We’ve reached what may be my favorite of the proposed ways to reduce cancer care costs, published in the NEJM by Drs. Smith and Hillner. Idea Number 8 is to realign compensation to value cognitive services, rather than chemotherapy, more highly.
What the authors are saying is that we’d save money if oncologists were paid more for thinking and communicating, relative to their compensation for giving chemotherapy. They write:
Medicare data have clearly shown that some oncologists choose chemotherapy in order to maximize income for their practice.<46,47> A system in which over half the profits in oncology are from drug sales is unsustainable.
They suggest that physicians’ compensation should go up, relatively, for time spent
- referring patients for participation in clinical trials;
- discussing orders for life-sustaining treatments;
- considering advance medical directives;
- talking about prognosis in family conferences.
I couldn’t agree more.
Take the clinical trials example. In my experience enrolling patients in clinical trials, it was a lot of work if you (the oncologist) wanted to do it properly: You’d have to read through the entire protocol; identify any potential conflicts of interest, look up any other protocols for which the patient might be eligible and (ideally) offer that as well, take the time to explain that it’s fine for the patient to not enroll – that there’s “no pressure” (subject of a future post: when patients feel that they should enroll in their doctor’s trial), answer all of the patient’s and a family member or friend’s questions about it, process the paperwork carefully…
And I’d add to the authors’ suggestions for compensation-worthy time spent:
- going over pathology results, carefully and with an appropriate expert (a pathologist), and discussing the findings with the patient or designated proxy;
- reviewing radiology images with appropriate specialists (x-rays, CTs, MRIs… comparing each with the previous studies) and sharing the results, as above;
- checking blood work; abnormalities can be subtle; trends not obvious if results aren’t charted over time;
- discussing the patient’s condition, periodically, with other doctors such as the internist (or pediatrician), cardiologist, pulmonologist, surgeon, etc.
- researching relevant published studies and case reports for puzzling clinical situations (using Google, Medline, a real library, maybe calling an expert at another medical center…)
- communicating with patient about the condition, more generally (not only about end-of-life issues) — such as explaining a tumor’s known or unknown causes, treatment options, genetic and other implications of a cancer diagnosis.
Bottom line:
When oncologists earn more money by prescribing treatments like chemotherapy, there’s a conflict of interest and a tendency to give more treatment. If oncologists’ salaries were set based on a case load, or time spent taking care of patients that includes cognitive services – thinking and communicating – patients would get better care and less unwanted treatment.
—
I would like to stress though, as wonderful as it is to see a growing number of survivors, it is important that people do what they can to prevent cancer in the first place.