Over 400,000 people visited Farnam Street last month to learn how to make better decisions, create new ideas, and avoid stupid errors. With more than 98,000 subscribers to our popular weekly digest, we've become an online intellectual hub. To learn more about we what do, start here.

Atul Gawande Interview by Charlie Rose

Dr. Atul Gawande, is the New York Times bestselling author of Better: A Surgeon’s Notes on Performance , Complications: A Surgeon’s Notes on an Imperfect Science, and The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right .

CHARLIE ROSE:  Atul Gawande is here.  He’s a surgeon at Brigham and

Women’s hospital in Boston.  He’s an associate professor at the Harvard

University teaching at the medical school and the school of public health.

       He’s also Staff writer for the “New Yorker” magazine.  Over the past

year he has emerged as an important voice in the debate over health care

reform.

       His articles have become required reading in the Obama administration.

He has written about the regional differences in health care expenses, the

history of health care reform around the world, and other subjects.

       His book is called “The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right.”

I am pleased to have him back at this table.  Welcome.

       ATUL GAWANDE:  Thank you for having me, Charlie.

       CHARLIE ROSE:  Health care reform, if it passes, the president

believes it will be the most important social legislation in a long time.

What do you think of it?

       ATUL GAWANDE:  It is two things — an amazing leap forward in

coverage, finally committing ourselves to the idea that people shouldn’t be

excluded from care because of preexisting conditions or because you don’t

have enough money to get that cancer treatment.

       That alone is an enormous leap.  I’m a cancer surgeon and it was a

routine part of my life that you would have uninsured patients struggling

for how they get their care.

       The second part that this reform bill is beginning to tackle and that

we’re just coming to grips with as a country is what we do to make our

health system better in terms of improving the quality and lowering the

cost that have become crippling for our economy.

       And the answers for how to deal with coverage, we’ve been debating

them, but they’ve been on the shelf through 30 or 40 years.  You can cover

through private insurers, you can cover through government insurance, we

can battle that back and forth.

       What to do on cost and coverage, how to make care actually better for

you, that we’re just unlocking now.

       CHARLIE ROSE:  And what are we finding?

       ATUL GAWANDE:  We’re finding that if we don’t pass reform we’ll just

continue muddling along not generally improving the organization of care.

But when we pass reform, the unnerving thing is this is just the start of

solving these problems.

       We know, for example, we don’t pay physicians the right way.  Paying

fee for service means we’re paying for quantity instead of paying doctors

to be organized…

       CHARLIE ROSE:  So in other words it encourages doctors to do things

that are not really necessary.

       ATUL GAWANDE:  It can, and we’ve seen it.

       The idea of being able to change the way we pay physicians in

hospitals, we know we have to do it.  We don’t know what the best way to do

it is, and so the reform package offers pilot programs, ideas that are

experiments for communities to try different ways of paying their

physicians and hospitals and seeing what the results are.

       That’s going to mean community by community tough things to try, but

rewards for those who begin to get it right.

       CHARLIE ROSE:  OK, let me ask you this — suppose your best friend is

serving in the United States Senate.

       (LAUGHTER)

       ATUL GAWANDE:  Odd job for my friends, but we’ll…

       CHARLIE ROSE:  Let’s assume.  And he or she says to you “Look, a lot

of things I wanted are not in this bill.  But is this a sufficiently good

bill — the one passed in the Senate — so that it will make a difference

and it’s important that we have it now, or should I vote against it because

I believe we need to start all over and do what’s right?”

       ATUL GAWANDE:  In my mind it is no question that it is more than

sufficient to vote for the reform bills that are emerging.

       It may be that I’m partly easy to please.  Having struggling as a

clinician and someone seeing the kind of ways in which our health system is

harming people, I’m interested in forward progress, and I see significant

forward progress here.  It is enormous progress to be able to provide ways

to cover people across the country.

       I would have loved for there to be a government insurance option as a

backstop for people’s coverage.

       CHARLIE ROSE:  And also to become competitive with the insurance

companies?

       ATUL GAWANDE:  Yes.  But in Massachusetts we’ve had a system that

looks a lot like Switzerland’s, and it’s only been in place for two years.

But we offer for people who are not insured, you can sign up through the

web, private insurance options that are subsidized, limited so you don’t

pay more than eight percent of your income but you can get your coverage.

       CHARLIE ROSE:  But has that mess coverage been fault-free?

       ATUL GAWANDE:  No, but we’ve covered 98 percent of our population.

It’s been two years since I’ve had a patient who couldn’t get coverage for

their cancer.

       CHARLIE ROSE:  Two years — every patient who had cancer who need

coverage in Massachusetts who was a patient of yours has gotten insurance

coverage?

       ATUL GAWANDE:  I had 15 percent of my patients who couldn’t cover

their bills because they didn’t have adequate insurance coverage two and a

half years ago.  And now it’s been two years since I’ve seen anyone where

we’ve had to struggle through those problems.  And in fact, it’s so much a

thing of the past you almost can’t remember when this kind of problem was

routine.

       That’s a huge step forward.

       Where are the faults?  There was nothing in that plan for controlling

costs.  The costs have not exploded in Massachusetts.  Our costs are going

up just like everyone else in the country.  We’ve been able to afford the

package.

       But we are only now coming to grips with controlling the costs and

trying the experiments that start to make the right kinds of clinical

decisions.

       This is where the debate really gets interesting.  Health care costs

are not about the insurance companies.  It’s about the time when you sit

down with your doctor and you have a headache and you ask yourself “Do I

need a head CT?  Can I get a head CT?  Do I need an MRI?  Should I get

blood tests?  Should I get an operation?”

       The answers to those questions are we haven’t made it so we’re

organized to get good answers for people’s care.  We are sometimes over-

providing.  We’re getting way too many of these kinds of tests in

situations where we actually add harm to people.  And then we miss it as

key times when that headache was a tumor that should have been caught.

       So getting these steps right is about organizing that front line of

care to be smarter, better, and less wasteful in our decisions.

       CHARLIE ROSE:  Do you think we’ll be surprised about the cost and it

will not be as expected by the Obama administration?

       ATUL GAWANDE:  Yes.  I think that there are a couple things that will

happen.  We will find unexpected places where the costs are going to

actually be controlled better than we thought and we’ll have unexpected

places where the costs are higher than we thought

       CHARLIE ROSE:  More the latter than the former?

       ATUL GAWANDE:  If we break it down, when we implemented the coverage

system in Massachusetts, it came in under budget, to our surprise.  I think

we’ll find that the economic burden is not as severe as we imagine and fear

it to be.

       I think that our effort to control costs — the bill expects that our

costs will not be well controlled at all.  I think we will find areas where

the costs will be better than we imagined, and that on the whole because

costs are better that we’ll find that that will work out to be an

improvement.

       But there are some budget gimmicks in the system.  There’s savings,

for example, by creating a long-term care plan, which is going to be a

fantastic thing.  But because people are paying premiums into it ahead of

time, we’re counting it as covering the cost of the bill.  That’s a

gimmick.  It will not cover up the fact that we have to get our health

system costs under better control.

       So on the whole, the test for us is I think we can in the next five to

ten years control our costs to be less than they’re targeted to be.

       CHARLIE ROSE:  If we can’t we’re in deep trouble, aren’t we?

       ATUL GAWANDE:  If we can’t, we’re in deep trouble.  And this is about

community by community working to make our systems better.  And answers are

not really going to come out of Washington after this bill.

       And so that’s why I said I think we’ll have communities where the

costs are going to skyrocket just as much as they’ve been.  But we will

find communities that have taken the tools that the bill has had and found

answers, and then our tests will come about three to four years from now.

       Will we use those answers and bring — make everybody adopt them

across the country?

       CHARLIE ROSE:  You pointed to regional differences in an article that

got enormous attention.  Why are there these regional differences and will

this bill, this health reform package, impact them?

       ATUL GAWANDE:  The regional differences have to do with — in some

communities they’re demonstrably lower costs and higher quality than

average.  And in other communities they’re not.

       I pointed to two counties in Texas that are almost identical public

health statistics, both poor countries, both high rates of immigration,

both high rates of diabetes and cardiac disease, but one community costs

twice as much per person for health care than the other.

       And the answer was the care was more disorganized in that other

community, medicine was more about a business, there was — people had

chased the incentives where they say you should follow them.  But that had

resulted in less preventative care, less primary care, less mental health

care and then twice as many operations, twice as many certain kinds of

radiologic procedures.

       CHARLIE ROSE:  Fee for service and stuff?

       ATUL GAWANDE:  Yes.

       And the interesting part is that not all communities have taken

incentives and run this way.  We picked out ten communities that ranged

from Sacramento, California, to Tallahassee, Florida, that were finding

ways to lower costs and have higher quality of care.

       And the answers were they were starting to pay their doctors

differently.  They were looking at answering questions like why are we

doing so many CT scans when we know that the radiation actually increases

risks of certain cancers and we have not been smart about making sure we’re

using them at the right time and the right place?

       And they were tackling these problems even though it could mean that

they would make less money.

       Now changing incentive can accelerate that process and there are

components in the bill to drive that.

       But the part that troubles me and actually led to my writing the book

is that on a clinical level we in medicine have said making care go well

and making it so that you have higher cost and lower cost, that’s for

somebody else to deal with.  It’s for us to deal with.

       When we have these questions about what’s the right way to provide

surgical care, we’d see over and over we haven’t provided antibiotics to

prevent infections at the right time and the right place.  We’ve missed

making sure blood is available at key times.

       Or we had to have people on the team who actually knew each other’s

name and who were prepared to work as a team together to solve this

problem.  We found there are simple things you can do.  You can make a

checklist — take an idea like from aviation and implement it.

       CHARLIE ROSE:  People at the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic, the

leaders of those two institutions were vocal in terms of talking about

health care reform.  Are they satisfied with this bill or do they think

this bill will do more harm than good?

       ATUL GAWANDE:  I don’t know the answer to that.  And I don’t think

that’s the litmus test here.

       CHARLIE ROSE:  Because their reputation — they have reputations of

quality care.

       ATUL GAWANDE:  Yes.  What I had read recently is that both Mayo Clinic

and Cleveland Clinic had backed the packages coming out.  But this isn’t

about whether one hospital clinic or another is able…

       CHARLIE ROSE:  Believes it’s the right way to go.

       ATUL GAWANDE:  Exactly.  We are all incredibly invested in our own

perspectives on this.

       What is much more interesting though is whether the group of places

that are achieving higher quality and lower cost, whether we are learning

from them and have the components in this kind of health care bill to drive

more doctors to try those lessons, to —

       Here’s the way I would put it.  Are we ready in any county in America

to take on a project as a community of doctors and hospitals to say, you

know what, we can make health care lower cost and higher quality?  I think

all we need is one county this will take on that task.  I know we can do

it.  We have seen many countries around the world…

       CHARLIE ROSE:  Wait a minute, you’re saying today at this moment if

there’s one county this will take on the fact and has the commitment and

the will that we can have better care at lower cost, it can be done and it

will be a role model for the rest of the country?

       ATUL GAWANDE:  Absolutely.

       CHARLIE ROSE:  Well, how hard is that to do?

       ATUL GAWANDE:  The reform bill has the tools for a county to do it.

We are in a system that leads doctors into hospitals to be completely — we

pay everybody completely separate bills, and the result is nobody gets

together to say — I grew up in Athens County, Ohio, a small county in

southeastern, Ohio.  We know in that county that there are human beings

like everybody else, which means there are 13,000 diagnoses, 13,000 ways

that the people of that county’s bodies will fail.

       And can we organize the care in our county to say we know what we’ll

do at least to make sure the half dozen key things go right for each of the

key problems that people are going to hit?

       CHARLIE ROSE:  Why is this such a volatile issue?

       ATUL GAWANDE:  Well, only because it’s 18 percent of our economy now,

only because…

       CHARLIE ROSE:  And that’s the highest percentage of any economy in the

world?

       ATUL GAWANDE:  Right, by several percentage points.

       CHARLIE ROSE:  More than several, five or six or seven or eight.

       ATUL GAWANDE:  Yes.  Also because this employs almost 20 percent of

our work force indirectly or directly, so everybody working has a stake in

it.  And because we all get sick and we all worry.  What our greatest

sphere is not — we fear losing what we’ve got, and that when that moment

comes that we need it to be there, it won’t be done right.

       CHARLIE ROSE:  When push comes to shove, everybody’s health is the

most important thing they have, and they worry that somehow somebody’s

going to tamper with something for them, for them, that’s going to make

health care less good.

       ATUL GAWANDE:  Here’s the thing.  We’ve got a used car, and we

consider it pretty clunky and we’re not entirely happy with it, and it’s

breaking down.  Are we willing to trade in for the next car?

       Whatever the problem that car has, we’re going to blame it on the guy

who sold it to us — Obama and the Democrats.  But we are — the choices

are a hard one, because we are afraid of losing what we’ve got, we’re

watching this thing go down the tubes, harm our economy.  None of us are

entirely happy with the way care unfolds for us, and we will only begin

tackling the problem if we begin trying that next car.

       CHARLIE ROSE:  Is there a perfect system somewhere where it really

works?

       ATUL GAWANDE:  No.

       CHARLIE ROSE:  No country, no city, state, no…

       ATUL GAWANDE:  There’s not even an imperfect system that really works

great.

       CHARLIE ROSE:  Anywhere in the world?
       ATUL GAWANDE:  The strange thing to me — I’ve been doing work with

the World Health Organization on how we improve surgical care anywhere, not

just in the United States.  I’ve seen care in Britain, in Canada, in

Jordan, in Manila, all over, in India.  The amazing thing is everybody’s

struggling over these same questions.  They’re having trouble controlling

the costs.  They’re having trouble making the care go right.

       And at the center of why it’s so hard, science has discovered 6,000

drugs, 4,000 medical and surgical procedures.  We’re trying to deploy them

town by town to get the right thing to the right place.  And as individual

clinicians, we find it incredibly hard because it is more complex than we

are currently able to handle.

       CHARLIE ROSE:  Because you’re a voice that people wanted to hear this

question — would the president have been better off if he’d done other

things, made other arguments, been more passionate about his own opinions

and his own decisions from early?

       ATUL GAWANDE:  It is hard for me — here’s the thing.  Results speak.

Nobody has taken the health care bill this far along.  I was one of those

people who was critical about the idea that Obama was going to be the lone

spokesperson behind this bill, because he’s distracted by many, many other

things, terrorism, foreign affairs, a lot of problems, the economy, and

there wouldn’t be enough focus.

       I also worried putting it in the pit of Congress it would just become

— it is a mess in some ways.  And yet each iteration of the bill — we’ve

been arguing about every single provision, mandates on employers and

individuals, abortion coverage.  We’ve fought our way through each of

these.

       I keep thinking you need him in there battling away because we’ll

never solve these problems without someone there.  And the public solves

these problems.  We keep moving on.

       We had people screaming about death panels in August.  I thought it

was the end of the bill.  Instead the American people didn’t change one

iota.  They continued to say “I don’t think this is a bill that’s going to

put death panels in place.” They recognized…

       CHARLIE ROSE:  No bureaucrat is going to make decisions about

grandmother.

       ATUL GAWANDE:  They recognized it was a joke.

       And they said — the debate was how are we seriously going to solve

these problems?  And I’ve been fascinated that we have as a country

continued to be putting one foot in front of the other, saying yes, it’s

messy.  This is not the prettiest way to solve problems, but we actually at

work.

       CHARLIE ROSE:  But in the end are you satisfied that in the end you

come up with a solution that’s better than what we had before?

       ATUL GAWANDE:  Yes, I think that’s without question.

       CHARLIE ROSE:  If you had to start all over and you could design a

system, what would it look like?  Would it be a single payer system?

       ATUL GAWANDE:  Well…

       CHARLIE ROSE:  What would be the essential ingredients for a system

that worked best from all that you know?

       ATUL GAWANDE:  Part of it — part of my reluctance to answer that

question is that I don’t think any system gets cooked up that way.  We

don’t — when I looked at how other countries adopted their health care

systems, no one sat in a committee room and decided that Britain would be a

government takeover of healthcare and that France would be run by unions

and employer organized care.

       CHARLIE ROSE:  Or that Canada would have a single payer.

       ATUL GAWANDE:  Yes.  Instead it was that the historical moment was, in

Britain, in World War — they had a private, entirely privately run,

largely privately run system.  In World War II the blitz emptied London out

of millions of people.  They went into the countryside and there was no

health care there.  The government had to do something.

       So they started building hospitals and employing doctors to staff

them.  And so when the war ended you suddenly had a largely government-run

system.

       And then when Churchill started addressing the question, “Now, how do

we organize health care after the war?” Churchill, a conservative, ended up

being on the side of “Let’s go with the system we’ve got,” which was

largely government run there.

       So my answer to you is I — if we were in a system where we had

Medicare for everybody, I think that would be a great system.  If we had a

system we where we had private insurance plans for everybody, I think it

could be a great system, too.  The devil is in the details.  You can make a

terrible system under either one of those…