Search the KHIT Blog

Friday, January 9, 2015

The “Looming” Primary Care Physician Shortage

Guest cross-posting the always astute Margalit Gur-Arie.
"We’ve been experiencing a 'looming' primary care doctor shortage for several decades now, and so far it somehow failed to progress beyond the looming stage"

 

What’s to Become of Primary Care? Or, Something to Do with Computers

You may not be ready to admit it even to yourself, but you know it’s changing. Permanently. Some say it’s for the better. Others say it’s for the worse. Most don’t really care much one way or the other. After all, health care has been evolving and changing over thousands of years, and the experts best positioned to evaluate the health care turmoil of our times are yet to be born. Those of us who are now in the eye of the storm have an understandable tendency to analyze high velocity changes, such as the number of uninsured or the number of hospital mergers, but the slower and more permanent changes are unfolding deep below the surface. Perhaps the most enduring alteration to what we call health care is the diminishment of medicine as a whole, and the fading importance of its practitioners, starting with the outer edges of primary care.

The “Looming” Primary Care Physician Shortage

We’ve been experiencing a “looming” primary care doctor shortage for several decades now, and so far it somehow failed to progress beyond the looming stage. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is adding millions of previously uninsured citizens to the already swollen ranks of health care consumers, which is bound to exacerbate the shortage of primary care physicians, particularly as we move from sick care to health care, which is mostly to be provided by primary care facilities. As the public is wringing its hands in fear and apprehension, several solutions to this life-threatening shortage are being proposed and proactively implemented. The first and foremost solution is to allow non-physicians to provide primary care, whether in care teams with a physician figurehead in the corner office, or in retail settings at the grocery store. The second and longer term solution is the institution of remote medical care, provided by a mixture of outsourced physicians, non-physicians and algorithmic self-service apps.

The primary care shortage narrative is now as well established as death and taxes. Our constant inability to address this shortage is also immutable, and it has been so for all the decades we could have used to train more primary care doctors. Whether by design or by happenstance, we are now working hard to reduce demand, and perceived need, for actual doctors in primary care, and at the same time, we are working equally hard, if not harder, to increase the soothing volume of cheap and inconsequential services which are considered part of primary care. Ironically, it took many decades of random and often times planned decisions, made largely by the medical establishment to create this apparent discrepancy, and the pattern continues to this day.

Primary Care is Like Jiffy Lube

How often do you hear conservative doctors, still fighting the good old fight of 1965, stating that if your car insurance were to pay for oil changes, it would also cost a fortune? Insurance, you see, should be reserved for catastrophic events, and everything else should be paid with cash by each individual. And if the individual has no cash, then how many grocery stores would give you food (which is also lifesaving) if you had no money to pay for it? These positions are practically impossible to debate, particularly since personal charity is always the answer to opposing arguments. Oil changes and basic food are indeed planned and fully expected expenditures that each responsible person should budget for, and so are routine and non-catastrophic medical needs. But guess what else all these things appear to have in common? They are simple, undifferentiated, commoditized goods and services that anyone can provide, and many people can provide for themselves.

If primary care is to medicine what Jiffy Lube is to the automotive industry, we don’t need physicians to deliver primary care. Period. Even more astonishing is that this seems to be the main argument put forward by the direct primary care (DPC) movement. Previously known as concierge medicine, i.e. extra quality for more money, DPC makes the straightforward argument that good primary care is a cheap commodity made expensive by inordinate layers of insurance and bureaucratic regulation. For $60 a month or so, you can have all the primary care you can eat, if you pay directly to whoever employs your doctor, or if your purchasers (i.e. insurer or employer) do the same thing on your behalf, which renders direct primary care anything but direct, but that’s another story altogether. Strangely enough, I don’t see too many dermatologists stepping all over each other to convince us that what they do is worth very little money.

Divide and Conquer

Prof. George Weisz wrote a book titled “Divide and Conquer: A Comparative History of Medical Specialization.” I am not sure who was conquering what, but the slow current that will eventually wipe physicians out, as a profession, has its origins in the formally organized specialization of medicine.  Among the many theories and scientific justifications for the inevitability of specialization, Dr. Carl August Wunderlich observed as early as 1841 that “Now a specialty is a necessary condition for everybody who wants to become rich and famous rapidly.” The quest for fame and fortune, which has been our engine of advancement, has the localized consequence of turning each step forward into a giant zero sum game. For some physicians to become rich and famous, many others had to accept less wealth and lower status in society. And after kicking and screaming for a while, they all did.

In the beginning, a specialized physician was one who voluntarily chose to “restrict” or “limit” his practice to certain portions of general practice. In due course, general practice became involuntarily restricted to whatever specialists chose not to do. The scientific and largely elitist arguments of the nineteen century were used iteratively over time in increasingly contrived contexts, culminating with the late twentieth century expulsion of general practitioners from hospital care.  Hospitals today, although very different than hospitals in the nineteen century, are still the mechanism by which wealth and fame are accumulated in medicine. Agreeing to stay out of the cathedrals of medicine, pretty much sealed the fate of primary care.

Public Health

What is then left for primary care to do? I am certain this question is offensive to physicians practicing primary care. After all, it’s not just medicine that changed over the last couple of centuries. Disease itself was changed as a result. Today we have scores of people living with multiple chronic conditions, each one fatal on its own merit until not too long ago, and the generalist doctor is best positioned to manage the whole sick person. Some primary care physicians are still treading in specialist and hospitalist territories without apology and doing a great job at that too. However, the insidious slow current underneath it all, is not only continuing its menacing advance, but it is accelerating, because when physicians as a profession ceded control to specialists, they also invited into the tent other more powerful interests seeking their own riches and fame.

In the olden days physicians chose to specialize after they invented something, or became enthralled with new technologies or a certain group of diseases. Specialization allowed physicians to gain expertise using complex instruments and provided access to larger populations of people afflicted with whatever they were trying to study and improve. Scientific discovery in medicine followed the same pattern as in all other fields where groundbreaking research required an obsessively narrow focus. Excelling at one particular thing, as opposed to being adequate at everything, brought financial and personal rewards. This paradigm is being broken now by a brand new instrument – the computer, and by a brand new group of diseases – being alive. 

Just like the invention of the ophthalmoscope created the formal specialty of ophthalmology, the application of computers to medicine is creating the spanking new specialty of informatics, with one huge difference. Whereas the old specialization by organ, disease or instrument, was designed to narrow practice focus to subsets of patients, and small parts of each patient, informatics aims to expand its scope of practice to include every living person. Informatics is essentially the use of computers to practice an expansive and aggressive version of public health, which includes preventive, curative and research medicine. And thus, general practice on a much grander scale is resurrected, because old King Solomon was right and “that which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done.”

Something to do with Computers

That slow subterranean current that is changing medicine is the same one that changed and will continue to change everything we do into an industry. Nourishment became the food industry. Moving from place to place morphed into the travel industry, including automotive and aviation in its folds. Swapping is now the retail industry, and guarding one’s offspring and possessions became the defense industry. Some of these changes took thousands of years to complete, while others were executed seemingly overnight. Medicine is now engaged in its much delayed transformation to a healthcare (one word) industry.

The main difference between industries and the decentralized processes they replaced is that industries have captains, gurus, thought leaders and regulators, who rarely if ever interact with the masses serviced by the industry, i.e. consumers. The direct providers of industrial services are mostly laypeople, themselves consumers, rewarded with tokens they can use to cross-consume other industrial services. Fame and riches are reserved for the small but potent and irreplaceable captain class – the planners, the organizers and the administrators of industrial efficiency and productivity.

The stethoscope improved on a doctor’s ear, so he can more closely listen to a patient’s heart or lungs. The ophthalmoscope improved the vision of a specialist physician, so he can better see inside the eyes of each patient. The computer is improving the brains of all physicians, so they can treat entire populations without having to see, hear or touch any patients. Physicians specializing (or generalizing) in informatics are the captains of the emerging healthcare industry. The primacy of the general practitioner of old is finally being restored to the supremacy of the physician informaticist of new.

If the illustrious Dr. Wunderlich were to take the temperature of medicine today, he would indubitably observe that modern physicians, who want to become rich and famous rapidly, should find something to do with computers.
__

"Health care has been evolving and changing over thousands of years, and the experts best positioned to evaluate the health care turmoil of our times are yet to be born."

Great stuff. Be sure to bookmark Margalit's blog.
Some recent reads come immediately to mind. It will take me a while to pull quotes that map precisely to her many points.


To cite just a few (Probably should include Vik's Khanna's new book here). I just finished Jonathan Bush's book last night.

__

MEANINGFUL USE NEWS

Fifty-five percent of physicians do not plan to attest to Stage 2 Meaningful Use in 2015, according to a survey of almost 2,000 members of SERMO, a social network for physicians.

Doctors cited “patient engagement, lack of workflow usability and excessive time consumption” as reasons for not attesting to Stage 2 MU this year. The survey results reflect the struggles that physicians have been experiencing in meeting Stage 2 requirements.

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, only 4 percent (16,455) of eligible professionals have attested to Stage 2 MU as of Dec. 1. Though EPs have until the end of February to attest for calendar year 2014, attestation numbers have been anemic and little progress is expected by the end of next month...
Be interesting to see whether Congress steps in here.
__

MORE MARGALIT
Why Physicians Must Unionize

If F. A. Hayek were alive today, he would support the revival of labor unions in general and professional labor unions in particular. Towards the end of the Second World War, Hayek wrote a book warning us all that allowing governments to engage in extensive central planning of economic activities is nothing more than a road to serfdom for humanity. F.A. Hayek was not an Ayn Rand sociopath, and he included in his vision reasonable government regulation of markets, strong safety nets, and something that looks awfully similar to the avant-garde “guaranteed basic income” discussed nowadays in some European countries. Unfortunately for us, and kudos to Prof. Hayek, seventy years after the publication of his book, we are well on our way to universal indentured servitude...
Imagine a professional union fighting for the freedom of its individual members to exercise professional judgment for the sole benefit of individual citizens. Imagine a medical union fighting to provide the best care to ordinary citizens, free from the whims of the political and business classes. Now close your eyes and imagine the shock and awe created by a union of the best, the brightest, the most successful, most educated, most trusted, most ethical and most irreplaceable group of citizens, standing up and unequivocally stating that central planning has gone too far and has reached levels of immorality that are beyond what a free society can peacefully tolerate.  Then imagine that such union has the power to shut down every hospital, every medical facility and every practice, in every city, every town and every hamlet across the land, bringing the medical industrial complex to a grinding halt.  And now, open your eyes and make a wish... 
Click the title. Read the entire post. OK, docs, what are you waiting for?
___

More to come...


Wednesday, January 7, 2015

San Francisco: Health 2.0 WinterTech Conference

Health 2.0 WinterTech: The New Consumer Health Landscape
 
Join us this January for the first ever Health 2.0 WinterTech as we explore emerging platforms, products, players, and partnerships in the rapidly evolving consumer health ecosystem. With the entry of technology giants into the digital health space, we are seeing shifts in the start-up landscape as well as new opportunities for investors, retailers, employers, providers and policy makers as all sectors adapt to the rising trend of the digitally connected and engaged health consumer.

WinterTech will take place in San Francisco’s financial district during the nation’s leading investment mecca, JP Morgan Week. Come hear how emerging technologies and partnerships across sectors are ushering in a new, tech-fueled era in the global health and wellness economy.
Agenda and registration link.

Gonna be an interesting week next week. I have dinner with athenahealth's Jonathan Bush next Monday, and, if they approve my press pass, I'll cover this Health 2.0 event. The annual conference last fall was excellent. Just like the year before. And, the year before that.

apropos of the topic,

DR. TOPOL'S NEW BOOK IS OUT

Getting first-rate health care will always be quite different from ordering something from Amazon. We’re talking about the most precious part of life— one’s health— not buying a book. But the common thread is the power of information and individualization. We are embarking on a time when each individual will have all their own medical data and the computing power to process it in the context of their own world. There will be comprehensive medical information about a person that is eminently accessible, analyzable, and transferable. This will set up a tectonic (or “tech-tonic”) power shift, putting the individual at center stage. No longer will MD stand for medical deity. What have been dubbed the six most powerful words of the English language—“ The doctor will see you now”—will no longer be true. Indeed you will still be seeing doctors, but the relationship will be radically altered.

Topol, Eric (2015-01-06). The Patient Will See You Now: The Future of Medicine is in Your Hands (p. 5). Basic Books. Kindle Edition. 
Stay tuned. I just got it. I just finished this one (below), which maps to the topic of an earlier post.


Just a tad of disappointment with "The Art of Medicine." The phrase "art of medicine" appears 84 times in the book narrative, without ever once coming down precisely on a firm definition of the phrase.
The emphasis laid on the sciences as prerequisites for medicine ... may tailor the dominant character that emerges. To advance the art of medical practice ... more emphasis likely needs to be put on teaching the humanities — history, philosophy and the softer social sciences. “These are intellectually expanding domains for people on their own professional journey and helpful ways of looking at the world and life. By exposing students to other streams of knowledge, they may begin to see the possibilities of learning in other places.

Ho Ping Kong, Dr. Herbert; Posner, Michael (2014-06-01). Art of Medicine, The (Kindle Locations 3196-3200). ECW Press. Kindle Edition.
 I'll elaborate in bit. It may take a separate post.

New at THCB:
Computers Replacing Doctors, Innovation and the Quantified Self: An Interview with Atul Gawande
By ROBERT WACHTER, MD


... I began by asking him about his innovation incubator, Ariadne Labs, and how he decides which issues to focus on.

Gawande: Yeah, I’m in the innovation space, but in a funny way. Our goal is to create the most basic systems required for people to get marked improvements in the results of care. We’re working in surgery, childbirth, and end-of-life care.

The very first place we’ve gone is to non-technology innovations. Such as, what are the 19 critical things that have to happen when the patient comes in an operating room and goes under anesthesia? When the incision is made? Before the incision is made? Before the patient leaves the room? It’s like that early phase of the aviation world, when it was just a basic set of checklists.


In all of the cases, the most fundamental, most valuable, most critical innovations have nothing to do with technology. They have to do with asking some very simple, very basic questions that we never ask. Asking people who are near the end of life what their goals are. Or making sure that clinicians wash their hands.


Once we’ve recognized the recipe for really great performance, the second thing we’ve discovered is that our most important resource for improving the ability of teams to follow through on those really critical things is [sic] data. Information is our most valuable resource, yet we treat it like a byproduct. The systems we have – Epic and our other systems – are not particularly useful right now in helping us execute on these objectives. We’re having to build systems around those systems.


The third insight is that, for the most part, the issues have less to do with systems than with governance. The people who are buying these systems, installing these systems, and determining how they’re to be used… What are they responsible for? What are their objectives? We’re having to figure out how to get quality and outcomes higher on the list of priorities of everybody running health systems.


Our dumb checklist, or our incredibly sophisticated predictive analytics algorithm, or that incredibly expensive EHR system… none of those change that fundamental failure – the failure of governance. And none of them can, no matter how you design them...
Yeah. Some of this fits with "the art of medicine" as well as the whole "data uber alles" thing.

JONATHAN BUSH'S BOOK

I guess I need to study Jonathan Bush's book, given that they invited me to dinner next week.

FORWARD

This is one of the most important and engaging books about health care I have ever read. I love Jonathan’s ideas, of course, but it is his perspective that is so unique. My books examine problems from a rarefied, conceptual, top-down perspective. Jonathan’s perspective on heath care occurs from the bottom up. It is refreshing. Over the years, he has been an ambulance driver, an army medic, and a consultant. He has seen firsthand the local and national politics of health care. He was initially a failed entrepreneur with a great idea, covered with scabs and wounds from wringing out reimbursements from insurance companies and wrestling with the status quo. Now Jonathan is the successful CEO of a marvelous and important health care IT company...
In Where Does It Hurt? Jonathan chronicles the people who occupy the last wagon in health care. These are the patients who don’t have access to the best care. They are caregivers and entrepreneurs who could give so much more and better care than they are allowed if they weren’t chained to a broken system. Those in the first wagon write the legislation and regulation. They debate health care in courts and legislatures. Many of their compromises and side deals fill the air with self-centeredness, complexity, ambiguity, overhead costs, and contested, delayed, and partial reimbursement. The lives of those in the last wagon are very different from the “visionaries” in the front. 

Thankfully, Jonathan has experience driving wagons in both the back and the front. He has a wonderful perspective of the entire wagon train. Jonathan has dedicated his life and his company to helping those of the last wagon in health care do their jobs in the best way possible and creating new opportunities for those entrepreneurs who are willing to take risks. 

I love to listen to Jonathan talk: His narratives come a mile per minute. His illustrations and metaphors help me envision the problems and their solutions clearly. And he is very, very funny. You will be able to hear Jonathan’s voice as you read this book. It is an easy, insightful, and entertaining read. 

Jonathan, thank you for writing this book— for what it says and how you say it. 
- Clayton Christensen, Harvard Business School JANUARY 2014

Bush, Jonathan; Baker, Stephen (2014-05-15). Where Does It Hurt?: An Entrepreneur's Guide to Fixing Health Care. Penguin Group US. Kindle Edition.
Interesting stuff to read and evaluate this week. Stay tuned.

ON "POPULATION HEALTH" PROXY DATA

Hans Rosling, by way of The Incidental Economist: "Lagged selection bias and possible declines in life expectancy."


Cool. Rosling rocks. Try that in an Excel sheet.
__

HEALTH POLICY ITEM
How health reform might cause harm
January 7, 2015 at 7:00 am  Austin Frakt
The Affordable Care Act made changes to government payments for Medicare services that are expected to save tens to hundreds of billions of dollars per year. This sounds like a good thing — and it very well may be — but only if those spending cuts don’t cause harm. Research suggests they just might...
To provide the same level and quality of care for less, hospitals will have to become more productive in converting dollars into care. Specifically, they’ll need to become at least 1.1 percent more productive per year. Is this likely? There are two schools of thought — one forward-looking and one that considers the lessons of the past.

Looking back, history provides a guide of what we might expect. Though hospital productivity grew from 1990 to 2005, it never came close to growing at 1.1 percent per year. Some years it was negative: Hospitals did less with more. Other years it was positive, but never above about 0.5 percent per year.

Looking forward, the great hope for new hospital payment models included in the Affordable Care Act and promoted by some private insurers is that they will encourage cheaper care that is also better care: doing more with less...
Good post. Difficult stuff, all of it. Lots of large of moving parts, many of them moving at cross-purposes, as they have done for decades.

OFF-TOPIC ERRATUM ON A SAD DAY

__

NEWS UPDATE
After 'wasting' $4.3 billion, Connecticut shutters state HIE
January 6, 2015 | By Marla Durben Hirsch


Connecticut's health information exchange, known as Health IT Exchange (HITE-CT), has failed, in large part due to internal mismanagement and bad privacy policies that undermined the public trust, according to Ellen Andrews, executive director of the Connecticut Health Policy Project.

In a December blog post, Andrews said that the HIE wasted $4.3 billion in federal grants and accomplished nothing in its four years. She noted that many decisions were made in small committees behind closed doors and presented to the board as done deals. The HIE also refused to adopt a consumer opt-in policy, as used in neighboring states, which would have provided more privacy and security of patient health records.

Connecticut's General Assembly recently repealed the laws establishing the HIE and transferred some of its responsibilities to the Department of Social Services (DSS)...
Wow. Another one bites the dust. Will the HL7 FHIR eventually render HIEs irrelevant? I wonder what Margalit thinks?
FHIR - In this report JASON is taking an unequivocal stand behind a new HL7 standard for clinical information exchange, the Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR), which is actually pretty neat, and has been in development for approximately three years. FHIR is envisioned as a replacement for the C-CDA, which replaced the CCD, which replaced the CCR, which replaced an array of HL7 2.x messages. JASON is recommending that government “policies should make it advantageous for one or more leading EHR vendors to be the first to propose such standards”. Lo and behold, two days after the JASON report was published, a group of leading vendors and institutions, several of which briefed JASON, and some who are helping the government implement JASON’s recommendation, launched the Argonaut Project for precisely this “advantageous” purpose.
Ah, yes, Argonaut.
___

More to come...

Sunday, January 4, 2015

Crowdsourced Health Predictions for 2015


Click the lower banner second-from-the-right diagonal arrows button to expand to full screen so you can read all of them clearly.

Two jump out at me, the second apropos of Vik Khanna's new book that I reviewed in my prior post.


Difficult to disagree with Dr. Meyers.

JUST IN

Interview with writer Steven Brill on WHYY's "Fresh Air"

 

Five years ago I followed the PPACA legislative developments with interest and blogged my thoughts on another of my blogs.
I may have to buy this book to get his take on things,
___

More to come...

Friday, January 2, 2015

Vik Khanna on "the ObamaCare Ignorati"

Vik Khanna recently asked me to read and review his new book. OK. (I've heretofore made references to it on this blog, e.g., here and here.)


I chose the phrase "ObamaCare Ignorati" for the title above after seeing (and filching from) a comment by Vik's frequent publishing partner Al Lewis made over on THCB:
'the “Wellness ignorati” are people whose business depends on making sure facts are ignored'
After a close study of "Your Personal Affordable Care Act" while on Holiday recently, I think it's safe to say that Vik thinks "ObamaCare" is being pushed by "policy ignorati," at the expense of the very public it was ostensibly designed to serve. (For the record, I was never an unalloyed PPACA fan; I've irascibly called it "AHIPcare." See, for example, my 2009 post "Public Optional.")

Useful to start with the Amazon summary.
It should not take an act of Congress to get you to take charge of your health. Unfortunately, if we had all gotten that message, we would not face the massive bamboozling of Americans that is Obamacare. Instead, we have relentless government and its private sector enforcer, the healthcare industry, in hot pursuit of Americans who need more medical care like they need more taxes.

We are the nation of shoulda, coulda, woulda. We should be the fittest society in the world, with a small, efficient, safe, and highly effective medical care system that takes care of only the problems we absolutely cannot resolve for ourselves. We could be a nation of runners, lifters, surfers, cyclists, rowers, martial artists, speed walkers, swimmers, dancers, Zumba-ers, dancercisers, CrossFit-ers, yoga-ers, and so on; we would be people who exercised often (and hard), ate simply, slept abundantly, spent time in silence, and didn’t abuse legal or illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. In short, we would be everything that we are not.

The healthcare industry will not bring you to health, because health is not a medical care product. Yet, this is President Obama's vision, that you can produce more health in the most over-diagnosed, over-tested, over-doctored, over-medicated population on the planet by shoving more people into an entitled, greed-soaked healthcare industry on steroids. It is the biggest strategic miscalculation and misunderstanding in the history of the concept of health.

Time is running short. The way to ruin Obamacare’s sickness-based vision is not to repeal it, but to render it irrelevant. Your Personal Affordable Care Act is the most compelling takedown of Obamacare that you will ever read. But, it doesn't stop there. It also provides an indispensable roadmap to your personal health success. It is also long past time to return the vigorous personal pursuit of good health back to its rightful place as a measure of what it means to be a competent adult. Your Personal Affordable Care Act is your tool for that pursuit, a visible, sustainable, actionable push back against an overzealous government and a rapacious industry.
First, I have never met Vik Khanna (nor his colleague Al Lewis). We are simply online acquaintances by virtue of frequenting the same healthcare blogs. I'm not being paid by anyone to spend time on this, nor am I pimping for pals.

My Amazon.com review:
I am about to do a full review of Vik’s new take-no-prisoners book on my blog. I re-read much of it yesterday during my flight home from back east at my mother in law’s farm for the holidays. Even though there are a few areas regarding which I take (relatively mild) exception, I give it 5 stars and recommend it without reservation. Given its low Kindle price, it is a tremendous value. In sum:
  • Eat sensibly (w/respect to quantity and variety);
  • Don’t smoke, and minimize alcohol consumption;
  • Exercise appropriately and consistently;
  • Get enough sleep;
  • Minimize adverse stressors (including dysfunctional acquaintances);
  • Question Authority relentlessly (in particular the Received Wisdoms of Health Wonkistan);
  • Work on truly knowing yourself and work on pursuits that give you joy and meaning in life. Lose your Jones for banal trivia (e.g., soul-sucking social media and other sedentary entertainments);
  • Insure rationally against catastrophic medical misfortune, and avoid using “health insurance” as routine 3rd party intermediated pre-payment (it’s not really “insurance” anyway).
That’s pretty much it. Not rocket science, not a panacea, but, practices that, if widely adopted, would have dramatic positive population health effects is relatively short order, at nil individual cost.
I finally finished reading the book closely twice. It is now awash in a sea of Kindle Reader yellow highlighter and filled with bookmarks.


It has steadily grown on me, and, I can say, that, were we to meet, I could quickly come to call him a "friend" notwithstanding some political issues regarding which we disagree (he'd warned me in advance that I would probably not agree with every aspect of the book. I don't, but, upon close and candid reflection, the differences are minor). You have to respect a man who has done his empirical homework, and who hews to a consistent, detailed logical argument. I have long felt that I can dispositively refute most putative "libertarians" in just a few minutes of Socratic, so shallow and inconsistent are their dilettante sociopolitical views. Simply being able to pronounce and (misleadingly) cite the likes of Adam Smith, Hayak, Coase, Friedman, Szasz, Ayn Rand, and Austria et al does not a cogent Philosopher make.

Vik is refreshingly different.
Regardless of your political persuasion (full disclosure: I am a non-partisan conservative (1) who leans slightly libertarian, but I find anarchy distasteful, and, at different points in my political life, I have belonged to both major parties. I believe the only thing they share is bottomless incompetence). There are two important apolitical themes underlying this message. First, unless you have a clear genetic defect (such as cystic fibrosis or sickle cell) or already have a serious illness (such as diabetes or heart failure), most of the avoidable health adversity you will face in life can be mitigated by steps you can take to protect yourself, and almost none of them require a doctor or a health bureaucracy for success. You can also improve your health status even if you have an inherited disorder or a serious illness, but the changes will take more time and work, and require vigilant medical supervision.

Vik Khanna. Your Personal Affordable Care Act: How To Avoid Obamacare (Kindle Locations 684-691). 
If you are a conservative, libertarian, Republican, or disaffected Democrat who has been fulminating about Obamacare, I share your frustration. But, if you are also someone who talks a good game about personal responsibility, but doesn’t actually live it, then you are even bigger part of the problem than people who at least are not hypocrites. When you get off your butt, stop drinking to excess and smoking, quit your see-food diet, and start exercising, then you can start talking about what needs to be fixed, how, and why. Otherwise, you’re just a windbag. People who take personal responsibility seriously lead by example. As for liberals who are inclined to reflexively reject my personal responsibility first argument, no less a liberal icon than John F. Kennedy said, to put it mildly, you’re wrong (and weak). (ibid, Kindle Locations 3219-3225).
I’ll answer the anti-vaccine screeching now by saying that no medical service is perfect. All have side effects, and sometimes they don’t work at all. That’s true of both curative services and preventive services. I am all for people deciding yay or nay on their own healthcare needs (I really don’t care if you want to refuse medical care for yourself and hasten your own death), but the libertarian argument gets murky when your decision (you don’t want to vaccinate yourself or your kids against potentially lethal infectious diseases, such as polio) affects others; there is a difference between ordered liberty and anarchy. So, here’s my solution that preserves your freedom to choose. Let’s say that the polio vaccine is 90% effective, and I vaccinate my kid. But, you don’t vaccinate yours and you come home carrying the polio virus after an international business trip. Your kid becomes patient 0 at his school, and my kid develops the disease even though he is vaccinated (remember, I consented to have a vaccination that I knew was 90% effective so I was taking reasonable steps to protect my child and those around him). I should have the right to sue you for medical and non-medical damages, and so should the school district. There, now you get to have your precious choice, but you also bear the cost. (ibid, Kindle Locations 3238-3247).
Further, here’s the central difference between me and most people who label themselves libertarians – I not only believe in free choices in the marketplace, I also believe in personal responsibility and that includes an obligation to behave responsibly toward those around me because without embracing both sentiments, all you have is chaos. It is essential to recognize that on many issues, people have aligned interests and shared risks. This is completely in line with The Theory of Moral Sentiments, by Adam Smith, who actually wrote about our moral responsibilities to each other before he wrote The Wealth of Nations; somehow conservatives and libertarians always cite the latter but act like the former was never written. (ibid, Kindle Locations 3253-3259).
Yeah, the "My Country, 'Tis of ME!" crowd largely have zero clue that the late Adam Smith was a moral philosopher, not an "economist."

Ahhh.hh.h... I feel a song coming on....


I'm not gonna win a Grammy with that one, lol (I have another one in the Logic Pro X oven at the moment). "Free Rider" lyrics just fell out of my head in about 30 seconds the morning after SCOTUS narrowly "upheld" the PPACA a couple of years ago. But, "ObamaCare" will be back in the dock before the Supremes in March, over the lame "exchanges established by the state" clause.

Brought to you by legions of amicus brief ignorati.

Sorry. Back to Vik.
"When you get off your butt, stop drinking to excess and smoking, quit your see-food diet, and start exercising, then you can start talking about what needs to be fixed, how, and why. Otherwise, you’re just a windbag."
He cites the late President Kennedy:
“Thus, in a very real and immediate sense, our growing softness, our increasing lack of physical fitness, is a menace to our security...if our bodies grow soft and inactive, if we fail to encourage physical development and prowess, we will undermine our capacity for thought, for work and for the use of those skills vital to an expanding and complex America. Thus, the physical fitness of our citizens is a vital prerequisite to America's realization of its full potential as a nation, and to the opportunity of each individual citizen to make full and fruitful use of his capacities.” (op cit, Kindle Locations 104-108).
By comparison, Barack Obama’s call to arms over healthcare, which is to empower bureaucracies and embolden private industry to function as the government’s enforcers, is feeble. President Kennedy spoke of health as a responsibility; President Obama speaks of access to healthcare as a “right,” but the problem is that rights without responsibilities are just entitlements. With the Obamacare “right” to healthcare there should have been an unequivocal challenge to Americans to use it as little as possible to help make the industry more efficient, restore fiscal sanity, and preserve resources for the sickest amongst us who really need help. 

President Kennedy’s words, on the other hand, were eerily prescient of our present state of affairs 

You can start living up to President Kennedy’s challenge and rejecting President Obama’s premise at your very next meal. 

Here is the world’s simplest healthy eating advice: Eat less. Eat less crap. 

If we all did only these two things and nothing else, we would make unbelievable progress towards health. In fact, we would do so much that we would begin turning around a healthcare industry that is, in the words of Molly Hatchet, flirting with disaster. Our national disconnect from personal responsibility for healthy eating didn’t happen because we all have an eating disorder. We have, simply, disordered eating because we choose to overindulge and our food industry, the most efficient and productive that the world has ever known, makes it easy for us to do so. Only in America would making food cheaper and more accessible lead us to complain we have actually done something wrong. (ibid, Kindle Locations 109-123).
There is no shortage of targets for Vik Khanna. "Wearables"?
The tech geeks and the quants say they have the answers to saving us. No, not really. 

Not a day goes by that we don’t read about a new fitness device or app that has all the answers we are looking for. The latest and greatest is the forthcoming Athos, which will not only digitally assess fitness measures, most of which you really don’t need to know to build or maintain actual fitness, but will require you to buy a wardrobe of their very expensive sensor clothing for the privilege. 

My favorite fitness app story is that of an acquaintance who told me how the FitBit had improved his life, prompting him to walk more at work and even have his employer provide him with a standing desk. This would all be a very positive step for the many Americans who move too little and sit too much, but this guy is one of the fittest people I know, a physician and an avid cyclist. His habits have already lowered his manageable health risks as low as they can go; using a FitBit isn’t going to change them further. For him, as for many people, tidbits like the FitBit are toys that entertain. I don’t know anyone who needed a FitBit less. On the flipside, there is not much evidence that apps, gadgets, and websites are really having much of an impact on the health of anyone who really needs to find a way to change. Why is that? Because if you are not internally motivated to succeed, a digital toy will not take you there. 

The toys, apps, and websites that we want to do the work for us are the electronic equivalent of unused treadmills and weight machines currently functioning as expensive clothes hangers in basements across the country. Health success doesn’t start with trivia such as “Which running app do you use?” It starts with fundamentals, such as “Do you run [substitute the exercise of your choice] at all?” And, if you don’t, why don’t you? Because somewhere along your road in life, people stopped telling you it was important to do so and that is was okay not to, that it was your choice. Well, see, what happens when you make a lot of bad choices it creates an opportunity for government and institutions that want your money and obedience to come in and start to control your choices. When you start acting like a sheep, someone is going to eventually shear you. 

Maybe someday all the hype about wearables will translate into something beyond making money for the people who make the devices and their related apps. But, until then, the wearables you need to invest time and money in are your attitude, your strategy, and how you wear them for the world to see. Funny thing about self-image and self-respect… the people I know who carry themselves with the most confidence and poise don’t use any of this stuff. They stick to the basics, the indispensables. Everything else is just gravy. (ibid, Kindle Locations 311-335).
Vik's detailed chapters on diet and exercise are compelling. I'm not going to cite things here (this post will end up being too long), just read them for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

The final chapter:
Chapter 6: The 6 big lies about U.S. healthcare 

Our healthcare industry is, without doubt, the most complex and contentious on earth. It is driven, unfortunately, not primarily by understanding the population’s needs and interests, but by the flow of money and power, which express themselves through law and regulations that are written primarily to benefit the healthcare provider and health plan industries. Six tall tales we’ll discuss shortly are worth dealing with head-on because they’re the reason we got Obamacare and why you need Your Personal Affordable Care Act.

According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), no one outspends us when it comes to medical care, but many outlive us (http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Health-at-a-Glance-2013.pdf).


Even more damning is the fact that every country on the list of nations that both spend less and live longer is also less overweight or obese than we are. We are the fattest culture in the history of Western civilization. 

While many factors influence life span, this is a pretty severe indictment of a healthcare industry that clearly does not deliver value. I think most of us have to come to realistically expect that anytime we buy the most expensive product in a category, we anticipate getting something that is special and valuable. Not so in American healthcare, where we pay for a new Porsche every year and keep getting an AMC Pacer. And, instead of demanding better, we just get in, mumble our thanks, and drive the same piece of junk down the road hoping that, for us at that moment, it doesn’t disintegrate. Why are we so grateful for so little value? 
The healthcare industry’s duplicitous design is not incidental. The more medical care providers ingrain the belief you get healthier only through them, the more money they make and the more power they accrue; this is called intervention bias and it is particularly harmful to people who aren’t ill and don’t need complex clinical services. It’s also harmful when a provider’s financial incentives conflict with the patient’s needs, such as when the cardiology center wants to place a stent in someone’s coronary artery, but doesn’t disclose that stenting would be no more effective than medical management and lifestyle change for many patients, nearly all of whom are operating with an incomplete data set. (ibid, Kindle Locations 2380-2409).
Vik's Chapter 6 closing "six lies":
Lie 1: We needed health reform to solve the problem of people being uninsured for healthcare

Lie 2: We needed a national solution

Lie 3: Insuring the young and healthy will lower costs overall

Lie 4: The ACA helps average people more than it helps the healthcare industry


Lie 5: People need more preventive medical care, which will also help contain costs


Lie 6: Don’t worry, be happy; it’ll all work out
First and foremost, you should worry. There is zero evidence that staying fully and relentlessly engaged with the medical care industry will reduce costs or improve health. Indeed, Massachusetts, which gave us the state model for what became Obamacare, has the highest healthcare costs in the nation. Further, expanding Medicaid access in Oregon increased utilization of very costly emergency room care, which, we are told repeatedly, is not supposed to happen when people have insurance that promotes access to less expensive forms of primary care.
A young, fit, wealthy President who plays basketball and golf, jogs around the White House in his suit before lunching on first quality food, and lifts weights (sort of), should have drawn much different conclusions about how to improve the health of the American population. What his life of wealth and privilege should have done is prompt introspection about the value of culture to health. Even the people of Mississippi, the country’s poorest, fattest, least fit state, recognize their problem is not medical care, which they use in abundance, but the cultural tools related to health that pass from generation to generation. 
Ironically, this President’s healthcare reform pushes Americans into a kind of medical servitude. His goal should have been to lead people to greater health independence and to say that we want the smallest, most efficient healthcare industry we need to meet our requirements. (Why do political leaders always make that trite, hackneyed statement about the military and never about the healthcare industry?) Instead, he has empowered and promoted bloat, waste, and stupidity. Health reform, as we are seeing it now, is the product of a control-freak mentality because it doesn’t help people see the relative merits of choosing different options and then living with the consequences of their decisions.
Vik The Spartan is pissed at a nation of slovenly couch potatoes who are raising his insurance rates (the PPACA having significantly gutted actuarial risk vetting).
Every administration since President Johnson’s has kicked the can down the road when it comes to fixing the healthcare industry’s many dysfunctions. It was always going to be someone else’s responsibility to make the tough choices. No small surprise, then, that they wrote that philosophy into the law. This is your chance to kick the can back at them and say “No thanks, I think I’ll keep my money and my common sense.” 

Your Personal Affordable Care Act is about avoiding Obamacare and creating a positive health future through the quintessential American values of ingenuity, self-reliance, and gritty, grind-it-out determination. My two best friends describe me as distinguishable not only by my smarts but by my tenacity. I simply will not be defeated. The strategies I outline in this e-book are exactly the same things I teach my executive fitness coaching clients (one of my clients, CEO of a medical technology company, has lost 20% of his starting weight and kept it off for three years, and I’ve never advised him to do anything that isn’t in this e-book), and they are the same things I do (and have done consistently since age 18; I am now nearly 57). Even more importantly, they are what I teach my son, now 10. I know he will follow in my footsteps; in fact, he knows more about good health now than most American adults. (ibid, Kindle Locations 918-927).
You're unlikely to run across the word "humble" in characterizations of Vik Khanna.
In each group of recommendations, I outline things you should know and things you should do, on the belief that knowledge and action are complementary strategies and pointless without one another. My recommendations are presented as a series of points in list format. Each recommendation is brief and to the point. If you want more information to consider or want to review source data, click on the active links. It’s important for you to realize that this is not a debate; I’m not presenting alternative points of view and somehow ensuring mine wins at the end. Mine wins from the start [emphasis mine]. If you choose to be skeptical and want to read the opposition, well, be my guest, Google awaits. Good luck finding all those studies on how eating well, exercising often and as hard as you can, sleeping enough, not smoking, and being a demanding, alert consumer are unproductive. (ibid, Kindle Locations 889-894).
But, who was it who said "it ain't braggin' if you can back it up"?

What about Health IT? The nominal turf of this blog? Not to worry.
Obamacare bizarrely emphasizes technology as a solution to problems that are fundamentally not amenable to technological fixes. We aren’t struggling with population health for a lack of access to healthcare or medical technology. The healthcare industry isn’t expensive and inefficient because of a lack of technology; it’s drowning in technology, such as overhyped and overused diagnostic screenings. The government’s mandate that healthcare providers transition to electronic medical records has created a swamp of miscommunication, failed strategies, and ineptitude that are hidden from the view of most Americans. No one can say with a straight face that your health information is now safer, handled more efficiently, and won’t be used against you by your employer, health plan, or the government. Neither can anyone seriously claim that your physician’s time is any better spent now, fiddling with electronic medical records that frequently don’t’ work as intended, than it was spent dealing with insurance company denials of coverage or reimbursement. 

To demonstrate how deeply embedded the technology fantasy is, consider this: on the weekend of August 18-19 in 2007, I gave a speech at the Maryland Association of Counties meeting in Ocean City. My talk essentially laid out the themes in this book: if we don’t get people to fix themselves and find a way to do that in households, communities, and workplaces throughout the state, there is no hope of containing medical care spending in ways that people will tolerate. In the room for my talk was John Colmers, secretary of the state health department at the time and a long-time darling of the pro-government intrusion crowd. Colmers asked me to comment on his belief that electronic medical records would bring about the long-awaited cost containment and care rationalization revolution. I responded that I was struck by the naiveté of the question, especially in a state where, at the time, small medical practices still dominated the marketplace and likely could not even afford the very uncertain technology he wanted them all to have. Of course, Colmers now works at Johns Hopkins, a temple to modern medical technology which, like many other uber-healthcare institutions, wants to take ever greater control of people’s health lives. 

I do give Colmers credit, however, for not asking the dumbest question of that day in Ocean City. That honor went to the young woman who very earnestly asked when she could expect her health insurer to reimburse her for buying healthier. I asked her if she was acquainted with the phrase “personal responsibility.” (ibid, Kindle Locations 635-656). 
I find "Your Personal Affordable Care Act" a useful, important addition to the health policy literature. It's a real bargain at $4.95 Kindle price (I fussed at him for pricing it so low). I would think the Cato types could afford to buy it in bulk and distribute it to every member of Congress and the Administration and elsewhere in Health Wonkistan. A thousand copies would cost them less than five grand and could pretty much cover the Hill and the White House and the major federal policy analysts.

Maybe we could even comp one to Jonathan Gruber.

BTW, see also
Good luck, Mr. Khanna. I hope it gets national, public traction. Enjoyed reading it very much. Learned some stuff that I will put to good personal use.

This is all I have time for at the moment. My Grandson returns to college tomorrow to finish his junior year at St. Olaf, and I have to take him clothes shopping. If I think of any other material points, I'll update the post.


__

ADDENDA

An old medical joke:
Q: What's the definition of a well person?
A: A patient who hasn't been adequately worked up.
Vik:
"There is zero evidence that staying fully and relentlessly engaged with the medical care industry will reduce costs or improve health."
Mr. Khanna cites Dr. Thomas Szasz (the "Myth of Mental Illness" guy, whose books I have long had. One of my favorite Szasz-isms was where he railed against the increasing "medicalization" of life itself, wherein we try to assign clinical dx's to every little "problem of living." Szasz then went on to sarcastically posit a curative px he called a "humanectomy."

Vik:
The U.S. healthcare industry doesn’t just turn the concepts of population health upside down, it simply ignores them, and it worsens many of them by making into medical issues things that don’t inherently require a clinical intervention. This process is called “medicalization,” and its primary purpose is to create dependency on the professions and the institutions they run. Your dependence enhances their status and income. This is not to say there aren’t circumstances that require professional expertise; clearly, people get sick and have accidents and require complex and fast medical management. For these rare circumstances, it’s good to have a highly reactive and well-equipped system. But, people and organizations designed around the concept of fixing are not able to engage in the pursuit of prevention, because it is economically not in their interest to do so, and it is far afield from their core competencies. Medical management simply is not an essential ingredient for just living well. (ibid, Kindle Locations 2487-2497).

The medicalization of our lives has led us to a point where the medical care sector alone is never targeted for down-sizing or even right-sizing. It is trite Washington-insider banter to clamor for a smaller, more effective military, but what of applying this same principle to healthcare? Where is the national challenge to improve ourselves so much that hospitals are forced to downsize or close, and there are as many unemployed doctors as there are unemployed lawyers? Where is the messaging that what we need is a smaller, more efficient, and less error-prone healthcare industry, in which greed is not the core value? Instead of these challenges to change and improve, we are encouraged to drown ourselves in a more-and-bigger-is-better approach to medicine for which there is a 50-year track record of futility. 

Somewhere, Ivan Illich, the radical Catholic theologian who foresaw that the medical care system would one day become our nemesis, is laughing at us. (ibid, Kindle Locations 3154-3164).
Yeah.

"This is not to say there aren’t circumstances that require professional expertise; clearly, people get sick and have accidents and require complex and fast medical management. For these rare circumstances, it’s good to have a highly reactive and well-equipped system." OK, but how much should something like that cost per capita to have around largely on adroit standby for exigent circumstances?

A most difficult question, if you're honest about it. To cite the low hanging fruit analogy, we pretty much don't have private market fire stations. For a reason.

Another good read comes to mind, from my April 9th, 2014 post.


CODA

apropos of Vik's fine effort,
THE U.S. "HEALTH CARE" "SYSTEM"?

I will by no means be the first to note that our medical industry is not really a "system," nor is it predominantly about "health care." It is more aptly described as a patchwork post hoc disease and injury management and remediation enterprise, one that is more or less "systematic" in any true sense only at the clinical level. Beyond that it comprises a confounding perplex of endlessly contending for-profit and not-for-profit entities acting far too often at ruinously expensive cross-purposes...
I wrote those words nearly six years ago on another of my blogs.

BTW: yet another book well worth your time, one that Vik cites and one I've cited before, is Dr. Norton Hadler's "The Citizen Patient."

4. If We Build It, They Will Come
 The Procedures And Devices Gambit 

In this book, I am arming all of us, the Citizen Patients, with the knowledge to demand a health-care system that cannot sell us a pig in a poke, let alone profit from doing so. Americans are enamored of anything that’s new and shiny, particularly if it is “high-tech” and expensive. There are many examples where this fixation has led to progress for some if not all. The Apple Corporation is a case in point. EMI, the British music recording company, turned its attention from recording the Beatles to medical imaging, and now we consider CT scans as ordinary as we once considered routine X-rays. But there are many examples where the newest and shiniest turned out to be useless or a lemon. Such do not survive long in a free market, as the American automobile industry found out.
In the medical world, however, consumerism is gravely compromised. “Caveat emptor” seems irrelevant if something is already indemnified by one’s health -insurance policy. Patients seldom view themselves as consumers. Patients , by definition, are ill and seldom inclined to comparison shop, and even more seldom do they view themselves as purchasing items with which they are familiar from prior purchases. Patients are inherently patsies who depend on the sales pitch of the various providers...

Hadler M.D., Nortin M. (2013-04-01). Citizen Patient (H. Eugene and Lillian Youngs Lehman Series) (p. 91). The University of North Carolina Press. Kindle Edition.  
AFTERWORD

Someone on LinkedIn doesn't care for me or this post.


"An orgy of simplistic partisan Schadenfreude?" 

Son, look up the meaning of words prior to using them to mischaracterize the efforts of others. What part of "I find "Your Personal Affordable Care Act" a useful, important addition to the health policy literature" do you fail to comprehend?
___

More to come...