Hospitals, Aviation and Business

Boeing’s recent troubles remind us that in many ways, healthcare is like aviation:

1. They are both highly technical endeavors, guided by highly educated and trained personnel such as physicians and pilots.
2. Even small mistakes can be devastating.
3. Operating margins (operating income/revenue) are very low.
4. Both are led by businessmen not trained in the industry.
5. Some have put profit ahead of safety.

The cockpit of the typical airliner or the multitude of instruments in the typical intensive care unit demonstrates that aviation and medicine are both highly technical. Airline pilots have a minimum of 1,500 hours of flight time. This includes time spent obtaining a private pilot’s license, commercial license, instrument rating, multiengine rating, and airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate. Pilots often have additional in type ratings for turboprop or jet engines. Many have spent time as flight instructors and normally have at least 5 years of experience. A pilot must be over the age of 23 and be able to pass a 1st class medical exam. The military also trains pilots and brings them along faster, usually requiring some time commitment for the training they receive. In addition, they have recurring requirements to train in simulators to practice emergency procedures or when they begin flying new aircraft.

Physicians have four years of medical school after college. After medical school they become residents, a term from the past when the young physician resided in the hospitals. Residency lasts 3-5 years and is often followed by additional training called fellowship. For example, the typical cardiologist spends 3 years in an internal medicine resident, then an additional 3 years as a cardiology fellow. After fellowship, additional training may occur. For example, in cardiology this could be in interventional cardiology, nuclear cardiology, electrophysiology, etc. which are 1-2 years in length. In many cases additional time is spent doing research to become competitive for grants. Many have PhD’s and some have administrative or business degrees such as master of public health (MPH) or business (MBA). Like pilots, recertification is required. Nurses and physician’s assistants are also highly educated. Some have PhD’s and many have master’s degrees. Like physicians, administrative or business degrees are becoming increasingly common. 

Small mistakes can be devastating. Overshooting or undershooting a runway leading to a crash can kill not only the pilot but passengers on board. Poor handling of an emergency such as an engine failure, a door plug dislodging in flight or poor programming of the complex flight computers, such as occurred with the Boeing 737 Max, can be lethal. Similarly, mistakes in care for a sick patient can be deadly. The popular literature is rife with reports of physicians or nurses overlooking a laboratory or x-ray abnormality, giving the wrong medication, falls, or the wrong surgery on the wrong patient.

Although the high education and need for care are well appreciated, what is not so well known is that profit margins are narrow for both aviation and medicine.  Airlines are expected to have a 2.7% net profit margin in 2024 which is a slight improvement from the 2.6% in 2023 (1). Boeing’s net profit margin as of September 30, 2023 was -2.86%. (2). Hospitals began 2023 with a median operating margin of -0.9% and currently have a margin of -10.6% to 11.1% (3). For the three months ending Sept 30, the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN) had a relatively healthy 6.7% profit margin. In contrast, Banner Health was only 1.5%. Hospitals and health systems are estimated to finally break even after several years of losses secondary to the COVID-19 pandemic and higher than expected contract labor costs. The recent median margin data show that essentially half of hospitals and health systems are still operating at a financial loss, with many more just barely covering their costs (3). This means little to no discretionary money. Hospital executives who receive high compensation packages can consume much of this discretionary money. Many would argue that it could be better spent on patient care. 

Both aviation and hospitals are usually led by businessmen. This was not always so. Early airlines and hospitals were usually led by pilots and doctors. Only in the past 50 years have businessmen become involved. The rationale has nearly always been financial. Early aviators cared a great deal about demonstrating that aviation was safe. For example, Boeing Aircraft, founded in 1916 by William Boeing, was considered first and foremost an engineering firm where production of reliable aircraft was most important (4). The emphasis on quality and safety spawned the quote, “If it isn’t Boeing, we aren’t going”. In 1997 Boeing merged with its longtime rival McDonnell Douglas. The new CEO of the merged companies from McDonnell Douglas, Harry Stonecipher, brought a different attitude to the merged companies.

Figure 1. Harry Stonecipher. CEO of Boeing 2001-2, 2003-5.

Stonecipher said, “When people say I changed the culture of Boeing, that was the intent, so that it’s run like a business rather than a great engineering firm. It is a great engineering firm but people invest in a company because they want to make money” (5).  The company became fixated on stock market value and lost sight of the core value of manufacturing reliable, safe airplanes. Boeing is now reaping the decline in quality that was sown by Stonecipher years ago. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) which is supposed to  oversee airplane manufactures has also apparently become slack, allowing Boeing to have major declines in quality (6).

In hospitals we have seen a similar progression. Doctors or nurses were replaced as hospital heads in the later part of the twentieth century by businessmen who often did not understand, and in some instances did not care to understand, the core value of quality patient care. Recently, private equity firms have been acquiring hospitals or portions of hospitals such as emergency rooms or radiology practices. Data on the quality of care has been scant but there have been a multitude of complaints from doctors and nurses. Now, a recent systematic review that included 55 studies from 8 countries concluded that not only has private equity ownership increased over time across many health care sectors, but it has also been linked with higher costs to patients or payers (7). Although results for the 27 studies that looked at health care quality were mixed, the researchers found evidence that private equity ownership was tied to worse quality in 21 (7). This suggests a poorer quality of care. The lack of oversight by a variety of healthcare organizations such as the Joint Commission, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), state departments of health, etc. may be following the FAA example in becoming lax at their jobs.

Hospitals and aviation companies do have one major difference. Hospitals are generally not-for-profit entities that should operate for the public good. Profit is secondary which does not mean that losses can be long tolerated. Aviation companies are for-profit entities where revenue is primary. However, as demonstrated by Boeing, quality is still very important. As more hospitals are acquired by private equity companies, many remain concerned that quality will suffer for the sake of profit. Perhaps in 20 years we will be shaking our heads and lamenting about the decline in the quality of US healthcare the way many are viewing Boeing today.

Richard A. Robbins MD

Editor, SWJPCCS

References

1. https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2023-releases/2023-12-06-01/#:~:text=Airline%20industry%20net%20profits%20are,2.6%25%20net%20profit%20margin)
2. Boeing Profit Margin 2010-2023. Macrotrends. Available at: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/BA/boeing/profit-margins#:~:text=Current%20and%20historical%20gross%20margin,%2C%202023%20is%20%2D2.86%25 (accessed 2/9/24).
3. Condon A, Ashley M. From -10.6% to 11.1%: 34 systems ranked by operating margins. Becker’s Hospital Review. December 29, 2023. Available at: https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/from-10-6-to-11-1-34-systems-ranked-by-operating-margins.html (accessed 2/9/24).
4. Boeing. Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing (accessed 2/9/24).
5. Surowiecki J. What’s Gone Wrong at Boeing. The Atlantic. January 15, 2024. Available at:  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/01/boeing-737-max-corporate-culture/677120/ (accessed 2/9/24).
6. Rose J. The FAA is tightening oversight of Boeing and will audit production of the 737 Max 9. January 12, 2024. NPR. Available at: https://www.npr.org/2024/01/12/1224444590/boeing-faa-737-max-9-alaska-airlines-door-plug (accessed 2/9/24).
7. Harris E. Private Equity Ownership in Health Care Linked to Higher Costs, Worse Quality. JAMA. 2023 Aug 22;330(8):685-686. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Cite as: Robbins RA. Hospitals, Aviation and Business. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care Sleep. 2024;28:20-23. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpccs009-24 PDF

Trump’s COVID-19 Case Exposes Inequalities in the Healthcare System

Early Friday morning (October 2, 2020) President Trump announced through Twitter that he had tested positive for COVID-19 (aka SARS-CoV-2). Later Friday afternoon he was whisked away by helicopter for a 10-minute ride to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC, formerly Bethesda Naval Medical Center) which is across the street from the National Institutes of Health campus in Bethesda. There he received REGN-COV2, a combination of two monoclonal antibodies (REGN10933 and REGN10987) directed against the spike protein of the COVID-19 virus. In addition, he received a dose of remdesivir (an antiviral drug) as well as zinc, vitamin D, famotidine (Pepcid®), melatonin and aspirin. As of Saturday morning, Trump has done well by all accounts.

All the therapies administered to Trump are unproven but have some evidence supporting their use against COVID-19. The Trump administration issued an emergency use authorization for remdesivir earlier this year after the drug showed moderate effectiveness in improving outcomes for patients who were hospitalized with the coronavirus (1). REGN-COV2 is now in Phase 3 clinical trials, is still experimental and has not received emergency use approval from the FDA. However, it had sufficient evidence for President Trump to receive the drug in response to a compassionate use request to the manufacturer (2). There is also some evidence that the other ancillary therapies might be useful therapies against COVID-19 (3-7).

What these therapies have in common is that the available scientific evidence of their efficacy was funded, at least in part, by the US government, most prominently the FDA’s Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program (CTAP) (8). The US government has spent several billion dollars on COVID-19 therapies including $450 million on REGN-COV2 and at least $75 million for remdesivir (9,10). The success of the program is remarkable in light of the disbanding of the National Security Council pandemic unit which had predicted the disaster we are now enduring (11). The ingenuity of the scientific community is truly amazing when motivated by billions of dollars. Those Americans who actually pay taxes should be proud of their government officials for making such successful investments on their behalf.

President Trump’s care is in contrast to my own or the general public. I recently became ill with increasing shortness of breath, orthopnea and a nonproductive cough but no fever. Because I have a history of diastolic dysfunction, I had assumed this was heart failure. As a physician who has many friends in the medical community, I am privileged to be able to call my cardiologist who saw me later that day. The general public might well have had to accept his next available appointment which was over 3 months or go to an emergency room. After 2 days, and 5 trips to a free-standing radiology center and 2 trips to a laboratory testing site, it became clear that I had left lower pneumonia by chest-x-ray and a normal brain naturetic peptide. Later that day I went to a free-standing clinic and had a rapid COVID-19 test which was negative. Because my presentation was atypical for bacterial pneumonia, I called my pulmonary physician who also saw me later that day. He ordered a coccioidomycosis serology and a COVID-19 test by PCR. The former because of the high possibility of Valley Fever which can cause up to a third of community-acquired pneumonias in Arizona and the latter because of the poor sensitivity of the rapid COVID-19 antibody test (12,13). However, I was not able to schedule the collection of the nasal swab or blood for 10 days at a free-standing laboratory. This seems excessively long and my pulmonologist decided against empirical treatment for Valley Fever because of a potential drug interaction with one of my heart medications (dofetilide).

President Trump often brags that the US has the greatest healthcare system in the world and for him it is. Although he repeatedly touted ineffective therapies for COVID-19 such as hydroxychloroquine, bleach and light and belittled those who wore masks, when he got sick only scientifically based therapy was used despite the expense (14). The general public probably does not have President Trump’s or my access to physicians. Donald Trump, the White House staff, and some professional athletes are getting daily COVID-19 tests but the rest of us taxpayers are forced to wait 10 days to get a nasal swab and a blood sample drawn.

USA Today is now reporting that President Trump had earned capital gains from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Gilead Sciences, the manufacturers of REGN-COV2 and remdesivir (15). According to a 2017 financial disclosure form filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics in June 2017, Trump had a capital gain of $50,001 to $100,000 for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and $100,001 to $1 million for Gilead. Trump’s subsequent disclosure forms, including his 2020 form signed July 31, did not list Regeneron or Gilead. Ostensibly, he, other family members and close associates sold their stocks to avoid any apparent conflict of interest.

Based on previous experience, I remain skeptical that therapies developed and distributed by our tax monies will really be free. Will the clever businessmen who run drug companies take money from the US government for product development and then bill a hefty sum for their product? Will the rush to develop a vaccine before the November elections put expediency over safety? Some vaccines rushed to market such as the polio vaccine of 1955 or the swine flu vaccine of 1976 resulted in serious side effects in some recipients (16). As Trump is so fond of saying, “We will have to wait and see”.

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Editor, SWJPCC

References

1. FDA. COVID-19 Update: FDA Broadens Emergency Use Authorization for Veklury (remdesivir) to Include All Hospitalized Patients for Treatment of COVID-19. August 28, 2020. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/covid-19-update-fda-broadens-emergency-use-authorization-veklury-remdesivir-include-all-hospitalized#:~:text=Today%2C%20as%20part%20of%20its,laboratory%2Dconfirmed%20COVID%2D19%2C (accessed 10/3/20).
2. Farr C, Stankiewicz K. Here’s everything we know about the unapproved antibody drug Trump took to combat coronavirus. CNBC. October 2, 2020. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/02/what-we-know-about-regeneron-antibody-drug-trump-took-to-combat-coronavirus.html (accessed 10/3/20).
3. Arentz S, Yang G, Goldenberg J, et al. Clinical significance summary: Preliminary results of a rapid review of zinc for the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and other acute viral respiratory infections [published online ahead of print, 2020 Aug 1]. Adv Integr Med. 2020;10.1016/j.aimed.2020.07.009. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Entrenas Castillo M, Entrenas Costa LM, Vaquero Barrios JM, Alcalá Díaz JF, López Miranda J, Bouillon R, Quesada Gomez JM. "Effect of calcifediol treatment and best available therapy versus best available therapy on intensive care unit admission and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19: A pilot randomized clinical study". J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2020 Oct;203:105751. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Freedberg DE, Conigliaro J, Wang TC, Tracey KJ, Callahan MV, Abrams JA; Famotidine Research Group. Famotidine Use Is Associated With Improved Clinical Outcomes in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Propensity Score Matched Retrospective Cohort Study. Gastroenterology. 2020 Sep;159(3):1129-1131.e3. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Zhang R, Wang X, Ni L, et al. COVID-19: Melatonin as a potential adjuvant treatment. Life Sci. 2020;250:117583. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Mohamed-Hussein AAR, Aly KME, Ibrahim MAA. Should aspirin be used for prophylaxis of COVID-19-induced coagulopathy? Med Hypotheses. 2020 Jun 8;144:109975. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. FDA. Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program (CTAP). Available at: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/coronavirus-covid-19-drugs/coronavirus-treatment-acceleration-program-ctap (accessed 10/3/20).
9. Loftus P, Walker J.  U.S. Commits $2 Billion for Covid-19 Vaccine, Drug Supplies. Wall Street Journal. July 7, 2020. Available at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-commits-2-billion-for-covid-19-vaccine-drug-supplies-11594132175 (accessed 10/3/20).
10. Public Citizen. The Public Already Has Paid for Remdesivir. Available at: https://www.citizen.org/news/the-public-already-has-paid-for-remdesivir/ (accessed 10/3/20).
11. Riechmann D. Trump disbanded NSC pandemic unit that experts had praised. AP News. March 14, 2020. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/ce014d94b64e98b7203b873e56f80e9a (accessed 10/3/20).
12. Valdivia L, Nix D, Wright M, Lindberg E, Fagan T, Lieberman D, et al. Coccidioidomycosis as a common cause of community-acquired pneumonia. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(6):958-62. [CrossRef] [Pubmed]
13. Guglielmi G. Fast coronavirus tests: what they can and can't do. Nature. 2020 Sep;585(7826):496-498. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Robbins RA. Lack of natural scientific ability. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2020;21(1):15-22. [CrossRef]
15. Tyko K. Trump COVID-19 treatment: President had stakes in Regeneron and Gilead, makers of antibody cocktail, Remdesivir. USA Today. October 3, 2020. Available at: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/10/03/trump-walter-reed-treatment-president-regeneron-gilead-remdesivir/3610111001/ (accessed 10/3/20).
16. Trogen B, Oshinsky D, Caplan A. Adverse Consequences of Rushing a SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine: Implications for Public Trust. JAMA. 2020 Jun 23;323(24):2460-2461. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Cite as: Robbins RA. Trump’s COVID-19 Case Exposes Inequalities in the Healthcare System. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2020;21(4):82-5. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc055-20 PDF 

Fake News in Healthcare

An article in the National Review by Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry points out that there is considerable waste in healthcare spending (1). He blames much of this on two entitlements-Medicare and employer-sponsored health insurance. He also lays much of the blame on doctors. “Doctors are the biggest villains in American health care. ... As with public-school teachers, we should be able to recognize that a profession as a whole can be pathological even as many individual members are perfectly good actors, and even if many of them are heroes. And just like public-school teachers, the medical profession as a whole puts its own interests ahead of those of the citizens it claims to be dedicated to serve.”

Who is Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry and how could he say something so nasty about teachers and my profession? A quick internet search revealed that Mr. Gobry is a fellow at the Ethics & Public Policy Center, a conservative Washington, D.C.-based think tank and advocacy group (2). According to his biography, Gobry writes about religion, culture, politics, economics, business, and technology, but not health care. He is a columnist at The Week, a contributor at Forbes, a blogger at the Patheos Catholic and his writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, and The Daily Beast amongst others. He holds a Master of Science in management from HEC Paris (Hautes études commerciales de Paris, a quite prestigious business school) and lives in Paris.

To make his point on waste, Mr. Gobry comments on Atul Gawande’s 2007 New Yorker “exposé on the Herculean efforts by a handful of scientists to get intensive-care physicians to implement a basic hygiene measures checklist so as to stop hospital-borne diseases” (3). He goes on to quote the Centers for Disease Control that hospital-borne diseases kill about 100,000 people per year, that the checklist was of no cost to the doctors, and its scientific rationale was unquestionable. “Doctors still resisted it with all their might because they found it mildly inconvenient; perhaps they found it even less acceptable that anybody might tell them how to do their jobs”. I showed this article to one of my former pulmonary/critical care fellows who has been in practice about 10 years. He commented, “Another guy who doesn’t practice medicine or know what he’s talking about.”

Gobry is referring to the Institute of Healthcare Improvement (IHI) central line associated blood stream infection (CLABSI) guidelines. These include hand washing, sterile gloves, sterile gown, wearing of a cap, full body drape, chlorhexidine, and not using femoral sites for insertion. In our intensive care units only chlorhexidine usage was associated with a decline in CLABSI (4). Every ICU I have practiced in has emphasized handwashing and demanded use of sterile gloves, gowns and drapes. The remaining guidelines are not supported by good evidence.

Gobry also claims that a computer is better at diagnosis than most physicians. He claims that the evidence is “pretty robust at this point, and the profession resists it tooth and nail. In a few years, we’ll be able to know how many unnecessary deaths this led to, but the number will have lots of zeroes”. However, in the only direct comparison of diagnostic accuracy, physicians vastly outperformed computer algorithms (84.3% vs. 51.2%) (5).

Journalists like Gobry are writing melodramatic articles about medicine and often getting it wrong. In this case he sensationalized Gawande’s article and misquoted the evidence for both the IHI guidelines and computer diagnosis.

There’s a TV commercial about an actor playing a doctor. Gobry is a business journalist attempting to play a doctor at the National Review. My former fellow is right. Gobry is a guy who does not know what he is talking about. Unfortunately, his writings can affect public policy and influence politicians who know even less. As President Trump said, “Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated” (6).

I am a doctor playing a journalist at the Southwest Journal of Pulmonary and Critical Care. Our articles may not be as sensational as Gobry’s, but we stick to what we know-pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine. I think we usually get it right. President Trump has railed against “fake news”, most recently on Lou Dobbs Tonight (7). Journalists like Gobry contribute to fake news by being deliberately obtuse, appealing to emotions, name-calling, and omitting or distorting facts. As physicians, we have been denigrated by journalists like Gobry and others who make outrageous claims for their own purposes. It is the responsibility of physicians to challenge those like Gobry who get it wrong.

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Editor, SWJPCC

References

1. Gobry P-E. The most wasteful health spending is also the most popular. National Review. October 25, 2017. Available at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453088/health-care-spending-wasteful-popular (accessed 10/25/17).
2. Ethics & Public Policy Center. Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry. https://eppc.org/author/pascal-emmanuel-gobry/ (accessed 10/25/17).
3. Gawande A. The Checklist. The New Yorker. December 10, 2007. Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/12/10/the-checklist (accessed 10/25/17).
4. Hurley J, Garciaorr R, Luedy H, et al. Correlation of compliance with central line associated blood stream infection guidelines and outcomes: a review of the evidence. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care 2012;4:163-73. Available at: http://www.swjpcc.com/critical-care/2012/5/10/correlation-of-compliance-with-central-line-associated-blood.html. 
5. Semigran HL, Levine DM, Nundy S, Mehrotra A. Comparison of Physician and Computer Diagnostic Accuracy. JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Dec 1;176(12):1860-1861. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Howell T Jr. Trump: 'Nobody Knew That Health Care Could Be So Complicated'. Fox News. February 27, 2017. Available at: http://nation.foxnews.com/2017/02/27/trump-nobody-knew-health-care-could-be-so-complicated (accessed 10/25/17).
7. Trump DJ. Lou Dobbs Tonight. October 25, 2017. Available at: http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5624925494001/?#sp=show-clips (accessed 10/26/17).

Cite as: Robbins RA. Fake news in healthcare. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2017;15(4):171-3. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc132-17 PDF 

Mitigating the “Life-Sucking” Power of the Electronic Health Record

An article in PulmCCM discussed “life-sucking” electronic health care records (EHR) (1). It is in turn based on an article in the Annals of Internal Medicine on the work time spent by physicians (2). The latter, funded by the American Medical Association, observed 57 physicians in internal medicine, family medicine, cardiology, and orthopedics over hundreds of hours. The study revealed that physicians spend almost two hours working on their electronic health record for every one hour of face-to-face patient time. Interestingly, physicians who used a documentation assistant or dictation spent more time with patients (31 and 44%) compared to those with no documentation support (23%).

The PulmCCM goes on to list some of the reasons that the EHR requires so much time:

• The best and brightest minds in software design don't go to work for Epic, Cerner, Allscripts, and whoever the other ones are.
• There's a high barrier to entry for competition now that most major health systems have implemented the big-name systems.
• The vendors can't easily improve the front-end design's user-friendliness (like web pages and consumer software have) because it rests on clunky, proprietary frameworks built in the 1990s and which can't be substantially changed for stability reasons. Think Microsoft Office, but way worse.
• Software designers are congenitally incapable of accepting the reality that a user would be better off the less they use the product, and designing it that way. They think their EHR is super cool, and can't fathom that it actually sucks to use.

Let me add another possibility. Those who demand implementation of the EHR see documentation as being most important because of the bottom line. It if comes at the price of physician efficiency so be it-as long as it does not hurt payment. Physicians are not paid for the required increased documentation much of which is unnecessary, redundant and, in some cases, downright silly (3). Furthermore, the concept that this improves patient outcomes largely seems to be a myth (4). Those manuscripts that report improved “quality” of care usually have examined meaningless surrogate metrics that often have little or even inverse relationships with patient outcomes (3). For example, high patient satisfaction seems to come at the price of increased mortality (5).

What is the solution-charge for the time. As it now stands, there is no downside to demanding pointless documentation. Third party payers can deny payment when something like the rarely beneficial family history is omitted. There should be a charge for seeing and caring for the patient and another “documentation fee” that is based on time. That would mean that a 20 minute office call would not be billed at 20 minutes but at the 1 hour of physician time the visit really consumes. Those physicians who use a documentation assistant or dictation can pay for these services by seeing more patients. Only in this way can the trend of wasting physicians’ most precious resource, their time, be mitigated.

Richard A. Robbins, MD*

Editor, SWJPCC

References

1. PulmCCM. Life-sucking power of electronic health records measured, reported, lamented. November 25, 2016. Available at: http://pulmccm.org/main/2016/outpatient-pulmonology-review/life-sucking-power-electronic-health-records-measured-reported-lamented/ (accessed 11/28/16).
2. Sinsky C, Colligan L, Li L, et al. Allocation of physician time in ambulatory practice: a time and motion study in 4 specialties. Ann Intern Med. 2016 Sep 6. [Epub ahead of print] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Robbins RA. Brief review: dangers of the electronic medical record. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2015;10(4):184-9. [CrossRef]
4. Yanamadala S, Morrison D, Curtin C, McDonald K, Hernandez-Boussard T. Electronic health records and quality of care: an observational study modeling impact on mortality, readmissions, and complications. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 May;95(19):e3332. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Fenton JJ, Jerant AF, Bertakis KD, Franks P. The cost of satisfaction: a national study of patient satisfaction, health care utilization, expenditures, and mortality. Arch Intern Med 2012;172:405-11. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

*The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado or California Thoracic Societies or the Mayo Clinic.

Cite as: Robbins RA. Mitigating the “life-sucking” power of the electronic health record. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2016;13(5):255-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc125-16 PDF

The Most Influential People in Healthcare

Recently Modern Healthcare released their annual 2016 listing of the most influential people in Healthcare (1). Leading the list is President Barack Obama for his Affordable Care Act. The list consists of a monotonous list of bureaucrats, politicians, large healthcare chain CEOs, insurance company CEOs, health interest organizations (American Hospital Association, America's Health Insurance Plans Healthcare, etc.), professional organizations (American Medical Association, American Nurses Association, etc.), nongovernmental healthcare interest organizations (Joint Commission,  National Quality Forum, etc.) and vendors (Epic, McKesson, etc.). From the Southwest the list includes at least 11 hospital chain CEOs including 1 from Arizona, 3 from Colorado and 7 from California.

Striking is the lack of influential healthcare professionals who made the list. Only two are leading academicians-Atul Gawande, a surgeon and author at Harvard, and Robert Wachter, an internist and pioneer in the hosptialist movement at University of California San Francisco. John Noseworthy (Mayo Clinic) and Ronald DePinho (MD Anderson) were noteworthy academicians prior to becoming hospital CEOs. Underrepresented are deans at major medical colleges (e.g., Talmadge King, Skip Garcia), influential researchers and clinicians (e.g., Marvin Schwarz, Stuart Quan), influential training organizations (e.g., American College of Graduate Medical Education, American Board of Internal Medicine), and even editors of prominent medical journals (e.g., Jeff Drazen at the New England Journal, Howard Bauchner at JAMA).

Every year I am offended by the domination of this list by bureaucrats, politicians and businessmen and the lack of true healthcare professionals. However, the list reflects the reality that political and business interests direct medicine. Everything from my interaction with a patient, documentation through in an electronic healthcare record, and diagnostic testing and prescribing based on the which tests and drugs are least expensive for a particular insurance plan are influenced by these non-medical interests. Unfortunately, what is lost is the interests of the patient and the role of doctors and nurses as patient advocates.

Medicine has too often become a series of meaningless metrics leading to expensive but poorer care because of these political and business interests. Furthermore, the practice of medicine is becoming increasingly unpleasant and unrewarding for the doctors and nurses. The domination of these non-medical interests has led to an explosion in non-professional administrators who consume 40% of the healthcare dollar and to a large extent annoy providers leading to their dissatisfaction with their professions (2). For example, Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Sloan Gibson, recently touted improvements made by the Phoenix VA (3). According to Gibson the Phoenix VA had a net increase of 758 employees in the past 2 years with an additional 23 doctors and 48 nurses. That calculates out to 91% of their hires being something other than physicians and nurses. It is unclear what these people do but hopefully something more than demand that providers fill out forms which they shuffle leading to ever larger administrative bonuses. Otherwise, those new hires will quickly leave and the shortage of providers that created the VA scandal in the first place will not improve. Incidentally, Gibson's boss, Robert McDonald was number 36 on the list.

What can we do? Unfortunately, there would appear to be no quick fixes. Most of us are just trying to get by caring for our patients and doing the best we can. It will take education of the public to what is going on and how their healthcare dollar is spent. Ultimately, it will be patients that can demand the changes that are needed. Although the solutions may be difficult, one way we might be able to detect improvement is when fewer bureaucrats, politicians and businessmen make Modern Healthcare's most influential list.

Richard A. Robbins, MD*

Editor, SWJPCC

References

1. Modern Healthcare. 100 Most Influential People in Healthcare 2016. Available at: http://www.modernhealthcare.com/community/100-most-influential/2016/ (accessed 9/3/16).
2. Robbins RA. National health expenditures: the past, present, future and solutions. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2015;11(4):176-85. [CrossRef]
3. Wagner D. Top VA brass says Phoenix hospital is off critical list, cites improvements. Arizona Republic. September 1, 2016. Available at: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2016/09/01/va-deputy-secretary-touts-phoenix-hospital-improvements/89666526/ (accessed 9/3/16).

*The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado or California Thoracic Societies or the Mayo Clinic.

Cite as: Robbins RA. The most influential people in healthcare. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2016;13(3):123-4. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc089-16 PDF