CBS news on the cons of medical tourism


CBS published a refreshing take on medical tourism – an article reviewing the pros and cons of traveling for medical care along with an interview with an American orthopedic surgeon,  Dr. Claudette Lajam from New York University Langone Medical Center.

Video interview with Orthopedic Surgeon

While Dr. Lajam pretty much rejects any form of medical tourism – she made some excellent points in her interview.  In the discussion, she stressed the need for facility AND provider verification.  She also talked about the need for people to know specifics – and gives one of my favorite examples, “American trained”.

“American trained

As she points out in the interview, this is a loose term that can be applied (accurately) to a Stanford educated surgeon like Dr. Juan Pablo Umana in Bogotá  or in a more deceptive fashion to one of the many surgeons who have taken a short course, or attended a teaching conference within the United States. A three-day class doesn’t really equate, now does it?

The discussion (and the article) then turned to the need to ‘research’ providers.. Now, if only CBS news had talked to me..   That would have made for a more balanced, detailed and informative show for watchers/ readers.

(Telling people to ‘research’ their medical providers falls a bit short.  Showing people how – or providing them with resources would be more helpful.)

“Off-label medical travel”

In addition, the print article should have gone a bit further in discussing the pros and potential consequences/ harmful effects of traveling for ‘off-label’ treatments instead of merely quoting one patient.  Since the area of harm is actually far greater in this subsegment of the medical tourism population due to the amount of quackery as well as the sometimes fragile state of these potential patients  – a bit more discussion or even a separate segment on “off-label medical travel” would have been an excellent accompaniment.

Speaking of which, several weeks ago, I interviewed with NPR (National Public Radio) as part of a segment on medical tourism.  During that discussion we talked about all of the pluses and minuses mentioned on the CBS segment as well as the “Selling Hope” aspect of ‘off-label medical travel” and the potential harms of this practice, as well as some of the issues involved in transplant tourism.  I am not sure how much of my interview, Andrew Fishman, the producer for the segment, will use – or when it will air, but I’ll keep readers informed.

Advertisements
Sanabria, breast implant

Colombian plastic surgeons answer back


Chairman of International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery questions the ethics of medical tourism, Colombia responds.

Colombia is now 11th in the world for plastic surgeries by volume according to the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS) but that may change if Dr. Igor Niechajev, Chair of the Government Relations Committee of that same organization gets his way.  ISAPS, who ranked Colombia among the top 25 countries for plastic surgery also printed an article by Niechajev in the spring edition of its newsletter condemning medical tourism.

Chairman discourages medical tourism, stating that medical tourists are victims of inferior care

The strongly-voiced piece accused surgeons outside of European and North America of providing inferior medical care, inadequate pre-operative evaluations and operating in substandard facilities.

States bad outcomes wouldn’t happen at home

In his editorial, Dr. Niechajev provides anecdotal evidence of a botched procedure that occurred in Asia, and stated that “such a tragic outcome” of [procedure cited] “is highly unlikely had the patient not been a medical tourist.”  Dr. Niechajev cites these concerns, not as a surgeon losing business to his competitors but states that he is concerned about the costs of caring for patients with possible complications once they return home.

Not limited to national borders

His concerns don’t stop at national borders, Dr. Niechajev also suggests that surgeons limit themselves to their immediate local vicinity.  What this may mean for a rural patient requiring extensive reconstructive surgeon is not addressed by Dr. Niechajev.

 Statements based on limited data

He bases the majority of his opinions on the shoulders of Dr. Ritz, the Australian National Secretary for Health, who cites one specific incident as the trigger for changing Australian legislature to prohibit this practice.  Additional evidentiary support of gross episodes or a mass epidemic of malpractice by international surgeons appears to be limited to 11 cases in the United Kingdom.  No other data was cited.

International Society debating the issue; Niechajev recommends financial sanctions against patients

These concerns have the officers of ISAPS considering changing the code of ethics of the organization to discourage the practice of medical tourism by its member surgeons.  However, Dr. Niechavej does not seem content to stop there, instead he advocates for governmental announcements advising the public about “increased risks associated with medical tourism” and that “surgery overseas practically means that they [patients] are giving up all their rights.”  He also advocates for financial penalties for patients who experience post-operative complications after surgery overseas, stating, “No preventative measure is as effective as hitting someone’s purse.”

 Colombian plastic surgeons respond

In an exclusive interview with the President of the Colombian Society of Plastic Surgery, he answered many of the allegations by Dr. Niechajev.

Regarding Dr. Igor Niechevaj’s statements on the lack of regulations and substandard facilities in countries that are popular medical tourism destinations, the President of the Colombian Society of Plastic, Esthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Dr. Carlos Enrique Hoyos Salazar replied that, “All facilities, and hospitals in Colombia are regulated by the Ministry of Health. There are minimum standards that must be met.  Any facilities that are interested in participating in the medical tourism business have additional standards and qualifications for certification by national agencies.  Anesthesiologists, and medical doctors are required to have additional training to perform pre-operative evaluations for International plastic surgery patients”.

 Reports safety and patient protections for medical tourists

He refutes claims that patients receive minimal post-operative care before returning home. In addition to medical advice from Colombian physicians, he cites agreements with Colombian and international airlines to encourage international patients to stay a minimum of 15 days after their surgical procedures to ensure optimal recovery.

Additionally, several plastic surgeons specializing in medical tourism and medical tourism companies offer ‘complication policies’ to pay for any expenses a medical tourist may incur in both the destination and home country should they develop complications post-operatively.  In fact, an advertisement for one of these policies shares space with Dr. Niechevaj’s article.  These policies effectively negate one of Dr. Niechevaj’s (and Dr. Ritz’s) strongest arguments, that medical tourism incurs costs in the home country when patients develop post-operative infections or other problems after returning home.

ISAPS Chairman defending his own wallet?

When asked about Dr. Niechevaj’s position on medical tourism and possible changes to the ISAPS code of ethics, Dr. Hoyos stated, “This is not right.  This has nothing to do with the quality of surgery in Colombia and other countries.  This is about the expensive costs of surgery in Europe and the United States.  If a surgery costs $6,000 (USD) over there and only $3,000 – $3,500 in Colombia, then those doctors are losing money due to medical tourism.”

Good and Bad is a global phenomenon

As we’ve pointed out here on our site (and related work) – good and bad surgical outcomes are certainly not limited by geography, and Dr. Niechajev certainly seems to paint the rest of the world with a wide brush with his call to action.

A more reasonable, and fair response would be continue to encourage work such as mine – using outside, independent and unbiased observers to evaluate surgeons wishing to participate in medical tourism.

In an ideal world, companies such as Blue Cross/ Blue Shield who wish to broaden their international physician base would hire independent medical professionals to review surgeons who wished to be included under their health plan.  This way both consumers and third-party payers would have more information before patients went ‘under the knife’ so to speak.

Patients wouldn’t be shuttled to surgeons who submit the lowest bid (to insurance companies, and private parties) but to surgeons whose qualifications had been authenticated.  All parties would know about the quality of hospital facilities, anesthesia, pre-operative evaluation and post-operative care.

Doing my part

Readers know that I do what I can, in a very small way, to add to the body of knowledge about the quality and care of patients who receive treatment from the surgeons who consent to let me observe, evaluate and report my findings.

Now we just need this on a large-scale, multi-national level.

well, we knew this would happen…Edward Lifesciences 2: patients: 0


As reported by heartwire, and a savvy reader, Lapeyre here at Cartagena Surgery, the FDA has gone ahead and approved TAVI/ TAVR for patients that are eligible for open surgery.  [We must think alike, as I was drafting this post when I received the reader mail].

Despite the FDA’s previously cited concerns over the excessive stroke rate with the Sapien device (as discussed in the article re-posted below) – the FDA approved the use of this therapy as an alternative to surgery on June 13th.

Now we can sit back and watch as the up selling of this device to the public as news hits the US media and the television advertisements begin.  Soon this device will crowd out surgery as interventionalists cite “patient refused surgery” as the criteria for implantation, no matter what the best interest of the patient really is.  I wonder if they will even disclose the heightened stroke rate when they start implanting this into patients at a much higher rate.  Of the 12 members of the FDA panel, only one member voted against the expansion criteria.

As reported by Shelley Wood in a follow-up Heartwire article , only Dr Valluvan Jeevanandam spoke out against expanding the criteria for use, stating,   “I think this is a very good technology, and it gives us an alternative to AVR surgery, and I’m sure the device will continue to get better,” Jeevanandam, a cardiovascular surgeon, told heartwire after the meeting.

“However, at the current time, compared with standard AVR, this device has a higher stroke rate and a high rate of aortic insufficiency, did not meet the criteria for noninferiority* in males, and has a high incidence of vascular complications.”

These are all issues that need to be very clearly explained to patients as part of the informed-consent process, he stressed. Otherwise, patients who are “enamored at the idea of avoiding a sternotomy” may not fully understand these risks.”  

I fully concur with Dr. Valluvan Jeevanandam except that I might re-phase the term ‘enamored of.’  Actually, I think our so-called peers need to quit coercing patients by intentionally scaring them – in order to bill more procedures out of them.  [Don’t believe it?  Then check out Mark Midei and our overstenting archives.]

I will continue to champion well-established therapies with strong long term data.  I know this will get me labeled as ‘old-fashioned’ (or worse) but as we’ve seen in cardiology – numerous times; easy is not always the best answer..

The is no easy button

Yes, conventional surgery hurts – it’s not glamorous, it’s not pretty.  But it’s (statistically) darn safe these days, and most of the surgeons doing it have done it thousands of times.. Even the bioprosthetic valves have a long durability than previously thought – meaning not everyone has to take warfarin..

We shouldn’t exploit people’s fears of surgery to use quasi-experimental procedures, no matter how “cool” they sound..

* I hope readers remember that ‘noninferiority’ is a lesser standard that superior to, or even EQUAL to..

FDA flags strokes, trial conduct, as TAVI maker seeks expanded role for Sapien – from Heartwire.com (Shelley Wood).

Gaithersburg, MD – A higher risk of stroke and differences in how patients randomized to different procedures were actually treated and evaluated within the PARTNER A trial, which compared transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) with surgery, are issues the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hopes its expert advisors can help clarify in weighing the pros and cons of expanding approval of the Sapien transcatheter valve (Edwards Lifesciences) [1,2]. Those issues and others are detailed in an FDA briefing document, posted online today, that the agency’s Circulatory System Devices Panel will consider in advance of Wednesday’s meeting.

As previously reported by heartwire, the FDA last year reviewed and subsequently approved the Sapien valve and transfemoral delivery system in patients not suited to open-valve replacement, based primarily on the PARTNER B results. Wednesday’s meeting, drawing heavily on the  PARTNER A results, will help the FDA decide whether to expand approval to high-risk patients who are surgery eligible and whether to approve the transapical approach also tested in PARTNER A.

In briefing documents posted online today, the FDA directed its advisors to pay special attention to a number of issues relating to trial conduct as well as patient outcomes.

In particular, the FDA review cites the “doubling” of neurological events seen in the Sapien-treated patients in the first 30 days postprocedure, with a higher stroke rate seen among transapical as compared with the transfemoral group.

The FDA documents also query “attempt-to-treat” decisions, including the higher number of patients randomized to surgery in whom no treatment was attempted; longer delays to treatment in surgical patients; and the higher number of concomitant operations seen in the surgical aortic-valve-replacement group—all factors that could have influenced adverse-event and survival rates in this group.

FDA is also asking its expert panel to weigh in on whether both the transfemoral and transapical approaches should be approved, given the numerically higher mortality in the transapically treated patients as compared with the transfemorally treated patients in the device arm.

General questions the FDA panel will be answering Wednesday include those related to the issues above, as well as to different outcomes seen in men and women, the importance of paravalvular regurgitation seen in patients treated with TAVI, valve durability, the required anticoagulation/antiplatelet regimen, and obtaining true informed consent.

Voting questions center on whether the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate safety and efficacy and whether the benefits of the new device outweigh the risks.

Industry analysts reading the tea leaves in the FDA’s review see the agency’s briefing document as largely promising, with Wells Fargo’s Larry Biegelsen predicting a “tough day, but positive panel outcome” and JP Morgan’s Michael Weinstein stating that the FDA synopsis contained “no major surprises; positive outcome expected.”

In other cardiology news, 

New guidelines recommend the discontinuation of prasugrel a full seven days before surgery to prevent catastrophic bleeding complications. (The cynical side of me expects to see a bigger push by the industry to use prasugrel now that clopidogrel is generic.)  Expect to see a couple more “Ask your doctor” ads..

French implant update


More scary news for women around the globe – as the manufacturer, PIP discloses frightening information regarding their defective implants.  It has been discovered that the company knew that the implants were defective since 2005 – but continued to sell the implants for use world-wide, particularly in Latin America.

More disturbingly, this manufacturer did not use medical grade materials – instead opting for cheaper, construction grade chemicals including petroleum and fuel additives, components which have never been tested for [internal] human use.  The health effects of exposure to these materials is unknown.  The risks associated with the use of these materials is enhanced due to the high rate of rupture among this brand of implant.  These chemicals certainly have carcinogenic potential and the implications for thousands and thousands of women are terrifying.

French officials have urged women to have their implants surgically removed.

A preliminary search of PubMed and other published research shows mixed results – and primarily discusses the results of exposure to benzene (and other petroleum derivatives) via water contamination, or occupational exposure.   (In fact, only limited information is available regarding the safety of breast implants in general, and the material is fairly dated.)

As we stated in a previous story, while researching Bogota! and interviewing plastic surgeons – I investigated the types of implants used by the surgeons profiled in the book.  (None of the surgeons used this company’s implants at the time of my interviews in Winter/ Spring 2011).

Update:  In fact, the Colombian government has offered to pay for the removal of PIP implants.  More on this story here.

The TAVI Registry, journey to the UK and other news


London Bridge, at night.

Just returned from a quick trip to London, UK to interview a couple of fantastic thoracic surgeons. (You can read the interview here.)

In the meantime, a midst multiple conflicting reports regarding the use and safety of TAVI (percutaneous aortic valve replacement) the ACC and STS have finally come together to create a TAVI registry, similar to the PCI and cardiac surgery registries.  The new registry will be used to track TAVI procedures and outcomes.  Hopefully, by gathering information in a standardized fashion and collecting data on patient outcomes, we can finally answer the essential question surrounding TAVI: Is It Safe?

As someone who is intimately involved in the STS database – I can assure readers that if STS is involved, data collection will be extensive, cumbersome and overly complicated.  (The adult cardiac surgery data collection form is fourteen pages long.)  However, the database will allow doctors to identify whether complications are device related/ procedure related or operator related.  (For example, are post-procedural strokes caused by the valve (device related) itself, or by the person (operator related) inserting it?  It will also track 30 day mortality – and the causes of mortality.  (ie. Was the death coincidental versus bleeding/ stroke/ kidney failure, etc?)  The registry will also track one year outcomes – but unfortunately – the essential question  – Is it Safe long-term?  will remain unanswered.

In Big Pharma news – I had the good fortune to meet (and talk to at length) one of the inside investigators* for GlaxoSmithKline.  He was a delightful and charming interview – and it was a fascinating inside look at the future of pharmacology, pharmacy, drug development and marketing.

As readers know – I have vilified and railed against pharmaceutical companies in the past (and most likely – will continue to do so) but it was an excellent opportunity to see the other side of a blighted industry.  [Here at Cartagena Surgery – I may have unabashedly strong opinions, but I do try to be fair.]

As an investigator for a pharmaceutical company, his position is somewhat akin to George Clooney’s character in the recent film ‘Up in the Air’.  He investigates company employees as well as independent contractors who represent the company for moral, ethical and criminal violations.   In the wake of several serious recent ethical and criminal investigations into the pharmaceutical industry in recent years – companies such as GSK take this duty extremely seriously.  As part of this effort – they hired people like the man I am interviewing today.  Mr. X is surprisingly charming, amiable, and witty.  Somehow as a ‘trigger man’ for a big company, and former NYC police officer, the gentleness, and the compassion emanating from him is unexpected.   He tells me that he has received thank you letters from people who were ‘separated from the company’ on his say-so – and I am not surprised.

We talk about public and health care providers perceptions of the pharmaceutical industry, and trends of the past.  We discuss the previous ‘bribe and gift’ atmosphere of the past – and he gently calls me out for my Pfizer bag from a long-ago conference.  [Ironically, I’ve railed against this bag in the past – it’s from a conference I attended as a student, but hypocrite that I am – have neglected to throw it out.  In my own weak defense – I will say that I never again have accepted or received ‘sponsored’ gifts or items.]  But he’s right – and I accept my scolding, hopefully with the grace it was given.

He talks about one of the new projects that GSK is implementing – and I immediately sit up and take notice.  Phasing out the ‘hootie girls’ as we call the often scantily clad, inappropriately dressed, invariable young, attractive (and always! well-endowed) pharmaceutical representatives that cold call doctors offices with girlish laughs, lots of legs and sample supplies of costly drugs.   No, I will not be sad to see the end of the ‘hootie girls’.

Replacing the hootie girls will be nurse educators.  Instead of pushing costly brand name drugs – they will be restricted from mentioning brand specific medications.. But educate they will.  Hopefully these educators will serve as a resource for healthcare providers – to assist us and inform us without trying influence us.  In many ways – it sounds like GSK may be moving in the direction that we need to go.. Afterall – with millions of millions of people needing treatment (and the vast amount of disease out there)  just obtaining and supplying these patients with the medications they need is a phenomenal effort – and companies can still make a HUGE profit on volume alone.    (And I am not against making a profit – it supports drug research etc..)

But the idea of being able to use the vast amount of information collected from these companies and their volumes of research without rancor, or hardcore skepticism – is encouraging.  If we can build bridges and trust – we can ultimately better serve our patients.. Of course, nothing this big ever goes off without a hitch, and Rome wasn’t build in a day – but it’s a start.. 

It’s a hopeful view from an unlikely source at the end of a very long day that started in one country and ends in another..

* I didn’t get a chance to ask his permission to  write about our meeting – so in fairness, I have omitted his name.

The doctor can’t see you now..


On the other side of the equation (from the doctor won’t see you now)- is the on-going physician shortage, which will impact millions of Americans just as the aging baby boomer generation places increased demands on our strained health care system..  Rural areas will be the hardest hit (and already have the hardest time attracting physicians and other care providers).

In this article by Beverly Miller, [re-posted below] the author suggests solutions to the blooming crisis.

 I would like to add my own.  In her article, Ms. Miller gives short shift to nurse practitioners and physician assistants filling the gap.  This is unfortunate as multiple studies have shown that NPs and PAs provide an excellent level of care, and patient satisfaction – and have served as the mainstay of primary care in many rural and inner-city communities since the late 1970’s.  Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are currently hampered by several federal and state legislative issues which limit compensation and billing by nonphysician providers.  Several attempts at open and earnest dialogs among legislators, nurse practitioners and physicians have been hampered by physician attitudes.  A new report from the Institute of Medicine on the future of nursing emphasises the need to utilize nurse practitioners in this role (as we discussed here) but without further community and public support – much of the utility of NPs will fail to be realized**.

But as this author (Dr. Richard Cooper) points out – there just aren’t enough NPs, PAs and MDs combined to fill the projected shortfalls.  (So we shouldn’t argue amongst ourselves – there are plenty of patients to go around.)

PBS special on Nurse Practitioners a look at NPs in primary care.

To support your local NPs – take legislative action!  Right now, NPs are lobbying to be able to order home health and hospice for our patients as part of the ‘Medical Home’ bill.

How to handle the physician shortage  – Beverly Miller

The primary goal of health care reform deals with providing health coverage for all Americans. Policymakers tell us that it will pay for itself, but with the influx of an estimated 40 to 50 million people who were previously uninsured and the baby boomer generation now becoming eligible for Medicare (some say at a rate of eight per second), who do these policymakers believe is going to take care of these patients?
The problem is one of basic economics: supply is simply not keeping pace with demand.
Supply
The physician shortage in the U.S. is not a new problem caused solely by health care reform. Twenty-two states and 17 medical specialty societies are already reporting shortages today, long before the 2014 influx under the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Aging and population growth have created a greater demand for physicians than ever before.
Family practice, internal medicine, and geriatric specialists will be the gatekeepers under the reformed system. These specialties require more knowledge in a broader spectrum of diseases than other specialty physicians, yet are paid less for these services. For those doctors choosing family practice, internal medicine or geriatrics as a career, it is often a social decision.
A large number of physicians, mirroring the rest of the population, are reaching retirement age. The American Medical Association (AMA) has reported that in 2017, more than 24,000 physicians will turn 63. The number of retiring physicians could be even higher if the economy rebounds and many who delayed retirement for financial reasons decide to retire.
For the fifth year in a row, family practice and internal medicine have topped the Merritt Hawkin’s recruiting and retention survey.
It has been noted that new physicians are:

– opting for higher paying specialties since student loan debt often exceeds $150,000 – opting to practice at hospitals and health care systems where better technologies are available – desiring more flexible scheduling for family time and social activities – desiring to live in high-population areas  leaving vast areas of the U.S. underserved.

Also, the availability of residency slots is not keeping pace with the demand for new physicians and often residency slots for family medicine and internal medicine often go unfilled. A cap on Medicare-funded residency programs by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 has not kept pace with needs. Also, there has been less availability of graduate medical education (GME) funding through state Medicaid programs
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act does include a provision for redistribution of residency positions by the Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary if residency positions have been unfilled for three Medicare cost reporting periods. The slots, which appear to number approximately 600, will be redistributed giving preference to hospitals located in states with a low resident physician to population ratio; or with a large population living in primary care health professional shortage areas, rural hospitals, and urban hospitals with accredited rural training tracks.
Demand
Need is driving the demand for primary care physicians. Groups and hospitals are rushing to form Accountable Care Organizations, patient-centered medical homes and other employment models, all of which are centered around the foundation of primary care.
As we moved to a managed care delivery system, the overriding belief was that good primary care promotes better outcomes and prolongs life. In many respects, it was a success since preventive care was added to coverage and patients began to think in terms of quality rather than quantity of care.
Moving to the next stage, most believe that it must better connect consumers to the health care system and that it must use information technology to better manage costs and patients.
Demand for services will continue to increase as the economy rebounds, resulting in more covered workers, and the baby boomer generation continues to attain Medicare coverage. And if the provisions of the legislation stay on track, there will be even more demand in 2014.
What do we do?
Varying solutions are being discussed.
Nationally, medical school enrollments have been flat over the past 20 years. Policymakers are calling for a significant increase in new physicians, recommending increases in medical school enrollments and increases in GME positions.
Signing bonuses, relocation expense reimbursement and medical education allowances remain standard in most physician recruitment incentive packages. Higher base salaries and productivity bonuses are slowly becoming the norm for family practice and internal medicine.
The 2009 stimulus package and health reform law have designated nearly $300 million for the National Health Service Corps to offer medical loans repayment to new physicians who practice in underserved areas.
Increase in reimbursements for family practice and internal medicine services are necessary to entice physicians to specialize in these areas.
Nurse practitioners and physician assistants can fill some of the void, along with non-U.S. trained physicians becoming eligible to practice in the U.S.
Shorten the training time for primary care physicians from an average of ten years to a more targeted education taking five to eight years by eliminating undergraduate majors and moving straight to medical curriculum and clinical training.
Expand the role of telemedicine as technology becomes more widely adopted by healthcare providers and patients.
There are no certain answers to the problem, but physicians have always been flexible and innovative. In conjunction with other players in the system, physicians themselves will be the ones with the right ideas and solutions. [unfortunately, physicians have also used their strength and influence to prevent alternative solutions in the past – cartagena surgery].


Beverly A. Miller, CPA, CAPPM , is Manager of Physician Services with Hayflich & Steinberg, CPA’s, PLLC and the current president of the National CPA Health Care Advisors Association. She has been heavily involved in practice startups, as well as aiding existing practices with billing issues, accounting issues, staff modeling and selection, project analysis, financial management, compliance issues, and tax planning. Beverly can be reached at (304) 697-5700.

Hayflich & Steinberg, CPA’s, PLLC is also a proud member of the National CPA Health Care Advisors Association (HCAA). HCAA is a nationwide network of CPA firms devoted to serving the health care industry. Members provide proactive solutions to the accounting needs of physicians and physician groups. For more information contact the HCAA at info@hcaa.com.

** As mentioned previously on this site, Nurse Practitioners work in a variety of specialty medicine and surgery practices. As an acute care nurse practitioner in specialty surgery practice – I work directly with a surgeon (versus a NP in primary care practice.)

World Health Information & Patient Safety


As Bogotá Surgery readers know, we were just talking about the  relevance of hospital rankings, and scorecard criteria for patient safety and optimal patient outcomes.  In particular, we were talking about the use of this criteria  (along with Core Measures) as just one of the ways surgeons, hospitals and surgical programs are evaluated for Bogotá! a hidden gem guide to surgical tourism.

Now several news outlets have picked up the story under the headline, “Hospitals riskier than airplanes.”