Hip Replacement–US vs Belgium, $100,000 vs $13,000

Great series on costs in the NY Times by Elisabeth Rosenthal here and here.

Nice discussion of the issue with Rosenthal on Fresh Air at this link .

Medicynical Note:  Why do hospitals, equipment suppliers, and drug manufacturers charge so much?  Because they can.  There is no competition in our non-system of health care.  Rather the deck is stacked to favor everyone but the patient. 

In Belgium, and virtually all other industrialized nations,  the health care system limits what  suppliers can charge. 

Amazing

American Physicians: High Costs? Don’t blame me!

America’s health care non-system is the place where the “most informed” believe they have the least responsibility.   It’s everyone else’s fault.  So says the recent JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) study Views of US Physicians About Controlling Health Care Costs

A total of 2556 physicians responded (response rate = 65%). Most believed that trial lawyers (60%), health insurance companies (59%), hospitals and health systems (56%), pharmaceutical and device manufacturers (56%), and patients (52%) have a “major responsibility” for reducing health care costs, whereas only 36% reported that practicing physicians have “major responsibility.” Most were “very enthusiastic” for “promoting continuity of care” (75%), “expanding access to quality and safety data” (51%), and “limiting access to expensive treatments with little net benefit” (51%) as a means of reducing health care costs. Few expressed enthusiasm for “eliminating fee-for-service payment models” (7%).

Read the article.

Medicynical Note:  The irony is that those who are (used to be) the most informed claim least responsibility for the mess that is our non-system of care.  Physicians have abdicated everything except keeping the current fee system intact.

The questionnaire was a loaded one with obvious “right” answers.  for example

Most physicians reported being “aware of the costs of the tests/treatments [they] recommend” (76%), agreed they should adhere to clinical guidelines that discourage the use of marginally beneficial care (79%), and agreed that they “should be solely devoted to individual patients’ best interests, even if that is expensive” (78%) and that “doctors need to take a more prominent role in limiting use of unnecessary tests” (89%). Most (85%) disagreed that they “should sometimes deny beneficial but costly services to certain patients because resources should go to other patients that need them more.”

The problem is that most of the “new” agents in medical oncology, for example, offer limited benefit, that is, in most cases of advanced disease the treatment will give a month to a few months survival benefit and only occasionally provide longer term survival.  At over $100,000/year the cost of the buying, if you will, an additional year of survival, is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars/QALY.  

It used to be, that such drugs were cheap (5FU) in colon cancer in the 70’s and 80’s.  ($10-15/dose–you read that right)  In such a case you could try the drug anyway you wanted.   If they worked great (about 10% of patient’s responded) if it didn’t you did not bankrupt the patient, insurer or system. 

Someone has to be responsible in the new era of mega-expensive medications.  It’s clear that physicians have punted and that the pharmaceutical industry is only interested in their bottom line.  Insurers simply pass through the costs.  So it’s left to government.

 

Healthcare Costs: We lead the world…..

The American way of Birth is the costliest in the world.  In part this is because insurers are reluctant to provide policies that cover pregnancy and delivery.

Though Ms. Martin, 31, and her husband, Mark Willett, are both professionals with health insurance, her current policy does not cover maternity care. So the couple had to approach the nine months that led to the birth of their daughter in May like an extended shopping trip though the American health care bazaar, sorting through an array of maternity services that most often have no clear price and — with no insurer to haggle on their behalf — trying to negotiate discounts from hospitals and doctors.

The bottom line is that our families  pay two to three times as much for their babies as in any other country in the world.  And if you are without coverage you are more or less at the mercy of the hospitals and providers.  They will charge their “list price” (the MSRP or the used care salesman’s asking price) rather than offering the negotiated price, i.e. that given insurers.

But it’s worse than just money.

Medicynical Note:  In a money driven health care non-system the emphasis is on making money than saving lives and providing quality care to those who need it.

Read the article to find out just how bad our approach is.  Once again we lead the world, in costs.  We are number 1.

Nivolumab in Melanoma—Progress but not a cure

A study at the annual ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology meetings report a 31% partial remission rate in malignant melanoma with the immune modulator nivolumab.   31% of patients responded to this drug showing a 1/3 decrease in size of the tumor masses and 1 complete remission.

31% is a minority of patients but this rate of response far exceeds the 5-10% rate of other agents used in melanoma.  Yes I said 5-10%.

This is not a cure but there is clear progress evident with this new drug.  Whether this will be sustained remissions with a significant survival benefit, as appears likely, remains to be fully proven.

Medicynical Note:  The cost of this new agent will be interesting to track.  An unaffordable drug has the same impact as the sound generated by a tree falling in the woods.

Bankruptcy Doubles with Cancer Diagnosis in Washington State

Patients diagnosed with cancer,  particularly young people, with go bankrupt at double the rate of controls. 

Adults diagnosed with cancer are 2.65 times more likely to declare bankruptcy than adults without cancer, according to a new study.

In addition, bankruptcy rates are 2- to 5-fold higher among younger cancer patients than among older cancer patients, report the study authors, led by Scott Ramsey, MD, PhD, an internist and health economist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.

And

The authors found that bankruptcy filing rates differed “greatly” by age in the cancer patients. Younger people with cancer experienced the highest bankruptcy rates for all types of cancer. Bankruptcy filing rates were much lower for cancer patients 65 years and older than for those younger than 65 years.

There is an explanation for the age-related risk for bankruptcy, the authors note. “People age 65 or older generally have Medicare insurance and Social Security benefits…. It is likely that having stable insurance (specifically, coverage not tied to employment) plays a major role in mitigating the risk of bankruptcy,” they state.

Medicynical Note:  Anyone surprised?  A cancer diagnosis can be devastating and extremely expensive to deal with.  Most people, that is, those who live on an average income have problems paying the out of pocket expenses associated with the diagnosis, even if they are working and insured. 

Tying insurance to employment means that when a person becomes ill and can no longer work he/she loses their insurance—unless they can pay the inflated premium to continue individual coverage.

The system is designed to be a financial burden on the sick and infirm and to protect insurers.   Only in America!

Wow; Capitalism is killing our morals, our future

Read about this here and here.  From the former:

Consider, for example, the proliferation of for-profit schools, hospitals, and prisons, and the outsourcing of war to private military contractors. (In Iraq and Afghanistan, private contractors have actually outnumbered U.S. military troops.) Consider the eclipse of public police forces by private security firms—especially in the U.S. and the U.K., where the number of private guards is almost twice the number of public police officers.

Or consider the pharmaceutical companies’ aggressive marketing of prescription drugs directly to consumers, a practice now prevalent in the U.S. but prohibited in most other countries. (If you’ve ever seen the television commercials on the evening news, you could be forgiven for thinking that the greatest health crisis in the world is not malaria or river blindness or sleeping sickness but an epidemic of erectile dysfunction.)

Medicynical Note:  Some would say that our dalliance with “market” based health care has led us to and/or exacerbated our cost/quality/access issues. 

Why we pay more for drugs.

Certain politicians in the U.S. actually believe we have the best health care system in the world.   Well if it’s not the best, it certainly is the most expensive.

It’s my contention that we don’t have the best system of health care but rather we have the best system of revenue generation for suppliers.  Consider drug prices:

Companies like Pfizer Inc and AstraZeneca have grown dependent on higher U.S. prices to generate profits as generic rivals to their best-selling medicines enter the world market, Europe’s government-run health plans clamp down on spending and sales growth in emerging markets stutters.

And:

The price variations become clearer when studying individual drugs. Switzerland’s Roche sells a month’s supply of cancer medication Avastin at about $8,800 in the United States, compared with 2,577 pounds ($3,978) in the U.K. and 6,800 Swiss francs ($7,177) in Switzerland.

Read the article for more.

Medicynical Note:  Why is this?  Consider that drug companies spend more on lobbying and campaign contributions per year than any other business group in the country.  It’s not even close.

In both cases, you’d be wrong. It’s actually the pharmaceutical industry that spends the most each year to influence our lawmakers, forking over a total of $2.6 billion on lobbying activities from 1998 through 2012, according to OpenSecrets.org. To get some perspective on just how big that number is, consider that oil and gas companies and their trade associations spent $1.4 billion lobbying Congress over the same time frame while the defense and aerospace industry spent $662 million, a fourth of Big Pharma’s total.

Interesting, they spend more on influencing Washington so that we can pay more.  And it works beautifully for big PHarma.  It is the best congress money can buy. 

Babies Health: The worst in the Industrialized World

This was the headline,

U.S. Worst Place in Industrialized World for Babies

These are the facts:

The United States has the highest first-day death rate in the industrialized world. More than 11,000 babies in this country die on the day they are born, which is 50 percent more first-day deaths than in all other industrialized countries combined. One reason is that the U.S. has a high preterm birth rate. It also has more teenagers giving birth than any other industrialized country. Babies born to teens are more likely to be premature and weigh less. The solutions involve everything from keeping young women in school longer to making sure every mom and baby has access to healthcare.

Read the article:

Medicynical Note:  The article also points out that “ it takes governments, nonprofits and citizens all working together to make such solutions a reality. There are daunting obstacles, from abject poverty to pure gender discrimination, that hamper their implementation. “

The findings in the Save the Children paper support MSNBC’s  Melissa Harris-Perry’s contention that raising healthy educated children is everyone’s (the community as well as the parent’s) responsibility.    Fox news once again blew it. 

Hospitals: Pricing Without Conscience

Our non-system of healthcare is actually a well developed system of revenue production for providers, hospitals, and suppliers.  We’ve talked in the past about doctors in the U.S. doing more procedures than elsewhere, suppliers charging more, insurers only insuring their profits and hospitals overpricing their services.

This adds to data on hospitals.

A hospital in Livingston, N.J., charged $70,712 on average to implant a pacemaker, while a hospital in nearby Rahway, N.J., charged $101,945.

In Saint Augustine, Fla., one hospital typically billed nearly $40,000 to remove a gallbladder using minimally invasive surgery, while one in Orange Park, Fla., charged $91,000.

Read the article for more.

Medicynical Note:  Of course insurers and Medicare don’t pay those prices.  No, the inflated charges are for those least able to afford the bill, the uninsured.  Rather than have an up-front price for services, hospitals, like the proverbial used care salesmen (no disrespect meant) have an asking price from which patients can try to “negotiate” a settlement or as most do simply pay the inflated amount. 

It’s a little like the proverbial shell game.  What’s the price? This? or This? or This?

Hospital’s when the bill is challenged, traditionally do a review of a person’s  financial circumstances and may or may not adjust the amount due based on the hospital’s biased conclusions.  They then claim the reduction, if any, is “charity care.”  This is true for private for-profit and so-called “non-profit religious charitable” institutions as well. 

In all the world, except maybe in some third world situations,  ours is the only “system” that asks the least informed, most desperate customer to negotiate a price for a vital service, healthcare.  It’s part of the reason we pay more than any other country in the world for healthcare. 

Parenthetically, I recently had a procedure for which the hospital bill was $26,000.  The insurer paid $13,000.  What a farce. 

High Cancer Drug Costs: Unsustainable and Unconscionable

High cancer drug costs have finally gotten the attention they deserve from cancer doctors.  They don’t understand the reason for the high costs.

Prices for cancer drugs have been part of the debate over health care costs for several years — and recently led to a public protest from doctors at a major cancer center in New York. But the decision by so many specialists, from more than 15 countries on five continents, to join the effort is a sign that doctors, who are on the front lines of caring for patients, are now taking a more active role in resisting high prices. In this case, some of the specialists even include researchers with close ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

And:

Gleevec entered the market in 2001 at a price of about $30,000 a year in the United States, the doctors wrote. Since then, the price has tripled, it said, even as Gleevec has faced competition from five newer drugs. And those drugs are even more expensive.

The prices have been the subject of intense debate elsewhere as well. The Supreme Court in India ruled recently that the drug could not be patented, clearing the way for use of far less expensive generic alternatives.

Read the article for more.

Medicynical Note:  The article emphasizes the cost inflation of the most successful of the new targeted agents.  As noted above since it’s introduction Gleevac has tripled in cost.  It is the most profitable drug marketed by Novartis.  Oh yes you remember Novartis the company that in the news the past few days for bribing doctors and pharmacists, yes that “ethical” company Novartis.

What’s not discussed in the article is that many of these super expensive drugs do very little to improve patient outcomes (i.e. patients don’ t live longer) but still cost in the range of $100,000/year.

As Marcia Angell observed 10 years or so ago, in today’s medical business it’s your money or life or in the case of drugs that don’t work, both.