The Good News is that Health Care Spending is Down

The bad news is that the country’s too broke to be sick. The New York Times reports that health care spending rose just 3.9% in 2010, totaling $2.6 trillion or 17.9% of the Gross Domestic Product. The information was derived from the latest report from the government’s National Health Expenditure Accounts (NHEA), which are, according to the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “the official estimates of total health care spending in the United States. Dating back to 1960, the NHEA measures annual U.S. expenditures for health care goods and services, public health activities, government administration, the net cost of health insurance, and investment related to health care. The data are presented by type of service, sources of funding, and by type of sponsor.”

The Times notes:

Health spending normally grows much faster than the economy. But in 2010 growth rates were similar, so that health care accounted for the same share of total economic output in 2009 and 2010.

“U.S. health spending grew more slowly in 2009 and 2010″ than at any other time in the 51 years the government has been collecting such data, said Anne B. Martin, an economist in the office of the actuary at the Department of Health and Human Services.

How bad is it? The data is, well, record-breaking.

The Times:

In 2010, the study said, hospitals reported a decline in admissions and slower growth in emergency room visits and outpatient visits. Likewise, it said, doctor’s office visits declined, and spending for doctors’ services grew just 1.8 percent, to $416 billion in 2010. Total health spending averaged $8,402 a person, up 3.1 percent from 2009, the report said.

Doctors often prescribe drugs during office visits, and the decline in visits helped slow the growth of drug spending, as did the use of lower-cost generic medications. The number of prescriptions filled rose just 1.2 percent in 2010, and total retail spending on prescription drugs also grew 1.2 percent, to $259 billion, the slowest rate of growth in a half-century, the report said.

Those numbers of slowed growth are even more incredible given the context of a slowed generation of aging baby boomers.

But in the inimitable words of R. Hunter and J. Garcia,

Talk about your plenty, talk about your ills
One man gathers what another man spills

The Times notes:

For the first time in seven years, total private health insurance premiums grew faster than insurers’ spending on health care benefits, the administration said. Premiums totaled $849 billion in 2010, while spending on benefits totaled $746 billion. The difference includes administrative costs and profits.

There are a number of other interesting points to be found in the New York Times article, not the least of which is the growth in federal expenditures. It’s well worth a read.

Of provident kidney stones, health insurance and a CT Scan that may have saved my life

As we bid farewell to 2011 while ushering in the new year, some thoughts about health care — my own — emerge. I underwent major surgery this last year, having had roughly 15% of one kidney–or, more precisely, the cancerous portion of one kidney– removed. I chose to blog about the experience, chronicling the process from the onset, back when the tumor was initially thought to be a kidney stone or a cyst. But found early, it was small, they say they got it all and that it had not spread. I was lucky. A relatively rare form of the disease (roughly 50,000 cases per year), the survival rate for kidney cancer is not great because it is largely asymptomatic and is not generally tested without a family history for such.  Often, by the time someone wanders into a doctor’s office with complaints of an aching lower back or bloody urine, the tumor has grown to the size of a baseball, the cancer has spread, and the prognosis is not optimum. My tumor was found, as is so often the case, “incidentally” as they were looking at something else.

And that something else has me thinking; without it I’d be walking around with a ticking time bomb firmly ensconced and concealed in my kidney.  Which brings me to July of this past year when I awoke torn by excruciating pain from what I was to later discover were two kidney stones. Wave after wave of fortunate pain brought me to the emergency room. A CT scan discovered the stones–and something else– that ultimately turned out to be that cancerous tumor approximately 2.2 cm, lying in wait.

And there’s the rub. I had health insurance. Without health insurance I might have still gone to the hospital–the pain was immense– but I would have refused the CT scan.  I know of what I speak. A lack of health insurance is a state of affairs and a mindset that is distinctly different from that of having health insurance: as one deprives Peter to pay Paul “home medicine” takes on new meaning. And if forced to see a doctor, one minds the bottom line always ready to refuse treatment, especially avoiding diagnostic tests such as x-rays, CT scans and MRIs as they are the well traveled road to poverty if not bankruptcy.

And there it is. Without health insurance I would have refused the CT scan which may well have saved my life.

Instead, I ultimately had one of the nation’s top surgeons (the brilliant Dr. Paul Russo, most recently described by Maureen Dowd in the NY Times as “exuberantly blunt”) at Sloan-Kettering pluck the ticking time bomb from my body, while saving the affected kidney and me.

In the hands of a less skilled surgeon, my entire kidney may have been removed (it’s easier), and even if alive I’d have spent the rest of my life at a  increased risk for hospitalizing events from chronic  kidney disease, heart disease, and even hip fractures. The bill for my stay and surgery was roughly $27,000; my co-pay merely double digits (thank you Cigna).

And as I sit here reflecting on my good fortune and the providence of kidney stones timely sent, I cannot help but think of all those men and women across America without health insurance (or with junk insurance) who are left to face this coming year with health issues and hard economic choices each day–choices which will lead many to practice “home medicine” when faced with excruciating pain and the hidden harbingers of disease. Choices which will leave prescriptions unfilled. Choices which will lead many to refuse that costly x-ray, CT scan or MRI which might have saved their lives.

There but for the Grace of God–and a job with good health insurance.

And that’s not hyperbole: it’s a new year; it’s estimated that 45,000 people in America will die in it due to lack of health insurance.

The Nirvana Fallacy Among Health Care Cost Cutters

One of my fun little Christmas presents was the Gruber/Newquist/Schreiber comic book guide Health Care Reform: What It Is, Why It’s Necessary, How It Works.   It’s wonderfully illustrated and has a lot of good information.  It offers a very hopeful vision of what health reform can do.  It patiently explains the politics and policy that led to the ACA, portraying it as a compromise that both “left and right” should be able to support.

Unfortunately, the authors have chosen to portray virtually anyone who opposes the ACA, on both left and right, as either angry, exasperated, selfish, or unreasonable.  (This animated penguin reminds me of several of the characters in the book.) There are also some questionable implications in various parts of the book.  For example, on p. 21, it’s suggested that if employers didn’t have to pay so much for health care, they’d just pay that in higher wages to employees.  But in an economy where corporate profits are capturing “88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of the growth in real national income,” why should we assume that will happen? Workers’ share of national income is declining; they have little bargaining power.  We can’t extrapolate the economic projections of the “Great Moderation” era to today’s Great Recession, where employers are exploiting the desperation caused by high unemployment to hold the line on wages and benefits.

One other objection: check out this graphic (my apologies for the poor camera-work), which suggests the deep problem in the US economy is that we’re spending too little on military or homeland security expenditures, and too much on health care:

Read more

Dr. Donald M. Berwick, Formerly of CMS: an Exit Interview Worth Considering

It is received wisdom amongst Human Resource professionals that the exit interview–that which is had when an employee is departing –is an invaluable tool in understanding and improving an organization.

That said, Dr. Donald Berwick has left the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, after 17 months of serving as its head.

His parting assessment?

According to the New York Times Dr. Berwick says

that 20 percent to 30 percent of health spending is “waste” that yields no benefit to patients, and that some of the needless spending is a result of onerous, archaic regulations enforced by his agency.

The official, Dr. Donald M. Berwick, listed five reasons for what he described as the “extremely high level of waste.” They are overtreatment of patients, the failure to coordinate care, the administrative complexity of the health care system, burdensome rules and fraud.

“Much is done that does not help patients at all,” Dr. Berwick said, “and many physicians know it.”

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2009 we spent $2.4863 trillion on health care.

I’m going to write that out because as I’ve long maintained, most people (myself included) have difficulty understanding what a billion dollars is (ten, one hundred millions, or a thousand million), no less a trillion (ten, one hundred billions or a thousand billions )–nor 2.4863 of them.

That’s

$2,486,300,000,000.

Let’s just think conservatively for the moment and suppose, hypothetically, that contrary to all that Human Resources talk about frankness in departure, Dr. Berwick was disgruntled and doubled his numbers:

So instead of 20 to 30% waste we’re looking at 10 or 15%

10% = $248.63 billion or $248,630,000,000  in waste.

15% = 372.945 billion or $372,945,000,000 in waste.

And if he’s approximately right? If somewhere between “20 percent to 30 percent of health spending is ‘waste’ that yields no benefit to patients”

25% = $621.575 billion or $621,575,000,000 in waste.

Some context is in order. What can you do with a wasted (10%) 248 or (25%) 621 billion dollars?  This below, is from the Congressional Budget Office. The 2009 numbers are actual, the rest of the years are outlay projections– in billions. And no, that’s not a typo– Social Security cost $678 billion, Medicaid $251 billion.

Recent Comparative Studies of Health Systems

As America continues to wrestle with the thorny thicket of health care reform, there are a number of recent reports chronicling and comparing approaches to health care and health reform in different countries that are worth a read.  For example:

• The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development recently released Health at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators, which provides “comparable data on different aspects of the performance of health systems in OECD countries.” The U.S. spends 2 ½ times more than the OECD average health expenditure per capita (which amounted to 17.4% of GDP in 2009). (OECD explores why in a separate addendum, “Why is Health Spending in the United States So High”.) Yet, with the exception of cancer care and acute care in hospitals, it is not clear Americans are getting improved quality for the greater expenditures. As reported by CQ HealthBeat and by the Commonwealth Fund, “hospital services cost much more in the United States and pharmaceutical prices are much higher compared to other countries;” “there are fewer practicing physicians per 1,000 population, fewer doctor consultations and shorter hospital stays;” “more CT scans, knee replacements, and Caesarean sections;” and “comparatively high hospital admission rates for preventable conditions like asthma, diabetes and hypertension.”

• Strengthening Primary Care: Recent Reforms and Achievements in Australia, England, and the Netherlands, a recent report by Sharon Willcox, Geraint Lewis, and Jako Burgers of the Commonwealth Fund, evaluates efforts to improve access to, and the quality of, primary care in these countries– and suggests what the U.S. can learn from these initiatives. These countries have been focusing on three primary care reform strategies: promoting coordination of care, reforming primary care payment, and improving quality and access. As the abstract summarizes, “[q]uality improvement strategies include postgraduate training programs for family physicians, accreditation of general practitioner (GP) practices, and efforts to modify professional behaviors–for example, through clinical guideline development. Strategies for improving access include national performance targets, greater use of practice nurses, assured after-hours care, and medical advice telephone lines. All three countries have established midlevel primary care organizations both to coordinate primary care health services and to serve other functions, such as purchasing and population health planning. Better coordination of primary health care services is also the objective driving the use of patient enrollment in a single general practice. Payment reform is also a key element of English and Australian reforms, with both countries having introduced payment-for-quality initiatives. Dutch payment reform has stressed financial incentives for better management of chronic disease.”

• Bradford H. Gray, Thomas Bowden, Ib Johansen, and Sabine Koch, also of the Commonwealth Fund, review the extent of adoption of “meaningful use” (as defined in federal regulations) in three countries with extensive experience with electronic health records, Denmark, New Zealand, and Sweden in Electronic Health Records: An International Perspective on “Meaningful Use.” Although these European countries have high levels of EHR adoption, they have not reached 100% meaningful use, with the greatest weakness being in information provided to patients. The authors suggest that the U.S. could learn from these experiences the value of “providing economic incentives to encourage adoption and designating an organization to take responsibility for standardization and interoperability.”

• International Profiles of Health Care Systems: Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States, edited by Sarah Thomson, Robin Osborn, David Squires, and Sarah Jane Reed and published by the Commonwealth Fund, provides an overview of the health systems in these countries– including “health insurance, public and private financing, health system organization, quality of care, health disparities, efficiency and integration, use of health information technology, use of evidence-based practice, cost containment, and recent reforms and innovations.”

• The Commonwealth Fund also recently released results of an international study of patients with complex care needs in eleven countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. Although it identified significant care coordination issues, it found that “patients who have a medical home reported better coordination of care, fewer medical errors, and greater satisfaction with care than those without one.” In addition, the study also found “that patients in the United States are much more likely than those in 10 other high-income countries to forgo needed care because of costs and to struggle with medical debt.” 27% “were unable to pay or encountered serious problems paying medical bills in the past year, compared with between 1 percent and 14 percent of adults in the other countries,” and 42% did not see a doctor, fill a prescription, or receive recommended care. The authors conclude that “[t]he United States in particular has opportunities to learn from abroad-including the use of purchasing power to lower prices, payment innovations, and the use of information systems and care system redesign efforts that are under way in several countries.”

Of course, there are a variety of reasons the experiences in other countries may not take root in the United States.  But we still should be aware of these efforts and critically evaluate whether we might transplant any of them as seeds of reform here.

Even the United Nations is concerned - UN convenes over non-communicable diseases

[Ed. note: we are pleased to welcome Nicole Cornett to HRW. She is a fourth year evening student at Seton Hall Law School and is currently a Senior Program Manager for Novartis Pharmaceuticals in Oncology.  After completing an undergraduate degree in Biology and Chemistry at the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, Nicole joined Novartis as an Analytical Chemist and began the Masters of Business Administration program at Seton Hall University.  Upon completion of her MBA in Management she transitioned into Program Management in Oncology and shortly after enrolled in Seton Hall Law School's evening program, pursuing a J.D. with a concentration in Health Law.  Nicole continues to support a broad spectrum of drug development activities, and has received various corporate awards including a President's Award in 2010.  She is particularly interested in drug regulatory policy and global healthcare systems.]

In 2001, amidst an atmosphere of fear and ignorance, a UN General Assembly Special Session on AIDS raised HIV/AIDS to the level of seriousness it so rightly deserved.  There are some who credit the meeting with the formation of the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.

Ten years later (September 19-20, 2011) a high-level meeting of the General Assembly convened in New York on the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases (NCDs).  Why now? Because the environment of fear and ignorance has been replaced with recognition of the potential risk that these diseases pose for economic burden.  Diseases such as cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, diabetes, and cancer pose a major risk to productivity, healthcare costs, poverty, and economic growth.  In September of 2011 the World Economic Forum released a report entitled The Global Economic Burden of Non-communicable Diseases, in which they discuss an assortment of variables that will lead to an increased rate of NCDs and therefore an increased burden on the global economy, as well as local economies.  The findings of their research paint a dire picture of rising prevalence, increasing costs, an aging population, and the cumulative output loss as a percentage of Global GDP.

To assess the affect of NCDs on economic burden the authors of the report describe three methods used to quantify: 1) the cost-of-illness approach, 2) the value of lost output: the economic growth approach, and 3) the value of statistic life approach.  The report elaborates on each method, but essentially each provides an assessment of economic burden from a different perspective, and each has strengths and weaknesses that should be considered when viewing the results.  Here are some of the conclusions the report sites (these bullets should encourage you to read the report):

• Value of Lost Output approach: lost output from five conditions (cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory diseases, diabetes and mental health) over the period 2011-2030 is estimated at nearly US$ 47 trillion.
• Value of statistical life approach: the economic burden of life lost due to all NCDs ranges from US$ 22.8 trillion in 2010 to US$ 43.3 trillion.
• Cost-of-illness approach: estimates of direct and indirect costs of ill health for five distinct disease categories are:
  • Cancer: an estimated US$ 290 billion in 2010 rising to US$ 458 billion in 2030.
  • Cardiovascular disease: an estimated US$ 863 billion in 2010 rising to US$ 1.04 trillion in 2030.
  • COPD: an estimated US$ 2.1 trillion in 2010 US$ rising to US$ 4.8 trillion in 2030.
  • Diabetes: an estimated nearly US$ 500 billion in 2010 rising to at least US$ 745 billion in 2030.
  • Mental illness: an estimated US$ 2.5 trillion in 2010 rising to US$ 6.0 trillion by 2030.

Thankfully, the report goes the extra mile and discusses possible interventions (most identified by WHO) identified as “best buys” because they are cost-effective, feasible and appropriate for use in low-middle income countries.  Examples of these interventions include tax increases to tobacco and alcohol products, counseling on cardiovascular therapies, education on diet and physical activity, and preventative medicine/screening.

In the US, we should pay particular attention to what can and should be done to tackle the issue of NCDs, and bear in mind the hazards of not doing so.  After the recent debt-ceiling-debacle we can all expect much greater scrutiny into government spending.  This will include expenditures on educational programs for diet and exercise, smoking cessation, diabetes, etc.  The cost/benefit analysis must determine these programs to be of unquestionable importance.

Just the other day I heard a political analyst on a mainstream news program state that it’s unfortunate for Barack Obama that the Supreme Court will likely hand down a decision on the constitutionality of the healthcare reform law in the midst of heavy presidential campaigning because it serves as a reminder that instead of focusing on the economy, Obama was immersed in healthcare reform.  The statement highlights the issue of mindset.  The availability and affordability of healthcare cannot be considered independent of economic health.  Instead, it should be considered a direct factor in addressing the root cause of our struggling economy.  To put it another way, Obama’s focus on healthcare reform was a direct effort at rehabilitating the US economy by targeting a source of financial strain on the government and the public, as well as reducing the affect of disease on the productivity of society.

It will be increasingly important for global leaders to recognize the role healthcare plays in economic health and growth.  It’s encouraging to see the UN acknowledge the risk associated with NCDs because it highlights the need for effective systematic health management, particularly of diseases with high prevalence that require continuous maintenance.  Failure to manage such a large portion of the pie that constitutes healthcare costs will have cascading effects on global and local economies.

Recommended Reading: Recent Scholarship with Implications for Pharmaceutical Pricing and Access

Bundles in the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Case Study of Pediatric Vaccines, by Kevin W. Caves and Hal J. Singer of Navigant Economics, provides a technical but still accessible analysis of the anticompetitive effects of vaccine manufacturers’ practice of conditioning price discounts on physician buying groups agreeing to purchase the manufacturers’ vaccines in a bundle and agreeing not to purchase other manufacturers’ products.  The article begins with an interesting overview of the characteristics of the vaccine market, an introduction to the physician buying groups that purchase vaccines and to the anti-kickback concerns they raise, and a summary of the (somewhat up in the air) legal standard for when bundled discounting becomes an antitrust violation.

The authors then present their analysis of the uphill battle Novartis (a source of funding for the article) will have to fight to induce physicians to “break the bundle” and buy its new meningitis vaccine.  The authors conclude that even if Novartis were to give away its meningitis vaccine for free, “buyers defecting from [Sanofi Pasteur's bundle of vaccines, which includes Sanofi's meningitis vaccine,] would still lose $14.05 per patient in expected value.”  They present data indicating “that buyers unencumbered by … Sanofi’s loyalty contracts are over three times as likely to purchase [Novartis' vaccine], relative to encumbered buyers…” and conclude that enough of the market is foreclosed to Novartis to establish a presumption of anticompetitive effects and concomitant harm to consumers.  Per the authors, “[i]n an industry served almost exclusively by large, multi-product incumbents, with no prospects for generic competition and extremely limited entry by competitive rivals of any kind, these findings have significant implications for public policy and antitrust enforcement.”

Somewhat less accessible (due to a plethora of equations) but still well worth reading is Tort Liability and the Market for Prescription Drugs by Eric Helland, Darius Lakdawalla, Anup Malani, and Seth Seabury.  Helland and his co-authors present the results of an empirical study of the relationship between product liability rules and drug price and utilization.  While the effect of a liability rule can often be studied by comparing a state that makes a change to the rule with one that does not, the authors had to modify this approach because drugs are sold nationally.  They determined the exposure to punitive damages caps of each of nearly 16,000 drugs by first determining each drug’s geographic distribution of sales, a figure which varies from drug to drug due to geographic variation in the prevalence of disease.  The authors found that the degree of exposure to caps was correlated with an increase in drug prices but also with an increase in drug utilization.  Tighter liability standards also correlate with a reduction in adverse drug reactions.  The authors write that their numbers “imply that if every remaining state adopted some reform, there would be a 23% increase in all [adverse] events and a 25% increase in serious [adverse] events … among branded drugs.”  They conclude that “on balance, liability improves consumer and social welfare.”

The Hippocratic Math: Bioethics, Choice, and the Bottom Line

How does American society address the vulnerability of the body? We rarely stop to think about how quickly a disease or accident can derail even the best of lives. For the hundreds of millions of people who live on a few dollars a day, medical care is rare and haphazard. The US has gradually put in place a vast infrastructure of law and institutions designed to provide its citizens with quality, affordable, and accessible care. The proper limits of such care are hard to discern. Gregg Bloche’s book The Hippocratic Myth gives some excellent examples to reflect upon as the Affordable Care Act slowly begins to influence the health care delivery system.

Not many policymakers or scholars can write with the authority of Gregg Bloche. Bloche is not only a law professor, but also a physician, who knows his way around a hospital. Throughout The Hippocratic Myth, Bloche cements his authority in the mind of the reader by relating stories of his experience as a clinician. In each of these stories, his humane and insightful approach as psychiatrist shines through. I do not say this to imply that block uses his book to brag about his own abilities. Rather, these fluently written passages strike one as the work of one of those rare practitioners who manages to care deeply about the patient at hand while simultaneously contextualizing the encounter in a larger framework. Thus The Hippocratic Myth should take its place among other well-received books by physicians with a sense of the big picture (including Atul Gawande’s Checklist and Better and Jerome Groopman’s How Doctors Think.)

In The Hippocratic Myth, Bloche leverages this authority to advocate for a more cost sensitive health care system where individuals frankly acknowledge that they should expect trade-offs between cost and access to certain forms of care. My concern in this review is that Bloche the caring and expert physician would have a tough time in a health care world too deeply influenced by Bloche the cost-conscious author. To be sure, Bloche consciously shies away from proposing particular limits to care, and sets forth a surprisingly wide array of topics his work will not cover:

What does it take to make a health plans cost-benefit balancing principles so vivid and clear to consumers when they sign up that we can say they have consciously chosen to abide by them? Should the health plans be required by law to adopt a single, shared way of declaring their trade-off policies— say, maximum dollar amount per expected life year that they’ll spend on tests and treatments? How about a checklist of representative services, ranging from urgent care services to screening tests, that are or aren’t covered? And how much choice between health plans (and trade-off rules) is enough to make for a decent menu of options? Finally, what should be done about disparities in wealth? is there a decent minimum of buying power (and public subsidies) below which real choice between trade-off rules isn’t possible? these are matters of policy and politics, beyond my scope in this book. But they’ll need to become the focus of public attention, leading to agreements, if we are to enlist the nation’s support for limit setting by health plans and their doctors. (107)

Nevertheless, it is clear throughout the book that Bloche is deeply concerned about cutting costs. The question is whether we can, in good conscience, rally behind his crusade for cuts based on individual choices without coalescing beforehand on the types of specific mechanisms or redistributive measures that would cushion the blow of a transition to more restrictions on care in America’s comparatively market oriented healthcare system.

Mrs. Pearson’s Dialysis Appointments

Dialysis is a thorny issue in American health care. The US guarantees payment for dialysis care for anyone with kidney failure. Robin Fields at ProPublica has exposed massive failings in our system: “the United States continues to have one of the industrialized world’s highest mortality rates for dialysis care,” even though the “two corporate chains that dominate the dialysis-care system are consistently profitable, together making about $2 billion in operating profits a year.” Fields notes that, “if our system performed as well as Italy’s, or France’s, or Japan’s, thousands fewer patients would die each year.” Thus dialysis has become for many a case study in both the pathologies of a profit driven health care system and the willful weakness of a national government that guarantees payment for care, but fails to ensure that it is high quality or up to international standards.

Few people realize how tiring and stressful life can be for those subject to dialysis sessions. In an excellent article on racial disparities in kidney transplants, Vanessa Grubbs discusses the travails of one dialysis patient she is close to:

The weekends were hardest for Robert. Without functioning kidneys, he struggled with limiting his liquid intake in the face of constant thirst. The stretch from late Friday morning to Monday morning, his longest time between [dialysis] sessions, was the worst. Without fail, Monday mornings I would wake to the sounds of Robert vomiting, even though he shut the bathroom door, ran the exhaust fan, and turned on the shower to drown out his retching as he prepared to leave for dialysis. His body was ridding itself of the excess fluid the only way it could.

In Bloche’s book, we get another intimate look at dialysis, through the eyes of a Mrs. Pearson (a pseudonym), who has been undergoing the treatment for several years. Narrative matters in bioethics and health policy, and Bloche is a master at evoking critical details in Pearson’s story. Described as a “trim African-American woman in her late 50s,” Pearson decided at one point to discontinue dialysis. Her doctor called Bloche, a psychiatrist, to interview Pearson to assure that she was competent to make a decision that would result in her death within a few weeks. Bloche conducts a routine mental status exam, and quickly determines that Pearson is fully mentally competent to discontinue treatment. She states that she simply cannot continue to be jabbed with thick needles, often leading to painful wounds, to endure hours of blood filtration day after day. She is neither agitated nor depressed, but rather appears to be quietly resigned to the fatal consequences of giving up on the treatment. As Bloche observes,

From an ethical point of view, my duty was clear. If Mrs. Pearson grasped the stakes, and was alert and oriented, she had a right to refuse treatment. She passed these tests easily. The dialysis would have to stop. It was my job to write the note saying so. Without a competent patient’s informed consent, no test or treatment is ethical – at least none more intrusive than a needlestick or Tylenol at bedtime.

Bloche then adds the requisite note to Pearson’s file. But he has lingering doubts about her decision, articulating his unease in a question—was her response to her predicament “too rational?” This question reminded me of literature on the pathologization of shyness—do we need an emotional performance nowadays to have evidence of a sound mind? But Bloche is the psychiatrist, not me, and it’s a good thing he was in charge of this situation: his hunch panned out. In a follow-up interview, Bloche finds that a scheduling decision by the hospital sparked Pearson’s desire to quit dialysis.

She had been going during the day; they wanted her to come at night. Pearson felt powerless and angry. To Bloche, the decision to discontinue dialysis was the only way in which she could register a protest against authorities who were distant and arbitrary. Behind the scenes, Bloche arranges to keep the daytime scheduling, despite the extra costs it may incur.

Archimedean Points for Health Care Debates: Cost-Containment or Equity?

Here Bloche puts into action a conviction he had raised earlier in the book. It’s worth quoting the context in full, to give a sense of the minefield of advocacy contemporary health policy encompasses.

That distrust, and the trials and humiliations that many experience when making their way through our health system, depresses the level and quality of the care that African-Americans receive. . . . [But] it’s been urged that African-Americans and others who don’t seek the best, life-prolonging care for themselves and their loved ones act irresponsibly and have themselves to blame. . . . Clark Havighurst, a retired law professor at Duke who was once Ronald Reagan’s health policy advisor, complained to me that [those who complain about health disparities] missed the real unfairness: blacks who prefer less care pay the same insurance premiums as whites and thus subsidize whites’ higher use of health services. The remedy, he told me, is cheaper health plans for those who want less care.

Whether clinical judgment should corporate these purported African-American “preferences” for less care or aspire toward therapeutic equity is a political question. It’s my belief that we owe black Americans— and members of other disadvantaged groups— an effort to address the fear and distrust that have led so many to miss out on life extending care and clinical relationships. (92-93)

Bloche is right to state that, given the endless series of studies documenting health disparities, the US as a society owes underprivileged minorities special efforts to provide care.

But Bloche chooses a strange locution for this call to justice. Whereas he has apodeictic certainty that health care costs must come down, he treats his commitment to equality as merely one “political” view. I believe that precisely the opposite is the case: we can engage in endless political arguments about the overall level of health care spending, but these debates must be grounded in a social commitment to a certain baseline of care for all. Nevertheless, I greatly appreciate the careful and sensitive attention that Bloche gives these topics.

Recommended Blog and Podcast: The Incidental Economist

For those interested in health economics, I cannot recommend highly enough the Incidental Economist blog and podcast. Featuring an economist, a physician, and law professor Kevin Outterson, the IE blog has offered invaluable commentary on a number of vexed policy issues. The podcast has taken on issues ranging from all-payor rate setting to the rationale for randomized clinical trials.  Austin Frakt and Aaron Carroll offer an entertaining and educative experience in their podcasts.  If you’re already listening to Health Affairs events or the JAMA and NEJM line-ups, this is an excellent in addition to your iPod playlist.

New Profit Opportunities In American Health Care

I notice there is a lot of handwringing over the Affordable Care Act’s “government takeover” of the health care system. So let’s take a look at some exciting new markets that are still thriving.

1) At the beginning of the summer, I noted some problematic drug shortages (bottom half of post). The problem keeps getting worse. There is a steady stream of heartrending stories about care being compromised. Reform measures to assure an adequate supply are moving at a snail’s pace, thanks both to truculent manufacturers and the bipartisan drumbeat to “cut health care costs.” But at least some folks are thriving: as the NY Times notes, ‎”Unscrupulous wholesalers have made matters worse by scooping up scarce drugs and offering them to hospitals at markups that often reach 20 times the normal price or more.”

What a great business model! So glad the “free market” is working its magic on health delivery. While we’re at it, let’s allow ER docs to force patients to sign over half their bank accounts before treatment. That will certainly increase the supply of emergency rooms, even if the transition is a little bumpy for some people.

By the way, I’m sure some will argue that, if only Medicare weren’t paying for many of these drugs, we’d be fine. (Or at least the “we” capable of paying for the drugs at a “market price,” whatever that is, would be fine.) Query: Would there have been adequate incentive to create the drugs if a major purchaser like Medicare hadn’t paid what it did while the drug was on patent? No, I didn’t think so. Income and wealth in our society is still equally distributed enough (and coordination problems severe enough) that the top 1% won’t sustain a thriving hospital and drug research system all by themselves, even if they are the critical factors in one’s policy calculus. As I noted earlier, it’s hard to imagine individuals, or even wealthy groups, stockpiling all drugs they might need, particularly the sterile injectables or biotech solutions that are critical to advanced medicine. Even the very wealthy must rely on a steady, more general demand for these products. They can’t just order them up for just-in-time delivery, like a Tiffany watch. Public subvention—ranging from research grants to Medicare and Medicaid funding for the products research generates—provides that demand.

2) Pauline Chen reports on an “insurance maze” for US doctors, based on a new Health Affairs study comparing their practices to those of their neighbors to the north:

Physicians in Canada, where health care is administered mainly by the government, did spend a good deal of time and money communicating with their payers. But American doctors in the study spent far more dealing with multiple health plans: more than $80,000 per year per physician, or roughly four times as much as their northern counterparts. And their offices spent as many as 21 hours per week with payers, nearly 10 times as much as the Canadian offices.

Clearly the US has a comparative advantage in generating insurance-based hassles. Maybe we can keep specializing there, and aim to spend five times as much as the Canadians by 2014. The more choice, the better, whatever the cost, right? Think of all the people employed by this gauntlet of private sector checks and balances:

A young patient complaining of extreme fatigue, for example, might benefit from a $40 blood test that could confirm infectious mononucleosis in 10 minutes. But a doctor cannot order the simple test without first checking with the insurance company to see if it is covered and if there are any constraints on where the patient’s blood can be drawn and the test run.

Tracking down answers often means phone calls with long periods on hold, digging up old patient information and even recruiting office workers to act as specimen couriers to other labs and hospitals in order to expedite results or save frail patients or harried family members the hassle of traveling to an “approved site” for a test or procedure. “If someone comes in with a sick infant who needs a test, we often eat the costs and draw the blood ourselves,” Dr. Star said. “We aren’t going to tell them to put that kid in a car seat, drive a mile to an approved lab, park, register, then wait in line.”

If you’re an insurer (or the insurance industry), you’ve “won” to the extent you’ve foisted these costs and inconveniences onto doctors and patients. You certainly don’t want to abide by new Medical Loss Ratio requirements that limit the extent to which you employ these strategies of cost-shifting, delay, and denial of needed care. The “free market” is your friend, as is anyone who insists that health care delivery can be guided by the same economic principles that govern every other commodity.

Private Equity & British Care Homes

In earlier posts I have discussed the “care/profit tradeoff in nursing homes,” focusing on the role of private equity firms in reducing costs by limiting the liability of their enterprises. Cutting nursing staff and increasing the risk of elder neglect isn’t so costly for private equity barons when “complex corporate structures . . . obscure who controls their nursing homes.” One firm constructed a particularly notable series of corporate moats between itself and the nursing home which it first controlled, and then rented land to.

Daniel JH Greenwood has called a good deal of private equity activity a form of looting, and I have explored its shortcomings in a review of a book on the topic. Sadly, it appears that the private equity influence in Britain is undermining a key part of its health care system. Having stacked various care homes with debt in order to buy them, many private equity firms have abandoned (or are about to abandon) the homes:

[A new] report, delving into the running and funding of the care industry, reveals that the collapse of Southern Cross may not be a one-off, as a number of other social care companies are also on the brink. Private equity takeovers of public services that use similar high risk business models, could leave taxpayers picking up the bill for more company failures. The in-depth study of privatisation shows that the second largest care provider, Four Season, is also in severe financial difficulties and others may follow. If both Southern Cross and Four Seasons were to collapse, around 1,150 nursing and residential care homes would be at risk of closure, affecting nearly 50,000 vulnerable people and their families and hitting over 60,000 staff.

Another of the top four largest residential care home operators is Barchester Healthcare — a sister company to Castlebeck, the operators of the Bristol care home exposed by a Panorama documentary . . . for patient abuse. The home owners have admitted that serious wrongdoing took place at Bristol. The report shows that Barchester and other operators of care homes, have repeatedly changed ownership, often through private equity firms buying, consolidating and selling companies. The UK’s largest union is warning that the Government must tackle the crisis in the care industry.

However disruptive the private equity takeovers have been, they have fulfilled their main purpose: huge gains for a few entities that bought and sold at the right time:

Southern Cross was floated on the stock market by Blackstone, which obtained a 400% return in two years on its acquisition. Southern Cross is now at risk of collapse. Allianz Capital Partners made a return of 100% by acquiring Four Seasons in 2004 for £775 million, selling it four years later for £1.4bn - the business then collapsed in value.

3i private equity fund brought a 38% stake in Care Principles for £1.5m in 1997, the remaining amount in 2005 and sold to to Three Delta in 2007 for £270m — a return of 390%. Tunstall was acquired by Bridgepoint Capital in 2005 for £225m, merged with Bridgepoint Investment and sold on after three years for £514m.

Here are more details on Southern Cross. This story and other critical commentary suggest that the goal for owners has been rapid profit rather long term investment in more efficient processes. When the “music stopped” in the acquisition game, it was left with mounting debts.

Chris Sagers’ article “The Myth of Privatization” (59 Admin. L. Rev. 37) suggests that there is very little difference between “public” and “private” operationally, except that “one of them lacks even a nominal obligation toward the public interest.” I have seen little evidence to contradict that idea in the eldercare industry. Further research may reveal more support for Daniel JH Greenwood’s diagnosis of the rise of private equity:

The success of private equity firms challenges mainstream corporate governance theory: according to standard agency cost analysis, this should not have happened. Agency problems—the shorthand term for the tendency of fiduciaries in a capitalist system to work for themselves as well as, or instead of, their clients—cannot be solved by adding an additional layer of extremely highly paid agents supported by an ideology that justifies the most extreme forms of self-interestedness. Therefore, private equity is unlikely to be an innovative solution to the age-old agency problem.

Instead, it is better understood as a clever bit of legal arbitrage: by reclassifying agents as principals, it allows former fiduciaries to instead view themselves, and be viewed by others, as entitled to look out only for themselves. And look out for themselves they have: the private equity managers have extracted hitherto unseen sums from our corporations, appropriating for the private benefit of a handful of individuals surplus that otherwise might have gone to other corporate participants, including consumers, ordinary employees, taxpayers and investors in the public securities markets, or might have been devoted to increasing productivity or innovation for the benefit of future generations.

The basic private equity technique, like the basic hedge fund technique, appears to be to borrow money in order to increase potential returns or losses. If the loans were correctly priced, this would not create new value under standard valuation theories, nor would it be a service that could possibly warrant the high fees typically charged in the hedge fund and private equity worlds. The simplest explanation is that either lenders or fund investors are mispricing risk and have done so for several years at a stretch, contrary to the claims of the efficient market theorists.

This explanation suggests, moreover, that private equity is simply the modern equivalent of the pyramid schemes, margin loans and highly leveraged utility holding companies of the 1920s. Like those earlier edifices built on borrowed money, the contemporary schemes are likely to be highly unstable: if the underlying assets decline in value or fail to provide expected income by even small margins, the lenders are likely to take losses out of scale with their potential profits. Once lenders wake up to this possibility—most likely only after losses have begun—they are likely to cut back lending rapidly, which will, in turn, make the underlying assets both less valuable and less saleable still, thus beginning a new round of lender panic. Any minor downturn, in short, runs the risk of starting a self-reinforcing cycle of credit and business contraction. The rise of private equity in its present form, then, appears to be another step towards the pre-New Deal world of inequality and instability.

And don’t forget about the role of private equity in influencing our political process. Blackstone billionaire Pete Peterson helped fuel concerns about government spending, while doing very little to advocate for increased taxes on the wealthy. And now we see that the CLASS Act—an innovative program to promote full funding for future long-term-care in the US–is likely to be on the chopping block. The primary value of both care homes and care plans to P/E firms appears to be their susceptibility to rapid sales and purchases. The P/E firm’s employees can earn massive bonuses if the value of entities goes up, and can’t lose those bonuses even if things eventually fall apart. It is a heads they win, tails they win scenario. The losers include all the other stakeholders in firms which are treated primarily as ATMs for fleeting owners.

Insurers’ Profits Swell, Nation Can’t Afford to Get Sick, Can’t Afford to Get Well

Reed Abelson wrote an interesting piece in The New York Times recently– and it is worth considering. Entitled, “Health Insurers Making Record Profits as Many Postpone Care,” the first paragraph speaks volumes:

The nation’s major health insurers are barreling into a third year of record profits, enriched in recent months by a lingering recessionary mind-set among Americans who are postponing or forgoing medical care.

But still there is the push to further increase premiums– with “someday there might be a rainy day” a common refrain/justification among insurers.

I’ll leave alone for now the premium increases amidst what Abelson describes as “flush” reserve coffers and shareholders “rewarded with new dividends.” Res Ipsa Loquitur. But you may want to take a quick look at Reed Abelson’s article.

Having said that, I am taken again by the equation which is said to have filled those coffers: people too broke to get themselves fixed– despite having health insurance. It’s a calculus largely unto itself. In many articles here at HRW we’ve discussed how health insurance is unlike other commodities in the marketplace– averring that the economics of health care itself and that of health care finance may not be reckoned the same as say automobiles or butter and bread.

In this instance we consider health insurance– an asset, or benefit– garnered by an employee in return for work provided to an employer. Presumably, this benefit is received in lieu of an increased rate of pay– cash– that that employee would otherwise receive. The employee may also contribute to paying for the insurance out of his or her wages– once again lessening available cash. And the benefit is not utilized– for lack of cash, or the perceived inability to take time from work in the midst of a recession. But the premium is still, of course, paid.  I generally eat the butter and bread I buy.

With health insurance we pay for an assurance (mutually contracted with risk spread) that in the event we need medical care it will be available. An assurance that we will have the means at our disposal to get well, or at least for someone to try. Though at present, it seems, the economy itself (and the prevalent high co-pay/ deductible structure) has dictated that we are not available to receive the medical care we bargained for– despite it being, ostensibly, available. More years into a recession than I care to count, as a nation we can’t afford to get sick, and can’t afford to get well. For insurers, it’s a perfect storm of the optimal. Having said that, putting aside for the moment the prospect of the catastrophic, the employer/employee/health “benefit” seems somewhat illusory. And yet, unlike butter uneaten we will continue to buy it. That is the nature of insurance– you buy it and hope you don’t need it. Though “need” as of late seems to have been redefined economically. As such, it is a very sunny day for the umbrella salesmen– the umbrellas have been all paid for, but they only hand them out on rainy days. It seems the height of hubris to now seek more money for those umbrellas because someday it might rain– or just business as usual. Apparently the risk spread over time doesn’t include insurers.

Image by Karen Apricot

Missing Care, Missing Drugs: Canaries in the Medical Coal Mine

While Washington has been focusing on repealing or rolling back parts of the Affordable Care Act, persistent embarrassments of the American health system show how untenable the status quo is. Both lower and middle class families are facing serious problems as they contend with providers’ and insurers’ cost constraints.

I’ll first address the familiar issue of health disparities. According to a recent news report, Lauren E. Wisk of the School of Medicine and Public Health at University of Wisconsin, Madison “examined data from the 2001-2006 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys on 6,273 families with at least one child.” Wisk’s study shows that excessive financial burdens from cost-sharing are keeping many children from getting the care they need:

Families aren’t choosing to spend their money on going to the doctor when someone is sick because of how much it cost them to see the doctor last time. They’re sacrificing their health because it costs too much to be healthy. . . . We expect that if people aren’t getting the care they need, they’ll be sicker as a result. When you put this all together and look at the big picture, the cost of health care in the U.S. could actually be causing Americans to be sicker.

We might wonder: how can this be? Isn’t the economy in recovery? But we’ve seen this picture before, in the developing world. Growth does not help everyone. India, for example, has had astonishing economic growth, but it “is home to about a third of the world’s underweight and stunted children under the age of 5,” and “the impressive economic growth of the past decade has made only a modest dent into the obstinately high incidence of severe underweight and stunting of children in the country.” As Amartya Sen has shown, not only China, but also Bangladesh, are ahead of India in reducing the number of underweight children, despite the fact that “GNP per capita of $1,170″ in India, “compared with $590 in Bangladesh.” The critical number really is median GNP, and beyond that, real allocation to the sectors and concerns that matter. As the US surpasses Ivory Coast and Pakistan in inequality, don’t count on gains from growth to go to the people who need it.

It’s not just poor patients who need to worry about misplaced priorities in the health care system. We are increasingly seeing shortages of important drugs in the US. (Apparently this issue first caught mass media attention when prisons had a difficult time finding a key barbiturate used in executions.) Given that Congress is busy planning to cut funding for the statistical abstracts of the US and energy research (adding to prior DOJ cuts to studies of industrial concentration in the US), we shouldn’t be surprised to learn that “no one is systematically tracking the toll of the shortages.” Not many journalists are left to report on the government’s failure to report, either. But the head of FDA’s Drug Shortages Program is worried: “This is affecting oncology drugs, critical-care drugs, emergency medicine drugs.” It turns out that much-ballyhooed globalization has some downsides, too:

“We’ve certainly reached a very global supply chain for drug products, with the active ingredients typically made outside of the United States,” said [a] vice president for regulatory sciences at the Generic Pharmaceutical Association. “It could be Europe, India — some cases China. If there’s a problem at a facility in Italy or India, it leads to disruption of the drug supply in the United States.”

And a whole new triage system has developed to address an entirely avoidable crisis:

“We have heard some horror stories where patients are really begging to get the drugs from other sources and where practices or institutions are forced to kind of triage patients and save the drugs for those — quote — most curable, where they have the best prognosis and using substitutes where there isn’t a cure possibility,” [said the] president-elect of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

A moving piece by Hagop M. Kantarjian describes the dilemmas facing some leukemia doctors:

Recently I sent out a plea on this national crisis to 8,000 oncologists who subscribe to a monthly e-mail newsletter published by the leukemia department at the MD Anderson Cancer Center. Within 12 hours, my in-box was jammed with replies from doctors in more than 25 states, each with his or her own horror story. . . . Take, for example, the 43-year-old Kentucky father who got a substandard dose of cytarabine because his doctor used all the doses he could find but still didn’t have enough. “I don’t know what I’ll do next,” the doctor told me.

Or the 45-year-old retired Air Force lieutenant colonel from Colorado, father of an incoming Air Force Academy cadet, whose leukemia came back after six months. His doctor looked all over the state for cytarabine with no luck and so was forced to give his patient second-line therapy. Or the 15-year-old boy from Florida who is in remission but can’t get the therapy that will cure him.

I see two takeaways from this sad situation. First, the next time someone says that generic “health care costs” are too high, consider whether they really mean we need to reallocate funds from less productive sectors to this, life-threatening crisis. Second, we need to reconsider the wisdom and necessity of far-flung, fragile supply chains for critical products. Barry Lynn has been making this point for some time. His book Cornered argues that “the drive to reduce costs has led to several competing manufacturers relying on a single overseas supplier for certain components and that this makes the whole system vulnerable to an event like an earthquake, a strike, or a war that might put the single supplier temporarily out of business.” Even for those skeptical of Lynn’s thesis in, say, the automotive or computer sector, his warnings should be salient for the food and health care industries. Too many lives have been put at risk by supply chains that are not robust enough to handle predictable challenges.

Why Reduce Health Care Costs?

One rare point of elite consensus is that the US needs to reduce health care costs. Frightening graphs expose America as a spendthrift outlier. Before he decamped to Citigroup, the President’s OMB director warned about how important it was to “bend the cost curve.” The President’s opponents are even more passionate about austerity.

Journalists and academics support that political consensus. Andrew Sullivan calls health spending a “giant suck from the rest of the working economy.” Gregg Bloche estimates that “the 30% of health care spending that’s wasted on worthless care” is “about the price of the $700 billion mortgage bailout, squandered every year.” He calls rising health spending an “existential challenge,” menacing other “national priorities.” Perhaps inspired by Children of the Corn, George Mason economist Robin Hanson compares modern medicine to a voracious brat:

King Solomon famously threatened to cut a disputed baby in half, to expose the fake mother who would permit such a thing. The debate over medicine today is like that baby, but with disputants who won’t fall for Solomon’s trick. The left says markets won’t ensure everyone gets enough of the precious medical baby. The right says governments produce a much inferior baby. I say: cut the baby in half, dollar-wise, and throw half away! Our “precious” medical baby is in fact a vast monster filling our great temple, whose feeding starves our people and future. Half a monster is plenty.

But when you scratch the surface of these sentiments, you have to wonder: is the overall level of health care spending really the most important threat facing the country? Is it one of the most important threats? There are many ways to raise revenue to pay for rising health costs. Aspects of the Affordable Care Act, like ACOs and pilot projects, are designed to help root out unnecessary care.

I am happy to join the crusade against waste. But why focus on total health spending as particularly egregious or worrisome? Let’s explore some of the usual rationales.

Terrible Tax Expenditures and Suspect Subsidies?

Employment-based insurance gets favorable tax treatment, and much Medicare and Medicaid spending is drawn from general revenues. So, the story goes, medicine’s big spenders don’t have enough “skin in the game.” Once health and wealth are traded off at the personal level (as the Harvard Business School’s Clayton Christensen advocates), people will be much less likely to demand so much care. Government can attend to other national priorities, or individuals will enjoy higher incomes and will be free to spend more.

I respect these arguments to a point, but I worry they partake of the “nirvana fallacy.” If I could be certain that leviathan would repurpose all those wasted health care dollars on infrastructure, or green energy, or smart defense, or healthier agriculture, I’d be ready to end tax-advantaged health insurance in an instant. But I find it hard to imagine Washington going in any of these directions presently.

Giving tax dollars back to taxpayers also sounds great, until one processes exactly how unequal our income distribution is. In 2004, “the top 0.1% — that’s one-tenth of one percent — had more combined pre-tax income than the poorest 120 million people.” To the extent health-related taxes are cut, very wealthy households may see millions per year in income gains; the median household might enjoy thousands of dollars per year. Sure, middle income families will find important uses for those funds (other than bidding up the price of housing and education). But at what price? What if the insurance systems start collapsing without subsidies, and more physicians (who are already expressing a desire to work less) start seeking out pure cash practices? A few interactions with the the very wealthy may be far more lucrative than dozens of ordinary appointments.

Consider the math: billing a $20,000 retainer from each of 50 millionaires annually may be a lot more attractive to physicians than trying to wrangle up 500 patients paying $2000 each—or, worse, getting the money from their insurers. There are about 10 million millionaires in the US; that’s a lot of buying power. One $10,000 score by a cosmetic dentist from such a client could be worth 400 visits from Medicaid patients seeking diagnostic procedures. Providers are voting with their feet, and a Medicaid card is already on its way to becoming a “useless piece of plastic” for many patients. Given those trends, simply reducing health care “purchasing power” generally risks some very troubling outcomes for the very people the health care cost cutters claim to protect. No one should welcome a health care plutonomy, where the richest 5% consume 35% of services, regardless of how sick they are.

Is Anyone Underpaid in Health Care?

Health commentators rightly draw attention to big insurer CEO paydays. Top layers of management at hospitals and pharma firms are also getting scrutiny. Wonks are up in arms about specialist pay. Read more

Gregg Bloche’s The Hippocratic Myth

Georgetown law professor Gregg Bloche’s new book, The Hippocratic Myth, looks to be a major contribution to health policy debates. I haven’t had time to read it yet, but many reviews and radio shows give the impression of a rigorous work leavened with engaging narratives of individual patients and providers.

Bloche’s approach to rationing will rekindle many of the health care debates of 2010. A former advisor to the Obama health policy team, Bloche concludes the following:

Medicine’s therapeutic potential has surpassed our ability to pay for it, but our elected officials are afraid to tell us. The historic health reforms enacted last year will protect 30 million Americans from the Darwinian cruelty of lack of access to care. But contrary to much wishful thinking in Washington, these reforms do little to stave off looming medical cost catastrophe. Our future fiscal and social stability will turn on our ability to gain control of spending without imperiling patients’ trust in their caregivers.

Bloche also observes the importance of the medical profession in upcoming bioethical debates:

Medical judgment incorporates hidden political and moral beliefs, and doctors have become key political and legal decision-makers—on such matters as child custody, criminal punishment, access to performance-enhancing drugs, and the politics of obesity, abortion, and homosexuality.

Doctors and the rest of us will need to address the morality of innovations we never thought possible. Drugs that block—or boost—biological mechanisms of stress resistance, brain-scanning methods that read minds, and medicines that interfere with formation of traumatic memories are among the technologies that will soon be with us.

During his interview with NPR’s Leonard Lopate, Bloche mentioned an aspect of insurer practice that renders suspect many consumer-directed ideals of medical care. Many insurers’ care protocols are kept secret, as proprietary information. Bloche found the practice deeply troubling, and I agree. Insurers’ criteria for providing care are important aspects of the service they are providing. They should not be hidden from patients or doctors. In more encouraging news, Bloche notes that he has not lost an appeal of a medical coverage decision to an insurer.

Enforceable Contracts for Cheaper and More Limited Care

Bloche seems committed to permitting consumers to make enforceable contracts for lower levels of care. Tyler Cowen recently evoked that possibility of ala carte insurance in his evaluation of the recent Ryancare proposal:

Let’s say it’s 2027 and I’ve just turned 65. I fill out a Medicare application on-line and opt for a plan with superior heart coverage (my father died of a heart attack), not too much knee coverage and physical therapy (my job doesn’t require heavy lifting), no cancer heroics (my mother turned them down and I wish to follow her example), and lots of long-term disability. Is that so terrible an approach? Is it obviously worse than having the Medicare Advisory Board make all of those choices for me?

Cowen worries that “Perhaps an individual will choose ‘no coverage for lung cancer,’ but the government cannot precommit to the outcome of no coverage.” But Bloche makes a point in an NPR interview that suggests that a physician’s decision to withhold care in that instance would not violate the Hippocratic Oath:

The rationale there is that the doctor who stints on care three years later when you get really sick is acting in accordance with your preferences as you expressed them in the employee benefits office three years before. And therefore, the doctor is not violating the Hippocratic Oath. The doctor is merely complying with your preferences when you rolled the dice in the employee benefits office.

Of course, that is in the private insurance context, not Medicare, and I don’t know if that distinction would make a difference for Bloche. But it does help me see how the book attracted a blurb from a Heritage Foundation analyst. Contemporary conservative health policy experts are committed to giving individuals the chance to buy low-cost plans, and so far the Obama Administration has been quite accommodating in granting waivers for them. My sense is that Bloche is committed to a minimum essential benefits approach that would allow consumers to opt out of “cancer heroics” (perhaps defined as biotechnology drugs costing over $7 million over one’s lifetime?), but not to waive “lung cancer” coverage generally.

Bloche argues in the book that:

[M]edicine’s capabilities and costs will inexorably grow. Increasingly, doctors will need to say no to care that’s technologically possible and that could prolong life, but that does so in competition with other national priorities. We must empower them to do so even when the consequences seem tragic. But we must give them this power without asking them to break faith at the bedside. To this end, the current regime of covert rationing, under cover of ‘medical necessity,’ should be supplanted by visible resource allocation rules–rules set for doctors and patients by social institutions. (58-9)

Transparency of this sort will compel us to come to terms the truth that insurers must say no to beneficial care to stay within the limits we impose when we seek low prices for products for products and services, elect politicians who promise low taxes, and choose cheaper health care plans for ourselves.

Though I hate to disagree with such an eloquent statement by so eminent a scholar, I am slightly troubled by that language. I think money saved from the health sector is more likely to go to new adventures in the Middle East or dot-com, housing, and commodities bubbles than it is to be allocated to “other national priorities.” Health care is only one of many sectors where US-style casino capitalism has seriously distorted capital allocation.

I also believe that the invocation of “we” here glosses over the moral role of redistribution in an extremely unequal economy. A privately insured person who really wants a procedure can spend himself down to bankruptcy, then apply for Medicaid. At that point, the government must make a decision. Given that “the government collected less in taxes in 2010 than it has in over three generations, and tax rates are at historic lows” for the very wealthy, I don’t think it is entirely fair to say “we” can’t afford certain care. Rather, those at the top of the income and wealth scale are increasingly supporting politicians who will not tax the wealthy. The current scarcity of care for the least well off is not a natural feature of the world; rather, it is epiphenomenal of repeated decisions not to impose certain tax burdens today even though they would have seemed perfectly fair 50 years ago. Since a “Wall Street transactions tax of only 0.50% on short-term speculation could raise up to $170 billion annually,” I fail to see an imperative to reduce incomes in the health sector until problems in much less socially productive sectors are addressed.

On the other hand, if our government “of the top 1%, by the top 1%, for the top 1%” continues, major cuts to the health sector are inevitable. If they must come, we need more trusted and fair voices like Bloche’s at the table. As Daniel Alpert has observed, “the U.S. has engineered a winner-take-all economy and indebted both the majority of its people and its government to keep a ‘don’t tax, but spend anyway’ consumerist fantasy alive.” Bloche helps us face the difficult task of unwinding the consequences of all those bad economic decisions.

Bloche is also admirably restrained in his sense of how much current law can do to rationalize health care spending. As he notes in a book excerpt:

30 percent of health spending [is] wasted on worthless care—about the price of the $700 billion mortgage bailout, squandered each year. . . [One study estimated that only] about 10 to 20 percent of medical procedures rest on “gold-standard” evidence — randomized clinical trials. . . . Risky and pricey therapies routinely make their way into common use without such studies. . . .

Change is looming. The 2010 health reform law created a “Patient- Centered Outcomes Research Institute,” funded by levies on Medicare and private insurers, to sponsor such research. But the funding level, less than a tenth of a percent of what Americans spend on health care each year, will do little to increase the fraction of medical decisions that rest on science. And the Institute’s governing body — composed mostly of representatives from the hospital, insurance, and drug and device industries, as well as physicians — seems almost designed to enable stakeholders to block studies that threaten their interests. Moreover, multiple provisions in the law (sought by providers and drug and device makers) hobble Medicare’s ability to base coverage decisions on research the Institute sponsors.

The mix of hope and realism in the paragraphs above reflects the judicious sensibility of the many Bloche articles I have had the good fortune to learn from. I look forward to reading his book.

Next Page »