Categories

Tag: The Industry

The Presidential Candidates On Health Care

Over at the Huffington Post, Dr. Susan Blumenthal and her team at the DC-based Center for the Study of the Presidency, have released their third in a series of articles comparing the Presidential candidates positions on various aspects of health care. This piece focuses on their views on the scientific and medical research that underlie progress in public health.

This has undoubtedly been yeoman’s work for this group of researchers, and as the election draws closer we’re indebted to them for making these positions so clear.

My guess is also that this article’s topic is particularly dear to Dr. Blumenthal, who is a former Assistant Surgeon General and recent recipient of the
US Public Health Service’s Distinguished Service Medal.

Managed Care Redux – by Brian Klepper

Like democracy, managed care is a great idea. It’s just that its rarely been tried.

Even so, my guess is that its about to re-emerge in a new, improved form, and possibly with some other name. If the signs around us now have any meaning, it will be different than our experience of a couple decades ago, and much truer to the original principles and possibilities that first caught our attention.

Last week the New York Times’ David Leonhardt ran another pop health economics piece, exploring several presidential candidates’ notion that the savings captured by providing better care could fund the uninsured. He explains better care as really being prevention – making sure that patients get services that stave off illness – and better management of the care process once they do get sick. And then, quoting a variety of health care experts, he takes issue with the notion that these approaches actually produce returns-on-investment. The problem, you see, is that while you may save money on the diabetic who avoids hospitalization to get his foot removed, you’re spending money taking care of all those diabetics who wouldn’t ever have had a costly problem.

Continue reading…

INDUSTRY: You can’t buy publicity like this

The kids at AHIP and PhRMA must be holding their heads in their hands this morning. Everyone in health care knows that Michael Moore’s Sicko is coming out soon. But in case you thought there wasn’t going to be enough publicity, the US Government has launched an investigation to see whether Moore’s trip to Cuba—where he followed some American patients seeking free care in a publicity stunt—violated US law. Apparently you have to be a journalist to go to Cuba…and by the Treasury department’s definition Moore might not be one.

This is so stupid that you have to believe that whoever launched this in the government is a mole for single payer interests or owns stock in the movie. Moore must be laughing his ass off with delight! 

POLITICS/INDUSTRY: Oooh, vicious but beautiful.

From my favorite Cal health care economist

Pisano is an HBS professor, and for HBS professors books are consulting platforms. A strong consulting platform must demonstrate knowledge of the sector (check), stroke the egos of industry leaders (check), profess a cataclysmic view of the sector if things go on the way they have been going (check), and then offer a simple-to-grasp solution.

I’m not sure they tend to bother with Jamie’s reason #1, though even though Herzlinger, Porter, & Christensen are straight onto #4.

The BerkeleyMBA Business of Healthcare Conference

The BerkeleyMBA Business of Healthcare Conference is tomorrow. It has a good line up and those of you desperate to see me in the flesh can find me on the IT panel in the morning. Also on that panel will be people from Intuit, RelayHealth, iMetrikus, and Healthline. Other interesting speakers include MaryAnn Thode, the soon to be ex-head of Kaiser Hospitals, N. Cal; Kevin Young from Gilead sciences, and J. Carl Craft, from Medicines for Malaria venture. There are several other breakout panels, including one with Arnie Milstein from Mercer on it. I believe admission is only $80.

Of course if it was the Stanford Business School Conference it would be much better, I’m sure! But when I was at Stanford our football team was better than Cal’s—times appear to have changed.

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.

BLOGS:/INDUSTRY/POLICY A little bit of mini-forecasting for 2007

Crystal_ball
For the first major post of the year, I usually do a forecast of the big issues that I think will be happening.  Looking back at the last few forecasts, I noticed a couple of things. First, as ever in health care things take longer and longer to become a big deal.  So it seems that people have been forecasting consumer driven health plans for a long time—in fact I wrote part of a report on consumers in health care in 1997. The same thing is true with FDA reform, Medicare disease management, and state health initiatives. Be patient.

The big difference there seems to be coming up this year is that because of the Democrats’ win in the November elections, we are now going to have some real discussion about solving the problem of the uninsured, and the implications that has for the rest of the system. I will be talking more, in a piece tomorrow at Spot-on, about the various reform initiatives that are going to be in the news in the coming months. Even our local Governator is getting into the act, both as a Governor and as a  patient.

Realistically, there is nothing that Democrats can do a national scale to improve the situation of the uninsured or to reform the system.  To get anything properly done will require 60 votes in the Senate, and Presidential help.  That’s not going to come with the current occupant of the White House, who is still living in cloud cuckoo land that a few more HSA tax reforms will send all the nation’s health care problems back beyond the rainbow. Personally I think it’s too early for the Democrats to be introducing significant legislation.  I’m not even sure that the nation will be ready for health-care reform after the next Presidential election. Victor Fuchs has many times correctly predicted the failure of national health care legislation because he believes there will need to be a significant national crisis before it gets enacted. My sense is that the ongoing slow collapse of employment-based health insurance, will produce that level of crisis, but not quite yet.

So what do I think will be a big deal this year?  Some of these are obvious, but here goes anyway.

1. Discussions of reform plans And of course secret meetings amongst health care stake-holders to figure out how to subvert those discussions.

2. Investigations of Medicare managed care. This is just too big and a easy target for Pete Stark.  The bad behavior of the management of the largest Medicare managed care plan—even if the CEO has been sacrificed—will surely come up in the conversation, as will some of the equally bad if not worse behavior by the largest for-profit Blues plan. Hopefully, some of the good parts of care management that are slowly being introduced into Medicare, will not be the babies thrown out with the bath-water.

3.Employers getting smarter. With increasing numbers of articles in the Wall Street Journal, blog postings from smart consultants, and general understanding of what the health insurance and PBM industry has been up to, it’s likely that employers will not be standing for the kind of rate increases that exceed medical trend which they have been receiving for the past five years in the next year. At least I hope they’re not that dumb.  In fact it’s likely that insurers and PBMs will try to keep prices down, and even take lower profits, so as not to raise their customer’s ire.

4.Software coming of age? This is tough to compress into one bullet point, but enough medical groups are implementing electronic medical records, health plans are introducing care management software, and hospitals are starting to use IP-based telephony and other productivity tools, that we should actually start to see some of the productivity and quality improvements this technology has been promising in the next year or two. It’s also worth noting that the numbers of hospitals with PACS systems is increasing fast, and that some of the RHIOs are distributing software as a service which is making it more affordable for small physicians’ offices and hospitals.Obviously, it’s a wise move to keep your eye on a couple of sentinel events, such as the success or failure of Kaiser’s HealthConnect, and the relative acceptance of Windows Vista in health care.

5.Health 2.0 I may have a special bias here and I know some people say this is just hype, but I believe that by the end of 2007 there will be a significant number of patients and consumers using the new software tools that are currently being developed to significantly change how they interact with both their insurers and their providers. I somewhat agree with Unity Stoakes when he says that not much has happened in the last ten years in terms of advancing the tools patients are using online. I think that there is great appetite for improved search and improved tools. Steve Case at least agrees with me!
6. More sectarian strife among providers. The latest staving off of the Medicare Part B cuts papered over the cracks for a little while, but the difference between profitability among different specialties and different hospitals is becoming really politically visible. There’s no essential reason why diagnostic radiologists should earn four times the amount of primary care doctors, for example. At some point this discussion will start, so look for inklings of it this year.

7.Patient safety and the industrial process. I throw this in just because I interviewed Brent James last month. This year a new batch of studies will come out suggesting that error rates in hospitals may exceed 30%. Michael Millenson will get very upset, and at the time when hospitals have been making record profits, questions will begin to get asked about what we’re getting for our money.

8.Pharma trying to duck under the radar. Right at the end of last year, buried in the Christmas lull, the former Pfizer CEO was revealed to have been awarded $200 million, give or take, for his performance in wiping several billion off the company’s market capitalization. This kind of thing doesn’t help when the industry is trying avoid price controls on Medicare Part D. Given that the Democrats are now in power in the Congress, it is likely that Big Pharma will spend this year keeping its head down and trying to mend fences. I also suspect that we’ll have a big merger or two as that’s the only rational way for the industry to cut its vast marketing expenses.

9. Finally, in the year’s most important news, all is not well in west London as Chelsea are only in second place in the English Premier league, and the continued absence of several key players with injury—and of poor play of several expensive new players—combined with the brilliant form of Manchester United makes a third repeat championship look unlikely. My forecast is that Chelsea will make the race tight, but will end up coming second. They will also lose in the final of the European champions league, and Jose Murinho will exit at the end of the season. Of course I hope I am wrong about that forecast!

TECH/PHYSICIANS/INDUSTRY: Communists in press stirring up trouble

Cypho
So a disgruntled reporter is stirring up trouble by daring to question the way medical advances happen in this great nation. Apparently this Joel Rutchick character is suggesting that when respected surgeon Dr. Isador Lieberman and his organization the Cleveland Clinic began pushing a new type of back surgery, we are supposed to be surprised he didn’t plaster memos about his stock options and holdings in the company that made the device all over the foreheads of his patients.

Lieberman did not tell his patients about his financial conflict of interest unless asked, the Clinic acknowledged. According to Plain Dealer research, he also did not reveal his stock holdings in numerous articles he wrote about kyphoplasty.

Bunkum! Does every computer come with a message that you’re making Bill Gates richer every time you turn it on? Of course not.

And when he (Lieberman) testified to the treatment’s benefits at a government hearing last year, he did not divulge past stock interests in Kyphon Inc. and other device makers – even when explicitly asked to disclose such holdings.

Well he was correct. He had apparently sold the last of his stock a few months before the Congressional hearing. Like any good capitalist Dr Lieberman is onto the next pony. As he told the commie rag The Plain Dealer

"I strive to be transparent in my disclosures and believe that I have disclosed my interests within the guidelines and policies of the Cleveland Clinic," Lieberman said in a written statement. He declined to be interviewed.

Who needs an interview in the face of that transparency!

Didn’t Rutchick know that unlike a bum masquerading as a reporter Dr Lieberman had been to medical school and therefore knew all about ethics? And didn’t Rutchick also know for there to be great inventions like this it’s required that not just the inventor but anyone who uses it gets rich? Otherwise what incentive would physicians have to help patients and save lives! After all who except some communist would disapprove of such a system?

When Kyphon officials took their company public in May
2002, they disclosed in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission that they had offered stock options to
the eight members of their advisory board. All took them
except Dr. Joseph Lane, a New York orthopedic surgeon who
teaches at the medical school affiliated with Cornell
University. "I felt it was very awkward for me to be honest about
these things if I owned stock in the company," Lane
said last week.

Yeah, and we know what color state this Dr. Lane character is from, don’t we?! Enough said on that topic. Honestly, virtually every great medical advance absolutely requires this kind of capitalist incentive for those using them. After all, most other medical advances come about the same way. The important thing is that there’s clear evidence of an improvement.

On the SpineUniverse Web site, Lieberman, Kyphon co-founder
Reiley and three other doctors published a four-paragraph
synopsis of their initial experiences with kyphoplasty
involving 26 patients. "These results support further
use of kyphoplasty," the March 2000 summary concluded.

What possible other evidence than this initial, non-per reviewed disinterested study could be needed? None, of course! The important thing is to get the new procedure into as general use as quickly as possible for the betterment of patient care and to save lives!

Before 2004, there had been only one reported death
associated with kyphoplasty and seven with vertebroplasty.
Since then, the numbers have changed dramatically. From 2004
through September, 16 deaths involving kyphoplasty were
reported to the FDA versus three vertebroplasty-related
fatalities. Experts agree that vertebroplasty is used more
frequently than kyphoplasty, although the gap has closed in
recent years. “These sorts of complications are extremely rare,” said
Julie Tracy, a Kyphon vice president. “These are procedures
that are very safe and do a lot of good for these patients.”

In a study published two years ago, researchers at the Johns
Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore also concluded that
kyphoplasty was more closely associated with serious
complications than vertebroplasty. Lieberman led the rebuttal for kyphoplasty proponents,
challenging the methodology of the study and completeness of
the data. However, those deaths and other complications underscore a
fundamental flaw of kyphoplasty: the risk of subjecting an
elderly patient to trauma and a general anesthetic, said Dr.
Kieran Murphy, one of the authors of the Hopkins study.
Murphy has disclosed that he receives royalties from one of
several manufacturers of the equipment used in
vertebroplasties.

Exactly, it’s clear that the naysayers are paid off by the communists. And at least we know that the insurance industry and the government are getting better value for money from the new procedure.

Murphy and other critics of kyphoplasty say hospitals need
the fees from general anesthesia and admission to recover
the costs of the equipment used in the procedure. That
equipment averages $3,500 to treat a single fracture,
according to Kyphon; vertebroplasty kits generally cost $500
to $600. Costs vary, but all told, vertebroplasty was found
to be $6,000 cheaper for each fracture treated, according to
a research report.

Well obviously those insurers must think it’s a better deal! Who could imagine insurers or Medicare just paying more for a new procedure without careful vetting it. After all they’re the end payer aren’t they? And they’re really strict about containing costs, as anyone paying insurance premiums knows! And if they weren’t so tough on containing costs for consumers and taxpayers, then why would we have a national clinical cost-benefit analysis center researching all these new treatments and being "transparent" about which ones cost what?

Answer me that, you Cleveland commie reporter, eh!

The only slightly disquieting aspect of this whole article is that the procedure concerned was invented in France. I know it’s a free market and all that, next time I hope that a red-blooded American like Dr. Lieberman could have been a little more patriotic. We don’t want those people with nice new backs only able to run backwards, do we?

 

assetto corsa mods