Articles

Double Standards – Newsweek and Tom Harkin

There has been a flurry of news relevant to science-based medicine in the last week – more than enough to keep a bevy of bloggers busy. More important than the individual news items themselves is the striking pattern they bring into focus when viewed together – the growing and pernicious double-standard between mainstream medicine and so-called CAM.

Begley vs Doctors

Science editor Sharon Begley wrote an interesting piece in Newsweek with the provocative title: Why Doctors Hate Science.  I was not particularly impressed with the article – it took a rather narrow approach to a complex problem and ran with it. She writes:

It’s hard not to scream when you see how many physicians, pharmaceutical companies, medical-device makers and, lately, hysterical conservatives seem to hate science, or at best ignore it. These days the science that inspires fear and loathing is “comparative-effectiveness research” (CER), which is receiving $1 billion under the stimulus bill President Obama signed. CER means studies to determine which treatments, including drugs, are more medically and cost-effective for a given ailment than others.

I certainly agree that opposing or ignoring mainstream science is a serious problem, especially within healthcare. Begley points out, correctly, that there is great disparity among how physicians manage many ailments. Her interpretation of this fact, however, is far too simplistic to be helpful. She concludes that – well, doctors hate science. If they were listening to the science they would all be practicing the same way.  She further argues that doctors resist initiatives like CER because they resent attempts at controlling their practice, or limiting their profits, even with science. They would rather shoot from the hip.

I agree that this is one part of the picture. It is also true, however, that there is great disparity among doctors in terms of their attitudes toward the relationship between scientific evidence and practice. There are those who are rigorously and proactively science-based. At the other end of the spectrum there are those who take a decidedly anti-scientific and anecdotal approach to medicine. While most physicians are somewhere in between.

The real question is – what is keeping most doctors from being more rigorously evidence-based. Begley suggests it is culture. However the institution of evidence-based medicine (EBM) is premised on another explanation – that the problem is simply that medicine has become so complex and is changing so quickly it is simply very difficult for health care practitioners to have access to the latest scientific information at the point of patient contact.

In my experience most physicians actually want to be science-based, and they think that they are. They fall short because they lack the systems and resources to keep current. Some may be lazy too, but again that is a spectrum we are all on. No one is tireless.

I also think that some physicians are just poorly trained, and develop bad habits of thought they carry throughout their careers. Physicians need to be taught more uniformly to think more critically, scientifically, and skeptically.

Another factor not mentioned by Begley is that for many medical decisions the available data is ambiguous. Regions develop their local standards of practice because ambiguous data allows them to. Where the data is more solid variation in practice decreases (I have seen this happen many times in my speciality). And another salient factor is that disease rates actually vary significantly from region to region, and this partly explains differences in procedure and treatment rates.

Not only has Begley oversimplified her diagnosis, she recommends a specific remedy as if it is the only solution – CER. Last week Val Jones wrote on SBM about the same problem in health care and recommended a completely different solution.  To summarize, CER is a top-down approach – you have a committee of experts decide what the science says about a specific medical situation and then impose practice standards from above.

Val was recommending a bottom-up approach – improve physician education about SBM and their access to needed information. She argues, and I agree, that physicians do not have to be forced by committee to do the right thing. If they know what the right thing is they will tend to do it on their own.

I actually think that both methods should be blended. For certain medical situations the evidence strongly supports certain interventions and their application is fairly straightforward. For those situations top-down practice standards make sense, to maximize compliance with best practices. This could still leave room for individualization of care but would make the default management the EBM standard. But for many other medical interventions the bottom-up approach is probably best.

It seems clear that whichever method is preferred, improved education and access to critical information is going to be very important to improving health outcomes and cost effectiveness in the future, and that information technology must play a central role.

Begley vs Tom Harkin

Here is where the double standard comes in.  Everyone seems to agree that we need to make efforts to increase the degree to which doctors are science and evidence-based in their practice. We may disagree as to the causes and the best solutions, but everyone agrees that science is the answer. Some are even willing to put science-based doctors on a very short leash in order to make them even more science-based.

However, at the same time there is a completely separate conversation going on, as if it is taking place in a parallel universe, promoting the notion that so-called alternative practitioners should be freed from the shackles of scientific regulation.

David Gorski and Peter Lipson both wrote entries recently discussing Senator Tom Harkin’s hearing in which he invited some of the luminaries of the CAM movement to explain how healthcare reform can be hijacked to promote ideology, faith, sectarian practices, and the freedom to pursue profits unfettered by regulation over science-based medicine (OK, they didn’t put it exactly like that, but I think that is a fair summary). I won’t go over this terrain again, as David and Peter covered it nicely.

In short, Harkin is upset that his beloved CAM modalities are not meeting the standards of science, despite being given every unfair advantage and special consideration. Rather than concluding, as I think is reasonable, that this is because these CAM modalities do not work (which probably has something to do with why they are CAM in the first place), he concludes that they should be promoted and “integrated” into healthcare anyway.

It seems that when dealing with mainstream medicine the mantra is more and more regulation, oversight, and enforcement of standards. However, when dealing with so-called alternative medicine the mantra is more freedom and less regulation.

Conclusion

I think a meaningful discussion of the relative roles of top-down regulation vs bottom-up education in improving science-based medicine is useful and even necessary.  I have my opinions, but no one really knows what the best balance of these two approaches will be. I therefore agree with those who call for outcome measures to monitor various efforts at improving quality control in medicine, so we can see what actually works.

But these efforts must be universal. They should not be applied to one subset of the healthcare industry and not to another. Yet the CAM movement has been amazingly successful at promoting a double-standard, where they are free from all such regulation and quality control.

If we are to have an honest conversation in this country about quality control in medicine, these two parallel conversations need to be merged.  They can no longer continue to exist side-by-side in parallel universes.

____________

Next week I will write about another double-standard: pharmaceuticals vs supplements, and the new GAO report on supplement regulation by the FDA.

Posted in: Politics and Regulation, Public Health

Leave a Comment (10) ↓

10 thoughts on “Double Standards – Newsweek and Tom Harkin

  1. tmac57 says:

    A well reasoned approach Dr Novella.
    I see this kind of issue as only the tip of an incredibly large iceberg as Congress and the Administration begin to tackle the enormous task of reforming health care . The looming battles between all interested parties will be daunting indeed. It is no wonder that nothing has been done all of these years.
    I hope that when the dust settles, that something positive will come of it. For that to happen, we will need voices of reason like the contributors of SBM to help all of us who are not on the inside to understand the issues and help us make up our minds . So, keep up the good work, and let’s hope that science and reason will win the day!

  2. mandydax says:

    I have still received no response from the Senator or his office, not even an acknowledgment that they’ve received it.

    I must say that I can’t understand why some people see science as evil or part of a conspiracy, when in reality science itself doesn’t have an agenda outside of the seeking of truth and knowledge.

    I can understand magical and wishful thinking, however, as I used that modality of thought for a long time until I started reading Bad Astronomy, which got me thinking more skeptically and reading more about science and how to avoid fallacious thinking. My hope is that if people can be exposed to and understand the scientific method that they will be able to make that same transition. Of course, the irony is that I know there will be those who refuse to do so, and those who won’t get it, for my experience is an n=1 situation and merely an anecdote, but ignorance will not allow that change of mind to occur, so we do what we can to educate.

    (Sorry if my writing seems a bit flowery, but I’ve been reading Little Women.) ;)

  3. DarwynJackson says:

    Dr N,
    When we discuss variations in the practice of medicine, are we referring to certain specialities or all forms of medicine? In other words, is any one discipline within medicine less standardized? If so, is there any reason for this?

  4. badrescher says:

    “In my experience most physicians actually want to be science-based, and they think that they are.”

    I’m not an MD, but my experience as a patient and scientist leads me to agree. However, I think they often fall short because, despite having resources, knowledge, and critical thinking skills, they are human.

    I think doctors tend to jump to conclusions and fall back on habits rather than approaching each case objectively. They may not diagnose in the first minute, as suggested by some, but I do think tenacity, confirmation biases, and self-serving biases suppress reason.

    They want to be evidence-based. They think that they are. But they can’t see, and won’t admit to themselves, that they are not.

Comments are closed.