Curbside Consult with Dr. Jayne 2/10/25

I attended a regional medical society meeting this week where the agenda was entirely taken over by physicians who are concerned about the fallout from the recent deluge of executive orders. The American Academy of Pediatrics and other groups have called for the restoration of federal health information online. Two of my former colleagues have spun up a website that hosts archived copies of the missing and edited documents so that clinicians don’t have gaps in the resources available to treat patients.

Since our part of the country is chock full of research institutions, there was also concern about the National Institutes of Health slashing research funding, with concerns about the larger economic impact of immediate funding changes. Most of those who are speaking about the topic understand that while the way research is funded needs to be reformed, yanking the rug out from under research institutions with no warning isn’t the way to go.

Others were concerned about potential cuts to Medicare and Medicaid and the devastating effect that would have on patients who already have trouble getting care because physicians are opting out of those programs due to low payments and attached federal and state penalties. The wait in my area for subspecialty care for a patient on Medicaid is usually anywhere between nine and 18 months. That assumes that the clinics, which are usually teaching clinics that are affiliated with the local medical schools, even agree to put a patient on a wait list. I was impressed by the number of physicians who normally don’t speak out about that topic who were engaged in the conversation.

There were plenty of other concerns, but as I listened, I realized one significant fact: this was the first medical society event I’ve been at in the last 20 years where no one has complained about EHRs, insurance companies, or hospital administrators making decisions that negatively impact patient care. Usually at least one person tries to bend my ear about EHRs or government incentive programs. I had to conclude that there is finally something that physicians detest more than computers, which really says something.

I was catching up on some email this week and had a note from a friend in Colorado, who mentioned that her state lawmakers were again proposing legislation to explore the potential of developing a statewide universal healthcare payment system. The proposed legislation calls for the Colorado School of Public Health to examine a model for a system with a single payer that is designed to be non-profit, publicly funded, and privately delivered. The School would have until the end of 2026 to complete the analysis detailing costs, benefits, and impacts on residents, care providers, and the healthcare industry in general.

The review would also examine how such a system might coexist with current federal and state requirements involving the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, and Medicare. It will be interesting to see if it passes and if so what the analysis yields. Colorado readers: what are your thoughts on this? Does it have a chance to pass?

I’ve mentioned this before, but I really dislike it when publications promote a link to what appears to be a news article but then turns out to be a video without any kind of transcript. I was lured to an article about new things planned for HIMSS25 only to find a video interview with HIMSS CEO Hal Wolf that included neither captioning nor a transcript. I wonder if HIMSS has thought about the message this sends – that those who require captioning or written communication aren’t valued. Although I don’t require written communication, I definitely prefer it because I can read faster than I can listen to the talking heads of HIMSS TV,  so I guess my needs and preferences aren’t respected either. Especially in the age of AI transcription, there is no reason to have a video without captions or a transcript. Do better, HIMSS.

The Super Bowl is now behind us. I am aware of at least two health systems that dropped significant amounts of cash on ads. NYU Langone Health had a spot championing the idea that “Better Health Starts with a Better Health System,” while MUSC Health ran a commercial focusing on heart and vascular care.

I don’t know the details of the advertising agreements, but I would hope that these were just local ads, which are lower cost than national ads. That would still be an outrageous amount when you consider how much preventive care could be delivered for the same amount of money. The Washington Post offered a list of “best, worst, and weirdest” commercials that was paywalled, but I know I can count on the folks I’ll be on calls with tomorrow to share their ideas about what was the weirdest thing they saw.

My personal favorite ad was the one for On sportswear, where Elmo debated the merits of the logo with tennis great Roger Federer. Elmo said what a lot of us are thinking, that the logo looks like a Q and a C. You can always count on Elmo to have a positive message, so he closes by saying, “Elmo loves you, Mr. Roger Federer. Even if you don’t know your alphabet yet.” Elmo has been a public health ambassador for years, teaching about germs, handwashing, covering your cough, and the importance of preventive vaccines.

I’m not a huge fan of NFL football given the negative health impacts of the sport. However, I do enjoy getting together and sharing food that is usually delicious although not typically heart healthy. Still, I’ve never seen anyone shamed for their food choices as a Super Bowl party and there’s usually at least one green vegetable present in my area, even if it is in the form of celery served with Buffalo chicken dip or wings. I was happy to contribute some baked goods to the effort this year, trying a new recipe and bringing home an empty plate, so I didn’t end up eating the whole thing myself.

What’s your favorite game day food? Leave a comment or email me.

Email Dr. Jayne.