Category: Systems

Categories
Lessons Medicine Reflection Systems

Reflections on Psychiatry.

A medical student named Anthony sent me an e-mail and asked:

Are [the items listed below] things that have nagged at you during your training or as a psychiatrist now? How do you deal with the ambiguity of psychiatry, or do you find that as your clinical experience grows, you find yourself more reassured in what you do from seeing your patients improve? Where do you see psychiatry going in the next couple of decades? I understand these are big questions, but I feel it would be incredibly helpful to hear from someone who’s been practicing for a while.

Indeed, these are big questions, but the big questions make us reflect on what we do: What is the point? Why do we bother? Are we doing the “right” thing?

Are these things that have nagged at you during your training or as a psychiatrist now?

The things Anthony listed as frustrations—the primacy of the biological model, the lack of novel and consistently effective medications, the role of medications and pharmaceutical companies, the medicalization of “normal” human experience—resonate with me, too. These things bothered me while I was in medical school, irritated me when I was a resident, and continue to vex me as an attending.

What bothers me the most is how psychiatry can become an agent of social control. Psychiatry can lend its vocabulary and constructs to authorities to oppress or exclude certain populations.

Consider the spate of school shootings. If we label the shooters as “mentally ill”, that distracts from the culture of fear and violence. Homosexuality was a legitimate psychiatric diagnosis until 1973. African Americans are more likely to receive diagnoses of schizophrenia.

Words are powerful. The ramifications of diagnosis are serious. We must not forget how our words can affect how people perceive themselves and how others treat them.

This overlaps with the medicalization of human experience. Is it okay that people receive Xanax from physicians when they are grieving the death of a loved one? Is it okay that students receive Adderall from physicians when they are striving for academic excellence? Is it okay that people from other cultures receive antipsychotic medication from physicians when they report hearing the voices of their ancestors?

My discomfort with this has affected my practice: I purposely choose to work with people who exhibit symptoms that rarely overlap with the general spectrum of human experience. Most people do not believe that someone has stolen their internal organs. Most people do not drink a fifth of alcohol each day to cope with guilt and shame. Most people do not fear that aliens will execute them if they move into housing from the streets.

A natural consequence of working with this population is that advocacy becomes a large part of the work: People with severe conditions can and do get better. Most people enter medicine to help people, to see people get better. The gains in this population may take longer and sometimes may not be as great as in other populations, but they do occur.

How do you deal with the ambiguity of psychiatry, or do you find that as your clinical experience grows, you find yourself more reassured in what you do from seeing your patients improve?

I learned early on that, if I don’t know the answer, the best thing to do is to say, “I don’t know.” It can be hard to say that out loud because we don’t want to admit our ignorance to ourselves or to others. Perhaps the difficulty isn’t the ambiguity of psychiatry. Maybe the challenge is managing our own vulnerability.

This is how I deal with the ambiguity:

  • I remind myself that it is impossible for me—or for anyone—to know everything. That doesn’t mean I give up and walk away: I do the work to learn as much as I can. The learning never stops, even when I want it to.
  • I remind myself that I will mess up. I hope that I will make fewer mistakes as I advance in my career, but I trust that I will screw up. I also hope that I will have the wisdom and humility to learn from my errors and avoid them in the future.
  • I remind myself to “First, do no harm.” I may feel pressure[1. Know that the system will often put pressure on you to “do something”. That doesn’t mean the system is right. Unless someone is dying in that moment, there is always time to stop and think.] to “do” something—prescribe a medication! send someone to the hospital! intervene right now! There is always time to pause and consider: “Will this cause (more) harm?” To be clear, I don’t advocate living life through avoidance. Sometimes the way to navigate ambiguity is to avoid actions that will make things worse.

I’m sure this isn’t the first time you have heard an attending say this: The farther along I go the more I realize how little I know. There is so much more for me to learn.

Where do you see psychiatry going in the next couple of decades?

Experts are much better at describing base rates than they are at predicting the future.[2. This idea about base rates and predictions comes from the book Decisive, which I recommend with enthusiasm.] This is an important question that deserves more reflection. Different ideas spin in my head: Psychiatry will have to reconcile with people who have experienced mistreatment from our field. Psychiatry must examine social determinants of health and scrutinize how they affect diagnosis and treatment. Psychiatry must collaborate with other fields and cannot expect that isolation will actually help patients, our colleagues, or the specialty.

For you (and me) I would add that we cannot expect to influence or change a system if we do not take part in it.[3. Full disclosure: I am not a member of the American Psychiatric Association. My values do not seem to align with theirs. However, who am I to complain about the values of the APA if I’m not willing to help shift them? And how can I contribute to any shift if I do not join them?]

Good questions, Anthony. I encourage you to ask other psychiatrists these same questions. Regardless of which field you choose to enter, I hope you continue to exercise curiosity and healthy skepticism of the work you do. This will not only help you grow as a person and physician, but will also help your patients and field of expertise.

Categories
Education Funding Policy Systems

Jail Costs versus Hospital Costs.

We received the State of Washington Voters’ Pamphlet in the mail today. One of the initiatives, I-1401, concerns “trafficking of animal species threatened with extinction”.

Have no fear: This post is unrelated to trafficking of animal species threatened with extinction.

The “Fiscal Impact Statement” includes a statement about jail costs (highlighted for emphasis):

jailcost

“No wonder why people with psychiatric conditions end up in jail!” I exclaimed. “It’s so much cheaper for them to be there!”

Information about hospital costs are public. This page shares inpatient hospital rates for people who have Medicaid insurance in August 2015. All the hospitals in Washington State are listed in the leftmost column. One of the columns has the title “Psych_ Per Diem”. That column tells you how much money each hospital is paid if a patient with Medicaid is admitted there for psychiatric reasons. First, you will note that hospitals are paid[1. Forgive the passive voice when I write “hospitals are paid”. In Washington, hospitals send bills for Medicaid patients to the state. The state pays the hospital bill. The state then turns around and sends a bill to the region that the patient “belongs” to. The region then pays that state bill. The region gets money to pay that bill from a mix of federal and state Medicaid dollars, which ultimately come from taxpayers. Confusing, right?] different amounts. That alone is fascinating—what accounts for that? who decides how much money each hospital will receive?

More to the point, it costs anywhere between $711.55 and $1788.93 per day for an adult with Medicaid to stay in a hospital. The average cost of incarceration in Washington is $88 per day. Thus, it is at least eight times cheaper for someone to stay in jail than in a psychiatric hospital.[2. This page shares inpatient hospital rates for people who don’t have any insurance. Note that the rates are lower compared to the Medicaid rates. They are nonetheless still much higher than the daily jail rate.]

On the one hand, the differences in cost aren’t surprising: Hospitals often have more staff, equipment, and services. On the other hand, we also know that jails are often the largest psychiatric hospitals in any given region. For example, in Seattle, the jail has about 120 psychiatric beds. The largest psychiatric hospital in Seattle has about 61 beds.

I really want to believe that no one intentionally designed the system this way. Surely no person or system could be so heinous and miserly to funnel people into jail instead of a psychiatric hospital. Right?

Right?

But, then the disgust kicks in: What if the costs were reversed? What if it cost $88 a day for someone to stay in a psychiatric hospital and $712 a day for someone to stay in a jail? Would we see as many people with psychiatric conditions in jail? Of course not.[3. To be clear, we should also help people stay out of psychiatric hospitals, too. Inpatient services should be available if people need them, but let’s focus on prevention and help people stay in their communities. Being in a hospital generally sucks.]

It shouldn’t be all about money, but when the cost differences are that big, money has undue weight. If we actually want to help people with psychiatric conditions, we must pay for services. Otherwise, we will only see more and more of them in jail.

Categories
Education Medicine Observations Systems

Everything Changes, Nothing Changes.

The Mutter Museum Instagram account recently posted this photo:

Thorazine

“Thorazine” is the trade name for chlorpromazine. It is considered the medication that ushered in the “psychopharmacological revolution”, thus allowing some patients to leave psychiatric institutions. (You can read the interesting history of chlorpromazine here. Spoiler alert: It was designed for use in surgery, not psychiatry.)

Chlorpromazine is often touted as the first medication that could reduce symptoms of schizophrenia. Other FDA-approved “psychiatric” uses of chlorpromazine[1. Other FDA-approved uses of chlorpromazine that are unrelated to psychiatry include acute intermittent porphyria; intractable hiccoughs; nausea and vomiting; and tetanus, “adjunct”.] include:

  • Apprehension, presurgical
  • Bipolar disorder, manic episode
  • Problem behavior, severe

I don’t know the context of the ad (who was the intended audience: physicians? patients? husbands?). One wonders why the ad features a woman and puts greater emphasis on “emotional stress”. A hefty dose of chlorpromazine will result in “prompt” sedation that will give someone—perhaps not the patient—”sustained relief” for several hours.

Did physicians in that era tell patients that the original use of this medication was for schizophrenia? Or did physicians focus primarily on the tranquilizing effects of chlorpromazine for those individuals who had more neurotic, not psychotic, symptoms?

Everything changes, nothing changes. Quetiapine (tradename: Seroquel) was also developed for the treatment of schizophrenia. Now, its uses include:

(1) add-on treatment to an antidepressant for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who did not have an adequate response to antidepressant therapy; (2) acute depressive episodes in bipolar disorder; (3) acute manic or mixed episodes in bipolar disorder alone or with lithium or divalproex; (4) long-term treatment of bipolar disorder with lithium or divalproex; and (5) schizophrenia.

The header for the page (what shows up on the browser tab) doesn’t even list the drug’s name. It says only “bipolar disorder medication”.

If you search for “Abilify” (generic name: aripiprazole) on Google, the brief summary that shows up under the first link says:

Official pharmaceutical site for this antipsychotic medication indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia.

However, when you actually go to the official website, the listed uses include:

Use as an add-on treatment for adults with depression when an antidepressant alone is not enough
Treatment of manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder in adults and in pediatric patients 10 to 17 years of age
Treatment of schizophrenia in adults and in adolescents 13 to 17 years of age
Treatment of irritability associated with autistic disorder in pediatric patients 6 to 17 years of age

Asenapine (trade name: Saphris) also has approval to treat both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Should we be surprised if paliperidone (trade name: Invega[2. Does it mean anything that, of the five photos on the landing page for paliperidone, only one of them features white males?]) and iloperidone (trade name: Fanapt) soon also receive FDA approval to treat conditions other than schizophrenia?

This is why skepticism is indicated—nay, essential—whenever people exclaim with confidence that “we” understand the biology of psychiatric conditions. We live in an era where cancer drugs can be designed to interact with specific receptors because scientists have located and studied those specific receptors. That specificity does not exist in psychiatry. If it did, one drug class would treat one condition, not four.

While I am probably more reluctant than the “average” psychiatrist to prescribe medications, I believe that, for some people with significant psychiatric conditions, medications can offer great benefit. First, however, do no harm.

It is frustrating when many in the field of psychiatry insist that the serotonin hypothesis is true when, in fact, it is just a hypothesis that is probably false. Also frustrating are the multiple forces that insist that medications are the primary and sole forms of treatment for psychiatric conditions. What about exercise? Therapy? Diet? Social support?

If medications alone could successfully treat these conditions, wouldn’t the pharmaceutical companies have saved us all by now?

Categories
Education Homelessness Observations Reflection Systems

Do People Choose to be Homeless?

One of the things we talked about during dinner was whether people choose to be homeless.

“Yeah, it seems like some people want to be homeless,” he said.

“No… I don’t think so,” his friend replied.

They looked at me.

I cannot speak for all people who have ever been homeless. However, I have several years of experience working with people who were homeless and refused housing again and again[1. When working within a housing first model, the goal is to give people housing without any expectations that people will participate in mental health or substance abuse treatment. The goal is really just to get them inside.], as well as people who left their housing and returned to the streets.[2. In my experience, people who leave housing usually return to street homelessness. Most do not return to the shelter system.]

Thus, I believe that people who are homeless do not want to be homeless. They usually have concerns about the housing offered to them.

Here are some reasons people have shared with me when I have asked them why they don’t want housing:

I can’t move in anywhere. I have to stay outside. The aliens say that if I move in anywhere, they will exterminate me. I’ve already been exterminated three times. I don’t want to get exterminated again.

I don’t want to live inside. It never feels safe. Bad things happened to me when I’ve been inside. It’s too hard to get away.

But I don’t need your housing. One day my boss will hire me again–I was really good at my job–and when I start working again I can pay for my own apartment. (This man, for years, sat on the sidewalk across the street from the building where he said he previously worked.)

There’s too many rules: Curfew at 10pm? No guests? What if I want to bring a lady friend over? Nope. Don’t want to deal with all that.

I know that place. There’re too many people using dope. I know what’s gonna happen if I am around that crowd. I’m trying to stay away from all that.

That place? Isn’t that where all the crazy people live? No, thank you–I don’t want crazy neighbors.

If I could move in without giving my name or social security number, then, yes, I’ll move in. But people keep asking me for personal information and I don’t know what the government will do with that.

So, the reasons people give generally fall into three categories:

  1. People want freedom and don’t appreciate the constraints of rules.
  2. People are concerned about their safety within the building. These reasons may or may not have any basis in reality.
  3. People may feel some guilt or shame related to the housing (whether they deserve it, what it would mean if they moved in, etc.).

It’s hard for those of us who have a stable place to live[3. One consequence of working with people who are homeless is that you never stop giving thanks that you have a place to live. You don’t have to worry about where you’re going to sleep that night. You don’t have to worry that someone might try to rob you or set you on fire. You don’t have to worry about the police picking you up simply because you have nowhere else to go. These are the things we all take for granted.] to understand why some people seem to “choose” to live outside. Sometimes people point to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and ask, “But isn’t housing a physiological need? People need water, food, and shelter. Why would someone ignore this basic need?”

Yes, shelter is a basic need. However, people who live outside can and do meet their basic needs, including shelter. They sleep in abandoned buildings, underneath bridges, in tents, in covered doorways, in wooded groves, in bus shelters, etc. These are not ideal places to live, but they’re sufficient.

No one wants to be homeless. What they want is psychological safety. For those individuals who decline housing, sometimes the need for psychological safety will override what seems like the “logical” choice of accepting housing.

People continue to astound me with their resilience. When people resist housing for years, though, it makes me wonder what happened to them that resulted in this resilience.

Categories
Medicine Nonfiction Observations Seattle Systems

On What Medical Directors “Should” Look Like.

I recently answered a survey about race. One question asked:

“If you ask to speak to the leader of your organization, can you expect to see someone of your race?”

I snorted. I didn’t mean to. I just had never thought about that before.

In my previous job my title[1. As I have noted elsewhere, “titles, at the end of the day, are just words.“] was “medical director”. During the first few months of that job the title felt alien to me. It was as if people at work said, “Oh, Dr. Yang? She’s the one over there with the blonde hair.” Meanwhile, I’d touch my black locks, feeling perplexed.

Early on I conducted interviews to hire staff. One applicant, a psychiatrist, was a Caucasian man in his early 50s. His greying brown hair was cropped close to his head. A striped burgundy necktie adorned the light blue dress shirt underneath his navy blue suit. Cuff links poked out from under his sleeves. A silver pen was clipped into the breast pocket of his jacket.

Turning to the program manager, I murmured, “THAT guy looks like a medical director, not me!”

She, a Caucasian woman, laughed before she said, “Yeah, you’re right!”

In the jobs I’ve held the medical directors have all been Caucasian males, with the exception of my first job: He was Asian. In residency training the chair of the department was a Caucasian male. The paintings and photographs of leadership that lined the halls of the medical school were all of aging Caucasian men.

That’s how I came to learn that medical directors don’t look like me; they’re older white men.

Leadership at this agency believed I had sufficient qualifications and hired me, an Asian female, to serve as the medical director. However, the idea that someone in this position “should” be an older white male persisted in my mind.

What does it mean that I felt doubts about my ability to work as a medical director simply because of the way I look?[2. While this post is focused on race, it could easily focus on sex, too: Most medical directors are men.]