Commentary
Am Heart Hosp J. 2010;8(1):40–3
Unintended Consequences of Healthcare Reform—Patients Beware
Elizabeth Klodas, MD, FACC
I
was sitting in class the other day learning about the fine points of one of the electronic medical record (EMR) systems I would be required to work with and being spoken to like I was in second grade. I had to tab from screen to screen, click various radial buttons—no, not that one!—and try to comprehend a workflow that had nothing to do with the way I process information. Over the next few weeks I would be spending hours creating my own personal lists of standard statements to ‘save me time’ and ensure maximal coding potential. I would be helping create records that meet the payers’ expectations—records that are so voluminous in size and so excruciatingly detailed, and so impersonal and repetitive, that paradoxically they will have lost much of their clinical utility.
I am representative of a torrential movement within medicine—to standardize, to automate, and, ultimately, to depersonalize.
If I try to unravel how we got here, I have to go back about 20 years. The EMR, as it currently exists, is simply a direct but unintended consequence of the relative value unit (RVU) payment system. I was a medical resident when the RVU system was proposed and published. I still remember intently reading the article in the New England Journal of Medicine outlining the rationale for the approach. I had no idea I was witnessing the beginning of the end of medicine as I had experienced it to that point.
Everything about the RVU system appeared well-meaning at the time—finally, cognitive work would be valued on a
par with technical work. However, little did we know that the devil was in the implementation, and that unintended consequences were inevitable.
It is easy to prove that you have done something technical—a patient either did or did not have his or her knee replaced. It is much harder to prove that you have spent time and effort thinking. So, although it takes as much education and experience to recognize amyloid cardiomyopathy as it does to learn to set a bone, the act of arriving at a clinical diagnosis is not as amenable to counting or timing (as you can with various procedures) for purposes of equalizing work units.
So, the act of thinking had to be deconstructed into chunks of data that contained enough buzzwords to satisfy a reader (without any understanding of the clinical dilemma at hand) to judge whether or not any, a little, or a lot of effort was put into a patient interaction. Synthesis of data was no longer prized—indeed, it could cost you valuable coding points and could make you vulnerable to accusations of fraud and abuse. What was prized was proving that what you did was hard and took time.
It is obvious, of course, that the mere fact that a patient is referred to a cardiologist (for example) should suggest to someone that the patient’s problem is complex enough to require specialty care. Whether or not the cardiologist documents checking the patient’s ears for wax is actually not germane to this consideration. That patient’s problem was difficult enough, scary enough, unusual enough, or recurrent enough that the referring physician felt
• Founder, Cardiovascular Imaging Consultants, Director, General Mills Cardiac Prevention Program, and Medical Editor, WebMD, and Editor-in-Chief,
www.cardiosmart.org
• Correspondence: Elizabeth Klodas, MD, FACC, 6545 France Avenue South, Suite 125, Edina, MN 55435. E:
eklodas@cvicmn.com 40 Unintended Consequences of Healthcare Reform Summer 2010
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76