Categories

Above the Fold

TECHNOLOGY: Stents now movin on up, with UPDATE

Loads from the American College of Cardiology meeting including a detailed study on stent use in the carotid arteries from Guidant (here’s the more digestible press release) and also "proof" from J&J that drug eluting stents really, really prevent restenosis — honest!!

Meanwhile over at MedRants more on the latest with the statins. (Short version is that stronger is better so Lipitor beats Pravachol but may get bested by Crestor).

Funnily enough the meeting is in New Orleans, so from my recollection of the food down there, plenty of future work for these statins and the stent manufacturers is being created each dinner time!

UPDATE: Sydney Smith over at Medpundit has a very interesting take on the real world application of this study and isn’t so sanguine about it.

PHARMA: HHS’ Thompson reads THCB

OK, maybe not, but in talking to a congressional committee who’s members do, or at least do read opinion polls like these, HHS secretary Thompson hints that the Republicans might cave on the drug re-importation issue to save the most unpopular part of the Medicare bill from becoming an election issue. Perhaps they noticed that Florida and Pennsylvania are both full of seniors and are both needed to be in the Red column on Nov 2, if Dubya is going to stay in the White House.

INDUSTRY: Scrushy goes on TV with Roy Moore to proclaim innocence

It’s so hard to resist, and I’ve been good for so long, but I had to re-open the Healthsouth file. The story so far. 15 execs admit years and years of fraud. CEO Richard Scrushy claims he knew nothing about any of it, despite the fact that plenty of his staff say he led the whole thing. Now Scrushy has his own TV chat show and his first guest was whacko Alabama chief justice Roy Moore–the one who put the Ten Commandments monument in his courthouse. Anyway, they are both agree that the media has cooked this whole thing up and Scrushy, like Ken Lay, was merely an innocent bystander while his underlings plundered and cheated the company. And if you don’t believe him, because, well, because you’re just not a trusting person, he’s got his own website to prove it!

It reminds me a little of the Chaing-Kai Shek War Memorial in Taiwan, which has a long exhibition showing how the Nationalists really won the 1949 Civil War with their strategic retreat from Beijing to Taiwan! Of course usually losers don’t get to write the history books, so it’s nice to see Scrushy joining in a rare tradition. Methinks that if Martha goes down, he’s bound to follow–but of course I won’t be on a jury in Alabama!

QUALITY/PHYSICIANS: When war is declared it’s hard to find a middle way

In Friday’s NY Times there’s an article called In Texas, Hire a Lawyer, Forget About a Doctor?. The article features a database online called DoctorsKnow which allows doctors (for a fee of course!) to find out which of their patients has sued any doctor. The logical conclusion to this is that anyone who has ever sued a doctor cannot get any care. As this behavior starts up for real rather than just as a philosophical debate in Medrants, it strikes me that we are getting to the point at which war is starting. Many doctors might say that the trial lawyers have already been at war with them and they’re just responding. Most of you know that I’m on the physicians’ side in this battle, but believe that averting the war is a much more desirable outcome than fighting it (which reminds me of the Iraq situation!).

Matt Quinn, who some of you may suspect is on the lawyers’ side captures my feelings in this note:

    This article speaks to the need for someone to be a moderating force in this debate: of course, all trial lawyers aren’t bad, all doctors aren’t bad, and all people who sue for malpractice aren’t bad. Perhaps the government (CMS?, AHRQ?, ???) could convene the AMA, ATLA and other entities to come together to propose a centrist solution that provides justice for all. That would require both of those organizations to set aside some of the immediate narrow self-interests of their memberships and work together for a sustainable solution that solves the problem – something that would benefit all stakeholders involved, including (last but not least) the thousands of people who are harmed each year by malpractice. Not likely in an election year.

Unfortunately Matt’s right. While this fight get politicized it cannot be changed into a sensible peace settlement. Unless of course organized medicine breaks away from the mainstream "tort-reform" movement that’s really a part of corporate America wanting to pursue unmitigated bad behavior, and proposes a different tack in cooperation with moderate voices for sanity in medicine like the IOM.

TECHNOLOGY: Drug-eluting stents take off–With late afternoon UPDATE

As this study from Solucient shows the take off in the use of drug-eluting stents has been very fast, even before Boston Scientific’s Taxus stent hits the market. USA today has a good general article about them too.

This puts hospitals in a real bind, as the cost of the new stents means that they’ll be losing money on their use, unless they can get an increase in DRG payments from CMS. So watch this space. But don’t forget that restenosis rates are real even for drug-eluting stents and that a recent Stanford study showed you were better off getting a by-pass over time.

UPDATE: The FDA today as expected approved the Taxus stent from Boston Scientific. The stock is up about 30% so far this year.

TECHNOLOGY: Data on physician to patient eVisits

The online patient-physician communication thing seems to be getting off the ground. Relay Health has another deal with another Blues, this time Anthem in Colorado. It’s been a longish road for them (and I haven’t heard much of McKesson’s Medformation which was Relay’s big rival back in the 1999 boom days when it was called…oh, I forget but not Relay!). Anyway here’s an interesting recent presentation from the folks at Relayhealth which claims that online visits save money, increase physician productivity, lower the number of visits and are wildly popular among doctors and patients. OK so the docs and patients in the sample are self-selected, but it makes sense to me, and I wish my doctor had it.

Meanwhile, I’ve got my own problems there (much more buried in these comments over at DB’s Medrants)

POLICY: Harris Interactive’s take on 2004

Well this is a little late, but here goes anyway. At the very start of the year I interviewed Katherine Binns, who runs Harris Interactive’s Strategic Health Perspectives (SHP) program. SHP is a survey based research program that interviews virtually all the major players in health care and has done since the late 1980s. Back then it was called Health Care Outlook and was run in conjunction with the Institute for the Future. IFTF has since gone in a somewhat different direction with its Health Horizons program, which looks further out into the future and focuses as much on the wider meaning of health as it does on health care. SHP is focused on the next couple of years in the health care marketplace and has great up to the moment data on the realities and attitudes of the key players like doctors, consumers, employers, health plans and legislators. Katherine also has the good fortune not to only have a great team lead by Kinga Zapert to do the actual work, but also within Harris to have Humphrey Taylor and Bob Leitman to add color, and to be able to bring in old friends futurist Ian Morrison, Harvard policy, polling and politics guru Bob Blendon, and industry veteran Bill Rosenberg to help out. Full disclosure–I was part of that team from 1993-1999, but don’t let that put you off!

So what were they telling their clients at the end of last year and beginning of this one?

1) The Demonization of Pharma

The first issue concerns the pharma industry, and as I’ve hinted in THCB before the news on the PR front is terrible. What’s driving the demonization of the pharma industry? Consumers now perceive costs and value are seriously out of whack 61% of the public now perceives generic drugs as very or fairly good value. The number for branded Rx is now at 21%, only 7% above health insurance (and trust me you don’t want a score anywhere close to health insurance!). Incidentally, while overall the public that the pharmas are greedy profiteers and believes that it’s profit margins driving prices, seniors who are of course the most politically important group in health care see prices as being driven up by marketing and advertising. Meanwhile the basic awareness of drug prices being higher here than other countries is getting out. In 2000 41% knew that drug prices were much higher in the US than in other countries, and most of the rest just didn’t know. By 2003 that number is up to 63% and as consequence the re-importation furor won’t go away. Here’s a very recent Harris poll showing that people know health care (read: pharma) prices are higher here in relation to Europe, know that every thing else is cheaper here, and don’t like it.

One by-product of this is that trust in the pharma industry has dropped by 30% since 1997. They used to be closer to the top of list at 79%. By mid-2003 they were at 49% with a fall of 10% in the previous year–and these numbers were before the anti-AARP anti-pharma backlash following the Medicare bill. This means that there is plenty of mileage yet for the Democrats in bashing the pharma industry and linking it to Bush and the Republicans–so expect plenty more where that came from.

2) Consumers and the impact of cost shifting

Cost shifting and rising out of pocket costs really are beginning to be felt by consumers. Harris has created a schematic of three levels of consumers. The "Trade-up Players", the "Reluctantly Empowered", and the "Needy Shoppers". When they first developed this schema in the late 1990s, of those who were forced into a choice in terms of health plan and/or medical selection, there was a roughly 1 to 2 ratio of trading-up to trading-down. The ratio has now changed with even more trading down, or more value shopping. This has also been associated with increased non-compliance (as has been shown elsewhere in terms of the impact of three tier formularies). Whether the non-compliance is caused by out-of-pocket costs or by tiers, the higher their rates of non-compliance (such as pill splitting, not filling Rx, or delaying care) is in direct relation to out-of-pocket costs going up. Finally, the needy shoppers are going to the Internet instead of going to the doctor. Harris found that those with increased out of pocket costs in last year have had fewer in doctor visits and have increased their cyberchondriac use of the internet.

3) The Employers and the CDHP mantra

Employers have bought into the CDHP mantra to some extent, although in their view it’s not really any different from cost shifting. Employers say that higher out-of-pocket cost forces employees to be wiser consumers. However, they also think it makes them forgo needed treatment when they have a higher out of pocket cost at point of care. And they do believe that if employees get the chunk of money up front they are less likely to go for care. However, compared to cost sharing at the point of care (via copays and deductibles), employers are less concerned that CDHPs will lead to consumers making bad decisions about their healthcare needs.

However, like managed care products in the 1990s the Harris conclusion is that CDH is a phase. Harris asked the same questions about CDHP as it use to ask about managed care; employers are still confused, cranky, aimless and spineless. And they’re not sure that they’ll save money from this brave new consumer world.

Of course this year the role of health care in insurance disputes is picking up, particularly in the recent grocery workers strike in California.

4) So who’s happier then?

In a somewhat stunning reverse, the crankiest people in the health care system are happier than they were 5-7 years ago. Yup, the doctors may be furious with the lawyers, but they’re no longer so pissed at the government or more particularly the managed care UR nurse, since she stopped calling a couple of years ago. How long their distemper will stay improved is anyone’s guest. But it’s a significant barometer when the most appalling person a doctor can think of is a lawyer (even if he is John Edwards).

You can get more information about SHP and Harris from Katherine, but be warned, they’re not quite as competitively priced as THCB!

QUALITY: Matt Quinn on why we “need” malpractice litigation

From the THCB Sacramento bureau, Matt Quinn chimes in on the “value” of malpractice litigation. Matt has been annoying the doctors over at DB’s Medical Rants (in these long, varied and interesting comments) by defending trial lawyers–which is a little akin to a Satanist wondering into a Catholic mass. Over here in the more rarefied air of THCB, I’ve been trying to suggest that there’s a middle path in the malpractice debate. But like Matt I don’t think that the AMA policy of just putting a $250,000 limit on pain and suffering awards does anything to solve the problem. Matt picks up on a tragic case in Sacramento, where apparently one hospital follows a stricter guideline than another, and it really made a big difference. Matt comments:

    In summary, a woman’s doctor recommends that she go to UC Davis Medical Center for a days-long diagnostic procedure to try to determine the source of the aberrant electrical activity in her brain. She would be taken off all medications, and a video camera trained on her during her stay would record any seizures and collect corresponding brain activity. The data might later enable a brain surgeon to remove the tissue causing the seizures. During the “monitoring” the woman has a seizure and dies. Her family finds her about an hour after she died. Experts say there are no standards – only guidelines from the National Association of Epilepsy Centers – for running video-EEG monitoring units.

    “There is no national standard requiring that a human being be observing every patient on video monitoring 24 hours a day,” said Dr. Robert Gumnit, a Minneapolis neurologist who pioneered the technology more than 30 years ago. “The reason is that the information is being gathered to learn about the electrical activity of the brain and the behavior of the patient during a seizure – and that is always analyzed the next day or some other time. It’s not being used to ensure patient safety.”

    Nevertheless, some centers do more than others in that regard. At Sutter General Hospital in Sacramento, for example, a specially trained technologist sits in front of a bank of large monitors – one for each of four beds – 24 hours a day. Each monitor shows the patient in the bed and displays the patient’s brain waves, blood oxygen levels and respiration rates.

    Such monitoring would have probably saved this woman (or at least alerted a nurse to respond). I wonder if this has ever happened before (why does Sutter have more stringent guidelines?). Why wouldn’t the National Assoc. of Epilepsy Centers commit to standards? It would certainly make assessing liability (to mention nothing of ensuring that no harm is done) much easier.

I’m not sure that we need malpractice litigation in this case (especially as a California taxpayer I’m picking up the defense’s tab), but something should be done to make sure that UC Davis Medical Center does much better in the future, and that guidelines/processes aren’t implemented so differently in the same town. And if it takes a lawsuit to do that? Well, surely we can do better.

POLICY: S. Cal grocery strike is over, but the health issue rumbles on

The southern California grocery workers strike is over with the Union having “won” on the issue of no premium-sharing for now, and lost on the “two-tier” wages issue. The LA Times says

    “The union claimed a victory in healthcare coverage: Under the contract, veterans won’t have to pay for their coverage in the first two years, and not in the third year if contributions from the companies are enough to cover costs. If not, the estimated cost would be up to $5 a week for individual coverage and up to $15 a week for family coverage. But workers now will have co-payments for medical services that were paid in full by their insurance under the contract that expired Oct. 6. “

At one point (according to the radio report I heard this morning) the companies wanted the employees to pay up to $95 a week in premium sharing, which would effectively have priced their employees out of health insurance a la Walmart. However, hidden behind this victory is that even for the workers there now (rather than the cheaper ones coming on board in the future) the premium contribution from the company is a defined one, and if costs go over a certain number in 2 years time as they inevitably will, the workers will have to make a contribution to premiums. As it is they have already lost first-dollar coverage.

If I was John Kerry I’d be down at the last of the picket lines right now. Workers all over America are scared of foreign and domestic cheap labor and they are terrified of losing their health care coverage. These two facts are connected. An employee can probably get another job, but maybe not one with health benefits–and of course a bad health experience with no insurance can wipe out the middle American dream in a heartbeat. That’s why, as the StonyBrook survey showed last year, workers would rather keep their health benefits than get a pay rise. The Democrats have got a winning issue here if they can figure out how to make it presentable to the public. They don’t need a solution for now, they just need to reassert that they protect workers and seniors. Watch for the rhetoric here to heat up over the summer.

assetto corsa mods