Bravo Wes: You have all the blow hard bureaucrat physician 'leaders' on the run by revealing this inbred congo line of corruption dancing from CEO of medical associations championing limited patient testing then reappearing as the c-suite director of an insurance company. How many times have I heard these medical society leaders discuss how it is always about the patient when they decry over-testing? The truth is closer to grooming their CV for the next job in the echelon of higher paying non-clinical physician jobs. Even worse are the government types who secure gigantic slush funds with our tax dollars then somehow manage to be hired by some firm which is the beneficiary of those funds. Rest assured Wes, you are wreaking havoc for our sell out 'leaders of medicine' with their aspirations of c-suite jobs for insurance companies.
Yes, I have a question, again from a patient's perspective. I thought the Choose Wisely video offered some good advice, although I think an annual exam once you hit 50 is probably okay. Do you feel the video and its various cautions are entirely without merit?
I was unaware of required CME so I did a google. It seems to be as subject to corruption as is MOC because of pharma's ability to horn in on the action.
Lotsa cleaning up in your industry is needed, doctors. How about you start screaming about all the antibiotics that are fed to all our farm animals?
Wes: It only took two years for the choose wisely campaign to change one of their cardiology recommendations (revascularization of non-culprit vessels during MI). One would think that the key thought leaders in the field of cardiology would only choose the most obvious factual guidelines to follow. After all, these guidelines are set in stone, right?! Two scant years to prove that one of the guidelines was not only wrong but potentially dangerous leading to worse outcomes. Were there any repercussions from this clear violation of patient trust? How many lives were lost because of this erroneous guideline? Did any of the thought leaders in cardiology have an imposed penalty from Medicare for providing substandard care? How much money did this flawed guideline save the insurance companies?
Don't expect to see any articles in JACC or NEJM discussing the issue. You can expect more 'quality, vetted guidelines' from the same thought leaders. I would love to discuss this topic more but I need to finish my MOC module to improve the quality of care I deliver to my patients.
Honestly, I'm not sure. I agree that it is not clear from the credits on the video whether the ABIM Foundation was responsible for paying for this video, but the repeated use of "Choosing Wisely" in the peice makes one suspect.
6 comments:
Bravo Wes:
You have all the blow hard bureaucrat physician 'leaders' on the run by revealing this inbred congo line of corruption dancing from CEO of medical associations championing limited patient testing then reappearing as the c-suite director of an insurance company. How many times have I heard these medical society leaders discuss how it is always about the patient when they decry over-testing? The truth is closer to grooming their CV for the next job in the echelon of higher paying non-clinical physician jobs.
Even worse are the government types who secure gigantic slush funds with our tax dollars then somehow manage to be hired by some firm which is the beneficiary of those funds.
Rest assured Wes, you are wreaking havoc for our sell out 'leaders of medicine' with their aspirations of c-suite jobs for insurance companies.
Yes, I have a question, again from a patient's perspective. I thought the Choose Wisely video offered some good advice, although I think an annual exam once you hit 50 is probably okay. Do you feel the video and its various cautions are entirely without merit?
More from a patient...
I was unaware of required CME so I did a google. It seems to be as subject to corruption as is MOC because of pharma's ability to horn in on the action.
Lotsa cleaning up in your industry is needed, doctors. How about you start screaming about all the antibiotics that are fed to all our farm animals?
Inquiring patients are going to want to know.
Wes:
It only took two years for the choose wisely campaign to change one of their cardiology recommendations (revascularization of non-culprit vessels during MI). One would think that the key thought leaders in the field of cardiology would only choose the most obvious factual guidelines to follow. After all, these guidelines are set in stone, right?!
Two scant years to prove that one of the guidelines was not only wrong but potentially dangerous leading to worse outcomes. Were there any repercussions from this clear violation of patient trust? How many lives were lost because of this erroneous guideline? Did any of the thought leaders in cardiology have an imposed penalty from Medicare for providing substandard care? How much money did this flawed guideline save the insurance companies?
Don't expect to see any articles in JACC or NEJM discussing the issue. You can expect more 'quality, vetted guidelines' from the same thought leaders.
I would love to discuss this topic more but I need to finish my MOC module to improve the quality of care I deliver to my patients.
At the end of the video, the credits note that the video was not endorsed by Choosing Wisely...
Is there a direct line between the video and the MOC, as the blog suggests?
Mark-
Honestly, I'm not sure. I agree that it is not clear from the credits on the video whether the ABIM Foundation was responsible for paying for this video, but the repeated use of "Choosing Wisely" in the peice makes one suspect.
Post a Comment