Friday, June 29, 2012

Apparently I Have An Opinion On Health Care Too!

If you've turned on your TV, glanced at a newspaper, or checked your Facebook in the past 24 hours, you are probably aware of the US Supreme Court ruling on the PPACA (the healthcare reform signed into law back in March 2010). If you're interested in the specifics, you need only google "PPACA" or something of the sort, and you will be inundated with results about what the law entails. In super brief form, it adds several provisions designed to make sure everyone has access to healthcare, as well as means to fund these provisions. One method of funding comes from the "Individual Mandate" (IM), which requires individuals to obtain health insurance or pay a fine/penalty/tax (realistically what it's called doesn't matter because the function is the same in each case). More people buying insurance should increase competition in the market and bring down prices because those that use healthcare infrequently can help subsidize those who use it more often. The Supreme Court case was about this mandate, ultimately deciding it was constitutional under Congress's power to tax. Without the IM, the ACA would face challenges on how to fund the rest of its measures, and that would not be good.

So, why is everyone making so much noise about this law? Good question; one that has many answers. First, people are upset because they feel like they shouldn't be obligated to buy health insurance. Understandable, except for the fact that, at some point, every person will use the healthcare system. This is analogous to car insurance: if you drive a car, you are required (in nearly all states) to have insurance. That way, if someone attempts to occupy your location in space and time, you can be sure to be reimbursed for the energy the imparted into your rear bumper. If you are caught without insurance, you face a fine (sound familiar?). "But Liam," you say, "People who don't drive don't need insurance. I don't get sick, so I shouldn't need health insurance!" Unfortunately, not quite, because by virtue of being born as a human being (welcome to the club, 7 billion strong!), you have entered the healthcare market. You may never get in an accident, but you still must have insurance to cover damages. Similarly, you may never get sick, but you must have insurance to pay for services if you do. Essentially, this is designed to work like Social Security, where the old (sick) are supported by the young (healthy). Everyone becomes old at some point, so it is reasonable to collect money from everyone.

Interestingly enough, people seem to favor the provisions in the ACA, such as eliminating pre-existing conditions, but are against the IM and the law as a whole. This sort of amounts to, "we like the benefits, just not the part where we have to pay for it." While an unpleasant realization, there is no avoiding it. Healthcare is really expensive, and it shows no signs of getting cheaper spontaneously. Resources are limited, and if we don't allocate them responsibly, everyone gets screwed. The real trick is figuring out how to cut costs and manage resources while still getting quality healthcare. Originally, the focus was on waste and inefficiency in administrative and clinical settings. EHRs, streamlined billing, new payment models, and evidenced-based medicine can save money by preventing treatments and procedures that have no benefit as well as minimizing overhead costs. However, new estimates suggest that fixing 'waste' won't make up for the increasing expenditures. This doesn't mean we'll ignore all those savings; we just need to make additional changes. 

Additional cuts will come from limiting some services. We will have to start saying no to some procedures and devices in some patients. Expensive imaging studies or surgical procedures may be foregone in favor of clinical diagnoses and alternative therapies. In addition, the new focus will be on preventing chronic diseases rather than attempting to manage existing ones. For example, look at diabetes and heart disease (co-morbidities in many cases too). Diabetes alone was estimated by the ADA to cost us $174 billion (in 2007). Heart disease (which includes HTN, CAD, CVA, and CHF) was estimated to cost us $272 billion (in 2010). Both diseases are highly preventable with lifestyle modifications and supportive drug therapy if necessary.

I suppose my overall point, and I'm not alone in this, is that healthcare reform is necessary and will occur no matter what goes on in government. I think that having the PPACA and IM is an important step in the right direction, but it is only the beginning. Buckle up, because there's a long, tough road ahead.

Edit
Ran across this article just now. Should help clear up some misconceptions and disinformation.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-06-29/fact-check-court-health/55927118/1

Citations

Bloche MG. Beyond the “R Word”? Medicine's new frugality. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1951-1953.
Blumenthal D. Performance improvement in health care — Seizing the moment. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1953-1955.
Brody H. From an ethics of rationing to an ethics of waste avoidance. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1949-1951.
Fuchs VR. Major trends in the U.S. health economy since 1950. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:973-977.
Song Z, Landon BE. Controlling health care spending — The Massachusetts experiment. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1560-1561.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Know the Difference: Allergy vs Adverse Reaction

A common question, asked at least once at every assessment. It is an important question because it is the difference between taking a drug and getting better, or say, going into anaphylactic shock. Typically, we try to avoid the latter.

However, the responses I've heard to this question indicate to me that there is a crucial misunderstanding about what an allergy is. On several occasions I've heard people say they are allergic to a drug, and when asked what reaction occurred, they respond with nausea or something of the sort. Of course, nausea can be a symptom of an allergic reaction, particularly in anaphylaxis. Usually though, nausea is a side effect of a medication, which is separate from an allergy. Now, time for some science and jargon!

An allergic reaction (Type I Hypersensitivity for those of you so inclined) occurs when IgE, a type of immunoglobulin (antibody), interacts with an allergen. IgE bound to the allergen can then bind to receptors on mast cells, basophils, and eosinophils to stimulate an allergic reaction. Mast cells in particular release large quantities of histamine (along with cytokines and other chemicals), which causes vasodilation as part of the inflammatory response. When vasodilation of the blood vessels in the skin occurs, the affected area will turn redder in color (also know as rubor). Other inflammatory agents like leukotrienes, cytokines, and prostaglandins contribute to the inflammatory response, causing further vasodilation, pain, and broncoconstriction. Usually the allergic reaction is limited to the immediate area where the allergen made contact. Anaphylaxis is a severe, systemic allergic response, involving broncoconstriction and global vasodilation, which leads to difficulty breathing and shock. Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening emergency, but is treatable with prompt intervention. The allergic response to a drug may occur in several different ways (Type I, II, or III), and the signs and symptoms will vary depending on the mechanism and severity. Rash and itchiness are the most common presentations of a drug allergy.

The reason allergic reactions should not be confused with side effects is because of the outcome. An allergic reaction to a drug can be very dangerous, so it is important to avoid it by using alternative medications. Side effects are often unpleasant, but rarely immediately life-threatening. For instance, the flushing that occurs when taking niacin is not an immune hypersensitivity reaction, even though it appears as one. Opioids like hydrocodone or oxycodone may cause nausea, but not due to an allergic response. Additionally, almost all medications have side effects, so it is harder to pick and choose in that case. This is why healthcare workers ask for the reaction associated with an allergy; they are trying to distinguish a true allergy from an unpleasant side effect.

I have two points, one for healthcare professionals and one for the general public. First, if you are asking a patient about any drug allergies, be sure to ask for the type of reaction that occurs. It is reasonable that the average individual may not know the difference between a side affect and allergy, but the RN/MD/DO/PA/NP needs to know whether there are any contraindications to particular medications. Second, if you are telling a healthcare worker about an adverse drug reaction, be sure to mention what happens when you take it. Additionally, if you are unsure about whether or not you are allergic to a medication, be sure to ask (and write down the response for that matter).

Sources
1. Drug allergies. PubMed Health. 2010. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001822/. Accessed June 21, 2012.

2. Levinson W. Chapter 65. Hypersensitivity (Allergy). In: Levinson W, ed. Review of Medical Microbiology and Immunology. 11th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2010. http://www.accessmedicine.com/content.aspx?aID=6459867. Accessed June 21, 2012.

3. Papaliodis D, Boucher W, Kempuraj D, Michaelian M, Wolfberg A, House M, Theoharide TC. Niacin-induced "flush" involves release of prostaglandin D2 from mast cells and serotonin from platelets: Evidence from human cells in vitro and an animal model. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2008;327:665-672.

Sunday, June 17, 2012

In the Hospital: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Ask any healthcare worker if they have interesting stories from their job, and you will be bountifully rewarded. This is especially true if said person works in an emergency department or hospital. The main reason for this effect is relatively simple: the more people you interact with, the crazier the world seems. The ED is a melting pot, with people of all demographics (though predominantly low SES) represented. Bringing such a diverse group together tends to give you interesting results.

The Ugly
ED stands for "Emergency Department," but it could also just as easily stand for "Elected to Display." What I mean by this is, people often have no shame in showing you exactly what ails them. As a volunteer, one of my jobs was to help people fill out a form so they could be triaged. We had several signs pointing to the forms, indicating they should be filled out first, but people often walked up to the window anyways. The conversation usually goes like this:

Me: Can I help you?
Patient: I need to be seen. I have this huge rash (reaches for shirt).
Me: (Quickly) Ok, I need y...
Patient: (Pulls up shirt revealing a large rash, fully in view of everyone in the room.)
Me: (To myself) Thanks for that.
Me: Ok, please fill out that form for me and we'll get you looked at. Sigh...

The probability of me being shown an ailment is proportional to how bad/disgusting it looks. If blood is involved, the chance jumps to 100%. Traumatic wounds need to be checked of course, so I don't fault people for that. It's the absurdity that gets me. You would not say, show your bulging abscess at a dinner party as part of your introduction (if it comes up in conversation, well, that's fair game). But in an ED, you'll walk up, lift your shirt triumphantly, and share with myself and others your pathological achievement.

The other common presentation is the "waited too long" patient. A couple of instances stand out in my mind. One was a woman who was extremely lethargic. She could barely even speak or hold her posture while sitting. A history revealed that she had hypothyroidism and had either run out of medication or just didn't take it for a while. Without treatment, she surely would have fallen into a myxedema coma. I remember the nurse blatantly scolding the woman and her family for not coming in sooner. The other case involved an older man who may well have set a hospital record for highest temperature in a living person. He arrived (astoundingly) by personal vehicle, driven by his daughter. He was a bigger guy, so I called the paramedic to help get him out of the van. He gave me a ribbing for not doing it myself. After a few minutes, he came back in sweating and out of breath with the patient slumped over unconscious in a wheelchair. "He was complete dead weight" the medic said (I should have gone out to help him, which I apologized for afterwards). I don't know how in hell his family got him into the car. The nurse took his temperature, which read 106.7 F (41.5 C). For those of you wondering, this is borderline "incompatible with life." The nurse wasn't even sure if the thermometer would be able to read that high. I'm fairly certain he was septic, although I think he ended up surviving. The ED really alternates between the mundane and the unbelievable.

The Bad
I'll end on good so as not to leave you feeling (too) depressed. Unfortunately, the ED is not generally a happy place. It is visited out of necessity rather than desire, which makes it ripe for unpleasantness. When you add pain/nausea/malaise/uncertainty with long, seemingly arbitrary waiting times, things can get really, really unpleasant. The worst cases occur when someone gets to "cut in line." Triage works like this: the nurse takes your vital signs and a brief history. He/She makes any quick assessments necessary, like a vision test or brief neuro exam, along with a self-reported level of pain. This is all summed up by a triage score 1-5, 1 indicating immediate life-threatening condition (like cardiac arrest) and 5 indicating minor condition with no necessary procedures (like a cold). The severity of the condition dictates who sees the doctor first. Things possibly affecting the heart (chest pain) or lungs (dyspnea) are the more common sources of line-cutting. On certain occasions, it's very obvious someone needs to go back right away (serious laceration, head trauma, altered mental status, etc) for instance, like the man who seized while being triaged. These types of problems draw few objections from the waiting room. Most times it is less obvious why someone goes back first though. One day in particular, I had a women who was fairly sick, with nausea and vomiting (n/v). However, her vitals were essentially normal, with perhaps a mild fever and and tachycardia due to the nausea. Unfortunately for her, several ambulances showed up, and we were already full. Additionally, a few other walk-ins had deviations in vital signs like hypotension, which needed to be worked up. She waited for at least three hours before she had enough. I tried to explain to her why other people went back first, but I wasn't getting through. I think she ended up leaving to go to another hospital (where she will probably wait just as long again).
On my final day, a woman showed up, depressed and on the verge of tears. She was looking for her son, who had gone missing the night before. His car was deserted, and his wallet was left behind, suspicious for foul play. But he wasn't at our hospital, and there was nothing I could do. I told the woman he wasn't at our hospital, but I would look out for the name. She then asked me what she should do. I told her to contact the police (which was her best option). She said okay, and thanked me sadly before leaving. It is a difficult thing in medicine, to want to help others but accept that sometimes, there just isn't anything you can do.

Another part of the ED is that bad news often arrives unexpectedly. People go from alive to dead without any warning or preparation. I've seen a few people coded, and not one of them survived. Listening as the doctors break the bad news is not something you easily forget. I arrived a couple times to deceased children, which is about the worst. I've seen several repeat patients, one of whom always arrives by ambulance, always complains of dyspnea, and then immediately proceeds to go outside and smoke a cigarette. Patients are often obese, some are drug seekers, some malingering for disability or other reasons. And many lack the capacity to understand how medicine and the ED works. They struggle with their own problems, and fail to appreciate the perspectives of the people trying to help them. I've seen people arrive intoxicated or high on drugs, sometimes dangerously so. Patients are combative or abusive to the staff, especially the behavioral or law enforcement ones. And the worst part of all is that so many of these people will return with the same problems, lacking the money or reinforcement they need to change. To see the human condition so exposed, so gritty, it can turn even the most optimistic people cynical.

The Good
Like most jobs that deal with the seedy side of life, you survive for the few good things. Occasionally, you will get a patient who is helpful and courteous, and it makes all the difference. Elderly people tend to be better mannered and more likely to wait patiently, but that's not always the case. The clinical and support staff can also make a big difference. Some people are naturally easy going and funny while others crumple under stress. There was one nurse in particular that I remember, because initially I think she didn't like me. When you start volunteering, you're basically a massive tool because you don't know anyone, you don't know where anything is, and you don't know how things run. As Samuel Shem puts it in the House of God, "Show me a [medical student] that only triples my work and I will kiss his feet." Such was the case with this nurse. But after spending time in triage with her, she eventually considered me a colleague/friend. If you establish yourself as a competent, trustworthy person, you'll make friends easily.
Getting to know the patients also helps. Towards the end of my volunteering career, I started spending more time talking to people. I wish I had done this sooner, because it gives you new perspectives. One man I talked to lived in NYC with his girlfriend until they broke up. He moved to a small town in Arizona, but left because of a drug problem (in the town, not necessarily himself). Another man I talked to was younger than me and had just been released from jail just a few days ago. He suffered from substance abuse and was probably in withdrawal. I chatted with him in the waiting room, and then I checked up on him once he was in a room. He was very grateful that I had spoke with him. The epitome of grateful patients occurred when a woman walked in with questions about medications for a surgery she had a few days ago (yes, she showed me the scar). I didn't want to make her wait in the ED, so I talked to the unit clerk, who managed to contact the surgeon. He said she didn't need any prescriptions for antibiotics or pain pills. I walked back out to the waiting room, expecting to hear objections raised. When I relayed the message however, she smiled and thanked me. She didn't want to take anything in the first place!

Most of my memories from the hospital are snapshots, brief clips that struck me as poignant or odd. Most are relatively neutral, but several fall under the Bad category and even fewer into Good. I learned a lot from my two and a half years at the hospital. Most importantly, I learned that communication is everything. It can mean the difference between making friends or creating enemies; the difference between gaining patient's trust or losing all credibility. What you say can make just as big an impact as what you do, medical or otherwise. When you understand a patient's perspective, it allows you to better help him or her. Medicine is all about the good, the bad, and the ugly. You just never know what your next patient is going to show you.