A new program called "Pay for Performance" which rewards doctor's for administering antibiotic drugs in a timely manner may be unhealthy.
"But he did not appear to have pneumonia or any other infection. He had no fever. His white blood cell count was normal, and he wasn’t coughing up sputum. His chest X-ray did show a vague marking, but that was probably just fluid in the lungs from heart failure.
I ordered the antibiotic stopped — but not in time to prevent the patient from developing a severe diarrheal infection called C. difficile colitis, often caused by antibiotics. He became dehydrated. His temperature spiked to alarming levels. His white blood cell count almost tripled. In the end, with different antibiotics, the infection was brought under control, but not before the patient had spent almost two weeks in the hospital."
You can see here how administering antibiotics when they are not nessecary can be very harmful on patients. Doctor's get pay bonuses though and can administer these substances to those who it would have little to no effect on. It is unhealthy to take antibiotics unless an infection is present. Antibiotic use can also lead to other complications. I feel that everyone should be entitled to free medical free from the tyranny of hospital fees. Doctors are able to "Cherry-Pick" patients and cause their medical fee to go up. This reminds me of John Locke when he said that people should be born with certain rights. I feel everyone should have medical care. Also I believe that it is wrong for Doctor's to knowingly perscribe these substances to patients if they know their are no real positives. It almost goes against the hippocratic oath.
New York Times
"The Pitfalls of Linking Doctors’ Pay to Performance"
1 comment:
sanderz is a nerdy babyzc
Post a Comment