Live data from Hacker News

A fourth of U.S. health visits now delivered by non-physicians

hms.harvard.edu

151–158 of 158 posts

Re: A fourth of U.S. health visits now delivered by non-physicians

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ive had chronic health issues for 3 years now without much relief, despite having been to the doctors office 20+ in that time. This is the problem with all of these systems that try to violate the laws of physics (aka: free market economics). They invariably results in substandard care, if you receive care at all. Keeping people alive isn't the same thing as actually solving problems with quality care. This is my b…

Should people who are not able to work not have any insurance options? Or do you think everyone should pay $1k a month? Should insurance companies be allowed to have $1 million maximums and kick off people during their cancer treatment? Let’s hear some prices from your wife’s botique? You are barking at the wrong tree. US healthcare system is shit because there is too many mouths of middleman to feed.

WE NEED TO ELEVATE ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE TO A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT.

That does NOT happen without being critical of what we have.

We need a system where 100% of US citizens are covered and have access to healthcare at a reasonable cost for most of us and at no cost for those who, through whatever circumstance, cannot pay.

What I find interesting about these discussions is that people react badly to comments from someone like me --judging by replies and downvotes-- without ever asking questions to understand perspective. You are one of the few, in my many years on HN, who actually seems interested in actually having a conversation. This doesn't just happen with healthcare, climate change is another topic where people react with uninformed irrational emotion.

Basic concept:

  If you want a better world, you have to hold politicians accountable and 
  you have to push for better results.  If you don't, well, here we are, 
  at the edge of world war three.
Healthcare in the US is a disaster. And this is the case because of a million and one reasons. Nobody can point at a single variable that causes the entire train wreck. Unwinding this on an HN post is impossible. I might be off by a factor of two or more in saying that a full analysis of how we got here might require a 1000 to 2000 page report. So, clearly, for those jumping on my throat for a super-simple example, no HN comment will ever do this mess justice. Chill.

Chill, and understand that we ALL want the same things. The difference is that some of us also want sensible solutions with accountability. In order to improve things, you have to be critical of what you have where that criticism is warranted. You are not going to ever lose weight if you never accept the fact that you are eating too much, eating the wrong things and not exercising enough. The concept is simple, and it applies to lots of things in life, including healthcare.

Obamacare/ACA is a mess on top of our prior mess.

On top of that, we had a President that just lied to the people he was supposed to be working for at almost every level. My family's health insurance cost TRIPLED, from somewhere around $7K per year to over $21K per year. If you include the increases in deductibles and other factors, it's more like $35K per year. When you have a President promising families that they are going to save $2,500 per year and, in reality, they are spending $28K more for less care. Well, this is wrong.

BTW, discussing how much my wife's practice charges their clients is irrelevant. Not going there. My wife and I think it is an absolute travesty that such things have to exist. She would much rather have an open practice. However, she is interested in being able to provide quality care. The effects of Obamacare on medical practices doctors have created a situation where they have to churn through 30, 40, 50 people per day --per doctor-- for things to make financial sense. THAT is the travesty. and that is the consequence of adding Obamacare on top of a system that already was shit to begin with.

How do you get to what I said in the very first sentence in this comment?

We know how. It is conceptually simple. However, it is very hard to execute due to the fact that people don't seem to want to use honest critical thinking:

  - You have to abandon ideological cargo-cult mentalities
  - You have to be willing to go where the data takes you
  - You have to accept that you might reach conclusions that are uncomfortable
  - You have to accept that there might be realities that are very difficult to reconcile
  - You have to leave politics behind you
  - You have to be willing to make honest fact-based assessments
  - You have to engage in solid root cause analysis, no matter where it leads
  - You have to understand that there's a vast ocean of cost structures that drive this
  - You have to understand that there's a vast ocean of regulatory issues that make this difficult
  - You have to develop a model that honestly includes thousands of variables driving the problem
  - You have to be willing to push reforms out to every problem branch identified
  - You have to be interested in the objective, rather than political alignment
  - You have to accept lots of things that might not be comfortable
  - You have to commit not punishing one group in favor of any other
  - You have to understand that the objective will require establishing limits where necessary
  - You have to be clinical about the analysis, not emotional or ideological
  - Etc.
The list is many times longer than these few points. This is not an easy problem. It is a million times harder when people are not willing to honestly identify what is wrong and go after relevant solutions. It is a million times harder still when people are willing to have politicians lie to us all and fuck things up deeper and wider because they want to protect their ideological alignment.

As examples, I'll give you two problem branches that need to be chased. These are just two of the, likely thousands, we should address with political neutrality and devoid of emotion. Because, frankly, some of these things boil down to just math, accounting.

Every business has a cost structure. Healthcare is not an exception to this simple truth. If you want healthcare cost to come down, you have to attack the cost structure. If you want to sell a burger for $5, the ingredients can't cost you $10.

NO. NO. NO. Insurance companies are NOT THE PROBLEM. They are the effect. The cause is the entire cost structure that drives what they have to do.

Simple example: If you live in a town where everyone is having car accidents at three times the rate of the next town, insurance companies are going to have to charge more. It's simple math. Healthcare is no different.

Where is the cost structure. As I said, two examples. I'll boost that up to three:

  1- Cost of education
  2- Cost of litigation
  3- Regulatory burden
1: The cost of education in this country is ridiculous. At the base of the many branches of the cost structure that drives healthcare costs at every level is the cost of education. Every medical practitioner, scientist and engineer working within the medical industry has, as their baseline, very large student loans to support.

Nobody can work for a salary that does not allow them to cover their own personal cost structure and beyond that, save money and have a life. Everyone needs to retire at some point. You can't work for exactly the money you owe every month. Your "personal enterprise" has to generate a profit.

2: Investigate the amount of money medical practitioners, clinics, hospitals and medical technology companies have to spend on insurance and protecting themselves from the insanity that our litigious society can be. These costs are far from trivial. And, yes, these costs make it into the business equation that drives the cost of healthcare.

3: While regulation and oversight is important, it is obvious that things have gone way too far. As a personal example, a couple of decades ago I became interested in developing a specialized hearing aid for people with a somewhat rare (1 in 100K population) condition called "Acoustic Neuroma". I was ready to invest a significant amount of money to develop this solution. I quickly discovered the FDA approval of this relatively simple in-ear device would cost a minimum of $10MM and as much as $25M (or more). I just dropped it. It made no sense.

Drug and medical product companies have to spend incredible amounts of money to deliver products into the healthcare system. These costs, once again, have to be passed on.

There's so much to unpack. Like I said, thousand of pages and analysis. This is impossible without being brutally honest about root-cause analysis.

By the time an insurance company becomes involved in calculating a premium, all of the above, and much, much, more, have populated the variables they have to use to get to that premium. They are often painted as the culprit. This is so wrong it is probably over three standard deviations away from the mean of the analysis of the healthcare cost structure.

Final example: Our food is shit. Our own food is making people sick. Americans are being poisoned by the very food our FDA (and whoever else) allows onto our shelves. How can healthcare costs possibly be lower when what you start with is a population who's default condition could be labeled as poisoned and unhealthy as fuck due to the food we consume.

No, insurance companies are the least of our problems. That's what Obamacare and every single other proposal from any politician on any side has always missed. They focus on insurance costs and ignore the massive iceberg of root causes underlying the problem.

If we want healthcare to be elevated to the level of a basic human right, we have to be honest about where we are and find real solutions.

Re: A fourth of U.S. health visits now delivered by non-physicians

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do you include your undergraduate degree as part of your medical training? Was the comment edited after you posted this? Because I don't see them saying this was part of their training at all. They wrote "12 years of school and training", and this is the school part.

You caught something I didn't. The first paragraph states "12 years of school and training". The second paragraph has the same phrase, but without "school". I was focused on the second paragraph without realizing it was likely referencing the first one.

Funny, I missed that phrase in the second paragraph instead. Yeah I think in that paragraph they just used the word training to encompass everything the job requires you to have done (after K-12).

Re: A fourth of U.S. health visits now delivered by non-physicians

#153
post #28

MD here. I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, obviously there's a bit of defensiveness since I went through 12 years of school and training to be an independent physician (4 years college, 4 years medical school, 4 years residency) and I've definitely seen subpar care from other "providers" (not a fan of the term) with less training. The wide variety of different "providers" is also confusing to patients who…

> On the other hand, a lot of what I do doesn't require 12 years of training What, besides surgery, really requires 12 years of training? I've found I have a greater success rate with self diagnosis and treatment than I have with seeing my physician, and I've found a very good internist. An hour spent with ChatGPT and Google and I always find a couple options that fit what I'm experiencing as well as detailed descrip…

In my experience, no one who has not dedicated a great deal of time to the study of their area of expertise is worth seeking out for help. If they haven’t been taking it seriously for long, I don’t take them seriously.

I wouldn’t consult a first year mechanic, a second year doctor, a third year pilot… regardless of how long it takes to be functional in an area, I’m entitled to expertise and the signifier for expertise is time.

Re: A fourth of U.S. health visits now delivered by non-physicians

#154
post #73
post #28

MD here. I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, obviously there's a bit of defensiveness since I went through 12 years of school and training to be an independent physician (4 years college, 4 years medical school, 4 years residency) and I've definitely seen subpar care from other "providers" (not a fan of the term) with less training. The wide variety of different "providers" is also confusing to patients who…

Isn’t this the natural outcome of the American medical associations license cap? A growing country will always need more medical professionals , if MDs cannot be accessed - then an alternative will emerge.

> Isn’t this the natural outcome of the American medical associations license cap?

It is an inevitable outcome of trying to manage healthcare as a for-profit business. That means the primary directive is to maximize profit, which you do by maximizing throughput and minimizing interaction and services.

Re: A fourth of U.S. health visits now delivered by non-physicians

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mine was more of a general comment on these types of systems rather than an explanation for what you are going through. I have no clue why they are treating you in the way you describe. It might be interesting if you could ask them why they haven't referred you. Even more interesting if they gave you an honest answer. Good luck.

my best guess is theyre trying not to "over-treat" me, the problem being its a different doctor every single time i go in, so if they all do that i never get anywhere if i have a real issue. also, at my office its tough to get followups with the same doctor. Note that its partly my own fault for backing down when they do deflect me though, but its hard to argue with a doctor when they say "lets just try this for now"…

> its hard to argue with a doctor when they say "lets just try this for now".

Yeah, I've run into "god complex" with doctors. It's a problem.

When my wife was in medical school she started to get sick and wasn't getting better. She went to probably half a dozen doctors. The outcomes were of the kind you describe "let's try this for now". In the meantime, she was getting sicker and sicker. Ultimately, she did her own research and was able to identify a potential diagnosis. She booked a visit with a specialist. As soon as she entered his office he said: You have a pituitary gland tumor, we have to operate immediately. This affliction presents very specific physical changes. She was in the hospital within a week. Six months later she was back to normal. The doctor said she was pretty much on a path straight to death and, had it not been for her self-diagnosis, that might have been the outcome within a year.

There are many problems in healthcare, cost and insurance are just two of them.

> Also, Fwiw i didnt downvote you, im not sure why you were downvoted.

I appreciate that. Right or wrong, for some reason I have always had this image of a petulant immature child downvoting on HN rather than engaging in conversation. Also right or wrong, I also attribute some of this to the serious failure of our system of education to graduate people who can actually think. They have elevated ignoring reality to a virtue and seem really proud of it. I avoid hiring these kinds of people like the plague, they have shit for brains.

Re: A fourth of U.S. health visits now delivered by non-physicians

#156
My OD (I have an anti-hippy bias, so I checked and the online sources claim MD and OD are really not different; not sure if my bias is actually correct, maybe MDs are better?) literally googles symptoms. Thanks, I could do that myself without paying $150 for the visit...

What I would really prefer is not a non-physician - it's the ability to get any medicine without prescription + without liability (if you take something that works as intended and harms you, no suing for damages), and the ability to easily get tests, specialist appointments and things like x-rays for cash (e.g. I had a complete change of treatment after having to insist on some test that they didn't think was needed... more than once, usually for injuries).

People should be able to direct their own care as long as they pay for it. Interestingly, the best physician I had (in terms of being correct and helpful, and no googling) was also the most open to that. When I asked about some drug once he was like, "I think the evidence you refer to is weak, and it won't do anything for you, but if you really want I can prescribe it"

My OD refused to order an online gut test (that for some idiotic reason has to go thru a PCP) cause "I don't know what this test is, you don't need it". I was kinda tempted to say "well maybe you should google it, as usual"

Re: A fourth of U.S. health visits now delivered by non-physicians

#157
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a point but need to drop the identity politics bullshit. Since when are women "underserved"? Men are far more likely to "tough it out" i.e. refuse to see a doctor when they have symptoms of illness, so by your logic they are the "underserved minority" in terms of gender. Claiming women are disadvantaged in literally everything ever is a groundless cliché. The racial angle may be less false (though not for th…

Dude here. If you talk to women about their experiences with doctors and -- and this is important! -- actually listen you'll find that they're very different than ours.

I have a hard time taking self reports seriously particularly because identity politics are in vogue and that means a lot of people are eager to portray themselves as oppressed characters. I've spent time in clinics, hospitals, and ICUs, and have experienced condescension, not being taken seriously, being kept in the dark about my own health, etc., likely because I'm not very assertive by nature (as a male of course). "Just believe women!" is another example of bullshit identity politics and I don't think it's proven to be a good attitude since it became a catchphrase with #MeToo. Sorry if this comes off as blunt/rude and of course I sympathize with anyone getting mistreated by physicians but I really don't believe that women are disadvantaged in health care today, however if you have evidence that women have worse health outcomes due to mistreatment then I'd like to see it. Otherwise I'd rather trust my own experience and the data that I'm familiar with (e.g. life expectancy).

Re: A fourth of U.S. health visits now delivered by non-physicians

#158
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a point but need to drop the identity politics bullshit. Since when are women "underserved"? Men are far more likely to "tough it out" i.e. refuse to see a doctor when they have symptoms of illness, so by your logic they are the "underserved minority" in terms of gender. Claiming women are disadvantaged in literally everything ever is a groundless cliché. The racial angle may be less false (though not for th…

"Underserved" here means that when they see a provider, they are less likely to be taken seriously; not that they are less likely to see a provider. For example, while men may be more likely to "tough it out" of their own accord, a black woman describing her symptoms is much less likely to be taken seriously.

Are they being taken less seriously when they have serious health issues, statistically? I'd like to see some data on outcomes, life expectancy is the best datapoint I've got and men are clearly disadvantaged there. If women are more likely to seek health care early then it makes sense that more of them don't actually need it, i.e. are "not taken seriously". Maybe there's "collateral damage" but I've also not been taken seriously as a male so I certainly can't agree that it's unique to women and I'll need more than anecdotes to believe that there's a gender discrepancy.
Post reply on HN