Today is a milestone of sorts for the Medical Futility Blog. Google Analytics tells me that this blog has just reached 250,000 pageviews.
Modern medicine has extended the life expectancies of many terminally ill Americans. In turn, prolonging lives can mean incurring more intensive care and the associated costs.
In 2010, Medicare paid $55 billion for doctor and hospital bills during the last two months of patients’ lives. Quality end-of-life care requires balancing the input of doctors, families and patients themselves. And making crucial end-of-life decisions can take physical and emotional tolls on patients and their loved ones.
How should we help people manage end-of-life care choices to maximize individual well-being and minimize social cost?
Nancy Morden has a new article in Health Affairs that examines the association between hospital characteristics and eleven end-of-life care measures, such as hospice use and hospitalization. Her study reveals a relatively high intensity of care in the last weeks of life. At the same time, there was more than a twofold variation within hospital groups with common features, such as cancer center designation and for-profit status. These hospital characteristics explained little of the observed variation in intensity of end-of-life cancer care and that none reliably predicted a specific pattern of care. These findings raise questions about what factors may be contributing to this variation.
Most people know they should make an Advance Care Directive, yet many
A health care provider shall not deny to a patient a life-preserving health care service the provider provides to other patients, the provision of which is directed by the patient or a person authorized to make health care decisions for the patient:
1. On the basis of a view that treats extending the life of an elderly, disabled, or terminally ill individual as of lower value than extending the life of an individual who is younger, non-disabled, or not terminally ill; or
2. On the basis of disagreement with how the patient or person authorized to make health care decisions for the patient values the tradeoff between extending the length of the patient's life and the risk of disability.
The four previous articles in this series have traced the history of patient autonomy and have identified its ethical and legal foundations. Patient autonomy is highly valued in the United States to the extent that the patient does not lose the right of self-determination when he or she loses the capacity to make health-care decisions for him or herself. The law has devised several tools to promote “prospective autonomy.” One mechanism is the instructional advance directive or living will. But most of us do not write such directives. Another mechanism is the proxy directive or durable power of attorney for health care, designating another person, a surrogate, to direct the course of our medical treatment upon our incapacity. But most of us do not do that either. Therefore, the most common mechanism by which our prospective autonomy is protected and promoted is through the informal selection of surrogates based on statutory priority lists. These “default” surrogates are the most numerous type of surrogate. This article explains the importance and legal fundamentals of surrogate decision making. It first describes five basic types of surrogates. The article then looks at the role of these surrogates and how they are supposed to make decisions on the patient’s behalf. Unfortunately, surrogate performance is often mediocre or poor. There are significant and persistent obstacles to good surrogate decision making. After explaining these problems, the article concludes by identifying several solutions.