Let’s Get Back To Basics

Daily Observer

February 2, 1081

 

The latest fad is the assumption that increased medical costs are bad for the country. As a result we have organizations like the PSERO Professional Review Organizations) and hospital cost containment legislation, aimed at rationing health care. An editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine (December 27, 1979) seeks ways to de crease medical costs by limiting the use of technology.

 

The health care system is one of the nation’s largest employers, a dependable source of jobs. Health care is a low energy industry and its energy consumption would be lower still were the nation to construct a proper transportation system. The cost/benefit ratios cannot be determined in health care, because they deal with philosophic imponderables such as the value of life itself.

 

The doctor’s contract is with the patient. The doctor is supposed to solve the problem of the patient and not those of the community. The fact that the economy has been mismanaged should be the major concern of the parsimonious social scientists. A well-managed economy can afford patient care. Doctors have been brainwashed into caring about costs, when all we should be caring about is patients. Every regulation and plan that evolves to save medical dollars somehow cuts back on patient care.

 

There are about seven thousand hospitals in the nation. Seven thousand then is our multiplier. If each hospital eliminated its public relations department (average cost probably about $100,000 yearly for each hospital spread out on the per diem hospital costs) would save about $700,000 million dollars.

 

If the JCAH (Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Hospitals) would relax its requirements on the medical records section of each hospital probably another billion dollars could be saved annually. (More attention is paid to patient records than to patients)

 

The cost/benefit ration of medical records is zilch (zero). It is mainly for lawyers. Proper admission and discharge notes on the charts are all that are needed since laboratory results, x-ray reports kegs etc are automatically placed on the chars and copies kept in their respective departments. I would rather than several signatures were omitted on a chart than a calcium or phosphorus on a lab sheet. Despite the fact that the “patient worth” of the latter is negligible at least when normal, it rules out a category of disease and eliminates uncertainty. A forgotten signature on a chart does no harm, and a signature added after discharge does no good. In fact the entire chart is tidied up after the patient leaves the hospital. This is known a covering up or plugging leaks and the price is exorbitant. (Doctors forced back to record room to tidy up the chart)

 

Another extravagance that should be mention and considered is the hidden cost entailed in the “semi-private” hospital room. First it is not semi-private, it is semi-public. Secondly it necessitates the transfer of patients from room to room matching males and females, youngsters and the dying etc. The actuarial cost of each transfer in an average hospital is $50. Even in small hospitals there are about 30 moves a day ($1500 x 365). For 7000 hospitals this adds up to 3.5 billion annually which appears on per diem charges.

 

Hospitals composed mainly of private rooms and wards (“units” is the current euphemism) would eliminate this expense. Thus proper hospital planning and reduction of unnecessary services could save the nation six or seven billion annually and make the new technologies affordable.

 

We should be concentrating on patient care, but somehow our heads have been turned. Our attention has been diverted from the immediate care of patients to the costs of that care. I think its time to get back to basics.