Mighty Casey Media: Comedy Health Analyst

Stop screaming. Laughing hurts less.

Social media

Does the doctor-patient relationship need marriage counseling?

by 2 Comments

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?

 

Stanford MedicineX: Communicating Illness in the Digital Age

by Leave a Comment

I missed this panel at MedX because I was presenting my own in another room at the same time – I can’t wait to catch the recording on the MedX YouTube channel, but here’s the Storify version from the awesome/amazing Susannah Fox:

Keeping Patients in the Dark

by 12 Comments

Back when I slaved in the depths of Hunter Thompson’s “shallow money trench,” we had a phrase we deployed whenever we thought the grownups were keeping us in the dark. We would say we’d been sent to Mushroom Land, where one is kept in the dark and fed sh*t, the better to keep us from making, or spotting, trouble.

patient engagement cartoon
source: HITconsultant.net

These were the very same grownups who, every four years like clockwork, would look at the calendar and say, “Holy crap, there’s a Presidential ELECTION this year?” But I digress.

The medical-industrial complex has, for eons, kept its customers (commonly called “patients”) in Mushroom Land pretty consistently. For a very long time, that was facilitated by a lack of access to scientific knowledge for the common human, but that started to shift in the 19th and 20th centuries, as public education rose across most parts of the globe. Of course, “math phobia” and “science denial” are still pernicious little devils, but the average person with an 8th grade literacy level and an internet connection can find out about just about anything.

I had the privilege of being awarded a seat at Dartmouth’s 2014 Summer Institute for Informed Patient Choice, or SIIPC14 for short, in late June 2014 (last week, as I write this). The purpose of the conference was to chew on topics and issues related to not keeping patients in the dark when it comes to making informed decisions about their health, their healthcare, and their relationships to the medical care teams they work with to gain or retain “best health.”

This event had some serious meat on its bones, both in reputational throw-weight of the presenters and breadth of stakeholder groups represented in the audience. Dartmouth itself is no stranger to uber-smart-ness, particularly in healthcare, given the work and thinking that emerges from Geisel School of Medicine and the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center (one of 23 Pioneer ACOs in the US).

The conference was put together by Glyn Elwyn, an MD who is on the faculty at Dartmouth’s Center for Health Care Delivery Science, and its Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice (mouthful), and Ben Moulton, who is one of the leaders of the Informed Medical Decisions Foundation and on the faculty at Harvard Medical School teaching health law in clinical practice.

I’m not going to walk you through the whole program, because who wants to read 15,000 words, really? What I will do is walk you through a very short list of the presentations that cast the longest memory shadow, for me at least, in the conference aftermath.

Dr. Jack Wennberg

How I had not known of Wennberg’s work is a mystery, but it doesn’t need solving ‘cause I now not only know about it, I’m officially an evangelist for it. He’s one of the people behind the Dartmouth Atlas (if you follow that link, pack a lunch – it’s a glorious time-sink for healthcare geeks), and has participated in more thought-provoking and system-transforming research than pretty much anyone I’ve met in my health policy wonk travels to date. His presentation drilled in on what he calls the “Glover phenomenon,” referring to the research of James Alison Glover, a British physician who studied medical practice variation region to region in the UK, with some interesting results that essentially boil down to (my paraphrase) “everyone’s doing it, so I will, too.”

Dr. Wennberg’s talk was the perfect scene-set to kick off the conference, because his work, inspired by Glover’s, points up the price of keeping patients in the dark about why their medical care team is recommending any particular course of treatment for [whatever]. Simply “because I said so” – which was the prescriptive rule in medicine for … ever – is a really bad idea if you’re trying to reduce unnecessary treatments, control costs, or create a healthcare system that runs on scientific evidence, not patriarchy. Shared decision making requires that all participating in that decision have a grasp of all the facts, including possible outcomes.

Keeping patients in the dark = REALLY. BAD. IDEA.

Dr. Al Mulley

“The care they [patients] need and no less, want and no more.”

That’s a quote from Dr. Mulley’s involvement with the Salzburg Global Seminar in 2012, and is a pretty good anchor for his message at SIIPC, which was titled “The Silent Epidemic of Misdiagnosis.” That misdiagnosis can come from misattribution of the patient’s outcome preferences (do doctors even ASK most of the time?), which then puts both patient and care team on a trip down the rabbit hole. This approach causes everything from unnecessary surgery to unwanted extraordinary measures at the end of life to who-knows-HOW-many unneeded pharmacological “interventions.”

One quote from Mulley’s talk really stands out for me: “Doctors talk about the science of medicine to preserve their authority and the art of medicine to preserve their autonomy.” Shifting that boulder will take some persistent pushback from patients who want to work with participatory medicine practitioners. (Alliteration-itis.) Click this link to read a paper by Dr. Mulley, Dr. Glyn Elwyn, and a colleague on why patient preferences matter.

Keeping patients in the dark = REALLY. BAD. IDEA.

Dr. Elliott Fisher

I met Elliott Fisher at Health Datapalooza in DC in early June of this year, and sat pretty much at his feet (in the 2nd row) as he delivered the opening keynote at that event. Since he’s the director of Dartmouth’s Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, I knew he’d be presenting at SIIPC and looked forward to hearing what he had to say.

As an MD with deep experience working to build Dartmouth-Hitchcock’s Accountable Care Organization (ACO), Fisher has a 3D view of the healthcare delivery landscape. He rings all my favorite changes, particularly in the areas of cost and quality of care delivered to patients. My favorite slide from his deck said, simply, “No outcome, no income.” In the gold rush that US healthcare has been since … forever, now sucking up close to 20% of GDP – and making the defense lobby look like homeless people in the process – tying money to outcomes, and to the patient preferences that define those outcomes, seems downright revolutionary.

Since I am myself a revolutionary when it comes to pushing for healthcare system transformation, I’m thinking of Elliott Fisher as a brother from another mother, on this topic at least.

Keeping patients in the dark = REALLY. BAD. IDEA.

BUT … (and there are many buts in this story)

If the smart folks running the Dartmouth thinkiness on healthcare system transformation are smart enough to invite the wide panoply of players who attended this conference to listen, and to talk about, how that transformation might be driven … where’s some outcome there? Bueller, Bueller … anyone?

There was much conversation traffic on Twitter throughout the conference, anchored by the hashtag #SIIPC14 (clicking that link will take you to Symplur’s Healthcare Hashtag Project, where you can parse the SIIPC conversation). Much of the undertone of that conversation was “OK, so what’s going to be DONE here?” From the e-patient perspective, that’s a perpetually unanswered question at ALL healthcare related conferences, even our own.

As individuals, and even as groups (professional and consumer), we’re arrayed against what I call the K Street Mafia, who I called out during the Q&A after Elliott Fisher’s talk on the last day of the conference. I also said that silos where the greatest danger to the health of all mankind. Used to be missile silos that risked global destruction. Now it’s just silos of doctors, data geeks, revenue cycle management types, policy wallahs, software developers, patients, and a partridge in a pear tree. I said, “End the silos – can I get an AMEN?” To which the assemblage responded with a rousing “AMEN!” But … did it move the needle, any needle, at all?

Even though gatherings like SIIPC are dedicated to including the patient voice, the scales are not at all balanced when it comes to the power matrix in healthcare. As I said in a long conversation on my Facebook wall in the aftermath of my trip to Dartmouth, “It is not lost on me that, in most of the rooms where I am invited to share my recommendations for system transformation, I’m paying my own way amongst a large cohort of well-dressed […] folks on expense accounts.”

This is IN NO WAY meant to snipe at the great folks who put on the Dartmouth conference, and who invited me to attend. I was delighted to be there, and am deeply grateful for the experience. I met some great people, and connected with some others that I already knew.

But … I’ve been doing this for a while now. When will the number 210,000 (the number of avoidable medical error deaths in the US annually) go back to being just another number? When will the cost of care stop being a game of Where’s Waldo? When will expert patients be seen as equals when it comes to getting paid for the work we do to drive system transformation?

The plethora of horror stories that emerge from the “medical professional” ranks about their own terrible experiences when they’re on the other end of the scalpel from their usual position hasn’t made a dent in the stone wall that is the medical-industrial complex’s change management rodeo.

We all have to work on this. The outcome is still uncertain, because institutionally, healthcare seems to be dedicated to “business as usual” in spite of all efforts to shift that thinking. We – the change agents – are arrayed against some powerful forces with very deep pockets.

Are we stuck in a bad remake of “Groundhog Day”? Only time will tell … but this e-patient is very impatient. She’s been doing this for more than 20 years, and she hasn’t seen much “transformation” yet.

 

Cost and Price and Cost, oh my!

by Leave a Comment

I am beyond tired of watching blind guys – the healthcare industry – feel up the elephant – people-commonly-called-patients and their preferences when it comes to interacting with the healthcare system.

When I read the post this infographic was embedded in, I found myself shaking my head (again) and thinking that the people who really need to know what’s in said post (patients) would wind up in My Eyes Glazed Over Land about three grafs in.

 


Telling costs from costs from charges

Via: The Advisory Board Company

When oh when, O Healthcare, will you start talking to us (people-commonly-called-patients) like sentient beings, instead of supine objects over whom you discuss “important things” while leaving us uninformed and pocket-picked, solely on your whim?

What’s in a Bowl of Rice?

by 1 Comment

This is a guest post by Patricia Dean-Escoto, a nutrition coach and consultant who learned, in her own cancer journey, the impact of food on cancer prevention – she’s got a new Android app, My Breast Cancer Advocate, that’s available in the Google Play store. 

bowl of rice imageThe other day I was visiting with a good friend of the family. She had just flown in from Nigeria for a three-week stay and had come to Delaware to stay for a while. We got on the topic of the poor in countries like Africa, the commercials you see for helping to feed them, and reality of what donated money really supplies in the way of actual meals.

My sister asked her what a dollar a day would actually do. The answer was just what you see on the TV.  A dollar would feed them a bowl of rice, maybe three times a day. This bowl of rice would not contain any vegetables, nor would it have any source of protein like beef or chicken. For that, you would need to be in the range of $3 per meal.

We see these images of starving children, eating just that, a simple bowl of rice. Unfortunately, these types of ads give you the impression that the bowl of rice you see that small child eating can save their lives.  It gives them not only nourishment, but hope.

Fast-forward to an article I came across in the New York Times while traveling to my conference in Tucson a couple of days later.  The article was about, wouldn’t you know it, rice!  But, it wasn’t one of hope, nor of nourishment.  In fact, it was just the opposite.

According to recent studies, rice, in addition to being a simple carbohydrate that easily breaks down to glucose in the bloodstream, which can have an impact on your blood sugar levels, rice seems to also be a magnet for heavy metals. It has that special gift, courtesy of the way it’s grown, to attract things like cadmium, mercury, and specifically arsenic to it. We’re talking about rice – one of the most widely consumed foods in the world (and, oh, by the way, one of my husband’s favorite things to eat).

Yet, according to new research from Consumer Reports, consuming rice, even once a day, can increase arsenic levels in the body by up to 44 percent.

Where Rice can be Found

image of foods containing riceToday, rice can be found in everything from cereal to energy bars, and even baby food. In fact, because of the recent concern about gluten and gluten intolerance, rice is also becoming one of the main substitutions in a gluten-free diet for baking your favorite waffles, cookies, and cakes.

And, for all of you who say, ‘I’ll just switch to brown rice.’ It doesn’t get any better. Surprisingly, brown rice is even worse because the metals accumulate in the bran or husk and is not washed away during the bleaching process that normally accompanies the production of white rice.

In fact, according to the New York Times article, the Department of Agriculture estimates the levels of arsenic in brown rice to be 10 times higher than what is found in white rice.

Exposure to arsenic can cause a host of aliments that include: Stomach ache, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, muscle weakness and cramping, and skin rashes. In addition, cadmium, and its associated effects on bones, have been well documented going as far back as the late 60’s.

Naturally, all of this made me think back to my conversation with my friend and what all this rice consumption was doing to the health of so many children who everyday receive only a bowl of rice for their nourishment. Rethinking how and what would feed the world could mean limiting our exposure to these toxic metals and limiting our exposure to rice.

Many other grains can be consumed that are more nutrient dense and cause a lower impact on our blood sugar levels. These include quinoa, barley, millet and couscous, all of which are readily sold in supermarkets.

To Your Health,

Patricia 

Patricia Dean Escoto photoPatricia Dean-Escoto is a certified nutrition consultant and breast cancer survivor.  She holds a master’s degree in education and has more than 20 years of experience working in both the field of education and healthcare.  In 2006, after being diagnosed with stage 2 breast cancer, Patricia returned to school to study nutrition and completed studies at Bauman College for her certification as a nutrition consultant.    Recently, she hosted a year-long radio show called Pathways to Healing on the Voice America network where she interviewed experts in the field of health and wellness.  Patricia is author of ‘The Top Ten Superfoods for Preventing Breast Cancer’ and  creator of the My Breast Cancer Advocate app which is designed to assist those who are newly diagnosed with or recovering from breast cancer.  Her company, Pathways2healing, works exclusively with cancer patients in the area of nutrition and exercise. She lectures both locally and nationally on the topic of nutrition and cancer prevention. Connect with Patricia on Facebook, on LinkedIn, and on Twitter.

Blog tour banner image
Download the app on Google Play

Healthcare Talk: Patients with Power

by Leave a Comment

I had the chance to participate in a Hangout on Air with Kathi Browne, who is the founder/moderator of the Google+ Healthcare Talk community. If you’re on G+ and in the healthcare industry, that community is one you want to join – lots of discussion on topics from healthcare policy to social media to patient safety to care quality. It’s invitation-only – if you’d like to join, hit the G+ link above and ask Kathi to add you to the community.

Last night’s (Monday, Oct. 28, 2013) Hangout on Air was a conversation with Bill Guthrie, CEO of Patients with Power, a new web-based platform for shared decision-making for cancer patients and their oncology teams that’s in beta at UCSF’s lung cancer oncology unit and also as a survival-planning tool at Cornell-Weill/New York Presbyterian’s ob-gyn onco unit.

Decision-making for cancer patients – shared, or not – is a firehose. Patients with Power does what its name promises, it gives patients access to the information they need to make an informed decision, information that’s solidly based in evidence-based medicine since it’s based wholly on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for cancer treatment. Bill has given me a demo of the tool, and it’s superb. He also did a walk-though last night. Give a watch/listen: