What I think is special about this current thread and unlike
the other two, I have had the opportunity to utilize an active practitioner of
"retainer medicine", whom I know, present his view of his profession and critique
an article by William Martinez MD and Thomas H. Gallagher MD in the July 2013
issue of the AMA's Virtual Mentor titled"Ethical Concierge Medicine?"
Now go to that article, read and then return and
read the critique below by the practitioner along with his personal description
of the practice.
I read with interest the provocative commentary by Martinez and
Gallagher in the July issue of the American Medical Association Virtual Mentor. Their commentary, in fact made more provocative
by not addressing specifically the very thoughtful and comprehensive
counterpoint Opinion piece by Huddle and Centor in the Annals of Internal
Medicine (Ann Intern Med.
2011;155(9)) listed in their references. The ethical role of physicians and the
delineation of a physician’s social responsibility beyond professional ethics
to their patients are exquisitely described by Huddle. That is not what
actually interested me. Rather what has much greater interest is delineating
with accuracy what these “retainer physicians” who charge fees that are not
recognized as “covered services” by Insurance Companies or Medicare actually
do. What these physicians actually do is take the time to listen and educate
their patients. These physicians, not constrained by 10 minute encounters can
focus on Preventive Medicine, Wellness, Education, and when needed intense
Illness care including personal care coordination with specialists. These
physicians are not providing “luxury” services. They are practicing Preventive
Medicine. They are not merely providing services as a matter of “comfort and
convenience” as asserted by Martinez.
Physicians who practice in this manner certainly do recognize that
their first responsibility is to the care and wellbeing of their patient. When physicians
reduce their practice volume to allow more time for individual patients it is
not without concern for those patients unable or unwilling to pay the
additional fees for enhanced prevention. Physicians who undertake this
transition are not pure profit motivated individuals. They're the same physicians who chose to take
on the significant financial and personal sacrifice that comes from being
Primary Care Physicians in the first place. These physicians did not take the
“R.O.A.D” to happiness by seeking the far more lucrative Radiology, Ophthalmology,
Anesthesiology, and Dermatology path where their schedules do not carry the
same degree of 24/7 burden of
responsibility. The physicians who transition their practice are not uncaring individuals
with selfish disregard for their current patients who won’t or can’t
participate in the preventive medicine practice. In contrast to the unfounded assertion
of Martinez, physicians who undertake this transition uniformly assist their
patients in locating new physicians who are often associate physicians within
their own practice.
Moreover, in further contrast to
the erroneous assertion of Martinez over time the physicians who are practicing
in this model have clearly demonstrated significant improved health outcomes--
improved outcomes that benefit not only the individual patient but all the
other stakeholders in medical care.
There is now clear evidence of a significant cost saving and improved
outcomes to the patients, their employers, the Insurers and Medicare by reduced
frequency and severity of illness. In December of 2012 Klemes and her group at
MDVIP documented in their report published in the American Journal of Managed Care
an extraordinary reduction in the frequency of hospitalizations as well as
reductions in readmission rates for patients in this model. By the estimates of
Klemes there was a $2500 savings per patient as a direct result of decreased
hospitalizations alone.
So what is wrong with capitalizing on an enhanced doctor- patient
relationship and take the time unavailable in traditional practice to have our
patients live longer and better? In a companion Editorial in that same issue of
the Annals of Internal Medicine (Ann
Intern Med. 2011;155(9)) Bernard Lo posits “Retainer Medicine: Why Not
for All?” In that Editorial Lo correctly
points out that “retainer medicine physicians cannot by themselves solve the
problem of poor access.” After all, by the calculations of the Kaiser Family Foundation and larger groups of preventive medicine physicians such as MDVIP physicians in this model represent less than 1.5% of Primary Care Physicians. Yet, even this very small number of physicians practicing in this model of prevention has certainly stimulated a dialogue that hopefully will get the attention of the politicians, the government bureaucrats, and the general society where health policy is made. It is this dialogue about fostering the fundamental relationship and mutual trust of the healthcare provider, the doctor and the patient that will bring better health to us all.
And now my comment. I
think that unless HMO medical practice makes drastic changes in how patients
are allocated to their physicians and paid for and/or an impressive influx of
general medical practitioners occurs, with the population of new patients
enrolled in the Affordable Care Act, medical practice, in general, will be
moving away from what Dr. Abraham Verghese speaks out for and is discussed in my recent blog thread
"Eye to Eye Communication and Laying On of Hands: Anachronistic Medicine?" .Dr. Verghese says " the ritual of one individual coming
to another and telling them things that they would not tell their
preacher or rabbi, and then, incredibly on top of that, disrobing and
allowing touch -- I would submit to you that that is a ritual of exceeding
importance." Of course, medicine is much more than simply that
ritual but without medical system change it may well be that we find that
it will only be the "retainer" physician practice that will be
providing that superior attention and care toward each individual patient which
characterizes the best in the doctor-patient relationship. What do you
think? ..Maurice.
ADDENDUM 9-14-2013: It is my hope that with the help of the retainer physician who wrote the critique and description above and perhaps other retainer physicians, the retainer practice can be dissected within the Comment section of this thread for the public and other physicians with the anatomy and physiology of retainer practice. Some issues of interest would be matters of patients having developed extreme trust with a physician who now leaves common practice and goes into retainer medicine and the patient, not following, but provided with another physician may struggle to develop and perhaps fail to develop trust with that new physician. Another aspect of the practice is how a scale of various levels of provided services with varying yearly fees is developed and executed. I am sure my visitors will have more questions regarding retainer medicine practice which hopefully will be answered by the knowledgeable practitioners. ..Maurice.
3 Comments:
To start out: for a recent rather thorough article reviewing the many factors involved in concierge medicine and finally strongly supporting the practice with appropriate cautions, read the article by clicking on this link:
P.A. Clark, J.R. Friedman, D.W. Crosson, M. Fadus: Concierge Medicine: Medical, Legal and Ethical Perspectives. The Internet Journal of Law, Healthcare and Ethics. 2011 Volume 7 Number 1. ..Maurice.
To get discussion going on this thread I will bring up an upsetting issue as told to me by a friend I know. He and his wife are being treated by a retainer internist and yet when his wife became sick and required hospitalization it was a hospitalist and not the retainer internist who admitted, attended to and then discharged the patient. It was not the retainer physician to whom the friend was paying the annual fee for "concierge service".
So expected continuity of care when the patient became sick enough to be admitted to the hospital was now missing. How is that explained by the practitioners and is it ethical? ..Maurice.
The exponentially expanding role of the Hospitalist physician is certainly an important topic for discussion. The economic forces of Pay for Performance that drive Hospitals and their corporate owners to enforce hospital developed guidelines for procedures and documentation often run counter to the perspectives of physicians focused on prevention. It comes as no surprise, then, that physicians who practice in the retainer model will succumb to that reality and relinquish primary responsibility for hospitalization of their patient. That is not to say that once in the hospital the patient and his/her retainer physician have lost contact. And it is not to say that the retainer physician is not in direct communication with the Hospitalist physician during and after the hospital stay. In fact that ongoing direct communication is more likely the rule than the exception.
Certainly from your post it seems that your friend’s experience ran counter to the expectations they had of their relationship with their retainer physician. That is something they should discuss with their individual physician.
Physicians who practice prevention and charge an extra fee to be able to do so are not providing “concierge services.” Ethics are not at issue here.
Retainer Physician
Post a Comment
<< Home