Category Archives: General Cynicism

Employment Based Coverage: Going Away

Does anyone need more proof of the total dysfunction of our non-system of care.  Consider that we have over 50 million people without health insurance, and it appears that  a decreasing number of employers offer health coverage

One might ask where all the money paid by insurers for coverage went?    Certainly not in the pockets of the employees. 

It is a fact that proportion of our population covered by insurance from employers declined from about 70% in 2001 to 53% in 2010. (see the above link)

Medicynical Note:  Employer based coverage was a convenient modus but it has become obsolete. 

Our conservative friends like the idea of “free” markets that allow choice.  But they neglect to point out that “choice” goes both ways.  Insurers in their “system” are free to choose who they cover and how much they charge.  If you are sick and/or elderly forget it. 

Their approach undoubtedly will decrease spending on health care…………

Trends in Health Care Costs: 1950 to Present

Fine article in the NEJM by Victor Fuchs reviewing the relentless increase in health care costs since 1950. 

The most important explanation for the increase in real per capita health expenditures is the availability of new medical technology2 and the increased specialization that accompanies it. Between 1974 and 2010 alone, the number of U.S. patents for pharmaceutical and surgical innovations increased by a factor of six. Second in importance is the spread of public and private health insurance, which diminishes the effect of health care prices on demand.3 There is a positive-feedback loop between new technology and the spread of health insurance: new technology stimulates the demand for insurance, and the spread of insurance stimulates the demand for new technology.4 Finally, a small portion of the increase, typically 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points per year, is attributable to the aging of the population. It’s not possible to estimate how much of the increase in expenditures reflects higher health care prices and how much reflects greater quantities of care, because the content of a day in the hospital or a visit to a physician keeps changing. No doubt some of the increase in expenditures reflects an increase in the quantity of medical care, if quantity is adjusted for improvements in the quality of care.

Read the article. It’s complete text is available at the above link. 

Medicynical Note:  Of interest, since 1950 the largest proportion of  costs was and is for hospital care.  Shorter stays over the time period were balanced by higher charges and increase use.  Physician and drug costs also increased exponentially.  A catch-all category of including “public administration and the net cost (premiums minus benefits paid) of private health insurance, nursing homes, and dental services” also followed the trend

The tone of the article is not optimistic with reference to the current grid lock of political philosophies that interferes with an honest careful discussion and resolution of the issue.  There may be still some hope, as the author notes quoting de Tocqueville on America “events can move from the impossible to the inevitable without ever stopping at the probable”  

Bankruptcy, Not Coverage–America’s Health Care Program

Disconcerting disclosure by one of those suing the government about the health insurance mandate: 

Mary Brown, whose case against the 2010 healthcare reform law is pending before the Supreme Court, argues that the government shouldn’t be able to force her to carry health insurance.

But:

The couple have filed for bankruptcy protection, asking a federal court to wipe out close to $60,000 in consumer debts. Significantly, their unpaid bills include $2,750 owed to a local hospital and physicians group and $1,735 to out-of-state medical specialists.

Medicynical Note:  The Brown’s are not unique, something like 60% of those filing for bankruptcy in the U.S. have medical debts as part of their problem. 

We lead the world in this cause of bankruptcy which is essentially unknown in industrialized countries with health insurance mandates.

Entering La La Land— Cancer Drug Costs Abirateron (Zytiga) vs Sipuleucel-T (Dendreon)

The recent approval of abirateron by the FDA for use in metastatic prostate cancer highlights the otherworldly practice of cancer drug pricing. 

Sipuleucel-T purported to be an immune stimulator in early trials was reported last year to improve survival of patients with metastatic prostate cancer about 4 months  (median) when compared with placebo.  Similarly the recently approved abirateron shows a 2 months delay in progression, 3.9 months improvement of median survival.

Sipuleucel-T (Dendreon) you will recall is priced at $97,000 for a course of therapy.  The new drug abirateron is a relative “bargain” at $5,000/month.

The industry’s view is that this is a “fair” price.  Meaning it is competitive and will earn the company money:

The pharmacy strategy blog notes:

  This gives a treatment price of ~ $40K, which I think is very fair, although some patients will obviously take it for longer than that.

In U.K. however NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) notes:

In draft guidance the watchdog said that Zytiga could increase survival by more than three months compared to placebo, but its annual cost of £35,160 was too much for the NHS in England.

Janssen has offered a patient access scheme for the drug that would discount its list price, but NICE said even with this in place, the drug was still not cost effective.

NICE suggests that conventional chemotherapy offers a more cost effective approach.

Medicynical Note:  Welcome to the alternative universe of drug pricing in the U.S.  This is the only situation where a consumer purchases a product costing many many thousands of dollars that has utility (effectiveness) of 4 months or less.  It’s like buying a Mercedes or Porsche that will last 4 months—rational people in rational situations wouldn’t buy such a product. 

Cancer patients however are desperate.  Drug companies price these drugs to take advantage.  Patient care?  Cost efficiency? Morality?  Not their department. 

I do look forward to further studies of these new agents and hope that the results are confirmed.  However, I would warn readers that the track record of drug sponsored first studies is that they often exaggerate benefits and minimize toxicity. 

Electronic Medical Records: Increases Utilization and Costs?

Nothing new with this revelation.  It has been previously postulated. 

Computerized patient records are unlikely to cut health care costs and may actually encourage doctors to order expensive tests more often, a study published on Monday concludes.

Medicynical Note:  The cost of implementing a nationwide record system is considerable.  Having such a system, however, will facilitate easier and more comprehensive analysis of health care and if we allow such use,  perhaps some cost savings by directing care to the most effective economical modalities.  That however is a big if. 

Statins, Diabetes and Unintended Consequences

Drug companies for the past 20 years have been pushing the use of statins (for example simvastin, rosuvastatin, atorvastatin)  as cures for whatever problem you may have.  They have supported studies that show a very slight improvement in everything from incidence of heart attacks, to deaths due to infectious disease to intellect.  Except maybe in people with previous heart attacks, none  are convincing, the improvements are small and the costs high. 

Now there is data indicating the more potent statins have a very significant risk of diabetes.  The higher the dose, the higher the risk. 

What we do know is that diabetes showed up. The numbers increase to one in 167 for patients taking 20 milligrams of Crestor, and up to one in 125 for intensive statin treatments involving drug strategies to markedly lower cholesterol levels.

and

More than 20 million Americans take statins. That would equate to 100,000 new statin-induced diabetics. Not a good thing for the public health and certainly not good for the individual affected with a new serious chronic illness.

And most telling for those taking this drug the margin of benefit is very narrow.  Read the op-ed!  More on the subject here and here.

Medicynical Note:  Yet the same companies who flogged these drugs as wonderful agents for whatever ails you have no public  plans to look further into the newly identified issues.  Not surprising if you understand the motivating force of the pharmaceutical industry (money) and their reluctance to do anything that might cut sales.

Truth?  Science?  Health care?  Not their department.

We’re Number 1: We lead the World…..in Costs

This is self explanatory.  We have the most expensive, most inefficient non-system of care in the world.

Costs

Pricing Health Care in the U.S.–Our Failure

Good review of the failure of cost containment in our non-system of health care with suggestions for fixes. 

In case you haven’t noticed there are problems with our “free market” pricing:  (from his paper in Health Affairs)

1. On average, the prices for health care goods and services negotiated by private health insurers in the United States tend to higherabout double or more (medicynical emphasis)— than prices for identical services and goods in other countries of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.

2. It is in good part so because insurers do not seem to have sufficient market power, especially vis à vis hospitals, to resist very rapid price increases.

3. The varying degrees of market power among private insurers in the United States have led to pervasive price discrimination among payers, with prices for identical goods or services varying among payers by factors as high as 10

Reinhardt concludes:

I am persuaded, however, that the opaque, price-discriminatory and administratively unwieldy – and hence very expensive – payment system of individual negotiations over fees has not served Americans well during in the last few decades.

Medicynical Note:  Yet some still maintain our non-system is the “best in the world.”  The question is for whom?

American Exceptionalism: Guns

This only happens in America.

Health Care Costs Grew at Twice the Inflation Rate–2011

Health Care costs increasing at twice the rate of inflation:

The average per capita cost of healthcare services covered by Medicare programs and commercial insurance grew by 5.28 % in 2011, nearly double the rate of inflation in the larger economy, Standard & Poor’s Healthcare Economic Indices show.
A further breakdown of S&P data shows that healthcare costs covered by commercial insurance plans grew by 7.11% in 2011, while Medicare claim costs rose by 2.51%, despite the government plans’ older and sicker population.

And:

Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, told HealthLeaders Media that commercial plans must contend with cost-shifting and other market forces that do not affect Medicare. He says the cost growth acceleration also could be link to the recovering economy.

Medicynical Note:  What’s not noted by Mr. Zirkelbach is that Medicare’s population is sicker, older and has greater need for care than the commercial plan population.  Think he wants responsibility for this high risk group? Think private insurers will provide adequate coverage at reasonable cost to an elderly population with pre-existing illness?  Think again.

Our non-system is not driven by concerns about care; not driven by worries about outcomes; not driven by the needs of patients.  Rather it is the mandatory profit goals of providers, insurers and technology developers that drive our costs. 

FYI last year the poor suffering private insurers had record profits.  Guess who paid?