Health Business Blog

Health care business consultant and policy expert David E. Williams share his views

Maybe we should stop calling it “compliance”

As pay for performance plans for physicians become more popular, there is an increasing focus on the gap between what doctors “order” and what patients do. Patients following doctors’ orders are considered to be “compliant,” and those who don’t are “noncompliant.”

Terms like “orders” and “compliance” put too much burden on patients. (It reminds me of how utility monopolies use the term “ratepayers” rather than customers.)

A family physician cited in today’s Wall St. Journal has started to follow up with patients after their visits.

[She] learned to her dismay that many didn’t fill prescriptions or stopped taking medications because of side effects. She now puts all instructions for patients in writing, calls a few days after a visit to make sure they understood and checks with pharmacies to see if prescriptions have been filled.

She’s starting to address the real issues of poor physician/patient communication and follow up, although she’s doing it in a very labor intensive way rather than using a productivity tool such as RelayHealth.

Patients do need to take more responsibility for their own health and engage more effectively with their physicians, but let’s not call it compliance.

Medicare as corporate welfare

Automotive supplier Delphi Corporation has announced that it will no longer offer health care benefits to its salaried Medicare eligible retirees. Look for more companies to cancel retiree health benefits –especially drug benefits—as the Medicare drug benefit kicks in.

Computerized physician order entry systems can introduce new types of medication error

It’s well documented that computerized physician order entry systems (CPOE) reduce medication errors in the hospital. However, the March 9 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reports that…

…a widely used CPOE system facilitated 22 types of medication error risks. Examples include fragmented CPOE displays that prevent a coherent view of patients’ medications, pharmacy inventory displays mistaken for dosage guidelines, ignored antibiotic renewal notices placed on paper charts rather than in the CPOE system, separation of functions that facilitate double dosing and incompatible orders, and inflexible ordering formats generating wrong orders. Three quarters of the house staff reported observing each of these error risks, indicating that they occur weekly or more often.

Technology is a tool to improve safety, quality, and efficiency, but it’s not a panacea. Good system design and implementation is as critical and difficult in medicine as in any other sector. IT systems usually fail to deliver on their promise at first, and sometimes cause new problems. It takes a while to produce substantial improvements, so hospitals should get started now to gain experience and learn from their mistakes.

Patients’ views on pain and remaining human in the hospital

There are two good patient care articles in today’s New York Times. Insurrection on the Mighty Ship of Health Care, written from a doctor’s perspective, describes the ultimately futile attempt of a patient to maintain her humanity in the hospital.

Doctors are often caught in this uneasy halfway house between medical reality and the wishes of a patient, a patient who probably knows plenty, but insists on putting on a happy face, and it raises a basic question. Is it up to us to rub a patient’s face in her own frightening situation, to overwhelm the tricks and sleights of hand used to maintain sanity?

A Fight for Full Disclosure of the Possible Pain describes the author’s experience of undertreatment for pain after knee surgery, and laments the Drug Enforcement Agency’s policies, which are causing doctors to be fearful about prescribing adequate pain relief.

[A] mass uprising by doctors and patients in support of legitimate pain treatment is overdue.

I agree.

At-home genetic test kits

The Detroit News reports that companies are beginning to offer consumers genetic screening tests to indicate predisposition for various diseases including breast and lung cancer, blood clotting, and cystic fibrosis. The customer takes a swab from inside the cheek, mails it in, and views the test result on line. Tests cost a few hundred dollars.

I’m a proponent of consumer choice and access, but there are problems with these tests:

  • One reason the tests are being offered on a consumer pay model is that it doesn’t make sense financially for insurers to pay for population screening for most disorders
  • “Predisposition” is a loose term –the genetic mutations identified may account for only a small proportion of the risk. Many people with a genetic predisposition will never get the disease –but once they have the test result they will be forever worried
  • In many cases there’s not much a consumer can do to change the likelihood of disease onset