Category Archives: General Cynicism

Ryan’s Plan: Rationing Care by Wealth, the New American Way

The CBO sent Representative Ryan a letter analyzing his proposals.

Federal payments for Medicaid under the proposal would be substantially smaller than currently projected amounts. States would have additional flexibility to design and manage their Medicaid programs, and they might achieve greater efficiencies in the delivery of care than under current law. Even with additional flexibility, however, the large projected reduction in payments would probably require states to decrease payments to Medicaid providers, reduce eligibility for Medicaid, provide less extensive coverage to beneficiaries, or pay more themselves than would be the case under current law. (Medicynical emphasis: The indigent will either get less care or  to pay for it themselves (really!)

A private health insurance plan covering the standardized benefit would, CBO estimates, be more expensive currently than traditional Medicare. Both administrative costs (including profits) and payment rates to providers are higher for private plans than for Medicare. Those higher costs would be offset partly but not fully by savings from lower utilization…..  (Medicynic: meaning people who can’t afford care won’t get it) Moreover, CBO projects that total health care spending for a typical beneficiary covered by the standardized benefit under the proposal would grow faster than such spending for the same beneficiary in traditional Medicare under either of CBO’s longterm scenarios.

Medicynical note:  Yes, this is the same CBO that Representative Ryan and his followers criticized when it projected significant budgetary savings for the Health Reform package passed by the last congress.

As noted yesterday, there is nothing in this regarding insurability, community rates for the insured, and mandating coverage of pre-existing illness.  It seems a license for insurance companies to cover the healthiest and leave the rest to no or inadequate  coverage.   It’s a cynical and somewhat sophisticated way to ration care by monetary resources and wealth.

It should be noted that almost half of baby boomers and succeeding generations of retirees have inadequate retirement savings:

Excluding their homes, 24 percent of boomers say they have no retirement savings. Those with nothing include about 4 in 10 who are non-white, are unmarried or didn’t finish college.

At the other end, about 1 in 10 say they have banked at least $500,000. Those who have saved at least something typically have squirreled away $100,000, with about half putting away more than that and half less.

Every other industrialized nation provides health care coverage for virtually it’s entire population.  Cutting access to care, providing inadequate  coverage for the aged, sick, disabled and infirm, and doing nothing about the 50 million uninsured appears to be the new American way.

More here: Representative Ryan Proposes Medicare Plan Under Which Seniors Would Pay Most of Their Income for Health Care

Ryan Plan: It’s a Killer

This from Howard Gleckman at Brookings and the Urban Institute:

Medicare would be replaced, but with what? The budget plan would dump Medicare for a voucher system where seniors would get an annual subsidy to buy health insurance in the private market. But today, it is not possible for most seniors, who likely have pre-existing conditions, to buy insurance as individuals. For many, premiums would simply be unaffordable even with a government voucher. They could purchase under the 2010 health law that creates insurance exchanges and requires carriers to sell coverage to all comers no matter their health. But the Republicans want to repeal that law and won’t say how they’d replace it.

What will happen to health and long-term care services care for the poor? The GOP plan would turn Medicaid into a kind of voucher as well, except a limited annual subsidy would go to states, and not to individuals. In that environment, states would get increased flexibility, but they’d also have far less money to work with–hundreds of billions of dollars less. The probable result: significant cuts in a program that is already insuffficient in many states. What would happen to the sickest and poorest in that environment?

Medicynical Note:  This is not a health care plan but dismantling of health care provided our most infirm,  sick and poor citizens. Meanwhile the 50 million currently without insurance will still be without coverage.

Check out every other industrialized country’s solution–everyone covered, no bankruptcies at half of our costs.

The plan is an attractive fiction that is doomed to fail.  The question is how many Americans will die before we find a better more reasonable solution?

The Republican “Modest Proposal” for the Problem of the Elderly

It’s fascinating to consider turning Medicare over to the private insurers, who don’t really want the sick and infirm as  customers.

The republican approach seems to be to provide a fixed “stipend” to Medicare recipients and allow them to enter the private insurance market.  This of course will lead to chaos as insurers work to minimize  costs.

The republican proposals make no mention of:

  1. Guaranteed insurability for the sick and chronically ill.  Would community rates for insurance prevail or would these people be individually rated by insurers and either rejected or given unaffordable and/or inadequate coverage.  And of course there are those that think guaranteeing people insurance and access to care is in itself welfare (guess who?)
  2. Affordability:   Those with pre-existing illnesses (possibly as high as 2/3 rds of the elderly, would be at the mercy of insurers.  Their rates would without doubt exceed the republican Medicare “stipend” for the insurance, if indeed insurers would offer such patients coverage
  3. The 50 million people currently uninsured.

Medicynical Note: We shouldn’t accept the republican “modest proposal” (see Jonathan Swift) to financially eat alive our sick and infirm elderly and abandon the uninsured.

We need to cut health care costs.  Our non-system is the most expensive by an order of magnitude than any other in the world.  There are many reasons for this: inefficiency, over utilization, excessive administrative costs, a cost plus philosophy on charges, use of the most expensive diagnostic and treatment modalities when less expensive appproaches work equally well, excessive expectations of income from providers and suppliers, expectations of unlimited treatment by patients, underfunded public health and disease prevention activities.

There are problems, they are not insurmountable as indicated by the lower costs elsewhere in the industrialized world.

Good Ole American Capitalism — The American Way of Medicine

I recently read The first tycoon: The Epic Life Of Cornelius Vanderbilt.  In it, T.J. Stiles describes the infancy of the American capitalism.  Monopoly was the goal, and subverting competition, bribery, and bullying the means.  Read it, a terrific biography.

It’s been heart warming to read that  Vanderbilt’s legacy lives today in medicine. In Las Vegas, one heart device company literally owns the market, including the doctors.

Within the last few years, a little known company called Biotronik has cornered the market on pacemakers and defibrillators at the University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, Last year, 250 of the 263 patients, or 95 percent, who had a heart device implanted at the hospital center got one made by Biotronik.

The company’s hold at the hospital center is all the more striking because its implants were not used there before 2008, and its national share of the heart-device market barely exceeds 5 percent, according to industry estimates.

The devices’ sudden popularity was apparently not left to chance. In mid-2008, Biotronik hired several cardiologists who implant heart devices at the Las Vegas hospital as consultants, paying them fees that may have reached as high as $5,000 a month, company documents reviewed by The New York Times indicate. Those doctors then did the rest.

Medicynical Note:  Medical conflicts of interest are nothing new.  We’ve seen drug companies literally bribe generic companies with hundreds of millions of dollars to keep less expensive competitors off the market; drug prices increased to gouge seriously ill patients; patient care manipulated to maximize reimbursements; overuse of modalities of treatment to maximize reimbursements; exaggeration of benefits (Avastin)  of treatment to maximize reimbursement; conflict of interest (joint replacement) that maximize reimbursements.

Our non-system is devoted to maximizing income through manipulation of markets, not quality or efficiency of care.  Cost effectiveness is an almost unknown parameter in the U.S.  Cornelius Vanderbilt would be very pleased.

Why Our Non-sytstem of Health Care is Bankrupting Us (Provenge, Makena) — While Congress Fiddles, Rome Burns

Two interesting events this week illuminate why health care costs are increasing (by double digit percentages) each year and why they are bankrupting individuals, insurance companies, Medicare, Medicaid, states and indeed the U.S. government.  And while this is happening congress is taking resolute steps to cut NPR’s funding, question individual’s rights to abortion (even in cases of rape, incest and mother’s life risk).  Their budget cuts amount to about 2% of the current budget deficit.  This budget balancing urgency comes after granting a 400 billion dollar a year tax cut.  Remarkable ineptitude.

How health care is  bankrupting us:

1.  Consider the recent rebranding of a long time generic drug hydroxyprogesterone caproate into  Makena.  Without getting into the question of efficacy, consider that hydroxyprogesterone caproate was available for many years at $10-15/ dose from compounding pharmacies.  The branded version of this same exact drug will sell, according to it’s manufacturer, for $1500/dose and the manufacturer expects individuals and insurers to pay.

Now a national pharmaceutical company has gotten FDA approval to make hydroxyprogesterone caproate and will be charging about $1,500 per shot.
KV Pharmaceutical, headquartered in Bridgeton, Mo., received approval Feb. 4 to make and market the drug for the prevention of pre-term labor that for years had been mixed by compounding pharmacies. (at $15, Medicynical clarification)

Medicynical Note:  It’s better than alchemy to be able to make a $15 drug into a $1500 one.  But that’s American ingenuity and creativeness.

2.  Selling a marginally effective drug (Provenge) for $93,000/course of treatment:

Medicare officials said Wednesday that the program will pay the $93,000 cost of prostate cancer drug Provenge, an innovative therapy that typically gives men suffering from an incurable stage of the disease an extra four months to live.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid said the biotech drug made by Dendreon Corp. is a “reasonable and necessary” medicine. The decision ensures that millions of men would be able to afford the drug through the government-backed health care coverage. With government reimbursement, analysts estimate Provenge could rack up $1 billion in sales next year. The decision, which will be finalized by June 30, is important for Dendreon because most prostate cancer patients are 65 or older.

Also:

“It’s impossible to put a dollar figure on a human life, especially when you’re talking about a drug that has such mild side effects,” said Jim Kiefert, a prostate cancer patient and advocate who was part of the Provenge study. “Of all the treatments I’ve had — with surgery, radiation and hormone treatment — Provenge had fewer side effects than any of them.”

But bioethicists who study health care decisions say Medicare’s ruling on Provenge mirrors the bias of the overall U.S. health system, which emphasizes expensive treatments over basic medical care. Health care costs account for nearly one fifth of the U.S. economy, more than any other country.

Medicynical Note:  It’s obvious to any thoughtful person that unless the cost of care comes down, we can’t afford our non-system.  We pay twice as much as other similar countries and still have 50 million and climbing uninsured.

Resolving the conundrum of health care costs is a major question that instantly strikes our politicians deaf, dumb and blind.  Even the most innocuous suggestion, for example, comparing the efficacy of new drugs against older less expensive ones, in studies not sponsored by drug companies, is considered controversial.

I’m sad for my grandchildren.

Addendum:  4/1/2011 Drug company slashes price of drug from $1500 to $690. A bargain?  Still only 50 times the price of the generic.  Amazing!

The price of an expensive (? Medicynical question mark) drug to prevent premature births has been cut by more than half, following bitter controversy over its high cost.KV Pharmaceutical Co. said Friday that it is dropping the price from $1,500 per dose to $690.

The company got government approval in February to exclusively make the drug named Makena (mah-KEE’-nah), and it hit the market last month. For years, specialty pharmacies had been making a version of the weekly injection for $10 to $20 a dose, so the price of Makena was a shock to doctors who prescribe the drug and private and public insurance programs that pay for it.

It’s hard to tell what’s real on April fools day.

Stiglitz on Corporate Welfare: Big Pharma part of the problem

Joseph Stiglitz refused to sign a letter from former member of the President’s Council on Economic Advisors supporting the Bowles Simpson deficit reduction proposals.  Why?  Because…..

I believe the Bowles Simpson recommendations represent, to too large an extent, a set of unprincipled political compromises that would lead to a weaker America — with slower growth and a more divided society.

And regarding health care spending:

The health care reform bill did little to eliminate the trillion-dollar giveaway to the drug companies, resulting from restrictions on the ability of government (the largest buyer of drugs) to negotiate prices. In contrast to every other government in the world. While much more can, and should, be done to control health care costs, this little change would make a big difference.

Eliminating corporate welfare, both that hidden in our tax systems and in the hidden give-aways of our country’s natural resources to oil and gas and mining companies; eliminating the unjustifiable and harmful tax breaks for speculators and companies that keep their money out of the country, and taxing activities that generate large negative externalities—whether the environmental pollution that threatens our health and our children’s future, or the financial transactions that brought out country and the world to the brink of ruin—could all easily generate trillions of dollars in revenues. (Medicynical Emphasis) At the same time, they could also create a fairer society, a cleaner environment, and a more stable economy.

Medicynical note:  It’s fascinating to watch the erosion of concern for citizens being replaced by concern for our “new citizens”  corporations–an emerging oligarchy. (See Citizen’s United).  These new royals exert their influence on their willing supplicants through campaign and other contributions.  Check out the anti union, anti environment, anti tax, anti de-regulation attitudes of  the Koch brothers, bankers, oil companies, Walmart et al.

Individual rights and freedoms are a nuisance to be compromised for the good of business. Amazing to watch, a country forsake 70 years of progress and prosperity.

Health Care Expectations, Cost and the R word

The health industry is driven by expectations. Patients with some exceptions expect everything to be done no matter the cost or limited benefit. They also largely expect that no matter the severity of the illness and difficulty of treatment that they will be the ones cured–that’s what it said on TV or the Internet.  Doctors expect a handsome income to pay off their overhead, loans and standard of living. The medical technology industry and their sharholders expect double digit yearly returns on investment and aggressively marketed questionable advances. Hardly anyone in the non system bothers with lack of value, comparative efficiency, or the cost of all this.

The medical industrial complex discovered some time ago (in oncology the turning point was the mid 80’s) that medical consumers and doctors are price insensitive–Doctors and other suppliers of goods and services because they are doing well the more “good” they do; hospitals because they can pass through the cost of their inefficiency; insurers ditto; pharmaceutical manufacturers and other suppliers because patients and the non-system pay whatever is demanded.

Our non system  works (if 17% of GDP can be called working) because the patient is shielded by insurance and/or has the expectation that one way or another someone else will pay. The R word (rationing) has been raised in the health care discussion. What’s obfuscated,  however, is a fact that we’ve always rationed care by access and cost. And  no matter the congressional/political verbiage we’ll continue to ration in the future, perhaps even more.

As health care changes, increased financial participation by patients is inevitable. The question is  how to implement. I have reservations about health savings accounts and cut rate insurance because only a small portion of the population will actually be able to “save” in these accounts (check out the retirement savings at various ages in the U.S., the money isn’t there).  And because what’s cut in cut-rate coverage is  access and coverage.

Simply providing insurance with a floating rate deductible, applicable to all, based on income has more appeal but in our bizarre political world anything that seems to offer the possibility of service to all draws the ire of a obnoxious vocal minority (my opinion).

Insurers — Health Care, not our department

For some time I’ve noted the inappropriate behavior of the health insurance industry.  It works hard to increase it’s profits by decreasing coverage of those who need it most.  Our non-system of care not only allows this but a significant political party has made it part of their political goals.

This from an interview with a former insurance executive: (Wendell Potter author of “Deadly Spin”)

If you’re trying to buy insurance in the individual market, you should know that those insurers are looking to sell coverage only to young and healthy people. If you aren’t particularly young or healthy, you’ll be charged more or have limited benefits or both. And even if you get insurance through your employer, you need to read carefully.

And:

I’d be wary of these so-called mini-med or limited-benefit plans. These are sold largely to individuals or through small employers, but we’re also seeing more big companies, such as fast-food chains, offering these plans.

This is fake insurance, in my view. Most policies have low premiums but also unreasonably low annual or lifetime caps on coverage. Some don’t pay for hospitalizations.

Medicynical Note:  We have the least efficient most expensive health care non-system in the world.  It’s not even close.  And there are over 50,000,000 uninsured (rising rapidly).

The macro health care game is to make money, not necessarily provide care or improve health.  Scamming patients (buyer beware) seems part of it.  Those trying to do good are being undermined by a system that rewards those who want to do well.  Amazing.

Our National Decline– Gluttony, Neglect……or Stupidity?

While not directly medical the discussion of our “national decline” in today’s Times has elements that impact our health care non-system.

For years many have maintained we have the “best system of health care in the world.”  I have been even chastised by some libertarian types for questioning whether we have a system of care.  They’ve maintained their view based on the fact that people with money in the U.S. do get excellent access to the latest technology and skilled physicians.  They ignore the economic and medical costs of a system that is the most inefficient and expensive (by an order of magnitude) in the world and that is not affordable by at least 25% of it’s citizens–who  lack health insurance.

The Times article by Matt Bai raises the question of whether our national decline (many won’t admit we’ve lost stature, influence and economic heft)  is due to gluttany that is overspending by government on “unnecessary” projects or neglect that is not investing smartly in our people and infrastructure:

the conversation in the capital is all about the size and role of the federal government. Basically, President Obama would cut some and spend a lot; Republicans would cut a lot and spend much less.

And:

True, Mr. Obama didn’t act on his own debt panel’s recommendation in the budget, and his proposed $1.1 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade doesn’t amount to a dent in the long-term problem, or even really a ding. But the president did propose some cuts to programs long cherished by his party (like community block grants and aid for water treatment plants), and he has repeatedly acknowledged the need to address the structural problems in the federal budget, which he argues will require a gradual process with cooperation from both parties.

Republicans, on the other hand, while making a strong push for curtailed spending in the short term, have yet to accept the case for any real public investment in technology or education or anything else, for that matter. The entirety of their case rests on the notion that the private sector can by itself build a state-of-the-art infrastructure — a possibility, certainly, but not one for which you can really find much evidence in any previous chapter of the American story.

In the same issue of the Times is a strong argument that the problem is neither.  During the debt crisis there has been much made of Texas’ apparent well being  with housing not suffering as much as elsewhere and that somehow the state government had made smart moves to keep itself solvent.  Guess what (from Gail Collins and the Houston Chronicle) the state of Texas is in deep debt from a combination of decreased revenues and unwise tax cuts:

The Houston Chronicle published an opinion piece by the former first lady titled “We Can’t Afford to Cut Education,” in which Mrs. Bush (Barbara) pointed out that students in Texas currently rank 47th in the nation in literacy, 49th in verbal SAT scores and 46th in math scores.  Medicynical Note:  Hardly an education success story.

In 2006 Governor Perry cut support of schools and hoped somehow to get away with it.  As a result schools, some quite excellent ones, are closing, class size rising and Texas’ miserable rankings in education are unlikely to improve.

Adding to the problems Texas is  the least enlightened places on earth when it comes to contraception and sex education:

The birth rate there is the highest in the country, and if it continues that way, Texas will be educating about a tenth of the future population. It ranks third in teen pregnancies — always the children most likely to be in need of extra help. And it is No. 1 in repeat teen pregnancies.

and:

it’s extremely tough for teenagers to get contraceptives in Texas. “If you are a kid, even in college, if it’s state-funded you have to have parental consent,” said Susan Tortolero, director of the Prevention Research Center at the University of Texas in Houston.

And so on regarding “abstinence education”, Read the article for the details.  It’s hard to believe that a state that thinks so much of itself can be so dumb.

Medicynical note:   Meanwhile on the national scene, our congress, just weeks after adding billions to the budget deficit through tax cuts for the wealthiest, is in the process of  “cutting the deficit” by taking financial support  from programs that help the poorest–including education and family planning. Amazing but true!

Moral Hazard? Bad Luck? Or Totally Dysfunctional Health Care

At the annual stroke conference (every disease has it’s conference) it was reported that some patients are not getting optimal care because they are uninsured and/or can’t afford the necessary medications.

The issue of the coverage of health care costs is intensified by the large vocal organized minority (I think) who believe sickness is just another moral hazard for which to hold people accountable.  Their  view  is that the individual bears responsiblity for their illnesses and therefore it’s all right that they should suffer the indignation of having no insurance.  These health care untouchables in their view deserve  relegation to  limited access to care–“they can go to ER’s.”  This tough luck attitude is held whether the  problem is lack of job, access to insurance, high cost of insurance, “pre-existing” illness clauses, accidents, hereditary disease, bad luck……whatever.

This report on strokes is the tip of the 50 million uninsured iceberg that affects health care quality and outcomes in the self proclaimed wealthiest country in the world.

Some stroke survivors skip prescribed medications because the cost is too high — a situation that may be worsening, particularly among young and uninsured patients, researchers found. According to a national survey of stroke survivors conducted from 2006 to 2009, 30% of those ages 45 to 54 and 60% of those who were uninsured reported that they were nonadherent because they could not afford to buy the medication

The current situation, not surpisingly, is worse than reported previously:

Both figures were greater than those reported in a similar survey conducted from 1998 to 2002, when cost-related nonadherence was 18% among those 45 to 54 and 39% among the uninsured,

Medicynical note:  Sad but true.   It is also a fact that the problem is getting worse with many states in the process of cutting subsidized health insurance programs, access to medicaid and working to undermine health care reform.  Only in America, literally.