Why Aren’t Hospitals Incentivized To Save Lives?
What makes hospitals so deadly, and how can we fix it?
by A Medical Doctor
Story at a Glance
Throughout COVID-19, abysmal hospital care and the suppression of effective off-patent therapies killed approximately a million Americans. Much of this originated from Obamacare pressuring hospitals to aggressively treat patients so they could quickly leave the hospital and reduce healthcare costs.
More frail patients respond poorly to aggressive protocols, resulting in them frequently being pushed into palliative care or hospice. Sadly doctors are no longer trained to gradually bring their patients back to health, and hence view many of those deaths as inevitable.
In this article, we will review some of the forgotten medical therapies that dramatically improve hospital outcomes and highlight some of the key strategies patients and lawmakers can use to reduce hospital deaths.
During COVID-19, we witnessed something previously unimaginable. A national emergency hospitalized thousands of Americans, who were cut off from their loved ones and inevitably died. It soon became clear that the hospital protocols did not work, but regardless of how futile conventional care was, patients in our hospitals could not get the alternative therapies they needed.
This led to a sobering realization throughout America—what many of us believed about our hospitals was utterly incorrect. Rather than help patients, hospitals effectively functioned like assembly lines that ran disastrous protocols (e.g., remdesivir), denied patients access to their loved ones, and refused to use alternative therapies even when it was known the patients were otherwise expected to die.
This was best illustrated by a travel nurse who was assigned to the New York hospital with the highest death tolls in the nation and realized something very wrong was happening throughout the hospital, so she covertly recorded it.
Appallingly, the COVID-19 treatment protocols financially incentivized remdesivir (“run death is near”) and then ventilator care, but penalized effective off-patent treatments. As such, hospital administrators required deadly “treatments” like Remdesivir and retaliated against the doctors who used unprofitable treatments that saved lives.
Because of this murderous corruption, families began suing hospitals to allow the use of ivermectin for a relative who was expected to die (after being subjected to Fauci’s hospital COVID protocols). Remarkably, because there was so much money on the line, the hospitals chose to fight these lawsuits in court rather than just administer ivermectin.
Of the 80 lawsuits filed by lawyer Ralph Lorigo, in 40 the judge sided with the family, and in 40 with the hospital. Of those, in the 40 where patients received ivermectin, 38 survived, whereas of the 40 who did not, only 2 survived—in essence making suing a hospital arguably the most effective medical intervention in history. Yet rather than consider this data, the profit-focused hospitals banded together to develop an effective apparatus to dismiss further lawsuits.
As I had expected something like this to happen, shortly before the pandemic, I put a home treatment plan into place (e.g., by procuring high-powered oxygen concentrators and non-invasive ventilation). Numerous people in my immediate circle were successfully treated at home, many of whom would have otherwise been immediately hospitalized and likely died.
Note: Prior to COVID, we’d had other patients who merited hospitalization but simultaneously were likely to be put on the palliative care pipeline once admitted, so we’d already learned how to provide much of the care they needed at home.
Likewise, I also heard of more stories than I can count throughout the pandemic where a relative snuck an “unapproved” therapy to a patient in the hospital, saving the patient’s life.
Reductionist Realities
Every situation has two sides: the concrete factors and the intangible processes that lie between them. While modern science often focuses on optimizing the tangible, it tends to overlook the deeper essence of each phenomenon. However, those who nonetheless master these intangible aspects excel, as they solve a myriad of problems their peers cannot.
In medicine, this is clear in the contrast between algorithmic care—where doctors follow strict protocols—and the art of medicine, which involves critical thinking, individualized treatment plans, and nurturing the doctor-patient relationship, which is key to healing. Unfortunately, medical training has increasingly shifted from fostering independent judgment to prioritizing corporate-driven guidelines, leaving little room for the art of care.
In tandem with this shift, the costs of American healthcare have ballooned.
Most remarkably, despite spending 2-4 times as much on healthcare as any other affluent nation, the United States has the worst healthcare outcomes amongst the affluent nations.
This I would argue, is a result of our healthcare spending prioritizing what corporate interests want, not what produces effective healthcare, and pervasive corruption being established throughout the government.
