Access to Treatment – Page 3 – The Moral Healthcare Blog

Money or Your Life – NYTimes.com

Critics of the Affordable Care Act argue that many Americans neither want nor need health insurance, and that it forces them to pay for coverage against their will. But just as the government collects taxes to pay police officers and firefighters, the individual mandate compels Americans to pay for a service they may not immediately want but could at any time desperately require.

Much of the debate has focused on the role of government in everyday life. I don’t discount the value of that question, but my focus is on real needs. I treat patients with $20,000 chemotherapy injections or monthly doses of IV immunotherapy that cost $10,000 a bag. If they don’t receive these drugs my patients will die, so to me, the most pressing issue here is compassion. Without change, the patients will resemble the man with leukemia, human beings without insurance terrified that their lives aren’t worth what it will cost to save them, all because of a broken but fixable system.

Crowds at conservative rallies have, astoundingly, cheered the idea that uninsured people should, if they become ill or badly hurt, be left for dead. It’s easy to imagine such a thing in the heat of a rhetorical moment. But the reality is, I hope, harder to embrace. Because reality means a real person — you, me, someone we know — condemned to a possibly preventable death because, for whatever reason, they don’t have insurance.

My patient with leukemia is dead. He got the best care money could buy, but his disease only briefly went into remission and he went home on hospice care. Should he, because he did not buy insurance, have been denied this chance for a cure?

The Affordable Care Act is not the health care solution everyone wants, but when patients wish for death panels as a response to leukemia, something needs to be done, and soon. This plan would help any patient facing a tough diagnosis not view treatment as a choice between his money or his life.

Theresa Brown is an oncology nurse and the author of “Critical Care: A New Nurse Faces Death, Life, and Everything in Between.”

I have had similar discussions with those who are not in healthcare as their profession. They cannot seem to see the distinction between cutting people off who did not buy insurance, for whatever reason, and actually carrying out this virtual death sentence. We, as medical professionals, just cannot do this. Therefore, we need to figure out how to have universal access to care and universal insurance coverage. ObamaCare is a very good start.

Commentary: Affordable Care Act a life-saver for ‘Susan.’ | www.palmbeachpost.com

DFA’s Dawn Harris Sherling, M.D, illustrates the very real consequences of life with and without health care access…

As the court debates forcing people to buy broccoli and other theoretical legal nonsense, I worry about my very real patients. Unlike the supermarket, very few of us willingly enter the health care marketplace. One day, when we least expect it, we will be flung into it by cancer, heart disease, infection or an accident. We may have led lives to encourage it. We may have done nothing except to have very bad luck. And we can only hope that, unlike Susan, when we are at our lowest the last thing we will have to worry about will be our health insurance.

The Cost of For Profit Health Care – Doctors for America

One of the most frustrating parts of being a Primary Care Physician in the U.S. is not being able to get necessary care for your patients because they cannot afford it. Last week I had to watch a 55-year-old woman with uncontrolled blood pressure and rapidly progressing kidney disease walk out of my office with only half of the medications she needed to control the blood pressure and stabilize her renal function. The medications were too expensive, she couldn’t afford adequate insurance coverage, and 22 months after being laid off from her job as a middle school teacher, was still looking for work. Later that morning I sighed helplessly as a 45-year-old diabetic patient told me he had to choose between buying his insulin and paying his rent. I knew if I were in his position, I’d be forced into the same decision.

The thing is, these patients both had health insurance. Such scenarios are unfortunately not unusual. A 2007 survey by the Commonwealth Fund found that even among Americans who were insured all year, 16 percent reported being unable to pay their medical bills, 15 percent had been called by a collection agency about medical bills, 10 percent changed their way of life to pay medical bills and 10 percent were paying off medical bills over time. Because of medical bills or accumulated medical debt, an estimated 28 million adults reported they used up all their savings, 21 million incurred large credit card debt, and another 21 million were unable to pay for basic necessities. And yet sixty-one percent of those with medical debt or bill problems were insured at the time care was provided.

Report: Breast Cancer Death Rates Decline, but More Slowly Among Poor

Report: Breast Cancer Death Rates Decline, but More Slowly Among Poor:

A new report from the American Cancer Society finds that deaths from breast cancer in the United States continue to decline steadily. However, the decline has been faster for women who live in more affluent areas. Women from poor areas now have the highest rates of death from breast cancer.

“In general, progress in reducing breast cancer death rates is being seen across races/ethnicities, socioeconomic status, and across the U.S.,” said Otis W. Brawley, M.D., chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society. “However, not all women have benefitted equally. Poor women are now at greater risk for breast cancer death because of less access to screening and better treatments. This continued disparity is impeding real progress against breast cancer, and will require renewed efforts to ensure that all women have access to high-quality prevention, detection, and treatment services.”

– Sent using Google Toolbar

Medical debts put patients at risk of financial collapse | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

Medical debts put patients at risk of financial collapse | Detroit Free Press | freep.com:

Frances Giordano found out she had lung cancer in June. After that, the bad news just kept coming.

First, she discovered that even with a good job and health insurance, her medical expenses were more than she could afford on disability.

Then she started slipping into debt, like millions of other Americans who don’t have the cash to cover their medical bills. Hospitals expect to be paid promptly and offer little leeway to insured patients. Unpaid bills go to collection agencies, damaging a person’s credit history for years.

Finally, she learned that fighting for her life was not her only battle or maybe even her toughest. When she finished her chemotherapy in December, she was fired. “Due to changes in business operations,” wrote her employer of more than six years, “we can no longer hold your position open.”

It arrived nine days before Christmas.

“I’m a good person,” the 58-year-old Giordano said. “I worked hard. Isn’t having cancer enough?”

– Sent using Google Toolbar

Parsimony & Medicine

[This is cross-posted on Doctors for America’s Progress Notes and DailyKos.]

I wasn’t planning on writing about rationing of health care again, since we covered it in my last post prompted by Don Berwick’s resignation from CMS.

But two stories came up recently that prompt me to do it again. The American College of Physicians released their revised Ethics Manual this week, and included language regarding the use of cost effectiveness as a criteria for providing care, and even urged parsimony by physicians. In an accompanying editorial, Ezekiel Emanuel, lauds the ACP for this language, noting the physician’s obligation to society as a whole, and not just to individual patients. (As we noted last time, the Charter on Medical Professionalism and the AMA Code of Ethics emphasize the physician’s duty to social justice in the distribution of finite health care resources.)

All well and good, but NPR did a story on the Manual, and out it came. Scott Gottlieb, MD, of the American Enterprise Institute noted the general acceptance of cost effectiveness data in medical decision making, but then followed up that parsimony “really implies that care should be withheld. There’s no definition of parsimonious that I know of that doesn’t imply some kind of negative connotation in terms of being stingy about how you allocate something.” (The definition I linked to above notes that parsimony can mean simply being careful with money or stingy.)

Daniel Callahan of the Hastings institute also got the vapors: “If you say certain things will not be cost-effective, they’re not worth the money, well that’s rationing, particularly if some patients might benefit or simply some might desire it whether they benefit or not, whether it benefits them or not. So that’s where this all becomes a real viper’s pit.”

As we noted previously, America rations health care ruthlessly, largely by income and inability to pay (yes, I know that’s a link to an NPR story), but also on quality of insurance, most acutely with private health insurance and Medicaid. I won’t run through all of this again, please reread the last post for the details, but I cannot help but find it exasperating that supposedly knowledgeable people, like Gottlieb and Callahan, act as if utilizing cost effectiveness strategies necessarily means “withholding care,” and, by extension, that all care, effective or not, cost-effective or not, is beneficial.

But more irksome is the implication that we don’t ration now, and that this new, threatened “rationing,” is somehow anathema to America. Which brings me to the second story that came up this past week, concerning money troubles in the British NHS and a regression in some areas to longer waiting times for certain procedures. The NHS had done quite a bit to repair their reputation and significantly shorten waiting times, but are apparently losing ground due to governmental austerity measures that (surprise!) actually effect people in real life. I noticed that conservative web site Townhall.com covered the story as an indictment of all health care, all over the world (and, of course, missing the irony that conservative austerity measures were the source of the problem). I pointed out over there with a flurry of comments that we’re not so hot on this score ourselves, but also noted that Germany and France, in particular, provide health care for all, far more frugally (parsimoniously, even) than we do, and have no waiting times, no significant rationing of services compared to us. We remain the only industrialized nation that thinks nothing of rationing health care – and I mean this more literally than usual – as many of us give no thought to those struggling and suffering and dying for health care.

A country that displays an almost ruthless commitment to efficiency and performance in every aspect of its economy–a country that switched to Japanese cars the moment they were more reliable, and to Chinese T shirts the moment they were five cents cheaper–has loyally stuck with a health-care system that leaves its citizenry pulling out their teeth with pliers.

– Malcolm Gladwell, The Moral Hazard Myth

Hawaii’s Lessons – NY times

In Hawaii’s Health System, Lessons for Lawmakers

Since 1974, Hawaii has required all employers to provide relatively generous health care benefits to any employee who works 20 hours a week or more. If health care legislation passes in Congress, the rest of the country may barely catch up.

Lawmakers working on a national health care fix have much to learn from the past 35 years in Hawaii, President Obama’s native state.

Among the most important lessons is that even small steps to change the system can have lasting effects on health. Another is that, once benefits are entrenched, taking them away becomes almost impossible. There have not been any serious efforts in Hawaii to repeal the law, although cheating by employers may be on the rise.

But perhaps the most intriguing lesson from Hawaii has to do with costs. This is a state where regular milk sells for $8 a gallon, gasoline costs $3.60 a gallon and the median price of a home in 2008 was $624,000 — the second-highest in the nation.

Despite this, Hawaii’s health insurance premiums are nearly tied with North Dakota for the lowest in the country, and Medicare costs per beneficiary are the nation’s lowest. Hawaii residents live longer than people in the rest of the country, recent surveys have shown, and the state’s health care system may be one reason. In one example, Hawaii has the nation’s highest incidence of breast cancer but the lowest death rate from the disease.

Bottom line? Employer mandate ensures near universal health care. Duh.

Excess Deaths Due to Lack of Access to Health Care

From coverage of the recent study of Woolhandler, et. al.

As medical care has improved for people with health insurance, the consequences of being uninsured have worsened, according to a new study that says the lack of coverage translates into nearly 45,000 deaths each year among working-age Americans.
Researchers from Cambridge Health Alliance report in the American Journal of Public Health on a study that followed 9,005 adults under 65 years old who took part in a national survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 1986 through 1994. After 12 years, 351 people had died. Sixty of them were uninsured and 291 were insured.
After accounting for age, education, income, and other factors, the researchers found that people without private insurance had a 40 percent higher risk of dying than people with private insurance. An earlier study by the Institute of Medicine based on 16 years of data through 1993 found that uninsured people had a 25 percent higher risk of dying than insured people, which translated into 18,000 additional deaths.

I usally quote the 18,000 number as it is from th IOM, a very respected body, but the new figures point to an increase that likely reflects what’s going on “on the ground.”

The Associated Press: Long lines as free health care offered in LA area

The Associated Press: Long lines as free health care offered in LA area:

The Los Angeles event marks the first time Remote Area Medical has provided such medical care in a major urban area. The medical group typically serves patients in rural parts of the United States and travels to underdeveloped countries.

The piercing sound of teeth being drilled and scraped echoed up to the rafters where the Los Angeles Lakers once played to the roar of capacity crowds. Mobile health trucks provided other medical examinations, and tables full of donated eyeglasses were available to those who had eye examinations done.

Since 2000, The Forum has been owned by Faithful Central Bible Church, which donated the use of the facility for a week. The medical professionals volunteered their time and covered their own liability. Cash and services were donated by local hospitals, health systems and charitable groups.

Tennessee-based RAM’s founder Stan Brock said he helps organize 30 to 40 such health care events a year, with a total of 567 events held to date, adding: ‘We just wish we could do more.’

‘This need has existed in this country for decades and decades,’ said Brock. ‘The people coming here are here because they are in pain.’
The event came at a time when the national debate over President Barack Obama’s health reform plan has boiled over at town hall meetings, with opponents sometimes shouting down Democratic members of Congress who favor the program.
Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., told a cheering crowd of volunteers and medical professionals at The Forum that she would continue to advocate for health care reform because ‘we can do a better job of providing health care to those who desperately need it.

Let’s see, 567 events times maybe 500 people each, how many anecdotes is that?

Health Care in Germany

Health Care in Germany:

This is from a British source, The Institute for the Study of Civil Society

First, Germans are free to visit any doctor they like. They may either walk in off the street, or ring for an appointment that will invariably be booked for the same morning or afternoon. Consumers can and do penalise bad service. Our recent study of German consumers commonly produced reactions like this: ‘I saw a long queue, so hopped on the tube and went to a different practice’; ‘she was rather ill-tempered so I never went back’; ‘the facilities were drab, so I went to a different one next to my office’; ‘I felt rushed at his practice so didn’t go back’.

Second, Germans do not have to see a GP before visiting a private specialist. GPs do act as gatekeepers to German hospitals, but about half of all specialists practice outside the hospitals. German hospitals provide few out-patient services. Instead, there are a large number of independent clinics, invariably with the most sophisticated diagnostic equipment. Most Germans have a favourite GP, although many maintain a relationship with more than one – just in case – but if they need to see a specialist they would not waste time seeing a GP first.

Third, there are plenty of specialists. Germany has 2.3 practising specialists for every 1,000 people, compared with only 1.5 in the UK.

What problems are there in Germany? The German media is not excited by the subject. There are no patients lying on trolleys in A&E. Germany suffers no real rationing. Yes, problems occur from time to time. Just at the moment, there is a shortage of nurses, and many Germans feel that care is expensive, but serious complaints are few. Nevertheless, reform is in the air. Since January 2004 members of the statutory insurance plan have had to pay 10 euros per quarter to see a GP.

The reforms also saw the introduction of charges for non-prescription drugs, and an end to free treatments such as health farm visits and to free taxi rides to hospital. This is expected to allow for a reduction in premiums from an average of 14 to 13 per cent of annual gross wages.

German satisfaction rates in 1996, the latest Eurobarometer survey, showed that the German are far more satisfied with their system than we are with the NHS. About 11 per cent of Germans said they were ‘very or fairly dissatisfied’, compared with 41% per cent here. And when asked whether their system needed ‘fundamental
changes’ or a ‘complete rebuild’ 19 per cent of Germans said ‘yes’, compared with 56 per cent of Britons.

Does the German healthcare system deliver an acceptable standard of care for serious illness to all members of society? Do the poorest in society benefit from a higher standard of healthcare provision than those in the UK? The answer to both of these questions is an emphatic, ‘yes’.