By David Williams
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
The Obamacare train is clearly in motion, and it has had
quite a bit of trouble leaving the station. It’s important that we not let the
technical issues with the rollout distract from the far worse consequences of
the law that loom on the horizon, including a movement to re-define what
constitutes a “doctor.” This change could harm patients and taxpayers.
Instead of at the national level, many healthcare fights
will play out in state legislatures across the country. One of these battles is
where the scope of procedures medical practitioners can perform are determined.
Over the past year, legislation that would allow healthcare practitioners that
are not medical doctors to perform increasingly complex procedures has been
proposed in both red and blue states – Tennessee, Louisiana and California in
particular. In each of these states, Democrat legislators have tried to give
what are often termed “allied health professionals” – like optometrists,
pharmacists, and nurse practitioners – the ability to perform procedures
reserved for highly trained medical doctors.
The quest by non-M.D. health professionals to expand
their scope – and with it, their paychecks – is not a new development by any
means. Optometrist and nurse practitioner lobbies have been working to push the
issue for years, culminating in a victory for optometrists in Kentucky in 2011,
achieved largely through backroom legislative dealing.
The passage and implementation of the Affordable Care
Act, with its anticipated spike in demand for healthcare services, has merely
provided a fresh hook for these professional lobbies to frame their push for
more power in the context of “patient access.”
But access to what, exactly? In Tennessee, Kentucky, and
California, optometrists, who are not medical doctors, fought for the ability
to provide “primary care” and even perform surgeries on the eye. At present,
most of these complex procedures are reserved for ophthalmologists, medical
doctors who attended medical school and completed a residency and medical
internship – more than 17,000 hours in training in total, compared with less
than 3,000 hours for optometrists.
Simultaneous with these legislative battles, allied
health professionals are waging a public relations campaign aimed at glossing
over the vast differences between them and medical doctors. For example,
Tennessee optometrists changed their association’s name from the Tennessee
Optometric Association to the Tennessee Association of Optometric Physicians.
Thus far, legislators in California, Louisiana and
Tennessee weren’t fooled and ultimately rejected proposals that would
compromise medical safety standards. But in each case the door was left open
for future attempts, and now that the new healthcare law is actually being
implemented, state houses across the country should expect a renewed push.
It stands to reason that by forcing individuals into the
healthcare system without ensuring there is an adequate pipeline to treat them
will create some bottlenecks. As these bottlenecks build, it will only add
fodder for these specialties to push for expanded scope.
One of the proponents’ central arguments is that
increasing the ability of non-M.D. practitioners to perform a broader range of
procedures would free up access to care – particularly in rural areas – and
reduce the bottleneck that may be created by thousands of new entrants into the
healthcare system. The problem? No patient, whether rural, newly insured, or
otherwise, deserves care from practitioners without sufficient training for the
procedures they are performing. Substandard healthcare is not an acceptable
solution to the problems created by Obamacare.
Additionally, these allied health professionals argue
that their treatment will also reduce healthcare costs, since nurses,
optometrists and pharmacists often bill at lower rates. This may be true at the
onset, but what is the price of substandard care? More doctor and hospital
visits that clog the system even further and add unnecessary costs.
States need to resist falling for quick fixes when
confronting the challenges faced by Obamacare. The widespread unpopularity of
the law makes it likely that significant changes will be made at the federal
level, and in the meantime many solutions have been proposed to address the
access issue. Legislators should keep their hands off of healthcare and not
change the definition of who constitutes a “doctor.”
No comments:
Post a Comment