?

ログイン

Stuff - Jackdaws love my big sphinx of quartz [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Scott

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Stuff [Jan. 22nd, 2011|01:19 am]
Scott
[Tags|]

After several days of low-grade panic, I finally had my clinic with Mr. S. But Heaven was kind: Mary Harney, Ireland's unpopular health minister, resigned Wednesday night. The atmosphere in the hospital was that of a party, as all of the consultants predicted the rebirth of the Irish health system and wished a horrible and disease-laden retirement on the outgoing politician. "I hope," said one radiologist out loud at the official radiology conference "that she comes down with one of those horrible degenerative nervous conditions, one of the incurable ones, and she has her private insurance canceled so she has to get treated in one of the public beds". This started a brief argument over whether that would be more or less suitable than a different sort of wasting condition, with everyone finally agreeing that being thrown in prison would be a good start.

The upshot was that Mr. S was in such a good mood that nothing I said or did could possibly have pierced the aura of happiness and goodwill toward all mankind that surrounded him throughout the day. So I got to stand around and absorb his genius (he even looks a little like Dr. House) without fearing for my life.

This genius presented itself in some very interesting ways. I relate an incident that occurred during a surgery today. An intern came in bearing a message from hospital administration: resources were low, there were no theaters available, and the hospital was out of beds. Would it be okay to cancel Mr. S's operations on Monday?

Mr S. told the intern to relay the following message: "I understand the situation. Thank you."

The intern returned a few minutes later, again with a message from administration. "Right, so you understand we've got to cancel the operations on Monday?"

Mr. S. again sent the intern with a message: "I appreciate the situation."

At this point, Mr. S. explained this little ritual to myself and the other students. It seems that administration cancels surgeries whenever they feel like it, and the surgeons themselves have no say in the matter. But if they merely suggest that they have to cancel the surgery, and it is the surgeon who utters some variant of the word "okay", then they can write down "Operation cancelled by surgeon" on their forms. And in that case, if the patient dies because the operation was delayed, and the patient's family sues the hospital, then the hospital can bring out the forms and say "Look, we didn't cancel your operation; it was the surgeon's decision. Sue him instead!".

And so the only safe response to "We're going to cancel your operation next week, okay?" is some form of "I understand that you are doing this."

The whole event played out something like a scene from one of those old myths. Three times the administrator sent a messenger to Mr. S bearing the same question, and three times Mr. S would not be provoked to answer, and at last the administrator slunk away into the darkness defeated, only to begin the ritual again the next day.

There is something a little scary about a system in which this sort of behavior makes sense.
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: selfishgene
2011-01-22 10:49 am (UTC)
When your main customer base is a cost centre instead of a profit centre then Kafka reins supreme. The socialist ideal that no patient need ever pay for medical service sounds nice but it inevitably leads to the situation where nobody has any real incentive to provide that service. Mandated procedures attempt to replace that organic incentive but there is always a way to game the system and shirk your duties (at least to some extent).
A much better solution would be to have all medical procedures done for profit; with genuine charity cases handled by third party organisations making payments for the patient. Of course, this only scratches the surface of medical industry perversions.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: squid314
2011-01-22 11:48 am (UTC)
Ireland has both a private and public health care system, which are combined in a complicated way no one really likes, and I don't know whether this particular case was part of the private or public system. It could easily have been either: as long as there is the possibility for operations to be canceled (which can happen anywhere) and the ability for people to be sued for poor results (same), this sort of thing will happen.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: hentaikid
2011-01-22 06:58 pm (UTC)
Ireland has also adopted the US culture of litigation to a greater degree than other European countries, that also tends to raise prices and drive doctors to practise defensive medicine.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: selfishgene
2011-01-23 08:27 am (UTC)
Operations can be canceled anywhere but when customer dollars are thereby delayed (or even moved to another hospital) there is a strong incentive to not cancel operations. When there is no profit motive, operations will be canceled anytime official criteria are met, even if there was a way round the problem.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: squid314
2011-01-23 05:32 pm (UTC)
You have an incredibly rosy view of the sanity of the standard for-profit medical decision procedure: to wit, insurance companies (whose profit motive is to do as little treatment as possible), doctors (whose profit motive is to do every treatment known to mankind and then some) and hospitals (whose profit motive is to make lucrative deals with the richest doctors and insurance companies, then weasel their way out of them) all sending streams of lawyers at each other until they come up with the solution least likely to get any of them sued.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: nss
2011-01-24 03:23 am (UTC)
well then why is there an dearth of jobs for lawyers?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: maniakes
2011-01-24 05:29 am (UTC)
The recent contraction of the financial industry has caused much of the market for contract lawyers and regulatory compliance lawyers to dry up.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: selfishgene
2011-01-27 03:07 am (UTC)
If payment decisions were made by patients more sane decisions would be made. The patient can balance his desire to save money against his desire for treatment. Insurers, doctors and hospitals are not balanced in that way. Obviously, too blatant gouging or killing of patients will backfire; but for a given decision almost all pressure is against the patient's interest.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: maniakes
2011-01-24 05:46 am (UTC)
I suspect the problem is less a lack of profit motive than standardization of procedures and lack of consumer choice. Individual private, for-profit firms can be just as screwed up (or even more screwed up) than government bureaucracies, but in a functioning market, the customer looks after his own interests by taking his business to a provider better prepared to serve his needs, and the more disfunctional firms tend to go out of business. But if you have a uniform, standarized system, whether it's for-profit or not, everyone is stuck with the system, and nobody has the power to change it even if they want to (and I suspect they do regardless of profit motive -- I doubt many people go into medicine because they enjoy watching patients die avoidably due to bureaucratic cockups), merely the power to try to dodge being blamed for the system's failures.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ikadell
2011-01-24 05:47 am (UTC)
whoa.
(Reply) (Thread)