Categories

Tag: Uncategorized

Peeling The Healthcare Onion, By George Van Antwerp

George Van Antwerp is a Vice President at Silverlink Communications where he focuses on developing healthcare communication solutions across the industry with a focus on the pharmacy space. He and I have been conversing back and forth by email for a couple of years (since before he joined Silverlink who are—FD—sponsors of THCB & Health 2.0). He blogs regularly on both topics at Patient Centric Healthcare and today is his first post on THCB

I think an onion is the right analogy for healthcare for three reasons: (1) it can make you cry; (2) every time you pull off a layer you learn more; and (3) what you see from the outside is a lot different than what you see from the inside.

Continue reading…

POLICY: Two awful stories

Just before you get too lost in the wonkiness of health policy, just remember the financial implications of being sick in the wrong circumstancesin this country. Here’s a woman with a sick kid who is going to have her husband take a pay cut so that she can qualify for S-CHIP.

And here’s a benefit tonight in Richmond Virginia, for Kellie Brown, a student who needed an emergency appendectomy and has dropped out of college to pay of the $10,000 she owes. I kicked in a few bucks; if you’re feeling nice you might too.

Think of the economic insanity of these two things–someone dropping out of college, and someone moving to a lower pay grade because of health care costs!And no, this shit does not happen anywhere else in the civilized world.

PHARMA: The statin backlash (or WSJ later than THCB by 5 years!)

Yesterday the THCB hit meter went off the charts. not sadly because of some new genius posting on THCB, but because the WSJ has this article about Lipitor causing memory loss and Google searches are bring up an article from 5 years ago on THCB that I wrote—after reading a piece in Smart Money about the same topic. Here was the key paragraph form that article

Unfortunately the Smart Money article doesn’t give any denominators, so there’s no real evidence other than these anecdotal stories about whether significant numbers of people have had these reactions to Lipitor.  So despite the heart-rending stories, you can’t draw any conclusions. Also don’t forget that in the grander scheme of things (if you believe the conventional wisdom that lower cholesterol reduces heart disease), Lipitor is saving thousands of lives for each one it hurts–if it does hurt.

The problem is that increasingly it’s become evident that the statin story is similar to other heart intervention stories—the endpoint which it helps (lower cholesterol in the case of statins, less heart blockage in the case of CABG and stents) doesn’t necessarily reduce overall mortality all that much on an absolute risk basis—and may have other damaging side-effects. Of course the most under-reported side effect from CABGs is also neurological deficiency. In fact there are serious clinicians who believe that use of statins or revascularization prior to a heart attack is clinically wrong.

So it appears that we know far too little about what’s going on before we really should be putting statins “in the water” as the cardiologists use to joke.

Then of course there’s the business interests involved. Pfizer has been roundly criticized for its Lipitor off-label marketing (even if going after Robert Jarvik for his lack of rowing skills is a little silly). But the pressures around a $12 billion franchise are likely to create this kind of behavior.

And worse. Peter Rost (not exactly Pfizer’s best buddy) has been pillorying Schering Plough for the stock trading behavior of its senior execs before recent belated release of data on the failed Zetia trial. And now Congress is joining in there too.

All of which gives me  pause to think about whether the whole statin era may be on its way out. It’s looked so obvious for so many years that more people should be on them, but maybe the pendulum of the perception of the evidence is starting to swing the other way.

And when you read a message board like this one at DailyStrength, it certainly gives this 44 year old with borderline high cholesterol pause before wanting to go down the statin path. Still I guess Feb 14 is an appropriate day to be confused about affairs of the heart!

You can take your $15 fee and … ! by Paul Levy

In the past, I have sometimes used this blog to refer to articles
from medical journals when I felt they had broad public interest.
Sometimes, those articles have not been available to the general public
because they were only available by subscription. From time to time,
commentors to this blog have complained about this. I have let those
comments go by without reply.

But, finally, I have had enough. I
want to state this clearly and directly: When a respected medical
journal issues a press release about a given article that has important
public policy ramifications but does not make available the full text
of the article, it is a bad thing. It inhibits full public
understanding of the issue and makes us beholden to other people’s
interpretation of the article. It is inconsistent with the general
principle of academic discourse and also is counterproductive in
facilitating an informed debate on issues.Here is today’s example, from the Journal of the American Medical Association ("JAMA").  Last week, I received the following email from the AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges):

The
Feb. 13 issue of JAMA will include an article on a new study examining
the status of institutional conflicts of interest policies at U.S.
medical schools. The study was undertaken by the AAMC and Massachusetts
General Hospital, and provides the first national data on medical
school policies and practices for dealing with institutional financial
conflicts of interest. Susan Ehringhaus, associate general counsel for
regulatory affairs in AAMC’s division of biomedical and health sciences
research, is the lead author on the artic
le.

This topic
is clearly of great public interest and import, and so I asked the
question of whether the full article would be available for reading
upon publication. The answer I received today was, "No." Checking the
JAMA website, I confirmed this.  I can read the titles, the authors, and a short abstract.
But I can’t read the article and reach my own conclusions about the
methodology employed, the assumptions made, and the results.

Continue reading…

Hating employer-based insurance, Chelsea Clinton-style by Michael Millenson

Chelsea Clinton is complaining about her health insurance. As a self-employed consultant, I almost felt sympathetic, until I saw she works for an asset management firm, Avenue Capital Group, that manages just over $20 billion worldwide. They are able to accomplish this with just 350 employees spread out over (take a breath): New York, London, Beijing, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Jakarta, Luxembourg, Manila, Munich, New Delhi, Singapore, and Shanghai.

The company’s Web site says the core team has been together for many years, so I strongly suspect the pay and benefits are actually quite, quite nice. Chelsea told CNBC she is “not happy” with her health insurance, but she didn’t offer enough detail to determine why her health benefits are so markedly inferior to the ones her Mom enjoys as a senator and that she’d like all Americans to be able to access.

Avenue Capital is more colloquially described as a hedge fund specializing in the debt and equity of “distressed companies.” I thought only Republicans did that kind of work, but it turns out her boss is a big Democratic donor. Poor Chelsea — first Stanford, then Oxford, then McKinsey & Co., and now this, stuck with “job lock” in a career that pays an ambitious 27-year-old just a few hundred thousand dollars or so annually on her way to a dreary low-seven-figure compensation. Who knows what hardship her health plan forces her to endure?

Call me cynical, but for that kind of money, you don’t need to buy into your senator’s health plan — you can buy the whole senator!

Editors Note: It’s worth mentioning that although Michael is a general purpose cynic he’s also a declared supporter of Obama for President.

POLICY: Has the dog’s sore not completely healed?

The NY Times has been getting much better in its reporting on health care policy. After all David Leonhardt had Shannon Brownlee’s book as economics book of the  year! And they’ve been getting Jack Wennberg in frequently.

But every now and again something crops up that worries me about it’s desire to go straight adn reminds me of that dog with the licking problem. Today it’s the idea that concerns about health care costs are global, which I guess is true, and that the rest of the world–where employers often don’t pay for health care–is becoming more like the  US where employers do. The short piece is called Going Global With Concerns on Health Costs and the casual reader might think that systems are converging around the idea that employers should pay for health care because governments can’t afford to.

Leaving aside the basic point that the route by which money is raised to pay for health care is not very relevant compared to how it’s spent and the system by which people get coverage, the article makes two tiny confusions.

First, as it says, it’s supplemental health care costs that employers are paying for in most countries–and in many countries like the UK they’ve done that for decades. Here employers pay for everything. that’s a massive difference.

Second, the increase in percentage paid by employers is only big enough to grow really fast in 4 countries. Those are India, China, Venezuela and Russia. Not exactly health care systems that compare to the US. Our health care system is bigger than those economies!

PHARMA: Reprieve for Amgen looking doubtful

In a story titled somewhat cryptically Medicare chief stands by anemia move (do they mean he’s trying to become anemic?) Reuters reports that CMS is not backing down from its decision to radically cut payments for anti-anemia drugs for chemotherapy patients. In English this means that Amgen’s Arenesp (& Epogen, though that’s not officially for cancer patients) and J&J’s Procit (which is Epogen re-marketed by J&J) are not going to recover their lost sales from last year.  Those sales began to be lost when studies revealed that the fairly rampant use of those drugs was overuse, and also that they were causing some severe side-effects.

Of course for reasons that we all know (e.g. they have little to do with clinical endpoints and more to do with financial ones), community oncologists have flipped out. I do like the response from Dr. Barry Straube, the chief medical officer at CMS. He said:

Our staff looked at over 800 evidenced-based articles published in the literature," he said. "I doubt seriously whether most clinicians read all 800."

Of course the real impact of this was not on patients per se, but on Amgen’s stock price, which has not had the best of years. The little rally late last year was on hopes that CMS would change its mind. I’m afraid that that gravy train looks like it’s over.

Amgn

PHARMA: Stunt doubles in pharma DTC?

I’m sure (well I’m not sure but I’ll cheerfully and casually postulate) to keep you all amused on a Friday) that there are many possible overlooked problems with Lipitor and the statins. I’ve heard of severe muscle pain, even amnesia. But then again most cardiologists and the medical establishment recommend statins very widely and the general medical opinion is that they’re under-used.

I’m reading an interesting book The Last Well Person by Nortin Hadler whom I had the pleasure of meeting at the FIDMD meeting a few weeks back. Nortin is not exactly modest(!) but he’s very amusing and has firm firm opinions. In the book he systematically goes through the randomized clinical trial evidence of the value of much heart treatment including angioplasty, heart bypass, and statins. And his analysis from the West of Scotland trial (which admittedly was using Pravachol not Lipitor) is that statin use made only marginal absolute improvements in heart attacks and essentially no difference in overall mortality.

But is Congress investigating whether the medical establishment has been lead astray or is leading us astray? No.

Apparently the most important question is whether Robert Jarvik actually rowed his own boat in a Lipitor commercial….

INTERNATIONAL: Rational talk about Canadian Health Care

I’m very happy to relate that one of the best pieces ever by me on THCB, Oh Canada, (written when THCB was just finding its feet in 2003) is still as relevant as ever. There are still inordinate amounts of crap talked about the Canadian system by defenders of the current US status quo (not that the far right loonies who dredge this stuff will say that’s what they’re doing). This is dspite the fact that no major US Presidential candidate, with the possible exception of Harry Truman, has ever proposed introducing such a system here.

But over on liberal blog Campaign For America’s Future (the guys who are backing  Jacob Hacker’s work and by the way taking credit for the Edwards, Clinton and some of Obama plan) Sara Robinson—a self described “health-care-card-carrying Canadian resident and an uninsured American citizen who regularly sees doctors on both sides of the border”—has written a very balanced piece called Mythbusting Canadian Health Care.

I can see the Canadian ex-pat trio of Pipes, Gratzer & Graham going into apoplectic fits even as I type!

assetto corsa mods