I was born in a rural village outside of Hue, Vietnam in 1976, a year after Saigon fell and the war ended. My family of four struggled to survive in the post-war shambles, and in 1981, my mother had no choice but to flee Vietnam by boat with my older sister and myself. Through the support of the refugee resettlement program, we began our lives in the United States in 1982, wearing all of our belongings on our backs and not knowing a word of English.
Though we struggled for years to make ends meet, we sustained ourselves through public benefit programs: food stamps, Medicaid, Section 8 Housing, and cash aid. These programs were lifelines that enabled me to focus on my education, and they allowed me to be the physician and public health expert that I am today. Looking back, I firmly believe that the more we invest in the lives and livelihoods of immigrants, the more we invest in the United States, its ideals, and its future.
So, when I first learned of the current administration’s plan to make it harder for immigrants with lower socioeconomic statuses to gain permanent U.S. residence, the so-called changes to the “Public Charge” rule, I felt outraged and baffled by its short-sightedness.
If this proposal comes into effect, government officials would be forced to consider whether an applicant has used, or is deemed likely to use, public benefit programs like Section 8 Housing, Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Program (SNAP), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Additionally, applicants with pre-existing health conditions could be rejected purely on these bases.
The implications of this rule are not hard to predict (and have already been observed throughout the country): noncitizen parents who are hoping to get green cards will not enroll their citizen children in government healthcare, which they have a legal right to obtain, out of fear that harnessing public benefits will prevent them from gaining legal permanent residence. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, President Trump’s proposal could lead to a decrease in Medicaid and CHIP enrollment by a minimum of 15% and as much as 35%. Any proposal that decreases the number of insured American citizens, as this measure surely would, would increasethe financial strain on taxpayers who will be forced to compensate for unpaid coverage. Furthermore, Forbes estimates that Trump’s proposal would decrease legal immigration to the United States by more than 200,000 people a year and therefore “would have a negative impact on the Social Security System”- a deficit that American taxpayers would have to help cover.
If the moral argument that every human being deserves the pursuit of a better life doesn’t work for you, then let the economic one suffice. A 2016 study by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine concluded “immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the United States” and “immigration is integral to the nation’s economic growth.”
Whether you are an immigrant or were born in the US, we all have a responsibility to vocalize dissent against the Department of Homeland Security’s morally and fiscally-flawed anti-immigrant proposal. Vote, attend town-hall meetings, write to your representatives, conduct personal research, engage in constructive dialogue, and comment below to get the conversation started. Remember, the Statue of Liberty reads: “give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses.” If we match xenophobia and ignorance with empathy and facts, we can ensure that America remains a beacon of hope for future immigrants, just as it was for me in 1982.
Have you ever heard the term ‘wallet biopsy?’
A wallet biopsy is what occurs in U.S. health care when you or a loved one show up with a medical complaint to seek treatment.
From the emergency department to the inpatient hospital, to the doctor’s office or the procedure suite—at any location where an American might receive health care, you’re subject to a wallet biopsy.
Health care is a business. An expensive one. And the beast has to be fed—not only to keep the lights on, but also to buy the latest equipment and pay the folks that provide the care.
In a recent piece for Kaiser Health News, journalist Phil Galewitz updates us on how the U.S. practice of wallet biopsy has morphed into wallet x-ray.
The idea is longstanding: grateful patients (with financial means) have always looked for ways to share their good fortune with the medical establishments (and professionals) that have treated them.
Galewitz’ piece suggests that the practice of seeking out potential donors has ramped up in intensity: large health care enterprises (often university-based or affiliated) are performing financial background checks on patients they deem to be potential donors—and then aggressively wooing them.
There’s nothing necessarily wrong with this—it just smells a bit fishy. And it implies that if you’re not a grateful patient, or in financial position to be one, that you may wind up getting a bit less…er, attention? Fewer amenities? Less TLC?
Happy New Year, GlassHospital readers.
The year’s end provides the opportunity to reflect on the year that was.
These few stories stuck out as some of the most impactful of the year–and what they portend for the future:
1. Gene editing: In November, at the International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong, Chinese biologist He Jiankui shocked the world with his announcement that he had manipulated at least two embryos to change a trait (or more??) in twin baby girls. The reaction was mostly critical, including calls for a moratorium on the use of CRISPR gene-editing in humans.
The upshot: stories like this will be with us for the foreseeable future. While the power of CRISPR to remedy harmful genetic conditions seems hopeful and fantastic, there’s a whole history of eugenics movements that should guide us to avoid the hubris of selecting for ‘desirable’ traits in humans.
2. #ThisisOurLane: Also in November, an NRA staffer (to this point unknown) tweeted a response to an article in the Annals of Internal Medicine recommending that doctors ask patients about gun use and safety as a health measure. The tweet infamously suggested, “someone should tell self-important anti-gun doctors to stay in their lane.” This was met with a firestorm of response from doctors across the spectrum, particularly those that care for gunshot victims (ER docs, surgeons, etc.) who tweeted under the hashtag #ThisIsOurLane.
The upshot: It’s hard to quantify the cumulative impact of the conflict, which is sure to go on, but the Justice Department did just ban bump stocks.
3. Bill of the Month: NPR, in conjunction with Kaiser Health News, started a monthly series examining outrageous and inexplicable health care bills. It’s been one of their (repeatedly) biggest stories of the year, as exemplified by the (insured!) Texas teacher who faced a $108,951 hospital bill after treatment for a heart attack (he was taken by ambulance to an out-of-network hospital–hardly the time, it seems, to price compare).
The good news: His bill was lowered to $332 after the glare of national media attention.
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.