Better Health: Smart Health Commentary Better Health (TM): smart health commentary

Article Comments (4)

Why Non-Scientists Should Not Direct Scientific Efforts: Senator Harkin’s Misguided Beliefs Exposed

I’ve been blogging a lot recently about the problems caused by health policy makers who don’t appear to understand medicine or science. I’ve also been lamenting the relative lack of physician input at the highest level of health reform. But today I’d like to present a prime example of the perfect storm in health policy: when willfulness, ignorance, and magical thinking combine to push an agenda despite billions of tax payer research dollars proving the futility of such efforts.

In this video, Senator Tom Harkin describes the impetus behind the creation of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). Harkin suggests that he single-handedly introduced legislation in 1992 that created the Office of Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This office paved the way for an entire new branch of research at NIH devoted to exploring the potential validity of non-science based medical practices such as homeopathy, acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, energy healing, meditation and more. He introduced the legislation because a friend of his experienced a substantial health improvement after trying one of these non-science based therapies. Essentially, an entire branch of the NIH was founded on an anecdote.

What’s worse is that after a decade of careful analysis of these alternative therapies, science has shown that not a single one of them appears to be efficacious beyond placebo. One would think that Senator Harkin would be embarrassed by the colossal waste of tax payer resources spent on this pet project of his. But no, instead he chastises the scientists who did the research, saying that they had failed to do their job of “validating” the therapeutic modalities. Wow. I guess he was never interested in finding out the truth about what works and what doesn’t – because when objective analysis reveals that these modalities don’t work, then the science must be flawed.

Now don’t get me wrong – healthy eating, regular exercise, emotional and psychological support are critical factors in good healthcare, and I fully believe that America needs to become a “wellness culture” in order to prevent chronic diseases and improve quality of life. I also believe that Americans are often over-treated and over-medicated when lifestyle interventions might be their best treatment option. However, in encouraging behavior modifications, we don’t need to foist placebo therapies on them under the banner of science. The problem with “integrative medicine” is that it takes some good medical principles and infuses them with scientifically debunked and outdated systems of thought (debunked repeatedly by NCCAM, the very scientific body that Harkin hoped would validate them.)

What we really need to do is stop splitting the practice of medicine into “integrative” vs “non-integrative” and simply follow scientifically vetted best practices. Patients need a comprehensive approach to their health, a medical home with a good primary care physician coordinating their care, reliable health information to support their decision-making, a strategy to eat well and exercise regularly, and mental health services as needed.

Senator Harkins’ plan to continue flogging the alternative medicine “dead horse” is not helpful – it’s not good science, and it’s not a good way to spend our tax dollars. I can only hope that one of the positive effects of Comparative Clinical Effectiveness Research will be to put an end to the promotion of the ineffective therapies that Harkin fervently hoped would be validated. I also hope that the new Federal Coordinating Council will not support funding to pet projects that are founded upon anecdotes, pseudoscience, and wishful thinking. Now more than ever we need good science underpinning our healthcare spending, and we need informed scientists advising our government on priorities for America’s health.

###

Addendum:

More outrage from the medical blogosphere over Harkin’s views:

1. Dr. David Gorski:  Senator Tom Harkin: “Disappointed” that NCCAM hasn’t “validated” more CAM

2. Dr. Peter Lipson: Harkin’s War On Science


You may also like these posts

Read comments »


4 Responses to “Why Non-Scientists Should Not Direct Scientific Efforts: Senator Harkin’s Misguided Beliefs Exposed”

  1. maverickny says:

    “failed to do their job of “validating” the therapeutic modalities” ummm, isn't science about fact and proving (or disproving) hypotheses, not validating cranky ideas?

    The last thing we need is more snake oil in science, especially from politicians. I don't think I have ever seen a single study that showed any significant improvement in symptoms or disease alleviation from alternative medicine in controlled clinical trials.

    We should put a stop to this nonsense and waste of taxpayers money immediately.

  2. maverickny says:

    “failed to do their job of “validating” the therapeutic modalities” ummm, isn't science about fact and proving (or disproving) hypotheses, not validating cranky ideas?

    The last thing we need is more snake oil in science, especially from politicians. I don't think I have ever seen a single study that showed any significant improvement in symptoms or disease alleviation from alternative medicine in controlled clinical trials.

    We should put a stop to this nonsense and waste of taxpayers money immediately.

  3. alan dappen says:

    I couldn't agree more with your comments. Policy makers “fixing health care” is magical thinking. But my experience about the lack of physician involvement and leadership advocating for health care changes hinges on the singularity protecting their income.

    Physicians are and should be the leading proponents of change. They have all the scientific training, the experience, the know-how, the legal authority, the intelligence and enough financial security to push change. They even continue to enjoy the privileged moral high ground and status by most of society. Yet for 60+ years we have become accustomed to letting 3rd party payers pay as much as we (and everyone else) could get away with.

    In my 8 years of practicing under a the new medical business paradigm (http://www.doctokr.com) which delivers immediate and continuous care for half the current system cost by eliminating all parties that interfere with the doctor-patient relationship (e.g. insurance) or increase costs (e.g. lots of staff.) I have seen many colleagues get interested even excited about our paradigm changing idea until the fateful question, “ How much money can I make?” The interview ends with dashed hopes.

    “Lets see,” I think, the patients’ kiss of death question is, “Doctor, are you still a preferred provider?” because the doctor’s kiss of death question is, “How much money can I make?
    If physicians aren’t willing to stand up and invest in a new future, to do the right thing for the right reason at the right price, then we should stop begrudging anyone else who is willing to invest in a future where physicians are subordinate to their new paymaster. We wont like it, it will mandate us to do stupid things, but pay us enough and we’ll keep doing that too.
    Alan Dappen MD

  4. alan dappen says:

    I couldn't agree more with your comments. Policy makers “fixing health care” is magical thinking. But my experience about the lack of physician involvement and leadership advocating for health care changes hinges on the singularity protecting their income.

    Physicians are and should be the leading proponents of change. They have all the scientific training, the experience, the know-how, the legal authority, the intelligence and enough financial security to push change. They even continue to enjoy the privileged moral high ground and status by most of society. Yet for 60+ years we have become accustomed to letting 3rd party payers pay as much as we (and everyone else) could get away with.

    In my 8 years of practicing under a the new medical business paradigm (http://www.doctokr.com) which delivers immediate and continuous care for half the current system cost by eliminating all parties that interfere with the doctor-patient relationship (e.g. insurance) or increase costs (e.g. lots of staff.) I have seen many colleagues get interested even excited about our paradigm changing idea until the fateful question, “ How much money can I make?” The interview ends with dashed hopes.

    “Lets see,” I think, the patients’ kiss of death question is, “Doctor, are you still a preferred provider?” because the doctor’s kiss of death question is, “How much money can I make?
    If physicians aren’t willing to stand up and invest in a new future, to do the right thing for the right reason at the right price, then we should stop begrudging anyone else who is willing to invest in a future where physicians are subordinate to their new paymaster. We wont like it, it will mandate us to do stupid things, but pay us enough and we’ll keep doing that too.
    Alan Dappen MD

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Better Health » The 5 Best And Worst Recent Health Policy Quotes

Return to article »

Latest Interviews

How To Be A Successful Patient: Young Doctors Offer Some Advice

I am proud to be a part of the American Resident Project an initiative that promotes the writing of medical students residents and new physicians as they explore ideas for transforming American health care delivery. I recently had the opportunity to interview three of the writing fellows about how to…

Read more »

How To Make Inpatient Medical Practice Fun Again: Try Locum Tenens Work

It s no secret that most physicians are unhappy with the way things are going in healthcare. Surveys report high levels of job dissatisfaction burn out and even suicide. In fact some believe that up to a third of the US physician work force is planning to leave the profession…

Read more »

See all interviews »

Latest Cartoon

Richmond, VA – In an effort to simplify inpatient medical billing, one area hospitalist group has determined that “altered mental status” (ICD-9 780.97) is the most efficient code for use in any patient work up.

“When you enter a hospital, you’re bound to have some kind of mental status change,” said Dr. Fishbinder, co-partner of Area Hospitalists, PLLC. “Whether it’s confusion about where your room is located in relationship to the visitor’s parking structure, frustration with being woken up every hour or two to check your vital signs, or just plain old fatigue from being sick, you are not thinking as clearly as before you were admitted. And that’s all the justification we need to order anything from drug and toxin screens, to blood cultures, brain MRIs, tagged red blood cell nuclear scans, or cardiac Holter monitoring. There really is no limit to what we can pursue with our tests.”

Common causes of mental status changes in the elderly include medicine-induced cognitive side effects, disorientation due to disruption in daily routines, age-related memory impairment, and urinary tract infections.

“The urinalysis is not a very exciting medical test,” stated Dr. Fishbinder. “It doesn’t matter that it’s cheap, fast, and most likely to provide an explanation for strange behavior in hospitalized patients. It’s really not as elegant as the testing involved in a chronic anemia or metabolic encephalopathy work up. I keep it in my back pocket in case all other tests are negative, including brain MRIs and PET scans.”

Nursing staff at Richmond Medical Hospital report that efforts to inform hospitalists about foul smelling urine have generally fallen on deaf ears. “I have tried to tell the hospitalists about cloudy or bloody urine that I see in patients who are undergoing extensive work ups for mental status changes,” reports nurse Sandy Anderson. “But they insist that ‘all urine smells bad’ and it’s really more of a red herring.”

Another nurse reports that delay in diagnosing urinary tract infections (while patients are scheduled for brain MRIs, nuclear scans, and biopsies) can lead to worsening symptoms which accelerate and expand testing. “Some of my patients are transferred to the ICU during the altered mental status work up,” states nurse Anita Misra. “The doctors seem to be very excited about the additional technology available to them in the intensive care setting. Between the central line placement, arterial blood gasses, and vast array of IV fluid and medication options, urosepsis is really an excellent entré into a whole new level of care.”

“As far as medicine-induced mental status changes are concerned,” added Dr. Fishbinder, “We’ve never seen a single case in the past 10 years. Today’s patients are incredibly resilient and can tolerate mixes of opioids, anti-depressants, anti-histamines, and benzodiazepines without any difficulty. We know this because most patients have been prescribed these cocktails and have been taking them for years.”

Patient family members have expressed gratitude for Dr. Fishbinder’s diagnostic process, and report that they are very pleased that he is doing everything in his power to “get to the bottom” of why their loved one isn’t as sharp as they used to be.

“I thought my mom was acting strange ever since she started taking stronger pain medicine for her arthritis,” says Nelly Hurtong, the daughter of one of Dr. Fishbinder’s inpatients. “But now I see that there are deeper reasons for her ‘altered mental status’ thanks to the brain MRI that showed some mild generalized atrophy.”

Hospital administrators praise Dr. Fishbinder as one of their top physicians. “He will do whatever it takes to figure out the true cause of patients’ cognitive impairments.” Says CEO, Daniel Griffiths. “And not only is that good medicine, it is great for our Press Ganey scores and our bottom line.”

As for the nursing staff, Griffiths offered a less glowing review. “It’s unfortunate that our nurses seem preoccupied with urine testing and medication reconciliation. I think it might be time for us to mandate further training to help them appreciate more of the medical nuances inherent in quality patient care.”

Dr. Fishbinder is in the process of creating a half-day seminar on ‘altered mental status in the inpatient setting,’ offering CME credits to physicians who enroll. Richmond Medical Hospital intends to sponsor Dr. Fishbinder’s course, and franchise it to other hospitals in the state, and ultimately nationally.

***

Click here for a musical take on over-testing.

See all cartoons »

Latest Book Reviews

The Spirit Of The Place: Samuel Shem’s New Book May Depress You

When I was in medical school I read Samuel Shem s House Of God as a right of passage. At the time I found it to be a cynical yet eerily accurate portrayal of the underbelly of academic medicine. I gained comfort from its gallows humor and it made me…

Read more »

Eat To Save Your Life: Another Half-True Diet Book

I am hesitant to review diet books because they are so often a tangled mess of fact and fiction. Teasing out their truth from falsehood is about as exhausting as delousing a long-haired elementary school student. However after being approached by the authors’ PR agency with the promise of a…

Read more »

Unaccountable: A Book About The Underbelly Of Hospital Care

I met Dr. Marty Makary over lunch at Founding Farmers restaurant in DC about three years ago. We had an animated conversation about hospital safety the potential contribution of checklists to reducing medical errors and his upcoming book about the need for more transparency in the healthcare system. Marty was…

Read more »

See all book reviews »