Live data from Hacker News

Doctors, Revolt

nytimes.com

141–150 of 178 posts

Re: Doctors, Revolt

#141
post #95
post #6

Health care and education are IMO the next two major car wrecks coming for America. Both are like patients with similar symptoms (indicative of the general disease of America.) - They treat the customers like replaceable widgets - Costs are spiraling out of control. ($2-3000/day hospital, $3.4 TRILLION in total health spending [this equals the entire federal budget]) - Doctors / teachers often don't seem to communica…

It’s not relearning but making sure you get the facts from a primary source. The ICU motto is ‘trust no bastard’ - if you rely on what is written down without asking the patient directly, can you be sure that it is correct? I have personally come across many instances where what has been recorded is inaccurate or misses important details that careful questioning elicits. I will always take my own history from a patie…

Can confirm that basic details frequently get misrecorded (here in Toronto). At a recent visit, the surgical staff received such a broken telephone version of my original reports and activity in the hospital, that when I overheard the surgeon discussing with the students prior to the procedure I literally burst out laughing (despite having an appendicitis waiting to be removed).

This is just how records like this work, frequently contextually or globally incorrect, I don't think it's really a matter of malpractice, at least not in relative terms; though I guess they could do better, like recording that staff had witnessed me collapse (!) two times (one in the waiting room, one in the halls) before they left me sitting in some random chair in a hallway for a couple hours, during which time I passed out a third time, scaring the bejesus out of the others waiting there, none of whom were patients.

Hospitals aren't really all that great at paying attention anywhere, as far as I can tell; the U.S. has the most discerning customers (and to some extent, some of the last remaining customers in the developed world). In the U.S. you might have some hope of complaining about service like I received, for example how the triage nurse spilled what looked like about 200ml of my blood all over my arm and the floor while drawing a sample at intake, or that when somebody finally called me to the the first room, she didn't even wait for me to get to the locked door (which I failed to do, because I collapsed half way there and needed to be wheeled in, mostly helped by random bystanders) before turning and walking back to sit down behind the desk (not at the desk), where I saw her playing on her phone.

Re: Doctors, Revolt

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's because the underlying approach needs an improvement. As an example, imagine that every doctor-patient communication is recorded with a camera. Now all you need to do to get facts from a primary source is to watch a video with another doctor talking to a patient. I'm not saying that this is the solution, but options do exist and they are worth exploration.

Say you're a gastroenterologist and in the video, your patient was interviewed by a pathologist. The pathologist would ask pathologist questions, but you need to know gastroenterologist answers. How do you get them from the video of a pathologist asking pathologist questions?

In this case gastroenterologist goes to a patient and asks questions he is interested in. The point is that a patient doesn't have to tell the same story over and over again. The problem is that gastroenterologist would now have to have its own video, which would probably be time-consuming for the third doc.

Re: Doctors, Revolt

#143
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And this certainly isn't the case in the NHS in the UK where doctors have no financial incentives interfering with their clinical decisions (barring saving the service money) This meme really needs to die. The NHS has massive financial incentives that impact clinical decisions. In fact, you literally go on to mention as such in your next sentence. It turns out that having an incentive to "save the system money" res…

This meme really needs to die. The NHS has massive financial incentives that impact clinical decisions. Not to mention that many if not most NHS-employed doctors run private practices on the side. Some only spend a day or two a week on their NHS duties. Others such as GPs are NHS-branded, but every GP practice is a private business that bills the NHS for time and materials.

In a discussion of NHS vs private practice, the fact that some (certainly not most) NHS-employed doctors also do private work, has no baring on the incentives placed upon them within their NHS employment.

I am certainly not saying the NHS system is perfect, and all private medicine is bad, so if that is the impression you got then perhaps I was unclear.

In almost every single clinical situations within an NHS hospital that I have seen or can think of, the clinicians treating you will not receive any extra money, bonus, promotion, etc. for the treatment they provide you or do not provide you.

I have lived in countries with more private systems, where there is a direct relationship between what treatment/investigations you receive and what money ends up in the doctors pocket. For example, a private doctor in HK referring for not-strictly-necessary-but-ultimatelhy-clinically-justifiable MRI scans at a private MRI clinic which, provides a percentage of the (expensive) scanning fee back to the referring clinician. Contrast that in the NHS, no one gets given money for sending a patient for an MRI scan, and in fact, if it isn't going to change the management of the patient, the request is likely to be refused to constrain resources. In the HK system, neither the doctor nor the MRI provider is incentivised to not do the scan, quite the opposite.

The NHS system is not perfect, but pointing out different the pros and cons of different incentivisation structures that do have an impact on patients is not something that is a "meme that needs to die"…

Re: Doctors, Revolt

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was charged $70k for a procedure that should have cost 5k max even with nurses and doctors and materials. I also was under the impression it was covered by my insurance because the front desk said she would call me if it wasn't. I was also given wrong information about what type of treatment I was going to get and when I requested to check with the doctor, I was given the option of "do you want the procedure or am ai…

Why should it have cost $5k max? Did you price out the labor/facilities/equipment to do it yourself?

No, I looked at how much the exact same procedure using the exact same equipment would cost by a doctor in another state who made the pricing relatively transparent.

Re: Doctors, Revolt

#145
post #67

Hospitals should post prices of their procedures in the lobby. A surgeon gets $500 to repair a hernia and the hospital pulls in $5k for the ancillary services. The surgeon has to see the patient,make the diagnosis, provide the treatment, provide the aftercare and be the 'face'. The hospital-insurance complex has managed to create this fantasy world with complicated rules and somehow have sequestered themselves from t…

> Hospitals should post prices of their procedures in the lobby. A surgeon gets $500 to repair a hernia and the hospital pulls in $5k for the ancillary services Cost for repairing hernia is not exactly the same for every patient though. Depends on the severity, general health of the patient and a million other things. Not sure if its even possible to put an upfront price. Even if they did, how do patients know before…

The same reasons would apply elsewhere, they're not USA-specific, so they don't explain why it's not possible to do the same thing that's successfully done elsewhere.

Sure, there's some inherent variance always - the same thing happens in many industries and doesn't prevent them from offering fixed quotes; the service provider is the one best qualified to estimate the expected variance in their costs and offer appropriate pricing.

Sure, there may be special requirements that justify charging extra for a particular case; that's not an obstacle from telling the customer about that beforehand. Well, not in ER, but most care is not ER.

Re: Doctors, Revolt

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it implies that hospitals somehow benefit from government involvement But they very clearly do. A huge proportion of their income comes from government sources (Medicare/Medicaid/VA), they are subsidized by tax exemption for health spending, and government grants them the power to deny competitive entrants into their markets via "certificates of need."

> But they very clearly do. A huge proportion of their income comes from government sources (Medicare/Medicaid/VA) Hospitals lose money on Medicare and Medicaid patients on the margin. They have to overcharge private insurers to make up the difference. It's so bad that Medicare has not one but multiple programs to compensate hospitals that don't see enough private patients to make up the difference, because otherwise…

Hospitals are obviously capable of accounting such that Medicare patients are money-losers on the margin, but they keep taking them for some reason.

> I don't know why you're even mentioning the VA; it's not relevant here at all.

Normal non-VA hospitals accept VA patients and are reimbursed for them.

Re: Doctors, Revolt

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But they very clearly do. A huge proportion of their income comes from government sources (Medicare/Medicaid/VA) Hospitals lose money on Medicare and Medicaid patients on the margin. They have to overcharge private insurers to make up the difference. It's so bad that Medicare has not one but multiple programs to compensate hospitals that don't see enough private patients to make up the difference, because otherwise…

Hospitals are obviously capable of accounting such that Medicare patients are money-losers on the margin, but they keep taking them for some reason. > I don't know why you're even mentioning the VA; it's not relevant here at all. Normal non-VA hospitals accept VA patients and are reimbursed for them.

> Hospitals are obviously capable of accounting such that Medicare patients are money-losers on the margin, but they keep taking them for some reason.

You seem to be under the impression that there's some deception going on here. There's not, and it's pretty plainly evident. Medicare's reimbursement rates are below COGS. Hospitals control neither of those two things (Medicare sets rates by fiat, and if hospitals could lower COGS by paying vendors less, they would).

As for why they keep taking them - they oftentimes have no choice, legally. Though, incidentally, in recent years, we've started to see hospitals find more creative ways to close their doors to Medicare patients for this exact reason.

> Normal non-VA hospitals accept VA patients and are reimbursed for them.

The number of VA patients hospitals see is negligible. The amount of revenue they receive, proportional to the number of patients they see, is even less.

Re: Doctors, Revolt

#149
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not relearning but making sure you get the facts from a primary source. The ICU motto is ‘trust no bastard’ - if you rely on what is written down without asking the patient directly, can you be sure that it is correct? I have personally come across many instances where what has been recorded is inaccurate or misses important details that careful questioning elicits. I will always take my own history from a patie…

Can confirm that basic details frequently get misrecorded (here in Toronto). At a recent visit, the surgical staff received such a broken telephone version of my original reports and activity in the hospital, that when I overheard the surgeon discussing with the students prior to the procedure I literally burst out laughing (despite having an appendicitis waiting to be removed). This is just how records like this wor…

I was at the hospital with a kidney infection last month. I get these regularly. I knew it was a kidney infection. I described my symptoms and the intake nurse agreed it sounded like a kidney infection. I told them my heart rate was faster than normal-- it's usually at 73, but it was now at 100. They took my vitals, which showed a fast heart rate (110) but I watched the nurse record a normal heart rate. Okay, whatever, maybe they think I'm anxious.

They take my urine, and three hours later they tell me my urine sample was "pristine". They were amazed at how clean it looked. Not even a single protein-- and as a female with a vagina that often discharges a proteinous substance, this was surprising! (And very good news! Doctor was astounded). The doctor concluded my kidney pain was "mechanical", that the muscle in that area had been bruised somehow I told her this was not the case, but she discharged me.

16 hours later (at home now) I'm running a fever of 104. My resting heart rate is an astounding 132 bpm. I'm scared of sepsis (infection of the blood) since I have experienced that before from kidney infections. I go to the hospital preparing for another 5 hour waiting time, but luckily they get me in an intake bed right away. I'm covering myself with a heavy blanket in my fever state-- something one shouldn't do, but nobody took it off me until I was about to be discharged. They come back with the results from another urine sample, and surprise, I have a kidney infection! I asked the doctor why my urine was "pristine" the day before and he said, "the lab tech probably didn't keep the dip stick in long enough" (which is why the test didn't register any protein in my urine whatsoever...) He acted like it was no big deal, like it happened all the time. They gave me 1/4 dose of morphine for the headache because I "look to be about 100 pounds" (I'm 5'10". That would put me at a BMI of 14.5-- ie. severely underweight, and cause for medical concern in and of itself! I'm 135 pounds, with a BMI of 19.4 Honestly, what the hell.) which doesn't help the pain at all, and I'm still wrapped in what amounts to a sweat lodge-- once again, nobody told me to take the blanket off. This is very common knowledge, but in my state of high fever and pain I did not think that it could be a bad idea. I would expect the doctors and nurses to be aware.

An hour later they suddenly tell me to get out of bed and they will move me to the waiting room with a chair and a goddamn television that I can already hear thumping through the walls, because this is an intake bed and "other patients need it". I'm sure they do, but I literally can't walk right now.

Long story short, the next time I get a kidney infection I'm staying home to die. The lack of care in that situation was astounding. To top it off, they treated me like a bad patient after I protested being moved to the waiting room.

edit: I also forgot to mention that they were going to give me pill antibiotics at discharge. I suggested they give me an IV instead, and set me up at an IV clinic. I'm not kidding, they said, "oh! That's actually a great idea". Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Re: Doctors, Revolt

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It needs to be inflation adjusted, and then you have to agree about which inflation measure (there are several, and the differences over 50 years are significant) But you could sidestep all of that by comparing to other countries, non of which ever had a significant number of “small hospitals run by 1 doctor”; their expenditure as a percentage is mostly consistent through the years and about half as high as the US, w…

Presumably the underlying data for the linked chart is already adjusted for inflation. And the index used doesn't matter all that much, it will be applied to both data series and various inflation measures aren't that different anyway. The higher administrative costs at US hospitals account for something like 3% or 4% of total US healthcare spending. A huge win if you take it all back and not any sort of solution to…

Different inflation measures can diverge up to 1%/year, so at 50 years, the choice matters a lot. Also, things like "core CPI" get redefined through the years (in a way that almost always makes them lower) and other "hedonistic" adjustments are not universally accepted.
Post reply on HN