Medicare Change: 10 Ways to Stop Improvement

Stop Sign

 

Some think Medicare means utopia; we just need more of it.  For them, change is bad.  Listed below are 10 tired quips people use to stop change to Medicare (with responses).

1. You exaggerate the problems with Medicare.

Not to people dying on wait lists.

2. Medicare worked so far; why change now?

We need to adapt or go extinct.

3. We just need more money.

Budgets never precede greatness.  Steve Jobs started in a garage.

4. You imply we – providers, bureaucrats, etc. – are a failure.  

No, you’ve done very well even without the best tools.  Imagine what we could accomplish with the right structure, aligned incentives, and patient involvement?

5. You have a hidden agenda.

That’s not fair.  Look at the good folks working to improve things.  

[BTW, this accusation works to undermine anything you want to oppose; it’s impossible to prove the absence of something!]

6. What about control?  What about accountability?  What about, what about, what about?

All great ideas raise questions; none can be answered with certainty beforehand.

7. This just sounds like [choose your favourite distasteful concept].  Favourite distasteful concepts include: American Medicine, big business, profiting on suffering, etc.

Actually, it’s not like any of those terrible things at all.  It’s about giving patients what they need, when they want it, in a way that makes them feel valued.  

8. You’re abandoning our core values.

Change upholds the values that started Medicare.  We started with an insurance program for acute needs.  We now have a warranty to cover routine maintenance.  We need to get back to our original vision and build from there.

9. It won’t work here; we are different.

True.  We are different, but people are the same everywhere.  Canada ranks next to last on many measures (efficiency, service) against European countries.  I’m sure we are smart enough to do better here. 

10. This is a slippery slope towards American healthcare [or other scary idea].

Common sense provides a guardrail.  We let 10 year olds watch TV, but we do not let them vote or drive a car.

Everyone agrees we need change; just not with Medicare.  We need adult conversations that move beyond fear mongering, confusion, and character assassination.  Change will be forced on us as the first baby boomers turn 80 in 2027.  We’ve outgrown Medicare; we must change now, or watch it fail completely.

 

Modern Medicine Today, Miasma Tomorrow

john snow 01Nearly 2,000 people died of cholera in London, 1848.  Those who survived boarded their apartments and fled to the countryside.  Streets were bleached and sprinkled with sulfur to combat the foul odours, miasma, that experts believed caused the infection.

Dr. Snow pioneered population mapping in outbreaks.  He moved scientific thinking to adopt the water borne theory of cholera transmission: a feat far tougher than identifying the source of infection.

People believed foul smells caused disease.  They thought noxious odours or miasma infected patients.  The miasma theory of contagion held popular opinion for most of the 19th century.  In its final hours before surrendering to the water borne theory, followers lashed out with invective and calumny.  They attacked Dr. Snow and his theory.  They even used Snow’s best example and twisted it into support for the old miasma dogma.

What holds unquestioned support in medicine today that will cause incredulous moans of disbelief by clinicians after us?

(photo credit: www.westendextra.com)

Physician Autonomy: an Historic Relic?

Physician autonomy was sacrosanct; even enshrined in the Warsaw declaration.  

Lately, it’s negotiable.

Ballooning costs of care and medico-legal risk make more doctors call for clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to protect them, simplify complex decision making, and justify not ordering unnecessary tests and treatment when patients demand them.

Looking for something solid on which to make clinical decisions, physicians elevate evidence based medicine as a weapon against bureaucrats’ cost cutting and so-called expert opinions.  But, the weapon also slices off physician autonomy.

Battle-lines form, with cost on one side, autonomy on the other, and evidence held hostage by whoever can show it best supports them.  Patient centeredness, another hostage, usually hangs from physician banners.  National associations weigh in; things get nasty.

When physicians call for CPGs, are they calling for limits to their autonomy? 

Doctors usually say, “No.  We can ignore the CPGs when indicated.”

If so, it seems CPGs afford little protection from lawsuit.  If standard care is to ignore CPGs when indicated, how can doctors rely on CPGs to decrease medico-legal risk?

Having CPGs, but ignoring them at will, seems to be the worst of both worlds: loss of autonomy without decreased risk.

While the aroma of clinical autonomy lingers, any trace of operational autonomy in hospitals or large groups disappeared long ago.  Even so, some physicians discussing system decisions still say:

Every physician should be involved in every decision

Every change idea should be shared at the earliest possible moment with every MD

Consensus with all physicians should be reached before any change

Are we in a post-physician-autonomy age?  How does this impact professionalism?  Is autonomy something that’s earned or protected?  Is autonomy the wrong question?

Responsibility, accountability, and autonomy are inseparable.  Some want to remove physician responsibility  as a way to decrease physician influence; others want to remove responsibility as a way to decrease risk.  Some insist on keeping accountability, but work to remove responsibility and autonomy.

Should we forget about physician autonomy and only ask what’s best for patients?