Sunday, February 23, 2020

Can Doctors Help You Lose Weight?

As a gastroenterologist -a trained specialist in digestive issues - I should have expertise in obesity, nutrition and weight loss strategies.  I really don’t.  While I have knowledge on these issues that likely exceeds that of most of my patients, I received inadequate formal training on these subjects during my gastroenterology training.   It is inarguable that digestive doctors – and indeed all physicians – should bring a high level of expertise on these medical issues into their exam rooms.  The impact of obesity reaches nearly every medical specialty.   Obesity is linked to heart disease, stroke, cancer, arthritis, diabetes, sleep apnea, high blood pressure and many other illnesses. 

Most of my overweight patients tend to remain so.  Many of them are simply resigned to a shape and size that they feel they cannot alter.   Some are not motivated to engage in the hard work and long journey that can lead to a leaner dimension.  Some do not recognize that successful weight loss requires a steely and sustained mental commitment to the task.  Others have food addiction issues and need an appropriate strategy to break through.   Some are convinced that they are plagued with a lethargic metabolism that retains pounds despite minimal food intake.  Many eat, not because they are hungry, but because of anxiety and stresses in their lives which have not been adequately addressed. 

Of course, medical professionals need more knowledge and skill in addressing nutritional issues.  How relevant are these skills to medical practice?   According to the CDC, over a third of American adults are obese.   And, more of us will be classified as obese if the definition of obesity is broadened.  This is analogous to what has happened with diagnosing folks with elevated cholesterol levels.  The medical profession, with a huge assist from the pharmaceutical industry, has lowered the ‘normal’ level of blood cholesterol over the years.  The result is that previously healthy people now have a cholesterol condition.   We saw a similar result last year when ‘normal’ blood pressure levels were made lower which instantly created millions of new hypertensive individuals.  Now, many of them may be subjected to the risks, expense and psychological effects of being told that they are diseased.   The argument, of course, is that this more aggressive approach saves lives.   Let’s see over the next decade or two if this hypothesis will be supported or refuted by medical evidence.   Keep in mind that many medical ‘breakthroughs’ announced with fanfare and optimism have been proven wrong. 

So, if you are among the millions who are struggling to shed some pounds, there are pathways available.   It can be a challenging road.  After all, if it were easy, then we'd all be think.  But, it can be done.  The first step on the journey takes place in your mind.  Are you all in?  

Sunday, February 16, 2020

The White Coat Wall of Silence

We’ve all heard about the blue wall of silence that describes a belief that law enforcement personnel will refrain from reporting misconduct of their colleagues to the proper authorities.  Physicians had similarly been accused of hiding behind a white coat wall of silence, as I have on this blog.   This describes the belief that physicians do not reliably turn in colleagues who are incompetent and impaired.  Personally, I have never knowingly participated in the care of a patient with an impaired colleague.   Competency is a murkier issue and is, of course, variable in the medical profession.  In addition, it’s not easy to define or to measure.  It is this very fact that has made me so hostile to the Pay-for-Performance schemes that claims to be a quality metric, but is truly used as a cost cutting tool.

'I Know Nothing'

I am aware of physicians in my community who do not have a strong reputation of medical skill.  Yet, many of these physicians are beloved by their patients.  Clearly, they are delivering something of great value that may not be included in our traditional definition of medical competence.  In addition, if physicians of lower medical skill levels, consult specialists more liberally to assist in the care of their patients, then the patients receive good medical care, albeit at higher cost.

What obligations to physicians have to come clean to patients about other doctors and health care facilities? Weigh in on the following.
  • A patient asks you if her primary care doctor is any good.  The primary care physician is a strong referrer to the practice, but is not highly regarded among colleagues.  How would you respond if you were the doctor?
  • A private practice surgeon operates at only one hospital.  His patient asks if another hospital would be a better choice.  The doctor is aware that the post-operative infection rate in his hospital is 5% higher than in area hospitals.  How would you respond if you were the surgeon?
  • A hospitalized patient is medically ready to be sent home.  Every additional day in the hospital consumes time and resources.  More importantly, it exposes the patient to risks of hospital life including infections and other complications.  The admitting doctor intends to discharge the patient home at the end of the week.  If you are a physician consultant on the case, what would you do?

Of course, I know what the correct answers should be.  But, my profession, and probably yours, are not as pure as we would like them to be.   While integrity may be absolute and impeccable, alas, we are not.

Sunday, February 9, 2020

Do You Need a Patient Advocate?

I wish I could write that medical care today is an optimal, cost-effective and efficient system that consistently provides appropriate and sterling medical care.  I wish I could write that pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and extended care facilities all view patient care as their primary and overriding mission.  I wish I could write that physicians all share the highest ethos of patient advocacy.

It is not possible to achieve these idealistic goals as the individual professionals, corporate entities and the government that comprise the medical profession are imperfect and face numerous conflicts of interests.  Indeed, this blog as devoted considerable space to highlighting these issues.

Here’s a representative vignette from my world. 

I was asked to see a hospitalized patient for an opinion on her low blood count, or anemia.  This is a common request for gastroenterologists as internal bleeding is a frequent explanation for anemia.  This is when we gastroenterologists get a truly ‘insider’s view’ of your intestine with our colonoscopes and other gadgets.  Not every anemic patient, however, needs to be subjected to our probing.  If we judge, for example, that the anemia is not caused by blood loss, then we will hold our fire and request that an appropriate medical consultant be recruited.   Another reason we might keep our scopes securely holstered with a patient who has had true blood loss is if we have safety concerns about proceeding with procedures. 

The patient I saw was ailing and elderly.  She had many chronic medical conditions.  There was no evidence of blood loss explaining her anemia.  Therefore, I advised against proceeding with any scope intrusions.  The attending physician was dissatisfied with my advice and requested that another gastroenterologist, presumably a more compliant practitioner, see the patient.  The doctor reached over me instead of reaching out to me.  

I am not asking readers to support my medical advice.  Perhaps, I was entirely wrong and the attending physician correctly recognized that internal bleeding was the culprit.  Perhaps, she was aware of certain medical facts that I did not know.  Maybe I am a mediocre specialist.  The point is that the next step in the process should have been for the two of us to engage in a conversation so when we could have a dialogue and arrive at a decision that we both felt served the patient’s interest. 

I would have settled for a message by carrier pigeon. 

Of course, conversations between physicians are commonplace.  But, patients would be surprised how seldom conversations between medical colleagues occur.  For example, there are certain physicians who don’t send reports to me when they see one of my patients.

For these reasons and others, there is increasing space in the medical marketplace available for an emerging medical professional – the patient advocate.   These folks can be hired by patients to make sure the medical evaluation is proceeding smoothly and that everyone on the case is fully informed. Isn’t this what we doctors are supposed to do?

Sunday, February 2, 2020

10 Mistakes Democrats Made on Impeachment

I am not going to offer an opinion if the Senate’s anticipated acquittal of the president in the impeachment proceeding will be correctly decided.   I have nothing to add to the millions of words that have already been said, written and dreamt on this issue.  And, even if I had divine inspiration to contribute a new thought, would it change anyone’s mind?

Leaving aside the merits of the case, I do think the Democrats have committed a series of errors that contributed to the GOP’s victory and made it more palatable for senators to support the president.

Flag of the U.S. Senate

  • House members and others have been clamoring for the president’s impeachment since his inauguration.  Indeed, a resolution for impeachment was submitted to the Republican controlled House in December 2017.  This feeds the narrative that the Democrats were fixated on the impeachment outcome long before the Ukraine imbroglio developed.
  • Democrats and others in print and the airwaves were warning us incessantly over Trump’s collusion with Russia.  They presented collusion as if it were an incontrovertible fact.  When Mueller announced there was no collusion, not a single Democrat admitted error.  They simply moved on to obstruction.  This pivot supported the theory that their plan was simply to find or concoct a pathway to achieve their pre-determined goal.
  • If the charges of bribery, extortion and violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution were so serious and secure, then why weren’t they included in the articles of impeachment?
  • Why didn’t the House Democrats test the President’s claims of privilege in court for witnesses?  If they judged that this effort would be too inconvenient or lengthy, then why would they expect that this same process would proceed smoothly in the Senate?
  • Why did the House Democrats withdraw the subpoena for Charles Kuperman, who was willing to testify if so ordered by a court, before the court issued a ruling?  What changed their minds?
  • Why did Speaker Pelosi give out pens used to sign the impeachment articles as souvenirs, serving to cheapen such a serious and rare undertaking?
  • If impeaching the president needed to occur with great dispatch, informing us that our democracy was at risk, then why did the House tarry for 33 days before forwarding the articles to the Senate?
  • Why did Speaker Pelosi make futile demands to impact on the Senate trial when the Constitution plainly states that the “Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments”?  Did Majority Leader McConnell try to tell the House how to conduct their hearing?  Would they have allowed him to?
  • Should House Managers have declared that the “Senate is on trial” or that if senators voted to acquit that they would be participating in a cover up?
  • Should the House Democrats have emphasized to exhaustion that their submitted case was ‘overwhelming’?  (It was overwhelming to hear the word overwhelming used so often!)  If the case were truly overwhelming, then why would witnesses even be necessary?  Shouldn't the case have been able to stand on its own?

Yes, of course, I could have written a similar post highlighting Republican partisanship, gamesmanship and hypocrisy.  And, I hope readers will comment accordingly.  But my narrower point is that the Democrats’ feeding of their base alienated others and made crossing over less likely for those whose view on the issue was not yet fixed.  So, while they decry the outcome and claim that the trial sans witnesses was illegitimate, they bear some responsibility for this.