"Docs4PatientCare.org is a politically neutral grassroots coalition of physicians. Use of any politically partisan terms does not reflect the position of Docs4PatientCare.org. We do encourage our speakers to express how they feel and we post articles based on their informative content only. Any politically partisan language used does not reflect the group as a whole. Specific party or political allegiances and opposition are not our intent. The goal of D4PC is only to advocate for effective and responsible health care reform."
The unelected American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation (ABIMF) and its unelected proxies are working hard to get doctors to implement the health law by encouraging them not to diagnose their patients too often. The foundation's "Choosing Wisely" campaign is framed as a voluntary program to encourage doctors to cut down on "unnecessary medical tests."
It is designed to give the doctor's seal of approval to Obamacare's practice guidelines and rationing. And it's the blueprint for the campaign ABIMF is underwriting to get doctors to change how they practice medicine in order to bring about the Obamacare revolution.
Although a focus on readmissions may have good face validity, we believe that policymakers' emphasis on 30-day readmissions is misguided, for three reasons. First, the metric itself is problematic: only a small proportion of readmissions at 30 days after initial discharge are probably preventable, and much of what drives hospital readmission rates are patient- and community-level factors that are well outside the hospital's control. Furthermore, it is unclear whether readmissions always reflect poor quality: high readmission rates can be the result of low mortality rates or good access to hospital care. Second, although improving discharge planning and care coordination is a laudable goal, there are better, more targeted policies that are more likely to be effective in achieving it. Finally, because hospitals are expending so much energy on reducing readmissions, they have probably forgone quality-improvement efforts related to more urgent issues, such as patient safety. An evidence-based, holistic approach to quality improvement is far more likely to achieve what policymakers, clinicians, and the public all want: better care at lower cost.
The Obama re-election campaign is mailing out fliers championing his health-care law as a great benefit to women. Sorry: It diminishes women’s freedom and privacy.
The Obama law vastly expands the president’s power over your insurance plan, your doctors’ decisions and your medical records. Not just this president’s power, but every future president. Why are women’s rights advocates so sure they’ll always agree with the person occupying the White House?
Read More
Dr. Kenneth Fisher, MD - the President of D4PCs Michigan Chapter - has a new article in which he explains that policymakers focus on healthcare is all wrong. He makes the case that healthcare policy should strive to put patients, not the government, at the center of every healthcare decision.
Read More
Advocates of government run healthcare often overlook the fact that there are tremendous non-monetary costs for the policies that they advocate and that those costs have to be born by individuals and the nation as a whole. As Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute notes, "in the end, that very government guarantee ends up leaving people with less purchasing power and undermining the market’s ability to discover cost-saving innovations that bring better health care within the reach of the needy." In addition, government run healthcare tramples on the rights of doctors, nurses and patients.
Read More
Dr. Paul Hsieh, a member of D4PC's Colorado chapter, has written an analysis of RomneyCare and how the law includes a series of price controls. Admittedly, Hsieh writes, these price controls may not have been evident when RomneyCare first took effect but over time their impact demonstrates RomneyCare has resulted in price controls.
Read More