Skip to the content

Ben White

  • About
  • Archives
  • Asides
  • Support
    • Paying Surveys for Doctors
  • Medical Advice
    • Book: The Texas Medical Jurisprudence Exam: A Concise Review
    • Book: Student Loans (Free!)
    • Book: Fourth Year & The Match (Free!)
  • Radiology Jobs
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • About
  • Archives
  • Asides
  • Support
    • Paying Surveys for Doctors
  • Medical Advice
    • Book: The Texas Medical Jurisprudence Exam: A Concise Review
    • Book: Student Loans (Free!)
    • Book: Fourth Year & The Match (Free!)
  • Radiology Jobs
  • Search
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #

Good ideas need to outlive the old guard

09.25.20 // Miscellany

Nobel-prize winning physicist Max Planck argued in his autobiography that change takes time because good ideas need enough staying power to outlive their detractors:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it…An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.

Clearly not always true, but it’s so broadly applicable a principle that it’s worth adding to your library of mental models.

Frozen Meat: A New Standard for COVID-19 Research

09.23.20 // Miscellany

As a physician, I mostly read medical journals. I also occasionally read economics and psychology literature, usually because they are frequently cited in popular books for laypersons.

But I don’t normally read business or communications literature.

That is until I saw this paper about frozen meat company Steak-umm’s surprisingly awesome Twitter account:

I haven't actually read this, but I can tell from the title it's better than most of the COVID-19 preprints I've seen in medical journals. https://t.co/ScgobNBfGn

— Ben White, MD (@benwhitemd) September 18, 2020

The title of the paper is too good to ignore. Anytime you can employ the phrase “frozen meat” in a way that only might be ironic is a communications victory from my perspective.

To give you an example of what the content Steak-umm generated to become worthy of intense positive scrutiny:

friendly reminder in times of uncertainty and misinformation: anecdotes are not data. (good) data is carefully measured and collected information based on a range of subject-dependent factors, including, but not limited to, controlled variables, meta-analysis, and randomization

— Steak-umm (@steak_umm) April 7, 2020

and then…

we're a frozen meat brand posting ads inevitably made to misdirect people and generate sales, so this is peak irony, but hey we live in a society so please make informed decisions to the best of your ability and don't let anecdotes dictate your worldview ok

steak-umm bless

— Steak-umm (@steak_umm) April 7, 2020

From “Frozen Meat Against COVID-19 Misinformation: An Analysis of Steak-Umm and Positive Expectancy Violations“:

To examine another possible factor contributing to the success of Steakumm’s response to the pandemic, we analyze the case through the lens of expectancy violations theory (Burgoon & Jones, 1976), which predicts how individuals will respond when others communicate in unexpected ways. Although expectancy violations can be positive or negative depending on the situation, research has shown that positive expectancy violations resulting in positive communication appraisals and outcomes can happen when publics are pleasantly surprised by an entity’s communication (e.g., Yim, 2019).

Sometimes beautiful, sometimes terrible—but it’s always an interesting world we live in.

RBG on Writing

09.21.20 // Writing

Former two-time law clerk for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Post:

Most of what I know about writing I learned from her. The rules are actually pretty simple: Every word matters. Don’t make the simple complicated, make the complicated as simple as it can be (but not simpler!). You’re not finished when you can’t think of anything more to add to your document; you’re finished when you can’t think of anything more that you can remove from it. She enforced these principles with a combination of a ferocious—almost a terrifying—editorial pen, and enough judicious praise sprinkled about to let you know that she was appreciating your efforts, if not always your end-product. And one more rule: While you’re at it, make it sing. At least a little; legal prose is not epic poetry or the stuff of operatic librettos, but a well-crafted paragraph can help carry the reader along, and is always a thing of real beauty.

Even paraphrased, that’s a satisfying approach.

When Ginsburg was in law school, she was passed over for clerkships literally just because she was a woman. Later she became one of the most influential justices on the supreme court while consistently applying the principles of equality and fairness to her jurisprudence.

American law didn’t just change during her lifetime, she helped make those changes.

What a legacy.

Considerations for Your First Job in Radiology

09.17.20 // Radiology

The majority of radiology trainees will take jobs in private practice, but whether academics or PP, there are still a lot of details that will significantly change what your job is actually like and what you should consider in choosing.

This post is very long (~3600 words), but I don’t feel like trying to publish it as a 10-part-series for more clicks. Refill your coffee or tea and let’s go.

 

Practice Setting

I’ve written previously about the differences between private practice and academic radiology, and I still largely agree with myself and that think post is worth reading. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Private Equity

I don’t really want to get into this topic too much here. PE firms like to gobble up practices in a tight geographic area such that they can achieve local market dominance and then negotiate for higher reimbursement. Local monopolies are a business model. However, the easiest way for them to make money for their investors after a leveraged buy-out is by hiring more young people fresh out of residency for whom any attending salary seems high and using that relatively cheap labor to replace the older higher-paid partners that will soon be retiring on the cash (and potentially stock) from the buyout in a few years when everything vests.

If you need to live somewhere and that’s the shop in town, so be it. It’s not as though there aren’t bad groups that aren’t owned by private equity.

But on the whole, I think doctors do better for themselves and their patients when their personal and practice interests align. While you may have a limited voice as an individual radiologist working in a large group, an independent practice itself can choose its priorities and how those align for optimal patient care. A third-party middle man dictating how much, how hard, and how fast you work over the long term is ultimately dictating how you practice medicine. I don’t think that’s good for our profession.

If you’re interviewing at an independent group, I would absolutely discuss the issue of a practice sale with them and see how they respond. Being in the work-up during a buyout is frequently a crappy situation to be in, where you’ve put in sweat equity only to have the benefit rug pulled out from underneath.

PE firms got a lot of bad rap in the news recently for things like surprise billing, and there’s an excellent reason for that. It’s because they deserve it.

[For further reading, I subsequently published a dedicated essay on private equity in medicine that you might enjoy]

Nighthawk & Teleradiology

Strict teleradiology is overall probably not an ideal first job after training. Being alone (and often production-based) fresh out of fellowship could be pretty lonely, disorienting, and stressful.

Night gigs are tough. Burnout is high and most people can’t maintain it for more than a few years. I’ve heard it can sometimes be hard to land a normal day job for some folks after a period of tele nights, and many groups treat their internal nighthawks as sort of second-class citizens. Typically the schedule and pay are good on paper, often 1 week on 1 week off (sometimes 1-on 2-off, which sounds much more sustainable), but it’s not uncommon for nighthawks to be strictly non-partnership-track employees with no avenue to transitioning to day work when you’re burnt. If you’re considering an internal nighthawk job, I would try to find a group that will work with you on these key details.

My group for example has a three-week rotation for our night radiologists where they work one week of days, one week of nights, and one week off. This way they’re part of the group and also do some regular work with other humans during normal human hours.

That said, there are people from whom this lifestyle is a perfect fit. If this is your plan you need to exhaust all of the options because not all remote work is created equal
(including both local group coverage and actual teleradiology companies). The case-mix and RVUs of an average shift vary widely. An 8-hour shift reading 60 RVUs is a completely different gig than 10-hour 100 RVU churns, even if you’re working 1-on-1-off.

Location

Many residents/fellows will take a job locally, which likely reflects a combination of inertia and true preference. These sorts of opportunities are more straightforward to find and feel out. When groups are hiring, they typically reach out to local programs and will often be able to vet you through their personal contacts (even if those aren’t the people you’ve listed as your references). For your benefit, you’ll likely know (or can be put in contact with) former residents working at these groups that can give you the low down. Interviews won’t require travel. The whole thing will hopefully be pretty straightforward.

Finding nonlocal jobs may require a bit more work to suss out good opportunities. Some but not all positions will be posted on the ACR Career Center. Consider joining the American Radiologists Facebook group (and probably RadChicks for female rads), where openings also sometimes appear (and where you can query the hive [even anonymously] with job-related questions). I grabbed a body imager for our group via Facebook last year. This is the world we live in.

For better or worse, COVID means that a lot of groups are interviewing virtually. If you know what you want (say you really want to be a certain location and only one group is hiring), then this will at least be convenient, but overall I think it makes things harder in terms of assessing fit on both ends. Regardless of interview modality, you need to find some junior people in the group who have been there 0-2 years (or someone who just made partner if applicable) to talk with. Hopefully, that’ll be part of the interview process but these folks will provide you with an important perspective. Ask questions.

Procedures

It is increasingly common in large cities with hyper-consolidated markets for IR to do basically all body IR and vascular IR procedures. Even in the common situation where others (such as a neuroradiologist) may perform inpatient lumbar punctures and myelograms during the day, it is not uncommon for any after-hours LPs to also go the way of the interventionalist. Smaller groups may still have general radiologists who perform a variety of nonvascular interventions like abscess drainages, and it’s still very common for groups to need the random rad on-site at various imaging centers to take care of the usual bevy of LPs, myelograms, arthrograms, and joint injections that may be scheduled there. But it’s also common for centers to schedule specific exam types on the days where the relevant subspecialists are covering or to only schedule certain types of procedures at specific centers. Most groups that need such coverage will ask you if you’re comfortable doing the things they need you to do. (If you’re not and you want to work there, the answer is that you’re happy to (re)learn).

Many academic groups also split procedures up by subspecialty such that a neuroradiology fellow would likely perform more spine biopsies and injections during training than they ever would once out in practice, where this may be handled by either interventional or neuro-interventional radiologists. Where I trained, for example, every division handled their own procedures, with the exception of lung biopsies, which switched from chest to IR during my first year in my residency. The bottom line is, it varies. And while this is subject to change, you should at least be aware of your comfort level and interests and the expectations of any group you look at.

For example, my fellowship was relatively procedure heavy, and I could easily be credentialed in the full gamut of spine interventions and pain injections, but in my actual practice, I do LPs, myelograms, GI/GU fluoroscopy, arthrograms, and joint injections. Meanwhile, our mammo is 100% performed by breast radiologists (whereas some places want everyone to do some breast imaging).

The broader your skill set, the more marketable you will be in general because different practices have different needs. But in real life, your practice may or may not be considerably more narrow. There’s also a decent chance that your first job won’t work out for one reason or another, so you could easily find yourself in a different situation doing some CME course and watching YouTube trying to brush up on skills you let atrophy. I once knew a 100% subspecialized academic MSK-radiologist who after like 7 years of practice transitioned to a nighthawk ER job to be able to spend more time with her kids. These things happen.

Salary & Vacation

Depending on any geographical constraints you may have, the details of group logistics may be moot. If you need to work in a certain city and there are three major groups of which only one is hiring in your subspecialty, then you will likely take a trap regardless of the size of the buy-in or if you think the call is equitable for people in the work-up.

Even more than salary, vacation is often the biggest measurable difference between academic practices and most private groups. Somewhere in the range of 8 to 12 weeks off is not uncommon in radiology private practice with less “desirable” locales sometimes offering even more (I’ve seen as high as 20 weeks at least several years ago, which is bonkers).

Large metros have seen a lot of consolidation over the past decade, and there are generally very few small groups left. The smaller groups where everyone practices as a complete generalist and does all the “light IR” are much more common in smaller cities and rural areas. Likewise, the consolidation and competition for imaging contracts have also pushed salaries down in big metros. You’re generally going to make more money with more vacation in a non-premier location within a region as well as in certain regions of the country more than others (e.g. midwest > coasts).

Your employee pay will definitely vary, but in many cases, it’s really the partner reimbursement where you’ll typically see the greatest spread. Whenever you evaluate money, make sure to include 401k profit-sharing contributions, group contributions to a health savings account (HSA) for high-deductible health plans, and other such non-salary compensation. These add up and can make a huge difference.

Partnership

In private practice, partnership is a big deal and you need to evaluate exactly what partnership means in your group, how long it takes to get there, and what buy-in you’ll need once you do. Some groups are completely democratic where all partners have a vote in major issues, all are eligible to serve on the board of directors (if there is one), and all get paid the same amount of money for the same amount of work, have the same amount of vacation etc. Others may have a tiered partnership similar to some law firms, where junior partners basically get a salary increase but senior partners still skim the cream financially and make the decisions. Still others are actually owned by private equity or another corporate entity and a “partnership” may or may not mean very much.

Some older radiologists may tell you that if a partner-track work-up is longer than a year then it’s BS and you should look elsewhere. That is unfortunately not the case in many markets, where you can easily expect tracks as long as 3-years. While the radiology job market is still much better than it was in the mid-teens, competition for hires is I think very unlikely to bring things back to what was common during the golden age of radiology reimbursement.

I also want to make it clear that an employed (non-shareholder track) position is not inherently bad. In some cases, an employed position can be more flexible and not have the same call responsibilities, can be part-time, or sometimes even get paid more (upfront) than a similar partner-track position in the work-up. In other groups, all non-partner employee jobs are the same whether you make partner after the prescribed amount of time or not. It’s absolutely possible to work for a good group as an employee just as it’s possible to be a partner in a crappy group.

If you’re in a group that offers both types of positions and decide to try to switch to partner-track, classically the work-up clock resets. Getting credit for time served is a point very much worth negotiating.

Buy-in

In most radiology practices, employees in the workup are already paying into the practice for the shareholders via sweat equity: you make less (and often have less vacation) than a partner for a period of time, and the group makes money off of you by paying you less than you bring in via production. Buying actual “shares” in the practice is usually on top of that, and the buy-in sum depends on the assets at stake. In a group without real estate/imaging centers, your buy-in is essentially for accounts receivable (the amount of money the group has earned/charged but hasn’t yet received). An AR buy-in will depend on the size of the group but should typically be in the five-figure range. A six-figure buy-in should start containing something more substantial.

The buy-in cost can often be financed by the group itself so that part of your new higher partner salary goes toward paying for the buy-in. In this case, your income bump will be attenuated for a while after you make partner.

If the buy-in is super high but the group’s assets suck, this is usually a way to get young partners to overpay for their slice of the pie, give the group more cash on hand, and then fund the exit-packages/retirement of the retiring partners when they sell their shares back to the group.

In general, a large democratic group is going to be more likely to have a fair valuation and should always share the numbers they use to derive everything. Theoretically, your buy-in should basically be the value of all the group assets (buildings, scanners, etc) divided by the number of partners (or the number of total shares multiplied by the number of shares you purchase when you become a partner). There shouldn’t be secrets. If the number makes you uneasy or you think the valuation of the assets looks too high, have someone evaluate the deal. You don’t want to be paying luxury car prices for a used Ford Pinto. And, at least to me, shady accounting is a red flag.

That said, your true “buy-in” isn’t just the lump sum you pay when you become a partner but is the combination of that and the difference in salary and vacation during the workup period. This can actually be hard to really define since partners are usually paid in a combination of salary, potentially “call pay” for working evenings and weekends, and profit-sharing. Suffice to say that employees are good for the group’s bottom line.

Going Part-time

One potentially important consideration that people often don’t discuss is how the group handles part-time work. Some groups allow partners to go down to 80% or sometimes as low as 50% time while still maintaining partnership status (you typically pay back your portion of the salary and benefits as a fraction of the full-time equivalent total). In these cases, it’s possible to continue making the same amount (or more) than you did as an employee while working considerably less.

Other groups don’t, which means that if you make the choice to roll back your hours in the future, you may need to do so as an employee of the group instead of a shareholder, typically a big hit to your reimbursement even on a pro-rated per-hour basis. In some cases you might also get less vacation than you did as a partner, negating some of the benefits of going part-time in the first place.

For reasons I don’t fully agree with, many groups are optimized for partner income and not set up to account for lifestyle flexibility. If you think you might want to work part-time at some point in the relatively near future, choosing a group that does not meaningfully allow for this may be a mistake.

Timing & Interviews

Try to interview at 3 or 4 places to be able to compare possibilities and make an informed decision. Know that it’s very common for a group to request an answer to a formal offer ridiculously quickly. At one group I was given a response deadline of 6 days! So know that you’ll need to cluster interviews if possible. You also just need to be honest with groups. If you have another interview the following week and you get an offer that’s asking for an immediate response, be gracious, thank them, and ask for more time. Don’t get muscled.

In recent years at least, lots of folks have started looking for jobs in the summer as fellowships started and had locked in jobs by early fall. While good positions may open up later, don’t wait to start looking.

As for the interview itself, you’ve done this a few times now. The same rules apply. In a large group, you may do most of your upfront communication and coordination with a practice administrator or even a dedicated practice recruiter. You know, be nice. If you’re interviewing somewhere academic, you’ll be giving a resident lecture, so prepare one that doesn’t suck.

Contracts & Negotiation

Offers will often come in three stages:

  1. Verbal
  2. Letter of Intent or Letter of Understanding
  3. Contract or Employment Agreement

Verbal agreements are supposed to count, but memory is imperfect. Get everything important to you written down.

The Letter of Intent is a short binding contract, often 1-2 pages, that in many cases is the only document that actually specifies the core details of your job, such as your salary, vacation, section/division, and often (current but subject to change) call responsibilities. Make sure everything important is in there before you sign it. If you want something spelled out in writing, in many cases it will actually make more sense for it to show up in a Letter of Understanding than it would in the formal Employment Agreement (which will often reference the Letter).

In many radiology practices, the Employment Agreement is standard across the group and will be the one document of the three that’s written in legalese. It typically details boring important things like how the group handles non-competes (aka “restrictive covenants”), grounds for termination, intellectual property, malpractice insurance, etc. You need to understand this material, and if you don’t, you need to hire someone who can translate.

As a practical matter, there often isn’t a lot of wiggle room on the main numbers for a large radiology group as compared with what your clinician colleagues often deal with. Salary and vacation are typically standard. Buy-in will also be set at the time of signing. Even most of the paperwork details like non-competes are often going to be universal to the group and therefore completely non-negotiable. If every partner has agreed to something, you’re probably not going to get out of it. A one-time signing bonus, however, will often have some wiggle room, especially if you’re coming from somewhere far away and could use extra help with moving expenses.

If you have intellectual property or plan to develop any, please be careful how that topic is described in your employment agreement. Academic centers, for example, particularly love to include heavy-handed language that they own everything and anything you come up with while employed, even when you do so outside of work hours. Likewise, while you may or may not be able to change a non-compete (and the group may or may not actually try to enforce it), the exact language will define how limiting it can be. Is a 5-mile radius defined from the group headquarters, from the main hospital(s) you read for, or from any imaging center you contract with? Because the latter will typically end up excluding the whole city.

I would argue the most important thing that you can negotiate is the makeup of your clinical duties. What fraction will you practice in your subspecialty? What procedures will you perform? Which hospitals and imaging centers will you cover? Will you read breast? If there is more than one divisional call-pool, which one(s) will you be in? Do you have to work nights? What’s the evening/swing shift and weekend burden? What fraction if any can be done from home? If there’s internal moonlighting, what types will be available to you?

To be clear, some or all of these types of details may be part of the job offering itself or equitable across the group, but I would venture that most people fixate on measurable things like salary size when comparing jobs and not nearly enough time evaluating the actual job.

There is no job in radiology that is so poorly paid that you can’t make a good living, but there are jobs so miserable that you can’t enjoy your life.

Again, while many details may not be meaningfully negotiable, these sorts of clinical parameters are worth discussing and feeling out. Don’t assume. Likewise, if you get promised something, get it in writing. You don’t want to be told you don’t have to cover some remote outlying hospital only to get assigned there the moment you show up. Your call responsibilities are likely subject to change, for example, but one thing to consider asking about is some type of credit if your call frequency is defined in your contract but subsequently increases beyond the original threshold. Wouldn’t it be nice if working an extra day at least moved up your partnership date?

([affiliate stuff] If you’re in the market for physician contract review and negotiation help, check out Contract Diagnostics. If you’re mainly interested in comparative compensation data, consider CompensationRx, which is a cheap way to get access to the MGMA info for your practice type and location [in addition to their proprietary internal data].)

Conclusion

Good luck.

Ask questions.

I’ve had friends whose groups have been bought out by PE firms, and I’ve had friends who have then rapidly left those jobs and others who have stuck it out. I’ve had friends who have been blindsided and not offered partnership in their groups, and I’ve had friends who didn’t wait long enough to find out because they didn’t like how radiology was being practiced.

If you find yourself in a position you truly don’t like, the prospect of more money in the future is unlikely to make that job suddenly tolerable. Your most valuable asset is your time, so don’t waste it doing something you hate.

 

 

Attention is a Gift

09.14.20 // Reading

From the highly readable Nobody Wants to Read Your Sh*t by Steven Pressfield:

You begin to understand that writing/reading is, above all, a transaction. The reader donates his time and attention, which are supremely valuable commodities. In return, you the writer must give him something worthy of his gift to you. When you understand that nobody wants to read your shit, you develop empathy.

Dear reader, I feel for you. Thanks as always.

Regarding persuasive nonfiction:

Here’s the wrong way:
1) Introduce the thesis (first three chapters).
2) Cite examples supporting the thesis (next hundred chapters).
3) Recap and sum up what you’ve presented so far (last five chapters).

In other words, “Tell ‘em what you’re gonna tell ‘em, tell ‘em, then tell ‘em what you’ve just told ‘em.”

This is salient advice, and it perfectly explains why every time I read self-help or one of these pop-psych “here’s how things really work” books it feels like the whole thing should have been a blog post or two.

 

What’s healthcare’s sideways threat?

09.06.20 // Medicine

It’s the “sideways threats” that bite companies, he said. “If you think of Kodak and Fuji, competing in film for 100 years, but then ultimately it turns out to be Instagram.”

– Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, interviewed in the NYT.

If medicine is anticipating disruption from AI, everyone is wary of private equity and consolidation, and physicians are frustrated and scared about losing their market dominance to midlevel providers, what are the sideways threats for healthcare?

Or is it still all of those things, just to those stakeholder groups that don’t see them coming?

I for one don’t think clinical fields have fully appreciated the narrow gap between what it takes to fully replace radiology with what it takes to completely and fundamentally change just about everything else.

Updates in the ABR Lawsuit

09.03.20 // Radiology

The back and forth continues. You can see the duel laid out on the lawsuit’s website, but they’re now up to 9 filings, most recently on August 12, when the plaintiff added their “Sur-Reply in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss” (which is an additional response to specific arguments made by the American Board of Radiology in their second motion to dismiss which itself was a response to the plaintiff’s amended complaint after the initial complaint was dismissed).

For those just tuning in, the plaintiff’s main thrust has been to argue that the ABR has abused an illegal monopoly by using their complete market dominance in essentially mandatory (initial) board certification to then force all radiologists to continue paying for the “separate product” of maintenance of certification forever. The ABR has argued that MOC is just part of certification now and is not a separate product, even if it wasn’t before and hasn’t been for the majority of the ABR’s history since its founding almost a century ago.

You don’t have to read much to see why the legal system is terrible, lawsuits take forever, and lawyers make a lot of money. The initial lawsuit was filed in February 2019. The amended complaint was filed in January 2020. And this is all quite possibly going to be thrown out by the judge again without even a hint of a trial after at least two years of the ABR burning through our certification fees to preserve its (new) status quo.

One excerpt from the end of this recent back and forth.

ABR:

If Plaintiff’s conclusion were true, hospitals and other medical organizations would not require certification (which includes MOC) to the degree alleged by Plaintiff. Competing entities would be permitted to offer substandard CPD products at bargain prices, and ABR would be powerless to control the integrity of its certification.

Of course, most hospital credentialing specifically does not include MOC, and such a requirement is even illegal in some states. It’s only “required” in the sense that the ABMS boards are now saying they’ll revoke certification from those who have earned it if they don’t keep paying their annual tithe.

Response:

There is nothing [in the motion] about “substandard CPD products,” “bargain prices,” or “the integrity of [ABR’s] certifications.” While ABR may assert its illegal tying is a justified attempt to preserve the undefined “integrity of its certifications,” that inherently fact-driven affirmative defense relies on facts outside the pleadings, is inappropriate on a motion to dismiss, and is contradicted by Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations that MOC does not benefit physicians, patients, or the public, or improve patient outcomes. For example, ABR does not contend ABR certified radiologists failed to satisfy the “integrity” of certifications before MOC; that the “integrity” of certifications was in decline before MOC; that making MOC mandatory protects the “integrity” of certifications; or that hospitals, patients, and insurance companies had less “trust” in certifications before MOC was made mandatory.

Plaintiff seeks only to break up the captive market ABR has created for MOC by tying it to certifications. Eliminating the illegal tie and making MOC voluntary as promised previously by ABR will allow the marketplace to decide the merits of MOC, as the antitrust laws require.

Presumably, the judge will weigh in again in the coming months. His initial response was to grant the ABR’s initial motion to dismiss.

Sociopaths need data too

09.01.20 // Miscellany, Reading

I just finished John Carreyrou’s Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup, about the fall of Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos, the Silicon Valley Unicorn that pretended to be a pioneer in laboratory testing but was really just a purveyor of bloated promises and outright lies.

A sociopath is often described as someone with little or no conscience. I’ll leave it to the psychologists to decide whether Holmes fits the clinical profile, but there’s no question that her moral compass was badly askew. I’m fairly certain she didn’t initially set out to defraud investors and put patients in harm’s way when she dropped out of Stanford fifteen years ago. By all accounts, she had a vision that she genuinely believed in and threw herself into realizing. But in her all-consuming quest to be the second coming of Steve Jobs amid the gold rush of the “unicorn” boom, there came a point when she stopped listening to sound advice and began to cut corners. Her ambition was voracious and it brooked no interference.

A 19-year-old with a couple of semesters of chemistry under her belt suddenly knows enough science and engineering to demolish the scientific state of the art and maybe even the laws of physics when it comes to fluid dynamics. Even the products themselves kept pivoting as her original ideas were clearly impossible with the current state of technology and the people she brought in to do the actual work rotated through.

It’s bonkers, and it’s so telling that almost everyone investing was a tech billionaire or silicon valley VC with no understanding of science. A cult of personality has no business in healthcare without data. This was Holmes describing the Theranos lab process:

A chemistry is performed so that a chemical reaction occurs and generates a signal from the chemical interaction with the sample, which is translated into a result, which is then reviewed by certified laboratory personnel.

If you heard this in a pitch meeting, would you think future of medicine or middle school book report?

I remember the news when Theranos imploded and I think a lot of people fully embraced the schadenfreude. But reading the detailed story was just so depressing. You shouldn’t be able to run a science company while hiding all the research and data. You know, all the sciency stuff. That’s literally not how science works.

How many thousands upon thousands of hours of smart folks’ time was wasted trying to duct tape vaporware when they could have been making a substantive contribution to their fields. How much money was flushed for someone’s ambition?

Review: Doctor’s Orders (Hierarchies in Medicine)

08.28.20 // Medicine, Reviews

Sociologist Tania M. Jenkins compares and contrasts two geographically similar academic and community internal medicine residencies in her book, Doctor’s Orders, which discusses hierarchy in medicine. Her overall thrust:

Amidst a widespread and pervasive emphasis on individual merit in medicine, I found that largely structural advantages and disadvantages, often dating back to childhood differences in social class, are frequently misidentified as differences in individual achievement and motivation among medical graduates, helping USMDs float to the top of the status hierarchy while pushing non-USMDs toward the bottom.

Jenkins lumps everything other than US allopathic grads together as non-USMDs (DO, Caribbean MD, US citizen IMGs, and non-US IMGs)

Hierarchies in status, defined as collective understandings of social worth or prestige, such as those between USMDs and non-USMDs, remain highly informal, as do the processes for climbing the ranks. In fact, as I will argue, it is precisely this informality and the accompanying belief that anyone can become part of the elite with enough work and dedication that allow such status distinctions to persist.

This is part of the pervasive myth of Step 1 as the great equalizer for non-USMDs. The idea that if you absolutely destroyed Step 1 you could go far. Anecdotes abound, because yes, an IMG has absolutely needed to do well on Step 1 in order to successfully match. But, but, these successful IMGs are using Step 1 largely to compete with other IMGs. Many of the dozens of programs they apply to aren’t really considering their applications. The AAMC, which runs ERAS, is happy to take applicants’ money to apply to ever more programs while providing program directors with the tools they need to filter out those very same apps.

It’s the perception of true meritocracy, but insofar as we use standard metrics like exam scores, we use them largely within bins/tiers and not equally across all-comers.

These findings also remind us that artifacts of standardization, like Board exams and program accreditation, should not be confused with indicators of equality in medical education.

No big secret there. In many cases, they also probably shouldn’t be used as indicators of quality either, but that’s a different story.

But I think the most interesting thing about the book is that it focuses on physicians exclusively and ignores the real substantive hierarchal change happening in medicine today, which is rapid rise and expansion of midlevel providers. Take, for example, her brief discussion of the sociological history of modern medicine dating back to Eliot Freidson’s Professional Dominance in 1970:

Freidson, the primary proponent of professional dominance, maintained that as long as doctors held sole control over their gatekeeping functions (such as deciding who could become a doctor and who should be admitted to a hospital), they would continue to exert dominance over paramedical professionals and patients—despite incursions from nonmedical sources.In response, scholars criticized Freidson for being out of touch with the massive macrosocietal changes happening in the healthcare system and instead proposed their own theories of professional decline. One of the more serious challenges to Freidson’s professional dominance theory came from the proletarianization thesis. Proponents heavily criticized Freidson’s contention that the medical profession was impervious to the considerable socioeconomic changes happening around it. These scholars contended that increasing bureaucratization (especially the shift from self-employment to hospital employment) was creating a proletarianized profession, with formerly self-employed practitioners becoming constrained by bureaucratic controls within hospitals.

They predicted that, as medical practice became increasingly bureaucratized and specialized, physicians would become mere salaried employees, lose control over the terms and conditions of their professional work, and thereby become proletarianized. In turn, Freidson strongly criticized proletarianization theorists for overstating physicians’ loss of independence. He rejected the notion that simply by joining a bureaucratic organization like a hospital, “[doctors] become mere cogs in a machine of production.” He pointed to other professionals, like engineers and professors, who have long worked in bureaucratic organizations without having their knowledge and skill “expropriated” by nonprofessional superiors, and he noted that even with increased government and organizational control, physicians look nothing like typical alienated blue- or white-collar workers. While there is no doubt that some aspects of proletarianization have materialized (for example, Medicare, rather than physicians, largely dictates reimbursement rates for specific diagnostic codes), for the most part Freidson remains correct that doctors continue to control the processes of entry and the content of their professional work, suggesting that the professional decline forecast by so many sociologists in the 1980s has not come to pass.

I find this conclusion fascinating because I think it’s largely incorrect (or at the least, incomplete). And I suspect most physicians would agree.

Many doctors do (or at least certainly believe they do) function as cogs in the machine, working within a bureaucracy in which they typically have minimal input, where they control little about the day to day logistics of their jobs, and for which their main leverage for change (if any) is to quit. The process is overall gathering momentum.

While doctors may have maintained control over their fiefdom, they’ve instead been sidestepped by the large healthcare organizations that employ them and increasingly by the legislators who have historically protected them. So that strict control has become increasingly irrelevant and the inflexibility of the residency system even more damaging when organizations willingly and knowingly and sometimes preferentially choose to replace physicians with non-physicians providers as a cost-savings and/or profit-generating measure.

This part of the narrative is supremely complex (book-length to be sure), but physicians have some blame here by not producing sufficient numbers of doctors in the right critical fields to meet demand. Nature abhors a vacuum. We’ve also somehow tried to simultaneously maintain that only doctors can do the vast majority of clinical medical tasks while also training and using physician extenders to do many similar tasks nearly autonomously when it’s convenient for the bottom line. We shouldn’t be surprised that the boundaries get blurred when there is big money at stake and time to compound.

Which brings me to this last point:

The free-standing internship was eventually abolished in 1975, making a multiyear residency required for all medical graduates.

In a world where non-physicians providers increasingly have full practice authority fresh out of school, I think there’s a compelling argument for bringing back the internship-is-enough-to-meaningfully practice. While there are still standalone transitional and preliminary years, it’s not really a pathway to respected independent practice. A medical doctorate should count for something other than just a prerequisite to multiyear residency training. It’s increasingly naive and unsustainable to pretend that a doctor can only learn new aspects of medicine within a residency, or even that a residency is the best way to learn all relevant skills. For better or worse, the marketplace is proving otherwise.

When physicians burn out of their chosen calling, they typically leave clinical medicine altogether. I think one of the big factors at play that we rarely talk about is that the combination of residency and the board certification racket locks many doctors into a narrow specialization (or subspecialization) from which there is no escape.

There are lots of doctors who can’t get a residency or who want to change professions that essentially barred from meaningful clinical work, and that’s an incredible waste.

 

Less Certainty, More Inquiry

08.26.20 // Miscellany

Maria Konnikova, psychologist and rapid-onset Poker champion, relaying a story from her mentor and seasoned Poker champion, Erik Seidel:

Seidel doesn’t give me much in the way of concrete advice, and our conversations remain more theoretical than I would prefer. He focuses more on process than prescription. When I complain that it would be helpful to know at least his opinion on how I should play a hand, he gives me a smile and tells me a story. Earlier that year, he says, he was talking to one of the most successful high-stakes players currently on the circuit. That player was offering a very specific opinion on how a certain hand should be played. Erik listened quietly and then told him one phrase: “Less certainty. More inquiry.”

“He didn’t take it well,” he tells me. “He actually got pretty upset.” But Seidel wasn’t criticizing. He was offering the approach he’d learned over years of experience. Question more. Stay open-minded.

A good candidate for the second Golden Rule.

Older
Newer