The Seven Deadly Sins Diet

Sure, I know we’re all supposed to be acting like grown-ups these days – bucking up, buckling down, toughening up, pulling up our socks, straightening our ties – being more sober than we’ve ever been. And I know a lean, mean look, buffed up like Michelle Obama’s arms, much better suits these tougher times than a, shall we say, softer, silhouette. Call me a self-indulgent whiner, but I still say losing weight or getting in shape is hard, and I still say hard stuff is, you know, tough. That’s why I had a warm, fuzzy blast to the past – you remember, the good old days when we still thought we could get something for nothing, like maybe 2007 – when I read about this “diet” to lose weight through more sleep. Not getting enough sleep could contribute to putting on the pounds so, yes, of course, just get some sleep and watch the pounds melt away. This is my kind of diet. Still, it’s not enough. Now, sloth is one of my favorite sins, and if I can indulge it while thinking I’m going to lose weight, sign me up. But what about the six other deadly sins? We all have our personal preferences. There must be a way to tap everyone’s favorite weakness for diet purposes. So, as spring’s warmth and beauty leads to the shedding of our protective layers of big coats, I’m working on some seven sins diet tips. Wrath is a pretty easy one to use. Pretend your partner has left you for a twenty-years-younger hardbody. How do you feel? Now use that anger to fuel getting into shape. About to slack off on the rowing machine?–more wrath! And lust? Also easy. I’m not even going to bother Googling “sex diet” for you. I don’t know if it’s supposed to be the calorie burning or if you’re supposed to distract yourself from food, but feel free to let me know if you figure it out.

The Primary Care Conundrum

Ask any health care wonk and they’ll tell you that within the larger health care crisis is a primary care crisis. There is more and more demand for primary care physicians – the person you probably call your “family doctor” – but America’s medical schools are producing fewer of them. Why? Well in a word, money. It’s not actually medical school that’s the problem. It’s what happens next. A newly graduated physician, carrying a big chunk of debt used to pay for medical school tuition, gets to chose their residency and, as such, decides what type of doctor to become. In the U.S. we let medical students choose what to do. Not being dummies, most of them notice that diagnostic radiologists and orthopedic surgeons make three times what primary care doctors make, and choose their career path accordingly. Why the vast difference in compensation? Doing something to a patient – fixing a broken hip, reading an x-ray – has always been better rewarded more than talking to them about their high blood pressure or their son’s excema. And while the taxpayer has subsidised teaching hospital residency slots to the tune of a more than $100 billion over the last two decades, the government doesn’t limit the number of those slots by specialty type. Most sensible countries do because they know that the more specialists there are the more specialty care gets done. And specialty care is very expensive. Which is the main reason we spend so much more on health care here than in other countries. In 1965, primary care doctors made up 50 percent of physcians; the other half were specialists. Today, about 70 per cent of America’s doctors have become specialists. Most other countries have the reverse ratio. There were two major attempts to redress the imbalance in the 1990s. First, managed care plans like HMOs started paying primary care physicians a global fee to provide all care to their patients. In some cases this meant that primary care groups started acting as general contractors and ended up reducing the specialty and hospital care their patients received — and keeping more money into the bargain. In some markets, notably southern California, specialists saw their incomes drop dramatically. Politically this resulted in the ‘managed care backlash’. Patients and specialists complained, politicians and judges threatened, and insurers and employers who were paying for the HMOs backed off. Worse the insurers started cutting payments to the primary care groups and many doctors ended up bankrupt — having taken on insurance-type risks that they couldn’t manage: getting paid to treat a group with a range of illnesses and problems and incomes rather than one or two not-so-sick people with fat wallets. The other attempt to improve the lot of the primary care doctor was the introduction of a physician payment scheme by Medicare called the Resource-based Relative Value Scale (RBRVS). The name underlined the intention. Payments to doctors were meant to be based on the relative value of resources used. So a unit of time spent managing patients and talking to them about exercise for high blood pressure, for instance, would be close in value to a unit of time cutting them open. Unfortunately, America’s specialty societies hijacked the process and they now control the somewhat secretive RBRVS Update Committee, which advises Medicare on those payments. So specialty care and procedures remain much much better rewarded than primary care. In the nearly three decades after this problem was first recognized, it’s becoming harder and harder to find primary care doctors. It’s going to get worse; last year the number of medical students opting for primary care fell to an all time low. So what’s the likely outcome? Medicare clearly will take a hack at redressing the imbalance in payments as part of whatever reform happens in 2009. But unless the specialists and the hospitals that live in symbiosis with them are ready to significantly and voluntarily cut their incomes and reallocate that money to primary care, there will not be enough money for primary care to solve the current shortfall. And the U.S. is not seriously going to tackle – let along address – this problem as a matter of public policy until the whole system breaks so severely that more people demand massive reform. Such a time is still at least a decade or so away. In the meantime, the market will have a go at addressing the primary care shortage. but it won’t do it in ways that primary care doctors will like. You’ll continue to see an expansion in nurse practitioners in retail clinics in supermarkets and drugstores. And more and more people will become frustrated by the lack of availability of primary care docs in their neighborhood and will go online where they’ll find plenty of entrepreneurial companies offering Internet consults. Of course if an online consult is good enough – and it probably is in many if not most cases – why does that doctor need to be in the same town, or even the same country? Or if it’s a diagnosis that requires extensive medical knowledge, why can’t a computer do it as well? Why not indeed? You’ll see all this happening in the next few years as well. In fact, the result of the primary care crisis may not be inspired reform. it may instead just end up causing globalization and technology outsourcing to come into physicians’ lives. Just like it has to auto workers, steel workers and call center clerks.

Healthcare Politics Trumps Good Policy

Time will tell if President Obama managed to hit the “reset” button with his Wednesday evening speech to Congress on healthcare. But as long as the American public firmly divided into three camps – those who want free healthcare at any cost, those who want none of it and those who are utterly confused by the whole idea – the process will remain unpopular. Soaring oratory and grand gestures will not turn former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin or Congressman Joe Wilson to acolytes of government-run healthcare. The “tea-baggers” will never ask for a cube of his sugar. The President, if he is to succeed, must accept this and build a thick skin. And to win the healthcare debate, Obama must convert the confused. Because they are based on good politics and not good policy, even without the so-called “misinformation” by his opponents, the president’s positions on healthcare are confusing enough, all by themselves. Obama made a fairly bold assertion as he framed the health care debate saying that “our health care problem is our deficit problem.” The logic that follows, is that the status quo costs the government more than the “reform” Obama proposes. That assertion raises several unanswered questions which is where the confusion begins. If “our health care problem is our deficit problem” why does the healthcare “solution” require a “tax increase” to succeed? That sounds as though “taxes” are the President’s budget solution and “healthcare reform” is just a vehicle to raise them. If there is a “trigger” to prompt the creation of a public healthcare option – a government-run system – why not make the “trigger” the realization of enough savings from healthcare reform to pay for the public option? Now that would signal a genuine commitment to making our healthcare solution a deficit solution! If “our health care problem is our deficit problem” then why would the reforms proposed by the White House “not apply to those who are here illegally?” Even if you forget the basic matter of how, exactly, how a large chunk of people can be excluded from such a radical reform, you still have a logical fallacy: If healthcare reforms will result in deficit savings, as the President professes, then why exclude the potential savings from the 15 million undocumented, uninsured immigrants in America? On the flip side, if it costs money to include illegal immigrants in healthcare reform, then how, exactly, is healthcare reform a deficit solution? If we are trying to get people insured so that emergency rooms are no longer the primary caregivers for the uninsured, then why keep a system that is broken and costly for 15 million people, whether they are here legally or not? It seems that good politics has prevailed over good policy when it comes to making decisions in the Obama White House. Like it or not, many Americans are thinkers. They have abondoned the two-party system because, like Progressive Libertarians, neither side truly reflects their views or their ideas of how the nation’s two political parties conduct our affairs. And when these thinking Americans listen to what is being said about healthcare, it is all literally and utterly confusing. And that’s not a winning strategy with the American public.