Error message

The page you requested does not exist. For your convenience, a search was performed using the query news events press coverage 2014 11 07.

Page not found

You are here

Sorry, Doc, that doesn't fit my schedule (Feb-04)

Patients sometimes skip treatments because they just feel too busy. What should physicians do when their patients ignore their recommendations?

Imagine you are a businessperson who works long hours and you are on your way up to having a successful and lucrative career. You have a major business deal that will consume nearly all of your time over the upcoming month and your boss is relying on you to make sure the deal goes through. This is your chance to really make your mark and show your corporation that you are the kind of person that can handle deals as big as this one. Also suppose you have been smoking on and off for 25 years. You know it's a bad habit that could destroy your lungs, but you just can't quite kick it. Lately, you have been feeling tired, you have been experiencing chest pains when you are really busy at work and when you exercise, and you have had trouble breathing when climbing a flight of stairs. The chest pains are usually relieved by a little rest, but you decide it's time to get this examined by a doctor.

One day after work, you go to see Dr. Coral, who gives you a stress test and determines that you'll need an appointment for an angiogram to better evaluate your coronary arteries. Fortunately, you find one free day right before things get hectic at work, so you schedule the angiogram. Now imagine you have just had the angiogram and you are recovering in a paper gown waiting for Dr. Coral to come back with the results. Dr. Coral enters the room to speak with you and he has a serious look on his face. He says,

"I have both good and bad news for you. The angiogram shows that your 3 main coronary arteries are all severely blocked. The good news is that we caught this before you had a major heart attack."

"The bad news is that I am recommending you have triple bypass surgery as soon as possible. Your heart is working overtime, and it is just a matter of time until it gives out."

The news is shocking, but in addition to your health concerns, you also have the business deal to worry about. This deal is an opportunity to make a name for yourself, and your boss has been very vocal that he was counting on you, trusting that you'd be the one for the job. You find yourself having to weigh your work ambitions against the recommendation from Dr. Coral because if you get surgery, there is no way you'd be able to take on your current work responsibility.
 
Which of the following decisions would you be most likely to make?
 
  • I would put aside Dr. Coral's recommendation and instead take responsibility at work for the current deal. I'll wait to have surgery in about a month.
  • I would follow Dr. Coral's recommendation by having surgery immediately, even though this forfeits the current opportunity at work.

A little feedback on what you chose.

It's not that physician's don't care about your other values, but they are primarily concerned about your health, and you might not even have lived long enough to finish the business deal if you didn't have this surgery immediately. This does, however, bring up an important fact: patient's do sometimes reject their physician's medical judgment, and it can be at a great cost to their health.
 
Why should a patient be part of the decision-making process?
 
Why shouldn't Dr. Coral just tell you that you need surgery and leave no alternative? Efforts to share decision-making with patients are important because they acknowledge patients' rights to hold views, to make choices, and to take actions based on personal values and beliefs. In addition to being ethically-sound, this shared decision-making process also leads to improved patient health outcomes.
 
What can a physician do to help the patient choose surgery?
 
To answer this question, first it needs to be emphasized that in order for a patient to be able to participate in the decision-making process, the patient must be able to soundly make decisions. This sounds abstract and subjective, but it can be broken down into something a little more concrete. Decision-making capacity (DMC) is based on four guidelines:
 
The patient is able to:
 
  • understand the information about the condition and the choices available;
  • make a judgment about the information in keeping with his or her personal values and beliefs;
  • understand the potential outcomes or consequences of different choices; and
  • freely communicate his or her wishes
Based on these four elements, it is possible to see what a physician can do to help facilitate a "good" health decision. In order to make sure a patient fully understands the situation, a physician can ask him or her to state their understanding of the problem and of the treatment options. Also, a physician should use clear and unambiguous language with the patient at all times. Although a report might be quite clear from a physician's perspective, a patient might not be as clear about all the details. In the situation you were asked to imagine, Dr. Coral should tell you that you will die without this surgery and that waiting is not a safe option.
Also, there might be other factors keeping a patient from following a physician's recommendation. Again, in your hypothetical situation, your boss was putting a lot of pressure on you not to let him down. Also, this decision would potentially have an effect on your advancement at work. You might not have felt free to elect surgery even if you knew it was the only good decision for your health. By directly acknowledging and addressing a patients' concerns, physicians may facilitate a decision for the surgery.
 
In conclusion, if a physician feels that a patient is not able to fulfill one or more of the elements of DMC then his or her ability to make that decision should be brought into question and surrogate decision makers should be sought. For more serious decisions, the standards for DMC should be higher than for less important decisions or those with less significant outcome differences among the choices.
 
For more information see:

 

What is the price of life? (Aug-03)

Do you think that your life is worth more than the amount that the government usually uses as the maximum to spend to provide one year of life?

Imagine that you are a member of a government panel that is trying to decide how cost-effective a medical treatment must be in order for the government to cover the costs of the treatment. Suppose that a certain treatment could provide one additional year of life to an otherwise healthy person. What is the highest amount the government should be willing to pay per person for this treatment?

How do your answers compare?

For the past twenty years, the figure most often used as the maximum amount to spend to provide one year of life has been $50,000. This figure was originally proposed since it was the cost of a year of kidney dialysis, a lifesaving treatment that the U.S. government funds in Medicare.

Should the number be higher or lower than the current standard?

Conventional wisdom would suggest that the number be higher to take into account the inflation that has occurred in the years since the standard was developed. Current practices such as annual Pap smear screening for women with low risk for cervical cancer, which has a cost of $700,000 per year of life gained, also suggest that society is willing to pay more than the current standard for a year of life. The authors of the cited article recommend, based on current treatment practices and surveys of the general public, that the cost-effectiveness threshold should be revised to be around $200,000.

Should the number increase, decrease, or stay the same over time?

Again, it seems that the threshold amount should increase over time due to inflation. However, other factors come in to play that affect the value.

Since new technologies are emerging all the time, some of which will be deemed cost-effective, there will be more and more treatments to be offered in the future. Also, the rate of use of treatments is an important consideration, because even if a new treatment is more cost-effective than an old one, if it is used more often it will end up costing more to society overall. With more treatments becoming available and more people being given treatments, the threshold cost will probably have to decrease so that insurance companies and the government can keep up with the increasing availability and demand.

Why is this important?

Insurance companies and government health care entities face a continuing struggle when trying to determine which medical treatments to cover. Health care costs are increasing rapidly, so these groups will be facing even tougher decisions in the future. Establishing cost-effectiveness guidelines would be extremely helpful as an aid to making the decisions about treatment coverage. Evidence shows that the current threshold is probably not an accurate reflection of the desires of society or actual prescribing practices. It needs to be adjusted to become useful once again, and must be reevaluated periodically to make sure the value keeps up with trends in the health care market, rather than being left alone without question for two decades as is the current situation.

For more information see:

Ubel PA, Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Fendrick AM. What is the price of life and why doesn't it increase at the rate of inflation? Archives of Internal Medicine. 163:1637-1641, 2003.

Funded by Health and Human Services, Department of-Agency for Health Care Research and Quality

Funding Years: 2014 - 2016

'Value-based purchasing' is a quality improvement strategy that links payment with healthcare outcomes, by paying less or not at all for poor outcomes. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) seeks to decrease the rate of hospital-acquired complications (HAC) and readmissions by holding hospitals financially accountable using risk-adjusted rates. CMS risk-adjustment models for outcomes of mortality and readmission include patient characteristics from routine administrative discharge data (e.g., diagnosis codes) with age and gender as the only socio-demographic variables. Research suggests other important patient characteristics such as functional status, mobility and level of social support also impact patients? risk for readmission and certain complications (e.g., pressure ulcers). To date, variables such as functional status, mobility and social support have not been included in risk-adjustment models because they are not available in routine discharge data; also, socio-demographic variables (e.g., income or education, which may relate to a patient?s ability to maintain functional status and secure social support) have not been included in risk-adjustment for outcomes due to concerns that adjusting for such factors would be akin to condoning poor care delivered to vulnerable patients. In order to determine how much socio-demographic factors relate as risks for poor hospital outcomes and readmissions (as intrinsic patient factors compared to factors extrinsic to patient and a function of the hospital), a more robust patient-specific data source is required than routine discharge data. To address this question, we will utilize a unique data source to extend our prior work examining the impact of value-based purchasing programs (including non-payment of HACs) on vulnerable patients and hospitals; we will use the nationally representative Health and Retirement Study (HRS) (with detailed data such as a patient?s functional status, mobility, social support, income and educational level) linked to patient-specific Medicare claims data. Our specific aims are:

  1. To assess change in performance of our recently constructed risk-adjusted model for complications of pressure ulcers and urinary track infections as HACs after enhancement with HRS patient-specific measures (e.g., functional status, mobility, social support).
  2. To assess change in performance of CMS?s risk-adjustment models for readmission (for pneumonia, heart failure, myocardial infarction) after enhancement with HRS patient-specific measures.
  3. To evaluate the performance of the HRS-variable enhanced risk-adjustment models for HACs and readmission after replacing some HRS variables with census derived, zip-code level variables (such as median level of education, and income).
  4. Using statewide Medicare claims data; to evaluate the performance of risk-adjustment models for HACs and readmission enhanced by census-data derived zip-code level socio-demographic variables.

PI(s): Laurence McMahon Jr

Co-I(s): Timothy Hofer, Theodore Iwashyna, Kenneth Langa, Jennifer Meddings, Mary AM Rogers

Lesly Dossett, MD, MPH

Faculty

Dr. Lesly Dossett MD, MPH is Assistant Professor of Surgery in the Division of Surgical Oncology at the University of Michigan. Dr. Dossett is an Honors Program and Summa Cum Laude graduate of Western Kentucky University. She earned her medical degree at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in 2003, attending on a United States Navy Health Professions Scholarship. She completed general surgery residency at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in 2010, where she served as Administrative Chief Resident.

Last Name: 
Dossett

2015 Bishop Lecture featuring Lawrence O. Gostin, J.D., LL.D. (Hon.)

Tue, March 17, 2015, 11:00am
Location: 
Founders Room, Alumni Center, 200 Fletcher St., Ann Arbor, MI

Bishop Lecture in Bioethics: "Law, Ethics, and Public Health in the Vaccination Debates: Politics of the Measles Outbreak" (Keynote Address for the 2015 CBSSM Research Colloquium)

Abstract: The measles outbreak of early 2015 is symptomatic of a larger societal problem–the growing number of parents who decide against vaccinating their children. This failure is causing the resurgence of childhood diseases once eliminated from the United States.
falseThis presentation explores the legal and ethical landscape of vaccine exemptions. While all states require childhood vaccinations, they differ significantly in the types of religious and/or philosophical exemptions permitted, the rigor of the application process, and available review mechanisms. States with relaxed exemption policies disproportionately experience more outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease.

Vaccine exemptions are an illustration of the “tragedy of the commons,” in which parents choose not to vaccinate their children, relying on the fact that other parents will vaccinate their children, thus providing community immunity. However, the net result of many individual decisions not to vaccinate is the collapse of herd immunity and thus an upsurge in preventable disease and death.
The failure to vaccinate puts others at risk, thus violating an important ethical principle. However, punishing individual parents could entrench political opposition to vaccine policy. The most ethical and effective solution is for state legislatures to tighten vaccination laws, making it more difficult to obtain non-medical exemptions.

Lawrence O. Gostin, J.D., LL.D. (Hon.) is University Professor, Georgetown University’s highest academic rank conferred by the University President. Prof. Gostin directs the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law and is the Founding O’Neill Chair in Global Health Law. He is Professor of Medicine at Georgetown University, Professor of Public Health at the Johns Hopkins University, and Director of the Center for Law & the Public’s Health at Johns Hopkins and Georgetown Universities. Prof. Gostin is also the Director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center on Public Health Law & Human Rights.

  • Click here for the video recording of the 2015 Bishop Lecture.

Announcement of Position: Faculty Ethicist

Announcement of Position: Faculty Ethicist


Background
The Clinical Ethics Service within the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine (CBSSM) promotes a culture of patient-centered excellence by performing a comprehensive set of ethics-related activities. The aims of this service are to: liaise with and provide support to the adult and pediatric ethics committees; provide clinical ethics consultation and engage in preventative ethics endeavors; assist with ethics-related policy development on a regular and proactive basis; organize and administer structured educational programs in clinical ethics; and coordinate empiric research with relevance to clinical ethics within CBSSM.

Program Organization
The Clinical Ethics Service is led by Christian J. Vercler, MD MA and Andrew G. Shuman, MD. A dedicated clinical ethicist will manage the program on a daily basis. A cadre of faculty ethicists will rotate on service throughout the year and work closely with the clinical ethicist. Trainees and students will rotate as well. Dedicated administrative support is organized through CBSSM.


Position
The Clinical Ethics Service employs a roster of faculty ethicists who are responsible for staffing ethics consultations arising from any of the clinical venues (inpatient and outpatient; adult and pediatric) within Michigan Medicine during their time on service. They will supervise and participate in the institutional educational endeavors and preventative ethics rounds in a regular and on-going manner. Faculty ethicists will also develop and provide clinical rotations for medical students and house officers on a cohesive ethics service. Each faculty member will be expected to rotate on service for four to six weeks per year, and attend/participate in committee meetings and other events throughout the academic year (this will not necessarily require suspension of other activities when on-service). Depending on the total number appointed, each faculty ethicist will receive $15,000-$20,000 of direct salary support annually, to be distributed and allocated in conjunction with their home department. The initial appointment will last two and a half years and is renewable. Additional appointments will last two years.


Qualifications
Candidates are expected to have faculty appointments at University of Michigan and be in good academic standing; any professional background is acceptable. Candidates are expected to have qualifications that meet the standards outlined by The American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) for accreditation for clinical ethics consultants. Direct experience with clinical ethics consultation is required. Familiarity with ethics education and related clinical research would be helpful. Excellent organizational and communication skills across multidisciplinary medical fields are required.


Application Process
Candidates will be vetted and chosen by a selection committee. Candidates are asked to submit:

  • Curriculum vitae or resume
  • One page maximum summary of (1) education/training related to ethics consultation; (2) clinical ethics consultation experience; and (3) motivation/interest in the position
  • Letter of support from Department Chair/Division Head/Center Director or equivalent
  • Submit formal application via email to: lynnam@med.umich.edu


Timeline

  • Application is due September 25, 2017
  • Appointment will take effect January 1, 2018

Contacts

  • Leaders of the Clinical Ethics Service: Christian J. Vercler, MD MA & Andrew G. Shuman, MD
  • Administrative contact: Valerie Kahn – valkahn@med.umich.edu 734 615 5371

Bioethics Grand Rounds

CBSSM’s Clinical Ethics Service sponsors the monthly Bioethics Grand Rounds, focusing on ethical issues arising in health care and medicine. This educational session is open to Michigan Medicine faculty and staff and CME credit is available.

Link to previous Bioethics Grand Rounds:

Funded by VA Health Services Research and Development Career Development Award

Funding Years: 2015-2019

Heart attack and stroke, which together are called cardiovascular disease, cause over 1/3 of all deaths in VA patients. The current guidelines for the prevention of these conditions focus on lowering patients'blood pressure and cholesterol levels. A new treatment strategy, which I call benefit-based tailored treatment, that instead guides treatment decisions based on the likelihood that a medication would prevent a heart attack or stroke could prevent more cardiovascular disease, with lower medication use, and be more patient centered. The purpose of this Career Development Award is to develop and assess tools and approaches that could enable the implementation of benefit-based tailored treatment of cardiovascular disease, in particular a decision support tool and educational program for clinicians and a performance profiling system. The decision support tool will enable better care by showing clinicians patient-specific estimates of the likelihood that their medication decisions will prevent a cardiovascular disease event. The performance profiling system will encourage better care by assessing the quality of care provided at VA sites and in PACT teams based on how well the medical care provided follows this treatment strategy. The project will have three aims:
Aim 1 : In the first aim, I will seek to understand clinicians' and patients' perceptions of and receptivity to the use of benefit-based tailored treatment for cardiovascular disease. Information gained from qualitative research with clinicians will help assess and improve the usability and effectiveness of the decision support tool and educational program for clinicians, along with the acceptability of the treatment strategies in general. Information gained from focus groups with patients will help learn their priorities in cardiovascular disease prevention, to help identify ways to make the interventions and their assessments more patient-centered.
Aim 2 : In the second aim, the decision support tool and educational program will be assessed in a real-world randomized pilot study involving thirty clinicians. Half of the clinicians will be provided the decision support tool and education intervention for ten patients each, the other half will receive a traditional quality improvement program and treatment reminders. The study will have formative goals of ensuring that clinicians and patients believe the tool is valuable and does not disrupt care processes or workflow for anyone in the PACT team. This will be studied with qualitative and survey assessments. The primary summative outcome will be the influence of the intervention on clinicians'treatment decisions. Secondary outcomes will assess patients'satisfaction with their visits and their clinicians.
Aim 3 : The third aim will develop and evaluate a novel performance measurement system based on benefit- based tailored treatment. First, the performance profiling system will be developed. Then the profiling system's ability to reliably differentiate high quality from low-quality care will be evaluated.

PI: Jeremy Sussman

Funded by: NIH

Funding Years: 2016-2021

 

There is a fundamental gap in understanding how Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) influences treatment and Decision Making for serious illnesses, like Cardiovascular disease (CVD), in older patients. Poor understanding of Clinical Decision Making is a critical barrier to the design of interventions to improve the quality and outcomes of CVD care of in older patients with MCI. The long-term goal of this research is to develop, test, and disseminate interventions aimed to improve the quality and outcomes of CVD care and to reduce CVD-related disability in older Americans with MCI. The objective of this application is to determine the extent to which people with MCI are receiving sub-standard care for the two most common CVD events, Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and acute ischemic stroke, increasing the chance of mortality and morbidity in a population with otherwise good quality of life, and to determine how MCI influences patient preferences and physician recommendations for treatment. AMI and acute ischemic stroke are excellent models of serious, acute illnesses with a wide range of effective therapies for acute management, Rehabilitation, and secondary prevention. Our central hypothesis is that older Adults with MCI are undertreated for CVD because patients and physicians overestimate their risk of dementia and underestimate their risk of CVD. This hypothesis has been formulated on the basis of preliminary data from the applicants' pilot research. The rationale for the proposed research is that understanding how patient preferences and physician recommendations contribute to underuse of CVD treatments in patients with MCI has the potential to translate into targeted interventions aimed to improve the quality and outcomes of care, resulting in new and innovative approaches to the treatment of CVD and other serious, acute illnesses in Adults with MCI. Guided by strong preliminary data, this hypothesis will be tested by pursuing two specific aims: 1) Compare AMI and stroke treatments between MCI patients and cognitively normal patients and explore differences in Clinical outcomes associated with treatment differences; and 2) Determine the influence of MCI on patient and surrogate preferences and physician recommendations for AMI and stroke treatment. Under the first aim, a health services research approach- shown to be feasible in the applicants' hands-will be used to quantify the extent and outcomes of treatment differences for AMI and acute ischemic stroke in older patients with MCI. Under the second aim, a multi-center, mixed-methods approach and a national physician survey, which also has been proven as feasible in the applicants' hands, will be used to determine the influence of MCI on patient preferences and physician recommendations for AMI and stroke treatment. This research proposal is innovative because it represents a new and substantially different way of addressing the important public health problem of enhancing the health of older Adults by determining the extent and causes of underuse of effective CVD treatments in those with MCI. The proposed research is significant because it is expected to vertically advance and expand understanding of how MCI influences treatment and Decision Making for AMI and ischemic stroke in older patients. Ultimately, such knowledge has the potential to inform the development of targeted interventions that will help to improve the quality and outcomes of CVD care and to reduce CVD-related disability in older Americans.

PI: Deborah Levine

CO(s): Darin Zahuranec, Lewis Morgenstern & Ken Langa

Pages