Showing posts with label doctors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label doctors. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

A pharma marketing tactic you probably didn't know about

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/26/135703500/supreme-court-weighs-whether-to-limit-data-mining

Apparently the Supreme Court is hearing a case about using physicians' Rx habits to target drug marketing efforts. Retail pharmacies are legally required to keep records of every Rx filled, and then they turn around and sell that info to data mining firms, who in turn sell it to pharmas. This helps pharma sales forces see which doctors need the most persuasion and which products are the biggest threats to theirs. Of course patient info is confidential, but doctor Rx habits are fair game, even if it is very upsetting to some. So recently Vermont outlawed this practice (unless the doctor gives consent), though a pharma trade group sued on First Amendment free access to info grounds, and the case has reached the high court.

Depending on how the case plays out, there could be implications for all the other data mining industries out there (Google, Facebook, etc.).

Monday, December 14, 2009

More on health reform


The Democrats have to be very careful if a health insurance 'reform' bill is passed and Americans (majority, at least) don't like it. Social Security and Medicare have passed the test of time; that's why to tamper with the benefits is considered to be a political "third-rail." What finally emerges and Obama signs has to have the same positive and enduring reception by the people as social security and medicare. We'll see. I am for a robust public option not any public option (actually, I'm for single payer, but that's off the table due, in my opinion,to the vast sums of money that have been poured into the fight against it and the public option by the health insurance companies). But I'm with Obama on the point that the object of the exercise isn't a public option, per se, but an effective mechanism to control price (premium) gouging by the insurance companies, and to make sure people are insured for all (including pre-existing) conditions with no lifetime maximums imposed. As the saying goes "the devil is in the details," so let's see.

Offhand, it is the older Americans who will have more pre-existing conditions, so taking them into Medicare and out of the pool that the private insurance companies have to insure, will lessen the costs to the private insurance companies since younger people, thankfully, will have fewer pre-existing conditions. This may turn out to be a win-win compromise. The Republicans get to say they like and are supporting the expansion of Medicare (even though it is in fact a public option) while at the same time saying they've defeated the public option. The Democrats get to say they've expanded Medicare to a large segment of our population (and, by the way, while it may not be said - have opened the door to future expansion of Medicare to the entire population, perhaps incrementally, but nevertheless opened, and if Medicare one day becomes open to all, that's the end of the private, for-profit, insurance companies -- that in itself is a hammer that can be dropped if the private companies don't do right by the American people).

But let's see what finally emerges; we're getting closer, but all of this can go down if one of the so-called 'fiscally moderate' (read 'in the pocket of the insurance industry') Democrats doesn't stay on board.

--------

Yes I agree that single-payer can be the most efficient system if administered properly. Some commentators I heard thought that the leftist Dems should be happy with the Medicare extension to 55-and-overs, because Medicare is America's single-payer plan, and now at least it's available to more Americans. And if the bill passes, insurance will be more or less mandatory, so insurance companies will gain millions of new customers. So everyone is happy? I guess the real trick is how to pay for it, since unions fought the Dems to remove the "Cadillac plan tax". Maybe there will still be a tax on the rich? But I think the administration and CBO think that the savings from not having to treat the uninsured will pay for expanded coverage for all?

I just don't think there is much in this legislation to control the costs of premiums and fee-for-service doctors. I thought in big bills like this, everyone has to give back a little, and then get a little. Insurers won't be able to turn away sick people any longer, but in return they get more customers. I don't know if they will still maintain their regional monopolies or not. But what have doctors had to give up? Maybe with a cap on lawsuits, they can pledge to charge less for services, and not turn away Medicaid/Medicare people because reimbursements are lower than private customers. As a legal professional, how do you feel about the medical malpractice situation?

Yes as you said, the voting is so close that just one senator can derail it all - might be Lieberman. But I also think the Dems and the administration should not just throw all sorts of proposals and amendments out there and hope they get their 60 votes. As you said, a good bill needs to stand the test of time and be well researched to have a meaningful positive impact, and can't just be an exercise in throwing darts until you get a passage. The Medicare plan seemed to come out of thin air, and I don't think it was publicly discussed in the fall. I worry about these last-minute desperation ideas. If the negotiations aren't public, that leaves even more room for industry lobbyists and the like to tamper. And when you're in a hurry, you make mistakes of course, like the rushed TARP plan and Wall Street bailout. They were necessary (I suppose), but obviously flawed.

---------

All I can say is the details are not all public and we don't know what the final version will look like. As for me, I'm disgusted with the thought that we have a for-profit health insurance industry. I'd like to simplify this with single-payer and extend medicare to everyone. I agree with you completely as to last-minute, ill-conceived deals and the influence of lobbyists. But I voted for Obama because I had confidence in his judgment and so for now I have to assume he will not sign off on any legislation unless he believes it will indeed benefit the vast majority of Americans and not turn out to be a debacle which will hurt the country (and the Democratic Party).

As to the medical malpractice situation, in my opinion at least, the tort system is what keeps the powerful in check, and having financial incentives for lawyers to take cases for plaintiffs is important to justice in our country. "Tort reform" is code for the insurance industry (again!) wanting to maximize its profits. The fact is that insurance companies and major U.S. corporations have armies of lawyers working for them at very high hourly rates. And these armies of lawyers at the top corporate firms are typically the top legal minds coming out of law school (law students usually go for the gold upon graduation, and those who get it are usually the top 10% of the graduates from the top law schools in the country. (Obama, by the way, was one such graduate, but he resisted the temptation and became a community organizer -- talk about taking the long view, 'out of the box' thinking' and deferred gratification.) The average person cannot afford to pay a lawyer in anything resembling a major case. He/she must find a lawyer willing and able to take cases on a contingent fee basis and have pockets deep enough to advance costs and expenses. A big case is usually hard fought by the companies being sued. It's not uncommon for a lawyer to take a case and put in a thousand hours and have many thousands of dollars in expenses paying for depositions and expert witnesses. Since the plaintiff can't pay for this, the incentive has to be there for the lawyer to take the case and take the risk of coming up with nothing in the end. Thus you have the typical contingent fee of 33 or 40% of the recovery. If you cap damages, say in a medical malpractice case, it means lawyers don't take them unless they're potentially huge cases, and they pass on cases that may in fact be meritorious but where the potential damage recovery will not justify the expenditure of the attorney's time and expenses to be incurred. Take a look at this link for an example of the injustice of capping pain and suffering damages in medical malpractice cases in California: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lit13.htm. I had a professor once who was adjunct faculty and took a plaintiff's antitrust case on a contingent fee basis. He was up against many corporate lawyers. He came in one morning after being up all night working on a brief in the case, and said he'd like a rule that limits the number of hours any side can put into a legal brief, but without it he had to just work harder to be able to meet the arguments of 3 or 4 lawyers on the other side working against him. The insurance companies may want tort reform by limiting damages, but I can guarantee you they would oppose a rule limiting the number of lawyers, their pay, or the hours they invest or in working on a case for them.

--------

Thanks for writing. I think even if McCain won, there would be some sort of health reform now because the status quo is just so unsustainable (16% GDP on health spending and rising). He might have some crazy GOP ideas about health spending accounts (can be more efficient than Medicare if regulated properly and used wisely, though I doubt Americans are up to the challenge), but they would pass something. So I don't think it's a great accomplishment if Obama just passes some watered-down token bill, as any American president now should be able to do at the minimum (a lot of urgency and political momentum). I think if health reform was a heavyweight boxing match, it's Round 7 and the Dems are down 64-68. Though as you said, a lot of details remain unresolved so it is possible to turn things around. But sad to say that the GOP hate and misinformation campaign seems to be working, as usual. Public option would have changed the playing field in the people's favor, but I guess for now that looks doubtful. Lieberman said he wouldn't support the P.O. or the Medicare-to-55 plans, and without him the Dems don't have the 60 votes. Though maybe he can still be bribed?

But after so much media coverage, fighting, and PR blitzes, each party needs to leave the health care issue claiming that they won. The Dems will pass some version of health reform by February or so, and they can claim a victory for the people. It will cover more of the uninsured poor and make private plans more accessible to people, so I don't want to make light of those gains. But the bill won't likely contain any sweeping reforms, so the GOP can claim victory that they didn't let America go socialist, and all the while the insurance, physician, and drug industries are fat and happy as always.

As you said, for-profit health is borderline immoral, if not completely obscene. I know medical workers should be paid fair compensation for their services, but insurance companies reap huge profits while not really providing us with any service at all (just headaches mostly). But like the prison system, now these behemoth bureaucracies are "too big to get rid of" (or even regulate it seems), and they have billion-dollar legal and PR teams to lobby Washington and fight any challenges to their earnings. Actually working for a large biotech/pharma (even one rated highly in the field), I am tired of seeing the mismanagement, propaganda, and decisions based on profits rather than patients. I plan to switch careers this year and am applying for a "green MBA" program to work on business development for biofuels or green engineering in the future. I hope it works out better, but I am sure there will be plenty of hypocrisy and BS there too.

I agree with what you said about tort reform. It's pure lies how the doctors & HMOs claim they need to keep raising fees because of the "rising" threat of malpractice. As the attachment shows, malpractice payouts per capita have remained flat in the last decade, while medical costs have gone up sharply, so they're uncorrelated. But aren't most malpractice cases settled without ever going to court? Like the MD's malprac. insurance basically tells him to settle, and he has little choice since fighting a court battle will take him away from his practice for months, thereby costing even more money (even if he is innocent). I guess in the single-payer health care nations, malpractice suits are much less common and for less money? Maybe that is due to better quality of care, but probably also fewer ambulance chasers? Lawyers should have financial incentive to take on these cases, but if the incentives are too great, they will over-pursue cases, like fee-for-service doctors over-prescribing procedures. Obviously doctors need to be held accountable for mistakes, but they can't be "practicing scared" and prescribing care based on lawsuit paranoia. It's not good for the doctor or the patient. Medicine is not exact and some people will die even if the doctor goes by the book perfectly. Angry patients and grieving families have a right to be upset, but of course we can differentiate between honest mistakes and negligence. Though if the industry favors settling out of court, then the truth will never be able to come out.

Wow, I didn't realize CA had a cap that was so low and enacted so long ago. It's just a tough situation because obviously HMOs, MDs, and hospitals pass on the costs of malpractice protection onto the government and customers. Yes as you said, maybe it would be more fair to not have lawsuit caps, but instead a cap on legal hours per side. Not just in malpractice, but I think it's terrible if one side can afford an "OJ-sized" legal defense All-Star squad, while the other has an overworked rookie public defender. It would be hard to regulate and enforce of course. Or maybe doctors shouldn't just fear the financial repercussions of malpractice, but fear losing their license instead. Too many repeat-offender doctors still practice and make lots of money. If an independent agency can evaluate malpractice cases, like the Trustee's Office for debt cases, and bar guilty doctors from practicing medicine (either a fixed time period or permanently), then doctors will be more careful for their own career's sake. And then they won't have the excuse of needing to charge more to cover their malpractice insurance, because they won't be financially liable for any damages. Maybe the agency can make payments to victims, funded by a tax or modest penalties to offending doctors. I don't know, just brainstorming. It's a frustrating situation for everyone I think.

Friday, October 23, 2009

More on prescription drugs

Yeah, for a culture that's so gung-ho about wars on drugs, just saying no to drugs, etc. there sure is a lot of accommodation of prescription drugs; yet another mystery of American life, eh?

BTW, I did want to add one thing to the discussion (top-posted per request, cross-posted with T's Blogger Blog, & duplicated to Google Groups for posterity): it could be that the real villain with respect to over-prescription of drugs is actually the privacy policies which make data collection regarding drug interaction as well as long-term efficacy something of a question rather than a no-brainer... I know that there are plenty of systems (and algorithms) which are capable of automatic collection and anonymization of such data so the technology definitely exists; as far as I'm know the only reason such systems haven't been deployed (or federated) is a lack of will and/or legal framework to allow the needful to be done.

PS: DTC marketing is obnoxious and more existential than hanging out at a gym; it's reason enough to turn off the TV for good and/or abandon network television for good.

-------

Thanks for writing. Yeah Rx painkillers are I think in the top 5 for illicit drug abuse in America. But instead of brown people smuggling blow across the Rio Grande to poison our kids, American drug pushers just have to raid grandma's medicine cabinet or obtain a bogus Rx. I am sure most of you have heard stories of even teens selling their leftover vicodin to classmates after a wisdom teeth removal or whatnot. Customer service is generally pretty poor at most retirement homes and hospice care centers for the sub-rich, but one thing they're great at is medicating the elderly. Then they have to deal with fewer complaints and whining.

Another problem is how to dispose of all the surplus drugs. It's fairly well documented that doctors overprescribe antibiotics for even viral illnesses or patients whose symptoms are not severe (and would probably recover on their own, but the doc wants to be careful and not upset the patient/get sued). This selective pressure gives an evolutionary advantage to drug-resistant bacteria strains. Discarded antibiotics and other drugs are winding up in our water supply. Our water purity tools are now more sensitive, so maybe drugs were always there and now we can finally detect them, but still - it's quite likely that we're ingesting trace amounts of all sorts of drug cocktails when we drink tap water (or even cheap bottled water).

http://www.staphaseptic.com/news.cfm?id=18FE4C5D-C6C9-0EF9-9F1678797221DAA9
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-10-drugs-tap-water_N.htm

As you said, there isn't much data on long-term drug effects, drug interaction, or even acute side effects. With pressure from drug companies and even overzealous patient advocacy groups to get products to market ASAP, the FDA is unable to be totally thorough. There is a new prostate cancer vaccine (Provenge) being reviewed by the FDA. 4/17 docs on the advisory panel have concerns about the drug's efficacy, and two published their findings. The authors now need 24/7 bodyguards because crazy people are making death threats to them, because they think the docs' obstruction is threatening theirs. Even though the docs are doing this out of concerns for potential patients and have no financial incentive, unlike other docs who praise drugs from companies that do them favors. This is the state of medicine today.

http://www.psa-rising.com/blog/2007/06/prostate-cancer-doctor-receives-death-threat-over-provenge/

As we know, haste causes mistakes, like in the cases of Vioxx, Raplon, Palladone, Trasylol, Baycol, Raptiva, or other drugs that were initially approved and pulled after drug-related deaths/complications were reported. Just do a Google search for "drugs pulled from market" and you will find a huge list. The FDA, NIH, and other gov't entities are underfunded and understaffed. In fact, most drug testing is funded and conducted by the company itself, and the FDA just reviews their paperwork. Or resources are poorly allocated: breast cancer research gets the most funding (30% of all NCI grant funding), even though it is not the most common nor lethal cancer, probably due to America's Oedipal fixation with mammaries and maternal guilt issues. But long-term studies are expensive and time-consuming, and it's hard to follow patients for years. We hope academics will conduct these critical studies for us, but they have their own constraints and there's still so much we don't know. Maybe with more electronic records, information sharing, and sophisticated computational methods, we can learn more about the pharmacokinetics/dynamics of various drugs, but as you would expect, the medical field is not at the cutting edge with respect to computing. As you said, without the gov't will and legal mandate to obtain these data, it will never happen on its own.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding

Attitude-wise, I think patients should stop expecting new miracle drugs to keep curing them of illnesses and improving/extending their lives. Practically everything out there is a carcinogen or pathogen. Maybe diseases evolve faster than science (and bureaucracy) can combat them anyway. The "George Bush approach" that technology will always save us from ourselves is not valid in most cases, and probably foolhardy. Yes we should rationally and ethically continue research and try to help the sick get better, and yes drug companies and doctors deserve reasonable compensation for the products/services they provide, but let's remember that we are all mortal and fragile. Death is part of life, and let's face it with some zen and humility. Why are you so important that society needs to spend half a million dollars so you can see your 86th birthday? Research isn't really the problem either. The top killers in the world are respiratory complications (from flu, pneumonia, etc.), tuberculosis, and malaria. All those are easily and CHEAPLY preventable/treatable. But of course the people who die from them are from the Third World, and we don't give a shit about them. The top killers in the West are probably heart disease and cancer. So we pour billions of dollars into research and care for those diseases. Probably one infusion of chemotherapy ($10k in some cases) could pay for an entire village's anti-malarials for a year.

Friday, October 16, 2009

Doctors prescribing drugs

In my experience, primary care physicians are very responsible in providing their patients with the correct medications and education. Being a news article, it is easy to cite a few examples of patients that are unaware to skew towards a general opinion rather than an official study supported by lots of data from a balanced group of subjects. The majority of my patients that are taking medications are mostly aware of their drug names and why they are taking them, and some also know the exact dosages. It is true that the majority are for high cholesterol, blood pressure, anti-coagulants, diabetic medication, etc. There are many drugs that can be prescribed, however there are fine differences in the mechanisms of the drugs, so the physicians may prescribe a drug, but then change the prescription due to the medication's effects of that patient's blood chemistry, exam, etc to titrate them for the best effect on their patient. I feel that they are putting the patient's best interest first, especially since there is no tort reform. The rise in pharm sales can be attributed to patients asking for a specific drug by name, but it will not be prescribed unless it is the right drug for them. In the case where many drugs can work, if a patient feels more satisfaction for a certain drug name, it will probably be prescribed. Otherwise, it is just new technological advancements that are helping patients live longer than the had in the past and a new generation in which Prevention is the mode of operation.

It used to be that a patient would have a heart attack before medication was prescribed. Now, we have many indicators to help prevent heart attacks. So instead of a patient having a heart attack/stroke and living 10 years longer the previous generation after the attack and dealing with the repercussions of that heart attack, we are moving towards a generation of patients living 20 years longer than the previous generation, but not having that heart attack and living a normal life. With the baby boomer generation taking bp/cholesterol/anticoagulants/diabetic meds younger than the current older generation, we can expect them to live even longer with less ailments. When patients live longer than they are supposed to, new ailments arise however, that never had before been seen because they would be dead in the past. So, new medications will need to be prescribed/developed.

It's true that American's are also not healthy and they do rely are on multiple drugs to live longer, but not because they are hypochondriacs (its malpractice to prescribe drugs that pts don't need, plus insurance won't cover it without a diagnosis backed with exam information), but because they would be dead otherwise or living miserably having survived a medical emergency.
In general, most doctors do try to prescribe generics when they can. On prescription forms you check a box that says "Generic Substitute" which is checked 99% of the time unless the patient feels better with a prescription name, i.e Hydrocodone 5/500 vs. Vicodin.

-------

Plenty of drugs are prescribed that have nothing to do with extending life, yet are quite expensive: antihistamines or other immunomodulators, digestive medications, sleeping pills, penis pills, PMS pills, behavioral drugs, and anti-depressants (unless for severe suicide risk, though teens taking anti-depressants may actually increase their risk of suicide, but of course patients who are prescribed anti-depressants are more likely to attempt suicide anyway: http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/731343/new_look_at_antidepressant_suicide_risk/index.html). Yes those drugs may improve a patient's quality of life (either marginally or significantly), but they are not a matter of life and death.

Drugs are one of several factors contributing to the huge drop in cardiovascular-related mortality. Fewer Americans smoke (I also believe alcohol consumption is down) and there is more education about healthful living and eating vs. the previous generation. Our diagnostic technologies have improved, so hypertension can be detected and addressed earlier. It's not just these wonder drugs that are making Americans live into their 80s. And if the drugs were so great, why is it that America is the most pill-popping nation per capita, yet our overall life expectancy is ranked 24th worldwide (see my previous email "Health care overhaul potpourri")?

It's naive to think that drugs are only prescribed out of critical medical necessity. Plenty of doctors prescribe drugs off-label (as in, for indications not officially approved by the FDA), because some data shows the drug could help, but in that case the prescribing doc is responsible for any adverse effects (since thorough safety/efficacy tests have not been conducted). Maybe they help the patients by doing so, and maybe it's excessive. Not all doctors are greedy con men, and not all doctors are saints. There's a mix of the two and plenty in between. Insurance and Medicare don't have the time and resources to scrutinize every Rx. The CDC said that 14M Americans misused their Rx's in 2004, resulting in 20,000 deaths. So obviously they were using the wrong drug, or not taking it properly, so either they are junkies or their physicians/pharmacists did not properly Rx or educate them on the risks.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reported that 30% of the nursing home population is receiving an antipsychotic, yet 21% of those cases do not suffer from psychosis. In 2007 doctors filled more than 45 million prescriptions for an antipsychotic, according to IMS Health. Yet there are only 2.4 million schizophrenic patients (for whom the drugs were originally intended), according to the National Institute of Mental Health.

http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2008/06/stop_casual_rx.html

Yes it is malpractice to Rx a drug that the patient doesn't need, and guess what - malpractice occurs a lot in America (~14K settlements paid out each year, either valid or frivolous, though few are drug-related). The attached report (I can't vouch for the data since I haven't read it all and am unfamiliar with the org, but just food for thought) suggests that malpractice settlements are not the bogeyman that physicians make them out to be. Before federal anti-kickback laws were enacted in 1972 & 1989 (42 CFR Part 1001), pharma companies were routinely paying for doctor's gifts, posh meals, and junkets to conferences in Hawaii (and some of it persists today). Why would they do that? They have a business to run and can't afford to throw money away as goodwill. They are investing in quid pro quo obviously. This is from the New England Journal of Medicine (scary stuff actually), written by doctors:

Interactions between drug companies and doctors are pervasive. Relationships begin in medical school, continue during residency training, and persist throughout physicians' careers. The pervasiveness of these interactions results in part from a huge investment by the pharmaceutical industry in marketing. In 2002, the industry expended 33 percent of its revenues on "selling and administration."12 In 2001, one company, Novartis, reported spending 36 percent of its revenues on marketing alone.2 The marketing expenditures of the drug industry have been estimated variously at $12 billion to $15 billion yearly, or $8,000 to $15,000 per physician.7,8,13 In 2001, the industry's sales force of drug detailers, whose job is to meet individually with physicians and promote company products, numbered nearly 90,000 in the United States2,8 — 1 salesperson for every 4.7 office-based physicians.8

Moynihan14 catalogued 16 different ways in which drug companies relate directly or indirectly with doctors. These range from the seemingly trivial (e.g., the ubiquitous dispensing of gifts such as pens and pads with drug names inscribed) to the much more troubling (e.g., the ghostwriting of articles for academic physicians, the payment of large honoraria and consulting fees to prominent physicians who extol the virtues of company products, and the support of lavish trips and entertainment for physicians who commonly prescribe company products).
Surveys of residents indicate that they receive an average of six gifts from pharmaceutical companies annually.15 In a survey of 106 directors of emergency-department programs in 2002, 41 percent responded that their programs allowed residents to be taught by representatives of drug companies, 35 percent reported that residents received free industry samples at work, and 29 percent said that residents' travel to meetings was sometimes dependent on the availability of company support.16 According to another report, residents in a psychiatry program in Toronto attended up to 70 lunches that had been sponsored by drug companies and received 75 promotional items over the course of one year.17

... As many as 59 percent of the authors of clinical guidelines endorsed by many professional associations have had financial relationships with companies whose drugs might be affected by those guidelines.23

... In a very thorough review of the literature on the effects of interactions with drug companies on physician behavior, Wazana15 identified 16 relevant studies. These studies found that a wide variety of interactions — meetings with company representatives; the receipt of gifts, free drug samples, and free meals; company support for travel to and lodging at educational events; attendance at lectures by representatives of pharmaceutical companies; acceptance of honoraria; and other relationships — were associated with changes in physicians' use of medications. Involved physicians were more likely to request the inclusion of the company's drugs on hospital or health maintenance organization formularies, more likely to prescribe the company's products, and less likely to prescribe generic medications. The resulting changes in the use of medication were often costly and "nonrational" in that the newly prescribed or requested drugs had no therapeutic advantage over the alternatives. Interestingly, several studies have found that the larger the number of gifts that physicians received, the more likely they were to believe that gifts did not affect their prescribing behavior.15,28

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/18/1885?ijkey=8tzMb5l1u.Np2&keytype=ref&siteid=nejm

So if doctors can enjoy millions of dollars of gifts/assistance/what-have-you from pharma companies and still prescribe their products ethically and scientifically, then medical school is really worth the $40k/year.

Friday, June 19, 2009

Case study in health care abuse: McAllen vs. El Paso


“Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments [why Medicare costs are highest per capita in McAllen than anywhere else US] are bullshit. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures. The surgeon came to McAllen in the mid-nineties, and since then, he said, “the way to practice medicine has changed completely. Before, it was about how to do a good job. Now it is about ‘How much will you benefit?’ ”

Providing health care is like building a house. The task requires experts, expensive equipment and materials, and a huge amount of coördination. Imagine that, instead of paying a contractor to pull a team together and keep them on track, you paid an electrician for every outlet he recommends, a plumber for every faucet, and a carpenter for every cabinet. Would you be surprised if you got a house with a thousand outlets, faucets, and cabinets, at three times the cost you expected, and the whole thing fell apart a couple of years later? Getting the country’s best electrician on the job (he trained at Harvard, somebody tells you) isn’t going to solve this problem. Nor will changing the person who writes him the check.
- Atul Gawande

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all

With the health care debate in DC in full swing, controlling costs and usage are obviously key factors to any reform plan. We previously discussed comparative effectiveness analysis, and it will probably be a key ingredient to any American universal coverage program. This New Yorker piece clearly demonstrates why comp. eff. is long overdue to counter "zealously entrepreneurial" physicians and clinics. We know more care is more costly, but more care is not necessarily better for your health either. "The most expensive tool in medicine is a doctor's pen." I'd laugh if it wasn't so true. The author suggests that the abuses taking place by medical professionals in McAllen is analogous to unscrupulous mortgage brokers in the sub-prime mess. They just want to get as many patients through the door as possible and collect more commission (in some cases, illegal kickbacks). And like the financial industry, incentive systems are set up in medicine to reward these types of excesses, so it's a miracle when some communities like Grand Junction, CO or the Mayo Clinic like can actually buck the trend and offer better health outcomes for less money ("accountable care org's"). The story was written by a doctor too, so he is not just MD-bashing.

Some highlights from the article:

-McAllen... is one of the most expensive health-care markets in the country. Only Miami—which has much higher labor and living costs—spends more per person on health care. In 2006, Medicare spent fifteen thousand dollars per enrollee here, almost twice the national average. The income per capita is twelve thousand dollars. In other words, Medicare spends three thousand dollars more per person here than the average person earns.

-Yet public-health statistics show that cardiovascular-disease rates in [McAllen] are actually lower than average, probably because its smoking rates are quite low. Rates of asthma, H.I.V., infant mortality, cancer, and injury are lower, too. El Paso County, eight hundred miles up the border, has essentially the same demographics. Both counties have a population of roughly seven hundred thousand, similar public-health statistics, and similar percentages of non-English speakers, illegal immigrants, and the unemployed. Yet in 2006 Medicare expenditures (our best approximation of over-all spending patterns) in El Paso were $7,504 per enrollee—half as much as in McAllen. An unhealthy population couldn’t possibly be the reason that McAllen’s health-care costs are so high. (Or the reason that America’s are. We may be more obese than any other industrialized nation, but we have among the lowest rates of smoking and alcoholism, and we are in the middle of the range for cardiovascular disease and diabetes.)

-And yet there’s no evidence that the treatments and technologies available at McAllen are better than those found elsewhere in the country. The annual reports that hospitals file with Medicare show that those in McAllen and El Paso offer comparable technologies—neonatal intensive-care units, advanced cardiac services, PET scans, and so on. Public statistics show no difference in the supply of doctors. Hidalgo County actually has fewer specialists than the national average. Nor does the care given in McAllen stand out for its quality. Medicare ranks hospitals on twenty-five metrics of care. On all but two of these, McAllen’s five largest hospitals performed worse, on average, than El Paso’s. McAllen costs Medicare seven thousand dollars more per person each year than does the average city in America. But not, so far as one can tell, because it’s delivering better health care.

-“[The reason for McAllen's high costs is] malpractice,” a family physician who had practiced here for thirty-three years said. “McAllen is legal hell,” the cardiologist agreed. Doctors order unnecessary tests just to protect themselves, he said. Everyone thought the lawyers here were worse than elsewhere.
That explanation puzzled me. Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Didn’t lawsuits go down? “Practically to zero,” the cardiologist admitted.
-In a 2003 study, another Dartmouth team, led by the internist Elliott Fisher, examined the treatment received by a million elderly Americans diagnosed with colon or rectal cancer, a hip fracture, or a heart attack. They found that patients in higher-spending regions received sixty per cent more care than elsewhere. They got more frequent tests and procedures, more visits with specialists, and more frequent admission to hospitals. Yet they did no better than other patients, whether this was measured in terms of survival, their ability to function, or satisfaction with the care they received. If anything, they seemed to do worse. That’s because nothing in medicine is without risks. Complications can arise from hospital stays, medications, procedures, and tests, and when these things are of marginal value the harm can be greater than the benefits. In recent years, we doctors have markedly increased the number of operations we do, for instance. In 2006, doctors performed at least sixty million surgical procedures, one for every five Americans. No other country does anything like as many operations on its citizens. Are we better off for it? No one knows for sure, but it seems highly unlikely. After all, some hundred thousand people die each year from complications of surgery—far more than die in car crashes.

-To make matters worse, Fisher found that patients in high-cost areas were actually less likely to receive low-cost preventive services, such as flu and pneumonia vaccines, faced longer waits at doctor and emergency-room visits, and were less likely to have a primary-care physician. They got more of the stuff that cost more, but not more of what they needed.

-In an odd way, this news is reassuring. Universal coverage won’t be feasible unless we can control costs. Policymakers have worried that doing so would require rationing, which the public would never go along with. So the idea that there’s plenty of fat in the system is proving deeply attractive. “Nearly thirty per cent of Medicare’s costs could be saved without negatively affecting health outcomes if spending in high- and medium-cost areas could be reduced to the level in low-cost areas,” Peter Orszag, the President’s budget director, has stated.

-She wasn’t the only person to mention Renaissance [Hospital]. It is the newest hospital in the area. It is physician-owned. And it has a reputation (which it disclaims) for aggressively recruiting high-volume physicians to become investors and send patients there. Physicians who do so receive not only their fee for whatever service they provide but also a percentage of the hospital’s profits from the tests, surgery, or other care patients are given. (In 2007, its profits totalled thirty-four million dollars.) Romero and others argued that this gives physicians an unholy temptation to overorder.

-“In El Paso, if you took a random doctor and looked at his tax returns eighty-five per cent of his income would come from the usual practice of medicine,” he said. But in McAllen, the administrator thought, that percentage would be a lot less. He knew of doctors who owned strip malls, orange groves, apartment complexes—or imaging centers, surgery centers, or another part of the hospital they directed patients to. They had “entrepreneurial spirit,” he said. They were innovative and aggressive in finding ways to increase revenues from patient care. “There’s no lack of work ethic,” he said. But he had often seen financial considerations drive the decisions doctors made for patients—the tests they ordered, the doctors and hospitals they recommended—and it bothered him. Several doctors who were unhappy about the direction medicine had taken in McAllen told me the same thing. “It’s a machine, my friend,” one surgeon explained.

-Beyond the basics, however, many physicians are remarkably oblivious to the financial implications of their decisions. They see their patients. They make their recommendations. They send out the bills. And, as long as the numbers come out all right at the end of each month, they put the money out of their minds. Others think of the money as a means of improving what they do. They think about how to use the insurance money to maybe install electronic health records with colleagues, or provide easier phone and e-mail access, or offer expanded hours. Then there are the physicians who see their practice primarily as a revenue stream. They instruct their secretary to have patients who call with follow-up questions schedule an appointment, because insurers don’t pay for phone calls, only office visits. They consider providing Botox injections for cash. They take a Doppler ultrasound course, buy a machine, and start doing their patients’ scans themselves, so that the insurance payments go to them rather than to the hospital. They figure out ways to increase their high-margin work and decrease their low-margin work.

-In a few cases, the hospital executive told me, he’d seen the behavior cross over into what seemed like outright fraud. “I’ve had doctors here come up to me and say, ‘You want me to admit patients to your hospital, you’re going to have to pay me.’ ”
“How much?” I asked.
“The amounts—all of them were over a hundred thousand dollars per year,” he said. The doctors were specific. The most he was asked for was five hundred thousand dollars per year. He didn’t pay any of them, he said: “I mean, I gotta sleep at night.” And he emphasized that these were just a handful of doctors. But he had never been asked for a kickback before coming to McAllen.

-Powell suspects that anchor tenants play a similarly powerful community role in other areas of economics, too, and health care may be no exception. I spoke to a marketing rep for a McAllen home-health agency who told me of a process uncannily similar to what Powell found in biotech. Her job is to persuade doctors to use her agency rather than others. The competition is fierce. I opened the phone book and found seventeen pages of listings for home-health agencies—two hundred and sixty in all. A patient typically brings in between twelve hundred and fifteen hundred dollars, and double that amount for specialized care. She described how, a decade or so ago, a few early agencies began rewarding doctors who ordered home visits with more than trinkets: they provided tickets to professional sporting events, jewelry, and other gifts. That set the tone. Other agencies jumped in. Some began paying doctors a supplemental salary, as “medical directors,” for steering business in their direction. Doctors came to expect a share of the revenue stream.

-Something even more worrisome is going on as well. In the war over the culture of medicine—the war over whether our country’s anchor model will be Mayo or McAllen—the Mayo model is losing. In the sharpest economic downturn that our health system has faced in half a century, many people in medicine don’t see why they should do the hard work of organizing themselves in ways that reduce waste and improve quality if it means sacrificing revenue.

In El Paso, the for-profit health-care executive told me, a few leading physicians recently followed McAllen’s lead and opened their own centers for surgery and imaging. When I was in Tulsa a few months ago, a fellow-surgeon explained how he had made up for lost revenue by shifting his operations for well-insured patients to a specialty hospital that he partially owned while keeping his poor and uninsured patients at a nonprofit hospital in town. Even in Grand Junction, Michael Pramenko told me, “some of the doctors are beginning to complain about ‘leaving money on the table.’ ”

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Washing your hands could be bad for your health


Some studies suggest that antibacterial soaps don't even offer much added protection against microbes than regular soap anyway (and encourage bacterial resistance to those agents), so why risk these health problems too?

Safety of Antibacterial Soap Debated
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=89871
Researchers See Potential Health Hazards; Manufacturers Say Products Are Safe

By Martin F. Downs
WebMD Health News

Reviewed By Brunilda Nazario, MD

May 29, 2008 — Millions of Americans use antibacterial soaps and household cleaners every day, believing that their germ-killing ability will keep them and their families healthier. But could these same chemicals that fight germs also be hazardous to your health? That's a question being studied by a group of researchers at the University of California, Davis. In three separate studies, the researchers showed that the chemicals — triclosan and triclocarban — have potential to affect sex hormones and interfere with the nervous system. They also may become suspects in the search for causes of autism.

Dan Chang, PhD, a professor of environmental engineering at U.C. Davis and one of the researchers involved, says he doesn't want to cause a panic, but "the public should be aware of some of the concerns."

While Chang and the other researchers involved in the studies admit that it's too early to know whether the chemicals pose a serious health risk, it's already been shown that the cleaners don't work any better than regular soap and water — and may contribute to the rise of resistant bacteria. So, they ask, why take the risk?

In October, the researchers will pose that question when they meet with representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the CDC, and some of the product manufacturers to talk about what they view as a potential public health problem. The stakes are high for the manufacturers: Antibacterial products account for about $1 billion in sales annually. Triclosan is found in 76% of all liquid soap sold in stores and is also added to toothpaste, mouthwash, cosmetics, fabrics, and plastic kitchenware. Triclocarban is a common additive in antibacterial bar soap and deodorant. "These compounds should be voluntarily removed by consumer product manufacturers," Chang tells WebMD, or at least, consumers should "be provided precautionary information regarding their use."

Industry Reaction
Brian Sansoni, spokesman for the Soap and Detergent Association, an organization headquartered in Washington D.C. that represents manufacturers of all kinds of cleaning products, says studies have shown the products are safe. "They have been reviewed and analyzed and studied by scientists and government agencies for decades," Sansoni says. "We're disappointed at some of the alarmist conclusions made by the authors."

Sansoni confirms that a representative of the association plans to meet with U.C. Davis researchers. But he says their findings aren't too worrisome. "Consumers can continue to safely use antibacterial soap and hygiene products with confidence," he says.

The Government's Perspective
Developed in the 1950s and 1960s, triclocarban and triclosan were first used mainly as antiseptic agents in hospitals. Sales of consumer antibacterial products took off in the early 1990s, backed by multimillion-dollar ad campaigns for popular soap. By 2004, manufacturers were introducing hundreds of new antibacterial products every year. The EPA is in the process of re-evaluating triclosan. A draft report published in the Federal Register in May 2008 concludes that it doesn't pose any serious safety concerns for consumers. The European Commission reached the same conclusions about triclosan in 2002 and triclocarban in 2005.

The data on toxic effects cited in these reports primarily come from animal studies dating back to the 1970s and 1980s, which were not designed to detect the same kinds of effects that the U.C. Davis researchers are now studying in the lab and in animals. "The science itself I think is quite good," says Kevin Crofton, PhD, a neurotoxicologist with the EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, when asked about the U.C. Davis research. "The conclusions are where it gets hard. They're pointing out something that's new. Does it require further study? Absolutely. But the thing that I think you have to keep in mind is that what we don't really know is the relationship between human exposures and the exposures in those studies."

The effects seen in the laboratory may not necessarily occur in people. "We need to follow that up," Crofton says.

What the Reseachers Found: Triclosan
Chang, who coordinates the university's studies on triclosan and triclocarban as part of the Superfund Basic Research Program, supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health, says the U.C. Davis research doesn't contradict findings that triclosan and triclocarban are safe for most people. But it does show that "there may be sensitive periods in development when these compounds could have a very subtle detrimental effect." Translation: If the compounds cause harm, they are most likely to do so during pregnancy, early childhood, and adolescence.

Chang argues that antibacterial soaps don't do enough good to risk this potential harm. In 2005, the FDA concluded that antibacterial soaps, as used by the general public, don't prevent illness any better than ordinary soap, and they may contribute to the rise of resistant bacteria.

In one study, recently accepted for publication in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives and made available online, Isaac Pessah, PhD, director of the U.C. Davis Children's Center for Environmental Health, looked at how triclosan may affect the brain. Pessah's test-tube study found that the chemical attached itself to special "receptor" molecules on the surface of cells. This raises calcium levels inside the cell. Cells overloaded with calcium get overexcited. In the brain, these overexcited cells may burn out neural circuits, which could lead to an imbalance that affects mental development.

Some people may carry a mutated gene that makes it easier for triclosan to attach to their cells. That could make them more vulnerable to any effects triclosan may cause. This is one reason why Pessah named triclosan (and related compounds with similar properties) as a prime target for research into environmental factors that might cause autism. "These are the compounds you should be going after," he said last April at the Current Trends in Autism conference held in Boston.

While Pessah's new study does not link triclosan directly to autism, many scientists suspect that having certain genes, plus exposure to something in the environment, might trigger processes that lead to autism. "We already have a list of candidate genes," Pessah says These are genes commonly found in people with autism that may increase vulnerability to things that impact excitable brain cells.

What the Researchers Found: Triclocarban
Other researchers at U.C. Davis found that the other chemical under study, triclocarban, has an unusual effect on hormones. Triclocarban is a common additive in antibacterial bar soap and deodorant. For many years, some scientists have suspected that chemicals in the environment, known as "endocrine disruptors," may interfere with the human sex hormones and reproductive development. According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, endocrine disruptors may cause reduced fertility in women and men, early puberty in girls, and increases in cancers of the breast, ovaries, and prostate.

In the March 2008 issue of Endocrinology, the researchers published results of studies in animals showing that triclocarban appears to amplify the effects of hormones, telling cells to keep doing something after they normally would have stopped. Researchers tested triclocarban on human cells grown in the lab. When exposed to estrogen and triclocarban together, the cells produced more of an enzyme than with estrogen alone. In a separate test published in the Environmental Health Perspectives study, the prostate glands of rats exposed to triclocarban and testosterone grew bigger than those given testosterone alone.

Such studies cannot be repeated in humans for ethical reasons, so researchers must infer that triclocarban could have the same effect in humans. Lathering up for a single bath with soap containing triclocarban gives a person the same dose of triclocarban that rats got in the study. "We do know that people, after a shower, or after an acute exposure, can have levels that could have an effect on their hormones," says Bill Lasley, PhD, a researcher in the department of population health and reproduction at U.C. Davis. "I have no doubt that it has a subtle effect, but I of course question whether it has a serious effect."

Chemical Buildup in Environment
The U.C. Davis researchers are the first to use cutting-edge molecular technology to study potential effects of triclosan and triclocarban on the human nervous system and hormones. Studies show that these chemicals are building up in the environment at an alarming rate. Americans dump more than 1 million pounds of triclosan and triclocarban into the environment every year. Rolf Halden, PhD, a scientist at Arizona State University, found that sewage treatment captures only about 50% of the triclosan and less than 25% of the triclocarban that goes down people's drains.

Halden published a study this month in Environmental Science and Technology showing that the chemicals don't quickly break down in the environment. He found these chemicals in sediment dating back 40-50 years. A recent CDC study detected triclosan in the urine of 75% of Americans aged 6 and older. "The disappointing news is that we continue to use these chemicals against better knowledge," Halden says. "They do not have an observable benefit. But we do know they persist in the environment, and now these more recent studies show that they are not as benign as we might have thought."

Antonia Calafat, PhD, a laboratory scientist at the CDC, says the agency does not know if any health problems in the population are linked to triclosan exposure. "We need additional research to determine whether or not, at the levels we have detected, triclosan can be a cause of concern," she says.

SOURCES: Dan Chang, PhD, professor emeritus, department of civil and environmental engineering, University of California, Davis. Isaac Pessah, PhD, professor, department of molecular biosciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis; director, U.C. Davis Children's Center for Environmental Health and Disease Prevention. Antonia Calafat, PhD, research chemist, division of laboratory sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, CDC. Bill Lasley, PhD, professor emeritus, department of population health and reproduction, Center for Health and the Environment, University of California, Davis. Brian Sansoni, vice president of communication, Soap and Detergent Association, Washington, D.C. Kevin Crofton, PhD, neurotoxicologist, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency. Rolf Halden, PhD, associate professor, Center for Environmental Biotechnology, The Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University; adjunct associate professor, Center for Water and Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

© 2008 WebMD Inc. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Are US doctors paid too much?


http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/congress/22708684.html?location_refer=Opinion

Recently there has been some squabbling over budget cuts to Medicare/Medicaid and state-sponsored health care that may cause doctors to decline services to those patients, because they won't be "properly compensated" by the government. So the doctors are revolting, and Bush has threatened to veto any cuts proposed by Congress. Right now they're debating a 10% cut, actually as part of a mechanism that was previously approved in the event that costs exceed certain markers, which is happening now in a big way. The pay cut survived the House, but will probably stall in the Senate and will definitely be killed at the Oval Office.

I know doctors are businessmen/women too, and they have a bottom line to maintain. They are skilled professionals who went through rigorous training ($30,000/year tuition + living expenses), and deserve compensation for their critical contributions to society. But I don't know how they can morally refuse to treat needy people dependent on government health care, just because they'll be reimbursed $2,700 for an arthroscopic knee surgery instead of the "going rate" of $3,000. Are they pinching pennies that much, even with a $200,000 salary? The cars they drive surely don't suggest it.

And what other industry but health care can the providers dictate costs and the consumers just have to accept it? Equally greedy HMOs and others might try to negotiate a "fairer" price, but in the end the doctors bill Medicare as they like, and our tax dollars go up in smoke (in many cases, overcharging Uncle Sam). In other markets like automobiles and air travel, competitors are cutting prices left and right in order to secure customers. But can we "shop around" for doctors who can provide the best service at the most reasonable cost? We just go where our insurance tells us to go, and actually most of the process is a black box to us. I guess most of us just feel lucky that we weren't refused care!

There was an interesting NYT article last year (below) discussing whether US doctors are paid too much, and whether they have more impact on the insanely high costs of health care than even prescription drugs. Pharmaceuticals are 30-50% more expensive in the US vs. Europe, but doctors' salaries are sometimes 100% more. A typical UK doctor in 2002 made $60-120,000 and lives well, if you've seen Michael Moore's "Sicko". But US specialists make $300-400,000, and we all know the young doctors graduating from school all want to be specialists. But how many radiologists and anesthesiologists do we need, versus the pediatricians and GPs who deal with normal patient problems and practice normal medicine "in the trenches" (ironically the lowest-paid doctors)? Relatively few new doctors are going into those "unglamorous" fields versus the huge demand, so no wonder we have to import them from other nations - yet some patients complain about foreign accents and demand an "American" doctor. Well, blame the American medical system and its students then, who would rather be Nip/Tuck than Patch Adams!

Because the fees they charge are so high (and patients have no choice but to pay), doctors also have a financial incentive to over-prescribe treatment in order to make more money. I am sure we can Google many examples of this to back up the NYT's claim, as well as cases of defrauding Medicare/Medicaid. And unlike Europe, Medicare lacks the resources (and/or motivation) to scrutinize a doctor's treatment request, veto if unnecessary, or maybe suggest a cheaper alternative. Doctors in other developed nations are more-or-less paid flat salaries from their national health systems, with performance-based incentives. Their doctors are paid less, yet deliver better services on average, based on WHO rankings and other studies. In fact, socialized medicine nations like the UK, Canada, and Australia outperformed the US in terms of medical errors and patient satisfaction (http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/HealthPolicy/tb/2074). So maybe there is a real problem with the "quantity over quality" approach by many US doctors.

From NYT:

"Almost all expenditures pass through the pen of a doctor," he said. So a doctor may decide to perform a test that costs a total of $4,000 in order to make $800 for himself — when a cheaper test might work equally well. "This is a highly inefficient way to pay doctors," Dr. Bach said.

Medicare, especially, does not like to second-guess doctors' clinical decisions, said Dr. Stephen Zuckerman, a health economist at the Urban Institute. "There's not a lot of utilization review or prior authorization in Medicare," he said. "If you're doing the work, you can expect to get paid."

As a result, doctors have steadily increased the number of procedures they perform on Medicare beneficiaries — and thus have increased their income from Medicare, Dr. Zuckerman said. But the extra procedures have not helped patients' health much, he said. "I don't think there's any real strong evidence of improvements in health status."

Private insurers like H.M.O.'s are more aggressive than Medicare in second-guessing physicians' clinical decisions, and they will refuse to pay for imaging scans or other expensive new procedures. Now Medicare and private insurers are moving cautiously to change the current system. Recently, they have proposed pay-for-performance measures that would give doctors small bonuses if their care meets the standards set by national medical organizations such as the American Heart Association.

BUT all those measures are a minor fix, said Dr. Alan Garber, a practicing internist and the director of the Center for Health Policy at Stanford University. Instead, he argues, the United States should move toward paying doctors fixed salaries, plus bonuses based on the health of the patients they care for.

Even in the existing system, some health insurers, notably Kaiser Permanente, already have large networks of salaried doctors. But it would require doctors to give up some of their autonomy and move into larger group practices or work directly for insurers, a step they have been reluctant to take. About 40 percent of doctors are in single or two-physician practices, Dr. Garber said.

Nor is the American Medical Association, which represents doctors, eager for wholesale changes in the system, said Dr. Edward L. Langston, chairman of the A.M.A. board.

But Dr. Goldman of RAND said that doctors are misleading themselves if they think the current system serves patients' needs. For example, if a diabetic patient visits a doctor, he said, "the doctor is paid to check his feet, they're paid to check his eyes; they're not paid to make sure he goes out and exercises and really, that may be the most important thing."

"The whole health-care system is set up to pay for services that are rendered," he said, "when the patient, and society, is interested in health."


Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention that doctors are often paid the same from insurance/Uncle Sam whether they perform a procedure brilliantly or totally botch it. Some legislation was proposed to only pay doctors in full upon successful completion of the procedure, but of course the physician's lobby fought it and watered it down. Now the government doesn't have to pay doctors for a few specific errors, like if surgical instruments are left in patients, catheters are improperly implanted, and won't cover the costs of preventable hospital-acquired infections. Doctors warned that such rules would cause legal nightmares and actually reduce overall care, as patients would have to disclose their entire medical histories before doctors would agree to treat them, so various post-op complications wouldn't be blamed on them. And then doctors might even refuse to treat the most at-risk patients to avert potential consequences. Well, I guess we shouldn't revere doctors as selfless heroes. They look after #1 just like the rest of us.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/28/medicare-and-medical-mistakes/
http://www.bcbs.com/news/national/medicare-won-t-pay-for-hospital-mistakes.html

So if our presidential candidates do seriously want to overhaul and improve the US health system, trimming doctors' salaries may be a politically daunting but absolutely necessary component of the solution.

----------

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/weekinreview/29berenson.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


The Nation
Sending Back the Doctor's Bill


By ALEX BERENSON
Published: July 29, 2007