Category Archives: General Cynicism

Hospital mergers: Not Good for the System or the Patient

Published in The Systhesis Project published by Robert Wood Johnson Foundation:

Hospital consolidation generally results in higher prices. This is true across geographic markets and different data sources. When hospitals merge in already concentrated markets, the price increase can be dramatic, often exceeding 20 percent.

Hospital competition improves quality of care. This is true under both administered price systems, such as Medicare and the English National Health Service, and market determined pricing such as the private health insurance market. The evidence is more mixed from studies of market determined systems, however.

Physician-hospital consolidation has not led to either improved quality or reduced costs. Studies find that consolidation was primarily for the purpose of enhanced bargaining power with payers, and hence did not lead to true integration. Consolidation without integration does not lead to enhanced performance.

Medicynical Note:  So consolidation costs more and doesn’t improve  care.  It also decreases choice, for example as when a religious based “Health”system dominates an area.  Not good. 

Vitamins—Triumph of hype over reason, but, then again, who needs facts

The medical industrial complex excels at creating disease states and then marketing “cures.”  The use of vitamins has been a recommendation for years for problems as disparate as  the common cold and cancer.  But always with the promise that it will do no harm….except to your pocketbook.

The some is good means that more must be better mentality (even with no evidence of either) has reigned for the last 60 or so years, particularly when one talks vitamins.  Megavits, vitamin C for what ails you, vitamins for the well nourished…..all are marketing triumphs.  It’s dubious that demand for them will change, even the  news that they do no good and indeed in some people may cause harm .

Multiple sources (here, here) quote the Annals of Internal Medicine study and editorialA review of vitamin use was published in the NY Times last June.

Medicynical Note:  I don’t think for one second that facts will alter America’s desire to do something, anything, even if it does nothing.

Hospital Costs: The ER Visit

We’ve talked about America’s high costs.  One reason is our overuse of ER’s for outpatient care.

The medical mafia makes a big deal about the “sacred” patient doctor relationship.  My experience the past several years is that first, there is nothing sacred going on here and second that the relationship is a somewhat romantic figment of our imagination–it no longer exists.

You realize, of course, that the solo practitioner has gone the way of dinosaurs.  For virtually everyone your family doctor (of one sort or another) is part of a group practice.  When you become ill more often than not you family doc, the guy/gal you have the sacred relationship with, is normally fully booked and you see another practitioner/nurse/physicians’ assistant.  Your doc may or may not even be aware that you have had a problem.  If you are hospitalized your care is turned over to yet another provider, the hospitalist.  Another doctor you have never met.

It’s even worse than implied above.  If you should have an emergency of one sort or another, real or not so real, you are advised to go to  the ER.  That shifts the responsibility for your care elsewhere and quite remarkably escalates our costs to unimaginable levels.  The “sacred” relationship is nowhere to be found.

Elizabeth Rosenthal of the NY Times discusses ER costs here.

A day spent as an inpatient at an American hospital costs on average more than $4,000, five times the charge in many other developed countries, according to the International Federation of Health Plans, a global network of health insurance industries. The most expensive hospitals charge more than $12,500 a day. And at many of them, including California Pacific Medical Center, emergency rooms are profit centers. That is why one of the simplest and oldest medical procedures — closing a wound with a needle and thread — typically leads to bills of at least $1,500 and often much more.

Medicynical Note: Read the article for the gory details.  But it is a fact that hospitals like other players in the health care game have little to no interest in fostering efficiency and cost savings–except to benefit their bottom line.  In regard to patient’s charges, their goal is to maximize them.  They inflate their charges to unimaginable levels then cut deals with high volume insurers.  Should you be uninsured they will  stick you with the full non-discounted amount.  To the little guy it’s as confusing as dealing with a used care dealer (no insult intended) and is nothing more than a legalized scam.  Horrifying as it is, that’s what’s become of my profession and American medicine. 

Health reform while not perfect is a start on rationalizing costs, providing universal coverage, and opening up the mystery of health care costs.

Cancer Drug Costs: We lead the World

During the periodic American Cancer Society money drives, or at the time of the American Society of Clinical Oncology meetings we are told by fund raisers for cancer charities, drug companies and indeed some institutions out recruiting patients  of the great progress being made in cancer treatment.  What is not clearly revealed is that the great progress in decreased mortality from cancer has not been so much in treatment but rather in prevention (smoking cessation, abandonment of estrogen replacement, etc) and earlier diagnosis mostly from better disease screening.

To me, having practiced from the 70s until 2001, the major revolution in cancer treatment was not cures but costs.  We’ve been talking for several years about the spiraling increase in drug costs and limited benefit of many new drugs—i.e. the disparity between the drug company’s hype and actual outcomes.   Stephen Hall in New York Magazine covers much the same territory in his October 20th article, The Cost of Living.  In the article Hall notes:

Several weeks earlier, Saltz had traveled to Chicago to inflict a little premonitory sticker shock on his medical colleagues. He reviewed the recent clinical results of both Zaltrap and Avastin when used as a “second line” treatment, after initial treatment had failed. As Saltz reminded the other oncologists, Avastin was modestly effective as a second-line treatment—it extended median overall survival by 42 days, the same as Zaltrap—but it cost about $5,000 a month and, like Zaltrap, would have to be taken for many months to achieve that modest clinical benefit. The overall cost was so high that Saltz devoted the end of his talk to a back-of-the-envelope calculation, delivered via PowerPoint, that recast the question in terms of health-care costs: If you extended the 42 days survival to a year, “what is the cost of Avastin for one year of human life saved?”

The answer was astounding, even to doctors who have grown inured to the zero-gravity economics of cancer pharmaceuticals. As Saltz worked his way through slide 73 of 78, he arrived at the bottom line: $303,000.

He notes that this cost is that of the drug alone.  and does not include doctor’s fees, imaging costs and hospitalizations and other costs encountered by seriously ill patients.

Read the article.   Our costs for cancer treatment, like all other modalities of care, are significantly higher than any other country on earth.

Medicynical Note:  For patients it’s a case of your money or your life, But the sad truth is that in advanced disease even if the patient is one of those that has some benefit, it is both.  The question is how much can an individual or health care system afford?

Waste in Health Care–The American Way

The following is from an Institute of Medicine Study Best Care at Lower Cost and focuses in part on the cost of waste in health care.  In changing health care, in addition to improving access we need to focus on efficiency and value, which means cutting this:

 Screenshot from 2013-09-13 07:33:52

Medicynical Note:  If anything, it’s worse now.  This, in the “best” (sic) most expensive, most inefficient health care non-system in the world.  (It’s a non system  of health-care because in it’s current form it’s primary goal is increasing revenue.

On Healthcare The U.S. is Unique, We’re Number 1….. in the wrong way

The U.S. is the only industrialized country without a national health care insurance scheme for  it’s citizens. We have more uninsured than the rest of the industrialized world combined.  We leads the world in costs by a large margin–it’s not close. And finally we lead the world in bankruptcy from health care related debt.

Meanwhile with the notable exception of the elderly, who are covered by a government program, Medicare. our health statistics are in the middle of the pack so to speak when compared with other industrialized countries.

We seem to have institutionalized a system that assures excellent revenue and incomes for the health industrial complex but costly mediocre outcomes to patients.  We can and should do better.

It IS NOT a healthcare system, It IS a revenue generating system

The U.S. leads the world in health care costs and in the profitability of it’s health insurers, suppliers, providers, pharmaceutical companies and technology developers.  Health care is simply not a priority.  Profits are.  

More on costs today from the NY Times Nina Bernstein here.

It is no secret that medical care in the United States is overpriced. But as the tale of the humble IV bag shows all too clearly, it is secrecy that helps keep prices high: hidden in the underbrush of transactions among multiple buyers and sellers, and in the hieroglyphics of hospital bills.

At every step from manufacturer to patient, there are confidential deals among the major players, including drug companies, purchasing organizations and distributors, and insurers. These deals so obscure prices and profits that even participants cannot say what the simplest component of care actually costs, let alone what it should cost.

And that leaves taxpayers and patients alike with an inflated bottom line and little or no way to challenge it.

Bankruptcy Doubles with Cancer Diagnosis in Washington State

Patients diagnosed with cancer,  particularly young people, with go bankrupt at double the rate of controls. 

Adults diagnosed with cancer are 2.65 times more likely to declare bankruptcy than adults without cancer, according to a new study.

In addition, bankruptcy rates are 2- to 5-fold higher among younger cancer patients than among older cancer patients, report the study authors, led by Scott Ramsey, MD, PhD, an internist and health economist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.

And

The authors found that bankruptcy filing rates differed “greatly” by age in the cancer patients. Younger people with cancer experienced the highest bankruptcy rates for all types of cancer. Bankruptcy filing rates were much lower for cancer patients 65 years and older than for those younger than 65 years.

There is an explanation for the age-related risk for bankruptcy, the authors note. “People age 65 or older generally have Medicare insurance and Social Security benefits…. It is likely that having stable insurance (specifically, coverage not tied to employment) plays a major role in mitigating the risk of bankruptcy,” they state.

Medicynical Note:  Anyone surprised?  A cancer diagnosis can be devastating and extremely expensive to deal with.  Most people, that is, those who live on an average income have problems paying the out of pocket expenses associated with the diagnosis, even if they are working and insured. 

Tying insurance to employment means that when a person becomes ill and can no longer work he/she loses their insurance—unless they can pay the inflated premium to continue individual coverage.

The system is designed to be a financial burden on the sick and infirm and to protect insurers.   Only in America!

Wow; Capitalism is killing our morals, our future

Read about this here and here.  From the former:

Consider, for example, the proliferation of for-profit schools, hospitals, and prisons, and the outsourcing of war to private military contractors. (In Iraq and Afghanistan, private contractors have actually outnumbered U.S. military troops.) Consider the eclipse of public police forces by private security firms—especially in the U.S. and the U.K., where the number of private guards is almost twice the number of public police officers.

Or consider the pharmaceutical companies’ aggressive marketing of prescription drugs directly to consumers, a practice now prevalent in the U.S. but prohibited in most other countries. (If you’ve ever seen the television commercials on the evening news, you could be forgiven for thinking that the greatest health crisis in the world is not malaria or river blindness or sleeping sickness but an epidemic of erectile dysfunction.)

Medicynical Note:  Some would say that our dalliance with “market” based health care has led us to and/or exacerbated our cost/quality/access issues. 

Why we pay more for drugs.

Certain politicians in the U.S. actually believe we have the best health care system in the world.   Well if it’s not the best, it certainly is the most expensive.

It’s my contention that we don’t have the best system of health care but rather we have the best system of revenue generation for suppliers.  Consider drug prices:

Companies like Pfizer Inc and AstraZeneca have grown dependent on higher U.S. prices to generate profits as generic rivals to their best-selling medicines enter the world market, Europe’s government-run health plans clamp down on spending and sales growth in emerging markets stutters.

And:

The price variations become clearer when studying individual drugs. Switzerland’s Roche sells a month’s supply of cancer medication Avastin at about $8,800 in the United States, compared with 2,577 pounds ($3,978) in the U.K. and 6,800 Swiss francs ($7,177) in Switzerland.

Read the article for more.

Medicynical Note:  Why is this?  Consider that drug companies spend more on lobbying and campaign contributions per year than any other business group in the country.  It’s not even close.

In both cases, you’d be wrong. It’s actually the pharmaceutical industry that spends the most each year to influence our lawmakers, forking over a total of $2.6 billion on lobbying activities from 1998 through 2012, according to OpenSecrets.org. To get some perspective on just how big that number is, consider that oil and gas companies and their trade associations spent $1.4 billion lobbying Congress over the same time frame while the defense and aerospace industry spent $662 million, a fourth of Big Pharma’s total.

Interesting, they spend more on influencing Washington so that we can pay more.  And it works beautifully for big PHarma.  It is the best congress money can buy.