I live in a locality with unusually poor medical care. I cling to the “unusual” qualification, having lived in only two other places; Ft. Drum, N.Y., where the military provided what was equally bad healthcare (but it was the military, expectations were low to begin with), and a brief stint in suburban Chicago, where the healthcare was my first experience being treated like an actual human being in an emergency room. Since then, however, I’ve had enough horrifying experiences with medical care in my community to start a separate blog and post daily for at least two years, never repeating myself. I suspect that our community is not, actually, all that unique, which is pretty terrifying.
My mother became very ill the night before last with a high fever, extreme body aches, and weakness. She’s 62, swims three times a week and uses her Nordic Track everyday. She’s a partner in an accounting firm, takes no prescription medicine, and is a health nut. She couldn’t get out of bed, so my sister and I went to her house and called her doctor; he’s a skilled physician, but like most of the system, he’s a doc for profit. His office told us to take her to the ER. There, we had a really bad experience and they managed to nearly kill her, which I’ll share in a moment.
First, though, let me say that in spending the entire day in an ER, with momentary breaks to go get things from my mom’s house and take a kid from one caretaker to another, I noticed what I think is the absolute cornerstone of What’s Wrong With Healthcare In America. I’m sure you’re curious as to my discovery, so I’ll let you experience it as I did.
In the ER waiting room, my mother’s hands began to constrict and she couldn’t move them. She was barely coherent, and my sister and I had to repeatedly demand service from the admissions rep before, a full fifteen minutes after we arrived in the waiting room and after a supervisor had been called and we had started threatening to call 911 from the waiting room, a triage nurse deigned to stagger out and take my mom back. Once in there, she lectured me on the concept of hyperventilating (which caused the hand constriction) while not treating my mother. Then she made great show of announcing that the only other hospital in town had just closed its ER and was diverting everything to HER emergency room.
Once in a treatment room, my mother’s temperature was 103F, and she had chills and severe aches. We waited just under two hours to see the doctor, who was the only doctor on staff. He decided that she had the flu through this sophisticated technique:
Doctor: Have you had a flu shot, Ma’am?
Mother: No, I never get them.
Doctor: You have the flu.
He then prescribed antibiotics (nonsense in the case of a flu virus, but ERs are places where patients go trick or treating, and you can’t leave with an empty sack) and pain medication. They gave her Oxycodone. Now, I’ve never heard of treating fever related body aches with narcotics, but I’m not a doctor. The narcotic caused my mother to pass out when she got up to go to the bathroom, and her BP dropped to 80/30. This is bad. Two hours later, they sat her up, and her pressure dropped to 40/20, her respirations stopped and her heart rate plunged down to nothing. Kind of like, oh, being dead.
It was after 5:00 pm when her personal physician arrived at the ER and started ordering tests, you know, to DIAGNOSE her beyond the anecdotal flu. She was admitted and given a room around 9:00 pm, just under twelve hours after we entered the ER.
Every single person that we talked to about our frustrations; nurses, student nurses, friends and acquaintances, blamed all the failures of our system on one thing. Who or what is it, you ask, Grasshopper?
THE POOR PEOPLE AND THEIR MEDICAID.
Now, one of my core beliefs is that medical care cannot be effectively delivered using a for-profit model. It works well for doctors, who make salaries that place them in the top 2-5% earning brackets. No for-profit system works well when it has to give services away, hence the belief that the problem with health care is the damned, whiny, lazy-ass poor folks.
What it apparently is not the fault of, is:
--Physicians who continue to accept new patients until their practices are too crowded to deal with existing patients’ sudden illnesses.
--Physicians dumping patients on the ER for non-emergencies that they, themselves, don’t have time or inclination to treat.
--A for-profit model for healthcare that requires that drugs be handed out regardless of their necessity in order to support the great pharmaceutical machine.
--A for-profit model for healthcare. Did I mention that?
--A propensity on society’s part to believe that making less than $250,000-$300,000.00 a year is totally inadequate for a doctor. (I know the average is $150K, and I’m just not moved to tears by that, either).
--The status of physicians as demi-gods who are smarter than normal human beings, rather than specialized service providers like numerous others who are well educated in their area, but not dieties.
--Understaffed emergency rooms that operate on the philosophy that everyone wants narcotics and/or antibiotics and if you hand it out, they’ll shut up and go home.
--A complete failure on the part of the healthcare system to incorporate compassion and humanity into the larger model upon which it is based.
--Entrenched racism and class bias.
No, no, no, you might be saying, “It’s the poor people’s fault. The have the Medicaid, they want us to treat them, they’re dirty and smell bad, and, and, the whole family comes to the ER, they don’t have any decency, the poor people. They drink and smoke and fuck and what do they expect? It’s the poor people’s fault that those of us with money, with insurance, with education, get sub-standard care! They’re draining our resources!"
What’s so marvelous about this realization is that it means that the rest of us are completely off the hook. As long as we can blame the poor people, we don’t have to fix the system, or have difficult conversations about entitlement and medical business. It’s so, so, American of us to think that way. Makes me want to put on some Lee Greenwood and have another beer, while pretending that I’m economically safe because I deserve to be, and anyone who wants to work hard enough can have what I have. If they’d put those Medicaid cards down, hell, they’d be able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, the lazy bastards.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
I think this phenomenon is just like the tendency of some women to blame other women for getting themselves raped. So long as we can believe that it's the malingering hypochondriac lumpenproletariat that is somehow responsible both for the overall inadequacies of the system and for their greater tendency to suffer and die due to systematic neglect, then we don't have to accept our own vulnerability.
I lost my faith in the healthcare system when I was thirteen. I was taking a drug for stomach problems, which was working adequately if not perfectly. My insurance company asked if I would mind trying another drug, supposedly indistinguishable, that was on their roster. It didn't work. In fact, my condition worsened dramatically. The insurance company refused to put me on the former drug or on any other--we had to get a clandestine banker's box of free samples from my doctor--and didn't cave until My Dad the Loud and Tenacious Lawyer made several irate calls.
Oh, and then there was the time my mother got an operation through her plan and was charged several hundred dollars for the anesthetic, which was not covered. She got the charge voided, but only because she had been careful to obtain reassurance beforehand that it didn't cost extra to be put under before surgery.
Good grief. She could have been in septic shock or having a stroke, and the asshole just writes it off as influenza? On the basis of her not having had a flu shot? That's insane.
There's so much wrong here I don't even know where to start, but I think you nailed the central problem--blaming the least powerful actors in this fucked-up play, the Medicaid patients. In my experience, they are not the ones clogging things up with frivolous non-emergencies. That'd be more the wealthy yuppie parents rushing Hunter and Reese to the ER and demanding a Plastic Surgery consult for, literally, scrapes. Not cuts, not puncture wounds--scrapes. I hate to go all fogey here, but back in my day mom or dad sprayed some Bactine on the damn thing, slapped a Band-Aid on it, and warned us not to pick the scab.
That may sound like I'm blaming the patients too, but I understand that they didn't cause the problem either, and I definitely understand that the impoverished patients didn't cause it.
I hope your mom's doing better, Genni. It's funny we both have CPA moms!
In my experience, they are not the ones clogging things up with frivolous non-emergencies.
And when poor people do make irresponsible decisions about healthcare--running to the ER, waiting until it's too late, never getting physicals, failing to take care of themselves--it's usually because they can't afford urgent care and are perfectly aware that seeking any care could bankrupt them. They aren't resorting to prayer because they think endoscopies are for losers.
Oh, and Genni? Sorry I didn't say this sooner:
I hope your mom's doing better. And I hope she gets some decent care.
There's such a disproportionate burden of responsibility on the poor for their decision-making--it's similar to what I discussed in my welfare post (not clever enough to put a link into this). If you're an overweight white male who drinks too much beer and smokes too many cigarettes, well, hell, son, you're just enjoying life. But if we have to foot the bill for a poor person's heart attack or cancer? They, well, THEY should know better. Like poor health is a luxury only some choose to indulge in.
My mom is still in hospital; thanks for the good wishes. One of her blood cultures is, unfortunately, growing something, so she has to wait until tomorrow. Apparently it could be that they contaminated it by not prepping the site well before drawing blood--I know, I know, we're all SO shocked. We'll hope it's that; meantime she's still running fever and pissed off that she's there. She shows signs that she'll make it, though. Despite the hospital.
Yup. There was an editorial in the SF Chronicle just the other week about how we need to dismantle what remains of the social safety net immediately because it's just another incentive not to save. I'm not sure what planet this guy's on, but it must be a distant one if he knows people who aren't saving as best they can for retirement and other eventualities.
In a for-profit system, most of the practitioners are going to be reluctant to see ill patients. It's so much more profitable to turn out Dow Chemical tits or treat sports injuries.
First of all, amen that your mom is okay.
Second of all, amen to your list of problems.
And when poor people do make irresponsible decisions about healthcare--running to the ER, waiting until it's too late, never getting physicals, failing to take care of themselves--it's usually because they can't afford urgent care and are perfectly aware that seeking any care could bankrupt them. They aren't resorting to prayer because they think endoscopies are for losers.
There is no such thing as urgent care anymore, basically, at least in this town. Most of them are closed, or bill exactly like ERs anyway. The ones that do still provide what we think of as urgent care are so crowded as to make ERs look like ghost towns.
And genni, if I hear another health care professional argue against universal health care (not everyone's favorite reform, but still) because "the patients will suffer" while they do everything in their power to make said patients suffer if they don't have insurance, well, I'm gonna yell. A lot.
I know the posters here aren't wealthy folks by ANY stretch of the imagination; nevertheless, when someone works 40-80 hours a week and pulls down $210 dollars PER WEEK to live on (that IS minimum wage) Oh and did I mention BEFORE taxes; and out of that money have to buy food and shelter and clothing and whatever medical care and auto insurance and what have you, when most localities cannot even provide crappy dangerous housing for the sum TOTAL of what they earn per month; and going to a DOCTOR for a physical costs @$ 500 THEN there is some asshole out there who calls that an "irresponsible decision"?!?!?!?
It is an IMPOSSIBLE decision. You cannot spend half your monthly income on a physical. Unless of course you want to get thrown on the street and starve.
And while I am at it, why is it that the WORST paying jobs in our society are the ones that DO NOT offer insurance? Shouldn't that be the OTHER way around? Billionare half-wits have gold-plated coverage, and your waiter, I guarantee, has nothing.
I hate to go all fogey here, but back in my day mom or dad sprayed some Bactine on the damn thing, slapped a Band-Aid on it, and warned us not to pick the scab.
You kids and your Bactine. Mercurochrome was good enough for Our Lord's puncture wounds.
I'm glad to hear, Genni, that your mom's immune system may well be doing the job with or without help. Best wishes to her.
Genni: I sincerely hope your mother continues to improve and can get the hell out of there.
I'll never understand why it is that those who do not have insurance [due to shitty jobs, no jobs, no health insurance from their jobs] always get charged ridiculous amounts for any and all health care. While those of us who can afford health insurance pay almost nothing [and from the bills, the insurance company pays almost nothing as well -- they get a significant discount]. It makes absolutely no sense.
I hope your mother recovers. I'm sorry you had to deal with that doctor.
--Physicians who continue to accept new patients until their practices are too crowded to deal with existing patients’ sudden illnesses.
So what are the new patients supposed to do? Forgo having a PCP and just go to the emergency room when they get sick? Pick a doctor with a smaller practice but who doesn't accept their insurance? Pick a doctor with a smaller practice who's office is an hour away? Even in places with a large number of practices, the choices available to a given person can be quite limited.
If you dig a little more, you might wonder why there aren't more doctors available, anyway. After all, they make $150K, why aren't the streets flooded with doctors?
--A for-profit model for healthcare that requires that drugs be handed out regardless of their necessity in order to support the great pharmaceutical machine.
This just doesn't follow. Doctors do not sell drugs*. Doctors sell their time and expertise, and they charge the same for that whether you walk out with a scrip in your hand or not.
*I am aware that there are areas where reputable practices fill prescriptions and sell medical devices b/c there is no other place around to provide such services.
I think your portrayal of relatively affluent Americans as self-centered, Busch-swillin', anti-healthcare reform hayseeds is off the mark.
See the poll linked here:
- 78% of those polled feel the fact that many children do not have health insurance is a "very serious" problem
- 64% believe the government should guarantee health insurance for all (that includes 41% of Republicans polled)
- If given a choice between the two, 76% would choose universal access to healthcare over maintaining tax cuts
- 84% favor health insurance for all children
- 90% think there need to be fundamental changes or a complete rebuild of our healthcare system
- 95% think that the fact that many Americans are unisnured is a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem
I think your portrayal of relatively affluent Americans as self-centered, Busch-swillin', anti-healthcare reform hayseeds is off the mark.
Whaaaa? WHOSE PORTRAYAL? Or are you being sarcastic?
Genni's, here:
As long as we can blame the poor people, we don’t have to fix the system, or have difficult conversations about entitlement and medical business. It’s so, so, American of us to think that way. Makes me want to put on some Lee Greenwood and have another beer, while pretending that I’m economically safe because I deserve to be, and anyone who wants to work hard enough can have what I have.
frumious b: From the medical economics courses I've taken, one of the major reasons there aren't enough doctors is that the AMA has a big role in limiting the number of medical schools and, also, the number of medical students. This practice keeps doctors in demand so that they can get rich, which is why many enroll in medical school; not to help people, but to make lots of money and be treated like a demi-god.
Secondly, yes, absolutely, doctors should not establish a practice where they take on more patients than they can compentently care for. So, the shortage of available doctors is in part due to the larger organizations controlling the number of potential doctors entering medical school, and also the number of physicians who will not accept making a comfortable living and instead wish to become part of the upper 2%.
No, doctors don't sell drugs, but it's pretty funny how the pharmaceutical industy just announced that they would begin self-policing and no longer allow reps to bribe, I mean, do things like taking physicians on expensive trips to luxury resorts in order to convince them to front for their drugs; especially since Congress was moving toward legislation to curb those unsavory practices. Hmmmm.....gets the wheels turning, doesn't it? The payment for services may be the same, but the rewards for prescribing specific drugs are great.
hubris: I don't think that simply agreeing that universal healthcare is a good idea in any way salves the general distaste and hatred of the poor that our fine nation harbors. It's easy to respond to a survey, but did anyone send in seed money? Frankly, the degree to which our medical system is broken is such that I'm not sure why we aren't out in the streets marching and burning effigies.
I stand by my assertion that the average, middle to upper class American would more readily blame the poor than the rich for the state of healthcare. Perhaps we're running into one of those areas where you think I said that YOU, Hubris, hate poor people. But it's not about one person, it's about a systemic, institutionalized set of attitudes and perceptions that color everything from policy to practice to public opinion.
Perhaps we're running into one of those areas where you think I said that YOU, Hubris, hate poor people.
Nope. But I think we're running into an area where your anecdotal experience seems to trump data, so I don't know what to tell you.
Hope your mom is well! Love this blog. Random thoughts:
1. Doctors don't always get to choose how many patients they have. Some plans assign hundreds of patients to the doctor (and pay 43 cents a month in total compensation per capita, which includes almost all care), which limits the number of patients the practice can accept optionally. Only if the doctor owns her own practice, and is not required to belong to certain plans by her hospital, does she have any control over this.
2. I have seen Medicaid that was run well and efficiently. It can be done; it attracted many doctors to the program and made single-payer healthcare look great. The funny thing is that it wasn't about the reimbursement, it was about the ease of administration. Medicaid paid less than the others, but they didn't lie and dick us around like the others.
3. Most of the asshole money-grubbing doctors are the surgeon-types we regular folks have little, if any, contact with. The doctors you see routinely may be assholes, but they're probably not getting rich. Ask your pediatrician what her hourly rate works out to. Ask her if she has health insurance of her own, for that matter.
4. I think the value of healthcare is damn hard to quantify, in part because the insurance system games the prices so weirdly. The uninsured get the default rates, which MUST be higher than the contracted reimbursement rates given to insurers.
I'll shut up now. Being a healthcare policy nerd is kind of lonely.
Liz, well, don't shut up on my account, I think you make some good points.
I agree that there is a trifecta of problems in health care, and insurance companies are in it. I think, actually, that it's that ongoing machine of pharmaceutical companies, physicians and insurance companies that makes the source of the problem so hard to identify and therefore solve.
I also agree that Medicaid is a lot of paperwork, however to a certain degree my response tends to be, "cry me a river." However, we can always certainly count on the government to be inefficient. That, really, is the biggest argument against shifting to universal healthcare---I think we're all afraid it would look like the existing programs of Medicare and Medicaid, Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!
What troubles me is the belief that the fault lies with the recipients of Medicaid, and not with the overall structural and institutional bias.
My son's former pediatrician lives in a brand new, 3,000 square foot house in a gated community in a very ritzy village that borders our fair city. She has a full time nanny, drives an expensive vehicle, and wears nice sized diamonds. She is not the exception among pediatricians here, and they all take medicaid.
I think my issue is that I don't think that doctors suffer if they are practicing and can live comfortably rather than, say, fabulously, but many seem to think they are entitled to the fabulously part.
hubris, I believe that anecdotal evidence is vitally important; it is what people experience and what is memorable to them. There is so much anecdotal evidence in just my city, and that's really what the post is about. If SO many people are having such terrible experiences, if so many people are recieving inadequate care, and if so many people on all sides of the issue believe that the fault lies with the poor, I'm interested in that. I give it value and importance, even if it's not part of an easily manipulated data set in a poll.
But I think we're running into an area where your anecdotal experience seems to trump data, so I don't know what to tell you.
Sigh.
This blog is not called "Health Care Policy Crafted by the Experts." Nor is it called "We Hate Rednecks and Beer." You made the least charitable reading possible of one crack in this post, which reading required you to overlook (1) Genni's disclaimer in the very first paragraph that she cannot speak to quality of care issues outside the areas in which she has lived, (2) the local culture she is trying to tell you about in this post, which can be, frankly, a little Busch-swilling hayseed, (3) her prior posts relating her other direct experiences with the blame-the-poor mentality locally, and finally (4) the point, which I at least took to be that you can't fix systemic problems by picking on one cog of the system, and certainly not by selecting the least powerful cog--Medicaid patients, in this case.
None of that implies a lack of interest in data. But you seem to want to discuss this purely as an abstract issue, with no anecdotal or personal overtones to it at all, and considering this post's author's mother is in the hospital right now, I think that's a mighty tall order you just submitted. It ought to be somewhat understandable to a caring and considerate human being if Genni isn't swooning over the DATA right now. Note that "not swooning" != "entirely dismissive of."
You started off rude as hell here, man. That ain't like you. What gives?
I'm from Canada, and I've had/heard of a fair few disastrous healthcare experiences. Heck, my parents both work in healthcare, I hear about the problems all the time.
The stuff here trumps almost everything I've ever heard happen here. I've got really only one situation off the top of my head I can think of that would compare. Next time some ass in Parliament thinks that proposing a two-tier healthcare system would be a great idea, I'm sending them an email directing them to this blog post. s
I hope your mother continues to improve, Genni.
Medical schools take a certain number of students. Those numbers don't flux much, certainly not because more people want to go to medical school. The two years I applied to medical school (with a high GPA from a seven-sisters school, and an MCAT score in the high 90th percentile in all sections), the applications had doubled and then doubled again from the year before I applied. Brown literally sent my application back unopened. I was wait-listed at three schools, most med schools wanting people who will stay in-state, and I had moved around too much to win on that score. I never did get in, and eventually persued other career options.
So the physician supply is often quite a bit off the demand, or the number of people with the desire and ability.
perpetualbeginner--forgive me, as for me it's late (I know, I know, Ilyka's just gettin' goin' and I'm trooping off to bed), but I think you and I are using different sides of the demand coin. I don't doubt that lots and lots of people want to be doctors--but by limiting the number of available slots at medical schools and/or the number of medical schools results in a shortage that benefits the physicians because of the high demand for medical care and the short supply of providers.
I think there should be more doctors, more medical schools, etc, but the resultant supply would mean that being a doctor might pay like any other highly specialized career, allowing the comfortable but not fabulous lifestyle. I just don't see those who are currently reaping the short supply benefits going for that idea.
Poor people going to the ER for non-emergencies is a huge issue, but it isn't the fault of poor people.
As piny pointed out, a lot of people don't have the money for preventive care or a regular family physician, running to the ER at least gets someone to look at you.
I hang out on some websites frequented by teens and I see a disturbing number of posts like "My stomach has been really hurting for two days but I don't have money for a doctor - what do I do?"
Our health care system wastes huge amounts of money by letting minor problems turn serious. Preventive care is *so* much cheaper than emergency care.
I went to the ER exactly once when my heart rate was about 200 beats per minute and I was the only person there who had anything worse than a cough. It was full of people with minor ailments because that's the only way they can get them treated.
You started off rude as hell here, man. That ain't like you. What gives?
*Shrug* I reread my first comment--I don't think I was rude by repeating the author's caricature and asserting it was "off the mark" without any ad hom (and for what it's worth, I'm not joining the white middle class why-is-everyone-picking-on-me club). I linked good news; Americans generally agree on many of the problems with health care and want them to be addressed.
I find it frustrating when everything is viewed through a chosen prism to provide further confirmation that the original supposition just is, regardless of indications to the contrary. That frustration arises whether it's this or, for example, someone blaming all of society's ills on the alleged evils of multiculturalism.
It ought to be somewhat understandable to a caring and considerate human being if Genni isn't swooning over the DATA right now.
Niiiice. Yep, you know me too well, that's exactly what I was looking for.
The system is fucked. I'm all for universal health care, but it won't cure all the problems. The infrastructure is nuts and the premises that lie behind it are equally nuts.
My big beef are the agencies that purport to help poor and working class people. Oh, yeah, there's a free clinic or a sliding-fee clinic for poor people, but its hours of operation are 9-5, and sometimes the lowest-rung, crappiest-paid jobs also have the least autonomy. There are people who either can't afford to take time off, or in some cases aren't allowed to take time off.
I was in between jobs and was doing temp work. It was the first day of work and this gal sitting next to me gets a cell-phone call about her kid being sick. The boss tells her that if she leaves to take her kid to the clinic, she's not welcome back. So, she told me she would wait until after work and take him to the ER. So, yeah, the ER is oftentimes full of poor people with non-emergencies, but it's partly the fault of the system. Do the people running the free clinics not understand that being open from 1-9 might be better than 9-5? Or do they not want to work an unpleasant schedule just for the treatment of poor people? I bet if some plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills was told by his clients that they prefer afternoon appointments, he'd run his business from 1-9.
Hubris, you do realize that it's perfectly consistent with both the anecdote and the data that people can support universal health care and insuring children in the abstract and *still* blame the problems in the system on those nasty poor people?
zuzu
First, I'd like to say I hope your mother is feeling better and she gets to come home soon.
I have to wonder where you live that you've got such substandard health care. I work in Nursing in Detroit, and I've watched several Detroit hospitals bankrupted due to non-payment for emergency services. On the flip side, some of the problem came from the billing departments not properly filing for Medicaid reimbursement, but even when they did, they only recover between .10 to .49 cents on the dollar. That's not enough to pay the operational costs for the hospital, let alone to pay the salaries of the personnel who care for the patients.
Where are you at that urgent and prompt care/free clinics are only open from 9-5? In the metro Detroit area, we've got dozens, all within 30 minutes of eachother, that are open until 9 PM or later, and all weekend. In addition, all of the hospital facilities in this area provide bus and cab vouchers, as well as volunteer services, social work assistance, and referrals for free and low income services. They file the paperwork for the patients, make the appointments, and provide free samples. Our for profit hospitals (specifically the Beaumont Hospitals, who I do NOT work for), have so much money coming in from paying patients that they provide tons of free services for low-income patients. I job shadowed in one of their prenatal care clinics, where no one was turned away for any reason. And yet their doctors are quite highly paid, drive expensive vehicles and live in very expensive homes. Of course, that's after 20 years in practice, since for the first four years of residency after med school they make only $30K per year, work 16 hours per day, holidays, weekends, birthdays, etc., and have, on average, over $100,000 in student debt to repay. And after all that, they're only GPs. Specialization requires another 5 to 9 years of additional training. To be honest with you, any doctor who puts him/herself through that and doesn't expect to make at least $150,000 per year can't be all that bright, and is not someone I'm going to be trusting my health to. Although they may be arrogant (and it is incredibly easy to put them in their place, believe me), their salaries are hardly an issue. In fact, the single highest cost to hospitals and physicians is malpractice insurance.
Ah, the "I" word. Now there's a major problem. They perform cost benefit studies to deem certain preventative treatments to be unnecessary simply because there's no cost benefit to saving a couple extra lives. That's a problem.
And then there's the issue of drugs. That's a double edged sword there--the 'lumpenproletariat' as one of your posters called them, like to point fingers at the drug companies for charging so much money for new drugs. And, yet, if you call Pfizer, or Merck, and tell them you can't afford their meds, they will provide them to you free of charge. Here in Michigan, as well as in numerous states all over the country, Meijer stores provide the 7 most commonly prescribed antibiotics free of charge, even if you have insurance, and Walmart is providing more than 400 of the most commonly prescribed drugs for $4 each, even if you have insurance with a copay that is higher. And there is no catch to either of these programs, which is why I recommend them to my poor patients. So, while most people point and scream about drug prices, they completely miss the issue with orphan drugs, which are off patent protection--drug companies will not use them for other potential uses, even though several have been found to repair damaged and demyelinated nerve tissue, because they can't claim sole proprietary rights to the drug once its patent has expired. I do wonder why our illustrious legislators don't force them to do the research in exchange for the billions in federal funding they receive? Guess big pharma is putting more money in their pockets than we do.
So, here's my anectdotal evidence to go with the facts--I work in Cardiology, and 90% of my patients, whether they're the poorest of the poor or quite wealthy (and I see both with all socioeconomic levels in between) are being treated for conditions they caused themselves. Being poor, rich, or otherwise does not deteremine the soundness of health choices. I've had very poor patients who took excellent care of themselves and were being treated for conditions that occur as comorbidities to their primary illnesses (i.e. juvenile onset IDDM), and I've taken care of very wealthy, well educated people who drink, smoke, use illegal drugs and refuse to change their diets. Being poor does not presuppose being stupid, nor does it preclude making poor health choices. When my medicaid covered triple bypassed 350# MI patient refuses to eat the low fat food provided at meal times by the hospital and sends family members out to pick up KFC, that's a problem. When the cocaine addict with uncontrolled angina who claims he has no money for meds, or even his hospital stay, asks me to get him a bus voucher and then stands at the nurse's station, flips open his cell phone, and tells someone he's calling by a single letter name that he'll bring him the $200 he owes him for the 'goods,' that's a problem. A parent who finds out she and her husband are carriers of the gene that causes cystic fibrosis continuing to have children, until they've produced three with the disease and one who is a carrier, is a problem.
And, what really amazes me about the whole thing is how the filthy rich top 2%, whose annual income is in the millions, not $250,000, are dumping millions of dollars into free health and nutrition programs for the poor in this area--Bill Davidson, the VanElslanders, Karmanos, Ilitch, etc., while CEOs who make millions a year to bury the auto industry in this country are cutting health benefits to workers and laying off workers who can't afford to pay their COBRA coverage. Because of this type of charity, Childrens Hospital of Michigan will provide top of the line medical care for any child under the age of 12, regardless of their condition, for free if they're not covered by insurance. Doctors are hardly the problem here. And doctors make far less than Big 3 & 1/2 auto execs, even though doctors tend to save lives while CEOs tend to ruin them. The biggest problems in health care are non-compliance and malpractice insurance, not that some doctor worked her ass off to achieve the ability to earn a huge ring, a nice vehicle and a nice home. Considering most pediatricians don't make enough money to afford such luxuries (at least not out here they wouldn't), I wonder what her husband does for a living...
I am currently working my butt off to go into advanced practice nursing so I can live a comfortable life, and get into that top 20% (not 2%), and I'll be darned if I'm going to take criticism for not settling for less just because someone doesn't like the fact that I can make a decent salary doing it, especially when I know just how difficult, and important, my job is, as well as how difficult it is to do that job. Nobody is doing it for me, and I pay my own student loans. AND I do volunteer work, like nearly everyone else I work with.
BTW--the AMA has absolutely no say in how many med schools there are, and Oakland University is partnering with Beaumont Hospital System to start a new Medical School in Oakland County to help cover the current shortage of doctors in Michigan.
And, one last question--If you knew that antibiotics are not indicated for influenza, and oxycodone is not something you give for transient muscle aches, why did you let him give those meds to your mother? She obviously was too sick to speak for herself, which gives you the right, as her blood relative, to speak for her. Also, as odd as it was for him to give her they oxy, that causes respiratory depression, not cardiovascular collapse. Her BP suggests shock and dehydration, not an oxy side effect. Did they initiate an IV fluid replacement therapy? I noticed that one of your later posts states that her blood cultures are indeed growing something, which is, from my experience, why the doctor would have ordered prophylactic antibiotics (please tell me they were IV antibiotics), and could also be a cause of the cardiovascular collapse. At any rate, it's understandable that you're frightened and anxious for your mother, but at the same time there's more than one side to every story. Also, you have the right to ask for an attending physician, to demand a house officer or case manager, or even the president of the hospital. You may want to do that next time you're there. If your mother is well enough, she can give them permission to speak to you and let you go over her chart. And you and your mother have the right to demand a reliable explanation for any treatment your mother is receiving. I'd also suggest finding a different hospital system. And don't ever be afraid to tell off a doctor--the average doc is pretty smart, but their average IQ isn't high enough to get them into Mensa.
Mrs Sartori--
I appreciate how substantive your post is, and wish I wasn't dashing from one engagement to another and could reply as lengthily as I'd like.
That said, though, I think that the key to what you experience versus what I experience is that you are in a large metropolitan area. I live in a small city, within a county that is 3804 square miles, with a population of nearly 200,000. We have only two hospitals, and neither ER is a trauma level ER. That creates a shortage in the supply, which in turn creates a situation where many physicians have become very wealthy, despite having some fairly low skills. In some ways, this community is one of those where doctors who can't make it elsewhere come to practice.
As for urgent care, there are a few private ones with wacky hours--I can think of three plus one for pediatrics. There is no free medical care clinic associated with either hospital, the only one in town is housed with the homeless shelter and soup kitchen, about as far from the hospitals as possible, and they don't do any urgent or emergent care.
I can say I am joyously kicking my own ass for not saying no to the oxycodone. My mom has weird reactions to pain medication; we had told them that she once had a seizure when given lidocaine. The ER we were at didn't have another doctor to ask for; they only staff one doctor per shift no matter what . We asked for an advocate and they ignored us. My mom was alternately being in charge of herself and not, so it was a tough call, and one that, in hindsight, I regret. I mentioned her lifestyle in part to help the reader understand that my mom being sick was unusual; we are not in a caregiver relationship at all, so we weren't as prepared as we could have been.
Do I think people with high expertise should be paid well? Absolutely, but guess what that means? People who live here will never get good care, because that is the bottom line, and it's not a wealthy community. I think that goes against the idea of being in a helping profession.
I agree with much of what you said concerning insurance and preventative care, and am not meaning to dismiss it; I've agreed with other commenters that it's not solely the doctors. But I can tell you it isn't the poor people, which was the main point of the post.
And, well, the one thing that I quite disagree with you on is the pain of malpractice insurance. Since a physician runs the risk of killing or maiming someone, I think they have to be held accountable if that happens. I would be one of those who is entirely against capping malpractice awards.
But, I really appreciate your thoughtful commentary; I am always willing to recieve more information and have my mind changed, and blogging is a great opportunity for that to happen. Thanks!
Hubris, you do realize that it's perfectly consistent with both the anecdote and the data that people can support universal health care and insuring children in the abstract and *still* blame the problems in the system on those nasty poor people?
What zuzu said. Hubris, what you have is straight-up data on a yes/no question. You don't have the underlying reasons why people said yes. For example, one might conceivably support reform because they think it's the way to force those damn poor people to get some preventive care and stop clogging up the ER with their flus and shit so the Rest of US™ can get better care already. Or those poor people are too lazy to get themselves decent jobs that provide health insurance so the Rest of Us™ have to do something in order to make our own lives better.
I don't happen to know why people support health care reform. It might be just that they happen to think it's the just and moral thing to do. What I do know is you and Genni are talking about two different things. Genni's anecdotal information speaks to WHY people think the system is broken. Your data speaks to HOW they think it should be fixed. Those are just not the same questions.
Oh, don't mistake my comment about malpractice insurance being the single biggest cost to healthcare providors for wanting a cap on malpractice awards--nothing could be further from the truth. Not only should the awards not be capped, but Doctors should lose their license to practice for negligence. There is no room for error when you're dealing with a human being. Of course, insurance companies have been raising their premiums at a much higher rate than payout increases, which gives them an enormous profit margin to finance their banking and investment interests. Much more regulation of that industry is desperately needed. BTW--the second biggest cost to hospitals is Nurses, and I'm not about to suggest they get cut! LOL--I'm in favor of having MORE nurses with fewer patients so that we can catch more errors and take better care of each patient. After all, it is a physician who prescribes care, we manage that care and advocate for the patient. If you ever get grief from a nurse, just remind her of that.
Also, I drive 45 miles one way to work because I also live in a rural county--I think there's about 95,000 people here--and I'm not so sure our medical facilities out here are all that great. I also drive 35 miles one way to see my internist, 38 miles one way to see my gynecologist, 42 miles one way to see my ENT and my dentist, and roughly 20 miles one way to see my chiropractor. There is one pretty good hospital about 16 miles from my home, but it's part of a large system that's based in Detroit, so the money flows in from outside, and so do some of the medical professionals. I would utilize it more if my doctors weren't associated with a different hospital system. Most people I know think I'm crazy to have doctors who are so far away, but I don't see where it makes sense to drive two or three hours to go to a theme park or a great restaurant on a day trip, but not drive 45 minutes for quality medical care to make sure I get a whole lot more of those fun trips. It's not as convenient as going to see the guy who is three minutes from my house, but I'll deal with the inconvenience because he's an idiot. And my internest has never, ever been wrong about a diagnosis he's given me.
And one last thought to (hopefully) get you laughing: I believe that there is a grab-bag theory in hospitals, but it's not antibiotics or even anti-hypertensive meds. Nope. It's stool softeners. Every single patient I take care of has 10am and 10pm stool softener orders. Colace. Go figure...
;-P
The uninsured get the default rates, which MUST be higher than the contracted reimbursement rates given to insurers.
It doesn't HAVE TO be higher. That's another beef of mine. A doc charges 80 bucks for a visit. Insurance pays 40, and the doc accepts it, writing off the rest. An uninsured person comes in and gets charged 80 bucks, but they have to pay the full 80 bucks or they get turned over to a collection agency and treated like a common criminal.
Years ago, docs were charging more to insurance. The government said that was unfair (oh, boo-hoo, the businesses are suffering so the solution is to fuck the little guy over, not protect him, which should be government's role). So, the law is that a doc must charge the same amount to insured and uninsured. However, that doesn't preclude the amount they actually accept as reimbursement.
And depending on the insurance policy, sometimes the docs write off the remainder, and sometimes they come after the patient for it.
I don't know how recent the change in law was, or how well the doctors actually follow it, because in '96 I had a physical with my family doctor (I needed it to get into med tech school), and at the time, I had a part-time crappy paying job with no insurance. I believe his going rate at the time was 40 or 45 bucks. But when we went up front to the desk, and he handed the nurse my chart, he said softly, "It'll be 25 for her." He was great that way. It was a dinky town, and he wasn't hurting for business, because I think he was one of two docs practicing, and the second one was blatantly incompetent.
But anyway, Genni, I just wanted to say that your posts really make me think. They usually get my hackles up at first. There have been a couple times when I read a post of yours and proceeded to furiously type out a comment about how you don't understand, poor people really do X,Y, or Z. Yes, there are exceptions, but the majority, blah, blah, blah. But I don't click on "publish." And not b/c I suddenly have an epiphany. Nope. It's because I know that if I write anything even 2 microns to the right of liberal, I'll be attacked by a pack of leftist dogs. So, I mostly only comment here, on Pandagon, and Feministe when I agree wholeheartedly with the post. If I disagree, I keep it to myself mostly.
But, the few times I've just clicked off this blog without having posted my disagreement, what you've written still stays with me and I think on it. And I've actually had to admit to myself that I do have a bias against poor people (even though I have been poor many times in my life). I think it's the same as racism or sexism. It's so ingrained in our culture, so pervasive that most people get contaminated by it and have to make a concerted effort to change.
So, as liberal and unbigoted as I think I am, your posts really make me think about ways in which I am not.
man...don't even get me started on the hospital system. i wish i had the energy...but firstly, thats horrible about your mother. i hope she's okay. my mother suddenly seems to be getting old and its a little weird to me. i'm not sure i like it.
she has been a nurse all my life. i have huge problems with the entire medical system. big time problems. she has given her entire career to nursing. but she left the hospitals long ago. she has been in public health for years. anyway. hang in there.
Thank you for this. I'm too sick to comment more this morning but thank you so much for this. It needs to be said and you're completely right.
Just a comment about Malpractice insurance.
The high rates for malpractice coverage is an *insurance* problem, not a problem in fighting or paying claims.
For the most part, the rates charged by insurance companies is based on their performance of investments, not suits.
The abilit to shaft medical proactices is the natural outcome of "providing" a "service" that the physicians need -- liability insurance so they can run their practices, but the rates are unregulated and the insurance industry (which happens to have an exemption to anti-trust oversight in most states) can charge whatever hey want. There are a limited number of carriers who handle that coverage and the market-driven fact is that they charge whatever they want, and, like the music and movie industries, their bookkeeping and business models, while ostensibly legal, would not pass scrutiny by the general public.
Here's a way to get FREE healthcare while working only once a month: Get yourself on one of Long Island's municipal boards! Wealthy political spouses and anti-tax activists alike get free healthcare while showing up for board meetings once or twice a month. All paid for with tax money. (Yes, I did note that one recipient of these free benefits is an anti-tax activist. What--did you expect him to be against ALL taxes?)
Post a Comment