MD Whistleblower

Obama’s health care reform is moving steadily forward, or backward depending upon your point of view. He has reframed the issue entirely, empowered by his political standing and Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. It is no longer whether there will be a public option (read: government take over), but only over the extent that the government will control our health care system. The GOP are trying to cry doomsday, but their damage control efforts are drowned out by the din of the Democrats. What a difference an election makes. Senator Kennedy’s new legislative plan will provide health care to all Americans with employers and individuals making mandatory contributions. In this pay or play proposal, if someone does not purchase medical insurance, then the government would extract its pound of flesh through punitive fines. Private insurance companies, like casinos, would be required to pay out a specified percentage of their premiums as health care benefits. So much for the ‘f

Politicians speak out of at least three sides of their mouths. This is not just standard double talk, but represents the polished art form of triple talk. First, they tell us what we want to hear. Afterwards, they offer ‘clarifications and adjustments’ (never a flip-flop!) to their original remarks. Thirdly, they spin their views either to the right or left in order to repackage the policy for successful legislative butchering. All the while, they claim that their views have never changed. President Obama, before the election, assured us that he did not advocate the federal government taking over our health care system, realizing that most Americans would not support this policy. He offered us the safer bromides of expanding health care access, reducing costs and increasing medical quality. Who could oppose these noble objectives? However, campaign slogans such as ‘we need to create the finest public schools in the world’ generate enthusiastic support, but mask the complexity of the is

Actually, sign me up for Plan B or C instead. Many fear that Obama’s end game for health care reform is a single-payer (read: government) system, despite his denials that this is his objective. Single-payer zealots argue that if government takes over health care, that many of our intractable problems will be solved. We will save tons of money, they argue, from increased administrative efficiencies. Spiraling health care costs will be tamed under the government’s whip. Private insurance companies will no longer gouge the public with rising premiums and unfair exclusions for preexisting medical illnessess. The 46 million uninsured would be covered. Big Pharm can finally be caged by Big Government establishing price controls. And, with the government in charge, the president can submit a bill to congress simply outlawing cancer. I agree that single-payer would resolve many recalcitrant issues, but at what cost? What health care system would we be left with? A guillotine is an effective tr

There is a serious and expanding effort to address corruption in medicine. Regulators and lawmakers are addressing cozy relationships between physicians and industry to protect patients from financial conflicts of interests that may skew doctors’ medical advice. This is murky territory since not every potential conflict is corrupt. For example, is it acceptable for an orthopedist to benefit financially by using a particular artificial hip if the physician believes that this is the best product available for his patients? Does this practice become ethical if the physician discloses this financial arrangement? Are his patients entitled to know the actual dollar amount that the doctor receives? Is it proper for a gastroenterologist to receive a generous honorarium by a heartburn drug company to speak to primary care doctors about reflux treatment? Could this physician be trusted to offer truly objective information to his primary care colleagues with the company’s pharmaceutical represent

We watched the marriage on national TV. Both sides said, ‘I do’, as they faced a fawning audience of the press and government dignitaries. The couple, arm and arm, started ambling toward their parked limousine, festooned with bright Just Married signs. Newlyweds, usually wives, track many of the first events in a marriage. One of the recorded stats is the first argument. When it occurs, savvy husbands should save time and themselves by apologizing profusely and admitting shame and remorse. For most couples, this inevitable post-nuptial event occurs weeks or months after the solemn wedding vows are expressed. In the White House marriage we watched last Monday between Obama and a coalition of health care groups, the sniping started barely after they left the chapel. Wise bloggers had predicted this outcome, but I admit that I was mildly shocked at the speed that the bride pursued an annulment. What went wrong? Did that prankster Cupid dip his arrows into a vat of single-payer elixir poi

Can you feel the love? Cupid ran out of arrows in Washington, D.C. this week. On Monday, several medical industry groups including physicians met at the White House for a health care reform love fest. For as long as I’ve been a physician, the pharmaceutical industry, insurance companies, hospitals, physicians and medical device makers all viewed medical reform as a disease that needed to be vanquished. This week, these erstwhile reform antagonists are sitting around Obama’s campfire in a Kumbaya moment. These health care stakeholders pledged to reduce health care spending (read: their income) 1.5% annually over the next 10 years. What happened? Were they drugged or hypnotized? Is there a secret deal that we don’t know about? Did they drink the Obama Kool-Aide that has intoxicated much of the nation? Did they hear an inspiring sermon at their church services this past Sunday and were inspired to do the right thing for America? The correct answer, of course, is none of the above. These m