CancerNetwork Members: Login | Register
Become a fan on  Facebook  Add us on  Google Plus Follow us on  Twitter Join us on LinkedIn Sign up for our Newsletters Subscribe to our RSS Feed

 

CancerNetwork SearchMedica Medline Drugs

Powered by SearchMedica

 
PUBLICATIONS
NEWS
PODCASTS
TOPICS
BLOGS
NURSES
PATIENTS
JOBS
CONFERENCES
CME
SUPPLEMENTS
 

Home » BLOGS

DR. EAGLE RX 

Why Physicians Should Become Better Advocates

By David Eagle, MD | June 27, 2011
Lake Norman Oncology, Mooresville/Huntersville, North Carolina; Dr. Eagle is also president of the Community Oncology Alliance.

Compared with almost any other career, the path to becoming a physician requires a substantial up-front commitment of time, effort, and, of course, cost. For oncology specifically, an additional ten years of training after college are required before seeing your first patient independently. In a sense, the day you finish your fellowship, you are already fully “committed.”


David Eagle, MD

After this substantial investment, the oncologist immediately begins practicing in the split-screen world of medical practice. On one side of the screen are the positive aspects of medical care that make up our driving motivation: the ability to help patients in need, to form close personal relationships, and to be challenged intellectually. It is hard work but we enjoy it. On the other side of the screen are the more onerous aspects: complex and changing regulation, highly uncertain futures, insurance pre-authorization, potential legal jeopardy, continually declining reimbursement, and true financial risk. For many physicians, the ballooning of these latter obstacles is overshadowing what we enjoy about oncology.

This reality begs the question: with such a huge upfront investment in our careers and the ascendancy of so many problematic issues, why do so many physicians choose not to engage in the political and regulatory processes that determine their future? Some may think that policy makers may have some natural inclination to be supportive given the investment physicians have made in their training. Unfortunately, it may be the opposite. I have had a congressman tell me twice that policy makers understand that physicians in their thirties and forties cannot just quit. They know that we have to make a living, and he described us as “on the hook.” From the perspective of some policy makers, our investment in training can be used against us.

When speaking with physicians about engaging more in political advocacy, I hear two common explanations for why they choose not to. First, they are simply too busy. Second, policy makers should be willing and able to solve our problems without requiring our input. Additionally, physicians can feel uncomfortable in an environment in which they are not the expert; our nation’s opaque political process certainly does not lend itself to easy understanding. And physicians tend to value autonomy; organized group efforts are not our strength. These two traits may have made a medical career appealing to our personalities, but they work against us in the current environment of health reform.

Others express dissatisfaction or even outright contempt with the political process itself. While this may be understandable, engaging the political process is not the same as condoning the political process or its participants. It is simply an acknowledgement of the reality that many of our professional obstacles begin on Capitol Hill and, thus, misguided policies can only be corrected by engaging with the policy makers themselves, understanding and dispelling their misconceptions, and offering better solutions to the problems that they perceive. That said, the engagement of these policy makers motivates the medical community to participate in policy solutions that are viable in the real world.

The Affordable Care Act has hundreds of provisions which CMS is tasked to define and implement. I feel strongly that now is a critical time for all physicians to engage at some level in policy formation. Political advocacy should not be about blatant self-interest. Rather, it should be about the providers who actually touch patients on a daily basis giving input into how to positively evolve our nation’s health care. Instead of reacting to poorly crafted policy initiatives, it is our responsibility to innovate and address the central problems in our health care system: high cost, uneven access, inefficient care delivery, and insufficient ability to measure quality and outcomes.

I encourage you to find the professional organizations that you feel most reflect your views and get active. Most organizations are eager to have greater engagement and can provide guidance.
Our organization, the Community Oncology Alliance, has a website www.communityoncology.org designed to make this as easy as possible. It is updated daily with the latest health policy news.

The site includes a section titled “action needed” which makes it seamless to participate. Of course, there is limited time available to many physicians. However, medicine has entered a phase of fateful transformation. Many of the policies implemented in the near future will endure for the remainder of our careers and simply working harder will not provide a true solution. Your voice needs to be heard now.

 

Join the Conversation

Want to join the conversation? If you're a healthcare professional, we'd like to hear your comments. Just sign in or register today to become part of our growing, online community.

  • Oldest First
  • Newest First

by Stephen Strum | July 01, 2011 11:56 AM EDT

The issues you present above are all valid ones but context is such a critical issue in all aspects of our lives. What is faced by community oncologists is not the same as what academic oncologists face and yet it seems that most legislation, from drug approval by ODAC to major healthcare policy changes comes from the academic world. Moreover, the medonc at the forefront of community care has his hands full. Often the demands of such practice can wreck the physician's personal life. I know this too well having gone through two failed marriages, part of which the exigencies of a medical oncology practice create. Now couple the above with the changing nature of medicine from Medical business to the Business of medicine and you see two major camps: the docs that view patient outcome as the prime directive and the growing camp that views physician income as their prime directive.

We need a new formula to base reimbursement upon and it needs to be patient outcome based. We need, at the same time, to reward patients and physicians for improvements in health endpoints and also "punish" with higher premiums and lower reimbursements both patients and physicians who assume entitlement but not responsibility (patients) and who abuse the patient and health insurance carriers as a way to an economic endpoint and not a healthcare endpoint (physicians). The oldest profession should not become the oldest profession--yet it is well on its way. I witness physician fraud frequently with cut and paste office evaluations with the same ROS and PE findings which no office staff could possibly achieve and see more than 10 patients a day. I see Physician Assistant or Nurse Practitioner office visits on the same letterhead as the Medical Oncologist and wonder what the EOMB shows in terms of who saw the patient. Sorry, but with what I have seen I would expect that these office visits are submitted as MD visits when in fact they are not. Physicians should be paid for cognitive services (in the MedOnc arena) and not based on chemo given since I see patients continued on the same regimen ad nauseum despite blatant evidence of cancer progression. We have a lot of sources of pathology to deal with and I agree that these must be dealt with at a high political level. All of the above are crucial agenda topics for a workshop that should be created.

Stephen B. Strum, MD, FACP 
Board Certified: Internal Medicine, Medical Oncology
Member: ASCO since 1973, FACP since 1979, AUA since 1998, ASTRO since 2002
E: pcpro@stephenstrum.com






 
MORE BLOGS

Pain or Feign?
June 10, 2013
50 Shades of Pink—And Why It Helps to Know the Difference
May 17, 2013
I Can’t Talk to You With a Gun in My Face
May 3, 2013
“This Is My Last Day on Earth”
May 2, 2013
Conflicts of Interest in Medicine: What About Ties to Payers?
April 5, 2013
 
TOPIC INDEX

Cancer Types

 
  • Breast
  • Breast (HER2+)
  • Breast (Triple-Negative)
  • CML
  • Colorectal
  • Gastrointestinal
  • GIST
  • Genitourinary
  • Gynecologic
  • Head & Neck
  • Hematology
  • Kidney (Renal Cell)
  • Leukemia
  • Lung
  • Lymphoma
  • Melanoma
  • Multiple Myeloma
  • Ovarian
  • Prostate
  • Sarcoma

Supportive Care

More Topics

  • Bone Metastases
  • End-of-Life Care
  • Palliative Care
  • Ethics in Oncology
  • Practice Management
  • Practice & Policy


All Topics 


 
   SEARCH MEDICA RX
   Browse drugs by name:
A B C D E F G H I J
K L M N O P Q R S T
U V W X Y Z All      
   Search for drugs:
Search

 

 
FROM PHYSICIANS PRACTICE
Key Differences between FQHCs and RHCs
Chastity Werner, RHIT, June 13, 2013
FQHCs and RHCs take up a unique niche among physician practices. And that affects compensation and billing.
Improving Care Coordination in Your Practice
Susanne Madden,  June 12, 2013
Practices are feverishly working to control the rising costs of healthcare - effective care coordination can help.
Refunding Overpayments: Two Options for Medical Practices
Ericka L. Adler,  June 12, 2013
Medicare and Medicaid providers must return overpayments once identified. Here are two different refund approaches for practices to consider when necessary.
Four Easy Ways to Boost Patient Time of Service Collections
Aubrey Westgate,  June 12, 2013
Simple ways your medical practice staff can increase the likelihood patients will pay when presenting for appointments.
iPad Alternatives for Mobile Physicians
Marisa Torrieri, June 11, 2013
As more physicians are seeing the merits of media tablets, the market is expanding, too.
 

 

 
MOST POPULAR
  • Most Popular
  • Most Emailed
  • Most Recent
  • Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma
  • Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Who Is Benefiting?
  • Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated With Targeted Therapies
  • ASCO: Long-Term Tamoxifen Benefit for Breast Cancer Confirmed
  • A 48-Year-Old Woman With Irregular Vaginal Bleeding
  • Cannabis Linked to Decreased Bladder Cancer Risk
  • Breast Cancer Screening, Risk, and Options for High-Risk Women
  • Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: An Update on Treatment
  • Rising PSA Level in a 46-Year-Old Man
  • ASCO: Long-Term Tamoxifen Benefit for Breast Cancer Confirmed
  • ASCO: Dabrafenib Shows Activity in BRAF-Mutated NSCLC Patients
  • Preventing Burnout in Oncology
  • ASCO: Yoga Reduces Insomnia in Breast Cancer Patients Treated With Hormone Therapy
  • Physical Activity Across the Cancer Continuum
  • Exercise After Cancer Diagnosis: Time to Get Moving
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
 
COMMENTS
  • Most Commented
  • Most Recent
  • 50 Shades of Pink—And Why It Helps to Know the Difference
  • Preventing Exposure to Hazardous Drugs
  • ASCO: Vinegar Screening Significantly Reduces Cervical Cancer Mortality
  • ASCO: Sulforaphane in Prostate Cancer Found Worthy of Further Investigation
  • Study: Recurrent Heartburn Ups Risk for Throat Cancer
  • HER2-Directed Therapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer
  • Accelerated Partial-Breast Irradiation: The Current State of Our Knowledge
  • It’s Time for Clinicians to Reconsider Their Proscription Against the Use of Soyfoods by Breast Cancer Patients
  • 50 Shades of Pink—And Why It Helps to Know the Difference
  • ASCO: No Benefit From Avastin in Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter


CancerNetwork | ConsultantLive | Diagnostic Imaging | Musculoskeletal Network | OBGYN.net | PediatricsConsultantLive |
Physicians Practice | Psychiatric Times | SearchMedica | Medical Resources

© 1996 - 2013 UBM Medica LLC, a UBM company
Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Advertising Information - Editorial Policy Statement - UBM Medica Network Privacy Policy