Obamacare’s Opponents Spread Doubt and Confusion About Small Business Exchanges

In the past, I have reported on misinformation about healthcare reform going viral. It has happened again, and this time, reform’s critics have outdone themselves.

In March, the Obama administration proposed revising the rules governing insurance marketplaces or “exchanges” where small business owners will be able to pool their buying power, and purchase affordable, high quality insurance for their employees. The change to the rules is small, and it is temporary.

Nevertheless, Obamacare’s critics pounced, and soon began distorting what the administration said. USA Today quoted the Chamber of Commerce (long a foe of reform), claiming that the small business exchanges “will be of little or no value to employers, or by extension, their employees.”

                                     How Small Business Exchanges Lower Premiums

Before considering the charges, let’s review what the health reform law’s Small Business Health Options (SHOP) exchanges offer. Today, insurers charge small companies 18 percent more because the administrative costs of hand-selling policies to small groups are high.

But in the SHOP Exchanges, small businesses automatically become part of large groups. Some will qualify for tax credits.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates premiums will fall by 2 percent to 11 percent. Meanwhile those premiums will buy far better coverage. (Policies sold in the SHOP Exchanges will have to meet the high standards set for plans in the individual exchanges).

                             The Proposed Change: What the Administration Actually Said

Now consider the proposed change. Originally, the Affordable Care Act called for opening SHOP exchanges to employees in 2014. First, the employer would choose a tier of insurance. (Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum tiers will pay 60 percent to 90 percent of an average group’s covered benefits, with any individual’s out-of-pocket spending capped at roughly $6,000.) Employees would then pick plans from that tier.

But Washington had assumed that states would be eager to help their small businesses by setting up exchanges. Today, only 16 states and the District of Columbia have begun. Now the administration realizes it will need more time to set up the IT that millions of employees will need to navigate exchanges in 34 states.

 HHS still plans to open the exchanges in 2014, but only to employers. They will survey the many plans available, and then pick one for their employees. “Employee Choice” will be delayed – but just for one year. And the postponement will apply only to the 34 states that have not set up exchanges. In 2014, the other 16 states and D.C. can (and probably most will) open exchanges to employees.

Nearly 40% of small businesses in this country do business in the 17 states implementing their own exchanges,” observes John Arensmeyer, president of Small Business Majority (SBM), a non-profit advocacy group. And “starting next year, small employers will still be able to pool their buying power in the exchanges, giving them the kind of clout large businesses currently enjoy.”

“This is not a failure, it’s a bump in the road,” Small Business Majority’s Rhett Buttle told me.

                                               The Attack Begins

Nevertheless, Robert Laszewski, a long-time health reform critic, jumped on the bump, telling Modern HealthCare: “Offering a single employer all of the exchange options is a complex undertaking . . . a delay means that the exchange isn’t going to offer any advantage over the employer simply staying with their existing insurer.”

Laszewski suggests that “a single employer“ will not be able to choose from all of the exchange options.” This is simply not true. Business owners will choose from all plans in the exchange. As for an employer keeping his “existing” coverage – why would he do that? The policies in the exchanges will offer better coverage for less.

Above, the opening of a post that I wrote for HealthInsurance.org.   To find out more about why Lawzewski’s is bashing small business Exchanges–and what what Time’s Joe Klein, the Wall Street Journal and Wonkblog’s Sarah Kliff had to say– read the entire post on HIO.   You’ll also find out  why some of us think that the importance of “consumer choice” may be “way overblown.”

POST A COMMENT

A Doctor Confides, “My Primary Doc is a Nurse”

Last week I interviewed a doctor who told me that his primary care doc is a “physician assistant”  who has been trained to deliver primary care.   He said it casually, dropping the fact into a long conversation.

Dr. David Kauff is an internist at Seattle’s Group Health Cooperative (GHC), an organization that has a fabulous reputation–both among patients and among physicians—for its primary care program.  One reason is that at Group Health, doctors, physicians assistants and nurse practitioners work together in teams. “The success of our model is based on the fact that everyone in this together; we are corralled by a common purpose,” says Kauff, who also serves as GHC’s  Medical  Director for Practice and Leadership. 

I’ll be writing more about Group Health Cooperative in a few days.

 In this post, I would like to focus on the growing role of Nurse Practitioners (NPs) and Physician Assistants (PAs) as clinicians.  NPs are registered nurses who have gone on to earn a master’s or a doctorate. Some specialize in areas such as anesthesiology, pediatrics (pediatric nurses) or Ob-Gyn (certified nurse-midwives). NP’s can run clinics; some run their own practices.     

By contrast, physician assistants (PAs) don’t usually work alone. While physicians may not be on-site, typically doctors oversee their work.  

PAs are formally trained to provide diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive health care services.  They take medical histories, examine and treat patients, order and interpret laboratory tests and X- rays, and make diagnoses. In many cases, they did not begin their careers as nurses. They may have been  paramedics, respiratory therapists, or emergency care technicians (EMTs) before becoming PAs.  

Currently, 17 states, plus the District of Columbia, let nurse practitioners operate independently.  In 33 states regulations vary. As this map  reveals, in some places NPs are not allowed to prescribe medication. In others, they may have to consult with a physician when treating patients.

It’s worth noting that NPs enjoy greater freedom in the Northwest, the Upper Middle West, and Northern New England (areas that some healthcare reformers refer to as “Canada South” because these states are in the vanguard of reform) as well as in the Southwest, where many NP’s started working in group practices, and they went out and established their own clinics. Nationwide, about 6,000 nurses operate independent primary-care practices.                                               

                                              Why Physicians Object

Today, 14 states are debating whether NPs should be allowed to practice on their own.  Many emphasize the difference in education and years of training. Though in truth, the length of training is not so different. Becoming a primary care doctor requires four years of medical school plus three years of residency. A nurse practitioner  attends nursing school for four years, then spends two to three years in graduate school, depending on whether he or she is getting an M.A. or a Ph.D. (In 2015, all nurse practitioners will be required to earn a Ph.D.) 

Most NPs also have nursing experience. At the University of Michigan, for instance, the average candidate admitted to the NP program has 7 years of hands-on experience as a nurse.  But while the number of years spent training are not so different, as I explain below, traditionally ,the nature of that training has been very different.   

Doctors say that they are worried about patient safety. “I see it as physicians being true to their oath “  Dr. Adris Hoven, president-elect of the American Medical Association recently told Marketplace Health Care’s Dan Gorenstein.   Hoven insists that doctors are “not threatened” by NPs.  “At the end of the day what they want to do is deliver the best healthcare possible.”  

Dr. John Rowe, a professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia’s School of Public Health, doesn’t buy the argument.  As he points out, nurse practitioners are already working without primary care doctors: “The fact is this is going on in 16-17 states,” he told Gorenstein, “and there is no evidence that it’s not good for the patient.”  A recent Health Policy Brief from Health Affairs and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation backs him up: “studies comparing the quality of care provided by physicians and nurse practitioners have found that clinical outcomes are similar.”

At the same time, Rowe understands why doctors are uncomfortable. “The physicians feel they have something special to offer,” he explains. “And being told there are individuals who are less well trained can do it as well as they could is a very difficult lesson for them.”                                    

When I last wrote about nurse practitioners, back in 2010, one physician/reader (“Sharon M.D.”) was exceptionally candid on this point:

Continue reading

38 COMMENTS SO FAR -- ADD ONE

Who is Douglas Holtz-Eakin and why is he saying such terrible things about health reform?

Today, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Health will hold a hearing entitled: Unaffordable: Impact of Obamacare on Americans’ Health Insurance.  (Always nice to know that our elected representatives are keeping an open mind.)

Prominent on the list of witnesses: “Douglas Holtz-Eakin.” Even before reading his testimony, I knew what Holtz-Eakin would say: young, health Americans should brace for “sticker shock.”  Conservatives like Holtz-Eakin tend to stay on script. However stale the rhetoric, they firmly believe that if you repeat a sound-bite often enough, people will believe it.                                     

                                        Who is Douglas Holtz-Eakin?

If you recognize the name, it’s probably because Holtz-Eakin has become a familiar figure in the mainstream media, quoted in the New York Times, writing Op-eds for Reuters and Politico.com, and appearing, not only on Fox Business News, but on CNN and the PBS’ Newshour.

Alternatively, “Holtz-Eakin” may ring a bell because he served as a member of George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), and as Director of Bush’s Congressional Budget Office (CBO.)

In a remarkably candid 2011 interview, Holtz Eakin recalled his tour in the Bush administration:

“Going into the summer of 2001, things were getting worse. . . When we first went in and talked to the President, Glenn [Hubbard] and Larry Lindsey said, ‘Mr. President . . . We’re probably not going to run a surplus on budget.  We’re going to run a deficit.”

Bush’s reply: “We’re not going to run a deficit. If you come in here with a deficit, you’re both fired. Go fix it.’”

We ended up running a budget surplus of one billion dollars,” Holtz-Eakin confided, “driven by gimmicks of remarkable proportions.”
Continue reading

24 COMMENTS SO FAR -- ADD ONE

Obama’s Proposals For Medicare — Do They Go Far Enough? Will They Become Law?

Not long ago, I wrote about the Center for American Progress’ (CAP’s) “Senior Protection Plan” —a report that aims to rein in Medicare “by $385 billion over ten years without harming beneficiaries.” In that post, I suggested that CAP’s proposals might well give us a preview of the “modest adjustments” that President Obama had said he would be willing to make to Medicare.  At the time, I highlighted three of CAP’s recommendations:

– increase premiums for the wealthiest 10% of Medicare beneficiaries (raising $25 billion);

– insist that drug-makers extend Medicaid rebates to low-income Medicare beneficiaries (saving $137.4 billion);

– prohibit “pay for delay” agreements that let “brand-name drug manufacturers pay generic drug manufacturers to keep generics off the market” (saving $5 billion).

Last week, in his State of the Union address, President Obama embraced the first two:  “Already, the Affordable Care Act is helping to slow the growth of health care costs,” he noted. “The reforms I’m proposing go even further. We’ll reduce taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies and ask more from the wealthiest seniors.”  (In time, I suspect that the administration also will call for a ban on those decidedly seamy “pay for delay” deals.)

“On Medicare,” he added, “I’m prepared to enact reforms that will achieve the same amount of health care savings by the beginning of the next decade as the reforms proposed by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission.” The commission called for reducing Medicare spending by roughly $350 billion over 10 years–  a sum that is not far from CAP’s $385 billion target.

Are These “Adjustments” Too Modest ?

These may seem like small numbers. But keep in mind that this is on top of the $950 billion that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) saves by squeezing waste out of health care spending, while simultaneously raising new revenues. Of that $950 billion, some $350 billion comes in the form of Medicare savings achieved by:

–  Pruning over-payments to private sector Medicare Advantage insurers– $132 billion  

–  Containing Medicare inflation by shaving annual “updates” in  payments to hospitals and other large facilities by 1% a year for ten years, beginning in 2014– $196 billion

– Cutting disproportionate share hospital payments to hospitals that care for a disproportionate share of poor and uninsured patients over 10 years beginning in 2014 – $22 billion.

Continue reading

38 COMMENTS SO FAR -- ADD ONE

Join the debate on “Reining in Medicare Costs without Hurting Seniors”

The January 26 post below (“How to Rein in Medicare costs without Hurting Seniors“) has drawn some 43 comments (including mine, as I responded to readers). I thought of turning a couple of my replies into posts, but then decided it might be more interesting for you to read them in the context of what other readers said.

I would love to see more readers participate in this thread. Comments are still open.

It’s a lively thread that takes on a number of third-rail issues: Does Medicare spend too much on pricey cancer drugs, end-of-life care and brand name hospitals?

 Should we try to spend less on end-of life care? Many say “Yes,” but Zeke Emanuel (a medical ethicist and oncologist who was part of the Obama team during the president’s first term), says “No.” I link to a column where he notes that “It is conventional wisdom that end-of-life care is an increasingly huge proportion of health care spending. . . Wrong. Here are the real numbers: end-of-life care (not just for the elderly, but for all Americans) accounts for just 10% to 12% of  total health care spending. This figure has not changed significantly in decades.”

He goes on to suggest that while we probably can’t make end-of-life “cheaper,” we can make it “better . . .  Here are four things the health care system should do to try to improve care for the dying, even if they won’t save money.”

A number of readers comment on what is driving Medicare spending. Is it “patient expectations,”  “doctors’ fear of litigation,”  “regulations that dictate nurse-staffing ratios,” “practice patterns that doctors learned long ago,” or is the biggest problem “promotional efforts by manufacturers?”

Other questions come up: Does anyone really have any idea how much Medicare will cost in 2022?  By then will Medicare have begun negotiating with drug-makers and device-makers for discounts on drugs (the way the VA does now, saving 40%)?  How far will Medicare go in using medical evidence to decide what to cover?

One doctor/reader points out that in his field Medicare has begun to refuse to pay for procedures when research shows that they are not effective. He and another reader agree that in this way Medicare can provide “political cover” for private sector insurers who will follow Medicare’s lead.

We also discuss the deficit, and whether we should be trying to address the deficit now — or wait until the recession ends and unemployment falls. Also, is the deficit already dissolving as CAP suggests? 

And is the deficit our biggest problem? On this question, you will find links to Paul Krugman, Peter Orszag (who analyzes the slow-down in health care spending over the past three years as a “structural change, not just the result of the recession) and Ezra Klein,

  Continue reading

POST A COMMENT

The Newest Health Wonk Review—on Health Affairs

Chris Fleming hosts the latest edition of Health Wonk Review, a compendium of recent posts on health care blogs.

On Managed Care Matters, Joe Paduda offers 5 predictions for health care in 2013.  He’s convinced that all but a handful of states will expand Medicaid. (“The pressure from hospitals and providers will be overwhelming.”) He also predicts that “The feds and CMS will get even more aggressive on Medicare and Medicaid fraud.”  (For what it’s worth, I think he’s right on both counts.)

                                       Food for Thought

Some posts are likely to stir controversy, either because they’re rebutting the conventional wisdom, or because they’re questioning some deeply held beliefs.  I think these posts are important because they define issues that we should all think about.

Over at Colorado Health Insurance Insider, Louise Norris examines the question of whether smokers should pay more for their health insurance.  Under the ACA, smokers can be charged up to 50 percent more than nonsmokers.  . . .

“Norris prefers the carrot over the stick,” Fleming observes, “endorsing the requirement that all plans cover tobacco cessation programs as part of the ACA’s preventive services mandate, although she cites evidence showing that implementation of this requirement has been inconsistent. “ (It’s worth noting that tobacco cessation programs work. “Sticks,” behavioral psychologists tell us, just aren’t nearly as effective.) 

The Hospitalist Leader’s  Brad  Flansbaum suggests that our emphasis on getting everyone vaccinated during a severe influenza (and claims about Tamiflu) may well amount to “oversell.”  Eye-opening.

 At the Innovative Health Media Blog  David Wilson writes: “The Medicare Annual Wellness Visit  (AWV) is the perfect vehicle to address the increasing need for early detection of cognitive impairment.  The AWV” gives physicians the opportunity “to provide such a screening and receive reimbursement for it .

“Once a patient shows the need for additional testing physicians can use self-administered computerized tests to perform the additional screening without referring the patients to another doctor or office,” he adds. “ This also creates additional reimbursement for physicians.” 

MM–I can’t help but ask: “Since we have no cure or effective treatments for Alzheimer’s (or most forms of senile dementia) do you really want to know that, in three or four years, you may  be diagnosed with full-blown Alzheimer’s?”

Certainly, seniors who want this testing should have access to it. Perhaps, one day, accumulated data will help researchers understand the disease. But Medicare patients should know that they can say “No” There is no requirement that this be part of your Annual Wellness visit.

On the Health Business Blog, another David Wilson has published a post that is likely to be even more controversial. He argues that “The Nursing Shortage is a Myth.”

We have plenty of nurses,  Wilson suggests. In fact, in the future, he writes, “robots will be replacing nurses “just as robots have replaced “paralegals” and “actuaries.” (“Insurance companies used to hire tons of them, but their work can be done much more efficiently with computers.”)

Over at Wright on Health, Brad Wright takes a look at the recent Institute of Medicine report comparing health in the U.S. to health in other wealthy nations. He notes that data on preventable deaths among young people points to the importance of public health interventions, including reducing access to guns.

  Continue reading

4 COMMENTS SO FAR -- ADD ONE

Under the ACA, will YOUR Insurance Premiums Rise or Fall?

Today, many Americans are asking: will my premiums go up in 2014?

There is no simple answer.

According to Families USA ,the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will have a positive effect on the typical family’s budget. Using an economic model that can factor in all provisions of the Act (ACA), Family’s USA estimates that by 2019, when the law is fully implemented, “the average household will be $1,571 better off.”

Even high-income families will save: thanks to rules that limit co-pays, and reward providers for becoming more efficient, “those earning $100,000 to $250,000” will spend $779 less on medical care.” But these are “averages.” They don’t tell you whether your health care costs will rise or fall.

The answer will depend on: your income, your age, your gender, who you work for, what state you live in, whether a past illness or injury has been labeled a “pre-existing condition,”  and what type of insurance you have now: 

If you work for a large company:

–  The ACA will have a “negligible” effect on your premiums says the Congressional Budget Office(CB0). This doesn’t mean that your costs won’t climb at all in 2014. As  long as medical product-makers and providers continue to raise prices, premiums will edge up each year.

But in 2012 average premiums for employer-based insurance rose by just 3% for single coverage and 4% for families, a “modest increase” when compared to 8% to 12% jumps in past years. And on average, employee co-pays and deductibles remained flat.

Granted, a 3% to 4% increase still outpaces growth in workers’ wages (1.7% percent) and general inflation (2.3%) percent).But as reform reins in spending annual increases for large groups could fall to 2%–or less. 

If you work for a small company with more than 50 employees:

Your boss will be more likely to offer affordable benefits, in part because, if he doesn’t, he will have to pay a penalty

Moreover, he will find insurance less expensive. Today, small businesses pay 18% more than large companies because the administrative costs of hand-selling plans to small groups are sky-high. But starting in 2014  businesses with fewer than 100 employees will begin buying insurance in “Exchanges” where they will become part of a large group, and eligible for lower rates.

  Continue reading

14 COMMENTS SO FAR -- ADD ONE

Diversity in the Physician Workforce is Essential; What Will Happen If the Supreme Court Overturns Affirmative Action?

In October, the Supreme Court heard Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. You may have read about the case: the plaintiff, Abigail Fisher, applied for undergraduate admission to the University of Texas at Austin but was turned down. If she had graduated in the top 10% of her high school class, she would automatically have been admitted—but she did not.

When admitting students, the University of Texas first accepts all in-state students who place in the top 10%. This policy is race-neutral and fills about 80% of all spaces. The remaining seats are filled according to an evaluation process which considers six factors. Race is one of them.

Fisher is white and she claims that the explicit use of race as a factor in admission to the university violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

Within the next few months, the Supreme Court will announce its decision

            What the Case Means for Medical Schools—and Patients

Last week, the New England Journal of Medicine published an editorial warning that the decision will “chart the future of affirmative action in American higher education . . . including admission of students to our nation’s medical schools.”

The editorial’s authors underline the need for a physician workforce that is ethnically and racially diverse:

“To provide good care, physicians must understand the communities and cultures in which they work. An important way to ensure that physicians understand the lives of their patients and to reduce health disparities is to promote diversity.”

I agree, and would add a second argument: if Fisher wins, the Court’s decision will leave millions of Americans without the medical care they desperately need because they live in a place where few physicians want to practice.

In this two-part post, I will be asking four questions:

1) How do we attract more physicians to underserved communities?  Could we entice them with higher salaries?  (Probably not.  A doctor who doesn’t want to raise his kids in rural Alabama won’t set up shop there even if you double his income.)

2) Should we encourage medical schools to practice class-based rather than race-based affirmative action?  This is, at best, a partial solution. A large percentage of low-income Americans are white. If they were admitted to medical school, those who grew up in rural areas might well decide to practice in similar communities where physicians are needed.. But this would not solve a larger problem—the shortage of  Latino, African-American and Native-American primary care doctors available to work both in inner cities and in the many rural areas where minorities are rapidly becoming the majority.

Multiple studies show that outcomes, communication, and compliance improve when a patient is able to see a physician from his own racial or ethnic group. This is not to say that committed white physicians cannot overcome cultural barriers and build strong patient relationships in these communities. But  many fewer choose to work, and raise their families, in remote rural areas that are primarily Latino, Native American, Mexican-American, or African American.

  Continue reading

13 COMMENTS SO FAR -- ADD ONE

Gun Control: No Room For Compromise

When it comes to guns, the United States is exceptional. We have the highest civilian gun ownership rate in the world, with 89 guns per 100 people, according to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey. 

The U.S. gun lobby sometimes cites Switzerland as an example of a country that has many privately owned guns and little violent crime. (Their  argument seems to be guns don’t kill people; only lunatic Americans kill people.)

In fact, ammunition kills people. It is true that  Switzerland, like the United States, has a strong gun culture with many shooting clubs — but it also has a mass citizen militia. Members of the part-time militia, in which most men serve, are allowed to keep their weapons at home, and the country of less than 8 million people owns at least 2.3 million weapons, many stashed under beds and in cupboards. But while Swiss homes contain guns, ammunition is largely kept under lock and key at local military depots.

                                       American “Exceptionalism”

 Someone once described Canada as “a country in North America where everyone has health insurance.” The same pundit defined the U.S. as “a country in North America where everyone has a gun.”

Continue reading

10 COMMENTS SO FAR -- ADD ONE

The Empowered Patient

When you or a loved one enters a hospital, it is easy to feel powerless. The hospital has its own protocols and procedures. It is a “system” and now you find yourself part of that system.

The people around you want to help, but they are busy—extraordinarily busy. Nurses are multi-tasking. Residents are doing their best to learn on the job. Doctors are trying to supervise residents, care for patients, follow up on lab results, enter notes in patients’ medical records and consult with a dozen other doctors.

Whether you are the patient or a patient advocate trying to help a loved one through the process, you are likely to feel intimated—and scared.

Hospitals can be dangerous places, in part because doctors and  nurses are fallible human beings, but largely because the “systems” in our hospitals just aren’t very efficient.  In the vast majority of this nation’s  hospitals, a hectic workplace undermines the productivity of  nurses and doctors who dearlly want to provide coordinated patient-centered care.

At this point, many hospitals understand  that they must streamline and redesign how care is delivered and how information is shared so that doctors and nurses can work together as teams. But this  will take time. In the meantime, patients and their advocates can help improve patient safety.

Julia Hallisy’s Story

Julia Hallisy learned about patient safety the hard way. Hallisy’s daughter, Kate, was diagnosed with an aggressive eye cancer when she was five months old. Over the next decade, she went through radiation, chemo, reconstructive surgery, an operation to remove her right eye, a hospital-acquired infection that led to toxic-shock syndrome and an above-the-knee amputation.

“My husband and I spent years of our lives in hospital hallways, waiting rooms, and emergency rooms,” Hallisy recalls. “We became savvier and more educated the longer my daughter’s illness went on. . . .

“We slowly came to realize that the quality of healthcare she was receiving, as mediocre as it sometimes was, was actually far superior to the care other families around us in the hospital were receiving. They began to notice this discrepancy as well, and they wanted to know how we knew the things we did and who had given us such valuable ‘inside’ information. We had to explain to them that we had come across everything we knew . . . by watching our daughter suffer through medical errors, misdiagnoses and inexperienced medical providers, and investigating the mistakes and taking steps to make sure they didn’t occur again.”

Kate was treated at some of the finest hospitals in the San Francisco area.

She died in 2000. Kate was eleven years old

                             Empowering a Patient,  an Advocate, or a  Survivor

How could a mother handle such unspeakable grief? Hallisdecided to write a book that might help others. In 2008,  I reviewed it on HealthBeat.

At the time I wrote: “Remarkably, The Empowered Patient is not an angry book. It is not maudlin. To her great credit, Hallisy manages to keep her tone matter-of-fact as she tells her reader what every patient and every patient’s advocate needs to know about how to stay safe in a hospital.”

Recently, Hallisy emailed to tell me know that the book has now become a non-profit foundation: The Empowered Patient Coalition.

Go to their website and you will find fact sheets, checklists, and publications including, A Hospital Guide for Patients and Families that you can download at no charge. I found the Hospital Guide eye-opening. I have read and written a fair amount about patient safety in hospitals, but it told me many things that I did not  know.

For instance, did you realize that it is perfectly appropriate to ask your surgeon how many times he has performed this particular operation?

Are you aware that you (or your advocate) can—and should—read your medical records while you are in the hospital? (This may be the only way you will find out that your doctors disagree with each other about your treatment.)

Do you know what to do if you if you request a consultation with a more experienced physician because you have serious questions about the decisions made by residents –and hospital staff don’t agree that you need to talk to someone higher up on the ladder?

Continue reading

1 COMMENT SO FAR -- ADD ONE