Category Archives: Uncategorized

Health Care: A Moral Value, A Necessity, An Ethical Dilemma

Fine editorial by a bioethicist James Drane: 

Those opposed to any change in the present U.S. health-care system claim that it is already the best in the world, therefore why change it. In fact, an assessment of all health-care systems by the World Health Organization ranks the U.S. system at 37th in the world, right ahead of Slovenia. Five different performance standards were used to measure health systems.

And:

Although the term public welfare is not used in public discussion of health-care here in the U.S., it does belong, and it is not socialism. Public welfare, in fact, is a term found in the first sentence of the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1788. “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” One purpose of government, stated in the Constitution, is to promote the general welfare. It refers to the goods that all people need to be free and to enjoy prosperity.

And concludes:

In democracies, citizens are responsible for choosing the moral values of their societies. Voters create good societies through good laws and humane policies. When a large percentage of the population lives in abject poverty, when children die unnecessarily, when elderly persons suffer in isolation, when 46 million people have no health care, the common good is not being achieved and the general welfare is not being provided.

Medicynical Note:  Our democracy’ s approach to health care has it’s grotesque aspects;

  • Political parties (and politicians) selling themselves to highest bidder, an action sanctioned by the Supreme Court
  • Sanctioning “free” ER use as an alternative to a health care access for all citizens
  • Actually, over 50 million are uninsured (and rapidly rising)
  • Health Insurers who don’t want to insure those needing health care
  • Pharmaceutical suppliers gouging the sickest and most helpless in our culture

And so on. 

Our health care non-system is already viewed with incredulity in other industrialized nations.  They are amazed that the “leading nation of the world” would tolerate such an abomination.

To Obama’s great credit he’s taken the first faltering steps in leading towards a more rational humane universal health care system.  The question is whether we’ll evolve further into an efficient coherent economical system or de-evolve into a health disaster and a dead end.

Important HIV Transmission Data: Decreased with early treatment

Substantial reduction in transmission of HIV virus with early treatment:

Men and women infected with HIV reduced the risk of transmitting the virus to their sexual partners by taking oral antiretroviral medicines when their immune systems were relatively healthy, according to findings from a large-scale clinical study sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health.

Medicynical Note: The study was done in a population that was 97% heterosexual but it is likely the same benefit would accrue in gay couples.


ER Care, the new office visit

A friend of a friend recently had a hip replacement and during her recovery began to feel week and enervated.  She was on coumadin to prevent blood clots, iron and hydrocodone.

She became alarmed with the fatigue and called her surgeon and promptly was referred to the ER.

It turned out her problem was a early urinary infection and moderate dehydration.

Medicynical note:  Our non-system is blithely unaware of cost.  This patient’s issue did not require an ER visit.  It was a simple outpatient problem. 

But her surgeon was not prepared to care for his surgical complication even if it was minor and easily handled (and during office hours).    Instead the patient and her insurer will bear the expense of a new patient evaluation in an ER and whatever expenses that were incurred. Remember ER care is the most expensive and least efficient in our non-system, particularly for non-emergencies.

This is good ole American ingenuity at work.  Efficiency?  Value?  Not our department.  Everyone makes money.

Maybe this will change with Accountable Care Organizations?

The Real Death Tax (Reprinted from 2006)

We’ve talked in the past week about the quality and costs of care in the United States. Our patent (government sanctioned monopoly) system is part of the problem.

Big PHARMA maintains that it is essential to have exclusive patents now up to 20-25 years in length to assure profits that will allow continued research and development of new drugs. As a result of Pharma’s effective congressional lobby, pharmaceuticals are the only uncontrolled, i.e. not open to negotiation and price setting, of the health care expense areas. Hospitalization, doctor’s fees, laboratory costs are all negotiable and discounted by the various health care payers. As a result, the rate of increase of spending on pharmaceuticals far exceeds that of other areas–13% a year since 1980. More on health care costs here and here.

Patent law has been carefully crafted to maximize profits of the drug industry. During the patent protected period drug companies can and do charge whatever they wish for a product. As a result, over the past 30 years drug prices have risen exponentially to unimagined levels and the industry has enjoyed record profitability “one example is that in 2002, the combined profits for the ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 ($35.9 billion) were more than the profits for all the other 490 businesses put together ($33.7 billion).”

When I started my medical oncology practice in the 70′s the cost of anticancer drugs averaged under $100/month. By the 90′s the pricing of new drugs broached the $1000/month, and by 2005 we were in the area of $10,000/month for some new drugs. For more look here.

It’s an unfortunate fact that in cancer therapy pharmaceutical costs have become what is essentially a death tax on the desperately ill. Your give your money or your life is on the line. Consider the number of people each year facing a life threatening illness. Consider also that the cost of many of these new drugs/year exceeds the average and median incomes in the U.S.; exceeds the cost of new automobiles; and over the lifetime of a patient the cost of a single medication can exceed the cost of the home of most americans. (see previous post on imitinib) Instead of a benevolent health care system in which access to care and restoration of health are the goals, we have a system whose main purpose is to maintain the profits of the health care industrial complex. The result is wealth redistribution rather than a fair price.

Pricing of pharmaceuticals is not sustainable and is the equivalent of a market bubble that cries out for correction.

Medicynic:  This post is reprinted from 2006.  The Ryan plan is the same idea.  It formalizes a tax on whatever wealth you may have  from those with limited resources to the one of the wealthiest industries.  It’s rationing of care by wealth–the new American way? 

Drug Pricing, What Kind of Fools Are We?

That we are suckers and fools when it comes to pricing of drugs is evident from the fact that we pay much more for drugs than any other place in the world.  It make no difference  if the drug was researched and developed here or overseas, we pay more, much more.

Check our this from Bloomberg:

In the years since 2007:

The average quarterly earnings growth for drugmakers was 10 percent since the first quarter of 2007.

But there are problems with generics:

Pfizer, Merck & Co. and Bristol Myers Squibb Co. are eliminating jobs, cutting costs and shedding business units to prepare for patent expirations. In 2011, drugmakers face generic rivals to products with $34 billion in yearly sales, a figure 34 percent higher than last year. Sales at risk from patent losses will swell to $147 billion by 2015,

But, price increases have the potential to ease the pain:

Most U.S. revenue growth in the pharmaceutical industry will come from price increases after some drug costs were raised more than 10 percent, Bernstein’s Anderson wrote in an April 12 note. Pricing outside the U.S. probably declined after cost reductions were implemented last year in at least 10 European countries, he said. (Emphasis by medicynic)

Medicynical Note:  What’s impressive is the fact that health reform is already having some effect on pricing and that the industry expects the effect of the reform to be lower prices, and lower profits.  It’s about time.

Overplaying their hand — Abolish Medicare, Close down the Government, is this a game plan?

Our rightist friends giddy with power in one week propose to abolish medicare and then close down the government over piddling budget cuts.  At issue in the closedown is a few billion dollars difference between them and the Democrats.

Meanwhile they, the republicans, added 400 billion dollars/year to our deficits in tax cuts to the wealthiest citizens.

This in what was formerly the leader of the free world.

It IS about the money — drug companies increase prices at 5-10 times inflation

Amazing but true, with the economy in the dumps, unemployment remaining in the 10% range with huge numbers of people uninsured and unable to afford care our pharmaceutical industry raises prices. Their increase is not at the  rate of inflation or even near it,  but rather approaching 5-10 times that rate.  This is the “free market” runing amok.

According to MarketScan, payments for Pfizer Inc’s Lipitor rose 11.4 percent last year, compared with 5 percent annually from 2005 to 2010. That meant the cost of a daily dose of the cholesterol drug rose from $3.17 at the end of 2009 to $3.53 at the end of 2010. Lipitor, which will soon lose patent protection, had 2010 global sales of $10.7 billion.

Drugs with price rises in the mid teens included: cholesterol drug Crestor made by AstraZeneca Inc; blood-clot preventer Plavix sold by Bristol Myers Squibb Co and Sanofi-Aventis; and asthma treatment Singulair, from Merck & Co.

AstraZeneca’s antipsychotic drug Seroquel topped the list with a 16.5 percent price jump, according to MarketScan data, which is particularly telling since it comes from actual payments by insurers, rather than manufacturer list prices.

Medicynical Note:  If the drugs are effective the companies are saying pay us or die.  If these drugs are marginally effective or no better than generics (true of some of the drugs) we are experiencing a scam powered by advertising and collusion with suppliers and providers.

Drug manufacturers claim they need the increases to “develop” new drugs.  In reality they spend more on advertising and marketing than research and have higher profits and profit margins than the great majority of Fortune 500 firms.  Raising prices is gilding their lily.  Efficiency and value, not their department.

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.

Health Care– What’s Missing?

The current crisis in health care is more than an argument about universal coverage versus “free market” medicine or costs.

Case example (this is  patient currently trying to get appropriate care):

Noting a chronic cough the patient was referred to an ER and had a CT scan which showed a fist sized anterior mediastinal mass.  Within three days she had a needle biopsy.

The first result of the biopsy came 5 days later and was inconclusive.  The specimen was referred to a university center and five days later (almost two weeks after the CT) the patient was informed that the biopsy was inadequate to make a diagnosis.

Her family doctor referred her to an oncologist and made arrangements for a surgical consultation both another 10 days later–into the fourth week since diagnosis.

On seeing the oncologist she was admitted to the hospital ostensibly to be seen by a surgeon and to have a PET scan.  The surgeon never visited the patient and the PET scan could not be authorized without a diagnosis.

The patient is now 4 weeks post CT scan and still has no diagnosis or treatment plan.

Medicynical Note: The patient has been seen by an ER doctor, primary care physician, radiologist for biopsy, pathologist (indirectly), oncologist 1( in the office), oncologist 2 at the hospital.  In the rush of their respective businesses, it appears that no one except the ER doc has taken seriously the patient’s problem and the need for  expedited evaluation, and treatment.

In our non-system we have given little attention to improving health care delivery and providing better value.  In the case cited everyone’s priorities seem to have taken precedence over the patient’s.  No one to this date has acted as if this were a serious life threatening illness.  The patient has accrued thousands of dollars in costs and yet has no diagnosis or treatment plan.

As the Harvard Public Health Review has noted:

Across the United States, trust in institutions that guard the public’s health and provide care has fallen to an all-time low. Patients mistrust insurers and pharmaceutical companies, and lack complete confidence in their doctors; physicians, in turn, are skeptical of clinic and hospital leaders.

The article also notes:

Since then, Shore notes, service has declined while premiums have risen. News headlines have fueled public suspicion by spotlighting both tragic medical errors (Boston Globe reporter succumbs to cancer chemotherapy overdose) and fraudulent practices (a hospital scam to bilk Medicare of $2.6 million). Meanwhile, government has been unable to resolve two problems Americans consider urgent: rising health care costs and the growing ranks of the uninsured.

Part of the problem is that in our non-system  financial incentives are aligned to encourage utilization of services with little consideration of organization, order, efficiency or value.

A New England Journal article on biomedical research sums up the situation:

Since the mid-1990s, the United States has invested approximately 4.5% of its total health expenditures on biomedical research. In contrast, only 0.1% supports research in health services, comparative effectiveness, new care models, best practices, and quality, outcome, or service innovations. This funding will increase to approximately 0.3% from appropriations in 2010 health legislation.

We need to not only develop new technology but must improve our delivery system.  Wasted resources jeopardize our financial well being.  Wasted time to diagnosis and treatment jeopardize patient’s lives.  Our system, such as it is, too often wastes both.