GlassHospital

Demystifying Medicine One Month at a Time

Category: medical skepticism (page 1 of 5)

Questioning a Health Care Sacred Cow

If you’ve worked in U.S. health care for any length of time, you’ve no doubt lived through a period of impending ‘inspection’ by the Joint Commission at your hospital or health care organization. Stress levels amongst all staff inevitably rise in the runup.

Everyone needs to look sharp, have their protocols down, and most importantly, where to find organizational policy information if it’s not available by quick memory retrieval.

One of the 800 lb. gorillas of the U.S. health care world, the JC (as it’s known) audits, inspects and accredits nearly twenty-one thousand U.S. health care enterprises.

I was always under the impression that the JC had a complete monopoly in its market–that is, if your health care organization wanted to be accredited (the vital ‘seal of approval’ for your organization’s public relations and safety standards, but also key for reimbursement through CMS) than you had to play ball with them.

In 2012, one of the hospitals at which I worked decided to go in a different direction, choosing instead to work with the accrediting agency DNV, which has its origins in the world of Norwegian shipping. For real. As in, ocean liners need a ton of regulation and safety standards so that they don’t run into each other and sink. We’re always comparing health care to airlines, right? Maybe it’s not such a big stretch after all.

Like most of my physician colleagues who’d lived through years of JC audits, we were a bit flabbergasted: “You mean the JC actually has competition?” As it turns out, the JC only controls a mere 80% of the market. Turns out it’s only a 785 lb. gorilla.

Even though this whole issue is a little bit “inside baseball,” I wrote an essay about it for NPR. My reasoning was that there’s always value in questioning monolithic conformity. And I had been really surprised to learn that there was actually competition to the JC.

Now comes a study in BMJ, led by Harvard researcher Ashish Jha. The study compared more than 4000 U.S. hospitals and the outcomes generated for 15 common medical conditions and six common surgical conditions between the years 2014-2017 in a Medicare population data set of more than four million patients.

What did the study find?

Interestingly, there was no statistical difference in 30-day mortality or readmission rates in the patients that were seen at JC-accredited hospitals vs. those at hospitals accredited by ‘other independent organizations.’ There was a slight but not statistically significant benefit in mortality and readmission rates for JC-accreditation vs. hospitals reviewed and accredited by state survey agencies.

The study raises the reasonable question: if there aren’t patient outcome differences in hospitals accredited by JC vs. those accredited by either state review (government) or other independent agencies (other privates), then should the JC enjoy such a massive industry dominance?

After all–many health care leaders cite the JC’s regulatory and inspection processes as burdensome, and argue that the whole preparation game and citation-fixing business is expensive and distracting from the core hospital mission: taking care of people.

Other JC critics cite the fact that the organization is less than optimally transparent, electing to keep its inspection reports private, despite the fact that many health care enterprises flagged for violations are able to stay accredited.

Congress has even begun an investigation into possible lax oversight.

Apparently Jha’s work has struck a chord, as there was some notable media coverage about the BMJ piece. For one, the Wall Street Journal ran a story about it, which it kept in front of its paywall, while noting that hospitals pay on average $18,000 for an inspection and annual fees of up to $37,000 to the Commission.

Cardiologist and prolific blogger John Mandrola also wrote an opinion piece titled “Joint Commission Accreditation: Mission Not Accomplished.” In his piece, Mandrola compares JC accreditation to medications or surgery that fail to live up to evidence-based standards and subsequently fall out of practice. He concludes, “If the JC’s brand of accreditation can’t show benefit, than it too needs to be de-adopted.”

Having learned that there’s an emerging marketplace of agencies equipped to inspect hospitals and health care enterprises it seems there’s an opportunity here: Perhaps the agency offering the greatest value in terms of cost, reporting, and public accountability will triumph against a behemoth that seems too complacent and entrenched in its ways.

Medical Marijuana: Not Up to the Standard

This year Oklahoma voters made a clear choice to legalize medical marijuana, joining thirty other states that permit cannabis for medicinal use.

Unsurprisingly, immediately in the vote’s aftermath, patients began asking me to ‘prescribe’ medical marijuana licenses, as the new law stipulates users must have as a precondition for legal purchase. The new law does not, however, specify qualifying diagnoses for which medical marijuana might be clinically indicated.

My answer thus far has been, “Not now. Likely never.”

This has not been a popular response. One patient looked at me as if I’d put a lump of coal in his Halloween bag.

I’m not a fan of medical marijuana for several reasons. The main issue is the lack of proven medical efficacy. I know there are thousands of anecdotes from people whose pain or anorexia has been diminished by marijuana–and I’m genuinely glad for them. But I’d like to see better powered controlled trials of cannabis products head-to-head with accepted therapeutic agents. Having the FDA weigh in on marijuana’s safety and efficacy would also go a long way toward legitimizing pot’s medicinal use.

Another major problem is smoking the stuff. If we had proven, standardized dosing of edibles, I’d be more supportive of medicinal use. But smoking anything–tobacco, marijuana, vapor juice–is not a healthy practice, and one I counsel patients to avoid. I hear the arguments about the purity of pot and how it’s ‘more natural’ than manufactured tobacco products. The bottom line is that inhaling burning plant matter into your lungs is a terrible idea–regardless of the herb.

If voters want to legalize marijuana for recreational use, I have no objection–provided we put in place a legal framework to make sure that people don’t get hurt. Standardized dosing and measures to assure product consistency would be integral. And we’d need adequate enforcement to make sure that people aren’t impaired when at work or in other situations in which their marijuana use could jeopardize others.

Putting doctors in the middle of what amounts to a political, legal, social, and economic debate steers the medical profession in a race to the bottom–and let’s face it–our profession has enough problems already without being the gatekeepers of grass.

Remember that marijuana is still scheduled by the Drug Enforcement Administration as a Class I narcotic, defined as having “no accepted medical use and high potential for abuse.” So even though medical weed is now legal in my state, I have no interest in violating or abetting violations of federal law.

In fact, as it turns out, since I work at a university, our legal counsel is of the opinion that no provider in our system shall recommend marijuana, since our institution has numerous federal grants and funding streams and must therefore comply with all federal rules and regulations.

Some have suggested that given our national opioid epidemic, marijuana can serve as a safer alternative for pain control. Since most cannabis is homegrown, and where legalized a tax revenue source–this does make medical marijuana a more appealing alternative to propping up the seemingly ubiquitous heroin/fentanyl drug cartels.

This argument makes pot part of a harm reduction strategy, which I’d be more supportive of if the evidence were stronger.

Right now I see the pot economy as a Wild West with hundreds of entrepreneurs and medical professionals looking to stake claims in this new quasi-legal economy.

Get back to me when we have more state/federal legal congruence and clarity on the stuff’s true medical benefits.

This essay originally appeared as a Doximity Op-(m)ed.

J.P. Berkazon

It was a big story: It held the news cycle for more than 24 hours, until something about some memo sucked up all our oxygen.

It was about business. And health care.

BIG businesses doing something to TRANSFORM health care.

The announcement caused the stock prices of other big companies in the ‘health care space’ to drop.

We’re still fuzzy on the WHAT.

As to the WHO: Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and JP Morgan Chase. The three behemoths plan to come together to form a non-profit entity to ‘disrupt’ health care.

The WHY: health care for their > 1 million combined employees (and all over the U.S.) costs too damn much.

The headlines were breathless, e.g. Forbes: “Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and JP Morgan Could Disrupt U.S. Health Care and Capitalism as we Know It.”

Capitalism as we know it.

It’s a great story. It has compelling figures. I, like many, want to believe that it’s possible to disrupt our piecemeal, overwrought, and insanely expensive health care non-system.

Many others have tried. And failed.

Here’s a contrarian view on the big announcement from a seasoned observer. Is his skepticism warranted or can Amazon and friends do for health care what they’ve done in retail and web services?

What do you think? Can J.P. Berkazon crack the U.S.  health care nut?

@GlassHospital

Medicine and Business: An Odd Mixture

Dr. Martin Samuels

Twitter is in the news frequently these days, because it’s a primary source of presidential communication. I like Twitter because I follow various health care practitioners and pundits and they often link to interesting articles.

I came across a link to an article (blog post, really) from Martin Samuels, Chair of Neurology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and a Professor at Harvard Medical School. The whole post is worth a read if you’re interested in the evolution of American medical education over the 20th and 21st centuries. [The post originally appeared on The Health Care Blog.]

What really stood out to me was a long paragraph of his culled from phrases he’d overheard in various meetings with hospital leaders and business types.

Certain overtones of, well……jargon to say the least.

[I’ve broken the looong paragraph up for you for ease of reading. – ed.]

I’m afraid that if we don’t drill down on our brand equity on the front end, we’ll have to model it out on the back end to align our seemless incentives or pad our ask regarding the co-branding deliverables on the horizon.  As an FYI, this empowerment is going to require an elbow to elbow champion getting under the covers for a 360 of the eRoom to facilitate a paradigm shift in order to achieve buy-in among the stakeholders if we’re going to tip our toe into that water and get the low hanging fruit before our clients incentivize the burning platform with new metrics.

After all, you are the process owner who needs to reach out in the proper bandwidth to push back on the KOL’s or we’ll have to sunset your blue ribbon committee for not trimming the fat on the real-time escalation project.  We need to do more due diligence before we hitch our wagon to that indexed outcome measure, and let’s be careful how we message it and roll it out to the core constituency. We can model that projected gap, but we don’t want to get out ahead of our audience before sensitizing them to the moving target.

Let’s not drop the meat in the dirt but rather vet a pause point, collapse it up to a high level statement and assess the current state in order to connect the dots to achieve the ideal state and have you weigh in at the portal for service oriented architecture.  After all, at the end of the day, we’ll have more skin in the game and be in a better space if you walk the stakeholders though it so that they can leverage their halo to birddog that from 10,000 feet.

If you could create a placeholder to move the needle in the continuous quality improvement initiative, some heavy lifting might give us a report card so that there can be the accountability for a decent ROI, unless the co-branding produces a choke point so severe that the balanced score card causes a culture change, one by each.  Just between you and I, you need to parking lot that issue, take the deep dive and put the rubber to the road with a degree of commonality that will re-engineer a sea change in our SWOT analysis so that we bake it into the budget of the high level implementation group.  We have to move the ball down the field and prevent leakage.  Net-net there is value added for a win-win, rather than a zero-sum game.

You can manage the matrixed organization on the frontline and in the back office. With central discipline and local control we can achieve savings and margin, while penetrating that segment of the market.  A lot of what we have to do to reduce our trend is blocking and tackling in different spaces. Bottom line on top, if I don’t report to myself, we could really take a haircut before we can trim the fat out of the box and shift the culture beyond this pilot demonstration program.  That having been said, the PEST analysis shows that if you step up to the plate and evangelize the brand, we can be about the business of creating a placeholder of new buckets with more vertical silos so that we can finally tell whether we are on foot or on horseback.

Comparing apples to apples, it is clear that this is not a plug and play culture, so that you’ll have to hold your nose and jump in order to filter the noise and incentivize the process owners in a more granular fashion before it becomes a major mission drag.  A bread crumb has been forming so let’s put some stakes in the ground to leverage our insights as enablers of change to circle back on a more granular view, and tee up our clinical levers to mine insights from the benchmarks and beat the waste out of this process.  We will cleanse our application platform and get ready for the first wave of ambulatory e-care care go-live across the family and take advantage of the elbow-to-elbow support of the super-users and be back to 100 percent productivity by the second week.

Having said that, we traffic-lighted that report so you can optimize the outcome metrics.  If we can get the whole group on board in this arena we can try to boil the ocean with a six sigma culture change.  We mean to hit this one out of the park and get some substantive returns in the coin of our realm to avoid any mission creep.  It’s a non-starter to analyze the dashboard for crosswalking noise, so we need to slice and dice our organic growth, peel the onion and hardwire the initiative with more boots on the ground. If this could be the pause point for a new value initiative, that’s where the metal meets the road.

Let’s reach out, using our optimized tool kit to go anything north of zero and put a hard stop on this turn-key operation. If you would like to get some trend lines and traction from this piece, I can ping you a copy of my deck.

Oy vey.

I Floated for NPR — To Achieve Some Inner Calm.

Older posts

© 2018 GlassHospital

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑