Posts Tagged ‘hospital’

h1

Come Back When You’re Sicker

March 7, 2012

I want to preface this comment by saying I believe that emergency care and emergency departments (EDs) are, in my mind, expected to deal with patients who treat both like an outpatient clinic. The definition of emergency medicine varies amongst people; my emergency might not be your emergency, and vice-versa. And maybe it is because I worked in a rural system, but I also believe that the access to healthcare – or maybe more so, the lack of access to healthcare – creates an environment where the EDs are clinic-ized simply because people either can’t get to a family doctor because of work or transportation issues or don’t have insurance, so they are unable to pay for a physician visit upfront before seeing a doc in his or her office. Either way, it’s really frustrating when people use EMS (emergency medical services) and EDs for routine or maintenance care.

Clichés are clichés for a reason – they are bound in some form of truth, no matter how trifling it is. A clichéd scenario for EMS is the patient who calls 911 and meets the ambulance in the driveway with a packed suitcase. If anyone spends any time in any capacity in which emergency care is the focus of their careers, this patient will surface. There have probably been a half dozen times in my life where this exact kind of patient – both sexes – have used me as a taxi service. Even more frustrating is when there is a patient who becomes a serial abuser. They’re the kind of people whose address never leaves your mind because you have gone there so often that it becomes a joke. But no matter how frustrating it becomes, you have to look beyond the surface of these patients because, hopefully, there is a reason that can be explained out to serial abusers as to why calling 911 isn’t the best option for them, nor is it the best option for the system.

I had a motto while I was in EMS: I don’t want something bad to happen to anyone, but, if it has to happen, it might as well be while I’m working so I have something interesting to do. Professionally, I used to cuss the serial abusers in my mind from the start if I ended up having to pick one of them up when another truck got to do something fun – like respond to a real emergency. Unfortunately, it happens more than some might think. And certainly EMS professionals are the last people to send on a run where the patient needs to get to the hospital because of a bunion or because they’ve ran out of furosemide. We are way too high-strung for that kind of thing. And I myself am completely guilty of lecturing patients about ED/EMS abuse. When emergency patients are pushed back because an ambulance that would be closer to their location is transporting someone who clearly doesn’t need an ambulance, or whom doesn’t need to be an ED walk in because their wrist has been hurting for six weeks and they decided that 10:00 PM on a Sunday was the best time to seek out treatment, those are the moments when I wanted to take these patients to the ED and show them a vent patient with CHF or someone packaged on a backboard whose best friend was killed in the same accident not more than an hour before. But I didn’t, because that is the nature of the beast, and it is one hell of a strong beast to have to contend with. This relationship is further complicated when patient’s fail to establish a primary care physician. There is no continuity of care when an emergency department physician is used for health maintenance. Because of this lack of continuity, the serial abusers might solicit EDs more often than those whom have a primary care doc because the role of the ED physician is grounded in the here and not, not in the idea that six months from now, the serial abuser’s care needs might shift dramatically.

Have we arrived at a time when patients who present to the ED for ailments that can be treated by primary care doctors should be turned away if they don’t meet a specific level of acuity? Primary care has having three foci, and this foci is what differentiates primary care from secondary or tertiary care: duration, frequency, and level of intensity. Primary care physicians may have the same patient pools for years and years. This is especially true of primary care physicians who set up office in a rural setting. It is possible that a primary care doc could see the same patient for upwards of thirty or forty years, specifically if neither the patient nor the doc ever plans on leaving the area both live and work. There is also the possibility that a primary doc can see multiple generations of the same family, again especially in a rural setting. And although specialty doctors can have long relationships with the patients – especially in fields like cardiology or pulmonology – where life-long maintenance is required for positive health outcomes, the frequency in which the specialty doctors and their patients see one another is a fraction of the time primary care physicians see their clientele. Primary doctors treat a host of condition within the spectrum of their practices, and the more care that can be executed by the primary care provider, the greater the frequency is going to be for when they see their patients. As for intensity, primary care providers are expected to provide patient education, maintenance of long-term health plans, the evolution of the patient through their lifespan and the trajectory of diseases over the course of as lifetime. This is unrivaled in any other arena of medicine.

And this is a testament of sorts as to the importance of primary care physicians as the “gatekeepers” or conduit of specialty care referrals. In a well-executed system, the primary care physician knows his or her patient like no one else. It’s this level of both intensity and intimacy that helps the primary care physician match their patients with the right kind of specialty care. Good primary care physicians know when the acuity and needs of their patients become too high for their level of practice. A good gatekeeping physician allows the patient to know when he is surpassing the scope of primary care practice. Once the scope of practiced has been reached, gatekeeping primary care docs help their patients make good decisions as to who and where the next step in the patient’s overall care needs to be focused.

h1

Socialist! Communist! Marxist! Hyperbole-ist!

February 23, 2012

It seems as though I have been hearing a lot of talk lately about the U.S. and whether or not we should adopt a socialized system of healthcare. I say a bumper sticker the other day that read “Socialized Healthcare is Cheaper than Corporate Welfare.” I have been a fan of the socialization of healthcare for a very long time. It’s not something I talk about much because when some people hear the word “socialized” or “socialism” they immediately think Marxism (whether they know they are thinking Marxism or not) and then it is just a short few seconds before people start calling me a “Communist!” and soon after, somehow, I get accused of being in the Taliban and labeled unpatriotic. I’m 100% not kidding. It’s ridiculous.

There is something about the capitalist slant of making money on healthcare that seems wrong to me. Healthcare is the only industry I have ever worked within – a year and a half of teaching English at JCTC. I worked in medical devices, and if you have ever had a vacuum cleaner salesperson solicit your house, it’s very similar to a device sales rep. visiting your clinic. I can’t even tell you how many thousands of dollars that have been spent on me trying to win my affection for a specific company’s device. And as much as I love being taken out to dinner or flown to X-location for “training,” it’s a side of healthcare that makes me feel horrible about the “perks” associated with my previous life.

Now: I am going to be a little rough with the United States in discussing the “unique” way we deal in healthcare. I’m not saying at all that I don’t treasure the fact that I am a citizen of the United States, but, when it comes to how healthcare is made into a commodity, we are victims of our own wants. We want to live in a country that is the “home of the free” and a place where the “American Dream” can flourish. However, I feel like the American Dream should include low-to-no-cost health insurance. I am insured through the university, and it’s only because I am a fellow in the Bioethics program. If health insurance wasn’t part of my fellowship, I wouldn’t have any. For me, the American Dream is made possible by going back to university to acquire more knowledge. But if I don’t have at least a part-time job – and sometimes not even that will bring health insurance – I can’t receive insurance benefits. Why is health insurance considered a benefit of employment? Are the people who are unemployed or under-employed not the people who need health insurance coverage the most when it comes to off-setting out-of-pocket expenses?

I am taking a health policy class this semester, and the authors of our textbook – Leiyu Shi & Douglas Singh – use the term “fragmented” to discuss the delivery of healthcare in the United States. Fragmented  is just a fancy word for “ broken.” and the top 10 differentiating characteristics the authors give as the reasons the United States current healthcare system is unwell reads like a laundry list of excess-based problems:

1. No central agency governs the system.

2. Access to health care services is selectively based on insurance coverage.

3. Health care is delivered under imperfect market decisions.

4. Third-party insurers act as intermediaries between the financing and delivery functions.

5. Existence of multiples payers makes the system cumbersome.

6. Balancing of power among various players prevents any single entity from dominating the system.

7. Legal risks influences practice behavior.

8. Development of new technology creates demand for its use.

9. New Service settings have evolved along a continuum.

10. Quality is no longer accepted as an unachievable goal in the delivery of healthcare.

As conduits of health care providers within the already established system in the United States, physicians have to get paid. Reimbursement is a constant hot button topic with physicians. If a doctor can’t make enough money to exceed payroll and the overhead for his or her office, there’s not much hope for that doctor continuing to be part of a viable heath care delivery point. It’s a give and take. Patients give fees; doctors collect payment from the fees patients pay. One positive in this arrangement is that patients are customers. We pay for services that are expected to be rendered in a satisfactory way. Doctors are bound to deliver care to paying customers. (SIDE NOTE: the original wording of the Hippocratic Oath reads that physicians should always render care under a moral obligation even when patients cannot pay.) However, reimbursement is slight in some cases, so a negative might be that a physician might not elect to see people who are uninsured. I also can’t help but wonder if doctors don’t throw a battery of tests at their patients just to boost the amount of money that can be generated by over-testing. It happens all the time.

Insurance companies, on the other hand, want people as subscribers. This is a customer service-client relationship all the way. One positive effect from insurance companies is offering a variety of plan benefits so as to entice the subscriber to use their plan. Getting a new health insurance policy is like buying a new car: you want as many bells and whistles as you can get for a reasonable amount of money. Even if the perk is something useless, like a heated ashtray or preventative stroke insurance “just in case” you stroke out. Insurance companies feed of the fear of the unknown, and it’s one way that they can offer a private insurance policy with a $1200 premium. People will pay for it if they feel it will pay for itself. But the truth is that the insurance companies want to keep you as health as they can with yearly “well-visits” because the better you are physically, the fewer amounts of claims you will claim. Insurance companies hate when they have to give your money back.

I realize that I am being terribly long-winded, but there are four players in the healthcare system that seems to muck it up for all of us. But like everything else, there are both positives and negative to each role these players play.

Player: Managed Care Organizations

Positive: They make being sick simpler by acting as a means of delivery for payment to providers.

Negative: Who cares if you have been going to the same doctor for 25 years? Now you will see who the MCOs want you to see, or you can forget about them paying out.

Player: Employers

Positive: Employers make health insurance costs manageable by putting everyone into a pot of sorts. That $1200 a month premium might be a tenth of that cost thanks to employer contributions.

Negative: unless you work for a very large employer that can take a hit when someone makes a $1M claim, one sick person and his or her claim could torpedo low premiums for all his or her fellow employees.

Player: Institutional Representatives

Positive: So. Many. Regulations. It’s near impossible for people to keep up with their own healthcare benefits because there are so many regulations. Institutional representative keep up with all that bureaucracy for us.

Negative: See positive.

 

Player: The Government

Positive: Governmental involvement helps with programs that are an asset to subscribers. The Veteran’s Administration (VA) is a good example of how the government does make certain social programs available for those in need. The office of Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) would also be a positive that can be claimed to the defense of governmental involvement.

Negative: In an imperfect society – in a capitalist society – the government can be, and is, subverted by the private sector. Therefore, the government’s role can sometimes be nullified at the expense of its People.

All this business can get me fired up. So the thought I am left with is a terribly unpatriotic one: is the American Dream killing our healthcare system

Michael M.

h1

More Reason Not to Get Pregnant: The UofL Hospital Merger

November 1, 2011

Bold and italicized comments are my own.

From: Service Account Cmoffice [cmoffice@louisville.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 12:59 PM
To: Service Account Cmoffice
Subject: Message from University Administration re: hospital announcement

Colleagues,

Many of you have asked questions related to the merger among University Hospital, Jewish Hospital & St. Mary’s HealthCare and Saint Joseph Health System. As many more people should. One of the more consistent questions has surrounded the continued provision of ALL reproductive health services for ALL women. Today we have some good news to announce: The University of Louisville is expanding our current relationship with Baptist Hospital East to include all reproductive services, including tubal ligations, which will no longer be offered at University Hospital following the merger. So who made this decision? The Catholics? Are you saying that tubals are no longer something UofL can do because it doesn’t “fit” with the worldview of the Catholic Church? I’m a protestant, and I doth protest that, if this decision was made on a religious platform and not on what best benefits the community’s need, this is an egregious decision and sad for the future of public health in Jefferson County.

School of Medicine Dean Edward Halperin and we promised from day one of the merger talks that UofL doctors would continue to provide all reproductive services for women following the merger.  Today’s action fulfills that promise as UofL physicians will continue to deliver babies and perform tubal ligations at Baptist East. All women – insured and uninsured – will have access to the new facility and its services. Wow! That is total bullshit. I don’t think introducing a plan to completely remove obstetrics from UofL Hospital and attaching obstetrical care to an east end hospital is really what everyone considers to be a victory for women in this case. In fact, the idea that this is an acceptable alternative is just shitty all the way around. It disgusts me, Mr. Ramsey, that you would even go this route in trying to justify this position. Who are you trying to convince when it comes to owning that this new partnership with BE is fulfilling a promise? Yourself?

The services offered at Baptist East will be in addition to the services offered at University Hospital, JHSMH and St. Joseph facilities.

Women throughout our community also will be able to obtain transportation assistance to Baptist East through a program similar to one that provides assistance to University Hospital and the University of Louisville Ambulatory Care clinics. What happens when it’s 3:30 AM? Do the women in labor just call a cab? Or do they call an ambulance because they don’t have to pay the fare upfront? Do you already see how that destabilizes public health and safety by needlessly dumping non-emergency patients on pre-hospital providers?

This partnership between UofL and Baptist East will take effect once the merger between UofL Hospital and our partners is completed. In the interim, reproductive services currently offered at University Hospital will continue at that location. In that case, I guess we just have to hope that the idiocy of this merger is its own undoing and that obstetrics stays at UofL Hospital.

This partnership ensures that the University of Louisville will fulfill its commitment to continue to offer a full array of reproductive services for all women in our region. And it ensures that the important decision on where to receive care, appropriately, will be made by patients and their physicians.  As long as that decision is always to send them to Baptist East. It’s not like the merger is adding services, it’s just uprooting them. You can’t chop down one tree and replant it on the other side of the yard because you want two trees.

More information on the partnership is attached and will be available on UofL Today.

Thank you for your support and your patience as we continue to develop this complicated but vital partnership for our community. The pleasure was definitely all yours.

Quick! Name three people out of touch with reality:

James R. Ramsey, President

Shirley C. Willihnganz, Executive Vice President and University Provost

David L. Dunn, Executive Vice President for Health Affairs

-Michael M.

h1

Bioethics & Medical Humanities…that sounds…what is it again?

September 1, 2011

When I tell people that I am in the University of Louisville BETH program, there is this instant flash of confusion that can exist in or out of the presence of polite terror. The confusion is that—being a relatively young field—people aren’t familiar with the concepts of BETH. Now: the terror is something completely different. The terror comes when people immediately regret asking what I’m studying. Around the third syllable of Bioethics, I notice that people tend to glaze over. It is akin to Joe asking George about his day.

“How are you today?” smiles George.

Preoccupied, Joe replies with a non-trite answer.

“Now that you ask, George, my new puppy has parvovirus, so I am afraid that he might be dead when I get home.”

Poor Joe and his puppy problems.

Horrified, George just keeps walking with his same 09:15 AM smile and makes a mental note to just smile at Joe from here on out.

As far as it goes with Bioethics and the Medical Humanities, it’s just about orienting yourself with the terminology. Bioethics is defined as the ethics of biological and medical research. That’s it. Cut and dry. If you poke around on the Internet, you will find competing versions of that what bioethics truly is. I like the aforementioned definition because it is succinct. The medical and biological fields are fraught with ethical dilemmas. Organ harvesting and donation; genetic counseling as a preventative measure in family planning; stem cell research and cloning; dealing with terminal illness and death and dying; public health outreach to minorities; religious and personal reservations that affect long-term care plans; and just about anything you can name that can be thought of as controversial can probably find a seat at the table of bioethics.

There is a great quote about the discipline from Orrin Hatch. Hatch is a Republican senator from Utah. Concerning stem cell research, he says:

“I understand that many have ethical and moral reservations about stem cell research, but for the same reason I describe myself as pro-life, I embrace embryonic stem cell research because I believe being pro-life is not only caring for the unborn but also caring for the living.”

Think about what Hatch is saying in this passage. He asserts himself as:

1) Knowledgeable about the controversy of stem cell research

2) Opposed to abortion

3) A proponent of using embryos for medical research

Knowing the little bit we know from the introduction given about who Hatch is, are any of these three points incompatible with the other? If so, why? Answering those questions is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to applying bioethics to healthcare controversies. And what we do as bioethicists and students training in the field is try to define why something is “right” or “wrong” with the knowledge that far less than 1% of such topics will ever have definite answers. Of course, that’s the fun of the discipline, too.

–Michael M.

h1

Welcome to the University of Louisville Bioethics Blog

August 19, 2011

The UofL Bioethics blog is a student-led and moderated blog. It’s mission is to inform the reader of the ethical dilemmas often discussed within the field of Bioethics and in the Bioethics and Medical Humanities program major. The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the individual author and do not represent the opinions of the University of Louisville. Because the blog is student-led and moderated, we have much greater control on its evolution — more so than we would should it have been an officially recognized representation of the University and its mission, vision, and goals. With that said…

Anyone is welcomed to submit posts, comment of posted entries, and challenge the culture of Bioethics with thoughtful opinions and ideas. This is a blog that is meant to both enlighten and persuade others of your opinions. Conversely, this is not a blog to attack other’s points-of-view, nor is it meant to be used as an official resource for student work in Bioethical seminars.

If you would like to contribute to our blog, please submit any pieces of writing to the following address: uofl.bioethics@gmail.com. Blog entries should not be greater in length than 500 words. Potential posts that could be added to the blog are well written, lack hearsay, show eloquence and thoughtful to the topic, and stay on task with the flavor of the blog.

Please visit often, and we look forward to reading what you submit and what you post as a follow-up to other already established blog entries.

The gang at uoflbioethics.wordpress.com