This domain is registered at NamePal
This domain is expired, you can renew it here.
This domain is registered at NamePal
This domain is expired, you can renew it here.
2015 Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
The Sponsored Listings displayed above are served automatically by a third party. Neither Parkingcrew nor the domain owner maintain any relationship with the advertisers. In case of trademark issues please contact the domain owner directly (contact information can be found in whois).
The future of functional neurosurgery is going to be really interesting.
This isn’t exactly next day stuff they’re discussing in this NPR story, but it is really fun to see it in the main stream media.
I have major concerns about deep brain stimulation as psychosurgery, not because it might not be effective, but because of the patient population and the systems in place to manage such long term. Few surgeons are going to manage the a patient with depression and the implanted device status post implantation. The devices being studied are largely already in use for other indications; most notably movement disorders such as Parkinson’s disease but the movement disorder neurologists managing such have spent years getting familiar with such. Building a large population of psychiatrists managing such is feasible, especially considering reimbursement associated with managing these, but such is going to take time. It is also going to be very circular, as all new technologies are, in that the more that are implanted the more psychiatrist will manage them but the more psychiatrists managing them the more that are likely to be implanted. As another possibility I’m not sure I’d want one physician managing the device and another the patient’s meds.
“My physicians will no longer be in this network of physicians, or the hospitals,” she says.
She wants to stick with the health care providers that she’s had for years, she says, including the surgeon who cared for her when she had breast cancer in 1998.
“I have full confidence in her,” she says. “And my primary care doctor has been my primary care doctor for 20 years.”
[Her] experience doesn’t surprise San Francisco-based insurance broker Susan Shargel, who’s trying to sort out all the new ways insurers are contracting with doctors. Some health plans will have fewer doctors and hospitals. Blue Shield, for example, says it will have half the doctors and three-quarters of the hospitals next year as it has this year in the individual market.
The health plan offered to Shore was a Blue Shield of California EPO — exclusive provider organization — plan. The company says it’s offering these lower-cost plans for the first time next year to buyers on the individual market. Other insurers are offering similar plans.
Patrick Johnston, president of the California Association of Health Plans, notes that the federal Affordable Care Act requires more benefits than most insurance plans have provided up until now. That includes free preventive care, a limit on annual out-of-pocket spending and a ban on lifetime caps for medical expenses. So, to keep health plans affordable for buyers on the individual market, one of the few cost variables to work with is doctor contracts.
Insurers are negotiating hard, according to Gerry Kominski, director of the Center for Health Policy Research at UCLA, saying to providers, for example: “We’re willing to pay you $50 a visit. If you’re not willing to do that, we know a doctors group across the street that will accept that.”
Rahm Emanuel’s brother, an oncologist and force behind the ACA, was making the television rounds when Chris Wallace took him to task over such.
His response to the question on whether the president promised the public that they could keep their doctors is embarrassing.
Chris Wallace: It’s a simple yes or no question. Did he say if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?
Zeke Emanuel: Yes. But look, if you want to pay more for an insurance company that covers your doctor, you can do that. This is a matter of choice. We know in all sorts of places you pay more for certain — for a wider range of choices or wider range of benefits.The issue isn’t the selective networks. People keep saying, Oh, the problem is you’re going to have a selective network–
It hasn’t been the best month for Dr. Emanuel who also shows some naiveté in this New York Times piece on the physician workforce.
I agree with with his logical actually. And reasonably this is a pseudomarket process going on and conservatives should perhaps champion it. It is insurance companies negotiating with physicians for the best rates.
But to me the most troubling thing is how disingenuous the public relations campaign the administration made on behalf of the Affordable Care Act was when it was being debated and passed. The health policy architects behind the plan, including Dr. Emanuel, knew you weren’t going to be able to keep your plan or your physician in more than a few cases and yet they let their bosses unabashedly sell the reform with such promises.
That’s a much bigger problem than any technical glitches with the online roll out.
It really should be unacceptable and there should be consequences for such. It shouldn’t just be ‘well this is the way it has to work, sorry we lied about it to make it happen’. The ends can’t justify the means.
Organized medicine continues to predict a large physician work force shortfall [PDF]. This will arguably be made worse by the expanded access (and presumably increased utilization that comes with such) granted by the Affordable Care Act.
But a recent New York Times op/ed is perhaps the visible challenge to the very public campaign organized medicine has led to make aware the public of the coming physician shortage. The piece is flat out titled, “No, There Won’t Be A Physician Shortage.”
While I am whole heartedly on board with questioning some of the reasoning models used to figure future physician demand, I’m not sure the authors of the New York Times piece don’t fully account for the real world workings fee for service medicine, in that their arguments seem to ignore the basic fact that physicians create their own demand in our current system.
That’s pretty blunt to say considering the authors are both physicians and notable health policy gurus. But here,
Minimally invasive procedures, like laparoscopic surgeries, can be done more quickly with faster recovery times and fewer physicians. An average patient stay in the hospital is about two days or less following a stent but about seven days following a coronary bypass operation. Research on radiation treatments for breast cancer suggests that 15 treatments can be just as effective as the traditional 30 treatments. Likewise, one larger dose of radiation can be as good at relieving pain from bone metastases as five to 10 separate, smaller treatments. There’s every reason to expect the pace of these timesaving medical innovations to continue.
That’s a naive way of describing technological and procedural innovations’ impact on American health care. The way it works is when you do lap choles faster you just do more surgery. And in such a case the system continues to support the same number, or perhaps more, surgeons.
And, in terms of the workforce, who cares how long a person is in the hospital? That has no influence really on how many physicians we need.
We may indeed not need as many physicians as organized medicine thinks we do. Personally I think we may have some sort of shortage but the real problem is the ratio of primary care to specialists. If however we truly aren’t in the middle of a worsening shortage I’m not sure ‘technology is going to make us more efficient’ is the argument to make considering the way we currently finance healthcare in the United States.
[T]he Resident Physician Shortage Act was introduced in the U.S. Senate, and the bipartisan Training Tomorrow’s Doctors Today Act was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives. The bills aim to help meet the nation’s increasing demand for new physicians by funding an additional 15,000 Medicare-supported graduate medical education (GME) positions over the next five years.
While broad bipartisan support the issue isn’t ‘urgent’ enough that these bills are likely to become law before this Congress is finished. Which is a sad state.
Nor are many states doing much to aid graduate medical education expansion.
We should be skeptical of the modeling of the coming physician shortage. But it makes no sense to increase medical school spots without making residency training available.
Sometimes as a matter of a tumor’s (or other lesion’s) location within the brain it is helpful to have a patient awake for part (or all) of the actual removal of such. It aids staying away from important normal parts of the brain.
Similarly, I’ve been doing/seeing a lot of deep brain stimulator surgery lately and having the patient’s awake can aid in making sure the lead is in the right spot, or at least not in the wrong spot.
The history and evolution of novel clinical research is interesting. The old ideal, “Don’t think; try is, perhaps rightly tempered by the new ideal of not just the informed and consented patient but protected patient. Such is interesting considering our move, otherwise, away from paternalism.
Not to argue that IRBs and government agencies have made clinical research too burdensome and are hampering progress.
It’s just that a focus and regulations beyond guaranteeing informed consent seems counter to the way the rest of medicine is moving.
I’m not sure many are arguing three glioblastoma multiforme patients of Drs. Muizelaar and Schrot were at UC-Davis were ill informed. But the treatments they undertook for those patients, without approval, have cost both men their jobs. Dr. Muizelaar was in fact chairman of Neurosurgery at UC Davis prior to this scandal bringing him down.
Two UC Davis neurosurgeons who intentionally infected three brain-cancer patients with bowel bacteria have resigned their posts after the university found they had “deliberately circumvented” internal policies, “defied directives” from top leaders and sidestepped federal regulations, according to newly released university documents.
The most contentious issue between the doctors and the university – and even within the university – was this: Were the surgeons performing research? Or were they providing “innovative care?”
Research on humans is tightly controlled in the United States and, according to federal regulations and university policy, must undergo a rigorous approval process to ensure that participants are protected from harm. Innovative treatment, more commonly known as compassionate care, gives a doctor more latitude in offering nonstandard care to a single patient where evidence of safety or success is limited.
Muizelaar and Schrot called their novel approach “probiotic intracranial therapy,” or the introduction of live bowel bacteria, Enterobacter aerogenes, directly into their patients’ brains or bone flaps. The doctors theorized that an infection might stimulate the patients’ immune systems and prolong their lives.
The first patient lived about 5 1/2 weeks. The second survived another year, an outcome that buoyed the doctors and seemed to bolster their theory, they said.
The institutional trouble began in March 2011, when a newly diagnosed third patient developed sepsis, became unresponsive and died two weeks after being deliberately infected. The university’s first internal investigation soon followed.
What they did was highly unethical and dangerous.
But I have trouble with this paternalism later in the article,
“I think sometimes surgeons and doctors can get caught up in the enthusiasm for what they really believe is going to work,” said Caplan, head of medical ethics at New York University’s Langone Medical Center. “That is exactly why we have FDA oversight and approval and the research ethics requirement we do.
“Every time somebody dies or is injured or we have to recall a product, what we find ourselves saying is, there is no short-cut to innovation,” he said. “Finding the truth is a long, slow, arduous process.”
Informed consent for novel treatments can be difficult. “Informed” consent for proven standard of care is difficult. But maybe the focus should be on that and not necessarily on impeding access to even highly dangerous and unproven treatments.