Category Archives: General Cynicism

U.S. Healthcare Leads the World in Preventable deaths

The United States placed last among 16 high-income, industrialized nations when it comes to deaths that could potentially have been prevented by timely access to effective health care, according to a Commonwealth Fund–supported study that appeared online in the journal Health Policy this week and will be available in print on October 25th as part of the November issue. According to the study, other nations lowered their preventable death rates an average of 31 percent between 1997–98 and 2006–07, while the U.S. rate declined by only 20 percent, from 120 to 96 per 100,000. At the end of the decade, the preventable mortality rate in the U.S. was almost twice that in France, which had the lowest rate—55 per 100,000.

Another way to look at this is that we’re number one.


Medicynical Note: U.S. Health Care leads the world in cost/capita, bankruptcies related to medical problems, drug costs, number of procedures done/capita, and now the number of people dying because they don’t have access to timely health care.

Cancer Treatment — Unaffordable, less effective than advertised!

Lancet Oncology (behind pay wall) published a symposium on the “culture of excess” in the treatment of cancer. The BBC notes:

A group of 37 leading experts from around the world say the burden of cancer is growing and becoming a major financial issue.

“The issue that concerns economists and policymakers is not just the amount of money spent on healthcare, but also the rate of increase in healthcare spending or what has become known as the cost curve.”

It says the UK’s total spend on breast cancer has increased by about 10% in each of the past four years.

“Few treatments or tests are clear clinical winners, with many falling into the category of substantial cost for limited benefit.”

The cost of drugs is not the only target for criticism. Lead author Prof Richard Sullivan told the BBC: “It’s not just pharmaceuticals. Biomarkers, imaging and surgery are all getting through with very low levels of evidence – the hurdles are set too low.”

Medicynical Note: It’s too bad this is behind a pay-wall. Patients in the US are subjected to a blizzard of misinformation regarding cancer treatment, outcomes and the “benefits” of different approaches. Costs are not an apparent consideration by providers, patients or insurers and expenditures for cancer care are rising at an unsustainable rate.

We hear about the improved survival of patients and believe that justifies the increased costs. However, most, if not all, of these improvements in survival come from earlier diagnosis of cancers and counting pre-cancerous lesions also found by screening in the cure rate. DCIS, Gleason 5 prostate cancers, and early colon cancers are automatic cures.

The decreased incidence (declining rates) of lung and a few other cancers have little to do with treatment and are a benefit of smoking cessation and in some instances other lifestyle changes.

The new mega-expensive treatments ($50,000-$120,000/year) in patients with bad disease have resulted in no cures and limited survival benefit. Uncritical use of these drugs is bankrupting our non-system of care.

Finally, we still have 20-25% of our population smoking. This fact may provide income security for the medical industrial complex but offers an opportunity for a prevention strategy with real impact.


Cheaper Generics–An Answer To Patent Abuse

It’s been a long time coming but companies in China and in other emerging economies are finally tiring of the outrageous pricing of drugs by U.S. and other western drug manufacturers. Charging more for a drug, than people earn is not an acceptable business practice in my view. Blackmail would be a more honorable business practice than the drug companies practice of charging more for drugs that might benefit (most don’t have a significant effect) those with serious life threatening illness.

So, it appears drug manufacturers elsewhere are producing these new drugs at a fraction of the cost.

Chinese and Indian drug makers have taken over much of the global trade in medicines and now manufacture more than 80 percent of the active ingredients in drugs sold worldwide. But they had never been able to copy the complex and expensive biotech medicines increasingly used to treat cancer, diabetes and other diseases in rich nations like the United States — until now.

Medicynical Note: 80% of the world market supplied by drugs made in China and India. Amazing.

The Best Congress Money Can Buy

House Speaker Boehner invited the president of Pathway Genomics to the president’s speech last night. Pathway was chosen because:

Pathway was chosen because it and the others “exemplify businesses and sectors hurt by excessive Washington-imposed barriers preventing them from innovating, growing and creating more jobs.”

But Pathway’s product a genetic test was flawed:

However, reports by the independent Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Food and Drug Administration indicate the product Boehner, R-Ohio, claimed was unfairly maligned by federal regulators was unapproved and ineffective.

And:

Reports from the FDA, GAO and the medical community show there’s no proof the tests actually work.

Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, told a House committee in July 2010 that he had seen faulty data analysis, exaggerated clinical claims, fraudulent data and unacceptable clinical performance associated with the tests.

“These tests have not been proven safe, effective or accurate,” Shuren said.

It should be noted that the CEO of Pathway, earlier this year, participated in a republican sponsored “job” forum and is undoubtedly a contributor to the republican “cause.”

Medicynical Note: Science? Facts? Proof of efficacy? Apparently are not the House Speaker’s concern.

Businesses needs regulation to not only protect the consumer but to protect themselves, from themselves–see financial crisis 2007-2009.


Health Care Cost Growth and Income Gains

Back from a wonderful trip to Botswana and Zambia.

I noted a remarkably skewed analysis of the impact of the health care bubble on gains in household income the last ten years in Health Affairs.

They note:

Although a median-income US family of four with employer-based health insurance saw its gross annual income increase from $76,000 in 1999 to $99,000 in 2009 (in current dollars), this gain was largely offset by increased spending to pay for health care. Monthly spending increases occurred in the family’s health insurance premiums (from $490 to $1,115), out-of-pocket health spending (from $135 to $235), and taxes devoted to health care (from $345 to $440). After accounting for price increases in other goods and services, the family had $95 more in monthly income to devote to nonhealth spending in 2009 than in 1999.

The analysis is unrealistic and understates the impact of health inflation by focusing primarily on those with employer based insurance. The population without such insurance has almost certainly lower income and higher insurance costs, if they are covered at all.

More here:

Copays have increased as well, the authors pointed out. In 1999, the average copay for a doctor’s visit was in the range of $5 to $10, but by 2009, it ranged from $20 to $30. Copays for visits to the emergency room were rare in 1999, but a decade later, they cost $100 or more.

In addition, taxes devoted to healthcare — for Medicare, Medicaid, the military health system, and the Department of Veterans Affairs — increased from $345 to $440 from 1999 to 2009, Auerbach and Kellerman wrote. They added that the tax hike is “misleadingly modest” because actual growth in government spending on healthcare was much larger: 140% at the federal level and 76% at the state level. The authors said Bush-era tax cuts caused the government to collect only $6 for every $10 it spent during that 10-year time frame. (medicynical emphasis)

Medicynical note: The median household income in the US is significantly lower than stated in this article which as noted refers to those with employer based health insurance. It approximates $60,000 and has not risen much if at all over the past ten years.

As we’ve emphasized previously health care costs over ten years have inflated by 130%.

It’s amazing how much more we pay for health care than any other place in the world. It’s dubious that this will change dramatically in the near future with both parties in the pay of the medical industrial complex–though I still hold out hope that health reform is a first step toward cost containment.


For Profit Hospices: Taking Advantage

It’s hard to imagine that our non-system could subvert the concept of Hospice care. But as we know, money make people (and corporations) do funny things. Hospices lobbying:

The nation’s two largest for-profit hospice companies, Vitas and Gentiva, have together spent $1,188,100 on lobbying this year, records show. Their top priority is a bill by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., that would require the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which runs the Medicare program, to test a new payment system for two years

and:

Vitas paid $390,000 to Washington lobbyists, according to lobbying reports. The company receives 90% of its revenue from Medicare and Medicaid, according to its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The document shows they are lobbying because “Medicare and Medicaid programs are increasing pressure to control health care costs and to decrease or limit increases in reimbursement rates.”

Medicynical Note: Lobbying to keep their profits up, Medicare costs up, and to presumably protect themselves from a series of fraud investigations for which they have paid multiple fines. These institutions care more for the “comfort” of their bottom lines than that of their patients.


Medicaid Pays less than Medicare for drugs

One would think that drug company pricing to government health care programs (Medicare and Medicaid) would be the same. Guess again!

Medicaid gets much deeper discounts on many prescription drugs than Medicare, in part because Medicaid discounts are set by law whereas Medicare prices are negotiated by private insurers and drug companies, federal investigators said Monday in a new report.

And:

Medicaid and Medicare receive discounts in the form of rebates, which are paid by drug manufacturers when their products are dispensed to people enrolled in the programs.

The inspector general, Daniel R. Levinson, found that rebates reduced spending on 100 widely used brand name drugs by 19 percent in Medicare and by 45 percent in Medicaid. After taking account of the rebates, Mr. Levinson said, Medicaid paid significantly less than Medicare for the same drugs.

Medicynical note: Negotiating for higher discounts would save an estimated 49 billion dollars over ten years.

A billion here and a billion there, soon we’ll be talking real money.

Why Don’t the New “Targeted” Cancer Drugs Work Better — Because It’s Complicated

Every wonder why the new cancer advances, such as bevacizumab (Avastin), gefitinib (Iressa), cetuximab (Erbitux), trastuzumab (Herceptin) and so on, don’t work in most patients? Why their benefit is often hardly measurable? And why they cost so much (up to and over $100,000/year)

The reason is that cancer is complicated: (From the American Association for Cancer Research Meetings and the NY Times):

Through a series of random mutations, genes that encourage cellular division are pushed into overdrive, while genes that normally send growth-restraining signals are taken offline.

With the accelerator floored and the brake lines cut, the cell and its progeny are free to rapidly multiply. More mutations accumulate, allowing the cancer cells to elude other safeguards and to invade neighboring tissue and metastasize.

And:

But recent discoveries have been complicating the picture with tangles of new detail. Cancer appears to be even more willful and calculating than previously imagined.

Most DNA, for example, was long considered junk — a netherworld of detritus that had no important role in cancer or anything else. Only about 2 percent of the human genome carries the code for making enzymes and other proteins, the cogs and scaffolding of the machinery that a cancer cell turns to its own devices.

Medicynical Note: Read the article. It’s fascinating and makes clear that there are many unanswered questions and that a “cure” for cancer is not likely to happen soon.

Regarding cost, drug companies simply take advantage of the sick and infirm and overcharge.


Medical Bribery: Boston Scientific and Payments to Cardiologists

A whistleblower at Madigan Army Medical Center believes he is a victim of retaliation for his efforts. For a time, two cardiologists at Madigan received payments from a medical device manufacturer (Boston Scientific). The cardiology department at the time insisted only on using devices from that manufacturer. The cardiologists, who were found in conflict with the Army’s policy, maintain their patient care judgment was not prejudiced.

Subsequently

Eisenhauer (Medicynical note: the whistleblower) says his own reputation and career came under attack from his supervisors at Madigan, located at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, south of Tacoma. “Not only did they do nothing to correct the situation, they participated in a scheme to run me off,” said Eisenhauer, who was awarded a Bronze Star service medal for his duty in Iraq in 2009. “It was easier to discredit me than address the criminal activity.”

It should be noted that:

investigation resulted in a guilty plea by Maj. Jason Davis, then Madigan’s chief of cardiology, who admitted to taking more than $4,800 in illegal payments from Boston Scientific.

The long-standing practice of drug companies and medical-equipment manufacturers offering doctors free trips, speaking honorariums and other payments is controversial. Critics say the money may often represent kickbacks for favoring a company’s drugs or devices.

Still, in civilian practices such payments are generally considered legal. In the military, however, doctors are prohibited from taking such payments. (Medicynical Note: Not very reassuring)

Read the article for details on the hassles Eisenhauer faced and the reasons he left the military.

Medicynical Note: The problem was deeply rooted at Madigan, and according to Eisenhauer 1.2 million dollars in sole-source acquisitions, presumably in cardiology alone, were pushed through. Imagine the cost if similar practices are extant at other military facilities–as they undoubtedly are.

Consider also the cost implications of such bribery (for lack of a better description) on the more massive civilian health care sector.


Trovan, Nigerian Children and Pfizer’s Inappropriate Drug Trial

Pfizer is in a long running dispute with the Nigerian government and parents regarding children who died during a meningitis epidemic in 1996.

For background from a 2009 article:

Kano’s infectious diseases hospital, a small collection of concrete buildings inside a sandy compound, was overwhelmed, even after teams from Médecins sans Frontières arrived. They were dealing with not one but three epidemics – measles and cholera had broken out as well. Children were being seen and treated in overcrowded halls and corridors. It was chaos.

And then a chartered DC-9 flew in from the US. On board were doctors from Pfizer, the world’s biggest pharmaceutical company, and better medical equipment than the African town had ever seen. They had come to conduct a trial of an oral antibiotic called Trovan, which they wanted to test in children with meningitis against the “gold-standard” treatment of the western world, ceftriaxone. They took over part of the hospital and dosed 200 children, half with Trovan and half with ceftriaxone. And then they left, leaving behind some surplus drugs and equipment for the hospital.

Using a local facility for the purposes of testing a new unproven drug already raises ethical questions. Arriving and in cold-blooded fashion selecting just 200 patients for participation in the trial and then leaving with the epidemic still raging is at least insensitive and at worst, a damning example of the drug company’s opportunistic quest for profits.

Even worse, the Pfizer never intended the drug for use in Africa, the testing against meningitis there was simply a quick and very dirty way to accrue patients.

But the drug is not to be found in African pharmacies. It was trialed on African children, but never intended for Africa. Pfizer aimed to sell it in the USA and Europe – and yet its licence was withdrawn in Europe because of concern over liver toxicity. It is not licensed anywhere for children.

Pfizer maintained that what they did was “ethical” and that they provided the drug free of charge during an epidemic.

A suit is has been in progress in Nigeria and in the process of being settled.

The world’s biggest research-based pharmaceutical company announced on Thursday that it had made payments of $175,000 (£108,000) to each family. More such compensation settlements are expected to follow.

Also:

Legal action filed against the company alleged that some received a dose lower than recommended, leaving many children with brain damage, paralysis or slurred speech.

US-based Pfizer had argued that meningitis and not its antibiotic had led to the deaths of 11 children and harm to dozens of others. But in 2009 it reached a tentative out-of-court settlement with the Kano state government worth $75m.

And:

The cable reported a meeting between Pfizer’s country manager, Enrico Liggeri, and US officials at the Abuja embassy on 9 April 2009. It stated: “According to Liggeri, Pfizer had hired investigators to uncover corruption links to federal attorney general Michael Aondoakaa to expose him and put pressure on him to drop the federal cases.”He said Pfizer’s investigators were passing this information to local media.”

Pfizer has subsequently denied the contents of the cable.

Medicynical Note: Pfizer’s insensitivity is quite remarkable. What’s more cynical than delaying resolving this mess for 15 years? What’s more cynical than testing a drug in a place where you never intend to market it–because it will be too expensive? What’s more cynical and opportunistic than flying in a research team in the middle of an epidemic to do drug trials……and then leaving?

It’s enough to give us all, my profession and the formerly “ethical” drug manufacturing companies, a bad name.