Obama’s Outlandish Statements Against Physicians

Obama has accused doctors of doing tonsillectomies to make money, and he has falsely implied that surgeons cut off legs for a profit. The actual reimbursement for an amputation is approx 800$ NOT 40,000$. This kind of rhetoric is alarming and disturbing. Please spread the news that this must stop.

Please contact our state senators and voice your concerns regarding the healthcare reform proposals: Barbara Boxers number is 213-894-5000 and Diane Feinstein’s number is 619-231-9712.

CMA Objects to Obama’s Misleading Statements about Physicians

President Obama has recently made his case for health reform by using some misleading and inflammatory rhetoric. While discussing the importance of prevention, he has implied that physicians’ treatment decisions are financially motivated and incorrectly stated that surgeons are paid $30,000 to $50,000 to amputate a foot. CMA wholeheartedly agrees with the President on the importance of prevention, but the examples he used were inaccurate and offensive and could undermine the trust central to the physician-patient relationship.

At a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on August 11, President Obama said, “All I’m saying is let’s take the example of something like diabetes, one of — a disease that’s skyrocketing, partly because of obesity, partly because it’s not treated as effectively as it could be. Right now if we paid a family — if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they’re taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance. But if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that’s $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 — immediately the surgeon is reimbursed. Well, why not make sure that we’re also reimbursing the care that prevents the amputation, right? That will save us money. (Watch the video here.)

At a press briefing on July 22, President Obama said, “Part of what we want to do is to make sure that those decisions are being made by doctors and medical experts based on evidence, based on what works…. Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that’s out there. … the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out … I’d rather have that doctor making those decisions based on whether you really need your kid’s tonsils out, or whether … something else would make a difference…. So part of what we want to do is to free doctors, patients, hospitals to make decisions based on what’s best for patient care.” (Watch the video here.)

CMA released the following statement to the media regarding the President’s statements.

August 13, 2009

Sacramento – The California Medical Association issued the following statement today, attributable to CMA President Dev GnanaDev:

“CMA is deeply concerned about two examples of medical treatment recently used by President Obama to make his case for health reform.
“In the first example, he stated that surgeons make $30,000 to $50,000 to amputate a foot of a diabetic. This assertion is false. Medicare pays surgeons $589 to $767 for a foot amputation. Medi-Cal pays $420 for the same. Hospital and other associated costs may add up to the greater amount, but it is incorrect and misleading to suggest the surgeon’s costs are responsible for that figure.

“We share the President’s belief that we need to put greater resources towards primary and preventive care in order to keep people healthier and help address the nation’s rising health care costs. However, preventive care will never obviate the need for qualified physicians and surgeons to take corrective action to improve or save people’s lives.

“In the second example, the President suggested that physicians take out children’s tonsils to make more money. This implication is inaccurate and offensive.

“Doctors treat patients based on the health needs of the patient, not the financial incentives. When science suggests overutilization may be occurring, the medical profession has responded with improved guidelines to more fully inform physicians of the risks and benefits of any treatment or procedure.

“The California Medical Association is committed to reforming our health system to increase access to quality care and reduce rising health care costs. To achieve health reform, the American people must be able to trust our elected officials and the statements they make regarding health care.

“Patients trust their doctors. That trust is critical to an effective and successful doctor-patient relationship. We urge the President to stick to the facts and avoid the kind of misleading and inflammatory rhetoric that would erode that trust and derail our efforts to increase access to quality care and control rising health care costs.”

Dr. GnanaDev is a trauma surgeon and chief of the medical staff at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, San Bernardino County’s public hospital.

Healthcare Reform: Better off being a dog

Here is a very sobering, humorous, and truthful article about what is at stake in the healthcare reform debate from the WSJ:

In the last few years, I have had the opportunity to compare the human and veterinary health services of Great Britain, and on the whole it is better to be a dog.

As a British dog, you get to choose (through an intermediary, I admit) your veterinarian. If you don’t like him, you can pick up your leash and go elsewhere, that very day if necessary. Any vet will see you straight away, there is no delay in such investigations as you may need, and treatment is immediate. There are no waiting lists for dogs, no operations postponed because something more important has come up, no appalling stories of dogs being made to wait for years because other dogs or hamsters come first.

The conditions in which you receive your treatment are much more pleasant than British humans have to endure. For one thing, there is no bureaucracy to be negotiated with the skill of a white-water canoeist; above all, the atmosphere is different. There is no tension, no feeling that one more patient will bring the whole system to the point of collapse, and all the staff go off with nervous breakdowns. In the waiting rooms, a perfect calm reigns; the patients’

relatives are not on the verge of hysteria, and do not suspect that the system is cheating their loved one, for economic reasons, of the treatment which he needs. The relatives are united by their concern for the welfare of each other’s loved one. They are not terrified that someone is getting more out of the system than they.

The latter is the fear that also haunts Americans, at least those Americans who think of justice as equality in actual, tangible benefits. That is the ideological driving force of health-care reform in America. Without manifest and undeniable inequalities, the whole question would generate no passion, only dull technical proposals and counterproposals, reported sporadically on the inside pages of newspapers. I have never seen an article on the way veterinary services are arranged in Britain: it is simply not a question.

Nevertheless, there is one drawback to the superior care British dogs receive by comparison with that of British humans: they have to pay for it, there and then. By contrast, British humans receive health care that is free at the point of delivery. Of course, some dogs have had the foresight to take out insurance, but others have to pay out of their savings. Nevertheless, the iron principle holds: cash on delivery.

But what, I hear social philosophers and the shade of the late John Rawls cry, of British dogs that have no savings and cannot afford insurance? What happens to them? Are not British streets littered with canines expiring from preventable and treatable diseases, as American streets are said by Europeans to be littered with the corpses of the uninsured? Strangely, no. This is not because there are no poor dogs; there are many. The fact is, however, that there is a charitable system of veterinary services, free at the point of delivery, for poor dogs, run by the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals, the PDSA. This is the dog’s safety net.

Honesty compels me to admit that the atmosphere in the PDSA rather resembles that in the National Health Service for British humans, and no dog would go there if he had the choice to go elsewhere. He has to wait and accept what he’s given; the attendants may be nice, or they may also be nasty, he has to take pot luck; and the other dogs who go there tend to be of a different type or breed, often of the fighting variety whose jaws once closed on, say, a human calf cannot be prised open except by decapitation.

There is no denying that the PDSA is not as pleasant as private veterinary services; but even the most ferocious opponents of the National Health Service have not alleged that it fails to be better than nothing.

What is the solution to the problem of some dogs receiving so much better, or at least more pleasant, care than others? Is it not a great injustice that, through no fault of their own, some dogs are treated in Spartan conditions while others, no better or more talented than they, are pampered with all the comforts that commerce can afford?

One solution to the problem of the injustice in the treatment of dogs would be for the government to set up an equalizing fund from which money would be dispensed, when necessary, to sick dogs, purely on the basis of need rather than by their ability to pay, though contributions to the fund would be assessed strictly on ability to pay.

Of course, from the point of view of social justice as equality, it wouldn’t really matter whether the treatment meted out to dogs was good or bad, so long as it was equal. And, oddly enough, one of the things about the British National Health Service for human beings that has persuaded the British over its 60 years of existence that it is socially just is the difficulty and unpleasantness it throws in the way of patients, rich and poor alike: for equality has the connotation not only of justice, but of hardship and suffering. And, as everyone knows, it is easier to spread hardship equally than to disseminate blessings equally.

I hope I shall not be accused of undue asperity towards human nature when I suggest that the comparative efficiency and pleasantness of services for dogs by comparison with those for humans has something, indeed a great deal, to do with the exchange of money. This is not to say that it is only the commercial aspect of veterinary practice that makes it satisfactory: most vets genuinely like dogs at least as much as most doctors like people, and moreover they have a pride in professional standards that is independent of any monetary gain they might secure by maintaining them. But the fact that the money they receive might go elsewhere if they fail to satisfy surely gives a fillip to their resolve to satisfy.

And I mean no disrespect to the proper function of government when I say that government control, especially when highly centralized, can sap the will even of highly motivated people to do their best. No one, therefore, would seriously expect the condition of dogs in Britain to improve if the government took over veterinary care, and laid down what treatment dogs could and could not receive.

It might be objected, however, that Man, pace Professor Singer, is not a dog, and that therefore the veterinary analogy is not strictly a correct or relevant one. Health economics, after all, is an important and very complex science, if a somewhat dull one, indeed the most dismal branch of the dismal science. Who opens the pages of the New England Journal of Medicine to read, with a song in his heart, papers with titles such as ‘Collective Accountability for Medical Care Toward Bundled Medicare Payments,’or ‘Universal Coverage One Head at a Time – the Risks and Benefits of Individual Insurance Mandates’? On the whole, I’d as soon settle down to read the 110,000 pages of Medicare rules.

A few simple facts seem established, however, even in this contentious field. The United States spends a greater proportion of its gross domestic product on health care than any other advanced nation, yet the results, as measured by the health of the population overall, are mediocre. Even within the United States, there is no correlation between the amount spent on health care per capita and the actual health of the population upon which it is spent.

The explanation usually given for this is that physicians have perverse incentives: they are paid by service or procedure rather than by results. As Bernard Shaw said, if you pay a man to cut off your leg, he will.

But the same is true in France, which not only spends a lesser proportion of its GDP on health care than the U.S. but has better results, as measured by life expectancy, and is in the unusual situation of allaying most of its citizens’ anxieties about health care. However, the French government is not so happy:

chronically in deficit, the health-care system can be sustained only by continued government borrowing, which is already at a dangerously high level. The French government is in the situation, uncomfortable for that of any democracy, of having to reform, and even destroy, a system that everyone likes.

Across the Channel, there is very little that can be said in favor of a health system which is the most ideologically egalitarian in the western world. It supposedly allots health care independently of the ability to pay, and solely on the basis of clinical need; but not only are differences in the health of the rich and poor in Britain among the greatest in the western world, they are as great as they were in 1948, when health care was de facto nationalized precisely to bring about equalization. There are parts of Glasgow that have almost Russian levels of premature male death. Britain’s hospitals have vastly higher rates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (a measurement of the cleanliness of hospitals) than those of any other European country; and survival rates from cancer and cardiovascular disease are the lowest in the western world, and lower even than among the worst-off Americans.

Even here, though, there is a slight paradox. About three quarters of people die of cardiovascular diseases and cancer, and therefore seriously inferior rates of survival ought to affect life expectancy overall. And yet Britons do not have a lower life expectancy than all other Europeans; their life expectancy is very slightly higher than that of Americans, and higher than that of Danes, for example, who might be expected to have a very superior health-care system. Certainly, I would much rather be ill in Denmark than in Britain, whatever the life expectancy statistics.

Perhaps this suggests that there is less at stake in the way health-care systems are organized and funded, at least as far as life expectancy is concerned (not an unimportant measure, after all), than is sometimes supposed. Or perhaps it suggests that the relationship of the health-care system to the actual health of people in societies numbering many millions is so complex that it is difficult to identify factors with any degree of certainty.

In the New England Journal of Medicine for July 3, 2008, we read the bald statement that ‘Medicare’s projected spending growth is unsustainable.’ But in the same journal on Jan. 24, 2008, under the title ‘The Amazing

Non-collapsing U.S. Health Care System’ we had read that ‘For roughly 40 years, health care professionals, policy-makers, politicians, and the public have concurred that the system is careening towards collapse because it is indefensible and unsustainable, a study in crisis and chaos. This forecast appeared soon after Medicare and Medicaid were enacted and have never retreated. Such disquieting continuity amid changes raises an intriguing question: If the consensus was so incontestable, why has the system not already collapsed?’

The fact that collapse has not occurred in 40 years does not, of course, mean that it will not collapse tomorrow. The fact that a projection is not a prediction works in all directions: prolonged survival does not mean eternal survival, any more than a growth in the proportion of GDP devoted to health care means that, eventually, the entire GDP must be spent on health care.

Therefore I, who have no solution to my own health-care problems, let alone those of the United States, say only, beware of health-care economists bearing statistics that prove the inevitability of their own solutions. I mistrust the fact that, while those people who work for commercial companies (rightly) have to declare their interests in writing in medical journals, those who work for governmental agencies do not do so: as if government agencies had not interests of their own, and worked only for the common good.

The one kind of reform that America should avoid is one that is imposed uniformly upon the whole country, with a vast central bureaucracy. No nation in the world is more fortunate than America in its suitability for testing various possible solutions. The federal government should concern itself very little in health care arrangements, and leave it almost entirely to the states. I don’t want to provoke a new war of secession but surely this is a matter of states’ rights. All judgment, said Doctor Johnson, is comparative; and while comparisons of systems as complex as those of health care are never definitive or indisputable, it is possible to make reasonable global judgments: that the French system is better than the British or Dutch, for example. Only dictators insist they know all the answers in advance of experience. Let 100 or, in the case of the U.S., 50 flowers bloom.

Selfishly, no doubt, I continue to measure the health-care system where I live by what I want for myself and those about me.

And what I want, at least for that part of my time that I spend in England, is to be a dog. I also want, wherever I am, the Americans to go on paying for the great majority of the world’s progress in medical research and technological innovation by the preposterous expense of their system: for it is a truth universally

acknowledged that American clinical research has long reigned supreme, so overall, the American health-care system must have been doing something right. The rest of the world soon adopts the progress, without the pain of having had to pay for it.

Theodore Dalrymple is the pen name of Anthony Daniels, a British physician.


Healthcare Issue: Free Our Health Care NOW!

Please sign the petition and join those of us who are deeply concerned that a government run healthcare plan is NOT the solution to our healthcare problems.

Use the Action Pack http://actionpack.ncpa.org to sign the petition, to print the petition or to access our Learning/Teaching Tools about health care so that you can educate your friends, family and neighbors.

The current healthcare plan under discussion will cripple our economy with more debt and taxes, and it doesn’t even address what the vast majority of doctors believe is the most important piece of the problem–tort reform.

Below is a letter from the National Center for Policy Analysis, please sign the petition, spread the word, and share your thoughts.

 

Friends –

Thank you for your support of the “Free Our Health Care NOW!” petition. More than 870,000 Americans have joined you in saying “NO!” to the federal government becoming their health care provider. We now have a tremendous opportunity! The probable delay in the vote until September in Congress allows you to use the tools available below in “What can you do about this?” to educate everyone you know.

Your continued support is crucial in the fight against nationalized health care. In the last week, the proponents of nationalized health care have continued to champion legislation which will increase cost, limit choice and decrease quality of your health care. Please continue to tell your network, friends and family that government-run health care is a threat to the quality of their health.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that ObamaCare will cost over $1 trillion. Notwithstanding President Obama’s promise to oppose legislation “if that reform adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade,” the CBO estimates that recent House proposals will increase government spending by $1.04 trillion. Additionally, as for the Administration’s most recent cost-savings plan – to create an independent advisory council to set Medicare fees – the CBO concluded that “the probability is high that no savings would be realized”.

ObamaCare will dramatically reduce the choices you have over the cost and quality of your health insurance plan. Here’s how:

  • ObamaCare will create an artificial market called a Health Insurance Exchange. The mandates the Exchange imposes will reject plans that don’t ‘measure-up’ to the federal government’s expectations for health care plans. As a result, millions of Americans will be forced to abandon their current plans and to accept a plan that they do not want or need.
  • Additionally, ObamaCare will create a board of bureaucrats empowered to define which health benefits are “essential”. However, these “essential” benefits may exclude health care which most Americans and their doctors believe are essential – such as MRI scans and blood tests.

The bottom line: Under ObamaCare, Americans will face higher taxes and receive less take-home pay– all for a health insurance plan that forces them to pay for benefits they do not want and refuses to pay for procedures their doctor may recommend.

What can you do about this?

Thank you again for your support of the “Free Our Health Care NOW!” and for fighting against nationalized health care.

 

Jeanette Nordstrom
National Center for Policy Analysis
www.ncpa.org

 

Click here to support the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Click here to view the privacy statement

healthcare Reform: Of NICE and men

I have not chimed in about the healthcare ‘crisis’ but here is a sobering article from Wall Street Journal pointing out the rationing of care that may occur under the changes that might be voted in.

An article in the Stanford Magazine in November of 2008 pointed out that:

1. over 70% of people were happy with their healthcare

2. CEO of Safeway thinks that we need to consider legislature to make people who smoke and who are overweight must pay more for their healthcare.  He experimented with such a plan within his organization.

3. California’s experience and H. Clinton’s attempts point to the issues not being resolved in one feld swoop, but only through slow incremental changes.

Medical Myth #6 (example #1): Placebo’s don’t really work

Medical Myth #6 is the notion that placebo’s don’t work.  The fact is that they work incredibly well, and we all should embrace them as a legitimate means of healing.  Here is our first incredible example—
Hippocrates’ Shadow: Secrets from the House of Medicine (David Newman):
“In 2002 an unusual study from Houstons VA Medical Center was published. It was a study about surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee, a condition that causes pain and disability due to thinning and breakdown of cartilage (the padding) in the joint. Patients occasionally have surgery to shave off the rough edges of the cartilage, or sometimes to wash out the knee joint. There were three groups of patients in the VA study: one group got the cartilage in their knees shaved, another group got their knees washed out, and one got an elaborate act. When the patient arrived in the operating room he was given anesthetic and the surgeon was then handed a sealed envelope telling him which surgery to perform. If the card inside the envelope said placebo, three incisions were made in the skin but nothing surgical was done to the knee joint. In case the patient was able to subconsciously hear or feel, water was splashed to simulate the sounds of the surgical procedure. In addition, the patient was kept in the operating room for the length of an actual surgery, during which the surgeon asked for all instruments and manipulated the knee as if surgery was being done. The operating room staff was sworn to secrecy, and outside the operating room no one was told which surgery the patient had undergone. The study results were shocking to many, including the orthopedic physicians who perform knee surgeries every day: the two real surgeries had been no more effective than the sham surgery. In retrospect, perhaps this should not have been surprising. Osteoarthritis is due to thinning of the knee cartilage, and there never was a good or even very feasible argument for why either of the treatments, shaving or washing, should work; after all, neither cures or reverses the thinning. But what is surprising even in retrospect is that all of the groups showed significant improvement in knee pain and function. In an article about the study and a closely related smaller study by the same researchers, one gentleman who had been enrolled told an interviewer that he was now able to mow his lawn and walk wherever he wanted, and added, The surgery was two years ago and the knee has never bothered me since. Its just like my other knee now.  He was in the placebo surgery group.”

The Human Whisperer

http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2009/janfeb/features/verghese.html

The Human Whisperer

Whether practicing medicine or literature, Abraham Verghese teaches how to pay full attention at a patient’s bedside.

BY SUSAN COHEN
PHOTOGRAPHY BY MICHAEL SUGRUE

IT TAKES ABRAHAM VERGHESEonly a few minutes to stroll from his public office to his secret one. His main office in the department of medicine contains the medical handbooks, the imposing desk, the ready assistant who copes with the physician’s complicated schedule. His secret office bears someone else’s name outside. It’s only slightly more personal than a motel room, a space devoted to nothing but writing. He jokes that he’ll be forced to eliminate anyone who uncovers its location.

Stanford promised Verghese the dual offices and two days a week to write when it hired him last year as senior associate chair for the theory and practice of medicine and put him in charge of training third- and fourth-year students as they rotate through internal medicine. It was, department of medicine chair Ralph Horwitz readily acknowledges, an unusual tenured appointment for an institution that typically evaluates a paper trail of research grants and publications to hire or promote. Verghese’s paper trail included, instead, a long list of essays, short stories and two much-praised memoirs, one of which was made into a movie starring Naveen Andrews of Lost.

Verghese’s summary of research interests remains blank on his faculty web page.

His list of publications, on the other hand, continues to grow. The newest is an epic novel, set over five decades in Ethiopia and America; Cutting for Stone will be published by Knopf on February 6.

Even more unusual than these literary accomplishments are the personal history Verghese brings to Stanford, and the ways it has led him to practice and teach medicine. Modern medicine can be high-tech, research-oriented, data-driven and time-crunched in ways that are alienating to both patient and physician. Examining a patient can come as an afterthought, neglected in the onslaught of laboratory test results, medical scans, numbers on the computer screen. These days, as Verghese puts it, “If you’re missing a finger, you have to get an X-ray to be believed.”

‘To him the physical exam is a beautiful and worthwhile art that benefits both patient and doctor.’

He is a link to an older healing tradition: devoted to medicine not just as science, but as calling and craft. Verghese doesn’t neglect modern laboratory tests; he’s board-certified in three specialties—internal medicine, pulmonary medicine and infectious diseases. But he loves nothing more than teaching students who are focused on the image of an organ on a piece of film to also look at the person in the hospital bed. And not just look, but touch, listen, even smell, with a writer’s attention to detail and a physician’s intention to discover the story of someone’s suffering.

“I loved introducing medical students to the thrill of the examination of the human body, guiding their hands to feel a liver, to percuss the stony dull note of fluid that had accumulated in the lung, to be with them when their eyes shone the first time they heard ‘tubular’ breathing . . . and thereby diagnosed pneumonia,” Verghese has written. To him, the physical exam is a beautiful and worthwhile art that benefits both patient and doctor.

Horwitz recruited Verghese after being struck by the power of his commitment to patients and bedside medicine “at a time when technology is so seductive.” The first time he heard Verghese speak, he watched this man with the soft voice electrify a boisterous audience of medical students who grew quieter and quieter so that they would not miss a word. Horwitz found in Verghese a scholar and master clinician who represents medicine’s “most enabling and enduring values.” There’s no irony in his voice when Horwitz insists that Verghese is “cutting edge” precisely because “he promotes bedside medicine and its meaning to both patients and practitioners.”

“Stanford needs that,” Horwitz argues, so that with all its emphasis on science and technology “we don’t lose sight of the value and meaning of that science and technology.”

ABRAHAM VERGHESE DESCRIBES HIMSELF as a perennial outsider. His parents were teachers from a Christian region of India, who raised him in Ethiopia. The expatriate life in Africa made him an acute observer of cultures and a seeker of connections. He believes that doctors are often wounded people attracted to medicine in an attempt to heal themselves, people who’ve sought “a way to be in this world” from the margins, and that literature, too, is a way to connect with the human condition. As a boy, he was drawn to both these passions by the stories of doctor-turned-writer Somerset Maugham.

Verghese, 53, began his medical education in Ethiopia, but fled in 1973 as civil unrest turned the country against both intellectuals and foreigners. He had witnessed so much brutality that when he reached New Jersey, where his parents and younger brother had settled a few years before, his only remaining life’s ambition was safety. He worked as a hospital orderly and assumed he’d live a blue-collar life.

One night, while working, Verghese found a copy of Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine on a table where a med student had left it. The book revived his calling. With the help of an aunt, he finished medical school in India, which took him in as a displaced person.

Medical training in Madras was “intense at the bedside every day,” Verghese recalls. “I loved it. Those Indian teachers were incredibly skilled. They’d identify all these diseases you’d never find in Western textbooks.” He watched them almost with a sense he was witnessing “wizardry.” He admired not just their ability to diagnose, but also the way they dealt with patients, “the gentleness of the way they taught us” and the love for medicine they conveyed. Many of the physical signs he was taught to notice at the bedside were named after great doctors of the past. His teachers were passing along a grand tradition, and he found himself “not wanting to break the chain.”

When it came time to do his residency, Verghese chose a newly fledged program in internal medicine at East Tennessee State University in the foothills of the Smoky Mountains. He chose internal medicine partly because he saw that foreign-trained students who wanted to be surgeons were recruited to the poorest American hospitals, worked around the clock, and rarely were promoted afterward by the top-ranked medical centers, places the students jokingly called “Mecca.”

Johnson City and the rural towns and hollers around it were a long way from any medical Mecca, but they turned out to be the opportunity of a lifetime for Verghese as both doctor and writer. People grew to depend on this foreign doctor with the brown face, slightly British diction and unplaceable accent. After a two-year fellowship in infectious diseases at Boston University, where he tried and disliked laboratory research, Verghese returned to Tennessee and joined the faculty, choosing to focus on caring for patients and teaching.

THAT’S WHERE HE FOUND HIMSELF in 1985, when young gay men began to return to their small towns and families to die. The HIV/AIDS clinic Verghese established saw more than 80 patients in five years, by which time Verghese felt burned out. It had been humbling. He’d been forced to give up what he called the physician’s “conceit of cure.” But though no one had a cure for the new disease, Verghese had found a lot to offer in the way of care—so much that he had little time to spare for his own family, which by then included a wife and two young sons, Jacob and Steven. He filled journals with his observations and his thoughts, and the details of his patients’ stories, in an attempt to learn as much about himself as about them. He thought he’d prepared himself for so much death. He hadn’t.

In a bold move, Verghese gave up his tenured position in Tennessee to attend the famous Writer’s Workshop at the University of Iowa. He realized later how hard that was on his family. “It was very selfish on my part. To me, it felt like survival.” A year and a half of intensive writing later, money running out, Verghese turned down several traditional academic positions that would have required him to chase grants and publish research papers. He took a clinical position instead—as professor of medicine and chief of infectious diseases at Texas Tech Health Sciences Center in El Paso. “I really liked the sense of being on the edge of America,” he explains. It was a “first world hospital—just barely—taking care of third world disease.” Without the pressure to do research, he wrote fiction.

After the New Yorker ran a short story based on his experiences in Tennessee, Verghese was offered a contract to write a memoir—one of the earliest books by a doctor working from the AIDS front line. He’d never considered writing nonfiction, but My Own Country: A Doctor’s Story of a Town and Its People in the Age of AIDS was a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award in 1994. Director Mira Nair filmed it for Showtime TV. My Own Country was, another physician comments, “a really brave book.” His second was even braver. The Tennis Partner: A Doctor’s Story of Friendship and Loss, in 1998, described his bond with a medical resident in El Paso who died of drug addiction. The heavily autobiographical book interwove many themes: his passion for tennis, the failure of his first marriage, his enduring love of medicine in spite of the isolating effect it can have on its practitioners.

He attributes some blame for the appalling levels of suicide and drug abuse among doctors to this isolation. “Medicine is so beautiful, and yet it has its seamy underbelly,” Verghese says. “Most of us in medicine end up being far better doctors than fathers or husbands.” Although it’s his compassion—as well as his vivid and often lyrical writing—that wins praise, Verghese thinks what draws medical students to his work is that he exposes himself as a flawed human being rather than an all-knowing physician.

  

BOY AND MAN: Verghese at the center of a school photo in Ethiopia, and with actor Naveen Andrews, who played him in the 1998 TV movie My Own Country.
Courtesy Abraham Verghese (2)

Verghese believes in the curative power of literature for physicians. Writing is a way to explore what they see every day and can’t share. Reading is a way for students to revive the empathy that gets lost in the process of medical training. Modern training “takes lovely people and converts them into bottom-line, somewhat cynical, disease-oriented people,” Verghese insists. “We teach them to convert into our language, which we need for diagnosis. We rob the story of everything human about it.” After a while: “Imagining suffering is a struggle. The danger is we begin to talk about the diabetic in bed three.” Literature, on the other hand, is full of suffering. He likes to teach his students Chekhov, and is apt to recite a poem off the top of his head by William Carlos Williams—two other writer/physicians.

Six years ago, Verghese created the Center for Medical Humanities & Ethics at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, one of an increasing number of programs—like Stanford’s arts, humanities and medicine program—that encourage medical students to explore the arts. He also worked on Cutting for Stone. The novel’s title plays on a phrase in the Hippocratic oath and the name of a central character, Thomas Stone. Stone is a surgeon who’s missing from much of the narrative, just as he’s missing from his twin sons’ lives: a symbol of the wounded doctor who distances himself from people even as his hands render miracles on the operating table. Much of the rich, sprawling story is set in Ethiopia at a mission hospital that the locals call Missing. It’s an ambitious book filled with characters who, in their different ways, reveal Verghese’s view of what medicine does best and worst. Some of its most powerful scenes occur at a decrepit hospital in the Bronx where a newly arrived foreign medical student assumes the helicopter pad on the roof represents the richly endowed American medicine he so envied from afar. But the landing pad exists so doctors from an elite medical center can touch down just long enough to harvest organs for transplant from the trauma patients who flood the inner-city emergency room.

Though Verghese is ambitious for his writing, medicine remains its source. “I’d love to practice medicine until my last day,” he says. There are other physicians who combine the two, of course: surgeons Atul Gawande, ’87, and Richard Selzer, and pediatrician Perri Klass. But there are more of those like novelist Ethan Canin, ’82, a Harvard Medical School graduate who found he had to choose. Canin, a friend who has been familiar with Verghese’s writings for years, says: “I’ve always been amazed at his ambition and attainment in both. Plenty of people are ambitious in both, but few—if any—have attained such distinction in the two fields at once.”

When Verghese received Stanford’s offer to return to teaching at the bedside, an offer that included time to write, plus tenure, it struck him that Stanford valued his books and essays as highly as research. The realization was “precious.”

ON A DAY IN AUGUST, as he walked down a corridor at Stanford’s medical center, Verghese gestured to a glass wall that looks onto a wildly colorful garden, a glorious riot of flowering plants that achieve their profusion with massive—and expensive—tending. “Mecca,” he laughed. As though he had to pinch himself.

Verghese wants Stanford students to see medicine as a historic calling the way he does. He wants them to see a patient not as a diseased liver or a spleen, but as a man or woman in a bad situation. Young doctors may be brilliant at analyzing tests, but he finds many “incompetent” at diagnosing and treating at the bedside. Verghese also wants students to understand that there’s a “huge therapeutic effect” in offering someone hopeful words. Especially, and only if true, the words: “I think you will get better.”

What Verghese seems to have tapped into, even in the scant year he’s been here, is a hunger not just from patients for doctors with a human touch, but also from doctors for the kind of satisfaction many no longer get from medicine. Verghese, who lives with his wife, Sylvia, and their 11-year-old son, Tristan, hosted a speaker’s evening with an expert on evidence-based physical diagnosis. A medical resident grew so enthusiastic about learning more on how various skin conditions might help her diagnose patients that she blurted: “We get to be doctors! Not just order tests!”

Lisa Shieh, an assistant professor who specializes in internal medicine and in-patient care, says she’s found a mentor in Verghese. After hearing him speak, she invited him to instruct second-year students how to take a history and conduct a physical exam. She also followed him on rounds like a student, to see how he interacted with patients and taught. “There’s just so much data now in medicine, and keeping that straight is very challenging. Sometimes with all the technology, the physical exam takes a back seat.”

Verghese is organizing a major conference on bedside medicine that will take place at Stanford next September. Department chair Horwitz sounds like a proud parent when he talks about his successful recruit: “I now live in the shadow of Abraham!” He notes that, instead of the eight or nine graduating students who typically choose a career in internal medicine over other specialties, this year 21 students out of 90 made that choice.

ONE TUESDAY as Verghese led students on weekly rounds, they entered a hospital room where an elderly woman lay moaning, her eyes closed, her mouth open. Her husband, wearing a blue baseball cap and an exhausted look, sat in a chair at the foot of her bed, eyes fixed on her face for any signs she might respond.

“Come closer, she won’t bite,” Verghese called to his students, who hung back by the door while he greeted the man in the cap. “He won’t bite either.”

Verghese examined the patient, ending by lifting her arms and noting the very different rate at which her hands drifted down the sheets. At the small hospital where she’d first been hospitalized, a central venous catheter had been placed in the course of treating her for a possible infection. In transferring her to Stanford, there had been talk of an exotic diagnosis. But Verghese’s exam suggested she had suffered a stroke. When questioned, her husband recalled that she had become confused on the afternoon when the catheter was inserted. Verghese postulated that event had triggered a “cascade of catastrophes”: a drop in pressure, along with her history of irregular heart rhythms, had caused a clot to break loose and disrupt blood flow to the brain.

Verghese explained his concern to the husband in understandable terms, and said that he hoped to have more news later after getting the results of a brain scan. He asked where the family was staying and whether they were comfortable.

In another room, a white-haired woman with pneumonia eyed the gaggle of students, interns and residents with bright-eyed good humor, even as her grown daughter immediately launched into a litany of complaints about the room and the hospital care. Verghese took these complaints for what they were: a caring daughter’s anxiety over her mother’s illness. He moved right up to his patient, put his hand on her thin wrist, percussed her back and listened to her chest with his stethoscope. He left his hand lightly resting on her arm. “There’s something very comforting about the human hand. That’s very nice,” the patient commented.

‘Modern training “takes lovely people and converts them into bottom-line, somewhat cynical, disease-oriented people”’

Verghese smiled. “I’m trying to teach them that,” he said, and turned to his students: “I always take a patient’s hand and then pulse.” He told the ill woman that she looked as if she’d been getting plenty of fluids.

“Oh, good,” she said, laughing, “keep me up!” She raised her arms to indicate he’d lifted her spirits. Her daughter continued to ask questions, but seemed more relaxed. Before leaving, Verghese told the woman in the bed not only that he’d like to send her home, but that she was lucky to have a daughter who took such good care of her.

Before rounds ended, the students gathered around Verghese in the hall and talked about a patient who seemed better but whose CT scan looked worrisome. Verghese reassured them that in this case they could trust their observations. He praised a nurse who stopped to ask about a patient. “That was good nursing care,” he said. “We appreciate that care.” He singled out an intern who’d received a compliment from a patient for smiling and being helpful in the emergency room the night before.

The students trooped after Verghese to radiology to look at the brain scans of the nonresponsive woman they saw earlier. Sure enough, the radiologist pointed out evidence of small bleeds in her brain.

When Verghese and one resident returned to give the husband this news, the man in the blue baseball cap was exactly where they’d left him, at the foot of his wife’s bed and staring at her face. Verghese explained that the MRI seemed to confirm his suspicion that she had suffered a series of small strokes. He would ask the neurologists for some help, Verghese said, but he thought there was a chance the man’s wife would gain back a good part of her function. “One day at a time,” he told the husband, who clung to each word as hard as he was grabbing onto Verghese’s hand. Each day would bring a little more information. Verghese took time to thank the man for describing how his wife became unresponsive, and said the information had played an important role in leading them to their diagnosis. In a way, Verghese had welcomed the husband to the team, and invited him to be part of her healing, even while delivering bad news.

On the walk back to his office—the official one at the department of medicine—Verghese once more expressed his amazement at where he, the perennial outsider, had landed. Directly in Mecca. The trade-off he made decades ago, to spend whatever time he didn’t spend at the bedside writing, brought him here. A career trajectory no one could dream, let alone plan.

At Stanford, Verghese started out feeling as if he didn’t fit in, even though he found everyone extremely welcoming. But then he walked out into the hospital and led his first rounds. He felt immediately at home at patients’ bedsides. That was the evening Verghese told his wife: not only did he feel comfortable at Stanford, he knew he had something to offer.