Physician Patient


Minnesota Physician-Patient Alliance, Inc. ("MPPA") is a not-for-profit organization committed to improving our health care system. We do this by communicating information to the public and within the industry about important health care issues.

MPPA believes that efficient, quality health care depends on strong doctor-patient relationships. Interference in the doctor-patient relationship by third parties such as health plans and the government, is widespread in today's health care system and often limits what doctors or patients are allowed to do, altering market-based reimbursement, and undermining the traditional ethics of the medical professions. While the intentions of the third parties in interfering with the relationship may be honorable (for example, to control costs or improve quality), ironically the cumulative effect of this interference is unnecessarily high costs and reduced quality. Efforts to reform health care, therefore, must first and foremost address the issue of strong doctor-patient relationships.

The MPPA board consists of physicians, health care consumers, and others who share these concerns and values. We seek to communicate our message by collaborating on research and publication, sharing information about market developments, and individually being active in a variety of health care and community organizations.

To see who belongs to MPPA, please visit our Who We Are page by clicking on the link to the right. To see some of our communications, click on one of the Publications links to the right. If you would like to learn more about MPPA or our positions, click on the Contact Us link to the right.

MPPA was established in 1997 as a Minnesota 501(c)3 charitable nonprofit organization. If you would like to be added to the MPPA listserv, the respected MPPA online discussion group, send us your contact information and we will add you.

Jun 24

Katherine Kersten’s (June 21) Opinion article raises this important question: How can consumers (patients and families), taxpayers, and third party payers (employers, health plans, and government) evaluate the (growing) business of gender assignment, reassignment, and medical (hormonal) or surgical treatment for gender dysphoria? At Minneapolis Children’s Hospital a new program is doing this:

The motivation for professional gender dysphoria diagnosis and treatment may be altruistic, economic or other. But how scientific and clinically sound is this new business?

As a retired adult and addiction psychiatrist with no clinical experience treating gender dysphoric children (although I’ve heard concerns from a few of their parents), my chief concern is how the gender dysphoria diagnosis is conceptualized as a medical or mental disorder and the consequences to patients, the medical profession and society when our US health care system embraces “standards of care” such as
Society and politicians need to be informed about the ethical and economic underpinnings of the rationale by our major health care institutions such as Minneapolis and Boston Children’s Hospitals which now sponsor and promote insurance and government supported programs for hormone and surgical interventions geared to help gender dysphoric children (and adults). To my knowledge, these diagnostic assessments and treatments are based on psychological assessments of gender identity often in flux, as described by professor Eli Coleman at the University of Minnesota
Moreover, we need to know much more about the consequences of implementing these hormonal and surgical interventions on suicide and medical morbidity, and we we need to consider advice to the public (and professions) about “best practices” for psychotherapy. Beware of government edicts.
On what assumptions and evidence are crucial psychological assessments of gender dysphoria based? We should ask psychiatrists and psychologists in the academic and practicing communities  familiar with these questions to offer their recommendations.  Sally Satel, MD of Yale University (whom I do not know) comes to mind
We also need to ask the patients and their families about their experiences. Hopefully they will receive more and more social acceptance, more economic skin in the game, and more and better health care choices in the future.
May 31

Can employees benefit directly financially from employer-funded health care programs? If so, let’s discuss the evidence.

Companies like Activate (above) sell Direct Primary Care products to their employer clients. These are claimed to be cost-effective to the employer’s bottom line.

However, we must do better. Health care funding products should incentivize patients (consumers) to make cost-effective health care choices when evaluating and shopping for their health care. Are there “insurance” products available to employers which reward employees immediately and directly when they make (prudent) health care choices? What, in addition to funding patient controlled HSAs and HRAs, are employers willing to do to reward their employees (patients) when they seek out cost-effective medical care?
If employers see employee empowerment as being in their business interest (and we think it clearly is), this will be a boon to independent medical practices who (by definition) in providing personalized care seek to reduce health care costs by helping their patients to know and compare (whenever practical or feasible) real time health care prices for their medical care services and products (including medications).