David H. Wesorick, MD; Vineet Chopra, MD, MSc
Disclosures: Dr. Chopra reports grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Wesorick has disclosed no conflicts of interest. Forms can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M16-1400.
It is already known that policies requiring emergency-only hemodialysis for undocumented immigrants are bad for patients (causing unnecessary suffering and higher mortality) and health systems (driving costs higher and causing inappropriate use of certain resources, such as emergency services).
This study shows that these policies are also bad for clinicians, whom they force to allow preventable suffering, provide suboptimal and unjust care, participate in extreme waste, and compromise their integrity.
The article effectively shows that clinicians find emergency-only hemodialysis policies to be unacceptable and that they suffer personally and professionally when they are forced to comply with them.
An editorialist notes that the ethical problems related to emergency-only hemodialysis would disappear in a system with universal health coverage and encourages physicians to advocate for that type of system while simultaneously leveraging existing resources to abolish perverse health policies.
The authors conclude that there is a significant association between maintenance of certification and fulfillment of these HEDIS measures.
However, an accompanying editorial notes that the presence of even small, unmeasured confounders could easily eliminate the significance of the difference between the groups. More important, the editorialist points out that the HEDIS measures examined in this study simply do not pass the sniff test as robust quality indicators.
This study does little to support the notion that the traditional system of maintenance of certification leads to provision of meaningful, higher-quality care.
The authors hypothesize that it may not be the EHR per se that is contributing to physician dissatisfaction. Rather, it may be the excessive regulations around documentation and billing in the U.S. that are driving physicians to spend more time with the computer and less time with the patient.
The authors suggest that regulatory reform may be a key element in the battle against physician burnout in the U.S.
The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.
Wesorick DH, Chopra V. Annals for Hospitalists - 17 July 2018. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:HO1. doi: 10.7326/AFHO201807170
Download citation file:
Published: Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(2):HO1.
Results provided by:
Copyright © 2019 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.
Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704
Conditions of Use