2 Think Good

>I know, the word lie works better than prevarication. But lie sounds like you are trying to insult someone, and I’m just trying to highlight a real prevarication. The Big Lie is an often quoted or referenced propaganda technique. It is frequently paraphrased as, the bigger the lie, the more they believe.

There are many examples in politics, across all parties and ideologies, but since he is president, we’ll use one by Obama. He recently stated that one of his health-care proposals–national adoption of electronic medical records–would save $80 billion annually. Two Boston area doctors, who happen to have voted for Obama and are on the faculty at Harvard Medical School looked into his claims. Here’s what they found and reported in their WSJ article:

The basis for the president’s proposal is a theoretical study published in 2005 by the RAND Corporation, funded by companies including Hewlett-Packard and Xerox that stand to financially benefit from such an electronic system. And, as the RAND policy analysts readily admit in their report, there was no compelling evidence at the time to support their theoretical claims. Moreover, in the four years since the report, considerable data have been obtained that undermine their claims. The RAND study and the Obama proposal it spawned appear to be an elegant exercise in wishful thinking.

Article referenced is copied in full at end of post.

—————————————————————————-
Obama’s $80 Billion Exaggeration

MARCH 11, 2009, 11:22 P.M. ET

By JEROME GROOPMAN and PAMELA HARTZBAND

Last week, President Barack Obama convened a health-care summit in Washington to identify programs that would improve quality and restrain burgeoning costs. He stated that all his policies would be based on rigorous scientific evidence of benefit. The flagship proposal presented by the president at this gathering was the national adoption of electronic medical records — a computer-based system that would contain every patient’s clinical history, laboratory results, and treatments. This, he said, would save some $80 billion a year, safeguard against medical errors, reduce malpractice lawsuits, and greatly facilitate both preventive care and ongoing therapy of the chronically ill.

Following his announcement, we spoke with fellow physicians at the Harvard teaching hospitals, where electronic medical records have been in use for years. All of us were dumbfounded, wondering how such dramatic claims of cost-saving and quality improvement could be true.

The basis for the president’s proposal is a theoretical study published in 2005 by the RAND Corporation, funded by companies including Hewlett-Packard and Xerox that stand to financially benefit from such an electronic system. And, as the RAND policy analysts readily admit in their report, there was no compelling evidence at the time to support their theoretical claims. Moreover, in the four years since the report, considerable data have been obtained that undermine their claims. The RAND study and the Obama proposal it spawned appear to be an elegant exercise in wishful thinking.

To be sure, there are real benefits from electronic medical records. Physicians and nurses can readily access all the information on their patients from a single site. Particularly helpful are alerts in the system that warn of potential dangers in the prescribing of a certain drug for a patient on other therapies that could result in toxicity. But do these benefits translate into $80 billion annually in cost-savings? The cost-savings from avoiding medication errors are relatively small, amounting at most to a few billion dollars yearly, as the RAND consultants admit.

Other potential cost-savings are far from certain. The impact of medication errors on malpractice costs is likely to be minimal, since the vast majority of lawsuits arise not from technical mistakes like incorrect prescriptions but from diagnostic errors, where the physician makes a misdiagnosis and the correct therapy is delayed or never delivered. There is no evidence that electronic medical records lower the chances of diagnostic error.

All of us are conditioned to respect the printed word, particularly when it appears repeatedly on a hospital computer screen, and once a misdiagnosis enters into the electronic record, it is rapidly and virally propagated. A study of orthopedic surgeons, comparing handheld PDA electronic records to paper records, showed an increase in wrong and redundant diagnoses using the computer — 48 compared to seven in the paper-based cohort.

But the propagation of mistakes is not restricted to misdiagnoses. Once data are keyed in, they are rarely rechecked with respect to accuracy. For example, entering a patient’s weight incorrectly will result in a drug dose that is too low or too high, and the computer has no way to respond to such human error.

Throughout their report, the RAND researchers essentially ignore downsides to electronic medical records. Rather, they base their cost calculations on 100% compliance with the computer programs “adopted widely and used effectively.” The real-world use of electronic medical records is quite different from such an idealized vision.

Where do the RAND policy analysts posit major cost-savings? They imagine that the computer will guide doctors to deliver higher quality care, and that patients will better adhere to quality recommendations embedded in the computer programs. This would apply to both preventive interventions like vaccines and weight reduction, and to therapy of costly chronic maladies like diabetes and congestive heart failure. Over 15 years, the RAND analysts assert, more than $350 billion would be saved on inpatient care and nearly $150 billion on outpatient care. Unfortunately, data to support such an appealing scenario are lacking.

A 2008 study published in Circulation, a premier cardiology journal, assessed the influence of electronic medical records on the quality of care of more than 15,000 patients with heart failure. It concluded that “current use of electronic health records results in little improvement in the quality of heart failure care compared with paper-based systems.” Similarly, researchers from the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, with colleagues from Stanford University, published an analysis in 2007 of some 1.8 billion ambulatory care visits. These experts concluded, “As implemented, electronic health records were not associated with better quality ambulatory care.” And just this past January, a group of Canadian researchers reviewed more than 3,700 published papers on the use of electronic medical records in primary care delivered in seven countries. They found no solid evidence of either benefits or drawbacks accruing to patients. This gap in knowledge, they concluded, “should be of concern to adopters, payers, and jurisdictions.”

What is clear is that electronic medical records facilitate documentation of services rendered by physicians and hospitals, which is used to justify billing. Doctors in particular are burdened with checking off scores of boxes on the computer screen to satisfy insurance requirements, so called “pay for performance.” But again, there are no compelling data to demonstrate that such voluminous documentation translates into better outcomes for their sick patients.

Even before these new data, there were studies casting doubt on the benefits of electronic medical records. In response, the RAND researchers boldly stated, “We choose to interpret reported evidence of negative or no effect of health information technology as likely being attributable to ineffective or not-yet-effective implementation.” This flies in the face of the scientific method, where an initial hypothesis needs to be modified or abandoned in the face of contradictory results. Rather than wrestle with contrary information, the report invokes the successes of computer-based systems in saving money in industries like banking, securities trading, and merchandizing, using ATM machines, online brokerage and bar-coded checkouts. Medical care of human beings — treatment of acute and chronic illnesses and the even more complex process of effecting lifestyle changes like smoking cessation and weight loss to prevent disease — is not analogous to buying bar-coded groceries and checking-account balances online.

Some have speculated that the patient data collected by the Obama administration in national electronic health records will be mined for research purposes to assess the cost effectiveness of different treatments. This analysis will then be used to dictate which drugs and devices doctors can provide to their patients in federally funded programs like Medicare. Private insurers often follow the lead of the government in such payments. If this is part of the administration’s agenda, then it needs to be frankly stated as such. And Americans should decide whether they want to participate in such a national experiment only after learning about the nature of the analysis of their records and who will apply the results to their health care.

All agree skyrocketing health-care costs are a dangerous weight on the economic welfare of the nation. Much of the growing expense is due to the proliferation of new technology and costly treatments. Significant monies are spent for administrative overhead related to insurance billing and payments. The burden of the uninsured who use emergency rooms as their primary care providers, and extensive utilization of intensive care units at the end of life, further escalate costs.

The president and his health-care team have yet to address these difficult and pressing issues. Our culture adores technology, so it is not surprising that the electronic medical record has been touted as the first important step in curing the ills of our health-care system. But it is an overly simplistic and unsubstantiated part of the solution.

We both voted for President Obama, in part because of his pragmatic approach to problems, belief in empirical data, and openness to changing his mind when those data contradict his initial approach to a problem. We need the president to apply real scientific rigor to fix our health-care system rather than rely on elegant exercises in wishful thinking.

Drs. Groopman and Hartzband are on the staff of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and on the faculty of Harvard Medical School.
———————————————————————