Pages

Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts

Sunday, 3 December 2017

Doctors in India: Villains or Victims?



"We have not lost faith, but we have transferred it from God to medical profession"
- George Bernard Shaw

The doctors community in India, both in public and private sectors, is in a state of unrest. Every few days there is news about brutal attacks on doctors and these are justified by patients’ family and friends as attributable to alleged medical negligence. Thanks to social media, copycat attacks are becoming frequent. The members of the medical fraternity very actively exchange news/ideas, devise strategies to overcome the problem, go on transient strikes, get assurances from the powers that be that concrete steps would be taken to contain such attacks; only for the cycle to restart after a short period. In a study that was conducted by IMA a few years ago three fourths of the doctors surveyed said that they were physically attacked at least once. In a study published in the national medical journal of India last year, not only significant number of doctors are getting attacked but it is also grossly under reported. The trend is getting worse.

Doctors were considered Gods at one time, when did the doctors become demons? From being the rakshak why did they become raakhshas in the public perception.
"Vaidhyaraja namasthubhyam, Yamaraja sahodara!! Yamasthu harathi praanaan, vaidhyah praanaan dhanaanicha!!"
(Meaning: Salute you doctor, brother of Yama, for Yama takes away only our lives, you take away our lives and wealth too) Sanskrit subhashitha.

The problem started when the health care started shifting from public sphere to private. Up to early 1980s patients were get treated in the private sector but when they had major ailments depended on government and teaching hospitals for their treatment. With the advent of corporate hospitals who were capable of providing care for an extended range major ailments, health care cost escalated and high end health care became inaccessible to a majority of people in India. In the absence of national health insurance scheme many citizens make out of pocket payment (OOP) which pushes 32 to 39 million people every year into Catastrophic Health Expenditure (CHE), which is defined as health expenditure which threatens a family's basic standard of living. The situation is only getting worse by the fact that the government's expenditure on health is just at 1% of GDP. (MOHFW2009).

Doctors who work in private hospitals in India know very well that one of the important triggers for irrational behaviour by patient and families is financial issues, especially when the patient outcome is not favourable. The potential for catastrophic health expenditure could cause psychological havoc.

"The huge gap between the rich and the poor, globally and within nations is not only morally wrong, it is also a source of practical problems"
Dalai Lama.

A patient who is at the risk of eliminating his/her financial resources to obtain healthcare, does not realise medical science has its limitations, every illness cannot be cured and there will be an outcome which is unacceptable in some cases. Good counselling of the exact nature of the problem and probable or definite poor outcome including mortality can mitigate this misunderstanding to some extent. Most of the doctors in India have realised the importance of this only in the recent years. As we are battling out issues like large volumes of patients, limited resources and poor infrastructure in almost all public sector providers and most of the private hospitals; effective communication and empathy could be one of the ways to keep situation under control at least partially and temporarily.

"To effectively communicate, we must realise that we are all different in the way we perceive the world and use this understanding as a guide to our communication with others"
Tony Robbins

Even as we doctors condemn unacceptable behaviour by patients and their relatives, can we absolve ourselves of wrong doings? Doctors say that there are some irregularities by a few individuals and a few hospitals and that should not be reason enough to portray the entire community adversely. True, that should not be the case but is it only a few individuals or hospitals? If we believe so, then we may need a reality check. Have we not heard of hospitals expecting their consultants to work to a target? Are we not aware of conversion rates, referral fees, unnecessary laboratory investigations by doctors and cross referrals, indicated or not?

"I am dying from treatment of too many physicians"
- Alexander the great.

This commercialisation and greed has become worse by the entry of unscrupulous businessmen, liquor barons and politicians into the ‘business’ of medical colleges and hospital ownership. Some/many, with their clout seem to flout every rule, manage accreditation yet unable to provide infrastructure or sufficient human resources.

"I have always tried to avoid politics because most politicians I know are quite dirty in terms of human dignity, ethics and morals"
- Steven Seagal

The reality is, when an idealistic young doctor comes to practice with noble intentions he/she is caught in this web of helplessness because of the lack of the right conditions needed practice his/her profession. This is highlighted by Dr Arun Garde, from Pune, in his book in Marathi "Voices of conscience from the medical profession".

"Every truth has two sides; it is as well to look at both before we commit ourselves to either"
- Aesop

So who are the one who get attacked and is physical attack of doctors justified?

The ones who are attacked are residents, doctors who are on duty in high risk areas, especially in government  hospitals, charitable trust hospitals, small nursing homes and occasionally resident doctors on duty in bigger corporate hospitals though the vicarious responsibility of treating these patients rest with the consultants. The corporate hospital owners or senior consultants who are in many ways responsible for the impression (or truth) that hospitals are primarily profit seeking places, never get attacked. Like every battle, it is only the foot soldiers who get attacked. By doing this the patients further alienate the residents who are already overworked, under suboptimal working conditions which results in worsening of already acrimonious situations.

"Soldiers win battles, generals get credit for them."
Napoleon Bonaparte.
(In this case they get attacked!!)

Are patients justified in attacking the doctors, whatever the grievance? If money is an issue, why do such attacks take place in government hospitals where treatment is free? While there may be many reasons, here is mine. We are living in a society which is becoming increasingly uncivil and aggressive. There are many people who throw shoes and slippers at politicians; vandalise houses of cricketers when there is something as trivial as defeat in cricket match. So when a major tragedy like a loss of life of a dear one happens they indulge in violence. Further, many of them come to a government hospital after exhausting their financial resources they have, this results in their desperate but bad behaviour.

The health benefit schemes introduced by some of the state governments have benefited the private hospitals and insurance companies; that government money could have been better used to improve the infrastructure in major hospitals. In a recent survey by the citizen engagement platform more than 40% of the participants said that they don't trust the private hospitals but 80% visited private hospitals when there was an illness in the family.

"There are far too many silent sufferers.
Not because they don't yearn to reach out but because they have tried and found no one who cares"
- Richelle E Goodrich

The media do not play a constructive role. The police choose to stay away because they believe it is natural for the patients to be distressed and use that as a justification. In some cases the hospitals and doctors don't help their own cause by criticising the treatment given at another facility either because they are not thoughtful enough or they think it will help in their own defence, thereby indulging in medical jousting. The already vitiated atmosphere is made worse by this, making an irate mob, violent.

"We are all connected, when one arm or foot is poisoned the whole body is infected"
Suzy Kassem.

We doctors often become defensive or even play the victim and say we sacrifice everything to continue as a doctor. Every profession in this competitive world has its own difficulties. Because we deal with human lives we seem to run the additional risk of getting attacked immediately by a crowd which gets provoked when things happen contrary to their expectations. However, we can demand stringent laws and better security in the work place. This is more easily said than done.

"Doctors are only doing KRIYA, that is earning their livelihood through this profession, not doing KARMA, that is doing charity for betterment of mankind"
Dr Pankaj Chaturvedi, quoting Bhagavath Gita

The educated people rarely resort to this kind of physical violence against doctors. I know of instances where frank negligence on the part of  doctors resulted  in mortality and morbidity. I know how a middle aged executive became disabled because of inordinate delay and inappropriate treatment; an elderly surgeon who succumbed to negligent care following a surgery and another elderly gentleman never recovered from an easily treatable problem because it was identified late. All these hospitals are well equipped, high end hospitals and what happened there was definite provable negligence. The families of these patients because of their education and politeness did not indulge in unruly behaviour despite spending huge amounts of money for treatment.

"Human behavior flows from three main sources, desire, emotion and knowledge"
- Plato.

Is it not an option to go to the consumer forum? According to a study, cases in the consumer forum has gone up by 400% in the last decade, the inordinate delay to get justice in Indian legal system adds to the frustration. Recently there was consumer forum ruling which was pronounced in 2017 for a case filed in 1998. More over the economically underprivileged ones are left with very little to fight a legal battle after they have spent their money in treatment, so they resort to their version of instant justice.

"Do not expect justice where might is right"
- Plato.

We are not Gods and cannot save all patients, we live at a time and age where practice of defensive medicine is almost a norm. We have not been able to address our issues of poor patient doctor ratio, infrastructure, abysmal working condition and inappropriate financial compensations.

Too many questions. Too few answers. The way forward.

We need a mechanism where we can make the patients our partners and communicate our difficulties to them. We have to spread awareness among public the factual and realistic capabilities and limitations of today's medical science.  We ought to stop advertising treatment modalities which may not be of benefit. We have to stop advertising treatment which could be inaccessible to many.

The doctor - patient trust and relationship is at its lowest point. Is the only way ‘up’?

While we demand a civil behaviour from our patients, it is important for us to do some soul searching and take that extra step and walk that extra mile to restore the trust and confidence of patients in doctors, medical profession and hospitals.
This in no way is a justification of violence against doctors. Every challenge is an opportunity and this is an opportunity for doctors for course correction where appropriate. The argument is advocatus diaboli.

"As doctors we generally don't tell outright lies. We don't speak the truth fully."
Dr.Allan Hamilton.

Are the patients ready for it? More importantly are we doctors ready for it?



Dr Usha
Physician
Hyderabad, India

All views in the above write up are the personal views of the author (and not that of this blog site)

©M HEMADRI


Follow me M HEMADRI on Twitter @HemadriTweets

M Hemadri’s mini e-book 'Standardised Management Conversation' is available - click http://www.amazon.co.uk/Standardised-Management-Conversation-Hemadri-ebook/dp/B018AWBJTU 

Sunday, 3 January 2016

Is the NHS Pension Scheme fragile?


Is the NHS Pension Scheme fragile?

THE NHS PENSION SCHEME

This is from NHS BSA FAQs ' http://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/3416.aspx

Where do the contributions go to?

The NHS Pension Scheme, is an unfunded occupational scheme backed by the Exchequer, which is open to all NHS employees and employees of other approved organisations. Pension contributions for individual scheme members are collected by NHS Employers and are forwarded to NHS Pensions Other income is also received, for example from people transferring from other pension schemes in the form of a cash equivalent transfer that buys a service credit in the NHS scheme.

The income is used to offset the payments that the scheme makes to pensioners or people leaving the Scheme.

Details of income received from 1995/96 to 2009/10 is available here.

Employers and employees pay contributions based on a percentage of pensionable pay. Every four years the Government Actuary conducts a full actuarial review and recommends contribution rates in their Valuation report to the Secretary of State for Health. This is based on the use of a ‘notional fund’ as if all income from the start of the NHS Pension Scheme had been invested. As a result the Scheme is unfunded as there is no actual asset for a ‘pension fund’ on the balance sheet of the pension scheme.

At each valuation any deficit or surplus in the notional fund may result in a recommendation to adjust the level of contributions from the estimated future cash flows of the pension scheme.'

‘‘……… there is no straight link between the pension contributions paid in and the pension paid out.’’


Commentary

So the NHS employees pay into a pension scheme that has no real money held in it, no asset, no pension fund. This income into the NHS pension scheme is paid out as NHS pension to past/retired eligible employees. Every four years the current employees of the NHS contribution into the scheme is adjusted and set so that the needs of the NHS pensioners can be met.

If you had a new financial entrepreneur offering you such a scheme, you would not pay a penny into it. In terms of the mechanics of how the scheme works it is like a Ponzi. The two differences between a true Ponzi and this one is that the NHS pension is ‘backed by the treasury’ and the primary intention is not to defraud using a fraudulent investment.

Wikipedia states

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned by the operator.

Ponzi schemes sometimes commence operations as legitimate investment vehicles, such as hedge funds. For example, a hedge fund can degenerate into a Ponzi scheme if it unexpectedly loses money (or simply fails to legitimately earn the returns promised and/or thought to be expected)………

Promoters also try to minimize withdrawals by offering new plans to investors, often where money is frozen for a longer period of time, ……………………….

Further commentary

The NHS pension scheme is thought to be ‘gold plated’ which in common understanding means it is secure and provides higher returns than other pensions. It services its commitment by the current contribution of its payers. It has no corpus, no fund, no asset. The pension scheme has already changed rules by delaying access to pension for some. http://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/Pensions/4017.aspx

If the NHS is privatised or if less people worked for the NHS then their contributions could rise (according to the four yearly actuarial valuation) and if very few people are employed by the NHS directly then the NHS pension will fail to legitimately bring in revenue to service its commitment to pensioners.

In effect, paying into the NHS pension could be like paying National Insurance. National Insurance it is not actually insurance with defined benefits claimed against contracted criteria, it is additional tax with benefits decided by government policy. Similarly, the NHS pension, since there is no asset or fund, it becomes dependent on the country’s economy and government policy. There has been significant opposition to the NHS pension changes, yet because it is government policy defined, the government uses its authority to make the changes to cope with what is very fragile.

It is a worry but….
The biggest reassurance is that the NHS pension is backed by the treasury which means as a strong western economy NHS staff pensions are safe.

The concerns are loaded towards/against younger NHS employees. Many are worried about the sustainability of public sector pensions, the CBI in UK talks about a £1trillion pension black hole. http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/cbi-next-govt-must-ditch-1-trillion-public-sector-pension-burden/a392035

It is best to think of reform of the NHS pension by creating a ring fenced fund which is then backed by the treasury. That will be a sign of mature strong financial management which reduces the vulnerability of the NHS pension. With an aging population, with NHS being the largest employer in UK we are talking about a lot of old people who are or will be ex-NHS, any measure to make their support structures stronger will be worth its while.



©M HEMADRI


Follow me on Twitter @HemadriTweets


My mini e-book 'Standardised Management Conversation' is available - click http://www.amazon.co.uk/Standardised-Management-Conversation-Hemadri-ebook/dp/B018AWBJTU 
till 31 December 2016 all my earnings from the sale of this book will be donated to charity  http://successinhealthcare.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/standardised-management-conversation.html