Healthcare Labor Unions-Has the Time Come?

Labor unions in America look like they are making a comeback. Employees at  Starbucks stores, Amazon warehouses, Trader Joe's, and REI, grad students, Uber and Lyft drivers and employees at the Medieval Times have voted to unionize. Hollywood actors and writers, the United Auto Workers, and Kaiser Permanente employees have been on strike (1). Headline writers began declaring things like, "Employees everywhere are organizing" and that the United States was seeing a "union boom” (2). In September, the White House asserted "Organized labor appears to be having a moment" (2). However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics recently released its union data for 2022 and the data shows that the share of American workers in a union has continued to decline (2). Last year, the union membership rate fell by 0.2 percentage points to 10.1% — the lowest on record.

Despite an increase in union efforts since the pandemic, healthcare workers — particularly doctors — have been slow to join unions. Doctors Council bills itself as the largest physician union in the country with 3500 members according to Joe Crane, national organizing director. However, Crane estimated that only about 3% of US physicians are currently union members. A minority of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) (9%) report union membership, according to Medscape's APRN compensation report last year. In a rare alliance, more than 500 physicians, NPs, and PAs at Allina Health primary care and urgent care clinics in Minneapolis, Minnesota, recently filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board to hold a union election. If successful, the Allina group will join the Doctors Council SEIU, Local 10MD. The Allina healthcare providers share concerns about their working conditions, such as understaffing and inadequate resources, limited decision-making authority, and health systems valuing productivity and profit over patient care.

The economist, Suresh Naidu, and his colleagues have found influential evidence showing that unions played a critical role in boosting wages for American workers and reducing income inequality in the early-to-mid 20th century (3). However, "American labor law just puts an enormous barrier in the way of workers joining a union," Naidu says. "So you need to convince 50% plus one of your coworkers to join a union if you want a union.” That alone can entail a difficult and time-intensive campaign process. Our labor laws make it relatively easy for employers to short-circuit organizing efforts (3). Even when some of their tactics are technically illegal, companies are given wide latitude to thwart unionizing with minimal legal sanctions (3). Union organizers are forced to strategize and organize outside their workplace and figure out how to convince coworkers to join the fight without getting penalized or fired.

The obstacles to forming a union have only grown in recent decades. Around 27 states have passed "Right to Work" laws, which make forming a union more difficult in states with those laws and provide a refuge for companies looking to escape unions in states without those laws (2). Globalization has given companies the option to close-up shop and move overseas. Automation has given companies the option to replace workers with machines. Deregulation has increased industry competition and weakened unions' ability to extract concessions from monopolistic companies. Various changes to labor law, by the U.S. Congress, by state legislatures, and by the federal courts, have made it harder for unions to grow and thrive. Corporations now spend millions and millions on highly paid consultants, developing effective tactics to suppress unionizing efforts and pressure their workers into submission. Once workers form a union, it now takes an average of 465 days for the union to sign a contract with their employer.

Doctors, nurses and healthcare workers tend to underestimate their potential to influence healthcare. If doctors formed a union, many of my colleagues, myself included, would be opposed to an all-out strike since this would likely harm patients. However, the present healthcare system depends on the flow of paperwork with business interests relying on doctors and nurses to generate. Refusing to fill out billing sheets, discharge patients, participate in non-patient care hospital activities are just some of the ways doctors and nurses could impact the system without denying care to patients. A recent strike against Kaiser drove a settlement in 3 days with an increase in wages and an agreement to improve staffing levels (1). The threat of another pandemic and the need for healthcare workers to care for these patients despite chronic understaffing, leaves management backed into a corner.

Under these pressures and given the attitude of many doctors and nurses that they are healthcare professionals, not blue-collar workers, it is not surprising that the majority of doctors and nurses are not unionized. However, among my own social group of retired physicians the reluctance to join unions may be waning. One of my most conservative colleagues put it this way, “What choice do we have? Doctors have lost control of medicine and business interests have exploited their control over medicine to take advantage of us and our patients.” Many healthcare workers felt betrayed after the recent COVID-19 pandemic (5). They sacrificed much but received no rewards or even thanks for their sacrifices. Regardless, complaining about the situation is unlikely to change anything. Business interests are unlikely to relinquish control since they are making money, in some cases huge amounts of money. Unions may be one way to reverse the “hyperfinancialization” of medicine and return to a not-for-profit service for patients.

Richard A. Robbins MD

Editor, SWJPCCS

References

1. Selena Simmons-Duffin S. After historic strike, Kaiser Permanente workers win 21% raise over 4 years. NPR. October 14, 2023. Available at: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/10/13/1205788228/kaiser-permanente-strike-contract-deal-reached (accessed 10/23/23).
2. Rosalsky G. You may have heard of the 'union boom.' The numbers tell a different story. NPR. February 28, 2023. Available at: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2023/02/28/1159663461/you-may-have-heard-of-the-union-boom-the-numbers-tell-a-different-story#:~:text=Headline%20writers%20began%20declaring%20things,its%20union%20data%20for%202022. (accessed 9/30/23).
3. Farber HS, Herbst D, Kuzimenko I, Naidu S. Unions and Inequality over the Twentieth Century: New Evidence from Survey Data. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2021; 136 (3):1325–1385. [CrossRef]
4. Associated Press. Kaiser Permanente Reaches a Tentative Deal with Health Care Worker Unions After a Recent Strike. October 13, 2023. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/kaiser-permanente-health-care-workers-strike-411aa1f084c19725f29ff87766e99704 (accessed 10/14/23).
5. Griffin M, Hamilton P, Harness O, Credland N, McMurray R. ‘Running Towards the Bullets’: Moral Injury in Critical Care Nursing in the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Manag Inq. 2023 Jun 26:10564926231182566. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Cite as: Robbins RA. Healthcare Labor Unions-Has the Time Come? Southwest J Pulm Crit Care Sleep. 2023;27(5):59-61. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpccs047-23 PDF 

Medical School Faculty Have Been Propping Up Academic Medical Centers, But Now Its Squeezing Their Education and Research Bottom Lines

One of my former fellows emailed me an article from Stat+ titled “Hospitals Have Been Financially Propping Up Medical Schools, But Now It’s Squeezing Their Bottom Lines”. The article reports that hospitals have been financially supporting medical schools and are feeling their bottom line squeezed (1). An example cited is the purchase of the University of Arizona Medical Center in Tucson by Banner Health and an agreement by Banner to help both of Arizona’s financially struggling medical schools. Financial statements show that Banner has dedicated roughly $2 billion to the schools and a faculty medical group it bought as part of the 2015 deal. Banner is blaming these expenses for shrinking its operating margin from 5% before the deal to 1% today (1). The businessmen who purchased the academic medical centers initially embraced these mergers but now are facing the financial reality of managing a medical school (1). It seems likely that there will be increasing friction between hospitals and their affiliated medical schools competing for funds. These editorial points out the other side of coin, i.e., that the medical schools are financially shoring up academic medical centers.

Count me as one who is not overly sympathetic to businessmen in charge of academic medical centers. They now collect the pro fees from physicians, paying themselves first. Banner is a good example where the CEO made in excess of $25 million in 2017 compared to the average $155,212 earned by physicians (2). This means the CEO earned more in 2 days than the average physician earned in a year or about $164 for every $1 earned by a physician. As medical education has become more expensive, medical schools now find themselves increasingly reliant on the money they get from their faculty seeing patients and less able to count on other revenue sources, like federal research funding or tuition (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Source of medical school income (1). Click here to view Figure 1 in a new enlarged window.

Furthermore, many physicians, especially pulmonary and critical care physicians, worked above and beyond during the COVID-19 pandemic (3). The pandemic’s resulting disruptions affected academic and educational pursuits such as research productivity, access to mentoring, professional development and networking and personal wellness (3). These disruptions were compounded for faculty at high COVID-19–volume medical centers where clinical responsibilities were necessarily prioritized. Many recognize that it is important to prepare for a postpandemic accelerated burnout syndrome that disproportionately affects early-career physician-scientists at high-volume centers. However, rewards for service have largely been unfulfilled (3).

One quick comment on the validity of hospital ledgers. Physicians are usually shown the finances that businessmen want them to see. The accounting can be prepared to justify further physicians sacrifice of even more time and money. Hospitals tend to see the money generated by physicians, nurses and other healthcare providers as “their” money (1). They see a revenue stream going to a medical school as robbing them of “their” profit and want to know what they get for it (1).

All the above stems from the “hyperfinancialization” of medicine and applying a corporate structure to institutions which should be not-for-profit other than in name only. It is hard to pinpoint an inflection point in medicine, the point in which the direction changed and the mission changed. Maybe it is because in reality the inflection point is not a point but a large blotch, a series of smaller dots in coalesce into a bigger stain brought on by greed. I worry that the core of medicine has been forever damaged; that the doctor patient bond has been replaced with institute/provider - patient service. This model has proven to be more costly, less rewarding and associated with higher burnout. Yet, we continue to move forward with this model. Mergers between community-based physicians and hospitals which are supposed to bridge the gap between evidenced-based care and practice-based care has only served to devalue the intangibles in medicine further, always looking for what can be standardized and more importantly… billable. A corporate structure with a board, CEO, and a variety of vice presidents and other corporate titles has not served the public well. Physicians make less, administrators make more and hospital services have declined or not improved (4). One needs to only look at outcomes such as life expectancy and costs as a percent of GNP (gross National product) to recognize there is a problem (5).

Many, including myself, remain skeptical of the intrusion of business interests into medical education. The oversight of academic medical centers provided by organizations such as the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) that protects the public’s interests remain inadequate. Presently only a written statement must be provided every 5 years that “documents the Sponsoring Institution’s commitment to education by providing the necessary financial support for administrative, educational, and clinical resources, including personnel.” This is to be reviewed, dated, and signed by the designated institutional official (DIO), a representative of the Sponsoring Institution’s senior administration, and a representative of the Governing Body (6). It seems unlikely that review every 5 years by a DIO and other officials employed and dependent on medical center support is likely sufficient.

To provide oversight I recommend that a system be developed to hold medical center administrators accountable for decisions that lead to a decline in efficiency at both in the medical center and their affiliated medical schools (4). If they are in charge of medical care as they seem to think they are, then deficiencies need to be laid at their feet - the same for medical education and research. After all they now credential the healthcare providers and any deficiencies would seem to have resulted from a poor work environment or  poor administrative judgment in credentialing. It is time that administrators are held to the same standard. Physicians are required to have continued medical education, board certifications, etc. for credentialling. Present hospital systems where a board elects its own members with the nomination and blessing by the hospital CEO need to end. The chief of staff should be elected by the hospital staff and the majority of members of a hospital board need to be independent of the CEO and knowledgeable about the practice of medicine at that medical center (7). If administrators are not acting in a manner that promotes the doctor patient bond, increases the access to care, promoting cost containment in a transparent manner, and promote physician well-being, then it is time for them to go. 

Richard A. Robbins MD

Editor, SWJPCCS

References

1. Bannow T. Hospitals have been financially propping up medical schools, but now it’s squeezing their bottom lines. Stat+. April 14, 2022. Available at: https://www.statnews.com/2022/04/14/hospitals-medical-schools-financial-relationship-tension-squeezing-bottom-line/ (requires subscription).
2. Robbins RA. CEO compensation-one reason healthcare costs so much. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2019;19(2):76-8. [CrossRef]
3. Kliment CR, Barbash IJ, Brenner JS, Chandra D, Courtright K, Gauthier MC, Robinson KM, Scheunemann LP, Shah FA, Christie JD, Morris A. COVID-19 and the Early-Career Physician-Scientist. Fostering Resilience beyond the Pandemic. ATS Sch. 2020 Oct 23;2(1):19-28. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Jeurissen PPT, Kruse FM, Busse R, Himmelstein DU, Mossialos E, Woolhandler S. For-Profit Hospitals Have Thrived Because of Generous Public Reimbursement Schemes, Not Greater Efficiency: A Multi-Country Case Study. Int J Health Serv. 2021 Jan;51(1):67-89. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Cohen J. Dismal U.S. Life Expectancy Trend Reflects Disconnect Between Dollars Spent On Healthcare And Value Produced. Forbes. Nov 1, 2020. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2020/11/01/dismal-us-life-expectancy-trend-reflects-disconnect-between-dollars-spent-on-healthcare-and-value-produced/?sh=3657f353847e (accessed 5/2/22).
6. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Institutional Requirements. Available at: https://www.acgme.org/globalassets/pfassets/programrequirements/800_institutionalrequirements2022.pdf (accessed 5/2/22).
7. Robbins RA. Time for a Change in Hospital Governance. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care Sleep. 2022;24(3):43-5. [CrossRef]

Cite as: Robbins RA. Medical School Faculty Have Been Propping Up Academic Medical Centers, But Now Its Squeezing Their Education and Research Bottom Lines. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care Sleep. 2022;24(5):78-80. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpccs023-22 PDF

Deciding the Future of Healthcare Leadership: A Call for Undergraduate and Graduate Healthcare Administration Education

Good medical leadership is the cornerstone of quality healthcare. However, leadership education for physicians has traditionally been largely ignored, with a focus instead on technical competence. As a result, physicians in many cases have abdicated their role as medical leaders to others, usually businessmen without medical training or expertise, and often a lack of understanding of the human issues inherent to healthcare. Recently, the Southwest Journal of Pulmonary, Critical Care & Sleep published a manuscript, “Leadership in Action: A Student-Run Designated Emphasis in Healthcare Leadership”, describing a curriculum designed to develop future healthcare leaders (1). Hopefully this and similar curricula will prepare physicians in setting direction, demonstrating personal qualities, working with others, managing services, and improving services (2). 

The US suffers from a crisis in healthcare partially rooted in a lack of physician- and patient-oriented leadership which has led to “hyperfinancialization” in many instances. Beginning in the 1980’s there has been an explosion in administrative costs leading to reduced expenditures on patient care but a dramatic rise in total healthcare costs, the opposite of efficient care (3). The substitution of primarily businessmen for physicians as healthcare leaders has at times led to the bottom line being the “bottom line” for assessing success in healthcare. Although it is true that metrics of “quality of care” are often measured, quality of care is hard to define and implement in a way that functionally addresses the concerns of the healthcare system, patients, and physicians. Furthermore, the concept that business personnel acting alone can improve the quality and efficiency of healthcare is difficult to support. It seems to us that the combination of business acumen, an understanding of financial realities, an appreciation of physician needs and their careers, and a deep understanding of the human side of patient care is what is needed. We believe that educating and empowering physician leaders could begin to address this need.

As can be seen in many instances in the country, new medical schools and many training programs are being created as part of, and “report” to, large health care systems, including for-profit, “not-for-profit”, and non-profit organizations(4-6). We must be very cognizant of the potential conflicts in priorities that may occur in such situations, as well as potential opportunities. While a concern could justifiably be that a system or organization focused primarily on finances might neglect the human or science-based aspect of medical training, there could also be opportunities to create leadership training that takes advantage of leadership qualities and skills from both business and medicine. On the other side of the coin, university-based training programs cannot neglect the realities of today’s healthcare system where a facility with administrative and financial issues is required for successful leadership.

We must begin to train physicians to be administrative leaders early in their careers. Leadership training in medical school such as the program described in the article by Hamidy et al (1), and other programs like a residency dedicated to providing a broad medical experience as well as administrative experience under the supervision of physician administrators would be a great start. We already see many physicians in leadership returning to school to complete MBA programs, but training must start earlier if physician leaders are to be successful. The Institute of Medicine has recommended that academic health centers “develop leaders at all levels who can manage the organizational and system changes necessary to improve health through innovation in health professions education, patient care, and research” (7).  To this end, a few healthcare organizations such as the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and UT Tyler are all headed by physicians and could provide the necessary education with administrative emphases on care and financial stewardship, rather than pure profit (8-11). These better trained administrators would hopefully earn the cooperation of their providers and business partners in providing high quality care that is focused on the humanity of our patients, while keeping in mind strong financial stewardship. 

Richard A. Robbins MD, Editor, SWJPCCS

Brigham C. Willis, MD, MEd, Founding Dean, University of Texas at Tyler Medical School of Medicine Medical Center, Tyler, TX USA; Associate Editor (Pediatrics), SWJPCCS

References

1. Hamidy M, Patel K, Gupta S, Kaur M, Smith J, Gutierrez H, El-Farra M, Albasha N, Rajan P, Salem S, Maheshwari S, Davis K,  Willis BC. Leadership in Action: A Student-Run Designated Emphasis in Healthcare Leadership. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care Sleep 2022;24(3):46-54. [CrossRef]
2. Nicol ED. Improving clinical leadership and management in the NHS Journal of Healthcare Leadership 2012;4:59-69. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3cc3/36f891d6a4b47d951b2bd280e46f4687dd5b.pdf (accessed 3/25/22). 
3. Woolhandler S, Campbell T, Himmelstein DU. Costs of health care administration in the United States and Canada. N Engl J Med. 2003 Aug 21;349(8):768-75. [CrossRef] . [PubMed]
4. Banner University Medical Center-Phoenix. https://phoenixmed.arizona.edu/banner (accessed 3/28/22)
5. HCA Healthcare. https://hcahealthcare.com/physicians/graduate-medical-education/ (accessed 3/28/22)
6. Kaiser Permanente School of Medicine. https://medschool.kp.org/homepagJCe?kp_shortcut_referrer=kp.org/schoolofmedicine&gclid=CjwKCAjwuYWSBhByEiwAKd_n_kFPWcSP0Mj_VbqHJEsnwSwT_YkIErrb1PhcWQgQnRI_odNs5qbHZRoCaMIQAvD_BwE (accessed 3/28/22)
7. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Roles of Academic Health Centers in the 21st Century. Academic Health Centers: Leading Change in the 21st Century. Kohn LT, editor. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2004. [PubMed]
8. Mayo Clinic Governance. Available at: https://www.mayoclinic.org/about-mayo-clinic/governance/leadership (accessed 3/25/22). 
9. Executive Leadership Cleveland Clinic. Available at: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/about/overview/leadership/executive(accessed 3/25/22). 
10. University of Nebraska Medical Center. Meet Our Leadership Team. Available at: https://www.nebraskamed.com/about-us/leadership#:~:text=James%20Linder%2C%20MD%2C%20Chief%20Executive,Nebraska%20Medical%20Center%20(UNMC). (accessed 3/25/22). 
11. University of Texas at Tyler. https://www.uttyler.edu/president/about/ (accessed 3/28/22)

Cite as: Robbins RA, Willis BC. Deciding the Future of Healthcare Leadership: A Call for Undergraduate and Graduate Healthcare Administration Education. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care Sleep 2022;24(3):55-57. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpccs006-22 PDF

Why My Experience as a Patient Led Me to Join Osler’s Alliance

There are a number of books and articles written by doctors that relate their own experience as patients. Count this as another although I promise it will not be nearly as entertaining as “The House of God”. Over a month ago I became short of breath and a chest x-ray revealed left lower lobe consolidation. Despite lack of fever, it seemed that an infectious process was most likely, and when multiple tests for COVID-19 were negative, it was felt by my pulmonary physician to be most likely coccidioidomycosis despite a negative cocci serology. After beginning on empirical therapy with fluconazole for nearly a month, I am feeling better.

Most of us know that there is considerable laboratory to laboratory variation in serologic tests for Valley Fever (1). However, when my initial cocci serology was negative, efforts to send it a good reference lab such as Pappagianis’ Lab at UC Davis became nearly impossible. After making an appointment at Sonora Quest and waiting a week for an appointment to get my blood drawn, it was apparently sent to Davis, but when payment was not assured, it was not run. I would have been paid for it out of pocket but there seemed no way to communicate this.

Similarly, it took 3 visits to a commercial outpatient radiology practice, Simon Med, to get a routine chest x-ray. I can understand the need for appointments for CT scans. However, routine x-rays were so backed up that I waited several hours to get a chest x-ray performed although I did get an electronic copy. Fortunately, I am able to read my own chest x-ray and did not need to wait for a radiologist’s report which arrived on a Tuesday after the chest x-ray was taken late on a Friday.

Honestly, I had no idea that our patients were receiving such poor care. Delays of this magnitude go beyond what I view as acceptable. Overall, I think my doctors are great but I have concerns about an overall decline in patient care. It should not take a week to get routine labs drawn. Sick people should not be making multiple trips to get a simple chest x-ray. This may be another symptom of the hyperfinancializaton of medicine where patient care is sacrificed for profit. The hospital labs and x-ray departments of years ago were run by physicians and mostly concerned with patient care and not losing money. Today with businessmen controlling nearly all aspects of healthcare patient care is less important than maximizing profits.

I worry that our businessmen/managers are buying medical practices and directly supervising healthcare professionals. Healthcare is a business to them, no different than selling hamburgers at McDonalds. Their goals of increasing income and reducing expenses to maximize profits while hiding behind the façade of a non-profit organization is quite apparent. However, what is equally clear is that there is a lack of medical knowledge in these medical managers and decisions can be “penny wise but dollar foolish”. Look at the decision to not pay for a more reliable cocci serology which costs $80. They have spent more than this on fluconazole. Bad medicine is usually costly.  

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light many of the inadequacies of business interests dominating medicine (2). Hospitals are overflowing and inadequate personnel with inadequate personal protective equipment are available to care for them. Those remaining providers are expected to just “pick up the slack”.

Although I have long lamented (some say whined) about the businessmen’s mismanagement of medicine, what could we do? Business interests seemed to control the hospitals, the insurance companies, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and the licensing boards. We were being squeezed and trainees just beginning practice were in no position either financially or professionally to confront business interests which could end their career.

I appear to not be the only one who feels way. Last year, Eric Topol MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, wrote a piece published in The New Yorker, "Why Doctors Should Organize” (3). In it, he explained his view that the nation's nearly 900,000 practicing doctors needed to organize to bring back the doctor-patient relationship that existed before the business part of medicine took over its soul. Physician organizations such as the American Medical Association (AMA) represents only about 17% of US physicians, and have done little for medicine as a profession. The next largest, the American College of Physicians, represents internal-medicine specialists. Most of the smaller societies (e.g., ATS, American College of Chest Physicians) represent a subspecialty and have correspondingly fewer members each. The AMA once represented three-fourths of American doctors; the growth of subspecialty societies may have contributed to its diminishment. In any case, there is no single organization that unifies all doctors. The profession is balkanized into different specialties each hostilely eyeing the other specialty organizations.

Therefore, Topol has led the formation of Osler's Alliance (now Medicine Forward) (4). This organization, named for William Osler, hopes to draw together the nation's doctors, who come from different backgrounds, specialties, and political leanings but agree that the way they interact with patients is not what they envisioned when they decided to devote their lives to medicine.

"Such an organization wouldn't be a trade guild protecting the interests of doctors," Topol wrote. "It would be a doctors' organization devoted to patients (5)."Another organizer of Osler's Alliance, Esther Choo, MD, MPH, an emergency physician and professor at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, described physicians' widespread daily feeling that "this can't be the way it's supposed to be," but also a lack of empowerment to make changes (5). That's where the numbers come in, she said. A massive group of physicians standing up against practices could force change.

The first step, Choo said, is to break down the fundamental mission into "bite-sized advocacy (5)." That might entail advocating for answers to why increased documentation demands are necessary and how, specifically, they help the patient rather than dutifully complying with directives for more charting.

The leaders emphasize that membership in the group is not about money, which is why it's only $5 a year. Signing up builds support and allows access to chat streams and information in a broad network. "When you start seeing advertisements for health systems that say, 'We give the gift of time to patients and clinicians,' " answered Topol, "then we'll know we're turning the right corner (5)."

If you are a physician or other provider, you might consider joining Osler’s Alliance. What have you and your patients got to lose? Staying the present course would seem to lead to nowhere.

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Editor, SWJPCC

References

1. Galgiani JN, Knox K, Rundbaken C, Siever J. Common mistakes in managing pulmonary coccidioidomycosis. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2015;10(5):238-49. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc054-15
2. Dorsett M. Point of no return: COVID-19 and the U.S. healthcare system: An emergency physician's perspective. Sci Adv. 2020 Jun 26;6(26):eabc5354. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Topol E. Why Doctors Should Organize. The New Yorker. August 5, 2019. Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/why-doctors-should-organize (accessed 11/30/20).
4. Osler’s Alliance website. Available at: https://oslersalliance.mn.co/about (accessed 11-30-20).
5. Frellick M. Medical Leaders Launch Grassroots Doctors' Alliance. Medscape. November 25, 2020. Available at https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/941623 (accessed 12/30/20).

Cite as: Robbins RA. Why My Experience as a Patient Led Me to Join Osler’s Alliance. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2020;21(6):138-40. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc066-20 PDF

What the COVID-19 Pandemic Should Teach Us

As I write this between telemedicine patients on June 16^th, I am reflecting back on the pandemic and what we have learned so far, not in how to diagnose or care for the COVID-19 patients, but in government and healthcare administration’s response to the pandemic.

Politicians have made both good and poor decisions regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. In the summer of 2005, President George W. Bush was on vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, when he began flipping through an advance reading copy of a new book about the 1918 influenza pandemic (1). He couldn't put it down. What was born was the nation's most comprehensive pandemic plan -- a playbook that included diagrams for a global early warning system, funding to develop new, rapid vaccine technology, and a robust national stockpile of critical supplies, such as face masks and ventilators. Bush’s remarks from 15 years ago still resonate. "If we wait for a pandemic to appear," he warned, "it will be too late to prepare. And one day many lives could be needlessly lost because we failed to act today."

In what will probably go down as some of the worse timing in history, the Trump administration eliminated or severely cut funding to these Bush-era programs (2). In March of 2018, Timothy Ziemer, whose job it was to lead the United States response in the event of a pandemic, abruptly left the administration and his global health security team was disbanded. In February 2020 the administration released its proposed federal budget proposal for fiscal year 2021, calling for a cut of more than $693 million at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as a $742 million cut to programs at the Health Resources and Services Administration. Overall, the president’s budget proposed a 9% funding cut at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. More recently the US has pulled out of the World Health Organization with the dubious timing of being in the middle of this pandemic. In addition, Trump downplayed the pandemic from the beginning and has ignored the advice of virtually every epidemiologist encouraging “opening up” the country ignoring accelerating COVID-19 cases and death tolls (2,3).

In Arizona early in the pandemic we were doing OK with most businesses shut down and people by and large staying at home. Our clinic was closed although we continued to see telemedicine patients. However, Governor Ducey, under the apparent urging of Trump, “opened up” the state beginning May 15 resulting in an apparent resurgence of COVID-19 cases. No word from Ducey, the Arizona State Department of Health Services or Maricopa Health and Human Services on how we should respond to the resurgence. I cannot find any admission by any of the governors, and certainly not Trump, that states that prematurely “opened up” was a mistake.

Misinformation is everywhere. Everyone with a computer and no or inadequate medical education has suddenly become an expert in COVID-19. My inbox is flooded with multiple emails from people I do not know espousing their latest theories, guidelines, unproven treatments, or passing along the latest internet COVID-19 chatter.

This disinformation is potentially dangerous but the scientific community has also made mistakes. For example, a controversial study led by Didier Raoult from Marseilles on the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for patients with COVID-19 was published March 20 (4). It showed a reduction in viral load and “clinical improvement compared to the natural progression.” This was picked by several including Trump who claimed to be taking hydroxychloroquine as a preventative. Papers purporting to show that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective were published in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet. These have been retracted since the database from which they were derived was found to be unreliable (5). These studies have only added to the confusion of hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness in COVID-19.

Government and hospitals were unprepared. In 2009, a smaller pandemic due to H1N1 swept through the United States (6). Ventilators, ICU beds, and adequate numbers of healthcare providers were in short supply despite the Bush administration’s attempt at preparedness (7). When the pandemic resolved no additional preparations were made for another and larger pandemic. Disturbingly, when the current COVID-19 pandemic occurred there were inadequate numbers of ventilators for patients and inadequate protection for healthcare workers. In some instances, personal protective equipment was not allowed to be used (8). There was no response from the federal government or hospitals. What could they do? They needed the physicians and nurses to care for the tidal wave of patients exposing the healthcare workers to COVID-19. To date about 600 healthcare workers have died during the COVID-19 pandemic and it will likely go much higher.

Healthcare hyperfinancializaton was the source for the unpreparedness. The source of this unpreparedness at both the national and local level was a desire to save money since a pandemic was viewed by decision makers as unlikely in the near future. Cutting taxes and maximizing profits were the real goals and preparation for a pandemic was not viewed as a priority especially since it interfered with the real goal of making money. We are now paying the price for these short-sighted decisions. Since the federal government has markedly increased the federal debt with a COVID-19 bailout, we will likely continue to pay the price with higher taxes and/or by cutting other government programs viewed as low priorities. Some of these programs may prove to be as potentially valuable as the trashed pandemic plan.

As a country we need to start thinking about how to approach these decisions in the future. In my view, the present system of politicians and businessmen serving as healthcare decision makers has been an abysmal failure. The COVID-19 pandemic is but one example of this failure. Clearer heads both in government and healthcare regulation such as the Joint Commission need to become more concerned that the voices of knowledgeable people such as Tony Fauci are heard. Until we develop such a system, we can anticipate healthcare to be unprepared for calamities such as the COVID-19 pandemic they occur in the future.

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Editor, SWJPCC

References

1. Mosk M. George W. Bush in 2005: 'If we wait for a pandemic to appear, it will be too late to prepare'. A book about the 1918 flu pandemic spurred the government to action. ABC News. April 5, 2020. Available at: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/george-bush-2005-wait-pandemic-late-prepare/story?id=69979013 (accessed 6/16/20).
2. Morris C. Trump administration budget cuts could become a major problem as coronavirus spreads. Fortune. February 26, 2020. Available at: https://fortune.com/2020/02/26/coronavirus-covid-19-cdc-budget-cuts-us-trump/ (accessed 6/16/20).
3. Fadel L. Public health experts say many states are opening too soon to do so safely. NPR. Weekend Edition. May 9, 2020. Available at: https://www.npr.org/2020/05/09/853052174/public-health-experts-say-many-states-are-opening-too-soon-to-do-so-safely (accessed 6/16/20).
4. Gautret P, Lagier JC, Parola P, et al. Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial [published online ahead of print, 2020 Mar 20]. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020;105949. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Gumbrecht J, Fox M. Two coronavirus studies retracted after questions emerge about data. CNN. June 4, 2020. Available at: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/health/retraction-coronavirus-studies-lancet-nejm/index.html (accessed 6/16/20).
6. CDC. 2009 H1N1 pandemic (H1N1pdm09 virus). Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-pandemic.html (accessed 6/16/20).
7. WHO. Shortage of personal protective equipment endangering health workers worldwide. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/03-03-2020-shortage-of-personal-protective-equipment-endangering-health-workers-worldwide (accessed 6/16/20).
8. Sathya C. Why would hospitals forbid physicians and nurses from wearing masks? Sci Am. March 26, 2020. Available at: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-would-hospitals-forbid-physicians-and-nurses-from-wearing-masks/ (accessed 6/17/20).

Cite as: Robbins RA. What the COVID-19 pandemic should teach us. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2020;20(6):192-4. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc042-20 PDF