GlassHospital

Demystifying Medicine One Month at a Time

Page 3 of 73

A Surprising Reason Some Still Don’t Like Obamacare

The Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) has slowly become more popular as Americans discover that the law has lowered the number of people without health insurance and provided baseline benefits to millions of us (preventive care, youth coverage under parents until age 26, doing away with pre-existing conditions, etc.), without causing massive social or health care disruption.

Critics of the ACA cite ideals like letting the marketplace sort things out, rather than relying on government intervention to do so. Of course, the individual mandate, the requirement to be insured, was scaled back by the late 2017 tax reform law–such that people on the individual insurance market will be able to opt out in 2018 and beyond if they choose without penalty (even though the US Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that the mandate is constitutional).

Recently, a reader sent me a fascinating article about why some evangelical Christians also dislike Obamacare. It’s known as crucicentrism.

Not all evangelicals hold this worldview. According to a source cited in the article, about one quarter of evangelicals espouse this viewpoint.

Still–what does it mean? From the aforementioned article:

To secure a permanent place at God’s side is far more important than any short-lived torment to the body. From this perspective, then, the greatest kindness one can show others is to help them reach the salvation of the Cross.

Such a crucicentrist view on compassion explains puzzling statements by white evangelicals like Mark Green, a Tennessee state senator. “Sickness,” Green told a church group, “is one of the main avenues that bring people to religion.” In the Gospels, he said, “every person who came to Christ came to Christ with a physical need. It was either hunger or a disease.” When the government created the ACA it did a “great injustice” because, Green explained, by helping people regain their health, it had limited “the Christian church’s role” and robbed sick individuals of the opportunity “to come to a saving knowledge of who God is.” People who fell ill would now look “to the government” instead of to God.

In this worldview, suffering is seen as a pathway to faith, which will lead to salvation. And, I presume, better health.

Maybe this shouldn’t be surprising. After all, institutions have always needed members, missions, and money to maintain their existence over millennia.

But I do find this inclination shockingly uncharitable.

What do you think?

Social Hospitals?

Evolution of hospitals is a theme we’ve visited before.  A couple of years ago, these words appeared in GlassHospital:

I once had a teacher tell me, “No one should ever need to be in a hospital. Except for some cardiac conditions that require immediate care, the only people winding up in hospitals are frail elders, and those with social problems and no place to go — the mentally ill, the destitute, the homeless.” I remember feeling a bit shocked by this, but as I reflected on it, I realized he had a point. I should start with the assumption, he told me, “that almost no one really needs to be there and they’re better off at home.”

Hospitals have their origins as almshouses, places where the poor could go to seek care and sustenance. Over time, they co-evolved to become places of teaching, and in the early 20th century university-based medical schools partnered with charity hospitals in particular to train future generations of doctors.

Now a recent NY Times  op-ed  asks, “Are Hospitals Becoming Obsolete?”

Medicine has advanced so that many illnesses and procedures that used to require days in the hospital now can be treated in an office setting. It seems the more we study it, the more we realize that people do better when they convalesce in their home environments.

Another recent article discussed an additional factor contributing to the demise of hospitals: hospital at home. WHY NOT have medical care in your home, including IV therapy and even advanced procedures like dialysis if they’re available and they work?

One other line of reasoning asks about HOW we apportion hospital beds, suggesting that maybe we’ve de-commissioned too many psychiatric beds for treating people with severe mental illness. Given the horrible shooting sprees in the news recently, several commentators are asking if it’s time to re-invest in mental hospitals.

One idea here: if hospitals continue to consolidate and atrophy, perhaps we should re-purpose them to more ably handle social issues that continually confront us: nutrition, jobs, education, housing, etc., etc.–by offering services and information for people with those needs.

The question is how we structure and finance that transition.

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

Minister of Loneliness

U.K. Minister of Loneliness Tracey Crouch

The United Kingdom has appointed a Minister of Loneliness, according to several news reports this month.

In announcing the appointment, British Prime Minister Theresa May said

I want to confront this challenge for our society and for all of us to take action to address the loneliness endured by the elderly, by carers, by those who have lost loved ones — people who have no one to talk to or share their thoughts and experiences with,

As more people live longer than ever, loneliness is compounded by physical infirmities that make social interactions difficult.

As a doctor, I consider loneliness a genuine risk to good health, even if the title of said minister reminded me of Monty Python’s famed “Ministry of Silly Walks.” (Apparently, I was not alone in this thought.)


@GlassHospital

“The Future, Mr. Gittes. The Future!”*

The announcement of the proposed takeover of Aetna (a health insurer) by CVS (a drugstore chain calling itself a “pharmacy innovation company”) has become a big news story. What does it mean for U.S. health care? More importantly, how will it impact us as individual patients (what some like to call “customers”)?

I don’t know.

I’m not sure anyone has clarity on this yet. We’ll have to wait and see if the deal goes through, and then how the behemoth merged company brings efficiency or monopolistic pricing to the market.

Or both.

But if you want some other visions of the health care future, think about a hospital without patients as is detailed in this article from Politico.

Mercy Virtual, which opened in 2015, calls itself “the world’s first and only facility of its kind.” The 125,000 sq. foot building houses health professionals who remotely monitor and consult for dozens of hospitals and ICUs. It’s all done telephonically, er, remotely, errr, virtually.

[Another article in that same Politico issue makes the case against hospital beds, on the basis of bed rest being counterproductive for nearly every medical condition we treat. I used to get frustrated watching people ‘decondition’ while laying around in bed. It’s a serious problem, especially in the elderly.]

Which leads directly to another future question: is the age of the virtualist upon us? Yes, as predicted in a recent JAMA column by Dr. Michael Nochomovitz, who makes the case for a medical specialty devoted to care of patients through technology.

It may be the way of the future, but it sure makes performing physical exams harder.

These times. They are a changin’.


*Chinatown. Noah Cross (played by John Huston) to private investigator J.J. Gittes (Jack Nicholson). 

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2019 GlassHospital

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑