Categories

Month: January 2007

TECH: Cisco’s briefing

A little about my day job today. I’m sitting in a video briefing hosted by Cisco for its provider clients being broadcast to 10 sites. I’m in the one in San Jose, where there are lots and lots of interested parties from a minor, local HMO which has its own small IT projects underway!

I’m telling you this because after the session is done it’ll be posted online, and then there’ll be an online discussion about the issues of installing IT in hospitals, and the possibilities of new technology.

More details later…

POLICY: California Policy Update By John Irvine

With support apparently growing for the Schwarzenegger plan in California, opponents are already laying the groundwork for a legal challenge. The Financial Times (UK) quotes business sources as saying lawsuits are  "all but inevitable" if the plan passes in Sacramento. That could tie the effort up in court "for years" — perhaps even until after the 2008 elections. According to the newspaper, challengers are likely to use a strategy based on the one used to overturn Maryland’s "Wal-Mart law" last month. 

"Jack Bovender, chairman and chief executive of HCA, the big hospital group, underlines the legal problems faced by such state efforts. "we’re pleased that some states have recognized the gravity of the issue of the uninsured. However, a patchwork of state plans is problematic because of potential problems with ERISA (The Federal benefits law.) That 1974 statute, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, in effect nationalized employer health plans to spare companies the cost of complying with conflicting state benefits.

"Legal challengers are (also) likely to claim that the plan imposes a disguised tax and so should require a two thirds vote of the  legislature, since California law mandates a super-majority for tax increases. Alternatively, opponents will try to use the Erisa law."

TECH/PHYSICIANS/INDUSTRY: Now the Communists have infiltrated the officer ranks!

Back_surgery
(Speaker adopts very pompous tone) You may remember a little while back that some left wing seditious journalist criticized the sanctity of our free and opaque market system. He claimed that a leading back surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic — the Cleveland Clinic, I say, yes, the very epitome of all that is good and great about American capitalist medicine — was somehow putting his own interests above that of his patients as he used a surgical device that he and the clinic both promoted.

Well this rabble rousing has got completely out of hand. Now a presumably Frenchy cheese-eating surrender monkey type who claims to be a surgeon also specializing in back surgery is also on the hunt. The "surgeon" in question, one Aaron Filler, makes outrageous claims about surgeons — including those who’ve been to medical school and therefore have unimpeachable ethics. He even suggests that those involved in developing and marketing devices claim that they get better results using them that are not replicable by other surgeons.

Nonetheless, concern about an ethical crisis affecting patients was
reinforced by discussions at various professional meetings during 2006.
Formal scientific publications on a new type of spinal device had
revealed extraordinarily high success rates and explicitly reported
“zero” device-related complications (Schnake et al Spine Journal 3:159S
2003). However, a separate study involving only surgeons with no
financial interest revealed an unusually high rate of “device related”
complications and failures (Grob et al, Spine 30:234, 2005). <SNIP>Differences in reported scientific results seemed to reflect the
difference between conflicted versus non-conflicted investigators.

He also casts aspersions on the completely above-board and reputable relations between professional societies of surgeons and their respectable colleagues in the medical device industry.

Many surgeons receive manufacturer funds to attend training meetings in
places like Vail, Cancun and Las Vegas, advertised as academic medical
education events. I recently organized a session at one such meeting
that brought in several nationally respected neurosurgeons to teach new
diagnostic techniques and treatments to reduce the use of implants. Meeting sponsors from the device industry objected and the session was canceled.

Hang on a moment. He said "surgeonS". That means there’s an epidemic of Frenchies breaking out in the ranks.

But I’ve figured out this so-called surgeon’s motives! He’s too lazy to do any surgery! Instead he’s written a book called "Do You Really Need back Surgery". Well it’s not too hard to see his game! Instead of getting up early and cutting away in the great tradition of American capitalist physicians, he wants to sit on his rear and collect royalties. Well, that’s not the spirit of grit and true enterprise that this country’s medical care establishment was built on.

I suggest that the North American Spine Society quickly sets up a Committee on UnAmerican Spine Surgical Activities and drags this Filler, and his fellow travelers like Association of Ethical Spine Surgeons‘ President Dr. Charles Rosen, into hearings where their true Frenchy leanings can be exposed to the world. Then the real American back surgeons can thankfully go back, undisturbed, to operating on anyone who’ll lie down.

POLICY/POLITICS: Spitzer calls a spade a spade w/UPDATE

Eliot
Eliot Spitzer calls a spade a spade in his speech about reforming healthcare in New York. He goes after two of the biggest subsidized sacred cows: 1) Medicaid costs which are double the national average. In fact New York spends more on Medicaid in total than California, with a much lower population. 2) Subsidies to teaching hospitals in the form of fake graduate medical education payments.

… health care decision-making became co-opted by every interest
other than the patient’s interest.  Government abdicated its
responsibility to set standards, demand results and hold institutions
receiving billions in state tax dollars accountable to the State and to
the people those institutions serve. 

Let me give you a few examples:

Take the Berger Commission.  This was a process that should never
have been necessary in the first place.  In most industries, when the
demand for a specific service falls permanently, as has the demand for
long stays in hospitals, supply inevitably follows.  Yet because of
wasteful State subsides and the State’s failure to make strategic
choices, tax dollars have been spent on empty hospital and nursing home
beds instead of insuring our 400,000 uninsured children.  Now we face
dramatic instead of gradual change to rationalize a system in desperate
need of reform.

These changes are painful – and we will use every effort to
implement them in a way that is sensitive to patients, communities and
workers.  But because of the State’s inability to confront the status
quo, these are the kinds of hard choices we must now make to increase
health care quality and decrease health care costs. 

Another example of institutions driving the system is the way the
State pays for graduate medical education.  New York’s Medicaid program
has spent more than $8 billion over the last five years on graduate
medical education – $77,000 per graduate resident in 2005 compared to
similar states like California that spent just $21,000 per resident. 

This education is critically important, but we’re currently funding
it in an excessive and irrational way that isn’t directly correlated to
the actual students being taught – thus costing the State exorbitant
amounts of money in what amounts to general subsidies to teaching
hospitals.  In fact, when we looked closer at this broken formula, we
discovered that many of those dollars are going to pay for phantom
residents and doctors who don’t even exist.

The same lack of accountability has also been evident in the special
subsidies the State gives hospitals to underwrite labor costs.  In
January 2002, with hundreds of millions in new revenue on the table for
health care, the time was ripe for a debate on how best to invest this
money.  But instead of a public debate, the State committed billions of
dollars in new spending to underwrite a portion of the increased costs
of the hospitals’ pending labor agreement. 

As a result of this deal, well over $3 billion alone was pumped into
the health care delivery system with little to no accountability.
Don’t get me wrong: labor costs are real, and the need for training is
real.  What made this a poor choice instead of a wise investment is
that the money was not based on the number of patients served and it
didn’t create a robust system of accountability for institutions that
were growing out of control.

Good luck, Governor. Given who you’re taking on, you’re going to need it! Go read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Some just excellent discussion on this in the forums. JD writes in to comment: "I actually think Spitzer can (mostly) pull it off, though he is
directly confronting both SEIU (Local 1199 has 300,000 members in NY, I
think) and HANYS (the New York hospital association, which has massive
clout). Of these, my guess is that 1199 will be more open to compromise
for the sake of true structural reform. They are showing themselves
more and more willing to think outside the box, find win-win solutions,
and all that. HANYS, not so much. But we’ll see.
As for health plans (my area), it is still too soon to tell how
they’ll react. They won’t like the Medicaid premium freezes, though one
of Spitzer’s key cabinet members (Deborah Bachrach) was an
advocate/lobbyist for the PHSP association. PHSPs are local non-profit
Medicaid-only plans, most of which are owned by hospitals. Collectively
they have over a million members in the state. This and other
appointments mean that Spitzer’s policies are going to be informed by
people who know the ins-and-outs of both the payer and provider side,
and so we are unlikely to see misguided efforts to "bleed the bastards"
which will accomplish, exactly, nothing."

RP writes "…for every dollar we manage to cut from our Medicaid program, we will be
giving up 50 cents in federal contributions. Perhaps we should, but a
lot of that money goes to NYS residents whose health care jobs (about
10% of total jobs here in New York City, for example) might disappear
or whose wages and salaries would be cut."

PHARMA: Off label marketing and the 2008 election, by The Industry Veteran

For those of you bitter at not seeing enough of The Industry Veteran, he’s back! This time he’s complaining about Pfizer’s off-label marketing and linking it to the Presidential race. For those of you who’ve had too much of him…..sorry!

The daily press has obviated the need for Wes Craven, George Romero and other fright film creators.  Now we have this article from Brandweek where the chief counsel at Pfizer argues that the FDA violates free speech rights under the First Amendment by restricting Pharma companies from promoting their drugs off-label, i.e., for unapproved uses. Now I’m a big First Amendment guy, card-carrying ACLU member in good standing, but this is a libertarian perversion of the First Amendment that is typical of Reagan-Bush corporate lackeys. It reminds me of arguments from the right wing legal cabal, the Federalist Society, that claim the income tax is unconstitutional. Given that the client here is a Big Pharma company, it is also reminiscent of the fact that lawyers for Mafia dons are major proponents of Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. So this is how Jeff Kindler will deploy the lesson he learned at GE about making a proactive legal counsel’s office as big a success factor as R&D or marketing. Big Pharma is in the midst of a long down cycle and, I suppose, when the devil is hungry, he eats flies. That means while the literature in management studies has whittled down the value of Jack Welch’s contributions, a slavish aping of GE is quite the rage in Big Pharma. An  ex-GE guy (and former favorite son of Welch) runs Amgen, another is effectively the COO at Merck, and Jeff Kindler, whose only non-GE management experience was at McDonald’s, is the top guy at Pfizer. The epigones at these places talk about Six Sigma in the hallways despite the fact that production efficiency is a marginal success factor in Pharma. The other buzzwords that became parody and then were eliminated at GE ten years ago have now reappeared at the drug companies. What will come next? Polluting a major American river? Hell, Novartis already did that in Switzerland. I know. What about electing as US president some lucky airhead who was your television pitchman? Now if Mandy Patinkin is Jewish but not enough of a warmonger to please the Christian right, who does that leave? Dammit, Sally Field for president!! You want a strong woman, right? You want the women’s vote? You want to take issues such as health care, education and peace away from the Democrats?

I like her. I really like her.

DRAFT

But
was I wrong? Perhaps I hadn’t delved into the mire of the proposal
enough? If so I’m clearly not the only one. Because that very next day
the organ of the Republican right the WSJ ran a piece called Bush Health Plan Shifts Onus to the Consumer which included this little nugget:
At
a White House briefing on Tuesday, Joel Kaplan, deputy chief of staff
for policy, acknowledged that the proposal could accelerate the trend
of employers dropping insurance, but emphasized that workers left
without coverage would, thanks to the new tax deduction, have the means
to "buy insurance in the individual market in a way that they can’t
now."
Really,
who is NCPA trying to kid when it suggests that it’s not interested in
promoting people buying individual insurance in a fully underwritten
market. And given the state of the individual market that they want to
introduce consumers into (more of that anon via some interested digging Don McCanne’s been doing),
they’re just going to create more and more pissed off consumers—of the
age and socio-economic status where an extension of Medicare will be a very appealing vote-getter.
 
So
you’ve got to assume, that must be what they actually want? In which
case I can see the movie now. Starring Frank Sinatra or maybe Denzel
Washington as John Goodman, it’s The Manchurian Think-Tank!

INTERNATIONAL: Japan’s Health Minister engages mouth, brain not yet in gear

    You’ve got to hope that this one was "lost in translation"!

Japan’s health minister described women as "birth-giving machines" in a speech on the falling birthrate, drawing criticism despite an immediate apology. "The number of women between the ages of 15 and 50 is fixed. The number of birth-giving machines (and) devices is fixed, so all we can ask is that they do their best per head," Health, Labor and Welfare Minister Hakuo Yanagisawa said in a speech Saturday, the Asahi and Mainichi newspapers reported.

Birth rates (and dependency ratios) are indeed a serious issue. But perhaps Yanagisawa’s been spending too much time reading Malcolm Galdwell and not enough at charm school!

POLICY: NCPA–the Manchurian think-tank?

Most people think that John Goodman’s shop NCPA is made up of libertarians and conservatives—and their leaders and their donors apparently hope so. That’s what one of their number told me at the Vegas conference this week, where true to form they were all desperately pushing HSAs.

And they seem to mean it. After all they fired one of their number (Bruce Bartlett) because he criticized W for not being a real conservative and apparently because a donor was going to pull $100K in funding if he wasn’t canned!. By the way, a gig at NCPA isn’t a bad one to have. Apparently Bartlett was getting $172K a year, and between Goodman and his wife who also works there are on well north of $600K!

So I was a little bemused when my editor at Spot-on, Chris Nolan, got a blast email from them last week. See, Chris is a professional and she changed whatever wonky title I cam up with. now the article was called Risky Business: Bush’s Health Plan and it became the second highest rated story in Google News when you searched on “Bush’s health plan”. She’s smart that Nolan woman!  There were over 6,000 pageviews of that article alone. Apparently enough to stun NCPA into action. Chris got this email:

From: "Kelley Tway"Date: January 25, 2007 12:46:34 PM PST
To: cn****@*****on.com

Subject: Response to critics of Bush health plan
            

Almost immediately after President Bush announced his health care initiative critics in the media and on Capital Hill objected to the standard tax deduction, arguing it will lead to an erosion of employer-based health care as employees, particularly healthy employees, will be lured out of their employer-based coverage to seek coverage in the individual market.
            

The belief that employees would choose an individual, private health plan over their employer-provided coverage indicates a misunderstanding of how employer plans work. All employers pay at least one-half of the health plan premiums – most pay about two-thirds. So a group plan would have to be incredibly wasteful (i.e. expensive) for an individual plan to look more attractive than their employer’s coverage. With a level tax playing field, the employer still pays at the very least half of the premium, while an employee would pay 100% of the premium for an individual plan. So, which is the more attractive option?
 
            

The standard tax deduction simply makes insurance more affordable for those who don’t receive insurance through an employer.
 
            

Please let us know if you have any question about this or would like a response to any other criticism of the Bush health plan.
 

Kelley Tway
Media Relations Coordinator,Health Care
National Center for Policy Analysis
972-308-6488
ke*********@**pa.org 
 

or
 
Sean Tuffnell
Director of Communications

National Center for Policy Analysis972-308-6481
Se***********@**pa.org
 

I must admit I thought that was pretty funny. So I dashed off this quick reply to communications honcho Kelley Tway:
   

KelleyDon’t be scared–you can email me directly. I don’t bite, well not that hard.
    
    As to your "employers will pay for health insurance" line. It’s just not true given that virtually all employer based plans are relatively generous & expensive–especially compared to the individual market.
    
   

Where in the proposal does it say that employers have to pay for health insurance for employees? Nowhere of course. That would be "pay or play"–something only lefty Democrats like Arnie and Mitt Romney think is a good idea. If you make it attractive for employees to forgo their presumed current $7500 worth of employer-provided plan, ask for a small cash raise, take the deduction, and to leave the employer plan–then why won’t they do it? That’s what $7,500 deduction means when a 25 year old can buy a HDHP in California for well under $1,500 a year. Have you guys stopped believing in market forces?

If not it’s disingenuous to think that this proposal won’t make younger and healthier people leave employer based insurance.
  And if enough of them do it, of course that will eventually put the employer insurance plans in the same spot that the rest of the cream-skimmer underwriters whom you guys so ardently support (and who fund you) have put the individual insurance market–screwed.
    
    But like you I believe that we shouldn’t have an employer-based insurance market. But don’t worry, with reforms like this, the complete pissing-off of the middle class is closer and so is the consequent Medicare for all/single payer plan. Obviously you guys are keen to see that–as it’s the logical outcomes of your policies!
  — Matthew Holt

I haven’t heard back yet, of course.  Despite the fact that they were inviting “questions”.

But was I wrong? Perhaps I hadn’t delved into the mire of the proposal enough? If so I’m clearly not the only one. Because that very next day the organ of the Republican right the WSJ ran a piece called Bush Health Plan Shifts Onus to the Consumer which included this little nugget:

At a White House briefing on Tuesday, Joel Kaplan, deputy chief of staff for policy, acknowledged that the proposal could accelerate the trend of employers dropping insurance, but emphasized that workers left without coverage would, thanks to the new tax deduction, have the means to "buy insurance in the individual market in a way that they can’t now."

Really, who is NCPA trying to kid when it suggests that it’s not interested in promoting people buying individual insurance in a fully underwritten market. And given the state of the individual market that they want to introduce consumers into (more of that anon via some interested digging Don McCanne’s been doing), they’re just going to create more and more pissed off consumers—of the age and socio-economic status where an extension of Medicare will be a very appealing vote-getter.
So you’ve got to assume, that must be what they actually want? In which case I can see the movie now. Starring Frank Sinatra or maybe Denzel Washington as John Goodman, it’s The Manchurian Think-Tank!

assetto corsa mods