American Health Care: It’s the Money, Stupid

American health care is the best  i.e. the most expensive in the world:  See this to get an idea of the problem:

According to his bill, the hospital charged $81,000 for a four-vial dose of the medication.

Shocked at the price tag, Ferguson told the Charlotte Observer he and his wife found the same vials online for retail prices as low as $750.

Medicynical Note:  Health care value is an oxymoron in the U.S.  To these “providers” it’s the money that counts.

Quality, cost efficiency, access, good outcomes are not their primary issues. 

Health Care: It’s about the money, again

Hospital systems just can’t resist the temptation to maximize revenue and profits.    Another example of this was cited in the NY Times “Hospital Chain said to Scheme to Inflate Bills”

In the the article:

Physicians hitting the target to admit at least half of the patients over 65 years old who entered the emergency department were color-coded green. The names of doctors who were close were yellow. Failing physicians were red.

The scorecards, according to one whistle-blower lawsuit, were just one of the many ways that Health Management Associates, a for-profit hospital chain based in Naples, Fla., kept tabs on an internal strategy that regulators and others say was intended to increase admissions, regardless of whether a patient needed hospital care, and pressure the doctors who worked at the hospital.

Read the article for the details.

Medicynical Note:  This is not much different than the common practice of having multiple levels of fees for services provided.  For insurers there are discounts sometimes exceeding 50% while individuals without insurance are charged the full rate.  

Going to the hospital is increasingly like going to a used car dealer (no offense intended).  Prices aren’t what they seem; you need to bargain hard for the best deal and yes scamming the customer and system seems to be a problem. 

Oh yes, did I mention health care value, quality and access……….not really a prime concern.

Hospital mergers: Not Good for the System or the Patient

Published in The Systhesis Project published by Robert Wood Johnson Foundation:

Hospital consolidation generally results in higher prices. This is true across geographic markets and different data sources. When hospitals merge in already concentrated markets, the price increase can be dramatic, often exceeding 20 percent.

Hospital competition improves quality of care. This is true under both administered price systems, such as Medicare and the English National Health Service, and market determined pricing such as the private health insurance market. The evidence is more mixed from studies of market determined systems, however.

Physician-hospital consolidation has not led to either improved quality or reduced costs. Studies find that consolidation was primarily for the purpose of enhanced bargaining power with payers, and hence did not lead to true integration. Consolidation without integration does not lead to enhanced performance.

Medicynical Note:  So consolidation costs more and doesn’t improve  care.  It also decreases choice, for example as when a religious based “Health”system dominates an area.  Not good. 

Vitamins—Triumph of hype over reason, but, then again, who needs facts

The medical industrial complex excels at creating disease states and then marketing “cures.”  The use of vitamins has been a recommendation for years for problems as disparate as  the common cold and cancer.  But always with the promise that it will do no harm….except to your pocketbook.

The some is good means that more must be better mentality (even with no evidence of either) has reigned for the last 60 or so years, particularly when one talks vitamins.  Megavits, vitamin C for what ails you, vitamins for the well nourished…..all are marketing triumphs.  It’s dubious that demand for them will change, even the  news that they do no good and indeed in some people may cause harm .

Multiple sources (here, here) quote the Annals of Internal Medicine study and editorialA review of vitamin use was published in the NY Times last June.

Medicynical Note:  I don’t think for one second that facts will alter America’s desire to do something, anything, even if it does nothing.

Hospital Costs: The ER Visit

We’ve talked about America’s high costs.  One reason is our overuse of ER’s for outpatient care.

The medical mafia makes a big deal about the “sacred” patient doctor relationship.  My experience the past several years is that first, there is nothing sacred going on here and second that the relationship is a somewhat romantic figment of our imagination–it no longer exists.

You realize, of course, that the solo practitioner has gone the way of dinosaurs.  For virtually everyone your family doctor (of one sort or another) is part of a group practice.  When you become ill more often than not you family doc, the guy/gal you have the sacred relationship with, is normally fully booked and you see another practitioner/nurse/physicians’ assistant.  Your doc may or may not even be aware that you have had a problem.  If you are hospitalized your care is turned over to yet another provider, the hospitalist.  Another doctor you have never met.

It’s even worse than implied above.  If you should have an emergency of one sort or another, real or not so real, you are advised to go to  the ER.  That shifts the responsibility for your care elsewhere and quite remarkably escalates our costs to unimaginable levels.  The “sacred” relationship is nowhere to be found.

Elizabeth Rosenthal of the NY Times discusses ER costs here.

A day spent as an inpatient at an American hospital costs on average more than $4,000, five times the charge in many other developed countries, according to the International Federation of Health Plans, a global network of health insurance industries. The most expensive hospitals charge more than $12,500 a day. And at many of them, including California Pacific Medical Center, emergency rooms are profit centers. That is why one of the simplest and oldest medical procedures — closing a wound with a needle and thread — typically leads to bills of at least $1,500 and often much more.

Medicynical Note: Read the article for the gory details.  But it is a fact that hospitals like other players in the health care game have little to no interest in fostering efficiency and cost savings–except to benefit their bottom line.  In regard to patient’s charges, their goal is to maximize them.  They inflate their charges to unimaginable levels then cut deals with high volume insurers.  Should you be uninsured they will  stick you with the full non-discounted amount.  To the little guy it’s as confusing as dealing with a used care dealer (no insult intended) and is nothing more than a legalized scam.  Horrifying as it is, that’s what’s become of my profession and American medicine. 

Health reform while not perfect is a start on rationalizing costs, providing universal coverage, and opening up the mystery of health care costs.

Cancer Drug Costs: We lead the World

During the periodic American Cancer Society money drives, or at the time of the American Society of Clinical Oncology meetings we are told by fund raisers for cancer charities, drug companies and indeed some institutions out recruiting patients  of the great progress being made in cancer treatment.  What is not clearly revealed is that the great progress in decreased mortality from cancer has not been so much in treatment but rather in prevention (smoking cessation, abandonment of estrogen replacement, etc) and earlier diagnosis mostly from better disease screening.

To me, having practiced from the 70s until 2001, the major revolution in cancer treatment was not cures but costs.  We’ve been talking for several years about the spiraling increase in drug costs and limited benefit of many new drugs—i.e. the disparity between the drug company’s hype and actual outcomes.   Stephen Hall in New York Magazine covers much the same territory in his October 20th article, The Cost of Living.  In the article Hall notes:

Several weeks earlier, Saltz had traveled to Chicago to inflict a little premonitory sticker shock on his medical colleagues. He reviewed the recent clinical results of both Zaltrap and Avastin when used as a “second line” treatment, after initial treatment had failed. As Saltz reminded the other oncologists, Avastin was modestly effective as a second-line treatment—it extended median overall survival by 42 days, the same as Zaltrap—but it cost about $5,000 a month and, like Zaltrap, would have to be taken for many months to achieve that modest clinical benefit. The overall cost was so high that Saltz devoted the end of his talk to a back-of-the-envelope calculation, delivered via PowerPoint, that recast the question in terms of health-care costs: If you extended the 42 days survival to a year, “what is the cost of Avastin for one year of human life saved?”

The answer was astounding, even to doctors who have grown inured to the zero-gravity economics of cancer pharmaceuticals. As Saltz worked his way through slide 73 of 78, he arrived at the bottom line: $303,000.

He notes that this cost is that of the drug alone.  and does not include doctor’s fees, imaging costs and hospitalizations and other costs encountered by seriously ill patients.

Read the article.   Our costs for cancer treatment, like all other modalities of care, are significantly higher than any other country on earth.

Medicynical Note:  For patients it’s a case of your money or your life, But the sad truth is that in advanced disease even if the patient is one of those that has some benefit, it is both.  The question is how much can an individual or health care system afford?

Waste in Health Care–The American Way

The following is from an Institute of Medicine Study Best Care at Lower Cost and focuses in part on the cost of waste in health care.  In changing health care, in addition to improving access we need to focus on efficiency and value, which means cutting this:

 Screenshot from 2013-09-13 07:33:52

Medicynical Note:  If anything, it’s worse now.  This, in the “best” (sic) most expensive, most inefficient health care non-system in the world.  (It’s a non system  of health-care because in it’s current form it’s primary goal is increasing revenue.

Cancer Drugs—Is there a Just Price?

Terrific article in the Journal of Clinical Oncology from May 6, Cancer Drugs in the United States: Justum Pretium—The Just Price by Kanturjian, Fojo, Mathisen and Zwelling .  The point of the article is that there is a disconnect between cancer drug prices and efficacy.  The authors propose a value based system for drug pricing. 

The paper notes the size of the U.S. health market, 2.7 trillion dollars/year, and the fact that we spend 18% of GDP on health care, $8,000/year/person.  This compares unfavorably with the costs in other industrialized countries which are at 6-9% of GDP.  When one considers the relative competitive advantage of one economic setting with another, this disparity is damning to U.S. competiveness. 

Yet the drug industry’s main goal is not an improvement in health care, or health care costs, but rather increased profits.  They have the protection of a generation long patent monopoly and the sky’s the limit if they can market the drug, even mediocre drugs, aggressively to users and physicians.  The point of the article is that physicians have some responsibility to look at prices and efficacy when prescribing.  They make the case for the revolutionary (sic) concept that there should be “value” in medicine.

They note:

  The prices of new anticancer agents seem to be decided by pharmaceutical companies according to what the market will bear.There is little correlation between the actual efficacy of a new drug and its price, as measured by cost-efficacy (CE) ratios, prolongation of patient life in years, or quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).Compared with a decade ago, the price range of newanticancer agents has more than doubled, from$4,500 to more than $10,000 per month

Drug companies maintain that it now costs a billion dollars to bring a new drug to market.  This is an entirely made up figure without documentation and apparently includes “ancillary expenses, salaries, bonuses, and other indirect costs not related to research or development as well as an 11% compounded discount rate over 10 years based on stock market returns on capital investment.”  Yes 11%/year.

In the 70s cancer drugs cost a patient a couple of hundred dollars/month.  The price didn’t change much until the 90’s when new drugs approximated $1000/month.  By the early 2000’s prices were rapidly increasing so that today we’re in the range or $10,,000-$20,000/month and more for drugs, often of limited, if any, efficacy.    What’s missing from is the reality of a competitive market.   With the government handout of patent protection, drug companies have little competition or incentive to price new medications realistically.   It is a fact that we lead the world by a wide margin in the price we pay for most new cancer drugs

Other countries have kept their costs down by simply telling drug companies no on their pricing.  The companies then do the reasonable thing and charge less in order to be able to get into that countries market.  Guess what, they still make money, and lots of it.   In the world market, the U.S. is the big stooge, paying whatever is demanded without considering  value or for that matter the actual cost of development—but that’s another story. 

Medicynical Note:  Health reform will moderate drug pricing over time as we eventually adopt an approach that discriminates in favor of treatments that actually work. We need to  understand that costly drugs are not necessarily better.

On Healthcare The U.S. is Unique, We’re Number 1….. in the wrong way

The U.S. is the only industrialized country without a national health care insurance scheme for  it’s citizens. We have more uninsured than the rest of the industrialized world combined.  We leads the world in costs by a large margin–it’s not close. And finally we lead the world in bankruptcy from health care related debt.

Meanwhile with the notable exception of the elderly, who are covered by a government program, Medicare. our health statistics are in the middle of the pack so to speak when compared with other industrialized countries.

We seem to have institutionalized a system that assures excellent revenue and incomes for the health industrial complex but costly mediocre outcomes to patients.  We can and should do better.

It IS NOT a healthcare system, It IS a revenue generating system

The U.S. leads the world in health care costs and in the profitability of it’s health insurers, suppliers, providers, pharmaceutical companies and technology developers.  Health care is simply not a priority.  Profits are.  

More on costs today from the NY Times Nina Bernstein here.

It is no secret that medical care in the United States is overpriced. But as the tale of the humble IV bag shows all too clearly, it is secrecy that helps keep prices high: hidden in the underbrush of transactions among multiple buyers and sellers, and in the hieroglyphics of hospital bills.

At every step from manufacturer to patient, there are confidential deals among the major players, including drug companies, purchasing organizations and distributors, and insurers. These deals so obscure prices and profits that even participants cannot say what the simplest component of care actually costs, let alone what it should cost.

And that leaves taxpayers and patients alike with an inflated bottom line and little or no way to challenge it.