Why Health Reform Will Be a Danger to Passive Patients

Even if Congress soon ends health insurance worries, your job as an informed patient will be key

By Bernadine Healy, M.D.

Posted: November 9, 2009

Dr. Bernadine Healy

Dr. Bernadine Healy

True health reform may well take a generation, as the nuts and bolts of a massive new system are sorted out and assembled. But it seems clear that a sea change is coming in the way Americans experience and pay for healthcare—one that will require us to develop a whole new set of muscles. The thousands of pages of legislation penned to overhaul the nation's healthcare system touch every nook and cranny of medicine, changing the relationship of doctors and patients, rewriting textbooks of medicine with more focus on staying well, and setting new rules for how treatments are—or are not—blessed. "The ball is moving, and once you get it going downhill, it can't be stopped," predicts Henry Aaron, a health economist at the Brookings Institution who is confident that the kind of transformation envisioned by the president will happen, even if not before year's end.

The soothing promise of healthcare reform is that all will be covered and that insurance can never be canceled and won't run out. That will come as a huge relief to Americans fearful of losing coverage along with a job or facing financial ruin because of a health catastrophe that overwhelms their insurance limits and their savings. But the promise is by no means a signal to relax. Getting the best care in a system steered by black-and-white medical guidelines ultimately set and enforced by faceless governmental bodies will not be easy, especially for the passive patient unwilling to engage or question the system. Consider the ways you'll be called upon to manage your healthcare in medicine's new era:

Learn to work with a team. Today, about 80 percent of healthcare is delivered by free-standing mom and pop shops. You see your primary-care doctor for a cold; an old ligament rupture has you looking for an orthopedist specializing in knees; a racing heart speeds you to a cardiologist who handles the organ's electrical systems. Three separate medical charts, none connected to the others. The knowledge explosion in medicine has led to superspecialization and fragmentation—if not chaos—that bedevil the system today, says James Mongan, a physician, president of Boston's Partners Health Care System, and coauthor of Chaos and Organization in Health Care. What must replace this chaotic approach, he argues, is a team-oriented organization that closely coordinates care. Some have called it a Mayo-ization of medicine, after the clinic where for almost a century doctors from every medical domain have worked together as a salaried staff, fully integrated with the hospital.

It's coming. A variety of models being tested as part of health reform draw from the Mayo design. In an "accountable health organization," a population of patients is cared for by an integrated system of hospitals, generalist and specialist doctors, and other health professionals, who track people's use of services and outcomes and are paid as a group based on performance. Similarly, a "medical home" model puts primary-care doctors, or perhaps nurse practitioners, in charge of patients, paying them a separate fee to be the overseer of your health and your chart and to help you access specialists in a coordinated way. In both of these models of "patient-centered" care, the individual becomes part of the team and is expected to take an active role in his or her own care. The first key responsibility: Find a doctor who is available to you and part of a network you trust and are happy with. The swine flu epidemic has given a lot of people a jolt about the need to have a doctor they can call their own—ahead of that fever of 103.

Keep tabs on your medical records. If things go as planned, everyone's medical record will soon be in highly accessible digital form and become part of a national data trove available to patients, caregivers, and researchers through the Internet. Actively involved patients will find every page good reading and each new entry a reason for thought. No doubt the privacy issues raised by electronically transmitted records are being taken seriously, but ask: Is it necessary to add details that you consider sensitive and highly personal, such as past mental-health or marital issues or a distant history of illegal drug use or gonorrhea? Consider the story of baseball player Alex Rodriguez, whose supposedly anonymous steroid screens from years back were leaked recently, putting him in a heap of trouble long after the fact. Last month, Fordham Law School professor Joel Reidenberg released a study of education records showing that sensitive information on schoolchildren, such as teen pregnancy or juvenile brushes with the law, is sitting in state electronic warehouses sometimes for decades, at risk of being breached despite federal privacy laws. Moreover, while you can't change details in an electronic medical file after the fact, it's important to find errors, since you can note a correction.

Health Reform - Two Missed Points

You make some worthwhile comments in your issue focused on "Health Reform", but there are two rather large elephants in the room which nobody is talking about.

1. We don't pay serious attention to the tens of thousands of toxic chemicals in our commonly used products - and in our bodies, per a recent CDC study and others. These

chemicals are connected to many common and serious health conditions, especially the expensive and growing chronic ones, such as asthma, autism, endocrine disruption, cancer.

2. Other countries get far better health results by using, as the World Health Organization (WHO) points out, multiple health care modalities (otherwise known as CAM - Complementary & Alternative Medicine). England, which spends ~$2,000 per capita vs. our $7,000 plus, has 5 homeopathic hospitals under its National Health. Germany's Commission E in the 1980s studied many traditional and herbal remedies and approved those found safe and effective for prescribing under their national health.

Why don't we address these two major potential actions for better - and cheaper - health in the U.S.? Simple - how many billions of dollars are being made by marketing the products that include unhealthy chems - and by restricting our health expenditures to pharmaceutical drugs and high-tech medical practices?

I predict that this will eventually change, only because the current course we're on is totally going over a cliff, with both its poor health results and its drive toward bankruptcy for all.

Liberty Goodwin of RI @ Dec 13, 2009 11:27:36 AM

allowing trends relative

fourth due frozen uncertain rss troposphere

farleigheh of DC @ Nov 23, 2009 02:54:55 AM

browser 1990 android

temperatures modeling albedo dimming cover gas dioxide

evalynwind of GA @ Nov 23, 2009 02:54:48 AM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

U.S. News Rankings & Research

Best Hospitals

See the best hospitals, and the best children's hospitals, in specialties from cancer to urology.

Best Health Plans

U.S. News and NCQA review over 700 health insurance plans in the Best Health Plan rankings.

Best Nursing Homes

The Best Nursing Homes rankings feature data on 15,000-plus homes. Search for one near you.

Diseases & Conditions

Get information on preventing, treating, and managing diseases and conditions. Centers:

advertisement

Sponsored Poll

What factor do you think is responsible for the majority of teen-driving crashes?

View Results

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!