Thursday, March 20, 2008

An aphorism in practice

My boss, who has been a great mentor and friend to me for nearly five years now, once gave me a rather pithy piece of advice that I have always followed: "Never be good at anything you don't want to do." Be good at something, and someone, whether it's your boss, your best friend who wants a favor, or even the U.S. government, is going to want you to do it.

So, when being good at a particular skill requires years of intense training and thousands of dollars in student loans, and the reward is that one can expect nickel-and-diming from insurance companies at best, and outright slave labor at worst, is it any wonder that medical students, while they may not have heard my boss's advice word for word, are refusing to be good at what they don't want to do? The New York Times reports this week that medical students are choosing in droves, not to pursue the "needed" areas of medicine like primary care, but the more lucrative (and, not coincidentally, less regulated) fields of dermatology and plastic surgery. With Medicare and private insurance companies demanding increasing amounts of paperwork for decreasing amounts of remuneration, medical students can see that being a primary care physician isn't the high-paying career it used to be -- and they may quite rightly decide that four years of medical school followed by additional years of working long hours for low pay in a residency, plus taking out hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans, is too high a price to pay to pursue that field. Why not, instead, spend that time and money learning a different area of medicine -- one with which neither the government nor private insurance concerns itself, and thus one in which a doctor can make more money with fewer headaches?

Worse still is the situation with emergency-room care, as anyone who reads M.D.O.D. will know. "Outright slave labor," as I described the situation for a newly minted doctor, is no exaggeration in the ER, thanks to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). EMTALA requires that emergency rooms treat any patient who comes in, regardless of his or her ability to pay. What this means is that ERs are paid for about one-third of the services for which they bill. That means slave labor -- doctors performing services for which they will never be paid, often for bums who treat the ER like their primary care physician because they "can't afford" to see a regular doctor (yet somehow manage to scare up enough money to fuel their cigarette habits). Unsurprisingly, emergency room doctors are following my boss's advice and deciding they won't be good at what they don't want to do -- so they leave the ER, or even leave medicine altogether. Hospitals are doing the same -- they don't want to lose money to patients who won't pay, so they refuse to be good at it, meaning they stop offering emergency-room care.

The result of combining heavy regulations with "never be good at anything you don't want to do" is that care cannot be had by anyone, while availability flourishes in freer markets like dermatology and cosmetic surgery. If Americans want more people who are good at what we need them to do, we must create a free market -- so that that will be what doctors want to do.

Update: Check out this post at M.D.O.D. for a firsthand account from a doctor who knows what it's like to do primary care -- and has chosen to be good at something else because it not only pays better, but offers him an easier workday.

5 comments:

Burgess Laughlin said...

Thank you for publishing this weblog. You have an explicit philosophical context while examining a particular industry. That can be a potent combination.

I have a question: Does EMTALA apply to all hospitals or only to a certain class of hospital, perhaps those that gain some benefit from being designated as "public" hospitals?

The reason I ask is because, as a layman, I notice that usually industries that are controlled are often subsidized as well, in some manner, directly or indirectly. But perhaps that is not the case here.

Stella said...

Excellent question. Yes, EMTALA applies only to hospitals that receive government money from Medicare:

"EMTALA applies only to "participating hospitals" -- i.e., to hospitals which have entered into "provider agreements" under which they will accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program for services provided to beneficiaries of that program."

But, as the EMTALA website goes on to state: "In practical terms, this means that it applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners' Hospital for Crippled Children and many military hospitals. Its provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients." As with scientific research, it is nearly impossible to run a hospital without taking government money; there are so many Medicare patients that one simply could not remain competitive with other hospitals that do.

exaltron said...

I read this article as well and had a similar take on it. I've been frustrated recently with the Primary Care situation; PCs seem to serve no function except as gatekeepers for referrals. Dermatologists can be just as useless: recently I needed a skin cream for a rash that's already been diagnosed. Last time I needed it, I had a friend who was in Greece at the time pick some up- since the cream is OTC in Europe and elsewhere, it cost $20 for more than a years supply. When that ran out, I found that I had to make an appointment with a dermatologist, sit in a waiting room for over an hour, just to have the pimple popper glance at my rash and give me a prescription. Of course, if I wanted a refill, I would have to come see her again so she could rack up another $100 bucks for writing me a prescription.

Yes Hillary, I definitely see now how it is the free market that's screwing up health care in the US..

Stella said...

I've complained about the prescription drug system before, that's for sure. Why should I have to see a doctor every X amount of time to get drugs if I already know what's wrong with me? (And even if I don't know what's wrong, is it not my right to put what I please into my own body?)

I've read that getting an appointment with a dermatologist for a non-cosmetic reason is much harder than for cosmetic reasons, precisely because the free market is operating in the latter and not the former. I've only made one appointment with a dermatologist, but I did find that to be the case -- I had to wait three months to get my moles checked for cancer, but I suspect that if I'd wanted Botox, I could have gotten in much sooner.

Paul Hsieh, MD said...

To Stella and Burgess:

There are a few "free standing ER's" that don't take Medicare/Medicaid patients and therefore aren't subject to EMTALA regulations.

The economics of these facilities is much more rational. Plus the service is good and the waiting times are very short, as one would expect from an industry freed of that sort of regulation.

Here's more information:
http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/2008/03/free-standing-ers.html
or http://tinyurl.com/2hn53d