Cupcakes, Patty-Cake, and the Physician Shortage

Photo by zigazou76 via Flickr

In a recent New York Times op ed, anesthesiologist and mother of four Karen Sibert argues that physicians have a moral obligation to practice medicine full-time, an obligation that arises out of (1) the fixed (or even falling) number of slots in residency programs  and (2) the growing shortage of doctors, particularly primary care doctors.  It is fair, Dr. Sibert argues, to ask students who aspire to go to medical school “to consider the conflicting demands that medicine and parenthood make before they accept (and deny to others) sought-after positions in medical school and residency.”  “Women especially” should consider whether they are willing to fulfill the “real moral obligation to serve” that a medical education confers.  Those who cannot put aside their naïve “rosy vision of limited work hours and raising children” should choose another profession.

Unsurprisingly, Dr. Sibert’s salvo in what Michelle Au terms “The Mommy Wars, Medical Edition” swiftly inspired a vigorous and thought-provoking debate.  Dr. Au — like Dr. Sibert, an anesthesiologist and mother — calls Dr. Sibert’s “views sexist, inflammatory, and frankly discouraging” and argues that “medicine needs to catch up with the rest of society, and as such adopt some of the models other industries have created to recruit and retain the best and the brightest, regardless of gender.”  While conceding that part-time work is not possible during the “grueling training years,” Dr. Au notes that there are already “fields that present different structures to the workday and different practice models to recognize the full potential of modern physicians while also making the practice of medicine less inimical to family life.”  Others have taken Dr. Sibert’s side (see the letters and emails summarized here and here), with some making the additional argument that diagnostic acumen and surgical skill can decline with lack of use.

The relationship between the physician shortage and the increasing number of physicians who choose to work part-time may not be as straightforward as Dr. Sibert presumes. Several commentators have pointed out that an expectation that every physician practice medicine full-time for as long as he or she is physically able could actually exacerbate the physician shortage.  Carolyn Anderson, an ophthalmologist who works three long days per week, contends that discouraging part-time alternatives could deter entry into the field and make retention of older doctors more difficult.  Discouraging women from entering medicine could also backfire, because, although women physicians are more likely than men to work part-time, they are also more likely to go into primary care, and it is primary care physicians that are desperately needed.  More pointedly, it seems unfair (and likely ineffective) to try to solve a complex, multi-factorial, societal problem by asking individual young women — at the outset of their careers, typically before they have had children — to make morally-binding choices about balancing their work with parenthood.

Lastly, it would be easier for physicians and others to hear and understand Dr. Sibert’s arguments if her penultimate paragraph did not include the condescending concession that she “never took cupcakes to my children’s homerooms or drove carpool[.]“  Dr. Megan Duffy, who wrote into the Times in response to Dr. Sibert’s op ed, was similarly dismissive of the work of parenting, noting that she could not fathom putting her “lucrative career on the shelf to play patty-cake.”  It should not be necessary to diminish what parents who work part-time do in their “free” time to make the case that, when it comes to their careers, “women especially” should lean in, not back.

Another Call for Women’s Action on Health Care Reform

Just a little over a month ago, Michelle Obama called upon women to take action to make sure their representatives would vote for health care reform.  This past week, Michelle made another request for women to respond to the national health reform debate during a breast cancer event at the White House.  As the debate seemingly winds towards a conclusion of reform, still, women are unsure that health care reform will actually accomplish that which really needs to be done to help women access better, more comprehensive health care.  While mom’s of America are saying the current health care reform proposals do not include their needs, the National Women’s Law Center exclaims “I am not a preexisting condition.”

The National Women’s Law Center released a second report this month on the affect of gender bias and discrimination in health insurance on women’s lives.  Their report includes an analysis of the discrepancies in health care access between men and women as well as an updated state-by-state comparative chart of states that still allow gender-rating and pre-existing condition discrimination in their health care plans.  Another interesting aspect of the report is the information on states that have, as of late,  reformed their health care systems to be more inclusive of women’s access to health care. One might wonder if the reformation was spurred or enabled in part as a result of the initial report’s publicity.

If you’re wondering about how your state fares in relation to women’s health care issues, be sure to check the most recent NWLC Report as well as Kaiser’s www.statehealthfacts.org.  Also, the Commonwealth Fund has just released a new report comparing the various Congressional health reform bills of 2009.  The report shows that the proposals which seem to pay most (though not enough) attention to women’s health care needs are that of the Senate Health, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the House of Representatives Tri-Committee, which both hope to establish an Office of Women’s Health.  All of these online resources are a great way to get more information and find out where holes in the health reform bills still need to be filled.

To be able to voice direct concerns, the organization Women of Color United for Health Care Reform is hosting a call-in day on Tuesday, October 27^th that will directly connect women to their respective Senators and Representatives.  The calls will be a chance for women to tell their Congress members what they want from health care reform and why allowance of pre-existing conditions denials and gender-rating are not acceptable.  Such calls worked well earlier this month in an event organized by Organizing for America, which enabled callers to tell Congress that they wanted health care reform– with many saying they that really wanted a public option.

Action needs to be taken– and the Obama Administration is asking for exactly that from women.  Though women are most often the health care decision makers in the family unit, men are also needed to voice their concerns:  why their mothers, daughters, wives, and sisters deserve a health care plan that serves their needs.  Call in on Tuesday, the 27^th and let Congress know what’s on your mind.

Domestic Violence Victims Denied Coverage by Insurance Companies; Meanwhile, Verizon Takes a Stand of its Own

The thought of it might have kept Michelle Obama awake at night, but it’s a real issue that happens more often than is recognized.  Insurance companies can deny coverage to men and women who have been victims of domestic violence. They often do.  Through detailing the story of a 52-year-old attorney who was denied health insurance due to a past incidence of domestic violence, a recent article by Kaiser Health News helps to illustrate the prevalence of such practices among insurance providers.

Last Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi addressed the treatment of domestic violence as a pre-existing condition before Congress.  She said that Democrats were no longer going to accept this practice and promised that such would be banned in forthcoming health care reform legislation. Another Democrat engaged in the fight is Senator Patty Murray of Washington, who is a member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.  In 2006, Murray attempted the same type of reform by introducing an amendment to ban domestic violence as a pre-existing condition; the amendment did not pass. One of the “no” votes came from Senator Michael Enzi of Wyoming.  He’s still on the HELP Committee and sits there now as its  highest ranking Republican.

Some states have already taken the matter into their own hands, but 8 states and the District of Columbia still do not disallow insurance companies to reject coverage to men and women who have been victimized by domestic violence.  Read more