Skip to main content

An apple a day keeps the doctor away - but it will cost you!

On the heals of the Atul Gawande piece in the New Yorker, Dr. Abraham Vergese wrote an interesting cover article today in the Wall Street Journal on the Myth of Prevention. It is more of a thought piece then something that tries to make a clear and persuasive argument. The main point he tries to make is that “preventative medicine” promoting drugs and tests like coronary artery calcium scans won’t actually result in cost savings. Screening tests will only find conditions that will require further testing, retesting, and life-long therapies that may only benefit a small subset of patients (think PSAs in the elderly). He argues that the only way to control costs is by government wielding greater influence in health care. This is not a novel view point by any means but it is a stance that is a rarity to find in the Wall Street Journal.

 More intriguing though was a short discussion on how Medicare’s reimbursement scheme is partly to blame for what President Obama called “a system of incentives where the more tests and services are provided, the more money we pay." A system, as Dr. Vergese puts it, that “pays generously when you do something to a patient, but is stingy when you do something for a patient.” We all know interventions are the key to high reimbursement - not active case management or spending time with patients to find out their goals and values. A sustainable future for both geriatrics and palliative care may lie in correcting these incentives, or by learning how to do botox.

Comments

ken covinsky said…
Amen! Medicare is getting what it pays for.

The primary "procedure" of Geriatrics and Palliative Care is talking with our patients. Contrary to popular belief, doing this well is a complex "procedure" that takes time and skill. It is pretty striking how physicians who do this well make such a difference for their patients. It is not uncommon to see a care plan completely change based on a careful patient centered history. More often than not, this results in doing less TO patients, but doing a lot more FOR them.

Maybe one day Medicare will start viewing spending time with patients as something of value.

Popular posts from this blog

The Dangers of Fleet Enemas

The dangers of oral sodium phosphate preparations are fairly well known in the medical community. In 2006 the FDA issued it’s first warning that patients taking oral sodium phosphate preparations are at risk for potential for acute kidney injury. Two years later, over-the-counter preparations of these drugs were voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturers.  Those agents still available by prescription were given black box warnings mainly due to acute phosphate nephropathy that can result in renal failure, especially in older adults. Despite all this talk of oral preparations, little was mentioned about a sodium phosphate preparation that is still available over-the-counter – the Fleet enema.

Why Oral Sodium Phosphate Preparations Are Dangerous 

Before we go into the risks of Fleet enemas, lets spend just a couple sentences on why oral sodium phosphate preparations carry significant risks. First, oral sodium phosphate preparations can cause significant fluid shifts within the colon …

Dying without Dialysis

There is a terrific article in this weeks Journal of Pain and Symptom Management by Fliss Murtagh of King's College in London about the epidemiology of symptoms for patients with advanced renal failure who die without dialysis.  This study is important because while we know that patients with advanced renal failure have a limited life expectancy and the average age of initiation of hemodialysis is increasing, we know little about the alternatives to hemodialysis.  Specifically, we know nothing about symptoms affecting quality of life among patients who elect not to start dialysis (so called "conservative management" - is this the best label?).  This article provides a terrific counterpoint to the article in last years NEJM showing that nursing home residents who initiated hemodialysis tended to die and decline in function (see GeriPal write up here). 

The study authors followed patients with the most advanced form of chronic kidney disease (the new name for renal failu…

Survival from severe sepsis: The infection is cured but all is not well

Severe sepsis is a syndrome marked by a severe infection that results in the failure of at least one major organ system: For example, pneumonia complicated by kidney failure. It is the most common non-cardiac cause of critical illness and is associated with a high mortality rate.

But what happens to those who survive their hospitalization for severe sepsis? An important study published in JAMA from Iwashyna and colleagues provides answers and tells us all is not well. When the patient leaves the hospital, the infection may be cured, but the patient and family will need to contend with a host of major new functional and cognitive deficits.

Iwashyna examined disability and cognitive outcomes among 516 survivors of severe sepsis. These subjects were Medicare enrollees who were participants in the Health and Retirement Study. The average age of patients was 77 years.

When interviewed after discharge, most survivors were left with major new deficits in their ability to live independently. …