Bruised Arms and Bruised Egos – They Will Heal

I have never seen people so grateful to feel flu-like before! Those who have been able to get their COVID-19 vaccinations are happy people. They are proud of their bruised arms and temporary achiness. They walk around with their head a little higher, with a little more spring in their step. It is as if a huge weight has been lifted off their shoulders, even though they still need to be safe.

A sore arm and temporary flu-like symptoms are a small price to pay for extraordinarily effective and safe vaccines. It turns out the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are virtually 100% effective at preventing hospitalization and death from COVID-19. Out of more than 30,000 trial participants who received either vaccine, only one person became ill enough from COVID-19 to be hospitalized. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine looks to be equally effective at preventing severe illness and hospitalization. For those who have been reluctant to get vaccinated, this excellent news should be quite reassuring.

We are still in the midst of a severe outbreak in Angelina County. As February began, Texas was seeing a 20% decrease in coronavirus cases. However, Angelina County remains in the midst of an “extraordinarily severe outbreak” and at an “extremely high risk” level. Governor Abbott even surged a Department of Defense team to Lufkin to help with our high rate of hospitalizations. Angelina County has had more than 7,350 cases of coronavirus infection since the pandemic began with225 deaths, more than twice the death rate as Texas. Eighty-one of those deaths have been this year.

Unfortunately, most people have yet to get their first shot. They wonder when that day will come for them. The simple fact is, in order to vaccinate more people, we need more vaccine. Much has been made of the delay in getting Lufkin designated as a hub for coronavirus vaccinations, a designation that allows the state to send vaccine in greater numbers than we have been receiving thus far. Our collective frustration arises from the fact that we consider ourselves a healthcare hub for deep East Texas. We have high standards. We know what we can accomplish when we put our mind to it and work together.

Early vaccination efforts were scattershot based on who got vaccine. Each individual entity that received doses – hospitals, clinics like Urgent Doc, the Angelina County & Cities Health District, pharmacies – barely had the manpower to administer the vaccine they were allocated, much less the large volume needed going forward.

As this paper pointed out in last weekend’s frank editorial, we are frustrated that we weren’t one of the first places to be designated a vaccine hub. The hub designation “delay” clarified that communication and cooperation across organizations is an absolute must going forward. Egos have been bruised, not just vaccinated arms. No single person or organization bears all the blame. Lessons have been learned and it is time to move on.

While we were pointing fingers over the hub designation, we overlooked the fact that we are actually vaccinating people at a faster rate than the state and national averages. As of February 4, the day before Lufkin was designated as a vaccine hub, 8.2% of the US population had received at least one shot. Texas was at 7.2%, embarrassingly behind our neighbors New Mexico, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. Yet, 6,384 people in Angelina County had received at least one dose – 9.46% of the eligible population. Even before hub designation, more than 11,000 doses had been shipped to Angelina County since the start of vaccinations. That’s a good start, and a credit to both hospitals, various pharmacies, Urgent Doc, and the health district. But the demand for vaccine is astronomical. Brookshire Brothers – God bless them! – stopped taking names on their vaccination waiting list when an astounding 130,000-plus people had signed up.

Can we do better? Of course. We must. We need to be vaccinating several thousand a week, every week. A fabulous local volunteer effort, organized by Jane Ainsworth and Patricia Jones, will help Sharon Shaw and the Angelina County & Cities Health District get there. Angelina College is organizing staff and student volunteers and offering student nurses to assist with vaccinations. AC’s Krista Brown and Sarah Alvis will help with website and social media marketing efforts once registration and reporting software has been obtained. The TLL Temple Foundation has stepped up to help with that purchase. Rep. Trent Ashby is making sure the state gets more vaccine allocated to us, now that we have hub designation. The more we know, the more we realize this absolutely was going to require everyone’s support. It takes a village to vaccinate a village!

Still, the public needs ongoing information and reassurance. We expect transparent, timely, and reliable pandemic information. The health district, city and county need a designated pandemic spokesperson whose job it is to share facts and educate the public; otherwise, we will be consumed by rumor and fear. What exactly is “the plan” that got us the hub designation? How many are expected to be vaccinated over what period of time? Who goes when? How do people get on “the list” and have confidence that they won’t be forgotten when their appropriate time comes? What are we doing to assure equitable distribution to Black and Hispanic communities and to those who don’t have access to social media and online registration? Tell us, then tell us again; don’t make us beg for information.

I am grateful a more comprehensive vaccination machine is getting ramped up and ready to go, in the end due to the very cooperation, communication, volunteer spirit and get-it-done attitude that make Lufkin and Angelina County a special place to live. We shine as a city and county when we all work together toward common goals for all our citizens. That’s a #LufkinStrong shot in the arm we all need!

How and Where People Die – Is it Good?

All of us, at some point, have pondered what it means to have a “good” death. A common theme is to fall asleep in one’s own bed and simply not wake up. Woody Allen famously said, “I’m not afraid of death; I just don’t want to be there when it happens.” The underlying desire is comfort, serenity, peace.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the top ten causes of death in the United States in recent years were heart disease, cancer, accidents, lung diseases, stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, influenza and pneumonia, kidney disease, and suicide.   These top ten account for three out of four deaths, and most are chronic diseases marked by decline over years with increasing need for medical care and hospitalization along the way. Yet all along there is this denial of illness and death.

We used to be familiar with death. Before the 1940s – prior to antibiotics, chemotherapy, heart surgery – people usually died in their homes over the course of a few days or weeks.  Sir William Osler, frequently described at the Father of Modern Medicine (d. 1919), called pneumonia – a leading cause of death in his time – the “friend of the aged” because it was an “an acute, short, not often painful illness.”  With the advent of the intensive care unit (ICU) and an ever-expanding medical-industrial complex, we now have approximately 4 million ICU admissions per year and about 500,000 ICU deaths annually.  The contrast between death at home versus in a technology-overrun ICU could not be more stark. In 2010, 28.6% of Americans died in the hospital.  Yet nine out of ten Americans say they would prefer to die at home if they were terminally ill and had 6 months or less to live. 

Unfortunately, death in the hospital is rarely pretty. Believe me; hospitals do not want patients dying in their facilities. It messes with statistics and quality ratings. It is also far more expensive.  So, if hospitals don’t want us dying there, it costs more money, and we say we would prefer to die at home, where is the disconnect?

There are several problems. Doctors don’t like talking with their patients about death and dying. Doctors don’t want to appear to be giving up hope by talking about end-of-life care, nor do they want to appear helpless, as if nothing more can be done. Patients, having watched one too many TV medical dramas, believe that technology and medicines are so good now that they can overcome any illness, even at the very end of life.

Perhaps the most egregious of these technological and communication disconnects at the end of life is with a procedure called cardiopulmonary resuscitation – the “Code Blue” you hear overhead periodically in hospitals. A code blue is an actual life-threatening emergency situation in which a patient is dying – typically their heart has stopped beating and/or breathing has ceased – and an entire medical team works to revive him/her with medications, chest compressions, intubation, electrical shocks, and more.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can be life-saving in the community setting when a person suffers a heart attack or drowning, for example. According to 2014 data, nearly 45 percent of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest victims survived when bystander CPR was administered.

For hospitalized patients who suffer cardiac arrest (essentially, who die), the overall rate of survival from a “full code” procedure leading to hospital discharge is barely 10 percent. But most people, when asked in a scientific study, believe the survival rate to be more than 75 percent.  Unfortunately, the quality of life of patients who do survive resuscitation in the hospital is often not good. Rarely do the few survivors return to their previous functional status, which in hospitalized patients was probably poor to begin with. There can be brain damage from prolonged lack of oxygen, bruising and pain from broken ribs, and need for prolonged rehabilitation or nursing home placement.

But unless you – or a family member speaking for you – explicitly states otherwise, this likely will happen to you if you are coded in the hospital. And despite the resuscitation attempt, you will very probably die anyway. Is this really what you want your minutes to look like?

The good news is that we have far more control over where and how we die than one may think. First, talk with your spouse and your kids – and your doctor! – about how you wish to die and where you wish to die if you were to find out you had a terminal illness. Second, make every effort to write your wishes down. In Texas, there is a document called a Living Will available online at https://hhs.texas.gov/laws-regulations/forms/miscellaneous/form-livingwill-directive-physicians-family-or-surrogates. Both English and Spanish versions are available. This Directive to Physicians and Family or Surrogates lets you, the patient, tell your doctors and others what types of treatments you do or do not want if you are terminally ill and no longer able to make medical decisions.

In addition to this advance directive, Texas law provides for two other types of directives that can be important during a serious illness. These are the Medical Power of Attorney and the Out-of-Hospital Do-Not-Resuscitate Order. Don’t wait until a crisis to make your wishes known. It may be too late.

Finally, hospice care is available through Medicare, Medicaid, and most private insurers to help patients achieve the “good” death they say they want, not by hastening death, but by helping terminal patients to fully live the life they have left as comfortably as possible and most often at home.

Reflections From the May 5th Election

On May 5, 2018, the citizens of Angelina County had the opportunity to participate in what is arguably the bedrock activity of our democracy: a free and fair election. This election was not, some might argue, as significant as one involving state or national representatives. And voter turnout was certainly less than would be expected for those elections. However, approving a $70 million bond issue and electing leaders of multiple educational institutions – with combined budgets of well over $100M and employing nearly 3,000 people – is not insignificant.

The various independent school districts in Angelina County are quite used to running elections. Angelina College, on the other hand, had not had a contested election for 22 years. They pulled it off admirably. But let’s be honest. This set of elections was not perfect. There are things we can do better next time.

One criticism that was leveled at both the LISD bond and Angelina College elections was a lack of transparency. I suppose this allegation is leveled during every election, especially the national ones. Whether or not voters have not only adequate information but honest information about the issues (or people) involved is always in question. With the LISD bond vote, some voiced there was not enough lead time between the announcement of the bond proposition and the actual vote, and not enough information about how that overall decision-making process came about. However, I strongly feel the LISD board, administration, and others did a great job of educating the voters about the needs. You couldn’t live in Lufkin and not be aware that the bond issue was on the ballot. And you certainly couldn’t have had a child at the Middle School in the last 20 years and not been aware of the critical state of that campus.

The transparency criticism of Angelina College was more vague. I did hear it rumored that Angelina College wanted to become a 4-year university (and the implication was that by doing so the needs of the local population would be ignored). Nothing could be further from the truth! Angelina College has amazingly broad educational offerings for students from all walks of life. That is not about to change. But where rumors exist, there is an opportunity for education. 

One recent example may serve as a model for the future. Angelina College welcomed a number of people who came to one of our board meetings (which are always open to the public) when the board toured the Technology Workforce Building. Board members and visitors alike were very impressed with the quality and number of programs offered. This type of “open house” may be a good way to showcase periodically what Angelina College has to offer to our community. 

Another idea brought up during the election during a town hall meeting in North Lufkin was to have town hall-type meetings from time to time as a way to gather community input and to keep the community informed about what is happening at Angelina College. That is not a bad idea.

Angelina College President Dr. Michael Simon has become well known and quite visible in the community and has made inroads and contacts throughout the county. This visibility and approachability – not just of the AC President, but also of the Board – is key to maintaining strong community relationships as well as a vital way to address questions about the direction of the college.

By far, however, the biggest complaint about the election process this year was about lack of publicity, whether TV or newspaper, especially in the days leading up to the election. It seems everyone was looking for last minute information about where to vote. Examples abound of people who voted early in one election but still needed to vote in another, and where do they go? To the LISD Administration building? Slack? Angelina College? To another school district altogether? And early voting in two different locations with different hours of operation was confusing as well. Voters were counting on the local news media to make sense of a very confusing, complicated election. The news media largely failed. 

Yes, this newspaper provided some voter education about the candidates several weeks prior to the election, but the mechanics of the election itself were largely ignored. One article on Tuesday, April 24, 2018 mentioned that early voting was underway, and discussed where early voting for various races was taking place. Beyond that, and especially close to the election, there was nothing. Television coverage was conspicuously absent as well.

That being said, the number of voters participating – nearly 3,000 voted in the LISD bond election and nearly 2,100 in the Angelina College election – shows that off-year, local elections are important to the citizens of Angelina County. Compare that to the Nacogdoches ISD board election, where one candidate won by a vote of 246 to 104.

Going forward, we must not take our democracy for granted, even in the “less significant” or off-year elections. The voters of Angelina County have every right to expect that a free press in a democracy will beat the drum of voter education and voter turnout as loudly as they can. When the next off-year election happens, the news media must step up to their role to educate the public about the complexity and details of multiple different and simultaneous polling locations. Our democracy is too precious to ignore.

The Importance of Spirituality in Healing

Spirituality has gotten a bad rap. This is understandable, given the watering down of and movement away from organized religion in the late 20th century through today. The use of the term spirituality to describe any inclination beyond the purely physical – often based solely on “it feels right” – makes it difficult to assign any validity to the term. Add to that the oft-accompanying rejection of organized religion (most especially Christianity), and the term spirituality becomes as ethereal as the east wind.

I don’t believe this type of spirituality – this vague notion of otherworldliness or mysticism – has any particular benefit. I doubt it does much harm, either. It is just there. However, a spirituality that equates to magical thinking is not benign; it can be quite harmful. Spirituality is not a golden ticket to physical healing. 

Those who “claim” physical healing based on the strength of a person’s faith or the perceived closeness of a person’s relationship with God are gnostic charlatans peddling a vile snake oil that insinuates that those who are not healed are spiritually inferior and somehow less worthy than those who are. I have had the honor of participating in the cure of thousands of cancer patients over my career. Some of those cases have been so remarkable or unusual as to be “a miracle”, but I have never actually observed a truly miraculous healing. Any such healings that might occur must be ascribed to God and God alone, and God is not a lifeless puppet manipulated by human prayers.

I wish everyone would be cured, but that is not the world we live in. I have also had the privilege of caring for thousands of dying patients in my career, and providing comfort through the dying process is every bit as important – and rewarding – as the curative treatment I provide.

Ultimately, healing is more than just a physical event, as much as we strive for that. Dame Cicely Saunders, founder of the modern hospice movement, famously coined the phrase “total pain” to include not just physical pain, but also the emotional, social, and spiritual components of pain. That holistic concept translates to the overall healing process as well. I might cure a patient’s cancer, but their persistent financial distress, guilt, broken family relationships, and spiritual angst can result in no actual relief of suffering.

Anecdotally, I get a strong sense that patients who have a more than superficial faith cope better with the suffering associated with illness and death than those who do not. There is data showing that faith and religious practices do help patients not only cope with their illnesses but have a better quality of life.

Patients who continue to suffer spiritually despite good medical care often seem to fit in one of two categories: those who have no belief in a hereafter (and worry they have not accomplished enough in this life), or more commonly, those who fear death and eternal punishment for not having lived a good enough life. Either way, they worry they haven’t been “good enough” and it’s kind of late in the ballgame to turn things around. 

On the other hand, orthodox Christian faith starts with that very acknowledgement that none of us are “good enough”. Comfort – the healing of our spiritual pain and suffering, if you will – comes from accepting that God loves us anyway. Further, our suffering ironically can have meaning. That is not to say, as many well-meaning people too often do, “God meant it for good,” or worse yet, “What sin in your life have you not confessed that caused this to happen?”

The Christian faith – more so than any other – speaks volumes about the significance of suffering. Others may teach suffering is something to be overcome by quashing our desires, or that suffering is just a test from God (or worse, always a punishment). Biblical Christianity teaches not only the universality of suffering but the provision of comfort in and through suffering, whatever the cause.

Having a major illness is expensive, stressful, and often all-consuming. Without a comprehensive approach to care for the total person, we will never truly heal. That means more than doctors and nurses need to be involved in the healing process. We must include social workers, chaplains, and frankly, the entire community.

We need to recognize the spiritual struggles that attend our illnesses and the importance of spirituality in promoting comfort and healing. We can do this by sharing our stories with one another, listening without judging, and by mending and strengthening relationships within families, our houses of worship, and the broader community. And, yes, we need to pray for healing and comfort, not as a magical spell compelling some god to act on our command, but as a partner with the one true God who knows what it is to suffer. Let the healing begin.

The Demise of Polite Conversation

When did the art of pleasant conversation and open dialogue end? Every national new item – it seems – sparks vitriol that demands an alignment in one political camp or the other, one race or the other, or one sexual orientation or the other. I am afraid we have lost the ability to exchange ideas, to communicate freely, to learn from one another. To celebrate our differences rather than condemn them. Passionate speech and polite speech are not incompatible.

But I am afraid to speak, for fear my words are misinterpreted. I am afraid to write, lest my writing not encourage the thoughtful conversation I intended, but provoke a hateful backlash. Is it no longer possible to have civil discourse?

I am afraid to laugh, for fear my laughter is misconstrued. Can’t I both laugh at Tina Fay’s Saturday Night Live sheet-caking stunt, for example, as well as at Chad Prather’s “Unapologetically Southern” YouTube videos? At political cartoons of both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times? Or is humor no longer funny, only hateful? Can’t we laugh at ourselves anymore, at our own hypocrisies? We all have them. I’m afraid we no longer recognize that; we are blinded by our self-interest.

I am afraid of social media. Facebook has unfortunately turned into a forum where, other than the annual birthday wish or mundane vacation photo, posts are filled with inflammatory opinions and commentary-as-fact with the self-righteous, ignorant replies that follow. Mob mentality sets in and people post things they would never say to your face. Hurtful – hateful – things.

Free speech is not the same thing as kind speech, uplifting speech, or frankly, intelligent speech. Nor should honest disagreement be labeled hate speech. Unfortunately, much speech today is designed to shut down the conversation by labeling one’s opponent –are they really an opponent? – a bigot, or by declaring they have no moral standing even to join the conversation. That is coercion, intimidation, and bullying no matter which side is doing it. That makes me very afraid.

I am afraid when I see fellow Christians deciding that following politics is more important than following the Ten Commandments. When they opt for strict party affiliation over and above "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Mark 12:31, KJV). And when they decide it is expedient to legislate hate, discrimination, and economic disparity while ignoring inconvenient moral issues like poverty and healthcare. What happened to being Jesus to those around us?

Rod Dreher, in his timely book The Benedict Option, notes that political victory does not vitiate the vice of hypocrisy. The socially liberal churches are just as guilty of blindly aligning with the Democratic Party as the fundamentalists are with the Republican Party. Could it be that Jesus understood this when he said, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21, KJV)?

I am afraid our clumsy, partisan involvement has resulted in a political environment increasingly hostile to the very real – and very Christian – charitable work of the Church. We must redirect our gaze outside our church walls and into our increasingly diverse and desperate communities. Putting our faith to work on the ground speaks volumes and accomplishes so much more than legislating selective moral conformity.
It often takes a crisis – a disaster? – to bring the country together to work for the common good. Perhaps Hurricane Harvey will accomplish that. It appears to be doing so; I just hope it lasts.

Dreher wrote, "The state will not be able to care for all human needs in the future, especially if the current projections of growing economic inequality prove accurate.” Christians need to rediscover an ethic that marries personal responsibility with intentional charity and corporate love and respect. I fear we may have drifted too far to do so.

But I am afraid not to try.

What I Would Like to See in Healthcare Reform (Part 2)

Last month, I wrote about the bloated, incredibly inefficient federal bureaucracy that eats up hundreds of billions of dollars annually in administrative costs. I mentioned that Obamacare was not, in my opinion, true healthcare reform and did not address these inefficiencies; rather, it simply added people to the rolls of a broken system.

In this column, I am not intending to argue for or against Obamacare or whether we “repeal and replace” or go with “Obamacare Lite”, whatever that might be. I am simply pointing out areas where I see daily a burden for both patients and providers. My dream would be for simplification of much of the process of valuing, coding, and billing for healthcare services. Whether any of these thoughts are achievable or affordable, I don’t know.

Let’s start with that dreaded hospital bill. Medical billing is indecipherable. Even patients with advanced degrees can spend hours trying to interpret the bill they receive for a hospital stay. And that bill is obscenely higher than what either the hospital or the providers are going to get paid. What’s ironic is that bill often has no correlation with the actual cost of the care received or the value that the federal government (or the insurance company) places on that care. We must simplify how we charge for medical care and how hospitals and providers get paid. Unfortunately, the only patients who get stuck with the full, inflated bill are those without insurance – the ones who can least afford to pay it. That is unethical.

The overall cost of care (and your bill) is determined by coding every aspect of care, from the Kleenex and bedpan to the heart valve. For every cancer patient I treat, there are dozens of separate codes submitted for reimbursement covering all different aspects of planning, designing, QA’ing, and delivering treatment. I have no doubt that much of that could be combined into, say, a fixed reimbursement for treating prostate cancer. The problem is, when the government wants to bundle procedures together, they do it to cut overall reimbursement immensely. We still do the work; we deserve to get paid. Why can’t we work out a way to simplify, cut administrative costs, and make it a win-win both for the providers and the payors?

Along the same lines, consider a simple office visit to the doctor. The complexity required to determine whether I get paid a level 2 or level 3 office visit – which reimburse only $25 and $50 – is outrageous. These so-called Evaluation and Management (E&M) codes – and there are many of them – are based on four different possible levels of complexity of three aspects of the patient encounter: history, examination, and medical decision-making. Take history, for example. The proper level of complexity is determined by the presence or absence of documentation for four sub-elements: chief complaint, history of present illness, review of systems, and past, family, and/or social history. Do you see where I am going with this? Documentation of these encounters (consultations, follow up office visits) often takes longer than the encounter itself! And, any "error" in billing is considered fraud and abuse. It is common to hear patients complain that their doctor never looked at them, but was always looking at the computer screen. We need to simplify coding and put physicians back face-to-face with their patients.

Then there is the ever-increasing burden of deductibles and co-pays. We have such a mishmash of healthcare plans, each with their own deductibles and co-pays, that it is virtually impossible to keep it all straight. At the beginning of every year, doctors’ offices and hospitals cringe. Did a patient change insurance plans, or did their insurance lapse? What about the deductible for the new year? What about co-pays? More than half of Americans have less than $1,000 in savings. Deductibles for individuals enrolled in the lowest-priced Obamacare health plans will average more than $6,000 in 2017. Can the majority of Americans afford that? Certainly not! This is an unfair burden both on patients and on providers, who end up providing that care for free. Why? Most of it gets written off, but only after we spend a lot of personnel time and effort proving we try to bill for what we can’t collect in order to avoid the appearance of fraud and abuse. Those patients who are forced to pay may rack up credit card debt, get sent to a collection agency, and/or go bankrupt. Some go without the care they need rather than add to their debt. I truly believe co-pays and deductibles are a vestige of a bygone era. I would like to see the dollars saved by decreasing the administrative burden of healthcare go to actually paying hospitals and providers what they deserve and earn, and do away with co-pays and deductibles. There should be one price for a procedure or encounter, and that cost should be paid 100% by insurance.

What about insurance companies? In the best of circumstances, they pay fairly and quickly. But too often they can and do delay patient care and prevent patients from getting the care they need in a timely manner, if at all. They do this through a process called precertification or prior authorization (read: denial). And sometimes when they do give prior authorization, they still deny payment. This ought to be illegal. But it happens without recourse because the state insurance regulations are written in favor of the insurance companies. We need to loosen the precertification grip on the practice of medicine, and we need to be able to hold insurance companies accountable to their agreements. A preauthorization is a contract to pay.

The two hospitals in Lufkin (Woodland Heights Medical Center and CHI St. Luke’s Health Memorial) have spent tens of millions of dollars on electronic health records, not to mention what individual and group physician practices have spent, all mandated by the federal government. To what end? This was supposed to be about “quality”, but that emperor had no clothes. There is precious little improvement in communication between providers and hospitals than before electronic health records. The various doctor’s offices use a number of different vendors, and each hospital uses their own separate vendor. None of them share information with each other. I dream of a truly universal electronic health record language with seamless interconnectivity between offices and hospitals, but I sure don’t want to live through the incredible expense, time and effort it would take to get there. But I do dream.

Finally, let’s talk about rights. I have never felt that free or universal healthcare was a “right”. Hear me out. No one has a "right" to healthcare without some responsibility. That responsibility may be in purchasing insurance, but that is not the only way to contribute. The most glaring, but not the only, example is smoking. Half of long-term smokers will die of a smoking-related illness. If you smoke, the rest of us are burdened with some (or all) of your healthcare costs. On average, a pack of cigarettes in the US costs a smoker $5.51, while the combined medical costs and productivity losses attributable to each pack are approximately $18.05, according to researchers. This is where consumption taxes are attractive, but only if the tax truly goes to help offset the cost of healthcare. How we balance rights and responsibilities in healthcare is a good subject for a doctoral dissertation.

As well all hear about and read about proposed healthcare changes over the next year or two, look for what they are really trying to change, and ask yourself, are they really improving the system, or are they just trying to squeeze more people under a broken umbrella? Can they do both? Let’s hope they try.

The Significance of an Ethical Foundation

Last month, I wrote about the role of the hospital Ethics Committee and commented that open and honest communication between healthcare professionals, patients and family solves most ethical dilemmas. That assumes we are speaking the same ethical language and have a common ethical foundation, both in medicine and in society at large. In our increasingly pluralistic society, that is no longer a safe assumption. The recent Orlando attack on a gay nightclub showed us that people can do terrible things when ostensibly motivated by a perverse ethic or belief system.

Ethics, at its core, is simply a set of moral principles or values which guide an individual’s – or a religion’s or a government’s – actions. In the United States, that governing set of principles has been rooted, sometimes more and, regretfully, sometimes less, in a Judeo-Christian ethic based on the inherent (and, according to the Declaration of Independence, Creator-endowed) equal value of every individual. In medical ethics, the two related guiding principles date much further back, to Hippocrates around 400 BC: the sanctity of human life and the concept of “first do no harm”.

Modern medical ethics rests on four major pillars: Autonomy (the patient decides), Beneficence (does it help), Non-maleficence (don’t harm), and Justice (is it fair or impartial). In other words, do our medical recommendations and interventions respect the rights of the individual patient, are they helpful, do they not do harm, and are they fairly and equally available. It is a tall order to keep these broad principles in mind, especially when trying to balance competing interests with limited resources.

American history in general – and medicine in particular – has tended to elevate Autonomy over and above her sister principles. We are a pioneering, individualistic “I did it my way” society. The winds appear to be changing, both in healthcare (with the move toward universal healthcare) and in political discourse. The traditional emphasis on the individual’s responsibility in his or her own pursuit of happiness is taking a back seat to the notion that it is the government’s role somehow to guarantee equal outcomes, seemingly regardless of effort, for all. For example, we just completed a groundbreaking primary season where an avowed socialist garnered significant support on a platform of income redistribution.

Amidst this sea change of process, of roles and responsibilities, can we agree on a common ethic to guide us?

I firmly believe that regardless of who we elect and within whatever system of healthcare delivery we end up with, a Judeo-Christian emphasis on the inherent, God-given value of each and every individual (whether black or white, gay or straight, handicapped or not, born or unborn) is uniquely protective of both the individual and society as a whole. Mass shootings and terrorist acts demonstrate that our moral ethic (or lack thereof) determines our behavior. To paraphrase a Dostoevsky character in The Brothers Karamazov: If God does not exist, all things are permissible. A disturbing corollary appears to be: If my moral ethic condones and encourages killing lots of people, why not do it?

Motivational speaker Zig Ziglar once said, “Since belief determines behavior, doesn't it make sense that we should be teaching ethical, moral values in every home and in every school in America?” Whose values? All belief systems are not equal. Governments and terrorist organizations which do not value the individual, inherent worth and equality of “all Men” – to again reference the Declaration of Independence – are not going to treat their (or our!) citizens equally. In fact, they may kill them (and us).

If I had to choose one word to describe the ethical principle I pursue in life and in healthcare, it is love. Not hate, not selfishness. Not religious dogmatism. And not a “love” of government, cult or fanaticism that discriminates or (God forbid!) kills others in the name of some god or political whim. It is the pure Christian commandment to “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Is this idealistic? Absolutely. Is it achievable? No, to be honest. But that doesn’t mean I stop working tirelessly, incessantly toward that goal. Our country should do the same.

The Role of the Hospital Ethics Committee

For most of my 25 years in medical practice, I have been involved in hospital ethics committees. You may not know that ethics committees exist, or that there are ethics consults in hospitals.

An ethics committee is a group of people ranging from physicians to chaplains, nurses, social workers, and sometimes community representatives who may meet to develop policies on topics like end-of-life care or medical decision making. It is easy to understand that conflict may arise, for example, when a patient is unable to voice their desires and family members don’t agree; it is much harder to devise or articulate a process toward a solution. Sometimes state or federal law dictates a path; more often, a Solomon is needed to split the proverbial baby. Hence, the Ethics Committee can be consulted to advise on a course of action.

In each institution I have been associated with, the Ethics Committee does not decide which course of action to take. They merely facilitate discussion between parties, advising on known statutes or regulations, and – more than anything – making sure each party is hearing what the other is saying. Most ethics consults end up being non-issues; once communication is clear between parties, agreement on a course of action is often reached.

On rare occasions, family members insist on care being provided or continued when, from a medical standpoint, that care is considered futile (or, in PC-speak, non-beneficial). This is a perfect example of #firstworldproblems. It was only in the 1960s that coronary care units came into existence. Prior to that, death in the home was the norm, with family at the bedside. With the advent of intensive care, we have come to expect immortality in the Temple of Medicine.

As reported in 2010 by PBS’s Frontline program Facing Death, nearly half of all Americans die in a hospital (nearly 70% in a hospital, nursing home or long-term-care facility), while 7 out of 10 Americans say they would prefer to die at home. More than 80 percent of patients with chronic diseases say they want to avoid hospitalization and intensive care when they are dying. Yet only 25% actually die at home. The difference between desire and actual care is striking.

Why, if we want a certain type of care, do we not get it? For one, we don’t effectively make our wishes known. In that same Frontline series, only 20 to 30 percent of Americans report having an advance directive such as a living will. And, even when patients have an advance directive, physicians are often unaware of their patients' preferences.

The default action in hospitals is to provide any and all care possible. Blame our perverse incentive to do procedures, our desire to avoid litigation, and our misguided belief that we can save everyone, and you get patients dying in the hospital not even knowing they are at the end of life. It is this window where a hospital Ethics Committee is most consulted.

In my personal experience, the ethical conflicts that arise within a religious context are the most frustrating. Some patients or families hold on to the miracle cure lottery ticket, demanding care that is both ineffective and injurious, afraid to let go of “faith”, as if death itself is under their control.

That type of faith – sincere as it may be – is nothing more than magical thinking that binds God to the believer, making God not even a god, but a puppet. As Billy Graham reportedly said, “Prayer is the rope that pulls God and man together. But, it doesn't pull God down to us. It pulls us up to Him.”

In healthcare, there is no “right” to expect or demand care that is not appropriate. Physicians have an obligation to “first, do no harm”. This is nowhere more important than at the end of life, where comfort care and quality of life are paramount. To bridge this unnecessary divide, open and honest communication between healthcare professionals, patients and family is key. When communication breaks down, the Ethics Committee can help.

Doctors Are From Another Planet

Jupiter and Venus aligned recently in what was called a Bethlehem Star event. The next time the two planets appear this close together will be in 2023. The rarity of planetary conversions reminded me of the 1993 bestseller from PhD counselor Dr. John Gray, titled Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. If you haven’t read it, apparently there are more than 50 million copies floating around.

The basic premise of the book is that men and women are naturally different in the way they think and communicate. We all know that an underlying lack of communication in a relationship keeps that relationship from maturing or even kills it. The success of the book is rooted in the knowledge it imparts (in very humorous ways) about how our spouses think and, therefore, how we need to relate to one another.

Communication among doctors is equally important, but what may die in this physician-physician communication desert is you, the patient.

Everyone knows the phrase from the 1967 Paul Newman movie, Cool Hand Luke, “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” A scholarly article in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2007 noted that direct communication between inpatient physicians and primary care physicians happened in less than 1 in 5 hospitalizations. It is just as bad inside our hospitals.

Physicians are notorious for expecting others to communicate for them. Part of that is time crunch, but mostly it is laziness. It is easier to write an order for a nurse to contact another physician to see a patient rather than to make the call yourself. Although, with cumbersome electronic medical records and CPOE – computerized physician order entry – it is getting easier again just to pick up the phone and call.

Consulting physicians are busy, too, and getting one on the phone can be a challenge. But if I am asking another physician see my patient, I’m the one who knows best why I am making that request and what I want from that consultant. I shouldn’t delegate critical communication to others. That gets back to one of my golden rules: take the time and do what’s right.

What’s more, patients are demanding better communication among their healthcare team, and rating hospitals and physicians on whether or not they measure up. A 2011 National Academy of Medicine discussion paper noted, “Consistent and effective communication between patient and clinician has been associated in studies not only with improved patient satisfaction and safety, but also ultimately with better health outcomes, and often with lower costs.” In addition, “Breakdowns of communication, or disregard for patient understanding, context, and preferences, have been cited as contributors to health care disparities and other counterproductive variations in health care utilization rates.” In other words, when we don’t communicate, extra tests may get done and patients can get hurt.

However, communication is a two way street. You, the patient, need to know at a minimum your own medical and surgical history, what medications you are taking (and what doses), and what you are allergic to. Medical records are not perfect, and as with any electronic media, if garbage goes in, garbage comes out. If you don’t give your physician or the hospital accurate and complete information, that’s just garbage in. Can’t remember everything? Write it all down and bring in a copy.

Communication is a skill, and skill development requires practice. Yes, some physicians (and patients) need more practice than others. Let’s work together to align our communication stars and usher in a new era of patient safety, better outcomes, lower costs, and greater satisfaction.