Skip to main content
Tag

politics

Oct 30 2019

Tear gas, neoliberalism, and #PatientsIncluded — will it blend?

By healthcare industry, media commentary, politics

image credit: my crazy brain

The Tear Gas

I traveled to Santiago, Chile recently. My timing was auspicious, since my news-puke bingo card still had an open slot preventing me from screaming BINGO at the top of my lungs. That open square was “get tear gassed” — it got filled at around 11am Atlantic Time on Monday, October 21, as tear gas rolled down Avenida Libertador General Bernardo O’Higgins, called La Alameda by locals. It’s really hard to scream BINGO at the top of your lungs while getting tear gassed, by the way. In case you wondered.

I was in Chile to attend and speak at the annual Cochrane Colloquium, a global meeting for health researchers, science geeks, and health policy nerds from all over ever’where, to share the experience of being part of the first #PatientsIncluded Cochrane Colloquium in Edinburgh last year. The conference was scheduled to start on Tuesday, October 22.

On Thursday, October 17, Chilean citizens — who have had to put up with A LOT over the last sixty or so years — got fed up with ever increasing costs of living and took to the streets to protest a subway fare hike, led by high school students who jumped turnstiles to evade paying the new fare.

image credit: Mighty Casey Media LLC

EVADE become the mantra of the protest, which kept growing over the next couple of days, with some seriously crunchy stuff happening — a Walmart in Valparaiso got burned down, and a Santiago office tower occupied by an energy company burned, too. All of this was ramping up as I traveled from the US to Chile on Saturday into Sunday, October 19 and October 20, so when I got to Santiago on Sunday morning, there was already a curfew on tap, and a whole lot of military dudes in camo and battle gear wandering around the streets toting assault rifles.

I checked into my hotel downtown, and spent a little time looking around the neighborhood. Everything — restaurants, cafes, stores — was closed, except for a few mini-marts around the corner, which had folks lined up to buy groceries at each one. I joined one of the lines, and bought some stuff for dinner in my hotel room.

Meanwhile, my email inbox was stacking up with traffic about the coming Cochrane conference, and whether or not it was actually going to happen, given the rising tide of rage in the streets across the country. On Sunday mid-day, Cochrane decided to cancel the event, “[d]ue to the worsening situation of civil unrest across the city of Santiago.”

Which brings me to Monday, and my news-puke BINGO! moment. In a fruitless search for an ATM or casa de cambio (currency exchange) downtown, I wandered a widening circle around my hotel, winding up on La Alameda around the time that protests were set to kick off around 11am, and getting my snoutful of tear gas. I had dressed for cool-morning-then-warming weather, so I had a shirt that I’d taken off as the temperature rose on my pasear — I wrapped that around my face, and moved away from the rolling miasma of 2- chlorobenzaldene malononitrile (CS), aka tear gas.

As a former news-puke type human who has also studied history, along with living some of it directly, getting tear gassed in Chile was … kinda perfect. I grew up in a military family — US Navy, to be precise — with a dad who was not just a Top Gun (fo’ realsies) fighter pilot, but also an historian and political economist. I spent my childhood through young adulthood surrounded by history books, foreign policy journals, military briefs (declassified, of course), and at least three metropolitan dailies delivered to our door. And that was just dad — mom was Science Girl, so there was also scientific reading of all sorts available throughout the house. So of course I wound up in the news business.

My dad was always happy to talk to me about global events, and emerging history — also called “the news.” The only rule was whatever was discussed in the house, stayed in the house. His military gig, and rank, meant he had all sorts of information and knowledge. That my coming of age happened in the late 1960s through the 1970s means that he and I had all kinds of deep, crunchy conversations about everything from the Vietnam War (dad was not a fan) to Watergate (he was not a Nixon fan) to economic issues like the oil crunch (did I mention that political economy thing? He wound up with a Masters from University College, Dublin).

I learned a lot, including how to apply critical thinking, from dad. And the Jesuits — I grew up in a Catholic family, so Jesuits were always a risk — got in there, too, since they’re considered the intelligentsia of <snark font> Holy Mother Church Universal and Triumphant </snark font>, and I attended a Jesuit university.

So that’s the tear gas part — and a whole lot of backstory.

The neoliberalism

Neoliberalism is an ideology and policy model that emphasizes the value of free market competition. It first appeared as a word/concept around the turn of the 20th century, when all sorts of intellectual fist fights were going on over “communism or nah?” and “capitalism or nah?” I’m not going to go into a whole history of classical liberalism — short snort definition is “political philosophy and ideology in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government.”

Confused yet? I swear I’ll stop with the definitions now.

Neoliberalism became the very favorite thing of Milton Friedman, a University of Chicago economics guy who became the father (figuratively) of the Chicago Boys, a group of Chilean economists who wound up influencing Chilean monetary and economic policy under the Pinochet dictatorship, which was in power 1973–1990. Pinochet was a charming little despot, who led a military coup to overthrow the elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende, with the support of the Nixon Administration.

Chile became a proving ground, a laboratory, for neoliberalism as an economic and political theory put into practice. If that whole “free market competition” thing in the definition makes you think of Ronnie Reagan and Maggie Thatcher, you’re not hallucinating. They were neoliberals, dedicated to proving that free markets solve everything. Got a societal or economic problem? Free markets will solve it! Lower taxes, stop making so many rules (aka “regulations” or “laws”), just let a free market fix everything!

Which is great if you already have a little money, or even a job that pays a living wage. If you don’t have either of those — sorry, loser! “Free market” for you will mean you’ll be free to pay the market price for [whatever you need], or just do without. Neoliberalism is all about freeing up capital by lowering taxes on people with high incomes, or with big investment portfolios. If you’ve noticed that many countries, including the US, have been dealing with rising income and economic inequity, you can lay that at the door of neoliberal economic practice.

So the folks in Chile who are burning down Walmart and setting fire to energy company office towers have a point. They’re mad as hell, and they’re not going to take this <neoliberal bullshit> any more.

photo of woman holding cardboard sign saying “neoliberalism was born in Chile and will die in Chile”

image credit: @UptownBerber on Twitter

As an official old, I’ve been around to see the impact of neoliberalism on global politics and global development. “Free market” thinking has mostly wound up putting what both capitalism and communism call “the means of production” — the stuff that makes the stuff that gets sold in/on the markets — in the hands of an ever-shrinking number of people and organizations. Neoliberalism, as a 20th century political philosophy, was brought into being by folks like the all-American Koch family who, after working with Stalin and Hitler in the early days of both Stalinist USSR and Nazi Germany, put their finely tuned libertarian-now-called-neoliberal political POV to work in the US.

They promoted anti-communism by buddying up with the John Birch Society, and started a “Freedom School” in Colorado Springs to promote their Ayn-Randian/rugged individualism/every man (and it’s really always men) for himself philosophy. They birthed the American hard right. If you want the whole story in almost excruciating, but very well written, detail, read “Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right” by Jane Mayer. Buy a bottle of bourbon to drink while you read it — you’ll thank me for suggesting that.

Back to Chile and neoliberalism. The “Chile miracle” — where Chile sported the most vibrant economy in South America — was seeded by democracy under Allende, not by Pinochet, although Pinochet kept getting the credit. Here’s a good explainer on that by Heraldo Muñoz, “Is Augusto Pinochet responsible for Chile’s success?” [spoiler: nope]

So that’s A WHOLE LOT — a mile wide and about a millimeter deep — about neoliberalism.

 

HTF does #PatientsIncluded come in here?

I’m SO glad you asked!

One of the reasons the folks in Chile are in the streets is that the government is trying to fully privatize the Chilean healthcare system. As an American, I can testify to what a totally shitty idea that is.

Rather than just me banging on about this, here’s the summary points from an article on PLOS Medicine, “Chile’s Neoliberal Health Reform: An Assessment and a Critique” (published in 2008):

  • The Chilean health system underwent a drastic neoliberal reform in the 1980s, with the creation of a dual system: public and private health insurance and public and private provision of health services.
  • This reform served as a model for later World Bank–inspired reforms in countries like Colombia.
  • The private part of the Chilean health system, including private insurers and private providers, is highly inefficient and has decreased solidarity between rich and poor, sick and healthy, and young and old.
  • In spite of serious underfinancing during the Pinochet years, the public health component remains the backbone of the system and is responsible for the good health status of the Chilean population.
  • The Chilean health reform has lessons for other countries in Latin America and elsewhere: privatisation of health insurance services may not have the expected results according to neoliberal doctrine. On the contrary, it may increase unfairness in financing and inequitable access to quality care. [emphasis mine]

That I traveled to Chile to speak about #PatientsIncluded at a global health research and policy conference, as the citizens of that country said AH HELL NAH to being the policy version of a bunch of lab rats in the neoliberalism experiment, is some delicious irony. And why I actually kind of enjoyed being tear gassed on La Alameda — as an American, I know my own country is on the wrong side of “you break it, you bought it” in Chile. We broke this. So we own it. I learned that from my dad, in our long discussions of world politics over decades.

One of the chants I heard on the streets in Santiago was “no son unos 30 pesos, son unos 30 años” — “it’s not about 30 pesos, it’s about 30 years.” The ghost of Augusto Pinochet, who was finally deposed in 1990 after 17 years of torturing, disappearing, and murdering his own citizens, still haunts, perhaps even rules, in Chile in 2019. March 11, 2020 is the 30 year mark since Pinochet got drop kicked from office. Chileans are still recovering from Pinochet Syndrome, along with the rest of the world that got jiggy with neoliberalism, thinking that unrestrained free markets would be just awesome.

Participatory medicine is a core principle in #PatientsIncluded. Participatory democracy — individual participation by citizens in political decisions and policies that affect their lives, often directly rather than through elected representatives — is #CitizensIncluded. Simply putting “the grownups” — doctors, in the case of medicine; elected officials, in the case of democratic government — 100% in charge is a bad idea, since patriarchal or dictatorial bullshit can ensue.

Putting any other “grownups” — folks with lotsa money and/or power, in either medicine or civil government — in charge delivers plutocracy.

We all need to be grownups. Which is why #PatientsIncluded came into being in medicine — let patients help build systems, and policies, that work for everyone — and why participatory democracy, which sometimes comes in the form of people taking to the streets to say …

… is a hallmark of people standing up for their rights as human beings, and as citizens.

So … tear gas, neoliberalism, and #PatientsIncluded — will it blend?

It will, because all humans deserve to be provided with the basics of a dignified life, which include shelter, water, food, education, meaningful work for which they are paid a fair wage, and a voice in the circumstances of their lives, the lives of their families, and of their community.

They’ll face tear gas to tear down neoliberal bullshit, and the inequity it breeds, and demand to be included in building a world where human dignity and human rights are the prime directive.

Photo of books, posters, and flyers from the Archive of the Graphic Resistance in Santiago, Chile

from the collection of the Archive of the Graphic Resistance in Santiago, Chile — image credit: Mighty Casey Media LLC

A Twitter thread as lagniappe …

And here’s the virtual version of our Cochrane Santiago presentation on YouTube.

This piece originally appeared on my Medium page.

Mar 16 2017

Make America Sick Again!

By healthcare industry, politics
clown trump image

(c) Salon

The Insane Clown Car Posse (hat tip to my buddy Robb Fulks for that lovely turn of phrase) that’s currently at the helm of the ship of state here in the good old USA has started to give us a peek at their plans for US healthcare. The phrase “shit show” seems to have been invented just so it could be used to describe the excrescence that’s emerging, inch by fetid inch, under the banner of the AHCA, full title “American Health Care Act.” [Personally, I call it “the new National Eugenics Plan,” since the savings the legislation’s backers crow about are clearly gained from sick folks just dyin’ quicker.]

Maybe we could tag it as GOTCHA, “Government Out To Cut Healthcare Access?” Asking for a friend.

“Make America Sick Again!” seems to be the sales pitch here. After the gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, and fisticuffs that marked the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the ACA haters – we’ll call them “the entire Republican Party, and all who sail in it” – spent the rest of Obama’s Presidency voting to repeal the law, while doing very little else.

What the ACA, or “Obamacare,” accomplished was to finally put the theory of universal healthcare access on the table for Americans, who had spent the 20th century watching pretty much every other developed nation on the planet create either single payer (a la Britain’s NHS) or insurance-based universal access (in Germany and Switzerland) healthcare delivery systems for their folks.

I say “theory of universal access” because, like all Congressionally-ground sausage, it’s a mix of top cuts of awesome (10 Essential Benefits! Tax Subsidies on Premiums!) with awful offal from the abattoir floor (too much power concentrated in the hands of AHIP, ridiculously narrow networks, uneven Medicaid expansion). But it was a start, after every President since FDR trying, and failing, to get any kind of national healthcare access plan in place.

After trying to throw Obamacare from the train, on a loop, lather/rinse/repeat, for years, once Cheeto Voldemort (I refuse to say, or type, his name – work with me here, people) took up occupancy at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., the ACA-haters wasted no time in getting their “repeal and replace” dance of the seven veils started. They need at least seven veils to hide this mess, but they’re starting to run out of cloth.

Here are the Greatest Hits (to humanity, and human life) brought to us so far by GOTCHA-care:

  • Instead of getting direct tax subsidies to help pay health insurance premiums – currently, individuals earning less than $47,520, or families of four earning less than $97,200, are eligible for those subsidies – people who need to buy health coverage for themselves and their families will get a following-year tax credit for their coverage. Which sounds great, until you realize that, say, you’re a 58 year old human living in central Virginia who’s a freelancer, making $40,000 per year. You’ll have to shell out around $600 per month (annual total = $7,200) for your individual Silver plan, or $1,000 per month ($12,000 annually) for your family of four’s Silver plan, and then get a munificent … $3,000 per year. The tax subsidies under the ACA, for the same coverages: $3,200 for the individual plan, $10,000 for the family of four.
  • The myth of “choice.” All the messaging coming out of the push for the American Health Care Act is about “giving Americans choices about their care.” What those choices reveal themselves to be are:
    • “Go naked” – no individual mandate to buy insurance coverage. Combined with the hockey stick trajectory of health insurance premiums over the last 30 years, this is an actual “choice” that many people, including me, were forced into before the Affordable Care Act.
    • “Buy a plan you can afford.” – this is code for “buy a craptastic plan that covers nothing.” I know people who had plans like this before the ACA. The ones who got sick after buying these plans are no longer alive if they didn’t survive long enough to get on an ACA plan.
    • “Buy a plan that covers you pretty well, and then live in your car.” With a maximum tax credit of $4,000, for people over 60 years old, those who qualify for AARP membership will find themselves pretty broke-ass if they buy a plan with any kind of comprehensive coverage. Which is why the AARP is flaming Congress over this proposed “replacement.”
  • After improving access to healthcare (before the ACA, 18% of Americans – 47 million people – were uninsured; that number as of January 1, 2017 was down to 11%, 36 million), and starting to see incremental signs of overall public health improvement, the Clown Car now seems to think that throwing 24 million people off the insurance rolls by 2026 is a great idea, while bloviating about a $337 billion deficit reduction. Which sounds great, until you realize that the US spends upwards of $3.35 trillion-with-a-T on healthcare annually, of which up to $1 trillion is estimated to be waste. That’s $1 trillion PER YEAR, making the overspend between now and 2026 close to $10 trillion dollars. That figure makes a $337 billion deficit reduction over ten years look like a bar tab.

The people who put Cheeto Voldemort in office are the biggest losers here, which just proves that low information voters can wind up the punchline in a joke they *thought* they were in on. Our 45th President’s broad promises to “cover everybody” at “lower cost” is laughable in the face of the numbers out of the CBO, and the language in the AHCA itself.

As I said at the outset, this is a shit show. People’s lives are on the line, but the jerktastic folks defending this mess are outright lying about its impact on working class and middle class Americans. My own Congressional (un)representative, Dave Brat, answered my question about rural hospitals and uncompensated care at his Town Hall in February 2017 by pointing at the community clinics that hospitals are setting up to help people who can’t access care … THESE ARE PROGRAMS MADE POSSIBLE, AND PAID FOR, BY THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

Sorry, was I shouting? <deep breath>

Tom Price, the “healthcare is a privilege, not a right” orthopedic sawbones now at the top of the US Dept. of Health and Human Services, outright lied on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, March 12, when he said “nobody will be worse off financially” under the American Health Care Act.

He prevaricated again, at a CNN Town Hall on Wednesday, March 15, when colon cancer survivor Brian Kline asked him point blank, “Why do you want to take away my Medicaid expansion?” Price said, “The fact of the matter is we don’t. We don’t want to take care away from anybody. What we want to make certain, though, is that every single American has access to the kind of coverage and care that they want for themselves.”

Price is fronting that myth of “choice” I mentioned above. They’re lying, they’re ginning up one of the biggest tax bonanzas for the already-wealthy in modern history, while simultaneously reducing access to care for the average American Joe and Jane.

Oh, and if you’re reading this, and thinking, “HAH! You losers, I have coverage through work!” … don’t. Employer sponsored insurance – which I have been saying needs to get clubbed on the head and buried in the woods for a while now – is on the bubble, too, since the Republican plan eliminates a key penalty on employers who don’t offer their employees health coverage.

The American Cancer Society hates this thing. The American College of Physicians hates this thing. Consumers Union *really* hates this thing.

We’ve got to get the insane clowns out of their car before they grind us under that car’s wheels. Time to start taking up some figurative weapons, folks. If the pen – or the keyboard – is mightier than the sword, start swinging that QWERTY blade at your Congressional representatives, now.

Your life is on the line.

Really.

boudica image

image credit: David Paget | Happy_Mutt

Jun 20 2016

Primary + People/Patients = Winning?

By healthcare industry, politics

I’ve been all over ever’where so far this year, invited to participate in a number of events that, taken together, seem to indicate there’s some progress being made on “healthcare system transformation,” even if it’s still happening at a glacial pace. One of these events was the Starfield Summit, put together by the Robert Graham Center, which is the policy think-tank arm of the American Academy of Family Physicians. I fielded an invite when the Graham Center reached out to the Lown Institute to ask if there was a patient-type human who might lend something to the conversation as an attendee.

So I took the “let patients help” rallying cry to DC for a couple days of lock-in with a bunch of primary care docs and the wonks who love them. Which, by the way, includes me, which you know if you’ve been paying attention. Primary care docs are the ideal partners for people/patients who are working to shift the USS Medical Industrial Complex aircraft carrier – both primary care MDs and patients are low on the medical-industrial complex power pole, so if we team up, we might be able to boost each other up to start showing up on the power radar.

If you’d like a good overview of the importance and impact of primary care on a health system, something that Ben Miller shared on the first day is a great précis. Money quote from the conclusion, IMO:

Primary care is imperative for building a strong healthcare system that ensures positive health outcomes, effectiveness and efficiency, and health equity. It is the first contact in a healthcare system for individuals […]. It provides individual and family-focused and community-oriented care for preventing, curing or alleviating common illnesses and disabilities, and promoting health.

What I heard, saw, and discussed over the two days tells me that a power amplification is not fully “there” yet, but it’s building. My ticket to the party is one indicator, the other is that I made it clear during my time there that I brought a penetrating view of the system as it is, the system as it could be, and how we might work together – primary care clinicians and people/patients – to turn our aircraft carrier away from grounding on the rocks of “sucks up 47 times its weight in GDP” economic disaster. Oh, and not kill folks in the process, since that’s also a good goal, right? Quality, lower cost, satisfied patients, satisfied *providers* – the quadruple aim that AAFP itself codified a few years ago.

The format of the event was refreshing – there was the usual “sit in a big room, listen to wonks, watch slide decks” stuff, but that was broken up over the two days by what I’ll call “working group breakouts” where we assembled in small groups, in separate rooms, to wrestle the Big Ideas under discussion, which were:

20160424_084730

Just a small topic, since it’s the core of everything, right? Primary care IS healthcare, but primary care clinicians are paid much lower reimbursement rates than, say, cardiac surgeons (thanks to the RUC, who make sure the *specialty* MDs get the big bucks re reimbursement), primary MDs/NPs/RNs have low-on-the-pole status when it comes to $$. And $$ = power in most cultures, including ours. My key takeaways from that segment of the session, which tackled

  1. Payment, measurement, and the primary care paradox
  2. What does effective primary care look like?
  3. Disruptive innovations in primary care payment
  4. Primary care payment, social determinants, and community risk

can be summed up in one statement from my breakouts, “we have internalized the oppressor.” This tweet also sums up the discussion pretty well.

 

Lunch featured a keynote by Shannon Brownlee of the Lown Institute. Ben Miller captured the essence here:

 

Next on the Big Ideas discussion list was the metrics of primary care. Specifically:

  1. Measuring primary care: lessons from the UK quality outcomes framework
  2. Payment reform, performance measurement, and delivery system transformation
  3. Measuring the three Cs: comprehensiveness, continuity, and coordination
  4. Payment and measurement innovations in the primary care of children

My takeaways from the 3+ hours we spent wrestling those ideas and input can be summed up with:

  • Embracing the concept of a Learning Health System is the only way forward (next time, they must invite Josh Rubin to the party!)
  • Without the community fully embedded in the creation and governance of a healthcare system, you’re measuring the wrong stuff
  • Adding health literacy – “how my body works” and “how doctors/nurses/care workers can help me” – to K-12 education HAS. TO. HAPPEN.
  • We have to stop admiring the problem and start actually CHANGING the system

Core issue? This:

 

Day 2 kicked off with an examination of how primary care teams can impact the success or failure of a system of care. The pieces of that puzzle:

  1. Innovations in primary care teams
  2. Linking primary care, public health, and the community
  3. Integrated teams (primary care + mental health)
  4. Training a diverse primary care team

My time on the board of Virginia Supportive Housing (2004 – 2010) gave me a close-up view of the power of the “housing first” model in health/mental health care in an underserved population, and the exponential impact that addressing the social determinants of health has on the actual health of an individual, and therefore that person’s community at large. Help someone get off the street – “housing first” – and provide them with wraparound services, including basic healthcare, and magic happens. Yeah, it’s complicated, but as Winston Liaw said in his welcome on Day 2:

 

My takeaway from that morning round of robust discussion lined up as:

  • Effective teaming will take agitation from the lower depths (citizens, community health workers) to shake up status quo
  • A shared leadership model has to emerge, one that includes PEOPLE (the ones called “patients) in system leader positions
  • “It takes time” can’t supersede the desperate need for rapid-cycle change in the healthcare system (stop admiring the problem!)
  • Until healthcare includes mental health, full-stop, we’ll be stuck in cycling #fail

The afternoon sessions tackled:

  1. Building primary care teams
  2. Advancing teamwork between the medical home and the medical neighborhood
  3. Shifting culture of primary care teams
  4. Statewide innovations in primary care payment

My favorite quick-hit presentation from that set was Andrew Morris-Singer from Primary Care Progress, who said, among many other things, that

 

On the topic of building primary care teams, he said this:

 

That one in the lower right – “trust” – is bedrock. Without trust, none of this will happen, and trust only happens when you have face-time to build a relationship. That’s true inside the medical team, and double-true when you’re talking care team/community relationship building.

Nov 06 2015

Elephants, middlemen, and systems – oh, my!

By healthcare industry, politics, technology

I’ve been MIA here, but I’ve been loud/proud pretty much everywhere else in the last few months. Including here and here.  What follows is a rant based on what I’ve been seeing/doing since last seen on this page.

Elephants

There’s an old joke that goes like this: “What’s an elephant?” “It’s a mouse designed by a government committee.” There’s also the old “elephant in the room” bromide about topics that are not to be mentioned under any circumstances, despite their obvious impact on the issue under discussion. And the “How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.” motivational meme, along with the “blind guys describing an elephant” metaphor used to explain the impact of silo-ed thinking.

We’re up to our parietal bones in pachyderms in the healthcare transformation discussion. The biggest one – you can call him Jumbo, or you could call him Dumbo – is always in the room. What I call him is Huckster Nation.

elephant in the room by banksy

Image: Banksy

What do I mean? I mean the underpinning of pretty much all of American culture – the carnival barker sales guy (guy in this usage is gender neutral). We are a nation of flacks, flogging everything from Sham-Wow to space stations, and that includes our healthcare system. Hell, I’m selling myself, or at least I’m offering to rent out the contents of my cranium in exchange for coin of the realm, as are we all, in one way or another.

Americans have taken this to the level of a cultural art form, in that we’ve built our national myth around economic freedom. That it works out to be a literal myth for too many of us – income divide, I’m talking to you – is part of what I’m calling out here, but for the moment let’s focus on the carnival barkers sales guys in US healthcare, shall we?

I’m taking about the ….

Middlemen

Who are the middlemen in healthcare? Apart from the obvious ones – the health insurers, including Medicare, who administer the payment/money side of healthcare delivery – there are a metric sh*t ton of middlemen of all sorts threaded throughout the system. To use a biology metaphor, let’s call the ones that help Good Bacteria and the ones that don’t help Ebola Outbreaks. By the way, I’m defining “help” as an effort at improving something: making care more accessible, creating technology that improves care/care process, research that discovers new treatments.

Here are some examples of Good Bacteria:

  • Organizations that build health literacy tools to improve people’s access to and understanding of healthcare (click here for an example)
  • Open-access scientific journals (click here and here for examples)
  • Companies that build tech that helps patients, or clinical teams, or patients AND clinical teams (click here and here for examples)

Here are some Ebola Outbreaks:

  • Any commercial enterprise operating the healthcare sector that puts ROI above human lives (click here for an example)
  • Not-for-profit healthcare systems that treat humans solely as profit modules (click here for an example)
  • Health insurance companies that allow games of “gotcha” where their covered lives are the game pieces (click here for a Modern Healthcare piece on the issue)

Systems

Which brings me to the whole US healthcare system conundrum, which was summed up pretty well by my friend Dan Munro:

system isn't broken image

Image: Dan Munro

I attended the Population Health Alliance Forum conference recently in DC. I was surrounded by middlemen – some Good Bacteria, some Ebola Outbreaks – as I sat and listened to clinicians, analytics geeks, policy wonks, and carnival barkers sales guys talk about issues in population health. Population health is defined as “the health outcomes of a group of individuals, including the distribution of such outcomes within the group.” Meaning that in most conversations where the phrase appears, you’re talking about Employer Sponsored Insurance (ESI), or Medicare. So the attendees were heavy on the big insurer and big health provider side, with a strong showing in the “we want to sell our stuff to big insurers and big health providers” cohort.

I was, as far as I could tell, the only person wearing the “I’m a patient here, myself” label. I guess I was the patient voice carnival barker sales guy. Hey, we’re all selling something, even if it’s only an idea.

Meanwhile, I’m surrounded by system players in a series of hotel ballrooms in DC. I found myself getting a little shouty with frustration on Twitter:

 

 

 

 

 

That last one – the “what’s the ROI?” thing – was fueled by rage. The US healthcare system, which sucks up $3 trillion-with-a-T every year – making it the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but 11th on the Top 10 list on health outcomes – is stuck on a “what’s the ROI?” loop, driven by the carnival barkers sales guys, while human lives sink below the metric radar. In other words, loot trumps lives.

In the metaphor I’m using in this post, Ebola Outbreaks are overwhelming the Good Bacteria. So here’s what we gotta do – we gotta call out Ebola Outbreaks when and wherever they appear. If you see one, shout it out – preferably in public, like on Twitter! – and tag me. I’ll be “Nurse with the Good Bacteria,” and whistle up both some outrage, and some common sense solutions.

Let’s not keep the insanity that is $3T+/year in exchange for “sorta OK” on a lather/rinse/repeat cycle. Who’s with me?

Jun 14 2015

From the Patients Are Smarter Than You Think Desk …

By e-patients, healthcare industry, media commentary, technology

See this UPDATE, too.

Sundays are pretty quiet here in Mighty Casey Media Land. Yeah, there are those Sundays where I read my wall calendar without my glasses on, and totally think it’s Father’s Day when it’s really Flag Day … but that’s about as exciting as it gets most weeks.

Today is one of the latter Sundays, where I not only cause a Father’s Day panic on Facebook (yeah, that’s a thing), but also get Twitter DMs that set my hair on fire. Which you know, if you’ve been hangin’ round this water cooler for a while, is never a good thing.

This morning, I picked up my phone while I was waiting for my coffee to brew, and what ho – a DM from my friend HealthBlawg with a link to a “stupid patients, don’t Yelp doctors” piece on US News with the headline “Online Doctor Ratings Are Garbage.” The piece is by Niam Yaraghi, whose pieces on US News usually have me nodding along in full agreement … but not this time.

In the “don’t Yelp, bitch” piece, Yaraghi essentially tells people they’re too stupid to understand medical care’s value and outcomes, that we should just lie back and think of England and let those nice doctors do their work.

Let’s take ’em in order, shall we?

Patients are neither qualified nor capable of evaluating the quality of the medical services that they receive.

Seriously?? Does Yaraghi know any cancer patients, or people with MS, or ALS, or rheumatoid disease, or diabetes? I’m pretty sure the answer there is “no,” that he knows a whole bunch of polysyllabic “experts” due to his work at Brookings, but very few ASPs (Actual Sick People). The patient community is teaching the clinical community constantly about both medical research and business operations.

I’ll say it again: input from the patient community is, daily, saving the bacon of MDs/NPs/PhDs and other letter-after-name denizens of the medical-industrial complex and their minions.

So slow your roll, Niam, and the next time you meet an ASP, thank them for their *own* work on healthcare quality improvement.

If patients are not qualified to make medical decisions and rely on physicians’ medical expertise to make such decisions, then how can they evaluate the quality of such decisions and know that their doctor’s decision was the best possible one?

It’s spelled S-C-I-E-N-C-E, bitch.

But hey, most of gen-pop (people who are temporarily, not permanently, ASP – like when they break their leg, or get pneumonia) might not be as UpToDate (yes, many of us read PubMed, and even understand it) as a practiced e-patient ASP. So what do most people do when they need to find some on-the-ground help for a health issue? They hit the web … and usually find us. Or Dr. Oz, which is regrettable, but that snake oil PR machine has got a big f**king ad budget. But even if they hit Oz first, they usually wind up with us.

And hey, are DOCTORS even the real experts when it comes to evaluating the efficacy of their treatments? Plenty of evidence suggests that clinicians get as stuck in Usual Suspects-ville as does any other profession. I call it We’ve Always Done It This Way syndrome. It takes 17 years, on average, for proven science to arrive at the point of care. If you get diagnosed with [pick a really big disease], do you want to just trust that your MD is up on all the latest treatment options, or do you want to be *sure* s/he is? Welcome to Dr. Google, dude. Yelp reviews don’t turn up on condition-specific searches, but *we* sure do.

Since patients do not have the medical expertise to judge the quality of physicians’ decisions in the short run and are neither capable of evaluating the outcomes of such decisions in the long run, their feedback would be limited to their immediate interaction with medical providers and their staff members.

I’ve addressed the “science, bitch!” thing above, but let’s drill in on that “outcomes” point, shall we? Have you, yourself, ever tried to find outcomes data on a doctor? Pack a lunch. A lunch that can last for days. Physician Compare on Medicare’s (CMS) site looks like it could serve up some stats … but it doesn’t serve up much beyond “has EHR tech that fulfills Meaningful Use requirements.” Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS – another CMS data bank project) serves up a whole lotta data – in table or spreadsheet form – but it’s pretty hard to parse “quality” from “takes Medicare” or “participates in PQRS” or “participates in eRX.” No notations as to whether s/he is Dr. Hodad.

How about, rather than bitch about patients who want to serve up UX (User Experience) data on their clinical teams, you use your keyboard to help create some clarity on quality reporting that can be understood BY. AVERAGE. HUMANS.

Instead of the quality of the medical services, patients would evaluate the bedside manners of physicians, decor of their offices and demeanor of their staff.

Bedside manner is no indication of the value of the care received at the hands of a clinician. I’ve had doctors look deep into my eyes, hold my hand, and then do a hard sell for a pharmaceutical product of questionable efficacy for my condition. I’ve taken a show about that on the road (sort of), which you can read about here.

Office decor reviews for doctors’ offices will only add ordnance to the arms race that US healthcare has become, where providers build more and more luxurious settings for us to get questionably effective care in … and then charge us higher fees for that care, since marble is really expensive.

To choose the best medical provider, patients are encouraged to rely on measures of medical expertise and avoid invalid online reviews. 

And just how the French-pressed **** are we supposed to do that, Niam? Having the whole alphabet after your name on a list of medical specialty MDs is no guarantee, at all, of either efficacy of care, or basic humanity.

Dr. Farid Fata had a solid platinum set of credentials as an oncologist – residency at Maimonides Medical Center, an oncology fellowship at Memorial Sloan Kettering, and a respected practice in the Detroit metro area for over a decade – until the FBI burst into his offices on August 6, 2013 to arrest him for fraud. He’d diagnosed and treated people for cancer who did not have cancer. BTW, there were no Yelp reviews for his practice.

Here’s the thing: patients KNOW STUFF. Rather than telling us to shut up and stop Yelping, how about you recommend *listening* as a cure for what ails US healthcare? I’m a Yelp Elite reviewer – that and $4 will get me a crap fancy coffee at Starbucks – who’s a globally recognized patient voice, and I’ve posted four reviews of health/medical facilities (a 3% rate of review in my total number of 141 reviews to date). Two of those facilities are mammography practices. I’ve had breast cancer, so as experts go … yeah, I am one.

I don’t use Yelp reviews on my checklist for choosing a new member of my clinical care team, because I’m an e-patient expert with a massive global network in both the medical and patient communities.

So, hey, Niam, what’s your recommended roll for someone who’s got [insert suspected diagnosis here] and is looking for credible, actionable information to inform their decision tree? Until the clinical side of the house gets their outcomes reporting sh*t together … people gon’ Yelp.

Shut up and deal.

yelp welcome screen

Apr 21 2015

Security vs. access: threading the needle

By healthcare industry, media commentary, politics, technology

The annual big-data party known as the HIMSS conference played out in Chicago – and online – last week. During the event, one of the central issues that arose in the social media conversation under the #HIMSS15 tag involved the one facing patients trying to access their health records, either digitally or on old-school paper: the security/access conundrum. Data that’s accessible to a patient could also wind up accessible to Romanian hackers (you’ve heard me on this topic before), and efforts at making patient data “secure” mean that data is often secure from the patient whose data it is. Patients give their forehead some serious keyboard every day over that one.

The folks over at Software Advice released a report on HIPAA breaches on March 12*, which I only caught up with when I returned from my Mighty Mouth 2015 Tour of Info-Sec and Right Care. Full disclosure, I’m quoted in the report, but that’s not why I’m talking about it here.

Here’s my biggest takeaway from the piece: 54% of the patients surveyed for the report would consider ditching a healthcare provider if that provider had a breach.

Most Patients Would Switch Providers After Breach

pie chart of likelihood of switching providers

 

Key findings in the report:

  1. Forty-five percent of patients are “moderately” or “very concerned” about a security breach involving their personal health information.
  2. Nearly one-quarter of patients (21 percent) withhold personal health information from their doctors due to data security concerns.
  3. Only 8 percent of patients “always” read doctors’ privacy and security policies before signing them, and just 10 percent are “very confident” they understand them.
  4. A majority of patients (54 percent) are “moderately” or “very likely” to change doctors as a result of a patient data breach.
  5. Patients are most likely to change doctors if their medical staff caused a data security breach, and least likely to change doctors if hackers were responsible.

Given the rising number of breach reports hitting headlines, including the massive one that impacted 80 million Anthem customers (possibly including me – not 100% confirmed yet) in January, this is not an issue that will go away. From the expert patient perspective, this is doubly frustrating, because the first thing that happens after a breach headline is the throttling of patient access to our records. Additional sign-on protocols, tighter credentialing, or a full-on “no more digital access” from smaller providers, all laid at the door of “because HIPAA.”

This doesn’t just affect access, it can have an impact on care. Here are the report’s stats on patients withholding information from their medical providers due to breach concerns:

Security Concerns Can Stifle Communication With Doctor

pie chart on patient withholding info

Quoting from the report:

“Health care lawyer and blogger David Harlow is also troubled by our results. Doctors need to get a full picture of a patient’s health history, he explains. If they don’t, the effectiveness of treatment could suffer—or worse, the patient could be harmed. For example, if a doctor is not told about a patient’s current prescriptions, the doctor could inadvertently prescribe a second medication that has adverse interactions with the first drug.

“That’s an invitation for disaster,” Harlow says. “It means we have a lot of work to do to convince people of the safety and importance of sharing information with physicians.”

My thinking on this topic can be summed up in the closing quote from the report, from yours truly:

“Concerns over digital privacy and security have obscured the real conversation, which is, ‘How can we make health care more accessible, frictionless and safe with the data we collect about patients?’”

*Source: Practice Management systems consultancy Software Advice

Apr 13 2015

World on fire. Film at 11.

By healthcare industry, media commentary, politics, technology

I wasn’t lucky enough to get a press pass, or a scholarship, to HIMSS15 this year. Given events of the last few days, I’m really sorry I can’t be on the ground in Chicago for what feels like a grassroots revolt brewing in protest of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) dropping an announcement, on Friday late afternoon, that they were thinking of gutting the rules for patient access to their own records under the “Meaningful Use” criteria of healthcare reform. You know, the one where we spent something like $6B of taxpayer money. Which was supposed to make care easier, safer, cheaper.

There are phases and stages of Meaningful Use. We’re in MU2 right now. Originally, by the end of the MU2 period (running through 2020), a practice or facility had to demonstrate that 5% of the people/patients cared for in that practice or facility viewed, downloaded, or transmitted their personal health information (PHI) to a 3rd party. That was the criteria for a healthcare provider seeking stimulus $$ for EHR technology deployment [updating: and Medicare reimbursement].

Here’s the “new” rule (clue train: instead of 5%, it’s 1. No, not 1%, one patient) being proposed:

mu2-gutting

I know, right? Friday afternoon, everyone in the industry is heading to Chicago for HIMSS15, who’ll care? Sorry, CMS, but you are totally busted. Here’s data access rights activist Regina Holliday, who’s at HIMSS and whose hair is now on fire.

Speaking of “hair on fire” … so’s mine.

Seems like the Empire is trying to strike back. Or the Capitol (the big-money healthcare industry players who drop money on K Street lobbyists like snowflakes in Boston in the winter of 2014) thinks it’s run over all the Districts (patients, caregivers, families) and has little to fear from our powerlessness. I think they’re wrong. Dead wrong. And they’re about to find out just *how* wrong. Expert, activist patients, along with savvy clinical folks whose hearts are truly in their work, are now assembled in District 13.

My take can be summed up in this image [updated on Tuesday, April 14]:

bluebutton mockingjay mashup image

We are coming for your silos. Because it’s OUR data, and OUR lives.

Mar 25 2015

Report from the front lines: Technology, engagement, and killing paternalism

By healthcare industry, politics, technology

I’ve spent a good portion of the last two months on the healthcare equivalent of the political stump – called the “rubber chicken circuit” in political circles. Thankfully, there was no actual rubber chicken served during these sojourns, although there was the incident of the seductive breakfast sausage, followed by my solo re-enactment (off stage) of the bridal salon scenes from the movie “Bridesmaids.” I will draw the veil of charity (and gratitude for travel expense coverage) over the details of that incident, and just advise all of you to stick to fruit, cereal, or bagels at conference breakfasts. ‘Nuff said.

My original editorial calendar plan was to turn this into a series of posts, broken down by focus into technology and clinical categories. However, since a big part of my goal in standing on the barricades at the gates of the healthcare castle, waving my digital pikestaff in service of system transformation, is breaking down silos … well, go grab a sandwich, and a beverage. This is gon’ be a long one.

HIMSS Patient Engagement Summit

In early February, I headed to Orlando for the first Health Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Patient Engagement Summit. I was asked to participate in two panel discussions, one titled “Patient Perspectives: The State of Engagement,” the other “Can We Talk? The Evolving Physician-Patient Relationship.” Both were moderated by Dr. Patricia Salber, the bright mind behind The Doctor Weighs In.

Being a person with no letters after her name (like Elizabeth Holmes [update: she’s trash, so redacted] and Steve Jobs, I’m a college dropout), I’m used to showing up at healthcare industry events and being seen as something of a unicorn fairy princess. That’s how people commonly called “patients” are usually viewed in industry settings outside the actual point of care. Healthcare professionals/executives are so used to seeing us as revenue units, or data points, or out cold on a surgical table, but not as walking/talking/thinking humans, they can do a spit-take when meeting an official “patient” at an industry conference. Which is fun if they have a mouthful of coffee, but I haven’t seen anyone actually get sprayed yet.

All kidding aside, I really have to hand it to HIMSS for their uptake speed on seeing people/patients as valuable voices in the conversation about healthcare IT and quality improvement. In the time since they first noticed (in 2009, I believe) that people like ePatient Dave deBronkart, Regina Holliday, and others might have something to add to the discussion, they’ve made a visible effort to include people/patient voices in their national programs. Of course, had they not invited patients to present at their Patient Engagement Summit, they would have been line for a public [digital] beating … and so there we were: Amy Gleason, Kym Martin, Alicia Staley, and yours truly, ready to grab a mic and speak some truth.

A favorite tweet during the opening keynote by Dr. Kyra Bobinet, a friend of mine via our mutual membership in the Stanford MedX community:

I see patient engagement as healthcare that nourishes the people it serves, and also as a nutrient for the healthcare delivery system itself. Healthcare itself will get better, in its body (clinicians and all other folks who work inside the system) and in its spirit (its culture), with authentic connection – engagement – with the human community who seeks its help in maintaining or regaining good health.

Both panels went well, and the audience seemed to be both awake, and interested in what we had to say. For those of us who have been working the user – PATIENT – side of healthcare transformation, it’s frustrating that we’re still saying the same things to professional audiences that we’ve been saying for (in my case) close to 20 years now. But those of us on the patient side of this change management rodeo can sense a paradigm shift, and are starting to believe that we’re seeing transformation slowly deploy across the healthcare system. As the oft-repeated William Gibson quote goes, “The future is here, it’s just not evenly distributed.”

 

Patients ARE engaged. We’re working our butts off to get medical professionals and healthcare execs on the same page as us. Like the old story goes, when it comes to bacon and eggs, the chicken’s involved, but the pig’s fully committed. In the bacon-and-eggs of healthcare, patients are the bacon. We’re all in, and we know more, in many ways, about how to fix the system than the “professionals” do. Alicia Staley said, again, what she says consistently to healthcare audiences, “You need a Chief Patient Officer on your board.” So … get one. And we all need to be wary of blaring headlines, which can be very misleading when it comes to the real health risks we all face:

HIMSS Privacy + Security Forum

 

In early March, I winged my way out to San Diego, one of my several hometowns (growing up a Navy kid means you get more than one) for the HIMSS Privacy + Security Forum. I was a panelist for the last session of the conference, which I knew meant that many of the attendees would already be in the TSA screening line at Lindbergh Field, but I was going to share my thoughts with whomever stuck around, even if it was just the busboys. Our session was titled “What Matters Most: Patient Perspectives on Privacy & Security,” and what happened at the end of our panel was something I had hoped for – several of the folks who had stuck around come up to us and said, “that panel should have opened this conference!”

When it comes to IT security, the healthcare industry is rightly terrified, given the epic bitch-slap that a HIPAA fine can be ($1.5 million dollars per incident) – and the irony of the Anthem data breach affecting up to 8.8 million of their members making headlines the week before this conference was not lost on me … or any of the other folks at the HIMSS Forum meeting. Yet it’s critical to note that access, by patients and by clinicians, particularly at the point of care, to all the relevant data necessary to deliver the right care at the right time to the right patient, is still an undelivered promise across the health IT landscape. So don’t be Mordac, Dilbert’s Preventer of Information Services – we have enough of him. He’s like a freakin’ virus.

Hilariously, the day before I traveled to San Diego, I had to threaten a HIPAA complaint to get my records transferred from one provider to another. I had been asking for TWO MONTHS for the rads practice where I had gotten my mammograms 2009 through 2011 (twice a year in 2009 and 2010, given my Cancer Year of 2008) to send my scans and reports to my current mammography radiologist, and it took a voicemail with a HIPAA violation threat to get someone to call me back. My records are so damn secure that NO ONE can get them, except for “Robert in the basement” at [rhymes with … Bon Secours]. It felt like I was talking to Central Services in the Terry Gilliam movie “Brazil.” And people wonder why I have a QR code linked to my health history tattooed on my sternum …

 

Lown Institute RightCare conference

Speaking of right care/right time/right patient, two days after the HIMSS Privacy + Security Forum wrapped, the Lown Institute’s RightCare 2015 conference kicked off just down the street.

Dr. Bernard Lown is the cardiologist who invented the cardiac defibrillator in the 1960s, and who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985 for his part in creating the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. The Lown Institute, founded to continue the work on healthcare and human rights that Dr. Lown has devoted his life to, states as its mission “We seek to catalyze a grassroots movement for transforming healthcare systems and improving the health of communities.”

In short, this event made me feel like I’d taken a trip in the Wayback Machine to my college days 1970-1973 in the Haight Ashbury in San Francisco … without the LSD, but with all the fire of my youth, mixed with the wealth of mature knowledge I’ve managed to velcro on to myself in the decades since. The real beauty part? There were lots of young people in the room, who are the age today that I was 40 years ago (in my early twenties), speaking up for the human rights of the people served by the healthcare system. The ones commonly called “patients.”

I got a chance at a scholarship to #Lown2015 after meeting Shannon Brownlee during our work on the Patient & Family Engagement Roadmap, and our attendance at Dartmouth’s SIIPC14 “informed patient choice” conference last year. She tipped me off that scholarships were available, I applied, and got lucky by snagging one. Doubly lucky, because it put me in the room while some of the leading voices on the clinical side of medicine called out the industry they work in for being slow to fully enfranchise the people they serve – patients – by being too driven by money, and not driven enough by their own humanity. A sampling:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, because it just ain’t a movement unless this gets thrown down:

The bedrock message here? The democratization of knowledge that’s been delivered thanks to the Information Age has lifted the scales from the eyes of the early-adopter people/patients who are on to what healthcare is now, and what it must become to remain sustainable, or even relevant. Patients are coming up off their knees. The occupants of the ivory towers of medicine must descend from their aeries, or risk being flung from the parapets. Like winter …

Feb 18 2015

EHR technology: Match.com without a happy ending?

By EHR, health records, healthcare industry, media commentary, medical records, technology

My last two posts explored the question of the doctor/patient relationship in the context of romantic relationships. The first one asked if we were anywhere close to getting engaged, the second looked at the possibility that the whole enchilada needed some intervention-level relationship counseling.

In the couple of weeks since, I’ve had some interesting digital and face to face conversations about digital communication tools, patient engagement, and the doctor/patient relationship that have led me to ask if the crop of EHR (Electronic Health Record) systems in current use across the land, as part of Obamacare’s drive toward healthcare system quality, safety, and access (or, as I like to put it, to the tune of “Old McDonald Had a Farm,” EHR, HIE, E-I-E-I-O!), aren’t analogous to online dating sites like Match.com.

healthcare cupid imageWhich leads me to the observation that the EHR tech I see – all of it, from Epic to Practice Fusion to athenahealth to NextGen to Cerner – can in many ways be compared to Match.com. You put in personal data – name, personal details, outcome goals – and the technology (supposedly) helps you toward your goal. With EHR, that’s best-health, with Match.com, it’s a romantic relationship, but both take data input, digitize it, and claim to provide solutions based on that input.

And I have to say that my observed success ratio on both EHR technology and online dating is similar. As in: mostly it feels like “failure to launch.”

So … go grab a cup of coffee, or a bottle of water. This will be a lengthy look at that question, but I promise to bring it home with at least a couple of laughs along with my pointed observations.

The leading lights of healthcare IT haven’t made the doctor-patient relationship any easier to create and maintain than Match.com has for romatic relationships. For every success story, there are hundreds (thousands? millions?) of examples of bitter frustration. With the billions (yes, with a B) spent on buying and implementing EHR systems, the phrase “meaningful use” – which was supposed to be the demonstration of clinical and patient communication tools to enable better quality healthcare – has become a punchline.

A couple of weeks ago, I shared a post from The Health Care Blog by Bob Wachter, an interview with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center CIO John Halamka, on my social media channels. In it, Halamka said that only 3% of patients wanted their health records kept locked up tight behind virtual doors, so he had to lock up the data of the other 97% to keep the 3% happy. When I shared that post on my LinkedIn profile, it opened a conversation about that statement, such as what the heck the underlying facts to support it were.

“It’s interesting that the 3% figure was not referenced. I am not in the health informatics field, nor do I have time to do an in depth literature review for discussion. However, a quick Google search yields several informative studies. One small study (n=30) of patient preferences found that patients wanted granularity in terms of what they want to share, or not share. No participant wanted to universally share ALL information. Another study (n=105) reported that 1 in 2 patients hid medical information from their own doctors.”

In other words, is that 3%/97% statement the equivalent of creating convenient details about yourself on an online dating profile? When I asked a few people in the e-patient zone about this, I heard this story about how a major health records system in Boston [spoiler alert: Halamka’s IT system] basically spewed garbage instead of useful patient health history data when they opened the data taps to the now-dead Google Health. So, apparently it’s exactly like confabulating facts on an online dating profile. Also, some additional reading led me to a story on CIO about an epic system failure, also in Boston [spoiler alert: I’ll let you figure out what/why], that tied up an entire hospital network’s system for five long days in November 2002.

Back to my metaphor, of EHR tech being analogous to online dating. If the communication partner you’re talking to says they’re a 42 year old architect in Cambridge, or the lab that’s just completed the path report on your biopsy, can you trust what they’re saying? Is there accessible, verifiable information to support the claim? Can you believe what you’re seeing? Can you even SEE what’s really there?

Both of those scenarios rely on trust, and a sense of security. And the ability to actually SEE. WHAT’S. GOING. ON. As Mordac, the “preventer of information services” in the Dilbert comic strip, says, “Security is more important than usability. In a perfect world, no one would be able to use anything.”

I had the opportunity last week to be part of the Health Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS)’s first Patient Engagement Summit in Orlando. Yep, more acronyms – E-I-E-I-O. The two panels I was part of talked about the current state of the doctor/patient relationship, and the overall event was all about how technology can either support, or hinder, that relationship. The crazy part is that both the clinical side of healthcare – doctors, nurses, researchers – and the patient side – the rest of us – are desperately determined to get engaged (with each other), get married (create the best possible outcomes), and live happily ever after (better community health for EVERYBODY!).

The trouble is, I’m afraid, that the tools that are supposed to be the grease on the rails to making that happen – the digital communication systems that hold our care data – are set up by Mordac. Screaming headlines about stuff like the recent Anthem breach are like screaming headlines about sharp rises in sexual assault figures – they’re a real buzz-kill for trust between possible relationship partners.

If you actually know me, you know I’ve taken a rather extreme step toward fostering relationship clarity, doctor/patient-wise. It’s the image that is my Twitter avatar (click that link to see it), and it is a real 3×3″ QR code tattooed on my chest. I can’t say that it has any effect on my dating profile (I bailed on online dating years ago), but it has made many of my healthcare-relationship interactions … interesting.

Can I, or any of us, trust health IT and EHRs to help make our healthcare relationships happy and successful? Or are we stuck in the slough of despond that is Match.com?

Jan 27 2015

Does the doctor-patient relationship need marriage counseling?

By healthcare industry

The healthcare system is all about building patient engagement lately. Which makes me ask: if we get to engagement, will we ever get married? And if we do … will we wind up needing marriage counseling?

patient engagement cartoonShort answer: we already need marriage counseling, and we’re not even officially engaged yet.

Herewith is the evidence that the doctor (and health system)-patient relationship needs marriage counseling, stolen adapted from a post on YourTango.com.

  1. You aren’t talking – Given the state of digital, or even analog, communication in healthcare, how can doctors and patients talk? Even when we’re in the same room, it’s conversation-us interruptus, given the whole 10 minutes we have for face to face interaction. And remember the last time you emailed your doctor with a question, and got an answer that day? Oh, right. That was the 14th of Never. Thank you, health IT infrastructure of doom, which is so dedicated to the security of our medical data that NO. ONE. CAN. SEE. IT.
  2. You see your partner as an antagonist – The healthcare system seems dedicated to keeping doctors and patients in an adversarial relationship. Doctors rat us out for our poor compliance in medication regimens without asking if we can afford said meds. Patients worry that their insurance premiums will go up if they tell the truth about stuff like smoking, or eating habits. Neither side seems capable of climbing off the “forces set in opposition” ledge. And the band plays on … getting less and less healthy in the process.
  3. You’re keeping secrets – See #2, and know that antagonists don’t share information well with each other. Doctors keep secrets from patients, i.e. how much treatment options will cost, with payers being fully indicted co-conspirators on that secret-stashing. Patients keep secrets, too, on stuff like cutting pills in half so that fiercely expensive medication will last twice as long. So we’re not talking, we’re forces set in opposition, and we’re keeping secrets. Next up, Divorce Court.
  4. You’re financially unfaithful – Doctors are keeping costs a secret (see #3, and it’s not really their fault, but still …), and patients aren’t being truthful about what treatment options they can afford, so they’re buying snake oil that Dr. Oz is pushing in the hope that it will work as well as the medication they can’t afford for their [insert condition here]. Which only guarantees bigger bills down the road. Everybody loses – money, health, lives – here.
  5. You’re living separate lives – No talking. Walled barricades. Secrets and lies. Money trouble. This relationship might as well be the Hatfields and the McCoys, or even the Russians and the Ukrainians. With 10 minute forced-march conversations, and little chance for touch-points in between, this isn’t a relationship, it’s armed camps on opposite banks of a wide river. Who speak different languages.

Can this marriage be saved?

I – and a whole host of other folks – think it can, but it’s going to take some serious work. And, most importantly, a whole lot of support from the village we all – all of us, humanity at large – live in. We need to flip the entire relationship paradigm of healthcare on its head, and put patients and their doctors in charge of deciding what our relationship/marriage means.

We have to be honest and transparent with each other. Lay down our arms, knock down the barricades, and reach out to each other for help and comfort. Let’s recommit to our relationship, shall we?

Close Menu