Live data from Hacker News

The Dark Side of Doctoring

ericlevi.com

231–240 of 241 posts

Re: The Dark Side of Doctoring

#231
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you go into more detail about this? I'm currently a medical student in the US near the end of my training, and I'm weighing multiple specialties (including ED). From my personal experience in the ED, it's actually the best schedule I've worked. Yes, it's irregular, but you're always working a fixed amount of time per shift and a fixed amount of hours per week (seems to be around 40). You know when you're on, and…

I guess it depends on the person and your situation. Before we had kids, my wife's shift schedule wasn't too bad. I owned my own business and could take time off when she was free during weekdays. Now that we have kids, the shift schedule is tougher on her. Kids don't work on a shift schedule, and when they make demands of her time and I'm unable to help, she ends up sacrificing her sleep. That happens often enough t…

Thanks for the response. I'll definitely keep that in mind as I pick a specialty.

I'm only a med student right now, but I have spent a year rotating through all of the most common specialties. I have to say that the culture you describe isn't unique to the ED. I've seen it throughout the hospital. Taking time off isn't easy in any specialty. I've found this to be especially true in the niche subspecialties (especially surgical subspecialties). I work with a colorectal surgeon who is the only colorectal surgeon at her particular hospital. She's responsible for all of the patients she's ever treated and any emergencies that may need a colorectal surgeon. It's nearly impossible for her to ever take time off or even leave the city for more than a few days. An advantage that I see for ED physicians is that they're not directly tied to patients. Any ED physician can fill in for another when the need arises. I can't speak to whether that actually happens, but theoretically it's possible in the ED.

Re: The Dark Side of Doctoring

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In recent years residency slots have become the bottleneck.

The times are a' changin' Dr. Emory Brown's work out if U Mass in anesthesia is a data point for this. He claims to have a working general anesthesia machine. From the talks and data of his I have seen, it really does work. Yes, it's not good for a pediatric car accident victims, but for tonsillectomies or proctology exams, you know 'routine' general anesthesia, the thing works great. He says that he uses it in his o…

Not if you understand what makes up anaesthesia.

Control of consciousness is only one part of the intervention. Much of it is physical intervention with intravenous cannulation, intubation, extubation, ventilation management, and management of cardiovascular dynamics. Closed loop systems for sedation/unconsciousness may make inroads in the next 10 years but general anaesthesia will require physically capable robots.

Doing this everyday and knowing technology and robots the capabilities are a long way away.

Re: The Dark Side of Doctoring

#233

My wife is a medical resident and the issues described by this doctor are absolutely pervasive in residency. The strange part is, the overwork also seems to be pervasive among the attending physicians who have been out of residency for decades. Not just the residents. As a tech founder analyzing the system from the outside, I think this writer has nailed the core issue: "... a doctor is just one of the many commoditi…

It's well known within the medical field that being a doctor is really really tough. It takes a lot of smarts and grueling years in residency before you officially become a doctor. However it also pays incredibly well. Even moreso for specialities and surgeons, who can make over 200k a year even in low cost of living areas. Despite the difficulties of being a doctor it's harder to get into medical school than ever. T…

People have to get out of the mindset that all doctors get paid well. Please. This is so incredibly inaccurate and makes it hard for conditions to improve for doctors that do not do well.

The hourly rate for some doctors (mostly non-procedural) are much much lower than people realise and is only made up for my doing ridiculous hours. This is just not right.

This delusion that all doctors do well financially draws more poor students into the long training commitment only to find out at the end that with all the debt and sacrificed family hours and stress (having been through this) they are going nowhere financially.

Looking after patients can be a great and fulfilling career but this depends so much on the particular speciality you choose and the work life balance that it provides.

Next time you see your ED physician or family practitioner feel sorry for them. The shit and conditions they deal with and poor renumeration is something you simply don't understand.

Re: The Dark Side of Doctoring

#234
post #229
post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> emergency / end of life care Emergency care, yes, that's unpredictable, and that's the sort of thing that health insurance should cover. End of life care is not always unpredictable. In fact it rarely is in terms of the general need. Yes, you can't predict the exact point in time at which an 80-year-old person, say, will have an event that makes them require assisted living or a nursing home, but you can certainly…

People like to think competition results in variety, like the difference between Walmart and Nordstrom. The reality is the unified vocational training and the court system and malpractice insurance system and fluidity of employee transfers and government licensing standards mean the variety in care available is more like the difference between McDonalds and Burger King and this aspect is extremely carefully avoided i…

> the unified vocational training and the court system and malpractice insurance system and fluidity of employee transfers and government licensing standards mean the variety in care available is more like the difference between McDonalds and Burger King

In other words, regulations, mostly from the government, prevents competition from resulting in variety. I propose to fix it by less regulation--letting more of the benefits of competition be realized. You propose to fix that--how, exactly? With more regulation?

> Price competition simply will not happen in medical care

In the current regulatory regime, you are correct, it won't, because there is no incentive for it. But that's not because price competition is inherently impossible in health care? Or is it because the regulations are removing the incentives for it?

> I think you miss the difficulty of walking out in mid treatment.

I agree that it's hard to change providers in mid treatment when it's urgent, yes. But urgent care is not the only opportunity you have to evaluate providers. In a competitive environment, smart providers would view ordinary care like annual physicals or shots as opportunities to show potential patients their competence, and smart patients would take such opportunities to evaluate the competence of providers. Plus, families and friends can pool information--people do that now. The value of such information is limited now because there is not much choice in the marketplace, yes (hence your McDonalds vs. Burger King analogy). But, once more, why is there such limited choice? Because competition is inherently impossible in this domain? Or because it's regulated out of existence?

Re: The Dark Side of Doctoring

#235
post #225
post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No actually it does not. The government subsidizes food production and food for the poor HEAVILY. Also food is cheap and plentiful to create. And most importantly, food is easy to steal; the one important factor in a functioning free market libertarians tend to forget about is the natural control at the bottom, for the poor: if the poor need something in order to survive and can't afford it, they act as a check on gr…

> The government subsidizes food production Yes, and this is a bug, not a feature. Food would be cheaper if this were not done. The "subsidies" are to the food producers, to artifically keep prices up. The equivalent for health care would be subsidies to health care providers. > and food for the poor Yes, with food stamps. But nobody tells the poor what they have to spend the food stamps on, and nobody regulates groc…

Government subsidies are also responsible for a large part of the food production infrastructure -- not only is one of the biggest problems behind food transporting it from production to market, which is completely government subsidized (if food producers had to pay for the highways their trucks use/erode they would go out of business and not serve half the country) food not only is subsidized now, but HAS BEEN subsidized for every moment the industry has existed because it is a necessity. It is impossible to separate the food industry from government interference, they are permanently symbiotically joined. If food production can even now survive now without the government (it cannot in anything near its current form), this does not mean the progress we have today could have been made without it; it just means the government has done a good job of fostering and supporting the industry.

Food is heavily regulated, including the food bought by stamps. The government decides what can be purchased by the stamps, and every item of food sold in any store across the country is approved for safety and health. Without these regulations we would have massive constant food related deaths as producers compete on price and compromise safety to the detriment and possibly death of any customer who cannot afford the high quality "market regulated" product which is exactly what has happened in every unregulated industry in the history of the world. And for higher end products: the calculus of a PR cover up operation and possible civil suit vs. actually safely creating food is done by companies, and currently federal regulators weigh in on the side of 'you had better make this safe or else'. You are proposing pushing the balance here towards "well, if we can save a buck, screw it, we can tie the victims up in court until they go bankrupt and die anyway or blame it on the supply chain and promise we will do better" which makes safety much less important.

A health care spending card is perhaps a natural suggestion but is made all the more insidious because it is so. It is, in reality, an atrocious and murderous idea; the entire crux of health care is not only that it is essential to living and therefore has an infinite price and that quality is almost impossible for consumers to accurately assess but that needs for different people are drastically different, usually for reasons that have very little to do with their choices or desires, which is why it is generally taken care of by insurance while people do not buy "food insurance". Health care spending cards (or HSAs) are essentially a euphemism for condemning any poor person who gets sick to death.

And of course it makes a difference whether poor people can steal the food. Remember that unfettered free market capitalism is the system where a rich man's dog eats 5 course gourmet meals while his poor neighbor's child dies of hunger. Putting something necessary for survival behind an arbitrary chalked in line and saying "sorry, you don't get to have that because you weren't born rich and the neoliberal market economy has transitioned and has no room for your skillset, enjoy your one free death, maybe when you are reincarnated your father will be named Koch" is a very fast way to start riots and anarchy. The only reason the rich are rich is because the poor believe they are and act accordingly, we call this belief structure market society and government; shattering that necessary illusion will likely hurt everyone, but it most definitely hurts the rich. The point is that if food is available but inaccessible to the poor the free market and governmental structure in place will cease to exist -- the market and government have evolved in a very careful way to prevent this from happening.

Re: The Dark Side of Doctoring

#236
post #235
post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The government subsidizes food production Yes, and this is a bug, not a feature. Food would be cheaper if this were not done. The "subsidies" are to the food producers, to artifically keep prices up. The equivalent for health care would be subsidies to health care providers. > and food for the poor Yes, with food stamps. But nobody tells the poor what they have to spend the food stamps on, and nobody regulates groc…

Government subsidies are also responsible for a large part of the food production infrastructure -- not only is one of the biggest problems behind food transporting it from production to market, which is completely government subsidized (if food producers had to pay for the highways their trucks use/erode they would go out of business and not serve half the country) food not only is subsidized now, but HAS BEEN subsi…

> It is impossible to separate the food industry from government interference, they are permanently symbiotically joined.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this assertion of yours, and since we disagree on something so fundamental we're unlikely to be able to have a useful discussion.

> which is exactly what has happened in every unregulated industry in the history of the world.

This is an extremely strong claim which requires extremely strong evidence. Do you have any?

> the entire crux of health care is not only that it is essential to living and therefore has an infinite price

By this logic any action which carries any risk of reducing your life span and is not absolutely necessary should not be done. Do you live your life that way? Does anyone?

> unfettered free market capitalism is the system where a rich man's dog eats 5 course gourmet meals while his poor neighbor's child dies of hunger

This certainly happens in systems that are regulated by governments--such as ours. Where is your evidence that it happens, and is worse, in systems that are not regulated by governments?

> if food is available but inaccessible to the poor

In a free market, what would prevent the poor from producing their own food? In the US, historically, this is how most people got their food--they grew it or hunted it or fished for it themselves. Or they lived in small communities where everyone knew each other personally, so they knew the people producing their food. Our current system, in which almost all of us are dependent on a small number of food producers whom we don't know and cannot influence on our own, is, as you appear to agree, a product of massive government regulation--combined, as you conveniently forgot to state, with massive regulatory capture on the part of the corporations that own most of the food production capacity.

Yes, the government inspects food to see that it doesn't contain harmful microbes--but people knew how to do that before the government got into the act (if not, humans would have gone extinct long ago from food poisoning). The government also subsidizes the production of high fructose corn syrup and factory farmed meat and poultry. It subsidizes wheat and corn so that most of the US's acreage goes to those crops instead of a greater and healthier variety. (And then it subsidizes ethanol from corn so that we can burn food in our cars while poor people starve.) I could go on and on. Why does the government do all these things? Because it has the power to do it, and that power can be bought, and has been.

Of course this system, now that it exists and we are all caught in it, is by no means simple to escape from. But that does not mean it was inevitable, nor that it is good.

Re: The Dark Side of Doctoring

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's well known within the medical field that being a doctor is really really tough. It takes a lot of smarts and grueling years in residency before you officially become a doctor. However it also pays incredibly well. Even moreso for specialities and surgeons, who can make over 200k a year even in low cost of living areas. Despite the difficulties of being a doctor it's harder to get into medical school than ever. T…

I think the attitude you have is really common among doctors, too. I will say thought, that this is a really typical path in the US, at least: * 4 years undergraduate ($200K debt, high competition/workload) * 4 years medical school ($250K debt, high stress/workload, 50% odds of not being accepted) * ~3 years residency (pay only $50K/yr, famously high stress/workload, possibility of being separated from loved ones or…

Bingo. Also, there is a nontrivial chance of going to med school but not getting into a residency program. And, residency is typically 4 years, not 3. In the case of my partner, she did undergrad (4) + post-bacc (2) + med school (4) + residency (4) + optional fellowship (3). So call it 12-17 years of training. Then, and only then, do you make a "starting doctor salary". But now you have hundreds of thousands in debt, interest payments, malpractice insurance, and, in some specialties, still insane hours.

If you're a doctor who is "doing it for the money", you have simply not understood the concept of opportunity cost. :)

Re: The Dark Side of Doctoring

#238
I am not a doctor, though I have many friends that are either med student or residents and do hear about the harrowing workload and stress quite a bit. I just want to point out the sentiment expressed here should all sounds very familiar to anyone who has ever had a job.

The managing class (Company CEO, Hospital/University administrators) is ever in the pursuit of more profit, euphemized as "efficiency" or "optimization", at the expense on everything else. How can we squeeze the employees a little harder so we don't have to hire as many? How can we increase "productivity" so more patients can be seen(and pay up)? How can we eliminate waste (lower cost of care as much as possible so we can make more) to the patient? How can we make more money by tweaking our charging model (Insurance rewarding loyal customer by charging them more, Hospital Chargemaster etc)? Oops, I see people are complaining a lot. Let me pay some lip service about appreciating our employees and valuing our customer/patients. Heck I am feeling extra generous right now , let's put up some cheap program they can participate in. There, they should feel happy now.

This is all too familiar in the corporate world. Any employees with a half a brain will get the message loud and clear: employers do NOT care. Or maybe they do, just nowhere near money. See, their incentive is aligned quite nicely: cost cutting/profit increasing actions are how they justify their pay and the profit it generates is how they pay themselves. Everything else can be sacrificed.

Caring for a patient is a very intellectual, specialized and dare I say it creative task. Doctors are paid well above many other professions though one can argue it is not for the years they have to invest into training and the work hours. The point is, at the end of day they are glorified laborers, being told by their boss what to do, just like the rest of us. Prestige has shielded the medical profession for decades but now the grip of corporate America has finally caught up. And lo and behold, what scant voice and influence do we have!

We absolutely do need managers/administrators. We need them to make sure companies/hospitals are running smoothly, is well funded and serve the customer well. But the lack of voice and the power imbalance in employment is suffocating. We are partners not servants or slaves. And the all consuming focus on money has got to stop. Human welfare deserve to be at the top. not profit.

Re: The Dark Side of Doctoring

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the attitude you have is really common among doctors, too. I will say thought, that this is a really typical path in the US, at least: * 4 years undergraduate ($200K debt, high competition/workload) * 4 years medical school ($250K debt, high stress/workload, 50% odds of not being accepted) * ~3 years residency (pay only $50K/yr, famously high stress/workload, possibility of being separated from loved ones or…

Bingo. Also, there is a nontrivial chance of going to med school but not getting into a residency program. And, residency is typically 4 years, not 3. In the case of my partner, she did undergrad (4) + post-bacc (2) + med school (4) + residency (4) + optional fellowship (3). So call it 12-17 years of training. Then, and only then, do you make a "starting doctor salary". But now you have hundreds of thousands in debt,…

I tried to err on the side of understating things (I found higher figures for cost estimates as well knowing residencies/fellowships could go a lot longer... and that was ignoring continuting education/certification/training and costs of running a practice). I think that people see the dollar figures for some specialist and make two errors: extrapolate it to all doctors and ignore the huge investment/risk to get there.

Congratulations to your partner (and you)! I for one still think its a noble and altruistic calling.

Re: The Dark Side of Doctoring

#240
post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it depends on the person and your situation. Before we had kids, my wife's shift schedule wasn't too bad. I owned my own business and could take time off when she was free during weekdays. Now that we have kids, the shift schedule is tougher on her. Kids don't work on a shift schedule, and when they make demands of her time and I'm unable to help, she ends up sacrificing her sleep. That happens often enough t…

Thanks for the response. I'll definitely keep that in mind as I pick a specialty. I'm only a med student right now, but I have spent a year rotating through all of the most common specialties. I have to say that the culture you describe isn't unique to the ED. I've seen it throughout the hospital. Taking time off isn't easy in any specialty. I've found this to be especially true in the niche subspecialties (especiall…

From what little I know, I would guess any kind of surgical subspecialty experiences what ED physicians experience, times two.

I heard the story of a good neurosurgeon who, one day, made a serious mistake during a surgery and paralyzed his patient. It haunted him so much that he eventually took his own life, after he dealt with the malpractice lawsuit.

Post reply on HN