Posted 10/13/15 on The Doctor Weighs In
A few weeks ago, the clinically positive results from the CLEOPATRA oncology trial were released, showing that pertuzumab, when added to docetaxel and trastuzumab as first line chemotherapy, produces an average survival benefit of 15.7 months in HER2 positive breast cancer patients.
That good news notwithstanding, the authors calculated that Genentech’s price for adding pertuzumab to gain one Quality Adjusted Life Year is a breathtaking $713,219. In dry academic language, the authors dropped a bombshell conclusion. “The addition of pertuzumab to a standard regimen … for treatment of metastatic HER2-overexpressing breast cancer is unlikely to provide reasonable value for money spent in the United States compared with other interventions generally deemed cost effective. This analysis highlights the economic challenges of extending life for patients with non-curable disease.”
Drugs only consume about a quarter of cancer costs. The other three-quarters are distributed between physicians, outpatient facilities and hospitals, delivering such lucrative returns that hospitals are rushing to get in on the action. As many as one in four US hospitals are building new cancer centers now. Hospitals’ acquisitions of oncology practices have accelerated, in part because they can charge almost twice as much as physician practices for chemotherapies and other cancer drugs. Continue reading “Is Oncology Ground Zero For Reform?”
Posted 11/12/12 on Medscape Connect’s Care & Cost Blog
The most striking aspect of the election was that it decisively clarified the philosophical preferences of most Americans. And because the outcome was largely determined by minorities, women, and the young, it appeared to be a much broader and more independently-minded vision than most pundits have given the electorate credit for. That unexpectedly portends big changes.
Peggy Noonan’s analysis in the Wall Street Journal quotes a brutal summation by conservative activist Heather Higgins:
A majority of the American people believe that the one good point about Republicans is they won’t raise taxes. However they also believe Republicans caused the economic mess in the first place and might do it again, cannot be trusted to care about cutting spending in a way that is remotely concerned about who it hurts, and are retrograde to the point of caricature on everything else.
Continue reading “Arriving at the Beginning”
Posted 3/22/12 on Common Sense Family Doctor
Can’t get a Supreme Court-side seat for next week’s six hours of oral arguments on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act? Want to understand how the United States reached the point where the fate of a mostly yet-to-be-implemented 2010 federal law that extends health insurance coverage to nearly all of its citizens may rest on the Justices’ interpretations of the Constitution’s Commerce and Taxing and Spending clauses? You would do better to spend those six hours reading two essential books that shed a great deal of light on the legislative history and contemporary health policy issues that have shaped the current debate: Paul Starr’s Remedy and Reaction and Douglas Kamerow’sDissecting American Health Care.
Continue reading “Essential Readings on Health Reform”
Posted 3/12/12 on The Doctor Weighs In
Recently, The Doctors Company (TDC), the country’s largest insurer of physician and surgeon medical liability, decided to survey doctors to determine what they are thinking and feeling about health reform. The results are pretty gloomy.
To put this in context, it is important to understand a bit about how TDC conducted the survey. First of all, the universe of doctors they reached out to were doctors insured by The Doctors Company. That means large self-insured medical groups, such as those affiliated with Kaiser Permanente, were not included. Nor were doctors whose insurance was provided by their employers or doctors using other insurance carriers. This matters because if the TDC insured physicians are not representative of doctors as a whole, the results of this survey would not necessarily reflect the attitudes of all doctors.
Continue reading “Surveyed Physicians Are Gloomy About Health Care Reform”
Posted 1/19/12 on Forbes
Great post by Rick Ungar over on The Policy Page. Still, I’m left wondering. It’s an election year and given the stakes, I think we’ll look back on 2012 as the year of the great Healthcare Reform debate – Part 2. What we have today is really just the beginning of a long and winding investment in Healthcare Reform – Part 1. I think the question remains – have we tamed the cost beast with real legislation – or is it just legislation around the edges? Here’s why I’m wondering.
National Healthcare Expenditure – or NHE. Total agreement with Rick that costs are “out-of-control” because our NHE is really $3 trillion – this year. Actually, NHE for 2012 is probably closer to $2.7 trillion but there’s this nagging bookkeeping accrual of about $300 billion where we (narrowly) avoided those darn pesky SGR cuts to Medicare. It’s come to be known affectionately as “doc fix” – and we’ve kicked that can down the road for 9 consecutive years. Maybe we’ll just write it off – and maybe we should – but it’s actually on the books so we can’t just ignore it – can we? That puts the real NHE at about $3 trillion for 2012 (+ about 4% for each year forward – as far as the eye can see). As one economist said – we don’t have a debt problem in this country – we have a healthcare problem.
Continue reading “US Health Care Hits $3 Trillion”
Posted 1/14/12 on Not Running A Hospital
14 Jan 2012 05:30 AM PST
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has submitted an amicus brief in the pending Supreme Court case about the national health reform legislation. The brief focused on the “individual mandate” portion of the law. I think it is really well done and I copy the argument summary here:
Having enacted six years ago a prototype of the comprehensive healthcare reform package that Congress would later adopt in 2010, Massachusetts is in a unique position to assess the rationality of the assumptions that underlay both enactments. Specifically, the Court has held that the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Congress properly exercised that power in adopting a provision in the ACA that requires all non-exempt persons to purchase at least a minimum level of health insurance coverage. Through its legislative findings, Congress rationally concluded that those who fail to purchase health insurance despite their ability to pay for it (“free riders”) not only drain finite State and federal free-care resources, but also negatively impact the availability of privately-issued health insurance policies and the prices at which such policies are sold. Congress further concluded that curtailing the practice of “free riding” would make private health insurance coverage easier for individuals both to procure and to afford.
Continue reading “Making the Constitutional Argument”
Posted 11/26/11 on Gooz News
Writing in next week’s New England Journal of Medicine, Harvard professor David Blumenthal, former head of Medicare’s health information technology division, forecasts the following scenario should the Republicans win the White House and both houses of Congress next year and repeal most of the Affordable Care Act:
By 2020, 20% of Americans may be uninsured, even as 20% of our gross domestic product is devoted to health care.
Continue reading “Scary Predictions”