THCB

Categories

Category: Health Policy

Patients Are NPCs

By KIM BELLARD

I found a new way to think about patients in an opinion piece by Ezra Klein: they’re NPCs. For those of you unfamiliar with gaming, NPCs are those characters in video games that aren’t controlled by live players; they’re part of the game, serving as background for the actions the actual players take.

Not a very flattering metaphor.

Mr. Klein’s article is neither about healthcare nor gaming, but about politics: The Republican Party’s NPC Problem — and Ours. Conservatives, Mr. Klein explains, accused liberals of being NPCs — passive, conformists, deferential – whereas they were the live players, willing to take chances and make things happen. He goes on to explain why this is not at all accurate, especially in the Congress, but this paragraph is what really struck me:

It’s a genuine failure of Democrats that they didn’t put more energy into making the government faster and better when they were in charge. How did the Biden administration pass $42 billion for broadband in 2021 and have basically nothing to show for it by November of 2024? How did it get $7.5 billion for electric vehicle chargers but build only a few hundred chargers by the end of the term?

i.e., Democrats had some good ideas, took action to try to make them happen, but failed in the delivery. Good intentions matter, but are necessary, not sufficient.

Marc J. Dunkelman makes a similar argument in The Atlantic: How Progressives Broke the Government (an adoption of his new book Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress–And How to Bring It Back). Here are a couple of the relevant passages, aimed at the Progressive movement:

Progressives are so fearful of establishment abuse that reformers tend to prefer to tighten rather than loosen their grip on authority. The movement discounts whatever good the government might do in service of ensuring that it won’t do bad. And that’s driven well-intentioned reformers to insert so many checks into the system that government has been rendered incompetent.

At present, progressives are too inclined to cut public authority off at the knees. And that’s why they so often feel like they can’t win for losing. Their cultural aversion to power renders government incompetent, and incompetent government undermines progressivism’s political appeal.

America can’t build housing. We can’t deploy high-speed rail. We’re struggling to harness the promise of clean energy. And because government has failed in all these realms—because confidence in public authority has waned through the years—progressives have found it difficult to make a case for themselves.

What does any of this have to do with healthcare, much less NPCs? It’s this: we talk a good game about health care, especially Democrats, but we consistently fail to deliver. Pick your poll: Americans are critical of the healthcare system in general, of the quality of care, and especially its costs.  Americans hate Big Pharma, we hate health insurers, and our trust in doctors and hospitals has plummeted, especially since COVID.

Continue reading…

Disruption For the Sake of Disruption Is Not Innovation

By MIKE MAGEE

“The technological leaps of the 1900s — microelectronics, antibiotics, chemotherapy, liquid-fueled rockets, Earth-observing satellites, lasers, LED lights, disease-resistant seeds and so forth — derived from science. But these technologies also spent years being improved, tweaked, recombined and modified to make them achieve the scale and impact necessary for innovations.”    Jon Gertner, author of “The Idea Factory.”

The Idea Factory is a history of Bell Labs, spanning six decades from 1920 to 1980. Published a decade ago, the author deliberately focused on the story inside the story. As he laid out his intent, Jon Gertner wrote “…when the drive to invent has become a mantra, Bell Labs offered us a way to enrich our understanding of the challenges and solutions to technological innovation. Here, after all, was where the foundational ideas on the management of innovation were born.”

One of the scholars Gertner likes to reference is Clayton Christensen. As a professor at Harvard Business School, he coined the term “disruptive innovation.” The Economist magazine loved him, labeling him in 2020 “the most influential management thinker of his time.”

A process thinker, Christensen deconstructed innovation, exploring “how waves of technological change can follow predictable patterns.” Others have come along and followed in his steps.

  1. Identify a technologic advance with a potential functional market niche.
  2. Promote its appeal as a “must have” to users.
  3. Drop the cost.
  4. Surreptitiously push aside or disadvantage competitors.
  5. Manage surprises.

Medical innovations often illustrate all five steps, albeit not necessarily in that order. Consider the X-ray. Its discovery is attributed to Friedrich Rontgen (Roentgen), a mechanical engineering chair of Physics at the University of Wurzburg. It was in a lab at his university that he was exploring the properties of electrically generated cathode rays in 1896.

He created a glass tube with an aluminum window at one end. He attached electrodes to a spark coil inside the vacuum tube and generated an electrostatic charge. On the outside of the window opening he placed a barium painted piece of cardboard to detect what he believed to be “invisible rays.” With the charge, he noted a “faint shimmering” on the cardboard. In the next run, he put a lead sheet behind the window and noted that it had blocked the ray-induced shimmering.

Not knowing what to call the rays, he designated them with an “X” – and thus the term “X-ray.” Two weeks later, he convinced his wife to place her hand in the line of fire, and the cardboard behind. The resultant first X-ray image (of her hand) led her to exclaim dramatically, “I have seen my death.” A week later, the image was published under the title “Ueber eine neue Art von Strahlen” (On A New Kind of Rays).

Continue reading…

NYU Langone Super Bowl Ad Claimed “We’re #1,” But Where’s Scorecard?

By MICHAEL MILLENSON

When the Philadelphia Eagles thrashed the Kansas City Chiefs 40-22 in Super Bowl, no one disputed that they sat at the peak of professional football. In contrast, NYU Langone Health’s multi-million-dollar Super Bowl ad claiming “#1 for quality care in the U.S.” gave viewers just 2 seconds to read the very small print at the bottom of the screen providing an obscure justification for that championship status.

It read: “2024 Vizient Quality and Accountability Ranking. Ranked #1 out of 115 participating comprehensive academic medical centers.” Huh?

I’ll discuss in a moment what that attribution – meaningless to even most in health care, much less to any significant slice of the 127 million people watching the game – actually signifies. But perhaps the most salient signal of the misplaced focus of U.S. health care is that online and media reaction focused exclusively on the non-profit system paying an estimated $8 million for the 30-second spot. Yet if the data actually support NYU Langone’s assertion that it’s “the best health system,” as the ad trumpeted, shouldn’t they be praised for competing on the quality of patient care rather than the quality of the pull-on-the-emotions advertising typical of most hospitals?

I reached out multiple times to NYU Langone and Vizient in order to dig more deeply and didn’t hear back from either, so let’s examine the information that’s publicly available.

While many Americans know of the hospital rankings by U.S. News & World Report, Vizient plays an insider game. Its roots are as a group purchasing organization; i.e., a membership group hospitals join to secure volume discounts on supplies and other purchases. However, Vizient has evolved to provide a heavy dose of member consulting services ; it now calls itself “the nation’s leading healthcare performance improvement company.”

Continue reading…

THCBGang Revisited: Ian Morrison

Ian Morrison died yesterday. 4 years ago in one of the early THCB Gang’s, we had a rash of late cancellations. So I talked to Ian solo about his journey, and his views about health care. I re-listened to it this morning and thought you might enjoy it

Ian Morrison

I got the very sad news today that Ian Morrison died peacefully at home yesterday. He had been sick and in hospice for some time but a few months back he told me that he was going for Jimmy Carter’s record. Ian was my first boss in American health care when I worked for him at Institute for the Future and he was as kind and lovely as he was funny and knowledgeable. I was very glad that when I started THCBGang during the pandemic that he was a regular member.

Ian spent decades working with everyone across health care in American and internationally, but as he used to say essentially was paid to insult people. That he did it so humorously and usefully was the reason he kept being invited back. Any Ian Morrison keynote at a big health care conference was both a chance to learn something and laugh hysterically.

He also never ignored the chance to help those trying to make health care fairer and more equitable, serving on the boards of Martin Luther King Jr hospital, the California Healthcare Foundation and many others. He remained a jovial Glaswegian socialist at heart.

Ian liked to say that he went from Scotland where death was imminent, to Canada where death was inevitable, to California where death was optional. Sadly that last crack wasn’t quite true.

My heart goes out to his wife Nora and their children and grandchildren. There’ll be a more formal obituary and a celebration of his life in the days and weeks to come–Matthew Holt

DEI Is Now a Four Letter Word

By KIM BELLARD

I’d love to be writing about something fun. Something that makes us think about things in a new way, or something exciting that will take us into the future. There are lots of such things happening, but there’s too many Orwellian actions happening that I can’t be silent about.

Diversity, we’re told, is actually a pretext for racism – against white people. Equity is foolhardy at best and pernicious at worst. Inclusion only matters if you are the “right” kind of person. “Meritocracy” is the new buzzword; we want only the “best and brightest,” with none of the lowering of standards that we’re being told comes with trying to ensure that everyone has a fair chance to prove their merits.

The Trump Administration has declared war on DEI. It has fired scores of workers whose jobs involve DEI, has asked other workers to inform on people they think may be involved in DEI, and is searching out even workers who attended diversity training (mandated or not). All that would be horrifying enough but it isn’t ending there.

Federal websites are being cleansed of any references to anything that might be construed as DEI. Pages are being edited, or taken down entirely. The NIH has ground to a halt until the appropriate authorities can ensure that no grants are being even to anything that might possibly be related to DEI. The CDC has been forced to pull papers from its researchers that are up for publication for similar review.

The Atlantic reports: “the government was, as of yesterday evening, intending to target and replace, at a minimum, several “suggested keywords”—including “pregnant people, transgender, binary, non-binary, gender, assigned at birth, binary [sic], non-binary [sic], cisgender, queer, gender identity, gender minority, anything with pronouns”—in CDC content.”

Thousands of pages of data from the CDC and Census Bureau have “disappeared,” and the same from other agencies. Health data is prominent among the missing. Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan, told Science: ““I knew it was going to be bad, but I didn’t know it was going to be this bad. It’s like a data apocalypse.”

Elon Musk, who has no official power yet seems to have control over government IT and the data it contains, is shutting down U.S.A.I.D., who provides almost $40b annually in health services, disaster relief, anti-poverty, and other social mission programs. Previously the Administration had shutdown, then reinstated, PEPFAR, a vital international HIV program that has been credited with saving millions of lives.

The President and his team even tried to blame last week’s Washington D.C. plane-helicopter collision on DEI.  That’s just “common sense, ok,” according to President Trump.

Continue reading…

Who Will Oppose American Apartheid?

By MIKE MAGEE

This past month Bishop Mariann E. Budde drew the Episcopal Church into the national spotlight through a single act of courage. She is not the first, nor likely the last from this denomination to do so. There is a history. More on that in a moment.

The Episcopal church is an offshoot of the Anglican Church of England which dates back to 1534 when King Henry VIII broke with the Catholic Pope who opposed his marriage to Anne Boleyn. Two-hundred and fifty four years later, in 1789, Anglican Church leaders who had helped settle colonies in North America, gathered to form a united Episcopal Church, revising their Book of Common Prayer to exclude its blessing to the English monarch.

Though declining in modern times, missionary minded Anglicans spread throughout the British empire and remain connected to the mother Church as members of the Anglican Communion. For example, British Anglican military chaplains were part of the force that occupied Cape Colony in South Africa in 1795. By 1821, they had established a formal religious foothold. Today, they claim 3.5 million members. In 2012, they elected their first female bishop, Ellinah Wamukoya of Swaziland. And yet, arguably the most influential female Anglican from South Africa is an immigrant to America, an emotional ally of Bishop Budde, and a retired Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

Her name is Margaret Marshall, and her place in American history dates back to June 6, 1966. That was the date this then 20 year old student, who was vice-president of the National Union of South African Students, was asked to stand in for the organization’s president, Ian Robertson (who was under house arrest for speaking out about Apartheid). She met and transported Bobby Kennedy to speak to over 1000 university students packed into the college auditorium at their “Day of Affirmation.”

Much like Mariann Budde last week in Washington, Bobby Kennedy caught his hushed audience by surprise that evening with these opening remarks:

“I come here this evening because of my deep interest and affection for a land settled by the Dutch in the mid-seventeenth century, then taken over by the British, and at last independent; a land in which the native inhabitants were at first subdued, but relations with whom remain a problem to this day; a land which defined itself on a hostile frontier; a land which has tamed rich natural resources through the energetic application of modern technology; a land which was once the importer of slaves, and now must struggle to wipe out the last traces of that former bondage. I refer, of course, to the United States of America.”

Margaret Marshall, some six decades later, recalled that moment in a conversation with Doris Kearns Goodwin. She said, “There was great tension in the room. People were on edge…As soon as the audience realized what he said, there was laughter and a sense of total relief. It was simply fabulous.”

Continue reading…

How Did We End Up with a Broken Health Insurance System? 

By LEONARD D’ AVOLIO

The murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson has drawn attention to Americans’ frustration with the for profit healthcare insurance industry. Change is possible but less likely if people don’t understand how we got here, the real issues, and how they might be fixed. 

Health insurance wasn’t always run by big for profit corporations 

According to Elizabeth Rosenthal’s book, An American Sickness (a must read), it all started in the 1920s when the Vice President of Baylor University Medical Center discovered that they were carrying a large number of unpaid bills. The goal wasn’t to make money. It was to keep sick people from going bankrupt while helping keep the lights on at not-for-profit hospitals. 

Baylor launched “Blue Cross” as a not-for-profit and it offered one-size-fits-all coverage, one-size-fits-all pricing, and all were welcome. By 1939, Blue Cross grew to 3 million subscribers and health insurance might have stayed this way if it wasn’t for two important innovations that would change healthcare and insurance as we know it.

Before the late 1930s, there wasn’t a heck of a lot we could do for sick people. That all changed with two innovations: 1) the ventilator and 2) the first intravenous anesthetic. The ability to put people to sleep and keep them breathing opened the door to a whole array of new surgical and intensive care interventions. More interventions meant more lives saved. It also meant longer hospital stays, more expensive equipment and care. Insurance would have to evolve to keep up with medical innovation.

We probably could have solved that problem with direct-to-consumer private insurance (like car or life insurance). But World War 2 introduced a creative workaround to a labor shortage that gave employers an outsized role in determining our health. 

Health insurance tied to employment

During World War 2, the National War Labor Board froze salaries and companies faced labor shortages. Employers figured out they could attract employees by offering health insurance. The government encourages this by giving a tax break to employers on health insurance spending.  

The number of Americans with health insurance skyrockets. Between 1940 and 1955, this number increased from 10% to over 60%, with the not-for-profit Blue Cross dominating. It’s hard to believe nowadays, but at the time, an insurance company was one of the most beloved brands in America.

Continue reading…

It’s Money That Changes Everything (Or Doesn’t) For Surgeons

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Michael-Millenson-Headshot-Profile-Photo-2024-larger.jpeg

By MICHAEL MILLENSON

“Money changes everything,” Cyndi Lauper famously sang about love to a pulsating rock ‘n’ roll beat. So, too, when it comes to financial incentives for surgeons, two new studies suggest, although “How much money?” and “What do I have to do?” are the keys to unlocking monetary motivation.

The first study, a JAMA research letter, examined the impact of a new Medicare billing code for abdominal hernia repair that paid surgeons more if the hernia measured at least 3 centimeters in size. Previously, “size was not linked to hernia reimbursement,” noted University of Michigan researchers.

Surprise! The percentage of patients said to have smaller, lower-payment hernias dropped from 60% to 49% in just one year. Were “small hernia” patients being denied care? Nope. Were surgeons perhaps more precise in measuring hernia size? Maybe. Or possibly, wrote the researchers in careful academic language, “the coding change may have induced surgeons to overestimate hernia size.” Ambiguous tasks, they added, “can be conducive to perceptive [cq] bias and potentially even dishonest behavior, perhaps more so with financial incentives at play.”

This being an academic publication, two footnotes informed us that dangling money in front of our eyes can cause people to “see what you want to see” and come up with an “elastic justification” for truth.

If a simple coding change can apparently boost the number of large-hernia patients by 18% in just one year, what about a payment incentive meant to induce more urologists to follow the medical evidence on low-risk prostate cancer and adopt “active surveillance” (formerly known as “watchful waiting”), rather putting patients through a painful and expensive regimen of biopsies and surgery?

A second study, also in Michigan, involved commercial and Medicare-age members of the state’s Blue Cross and Blue Shield plan. However, after three years and more than 15,000 patients, “the payment incentive was not associated with increased surveillance use among patients with low-risk disease,” researchers concluded in a JAMA Network Open article.

Continue reading…

Doctors Must Fight the RFK Nomination

By DANIEL STONE

As a doctor, I consider Secretary Xavier Becerra and his Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to be allies of practitioners like me. The behemoth federal agency administers Medicare and Medicaid, the Food and Drug Administration, and an army of public health workers. The Surgeon General, symbolic leader of the nation’s healthcare providers, reports to HHS. For decades, the Department has supported medical science in safeguarding the public’s health. Now that sacred trust faces the threat of Donald Trump’s nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to run HHS.

RFK’s first problem is a stunning lack of qualifications. After a laudable triumph over drug addiction, he used his legal background to work on environmental protection. Kennedy never held a federal government position nor administered any public agency. He now appears poised for on-the-job training at an agency with 80,000 employees and a $1.7 Trillion budget. In contrast, Becerra served for years in Congress and on its Health Sub-Committee. He also served as State Attorney General, managing 4,800 employees. The qualification issue is not political. During Trump’s first term, his last HHS secretary, Alex Azar, had served as HHS general counsel and president of pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly. RFK has nothing remotely resembling his would-be predecessors’ qualifications.

Unfortunately, RFK’s shortcomings go well beyond mere lack of qualification. His distortions and public denials of established medical science infuriate practitioners like me. He casts baseless doubt on the well-established benefits of vaccines and on the polio vaccine in particular. Despite the seven decades since polio vaccine’s introduction, doctors still see patients who were infected before it was available. My patient Donna, born in 1955, counts herself among this group. She wears leg braces and often struggles with daily activities. For me, she symbolizes those who by accident of birth or happenstance missed the profound benefits of vaccines that RFK now disparages.

Continue reading…