The Business of Medicine Should Not and Can Not Replace Care and Compassion

Compassionate CareWell over a year ago I advised my 80 something year old patient and her children that due to progression of her Parkinson’s disease, and her frail nature, she needed a higher level of assistance and care if she wished to remain in her home.  She was extremely unsteady walking and several courses of physical therapy had not improved the situation. The patient was feisty and would only allow help to come for 4 hours per day despite having a long term care policy that paid for significantly more.  She lost her balance recently, fell and landed on her back. She could not get up or get to a phone or her alert bracelet and was found seven hours later on the floor by her aide arriving for work.  In the Emergency Room x-rays revealed several acute fractures of her vertebrae that accounted for her severe pain with movement and inability to stand, bear weight or walk.

I hustled over to the ER and examined her and called the interventional radiologist to see if he could perform a procedure called a kyphoplasty that would cement the fractures and remove the pain. It was early Friday afternoon and the traditional back specialists were unavailable until the next day.  The radiologist came promptly, was professional and very pleasant explaining that he could do the procedure but because she took a baby aspirin for prevention of stroke, he would not perform it until the aspirin wore off in 5 – 7 days because of fear of excessive bleeding around the spinal cord.  He suggested we send her home with pain medications and round the clock assistance or keep her in the hospital until the aspirin wore off and he felt comfortable performing the procedure.  He was courteous and a credit to any profession. 

Since the patient was in great pain with any movement, I chose to admit her to the hospital while we sorted things out.  I admitted her as an inpatient because she is extremely elderly and frail with medical conditions that led to this injury which an expert had just told me required surgery to fix. She could not walk or transfer to a chair or wheelchair to get food, water or get to the bathroom. She had no arrangements for additional help at home to assist her. She could not, in my professional opinion, go home safely at this point.  

The next day I was making rounds late in the day for me at noon, reviewing the situation with the patient and her son when the physician’s assistant (PA) for the back surgeons, Andy, walked in and introduced himself. They had not seen her Friday evening or Saturday morning and this was their first contact with the patient.  My consult request and phone call had been quite clear. I wanted to know how they viewed the injury and what options did they feel were best to fix the problem. I additionally asked them how their approach would differ, if at all, from the approach of interventional radiology.  I had seen Andy around the facility and said “hello” but never formally met him so it was an introduction for me as well. 

“Hi, my name is Andy, and I work for Doctors Y and Z.  We have a little problem with your insurance.  You have a Medicare Advantage plan and we are not part of that plan. Most of the time, about 95% of the time, we eventually get paid for our services but we need to know how we will get paid for performing a procedure on you to fix your back before we proceed further. In these situations we usually ask the patient to pay the bill up front ($1000 – $1200) and then we submit the charges to your insurance company. If we get reimbursed from the insurance we return the money to you.”  

I took a deep breath and wondered if maybe I was overreacting to the brusque inappropriate presentation to a groggy senior who had been given a narcotic 30 minutes before for pain and was really in no condition to listen to any presentation or sign away informed consent.  I cut Andy off in the middle of a sentence and reminded him that I had requested an opinion. The son, an attorney by trade took up the fight and reminded the PA just how inappropriate his initial remarks were and that in this case money was not a problem but the manner of dealing with an elderly confused patient was.  I played mediator at this point and got the PA to explain that his employers had done several thousand of these procedures and handled many more complications than most interventional radiologists and that their success record spoke for itself.  He outlined a slightly different approach and once we got him talking about the reasons for his invitation onto the case, justified calling his group.

I am all in favor of physicians being paid for their professional services. This could have been handled differently by calling me first and informing me that they had concerns about payment and insurance and letting me address the issues. It could have been handled far gentler by answering the questions asked first and suggesting options and then reviewing the problems with the insurance. Had the gentleman performed a history and or exam rather than rely on the ER PA’s evaluation the day before, he would have seen that the patient was not in a position to comprehend what he was saying or sign for a procedure.  

This is not a criticism of PA’s or Nurse Practitioners. It is a criticism of any practitioner who does not answer the questions asked by the referring physician or question the referring physician about payment before arriving for the consult if they have questions about getting paid for their time and expertise.

The post script is that the son wisely chose to use this group based on their talents and experience and put aside the rude and insensitive communication by the PA. The surgery went well and the patient will go home after spending three nights in the hospital. 

There is still one obstacle to overcome. The hospital ignored my written order to make her status inpatient and made her status observation which will prevent her from receiving any post-surgery therapy or care which is paid for by her insurance. I will fix that. Keeping the phone number on my phone contact list of the Office of the Inspector General who investigates Medicare irregularities opens doors in situations like this. It does not change the fact however that as practitioners we need to be much more thoughtful when we discuss financial issues before medical issues if we wish to continue to be considered a profession rather than another business.

Advertisements

Deep Vein Thrombosis Prophylaxis, Safety and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals

Over the last few years, great emphasis has been placed on preventing blood clots from forming in the legs and pelvis of all hospitalized patients. These blood clots can break off and travel to the lungs causing life-threatening breathing problems and fatal heart arrhythmias and sudden death. Preventing these “venous thromboembolic events” has been a priority of quality organizations like the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals which inspect hospitals and offer certification if the hospital meets their criteria.

The movement to prevent these clots and sudden death has become so strong that you cannot admit a patient to the hospital without addressing these issues. Physicians must either choose to give injections below the skin with the blood thinner heparin three times a day or the low molecular weight heparin twice a day. You are additionally asked to prescribe mechanical compression stockings to the legs to further reduce the risk.

If you choose not to institute these orders you must clearly write out and outline your objections and reasons for not taking these measures. Even if you document your reasons for not instituting these measures you’re assured of receiving a call from your hospital’s quality care organization.

This all becomes newsworthy because two recent studies called into question the practices. One study concluded that mechanical compression stockings added nothing to the use of blood thinners in preventing deep vein clots. The other study cited that for every 1000 patients treated with blood thinners to prevent pulmonary emboli; you prevented three non-fatal pulmonary emboli at the expense of causing nine bleeding events – four of which are major.  I suspect this data will be discussed in our medical journals and at scholarly meetings and a consensus opinion will be reached on how to proceed. Letters will be written to journals criticizing the methods of these studies and other letters will be written defending them and, ultimately, a common sense approach will be reached.

In the meantime, it would be far more interesting to look at the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals and determine how they got so powerful that they can mandate procedures which may not have any value and may do harm?  Who are they?  How do they generate income and how much goes to who and why?

It is a fact that in the state of Florida, private insurers like Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, Humana, will not contract with a hospital or institution unless it receives certification from this organization.  A study should be done to see if these JCAHO inspections costing $7-8 million dollars every other year resulted in any reduction of in-hospital errors, iatrogenic illnesses, death rates and serious illness?

Insurers and employers who pick up the “lion’s share” of our health care costs are always asking for accountability and efficiency and want to pay for what works. It would be nice to know if their relationship with JCAHO has made the patient safer or healthier over the last 15 years.

The Turnovers are the Difference- Medical “Handoffs” Are Continually Fumbled

This is a humbling football season for those of us who root for Florida teams at the collegiate or professional level. It seems that each week after another loss we are listening to the head coach standing at the podium during a post-loss press conference talking about how if the handoffs had not been fumbled, and the ball dropped and lost, his team could have prevailed. It is hard enough to deal with the turnovers and fumbles when rooting for your team. It is far more difficult to deal with it when we are talking about human beings hospitalized and cared for by hospital employed physicians and then turned back to the community without communicating adequately, or at all, with the care team responsible for their continued care at the community level.

Take the case of GH, an 82 year old obese diabetic with high blood pressure, high cholesterol and heart irregularities requiring the use of Coumadin to prevent a stroke. He awoke one morning two weeks after a major auto fender bender and found his underwear stained in bright red and dark brown blood. His wife was unsure if it was coming from his rectum or penis so she called 911 and allowed the patient to be taken to the nearest emergency department.  He was seen by the emergency room staff and admitted to their contracted hospitalist service for presumed intestinal bleeding due to Coumadin toxicity.

Eight days later he was discharged home with an indwelling Foley catheter needed because of the “clots” in his bladder. His Coumadin had been stopped on admission and never restarted. GH could not get out of the bed and walk while in the hospital and he stubbornly refused to go to a nursing rehabilitation center as an interim step until he was strong enough to walk independently.  His frail 80 year old wife, battling a lymphoma herself, was given the task of caring for this obstinate man at home and emptying and caring for his indwelling urinary catheter.

On his first day back home, I received a phone call from his wife informing me of this. She didn’t know what she could possibly do to care for him because he weighed 230 lbs and he couldn’t get out of bed and walk. A nursing service and physical therapist had been requested but had not yet called to schedule a visit.  She was particularly disturbed because 12 hours had gone by since he got home with no urine appearing in the bladder drainage catheter. At the same time his lower abdomen was growing in size and he was feeling pain and discomfort at that spot.  Once again, 911 was called and he was taken back to the same emergency department. Paramedics transport sick patients to the geographically closest facility not necessarily the one his physician sees patients at.

GH was readmitted because his catheter was blocked with clots and needed irrigation and there were concerns about a urine infection. I spoke with the wife and children and asked for the name of his doctor but they could not remember it. They did remember the name of his consulting urologist. I called the urologist who was a bit put out to discuss the case with me. He told me that “our“ patient was bleeding from the urinary tract due to a transitional cell cancer of the bladder that he discovered and treated during a cystoscopy. He felt the prognosis was excellent.

The urologist declined to discuss whether the patient was additionally bleeding from his intestinal tract or if the appropriate evaluation had been done. He suggested I find the hospitalist responsible for the patient’s care. When I asked for the name of the hospitalist he told me he had no idea who it was. “They all look the same to me,” was his actual response.

I asked the patient’s wife to have her husband sign an authorization to release medical records and obtain the medical records of his admissions for my review. She did that and presented it to the medical records department who sent me a brief summary of his second admission. It took three phone calls to obtain the records of the first admission and another to get the emergency department records.  I needed this material because it was quite easy to convince the patient to come to a local rehab facility after this hospitalization with me as his attending physician.  The patient and family had no idea why he was bleeding other than “I had clots” in the bladder. They didn’t know the name of his hospitalist either.  When I received the records it identified the physician. I called the hospital to page her but was told she was “off “for the next few days. Her colleagues on duty did not know or remember the patient.

The patient records finally arrived. His admission diagnosis was bleeding due to Coumadin toxicity, but the INR (a measure of how effective the Coumadin is in thinning the blood) was very low indicating that his blood was not anticoagulated much at all.  An INR of 1.4 doesn’t cause bleeding and is not toxic. The medical record said he had hematochezia (blood in his stool) but there was no documentation that anyone had performed a rectal exam or examined a stool specimen for the presence of gross or microscopic blood.

There was a lab order to type and cross-match the patient for a blood transfusion but certainly no mention that a transfusion had actually occurred. There was a thorough procedure note from a gastroenterologist who looked in his stomach and colon several days after admission and found no source of bleeding. I called the gastroenterologist on the day I received the records but he was gone for the Thanksgiving weekend.  The records indicated the patient’s blood count showed hemoglobin of 9.3 on the day prior to discharge and 8.3 on the day of discharge but there was no mention of an investigation of why the blood count dropped and why he was released with a dropping blood count.  A chest x-ray report on his first admission showed a right lower lung infiltrate but there was no follow-up performed or reported.

The patient arrived at the local rehab facility on Thanksgiving morning. I saw him and performed a thorough history, review of his records and an exam.  He was no longer bleeding, with no black stools noted on my rectal exam and no microscopic blood on the stool occult blood slide test I performed at the bedside. His Foley catheter was draining clear non bloody urine and the patient looked pale but well.

It was really very easy to convince this patient to come to rehab to learn to walk again once I became aware of his hospitalization and condition.  After my initial exam I sat down with the charge nurse and we constructed a care plan for the next few weeks at the rehab facility and explained it to the patient. Then I told the patient he had bladder cancer with a good prognosis. He was completely unaware of that diagnosis until we had the conversation.  I called his wife and children separately and reviewed the diagnoses and care plans for follow-up.

GH entered the hospital on an emergency basis as an unknown. He was appropriately taken to the nearest receiving facility by the paramedics when he was found to be on a blood thinner and bleeding actively.  His inpatient hospital employed physicians prevented a catastrophe and did what was necessary to make sure one was not ongoing. They did little or nothing to insure the loose ends of his medical problems resulting in hospital admission were addressed or understood by the patient and family.  Little or no effort was made to insure continuity of care and appropriate follow-up.

Judging by the editorials in our peer reviewed medical journals, this has become the norm not the exception in our insurance company / employer driven health care system. The devil is in the details. Unless the loose ends are planned for , understood and addressed, patients like this will continue to be bounced back to the hospital as an “emergency”, unnecessarily spending money we do not have and do not need to waste.

Medicare, if you only knew…

The following guest post was written by Aimee Seidman, M.D., FACP.  Dr. Seidman is an award winning internal medicine physician in Rockville, MD, a suburb of Washington, D.C.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If I could have a penny for every dollar I saved Medicare, I’d be rich. As a concierge physician, my patients can expect advocacy that stretches from the office to the home, hospital, rehab facility, long term care setting, and to the hospice. When I work with a patient, they can expect me to intervene between the various subspecialty physicians or hospitalists involved in their care, spread out my arms in front of them as if ready to take a bullet for them, and defiantly yell “get your paws off my patient until we hear what the plan is”.

How often are x-rays, ultrasounds, MRI’s, cardiac caths, and yada, yada, yada done in patients with a shortened life expectancy, poor quality of life, or clear living will instructions? How often is patient autonomy ignored in the rush to ‘complete work-ups’? Why do we have to work everything up? We need to stop what we’re doing (and stop the cowboys who are shooting from the hip) and think about the patient’s status and whether or not the proposed intervention is appropriate.

The last time I asked one of my 80-101 year olds how aggressively they wanted their medical treatment to be, they said “no way…leave me the hell alone! When my time comes, it comes. Just make a nice party!“  I shudder to think of the feeding tubes inserted and other interventions done in clear violation of a living will, even if that living will is right there with the patient or family members present.

I believe we scare the daylights out of people by telling them all the horrible things that will happen if they don’t consent to treatment plans. But it’s all defensive medicine. “I’ve got to be able to document that I warned them about this horrible death so I don’t get sued”. I suspect non-intervention, comfort measures, and hospice care are rarely offered to families in a way they can hear it. ER doctors and hospital physicians are just doing their jobs-they want to ‘save lives’ (or at least keep them alive until the next shift) and the primary care doctor is never consulted.

What do people think we do, order mammograms all day? Those of us in concierge medicine who have close relationships with our patients know them and their families well enough to expedite decision-making in a way that is medically and ethically appropriate. The whole point of my concierge practice is to first, do no harm (remember that?), allow my late stage Alzheimers disease patient to have a dignified death, and not spend millions of dollars on unnecessary procedures.

Not only that (I’m almost done), if all primary care physicians and the health care community made a conscious effort to inquire about living wills, explain the subtleties, and respect the choices made, fewer people would use ambulances, go to the ER, stay in the hospital, etc.

The other piece to this is the education of families regarding end of life issues, preparation, ethics, and closure. As it is, families deal with guilt, sadness, confusion, and anger when called upon to make these tough decisions or to respect an established living will. Most of us have seen families reluctant to honor a living will because they can’t bear the thought of letting grandpa starve to death.

If consulted about these decisions ahead of time, much of the combat will not occur. So how much have I saved Medicare by avoiding all this unnecessary stuff? Tens of thousands of patients, times a fortune of money, equals a boatload of bucks.

So, do you want to know ways to fix health care?

1.      Tort reform so docs aren’t so paranoid and aren’t playing “cover-your-butt medicine”;

2.      Docs, shut up and listen to your patients;

3.      Stop insulting the community of doctors who want to practice medicine in a particular model labeling them elitist and focus on things that will work (and by the way, most of us have scholarship patients, indigent patients and perform community service);

4.      A national campaign to educate consumers about the importance of living wills and have discussions over details, including family members in the discussion;

5.      Make it clear to the medical community that honoring a patient’s autonomy in the form of an advance directive is their obligation under the law

6.      Do no harm.

Just listen to me and give me a penny for every dollar I save Medicare, then I’ll really be rich.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please note, the opinions expressed in this guest blog post are those of Dr. Aimee Seidman, founder of Rockville Concierge Doctors.

Hospital Administration: Spending Your Tax Payer Dollars / Shorting You on Benefits

Last summer my 86 year old father awoke in the middle of the evening with profuse rectal bleeding. He felt weak and dizzy and called 911. The paramedics transported him to the local emergency room at a hospital close to his home – about one hour south of my home.

I call my parents daily to check up on them and learned of the trip to the hospital during one of these calls.  Mom is 84 and wheelchair bound with multiple structural and cardiovascular issues. Dad is 86, a WWII decorated paratrooper with dementia and orthopedic issues that dwarf his other chronic problems. They have an aide for several hours a day that is the glue that holds their lives together in their own home.

No one was home when I called and of course my folks had their Jitterbug senior special cell phone turned off so they were unreachable.   I left several messages and finally about 8:00 p.m. my mom answered the phone, denied that the cell phone was turned off, denied that I had left any messages on her answering machine and told me that dad was in the ER at Memorial Hospital. Her description was quite vague as to what was going on but I did learn that their long-time physician was unavailable and the hospitalist service was caring for him.

I phoned the ER and spoke to a nurse who was nice enough to tell me that he was stable and they were holding him for observation. He had not yet required blood transfusions and they did not know the exact source of the bleeding but he was still in the emergency department and comfortable.  I drove down that evening and saw dad in the ER. The next evening, unable to find his doctor, I drove down as well and saw dad in his hospital room on the medical floor.  He was weak but in good spirits.  I left a note with his nurse to please ask his physician to call me at his convenience and left my office and cell phone numbers.

Two days later I received a phone call from his long-time physician, who had returned from visiting her family to explain what was going on. She said that his gastroenterologist had been in to see him and he was doing well. The next day after some “tests”, dad’s liquid diet was advanced to a soft diet.

At 5:00 p.m. I received a harried phone call from my mother. She told me that dad was being discharged immediately and that if they stayed longer Medicare would not pay for it and my folks would be totally responsible for the bill. Dad had been in bed for four days, had not walked the halls, had not showered or washed himself and had not yet had a bowel movement since admission.

As a board certified geriatrician I realize the importance of these benchmark pre-discharge steps being achieved BEFORE you send a patient home.  It was too late for dad who was out the door and home.   His aide was upset because she leaves at 7:00 p.m. and she felt dad was too weak to get out of bed and walk to the bathroom without falling. I hired a night nurse and put in a call to his doctor.  I demanded that he be evaluated for a stay in a rehab facility until he was able to ambulate or at least send in a physical therapist to help him regain his strength and ability to walk. A few days of bed rest completely de-conditions most senior citizens and the complications of falls, and their prevention, must be addressed to prevent a bad situation from becoming worse.

His physician told me that “he did not meet criteria for home health assistance or rehabilitation stay” because he had been in the hospital for less than three full days.  I was astonished. He had been in the hospital for five to six days by my count.  She told me his first two days in the hospital were not as an admitted inpatient but as an outpatient observation.   By discharging him at 5:00 p.m. he had missed being an inpatient and qualifying for benefits by several hours.

Outpatient observation status is a game hospital case managers and administrators play to bill more money. When a Medicare senior citizen is admitted as an inpatient the hospital receives a bundled total payment based on the diagnosis or DRG.  If the patient is kept in observational status the hospital is no longer limited to receiving a flat rate but can unbundle the charges and bill ala carte for each service rendered.

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in its 12/03/2009 bulletin on page 3 defines outpatient observation services as “the use of a bed and possible monitoring by nursing or other ancillary staff, which are reasonable and necessary to evaluate the patient’s condition for possible inpatient admission.”   The decision as to inpatient admission status or observational status is supposed to be made by the patient’s doctor.  The problem is that is as far as it goes. No one at the CMS level has actually delineated criteria for an inpatient or traditional admission or for outpatient observation.

At the hospital level, administration now places a document on each patient chart requiring the physician to defer that decision to the hospital employed case manager who is not a physician. Over the years, hospital administration has diminished the political power of the individual physicians and medical staff to be advocates for their patients by destroying the medical staff bylaws and infiltrating medical staff governing bodies with physicians loyal to, and employed entirely by, the hospital.

The result is a tremendous conflict of interest with no one watching out for the patient.  The hospital then controls the rules and regulations and can even bully staff members into relinquishing decisions on admission status to the hospital employees rather than the patient’s physician.  One of the reasons hospitalist medicine has become so popular is that hospital administrators love the idea of controlling the physician side of care, something that acted like a “check and balance” in favor of patient advocacy when physicians were independent.

I bring this up because at my community hospital, where I care for my patient’s administration, is now attempting to influence doctors to give up the decision-making on admission and cede it to their case managers as well. A note was sent to the entire staff instructing us to not admit patients who do not meet “interqual” criteria for admission but to let their case managers assign them to observational status.

When I inquired about what interqual criteria were, and where “interqual” criteria were listed in the CMS bulletins or Federal Register, I was told they did not exist there.  Once again the fox is watching the hen house.

In these times of deficit spending and economic crisis hospitals are using our tax dollars to bill ala carte at a higher level and limiting senior citizens right to qualify for necessary post-hospital rehabilitative care by making much of their hospital stay “ observational” as opposed to traditional inpatient status.

I wrote a letter to Memorial Hospital about my dad’s stay and asked to see their criteria for inpatient admission.  Just like my local hospital could not produce criteria, neither could Memorial Hospital. I wondered how a frail 86 year old, dizzy, bleeding rectally and on anti-platelet agents to prevent clotting did not meet criteria for hospital admission?  I received a phone call from the Chief Medical Officer at Memorial Hospital months later saying he had reviewed my dad’s case and he was comfortable with their decision-making.

The issue needs to be addressed by patients, family members, legislators and concerned physicians. Hospital administrations are bullying physicians into relinquishing their advocacy and decision making so that they can charge more using the observational status rather than the inpatient admission status. By using this technique the patient does not meet the three day minimum hospital stay to provide post hospital care and treatment paid for by Medicare and the patients supplemental insurance policies. Once the patient’s personal physician relinquishes decision-making power to the hospital employees, they have created a conflict of interest which, if left unaddressed, will raise health care costs and affect quality of the patient’s care.

Who Says Concierge Practice Is Unjust For Patients And Doctors Alike?

Medscape Medical Ethics published an article in August 2011 written by Art Caplan, PhD., Professor of Bioethics and Philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania claiming that Concierge Practice Is Unjust For Patients And Doctors alike.  A PDF of the article is attached for your review.  Concierge Practice Unjust For Patients and Doctors Alike by Art Caplan, PhD.

I am in disagreement with Mr. Caplan’s article.  Below is my perspective.

Like the shots fired at Concord and Lexington in 1776, concierge medicine and direct pay practices are the initial shots fired by concerned primary care physicians in the revolution against health care systems which limit access to physicians and destroy the doctor / patient relationship. Concierge medicine arose as a result of government, private insurance, and employer intrusion into the health care field destroying primary care and a physician’s ability to spend the time required with patients to adequately and comprehensively prevent and treat disease.

The only thing that is unjust or unethical about concierge and direct pay practices is that they had to be formed to begin with. They formed after 30 years of:

  1. Primary care doctors lobbying unsuccessfully for adequate compensation for evaluation and management services and for protesting the widening gap between cognitive services and procedural specialty practices.
  2. Going through channels protesting the unfair bureaucratic and administrative burdens placed on primary care practices by Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers.
  3. Warning that the population is aging and their chronic health care problems are far more complex requiring more time with a physician rather than less.
  4. Primary care physicians leaving medical practice for early retirement or for paid jobs with pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers and hospital administrations where hard work and achievement were rewarded without having to deal with system imposed overheads of up to 65 cents on the dollar.
  5. Legislators providing no relief from frivolous lawsuits which makes seeing complex patients in 5-10 minute sessions for “single problem directed visits” a legal liability.
  6. Medical students realizing that the time and financial commitment to the practice of primary care medicine didn’t cover the bills essentially directing them toward more lucrative procedure dominated specialties.

Physicians also left after salaried academic physicians, who never took risk and invested a cent of their own money in building a practice, pontificated and moralized in peer journals supported wholeheartedly by biased pharmaceutical company ads that generating passive income through shared labs and imaging centers was a kickback.

If we look at the data accumulating on care from concierge and direct pay practices, we find that despite a sicker patient population these practices generate fewer visits to emergency departments and fewer acute emergent hospitalizations saving the system money.  These practices provide coordinated care for their patients steering them through a complex and confusing health care system riddled with inappropriate advertising and claims and, get the patients to the best people to treat their problems.

Concierge physicians have more time to spend with their patients thus, achieving unheard of levels of retention and patient satisfaction while giving pro bono scholarships to patients who cannot afford their membership fees but were with them prior to their conversion to a retainer model.

After years of being on the conveyor belt of having to see more patients per day, every day, to stay abreast of system generated overhead cost increases and declining payment for services, concierge physicians now have time to teach students, volunteer at health fairs and screenings and participate in the stewardship of what remains of their profession.

If anything is unjust and unethical it is salaried academic non-physicians writing articles about morality and justice about issues they have no hands-on experience practicing. As a primary care physician for 32 years, I feel like a chameleon having to change colors and practice style every few years based on new rules imposed by private insurers, employers and government programs. At no time were these new rules designed to improve the patients’ access to care or total care.  In each case the new rules were designed to save money and do nothing else.

Concierge and direct pay medicine is the first volley in a revolution to take outstanding care of a smaller panel of older sicker patients on a long term basis.  Its proponents have worked hard for decades to change the system through channels. Failure of legislators, government bureaucrats, health insurers, employers and professional associations such as the AMA and the ACP to react and fix the inequities has generated these practices which cost less than a cup of Starbucks grand latte per day to be a patient of and provide comprehensive care and access.

Prescription Refills For My Patients

My office staff is instructed to automatically fulfill any refill request for active patients seen within the last six months requesting non-narcotic prescriptions. If your medication bottle says that you no longer have any refills, we ask that you call the office and request a refill rather than calling the pharmacy.

If you have been calling your pharmacy first when you are out of refills, we have most likely not received a message from them.  Pharmacies typically communicate with us electronically and if the transmission does not go through they just keep resending it without recognizing that the message is not going through.

In this scenario, patients have been told by the pharmacy that we have not responded to their request for a refill. We can not respond if we don’t know about it. Please, if you are out of refills please call us first and we will call the pharmacy and renew the medication.  If your prescription bottle shows that you have remaining refills then it is quicker to call the pharmacy directly and give the prescription number.