think this is the wrong message to send. As a consequence a Day of DataIndependence on July 4 has been declared, and patients are asked to request electronic access to their medical records by calling their physicians and hospitals and asking for their medical records in electronic format.
If access to your medical records, or your family’s medical records, is important to you (and it certainly should be!) watch this space for more information in the next few weeks. For information from the Society for Participatory Medicine regarding this issue, follow this link: No MU without ME.
Mrs. Davis hasn’t seen me in over a year. It’s a burden for her family to bring her in but I haven’t yet been able to add house calls to my busy schedule. She recently turned 94 but lost the gift of cognizance some time ago. It’s only been a few months since her husband passed away though it is unlikely she is aware of that fact, she’s long forgotten who he was. She was once a respected professional, well-known in our city and a philanthropist of several now forgotten causes. She shuffles into my office, sitting with her head in her hands. She knows who she is, but that is all. She is well-cared for by family members who call themselves fortunate to share her home.
I look at her vital signs. The 15 pound weight loss jumps out at me. “Is she eating?”. Her caretaker responds, “bits and pieces of this and that, she’ll drink an occasional Boost”. “Does she appear to be in any pain?” “No, she sleeps a lot, doesn’t interact much.” I perform a not too-detailed exam and determine that she has no skin breakdown. In addition to her cachectic appearance, I notice a difference between sounds in the two sides of her lungs. One side sounds dull, though she breathes shallowly and perhaps it is the other side that is hyper-resonant. I look at her caregiver who is also a nurse. “She’s lost a fair amount of weight and there is a difference between the two lungs when I listen.” We lock eyes. After a few moments he responds, “And what would we do differently if we explored this.” I look at the patient. She looks a little tired but not uncomfortable. “Nothing, I would hope.” “Then we’ll be saying goodbye and thanks for refilling her meds.” I nod, ask him to call me with any problems and move on to my next patient.
The definition of irrational behavior is “without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason” and it is presently rampant in my workplace. Every patient seen, not just individuals with fever or nausea and vomiting, is screened for exposure to Ebola. Every patient that walks through the door gets a(nother) form with three checkboxes asking if the patient lived in or visited a west African country within the last 21 days or was exposed to an individual who has the disease or is at risk of having the disease. I guess in a world where hype and panic prevail this is considered a reasonable question. Along the lines of this thinking, it would make a lot more sense to ask:
Did they drive to the office? —chance of dying in a motor vehicle accident 1/491
Do they have a gun at home? —chance of suicide using a gun 1/203
Are they flying anywhere in the next week?— chance of dying in an airplane 1/8335
Did they run to their car or home in a thunderstorm recently?—chance of dying in a storm 1/83709
Chance of dying of Ebola: 1/3,934,300
I await the unlikely event when one of my patients returns from an Ebola-affected country in the previous 21 days and comes to me for his hypertensive check. As I enter our newly created isolation room and do the visit in full protective gear, recognizing that touching an asymptomatic patient is of absolutely no risk to me, what in the hell am I going to say to this gentleman? “Have a nice day and please slink out the back door on your way out?”
System administrators and politicians feed into the hysteria of the masses and frighten patients who are already freaked out by any number of irrational fears. As a consequence, heroes return from working in West Africa and are greeted with the loss of civil rights based on fear instead of science. I take umbrage at being forced to add to public paranoia by legitimizing a workflow designed for a real threat instead of this farce.
As I write this post, my thoughts wonder if I’m being wooed to the dark side. Rarely (or maybe never) has an insurance company done anything that made my life easier or reduced my workload. A few days ago my medical assistant handed me a denial for a prior authorization (PA) request from a pharmacy. She attempted to do the PA online and was unsuccessful. It was a fairly straightforward diagnosis so it seemed odd that there was an issue getting the drug approved. Our patient has biopsy proven Barrett’s esophagus, a premalignant lesion for which a medication like Nexium is indicated. I sigh and flip through the denial papers to try and understand the reason and am amazed to see the name and phone number of the Humana physician who did the denial. I call her. It’s before 8 AM so I don’t expect an immediate response but a couple hours into the day I am pleasantly surprised (again) to get a return phone call from the physician herself. She tells me that the medication was approved for twice a day use but for some reason the pharmacy requested 90 pills for 30 days. It was only ordered for once a day so that’s an easy thing to fix with the drug store. Meantime I am thrilled. To be able to access a corporate physician quickly and resolve a problem for a patient in record time is a big step in improving patient care and transparency. Kudos to Humana! Don’t stop there please.
On the portal this morning I received a great note from a patient. He’d seen two specialists and was checking in to tell me what had happened in those visits. His summaries were succinct, tell me exactly what I needed to know about what transpired. It took me about a minute to read them. Since the advent of EHR-generated referral letters I’m unsure that I’ve read a better referral note.
After reading it, I knew the assessment of the problem, the treatment plan and when he would be seeing them back. I did NOT receive one to ten pages of past medical and family history that I already knew. I did NOT receive a list of the medications he walked in the door on, which I already know. I did NOT receive his insurance information, which I already have. Etcetera.
When will EHR vendors be able to extract information and template a referral note that only contains what I need and not streams of unnecessary information that gets in the way of my being able to read what I do need to know? When will physicians help the IT department cut out all the useless crap in those letters? If they’d like the name of my patient to help them, please contact me. I’m sure we can work something out.
Answer: When the insurance company decides it is not.
A Healthcare Puzzle
The definition of screening, from a health prevention viewpoint, seems pretty straight forward: “a strategy used in a population to identify an unrecognized disease in individuals without signs or symptoms.” Typically these services are covered at 100%. However, insurance companies avoid appropriate payments for their members by changing the coding of a preventive service (which is covered 100%) into a diagnostic procedure, which is paid based on whatever the patient’s coverage allows. This change in coverage occurs because a polyp is found during the exam, which is of course, the whole point of doing the procedure: Screening and removing a polyp so that it never becomes cancer. Patients with high deductibles suddenly owe several hundred dollars in unexpected healthcare bills for a procedure they were told was covered. This is ethical and appropriate corporate policy?
And I can’t help but mention that the insurance company fancying itself a “Healthcare” company, promoting health and well-being, is the worst offender.
Subsequent colonoscopies that must be done five years later for individuals with polyps, instead of ten years, can arguably be called diagnostic. But changing the definition of a procedure solely to avoid paying for an appropriate screening exam, is another example of non-transparency, regardless of how well you explain it in the patient’s policy description.
This morning an article caught my eye and then my imagination: The Dreaded Post-Visit Call. It describes a patient who becomes worried after getting a post-doctor-visit phone call. She doesn’t understand its purpose and calls her physician thinking something is terribly wrong. Apparently his healthcare system employs individuals to make these calls after every doctor visit to ensure “patient satisfaction” (THAT PHRASE!). At any rate, it got me thinking about the future of calls like this.
It is not outside of reality to envision other entities making post-visit calls. The doctor’s employer can use the data to determine bonuses. This call could be followed by a post-visit call from the patient’s insurer. These calls could collect data to be used to determine if an insurance company will continue to keep a particular physician in their network based on some sort of satisfaction algorithm. It’s not hard to imagine CMS (Center for Medicare Services) getting on board with this as well as private insurers. Maybe the federal government could get further involved to create a Patient Satisfaction Data Bank. That could be the patient’s third call. And since nothing seems to be private anymore, Healthgrades could make a post-visit call when a patient tweets or posts to Facebook that they were in Dr. Jone’s office. This would increase the number of individuals rating doctors and isn’t that a good thing? Or is it…Why Rating Your Doctor is Bad for Your Health?
Let’s get more anonymous individuals involved in patient’s care, ticking off boxes for corporate data gathering. Or maybe, healthcare systems could train and employ health coaches who do know the patient. Getting a phone call from someone who really cares if you understood what was said during the visit and that you know how to make changes to improve your health? The same person who scribed your visit maybe? This would also free up physicians from being distracted by a computer screen and help them make a better connection with their patients.
Wow–a real win-win for patient care and engagement!