healthy4u: NEJM

EHRs and "Meaningful Use": Begging the Question in the New England Journal of Medicine

I used to have great respect for the New England Journal of Medicine. No more. That respect was reduced significantly in 2010 when I saw the following passage (as I wrote in my July 2010 post "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-england-journal-on-meaningful-use.html" target="_blank">Science or Politics? The New England Journal and The 'Meaningful Use Regulation for Electronic Health Records</a>"):  <blockquote class="tr_bq"><div class="MsoNormal">... In the NEJM article "The 'Meaningful Use' Regulation for Electronic Health Records", David Blumenthal, M.D., M.P.P. (ONC Chair) and Marilyn Tavenner, R.N., M.H.A. (10.1056/NEJMp1006114, July 13, 2010) available <a href="http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=3732&query=home">at this link</a>, the opening statement is (emphases mine):</div><div class="MsoNormal"> </div><div class="MsoNormal"> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">The widespread use of electronic health records (EHRs) in the United States is inevitable. EHRs will improve caregivers’ decisions and patients’ outcomes. Once patients experience the benefits of this technology, they will demand nothing less from their providers. Hundreds of thousands of physicians have already seen these benefits in their clinical practice.</div><div class="MsoNormal"> </div><div class="MsoNormal">I think it fair to say those are grandiose statements and predictions presented with a tone of utmost certainty in one of the world's most respected scientific medical journals.</div><div class="MsoNormal"> Even though it is a "perspectives" article, I once long ago learned that in writing in esteemed scientific journals of worldwide impact, statements of certainty were at best avoided, or if made should be exceptionally well referenced. I note the lack of footnotes showing the source(s) of these statements.</div><div class="MsoNormal"> </div><div class="MsoNormal">I also note the lack of mention of literature refuting or potentially refuting these statements of certainty. I can think of more than a few examples of the latter just off the top of my head [ref. 1-15 below, certainly not a comprehensive list but merely skimming the surface].</div><div class="MsoNormal"> </div><div class="MsoNormal">... So, did the NEJM publish fact, or political platitude?</div><div class="MsoNormal"> </div><div class="MsoNormal">Can someone provide a list of peer reviewed, rigorous studies that back the assertions of certainty in 10.1056/NEJMp1006114, and override the body of literature that could cast doubt on these assertions of certainty?</div></blockquote> The negative if not bitter reader comments to yesterday's New York Times article on the health IT lobby (<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/02/nyt-digital-shift-on-health-data-swells.html" target="_blank">link</a>) certainly cast some doubt. My respect has dropped several more notches in 2013. The NEJM has served as a PR journal for health IT once again. In a correspondence piece "<a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1213481" target="_blank">Early Results of the Meaningful Use Program for Electronic Health Records</a>", N Engl J Med 2013; 368:779-780,  February 21, 2013 by Adam Wright, Ph.D., Stanislav Henkin, B.A., Joshua Feblowitz, M.S., Allison B. McCoy, Ph.D., David W. Bates, M.D. and Dean F. Sittig, Ph.D., the following statement is published (emphases mine): <blockquote class="tr_bq">... The downstream effects of meaningful use on quality, safety, and efficiency are not yet known, and further increases in EHR adoption, functionality for clinical decision support systems, and research are needed to ensure the effectiveness of the meaningful use program </blockquote> I note that <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html" target="_blank">B</a><a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html" target="_blank">egging the Question</a> is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. Further, I made the following points in my Jan. 2010 post "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/01/meaningfully-experimental-protocols-and.html" target="_blank">Meaningfully Experimental Protocols and Interfaces to Nowhere? Nagging Questions On Healthcare IT Remain</a>": <blockquote class="tr_bq">... there is a major problem with the term "meaningful use" itself: <blockquote> This [term "meaningful use"] is an example of putting the cart before the horse, and is a semantically-based, self contained logical fallacy of sorts. If a health IT system is harmful, the term "meaningful use" is itself Orwellian. If we don't know if HIT is beneficial, or have doubts, then such as term presupposes that health IT is inherently beneficial. A better term would have been "good faith use" - use based on the faith or hope that health IT will have an overall positive effect. The term "meaningful use" jumps the gun and is more a political slogan than a "meaningful term."</blockquote> I go further. Use of a term that a priori assumes some outcome reflects the antithesis of science. The term "meaningful use" in the domain of technology implies that those following the recipe for use of some technology, as well as their subjects, will experience meaningful outcomes. A parallel is in the logical fallacy of <a href="http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/begging-the-question/">begging the question or circular argument</a>, where the conclusion of an argument is among its premises.</blockquote> In this current NEJM passage, the "question" of MU effectiveness is shamelessly begged like a hungry puppy begging for a <a href="http://snausages.com/" target="_blank">Snausage doggie snack</a>. <table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPmkXt5cm0oa6UEcuITsYQ0L1LBsHyz_Vk6_adzOsPcKEDK0ycg56RxordM-mcHKEyeuWFUabhhYvKD8xgrsURwRH48HHquDOG2J9_Yhx9RJlX9licuN8HOxhgEvOcXK5Q3dtt7_ze5hTo/s1600/Snausages-.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPmkXt5cm0oa6UEcuITsYQ0L1LBsHyz_Vk6_adzOsPcKEDK0ycg56RxordM-mcHKEyeuWFUabhhYvKD8xgrsURwRH48HHquDOG2J9_Yhx9RJlX9licuN8HOxhgEvOcXK5Q3dtt7_ze5hTo/s200/Snausages-.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"> </td></tr></tbody></table> "Ensure the effectiveness?"  The inherent assumption is that MU (developed by consensus committee without supporting rigorous evidence of effectiveness), whose 'downstream effects' are admittedly unknown, WILL be effective - if only we spend MORE billions of dollars on the technology. At best, the appropriate statement to have been made is this: <blockquote class="tr_bq">... The downstream effects of meaningful use on quality, safety, and efficiency are not yet known, and further increases in EHR adoption, functionality for clinical decision support systems, and research are needed to determine if meaningful use will have any positive impact on healthcare quality, safety and efficiency."</blockquote> <div style="right: auto;">From a physician commenter overseas who excels in demolishing health IT propaganda:  <blockquote class="tr_bq">Seriously, did they proof read the last paragraph? How did the NEJM editors let that get printed?  Given the recent food scandal in the UK, it is like the PM saying we are not quite sure that there's horsemeat in the Burgers and Lasagna so we are going to need to import a lot more of this muck from France, Poland & Romania before drawing any conclusions... </blockquote></div><div style="right: auto;"></div> Shame on the New England Journal.  My respect for them is even lower than after the 2010 health IT advert as above.  This current letter's conclusion is a high school-level <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faux+pas" target="_blank">faux pas</a> and, in my opinion, should not have been published in its present form. -- SS Addendum:  Let's see if they publish my Letter to the Editor on this matter, submitted today. Second addendum:  a reader opined that MU could have a negative impact on quality, safety and efficiency (cf. yesterday's NYT article and reader comments, <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/02/nyt-digital-shift-on-health-data-swells.html" target="_blank">link</a>).  While less likely, we just don't know. Addendum Mar. 18, 2013.  I received this today from the NEJM: <blockquote class="tr_bq">Your letter referring to the Wright article of 21-Feb-2013  has been received.  Because of the limited availability of space, we can publish only a fraction of the letters we receive.  Although we will not be able to print yours, we have forwarded a copy to the authors in case they wish to reply directly to you. </blockquote>  This is why I blog. -- SS

EHRs and "Meaningful Use": Begging the Question in the New England Journal of Medicine

I used to have great respect for the New England Journal of Medicine.No more. That respect was reduced significantly in 2010 when I saw the following passage (as I wrote in my July 2010 post "Science …

Đọc thêm »

21 Feb 2013

Yet more health IT articles based on functionalist and determinist assumptions of the general format “what is the impact of technology X on outcome Y"

The article "Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method" by Greenhalgh, Potts, Wong, Bark and Swinglehurst at University College London appeared in the Dec. 2009 <a href="http://www.milbank.org/quarterly.html">Milbank Quarterly</a>. I wrote about it extensively and quoted it at <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/12/healthcare-it-as-cybernetic-miracle.html">this post</a>. A key statement: <blockquote>... This review has also identified some areas where more research does not appear to be needed ... [including] simplified experimental studies based on functionalist and determinist assumptions of the general format “what is the impact of technology X on outcome Y?” or variations thereof ... the circumstances in which they add value are more limited than is often assumed. We [also] believe that surveys of attitudes of patients or staff towards ‘the EPR’ or ‘computerization’ which are not adequately contextualized have almost no enduring value.</blockquote> So guess what was just published in the NEJM? An article based on functionalist and determinist assumptions of the general format “what is the impact of technology X on outcome Y." In a special article entitled "Electronic Health Records and Quality of Diabetes Care", NEJM August 31, 2011 (<a href="http://healthpolicyandreform.nejm.org/?p=15235&query=TOC">link</a>), a study was performed in which the researchers: <blockquote>... compared EHRs with paper-based records in a long-term regional collaborative that seeks to improve care and outcomes for patients with chronic conditions. </blockquote> They found that: <blockquote> ... EHR sites were associated with higher levels of achievement of and improvement in regionally vetted standards for diabetes care and outcomes. Our findings focus on composite standards, although the results were similar for virtually all component standards. </blockquote> This is not really news. I had the same results in a more limited EHR data-based study of diabetics ... in 1997. As I've often written, health IT can be of great benefit...but only if done well. (I have to frequently repeat that there is massive, perhaps <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem">wicked</a> complexity behind those simple two words "done well.") When not done well, disaster can strike. There are no statistics in in the NEJM article regarding complications, "close calls", patient injuries, or patient deaths due to the implementation of health IT. I sincerely doubt the incidence was zero. Their dismissal or lack of mention is common in the medical and health IT literature and seems to reflect an amoral, pervasive paternalism in medicine. The amoral paternalism in turn seems to be a repeat of the attitudes towards experimentation that led to the many human subjects protections that apply everywhere else in biomedicine (<a href="http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/index.html">link</a>) - except computing - e.g.: <a href="http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/45cfr46.html"></a><blockquote><a href="http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/45cfr46.html">45 CFR 46</a> Protection Of Human Subjects <a href="http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/GrayBooklet82404.pdf">Guidelines for Conduct of Research Involving Human Subjects at NIH (Gray Booklet) (pdf file)</a> <a href="http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html">The Belmont Report</a> Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research <a href="http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/nuremberg.html">Nuremberg Code</a> Directives for Human Experimentation <a href="http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/helsinki.html">World Medical Association Declaration Of Helsinki</a> </blockquote> To their credit, the NEJM authors did issue several caveats: <blockquote>... we compared sites that had sophisticated EHR systems with paper-based organizations that, as safety-net practices, care for a vulnerable patient population and may have fewer quality-related resources than other paper-based practices ... Our results, showing accelerated improvement in care and outcomes, should encourage those concerned that the quality of ambulatory care may fail to improve with increased adoption of EHRs [per numerous past studies - ed.] ... our study did not determine changes in achievement after the conversion from paper to electronic records, which would provide more compelling evidence of the benefits of EHRs.</blockquote> One might wonder how the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars spent on EMR's might compare, with regard to disease management, with the results achieved by hundreds of dedicated people who could be hired for that purpose for far less money. In other words, the ROI issues of the health IT investment vs. alternatives are not addressed (they rarely are), and truly robust RCT's were not performed comparing the two alternatives. Greenhalgh et al. also wrote in the aforementioned Milbank article: <blockquote>... as a cross-cutting theme in all the above areas, the realpolitik of EPR projects within and between organizations and interest groups should be more explicitly explored ... Orlikowski and Yates have called for more research on the “messy, dynamic, contested, contingent, negotiated, improvised, heterogeneous, and multi-level character of ICTs [information & communications technologies - ed.] in organizations” (page 132) (Orlikowski and Yates 2006). We suggest that sponsors and publishers eschew sanitized accounts of successful projects and instead invite studies of the EPR in organizations that “tell it like it is” – perhaps using the critical fiction technique to ensure anonymity (Winter 1986).</blockquote> There's no trace of that in the new NEJM article. Where health IT is concerned, that's where the money is (no pun intended) in learning how to "do health IT well." -- SS

Yet more health IT articles based on functionalist and determinist assumptions of the general format “what is the impact of technology X on outcome Y"

The article "Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method" by Greenhalgh, Potts, Wong, Bark and Swinglehurst at Universi…

Đọc thêm »

06 Sep 2011

Science or Politics? The New England Journal and "The 'Meaningful Use' Regulation for Electronic Health Records"

<div class="PlainText" style="font-family:arial;">In the NEJM article "The 'Meaningful Use' Regulation for Electronic Health Records", David Blumenthal, M.D., M.P.P. (ONC Chair) and Marilyn Tavenner, R.N., M.H.A. (10.1056/NEJMp1006114, July 13, 2010) available <a href="http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=3732&query=home">at this link</a>, the opening statement is (emphases mine): </div><blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;font-family:arial;"><div class="PlainText">The widespread use of electronic health records (EHRs) in the United States is inevitable. EHRs will improve caregivers’ decisions and patients’ outcomes. Once patients experience the benefits of this technology, they will demand nothing less from their providers. Hundreds of thousands of physicians have already seen these benefits in their clinical practice.</div></blockquote><div class="PlainText" style="font-family:arial;"> I think it fair to say those are grandiose statements and predictions presented with a tone of utmost certainty in one of the world's most respected scientific medical journals. </div><div class="PlainText" style="font-family:arial;"></div><div class="PlainText" style="font-family:arial;"> Even though it is a "perspectives" article, I once long ago learned that in writing in esteemed scientific journals of worldwide impact, statements of certainty were at best avoided, or if made should be exceptionally well referenced. </div><div class="PlainText" style="font-family:arial;"></div><div class="PlainText" style="font-family:arial;">I note the lack of footnotes showing the source(s) of these statements. </div><div class="PlainText" style="font-family:arial;"></div><div class="PlainText" style="font-family:arial;">I also note the lack of mention of literature refuting or potentially refuting these statements of certainty. I can think of more than a few examples of the latter just off the top of my head [ref. 1-15 below, certainly not a comprehensive list but merely skimming the surface]. </div><div class="PlainText" style="font-family:arial;"></div><div class="PlainText" style="font-family:arial;">In politics, however, no such sourcing is necessary. It's easy for a politician <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026720.php" target="_blank">to say</a> "Free markets will not give us the healthcare system we want" or, conversely, "I <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026746.php" target="_blank">never heard about</a> the DOJ's selective dismissal of charges against people intimidating voters at a voting site in Philadelphia." </div><div class="PlainText" style="font-family:arial;"></div><div class="PlainText" style="font-family:arial;">So, did the NEJM publish fact, or political platitude? </div><div class="PlainText" style="font-family:arial;"></div><div class="PlainText" style="font-family:arial;">Can someone provide a list of peer reviewed, rigorous studies that back the assertions of certainty in 10.1056/NEJMp1006114, and override the body of literature that could cast doubt on these assertions of certainty? Since it's people's lives at stake, not an inventory of widgets, I've promoted the idea of holding off on national roll outs until we: <ul style="font-family:arial;"><li>learn sufficiently from failures such as the UK's <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmpubacc/153/15304.htm">NPfIT</a> (National Programme for IT) in the NHS and our own military's <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/07/4-billion-military-emr-ahlta-to-be-put.html">AHLTA debacle</a> on how to avoid same, which can injure and kill patients and wastes massive money and resources healthcare can ill afford, and more importantly that can be better used elsewhere - such as care of the poor;</li></ul><ul style="font-family:arial;"><li>improve the technology's usability, safety and efficacy through the years of Medical Informatics and other disciplinary research needed, that was short circuited through the invention of the ONC office by Bush (although national HIT then remained a goal, not a mandate), and the 'militarization' of ONC under Obama whereby HIT was unilaterally declared a proven technology and mandated for national rollout;</li></ul><ul style="font-family:arial;"><li>end the contractual "hold vendor harmless clauses" (see Koppel and Kreda's 2009 JAMA article <a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/301/12/1276">here</a>), and fear-based censorship of information on health IT problems, patient injuries and deaths related to the devices; and</li></ul><ul><li>meaningfully regulate these devices that have increasingly become governors of care delivery. </li></ul> I have written extensively on these topics at this blog, at my <a href="http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/">academic website on health IT failure</a>, and other sources (see list at end of my <a href="http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/biography.htm">bio</a>). When there are significant doubts about a medication or medical device, we ought not push for national rollout. Health IT devices have gotten special accommodation, and it's not on the basis of any rigorous science I am familiar with. <style title="owaParaStyle">P { MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px } BODY { SCROLLBAR-HIGHLIGHT-COLOR: #cecfce; SCROLLBAR-ARROW-COLOR: #3f52b8; SCROLLBAR-TRACK-COLOR: #fffbff; SCROLLBAR-DARKSHADOW-COLOR: #fafafa; SCROLLBAR-BASE-COLOR:-- S</style>-- SS </div> References: (hyperlinks to these and others can be found at my medical informatics teaching sites <a href="http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/?loc=other">here</a> and <a href="http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/?loc=cases&sloc=2009">here</a>): <div class="PlainText" style="font-family:arial;"></div> <blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;font-family:arial;"><div class="PlainText" style="font-family:arial;"></div><div class="PlainText" style="font-family:arial;">1. Health IT Project Success and Failure: Recommendations from Literature and an AMIA Workshop by Bonnie Kaplan and Kimberly D. Harris-Salamone. From the May/June 2009 issue of JAMIA. 2. "E-Health Hazards: Provider Liability and Electronic Health Record Systems.” Hoffman and Podgurski’s followup paper on EHR medical and legal risks 3. Role of Computerized Physician Order Entry Systems in Facilitating Medication Errors. Ross Koppel, PhD, et al, Journal of the American Medical Association, 2005;293:1197-1203 4. Electronic Health Record Use and the Quality of Ambulatory Care in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:1400-1405. The authors examined electronic health records (EHR) use throughout the U.S. and the association of EHR use with 17 basic quality indicators. They concluded that “as implemented, EHRs were not associated with better quality ambulatory care.” 5. Pessimism, Computer Failure, and Information Systems Development in the Public Sector. (Public Administration Review 67;5:917-929, Sept/Oct. 2007, Shaun Goldfinch, University of Otago, New Zealand) 6. <a href="http://www.blogger.com/redir.aspx?C=cd79bb9ef239435c91597828510ff401&URL=http%3a%2f%2fiig.umit.at%2fefmi%2fbadinformatics.htm" target="_blank"></a>Bad Health Informatics Can Kill. his site contains summaries of a number of reported incidents in healthcare where IT was the cause or a significant factor. It comes from the Working Group for Assessment of Health Information Systems of the European Federation for Medical Informatics (EFMI). </div><div class="PlainText" style="font-family:arial;"></div><div class="PlainText">7. The U.S. National Research Council’s "Current Approaches to U.S. Health Care Information Technology are Insufficient." 8. The UK Public Accounts Committee report on disastrous problems in their £12.7 billion national EMR program. 9. Gateway reviews of the UK National Programme for IT from the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) (released under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act). 10. A report on the serious problems with the Department of Defense’s AHLTA system, Electronic Records System Unreliable, Difficult to Use, Service Officials Tell Congress. (This system, as I <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/07/4-billion-military-emr-ahlta-to-be-put.html">wrote here</a>, is slated for abandonment. I cannot imagine it was greatly improving outcomes). 11. A New York Times report “Little Benefit Seen, So Far, in Electronic Patient Records” on Jha’s research at the Harvard School of Public Health, that compared 3,000 hospitals at various stages in the adoption of computerized health records and found little difference in the cost and quality of care. 12. An American Journal of Medicine paper “Hospital Computing and the Costs and Quality of Care: A National Study” by Himmelstein and Woolhandler at Harvard Medical School, that also concluded “as currently implemented, hospital computing might [very] modestly improve process measures of quality but not administrative or overall costs." 13. A Milbank Quarterly article “Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method" by Greenhalgh, Potts, Wong, Bark and Swinglehurst at University College London. 14. Health Affairs, 29, no. 4 (2010): 639-646 Electronic Health Records’ Limited Successes Suggest More Targeted Uses, Catherine M. DesRoches et al. 15. NORCAL Mutual Insurance Company: "Electronic Health Records: Recognizing and Managing the Risks" (PDF <a href="http://www.norcalmutual.com/publications/claimsrx/oct_09.pdf">here</a>) </div></blockquote><blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;font-family:arial;"><div class="PlainText"> </div><div class="PlainText"> </div><div class="PlainText"></div></blockquote> Addendum 7/14: I think this statement at "The Road to Hellth" blog in a post entitled "<a href="http://roadtohellth.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=146:meaningful-ruse&catid=37:dapblog&Itemid=175">Meaningful Ruse</a>" that cites my posts is apropos: <blockquote>... Meaningful use entered our vocabulary in early 2009 as part of a $20+ billion gift from doctors, hospitals and the taxpayers to the needy folks at Cerner, GE, Siemens, Allscripts, Epic and other purveyors of complex, expensive and difficult-to-use and potentially even dangerous medical software products. </blockquote> -- SS

Science or Politics? The New England Journal and "The 'Meaningful Use' Regulation for Electronic Health Records"

In the NEJM article "The 'Meaningful Use' Regulation for Electronic Health Records", David Blumenthal, M.D., M.P.P. (ONC Chair) and Marilyn Tavenner, R.N., M.H.A. (10.1056/NEJMp1006114, July 13, 2010)…

Đọc thêm »

14 Jul 2010

Professional Integrity for Sale? “Sure,” Says Medscape!

Some chiropractors also practice homeopathy. According to <a href="http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=38545">Frank King, D.C.,</a> many more should be doing just that: <blockquote>Homeopathy is an energetic form of natural medicine that corrects nerve interferences, absent nerve reflexes, and pathological nerve response patterns that the chiropractic adjustment alone does not correct. The appropriate homeopathic remedies will eliminate aberrant nerve reflexes and pathological nerve responses which cause recurrent subluxation complexes. Not only does homeopathy correct nerve interferences, it empowers the doctor of chiropractic to reach the entire nervous system. What this means is that we can now better affect the whole person, and all of the maladies that affect us. Homeopathy’s energetic approach reaches deep within the nervous system, correcting nerve interferences where the hands of chiropractic alone cannot reach. Homeopathy is the missing link that enables the chiropractor to truly affect the whole nervous system! </blockquote> But that’s not all: <blockquote>Financial Rewards Homeopathy means a multiple increase in business. Personally, I have been able to see and effectively help more patients in less time. The additional cash flow from broadening your scope of practice, increasing your patient volume and selling the homeopathic remedies is a wonderful adjunct. Better yet are the secondary financial benefits: <ul><li>Homeopathy is like an extension of you that the patient can take with them to apply throughout each day in between visits. The actual therapeutic benefits of homeopathy along with the inner comforts of the patient as they connect you with each dose they take.</li><li>The dynamic broadening of your effective scope of practice multiplies the number of patients you can help and the multiple problems that each patient usually has. As you correct one set of problems, there are commonly other problems most patients don’t even tell their chiropractors. This doesn’t have to be the case anymore. Homeopathy empowers the chiropractor to correct conditions ranging from allergies to warts with incredible effectiveness! </li><li>Obviously, the rule of multiples will exponentially increase when a homeopathic procedure is properly implemented into your practice. Many of the conditions people are suffering with have no viable solution without the dynamic duo of chiropractic and homeopathy. </li></ul>You can be the doctor people will seek out, travel long distances to see, and pay cash for your valuable services. Take it from someone who has experienced it first hand, it’s a great position to be in. </blockquote> This is no surprise. Most chiropractors relinquished whatever ethical integrity they might have had when they bought into the “<a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3022">subluxation</a>” myth, and the field as a whole has a fine tradition of “<a href="http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chirosell.html">practice building</a>.” Naturopaths, likewise, don’t mind winking at practice ethics in order to <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=146">make an extra buck</a>. Nor do MD quacks, of course. Hey, it’s getting harder and harder to make a living just by slogging through the morass of needy patients, onerous third-party billing requirements, diminishing payments, increasingly cumbersome practice guidelines, next-to-impossible-to-keep-up-with (nothing to say of tedious and technical!) medical literature, and all the rest. Why not sprinkle your practice with a little ‘<a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4768">diagnostic’ sugar</a> that will appease those clingy patients—for a while, anyway—and that you won’t have to find billing codes for (because there aren’t any)? Heck, why not check out <a href="http://www.bio-proinc.com/site/555888/page/131760">this offering</a> from “bio-pro, inc. Amazing Anti-Aging Solutions (Healthier Patients, More Patients)”: <blockquote>HOWW TOOOO ….The “must do” seminars for those who own or are managing a Complimentary [sic]Medicine Practice. Three day course teaches you: How to relate to the patient, evaluate, test and diagnoseHow to use solutions, mixtures, methods, supplies and equipmentHow to protocol administration for Chelation, Oxidation, Chelox, TriOx, Ascorbates, UVBIHow to design and organize your officeHow to hire and fire staff and to computerizeHow to use public relations and marketingHow to manage compliance with Medicare, State Medical Boards and governmental regulatory agencies Manuals included…Each attendee receives one set of training materials, including:Protocol ManualPhysicians ManualOffice Procedure ManualForms BookMarketing ManualPatient Results ManualEmployee ManualAudio tapesand other related material. </blockquote>Bio-pro was founded in 1978 by the late Charles H. Farr, MD, PhD, the self-styled “<a href="http://www.sram.org/1101/charlesfarr.html">father of oxidative medicine</a>,” who was also a founder of the American College for Advancement in Medicine, the Mother of All Pseudomedical Pseudoprofessional Organizations (<a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=247">PPO</a>). But none of this is surprising, right? After all, <a href="http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/quackdef.html">quacks quack</a>. What may have come as a surprise to beleaguered physicians who still play by the rules was <a href="http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/720244?src=ptalk&uac=27844PK">this offering</a>, just a few days ago, from Medscape Business of Medicine: <blockquote>Six Ways to Earn Extra Income From Medical Activities You’re chasing after claims but watching reimbursement sink. It’s a common story, and primary care doctors and even specialists are keeping their ears to the ground for other ways to boost their bottom line. Luckily, doctors have some fairly lucrative options that can help them maintain their income — and perhaps even increase it. We looked at 6 avenues that physicians have taken to earn extra revenue. None of these activities require a tremendous amount of time. Participating in just 1 or 2 activities can put enough money in your pocket to allow you to breathe a little easier when the bills come in. </blockquote>So what are those ‘6 avenues’? Let’s see: <ul><li>Work with Attorneys </li><li>See Nursing Home Patients </li><li>Serve as a Medical Director </li></ul>So far, so not necessarily bad… <ul><li>Team Up with Pharmaceutical Companies </li></ul>What??! Team up with pharmaceutical companies? Couldn’t that mean, like, just doing legitimate research and trying like hell to do it right? Uh, nope: <blockquote>Drug and device companies spend billions of dollars each year to discover and promote new medicines and treatments, and they rely heavily on doctors to participate in these endeavors whether through clinical trials or serving as a speaker or consultant. It’s not uncommon for physicians to earn a minimum of 5 figures a year either speaking or doing clinical studies within their medical practice. Some doctors make in excess of $100,000 annually — on top of their income from seeing patients.</blockquote> O’course, you gotta watch out for those pesky <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/06/when-key-opinion-leader-questions-hand.html">ethics killjoys</a>, warns Medscape: <blockquote>Although some extra money is nice, too much can turn heads — and not in a good way. In late January, The Boston Globe reported on an allergy and asthma specialist who was issued an ultimatum by his hospital, the prestigious Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts): Stop moonlighting on behalf of pharmaceutical companies or resign from your staff position. </blockquote>What it all comes down to is this: <blockquote>Pros: With typical payments running about $1500-$2500 for a single talk, there’s substantial opportunity to supplement your regular income… Cons: These arrangements are coming under increasing scrutiny from hospitals, legislators, regulators, and the media. In fact, some of the doctors whom we contacted for this article declined to talk about their involvement with drug companies. </blockquote>Uh, no kiddin’. Funny that the “increasing scrutiny” doesn’t seem to come from organized medicine, medical schools, mainstream medical journals, state medical boards, or doctors in general. A couple of years ago I <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=189">lamented the publication</a> of a couple of book reviews, in the lofty New England Journal of Medicine, that celebrated trendy pseudomedicine. Shortly thereafter I received this from an emeritus editor: <blockquote>I think the incursion into the bastions of medicine has to do with the fact that everything nowadays—absolutely everything—has become a market. If quackery appeals to the readers of the NEJM, it will be there. ”Is it true?” is no longer the question anyone asks, but “Will it sell?” And I think that applies to the editors of most major journals, as well. </blockquote>True, dat. As for Medscape, this isn’t its first ethical gaff, and I agree with <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/06/medscapes-cme-ethics-part-ii.html">Bernard Carroll</a> that it seems to have “a right hand – left hand problem.” Oh yeah: what were the other 2 “avenues”? Those would be: <ul><li>Become a Media Personality </li><li>Consult for Wall Street </li></ul>

Professional Integrity for Sale? “Sure,” Says Medscape!

Some chiropractors also practice homeopathy. According to Frank King, D.C., many more should be doing just that:Homeopathy is an energetic form of natural medicine that corrects nerve interferences, a…

Đọc thêm »

25 Jun 2010

Load more posts