Protocols versus Individualized Care

By Marcy Zwelling-Aamot, MD FACEP

We have started to see the downside of government interference in the patient/doctor relationship.  No surprise, it is not what doctors have warned their patients about.

Recently United HealthCare announced a new way to pay for cancer treatment —  “The new fee is meant to encourage doctors to follow standard treatments rather than opting too often for individualized and unproven courses of therapy.”  (New York Times, 10/19/2010).

Like every relationship, the patient/doctor relationship is complex.  But in medicine it is further complicated by a financial relationship that removes the patient from any decision making process. Third-party payers, particularly the government, distorts any opportunity to offer direct accountability and responsibility for our work.

The government payer system is predicated on a pot of money that must be divided among all doctors.  It is further complicated by political pressures.  In the end, doctors who do procedures have always been paid much better than those of us who only have our brain and time to sell.  Most private insurers follow the government when it comes to doctor payment.

Oncologists have never been paid for their consultative services.  To keep their offices open, they have had work directly with pharmaceutical companies to save their patients’ lives, keeping large inventories of drugs in their office at huge expense.  With this as background, medicine and genomics has advanced to the point where we can create individualized treatment strategies in cancer management that saves our patients’ lives.

Protocol management has dominated oncology therapy.  Cancer therapy is so risky, protocols move slowly to prove themselves successful. But, our thinking about cancer management has changed with the evolution of genomics.  We have proven that some patients are not genetically able to metabolize certain therapies. Now individual patient management dominates the discussion and lives are being saved.  No sense in wasting time and money on treatment that brings only risk for a specific individual patient.  This is a huge advancement.

Now, insurers, in order to save money, are asking my colleagues to participate in nothing short of blackmail.  An oncologist may get paid a bonus to ONLY use the protocol management rather than individual treatment strategies when treating patients with cancer.  No one anticipated things would disintegrate so far so fast after the passage of “ObamaCare.”  Who could dream up such a nightmare?

No, there are no death panels.  And, technically, the government has not mandated that patients not see “their” doctor of choice.  Rather, they have subversively applied blackmail to the marketplace of life and death.

The difficulties that result from a patient/doctor relationship that is complicated with third-party payers are the root of many of the distortions that add cost and a “dys” use of our limited resources in the U.S. healthcare delivery system.  This subversive interference with complicated life and death decisions demonstrates the immediate need to repeal ObamaCare in order make the right reforms.

The first reforms need to be about solidifying what is best about the delivery of health care in any system and that is an uncompromising trust in our relationship with our patient.

5 Responses

  1. A terrible dilema ! While no overt coercion exists, the new system encourages ignorance in how to select the most capable provider by publishing directories of approved providers. Most patients are unable to negotiate the system intelligently. Misunderstandings are exploited by Media such as FOXNEWS when they state that death panels were set up by reimbursing doctors for discusssing plans for death and/or treatments. Physicians have always done this as part of our work. Now with the decrease in reimbursements well meaning bureaucrats at the behest of the AMA (another CPT code for their treasury) have created a CPT code whereby physicians can bill for this service. FOXNEWS, this is not a death panel.

  2. While Dr. Zwelling-Aamot has accurately described the utter futility of this group think mindset that third parties must be involved in care management, she stops short of saying there are “death panels”. I disagree.

    Anytime any third party unrelated to the patient subject is making a financial determination as to the worthiness of treatment, it can only be described as a type of death panel. We can cover it up, layer it with bureaucracy, standardize the protocol, and run the whole program with software, but it is still an uninterested and unconnected human being (through surrogate programs) making life and death decisions over another human being.

    If using the term “death panels” is the only way to get the attention of the public, then use the term. People need to follow the process of managed healthcare to its logical conclusion, and make it personal.

  3. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Objectivist Voice, Dean Clancy. Dean Clancy said: A foretaste of O'care rationing, compliments of insurance company bureaucrats. […]

  4. […] Scandlen, who has an excellent blog about health care reform, recently posted a piece titled “Protocols versus Individualized Care.” In that very informative post, Scandlen shows the deception regarding two central […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: