Committees and Stakeholders

 

I wrote this editorial in 2010 for the Minnesota Psychiatric Society newsletter Ideas of Reference as part of my role as the President at the time. It was subtitled: "A new approach is needed and I think that approach needs to be psychiatrists redesigning the system."  Since then, things continue to go in the wrong direction. I still find the term "stakeholders" to be cringeworthy. The only stakeholders as far as I am concerned are physicians, patients, and their families. 

 

Who are the real stakeholders when you are face to face with your patient and you are being coerced into doing something that is not in the patient's best interest? Where does the profession stand on this? For almost two decades now we have been complacent while insurance companies, government bureaucrats and politicians, and pharmaceutical companies have directly intruded on the physician-patient relationship in a way that has seriously impacted the resources available for patient care and the quality of that care.  The operative word is complacency. I still have a habit that I learned from my freshman English composition professor. I compulsively look up word definitions to make sure I am using them correctly. I think you develop a lot of insight into your changing knowledge base when you look up words that you think you know very well and find that they seem to have taken on more important meaning. For me complacency has become such a word. Looking it up in several dictionaries, the definition I like the best is: "self-satisfied and unaware of possible dangers". With few exceptions, that seems to be the position we have been in for the past 20 years.

I can't think of a better word to describe how physicians were duped into believing that an RVU based pay system would somehow result in better reimbursement for cognitive specialists. Or that coders could determine who was submitting correct billing based on documentation, much less committing fraud. Or that utilization review for inpatient stays and prior authorization for medications is a legitimate practice. Or that managed care com­panies and behavioral carveouts reduce health-care inflation. Or that the focus of psychiatric assessment and treatment involves the prescription of a pill in roughly the same time frame that an antibiotic could be prescribed for otitis media. The list of things that we've been complacent about is long and it is growing every day.

For those psychiatrists working in institutions, committees are often a starting point. Much of the time, committees and meet­ings focus on issues that are peripheral to patient care and quality care. They rarely focus on the actual practice environment for the psychiatrist and the patient. In many cases, the fatal flaw is that the people making the major decisions are not in the meetings. The meetings are frequently held to make it seem like physicians actually have input into what is going on. At times the physicians are prepared by someone telling them that the old days in medicine are dead. The implication is that physicians used to be all powerful, now they are not, and in fact they should expect to have the equivalent input of any other employee.

The strategies we have observed for dealing with a broad array of stakeholders at the table have all been inadequate. We have allowed stakeholders with clear conflicts of interest to suggest that we are more conflicted than they are. The only solution is to be clearly differentiated from everyone else. We are squarely focused on assessing and treating patients in an ethical manner and any political initiative that we endorse or participate in should be consistent with that focus.

What does this mean in a practical sense? First off, it means coming into a meeting with a clear position rather than showing up to broker a deal. It means prioritizing patient care over profits from rationing or political gain from rationing. It means pointing out that the physician-patient dyad is in no way equivalent to any other political agenda in the room. It means not signing off on the status quo when we are the only people in the room speaking to the interests of physicians and their patients.

The recent changes to the way that psychiatric care is delivered to the state's low-income population illustrate all of the problems. Patients with GAMC have significant psychiatric comorbidity, and, even prior to the cuts by Governor Pawlenty, were also subjected to more rationing by private and government payers than other patients. The ultimate change, in the form of Coordinated Care Delivery System (CCDS) clinics, takes this rationing to a whole new level. At the same time the state has attempted to reinvent the state hospital system. Both of these changes disproportionately affect patients with severe mental illness. Any rational analysis would show that these patients did not have enough treatment resources before the new rationing initiatives. A new approach is needed and I think that approach needs to be psychiatrists redesigning the system. That needs to happen through the MPS because we have psychiatrists with the knowledge and focus to accomplish this task. Rather than endorse a rationed and blended version designed by people who are not providing the care, psychiatrists need to articulate a clear statement of what public mental health should be like in the state of Minnesota.

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA