Lack of Natural Scientific Ability

Back in March President Trump suggested he would have thrived in another profession, medical expert (1). Despite no training or experience, Trump boasted “I like this stuff. I really get it”. Citing a “great, super-genius uncle” who taught at MIT, Trump professed that it must run in the family genes. Trump went on to say “People are really surprised I understand this stuff … Maybe I have a natural ability.”

This was followed by a series of White House briefings where Trump and members of his White House Coronavirus Task Force spoke on the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump tried to dominate these conferences and repeatedly lied about the coronavirus pandemic and the country’s preparation for this once-in-a-generation crisis. Below is a partial list of 35 of the biggest lies about the COVID-19 pandemic he’s told as the nation endures a public-health and economic calamity are in Table 1 (2). 

Table 1. Partial list of Trump lies regarding the COVID-19 pandemic (2).

Date	Trump claim	Truth
2/7/20	The coronavirus would weaken “when we get into April, in the warmer weather—that has a very negative effect on that, and that type of a virus.”	Respiratory viruses can be seasonal, but the COVID-19 can be transmitted in ALL AREAS, including areas with hot and humid weather and is clearly not diminishing.
2/27/20	The outbreak would be temporary: “It’s going to disappear. One day it’s like a miracle—it will disappear.”	Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, warned days later that he was concerned that “as the next week or two or three go by, we’re going to see a lot more community-related cases.”
Multiple times	The claim: If the economic shutdown continues, deaths by suicide “definitely would be in far greater numbers than the numbers that we’re talking about” for COVID-19 deaths.	The number of people who died by suicide in the US in 2017 was roughly 47,000, nowhere near the COVID-19 deaths now at about 147,000 (3).
Multiple times	“Coronavirus numbers are looking MUCH better, going down almost everywhere,” and cases are “coming way down.”	Most states now have rising COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths (3).
7/2/20	The pandemic is “getting under control.”	Most states now have rising COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths (3). It is not under control.
7/4/20	“99%” of COVID-19 cases are “totally harmless.”	The evidence shows that the virus “can make you seriously ill” even if it doesn’t kill you
7/6/20	“We now have the lowest Fatality (Mortality) Rate in the World.”	The U.S. has neither the lowest mortality rate nor the lowest case-fatality rate (3).
3/4/20	“The Obama administration made a decision on [laboratory] testing that turned out to be very detrimental to what we’re doing.”	The Trump White House rolled back Food and Drug Administration regulations that limited the kind of laboratory tests states could run and how they could conduct them.
3/13/20	The Obama White House’s response to the H1N1 pandemic was “a full scale disaster, with thousands dying, and nothing meaningful done to fix the testing problem, until now.”	Barack Obama declared a public-health emergency two weeks after the first U.S. cases of H1N1 were reported, in California. Trump declared a national emergency more than seven weeks after the first domestic COVID-19 case was reported, in Washington State. While testing is a problem now, it wasn’t back in 2009. The challenge then was vaccine development: Production was delayed and the vaccine wasn’t distributed until the outbreak was already waning.
Multiple times	The Trump White House “inherited” a “broken,” “bad,” and “obsolete” test for the coronavirus.	The novel coronavirus did not exist in humans during the Obama administration.
Multiple times	The Obama administration left Trump “bare” and “empty” shelves of medical supplies in the national strategic stockpile.	The stockpile’s former director said in 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic, that it was well-equipped. The outbreak has since eaten away at its reserves.
5/10/20	Trump attacked “Joe Biden’s handling of the H1N1 Swine Flu.”	Biden was not responsible for the federal government’s response to the H1N1 outbreak.
3/6/20 & 5/11/20	“Anybody that needs a test, gets a test. We—they’re there. They have the tests. And the tests are beautiful” and “If somebody wants to be tested right now, they’ll be able to be tested.”	Trump made these two claims two months apart, but the truth is still the same: The U.S. does not have enough testing.
3/24 & 3/25/20	The United States has outpaced South Korea’s COVID-19 testing: “We’re going up proportionally very rapidly,” Trump said during a Fox News town hall.	When the president made this claim, testing in the U.S. was severely lagging behind that in South Korea. As of March 25, South Korea had conducted about five times as many tests as a proportion of its population relative to the United States.
5/11/20	America has “developed a testing capacity unmatched and unrivaled anywhere in the world, and it’s not even close.”	The United States is still not testing enough people and is lagging behind the testing and tracing capabilities that other countries have developed.
Multiple times	“Cases are going up in the U.S. because we are testing far more than any other country.”	COVID-19 cases are not rising because of “our big-number testing.” Outside the Northeast, the share of tests conducted that come back positive is increasing, with the sharpest spike happening in southern states. In some states, such as Arizona and Florida, the number of new cases being reported is outpacing any increase in the states’ testing ability. And as states set new daily case records and report increasing hospitalizations, all signs point to a worsening crisis.
3/11/20	The United States would suspend “all travel from Europe, except the United Kingdom, for the next 30 days.”	The travel restriction would not apply to U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents, or their families returning from Europe.
3/12/20	All U.S. citizens arriving from Europe would be subject to medical screening, COVID-19 testing, and quarantine if necessary. “If an American is coming back or anybody is coming back, we’re testing,” Trump said. “We have a tremendous testing setup where people coming in have to be tested … We’re not putting them on planes if it shows positive, but if they do come here, we’re quarantining.”	Testing was already severely limited in the United States at the time Trump made this claim. It was not true that all Americans returning to the country are being tested, nor that anyone is being forced to quarantine.
3/31/20	“We stopped all of Europe” with a travel ban. “We started with certain parts of Italy, and then all of Italy. Then we saw Spain. Then I said, ‘Stop Europe; let’s stop Europe. We have to stop them from coming here.’”	The travel ban applied to the Schengen Area, as well as the United Kingdom and Ireland, and not all of Europe as he claimed.
Multiple times	“Everybody thought I was wrong” about implementing restrictions on travelers from China, and “most people felt they should not close it down—that we shouldn’t close down to China.”	The travel ban was the “uniform” recommendation of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Multiple times	travel restrictions on China were a “ban” that closed up the “entire” United States and “kept China out.”	Nearly 40,000 people traveled from China to the United States from February 2, when Trump’s travel restrictions went into effect, to April 4.
3/17/20	I’ve always known this is a real—this is a pandemic. I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic … I’ve always viewed it as very serious.”	Trump has repeatedly downplayed the significance of COVID-19 as outbreaks began stateside. From calling criticism of his handling of the virus a “hoax,” to comparing the coronavirus to a common flu, to worrying about letting sick Americans off cruise ships because they would increase the number of confirmed cases, Trump has used his public statements to send mixed messages and sow doubt about the outbreak’s seriousness.
3/26/20	This kind of pandemic “was something nobody thought could happen … Nobody would have ever thought a thing like this could have happened.”	Experts both inside and outside the federal government sounded the alarm many times in the past decade about the potential for a devastating global pandemic.
3/2/20	Pharmaceutical companies are going “to have vaccines, I think, relatively soon.”	The president’s own experts told him during a White House meeting with pharmaceutical leaders earlier that same day that a vaccine could take a year to 18 months to develop.
3/19/20	Trump said the FDA had approved the antimalarial drug chloroquine to treat COVID-19. “Normally the FDA would take a long time to approve something like that, and it’s—it was approved very, very quickly and it’s now approved by prescription,” he said.	FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn quickly clarified that the drug still had to be tested in a clinical setting.
3/23/20	Trump suggested in a briefing on April 23 that his medical experts should research the use of powerful light and injected disinfectants to treat COVID-19.	Trump walked this statement back the next day, saying he was being “sarcastic”.
5/8/20	The coronavirus is “going to go away without a vaccine … and we’re not going to see it again, hopefully, after a period of time.”	Tony Fauci has said that until there is “a scientifically sound, safe, and effective vaccine” the pandemic will not be over.
Multiple times	Taking hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 is safe. “You’re not going to get sick or die,” Trump said on one occasion. “It doesn’t hurt people,” he commented on another.	Trump’s own FDA has warned against taking the antimalarial drug with or without the antibiotic azithromycin, which Trump has also promoted.
5/9/20	“One bad” study from the Department of Veterans Affairs that found no benefit among veterans who took hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 was run by “people that aren’t big Trump fans.” The study “was a Trump-enemy statement.”	There’s no evidence that the study was a political plot orchestrated by Trump opponents, and it reached similar conclusions as other observational reports. The VA study was led by independent researchers from the University of Virginia and the University of South Carolina with a grant from the National Institutes of Health.
3/20/20	Trump twice said during a task-force briefing that he had invoked the Defense Production Act (DPA), a Korean War–era law that enables the federal government to order private industry to produce certain items and materials for national use. He also said the federal government was already using its authority under the law: “We have a lot of people working very hard to do ventilators and various other things.”	Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Peter Gaynor told CNN on March 22 that the president has not actually used the DPA to order private companies to produce anything. Shortly after that, Trump backtracked, saying that he had not compelled private companies to take action. Then, on March 24, Gaynor told CNN that FEMA plans to use the DPA to allocate 60,000 test kits. Trump tweeted afterward that the DPA would not be used.
3/21/20	Automobile companies that have volunteered to manufacture medical equipment, such as ventilators, are “making them right now.”	Ford and General Motors, which Trump mentioned at a task-force briefing the same day, announced earlier in March that they had halted all factory production in North America and were likely months away from beginning production of ventilators.
3/24/20	Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York passed on an opportunity to purchase 16,000 ventilators at a low cost in 2015, Trump said during the Fox News town hall.	Trump seems to have gleaned this claim from a Gateway Pundit article. There is no evidence that Cuomo was offered the ventilators or turned any offer down.
3/29/20	Trump “didn’t say” that governors do not need all the medical equipment they are requesting from the federal government. And he “didn’t say” that governors should be more appreciative of the help.	Trump told Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Thursday, March 26, that “a lot of equipment’s being asked for that I don’t think they’ll need,” referring to requests from the governors of Michigan, New York, and Washington. He also said, during a Friday, March 27, task-force briefing, that he wanted state leaders “to be appreciative … We’ve done a great job.”
3/29 and 3/30/20	Hospitals are reporting an artificially inflated need for masks and equipment, items that might be “going out the back door,” Trump said on two separate days. He also said he was not talking about hoarding: “I think maybe it’s worse than hoarding.”	There is no evidence to show that hospitals are maliciously hoarding or inflating their need for masks and personal protective equipment when reporting shortages in supplies.
4/14/20	Asked about his past praise of China and its transparency, Trump said that he hadn’t “talk[ed] about China’s transparency.”	Trump lauded the country in tweets he sent in late January and early February. In one, he highlighted the Chinese government’s “transparency” about the coronavirus outbreak.
3/29/20	WHO ignored “credible reports” of the coronavirus’s spread in Wuhan, the Chinese city that first reported the new virus, including those published in The Lancet medical journal in December.	The Lancet said it did not publish such reports in December. Its first reports on the virus’s spread in Wuhan were published on January 24.

Trump eventually stopped the news briefings in face of their declining popularity and public trust and being outshone by Tony Fauci MD, director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. Fauci is best known as an expert virologist for his handling of the Acquired Immunodeficiency Disease Syndrome (AIDS). He has faithfully served his patients, the American people, through six presidential administrations, providing sound, science‐based guidance. However, he has been wrong. Two examples are not recommending masks early in the COVID-19 pandemic and stating that few COVID-19 patients were asymptomatic (4). However, both were based on the best available scientific evidence of the time which turned out to be wrong. In neither instance was Fauci’s honesty questioned and, in both instances, Fauci self-corrected those errors.

The strained relationship between the White House and Fauci has been apparent for months. Trump was visibly annoyed when Fauci spoke at news briefings (5). In April Trump retweeted a call to fire Fauci during early criticism of Trump’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic (6). He has attempted to silence Fauci’s inconvenient scientific voice from testifying before Congress and giving TV interviews (7). More recently, he has tried an old tactic of having aides and underlings attack opponents and then evaluating how it plays with the public. If it goes well Trump repeats it, but if it does not, he says the aide was acting on his own. The White House let their top economic advisor, Peter Navarro, attack Fauci in an USA Today op-ed (8). Last Sunday, White House scientific advisor Brett Girori MD tried to undermine Fauci last Sunday on Meet the Press saying Fauci only looks at the COVID-19 pandemic from “a very narrow public health point of view”; doesn’t “have the whole national interest in mind’; and repeated the White House opposition to Fauci’s call for states experiencing COVID-19 surges to pause their reopening processes (9).

The attacks against Fauci were apparently unsuccessful. Referring to the White House attacks, Fauci remained calm saying, “I cannot figure out in my wildest dreams why they would want to do that” (10). New polling from Quinnipiac University found that 65% of voters trust the information Fauci is providing about the coronavirus while only 30% trust the information provided by Trump (11). In the face of the polls favorable to Fauci, the White House is now distancing itself from Navarro saying he went rogue failing to obtain proper clearance for his op-ed (12).

In a closely related event, the Trump Administration has mandated that hospitals sidestep the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and send critical information about COVID-19 hospitalizations and equipment to a different federal database (13). From the start of the pandemic, the CDC has collected data on COVID-19 hospitalizations, availability of intensive care beds and personal protective equipment. The change sparked concerns that the administration was hobbling the ability of the nation's public health agency to gather and analyze crucial data in the midst of a pandemic. It further allows data to be manipulated, altered or spun for political purposes. The decision raises serious questions about the credibility, transparency, and availability of data needed by public health officials, researchers, and physician leaders to advance science-based and data-driven decision-making. The White House has lied enough to show they cannot be trusted with data needed for responses to the COVID-19 pandemic such as reopening.

The scientific data is what it is. It has no philosophy, no politics, and is often not what we want it to be. During this pandemic which is the most catastrophic public health disaster since the “Spanish Flu” of 1918, we need scientific leadership to ensure that the data is driving our responses and not being driven by a political agenda. Leaders like Tony Fauci are needed for this pandemic. Others who attempt to undermine Fauci for their own nefarious political purposes will hopefully be ignored by the public. Nonscientific wags who claim scientific abilities they do not have do not really get it. They will likely lead us towards a cataclysmic catastrophe that could be diminished with sensible decisions made on the basis of science rather than politics.

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Editor, SWJPCC

References

1. Nakamura D. ‘Maybe I have a natural ability’: Trump plays medical expert on coronavirus by second-guessing the professionals. Washington Post. March 6, 2020. Available at:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/maybe-i-have-a-natural-ability-trump-plays-medical-expert-on-coronavirus-by-second-guessing-the-professionals/2020/03/06/3ee0574c-5ffb-11ea-9055-5fa12981bbbf_story.html (accessed 7/17/20).
2. Paz C. All the president’s lies about the coronavirus. The Atlantic. July 13, 2020. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/07/trumps-lies-about-coronavirus/608647/ (accessed 7/17/20).
3. Coronavirus Resource Center. Johns Hopkins University. Available at: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/ (accessed 7/17/20).
4. Panetta G. Fauci says he doesn't regret telling Americans not to wear masks at the beginning of the pandemic. Business Insider. Jul 16, 2020. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-doesnt-regret-advising-against-masks-early-in-pandemic-2020-7 (accessed 7/17/20).
5. Lahut J. Trump is reportedly getting frustrated with Dr. Fauci's 'blunt approach' during White House press conferences. Business Insider. Mar 23, 2020. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-reportedly-growing-frustrated-with-dr-faucis-blunt-approach-2020-3 (accessed 7/17/20).
6. Brewster J. Trump retweets call to fire Fauci after he criticized U.S. response to virus. April 13, 2020. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/04/13/trump-retweets-call-to-fire-fauci-after-he-criticized-us-response-to-virus/#47860ca451d6 (accessed 7/17/20).
7. Pramuk J. White House blocks Fauci from testifying at House coronavirus hearing. CNBC. May 1, 2020. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/01/anthony-fauci-blocked-from-testifying-at-house-coronavirus-hearing.html (accessed 7/17/20).
8. Navarro P. Anthony Fauci has been wrong about everything I have interacted with him on. USA Today. July 14, 2020. Available at: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/todaysdebate/2020/07/14/anthony-fauci-wrong-with-me-peter-navarro-editorials-debates/5439374002/ (accessed 7/17/20).
9. Meet the Press. July 12, 2020. https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/adm-brett-grior-dr-fauci-is-not-100-percent-right-about-covid-19-response-87536197610 (accessed 7/17/20).
10. Nicholas P, Yong E. 1.        Fauci: ‘Bizarre’ White House Behavior Only Hurts the President. July 15, 2020. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/07/trump-fauci-coronavirus-pandemic-oppo/614224/ (accessed 7/17/20).
11. Stelter B. New poll reaffirms that most Americans don't trust the President, but they do trust Dr. Fauci. CNN Business. July 16, 2020. Available at: https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/15/media/poll-trump-fauci-reliable-sources/index.html (accessed 7/17/20).
12. Samuels B. White House distances itself from Navarro op-ed bashing Fauci. The Hill. 07/15/20. Available at: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/507406-white-house-distances-itself-from-navarro-op-ed-bashing-fauci (accessed 7/17/20).
13. Huang P, Simmons-Duffin S.  White House strips CDC of data collection role for COVID-19 hospitalizations. NPR. July 15, 2020. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/07/15/891351706/white-house-strips-cdc-of-data-collection-role-for-covid-19-hospitalizations (accessed 7/17/20).

Cite as: Robbins RA. Lack of natural scientific ability. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2020;21(1):15-22. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc044-20 PDF 

Medicare for All-Good Idea or Political Death?

Several Democratic presidential candidates have pushed the idea of “Medicare for All” and a “Medicare for All” bill has been introduced into the US house with over 100 sponsors. A recent Medpage Today editorial by Milton Packer asks whether this will benefit patients or physicians (1). Below are our views on “Medicare for All” with the caveat that we do not speak for the American Thoracic Society nor any of its chapters.

It has been repeatedly pointed out that medical care in the US costs too much. US health care spending grew 3.9 percent in 2017, reaching $3.5 trillion or $10,739 per person, and 17.9% of the gross domestic product (GDP) (2). This is more than any industrialized country. Furthermore, our expenditures continue to rise faster than most other comparable countries such as Japan, Germany, England, Australia and Canada (2).

Despite the high costs, the US does not provide access to healthcare for all of its citizens. In 2017, 8.8 percent of people, or 28.5 million, did not have health insurance at any point during the year (3). In contrast, other comparable industrialized countries provide at least some care for everyone.

Furthermore, our outcomes are worse. Infant mortality is higher than any similar country (4). US life expectancy is shorter at 78.6 years compared to just about any comparable industrialized company with Japan leading the way at 84.1 years. All the Western European countries (such as Germany, France, England, etc.), as well as Australia and Canada have a longer life expectancy than the US (range 81.8-83.7 years).

Our high infant mortality and lagging life expectancy was not always so. In 1980, the US had similar infant mortality and life expectancy when compared to other industrialized countries. Why did we lose ground over the last 40 years? Beginning in about 1980, there have been increasing business pressures on our healthcare system. In his editorial, Packer called our system "financialized" to an extreme (1). Hospitals, pharmaceutical and device companies, insurance companies, pharmacies and sadly,  even some physicians often price their products and services not according to what is fair or good for patients but to maximize profit. By incentivizing procedures that often do not benefit patients but benefit the businessmen’s’ pockets, these practices likely account for the high costs and for our worsening outcomes.

Packer points out that in the US, intermediaries (insurers and pharmacy benefit managers) exert considerable control of payment while unnecessarily adding to the administrative costs of healthcare. Congress has been pressured to forbid Medicare from negotiating prices with pharmaceutical companies benefitting only the drug manufacturers and those that benefit from the high drug prices. Consequently, administrative costs are four times higher and pharmaceuticals three times greater in the U.S. than in other countries.

If “Medicare for All” could reduce healthcare costs and improve outcomes, it might seem like a good idea. It has the potential for reducing administrative costs and assuming the power to negotiate drug prices was restored, pharmaceutical costs. However, it will be opposed by those who financially benefit from the present system including administrators, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, pharmacy benefit managers, insurance companies, etc. Furthermore, there is a libertarian segment of the population that opposes any Government interference in healthcare, even those that would strengthen the free market principles that so many libertarians tout. There are already TV adds opposing “Medicare for All.” It seems likely that any “Medicare for All” or any similar plan will meet with considerable political opposition. 

One solution might be to have both Government and non-Government plans. Assuming transparency in both services covered and costs, it leaves the choice in healthcare plans where it belongs-with those paying for the care. It also makes it much harder for those with financial or political interests to convincingly argue against a Government plan (although we are sure they will try). It will force insurance companies to reduce their prices and/or offer more coverage, which is not a bad thing for patients and ultimately, the healthcare system as a whole. However, it does impose a risk, i.e., that profit-driven insurance companies and those who benefit from the current infrastructure will be  replaced by bureaucrats who are primarily concerned with administrative procedure rather than patient care. Present day examples include the VA, Medicare and Medicaid systems. Close public and medical oversight of such a system would be needed.

Ideally, a healthcare system should ensure that citizens can access at least a basic level of health services without incurring financial hardship and with the goal of improving health outcomes. Such a system, would provide a middle path between the extremes of paying for nothing and paying for everything such as unwarranted chemotherapy, stem cell therapy, or unnecessary diagnostic procedures. Determining what services are covered, and how much of the cost is covered are not easy questions to answer, but promises to deliver better health for less money than our current system. Physicians, by dint of their training, and responsibility to uphold their profession and protect their patients, understand that healthcare is not a mere commodity. If we are to protect what little autonomy we have left, we need to be a part of the discussion which should not be driven solely by those in the insurance, the hospital and the pharmaceutical industries.

Richard A. Robbins, MD¹

Angela C. Wang, MD²

¹Phoenix Pulmonary and Critical Care Research and Education Foundation, Gilbert, AZ USA

²Scripps Clinic Torrey Pines, La Jolla, CA USA

References

1. Packer M. Medicare for All: Would Patients and Physicians Benefit or Lose? Medpage Today. July 10, 2019. Available at: https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/revolutionandrevelation/80926?xid=nl_mpt_blog2019-07-10&eun=g1127723d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Packer_071019&utm_term=NL_Gen_Int_Milton_Packer (accessed 7/10/19).
2. CMS. National Healthcare Expenditure Data. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/nationalhealthaccountshistorical.html (accessed 7/11/19).
3. Berchick ER, Hood E, Barnett JC. Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2017. September 12, 2018. United States Census Bureau Report Number P60-264. Available at: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-264.html (accessed 7/11/19).
4. Gonzales S,  Sawyer  B.  How does infant mortality in the U.S. compare to other countries? Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker. July 7, 2017. Available at: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/infant-mortality-u-s-compare-countries/#item-start (accessed 7/11/19).
5. Gonzales S, Ramirez M, Sawyer B.  How does U.S. life expectancy compare to other countries? Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker. April 4, 2019. Available at: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-life-expectancy-compare-countries/#item-start (accessed 7/11/19).

Cite as: Robbins RA, Wang AC. Medicare for all-good idea or political death? Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2019;19(1):18-20. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc051-19 PDF

Keep Your Politics Out of My Practice

“Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits. Fanatics will never learn that, though it be written in letters of gold across the sky.”

-Mark Twain

Politicians have repeatedly inserted themselves into exam rooms and under hospital gowns, telling doctors what they can and cannot discuss with patients; forcing providers to recite scripted medical advice they know to be factually inaccurate; and even instructing physicians to prioritize the financial interests of private companies over the health of their patients (1,2).

In 2011 Florida passed a sweeping law barring doctors from routinely asking patients whether they had guns in their homes, counseling them on common-sense firearm storage measures or recording any information about gun ownership in their medical files. Four states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, and Texas) have passed legislation relating to disclosure of information about exposure to chemicals used in the process of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”). Some new laws require physicians to discuss specific practices that may not be necessary or appropriate at the time of a specific encounter with a patient. For example, New York enacted legislation in 2010 that requires physicians and other health care practitioners to offer terminally ill patients “information and counseling regarding palliative care and end-of-life options appropriate to the patient, including . . . prognosis, risks and benefits of the various options; and the patient's legal rights to comprehensive pain and symptom management.” Still other laws would require physicians to provide — and patients to receive — diagnostic tests or medical interventions whose use is not supported by evidence, including tests or interventions that are invasive and required to be performed even without the patient's consent. In Virginia, a bill requiring women to undergo ultrasonography before having an abortion was passed despite objections from the American College of Physicians. Arizona required physicians to tell women that drug-induced abortions may be “reversible” a claim that is unsupported by scientific evidence. A growing number of states have instituted mandatory waiting periods for abortions when there is no apparent medical need.

Healthcare providers who do not observe with these laws could face fines, license revocation, and even jail time for failure to comply. Fortunately, many have been struck down by the courts. However, a new tact for some has been to allow objection to certain types of medical treatment such as abortions based on the healthcare provider’s religious or moral beliefs. These providers have a new defender in the Trump administration (3). The top civil rights official at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is creating the Division of Conscience and Religious Freedom to “protect” doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to take part in procedures like abortion or treat certain people because of moral or religious objections. "Never forget that religious freedom is a primary freedom, that it is a civil right that deserves enforcement and respect," said Roger Severino, an anti-abortion Catholic lawyer who directs HHS's Office for Civil Rights. Here in Arizona healthcare professionals are not required to provide services that conflict with their religious beliefs, including abortion, abortion-inducing medication, emergency contraception, end of life care, and collection of umbilical cord blood (4).

Two recent incidents in Arizona involving pharmacists have brought this law under scrutiny (5). Hilde Hall, a transgender woman in Arizona, was allegedly denied hormone prescriptions by a CVS pharmacist in Fountain Hills. She was unable to fill the prescription at that location and despite her doctor requesting it, the pharmacist refused to transfer the order. CVS apparently fired the pharmacist. This comes within weeks of the case of Nicole Arteaga, who was denied medication for a nonviable pregnancy by a Walgreens pharmacist in Peoria, Brian Hreniuc PharmD. The Arizona State Board of Pharmacy has agreed to review Ms. Arteaga’s complaint against Dr. Hreniuc.

The Arizona Republic put it well. “The person in the white coat behind the counter should be there to help. To answer questions and ensure that the patient understands what the medicine is, how to take it and is aware of possible side-effects. Not to humiliate, question or refuse to serve the client” (5).  Assuming the accounts in the Arizona Republic are accurate, both pharmacists committed several transgressions of the code of ethics of the American Pharmacists Association including a commitment to the patient’s welfare; protecting the dignity of the patient; serving the patient in a private and confidential manner; respecting the autonomy and dignity of each patient; promoting the right of self-determination; recognizing individual self-worth; and acknowledging that colleagues and other health professionals may differ in the beliefs and values they apply to the care of the patient (6).

Whether the Arizona State Board of Pharmacy will decide to enforce professional standards or uphold a politically motivated law is unclear. At a time when pharmacists seek to extend their scope of practice, the behavior of these two pharmacists make one question who they would serve if given more responsibility-the patient or themselves? Also disappointing has been the lack of condemnation from other pharmacists and pharmacy professional groups such as the Arizona Pharmacists Association. This lack of action makes expansion of the scope of practice questionable. We as healthcare providers are entitled to our politics just like anyone else but the line is crossed when you impose your politics on me or my patients.  

Richard A. Robbins, MD*

Editor, SWJPCC

References

1. Weinberger SE, Lawrence HC 3rd, Henley DE, Alden ER, Hoyt DB. Legislative interference with the patient-physician relationship. N Engl J Med. 2012 Oct 18;367(16):1557-9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Rampell C. Politicians are invading our medical exam rooms. Washington Post. October 19, 2015. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/politicians-playing-doctor/2015/10/19/7b1af280-769e-11e5-bc80-9091021aeb69_story.html?utm_term=.ae6df6d65643 (accessed 7/22/18).
3. Kodjak A. Trump admin will protect health workers who refuse services on religious grounds. NPR. January 18, 2018. Available at: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/01/18/578811426/trump-will-protect-health-workers-who-reject-patients-on-religious-grounds (accessed 7/22/18).
4. Center for Arizona Policy. Arizona religious freedom laws. January 2014. Available at: http://www.azpolicypages.com/religious-liberty/arizona-religious-liberty-laws/ (accessed 7/22/18).
5. Price TF. CVS pharmacist who refused transgender patient's prescription abused Arizona law. Arizona Republic. July 20, 2018. Available at: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2018/07/20/hilde-hall-transgender-prescription-denied-cvs-pharmacy/809450002/ (accessed 7/22/18).
6. American Pharmacists Association. Code of Ethics. October 27, 1994. Available at: https://www.pharmacist.com/code-ethics (accessed 7/22/18).

Cite as: Robbins RA. Keep your politics out of my practice. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2018;17(1):42-4. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc096-18 PDF 

*The views expressed are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of the American Thoracic Society or its affiliates.

What Does Shulkin’s Firing Mean for the VA?

David Shulkin MD, Secretary for Veterans Affairs (VA), was finally fired by President Donald Trump ending long speculation (1). Trump nominated his personal physician, Ronny Jackson MD, to fill Shulkin’s post. The day after his firing, Shulkin criticized his firing in a NY Times op-ed claiming pro-privatization factions within the Trump administration led to his ouster (2). “They saw me as an obstacle to privatization who had to be removed,” Dr. Shulkin wrote. “That is because I am convinced that privatization is a political issue aimed at rewarding select people and companies with profits, even if it undermines care for veterans.”

Former Secretary Shulkin’s tenure at the VA has had several controversies. First, as undersecretary of Veterans Healthcare and later as secretary money appropriated to the VA to obtain private care under the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Acts of 2014 and the VA Choice and Quality Employment Act of 2017 appears to have been largely squandered on administrative salaries and expenses rather than hiring healthcare providers to shorten VA wait times (3). Second, Shulkin took a trip with his wife to Europe eventually ending up at Wimbledon to watch tennis (4). The purpose of his trip was ostensibly to attend a London Summit with senior officials from the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to discuss topical issues related to veterans. Although the summit occurred over 2 1/2 days, Shulkin and his wife traveled for 11 days at the taxpayer expense including a side trip to Denmark.

“The private sector, already struggling to provide adequate access to care in many communities, is ill-prepared to handle the number and complexity of patients that would come from closing or downsizing V.A. hospitals and clinics, particularly when it involves the mental health needs of people scarred by the horrors of war,” Dr. Shulkin wrote (2). “Working with community providers to adequately ensure that veterans’ needs are met is a good practice. But privatization leading to the dismantling of the department’s extensive health care system is a terrible idea.” Going on Shulkin states that, “Unfortunately, the department [VA] has become entangled in a brutal power struggle, with some political appointees choosing to promote their agendas instead of what’s best for veterans … These individuals, who seek to privatize veteran health care as an alternative to government-run VA care, unfortunately fail to engage in realistic plans regarding who will care for the more than 9 million veterans who rely on the department for life-sustaining care.”

However, the VA for many years has engaged in a relentless expansion of administration at the expense of healthcare. In the absence of sufficient oversight, Shulkin and VA Central Office did little to curb this trend (3).

Assuming he is confirmed, what will Ronny Jackson, Shulkin’s replacement, do? It seems likely that he will do exactly what Shulkin alleges and Trump apparently wants, i.e., privatize VA healthcare. Whether Jackson will be able to bend the large VA bureaucracy towards privatization is another matter given his lack of healthcare administrative experience. Shulkin may also be right that privatization may only reward select people and companies with profits rather than improving veterans’ care. Regardless, healthcare is more expensive than not delivering healthcare, so the price will probably rise. Time will tell, but something needs to be done. To paraphrase former VA undersecretary Ken Kizer, it is time for another “Prescription for Change” at the VA. 

Richard A. Robbins, MD*

Editor, SWJPCC

References

1. Rein L, Rucker P, Wax-Thibodeaux E, Dawsey J.  Trump taps his doctor to replace Shulkin at VA, choosing personal chemistry over traditional qualifications. Washington Post. March 29, 2018. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-ousts-veterans-affairs-chief-david-shulkin-in-administrations-latest-shake-up/2018/03/28/3c1da57e-2794-11e8-b79d-f3d931db7f68_story.html?utm_term=.7bcfe44b4ff6 (accessed 3-30-18).
2. Shulkin DA. Privatizing the V.A. will hurt veterans. NY Times. March 28, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/28/opinion/shulkin-veterans-affairs-privatization.html (accessed 3-30-18).
3. US Government Accountability Office. Better data and evaluation could help improve physician staffing, recruitment, and retention strategies. GAO-18-124. October 19, 2017. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-124 (accessed 3-30-18).
4. VA Office of Inspector General. Administrative investigation: VA secretary and delegation travel to Europe. Report No. 17-05909-106. February 14, 2018. Available at: https://www.va.gov/oig/pubs/VAOIG-17-05909-106.pdf (accessed 3-30-18).

*Dr. Robbins has received compensation for providing healthcare to veterans under the VA Choice Act.

Cite as: Robbins RA. What does Shulkin's firing mean for the VA? Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2018;16(3):172-3. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc052-18 PDF 

Guns, Suicide, COPD and Sleep

Within the past year two tragic events, the shootings in Las Vegas and Florida have renewed the debate about guns. The politics and the money that fuels the political debate have sharply divided politicians. As tragic as these mass shootings are, deaths by suicide far outnumber the loss of live in these shootings. In 2014 suicide was the tenth most common cause of death with 42,826 lives lost (1). Half of the suicides were by firearm (21,386).

The medical profession has traditionally been reluctant to speak about politically sensitive issues such as abortion, sexuality, and guns. However, beginning early in this millennium some medical societies such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the US Preventative Services Task Force and even the Department of Veterans Affairs were suggesting physicians ask patients about gun behavior, but a few patients complained (2-5). There were some anecdotal reports of patients feeling “pressured” to answer questions about guns (5). One grumbled that it was invasion of privacy. The National Rifle Association also viewed the medical community’s gun-related questions as discriminatory and a form of harassment. In 2011, the Republican-controlled Florida legislature, with the support of the then and still state’s Republican governor, Rick Scott, passed restrictions aimed at limiting physician inquiries about gun ownership and gun habits. Under the law, doctors could lose their licenses or risk large fines for asking patients or their families about gun ownership and gun habits. Fortunately, this law was struck down by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (5). The Court ruled in 10-1 decision that the law violated the First Amendment rights of doctors and did nothing to infringe on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Eight health professional organizations and the American Bar Association have released a call for action to reduce firearm-related injury and death in the United States (6). Specific recommendations include the following:

• Criminal background checks should be a universal requirement for all gun purchases or transfers of ownership.
• Opposition to state and federal mandates interfering with physician free speech and the patient–physician relationship, such as laws preventing physicians from discussing a patient's gun ownership.
• All persons who have a mental or substance use disorder should have access to mental health care, as these conditions can play a significant role in firearm-related suicide.
• Recognition that blanket reporting laws requiring healthcare providers to report patients who show signs of potentially causing serious harm to themselves or others may stigmatize persons with mental or substance use disorders and create barriers to treatment. The statement urges that such laws protect confidentiality, do not deter patients from seeking treatment, and allow restoration of firearm purchase or possession in a way that balances the patient's rights with public safety.
• There should be restrictions for civilian use on the manufacture and sale of large-capacity magazines and military-style assault weapons, as private ownership of these represents a grave danger to the public.

Our national professional societies including the American Thoracic Society, the American College of Chest Physicians and the Society of Critical Care Medicine have all endorsed this call for action to gun violence (7).

Editors of the Annals of Internal Medicine have recently urged physicians to sign a formal pledge committing to having conversations with their patients about firearms (8). The Annals campaign began in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting and gained momentum after the February 14 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. So far nearly 1000 physicians have signed the pledge (9).

People who commit firearm violence against themselves or others often have notable risk factors that bring them into contact with physicians. We in the pulmonary, critical care and sleep communities are positioned to prevent some of these deaths. Patients with chronic diseases including COPD and sleep deprivation are known to be at higher risks for suicide (10,11). By inquiring about guns during these patients’ clinic visits, we may be able to identify potential problems and prevent some deaths.

It is ironic, but hardly surprising, that Florida, a state known for a series of gun-rights laws and its “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law (5), is the site of the latest mass shooting. The shooter, Nikolas Cruz, by all descriptions could have readily been recognized as a potential threat. Perhaps if he had been identified and an intervention performed before the Florida law banning physicians from discussing guns when the he was 12, a tragedy could have been avoided. As Florida Sen. Marco Rubio recently found out, the times may be changing (12). Politicians should keep their politics out of the clinic, hospital and physician-patient relationship. Those who do not, and especially those who by their actions put our patients in peril, do so at their own political risk.

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Editor, SWJPCC

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Suicide and self-inflicted injury. March 17, 2017. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm (accessed 3/2/18).
2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Gun violence prevention. Available at: https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/federal-advocacy/pages/aapfederalgunviolencepreventionrecommendationstowhitehouse.aspx (accessed 3/2/18).
3. United States Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services. Available at: https://www.ataamerica.com/arc1/users/pdfforms/Guide%20to%20Clinical%20Preventive%20Services.pdf (accessed 3/2/18).
4. Department of Veterans Affairs. Firearms and dementia. August 2017. Available at: https://www.va.gov/vhapublications/ViewPublication.asp?pub_ID=2731 (accessed 3/2/18).
5. Alvarez L. Florida doctors may discuss guns with patients, court rules. NY Times. February 16, 2017. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/florida-doctors-discuss-guns-with-patients-court.html (accessed 3/2/18).
6. Weinberger SE, Hoyt DB, Lawrence HC 3rd, et al. Firearm-related injury and death in the United States: a call to action from 8 health professional organizations and the American Bar Association. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Apr 7;162(7):513-6. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. American College of Physicians. More than two dozen organizations join call by internists and others for policies to reduce firearm injuries and deaths in U.S. ACP Newsroom. May 1, 2015. Available at: https://www.acponline.org/acp-newsroom/more-than-two-dozen-organizations-join-call-by-internists-and-others-for-policies-to-reduce-firearm (accessed 3/2/18).
8. Wintemute GJ. What you can do to stop firearm violence. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Dec 19;167(12):886-7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Frellick M. More than 1000 doctors pledge to talk to patients about guns. Medscape. March 1, 2018. Available at: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/893307?nlid=121033_4502&src=wnl_dne_180302_mscpedit&uac=9273DT&impID=1572032&faf=1 (accessed 3/2/18).
10. Goodwin RD. Is COPD associated with suicide behavior? J Psychiatr Res. 2011 Sep;45(9):1269-71. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Sleep Disorders and Sleep Deprivation: An Unmet Public Health Problem. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Sleep Medicine and Research; Colten HR, Altevogt BM, editors. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2006. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Associated Press. Sen. Marco Rubio changes stance on high-capacity magazines after Florida school shooting. Time. February 22, 2018. Available at: http://time.com/5171653/marco-rubio-large-capacity-magazine-parkland-shooting/ (accessed 3/2/18).

Cite as: Robbins RA. Guns, suicide, COPD and sleep. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2018;16(3):138-40. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc039-18 PDF

Seven Words You Can Never Say at HHS

The recent announcement of the seven words you can never say at Health & Human Services (HHS) reminded me of the late George Carlin’s routine, “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television” (1). Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting last Thursday, December 14, with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing (2). The forbidden words are "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "transgender," "fetus," "evidence-based" and "science-based." In some instances, the analysts were given alternative phrases. Instead of “science-based” or “evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,” the person said. In other cases, no replacement words were immediately offered.

This is the latest attempt by government departments to distort fact. As an example, The New York Department of Education tried a similar tactic in 2012 (3). Among the words were dinosaur, birthday, and Halloween. Some of the reasons given were that dinosaurs suggest evolution which creationists might not like; Halloween was targeted because it suggests paganism; and birthday because it isn’t celebrated by Jehovah’s Witnesses; The Bush administration waged a similar war on climate change (4). That war has been extended by the Trump Administration as part of their war on any science that the Trump administration does not like (5). Science that does not fit Trump’s agenda or ideology is insulted or called “fake news”. Climate change is fact and not a hoax dreamed up the Chinese as Trump has claimed (6).

Mr. Carlin is not alive to make fun of the latest war on free speech but perhaps others will take up Carlin’s calling. Seven words they might suggest be banned include stupid, moron, fool, clown, weird, dumb and incompetent-all frequently used by President Trump on Twitter (7). The CDC is a scientific organization. Appointing unqualified politicians to head scientific organizations to carry out a political agenda is like mixing oil and water. No matter how times you say it, the water will not float on top of the oil. Science relies on a precise vocabulary and is not Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, or right or left. In my view, those that banned these words made an indirect attack on fact and should be “ashamed” (7).

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Editor, SWJPCC

References

1. Carlin G. 7 words you can never say on television. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyBH5oNQOS0 (accessed 12/18/17).
2. Sun LH, Eilperin J. Words banned at multiple HHS agencies include ‘diversity’ and ‘vulnerable’. Washington Post. December 16, 2017. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/words-banned-at-multiple-hhs-agencies-include-diversity-and-vulnerable/2017/12/16/9fa09250-e29d-11e7-8679-a9728984779c_story.html?utm_term=.c983e2f2af81 (accessed 12/18/17).
3. CBS News New York. War on words: NYC dept. of education wants 50 ‘forbidden’ words banned from standardized tests. March 26, 2012. Available at: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/war-on-words-nyc-dept-of-education-wants-50-forbidden-words-removed-from-standardized-tests/ (accessed 12/18/17).
4. Union of Concerned Scientists. Scientific integrity in policy making. September, 2005. Available at: https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/reports-scientific-integrity.html#.Wjf0TFWnGUk (accessed 12/18/17).
5. Editorial Board. President Trump’s war on science. New York Times. September 9, 2017. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/09/opinion/sunday/trump-epa-pruitt-science.html (12/18/17).
6. Marcin T. What has Trump said about global warming? Eight quotes on climate change as he announces Paris agreement decision. Newsweek. June 1, 2017. Available at: http://www.newsweek.com/what-has-trump-said-about-global-warming-quotes-climate-change-paris-agreement-618898 (accessed 12/18/17).
7. Lee JC, Quealy K. The 394 people, places and things Donald Trump has insulted on twitter: a complete list. New York Times. November 17, 2017. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html (accessed 12/18/17).

Cite as: Robbins RA. Seven words you can never say at HHS. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2017;15(6):294-5. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc154-17 PDF 

Equitable Peer Review and the National Practitioner Data Bank

The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently reported that Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) did not report most physicians whose clinical care was found to be, or suspected of being, substandard to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) or to state licensing boards (1). The GAO examined 5 VAMCs and found required reviews of 148 providers’ clinical care after concerns were raised from October 2013 through March 2017. Of the 148, 5 were subjected to adverse privileging actions and 4 resigned or retired while under review but before adverse actions were taken. Only 1 of these 9 was reported to the NPDB and none was reported to his or her state medical board.

In response to GAO's report and in testimony to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, VA officials said the agency was taking three steps to improve reporting of providers who don't meet required standards:

1. Reporting more clinical occupations to the NPDB;
2. Improving the timeliness of reporting;
3. Enhancing oversight to ensure that no settlement agreements waive the VA's ability to report to NPDB and state licensing boards (2).

What is lacking in the report is determination if substandard actually occurred and how it was determined. The VA has 3 ways of identifying substandard care (1).

1. Tort claims (the VA equivalent of a medical malpractice lawsuit);
2. Complaints or incident reports;
3. Peer review.

Each has major problems of accuracy and fairness at the VA.

The majority of US physicians have been sued (3). The minority of suits are associated with malpractice and malpractice has no apparent association with the outcome of the litigation (4). Over 90% of medical malpractice cases are settled out of court (5). A common misconception is that settling a case before trial means a large financial settlement. However, 90% of the 90% or 82% of all claims, close with no payment (5). However, the VA uses US District Attorney to defend malpractice claims (6). In many instances, the US District Attorney’s office settles the case without determining if there is malpractice. The VA then submits the offending physician(s) name to the NPDB or state boards whether malpractice has been shown or not.

Complaints or incident reports are common in many hospitals, and many, if not most, have little merit (7). However, the weight given to a complaint should be viewed differently depending on the source. When colleagues raise concern about a physician’s care this is more credible than a patient complaining about not receiving their narcotics to a patient advocate. In the GAO report it is unclear if this was a source the of possible substandard care.

Lastly, there is peer review. There are several problems with this process in the VA. The VA selects the “peers”. In many instances the reviewers are un- or under-qualified to review the case (6). Furthermore, the selected reviewers may be conflicted clouding a balanced and fair determination if the physician’s care met the standard of care. There are multiple instances of this at the VA, of which a couple have been cited in the SWJPCC (6).

No surprisingly, a bureaucracy in the federal government has suggested a bureaucratic solution to a nonexistent problem. The goal should not be for more bureaucratic reporting, but a system for determining if a physician’s care has met the standard of care. The VA has shown it is incapable of making this determination fairly and accurately. What is needed is an outside review separated from VA influence and politics. If malpractice is still questioned after an initial VA review, the medical schools or private practioners could provide a source of physician peer review. The case could be presented to a panel of non-VA physician peers chosen in an equitable ratio by the VA and the accused practitioner. In the absence of a more equitable review process, the VA will only succeed in driving away the quality practitioners the veterans need.

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Editor, SWJPCC

References

1. General Accounting Office. VA health care: improved policies and oversight needed for reviewing and reporting providers for quality and safety concerns. Report to the chairman, committee on veterans’ affairs, House of Representatives. GAO-18-63 (Washington, D.C.: November, 2017). Available at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/688378.pdf (accessed 12/6/17).
2. Terry K. VA medical centers fail to report substandard doctors, GAO says. Medscape. December 5, 2017. Available at: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/889600?nlid=119420_4502&src=wnl_dne_171206_mscpedit&uac=9273DT&impID=1501593&faf=1 (accessed 12/6/17).
3. Matray M. Medscape malpractice report 2017 finds the majority of physicians sued. Medical Liability Monitor. November 15, 2017. Available at: http://medicalliabilitymonitor.com/news/2017/11/medscape-malpractice-report-2017-finds-the-majority-of-physicians-sued/ (accessed 12/6/17).
4. Brennan TA, Sox CM, Burstin HR. Relation between negligent adverse events and the outcomes of medical-malpractice litigation. N Engl J Med. 1996 Dec 26;335(26):1963-7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Chesanow N. Malpractice: when to settle a suit and when to fight. Medscape. September 25, 2013. Available at: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/811323_3 (accessed 12/6/17).
6. Pham JC, Girard T, Pronovost PJ. What to do with healthcare incident reporting systems. J Public Health Res. 2013 Dec 1;2(3):e27. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Robbins RA. Profiles in medical courage: Thomas Kummet and the courage to fight bureaucracy. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2013;6(1):29-35.

Cite as: Robbins RA. Equitable peer review and the national practitioner data bank. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2017;15(6):271-3. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc152-17 PDF

Saving Lives or Saving Dollars: The Trump Administration Rescinds Plans to Require Sleep Apnea Testing in Commercial Transportation Operators

In another move favoring business interests and against the common good, the Trump administration’s Department of Transportation announced recently that they are rescinding plans to require testing for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in train and commercial motor vehicle operators (1). As exemplified by its withdrawal from the Paris climate accords, this decision is another example of how the current administration disregards scientific findings and present-day events in establishing policy that will be detrimental to Americans.

Let us step back for a moment and briefly review the evidence that the Trump administration has ignored.

• It is well established that obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) can result in daytime sleepiness (2) and that sleepiness is detrimental to safe operation of a train or motor vehicle.
• Many studies have established that persons with OSA have an increased risk of motor vehicle crashes (3).
• Studies in commercial truck drivers have observed that this population has a high prevalence of OSA (4).
• It is estimated that OSA costs the American economy $150 billion annually (5).
• There now are relatively easy and inexpensive protocols to screen high risk individuals for OSA (4).
• Obstructive sleep apnea is a treatable condition, and treatment mitigates OSA impairment in sleepiness and reduces crash risk (6,7). In contrast, non-compliance with treatment is associated with a five-fold increase in crash risk (6).
• The costs of diagnosis and treatment are much lower than the costs that ensue when OSA persists untreated (5). For example, significant healthcare savings result from successful treatment of truck drivers (8).
• Failure to recognize and treat OSA has resulted in several high-profile transportation accidents. The following are some recent incidents:
  • September 2016: A commuter rail train slammed into the station at Hoboken, NJ killing a female bystander and leaving a child without a mother. The engineer had undiagnosed severe OSA (9).
  • December 2013: A Metro North commuter rail engineer fell asleep and his train sped around a curve resulting in a crash that killed 4 and injured 70 (10). The National Transportation Safety Board determined that undiagnosed severe OSA was the probable cause of the accident. The lack of a policy which required sleep disorder screening was further determined to be a contributing factor (11).
  • September 2013: A Greyhound bus overturned on Interstate 70 because the driver fell asleep resulting in multiple injuries. The driver was later found to have untreated OSA (12).
  • June 2009: A tractor-trailer traveling at a high speed did not see stopped cars ahead on Interstate 44 resulting in a crash that killed 10 and injured 6. It was later determined that the truck driver had mild OSA contributing to fatigue (13).

Despite the weight of the aforementioned evidence, the current administration has chosen to ignore it in favor of letting private industry regulate itself implying the current regulations are sufficient. As illustrated by the incidents cited above, recent events have proven them wrong. As Sir Winston Churchill once said “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. Continuing with the current policy will inevitably result in further preventable disasters and more loss of life.

What can be done? At the federal level, one should consider advocating to your own congressional representatives for reconsideration of this poorly considered policy. On a personal level, federal policy is ultimately guided by the “ballot box”, which is something to consider for the next election. Finally, be aware that the next time you are driving down the interstate, the truck or bus driver approaching you from behind may have untreated OSA!

Stuart F. Quan, M.D.^1,2, Laura K. Barger, Ph.D.¹, Matthew D. Weaver, Ph.D.¹, and Charles A. Czeisler, Ph.D., M.D.¹

¹Division of Sleep and Circadian Disorders

Brigham and Women’s Hospital

Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA USA

²Asthma and Airway Disease Research Center

University of Arizona College of Medicine

Tucson, AZ USA

References

1. Federal Register. Evaluation of safety sensitive personnel for moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea. Last updated: 2017. Available at: https://federalregister.gov/d/2017-16451 (Accessed: August 10, 2017)
2. Committee on Sleep Medicine and Research Board on Health Sciences Policy. Sleep disorders and Sleep Deprivation--An Unmet Public Health Problem. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2006; 404.
3. Tregear S, Reston J, Schoelles K, Phillips B.Obstructive sleep apnea and risk of motor vehicle crash: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Sleep Med. 2009 Dec 15;5(6):573-81. [PubMed]
4. Kales SN, Straubel MG.Obstructive sleep apnea in North American commercial drivers. Ind Health. 2014;52(1):13-24. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Anonymous. Hidden health crisis costing America billions. Underdiagnosing and undertreating obstructive sleep apnea draining healthcare system. Last updated: 2016. Available at: http://www.aasmnet.org/sleep-apnea-economic-impact.aspx (Accessed: August 15, 2017)
6. Burks SV, Anderson JE, Bombyk M, et al. Nonadherence with employer-mandated sleep apnea treatment and increased risk of serious truck crashes. Sleep. 2016 May 1;39(5):967-75. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Tregear S, Reston J, Schoelles K, Phillips B.Continuous positive airway pressure reduces risk of motor vehicle crash among drivers with obstructive sleep apnea: systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep. 2010 Oct;33(10):1373-80. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Hoffman B, Wingenbach DD, Kagey AN, Schaneman JL, Kasper D. The long-term health plan and disability cost benefit of obstructive sleep apnea treatment in a commercial motor vehicle driver population. J Occup Environ Med. 2010 May;52(5):473-7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Anonymous Hoboken train crash investigation hampered by heavy damage. CBS News. 2016; Available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hoboken-train-crash-investigation-hampered-heavy-damage/ (Accessed: August 15, 2017)
10. Anonymous. December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment. Last updated: 2017. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2013_Spuyten_Duyvil_derailment (Accessed: August 10 , 2017)
11. National Transportation Safety Board. ​Metro-North Railroad Derailment. Last updated: 2014. Available at: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/RAB1412.aspx (Accessed: August 15, 2017)
12. Lee D.  Sleep Test Leads to $6M Greyhound Settlement. Last updated: 2016. Available at: http://oldarchives.courthousenews.com/2016/03/09/sleep-test-leads-to-6m-greyhound-settlement.htm (Accessed: March 9, 2017)
13. National Transportation Safety Board. Highway Accident Report: Truck‐Tractor Semitrailer Rear‐End Collision Into Passenger Vehicles on Interstate 44 Near Miami, Oklahoma June 26, 2009. Last updated: 2010. Available at: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1002.pdf (Accessed: August 10, 2017)

Cite as: Quan SF, Barger LK, Weaver MD, Czeisler CA. Saving lives or saving dollars: The Trump administration rescinds plans to require sleep apnea testing in commercial transportation operators. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2017;15:84-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc102-17 PDF 

Disclosures 

Editor's note: In 2016 Dr. Quan authored an editorial titled "Screening for Obstructive Sleep Apnea in the Transportation Industry—The Time is Now" in SWJPCC. The editorial encouraged screeening of transportation workers for sleep apnea.

IOM Releases Report on Graduate Medical Education

On July 29 the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report on graduate medical education (GME) (1). This is the residency training that doctors complete after finishing medical school. This training is funded by about $15 billion annually from the Federal government with most of the monies coming from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The report calls for an end to providing the money directly to the teaching hospitals and to dramatically alter the way the funds are paid. Instead payments would be made to community clinics phased in over about 10 years. To administer the program, the report recommends the formation of two committees: 1. A GME Policy Council in the Office of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health; and 2. A GME Center within the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to manage the operational aspects of GME CMS funding. The later committee would administer two funds: 1. A GME Operational Fund to distribute ongoing support for residency training positions that are currently approved and funded; and 2. A GME Transformation Fund to finance initiatives to develop and evaluate innovative GME programs, to determine and validate appropriate GME performance measures, to pilot alternative GME payment methods, and to award new Medicare-funded GME training positions in priority disciplines and geographic areas.

If adopted, the plan would end decades of attempts by CMS to coerce medical school graduates into primary care, especially in rural, underserved areas. By controlling funding for GME training, CMS would be able to dictate how physician training. Negative reaction was expected and swift from the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association and the American Council on Graduate Medical Education, whose members would lose CMS money (2-4). Also expected, the proposal was supported by the American Academy of Family Physicians whose members who would gain under the proposal (5).

The IOM committee has a point. Despite a growing public investment in GME, there are persistent problems with uneven geographic distribution of physicians, too many specialists, not enough primary care providers, and a lack of cultural diversity in the physician workforce. Furthermore, according to the report "a variety of surveys indicate that recently trained physicians in some specialties cannot perform simple procedures often required in office-based practice.”

However, can a committee formed by CMS be expected to improve the health of America? Based on the composition of the committee and their past performance we think not. First, the committee was co-chaired by Don Berwick who was head of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), CMS Administrator and presently a candidate for Massachusetts governor (6). During Berwick's tenure, the IHI proposed a number of non- or weakly evidence-based metrics. Many of these have been found to make no impact on patient-centered outcomes such as mortality, length of stay, readmission rates, morbidity, etc. (7). An example was the 18 month 100,000 Lives Campaign which according to Berwick prevented 122,300 avoidable deaths. However, the methodology, incomplete data and sloppy estimation of the number of deaths makes Berwick's claim dubious. Furthermore, when the campaign was expanded to the 5,000,000 Lives Campaign the "results" could not be reproduced. Also during Berwick's tenure, IHI prematurely championed tight control of blood sugar in the ICU, an intervention which resulted in a 14% increase in ICU mortality when properly studied (8). Undaunted, Berwick put many of these same meaningless metrics in place when he became administrator of CMS. One of these metrics, readmission rates, has been associated with a higher mortality (9). Now Berwick is running for Massachusetts governor. One wonders how politics might have affected the report.

Other members of the committee include the committee co-chair, Gail Wilensky, who was administrator of HCFA (the precursor of CMS), nurses, physician assistants, economists, a representative from industry and a number of academics. Missing were members of the large community of practicing physicians. It seems the IOM committee was assembled to produce a political rather than an evidence-based answer of how to solve patient care disparities. To paraphrase a well-known quote, the first casualty of politics is usually the truth. It seems likely that the proposed GME Center within CMS would have a similar composition to Berwick's present IOM committee and would likely offer political rhetoric rather than meaningful reform to GME. Similarly to those championed by Berwick at IHI and later CMS, we suspect that a series of meaningless metrics would be required that would do nothing other than add a paper burden to a medical system already drowning in paperwork. By removing local control, CMS will likely ignore local strengths. For example, the University of Colorado has an extremely strong pulmonary and critical care division. Although America needs this physician expertise, especially critical care, it seems likely that CMS might move these residency slots to family practice or general medicine. We believe that local control with appropriate incentives, is more likely to solve these problems than a centralized bureaucracy in Washington.

Lastly, a word about the report's claim graduates lack the skills to perform basic procedures. Our observations are similar and we are inclined to accept the claim. However, we point out that it was decisions of committees such as those proposed that required attending physicians to perform procedures in order to be reimbursed and that residents have fewer opportunities to perform procedures due to work hour restrictions. The committee's implication that somehow physician trainers are to blame seems quite disingenuous. Not identified in the report but crucial to physician development is developing skills to critically evaluate medical literature, rather than blindly follow the guidelines proposed by CMS, IHI or others of a similar ilk. 

The proposals in the IOM report are a bad idea from a committee whose head has been rife with bad ideas. The committee's report is not the "New Flexner Report" but will be the coffin nail in the death of quality, caring physicians if adopted.

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Clement U. Singarajah, MD

Phoenix Pulmonary and Critical Care Research and Education Foundation

Gilbert, AZ

References

1. Institute of Medicine. Graduate medical education that meets the nation's health needs. July 29, 2014. Available at: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2014/Graduate-Medical-Education-That-Meets-the-Nations-Health-Needs.aspx (accessed 8/5/14).
2. American Hospital Association. IOM panel recommends new financing system for physician training. July 29, 2014. Available at: http://www.ahanews.com/ahanews/jsp/display.jsp?dcrpath=AHANEWS/AHANewsNowArticle/data/ann_072914_IOM&domain=AHANEWS (accessed 8/5/14).
3. Hoven AD. AMA urges continued support for adequate graduate medical education funding to meet future physician workforce needs. July 29, 2014. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2014/2014-07-29-support-graduate-medical-education-funding.page (accessed 8/5/14).
4. Kirch DG. IOM’s vision of GME will not meet real-world patient needs. July 29, 2014. Available at: https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/newsreleases/381882/07292014.html (accessed 8/5/14).
5. Blackwelder R. Recommended GME overhaul will support a physician workforce to meet nation’s evolving health needs. July 29, 2014. Available at: http://www.aafp.org/media-center/releases-statements/all/2014/gme-physician-workforce.html (accessed 8/5/14).
6. About Don. Available at: http://www.berwickforgovernor.com/about-don (accessed 8/5/14).
7. Robbins RA. The unfulfilled promise of the quality movement. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2014;8(1):50-63. [CrossRef]
8. NICE-SUGAR Study Investigators. Intensive versus conventional insulin therapy in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1283-97. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Reference as: Robbins RA, Singarajah CU. IOM releases report on graduate medical education. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2014;9(2):123-5. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc107-14 PDF