A few days ago I had a colonoscopy to evaluate some gastrointestinal problems. Subjective summary: Yuck. Downing 3 liters of Nu-Litely, a hyper-osmotic colonic cocktail prep, does not make for a pleasant Sunday afternoon, evening or night. As for the procedure itself, I don’t know how Katie Couric did it on TV.
But what made the procedure tolerable, and non-scary, and worthwhile, was that it was done by a careful, experienced gastroenterologist in a well-run facility. The outpatient unit where I had my colonoscopy employs reputable anesthesiologists and maintains functional, appropriate monitoring instruments and, should they be needed, life-saving equipment.
Why I mention this recent ickiness is this –
… after concluding that the standards were obsolete or overly burdensome to the industry.
Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said the proposed changes, which would apply to more than 6,000 hospitals, would save providers nearly $1.1 billion a year without creating any “consequential risks for patients.”
A few aspects of the proposed regulatory pull-back seem reasonable, like allowing hospitals to delegate more work to nurse-practitioners. But some of this regulatory reversal sounds dangerous:
…Other proposals would eliminate requirements for hospitals to keep detailed logs of infection control problems…
…Federal officials would also eliminate a detailed list of emergency equipment that must be available in the operating rooms of outpatient surgery centers. Such clinics would have leeway to decide what equipment was needed for the procedures they performed.
Fortunately, the administration is accepting public comments on this matter for 60 days. But they could make it easier. Instructions from the HHS press release involve a series of links:
To view the proposed and final rules, please visit: www.ofr.gov/inspection.aspx…Both proposals invite the public, including doctors, hospitals, patient advocates, and other stakeholders, to comment. To submit a comment, visit www.regulations.gov, enter the ID number CMS-9070-P or CMS-3244-P, and click on “Submit a Comment.”
My position is that any lessening of infection control is a disservice to patients. As for monitoring of outpatient facilities where procedures are performed, it’s crucial; patients rely on maintenance of modern, clean and functional equipment in places where they receive medical care.
My bottom line: Patient safety should take precedence over cost-saving measures by the inspectors and the inspected.