Eating Soup with a Fork: Reshaping Global Health Care Delivery to Meet the Challenges of NCDs

In the lead up to the UN High-Level Summit on Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs), there is been much discourse – and the rightfully so – on the need for greater public awareness of the threat NCDs, the framing of NCDs as a human rights issue, the importance of new funding mechanisms, and the urgency of collaborative action. However, missing has been the call to fundamentally redesign health care delivery systems to meet a fundamentally different set of medical diseases.

A fork is a great utensil but not for eating soup. Similarly, the current model of health care delivery is effective for managing acute illnesses such as infections or trauma. But for NCDs such as cardiovascular diseases and diabetes, which increasingly overwhelm health care systems around the globe, our current delivery model is largely ineffective.

Why Are NCDs Different?

In acute illnesses, a patient feels unwell, seeks care by a health care professional, and then receives a short course of treatment at home or in the hospital. The focus is on accurate and rapid diagnosis, which is usually done in a health care setting, and treatment is brief and often curative. In contrast, non-communicable diseases are best diagnosed through screening and early detection and are managed over months to years through by both patients and health care professionals through a combination of behavior change, medical therapy, and specialized care.

A special case is behavior-related chronic diseases such as hypertension, as opposed to non-behavior-related diseases such as cancer. These NCDs are not treated in a single clinic visit or hospitalization but rather are managed at home for years by patients themselves. A doctor may see a diabetes patient in clinic 15 minutes 4 times a year, while the patient self-administers her medications, monitors her sugars, and modifies her lifestyle the other 8,759 hours of the year.[1] It is little wonder then that from diabetes and hypertension to chronic obstructive lung disease, behavior-related NCDs are poorly controlled and among the leading causes of preventable disability and death even among developed health care systems.

New Care Delivery Models for NCDs

Our current conception of health care delivery systems for cardiovascular disease was born in an era when heart attacks were viewed as little more than random strikes of lightning. There was little that could be done to prevent them and even less to treat them. Older age and male sex were risk factors but were not modifiable. Patients who suffered from heart attacks were prescribed bed rest and monitored for complications. Now heart attacks are considered to be a late complication of atherosclerosis. The vast majority of heart attacks are preventable through lifestyle modifications and preventive medications. Treatment has also advanced considerably through medical as well as interventional and surgical therapies. 

These advances in medicine and public health require a fundamentally different approach to health care. Our health care delivery systems need to support lifestyle modifications to prevent the onset of cardiovascular disease, screening and early detection of risk factors, evaluation and treatment of chronic disease, and the triage and treatment acute complications. Such a system cannot merely be confined to the clinic and hospital setting, but must also be community-based. This system would include but not be limited to:

-       population health measures to monitor and modify risk factors

-       community-based screening and referral programs

-       community-based disease management, remote monitoring

-       clinic-based diagnosis and treatment

-       referral to higher levels of care

-       care coordination

Community-based care is not only important for prevention and early detection but also for those with advanced disease. While clinics and hospitals provide highly specialized care to these patients, care often continues at home, most visibly through chronic medications. Community-based care is essential to support ongoing disease management including medication adherence, behavior change, and monitoring. And yet today our care delivery system is still largely built around clinics and hospitals, rather than around patients and communities.

The appropriate care delivery model follows from the science of medical care. Delivery of effective cardiovascular disease care requires attention to the full spectrum of care, with an emphasis on prevention. In contrast, few measures are known as of yet to prevent breast cancer. Rather screening and early detection as well as specialized treatment of those with advanced disease are critical. As result, care delivery systems for breast cancer would focus on public awareness, access to screening, and referral to specialized centers for treatment.

Fork In The Road

To be effective, efficient, and equitable, our health care delivery systems must provide the right care, at the right time, and in the right place. Fundamental questions include:

- What is the optimal structure of a health care delivery system designed to address prevention, detection and treatment NCDs?

- What is the role of a primary health care in improving population health?

- How can innovation in health care delivery be fostered, sustained, and scaled?

Though health care delivery may seem like a “micro” issue less pertinent to national and international policymakers, it isn’t. Here are some steps we can take:

  1. Foster global shared learning. The issues of access, cost, and quality in the face NCDs are faced by health systems around the globe, whether developed countries or developing. In fact, a recent report from the World Economic Forum suggests that the majority of innovation in health care delivery is coming from developing world health systems, where the necessity for innovation is the greatest and barriers to change the lowest. Thus, health care delivery system redesign will not result from developed health systems providing expert guidance to emerging health systems and instead will require a multilateral global effort and shared learning.
  2. Create regulatory framework that supports innovation. Many countries including the U.S. have large public health systems that finance and provide health care. For example, moving from fee-per-service payment to risk-adjusted capitation models would allow provides to innovate.
  3. Training and collaboration. Interventions at the national, regional and local level impact the health of populations both by preventing disease and treating existing disease. At the same time, individuals with NCDs are also patients and often require evaluation, diagnosis and treatment under the supervision of trained health care professionals. As a result, addressing NCDs will require leaders with training in clinical medicine and public health and increased collaboration.

The primary attention to health care delivery has been the call for health systems strengthening. We need more effective health care workforce, last mile supply chains, and global health technologies; but we also need to fundamentally restructure and innovate upon our models for care delivery. At this pivotal moment for NCDs let us rally around a cry for transforming the way we deliver health care so that we may leverage our collective actions into better health for all.

 - Shantanu Nundy, M.D.

Posted in Thinking Out Loud | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Figuring Out What Primary Care Is All About

After three years of clinical practice, I’m still not sure what being a primary care doctor means. This is especially odd because not only am I on the verge of completing my training in internal medicine (yes!), but have also decided to go into primary care and will be a fully fledged general practitioner starting in July. If I looked it up in a textbook, the job of a primary care doctor would probably be described by some combination of the following tasks: diagnosis and treatment of common primary care conditions (e.g., the flu, back pain), administration of preventive health and public health measures (e.g., vaccines, screenings), management of common chronic conditions (e.g., diabetes, high blood pressure), referral to specialists and other allied health professionals, and care coordination. While these tasks make up the majority of my day-to-day activities as a primary care physician, it is what we do in-between the lines that is more uncertain and perhaps more important.

Ms. FB is a 53-year old woman who I first met in clinic over two years ago. Like most of my patients; she is poor, African-American, and has limited insight into her health. In addition; Ms. FB is morbidly obese, has high blood pressure, and despite my best efforts is a smoker. Last Friday I saw Ms. FB as a “return visit” in clinic. Looking through her chart, I was surprised to see that it had been well over a year since I’d last seen her. Typically for a high-risk patient like her I’d aim for at least 3 visits per year. She had missed a follow up appointment with me 9 months earlier but had not been scheduled for any since. I was embarrassed that I had not noticed her absence from clinic earlier, and as I trudged down the hallway to meet her scolded myself for not reaching out to her sooner. Though I’m the main doctor for all of my patients, 99% of my job is passively waiting for patients to show up and then helping them the best I can during their 15-minute office visit.

As soon I walked in the room, I immediately noted that Ms. FB had gained at least 10 lbs since our last visit and kicked myself again. At over 240 lbs and 5′ 2”, her risk of serious complications from her obesity was already unacceptably high. When I asked Ms. FB what kept her away and what finally brought her back, her response was almost too simple to be believable. What kept her away? “I didn’t have an appointment.” What brought her back? “My pharmacy told me my refills had run out.” Shaking off any regret, I got to work doing what a primary care doctor does. I checked her BP (a little high, she ran out of one of her three medications), reviewed her medications and wrote refills for all of them, and started ordering routine labs and her preventive health screening; all the while chatting her up about this and that (in medical terms, obtaining a “review of systems”).

But as we talked, something else about her seemed different. I had already asked her in 2-3 different ways if she was short of breath, having chest pain, or having any other major problems; but finally looked her straight in the eye and asked “But Dear, you getting around ok?” Turned out she wasn’t. She was having a hard time even getting out of the house because of fatigue and didn’t feel like herself anymore. In addition, at times, she admitted, her heart felt like it was racing. Examining her carefully I noticed her heart rate was not only fast but irregular (or in doctor-speak “irregularly irregular”, a sign that she had developed atrial fibrillation). In addition to the blood work, I sent her down for an EKG.

The next day I called her with her results. I stressed how good to was to see her again — an indirect plea to get her to follow up with me more often. Her labs looked good (I breathed a sigh of relief when I saw them) but the EKG hadn’t been done. “Oh, I forgot to get that.” No problem, could she come to in today to get it checked? I felt a little pushy– after all parking at our institution isn’t easy or cheap and getting to the hospital by public transportation can be an ordeal– but added “Could you please do it as a favor for me?”

Two days later I received an email that Ms. FB was being discharged from the hospital. The EKG had shown atrial fibrillation, and she was directly admitted to the hospital where she underwent electrical cardioversion (basically they shocked her heart back into normal rhythm). Could I make room in my schedule to see her in the next two weeks?

After my initial shock, I looked up her room number and rushed over, hoping to catch her before she was discharged home. On the way over I wondered what I would say. On my end I was again embarrassed. If I had kept better tabs on her, then maybe this would have never happened. I was also worried that she would be mad at me or lose trust in my ability as a doctor. At the same time, I wondered what value was there to visiting her in the hospital. I certainly wasn’t going to add anything to her care — atrial fibrillation is outside my field of expertise — and besides in our hospital inpatient and outpatient medicine is separate, so I couldn’t order any tests or medications even if I wanted to.

Before I could answer my own question I heard from across the doorway, “There’s MY doctor! There’s the man who SAVED my life!!” I stumbled awkwardly past her nurse and sat down bedside her. She was gushing. “THIS is the doctor I have been telling you about. The one God sent down for me.” Still dazed, I found myself thrust into a sideways hug.

We talked about her hospitalization. She was feeling much better after the procedure. She was ready to go home, change her diet, start exercising. She was going to lose 20 lbs and make my wife jealous. Pointing to her arm, she proudly showed me her nicotine patch. She had made up her mind and was done with cigarettes for good.

After she settled down, I shared with her my enthusiasm for her enthusiasm. I warned her gently that change was hard. For the next week she’d need to self-administer daily shots that would thin her blood after the procedure (lovenox) and for the next month take a new medication that was tricky to manage (coumadin). I suggested that she focus on taking these medications and quitting smoking, and then when I saw her in two weeks we could move on to talking about her diet and getting her exercising more.

Sensing it was time for me to leave, Ms. FB gave me another hug. We talked casually about our plans for the weekend. and then I waved goodbye. I then found her inpatient doctors to discuss her case and clarify the plan going forward. I contacted my nurse and scheduled Ms. FB into my next clinic opening. And then I replied to the initial email informing them that follow up had been arranged.

I’m still not sure what my job as a primary care doctor is. For the cardiologist involved with Ms. FB’s care, his job is clear: read the EKG, diagnose atrial fibrillation, and then shock the patient back to normal rhythm. Done. For the admitting team the work is also well defined: admit the patient from the ER, manage them in the hospital, and then discharge them home with follow up. But for me, I’m not sure where my work begins and ends. I find myself ebbing in and out of patient’s lives, sometimes doing medical things (suspecting atrial fibrillation) and sometimes not (pleading with a patient to get an EKG), rarely knowing what exactly I’m supposed to do but just going with my gut and sometimes with my heart. Whatever it is, being someone’s primary care doctor is a joy and a priviledge, and a job that I look forward to trying to figure out how to do for years to come.

- Shantanu Nundy, M.D.

Posted in Patient Stories | 2 Comments

From Diseases to Behaviors: A New Way of Looking at Health

What is the leading cause of death in the United States?

Heart disease?

Cancer?

Smoking.

Smoking? Yes, depending on how you ask the question.

In the early 90s, McGinnis and Foege turned the age-old question of what people die of on its head by asking not what diseases people die of but rather what the causes of these are. Instead of chalking up the death of an older man to say lung cancer, they sought to understand the proximate cause of death, which in the case of lung cancer is largely smoking. Using published data, the researchers performed a simple but profound calculation — they multiplied the mortality rates of leading diseases by the cause-attributable fraction, that proportion of a disease that can be attributed to a particular cause (for example, in lung cancer 90 percent of deaths in men and 80 percent of deaths in women are attributable to smoking). Published in JAMA in 1993, their landmark study became a call to action for the public health community.

When looked at the conventional way the top 10 causes of death in America are represented in the top graph below (this is data from the 2004 update of the original study). Viewed this way heart disease, cancer, and stroke are the leading causes of death, respectively. This accounting may help us understand the nation’s burden of illness, but does little to tell us how to prevent these diseases and improve health. Through the lens of McGinnis and Foege, we get the bottom graph, which shows the top 10 causes of actual death (e.g., the major external modifiable factors that contribute to death). This analysis shows that the number 1 cause of death in America is tobacco use, followed closely by poor diet and physical activity, and then alcohol consumption.

For those of passionate about preventive health, we take heart that fully 6 of the 10 leading actual causes of death are controllable behaviors — all except microbial agents, toxic agents, motor vehicle, and firearms (though hand washing and seat belts can make a huge difference!) — and that 4 of the 10 are addressed by U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended clinical preventive services.

You may wonder why am I presenting the results of a 7-year-old study that is itself an update of a paper published 18 years ago.  Two weeks ago, I attended the American College of Preventive Medicine annual scientific session. Along with hundreds of my peers, I went to the conference excited to hear about the latest and greatest in preventive medicine. At highly anticipated keynote address, the opening speaker David Katz presented the first of what would be hundreds of slides of data shown throughout the three-day conference. And what did he kick off the conference with? The graphs above showing the top 10 actual causes of death in America.

Often when it comes to health it is hard to separate the signal from the noise. We get so many messages through the media, our social networks, and even our doctors. “Heart disease is the number 1 killer,” “Eat more omega-3,” “Don’t forget to check your breasts.” There are only so many hours in the day and so many competing agendas, it is hard to know what to make a priority. Sometimes to sort it all out it helps to just step back and let the data speak for itself.

So the question is: what does the data say to you?

- Shantanu Nundy, M.D.

Posted in Thinking Out Loud | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

Dietary Guidelines 2010: A Worthwhile Read

In case you missed it Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010 was published this month.1 Commissioned by law, the Dietary Guidelines are revised and published every 5 years as a joint effort between the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) based on an expert panel review of the most recent data on health and nutrition. For a nation obsessed with dieting and weight loss, and in the midst of an epidemic of obesity, diabetes, and chronic diseases, the release of the latest national nutrition guidelines has come with limited fanfare and media attention.2,3

A large part of the problem is that over the years we have been conditioned to pay little attention to these reports. Although the effort put forth by scientists in generating the report is impressive, many of their key conclusions are either obvious or old news. A key finding of this year’s report is to eat less and maintain calorie balance (shocker!). Other recommendations are outdated or more controversial than the authors suggest. While the dangers of saturated fats are accepted as dogma, the body of evidence supporting this assertion is surprisingly weak, leading some experts to dismiss or even reverse the recommendation to reduce the consumption of saturated fats.4 Finally, those recommendations that are evidence based are difficult to act on, such as the report’s plea to consume “less than 300mg per day of dietary cholesterol” (calorie counting is notorious difficult, let alone milligrams of cholesterol). As a result, we have come to believe that we are more likely to get up to date, factual, and easy to follow advice from a celebrity magazine at the checkout counter than we are from our own government and leading scientists.

Underpinning the above is the simple fact that the Dietary Guidelines is not only a scientific document, it is also a political one. Given its primary role in protecting U.S. agricultural interests, including the powerful food industry lobby, the USDA is hardly an impartial source. Thus this year’s report marks the first time specific food items are named such as “pizza” or “fried white potatoes” despite the well-established deleterious effects of these foods. And we still are waiting to be formally admonished against eating processed and packaged foods and instead are simply told to eat foods lower in salt, added sugars, and saturated fats (all of which food industry products are exorbitantly high in).

Despite all the caveats above, I highly recommend reading Dietary Guidelines 2010 in its entirety. Regardless of where you fall on the low-fat versus low-carb debate, or whether you are an ardent supporter of Michael Pollan and local farmers, the report provides a critical summary of where we stand as nation on our most pressing public health problem. If we are to have any hope of reversing the tide of the obesity and chronic disease epidemic, we as a nation must educate ourselves about the nature of the epidemic and the choices we make that fuel it.

Consider the data table below showing the top 25 sources of calories among Americans (taken directly from the report):3

The table shows that the number 1 source of calories for Americans across multiple age groups is grain-based desserts (e.g., cake, cookies, pie, donuts, pastries). Pause on this for a moment. More of our calories are coming from desserts than any other food? And yet how often it is that we hear people ask, “Why do I keep gaining weight?” Though the answer for specific individuals may vary, as a nation the answer is clear. Among children ages 2 to 18 pizza and soda/energy/sports drinks are ranked 2 and 3, respectively. Regardless of your nutrition beliefs I suspect you are appalled by the notion that we are raising our children on a diet of dessert, pizza, and sodas.

Dietary Guidelines 2010 is filled with illuminating figures and text like the table above that help create a portrait of what Americans are eating and what the health consequences are. Sometimes the most powerful behavioral motivation is simply holding up a mirror to ourselves, and this report can serve as that mirror.

America, Dietary Guidelines was written for you with your tax dollars, so you might as well read it. But just this once, don’t forget to sprinkle a few grains of salt on it first.

- Shantanu Nundy, M.D.

1 http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/

2 article in NY Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/business/01food.html

3 good editorial from NY Times, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/is-eat-real-food-unthinkable/

4 http://beyondapples.org/2009/08/20/are-we-getting-nutrition-all-wrong/

5 page 3, http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2010/DietaryGuidelines2010.pdf

Posted in Healthy Living | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Taste of Canada on Chicago’s South Side

This past September, a group of medical residents at my institution began seeing primary care patients at a free clinic down the street from our tertiary academic medical center (“hospital clinic”). Far from my expectations, the care we are able to provide at our free clinic is in many ways better than our hospital clinic. Somewhat paradoxically, the experience has given me a taste of what the practice of medicine is like in single payer health care systems like Canada’s.

When I volunteered to start seeing patients at a nearby free clinic, I had little idea what I was signing up for. The term “free clinic” conjured up memories as a medical student in East Baltimore tending to patients at a local homeless shelter with severe frostbite or at a student-run clinic rummaging through the storage room for anti-hypertensive medications. I expected our patients to be terribly poor, the clinic to be little more than a warehouse, for supplies and medications to be few and far between, and for the care we provided to be more about putting out fires than delivering high-quality primary care.

But the place I have come to cherish working at is none of these things. A surprising number of our patients have stable lives and regular jobs – it’s just that their jobs don’t offer health insurance (including some who work in health care!). Patients call for appointments. When they arrive they are triaged by a nurse who takes their vitals and asks about their chief complaint before putting them in an exam room. We provide comprehensive primary care complete with routine lab tests for cholesterol and diabetes, age appropriate vaccinations, and referrals for mammograms and colon cancer screening.

In short, to the untrained eye, our clinic is less a free clinic than it is simply a community-based primary care clinic that happens to be free. While this is largely true, subtle yet important differences between the care I provide at the free clinic and my hospital clinic suggest that being free is more than just happenstance – it fundamentally changes the way we deliver health care and in ways that are largely for the better.

  1. Perhaps the greatest difference is in dispensing medications. At our free clinic routine medications are provided to patients free-of-charge. For most patients, I write out a prescription, which is then filled by clinic staff and made ready for pickup in 1 to 3 days. For medications that a patient needs right away or for patients who can’t easily come back, I fill the medication myself from the stock room (picture: counting out pills into empty pill containers, filling out prescription bottle labels). Though I can only prescribe medications on our clinic formulary, I take comfort in knowing that my patients have their medications in hand. In my hospital clinic, I can write for any prescription I want but I’m never sure whether the prescription gets filled or how much the medication costs. Sometimes I write a prescription for one type of cholesterol-lowering agent only to find out a month later my patient had to pay hundreds of dollars for it or more commonly because of the price didn’t fill it at all, or get a notice from their insurance company telling me that I should write for a different medication or requesting pre-authorization. Less obviously, handing patients their medications has changed the doctor-patient dialogue. It’s less transactional and more didactic. Often as I hand patients their pill bottle I find myself telling them about what side effects to look out for and how and when to take the medication. Between free access to medications and better counseling I can’t but wonder if their adherence to these medications is better. At the same time, the medications themselves become a check on the patient following up. We rarely give out more than 3 months of medication at a time. When their pill bottles start running out, patients know it’s time to come back to clinic, which keeps me seeing them at more regular intervals and lowers the risk of someone slipping through the cracks.
  2. Another important difference is in our charting. In my hospital clinic, medical documentation is an ordeal. In American health care, medical records serve three roles — medical, billing, and legal. As a result we spend hours filling out billing sheets, dictating complete physical exams and review of systems, often with little benefit to patient care. Charts become unmanageably large, with low signal-to-noise ratios and “meaning-less” use health information. I can easily find a patient’s insurance information but have to wade through sheets of paper to find out when their last mammogram was. At the free clinic, I document what actually matters. The chart is meant to support high-quality patient care – any information that detracts from this goal is not included.
  3. The services we provide are also different. The free clinic as a whole does what makes sense for patient care and not the bottom line. The clinic is a run by a non-profit entity whose mission it is “to deliver comprehensive, patient-centered health care at no cost to low-income, uninsured individuals”.[1] Clearly the clinic is constrained by its finite resources. But within those bounds, they offer services that they feel will fulfill their mission. At my hospital clinic we offer services based on reimbursement and margins. It’s no surprise then that my uninsured patients at my free clinic have access to weight loss counseling and general nutrition counseling while my insured patients at my hospital clinic do not.

Overall in the free clinic service is divorced from financial concerns. Money is not a factor for patients who don’t have to worry about getting a huge bill at home or paying for expensive medicines. And it’s not a factor for me in the way I choose which services to provide and document billing and charges. Instead the patient just focuses on doing what makes sense for him or her, and I do what makes sense for the patient. If it’s ordering an expensive test, so be it. If it’s telling them they are fine and don’t need to see me again for another year, then that’s fine too.

Clearly in the free clinic there are some drawbacks. Patients have longer wait times for referrals. Like the rest of us, specialists offer their time on a voluntary basis and routine referrals for dental care or GI specialists may take a few months. But these delays while inconvenient have not negatively impacted clinic outcomes.

Overall the differences between my hospital clinic and free clinic parallel the differences between the American fee-for-service health care system and a single payor health system like Canada’s. In the American system the care we provide patients is largely dictated by rules of reimbursement. Patients receive services that are paid for by insurance companies, not necessarily those that are best for their health. They often have co-pays for doctor visits and medications, which lead to decreased adherence and worse health outcomes, particularly in low-income populations. Those with expansive health insurance plans often get “more” health care (though not necessarily better care) than those with less or no insurance. In the Canadian system, patients are offered services that are made available by the government based on national guidelines and individual patient-doctor decision-making. Services including medications are free, and everyone receives the same care regardless of socioeconomic status.

At the risk of being political, which system do I prefer? Using the litmus test, which clinic do I prefer working in and which clinic would I prefer to be a patient? On both accounts I’ll take the free clinic down the street.

- Shantanu Nundy, M.D.

[1] www.communityhealth.org

Posted in Thinking Out Loud | Tagged , , | 2 Comments