A Forum for Discussing and Analyzing Healthcare Issues

Archive for the ‘Information & Communications’ Category

The Internet Solves Everything in Healthcare - - - NOT

By Michael D. Miller MD
April 23rd, 2010

Improving healthcare will require people having better information.  That concept is generally agreed upon.  The challenge is getting the right information to the right people at the right time.  That is the interconnected goal of different facets of health information technology - from EMRs and PHRs, to health information exchanges.

People Are Complex
However, the complexity of medical care and individual variability - both human physiology and patient preferences - makes collecting and analyzing health information so that it is useful for individual clinical decisions much more difficult than presenting information about TVs, computers or cameras on a website such as CNET.

However, that distinction is not apparent to a friend of a friend who I had dinner with recently.  This person told me how the internet will solve everything in healthcare by making quality information from patients available to everyone else so that drugs don’t need to be approved by the FDA and doctors don’t need to be licensed. He also believes that this full access to information from other people about the quality of every health care option - from specific medicines to individual surgeons - will make health insurance unnecessary, since people will be able to decide what they want to pay for based upon how high a quality of care they want to obtain.

As a polite dinner guest of a friend I didn’t argue with his Libertarian perspectives.  Rather I tried to point out the complexity of analyzing health information because of different patient specific factors, and why risk adjustment is very difficult in assessing the quality of any healthcare option.  For example, I mentioned the piece I wrote last winter about a study of different assessments of hospital quality in Massachusetts, and how this showed the difficulty of exactly what this person believed should be easy and currently possible, e.g. if you were a patient in Massachusetts trying to decide which hospital you should  go to for a specific condition, how would you decide.  As I noted then, the different quality assessments came to conflicting conclusions.

Profit Seeking Isn’t Always A Good Thing
I also noted how the profit motive can lead unscrupulous people to sell fake medicines that can actually do more harm than no treatment at all - such as fake anti-malarial pills containing aspirin, which don’t treat the malaria but do reduce the fever so people think they are getting better. Similarly, the concept of modern snake oil salesmen taking advantage of people’s hope was reinforced by a recent cartoon in the New Yorker showing two people looking at a display of pill bottles adorned with a sign saying “As seen on TV,” and the caption reads, “The active ingredient is marketing.”

However, I found my insights didn’t make much of an impression, and I did make a faux pas by pointing out that there was $1.1 Billion in last year’s stimulus bill for research to get more of this type of information and make it available to people.  Unfortunately, this fact only elicited a shaking head in hands response which I took as his disgust at more wasted government/taxpayer money.

“Living is Easy With Eyes Closed, Misunderstanding All You See”
While for those of us not blinded by the limited wonders of computers and the internet, and who understand the complexity of actual healthcare decisions and analyses, the challenge is communicating this reality to people who believe that the internet is rapidly solving all our information problems…… As a society our goal should be to convey this knowledge to people before they or a family member becomes seriously ill - at which point the complexity of making healthcare decisions will be immediate and personal.  And just as there are no atheists in foxholes, people facing serious life altering medical decisions want validated and reliable information, not subjective, anonymous opinions from the internet - which may be fine for picking a restaurant, but is certainly problematic for picking a surgeon or a medicine.

Politics of Health Reform: Selling Anger or Catharsis

By Michael D. Miller MD
March 22nd, 2010

With the health reform legislation process winding up, it is clear that going forward politics are - and will be - front and center, with the divide between the Democrats and Republicans as wide as the orbit of Pluto…… the planetoid, not the Disney character. This divide is depicted in black, white, and red in the National Journal’s March 13th Insiders Poll question, “If Congress enacts something close to President Obama’s latest health care reform plan, how would that affect your party in the midterm elections?”  87% of Democrats thought it would “help a lot” or “help a little,” and 100% of Republicans thought it would help them.

They can’t both be right.

Each party is banking on their ability to sell health reform their way:  Democrats will present it as a significant step towards fixing many of our healthcare system’s and country’s problems.  Conversely, the Republicans will characterize it as fundamentally evil and something that will end individual freedom and civilized progress because of “government takeover of healthcare” being run by a “healthcare czar.”

These sentiments and strategies are clear in the quotes accompanying the National Journal’s poll:

Republicans:
“The tax increases, the wild spending, and the backroom deals and threats will shock voters of all parties, producing a GOP revolt.”

“Passing the bill will help the GOP by fueling voter (especially senior) anger at an arrogant majority that knowingly ignored popular opinion.”

Democrats:
“It will help a lot of people, show that Democrats can act, and get the ’sausage making’ off the news.”

“If it passes, people [will] see it’s not the end of the world and learn more about its benefits. The more they know about it, the more supportive they are.  Best of all, we can begin talking about something else.”

However, one Democrat in the 9% who thought enacting the law would “hurt a lot” said, “The Right hates it, the Left is not satisfied, and the middle is scared.”

Majority v. Minority - Catharsis v. Anger
Without dissecting the merits of their positions, these divergent perspectives are due to the parties’ different roles in our two-party democracy:  The majority needs to present their actions in a way that fosters catharsis in people, (particularly in voters), by actually improving some problem. Their goal is to turn that catharsis into positive feelings about the majority party, leading to votes in future elections. Conversely, the minority party needs to create anger about what the majority party is doing or proposing, with the goal of turning that anger into….. (no surprise here)…… votes in future elections.

Thus the key for the party leadership, individual elected officials, and their communications and campaign staffs, is how to best create catharsis or anger - depending upon which side of the fence they are on.

An old friend, Dan Wasserman, the political cartoonist for the Boston Globe, in his March 2nd cartoon depicted this very nicely:

Dan Wasserman Political Cartoon - 03-02-2010 Romeny Anger
[This cartoon was also reprinted in the March, 6th issue of National Journal]

Challenges of Political and Policy Communications
How people, (i.e. voters), perceive the issues and problems - and potential solutions - is strongly influenced by how they are presented and described.  It is this communications process that builds or derails political and policy initiatives and campaigns.  No matter the long-term success or failure of the health reform law, the road from now until the November elections will be filled with messaging to instill voters with either catharsis or anger - particularly swing voters in key states and CDs. For the Democrats, creating cathartic feelings will be much, much easier as specific provisions of the law become effective.

For Republicans, creating anger will be possible from the outset. In the near term having a new law will give them a focal point for anger, with proposed regulations and rules being easy and rich targets.  In the longer term, as the new law actually improves many people’s lives, it will be harder to accomplish that goal.  However, by that time, if they can use the near term anger they’ve created to take control of one or both houses of Congress, or the White House, as the majority party they will be the ones trying to create catharsis - so some successes via implementation will be to their benefit.  In addition, if that happens, for political reasons Republicans will not want to repeal or significantly unravel the new law since continued implementation of health reform - without dramatic alterations - will deny Democrats one of their main campaign issues that they have historically used to generate anger among their base and swing voters.

—————————————————————–

Post Script: Turning Anger Into Productive or Destructive Action
[Omitted for space considerations.]

How Long is the New Health Law?

By Michael D. Miller MD
March 21st, 2010

With the House of Representatives passing the Senate’s version of the health reform legislation tonight, it can now be signed by the President.  An historic step by any measure. While one of the criticisms leveled against the bill has been its length - typically cited as 2,409 pages - I recently pointed out to someone that the 2,409 page length is because the bill is printed to make it easy to read by using a large font, leaving lots of space between the lines, and sequentially indenting subsections to make the overall structure clearer.  (Below is one page from the printed version of the bill.) However, by changing the font and reformatting it, I was easily able to make the entire bill fit on 60 pages.

So how long is the bill? It all depends.  But certainly the 2,409 page length “fact” - and similar figures - will be tossed around as pseudo-quantitative arguments that the new law is too complex, which will be another example of fun with facts in support of political positions.

Page 448 of Health Reform Bill

Doctors Communications to Patient’s Family

By Michael D. Miller MD
February 10th, 2010

The great writer John McPhee’s article in the February 8th issue of the New Yorker is primarily about his experiences fishing for pickerel in New Hampshire, but the subtext is his connecting to his dying father who is in the hospital after a severe stroke.

While the article is extremely warm and heart-felt, two short sections stand out because of his visceral reaction to his father’s doctor:

“His room had a south-facing window.  My mother, in a flood of light, eighty-seven, looked even smaller than she was, and space was limited around her, with me, my brother, my sister and a young doctor together beside the bed. I was startled by the candor of the doctor.  He said the patient did not have many days to live, and he described cerebral events in language only the patient, among those present, was equipped to understand.  But the patient did not understand: ‘He can’t comprehend anything, his eyes follow nothing, he is finished,’ the doctor said, and we should prepare ourselves.

“Wordlessly, I said to him, ‘You fucking bastard.’ My father may not have been comprehending, but my mother was right there before him, and his words, like everything else in those hours, were falling upon her and dripping away like rain.  Nor did he stop. There was more of the same, until he finally excused himself to continue on his rounds.”
……
“The young doctor returned, twenty-four hours exactly after his earlier visit. He touched the patient with his fingers and steel, and qualified for compensation. [emphasis added] He said there had been no change and not to expect any; the patient’s comprehension would not improve. He went on as had the day before.  My father, across the years, had always seemed incapable of speaking critically of another doctor, perhaps in a paradoxical way, because he had been present in the operating room where the mistake of another doctor had ended his mother’s life. Even-tempered as he generally appeared to be, my father could blow his top, and I wondered, with respect to his profession, to what extent this situation would be testing him he were able to listen, comprehend, and speak.”

To be fair - and maybe overly fair - perhaps the physician taking care of Dr. McPhee was focused on the outcome of his patient, and realizing that improvement would not happen wanted to set realistic expectations for the family. However, what is clear from John McPhee’s prose is that the physician didn’t see the patient’s family within his care continuum.  He didn’t treat them as if they were his patients who needed his compassion.  If he had, he might have realized that while he - and medical science - could do very little for Dr. McPhee after his stroke, there was a lot that he could do for the family by being more compassionate and empathetic in his interactions as he was explaining the diagnosis and prognosis.

In addition - although John McPhee doesn’t mention it in his article - hopefully there were other components of the care team besides the one physician, since a well-coordinated care team should provide additional information and support to the family.  It would be unrealistic for a single physician to provide all the information and support to a critically ill patient and their family - even when there is no hope and no interventions to ease the patient’s condition. Expecting a physician to do all this alone is like asking an NBA basketball player to go 1 on 5 against another team.  Even the greats of Chamberlain,  Jordan, or Bryant wouldn’t have been able to do that.

I applaud John McPhee for his great writing and for including his direct feelings about his encounter with the medical care system.  His article would be good reading for clinicians in training and practice since it so deeply illuminates how patients and their families can view clinicians, their words, and how they deliver them. Similarly, his article would be a great reading for students and policy makers interested in the relationships and communications between clinicians and patients - and their families - as well as for those interested in improving compassionate caregiving.

Congressional Accomplishments for 2009

By Michael D. Miller MD
February 9th, 2010

Why the Democrats are increasingly becoming politically vulnerable is a topic that pundits are dissecting in great detail.  A general consensus is that the root cause of the public’s growing discontent is a lack of progress on the economy and jobs.

While the economy and the job market have stabilized somewhat - even if they haven’t rapidly rebounded - the President and Congress haven’t gotten much credit for not letting the ship sink.  In addition, most of the President’s and Congress’ major accomplishments occurred in the first part of 2009, while towards the end of the year the focus shifted to the very slow moving health care bill - which also included many real and concocted controversies.

Even the most recent Saturday Night Live’s Weekend Update took a shot at the lack of accomplishments by quickly scrolling past these three items:

  • Cash for Clunkers
  • Defunding the F-22
  • Credit Card Accountability Act

However, National Journal’s January 16th issue had a side-bar with a much more extensive list of 2009 accomplishments:

  1. Protections against wage discrimination (President signed on January 29)
  2. Expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (signed on February 4)
  3. The economic stimulus package (signed on February 17)
  4. A fiscal 2009 omnibus appropriations bill covering unfinished work from the previous Congress (signed March 11)
  5. A public lands package designating more than 2 million acres as protected wilderness (signed March 30)
  6. Expansion of national service programs (signed April 21)
  7. A fiscal 2010 budget resolution (Congress approved on April 29; President does not sign)
  8. Home mortgage reforms and foreclosure assistance measures (signed on May 20)
  9. Curbs on abusive credit card practices (signed on May 22)
  10. Pentagon acquisition reforms (signed on May 22)
  11. Sweeping tobacco regulations (signed on June 22)
  12. A fiscal 2009 supplemental appropriations bill to fund the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, flu-prevention efforts, and the “cash for clunkers” auto-rebate program (signed on June 24)
  13. Confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court (sworn in on August 8 )
  14. The fiscal 2010 Defense authorization bill, including an expansion of hate crime laws to cover offenses based on a victim’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability (signed on October 28)
  15. Extensions of unemployment benefits and the homebuyer tax credit (signed on November 6)
  16. The fiscal 2010 appropriations bills (signed on various dates in October and December)

So while the SNL skit was good comedy, it only picked up 3 pieces of 16 substantive Congressional actions - which were not just political talking points that could be written on the palm of a hand.

Palin Hand’s Crib Notes - Tea Party Convention February 2010

The bottom line seems to be that the President and the 111th Congress got handed a bucket of turds at the starting line, (e.g. crashing economy, dramatically deepening Federal deficit, and two wars),  and they’ve been aggressively trying to keep things from stinking too much while making as much fertilizer as possible.

But no matter how much sugar and sweet smelling spices anyone could toss over the bucket, it still has a bunch of turds.  Despite the progress made and the sweeteners tossed about to help people and companies maintain themselves through the economic crisis, the public still perceives that something is rotten and smelly with the government, (as well as financial institutions and some other large companies and organizations), and their response is to want to throw out anyone they can connect to the ongoing stink.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What “Will” Happen With Health Reform

By Michael D. Miller MD
November 29th, 2009

With the Senate scheduled to start debating (and likely amending) health reform legislation this coming week, speculation is rampant about what will happen with health reform.  Since the title of this blog is “health policy and communications,” I want to focus on the use of language in discussing health issues, studies, proposals and legislation - specifically the word “will.”

The word “will” is very strong and it implies a high degree of certainty about predicting future events, such as “The Sun will come up tomorrow morning.”   And while I have no problem with predicting the future - as my friends know, I have a great reputation for predicting the future, particularly about sporting events like fake punts and winning 8 straight games to win a World Series - but using the word “will” to describe the implications of scientific studies, or legislation and policy proposals, can be misleading.

Specifically, the word “will” is often used loosely as a stand in for the phrases, “is projected to be” or “is estimated to be.” For example, in a recent press release for a study about diabetes in the US it was reported that, “The diabetes population in the United States will almost double over the next 25 years…” Interestingly, the next part of that sentence states, “and annual medical spending on the disease is projected to hit $336 billion, up from $113 billion today…”  So apparently future costs can only be projected, but future cases of diabetes can be predicted with much greater certainty. [emphasis added]

Assumptions v. Future Reality
The reason to be concerned about the use of this type of language is because although the methodology for any study or projection may be valid and reasonable, its conclusions are only as good as its assumptions. And as ever researcher and policy person knows, many, many, many things can occur that cause reality to differ from what is projected based upon those assumptions - particularly over the course of 25 years. Think about it, how accurate do you think the predictions about 2009 were in 1984?

Media Contributes to Impression of Inevitability with Language
The media also tends to propagate some misleading impressions.  For example, the phraseology about the implications of the diabetes study was copied by multiple new sources - such as Time Magazine - and even expanded upon by the Chicago Tribune to imply that costs will also dramatically increase, “…diabetes cases will nearly double in the U.S. in the next 25 years and the cost of treating the disease will almost triple…” and CNN, “The number of Americans with diabetes will nearly double in the next 25 years, and the costs of treating them will triple…”[emphasis added]

What Will Happen With Legislation
It is also common so see the word “will” used when referring to legislation.  Many politicians and pundits use it in asserting that various bills and provisions “will do” something specific, such as expanding coverage, controlling costs, etc… when actually they are referring to projections or estimates - often from the Congressional Budget Office which is generally very careful about describing their work as projections or estimates.

The reason politicians, pundits, and others use the word “will” is because it is very effective in rallying support for (or against) specific bills or proposals, since it increases the impact on the listener (or reader), makes them feel more concerned about the issue, and increases the likelihood that they will  take some desired action.  Thus politicians and PR people use the word “will” rather than “projected” or “estimated.”  So the next time you hear a speech or news report about legislation that states the bill “will” do something in terms of changing the number of people with some benefit, or it “will” cost or save so much, substitute the phrase, “is projected to” for “will” in your mind, and see how much less impact and traction the message has - and you’ll see why the word is used.

The only drawback for politicians of making such statements, is that 5-10 years later when the actual results are different than what was projected or estimated, there can be rhetorical battles about why someone “promised” that the legislation “would” do something, yet the actual results were different.  (A great example of this was the provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that were intended to expand options for Medicare HMO plans, but it actually reduced the options for such plans.)

Next Up: Implementing Health Reform - What Will Happen

Thanksgiving Conversations About Health - Engage With Grace Blog Rally

By Michael D. Miller MD
November 24th, 2009

For many years I’ve used the Thanksgiving dinner table conversation as a model for discussions about healthcare - but usually I’ve put it in the context of people who work for healthcare companies, (e.g. pharmaceutical or managed care), trying to address, rebuff and rebut the criticisms they might get from family members, (e.g. Aunt Lilly), about the problems with the US healthcare system and the actions or positions of various companies or industries.  However, last year - and again this year - several bloggers have been cooperating to promote Thanksgiving weekend discussions about end of life care issues.  This effort has been called the Engage with Grace, and last year it was a great success, with over 100 bloggers participating.

The original mission of this “blog rally” was to get more and more people talking about their end of life wishes. But because this year has had quite intensive public debate about health reform, the decision was made for this year to do something a bit different and add a bit of levity to the efforts to promote discussions.

At the heart of Engage With Grace are five questions designed to get the conversation started, but to put a slightly lighter spin on these questions, the first set below has a less serious tone - the “real” Engage With Grace questions are at the end of this post - and I’ve interjected five other humorous ones in between. They’re not easy questions, but they are important - and the goal of both the serious and lighter questions are to get people talking, since if you can’t talk about the funny questions, then how can families and friends expect to seriously talk about the difficult and important ones?

Engage With Grace Questions - Set 1

  1. Which one of your family members would you trade for a celebrity or professional athlete, and who would you trade them for?
  2. After you made that trade, would you want the celebrity or professional athlete to cook or do the dishes at your holiday meal?
  3. Would you want that celebrity or professional athlete to be on your post holiday meal team for Charades or Monopoly?
  4. Would you want that celebrity or professional athlete to be named on your advanced directive or living will so they could make decisions about your healthcare needs and choices if you were unable to do so?
  5. Would you want that celebrity or professional athlete to represent you in the US Congress to make decisions about Medicare and health reform?

Engage With Grace Questions - Set 2

Have a good holiday season - and go with grace.

Off-Label Communications: Is More Less?

By Michael D. Miller MD
October 4th, 2009

Allergan corporation has filed a law suit against the Federal government challenging the FDA’s limits for companies discussing or promoting off-label uses of approved medicines.  This is not a new issue, but the news reports indicate that Allergan is going very old school and basing their legal challenge on Constitutional freedom of speech rights.

The issue is not can doctors and patients use approved medicines for conditions, (or in ways), which are not specifically approved by the FDA, but can companies discuss these off-label uses with physicians or provide them with published information about these off-label uses?

Competing Risk-Benefit Perspectives
The competing risk-benefit perspectives that surround this issue are nearly identical to the trade-offs that all stakeholders in biomedical research and development face - including the FDA, companies, patients, clinicians, and legislators:

  • Creating a landscape that protects individuals and public safety
  • Being flexible enough to provide clinicians and patients access to the best available treatment possibilities
  • Providing companies a reasonable market environment that creates incentives for developing new treatments and investigating new uses for already approved medicines, which also has marketing rules that are as clear as possible so companies can conduct business without being excessively concerned about straying into regulatory gray zones

Off-label use is common in clinical practice - particularly for disease areas like cancer - because it often represents the standard of care.  And in situations where a medicine approved to treat a common condition has an off-label use for a rare condition, the company has very little incentive to conduct the expensive and time-consuming clinical research to get the FDA to approve that rare off-label use.

There are a few key points underlying the issue of communicating information about off-label uses:

  1. The Constitutional freedom of speech rights for a company are not as expansive as for an individual
  2. The FDA’s regulatory authority focuses on the approval for sale and marketing of medicines, (and some other product areas), and not their use in clinical practice - with some very rare exceptions
  3. The FDA’s position about companies disseminating information about off-label uses has not be fixed in stone

On this last point, the 1997 FDA Modernization Act included a provision to expand the ability of companies to give physicians journal articles and similar material about off-label uses of approved medicines.  After that the Washington Legal Foundation brought a law suit seeking to expand off-label information dissemination.  And when the FDAMA provisions expired in 2006, the FDA proceeded with rule-making guidance to replace the FDAMA provisions, and this final guidance became effective in January 2009.

Not having read the details of Allergan’s legal challenge - and since the FDA doesn’t comment on current suits - it’s hard to assess the specific pros and cons of their positions.  But considering the extensive legislative and case law involving this issue, the company certainly seems to have a very steep hill to climb.  On the other hand, it would seem unusual that they would spend the time and money to bring a legal challenge unless they felt they had a chance to prevail. However, Allergan’s suit may have implications for the FDA, industry, clinicians, and patients for several or many years - even if they lose - because they may be making a pretty big splash in the policy pond with such a public challenge to change the rules for off-label promotion, and this will likely alter the landscape for any future actions.

I was involved with a somewhat analogous situation in the mid-1990s where a lot of groundwork had been done to prepare for a substantive debate about reforming a fundamental life sciences policy issue.  However, one company had an urgent and particular need for a legislative change, and they proceeded to pursue every reasonable and extraordinary avenue for getting the change they wanted.  The end result was that all our subsequent discussions were short-circuited because every policy stakeholder’s response upon raising this issue, was “Oh, I know about THAT issue,” with the implication that it was something they wanted nothing to do with because of the controversy the one company had stirred up with their expansive activities.  (I’ve purposefully not named the issue so as to not perturb anyone or any company about something that happened years ago.)

Collective Sausage Making
The moral of this story is that to make productive changes stakeholders within and across groups frequently need to work together. And if they don’t, the well can easily get polluted for everyone when policy makers avoid any action because they connect the issue to a nasty smell.  This may be another manifestation of the old adage, “the two things that shouldn’t be seen being made are laws and sausages.”

Happy Sausage Making - 2009

Encouraging Communications About Patients’ Goals

By Michael D. Miller MD
September 18th, 2009

I attended a great event yesterday where experts discussed how to improve healthcare quality and safety by increasing patients’ involvement in making healthcare decisions.

This seminar, “Patient-Centeredness and Patient Safety: How Are They Interconnected,” was organized by the Kenneth B. Schwartz Center and sponsored by the Massachusetts Medical Society and CRICO/RMFDon Berwick (President & CEO of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement) was the main speaker followed by a panel consisting of two patient safety leaders from local hospitals and a patient involved with promoting patient engagement in quality improvement.

To start the event, Dr. Berwick discussed how his thinking about healthcare quality had evolved over several decades, and his increasing belief in the importance of patient involvement. He discussed his Health Affairs article on Patient-Centered care, and summarized his current thinking about how to design patient-centered care in 8 bullets:

  1. Place the patient at the center
  2. Individualize
  3. Welcome family and loved ones
  4. Maximize health influences within care
  5. Maximize health influences outside of care
  6. Rely on sophisticated, disciplined evidence
  7. Use all relevant capabilities - waste nothing
  8. Connect helping influences with each other

Communications Is Crucial for Achieving Patient-Centerdness and Goal Sharing
The essence of the panel’s discussion was about how to improve communications among patients and their clinicians so that each others’ goals were shared and understood.  One example raised by a panelist was initiatives to prevent patients from falling in the hospital.  Patients may see nurses being in bathrooms with them as intrusive or uncomfortable, but discussing their shared goal of not having patients fall and hurt themselves shifts the context of the nurse’s action and enables it to be embraced by the patient rather than resisted.

From the patient’s perspective too often clinicians may have their own ideas about what the goals of the treatment should be, but without understanding the patient’s life interests and goals the two may be disconnected.  For example, clinicians often ask patients what they do for work to understand if the treatment or the outcomes will be compatible with their jobs, but often patient’s happiness or life fulfillment is related to something outside of work, such as playing the piano, playing with grandchildren, rollerblading, hiking with their dogs in the mountains, or hang-gliding.  Treating a patient’s injury or illness so they can do (or be able to try to do) those activities may be very different than what would be indicated if the goal was to enable them to work in an office.

Creating Policies to Promote Communications and Goal Sharing
Dr. Berwick’s presentation also included a brief discussion of how evidence based medicine (EBM) can improve patient safety by avoiding unnecessary care and setting realistic expectations about the outcomes for chosen treatments.  This is captured in his 6th bullet above. One of the challenges in the current push towards more EBM - and comparative effectiveness research (CER) - is what to actually measure in this research. Combining the health system’s desire for optimal outcomes with patient-centeredness, (i.e., his 2nd bullet - “Individualize”), could be achieved by including the patient’s goals for their treatment as one of the outcomes measured in EBM and CER programs.

Benefits of Measuring Achievement of Patients’ Goals as an “Outcome”
Process measures, (such as percentage of patients who’ve received a recommended treatment), are usually easier to evaluate, but are really proxies for clinical outcomes.  Actual outcomes like mortality or hospitalization can be harder to evaluate, in part because of individual patient differences and thus the raw data needs to be risk adjusted. However, measuring achievement of the patient’s goals could be very important and valuable to add to these evaluations - and could be a rough way to inherently risk adjust the data, i.e. the “goals” of treating a broken hip may be different for a 50 year old person than someone who is 70.  The actual measurement of such goal achievement could be done based upon answering the question of “how well were the patient’s goals met?”  Clearly this would have to be quantified in some way - and perhaps that could be done by the patients themselves on an 11 point scale from 0-100%.

Not only would measuring this “patient goal achievement” outcome add a useful dimension to some research, but it would also put the question of “what are the patient’s goals?” right at the front of the patient-clinician conversation.  And in the context of health reform and system improvement, by using the dictum of, “we manage what we measure,” measuring how well delivery systems and clinicians are achieving patients’ goals could be an important force for transforming care delivery.

Bottom Line for Patients and Clinicians
The next time you’re a patient talking to a clinician, be sure to talk about your goals for treating whatever ailment caused you to see that clinician.  And clinicians need to tell their patients what goals they expect to achieve from the treatment they’re recommending.  This is the start of a conversation since the patient’s expectations may not be realistic - such as for a patient with a severe fracture who wants to run a marathon in three weeks.  But by understanding each others goals and expectations they can agree on what should be done and how to proceed.

Need for Continuity of Care and Primary Care Clinicians
Of course some patients may seek to “doctor shop” looking for a clinician who will promise to achieve their goals.  This can be good if the first clinician isn’t attuned to the patient’s wishes, but it can also be bad if the patient’s expectations are unrealistic.  That is why having a trusted relationship with a primary care clinician can be so important, since their PCC can help them evaluate and digest other clinicians’ recommendations.  Again, it comes down to ongoing and two-way communications to understand goals and jointly develop treatment plans and decisions.

Miscommunicating Health Reform

By Michael D. Miller MD
August 14th, 2009

Anyone following the debate about health reform knows that the discourse has become increasingly uncivil.  While it is easy to blame those opposing the proposals being developed in Congress for this situation, supporters of the proposals have been validating their adversaires’ messages by repeating the misrepsentative labels in their rebuttals.

Specifically, critics of the overall proposal have mischaracterized a provision that would pay clinicians for discussing end of life care preferences with their patients enrolled in Medicare.  (See below for information about the provision.)  Unfortunately, in responding to these attacks, health reform supporters have repeated the false claims about the provision, (and the label “Death Panels”), and thus perpetuated the fear their opponents have created.

The problematic nature of the messaging by health reform proponents has even been highlighted by the newsamedian Jon Stewart, who noted on his Daily Show, “You know a sales pitch is in trouble when it starts with, ‘Look, you gotta trust me, we’re not going to kill your grandparents.’”

Using Campaign Strategies Against “Death Panels”
While the Administration has adopted a campaign-style strategy to support health reform, unfortunately, they haven’t also consistently applied campaign communications strategies  - particularly the rule about not naming your opponent, i.e. referring to that person as “my opponent” rather than by name, so that their name doesn’t get additional public or media exposure.  Therefore, saying “death panels” in explaining why they don’t exist  violates this rule because it helps perpetuate the label and provides the media with video of leading advocates uttering that phrase.  This perpetuates the opponents message, giving it longer and larger life, and preventing advocates from talking about the positive aspects of the proposals they support.

Power of Positive Messaging
A much better strategy is to describe the positive aspects of mischaracterized provisions without referring to the false label.  In this case, that would involve explaining that the allegedly controversial provision is an extension of - and an improvement upon - current Medicare law, and it is  designed to strengthen patient-physician relationships and communications.  (Current Medicare law* requires hospitals, nursing homes, hospice programs, home health agencies, and HMO’s to give adult individuals, at the time of admission or enrollment, information about living wills.**)  The proposed provision improves upon current law - which can be fulfilled by handing a person a stack of papers - because it would encourage clinicians to talk to their patients about their wishes involving serious medical problems BEFORE they occur.

——————————————————————–

Footnotes:
* This part of Medicare law was created in 1990 as part of the Patient Self Determination Act -  which was included in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990.
** “Living wills” are also referred to as advanced directives or durable power of attorney for healthcare.  These documents express the individual’s preferences for certain types of health care interventions, and empower a person (or persons) to make decisions about their medical care should they be incapable of doing so themselves.

 ——————————————————————–

Summary of Section 1233 from HR 3200, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act” (Full text of section available here.)

Sec. 1233. “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” Provides payment to clinicians for discussing with Medicare enrollees issues and their preferences - including the role of clinicians - related to life-sustaining treatment.  Payment will only be made for such consultations once very 5 years unless there is a significant change in the enrollees’ health. CMS will also modify the ‘Medicare & You’ handbook to incorporate information on end-of-life planning resources, and incorporate measures on advance care planning into the physician’s quality reporting initiative.