Editorial: Why see the patient?

Editorial

COMMENTS comments

Share your thoughts.
Post a comment →
Read Comments(0) →
Article Tools Sponsored By
Loading...

Dr. Mirvis is the Editor-in-Chief of this journal and Professor of Radiology, Diagnostic Imaging Department, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltiimore, MD.

During a casual conversation with an emergency department fellow who was doing an elective in our radiology section, I commented on the rather large number of negative imaging studies we were seeing every day from his department. The cryptic response was "We never let the history and physical stand in the way of ordering lots of tests." As he saw it, this was the unofficial dogma of the emergency physician, a "do studies now, ask questions later" philosophy. All of us have experienced, perhaps numerous times daily, a clinical physician who wants to obtain or review imaging studies of patients they have not yet actually seen. Many "consultants" will not consult officially until certain diagnostic studies are ordered and reviewed, whether or not they may actually be indicated, something the consultant might help decide by seeing the patient first.

As far as radiologists are concerned, all these studies are good for the bottom line and job security (do you know any out-of-work radiologists?), but perhaps this situation is less than desirable, considering the man-hours devoted to covering the steadily increasing workload when many departments are also understaffed. When it comes to academia, the increasing demand for study performance and interpretation is effectively killing off any time for serious research; that has become a fact of life in many academic departments.

So why are we doing all these "indicated" studies (and the issue involves all medical specialties, not just the emergency room)? Have clinicians completely lost faith in their clinical skills and judgment? Is the fear of lawsuits so great that we all must obsessively do everything possible to protect ourselves from litigation? Has diagnostic imaging technology become so impressive and accurate that without it there is no secure diagnosis? I do not know which, if not all, of these questions should be answered in the affirmative. The reason does not seem to matter. Government and nongovernment insurers just pressure reimbursements downward as study counts go up. Radiologists work faster and faster, with less time available to concentrate on interpretation, as the number of studies rammed through per unit time increases. Medical malpractice insurance providers just raise rates (especially in down stock markets) to keep shareholders happy. Lawyers continue to fight to maintain open-ended punitive malpractice awards to protect their "injured patient's interests" and Congress continues to favor the trial lawyers' lobbyists over the physicians'. Patients get more tests, and they usually like that, especially painless ones, because the tests make them feel cared for. Who is concerned about the effects of invisible radiation? DNA feels no pain.

Well, we have a real mess on our hands, folks. Our goal as diagnostic imaging physicians should always be to promote the appropriate and medically necessary use of diagnostic imaging studies. This philosophy was perhaps mentioned in medical school, but barely gets lip service on the clinical wards. If physicians could really practice medicine in a nonthreatening medical legal environment, the nation's medical bill for covering all these "cover your butt" studies would drop significantly, although it might take some time to break such well-established habits. In turn, the recovered revenue could help finance health care for the more than 40 million medically uninsured citizens of this country. Isn't that an appropriate goal to attain in the world's greatest and richest nation? Malpractice insurance premiums could be maintained at a level at which physicians could actually consider practicing medicine.

Despite the urging of the current President, Congress is again in the business of failing to address the needs of the people they serve in favor of a powerful special interest. At the time of this writing, the medical tort reform bill is a prisoner in House committees, waiting to die a quiet death as the Congressional session runs out. 1 The failure of the Federal government, once again, to pass tort reform for medical malpractice is beyond shameful. It is a total sell-out to the lawyers with whom many in Congress identify so closely. Select panels of professionals with expertise in medical disability should adjudicate compensation for clear medical negligence injuries and not juries whose emotions, rather than knowledge, decide awards and punitive damages. Those assessed damages should be realistic and not boundless. Sorry, but there is a huge greed factor in operation here that goes well beyond the plaintiffs' just compensation. Physicians across this nation should be furious and should not hide their feelings. Otherwise, next time around, we really will have ourselves to blame.

Without the ever-looming malpractice axe over their heads, clinical physicians could perhaps once again walk into the radiology reading area and discuss the patient's signs and symptoms and ask a question about what imaging study, if any, is needed, rather than shoot the "diagnostic works" and see what useful information might fall out the bottom. The great art of medicine could begin to revive from a long hibernation.

Perhaps it's too much to hope for, and some physicians probably prefer the status quo. The current system clearly does not provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number. The nation's medical system is a morass of limited or no coverage for many, overwhelming bureaucratic complexity, lopsided distribution of physicians and technologic resources, and fear-motivated, over- utilization of diagnostic testing--among many other problems. It is still, amazingly enough, a good system for many, but it could be so much better for more.

Hopefully, people with common sense and authority will recognize the sad situation that exists and unite with much greater vigor to deal with it at the national level.

Many states are working hard on medical tort reform. Perhaps, after the next election, there will be more members of Congress whose vision extends beyond the next fundraiser or lobbyist's check to seek ways to provide for the real health needs of many millions of our fellow citizens. It is possible. Real national medical tort reform is a key step to improve efficiency in our health care system, allow physicians to exercise their art and skills without fear, and extend medical care to those in need throughout our nation.

0 Comments

Add Comment

Text Only 2000 character limit

Page 1 of 1