• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why Doctors Hate Science

There is no doubt that medicine is clinically taught based on the mentoring and peer consensus, but there are standards, their are guidelines, not just based on what your colleague is doing, but based on what experts recommend, and based...yes...ON science.

It has been shown that experts' recommendations are often based on their own experience, which is often very unreliable. And, although expert opinion may be the only useful consideration when there is no evidence base, it should not be relied upon when there is an evidence base.

BJ
 
Interpreting the results of studies.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15075159
We show that physicians experience a decline of the number of consultations when they face an increase in the physician: population ratio. However this decrease is very slight. In addition physicians counterbalance the fall in the number of consultations by an increase in the volume of care delivered in each encounter. Econometric results give a strong support for the existence of PID in the French system for ambulatory care

That is the result of their study. Now you need to interpret the result. This is not clear cut. For example, one interpretation is that when the doctor/population ratio was low, doctors spent less time with each patient (because there were more patients waiting to be seen) with a consequent reduction in the quality of care. As the ratio increased, they were able to spend more time with patients and provide a better quality of care.

http://www.esri.go.jp/en/archive/e_dis/abstract/e_dis147-e.html
http://www.esri.go.jp/en/archive/e_dis/abstract/e_dis147-e.html
After controlling for a patient's detailed characteristics, we found that increases in the relative numbers of hospitals and physicians are significantly related to physician-initiated expenditures and the effect is higher for high-tech treatments. The results based on municipal-level aggregated data also support this conclusion.

Same as above. Your assumption is that in countries with a relatively greater number of hospitals and doctors, patients get unnecessary treatment. However, it might be the case that, in countries with insufficient doctors and hospitals, patients may be missing out on appropriate care.

http://www.socialpolitik.de/tagungshps/2007/paper/Juerges.pdf
http://www.socialpolitik.de/tagungshps/2007/paper/Juerges.pdf
These findings give indirect evidence for the hypothesis that in Germany, physicians induce demand for medical services among privately insured patients but not among statutorily insured.

The study concluded that privately insured patients are less likely to attend a physician but, once they did, they were likely to have more follow up visits. A possible explantion is that privately insured patients are higher money-earners, more intelligent, and therefore more likely to attend a physician only when they have significant symptoms and significant symptoms are more likely to require more investigation and follow up.

BJ
 
More evidence that medical professionals (as a group) are excellent at gaming the system to maintain or increase their remuneration:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1069862

The effect of cost sharing on health services utilization is analyzed from a new perspective, that is, its effects on physician response to cost sharing. A primary data set was constructed using medical records and billing files from a large multispecialty group practice during the three-year period surrounding the introduction of cost sharing to the United Mine Workers Health and Retirement Fund. This same group practice also served an equally large number of patients covered by United Steelworkers' health benefit plans, for which similar utilization data were available. The questions addressed in this interinsurer study are: (1) to what extent does a physician's treatment of medically similar cases vary, following a drop in patient visits as a result of cost sharing? and (2) what is the impact, if any, on costs of care for other patients in the practice (e.g., "spillover effects" such as cost shifting)? Answers to these kinds of questions are necessary to predict the effects of cost sharing on overall health care costs. A fixed-effects model of physician service use was applied to data on episodes of treatment for all patients in a private group practice. This shows that the introduction of cost sharing to some patients in a practice does, in fact, increase the treatment costs to other patients in the same practice who remain under stable insurance plans. The analysis demonstrates that when the economic effects of cost sharing on physician service use are analyzed for all patients within a physician practice, the findings are remarkably different from those of an analysis limited to those patients directly affected by cost sharing.

...

DISCUSSION

The results provide substantial empirical evidence consistent with the predictions of the physician-induced demand hypothesis. First, a positive effect on total fees per episode is found following the introduction of cost-cutting measures to the UMWA. This result is contrary to the predictions of traditional competitive market models. While the price of an episode of treatment for UMWA beneficiaries did decrease following the introduction of cost sharing, the price of episodes of treatment (in constant dollars) increased for other patients in the practice, holding constant the variables of age, sex, diagnosis, severity, complexity, new patient status, prior use, and physician characteristics.

The source of the price increase comes totally from physician initiated characteristics of treatment, that is, from increased ambulatory fees, increased inpatient fees, and increased length of stay in the hospital. When patient-initiated characteristics- the number of visits made during an episode of treatment -are analyzed, the effect of cost sharing becomes statistically insignificant; while visits per episode decreased for UMWA beneficiaries following cost sharing, visits per episode for other patients in the practice were unaffected by UMWA cost sharing.
 
Motives:

Profit

In most cases of using new drugs over old drugs, drugs where the formula has become free gain are very rarely large moneymakers. In these cases, when a fortune has been spent in research on a drug that is no more effective, in most cases, than an older drug, there's a significant drive to make it seem better. If it isn't actually better (once again, in most cases) that drive has to be done through marketing.

Ignorance

It's easy to give women pap tests. Check off the box. No check if box is actually a SANE box.

Cover my ass

Less than you'd think. Rarely are less-effective procedures performed because of CYA. Less COST effective long term over a large population? Yup. But doctors rarely cover cost effectiveness, in part because many people get icky about declaring that there's a financial value on human life.
 
More evidence that medical professionals (as a group) are excellent at gaming the system to maintain or increase their remuneration:
An argument is made against your first three examples and, instead of responding to those criticisms, you introduce yet another example. Are you just searching for confirmation of your view?

Edit:
Ivor, your 4th example is a report that is 45 pages long, of a study that was done in 1977, so I'm not sure I'm going to spend much time analysing it.
If refers to an unusual situation that occured when physicians faced a substantial loss of income as the result of contraints placed on a proportion of their patients (miners) who were suddenly required to pay part of the cost of their treatment. The sudden loss of income caused them to increase their fees to other patients, decrease the times between follow up visits, and increase the time in hospital.
 
Last edited:
Profit

In most cases of using new drugs over old drugs, drugs where the formula has become free gain are very rarely large moneymakers. In these cases, when a fortune has been spent in research on a drug that is no more effective, in most cases, than an older drug, there's a significant drive to make it seem better. If it isn't actually better (once again, in most cases) that drive has to be done through marketing.

Doctors are not pharmaceutical companies. What you say could certainly apply to the people who develop and distribute drugs, but it has nothing to do with the doctors who actually prescribe them. If anything it would be the exact opposite, since doctors could make much more money by prescribing cheap drugs with a significant mark-up.

Ignorance

It's easy to give women pap tests. Check off the box. No check if box is actually a SANE box.

This is likey true, but fails to take the context into consideration. For example, if a woman has moved to a different area, her medical notes may very likely not be available. In addition, the organisations in charge of screening are usually completely separate from hospitals and GPs, and it is likely to actually be illegal for them to see any medical notes due to data protection laws. This is certainly the case in the UK. Unless the woman in question specfically tells the screening centre that she has had a hysterectomy, they have no way of knowing about it.

Yes, it is technically ignorance, but it's hardly fair to put the blame on doctors. Or anyone else for that matter.

Cover my ass

Less than you'd think. Rarely are less-effective procedures performed because of CYA.

Well, there are two points here. Firstly, the main issue was not about less effective procedures, it was about uneccessary ones. And there will be a lot of those because of covering of asses. If you're not absolutely sure someone doesn't have a cervix, then you take a smear anyway, just in case. If there's even a very small chance an MRI will pick up something, you're likely to do it to avoid being sued if the patient turns out to have that something.

The second point is that less effective procedures may well be performed because of CYA. If you have a choice between a well established treatment and a new one that may be more effective but hasn't entered general use because it is so new, the older, less effective one is likely to be the most common choice. The ********* that occurs every time a new drugs turns out to have nasty side-effects, or is simply not as effective as advertised, is far worse than the occasional suing because the established treatment wasn't quite as effective as a newer may have been.
 
It has been shown that experts' recommendations are often based on their own experience, which is often very unreliable. And, although expert opinion may be the only useful consideration when there is no evidence base, it should not be relied upon when there is an evidence base.

BJ

Agreed. Medicine, where I was taught, was a mixture. Where evidence confirms clinical accuracy, that clinical information/technique is taught. Where evidence proves it useless, it is typically thrown to the back of the bus. Where there is no evidence (science based) we tend to go with expert consensus.

TAM:)
 
Motives:

Profit

In most cases of using new drugs over old drugs, drugs where the formula has become free gain are very rarely large moneymakers. In these cases, when a fortune has been spent in research on a drug that is no more effective, in most cases, than an older drug, there's a significant drive to make it seem better. If it isn't actually better (once again, in most cases) that drive has to be done through marketing.
Uh how does that make doctors money?

Ignorance

It's easy to give women pap tests. Check off the box. No check if box is actually a SANE box.
Partly. It is an issue of habit as well as the inability to find old records.

I see some with a massive headache. He says that he had a CAT scan done a day ago. He says it is "my doctor told me it was ok." I'm worried about a head bleed. I make tons of calls to get a copy of this scan but I can't get it.

Tell me what I should do?
Cover my ass

Less than you'd think. Rarely are less-effective procedures performed because of CYA. Less COST effective long term over a large population? Yup. But doctors rarely cover cost effectiveness, in part because many people get icky about declaring that there's a financial value on human life.
I do place a financial value in not getting sued for bad outcomes(just bad outcomes, not malpractice).
 
An argument is made against your first three examples and, instead of responding to those criticisms, you introduce yet another example. Are you just searching for confirmation of your view?

<snip>

Actually, I think the reason I generally provoke so much hostility when I bring up the issue of supplier induced demand with respect to provision of healthcare is that it threatens what most people would like to be true, but probably is not. i.e. people want to believe that the medical professionals they see when they or a loved one is ill do not use their superior knowledge to benefit themselves over patients and the rest of society, yet given the reasonable assumption medical professionals are rational, self-interested agents, this is exactly how we would expect them to behave, unless extra constraints or incentives are in place to modify their behaviour.

I can only assume the reason no country has ever managed to place reasonable constrains on and incentives for medical professionals' behaviour compared to other providers of public services is because of the profession being well-connected with the rich and powerful throughout history.

As with most things in life it's not what you know, but who you know, that counts.
 
The patient first, is suppose to be the motto. Nice to see what you think of us...as a group of course.

TAM:)
 
I can only assume the reason no country has ever managed to place reasonable constrains on and incentives for medical professionals' behaviour compared to other providers of public services is because of the profession being well-connected with the rich and powerful throughout history.

As with most things in life it's not what you know, but who you know, that counts.
Thanks for coming clean with your bias and ignorance about the history of medicine and healthcare.
 
The patient first, is suppose to be the motto. Nice to see what you think of us...as a group of course.

TAM:)
We should not pay attention to it. We shall absorb all in the end. Resistance is futile.
 
How much of this is

Cover my ass?

Profit driven?

Ignorance of current best practice?

In Canada the latter would predominate and there are programs to enhance physicians skills.
In my experience I think the last one also predominates in the US. As for covering one's ass, that's hard to judge but I can say the legislature in our state has no clue when they pass some legislation, they might as well be practicing without a license.

There is some profiteering but I don't think it predominates.
 
Of course, it has nothing to do with the fact hospitals and many medical professionals make more money from providing unecessary healthcare.

No, let's just assume those in the medical profession are not influenced by incentives.

Anybody want angioplasty and a stent fitting for their chest pain?
Your cynicism is unfounded, Ivor. There are of course some providers who pad their bills but it is not part of the culture of the vast majority of providers. Most health care providers are motivated to provide good care.

And what evidence do you have stents are overused?
 
Last edited:
yes and Caesar was as well (treated as a god, labeled by some as one), and that was what, 2500 years later? Ancient history, now we are stretching, are we not?
I do wish I was worshiped as a god but the nurses keep me in line.
 
Actually there is. Patient's with better insurance will tend to get more procedures compared to those with lousy insurance.

The definition of "unnecessary" is the contention.
Which is reasonable if you consider sometimes it is the provider trying to save the patient money. You sometimes have to compromise if you cannot afford all the care that you would benefit from.
 

Back
Top Bottom