Societal Opinion of Doctors

Societal Opinion of DoctorsAre doctors knights, knaves or pawns? Are they altruistic agents devoted to public service? Selfish conniving opportunists? Or hapless dupes, lacking agency or judgment? Are they conflicted villains?

Societal opinion dictates whether government policies are permissive, punitive or prescriptive (see JAMA article – 1st page only “Societal Perceptions of Physicians – Knights, Knaves, or Pawns?”). Opinion polls place doctors as valued members of society. But opinions change faster than fashion.

The British Economist, Julian Le Grand, discussed this in his book Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy: Of Knights and Knaves, Pawns and Queens.

The JAMA authors write:

“Le Grand’s work on post-World War II British social policy found that perceptions of human motivations gradually transformed, with the prevailing view of the typical British citizen morphing from knight to knave as the costs of maintaining an expensive welfare state increased.” (JAMA)

Knight – one on whom the dignity of knighthood is conferred because of personal merit or exemplary service to country

Knaverogue, scumbag, lowlife 

Pawn – a person manipulated or used to some end.  A puppet, tool or dupe

As money runs out, perceptions change.

Do doctors have a vision for healthcare? Do they know how to improve things for patients? Does anyone have a vision?

Healthcare uses up almost ½ of Ontario’s budget. Still people cry out for even more coverage (e.g., drugs). The system will fail without significant change.

Options:

  • More public monopoly (more accurately, monopsony )? More taxes? User fees?
  • Insurance driven (expensive) employee benefit plans? Like USA?
  • Out-sourced public offerings? More private management of the government monopoly?
  • European approaches? Everyone, except North Korea, allows citizens choice. Is it un-Canadian?
  • Public system with wait-time guarantee (i.e., government pays for care out of state if state can’t provide service)?

Doctors need to develop opinions about options. They need to speak with patients and local decision makers.

Le Grand’s comments aside, what doctors say and do drives societal opinion of them. As we run out of money (Ontario Will Eventually Have to Pay the Piper, Globe and Mail), what will physicians do?  What do doctors envision will improve the system?

If you work in healthcare, what’s your vision? If you’re a patient, what do you think needs to change?

Physicians have a choice. Come up with a positive vision to benefit patients or get bulldozed by policies based on societal perception of you as a pawn or knave. What will it be?

Health Equity – Reality or Politics?

everyone-wins-a-trophy-generationThe need to help animates healthcare. We see a need and work to meet it.

Disparities in health outcomes resonate deeply with us.

The cholera outbreak in London offered clear disparity and a tangible solution. Poor infant and child health in (some) Northern communities offers disparity with no obvious answer.

A solution requires a clearly defined problem. Does anyone know what health equity, inequity or disparity means exactly? Is it something that we know but cannot easily define, like the Caucus-race from Alice in Wonderland?

First [the Dodo] marked out a race-course, in a sort of circle, (`the exact shape doesn’t matter,’ it said,) and then all the party were placed along the course, here and there. There was no `One, two, three, and away,’ but they began running when they liked, and left off when they liked, so that it was not easy to know when the race was over.

However, when they had been running half an hour or so…the Dodo suddenly called out `The race is over!’ and they all crowded round it, panting, and asking, `But who has won?’

This question the Dodo could not answer without a great deal of thought, and it sat for a long time with one finger pressed upon its forehead (the position in which you usually see Shakespeare, in the pictures of him), while the rest waited in silence. At last the Dodo said, `Everybody has won, and all must have prizes.’

Health Equity Defined

Health equity has become the cardinal virtue in many policy discussions. We hear impassioned calls to address it. No action is too outrageous so long as it furthers our goal of health equity and equality overall.

What is health equity?

  • Equality – everyone gets the same pair of shoes.
  • Equity – everyone gets a pair of shoes that fits.

An academic definition (BMJ):

“Equity means social justice or fairness; it is an ethical concept, grounded in principles of distributive justice…

Equity in health means equal opportunity to be healthy, for all population groups. Equity in health thus implies that resources are distributed and processes are designed in ways most likely to move toward equalising the health outcomes of disadvantaged social groups with the outcomes of their more advantaged counterparts. This refers to the distribution and design not only of health care resources and programmes, but of all resources, policies, and programmes that play an important part in shaping health, many of which are outside the immediate control of the health sector.”

One site says

“Once everyone enjoys a similar level of health and well-being, we can focus on preserving fairness by giving everyone the same things: this is equality. As the Pan-American Health Organization puts it, equity is the means, equality is the outcome.”

If you have time, check out Maxwell Smith’s (Toronto) lecture: What do we Mean by Health Equity in Public Health?Assumptions and Theoretical Commitments

Dozens of issues including: genetic predisposition, epidemiological hazards, environmental hazards, geographical factors, work conditions, political or social marginalization or oppression, other social/societal determinants?

“Equity in health implies that ideally everyone should have a fair opportunity to attain their full health potential and, more pragmatically, that no one should be disadvantaged from achieving this potential, if it can be avoided.” Whitehead, 1992, pg. 7

Maxwell tackles strict egalitarianism (equal income, equal healthcare resources, liberty and health) vs. prioritarianism vs. sufficientarianism. He mentions equality of opportunity, resources, well-being, self esteem, knowledge, self determination…

A sense emerges that health inequity is a disparity in health thought to be due to differences in social advantage.  Adherents seem to believe health inequity causes poor health if you belong to an identifiable, disadvantaged group. But bad lifestyle choices cause un-healthiness if you belong to a socially advantaged group.

Health Equity Highlights

  • Outcomes include: life expectancy, social opportunity, well-being, and more…
  • Equity is a normative (moral) virtue rooted in distributive justice.

Advocates of health equity

  • Presuppose the efficacy of social planning to correct health inequity.
  • Believe the state has the right, and moral obligation, to advance health equity.
  • Think that health disparity, being a cardinal virtue, justifies unpopular decisions by government to address health disparity despite lack of a clear definition or solution.
  • Hold a vision of everyone enjoying a similar level of health and well-being.

Medicine, Public Health & Health Equity

Although similar, public health sits apart from the sine a qua non of medicine, the doctor patient relationship.

Medicine is one individual responding to another’s need. Public health is something more and different. Well-intentioned, compassionate people work in both fields. But the motivating ideology is radically different.

I never read public health calling to help individuals in need. Public health preaches distributive justice, not individual charity; population health, not individual compassion.

Politics vs Clinical Care?

We need to champion clinical compassion for its own sake and not let it be used as a lever to promote utopian ideals.

Historical experiments in extreme equality grew from political platforms, political agendas. The righteous indignation voiced against health disparity today often seems less motivated towards meeting individuals’ needs as opposed to promoting old political ideals.

We need a clear definition of what we hope to achieve by promoting health equity. Vague sermons about distributive justice mean nothing without concrete ends. If we cannot define what we hope to achieve, maybe pontificating about equality is nothing more than political ideology dressed up as ‘health’?

 photo credit: hotmeme.net

Catastrophic Care – Book Review

CatastrophicCareDavid Goldhill is a CEO. He likes Obama. He’s a democrat and generally supports government in healthcare.

But it blows his mind that an entire industry is blind to prices.

After his dad died from a hospital-borne infection, Mr. Goldhill started a quest; improve healthcare in America.

His wrote “How American Healthcare Killed my Father” for the Atlantic.

He researched, debated and lectured on healthcare.

Then he wrote a book: Catastrophic Care: Why Everything We Think We Know about Health Care Is Wrong. Malcolm Gladwell calls it

“A devastating and utterly original analysis of what has gone wrong with the American health care system. Read it, and take a deep breath.”

Why bother with US healthcare?

Everyone knows Canadian Medicare is better…and different, right? Canadians love not being American.

But for healthcare, we share something critical: invisible costs.  Patients and providers never know the price of care. Not that it’s not free; just too scary for us to know the real cost.

  • In the US, insurance companies pay.
  • In Canada, governments pay.
  • Patients access care with no concern for cost.
  • Doctors provide care with almost no concern for cost.

To this, the choir bursts into “O Canada!” And Canadian Doctors4Medicare enjoin with, “Hallelujah! Hallelujah!”

Catastrophic Care – Highlights

  • Surrogates administer and pay for care. Third parties (insurance companies and governments) never care as much about prices as 1st and 2nd parties (patients and doctors).
  • Medicare presents moral hazard – do extra work ‘because it’s covered’.
  • But if patients were served like customers, wouldn’t that create waste in advertising and promotion? Marx said the same about toilet paper; how wasteful to have more than 1 brand!
  • Lower administrative costs do not indicate success. With waste, waiting and quality concerns, low admin costs indicate rationing or negligence.
  • Insurance/government-run systems have no meaningful financial discipline.
  • Cost based pricing never works. ‘Costs’ just get artificially raised.
  • We’re fixated on insurance, static rules and unknown prices. We are overconfident in our ability to set prices.
  • The healthcare system makes us feel like paupers – a result of a system without customer accountability.
  • We follow a path of dependence. We limit reforms to existing structures.
  • We try to cover too much.  It’s dangerous to the whole system.
  • Surrogates, regulators and special interest groups resist new ideas.
  • Stakeholder interests control government’s agenda.
    • Creative destruction becomes impossible; incumbents’ interests become stakeholders’ interests.
    • Business eliminates whole industries to improve customer service (e.g. longshoremen disappeared with ‘container’ shipping).
    • Governments never eliminate a stakeholder.
  • Goldhill offers a thought experiment: Could we spend healthcare dollars differently? He leverages ideas from Singapore to offer a plan.

If you only read one healthcare book this year, try Catastrophic Care: Why Everything We Think We Know about Health Care Is Wrong.  Mr. Goldhill writes well. Other than a few totally US-centric sections, Goldhill shares problems and solutions that apply to Canadian Medicare too. He does not promote a totally privatized, laissez faire, market-based system.

I’d love to hear what you think of it!