• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

Don’t we always take something for granted until it’s taken away? But the truth is that we can’t put a price tag on health. Many of us are willing to go that extra mile, or make certain sacrifices, to maintain it. Unfortunately, health care remains unobtainable for many Americans.

The problem extends from patient to provider. Medical school students face astronomical tuition costs, typically graduating years later, saddled with serious debt. Clearly, a major dilemma exists within the framework of the medical establishment.

That’s why Robert Brook, a UCLA professor of health services and medicine, and director of Rand’s health sciences program, said we need to consider putting specialized technicians – not just over-trained doctors and surgeons – in the field.

Generally, these technicians would be cheaper to train, charge their patients less, and still get the job done. The concept is surely appealing, albeit different. There’s no doubt that Americans remain desperate for health care alternatives, and while some patients may not trust technicians as much as traditional doctors, the fact remains that the medical establishment requires serious revision.

Health care is an elephant of an issue. In the 2004 presidential race, President Bush and Sen. John Kerry soared with big promises – more accessible health care, greater insurance coverage, a stronger, healthier America.

Their claims flaunted an encouraging, if not idealistic, agenda. But many Americans, including UCLA students, fail to acquire proper insurance coverage.

Health care remains as controversial as ever, and Brook, after spending years in the medical establishment himself, developed ideas of his own. He argues that most physicians are usually over-trained for what we actually require of them. We typically only need one specialized, repetitive procedure to be done.

For example, let’s say I require some sort of joint procedure. In that case, why not seek a technician who specializes in joints, as opposed to a physician who spent years studying skin, organs and virtually every other part of the body prior to learning about joint procedures?

The proposed technicians would be highly trained in specialized fields. They would be certified in whatever is their specialty.

Brook is definitely on to something. For one, technician certification requires significantly less time and money than that of a doctorate degree.

In the past 20 years, medical school costs have shot up 165 percent in private schools and 312 percent in public schools. The average medical student graduates with a hefty $100,000 of debt, according to a recent study by the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Meanwhile, everyday patients – not just medical students – require the opportunity to receive much cheaper options. As of 2003, 45 million Americans were uninsured. Medicare and Medicaid programs are rife with problems, and HMOs aren’t entirely supportive. We’re dealing with a dire situation.

But what would be lost? The problem with taking Brook’s claims at face value is that technicians don’t know everything about the body. Therefore, some argue, technicians would be ill-equipped.

In the case of complex, critical procedures such as heart surgery, complications could potentially arise. In these instances, a greater understanding of the body as a whole is absolutely required. That’s when a doctor is essential, despite financial constraints.

“Who would you like to perform this sensitive surgery on you? A 55-year-old doc who’s done it all? Or a 23-year-old who grew up playing Nintendo, is a wizard at controlling a device via a video screen, and has just been through two years of intensive training on this technique?” said journalist Daniel Weintraub in his recent article concerning Brooks’ research in the Sacramento Bee.

I was interested in contacting Professor Brook, particularly in regard to these criticisms, but he was unavailable.

But like any decent service, technician-based assistance should be available – but never required. Simply put, it should be another option that has the potential of increasing the patient base and addressing the needs of the uninsured who were previously denied access to any procedures at all.

While doctors are well-trained and available, technicians would offer low-cost alternatives. So, in instances like specialized and fairly routine procedures, technicians could well prove beneficial.

But keen judgment must be in order. There are times when a doctor’s expertise is necessary. Hopefully, patients, insurance companies and the medical establishment alike will understand this difference.

Today, the health care bureaucracy appears so massive that most of us cannot fathom challenging it. The institution, however, needs bold revision.

That’s why Brook offers an alternative. Though it may not be perfect, I commend Brook for his willingness to suggest creative strategies to repair a seriously ailing system.

Certainly, it is no final or complete answer. But it’s a firm jumping-off point, and that’s exactly what we need.

Fried is a second-year history student. E-mail her at ifried@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.