Please allow me to coin a new term:
Medical Homelessness – Not having access to a consistent familiar medical setting. Not having a care location where one is known or where the medical information is accurate.
I think medical homelessness is one of the main problems in our system.
Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Musings of a Distractible Mind*
I got something in my e-mail this morning. It’s a press release aimed at helping with prostate cancer awareness month, and is supported by Lance Armstrong’s foundation.
SURVEY SHOWS AT-RISK MEN LACKING IN PROSTATE CANCER KNOWLEDGE
SUNNYVALE, CALIF.,– September 9, 2009 – Prostate cancer remains one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers in the United States. In fact, one in six men will develop prostate cancer. It is also the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States. But a recent survey suggests that many men at risk for the cancer still aren’t aware of all available treatment options. The survey, conducted late last year, reveals that nearly 50% of men aged 40 and older are not aware of the most common approach to surgery for prostate cancer — robotic-assisted surgery to remove the prostate. “I had to do my own research and then self-admit myself to the [hospital],” says surgery patient Tim Propheter. “…. Most people are just told … ‘Sorry, you have to have surgery, and we’ll set you up for such and such day,’ and they don’t know any better until they run into someone like me,” he says. This lack of information persists despite the fact that prostate cancer treatment has changed dramatically in the last decade. For example, surgery — which remains the gold standard treatment for localized prostate cancer — has become much less invasive. According to the American Urologic Association, the major benefit of prostatectomy, or prostate removal, is a potential “cancer cure” in patients with localized or early stage cancer.
Guess who the press release was from? Guess who sponsored the survey? The following was at the bottom of the email:
About the survey
Data was collected from 1000 self-selected adult healthcare information seekers through an online panel available through Ztelligence.com, using an survey questionnaire. Fifty-four percent of those were male and 46 percent were female. The results reflect only the opinions of the healthcare seekers who chose to participate.
About Intuitive Surgical, Inc.
The survey was conducted by Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (NASDAQ: ISRG), the manufacturer of the da Vinci Surgical System, the world’s only commercially available system designed to allow physicians to provide a minimally invasive option for complex surgeries. Intuitive Surgical, headquartered in Sunnyvale, California, is the global technology leader in robotic-assisted, minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Intuitive Surgical develops, manufactures and markets robotic technologies designed to improve clinical outcomes and help patients return more quickly to active and productive lives. The company’s mission is to extend the benefits of minimally invasive surgery to the broadest possible base of patients. Intuitive Surgical — Taking surgery beyond the limits of the human hand.™
Imagine that. A survey done by company that sells the da Vinci robotic surgical equipment shows that men have tragically no knowledge of the da Vinci robotic prostate surgery!
So let’s see what the evidence shows:
From the reference uptodate.com:
The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) reported a small absolute survival benefit with PSA screening after nine years of follow-up; however, 48 additional patients would need aggressive treatment to prevent one prostate cancer death. Although the report did not address quality of life outcomes, considerable data show the potential harms from aggressive treatments. Further sustaining the uncertainty surrounding screening, a report from the large United States trial, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial, published concurrently with the European trial, found no benefit for annual PSA and digital rectal examination (DRE) screening after seven to ten years of follow-up. The crux of this screening dilemma was aptly stated by the urologist Willet Whitmore, who asked “is cure possible in those for whom it is necessary, and is cure necessary in those for whom it is possible?”
The most important line in this is at the end of the first sentence, stating that 48 patients would need aggressive treatment (including prostatectomy) to prevent one prostate cancer death. So how much does “aggressive treatment to prevent cancer death” cost?
From the Journal of Clinical Oncology:
For patients in the treatment-received analysis, the average costs were significantly different; $14,048 (95% confidence interval [CI], $13,765 to $14,330) for radiation therapy and $17,226 (95% CI, $16,891 to $17,560) for radical prostatectomy (P < .001). The average costs for patients in the intent-to-treat analysis were also significantly less for radiation therapy patients ($14,048; 95% CI, $13,765 to $14,330) than for those who underwent radical prostatectomy ($17,516; 95% CI, $17,195 to $17,837; P < .001).
note: it was very hard to find numbers here. This is actually from Medicare claims from 1992 and 1993, so it is a huge underestimate from today’s numbers.
Which means that based on the 1992 numbers, you would spend $672,000 to save one life using radiation therapy and $1,084,000 if you used surgery. This does not take into account the consequences of surgery for the men who underwent the surgery.
What about robotic surgery? In a comparison of the cost of open prostatectomy to robot-assisted surgery, the cost is even higher.
Cost was the one area in which the older open surgery was the clear winner: Open radical prostatectomy costs $487 less a case than non-robotic laparoscopy and $1,726 less than robot-assisted prostatectomy.
According to the review, “Shorter operative time and decreased hospital stays associated with the robotic procedure did not make up for the cost of the additional equipment expenditure.” Estimated costs of the robotic system to a provider run about $1.2 million a year, with maintenance costs of $120,000 a year and one-time costs of $1,500 a case.
To summarize:
So, an expensive form of surgery that may not be appropriate is done on a group of men identified on a very unreliable test yielding a very small number of lives saved and a lot of men who then have to deal with the physical consequences of the surgery. Why in the world is this being promoted at all?
Money. Here’s the homepage of one of our local hospitals. They have aggressively marketed da Vinci surgery on television, billboards, and the radio.
Why do you think they would pay as much money as they do for this device? It’s good business? Not so fast. Dr. Paul Levy stated back in 2007 about this very procedure:
Here you have it folks — the problem facing every hospital, and especially every academic medical center. Do I spend over $1 million on a machine that has no proven incremental value for patients, so that our doctors can become adept at using it and stay up-to-date with the “state of the art”, so that I can then spend more money marketing it, and so that I can protect profitable market share against similar moves by my competitors?
No, hospitals are employing this just to keep pace. The real winner in this is Intuitive Surgical, Inc., who has been a darling of Wall Street, beating estimates in earnings with a Q2 net profit of $62.4 Million.
Why is the cost of healthcare going up while physician reimbursement goes down and hospitals go out of business?
It’s Intuitive.
God Bless America!
*This blog post was originally published at Musings of a Distractible Mind*
When you were last enraptured by my physical exam series, I was explaining the different directions doctors use to confuse themselves and everyone else. I am happy to leave that land of relativity and now re-embark on the actual human body. I am sure this relativistic view of direction was invented by some liberal anatomist intent on socializing the human body. It is a stop on the road to death panels, in my opinion.
It’s good to get that posterior to me.
My distraction (I get distracted, you know) happened as I was trying to explain how the shoulder works. Since the shoulder moves in so many directions and with such huge angles, I felt it was necessary to totally confuse you and so hide any chance you would pick up my ignorance. It’s always good to keep your readers snowed. So, after spending a whole post making poems about the shoulder (that will no doubt go down in the anals annals of poetry about joints) and another post about the confusing directions we doctors use to confuse other doctors, I will now talk about the actual exam of the shoulder.
As you probably have been taught, the shoulder is the joint that attaches your arms to your body. Some people refer to the top of their torso as their shoulders (as in “shoulder straps”), but this is not what I am talking about. The shoulder is supposed to be the joint between three bones:
*This blog post was originally published at Musings of a Distractible Mind*
My newest podcast is up on iTunes (go here for the web-based version). It’s the first of a two (maybe more) part series on influenza – covering flu in general. We have been seeing a significant number of cases of the flu over the past week, which is extremely unusual for this time of year. Epidemic flu goes around between November and Late April, with sporadic cases appearing at other times. What we have seen so far is not sporadic, so it probably represents pandemic flu (H1N1).
I did a poll on Facebook, asking what people thought of the H1N1 situation. The overwhelming majority responded that they felt the press and the government were hyping it way too much. This really surprised me – not that people would think that, but that a majority of people felt this was the case. It may have related to how the question was phrased or what the other choices were, but still this number betrays a lack of worry about the H1N1 virus.
This worries me.
I don’t think the fear of the H1N1 is misplaced. The normal flu kills over 30,000 people per year, and the H1N1 is expected to infect 3 times more people than the usual flu (for reasons I will go into in the next podcast). The implication of this is that even if this flu is “nothing special” it will kill over 90,000. Put in perspective, prostate cancer killed 27,000 men and breast cancer killed 41,000 women in 2008. A “normal” potency H1N1 virus could then kill more than both of these combined.
Thankfully, the cases we’ve seen so far have not been severe, but still there have been 522 deaths already from the H1N1 in the US. But in 1918, the virus mutated around this time of year and became significantly more deadly. I think those who get it now are actually probably fortunate.
The warnings about pandemic influenza are not hype. But the cynicism about the government and the press are widespread. Some of the more “unconventional” thought (read into that word generously) espouse conspiracies by the government. Here’s one example of this:
It’s man-made. It can be used as a biological weapon. It was developed as an AIDS vaccine-related organism. It was extracted from AIDS patients. It is responsible for virtually all of the symptoms which AIDS patients suffer from. The AIDS virus is at best a co-factor, and not even such a strong co-factor as to bring on all of the symptoms of AIDS. This particular organism, the micoplasma, is associated with this upper respiratory flu-like illness. And it’s also associated in its pathogenic process with a whole variety of other symptoms that mimic AIDS.
This guy is totally nuts extreme, but the theories on the Internet of this flavor abound.
Unfortunately, the religious right Obama-haters have seized on this as anything from a means to push universal health to a weapon to sterilize the US populace. I can assure you that this has nothing to do with Biblical thought and everything to do with the vulnerability of some people to fear-mongering. I even had one patient ask me what I thought about the sterilization theory. I reassured her that I had just gotten mine – although sterilization is no longer an issue for me as it has already been done with my consent. She laughed and went ahead with the vaccine.
But less extreme people still feel this is far too much hype for the severity of the disease. This scrutiny puts the CDC in a bad situation. The only thing that would vindicate their dire warnings is the exact thing they are trying to prevent: a deadly pandemic. Conversely, the more they succeed in preventing this problem, the more people will cast aspersions on them.
Take it seriously, folks. It’s like a massive storm forming in the tropics – it could be deadly and it could be a dud. Either way, we need to do whatever it takes to minimize the damage.
*This blog post was originally published at Musings of a Distractible Mind*
Something touched a nerve yesterday. I kind of lost my composure when someone tried to defend the insurance industry and responded out of emotion – perhaps putting aside some reason in the process.
I used to get mad at myself or embarrassed when this happened, but now I stand back and try to analyze my reaction. What is it that touched a nerve in me? Why did I feel so strongly? We don’t feel things without reason, and my reaction doesn’t necessarily betray weakness on my part, it shows the depths of my emotion. That passion usually comes from something – most of the time it is personal experience; and my personal experience says that insurance companies are causing my patients harm. That makes me angry.
I don’t think the people in the insurance industry are bad people. I think vilifying people is the easy way out. The people there feel like they are doing the right thing, and are no less moral than me. But I do not think the way to fix our system is through letting them do their business as usual in the name of “free market.” Defending the current system of insurance ignores some obvious problems in our system:
1. They are financially motivated to withhold services
If you hire a contractor to work on your house, how wise is it to pay them 100% in advance? You have just given them financial incentive to do as little work as possible, as it will maximize their profits to do so. The insurance industry is in such a situation; despite any good intention, they are put in a position to decide between profits and level of service. It is much better to pay more for better service, not worse; but that is what we have done with health insurance companies.
2. They have been given the ability to withhold services
If all United Health Care (for example) did was to provide insurance, they would not be vilified as they are. But since the only data available for medical care was the claims data they hold, they were put in a position to control cost. This was sensible initially, as they had both the data and the means (denying unnecessary care) of cutting cost. It’s OK that women aren’t kept in the hospital for a week after having a baby. It’s OK that I can’t prescribe expensive brand-name drugs when there is a reasonable generic alternative. There was a whole lot of fat to cut, and they did a good job cutting that fat.
The problem came when all the fat was gone and they were used to big profit-margins. Once there was not any more unnecessary care to cut, they had two ways to keep their profit-margins: increasing premiums or cutting services. They did both. Both of these have hurt my patients.
3. They covertly ration
Dr. Rich Fogoros (whom I recently met) has coined this phrase to explain what happens in our system. Because it doesn’t look good to deny necessary care, insurance companies (including government-run ones) resort to making things exceedingly complex. This makes it look like care is being offered, but not taken advantage of. What does this mean?
Because of this, I have to hire staff whose sole task is to learn all of the rules of the different insurance carriers (including public ones) and then play the game properly with them so that we get as few denials as possible. I probably spend $70-80 thousand per year to deal with the frustratingly complex system we have.
————
I have health insurance. I do understand why it needs to exist, but I also see how harmful the current state can be to my patients. I get frustrated with Medicare and Medicaid as well, but that is not my point. Just because government run insurance has problems doesn’t do anything to change the problems with private insurance. The fact that you can be killed by firing squad doesn’t make the gallows any better.
The cost of care has gone up dramatically over the past 10 years while my reimbursement has dropped. Where is that extra money?
But the system is very broken right now. It needs to be fixed. Things need to be changed in both the private and public sector. When I was in DC I made the point that our ship is sinking and we are arguing about who will be the captain. The problems in our system are not simply who is writing the checks.
Honestly, I don’t really care who writes the checks. All I want is for the system to reward good care and to stop hurting my patients. Those who deny the reality of either of these problems will invariably draw my ire.
*This blog post was originally published at Musings of a Distractible Mind*
It’s no secret that doctors are disappointed with the way that the U.S. healthcare system is evolving. Most feel helpless about improving their work conditions or solving technical problems in patient care. Fortunately one young medical student was undeterred by the mountain of disappointment carried by his senior clinician mentors…
I am proud to be a part of the American Resident Project an initiative that promotes the writing of medical students residents and new physicians as they explore ideas for transforming American health care delivery. I recently had the opportunity to interview three of the writing fellows about how to…
Book Review: Is Empathy Learned By Faking It Till It’s Real?
I m often asked to do book reviews on my blog and I rarely agree to them. This is because it takes me a long time to read a book and then if I don t enjoy it I figure the author would rather me remain silent than publish my…
The Spirit Of The Place: Samuel Shem’s New Book May Depress You
When I was in medical school I read Samuel Shem s House Of God as a right of passage. At the time I found it to be a cynical yet eerily accurate portrayal of the underbelly of academic medicine. I gained comfort from its gallows humor and it made me…
Eat To Save Your Life: Another Half-True Diet Book
I am hesitant to review diet books because they are so often a tangled mess of fact and fiction. Teasing out their truth from falsehood is about as exhausting as delousing a long-haired elementary school student. However after being approached by the authors’ PR agency with the promise of a…
