Support for Berwick to Head Medicare Grows

Even Fox News acknowledges that: “In the two months” since President Obama named Dr. Donald Berwick, president of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), as his candidate to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, (CMS) not one industry group has voiced opposition to his nomination.

This, despite the fact that Berwick will be charged with beginning to squeeze $400 billion worth of waste and fraud out of the Medicare system over a period of ten years. One man’s sludge is, of course, another man’s bread and butter. One might expect that drug-makers, device-makers, hospitals and others who profit from the current system would join the fear-mongers who have begun the assault on Berwick, claiming that he plans to “ration” care.

But that isn’t happening. In fact the American Hospital Association (AHA) gave Berwick a flat-out endorsement in a May 20 letter addressed to Senators Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Tom Harkin, chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee:

“His work at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) has engaged hospitals, doctors, nurses and other health care providers in the continuous quest to provide better, safer care.” wrote AHA President and CEO Rich Umbdenstock. “This includes dramatic advances in quality improvement, patient safety and end-of-life care through IHI’s collaborative, breakthrough series and other activities,” he added, referring to IHI’s success in success in cutting hospital infection rates and implementing better asthma care and coronary surgery improvements with little additional costs.

“Dr. Berwick is a trusted and respected voice among hospitals, as well as within the larger health care community,” Umbdenstock concluded. “His knowledge of our health care delivery system, its strengths and weaknesses make him uniquely suited to implement provisions in the recently enacted health care reform law.”

Of course, not everyone inside the health care system agrees with him on everything. Berwick is a strong proponent of patients’ rights and some physicians believe that he goes too a far in an article titled “What ‘Patient-Centered’ Should Mean: Confessions of an Extremist” that appeared in Health Affairs last spring.

Patients, on the other hand, are likely to appreciate Berwick’s description of how a hospital can rob a patient of his dignity, leaving him with a sense that he has no control over his own destiny: “Ask patients today what they dislike about health care, and they will mention distance, helplessness, discontinuity, a feeling of anonymity—too frequently properties of the fragmented institutions in which modern professionals work and train.”

In the end, while reformers will disagree on various specific points, the vast majority of doctors, nurses, hospital administrators and other knowledgeable actors in our health care industry respect Berwick’s victories at IHI. And they agree with him on this: we are squandering billions of health care dollars on products and procedures that aren’t helping patients. In many cases, we know where the low-hanging fruit is. You can smell it because it’s rotting. (See Dr. George Lundberg’s post on The Health Care Blog here )

In other cases, we’re over-paying for cutting-edge drugs, devices and procedures that are no better —but far more expensive —than the treatments they are trying to replace. For years, we have been living in a Health Care Bubble. Now, someone who understands medicine must prick it –very carefully. Many in the industry trust Berwick to do the job.

As Confirmation Hearings Approach, Conservatives Prepare for Combat

But while the medical cognoscenti back Berwick, Republicans are dressing for battle. Alone again, just as they were in their vociferous opposition to health reform legislation, conservatives view the Senate hearing required to confirm Berwick’s nomination as an opportunity to “re-litigate the health care debate,” says Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee that will vote on Berwick. “I think he’ll be confirmed,” adds Baucus, who hopes to schedule the hearing before the July 4 recess, “but there are some people who will bring up a lot of questions.”

Bob Moffett, a health care specialist with the conservative Heritage Foundation agrees: “There’s no issue here with his talent, him personally, his skills, or his academic credentials, He could be the greatest thing since Albert Einstein, and the hearings are going to be difficult because they are going to ask him some very serious questions about the bill.”

Already, three Senate Republicans have begun hammering Berwick: Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Pat Roberts of Kansas and John Barrasso of Wyoming. In particular, they object to his praise for health care in the UK.

On the face of it, Barrasso would seem to have the credentials to comment on Berwick. As he is fond of pointing out, he is a physician who has practiced medicine for more than two decades. This should make him keenly aware of the problems in what we euphemistically call our health care “system.” But no, as he declared at the White House Health Care Summit, Barrasso is convinced that the U.S. has “the best health care system in the world.”

To make his case, he often points to the example of his wife, Bobbi, who was diagnosed with breast cancer that had spread to one of her lymph nodes in 2003. Thanks to timely care, her life was saved. In Britain, according to Barrasso, it takes 18 weeks to schedule cancer surgery and she probably would not have gotten the care she needed. In the UK, he suggests, a woman with breast cancer is much less likely to survive. This just isn’t true.

Breast Cancer Mortality Rates in the U.K. and the U.S.

To be fair, Barrasso is repeating the conventional wisdom, but as is so often the case, the CW is wrong. According to the American Cancer Society’s (ACS) Cancer, Facts and Figures 2009, 25 out of 100,000 American women die of breast cancer in a given year. In the U.K. 26.7 women out of 100,000 are killed by breast cancer, reports Cancer Research U.K. and the U.K.’s Office of National Statistics.

The mortality rates “aren’t that different,” says Stephen Finan, senior director of policy for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network “and it’s hard to parse out what causes that difference.” Many factors can lead to a slightly higher or lower number of deaths due to cancer in various countries, including genetics, the environment and lifestyle choices. For example, fewer women die of breast cancer in Italy and Australia than in the U.S.—and we don’t know why.

Looking At the Wrong Numbers

Why do so many people believe that breast cancer is more likely to be fatal in the UK? In large part this is because they are looking at five-year survival rates, not mortality rates, and as Steven Weiss, Director of Communications at the American Cancer Society’s Breast Cancer Action Group observes “survival rates … are not a very reliable comparison.” His group uses mortality rates.

There are two reasons why death rates are a far better measure of a nation’s success in treating the disease. First survival rates tell us only how many women were still alive five years after being told that they have breast cancer. If a women is diagnosed, and then dies in an accident two years later, the fact that she didn’t live five years tells us nothing about the quality of her cancer treatment. This factor becomes extremely important for the many women over 75 who will develop breast cancer, but wind up dying of another disease two or three years later.

Secondly, while the UK’s National Health Service does cover mammograms for women ages 50 to 70, women in the US have more frequent mammograms starting at a younger age. These tests picks up slow-growing cancers earlier– as well as pre-cancers that might never progressed to disease and might even have disappeared up on their own. (As Naomi has pointed out this raises some concerns about frequent mammograms leading to unnecessary biopsies, radiation and surgeries.)

Because they are tested more often, American women are more likely to live for five years after the initial diagnosis—even if the outcome is no better. Think of it this way: imagine that my twin sister moves to the U.K. while I remain in the U.S. and receive regular mammograms. When we are 62, I am diagnosed with breast cancer. She doesn’t go for annual mammograms, but finally, at my urging, she is tested when she is 64. We both die of breast cancer at 68. I have survived more than 5 years after being diagnosed, she hasn’t. The outcome is the same, but as a statistic, I help boost 5- year survival rates in the U.S.

Early detection might have saved my life, but in this case, it didn’t. As the American Cancer Society’s Breast Cancer Action Group points out, we tend to assume that early detection is a cure-all. The truth is that while some women are spared thanks to early detection, a fair number suffer from “an aggressive cancer that, no matter how small it is when it is found, cannot be effectively treated with the therapies that are currently available. These women will die of breast cancer eventually, no matter what treatment they are given, unless they die of something else first.”

Finally, as Factcheck.org points out, the notion that breast cancer is much more likely to be deadly in the UK is based on very old numbers that date back to the early 1990s. Since then, “[b]reast cancer survival” in the UK “has risen rapidly and significantly.” Rates in the U.S. have been increasing, too, but at a much slower rate.

Learning from Other Countries

Nevertheless, there’s no doubt that some Senators at the confirmation hearing will castigate Berwick for having praised some aspects of the UK’s National Health Services (NHS). (Conservatives fantasies about health care in the UK’s single-payer system, border on the lunatic. For example, they claim that under the NHS, “women give birth in elevators.” )

Berwick’s critics probably won’t mention the statements he has made acknowledging that the NHS is far from perfect. He acknowledges, for example, that when it comes to mortalities from all types of cancer, the UK’s record is not as good. It reports 172.1 deaths per 100,000 in a given year while in the US just 155.6 individuals die of some form of cancer each year. When it comes to improving the quality of care in the UK Berwick has said: “two facts are true: the NHS is enroute, and the NHS has a lot more work ahead.”

But in contrast to those who blindly insist that we have the best health care system on the globe, Berwick, who has traveled the world, seeing foreign health care system first-hand, understands how much we have to gain by studying success in other nations. Each has something to teach us. Each system has its strengths. No doubt he knows, for instance, that Australia, Austria, Norway, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland all boast significantly lower cancer mortality rates than the U.S. When you compare cancer deaths in developed countries, we rank in the middle—along with Germany, Italy, France and Canada. Meanwhile, when it comes to managing chronic diseases such as diabetes, the U.S. trails many countries—including the U.K.

In a memorable keynote address at an IHI symposium, Berwick put U.S. medicine in a global context—and he pulled no punches: “Let’s start with the basics. America spends 40 percent more dollars per capita on its health care than the next most expensive nation, and more than twice as much as most. For this glut of funding, it gets nowhere near the top health status in the world. . . At $5,000 per person [in 2002 dollars] we leave 45 million souls without health insurance. At under $3,000 per person per year, the United Kingdom leaves no one out—no one—not even illegal immigrants.
“You would think we would be curious,” he continued. “If someone showed up at your door and said ‘I can get you the same car you have today for 60 percent of the price, wouldn’t you be just a little curious?”

Berwick went on to point out that higher quality care in other nations, “goes for specific conditions too, for a few procedures, we are the best on Earth, but not for most. At lower cost—far lower cost—many other nations . . . get better end-of life- care, better mental health care, better infant mortality rates, better asthma control, better physical rehabilitation, better primary [care] prevention, and much more comprehensive primary care than we do.” In other words, even wealthy, well-insured Americans don’t get the best care available anywhere.

“In cystic fibrosis outcomes, we are not the best in the world. We are number two. Denmark is number one.”

“If the world has so much to teach us, why would we not learn?” he asks, bewildered by our lack of interest in the larger world.

Berwick often points out that in other countries health care systems are more “system-like.” Doctors and hospitals collaborate to improve the population’s health. They share electronic records and co-ordinate care. Our system, by contrast, is fiercely competitive and fragmented, with most physicians working in small practices while surgical centers vie with hospitals for the most lucrative cases.

Berwick ended his speech by telling a story about a visitor from Bosnia who had recently taken an IHI colleague aside and asked: “‘I don’t get it. I just can’t figure it out. How do you spend $1.5 trillion’ on healthcare? Berwick’s colleague replied: ‘It’s easy, you just need to make more categories.’ With enough fragments,” Berwick added, “you can waste almost anything.”

Berwick ended this speech by saying: “We really do need to snap out of it. The entire Western world testifies that there are fine ways to provide health insurance to absolutely everybody while investing less than 60 cents on every dollar that we spend today. We need to have the courage and confidence to figure out how to do that ourselves. To say that we spend 15 percent of our gross domestic product on health care and that that is not enough. . . . is ridiculous. It is dishonest. We have enough. We have plenty. What we lack is not social resources, it is honesty.”

Too often in the U.S., we confuse “hype” with “hope.” If we just let some of the hot air out of our health care bubble, and acknowledge the degree to which promotion, rather than medical evidence, drives much of our medical spending, we’ll find out that Don Berwick is right. Universal coverage is affordable.

[Readers can find Berwick’s speech, titled “Plenty,” in Escape Fire: Designs for the Future of Health Care, Jossey-Bass]

Maggie Mahar is an award winning journalist and author. A frequent contributor to THCB, her work has appeared in the New York Times, Barron’s and International and Investor. She is the author of “Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Why Healthcare Costs So Much,” an examination of the economic forces driving the health care system. A fellow at the Century Foundation, Maggie is also the author the increasingly influential HealthBeat blog, one of our favorite health care reads, where this piece first appeared.

Categories: Uncategorized

Tagged as: , ,

9 replies »

  1. thanks for the shout-out, Maggie, on my Huffington Post piece on Berwick. I did indeed quote you, because you provided such a comprehensive description of Berwick’s accomplishments. And no, we have never spoken or communicated before, but I do read your stuff all the time and appreciate the thoroughness of your analyses. Don’t despair because of the nasty or irrelevant comments you get. What’s too bad is that people who like your pieces don’t respond as often as those who have a bone to pick.
    As for Berwick, as you know, the professional community totally supports him, and hopefully physicians and other providers will begin bombarding their Senators with letters of support as his hearing draws closer. This is not a nomination that would ordinarily arouse such passion, except for the fact that it gives Republicans a chance to stir up a lot of fear about health reform!

  2. POLITICO: “fierce battle over the confirmation Donald M. Berwick”
    “Senate Republicans revived their health care “rationing” theme Wednesday evening as they fired their first salvo in what’s expected to be a fierce battle over the confirmation Donald M. Berwick to be administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
    “Republicans say Berwick supports the idea of rationing health care, a charge they deployed to stir public anger against the Democrats’ health care overhaul ..”
    Support growing?
    How? Where? When? Who?
    To paraphrase OWE-bama (D) — “see you in court.”
    To Nate and the other open-minded folks here — this one-sided comedy has been too much. Going to the beach — less surreal.

  3. I would like to comment on something that you wrote in your article:
    “But most health care insiders understand that Berwick won’t be cutting needed benefits; his goal is to eliminate the fraud and waste that clog our health care system.”
    The fraud and waste in Medicare is very easy to spot if you are close to the Medicare field. Doctors offices’ are not where it’s at. A routine office visit will cost Medicare between $50 and $80 depending on the zip code of the office. If a doctor was going to fraud Medicare, they would have to go to great lengths to get any amount that added up to anything at all. Think of how many fraudulent cases it would take to get $20k…
    Durable Medical Equipment providers don’t even have to try and fraud Medicare. Their billing system is set up in such a way, that they can rake Medicare, and do it legally. Plus, DME’s don’t have to have any kind of Medical training or Medical degree. They can be business men with only profit on their mind. Just look in your local newspaper and see how many scooters are for sale. There are Medicare beneficiaries that even make a little on the side with the scooter fiasco, selling the scooters they get for “free”.
    Hospitals are also able rake from Medicare and do it legally. For instance, there are many hospitals that will require a chest x-ray upon your admittance to the ER, regardless of what is wrong with you…the hospital administrators are MBAs…what do you expect. Just ask someone you know that works or has worked in the ER. This is very common, as are several other methods that I will not get into. BTW, my parents are physicians.
    I feel for small time physicians and specialist that will no doubt become the victims in the effort to rid “waste and fraud.”

  4. James & other readers–
    James, thank you, I’ll check out the link.
    Everyone else– for those who are more interested in healthcare than in ideology, you’ll learn more about Berwick in this Huffington Post piece by Linda Bergthold
    She writes: “In the late 1980s, I took a team of medical auditors to the U.K. to study the quality of health care in the National Health Service. We concluded that the quality of care was equivalent to or even better than the U.S., despite some outdated facilities and half the money the U.S. spends on medical care. I came to admire the NHS for what they were able to achieve despite some significant fiscal challenges.
    “Admiring what the NHS has accomplished doesn’t seem to be all that radical to me.”
    Full disclosure: I’m afraid that Bergthold quotes me in her post. But we’re not part of a cabal– I have never met her, or spoken to her. I don’t remember having seen her byline before today (though very likely I have read her.I just don’t remember the name.)
    I’m sorry that one or two people seem able to kill discussion on a THCB post. I know that THCB has a huge and diverse audience and wish that the comments would reflect that diversity.

  5. Maggie may be missing the bigger issue here.
    It’s very unlikely that Dr. Berwick will fail to be confirmed, unless he is so appalled by the politicizing of his nomination that he decides to walk. However, the confirmation hearing—most probably to be scheduled at the end of June—will provide a national stage for attacks on health care reform. And given the Obama administration’s lack of success so far in persuading Americans that reform will be good for them, these attacks are likely to add to the already substantial public opposition. And that—just four months or less before the November elections—could have a very big impact on reform, as some of its Congressional supporters are defeated and others discover that they really weren’t as enthusiastic as they said they were back in 2009.

  6. “(See Dr. George Lundberg’s post on The Health Care Blog here )”
    I think the link is bad.

  7. It seems reality is weiughing in on the argument and disagrees with just about everything you have been selling, you and your anointed CMS ubergod to be.
    “TORONTO (Reuters) – Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada’s provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system.
    Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, kicked off a fierce battle with drug companies and pharmacies when it said earlier this year it would halve generic drug prices and eliminate “incentive fees” to generic drug manufacturers.
    British Columbia is replacing block grants to hospitals with fee-for-procedure payments and Quebec has a new flat health tax and a proposal for payments on each medical visit — an idea that critics say is an illegal user fee.
    And a few provinces are also experimenting with private funding for procedures such as hip, knee and cataract surgery.”
    Interesting, so while you insist we must move away from FFS to achieve Canadian cost, Canada is moving to it.
    The other take away is if you measure two distinct systems at different times in their life cycle you get very different results, i.e. comparing cost of the US healthsystem in 2006 to some other system in 2006 without accounting for all the variables is like comparing the health of a 10 year old and 40 year old and being shocked at the difference.
    Just like global warming liberal HCR dogma will also pass. We just need to be sure as a nation we brand those that sold it with a scarlett “I” so we don’t waste time on their propoganda again.
    America, best healthcare in the world, always has always will.

  8. how do you reconcile your bashing of 5 year survial rates with breast cancer with Berwick’s thoughts on infant mortality? Seems when it is convienant the study method is valid, when it favors the US it is inaccurate.
    ” Alone again, just as they were in their vociferous opposition to health reform legislation,”
    Care to explain your math on this one? 60% of the US population want HCR repealed, yet only 30 of the country are conservative. Seems your math and argument doesnt add up

    Sure — he’ll be as competent as all the government bureaucrats have been during the BP oil spill.
    Your tax dollars at work. The unborn can vote in Chicago elections.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *