This was entirely predictable.
Public reporting of hospital death rates (via Dr. Wes) is pushing institutions like Massachusetts General Hospital to “modify” who to place cardiac stents in.
Previously, the hospital prided themselves in performing heart procedures in the “sickest of the sick,” but now, with reputations on the line, they may deny the chance that a sick patient, or someone with cancer, would receive a potentially life-saving procedure.
On a macro level, some are saying that’s precisely the point, since “doing procedures on patients with scant hope of recovery wastes money and exposes them to unnecessary care and pain.”
And that may be true. But try telling that to a patient’s family and loved ones, where they are now likely to be denied that small chance to live after a heart attack, all because of the pressure generated from public reporting of these hospital rankings.
Related posts:
- Are patients looking up quality data before a doctor or hospital visit?
- Pioneering patients: "Public intrusion is a given"
- Should doctors go to work if they’re sick?
- Hospital rankings: JD Power vs US News
- Sick patients
- Should elderly patients always be admitted to the hospital?
- Driving to the hospital and heart attacks
{ 2 comments }
this is what’s required in socialized medicine, it’s called rationing and the government has figured out a way to pretend like they aren’t doing it while forcing doctors to do it for them…
wow smarter than i would give them credit for.
“On a macro level, some are saying that’s precisely the point, since “doing procedures on patients with scant hope of recovery wastes money and exposes them to unnecessary care and pain.”"
Kevin, aren’t you one of those “some” who have said that?
Comments on this entry are closed.