Can Doctors Provide Rational Care or Cave In? H1N1 Experience with Public Health Indicates Latter

As the country discusses providing everyone with health insurance, an even more important conversation is how to slow the rise of healthcare costs. Many studies and research point to the ability of doctors to remove waste by not performing unnecessary tests or procedures and not prescribing the latest medications which are proven to be no better than generic versions. There is a belief that much of this additional cost is due to the fee for service reimbursement system where doctors get paid more to do more.

For example, spending 30 minutes on nutritional counseling, weight loss, and exercise for one patient with hypertension doesn't pay as much as prescribing blood pressure medication for three patients in 10 minutes. In the fee for service environment, volume is key, not necessarily providing the right care or the most rational care. A recent Newsweek opinion piece by an emergency doctor showed how he evaluated a patient appropriately for a recent head injury, discussed the plan with the family, and arranged follow-up with the pediatrician all without getting a CT scan of the head. Result? Patient did fine. No radiation exposure to the brain. No additional cost to the healthcare system, insurer, or family. Everyone benefited.

While the example isn't rare, it also isn't common. Some 30 percent of tests or procedures performed in this country have been suggested to be unnecessary and added no value to improving patients' quality of life or outcomes.

In other words, if we removed the fee for service reimbursement system, then doctors would prescribe only the right care. Not too much or too little, but just right.

Or would they?

Recent articles should make us think twice. The H1N1 virus which has been demonstrated to affect those under age 25 years old and pregnant women disproportionately than the general population now has a vaccine available, albeit in short supply. This limited supply has been given to individuals not deemed at high-risk for adverse outcomes by CDC.

While the issue might be that some public county clinics received more vaccine than others (a systems or distribution problem), the bigger question is whether public county officials and doctors are willing to have honest and frank discussions about a person's need for the vaccine. Unlike doctors in the fee for service environment, these providers don't get paid more to do more. Since compensation isn't an issue, then can they talk through the fear that people have and provide the appropriate care?

Answer? Unfortunately no. Public health officials don't want to be the police and determine who should justifiably get the vaccine and who should be turned away.

In other words, if people want it, then they will get it. If public health officials can't say no appropriately, then can we expect much better for doctors in the future? Even if the fee for service reimbursement structure is removed, unclear if that will ever happen, will doctors provide rational care and advice or cave in when patients demand prescriptions based on television ads or care recommended by celebrities?

As I received my vaccine at a flu clinic, there were nurses asking each individual in line what vaccine did they want. The nurses appropriately advised those not in the high-risk groups that they would only receive the seasonal flu vaccine and not the H1N1 vaccine. There were no fights, outbursts, or fear. Patients understood that they were getting the right care. Not too much and not too little, but just right.

If America is going to solve the affordability issue of healthcare, then doctors will need to lead the way.

Based on the public clinic officials' performance, I'm even less optimistic about the medical profession's ability as a whole. While I have great confidence in my fellow medical school alumni from the University of Connecticut School of Medicine, the colleagues I work with at the Permanente Medical Group as well as the many medical bloggers I've encountered (many who follow me via Facebook or Twitter - thanks everyone!) , I have real concern about many doctors nationwide and specifically on their ability to provide rational care and not to cave in and take the easy way out when making decisions about medical care.

What does this ultimately mean? Without doctors leading the way, the only choice left is government run healthcare. If doctors can't say no based on scientific and medical evidence, then Uncle Sam will say no. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Full Disclosure - Calorie Counts

The New York City Health Department had a press release announcing their campaign in making the public aware of the number of calories individuals should have daily to maintain a healthy weight. Dubbed "Read ’em before you eat ’em" and with ads in NYC subways, the health department is trying to make aware how portion sizes have increased.

Recently California Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggar signed into law a proposal which requires restaurants operating more than 20 sites to have calorie counts posted on the menus by 2011, becoming the first state in the union to do so.

Will calories displayed prominently help consumers make wise decisions about their eating habits and decrease the numbers of individuals who are now overweight or obese? While both the NYC and California proposals are excellent (and note that the restaurant industry is fighting the NYC plan and yet seems on board with the California one), perhaps they could take it a step further and indicate how much activity it takes to burn off calories. After all, calories are simply numbers. To make people fully appreciate their caloric intake, illustrate how much time and what type of exercise would be needed to burn off a muffin or hamburger.

Since few of us have free time, if these groups showed us that we needed to exercise for four hours to maintain our weight, I'm sure most of us would be much more careful about how much we eat. After all, who has four hours to exercise everyday?