Category Archives: General Cynicism

Why We Need Comparison Studies — Zometa, Aromatase Inhibitors

Zoledronic Acid (Zometa)and here

Zometa did not appear to prevent breast cancer from returning or to boost disease-free survival overall. Medicynical Note: This drug costs in the range of $1000/month.

Aromatase Inhibitors:

Aromatase inhibitors appear to increase the risk of cardiac events among women being treated for breast cancer, an analysis of several studies showed.

The relative risk of suffering a cardiovascular event increased 26% (P≤0.01); however, that excess risk can be mitigated if a woman is treated with tamoxifen first and then switches to an aromatase inhibitor, according to Eitan Amir, MD, of the Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto.

Medicynical Note: Those opposing such studies claim they are tantamount to having “death panels.” Such studies they say would restrict access to treatments.

On the other hand authorizing use of drugs that are expensive and do no good, or even do harm is criminal, given our expensive non-system of care.

Lastly it should be pointed out that there is no bar to people paying for drugs themselves if their insurer refuses payment.

The More You Do, The More You Make — Even if its not needed

Sad but true. NY Times and the Baltimore Sun documented the behavior of a Baltimore Cardiologist and Abbott laboratories. Among other things:

Dr. Mark Midei, had inserted 30 of the company’s cardiac stents in a single day in August 2008, “which is the biggest day I remember hearing about,” an executive wrote in a celebratory e-mail.

And:

an Abbott sales representative spent $2,159 to buy a whole, slow-smoked pig, peach cobbler and other fixings for a barbecue dinner at Dr. Midei’s home

And:

Their report, provided in advance to The New York Times, concludes that Dr. Midei “may have implanted 585 stents which were medically unnecessary” from 2007 to 2009. Medicare paid $3.8 million of the $6.6 million charged for those procedures.

And so on. Including kickbacks from St. Joseph Hospital in Baltimore to Dr. Midei’s practice. Literally hundreds of patients were so treated. Where were his “ethical” colleagues? hospital oversight committees?

Medicynical Note: No surprises here, money makes people do funny things. Other similar cases elsewhere are noted.

What in the world has happened to my profession?


Urologist Owned Radiation Facility (IMRT) = Expensive Conflict of Interest

WSJ notes the overuse of IMRT (intensity modulated ratiation therapy) at great cost to patients, medicare, other insurers and our health care non-system.

In recent years a number of urology groups have puchased and own radiation centers. The result is costly self referrals and obvious conflicts of interest. Here’s how it works.

urologists buy radiation equipment and hire radiation oncologists to administer it. They then refer their patients to their in-house staff for treatment. The bulk of Medicare’s reimbursements goes to the urologists as owners of the equipment.

The problem is not patient outcomes or fewer complications but rather overuse of an effective form of treatment to the financial benefit of the providers.

Asked during the interview what proportion of its prostate-cancer patients Integrated Medical treats with IMRT, Dr. Kapoor said he didn’t track such data closely, but said he would be “comfortable” with an estimate of “one out of six,” or 17%.

An analysis of Integrated Medical’s Medicare claims later performed for the Journal suggested a much higher rate. Between its launch in mid-2006 and the end of 2008, Integrated Medical administered IMRT to 601, or 53%, of 1,132 Medicare patients recently diagnosed with prostate cancer, the Journal analysis found.

Integrated Medical received $26.7 million from Medicare for the care of those 601 patients, according to the Journal’s calculations. If Integrated Medical’s urologists hadn’t owned radiation equipment and had referred these patients for radiation treatment outside of their practice, Medicare would have paid them only $2.6 million. Medicynical note: The data on treatment of patients over 80 discussed in the WSJ article is particularly damning.

The sales pitch to urologists considering buying such a radiation facility predicts an income of $425,000/doctor from incorporating such a unit in his/her practice.

Medicynical Note: This behavior falls into a loop hole of the Stark provisions against self referral. Read the article for a more complete explanation. The doctor’s position that their treatment decisions are based solely on patient benefit would be more defensible if they did not participate in the entire revenue stream and if the radiation modality did not appear to be overused.

What’s depressing is that there seems no incentive to provide care at a more reasonable price (value).   Rather than take a cut in the  generous $425,000/year doctor profit  (this in addition to his/her other fees) these providers stick it  to our failing health care non-system.

With everyone at every level  concerned with  maximizing profit, is it any wonder that we spend 17% of GDP on health?  That our health care insurance system is failing? and that we can no longer afford it!

This is going on during a disastrous financial downturn.  But then again considering the behavior of our financial sector, maybe it’s a natural consequence of a medical establishment whose primary goal seems to be monetary rather than medical.


Socialized Capitalism, Subsidies, Oversight, Regulation–Part of Industrial America from the start

The following is from the book Empire Express by David Haward Bain, Penguin Books 1999, page 670.

Over at Stanford’s car, where the Governor had entertained executives of both companies with California wine and fresh fruit and other victuals, the numerous champagne toasts were getting a little out of hand, There were several impromptu speeches and all went fine until Stanford rose to speak and launched into what Dodge recalled as “a severe attack upon the Government. He went so far as to claim that the subsidy instead of being a benefit. had rather been a detriment, with the conditions they had placed upon it.” Time and time again the companies had been scrutinized not only by its own government commissioners but by one government committee after another. Members of which, they all were aware, sometimes needed a little greasing before approving all the hard work. And now there were the “live eminent citizens” sent out by Congress, before the last special commissioners had written their report. Where was it to end? It was the wrong time and place to be complaining, and Dodge saw that everyone was discomfited by the diatribe. Dan Casement was by then feeling very merry. He climbed aboard his brother’s shoulders and called out: “Mr, President of the Central Pacific: If this subsidy has been such a detriment to the building of these roads, I move you. sir. that it be returned to the United States Government with our compliments!” This dare “brought a great cheer, ” Dodge said. “but put a very wet blanket over the rest of the time.”

Medicynical Note: It seems as if government subsidies (bailouts if you will) were written in the DNA of our country soon after it’s inception.   Also noted in the above is the need for bribes to get the attention (read that votes) of our legislators–it’s just that over the years the price has gone up and the monied influence of these donors (lobbyists) has increased.

Trying to reclaim virtue by denying our history and what is still occurring and claiming that government oversight is not needed (with many thousand times greater expenditures and lobbying budgets) is  silly and frankly a recipe for further disaster.

 


Economic Rationing of Health care is Here in Arizona– and elsewhere too!

Opponents of health reform tell us our non-system provides the best health care in the world and that we don’t “ration” health care.

In fact we have had economic rationing of health care for years. Arizona’s repulican governor Brewer’s denying transplants for medicaid patients is just the latest example. The Times looks at this policy of “death by budget cut.”

Effective at the beginning of October, Arizona stopped financing certain transplant operations under the state’s version of Medicaid. Many doctors say the decision amounts to a death sentence for some low-income patients, who have little chance of survival without transplants and lack the hundreds of thousands of dollars needed to pay for them.

Francisco Felix, 32, a father of four who has hepatitis C and is in need of a liver, received news a few weeks ago that a family friend was dying and wanted to donate her liver to him. But the budget cuts meant he no longer qualified for a state-financed transplant.

Such high drama is unfolding regularly here as more and more of the roughly 100 people affected by the cuts are becoming known: the father of six who died before receiving a bone marrow transplant, the plumber in need of a new heart and the high school basketball coach who struggles to breathe during games at high altitudes as she awaits a lung transplant.

Medicynical Note: This is the future of the U.S. non-system of health care without reform. The facts are that we need to find ways to be more efficient, provide value in care and assure that those who can be successfully treated receive that treatment.

At present our non-system is inefficient, provides poor value (we’re #1 in the world in percapita costs by 50% or more) and have numerous people who are being denied care on economic grounds. This in what was once the most successful economy in the world.

Why our non-system is soooo inefficient and costly

Article at the National Bureau of Economic Research by David Cutler notes: (Body of article is behind pay wall)

Cutler begins by noting that productivity growth has been much slower in health care than in most other sectors of the economy. In other industries, productivity growth has been driven primarily not by the development of new goods but by new ways of organizing production, distribution, and sales, changes that jointly have resulted in more output per dollar of inputs. In health care, by contrast, there has been very little organizational innovation.

His analysis of the process of medicine identifies three issues resulting in high cost and inefficiency. First, in many instances such as prostate cancer and coronary artery disease and cancer of the elderly we provide expensive aggressive interventions that yield little survival benefit. Second he notes the poor coordination of our system so that for example diabetics often do not get optimal care–in the summary he does not discuss the influence of cost on this lack of care. Third he comments on the high cost of providing care and suggests greater use of technology and such interventions as checklists to improve the outcomes. I’m unconvinced by this part of the analysis

Medicynical Note:  Participants in our non-system  game it to increase revenue and profits  for providers–procedures over other care– suppliers, and insurers.

Quality, efficiency and value are not part of the equation.

Vitamin D Supplementation– All Hype? Little Evidence of Efficacy

The prestigious Institute of Medicine released a report November 30th indicating that the hype over Vitamin D supplementation is just that, hype:

The committee provided an exhaustive review of studies on potential health outcomes and found that the evidence supported a role for these nutrients in bone health but not in other health conditions. Overall, the committee concludes that the majority of Americans and Canadians are receiving adequate amounts of both calcium and vitamin D. Further, there is emerging evidence that too much of these nutrients may be harmful.

Regarding the efficacy of Vitamin D on health problems the study concluded:

It reviewed a range of health outcomes, including but not limited to cancer, cardiovascular disease and hypertension, diabetes and metabolic syndrome, falls, immune response, neuropsychological functioning, physical performance, preeclampsia, and reproductive outcomes. This thorough review found that information about the health benefits beyond bone health—benefits often reported in the media—were from studies that provided often mixed and inconclusive results and could not be considered reliable.

Medicynical Note: I recently went to our local health food Coop and was amazed, (as I always am) at the two to three aisles of vitamins , food supplements and such ironically being marketed to people who are deeply interested in maintaining their precious bodily fluids (see General. Jack D. Ripper).

The notion that there be some proof of efficacy of these supplements before taking megadoses seems foreign to our culture and perhaps has to do with our belief in miracles, religiousity, aggressive marketing and doing what we are told to do.

Our Health Care System: Inefficiency, is that a problem?

The Washington Times presents a tortured argument against promoting more efficient care in the most expensive health care non-system in the world.

Think of it, a centralized, federal database tracking your every visit to a health care provider – where you went, who you saw, what was diagnosed and what care was provided. Chilling.  Medicynical note: as if private insurers oversight that  controls and limits treatment given is less intrusive, or as if the data will have patient identifiers.

The Times takes issue with the notion of efficiency in health care.  To them, apparently,   spending 50% more per capita on health care than any other nation in the world and 17% of GDP, and increasing yearly, is acceptable:

There is no telling what metrics will be used to define the efficiencies, but it is clear who will bear the brunt of these decisions. Those suffering the infirmities of age, surely, and also the physically and mentally disabled, whose health costs are great and whose ability to work productively in the future are low. And how will premature babies fare under the utilitarian gaze of Washington’s health efficiency experts? Will our severely wounded warriors be forced to forgo treatments and therapies based on their inability to be as productive as they once might have been? And will the love between a parent and child have a column on the health bureaucrats’ spreadsheets?

The Times then goes on to compare cost efficacy measures with the nazis.

Medicynical note: Nothing surprising here. Until we show some will to control  costs our non-system caring for an aging increasingly health care needy population will continue to spend our nation’s wealth.

Our republican friends have been amazingly quiet about their solutions. Their “free market” rhetoric leads one to assume they would put an increasingly large burden of expense on individuals–their form of individual mandate. They would then let the costs of health care assure economic rationing. For those who can’t afford care, I suppose their solution for patients is that of 18th century France and will let them eat cake.

Medicare Hospital Pricing — Cost plus

Our health care non-system is remarkable for it’s high cost and the resultant inability of individuals to afford insurance and care (50,000,000 uninsured).  Ewe Reinhardt’s discussion on hospital pricing helps understand the exceptional costs we pay for hospitalization and the inefficiency of the system.

He notes the origin of the Medicare hospital reimbursement mechanism:

this was a home-grown American idea that Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush embraced and introduced to Medicare.

He explains the differences between the amount paid by private insurers and Medicare:

Private insurers pay hospitals mainly on the basis of negotiated per-diem rates,

A natural byproduct of one-on-one negotiations is price discrimination, which means that a hospital charges different insurers different prices for the same service, and that a given health insurer pays different hospitals substantially different prices for the same service Medicynical Note:  Some remarkable price differences   without evidence of difference in outcomes.

Medicare pays on a different basis:

Medicare uses what is known as the “case base” system for paying hospitals for inpatient care, which means that hospitals receive one single payment for an entire inpatient episode of a given type.

The medicare payment is corrected for a number of factors including case severity, type of hospital, the amount of non-reimbursed care offered by the hospital and so on –read the article for more.

Medicynical Note:  Medicare’s system seems reasonable, though there have been noted to be wide geographical variations in payments reflecting differences in local economies, local inefficiencies and gaming of the system.

As we work to make Medicare more efficient and economical perhaps with a budget based system, reimbursements  will need to be rebalanced with fewer rewards for procedures and high tech interventions and more for those involved in face to face care.

Campath for Multiple Sclerosis — A Primer on Drug Marketing

This from Bnet is enough to make a Medicynic’s day:

If Campath is approved for MS, Genzyme would face several choices, both moral and economic:

It could rebrand Campath as an MS drug and sell it in MS-dose-sized ampules for thousands of dollars more. But that would lead to an uproar from MS sufferers who would know they’re being exploited. And it might lead to doctors splitting up 30mg ampules intended for CLL patients and diverting the supply to MS patients.

It could leave Campath at the same price for CLL — but that would destroy the existing MS drug market and drug companies are generally loathe to implode lucrative disease categories when they present themselves.

It could withdraw the drug completely for CLL but promise to continue supplying those patients free of charge, and then relaunch Campath as an expensive MS-only product. That might prevent MS patients migrating to diverted CLL doses, but it would also be controversial.

Medicynic: How about providing an effective drug at minimal cost