http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/13/120813fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=1
Kind of a long read, but very good.
Any thoughts?
Kind of a long read, but very good.
Any thoughts?
The article is too long for anyone to care about it.
The article is too long for anyone to care about it. But, from the first page, the jist is clear. Yes, medicine will become a chain (and already is) even more down the road. It will become standardized and perhaps even to the point at which there may be a "menu" of services to order from...some more expensive than others. The standard suture may be covered, but want to order the super dooper stitch that reduces scarring by 60%? That order may cost you.
Regardless....with so many people to service, and the population growing, not to mention with the burden of all the illegal foreigners here, and those requiring health services who don't pay taxes; it may be inevitable.
Turning the healthcare system into a corporate chain franchise is a bad, bad idea. In fact, we know it's a bad idea because dentistry already tried it with horrific results (chains regularly prescribed unnecessary procedures, inferior procedures that happened to cost more, pressure-sold patients overpriced caps and dentures (that were also often unnecessary), did shoddy work, and placed a heavy emphasis on seeing as many patients as possible over providing quality care).
It's all but certain that the same thing would happen in medicine if we tried it. The precedent is that every time you have a market where you have a very specialized service that the layman knows virtually nothing about, many businesses will attempt to rip people off with unnecessary, exorbitant costs and subpar work. For example, auto mechanics and computer repairmen are both notorious for this, as are the dentists I mentioned previously.
Fascinating piece.
Something that should be noted: moving towards big medicine successfully diffuses the accountability (not just responsibility) the doctor has. Implications? Many.
All of this is true, however it can be solved one thing: "customer" satisfaction. Especially in the age of Yelp, Angie's List, etc., word of mouth is a very, very powerful thing. If you're a practice that rips people off and attempts to bill for unnecessary procedures, you will develop a poor reputation and "customers" will stop seeing you if they can avoid it. If, on the other hand, your patients are satisfied with your service, are comfortable around you, and get the sense that you truly care about them (rather than strictly the bottom line), you will develop a good reputation and patients will flock to you.
What you worry about isn't limited to corporations/integrated medical providers. A douchebag physician is going to be a douchebag physician no matter what practice environment he's in. There is nothing intrinsic about large-scale medical practices that causes them to be terrible. As an example, see Mayo. If you think academic institutions or other practice setups are immune to this, you're sorely, sorely mistaken.
I recommend that you set aside the 10 minutes it takes to read the article. It's about, you know, your future career and all.
Big medicine may play a role but it will because of meek new grad doctors who want to shirk their responsibility to set up practices and groups and hand those responsibilities to private equity firms that only care about one thing: the bottom line.
Then, medicine will devolve into something like chiropractic care where the only thing that matters is consumer demand and consumer satisfaction. Why? because those that are calling the shots are not doctors. They'll be business men - not inherently bad - but they increase profits with a heavy emphases on marketing and scaling.
Physicians will be just another cog in the corporate machine. No thanks.
EDIT: And honestly... Cheese Cake Factory? That's a standard to aspire to in an analogous sector? lol. I avoid chain restaurants for a reason.
What you worry about isn't limited to corporations/integrated medical providers. A douchebag physician is going to be a douchebag physician no matter what practice environment he's in. There is nothing intrinsic about large-scale medical practices that causes them to be terrible.
The article is too long for anyone to care about it. But, from the first page, the jist is clear.
It seems to me like the current system is more like 'doctor-in-a-box', with each doctor simply performing the same procedure the same way every time without updating their methods or communicating with postop. The patient has no idea whether the doctor is using the best techniques or protocols, because it's difficult to shop around for surgery; most places don't even bother discussing the price with you. As long as you have insurance, they assume you can work it out on your own.
The difference is that the current system at least tries more often than not to be altruistic. With chains though it becomes all about profit no matter the cost. It's not about scale, it's about the business model.
The whole idea that businesses will have no choice but to be honest due to market forces is naive. The real world is full of examples where that high school economics rule has been broken. It's extremely common with monopolies, but can also occur whenever the consumer is too uninformed to realize they're being taken for a ride. Both are very possible with medicine. Monopolies are guaranteed to occur in rural and under-served areas, and I think it's safe to say that most people know jack **** about medicine. Also keep in mind that people rely on brandname appeal more than anything else. It doesn't matter if your business is one of the worst out there and has pissed off legions of consumers, if you've got the brandname appeal and an inflated marketing budget you can ride out the bad PR for decades or longer. Just look at for profit colleges like Phoenix or DeVry.
So where's the harm in making sure they actually do it, streamlining the process, and making the patients more aware of it? Are you so confident that they all actually do it on their own, with no incentive?Mehc. Doctors already do that.
The big questions are
1) How will this affect our salaries?
2) How will this affect our work hours?
3) How much power will the physician have in this new system?
And this sums up the problems of our society today pretty well.
When the tele-ICU was being described, Orwell and 1984 just came to mind with Big Brother Medicine, but it could work as long as it doesn't become authoritative; I wouldn't want CEO's piping in randomly while I'm replacing someone's knee.
And this sums up the problems of our society today pretty well.
When the tele-ICU was being described, Orwell and 1984 just came to mind with Big Brother Medicine, but it could work as long as it doesn't become authoritative; I wouldn't want CEO's piping in randomly while I'm replacing someone's knee.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/13/120813fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=1
Kind of a long read, but very good.
Any thoughts?
I recommend that you set aside the 10 minutes it takes to read the article. It's about, you know, your future career and all.
Agreed; I think it would ONLY work if they kept it to medical professionals. Its purpose is really to have another layer of observation, like having more ICU nurses or interns or something. I can think of no reason for an administrator to use it at all!
Not to mention the fact that the tele-ICU is in the patients' rooms, not everywhere. It's not like you should be doing anything in a patient's room that you wouldn't want people to see; on a personal level, the patient can see you, and on a professional level, all of your actions should be charted anyway. Honestly, it's the same as having another nurse around, and it chimes when they turn it on so that you know they're there. If anything, I can see this extra layer of observation helping, either by preventing you from screwing up, or by providing a backup witness in case of a lawsuit (while it isn't documented in the chart, I saw that Dr. X stopped by to check on the patient at least twice during the night...)
I'm buying the beet salad next time i go...
I'm a huge Atul Gawande fan and this is the first time i've read one of his New Yorker articles in full length. I definitely see hope in Big Medicine. From the examples he showed, it seemed as if all the systems that have accepted a standardized form of health care are really benefiting from it (better care, lower costs). However, since many doctors, nurses, and other health professions have their own of doing things (techniques for procedures, equipment used, etc.), it just seems almost impossible for Big Med to be a main stream form of care.
Why on earth would a CEO decide to watch a knee replacement?
Ha, took me a little bit more than ten minutes. But yes, definitely recommend that everyone reads it.