Category Archives: Health Economics

America Lags Behind: Even with Medicare

Even with Medicare the U.S. lags behind other countries in healthcare access,  costs and quality.  This graph from the Commonwealth Fund survey of older adults says it all.

Among American seniors, 21 percent had out-of-pocket medical expenses that topped $2,000 and 11 percent had problems paying their medical bills. In Norway and Sweden, 1 percent had problems paying; in Germany, 3 percent.

“As good as Medicare is – it provides excellent coverage over all – it still isn’t as protective as the coverage people get in other countries,” Ms. Osborn said. Its deductibles and cost-sharing requirements still leave many Americans scrambling to afford drugs and doctors – which also cost more here.

Read the article for more.

Medicynical Note:  The basic premise of those involved in healthcare in the U.S. is different than in other countries.  Instead of assuring   value, quality and access, our system is devoted to assuring excessive financial returns to providers, insurers, drug companies and hospitals.  Protections are in place not to assure good quality affordable health care but rather to guarantee profits.

Some examples of this include congress forbidding the government from negotiating price of drugs purchased by Medicare part D; the generation long monopoly afforded new drugs without assuring reasonable pricing (one of the requirements of the Dole-Bayh law that is not enforced); the obscured price of services at medical facilities–insurers pay half of what an individual would pay for the same service.  It’s worse than buying a used car. And so on.

American Exceptionlism, Again: 42.9 million Americans have unpaid medical bills

Another only in American moment. 

Nearly 20 percent of U.S. consumers with credit records — 42.9 million people — have unpaid medical debts, according to a new report by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The findings suggest that many Americans are being trapped by debt because they are confused by the notices they get from hospitals and insurance companies about the cost of treatment. As a result, millions of Americans may be surprised to find they are stuck with lower credit scores, making it harder for them to borrow to buy a home or an automobile.

Medicynical Note:  Not only do we have the most expensive, inefficient health care non-system in the world, but we also lead the world in medical debt and bankruptcy (a category of bankruptcy unknown in other industrialized countries).  Even with the Affordable Care Act, this problem persists. 

Instead of doing something about it our new republican congress wants to make it worse by doing away with the Affordable Care Act (the only progress in 30 years) and replacing it with …………….nothing.  Amazing. 

America isn’t fit to lead the world until it gets it’s own house in order. 

Healthcare Theater of the Absurd: I’m an Obama supporter. But Obamacare has hurt my family.

This poorly reasoned self pitying whine appeared in the Washington  Post.  In it the author bemoans having to pay about 13% more for insurance  than she paid in 2013.  Part of that was the yearly increment of insurance and part just and increased payment for better coverage.  The author and her spouse are in their late 50’s he has prostate cancer and a history of  heart surgery.

Since his heart diagnosis in 2005, Jim, who probably couldn’t have found a policy as an individual because of his condition, had been covered by small-business group insurance — because his self-storage business in Banning had one other employee. But his work, and his coverage, were always subject to change.

I remained vulnerable as a freelance writer and part-time university professor who had to pay for her own health insurance. I also had had a few health hiccups, including surgery to repair a herniated disk from spinal degeneration, and so I lived with the daily realization that one bit of bad health news could cause my policy to be canceled

Absurdly she complains

We have no choice to opt out of the required pediatric dentistry or maternity coverage we’ll never use, so we’ll eventually have to settle for less generous policies, with higher deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums.

But she notes that in the first year of coverage it more than returned the additional cost in better coverage for her husband’s cancer–which in turn was funded by people who had no need for cancer treatment.  But that’s the way insurance is supposed to work.  Read the article for more:

Medicynical Note:  Yes the system, thanks to the republican opposition to a simple single provider approach, is convoluted and complicated.  Yes you have to have comprehensive coverage that includes some things that you don’t really need at this time.  But in this woman’s case she and her spouse get guaranteed insurability at an affordable rate.  Pre-health reform it was normal for people with illnesses like her husband’s to have their insurance cancelled or their premiums doubled.  Paradoxically in that non-system the goal of insurers was not to cover sick people so as to maximize profits–health care is really not their primary concern. 

The Affordable Care Act has enabled millions of uninsured to get coverage but it does need to be viewed as a first step.  The process needs simplification; insurers need to become more efficient (their 20% or so profit is unacceptable); and yes costs need to be controlled.  It should be noted that this year we had the lowest increase in health spending in 30 years.

But despite the progress, our conservative friends can still revel in the facts that the U.S. still has the most expensive, least efficient health care in the world.  We are number one in costs, uninsured and bankruptcy from medical costs.   They seem to like it that way.

It’s NOT a Health Care System

The Times reports on bribes given to health care providers to prescribe their patent protected product.  In this case it’s a addicting medication.

Dr. Judson Somerville, a pain specialist in Laredo, Tex., received $67,000 in speaking fees, travel and meals in 2013 to promote a powerful and addictive painkiller called Subsys, according to a new federal database of payments that drug companies make to physicians.

But while Insys Therapeutics, the Arizona company that makes the product, was paying Dr. Somerville to promote it, he was under investigation by the Texas Medical Board. Last December, the board ordered him to stop prescribing painkillers after it found that he had authorized employees to hand out pre-signed prescriptions to patients and after it learned that three of his patients had died in 2012 of drug overdoses, most likely from drugs that he had prescribed.

Read the article and weep!

Medicynical Note:  Health care in the U.S. is not systematically provided and the way it is delivered is not a “system” to provide it.   Rather what patients received is carefully designed “system” to maximize revenue for providers, hospitals, insurers, technology developers and pharmaceutical manufacturers.  The well-being of their stock holders and investors are much more important to them than the well-being of patients. 

Medically Induced Bankruptcy: An American Disease

In the U.S. we have no system of health care but rather a well oiled revenue generating infrastructure that incidentally provides care while charging excessive amounts.  This distorts our entire economy.  We spend nearly 20% of the GDP for medical related expenditures.  It’s literally your money or your life (Thank you Marcia Angell).

Even with the affordable care act in force this still happens.

The woman tells WISC-TV [via Reddit] that in Sept. 2013 she went into cardiac arrest and was taken by ambulance to a hospital that was out of her insurance network instead of the one — only a few blocks farther away — that accepts her Anthem Blue Cross coverage.

Had she gone to the in-network hospital, she’d only have been hit with about $1,500 in expenses. But since she was taken to the other hospital, she now has to pay the huge difference between what her insurance company paid the hospital and what the hospital charges.

“I was in a coma,” explains the woman. “I couldn’t very well wake up and say, ‘Hey, take me to the next hospital.’”

Read the article for more.

Medicynical note:  For my friends who think the “free market” is the solution and that we merely need to shop for the best price and become informed before purchasing,  this woman’s situation typifies health care.  It is not discretionary, it is often emergent, there may not be another option locally, pricing is unclear,  often obfuscated and not fully apparent at the start. 

The U.S. remains the only industrialized country in the world without a national health program, the only country in which people go bankrupt from health care expenses, which are by far the highest in the world. 

And the newly elected republican congress wants to make things worse.  America is truly exceptional. 

It IS The Money, Stupid (Gilead– Solvaldi, Harvoni and Hepatitis C)

Make no mistake for the pharmaceutical industry, it’s the money that counts.   Gilead is now marketing two drugs for hepatitis C costing in the range of $80-100,000 for the pills alone.  That is over $1000/pill.

In the 90’s the drug companies discovered that people with serious life-threatening illness would pay anything for a “treatment” even if it was minimally effective.  They would pay more if the drug actually worked.

For years Pharma’s problem was that people with cancers were not so numerous as those with high cholesterol or high blood pressure  or even diabetes.  As such it was less rewarding to develop new drugs for these patients.  That limitation however became less of a problem  as the price of the drug increased to tens of thousands of dollars/year for the drug alone–and insurers paid.

Now Gilead appears to have hit the trifecta.  First they have a drug that appears to work in a majority of those afflicted.  Second they are charging $90,000/head for the treatment, and third there are millions of people afflicted.  What could be better?

Medicynical note:  The cost of this drug puts to rest once and for all the notion that drug companies have any interest in the well-being of their patients.  It IS the money.  There is little doubt that charging half or a quarter of their asking price would reward the company handsomely for their investment in this drug and provide stockholders a generous return.  BUT as is the case in our drug industry, why charge less when you can get away with more.  After all the disease is often fatal, insurers will pay and patients are desperate.  It’s perfect.

And the price is only about twice the median income (including physicians fees and lab expenses for a year) of people in the U.S.  Affordable, no.  But who really cares?

 

Ebola and CDC

The CDC’s Mission Statement:

CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same.

CDC increases the health security of our nation. As the nation’s health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise.

And in it’s wisdom congress (largely through republican efforts) has decreased the agency’s budget 10% since 2010.

2010: $6.467 billion
2011: $5.737 billion
2012: $5.732 billion
2013: $5.721 billion
2013 (after sequestration took effect): $5.432 billion
2014: $5.882 billion

Medicynic Note:  It’s a little like cutting taxes during a war (of course only madmen do that).

The Cleopatra Study (Her 2 Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer) Unprecedented Survival, Unaffordable pricing

What happens when there is promising technology for severe illness that is unaffordable? I’m guessing we’ll find out if the results of the Cleopatra study are applied to clinical practice.

The study noted:

Final results from the CLEOPATRA study show that the combination of 2 targeted agents, trastuzumab (Herceptin, Roche/Genentech) and pertuzumab (Perjeta, Roche/Genentech), significantly prolonged survival in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, compared with trastuzumab alone. The targeted agents were added to chemotherapy with docetaxel.

Patients treated with the combination plus chemotherapy lived 15.7 months longer than those who received trastuzumab and chemotherapy (median overall survival, 56.5 vs. 40.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; P = .0002).

But there is a catch

An added concern is the high cost of dual HER2 inhibition at a time when oncologists are under pressure to contain costs. According to the New York Times, Genentech is putting the wholesale cost of pertuzumab at $5,900/month, which added to the typical $4,500/month costs of trastuzumab, would drive the cost of 18 months of treatment to $187,000.

And this pricing does not include  physician fees, imaging expenses, the cost of the additional chemotherapy (taxanes), laboratory and so on.

Medicynical Note:  The pricing for the two HER 2 blockers used in the Cleopatra study is three time the median income of families in the U.S.   Adding insult to injury, after this huge expenditure the patient is not cured.

The question is who will be able to pay for these drugs?  How will such care be funded by insurers?  And shouldn’t we be able to develop advanced approaches at more reasonable costs? 

As it is the U.S. pays more for everything in healthcare than other places in the world.  We are literally bankrupting ourselves individually and collectively.  There’s something terribly wrong in a health care “system” whose primary goal is revenue generation. 

It’s the Money Stupid! (Or Doctors play the lottery)

Medicine over the years has become increasingly entrepreneurial and money driven.  Health care, efficiency and value have become secondary aims  being overshadowed by the quest for money.   In health care, the product you are buying is not usually discretionary, predatory billing is common and an uninformed naive patient can literally lose his shirt.  These patients experiences while extreme are not unique.

Before his three-hour neck surgery for herniated disks in December, Peter Drier, 37, signed a pile of consent forms. A bank technology manager who had researched his insurance coverage, Mr. Drier was prepared when the bills started arriving: $56,000 from Lenox Hill Hospital in Manhattan, $4,300 from the anesthesiologist and even $133,000 from his orthopedist, who he knew would accept a fraction of that fee.

and

Patricia Kaufman’s bills after a recent back operation at a Long Island hospital were rife with such charges, said her husband, Alan, who spent days sorting them out. Two plastic surgeons billed more than $250,000 to sew up the incision, a task done by a resident during previous operations for Ms. Kaufman’s chronic neurological condition.

Read the article for more details.

Medicynical Note:  Medicine is simply following the lead of a deregulated culture that seems to believe that anything  goes and that in time the problem will sort itself out.  In health care that policy has left a trail of people who are “uninsurable”, neglected medical problems, medically related bankruptcies (we lead the world), exploding  costs and a non-sytem of  care whose primary focus is generating revenue. Some drug costs have increased 1000 percent in the past 30-40 years…has your salary kept up? 

The Affordable Care Act is already helping but we should not underestimate the reactionary forces that believe the money driven non-system is the “best in the world.”

A Modest Proposal: Eliminate Patents on Drugs

I’ve heard from my libertarian friends of the beauty and efficacy of an open unfettered marketplace.  They maintain that regulation causes inefficiencies and the less there is the better.  In medicine there are necessary protections to assure safety (if not efficacy) of medical interventions.  But also there is a regulation that assures excess profits for drug developers, i.e. patents. 

The recent article in the New Yorker Ebolanomics highlights the costs of drug development and offers a new model for drug development. 

When pharmaceutical companies are deciding where to direct their R. & D. money, they naturally assess the potential market for a drug candidate. That means that they have an incentive to target diseases that affect wealthier people (above all, people in the developed world), who can afford to pay a lot. They have an incentive to make drugs that many people will take. And they have an incentive to make drugs that people will take regularly for a long time—drugs like statins.

Read the article for more.

In addition to trying to develop drugs that are used by “everyone” as noted in Ebolanomics, gouging the sickest patients to increase drug company revenue seems to be the alternative model of the drug development.  The excessive prices appear to be unlinked from development costs or  efficacy and are solely dependent on how desperate the patients are, the more malignant the disease the higher the cost.   Drug costs for cancer patients since the 90’s have increased by a factor of almost 100.  I recall new drugs in the early 90’s in the range of a few hundred dollars/dose.  By the end of the 90’s that cost was $1000/dose and with the advent of targeted drugs that cost is over $100,000/year. 

Medications have become the most expensive part of medical care.   A drug now costs more than that Mercedes you’ve been eyeing.  And if it were developed for cancer treatment as often as not it provides just a few months of benefit. 

Drug company costs are hidden behind a veil of secrecy and obfuscation.  Ironically the drugs that are really effective have the shortest development cycle and lowest cost to bring to market.  Consider for example the first targeted agent for chronic myelogenous leukemia,  imatinib (Gleevac).  The drug was developed with government provided research funds.  In it’s first clinical trial it’s efficacy and safety were immediately evident and it’s use revolutionized therapy.  It was immediately taken private and quickly became the most expensive drug on the market.  That despite the government funding and the short drug development cycle.  Charging $100,000 or so/year for it is not based on cost but rather greed.

On the other hand consider the numerous drugs with limited efficacy, i.e. drugs looking for an indication.  These agents are tested and tested and tested and eureka when a one or two month benefit is found, even if it’s a delay to progression with no survival benefit, it is heavily marketed as the second coming and sold for the same price as the truly effective agents, if any.  In this case costs are driven up by the drug’s lack of efficacy and need for many many many trials to find a use for it.

Medicynical Note:  Patents appear to have outlived their usefulness when it comes to drug development.  There is no incentive in the system  to provide value or for that matter efficiency.  Pricing has been delinked from development and marketing rules the roost.  Drug companies interest is in revenue, not healthcare.

Encouraging competition by eliminating patents will do away with the marketing nonsense.  A path to new and innovative drugs would need a new paradigm and the approach offered in Ebolanomics offers one approach.