NYTimes Tells You How to Rate Your Doctor

The New York Times has a feature (see first reference) that discusses why the number of Internet reviews of physicians is sparse and the quality is poor.  The main contention is that people are too intimidated to rank physicians. The author ignores the profit motive of all the sites as a potential conflict of interest and leaps to the conclusion that the AMA speaks for most physicians even though only about 29% of physicians are members of the AMA.  He also describes physicians as "untouchable" when in fact at least 20% of physicians can be expected to be sued for malpractice during their lifetime and malpractice lawsuits have resulted in entire specialties migrating from a particular state. That is hardly what I would describe as "untouchable".  He is openly critical of the president of the AMA suggesting that anonymous, undocumented, and unverified reviews are probably not the best source for a physician recommendation.  He quickly invalidates "disproportionately positive reviews" on some websites is the product of an "unquestioning mindset".

The worst part of the article is leaping ahead to the Medicare initiative and their physician report card. Nevermind the fact that the risk adjustment concern by the AMA is legitimate.  Nevermind the fact that there is really no valid way to compare physicians at this point in time.  Nevermind the fact that there are political interests at play in particular the managed-care industry and how they can potentially game the system in favor of their principles. The author basically is encouraging people to go full speed ahead.

The result of that experiment is fairly predictable. The only thing I am hoping is that Google will come up with a way to prioritize the relevant information about physicians such as where they really practice and how to get a hold of them instead of the pages and pages that you currently encounter when you are trying to find a physician.

The AMA doesn't give much better advice in their recent edition of the amednews.  In a piece entitled "Physician rating website reveals formula for good reviews", their first suggestion was to not have a patient waiiting for more than 15 minutes and no more than 10 minutes in the exam room.  I can't think of any practice where the physician has that kind of control over their schedule - even if they postpone all of the documentation and stay for several hours after the clinic closes to get it done.  The business experts observed:  "overall ratings were based on time in the waiting room and the exam room -- rather than perceived clinical quality".  Keep that in mind when you are looking at online ratings of physicians.

I would suggest an experiment of my own that I have conducted several times with a high degree of success.  Imagine that you have a serious medical condition that requires a high risk procedure and you want to find the best physician to help you.  Your search process will involve the Internet, but it does not involve looking at any of the ratings you find when you search on a physician's name.  What do you do?

I will come back and answer that at a later date and discuss how that needs to be modified when you are looking for a psychiatrist.

George Dawson, MD

Ron Lieber.  The Web Is Awash in Reviews, but Not for Doctors area Here's Why. New York Times March 9, 2012

Pamela Louis Dolan.  Physician rating website reveals formula for good reviews.  amednews. Feb. 27, 2012

Mismanagement of Knowledge Workers

In a previous post,  I discussed Drucker's concept of “knowledge workers” and how that concept applied to psychiatrists and physicians. The basic concept is that knowledge workers know more than their managers about the service they provide, work quality is more characteristic than quantity, and they are generally considered to be an asset of corporations.  I pointed out that physician knowledge workers are currently being managed like production workers and referred to common mistakes made in managing physicians and psychiatrists. Today I will tell attempt to describe how some of that mismanagement occurs using examples that psychiatrists have discussed with me over the past several years.

Inpatient psychiatry has taken a severe hit over the past 20 years in terms of the quality of care. Many people have talked with me about the discharge of symptomatic patients occurring in the context of high volume and low quality. Depending on the organization, a psychiatrist may be expected to run an outpatient clinic in addition to a busy inpatient service or in some cases provide all the medical services to the inpatients with minimal outside consultation. Most hospital care is reimbursed poorly despite political suggestions to the contrary. Psychiatric DRGs are typically 20% less than medical surgical DRGs and they are not adjusted for complex care. Administrators generally "manage" psychiatrists in a way to make sure that inpatient beds are covered. That frequently means that psychiatrists who prefer practicing in an outpatient setting end up doing some inpatient care. An outpatient clinic may be canceled so that a psychiatrist is available to run an inpatient unit. There have been situations where inpatient beds or whole units have been shut down for lack of psychiatric coverage. The only explanation given is that there is a "shortage" of psychiatrists.

I had the pleasure of running into one of my residency mentors in an airport last May. I let him know that I was just finishing up 21 years of inpatient work and moving on to something else. He smiled and said: "Three months wasn't enough?".  I always liked his sense of humor but there is also a lot of reality in his remarks.

I don't mean to imply that it is any easier on the outpatient side. If you are a manager, what could be easier than having a unit of production that you could hold your employees to? It turns out there is something easier and that is being able to set the value of that unit of production. That is what RVU based productivity is all about. A standard managerial strategy these days is to have a meeting with an outpatient psychiatrist and show them how much they are "costing the clinic" based on their RVU production. Spending hours a day answering phone calls, doing prior authorizations, questions from other clinicians, curbside consultations, discussions with family members, and documenting everything doesn't count. I have had the experience calling a clinic at 7 PM and hearing keyboards clicking in the background. I have asked outpatient colleagues how they are able to produce outpatient documentation themselves and still get out of clinic on time. Now that I work in an outpatient setting myself, I know what they were telling me was accurate and that is the documentation gets deferred until later.

The mismanagement does not stop there. At some point in time medical schools decided that there were also going to start basing faculty salaries on clinical production. I suppose every medical school as a formula for converting teaching and research time into production units, but until I see those formulas my speculation is that any activity that does not result in billing leads to lower compensation. The days when physicians were hired as teachers and academicians seem to be gone.  Because of discriminatory reimbursement, departments of psychiatry will be disproportionately affected.

Within psychiatry there used to be an interest in organizational dynamics and how they impacted patient care. The dynamics in most organizations today are set up to promote the business. That has produced a focus on high volume-low quality or in some cases supporting the specialty with the highest reimbursement and procedure rates.   Associated dynamics are in place to select and shape an idealized corporate employee who will modify his or her practice according to the whims of the Corporation. It may be hard to believe but large medical corporations everywhere are trying to figure out how to recruit young physicians who believe in their models. Physicians who don't accept these ideas frequently find that the company is not very friendly to them. There are always various political mechanisms for ousting any dissidents and there is minimal tolerance for debate.  The dissent can be as mild as asking why consultants with less expertise than the physicians in the practice are being called in to critique them and come up with a plan.

When it comes to physician mismanagement there are few businesses that can equal the government. RVUs, the Medicare Physician Payment Schedule, pay for performance, and various failed political theories like fraud as the cause for healthcare inflation, and managed care amplifying all of the above and focusing all of that irrational management directly on physicians.  The result is obvious as enormous inefficiencies, job dissatisfaction, and demoralization. Governments partnering with businesses and placing business practices like utilization review and prior authorization in state statutes increases the burden exponentially. At the heart of this conflict is a physicians training to be a scientific critical thinker and function autonomously with the businesses interest of making a buck. Despite all the lip service to quality, business decisions are always made on a cost rather than quality basis.

It is often difficult to see any light through the blizzard of government and business propaganda that passes for the management of physicians and psychiatrists. Psychiatry has bore the brunt of mismanagement over the past 20 years and that has well been well documented in the Hay group study showing the disproportionate impact of managed care on our field. Inpatient bed capacity has dwindled and the beds that have not been shut down are managed for high-volume low quality work. Outpatient clinics including those run by and nonprofits are managed according to the same model.  Businesses and governments have provided the incentives for this type of practice.  The available consultants in the field only know an RVU based productivity model and nothing else. Rather than treating psychiatrists as knowledge worker assets, the available jobs frequently reduce us to micromanaged clerical workers utilizing about 10% of our knowledge.  It should be no surprise that the environment makes it seem like anyone can do the job.

One of my favorite quotes from Peter Drucker was: "More and more people in the workforce and mostly knowledge workers will have to manage themselves".   After all, only  the knowledge worker knows how to best complete the job.  Every psychiatrist that I know, knows how to get the job done and it is often at odds with what we are allowed to do. The best pathway to do this is to optimize the internal states of the knowledge workers and create environment where they manage themselves.  There are very few environments available where that can happen today for psychiatrists.

George Dawson, MD

Physician oversight or intimidation?

The Board of Medical Practice in the state of Minnesota regulates 20,000 physicians. Most of them are employees in large healthcare companies. That means they have to undergo the credentialing process within those organizations as well as collateral organizations in addition to renewing their state license every year. There are about 800 complaints against physicians with the board of medical practice every year and the board takes serious actions based on those complaints at the rate of about 1.29 serious actions per 1000 physicians.

In Minnesota, anyone can complete a formal complaint against any physician. A specialist at the board sends a letter with the complaint to that physician's office and they have two weeks to respond to the complaint. That generally involves a specific letter to address the complaint as well as all of the associated medical records.  Frequently several physicians or clinics are part of the complaint in the process cannot go forward until all of the responses have been received by the Board.  The physician must respond literally to the complaint as written by the complainant.   The complaint is never interpreted by the Board.  The Board renders a decision based on the information it receives.

Like many states there is a move by politicians and the news media to suggest that doctors are not regulated tightly enough and they are not punished thoroughly enough in the state of Minnesota. The local press has been beating that drum for the past month.

There is now a clear case to be made that some of these complaints have little to do with medical practice and more to do with politics.  Many of us have seen it happen to our colleagues. I am familiar with several cases where a physician was accused of having a problem with other staff. The descriptions of those problems varied from being "disrespectful" to "snubbing" another staff member. Even in the case of unsubstantiated complaints there are protocols available in the Twin Cities that allow for physicians to be fired, written up, or rehabilitated based on purely subjective complaints. That is a far cry from the concerns about "disruptive physicians". It is apparent that in many settings purely subjective and essentially political complaints are being made on physicians and advanced by their administrative hierarchies.

Before anyone plays the "you're just defending physicians" card consider this. There is no physician I am aware of who would not agree with disciplining a physician who is physically abusive, verbally abusive, or otherwise out of control. There is no physician I am aware of who wants to see an incompetent physician practicing anywhere regardless of the source of their incompetency.  The people who escape criticism in the issue of physician discipline are not physicians but anyone who stands to gain from the proposition that there continue to be physicians who endanger public safety and there are widespread undetected numbers of them out there practicing.

Clearly the media has a stake in this process. The letter by Dr. Langland points out that the media in this case certainly could have done a better job investigating the major points of their contention that the medical board is failing in its public safety mandate. At a national level, Public Citizen obviously has a lot to gain by its ranking of medical boards and suggesting that ranking has a lot more meaning than it really does. Politicians at all levels get a lot of mileage out of keeping professionals accountable. That is true whether they are teachers or physicians. The irony is that politicians at all levels are clearly some of the least accountable people out there. I have also posted clear evidence that their approach to holding teachers "accountable" with an emphasis on standardized test score results is exactly the wrong approach to improving student test scores.

There are clearly a lot of people with a lot to gain in pushing this agenda and that conflict of interest is never discussed. The objective evidence is also never discussed. But I want to draw attention to a key paragraph in Dr. Langland's letter and that is the paragraph below:

"The Star Tribune also expresses concern that a majority of 74 doctors whose privileges were suspended or revoked by hospitals or clinics did not receive disciplinary action. Again, I am very familiar with these situations, most of which do not involve substandard patient care. Often they result from personality conflicts, turf battles and competitive issues. The board has correctly not let itself be drawn into these battles." (see reference 1)

This is a rather stunning revelation. It suggests that some organizations that are punishing physicians for what are essentially subjective or political complaints are also filing those complaints with the Board of Medical Practice and looking for them to be legitimized. While it is good to know that the current board has been able to see those complaints for what they are, there is no guarantee that will always be true. With the increasing influence of businesses and their agenda to control doctors, at some point in the future we may see these trivial complaints suddenly become complaints that threaten a physician's license and livelihood.

That is a heavy price to pay for the cost of doing business.

George Dawson, MD

1.  James Langland.  State Medical Board is Sound.  StarTribune March 5, 2012

2.  Star Tribune Editorial Board.  Medical Board Fails Quality Examination.  StarTribune February 25, 2012

3.  Medical Board actions against doctors, per 1,000 doctors, 2010.  StarTribune  February 6, 2012.

4.  Glenn Howatt and Richard Merryhew. State panel: Public deserves more information about physician misconduct.  StarTribune February 27, 2012.

5.  Glenn Howatt and Richard Merryhew. Doctors who err escape penalties.  StarTribune February 5, 2012.

Violence and Gunplay - Why Nobody is Informed by the Media Anymore

Mass shootings have been a phenomenon of my lifetime.  I can still clearly remember the University at Texas-Austin shootings that occurred  on August 6, 1966. A single gunman killed 16 people and wounded 32 while holed up on the observation deck of an administrative building until he was shot and killed by the police. I first read about it in Life magazine. All the pictures in those days were black and white. Some of those pictures are available online on sites such as "Top 10 School Massacres.”  I generated this timeline of mass shootings when Google still had that feature in their search engine. 

The problem of course is that the mass shootings never really  stop.  In the USA, the press is so used to them that they seem to have a protocol.  Discuss the tragedy and whether or not the perpetrator was mentally ill, had undiagnosed problems or perhaps risk factors for aggression and violence.  Discuss any heroic deeds. Make the unbelievable statement that the victims were "in the wrong place at the wrong time."  And then move on as soon as possible.  There is never a solution or even a call for finding one.  It is like everyone has resigned themselves to to repetitive cycles of gunfire and death.  It is clear that the press does not want to see it any other way.

When you are practicing psychiatry especially in emergency situations and hospitals, you need to be more practical.  When I took the oral boards exams back in 1988 and subsequently when I was an examiner, one of the key dimensions that the examiners focused on was the assessment of dangerousness.  Failing to explore that could be an exam failing mistake.  Any psychiatric inpatient unit has aggression toward self or others as one of the main reasons for admission to acute care and forensic settings.  With the recent fragmentation and rationing of psychiatric services, many people who would have been treated in hosptials are diverted to jails instead.  That led one author to describe LA County jail as the country's largest psychiatric facility.  

I have introduced the idea of looking for solutions into professional and political forums for over a decade now and it is always met with intense resistance.  Some mental health advocates are threatened by the idea that it will further stigmatize the mentally ill as violent.  Many people consider the problem to be hopeless.  Others see it as the natural product of a heavily armed society and no matter what side you are on that argument - that is where the conversation ends.

In an attempt to reframe the issue so that this impasse could possibly be breached the Minnesota Psychiatric Society partnered with the the Barbara Schneider Foundation and SAVE Minnesota in the wake of a national shooting incident to suggest alternatives.  Rather than speculate about psychiatric disorders or gun control we were focused on solutions that you can read through the link below.

The actual commentary was never published by the editor who apparently stated that there was a conflict of interest because we seemed to be fishing for research dollars.   It appears that the press can only hear the cycle of tragedy, speculation about mental health problems, and the need to move on.  The problem with that is that we continue to move on to another shooting.

George Dawson, MD


A Commentary Statement submitted to the StarTribune January 18, 2011 from the Minnesota Psychiatric Society, The Barbara Schneider Foundation, and SAVE - Suicide Awareness Voices of Education

"The land of 10,000 90862s"

The title of this post is an inside joke for psychiatrists.  90862 is the billing code associated with a psychiatric visit that is commonly referred to as the "med check."  It is an example of what can happen to a profession when government bureaucrats and businesses run amok in determining what they think you do or what you should be doing when you provide patient care.

I first became aware of the political importance of this system in the 1990s, when I had to attend mandatory billing and coding seminars at my place of employment.   In those seminars I learned that the politicians and insurance companies were so desperate to use this arbitrary system that they told us we could go to federal prison for a long time if we submitted a "fraudulent" billing document.  The "fraudulent" document they were talking about was any bill connected to the document of a patient encounter that did not have enough bullet points to qualify for that level of billing.

That is an important concept so let me say it another way.  After every patient encounter, the physician needs to document a note about what happened and indicate a level of billing for that encounter.  When I first started training the note could be as little as one or two lines.  For example, at one point in my training I covered an entire surgical service with a team of doctors.  We could round on 25-30 patients with very complicated problems and write all of the documentation in about 2 hours.  The documentation was "Pain is well controlled, surgical site looks good, vital signs are stable."  We did not have to bother with any billing documents because a hospital billing specialist came by and confirmed that we had seen the patient and submitted the bill.

Somewhere  in the 1990s, a government initiative changed all of that.  The government decided that they needed a way to control the global budget for physician salaries and they decided to develop a system of codes for patient encounters that they assign relative values to and then multiply that by a certain number to set reimbursement for that code.  The entire system rests on the assumption that somebody can look at the description of a patient encounter as written in a note and audit the associated billing document.  It turns out that when this assumption was tested several years later - it was determined to be false, but that did not deter the federal government or the health insurance industry (see reference).

The 90862 is probably the most abused billing code in the psychiatric profession.  The interpretation of what constitutes an encounter that qualifies for this code varies from practice to practice and between organizations.  Patient experience varies from literally talking to a psychiatrist for 5 minutes with the goal of getting a prescription refill to a much richer encounter that includes a discussion of other current problems, additional medical diagnostic discussions and psychological advice.  In some cases, acute medical problems requiring emergency care have been identified in these sessions.  There is no doubt that a considerable amount of gaming occurs on the part of some clinicians and most insurance companies and government payers.

The only gaming possible by the clinician occurs at two levels.  The first is total time spent with the patient.  The folklore is that these are all 15 minute encounters.  Some clinicians insist on seeing patients in half hour blocks and others see 3 - 4 people per hour.  The second is total documentation.  You can literally do a few lines or you can write several paragraphs and stay after work just to do the documentation.  A lot depends on whether you think you will be audited and somebody will be making an arbitrary decision about whether your note qualifies for the charge that you assign to it.

There are myriad ways that a managed care company can game the system.  First of all, they can assign any level of reimbursement to any billing code that they want.  I quoted a New York Times article in another post as saying that a psychiatrist could see three patients for medications and get reimbursed at $50 per session, but the actual reimbursement can be less than half of that.  That same managed care company can also take any bills submitted for patient encounters with higher reimbursement levels and say: "we are only paying you for a 90862 no matter what you do."  If you happen to be working in an institutional setting, a managed care company can negotiate a per diem rate with your employer and not pay the 90862 billing at all.

Stated another way, a psychiatrist can see a patient with complex medical and psychiatric problems and get reimbursed at a level that might lead to them break even - to getting no reimbursement at all depending on the insurance company and contracting arrangements.  Within organizations the relative values for these codes are the basic way that physicians are manipulated to see more patients.  It is referred to as their "productivity" even though producing work for little or no reimbursement is not really productive activity.  The physician managers can demand that they see more and more patients to compensate for the poor or nonexistent rate of reimbursement by managed care companies.

Another artifact of this system is that procedures like surgeries, endoscopies, and angioplasties are reimbursed at a higher rates than a doctor talking with you and discussing the diagnosis and treatment.  That lead to a movement to reimburse the cognitive or nonproceduralist specialties at higher rates.  But given the amount of government payer and insurance company leverage it is impossible to make that happen.

Is there a solution to this problem that in effect makes physicians work impossibly harder to earn a professional salary?  The solution is as easy as considering how I pay my attorney, accountant, mechanic, plumber, electrician, and chimney sweep.  I pay them all by the hour.  In some cases there is an agreed fixed amount, but it is generally many times more than what I would get reimbursed for the lowest 90862 reimbursement.

Getting back to the title of this post, when I looked at the lowest current reimbursement for a 90862 and calculated how many of those bills would need to be submitted to make a professional wage, it came out to about 10,000 patient encounters per year.  Working 50 weeks per year that would mean seeing 40 established patients per day.  The only clinic where I have ever observed those numbers had three nurses rooming the patients and doing all of the documentation before they were briefly seen by a psychiatrist.

As I contemplated all of this I had the thought: "I am living in the 'Land of 10,000 lakes' - maybe we should just change that to the 'Land of 10,000 90862s.' "

George Dawson, MD

King MS, Lipsky MS, Sharp L. Expert agreement in Current Procedural Terminology evaluation and management coding. Arch Intern Med. 2002 Feb 11;162(3):316-20.

90862 Redux? An Update.

Why Do They Hate Us?

The title of this column weighed heavily on the minds of some Americans immediately after the terrorist attacks of 911. I was involved in some Internet forum political debates at the time that looked at this question.  The question itself implies a lack of self analysis and misunderstanding of rhetoric and political strategy. Those same basic concepts can be applied to an analysis of psychiatry and the common political and rhetorical strategies that are used against us.

At this point some readers may suggest that this is quite a tangent for me to take given the fact that psychiatry after all is part of the medical establishment and as such should have very little to complain about.  Four or five decades of complaints from anti-psychiatry cults and about two decades of complaints from competing professionals has done little to diminish the influence of psychiatry.  If that is really the case, why has psychiatry been disproportionately affected in terms of resources available to treat patients and why are psychiatrists blamed for that?  I suggest that the discrimination against psychiatrists and their patients occurs at every level as the direct result of an antipsychiatry bias.

I first came directly in contact with hatred of psychiatrists in an unexpected setting – an academic team rounding on medical surgical patients.  It consisted of an attending, a senior resident, two interns and two medical students.  When the attending learned I was going to do a psychiatric residency, it was an opportunity for ridicule.  Didn’t I realize that psychiatrists were lazy and did not know what they were doing?  Didn’t I know that nobody with a mental health problem should consult with a psychiatrist?  The special attention focused on me peaked when this attending challenged me on the correct diagnosis of acute abdominal pain.  The patient was middle aged, obese and had acute abdominal pain with nonspecific exam findings.  What was my diagnosis?  When I said “appendicitis” – the attending said I was wrong and gave all of the reasons why the diagnosis was cholecystitis.  Several hours post op we had the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.  I learned more about what some physicians think of their psychiatric colleagues than the diagnosis of the acute abdomen during that rotation.

I came across an illuminating piece in the British Journal entitled Advances in Psychiatric Treatment. The author Claire Bithell of the Science Media Center in London showed that psychiatry was less likely to be reported on in the popular press and when it was, received treatment that was four times as negative as other medical specialties.  In an associated piece based on meetings with journalists, academics, clinicians and journalists she found problems at all levels in terms of engaging the media and one of the conclusions was that experts need to engage with breaking news stories to get important messages across to the public.

  

It is easy to prove to yourself that the same problem with the press exists in the US.  It is as easy as going to the New York Times web site and doing a quick search on psychiatry.  The search returns the articles and several commentaries on how psychiatrists are turning to medication management rather than psychotherapy,  an article on how the man accused of the mass shooting at Fort Hood was a psychiatrist, Radovan Karadzic was a psychiatrist, and an article about Carl Jung.  One of the central articles “Talk Doesn’t Pay So Psychiatry Turns Instead To Drug Therapy” gives the specific detail: “A psychiatrist can earn $150 for three 15-minute medication visits compared with $90 for a 45-minute talk therapy session”.  But at that point the author incorrectly concludes that competition from other mental health providers is the reason that psychotherapy is so poorly reimbursed.  He should have just applied his earlier conclusion that the dominance of large hospital groups and corporations in combination with the government essentially fixes insurance reimbursement to whatever the payers want to pay.  They do not want to pay for psychotherapy despite the fact that it is clearly an evidence based therapy.

The origins of bias against psychiatry are varied and include the continued misunderstanding of what we do and what our training is, fear of mental illness, and in many cases the pursuit of political goals.  We have seen attacks on psychiatrists by politicians, Hollywood stars, other psychiatrists, and of course anyone who wants to write an antipsychiatry book.  It can be very subtle such  as recognizing that there is no practical way that psychiatric services can be provided and shutting them down.  In this case it is common to blame psychiatrists for the “lack of access” rather than inconsistent and unrealistic reimbursement by payers.   I was talking to a highly reimbursed proceduralist one day who said that she didn’t mind that some of their margin was used to pay for psychiatry because it seemed like a needed service.

 At times the sheer amount of noise out there about psychiatry is deafening.  I don’t think we are alone when it comes to negative publicity.  Teachers and law enforcement come to mind.  I do not think that there is any doubt that public perception is affected by what is often false information about psychiatry. 

Apart from what is purely propaganda,  most people have an innate tendency to see themselves as armchair psychologists.  Artificial intelligence philosophers came up with the term folk psychology to discuss this tendency and its benefits.  If you are a folk psychologist you might conclude that it is so easy that a psychiatrist has nothing to add, especially when you watch other folk psychologists on television all day long.  Some of the people who have hated us the most have had their theories rejected by organized psychiatry.

From an organizational standpoint,  how do we respond to the hate?  Although it would serve us well,  I doubt the public is very familiar with the philosophical criticisms of folk psychology any more than they know the difference between a psychiatrist and a psychotherapist.  What can we do when we are being smeared on a routine basis?  Ignoring the attacks is a strategy that the APA has used for years.  From a strategic perspective – it is effective to a point.  That point is where some of our detractors gain either political advantage or there are sudden and unexpected changes.  Before that happens we need to be much more aggressive.

Since my early days of involvement with the Minnesota Psychiatric Society,  we have always believed that getting our message out to the public was a critical first step.  I was the Public Affairs Director in the 1990s and coordinated several of the initial National Depression Screening Days.  Today the majority of depressed people I see have been treated for at least 10 years by family physicians and although they were reluctant to see a psychiatrist , they really had no idea that I was a medical specialist.  MPS recently tried to get a letter published by local media on the mass shooting phenomenon.  We co-authored the letter with two mental health public service organizations and it was rejected at a time when there was peak speculation about whether or not the alleged perpetrator was mentally ill and others  were identifying heroes and suggesting that we move on.   Depending only on a biased press is a recipe for continued failure.

We need to start by recognizing that we all have a common interest here and it is called the psychiatric profession.  That is true if you are employed by a health care organization, the government or self employed.  That is true if your job is primarily research, patient care, or administration.  That is true if you are a medical student who has just been accepted to psychiatric residency.  When we are under constant attack – a short term solution is to cut and run.  That will not work in the long run.  We are currently the standard bearers for the kind of care that is possible and apart from our colleagues in other countries we are often shouting alone in the woods.  It is very clear that state and national governments and their allies in the business world do not care about reasonable standards of psychiatric care and in many cases have codified that.  Other advocates are often left to play one side against the other on an artificial playing field of constrained resources.  Psychiatrists have a common interest in making a stand against unfair treatment by both the government and the health care industry.

The other issue is how to make that stand.  We currently have political strategies with politicians and other groups with similar interests.  Those groups are not interested in our standards and we need to take those arguments directly to the public.  We have to let them know what inpatient units and state hospitals are capable of doing.  We need to let them know what state of the art community psychiatry looks like.  We have to let them know that outpatient psychotherapy for depression is actually more than a session or two and coming back every month or two to see somebody about medications.  We have to speak out on every topic of mental health interest in the media and presenting it ourselves rather than expecting the media to pick it up.  That is our job in the near future.

That is also in part what this blog is all about.

Is it the economy?

The lead story in this week's Psychiatric Times was sent to me in e-mail this morning under the subject "Economy Threatens Psychiatry Programs". It provides the news that the Cedars-Sinai Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences is essentially being phased out except for "staffing of psychiatric support that is an adjunct to patient care throughout the medical center." It quotes an unnamed academic psychiatrist as saying that the real reason that psychiatric programs are getting the axe is that they are the least profitable services offered at any hospital. The article goes on to suggest that declining Medicare funding of Graduate Medical Education may threaten additional programs.

The only real explanation and dose of reality in that article was the quote from their anonymous source. Psychiatric programs and bed capacity have been closing down for the past 20 years. It is the direct product of managed care strategies either being applied directly by the managed care cartel or through their friends and allies in the government. I have previously posted on this blog how psychiatric services have been marginalized from an economic standpoint.  That should be obvious from surveying any acute care hospitals in your state. In the state of Minnesota for example, a minority of the total hospitals have psychiatric units and fewer are staffed for chemical dependency services.  That has resulted in the need to transfer patients in crisis in emergency departments across the state or in some cases in different states. As a result any involved family members have to travel hundreds of miles to maintain contact with that person.  The economy for psychiatry has been bad for the last 20 years.

The evolution of this process is apparently so insidious that nobody pays attention to it. The only way that the minority of hospitals with psychiatric units can continue to operate and staff those units with psychiatrists is if they do a high volume, low quality DRG based business or they are subsidized to some degree out of the profit margin of other departments. In that case, an economic argument can be made that more severely ill psychiatric patients or medically ill psychiatric patients would never leave medical or surgical units if there were not psychiatric units available to receive them in transfer.

This process is easily reversed by providing adequate compensation for psychiatric care. The reimbursement levels for inpatient care are so trivial that an inpatient psychiatric unit is currently the least expensive place to maintain the patient.  At some point, treatment on a DRG based inpatient unit is cheaper than a group home and much cheaper than a state hospital.  That creates additional incentives and barriers to discharge from the hospital.

The bottom line is that it is not the economy.  There has been a systematic bias against mental health services for at least 20 years.  It is well past the time for psychiatrists and other advocates to remove the term "cost effective" from their dialogue. Psychiatric and mental health services have been the most cost effective medical services for at least the past 20 years and there is no reason for expecting them to get less expensive. Reversing that trend and providing compensation that is at least on par with the rest of medicine will allow for quality psychiatric hospital services and outpatient clinics.

George Dawson, MD

Stephen Barlas. Elimination of Psych Services at Cedars-Sinai Could Foreshadow Similar Cutbacks Elsewhere.  Psychiatric Times Vol 29, No2, February 8, 2012 

Endnote:  According to the Minnesota Hospital Association 29 of 136 acute care hospitals have beds staffed for mental health care and 6 of 136 have beds staffed for chemical dependency care.