Hospital Based Infusion Treatment versus Office Based — Or how the “free market” manipulates our health care non-system to increase their profit

Our local hospital, a part of the Peacehealth system in Washington State, has been purchasing medical practices and incorporating them under their brand. It is the only hospital in town, the next one is about 25 miles south.

In addition to general physicians specialists are being added. All the the oncologists in town were added last fall and the cardiologists (except one) this year.

The medical oncologists had a new well-equipped infusion center at their practice which is located a few miles from the hospital. Last month with minimal discussion, the infusion center was moved to the hospital. No explanation was given but one can assume this “non-profit” made the decision because they can bill more for services at the hospital than in an office setting.

I’ve discussed this previously. In addition to a facility charge the reimbursement for services is significantly more for most billing codes in hospital outpatient settings

Medicynical note: At some point cost and value will need to be addressed and gaming of payments stopped. It doesn’t appear however, that this will happen soon as businesses have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit and consumers are insensitive to pricing when someone else pays and health issues are involved.

Addendum 12/16 PM — It’s hard not to be offended by organizations manipulating health care procedures to increase billings and ultimately patient cost.  Value, patient convenience,  efficiency does not seem to be in their vocabulary.


 

Drug Shortages — It’s about the Money

A number of necessary drugs are in short supply. While the full list is unavailable, one can assume that the drugs needed are off patent and lower priced.

From cancer treatments to surgical sedatives to standard emergency-room remedies, the pharmaceutical supply cabinet is increasingly bare of the drugs of choice, according to doctors, advocacy groups, and the FDA

Those include intravenous Lasix, a diuretic commonly used to treat congestive heart failure, and Cisatracurium, a muscle relaxant used in surgery, he said. Medicynic: lasix off patent for years, cisatracurium off patent this year.

As of Dec. 1, there had been shortages of 199 drugs, she said, two more than all of last year, the previous high. Anecdotally, others say, the situation is the most acute it has been in more than a generation.

Medicynical note: In a “market driven” money oriented non-system of health care drugs that are not money makers and I mean big time profit makers will not be manufactured.

If our system were truly market driven we would not be providing generation long patent protection to drug companies. Rather the drugs would compete based on merit, efficacy and cost. Given that this is not likely to change perhaps there should be a quid pro quo required of drug companies that requires manufacturing of less expensive needed medications in order to qualify and maintain patents on their expensive drugs.


Herceptin, Tykurb in Breast Cancer : What wasn’t reported

Tis the season of the San Antonio Breast Conference and the season of overstatements–most often by people with drug company ties.

There was an interesting report on combining Herceptin (trastuzumab) and Tykurb (lapatinib) in Her2neu positive breast cancers.

The report studies neoadjuvant use of targeted treatment in breast cancer. That is, treatment prior to surgery with the goal of shrink tumors, making breast conservation more possible and hopefully improving patient survival.

What wasn’t noted in the report:

1. Neoadjuvant therapy with conventional drugs alone results in drug shrinkage and complete response in about 25% of patients,and improves breast conservation rates, but shows no survival advantage after several years study.
2. Neo adjuvant treatment including Tykurb and Herceptin (the current study) shows shrinkage of tumors and improved ability to do breast conservation surgery. BUT, despite the hooplah, no survival studies have been completed. It is not known whether the drugs actually improve survival.
3. The drugs are only effective when used on the small group, 15-20% of breast cancer patients, who have overexpression of Her 2 neu.
4. The cost of the two drugs in combination is at least $10,000/month, probably more. Added to the other drugs used, doctors fees the cost for this treatment is probably around $20,000/month.

Medicynical Note: I recall a patient of mine who informed me, when told he would have to pay $38/pill for a new anti-nausea drug, that he’d rather throw up than pay that. He seems somewhat prosaic given the current inflation of cancer drug costs.

You better believe that cost is a major issue, particularly in a non-system that is bankrupting us. In what other area of consumer commerce would $20,000/month be spent?

In this study half the patients apparently have little or no response. So let me rephrase the question. In what other area of consumer commerce would $20,000/month be spent on a product which only works half the time (if every one of the responding patients lived longer, which is extremely doubtful). Consider also the impact of 13 months treatment at $20,000/month (4 months pre-surgery and 9 months post), that is $260,000 for drugs alone–not counting the costs for the 50% of patients that don’t respond, a minimum it seems of 4 months of treatment, $80,000.

The issue now and in the future is likely cost. Who will pay? How? A further issue is how can an industry produce and market drugs so inefficiently that costs are so high?

Stiglitz on Brown — What went wrong!

Joseph Stiglitz reviews Gordon Brown’s book on the financial crisis which Brown calls the first crisis of globalization (tell that to the chronically unemployed)

As soon as Northern Rock began to teeter, he realized there were deep structural problems with the financial sector and he tried to act on what he saw. He grasped immediately that the problem was not just one of liquidity but of a weakness in the financial sector built on years of mismanagement, lax regulation and reckless speculation.

Read the article.

Medicynical note: There is a message here about the greed of unregulated markets that applies to our medical non-system. How else to explain our out of proportion, unaffordable costs–50-100% more/capita than in other industrialized nations; the mediocre outcomes; the 50 million or so people who are uninsured.

The problems in health care also were built on years of mismanagement, lax regulation and endless speculation (that people will pay more for anything related to health) and a cost plus mentality.  Value?  Cost efficiency?  Not anyone’s department.


Why We Need Comparison Studies — Zometa, Aromatase Inhibitors

Zoledronic Acid (Zometa)and here

Zometa did not appear to prevent breast cancer from returning or to boost disease-free survival overall. Medicynical Note: This drug costs in the range of $1000/month.

Aromatase Inhibitors:

Aromatase inhibitors appear to increase the risk of cardiac events among women being treated for breast cancer, an analysis of several studies showed.

The relative risk of suffering a cardiovascular event increased 26% (P≤0.01); however, that excess risk can be mitigated if a woman is treated with tamoxifen first and then switches to an aromatase inhibitor, according to Eitan Amir, MD, of the Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto.

Medicynical Note: Those opposing such studies claim they are tantamount to having “death panels.” Such studies they say would restrict access to treatments.

On the other hand authorizing use of drugs that are expensive and do no good, or even do harm is criminal, given our expensive non-system of care.

Lastly it should be pointed out that there is no bar to people paying for drugs themselves if their insurer refuses payment.

The More You Do, The More You Make — Even if its not needed

Sad but true. NY Times and the Baltimore Sun documented the behavior of a Baltimore Cardiologist and Abbott laboratories. Among other things:

Dr. Mark Midei, had inserted 30 of the company’s cardiac stents in a single day in August 2008, “which is the biggest day I remember hearing about,” an executive wrote in a celebratory e-mail.

And:

an Abbott sales representative spent $2,159 to buy a whole, slow-smoked pig, peach cobbler and other fixings for a barbecue dinner at Dr. Midei’s home

And:

Their report, provided in advance to The New York Times, concludes that Dr. Midei “may have implanted 585 stents which were medically unnecessary” from 2007 to 2009. Medicare paid $3.8 million of the $6.6 million charged for those procedures.

And so on. Including kickbacks from St. Joseph Hospital in Baltimore to Dr. Midei’s practice. Literally hundreds of patients were so treated. Where were his “ethical” colleagues? hospital oversight committees?

Medicynical Note: No surprises here, money makes people do funny things. Other similar cases elsewhere are noted.

What in the world has happened to my profession?


Urologist Owned Radiation Facility (IMRT) = Expensive Conflict of Interest

WSJ notes the overuse of IMRT (intensity modulated ratiation therapy) at great cost to patients, medicare, other insurers and our health care non-system.

In recent years a number of urology groups have puchased and own radiation centers. The result is costly self referrals and obvious conflicts of interest. Here’s how it works.

urologists buy radiation equipment and hire radiation oncologists to administer it. They then refer their patients to their in-house staff for treatment. The bulk of Medicare’s reimbursements goes to the urologists as owners of the equipment.

The problem is not patient outcomes or fewer complications but rather overuse of an effective form of treatment to the financial benefit of the providers.

Asked during the interview what proportion of its prostate-cancer patients Integrated Medical treats with IMRT, Dr. Kapoor said he didn’t track such data closely, but said he would be “comfortable” with an estimate of “one out of six,” or 17%.

An analysis of Integrated Medical’s Medicare claims later performed for the Journal suggested a much higher rate. Between its launch in mid-2006 and the end of 2008, Integrated Medical administered IMRT to 601, or 53%, of 1,132 Medicare patients recently diagnosed with prostate cancer, the Journal analysis found.

Integrated Medical received $26.7 million from Medicare for the care of those 601 patients, according to the Journal’s calculations. If Integrated Medical’s urologists hadn’t owned radiation equipment and had referred these patients for radiation treatment outside of their practice, Medicare would have paid them only $2.6 million. Medicynical note: The data on treatment of patients over 80 discussed in the WSJ article is particularly damning.

The sales pitch to urologists considering buying such a radiation facility predicts an income of $425,000/doctor from incorporating such a unit in his/her practice.

Medicynical Note: This behavior falls into a loop hole of the Stark provisions against self referral. Read the article for a more complete explanation. The doctor’s position that their treatment decisions are based solely on patient benefit would be more defensible if they did not participate in the entire revenue stream and if the radiation modality did not appear to be overused.

What’s depressing is that there seems no incentive to provide care at a more reasonable price (value).   Rather than take a cut in the  generous $425,000/year doctor profit  (this in addition to his/her other fees) these providers stick it  to our failing health care non-system.

With everyone at every level  concerned with  maximizing profit, is it any wonder that we spend 17% of GDP on health?  That our health care insurance system is failing? and that we can no longer afford it!

This is going on during a disastrous financial downturn.  But then again considering the behavior of our financial sector, maybe it’s a natural consequence of a medical establishment whose primary goal seems to be monetary rather than medical.


Socialized Capitalism, Subsidies, Oversight, Regulation–Part of Industrial America from the start

The following is from the book Empire Express by David Haward Bain, Penguin Books 1999, page 670.

Over at Stanford’s car, where the Governor had entertained executives of both companies with California wine and fresh fruit and other victuals, the numerous champagne toasts were getting a little out of hand, There were several impromptu speeches and all went fine until Stanford rose to speak and launched into what Dodge recalled as “a severe attack upon the Government. He went so far as to claim that the subsidy instead of being a benefit. had rather been a detriment, with the conditions they had placed upon it.” Time and time again the companies had been scrutinized not only by its own government commissioners but by one government committee after another. Members of which, they all were aware, sometimes needed a little greasing before approving all the hard work. And now there were the “live eminent citizens” sent out by Congress, before the last special commissioners had written their report. Where was it to end? It was the wrong time and place to be complaining, and Dodge saw that everyone was discomfited by the diatribe. Dan Casement was by then feeling very merry. He climbed aboard his brother’s shoulders and called out: “Mr, President of the Central Pacific: If this subsidy has been such a detriment to the building of these roads, I move you. sir. that it be returned to the United States Government with our compliments!” This dare “brought a great cheer, ” Dodge said. “but put a very wet blanket over the rest of the time.”

Medicynical Note: It seems as if government subsidies (bailouts if you will) were written in the DNA of our country soon after it’s inception.   Also noted in the above is the need for bribes to get the attention (read that votes) of our legislators–it’s just that over the years the price has gone up and the monied influence of these donors (lobbyists) has increased.

Trying to reclaim virtue by denying our history and what is still occurring and claiming that government oversight is not needed (with many thousand times greater expenditures and lobbying budgets) is  silly and frankly a recipe for further disaster.

 


Economic Rationing of Health care is Here in Arizona– and elsewhere too!

Opponents of health reform tell us our non-system provides the best health care in the world and that we don’t “ration” health care.

In fact we have had economic rationing of health care for years. Arizona’s repulican governor Brewer’s denying transplants for medicaid patients is just the latest example. The Times looks at this policy of “death by budget cut.”

Effective at the beginning of October, Arizona stopped financing certain transplant operations under the state’s version of Medicaid. Many doctors say the decision amounts to a death sentence for some low-income patients, who have little chance of survival without transplants and lack the hundreds of thousands of dollars needed to pay for them.

Francisco Felix, 32, a father of four who has hepatitis C and is in need of a liver, received news a few weeks ago that a family friend was dying and wanted to donate her liver to him. But the budget cuts meant he no longer qualified for a state-financed transplant.

Such high drama is unfolding regularly here as more and more of the roughly 100 people affected by the cuts are becoming known: the father of six who died before receiving a bone marrow transplant, the plumber in need of a new heart and the high school basketball coach who struggles to breathe during games at high altitudes as she awaits a lung transplant.

Medicynical Note: This is the future of the U.S. non-system of health care without reform. The facts are that we need to find ways to be more efficient, provide value in care and assure that those who can be successfully treated receive that treatment.

At present our non-system is inefficient, provides poor value (we’re #1 in the world in percapita costs by 50% or more) and have numerous people who are being denied care on economic grounds. This in what was once the most successful economy in the world.

Why our non-system is soooo inefficient and costly

Article at the National Bureau of Economic Research by David Cutler notes: (Body of article is behind pay wall)

Cutler begins by noting that productivity growth has been much slower in health care than in most other sectors of the economy. In other industries, productivity growth has been driven primarily not by the development of new goods but by new ways of organizing production, distribution, and sales, changes that jointly have resulted in more output per dollar of inputs. In health care, by contrast, there has been very little organizational innovation.

His analysis of the process of medicine identifies three issues resulting in high cost and inefficiency. First, in many instances such as prostate cancer and coronary artery disease and cancer of the elderly we provide expensive aggressive interventions that yield little survival benefit. Second he notes the poor coordination of our system so that for example diabetics often do not get optimal care–in the summary he does not discuss the influence of cost on this lack of care. Third he comments on the high cost of providing care and suggests greater use of technology and such interventions as checklists to improve the outcomes. I’m unconvinced by this part of the analysis

Medicynical Note:  Participants in our non-system  game it to increase revenue and profits  for providers–procedures over other care– suppliers, and insurers.

Quality, efficiency and value are not part of the equation.