Why Consumer-Driven Health Care Will Fail

The creation of consumer-driven health plans (CDHPs), health insurance policies with high deductibles linked to a savings option and with more financial respnonsibility shouldered by patients and employees and less by employers, was completely inevitable. The American public likes to have everything, whether consumer electronics or other services, as cheap as possible. With escalating health care expenses rising far more rapidly than wages or inflation, it's not surprising employers needed a way to manage this increasingly costly business expense.

In the past, companies faced a similar dilemma.  It wasn't about medical costs, but managing increasingly expensive retirement and pension plan obligations. Years ago, companies moved from these defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans like 401(k)s. After all, much like health care, the reasoning by many was that employees were best able to manage retirement planning because they would have far more financial incentive, responsibility, and self-motivation to make the right choices to ensure a successful outcome.   

How did that assumption turn out anyway?

Disastrous according to a recent Wall Street Journal article titled Retiring Boomers Find 401(k) Plans Fall Short.

The median household headed by a person aged 60 to 62 with a 401(k) account has less than one-quarter of what is needed in that account to maintain its standard of living in retirement, according to data compiled by the Federal Reserve and analyzed by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College for The Wall Street Journal. Even counting Social Security and any pensions or other savings, most 401(k) participants appear to have insufficient savings. Data from other sources also show big gaps between savings and what people need, and the financial crisis has made things worse.

In others words a lot of people don't have enough money to retire.   The options they have are simply "postponing retirement, moving to cheaper housing, buying less-expensive food, cutting back on travel, taking bigger risks with their investments and making other sacrifices they never imagined....In general, people facing problems today got too little advice, or bad advice."

Though employers were able to manage retirement expenses, employees paid a significant price.  This wasn't intuitively obvious in the 1980's when these plans became more commonplace.  Over the past decade, the less than rational behavior by employees hasn't gone unnoticed by those who study behavioral economics or those in the government.  As a result, more organizations and companies are nudging employees into the right behaviors with auto-enrollment into 401(k) plans and auto-allocation of these funds with protection from any future liability as noted in the Pension Protection Act of 2006.

The analogies to health care and specifically consumer-driven health plans should be clear.  Workers don't save adequately for retirement even when in their best interest.  It's very likely that workers won't save money adequately to fund future health expenses.  After all, if people can't fund retirement, something we undoubtedly all look forward to, which one of us is willing to saving for chemotherapy or open heart surgery, which no one wants?  According to the annual Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Benefits Survey, the average annual deductible for single coverage and family coverage is nearly $2000 and $4000 respectively for health insurance plans that are health savings accounts (HSA) eligible.   The deductibles are slightly lower in health insurance policies that are linked to health reimbursement arrangement (HRA).  About 13 percent of employees are covered under either plan.

Unlike those in retirement planning who can work longer, even if not desirable, employees who are ill may not have an option to work to pay for their medical expenses.  There continues to be evidence that people are curbing their health care due to the ability to pay.

Though experts debate on whether this is a good thing (patients are avoiding unnecessary and expensive therapies and opting for less pricey but equally as effective options) or a bad thing (patients are avoiding the preventive screening tests or therapies that overall can decrease future costs), the opportunities to ensure patients make the right choices should be clear from workers' less than optimal experience with 401(k)s.

If employers wish to help curb medical costs, then they will need to engage workers with programs like employee wellness, assisted decision making (either as second opinions or patient-friendly informed consent), and access to medical experts, equivalent to personal financial advisors, who may be able to help workers make the right choices for their health.  Within the business community, there is some acknowledgment that access to these tools will be necessary to not only manage costs but keep employees healthy and productive.

Done correctly, consumer-driven health care can be what everyone hoped they would be, nudging healthy behaviors and slowing health care costs with workers selecting only cost-effective therapies.  If implemented poorly and organizations simply shift health care costs and financial responsibilities to workers like retirement planning decades ago, the nation will need to accept more than ever that increasingly more people get the medical care based simply on their ability to pay and not on medical necessity.

As a practicing primary care doctor, I hope that day never comes.

What Doctors Wish Their Patients Knew - Critique of the March 2011 Consumer Reports article

First, I'm a big fan of Consumer Reports and even listed their Consumer Reports Best Buy Drugs website in my book, Stay Healthy, Live Longer, Spend Wisely - Making Intelligent Choices in America's Healthcare System, because of its accurate, unbiased, and money saving information in getting the right treatments for the best price.

So naturally when I saw this month's issues cover story - What Doctors Wish Their Patients Knew, I had to read it.  Overall, it was excellent and made a lot of sense.   Their conclusions were obvious to me, however, might not be as intuitive to the public (after all it is titled what doctors wish their patients knew!).

In summary, primary care doctors matter and having a long-term relationship with one can save time and money.  Respect and being courteous still matter to both doctors and patients.  Thoughtful use of the internet might overcome the resistance doctors have to patients researching information.  Generic medications, which are inexpensive and very effective for many conditions, are excellent and should be used.

A more in depth analysis reveals the following.  Primary care doctors are vitally important.  As Dr. Kevin Grumbach, professor and chair of the department of family and community medicine at the University of California San Francisco noted, "a primary-care doctor should be your partner in your overall health, not just someone you go to for minor problems or a referral to specialty care."  Indeed, that is why I went into primary care.  I prevent problems.  I diagnose problems.  On the occasion I can't solve your problem, then I need the assistance of my specialty colleagues.

I'm not a gatekeeper.  I'm not simply a referral center or an obstacle in getting you the right care.  In fact, I'm the first logical place to always get care and be your partner in keeping you healthy and well.

A long-term relationship with a primary care doctor is also important according to three-quarters of the 660 primary care doctors surveyed.  Consumer Reports found some evidence that patients who frequently switch doctors have more health problems and spend more on care.  This seems to make sense.  Having someone you know and trust to get care over a long period of time can keep you healthy and save you money.  The challenge for many Americans is trying to keep the same doctor.  Employers often switch insurance carriers to save money.  Doctors drop out of health plans.  Patients change jobs and have a different health plan or no health insurance coverage.  In other words, a primary care doctor isn't simply a commodity, but rather a vitally important relationship.  Unfortunately the health care system and the general public don't view them that way.  Practicing primary care doctors are leaving the specialty and medical students are not interested in a primary care field even though it is has potential to be one of the best choices in the future.

Respect and being courteous are two traits still valued by doctors and patients.  The majority of doctors polled felt that being respectful and courteous would help get better care.  Patients equated respect and courteousness as professionalism.  Doctors who treated them respectfully, listened to them with understanding, and spent time with them scored high.  Though professionalism scores increased more when patients felt that their doctor seemed technically competent, I find it hard to believe that patients can honestly determine who is skilled clinically.  I think my car mechanic is skilled, but I really don't truly know as I'm not a mechanic.

I'm sure patients believe I'm technically competent as I explain everything I'm doing.  For a knee examination, patients will hear me say -  I'm palpating the meniscus both the medial and lateral aspects to check for arthritis or a meniscus tear.  I'm examining the medial and lateral collateral ligaments of your knee and making sure they are intact and not strained or torn.  I'm looking for fluid in the knee and mechanics of the knee with the range of motion.  I'm checking the health and integrity of the ACL and PCL.  Instead of wondering if I'm simply waving my hands like a magician, the description of the examination demonstrates my value as a doctor.  Patients, and some doctors, have forgotten the value of taking a detailed history and a good physical examination.  There was a time doctors didn't have the imaging tests of xray, CT, or MRI.  Once I explain what I'm doing, then they understand why these tests are often unnecessary, which of course saves money and time. If showing and verbalizing our examination and thought process is professionalism, then we need to do more of it.

Although the article suggested that 80 percent of doctors felt taking a friend or relative to an office visit would be helpful, I believe this expectation to be a little unrealistic.  Unless a family member or relative is particularly worried or if the visit is very important, say a consultation with a surgeon or an oncologist, it isn't necessary to have someone else tag along.  People are incredibly busy.  Taking time out of the day to accompany someone for an appointment isn't going to happen.  The reason for this suggestion is that doctors discover patients don't typically remember everything that occurred in the office.  This point really is about providing patients a strategy to recall important information (using the mneumonic D.A.T.E. can be helpful).  

Suggestions on how to thoughtfully research information on the internet was a plus.  Besides MedlinePlus and the Mayo Clinic, one should also consider Healthcare.gov, which has a preventive app, my health finder, that gives personalized specific age and gender information on what tests are needed and appropriate (it's under the Learn About Prevention tab).  Not surprisingly due to the ease of looking information on the internet, 61 percent of patients have researched their condition.  Sadly doctors were not as enthusiastic.  Half of doctors said that online research was not helpful at all.

Physician wariness to the plethora of online information is due to the lack of respect from some patients who demand certain treatments, medications, or interventions, without understanding the nuance of a diagnosis.  It isn't as simple, though it seems like it, as putting in a bunch of diagnoses and then just then hitting Google search (or worse I'm feeling lucky).  I don't mind patients emailing me links to articles or suggest diagnoses.  In fact, I learn a lot from patients.  I do however find it difficult to treat patients who are insistent on their way or the highway and in those cases will suggest they find another doctor.  It's about a trusting partnership not just about patients who are empowered with small pieces of information.

Finally, the best part of the issue was he Best Buy Drugs section which notes that many conditions, like high cholesterol, diabetes, heartburn, allergies, and depression have very good generic prescription medications that are inexpensive and very effective.  Consumer Reports uses evidence based research to back up the claims.  The vast majority of patients I care for do fine with generic medications.  That's what I buy.  You should do fine with generic medicationas as well.  They left out my favorite online pharmacy, Healthwarehouse.com which often has pricing better than Wal-mart and Costco for many medications.

What else do doctors wish patients knew?  Vaccines are safe and underutilized.  Body scans and life line screenings really aren't worth your money.  The fountain of youth really is eating less, moving more, and not smoking, and plenty of servings of fruits and vegetables.  Cancer screening tests are for everyone, not those with family histories as the majority of people who develop cancer are the first in their family.

But of course, that might take more than just a blog post, but an entire book.

Why This Primary Care Doctor Loves his Electronic Health Record

A recent post in the Wall Street Journal Health Blog noted that a study found electronic medical records don't improve outpatient quality.  The authors of the Archives of Internal Medicine article, Electronic Health Records and Clinical Decision Support Systems, correctly points out that we should be skeptical and "doubt [the] argument that the use of EHRs is a "magic bullet" for health care quality improvement, as some advocates imply."

This should surprise no one.  Were we that naive to think that simply installing health information technology (HIT) in the medical field would generate significant improvement in outcomes?  Does simply installing computers in our classrooms improve educational test scores?

Of course not.

The excellent commentary after the article makes some plausible reasons why the clinical decision support (CDS) didn't seem to improve outcomes on 20 quality indicators.  First, it isn't clear that the CDS implemented across the various doctors' offices and emergency rooms actually addressed the indicators studied.  Second, the data studied is already dated (from the 2005 to 2007 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey), a long time in technology terms (iPhone first debuted in 2007).  The authors of the original article also point out that there is some evidence that institution specific use of CDS actually improves quality.  Whether this can be scaled to the national level is the question.

In other words, it isn't just that perhaps CDS failed, but rather the robustness of the system was inadequate, that doctors failed to use them, or just as importantly patients were unswayed by the doctors reminded by the CDS to do the right thing. One of the 20 quality indicators studied was in fact the appropriate antibiotic use in viral upper respiratory infections.  As most people know already, there is not typically an appropriate antibiotic to use for a virus.  It's a virus.  It does, however, take good bedside manner to inform and educate an ill patient!

As someone who has had the benefit of a robust electronic health record since the spring of 2006, I know I'm incredibly lucky.  In an April 2009 New England Journal of Medicine article, only 4 percent of doctors nationally have a fully comprehensive EHR that I take for granted daily. Only 1.5 percent of hospitals have a comprehensive EHR, which I also have access to.  CDS is also an incredibly helpful tool and an excellent reminder to provide the right care every time.  It is a safety net.  Understandably some EHRs aren't that good, the CDS is clunky, and certainly the one I use is good, but not perfect.

The real issue isn't finding a perfect EHR, but rather how do we address the culture of the medical profession. There is something still heroic and mystical about a lone doctor, independent, smart, and getting the job done.  Indeed, to get into medical school, one has to be self-motivated, persistent, and determined.  Why on earth would we need a computer to help us?

Frankly, because it makes us better doctors.  CDS frees up time and mental energy.  I don't have to remember the latest guidelines on immunizations, repeating blood work, or treatment of illness like coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, and hyperlipidemia.  Most of these diseases are well understood and often under a protocol, something known as precision medicine, a term used by Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen. 

Now I can focus on if the patient in front of me is an exception to the protocol as well as thoughtfully diagnose and treat their ailments which don't fit any protocol (cognitive medicine) because science hasn't evolved to that level of understanding.  I'm a big believer in the history and physical exam and how the use of HIT can make care more personal.  Having real-time access quickly and reliably to medical information and data 24/7 is important to make this happen.  Instead of hunting for lab work in a paper chart or trying to find a specialist's consultation, I can access the information I need rapidly and focus on the patient in front of me.


Sadly, however, many doctors don't feel the same way. Perhaps it is a generational thing. Perhaps it is because their EHR is inadequate.  It might also be, however, our training and tradition which limits us from improving.  If anything, the medical profession needs to emulate ourselves after the aviation industry where technology is used to support decision making and make pilots and flying even safer and better.  We are where our aviation colleagues were in 1935 as noted in Dr. Atul Gawande's New Yorker piece, the Checklist.  Because, really, CDS is essentially a checklist.

In the situation where a patient doesn't fit CDS, then we get to do what we do best and that is use all of our training to get a patient better.   HIT, EHR, and CDS are things the next generation of doctors must accept that will make the care we provide more personal than ever before.  In the end, that is what patients really want.

This is why I love my EHR so much.

Why the End of Internal Medicine As We Know It - Might Be A Good Thing!

A recent blog post in the Health Affairs blog proclaimed The End of Internal Medicine As We Know It.  What the article is really asking is the future of primary care in the world of health care reform and the creation of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs).  While doctors should be naturally concerned about change, I don't completely agree with this article.

ACOs are organizations that are integrated and accountable for the health and well-being of a patient and also have joint responsibilities on how to thoughtfully use a patient's or employer's health insurance premium, something that is sorely lacking in the current health care structure.  These were recently created and defined in the health care reform bill.

Yet, the author seems to suggest that this is a step backwards.

modern industry abandoned command-and-control style vertical integration decades ago in favor of flatter, more nimble institutions

Not true.  Successful organizations are ones that are tightly integrated - Apple, Fedex, Wal-mart, Disney.

The author talks briefly about how Europe in general does better than the US in terms of outcomes and costs and has a decentralized system.  All true.  However, contrasting Europe and America isn't relevant.  After all, who isn't still using the metric system?  Therefore solutions found outside the US probably aren't applicable due to a variety of reasons.  Americans like to do things our way.

What I do agree on is that doctors need to be part of the solution and ensure that the disasters of decades ago, like labeling primary care doctors (internists and family physicians) as "gatekeepers" rather than what we really do, never happens.

I love primary care.  I've worked at Kaiser Permanente (KP) in Northern California since 2000.  I have long term relationships with my patients.  They see me when they are well.   They see me when they are sick.  They have me as their personal doctor.  There are no mid-level practitioners (nurse practitioners or physician assistants) in my unit.  I'm supported by information technology, staff to help those members with chronic conditions, and collegial specialist colleagues.

In other words, I'm doing what almost every primary care doctor wants: long-term meaningful relationships with patients, no hassles from insurance companies, the ability to retrieve information quickly and easily, and support for specialty colleagues who are equally focused on the well-being of the patient and who respect me as much as I respect them.

Perhaps the death of primary care as it currently exists with crushing administrative hassles, loss of work-life balance, increasingly short office visits, and paper charts which often has inadequate information or are unavailable isn't a bad idea after all.

Now I understand that KP looks very much like an ACO.   I also know it isn't for everyone, doctors or patients, and isn't the only solution for the country.  Certainly doctors should be wary of if every self-proclaimed "ACO" is really that or more of the same in the fee for service world but simply disguised in the ACO term.

However, for primary care doctors looking for a better way to care for patients, it is a very viable and sustainable solution.  If the future for primary care looks like what I see and do everyday, then I believe the future will be bright.

Primary care doctors looking for a better future in primary care and willing to move to Northern California should do more research here. 

Patients in the end may benefit from ACOs.  I know my patients do.

Patients Lie. Why Doctors Should be Like Medical Students. A Good History is a Checklist.

The most common question first year medical students ask me is how do they become efficient at taking a patient history.  Can they skip certain parts of taking the patient history and avoid asking about a social history, whether a patient drinks, smokes, uses drugs, or is sexually active?  When can they stop asking about the review of systems, a list of questions asked about each organ system?  A comprehensive history is used in the emergency room, hospital, or during an annual physical, not in urgent care or an outpatient appointment, right?

Wrong.


Patients lie and don't even know it.  It's not that they mean to.  In fact, they are trying to be helpful when giving a history of their symptoms.  Medical students concerns about taking a fast history reflects two things.  First is the reality of the limited amount of face time with patients, which unfortunately seems to be even less than the past.  Second, more importantly, is their fascination and desire to get started on real medicine -- what are the diagnoses, treatments, and tests that must be learned to be a good doctor.


In fact, what they realize after working with me is that the most important part of being a doctor is talking to patients and listening.  Taking a good history is the essential part of being a good doctor.


Here are two examples of patients who I saw during the winter.  The practice is busy this time of year.  I'm often running late.  Like many encounters, I've never met these patients before.  In many ways, it can feel like an urgent care practice.  Which patient is lying?  Can you tell?

Young woman wanting a work note for the flu.  She was complaining of a three day history of diffuse muscle pains, headache and high fever.  That's it.  She had no other concerns.  Just anxious to get home and go to bed.


OR


A young man with an ankle injury after playing soccer.  As an aside, he also asked about stomach flu which occurred a few days prior.  He had nausea, abdominal pain, and vomiting for a day.  He still had abdominal pain.

Which one was lying?  Both.

A medical student or doctor recently out of training might have not missed the diagnosis in either patient because they are still working on how to hone down their questioning.  In other words, they haven't take the shortcuts yet and still ask comprehensive histories.  Yet, they aspire to just ask the vital questions to be efficient.  A more seasoned doctor who is stressed and busy may have taken mental shortcuts and moved on.

In other words, how do you know what is and isn't vital until you ask?

Patients also have fallen into this trap believing this tradition of talking to their doctors is simply unnecessary, worthless, and an obstacle to getting to the truth.  With increasing out of pockets costs for office visits, I'm seeing more requests from patients to simply get a MRI or blood test instead of seeing a doctor not only to address the problem, the real reason for the tests, but also if testing is usually necessary (it isn't in the vast majority of cases).

A good history is very much like the checklists pilots use and what Dr. Atul Gawande advocates in his book.  Taking a good history also slows doctors down and allows them to avoid cognitive errors (as described beautifully in the book How Doctors Think), think more clearly, and avoid jumping to premature conclusions.  Even the time honored skill of thinking through a differential diagnosis and thinking hard to make a long list of possibilities is a checklist and safeguard to consider other alternative problems that wouldn't appear when stressed.   Being a doctor requires thinking and less knee jerk responses. 

So what did the two patients have?

The first patient didn't have the flu.  She had a kidney infection known as pyelonephritis.  In taking the review of systems when asked about her urination pattern, she realized that it had changed during her illness.  Also, in asking questions, she had no other signs of having a upper respiratory illness, no cough, no runny nose, no head congestion.  Instead of simply writing a work note for a presumed virus and moving on to the next patient, this patient received antibiotics.  Untreated, pyelonephritis can be serious and require IV antibiotics or hospitalization.


The second patient didn't have stomach flu.  In fact, patients also make similar mental shortcuts by telling us what they think is going on - "stomach flu" rather than telling us specific systems.  When people refer to stomach flu, like food poisoning, often there is nausea and vomiting which then is followed by diarrhea.  He didn't have diarrhea just persistent abdominal pain.

He had gastritis, irritation of the stomach lining, due to alcohol abuse. Asking about his social history, he admitted to binging on a 12 pack of beers that day, a behavior, not uncommon for him.  Not only was he treated for this, he was also recommended to quit drinking.

So even experienced doctors can take a page from medical students.  It's the taking the history that matters.  Everything else we do, the physical exam, lab work, and imaging tests are tools and not the truth.

Want to know, one other time a patient lies?

When you see an otherwise healthy young man in the office who simply wants an annual check-up just to be safe.  These types of patients are as common as seeing the Loch Ness monster.

The real reason he's there?  His spouse, girlfriend, or significant other for a symptom he's been complaining about but didn't want to see a doctor.

If I don't get to that truth, guess who I'll be seeing next week?  The same patient again but with his spouse, girlfriend, or significant other.


Or he's asking about Viagra.

The Best Book on Healthcare Reform (or Surviving It)

The best book on healthcare reform or surviving it is The Innovator's Prescription: A Disruptive Solution for Health Care .  The decade worth of research spent understanding, studying, and ultimately offering solutions to make the health care system more accessible, higher quality, and affordable is clear. Unlike other books, the authors, respected Harvard Business School (HBS) professor Clayton Christensen, a doctor who also was the Director of Health Care Delivery Policy Program at Harvard Kennedy School Jerome Grossman, and another doctor and graduate of the MBA program at HBS Jason Hwang avoid the traps the plague most other solutions by taking a completely different perspective by looking at other industries where products and services offered were "so complicated and expensive that only people with a lot of money can afford them, and only people with a lot of expertise can provide or use them." Yet convincingly through plenty of examples, it shows how telephones, computers, and airline travel moved from only accessible to those with the resources to become available and affordable to all.

The book tackles every aspect of health care and asks how will those in health care be disrupted and subsequently surpassed by other providers which deliver care that is more convenient, higher quality, and lower cost.

What will hospitals need to do as increasingly more surgical procedures are performed in high volume specialty hospitals?

How will doctor practices sustain themselves as new diagnostic tools and research makes the identification and treatment of problems more precise that nurse practitioners with clear protocols can deliver care previously required by physicians?

What mechanisms exist to streamline and integrate the various players of health care (doctors, hospitals, purchasers, insurers) so that all are focused on the benefit of wellness and outcomes of patient care rather than maximizing each of their own financials? (Hint: large employers will integrate health care and others will only purchase care delivered by integrated healthcare delivery systems).

What should medical schools do to prepare the next generation of doctors as current training is steeped in tradition, relevant a century ago, but woefully inadequate for the future?

How should pharmaceutical, medical device manufacturers, and diagnostic equipment makers position themselves for the inevitable changes that will affect them the same way previous leaders in other industries were overtaken by competitors and disruption?

How must the reimbursement system and regulators adapt to foster the innovation to make these changes occur?

If there is anything close to a crystal ball on what health care delivery will look like in the United States that will be increasingly affordable, higher quality, and accessible to all, this is it.  They authors have convincingly demonstrated the likely path as well as indicated why a single payer nationalized system will stifle the innovation needed to improve our health care system. Those who wish to succeed in the new world of health care as predicted by this comprehensive and thoughtful analysis would be wise to consider this book.

Elizabeth Edwards, Breast Cancer, and Mammograms - Her Death a Failure of Healthcare System.

Elizabeth Edwards died recently of breast cancer at 61, leaving behind three children, Cate (28), Emma Claire (12), and Jack (10).  Described by her eldest daughter as intelligent, humorous, and witty, I'm fairly certain that she would not have wanted to leave her children at such a young age. Yet, in November 2004, shortly after the presidential election, she announced to the public that she had discovered a breast lump, which ultimately was diagnosed as cancer.  She admitted shortly after her diagnosis that at age 55 that she had not been screened for breast cancer with a mammogram for about four years.

Which is why the recent report from the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, done annually in December, is particularly worrisome.  The study period between 2006 to 2009 found these screening rates to be lower rates than the past.  Only 50 percent of women eligible to be screened for breast cancer actually did so.  That number improved slightly to 60 percent with women receiving two mammograms over a four year period.

In other words, 40 percent of women, who should get mammograms, aren't getting them.  

Just like Elizabeth Edwards.

Is it personal choice?  A cost issue?  Or lack of time?  Lack of understanding?  While experts debate, I'll tell you.

It's a lack of time and lack of understanding.  Everyone is incredibly busy.  Given a choice, patients will do the right thing if they are nudged to do so.  In fact, they want doctors to help guide them to the correct choice.  Elizabeth Edwards certainly as a mother and professional woman had the financial resources and intelligence to know the importance of annual mammograms starting at age 40, yet didn't do so.  Perhaps she didn't think she was at risk.  Maybe she was focused on her children and husband and didn't care for herself as much as she should have, a common trait for many mothers.

The question is was she reminded of her options?  If she was a patient in my practice, she would have benefited from a team effort that constantly worked to keep her healthy.  At every office visit, whether with a primary care doctor or a specialist, every patient at every check-in received a personalized checklist that is age appropriate.  Ms. Edwards would have seen on her checklist that she was overdue for her mammogram.

To make it incredibly easy to get it done, all of the medical offices that her doctors work at have a radiology department with mammogram machines.  To make it even easier, patients can walk-in to have them done.  No appointments needed.   No paper work required.  She simply would have finished up with her doctor, checked in with radiology, and had her mammogram.

If by chance she was busy and otherwise healthy and hadn't seen a doctor face to face, but was overdue then she would have been notified by mail at least three times to remind her of that fact.  A team of healthcare providers use the electronic medical record to find which women are overdue, contact them, and then check again to see if the mammogram was done.  If after a few attempts if there still was no response, her primary care doctor would get a message to call her, just to make sure she fully understood the choice she was making.  If she still declined, while that would not be the medically advisable, her decision would be respected.  After all, she is an adult and would have been fully informed about the pros and cons of her decisions.

It's likely, however, that instead of a four year absence, she would have opted for a mammogram.   It would have shown an abnormality months before she actually felt a lump.  Chance of recurrence is much less when breast cancer is caught at a non-palpable stage.

Despite all of the advances in oncology and chemotherapy treatments, the biggest decline in breast cancer deaths over the past 25 years was due to mammogram screening.  Though the new healthcare reform bill which make preventative services like screening for cancer free, that isn't enough.  If people are too busy to remember, much like doing the right thing for retirement planning, they won't do what is in their best interest, even if it is what they would have done if they only had time.

In other words, it isn't about the individual as much as enabling the individual to do the best for herself by designing the system to get the best outcome.  It is true in retirement planning and automotive and road design as it is in healthcare.

I don't believe that if she had such a healthcare system in place to help her stay healthy and well that her life would have ended this way.  While the system I describe exists today in California, where I work, and our breast cancer screening rates are far far better than the study quoted at the San Antonio Breast Symposium, any death that was too soon and preventable in my mind is a failure.  A failure not of the individual patient, but of the healthcare system.

Perhaps that is why she was a health care activist.

Although I've never met her, I am certain that given a choice had she had the healthcare system around her which optimized her chances for the right decision, she would have never wanted to leave her children at such a young age.  The absence of such a system is the true tragedy.

My thoughts are with her family, friends, and most especially her children, Cate, Emma Claire, and Jack.