Skip to main content

The Cost of Treating Uninsured Care - The Whistleblower Weighs In


Last week, I posted on whether physicians should modify their medical advice in response to patients who cannot afford the recommended care.  A hypothetical patient was presented who had no medical insurance.  The clinical particulars suggested that a CAT scan of the abdomen was the ideal diagnostic test, but the patient would not be able to afford this.  I, therefore, offered readers several choices of medical advice, some of which was tailored to the patient’s financial situation. 


Here’s my view.   While there is very little in medicine or the world which should be absolute, medical advice must remain pure.  It should depend only upon the physician’s best medical judgment regardless of the patient’s financial situation.   A millionaire and a pauper who present to the doctor with an identical medical issue should receive the same medical recommendation.  Yes, I realize that patients are not interchangeable and that there are cultural, personality and religious differences that may affect the medical advice.  Leaving that aside, every patient is entitled to the practitioner’s best advice, regardless of the ability to afford this care.  If the right advice is an MRI examination, a colonoscopy, surgery or a medication whose yearly cost exceeds his yearly income, then the doctor must advise these options.  While we may feel we are being compassionate and understanding by trying to treat the patient on the cheap, when we do so, we are failing in our healing mission.  It’s not possible for an uninformed patient to provide informed consent. 

The patient will decide what he can afford.  First, it may be possible that he has access to resources that the physician does not suspect.  More important, the choice of rejecting medical advice because of cost is properly the patients’ – not ours.  It is for the patient to respond that he cannot afford the preferred medication and to then ask us what the alternatives are.  It is not for physicians to leapfrog over expensive medical care with the misguided view that we are being sensitive to a patient’s financial predicament.

So, do readers think that I am on the money here?

Comments

  1. Very interesting article. You make a great point- access to medicine should not be a luxury dictated by doctors. In fact, access to medicine should not be a luxury at all. If you wouldn't mind, please take a look at this Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/HealthWoWealth. It provides some interesting insight on how to make access to quality medicine a reality- an inexpensive reality. Your support would be much appreciated.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Most Doctors Choose Employment

Increasingly, physicians today are employed and most of them willingly so.  The advantages of this employment model, which I will highlight below, appeal to the current and emerging generations of physicians and medical professionals.  In addition, the alternatives to direct employment are scarce, although they do exist.  Private practice gastroenterology practices in Cleveland, for example, are increasingly rare sightings.  Another practice model is gaining ground rapidly on the medical landscape.   Private equity (PE) firms have   been purchasing medical practices who are in need of capital and management oversight.   PE can provide services efficiently as they may be serving multiple practices and have economies of scale.   While these physicians technically have authority over all medical decisions, the PE partners can exert behavioral influences on physicians which can be ethically problematic. For example, if the PE folks reduce non-medical overhead, this may very directly affe

Should Doctors Wear White Coats?

Many professions can be easily identified by their uniforms or state of dress. Consider how easy it is for us to identify a policeman, a judge, a baseball player, a housekeeper, a chef, or a soldier.  There must be a reason why so many professions require a uniform.  Presumably, it is to create team spirit among colleagues and to communicate a message to the clientele.  It certainly doesn’t enhance professional performance.  For instance, do we think if a judge ditches the robe and is wearing jeans and a T-shirt, that he or she cannot issue sage rulings?  If members of a baseball team showed up dressed in comfortable street clothes, would they commit more errors or achieve fewer hits?  The medical profession for most of its existence has had its own uniform.   Male doctors donned a shirt and tie and all doctors wore the iconic white coat.   The stated reason was that this created an aura of professionalism that inspired confidence in patients and their families.   Indeed, even today

Electronic Medical Records vs Physicians: Not a Fair Fight!

Each work day, I enter the chamber of horrors also known as the electronic medical record (EMR).  I’ve endured several versions of this torture over the years, monstrosities that were designed more to appeal to the needs of billers and coders than physicians. Make sense? I will admit that my current EMR, called Epic, is more physician-friendly than prior competitors, but it remains a formidable adversary.  And it’s not a fair fight.  You might be a great chess player, but odds are that you will not vanquish a computer adversary armed with artificial intelligence. I have a competitive advantage over many other physician contestants in the battle of Man vs Machine.   I can type well and can do so while maintaining eye contact with the patient.   You must think I am a magician or a savant.   While this may be true, the birth of my advanced digital skills started decades ago.   (As an aside, digital competence is essential for gastroenterologists.) During college, I worked as a secretary