Andy Kessler was on THCB plugging his book in a fun way the other day. Now he’s getting closer to the blogging big time with InstaPundit Glenn Reynolds reviewing his book over on Oil Company Central. And (gasp) I agree with Reynolds’ take.
BLOGS: HWR is up
Oops—I forgot to submit this week, but Health Wonk Review #11 is up at the Healthcare Economist.
QUALITY: Yogurt–health food or dessert?
At The Doctor Weighs In spoilsport Pat Salber tells you that yogurt is not a health food! As I like (sweetened) yogurt — as oppsed to the natural rubbish — that’s obvious to me. The Matthew Holt test is, if I like it, it’s bad for you.
POLICY/POLITICS/HEALTH PLANS: HSAs for Medicare? Crazy but apparently true
So the HSA ideology has wormed its way into CMS, and now Medicare is seeking proposals for its Consumer-Directed Health Plan demonstration. Those taxpayers who can do basic math might wonder why you’d want to to give healthy Medicare beneficiaries cash for health services that they’re not going to use, while taking that cash away from the pot that pays for the sick beneficiaries that do use said services. But we’ve asked that question so many times before and no-one on the free market side dare answer it. And I guess you might say, why not give the taxpayers money straight to the “healthys” instead of laundering it through Medicare Advantage plans as we’re doing it now so that they can hand out free gym memberships to seniors and boost their executives’ stock holdings.
But given that risk adjustment is coming to Medicare Advantage, it may be that that gravy train is ending. Perhaps we’ll get to see if the private plans really can stand on their care management merits—and there’s so much fat in Medicare that they ought to be able to, easily. Although they failed to do so in the late 1990s.
However, it’s just bizarre to increase the costs of a tax payer funded universal risk pool by allowing people who are not paying into it to withdraw cash from it. So the only real explanation is that CMS and its political masters in the White House are eventually intending to put the entire system into a high-deductible plan and not fund the amount below the deductible. Just the same as most employers are doing (as I explained in this Spot-on piece about Intel). That of course makes perfect sense for the government and the taxpayer. Until, that is, the seniors find out! I wouldn’t want to be in charge of Medicare when that happens, remember what those seniors did to Rostenkowski!
QUALITY/PHYSICIANS: Klein on malpractice
Ezra Klein has written a pretty good state of play about Medical Malpractice over at Slate. As you know I’m all for putting the solution for malpractice within the context of an overall medical error/practice guideline/EBM policy. Of course, politically the AMA and the docs are being used by the “tort reform” lobby who don’t give a rat’s arse about doctors or patients but are using them as sympathetic front men in their campaign to make corporate malfeasance unpunishable by any branch of government. So politically I wish the Democrats would sell out the trial lawyers on this one and work towards a wider solution (as Ezra suggests they might do). Not very likely of course, but slightly more plausible than the AMA cutting a deal, or the Republicans doing the right thing.
OFF-TOPIC: For those of you missing the world cup
Here it is — the Zidane Head Butt Game
QUALITY/PHARMA: Someone’s going to get fired at the DEA for sure
The WSJ writes about a serious scientific study of the hallucinogen in magic mushrooms. As you might expect virtually all of the participants thought that the sessions had a very powerful effect and 60% of the clinical trial participants said that effect was very positive indeed. But 30% of the cases felt incredibly bad effects, largely increasing paranoia. That’s not much of a surprise—people react differently to different drugs. The researchers are interested in seeing if these drugs (and presumably others like MDMA/Ecstasy) have value in treating psychiatric cases.
What’s amazing is that someone in the DEA signed off and allowed this research. After all, this is a substances banned for hysterical political reasons and, like LSD its synthetic equivalent, no one is pretending that they’re not very powerful. Of course the government does allow equally powerful psychotropic drugs to be widely used and dispensed with a false pretense that somehow their use is morally different.
The main differentiator is of course what the government will allow to go through clinical trials. Now that an approved trial of one class of banned drugs that may have a positive effect has been allowed, how can the DEA justify the continued delays in granting permissions for real trials of another banned drug that we all know has significant medicinal qualities? They can’t justify it morally or rationally or even legally, but they certainly continue to raid medical marijuana dispensaries to justify their existence, their power and their budgets. So when word gets out that someone inside the DEA made a rational decision on allowing a study that counters the drug warriors’ propaganda—well, I’m sure their career is on the outs.
POLICY/QUALITY: Reclaiming the right to die; book review by Mitchell Berger
Mitchell Berger volunteered to write a review of William Colby’s, Unplugged: Reclaiming Our Right To Die in America (2006, American Management Association, 272 pp., $24.95 hardcover), and an excellent review it is too:
High-profile legal cases such as those involving Karen Ann Quinlan, Nancy Cruzan and Terri Schiavo and their families coupled with improvements in medical technology have forced growing numbers of patients and their family members, health care providers, judges, lawyers and legislators to confront difficult end-of-life dilemmas. Because of his own background as an attorney for the Cruzan family for four years, supporter of the hospice movement and contributor to the 1990 Patient Self-Determination Act, which requires hospitals to inform patients in writing about health care advance directives such as living wills, attorney William Colby, author of Unplugged: Reclaiming Our Right to Die in America, brings unique insights to his discussion of these cases, evolving medical technology and the overarching issue of end-of-life care in America.
Colby’s book includes an extensive discussion of the Quinlan, Cruzan and Schiavo cases. He describes how relatively recent advances in scientific knowledge, such as an improved understanding of brain function, brain death and vegetative states and advances such as cardiac defibrillators, artificial respirators, feeding tubes, percutaneous endocscopic gastronomy (PEG) tubes (a method of providing nourishment to patients using a tube inserted through an endoscopic procedure which is simpler than standard feeding tube insertion), have led to new challenges as society struggles to reconcile the benefits of these technologies with respect for the individual’s quality of life and right to live and die in a manner reflecting their beliefs. Colby devotes an entire chapter of his book to explaining the ethical and medical issues associated with feeding tubes and PEG; he explains how PEG tubes, originally intended for pediatric patients, are now used routinely in cognitively impaired elderly persons who can no longer eat on their own.
While many people would want every reasonable measure taken to prolong and maintain their life regardless of their condition, many others would not want to live in a state where they are no longer able to respond to their loved ones and the world around them. When Nancy Cruzan, then a 25-year old Missouri woman, was left in a persistent vegetative state following a car wreck in 1983, her father authorized insertion of a feeding tube. Colby explains that in a persistent vegetative state a patient may be awake and even smile or move their eyes, however these movements are completely involuntary and in fact the patient has “no thinking, no feeling, no consciousness” (p. 10). When it became clear as first months and then years went by that Nancy Cruzan would never recover from her condition, Cruzan’s family tried to act on their shared “belief that [she] would want the feeding tube removed” (p. 89). After many years of legal proceedings both in Missouri and at the federal level, including a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1990, the family eventually was granted the right to remove the feeding tube based on evidence of what Nancy Cruzan herself would have wanted. Extensive publicity surrounded this case – indeed the Cruzan family allowed PBS’ Frontline to document their experiences — and Colby describes how the Cruzan family’s experience altered public opinion about end-of-life care both in Missouri and elsewhere and encouraged Missouri Senator John Danforth and others to sponsor the Patient Self-Determination Act.
In perhaps the most interesting portion of his book (Chapters 1-3), Colby provides an informative and balanced discussion of the most recent and perhaps controversial end-of-life care case involving Terri Schiavo. Unlike Nancy Cruzan’s family, Schiavo’s relatives were bitterly divided about what she would have wanted and what was best for her. Colby discusses his own approach to death and dying issues and even includes his own health care power of attorney as an example for others (Chapter 10; Appendix). However, he also notes the limitations of laws and legal documents. For instance, Colby describes the “institutional glide path” which dictates that many hospital patients will receive “aggressive,” often unwanted end-of-life medical care; the “glide path” reflects the tendency of health care providers and institutions to treat patients in customary, technology-intensive ways due to such factors as medical education, institutional culture and fear of litigation.
To help ensure that the end-of-life care we receive reflects our values and desires, Colby emphasizes the importance of talking at length with family members, friends and health care providers about how we would want to be cared for if our capacity to make our own decisions should ever be impaired by illness or injury. This dialogue will help ensure that our family members and health providers are not forced to confront complex dilemmas in tense and emotional circumstances with their loved one’s wishes unclear.
Colby is a strong supporter of hospice as one option for end-of-life care. Indeed, he serves as a Senior Fellow of the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization in Washington, D.C., and the foreword to his book is contributed by that organization’s chief executive officer. He explains the rise of hospice care, which he characterizes as a “hidden jewel,” and notes that growing numbers of patients are opting for hospice (750000 of 2.5 million Americans who died in 2005). Hospice emphasizes communication between patients, families and health care providers, symptom relief and palliative care (Chapter 15).
Though he clearly has strong opinions, Colby’s book is fair and even-handed in his treatment of the major legal and ethical issues and he includes chapters devoted to concerns about expanded recognition of the “right to die” expressed by religious organizations and persons with disabilities. The book is well-researched and well-documented, with numerous end notes, citations to outside sources, suggestions for further reading and contact information for such relevant organizations as the National Family Caregivers Association and National Institute on Aging. Overall, Colby’s book provides readers with excellent background about the key legal and scientific issues, good ideas for how to approach end-of-life care and strong motivation for initiating these sometimes awkward but critically important conversations with family members and health care providers.
POLICY: An Outcomes Primer by Eric Novack
THCB welcomes back regular contributor Dr. Eric Novack, who has something to say about outcomes as well as some recent snide comments made about orthopedic surgeons by a certain other poster on the site. In addition to blogging for THCB in his (oh so rare) free time, Eric is also the host of The Eric Novack show, which airs every Sunday on KKNT 960 AM in Phoenix. You can find an archive of his recent shows here.
An Outcomes Primer
POLICY/PHYSICIANS: Too many doctors
Dartmouth worthy David Goodman has an op-ed in the NY Times called Too Many Doctors in the House. It makes the arguments that you all know well, but it does contain this lovely zinger.
The association of medical colleges has argued that increasing the doctor supply overall can remedy regional shortages. But in the past 20 years, as the number of doctors per capita grew by more than 50 percent, according to our measurements, most of the new ones settled in areas where the supply was already above average — places like Florida or New York — rather than in regions that lack doctors, like the rural South. Medical training is an expensive business, and it makes little sense to waste additional public dollars to perpetuate doctors’ preference to live in affluent places. (my emph added)
(or, according to the IV, much worse than that). Much of this stems from the basic idea that fracture care, or broken bone treatment, seems very straight-forward. Oh, but wait…