Yale’s Harlan Krumholz blogs on the Forbes site today, making a strong case for shared decision-making even though he doesn’t use that term in his post. Excerpt:
“A few weeks ago I made a modest proposal to the medical profession in the pages of the Journal of the American Medical Association. I suggested that we make informed consent meaningful and provide patients with the critical information that should be available to anyone contemplating a major test or procedure.
I suggested that in non-urgent situations, when there is time for deliberation, patients be told their options, given realistic estimates of risks and benefits, informed about the track record of the institution and physicians who will provide the service, and provided an estimate of the costs to them.
My proposal was to standardize the information to patients who are considering some of the most common elective tests and procedures. Assemble panels of expert doctors and determine where there is consensus about the minimum information that all patients should know. Work with educators and psychologists to determine how to convey the information fairly and impartially. Inform patients that the best decision will be aligned with their values and preferences and that no one decision is right for everyone.
This solution to rising health care costs does not involve rationing care. It does not shift payments to patients or reduce payments to doctors. It does not require complicated legislation or regulation. The solution simply ensures that patients are making an informed decision.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
pnschmidt
June 3, 2010 at 3:51 pmThere are two proven ways to contain health costs: (1) align financial interests and (2) rationing. The benefit from informed decision making comes from skewing therapies away from the dangerous rather than the expensive. The hazards of informed decision making are twofold: most of the information is provided by the person reimbursed for the service, and decisions made outside of the context of cost cannot reasonably be assumed to reduce cost. For example, for several diseases, there are pills comprised of two generic drugs together in one pill. These combined pills are patented and generally far more expensive than the same drugs would be in separate pills. However, there are no safety concerns over the separate pills and it is marginally easier for the patient to take one pill than two. If cost were part of the equation, no one would buy the combined pills and yet they are widely used. This is the counter-example for informed choice.
Elaine Schattner, M.D.
June 4, 2010 at 2:57 pmThanks for this post and alerting me and other readers to the excellent Forbes piece by Dr. Harlan Krumholz. It gives a nice example in cardiology on the value of medical information: when patients know more, they spend less.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like