PICU Traveller

HR 676 and it’s problems

noreply@blogger.com (Martygrn) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:05:00 +0000

This is my critique of the current HR 676-Conyers/Kucinich bill in the House creating UHC.

SEC. 101. ELIGIBILITY AND REGISTRATION.

(a) In General- All individuals residing in the United States (including any territory of the United States) are covered under the USNHI Program entitling them to a universal, best quality standard of care. Each such individual shall receive a card with a unique number in the mail. An individual’s social security number shall not be used for purposes of registration under this section.

I would like to see this changed to say: …All individuals LEGALLY residing in…

SEC. 102. BENEFITS AND PORTABILITY.

(a) In General- The health insurance benefits under this Act cover all medically necessary services, including at least the following:

(4) Emergency care.

(c) No Cost-Sharing- No deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, or other
cost-sharing shall be imposed with respect to covered benefits.

I would like to see a provision added that would provide for a substantial penalty, copay, fine (call it what you will), for visiting an emergency room in a non-emergency situation.

SEC. 103. QUALIFICATION OF PARTICIPATING PROVIDERS.

(a) Requirement To Be Public or Non-Profit-

(1) IN GENERAL- No institution may be a participating provider unless it is a public or not-for-profit institution.

Why? What is the fear from any clinic/hospital being a for profit?

SEC. 201. BUDGETING PROCESS.

(a) Establishment of Operating Budget and Capital Expenditures Budget-

(1) IN GENERAL- To carry out this Act there are established on an annual basis consistent with this title–

(C) reimbursement levels for providers consistent with subtitle B

No different than the current system of government price controls.

SEC. 201. BUDGETING PROCESS.

(c) Capital Expenditures Budget- The capital expenditures budget shall be used for funds needed for–

(1) the construction or renovation of health facilities; and

(2) for major equipment purchases.

Who would be eligible for these funds? Would it only be government owned facilities or would any facility be able to get money for these purposes? Who would decide who needed improvements and who didn’t? Lot’s of room for pork-barrel spending here.

SEC. 202. PAYMENT OF PROVIDERS AND HEALTH CARE CLINICIANS.

(a) Establishing Global Budgets; Monthly Lump Sum-

(2) ESTABLISHMENT OF GLOBAL BUDGETS- The global budget of a provider shall be set through negotiations between providers and regional
directors, but are subject to the approval of the Director. The budget
shall be negotiated annually, based on past expenditures, projected
changes in levels of services, wages and input, costs, and proposed new
and innovative programs.

“Global budget of providers set through negotiations”? Does this mean the government is now going to mandate the operating budgets of private businesses? How much closer to socialism, no communism, can you get?

SEC. 202. PAYMENT OF PROVIDERS AND HEALTH CARE CLINICIANS.

(b) Three Payment Options for Physicians and Certain Other Health Professionals-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Program shall pay physicians, dentists, doctors of osteopathy, psychologists, chiropractors, doctors of optometry, nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, physicians’ assistants, and other advanced practice clinicians as licensed and regulated by the States by the following payment methods:

(A) Fee for service payment under paragraph (2).

This seems to say that only individual providers, not hospitals or clinics, are eligible for the “fee for payment” option. Why can organizations such as hospitals and clinics not be paid on a fee for service basis?

SEC. 202. PAYMENT OF PROVIDERS AND HEALTH CARE CLINICIANS.

(b) Three Payment Options for Physicians and Certain Other Health Professionals-

(2) FEE FOR SERVICE-

(A) IN GENERAL- The Program shall negotiate a simplified fee schedule that is fair with representatives of physicians and other clinicians, after close consultation with the National Board of Universal Quality and Access and regional and State directors. Initially, the current prevailing fees or reimbursement would be the basis for the fee negotiation for all professional services covered under this Act.

(B) CONSIDERATIONS- In establishing such schedule, the Director shall take into consideration regional differences in reimbursement, but strive for a uniform national standard.

How is this any different at all from the current Medicare/Medicaid system? You still have the government dictating to providers how much they will be paid for each of their services. How does this in anyway prevent the current situation from happening wherein the provider receives payment for services that is below what it costs to provide the service? You say I cannot compare the newly proposed system to the current Medicare/Medicaid system, yet this part of the bill tells me that comparing the two systems is comparing apples to apples, period.

SEC. 202. PAYMENT OF PROVIDERS AND HEALTH CARE CLINICIANS.

(b) Three Payment Options for Physicians and Certain Other Health Professionals-

(3) SALARIES WITHIN INSTITUTIONS RECEIVING GLOBAL BUDGETS-

(A) IN GENERAL- In the case of an institution, such as a hospital, health center, group practice, community and migrant health center, or a home care agency that elects to be paid a monthly global budget for the delivery of health care as well as for education and prevention programs, physicians employed by such institutions shall be reimbursed through a salary included as part of such a budget.

Explain to me how this does not say that I, as an RN and employee of a hospital, will have my salary mandated by the government through the budget control process pointed out above? I, as a professional, do not want any government controls placed on what I am allowed to make. How is this better for me than where I am now, where I negotiate a salary for myself? Not all nurses do this, of course. I am able to because I travel as a nurse. I work for a company that finds nursing openings in areas of the country where I want to go and in the type of units I work in. A salary is then negotiated between the hospital, my employer and myself. There is a contract involved spelling out all the details. Will this new system put this entire industry out of business? Why should I not have the FREEDOM to decide how I wish to make my career and how much I can make?

SEC. 205. PAYMENT FOR PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS, MEDICAL SUPPLIES, AND MEDICALLY NECESSARY ASSISTIVE EQUIPMENT.

(a) Negotiated Prices- The prices to be paid each year under this Act for covered pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, and medically necessary assistive equipment shall be negotiated annually by the Program.

(b) Prescription Drug Formulary-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Program shall establish a prescription drug formulary system, which shall encourage best-practices in prescribing and discourage the use of ineffective, dangerous, or excessively costly medications when better alternatives are available.

(2) PROMOTION OF USE OF GENERICS- The formulary shall promote the use of generic medications but allow the use of brand-name and off-formulary medications when indicated for a specific patient or condition.

Explain to me how this is any different than the current system that both the government programs and private insurance companies use now? Read my forum topic entitled “Universal Healthcare Won’t Work” for my discussion of my personal experiences with this very point. Also, who is to make the decision as to what is medically necessary? Will it be as it is now with non-medical business people making that call for every claim? How does this make any sense? On this point, the bill is way too generalized and open to interpretation.

SEC. 211. OVERVIEW: FUNDING THE USNHI PROGRAM.

(c) Funding-

(1) IN GENERAL- There are appropriated to the USNHI Trust Fund amounts sufficient to carry out this Act from the following sources:

(B) Increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners.

(C) Instituting a modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income.

Why only the top 5%? Why not simplify the tax code as has been discussed with a flat tax and appropriating a portion of this? Also, I have concerns in subparagraph C of the use of the word progressive. When it comes to money and accounting, progressive means gradually increasing. To what point? Until the budget can be met?

SEC. 211. OVERVIEW: FUNDING THE USNHI PROGRAM.

(c) Funding-

(3) ADDITIONAL ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS TO USNHI PROGRAM- Additional sums are authorized to be appropriated annually as needed to maintain maximum quality, efficiency, and access under the Program.

Where shall these additional funds be appropriated from? More additional taxes? I thought one of the lynch pins of the argument for single-payer, universal healthcare was that it could be done by spending even less than what we do now? Comparisons are always made to countries who have UHC and how they spend less than we do? So why the need throughout this entire section about the need for additional revenue to pay for the program?

SEC. 303. REGIONAL AND STATE ADMINISTRATION; EMPLOYMENT OF DISPLACED CLERICAL WORKERS.

(c) Regional Office Duties-

(1) IN GENERAL- Regional offices of the Program shall be responsible for–

(A) coordinating funding to health care providers and physicians; and

(B) coordinating billing and reimbursements with physicians and health care providers through a State-based reimbursement system.
Again, how is this any different from the current system wherein states are required to administer the federal program? Talk to any state legislator about how big a bite is taken out of the state’s budget to administer federally mandated federal programs. Shouldn’t a new, comprehensive reform to the healthcare system relieve the states of at least some of the fed’s unfunded mandates?

SEC. 303. REGIONAL AND STATE ADMINISTRATION; EMPLOYMENT OF DISPLACED CLERICAL WORKERS.

(d) State Director’s Duties- Each State Director shall be responsible for the following duties:

(2) Health planning, including oversight of the placement of new hospitals, clinics, and other health care delivery facilities.

(3) Health planning, including oversight of the purchase and placement of new health equipment to ensure timely access to care and to avoid duplication.

Why should the government (any government state, federal or local) be in control of how a hospital may wish to expand their offerings? How is the government in any better position to decide whether or not an area can support a hospital expansion? Would a hospital expand their facility if their market could not support it? Are the people running hospitals that bad when it comes to running a business? Where is your precious freedom of choice if the government is going to ration the availability of services?

SEC. 303. REGIONAL AND STATE ADMINISTRATION; EMPLOYMENT OF DISPLACED CLERICAL WORKERS.

(e) First Priority in Retraining and Job Placement; 2 Years of
Unemployment Benefits- The Program shall provide that clerical,
administrative, and billing personnel in insurance companies, doctors
offices, hospitals, nursing facilities, and other facilities whose jobs
are eliminated due to reduced administration–

(1) should have first priority in retraining and job placement in the new system; and

(2) shall be eligible to receive 2 years of unemployment benefits.

I see no provision for how exactly this will be funded. Will these people then be bumping the people who are already enrolled in these programs or who become eligible in the future? If not, then there must be a new funding source for this section. Has there been any investigation done to determine what just this will cost?

SEC. 305. NATIONAL BOARD OF UNIVERSAL QUALITY AND ACCESS.

(a) Establishment-

(1) IN GENERAL- There is established a National Board of Universal Quality and Access (in this section referred to as the Board’) consisting of 15 members appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(2) QUALIFICATIONS- The appointed members of the Board shall include at least one of each of the following:

(A) Health care professionals.

I would like to see some kind of provision here that this will include those people ‘on the front lines’, not just management. Were you aware that the organization of nurses in supervisory positions (AONE, American Organization for Nurse Executives) is a subsidiary of the American Hospital Association? Therefore, the people involved in nursing leadership may not actually represent the needs of the majority of working nurses. This must be addressed.

Bottom line is this, yes I have read the bill, but I cannot support it in it’s current form. To gain my support, and others in my position, these weaknesses I have pointed out must be addressed. Secondly, without reform to Malpractice Litigation Reform as a part of this type of system, I will NEVER be able to support it. I am for COMPREHENSIVE reform of the healthcare industry, NOT band-aids and quick fixes. I see a start in the right direction here, but much more needs to be done. However, you and I both know that as an individual working class American, my voice will NEVER BE HEARD, no matter who the candidate or office-holder is. We can discuss and debate and iron out the kinks here all day, but what we discuss here will not be taken into consideration. I would welcome the opportunity to sit down and discuss these points with someone who can actually do anything about it, but alas, that will never happen. This when I currently live INSIDE the DC beltway, albeit in Virginia. I am sincerely hoping I am wrong on this point and we really are being listened to. I think any politician who could admit to not knowing everything and be open to discussing things with ‘commoners’ would be a REAL breath of fresh air.

My final point is this. I do think that nurses salaries need to be brought more in line with the job we do, however with the government (AKA Congress) setting salaries, this will never happen. How many doctors and laywers are in congress vs. nurses? You do the math.

I sincerely hope that I am coming across as discussing these points with respectful disagreement. If I come across any other way, please know this hope is my intent. I mean do disrespect or disregard for anyone else’s opinion and I sincerely hope others can view my opinion likewise.

Who am I?

noreply@blogger.com (Martygrn) — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:13:00 +0000

I decided to tell you all a little more about myself. I will do this by talking about my oldest son, who comprises a large part of who I am. While I do work as a PICU RN, this is my career and not who I am as a person. My family, and especially my sons, define who I am as a person. So, without further adieu, allow me the honor of telling you about my Andy, the one on the right in the black shirt on my sidebar.

Andy is 5 years old born in May of 2002. My wife and I had tried to have a child for 7 years before Andy came along. We had visited infertility doctors and had reached the point in the spring of 2001 where they had told us that our only chance of having children would be either in-vitro or the injectable drugs that seem likely to produce multiple births. Throughout that summer, we talked about it, prayed about it and finally, in October of 2001 agreed that we could have a full life together without a child of our own. Perhaps we would look in to adopting, we even discussed. What we didn't know at the time was that we already had one of own on the way. My wife has something called polycystic ovarian syndrome, or PCOS. Not only did it make it difficult to get pregnant, but it also causes her to have very irregular cycles. Like only 3-4 a year. Therefore, Andy didn't make his presence known to us until mid-November of 2001. We, of course, were very excited but Andy wasn't finished surprising us yet.

We went through all the 'normal' experiences of being pregnant. Doctors visits, blood tests, ultrasounds, etc. Then in December, right before Christmas, we got one of those classic phone calls from the doctors office. It seems there was a positive blood test that needed further testing. Seems the MAFP level was elevated in a blood test. Of course, at the time, we had no idea what this meant. All that we were told on the phone that day was that it could mean nothing at all, could mean down syndrome, could mean ....... Basically, until we were able to get an ultrasound done, in January, we wouldn't know what, if anything, it meant. So we spent Christmas wondering if there was something wrong with the baby.

Finally, January came and we had an ultrasound done. The ultrasound showed signs of something call an 'open neural tube defect'. We had no idea what this meant. We met with a 'genetic counselor', who again gave us a wide range of possibilities. From a child that no one could tell had any problems all the way to a baby that only survived for a few hours after birth, and a whole bunch in between. As the shock of this was setting in, we were asked for immediate decisions on two things. First, would we allow them to do an amniocentesis in order to confirm the diagnosis. This one was an easy yes, even with the risks involved. We needed to know something concrete. Then, the 'counselor' kept asking us over and over again whether or not we wanted to terminate the pregnancy. No matter how many times or how many ways we told her "no, even with the possible problems, we will not abort', she kept on asking. She said later that we seemed overwhelmed and that was why she kept asking. Since when does being overwhelmed with finding out that your baby is not going to be 'perfectly' healthy translate into wanting to abort your baby?

So, then another 2 week wait for the results of the amnio. When the call came, it was confirmed our fears. It was positive for an 'open neural tube defect'. What did this mean. Again, anything from only living a few hours after birth to significant physical disability to not even being able to tell. Again, a huge range of unknowns, a theme that will follow throughout Andy's life story. They also asked if we wanted to know the sex of the baby. We originally wanted the traditional surprise at birth, but decided that since we now had this whole new host of unknowns, we wanted to know the sex so we could name him and also so that we would at least know one thing for sure. We found out he was a boy and gave him our previously decided 'boy name' of Michael Andrew, and we would call him Andy. As an aside, we used his middle name and wanted his 'legal' name to be M. Andrew. Don't make this mistake, it doesn't work well. Right now, he is Michael A. to most people, but on my insurance, they dropped the M. and he is listed just as Andrew. Explain that to the billing people at the doctors office!!

So, we drifted along not knowing his future for the next 4 months. Many more doctors visits, an ultrasound every week and more and more tests. They were able to determine that he had the form of 'open neural tube defect' commonly known as Spina Bifida, so we went to work on the internet. We learned all we could about Spina Bifida, yet still would not know where in the range he would fall. The range ran from no one would be able to tell to totally wheelchair bound with lots of issues. Again, the range of unknown.

Finally, we made it to May and had a prescheduled C-section scheduled for June 9th. Since Spina Bifida is where a part of the spine grows outside the body, they usually recommend a c-section to prevent further damage to the spinal cord during birth. At our now twice weekly (we lived an hour from the hospital) appointment and ultrasound with our new OB on May 23, 2002, we had yet another surprise. New OB because we now had to see a high-risk specialist. She finished the ultrasound and stated she wanted to do another amnio to determine lung development and see if we needed to go earlier. The amnio was done and we went home to wait. We no sooner got in the door and the phone was ringing. My wife answered it and, thinking sooner meant in a week or so, was shocked at what she heard. The doctors exact words were "He's fully cooked! Be here at 7 am tomorrow morning". TOMORROW MORNING?!?!?! We were not ready for it to be that soon! We called our parents and told them Andy's birthday had changed. They were shocked as well.

Well, the day finally came. We were at the hospital at 7 AM as scheduled and Andy was born at @ 9:00. He was immediately taken to the NICU as we had expected. The neurosurgeon we had met in the past few weeks came in to the recovery room to meet with us and have us sign the consent for Andy's first surgery. This surgery would repair the defect in his back and protect the spinal cord from further damage. I was able to go and see him in the NICU that first day, but my wife wasn't allowed to. The staff on the post-partem unit would let her leave the unit and go to the NICU. Andy was taken in to surgery the following morning at the ripe old age of 23 hrs. We waited in my wife's hospital room. After a couple hours, the neurosurgeon and the anesthesiologist came in to the room. Seems there had been a 'minor' complication. During the surgery, Andy had an 'episode' where his heart rate got dangerously low requiring a dose of epinepherine to correct. They had actually stopped the surgery on his back, turned him over and were prepared to start CPR. Luckily, the Epi worked and they were able to turn him back over and complete the surgery. They believed the episode occurred because of 'positioning'. This did concern us a bit, but we decided thats alls well that ends well.

Andy recovered from the surgery and we went home after 6 days in the hospital. We had no idea what the future would bring except that we would be seeing many different doctors and specialists. All we knew for sure is that we would handle whatever we had to. What else would you do for your child. Tomorrow, I will post about what Andy has had to deal with since coming home from the hospital. A little hint, he has been back a total of 15 times since birth.

New memo from Admin

noreply@blogger.com (Martygrn) — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:07:00 +0000

Ran across this at a website on medical/nursing humor. It is quite extreme, but is it really anymore extreme than some of the real ones that are seen everyday?

Memorandum

To: All Hospital Employees

From: Administration

Effective immediately, this hospital will no longer provide security. Each Charge Nurse will be issued with a .38 caliber revolver and 12 rounds of ammunition. An additional 12 rounds will be stored in the pharmacy. In addition to routine nursing duties, Charge Nurses will patrol the hospital grounds 3 times each shift. In light of the similarity of monitoring equipment, the Critical Care Units will now assume security surveillance duties. The unit secretary will be responsible for watching cardiac and security monitors, as well as continuing previous secretarial duties.

Food service will be discontinued. Patients wishing to be fed will need to let their families know to bring them something, or make arrangements with Subway, Dominos, Wendy's, or another outside food preparation facility, prior to mealtime. Coin-operated telephones will be available in the patient rooms for this purpose, as well as for calls the patient may wish to make.

Housekeeping and Physical Therapy are being combined. Mops will be issued to those patients who are ambulatory, thus providing range of motion exercise, as well as a clean environment. Families and ambulatory patients may also register to clean the room of non-ambulatory patients for discounts on their bill. Time cards will be provided to those registered.

Nursing Administration is assuming the grounds keeping duties. If a Nursing Supervisor cannot be reached by phone or beeper, it is suggested to listen for the sound of the lawn mower, weed eater, or leaf blower.

Engineering will also be eliminated. The Hospital has subscribed to the Time-Life series of "How to..." maintenance books. These books may be checked out from Administration. Also, a toolbox of standard equipment will be issued to all Nursing Units. We will be receiving the volumes at a rate of one per month, and have received the volume on basic wiring. If a non-electrical problem occurs, please try to repair it as best as possible until that particular volume arrives.

Cutbacks in Phlebotomy staff will be accommodated by only performing blood-related laboratory studies on patients already bleeding.

Physicians will be informed that they may order no more than two (2) X-rays per patient per stay. This is due to the turn-around time required by the local Photomat. Two prints will be provided for the price of one and physicians are encouraged to clip coupons from the Sunday paper if more prints are desired. Photomat will also honor competitors coupons for one-hour processing in an emergency. If employees come across any coupons, they are encouraged to clip them and send them to the Emergency Room.

In light of the extremely hot summer temperatures, the local Electric Company has been asked to install individual meters in each patient room so that electrical consumption can be monitored and appropriately billed. Fans may be rented or purchased in the Gift Shop.

In addition to the current recycling programs, a bin for the collection of unused fruit and bread will soon be provided on each floor. Families, patients and the few remaining staff are encouraged to contribute discarded produce. The resulting moldy compost will be utilized by the pharmacy for nosocomial production of antibiotics. These antibiotics will be available for purchase though the hospital pharmacy, and will, coincidentally, soon be the only antibiotics listed in the hospital's formulary.

Although these cutbacks and changes may appear drastic on the surface, the Administration feels that over time we will all benefit from this latest cost cutting measures.

Maybe I shouldn't post this. It may give some admin-types too many ideas.

Original Source

Moving Day

noreply@blogger.com (Martygrn) — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:54:00 +0000

I had previously hosted my blog on Wordpress. Today, I have decided to move it here as blogger has more of the features I am looking for. It seems to be much more open to my own personal touches, so here I am. I will move all of my old posts here as well. That will take a bit of time, then I will be on to new posts. I promise to post more regularly, as least every few days.

Docs vs Nurses vs Docs

noreply@blogger.com (Martygrn) — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:42:00 +0000

Notice I put nurses in the middle in the title? There is a reason for it. This is how things work at the hospital I am currently working at. We have our ICU docs who run things in the ICU. We also have the cardiologists and the cardiac surgeons. The problem comes in when they don’t seem to communicate with each other. I had a patient the other day that illustrated this the best.

They were in town on vacation and their daughter had a congenital heart condition that had been repaired surgically in their hometown. She was having some complications and was admitted to our ICU to manage. The cardiologist on-call was the one in the group with the largest ego. He was in the room discussing things with the family when the patients home cardiologist called, the one who had treated the child since birth. When Dr. M, as I’ll call our cardiologist, was asked if he wanted to speak with him, guess what his answer was? “No, just tell them to send the records.” Here begins the problems as this was stated in front of the family.

Later on that evening, the parents asked why he wouldn’t speak with their doc, the one they trusted totally. Let me also add that these parents were very knowledgeable about their daughters condition and very involved in her treatment. The kind of parents we love to have around. I had to honestly answer that I didn’t know. They had a few questions concerning what we were doing as far as treatment was concerned,so since it was a Sunday evening, I asked our ICU doc to speak with them as Dr. M had gone home. His answer to quite a few of their questions was that cardiology had to make that decision. So he had us page Dr. M at home and put him on the phone with the parents. Dr. M, from home, told the parents that the ICU docs should make those decisions. According to the parents, he seemed like he just wanted to get off the phone and get back to dinner with his family. He may have even said so, I don’t know why else they would have thought this.

In case you’re wondering, the big question was why was their child not receiving their home medications. I have to side with the ICU doc on this one as most of the home medications were cardiac medications. Something I think the cardiologist should be deciding. But then again, I’m just a nurse. What do I know. These medications were never ordered even though they were on all 3 medication reconciliation forms we had filled out, a subject for another post.

Bottom line is that I had a patient and family that had good, important questions concerning their child’s care at 5PM that were not addressed until the next morning. Not at all acceptable in my book. This is a facility that is totally run and controlled by the physicians for their comfort and convenience. I have yet to see anything done which in any way involves nursing at any point. Worse yet, many of their practices, in my opinion, endanger their patients. We can have patients being treated by 5 or 6+ specialties, all of whom can write orders and none of whom are ultimately managing the care.

Change is a good thing

noreply@blogger.com (Martygrn) — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:42:00 +0000

I started this blog to make clear my feelings about the health care system, it’s reform and how to repair it. Those feelings have not changed, however I find there is a lack of new subject material. As I have been reading and following other nursing and medical blogs, I have decided to change the focus of this blog to my experiences as an RN. I work only PICU, Pediatric Intensive Care, for those non-medical types reading this. I also work as a traveller, so I move from city to city every 3-6 months. I will still post on political topics as the motivation strikes me, but no longer wish to restrict my writing to only those topics. I hope this new direction is a change for the better. I think it will be as I feel I will now be able to post more regularly and more generally about whatever may be on my mind on any given day. With that in mind, I am off to work on my next post. I cannot promise everyday as I have a full life with work, a wife and a two sons, 4 and 5, but will promise to do better than every 2 months. (where the h*ll did that time go).

Beyond Those Health Care Numbers

noreply@blogger.com (Martygrn) — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:41:00 +0000

Found this interesting tidbit online today. Interesting that there is actual research that backs up my own arguments. It’s always a good feeling to find out you’re not alone in your beliefs. I did not write this and the authors credit is at the end.

WITH the health care system at the center of the political debate, a lot of scary claims are being thrown around. The dangerous ones are not those that are false; watchdogs in the news media are quick to debunk them. Rather, the dangerous ones are those that are true but don’t mean what people think they mean.

Here are three of the true but misleading statements about health care that politicians and pundits love to use to frighten the public:

STATEMENT 1 The United States has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than Canada, which has national health insurance.

The differences between the neighbors are indeed significant. Life expectancy at birth is 2.6 years greater for Canadian men than for American men, and 2.3 years greater for Canadian women than American women. Infant mortality in the United States is 6.8 per 1,000 live births, versus 5.3 in Canada.

These facts are often taken as evidence for the inadequacy of the American health system. But a recent study by June and Dave O’Neill, economists at Baruch College, from which these numbers come, shows that the difference in health outcomes has more to do with broader social forces.

For example, Americans are more likely than Canadians to die by accident or by homicide. For men in their 20s, mortality rates are more than 50 percent higher in the United States than in Canada, but the O’Neills show that accidents and homicides account for most of that gap. Maybe these differences have lessons for traffic laws and gun control, but they teach us nothing about our system of health care.

Americans are also more likely to be obese, leading to heart disease and other medical problems. Among Americans, 31 percent of men and 33 percent of women have a body mass index of at least 30, a definition of obesity, versus 17 percent of men and 19 percent of women in Canada. Japan, which has the longest life expectancy among major nations, has obesity rates of about 3 percent.

The causes of American obesity are not fully understood, but they involve lifestyle choices we make every day, as well as our system of food delivery. Research by the Harvard economists David Cutler, Ed Glaeser and Jesse Shapiro concludes that America’s growing obesity problem is largely attributable to our economy’s ability to supply high-calorie foods cheaply. Lower prices increase food consumption, sometimes beyond the point of optimal health.

Infant mortality rates also reflect broader social trends, including the prevalence of infants with low birth weight. The health system in the United States gives low birth-weight babies slightly better survival chances than does Canada’s, but the more pronounced difference is the frequency of these cases. In the United States, 7.5 percent of babies are born weighing less than 2,500 grams (about 5.5 pounds), compared with 5.7 percent in Canada. In both nations, these infants have more than 10 times the mortality rate of larger babies. Low birth weights are in turn correlated with teenage motherhood. (One theory is that a teenage mother is still growing and thus competing with the fetus for nutrients.) The rate of teenage motherhood, according to the O’Neill study, is almost three times higher in the United States than it is in Canada.

Whatever its merits, a Canadian-style system of national health insurance is unlikely to change the sexual mores of American youth

The bottom line is that many statistics on health outcomes say little about our system of health care.

STATEMENT 2 Some 47 million Americans do not have health insurance.

This number from the Census Bureau is often cited as evidence that the health system is failing for many American families. Yet by masking tremendous heterogeneity in personal circumstances, the figure exaggerates the magnitude of the problem.

To start with, the 47 million includes about 10 million residents who are not American citizens. Many are illegal immigrants. Even if we had national health insurance, they would probably not be covered.

The number also fails to take full account of Medicaid, the government’s health program for the poor. For instance, it counts millions of the poor who are eligible for Medicaid but have not yet applied. These individuals, who are healthier, on average, than those who are enrolled, could always apply if they ever needed significant medical care. They are uninsured in name only.

The 47 million also includes many who could buy insurance but haven’t. The Census Bureau reports that 18 million of the uninsured have annual household income of more than $50,000, which puts them in the top half of the income distribution. About a quarter of the uninsured have been offered employer-provided insurance but declined coverage.

Of course, millions of Americans have trouble getting health insurance. But they number far less than 47 million, and they make up only a few percent of the population of 300 million.

Any reform should carefully focus on this group to avoid disrupting the vast majority for whom the system is working. We do not nationalize an industry simply because a small percentage of the work force is unemployed. Similarly, we should be wary of sweeping reforms of our health system if they are motivated by the fact that a small percentage of the population is uninsured.

STATEMENT 3 Health costs are eating up an ever increasing share of American incomes.

In 1950, about 5 percent of United States national income was spent on health care, including both private and public health spending. Today the share is about 16 percent. Many pundits regard the increasing cost as evidence that the system is too expensive.

But increasing expenditures could just as well be a symptom of success. The reason that we spend more than our grandparents did is not waste, fraud and abuse, but advances in medical technology and growth in incomes. Science has consistently found new ways to extend and improve our lives. Wonderful as they are, they do not come cheap.

Fortunately, our incomes are growing, and it makes sense to spend this growing prosperity on better health. The rationality of this phenomenon is stressed in a recent article by the economists Charles I. Jones of the University of California, Berkeley, and Robert E. Hall of Stanford. They ask, “As we grow older and richer, which is more valuable: a third car, yet another television, more clothing — or an extra year of life?”

Mr. Hall and Mr. Jones forecast that the share of income devoted to health care will top 30 percent by 2050. But in their model, this is not a problem: It is the modern form of progress.

Even if the rise in health care spending turns out to be less than they forecast, it is important to get reform right. Our health care system is not perfect, but it has been a major source of advances in our standard of living, and it will be a large share of the economy we bequeath to our children.

As we look at reform plans, we should be careful not to be fooled by statistics into thinking that the problems we face are worse than they really are.

N. Gregory Mankiw is a professor of economics at Harvard. He was an adviser to President Bush and is advising Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, in the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

THE JOB - URINE TEST

noreply@blogger.com (Martygrn) — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:40:00 +0000

I HAVE TO PASS A URINE TEST FOR MY JOB… SO I AGREE 100%

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I
pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In
order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test
with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the
distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test.
Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I
have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no
problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other
hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ASS, doing
drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how much money the state
would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance
check? Or perhaps require a urine test to get a prescription for your

painkillers at the local ER?

My Absence

noreply@blogger.com (Martygrn) — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 21:39:00 +0000

I have been AWOL for a few weeks. Just having started at a new hospital in a new city (Phoenix, AZ), I have had to spend some time acclimating to my new position. I will be back and posting soon. Sorry for seemingly disappearing.

Everone looks, no one types

noreply@blogger.com (Martygrn) — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:38:00 +0000

I find it interesting that a link to my blog posted on the daily kos site

FULL STORY

generated almost 120 “hits” to my blog, but not one single comment. How is it that these many people visited but not one had the courage to directly address my points/concerns? It seems that those with an agenda have no interest in intelligent dialog.I have no idea how to make something an actual link. You may have to copy/paste for the above link to work. If anyone can help me in this regard, I’d greatly appreciate it.

On the Road Again

noreply@blogger.com (Martygrn) — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:37:00 +0000

The life of a travel nurse. I am currently sitting in a hotel en route from the DC area to Phoenix, AZ. I have to report to work in Phoenix next Monday and can move in to my apartment on Friday. My goal is to be there on Friday. It will be nice to spend the winter in Phoenix, though travelling cross country, 2300 miles, with my 2 sons, 4 and 5 yrs old, is a challenge in and of itself. Also just shipped 12 boxes of clothes, etc. to myself as we have more than our poor little Camry can carry. What an adventure this will be. This time, instead of the county hospital in Phoenix, I will instead be working at the children’s hospital. It will be interesting to see if there is much difference. I started out traveling for many reasons, one being that having worked at Duke Hospital for my entire nursing career, I wanted to see if their ego was deserved. To some degree, it is, but it mostly has to do with volume and experience. We, my wife and I, also felt that with our children being the age they are, that now is the ideal time to do this. They are old enough to appreciate what is happening, yet young enough to not have all the ‘I don’t want to leave my friends’ concerns. For all the stress that moving every 13 weeks causes, I wouldn’t trade it for the world. From a nursing perspective, it is heaven. I do not get involved in the ‘politics’ of the hospital or unit I am working on. I go to work, do my job and go home. There is the downside of having to learn new systems, processes, etc. every place I go, but I treat it as a learning experience. So, all in all, I come in, help fill staffing holes, ignore the pettiness of politics and have fun doing what I do. All this and I, unfortunately, get paid more than the full-time employees. Through all of it, my agency is my employer, so in a resume sense, I am not changing jobs at all. I will continue to update on the ups and downs of traveling as time allows.

American Cancer Society the Newest to be Misled

noreply@blogger.com (Martygrn) — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:36:00 +0000

Here is an interesting article found in the WSJ:

Cancer Killers

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
September 14, 2007; Page A12

Last week the American Cancer Society announced it will no longer run ads about the dangers of smoking and other cancer-causing behaviors and the benefits of regular screenings. Instead, the Society will devote this year’s entire advertising budget to a campaign for universal health coverage. John Seffrin, the Society’s chief executive, said, “[I]f we don’t fix the health-care system . . . lack of access will be a bigger cancer killer than tobacco.”

Sadly, these ads will waste money that should be used to continue the Society’s educational campaign about prevention and detection. The evidence shows that universal health coverage does not improve survival rates for cancer patients. Despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the U.S. are most likely to be screened regularly, have the fastest access to treatment once they are diagnosed with the disease, and can get new, effective drugs long before they’re available in most other countries.

Last month, the largest ever international survey of cancer survival rates showed that in the U.S., women have a 63% chance of living at least five years after diagnosis, and men have a 66% chance — the highest survival rates in the world. These figures reflect the care available to all Americans, not just those with private health coverage. In Great Britain, which has had a government-run universal health-care system for half a century, the figures were 53% for women and 45% for men, near the bottom of the 23 countries surveyed.

A 2006 study in the journal Respiratory Medicine showed that lung cancer patients in the U.S. have the best chance of surviving five years — about 16%. Patients in Austria and France fare almost as well, and patients in the United Kingdom do much worse with only 5% living five years. A report released in May from the Commonwealth Fund showed that women in the U.S. are more likely to get a PAP test every two years than women in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the U.K., where health insurance is guaranteed by the government. In the U.S. 85% of women ages 25-64 have regular PAP smears, compared with 58% in the U.K.

The same is true for mammograms. In the U.S., 84% of women ages 50-64 get them regularly, a higher percentage than in Australia, Canada or New Zealand, and far higher than the 63% of women in the U.K. The high rate of screening in the U.S. reflects access as well as educational efforts by the American Cancer Society and others.

Early diagnosis is important, but survival also depends on getting effective treatment quickly. In the spring of 2007, 58-year-old Valerie Thorpe from Kent, England, went through the anguish of being diagnosed with cancer, and then was told she would have to wait four months before beginning radiation therapy. Her plight was reported in the newspaper because she appealed to her representative in Parliament. But her problem is not unusual. A study by the Royal College of Radiologists, published this June, showed that such waits are typical, and 13% of patients who need radiation never get it due to shortages of equipment and staff.

Long waits for treatment are “common devices used to restrict access to care in countries with universal health insurance,” according to a report in Health Affairs (July/August 2007). The British National Health Service has set a target for reducing waits. The goal is that patients will not have to wait more than 18 weeks between the time their general practitioner refers them to a specialist and they actually begin treatment.

Access to new, better drugs also explains differences in survival rates. In May, a report in the Annals of Oncology by two Swedish scientists found that cancer patients have the most access to 67 new drugs in France, the U.S., Switzerland and Austria. For example, erlotinib, a new lung cancer therapy, was 10 times more likely to be prescribed for a patient in the U.S. than in Europe. One of the report’s authors, Dr. Nils Wilking from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, explained that nearly half the improvement in survival rates in the U.S. in the 1990s was due to “the introduction of new oncology drugs,” and he urged other countries to make new drugs available faster.

International comparisons establish that the current method of financing health care in the U.S. is not a bigger killer than tobacco. What is deadly are delays in treatment and lack of access to the most effective drugs, problems encountered by some uninsured cancer patients in the U.S. but by a far larger proportion of cancer patients in the U.K. and Europe. Cancer patients do well in a few small countries with national health insurance, such as Sweden and Finland, but they do better in the U.S. than anywhere else on the globe.

With a track record like that, the American Cancer Society should continue its lifesaving messages about prevention and screening instead of switching to a political agenda. The goal should be to ensure that all cancer patients receive the timely care our current system provides, not to radically overhaul the system.

Ms. McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York, is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths (www.hospitalinfection.org¹).

The Swiss Example

noreply@blogger.com (Martygrn) — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:36:00 +0000

So can any wealthy, modern country get health care right without resorting to socialism? Yes. You never hear it touted by the media but Switzerland uses market forces, not government rules and red tape, to create a private, affordable, high-quality health-care system for its 7.5 million citizens. And it spends 40 percent less per capita than we do.

Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, a fervent fiscal watchdog and a practicing physician, knows all about the Swiss system. Much of his proposed health-care reform bill — the Universal Health Care and Access Act — is modeled on it. Coburn’s plan, a major overhaul that can be found at coburn.senate.gov, is complicated, controversial and in no danger of becoming law anytime soon, if ever. The bill’s key elements include achieving universal health-care access by using tax credits to pay for individual or family insurance, phasing out reliance on employer-based insurance, allowing people to choose their own doctors and health insurance and stressing preventive care. On Wednesday, Sen. Coburn explained why he likes the Swiss system, which operates sort of like our car insurance: You must buy health insurance but you can choose among many plans from many private companies. Since every Swiss is covered, Coburn said, there is no cost-shifting — i.e., no hidden subsidizing of those who don’t have insurance at all or don’t have enough. Cost-shifting costs Americans about $250 billion a year, Coburn said. Ending it would save a family of four about $4,000 a year. Another virtue of the Swiss way, Coburn said, is that it has fostered a range of innovative insurance products. For example, there are five-year policies that reward customers with lower and lower rates if they do the preventive things the company asks. A third virtue, he said, is a national high-risk pool that all insurance companies contribute to that essentially protects companies from suffering heavy losses in a given year.
Switzerland is tiny and doesn’t have our social problems. But Coburn says its consumer-driven approach — which is transparent to consumers in price and quality — would work here. Coburn knows markets aren’t perfect. But he knows why the Swiss system works so well: ‘It forces people to shop, it forces people to make decisions….The point is, markets work — if, in fact, we’ll trust them.’

Consumer Driven Healthcare

noreply@blogger.com (Martygrn) — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:35:00 +0000

I just finished reading what is probably the best book I have ever read on this subject. The book is “Who Killed Health Care?” by Regina Herzlinger. In the book, Ms. Herzlinger lays out a plan to provide for health care for everyone while at the same time, REDUCING government involvement in the system. She calls her plan “Consumer Driven Health Care”. It basically creates a system whereby the individual consumer drives the market. Not a good idea, you say? In most other areas of business, this is how things already work. She presents this argument against a government run, single payer system in which the government would say what medical treatment you could and couldn’t have. What if the government was equally involved in the auto industry? We would all be driving the exact same car because the government would mandate how the car was built, what color it was, what features it had, what options it had, etc. We would also all pay the same price because the government would mandate that as well. What do we actually have in the auto industry? We have manufacturers who make cars with the features we want, competitive on price, etc. Competition has brought us more choice than ever before and more affordability than ever before. Why can the same not work in health care? Well, it will require significant restructuring of the industry. I will leave it to the book, for now, to make the case for those changes. I will attempt in future posts to explain it the best I can, but can not do justice to what it took an entire book to lay out.

Illegal immigrants and healthcare

noreply@blogger.com (Martygrn) — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 21:34:00 +0000

I do not believe that illegal immigrants should have the same access to healthcare as US citizens. For further reading, check out this article.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin022103.asp

I agree that US citizens, or immigrants here legally, should receive preferred treatment on transplant lists. As stated in this article, this family paid a smuggler $5000 to get here for treatment. There does exist a route whereby they could have received treatment and been here legally. It is called a medical need visa, and they are granted quite regularly. There is very little ‘red-tape’ involved, the biggest obstacle being to have a physician here who agrees to take them on as a patient. This probably would have been even cheaper than the $5000 they paid the smuggler. Further, should you not have to be a legal citizen to file a malpractice lawsuit? You are here illegally, yet you are perfectly free to to walk into court and sue someone? This makes no sense whatsoever to me. And in case you are wondering, yes they did sue. Did they win? We will never know as the University settled the case out of court, with a confidentially clause. Neither the University or the family can tell the public what the settlement involved. I am sure it was in the millions, however. I am also sure that any hospital bills involved disappeared. I do not think this operation should ever have happened. Do I think hospitals should be required to establish legal status before treatment? No, this would be inhumane, but I do believe that any type of treatment that involves enough time to investigate this should be investigated. Also, this girl somehow was covered by Medicaid. How did this happen? I agree that Medicaid, and other types of government assistance should be restricted to those here legally. Am curious how others feel.

the 3% myth

noreply@blogger.com (Martygrn) — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 21:33:00 +0000

While it may be true that Medicare’s administrative costs may be only 3%, I am not sure I believe it. My guess would be it is more a matter of playing tricks with the accounting. Also, does this number factor in Medicaid as well? Does this factor in the fact that it is the states’ responsibility to administer Medicare/Medicaid or is this only the feds portion of the administrative costs?I work in healthcare as an RN in a pediatric ICU, so I do have working knowledge of the current system. Currently, the Medicare/Medicaid system is the absolute worst to deal with when it comes to insurance coverage. They have set reimbursement rates for alot of procedures in a hospital that are below what it actually costs the hospital to provide them. Every time these tests are performed for a Medicare/Medicaid patient, the hospital loses money. And there is no recourse to negotiate more fair rates. There are hospitals closing everyday because of this very reason. How would UHC rectify this issue? If the answer is to make all medical providers government employees, I would have serious reservations about staying in this field. Combined with reimbursement rates, getting ‘approval’ from the government programs makes Barnum and Bailey look like a serious opera. I will not go into further detail here unless asked to, then I’d be happy to lay it out. I have seen many patients permanently harmed and even die while awaiting Medicaid approval for a procedure.

Bottom line is this for me; while I fully agree that the current system is broken, mostly through the fault of insurance companies, and needs to be fixed, I am 100% convinced that single-payor, government run healthcare would be a mistake of monumentally historic proportions. It does not work anywhere else it is in place (if you want examples, I will provide them) and will not work here.

Name one federal government program truly outperforming the private sector?!? And I just might be convinced to rethink my position.

HR 676 and it’s problems

noreply@blogger.com (Martygrn) — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:31:00 +0000

This is my critique of the current HR 676-Conyers/Kucinich bill in the House creating UHC.

SEC. 101. ELIGIBILITY AND REGISTRATION.

I would like to see this changed to say: …All individuals LEGALLY residing in…

SEC. 102. BENEFITS AND PORTABILITY.

(a) In General- The health insurance benefits under this Act cover all medically necessary services, including at least the following:

(4) Emergency care.

(c) No Cost-Sharing- No deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, or other
cost-sharing shall be imposed with respect to covered benefits.

I would like to see a provision added that would provide for a substantial penalty, copay, fine (call it what you will), for visiting an emergency room in a non-emergency situation.

SEC. 103. QUALIFICATION OF PARTICIPATING PROVIDERS.

(a) Requirement To Be Public or Non-Profit-

(1) IN GENERAL- No institution may be a participating provider unless it is a public or not-for-profit institution.

Why? What is the fear from any clinic/hospital being a for profit?

SEC. 201. BUDGETING PROCESS.

(a) Establishment of Operating Budget and Capital Expenditures Budget-

(1) IN GENERAL- To carry out this Act there are established on an annual basis consistent with this title–

(C) reimbursement levels for providers consistent with subtitle B

No different than the current system of government price controls.

SEC. 201. BUDGETING PROCESS.

(c) Capital Expenditures Budget- The capital expenditures budget shall be used for funds needed for–

(1) the construction or renovation of health facilities; and

(2) for major equipment purchases.

SEC. 202. PAYMENT OF PROVIDERS AND HEALTH CARE CLINICIANS.

(b) Three Payment Options for Physicians and Certain Other Health Professionals-

(A) Fee for service payment under paragraph (2).

SEC. 202. PAYMENT OF PROVIDERS AND HEALTH CARE CLINICIANS.

(b) Three Payment Options for Physicians and Certain Other Health Professionals-

(2) FEE FOR SERVICE-

(B) CONSIDERATIONS- In establishing such schedule, the Director shall take into consideration regional differences in reimbursement, but strive for a uniform national standard.

SEC. 202. PAYMENT OF PROVIDERS AND HEALTH CARE CLINICIANS.

(b) Three Payment Options for Physicians and Certain Other Health Professionals-

(3) SALARIES WITHIN INSTITUTIONS RECEIVING GLOBAL BUDGETS-

SEC. 205. PAYMENT FOR PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS, MEDICAL SUPPLIES, AND MEDICALLY NECESSARY ASSISTIVE EQUIPMENT.

(b) Prescription Drug Formulary-

SEC. 211. OVERVIEW: FUNDING THE USNHI PROGRAM.

(c) Funding-

(1) IN GENERAL- There are appropriated to the USNHI Trust Fund amounts sufficient to carry out this Act from the following sources:

(B) Increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners.

(C) Instituting a modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income.

SEC. 211. OVERVIEW: FUNDING THE USNHI PROGRAM.

(c) Funding-

(3) ADDITIONAL ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS TO USNHI PROGRAM- Additional sums are authorized to be appropriated annually as needed to maintain maximum quality, efficiency, and access under the Program.

SEC. 303. REGIONAL AND STATE ADMINISTRATION; EMPLOYMENT OF DISPLACED CLERICAL WORKERS.

(c) Regional Office Duties-

(1) IN GENERAL- Regional offices of the Program shall be responsible for–

(A) coordinating funding to health care providers and physicians; and

SEC. 303. REGIONAL AND STATE ADMINISTRATION; EMPLOYMENT OF DISPLACED CLERICAL WORKERS.

(d) State Director’s Duties- Each State Director shall be responsible for the following duties:

(2) Health planning, including oversight of the placement of new hospitals, clinics, and other health care delivery facilities.

(3) Health planning, including oversight of the purchase and placement of new health equipment to ensure timely access to care and to avoid duplication.

SEC. 303. REGIONAL AND STATE ADMINISTRATION; EMPLOYMENT OF DISPLACED CLERICAL WORKERS.

(1) should have first priority in retraining and job placement in the new system; and

(2) shall be eligible to receive 2 years of unemployment benefits.

SEC. 305. NATIONAL BOARD OF UNIVERSAL QUALITY AND ACCESS.

(a) Establishment-

(2) QUALIFICATIONS- The appointed members of the Board shall include at least one of each of the following:

(A) Health care professionals.

Universal Healthcare Won’t Work

noreply@blogger.com (Martygrn) — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:18:00 +0000

I am an RN who works in a Pediatric ICU, so I see first hand the internal workings of our healthcare system. I work as what is known as a traveling nurse. I work in a location for 13 weeks and then move on to a new location, so I also have experience in more than one area of the country as well as different types of hospitals. I have worked at Duke University and also at the county hospital in Phoenix, AZ. Currently, I work at a hospital just outside Washington, DC. Throughout all these experiences, I have gained pretty strong opinions about what is wrong with the system and what it will take to fix it.

First, what I believe to be wrong with the system. In a nutshell: insurance companies, including government programs. Actually, the medicare/medicaid system is probably the biggest offender here. Every hospital I’ve ever worked at has had to have a number of people on staff whose full-time job it was to “deal with” insurance issues. I am not referring to the accounting and billing people, these are clinical people (nurses, social workers, etc), who spend their entire day talking to insurance companies about why a patient is still in the hospital, why they’re still in ICU, etc. We have insurance adjusters picking apart the patients medical condition and attempting to micro-manage their medical care. On a daily basis, the nurses and physicians involved in the patients care are asked to explain and justify why we’re doing what we’re doing. I understand the need for accountability, however, when physicians are spending a couple of hours everyday justifying their actions to an insurance adjuster, how are they compensated for this time? Further, how can a nurse provide appropriate care when they know that every action is going to be torn apart for billing purposes? People often wonder why a visit to the doctor costs hundreds of dollars yet they only see the doctor for 5-10 minutes. Because that 5-10 minute visit results in 1-2 hours of additional work for the doctor, the nurses and the office staff. Some of this time is due to legal paperwork having to do with licensing requirements in the sense of “we may need to defend a complaint over this visit to keep my license”. Even greater is making sure paperwork is in order enough to withstand being torn apart by an attorney in a malpractice suit, justified or not. I have experienced this same problem in my own family. When I made the decision to step down from a staff position as a nurse and begin to travel, it resulted in a change in employer, hence a change in insurance. My 3 year old son is on a couple of different medications for severe allergies. We were unable to keep him on his established medicines because the insurance would not pay for one until another, cheaper, alternative had been tried. Of course, we had already done this previously, but this documentation wasn’t good enough. He had to spend 3 months in agony ‘trying’ this other medication because the insurance would not pay for the one that we had already established worked for him. In speaking with the insurance company myself, I asked the adjuster I was speaking to (who had the power to approve the correct medication) what type of college degree she held. I was shocked to learn that she had no degree at all. I have since asked this question anytime I have had to deal with an insurance company professionally and found that commonly, the people at insurance companies deciding whether to approve or deny coverage either have no degree at all or have a degree in business or accounting. In my opinion, these people are making medical decisions with no medical training whatsoever. My question regarding insurance companies is this: Why should someone with no medical training or background at all decide what medical care someone should receive? We have people with no more than a high school education second guessing medical specialists in their care of their patients. Does this make any sense at all? I have witnessed this and can tell many more stories in great detail if you would be interested in listening.

I work in an ICU where split-second life or death decisions are made. i.e. the patient is dying and we must save them…do something in the next 15 seconds or they are dead. If you have ever watched an episode of ER when they are scrambling to save someone and doing many things very quickly, remember that all those actions must be documented to defend against an insurance company’s examination days later, calmly sitting at a desk somewhere with all the time in the world to sit and think. Worse yet, to defend against a lawsuit up to 10 years later being microscopically examined by attorneys with all the time in the world. I am sure you have seen episodes of different attorney shows where the attorneys are dissecting a physician’s action on the witness stand. Keep in mind the statute of limitations for malpractice suits is 10 years, longer if the patient is a child. They have until they turn 28 to file a suit. We as healthcare professionals always must keep in mind as we do our “charting” that we must write enough information so we can confidently defend our actions 10 or 20 years and hundreds to thousands of patients later. I make a point of remembering my patient’s names while I am caring for them, but I am just not good enough to remember them all by name forever. Even a few months later, I am sorry to say I remember them better by their medical course than by name. Therefore, in addition to changes in how insurance operates, the court system as relates to malpractice must be changed. You do realize that malpractice insurance costs more for physicians than a lot of people make in a year? For physicians that I work with, their malpractice insurance costs up to $100,000/year. This money must come out of their billing rates. Hence another reason why your 5-10 minute visit costs hundreds of dollars. People tend to think of doctors as rich. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, they make a good living, but they literally make life and death decisions on a daily basis. Remember, I work in a Pediatric ICU, so if your child were critically ill or injured, how much is it worth to you for the doctors and nurses who save your child’s life? Thinking about it from that perspective, how much should they make? And keep in mind, the doctors to make quite a bit more than us nurses. Add to this equation that most of the doctor’s decisions are made based upon information they receive from the nurses and we get into a whole other argument regarding nursing salaries.

I could ramble on more and more about the problems, but it does not fix anything. Solutions are needed and I have a few thoughts in that area as well. You may think I would be in favor of nationalized healthcare. Actually, I think nationalized healthcare would be even worse than what we already have. As I stated earlier, the government programs are the worst offenders when it comes to what I call insurance meddling in medical care. They say no the most often and have no avenue to make a more detailed argument to attempt to prove the necessity of a needed treatment. Talk to anyone, especially someone in the medical field, who has emigrated from Canada and they will tell you how poor the healthcare is in Canada. Sure, everyone is covered and all healthcare is essentially free, but what level of healthcare do they have. I have worked with many nurses from Canada who have stated without reservation that the medical care provided in Canada is vastly inferior to that of the care here. The principle of free enterprise and competition improving the quality of a product applies in healthcare as much as it does anywhere else.

I sincerely feel and believe with all my being that the insurance industry as it exists is the very foundation of the problems in the healthcare system. How to fix that? Somehow create a system whereby decisions on coverage are made based on sound medical grounds, not financial considerations. Perhaps a law requiring physicians in the appropriate specialty making decisions regarding coverage and authorizations without regard to costs. Insurance companies always complain about the high cost of healthcare, yet they are the primary reason for it. Perhaps a standard form whereby the physician can state “this is the patients condition, this is what we need to do”, and then get a yes or no without multiple requests for more information. This would result in the physician performing much more efficiently, thus enabling the billing rate to be more reasonable. There are other ways to address this as well.

In combination with this must be some kind of reform of the malpractice laws. There are much too many frivolous lawsuits being filed and making it all the way to trial. There has to be a way to hold attorneys accountable for clogging the system with cases that should not even see the light of day. I have encountered respected attorneys who have medical personnel on their staff who research cases for merit before deciding to even take a case. The burden in medical malpractice is “acceptable medical practice”. This perhaps needs a more specific definition. Also, not to put a value on a life, but is “uncle john”, who dies at 85 due to complications after surgery really worth $100 million? This seems outrageous to me. The constitution states “a jury of peers” in criminal cases. Should a doctor or nurse in a malpractice case not be afforded the same protection? Perhaps a jury composed of doctors or nurses who actually have the training and experience to judge the actions taken in the case?

I do not claim to have all the answers to this problem, but I do feel I am extremely qualified to pinpoint the causes of the problem. I would be happy to answer any questions and/or discuss further with anyone who is interested in discussing this issue with an open mind. Bottom line is this: show me a government run program in ANY AREA that works, and I may rethink my position somewhat.