Informed Consent and Genetic Germline Engineering

By Mark McQuain

I recently read, with admittedly initial amusement, an article from The Daily Mail that described a young man of Indian decent who was intending to sue his parents for giving birth to him “without his consent.” Raphael Samuel, a 27 year-old who is originally from Mumbai, is part of a growing movement of “anti-natalists”, who claim it “is wrong to put an unwilling child through the ‘rigmarole’ of life for the pleasure of its parents.” While he claims he loves his parents and says they have a “great relationship”, he is bothered by the injustice of putting another person through the struggles of life “when they didn’t ask to exist.”

While I was amused at the absurdity of asking a non-existent entity for permission to do anything, I began to wonder whether my position against germline genetic engineering should continue to include the lack of informed consent by the progeny of the individuals whose germline we are editing.

I have made the claim on this blog previously that one of my arguments against germline genetic engineering is that it fails to obtain the permission of the future individuals directly affected by the genetic engineering. Ethical human experimentation always requires obtaining permission (informed consent) of the subject prior to the experiment. This goes beyond any legal issue as many would consider Autonomy the most important principle of Beauchamp and Childress’s “Principles of Biomedical Ethics”. Informed consent is obviously not possible for germline genetic engineering as the future subjects of the current experiment are presently non-existent at the time of the experiment. While I believe there are many other valid reasons not to experiment on the human genetic germline, should the lack of informed consent continue to be one of them?

In short, if I am amused at the absurdity of Mr. Samuel’s demand that parents first obtain their children’s permission to be conceived prior to their conception, is it not equally absurd to use the lack of informed consent by the progeny of individuals whose germline we are editing as an additional reason to argue against genetic germline engineering?

Abortion, at any time, for any reason?

By Mark McQuain

Last week, Virginia delegate Kathy Tran introduced a bill to eliminate some current restrictions on late term abortions in the Commonwealth. During the committee hearing on the bill, she answered a question by one of the other committee members to the effect that her bill would permit a third trimester abortion up to and including the point of birth. That exchange may be heard here. She later “walked back” that particular comment as outlined here. Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, who is a pediatric neurologist by training, added his comments to the discussion on a call-in WTOP radio show, where he implied that the bill would additionally permit parent(s) and physician(s) to terminate the life of a “severely deformed”, “non-viable” infant after the birth of the infant, which may be heard here (the entire 50+ minute WTPO interview may be heard here). That particular bill is currently tabled (the actual bill may be read here).

These events deserve far more reflection and discussion than can be afforded in the small space of this blog. I want to discuss two comments by Governor Northam and then comment on expanding abortion to include the extreme limit of birth.

First, during his radio interview, the Governor added qualifiers to the status of the infant that are not only not in the bill submitted by Delegate Tran, they are specifically contrary to it. Section 18.2-74(c) of the Code of Virginia is amended by Tran’s House Bill No. 2491 to read ([w]hen abortion or termination of pregnancy lawful after second trimester of pregnancy):

“Measures for life support for the product of such abortion or miscarriage must shall be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability. “(markup/emphasis in the bill)

To be generous to the Governor, it is unclear why he qualified his comments the way he did, given that the bill is explicitly discussing a potentially viable infant. Options include that the Governor was simply ignorant of the specifics of Tran’s Bill (possibly), was actually purposefully advocating for infanticide (unlikely), or wanted to defend the loosening of restrictions on very late term abortions, clearly intended by her bill, by introducing at least one conditional situation that a number of people might initially consider reasonable (most likely). The firestorm caused by his so-called “post-birth-abortion” comment completely obscured any attention to the equally tragic portion of Tran’s Bill that eliminates a huge portion of the Code of Virginia section 18.2-76, which currently requires a much more specific informed consent process, inclusive of a pre-abortion fetal ultrasound to attempt to educate the woman on the nature of the human being she is desiring to abort.

The second comment by Governor Northam was made parenthetically while expressing his opinion that the abortion decision should be kept between a physician and the pregnant woman, and out of the hands of the legislature, “who are mostly men”. Does this imply all men be excluded from the abortion discussion or just male legislators? Should male obstetricians likewise be excluded from this discussion? Following the Governor’s comment to its logical conclusion, shouldn’t he refrain from similar comments/opinions regarding abortion since he is also a man? This is absurd. Representative government specifically, and civil discourse more generally, is not possible if ideas cannot be debated unless the particular people involved in the debate are all the same sex, same race, same ethnicity, same height, same weight, same age, etc…

Aborting a healthy, viable baby just prior to, or, at the very moment of, birth seems to me to be the least likely example of the type of abortion that anyone on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate would use to make the case that abortion is a good and necessary right. Presently, immediately after birth, the baby (finally) has the protection as a person under the Fourteenth Amendment. Eerily, as I have shared in this blog before, almost identical concepts were discussed during the 1972 oral arguments of Roe v. Wade, such as the following exchange between Justice Potter Stewart and attorney Sarah Weddington, who represented Roe. (see LINK for transcript or audio of the second reargument Oct 11, 1972, approximately one-third of the way through):

Potter Stewart: Well, if it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here, would you not?

Sarah R. Weddington: I would have a very difficult case. [Laughter]

Potter Stewart: You certainly would because you’d have the same kind of thing you’d have to say that this would be the equivalent to after the child was born.

Sarah R. Weddington That’s right.

Potter Stewart: If the mother thought that it bothered her health having the child around, she could have it killed. Isn’t that correct?

Sarah R. Weddington: That’s correct.

I am one blogger who is praying that Governor Northam’s “post-birth-abortion” misunderstanding of Delegate Kathy Tran’s Bill liberalizing abortions through the end of the third trimester never causes Justice Potter’s 1972 infanticide equivalent to become a reality.

Self-Awareness, Personhood and Death

By Mark McQuain

Many philosophers argue that attaining the threshold of self-awareness is more valuable in determining a human’s right-to-life than simply being a living member of the human race. They require a human being attain self-awareness (reaching so-called full “personhood”) before granting unrestricted right-to-life for that particular human being. Lacking observable self-awareness relegates one to non-personhood status, and, though fully human, potentially restricted right-to-life status. The philosophic argument seems to be that only self-aware things suffer harm, or at least, do so to a more meaningfully significant degree than non-self-aware things.

Consider the following thought experiment. I finally designed a computer with sufficient complexity, memory, external sensors and computational power (or whatever) that, at some point subsequent to turning the power on, it becomes self-aware. The memory is volatile, meaning that the memory cannot hold its contents without power. The self-awareness, and any memory of that self-awareness, exists only so long as the power remains on. If subsequently powered off and then powered on again, the computer has no prior memory of being self-aware (because the memory is volatile and is completely erased and unrecoverable with loss of power) so becomes newly self-aware, with new external sensory input and new memory history. The longer the power remains on during any such power cycle, the more memory or history of its current self-awareness the computer accumulates. The computer’s hardware is bulletproof and is essentially unaffected by applying or disconnecting the power.

In this thought experiment, do the acts of turning the computer’s power on, allowing the computer to become self-aware, and then turning the power off harm anything?

By stipulation of the thought experiment, the computer’s hardware is unaffected by these events so no harm has occurred to the physical computer. Also, by stipulation, subsequently turning the computer’s power on again results in the computer becoming newly self-aware, with absolutely no memory of its previous period of self-awareness. The prior self-awareness is neither presently aware nor even in existence – it existed only during the prior power cycle. Perhaps as the designer, I may be harmed if I miss interacting with the computer as it was during its first self-awareness. The same perhaps goes for any other similar self-aware computer that had constant power during the experiment and witnessed the power cycling of the first computer.

But, what about the first computer? Was that computer harmed when I turned the power off? If so, what, exactly, was harmed? Following power-off, the computer has no self-awareness to be self-aware of any harm. The self-awareness no longer exists and that same self-awareness cannot exist in the future. Non-existent things cannot be harmed. Looking for some measure of group harm by assessing any harm experienced by other self-aware computers witnessing the event appears to be a problem of infinite regress (“It’s turtles all the way down”), as their self-awareness of the first computer’s self-awareness is also transient and becomes instantly non-existent when they power off. We will ignore the designer for the purpose of this experiment.

Assume now that the initial computer is a human brain. Some consider the physical brain a single-power-cycle, self-aware computer. For most humans, at some point after conception, we become self-aware, though philosophers disagree and cannot define the exact threshold for self-awareness. We can lose that self-awareness to physical brain injury or disease. Most believe the self-awareness certainly ceases with physical death, that is, it is volatile like the self-aware computer in my thought experiment, since, after death, there is no longer a functioning physical brain to sustain that self-awareness.

But if the thought experiment holds, requiring human beings the threshold of self-awareness before granting so-called personhood privileges such as unrestricted right-to-life is a meaningless threshold with regard to harm if that self-awareness is volatile and therefore not sustained in some manner after death. For self-awareness to be the determinant of harm in a living being, it must be non-volitile, meaning it sustains beyond death. However, if the self-awareness is sustained after death, then it is sustained in a non-physical manner (since the physical brain is obviously dead by definition of death). If self-awareness exists non-physically, might it also exist more fully than we can appreciate in a premature, a diseased, or an injured human brain prior to death?

Cyborg Society

By Mark McQuain

A cybernetic organism, or cyborg, is an organism that is part human and part machine. My favorite TV show in the mid 1970’s was “Six Million Dollar Man”, the story of an injured test pilot who lost both of his legs, his right arm and his left eye. His doctors made him “better than he was” by replacing his injured limbs and eye with artificial parts that actually enhanced his functional ability. Technology in the 1970’s was completely inadequate to accomplish those tasks and even now still lags far behind that TV show.

Perhaps the closest that any single person has come to becoming a cyborg is Steven Mann, an electrical engineering professor at the University of Toronto who, beginning in the 1980’s, literally began attaching various computers and cameras to his body and wearing them regularly to the point where, he argued, the equipment became part of him and he felt somewhat “unplugged” if he wasn’t wearing his equipment. The early equipment was so bulky, that in retrospect, he looked frankly ridiculous. As computers advanced, it became more difficult to recognize the equipment. The following photo shows that progression.

Steven Mann

Now most of the rest of us do not imagine that we are anything like Professor Mann. But I think we are more like him than we realize. Consider this – how many of you have a sense of disconnected-ness if you can’t find your smartphone? I would argue that most of us feel “unplugged” when we are without our phones. That certainly seems to be the case with anyone younger than 30. Your calendar, to-do lists, contact information, credit cards, airline or movie tickets are all stored on your phone. In that sense, part of your identity is in your phone. My wife and I joke that our children would not regularly communicate with us absent the ability to text.

Issues of faulty child-rearing aside, my point is not just our dependence on technology, and not just the nearness and intimacy of that technology. We have become dependent upon other artificial tools and parts such as walkers, hearing aides, prosthetics, pacemakers and insulin pumps, which are not just intimate but, in some cases, actually vital. But none of those machines affects our thinking or changes how we interact with one another.

Consider two new exercise systems popular this Christmas – Peloton and the Mirror (Disclaimer – I am not encouraging another Christmas gift). Both use smartphone technology to augment the exercise experience, allowing an individual to access what appears to be unlimited options in coaches, resources and locations. Notice the ads. They seem to elegantly emphasize both virtual community and individual physical isolation. And, while this technology is not cybernetically attached to us (yet), it, like the smartphone technology upon which it is based, appears to be detaching us from one another.

From a bioethics standpoint, I wonder whether, in augmenting our reality via our cyborg progression, we aren’t also becoming isolated from that reality as we become more dependent on the very technology we use to connect with one another.

Will a cyborg society make us more or less connected within that society?

#HappyNewYear

After God

By Mark McQuain

In the December issue of The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, editor Dr. Mark Cherry invited reviews of the late Professor H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr.’s book After God: Morality & Bioethics in a Secular Age. Dr. Engelhardt passed away this past summer and was the co-founding editor of the Journal. The emphasis of this recent edition was to review the themes of After God and offer emphasis as well as counter arguments to these themes. The above link offers some free access to several articles though most require subscription or individual purchase.

I became familiar with Dr. Engelhardt’s theses on the weaknesses and limitations of secular bioethics during my coursework at Trinity by reading his book “Foundations of Bioethics” and hearing one of his guest lectures. One argument against a transcendental basis for morality or bioethics was that not everyone acknowledged a particular transcendental source. Wouldn’t pure logic and rational argument be a better method for grounding our bioethics? Couldn’t we simply develop a universal secular bioethics that everyone would rationally agree with? Engelhardt’s answer was simply – No. In Foundations of Bioethics he said: “The more a moral vision, moral understanding, thin theory of the good, account of right conduct, etc., has content, the more it presupposes particular moral premises, rules of evidence, rules of inference, etc. The more it gains content, the more it will appear parochial and partisan to one among numerous particular moral understandings. Universality is purchased at the price of content. Content is purchased at the price of universality.(p 67)” In other words, “to resolve moral controversies by sound rational argument, one must [already] share fundamental moral premises, rules of moral evidence, and rules of moral inference and/or of who is in moral authority to resolve moral controversies.(p 40)”

In After God, Dr. Cherry argues that Dr. Engelhardt carries his previous theses to their logical conclusions within our present culture “which shuns any transcendent point of orientation, such as an appeal to God or to a God’s eye perspective on reality.” Per Cherry:

“Without reference to God to guarantee that the virtuous are rewarded and the vicious suffer, there is no reason to believe that rationality requires one to be moral, much less why it would be prudent to act in accordance with morality. We are confronted with foundational concerns regarding sexuality, reproduction, suffering, and death, but without any particular guidance regarding how properly to engage and confront such challenges. Instead of content-full moral answers to guide bioethics and healthcare policy, we are left with a diverse set of lifestyles and death-styles among which to choose with no definitive reasons for preferring any particular choice of one over another. If the universe originated out of nothing, and is going nowhere, for no particular reason, then everything is ultimately absurd. Such, Engelhardt argues, are the epistemic and moral implications of a culture that seeks to be fully after God.”

It strikes me as somewhat ironic that this issue of the Journal comes out during the advent season, a time when Christians celebrate the incarnation of God on earth, necessarily asking us to consider how our present culture views its secular bioethics “after the death of God”.

The Genetic Singularity Point has Arrived

By Mark McQuain

November 2018 will go down as one of the most pivotal points in human history. Jon Holmlund covered the facts in his last blog entry. Regardless of what you think about the ethics of He Jiankui’s recent use of CRISPR to alter the human genomes of IVF embryos and his decision to intentionally bring those genetically altered twin girls to full term, one thing is perfectly clear – we humans are in charge now. Whether you believe in God or Nature as the Entity or Force that previously determined the arrangement of our genes, humans now sit at the adult table and will be gradually (rapidly?) making more of those genetic decisions. Like Kurzweil’s upcoming Singularity Point when computers develop sufficient artificial intelligence to design the next computer, humans have now reached the point where we can and are willing to design the next human.

The Genetic Singularity point has arrived.

While there are some scientists who are frustrated that our Institutional Review Boards and ethics committees have held us back this long, most of the rest of us are frankly stunned and uneasy that we have reached this point. But anyone who thinks our stunned uneasiness will prevent a repeat of this experiment or prevent a push to alter increasing portions of our human genome to change other genetic sequences will simply remain more frequently stunned and persistently uneasy, ethical arguments notwithstanding.

My reason for expecting this to be the case is I believe we will hear increasing demands of the form that now that we have the ability to change our genome, we have the responsibility to change our genome. In fact, it would not surprise me to see, in the not-to-distant future, insurance companies paying for the cost of IVF/CRISPR to modify your child’s genome to prevent disease/condition X to avoid paying for the later treatment of disease/condition X. Oh, you won’t be forced to do this. But, if you choose to rely on God or Nature for your baby’s genetic pattern, “we” won’t be responsible for his or her care. And, if big data can eventually be married to IVF/CRISPR to statistically improve one’s chances of having a smart/beautiful/athletic/successful baby, wouldn’t you want the same for your child? Since it will be our responsibility, how could a parent not choose to make their child the best that they could be?

This will be Gattaca writ large.

Being at the Genetic Singularity point, by definition, means we humans choose our next step. We have reached the point where we believe we are ready to select our future direction. It is up to us now to chart our own course. Our genetic trajectory is our responsibility. Our success or failure, or more broadly, our future good or bad, is finally ours to determine – really ours to assign.

So Man created mankind in his own image, in the image of Man he created them…And Man saw everything he had made, and behold, it was very good…

Sprinting Down the Road on “The Children We Want”

By Mark McQuain

Almost exactly one year ago, this blog asked rhetorically whether your polygenic risk score was a good thing. Jon Holmlund raised this issue again last week, mentioning a company called Genomic Prediction. This company’s claim about the merits of their technology deserves close ethical scrutiny and is my reason for mentioning them yet again.

Genomic Prediction is increasingly calling for IVF clinics to use their version of expanded pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (EPGD), that is using big data analysis to select which embryo to implant – literally choosing the embryo you want based not upon the presence of single point genetic mutations known to be harmful but polygenic sequences (multiple genes, and even multiple upon multiple genes) statistically related to increased risk for complex diseases like heart disease and diabetes. Jon discussed the ethics of selecting “the children we want”, hinting that selecting for eye color or sex was “a step” further down the road.

Genomic Prediction is sprinting down that road.

Just last month, Genomic Prediction entered into discussion with some IVF clinics in the U.S. to screen embryos for “mental disability”. Per the firm’s co-founder Stephen Hsu:

“[EPGD] isn’t accurate enough to predict IQ for each embryo, but it can indicate which ones are genetic outliers, giving prospective parents the option of avoiding embryos with a high chance of an IQ 25 points below average”

This claim is entirely different from a claim that this particular embryo has this particular single point mutation that will cause this particular disease. Rather, the present claim of EPGD is better stated like this: When we saw this same polygenic pattern in some large number of prior embryos, a majority of them had an IQ 25 points below normal. Some questions naturally follow: Did any have above average IQs (and how far above average)? How big is the majority (75%, 85% or 97%)? How many embryos were studied to come up with this statistic?

Gamblers like Las Vegas odds makers are beginning to use big data analysis to better predict the outcome of sports contests. The result is that the Las Vegas odds makers can tell us that when number one ranked University of Alabama plays unranked Citadel in 1000 football games, Alabama will win 999 times. That also means that Citadel will win one of those 1000 games, and, prior to the start of the game, you never know which of those 1000 games you are watching. Last weekend, at halftime, Alabama and Citadel were tied 10-10. At that point, it looked like Citadel was going to win that one game out of 1000 and defy the odds makers.

And that is the point. Many have already decided that it is good to terminate the life of an embryo if he or she has a point mutation for a serious disease. Is it just as good to terminate the life of an embryo if he or she has the mere risk of some non-disease trait we find undesirable like the wrong eye color, sex or intelligence? Do we really have sufficient data to make this decision? How much risk is too much or too little? How do we know if the decision is a good one? Will the decision get us the “Children We Want”? Is it really our decision to make?

It is necessary we answer questions like these if we wish to take on the responsibility to decide who lives and who dies, a decision that we previously relegated, depending on your worldview, to God or Nature.

Wir wussten nicht

By Mark McQuain

It has been said that “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Implied in this statement is that, first and foremost, the good men and women must be aware of the evil before they could be held morally obligated to act against that evil. There are subsequent issues associated with that obligation, such as does one even have the ability to act and, if so, how much personal harm or risk must one endure before being morally absolved of the responsibility to act. Regardless, knowledge of the evil is a requirement before moral culpability to act against that evil can be expected or assigned.

Therefore, a claim of “we did not know” would certainly absolve people of any moral responsibility from failing to act. But only if that denial is true. Challenging the validity of such a denial is reasonable because the denial is the easiest way to escape moral culpability. Consider the following two examples where claims of “not knowing” were possibly used to avoid moral responsibility.

When the Dachau concentration camp was liberated by the U.S. Seventh Army at the end of World War II, it was reported that the local German townspeople denied that they knew what was going on at the camp, claiming “Wir wussten nicht” – “We did not know”. General Walton Walker started the practice of bringing local townspeople to view such camps by ordering the Mayor of the town of Ohrdruf and his wife to visit the Ohrdruf labor camp. After the visit, it was reported the Mayor and his wife returned home and killed themselves.

Did they really not know?

Recently, the movie “Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer” was released with minimal coverage by Hollywood or mass media. Reportedly, the producers had to resort to crowdfunding to initially get the project off the ground. Kermit Gosnell was a physician in Philadelphia who operated the Women’s Medical Society Clinic where he performed late term abortions. He and his clinic had multiple complaints and legal actions related to unsafe office practices as well as several procedure-related deaths prior to eventually being raided on unrelated drug dispensing charges. What the investigating officials found upon raiding the facility would fairly be described as a “House of Horror” for the unsanitary conditions, use of untrained staff, expired medications and multiple fetal remains randomly strewn around the clinic. Dr. Gosnell was convicted of first degree murder in the deaths of three infants, involuntary manslaughter on one female patient and 21 felony counts of performing illegal late-term abortions. During the trial, state and city regulators were repeatedly called out for their failure to act sooner, given the high volume of prior allegations and complaints.

Did they really not know?

Wir wissen nicht. (We do not know.) And, perhaps, we will never know.

Where do I Store the Name of your Dog?

Following a long office day of wrestling with my current nemesis, our office electronic medical record (EMR), I was pleased to read a lovely article by Dr. Taimur Safder in the current NEJM entitled “The Name of the Dog”. I’ll not summarize it as the link is free and the article is short and makes the point of today’s blog wonderfully.

I realize the EMR is not actually alive and, lacking agency, is unable to act as my archenemy and cause my downfall, or that of my patients. Further, I have a degree in electrical engineering so the technology of the EMR is not the issue either. I will grant that current and future data mining of the EMR may benefit untold numbers of patients. I will also concede that EMRs will (eventually) be bolstered with AI tools that will improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce or eliminate costly unnecessary testing.

My concern is that the EMR causes me to focus so much on the data collection that I spend less time getting to know my data source (my patient) as more than the sum total of discrete data points. There really isn’t any good place in the EMR to put the name of my patient’s dog. If I am going to treat my patient as more than a something, perhaps as a someone, then more than just reductionistic data acquisition and processing will have to take place.

With that in mind, please take a moment to view one of my favorite paintings by Sir Luke Fildes at the Tate Gallery called “The Doctor”. The painting depicts a country doctor sitting at the bedside of a young patient, with the child’s parents in the background. One can imagine the concern of the child’s father and almost feel the anguished prayers of the child’s mother, but both are interestingly relegated to background positions in the painting. The focus of the painting is the focus of the lamp in the painting – the country doctor and his patient.

Medicine in the 19th Century was limited in terms of meaningful data collection and limited further by actual effective treatments. In other words, the EMR of the 19th Century could have been completed in mere minutes and the diagnosis and treatment, such as it was, rendered in a few minutes more.

Given those limitations, perhaps not surprisingly, one gets the sense that the depicted outcome was far from certain and also that the country doctor had been in the home a while – there was at least time for tea at the table. What on earth was he still doing there? Maybe in absence of a definitive diagnosis and immediate cure, what the doctor could provide was his time, his empathy and his focused, loving concern. One gets the sense he would likely remain with his patient and the family as long as he was needed to offer what help and hope he could.

That seems like a reasonable example of how one imago Dei might care for another.

Would that I could consistently convey that level of steadfastness, that empathy and that loving concern to all of my patients without frantically looking for that special place in my EMR to store the name of your dog.

Is More “Ruining” of Medicine on the Way?

By Mark McQuain

Ask older medical doctors their opinion on the current state of the practice of medicine and I suspect the majority will give you an earful, generally along the lines of “How [blank] has ruined the practice of medicine”, filing in [blank] with any number of things, including the government, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies or doctors themselves. “Ruined” is a strong claim and even if true, I certainly don’t know how to assign blame as there is probably plenty to go around. Regardless, new initiatives by any one of these groups warrants watching. So, a recent September 20 NEJM editorial about a proposed change in reimbursement by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) made me wonder if more “ruining” is on the way.

The NEJM article nicely summarizes the current state of affairs (additional summary for those without subscription below):

“Medicare pays for office visits using five levels of codes based on clinical complexity, medical decision-making complexity, and time. For visits with established patients, physicians are currently paid $22, $45, $74, $109, and $148 for levels 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 visits, respectively; for new patients, they receive $45, $76, $110, $167, and $172. This pricing structure in the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, established by Congress in 1989, is the basis for physician payment by both public and private payers.”

CMS is proposing to collapse levels 2-5 reimbursements into a single payment of $93 for established patients and $135 for new patients. Documentation requirements would also be reduced to level 2 requirements thus arguably reducing some of administrative bureaucracy physicians say interferes with patient care, allowing them to spend more of this freed-up-time with patients. As an “older medical doctor”, I am certainly happy to reduce my administrative burdens so this sounds good. What could possibly go wrong with: “CMS is from the government and they are here to help”?

The authors of the NEJM article applaud CMS for their efforts to reduce administrative burden but then go on to list some potential unintended consequences. The biggest is that physicians lose the financial incentive to care for more complex patients. They hypothesize that this could result in some physicians reducing office visit times and bringing patients back more frequently, thus fragmenting the care of more complex problems and patients. They also worry that this payment policy will further maintain disparities between physicians who spend practice time on so-called cognitive evaluation and management issues versus time on the portions of their practice that receive reimbursement from procedures, imaging or laboratory fees. Lastly, if private payers don’t follow suit, the authors point out that physicians may shift further away from providing care for Medicare and Medicaid patients in favor of private insurance that does reimburse better for the complex problems.

Reimbursement is only one factor affecting today’s practice of medicine though certainly one that cannot be ignored. Many Christian physicians consider their practice of medicine as more of a calling than simply their occupation. I pray that external factors be kept from “ruining” that calling.