333. The Most Ambitious Thing Humans Have Ever Attempted

Sure, medical progress has been astounding. But today the U. S. spends more on healthcare than any other country, with so-so outcomes. Atul Gawande — cancer surgeon, public-health researcher, and best-selling author — has some simple ideas for treating a painfully complex system.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:01Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Progressive. Whoever says saving money is hard doesn't know that new customers who bundle and save with Progressive save hundreds because switching your home and auto insurance is better than cutting down on the things you love, like those iced lattes that help you get ready to face the day. So switch your home and auto to Progressive and see if you could save and keep sipping away. Get your quote today at progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company affiliates and other insurers. Not available in all states. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by PNC Bank. Boring. Great word, bad rep. Yet, time and time again, here at Freakonomics, we find that when something culture-changing happens,

• 0:43Stephen J. Dubner?

  boring things like calculations and careful planning are usually behind it, which begs the question, why not apply it to other aspects of life, like banking, for example? Well, PNC Bank did since its inception, proving time and again that the best banking strategy isn't the exciting type, but the steady, reliable, definitely not YOLO type. PNC Bank. Brilliantly boring since 1865. Brilliantly boring since 1865 is a registered mark of the PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. PNC Bank, National Association, Member, FDIC. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by hotels.com. Hotels.com helps you find and book the right

• 1:25Stephen J. Dubner?

  stay for work faster. With business preferences, save your travel must haves, like gym access or breakfast, just once, then get tailored results whenever you search for work travel. Plus, with a free membership, you can save up to 20% on hotels and earn rewards on every stay for future travel. Book now at hotels.com. Visit hotels.com for details. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by ChatGPT. ChatGPT Work is a new way to work in ChatGPT. ChatGPT Work can pull info from across your apps and connect to your tools to help you

• 2:05Stephen J. Dubner?

  create finished work. You can even automate work in ChatGPT with the Scheduled Tasks feature, and the whole time, you stay in control. Put ChatGPT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get started at chatgpt.com by selecting Work Mode, available on Plus and Pro plans.

• 2:33Stephen J. Dubner?

  Healthcare is obviously a big deal. Medical treatment per se, but also the healthcare industry and access to it. Also, the politics and the economics of healthcare. In the US, we spend more money on healthcare per capita than any other country. It totals about 18% of our GDP. And yet, our health outcomes aren't anywhere near the top. Why not? Well, there are a lot of reasons, many of which we've already looked into on this show in episodes like "How Do We Know What Really Works in Healthcare?" and in our three-part series called "Bad Medicine." Today, we are taking a far simpler approach to exploring the state of healthcare and its assorted conundrums. Today, we're just having a conversation with a doctor.

• 3:18Stephen J. Dubner?

  A doctor in Boston, but not just any doctor.

• 3:23Speaker 01

  Okay. I'm Atul Gawande. I'm a surgeon at Brigham and Harvard School of Public Health and director of a laboratory called Ariadne Labs, a center for health system innovation at the Brigham and Harvard School of Public Health. And then I write for The New Yorker.

• 3:37Stephen J. Dubner?

  So, not only are you a surgeon and a researcher and a professor, but you've also written for what I think are really excellent books. Honestly, much better than many of us who only write books for a living. So, I did just want to say, on behalf of all my fellow writers, we hate you and we would prefer that you stop writing books, if you don't mind, and leave it to us. No, seriously, though, how are you able to be as good at that when you're doing two or three other things? And let me preface that by saying that I've often observed that of all the professions who also are authors, I do think that doctors are the best. If you look through history, Chekhov and on and on.

• 4:21Stephen J. Dubner?

  And I do wonder if there is something in the pursuit of medicine that you feel is closely tied to the pursuit of writing.

• 4:30Speaker 01

  I do, and I think it's, I've often thought it was a little bit unfair. Like, I was a sort of fake New Yorker staff writer because I had this daily exposure to the human experience in a way that my colleagues on the staff had to go out and find. Like, I just had to go to work and you've got people who are, you know, I've got a, we're going to break some terrible news today, or we're going to have to do an operation that could go well or they might not. Or maybe we've figured out we can't actually do the operation. And then everything else is layered into that. You have family dynamics, you have money. Boy, do you have money as an issue in this world.

• 5:14Speaker 01

  And so I sort of find it all inseparable. I don't, you know, you ask, how do I fit the writing into these other jobs? It is part of all of these other jobs. I feel like I would have totally burned out on my medical practice work if I were only in the trenches and not able to kind of lift my head up and see what's really going on, what's the pattern of what's really happening in front of me. And then found that the writing led me to test out ideas and try out new thoughts. And then I wanted to test them in the real world, which became my public health work,

• 5:56Speaker 01

  where we could go in and say, hey, can we get a country to adopt our dumb little surgical checklist I wrote about in The New Yorker?

• 6:05Stephen J. Dubner?

  That little surgical checklist was the topic of one Ghandi book, The Checklist Manifesto. He argued that medicine could really benefit from the sort of basic, careful attention to detail that's already being practiced by people like airline pilots. His other books are Complications: A Surgeon's Notes on an Imperfect Science, and Better: A Surgeon's Notes on Performance, and the book for which he's best known, Being Mortal, which wrestles with decline and death. We'll hear about all of that today. We'll hear how truly complicated medicine can be.

• 6:40Speaker 01

  We have 60,000 different diagnoses, 60,000 different ways your body can fail. And we have generated 6,000 drugs, 4,000 medical and surgical techniques and procedures. And we're trying to deploy that capability town by town to every person alive, regardless of their ability to pay.

• 7:00Stephen J. Dubner?

  We'll hear about some simple solutions.

• 7:02Speaker 01

  So our systems are incredibly optimized for sending bills. I can send a bill in like, three keystrokes. But recording an allergy can be four different screens.

• 7:16Stephen J. Dubner?

  And we'll hear why Atul Gawande is not at all like you and me, at least not me.

• 7:22Speaker 01

  One of the things that I love about surgery is it is, I have to confess, the least stressful thing I do.

• 7:45Speaker 02

  From WNYC Studios, this is Freakonomics Radio, the podcast that explores the hidden side of everything. Here's your host, Stephen Dubner.

• 8:01Stephen J. Dubner?

  I've always wondered, you're a productive fellow, and I'm just curious how a typical week or month, I have no idea what the cycles are, but how do you break up your various duties? Do you try to do some of everything in every day? Are there weeks where you go without operating or writing? How does that work?

• 8:19Speaker 01

  I've never figured it out, to be honest. Every day is a problem to solve how I get the things I'm interested in doing get done. But I'd say it's probably on a daily cycle. So I might have a day in the operating room or in the clinic. But then the next day, I'll be entirely focused on my work in public health. And then I might be traveling and giving a lecture or visiting one of our research sites. There's a dominant theme to the day, and then I'm piling everything else around it. And my main parameters are- I really, really work hard to have about 25% of my time unscheduled.

• 9:04Speaker 01

  And I make sure I get enough sleep most of the time.

• 9:07Stephen J. Dubner?

  And do you ever, in the middle of, let's say, a surgery, think about, oh, here's how I will be writing about this day?

• 9:14Speaker 01

  You know, I don't really. I'm in the flow. One of the things that I love about surgery is it is, I have to confess, the least stressful thing I do because at this point, I've done thousands of the operations I do. 97 to 98% go pretty much as expected. And the 2% that don't, you know, I know the 10 different ways that are most common that they'll go wrong, and I have approaches to it. So it's kind of freeing in a certain way.

• 9:46Stephen J. Dubner?

  You mentioned money seemingly touching or influencing everything you do. What did you mean by that?

• 9:54Speaker 01

  Well, I remember coming into practice as a new surgeon in 2003, and 15% of my patients were uninsured. I'm a cancer surgeon, and we would have to figure out, like, how do we get free care for this person? What are we going to do for their radiation treatments? You know, I had a college student who had bought a policy that seemed great because it was so cheap. And then it turned out that it had a $75,000 limit, and she had a metastatic cancer, curable, but she needed one more thing after surgery and chemotherapy, which was going to be radiation. She didn't want us to tell her family, because she was afraid they would mortgage their house, to pay for it.

• 10:37Speaker 01

  And of course, we did tell the family, and then, of course, they did take out a second mortgage. And, you know, there's all the ways I get paid. My patients are covered by 56 different insurers the last time that I'd checked, all paying completely differently. It's kind of impossible to figure out what's one going to pay versus another going to pay. I pay $29,000 a year for malpractice insurance, which is incredibly low compared to what many people do around the country. And so, you know, even that, like, why is ours lower? It turns out, we have a very effective insurer that we work with. So there's, you know, interesting puzzles in every little corner of it.

• 11:16Speaker 01

  You know, and sometimes tragic problems in the middle of it. Now I'm seeing patients routinely with $2,000, $3,000, $5,000 deductibles. And some of my patients have, that I specialize in are relatively rare conditions. And for example, one set of patients I take care of have a genetic syndrome called Li-Fraumeni, where they have a mutation called P53, which in a gene that makes it so they're forming cancers all the time. And, you know, most of them don't make it to 40 years of age. We've learned how to monitor them. We've learned how to step in. We have removed multiple cancerous people and we're getting, we're getting them past 40.

• 11:57Speaker 01

  And then, you know, lo and behold, their spouse buys the cheap policy, which means that we're now out of network. And so they've decided that they have to go to a place that doesn't have a specialist. And it's painful because I'm watching, watching them get inappropriate care now that could harm their life. So, you know, that's what I mean by money. Like it's, it's everywhere.

• 12:20Stephen J. Dubner?

  So every time I ask you a question now, I feel like I'm using up time that should be spent better saving someone's life. But, but, but I'm going to keep asking them. So how has the Affordable Care Act changed your own universe in terms, especially of payment and the treatment that comes with it?

• 12:39Speaker 01

  Yeah, the, the dramatic change really preceded the ACA because I'm in Massachusetts. And so we got a, a preview with Romney Care where we got to have universal coverage come to Massachusetts through a plan, a lot like Obamacare. And so now it's been a decade. And within a couple of years, I no longer had uninsured patients. I haven't seen an uninsured patient in, in about a decade. And then you go to Texas where the rate of uninsurances, that one out of five people have no coverage for their basic needs. The other big thing though, is that as the costs have gone up and the, and the cost

• 13:20Speaker 01

  sharing has gone up, it's been dramatic to me to see people who now have deductibles in the thousands of dollars routinely making decisions that, you know, you can see people are not filling their high blood pressure medication and they're not taking their statins for cholesterol control. And things like that that have, you know, long-term consequences, but on a day-to-day basis, don't feel any different.

• 13:55Stephen J. Dubner?

  Gawande grew up in a medical family. His father was a urologist, his mother a pediatrician. They had moved to the US from India in the early 1960s. Atul was born in Brooklyn, raised in Ohio. He studied biology and political science at Stanford, then PPE, Philosophy, Politics and Economics, at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. Then he got both his MD and a master's in public health at Harvard.

• 14:21Stephen J. Dubner?

  So I know that years ago, you were involved in some political campaigns for Gary Hart and Al Gore.

• 14:29Speaker 01

  Yeah, way back into my childhood.

• 14:30Stephen J. Dubner?

  Yeah. And then I understand that while you were in med school, you deferred completion to become Bill Clinton's healthcare lieutenant during his 92 campaign. So from what I can tell, that was your last political involvement in that regard. I'm curious what that experience taught you about the differences between academic or theoretical healthcare and real-world healthcare, especially the political dimension, especially the, you know, the paying-for-it dimension.

• 15:02Speaker 01

  Yeah, a ton. There is a sort of fundamental disconnect often between the academic work and the work needed to answer the key questions that people in the political sphere are trying to answer. Often, people are trying to come to experts for technical answers to questions that don't have a technical answer. So I'll give this as a, the case in point is the Affordable Care Act. The trouble is that people fundamentally disagree on what the goal. Of the healthcare coverages. Is it to free up a trillion dollars for a tax reform? Is it to secure universal coverage for all? Is it to cut costs?

• 15:47Speaker 01

  You know, you can't take a trillion dollars out of the healthcare system and make healthcare better at the same time and increase coverage in a short timeframe. In government, it was fundamentally about the budget is your values. And the technical and academic stuff often submerges those debates instead of actually having them straight on.

• 16:13Stephen J. Dubner?

  Your research center, Ariadne, is named for the Greek goddess of labyrinth. So I'm curious. I gather the implication there is that the medical or healthcare scenario, at least in the States these days, is fairly labyrinthine. And you are known for seeking out simple and scalable ideas to make healthcare better. So talk for a moment about the degree to which you believe in the power of really simple ideas to address a situation or a set of problems as labyrinthine as the ones that we currently have.

• 16:54Speaker 01

  I believe really strongly in that potential. There's three basic problems. How do we have access to care? How do we tackle the cost? And then, most important, if you have access to care, is it being delivered in such a way that you get the benefit of the last century of discovery that allows us to live 80 to 85 years typically? We're drowning in the complexity of the knowledge that's been discovered over the last century. So, for example, the biggest killer in the country, and indeed in the world now, is high blood pressure. We have a billion people in the world who have high blood pressure. Only 14% have it diagnosed and under control.

• 17:36Speaker 01

  And the medications control blood pressure, been around for decades, it costs pennies. And we're not following through on it. How do you make it simple for people to be able to take your high blood pressure medication? We have a delivery system that basically relies on the idea that you're going to come in for a 20 minute appointment with your doctor. And that is the only way that we are going to work with you. And a combination of email and phone and not even having to see a doctor most of the time demonstrated to get to 80 to 90% levels. And so there's, there's many opportunities like this.

• 18:08Stephen J. Dubner?

  And by the way, why is that medication in particular, still a prescription medication? What's the point of that?

• 18:14Speaker 01

  Well, if blood pressure is too low, or you take a diabetes medication and your blood sugars get too low, that is also harmful for you. So the capacity to have medical oversight and make sure that you're getting the right medications in the right way is critically important. But there are lots of ways in which someone working with a nurse can, can manage for themselves and not have to have the doctor, you know, involved every few weeks.

• 18:42Stephen J. Dubner?

  When you talk about the different mechanisms to get patients to comply with taking a medicine as simple as, you know, hypertension treatment, I'm just curious, you know, why leave it to human error, especially when we know that humans are really good at making those kinds of errors, or at least not completing those kinds of tasks? I mean, would you, if left to your own devices, you know, be putting statins or hypertension medicine in the drinking supply? Would you want to use CRISPR like technology to eliminate the possibility of certain maladies if possible?

• 19:18Speaker 01

  Well, first of all, this seems ironic in the age of precision medicine that we would go to the point of saying, well, let's just give everybody just a blanket statin dose. And yeah, some people will be killed, but a lot more people will be saved. We're perfectly capable of tuning the care we have, not only in the highest income parts of the world, but in the lowest income parts of the world. And often they're very simple, cheap systems, like a checklist, that can get, get really great results. And it's just a matter of being willing to systematize what we do. Do you want me to give another example?

• 19:54Stephen J. Dubner?

  Sure, I'd love it, yeah.

• 19:55Speaker 01

  On any given day. We have 11,000 women will come into a hospital to deliver a baby.

• 20:01Stephen J. Dubner?

  We, meaning the United States, I gather.

• 20:02Speaker 01

  The United States, yes. One out of three will end up having surgery to have that baby, which we know is markedly higher than it needs to be. One out of three will have a C-section. 10% of their babies will go to intensive care, which we also know is higher than necessary. And the way we know these things are unnecessary is that the likelihood of a C-section varies from 7% to 70%, depending on what hospital you go to.

• 20:30Stephen J. Dubner?

  And what are the big drivers of that variance and how much of it is a financial incentive? And how much is it is defensive medicine, let's say?

• 20:37Speaker 01

  Well, I'll just add on one more thing, which is that we will spend 0.6% of GDP today doing all that stuff. There are clearly financial drivers, but our team that works on this recently demonstrated that not only what doctor and system you go to makes a difference, but even at that same system, the labor nurse you have can affect the rate of cesarean section by 250% or more.

• 21:05Stephen J. Dubner?

  Wow. The mechanisms by which are what? What is he or she doing differently?

• 21:10Speaker 01

  We have ideas, but we haven't really proven them. So the ideas are that an ability of a nurse to walk you through what might be a 20-hour process, to be incredibly supportive. And for a woman who is low risk, a great labor nurse can make a big difference compared to one who is more likely to pull the trigger and say to the obstetrician, you know, this isn't moving along. Maybe we should think about a C-section. And that's the most common reason for a C-section is not that the baby gets in trouble or anything like that. It's called failure to progress. We're still piecing this stuff together, but we ought to be able to figure this out. I mean, we're spending, you know, 0.6% of GDP today on this. We should be able to pull this apart and create a simpler, better way of doing it. And that's the kind

• 21:55Speaker 01

  of thing that our team takes on.

• 21:58Stephen J. Dubner?

  Good ideas often take a really long time to catch on in medicine. Why do you think that is?

• 22:05Speaker 01

  Yeah, I got really fascinated by this, thinking about two examples. Both of them transformed surgery in the 19th century. Anesthesia and the discovery of antisepsis, preventing infections, the biggest killer there was. Anesthesia was discovered and within two months-

• 22:22Stephen J. Dubner?

  In Boston, right?

• 22:23Speaker 01

  In Boston, yeah, Mass General Hospital. And within two months of publishing the result that a gas could render people insensible to pain, it was being used in every capital in Europe. You know, there was no internet. You had to send news by boat and horse. And within two months, people were using it, you know, in the capitals of Europe. And by six years later, there wasn't a hospital in the country that was not delivering anesthesia care. By contrast, antisepsis, Joseph Lister discovered that if you used antiseptic solution, cleaned the instruments, your hands, did all that stuff, you could cut infections by 80%. And a generation later, you still hadn't gotten to half of the profession doing it.

• 23:07Speaker 01

  And when I broke it down, realized, you know, there's a difference between a visible and immediate effect they had in anesthesia that was, that could be recognized right away, and tackling invisible, delayed effects of germs.

• 23:24Stephen J. Dubner?

  We like our causes proximate in the world, don't we?

• 23:27Speaker 01

  Yeah, yeah. So you're trying to get people to take action on something that is not going to matter until a week or two later. The second problem, though, is the anesthesia solution was not only good for the patient, it was great for the doctor. Surgeons don't like having a screaming patient on the table. They had to do their operations in 60 to 120 seconds because you just didn't have that much time when the orderly is holding people down. And having a patient asleep meant you could be meticulous. You were so much happier as a surgeon. And so this was a win-win for both, and that made it spread virally. Now, antisepsis was literally pain now for gain later. The antiseptic solution Lister had was carbolic acid. You know, he tried to sell it like you sell Listerine today.

• 24:12Speaker 01

  The burn is, you know, ah, the burn is how you know it works. And you had to regulate it. You had to make hospitals do it. You had to change the culture of surgery to be antiseptic. And even today, we still have to fight the uphill battle and figure out ways to make it easier to do the right thing. So, you know, example from today, the fastest selling drug in history went virally was Viagra. Immediate invisible effect. And it was very good for the doctors, too. My dad was a urologist at the time, and he tripled the number of patients he had in his practice within, within weeks.

• 24:53Speaker 01

  And so, you know, that was just tremendous win-win. Surgery checklist, harder to sell. Cuts deaths, we just showed in South Carolina. Hospitals that adopted it got a 22% reduction in death compared to the hospitals that didn't complete the process because it's making a investment now for a gain later for many problems which are often not immediately visible to people.

• 25:20Stephen J. Dubner?

  It's interesting. And both, in both of your examples, it was the prevention that people ignore and the intervention that, of course, people gravitate toward.

• 25:28Speaker 01

  Yeah. And if you think about it, you know, this is climate change, right? It's the ultimate invisible delayed problem for which we may need to make a sacrifice now. And that is, you know, public health is full of examples like that. It's that kind of pain now for gain quite later. And it's hard to convince people not to ignore it because people want to not do the painful thing.

• 26:03Stephen J. Dubner?

  Coming up after the break, how do you get people to do the painful thing? And how the role of medical professionals is changing?

• 26:10Speaker 01

  No matter how smart you are, no matter how much training as a doctor or a nurse, you simply can't know it all. And we are now having to move from being cowboys delivering the care, I can do it all myself, to really pit crews.

• 26:26Stephen J. Dubner?

  That's coming up right after this.

• 26:42Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio, sponsored by Granola. You know that moment when a meeting ends and someone says, let's circle back on this next week, and everyone nods, but no one writes it down? Then next week rolls around and it's radio silence? That's why Granola exists. Granola is an AI-powered notepad built for the way real people actually meet. You take rough notes like you normally would, and in the background, Granola securely transcribes the meeting. Then it turns everything into clean, structured, actually useful notes when the meeting ends. And the best part? Granola works through your device's audio, which means it integrates seamlessly into the video conferencing tools you already use. No setup, no awkward bots. It's just your normal meeting with superpowers. If meetings are eating up your day, Granola is a no-brainer. You can try it totally free.

• 27:27Stephen J. Dubner?

  Just head to granola.ai/freakonomics. That's granola.ai/freakonomics to get your time back. Try it for free at granola.ai/freakonomics.

• 27:45Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Quince. You know those pieces in your closet that you find yourself wearing on repeat? The sweater that goes with everything? The perfect pair of pants? Or the tee you somehow always reach for first? Those are the pieces that make getting dressed easy, and that's what Quince does best. Quince focuses on high-quality wardrobe staples made with premium materials like 100% Mongolian cashmere, organic cotton, and merino wool. The styles are timeless, versatile, and designed to become the dependable pieces you reach for day after day. And it's not just clothing. Quince brings that same approach to everything they make, from hotel-quality bedding and bath to kitchen essentials and thoughtfully designed furniture. Find your next fall favorites at Quince.

• 28:28Stephen J. Dubner?

  Download the Quince app for app-exclusive offers, or go to quince.com/freak. Get free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK, too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E dot com slash freak.

• 28:49Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Progressive. Whoever says saving money is hard doesn't know that new customers who bundle and save with Progressive save hundreds because switching your home and auto insurance is better than cutting down on the things you love, like those iced lattes that help you get ready to face the day. So, switch your home and auto to Progressive and see if you could save and keep sipping away. Get your quote today at progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, affiliates and other insurers. Not available in all states.

• 29:29Stephen J. Dubner?

  Atul Gawande, surgeon, author, and healthcare researcher, has spent time thinking about the overall complexity of the healthcare ecosystem, as well as how big gains can be made by reducing basic medical errors.

• 29:45Stephen J. Dubner?

  So, Atul, your book, The Checkless Manifesto, was aimed at and proved really effective at eliminating all different sorts of medical errors. Obviously, there's been a lot of improvement, but the fact remains, at least as argued by some researchers, that medical errors of various sorts are as high as the third-highest leading cause of death in the US. Can you just talk about, I guess, the progress of the medical profession in decreasing iatrogenic effects in medicine and whether you feel successful reform can come from within the institution?

• 30:22Speaker 01

  So, I do think the pressure has to come from the outside. First of all, it's 2 million people a year pick up infections in hospitals that they didn't have when they went in. And then you add in that we have been the major source and contributor to the opioid epidemic. I was shocked to find the news and the data indicating that for my patients in surgery, if they are on a narcotic medication for more than seven days, 8% are likely to still be on that narcotic a year later. And that... Understanding that it's that addictive. We didn't have and we didn't build the systems in for that.

• 31:03Speaker 01

  And then that goes into a system where economically, we have the high school only educated population having a declining economic future and it fed right into the kind of deaths of despair. So we have major areas where we've made progress, but healthcare is made up of many, many different kinds of services and care.

• 31:38Stephen J. Dubner?

  Okay, what's the difference between a typical healthcare system and say, a restaurant chain like The Cheesecake Factory?

• 31:49Speaker 01

  You're referring to the article I wrote about-

• 31:51Stephen J. Dubner?

  With apologies to Atul Gawande, yes.

• 31:53Speaker 01

  About The Cheesecake Factory. Basically, what I was talking about was the idea that, you know, here's this restaurant chain, and yes, it's highly caloric, but The Cheesecake Factory's here have as much business as a medium sized hospital, 100 million in business a year. And they would cook to order every meal people had. And in order to make that happen, they have to run a whole process that they have real cooks, but then they have managers. And, you know, I was talking to one of the managers there about how would he make healthcare work? And his answer was, here's what I would do, but of course, you know, you guys do this. I would look to see what the best people are doing.

• 32:35Speaker 01

  I would find a way to turn that into a kind of recipe and then make sure everybody else is doing it and then see how far we improve and try learning again from that. And he said, you do that, right? And we don't, we don't do that.

• 32:50Stephen J. Dubner?

  So you identify the three things that something like The Cheesecake Factory does well, better than, let's say, a big hospital or hospital chain, as quality control, cost control, and innovation around service. Okay.

• 33:03Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 33:03Stephen J. Dubner?

  So when I read that, I think, okay, I get the point, and I very much enjoy the argument, especially coming from a surgeon. It's provocative and kind of delicious at the same time. But then I think, well, to be fair, there are a lot fewer variables in a restaurant than a hospital, a lot less mystery, and a much higher degree of difficulty in what you're trying to accomplish, right? So talk to me about how the cheesecake model realistically can be, if not applied, at least learned from in a healthcare setting.

• 33:31Speaker 01

  Yeah, I mean, the level of complexity and difficulty we're talking about here is on a whole nother scale. So, you know, they've got a phone book of a couple hundred, maybe, different things that they cook up for you when you go into Cheesecake Factory. In healthcare, for your 13 organ systems, we have 60,000 different diagnoses, 60,000 different ways your body can fail. And we have generated 6,000 drugs, 4,000 medical and surgical techniques and procedures, plus an uncounted number of ways to prevent those conditions. And we're trying to deploy that capability town by town to every person

• 34:12Speaker 01

  alive, regardless of their ability to pay. Now, you know, I've argued that is the most ambitious thing man has ever attempted, that human beings have ever attempted. You have to break it down. And I think there are a few key systems that start with what is the basic primary care? And how do we make sure that the financing optimizes that system? Because that's one of the most life-extending things that you get to have. How do we make the surgery system work? The average person will have eight operations in their lifetime. Everybody's born, so we need that process to work. Everybody's going to need an emergency room at one point or another. So how do we make that actually work better? We're all

• 34:54Speaker 01

  going to come to the end of life. I think breaking it down that way and recognizing you might need different payment models, different innovation for each of them. That that we would actually be able to make substantial progress and each of them in a way is now reducible to a Cheesecake Factory like a sense of, you know, what are the best people doing? How do I distill that into a manageable recipe and enable it for as many people as possible?

• 35:22Stephen J. Dubner?

  I feel like I hear so many pieces of the solution from different quadrants. And I guess my my wonder would be whether it will work because the medical and healthcare system is obviously large and complex with many players, with many incentives, which are often kind of perversely misaligned. And so I'm curious if you really think that it can be addressed in a kind of radical improvement that it sounds like you want and will accept the sort of collaborators that perhaps it needs to invite in?

• 36:02Speaker 01

  Well, the fragmentation won't get it will not be solved just by a technical fix like making a better computer system. The, you know, the big mistake we have, the thing that's breaking our back now, is that we've tied healthcare coverage to where you work. And if you don't work, well, then we've got all kinds of systems that we've had to then create outside of it. And so it's become this kind of fragmented mess. And the reality is that work is changing too. So that employment based, everybody gets a different kind of approach in healthcare is breaking down. The economists Lawrence Katz and Alan Krueger

• 36:45Speaker 01

  looked at the last decade of net new job growth and 94% of the net new jobs have been in forms of employment where there are no healthcare benefits, freelancers, independent contractors, temporary workers. And so

• 36:59Stephen J. Dubner?

  And that's kind of good news because economists always used to worry about job lock, that people were not willing to do what they wanted to do just because they had to hang on to their their current healthcare insurance.

• 37:08Speaker 01

  The problem is Obamacare is a stopgap solution where people who don't have coverage can go out and buy it. And the hope was that that system would be one that then could grow to become the system. One of the things that we did in analyzing what coverage has done over the last 10 years is we found that it has dramatically improved people's health status and also generated mortality reductions. But the way it does it is not because it gives you coverage for emergencies. People become more likely to have a regular source of care. And having a regular source of care over time, over years, at about five years, you start seeing these substantial reductions in mortality.

• 37:49Speaker 01

  And that idea that you could have consistent, regular source of care is crucial to the whole way healthcare now creates its value. In the age of high deductible health plans, that is disastrous for primary care because that is one of the things that people immediately sacrifice.

• 38:08Stephen J. Dubner?

  Right. So you're talking now about the value of incrementalism and prevention in medicine. You've written in the past, governments everywhere tend to drastically undervalue incrementalism and overvalue heroism. And that goes for, I guess, inspecting bridges versus inspecting patients. So the fact is, if you look at the economics of healthcare currently, the highest paying jobs, among doctors at least, are all the potential heroes, the interventionalists, the orthopedics, cardiology, dermatology, gastroenterology, et cetera, et cetera. And the lowest paid are all the incrementalists and the preventives, the pediatrics, endocrinology, family medicine, and so on. So that would

• 38:51Stephen J. Dubner?

  strike me as a big, big, big ship to move, considering how much money is at stake. And I'm curious what kind of ideas or solutions you might have for that.

• 39:01Speaker 01

  Well, I mean, first of all, is to understand why that came about. And it, you know, in the 1950s, 1960s, when the basis of insurance got established, it was really only the heroic stuff that we knew anything about. You know, penicillin was coming in after you had the pneumonia. We didn't know high blood pressure existed and that it mattered. The dramatic change was we got the computational power to follow people over time, discover what you could do now that would have a benefit in five years, 10 years, 20 years. In fact, with the data we now have, we basically are all pre-existing conditions waiting to happen, which is why it's so crucial to have coverage that enables people to be assured regardless of their pre-existing conditions.

• 39:46Speaker 01

  Now, we want to pay for the incremental needs. Already, we're at about 30% of Medicare patients are being seen by clinicians who are being paid and incentivized to keep them out of the hospital, keep them out of the emergency room. And as that happens, you're starting to see health plans that are designed around strengthening the whole primary care base.

• 40:09Stephen J. Dubner?

  And there is a lot of evidence, as I understand it at least, that access to primary care physicians just generally has a pretty great effect overall on outcomes, yes?

• 40:18Speaker 01

  It's sort of, you know, murky on the long-term cost. You have to follow for a long time, and it's still debated about what needs to come together. But if you have a regular source of care for the majority of your medical needs, and it's usually with a primary care physician, you have improved survival, better infant mortality for kids, you have better overall health, there's a variety of indicators.

• 40:43Stephen J. Dubner?

  I guess that's also addressing an essential component of medicine generally, which is the feedback loop. So you're a surgeon, so you're in one of the few realms where the feedback is quick and fairly thorough. Can you talk for a minute about the problem of getting good feedback and what's being done to improve that?

• 41:00Speaker 01

  It's a huge problem, even in surgery. I don't have a direct feedback loop to really understand, how are they doing 30 days from now? How are they doing 90 days from now? Did the operation succeed? Did it not in making their life better? You'll find out a year later what the average result was for your hospital's patients. In other fields, it's an even looser one, you know, the radiologist who has to make a call on what the diagnosis is. Doesn't often get much feedback on whether they made a bad call unless they get sued. And that chance to close that feedback loop is crucial when we have now so many more people involved in care because any one of us only has a piece of the care and to see the net

• 41:44Speaker 01

  result requires us to have data. And that's why it's so powerful and important and people have been talking so much about how data-driven healthcare is so fundamental to where we're going. You basically are peering through a tiny little keyhole pointed in the wrong direction to figure out what happens to people as they journey through care.

• 42:10Stephen J. Dubner?

  How firmly do you believe in the digital revolution to really remake the feedback loop in medicine?

• 42:17Speaker 01

  Well, we're in the MS-DOS phase of computerization in healthcare, right? At this point, I'm a glorified data entry clerk. I spend more time doing data entry in my office than I do seeing my patients and that's just broken. So our systems are incredibly optimized for sending bills. I can send a bill in like three keystrokes, but recording an allergy can be four different screens. So it's not built to set a goal for care and then accomplish it. We've seen some early fantastic things, you know, computerized ordering of medications vastly increased the safety of being prescribed a medication.

• 42:58Speaker 01

  It used to be that the pharmacists were having to interpret the scrawl of a physician and they'd get the dose or even the medicine completely wrong. So, you know, we're at the stage where it's ripe for the apple of healthcare to come knock the C-prompt out.

• 43:21Speaker 01

  We're in this incredible flourishing right now. Your care is changing dramatically. The biggest user of electronic health records and the fastest growing users of health, electronic health records are patients themselves accessing it on their phones. Secondly, you have the introduction of apps and FDA now clearing the way for software applications to be prescribed and given to people as part of their care. We have wearables. That 20-minute visit that you might have once in a while could be tremendously enabled through everything from classes you can take in groups if you have diabetes or high

• 44:02Speaker 01

  blood pressure to interactions over applications, email, people doing hospital at home. Acute pneumonia can be treated now at home, not only equal, but often better with faster recovery.

• 44:17Stephen J. Dubner?

  I'm curious what evidence there is for the efficacy of patients using electronic health records. Does it make the interaction with the doctor better? Or potentially, I could see it leading to hypochondria and overconsumption of medical services without better outcomes?

• 44:37Speaker 01

  Yeah, so there's this really interesting movement called Open Notes, where systems open up all your notes, what doctors wrote about you, to full access. It started at the Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital here in Boston, and everybody freaked out, like, you know, people are gonna be calling me. They've found several things. First of all, no tremendous backlash from the patients. The patients were much more likely to understand the instructions and the diagnosis they have. They improved adherence to certain medications that were being measured. The next big move that they've begun experimenting is with letting patients enter things into

• 45:22Speaker 01

  the record, too. Put their own information in, any kind of logs they have, comment on the notes that the clinicians has, register if they think something might be incorrectly recorded. Patients have found errors in the, in the records and been able to correct them.

• 45:37Stephen J. Dubner?

  I'd love to hear a bit more from you on longevity. So after decades of incredibly impressive gains, it seems we're in some places leveling off and maybe even going back a bit. I'm just curious, given medicine, genomics, et cetera, et cetera, you've written a lot and well about what can be done to improve the current state of end of life care. So I'm, I'm curious to hear both those thoughts, longevity and what to do at the end, whenever the end comes.

• 46:09Speaker 01

  Yeah. So let me try piecing these apart. Number one on longevity. So, you know, we're, we're now at about an 80 year life expectancy and a century ago, so in 1900, the average lifespan was 47 years. So we're living 30 plus years longer than that on average with what we've discovered over the last century.

• 46:31Stephen J. Dubner?

  But we should say that number was always heavily, heavily, heavily affected by infant mortality. Yes?

• 46:36Speaker 01

  Absolutely. But it is a huge deal that in the course of this century, we've cut the likelihood of, of infant mortality by 20 fold, that we took the biggest killer of women, childbirth, and, and virtually eliminated it. We still have a ways to go. But I think the, the, the first thing about our lifespan is that just with existing discoveries and executing on them, I think we'll be able to push the average person being able to get 85 years and beyond. We're making discoveries that are already reducing the rate of dementia as a major killer. And that will change, I think, the prospects of late life.

• 47:25Speaker 01

  So then the second thing is that we're actually, even though we're living longer, we're spending less of that time with disability. And now that said, we still, on average, have about eight years of significant disability, where you depend on others for part of your daily needs. And that is the big deal to me in the, in the next phase of work that has to be done. Most of where we provide help to people is entirely along the lines of, you know, focusing on safety and survival. The focus is on how do we reduce the number of falls you have? How do we make sure you get all your medications on time?

• 48:10Speaker 01

  Those are all good things, but they have nothing to do with the purpose and joy and meaning of getting to live a life. And people are miserable in these situations where you have to rely on the help of others to, to prosper in your life. There is, I think, a revolution of, it's still a minority, but of places that are focused on people's wellbeing, not just their survival, as a part of their purpose. And that sense of asking routinely the questions that really matter, you know, between adult children and parents, is what we're just starting to do.

• 48:52Speaker 01

  The questions like, what is the minimum quality of life you'd find acceptable? Can I have a drink at the end of the day? What are your fears and what are your hopes, even if your health worsens? What are your opportunities for growth? You know, my mom turned 80 and she just moved into a retirement community that is on a college campus where-

• 49:13Stephen J. Dubner?

  Oh, wow.

• 49:14Speaker 01

  They, she, she goes to classes. She writes papers. She gets to do a little teaching and lecturing here and there, too. And, and, you know, and why not? And she needs help, but you, there's no reason that you can't be that way.

• 49:29Stephen J. Dubner?

  Does she drop in on a kegger once in a while, or is that not really her thing?

• 49:33Speaker 01

  She, she invites them over for a drink once in a while at her place. And also, she's, can't drive anymore, so now she also learned from the students how to order Lyft. It's kind of fun and hilarious.

• 49:46Stephen J. Dubner?

  Let me ask you this. When I think about what we call healthcare, I think about medicine and then healthcare delivery is kind of two almost separate channels. And I'm just curious if you even buy that premise. Which area of those two is in more need of an upgrade?

• 50:04Speaker 01

  Well, I think they are part and parcel of the same thing. So, medicine and healthcare delivery to me are our ability to address people's medical needs, ranging from being able to work on prevention and primary acute sickness, to managing chronic illness, to mental health issues, and palliative care when you become seriously ill. And that range, which includes diagnosing, treating, helping people stay on track, and managing teams

• 50:46Speaker 01

  that can do that extremely well, that is medicine, delivered appropriately. In some sense, we want to distinguish between, you know, what are the breakthroughs? And we've made a century of incredible breakthroughs, and we have more to come in Alzheimer's, in metastatic cancer, in other unsolved problems like in immune diseases. And as those discoveries come online, we have ignored the innovations necessary to make them get to everybody, to be delivered widely, and missed out on the big opportunities. The biggest opportunity to advance health and save lives is really in the systems innovation, and not just the front-end discovery.

• 51:43Speaker 01

  The volume of knowledge and skill required to take good care of people has exceeded the capability of any individual in the system, period. No matter how smart you are, no matter how much training as a doctor or a nurse, you simply can't know it all. And we are now having to move from being cowboys delivering the care, "I can do it all myself," to really pit crews. And the most effective way of doing it is that you have a doctor and a nurse and maybe a social worker and maybe a health coach taking care of a population of patients and dividing and conquering and communicating. And that is what we actually do still only a minority of the time.

• 52:27Speaker 01

  That's the big transition we're undergoing in healthcare and it affects all of what we discussed, access, cost and delivery. And that's where the big transformative opportunity comes from because the most expensive places in the country are not getting you the best results. It's often the lowest cost places and part of the secret of the lowest cost places is they behave more like teams, they behave more like systems. Are you hopeful overall? I am. And the reason why is because, you know, I know it's a friggin' mess. But on the whole, even in the short time that I've gotten to be a clinician, you know, it's been about 14 years I've been practicing as a surgeon.

• 53:12Speaker 01

  And during that time, we've cut the number of uninsured by half. I live in a state that completely eliminated whether we have people who are uninsured. It's not perfect, but we are, a lot of our work in surgery, for example, my field, we have cut the death rate by 30 to 40% in the time that I've been doing this work. While we've been cutting the death rate, you- Now typically go home the same day from these kinds of operations. And then you add in what we've been able to do around primary healthcare and the discovery that we can act early in your life, knowing genomics, knowing the profile of what you have, knowing things about your neighborhood and your environment.

• 53:57Speaker 01

  We are, we are delivering more and more capacity for improving people's health. And then even at the end of life, you know, less than a decade ago, we had less than 20% of people who would be anywhere except in an institution as they came to the end of life. They're, they had, they, they had higher rates of suffering, they had massively higher costs, and they did not live longer. They typically live shorter. We're now at about 50% end up at home in hospice. The lifespan and coming to the end of life has now become part of our culture and our society, and it's shifting. So I, I've seen these things happen.

• 54:38Speaker 01

  I've got to participate in some of it and, and it's, you know, there's a lot of continued problems we've got to work on. They're, they're really big deals and big opportunities. But it's not like we have failed to make progress. We've, we've, we've been moving the ball down the road.

• 54:55Stephen J. Dubner?

  Well, you are awesome and congratulations on your continuing burgeoning successes on many fronts.

• 55:06Speaker 01

  Thank you. That's very nice of you to say.

• 55:08Stephen J. Dubner?

  Well, it's great to see someone who's so good at so many things get acknowledged for being good. So I like that.

• 55:16Speaker 01

  It's just waiting, waiting for the hammer to come down. Eventually, eventually the blow will come.

• 55:26Stephen J. Dubner?

  May it never fall.

• 55:40Stephen J. Dubner?

  Coming up next time on Freakonomics Radio, today, we heard about the medicine of today. Next time, we'll hear about the medicine of tomorrow.

• 55:48Speaker 03

  At its core, the CRISPR gene editing technology is now giving human beings the opportunity to change the course of evolution.

• 56:00Stephen J. Dubner?

  What's it feel like to help launch a new phase in humanities development?

• 56:05Speaker 03

  And I realized with this horror, and I can feel it right now as I'm telling you this story, I feel this chill in my body, that I realized that it was Adolf Hitler.

• 56:14Stephen J. Dubner?

  Evolution accelerated. That's next time on Freakonomics Radio.

• 56:20Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is produced by WNYC Studios and Dubner Productions. This episode was produced by Stephanie Tam. Our staff also includes Alison Hockenberry, Merritt Jacob, Greg Rosalsky, Max Miller, Harry Huggins, and Andy Meisenheimer. The music you hear throughout the episode was composed by Luis Guerra. You can subscribe to Freakonomics Radio on Apple Podcasts, or Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts. You should also check out our archive at Freakonomics.com. There, you can stream or download every episode we've ever made. You can also find the transcripts and links to the underlying academic research. We can also be found on Twitter, and Facebook, and LinkedIn, or via email at [email protected]. Thanks for listening.

• 57:11Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Ozempic. Innovation happens through rethinking what's possible. And when it comes to GLP-1s, Ozempic pill does just that. Learn more about Ozempic semaglutide tablets, 4 and 9mg, by calling 1-833-OZEMPIC, or visit Ozempic.com to view the medication guide, and ask your doctor what's possible with FDA-approved Ozempic pill.

• 57:41Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Southern Company. The world and its energy needs are always changing. Southern Company's commitment to meeting this demand stays the same. That's because Southern Company believes energy is more than a utility. It's what powers possibilities. So they are looking ahead and investing $80 billion in infrastructure upgrades and are committed to fueling growth in ways that benefit all customers so that reliable and affordable energy is accessible for generations to come. Go to southerncompany.com to learn more. Southern Company, building the future of energy.

• 58:19Speaker 04

  Hey, listeners, I'm Ash.

• 58:21Speaker 05

  And I'm Alena.

• 58:22Speaker 04

  And we are so excited to have joined the SiriusXM family.

• 58:29Speaker 05

  And you know what? If you want to keep hearing new episodes of Morbid ad free, subscribe to SiriusXM Podcast Plus on Apple Podcasts or visit siriusxm.com/podcastsplus to listen with Spotify or another app of your choice. Let's go.

• 58:48Speaker 06

  This episode is brought to you by Charles Schwab. Is there a right time to sell a stock? Are you taking the right risks with your portfolio? Financial decisions can be tricky, and often, your own cognitive and emotional biases can lead you astray. Financial Decoder, an original podcast from Charles Schwab, can help. Join host Mark Reapy as he offers practical solutions to help overcome the cognitive and emotional biases that may affect your investing decisions. Listen at schwab.com/financialdecoder.