Why are doctors so hands off and unhelpful in the USA?

Boozilla , 9 hours ago

• Too many patients, not enough doctors.
• Private insurance and intrusive controlling software: the doctor is limited in what they are allowed to prescribe, they have to check all sorts of boxes, and they have complex computer forms to fill out. They are too busy with the laptop to have much attention left for patients.
• Non-compliant patients who “do their own research” on the internet.

Most doctors I know don’t even want to go to a doctor. They know all the providers are shit talking their patients and just doing the best they can in a very broken system.

Late stage capitalism and medical misinformation have made the doctor-patient relationship almost adversarial.

Nougat , 9 hours ago

You know enough doctors well enough to know that most of them don't want to go to a doctor?

Boozilla , 8 hours ago

Read what I said. Most doctors I know. I know several. I worked for a hospital system, and I currently have a healthcare adjacent job. We talk about these things, yes. I don’t claim to speak for all doctors.

litchralee , 9 hours ago (edited 8 hours ago)

To start off, I’m sorry to hear that you’re not receiving the healthcare you need. I recognize that these words on a screen aren’t going to solve any concrete problems, but in the interest of a fuller comprehension of the USA healthcare system, I will try to offer an answer/opinion to your question that goes into further depth than simply “capitalism” or “money and profit” or “greed”.

What are my qualifications? Absolutely none, whatsoever. Although I did previously write a well-received answer in this community about the USA health , which may provide some background for what follows.

In short, the USA healthcare system is a hodge-podge of disparate insurers and government entities (collectively “payers”), and doctors, hospitals, clinics, ambulances, and more government entities (collectively “providers”), overseen by separate authorities in each of the 50 US States, territories, tribes, and certain federal departments (collectively “regulators”). There is virtually no national-scale vertical integration in any sense, meaning that no single or large entity has the viewpoint necessary to thoroughly review the systemic issues in this “system”, nor is there the visionary leadership from within the system to even begin addressing its problems.

It is my opinion that by bolting-on short-term solutions without a solid long-term basis, the nation was slowly led to the present dysfunction, akin to boiling a frog. And this need not be through malice or incompetence, since it can be shown that even the most well-intentioned entities in this sordid and intricate pantomime cannot overcome the pressures which this system creates. Even when there are apparent winners like filthy-rich plastic surgeons or research hospitals brimming with talented expert doctors of their specialty, know that the toll they paid was heavy and worse than it had to be.

That’s not to say you should have pity on all such players in this machine. Rather, I wish to point to what I’ll call “procedural ossification”, as my field of computer science has a term known as “protocol ossification” that originally borrowed the term from orthopedia, or the study of bone deformities. How very fitting for this discussion.

I define procedural ossification as the loss of flexibility in some existing process, such that rather than performing the process in pursuit of a larger goal, the process itself becomes the goal, a mindless, rote machine where the crank is turned and the results come out, even though this wasn’t what was idealized. To some, this will harken to bureaucracy in government, where pushing papers and forms may seem more important that actually solving real, pressing issues.

I posit to you that the USA healthcare system suffers from procedural ossification, as many/most of the players have no choice but to participate as cogs in the machine, and that we’ve now entirely missed the intended goal of providing for the health of people. To be an altruistic player is to be penalized by the crushing weight of practicalities.

What do I base this on? If we look at a simple doctor’s office, maybe somewhere in middle America, we might find the staff composed of a lead doctor – it’s her private practice, after all – some Registered Nurses, administrative staff, a technician, and an office manager. Each of these people have particular tasks to make just this single doctor’s office work. Whether it’s supervising the medical operations (the doctor) or operating/maintaining the X-ray machine (technician) or cutting the checks to pay the building rent (office manager), you do need all these roles to make a functioning, small doctor’s office.

How is this organization funded? In my prior comment about USA health insurance, there was a slide which showed the convoluted money flows from payers to providers, which I’ve included below. What’s missing from this picture is how even with huge injections of money, bad process will lead to bad outcomes.

financial flow in the US healthcare systemSource

In an ideal doctor’s office, every patient that walks in would be treated so that their health issues are managed properly, whether that’s fully curing the condition or controlling it to not get any worse. Payment would be conditioned upon the treatment being successful and within standard variances for the cost of such treatment, such as covering all tests to rule out contributing factors, repeat visits to reassess the patient’s condition, and outside collaboration with other doctors to devise a thorough plan.

That’s the ideal, and what we have in the USA is an ossified version of that, horribly contorted and in need of help. Everything done in a doctor’s office is tracked with a “CPT/HCPCS code”, which identifies the type of service rendered. That, in and of itself, could be compatible with the ideal doctor’s office, but the reality is that the codes control payment as hard rules, not considering “reasonable variances” that may have arisen. When you have whole professions dedicated to properly “coding” procedures so an insurer or Medicare will pay reimbursement, that’s when we’ve entirely lost the point and grossly departed from the ideal. The payment tail wags the doctor dog.

To be clear, the coding system is well intentioned. It’s just that its use has been institutionalized into only ever paying out if and only if a specific service was rendered, with zero consideration for whether this actually advanced the patient’s treatment. The coding system provides a wealth of directly-comparable statistical data, if we wanted to use that data to help reform the system. But that hasn’t substantially happened, and when you have fee-for-service (FFS) as the base assumption, of course patient care drops down the priority list. Truly, the acronym is very fitting.

Even if the lead doctor at this hypothetical office wanted to place patient health at the absolute forefront of her practice, she will be without the necessary tools to properly diagnose and treat the patient, if she cannot immediately or later obtain reimbursement for the necessary services rendered. She and her practice would have to absorb costs that a “conforming” doctor’s office would have, and that puts her at a further disadvantage. She may even run out of money and have to close.

The only major profession that I’m immediately aware of which undertakes unknown costs with regularity, in the hopes of a later full-and-worthwhile reimbursement, is the legal profession. There, it is the norm for personal injury lawyers to take cases on contingency, meaning that the lawyer will eat all the costs if the lawsuit does not ultimately prevail. But if the lawyer succeeds, then they earn a fixed percentage of the settlement or court judgement, typically 15-22%, to compensate for the risk of taking the case on contingency.

What’s particularly notable is that lawyers must have a good eye to only accept cases they can reasonably win, and to decline cases which are marginal or unlikely to cover costs. This heuristic takes time to hone, but a lawyer could start by being conservative with cases accepted. The reason I mention this is because a doctor-patient relationship is not at all as transactional as a lawyer-client relationship. A doctor should not drop a patient because their health issues won’t allow the doctor to recoup costs.

The notion that an altruistic doctor’s office can exist sustainably under the FFS model would require said doctor to discard the final shred of decency that we still have in this dysfunctional system. This is wrong in a laissez-faire viewpoint, is wrong in a moral viewpoint, and is wrong in a healthcare viewpoint. Everything about this is wrong.

But the most insidious problems are those that perpetuate themselves. And because of all those aforementioned payers, providers, and regulators are merely existing and cannot themselves take the initiative to unwind this mess, it’s going to take more than a nudge from outside to make actual changes.

As I concluded my prior answer on USA health insurance, I noted that Congressional or state-level legislation would be necessary to deal with spiraling costs for healthcare. I believe the same would be required to refocus the nation’s healthcare procedures to put patient care back as the primary objective. This could come in the form of a single-payer model. Or by eschewing insurance pools outright by extending a government obligation to the health of the citizenry, commonly in the form of a universal healthcare system. Costs of the system would become a budgetary line-item so that the health department can focus its energy on care.

To be clear, the costs still have to be borne, but rather than fighting for reimbursement, it could be made into a form of mandatory spending, meaning that they are already authorized to be paid from the Treasury on an ongoing basis. For reference, the federal Medicare health insurance system (for people over 65) is already a mandatory spending obligation. So upgrading Medicare to universal old-people healthcare is not that far of a stretch,

BananaTrifleViolin , 10 hours ago

The US healthcare system is built around money and profit. A cheaper procedure which does not require general anaesthetic costs less, and reduces profit. That can be beneficial to the providers but bloat is incentivised in the US healthcare system as providers battle with insurance companies for money. Crudely healthcare providers don’t care about saving you money; they want to take as much money as they can get.

Meanwhile, countries with tax funded health care opt for the most cost effective procedures, investigations and treatments. The incentive is to reduce costs and offer the most effective things to the most people possible. That can also sometimes have negative side effects if not carefully regulated but in such systems generally Doctors advocate for the best procedure and best medical practice, as they themselves do not directly benefit financially from which procedure is pushed. The downside is you do get the opposite side of things where patients are dissuaded from things as they’re not deemed cost effective by those who control the spending.

bradorsomething , 11 hours ago

The medical industry and the insurance industry are locked in a battle for money, and you don’t have a lot of say in it. I used to run an ambulance service. Let’s discuss.

If I took you to the hospital, and you were on medicare, there was a fixed rate to pick you up and a per mile rate. I got paid part by the government and part by the patient, who I was legally required to bill. If I failed to adequately bill the patient (10% or so), if I lied on the parts and mileage, silver bracelets and court time. We loved billing care/caid, because it was a fixed price, and we knew the payer of 90% paid regularly.

If you have private ambulance transport, you have no idea what you’ll get. The patient can have a $13,000 deductible, a 50% copay, and. $20,000 per-event cap. There’s no rule what a reasonable bill can be. The insurance company is trying to rig the game so the patient pays most of the bill while paying that sweet monthly premium at the same time. The ambulance is trying to be reimbursed for the time and materials. The red states opened the door for the patients to again be uninsured and pay you $0 for everything. So bills have to be high, to ensure some money comes in from insurance, to insure things can keep running. I would have loved to have a country of all care/caid and it be illegal to live there otherwise. They’d be the best cared for poor and old people in the world, getting quality care backed by the “only if you’re poor or old” US single-payer system.

But we have what we have, and it’s been well sold to enough clueless people that it’s here to stay.

paddirn , 12 hours ago (edited 11 hours ago)

Not a doctor and just talking out my ass, but I’m assuming part of it has to do with patient workloads and dealing with insurance companies, they’re just not incentivized to really take any time with patients, just get 'em through the visit, check whatever boxes they need to, and move on.

But yeah, I very much have had the same experience for the past 10 years or so with my same doctor, it just feels absolutely useless going to them for anything. It takes alot for me to go to the doctor for anything or to bring anything up even with the doctor if it’s not life-threatening. I’m not a hypochondriac by any stretch, I just try to keep an eye out on my health and if I notice my body doing something out of the ordinary, I just ask about it to see if it means anything.

Before my regular check-up though I’ll kind of bank up whatever questions or oddities that I’ve noticed, things that I figure I can bring up and see if maybe it’s a sign of one thing or another. Most of the time when I mention anything though, it just feels like the doctor is blowing me off, or he’ll just give a guess, maybe google it and show some pictures. At best he might tell me something like, “Hmmm, well it’s probably not cancer.” and then just sort of shrug and move on. I’m a guy, so I’m used to no one caring about my health or well-being at all, but I think I had a different image in my head when I was a kid about what it was doctors actually did.

The one regular benefit I see from going to the doctor is getting my blood drawn and being able to track health numbers from that, my job does the same thing too, so I get two sets of numbers from my blood work every year and I track it to see overall condition of my health, which I kind of wish was something my doctor did. He’ll mostly just comment the most obvious thing possible when the test results come in, but there’s never a look at health numbers over time, which is why I started just tracking it on my own.

SnotFlickerman , 12 hours ago

Ask the doctors who moved out of their home states instead of risking being jailed for “performing an abortion” when they were doling out life-saving medicine.