Patient Centered or Evidence Based Medicine – Can we really have both?

“The conflict between evidence-based medicine and individuals is at the core of the struggle to reduce the cost of care.  I fear it is intractable and will remain so… We need to talk about the tensions and uncertainty, with respect for each other and with open minds. I’m not sure what solutions are possible but without an ongoing, messy discussion, we won’t find out.”

Jessie Gruman

“In a recent experiment, the average effects of the opioid remifentanil were either doubled or extinguished by manipulating subject expectations; functional magnetic resonance imaging scans showed that regulatory brain mechanisms differed as a function of these expectations. Does this mean that we might double our gas mileage if we wished for it hard enough? Well, no. But people are not machines, and we shouldn’t treat them as such.”

Daniel E. Moerman, Ph.D.

“Patient Centered Medicine” sounds ethical and humane. It almost seems like an obvious thing to strive for, but it is far from universally accepted. Many stakeholders and quite a few opportunists in today’s health care system are working hard to shift power further and further away from the patient-physician decision-making that takes place in the exam room.

In every patient visit there are at least two more parties represented besides the doctor and the patient:

Since the majority of patients are covered by health insurance, the insurance company is always present in any decision that involves money. It would be naïve to expect anything else; that is what happens when someone else pays the tab.

In recent years we have also started seeing “experts” of various kinds judging or prejudicing the medical provider’s performance. Most of the time, these “experts” make recommendations and publish “guidelines” without much authority behind them, since there are often competing guidelines for doctors to choose between. Lately, though, through stronger associations between payors and “experts”, “guidelines”, now re-introduced as “Evidence Based Medicine”, are increasingly used to control what happens in the exam room.

The notion of practicing “Evidence Based Medicine” is not new; doctors study the basic sciences in medical school, read scientific journals and attend continuing education courses to keep up with new developments in their field. What is new is the notion that doctors somehow cannot be trusted to weigh all the available evidence, like other professionals, and sit down with individual patients to discuss how the evidence applies to each unique case.

The “Evidence” seems to have lost its plurality, which is more consistent with the thinking of statisticians and insurance actuaries than with science. The more we learn about diseases and the human body, the more we understand that people are different. Genetics and neurobiology are beginning to explain why treatments that work in some patients may not work in others, and may even be harmful to some.

Jesse Gruman, in her springboard article for Better Health’s Grand Rounds, writes about the inherent conflict between Patient Centered and Evidence Based Medicine in cancer treatment. In each such case, the personal and financial stakes can be enormous.

On July 14, The New England Journal of Medicine published a study comparing inhaled albuterol, the Evidence Based, time-honored treatment for mild asthma attacks, with placebo inhalers, sham acupuncture and doing nothing. Only the albuterol inhalers improved patients’ breathing test performance, but the patients who received placebo inhalers and sham acupuncture experienced the same amount of symptom relief. Only the patients who received nothing were unimproved.

Daniel Moerman, in his editorial, comments on the study:

“For subjective and functional conditions — for example, migraine, schizophrenia, back pain, depression, asthma, post-traumatic stress disorder, neurologic disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, inflammatory bowel disease and many other autoimmune disorders, any condition defined by symptoms, and anything idiopathic — a patient-centered approach requires that patient-preferred outcomes trump the judgment of the physician… Usually the control is designed to convince the doctor yet is irrelevant for the patient and patient-centered care. Often the very assumption that there is a correct control simply is not the case… Maybe it is sufficient simply to show that a treatment yields significant improvement for the patients, has reasonable cost, and has no negative effects over the short or long term. This is, after all, the first tenet of medicine: “Do no harm.”

Moerman’s words challenge us practicing physicians and scientists to be prepared to reconsider the purpose and priorities of many of the things we do on a daily basis. His words must be even more unsettling to all the non-clinicians who make their living trying to tell us what to do.


1 Response to “Patient Centered or Evidence Based Medicine – Can we really have both?”

  1. 1 Mohammed Sawkat Hassan February 5, 2015 at 1:14 pm

    I think so. For example, patient receiving treatment for chronic ailments, diseases requiring change of life style, cancer therapy/palliative care, paralysis, neuro-degenerative disorders, organ transplant etc. I guess, we doctors will have to take into account both approaches judiciously with an individualistic approach (every patient is different in all respect and it’s not only a biological unit). Take into account both body and mind.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Bookmark and Share


contact @

RSS A Country Doctor Reads:

  • Fish Oil May Have More Benefits for the Inuit than for Westerners
    I have heard many people advocate eating local foods, and avoiding things from far away. Human metabolism, some say, isn’t the same everywhere. Now there is new evidence that whale blubber may be better for the Inuit than for westerners. In the 1970s, Danish researchers studying Inuit metabolism proposed that omega-3 fatty acids found in […]
  • Value Based Care: Whose Values?
    The Journal of the American Medical Association is taking a stand for elderly and disabled patients in today’s online issue: “As Medicare moves to implement value-based payment initiatives tied only to current quality measures, the values of large populations of disabled and frail persons, whose care is the most costly and most concentrated in Medicare, […] […]
  • The Call Within the Call
    “We all go into professions for many reasons: money, status, security. But some people have experiences that turn a career into a calling. These experiences quiet the self. All that matters is living up to the standard of excellence inherent in their craft.” These words by The New York Times columnist David Brooks, in a […]
  • A Crazy Old-School Physician
    A post by Suneel Dhand on KevinMD asks the question who is crazy – the elderly physician who knows his patient’s history by heart, or today’s young doctors, who know the computer better than their patients: Then there’s the reality that his generation represents exactly what a personal physician should be. A solid physician with […]
© A Country Doctor Writes 2008-2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given.