Uncategorized

Top 10 Reasons Why Warren Buffett’s Decision to Treat Prostate Cancer Bugs Me

On April 17th, 81-year-old Warren Buffett told investors that he had very early prostate cancer. The Washington Post headline read: “Warren Buffett Has Prostate Cancer that is Not Remotely Life Threatening.’” Within hours, news accounts said that the story unfolded after discovering a high PSA in a routine appointment. Next, he had a prostate biopsy. A few hours later, news accounts said that Buffett decided to get radiation therapy for prostate cancer. What’s wrong with this picture?

10. He’s an icon who other men will follow, and there is limited (or no) evidence of benefit of aggressive treatment in men as old as Buffett. At 81, his life expectancy is 7.41 years, shy of the 10-year life expectancy mark doctors look for when they recommend aggressive treatment for prostate cancer.

9. Although Buffett can afford whatever care he so desires, it would cost a fortune if tons of men in his age group went for active treatment and there would be little yield and plenty of side effects.

8. For several years, many physician organizations, including those representing the radiologists and urologists (ASTRO and AUA) who stand to gain income from treating older men, have expressed skepticism about the value of treating and screening men as old as Buffett. That’s because prostate cancer is slow-growing.  Buffett is more likely to die from something else.

7. There are far better health care investments that would yield better, long-lasting outcomes. Limited healthcare dollars could be spent on things that actually help people.

6. In some circles, the evidence movement is flourishing and medicine is moving towards more of a scientific base. Yet despite years of intensified effort to base medicine on proof of benefit, or evidence, seemingly has not reached one of America’s smartest men.

5.The war on cancer seems very much alive, no matter what the evidence. Even powerful men, possibly more secure, cannot say no.

4. Buffett may well have side effects from the radiation, namely bowel, urinary incontinence, and impotence.

3. Besides being wasteful, it is not going to save his life.

2. The search for an active surveillance icon continues. I was kind of hoping Buffett could have assumed that role. Surgery has its heroic icons: General Norman Schwarzkopf and Senator Bob Dole. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani went with seeds.

1.If the tide shifts and many more older men choose treatment, it will be a step away from science-based medicine.

A previous version of this post had a different point #1. It first appeared at Patient POV.

Laura Newman has been a medical journalist, researcher and blogger for several years. Her blog, Patient POV, aims to take up issues ostensibly important in an era of patient-centered care. Laura has a longstanding interest in health policy and equity. She has written more than 300 articles on prostate cancer and attended at least 10 annual meetings of the American Urological Association, and she will be discussing this post on Science Friday, on NPR, at 3:30PM EST, April 27.

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

7
Leave a Reply

7 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
7 Comment authors
aidelPaulSarahDaniellaplaton20 Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
aidel
Guest
aidel

Excellent post! Funny AND true. Laura, you do your best work when you let loose a little.

Paul
Guest
Paul

As an MD-PhD student, I completely agree with Laura, but it would really help her argument if she had ever seen a patient or attended medical school. It’s very easy to criticize what you don’t understand. Again, we need to see a doctor speak up on this so that readers can more easily believe it.

Sarah
Guest
Sarah

The decision may not have been based on healthcare–the stock price for Berkshire Hathaway would tank if the headline was “cancer untreated because he is likely to die before it would make any difference”

Daniella
Guest
Daniella

Great post Laura. Your 10 points are right on, as usual. @tim: your comments on cost assume that he’s actually paying for treatment himself. However, with upwards of 97%+ men his age on Medicare, it’s likely that Medicare (read: taxpayers) paid for his radiation, and with a radiation treatment course costing $30,000… Imagine if all 80 year olds in this country were screened and the 70-80% who had yet undiagnosed prostate cancer (based on autopsy studies at that age) AND who were going to overwhelmingly die of something else were then treated with radiation at $30k per person (paid for… Read more »

platon20
Guest
platon20

I think its funny that Laura Newman thinks she can read a couple of bulletin board posts about Warren Buffet and all of a sudden she’s an expert on prostate cancer

LOL

tim
Guest
tim

3. Besides being wasteful, it is not going to save his life. All your arguments hinge on this one, but you don’t know if this is true or not. Neither does he, and probably never will know, but he doesn’t need to. Statistically, he will die from something else, but his calculation has an n of 1. The benefit may be improbable, but the cost to him of the money is much less than the cost of the same treatment for me or you…since the value of money is relative to the question of who owns it, and therefore what… Read more »

BobbyG
Guest

If the tide shifts and many more older men choose treatment, it will be a step away from science-based medicine.”
__

I woud ask for the reactions of the hardcores at sciencebasedmedicine.org

” In some circles, the evidence movement is flourishing and medicine is moving towards more of a scientific base.”

In SOME circles.