Showing posts with label public reporting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public reporting. Show all posts

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Health claims endorsed by physicians debunked

In an article published in the year-end edition of the British Medical Journal last weekend, the Indianapolis-based team of Rachel Vreeman and Aaron Carroll identified seven widely held health beliefs in need of critical review.

Albert EinsteinThey included the notion that people should drink at least eight glasses of water a day, that we only use 10 percent of our brains, and that turkey causes fatigue.

"These medical myths are a light-hearted reminder that we can be wrong and need to question what other falsehoods we unwittingly propagate as we practice medicine," the authors say in the article.turkey

The researchers used Google and Medline, an archive of medical literature, to find evidence to support or debunk health claims endorsed by physicians and the general public.

The following myths are busted or just have meager medical evidence:

  • People should drink at least eight glasses of water a day
  • We use only 10% of our brains
  • Hair and fingernails continue to grow after death
  • Shaving hair causes it to grow back faster, darker, or coarser
  • Reading in dim light ruins your eyesight
  • Eating turkey makes people especially drowsy
  • Mobile phones create considerable electromagnetic interference in hospitals.
Source: British Medical Journal

Editor:
"Enjoy reading the report, it's rather amusing!"

Monday, December 10, 2007

Health Council of Canada to release report on "Why Health Care Renewal Matters"

On Thursday the 13th of November, the Health Council of Canada will release a report entitled "Why Health Care Renewal Matters: Learning from Canadians with Chronic Health Conditions."

More than nine million Canadians suffer from one or more chronic health conditions such as diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, heart disease, arthritis, and mood disorders.

In this report, we turn to Canadians living with chronic health conditions to learn from them about their experiences with care, and demonstrate why health care renewal matters to individuals whose health and well-being are at stake.
Collectively, we bear the significant, and growing, health care and economic burden of our failure to prevent chronic conditions and to provide high quality chronic illness care.

This report is the second in a series in which the Health Council examines whether Canada's health care system is meeting the needs of people with chronic health conditions and how changes to care can improve health outcomes.

The highlights of the report will be presented coming Thursday at 10 am in Richmond, B.C.

Double Dippin' Doctors

Clinic doctors got $500,000 in public funds, but walk-ins must pay for basic visits!

Doctors working at the private Copeman Healthcare Centre in downtown Vancouver received nearly $500,000 in fees charged to the public last year, though the clinic is also charging its 1,500 patients to use its services.

The top grosser in public funds was Tasha Bienert, a family physician at the clinic, who got $158,727 from the Medical Services Plan. Psychiatrist Kevin Kjernisted was paid $120,568. Another psychiatrist, Diane McIntosh, received $118,079. Corporate medical director Peter House made $43,110 while family physician Beth Donaldson got $39,466.

The payments are recorded in the Medical Services Commission's annual financial report for the year ended March 31, 2007. Two other Copeman clinic doctors, Michael Koehle and Mark Gelfer, do not appear in the records. Nor for that matter does clinic founder and CEO Don Copeman, a businessman who once took pre-medicine courses.

It is unclear from the report how much of the fees paid to the various Copeman doctors was for work performed at the clinic, and how much was for work they may have done elsewhere. But medical director House says, "Nobody at Copeman works outside the clinic. We used to."

Besides whatever public money flows to Copeman clinic staff, the centre also charges patients a fee before they can see a doctor. To be seen costs $3,900 for the first year, plus $2,900 for each year after that. That's up from $3,500 for the first year and $2,300 annually since the last reporting in May 2006.

Under the Medicare Protection Act, doctors who have "opted-in" and receive payments under the public Medical Services Plan may not charge a patient for any service normally paid for through public insurance. How then, are Copeman doctors charging twice?

Decision in secret

In late November the government's Medical Services Commission, which oversees payments under the MSP program, ruled after an 18-month investigation that the private clinic on Vancouver's Hornby Street is operating legally, but it remains unclear how that decision was made.

"They refused to provide any reasoning for the decision," says Adrian Dix, the NDP health care critic. "They are denying people their right to know anything about it."

A health ministry spokesperson says it is "frustrating," but section 49 of the Medicare Protection Act says the government can't talk about the commission's ruling. She says Health Minister George Abbott has said the section needs to be reviewed, but meanwhile any answers about the ruling would have to come from the Copeman clinic.

Copeman's medical director House says all he's seen is a two-page letter from the commission that says everything is okay with how the clinic does business. "I don't have the report, no. It wasn't sent to me. I don't know if it was sent to Mr. Copeman."

Copeman did not return calls. Nor did general manager Susan Rafter respond to an e-mail requesting details of the ruling.

However, in an interview with a reporter from The Tyee at the outset of the Medical Service Commission's review of the clinic, Copeman made clear what his arguments (crafted with the help of lawyers who'd written related legislation elsewhere) would be: the fees are for extra services the clinic provides, not for seeing a doctor.

The fees give members access to services like annual health screening, personal coaching, counselling, diet advice and fitness consultation that aren't covered under the public MSP program. As the clinic's website put it, "The fees for these enhanced medical services are bundled by the centre and made available to each client for a simple, annual fee."

Pay for access

The NDP's Dix isn't buying the argument Copeman is selling. "People aren't paying for those services, and everyone knows it," he says. "You're paying for the right to see a family doctor."

What the clinic is charging for is at the crux of the question. Under British Columbia law it is illegal to charge for access to a doctor for anything that would be covered by MSP. As the Health ministry's website explains: "The Medicare Protection Act protects patients from being charged an extra amount for physicians' services that are benefits of MSP." They can charge for all kinds of medically unnecessary things, but if the doctors are going to work in the public system, they have to provide any service covered by MSP to anyone who asks. If someone refuses to pay the fees, the doctor still has to see him or her.

So if Copeman is charging for the extra services and not for access to a doctor, it should be possible to make an appointment at the clinic for something covered under MSP without paying any fee.

When I ask Copeman's House what happens if someone walks in with a fever or some other condition where a visit would be covered by MSP, he says, "We don't refuse anybody, but that's not our business. . . . We're not a walk-in clinic."

Copeman doctors would treat the person, he says, and there would be no charge. "No, we don't charge a fee for that," he says. "We in our clinic do not charge our patients for any medically insurable service that's available in the province. . . . Doctors don't charge patients at Copeman Healthcare Centre for anything except non-insured services."

Members only

But if House is correct, Copeman officials have failed to explain the policy to the people who actually book appointments. When this reporter called the clinic's main phone line last week to ask about making an appointment, the reception person said, "You do have to be a member." It is possible for non-members to get in to see a doctor, she says, but there's a fee of $175. Even if you don't want any extras.

Told about the response, House says, "No, it's not quite so easy, because that's not what we're about."

Whatever the clinic is doing appears to be fine with the government, and House says the commission's approval shows people should stop worrying about the clinic. "We have a business that complies with the Medicare Protection Act of British Columbia, and that's been proven," he says. "We've gone through a two-year process. There's no smoking gun here."

Fan of American system

At a time when the public health care system suffers from several threats, there are bigger issues than the clinic, House says. "It's ridiculous. You can quote me on that. It's a ridiculous topic for debate," he says. "The story's dead, except in people who don't want to believe it. They believe in conspiracies, and the media fans that."

The best source of health information, adds the clinic's top doctor, is the Fraser Institute, which House says is "unfairly labeled as a right-wing think tank."

The bigger problems with the public health care system include chronic under funding and a shortage of physicians, he says, adding that there isn't enough emphasis on illness prevention to help people take care of themselves before they get sick.

For such shortcomings, the doctor offers a cure. "The American health care system is where you're going to get excellence," House says. "We're the only developed country that doesn't have a private and public system running in parallel. . . . Everything else we do besides healthcare is a free market."

He says, "We're not a threat to the health care system and we're not a solution to the health care system. We're an option."

Copeman eyes expansion

Dix says the Copeman clinic does pose a real threat to public health care. If it is allowed to get away with charging patients for access to a doctor, the practice will expand in a hurry. Doctors will be available to those who can afford to pay, and others will have to make do in a deteriorating public system, he says.

"It will be harder to find a family doctor and there will be more extra billing," Dix predicts.

The NDP will fight the decision, he says, starting with figuring out how it was made. "I'm reviewing all options legal and otherwise, freedom of information options, so we can see what was done here."

With Abbott and the federal government refusing to take action against the Copeman clinic, they are practically inviting expansion, he says.

Copeman himself has said in the past he plans to have 40 clinics across Canada within five years. If so, many more Canadians could be asked to open their wallets before their doctors will open the door.

The Tyee

Friday, December 7, 2007

Scarborough General Hospital highest death rate in the GTA

"Health care experts say the numbers will force medical officials to examine their practices and improve patient care".

Scarborough General Hospital has the highest rate of deaths in the Toronto area – and the third highest in Canada – according to a watershed report that made hospital death rates public last week.
It's the first time in history that a report of this kind this has been done.

The hospital with the lowest rate of deaths in the GTA is the University Health Network, which includes Princess Margaret, Toronto General and Toronto Western Hospitals.

The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) released mortality rates for 85 large Canadian acute care hospitals and 42 health regions in every province but Quebec, where they don't collect the same data. Health care experts say the figures, which show how effective hospitals are at avoiding preventable deaths, will force medical officials to examine their practices and improve patient care.

For years, Canadian hospital administrators have known what death rates were inside their hospitals, but unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, they were never made public.

The only hospital in the Greater Toronto Area that CIHI did not release figures for was the Humber River Regional Hospital.

"For this report we got our preliminary results back and when we saw them we said: Hold on, we've got some concerns here," said Gerrard Power, a hospital spokesperson.

"It's important all hospitals report the information so they can figure out the problems and fix them," said Dr. Alan Hudson, head of Ontario's wait time strategy.

"This is an absolutely crucial day for the province of Ontario. It is a major step," said Hudson, a neurosurgeon. "The whole process should be transparent. Taxpayers deserve nothing less."

The long-awaited disclosure follows a year-long Toronto Star investigation into medical secrecy that raised questions about a lack of public reporting in Canada. As part of the investigative series Medical Secrets, the Star urged CIHI to reveal hospital names with reportable data.

The provincial government has mandated that the 1st of April 2008 all Ontario hospitals report adverse events and death rates for certain procedures on their websites along with wait time information.

The CIHI study compares the actual number of deaths in hospital with the average Canadian experience. The numerical result is called the hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR). A score above 100 means a hospital is above the national average while a score below that figure reflects a lower mortality rate.

The University Health Network scored an 87, or 13 points below the national average of 100. For years, the UHN has reported patient safety data on its website, from hospital-borne infection rates to wait times.

The UHN has also brought in rapid response care teams, which have helped to bring down death rates at its hospitals. These are groups of intensive care doctors and nurses that can quickly respond to a patient experiencing anything from a cardiac arrest to a drastic drop in blood pressure.

Bell has been a vocal supporter of publicizing death rates. "The data reflects the comparative experience of patients in your hospital related to other hospitals," he explained. "This gives hospital caregivers and managers a concrete goal they can set objectives with and they can use to initiate quality improvements."

Many experts believe public reporting allows hospitals to compare patient outcome records, see where they rank on important indicators and spot trends that could lead to changes that better protect public safety. Public reporting also provides patients with access to information about potential risks and problems inside their local hospitals before they seek treatment.

The Scarborough Hospital's General site scored 134, while the Grace site scored 110. The hospital has suffered from management turmoil, as well as allegations of lax oversight of physicians.

Dr. Steven Jackson, chief of medical staff at the hospital, said management is committed to lowering the numbers and beating the national average. "Everyone is buying into this," he said. "Quality is where we are going."

The figures released last week are viewed as a key indicator of patient safety levels in hospitals, an area of growing interest for medical experts. Between 9,250 and 23,750 Canadian adults experience a "preventable" adverse event in hospital and later die, according to a 2004 CIHI study. Over the past three years – the period covered by the new data – more than 254,000 patients died in Canadian hospitals outside Quebec.

"Releasing these numbers across Canada is a big step forward," said Hilary Short, president of the Ontario Hospital Association, representing all hospitals in the province. "It's hard the first time you release a report like this," she said. "But once you start reporting publicly it really accelerates ... and it forces improvement."

Now, for the numbers:

Canada's best and worst

The following hospitals had mortality ratios (excluding palliative care) ranking at the top and bottom of the list of 85 larger, acute care hospitals in 42 health regions across Canada (excluding Quebec), according to the CIHI survey of hospital deaths.

Top Five

1. The Moncton Hospital - Moncton, N.B.: 56

2. Foothills Medical Centre - Calgary, Alta.: 61

3. Regina General Hospital - Regina, Sask.: 71

4. Peter Lougheed Centre - Calgary, Alta.: 73

5. Saint John Regional Hospital - Saint John, N.B.: 74

Bottom Five

1. Grand River Hospital - K.W. Health Centre, Kitchener, Ont: 142

2. Niagara Health System - St. Catharines General Site, St. Catharines, Ont.: 135

3. The Scarborough Hospital - General Site, Toronto, Ont.: 134

4. Burnaby Hospital - Burnaby, B.C.: 125

5. Red Deer Regional Hospital Centre - Red Deer, Alta.: 125

The Moncton Hospital, N.B. - "lowest death rate in Canada"