In the last couple of weeks there were two interesting articles in the New York Times about patient-physicians communications.

Value of Empathy
In the first  piece, Dr. Pauline Chen discusses an academic article that explored the way physicians communicate empathy to their patients who have serious and life threatening illnesses.  The conclusion of the research, (which looked at the experience of people who had lung cancer), was that physicians miss 90% of the opportunities to connect empathetically with their patients.

The researchers speculated that physicians don’t engage patients empathetically because they are concerned that this would take too much time. However, according to Dr. Chen, the researchers found that “empathy, expressed throughout the patient-doctor encounter, may actually help alleviate problems with time.”  This occured because when empathy was not acknowledged at the beginning of the visit, patients would to try to elicit that type of support from the physician, which could actually extend the time of the visit.

Patients Make a List
The second article was from Jane Brody – a wonderfully gifted health writer – who wrote about ways patients can improve their communications and interactions with clinicians.  Her list had two parts: 6 things to keep written down and bring to your doctor appointments, and 4 tips on how to interact with clinicians.  Her list of 6 things you should keep written down is a good one, and in essence [with my annotations] it is:

1. Questions for the doctor
2. Diary of symptoms
3. List of medicines, supplements and vitamins you take - with name, dosage and how frequently you take them. [Also, please tell your doctor if you are not taking the medicines as instructed for any reason, including if you are having a problem affording any of them.]
4. Your understanding of how you are supposed to be treating your medical problems [Doctors may think that because they told you something at your last visit that you both understood what they said and are following their guidance.]
5. Medical history for yourself and your immediate family
6. Your use of alcohol, tobacco and any drugs not included in #3

The other 4 items on Jane Brody’s list are also valuable:

1. “Be willing to see a physician’s assistant or nurse practitioner for routine care.”  [They will likely be able to spend more time with you on preventive and wellness care issues.]
2. Ask if the doctor uses email for non-urgent issues and questions.   [Some physicians do and some don’t – possibly because they don’t get reimbursed for communicating with patients via email or over the phone.]
3. If the doctor tells you to go to the Emergency Room because of your symptoms, don’t wait.  [Go right away.  Don’t wait for your TV show to be over, for the laundry to finish, or to put on makeup or shave.]
4. If you are told you have a life threatening condition or you need surgery, get a second opinion.

Physicians Use Lists Too
Lists are clearly good things to use so that important things are not forgotten.  People involved with critical, safety-conscious activities like flying airplanes have used lists to make sure that everything is set before takeoff and landing.  After what has probably been too long, such lists are making their way into modern medicine in a more standardized way.

Last December, Atul Gawande wrote in The New Yorker about how such lists are being used to improve the quality of care and save live (and money) in Intensive Care Units.  The first standardized and studied checklist was for putting in a central intravenous line.  The results were remarkable – lowering infection rates in lines that had been in patients for 10 day from 11% to essentially zero.  Peter Pronovost and his collaborators have since developed many other such checklists, (or protocols as they may sometimes be called), and their use has expanded to many, but still probably not most hospitals.

While these lists are clearly beneficial and valuable, like many medical advances, they are first developed and used for the most critically ill patients in hospitals.  This makes sense, because for hospitalized patients a mistake - or action not taken - can mean the difference between life and death.  And hospitals are also places where systematic changes can be implemented and the results measured.

More Use of List by Physicians
Physicians treating patients outside of hospitals often have lists too, but they are often incomplete and are certainly not standardized.  For example, the charts for most patients have problem lists, which list the individual’s medical problems.  However, it is up to the physicians to refer to them, otherwise, the only problem that may be addressed by the clinician will be the one that brought the patient to the office that day – so any needed preventive or wellness care (like an annual eye exam for someone with diabetes) might be overlooked. This is one reason why the list recommended by Jane Brody is so important.

So while physicians may have their own lists, and they know the reason why each patient has come to see them that day, they might be better served by making a list for each patient’s visit so they can make sure to cover all the things that are needed for that individual patient – and of course, that list should also include a reminder to connect empathetically to the patient.  (This is the same concept as having an agenda before any business meeting that not only lists the topics to be covered, but also states an overall objective and concludes with a wrap-up of actions to be taken – a practice I try to follow and force others to do when I’m invited to a meeting.)

Optimism for the Future
In the future, more diagnostic and treatment protocols and guidelines will be developed and configured into standardized checklists to be used in the outpatient setting.  Integrating these into electronic medical records (EMRs) – which include prioritized problem lists with links to recommended preventative exams and monitoring tests – will certainly help improve the quality of care and control the growth in costs.  Of course, this is predicated upon the development of EMRs that can provide such information in ways that are easily used by physicians and their associates.  (This too might be an area where the medical IT industry can learn from those designing airplane information systems.)

While physicians have railed in the past about guidelines and protocols forcing them to practice cookbook medicine, I hope that in the coming years they will welcome them as a way to standardize and simplify their practices so that they can actually work to individualize care for every patient, and connect empathically with them as individuals.  In decades past, that was one of the primary functions of the local doctor, and perhaps if that function again rises in prominence, the interpersonal rewards of practicing primary care medicine will help it grow in popularity with graduating medical students and residents.

It was reported yesterday that Pfizer will stop doing research and development in heart disease, anemia and osteoporosis to concentrate in other areas such as cancer, diabetes, and immunology/inflammatory diseases.

This is interesting since Pfizer has (and had) a large number of products in heart disease, including Lipitor, and pharmaceutical companies have typically continued to do research in areas where they have had products because they have established sales people who are knowledgeable about the disease area and have relationships with clinicians in those areas.  The countervailing force is that many effective medicines to treat heart conditions (like high blood pressure and high cholesterol) are available in generic forms and thus the value bar (benefit/cost ratio) that new medicines must reach to be competitive is much higher than when they competing against other non-generic medicines.

However, one common and very expensive heart condition where better medical treatments are needed is heart failure - often called congestive heart failure (CHF).  According the the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, 5 million Americans have heart failure, and 300,000 die from it each year.  The costs for these patients are very significant: Total costs for treating heart failure in the US are estimated to be $34.8 billion in 2008, and Medicare spent $4.7 billion for hospitalizations related to CHF in 2006.

The chart below from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows the rate of hospitalization (per 1000 people) for heart failure in the US by age group over the years 1979-2004 - clearly a growing problem.

 Hospitalization Rate (per 1000 people) by Age Group for Heart Failure
1979-2004

So what does this mean for better treatments for CHF? According to the pharmaceutical industry’s web site database, there are currently 35 therapies in clinical trials for heart failure or congestive heart failure - including 3 based upon stem cell therapies, 1 based upon cell transplantation, and 1 using gene therapy.  (This compares to the 105 therapies in development for cancer, and 81 for pain.)  So I guess there will continue to be new treatments developed for heart failure, just probably not by Pfizer.  But, recognizing that there are lots of medical problems and limited resources need to be prioritized, will this be OK for current and future patients with heart failure?

Companies allocate and prioritize research and development resources according to three fundamental factors:

1. Unmet Medical Need
2. Scientific Opportunities and Discoveries
3. Market Potential

It is this last one that apparently Pfizer has decided has decreased, so they will be putting their resources into other areas where the combination of all three factors looks more appealing.  As long as all the research-based biopharma companies don’t make those decisions in the same direction (i.e. into and out of the same diseases), then research resources will likely be allocated in a reasonable way to meet societal needs. In that way the needs of people with heart failure will be balanced against those with cancer, chronic pain, diabetes, neurological diseases and immune dysfunctions - which is what society and patients really should want, since people often have multiple diseases or medical problems, so they should want new and better treatments for all of them.

Addendum: The memo from Pfizer’s R&D leadership about their strategic realignment has been posted by Forbes - click here.

The cover of this week’s Economist magazine caught my eye because this weekend I was talking with people about stem cell issues in the context of the Presidential election.

Part of our discussion was how the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s Vice Presidential nominee will effect the Republican ticket’s position on stem cell research.

Doing a quick search on the internet, it appears that John McCain is refining in his position to support research on adult stem cells, while maintaining a foundation that doesn’t alienate the conservative base of his party.  Specifically, the only reference to stem cell research that I could find on the campaign’s web-site is:

Addressing the Moral Concerns of Advanced Technology

Stem cell research offers tremendous hope for those suffering from a variety of deadly diseases - hope for both cures and life-extending treatments. However, the compassion to relieve suffering and to cure deadly disease cannot erode moral and ethical principles.

For this reason, John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. To that end, Senator McCain voted to ban the practice of “fetal farming,” making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes. Furthermore, he voted to ban attempts to use or obtain human cells gestated in animals. Finally, John McCain strongly opposes human cloning and voted to ban the practice, and any related experimentation, under federal law.

As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos.

Where federal funds are used for stem cell research, Senator McCain believes clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress, and that any such research should be subject to strict federal guidelines.

I also found other articles and analyses concerning his earlier positions on stem cell research which seem less equivocal than his current campaign position.

Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?

A: I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It’s a tough issue. I support federal funding.

Retrieved from http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/John_McCain_Abortion.htm

Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007

New Ad
Our weekend discussion also turned out to be a bit prescient, since my internet search turned up information about a new radio ad the McCain-Palin campaign is running that touts all the benefits of stem cell research without making any qualifications about what types of research would be allowed, or any of the moral issues raised on his campaign’s web-site.

Stem Cells Probably Not a Defining Campaign Issue
While stem cell research is certainly a sub-issue of the abortion/choice debate, and would not likely be a deciding factor for many voters, it is an issue of particular interest for biomedical researchers and some patient groups concerned with the development of better treatments and cures for cancers, (as discussed in the Economist), and degenerative diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.  It will be interesting to see how this issue plays out in the next few weeks and if it is raised during any of the debates…. Stay tuned.

Two interesting and related items recently dropped into my inbox concerning the future availability of primary care clinicians.  As most people are aware, primary care services are becoming increasingly scarce - and has been seen here in Massachusetts expanding insurance coverage may only increase this strain.  In addition, there is some good evidence that a  major reason for our higher health care spending is having too many specialists and not enough primary care clinicians. So increasing the number of primary care clinicians might be part of the solution to controlling health care spending.

Incentives to Become a Specialist
The first article in my inbox was a Washington Post story stating that only 2% of graduating medical students were contemplating going into primary care.  However, what the JAMA study actually found is that 2% of those entering Internal Medicine residency programs were planning on going into primary care. The Wall Street Journal correctly noted that the study also found that 12% of students are planning on going into pediatrics, and 5% into family medicine.  However, that means that 8% of physicians in training who will be treating adults in the future are planning on being primary care clinicians…. And even if some of those specialists go into research or other non-clinical careers, the percentage of primary care clinicians for adults will likely not be more that 10%

The reason why so many graduating medical students were planning on becoming specialist was clearly stated in the opening sentence of the Wall Street Journal article: “Yes, higher pay is prompting many U.S. med students to choose lucrative specialties over primary care….”

Incentives to Become a Researcher
The second piece in my inbox was a notice from the NIH about their loan repayment programs for recent doctoral program graduates.  When I worked at the NIH in the early 1990s I helped start a loan repayment program for researchers working on AIDS related research.  At that time there was tremendous need for more people to focus on HIV and AIDS research, and that loan repayment program was restricted to NIH-based employees.  What struck me about the NIH’s notice was how much their loan repayment programs have grown: They now fund 1,600 researchers each year with a budget of $70 million.  While many of the individuals benefiting from these programs are not physicians, they do include pharmacists, psychologists and dentists.

Conclusions and Thoughts About Overall Priorities
What I found interesting – and somewhat concerning – is that if increasing the number of primary care physicians is a high priority, and Medicare is being advised to take steps increase financial incentives for primary care, (something I’ve written about previously), then why have the NIH’s loan repayment programs expanded to draw more clinicians into research?  Certainly research is a worthy endeavor and a great career, but the current structure of the programs given our national priorities, the expansion of NIH’s funding (which helps support researchers salaries), and the growth in the private biomedical research industry, all together beg the question about how these loan repayment programs fit into our overall national strategy and NIH’s funding priorities?

I’m sure that some people will criticize me for questioning these NIH programs, but I look forward to hearing their perspectives – both on the loan repayment programs and how incentives for primary care should be increased.

I’m also concerned about the JAMA study’s findings because they point out that changing financial incentives for primary care may not happen soon enough - and clearly today’s students haven’t gotten any messages that these incentives will likely change in the future.  However, they may be getting their information from their teachers - who likely directly and indirectly relate the financial and life-style attributes of primary care versus specialty careers.  While Medicare and other payers cannot make promises about how their reimbursements will be structured years or decades from now, perhaps there needs to be more educational efforts directed at medical students and residents about what the future financial incentives for physicians may look like.

Clearly there is much work to be done in this area to ensure a greater supply of primary care clinicians and to drive research efforts forward with appropriate priorities.

One of the challenges for improving the healthcare system is creating a vision for what is achievable in a timeframe of months or years.  The first step for creating such a realistic vision is to understand how progress has been made in the past.

A microcosm of such progress was described in a recent article in The Economist.  This article describes advances in our understanding of stomach ailments – one of my favorite areas of biomedical progress because in the last several decades dramatic changes have occurred in our basic knowledge about this area, and so many people can relate to stomach problems.

The most significant change occurred in 1982 when two Australian scientists disproved the dogma that because of its very acidic pH the stomach was sterile.  They showed that the H. pylori bacteria could live in the stomach and cause the stomach inflammation associated with an upset stomach.  Subsequent research showed that H. pylori could be the cause of ulcers and stomach cancer. Following those discoveries, medicines were developed to change the pH of the stomach to treat the stomach inflammation and eliminate the H. pylori.

While lowering the acidity of the stomach with medicines would often improve symptoms, it also raised the question about what bacteria might be able to live in the stomach under less acidic conditions?  This question is more intriguing because it has been observed that when people taking medicines to lower their stomach’s acidity stopped taking these medicines, they have a resurgence in their symptoms.  This could be because their stomach had become accustomed to the less acidic conditions and then reacts to the renewed acidity; Or it could be because the bacteria that were living in the less acidic stomach are not happy with the greater acidity; Or perhaps the H. pylori that had been struggling in the less acidic stomach multiply very happily with the return of the acidic conditions.

H. pylori – Obesity and Asthma
The Economist article discusses some even more interesting ideas about the role of H. pylori in the stomach.  For example, they cite researchers who speculate that the elimination of H. pylori from the stomach may be linked to rising rates of obesity and cancer in the esophagus. These researchers at NYU School of Medicine also found that children who had not been infected with H. pylori were more likely to have asthma.  The article summarizes these observations with the speculation from NYU’s Dr. Blaser that perhaps H. pylori should be viewed not as a pathogen, but rather as a symbiotic organism “that is sometimes helpful and sometimes harmful.”

One of Dr. Blaser’s key observation is that H. pylori appears to not just be a passive resident of the stomach, but may actually regulate the stomach’s acid levels to keep the stomach’s pH in a range the bacteria prefer.  However, the substance that H. pylori secretes to get the stomach to produce less acid may be toxic to the stomach and result in ulcers and local cancers.  Thus, while eliminating the H. pylori would eliminate the toxic source of ulcers and cancers, it can also allow the stomach to produce too much acid – which can lead to cancer of the esophagus, as well as “acid reflux disease,” a.k.a. “heartburn.”

The H. pylori-obesity link is based upon the possibility that the bacteria modify the secretion of certain hormones effecting how people feel hungry, and the H. pylori-asthma link is based upon the effects the bacteria may have on children’s developing immune system.  (See The Economist article for more information about these areas.)

Conclusions
These findings lead to the conclusions that perhaps treating stomach ailments and preparing peoples’ stomachs for healthy lives should be based upon their genetic makeup, and seeding children with strains of H. pylori that don’t produce the toxins that can lead to ulcers and stomach cancer, could benefit them without doing harm in the long run.

Overall, this is a great example of how once more knowledge is obtained about a disease and the relevant human physiology, scalpel-like treatment and prevention strategies can be developed and implemented.  Of course, educating clinicians, patients, payers and others about these advancements – and why they are important – are also important challenges, because improving health care treatments and our healthcare system involves not just determining what should be done, but also how to actually accomplish those things.

Cost containment is becoming an increasingly powerful force in shaping the environment for life sciences companies - as well as other parts of the healthcare system.  In addition, more sophisticated tools for analyzing and demonstrating the clinical and economic value of medical treatments are making it more challenging for life sciences companies to communicate the value of their new products to all types of audiences, including clinicians, payers, patients and regulators.

These new tools and the changing environment are requiring life sciences companies to think about developing more sophisticated messages to reach these audiences. I recently recorded a short 6 minute discussion about these topics with Jeff Sandman, CEO of Hyde Park Communications - where I am also a Senior Counselor.  Click on the icon-link below to listen to our discussion.

And as always - if you have any comments on this topic - please feel free to share them.

The August 16th Economist had an interesting article (and commentary) about patients traveling to other countries for medical treatments, a.k.a. “medical tourism.”  The article focused on the US healthcare system, and mentioned other parts of healthcare that are being exported, (such as transcription of medical records, reading of imaging studies), and imported, (such as physicians and nurses).  But there are two aspects of this issue that the article didn’t touch upon – chronic care and pharmaceuticals:

Medical Tourism Doesn’t Work for Chronic Care
Patients are traveling from the US to other countries for expensive procedures like heart surgery and joint replacements.  While savings from this medical tourism can be significant on a per procedure basis, it may only make a small dent in overall healthcare spending – and only produce a dip in cost while not significantly changing the growth rate in health care costs.  But more importantly, such medical tourism doesn’t address the expanding problems of providing care for patients’ chronic conditions – which is a major driver of increasing healthcare costs.

Importing Medicines – Safety
Importing medicines from other countries into the US has been a controversy for more than 10 years.  The US Congress has repeatedly authorized the importation of medicines from other countries provided the Department of Health and Human Services certified their safety.  But the HHS (under both Democratic and Republican administrations) has not made such certification – and that was before the deaths earlier this year from contaminated heparin manufactured in China.

Importing Medicines – Politics
While the Obama and McCain campaigns have very different positions on health care reform, their statements on importing medicines are very similar in that both include provisions for importing medicines only if they are safe:

• “Obama will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S.”
• “John McCain will look to bring greater competition to our drug markets through safe re-importation of drugs”

Healthcare Jobs and Economic Growth
The world is clearly becoming flatter for healthcare goods and services, and this could be a worrisome trend for the US economy since healthcare products, delivery and research are significant drivers of US economic growth. After all, healthcare jobs – in both delivery and biomedical R&D – are high skilled, high wage jobs that depend upon an educated workforce and an economical comfortable society that can devote a significant portion of its income to healthcare.  If the US starts shipping more and more healthcare jobs (and money) overseas, this could result in a downward spiral as the loss of those jobs undermines the strength of the US healthcare system and the country’s economic growth.  However, it is uncertain how much the loss of that part of economy could be offset by potentially lower healthcare spending – a cost that some economists believe is inhibiting economic growth in the US and our global competitiveness

An article in the July/August Health Affairs about Massachusetts health plans implementing Pay-for-Performance (P4P) incentives for physicians raised more questions than it answered.

The study found that P4P programs from 5 private sector payers “wasn’t associated with greater improvement in quality” compared to the overall upward trend in the factors measured.  But the study didn’t address some overarching questions and basic realities about P4P, such as:

• How the payers P4P incentives to the physician groups was actually translated into incentives for the individual physicians - or smaller groups of physicians inside the larger groups?
• How the P4P incentives compared to the other financial incentives the physicians are facing?  For example, seeing more patients or doing more procedures could increase their income more than meeting the P4P standards. (The Health Affairs article states that P4P incentives for Massachusetts physician groups averaged 2.2% of their income.)
• The quality measures used in the study were all performance based, rather than actual outcomes, e.g. cholesterol screening rates rather than patients’ actual cholesterol levels, HbA1C screening rates in diabetics rather than their actual HbA1C levels, or asthma medication use for children ages 5-17, rather than ER visits or hospitalizations for these same children.  What impact does that has on physicians’ behavior, and the value of changing their actions to meet these process standards?  Would physicians be more responsive to incentives tied to clinical outcomes?

Making Incentive Programs Successful:
While the study concluded that the P4P incentives program instituted in 2002 may not have produced dramatic changes in the HEDIS process measures, that does not mean  they were ineffective or that P4P is not a useful tool.

First, while collecting process measures data is easier, since clinical outcomes are what patients (and their physicians) should really care about, shouldn’t P4P incentives be based upon actual clinical outcomes? Process measures are easier to monitor by using billing data, but as the prevalence of quality electronic medical records systems grows, collecting and analyzing data about clinical outcomes will become much easier.  In addition, measuring a small set of any factors – process or outcome – presents the pitfall of driving physicians to focus on those diseases and measures to the exclusion of other important things.  For example, in the Health Affairs study, there are a number of preventive services in the process measures, but what about flu vaccinations, colonoscopies or smoking cessation?  This “managing what is being measured” behavior is why the number of factors used for P4P incentives should be as broad as possible.  (But this does not mean that they all have to be measured at every interval, or for every compensation period.)

Second, as any psychologist (or parent) will attest, the time between the actions and the reward (or penalty) is very important for changing behaviors. The Health Affairs article indicates that the bonuses are paid to the physicians groups annually.  Having the incentives paid annually, (or even quarterly), would be unlikely to provide adequate feedback to physicians to prompt them to change their behaviors.  An alternative blended methodology would be to provide physicians feedback on their actual performance against many of the possible measures on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, while making the P4P payments on a monthly or quarterly basis.

Third, many large companies structure their bonuses for their senior managers around a minimum of 20% of compensation.  If incentives for P4P programs only represent a small percentage of physicians’ income, then it would be unlikely to change their behaviors – particularly if they can make up for any lost income by increasing volume.  However, if physicians are being paid a fixed (capitated) amount per month to provide a certain set of services to a patient group – either primary or specialty care – then the volume part of the equation disappears, and P4P programs could be much more effective, even at a lower fraction of their potential income.

And lastly, and most simply, the insurers would not be spending time and money developing and implementing these programs if they didn’t think they provided some benefit – even if it is only financial - so they must be getting some benefits, or at least learning some things to make these programs beneficial in the future.

Conclusions:
18 years ago I wrote a book chapter that focused on structuring incentives for physicians.  Since then it has been hard to move payers and clinicians toward using more focused financial incentive systems.  But the P4P concepts are important, and to be successful they need to be implemented in a way that works for payers, physicians, and patients.  Unless these and other stakeholder groups buy-in to the purpose and practice of such incentives systems, they are unlikely to have the desired effects.  And the result will be more of the same – rising costs, variable quality, and limited access for many patients.

A couple of recent reports provide new insights into preventing and treating colon cancer.  These studies remind me of the scene in Woody Allen’s movie Sleeper, where he wakes up in the future to find out that all the things he thought were bad for you are really healthy.

The first study was in the Journal of Clinical Oncology which found that people who had higher levels of circulating Vitamin D and later developed colon cancer had a better survival rate than people with lower Vitamin D levels. An accompanying editorial points out that this could be because people who exercise more are outside for longer periods of time – which gives them more sun exposure leading to higher Vitamin D levels – and that more exercise itself might provide a better survival rate.  The editorial also notes that Vitamin D does not appear to promote the growth of cancers at higher concentrations like some other compounds which have been investigate for preventing cancer, such as folic acid.

The second article, (in the journal Cancer Research), describes how inactivating the cannabinoid receptors in human colon cancer cells (which had been implanted into mice) caused the cancer to grow faster.  And conversely, reactivating and stimulating these receptors slowed the growth of the cancer cells and led to their death.

These basic research studies are only starting points for changing how patients are actually treated, or advising people how to lower their colon cancer risks.  But like all good research, they can narrow the focus for future investigations.  In the case of Vitamin D, there is an ongoing study to see if providing Vitamin D supplements to people who have had precancerous colon polyps can prevent the development of more polyps and cancer.  And the cannabinoid receptor study may break new ground into treatments for colon cancer, just as more understanding of the hormone receptors in breast and prostate cancer led to new treatments for those malignancies.

Clearly, these are good scientific advancements, but I don’t think they will soon lead to doctors recommending a big glass of milk and “magic” brownies for all their patients – although more milk may becoming part of standard nutritional advice – particularly low-fat milk. [See previous posts about Vitamin D here and here.]

As the saying goes, “Good and Good for You.”

In talking to people about the problems with the US healthcare system, two fundamental truths have become apparent.

First, people really want the type of healthcare that is envisioned in science fiction such as Star Trek, where almost any ailment is treated with a single injection or pill, or a few waves of a healing wand. Unfortunately, medical science hasn’t accomplished that, except in a few instances – antibiotics for a bacterial infection, or perhaps relocating a dislocated finger or shoulder (and those still require weeks to heal and therapy to regain strength and mobility).

And second, the ongoing problem of healthcare literacy and communications may be getting worse as the complexity of medical treatments increases.  Literacy and communications problems impair good healthcare when patients don’t understand what their doctors are telling them, how to take their medicines, or what disease they have.  When this happens  patients have much greater difficulty properly taking care of themselves.  A few examples and data:

• The American Academy of Family Physicians has a Literacy Toolkit which they promote with the twin facts that only 50% of “patients take medications as directed,” and “nearly 90 million American adults have difficulty understanding and using health information.”
• A July 9^th ABC news story reported about an Annals of Emergency Medicine article showing that 78% of Emergency Room patients had some misunderstanding of their doctor’s instructions, but only 20% realized that they didn’t fully understand the instructions.
• More patients are misusing medicines in dangerous ways. The actor Heath Ledger’s accidental overdose was the most recent high profile example of this. And CNN reported Monday about an Archives of Internal Medicine study showing that deaths of this type have increased 700% in 20 years.

Star Trek directly addressed communications challenges in a Next Generation episode, (Darmok and Jilad at Tanagra), where the crew of the Enterprise encounters an alien race whose words are understandable, but none of it makes any sense. It turns out that the alien’s language is based upon metaphors, and since the Enterprise’s crew doesn’t understand the context for the metaphors – the mythology and stories behind the metaphors – communications is nearly impossible….. until of course Captain Picard figures it all out in 60 TV minutes.

Unfortunately clinicians and patients aren’t able to resolve communications challenges like TV characters. When clinicians use words and concepts that their patients don’t understand, patients can’t correctly follow their instructions, and end up relying on what they think they heard or understand.

A classic example of this is that many people think taking antibiotics makes them resistant to antibiotics.  While it is true that antibiotic resistance is an issue of concern, it is the bacteria that become resistant to the medicines – not the patients. But patients who believe that they will become resistant may not take the full dosages of their antibiotics, or for as long as the doctor has prescribed – inactions that can actually increase the rate of bacterial resistance and not adequately treat the patient’s infection – bad outcomes for both society and the individual.

This is just one example of how misunderstanding a disease or a treatment can produce adverse consequences. Similar misunderstandings about diseases like diabetes and high blood pressure also lead to inadequate treatments and poor outcomes. For example, many patients believe they can tell when their blood pressure is high – and only then do they take their medicine. But high blood pressure (or hypertension) is called the “silent killer” because people can’t feel high blood pressure – except sometimes when it is dangerously high.

Which brings us back to Star Trek. One of the great things about the one-dose cure is that the patient doesn’t have to understand their disease or remember to take their medicines for the treatment to be effective, so literacy and communications problems are less of an issue for quality of care.

Lessons for Healthcare Reform
The lessons here for health reform are twofold: First, producing one-shot cures will require a lot more research and development – which needs to occur at the same time as we are improving the healthcare delivery system. And second, a fundamental area for improving healthcare delivery is communications and literacy. If patients don’t understand their disease, how to take their medicines, or modify their lifestyle, etc., then that is not their fault – that is the fault of the healthcare delivery system, and we should be able to find ways to fix it because this is not a new problem.