Not All Health Insurance is Equal: Individuals Pay MORE

From the Economic Policy Institute:


The graph shows the proportion of those covered with various types of Health Insurance paying more than 10% of their income out of pocket (not covered by insurance) for medical expenses.

Note the poor coverage offered by the non-group insurance when compared with the relatively stable public insurance.

Medicynical Note: Insurers would like us all to be in the individual group. Basing their premiums on a person’s pre-existing condition so as to charge those with illness more (perhaps so much that insurance is unaffordable). Incidious as it may seem their unstated goal is to make health insurance unaffordable for those who use it, and need it most. How else to explain the huge rate increases being requested in various locales by insurers on people with individual coverage.

Alternatively, insurers offer insurance that is less comprehensive with more out of pocket expenses as noted in the graph.

At a minimum insurers offerings must be based on community risk rather than individual risk. This assures insurability for those with the misfortune of having and developing problems. For this to work as has been noted by our government, economists and others caring about the issue, an insurance mandate is necessary–similar to that used in car insurance.


Health Insurance Profits Booming: Recession, what recession?

The Health insurance industry, like the pharmaceutical industry, is enjoying record profits for the third year in a row.

There’s no recession when you can charge cost plus and eliminate those who need to use insurance:

The UnitedHealth Group, one of the largest commercial insurers, told analysts that so far this year, insured hospital stays actually decreased in some instances. In reporting its earnings last week, Cigna, another insurer, talked about the “low level” of medical use.

Yet the companies continue to press for higher premiums, even though their reserve coffers are flush with profits and shareholders have been rewarded with new dividends. Many defend proposed double-digit increases in the rates they charge, citing a need for protection against any sudden uptick in demand once people have more money to spend on their health, as well as the rising price of care.

Medicynical Note: Part of the reason is decreased demand for services because of high deductibles and co pays.

What’s also likely is that businesses are, increasingly, not offering insurance as an employee benefit and/or the insurance offered is too expensive for those in low paying jobs. Our non-system is cleverly designed to push those with illness out of work sponsored coverage and into the individual market. For example if you become ill and can’t work for a time, you lose your work sponsored insurance. You can purchase it through COBRA but that’s much more expensive as are policies on the individual market. For those with marginal income (probably most of the citizens in a country with a median income of $50,000/year) insurance suddenly becomes unaffordable and unattainable just when you need it most.

Devilously clever are those insurance guys!

Drug shortages in the land of Plenty: The Free Market Speaks, Your Money or Your Life!

More on drug shortages:

Hospitals in Indiana are dealing with the worst drug shortage in at least a decade, forcing them to briefly delay cancer treatments, scramble for supplies or use other medications.

The University of Utah’s Drug Information Service has tracked drug shortages for the past 10 years. Shortages have increased steadily during the past four years and now include chemotherapy drugs, antibiotics, painkillers and electrolytes used for liquid nutrition.

In 2007, the number of shortages shot up to 129 from 70 the previous year. Last year hit a high of 211. The first quarter of this year has already seen 89 drugs in short supply.

The reasons behind the shortages are as varied as the drugs involved. Many of the drugs are generics, which are less profitable than other drugs to produce, so a company may slow or stop production.

Medicynical Note: In our non-system patient care, efficiency and value are not our department. It’s about the money.


Cost Reminders Reduce Expenses

Costs are a dirty word in medicine. Physicians piously pronounce that they wouldn’t want money to influence their decisions and many patients become irate at the thought that their care might be modified somehow, even if it doesn’t effect outcome, by cost.

A modest study reported in the May Archives of Surgery (behind pay wall) and noted in Healthday found that simple reminders of cost led to more efficient use of a low cost procedure phlebotomy:

“The use of laboratory tests has been rapidly increasing over the past few decades to the point where phlebotomy is a substantial proportion of hospital expenditure, and much of it is unwarranted,” wrote Dr. Elizabeth A. Stuebing, of the University of Miami, and Dr. Thomas J. Miner, of Brown University in Providence, R.I.

At the start of the study, average per-patient daily costs were about $148 and the overall weekly cost was $36,875. During the study, the lowest per-patient phlebotomy charge was $108 (27 percent lower) and the lowest overall weekly cost was $25,311. By the end of the 11-week study, about $55,000 had been saved, according to the researchers.

Medicynical Note: Our non-system provides incentives for utilization not savings. As a result it’s the most expensive and inefficient in the world. We are number one!

Imagine if providers were asked about need and alternatives for expensive interventions and treatments? And reminded about the costs of “necessary” procedures? Imagine if insurers were reminded about costs, administrative costs, duplication and executive salaries.

We do things in health care that make little medical or economic sense. We can continue on the current path, and continue to ration care economically (the republican solution) or do it more rationally.

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?

Reforming Health Care: Changing incentives and expectations

In a political year appeasing public opinion becomes increasingly important. Politicians are risk averse and their motivation to innovate is inversely proportional to the time to voting. They will undoubtedly take note of this Kaiser Foundation data:


However, changing health care is an inevitable task. Our non-system is unsustainable and far too expensive.  Why is government involved? Because the private sector’s primary interest is making money not care.  For example private insurers  don’t have an overwhelming desire to provide coverage for those needing it most, the sick and elderly.

This from Alain Enthoven:

Since Medicare is a major reason for the large and rapidly growing national debt, growth in Medicare spending must be brought into line with growth in the gross domestic product (GDP). The most effective strategy for reducing health care expenditures is fundamental reform of the incentives provided to both patients and health care professionals. Medicare’s open-ended fee-for-service payment system is a major contributor to the high level and rapid growth of spending. In 2009, the Massachusetts Special Commission on the Health Care Payment System said that fee for service “rewards overuse of services, does not encourage consideration of resource use, and thus cannot build in limitations on cost growth.” The commission concluded that “risk-adjusted prospective global payment models that provide appropriate incentives for efficiency . . . should serve as the direction for payment reform.”1

There are good reasons to expect such incentives reform to bring a substantial cost reduction in Medicare. Prominent experts have estimated that at least 30% of U.S. health care spending represents waste or pays for poor-quality care that doesn’t benefit patients.5 In the RAND Health Insurance Experiment, the Group Health Cooperative, a prepaid group practice with global payment, provided high-quality care at a cost 28% lower than that of the fee-for-service approach. In addition to reducing the direct cost of care, global prospective payment would eliminate large paperwork burdens. Physicians and hospital managers frequently say that they could reduce costs without harming patients and would do so if the fee-for-service system didn’t punish them with reduced revenue. In Madison, Wisconsin, where many cost-conscious state employees choose plans featuring global payment, prices are significantly lower, and premium growth significantly slower, than elsewhere in Wisconsin, where fee for service is more prevalent.

And some principles to achieve cost control and coverage:

PRINCIPLES OF MANAGED COMPETITION
• Guaranteed right to enroll in the plan of the consumer’s choice
• Same price to all consumers for same coverage
• Periodic open enrollment for covered beneficiaries, managed through an exchange • Consumers fully responsible for premium differences
• Risk-adjusted payments by government or employer (adjusted for age, sex, health conditions, and geographic area) that are high enough to keep the least costly plan affordable
• One or a few standard coverage contracts to make comparisons easy and simplify provider billing
• Reliable and unbiased accessible information on prices, quality, and consumer satisfaction • Insurance transactions through an exchange to facilitate consumer choice and achieve economies in marketing

WAYS TO CUT COSTS WITHOUT REDUCING THE QUALITY OF CARE
• Implement best practices for prevention of infections • Strengthen primary care for prevention, early detection, and treatment
• Align incentives of providers with needs of members for affordable care
• Use active management of chronic diseases to reduce need for inpatient care
• Match resources used to the needs of population served
• Share comprehensive longitudinal medical records to improve physicians’ knowledge of patients’ history and eliminate duplication of tests
• Outcomes management: track patient outcomes and feed results back into decision making
• Implement effective evaluation, selection, and purchasing of drugs and devices
• Substitute less costly personnel where equally or more effective
• Continuously improve quality and redesign processes
• Rely on evidence-based guidelines to eliminate unwanted variation and accelerate application of the latest science
• Use information technology for caregiver support tools such as reminders, alerts, and secure messaging between doctors and patients



Pancreatic Cancer Progress? or Static Flux? (Folfirinox)

Static flux is a phenomenon during which things seem to be changing but in reality are not.

Pancreatic cancer sadly has been in this state since the advent of the chemotherapy age in the 70’s. Drugs are touted with great hoopla (gemcitabine, erlotinib and others) but patients still seem to have a live expectancy of less than one year. So it was with some trepidation that I looked at news of the latest “advance” (Folfirinox a combination of 5FU, leukovorin, irinotecan and oxalplatin)

For the first time in years, doctors are making progress against pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest of all tumors, which kills all but 6% of patients.

Patients taking Folfirinox, a novel combination of four drugs already approved to fight other cancers, lived 11.1 months — 4.3 months longer than those given standard chemo, according to a French study of 342 patients in today’s New England Journal of Medicine.

and:

A chemotherapy combination has been shown to provide the best survival time ever reported in metastatic pancreatic cancer, according to a study from French researchers.

But:

However, the combination of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) was considerably more toxic than gemcitabine in the phase 3 trial.


Survival curves from the NEJM article.

Toxicity included serious life threatening side effects in more than 5% of patients, elevated liver function tests, loss of hair, severe diarrhea, nerve damage, fatigue, and drops in all the blood counts causing anemia, risk of bleeding and infection.

Medicynical Note: Patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, except in very rare instances, are not “cured” of their disease. In this study the median progression free survival with treatment was 6.4 months compared with 3.3 months and overall survival 11.1 versus 6.8 months in the gemcitabine group.

Even with this new finding the unenviable choice of people with pancreatic cancer is between an earlier demise by a few months or to live a little longer but with significantly more toxicity from treatment.

While an advance this treatment does not provide an order of magnitude improvement. Hopefully the results will be confirmed.




Provenge : A (small) Tree Falling in the Woods?

Provenge a new agent that mobilizes the immune system in prostate cancer has shown small effect in improving the survival of patients, 4 months median benefit. But it’s ridiculous cost ($31,000/shot) may stimulate changes in our drug review and approval non-system.

In April 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved sipuleucel-T (Provenge), a novel cellular immunotherapy for the treatment of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, metastatic, castration-resistant (hormone-refractory) prostate cancer.1,2 The pivotal clinical trial demonstrated the benefits of sipuleucel-T: an increase in median survival of 4.1 months as compared with placebo and fewer side effects than occur with docetaxel.2 Priced at $31,000 per treatment, with a usual course of three treatments, sipuleucel-T is one of the most expensive cancer therapies ever to hit the marketplace.

Because of the high cost and limited benefit Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are doing their own review of the drug. In part this is essential as FDA is not at all allowed to consider cost in its approval process. As noted FDA and CMS somewhat different missions:

The FDA approves for marketing and otherwise regulates prescription drugs and medical products. The CMS administers Medicare, a health insurance program for people 65 years of age or older and people with certain disabilities. The agencies’ distinctions are underscored by the legal criteria they use in making decisions regarding new medical products. The FDA evaluates the “safety and effectiveness” of drugs and devices, whereas the CMS covers medical products that are “reasonable and necessary” for the diagnosis or treatment of illness.

Read the article for a more complete review of the agencies differences. Suffice it to say CMS gets to look into the reasonableness of use of the drug as well as the cost impact.

Medicynical Note: We now have drugs costing twice the median and average income in the US that are not curative and offer only limited survival benefit.

Are such unaffordable drugs analogous to the sound made by trees falling in the woods?


Why Stitches cost $1500



From: Medical Billing And Coding

Medicynical Note: Our amazing costly inefficient health care non-system.