Atul Gawande and His Pesky Checklists

The New Yorker’s Atul Gawande wrote one of the most influential stories about health care in 2009. The piece, published in June, was about geographic disparities in health spending, specifically why McAllen, Texas is one of the most expensive places in the country to get medical care. The article raised so many vital questions about the dysfunction of the U.S. health care system that Barack Obama was said to be carrying the article around the White House, urging staffers and lawmakers to read it. The President even mentioned the story in a speech to the American Medical Association.

Gawande, in addition to being a New Yorker writer, Harvard-educated surgeon and former adviser to Bill Clinton, is also the author of the books Complications: A Surgeon’s Notes On An Imperfect Science and Better: A Surgeon’s Notes On Performance. Well, Gawande has a new book out called The Checklist Manifesto, which was the reason he appeared on the Daily Show last night. (Clip after the jump.)

I’m drawing attention to Gawande not because he’s a terrific writer, which he is, or because he’s an impressively thorough reporter, which he is, or because he wrote one of the most important health care stories of 2009, which he did. I’m not even drawing attention to him because it just doesn’t seem fair that someone is allowed to be all those things in addition to being an endocrine surgeon and a Harvard professor and a global public health guru. I’m drawing attention to Gawande because many of the topics he writes about are at the heart of what’s wrong with the U.S. health care system.

Yes, there are bad government policies and unfair insurance practices. But what Gawande writes about are things like doctors who have a financial stake in providing too much care, which leads to wasteful spending. He writes about avoidable hospital-acquired infections that lead to unnecessary deaths and untold unnecessary spending. In his new book, Gawande writes about how if doctors follow simple checklists, they can avoid all kinds of complications, pain and confusion. Oh yeah, they could also save many more lives. Items on these checklists include things like confirming a patient’s identity before performing surgery and making sure an operating room is sterile. Simple stuff, but overlooked far too often.

On the Daily Show, Gawande touched on one of the biggest obstacles to implementing a checklist system in hospitals – the doctors who resent an added layer of bureaucracy and any implication that they are not careful, meticulous practitioners of medicine. But the argument Gawande makes is that doctors, nurses, and administrators need to start getting real about some of the fixable problems on the front lines of health care. Spending and regulation are critical parts of the health care system. But so are hand washing stations in the ICU. In other words, there’s a lot that could be done to make the U.S. health care system better and more efficient that has nothing to do with Congress.

Related Topics: atul agawande, Barack Obama, checklist manifesto, health care reform, health reform, new yorker, Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • deconstructiva

    Kate, kudos for bringing that piece up again. Many of us quoted it here too; KT can recall tales of our comments. Speaking of KT, don’t forget to give her props for the other 2009 Big Story: her brother and HCI epic fail Cover Story. I think many still haven’t experienced overuse of medicine or HCI Hell lately. If they had read both pieces carefully (analysis / personal touch) maybe they’d favor HCR too. Thoughts, Kate? thx

  • rustyreturns

    “In his new book, Gawande writes about how if doctors follow simple checklists, they can avoid all kinds of complications, pain and confusion. Oh yeah, they could also save many more lives. Items on these checklists include things like confirming a patient’s identity before performing surgery and making sure an operating room is sterile. Simple stuff, but overlooked far too often.”

    .
    All to often it is the more common sense, and easily implemented practices which make all the difference.
    .
    Things which cost little to nothing to actually implement which could have a major impact.
    .
    Is that the purpose of this posting, Ms Pickert?
    .
    Is it the same as setting up a system where we could all buy our health care insurance on an open market free from any monopoly control by just one major insurance carrier in any given State? Something as simple and wouldn’t cost anything like COMPETITION?
    .
    Or perhaps, now hold onto your seats here, it is quite revelotionary…….
    .
    We could pass TORT REFORM. How much would that cost Ms Pickert?
    .
    OMG!!! Pass legislation that also goes against the monoplistic practice of BIG DRUG companies so that they are forced to compete in the prices of their drugs. You know, maybe allow people in the United States to buy their needed prescriptions from other foreign countries which have the same FDA requirements we do?? OMG!!! How much would that cost us Ms Pickert?? Was that in the book too????
    .
    Oh but the big deals made with big Pharma and big Labor. Now tell me again how would that impact this all?
    .
    But, crack down on those evil doctors and nurses. Yes that is the answer. All those un-needed and un-necessary procedures and tests which are done each and everyday because a doctor is fearful of lawsuits from the big TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
    .
    Now that would be something short of a miracle. Something one would think worth writing about.

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    Pilots have to go through checklists all the time. It’s not because we don’t think they’re intelligent and capable people and it sure as heck isn’t because we think they don’t take safety importantly. It’s because sometimes, you’re going to miss something. Sometimes, someone, somewhere screws up. It happens. And when people’s lives are at stake, it falls upon all to do all reasonable things to ensure that it happens as rarely as possible. A checklist is a way to help limit those mistakes. We don’t question your professionalism, your compassion or your talent, merely state that you are human.
    .
    Egos don’t belong in good governance. [insert Politician joke here]

  • fhmadvocat

    rusty,

    You hit on some important points, though some of the stuff you mentioned is not as simple as you think.

    I agree we should have more competition between insurance companies in each state. The problem is each state usually has a particular requirement that some insurance companies are willing to meet. Now, I admit, some of these requirements are probably there because the local boys can meet them and others can’t or won’t, but we should not lower the standards for insurance just get competition. If the other competitors are willing to meet each state’s standards, but all means, let them in!!

    While I agree with you on buying drugs wherever the drugs are cheapist, you know what Big Pharma is going to do. They will just raise the prices everywhere so in poor countries or countries with government insurance, they will just see there prices increase, all because those D@mn Americans want to get cheap drugs!!

    I know you think that Tort Reform is the Holy Grail which will solve many of the costs of medicine, but I suggest you read the article in the New Yorker Magazine which was referred to Kate Picket as the many articles written by Mr. Gawande. in the article, which examines McAllen, Texas, and why it was the most expensive place in the U.S., it was pointed out that Texas already has tort reform and all the doctors have never been sued, so it was not preventative medicine which explained their high costs.

    As I have previously mentioned to you, but I don’t remember you ever responding to, the University of Michigan instituted a program where doctors, yes, doctors instead of listening to THEIR lawyers, admitted they made mistakes, hospitals took responsibility and tried to solve the problem, instead of obstruction of real justice. In the case of Michigan, the money they held for malpractice claims was LOWERED BY 70 PERCENT. And it did not require tort reform, hell it did not require any change in the law. It just required a change in the attitude of doctors, which would be the best way to lower the costs of health care.

  • square1

    Rusty,

    Typing in BOLD AND ALLCAPS does not make your screed any more thoughtful.

    Unfortunately for you, your laundry list of items that supposedly would lower costs are either (a) not supported by your beloved GOP (e.g. increased pharmaceutical competition); (b) not supported by empirical evidence (e.g. overtesting being driven by fear of lawsuits); and/or (c) not supported by the American people (e.g. the race-to-the-bottom of unregulated, interstate insurance policies).

    As I have said numerous times in the past, whining about “tort reform” is as pointless as whining about “tax reform.” Unless you are willing to get specific about what “reform” means, all discussion is pointless. (Most of the time the GOP avoids defining “reform” because the reforms that are usually proposed are unpopular, unworkable, or ineffective at reducing costs).

    The other reason that federal “tort reform” is a recipe for disaster is that tort law is 95% state-made law, so any “reforms” should be made on a state-by-state basis, taking into account the peculiarities of each states’ existing laws. If Republicans really cared about improving the litigation process, they would focus on state houses rather than Congress.

  • square1

    Rusty is impervious to facts. I don’t know why I bother.

  • spob

    Aviators use checklists, and they help.

  • stuartzechman

    Kate Pickert:
    .
    Not this guy again.
    .
    The title of your piece should really be “Atul Gawande and His Inexplicably Incomplete Reporting.”
    .
    This is the same Atul Gawande in whose influential New Yorker piece the actual cost of health care in the rest of the developed world was completely unmentioned.
    .
    Here he lays out the only “The Cost Conundrum” about which he can fathom it necessary to write:

    In 2006, Medicare spent fifteen thousand dollars per enrollee here, almost twice the national average.

    Right, that’s $7400 or so per person being the national average in the United States for health care spending. Some locales, like outliers such as McAllen, TX, are vastly more expensive than this average US health care cost.
    .
    Gawande then goes on to enticingly write:

    Our country’s health care is by far the most expensive in the world. In Washington, the aim of health-care reform is not just to extend medical coverage to everybody but also to bring costs under control.
    .
    Spending on doctors, hospitals, drugs, and the like now consumes more than one of every six dollars we earn. The financial burden has damaged the global competitiveness of American businesses and bankrupted millions of families, even those with insurance.

    Yes! This is true! The United States is the most expensive in the (wealthy) world! The goal of health care reform should be to bring costs under control! You know, like state-based market reforms bringing the price of energy under control, or maintaining the price of food at affordable levels. Of course!
    .
    But Gawande then goes on to make increasingly odd assertions. He says “costs under control,” but then, strikingly, he says something strange:
    .
    Spending on doctors, hospitals, drugs and the like…
    .
    Well, yes, “spending” is pretty bad when it consumes such a huge amount of the nation’s wealth because it comes at a price tag of $7400 per person! But why say “spending”? Why not just say “price”?
    .
    After all, Kate Pickert, we don’t say that the problem with energy costs for US consumers (and all of the vehicles in the Armed Forces for which the government picks up the oil tab) is spending is out of control, we say (rightly) that the price of gas is too high! We then look to the OPEC oil cartel, and currency manipulation, and Venezuela’s policies, and lack of refineries, and lack of domestic production, and lack of alternatives such as in Brazil for explanations of the price phenomenon of wildly expensive oil to run our cars, airplanes and electricity generators!
    .
    Why does Gawande put in terms of “spending” instead of prices? Has he not bothered to look at the price of health care units in the rest of the world?
    .
    Incredibly, it seems like he hasn’t! Why, what possible rationale could there be for this omission?
    .
    Gawande, in that paragraph where he lays out the premise that the US has the most expensive health care system per person in the world, goes on to quote President Obama:


    “The greatest threat to America’s fiscal health is not Social Security,” President Barack Obama said in a March speech at the White House. “It’s not the investments that we’ve made to rescue our economy during this crisis. By a wide margin, the biggest threat to our nation’s balance sheet is the skyrocketing cost of health care. It’s not even close.”

    and then makes this incredible remark:

    The question we’re now frantically grappling with is how this came to be, and what can be done about it. McAllen, Texas, the most expensive town in the most expensive country for health care in the world, seemed a good place to look for some answers.

    So…
    .
    Instead of looking at the cheapest place in the wealthy world where everyone is covered, they get amazing quality health care whenever they ask for it, and they pay less than half per person than we do –Japan– Gawande chooses to look for health care cost solutions in the most expensive county in the world?
    .
    Does that make any sense at all to you, Kate Pickert? Is that methodology sound?
    .
    He doesn’t start in Japan, or Italy, or the United Kingdom, or Germany, or France, or Canada or Switzerland, or anywhere in the world where the goal of covering everyone at a low cost has actually been achieved, but immediately thinks that McAllen, TX “seemed a good place to look for some answers“?
    .
    Is that sane? Or did he set out to prove something his editors told him to prove: that the problem with health care in the United States is all because of unnecessary treatment, i.e. “spending”?
    .
    What are intelligent, critical-minded people supposed to think about this?
    .
    untold unnecessary spending” might be the difference between the cost of health care in McAllen, TX and the Mayo clinic, but it doesn’t account for the reality of prices:


    Ezra Klein’s November piece in WaPo showed data demonstrating the vast discrepancy between what Americans pay vs other countries pay for the same unit of health care ( link to the WaPo price comparison column, one of the very few ) .
    .
    In it, US physician visit fees range up to $151 vs Germany’s $22, US CT imaging scans range up to $1800 vs Germany’s $319, and US drug prices (such as for Lipitor) range from as high as $334 vs Germany’s $48.

    Help me, Kate Pickert, I’m truly at a loss to understand this weird phenomenon in press corps coverage of this issue.
    .
    I can come up with theories, we all can.
    .
    The reason this man is apparently so influential is because he, like the rest of the Village press corps, refuses to compare the US system to the rest of the wealthy world, so as to leave our “the best health care system in the world” myths in place.
    .
    If we don’t shout our obligatory “USA! USA!” in these discussions, I guess it leaves the writers (and editors and publishers) open to criticism from the right on patriotic grounds. That’s a more comfortable place for writers (and editors, and publishers) to occupy than to court controversy from AIE or Heritage Foundation, is that it, Kate Pickert?
    .
    Or is the press corps so supremely other-directed, that once an appealing, easily-told, relatively uncontroversial storyline surfaces, you folks just don’t ever bother to examine and revise that tale?
    .
    Does deviating from that consensus storyline carry risks in your profession, Kate Pickert? Is that the reason why you can’t bother to hold Gawande’s “unnecessary spending” frame up to a minimum of critical analysis?
    .
    Please, please, Kate Pickert. Please help me understand why you and your colleagues in the press corps seem to have adopted a storyline that can’t be challenged, not even on a factual or logical basis?
    .
    Have you really thought this through yourself? Have you answered these questions satisfactorily for yourself? Do you know with relative certainty that the cost of health care in the United States isn’t due to CT scans being $1000 or $1600 or $1800, instead of Germany’s average price tag of $319? Do you know with relative certainty that “The Cost Conundrum” isn’t due to Lipitor being sold here for $200 to $300, instead of Germany’s $48 –or even less in Canada?
    .
    Are you really so sure that fee-for-service is the only problem?
    .
    Or have you just put your faith in the New Yorker, Kate Pickert, and its credible-sounding writers, like Atul Gawande?
    .
    We’re nearly at the end of this episode, Kate Pickert. When all is said and done with health care reform, do you really want to be one of the journalists who was notable for going along with the herd? Do you want to share in the increased discredit and blame brought on your profession through its almost uniform acceptance of Judy Miller’s WMD program reporting?
    .
    Can your credibility really afford the hit when it turns out that prices really did have something to do with US health care costs, and we’re still going broke in 2015?
    .
    Do you care about these things, Kate Pickert?
    .
    I may sound like a lunatic in love with his own repetition to you, but I’m really not. I’d really be quite happy to write about other things, actually. But I’m in the position I found myself in early 2003, where we, as a country, were about to do something that I could see wasn’t credibly supported by evidence, and I couldn’t think of anything else to do. It’s also not my job to go along with accepted stories about America and what we do rightly or wrongly. And, ultimately, I care so deeply about my country, Kate Pickert, that I’ll take the risk of some folks thinking I’m weird or obsessive, rather than go along unthinkingly with a consensus narrative.
    .
    Will you please stop with the accolades about “terrific writer” and “impressively thorough” and “important story of 2009,” and will you please answer these questions, Kate Pickert? Some of your readers, some of us who haven’t burned out and tuned out of this sorry health care reform episode, would love to know.
    .
    Is it primarily spending or is it primarily price, and why won’t the press corps (generally) speak to price as an issue in this debate, Kate Pickert?

  • shepherdwong

    …the doctors who resent an added layer of bureaucracy and any implication that they are not careful, meticulous practitioners of medicine.”
    .
    What you mean to say is their egos get in the way. I’m sure that everyone who’s ever had been to a doctor – a male one anyway – understands what you’re talking about here.

  • jcapan

    SZ, do you see any discernible difference between KT & KP’s coverage of HCR? Cuz I honestly don’t.

  • square1

    Stuart,
    .
    You make a lot of good points and fair criticisms of Gawande’s arguments. Lord knows that I would love for the press, including KP and KT, to stop telling us that we need less health care and start reporting on how we might be able to receive excellent care more affordably.
    .
    That being said, Gawande doesn’t strike me as an ideologue. I think that he has approached the issue with a relatively open mind and challenges assumptions on all sides of the issue. For example, his analysis of McAllen, TX and his advocacy for checklists are not likely to be embraced by conservatives who want to believe that the free-market sets prices efficiently or that doctors are over-prescribing procedures out of fear of litigation, rather than to make money.
    .
    Does he have an U.S.-centric analysis that reflects some of the conventional wisdom that has been repeated ad nauseum in the media? Yes.

  • shepherdwong

    “Instead of looking at the cheapest place in the wealthy world where everyone is covered, they get amazing quality health care whenever they ask for it, and they pay less than half per person than we do –Japan– Gawande chooses to look for health care cost solutions in the most expensive county in the world?…
    .
    “Have you really thought this through yourself? Have you answered these questions satisfactorily for yourself? Do you know with relative certainty that the cost of health care in the United States isn’t due to CT scans being $1000 or $1600 or $1800, instead of Germany’s average price tag of $319? Do you know with relative certainty that “The Cost Conundrum” isn’t due to Lipitor being sold here for $200 to $300, instead of Germany’s $48 –or even less in Canada?”

    .
    Stuart is making a fine and important point here and I’d like to know the answer myself. Why is the emphasis of the corporate press always on the aggregate cost, rather than the astronomically high incremental costs that actually get us there? It goes a long way to explaining why the media has “basically failed to convince Americans that the health system needs to change.”

  • stuartzechman

    sqr1:
    .
    Part of the point of what I just wrote was to be clear that I’m so tired of speculating as to the motives of individuals within the press corps.
    .
    I don’t know if Gawande is an ideologue or not, I don’t know if he was told or not told to look for an “at home” theory of health care costs, I have no idea if he did or did not include an entire three pages of OECD prices of MRIs and pharmaceuticals that ended up on his editor’s floor.
    .
    Quite honestly, I’m sick to death of speculating about individuals’ motives in the press corps where I don’t have a preponderance of evidence (unlike Joe Klein, for example, where he’s been writing the same dreck for years). All I can do is note the aggregate behavior, and ask a mainstream, establishment journalist here (and anywhere I can) in a polite way to explain these professional phenomena to lay-people to myself.
    .
    I also think reporters need to know that their credibility, personal and institutional, is at an all-time low, and that they need to answer for herd-like behavior to their readers in order to sustain interest in their product.

  • fhmadvocat

    Stuart,

    I think you make some excellent points. However, I think you are aiming at a curve much higher than Gawande. When you look at how other countries do health care, you are asking for a very fundamental change in how things get done. Gawande is not attempting to go that far, he is only looking at best practices in this country, which could be implimented much more quickly.

    You can look at other countries, but you have to ask yourself, how much is the health care industry in that country regulated? How much is overall health care subsidized by the government? What type of universal coverage is there in each country? And as a bone to Conservatives, what type of malpractice law exists in a particular country?

    We can crack all we want about “the best health care in the world”, however, I know one premier (governor) in Canada who is coming to this country for medical treatment. The fact that so many for around the world flock to this country (in particular the Mayo Clinic, which Obama and Gawande have singled out) I think speaks volumes.

  • stuartzechman

    Oregon JC:

    do you see any discernible difference between KT & KP’s coverage of HCR?

    Yes.
    .
    The manner in which each of them dutifully repeats things is different. KT manages to impart subtle points throughout her pieces. She’s actually really, really subtle, it’s sort of astounding to me, quite frankly.
    .
    With KT, one has to look for the criticism that she overcompensates for in advance, in order to find the point she’s making. She leaves these gaping holes into which we’re supposed to interpolate and understand what she can’t say. She leaves these holes big enough for those familiar with her writing and thought to notice. So much of what she knows, she can’t actually come out and discuss openly, so she’s clever, and leads us where she wants us to go. When you know the ending to “Fight Club”, watching the movie again is a completely different experience than the first time.
    .
    It’s apparently sometimes frustrating to her that commentary can’t see these levels that must remain implied, but she seems used to people taking what she writes at face value, too, which is also what she’s professionally producing.
    .
    Kate Pickert, on the other hand, is just a vessel for what she knows she can report with a relative lack of controversy coming down upon herself.

  • stuartzechman

    Thanks so much for reading and responding to this commentary, fhmadvocat.
    .
    I have to leave where I am right now, so I’m not going to be able to respond to your points as rapidly as they should be dealt with. Perhaps I can speak to them later.

    We can crack all we want about “the best health care in the world”, however, I know one premier (governor) in Canada who is coming to this country for medical treatment. The fact that so many for around the world flock to this country (in particular the Mayo Clinic, which Obama and Gawande have singled out) I think speaks volumes.

    Does somebody else want to take this on, so I can get out of here?

  • jcapan

    Thanks for the response SZ. Mind you I’m not raking either of them over the coals, at least not personally. I get the implicit limitations to their profession. “So much of what she knows, she can’t actually come out and discuss openly.” Agreed. And what happens when a MSM journalist crosses that line? Froomkin, Dan.
    .
    But something Bogie said about a hill of beans springs to mind when surveying your distinction. At the end of the day, Americans are just as ill informed. Perhaps not misinformed, but most readers aren’t as sophisticated as you. It may help to conclude that she’s the good cop in the room, but IMO she’s merely neutral. And you can’t be neutral on a moving train.

  • destor23

    Gawande pinpoints some problems but his ultimate solution is to standardize practices in a field that needs less standardization and more personalization. Now its true that the insurance companies already impose standards and I think that’s a problem. But what we really need is more of the kind of flat out “we can treat you even if you’re an outlier” kind of stuff that more and better studies of biology and genetics should make possible. Gawande’s checklists are a step in the wrong direction or are at best band-aids.

  • rustyreturns

    “Typing in BOLD AND ALLCAPS does not make your screed any more thoughtful”.
    square1
    February 4, 2010
    at 5:28 pm

  • Cliff

    Hey, I’ve got a tangentially related question for SZ or someone else who is knowledgeable about health care.
    .
    I ran across some charts created by Jonathan Cohn, shown in this piece:
    .
    http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/see-the-curve-bend
    .
    The second curve shows that with reform, there’s a sharp spike in the rate of increase in health care spending. Then it drops back down, and over the years, rises up again slowly.
    .
    It’s compared to the cost curve that would exist without health care reform, and the two curves converge over time.
    .
    According to the chart, in 2019, health care spending will increase at 6% to 7 % per year with or without reform.
    .
    My question is, am I missing something here?
    If this chart is accurate, then how are we not still completely screwed?
    .
    How does lowering the rate of increase in health care spending by a fraction of a percentage point help us at all?

  • stuartzechman

    Cliff:
    .
    Do you remember my post about the theoretical Big Mac phenomenon?
    .
    We are completely screwed, just not this very second, and not completely for a few more years yet.
    .
    You’re not missing anything.
    .
    Health care isn’t like oil. We can’t move to “alternative health care” if we can’t pay the high price.
    .
    If the price of each health care unit –each hospital expense, medical procedure, laboratory test, physician care, medical equipment and prescription drug– in the United States continues to be literally five times the cost of other countries (and still rising), the only way to stop the growth of health care spending is to restrict the use of health care by people.
    .
    The market forces we have in effect in this country don’t work to keep the price of this commodity within reach.
    .
    Medicare will be unable to pay for the care to which people are entitled. Private insurers, first buoyed by the influx of healthy non-claimants produced by making being uninsured illegal, then helped mightily by prolonged unemployment, will resort eventually to the mechanisms that have always allowed their industry to be profitable: delay and denial of care through any legal pretext offsetting health care price increases.

    How does lowering the rate of increase in health care spending by a fraction of a percentage point help us at all?

    I truly don’t know what the rationale is.
    .
    It might be that this is better than nothing (which seems to be the prime rationale of supporters), it might be that these guys can point to any reduction at all in cost, and say “See? It’s working!” as if we could expect more benefit. It could be that these people don’t care about anything except power and money. Maybe they’ve got some secret plan that they’re just biding their time with, until they’re ready. Who knows? I can’t see any rationale at all, apart from the “here comes the cavalry to save the poor people” argument, which, of course, means that the poor will just be kicked right back into substandard or no care again, once middle-class people start to blame them for consuming scarcer and scarcer health care resources, and Democrats try to win votes in high-scarcity states like Arkansas again.
    .
    It’s crazy, but, you know, we invaded a country seven years ago because nobody said any differently. It’s crazy that the Democrats defeated a bill put forward by a retiring Senator to allow drug importation from Canada at Canadian prices. That would have literally cut the cost of Medicare Part D in half. The Democrats voted against it. Why?
    .
    I take no joy in making these pronouncements. I was so hopeful when Democrats ran the table, I’m honestly surprised at this outcome. I can’t believe it. I can’t believe we’re doing this. It’s just like 2003 again.
    .
    I truly wish this were some different situation, but there’s an unreality to the public discussion that’s apparently overwhelming. There’s some sort of Emperor’s New Clothes going on that I don’t understand.
    .
    This kind of thing:

    I know one premier (governor) in Canada who is coming to this country for medical treatment. The fact that so many for around the world flock to this country (in particular the Mayo Clinic, which Obama and Gawande have singled out) I think speaks volumes.

    is the Emperor’s New Business Casual-Wear.
    .
    You tell me, Cliff: what is going on here?

  • Cliff

    I think we’ve gotten so far away from the Robber Barons of the 1800s that we’ve forgotten why the Progressive movement started up in the first place.
    .
    That’s the optimistic version. The pessimistic version is that we’re seeing some of the early death throes of an empire here.
    .
    Think about it. The best* and the brightest* got together in a room and were told, “Ladies and gentlemen, our health care system is causing wage stagnation, tens of thousands of bankruptcies, and tens of thousands of deaths each year, and it’s only going to get worse.”
    .
    And after a year of thinking about it, the best they can come up with is, “Uhh, uhh, here, we came up with this fix that makes things become more expensive slightly slower than before.”
    .
    So that tells me that the nation has become ossified, and we can’t move past the systems we’ve established – not without a lot more trouble.
    .
    *Not really.

  • iggydwonderllama

    While I agree with most of what you advocate, or at least what I can understand yet of what you advocate, it seems to me you are being overly combative. It seems your complaint is not that Gawande is in any way wrong, but that he is not making the same point as you.

  • stuartzechman

    iggydwonderllama:

    it seems to me you are being overly combative.

    Perhaps, if so, I apologize. It’s difficult to convey the intense disagreement many have with the terms of the health care debate being set the way that they have been without seeming combative.
    .
    I have no interest in confrontation or antagonism for its own sake, only that journalists’ fidelity to a consensus (theirs) sphere of legitimate debate ( link to Jay Rosen’s piece from which the term arises ) be enthusiastically questioned. Given the facts are the way they are on this issue, that an entire category of them has been largely excluded from discussion seems –at best– arbitrary. Arbitrary rules can sometimes be rather aggravating to rational people trying to make sense of their world, hence my impatient, perhaps argumentative tone.


    It seems your complaint is not that Gawande is in any way wrong, but that he is not making the same point as you.

    To the extent that Gawande obsessively clings to a storyline that excludes the rest of the world’s data from consideration, yes, I think that he’s wrong.
    .
    Of course I don’t disagree that fee-for-service arrangements, or local cultural factors, or high administrative overhead, or perverse incentive structures –or fear of malpractice lawsuits, for that matter– can contribute to unnecessary spending, and that unnecessary spending contributes to the high cost of health care in the United States.
    .
    What I believe is irrational on the part of Gawande is the almost fetishization of the average cost of health care in the United States as a baseline from which we’re apparently supposed to judge the success or failure of health care reform. If we were being rational, we wouldn’t ignore the rest of the OECD world, and especially we wouldn’t ignore the vast differences in health care commodity prices between the US and every other developed nation –unless controlling prices is somehow a prohibited solution in the United States, in which case it’s rational to exclude.
    .
    Like I mentioned in subsequent commentary, I have no idea whether or not Gawande wrote an equal amount of pages (ultimately destined for an editor’s trash bin) dedicated to analysis of systems that provide equal or superior quality health care at half the cost of ours. As I also mentioned, it seems very, very odd that Gawande would focus on merely reducing costs down from the most expensive town in America, and never once mention that the average cost of US health care is similarly unsustainable in the medium and long term.
    .
    These aren’t distinct points, they’re inextricable, in my opinion, and so Gawande (or his editor, or his publisher) is wrong to omit the lack of sustainability characterizing McAllen’s relatively inexpensive neighbor town of El Paso. When he writes:

    Yet in 2006 Medicare expenditures (our best approximation of over-all spending patterns) in El Paso were $7,504 per enrollee—half as much as in McAllen.

    , he is implicitly characterizing $7504 as a “reasonable” amount to pay for health care per person. That characterization, when contrasted with OECD data telling us that the average wealthy nation pays under $3000 per person, is therefore wrong, in my opinion.
    .
    Thanks so much for taking the time to read and consider this commentary, iggydwonderllama.

blog comments powered by Disqus