Categories

Tag: Policy

PODCAST: David Gratzer transcript

Here’s the full transcript from the David Gratzer interview—if you prefer the podcast version I’ve linked to it here. There are lots of comments there too.

Matthew Holt: This is Matthew Holt, and we’re back with another podcast on the Health Care Blog, and today my guest is David Gratzer. David is a psychiatrist who is still practicing psychiatry, but is also, part-time, a Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and has written a new book called "The Cure", subtitled "How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care." David, welcome to the Health Care Blog.

David Gratzer: Good afternoon.

Matthew: Let me start off, David. Obviously, with your subtitle, you’re a proponent of free markets in health care, but you come at this from a couple of interesting backgrounds. One is that you’re a Canadian who has moved down to the U.S., to practice medicine down here. The other one, which I found was very interesting is, at the very start of the book, in the introduction, you raise the entire issue of what it’s like to be somebody who has a relative, in this case your wife, who has no insurance in the U.S. and needs medical care. You raised the issue of your wife’s treatment, and I hope she’s fine now, without being overly personal about her, how did you end up in the situation that you were in the U.S. without insurance? David: Well, it certainly was an unfortunate circumstance. A lot of people go without insurance for a variety of reasons. I had access to American health care, but not access to American health insurance. My wife had, as you know from the start of the book, injured her back on the bunny trail on a ski trip. She tells the story slightly differently involving a large mountain, gale-like winds, and heroic efforts on her part. But she had ruptured a disc in her back, and she, as a result, needed surgery. And I’d certainly read much about the American health care system, but what came across me then was not just the confusion about pricing, and I talk about the foot-and-a-half-long bill that I had received, which, as a doctor, I could see was completely inscrutable. But also just the issues around quality.

There we were, trying to find a neurosurgeon, and I went to the Internet and found no information. I went about calling neurologists and trying to get their opinions on neurosurgeons in western New York. So I have a greater appreciation of the frustration that millions of Americans, not just those, incidentally, without insurance. I think even if you’re insured, health care is such a black box of uneven quality, of difficulty gathering basic information, and at the end of the day you’re left with ever-rising prices, with inscrutable bills. I wanted to start the book that way because even though I think there’s greatness in American medicine, and I think one should never lose sight of that, and there’s never been a better time to be, frankly, a patient or a doctor than today, I also wanted to emphasize, literally from page one of the book, that there were huge problems with American health care. And, that even though I took a free market approach to looking at reforms, I wasn’t going to undermine that or downplay that. Matthew: And I understand that. Were you living in the U.S. as a resident at the time? David: I was actually, as I am now, dividing my time. I opted not to get health benefits when I joined the Manhattan Institute. To provide the answer to the insurance question, that’s why. Matthew: The reason I raised that is, and to get to the nitty-gritty of it, you’re not going to get any argument from me about the U.S. health care system having many, many problems, but you’ll get an argument from me about the solution to that. But one of the things that I find curious, from those people that are on the right – the thinking libertarians, to tease my colleagues at the Cato Institute about being, and I think you voice a similar opinion in the book, is the solution to the problem of access. There are many different ways you can talk about solving the problem around pricing and transparency, and getting to understand what people are purchasing, and I think people agree that there needs to be more of that, however it comes out. But the question is, how do you get people to not be uninsured? And I think you’re basically suggesting a voluntary solution here. Do you want to say a bit more about what you think the solution is to dealing with the lack of insurance?

Continue reading…

QUALITY/TECH/PODCAST: Interview with Don Kemper, CEO of Healthwise

Don Kemper from HealthWise essentially invented the concept of information therapy–the idea that every contact between patients and the medical system should come with an actual prescription for information. I think it’s an incredibly important concept, so I talked with Don in this podcast
about how it got started and where we are, as more and more technology becomes available. (Trascript available in a few days)

TECH: The best treatments for heart disease?

I’d never heard of EECP as a treatment for heart disease. Apparently it works, according to this UCSF analysis.  But Debra Braverman’s letter to the NY Times says it all (other than mistaking the drug industry for the medical device business):

A full course of EECP costs Medicare a fraction of one stenting procedure and offers physicians and hospitals very little and the pharmaceutical industry nothing.  EECP does, however, offer patients substantial relief and improvement in quality of life without risk of heart attacks or death, unlike the drug-coated stents in widespread use, despite the little scientific evidence of long-term benefits.

Meanwhile does anyone know if Dean Ornish’s program is routinely reimbursed by Medicare? Because if the tax payer is buying stents that dont really work as advertised, perhaps we should also be funding alternatives.

Meanwhile, apparently the latest wisdom is that angioplasty is essential within a few hours of a heart attack. And where did this inspired piece of medical wisdom come from? It was developed in the socialized health care havens of Denmark and Sweden. But we’re told that patients there are left to die; apparently not necessarily so!

POLICY/POITICS: A Grim Anniversary

A Grim Anniversary: 20 years ago today possibly the worst single bill ever passed by the US Congress went into law. In the the hysteria over crack cocaine and the death of basketball star Len Bias (not from crack by the way), Tip O’Neill decided to get tough on drugs. In 3 days law left committees and was voted on with no one stopping to think.

The result is long long mandatory minimums for low level drug users and dealers—which far exceed those for murders and rapists— and massive costs for the taxpayer. The consequence has been the general corruption of our entire criminal justice system and civil liberties.

POLICY/THE INDUSTRY/HEALTH PLANS: Employers trying to be not so dumb

This is definitely one to watch. With help from THCB buddy Brian Klepper, the employers in Reno are interested in becoming smarter purchasers, and they held a forum without letting any plans or providers in the room. The results suggest that they’re pretty serious about pooling their data instituting P4P & transparency, and basically doing what their health plans should but don’t do. The employers account for about 25% of the population in northern Nevada.

All employer groups have had this clout potentially. None of them have ever used it. And usually they’ve been too chummy with the delivery system or have been bamboozeld by their “agents” the health plans and PBMs. It’s possible that in some places the worm is turning.

PHARMA/POLICY/POLITICS: More rational behavior from big Pharma

Exactly as happened in 2000, and 2002 a late surge of money is coming to help Republicans from the PACs of New Jersey’s finest.

According to a report published Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal, drug-industry dollars are helping to fuel the campaigns of Republican candidates like embattled incumbent Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who faces a tight race against Democratic challenger Bob Casey Jr., who calls the Part D program a “giveaway to Big Pharma.” The Santorum re-election bid has drawn $454,500 in contributions from pharmaceutical companies, WSJ said.Part D has drawn fire from Democrats in congressional races in part because it doesn’t permit the federal government to negotiate with drug companies on drug prices, and Democratic challengers have vowed to change that if elected, the report said.

While the concept of science-based companies backing Rick Santorum (the one who took his stillborn child home to meet his kids, and thinks that the earth is 6,000 years old) may be odd, it’s completely rational. Essentially now that there is a Medicare drug benefit, eventually price controls will be introduced. It’s in Pharma’s interest to delay that day as long as possible. Anyone can see that including big Pharma, who as Joe Paduda reminds us have seen profits rise with their volume now that Part D has cut in

However, it therefore exposes the whole McClellan/Ignagni line about how the private market in Medicare Part D has lowered drug costs more than direct negotiations would have done for the lie it is. After all, if Part D as written is so much worse for big Pharma than government negotiations/price controls, why would they be fighting so hard to protect it?

POLICY/POLITICS: Uwe gets a job

Apparently New Jersey is going to rationalize its health care system. Well at least they put the best guy in charge.

New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine has announced that Uwe Reinhardt, the Woodrow Wilson School’s James Madison Professor of Political Economy and an authority on health care economics, will head the New Jersey Commission on Rationalizing Health Care Resources. According to an official announcement from the governor’s office, the Commission is charged with ensuring that New Jersey’s supply of hospital and other health care services is best configured to appropriately respond to community needs for high-quality, affordable and accessible care. In addition, the Commission will ensure that there is proper oversight and accountability of limited public funds.

This is of course the state of which the biggest AMC was run by a bunch of crooks and is now having another big academic name, Bruce Vladeck, oversee its rehabilitation. I’m not sure how much Uwe will like it out there in the real world, but I’m sure that the Commission won’t have much power,and I look forward to what it’s going to say!

PODCAST/POLICY: A frank exchange of views with David Gratzer

So I tried really hard to be nasty to David Gratzer. I’ve complained bitterly on THCB about his op-ed posts which I think just misrepresent Canadian and American health care, and I still think that his book The Cure misrepresents both the prospects of his solutions fixing the US mess, and the desire of foreigners to implement US-style solutions. But as I was interviewing him, he was just so nice and reasonable!

That is not to say that we agreed on virtually anything. Listen to the pod-cast.
It’s long but you’ll enjoy it. (Transcript is up here)

POLICY: We need health cost containment before fixing the payment method , by Jack Lohman

Das Kapital

Jack Lohman is a retired business owner from Wisconsin and founder of Throw the Rascals Out. He’s become a frequent commenter on THCB, oddly enough as a Republican voter who is in favor of single payer, and I thought that his opinions on health care were interesting enough to merit an opinion piece no the main page. Jack can be reached at jl*****@****pc.com.

MikeGUEST POST

Let’s take a time out.

As the nation struggles with how to pay for health care costs that are spiraling at an annual rate of 17%, five times the rate of inflation, we are virtually ignoring the reasons behind the escalating costs in the first place. We are engrossed in payment methods rather than cost containment, all while the industry seeks innovative ways of taking home a bigger piece of the national pie. Some see the “free-market” as our savior, when in fact, the slow conversion to a free market system that began a decade ago is the reason we are in trouble today. And it will get worse.

Years ago it was considered fraudulent for hospitals to hire their own physicians, for physicians to own an interest in a hospital to which they referred patients, and for physicians to refer patients to an outside laboratory in which they had a financial interest. We also had a certificate of need program that prohibited hospitals from leap-frogging the hospital down the street, thus churning expensive high-tech imaging systems. 

Continue reading…