Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)

Slightly skeptical view on programmers
and system administrators health issues

News Skepticism and PseudoScience Recommended books Recommended Links Medical Industrial Complex The Audacity of Greed Overuse of Cardiac Stents Linked to Patient Deaths
Health insurance Obamacare vs. Trumpcare Mouse elbow Preventing computer-related RSI Insurance fraud Short Introduction to Lysenkoism Conformism pressures in large organizations
Ambulances overcharges Medical Overbilling Hospital overcharges Medicare Controlling your Weight Notes on Diabetes Type II Flat feet
Coronary Artery Disease Hypertension Paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT) Ultrasonic humidifiers Fighting nasal congestion Basics of Preventing RSI for programmers and sysadmins Vision
Chronic stress Coping with the toxic stress in IT environment  Overload The psychopath in the corner office Office Stockholm Syndrom Learned helplessness  
Haggling with doctors and health insurers Techno-fundamentalism

First, do no harm

Personal health insurance plans   Dumbing down america  
Cargo Cult Science Scientific Fraud Pseudoscience and Scientific Press Toxic managers Quotes Humor Etc

Programmers and system administrators are mass profession. There were approximately 435K programmers in the USA in 2006. I think number of system administrators are roughly the same so we can speak about the labor army of one million people.

Contrary to superficial impression of individual cubicles and nice environment, IT is actually very unhealthy profession. With a high chance to be unemployed after 50.  More often then not, there are periods of considerable stress. Some are caused by catastrophic failures of hardware equipment, some by unrealistic schedules and workloads, some by own errors of particular programmer or sysadmin.

Overtime is common. Job security is deteriorating as outsourcing is rampant.  Employment after 50 is not guaranteed. Environment changes way too fast, and not always for good. Fashion rules (remember The Devil Wears Prada). Toxic managers are common (remember Office Space ;-)

So sooner of later a programmer need to face "medical-industrial complex" of the USA. And this is a dangerous "for profit" beast with tremendous appetite which maims and kills annually considerable amount of people. Living under Neoliberalism with its "greed is good" mentality and "homo homini lupus est" slogan is indeed dangerous  and requires knowledge of elementary "self-defense". Hippocratic oath no longer applies to medical profession in the USA. Most doctors still follow it, but there real sharks among them (with some ending their careers in jail like regular criminals) and you need to hope for the best but  prepare for the worst.  Especially rampant abuse is with cardiac stents (Overuse of Cardiac Stents Linked to Patient Deaths) with around a dozen of cardiologists serving jail terms (see for example Stent doctor Salisbury stent doctor sentenced to federal prison )

As USA Today reported (Doctors perform thousands of unnecessary surgeries):

Since 2005, more than 1,000 doctors have made payments to settle or close malpractice claims in surgical cases that involved allegations of unnecessary or inappropriate procedures, according to a USA TODAY analysis of the U.S. government's National Practitioner Data Bank public use file, which tracks the suits. About half the doctors' payments involved allegations of serious permanent injury or death, and many of the cases involved multiple plaintiffs, suggesting many hundreds, if not thousands, of victims.

Journal of the American Medical Association reviewed records for 112,000 patients who had an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), a pacemaker-like device that corrects heartbeat irregularities. In 22.5% of the cases, researchers found no medical evidence to support installing the devices.

"Don't just take a doctor's word," says Patty Skolnik, who founded Citizens for Patient Safety after her son, Michael, died at 22 from complications in what she says was unnecessary brain surgery. "Research your doctor, research the procedure, ask questions, including the most important one: 'What will happen if I don't get this done?'"

A 1982 study in the journal Medical Care found that a mandatory second opinion program for Massachusetts Medicaid patients led to a 20% drop in certain surgeries, such as hysterectomies, that were considered more likely to be done unnecessarily. A 1997 study in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons looked at 5,601 patients recommended for surgery and found that second opinions found no need for the operation in 9% of the cases. Among those who got the countervailing second opinion, 62% opted not to have the operation.

But many patients simply aren't inclined to question their doctors.

"We expect the physician to know what's best for a patient," says William Root, chief compliance officer at Louisiana's Department of Health and Hospitals. "

We put so much faith and confidence in our physicians, (and) most of them deserve it. But when one of them is wrong or goes astray, it can do a lot of damage."

Chronic stress, overload, long hours, unhealthy diet  and other environmental factors  deeply and negatively affects the lifestyle of programmers and system administrators.  So there is nothing surprising that despite pretty comfortable work conditions many programmers/system administrators suffer from assortments on various diseases. Like other workers who spend long periods in front of a computer terminal typing at a keyboard, programmers are susceptible to:

Additional health problems are typical for those who experience constant stress and/or are typical "diseases of civilization". Among them

Also many programmers/sysadmins works as contractors and either do not have health insurance or have very basic health insurance. This is typical for young programmers and those who are over 50 and were let go on their previous jobs die to outsourcing

Low and middle income US citizens  spends far more on health care than any other country but gets only mediocre care in return for its investment. The U.S. national average score on 37 separate measures of health care falls far short when compared either to a few centers of excellence within the country, or to other countries, the report from the Commonwealth Fund found. And that's true not only in terms of mortality statistics but also in terms of quality of life.

The main problems with US healthcare are:

Programmers and system administrators can do much better is maintaining their health. And they are naturally equipped for dealing with complex system and thus able to navigate the maze of the USA "medical industrial complex"

A lot of outcomes depends on the level of individual knowledge. Knowledge is power both for avoiding unnecessary procedures (with some causing irreversible damage) , unnecessary overprescribed drugs, and when negotiating with health care providers.

Some facts:


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[May 26, 2018] The 5 Steps Needed To Drop 5 Pounds This Week

May 26, 2018 | www.forbes.com

Nothing beats hard work and perseverance when you're trying to lose weight and keep it off, but there are also a few sustainable ways that you can use to drop those first few pounds and keep them off. These 5 steps will have you 5 pounds slimmer by next week.

1. Work out first thing in the morning. What do 90% of people who exercise consistently have in common? They exercise in the morning. Working out in the morning more or less guarantees that you'll work out every day, and the benefits carry over throughout your day. For one, exercise in the morning increases your energy levels, which makes you more productive throughout the day and more focused on your work. Also, getting in an early morning workout helps you burn more calories throughout the day. Working out helps to increase your metabolic rate, burning calories for long after you've stopped exercising.

A study done at Appalachian State University found that people who had completed a 45-minute exercise routine burned 17% more calories in the 14 hours following exercise than those that didn't work out. Also, when you exercise, you tend to be more mindful of your food choices throughout the day. You want to carry your new good habits over into the rest of the day, and remember that exercising is NOT a free pass to eat what you like throughout the day. If you're looking to reduce, you need to watch your food as well. And speaking of food...

2. Get Bitter about Food. Bitter greens like kale, arugula, mustard greens, collards and escarole are summer diet staples that aid in digestion and de-bloating. Bitter foods are also known to stimulate and support better digestion, as recently outlined in a study by the European Herbal and traditional Medicine Practitioners Association. These dark greens are low calorie (about 36 calories in a cup for greens), and are packed with vitamins and fiber that your body needs to stay lean. For instance, kale is high in iron (per calorie, it has more than beef!), vitamins A, C and K, is great for your liver and for lowering your cholesterol levels. Most bitter greens are also great anti-inflammatories, which can help fight bloating and get you down to your fighting weight.

3. Spice Up, Salt Down. High-salt diets lead to water retention. Cut the salt, and you cut the bloat. But it takes more than just leaving the salt shaker on the table. A study reported on by the American Heart Association found that 75% of American's salt intake comes from the food itself! While you need a little salt in your diet, for most people, everything they need will already come from the food that they eat, and most people will get too much. Cut out processed foods as much as possible and you will drastically reduce your excess sodium. Food items like salad dressings and sauces are some of the worst culprits. For example, per tablespoon, ketchup has 20 calories and a whopping 6% of your daily salt intake. A few squirts of ketchup and you're already at 20% of your daily value, and that's not even including what the ketchup is on! Instead of "secret sauces" that will cause bloating and completely mask the flavor of what you're eating, try spices, especially hot ones. Conversely, spices enhance the flavor of what you're heating, and hot spices that contain capsaicin increase thermogenesis in your body. The latter can help burn more calories after your meal. Sprinkle some cayenne pepper, bell pepper or jalapeno into two of your daily meals and increase your metabolism.

4. Eat the Whole Thing. Whole foods, that is! You want to give your body the cleanest fuel possible so it can run at maximum efficiency. When you want to shed all you can, you want to avoid anything processed (for salt-related reasons above.) Raw vegetables, fruits, whole grains and proteins like cold water fish, beans, and eggs should be your staple diet if you're working on trimming down. You'll also want to limit your fat intake to "healthy fats" only. This includes fats from olive oil, nuts and avocados. These "good", monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats can actually be beneficial to your heart and help lower bad cholesterol (LDL) levels. In fact, research done at Harvard found that while bad fats like saturated and trans fats increased risk factors for certain diseases, total amount of "good" fats did not. In fact, eating "good" fat can help you burn fat. In another Harvard study, researchers found that participants who ate 20% of their calories from "good" fats dropped 5 pounds more after 18 months than the participants who went on low fat diets.

5. Deep breaths. It may sound trite, but breathing deeply not only helps you calm down, but it can help your weight loss efforts as well. Deep, calming breaths can actually "trick" your body into de-stressing. While most people take breaths with their chest, you should be taking long, deep breaths with your abdomen. Taking a moment to focus and breathe deep into your abdomen can do wonders for your stress level.

So what does stress have to do with weight loss? Stress increases your levels of cortisol, a hormone in your body that can increase your appetite and lead you to eat more. This response used to make sense in "fight or flight" situations, where we need that energy to defend ourselves. Now, a more common situation is to come home after a long day at work and chow down. Elevated cortisol levels also lower your cognitive functions such as learning and memory, decrease your immune function and bone density, and increase your blood pressure, cholesterol and risk of heart disease. Need a reminder to breathe? Set an alarm for every hour on your mobile phone, and take a few long, deep breaths every time it pings. It'll help your weight and your sanity.

[Mar 27, 2018] Ultra-Processed Foods May Be Linked To Cancer, Says Study

Mar 27, 2018 | science.slashdot.org

(theguardian.com) BeauHD on Wednesday February 14, 2018 @11:30PM from the not-what-you-want-to-hear dept. An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Ultra-processed" foods, made in factories with ingredients unknown to the domestic kitchen, may be linked to cancer , according to a large and groundbreaking study. Ultra-processed foods include pot noodles, shelf-stable ready meals, cakes and confectionery which contain long lists of additives, preservatives, flavorings and colorings -- as well as often high levels of sugar, fat and salt. They now account for half of all the food bought by families eating at home in the UK, as the Guardian recently revealed . A team, led by researchers based at the Sorbonne in Paris, looked at the medical records and eating habits of nearly 105,000 adults who are part of the French NutriNet-Sante cohort study, registering their usual intake of 3,300 different food items. They found that a 10% increase in the amount of ultra-processed foods in the diet was linked to a 12% increase in cancers of some kind. The researchers also looked to see whether there were increases in specific types of cancer and found a rise of 11% in breast cancer, although no significant upturn in colorectal or prostate cancer. "If confirmed in other populations and settings, these results suggest that the rapidly increasing consumption of ultra-processed foods may drive an increasing burden of cancer in the next decades," says the paper in the British Medical Journal .

[Mar 23, 2018] Bye-Bye Body Mass Index 3 Obesity Tests Better Than the BMI

Mar 23, 2018 | www.newsmax.com

If you're still using the BMI -- body mass index -- to determine if you're dangerously overweight, you might as well be listening to music on an 8-track tape player or watching movies on an old VHS recorder.

That's because the latest research shows that once-vaunted BMI is as outmoded as those old audio-video technologies and that other methods are far better at obesity-related risks for heart attack or other health problems.

A new study, published last month in the Journal of the American Heart Association, found that one newer type of obesity measurement -- called a waist-to-hip ratio test -- is a far better way to calculate excessive body fat than the BMI.

To reach their conclusions, British researchers tracked 265,988 women and 213,622 men and found individuals -- particularly women -- with a bigger waist-to-hip ratio face greater risks of experiencing a heart attack than those who don't.

Lead researcher Sanne Peters, of the George Institute for Global Health and the University of Oxford in the U.K., explained that waist-to-hip ratio tests are a better measure of how and where fat tissue is distributed in the body than BMI.

"Waist‐to‐hip ratio was more strongly associated with the risk of [heart attack] than body mass index in both sexes, especially in women," reported Peters and his colleagues.

The British study is only the latest research to question the value of BMI tests. University of California-Santa Barbara scientists also recently found that an elevated BMI isn't the best way to determine if you're overweight, obese, or unhealthy.

UCSB psychologist Jeffrey Hunger and colleagues said their work shows that you can be fit and still be considered overweight by BMI guidelines.

In fact, the UCSB research, published in the International Journal of Obesity, indicates nearly 35 million Americans labeled overweight or obese based on their BMI are, in fact, "perfectly healthy" -- as are 19.8 million others considered obese.

"In the overweight BMI category, 47 percent are perfectly healthy," said Hunger, a doctoral student in UCSB's Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, arguing that BMI is a deeply flawed measure of health and should be abandoned.

"So to be using BMI as a health proxy -- particularly for everyone within that category -- is simply incorrect," he said. "Our study should be the final nail in the coffin for BMI."

The BMI -- calculated by dividing a person's weight in kilograms by the square of the person's height in meters -- was developed by Adolphe Quetelet, an 18th century Belgian mathematician. But the tool was originally designed to measure and compare societies, not individuals.

A growing number of researchers, including Hunger, have suggested measuring weight and height only isn't a good way to gauge obesity or a person's overall health.

For one thing, the index doesn't accurately measure body fat content or distribution on the body, or the proportion of muscle to fat -- all critical factors in determining obesity-related health risks. Nor does the BMI take into account gender and racial differences in body composition.

The BMI treats body weight the same, no matter what it's comprised of -- fat, muscle, bone, or other tissues. As a result, many people who are very muscular can be falsely labeled overweight or obese by the BMI, while those who fall within BMI's weight parameters may have high levels of body fat content.

Declaring a person obese based only on BMI, "is old-fashioned and not terribly useful," said Dr. Scott Kahan, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness in Washington, D.C. He sees patients who are deemed overweight by the BMI, but are healthy and well.

"They're heavy," he noted. "BMI puts them in the obesity range. And yet on every level
their health is actually good. Cholesterol and blood pressure are excellent. Blood sugar is excellent. They don't seem to have any health effects associated with excess weight."

So what alternatives can be used in place of BMI to more accurately measure health and obesity? Here's are a few tests experts recommend that provide a broader picture of a person's health than BMI:

Waist-to-hip ratio. This test calculates how much excess weight you are carrying, which can indicate your susceptibility to high blood pressure, heart disease, and diabetes. To calculate your waist-to-hip ratio, use a tape measure to measure the size of your waist line and the widest part of your hips. Then divide the circumference of your waist by your hip measurement. Men with a waist–to-hip ratio above 0.90 and women over 0.85 are considered obese, according to the World Health Organization.

Waist measurements. Simply taking a tape measure to check your waist size can also provide a clue to whether you need to lose weight. Generally, a waist size over 35 inches in women and 40 inches in men indicates that weight loss is warranted, with the exception of only the most muscular individuals.

Body-fat content tests. Instruments such as DEXA (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) scanners -- becoming more widely available at health clubs and clinics -- provide a highly accurate measurement of body fat and lean mass distribution. They can also reveal important information about bone health.

In addition to these tests, health experts say measurements of other vital signs and health numbers are more reliable ways to gauge your overall health than the BMI. Among them:

UCSB Hunger argued that the idea of using a single measurement, such as the BMI, as a gauge overall health is outmoded and should be abandoned.

"We need to move away from trying to find a single metric on which to penalize or incentivize people and instead focus on finding effective ways to improve behaviors known to have positive outcomes over time," he said.

[Mar 21, 2018] Bill Of The Month For Toenail Fungus, A $1,500 Prescription naked capitalism

Neoliberalism in all glory...
Notable quotes:
"... By Shefali Luthra, who covers consumer issues in health care. Her work has appeared in news outlets such as The Washington Post, CNN Health and NPR.org. Originally published at Kaiser Health News ..."
"... Anne Soloviev's prescription for Kerydin, at $1,496.09 per monthly refill, wiped out her entire health reimbursement account for the year. (Courtesy of Anne Soloviev) ..."
Mar 21, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Note that this is Kaiser Health News monthly feature provided jointly with NPR to analyze medical bills. If you have a bill you'd like to see if they will puzzle out, can submit yours here . Be sure to give the background.

By Shefali Luthra, who covers consumer issues in health care. Her work has appeared in news outlets such as The Washington Post, CNN Health and NPR.org. Originally published at Kaiser Health News

During Anne Soloviev's semiannual visit to Braun Dermatology & Skin Cancer Center in Washington, D.C., in January, the physician assistant diagnosed fungus in two of her toenails. Soloviev is vigilant about getting skin checks, since she is at heightened risk for skin cancer, but she hadn't complained about her toenails or even noticed a problem.

The assistant noted some unusual discoloration where the nail meets the skin. "They took a toenail clipping and said, yeah, you have a fungus," Soloviev recalled.

So the PA called a prescription into a specialty pharmacy with mail-order services, which would send medication to Soloviev's Capitol Hill home.

It seemed like an easy fix to an inconsequential health issue. "I did not ask how much it cost -- it never crossed my mind, ever," said Soloviev, a former French teacher, who still works part time.

Then the bill came.

Patient: Anne Soloviev, 77 on March 18, of Washington, D.C.

The Bill: $1,496.09 for Kerydin, a topical medication that treats toenail fungus. Originally produced by Anacor Pharmaceuticals Inc., it is now a product of Sandoz, a Novartis division.

When Anne Soloviev, a retiree who lives in Washington, D.C., received a prescription to treat toenail fungus, she never thought to ask how much it cost. As it turned out, she was prescribed a topical medication costing almost $1,500.

Service Provider: My Express Care Pharmacy, plus Braun Dermatology & Skin Cancer Center

The Medical Treatment : Shortly after the physician assistant phoned in the prescription to My Express Care Pharmacy, in Maryland, the pharmacy contacted Soloviev for her health insurance information.

Soloviev is covered by Medicare, Parts A and B, and has supplemental insurance through her late husband's government health benefits that covers prescription drugs. She also has a health reimbursement account (HRA), which contains almost $1,500 pretax dollars each year to pay for uncovered medical expenses. She typically uses that pot of money to cover copays for the other medicines she takes regularly.

Kerydin, the toenail medication, arrived by overnight mail, and an automatic refill came a few weeks later. She began swabbing it on the two toenails, as directed, having been told it would take about 11 months to treat the fungus.

She thought little of it.

But when Soloviev went to her local CVS to pick up another medication -- a statin that is usually paid for by her HRA -- she discovered her reserve was empty.

Unbeknownst to her, Kerydin, which it turned out costs nearly $1,500 per monthly refill, had wiped out her entire reimbursement account.

Anne Soloviev's prescription for Kerydin, at $1,496.09 per monthly refill, wiped out her entire health reimbursement account for the year. (Courtesy of Anne Soloviev)

What Gives: We're talking about mild toenail fungus. The price tag is difficult to rationalize, experts said.

"Reality check -- this is $1,500 for a medicine to treat [it]," said Wendy Epstein, an associate law professor at DePaul University, who researches health care law. "That's quite a chunk of change."

Leslie Pott, Sandoz's vice president of communications, explained that Kerydin is patent-protected and priced "at parity" with its one market competitor, Jublia. She also pointed out that to secure a place on an insurer's list of approved drugs -- its formulary -- the drugmaker often had to offer substantial discounts to insurers and various middlemen. "We have no visibility into the extent to which these discounts are passed onto patients or payers," she wrote in an email.

There are many prescription treatment options for toenail fungus -- both older medicines in pill form and newer topical treatments such as Kerydin, said Dr. Shari Lipner, an assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medicine and director of its nail unit. The patient in this case would have been a candidate for "quite a few" of them.

Patients are likely to pay less for the pills, for which a course of treatment lasts three months, compared with the newer topical treatments, she said, adding that the pills also seem to have greater efficacy.

In its application for Food and Drug Administration approval granted in 2014, Anacor Pharmaceuticals highlighted that a yearlong treatment of Kerydin completely cured toe fungus in 6.5 percent of patients for one trial, and 9.1 percent of patients in another.

Over-the-counter treatments are also available, but there's not much data on them, Lipner said.

Xavier Davis, Braun Dermatology & Skin Cancer Center's practice manager, said a drug's price tag simply isn't a factor when prescribers recommend a course of treatment.

"When our providers are treating patients, we're not treating them based on what the cost's going to be. We look for what's the best care for the patient," Davis said. "If the patient calls and says that's too expensive, then we'll look for alternatives."

Kavita Patel, a nonresident fellow at the Brookings Institution and a practicing physician, said this process contributes to the problem. "My sister's a dermatologist, and she'll do the same thing -- she'll prescribe and she doesn't know. You're getting at many layers of how [messed] up the system is, starting with the doctor doesn't know."

And patients often don't see the actual price. Or they see it too late, when they're at the pharmacy counter picking up medicines they have been told they need or in a roundabout way discover unexpected payouts.

In January, Soloviev's insurance plan was billed the full price of Kerydin. Of that, $1,439.57 came from her HRA. The difference, $56.52, was covered by a patient-assistance program from the drug manufacturer, explained Jonathan Lee, a pharmacist for My Express Care.

In February, when Soloviev's prescription was refilled, her plan was again billed the full drug price. But she didn't know about that either. A manufacturer coupon was applied to cover what remained of her insurer's $2,000 annual deductible and the $60 copay. Her insurance then kicked in to pay the difference.

Such patient-assistance programs and coupons are meant to insulate patients from cost sharing, so that they don't feel a pinch from a drug's price. But in this case, the drugmaker's patient-assistance program apparently took effect only once Soloviev's HRA has been wiped out, allowing the manufacturer to maximize revenue from both patient and insurer.

DePaul University's Epstein said it took her "15 minutes to figure out what was going on" here. And, unlike the average patient, she studies this issue for a living.

Lee, the pharmacist, said even he didn't realize that money could be withdrawn directly from a patient's HRA without her knowledge, and he's been in the business for the better part of a decade.

None of that is consolation for Soloviev, who said: "I just find it is outrageous for a fungal medicine to cost $1,400, to be prescribed for 11 months, and for neither the PA nor the pharmacy to warn you," Soloviev said.

Resolution: Though she has told My Express Care not to renew the prescription, Soloviev's HRA is depleted. For the rest of the year, she'll have to pay out-of-pocket costs for any other medications, an expense she hadn't planned on.

The Takeaway: For even the most informed of patients, getting a new prescription can mean walking through a financial minefield. And Soloviev hit a number of booby traps.

Bottom line, experts say, medical professionals should make the patient aware if they prescribe a high-priced medicine and explain why it's beneficial.

Patients should play defense and ask their physicians about the cost of every new prescription. They should ask again at the pharmacy -- even if that means calling a mail-order pharmacy. Because costs can vary depending on each patient's coverage, they may need to contact their insurance carrier or the PBM that handles their medicine claims.

And if the cost is extremely high, they should ask their doctor about generic or over-the-counter alternatives.

"This is an important component of the decision a patient's going to make," Epstein said. "If it's toenail fungus and not life-or-death, it strikes me an individual might want to have relevant data."

[Mar 21, 2018] Big pharma racket: Bottom line, it's doctors and patients fault for not defending themselves against the ludicrously corrupt health insurance industry

Notable quotes:
"... instruction manual ..."
"... Bottom line, experts say, medical professionals should make the patient aware if they prescribe a high-priced medicine and explain why it's beneficial. Patients should play defense and ask their physicians about the cost of every new prescription. ..."
"... " experts say " ..."
"... medicine is less expensive if you pay the cash price and we don't run it through your health plan ..."
Mar 21, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Enquiring Mind , March 20, 2018 at 9:17 am

Shame is a 20th century concept ill-suited to this modern post-tobacco settlement world. Where some saw a consumer victory after decades of warnings on packs by getting big tobacco to acknowledge risks, others saw methodology victory for the neo-liberal machine, and an instruction manual .

Like the Big C, cancer, that machine keeps rolling along. Now it is mainstream, to be emulated instead of castigated. At least that is what appears to have happened among those shame-free star pupils of Big Pharma and their fellow travelers in FIRE, aided and abetted on the Big Screen where deviancy got defined down so far it got erased. Political and economic trends ebb and flow, with some elements of populism appearing on the horizon. Greater awareness of the plight of one's fellow humans may help focus the mind.

RabidGandhi , March 20, 2018 at 6:16 am

Bottom line, experts say, medical professionals should make the patient aware if they prescribe a high-priced medicine and explain why it's beneficial. Patients should play defense and ask their physicians about the cost of every new prescription.

Bottom line, it's doctors and patients fault for not defending themselves against the ludicrously corrupt health insurance industry. Bottom line, medical professionals and patients have to spend their time and effort (increasingly dwindling, because markets) to try to avoid being charged a month's pay for a tube of ointment. Because, bottom line, changing the system is not an option, so keep banging your head against that wall!

notabanker , March 20, 2018 at 6:36 am

Yeah, try getting a straight answer on what this stuff will cost BEFORE you take possession, er , are treated. "$200" has turned into $1000 bills from a third party device company that magically turns to $0 after 3 months of emails and phone calls. I've walked out of hospitals after getting full disclosure of costs minutes before a procedure that was scheduled weeks in advance.

The neolib corruption numbness has to seep through the cartilage into the bones to call these practices anything but criminal.

oh , March 20, 2018 at 2:30 pm

There is really no excuse for the crooks in the medical (health care? nah!) industrial complex not to provide costs of any procedure or service ahead of time. I admire you for walking out minutes before the procedure and more people should do the same. I would do the same and have.

Amfortas the Hippie , March 20, 2018 at 4:15 pm

If there's no "Price Discovery", is it really a "Marketplace"?

towards the end of my six and a half year slog through the disability process(sic), I learned about Cuba. I got a price for a new hip pretty easily from them (around 10 grand, including a "bungalo on the beach with a private nurse for recovery")

so I called the nearest hospital, and asked what a new hip would cost me, cash money, walking in the door.

The person obviously didn't understand the question, and after some time of me waving my arms and trying to word the question in a form she would understand she said" oh insurance takes care of that and it depends on many factors"

"such as?" sez I

Her:" like what kind of replacement they use which is up to the surgeon and many things"

This went on and on, and I finally got her not nailed down at around 300 grand.

Then I asked her what medicare would pay for the same thing and she hung up on me. It ain't a "Market", it's a Racket.

(and, about the toenail fungus my grandmother would tell her to just pee on it .)

Bukko Boomeranger , March 20, 2018 at 7:06 am

By the "logic" of the guest post, bottom line is it's that baby's fault for not being strong enough to defend itself against the big kid who took its candy. It's the woman's fault for dressing that way before she was raped.

The victims should be blamed because they didn't play defence well enough against the criminals who write the rules of the system. I presume your comment is to flesh out the BS justification from the article, Gandhi, not to endorse it. Excuses like the one capping the guest post, instead of rabid outrage, are part of what allows the crimes to continue. I can see why so many Merkins want to burn the (family blog)er down, even though they wind up voting for Trump as a means of expressing that feeling.

HistoricalPerspective , March 20, 2018 at 11:32 am

" experts say "

Seriously, who are these 'experts'!?!? Between the 'experts' , who blame the victims, kick cans down the road and pass the bucks to the lay-people (no one is an expert in everything, i.e. everyone is ignorant about something at some point in their lives) they're suppose to be advising whenever 'expertise' is required, and the 'journalists' who give them a venue to spew their apocryphal twaddle in an attempt to portray themselves as 'experts' when their true intentions are to gaslight, obfuscate and divide common sense and decency. Throw in the politicians, crony capitalists and all the other puppet masters and you have the perfect storm so many Americans, like myself, finds themselves drowning in. Once upon a time expertise inferred wisdom. Those days are history.

jackiebass , March 20, 2018 at 6:31 am

I don't know if it works but I've been told that petroleum jelly will cure toenail fungus. it seems salves or topical medicines are usually expensive. I use a salve that I apply to the rash from my. Eczema. I have used it for years and the price is constantly increasing. When I started using it the cost was $50 per tube. The last tube I got cost $480. I was prescribed an inhaler for Bronchitis. It cost almost $500 and didn't seem to do much to relieve the symptoms. Fortunately my insurance payed for the medicine. It still makes me mad when I think about what was charged for these prescriptions.

divadab , March 20, 2018 at 8:00 am

There are much cheaper alternatives to inhalers for asthma or bronchitis. Buy a "Nebulizer" (we just bought a portable one for $50), which is a vaporiser, and get your doctor to prescribe "nebules" of albuterol sulphate and/or sodium chromalyn to load into the nebulizer. We get a prescription refill of nebules for $3.49 v. over $50 for a ventolin inhaler . And there is no propellant in the nebulizer which there is on an inhaler.

The greed and parasitism of the pharmaceutical cartel is criminal.

Arthur J , March 20, 2018 at 10:13 am

My gp told me to use Vick's VapoRub for my toenail fungus. I asked the pharmacist and she said it has about a 10% success rate, same as the petroleum jelly from which Vick's is made. There was some branded treatment, $40 for a 2ml bottle that she said worked maybe 15% of the time. Only been a few weeks, but so far I haven't seen much of a change.

Eudora Welty , March 20, 2018 at 12:32 pm

Yes, I used Vick's Vaporub on a toe fungus and it worked. I was told it wouldn't work.

home for wayward trout , March 20, 2018 at 1:00 pm

The People's Pharmacy has a lot of information on toenail fungus and also has an article recommending treatment with mentholatum.

I now go to their website before filling any prescription I'm given by a doctor.

RalphR , March 20, 2018 at 8:22 pm

I did (after trying other topical but non-prescription products) and it didn't initially.

But then I used it in conjunction with a lotion with a lot of hyaluronic acid in it. Hyaluronic acid is widely used in cosmetic products to increase penetration of the active ingredients into the skin.

Worked great.

Just by sure to apply any treatment to the cuticle, particularly at the root of the nail. That is where the fungus lives.

donw , March 20, 2018 at 12:42 pm

It is a fungus, so being outside in the sun wearing flip flops might kill it.

Marie Parham , March 20, 2018 at 6:42 am

Last summer I had toenail fungus and researched how to treat it. Soaked my feet is diluted vinegar a few days and scrubbed the area. Then I used https://www.cvs.com/drug/miconazole . It worked. Next time I have an annual checkup I will talk to my nurse practitioner. Web MD was a big help. https://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/guide/fungal-nail-infections-topic-overview#1

So was Mayo clinic

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/nail-fungus/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20353300

I am not recommending websites replace physicians, but apparently it is necessary to always second guess the physicians.
My treatment cost less than $10.

Normal , March 20, 2018 at 6:42 am

How about requiring every provider to give a firm quotation on every product and service? Every other industry has to live with this constraint.

XXYY , March 20, 2018 at 10:22 am

I'm amazed this simple idea never gets traction. Car mechanics, e.g., are required by law to provide a written estimate before work begins; if something is found that will change the estimate, they have to get your OK. Car repairs are usually much cheaper than medical bills and are often equally or more opaque to diagnose.

Having doctors and medical offices provide you with an estimate after diagnosis but before treatment does not seem like it would be terribly hard. They (uniquely) have visibility into your insurance arrangements, their reimbursement rates, their costs, overhead, profit rates, and so on. Software for this purpose would make pretty short work of boiling this down to the out-of-pocket for the patient. The patient could then either OK it, negotiate other options, or decide to shop around. If the provider later tries to charge more, the patient would have something on paper to justify refusing it.

There's no reason patients should be treated like a bottomless bank account by the medical industry.

sharonsj , March 20, 2018 at 12:58 pm

Many doctors have no clue what things cost. I received a single shot of cortisone for an arthritic shoulder and was charged $200. When I complained to the health care system, I was told that, had I been insured, the cost to me would be $100 less. When I complained to my doctor, he had no idea about any of this.

P.S. I knew the owner of an herb farm who had foot fungus. She visited a podiatrist and was prescribed some expensive salve which didn't work. The woman then went out on her farm, gathered some herbs according to an old remedy, made her own salve and was cured.

oh , March 20, 2018 at 3:02 pm

I was told to get the shot for shoulder pain (was a bad idea from this quacK). The "doctor" had no idea what it would cost!! At any rate it cost me over a $100 even with Kaiser coverage and it did NOT help. It hurt a lot for a few days (in more ways than one). What a fraud this industry is.

I dread the day I'd have to go to the hospital where I it was such an emergency that I'd be at the mercy of this robber baron system

JTMcPhee , March 20, 2018 at 10:25 am

Had any car or truck repair work done lately? Or speaking of things automotive, have any of us had experiences with the sales machinery of car and truck dealers, new or used? Speaking of transparency in pricing, firm quotes and all that? As just one example of how The Machine actually works? Catch-22: "They can do anything to us they want that we can't keep them from doing." http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2011/08/seeing_catch22_twice.html

FluffytheObeseCat , March 20, 2018 at 11:19 am

Big ones twice in the past four years on the RAV4. 2 different shops, in different states. They both gave me firm, up front price quotes. One was wrong on the low side, and the owner called me with the real price and an apology before doing the work. Just like the law requires.

This kind of fair dealing and respect for the customer never happens in medical practices. The doctors rarely soil their highly educated minds with matters of cost; everyone else in the office has little authority, and the chubby young women who sit up front in scrubs do as little as possible for the captives they call patients.

nycTerrierist , March 20, 2018 at 3:07 pm

"This kind of fair dealing and respect for the customer never happens in medical practices. "

This! And stress over billing affects health!
it is stressful and aggravating that doctors can't/won't address cost at the point of service. This destroys patient's trust in the physician as well.
Therapeutic relationship is wrecked as well as health and personal finances.

Paul P , March 20, 2018 at 7:19 pm

This NYS law applies to services, not drugs. It's a start:

Emergency Medical Services and Surprise Bills Law – New York State
https://www.health.ny.gov/regulations/ bill /ems_and_surprise_bills_law_faq.htm
If they do not participate in a patient's health care plan, they must upon request from a patient inform the patient of the estimated amount they will bill absent unforeseen medical circumstances that may arise. Under subdivisions (3) and (4), physicians in private practice also must provide information regarding any other ..

anonymous , March 20, 2018 at 6:57 am

"We're talking about mild toenail fungus. The price tag is difficult to rationalize, experts ( and every breathing human ) said."

Eureka Springs , March 20, 2018 at 7:03 am

We're talking about mild toenail fungus. The price tag is difficult to rationalize, experts said.

What kind of "expert" tries to rationalize cost of prescription on severity, rather than, say, cost of making the product?

16,500 for the course of an eleven month treatment with 6 percent chance of working. Seems like a medical RX vacation almost anywhere else in the world would be prudent.

Enquiring Mind , March 20, 2018 at 9:07 am

What kind of expert, you ask?

Today's fast-paced, stimulating world in pharmaceutical revenue management and marketing needs H1-B visa assistance to hire the kind of expert that is not available in sufficient quantity or quality to allow efficient pursuit of medical excellence. In past years, such personnel were to be found only in select industries such as tobacco and other personal care products. Building the right team, with applicable key performance indicators and mission-critical elements, is too important to be left to chance so every avenue must be explored, every base touched. Consumer options are opened up in the free market of healthy competition for products rather than stifled under excess regulatory and legal layers.

That kind of expert. /s

Jon S , March 20, 2018 at 12:34 pm

I really enjoyed that!

sgt_doom , March 20, 2018 at 1:54 pm

Man oh man!!!!

Had a deja vu moment there -- thought I was back as an employee during a leveraged buyout by the typically sleazy PE firm of Baird Private Equity!!!!!

Lambert Strether , March 20, 2018 at 7:07 am

Sounds like Soloviev wasn't a "smart shopper"!

Miamijac , March 20, 2018 at 7:28 am

Teatree oil, anti fungal. >$3.00. They only have a license to practice.

Croatoan , March 20, 2018 at 8:17 am

Just be careful with the natural stuff

"The results of our laboratory studies confirm that pure lavender and tea tree oils can mimic the actions of estrogens and inhibit the effects of androgens ," said Korach. "This combinatorial activity makes them somewhat unique as endocrine disruptors."

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/lavender-tea-tree-oils-may-cause-breast-growth-boys

Kevin , March 20, 2018 at 9:06 am

My wife is a massage therapist and dispenses oils occasionally. NEVER use straight oils – ALWAYS use a carrier oil in conjunction.

BTW – anyone else notice the toe fungus ad placed above the comments we're being watched!

oh , March 20, 2018 at 3:14 pm

Another myth propagated by the hand maidens to the Pharma industry.

cnchal , March 20, 2018 at 8:29 am

The title of the post is a bit misleading.

It should have been "Bill Of The Month: For Toenail Fungus, A $16,500 Prescription and less than 10% effective".

. . . She began swabbing it on the two toenails, as directed, having been told it would take about 11 months to treat the fungus .
– – – –
Unbeknownst to her, Kerydin, which it turned out costs nearly $1,500 per monthly refill . . .
– – – –
In its application for Food and Drug Administration approval granted in 2014, Anacor Pharmaceuticals highlighted that a yearlong treatment of Kerydin completely cured toe fungus in 6.5 percent of patients for one trial, and 9.1 percent of patients in another.

The post's title diminishes the scale of the scam by a factor of at least 100.

sgt_doom , March 20, 2018 at 1:55 pm

Very well articulated and thought out!

Props and kudos!!!

lyman alpha blob , March 20, 2018 at 3:52 pm

That last bit blew my mind. Why in the hell is the FDA approving anything as a treatment that can only be shown to cure what it's supposed to less than 10% of the time!?!? And we know how the approval process scam works – the companies only submit the best results in the first place and leave out the data the shows treatments to be less successful.

That being said, who would like to try out my new wonder drug? It cures absolutely everything that ails you at least 5% ot the time. I call it Plaisibeaux – the ingredients are French and they're a trade secret. Any FDA employess around who can fast track this one for me?

Joel , March 20, 2018 at 8:35 am

My simple stupid solution just avoid them entirely, the docs the tests the meds the hospitals. Advil is cheap and works for most of the pain. A couple of other basic meds for occasional random stuff that I buy when I travel outside the US. Try to work out a bit and eat more or less right. Except for easy obvious stuff I never met anyone that actually got better by going to a doctor. When its time to die I guess I will die.

Stillfeelinthebern , March 20, 2018 at 2:43 pm

X1000

Couldn't agree more.

oh , March 20, 2018 at 3:16 pm

+1

sierra7 , March 20, 2018 at 10:00 pm

In our healthcare system (and I guess totally), when you're healthy you're wealthy!

mark , March 20, 2018 at 8:35 am

It's really worse than the article suggests. Kerydin (tavaborole) isn't even all that effective. In one trial, "cure" was achieved in about 7% of cases and in other trials "completely or almost clear nail rates" were achieved in 15 – 30% of cases:

In clinical trials, tavaborole was more effective than the vehicle (ethyl acetate and propylene glycol) alone in curing onychomycosis. In two studies, fungal infection was eliminated using tavaborole in 6.5% of the cases vs. 0.5% using the vehicle alone, and 27.5% vs. 14.6% using the vehicle alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tavaborole#Therapeutic_trials

For those interested, this is the original paper that the Wikipedia entry is based on:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190962215015121

Thomas Briggs , March 20, 2018 at 9:14 am

Last visit was a snake bite. Antivenom was about 60k. Pretty sure same can be had in Mexico for less than $1,000, maybe much less. That was 5 years ago. I refuse to participate any longer, & I have good insurance. I hope eating better, exercise, & homeopathic treatments can work for me. Have not seen a doctor since & won't unless taken unconscious.

oh , March 20, 2018 at 3:18 pm

Agree with you. Eat healthy foods, exercise, homeopathic or ayurvedic treatment when absolutely necessary. No need to go for their "free" physicals. Listen to your body.

Pat , March 20, 2018 at 9:19 am

So a physicians assistant diagnosed a fungus strictly on observation, calls in a prescription for an ineffective and more difficult to use but massively expensive prescription and it is the patient's fault.

Don't know about the rest of you, but I see at least three problems in that that have nothing to do with the patient OR even the obscene greed of the pharmaceutical industry but a whole lot with the Braun Dermotological Center.

XXYY , March 20, 2018 at 10:32 am

I have no proof, but my guess is that these medical centers have sweetheart deals with mail-order pharmacies for various overpriced drugs. We took my son to a dermatology place several times for acne treatment; they would commonly propose something I had never heard of and urge us to order from a particular mail-order pharmacy, often providing coupons. I saw no reason not to get it from our local pharmacy but they were strangely insistent on us doing it by mail.

One obvious problem with mail-order pharmacies is made clear in this piece: by the time you find out how much things cost, it's already a done deal. At a retail pharmacy, you can walk away without paying. This is obviously a feature of mail-order pharmacies, not a bug.

Kevin , March 20, 2018 at 11:02 am

The proliferation of specialty medical centers around the western Chicago suburbs has been amazing to witness – similar to the proliferation in the number of bank outlets prior to the crash

Katniss Everdeen , March 20, 2018 at 11:33 am

No kidding. How is prescribing a drug, even a cheap one, that's "effective" only 7% of the time even considered medical "treatment?"

And what in the world is that "statement" pictured above? It's flat out false. Is it somehow supposed to be official? Where did it come from?

"Total Rx cost" in January: $56.52???? No, it was $1,496.09–same as in February.

"You paid" (Patient paid?) in January: $56.52? No, the patient paid $1,439.57, "funded" through her HRA and shown with an asterisk at the bottom. $56.52 was apparently a drug company rebate / coupon.

About the only true thing in January was that the insurance paid $0.

The "You paid" in February was not, in fact paid by the patient, but by another drug company rebate / coupon. She was not even asked to write a check for the copay, an expense she would have expected.

The "Your Cost" of $620.43 at the top appears to be the sum of the two drug company coupons for January and February, although no time frame is specified. At this point, the patient had written NO checks, even for the copays.

As an aside, where is the $60 "Copay/Co-insurance for January?

The patient's actual "cost" over the two months would most accurately be represented as the sum of the two months' Rxs–about $3000–plus two $60 copays. "You Paid" should be what she actually paid, either out of pocket or through the HRA, and any fees or copays that were covered by drug company rebates should be clearly noted as CHARGED but ABROGATED.

I'd suggest that deliberately confusing and understating seemingly obvious terms such as "cost" and "paid"
deliberately obfuscates the situation in order to sell expensive drugs that people would balk at purchasing if they knew the true "cost."

And all of this is before figuring out, for a Medicare recipient, how all these worthless, expensive drugs, coupons and rebates propel the patient toward the "donut hole," an entirely different kettle of fish in which nobody pays for nuthin' except the patient.

Joel , March 20, 2018 at 4:45 pm

+1 These "statements" web pages or whatever are designed by either morons or sadistic fiends. Probably the same ones that design cell phone bills

anonymous , March 20, 2018 at 9:48 am

This reminds me of the time I was billed $300 for a foot splint by a podiatrist that my insurance refused to pay for. I could have bought a foot splint off Amazon for $30.

Always ask for prices for any treatments or medicines. I trust my dentist way more than any doctor I've been too.

vidimi , March 20, 2018 at 10:05 am

this stuff is free in france for anyone with a social security number

Bugs Bunny , March 20, 2018 at 10:46 am

Kerydin has not been approved by the European Medicines Agency. You shouldn't state things as fact unless you can back them up.

Jon S , March 20, 2018 at 12:40 pm

I'm sure he meant "medicine that fixes toe fungi" is free in France, not Kerydin. And of course Kerydin isn't approved in Europe, with a 7% efficacy rate, it's doesn't really have medicinal value. It would only be prescribed in the US.

crittermom , March 20, 2018 at 10:15 am

Stories such as this are infuriating.

I went to a Podiatrist a couple years ago for a different problem but mentioned I thought I had a toenail fungus, too.

The Dr confirmed that but instead of prescribing something he recommended coconut oil. He said it worked much better & faster than any pills he could prescribe & he was right.

I had a large jar of solid coconut oil (around $6) & applied it with a Q tip.
In very short time the fungus was gone.

A girlfriend had gone to her Dr who prescribed pills.
Her fungus returned within a few months.
Mine hasn't.

Lord Koos , March 20, 2018 at 1:08 pm

This is not surprising – before I read your post I was thinking, there is probably a simple home remedy for that condition. There are a lot of useful drugs out there, but there are probably just as many that are useless, ineffective, or that have dangerous side effects and unintended consequences. I took over-the-counter anti-allergy meds for my hay fever for years, only recently reading that they (Claritin, etc) are now implicated in the onset of Alzheimer's. Thanks a lot

JamesG , March 20, 2018 at 10:41 am

I caught a similar prescription with a high co-pay and refused to pick up the merch from the pharmacist.

I then treated my fungus with Lamisil an OTC product which works for me.

Steve Roberts , March 20, 2018 at 10:42 am

I was written a script for a tube of cream that supposedly cost nearly $3k. It's hard to know what the pharmacy benefit manager actually paid because they are pretty secretive about that sort of thing. Per a friend she estimated it at probably $50 which is still idiotic. It was an anti-itch cream and wasn't any better than a $2.50 tube of cortisone cream.

otis , March 20, 2018 at 11:22 am

For the love of Pete. Isopropyl alcohol costs $1.79. Cut your toenails then apply with q tip. No more nail fungus. One bottle = many years supply.

I'm amazed people will take pills to cure nail fungus. So Dumb.
$14.000 annual toe cream. Dumb dumb dumber.
Thanks for posting these absurd bills. It lays bare the financialized health care holocaust underway in the USA.

perpetualWAR , March 20, 2018 at 11:32 am

Toenail fungus? Get apple cider vinegar.
Why do people not first look at home remedies?
Apple cider vinegar clears that up in a snap.

Synoia , March 20, 2018 at 11:49 am

Fungus can be treated by soaking in a 25% solution of vinegar, twice a day for two weeks.

Change the pH, kill the fungus.

That was my prescription for a fungus on my foot, by my doctor. And it worked.

Fred , March 20, 2018 at 1:00 pm

I pay less for my medicines when I pay cash as the pharmacy gives me a discount. But, because Part D has a penalty for not enrolling, I use it for 5 of medicines and then pay cash for one of them and pay about $5 more per month. Not to mention my doctor offered to do my stints for half price if I paid for cash. The whole healthcare system is a mess.

Pogonip , March 20, 2018 at 1:16 pm

I don't know about other countries, but here in the U.S. you should always, always, always assume that in any transaction you engage in, the seller has been financialized and will actively try to squeeze more money out of you, the ideal being to take all your available money and give you nothing in return. Be wary.

There are plenty of honorable exceptions, like the honest doctors and the mechanics described above. Cherish those sellers, patronize them, spread the word of mouth, especially if you think capitalism is the best of all possible economic worlds. The rent-seekers, if they continue unchecked, will destroy capitalism, because it requires some minimum level of trust to work. The odds that the seller will provide a good product or service have to be at least better than even.

Anonymous , March 20, 2018 at 1:54 pm

Philia is a necessary casualty of identity politics. Society depends on the collective will of people to take actions that are not in their direct benefit because they know others will make them. The "Tragedy of the Commons" does not occur when philia is strong because people know they can trust others not to abuse common resources. Once people do not trust others to act for the greater good it is a race to the bottom. The problem with identity politics is that it creates distrust of others outside ones own identity group as 'others' who cannot be trusted.

jrs , March 20, 2018 at 3:51 pm

oh yes identity politics created that, as if there wasn't far stronger prejudice by dominant groups long before identity politics was even a glimmer in it's dad's eye.

CrosslakeJohn , March 20, 2018 at 3:12 pm

Ten years ago or so in Corte Madera California, I was very lucky to find a podiatrist who was doing research on toenail fungus. I had nine of ten toe nails involved, some since high school (so for decades). His protocol for this was
1) pulse dose of two Lamasil tablets at the start of treatment
2) OTC bottle of fungoid tincture (with little brush built into the cap) from drug store with half a Lamasil tablet dissolved in it
3) every morning in the shower, scrub the nail ends with a toothbrush and a chlorine powder cleaner like Comet
4) brush a small amount fungoid tincture onto nail ends after morning shower and at night before bed.
5) keep nails short with clean cut ends

As I recall, the Lamasil pulse dose kills the fungus in the nail bed right away, and the fungoid tincture wicks into the nail every time and carries the anti-fungal drug to the fungus residing within the nail. The chlorine cleaner acts as a dessicant and pH modifier.

Ultimately, he gave me the few necessary Lamasil tablets as free samples, and back then the fungoid tincture was maybe $4/bottle at walgreens.

The new nails grew in from the nail beds perfectly, and after many months I had perfect toe nails and ceased treating them. They have remained so ever since.
I have always wondered if this approach was ever published in a medical journal. No significant money to be made from it by the manufacturer of Lamasil, so it's hard to see who had an incentive to promote it.
Disclaimer: I am not a doctor and am not giving medical advice. Pursue at your own risk.
Thanks!!

rps , March 20, 2018 at 4:48 pm

Why your pharmacist can't tell you .
WASHINGTON -- As consumers face rapidly rising drug costs, states across the country are moving to block "gag clauses" that prohibit pharmacists from telling customers that they could save money by paying cash for prescription drugs rather than using their health insurance The pharmacist cannot volunteer the fact that a medicine is less expensive if you pay the cash price and we don't run it through your health plan ."

The White House Council of Economic Advisers said in a report this month that large pharmacy benefit managers "exercise undue market power" and generate "outsized profits for themselves."

P Fitzsimon , March 20, 2018 at 4:57 pm

I'm going to get in trouble for saying this but toenail fungus isn't exactly leprosy. I've had a case continuously for 40 years after damaging my toenails in an accident. About 20 years ago I went to a doctor to see what could be done to get rid of it. He said I can give you a prescription that may cure it . But would you rather risk your liver or take the fungus with you to the grave after a full and healthy life with the fungus. I dont know what it would have cost because I chose the fungus. If it had cost $1500 and he hadn't told me the cost I would have been most unhappy.

Bill Carson , March 20, 2018 at 6:09 pm

This is shameful and absurd. However, the article mentions that there are "pills" that can be prescribed to treat the toe fungus, but some people taking those pills (terbinafine aka lamisil) have developed severe liver damage leading to liver transplant or death.

How much does it cost to just remove the toenail?

Bill Carson , March 20, 2018 at 6:28 pm

Why does this prescription cost $1,650 per month and not $16,500? Or $165,000? Or $1,650,000? Who decided that $1,650 was reasonable and $1,650,000 wasn't?

Bill Carson , March 20, 2018 at 6:46 pm

Oops, I meant $1,500 per month. But it probably costs more now anyway.

And how do they make an ointment last only a month? I've got some ointments under my sink that are 30 years old.

Bill Carson , March 20, 2018 at 6:39 pm

I'm a lawyer. I took Contracts 25 years ago in law school, but I seem to remember that there are certain elements to a contract that have to be present before the parties can be bound. Let's see

1. Offer
2. Acceptance
3. Consideration
4. Mutuality

Now, it seems to me that Consideration can't just be left blank. It is a very rare (non-medical) contract indeed where the buyer says, "I want X, no matter what it costs."

If I stay at a hotel and they have a mini-fridge with various refreshments and snacks, and I take a Diet Coke and a Milky Way, they can't legally charge me $10,000 for that.

I don't know why this isn't considered defrauding the consumer. We should be able to sue the crap out of these companies.

mtnwoman , March 20, 2018 at 7:40 pm

Give the medical practitioners a break! So now they need to puruse the Wall St Journal daily to see what pirate has acquired what formerly cheap generic drup to monopolize it and raise the price 500%?

Yes, the price was outrageous. How is the practitioner supposed to know every patients health care coverage and what one particular insurance carrier will cover for what drug? What's $50 for one person is $1500 for another, depending on their insurance.

Our entire health care system sucks. The only people who like it are the Insurance and Pharma execs.

Tim , March 20, 2018 at 9:09 pm

I won't give a doctor a break that prescribes a non-essential medicine with a 6% success rate.

[Mar 17, 2018] How to negotiate directly with physicians and hospitals

That's a fantasy: "It is important to lock this agreement in, quickly, before my account is sold to a third-party collection agency, which is nowhere near as likely to accept such a deep discount" Many hospitals sells you to collection immediately.
Mostly this is a cheap self-promotion of a yet another snake oil salesmen... Some more tidbit still might be useful You are warned.
If you try to fight medical-industrial complex alone most of the time you will be crushed. As a minimum you need a legal help. Often you need insurance too: at the end it is cheaper to have insurance then to fight astronomic bills. But those bottom feeders still can get to you via balance billing. and in most case, when you stay in hospital they do get back to you with the additional biils. That's why you will need a lawyers to fight this.
The usual trick of this scammers is to get "out of the network" ambulance and bill you $5K or more. Even the transfer from one hospital to another via ambulance can cost you tons of money.
Unnecessary procedures is another important danger. Stents is one such danger, in case of suspicion for the heart attack. You can get several several of them even if do not need them as a courtesy of those greedy jerks ;-)
And they will never agree for Medicare rates. Forget about it.
Notable quotes:
"... As we have already learned, all healthcare services have been assigned a code by the AMA, a five digit CPT code. So, if you trip and fall off your patio, you might get a doctor's bill like the following table located in your handouts: ..."
"... You may receive other bills from several doctors such as anesthesiologists and radiologists, as well as laboratory services, therapists, and the ambulance company. The bills all look similar, and the strategy and tactics I am presenting, today, should work for each of them as well. ..."
"... The purpose of this overpricing by the medical providers is to force the insurance companies to the negotiating table. The insurance company is bringing a large volume of patients to the medical providers, the members in their network, so they are able to negotiate a lower discounted allowable fee from the medical providers. However, if the insurance carrier is not able to negotiate a contractual allowable fee schedule, then they will end up paying the higher billed charges of the out-of-network provider for the members that still end up being treated by that medical provider in emergencies when precertification is not required. ..."
"... Now, on to where you can find these prices. Well, if you have insurance, then after you receive medical care and the healthcare providers send their claims to the insurance carrier, you should receive from the payer an Explanation of Benefits (EOB), or you probably can go online and view an Electronic Remittance Advice (ERA). For every CPT code that the providers billed , you will see both a billed charge and allowable. ..."
"... Fortunately, as you will now learn, there is a much more simple and better way to be 100% certain of your diagnosis, diagnosis code, procedure, procedure code, and even the medications the physician will offer you, at least for elective conditions. Here it is. If it isn't an emergency, then make a doctor's appointment! ..."
"... Does this sound unlikely? Too good to be true? Then consider this: Medical providers are highly incentivized to give the patients they treated huge discounts. Why? Because they know that collecting money from patients foments malpractice litigation. They would rather have you pay them pennies, than have you sue them for millions. ..."
"... I recently had breakfast with a pharmacist friend of mine that has worked as a manager for Walgreens for more than a decade. mrs_horseman is probably smiling when she hears that I have a pharmacist friend, because she knows how I feel about most of the people in that industry. Nonetheless, I told him about this presentation I am making, and asked if he had any advice for negotiating directly with the pharmacies for medications. It turns out, he does, and I would have never guessed the tactic he described. ..."
Mar 17, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

... ... ...

Approximately 63% of Americans have no emergency savings for things such as a $1,000 emergency room visit or a $500 car repair, according to a survey released Wednesday of 1,000 adults by personal finance website Bankrate.com, up slightly from 62% last year. Faced with an emergency, they say they would raise the money by reducing spending elsewhere (23%), borrowing from family and/or friends (15%) or using credit cards to bridge the gap (15%).

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-07/sad-state-affairs-two-thirds-a

... ... ...

You are going to need five things, which I am going to give to you, today, free of charge!

  1. Some absolutely critical industry vocabulary
  2. A clear understanding of how healthcare is priced in the USA
  3. Insight into to actual pricing
  4. A proven negotiation strategy, including:
    • a. The point of contact
    • b. Foreknowledge of what prices medical providers will usually agree to
    • c. A sample offer and agreement
  5. The confidence to successfully negotiate

Unfortunately, I couldn't come up with a better way to impart to you an understanding of the industry lingo, other than these simple handouts. However, this information is so important for you to be able to understand any negotiation strategy that I simply must slog through each term with you now. Please, I ask that you hold your questions and comments until I get through the vocabulary. Many of the terms are cross-referenced, and will become more clear after we here them all.

... ... ..

To begin to understand how healthcare is priced, we are going to look at

  1. the doctor's bill given to a patient,
  2. the claim forms the doctor and hospital send to the insurance carrier, and
  3. ERAs that the insurance carrier then send back to the patient and the providers.

As we have already learned, all healthcare services have been assigned a code by the AMA, a five digit CPT code. So, if you trip and fall off your patio, you might get a doctor's bill like the following table located in your handouts:

On the hospital's bill you might see something like this:

It is important to understand that the amounts shown on both of these bills are un-discounted Billed Charges (Usual and Customary Fees). They are the highest price the provider might ever hope to receive for the service, also known as full retail, or MSRP. Don't panic when you get these bills, because as everyone knows, "Never pay retail."

You may receive other bills from several doctors such as anesthesiologists and radiologists, as well as laboratory services, therapists, and the ambulance company. The bills all look similar, and the strategy and tactics I am presenting, today, should work for each of them as well.

If you have insurance, the providers will send your carrier a claim with essentially the same data as is on the bill they will provide to you if you are not insured, or if you simply request a copy.

An important fact is that Federal Law, as a requirement for the medical provider's participation in Medicare, requires that a medical provider charge every patient the same amount for a given CPT item. What it does not require, however, is that a medical provider accept the same payment amount from every patient for a given CPT item. This allows insurance companies, government payers, and you to negotiate a discounted fee, known as a contracted allowable, and not be in violation of the law.

The purpose of this overpricing by the medical providers is to force the insurance companies to the negotiating table. The insurance company is bringing a large volume of patients to the medical providers, the members in their network, so they are able to negotiate a lower discounted allowable fee from the medical providers. However, if the insurance carrier is not able to negotiate a contractual allowable fee schedule, then they will end up paying the higher billed charges of the out-of-network provider for the members that still end up being treated by that medical provider in emergencies when precertification is not required.

This creates a tiered-pricing structure for medical services that looks very much like this table in your handouts:

At this point, if you are paying close attention, then it should start to dawn on you where I am leading you with this talk, which, after all, is titled: How to negotiate directly with physicians and hospitals.

Spoiler Alert: You are learning how to negotiate for Medicare rates, at worst, and Medicaid rates, at best. In our example, a bilateral elbow fracture patient in Texas received surgeon and hospital bills totaling $179,219. Medicare allows $30,542 and Medicaid $22,600, which means the government negotiated an 83% or 87.4% discount, respectively. You can too!

Before we move on to providing you with access to these fee schedules, and then a negotiation strategy, do you have any questions about how healthcare is priced in the USA?

Now, on to where you can find these prices. Well, if you have insurance, then after you receive medical care and the healthcare providers send their claims to the insurance carrier, you should receive from the payer an Explanation of Benefits (EOB), or you probably can go online and view an Electronic Remittance Advice (ERA). For every CPT code that the providers billed , you will see both a billed charge and allowable.

Quick show of hands: how many of you have received a medical bill, or an EOB, and threw it away because you could not understand it? That is intentional! They want you to be confused. However, after today, I doubt that you will ever do that again.

What if we do not have insurance, or we want to know the allowable, because we think this is important information to know so that we can negotiate before receiving healthcare? Think having a baby or elective surgery. Do not worry! The federal government provides us with the Medicare rates online, and I believe that each state provides its Medicaid fee schedules online.

You would soon discover, however, that it is much easier to determine the allowable for a physician service than a hospital service, for which you will likely need to look up the DRGs for the ICD codes and then try to cross-reference them with the IPPS Fee Schedule, at a minimum, or you may even need to look up and calculate conversion factors. It is not easy, again, intentionally so!

Regardless, we would first need the CPT codes for the services you are seeking from the physician, and probably the ICD codes, too, in order to price hospital services. You could try to guess at the diagnosis and the services you think the doctor is going to provide to you, and then try to use a search engine to determine the ICD codes and CPT codes, or buy a coding book.

"I know I need a hip replacement. My trainer at the gym told me so. I'll just Google, hip replacement ICD and CPT code."

Good luck with that! The odds of you guessing the correct diagnosis and appropriate procedures (without going to medical school) are incredibly slim, especially with the new ICD-10 diagnosis codes. Also, chances are good that your athletic trainer doesn't know what the hell she is talking about when it come to medicine, and in reality, you probably just need a new athletic trainer, and not a new hip.

Is your head spinning, yet? Good! Now, stop it, because you will see that we don't need to do any of that! It's all just a red herring designed to keep us confused and the health insurers in business and profitable. Sounds a lot like our banking system, no?

Fortunately, as you will now learn, there is a much more simple and better way to be 100% certain of your diagnosis, diagnosis code, procedure, procedure code, and even the medications the physician will offer you, at least for elective conditions. Here it is. If it isn't an emergency, then make a doctor's appointment!

You may be thinking, "Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Don't we want to know the costs in order to negotiate the fees before the services are provided?" The surprising answer is, no! Why? Well, because we only need to negotiate the fee schedule, specifically, Medicare or Medicaid, and not the exact fee. This is very important. Think back to the tiered-pricing structure.

Eventually, we may want to know the actual (or sometimes estimated) allowable amounts in order to budget for elective procedures, but this occurs after, or at the time of the physician's office visit, when they can provide us with the ICD codes, CPT codes, and usually the allowable amount, too! Later, we may choose to audit the allowable amount they give us, to make sure it is correct, and we were not over charged, but this is seldom done, as most people still trust their doctor, and the discounts you will be receiving are so HUGE you may feel a little guilty. Also, I will tell you, the auditing process is very tedious, not to mention the appeal process.

Therefore, we are now going to start talking about a negotiating strategy before we even attempt to access any pricing data. Again, we first need to know the diagnoses and proposed treatments. So, the solution is to start with a simple negotiation with the physician's office, probably just for the cost for the initial office visit, at the very least, and maybe some expected diagnostic tests. This is best done over the telephone, is easier and more successful than you might think, and is analogous to finding a mechanic to, "just take a look," at your car and tell you what is wrong with it, and then getting an estimate to repair it. Just like we expect to pay a little bit for the mechanic to diagnose our car, we should expect to pay a little bit for the doctor to diagnose us. The funny thing is that my mechanic and Medicare both charge or allow about $100 for a diagnosis. This is not so funny if you are the surgeon that spent 13 more years in school than the auto mechanic with a high school diploma.

Here we go, step by step:

1) I usually prefer to skip the added expense of going to a GP or family practice intermediary just to get a referral to a specialist that can actually help, especially when I can determine what medical specialty is likely to be most helpful for by medical condition by visiting the website of the American Board of Medical Specialties. (Is your ignition system acting up, your suspension riding a little rough, need new tires, brakes squeaking, transmission grinding?)

http://www.abms.org/member-boards/specialty-subspecialty-certificates/

2) Use the links on abms.org to visit the appropriate specialty board's website, and then use their "find a physician" with the sub-specialty likely to be most helpful for the condition

3) Start calling the sub-specialty physician offices listed, tell them you are a prospective new patient, and ask to speak to the Business Office Manager. Ask him or her the following questions:

a) "Do you accept Medicare and/or Medicaid insurance?" If yes, then...

b) "Super! Do you accept cash payment at the time of service?" If yes, then...

c) "Great! Then, of course, you will accept as payment in full, the Medicaid allowable, but paid in cash by me to you, directly, at the time of service? Correct?" If yes, then (e). If no then (d).

d) "I guess I understand. Well, then surely you will at least accept as payment the Medi­care allowable, paid in cash by me to you, directly, at the time of service? If yes, then (e). If no then conclude the call, because you cannot fix stupid.

e) "Thank you! Can you please tell me what the estimated amount is for an office visit, using this fee schedule, so I can know how much money to bring, and please make a note on my account that we have negotiated a Single Case Agreement for me to pay these rates to you, in cash, at the time of service?

f) Tell him or her your specific reason for the visit (I am leaking red fluid on the floor of my garage) and that you want to be fully prepared for the visit. Ask what diagnostic tests, if any, are usually required for this type of problem, lab, X-ray, CT, MRI, ultrasound, etc., and which ones would probably need to be done outside the physician's clinic?

g) Make sure to get the BOM's name and contact information, and the appointment time and date.

After your office visit, if it turns out that you need a procedure such as day surgery at an Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC), an inpatient admission at a hospital, a diagnostic test like an MRI or CT, or a series of treatments such as physical therapy, then you simply repeat the above negotiation, starting with the facility your physician recommends, and in the case of a hospital or ASC, always where he or she has privileges. ASC's allowable rates are always much lower than a hospital, so act accordingly. When telling the BOM that you are a prospective new patient, make sure to give the name of your physician. Instead of just making a note of any negotiated agreement in your account, the BOM and you should execute a written Single Case Agreement. It is usually a one-page agreement that looks something like this sample found in your handouts:

It should be obvious to you why, when possible, these negotiations should occur before treatment, which is more often than you might imagine. In general, elective conditions are negotiated in advance in this manner. Next, we are going to look at emergency conditions, which are more than likely negotiated after examination and treatment.

Before we do, are there any questions?

Ok, so I experience some kind of true medical emergency, where my life or limb is in jeopardy, like a heart attack. mrs_horseman puts me in an ambulance that rushes me to the Emergency Room at the hospital, and they run all kinds of tests, and give me some very expensive medications. Fortunately for me, a long enough timeline has not yet passed, my survival rate has not dropped to zero, and I don't even get to go to the cath lab or have emergency heart surgery. However, we do get several large medical bills from the hospital, ER doctor, ambulance, laboratory, and cardiologist. I either have no insurance, am self-insured, or I have a catastrophic insurance plan with a very high deductible that I am not likely to meet with this event, or this year. What do I do?

When I receive each bill, I immediately call each provider and get the name and address of the BOM. I then draft a Single Case Agreement Offer and Acceptance, and I offer to pay the estimated Medicaid allowable clearly labeled as such (by using the tiered-pricing structure I covered earlier) and expiring 10 days after it is received. I may also include some horseshit narrative about how I just received a small windfall, and was advised by my attorney to settle my hospital bill before I piss it away on fast women and slow horses, or worse, squander it. I send this to the BOM, Certified Mail-Return Receipt Requested , with my attorney copied on the bottom of the offer. The BOM may argue the accuracy of my Medicaid estimate, and make a counter offer with a more accurate Medicaid allowable, but the odds are very, very, high that he or she either agrees to the Medicaid allowable, or counters with something like a Medicare allowable. Either way, at this point I have successfully negotiated somewhere around an 83% - 87% discount on average, less for doctors, more for hospitals.

It is important to lock this agreement in, quickly, before my account is sold to a third-party collection agency, which is nowhere near as likely to accept such a deep discount, and far better than a healthcare provider at actually getting blood from a turnip. Medical providers are now turning their accounts over to collections as soon as 90 days from the date of service, which can mean that you are still being treated for this condition when this happens! Do not let this happen to you! Open the bills! Mail the offer! Maybe they say no, but that is not likely. On the other hand, the collections agencies are working very hard to get you on a payment plan for Billed Charges, with interest, for the rest of your life!

Does this sound unlikely? Too good to be true? Then consider this: Medical providers are highly incentivized to give the patients they treated huge discounts. Why? Because they know that collecting money from patients foments malpractice litigation. They would rather have you pay them pennies, than have you sue them for millions.

There it is. I said it. Think about that for a moment.

Now, considering the minimal risk of negotiating, and the large potential reward, do you now have the confidence to successfully negotiate directly with physicians and hospitals?

Before I spend just a few more minutes talking about pharmacies, and then finally some self-insurance goals, are there any questions or comments?

I recently had breakfast with a pharmacist friend of mine that has worked as a manager for Walgreens for more than a decade. mrs_horseman is probably smiling when she hears that I have a pharmacist friend, because she knows how I feel about most of the people in that industry. Nonetheless, I told him about this presentation I am making, and asked if he had any advice for negotiating directly with the pharmacies for medications. It turns out, he does, and I would have never guessed the tactic he described.

Are you ready? Coupons and free discount cards. He explained that if one simply goes online and searches for Walgreens coupons, it is usually possible to save between 5% and 60%. He specifically recommends Good Neighbor Pharmacy Prescription Savings Club.

http://www.mygnp.com/prescription-savings-club

He says that when you purchase medications, then you have 5 days to return to the same location Walgreens and bring a coupon for reimbursement of any savings. He says that if you are paying cash, then you must be sure to request a generic, if available. For long term meds, he explains that the drug manufacturer's web sites will often offer a free co-pay assistance card. If you have insurance, then you can present the free card from the manufacturer to the Walgreens pharmacy, and it will cover your co-pays. In closing, I want to talk just a bit about insurance and one of the situations where we would want to be able to negotiate directly with physicians, hospitals, and pharmacies.

As we have discussed, today, one of the primary benefits of having health insurance is to take advantage of the discounts negotiated by the insurance company or government. However, we just learned that providers are usually willing to accept similar discounted rates from cash pay patients.

The other big benefit of health insurance is to share with other people the risk of having to pay large bills that are the result of serious and unexpected injuries or illnesses. This is the traditional role of insurance. However, the costs and benefits of sharing risk are directly related to the health and healthcare consumption habits of all the members of the risk pool. As the post-vasectomy head of a healthy household, do I really want to be swimming in the Obamacare risk pool with millions of morbidly obese, perpetually pregnant, HIV infected drug abusers? No. It is too expensive!

What to do? Well, what do many smart employers in Texas do to save money with Worker's Compensation Insurance? They self-insure! They have money put away in case of an emergency. If they have an employee that is injured, then they negotiate directly with the healthcare providers, and pay deep discounts well below the statutory Worker's Compensation allowable, which we learned earlier is usually the highest allowable. They pay themselves a premium each month, which is effectively a forced savings plan. Sometimes, these companies may also purchase a relatively inexpensive health insurance plan called catastrophic, just in case a really big and expensive event occurs, like the whole oil refinery blows up and puts a few hundred employees in the hospital. However, if nothing happens, and the employees don't have any accidents, the company gets to keep most of the money, instead of giving it all to the insurance companies!

Hmmm. I wonder. Could I do that for my health insurance? Yes, and in fact mrs_horseman and I do exactly this. We have a high-deductible catastrophic health insurance plan and a $600 savings line item in our budget that we pay ourselves every month. We bet on ourselves to be healthy, unlike an HSA, where you bet on yourself to be unhealthy. This is true, and why we simply refuse to take the pre-tax bait of an HSA.

... ... ...

[Mar 04, 2018] What if diabetes wasn't just one condition with two types, but a whole bunch of diseases under the same label?

Mar 04, 2018 | en.farsnews.com

That's the conclusion of new research, and it could revolutionise the way we detect and treat diabetes in the future.

Analysing past studies covering a total of 14,775 type 1 and type 2 adult-onset diabetes patients across Sweden and Finland, scientists have found five different and distinct disease profiles, including three severe and two mild forms of the condition.

The more precise we can be about different categories of diabetes, the better we can understand and treat it, according to the team of researchers from Scandinavia

It might even give doctors an earlier window of opportunity for preventing the onset of diabetes.

"Evidence suggests that early treatment for diabetes is crucial to prevent life-shortening complications," says senior researcher Leif Groop, from the Lund University Diabetes Centre (LUDC) in Sweden.

"More accurately diagnosing diabetes could give us valuable insights into how it will develop over time, allowing us to predict and treat complications before they develop."

Six different measurements were used across four separate studies: age at diagnosis, body mass index (BMI), long-term glycaemic (blood sugar) control, the function of insulin-producing cells in the pancreas, insulin resistance, and the presence of specific autoantibodies linked to autoimmune diabetes.

Instead of splitting diabetes simply into type 1 and type 2, the researchers came up with five different disease profiles - one autoimmune type of diabetes and four other distinct subtypes. All five types were found to be genetically distinct, with no shared mutations.

This is enough to suggest we're looking at five distinct diseases that all affect the same body system, rather than the same disease at different stages of progression, say the researchers.

So how did they differ? One of the three more serious forms was a group of people with severe insulin resistance and a significantly higher risk of kidney disease. Another more mild type was seen mostly in elderly people.

You can see how those distinctions could improve the way we tackle diabetes – by identifying the types of patients involved and the complications they're at risk from, doctors could work out more personalised courses of treatment.

Indeed, the researchers found that many in the study weren't being given the right treatment for the particular characteristics of the diabetes they had.

With diabetes now the fastest-growing disease on the planet, more options for dealing with it can't come soon enough. More than 420 million people are now thought to have diabetes worldwide.

Between 75-85 percent of people with diabetes have the more common type 2, where the body can't produce enough insulin to cope with levels of insulin resistance.

The researchers do note some limitations though: there's no evidence yet that these five types of diabetes have different causes, and the sample only included Scandinavian patients, so a wider study is going to be required to investigate this further.

"Existing treatment guidelines are limited by the fact they respond to poor metabolic control when it has developed, but do not have the means to predict which patients will need intensified treatment," says Groop.

"This study moves us towards a more clinically useful diagnosis, and represents an important step towards precision medicine in diabetes."

[Feb 07, 2018] When the rest of the world's wages go up to six dollar per hour and the USA come down to six dollar per hour, globalization will end

Notable quotes:
"... Things "should" be made locally. There's no reason, especially with declining energy resources, that a toaster should be shipped from thousands of miles away by boat, plane, truck, rail. That's simply ridiculous, never mind causing a ton of extra pollution. We end up working at McDonald's or Target, but, yay, we just saved $5.00 on our toaster. ..."
"... I don't know how you know about the so-called safety net. I know because I had to use it while undergoing treatment for 2 types of stage 4 breast cancer the past 4 years. It is NOT what people think. It beats the already vulnerable into the ground -- -- this is not placating -- -- it is psychological breaking of human minds until they submit. The paperwork is like undergoing a tax audit -- - every 6 months. "Technicians" decide one's "benefits" which vary between "technicians". ..."
"... Food stamps can be $195 during one period and then $35 the next. The technicians/system takes no responsibility for the chaos and stress they bring into their victims' lives. It is literally crazy making. BTW: I am white, a member of Phi Beta Kappa, have a masters' degree, formerly owned my own business and while married lived within the top 10%. ..."
"... In addition, most of those on so-called social programs are children, the elderly, chronically ill, veterans. You are correct that the middle class is falling into poverty but you are not understanding what poverty actually looks like when the gov holds out its beneficial hand. It is nothing short of cruelty. ..."
Feb 07, 2018 | consortiumnews.com
Cold N. Holefield , February 5, 2018 at 4:09 pm

Yes, but increasingly there is no "working class" in America due to outsourcing and automation.

I hear that Trump wants to reverse all of that and put children to work in forward-to-the-past factories (versus back-to-the-future) and mines working 12 hours a day 7 days a week as part of his Make America Great Again initiative.

With all the deregulation, I can't wait to start smoking on airplanes again. Those were great times. Flying bombs with fifty or more lit fuses in the form of a cigarette you can smoke. The good old days.

backwardsevolution , February 5, 2018 at 5:50 pm

Cold N. Holefield -- it's like Ross Perot said re NAFTA and globalization: "When the rest of the world's wages go up to $6.00/hour and our's come down to $6.00/hour, globalization will end." That's what's happening, isn't it? Our wages are being held down, due in large part to low-skilled labor and H-1B's flooding into the country, and wages in Asia are rising. I remember Ross Perot standing right beside Bill Clinton when he said this, and I also remember the sly smile on Bill Clinton's face. He knew.

Our technology was handed to China on a silver platter by the greedy U.S. multinationals, technology that was developed by Western universities and taxpayer dollars, technology that would have taken decades for China to develop on their own.

Trump is trying desperately to bring some of these jobs back. That's why he handed them huge corporate tax breaks and cut some regulations.

Things "should" be made locally. There's no reason, especially with declining energy resources, that a toaster should be shipped from thousands of miles away by boat, plane, truck, rail. That's simply ridiculous, never mind causing a ton of extra pollution. We end up working at McDonald's or Target, but, yay, we just saved $5.00 on our toaster.

Trump is trying to cut back on immigration so that wages can increase, but the Left want to save the whole world, doing themselves in in the process. He wants to bring people in with skills the country can benefit from, but for that he's tarred and feathered.

P.S. I remember sitting behind a drunk on a long flight, and I saw him drop his cigarette. It rolled past me like it knew where it was going, and I couldn't find it. I called the stewardess, and she and I searched for a few anxious seconds until we found it. Yes, the good old days.

Diana Lee , February 6, 2018 at 3:16 pm

I don't know how you know about the so-called safety net. I know because I had to use it while undergoing treatment for 2 types of stage 4 breast cancer the past 4 years. It is NOT what people think. It beats the already vulnerable into the ground -- -- this is not placating -- -- it is psychological breaking of human minds until they submit. The paperwork is like undergoing a tax audit -- - every 6 months. "Technicians" decide one's "benefits" which vary between "technicians".

Food stamps can be $195 during one period and then $35 the next. The technicians/system takes no responsibility for the chaos and stress they bring into their victims' lives. It is literally crazy making. BTW: I am white, a member of Phi Beta Kappa, have a masters' degree, formerly owned my own business and while married lived within the top 10%.

In addition, most of those on so-called social programs are children, the elderly, chronically ill, veterans. You are correct that the middle class is falling into poverty but you are not understanding what poverty actually looks like when the gov holds out its beneficial hand. It is nothing short of cruelty.

backwardsevolution , February 6, 2018 at 4:48 pm

Diana Lee -- I hope you are well now. It breaks my heart what you went through. No, I cannot imagine.

I didn't mean the lower class were living "well" on food stamps and welfare. All I meant was that it helped, and without it all hell would break loose. If you lived in the top 10% at one point, then you would surely notice a difference, but for many who have been raised in this environment, they don't notice at all. It becomes a way of life. And, yes, you are right, it is cruelty. A loss of life.

[Jan 03, 2018] Climate control footrests for office dwellers

Amazon.com

Amazon.com Fellowes Climate Control Footrest (8030901) Fellowes Foot Warmer Office Products

Amazon.com Cozy Products TT Toasty Toes Ergonomic Heated Foot Warmer Sports & Outdoors

Amazon.com Under Desk Foot Warmer Home & Kitchen

Amazon.com Indus-Tool FWXXX Electric Foot Warmer Mat Home & Kitchen

[Dec 15, 2017] Understanding chronic stress

Notable quotes:
"... Some studies have even suggested t hat unhealthy chronic stess management, such as overating "comfort" foods, has contributed to the growing obesity epidemic ..."
"... Stress in America ..."
"... Studies have also illustrated the strong link between insomnia and chronic stress. ..."
"... Stress in America ..."
"... Taking one small step to reduce your stress and improve your emotional health, such as going on a daily walk, can have a beneficial effect. Being active is a small but powerful change you can make to manage stress. ..."
"... Health Psychology ..."
"... Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences ..."
"... Review of Psychology ..."
"... Emotional Longevity: what really determines how long you live. ..."
"... Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences ..."
"... Journal of Psychosomatic Research ..."
"... Public Health Nutrition ..."
"... Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences ..."
apa.org

Stress is often described as a feeling of being overwhelmed, worried or run-down. Stress can affect people of all ages, genders and circumstances and can lead to both physical and psychological health issues. By definition, stress is any uncomfortable "emotional experience accompanied by predictable biochemical, physiological and behavioral changes." 1 Some stress can be beneficial at times, producing a boost that provides the drive and energy to help people get through situations like exams or work deadlines. However, an extreme amount of stress can have health consequences and adversely affect the immune, cardiovascular, neuroendocrine and central nervous systems. 2

How stress harms your health

In addition, an extreme amount of stress can take a severe emotional toll. While people can overcome minor episodes of stress by tapping into their body's natural defenses to adapt to changing situations, excessive chronic stress, which is constant and persists over an extended period of time, can be psychologically and physically debilitating. Unlike everyday stressors, which can be managed with healthy stress management behaviors, untreated chronic stress can result in serious health conditions including anxiety, insomnia, muscle pain, high blood pressure and a weakened immune system. 3 Research shows that stress can contribute to the development of major illnesses, such as heart disease, depression and obesity. 4

Some studies have even suggested t hat unhealthy chronic stess management, such as overating "comfort" foods, has contributed to the growing obesity epidemic. 5

Yet, despite its connection to illness, APA's Stress in America survey revealed that 33 percent of Americans never discuss ways to manage stress with their healthcare provider.

Chronic stress can occur in response to everday stressors that are ignored or poorly managed, as well as to exposure to traumatic events. The consequences of chronic stress are serious, particularly as it contributes to anxiety and depression. People who suffer from depression and anxiety are at twice the risk for heart disease than people without these conditions. 6 Additionally, research has shown that there is an association between both acute and chronic stress and a person's abuse of addictive substances. 7

Managing your stress

Studies have also illustrated the strong link between insomnia and chronic stress. 8

According to APA's Stress in America survey, more than 40 percent of all adults say they lie awake at night because of stress. Experts recommend going to bed at a regular time each night, striving for at least seven to eight hours of sleep and eliminating distractions such as television and computers from the bedroom. Many Americans who experience prolonged stress are not making the lifestyle changes necessary to reduce stress and ultimately prevent health problems.

Improving lifestyle and behavioral choices are essential steps toward increasing overall health and avoiding chronic stress. The key to managing stress is recognizing and changing the behaviors that cause it, but changing your behavior can be challenging. Taking one small step to reduce your stress and improve your emotional health, such as going on a daily walk, can have a beneficial effect. Being active is a small but powerful change you can make to manage stress.

Physical activity increases your body's production of feel-good endorphins, a type of neurotransmitter in the brain, and helps in treating mild forms of depression and anxiety. 9 In addition, eating a healthy diet and enhancing both the amount and quality of your sleep may be beneficial. But remember, if a high stress level continues for a long period of time, or if potential problems from stress continue to interfere with activities of daily living, it is important to reach out to a licensed mental health professional, such as a psychologist. Research has shown that chronic stress can be treated with appropriate interventions such as lifestyle and behavior change, therapy, and in some situations, medication. 10

A psychologist can help you ovecome the barriers that are stopping you from living a healthy life, manage stress effectively and help identify behaviors and situations that are contributing to your consistently high stress level.

Special thanks to Mary K. Alvord, PhD, Karina W. Davidson, PhD, Jennifer F. Kelly, PhD, ABPP, Kevin M. McGuiness, PhD, MS, ABPP-CH, and Steven Tovian, PhD, ABPP, who assisted with this article.
References
  1. Baum, A. (1990). "Stress, Intrusive Imagery, and Chronic Distress," Health Psychology , Vol. 6, pp. 653-675.
  2. Anderson, N.B. (1998). "Levels of Analysis in Health Science: A Framework for Integrating Sociobehavioral and Biomedical Research," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , Vol. 840, pp. 563-576.
  3. Baum, A. & Polsusnzy, D. (1999). "Health Psychology: Mapping Biobehavioral Contributions to Health and Illness." Annual Review of Psychology , Vol. 50, pp. 137-163.
  4. Ibid.
  5. Dallman, M. et al. (2003). "Chronic stress and obesity: A new view of 'comfort food.'" PNAS, Vol. 100, pp. 11696-11701.
  6. Anderson, N.B. & Anderson, P.E. (2003). Emotional Longevity: what really determines how long you live. New York: Viking.
  7. Sinha, R. (2008). "Chronic Stress, Drug Use, and Vulnerability to Addiction." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , Vol. 1141, pp. 105-130.
  8. Vgontzas, A.N. et al. (1997). "Chronic insomnia and activity of the stress system: a preliminary study." Journal of Psychosomatic Research , Vol. 45, pp. 21-31.
  9. Fox, K.R. (1999). "The influence of physical activity on mental well-being." Public Health Nutrition , Vol. 2, pp. 411-418.
  10. McEwen, B.S. (2004). "Protection and Damage from Acute and Chronic Stress: Allostasis and Allostatic Overload and Relevance to the Pathophysiology of Psychiatric Disorders." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , Vol. 1032, pp. 1-7.
The full text of articles from APA Help Center may be reproduced and distributed for noncommercial purposes with credit given to the American Psychological Association. Any electronic reproductions must link to the original article on the APA Help Center. Any exceptions to this, including excerpting, paraphrasing or reproduction in a commercial work, must be presented in writing to the APA. Images from the APA Help Center may not be reproduced.

[Dec 15, 2017] Neoliberalism undermines workers health not only via the financial consequences of un/under employment and low wages, but also through chronic exposure to stress due to insecurity

Neoliberalism as "Die-now economics." "Embodiment into lower class" or "the representation as a member the lower class" if often fatal and upper mobility mobility is artificially limited (despite all MSM hype it is lower then in Europe). So just being a member of lower class noticeably and negatively affects your life expectancy and other social metrics. Job insecurity is the hazard reserved for lower and lower middle classes destructivly effect both physical and mental health. Too much stress is not good for humans. Neoliberalism with its manta of competition uber alles and atomization of the workforce is a real killer. also the fact that such article was published and the comments below is a clear sign that the days of neoliberalism are numbered. It should go.
Notable quotes:
"... In our new book , we draw on an extensive body of scientific literature to assess the health effects of three decades of neoliberal policies. Focusing on the social determinants of health -- the conditions of life and work that make it relatively easy for some people to lead long and healthy lives, while it is all but impossible for others -- we show that there are four interconnected neoliberal epidemics: austerity, obesity, stress, and inequality. They are neoliberal because they are associated with or worsened by neoliberal policies. ..."
"... Neoliberalism operates through labor markets to undermine health not only by way of the financial consequences of unemployment, inadequate employment, or low wages, as important as these are, but also through chronic exposure to stress that 'gets under your skin' by way of multiple mechanisms. Quite simply, the effects of chronic insecurity wear people out over the life course in biologically measurable ways . ..."
"... Oh, and "beyond class" because for social beings embodiment involves "social production; social consumption; and social reproduction." In the most reductive definition of class -- the one I used in my crude 1% + 10% + 90% formulation -- class is determined by wage work (or not), hence is a part of production (of capital), not social consumption (eating, etc.) or social reproduction (children, families, household work ). So, even if class in our political economy is the driver, it's not everything. ..."
"... "Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that "the market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning. ..."
"... Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve." ..."
"... As opposed to being champions of "self-actualization/identity" and "absolute relativism", I always got the impression that they were both offering stark warnings about diving too deeply into the self, vis-a-vis, identity. As if, they both understood the terrifying world that it could/would create, devoid of common cause, community, and ultimately empathy. A world where "we" are not possible because we have all become "I". ..."
"... Wonks like Yglesias love to mock working class concerns as "economic anxiety," which is at once belittling (it's all about f-e-e-e-lings ..."
"... "we have measurable health outcomes from political choices" So True!!! ..."
Dec 12, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

...Neoliberal epidemics are particular pathways of embodiment. From Ted Schrecker and Clare Bambra in The Conversation :

In our new book , we draw on an extensive body of scientific literature to assess the health effects of three decades of neoliberal policies. Focusing on the social determinants of health -- the conditions of life and work that make it relatively easy for some people to lead long and healthy lives, while it is all but impossible for others -- we show that there are four interconnected neoliberal epidemics: austerity, obesity, stress, and inequality. They are neoliberal because they are associated with or worsened by neoliberal policies. They are epidemics because they are observable on such an international scale and have been transmitted so quickly across time and space that if they were biological contagions they would be seen as of epidemic proportions.

(The Case-Deaton study provides an obvious fifth: Deaths of despair. There are doubtless others.) Case in point for one of the unluckier members of the 90%:

On the morning of 25 August 2014 a young New Jersey woman, Maria Fernandes, died from inhaling gasoline fumes as she slept in her 13-year-old car. She often slept in the car while shuttling between her three, low-wage jobs in food service; she kept a can of gasoline in the car because she often slept with the engine running, and was worried about running out of gasoline. Apparently, the can accidentally tipped over and the vapours from spilled gasoline cost her life. Ms Fernandes was one of the more obvious casualties of the zero-hours culture of stress and insecurity that pervades the contemporary labour market under neoliberalism.

And Schrecker and Bambra conclude:

Neoliberalism operates through labor markets to undermine health not only by way of the financial consequences of unemployment, inadequate employment, or low wages, as important as these are, but also through chronic exposure to stress that 'gets under your skin' by way of multiple mechanisms. Quite simply, the effects of chronic insecurity wear people out over the life course in biologically measurable ways .

... ... ...

Oh, and "beyond class" because for social beings embodiment involves "social production; social consumption; and social reproduction." In the most reductive definition of class -- the one I used in my crude 1% + 10% + 90% formulation -- class is determined by wage work (or not), hence is a part of production (of capital), not social consumption (eating, etc.) or social reproduction (children, families, household work ). So, even if class in our political economy is the driver, it's not everything.

nonclassical , December 11, 2017 at 8:30 pm

L.S. reminiscent of Ernst Becker's, "The Structure of Evil" – "Escape from Evil"? (..not to indicate good vs. evil dichotomy) A great amount of perspective must be agreed upon to achieve "change" intoned. Divide and conquer are complicit, as noted .otherwise (and as indicated by U.S. economic history) change arrives only when all have lost all and can therefore agree begin again.

There is however, Naomi Klein perspective, "Shock Doctrine", whereby influence contributes to destabilization, plan in hand leading to agenda driven ("neoliberal"=market fundamentalism) outcome, not at all spontaneous in nature:

"Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that "the market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.

Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve."

Amfortas the Hippie , December 11, 2017 at 4:20 pm

Well done, as usual.

On Case-Deason: Sounds like home. I keep the scanner on(local news) ems and fire only since 2006(sheriff got a homeland security grant). The incidence of suicide, overdose and "intoxication psychosis" are markedly increased in the last 10+ years out here in the wilderness(5K folks in whole county, last I looked). Our local economy went into near depression after the late 90's farm bill killed the peanut program then 911 meant no hunting season that year(and it's been noticeably less busy ever since) then drought and the real estate crash(we had 30 some realtors at peak..old family land being sold off, mostly). So the local Bourgeoisie have had less money to spend, which "trickles down" onto the rest of us.:less construction, less eating out even at the cheap places, less buying of gas, and on and on means fewer employees are needed, thus fewer jobs. To boot, there is a habit among many employers out here of not paying attention to labor laws(it is Texas ) the last minwage rise took 2 years to filter out here, and one must scrutinize one's pay stub to ensure that the boss isn't getting squirrelly with overtime and witholding.
Geography plays into all this, too 100 miles to any largish city.

... ... ...

Rosario , December 11, 2017 at 10:55 pm

I'm not well versed in Foucault or Lacan but I've read some of both and in reading between the lines of their writing (the phantom philosophy?) I saw a very different message than that often delivered by post-modern theorists.

As opposed to being champions of "self-actualization/identity" and "absolute relativism", I always got the impression that they were both offering stark warnings about diving too deeply into the self, vis-a-vis, identity. As if, they both understood the terrifying world that it could/would create, devoid of common cause, community, and ultimately empathy. A world where "we" are not possible because we have all become "I".

Considering what both their philosophies claimed, if identity is a lie, and the subject is always generated relative to the other, then how the hell can there be any security or well being in self-actualization? It is like trying to hit a target that does not exist.

All potentially oppressive cultural categorizations are examples of this (black, latino, gay, trans, etc.). If the identity is a moving target, both to the oppressor and the oppressed, then how can it ever be a singular source of political action? You can't hit what isn't there. This is not to say that these groups (in whatever determined category) are not oppressed, just that formulating political action based strictly on the identity (often as an essential category) is impossible because it does not actually exist materially. It is an amalgamation of subjects who's subjectivity is always relative to some other whether ally or oppressor. Only the manifestations of oppression on bodies (as brought up in Lambert's post) can be utilized as metrics for political action.

... ... ...

Lambert Strether Post author , December 11, 2017 at 11:20 pm

I thought of a couple of other advantages of the "embodiment" paradigm:

Better Framing . Wonks like Yglesias love to mock working class concerns as "economic anxiety," which is at once belittling (it's all about f-e-e-e-lings *) and disempowering (solutions are individual, like therapy or drugs). Embodiment by contrast insists that neoliberalism (the neoliberal labor market (class warfare)) has real, material, physiological effects that can be measured and tracked, as with any epidemic.

... ... ...

oaf , December 12, 2017 at 7:11 am

"we have measurable health outcomes from political choices" So True!!!

Thank you for posting this.

[Dec 13, 2017] BBC - Future - Why having white teeth doesn't mean they are healthy

Notable quotes:
"... The hue of our teeth depends on their intrinsic color, influenced in part by our genes and our age, combined with stains from smoking, eating, drinking and taking certain medications. As you get older your teeth often become yellower as the enamel begins to wear away ..."
"... You can have pearly white teeth and still have gum infections or cavities. Likewise, you can have perfectly healthy teeth which are off-white, yellowish or even brownish. ..."
Dec 13, 2017 | www.bbc.com

It is hardly surprising then, that we tend to assume that white teeth are not only attractive, but healthy. The hue of our teeth depends on their intrinsic color, influenced in part by our genes and our age, combined with stains from smoking, eating, drinking and taking certain medications. As you get older your teeth often become yellower as the enamel begins to wear away, exposing the dentine beneath .

Green fur

Stains then overlay the yellowing teeth, with foods such as tomato-based sauces and coffee leaving behind colored compounds called chromogens, while bacteria or fungi can cause green, greyish, furry looking stains .

Many of the experiments on tooth colour have been conducted in laboratory test tubes, rather than in the mouths of living people. Often cows' teeth are used because they give researchers with a larger surface area to study, but sometimes extracted human teeth are tested too.

Surprisingly, black tea doesn't stain the teeth unless preceded by white wine

One study conducted by Mark Wolff from New York University soaked cows' teeth for an hour in black tea, red wine or white wine in various configurations. It was no surprise that the red wine left the strongest stains. Surprisingly, the black tea didn't stain the teeth unless it had been preceded by white wine . It seems the acid content of the wine was making the enamel slightly more porous, allowing the tea to leave its mark.

View image of An empty coffee mug stained with coffee (Credit: Alamy)

These food and drink-based stains may discolor teeth, but they don't indicate that the teeth are unhealthy. You can have pearly white teeth and still have gum infections or cavities. Likewise, you can have perfectly healthy teeth which are off-white, yellowish or even brownish.

Black stain

There is even one type of stain that some researchers believe might protect against tooth decay. This is the dark edge you sometimes see along teeth at the margins of the gum line. It can look like a series of dark dots. It's known as "black stain".

While the cause of black stain has debated for more than a century, the latest thinking is that it's a special kind of dental plaque comprising calcium, phosphate, various bacteria and some form of iron or copper compound , which gives rise to the black colour.

Curiously, some studies – although not all – have found that children with black stain are less likely to have tooth decay . It's thought that microbes in the stain might be somehow protective.

Just as white teeth aren't necessarily healthy, off-colour teeth aren't necessarily bad either

Of course, in some cases discolouration can indicate decay or other disease, so it is worth getting stains checked out by a dentist. But just as white teeth aren't necessarily healthy, off-colour teeth aren't necessarily bad either.

[Dec 05, 2017] A coalescence and consolidation of insurers effectively being single-payer, expensive private sector paying monopoly. This by-and-large parasitic industry consumes add 35-40% tot he costs feeding whose executives and employees do not contribute constructively to the CARE equation

Notable quotes:
"... Taking jefemt's thinking further, imagine the health insurance provider was not only monopolistic (owned the entire market), but was also a GSE (government sponsored enterprise). Now take it one more step and imagine it was an actual part of the government and not merely a GSE. ..."
"... I was thinking of this too as a reponse to Why Steve Bannon Wants You to Believe in the Deep State" [Politico]. "Like the Death Star, the American Deep State does not, of course, exist. " ..."
"... Indeed, I think of the insurance industry as being part of the deep state already. It seems that congress's preference is that this part of the deep state is outsourced. So that's it not a GSE, and not even a monopoly, but maintained as an oligopoly. And then, well hey whatever surplus it can hoover up is fair game. After all free-hand of the market and all that. [And heaven knows, we don't want to crowd that out.] ..."
"... The CIA has a long history of drug trafficking. The FBI traffics in blackmail. The NSA in network surveillance. DIA, special ops. NRO, satelite throughput. 11 more in the US of A and countless more globally. They all have opaque resources outside of regular channels. ..."
"... Great documentary about the 80's cocaine business in Miami called "Cocaine Cowboys." It's real life Scarface. Guess who the Feds sent to get a handle on the cocaine smuggling? See-eye-aye man George H.W. Bush. Coincidence? ..."
Mar 23, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
djrichard, March 22, 2017 at 5:35 pm

Just a bit of a thought experiment, building on some thinking from a comment yesterday by jefemt

Paradoxically, we appear to be seeing a coalescence and consolidation of insurers, we will end up being delightfully exceptional, again -- effectively being single-payer, private sector, paying a monopoly an add-on cost of 35-40% to a parasitic industry whose executives and employees do not contribute to the CARE equation.

Taking jefemt's thinking further, imagine the health insurance provider was not only monopolistic (owned the entire market), but was also a GSE (government sponsored enterprise). Now take it one more step and imagine it was an actual part of the government and not merely a GSE.

Conceivably, it wouldn't even have to live off appropriations from congress, assuming it was equally as extractive from the private sector as it is now (i.e. revenue model is the same). Talk about good living. Who knows, maybe they pocket their proceeds into some kind of surplus in Treasury dept.

But let's assume they had to give up on revenue models. [Afterall, it's easier to find partners in congress when you have an appropriations process that binds you to them.] Then they would be exposed. Somebody would get the bright idea that this agency doesn't need as much staffing since they are no longer revenue oriented. That indeed, they could have the same staffing profile as the agency responsible for medicare. Indeed they could be folded into medicare.

I was thinking of this too as a reponse to Why Steve Bannon Wants You to Believe in the Deep State" [Politico]. "Like the Death Star, the American Deep State does not, of course, exist. "

Indeed, I think of the insurance industry as being part of the deep state already. It seems that congress's preference is that this part of the deep state is outsourced. So that's it not a GSE, and not even a monopoly, but maintained as an oligopoly. And then, well hey whatever surplus it can hoover up is fair game. After all free-hand of the market and all that. [And heaven knows, we don't want to crowd that out.]

In contrast to other parts of the deep state that don't really have a revenue model. In which case, those parts need to be insourced by the Fed Gov.

human , March 22, 2017 at 7:46 pm

The CIA has a long history of drug trafficking. The FBI traffics in blackmail. The NSA in network surveillance. DIA, special ops. NRO, satelite throughput. 11 more in the US of A and countless more globally. They all have opaque resources outside of regular channels.

Ernesto Lyon , March 23, 2017 at 12:09 am

Great documentary about the 80's cocaine business in Miami called "Cocaine Cowboys." It's real life Scarface. Guess who the Feds sent to get a handle on the cocaine smuggling? See-eye-aye man George H.W. Bush. Coincidence?

[Nov 30, 2017] Healthcare Costs and Its Drivers Today by run75441

Notable quotes:
"... We no longer care for patients, but we care about what's going on. You see, most of us are employed by insurance companies to do preauthorization for drugs and medical procedures ..."
"... Now before you start on insurance companies and doctors; understand, this is not as free a market place as many would assume. ..."
"... In all of their political wisdom, Congress favors pharmaceutical companies over doctors, insurance companies, and the welfare of the constituents. ..."
"... Through legislation, Congress has made it impossible for insurance companies to negotiate pharmaceutical pricing in Medicare Part D insurance and also the ACA ..."
"... So we spend more for healthcare than any other country in the world; but, Americans do not get the care they need. There is a simple reason. Treatment decisions are not being driven based on a physician's knowledge or judgment. They are being driven by what payers are willing to pay for. ..."
Nov 25, 2017 | angrybearblog.com

I have been doing my typical reading on healthcare in the US and ran across several articles which seemingly come together at various points in the dialogue and are written by different authors. I decided to tie them together into a much wider and telling story.

An interesting point being was made by MedPage Today's Dr. Milton Packer on his blog, " people suffer and die because Payors (Healthcare Insurance) is cost effective ." He starts his discussion on the opiate epidemic in the US, opiates are being prescribed by doctors for pain relief and . . .

"Patients are becoming addicted to opiates after the initial 10 day prescription with one-fifth of patients still using opiates a year later. There is no need to prescribe opiates as other less addictive pain-relief formulations are available, which are not commonly prescribed." This raises the question of why?

Payers will not pay for the alternatives. The less-addictive opiates are more expensive and payers have declined to support them. Patients get addicted because prescribing for the lower cost and highly addictive opiates saves the payers money initially (me) .

September 17, 2017, the New York Time and ProPublica (independent, nonprofit investigative journalism organization) collaborated on an article concerning the opiod epidemic in the US.

At a time when the United States is in the grip of an opioid epidemic, many insurers are limiting access to pain medications that carry a lower risk of addiction or dependence, even as they provide comparatively easy access to generic opioid medications.

The reason given: Opioid drugs are generally cheap while safer alternatives are often more expensive.

While the pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors , and doctors have come under scrutiny; insurance companies and the pharmacy benefit managers (CVS Caremark, Express Scripts and OptumRx) make the final decisions as to what is covered. It could be something as simple as a higher tier and deductible to block usage.

A little side trip here and a continuation of the above. A week or so ago, I ran across another MedPage Today article by Dr. Packer; " Who Actually Is Reviewing All Those Preauthorization Requests and How the System Works ." Dr. Packers was giving a talk on advances in medicine with regard to heart failures to a room of about 20 or so doctors who were retired.

Since many of them were no longer involved in active patient care, he wondered why they might want to hear a presentation on new advances in heart failure. Here was their answer:

Doctors: " We no longer care for patients, but we care about what's going on. You see, most of us are employed by insurance companies to do preauthorization for drugs and medical procedures ."

" Dr. Packer: I just gave a talk about new drugs for heart failure. Are you responsible for preauthorizing their use for individual patients? "

The answer; "Yes."

" So did I say anything today that was helpful? I talked about many new treatments. Did I say anything that you might use to inform your preauthorization responsibilities? "

"Oh, we've heard about those drugs before. We are asked to approve their use for patients all the time; but, we don't approve most of the requests. Nearly all of them are outside of the guidelines we are given."

" I just showed you evidence that these new drugs and devices make a real positive difference in people's lives. People who get them feel better and live longer. "

"Yes, you were very convincing. But the drugs are too expensive. So we typically reject requests, at least the first time. We figure that, if doctors are really serious, then they should be willing to make the request again and again."

" If the drugs will help people, how can you say no? "

"You see, if it weren't for us, the system would go broke. Every time we say yes, healthcare becomes more expensive, and that isn't a good thing. So when we say no, we are keeping the system in balance. Our job is to save our system of healthcare."

" But you are not saving our healthcare system. You are simply making money for the company that you work for. And patients aren't getting the drugs that they need. "

"You really don't understand, do you? If we approve expensive drugs, then the system goes broke. Then no one gets healthcare."

"Plus, if I approve too many expensive drugs, I won't get my bonus at the end of the month. So giving out too many approvals wouldn't be a smart thing for me to do. Would it?"

Now before you start on insurance companies and doctors; understand, this is not as free a market place as many would assume.

In all of their political wisdom, Congress favors pharmaceutical companies over doctors, insurance companies, and the welfare of the constituents.

Through legislation, Congress has made it impossible for insurance companies to negotiate pharmaceutical pricing in Medicare Part D insurance and also the ACA .

Furthermore with the consolidation happening in healthcare, negotiation by insurance companies with a consolidating and growing healthcare industry is becoming more and more difficult as the former does not have as great of leverage. You have read my argument calling out of Single Payor, Medicare-for-All, Public Option, etc. as the cure for today's healthcare issues and rising cost not being enough as the ACA and Part D were specifically blocked or the cost issue unaddressed in the legislation written by Congress. If these issues are not addressed from the very beginning, we will be fighting the same issues with rising costs a decade later with other programs.

At this point, I begin to disagree with Dr. Packers as he goes on to say:

" So we spend more for healthcare than any other country in the world; but, Americans do not get the care they need. There is a simple reason. Treatment decisions are not being driven based on a physician's knowledge or judgment. They are being driven by what payers are willing to pay for. "

It is true that patients may not get some of the healthcare they need at the time due to denial, which can be appealed to the ACA, and can be a tiring process. It could be approved, passed on to patients, resulting in higher premiums the following year, and the Part D Risk Corridor program pay for it if excessive for the present year. What Dr. Packers does not mention is the rising prices and cost of drugs being blamed by pharmaceutical company on R&D, tooling up to manufacture, etc. The counter argument is much of the R&D is funded by the US government through tax deductions and write-offs for pharmaceutical R&D and capital Overhead. Pharmaceutical profits are double digit at ~25% beating out hospital supplies and healthcare insurance, which is already limited in what can be charged back to the insured by the MLR. To blame insurance companies totally for the higher costs in healthcare is false. Furthermore, a doctor's decision do not always lead to less costly cures or practices.

Maggie Mahar of Health Beat Blog would take the subject of costs a step farther and state Medicare will approve anything the FDA approves for usage regardless of the quality of outcome when measured against older proven treatments. Notably the VA does limit its pharmacy and its care is rated higher than that of today's commercial, for-profit healthcare to which most citizens are exposed.

Dr. Donald Berwick, President Obama's proposed appointment for Medicare and who was in charge of Medicare and Medicaid for 17 months stated;

"20 to 30 percent of health spending is 'waste' that yields no benefit to patients, and that some of the needless spending is a result of onerous, archaic regulations enforced by Medicare and Medicaid.

He listed five reasons for what he described as the 'extremely high level of waste.' They are overtreatment of patients, the failure to coordinate care, the administrative complexity of the health care system, burdensome rules and fraud .

Much is done that does not help patients at all and many physicians know it."

That is the same Medicare/Medicaid being touted by many proponents today as an alternative.

Speaking of costs and pricing for pharmaceuticals, there have been recent incidents of skyrocketing costs on particular drugs. A short while ago, I wrote a post concerning the appointment of Alex Araz as the new HHS Secretary replacing Dr. Tom Price. Formerly, Alex Araz was the CEO of the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly & Co.'s U.S. division . He also served under George W. Bush administration as the HHS General Counsel and Deputy Secretary. During that stint, he received praise for his management competence with the HHS; although, he did not have a healthcare background prior to this position.

Here it gets interesting when examining what took place during his tenure with Eli Lilly. One of the leading costs identified in pharmaceuticals increases has been in the rising cost of diabetes medication.

"While the Tweeter-in-Chief, Trump tells us presidential campaign contributor Alex Azar will be a 'star' who will lower prescription prices,"

Public Citizen's Peter Maybarduk (Director) had this to say: " Eli Lilly is notorious for spiking prices of a century-old isolated hormone during Azar's tenure as president and vice president. Eli Lilly raised the price of Humalog by 345%, from $2,657.88 per year to $9,172.80 per year.

Maybe President Trump in appointing Alex Azar to be HHS Secretary should have asked the 6 million diabetic Americans whose insulin prices have more than tripled under Azar's watch at Eli Lilly."

This has nothing to do with R&D and has more to do with pharmaceutical companies controlling the market regardless of supply and throughput restricted manufacturing (capacity).

What I have tried to do is tie these articles together into one cohesive story of how the pharmaceutical industry, insurance, and healthcare can have an impact on healthcare costs. For those who are interested, my background does include working in the manufacture of hospital supplies and pharmaceuticals. Using various citations from these articles, I have tried to touch upon the impact of insurance companies, the healthcare industry, government intervention under the HHS, one particular Med in the market place, etc. Overall, what is going on in the marketplace.

Another article, I read the other day gets into the foundation of what is happening based upon a recently completed study by JAMA. Using this study, the Methods Man, Dr. Perry Wilson (MedPage Today) examines what is driving healthcare costs in his article Here's What's Really Driving Healthcare Costs using data from Factors Associated With Increases in US Health Care Spending, 1996-2013 and the US Disease Expenditure Project . Dr. Wilson breaks it down using three simple charts which I have consolidated to one.

Dr. Perry Wilson starts off making an overall point about the rising cost of healthcare from 1996 to 2013 and stating; "after accounting for inflation, healthcare expenditures increased $933.5 billion from 1996 to 2013."

Going on: "Healthcare expenditures in the US being high and rising rapidly is nothing new, but the study appearing in the Journal of the American Medical Association identifies the exact components of healthcare that are driving those soaring costs. The data from this study suggests traditional economic forces break down in the US healthcare market.

Different chronic diseases have different patterns of price increases. The biggest increase was seen in diabetes care, as you can see here, driven largely by the rising costs of pharmaceuticals."

The Chart breakdowns reveal the various impacts of healthcare costs moving from left to right and then downward:

• 50% of the increase in healthcare costs was simply due to higher prices.

• Inpatient care or Service Utilization (purple) went down from 1996 – 2013 as outpatient treatment increased; however, the price of the remaining inpatient care went up much more – increasing overall inpatient care spending by around $250 billion.

• Different Chronic Diseases have different patterns of price increases. The biggest increase was seen in diabetes care and driven largely by the rising prices of pharmaceuticals.

The takeaway drawn by Dr Perry Wilson: "Regardless of the disease, it is clear, the price of what we're buying – whether a drug, an ED visit, or a hospital stay – not the amount of what we're buying is the major driver of cost increases . Efforts to reduce the consumption of healthcare may not bend the cost curve as much as efforts to reduce its price."

You can not make an argument about the regulation of costs "not" being one of the dynamic components of a healthcare plan given the continuous unhindered industry driven rising cost of healthcare. Yet, every healthcare plan I have read fails to mention cost regulation specifically, provide remedy for it, and many assume a natural occurrence of control.

Tags: run75441 Comments (9) Digg Facebook Twitter Comments (9)

Longtooth , November 26, 2017 12:59 am

Run thanks for this, but in my opinion you're avoiding the central problem , though you briefly touched upon it without being more explicit:

"This has nothing to do with R&D and has more to do with pharmaceutical companies controlling the market regardless of supply and restricted manufacturing throughput. "

The market can't be controlled by the pharmaceutical companies unless the government lets them. So this is a government sourced and caused problem unless you believe laissez-fair is the gov'ts job to promote and endorse.

You can't blame the pharmaceutical companies for doing precisely what the gov't lets them do by law.. the pharmaceuticals company's owners are in this to be philanthropic are they?

What you are essentially not coming to grips with is that our government is not designed to be democratic but designed by it's concept to be a system to ingratiate those who pay the most to keep the gov't in power which is to say those that represent them are paid to do their bidding in other words a gov't controlled by the sources of wealth to maintain it. if it were anywhere near a democratic system, how could 1% control it?

Longtooth , November 26, 2017 1:08 am

Run, sorry I forgot that there's never been a democratic system from the Spartan through the Athenian to the present that hasn't been controlled by the wealth. There have only been moments brought about by extreme deprivation that have had to deal with that deprivation to avoid revolution.

When we want to fix U.S. healthcare costs and quality we know how to do it, but you have to fix the system of government we employ to do it. Address the source of the problem rather than effects of it.

Longtooth , November 26, 2017 1:36 am

Run, let me only add that I don't know how we can have a free market based and biased system of government and anything even approximating a democratic system at the same time. That is the actual dilemma since they are mutually exclusive.

If you think about how to "comprise" one with the other then you have to decide how such compromise is made and sustained (sustained being key word) and I can't see or find any evidence in U.S. history that suggests such compromise has ever worked to provide for the greater good on a sustained basis.

Perhaps its not even possible among human systems of civilized government .. but then why the charade as if it is? If the public wants to improve the healthcare system then why does it elect Presidents and representatives who don't want to improve it? If the public want's to improve the healthcare system why do Supreme Court interpret the Constitutional "law" to prevent it? Or if the 200+ year old constitutional law is so outdated as to be irrelevant than why doesn't the pubic demand to change it?

Or does the pubic want it's cake and eat it too? The public may be confused (I'm sure of this in fact) because they want simultaneously mutually exclusive conditions.

Denis Drew , November 26, 2017 9:29 am

Run, great major post.

Long, " I don't know how we can have a free market based and biased system of government and anything even approximating a democratic system "

No? Look at continental Europe -- look at across the board labor union density -- look at sector-wide labor agreements. Come to think look at our northern neighbor.

Mostly all other problems from health care to student debt to everything are just symptomatic of the same economic/political-union free pathology. Bernie and Eliz don't spend a lot of time looking abroad either -- or even looking at 1973 stateside.

Come a Dem Congress I think the best idea is:
Why Not Hold Union Representation Elections on a Regular Schedule?
Published November 1st, 2017 – Andrew Strom

https://onlabor.org/why-not-hold-union-representation-elections-on-a-regular-schedule/

This can be sold as taking a page from Repub govs (e.g., Walker) who force government employee unions to re-certify every year -- with majority of union members, not just those who vote, required to retain.

I'm playing with the idea of proposing (via spam mail*) re-certification for every union in the country every year -- oh, of course, that would include certification elections for every nonunion workplace: that's the Trojan Horse .

We really want to certify/recertify every three or five years (three at first while we are trying to build density -- maybe five later on). Once we organize enough we can write the rules any way we want. By proposing re-certification every year (from my spider hole in Chicago) maybe I can get union members dander up and thereby at least wake them up to the issue. Cab driver political drama.

(* I have about 2000 email addresses, journalists, union, academic, politicians -- in WA, OR, CA, NV -- that I like to hit with new ideas.)

run75441 , November 26, 2017 11:40 am

Denis:

You may want to look at this again. A portion of it was blocked due to an error in linking to an article on Pharma costs which was kind of important. I have another article coming out which will discuss Pharmaceutical companies pulling advertising from medical news sites and mags if they are critical of pharma. As I read each of these articles, I could see a similar thread in them.

in 2015, AARP broke ties with MetLife over LTC insurance which MetLife discontinued in 2011 (no new applications). No big deal except AARP never told its membership of the AARP sponsored insurance break with MetLife. AARP now has a new LTC insurer New York Life announced as of 2015 and no letter to its members holding MetLife policies. Those who had AARP sponsored MetLife are now left with MetLife who is requesting a 21.75% increase just for cost over 3 years in addition to the normal inflation factor which was ~10% for 2018. AARP refers all inquiries to MetLife even though documents from MetLife still has AARP logos on it. Another interesting post of companies and Organizations screwing people.

Longtooth , November 26, 2017 5:48 pm

Dennis,

FWIW I come from a long line of union activists, members, and in one case a major union leader in the western U.S. and California in particular -- Building & Construction Trades Council.

I've been and remain a hugely strong union supporter. However my uncle (the Western US major union leader) was a realist and well understood the nature of economics viz-a-viz unions and capital owners.

In a series of discussions while I resided with he and his wife during one summer college break, he made me understand those trade-offs, and what drove them. At the time the college educated workforce in the US was 10% (4 year or better degree). He said a major factor in union's was the level of the college educated workforce and he said in 1966, that if the rate of college degree growth reached the then unprecedented rate of ~ 0.5%/year than in a few decades 1/3rd of the workforce would have college degrees -- the upshot of which is that they would very unlikely be persuaded to join unions or create new ones. His prognosis in 1966 turns out to be pretty close to reality even though he had little historic information to go on., .. he was not a pie in sky type, but a practical and major proponent of the general working class an working poor.

He also told me in 1966 that if unions demanded too much of the capital owners profits, they would resort to capital invested in automated methods -- his primary example of which was the hift to lath & plaster skilled union members to wall board which required no skill per-se and that forced union wages for interior "plasterers" down as lower skill and more efficient "sheetrock" hangers too over.

He cited other examples of automation replacing skilled union labor and without elaborating it was an eye-opener for me to see that unions were on their way down He not only knew the economics of building and construction business and labor, but of mining and manufacturing.

This was all long before Reagan's anti-unionism push (which in reality was Reagan using what was already well underway as a means of pumping up is conservative credentials).

My uncle's wisest advice was that if unions demanded more than capital owners were able to profit, they would simply use their capital in other enterprises where profits were greater -- this included not only investing in automated methods in mfg'ing and the building and construction trades (remember "sheetrock") , but in foreign low wage labor regions where especially mfg'ed goods could be produced at lower costs IF(the big IF in 1966) transportation and import duties made it more profitable to do so. He cited Mexico as the primary source of low transport cost low wage labor at the time, and at that time import duties from the few mfg'ed goods produced in Mexio were excessive which was the only reason mfg'ing hadn't shifted to use Mexican labor in Mexico for production and also why mfg'ing was investing more and more capital in automation. BUT, he said sooner or later it would become clear that capital owners would push to chane US import policies from Mexican roduced goods and the this would reduce mfg'ing's need for U.S. labor, thus Union's would have far less leverage to take a share of capital profits.

So he was a few decades off in his estimates, but he was right in 1966.. My uncle was among those in the U.S. union leaders who all understood all this very well what they said in public was different that what they saw occurring and would continue to occur they just didn't know then the rate of occurrence -- the computer age hadn't started . semi-conductors were being invented and barely developed for example. China's opening up hadn't occurred yet either. Clinton's NAFTA was still far in the future.

Through al the years since 1966 I've watched the progression of what my Uncle told me during our discussions in the summer of 1966. take place, for precisely the reasons he (and other major union leaders) knew they would.

In hindsight what fails in the U.S. relative to Europe is Germany's constitutional protections of labor unions. which by osmosis transfers to the other major European nations just as U.S. union wages and benefits transferred by the same osmosis to non-union wages and benefits rising to keep pace.

Keep up the good fight, Dennis, but you're forgetting about the economic realities in the US and it's individualism worship and constitution that protects it. .

JackD , November 26, 2017 9:22 pm

Run, as you know, nothing substantive on controlling medical costs can possibly occur with Republicans in charge. With Democrats in charge, it's tough enough. Witness the ACA's development and the impact of the blue dogs.

JimH , November 27, 2017 10:28 am

JackD wrote "Run, as you know, nothing substantive on controlling medical costs can possibly occur with Republicans in charge."

I could not agree with you more.

The Republicans' implementation of Medicare Part D which forbids negotiation of drug prices was asinine. Where was their concern for the national deficits and debt?

On heath care President Obama was negotiating with the duplicitous. His opposition had only one concern, their oath to Grover Norquist.

Daniel Becker , November 27, 2017 5:22 pm

It's not just that pharma has some say on what gets published, but in the health literature world, the trend was to only publish positive results.

As you can imagine, this has left a major void in truly understanding what happens in the body when a treatment is applied. There is a push to change this. Additionally, there is the push toward the idea of "numbers to treat". That is, how many have to receive the treatment to create one positive results. Outcomes can look a lot more different when looking at numbers to treat.

[Nov 30, 2017] A comprehensive health care program for social services recipients can be provided for about 3-4% of the cost of services. Private medical insurance providers rake 20%. Yet, private providers were supposedly driven by invisible market forces to maximum efficiency. BS. In fact, they are driven by greed and they found it much easier to maximize profits by colluding with politicians and health care providers. That is the trouble with free markets its just so damn easy to cheat and cheaters are never in short supply.

Nov 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Patient Observer , November 27, 2017 at 5:12 pm

Mark, today's posting provided is a nice change of pace to a topic of local impact (for me at least). UGC presented a good overview peppered with supporting data.

In an earlier career incarnation, I worked as a systems analyst involved with development of online systems for state social services. Data showed that our systems were able to administer a comprehensive health care program for social services recipients for about 3-4% of the cost of services. Private medical insurance providers required approximately 20% of the cost of services to provide similar services. Yet, private providers were supposedly driven by invisible market forces to maximum efficiency. BS. In fact, they are driven by greed and they found it much easier to maximize profits by colluding with politicians and health care providers. That is the trouble with free markets – its just so damn easy to cheat and cheaters are never in short supply.

One more thing, prescription drugs costs may exceed $600 billion in the US by 2021:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drugspending-quintilesims/u-s-prescription-drug-spending-as-high-as-610-billion-by-2021-report-idUSKBN1800BU

That would be nearly $2,000 per year for every American!

If a tiny fraction of that amount were spent on prevention, education, improved diets and other similar initiatives, the population ought to be healthier and richer. But, greed overpowers the public good every time. The US health care system is a criminal enterprise in my opinion. The good that it does is grossly outweighed by greed and exploitation of human suffering.

marknesop , November 28, 2017 at 12:10 am
I believe the author is also a systems analyst, so you are thinking along similar lines.
ucgsblog , November 28, 2017 at 4:05 pm
I agree with that. Plus, it seems like they have an entire staff dedicated to giving their "customer" the run around. A friend of mine had to deal with several different departments regarding his healthcare bill. The billing office told him that they only deal with billing questions, and that for explanations for the bill, he should call the doctor's office. The doctor's office told him to call the hospital, since that's where the service took place. The hospital told him to call his primary doctor, who sent him there, and his primary doctor referred him back to the specialist, where he was referred back to the billing department, which promptly told him that they're closing for the day, since he spent 6 hours being transferred from one department to the next.

[Nov 30, 2017] I find it terribly silly that we should even consider med student's debt as an excuse. First, American doctors are the best paid professionals in the country. Internists make a median 190 thousand a year, and they are among the worst paid specialties.

Nov 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

anon@gmail.com , November 27, 2017 at 6:02 pm

I find it terribly silly that we should even consider med student's debt as an excuse. First, American doctors are the best paid professionals in the country. Internists make a median 190 thousand a year, and they are among the worst paid specialties. I cannot possibly see the problem with paying your income for 5 years, knowing that you get access to a caste that will allow you make good money into your eighties.

Second, the debt is not that high as you claim. Harvard Medical School tuition is 64 thousand. You can rent across the street with 20 thousand a year – I currently live there.

Third, med students know all this. The reason why they borrow far more is because they know they can afford it. I went to med school somewhere in a developing world. We shared toilets in the dorm. As a matter of fact, most under-30s in Boston live in shared accommodation. The outliers? Med students. Even the lowly Tufts and BU students that I met own cars and live by themselves, mainly in new buildings across the street from their hospitals.

Every time I go to the doctors, I am thinking how I am going to sue their asses if they make a mistake.

ucgsblog , November 28, 2017 at 4:08 pm
It's not an excuse. It's a bill. When you rent an apartment, did you know that most landlords also factor in the property tax when figuring out what your rent payment should be? Similarly, the interest payments on the doctoral students' loans are passed off to the consumer, and that is yet another reason why Healthcare is so expensive. That's why I think that medical school should be free for those students who promise to charge their patients no more than x amount of money.

[Nov 30, 2017] The most cost-efficient systems, like the system in Sweden for example, are fairly regimented and don't leave much room for individual choice (unless someone pays out of pocket for treatment completely outside the public system)

Nov 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Ryan Ward , November 28, 2017 at 3:40 am

With health care in general, there's a bit of a trade-off. The most cost-efficient systems, like the system in Sweden for example, are fairly regimented and don't leave much room for individual choice (unless someone pays out of pocket for treatment completely outside the public system). On the other hand, systems that give people a little more choice, like the system in Germany, tend to be a little on the pricey side. I think, given American political culture, something along the lines of the German model is much more likely to attract widespread public support. In any case, it's still cheaper than the American system, and achieves some of the best results in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany

[Nov 30, 2017] The most interesting insight into healcare in the USA: The cost is shocking

Nov 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

James lake , November 28, 2017 at 12:21 am

This is s very interesting insight into healcare in the USA. The cost is shocking.
I live in the UK and the healthcare system is paid for from taxation.
When it was established over 70 years ago it's
The health service would be available to all and financed entirely from taxation, which meant that people paid into it according to their means.
It was the best thing in my view that government has ever done.
Good healthcare should be available to all and not dependent on peoples ability to pay.

However there always a private healthcare system that ran alongside it

And over the years it had been unpicked as successive governments have tried to privatise it. Claiming they will save the taxpayer money

– opticians and dentistry have become part private after 18 if you are employed.
Which many people do not mind.
-Elderly care was also privatised as it's the most expensive
-care for the disabled also is a issue for local councils
-Mental health became care in the community – society's problem!

Privatisation has meant profits for businesses, poor services to vulnerable groups.
And yet still more and more taxation is needed for the NHS!
The issue of more money was even part of the Brexit debate as it was stated that leaving the EU would mean more money for the NHS which people are proud of.

marknesop , November 28, 2017 at 10:25 am
There was a quote I was thinking of using in the lead-in, but decided in the end not to since I didn't want to have too many and it might have become confusing. It related that you would get the best medical care of your lifetime – after you died, when they were rushing to save your organs, for transplant. Obviously this would not be true if you were not an organ donor (at least in this country) or died as the result of general wasting away so that you had nothing left which would be particularly coveted. But this is a major issue in medicine in some countries and there have been various lurid tales of bodies being robbed of their organs without family permission, bodies of Ukrainian soldiers harvested of their organs and rackets in third-world countries where the poor or helpless are robbed of organs while they are alive. From my standpoint, since I haven't done much research on it, I have seen little proof of any of them despite plenty of allegation, but it is easy to understand that traffic in organs to those who will pay anything to live a little longer would be tremendously profitable, and the potential for disproportionate profit seldom fails to draw the unscrupulous.

As I alluded in the lead-in, Canada has what is sometimes described as 'socialized medicine' and alternatively as 'two-tier healthcare' although I have never seen any real substantiation for the latter charge. My mom had an operation for colon cancer some time back, and she paid nothing for the hospitalization or the operation. My father-in-law is scheduled for the same operation as soon as he gets his blood-sugar low enough, and he already had one for a hernia and removal of internal scar tissue from an old injury – again, we paid nothing. He had a nurse come here for a couple of months, once a week, to change his dressing (because the incision would was very slow to heal because he is diabetic – nothing. That's all great, from my point of view, and I've paid into it all my life without ever using it because I was covered by the government under federal guidelines while I served in the military, although I was a cheap patient because I never had to be hospitalized for anything and was almost never even sick enough not to come to work. But the great drawback to it, as I said, is the backlog which might mean you have to wait too long for an operation. And in my small practical experience – the two cases I have just mentioned – both were scheduled for surgery within a month of diagnosis. So perhaps the long wait is for particular operations such as heart or brain surgery.

Patient Observer , November 28, 2017 at 12:49 pm
The Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army harvested organs from captured Serb civilians and soldiers:

https://thebloodyellowhouse.wordpress.com/

In December 14th 2010, Dick Marty, Rapporteur of EU Commission pass for adoption to the Council of Europe a report on allegations of inhuman treatment of people and illicit trafficking in human organs in Kosovo organized by KLA leader and Kosovo Prime minister Hashim Thaçi . An official report accusing Kosovo's prime minister of links to a "mafia-like" network that killed captives in order to sell their organs on the black market was yesterday endorsed by a Council of Europe committee.

Bold text emphasis added.

Nothing came of the charges that I am aware of and it is business as usual with Kosovo and Albania.

Per Wikipedia:

The Washington Times reported that the KLA was financing its activities by trafficking the illegal drugs of heroin and cocaine into western Europe.[16]

A report to the Council of Europe, written by Dick Marty, issued on 15 December 2010[23] states that Hacim Thaçi was the leader of the "Drenica Group" in charge of trafficking organs taken from Serbian prisoners.

On 17 February 2008, Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia. Thaçi became Prime Minister of the newly independent state.

So, there you have it – the war criminal, drug runner, murderer and organ thief/butcher became the PM of Kosovo, a nation created and nurtured by NATO with a nod and a wink from the EU. Simply disgusting but typical treatment for Serbia by the fascist/racist and genocidally inclined West.

et Al , November 28, 2017 at 1:32 am
Thank you very much for a very interesting article UCG! Quite the horror story. I've heard quite a few about the US over the years from people I know too. I think one of the BBC's former America correspondent gave an interview to the Beeb as he was leaving America a few years back (MAtt Frei?) and was asked what were the best and worst things about living there. The worst was certainly healthcare.

I've also read that healthcare costs for the self-employed, independents, freelancers can also be crushing in the land of the free where everyone can become rich. Has this changed? I would have thought that those were the ideal Americans, making it off their own back, but apparently not.

There's also another issue that is not addressed: an ageing population. This is a very current theme and it is now not at all unusual for people to live another 30 odd years after retirement. Now how on earth will such people manage their healthcare for such a period? Will they have to hock absolutely everything they have? America is already at war with itself (hence the utmost need to for foreign enemies), but nothing is getting done. Just more of the same. Meanwhile the Brits are trying to copy the US through stealth privatization of their health system. It might work as well as privatizing its rail service

yalensis , November 28, 2017 at 3:21 am
Thanks for an interesting post, UCG. Hopefully this will stimulate some ideas on how to fix the American healthcare system, which seems to be badly broken.
Patient Observer , November 28, 2017 at 4:34 am
Broken for us but working perfectly for Big Pharma and insurance companies. That is a fundamental reason why it will be extremely difficult to "fix" because it ain't broken as a money making machine.
yalensis , November 28, 2017 at 1:25 pm
True. And the insurance companies, in particular, have been really raking it in, especially with Obamacare and the various Medicare Advantage options.

[Nov 30, 2017] Looks like the rot in the US healthcare system is terminal

Nov 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

kirill , November 27, 2017 at 8:38 pm

Interesting article. Looks like the rot in the US is terminal. But Canada and its "socialized" medicine is not far behind. Operating an emergency ward with only one doctor doing the rounds at the rest of the hospital during the night is absurd. But that is what major Canadian hospitals do. Don't bother going to emergency at 2 am unless you are literally dying. Wait until 7 am when the day day crew arrives and you can actually receive treatment.

The problem in Canada, as in the USA, is overpaid doctors and not enough of them (because they are overpaid). Instead of paying a doctor $300,000 per year or more, the system needs to have 3 or more doctors earning $100,000 per year. Then there is no excuse about being overworked and "requiring" a high compensation. Big incomes attract crooks and not talent. If you want to be a doctor then you should do 5 years of low income work abroad or at home. That would weed out a lot of the $$$ in the eyeballs leeches. A nasty side effect of having overpaid doctors and living adjacent to the US, is that they act like a mafia and extort the government by threatening to leave to the USA. I say that the Canadian provinces should make all medical students sign binding contracts to pay the cost difference between their Canadian medical education and the equivalent in the USA if they decide to run off to America.

At the undergraduate level, the physics courses with the highest enrollment are aimed at streams going into medicine. There are hordes of money maker wannabes trying to make it big in medicine. But they are all nearly weeded out and never graduate from medical school. So the system maintains the fake doctor shortage and racket level salaries. On top of this, hospitals pay a 300% markup for basic supplies (gauze, syringes, etc). It is actually possible for private individuals to pay the nominal price so this is not just a theory. Clearly, there is no effort to control costs by hospital administrations since basic economics would imply that hospitals would pay less than individuals for these items due to the volume of sales involved. At the end of the day North American public medicine is a non-market bloating itself into oblivion since the taxpayer will always pay whatever is desired. That is, the spineless politicians will never crack the whip.

Ryan Ward , November 28, 2017 at 3:19 am
This is part of the problem in Canada. One way to help deal with it in my view, beyond simply cutting doctors' fees (which any government with the political will to do so can do) is to simply make it easier for International Medical Graduates to get licensed in Canada. Canada has legions of immigrants (and could have pretty much however many more it likes) with full medical qualifications who would be thrilled to work for much less than the current pay rates. It's a scandal how many qualified doctors we have in Canada driving taxis rather than practicing medicine. If we just took advantage of the human resources we already have, we could easily say to doctors who threaten to leave for the US, "Fine, go. We've got 10 guys from India lined up to do your job." This isn't to say that doctors shouldn't be very well-paid. Anyone who has ever known someone in med school knows it's hell. But doctors would be very well-paid at half the rates they're getting now.

Another part of the problem is an over-reliance on hospitals. There are a lot of people in the hospitals more in "holding" than anything else, because there's no space in the proper facilities for them (The book "Chronic Condition" talks about this). The problem with this is that the cost per day to keep someone in the hospital is much higher than in other kinds of facilities. This is an entirely unnecessary loss.

For all that though, the Canadian system is leaps and bounds better than the American. We spend a vastly smaller percentage of our GDP on health care, and in return achieve higher health outcomes, as measured by the WHO. If we were willing to spend the kind of money the Americans do on health care, we could have patients sleeping in golden beds even with the structural flaws of our current system. That's worth constantly remembering, because some of the proposals for health reform floating around now lean in the direction of privatization, and we've seen where that road leads.

marknesop , November 28, 2017 at 10:32 am
Before he retired from politics, Keith Martin was my MLA, and he was also a qualified MD. He used to rail against the convoluted process for certification in medicine in Canada, while others complained that we were subject to an influx of doctor-immigrants from India because Canada required less time spent in medical school than India does. I never checked the veracity of that, although we do have quite a few Indian doctors. My own doctor – in the military, and still now since he is in private practice – is a South African, and he explained that he had gone in for the military (although he was always a civilian, some military doctors are military members as well but most are not) because the hoop-jumping process to be certified for private practice in Canada with foreign qualifications was just too onerous.

Unsurprisingly, I completely agree on the subject of privatization, because it always leads to an emphasis on profit and cost-cutting. I don't know why some people can't see that.

[Nov 30, 2017] Looks like the rot in the US healthcare system is terminal

Nov 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

kirill , November 27, 2017 at 8:38 pm

Interesting article. Looks like the rot in the US is terminal. But Canada and its "socialized" medicine is not far behind. Operating an emergency ward with only one doctor doing the rounds at the rest of the hospital during the night is absurd. But that is what major Canadian hospitals do. Don't bother going to emergency at 2 am unless you are literally dying. Wait until 7 am when the day day crew arrives and you can actually receive treatment.

The problem in Canada, as in the USA, is overpaid doctors and not enough of them (because they are overpaid). Instead of paying a doctor $300,000 per year or more, the system needs to have 3 or more doctors earning $100,000 per year. Then there is no excuse about being overworked and "requiring" a high compensation. Big incomes attract crooks and not talent. If you want to be a doctor then you should do 5 years of low income work abroad or at home. That would weed out a lot of the $$$ in the eyeballs leeches. A nasty side effect of having overpaid doctors and living adjacent to the US, is that they act like a mafia and extort the government by threatening to leave to the USA. I say that the Canadian provinces should make all medical students sign binding contracts to pay the cost difference between their Canadian medical education and the equivalent in the USA if they decide to run off to America.

At the undergraduate level, the physics courses with the highest enrollment are aimed at streams going into medicine. There are hordes of money maker wannabes trying to make it big in medicine. But they are all nearly weeded out and never graduate from medical school. So the system maintains the fake doctor shortage and racket level salaries. On top of this, hospitals pay a 300% markup for basic supplies (gauze, syringes, etc). It is actually possible for private individuals to pay the nominal price so this is not just a theory. Clearly, there is no effort to control costs by hospital administrations since basic economics would imply that hospitals would pay less than individuals for these items due to the volume of sales involved. At the end of the day North American public medicine is a non-market bloating itself into oblivion since the taxpayer will always pay whatever is desired. That is, the spineless politicians will never crack the whip.

Ryan Ward , November 28, 2017 at 3:19 am
This is part of the problem in Canada. One way to help deal with it in my view, beyond simply cutting doctors' fees (which any government with the political will to do so can do) is to simply make it easier for International Medical Graduates to get licensed in Canada. Canada has legions of immigrants (and could have pretty much however many more it likes) with full medical qualifications who would be thrilled to work for much less than the current pay rates. It's a scandal how many qualified doctors we have in Canada driving taxis rather than practicing medicine. If we just took advantage of the human resources we already have, we could easily say to doctors who threaten to leave for the US, "Fine, go. We've got 10 guys from India lined up to do your job." This isn't to say that doctors shouldn't be very well-paid. Anyone who has ever known someone in med school knows it's hell. But doctors would be very well-paid at half the rates they're getting now.

Another part of the problem is an over-reliance on hospitals. There are a lot of people in the hospitals more in "holding" than anything else, because there's no space in the proper facilities for them (The book "Chronic Condition" talks about this). The problem with this is that the cost per day to keep someone in the hospital is much higher than in other kinds of facilities. This is an entirely unnecessary loss.

For all that though, the Canadian system is leaps and bounds better than the American. We spend a vastly smaller percentage of our GDP on health care, and in return achieve higher health outcomes, as measured by the WHO. If we were willing to spend the kind of money the Americans do on health care, we could have patients sleeping in golden beds even with the structural flaws of our current system. That's worth constantly remembering, because some of the proposals for health reform floating around now lean in the direction of privatization, and we've seen where that road leads.

marknesop , November 28, 2017 at 10:32 am
Before he retired from politics, Keith Martin was my MLA, and he was also a qualified MD. He used to rail against the convoluted process for certification in medicine in Canada, while others complained that we were subject to an influx of doctor-immigrants from India because Canada required less time spent in medical school than India does. I never checked the veracity of that, although we do have quite a few Indian doctors. My own doctor – in the military, and still now since he is in private practice – is a South African, and he explained that he had gone in for the military (although he was always a civilian, some military doctors are military members as well but most are not) because the hoop-jumping process to be certified for private practice in Canada with foreign qualifications was just too onerous.

Unsurprisingly, I completely agree on the subject of privatization, because it always leads to an emphasis on profit and cost-cutting. I don't know why some people can't see that.

[Nov 30, 2017] The most interesting insight into healcare in the USA: The cost is shocking

Nov 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

James lake , November 28, 2017 at 12:21 am

This is s very interesting insight into healcare in the USA. The cost is shocking.
I live in the UK and the healthcare system is paid for from taxation.
When it was established over 70 years ago it's
The health service would be available to all and financed entirely from taxation, which meant that people paid into it according to their means.
It was the best thing in my view that government has ever done.
Good healthcare should be available to all and not dependent on peoples ability to pay.

However there always a private healthcare system that ran alongside it

And over the years it had been unpicked as successive governments have tried to privatise it. Claiming they will save the taxpayer money

– opticians and dentistry have become part private after 18 if you are employed.
Which many people do not mind.
-Elderly care was also privatised as it's the most expensive
-care for the disabled also is a issue for local councils
-Mental health became care in the community – society's problem!

Privatisation has meant profits for businesses, poor services to vulnerable groups.
And yet still more and more taxation is needed for the NHS!
The issue of more money was even part of the Brexit debate as it was stated that leaving the EU would mean more money for the NHS which people are proud of.

marknesop , November 28, 2017 at 10:25 am
There was a quote I was thinking of using in the lead-in, but decided in the end not to since I didn't want to have too many and it might have become confusing. It related that you would get the best medical care of your lifetime – after you died, when they were rushing to save your organs, for transplant. Obviously this would not be true if you were not an organ donor (at least in this country) or died as the result of general wasting away so that you had nothing left which would be particularly coveted. But this is a major issue in medicine in some countries and there have been various lurid tales of bodies being robbed of their organs without family permission, bodies of Ukrainian soldiers harvested of their organs and rackets in third-world countries where the poor or helpless are robbed of organs while they are alive. From my standpoint, since I haven't done much research on it, I have seen little proof of any of them despite plenty of allegation, but it is easy to understand that traffic in organs to those who will pay anything to live a little longer would be tremendously profitable, and the potential for disproportionate profit seldom fails to draw the unscrupulous.

As I alluded in the lead-in, Canada has what is sometimes described as 'socialized medicine' and alternatively as 'two-tier healthcare' although I have never seen any real substantiation for the latter charge. My mom had an operation for colon cancer some time back, and she paid nothing for the hospitalization or the operation. My father-in-law is scheduled for the same operation as soon as he gets his blood-sugar low enough, and he already had one for a hernia and removal of internal scar tissue from an old injury – again, we paid nothing. He had a nurse come here for a couple of months, once a week, to change his dressing (because the incision would was very slow to heal because he is diabetic – nothing. That's all great, from my point of view, and I've paid into it all my life without ever using it because I was covered by the government under federal guidelines while I served in the military, although I was a cheap patient because I never had to be hospitalized for anything and was almost never even sick enough not to come to work. But the great drawback to it, as I said, is the backlog which might mean you have to wait too long for an operation. And in my small practical experience – the two cases I have just mentioned – both were scheduled for surgery within a month of diagnosis. So perhaps the long wait is for particular operations such as heart or brain surgery.

Patient Observer , November 28, 2017 at 12:49 pm
The Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army harvested organs from captured Serb civilians and soldiers:

https://thebloodyellowhouse.wordpress.com/

In December 14th 2010, Dick Marty, Rapporteur of EU Commission pass for adoption to the Council of Europe a report on allegations of inhuman treatment of people and illicit trafficking in human organs in Kosovo organized by KLA leader and Kosovo Prime minister Hashim Thaçi . An official report accusing Kosovo's prime minister of links to a "mafia-like" network that killed captives in order to sell their organs on the black market was yesterday endorsed by a Council of Europe committee.

Bold text emphasis added.

Nothing came of the charges that I am aware of and it is business as usual with Kosovo and Albania.

Per Wikipedia:

The Washington Times reported that the KLA was financing its activities by trafficking the illegal drugs of heroin and cocaine into western Europe.[16]

A report to the Council of Europe, written by Dick Marty, issued on 15 December 2010[23] states that Hacim Thaçi was the leader of the "Drenica Group" in charge of trafficking organs taken from Serbian prisoners.

On 17 February 2008, Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia. Thaçi became Prime Minister of the newly independent state.

So, there you have it – the war criminal, drug runner, murderer and organ thief/butcher became the PM of Kosovo, a nation created and nurtured by NATO with a nod and a wink from the EU. Simply disgusting but typical treatment for Serbia by the fascist/racist and genocidally inclined West.

et Al , November 28, 2017 at 1:32 am
Thank you very much for a very interesting article UCG! Quite the horror story. I've heard quite a few about the US over the years from people I know too. I think one of the BBC's former America correspondent gave an interview to the Beeb as he was leaving America a few years back (MAtt Frei?) and was asked what were the best and worst things about living there. The worst was certainly healthcare.

I've also read that healthcare costs for the self-employed, independents, freelancers can also be crushing in the land of the free where everyone can become rich. Has this changed? I would have thought that those were the ideal Americans, making it off their own back, but apparently not.

There's also another issue that is not addressed: an ageing population. This is a very current theme and it is now not at all unusual for people to live another 30 odd years after retirement. Now how on earth will such people manage their healthcare for such a period? Will they have to hock absolutely everything they have? America is already at war with itself (hence the utmost need to for foreign enemies), but nothing is getting done. Just more of the same. Meanwhile the Brits are trying to copy the US through stealth privatization of their health system. It might work as well as privatizing its rail service

yalensis , November 28, 2017 at 3:21 am
Thanks for an interesting post, UCG. Hopefully this will stimulate some ideas on how to fix the American healthcare system, which seems to be badly broken.
Patient Observer , November 28, 2017 at 4:34 am
Broken for us but working perfectly for Big Pharma and insurance companies. That is a fundamental reason why it will be extremely difficult to "fix" because it ain't broken as a money making machine.
yalensis , November 28, 2017 at 1:25 pm
True. And the insurance companies, in particular, have been really raking it in, especially with Obamacare and the various Medicare Advantage options.

[Nov 30, 2017] The most cost-efficient systems, like the system in Sweden for example, are fairly regimented and don't leave much room for individual choice (unless someone pays out of pocket for treatment completely outside the public system)

Nov 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Ryan Ward , November 28, 2017 at 3:40 am

With health care in general, there's a bit of a trade-off. The most cost-efficient systems, like the system in Sweden for example, are fairly regimented and don't leave much room for individual choice (unless someone pays out of pocket for treatment completely outside the public system). On the other hand, systems that give people a little more choice, like the system in Germany, tend to be a little on the pricey side. I think, given American political culture, something along the lines of the German model is much more likely to attract widespread public support. In any case, it's still cheaper than the American system, and achieves some of the best results in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany

[Nov 30, 2017] I find it terribly silly that we should even consider med student's debt as an excuse. First, American doctors are the best paid professionals in the country. Internists make a median 190 thousand a year, and they are among the worst paid specialties.

Nov 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

anon@gmail.com , November 27, 2017 at 6:02 pm

I find it terribly silly that we should even consider med student's debt as an excuse. First, American doctors are the best paid professionals in the country. Internists make a median 190 thousand a year, and they are among the worst paid specialties. I cannot possibly see the problem with paying your income for 5 years, knowing that you get access to a caste that will allow you make good money into your eighties.

Second, the debt is not that high as you claim. Harvard Medical School tuition is 64 thousand. You can rent across the street with 20 thousand a year – I currently live there.

Third, med students know all this. The reason why they borrow far more is because they know they can afford it. I went to med school somewhere in a developing world. We shared toilets in the dorm. As a matter of fact, most under-30s in Boston live in shared accommodation. The outliers? Med students. Even the lowly Tufts and BU students that I met own cars and live by themselves, mainly in new buildings across the street from their hospitals.

Every time I go to the doctors, I am thinking how I am going to sue their asses if they make a mistake.

ucgsblog , November 28, 2017 at 4:08 pm
It's not an excuse. It's a bill. When you rent an apartment, did you know that most landlords also factor in the property tax when figuring out what your rent payment should be? Similarly, the interest payments on the doctoral students' loans are passed off to the consumer, and that is yet another reason why Healthcare is so expensive. That's why I think that medical school should be free for those students who promise to charge their patients no more than x amount of money.

[Nov 30, 2017] A comprehensive health care program for social services recipients can be provided for about 3-4% of the cost of services. Private medical insurance providers rake 20%. Yet, private providers were supposedly driven by invisible market forces to maximum efficiency. BS. In fact, they are driven by greed and they found it much easier to maximize profits by colluding with politicians and health care providers. That is the trouble with free markets – its just so damn easy to cheat and cheaters are never in short supply.

Nov 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Patient Observer , November 27, 2017 at 5:12 pm

Mark, today's posting provided is a nice change of pace to a topic of local impact (for me at least). UGC presented a good overview peppered with supporting data.

In an earlier career incarnation, I worked as a systems analyst involved with development of online systems for state social services. Data showed that our systems were able to administer a comprehensive health care program for social services recipients for about 3-4% of the cost of services. Private medical insurance providers required approximately 20% of the cost of services to provide similar services. Yet, private providers were supposedly driven by invisible market forces to maximum efficiency. BS. In fact, they are driven by greed and they found it much easier to maximize profits by colluding with politicians and health care providers. That is the trouble with free markets – its just so damn easy to cheat and cheaters are never in short supply.

One more thing, prescription drugs costs may exceed $600 billion in the US by 2021:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drugspending-quintilesims/u-s-prescription-drug-spending-as-high-as-610-billion-by-2021-report-idUSKBN1800BU

That would be nearly $2,000 per year for every American!

If a tiny fraction of that amount were spent on prevention, education, improved diets and other similar initiatives, the population ought to be healthier and richer. But, greed overpowers the public good every time. The US health care system is a criminal enterprise in my opinion. The good that it does is grossly outweighed by greed and exploitation of human suffering.

marknesop , November 28, 2017 at 12:10 am
I believe the author is also a systems analyst, so you are thinking along similar lines.
ucgsblog , November 28, 2017 at 4:05 pm
I agree with that. Plus, it seems like they have an entire staff dedicated to giving their "customer" the run around. A friend of mine had to deal with several different departments regarding his healthcare bill. The billing office told him that they only deal with billing questions, and that for explanations for the bill, he should call the doctor's office. The doctor's office told him to call the hospital, since that's where the service took place. The hospital told him to call his primary doctor, who sent him there, and his primary doctor referred him back to the specialist, where he was referred back to the billing department, which promptly told him that they're closing for the day, since he spent 6 hours being transferred from one department to the next.

[Nov 29, 2017] The Best Health Care You Can Afford by marknesop

Notable quotes:
"... "No, I mean I'm sorry that you've inherited such a miserable, collapsing Old Country. A place where rich Bankers own everything, where you've got to be grateful for a part-time job with no benefits and no retirement plan, where the most health insurance you can afford is being careful and hoping you don't get sick ..."
"... "Until fairly recently, every family had a cornucopia of favorite home remedies–plants and household items that could be prepared to treat minor medical emergencies, or to prevent a common ailment becoming something much more serious. Most households had someone with a little understanding of home cures, and when knowledge fell short, or more serious illness took hold, the family physician or village healer would be called in for a consultation, and a treatment would be agreed upon. In those days we took personal responsibility for our health–we took steps to prevent illness and were more aware of our bodies and of changes in them. And when illness struck, we frequently had the personal means to remedy it. More often than not, the treatment could be found in the garden or the larder. In the middle of the twentieth century we began to change our outlook. The advent of modern medicine, together with its many miracles, also led to a much greater dependency on our physicians and to an increasingly stretched healthcare system. The growth of the pharmaceutical industry has meant that there are indeed "cures" for most symptoms, and we have become accustomed to putting our health in the hands of someone else, and to purchasing products that make us feel good. Somewhere along the line we began to believe that technology was in some way superior to what was natural, and so we willingly gave up control of even minor health problems." ..."
"... The Complete Family Guide to Natural Home Remedies: Safe and Effective Treatments for Common Ailments ..."
"... "The vast wealth of the financial oligarchy, expressed in their ownership of massive corporations, must be seized and expropriated, while the complex technologies, supply chains, and advanced transportation systems must be integrated in an organized, planned manner to harness the anarchic force of the world economy and eliminate material scarcity. ..."
"... Interesting article. Looks like the rot in the US is terminal. ..."
"... This is s very interesting insight into healcare in the USA. The cost is shocking. I live in the UK and the healthcare system is paid for from taxation. When it was established over 70 years ago it's. The health service would be available to all and financed entirely from taxation, which meant that people paid into it according to their means. It was the best thing in my view that government has ever done. Good healthcare should be available to all and not dependent on peoples ability to pay. ..."
"... Privatisation has meant profits for businesses, poor services to vulnerable groups. ..."
Nov 27, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

"The art of medicine consists of amusing the patient while nature cures the disease."

"No, I mean I'm sorry that you've inherited such a miserable, collapsing Old Country. A place where rich Bankers own everything, where you've got to be grateful for a part-time job with no benefits and no retirement plan, where the most health insurance you can afford is being careful and hoping you don't get sick

Cory Doctorow; Homeland

"Until fairly recently, every family had a cornucopia of favorite home remedies–plants and household items that could be prepared to treat minor medical emergencies, or to prevent a common ailment becoming something much more serious. Most households had someone with a little understanding of home cures, and when knowledge fell short, or more serious illness took hold, the family physician or village healer would be called in for a consultation, and a treatment would be agreed upon. In those days we took personal responsibility for our health–we took steps to prevent illness and were more aware of our bodies and of changes in them. And when illness struck, we frequently had the personal means to remedy it. More often than not, the treatment could be found in the garden or the larder. In the middle of the twentieth century we began to change our outlook. The advent of modern medicine, together with its many miracles, also led to a much greater dependency on our physicians and to an increasingly stretched healthcare system. The growth of the pharmaceutical industry has meant that there are indeed "cures" for most symptoms, and we have become accustomed to putting our health in the hands of someone else, and to purchasing products that make us feel good. Somewhere along the line we began to believe that technology was in some way superior to what was natural, and so we willingly gave up control of even minor health problems."

Karen Sullivan; The Complete Family Guide to Natural Home Remedies: Safe and Effective Treatments for Common Ailments

No, I haven't abandoned Uncle Volodya, or shifted my focus to American administration; what follows is a guest post on the American healthcare system, by our friend UCG. As I've mentioned before – on the occasion of his previous guest post, in fact – he is an ethnic Russian living in the Golden State.

As an American in America, naturally his immediate concern is going to be healthcare in America; but there are lessons within for everyone. Don't get me wrong – doctors have done a tremendous amount of good, and medical researchers and many others from the world of medicine have made tremendous advances to which many of us owe their lives. Sadly, though, once a field goes commercial, the main focus of attention eventually becomes profit, and there are few endeavors in which the customer base will be so desperate. While there are obvious benefits to 'socialized medicine' such as Canada enjoys and American politicians scorn as 'Commie' – enough to earn the admiration of many – it results in such a backlog for major operations that those who don't like their chances of dying first, and have the money or can somehow get it, often flee to America, where you can get a good standard of medical care without running out of time waiting for it.

Without further ado, take it away, UCG!!

Healthcare in America

This article is my opinion. My hope is that others will do their own research on America's Healthcare Industry, because this is an issue that needs to be addressed, and for this article to be a mere starting point in this research. The reason for my citations is so that you, the reader, can verify them. Once again, this is my opinion. I write this in the first paragraph, so that I can avoid stating "in my opinion" before every sentence.

Let's start with Owen Davis who was charged $14,018 for going to a hospital because he sliced his hand, and they fixed it . A study published by Johns Hopkins showed that for $100 of ER treatment, some hospitals were charging patients up to $1,260 . A redditor claimed that :

I tore my ab wall a month ago and didn't think much of it until my pain kept worsening. I went to an immediate care facility to rule out a hernia (I had all the symptoms) and they told me to get to ER ASAP. I go to the ER and they give me a CT scan and one x-ray and say it's not a hernia and let me go. Fast forward to today and I got a bill for $9,200 and $3,900 of it is out of pocket. $9,200 for two tests???? No pain meds were administered; it was literally those two tests. What should I do to contest it? I will be calling tomorrow to demand an itemized bill, but is there anything else I should do in the meantime?

All of these took me a few minutes on Google to find, and another few minutes to post. The reason I chose that reddit, is because one of the readers offered an ingenious solution: Next time you hurt yourself – book a return ticket to NZ – go to accident and emergency, say you're a tourist and you hurt yourself surfing, pay nothing – fly home and pocket $8,000 in spare change. If that was me, I'd spend at least $2,000 on tourism in New Zealand. You guys have that system, so you clearly deserve the money! Anyone interested in a startup?

But I am not done with examples just yet. Shana Sweney described her experience in the emergency room : I delivered in 15 minutes. During that time, the anesthesiologist put a heart rate monitor on my finger and played on his phone. My bill for his services was $3,000. $200/minute. I talked to the insurance company about it – and since I ran my company's benefit plans, I got a little further than most people, but ultimately, that was what their contract with the hospital said so that's what they had to pay. Regardless of if he worked 15 minutes or 3 hours. Similarly, my twins were born prematurely and ended up in the NICU for 2 weeks. While the NICU was in-network for my insurance, for some mysterious reason, the neonatologists that attended the NICU were out of network. I think that bill was $16k and they stopped by to see each kid for an average of about 30 min/day.

Almost done with the examples, just please bear with me. How would you like a hospital billing you $83,046 for treating a scorpion sting , if a Mexican ER might have treated you for the same type of sting for $200? Perhaps being charged $546 for six liters of saltwater is more to your liking? $1,420 for two hours of babysitting ? $55,000 for an appendicitis operation ? $144,000 to deliver a perfectly healthy, albeit quite impatient baby? According to my interpretation of the sources linked, all of these actually happened. I encourage you to do your own research.

The World's Biggest Legalized Corruption (IMHO)

$984.157 billion. That's $984,157,000,000. That is how much money I believe the United States wastes on Healthcare. Not spends; wastes. As in money down the drain. The astute reader figured out that equates to five percent of America's 2016 GDP . Said reader is absolutely correct. How did I estimate such a gargantuan amount? According to the OECD data , in 2013 the United States spent 16.4 percent of its GDP on Healthcare; the two next biggest spenders, Switzerland and the Netherlands spent 11.1 percent. Even if one was to give the United States the benefit of doubt, and claim that the United States healthcare is just as efficient as that of Switzerland or the Netherlands – which is most likely not true according to an article from Business Insider , but even if it was – that meant that the United States wastes 5.3% of its GDP on healthcare. Wastes. I just want to make sure that the amount of this alleged legalized corruption, which will most likely reach a trillion dollars by 2020, is noted.

Let me place those funds into perspective: it's almost as much as the amount that the rest of the World spends on the military, combined . The SCO member states, including China, Russia, India, and Pakistan spent roughly $360 billion on the military . The wasted amount is equivalent to the GDP of Indonesia, and greater than the GDP of Turkey or Switzerland . In 2016, the US Federal Government spent $362 billion, or 36.8% of the wasted amount, to run all Federal Programs , including the Department of Education and NASA, with the exception of Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Veteran's Affairs, the military, and net interest on the US debt. All other Federal Programs were covered with the $362 billion. The US Federal Debt stands at $20.4 trillion , meaning that the debt can be paid off in 30 years, merely if the Healthcare Waste is eliminated.

But why stop there? The US Housing Crisis started partly because loans were allowed to be taken out without the 20% down payment. Could this funding, if applied directly to the housing market, stop the 2008 Great Recession? Absolutely, and all the Federal Government had to do was to gear these funds towards down payment on subprime mortgage loans to meet the 20 percent barrier. I can go on and on about what can be accomplished, like making collegiate attendance free, or at least very inexpensive, or drastically improving the quality of education, paying off the national debt, reinvesting into the economy, reinvigorating the rural sector, and so on, and so forth. A trillion dollars is a lot of money.

Lobbyists, the Media and the Waste

Any guess how much was spent on lobbying by the Healthcare, Insurance, Hospitals, Health Professionals, and HMOs? How about 10.5 billion dollars? I knew that was your guess! That's a lot of money, and that does not include "speaking fees", or when a politician who constantly made calls beneficial to the Healthcare Lobby gets $150,000 to speak in front of an audience after they retire from politics. Obama made a speech in front of Wall Street, netting $400,000 . And by pure coincidence, only one Wall Street Broker was jailed as a result of the scandal. That $10.5 billion is just a tip of the iceberg, because "speaking fees" are notoriously hard to track, and not included in said amount.

Obama genuinely tried to reform US Healthcare to the Swiss Model. He was going to let Wall Street slide, he was going to let Neocons conduct foreign policy, just please, let him have healthcare! First, the lobbyists laughed in his face. Second, they utilized the Blue Dog Coalition to block Obama's attempt at Healthcare Reform, until it was phenomenally nerfed, and we have the disaster that we have today. As a result, Obama's Legacy, Obamacare is having major issues, including the rise of racism.

Obamacare helped the poor, (mostly minorities,) at the expense of the middle class, (mostly whites,) thus transferring funding from whites to minorities. While the intent was not racial, it is being called out as racial by the mainstream media . This probably suits the lobbyists, because if the debate is about racism, one cannot have a genuine discussion about Healthcare Reform.

Racism strikes both ways. Samantha Bee came out with a "fuck you white people" message right after the election. Jon Stewart, without whom she probably wouldn't have her own show, pointed out that it was simply economics, like the healthcare insurance premium increase , that brought Donald Trump to power. Interestingly enough, James Carville made the same argument when Bill Clinton beat George Bush, but when Hillary Clinton lost, Carville was quick to blame Russia. These delusions on the Left are letting the Right mobilize stronger than ever before. And all of this takes away from the Healthcare Debate.

In an attempt to blame Trump's Election on white racism, rather than basic economics, numerous outlets simply fell flat. For instance, Eric Sasson writes : white men went 63 percent for Trump versus 31 percent for Clinton, and white women went 53-43 percent. Among college-educated whites, only 39 percent of men and 51 percent of women voted for Clinton What's more, these people hadn't suffered under Obama; they'd thrived. The kind of change Trump was espousing wasn't supposed to connect with this group.

Did this group thrive? The collegiate debt went from $600 billion to $1.4 trillion under Obama's Administration, while the health insurance increased from $13,000 to $18,000 per family . This is thriving? Was the author experimenting with medical marijuana when said article was written? Nevertheless, the parade of insanity continued, with Salon assuring us that it was blatant racism that gave us Trump . The Root, which also claimed that Russians attempted to hack election machines, pointed out that Russia exploited America's racism , and thus Trump won the election. Washington Post claimed that racism motivated white people more than authoritarianism . Comedian Bill Maher tried to sway the discussion back to economics, by pointing out that outrage over Pocahontas or Halloween should not stop the Democrats from working for the working man . Sadly, Maher and Stewart are in the minority, and instead of a Healthcare Debate, the US is now stuck in a debate over racism, which isn't even three-fifths as effective. Meanwhile the US continues to waste almost a trillion dollars on healthcare .

Who Benefits?

Let's start with the banks. Medical students graduate with an average of $416,216 in student debt . The average interest rate on said loan is seven percent. Roughly 20,055 students go through this program, per year . Presuming a twenty year loan, the banks are looking at about $7.185 billion in interest payments. It really is a small fraction of the cost. Prescription drug prices are another story. In 2014, Medicare spent $112 billion on medicine for the elderly . Oh la la! Cha-ching. I would not be surprised if at least half of that was wasted on drug price inflation. You know the health insurance companies? It's a great time to be one, since profits are booming – to the tune of $18 billion in projected revenue for 2017.

Of course the system itself is quite wasteful, with needless hours spent on paperwork, claim verification, contractual review, etc, etc, etc. Humana's revenue was $54.4 billion , Aetna's was $63.2 billion , Anthem's was $85 billion , Cigna's was $39.7 billion , and UnitedHealth's was $184.8 billion . Those are just the top five companies. None of them ia a mom-and-pop shop or small business store. Do any of these insurers support Obamacare? Even if they do, it is without much enthusiasm . They are leaving, and leaving quite quickly. Thirty-one percent of American counties will have just one healthcare insurer . Welcome to a monopoly that is artificially creating itself. And despite the waste, 28.2 million Americans remain uninsured . Mission accomplished!

Who else benefits? Those who hire illegal immigrants instead of American workers, since illegal immigrants cost the United States roughly $25 billion in Healthcare spending . Meanwhile those who hire them can avoid certain types of taxes and not have to cover their Healthcare; communism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of us. Of course that is just a rough estimate, since this spending is also quite hard to track.

The Future

The problem with changing Healthcare is that too many people have their hands in the proverbial pie. There is not a single lever of power that isn't affected by Healthcare, and most of the levers that are affected, benefit quite a bit. Insurance companies will fight to the death, because Universal Healthcare will be their death knell. Banks will defend it, because who doesn't want to make billions from student loans? Medical schools too – since it lets them charge higher and higher tuition. Pharmaceutical companies can use the increase in Healthcare expenditure to justify their own price hikes, even though a major reason for those price hikes is artificial patent based monopoly.

What is an artificial monopoly? In my opinion, it's when a patent is utilized to prevent competitors from manufacturing the same exact drug. In less than a decade, the price of Epi-Pen soared from $103.50 to $608.61. When asked the justify said increase, one of the reasons provided by the CEO was that the price went up because we were making investment; as I said, about $1 billion over the last decade that we invested in the product that we could reach physicians and educate legislatures. "Reaching" doctors and legislators; I wonder, how was said "education funding" spent? According to US News, a website that is extremely credible when it comes to internal decision making within the United States, drug companies have long courted doctors with gifts , from speaking and consulting fees to educational materials to food and drink. But while most doctors do not believe these gifts influence their decisions about which drugs to prescribe, a new study found the gifts actually can make a difference – something patient advocates have voiced concern about in the past. Do you feel educated? Would you feel more educated if I paid you a $150,000 consulting fee? What about $400,000? What? It's just consulting; no corruption here!

Everyone knows that this is going on. But there is not going to be change. Why not? The same reason that there was not change with Harvey Weinstein, until Taylor Swift came along. Remember how I said that almost everyone has their hands in the Healthcare Pie? It was not much different with Weinstein. Scott Rosenberg explained why it took so long for people to speak out against Harvey , and the reasons were numerous. First, Harvey gave many people their start in Hollywood, and treated all of his friends like royalty. That drastically increased their loyalty. Second, he ushered the Golden Age of the 1990s, with movies like Pulp Fiction, Shakespeare in Love, Clerks, Swingers, Scream, Good Will Hunting, English Patient, Life is Beautiful – the man could make phenomenal movies. Third, even if one was willing to go against his own friends, workers, mass media, and so on, there was no one to tell. There was no place to speak out. Fourth, some of the victims took hefty settlements.

That fourth reason enabled mass media to portray rape victims as gold diggers. Rape Culture is alive and well. In California, a Judge gave minimal sentencing to a convicted rapist , because he was afraid a harsher sentence would damage the rapist's mental psyche for life. Uh dude, from one Californian to another, he, uh, raped. His mental psyche is already damaged; for life. That's the kind of pressure that Rose McGowan had to deal with. She had a little kerfuffle with Amazon , and she thinks it was partially because of Harvey Weinstein. How many times had the word "socialism" been thrown around to describe Universal Healthcare? Switzerland has it – are they Socialist?

Enter Taylor Swift . In order to destroy allegations that women are filing sexual harassment claims as gold diggers, she sued her alleged sexual assaulter for a buck; one dollar. She won. Swift stated that the lawsuit was to serve as an example to other women who may resist publicly reliving similar outrageous and humiliating acts. On top of that, Weinstein was no longer as popular as he used to be, and an avenue to tell the story, an outlet was created. The additional prevalence of the internet caused the stories of Weinstein's sexual abuse to leak. Within a month, the giant fell.

Something similar is needed to change Healthcare in America. But until that comes along, racism will increase, the cost of Healthcare will rise, emergency room costs will most likely double every ten years, and the future remains bleak. As if that was not enough, more and more upper class Americans, (like yours truly,) are seeking treatment abroad. It cost me less money to lose five weeks of wages, spend three weeks partying in Eastern Europe, (Prague to be more specific,) after my two weeks of treatment, buy a roundtrip plane ticket, and stay in a five star, all-inclusive hotel, than the cost of the same treatment in the US. If anyone wants to utilize this as a startup – let me know!

Of course its effects on Healthcare will hurt, since it is a huge chunk of business that will be traveling across the Atlantic. But what can be done to stop it? One cannot stop Americans from traveling to other countries. One cannot force the poor to work for free. Perhaps this is the change that is needed to make those who benefit from the Healthcare Waste realize that this cannot continue. Perhaps not. What we do know, is that Obamacare insured the poor, at the expense of the middle class . And that is regarded as a failure in America.

Northern Star , November 27, 2017 at 3:12 pm
As for Obongo Care ??:

"In trying to show that he was successfully managing the Obamacare rollout, the president last week staged a high-profile White House meeting with private health insurance executives -- aka Obamacare's middlemen. The spectacle of a president begging these middlemen for help was a reminder that Obamacare did not limit the power of the insurance companies as a single-payer system would.
****The new law instead cemented the industry's profit-extracting role in the larger health system -- and it still leaves millions without insurance."*** (THAT is the Achille's lower torso of the ACA)

https://www.healthcare-now.org/blog/single-payer-healthcare-vs-obamacare/

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/11/1483523/-Single-Payer-Healthcare-vs-The-Affordable-Care-Act-A-Simple-Comparison

ucgsblog , November 28, 2017 at 3:58 pm
Exactly! That's why I stated that they're now oligapolizing the market, and will slowly start to increase their insurance rates and profits once again.
Northern Star , November 27, 2017 at 3:23 pm
"Prince Harry..Do you take this American mulatto negress -aka raghead untermensch-as your lawfully wedded royal wife?*
http://www.newsweek.com/prince-harrys-worst-moments-meghan-markle-rogue-723177
https://www.sbs.com.au/guide/sites/sbs.com.au.guide/files/styles/body_image/public/nazi.jpg?itok=q1oxMi44&mtime=1503879842

Ummm Advice to Meghan .make sure the honeymoon motorcade stays clear of tunnels in Paris
or elsewhere!!!

Northern Star , November 27, 2017 at 3:52 pm
Appurtenant to many of the issues raised in Mark's post:

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/11/27/pers-n27.html

(Socialist or not..the WSWS writers continue to state that which NEEDS to be hammered home)

"The vast wealth of the financial oligarchy, expressed in their ownership of massive corporations, must be seized and expropriated, while the complex technologies, supply chains, and advanced transportation systems must be integrated in an organized, planned manner to harness the anarchic force of the world economy and eliminate material scarcity.

Amazon is a prime example. Its supply lines and delivery systems could distribute goods across the world, bringing water, food, and medicine from each producer according to his or her ability, to each consumer according to his or her need.

The massively sophisticated computational power used by the technology companies to censor and blacklist political opposition could instead be used for logistical analysis to conduct rescue and rebuilding missions in disaster zones like Houston and Puerto Rico. Drones used in the battlefield could be scrapped and rebuilt to distribute supplies for building schools, museums, libraries, and theaters, and for making Internet service available at no cost for the entire world.

The ruling class and all of the institutions of the political establishment stand inexorably in the way of efforts to expropriate their wealth. What is required is to mobilize the working class in a political struggle against the state and the socio-economic system on which it is based, through the fight for socialism.
Eric London "

Particularly for American Stooges:

Patient Observer , November 27, 2017 at 5:17 pm
Advanced technology is helpful but not essential for a humane and just society. Its what we believe and feel that matters. FWIW, I like socialism on a national/international level and individual accountability on a personal level.
saskydisc , November 27, 2017 at 4:04 pm
While general medical care is single payer in Canada, dental services are not. For major work on teeth, it is cheaper to fly to Mexico. The downside is for Mexicans -- such practices will drive the costs up in Mexico.
Patient Observer , November 27, 2017 at 5:12 pm
Mark, today's posting provided is a nice change of pace to a topic of local impact (for me at least). UGC presented a good overview peppered with supporting data.

In an earlier career incarnation, I worked as a systems analyst involved with development of online systems for state social services. Data showed that our systems were able to administer a comprehensive health care program for social services recipients for about 3-4% of the cost of services. Private medical insurance providers required approximately 20% of the cost of services to provide similar services. Yet, private providers were supposedly driven by invisible market forces to maximum efficiency. BS. In fact, they are driven by greed and they found it much easier to maximize profits by colluding with politicians and health care providers. That is the trouble with free markets – its just so damn easy to cheat and cheaters are never in short supply.

One more thing, prescription drugs costs may exceed $600 billion in the US by 2021:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drugspending-quintilesims/u-s-prescription-drug-spending-as-high-as-610-billion-by-2021-report-idUSKBN1800BU

That would be nearly $2,000 per year for every American!

If a tiny fraction of that amount were spent on prevention, education, improved diets and other similar initiatives, the population ought to be healthier and richer. But, greed overpowers the public good every time. The US health care system is a criminal enterprise in my opinion. The good that it does is grossly outweighed by greed and exploitation of human suffering.

marknesop , November 28, 2017 at 12:10 am
I believe the author is also a systems analyst, so you are thinking along similar lines.
ucgsblog , November 28, 2017 at 4:05 pm
I agree with that. Plus, it seems like they have an entire staff dedicated to giving their "customer" the run around. A friend of mine had to deal with several different departments regarding his healthcare bill. The billing office told him that they only deal with billing questions, and that for explanations for the bill, he should call the doctor's office. The doctor's office told him to call the hospital, since that's where the service took place. The hospital told him to call his primary doctor, who sent him there, and his primary doctor referred him back to the specialist, where he was referred back to the billing department, which promptly told him that they're closing for the day, since he spent 6 hours being transferred from one department to the next.
anon@gmail.com , November 27, 2017 at 6:02 pm
I find it terribly silly that we should even consider med student's debt as an excuse. First, American doctors are the best paid professionals in the country. Internists make a median 190 thousand a year, and they are among the worst paid specialties. I cannot possibly see the problem with paying your income for 5 years, knowing that you get access to a caste that will allow you make good money into your eighties.

Second, the debt is not that high as you claim. Harvard Medical School tuition is 64 thousand. You can rent across the street with 20 thousand a year – I currently live there.

Third, med students know all this. The reason why they borrow far more is because they know they can afford it. I went to med school somewhere in a developing world. We shared toilets in the dorm. As a matter of fact, most under-30s in Boston live in shared accommodation. The outliers? Med students. Even the lowly Tufts and BU students that I met own cars and live by themselves, mainly in new buildings across the street from their hospitals.

Every time I go to the doctors, I am thinking how I am going to sue their asses if they make a mistake.

ucgsblog , November 28, 2017 at 4:08 pm
It's not an excuse. It's a bill. When you rent an apartment, did you know that most landlords also factor in the property tax when figuring out what your rent payment should be? Similarly, the interest payments on the doctoral students' loans are passed off to the consumer, and that is yet another reason why Healthcare is so expensive. That's why I think that medical school should be free for those students who promise to charge their patients no more than x amount of money.
kirill , November 27, 2017 at 8:38 pm
Interesting article. Looks like the rot in the US is terminal. But Canada and its "socialized" medicine is not far behind. Operating an emergency ward with only one doctor doing the rounds at the rest of the hospital during the night is absurd. But that is what major Canadian hospitals do. Don't bother going to emergency at 2 am unless you are literally dying. Wait until 7 am when the day day crew arrives and you can actually receive treatment.

The problem in Canada, as in the USA, is overpaid doctors and not enough of them (because they are overpaid). Instead of paying a doctor $300,000 per year or more, the system needs to have 3 or more doctors earning $100,000 per year. Then there is no excuse about being overworked and "requiring" a high compensation. Big incomes attract crooks and not talent. If you want to be a doctor then you should do 5 years of low income work abroad or at home. That would weed out a lot of the $$$ in the eyeballs leeches. A nasty side effect of having overpaid doctors and living adjacent to the US, is that they act like a mafia and extort the government by threatening to leave to the USA. I say that the Canadian provinces should make all medical students sign binding contracts to pay the cost difference between their Canadian medical education and the equivalent in the USA if they decide to run off to America.

At the undergraduate level, the physics courses with the highest enrollment are aimed at streams going into medicine. There are hordes of money maker wannabes trying to make it big in medicine. But they are all nearly weeded out and never graduate from medical school. So the system maintains the fake doctor shortage and racket level salaries. On top of this, hospitals pay a 300% markup for basic supplies (gauze, syringes, etc). It is actually possible for private individuals to pay the nominal price so this is not just a theory. Clearly, there is no effort to control costs by hospital administrations since basic economics would imply that hospitals would pay less than individuals for these items due to the volume of sales involved. At the end of the day North American public medicine is a non-market bloating itself into oblivion since the taxpayer will always pay whatever is desired. That is, the spineless politicians will never crack the whip.

Ryan Ward , November 28, 2017 at 3:19 am
This is part of the problem in Canada. One way to help deal with it in my view, beyond simply cutting doctors' fees (which any government with the political will to do so can do) is to simply make it easier for International Medical Graduates to get licensed in Canada. Canada has legions of immigrants (and could have pretty much however many more it likes) with full medical qualifications who would be thrilled to work for much less than the current pay rates. It's a scandal how many qualified doctors we have in Canada driving taxis rather than practicing medicine. If we just took advantage of the human resources we already have, we could easily say to doctors who threaten to leave for the US, "Fine, go. We've got 10 guys from India lined up to do your job." This isn't to say that doctors shouldn't be very well-paid. Anyone who has ever known someone in med school knows it's hell. But doctors would be very well-paid at half the rates they're getting now.

Another part of the problem is an over-reliance on hospitals. There are a lot of people in the hospitals more in "holding" than anything else, because there's no space in the proper facilities for them (The book "Chronic Condition" talks about this). The problem with this is that the cost per day to keep someone in the hospital is much higher than in other kinds of facilities. This is an entirely unnecessary loss.

For all that though, the Canadian system is leaps and bounds better than the American. We spend a vastly smaller percentage of our GDP on health care, and in return achieve higher health outcomes, as measured by the WHO. If we were willing to spend the kind of money the Americans do on health care, we could have patients sleeping in golden beds even with the structural flaws of our current system. That's worth constantly remembering, because some of the proposals for health reform floating around now lean in the direction of privatization, and we've seen where that road leads.

marknesop , November 28, 2017 at 10:32 am
Before he retired from politics, Keith Martin was my MLA, and he was also a qualified MD. He used to rail against the convoluted process for certification in medicine in Canada, while others complained that we were subject to an influx of doctor-immigrants from India because Canada required less time spent in medical school than India does. I never checked the veracity of that, although we do have quite a few Indian doctors. My own doctor – in the military, and still now since he is in private practice – is a South African, and he explained that he had gone in for the military (although he was always a civilian, some military doctors are military members as well but most are not) because the hoop-jumping process to be certified for private practice in Canada with foreign qualifications was just too onerous.

Unsurprisingly, I completely agree on the subject of privatization, because it always leads to an emphasis on profit and cost-cutting. I don't know why some people can't see that.

Jen , November 27, 2017 at 11:15 pm
Thanks very much UCG, for your article. Very interesting reading for us Australians as the Federal Government eventually wants to shove us kicking and screaming into a US-style privatised healthcare insurance model.

Funnily enough I'm currently considering changing my private health insurer. I'm with Medibank Private at present but considering maybe going with a smaller non-profit health fund like Australian Unity or Phoenix Health Fund.

Fern , November 28, 2017 at 7:02 am
I was just about to post along the lines of "I don't know if Jen has experienced this in Australia but here in the UK ." so I'll finish the thought. In the UK, successive governments, not just Conservative ones, have been trying to dismantle the NHS and move us to the American system. It is pure ideology – no amount of the very abundant evidence of the inefficiencies of the US system, its waste etc makes any dint in the enthusiasm of those pressing for change.
ucgsblog , November 28, 2017 at 4:17 pm
Thank you Jen! My advice: don't let the Government cajole you into wasting your money on Corporate Greed. Share the article with your fellow Australians, if you must, but don't let our wasteful system be replicated. Interestingly enough, one of my friends, Lytburger, send me a meme right after Ukraine adopted America's Healthcare System, it said: "ISIS refused to take responsibility for Ukraine's Healthcare Reform!" I'd be happy to provide other data or answer questions about the Healthcare System here.

As for insurance, I'm not sure if Australia has the in-network and out-of-network rules. Does it? Whatever insurance you get, make sure that it has good coverage. If you own a home in the US, and you end up in a hospital's emergency room that's not covered by your insurance, the hospital can take your house under certain circumstances. Ironically, even the Government cannot. All of my real property is in various Trust Accounts, just in case, and I make sure that I have insurance where all major hospitals are in-network and that's the best I can do.

James lake , November 28, 2017 at 12:21 am
This is s very interesting insight into healcare in the USA. The cost is shocking. I live in the UK and the healthcare system is paid for from taxation. When it was established over 70 years ago it's. The health service would be available to all and financed entirely from taxation, which meant that people paid into it according to their means. It was the best thing in my view that government has ever done. Good healthcare should be available to all and not dependent on peoples ability to pay.

However there always a private healthcare system that ran alongside it

And over the years it had been unpicked as successive governments have tried to privatise it. Claiming they will save the taxpayer money

– opticians and dentistry have become part private after 18 if you are employed.

Which many people do not mind.

-Elderly care was also privatised as it's the most expensive

-care for the disabled also is a issue for local councils

-Mental health became care in the community – society's problem!

Privatisation has meant profits for businesses, poor services to vulnerable groups.

And yet still more and more taxation is needed for the NHS!

The issue of more money was even part of the Brexit debate as it was stated that leaving the EU would mean more money for the NHS which people are proud of.

marknesop , November 28, 2017 at 10:25 am
There was a quote I was thinking of using in the lead-in, but decided in the end not to since I didn't want to have too many and it might have become confusing. It related that you would get the best medical care of your lifetime – after you died, when they were rushing to save your organs, for transplant. Obviously this would not be true if you were not an organ donor (at least in this country) or died as the result of general wasting away so that you had nothing left which would be particularly coveted. But this is a major issue in medicine in some countries and there have been various lurid tales of bodies being robbed of their organs without family permission, bodies of Ukrainian soldiers harvested of their organs and rackets in third-world countries where the poor or helpless are robbed of organs while they are alive. From my standpoint, since I haven't done much research on it, I have seen little proof of any of them despite plenty of allegation, but it is easy to understand that traffic in organs to those who will pay anything to live a little longer would be tremendously profitable, and the potential for disproportionate profit seldom fails to draw the unscrupulous.

As I alluded in the lead-in, Canada has what is sometimes described as 'socialized medicine' and alternatively as 'two-tier healthcare' although I have never seen any real substantiation for the latter charge. My mom had an operation for colon cancer some time back, and she paid nothing for the hospitalization or the operation. My father-in-law is scheduled for the same operation as soon as he gets his blood-sugar low enough, and he already had one for a hernia and removal of internal scar tissue from an old injury – again, we paid nothing. He had a nurse come here for a couple of months, once a week, to change his dressing (because the incision would was very slow to heal because he is diabetic – nothing. That's all great, from my point of view, and I've paid into it all my life without ever using it because I was covered by the government under federal guidelines while I served in the military, although I was a cheap patient because I never had to be hospitalized for anything and was almost never even sick enough not to come to work. But the great drawback to it, as I said, is the backlog which might mean you have to wait too long for an operation. And in my small practical experience – the two cases I have just mentioned – both were scheduled for surgery within a month of diagnosis. So perhaps the long wait is for particular operations such as heart or brain surgery.

Patient Observer , November 28, 2017 at 12:49 pm
The Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army harvested organs from captured Serb civilians and soldiers:

https://thebloodyellowhouse.wordpress.com/

In December 14th 2010, Dick Marty, Rapporteur of EU Commission pass for adoption to the Council of Europe a report on allegations of inhuman treatment of people and illicit trafficking in human organs in Kosovo organized by KLA leader and Kosovo Prime minister Hashim Thaçi . An official report accusing Kosovo's prime minister of links to a "mafia-like" network that killed captives in order to sell their organs on the black market was yesterday endorsed by a Council of Europe committee.

Bold text emphasis added.

Nothing came of the charges that I am aware of and it is business as usual with Kosovo and Albania.

Per Wikipedia:

The Washington Times reported that the KLA was financing its activities by trafficking the illegal drugs of heroin and cocaine into western Europe.[16]

A report to the Council of Europe, written by Dick Marty, issued on 15 December 2010[23] states that Hacim Thaçi was the leader of the "Drenica Group" in charge of trafficking organs taken from Serbian prisoners.

On 17 February 2008, Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia. Thaçi became Prime Minister of the newly independent state.

So, there you have it – the war criminal, drug runner, murderer and organ thief/butcher became the PM of Kosovo, a nation created and nurtured by NATO with a nod and a wink from the EU. Simply disgusting but typical treatment for Serbia by the fascist/racist and genocidally inclined West.

et Al , November 28, 2017 at 1:32 am
Thank you very much for a very interesting article UCG! Quite the horror story. I've heard quite a few about the US over the years from people I know too. I think one of the BBC's former America correspondent gave an interview to the Beeb as he was leaving America a few years back (MAtt Frei?) and was asked what were the best and worst things about living there. The worst was certainly healthcare.

I've also read that healthcare costs for the self-employed, independents, freelancers can also be crushing in the land of the free where everyone can become rich. Has this changed? I would have thought that those were the ideal Americans, making it off their own back, but apparently not.

There's also another issue that is not addressed: an ageing population. This is a very current theme and it is now not at all unusual for people to live another 30 odd years after retirement. Now how on earth will such people manage their healthcare for such a period? Will they have to hock absolutely everything they have? America is already at war with itself (hence the utmost need to for foreign enemies), but nothing is getting done. Just more of the same. Meanwhile the Brits are trying to copy the US through stealth privatization of their health system. It might work as well as privatizing its rail service

yalensis , November 28, 2017 at 3:21 am
Thanks for an interesting post, UCG. Hopefully this will stimulate some ideas on how to fix the American healthcare system, which seems to be badly broken.
Patient Observer , November 28, 2017 at 4:34 am
Broken for us but working perfectly for Big Pharma and insurance companies. That is a fundamental reason why it will be extremely difficult to "fix" because it ain't broken as a money making machine.
yalensis , November 28, 2017 at 1:25 pm
True. And the insurance companies, in particular, have been really raking it in, especially with Obamacare and the various Medicare Advantage options.
Ryan Ward , November 28, 2017 at 3:40 am
With health care in general, there's a bit of a trade-off. The most cost-efficient systems, like the system in Sweden for example, are fairly regimented and don't leave much room for individual choice (unless someone pays out of pocket for treatment completely outside the public system). On the other hand, systems that give people a little more choice, like the system in Germany, tend to be a little on the pricey side. I think, given American political culture, something along the lines of the German model is much more likely to attract widespread public support. In any case, it's still cheaper than the American system, and achieves some of the best results in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany

[Nov 15, 2017] Alex Azar Can There Be Uglier Scenarios than the Revolving Door naked capitalism

Notable quotes:
"... By Lambert Strether ..."
"... So should Mr Azar be confirmed as Secretary of DHHS, the fox guarding the hen house appears to be a reasonable analogy. ..."
"... In this post, I'd like to add two additional factors to our consideration of Azar. The first: Democrat credentialism makes it hard for them to oppose Azar. The second: The real ..."
Nov 15, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Alex Azar: Can There Be Uglier Scenarios than the Revolving Door? Posted on November 15, 2017 by Lambert Strether By Lambert Strether

Clearly, Alex Azar, nominated yesterday for the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services by the Trump Administration, exemplifies the case of the "revolving door," through which Flexians slither on their way to (or from) positions of public trust. Roy Poses ( cross-posted at NC ) wrote, when Azar was only Acting Secretary:

Last week we noted that Mr Trump famously promised to “drain the swamp” in Washington. Last week, despite his previous pledges to not appoint lobbyists to powerful positions, he appointed a lobbyist to be acting DHHS Secretary. This week he is apparently strongly considering Mr Alex Azar, a pharmaceutical executive to be permanent DHHS Secretary, even though the FDA, part of DHHS, has direct regulatory authority over the pharmaceutical industry, and many other DHHS policies strongly affect the pharmaceutical industry. (By the way, Mr Azar was also in charge of one lobbying effort.)

So should Mr Azar be confirmed as Secretary of DHHS, the fox guarding the hen house appears to be a reasonable analogy.

Moreover, several serious legal cases involving bad behavior by his company, and multiple other instances of apparently unethical behavior occurred on Mr Azar’s watch at Eli Lilly. So the fox might be not the most reputable member of the species.

So you know the drill…. The revolving door is a species of conflict of interest . Worse, some experts have suggested that the revolving door is in fact corruption. As we noted here , the experts from the distinguished European anti-corruption group U4 wrote ,

The literature makes clear that the revolving door process is a source of valuable political connections for private firms. But it generates corruption risks and has strong distortionary effects on the economy , especially when this power is concentrated within a few firms.

The ongoing parade of people transiting the revolving door from industry to the Trump administration once again suggests how the revolving door may enable certain of those with private vested interests to have excess influence, way beyond that of ordinary citizens, on how the government works, and that the country is still increasingly being run by a cozy group of insiders with ties to both government and industry. This has been termed crony capitalism.

Poses is, of course, correct. (Personally, I've contained my aghastitude on Azar, because I remember quite well how Liz Fowler transitioned from Wellpoint to being Max Baucus's chief of staff when ObamaCare was being drafted to a job in Big Pharma , and I remember quite well the deal with Big Pharma Obama cut, which eliminated the public option , not that the public option was anything other than a decreasingly gaudy "progressive" bauble in the first place.)

In this post, I'd like to add two additional factors to our consideration of Azar. The first: Democrat credentialism makes it hard for them to oppose Azar. The second: The real damage Azar could do is on the regulatory side.[1]

First, Democrat credentialism. Here is one effusive encomium on Azar. From USA Today, "Who is Alex Azar? Former drugmaker CEO and HHS official nominated to head agency" :

"I am glad to hear that you have worked hard, and brought fair-minded legal analysis to the department," Democratic Sen. Max Baucus said at Azar's last confirmation hearing.

And:

Andy Slavitt, who ran the Affordable Care Act and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services during the Obama administration, said he has reason to hope Azar would be a good secretary.

"He is familiar with the high quality of the HHS staff, has real-world experience enough to be pragmatic, and will hopefully avoid repeating the mistakes of his predecessor," Slavitt said.

So, if Democrats are saying Azar is "fair-minded" and "pragmatic" -- and heaven forfend that the word "corruption"[2] even be mentioned -- how do they oppose him, even he's viscerally opposed to everything Democrats supposedly stand for? (Democrats do this with judicial nominations, too.) Azar may be a fox, alright, but the chickens he's supposedly guarding are all clucking about how impeccable his qualifications are!

Second, let's briefly look at Azar's bio. Let me excerpt salient detail from USA Today :

1. Azar clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia .

2. Azar went to work for his mentor, Ken Starr , who was heading the independent counsel investigation into Bill and Hillary Clinton's Whitewater land deal.

3. Azar had a significant role in another major political controversy when the outcome of the 2000 presidential election hinged on a recount in Florida . Azar was on the Bush team of lawyers whose side ultimately prevailed [3]

For any Democrat with a memory, that bio provokes one of those "You shall know them by the trail of the dead" moments. And then there's this:

When Leavitt replaced Thompson in 2005 and Azar became his deputy, Leavitt delegated a lot of the rule-making process to Azar.

So, a liberal Democrat might classify Azar as a smooth-talking reactionary thug with a terrible record and the most vile mentors imaginable, and on top of it all, he's an effective bureaucratic fixer. What could the Trump Administration possibly see in such a person? Former (Republican) HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt explains:

"Understanding the administrative rule process in the circumstance we're in today could be extraordinarily important because a lot of the change in the health care system, given the fact that they've not succeeded legislatively, could come administratively."

We outlined the administration strategy on health care in "Trump Adminstration Doubles Down on Efforts to Crapify the Entire Health Care System (Unless You're Rich, of Course)" . There are three prongs:

1) Administratively, send ObamaCare into a death spiral by sabotaging it

2) Legislatively, gut Medicaid as part of the "tax refom" package in Congress

3) Through executive order, eliminate "essential health benefits" through "association health plans"

As a sidebar, it's interesting to see that although this do-list is strategically and ideologically coherent -- basically, your ability to access health care will be directly dependent on your ability to pay -- it's institutionally incoherent, a bizarre contraption screwed together out of legislation, regulations, and an Executive order. Of course, this incoherence mirrors to Rube Goldberg structure of ObamaCare itself, itself a bizarre contraption, especially when compared to the simple, rugged, and proven single payer system. ( Everything Obama did with regulations and executive orders, Trump can undo, with new regulations and new executive orders . We might compare ObamaCare to a child born with no immune system, that could only have survived within the liberal bubble within which it was created; in the real world, it's not surprising that it's succumbing to opportunistic infections.[2])

On #1, The administration has, despite its best efforts, not achieved a controlled flight into terrain with ObamaCare; enrollment is up. On #2, the administration and its Congressional allies are still dickering with tax reform. And on #3 . That looks looks like a job for Alex Azar, since both essential health benefits and association health plans are significantly affected by regulation.

So, yes, there are worse scenarios than the revolving door; it's what you leave behind you as the door revolves that matters. It would be lovely if there were a good old-fashioned confirmation battle over Azar, but, as I've pointed out, the Democrats have tied their own hands. Ideally, the Democrats would junk the Rube Goldberg device that is ObamaCare, rendering all of Azar's regulatory expertise null and void, but that doesn't seem likely, given that they seem to be doing everything possible to avoid serious discussion of policy in 2018 and 2020.

NOTES

[1] I'm leaving aside what will no doubt be the 2018 or even 2020 issue of drug prices, since for me that's subsumed under the issue of single payer. If we look only at Azar's history in business, real price decreases seem unlikely. Business Insider :

Over the 10-year period when Azar was at Lilly, the price of insulin notched a three-fold increase. It wasn't just Lilly's insulin product, called Humalog. The price of a rival made by Novo Nordisk has also climbed, with the two rising in such lockstep that you can barely see both trend lines below.

The gains came despite the fact that the insulin, which as a medication has an almost-century-long history, hasn't really changed since it was first approved.

Nice business to be in, eh? Here's that chart:

It's almost like Lilly (Azar's firm) and Novo Nordisk are working together, isn't it?

[2] Anyhow, as of the 2016 Clinton campaign , the Democrat standard -- not that of Poses, nor mine -- is that if there's no quid pro quo, there's no corruption.

[3] And, curiously, "[HHS head Tommy] Thompson said HHS was in the eye of the storm after the 2001 terrorist attacks, and Azar had an important role in responding to the resulting public health challenges, as well as the subsequent anthrax attacks "

MedicalQuack , November 15, 2017 at 10:31 am

Oh please, stop quoting Andy Slavitt, the United Healthcare Ingenix algo man. That guy is the biggest crook that made his money early on with RX discounts with his company that he and Senator Warren's daughter, Amelia sold to United Healthcare. He's out there trying to do his own reputation restore routine. Go back to 2009 and read about the short paying of MDs by Ingenix, which is now Optum Insights, he was the CEO and remember it was just around 3 years ago or so he sat there quarterly with United CEO Hemsley at those quarterly meetings. Look him up, wants 40k to speak and he puts the perception out there he does this for free, not so.

diptherio , November 15, 2017 at 11:25 am

I think you're missing the context. Lambert is quoting him by way of showing that the sleazy establishment types are just fine with him. Thanks for the extra background on that particular swamp-dweller, though.

a different chris , November 15, 2017 at 2:01 pm

Not just the context, it's a quote in a quote. Does make me think Slavitt must be a real piece of work to send MQ so far off his rails

petal , November 15, 2017 at 12:52 pm

Alex Azar is a Dartmouth grad (Gov't & Economics '88) just like Jeff Immelt (Applied Math & Economics '78). So much damage to society from such a small department!

sgt_doom , November 15, 2017 at 1:21 pm

Nice one, petal !!!

Really, all I need to know about the Trumpster Administration:

From Rothschild to . . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilbur_Ross

Since 2014, Ross has been the vice-chairman of the board of Bank of Cyprus PCL, the largest bank in Cyprus.

He served under U.S. President Bill Clinton on the board of the U.S.-Russia Investment Fund. Later, under New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Ross served as the Mayor's privatization advisor.

Jen , November 15, 2017 at 7:56 pm

Or from a "small liberal arts college" (which is a university in all but name, because alumni).

Tim Geitner ('82 – Goverment)
Hank Paulson ('68 – English)

jo6pac , November 15, 2017 at 2:13 pm

Well it's never ending game in the beltway and we serfs aren't in it.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/11/15/trump-adds-to-washingtons-swamp/

Alfred , November 15, 2017 at 2:53 pm

I don't believe that the President's "swamp" ever consisted of crooked officials, lobbyists, and cronies I think it has always consisted of those regulators who tried sincerely to defend public interests.

It was in the sticky work of those good bureaucrats that the projects of capitalists and speculators bogged down. It is against their efforts that the pickup-driving cohort of Trump_vs_deep_state (with their Gadsden flag decals) relentlessly rails.

Trump has made much progress in draining the regulatory swamp (if indeed that is the right way to identify it), and no doubt will make considerably more as time wears on, leaving America high and dry. The kind of prevaricator Trump is may simply be the one who fails to define his terms.

Henry Moon Pie , November 15, 2017 at 4:13 pm

I think we've moved past the revolving door. We hear members of the United States Senate publicly voice their concerns about what will happen if they fail to do their employers' bidding (and I'm not talking about "the public" here). In the bureaucracy, political appointees keep accruing more and more power even as they make it clearer and clearer that they work for "the donors" and not the people. Nowhere is this more true than the locus through which passes most of the money: the Pentagon. The fact that these beribboned heroes are, in fact, setting war policy on their own makes the knowledge that they serve Raytheon and Exxon rather than Americans very, very troubling.

I suspect Azar's perception is that he is just moving from one post to another within the same company.

Watt4Bob , November 15, 2017 at 5:28 pm

Perfect cartoon over at Truthout

I'm amazed there is enough private security available on this planet to keep these guys safe.

Larry , November 15, 2017 at 8:01 pm

Big pharma indeed has so much defense from the supposed left. It combines their faith in technological progress, elite institutions, and tugs on the heart strings with technology that can save people from a fate of ill health or premature death. Of course, the aspect of the laws being written to line the pockets of corrupt executives is glossed over. While drug prices and medical costs spiral ever higher, our overall longevity and national health in the US declines. That speaks volumes about what Democrats really care about.

[Oct 27, 2017] Prime case of crapification in medicine is that many doctors bowled over by the drug companies

Notable quotes:
"... One thing this article doesn't distinguish between are hospital doctors and solo practitioners (i.e. family doctors, or occasionally doctors in small hospitals). There is a huge issue with doctors simply not keeping up with current research if they don't have the peer pressure and oversight that you would expect in a well run hospital. I was a victim of this as for years as a child I was repeatedly given antibiotics by my family doctor for 'chest infections'. In fact, I had asthma triggered by a cold air sensitivity, and was only diagnosed in my late teens (after I'd been carted to hospital after a school outdoors sport session). ..."
"... I've also heard numerous stories about terrible practices by specialists in small hospitals, who can become mini-emperors with nobody to contradict their professional opinions. This is one reason why all doctors will generally advise that the best place when you are ill is a large teaching hospital (definitely not a small private hospital). Bad diagnostic practice is much more likely to be stamped out in the biggest hospitals where there is greater peer oversight. ..."
"... Physicians aren't bots. There are different reasons people go into medicine, not all of them about "patient care" and altruism -- "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others behavior by not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species." Sometimes quite the opposite, thanks to greed and pleasure-seeking and the burdens of "debt" assumed by so many "providers," or even rare psych phenomena like von Muchausen's by proxy ..."
"... Always, the smart kids in the room want to systematize and organize every kind of function, and in the neoliberal universe, reduce complexity to profit-generating, "management"-centric forms. Sometimes that application of rationalization is a good thing, it can help focus attention wisely and lead to those often undefined "good outcomes." ..."
"... Constant mechanization of medicine results in stuff like the ICD-10 classification thing, which is mostly about Big Data and payments. "Billable" medicine has been "reduced" to about 70,000 "diagnosis codes" and a whole lot of treatment and procedure codes, up from about 13,000 diagnosis codes in ICD-9. ..."
"... ICD-9 is widely considered to be based on outdated technology, with codes unable to reflect the use of new equipment. ICD-10 offers far more integration with modern technology, with an emphasis on devices that are actually being used for various procedures. The additional spaces available are partly designed to allow for new technology to be seamlessly integrated into codes, which means fewer concerns about the ability to accurately report information as time goes on. In Conclusion, ICD-10 is not a simple update to ICD-9. The structural changes throughout the entire coding system are very significant, and the increased level of complexity requires coders to be even more thoroughly trained than before. However, it is possible to prepare for the changes by remembering a few simple guidelines: ..."
"... Train early- The more familiar your staff are with ICD-10, the better. While currently scheduled to begin Oct. 1, 2014, beginning the training now is not a bad idea. ..."
"... Understand the ICD-10- The structural changes require a change in the way people think about coding, and understanding it will help to break current coding habits. Medical professionals used to reporting things a certain way so they can be coded may need to change what they say in order to work well with the new system. ..."
"... EBM is just another management buzz(kill)word, like "total quality management" and "zero defects" and "zero-based budgeting." All supported by proponents who rationalize and argue in the language of squishy "disciplines" like psychology and economics, using "specialized" lexicons that often are cloudy restatements of commonplaces in arcane terminologies, and the creation of intellectual artifacts that have tenuous or little relationship to the reality most "uneducated" observers perceive -- yes, sometimes incorrectly as more acute observations might show, but more often accurately than the modeling and force-fitting that "experts" soar off on. How many of the articles cited as authoritative on various points have anything other than presence in peer-reviewed land as proof of the claimed "findings" both of the original researchers and authors, or acuteness and accuracy of the proposition for which they are offered subsequently? And how much fraud and selectiveness (like medication trials that exclude likely non-responders to the therapies) and purblindness fills the vast swath of "published studies" ..."
"... I've personally experienced and seen lots of misdiagnoses and clinician blindness and tunnel vision, starting as a child ..."
"... And our favored subsequent family doctor, who mis-diagnosed my mother's fatal ovarian cancer (a common failing given vagueness of symptoms) for a year or more after her original office visit, as a gall bladder problem needing bile salts. (Said doctor, seeking alpha, had moved largely into "industrial medicine," doing workers comp and employment physicals -- a wonderfully nice guy, but clinical skills atrophy or lose focus or get too sharpened into narrow channels– totally understandable, given human nature -- channels that get reinforced by "economic" forces, stuff like HMOs and corporate bottom lines, and stuff like the vast and geometrically growing pile of "medical knowledge" of more or less validity, on and on. ..."
"... And "we" can hope that AI and EBM and the horrors wrought by the other false gods of "modern medical practice" like "Electronic Medical Records" don't intermediate and leverage their way into the care we mopes need and hope for. EBM from what I have seen can be a useful approach in some ways, but then Smith's Law of Crapification is as universal as Murphy's ..."
"... I think, what this article alludes to is that medicine is complex and not easily algorithmic ..."
"... The problem with the art of medicine, is that it takes time as it comes with experience. Much more experience that one can learn in medical school or residency. ..."
"... My suspicion is that those early in their careers would benefit from practicing a high level of guideline based medicine until they gain experience. ..."
"... Above, I speak of how to practice medicine without consideration of how to pay for it. Now when you start adding payments, reimbursements, and insurance claims, you add another level of complexity, bias, and incentive. It appears the free market insurance model is not working, as well as the fee for service model. Here the trick is to change the way medicine is reimbursed and incentivized. ..."
"... My point is that there are mandates and financial incentive for hospitals to pressure physicians into adhering to guidelines which are not universally good for patients or for cost of care ..."
Oct 27, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

el_tel , October 27, 2017 at 7:24 am

Interesting article and a couple of clarifications:

Psychologists have studied the accuracy of risk assessments made by statistical predictors and by clinicians, but they have not done similar studies of the accuracy of evaluations of patient preferences over health outcomes.

True but health economists have done so . And they got so scared by the results that some (Dolan) left the field to do something else. This particular example is that whilst the general population reckons "extreme pain" to be worse than "extreme depression/anxiety", those members of the population who'd experienced them both put them the other way round. Which has profound implications for the UK values assigned to health outcomes. Of course other countries might do things in different ways and this is NOT some veiled attack on what the US might do if single payer gets onto the playing field. It's merely adding to the warning in the paper about how to do it. Which leads to a second warning I'd make – averages. They conceal a lot.

Mental health is the archetypal example and, again, maybe the paper is right that something like maximin is warranted, given that "living by averages" means some groups automatically lose out. Just some thoughts, which hopefully are constructive this time round and expand on points made.

PlutoniumKun , October 27, 2017 at 8:19 am

One thing this article doesn't distinguish between are hospital doctors and solo practitioners (i.e. family doctors, or occasionally doctors in small hospitals). There is a huge issue with doctors simply not keeping up with current research if they don't have the peer pressure and oversight that you would expect in a well run hospital. I was a victim of this as for years as a child I was repeatedly given antibiotics by my family doctor for 'chest infections'. In fact, I had asthma triggered by a cold air sensitivity, and was only diagnosed in my late teens (after I'd been carted to hospital after a school outdoors sport session).

I talked much later to a family member who is a specialist in prescribing practice who said that this was by far the most common misdiagnosis/treatment and as late as the 1990's in the UK (where he did research on the subject), he found that 25% of GP's (family doctors) were not identifying asthma correctly. Very often, pharmacists are the only gatekeepers to identify bad prescribing practices.

I've also heard numerous stories about terrible practices by specialists in small hospitals, who can become mini-emperors with nobody to contradict their professional opinions. This is one reason why all doctors will generally advise that the best place when you are ill is a large teaching hospital (definitely not a small private hospital). Bad diagnostic practice is much more likely to be stamped out in the biggest hospitals where there is greater peer oversight.

JTMcPhee , October 27, 2017 at 10:04 am

I'd ask what the author assumes is the best model for doctor-patient interaction, what "patient care" means. To me it should be two or maybe more (including nurses and family members and other caregivers) people, ones with more knowledge of physiology and systems, others with more knowledge and experience of whatever the "presenting condition" happens to be, interacting to increase longevity, reduce pain, repair damaged structures, correct physiological malfunctions and problems with homeostatic functions and so forth, to maximize function, independence and comfort -- an incomplete definition of a very complex notion.

Physicians aren't bots. There are different reasons people go into medicine, not all of them about "patient care" and altruism -- "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others behavior by not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species." Sometimes quite the opposite, thanks to greed and pleasure-seeking and the burdens of "debt" assumed by so many "providers," or even rare psych phenomena like von Muchausen's by proxy

Always, the smart kids in the room want to systematize and organize every kind of function, and in the neoliberal universe, reduce complexity to profit-generating, "management"-centric forms. Sometimes that application of rationalization is a good thing, it can help focus attention wisely and lead to those often undefined "good outcomes."

But there's almost an infinite number of ways humans can get injured, sickened and die. Human physiology is vastly complex. The interaction pathways are likewise near infinite. Medicine is an art of observation compounded over time, and a lot of the knowledge base (I personally hate that term) is just wrong, from a wide variety of causes including bias, sample size, things like referred pain, atypical "presentations," "normal variation" and so forth. When what to me is a semi-mystical interaction between practitioner and person works well, it is a thing of beauty and kindness. As with anything human-created and -mediated, too often the result is far worse -- most of us can insert one or more anecdotes here, on either extreme.

Constant mechanization of medicine results in stuff like the ICD-10 classification thing, which is mostly about Big Data and payments. "Billable" medicine has been "reduced" to about 70,000 "diagnosis codes" and a whole lot of treatment and procedure codes, up from about 13,000 diagnosis codes in ICD-9. It's a "whole new way of doing business:"

ICD-9 is widely considered to be based on outdated technology, with codes unable to reflect the use of new equipment. ICD-10 offers far more integration with modern technology, with an emphasis on devices that are actually being used for various procedures. The additional spaces available are partly designed to allow for new technology to be seamlessly integrated into codes, which means fewer concerns about the ability to accurately report information as time goes on. In Conclusion, ICD-10 is not a simple update to ICD-9. The structural changes throughout the entire coding system are very significant, and the increased level of complexity requires coders to be even more thoroughly trained than before. However, it is possible to prepare for the changes by remembering a few simple guidelines:

Train early- The more familiar your staff are with ICD-10, the better. While currently scheduled to begin Oct. 1, 2014, beginning the training now is not a bad idea.

Understand the ICD-10- The structural changes require a change in the way people think about coding, and understanding it will help to break current coding habits. Medical professionals used to reporting things a certain way so they can be coded may need to change what they say in order to work well with the new system.

EBM is just another management buzz(kill)word, like "total quality management" and "zero defects" and "zero-based budgeting." All supported by proponents who rationalize and argue in the language of squishy "disciplines" like psychology and economics, using "specialized" lexicons that often are cloudy restatements of commonplaces in arcane terminologies, and the creation of intellectual artifacts that have tenuous or little relationship to the reality most "uneducated" observers perceive -- yes, sometimes incorrectly as more acute observations might show, but more often accurately than the modeling and force-fitting that "experts" soar off on. How many of the articles cited as authoritative on various points have anything other than presence in peer-reviewed land as proof of the claimed "findings" both of the original researchers and authors, or acuteness and accuracy of the proposition for which they are offered subsequently? And how much fraud and selectiveness (like medication trials that exclude likely non-responders to the therapies) and purblindness fills the vast swath of "published studies"

I've personally experienced and seen lots of misdiagnoses and clinician blindness and tunnel vision, starting as a child when the family doctor, a partisan of allergies as the most common source of disease, and who patch-tested me and my sisters unmercifully, supposedly told my mom that my broken right forearm was the result of an allergy. And our favored subsequent family doctor, who mis-diagnosed my mother's fatal ovarian cancer (a common failing given vagueness of symptoms) for a year or more after her original office visit, as a gall bladder problem needing bile salts. (Said doctor, seeking alpha, had moved largely into "industrial medicine," doing workers comp and employment physicals -- a wonderfully nice guy, but clinical skills atrophy or lose focus or get too sharpened into narrow channels– totally understandable, given human nature -- channels that get reinforced by "economic" forces, stuff like HMOs and corporate bottom lines, and stuff like the vast and geometrically growing pile of "medical knowledge" of more or less validity, on and on.

These observations only touch on an enormously complex and painfully meaningful subject. Seems to me that the best "we" patients and patients-to-be can expect is that we connect with clinicians that still start from "Do no harm" and aspire to better the lives of we who seek and depend on their expertise -- a notably, and inevitably, ever smaller fraction of the available "knowledge base." And "we" can hope that AI and EBM and the horrors wrought by the other false gods of "modern medical practice" like "Electronic Medical Records" don't intermediate and leverage their way into the care we mopes need and hope for. EBM from what I have seen can be a useful approach in some ways, but then Smith's Law of Crapification is as universal as Murphy's

el_tel , October 27, 2017 at 10:15 am

Yeah I agree entirely . But more holistic approaches (judging medicine by overall quality of life) get into areas that have got a little Shall we say Controversial So I'm keeping my comments focused to stay within site guidelines.

cojo , October 27, 2017 at 12:08 pm

There are two reasons why patient care adhering to guidelines may differ from the care that clinicians provide:
Guideline developers may differ from clinicians in their ability to predict how decisions affect patient outcomes; or
Guideline developers and clinicians may differ in how they evaluate patient outcomes.

I think, what this article alludes to is that medicine is complex and not easily algorithmic. The concerns in medical decision making as noted by Yves and others is that if your data/knowledge you base your treatment choices on is outdated, or flat out wrong, you will be doing your patient's a disservice at best and harm at worse. In these situations evidence based medicine should be used as a guide. Where evidence based medicine runs into trouble, is two fold. One, when the guidelines are based on flawed evidence/data, and two, when they are no longer used as a guide, but as the law.

So in that case you may statistically help the population at large, based on the data at hand, but at the cost of doing preventable harm to a large cohort that could have been picked up by rational clinical decision making. This is where the "Art of Medicine" should theoretically be superior. The problem with the art of medicine, is that it takes time as it comes with experience. Much more experience that one can learn in medical school or residency.

My suspicion is that those early in their careers would benefit from practicing a high level of guideline based medicine until they gain experience.

With experience, the guidelines should still be understood but there is more flexibility to stray from the guidelines for individual patients based on patient preference and physician experience.

For those in the late stages of their careers, it is again important to understand and try to follow the guidelines so as to not become outdated in your practice knowledge.

At all three stages, one must understand the rational and methodology of the guidelines figure out which guidelines are to be used for most cases and which guidelines are just that, a guide.

Above, I speak of how to practice medicine without consideration of how to pay for it. Now when you start adding payments, reimbursements, and insurance claims, you add another level of complexity, bias, and incentive. It appears the free market insurance model is not working, as well as the fee for service model. Here the trick is to change the way medicine is reimbursed and incentivized.

Jason , October 27, 2017 at 12:14 pm

I am a practicing internal medicine hospitalist in a major US city. While in the past, there were large delays in physicians taking evidence-based practice and turning it into new habit and too much unwanted variation in clinical practice -- I feel like in the US, the pendulum is swinging too far the other way -- and in unintelligent ways, forcing clinicians into care protocols without regard for individual circumstance. Now there are clinical care guidelines from Medicare, the American Heart Association, the CDC, and others around major disease states (like stroke, heart failure, sepsis) that hospitals must follow for reimbursement -- yet the guidelines do not keep pace with current peer-reviewed evidence.

My point is that there are mandates and financial incentive for hospitals to pressure physicians into adhering to guidelines which are not universally good for patients or for cost of care (sepsis guidelines now are a good example of this). Often these expectations are negotiated by bureaucrats, not clinicians. The healthcare industry needs a better way of giving physicians real-time feedback about their clinical practice habits in relation to their peers -- - and having some common-sense expectations around unwanted variations in practice.

financial matters , October 27, 2017 at 12:50 pm

Hopefully you can get yourself on some committees dealing with these issues. Very important to have physician input.

Economics is definitely important, not only for improving the hospitals bottom line but for making medicine economically responsible generally.

Single payer, I think would be great but we still need to watch what we are paying for. No need for pharmaceutical companies to make outrageous profits.

One interesting area now is that many very expensive tests are becoming available for cancer testing. These need to be ordered responsibly and that takes physician, social and admin input. And at a deeper level needs to examine why the tests, drugs etc are so expensive.

el_tel , October 27, 2017 at 1:01 pm

Tranylcypromine – first generation antidepressant and still the gold standard for effectiveness (the "cheese effect" side effect has been overblown as numerous studies have more recently shown – I'm on it and can confirm this) costs the NHS over £1000 per month for me. It's been off patent for 50 years. However there is a monopoly supplier (price gouger). Why don't generic suppliers move in? Because the market is too small. Two generations of doctors have been taught that this class (MAOIs) are akin to leech therapy. Thus the assumption is that most people on them will be old and will die off. Scandalous, as any psychiatrist worth their salt will tell you (never mind the health economist like me).

el_tel , October 27, 2017 at 1:36 pm

Prime case of cr*pification in medicine if you ask me. Doctors bowled over by the drug companies selling SSRIs/SNRIs which let's not forget don't even work as the pharmacology says they should – they should show benefits at day 4/5 like MAOIs if their original pharmacological justification is paid attention to. Now does that mean they don't work? No I'm not saying that. But their method of action is clearly odd and not in line with the original pharmacological data and models.

Health economics 102 is derived demand – patients rely on doctors to enunciate their demand function. But when doctors have effectively undergone the medical equivalent of regulatory capture then Houston we have a problem.

financial matters , October 27, 2017 at 1:54 pm

Yes indeed. These pharmacologic profits can be perniciously spread around. It can be difficult to find a true patient advocate.

el_tel , October 27, 2017 at 2:17 pm

Thanks for the reply. The problem here is that patient advocacy requires systemic change: change in the medical curriculum along with a concerted effort to tell GPs about the new data on "old" drugs And they are already overburdened with stuff "coming at them from on high".

Plus even if (say) they learn the real data concerning MAOIs they still can't prescribe them straight off A psychiatrist must initiate it (then GP can carry on) And mental health services are close to breaking point. My local service is at critical levels. Austerity yet again .

Bill , October 27, 2017 at 1:48 pm

I was going to a physical therapist practice for spasticity and weakness and pain related to a pretty radical cervical laminectomy and progressive spine problems. I was a Medicare patient and they insisted on using the guidelines for rehabilitation after operation, even though my operation took place 12 years earlier. This consisted of exercises which only made my spasticity worse and aggravated my arthritis. What I needed was to have my chest and arms worked on to counteract the contraction of muscles caused by spasticity, which the therapist knew how to do. But she refused and told me that If I did not do the exercises, she would no longer treat me as I was violating the "guidelines", which did not apply to my circumstance. There was apparently nothing to allow treatment for chronic problems (except opiods, which I refused).

el_tel , October 27, 2017 at 2:00 pm

Sorry to hear that. I had reason to look at the UK guidelines on a range of conditions (from NICE). I was actually pleasantly surprised: although they do in many cases follow "stepped care" functions from medicine, there were a surprising number of "get outs" regarding if the patient cannot tolerate /has good reason to reject the official guidance. Patient preferences have begun to get recognised in the UK.

Of course whether austerity allows the doctors to *afford* differences is another sad story .

Bill , October 27, 2017 at 2:59 pm

I guess that what I need now is what amounts to palliative care (non-pharmaceutical). I find now that I have discovered high-CBD hemp (Otto II strain) which I can grow myself, I can actually slow down the progressive effects of my condition. Ironically, though I qualify for the medical marijuana card, I can't afford to buy from the dispensaries, and they mainly offer high THC strains anyway. I am lucky to have found a way to treat myself!

[Oct 25, 2017] Overtreatment in the United States Health Care System

American Family Physicians defines overtreatment as follows: "Treatment initiated when there is little or no reliable evidence of a clinically meaningful net benefit, where net benefit equals benefit minus harm. "
Over-treatment involves actual procedures performed on a patient, often surgically. Unnecessary cardiac stents is one example and is a real epidemic due to excessive green and pervert incentives.
Notable quotes:
"... By Lambert Strether of Corrente. ..."
"... Over the weekend, the New York Times published a head-turning tale about Dr. Mark Midei, a star cardiologist at St. Joseph Medical Center in Townson, Maryland. According to federal investigators, Dr. Midei implanted potentially dangerous cardiac stents in the arteries of as many as 585 patients who didn't need them. A hard worker, he managed to knock off those 585 procedures in just two years, from 2007 to 2009. Medicare paid $3.8 million of the $6.6 million charged for the treatments. ..."
"... The report reveals that Midei was a favorite son of Abbott Laboratories, the company that manufactured the stents. Indeed, in August of 2008, Abbott celebrated the fact that the handy doctor had inserted 30 of the company's cardiac stents into trusting patients in a single day: "Two days later, an Abbott sales representative spent $2,159 to buy a whole, slow-smoked pig, peach cobbler and other fixings for a barbecue dinner at Dr. Midei's home." Employees from St. Joseph's attended the feast. ..."
"... It's clear that one ..."
Oct 25, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Posted on October 24, 2017 by Lambert Strether By Lambert Strether of Corrente.

Over the past, oh, decade or so I've been so consumed with the battle to get everybody into the heatlh care system -- "Everybody in, nobody out," as Quentin Young puts it -- that I haven't put much energy into thinking about the heatlh care itself. After all, just because a house is energy inefficient doesn't mean that it's OK to leave people out in the cold. Now that single payer is no longer "never, ever," but a program that could actually be achieved with (an enormous) level of effort, KHN's new series, "Treatment Overkill," which starts with Liz Szabo's "So Much Care It Hurts: Unneeded Scans, Therapy, Surgery Only Add To Patients' Ills," provides me with a change to broaden my scope a bit, with a survey post like this one.

So I'm going to look at two issues: (1) Is overtreatment a real problem? and (2) What are the causes of overtreatment? Spoilers: Yes, and it's complicated.

Confession time: I'm the sort of person who doesn't get the idea of deductibles at all; I can't understand why anyone would seek out medical treatment unless they were absolutely sure they needed it. And the reason I fear the health care system is, in fact, the prospect (painful) overtreatment; the dental clinic that was going to give me full anesthesia to remove a wisdom tooth; or my nightmare of "end of life care" hooked up to a machine in a nursing home in a room with a television I can't turn off.

Overtreatment Is Real Problem

Evidence for overtreatment[1] falls into two categories: Anecdotes, and studies and surveys. I'll look at anecdotes first.

"Anecdotes" isn't really a fair word, though; most of the stories are more about entire vertical markets (for example, stents, as we shall see). Szabo starts out with this example:

When Annie Dennison was diagnosed with breast cancer last year, she readily followed advice from her medical team, agreeing to harsh treatments in the hope of curing her disease.

"In addition to lumpectomy surgery, chemotherapy and other medications, Dennison underwent six weeks of daily radiation treatments. She agreed to the lengthy radiation regimen, she said, because she had no idea there was another option.

Medical research published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2010 -- six years before her diagnosis -- showed that a condensed, three-week radiation course works just as well as the longer regimen. A year later, the American Society for Radiation Oncology , which writes medical guidelines, endorsed the shorter course.

In 2013 , the society went further and specifically told doctors not to begin radiation on women like Dennison -- who was over 50, with a small cancer that hadn't spread -- without considering the shorter therapy.

"It's disturbing to think that I might have been overtreated," Dennison said. "I would like to make sure that other women and men know this is an option."

(Note, sadly, that Dennison immediately puts the onus on the consumer patient to be informed; an obvious tax on time, to be paid with the patient has the least time or energy to spare, instead of looking for the systemic solution she vaguely hints at with "would like to make sure." This impulse is a topic for another post.)

Nobel Prize Winner Bernard Lowns gives a second example in this interview (after demolishing "bed rest" for heart attack patients as "a form of medieval torture" as well):

[DR. LOWN]: At the Peter Bent Brigham Hospital [now Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston] in 1960, I was asked to see a patient who was in her late 70s, demented, and had burns over 60 percent of her body. She had been smoking in bed. They asked me to consult about putting in a pacemaker, which she did not need. Furthermore, she was clearly dying, and implanting a pacemaker would only have increased her suffering without prolonging her life. I was mortified. I wrote a note urging against a pacemaker. It created quite a rumpus. If that were an isolated episode, it would be tragic. But that kind of thing happened daily.

Here is a third, and egregious example, from Health Beat :

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a head-turning tale about Dr. Mark Midei, a star cardiologist at St. Joseph Medical Center in Townson, Maryland. According to federal investigators, Dr. Midei implanted potentially dangerous cardiac stents in the arteries of as many as 585 patients who didn't need them. A hard worker, he managed to knock off those 585 procedures in just two years, from 2007 to 2009. Medicare paid $3.8 million of the $6.6 million charged for the treatments.

The Baltimore Sun broke Dr. Midei's story in January. In February the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, which oversees Medicare and Medicaid, began investigating. Monday, the Finance Committee released a 1200-page report..

The report reveals that Midei was a favorite son of Abbott Laboratories, the company that manufactured the stents. Indeed, in August of 2008, Abbott celebrated the fact that the handy doctor had inserted 30 of the company's cardiac stents into trusting patients in a single day: "Two days later, an Abbott sales representative spent $2,159 to buy a whole, slow-smoked pig, peach cobbler and other fixings for a barbecue dinner at Dr. Midei's home." Employees from St. Joseph's attended the feast.

(It may seem that I'm stacking the deck on causality here, but I'm really not, although it would be foolish to deny that such cases exist.)

Note again that these examples all involve treatment : Radiation treatment, a pacemaker, and stents. We're not talking about ordering a few two many tests. ( The American Family Physican supplies numerous classes of overtreatment, not just anecdotes. See Table I.) Now to the studies and surveys.

"Overtreatment in the United States," by Heather Lyu, et al (from the Public Library of Science, and thus peer-reviewed) has induced a good deal of discusson since its publication in September 2017. From the Findings:

The response rate was 70.1%. Physicians reported that an interpolated median of 20.6% of overall medical care was unnecessary, including 22.0% of prescription medications, 24.9% of tests, and 11.1% of procedures.

Dear me. If one-fifth of all medical care is unnecessary, that does seem like rather a lot of stress and fear induced for no reason. And if one out of every ten treatments is unncessary, that's rather a lot of people going to Pain City because their number came up, and not for any medical reason. Those odds aren't quite as bad as Russian roulette, but they'e in the ballpark! I haven't (yet) been able to find figures on the costs of overtreatment, but there have been studies done on the costs of unnecessay care. Health Affairs :

Current estimates for unnecessary expenditures on overuse range from 10 to 30 percent of total health care spending. Even the lower estimate, from the Institute of Medicine , amounts to nearly $300 billion a year. No specialty is immune from practices that lead to overuse, as a recent spate of papers in medical journals can attest. In cardiology, even using criteria that are relatively permissive, an estimated 11 percent of stents are delivered to " inappropriate patients ." At some hospitals, that rate is closer to 20 percent.

(Note that the figure of 11% unnecessary stents jibes well with Lyu's figure of 11.1% of all procedures being unnecessary.)

I'm sure none of this is new to any medical professionals in the NC readership, but it was new to me, and may well be new to NC readers -- especially those who received treatments that they retrospectively, or just now, understood to be unnecessary.

The Causes of Overtreatment

It's clear that one cause for overtreatment is the profit motive. (I would speculate that individuals like Midei, the stent dude, are edge cases, and that the real causes are more subtle and systemic.) Quoting again from Lyu, et al. :

The top three cited reasons for overtreatment were "fear of malpractice" (84.7%), "patient pressure/request" (59.0%), and "difficulty accessing prior medical records" (38.2%) Seventy-one percent of respondents believed that physicians are more likely to perform unnecessary procedures when they profit from them. The interpolated median response for the percentage of physicians who perform unnecessary procedures with a profit motive was 16.7%; 28.1% of respondents believed that at least 30–45% of physicians do so (Fig 2). Respondents who were attending physicians with at least 10 years of experience (OR 1.89 (1.43–2.50) vs trainees) and specialists (OR 1.29 (1.06–1.57)) were more likely to believe that physicians perform unnecessary procedures when they profit from them Respondents' compensation method and hospital characteristics were not associated with differences in perceptions on the profit motive associated with unnecessary care.

So, the more experienced the doctor is, the more likely the doctor is to believe that profit drives unnecessary procedures. However, the profit motive imputed to individuals cannot be the sole driver (see "DICE: Nonclinical Causes of Overtreatment" for a model that includes "Economics" without being reductive) as this letter in the British Medical Journal shows :

As a person who follows the evolution of health care policy from the vantage point of the United States, I found BMJ's May 12 article on "Choosing Wisely in the UK" [see here ; CW is an "informed consumer" model] very interesting. The authors ascribe the phenomenon of medical overtreatment in the UK to a culture of "more is better" fostered by such factors as "defensive medicine," "patient pressures," "commercial conflicts of interest," "payment by activity," and the demands of "pay for performance."

Many critics of the American health care scene ascribe the problem of irrational overtreatment unsupported by available evidence in the U.S. to precisely the same causes, and argue that the key to rationalizing American medical practice lies in adoption of the UK's single payer, universal coverage health care system and the UK's system of civil justice. The fact that a Choosing Wisely program is necessary in the UK, and for most of the same underlying reasons as apply in the U.S., proves that the UK has not found the panacea to achieving rational medical practice and that emulation of the UK methods of health insurance, physician payment, and civil justice will not work as a panacea in the U.S. either.

So, sadly, single payer as such is unlikely to solve overtreatment (although I can't think of an advocate who ever said it would).

Conclusion

If there were one kind of doctor-patient relationship that I would like to see incentivized when single payer comes to pass, it's this one. Again Dr. Lown :

U.S. News: Problems with America's health care system are economic, but they are also human. What's been lost in modern medicine?

[DR. LOWN: In my view the lost art of listening is a quintessential failure of our health care system. I think that you cannot heal the health care system without restoring the art of listening and of compassion. You cannot ignore the patient as a human being. A doctor must be a good listener. A doctor must be cultured in order to understand where the patient lives, why he lives like that, and also realize that the leading cause of disease in the world is poverty.

Call me Polyanna, but I think if the health care system started treating patients like human beings, that a good deal of overtreatment would be avoided.

NOTES

[1] Overtreatment is not the same as overtesting, or overdiagnosis. Over-treatment involves actual procedures performed on a patient, often surgically. In other words, lots of pain and suffering imposed to no good purpose. (Szabo's article considers all three, but I am focusing only on overtreatment.) American Family Physicians defines overtreatment as follows: "Treatment initiated when there is little or no reliable evidence of a clinically meaningful net benefit, where net benefit equals benefit minus harm. "

taunger , October 24, 2017 at 1:41 pm

I worked as a disability advocate for years, which is a high volume practice. I read literally tens of thousands of medical records during that time. I can say, unequivocally, overtreatment is an issue.

Causes are far more difficult to deal with. The high cost of medical care is a reflection of the low quality of life many USAians are living. Listening is a good start, but far from the answer. Getting everyone in the system, so that more preventative medicine can work, avoiding patient demanded surgeries with low-probabilities of success would help as well. But even these two are just the tip of the iceberg.

In disability, chronic physical ailments mix with unemployment to form a deep pool of depressed individuals. Even with access to great healthcare (which few have), the advice to exercise, stretch, and eat healthy that would improve many conditions (spinal stenosis, other arthritis and orthopedic issues, obesity, heart disease) is worth very little. In a depressed state, changing long term habits into healthy ones is very difficult, and the prevalence of patients seeing a professional to make behavioral adjustments in concert with their disease treatment is few, not counting those that show up to the psychiatrist for medication regularly.

This is why single payer, jobs guarantee, and redistribution tax policy are necessary together.

Anon , October 24, 2017 at 2:28 pm

Excellent comment. The last sentence is a comprehensive statement of actions needed to heal us (U.S.)

Certainly, some will not respond to these actions, but many will and the attempt is magnanimous for a consciously sick nation.

Arizona Slim , October 24, 2017 at 2:03 pm

Experienced this a couple of years ago.

After a car wreck, both of my parents were hospitalized for a week. During that time, I got a lot of phone calls from the hospital, and many of them related to getting my permission for this, that, and the other test on my mother. Dad had Alzheimers, and, lucky for him, he evaded the endless tests. I guess the doctors figured that he wasn't going to live much longer, so what was the point? (He died nine months later.)

One of the phone calls really stood out. Mom was anemic, and the doctors wanted to do a colonoscopy to find out why. "Malnutrition!" I said. Loudly.

This had been a problem for years. Mom and Dad simply weren't eating enough. I'll get back to that point in a minute. But let me say that I refused the colonoscopy for my mother. In addition to being very invasive, I thought it was unnecessary.

Anyway, Mom got sent home and Dad was discharged to a nursing home. Once he was separated from my mother, he started eating like a horse. Gained 15 pounds in less than three months. Then he started losing weight and the nursing home sent him to hospice. In his case, that was the correct call.

Let's just say that my mother still has issues with food. Not a new problem. I remember it from my childhood. But she does have caregivers who insist on proper nutrition. And she complies.

Last time I spoke with Mom's doctor, he didn't say anything about anemia. Sounds like that's no longer a problem.

Rojo , October 24, 2017 at 2:04 pm

I think specialists are more likely to zero in on the "problem" -- the heart or lung or throat, while GP's are more likely to treat the whole person.

But GP's are often referral gateways to specialists.

Anon , October 24, 2017 at 2:47 pm

General Practice doctors are hugely important in the healthcare system. They are the traffic cops that direct patients to the appropriate specialist. They do most of the listening.

Nilavar, M. D. , October 24, 2017 at 4:58 pm

I think specialists are more likely to zero in on the "problem"

Call me skeptic after being a practioner of Medicine over 40 years! I was a GP before got trained as Diagnostic Radiologist after nearly 5 years of residency. I also worked as ER Physician in early years. I am also licensed to practice in Ontario(Canada) but practiced only in USA after the residency training!
A Diagnostic Radiologist is called ' a doctor's doctor" since the myriad of imaging exists to help the clinical diagnosis. I came across virtually all kind of specialists, medical and surgical kind! Ifound out to whom I wouldn't even send my 'dog' for treatment!

There are ethical and morally conscious docs, but they are in the minority!VERY FEW!

A specialist is like a HAMMER, s/he sees everything as if it is just problem of NAIL! Surgeon thinks through SCALPEL. Go to Pulmonologist, more likely you get bronchoscoped (needed or not), Gastroenterologist – gastro or colonoscopy, so on!

So buyer beware!

S.Nilavar. M.D.

Anonymous , October 24, 2017 at 2:07 pm

Imagine going to a restaurant where the waiter got to order for you.

"You want the steak? OK better start off with these two appetizers I think you'll like.
You'll need some wine too. There's a 1994 Cabernet that will pair great with this. I'll mark
that down. The cost? Oh don't worry about that, your dining insurance will cover it.
Now for dessert. They're all so good, I have picked out three for you. You don't need
to finish them. Now I'll just add in my customary 25% tip (I am highly trained) and we'll
call it a meal."

Vikas Saini , October 24, 2017 at 2:34 pm

As a regular lurker here, it's great to see you on this beat Lambert. We've been on this for awhile now at the Lown Institute. I refer you and the rest of the commentariat to a series we did in the Lancet which is here:

The Drivers paper is pertinent as a description of the ecosystem of bad care.

FYI it's a deep problem of modern medicine, part of the reductionism of the Flexner paradigm that needs to change. Over treatment exists in Canada and the UK as well as in an utterly profit driven system like the US.
Single Payer will be necessary but not sufficient for this problem. Monopsony will only go so far without a revolutionary shift in culture and consciousness.

oh , October 24, 2017 at 2:50 pm

If the patient is the one who controls the payment, things may improve. Right now with insurance, there is no one to one relationship between the patient and the health provider. Insurance companies stand between the patient and payment. Even in the case of single payer, if the patient is given incentives to get second opinions and refuse unnecessary treatment, things may work better.

Lyle , October 24, 2017 at 9:38 pm

Single payer is likley to require second and if need be third opinions for non emergency surgery. Most insurance pays for a second opinion if you want one (and would be a fool not to get) and if need be a third opinion if the first and second don't agree.

kb , October 24, 2017 at 3:03 pm

Kip Sullivan unequivocally disputes the "overtreatment" meme To the contrary, we are under treated in the US ..
Please read:
"The Health Care Mess: How we got into it and how we'll get out of it" by Kip Sullivan ..

hreikd , October 24, 2017 at 3:08 pm

Over treatment: My mom's story. From several years ago.

So I was the guardian for my very (VERY) demented mom whom we kept at home, at great cost but also great benefit to her. She had a basal cell tumor on her forehead. About the size of a nickel. She was 90 at the time. I live in one state, she the next state over about 2 hours away. She had full time help at home.

So one of my innumerable trips to help out and oversee, involved taking her to her md appointment at Brigham and Women's. She had a wonderful gerontologist, who referred me to a dermatologist affiliated with B &W. Her care giver took her a few weeks later and I got a call from the dermatologist, a young woman. Now I'm an old woman but a trained m.d. in Internal Medicine. I also knew (by then ) a great deal about dementia. And especially dementia in my particular mother.

So when the dermatologist called me she said "your mom needs a MOHS procedure". Well, a Mohs procedure is an 8 hour stop and go procedure. They keep cutting until the margins are clean. They cut, send the specimen to the lab, wait for the result and cut again. Patient is awake the whole time so there's no anesthesia risk, but 8 hours on a table for a woman with advanced Alzheimer's was not going to work. I told the dermatologist that there's no way my mom could tolerate that. The dermatologist got irate. Tried to scare me by saying, "the tumor could grow into her brain!". I said, "mom's 90, she'll be dead b/f the tumor goes anywhere!"

They were so intent on this procedure and challenged my right to speak on mom's behalf. so .. I had to fax PROOF of my guardianship for them to let me have the last say. I was pretty discharged. And complained bitterly to the referring doc when we saw him next . and he mentioned that my complaint wasn't the first.

Then I found out that the MOHS surgeons get a ton of money at the places they work, like $700,000.00 / year.

Nemo , October 24, 2017 at 3:57 pm

Thank you for sharing. It helps to know I am not alone in such experiences.

I often wonder how epidemic stories like yours are. I feel like I could write a whole book based on personal experiences along with those of family and friends. A person really has to educate oneself just to avoid being robbed blind or worse yet harmed, and you at least have the fortune of a medical education. To have to education oneself (trying to filter all the misleading 'marketing' information and quacks out there) on complex medical procedures on top of everything else is exasperating beyond words.

How long do we, and those we care about, have to continue suffering the indignities and malfeasance of a broken and corrupt (not worth using euphemisms to debate the issues at this point anymore) healthcare system?

McWoot , October 24, 2017 at 3:52 pm

I'd be surprised if a significant contributor to the "overtreatment" pie wasn't Pharma advertising

clarky90 , October 24, 2017 at 4:17 pm

The underlying premise of "modern medicine" is flawed. It dumber than Medieval bloodletting.

Allopathic medicine is brilliant for catastrophic events. In the case of paraplegic injuries, over the last 50 years, their survival rate, in the first two years after the injury, has increased dramatically. However their long term life expectancy is about the same as it was 50 years ago.

Trends in Life Expectancy After Spinal Cord Injury
"Results
Other factors being equal, over the last 3 decades there has been a 40% decline in mortality during the critical first 2 years after injury. However, the decline in mortality over time in the post–2-year period is small and not statistically significant ."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003999306004060

We are bamboozled by the "complexity" of the modern medicine model, BUT, "it" is stupidly simple. They define a "normal" range of numbers. This range is arbitrary and always changing. What is normal cholesterol? PSA? Blood sugar? ferritin? vitamin D?

Then they subject the patient to an array of blood tests, x rays, scans, urine tests

Then, the allopatic doctors use drugs or surgery in order to get your test numbers in the normal range.

Before you know it, the patient is on 15 drugs. They cannot sleep so they are prescribed sleeping pills. Then they are depressed, so anti-psychotics- Finally Oxycontin for the constant unbearable pain.

Allopathic care in NZ is cheap, readily available, but a death trap for the trusting (except for catastrophic events). USAians pays hundreds of thousands of dollars for misery and drug induced ill-health.

If cat poop (feces) were cheap and available in one place (NZ), but outrageously expensive and rationed in another (USA), it is still, basically, just cat shite.

VietnamVet , October 24, 2017 at 4:40 pm

The problem is for profit healthcare. The more tests and treatments, the higher the managers bonuses. There is no regulation except for the insurance companies who are only interested in their own bottom line. The patient is not in a position to rationally oversee their care by themselves. All that matters today is profits; no matter how they are achieved. That is why American life expectancy is decreasing. Besides giving everyone healthcare; a system of primary physicians, government oversight of hospitals and care facilities plus jail time for criminals are also needed.

kareninca , October 24, 2017 at 4:43 pm

I have relatives by marriage who live in southern Indiana near the Kentucky border. They are "respectable working class," and I guess they must have good health insurance. I have never known anyone to have so many surgeries. It is astounding. Cardiac surgeries and orthopedic surgeries, for the most part. The ones I have in mind are 58 and 62 years old; they have never smoked; they go to Mass every Sunday, they have been happily married since they were young and while they don't eat health food they don't eat every meal at McDonald's. But it is surgery after surgery after surgery. They never question the doctors; they never hesitate. And now, unfortunately, some consequences of the surgeries are coming due; the guy is in the hospital with infections both in his pacemaker and in his heart valve (they just replaced both; he'll probably be okay). No-one else I know has surgeries like this. I think it is a regional scam. It's true that my dad in CT has had a number of vascular surgeries, but he smoked for decades and the dire need for them has been very apparent.

Here in northern CA, I have a friend whose girlfriend's son went to the emergency room a number of years ago for a bad finger cut. He was told he needed amputation. Then they found out he had no insurance. He was told to use a salve, and in fact it worked fine. I also have a friend here in Silicon Valley who recently had digestive problems. The MRIs, CAT scans, lab tests and probings under sedation were endless. Finally she was told to stop eating acidic food.

nihil obstet , October 24, 2017 at 4:54 pm

Reducing the profit motive as much as possible is why I would prefer a National Health Service (call it VA for all). Insurance, even if it's single payer, is still open to fraud and overtreatment. Let's try to think of medical practitioners as professionals rather than entrepreneurs, and get them to think of themselves that way. I also see it as a possible way to reduce the very high premium given to specialists, so that more would go into primary care.

Nilavar, M. D. , October 24, 2017 at 5:09 pm

In modern Medical practice, PROCEDURALISTS ( Surgeons of all kind, Cardiologists, orthopods, Pulmonologists, gastro enterologists anfd of course, invasive and diagnostic Radiologists etc ) always get compensated more than the primary care providers!

There are more CPT codes to charge for specialists than the GPs or FPs

Medicine is business run by 3rd parties! Vested interests won't allow any challenges to status quo, just the banking system and the FIRE Economy!

Wade Riddick , October 24, 2017 at 4:59 pm

With all due respect, if the UK system has embraced, "commercial conflicts of interest," "payment by activity," and the demands of "pay for performance" then that means they have a substantial set of profit incentives already in place, rendering their medical system *more*, not *less*, similar to America's. They may have single payer but that just captures the monopoly rents by regulating the cartel/monopoly/utility or whatever you want to call the medical establisment (it's per se difficult to even talk about market competition when there's only one drug or treatment that will save a patient).

The unregulated private provision of public goods like medical care always leads to extortion for profit. If you privatize fire-fighting, entire cities will burn to the ground. If you privatize schools, you get ignorance. If you privatize prisons, you get kidnapping-for-profit and the highest incarceration rate in the civilized world.

If you privatize the military, you get endless war. Why would a for-profit business ever win a war? For that matter, why would they ever lose? The war's over and they'd be out of money. You think it's just a coincidence that in the age of corporate personhood (Citizens United) and unlimited bribery of public officials, you've had two of the longest, most expensive and least determinative conflicts in our history in Iraq and Afghanistan?

You think it's a coincidence that the more unregulated "markets" we through at medicine, the more expensive our medical care becomes and the sicker we all get?

Cures don't make money. Repeat customers do.

Show me a for-profit business that's in business to go out of business and I'll show you the perfect company for insuring against social hazards.

It's simple middle-manager fraud. Politicians love privatizing government because they get to pocket the public budget. When the marines or public school principals hand tax dollars back to politicians and their cronies, everybody goes to prison. Privatize it and then you can have the contractor or charter school give you "campaign donations" – no doubt celebrating your economic genius in the process. They can hire your spouse and cousins. The contractor can even bid up the real estate and then rent it back to themselves at exorbitant prices. There are a million ways to launder the money.

Why do you think there is no transparent public accounting on most of this stuff? The budget disappears into a black hole – which, incidentally, you'll discover the minute you're in a hospital, dealing with a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) or health insurer. That was the true purpose of MERS – to make good mortgage information disappear so CDO purchasers would never know what was in the mystery meat.

This is the great unraveling of Progressive Era controls on public corruption.

If you pay a dotor for every surgical screw he installs, is it any surprise then that a diabetic winds up getting several in his spine he never needed?

This is also how we have set up the aluminum and copper markets, letting speculators buy and horde commodities to drive up the price. It's also how we run drug distribution under the PBMs. PBMs provide a kickback in the form of a "stocking fee" to pharmacies which would get people sent to prison in other industries. When derivatives traders are not end consumers or producers of a commodity, they bid up prices the same way. We actually give pharmacies a profit incentive to drive cheap, effective, public domain chemicals off the market in favor of expensive, privately patented medicines. Because they are expensive, they pay a greater kickback so the pharmacy has greater incentives to stock and push it.

When railroads charged both farmers and consumers shipping and receiving food, it bankrupted both sides of the transaction by creating incentives to reduce supply in the monopoly transportation network. Reducing rail capacity bid up transportation prices and saved the company on investment. That's how you raise profits: raise prices, lower expenses. They had no rival to compete. That's why these kickbacks were outlawed. Imagine if the post office made you buy a stamp for every letter you receive. Oh, wait. We have that with the end of net neutrality. The ISPs get paid both by the service supplier (e.g., Netflix) and by their "customer" (you and I).

You this same "rationing" take place now with drugs. Since legalizing PBM kickbacks, drug prices have soared and we've lived through some of the greatest drug shortages since the Soviet Union went bankrupt. Hundreds of chemotherapy patients per year have died because cartels control supply and they don't like patients getting cheap, efective, public domain treatments. Go look at the availability of methotrexate over the last ten years or your platinum-based compounds. No one tells you this. It's a blip on the back page of a newspaper (and pretty soon we won't even have those). Do you think TV "news" – making its profits off drug ads – will ever talk about this?

It's a new war of enclosure – and it's far more extensive than simply drug markets. The privatizers are confiscating clean air, potable water, healthy food, public education, public policing and a host of other "general welfare" functions of the government promised us in the preamble. It all traces back to the ideology of for-profit government – which, in technical political science terms, is called fascism – when businesses own and operate the government for private gain.

By the way, we don't need less testing in medicine. We need more. I don't know a single idiot in Silicon Valley who ever said we need less data collection. The simple fact is we need to test everything in a patient and compare everything we collect across thousands of diseases. The cost of sensors and DNA sequencing, imaging and protein detection – not to mention data processing – has been falling dramatically and yet "reformers" always stress "rationing" as the cure for health care prices. It's partly because we ration preventative medicine and diagnostics that we're in this situation.

Another great place to start would be separating diagnostics (evaluation) and treatment. Would you let the bank's chief loan officer also serve as the chief auditor? Yet we let the same doctor diagnose, treat and evaluate his own work.

As someone with serious chronic illness from these frauds, listen to me when I tell you we should be practicing medicine thousands of patients at a time with transparent public auditing and big data model building. Building my own private model of genetics from public research saved my life. Nobody does that for you in medicine. Nobody is paid anywhere in the system based on whether you get the cheapest, most effective and safest treatment; in fact, I've heard of people getting fired for exactly that.

nilavar, MD , October 24, 2017 at 5:37 pm

'By the way, we don't need less testing in medicine. We need more. '

ah?

No test is 100% accurate! Every test has a potential for a FALSE positive or FALSE negative result.

False + may lead to unnecessary more testing and probably unneeded surgery! False negative gives false sense of relief!

Every test has to stand alone for specificity, sensitivity and accuracy, by statistics!

Wade Riddick , October 24, 2017 at 7:48 pm

You've answered your own question. No single measurement, in isolation, is 100% accurate. That's why we need thousands.

We need a cheap gene array chip that measures 10,000 markers in the blood and we need a big data project to match those measurements against a baseline. We need cheap, safe whole body scans. We need measurements of what every cell is up to and how they deviate from the norm.

Nobody's very angry that cell phone cameras keep getting better, yet somehow we're always upset that doctors want plenty of tests. That camera is a sensor that measures our environment and the chip gets better and cheaper each year. We need the same attitude in medicine. But then cardiologists might get upset that an immuno-assay shows you're at risk for atherosclerosis. These guys still don't want to accept that clogged arteries are an immune system problem and the immune specialists don't want to accept that it mostly gets started in the gut. And the gut guys don't want to have anything to do with immunology or cardiology.

Round and round we go

Oregoncharles , October 24, 2017 at 5:09 pm

I'll have to read the post this evening, but I have something to add to the theme:

I was in a meeting where a prominent local single-payer advocate, an emergency room doctor, told us, passionately, that administrative costs were only half the problem,. or less. Overtreatment and overtesting were the bigger part. He blamed the doctors, but of course their billing practices are a big factor.

A big advantage of single-payer is that it creates an institution with the power and motive to change medical practice. Iatrogenic illness is a big factor; overtreatment can kill.

Mayo One , October 24, 2017 at 5:13 pm

My wife has some chronic health issues and is a regular visitor at–and occasional guest of– the Mayo Clinic, traditionally seen as the home of "integrated medicine" (i.e. the various specialties speak with each other). We count ourselves ridiculously, ridiculously fortunate to be able to so often and easily rely on the oft-named best hospital system in the world. That said, it's amazing to both of us, even there, how silo-ed medicine has become. This silo-ing HAS to create an inordinate amount of overtreatment. The generalists, however, are left far behind in the community practices, often not able to do much beyond prescribing antibiotics and making referrals. There is a LOT of need for more holistic thinking about the patient that modern western medicine has lost, likely inadvertently, as greater knowledge leads to the need for greater specialization. The gap of some type of "master generalist" (which would of course be another layer of expense in the healthcare system) is filled either by the patient (of patient's family) or left void. As a result, there's either a huge tax of time, stress, frustration spent searching internet chat boards and medical reference sites to understand topics because it seems like no single doctor "gets it", or a hugely inefficient and potentially quite harmful medical treatment experience as each specialty chips away at their corner of the patient. I'm not sure what the answer is, but if this is the experience of a frequent Mayo Clinic patient, I'd wager that the question posed is a pretty fundamental one to the entire practice of modern medicine.

PlutoniumKun , October 24, 2017 at 5:21 pm

I would add an extra 'over' to your list – overdiagnosis.

One of the the few bright spots in published stats for the US compared to other countries is an apparent higher survival rate from cancers. I mentioned this to a relative who is a medical specialist and he just laughed. 'its not surprising' he said 'since an amazing number of those treated in the US for cancer don't actually have cancer'. Quite simply, overuse of dubious 'tests' results in a huge number of false positives for cancer. This leads to 'successful' treatments. There are many tests in the US which are simply not permitted in countries with public systems because they produce far too many false positives to justify their use, either because the cancer doesn't exist, or it is not sufficiently malignant to justify treatment (apparently there are cancers that lie dormant without ever threatening life). I'm not aware, however, if this has ever been quantified, but its certainly true that there are many testing protocols commonly used in the US which are actively recommended against in most European health systems as they are considered not just a waste of money, but actively harmful.

A relative of mine who is a very highly regarded specialist in drug prescribing practice in Europe is currently doing a one year study on practice in the US (focusing on opiates, as it happens). He said that one of the initial findings is that there is a different culture around prescribing in the US to what he is familiar with. Quite simply, US doctors are not taught how to say 'no' to patients in a way which doesn't upset them or feeling they've been given a brush off.

Someone mentioned overuse of heart operations above. In Ireland, they developed what are called ' Sli na Slainte ' walks, which have spread worldwide. These were developed by the Irish Heart Association following complains that patients were asking for too many drugs and treatments, and not doing the simple thing which was shown to help in the aftermath of heart attacks – exercise. They are way marked walks of set distance – doctors simply prescribe the walk instead of drugs. They are hugely successful. But there is no money in it, so guess where they haven't been adopted?

*disclaimer* I should say I'm not a medical professional, but I do have an interest in the topic.

nilavar, MD , October 24, 2017 at 5:44 pm

'US doctors are not taught how to say 'no' to patients in a way which doesn't upset them or feeling they've been given a brush off.'

But there is always another doctor 'willing' to say YES! Shopping for 'yes' doctors is NOT usual! They are called 'DR. Feel good' ;-)

Remember, Medicine is a business in America!

Chris , October 24, 2017 at 5:44 pm

Thank you, PK. Very interesting, and follows from a thoughtful and insightful post from Lambert, but I guess it makes common sense to strengthen heart muscle and accelerate the body's natural ability to heal itself through exercise. Pity about the commonness of common sense though, but I digress.

We all know we can live longer and avoid or postpone chronic ailments by maintaining a healthy weight and doing some exercise, particularly cardio. And our arms and legs may look the same over our declining years, but if you don't use them, you will lose them, those muscles that is.

I post. that such an ideal is too far when you are time and money poor, constantly worried and depressed

Poverty and sickness and lower mortality – they're all linked to one another. Designed and baked into the dying system

JBird , October 24, 2017 at 6:54 pm

None or too little, or too much, and very occasionally just the right amount of medical care for the lucky few. What a mess.

I'll add that the elderly, and the poor's, opinions seem to be discounted by caretakers as if you are lucky enough to be old or unlucky enough to be destitute means you're soft in the head. So if a patient can understand and communicate what they want and realistically need they have to fight to be listened too.

Steve , October 24, 2017 at 7:25 pm

Four years ago my father who was 78 at the time began having difficulty eating. He had been diagnosed with parkinson's a couple years earlier but the meds he was on were acceptable and effective for him. He was a brilliant physicist. Well they did a colonoscopy and found tiny tumors. One couldn't be taken care of at the time and the process to his death began. No one knew how long the tumor had been there or at what speed it would grow but chemo and radiation were prescribed to make it easier to remove. This became a very long sad story which I will not go into detail on right now. The chemo made my Dad horribly sick. The radiation to pin point a tiny area less than the size of a quarter ended damaging all his organs. He died in pain on Thanksgiving morning 2 years ago. The radiation had done too much damage. When he asked questions about treatment he was shuffled to diffident doctors or just not answered. These were very high end NE Medical facilities. The reason he went in for digestive problems never were fixed. Had the tumors never been addressed he could very well be alive today. To date I have over 5 friends who have had a parent die not from the condition they sought help for but the radiation treatment.

mirjonray , October 24, 2017 at 8:09 pm

For me the problems start with the routine physicals which are "free" courtesy of Obamacare. The doctors run tests and find problems with this and that, and after ultrasounds and CT scans and little surgeries to get rid of benign little thingies, before you know it you've spent thousands of dollars (courtesy of high deductibles ) for basically nothing. This last time around my GP didn't like a few things in my lab results and I ended up with a specialist. He started off with "why are you here to see me today?" After questioning me for a little while about my (lack of) symptoms, I finally told him, "I never would have come here on my own if my doctor hadn't have sent me here."

cojo , October 24, 2017 at 9:04 pm

Dr. Lown is on to something:

[DR. LOWN: In my view the lost art of listening is a quintessential failure of our health care system. I think that you cannot heal the health care system without restoring the art of listening and of compassion. You cannot ignore the patient as a human being. A doctor must be a good listener. A doctor must be cultured in order to understand where the patient lives, why he lives like that, and also realize that the leading cause of disease in the world is poverty.

Medicine is becoming more dehumanizing. This is not only structural due to shorter patient visits, less face to face interaction, fewer family physicians treating the whole family, visiting the patient at their home, to see what their environment/neighborhood is like. It is also the way physicians practice medicine, treating patient's as mere data sets. I'm not trying to minimize data in medical decision making, but taken out of context from the human element, treating data may be misleading and may not be treating the patient's ills.

In my experience, when I see a patient coming in over and over for the same complaints, it is likley due to one of three main reasons. One, they are either being misdiagnosed and mistreated, two, they are seeking a special test or drug, or three, their symptoms are not due to an organic medical cause, but due to some sort of somatization secondary to life stressors. Trying to figure out which it is requires the clinician to listen to the patient and understand where they are coming from. Unfortunately, when a primary care physician only has 10 minutes per visit, it is much easier to order a battery of tests to not miss any important diagnoses, or to just capitulate to patient demands than to listen, and in many cases take the time to give the patient some much needed reassurance.

That being said, the patient is not always an innocent bystander in this. There are also many times that the clinician will pick up on the dynamics mentioned above, but reassurance will not satisfy the patient. The patient will demand more be done for a number of reasons. These are mostly anecdotal, such as I read an article and think I need such and such a test, or my friend/family member had this procedure done and I need it two. It sometimes takes me twice as long to explain to a patient why they don't need something done as it does as to why they do. This is a societal thing and this is linked to the problem of defensive medicine. I like to joke, that physicians always get sued for not ordering a test that may have been indicated, but rarely if ever get sued for over treating someone and then causing harm. Perhaps it has something to do with the ethos that it's better to do something and look like you're trying that to do nothing, even though that may be the best course for the patient.

In the end, I think physicians need to be better trained to listen, remember the mantra of "first do no harm", and treat each patient as if they were their close family member. The incentive structure in medicine has to also change, including the way physicians are reimbursed, as well as the way information and clinical data is sourced and distributed to avoid excess industry bias. And finally, patient's have to understand that more is not necessarily better, they or their relative do not have a god given right to every experimental, and outrageously expensive treatment available if it does not apply to them clinically and if the chances of it prolonging life are minimal.

GERMO , October 24, 2017 at 9:27 pm

Overtreatment can't possibly be as big a problem as undertreatment, at least certainly not in the world of crappy insurance or subsidized care our experience was definitely a solid reluctance to order expensive tests or to consider that the problem might be complicated and costly. Which it turned out to be, and the eventual surgery was scheduled as late as possible, as a last resort, and we had to insist on more thorough testing to get a proper diagnosis. They just wanted to save money. The tumor grew all the while this organization was hoping it was something minor. I don't want to hear about overtreatment, thanks -- it seems to always get distorted into blaming the patients for greedily consuming too much healthcare!

[Oct 02, 2017] I have heard that drinking a glass of wine a day is good for the heart. Is this true if you have diabetes? Are the benefits of alcohol limited to wine or can I drink other types of alcohol? Can alcohol have an adverse effect on my glucose levels?

Notable quotes:
"... Drinking a glass of wine is good for the heart in the sense that the main mechanism by which alcohol protects the heart is increasing good cholesterol. The grape skin provides flavonoids and other antioxidant substances that protect the heart and vessels from the damaging effects of free oxygen radicals produced by our body. ..."
"... This is particularly true for diabetics because they have been shown to have a high production of free oxygen radicals. But we don't have any evidence specifically related to diabetes patients. ..."
"... A glass of wine can also help individuals relax. ..."
"... For all people, alcohol can lower blood sugar. So for people with diabetes, it is recommended that any alcohol be consumed with a meal. ..."
Oct 02, 2017 | www.heart.org

Prakash Deedwania, chief of the cardiology division and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine explains:

Drinking a glass of wine is good for the heart in the sense that the main mechanism by which alcohol protects the heart is increasing good cholesterol. The grape skin provides flavonoids and other antioxidant substances that protect the heart and vessels from the damaging effects of free oxygen radicals produced by our body.

This is particularly true for diabetics because they have been shown to have a high production of free oxygen radicals. But we don't have any evidence specifically related to diabetes patients.

A glass of wine can also help individuals relax. The strongest evidence is in favor of wine, but some evidence recently showed beer and other types of alcohol may provide the same benefits related to increasing good cholesterol (HDL) .

In general, alcohol does not seem to have an adverse effect, unless an excessive amount is used -- and it increases calories, among other things. For example, excessive amounts of alcoholic consumption could be harmful by increasing the risk of high blood pressure , for which diabetic patients are already at high risk.

For all people, alcohol can lower blood sugar. So for people with diabetes, it is recommended that any alcohol be consumed with a meal. In all cases, alcohol still contains calories, so remember to include it in the meal plan (one alcoholic drink is 1 fat exchange). If further help is needed, seek the help of a registered dietitian.

[Sep 19, 2017] If Youre Thinking of Getting a Tattoo, You Need to Know About These Scary Side Effects

Notable quotes:
"... Once common only to sailors, criminals, and other tough customers, tattoos now adorn nearly one in three Americans, per a 2015 Harris Poll. ..."
"... Before anyone signs up for a tattoo, they should ask themselves these questions first . And then consider the fact that many colors of tattoo ink contain heavy metals, according to a report in Scientific American , including lead, mercury, arsenic, beryllium, and chromium. Red dyes have been found to contain cadmium and iron oxide. While these metals give dyes their permanence, they are also linked to cancer, birth defects, allergic reactions, and other scary side effects. Tattooed patients undergoing MRIs have suffered first-degree burns as the metals in their tattoo ink heated up. ..."
"... The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not regulate tattoo ink, and no pigments have been approved for injection into the skin for cosmetic purposes. Published research has reported that some inks contain pigments used in printer toner or in car paint. ..."
Sep 19, 2017 | www.msn.com

Once common only to sailors, criminals, and other tough customers, tattoos now adorn nearly one in three Americans, per a 2015 Harris Poll. There's still reason to associate them with danger thanks to toxic substances in tattoo inks.

Before anyone signs up for a tattoo, they should ask themselves these questions first . And then consider the fact that many colors of tattoo ink contain heavy metals, according to a report in Scientific American , including lead, mercury, arsenic, beryllium, and chromium. Red dyes have been found to contain cadmium and iron oxide. While these metals give dyes their permanence, they are also linked to cancer, birth defects, allergic reactions, and other scary side effects. Tattooed patients undergoing MRIs have suffered first-degree burns as the metals in their tattoo ink heated up.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not regulate tattoo ink, and no pigments have been approved for injection into the skin for cosmetic purposes. Published research has reported that some inks contain pigments used in printer toner or in car paint.

[Sep 16, 2017] Moving Every Half Hour Could Help Limit Effects of Sedentary Lifestyle, Says Study

Highly recommended!
Sep 16, 2017 | slashdot.org
Moving Every Half Hour Could Help Limit Effects of Sedentary Lifestyle, Says Study (theguardian.com) 96 Posted by BeauHD on Monday September 11, 2017 @11:30PM from the criss-cross-applesauce dept. An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian:

Moving your body at least every half an hour could help to limit the harmful effects of desk jobs and other sedentary lifestyles , research has revealed.

The study found that both greater overall time spent inactive in a day, and longer periods of inactivity were linked to an increased risk of death.

Writing in the journal the Annals of Internal Medicine , Diaz and colleagues from seven U.S. institutions describe how they kitted out nearly 8,000 individuals aged 45 or over from across the U.S. with activity trackers between 2009 and 2013. Each participant wore the fitness tracker for at least four days during a period of one week, with deaths of participants tracked until September 2015.

The results reveal that, on average, participants were inactive for 12.3 hours of a 16 hour waking day, with each period of inactivity lasting an average of 11.4 minutes. After taking into account a host of factors including age, sex, education, smoking and high blood pressure, the team found that both the overall length of daily inactivity and the length of each bout of sedentary behavior were linked to changes in the risk of death from any cause. The associations held even among participants undertaking moderate to vigorous physical activity. T

hose who were inactive for 13.2 hours a day had a risk of death 2.6 times that of those spending less than 11.5 hours a day inactive, while those whose bouts of inactivity lasted on average 12.4 minutes or more had a risk of death almost twice that of those who were inactive for an average of less than 7.7 minutes at a time.

The team then looked at the interaction between the two measures of inactivity, finding the risk of death was greater for those who had both high overall levels of inactivity (12.5 hours a day or more) and long average bouts of sedentary behavior (10 minutes or more), than for those who had high levels of just one of the measures.

[Sep 16, 2017] Happy Music Boosts Brains Creativity, Study Says

Sep 16, 2017 | science.slashdot.org

(newscientist.com) 102 Posted by BeauHD on Thursday September 07, 2017 @09:00AM from the creative-juices dept. An anonymous reader quotes a report from New Scientist: Need inspiration? Happy background music can help get the creative juices flowing. Simone Ritter, at Radboud University in the Netherlands, and Sam Ferguson, at the University of Technology in Sydney, Australia, have been studying the effect of silence and different types of music on how we think. They put 155 volunteers into five groups. Four of these were each given a type of music to listen to while undergoing a series of tests, while the fifth group did the tests in silence. The tests were designed to gage two types of thinking: divergent thinking, which describes the process of generating new ideas, and convergent thinking, which is how we find the best solutions for a problem. Ritter and Ferguson found that people were more creative when listening to music they thought was positive , coming up with more unique ideas than the people who worked in silence. However, happy music -- in this instance, Antonio Vivaldi's Spring -- only boosted divergent thinking. No type of music helped convergent thinking, suggesting that it's better to solve problems in silence. The study was published in the journal PLoS One .

[Sep 05, 2017] William McK Jeffries - The Safe Uses of Cortison. I own a copy of this important work. Go to Stop the Thyroid Madness

Sep 05, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Penelope | Jul 26, 2017 7:23:50 PM | 75

Robert McMaster @ 26

"That's William McK Jeffries - The Safe Uses of Cortison. I own a copy of this important work. Go to Stop the Thyroid Madness"

Thanks. Mark Starr's Hypothyroidism Type 2 is much broader than Stop the Thyroid Madness.

He did his internship under a very great man-- Broda Barnes. Doctor Barnes backed up his work with many, many autopsy records, dating from WWII in Austria.

These findings overturn the saturated fat lipid hypothesis about cardiovascular health.

It's an absolutely thrilling read, and I regard this ONE book by Dr. Starr, wherein he cites Jeffries & Barnes, as the most revealing medical book I've come across.

It allows you to see the political context in which doctors practice.

[Aug 30, 2017] 9 Benefits of Exercising Early in the Morning

Aug 30, 2017 | www.msn.com

1. Lose fat. Researchers in Japan have found that fat oxidation occurs if exercisers work out before breakfast . There's only good to be said for fat oxidation, the process by which large lipid (i.e. fat) molecules break down, which, in addition to being the kind of weight loss most people want, may also reduce type 2 diabetes . One Belgian study found that eating a high-caloric diet had no effect on fasting exercisers but caused those who worked out after eating to gain weight (good news for those of us who like to have our cake and exercise too). Exercising before breakfast mimics the fasting state and can help kick start weight loss. If you have low blood sugar, eat a banana or a small energy bar 10-15 minutes before exercise.

[Jul 31, 2017] The Five Habits That Actually Contribute To Long-Term Health, According To Science

Jul 31, 2017 | www.forbes.com

Alice G. Walton

Jul 27, 2017

To look around at all the health articles, tips, tricks, listicles and books, you'd think health was an extraordinarily complicated matter!and must arise from some elusive combination of interval training, crossword puzzles, and avocados. But it's not actually that complicated. In fact, what science knows to contribute to health is just a simple handful of things: We should exercise, eat well, sleep enough, avoid toxins, and take care of our mental health. All the other bits of advice generally fall within these five categories. Of course, there are some things that are outside of our control, like genetic predisposition and autoimmune disease. But of the part that we do have control over, the behaviors that define health aren't all that complex.

And it's why public health experts are so frustrated with all the extraneous and needlessly complicated information floating around these days. "There are so many false narratives today (fake health news) that people genuinely are confused," says David L. Katz, founding director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University and the True Health Initiative . Some people may not know what to do, and others, even if they know what to do, may not have the means to do it. "There are people living with such constant daily challenges," adds Katz, "that they never even think about health until it becomes the most urgent crisis du jour ."

Here's a rundown of the five main habits that contribute to health, and why they actually do this. How to help people implement them is again the harder question.

Move your body

Most people are generally aware that exercise is good for them, but may not be clear on exactly why this is. It's not just a method of staying thin or getting fit!where exercise is really powerful is in its effects on the risk of chronic disease. Exercise has been shown to contribute to heart health in a number of ways, from helping reduce blood pressure to affecting the vasculature in our bodies to helping maintain our cholesterol balance (the "good"-to-"bad" ratio), and increasing insulin sensitivity. Regular exercise also benefits the immune system, reducing inflammatory markers like CRP, IL-6 and TNF, which are known to be associated with chronic disease. Exercise is also well known to reduce cancer risk, for multiple types of cancer. And it's excellent for the brain: It helps treat mental health disorders like depression, boosts the production new neurons in the hippocampus and regulates the endocrine system, including stress response and the cascade of hormones that underlie it. Importantly, exercise is also linked to a reduced risk of brain diseases like Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia.

On the flip side, being sedentary is linked to a host of ill effects, from Alzheimer's disease to heart disease to cancer to premature death. Both observational studies!in people who get regular exercise and in people who don't!and lab studies that illuminate the cellular and molecular mechanisms show that exercise is one of the central things we can do for our health.

Eat a plant-based diet

This one has been illustrated again and again in various ways. Large-scale epidemiological studies have shown that people who eat a largely plant-based diet are less prone to disease and live longer than people who eat other types!you don't have to be vegetarian or vegan, but a diet that's based largely on plants does seem necessary. A study a couple of years ago even showed that switching diets (from a typical meaty American diet to a plant-based rural South African diet and vice-versa) altered the microbiome and the inflammatory markers involved in colon cancer risk in a relatively short amount of time. Other research has shown that a plant-based diet reduces the risk of heart disease, dementia, cancer, metabolic disease, overweight and obesity, and diabetes.

The star of diets in recent years has been the Mediterranean diet, or a derivative of it, like the MIND diet. These diets include copious amounts of vegetables and fresh fruits (although the MIND diet excludes fruits, because of their relatively high sugar content), whole grains, nuts, legumes, fish and healthy fats like olive oil. It limits dairy, meat, processed foods, alcohol (though a little red wine is okay) and, importantly, sugar. The research in the last decade has highlighted the fact that sugar actually presents a much larger health risk than fats; in fact, there's no formal upper limit on fats anymore, assuming that they're healthy fats. Cutting out processed foods including sugar, and eating as many foods in their natural form, or close to it, as we can, is probably one of single best changes we can make for long-term health.

Sleep

The purpose of this mysterious nightly behavior eluded researchers for many years, but it's starting to become clearer. Sleep serves a number of purposes, particularly for the brain, which can't survive without it. While we're sleeping, the brain actively doing things: strengthening connections we need, and pruning the ones we don't. And perhaps even more crucial than this, it clears out the "gunk" that contributes to Alzheimer's disease!by the same token, sleep deprivation is linked to a heightened risk of Alzheimer's. Sleep loss, and the stress and hormone dysregulation that comes of it, is linked to a host of other problems, including weight gain, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, inflammation, depression, stroke and heart disease.

Aiming for between seven and nine hours per night for adults is generally a good rule of thumb. (If you're getting or need much less or much more than this, it might be a sign of a health problem, so this should be checked out.)

Make your mental health a real priority

This is one of the most fascinating ones, since it underlines how big an influence our mental health has on our physical health. It actually contains a couple of points, which are separate but related. The first part is taking care of your own internal mental health, and treating mental health disorders when they arise. Depression, anxiety, addiction and chronic stress all raise the risk of other diseases and the risk of early mortality.

Also under the umbrella of mental health is staying socially connected. An almost 80-year-long Harvard study has found that a key indicator of a person's health and longevity was whether he or she had rich social connections. This may work for a couple of reasons: We're social creatures by nature, and being around other people is a huge stress relief and mood booster. Additionally, having a social network, including a partner, may also make it more likely that you'll take better care of yourself along the way and seek medical care when problems arise.

There are other, more specific elements that fall under this category!for instance, having a life purpose outside yourself is also linked to a significantly longer life and to improved inflammatory gene expression. And staying cognitively active by engaging in hobbies, crossword puzzles and brain games may help, but the research is a little more mixed there.

Avoid taking in harmful chemicals, and critters, as much as possible

This one includes the big carcinogen, which still kills way too many people around the globe!tobacco. It also covers drinking, which, if you're going to do it, should probably fall into the "light" category. The tobacco literature speaks for itself, but the research on alcohol is only just becoming clearer. Some researchers believe that moderate drinking is okay and even beneficial for reducing disease risk. But recent studies have suggested that even light drinking confers some level of cancer risk. Therefore, very light drinking is probably the best advice, and most experts say not to start drinking for the health benefits if you don't currently.

This category also includes exposure to other toxins, carcinogens and endocrine disruptors, from smog to beauty products to plastics. There are lots of "bad chemicals" out there and it's impossible to avoid everything; but cutting down where we can is probably smart. The use of OTC meds like acetaminophen and ibuprofen should also probably be sparing, since they've been shown to have some long term risks.

Finally, also in this category is trying to reduce our exposure to bacteria and viruses!within reason. This includes everything from practicing safe sex to washing your hands regularly to getting vaccinated. The antibacterial craze has largely backfired, so you don't have to go crazy with antibacterial soap and wipes. Let your kids play in the dirt and with the pets. A little exposure to germs (again, within reason) can actually be a good thing.

* * *

Again, a healthy lifestyle is not really all that complicated. It boils down to just a handful of behaviors. But this is also what makes it so difficult!that these things are, in the end, all behaviors, which means it's up to us to be aware of them and to see them through.

And, of course, the relevant organizations need to agree on the list of healthy behaviors, and not get swayed by Big Food, lobbyists and advertising. The trick then is how to make these basic habits common knowledge. Says Katz, "If we actually could rally our culture to clarity about where 'there' is, we might devote more resources to getting there from here. And we might be less complacent about such hypocrisies as lamenting the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in children, while introducing the attached new products as part of every kid's 'complete breakfast.' There should be collective outrage!but there isn't." Follow me on Twitter or find me on Facebook .

[Jul 31, 2017] How to Stop Your Office Chair from Killing You by David DiSalvo

Notable quotes:
"... The less obvious reasons are more immediate, including a rapid drop in a circulating blood enzyme called lipase that is responsible for breaking down fat. One study puts this drop at 90% -- a virtual shut down. In addition, electrical activity in our leg muscles radically decreases the longer we sit, and that means that our metabolic rate slows to a crawl, to about one calorie per minute. And one of the most dangerous outcomes of sitting for extended periods is that our bodies become less sensitive to the insulin our pancreas is busy producing (24% less sensitive according to one study ), and that skyrockets the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. ..."
"... Bottom line: if your job requires sitting for long periods, you have twice the likelihood of developing cardiovascular disease than someone who doesn't sit all day. You can offset that risk somewhat by exercising regularly, but the hours in your chair will still take a toll. Add to this that most of us also sit a fair amount when we aren't at work, and the problem only gets worse. ..."
Jun 12, 2012 | www.forbes.com

For those of us who spend the majority of our working day in a desk chair, the news from health researchers the last few years has been decidedly bad.

The central message of the researchers' studies is this: the more time you spend sitting each day, the greater your chance of dying within the following three to 15 years (depending on which study you consult). In the latest study to support this claim, the sitting-equals-death threshold was 11 or more hours a day. For the age-group studied (45 years and older), those who sat 11 or more hours a day had a 40% greater chance of dying within three years, as compared to people who sat four or less hours a day.

To put this in context, let's say that you are an otherwise healthy person without a genetic history of heart disease or cancer, and your baseline chance of death within three years, per standard insurance statistics, is around 10%. According to this study, sitting for 11 or more hours a day over time increases that risk to 50%. That doesn't mean your likelihood of dying is 50%, but that your risk of dying is significantly greater than that of someone who doesn't sit for hours on end.

The frightening part about these studies is that they've cut a gaping hole in the safety net many of us thought we'd created to mitigate the risk -- regular exercise. The research is quite clear that even among those who exercise, the elevated chance of death remains high. Regular exercise helps (defined in the latest study as 5 or more hours a week), but it doesn't entirely balance the scale.

The reason sitting is dangerous involves a combination of factors. The first, and most obvious, is that the more we sit the less calories we burn and more of what we consume is stored as fat. Over time, as we're all well aware, carrying around excess fat predisposes our bodies to a range of health problems including diabetes and heart disease.

The less obvious reasons are more immediate, including a rapid drop in a circulating blood enzyme called lipase that is responsible for breaking down fat. One study puts this drop at 90% -- a virtual shut down. In addition, electrical activity in our leg muscles radically decreases the longer we sit, and that means that our metabolic rate slows to a crawl, to about one calorie per minute. And one of the most dangerous outcomes of sitting for extended periods is that our bodies become less sensitive to the insulin our pancreas is busy producing (24% less sensitive according to one study ), and that skyrockets the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes.

Bottom line: if your job requires sitting for long periods, you have twice the likelihood of developing cardiovascular disease than someone who doesn't sit all day. You can offset that risk somewhat by exercising regularly, but the hours in your chair will still take a toll. Add to this that most of us also sit a fair amount when we aren't at work, and the problem only gets worse.

So what can we do about it?

The most doable advice I've come across so far is to use your scheduler ( Microsoft Outlook, etc) to your advantage by scheduling a "get up and walk" break every 15 to 30 minutes. Of course, this will only work if you don't hit 'ignore' when the window pops up on your monitor, and if you have a job that allows you to leave your office that frequently. Even just getting up and walking around your office suite or taking a stroll to the lobby will help.

This next suggestion will sound a bit odd, but another way to help offset the negatives of sitting is by fidgeting . Yes, fidgeting. Jiggling your legs, pacing while you're on a call, getting up and circling your desk while thinking through a problem -- all of these behaviors help over time

A final suggestion is a little harder to do, but if you can do it, do it -- and that's work at a standing desk . I've personally tried this and found it hard to get used to, but I know people who have made a complete conversion to a standing desk and won't go back to sitting. Standing isn't exercise, but compared to sitting it might as well be an Olympic sport.

Whatever method or combination of methods you choose, the crucial thing is to sit less every day. Not an easy challenge for us office dwellers and midnight typers, but the science on the risks is clear enough. We either change, or accept the consequences of sitting tight.

NickInLA 5 years ago

Missing from this piece is warnings about overly big, metal rimmed, office chairs, that pinch the user's legs right at the point of the knee joint. Often advertised as ergonomic, they result in painful physical health conditions, if not outright death from circulatory causes, as a result of pinching the user's legs.

This pinching of the legs causes compression of the vital leg arteries and veins. Such pinching can cause cessation of blood flow to the lower legs, causing damage to the leg muscles. Similarly, pinching the veins, can cause swelling of the ankles and feet, as the blood and blood products cannot circulate back up the legs, and be filtered by the liver and kidneys.

Enough prolonged pinching of arteries and veins can cause blood clots from lack of circulation, and leaks when blood vessels are damaged enough, or under enough pressure like a garden hose with a kink in it, to actually burst open.

Blood clots can cause painful swelling, and leaks result in swelling and black-and-blue spots. Clots can break away eventually and find their way into vital organs – including heart and lungs – where they can cause death.

Joshua Lipka 5 years ago
A Height Adjustable Desk or Table would be a great solution for those who need to fluctuate their sitting & standing time at their desk. With a ModTable base from MultiTable.com, you can adjust the height of the desk to your comfort level. They are even customizable, and you can choose your own base color as well as top size & color! There is a lot of health information on the website explaining the health benefits of standing while you work. We are always here to help with your ergonomic set up, and any questions you may have!
Deborah L. Jacobs 5 years ago
Also on Forbes: "Wasting Time Can Make You A Star At Work."
Martin Hargreaves 5 years ago
I think that the computer should warn you if you are damaging your health by spending too much time working without a break; a desktop lifejacket. In the absence of a component such as this being integral to the computers operating system I've written a little application that reminds me to move/stretch every 40 minutes or so if it detects that I've not already taken a break (www.desktoplifejacket.co.uk). I've benefitted from this perhaps others might? Perhaps the onus of the health of office workers sat for over 8 hours a day at a computer should be placed with the employers and encourage their staff to take regular breaks?

[Jul 16, 2017] 8 Mistakes You're Making That Up Your Risk For Lyme Disease

Jul 16, 2017 | www.msn.com
http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/8-mistakes-you%e2%80%99re-making-that-up-your-risk-for-lyme-disease/ss-BBBZqZd?ocid=ientp

In 2015, there were roughly 28,500 confirmed cases of Lyme disease in the U.S., per the CDC. But the actual number of cases may be 10 times that number, says Marina Makous, MD, a former assistant professor at Columbia University's Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Research Center who is now in private practice in Pennsylvania.

"Many authorities feel this is a massively underreported issue, and one that's increasing every year," Makous says.

Symptoms of the disease vary from person to person. But early signs include fever, chills, headaches, fatigue, muscle or joint pain, and swollen lymph nodes. Later, the disease can cause severe headaches and muscle stiffness, arthritis, skin rashes, nerve pain, and other symptoms, according to the CDC.

Lyme used to be confined to a few localized areas, particularly around Connecticut and the Northeastern U.S. But warmer winter temperatures, as well as urban sprawl!which has driven off or killed many of the natural predators that kill tick-transporting rodents and deer!have caused tick populations to explode and spread across much of the country. That, in turn, has led to a sharp increase in the incidence of Lyme, Makous explains.

Here are the mistakes you may be making that could inflate your risk for the disease. 2/9 SLIDES © Photograph by Hero Images/Getty Images You're only worried about woods.

Ticks don't just hide out near wooded paths and in other rustic settings. Makous says they often turn up in backyard leaf piles or brush, or in open fields where tall grass grows. (Try these all-natural methods to keeping ticks out of your yard once and for all .)

In fact, tall grasses and weeds are among the likeliest places you'll encounter ticks, says Nancy Troyano, PhD, an entomologist and director of technical education and training for the pest-control company Rentokil Steritech .

Makous recommends clearing your yard of all leaves or natural litter, and keeping your grass cut short and your beds weeded. Do that, and you'll remove 70% of the ticks that may have otherwise been present, she says.

3/9 SLIDES © Photograph by Lori Andrews/Getty Images You're not wearing protection.
"Long pants and socks are especially important to wear, since ticks commonly latch onto people on their legs, socks and shoes," Troyano says.

Makous agrees, and adds that wearing light-colored pants and socks can help you spot any ticks that may have hitched a ride while you were outdoors. (If you're going to be working out in the heat, here are a few other things you should know .)

"Ticks like to go to warm, protected places like the backs of the knees, the groin, the armpits, or the scalp," she explains. But it takes ticks time to make their way to those places (which can lead to some serious joint pain .) Light-colored clothing can help you see ticks that may have grabbed hold of you.

4/9 SLIDES © Photograph by Chad Springer/Getty Images You don't wear repellent.
Along with wearing proper attire, spraying insect repellent containing DEET can keep ticks off your body, Makous says.

Just be aware: The percentage of DEET in your product has nothing to do with its potency; that refers to how long it will last, Makous says. If you're only going to be outside for an hour, a low percentage!say, 10% DEET!will do the job. She says DEET is safe for kids, but it's not OK for infants.

Experts also say to spray DEET on your hands before rubbing it on your body to ensure proper coverage.

5/9 SLIDES © Photograph by PK-Photos/Getty Images You don't protect your pets.
Ticks can migrate into your home by hitching a ride on your cat or dog, says Mia Finkelston, MD, a Maryland-based family physician who treats patients via LiveHealth Online .

Especially if you have a dog that likes to rummage around in woods or fields, consider speaking with your vet about medications, treatments, or collars that can keep your pets free of ticks. (Up to 95% of dogs test positive for Lyme!but many of these results are false. Here's how to tell if your pet is in danger .)

6/9 SLIDES © Photograph by ArtBoyMB/Getty Images You don't check for ticks.
Even if a tick sinks its teeth into you, it takes time!sometimes up to three days!for the Lyme it carries in its stomach to make its way up to its salivary glands and into your body, Makous says.

By checking yourself thoroughly after you've been outdoors!especially in those areas she mentioned above!you can spot a tick before it has infected you with Lyme or any of the other diseases ticks harbor.

Be sure to check with your hands as well as your eyes, Finkelston adds. Ticks can be quite small , especially in the spring and early summer when most are young. Some are as small as a grain of sand, and so may be easier to feel that to see, she says. If you notice a small bump, take a closer look.

7/9 SLIDES © Photograph by David Bithell / EyeEm / Getty Images You don't remove ticks properly.
The last thing you want to do is squeeze a tick's body, which could cause its stomach contents!including the Lyme disease-carrying bacteria!to ooze into your skin, Makous says. Using alcohol, a flame, lighter fluid, or any other tick-killing chemical is also bad news because those methods could cause the tick to regurgitate the contents of its stomach as it dies, she adds. ( These expert tips will help keep bugs out of your house!and off of your skin!safely.)

Instead, use tweezers or a tick-removing card to pull the tick away by its mouth using "a quick upward motion," Makous says. (You can get this tick-removal kit from Amazon for $11.) If the tick hasn't yet become "engorged" with blood, the odds are good that you don't have to worry about Lyme.

8/9 SLIDES © Photograph by Tommaso Altamura / EyeEm / Getty Images You don't shower or wash your clothing after being outdoors
Again, it takes time for ticks to set up shop on you. By taking a shower within two hours of time spent outdoors!and taking care to wash your body and hair thoroughly!you're like to clear away any ticks before they have time to dig in, Makous says.

Just be sure to wash!and dry!your clothing, too. Ticks are extremely hearty, and can live on your clothing for weeks or even months. They will also survive the hottest water your washer can throw at them, Makous says. Drying them on high heat is your best bet to kill them.

9/9 SLIDES © Photograph by HeikeKampe/Getty Images You don't visit your doctor after an engorged tick bite.
If you find an engorged tick on your body, remove it (properly) and save it in a plastic bag. Bring that to your doctor, Troyano advises. Not all ticks carry Lyme disease. But all carry some form of disease or infection (in fact, here are 4 illnesses you can get from ticks that are scarier than Lyme ). If you keep the tick, your doctor can help identify your risks.

If the tick turns out to be a black-legged deer tick!the type that transmits Lyme!your doctor may recommend a course of antibiotics , Makous says. That's a guarantee if you develop the raised red and sometimes bullseye-shaped rash that is indicative of a Lyme disease infection, she says.

9/9 SLIDES

me marginwidth=

by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links MORE FOR YOU Gundry MD
-- 
Best Regards,

Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov

[Jul 16, 2017] most common tick-borne diseases by fever, headache, vomiting, weakness, confusion, seizures and memory loss, this tick-borne illness may cause long-term neurological damage, according to the CDC.

Jul 16, 2017 | www.rd.com
2/9 SLIDES © saksorn-surirak/Shutterstock Stay the course
'Avoid heavily wooded areas and shrubbery as these are more likely to harbor ticks,' says infectious disease specialist Sunil Sood, MBBS, chairman of pediatrics at Northwell Health's Southside Hospital in Bay Shore, NY. In other words, don't go bush whacking or run off into the brushes. 'Ticks climb onto blades of grass and brush on the side of trails, so walk in the center of a trail and try not to brush up against grass and make sure to avoid leaf litter too,' adds Sunjya Schweig, MD, member of the board of adviser for the Bay Area Lyme Foundation and the CEO and co-director of the California Center for Functional Medicine in Berkeley, Calif. 'Ticks also like to congregate under logs or trees, so don't take a break by sitting under an oak tree or on a log.'
3/9 SLIDES © Orhan-Cam/Shutterstock Ask around
If you are planning to hike or spend time in a park or recreational area, ask a forest ranger or another official about the current tick situation, says tick expert John Abbott , PhD, director of museum research and collections at the University of Alabama Museums in Tuscaloosa.
4/9 SLIDES © KPG-Payless2/Shutterstock Use insect repellant
'DEET (chemical name, N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) is very safe if you are older than 2 months,' Dr. Sood says. (Learn everything you need to know about insect repellants .) 'Choose and use products with 25 to 50 percent DEET which should provide up to six hours of prevention.' Products containing DEET include Off!, Cutter, Sawyer, and Ultrathon. 'Children should not touch repellent. Adults should apply it to their hands and gently spread it over the child's exposed skin,' he says.
5/9 SLIDES © Kichigin Dress the part
'Wear closed, tight shoes and long pants. You want clothing between you and the environment,' Abbot says. Some clothing is already insecticide-treated including those sold at Insectshield . Another option is permethrin, Sood adds. 'Apply it to clothing including hats, shorts, socks and sneakers as well as outdoor furniture such as patios and tents–but not skin,' he says. 'Soak the items well and let it dry overnight and use DEET on exposed skin!these combined measures are probably the best tick prevention out there.'Another tip: If you wear light-colored clothing, you will be better able to spot any ticks and brush them off before they make it to your skin, says Marc Alabanza, program director at GroundSea Fitness in Great Barrington, MA.
6/9 SLIDES © Eliot-Holzworth Head for the dryer when you get home
'Take off all of your clothing and socks and place them in the dryer on its highest setting for 20 minutes after coming in from a hike or time in a park,' Schweig says. This will kill any ticks including those that carry Lyme disease that may have attached themselves to your clothing or socks, he says.
7/9 SLIDES © gegemaunt/Shutterstock Leave Fido at home
Hard as it is to leave your dog at home when you head out for a hike or some time in the great outdoors, a dog can bring a tick home and then find its way onto your skin where it can cause disease, Schweig warns. 'Keep your dog up to date with tick repellants and brush his or her coat with a fine-tooth comb after time outdoors and try and remove ticks that haven't attached,' he says. And learn everything you need to know about pet insect repellents .
8/9 SLIDES © Kalcutta/Shutterstock Check yourself
There is no specific way to check your skin for ticks or a tick bite!just keep in mind that it's very important to look everywhere after spending time in wooded areas, Abbot says. 'Tick legs are very well adapted for grabbing a hold of skin and clothing,' he says. 'Check your head, behind your neck, your underarms, on your ears and really anywhere on your body.' With ticks that carry Lyme disease , it takes 24-36 hours of an infected tick feeding on you to transfer it. 'If you check yourself and successfully remove even an infected tick within that time, you'll be OK.' Remember that ticks can be extremely small (poppy-seed sized) and may be mistaken as a freckle, adds Schweig, who suggests parents use a high-powered headlamp when checking kids for ticks.
9/9 SLIDES © Juergen-Faelchle/Shutterstock Next steps
If you find a tick, don't flush or crush it, send it to a lab for analysis, Schweig says. 'Ticks are nature's dirty needle and some of the bugs they carry are extremely smart and capable of invading the immune system so identifying the tick and what disease/s it may carry is a good way to reduce risk of tick-borne illness .' Preventive therapy with antibiotics can make a difference. 'If you just throw it out, that is high-risk behavior,' he warns. 'Bag it and send it to a lab because if you catch it early and are more aggressive, you have an excellent chance of completely preventing any long-term problem.' Ask your doctor or state public health department where and how to test the tick for disease.
9/9 SLIDES

me width=

by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links MORE FOR YOU

[Jul 08, 2017] Crooked Timber - by Maria

Jun 27, 2017 | crookedtimber.org

I can't be the only person who gets horrible eye-strain and frequent migraines from looking at computer screens for many hours a day. But my job, in the physical sense, is basically reading screens and typing stuff into computers. Like so many of us.

Then there's the generalised version of the 'spending too much time reading crap on Twitter' problem, which is a total time-sink and makes me aggravated and unhappy.

These are two distinct but also connected issues. Stuff I've considered/tried includes:

Turning off the router at night and only turning it on again in the morning a couple of hours into actual work. Other household members can find this annoying. (Understatement)

Looking for a word-processing only machine – but they're all extremely old and have tiny screens.

Reviving an old laptop and making it a non-connected machine. Helps with the Twitter problem, but not with the migraines.

Writing by hand and inputting later. Good for shorter stuff, extremely tedious in longer doses.

Keeping the lightness setting on my laptop squintingly low. Helps with the headaches, not the Twitter.

Using an unconnected machine for long-form. I always crack.

Freedom or other such programmes. I always crack.

Feeling that as kindles and such can be read without eye-strain, there must be some sort of work-devices that also can? But being unable to find one.

And so forth.

I mean, the overall problem is that we have little monkey (ok, ape) brains and love novelty and distraction and tiny yet sustained doses of social feedback, and also live in a wider techno-capitalist superstructure that wants to get and keep us addicted, etc. etc. And also that an inability to think long-ish and against the grain kinds of thoughts is, well, convenient to the maintenance of that type of economic set-up. I get that!

But I will take 100% responsibility for being so distractable if I can find a way to work without getting a fucking migraine at least every ten days that wipes out my ability to produce work for at least two days, each time. And is also no bloody fun.

So, this is clearly a bleg, but I figure many CT people struggle with this sort of thing, and any experiences/suggestions you have may find a grateful reception from many others.

Also, my back is completely banjaxed from it, but there's yoga for that.

[Jun 28, 2017] Prescription Drug Spending is Consuming a Bigger Share of Wages

Notable quotes:
"... The three percent of annual wage income lost to higher drug spending over the past 40 years makes a big difference to working individuals and families. This increase in annual spending averages out to roughly $2,400 per household. CMS projections, combined with projections on wage income growth from the Congressional Budget Office, suggest that spending on prescription drugs will increase further through 2025. This ratio is expected to exceed five percent by 2024. ..."
Jun 28, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

anne

, June 27, 2017 at 05:19 PM
http://cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/prescription-drug-spending-is-consuming-a-bigger-share-of-wages

June 27, 2017

Prescription Drug Spending is Consuming a Bigger Share of Wages
By Brian Dew and Dean Baker

Prescription drugs are a large and growing share of national income. While it is generally recognized that drugs are expensive, many people are unaware of how large a share of their income goes to paying for drugs because much of it goes through third party payers, specifically insurance companies and the government.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) produce projections of national expenditures on prescription drugs through 2025, along with historical estimates dating back to 1960. As shown below, prescription drug spending from 1960 to 1980 was equivalent to about one percent of total wage and salary income. In the years leading up to the passage of the Bayh-Dole act in 1980, wage income was rising faster than spending on prescription drugs. As a result, the share of wages spent on prescription drugs was actually falling, reaching a low in 1979 of 0.86%.

[Graph]

However, after 1980, prescription drug spending rose rapidly relative to wage income. The ratio of drug spending to wages rose each year from 1980 to 2007. In 2007 wage growth finally outpaced drug expenditures, with the ratio again increasing in the Great Recession. By 2010, prescription drug spending had climbed above four percent of wage income.

The three percent of annual wage income lost to higher drug spending over the past 40 years makes a big difference to working individuals and families. This increase in annual spending averages out to roughly $2,400 per household. CMS projections, combined with projections on wage income growth from the Congressional Budget Office, suggest that spending on prescription drugs will increase further through 2025. This ratio is expected to exceed five percent by 2024.

While an aging population has been a factor increasing spending on drugs, demographics alone cannot explain the sharp increase in prescription drug spending. Inflation-adjusted prescription drug spending per household has increased more than eightfold since 1980, far outpacing any demographic trend surrounding age. The share of people over age 65 in the population has increased from 9.2% in 1960 to 14.8% in 2015. This can at most explain a small part of the increase in spending on drugs over this period.

[Graph]

It is important to recognize that the high cost of drugs is the result of a conscious policy decision to give drug companies monopolies in the form of patents and other forms of exclusive marketing rights. Without these protections drugs would almost invariably be cheap, likely costing on average less than one fifth as much as they do now. Even worse, the perverse incentives resulting from patent monopolies distort the research process and can lead drug companies to misrepresent evidence on the safety and effectiveness of their drugs.

[Jun 26, 2017] US Pursues Selective Protectionism Not Free Trade

Notable quotes:
"... As a result of this protectionism, average pay for doctors is over $250,000 a year and more than $200,000 a year for dentists, putting the vast majority of both groups in the top 2.0 percent of wage earners. Their pay is roughly twice the average received by their counterparts in other wealthy countries, adding close to $100 billion a year ($700 per family per year) to our medical bill. ..."
"... We also have actively been pushing for longer and stronger patent and copyright protections. While these protections, like all forms of protectionism, serve a purpose, they are 180 degrees at odds with free trade. And, they are very costly. Patent protection in prescription drugs will lead to us pay more than $440 billion this year for drugs that would likely sell for less than $80 billion in a free market. The difference of $360 billion comes to almost $3,000 a year for every family in the country. ..."
"... It is also worth noting patent protection results in exactly the sort of corruption that would be expected from a huge government imposed tariff. (When patents raise the price of a drug by a factor of 100 or more, as is often the case , it is equivalent to a tariff of 10,000 percent.) The result is that pharmaceutical companies often make payoffs to doctors to promote their drugs or conceal evidence that their drugs are less effective than claimed or even harmful. ..."
"... Stop using the term "free trade" at all...when wall street bankers and hedge fund managers and the corporate media use the term "free trade", what they are really talking about is labor arbitrage. Shifting factories to nations with the lowest worker living standards, health, safety and environmental standards. It usually means a nation without a democracy, run by either oligarchs or despots. ..."
"... Bbbbut patents are essential to allow top executives to extract half the annual expenditures of unprofitable corporations in compensation while still leaving a few pennies for "research". ..."
"... Fake news...about a reliable as a Democrat's promise that he's for the working folks. ..."
"... The "law" of supply and demand just does not apply in this field. That "law" also does not work in certain other areas where important conclusions are drawn from it - applying it is not a substitute for empirical evidence. ..."
Apr 12, 2017 | cepr.net

The Washington Post and other major news outlets are strong supporters of the trade policy pursued by administrations of both political parties. They routinely allow their position on this issue to spill over into their news reporting, touting the policy as "free trade." We got yet another example of this in the Washington Post today.

Of course the policy is very far from free trade. We have largely left in place the protectionist barriers that keep doctors and dentists from other countries from competing with our own doctors. (Doctors have to complete a U.S. residency program before they can practice in the United States and dentists must graduate from a U.S. dental school. The lone exception is for Canadian doctors and dentists, although even here we have left unnecessary barriers in place.)

As a result of this protectionism, average pay for doctors is over $250,000 a year and more than $200,000 a year for dentists, putting the vast majority of both groups in the top 2.0 percent of wage earners. Their pay is roughly twice the average received by their counterparts in other wealthy countries, adding close to $100 billion a year ($700 per family per year) to our medical bill.

While trade negotiators may feel this protectionism is justified, since these professionals lack the skills to compete in the global economy, it is nonetheless protectionism, not free trade.

We also have actively been pushing for longer and stronger patent and copyright protections. While these protections, like all forms of protectionism, serve a purpose, they are 180 degrees at odds with free trade. And, they are very costly. Patent protection in prescription drugs will lead to us pay more than $440 billion this year for drugs that would likely sell for less than $80 billion in a free market. The difference of $360 billion comes to almost $3,000 a year for every family in the country.

It is also worth noting patent protection results in exactly the sort of corruption that would be expected from a huge government imposed tariff. (When patents raise the price of a drug by a factor of 100 or more, as is often the case , it is equivalent to a tariff of 10,000 percent.) The result is that pharmaceutical companies often make payoffs to doctors to promote their drugs or conceal evidence that their drugs are less effective than claimed or even harmful.

Raye 2 days ago

I was pleased to see that PBS looked into the matter of physician supply a few years ago.. They noted: "There are fewer physicians per person than in most other OECD countries. In 2010, for instance, the US had 2.4 practicing physicians per 1000 people--well below the OECD average of 3.1." They also noted that "US physicians get higher incomes than in other countries." They didn't go so far as to note a cause-and-effect relationship here, a deliberate restriction of supply going on, for purposes of raising MD incomes. But at least they were presenting the facts.

They even mentioned the $750 billion wasted each year by our health care system.. I expect it's up to at least $3000 per person by now. And they suggested some good uses that so much money could be put to (VA health care, state college education for all the 17- and 18-year-olds in the country). I would like to add another use. If we were wasting less on overpriced health, more people might be able to afford a little more leisure and recreation time. And this (especially the recreation time) might lead to a lowering of our very high rates of obesity, diabetes and prediabetes.

Harlan Raye , 2 days ago

Physician density (as reported by CIA dot gov with dates) shows Canada with smaller ratio than the U.S. but they still retain lower costs, and U.K. though higher by 10 or 15% has considerably lower costs, and the U.S. has more specialists but they get higher incomes, and states with more doctors have higher incomes.

We may need more doctors, especially general practitioners, and more medical schools since 8% of U.S. citizens are forced to train abroad already, but increased supply won't lower costs. It is the medical system and not the supply of doctors that determines fees being charged, which only amount to 10% of total costs. Cut their fees 30% and you still have a $1 trillion 1/3 cost higher than other developed nations. Doctors are not the main cause of the dysfunctional system. Look at what other countries do.

Harlan , 3 days ago

This bolsters my case, there is a high skills job shortage. Take 100,000 proposed increase in doctors and give the jobs exclusively to foreign graduates, and you've robbed Americans of needed jobs. College graduates only have a 2.5 percent unemployment rate because they take jobs away from those without college. So lack of enough high skills jobs really hurts the working class lower income groups with less formal education.

New argument, pay attention. No one would deny that a gap of 1 million jobs, or nearly 1% of increased unemployment (really only .8% since there are 120 jobs), is enough to suppress wages, induce slack in the economy, suppress growth, and possibly even create contraction or self sustaining stagnation. Well a 100,000 new doctor jobs is only 1/10 of that amount. How important is that? I would argue it's very important. 10 percent cause of any such serious effect as a 1 percent rise in unemployment is nutty to dismiss. That's why we cheer when the unemployment drops even .1 percent. You don't get the benefits of full employment until reach full employment, whether 1 percent away or .1 percent away. Really.

EPI

Even the Most Educated Workers Have Declining Wages
Feb 2015

Harlan ->Harlan , 3 days ago

Was trying to highlight this report, but buried the lead:

EPI
Even the Most Educated Workers Have Declining Wages
Feb 2015

Also in my comment where I wrote "since there are 120 jobs," obviously meant "120 million jobs".

And finally, left out a "you" in closing:

You don't get the benefits of full employment until you reach full employment, whether 1 percent away or .1 percent away.

David Havelka , 3 days ago

Isn't 10 years and 1 million dollars too much for the average family practice physican to pay to become a doctor. Reducing the cost of educating a doctor would be a better solution. Increasing the use of midwives and nurse practicioners is another unexplored solution.

Stop using the term "free trade" at all...when wall street bankers and hedge fund managers and the corporate media use the term "free trade", what they are really talking about is labor arbitrage. Shifting factories to nations with the lowest worker living standards, health, safety and environmental standards. It usually means a nation without a democracy, run by either oligarchs or despots.

As best I can see, neither NAFTA or any other "free trade" agreement mentions anything about wages, or for that matter worker health and safety, or environmental standards. The only purpose of NAFTA and TPP was to force trade partners to accept US patent and copyright protections as the price of access to the lucrative US market.

Dean's argumen that just because we import cheap foreign labor to displace American workers in the contruction and lawn-mowing and housekeeping labor markets, it's fair and justified to import highly educated professionals seems wrong-headed to me. Are you talking about extending H1B Visa categories to include doctors.

In my opinion the people behind the high cost of highly educated professions is the AMA, and the universities and education trade associations---who set the standards for doctors and lawyers, and are the ones demanding foreigners complete American educational standards to be permitted to work in the USA

Harlan-> David Havelka , 3 days ago

The truth is the exact opposite of what you report. The medical educational establishment favors increased admissions. The AMA is another story, perhaps. In any event you need more medical schools for more doctors, not lower standards or importing more than the already high 12% foreign medical school graduates we recruit each year.

Our high standards are fine. But already 8% of US citizens train abroad for lack of medical schools. Even if you don't favor more doctors, that in itself screams for more U.S. medical schools.

From the Association of American Medical Colleges
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
New Research Reaffirms Physician Shortage
Shortages Likely to Have Significant Impact on Patient Care

More corrections: H1B can already include doctors, though 60 percent are in tech. Trade agreements were not about patents and copyright, they were about making it easier to do what they were already doing. No surprise is you lower barriers to trade, your domestic industry suffers in competition with cheaper goods. Unions opposed them to protect their jobs. Do you think the union officials were geniuses and the economists were stupid? Or was it common sense exactly what would happen and that it was just too convenient for economists not to favor trade, deregulation of banks, lower taxes, derivative markets, hedge funds.

David Havelka -> Harlan , 2 days ago

Sound like "fake news"---the educational establishment supports increasing admissions but if the price of admission is 10 years and 1 million dollars, well....so the cost of entry they charge is usually a barrier to entry.. Aside from that, there is the standards for admission are set by the educational establishment...so between the two, what have you got? A contrived limit on doctors. Oh, but apologists for the educational establishment like you keep repeating the PR/BS line that universities and trade unions want to increase admissions to medical schools.

Next another one of your "facts" that sounds seriously contradictory...that trade agreements make things "easier" to do what they were doing. HUH? What does that mean? Look none of the trade agreements have anything to do with anything except patent and copyright protection. If a trading partner accepts patent and copyright protection for their economy, they get access to the Us market without trade barriers. Except for productts that receive public subsidies, like franken-food and growth hormone treated meat. So a trading partner is forced to remove the barriers to entry on things like the growth hormone raised beef to Japan, and genetically modified and subsidized crazycorn to Mexico. Is that what you mean by "making things easier"....Sure it makes things "easier"---but is that the point? Or do citizens from Japan have the right to prohibit meat raised with growth hormones? Or do Mexican citizens have the right to prohibit genetically raised corn?

Look, "free trade" is a utopian fantasy, invented by a bunch of liars to sell something to the US consumer that isn't good for him.

Harlan -> David Havelka , 2 days ago

Why don't you try reading what people wrote before posting under their comment? I'm against trade agreements and increased trade that undercuts American workers.

Maybe you should read even the most elementary news report on the effect of NAFTA and China's entry into the WTO. Patent and copyright protections were neither the main motivation nor an important effect. China pays little heed to any IP law anyway and their state efforts to coerce and steal American technology are barely concealed.

Japan doesn't buy American due to cultural norms, American incompetence, and laziness, and Japanese protectionist laws and regulations.

Most free traders have been Republicans, and most objections to free trade have come from the Democrats and the left. Except for Trump Clinton reversal, Liberals (and unions) can claim the high ground over conservatives when it comes to trade issues. This blog and Dean Baker consistently decries the effects of international trade and trade agreements effects on the working class.

There is a shortage of medical schools, there is no shortage of qualified students, admissions standards do not prevent medical student enrollment from increasing. Your comment is virtually fact free.
You obviously hate education and unions and real news.

AlanInAZ , 3 days ago

Expanding doctor supply without major changes to the insurance system is as likely to increase overall healthcare costs as reduce them. In the world of healthcare, demand increases to meet supply.

The country with the insurance and healthcare system closest to the US is probably Switzerland with the exception that costs are controlled with a national fee for service scale (TARMED).

The Swiss estimate that each new private medical practice adds $536,000 per doctor to the nation's overall healthcare spending. This is one of the main reasons the Swiss limit the number of new medical practices and control doctor immigration to balance demand. The Swiss are concerned about rising costs and the government is now proposing to reduce the allowable charges by specialists.

Those that are attracted to Baker's immigration proposal should ask what is the long term consequence of relying on immigration to fill the doctor shortfall and/or control cost. In the short run there may be some average income reduction for physicians with little or no change in total healthcare costs (remember total cost equals average income times the larger number of doctors). Longer term, it restricts domestic investment in expansion of healthcare training and that is a restriction of opportunity for all Americans.

Mitch Beales , 3 days ago

Bbbbut patents are essential to allow top executives to extract half the annual expenditures of unprofitable corporations in compensation while still leaving a few pennies for "research".

pieceofcake , 3 days ago

'U.S. Pursues Selective Protectionism: Not Free Trade'

Oh absolutely - and I'm also really worried about these doctors... and the meat - the meat - as if we can't export all of our meat to China - we for sure will need more doctors to operate on all these oversized boobs which will grow if we have to eat all of our hormone meat by ourselves - and you know how painful it is to carry these big boobs around?

And I happen to know this Plastic Surgeon who told me we need lots and lot more Plastic Surgeons -(as Americans get older and older) - and perhaps - if your plan finally comes through - also facelifts will get cheaper - as who wants to have her or his face done in a undeveloped country -(even if it comes with a nice and long vacation)

So more power to y'a and you finally have completely convinced me and let's do it together!

Get them doctors!!

Harlan , 3 days ago

There is no protectionism when it comes to doctors as they are well represented by immigrants who make up 12% of doctors, including new doctors, comparing favorably to the near record 13.5% U.S. immigrant population.

U.S. doctors don't make twice the salary of other developed countries, with their incomes running about 40% to 60% for GPs and specialists respectively.

More doctors should be supplied by relieving the shortage of medical schools, even an extra 100,000 would help the working class stop getting bumped into unemployment by an overskilled work force. Too many college graduates and not enough jobs, so they bump off those without. They get 2.5% unemployment, those without north of 5 or 7%.

This paper cited below clearly shows we do not pay our doctors twice the salary of other developed countries. The figure is actually around 40% for those in general practice, 60% for specialists, and largely because U.S. salaries overall are higher (in every occupation). When you look at the comparative advantage a doctors salary in any country enjoys over the average salary in that country, even that advantage largely disappears. See figure 2 on page 16 for general practitioners and and figure 6 on page 21 for specialists.
"THE REMUNERATION OF GENERAL PRACTITIONERS AND SPECIALISTS IN 14 OECD COUNTRIES: WHAT ARE THE FACTORS INFLUENCING VARIATIONS ACROSS COUNTRIES?"

Unlike Dean Baker's anti-labor, anti-working class stance that we should end any protection against importing cheaper foreign labor to undercut wages, we should of course afford the same protections to all occupations.

David Havelka ->Harlan , 3 days ago

It is the Democrat Party politics that is behind the high cost of doctors and lawyers. Why because the Educational establishment---the trade associattions and the universities themselves are the ones limiting the admissions, and the ones demanding that all medical professioanls get their education and qualifications through themselves...And we all know that is the universities, the education trade unions and their lobbiest that are one of the most powerful constituencies for the Democrat Party.

Mitch Beales ->David Havelka , 2 days ago

It is the republic party that is behind the high cost of everything as well as the pollution of the internet with ridiculous comments like yours.

Harlan ->David Havelka , 3 days ago

The truth is the exact opposite of what you report. The medical educational establishment favors increased admissions.

From the Association of American Medical Colleges
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
New Research Reaffirms Physician Shortage
Shortages Likely to Have Significant Impact on Patient Care

David Havelka ->Harlan , 2 days ago

Sound like a "fake newa"...so the educational establishment's official public relations read BULL-TOSS position is to support increased admissions to medical school. Yet the same establishment imposed the "barrier to entry" cost of obtaining a doctor ticket, 10 years and 1 million dollars. And who the heck sets the admission standards for their precious schools that results in the high rejection rate of applicants.

Fake news...about a reliable as a Democrat's promise that he's for the working folks.

skeptonomist ->Harlan , 3 days ago

The OECD article should be read by anyone interested in this. Figure 11 shows that the number of physicians in the US is close to the OECD average - in fact the number of specialists is actually less, but the US level of pay is higher. Of course there is also no correlation of pay with the fraction of foreign doctors.

And despite the supposed shortage of GP's in the US their pay is still much less. The "law" of supply and demand just does not apply in this field. That "law" also does not work in certain other areas where important conclusions are drawn from it - applying it is not a substitute for empirical evidence.

The comparison of physician pay would be better if done with the overall median rather than average. Greater inequality in the US means that the average pay is greater than in the other countries.

[Jun 22, 2017] Playing Games with Drugs at the Wall Street Journal

Jun 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

anne , June 21, 2017 at 05:02 AM

http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/playing-games-with-drugs-at-the-wall-street-journal

June 20, 2017

Playing Games with Drugs at the Wall Street Journal

A column * in the Wall Street Journal by Dana P. Goldman and Darius N. Lakdawalla presents a case for high drug prices by making an analogy to the salaries of major league baseball players. They ask what would happen if the average pay of major league players was cut from $4 million to $2 million. They hypothesize that the current crew of major leaguers would continue to play, but that young people might instead opt for different careers, leaving us with a less talented group of baseball players. Their analogy to the drug market is that we would see fewer drugs developed, and therefore we would end up worse off as a result of paying less for drugs.

This analogy is useful because it is a great way to demonstrate some serious wrong-headed thinking. It also leads those of us who had the privilege of seeing players like Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax, Henry Aaron, and Willie Mays in their primes to wonder if there somehow would have been better players 50 years ago if the pay back then was at current levels.

But the issue is not just how much we should for developing drugs, but how we should pay. Suppose that we paid fire fighters at the point where they came to the fire. They would assess the situation and make an offer to put out the fire and save the lives of those who are endangered. We could haggle if we want. Sometimes we might get the price down a bit and in some occasions a competing crew of firefighters may show up and offer some competition. Most of us would probably pay whatever the firefighters asked to rescue our family members.

This could lead to a situation where firefighters are very highly paid, since at least the ones who came to rich neighborhoods could count on payouts in the millions or even tens of millions of dollars. Suppose someone suggested that we were paying too much for firefighters' services and argued that there we could drastically reduce what we pay for a service we all recognize as tremendously important. Well, Goldman and Lakdawalla would undoubtedly respond with a Wall Street Journal column telling us that fewer people will want to be firefighters.

But this is really beside the point. Just about everyone agrees that it does not make sense to be determining firefighters' pay when they show up at the fire. We pay them a fixed salary. While they sit around waiting most of the time, occasionally they provide an incredibly valuable service saving valuable properties from destruction or even more importantly saving lives.

No one thinks that firefighters get ripped off because they don't walk away millions of dollars when they save an endangered family. They get paid their salary (which we can argue whether too high or too low) for work that we recognize as dangerous, but which will occasionally result in enormous benefits to society.

In the case of developing drugs, we are now largely in the situation of paying the firefighters when they show up at the burning house. As a result of historical accident, we rely on a relic of the medieval guild system, government granted patent monopolies, to finance most research into developing new drugs. These monopolies allow drug companies to charge prices that are several thousand percent ** above the free market price.

This leads to all the corruption and distortion that one would expect from a trade tariff of 1000 or even 10,000 percent. These markups lead drug companies to expend vast resources marketing their drugs. They also frequently misrepresent the safety and effectiveness of their drugs to maximize sales. They make payoffs to doctors, politicians, and academics to enlist them in their sales efforts. And, they use the legal system to harass potential competitors, often filing frivolous suits to dissuade generic competitors.

This system also leads to a large amount of wasted research spending. This is in part because competitors will try to innovate around a patent to share in the patent rents. In a world of patent monopolies it is generally desirable to have competing drugs, however if the first drug was selling at its free market price, it is unlikely that it would make sense to spend large amounts researching the development of a second, third, and fourth drug for a condition for which an effective treatment already exists, rather than researching drugs for conditions for which no effective treatment exists.

Patent monopolies also encourage secrecy in research, as drug companies disclose as little information as possible so that they prevent competitors from benefiting from their research. This also slows the research process.

The obvious alternative would upfront funding, just like firefighters are paid a fixed salary for their work. Under this system a condition of the funding would be that all the research findings are posted on the web as quickly as practical to maximize the ability of the scientific community to benefit. We already do this to some extent with the $32 billion a year that goes to the National Institutes of Health, although this amount would likely have to be doubled or even tripled to make up for the research currently supported by government granted patent monopolies. (I outline a system for this in my book "Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Have Been Structured to Make the Rich Richer" *** - it's free.)

Anyhow, it would be good if we could be having a debate about how we finance drug research rather than just telling silly stories about baseball players salaries. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, Sherrod Brown and thirteen other senators have already introduced a bill that would have the government pick up the tab on some clinical trials and then putting the rights to successful drugs in the public domain so they can be sold at generic prices. The bill also has a patent buyout fund that would accomplish the same goal.

It is absurd that we charge people hundreds of thousands of dollars for life-saving drugs that cost a few hundred dollars to produce. Too bad the Wall Street Journal has so little creativity that it cannot even imagine an alternative to a grossly antiquated institution when it comes to financing prescription drug development.

* https://www.wsj.com/articles/take-me-out-to-the-pill-game-1497913367

** http://www.thebodypro.com/content/78658/1000-fold-mark-up-for-drug-prices-in-high-income-c.html

*** https://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

-- Dean Baker

[Jun 21, 2017] Neoliberalism and opioids abuse

Jun 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

libezkova, June 21, 2017 at 07:25 PM

Over 33K people in US died of opiates overdoses in 2015 according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Not only unemployed abuse opioids, but more and more college students and recent graduates are abusing the opioids as well, according to a survey of 1200 college aged adults commissioned the same year by Christie foundation.

Federal law does not require colleges to report drug death unless they are deemed criminal. But fatal overdoses have been rising at schools nationwide underscoring and horrifying reality of for administrators: in addition to binge drinking and marijuana, they have another crisis firmly entrenched on campus.

Now losing 30K people in one year is like small scale civil war (like the one they have in Ukraine) and in a way it is: war of wealthy and medical industrial complex against those in difficult circumstances, with dreams crashed and, especially, unemployed.

https://www.usnews.com/news/news/articles/2016-06-14/opioids-linked-with-deaths-other-than-overdoses-study-says

== quote ==

CHICAGO (AP) - Accidental overdoses aren't the only deadly risk from using powerful prescription painkillers - the drugs may also contribute to heart-related deaths and other fatalities, new research suggests.

Among more than 45,000 patients in the study, those using opioid painkillers had a 64 percent higher risk of dying within six months of starting treatment compared to patients taking other prescription pain medicine. Unintentional overdoses accounted for about 18 percent of the deaths among opioid users, versus 8 percent of the other patients.

"As bad as people think the problem of opioid use is, it's probably worse," said Wayne Ray, the lead author and a health policy professor at Vanderbilt University's medical school. "They should be a last resort and particular care should be exercised for patients who are at cardiovascular risk."

His caution echoes recent advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, trying to stem the nation's opioid epidemic. The problem includes abuse of street drugs like heroin and overuse of prescription opioids such as hydrocodone, codeine and morphine.

The drugs can slow breathing and can worsen disrupted breathing that occurs with sleep apnea, potentially leading to irregular heartbeats, heart attacks or sudden death, the study authors said.

In 2014, there were more than 14,000 fatal overdoses linked with the painkillers in the U.S. The study suggests even more have died from causes linked with the drugs, and bolster evidence in previous research linking them with heart problems.

The study involved more than 45,000 adult Medicaid patients in Tennessee from 1999 to 2012. They were prescribed drugs for chronic pain not caused by cancer but from other ailments including persistent backaches and arthritis.

Half received long-acting opioids including controlled-release oxycodone, methadone and fentanyl skin patches. Fentanyl has been implicated in the April death of Prince, although whether the singer was using a fentanyl patch, pills or other form of the drug hasn't been publicly revealed.

Long-acting opioids remain in the body longer. The study authors noted that the body's prolonged exposure to the drugs may increase risks for toxic reactions.

The remaining study patients had prescriptions for non-opioid drugs sometimes used to treat nerve pain, including gabapentin; or certain antidepressants also used for pain.

There were 185 deaths among opioid users, versus 87 among other patients. The researchers calculated that for every 145 patients on an opioid drug, there was one excess death versus deaths among those on other painkillers.

The two groups were similar in age, medical conditions, risks for heart problems and other characteristics that could have contributed to the outcomes.

The results were published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association .

The study involved only Medicaid patients, who include low-income and disabled adults and who are among groups disproportionately affected by opioid abuse.

Ray noted that the study excluded the sickest patients and those with any evidence of drug abuse. He said similar results would likely be found in other groups.

Dr. Chad Brummett, director of pain research at the University of Michigan Health System, said the study highlights risks from the drugs in a novel way and underscores why their use should be limited.

[Jun 17, 2017] Coconut oil is about as healthy as beef fat or butter

Jun 17, 2017 | www.msn.com
The American Heart Association recently released a report advising against the use of coconut oil.

The Dietary Fats and Cardiovascular Disease advisory reviewed existing data on saturated fat, showing coconut oil increased LDL ("bad") cholesterol in seven out of seven controlled trials. Researchers didn't see a difference between coconut oil and other oils high in saturated fat, like butter, beef fat and palm oil. In fact, 82% of the fat in coconut oil is saturated, according to the data - far beyond butter (63%), beef fat (50%) and pork lard (39%).

"Because coconut oil increases LDL cholesterol, a cause of CVD [cardiovascular disease], and has no known offsetting favorable effects, we advise against the use of coconut oil," the American Heart Association said in the Dietary Fats and Cardiovascular Disease advisory .

Frank Sacks , lead author on the report, said he has no idea why people think coconut oil is healthy. It's almost 100% fat. Past weight loss stud ies might be responsible.

"The reason coconut oil is so popular for weight loss is partly due to my research on medium chain triglycerides," Marie-Pierre St-Onge, associate professor of nutritional medicine at Cornell University Medical School, told TIME in April . "Coconut oil has a higher proportion of medium-chain triglycerides than most other fats or oils, and my research showed eating medium-chain triglycerides may increase the rate of metabolism more than eating long-chain triglycerides."

The problem is St-Onge's research used a "designer oil" packed with 100% MCTs. Traditional coconut oil only contains about 13 to 15%. Another study she published showed smaller doses of MCTs doesn't help with weight loss in overweight adolescents .

The AHA recommends eating no more than 6% of saturated fat as part of total daily calories for those who need lower cholesterol.

Before you trash your coconut oil, know that saturated fat is a loaded term. While the AHA warns against it, people who cut saturated fat out of their diet might not necessarily lower their heart disease risk, a 2015 BMJ review suggested. That's because some people fill the void with sugar, white flour and empty calories . Also, some fat is important to help bodies absorb nutrients from other foods. Many have said butter has gotten a bad reputation.

Still, it might not be a bad idea to opt for vegetable oils or olive oil, Stacks said. Plus, coconut oil can still be an effective moisturizer or hair conditioner.

"You can put it on your body, but don't put it in your body," Sacks said.

Slideshow: 40 Food Myths You Hear Every Day (Courtesy: Zero Belly)

[Jun 09, 2017] Dementia and Elderly GPS Tracking Devices by Caitlin Burm

Notable quotes:
"... A behavior that commonly affects those diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and dementia, wandering can lead to death or serious injury. Disorientation caused by the disease makes even familiar surroundings seem unfamiliar to seniors, causing many people with dementia to get into dangerous situations. ..."
"... Have you used an elderly GPS tracking device on this list to ensure the safety of a loved one? What has your experience been like? We'd love to hear your stories in the comments below. ..."
Jun 06, 2017 | www.aplaceformom.com

A behavior that commonly affects those diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and dementia, wandering can lead to death or serious injury. Disorientation caused by the disease makes even familiar surroundings seem unfamiliar to seniors, causing many people with dementia to get into dangerous situations.

Fortunately, elderly GPS tracking devices and technology have introduced a new way for caregivers and families to prevent the dangers of wandering in senior loved ones. Read more about these 10 life saving location devices for dementia.

10 Elderly GPS Tracking Devices That Will Keep Senior Loved Ones Safe

Adding more confusion to the lives of those already dealing with a disorienting disease, wandering leads many seniors with Alzheimer's or dementia into unsafe situations.

Location and elderly GPS tracking devices are an increasing option for caregivers and families trying to reduce wandering.

Here are 10 location devices that are being used to keep loved ones with the disease safe:

1. Bluewater Security

With locations in both Canada and the U.S., Bluewater Security's dementia GPS tracking watches allow international monitoring. The devices were specifically designed to address at-risk seniors and they implement an alarm system that will sound if GPS receiver and watch become separated. One remarkable feature is the ability to locate the street address and postal code of the user's location anywhere on a map worldwide from a computer or smartphone.

2. Comfort Zone Check-In

A solution to wandering from the Alzheimer's Association, the Comfort Zone Check-In application allows caregivers to use a small tracking device to monitor their loved one with dementia. The "only system designed specifically with Alzheimer's in mind" reports daily scheduled location alerts to caregivers from the user's device, and also gives families access to all of the resources the Alzheimer's Association offers, including a 24/7 helpline, counseling, referrals and other support.

3. GPS Smart Sole

One of the premier "wearable technologies," the elderly GPS Smart Sole is an innovative technology that puts satellite monitoring in a sole that can be placed into a shoe to provide real-time tracking of a user. The soles offer peace of mind for families who can set up a safezone for a user and receive alerts from the ergonomic GPS SmartSole along with a smart locator app and map, wherever T-Mobile coverage is available. The SmartSole also has a 2-3 day battery life with normal use, and will alert caregivers by email or text notifications when the battery is low.

4. iTraq

A new cellular tracking device, iTraq is the "world's first global location device that can be found anywhere." It uses cellular towers to determine location, allowing it to be used anywhere there is service around the world. The device itself is as small as a credit card, and its location is reported to you through a mobile application which allows you to view a map of locations and timestamps. iTraq also features a "Guard Mode" where users can specify a radius on a map, then receive alerts if/when the iTraq goes beyond your pre-set radius. This means that you could receive notification if a loved one wandered from home, and also be able to track where they are with accuracy.

5. MedicAlert Safely Home

MedicAlert's Safely Home program is partnered with The Alzheimer's Society of Canada, who has more than 50 years of experience "enhancing the safety of people with dementia." The program was originally created to help emergency responders treat those who couldn't speak for themselves effectively, but now focus on assisted people living with dementia who go missing. The program features an emergency hotline, family notification and MedicAlert ID, that, when combined, is an "effective way to identify the person who is lost" and helps "bring the family back together."

6. Mindme

Mindme offers assistance to families dealing with dementia and wandering in the form of both an alarm and location device. Both elderly GPS devices are about the size of an electronic car key, and use GPS to provide an alarm and location updates if a user moves out of a preset location. The alarm also allows the user to specifically contact a Mindme response center in case of an emergency and the location device primarily reports location within 30 feet every 5 minutes. According to Mindme, both devices can be used to "let you get on with your life, knowing you can get help whenever and wherever you need it."

7. PocketFinder

PocketFinder offers multiple industry leading GPS devices to help you track a loved one. The devices are all small, waterproof and have one of the longest battery lives that allow you to not only view a GPS location, but also an address, an altitude, your distance from the address and the speed that the device is moving. The PocketFinder app provides updates to you "at the touch of a button," whether on your computer or mobile device, through email and text notifications. It also provides an unlimited number of "geo-fences" that alert you when the GPS leaves a specified area and provides up to 60 days of tracking history.

8. Project Lifesaver

Fulfilling their mission to "provide a timely response to save lives and reduce potential injury for adults and children who wander due to Alzheimer's, autism and other related condition or disorders," Project Lifesaver's GPS tracking program has helped rescue 2,983 people. We spoke with Gene Saunders , Chief Executive Officer and Founder of Project Lifesaver, who shares more about the technology – a small PAL (Protect and Locate) tracker worn around the wrist – that has saved so many from wandering. "Citizens enrolled in Project Lifesaver wear a small personal transmitter around the wrist or ankle that emits an individualized tracking signal. If an enrolled client goes missing, the caregiver notifies their local Project Lifesaver agency, and a trained emergency team responds to the wanderer's area. Most who wander are found within a few miles from home, and search times have been reduced from hours and days to minutes. Recovery times for PLI clients average 30 minutes - 95% less time than standard operations." Saunders adds: "Recently, Project Lifesaver has added a new technology that can also provide a radio frequency safe zone around them that notifies the caregiver in the event an at risk individual breaches this established safe zone."

9. Revolutionary Tracker

Revolutionary Tracker provides "peace of mind at a single touch" in the form of a GPS enabled locator, smart phone, watch and other solutions for families dealing with dementia. These Revolutionary Tracker devices can set up safe zones, send alerts to caregivers and can locate with a voice command. The devices can also monitor a GPS device's environment and support an SOS and audio conversation between the user and caregiver, making it a uniquely qualified solution to wandering.

10. SafeLink

With a focus on allowing loved ones to maintain their freedom and independence, and on giving caregivers the "comfort of knowing that SafeLink is watching over them," SafeLink GPS is a great tracking solution for families. Their devices range from a small elderly GPS tracker to a discreet GPS watch, which can locate within a few feet of a user and also approximate location – whether a user is indoors or outside, for instance. The devices also offer a virtual geo-fence to alert when the wearer is outside of a specific area, and an SOS button for emergencies along with location information.

Have you used an elderly GPS tracking device on this list to ensure the safety of a loved one? What has your experience been like? We'd love to hear your stories in the comments below.

Related Articles:

[Jun 09, 2017] U.S. Cities With the Fastest Growing Senior Housing Costs -

Notable quotes:
"... Independent Living ..."
"... Assisted Living ..."
"... Most Affordable Metros ..."
"... Least Affordable Metros ..."
"... Most Affordable Metros ..."
"... Least Affordable Metros ..."
"... Least Affordable Metros ..."
"... Most Affordable Metros ..."
"... Least Affordable Metros ..."
"... Most Affordable Cities ..."
"... Least Affordable Cities ..."
"... Most Affordable Cities ..."
"... Least Affordable Cities ..."
"... Most Affordable Cities ..."
"... Least Affordable Cities ..."
"... Most Affordable Cities ..."
"... Least Affordable Cities ..."
Jun 09, 2017 | www.aplaceformom.com
­ U.S. Cities With the Fastest Growing Senior Housing Costs - Top 5 Fastest Growing Metro Markets (2016 Percent Cost Growth)

Markets are underlined that appear in the top ten for both housing rents and senior living costs.

Housing Rents

Seattle (8.7)
Portland, OR (8.3)
Sacramento, CA (5.8)
Denver, CO (5.3)
San Diego, CA (4.7) Independent Living

Seattle, WA (8.1)
Minneapolis, MN (7.5)
Phoenix, AZ (5.5)
Chicago, IL (3.4)
Los Angeles, CA (3.3) Assisted Living

Denver, CO (10.3)
San Diego, CA (9.1)
Chicago, IL (2.7)
Sacramento, CA (3.9)
New York, NY (3.6) Memory Care

San Diego, CA (6.0)
New York, NY (5.1)
Phoenix, AZ (3.2)
Chicago, IL (2.7)
Minneapolis, MN (1.3) Most and Least Affordable Areas for Senior Housing Senior Housing Costs in the Top 15 Biggest Metros

Here are median monthly cost estimates for each care type in the 15 biggest metro areas (in terms of population age 55 and over) compared the United States (orange bars). No surprises here. Costs are higher in the biggest coastal metros, and lower in Midwestern, Southern and Southwestern states. The closest metro to the U.S. as a whole is Philadelphia.

Senior Living Costs in Top 15 Metros

Five Most and Least Affordable Metros for Senior Housing

We show the most affordable metros for senior housing, including Independent Living, Assisted Living and Memory. We also ranked cities for the affordability of Senior Apartments (also known as 55+ apartments), a less costly option for independent seniors who don't want dining, housekeeping or scheduled activities to be included in their rent.

The most affordable metros tend to be in the South, Southwest, and Midwest. The least affordable metros tend to be in small to mid-sized, more affluent metros in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic.

Senior Apartments

Most Affordable Metros

Least Affordable Metros

Independent Living

Most Affordable Metros

Least Affordable Metros

Assisted Living

Most Affordable Metros

Least Affordable Metros

Memory Care

Most Affordable Metros

Least Affordable Metros

Five Most and Least Affordable Cities for Senior Housing

Metro areas are big. It's hard to tell which part of a metro area is the most affordable until now. We have cost estimates for over 3,300 cities. Here are the most and least affordable for each type of care. Again, the most affordable cities are in the South, Southwest and Midwest. The least affordable are in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, and also some parts of California. Most of the least affordable cities are in the New York and Nassau metros of New York State. Detroit, Michigan pops up frequently among the most affordable, as well as other ailing Michigan cities like Flint.

Senior Apartments

Most Affordable Cities

Least Affordable Cities

Independent Living

Most Affordable Cities

Least Affordable Cities

Assisted Living

Most Affordable Cities

Least Affordable Cities

Memory Care

Most Affordable Cities

Least Affordable Cities

[Jun 09, 2017] Dementia and Elderly GPS Tracking Devices

Notable quotes:
"... A behavior that commonly affects those diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and dementia, wandering can lead to death or serious injury. Disorientation caused by the disease makes even familiar surroundings seem unfamiliar to seniors, causing many people with dementia to get into dangerous situations. ..."
"... Have you used an elderly GPS tracking device on this list to ensure the safety of a loved one? What has your experience been like? We'd love to hear your stories in the comments below. ..."
Jun 09, 2017 | www.aplaceformom.com
­ Dementia and Elderly GPS Tracking Devices Dementia and Elderly GPS Tracking Devices Posted On 06 Jun 2017 By : Caitlin Burm 195 in Share 29 Print Friendly

A behavior that commonly affects those diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and dementia, wandering can lead to death or serious injury. Dementia and Elderly GPS Tracking Devices Disorientation caused by the disease makes even familiar surroundings seem unfamiliar to seniors, causing many people with dementia to get into dangerous situations.

Fortunately, elderly GPS tracking devices and technology have introduced a new way for caregivers and families to prevent the dangers of wandering in senior loved ones. Read more about these 10 life saving location devices for dementia.

10 Elderly GPS Tracking Devices That Will Keep Senior Loved Ones Safe

Adding more confusion to the lives of those already dealing with a disorienting disease, wandering leads many seniors with Alzheimer's or dementia into unsafe situations.

Location and elderly GPS tracking devices are an increasing option for caregivers and families trying to reduce wandering.

Here are 10 location devices that are being used to keep loved ones with the disease safe:

1. Bluewater Security

With locations in both Canada and the U.S., Bluewater Security's dementia GPS tracking watches allow international monitoring. The devices were specifically designed to address at-risk seniors and they implement an alarm system that will sound if GPS receiver and watch become separated. One remarkable feature is the ability to locate the street address and postal code of the user's location anywhere on a map worldwide from a computer or smartphone.

2. Comfort Zone Check-In

A solution to wandering from the Alzheimer's Association, the Comfort Zone Check-In application allows caregivers to use a small tracking device to monitor their loved one with dementia. The "only system designed specifically with Alzheimer's in mind" reports daily scheduled location alerts to caregivers from the user's device, and also gives families access to all of the resources the Alzheimer's Association offers, including a 24/7 helpline, counseling, referrals and other support.

3. GPS Smart Sole

One of the premier "wearable technologies," the elderly GPS Smart Sole is an innovative technology that puts satellite monitoring in a sole that can be placed into a shoe to provide real-time tracking of a user. The soles offer peace of mind for families who can set up a safezone for a user and receive alerts from the ergonomic GPS SmartSole along with a smart locator app and map, wherever T-Mobile coverage is available. The SmartSole also has a 2-3 day battery life with normal use, and will alert caregivers by email or text notifications when the battery is low.

4. iTraq

A new cellular tracking device, iTraq is the "world's first global location device that can be found anywhere." It uses cellular towers to determine location, allowing it to be used anywhere there is service around the world. The device itself is as small as a credit card, and its location is reported to you through a mobile application which allows you to view a map of locations and timestamps. iTraq also features a "Guard Mode" where users can specify a radius on a map, then receive alerts if/when the iTraq goes beyond your pre-set radius. This means that you could receive notification if a loved one wandered from home, and also be able to track where they are with accuracy.

5. MedicAlert Safely Home

MedicAlert's Safely Home program is partnered with The Alzheimer's Society of Canada, who has more than 50 years of experience "enhancing the safety of people with dementia." The program was originally created to help emergency responders treat those who couldn't speak for themselves effectively, but now focus on assisted people living with dementia who go missing. The program features an emergency hotline, family notification and MedicAlert ID, that, when combined, is an "effective way to identify the person who is lost" and helps "bring the family back together."

6. Mindme

Mindme offers assistance to families dealing with dementia and wandering in the form of both an alarm and location device. Both elderly GPS devices are about the size of an electronic car key, and use GPS to provide an alarm and location updates if a user moves out of a preset location. The alarm also allows the user to specifically contact a Mindme response center in case of an emergency and the location device primarily reports location within 30 feet every 5 minutes. According to Mindme, both devices can be used to "let you get on with your life, knowing you can get help whenever and wherever you need it."

7. PocketFinder

PocketFinder offers multiple industry leading GPS devices to help you track a loved one. The devices are all small, waterproof and have one of the longest battery lives that allow you to not only view a GPS location, but also an address, an altitude, your distance from the address and the speed that the device is moving. The PocketFinder app provides updates to you "at the touch of a button," whether on your computer or mobile device, through email and text notifications. It also provides an unlimited number of "geo-fences" that alert you when the GPS leaves a specified area and provides up to 60 days of tracking history.

8. Project Lifesaver

Fulfilling their mission to "provide a timely response to save lives and reduce potential injury for adults and children who wander due to Alzheimer's, autism and other related condition or disorders," Project Lifesaver's GPS tracking program has helped rescue 2,983 people. We spoke with Gene Saunders , Chief Executive Officer and Founder of Project Lifesaver, who shares more about the technology – a small PAL (Protect and Locate) tracker worn around the wrist – that has saved so many from wandering. "Citizens enrolled in Project Lifesaver wear a small personal transmitter around the wrist or ankle that emits an individualized tracking signal. If an enrolled client goes missing, the caregiver notifies their local Project Lifesaver agency, and a trained emergency team responds to the wanderer's area. Most who wander are found within a few miles from home, and search times have been reduced from hours and days to minutes. Recovery times for PLI clients average 30 minutes - 95% less time than standard operations." Saunders adds: "Recently, Project Lifesaver has added a new technology that can also provide a radio frequency safe zone around them that notifies the caregiver in the event an at risk individual breaches this established safe zone."

9. Revolutionary Tracker

Revolutionary Tracker provides "peace of mind at a single touch" in the form of a GPS enabled locator, smart phone, watch and other solutions for families dealing with dementia. These Revolutionary Tracker devices can set up safe zones, send alerts to caregivers and can locate with a voice command. The devices can also monitor a GPS device's environment and support an SOS and audio conversation between the user and caregiver, making it a uniquely qualified solution to wandering.

10. SafeLink

With a focus on allowing loved ones to maintain their freedom and independence, and on giving caregivers the "comfort of knowing that SafeLink is watching over them," SafeLink GPS is a great tracking solution for families. Their devices range from a small elderly GPS tracker to a discreet GPS watch, which can locate within a few feet of a user and also approximate location – whether a user is indoors or outside, for instance. The devices also offer a virtual geo-fence to alert when the wearer is outside of a specific area, and an SOS button for emergencies along with location information.

Have you used an elderly GPS tracking device on this list to ensure the safety of a loved one? What has your experience been like? We'd love to hear your stories in the comments below.

Related Articles:

[Jun 09, 2017] Monitoring your blood pressure? Careful, 70 percent of home devices may be inaccurate by Beth Mole

Notable quotes:
"... The American Journal of Hypertension ..."
"... Parsing the data further, the researchers found that devices that were validated were more often accurate than those that weren't ..."
"... Devices that used upper arm cuffs were better than those using wrist cuffs (32 percent accurate vs. 17 percent). ..."
"... And those with soft cuffs tended to be more accurate than those with hard cuffs ..."
"... Interestingly, the older devices tended to be more accurate than the newer ones. ..."
"... In the meantime, he advises patients to go for a validated device with an arm cuff that fits properly-that's key to them measuring correctly, he emphasizes. He also recommends taking several readings in a row to make sure. ..."
Jun 09, 2017 | arstechnica.com

The error range of typical "home" devices is enough to sway decisions about taking or stopping medication.

Millions of people stand to benefit from closely monitoring their blood pressure-those suffering with heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, and pregnancy-induced hypertension, for instance, plus those who just stress in doctors' offices and can't get accurate readings. Yet the gadgets available for home use may not be up to the task .

In a study out this week, about 70 percent of home blood-pressure devices tested were off by 5 mmHg or more. That's enough to throw off clinical decisions, such as stopping or starting medication. Nearly 30 percent were off by 10 mmHg or more, including many devices that had been validated by regulatory agencies. The findings, published in The American Journal of Hypertension , suggest that consumers should be cautious about picking out and using such devices-and device manufacturers need to step up their game.

"We were a little surprised to see 70 percent," lead author Raj Padwal told Ars. Dr. Padwal is a professor of medicine at the University of Alberta. He and his colleagues went into the study expecting to find problems with some devices, he admitted. "We thought maybe it would be 40 maybe-maybe 50-but 70 was a lot. That was disappointing."

What doesn't kill you

The researchers had hints from previous data that many blood-pressure monitors were not spot on. Their skepticism was heightened by how the devices have been tested and regulated. Companies often validate their devices by testing them on healthy adults, Padwal and his colleagues point out. But the people using them at home often have conditions that make measuring blood pressure particularly tricky, like obesity, stiffened arteries, or widened pulse pressure. Nevertheless, the devices can be cleared by regulatory agencies, such as the US Food and Drug Administration. And that, too, can be misleading.

People think that if a regulatory agency has signed off on one of these devices, that it must be good and accurate, Padwal said. "But what physicians and patients and the public don't know is that regulatory bodies like the FDA, they don't actually do much," he explains. "As long as the device is not going to kill you, they're happy."

Ars reached out to the FDA about the matter. A spokesperson confirmed that, while the FDA does oversee the devices, the administration doesn't approve them. "These devices are considered Class II devices requiring premarket clearance (not approval) by the FDA," the spokesperson explained in an e-mail. The premarket clearance only demonstrates that the device "is at least as safe and effective, that is, substantially equivalent, to a legally marketed device for the same intended use." In respect to accuracy, the agency only offers a guidance document for manufacturers.

Padwal and colleagues set out to test the accuracy of the devices themselves. Funded by the University of Alberta Hospital Foundation, they compared the home blood-pressure monitors of 85 patients with a gold-standard blood-pressure measurement technique. The patients' monitors varied by type, age, and validation-status. But they all used an automated oscillometric method, which measures oscillations in the brachial artery and uses an algorithm to calculate blood pressure. The gold-standard method was the old-school auscultatory method, which involves the arm-squeezing sphygmomanometer and a clinician listening for thumps with a stethoscope.

Data squeeze

Omron devices

% of subjects with 5% difference

No. (%)

10% difference
No. (%)
15% difference
Systolic or diastolic 33 (72%) 15 (33%) 2 (4%)
Systolic 23 (50%) 8 (17%) 2 (4%)
Diastole 18 (39%) 8 (17%) 0 (0%)
Enlarge

For each study participant, the researchers took nine sequential blood pressure readings, switching between using the standard auscultatory method and the home monitors. For the auscultatory method, the researchers had two trained health professionals involved in the measurement, one taking it and another observing. If they disagreed on a measurement by more than 4 mmHg, they tossed the data and took the measurement again. With breaks in between each reading, the whole process usually took about 45 minutes per patient.

Of the 85 home devices, 59 were inaccurate by 5 mmHg or more in either their systolic (the top number that's the maximum pressure of a heart beat) or diastolic (the bottom number that's the minimum between-beat pressure). That's 69 percent inaccurate. Of those, 25 (or 29 percent) were off by 10 mmHg or more. And six devices (seven percent) were off by 15 mmHg or more.

Parsing the data further, the researchers found that devices that were validated were more often accurate than those that weren't (34 percent accurate within 5 mmHg vs. 24 percent, respectively). Devices that used upper arm cuffs were better than those using wrist cuffs (32 percent accurate vs. 17 percent).

And those with soft cuffs tended to be more accurate than those with hard cuffs (35 percent vs. 24 percent). Interestingly, the older devices tended to be more accurate than the newer ones.

Manufacturers really need to work on making these more accurate, Padwal argues. Five or ten off is just not good enough. He's doing more research now to try to figure out how to improve the algorithms that the oscillometric devices use. "Lots of work needs to be done," he added.

In the meantime, he advises patients to go for a validated device with an arm cuff that fits properly-that's key to them measuring correctly, he emphasizes. He also recommends taking several readings in a row to make sure.

American Journal of Hypertension , 2017. DOI: 10.1093/ajh/hpx041 ( About DOIs ).

[Jun 06, 2017] REM Behavior Disorder is in fact the best-known predictor of the onset of Parkinson's disease

Jun 06, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

im1dc , June 05, 2017 at 02:11 PM

Incredibly important Sleep Science finding

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rem-sleep-cells-linked-to-brain-disorders_us_5935a9d1e4b0099e7fae3a54

"REM Sleep Cells Linked To Brain Disorders"

"For some reason, the cells in the REM sleep area are the first to be sickened."

by Tracy Staedter...06/05/2017...03:33 pm ET

...""REM Behavior Disorder is in fact the best-known predictor of the onset of Parkinson's disease," Peever said. [5 Surprising Sleep Discoveries]

The brain diseases like Parkinson's and dementia with Lewy bodies typically occur six to 15 years after a RBD diagnosis.

Until now, the link between RBD and these neurological diseases has been anecdotal, though, Peever said. Researchers who studied the brains of cadavers from people who suffered from both RBD and a brain disease found damage to the neurons in the brain stem. But that didn't mean the damage had caused RBD.

"There was a correlation, but no causality," Peever said. "What our study has done is taken away the correlation and show causality."...

[May 31, 2017] End the Greedy Silence Dissident Voice

Notable quotes:
"... Unstoppable The Emerging Left Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State (2014), among many other books, and a four-time candidate for US President. Read other articles by Ralph , or visit Ralph's website . ..."
"... This article was posted on Tuesday, May 30th, 2017 at 5:18pm and is filed under Capitalism , Health/Medical , Pharmaceuticals . ..."
May 31, 2017 | dissidentvoice.org
End the Greedy Silence

Enough Already

by Ralph Nader / May 30th, 2017

It is time Americans rise up against the corruption, inefficiency, and cruelty of our healthcare system and tell its corporate captors and Congress – Enough Already!

For decades other countries have guaranteed universal health insurance for all their people, at lower costs and better outcomes (President Truman proposed it 72 years ago in the US). When are we going to break out of this taxpayer-subsidized prison built by the giant insurance companies, drug goliaths and monopolizing hospital chains?

How long is Uncle Sucker going to pay through the nose for gouging drug prices, patient-denying health insurance companies and all the brutal fine print rules in consumer contracts whose trap doors are maddening tens of millions of Americans?

Deductibles, exclusions, waivers, co-pays, corporate immunities from injured patients, disqualifying changes in patients' status and just plain stonewalling are just some examples of this cruel madness.

Not to mention the endless electronic bills with their inscrutable codes and unchallengeable charges – that is if you can get anyone on the phone to answer your questions. Billing fraud and abuses alone cost us up to $330 billion a year!

Why do we put up with "pay or die" drug prices? Why do we tolerate our fellow Americans dying in the tens of thousands each year because they cannot afford health insurance to get diagnosed and treated in time?

Do we know that the profiteering drug companies regularly are given a slew of handouts, including huge tax breaks, free drugs developed by our National Institutes of Health, and few restraints on their high pressure sales of dangerous and addictive drugs (eg opioids) or, together with their corporate middlemen, return the favor by charging Americans the highest prices in the world? Other countries put limits on such blatant greed and exploitation.

Groping for ever more profits, the big drug companies offshore production to less regulated labs in China and India, which amount to 60% of the drugs we buy and 80% of the active ingredients in all medicines sold in the US. Unpatriotic in the extreme!

Compounding these inhumane practices is a supine Congress, with few exceptions like Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D, TX), and state legislatures, misusing the power we entrusted to them. These legislators see large pharmaceutical companies as honey pots for campaign cash that work as hush money paid by hordes of drug industry lobbyists. So craven was the majority in Congress in 2003 that, when the drug benefits bill was passed, it prohibited Medicare from negotiating volume discounts for this lucrative corporate sales bonanza (Past Congresses authorized the Pentagon and Veterans Administration to bargain and they get lower prices as a result).

Despite the fact that these healthcare challenges have been dealt with more humanely and economically by other Western countries in the world, Americans are consistently told to tolerate an aggravating status quo. Scores of books, articles and television exposés highlight all the ways we're pushed around, denied, excluded, harmed, overcharged and deceived, yet so many of these authors still maintain that our system of health insurance/healthcare can't be replaced with a much better one? So these writers continue to advise us how to duck, slide and swivel our escape from a few of these commercials chains and scams.

In all the fine articles written to help consumers navigate Obamacare, Medicare, and private health plans, the authors trap themselves in this vast corporate cul-de-sac by never mentioning the way out.

That way is Single Payer or Full Medicare for all, everybody in, nobody out, with free choice of doctors and hospitals – at far lower costs, mortality and morbidity. These narrow reformers can't escape their "it ain't going to happen here" syndrome.

Really? Don't they know that the public has long viewed Single Payer favorably (including a majority of doctors and nurses), even without political leaders standing up for it or mass media reporting this proven safe path.

The surrender to corporate tyranny infects the 113 members of the House of Representatives who have co-signed HR 676 to create full Medicare for all. They signed, but then gave in to a silent resignation by not fighting for it in Congress and back home.

When the companies and their apologists argue for a "free market" approach to healthcare, you can retort – what free market? Half the money coming to these companies is from the federal, state and local governments. Taxpayers also pay tens of billions of dollars for much of the discovery and testing of drugs. Tax breaks and loopholes in patent laws block generic drugs and distort the free market.

Drug patents are by definition monopolies. Concentration by mergers and acquisitions of hospitals, clinics and physician practices (note dwindling independent cardiology practices) raise serious anti-trust issues. Fine print contract peonage takes away the consumers' freedom of contract, as do the daily buy and sell equations, so often rendered by third parties for patients. Corporate billing and other crimes are endemic. What free market?

Each of you can help the Single Payer movement build momentum. Ask your members of Congress in writing if they support HR 676 and, if not, demand their appearance in person at a town meeting arranged by people like you to answer why. If they refuse, peacefully picket their local offices.

Ask the newspapers, radio and television stations, including the culpable public radio and public television, when are they going to cover the basic full Medicare reform supported by tens of millions of their listeners and viewers?

Finally, go to the website SinglePayerAction.org to find out what other people are doing and what more you can do with your friends and co-workers.

One percent of you, together with popular backing, can make it happen, through a persistent civic hobby. Remember, you only have to turn around less than 450 members of Congress.

Enough Already?

Ralph Nader is a leading consumer advocate, the author of Unstoppable The Emerging Left Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State (2014), among many other books, and a four-time candidate for US President. Read other articles by Ralph , or visit Ralph's website .

This article was posted on Tuesday, May 30th, 2017 at 5:18pm and is filed under Capitalism , Health/Medical , Pharmaceuticals .

[May 29, 2017] As long as there is no countervailing force, financialization of healthcare will continue unabated

May 29, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

Health care -- skyrocketing cost of (USA only).

Financialization of health care makes Goldman-Sachs look like amateurs. Just read Suskind's Confidence Men -- now reading Rosenthal's American Sickness.

First hundred pages I thought her medicine was the exact same story as his Wall Street -- but hundreds more pages of her story goes on. The most unimaginable book I've read in a decade (decades?).

Single payer Medicare has none little to slow medical financialization. You can pick any health system you want from any country you like.

As long as there is no countervailing force, financialization will continue unabated. Repeat: 6% labor union density equates to 20/10 blood pressure -- starves every healthy process.

[May 14, 2017] How to Find a Doctor You Can Trust 7 Tips by Juliana LaBianca

Notable quotes:
"... The National Institute of Aging recommends scheduling interviews with prospective doctors. ..."
May 14, 2017 | www.rd.com

Do a get-to-know-you interview

The National Institute of Aging recommends scheduling interviews with prospective doctors. The office might charge you for this one-on-one, but it could help you decide if the two of you click. Once you get there, they suggest asking questions to help you figure out if the doctor is a good fit for your concerns. For example: "Can I call or email you or your staff when I have questions?" "Do you charge for telephone or email time?" and "What are you thoughts about complementary or alternative treatments?" Open up a dialogue about the things that are important to you, and take into consideration how receptive the doctor was to them. Think, "Did the doctor give me a chance to ask questions?" and "Was the doctor really paying attention to me?"

Don't overlook the office dynamic

Just because you and a potential doctor get along great doesn't mean your relationship will be completely stress free. A practice's nurses and office staff play a huge role in creating a comforting and trustful environment. If anything seems off about your interactions with other staff members, bring it up to your doctor.

Go with your gut

In the end, choosing a doctor is a personal decision. Because they're a person you'll be sharing a lot with, do a gut check. If you don't feel like you'll be able to tell them intimate details, continue searching.

[May 10, 2017] Taking Ibuprofen regularly could lead to heart attack risk - AOL News

Notable quotes:
"... A heart attack will likely take place within the first month of taking a high dose of ibuprofen or common painkillers. ..."
May 10, 2017 | www.aol.com
Ibuprofen may not be as good for you as you think.

Ibuprofen, naproxen and celecoxib are some of the most used drugs in America.

These non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) could have side effects when taken often.

A study published in the journal BMJ found that those taking painkillers have a higher chance of having a heart attack.

The risk could increase between 20% to 50% overall, especially for those taking 1,200mg of ibuprofen daily.

But the risk is not long-lasting. It wears off over time.

A heart attack will likely take place within the first month of taking a high dose of ibuprofen or common painkillers.

People with heart disease or related conditions are at higher risk.

[May 05, 2017] William Binney - The Government is Profiling You (The NSA is Spying on You)

Very interesting discussion of how the project of mass surveillance of internet traffic started and what were the major challenges. that's probably where the idea of collecting "envelopes" and correlating them to create social network. Similar to what was done in civil War.
The idea to prevent corruption of medical establishment to prevent Medicare fraud is very interesting.
Notable quotes:
"... I suspect that it's hopelessly unlikely for honest people to complete the Police Academy; somewhere early on the good cops are weeded out and cannot complete training unless they compromise their integrity. ..."
"... 500 Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent It's Never to Protect Us From Bad Guys No matter which government conducts mass surveillance, they also do it to crush dissent, and then give a false rationale for why they're doing it. ..."
"... People are so worried about NSA don't be fooled that private companies are doing the same thing. ..."
"... In communism the people learned quick they were being watched. The reaction was not to go to protest. ..."
"... Just not be productive and work the system and not listen to their crap. this is all that was required to bring them down. watching people, arresting does not do shit for their cause ..."
Apr 20, 2017 | www.youtube.com
Chad 2 years ago

"People who believe in these rights very much are forced into compromising their integrity"

I suspect that it's hopelessly unlikely for honest people to complete the Police Academy; somewhere early on the good cops are weeded out and cannot complete training unless they compromise their integrity.

Agent76 1 year ago (edited)
January 9, 2014

500 Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent It's Never to Protect Us From Bad Guys No matter which government conducts mass surveillance, they also do it to crush dissent, and then give a false rationale for why they're doing it.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/01/government-spying-citizens-always-focuses-crushing-dissent-keeping-us-safe.html

Homa Monfared 7 months ago

I am wondering how much damage your spying did to the Foreign Countries, I am wondering how you changed regimes around the world, how many refugees you helped to create around the world.

Don Kantner, 2 weeks ago

People are so worried about NSA don't be fooled that private companies are doing the same thing. Plus, the truth is if the NSA wasn't watching any fool with a computer could potentially cause an worldwide economic crisis.

Bettor in Vegas 1 year ago

In communism the people learned quick they were being watched. The reaction was not to go to protest.

Just not be productive and work the system and not listen to their crap. this is all that was required to bring them down. watching people, arresting does not do shit for their cause......

[Apr 09, 2017] When consulting a second opinion, the physician only confirmed the original diagnosis 12 percent of the time

Notable quotes:
"... The study, conducted using records of patients referred to the Mayo Clinic's General Internal Medicine Division over a two-year period, ultimately found that when consulting a second opinion, the physician only confirmed the original diagnosis 12 percent of the time. ..."
"... Among those with updated diagnoses, 66% received a refined or redefined diagnosis, while 21% were diagnosed with something completely different than what their first physician concluded. ..."
"... The researchers acknowledged that receiving a completely different diagnosis could result in a patient facing otherwise unexpected expenditures, "but the alternative could be deadly." ..."
Apr 09, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
im1dc April 09, 2017 at 10:31 AM
"when consulting a second opinion, the physician only confirmed the original diagnosis 12 percent of the time"

Are you sure you have what your provider said you have?

https://www.studyfinds.org/second-opinion-doctor-diagnosis-study/

"Second Opinion From Doctor Nets Different Diagnosis 88% Of Time, Study Finds"

by Daniel Steingold...4.8.2017

"ROCHESTER, Minn. - When it comes to treating a serious illness, two brains are better than one. A new study finds that nearly 9 in 10 people who go for a second opinion after seeing a doctor are likely to leave with a refined or new diagnosis from what they were first told.

Researchers at the Mayo Clinic examined 286 patient records of individuals who had decided to consult a second opinion, hoping to determine whether being referred to a second specialist impacted one's likelihood of receiving an accurate diagnosis.

The study, conducted using records of patients referred to the Mayo Clinic's General Internal Medicine Division over a two-year period, ultimately found that when consulting a second opinion, the physician only confirmed the original diagnosis 12 percent of the time.

Among those with updated diagnoses, 66% received a refined or redefined diagnosis, while 21% were diagnosed with something completely different than what their first physician concluded.

"Effective and efficient treatment depends on the right diagnosis," says lead researcher Dr. James Naessens in a Mayo news release. "Knowing that more than 1 out of every 5 referral patients may be completely [and] incorrectly diagnosed is troubling ─ not only because of the safety risks for these patients prior to correct diagnosis, but also because of the patients we assume are not being referred at all."

Considering how health insurance companies often limit the ability of patients to visit multiple specialists, this figure could be seen as troubling.

Combine this with the fact that primary care physicians are often overly-confident in their diagnoses, not to mention how a high number of patients feel amiss about questioning their diagnoses, a massive issue is revealed.

"Referrals to advanced specialty care for undifferentiated problems are an essential component of patient care," says Naessens. "Without adequate resources to handle undifferentiated diagnoses, a potential unintended consequence is misdiagnosis, resulting in treatment delays and complications, and leading to more costly treatments."

The researchers acknowledged that receiving a completely different diagnosis could result in a patient facing otherwise unexpected expenditures, "but the alternative could be deadly."

According to the release, The National Academy of Medicine cites diagnostic error as an important component in determining the quality of health care in its new publication, Improving Diagnosis in Health Care:

....."Despite the pervasiveness of diagnostic errors and the risk for serious patient harm, diagnostic errors have been largely unappreciated within the quality and patient safety movements in health care. Without a dedicated focus on improving diagnosis, these errors will likely worsen as the delivery of health care and the diagnostic process continue to increase in complexity."

* The study was published in the Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice.

[Apr 06, 2017] Alienation in neoliberal healthcare system

Notable quotes:
"... The spike in reported burnout is directly attributable to loss of control over work, increased performance measurement (quality, cost, patient experience), the increasing complexity of medical care, the implementation of electronic health records (EHRs), and profound inefficiencies in the practice environment, all of which have altered work flows and patient interactions. ..."
"... The rest of the items seem more plausible. However absent from the post is consideration of why physicians lost control over work, have been subject to performance measurement (often without good evidence that it improves performance, and particularly patients' outcomes), and have been forced to use often badly designed, poorly implemented EHRs ..."
"... In fact, we began the project that led to the establishment of Health Care Renewal because of our general perception that physician angst was worsening (in the first few years of the 21st century), and that no one was seriously addressing its causes. Our first crude qualitative research(8) suggested hypotheses that physicians' angst was due to perceived threats to their core values, and that these threats arose from the issues this blog discusses: concentration and abuse of power, leadership that is ill-informed , uncaring about or hostile to the values of health care professionals, incompetent, deceptive or dishonest, self-interested , conflicted , or outright corrupt , and governance that lacks accountability , and transparency . ..."
"... We have found hundreds of cases and anecdotes supporting this viewpoint. ..."
"... However, the biggest cause of physicians' loss of control over work may be the rising power of large health care organizations, in particular the large hospital systems that now increasingly employ physicians, turning them into corporate physicians . ..."
"... We have also frequently posted about what we have called generic management , the manager's coup d'etat , and mission-hostile management. Managerialism wraps these concepts up into a single package. The idea is that all organizations, including health care organizations, ought to be run people with generic management training and background, not necessarily by people with specific backgrounds or training in the organizations' areas of operation. Thus, for example, hospitals ought to be run by MBAs, not doctors, nurses, or public health experts. Furthermore, all organizations ought to be run according to the same basic principles of business management. These principles in turn ought to be based on current neoliberal dogma , with the prime directive that short-term revenue is the primary goal. ..."
Apr 06, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Here is what the blog post said about the causes of burnout:

The spike in reported burnout is directly attributable to loss of control over work, increased performance measurement (quality, cost, patient experience), the increasing complexity of medical care, the implementation of electronic health records (EHRs), and profound inefficiencies in the practice environment, all of which have altered work flows and patient interactions.

We dealt with the curious citation of inefficiencies as a cause of burnout above.

The rest of the items seem more plausible. However absent from the post is consideration of why physicians lost control over work, have been subject to performance measurement (often without good evidence that it improves performance, and particularly patients' outcomes), and have been forced to use often badly designed, poorly implemented EHRs . Particularly absent was any consideration of whether the nature or actions of large organizations, such as those led by the authors of the blog post, could have had anything to do with physician burnout.

Contrast this discussion with how we on Health Care Renewal have discussed burnout in the past. In 2012, we noted the first report on burnout by Shanefelt et al(2). At that time we observed that the already voluminous literature on burnout often did not attend to the external forces and influences on physicians that are likely to be producing burnout. Instead, burnout etc has been addressed as if it were lack of resilience, or even some sort of psychiatric disease of physicians.

In fact, we began the project that led to the establishment of Health Care Renewal because of our general perception that physician angst was worsening (in the first few years of the 21st century), and that no one was seriously addressing its causes. Our first crude qualitative research(8) suggested hypotheses that physicians' angst was due to perceived threats to their core values, and that these threats arose from the issues this blog discusses: concentration and abuse of power, leadership that is ill-informed , uncaring about or hostile to the values of health care professionals, incompetent, deceptive or dishonest, self-interested , conflicted , or outright corrupt , and governance that lacks accountability , and transparency .

We have found hundreds of cases and anecdotes supporting this viewpoint.

... ... ...

Finally, the Health Affairs post mention of "loss of control over work" deserves special attention. It could represent a catch-all of more "system factors" as noted above. However, the biggest cause of physicians' loss of control over work may be the rising power of large health care organizations, in particular the large hospital systems that now increasingly employ physicians, turning them into corporate physicians .

In the US, home of the most commercialized health care system among developed countries, physicians increasingly practice as employees of large organizations, usually hospitals and hospital systems, sometimes for-profit corporations. The leaders of such systems meanwhile are now often generic managers , people trained as managers without specific training or experience in medicine or health care, and " managerialists " who apply generic management theory and dogma to medicine and health care just as it might be applied to building widgets or selling soap.

We have also frequently posted about what we have called generic management , the manager's coup d'etat , and mission-hostile management. Managerialism wraps these concepts up into a single package. The idea is that all organizations, including health care organizations, ought to be run people with generic management training and background, not necessarily by people with specific backgrounds or training in the organizations' areas of operation. Thus, for example, hospitals ought to be run by MBAs, not doctors, nurses, or public health experts. Furthermore, all organizations ought to be run according to the same basic principles of business management. These principles in turn ought to be based on current neoliberal dogma , with the prime directive that short-term revenue is the primary goal.

... ... ...

Summary

I am glad that physician burnout is getting less anechoic. However, in my humble opinion, the last thing physicians at risk of or suffering burnout need is a top down diktat from CEOs of large health care organizations. The CEOs who wrote the Health Affairs post not have any personal responsibility for any physicians' burnout. However, the transformation of medical practice by the influence of large health care organizations run by the authors' fellow CEOs, particularly huge hospital systems, often resulting in physicians practicing as hired employees of such corporations likely is a major cause of burnout. If the leaders of such large organizations really want to reduce burnout, they should first listen to their own physicians. But this might lead them to realize that reducing burnout might require them to divest themselves of considerable authority, power, and hence remuneration. True health care reform in this sphere will require the breakup of concentrations of power, and the transformation of leadership to make it well-informed, supportive of and willing to be accountable for the health care mission, honest and unconflicted.

Physicians need to join up with other health care professionals and concerned member of the public to push for such reform, which may seem radical in our current era. Such reform may be made more difficult because it clearly would threaten the financial status of some people who have gotten very rich from the status quo, and can use their wealth and power to resist reform.

[Apr 06, 2017] The country will spend over $440 billion this year for drugs that would likely sell for less than $80 billion in a free market.

Apr 06, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
anne , April 06, 2017 at 05:31 AM
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-atkinson-pushes-pro-rich-protectionist-agenda-in-the-washington-post

April 6, 2017

Robert Atkinson Pushes Pro-Rich Protectionist Agenda in the Washington Post

The Washington Post is always open to plans for taking money from ordinary workers and giving it to the rich. For this reason it was not surprising to see a piece * by Robert Atkinson, the head of the industry funded Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, advocating for more protectionism in the form of stronger and longer patent and copyright monopolies.

These monopolies, legacies from the medieval guild system, can raise the price of the protected items by one or two orders of magnitudes making them equivalent to tariffs of several hundred or several thousand percent. They are especially important in the case of prescription drugs.

Life-saving drugs that would sell for $200 or $300 in a free market can sell for tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars due to patent protection. The country will spend over $440 billion this year for drugs that would likely sell for less than $80 billion in a free market. The strengthening of these protections is an important cause of the upward redistribution of the last four decades. The difference comes to more than $2,700 a year for an average family. (This is discussed in "Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer," ** where I also lay out alternative mechanisms for financing innovation and creative work.)

Atkinson makes this argument in the context of the U.S. relationship with China. He also is explicitly prepared to have ordinary workers pay the price for this protectionism. He warns that not following his recommendation for a new approach to dealing with China, including forcing them to impose more protection for U.S. patents and copyrights, would lead to a lower valued dollar.

Of course a lower valued dollar will make U.S. goods and services more competitive internationally. That would mean a smaller trade deficit as we sell more manufactured goods elsewhere in the world and buy fewer imported goods in the United States. This could increase manufacturing employment by 1-2 million, putting upward pressure on the wages of non-college educated workers.

In short, not following Atkinson's path is likely to mean more money for less-educated workers, less money for the rich, and more overall growth, as the economy benefits from the lessening of protectionist barriers.

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/how-trump-can-stop-china-from-eating-our-lunch/2017/04/05/b83e4460-1953-11e7-bcc2-7d1a0973e7b2_story.html

** http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

-- Dean Baker

[Apr 06, 2017] Health Care Renewal Not Going to Take it Anymore - Doctors in the Pacific Northwest Unionize, Begin Collective Bargaining with Hospital Systems

Apr 06, 2017 | hcrenewal.blogspot.com
Managerialist Tactics: Outsourcing

The NYT article opened with

in the spring of 2014, when the administration announced it would seek bids to outsource its 36 hospitalists , the hospital doctors who supervise patients' care, to a management company that would become their employer.

The outsourcing of hospitalists became relatively common in the last decade, driven by a combination of factors. There is the obvious hunger for efficiency gains. But there is also growing pressure on hospitals to measure quality and keep people healthy after they are discharged. This can be a complicated data collection and management challenge that many hospitals, especially smaller ones, are not set up for and that some outsourcing companies excel in.

Outsourcing is a now familiar entry in the managerialists' playbook. It is seen more in manufacturing than in health care. Although touted as improving economic "efficiency," it also may reduce the accountability of the managers of the organization that does the outsourcing.

Pursuit of Economic Efficiency

In this case,

Outsourced hospitalists tend to make as much or more money than those that hospitals employ directly, typically in excess of $200,000 a year. But the catch is that their compensation is often tied more directly to the number of patients they see in a day - which the hospitalists at Sacred Heart worried could be as many as 18 or 20, versus the 15 that they and many other hospitalists contend should be the maximum.

It was the idea that they could end up seeing more patients that prompted outrage among the hospitalists at Sacred Heart, which has two facilities in the area, with a total of nearly 450 beds. 'We're doctors, we're professionals,' Dr. [Rajeev] Alexander said. 'Giving me a bonus for seeing two more patients - I'm not sure I should be doing that. It's not safe .' (A hospital representative said patient safety was 'inviolate.')


A constant theme of managerialism, and the neoliberalism that underlies it, is economic efficiency. The usual narrative is that efficiency means providing better goods and services at lower costs. Instead, managerialism and neliberalism may mean decontenting goods and services so as to lower costs to the organizations providing them, but not necessarily providing more value to consumers. In health care terms, managerialism and neliberalism may lead to less accessible, more mediocre health care that increase revenue to the organizations providing it, as implied by the physicians' comments above. Making the US the most commercialized, managerialist run, and arguably neoliberal health care system among the developed countries has not led to lower costs, better access, or better health care quality.


The backstory for the outsourcing emphasizes that managerialism, and the resulting economic efficiency was indeed the goal of PeaceHealth...

In 2012, Sacred Heart's parent, PeaceHealth, a nonprofit health care system, installed an executive named John Hill to adapt its Oregon hospitals to the latest trends in health care . Mr. Hill, in an effort to rein in the budget and improve the efficiency of a hospital that administrators said was lagging in key respects, including how long the typical patient stayed, eventually concluded that the hospitalists at Sacred Heart should be outsourced.

Centralization of Control

Furthermore,

The hospitalists also chafe at the way the administration has tried to centralize decisions they used to make for themselves. This might include hiring fellow doctors or the order in which they see patients on any day. They also complain of being loaded down with administrative tasks.

'We're trained to be leaders, but they treat us like assembly line workers ,' said Dr. Brittany Ellison, a hospitalist in the group. 'You need that time with the patient,...'


A major feature of managerialism is the concentration of power within (generic) management. To quote Komesaroff(1),

In the workplace, the authority of management is intensified, and behaviour that previously might have been regarded as bullying becomes accepted good practice. The autonomous discretion of the professional is undermined, and cuts in staff and increases in caseload occur without democratic consultation of staff. Loyal long-term staff are dismissed and often humiliated, and rigorous monitoring of the performance of the remaining employees focuses on narrowly defined criteria relating to attainment of financial targets, efficiency and effectiveness.

We're Only In It for the Money

Also, the negotiations that started once the PeaceHealth physicians formed their union demonstrated a central tenet of managerialism

Even starker than the divide over these questions are the differences in worldview represented on opposite sides of the table. During a bargaining session last fall, the administration proposed increasing the number of shifts a year. Hospitalists now earn about $223,000 a year for 173 shifts and are paid extra for working more. The hospital offered $260,000 for a mandatory 182 shifts, and up to $20,000 in bonus pay for hitting certain medical performance targets. The hospitalists work seven days on and seven days off, so this would have effectively eliminated any time off for sick days or vacation.

When the doctors pointed this out, the administration responded that if they missed a few days, it would make sure they got extra days to hit the required number of shifts for full pay.

The hospitalists assured the administration negotiators that their concern had nothing to do with money - that none of this had ever been about money. They preferred to work less and make less to avoid burnout, which was bad for them and worse for patients. At which point the administration responded that money was always the issue , according to several people in the room. (The hospital declined to comment.)

Suddenly it dawned on the doctors why they had failed to break through, Dr. Alexander said. 'Imagine Mr. Burns,' the cartoonishly evil capitalist from 'The Simpsons,' 'sitting across the table,' he said. 'There's no way we can say, 'This isn't what we're talking about. We're not trying to get the bonus.''


Again, managerialism is based on neoliberalism, and neoliberal view is that the market rules. The market is the arbiter of success, and money is the only outcome that matters. As Komesaroff put it(1),

The particular system of beliefs and practices defining the roles and powers of managers in our present context is what is referred to as managerialism. This is defined by two basic tenets: (i) that all social organisations must conform to a single structure; and (ii) that the sole regulatory principle is the market .

Mission-Hostile Management

Never mind that the centrality of money seems entirely inconsistent with the stated mission of PeaceHealth ,

We carry on the healing mission of Jesus Christ by promoting personal and community health, relieving pain and suffering, and treating each person in a loving and caring way.

Ostensibly, this is accompanied by core values, such as,

Stewardship We choose to serve the community and hold ourselves accountable to exercise ethical and responsible stewardship in the allocation and utilization of human, financial, and environmental resources. and,

Social Justice
We build and evaluate the structures of our organization and those of society to promote the just distribution of health care resources.


We have frequently discussed how leadership of contemporary health care organizations often seem to act contrary to the organizations' stated mission, that is, mission-hostile management .

Value Extraction

Finally, while managerialism is ostensibly concerned with economic efficiency, whose efficiency matters. When managers address physicians' efficiency, they seem to look at amount of work done divided by the cost to the hospital of paying physicians. However, they never seem to look at their own costs, the costs of management, as being a negative.

The PeaceHealth 2014 form 990 , the latest available, states that the then CEO, Mr Alan Yordy (whose highest academic degree was an MBA, according to his LinkedIn page ) had total compensation in 2013 of $1,366,742, and 11 other managers had total compensation greater than $250,000, with 9 having total compensation greater than $500,000. Those figures should be compared to the highest compensation offered the hospitalists, a maximum of $280,000 for 182 shifts a year, eliminating all vacation and sick leave. So if it is all about the money, the managers are making the most of it.

We have discussed ad nauseum the ridiculous compensation of the leaders of health care organization, even non-profit organizations. Value extraction by top management has become a central feature of the US and global economy (look here ).

The NYT article did not discuss whether the upset hospitalists knew about their bosses' compensation. I suspect they did.

Forming a Functioning Union at the University of Washington

The media coverage of the UW housestaff unionization was less detailed. It does appear, though, that a stimulus was the pursuit of economic efficiency by UW management through squeezing the pay of housestaff, as described in the December article in the Seattle Times . In it the house staff said,

they account for about one-fifth of King County's doctors and they want higher pay, new child-care benefits and free parking. Some UW residents and fellows earn so little that they qualify for welfare programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and the Seattle City Light Utility Discount Program, according to the UWHA [University of Washington Housestaff Association.]

Another article in early January, 2016 in the Seattle Times added,

The association has proposed that residents and fellows earn at least the same salary as the UW's lowest-paid physician assistants . Because the doctors in training work very long hours, they sometimes earn less than Seattle's minimum hourly wage , the UWHA has said.

The council members, in their letter to Cauce, called the situation shocking. And based on information from the UWHA, they wrote that some residents and fellows qualify for welfare programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).


The Seattle articles noted that the UW housestaff may earn from just over $53,000 to just under $70,000 a year. Keep in mind, however, that under current rules, house staff may work up to 80 hours a week. So $53,000 for someone working those hours translates into $13.25/ hour, under what many people now claim is the living wage. That could be considered exploitation of workers with doctoral degrees working in often highly stressful situations where lives may be on the line. Whether there were issues other than money (and the respect it implies) involved at UW was not apparent based on the minimal press coverage.

[Apr 05, 2017] Health Care Renewal managerialism

Apr 05, 2017 | hcrenewal.blogspot.com
John Stossel Discovers Health Care Dysfunction, Blames it on "Socialists" - Like Maurice Greenberg (AIG), John Thain (Merrill Lynch), Sanford Weill (Citigroup), and David H Koch? We have been ranting for a while about the dysfunctionality of the US health care system. Unfortunately, many people only realize how bad things are when they become patients, when they have bigger things to worry about than complaining. Furthermore, even if they complain, many patients may not feel they understand enough about what has gone wrong to suggest solutions.

Bad Customer Service at New York Presbyterian

This may not apply when media pundits, especially those with strong ideological views, become patients. So this week Fox News commentator and well known libertarian John Stossel disclosed his new illness, and vented his opinions about his hospital stay . Mr Stossel unfortunately developed lung cancer, although he was optimistic about his prognosis: "My doctors tell me my growth was caught early and I'll be fine. Soon I will barely notice that a fifth of my lung is gone."

However, he was not happy about his hospital's customer service:

But as a consumer reporter, I have to say, the hospital's customer service stinks . Doctors keep me waiting for hours, and no one bothers to call or email to say, 'I'm running late.' Few doctors give out their email address. Patients can't communicate using modern technology.

I get X-rays, EKG tests, echocardiograms, blood tests. Are all needed? I doubt it. But no one discusses that with me or mentions the cost .

Also,
I fill out long medical history forms by hand and, in the next office, do it again . Same wording: name, address, insurance, etc.
And,
In the intensive care unit, night after night, machines beep, but often no one responds . Nurses say things like 'old machines,' 'bad batteries,' 'we know it's not an emergency.'
Finally,
Some of my nurses were great -- concerned about my comfort and stress -- but other hospital workers were indifferent .
Unfortunately, long wait times, poor communications, excess paperwork, and misapplied technology are all too familiar problems to those in the health care system.

Moreover, this all was happening at one of the most highly rated US hospitals,

After all, I'm at New York-Presbyterian Hospital. U.S. News & World Report ranked it No. 1 in New York .
Were "Socialist Bureaucracies" Responsible?

Mr Stossel had his own ideas about the causes of these problems.

Customer service is sclerotic because hospitals are largely socialist bureaucracies. Instead of answering to consumers, which forces businesses to be nimble, hospitals report to government, lawyers and insurance companies.

Whenever there's a mistake, politicians impose new rules: the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act paperwork, patient rights regulations, new layers of bureaucracy...

Also,

Leftists say the solution to such problems is government health care. But did they not notice what happened at Veterans Affairs? Bureaucrats let veterans die, waiting for care. When the scandal was exposed, they didn't stop. USA Today reports that the abuse continues. Sometimes the VA's suicide hotline goes to voicemail.

Patients will have a better experience only when more of us spend our own money for care. That's what makes markets work.

A "Socialist Bureaucracy" with a VIP Penthouse?

I am sorry to hear Mr Stossel has lung cancer, and hope that his prognosis is indeed good. I am a bit surprised that a media celebrity who became a patient found big issues with "customer service" at such a prestigious hospital. After all, many big hospitals have programs to give special treatment to VIPs (for example, see these posts from 2007 and 2011 ).

In particular, back in 2012 we posted about the contrast between the VIP services specifically at New York - Presbyterian Hospital and how poor patients are treated there. Then we quoted from a 21 January, 2012 article from the New York Times focused on the ritzy comforts now provided for wealthy (but perhaps not very sick) patients at the renowned New York Presbyterian/ Weill Cornell Hospital. It opened,

The feverish patient had spent hours in a crowded emergency room. When she opened her eyes in her Manhattan hospital room last winter, she recalled later, she wondered if she could be hallucinating: 'This is like the Four Seasons - where am I?'

The bed linens were by Frette, Italian purveyors of high-thread-count sheets to popes and princes. The bathroom gleamed with polished marble . Huge windows displayed panoramic East River views. And in the hush of her $2,400 suite, a man in a black vest and tie proffered an elaborate menu and told her, 'I'll be your butler.'

It was Greenberg 14 South, the elite wing on the new penthouse floor of NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell hospital . Pampering and décor to rival a grand hotel, if not a Downton Abbey, have long been the hallmark of such 'amenities units,' often hidden behind closed doors at New York's premier hospitals. But the phenomenon is escalating here and around the country, health care design specialists say, part of an international competition for wealthy patients willing to pay extra, even as the federal government cuts back hospital reimbursement in pursuit of a more universal and affordable American medical system.

Additional amenities include:

A waterfall, a grand piano and the image of a giant orchid grace the soaring ninth floor atrium....
Also,
the visitors' lounge seems to hang over the East River in a glass prow and Ciao Bella gelato is available on demand....
An architect who specializes in designing such luxury facilities for hospitals noted:
'These kinds of patients, they're paying cash - they're the best kind of patient to have,' she added. 'Theoretically, it trickles down.'
It appears that someone failed to book Mr Stossel into the penthouse. Instead, he found out what service was like for the masses.

Perhaps this was why Mr Stossel railed at the "socialist bureaucracies" he perceived as running New York - Presbyterian Hospital. However, calling the hospital management "socialist" seems - not to put too fine a point on it - wrong.

A "Socialist Bureaucracy" Paying Millions to its CEOs?

First of all, New York Presbyterian is hardly a government agency. It is a private, non-profit corporation. Every year as such it files a form 990 with the dread US Internal Revenue Service. (The latest publicly available version is from 2013, here.) Obviously, US government agencies do not file with the IRS.

In fact, the New York Presbyterian system seems about as far from a federal government agency as one can imagine.

First, its top managers are paid like for-profit corporate executives. In 2014, we posted about the humongous compensation given to its previous, long-serving CEO, Dr Herbert Pardes, who received multi-million dollar compensation every year through his 2011 retirement, and then continued to receive several million a year from the system in his retirement. His successor, current CEO Dr Steven Corwin, received $3.6 million in 2012. (More recent compensation figures are not yet available.)

A "Socialist Bureaucracy" Dominated by Managers, with Stewardship by Top Financial Executives, and one of the Koch Brothers?

The current leadership of New York Presbyterian is dominated by businesspeople, not physicians, nurses, or other health care professionals. Only 10 of 33 listed senior leaders are health care professionals. The rest have administrative/ management or legal backgrounds and training. Many appear to be generic managers , that is, people with background and experience primarily in administration or management, but not in medicine, health care, public health, etc.

The hospital system's board of trustees was and is filled with some of the top business executives in the US, including some finance executives who have been cited as responsible for the global financial collapse/ great recession.

For example, we wrote about Mr Dick Fuld, a trustee until recently. Mr Fuld was the CEO who presided over the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, which heralded the beginning of the great financial crisis/ great recession of 2008 onward. Mr Fuld seemed to lack the sort of compassionate approach one might expect from someone charged with the stewardship of a big hospital system. He had once publicly said about those who sold Lehman Brother stock short: "what I really want to do is I want to reach in, rip out their heart, and eat it before they die ."

[Apr 02, 2017] I took multivitamins every day for a decade. Then I found out they're useless.

Notable quotes:
"... Annals of Internal Medicine ..."
"... Annals of Internal Medicine ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
Apr 02, 2017 | theweek.com
ave for a few lapses in my irresponsible college days, I've popped a multivitamin every single day since middle school.

First it was the chalky multivitamins that left a lump in my throat for minutes after I'd gulped one down. Then it was the slightly grainy, massive pills that my mom bought in bulk at Costco. (They were technically for post-menopausal women, but my mother assured me they would be just fine for my 17-year-old self.) Then last year, tired of big, bad-tasting pills, I bought gummy vitamins. Who doesn't like noshing on some candy that holds the promise of great health?

Well, last week I threw my vitamins away. I'll miss that sugary, fruity taste - but, according to my doctor, that's about all I'll be missing.

At my appointment last Wednesday, my doctor bluntly informed me that my multivitamins weren't doing a darn thing for me. Though the idea of getting just a little bit more of all the most important vitamins may seem like a foolproof idea, she informed me that more isn't necessarily better. Few people have vitamin deficiencies. Moreover, for those who do have a deficiency in, say, Vitamin D or Vitamin B12, those little grape-shaped gummies - or any multivitamin, for that matter - don't pack anywhere near enough of any one vitamin to correct that deficiency, she explained.

That could be passed off as just one doctor's opinion ... except there are a plethora of studies out there that back up her argument. A much buzzed-about study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in 2013, for instance, came to this clear-cut conclusion after reviewing three trials of multivitamin supplements and 24 trials of "single or paired vitamins that randomly assigned more than 40,000 participants":

Evidence is sufficient to advise against routine supplementation, and we should translate null and negative findings into action. The message is simple: Most supplements do not prevent chronic disease or death, their use is not justified, and they should be avoided. This message is especially true for the general population with no clear evidence of micronutrient deficiencies, who represent most supplement users in the United States and in other countries. [ Annals of Internal Medicine ]

Specifically, the study found vitamins to be ineffective when it comes to reducing the risk of heart disease, cancer, declines in cognitive ability, and premature death. And, Quartz noted , some vitamins can even be "harmful in high enough quantities":

Our bodies can easily get rid of excess vitamins that dissolve in water, like vitamin C, all the B vitamins, and folate, but they hold onto the ones that are fat soluble. Buildup of vitamin A, K, E, or D - all of which are necessary in low levels - can cause problems with your heart and kidneys, and can even be fatal in some cases. [ Quartz ]

Though the FDA says on its vitamins information page that there "are many good reasons to consider taking supplements," it indicates vitamins only "may be useful when they fill a specific identified nutrient gap that cannot or is not otherwise being met by the individuals' intake of food." The CDC estimated in 2014 that "nine out of 10 people in the U.S. are indeed getting enough of some important vitamins and nutrients."

So why are so many Americans still taking multivitamins? Steven Salzberg, a medicine professor at Johns Hopkins, told NPR multivitamins are "a great example of how our intuition leads us astray." "It seems reasonable that if a little bit of something is good for you, then more should be better for you. It's not true," Salzberg said. "Supplementation with extra vitamins or micronutrients doesn't really benefit you if you don't have a deficiency."

Americans' abysmally bad diets also give vitamin companies some marketing ammunition. When the average American is eating just one or two servings of fruits and veggies a day (experts recommend as many as 10 servings of fruits and veggies a day for maximum benefits), a little boost of vitamins might seem like a good idea. But popping a pill isn't going to make up for all those lost servings. "Food contains thousands of phyto-chemicals, fiber, and more that work together to promote good health that cannot be duplicated with a pill," said nutritionist Karen Ansel.

And if it's those tasty gummy vitamins we're falling back on , there's an even better chance we're not offsetting our sugar- and fat-laden diets. The women's gummy multivitamins I was taking pack three grams of sugar per gummy. A serving size is two gummies. Even before breakfast, I was consuming six grams of sugar - almost a quarter of the American Heart Association's recommended maximum sugar intake for women.

So why, if there are so many signs pointing to no on multivitamins, had I never really heard any of them until that fateful visit to the doctor? Pediatrician Paul Offit explained in a 2013 New York Times opinion article that it might have something to do with a bill introduced in the 1970s:

In December 1972, concerned that people were consuming larger and larger quantities of vitamins, the FDA announced a plan to regulate vitamin supplements containing more than 150 percent of the recommended daily allowance. Vitamin makers would now have to prove that these "megavitamins" were safe before selling them. Not surprisingly, the vitamin industry saw this as a threat, and set out to destroy the bill. In the end, it did far more than that.

Industry executives recruited William Proxmire, a Democratic senator from Wisconsin, to introduce a bill preventing the FDA from regulating megavitamins. [ Paul Offit, via The New York Times ]

That bill became law in 1976 . Some 30 years later, almost a third of Americans were still taking a daily multivitamin. But count this gal out.

[Mar 23, 2017] A "good start" at the expence of sick people for Collectly a new medical debt collection startuo -- they now collect twise larger share of debt then before. The founder is a former CEO of a debt collection agency and collected over $100 million before

Notable quotes:
"... our intelligent algorithm using state of the art innovative techniques of automation innovation disruption innovation disruption automatically sends orders to police and judges to prepare and serve pay or stay warrants, making sure your debtor goes to jail for their crime! ..."
Mar 23, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

"All 51 startups that debuted at Y Combinator W17 Demo Day 2" [ TechCrunch ] ( day one ). This is a good one:

Collectly helps doctors collect 2x's more debt than they have before. It's a business with $280 billion sent to debt but the debt collectors only collect on average up to 20%. The founder is a former CEO of a debt collection agency and collected over $100 million before

The acerbic Pinboard comments:
D Pinboard * Follow

@Pinboard

YC so far: surreptitious recording of phone calls, bus tickets for
the starving, debt collection, go live in a box, cow collars,
chatbots

11:41 PM-21 Mar 2017

He's not wrong. (And any time you encounter an online company with a cute name that's also an adverb, like collectly , run a mile, because it's a startup that wants to harm you. Kidding! I think .)

cocomaan , March 22, 2017 at 4:03 pm

Collectly is some really depressing stuff. Wow. More from their website.

3. Transparent collection
Our intelligent software automatically reaches out to customers that didn't pay in time, so you will never need to manually chase them again. And you can see every action on every case.

Totaly fair.

Totaly fair? I had to read it twice. Is that a typo? Or does it mean something?

Next up: our intelligent algorithm using state of the art innovative techniques of automation innovation disruption innovation disruption automatically sends orders to police and judges to prepare and serve pay or stay warrants, making sure your debtor goes to jail for their crime!

Edit: Weird, this went in the wrong place. Oh well.

[Mar 22, 2017] The Men Who Stole the World

Notable quotes:
"... History will look back at us with the same wonder that we look back on the mad excesses of certain nations founded in devotion to extreme, almost other-worldly, ideologies of the last century. ..."
"... Apparently the slashing of health benefits for the unfortunate is not severe enough in the proposed Trump/Ryan plan. Our GOP house neo-liberals are enthusiastic to unleash the wonders of the cure-all deregulated market on the American public, again. Like a dog returns to its vomit. ..."
Mar 22, 2017 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
"The problem of the last three decades is not the 'vicissitudes of the marketplace,' but rather deliberate actions by the government to redistribute income from the rest of us to the one percent. This pattern of government action shows up in all areas of government policy."

Dean Baker

"When the modern corporation acquires power over markets, power in the community, power over the state and power over belief, it is a political instrument, different in degree but not in kind from the state itself. To hold otherwise - to deny the political character of the modern corporation - is not merely to avoid the reality.

It is to disguise the reality. The victims of that disguise are those we instruct in error."

John Kenneth Galbraith

And unfortunately the working class victims of that disguise are going to be receiving the consequences of their folly, and then some.

Secure in their monopolies and key positions with regard to reform and the law, the corporations are further acquiring access to the protections of the rights of individuals as well, it appears, at least according to Citizens United .

Maybe our leaders and their self-proclaimed technocrats will finally do the right thing. I personally doubt it, except that if they do it will probably be by accident.

More likely, the right thing will eventually come about the old-fashioned way- under the duress of a crisis, and the growing protests of the much neglected and long suffering.

History will look back at us with the same wonder that we look back on the mad excesses of certain nations founded in devotion to extreme, almost other-worldly, ideologies of the last century.

... ... ...

Apparently the slashing of health benefits for the unfortunate is not severe enough in the proposed Trump/Ryan plan. Our GOP house neo-liberals are enthusiastic to unleash the wonders of the cure-all deregulated market on the American public, again. Like a dog returns to its vomit.

Better if they start breaking up corporate health monopolies and embrace real reform at the sources of the soaring costs. The US pays far, far too much for drugs and healthcare, and deregulating the markets is not the solution. We do have the example of the rest of the developed world for what to do about this. It is called 'single payer.'

But players keep on playing. And politicians and their enablers in the professions will not see what their big money donors do not wish them to see. And that is one of their few bipartisan efforts.

Might one suggest that our political animals stop trying to do all the reforming and cost controls bottom up, while applying the stimulus top down? That approach they have been flogging to no avail for about thirty years is a recipe for a dying middle class.

Here is a short video from the Bernie Sanders WV town hall that shows The Face of American Desperation. By the way, the governor of West Virginia is a Democrat. He wasn't there.

...

[Mar 17, 2017] The Affordable Care Act came nowhere close to universal healthcare insurance coverage:

Mar 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... March 16, 2017 at 06:41 AM , 2017 at 06:41 AM
The Affordable Care Act came nowhere close to universal healthcare insurance coverage:

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-257.pdf

September 13, 2016

People Without Health Insurance Coverage, 2007-2015

(Thousands without insurance for entire year)

2007 ( 44,088)
2008 ( 44,780)
2009 ( 48,985) Obama

2010 ( 49,951) (Affordable Care Act)
2011 ( 48,613)
2012 ( 47,951)
2013 ( 41,795)
2014 ( 32,968)

2015 ( 28,966)

anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , March 16, 2017 at 07:26 AM
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-257.pdf

September 13, 2016

People Without Health Insurance Coverage, 2007-2015

(Percent without insurance for entire year)

2007 ( 14.7)
2008 ( 14.9)
2009 ( 16.1) Obama

2010 ( 16.3) (Affordable Care Act)
2011 ( 15.7)
2012 ( 15.4)
2013 ( 13.3)
2014 ( 10.4)

2015 ( 9.1)

[Mar 17, 2017] The difficulties that many families have paying for cancer treatments. The piece points out that even middle income families with good insurance may still face co-payments of tens of thousands of dollars a year

Mar 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
anne : March 16, 2017 at 06:19 AM

, 2017 at 06:19 AM
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/government-granted-patent-monopolies-cause-people-to-skip-cancer-treatments

March 16, 2017

Government Granted Patent Monopolies Cause People to Skip Cancer Treatments

National Public Radio had an interesting segment * on the difficulties that many families have paying for cancer treatments. The piece points out that even middle income families with good insurance may still face co-payments of tens of thousands of dollars a year.

One item not mentioned in this piece is that the reason the prices of new cancer drugs is high is that the government grants companies patent monopolies. This is done as a way to finance research. In almost all cases these drugs would be available for less than a thousand dollars ** for a year's treatment if the drugs were sold in a free market.

While it is necessary to pay for research, there are more modern and efficient mechanisms than patent monopolies (see "Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer" *** ).

* http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/15/520110742/as-drug-costs-soar-people-delay-or-skip-cancer-treatments

** http://www.thebodypro.com/content/78658/1000-fold-mark-up-for-drug-prices-in-high-income-c.html

*** http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

-- Dean Baker

anne -> anne... , March 16, 2017 at 06:20 AM
http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

October, 2016

Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
By Dean Baker

The Old Technology and Inequality Scam: The Story of Patents and Copyrights

One of the amazing lines often repeated by people in policy debates is that, as a result of technology, we are seeing income redistributed from people who work for a living to the people who own the technology. While the redistribution part of the story may be mostly true, the problem is that the technology does not determine who "owns" the technology. The people who write the laws determine who owns the technology.

Specifically, patents and copyrights give their holders monopolies on technology or creative work for their duration. If we are concerned that money is going from ordinary workers to people who hold patents and copyrights, then one policy we may want to consider is shortening and weakening these monopolies. But policy has gone sharply in the opposite direction over the last four decades, as a wide variety of measures have been put into law that make these protections longer and stronger. Thus, the redistribution from people who work to people who own the technology should not be surprising - that was the purpose of the policy.

If stronger rules on patents and copyrights produced economic dividends in the form of more innovation and more creative output, then this upward redistribution might be justified. But the evidence doesn't indicate there has been any noticeable growth dividend associated with this upward redistribution. In fact, stronger patent protection seems to be associated with slower growth.

Before directly considering the case, it is worth thinking for a minute about what the world might look like if we had alternative mechanisms to patents and copyrights, so that the items now subject to these monopolies could be sold in a free market just like paper cups and shovels.

The biggest impact would be in prescription drugs. The breakthrough drugs for cancer, hepatitis C, and other diseases, which now sell for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, would instead sell for a few hundred dollars. No one would have to struggle to get their insurer to pay for drugs or scrape together the money from friends and family. Almost every drug would be well within an affordable price range for a middle-class family, and covering the cost for poorer families could be easily managed by governments and aid agencies.

The same would be the case with various medical tests and treatments. Doctors would not have to struggle with a decision about whether to prescribe an expensive scan, which might be the best way to detect a cancerous growth or other health issue, or to rely on cheaper but less reliable technology. In the absence of patent protection even the most cutting edge scans would be reasonably priced.

Health care is not the only area that would be transformed by a free market in technology and creative work. Imagine that all the textbooks needed by college students could be downloaded at no cost over the web and printed out for the price of the paper. Suppose that a vast amount of new books, recorded music, and movies was freely available on the web.

People or companies who create and innovate deserve to be compensated, but there is little reason to believe that the current system of patent and copyright monopolies is the best way to support their work. It's not surprising that the people who benefit from the current system are reluctant to have the efficiency of patents and copyrights become a topic for public debate, but those who are serious about inequality have no choice. These forms of property claims have been important drivers of inequality in the last four decades.

The explicit assumption behind the steps over the last four decades to increase the strength and duration of patent and copyright protection is that the higher prices resulting from increased protection will be more than offset by an increased incentive for innovation and creative work. Patent and copyright protection should be understood as being like very large tariffs. These protections can often the raise the price of protected items by several multiples of the free market price, making them comparable to tariffs of several hundred or even several thousand percent. The resulting economic distortions are comparable to what they would be if we imposed tariffs of this magnitude.

The justification for granting these monopoly protections is that the increased innovation and creative work that is produced as a result of these incentives exceeds the economic costs from patent and copyright monopolies. However, there is remarkably little evidence to support this assumption. While the cost of patent and copyright protection in higher prices is apparent, even if not well-measured, there is little evidence of a substantial payoff in the form of a more rapid pace of innovation or more and better creative work....

Tom aka Rusty said in reply to anne... , -1
I'm trying to imagine why anyone would write a 900 page textbook, plus add-ons (test bank, solutions manual) and then give it away.

I have refused to co-author several times because the work is agonizing, the revisions never ending, and only a few texts make anyone rich.

[Mar 14, 2017] No wonder the unemployed increasingly kill themselves, or others. The whole economy tells them, indirectly but unmistakably, that their human value does not exist.

Mar 14, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
Noni Mausa : March 13, 2017 at 04:13 PM

What the wealthy right wing has decided in the past 40 years is that they don't need citizens. At least, not as many citizens as are actually citizens. What they are comfortable with is a large population of free range people, like the longhorn cattle of the old west, who care for themselves as best they can, and are convenient to be used when the "ranchers" want them.

Of course, this is their approach to foreign workers, also, but for the purpose of maintaining a domestic society within which the domestic rich can comfortably live, only native born Americans really suit.

With the development of high productivity production, farming, and hands-off war technology the need for a large number of citizens is reduced. The wealthy can sit in their towers and arrange the world as suits them, and use the rest of the world as a "farm team" to supply skills and labour as needed.

Proof of this is the fact that they talk about the economy's need for certain skills, training, services and so on, but never about the inherent value of citizens independent of their utility to someone else.

No wonder the unemployed increasingly kill themselves, or others. The whole economy tells them, indirectly but unmistakably, that their human value does not exist. ken melvin : , March 13, 2017 at 04:48 PM

Can someone get me from $300 billion tax cut for the rich to getting the markets work for health care?
ken melvin : , March 13, 2017 at 04:54 PM
It isn't about 'markets', never is. It is about extraction of as much profit as possible using whatever means necessary. This is what the CEOs of insurance companies get payed to do. Insurance policies they don't pay out, the ones Ryan is referring to, are as good as any for scoring.
libezkova : , March 13, 2017 at 07:09 PM
"It isn't about 'markets', never is. It is about extraction of as much profit as possible using whatever means necessary. This is what the CEOs of insurance companies get payed to do."

What surprises me most in this discussion is how Obamacare suddenly changed from a dismal and expensive failure enriching private insurers to a "good deal".

Lesseevilism in action ;-)

ilsm : , March 13, 2017 at 01:41 PM
When the PPACA band-aid is pulled off the US health care mess the gusher will be blamed on "the Russians running the White House".

Cuba does better than the US despite being economically sanctioned for 55 years. Distribution of artificially scarce health care resources is utterly broken. This failed market is financed by a mix of 'for profit' insurance and medicare (which sublets a big part to 'for profit' insurance).

Coverage!!! PPACA added taxpayers' money to finance a bigger failed market. It did nothing to address the market fail!

Single payer would not address the market failure. Single payer would put the government financing most of the failed market.

Democrats have put band-aids on severe bleeds since Truman made the cold war more important than Americans.

At least we know what Trump stands for!

jeff fisher said in reply to ilsm... , March 13, 2017 at 01:58 PM
Cuba is the shining example of how doing the first 20% of healthcare well for everyone gets you 80% of the benefit cheap.

The US is the shining example of how refusing to do the first 20% of healthcare well for everyone only gets you 80% of the benefit no matter how much you spend.

jonny bakho : , March 13, 2017 at 12:09 PM
Mark's very nice argument does nothing to address The Official Trump Counter Argument:

[Shorter version: Obamacare is doomed, going to blow up. Any replacement is therefore better than Obamacare; Facts seldom win arguments against beliefs]

"During a listening session on healthcare at the White House on Monday, President Donald Trump said Republicans "are putting themselves in a very bad position by repealing Obamacare."

Trump said that his administration is "committed to repealing and replacing" Obamacare and that the House Obamacare replacement will lead to more choice at a lower cost. He further stated, "[T]he press is making Obamacare look so good all, of a sudden. I'm watching the news. It looks so good. They're showing these reports about this one gets so much, and this one gets so much. First of all, it covers very few people, and it's imploding. And '17 will be the worst year. And I said it once; I'll say it again: because Obama's gone."

He continued, "And the Republicans, frankly, are putting themselves in a very bad position - I tell this to Tom Price all the time - by repealing Obamacare. Because people aren't gonna see the truly devastating effects of Obamacare. They're not gonna see the devastation. In '17 and '18 and '19, it'll be gone by then. It'll - whether we do it or not, it'll be imploded off the map."

He added, "So, the press is making it look so wonderful, so that if we end it, everyone's going to say, 'Oh, remember how great Obamacare used to be? Remember how wonderful it used to be? It was so great.' It's a little bit like President Obama. When he left, people liked him. When he was here, people didn't like him so much. That's the way life goes. That's human nature."

Trump further stated that while letting Obamacare collapse on its own was the best thing to do politically, it wasn't the right thing to do for the country.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/03/13/trump-republicans-putting-bad-position-repealing-obamacare/

[Mar 07, 2017] Americans' Challenges with Health Care Costs

Notable quotes:
"... Three in ten (29 percent) Americans report problems paying medical bills, and these problems come with real consequences for some. For example, among those reporting problems paying medical bills, seven in ten (73 percent) report cutting back spending on food, clothing, or basic household items. ..."
"... Challenges affording care also result in some Americans saying they have delayed or skipped care due to costs in the past year, including 27 percent who say they have put off or postponed getting health care they needed, 23 percent who say they have skipped a recommended medical test or treatment, and 21 percent who say they have not filled a prescription for a medicine. ..."
Mar 07, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
anne : March 06, 2017 at 11:40 AM , 2017 at 11:40 AM
http://kff.org/health-costs/poll-finding/data-note-americans-challenges-with-health-care-costs/

March 2, 2017

Americans' Challenges with Health Care Costs
By Bianca DiJulio, Ashley Kirzinger, Bryan Wu, and Mollyann Brodie

As lawmakers debate the future of the country's health care system and outline plans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, much of the current debate surrounds how to change or eliminate the health insurance marketplaces developed under the ACA where individuals eligible for financial assistance could compare plans and purchase insurance. While this is an important source of coverage for some, the vast majority of Americans with insurance have coverage from other sources, such as an employer, Medicaid or Medicare, and the public's top priority for lawmakers is reducing what Americans pay for health care. Two recent Kaiser Health Tracking Polls take stock of the public's current experience with and worries about health care costs, including their ability to afford premiums and deductibles. For the most part, the majority of the public does not have difficulty paying for care, but significant minorities do, and even more worry about their ability to afford care in the future. Some of the key findings include:

Four in ten (43 percent) adults with health insurance say they have difficulty affording their deductible, and roughly a third say they have trouble affording their premiums and other cost sharing; all shares have increased since 2015.

Three in ten (29 percent) Americans report problems paying medical bills, and these problems come with real consequences for some. For example, among those reporting problems paying medical bills, seven in ten (73 percent) report cutting back spending on food, clothing, or basic household items.

Challenges affording care also result in some Americans saying they have delayed or skipped care due to costs in the past year, including 27 percent who say they have put off or postponed getting health care they needed, 23 percent who say they have skipped a recommended medical test or treatment, and 21 percent who say they have not filled a prescription for a medicine.

Even for those who may not have had difficulty affording care or paying medical bills, there is still a widespread worry about being able to afford needed health care services, with half of the public expressing worry about this.

Health care-related worries and problems paying for care are particularly prevalent among the uninsured, individuals with lower incomes, and those in poorer health; but women and members of racial minority groups are also more likely than their peers to report these issues....

Peter K. -> anne... , March 06, 2017 at 11:48 AM
"For example, among those reporting problems paying medical bills, seven in ten (73 percent) report cutting back spending on food, clothing, or basic household items."

That's what the neoliberals like our dear trolls kthomas and PGL want.

They're in the pocket of the lobbyists.

[Mar 07, 2017] Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care

Mar 07, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
anne -> anne... March 06, 2017 at 05:11 PM , 2017 at 05:11 PM
https://web.stanford.edu/~jay/health_class/Readings/Lecture01/arrow.pdf

December, 1963

Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care
By KENNETH J. ARROW

I. Introduction: Scope and Method

This paper is an exploratory and tentative study of the specific differentia of medical care as the object of normative economics. It is contended here, on the basis of comparison of obvious characteristics of the medical-care industry with the norms of welfare economics, that the special economic problems of medical care can be explained as adaptations to the existence of uncertainty in the incidence of disease and in the efficacy of treatment.

It should be noted that the subject is the medical-care industry, not health. The causal factors in health are many, and the provision of medical care is only one. Particularly at low levels of income, other commodities such as nutrition, shelter, clothing, and sanitation may be much more significant. It is the complex of services that center about the physician, private and group practice, hospitals, and public health, which I propose to discuss.

The focus of discussion will be on the way the operation of the medical-care industry and the efficacy with which it satisfies the needs of society differ from a norm, if at all. The "norm" that the economist usually uses for the purposes of such comparisons is the operation of a competitive model, that is, the flows of services that would be offered and purchased and the prices that would be paid for them if each individual in the market offered or purchased services at the going prices as if his decisions had no influence over them, and the going prices were such that the amounts of services which were available equalled the total amounts which other individuals were willing to purchase, with no imposed restrictions on supply or demand.

The interest in the competitive model stems partly from its presumed descriptive power and partly from its implications for economic efficiency. In particular, we can state the following well-known proposition (First Optimality Theorem)....

a

[Mar 07, 2017] Notes on US healthdoesntcare

Mar 07, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
libezkova : March 06, 2017 at 08:41 PM

The problems with US Healthdoesn'tcare started around 1980.

What we observe now (completely broken and corrupt to the core system) is the result of long term term slow deterioration.

Now the US Healthdoesn'tcare in many cases represent the completely opposite practice to healthcare -- health racket.

And they even created their specialized firms that help to extract maximum dollars for private providers.

An interesting example of how pervert the USA healthcare system became in the USA under neoliberalism is proliferation of private ambulance services which are technically are always "out of network" and after providing services (often non-essential and equal to the ride to ER, but mostly unavoidable as soon as 911 service or traffic police is involved, especially for those who are in this situation for the first time ) they bill an outrageous amount to lemmings who do not know how to fight the system.

Average private ambulance bill is probably around $5K in the USA. And that if this was just a ride to ER.

If you have insurance it will pay around the same as Medicare and your bill will be around ~$3.5K

This so called differential billing in now outlawed in a couple of states (CA, partially NY), but still is legal in most other states.

This industry also creates specialized collector agencies that deal almost exclusively with collecting ambulance bills like Revenue Guard - Ambulance Billing & Financial Management ( https://www.revenue-guard.com/). And look who is at the helm of this wonder of neoliberal health industry (pretty profitable -- currently bills over 120 million in revenue annually taking in probably lion share of that) -- James J. Loures, President & CEO

James began his career as a broker on Wall Street. In 1984 he left the financial world and founded MultiCare, which grew to be a largest private EMS operation in the Northeast operating 140 ambulances in the New Jersey, New York, and Philadelphia region.

Is not neoliberalism wonderful social system ?

So when somebody is taking about destruction of the US health care system by Trump one needs to understand that there is not much left to destruct. Most of the heavy lifting was done by previous administrations.

Including Obama with his coward method of betrayal of his voters and serving medical industrial complex.

Trump is bad, but to claim that because of that Obama was good is silly. He was just a perfect example of neoliberal "bait and switch" politician.

B.T. : , March 06, 2017 at 07:51 PM
So it's like the ACA?

Or it's terrible?

Make up your minds neoliberals. Since you didn't want single payer.

libezkova -> B.T.... , March 06, 2017 at 09:12 PM
It's estimated that at least 3 percent of all health care spending – roughly $68 billion – is lost to fraud and billing errors annually. ( http://khn.org/morning-breakout/health-care-billing-errors/ )

"thousands of providers turned to more expensive Medicare billing codes, while spurning use of cheaper ones."

Private medical industry and insurance are symbiotic in their desire to milk patients out of their money in the most efficient way possible.

And while those "death panel" decisions are very difficult indeed, fraud is rampant and they are very successful in over-billing patients.

This symbiosis is very similar in nature to what we observe with body shops and car insurance.

[Mar 06, 2017] Something about the meaning of life under neoliberalism

Notable quotes:
"... Probably the most telling example on neoliberal transformation is transformation of healthcare. ..."
"... Mulligan's research shows how "market values come to displace competing notions of what is "good" or "right" in health care" (Mulligan 2010:308–309). She argues that quality in health care is not only a technical matter for evaluating the performance of systems, but, more importantly, it is a particular epistemology, a specific way of knowing. ..."
"... Managing for-profit health care systems successfully requires innovative mechanisms of population control (Abadía-Barrero et al. 2011), including people's acceptance of market principles. ..."
"... In this historical context, what is crucial is the understanding of the relationship between techniques of governance and the production of social inequality (i.e., an ideological domination reflected in people's support for political practices that are antithetical to their interests). ..."
"... James began his career as a broker on Wall Street. In 1984 he left the financial world and founded MultiCare, which grew to be a largest private EMS operation in the Northeast operating 140 ambulances in the New Jersey, New York, and Philadelphia region. ..."
Mar 03, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
libezkova : March 03, 2017 at 03:51 PM
Something about the "meaning of life" under neoliberalism

Probably the most telling example on neoliberal transformation is transformation of healthcare.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/maq.12161/full

== quote ==

Several anthropologists have written about how "market ideology and corporate structures are shaping medicine and health care delivery" (Horton et al. 2014; Lamphere 2005; Rylko-Bauer and Farmer 2002:476).

Mulligan's research shows how "market values come to displace competing notions of what is "good" or "right" in health care" (Mulligan 2010:308–309). She argues that quality in health care is not only a technical matter for evaluating the performance of systems, but, more importantly, it is a particular epistemology, a specific way of knowing.

The information that is produced in technical public health policy terms, and, I would add, in technical legal terms, is "a knowledge-making practice that creates information about the health care system and for managing the system in new ways" (Mulligan 2010:309).

Managing for-profit health care systems successfully requires innovative mechanisms of population control (Abadía-Barrero et al. 2011), including people's acceptance of market principles.

In this historical context, what is crucial is the understanding of the relationship between techniques of governance and the production of social inequality (i.e., an ideological domination reflected in people's support for political practices that are antithetical to their interests).

According to Fassin (2009), Foucault's undeveloped concept of a Politics of Life can illuminate how in regulating populations and normalizing societies, moral ideas about the meaning of life and about how life is valued are enforced.

An understanding of moral definitions of human life must take into account how history becomes embodied, which then illuminates the political tensions that support differential values by which life is organized, represented, and responded to, for example through public policy (Fassin 2007).

== end of quote ==

See also

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsoZeg6CDRY

An interesting example of how pervert the healthcare system became in the USA under neoliberalism is proliferation of private ambulance services which are technically always "out of network" and after providing services (often non-essential) bill outrageous amount to lemmings who do not know how to fight the system. Average private ambulance bill is probably around $5K in the USA. If you have insurance your bill will be around ~$3.5K

This so called differential billing in now outlawed in a couple of states, but still is legal in most states.

This industry also creates specialized collector agencies that deal almost exclusively with collecting ambulance bills like Revenue Guard - Ambulance Billing & Financial Management ( https://www.revenue-guard.com/)

== quote ==

Revenue Guard Executive Team

James J. Loures, President & CEO
James began his career as a broker on Wall Street. In 1984 he left the financial world and founded MultiCare, which grew to be a largest private EMS operation in the Northeast operating 140 ambulances in the New Jersey, New York, and Philadelphia region. After merging MultiCare with the publicly traded Rural-Metro in 2001, James then founded Revenue-Guard in 2004. The company has grown to be a premier provider of EMS revenue cycle and management services in the hospital marketplace, and currently bills over 120 million in revenue annually for their clients. James studied economics at Rutgers University .

Steven J. Loures, Co-Founder and Chief Operations Officer
Steven Loures has 30 years of experience in the Emergency Medical Services / Mobile Health Services field and is considered an expert in revenue cycle, compliance and improving ambulance service operating margins. His real-world revenue cycle knowledge combined with 20 years of managing ambulance operations uniquely differentiates himself with a comprehensive industry perspective. His leadership has provided client confidence to initiate targeted change knowing his proven track record. He is the point of contact for all new and existing clients.

Prior to his current role Steven was the New Jersey Division General Manager of Rural Metro Ambulance. Rural Metro is a large nationwide provider of Emergency Medical Services. He was responsible for oversight of 350 employees, 6 operating locations in three states including New Jersey, Pennsylvania and New York City. Additionally, Steven's responsibilities included all budgets, revenue cycle management, billing compliance, and Sarbanes Oxley financial controls.

Prior to Rural Metro Steven was a Commercial Lear Jet Pilot. The operation provided nationwide long distance critical care air ambulance services. Steven graduated from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach Florida with his Federal Aviation Administration Commercial, Multi-Engine, and Instrument ratings. Early in his career path Steven was a certified NJ paramedic at age 21 and one of the youngest certified paramedics in New Jersey.

Stephanie Dall, Vice President of Finance
Stephanie joined Revenue-Guard in 2005 and is responsible for Finance, Administration, Compliance and client reporting. She has 20 years experience in finance and administration with Rural-Metro Inc. the leading EMS provider in the nation. Stephanie develops budgets and establish performance metrics for Revenue-Guard. Stephanie has a bachelors degree in accounting from Rutgers University.

Jennifer Aldana, Vice President of Revenue Cycle
Jennifer joined Revenue-Guard in 2007 to manage and run the billing services division. She manages a staff of 60 billing specialist processing over $120M in ambulance claims annually. Jennifer is a former revenue cycle manager at Rural-Metro The country's largest EMS service based in Scottsdale, Arizona. She handles all system customizations, ePCR integration and client support services. Jen studied at Pace University in New York City.

[Mar 03, 2017] U.S. Medical Coding System

Notable quotes:
"... Successful medical coders learn and follow coding guidelines and use them to their benefit. Often if a claim is denied incorrectly, medical coders and billers use coding guidelines as a way to appeal the denial and get the claim paid. ..."
"... Each diagnosis code has to be coded to the highest level of specificity , so the insurance company knows exactly what the patient's diagnosis was. ..."
"... I've helpfully underlined places where an "unusual opportunity for profit" might be spotted and amplified; after all, it's not the coder's job to set policy in borderline cases; that's for management. ..."
"... A pair of transposed digits in a medical identification number was the difference between insurance coverage for Mike Dziedzic and the seemingly never-ending hounding for payment by the hospitals that cared for his dying wife. The astute eye of a medical billing advocate who Dziedzic hired for help caught the innocuous mistake - the sole reason his insurance company had refused to pay more than $100,000 in claims that had piled up and why collectors were now at his doorstep. ..."
"... Had it remained unnoticed - as often happens to patients faced with daunting medical debt - Dziedzic said, he most surely would have lost his Rifle home, his way of life and had little choice but to live in bankruptcy. ..."
"... thousands of providers turned to more expensive Medicare billing codes, while spurning use of cheaper ones. They did so despite little evidence that Medicare patients as a whole are older or sicker than in past years, or that the amount of time doctors spent treating them on average was rising. ..."
"... More than 7,500 physicians billed the two top paying codes for three out of four office visits in 2008, a sharp rise from the numbers of doctors who did so at the start of the decade. Officials said such changes in billing can signal overcharges occurring on a broad scale. Medical groups deny that. ..."
"... The most lucrative codes are billed two to three times more often in some cities than in others, costly variations government officials said they could not explain or justify. In some instances, higher billing rates appear to be associated with the burgeoning use of electronic medical records and billing software. ..."
"... eight of 10 bills its members have audited from hospitals and health care providers contain errors. ..."
"... It's estimated that at least 3 percent of all health care spending – roughly $68 billion – is lost to fraud and billing errors annually. ..."
"... Accounts of medical billing errors vary widely. While the American Medical Association estimated that 7.1 percent of paid claims in 2013 contained an error, a 2014 NerdWallet study found mistakes in 49 percent of Medicare claims. Groups that review bills on patients' behalf, including Medical Billing Advocates of America and CoPatient, put the error rate closer to 75 or 80 percent. ..."
"... Most services don't get paid based on ICD, they get paid based on HCPCs/CPTs (healthcare procedure codes) which is what is shown in the nerdwallet image. Also revenue codes will be used for facility services (such as the room charge in image). ..."
"... ICD-Diaganosis codes just tell you what conditions the provider diagnosed you with. ICD-Procedure codes are sometimes used for payments but usually only on inpatient claims. ..."
Mar 03, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
From my review of Akerlof and Shiller's Phishing for Phools , November 25, 2015 :

As businesspeople choose what line of business to undertake - as well as where they expand, or contract, their existing business - they (like customers approaching checkout) pick off the best opportunities. This too creates an equilibrium. Any opportunities for unusual profits are quickly taken off the table, leading to a situation where such opportunities are hard to find. This principle, with the concept of equilibrium it entails, lies at the heart of economics.

The principle also applies to phishing for phools. That means that if we have some weakness or other - some way in which we can be phished for fools for more than the usual profit - in the phishing equilibrium someone will take advantage of it . Among all those business persons figuratively arriving at the checkout counter, looking around, and deciding where to spend their investment dollars, some will look to see if there are unusual profits from phishing us for phools. And if they see such an opportunity for profit, that will (again figuratively) be the "checkout lane" they choose.

And economies will have a "phishing equilibrium," in which every chance for profit more than the ordinary will be taken up.

We might summarize Akerlof and Shiller as "If a system enables fraud, fraud will happen," or, in stronger form, "If a system enables fraud, fraud will already have happened."[1] And as we shall see, plenty of "opportunities for unusual profits" exist in medical coding.

... ... ...

Here is the medical coding process, from the coders perspective, as described by MB-Guide, a site for aspiring medical coders :

Successful medical coders learn and follow coding guidelines and use them to their benefit. Often if a claim is denied incorrectly, medical coders and billers use coding guidelines as a way to appeal the denial and get the claim paid.

Hmm. "Their" benefit. Here are the guidelines:

I've helpfully underlined places where an "unusual opportunity for profit" might be spotted and amplified; after all, it's not the coder's job to set policy in borderline cases; that's for management. The Denver Post gives a horrific example:

Miscoding Fictions, frauds found to abound in medical bills

A pair of transposed digits in a medical identification number was the difference between insurance coverage for Mike Dziedzic and the seemingly never-ending hounding for payment by the hospitals that cared for his dying wife. The astute eye of a medical billing advocate who Dziedzic hired for help caught the innocuous mistake - the sole reason his insurance company had refused to pay more than $100,000 in claims that had piled up and why collectors were now at his doorstep.

Had it remained unnoticed - as often happens to patients faced with daunting medical debt - Dziedzic said, he most surely would have lost his Rifle home, his way of life and had little choice but to live in bankruptcy.

Finally, there's "upcoding," and if you are reminded of "upselling" you are exactly right. The Center for Public Integrity :

But the Center's analysis of Medicare claims from 2001 through 2010 shows that over time, thousands of providers turned to more expensive Medicare billing codes, while spurning use of cheaper ones. They did so despite little evidence that Medicare patients as a whole are older or sicker than in past years, or that the amount of time doctors spent treating them on average was rising.

More than 7,500 physicians billed the two top paying codes for three out of four office visits in 2008, a sharp rise from the numbers of doctors who did so at the start of the decade. Officials said such changes in billing can signal overcharges occurring on a broad scale. Medical groups deny that.

The most lucrative codes are billed two to three times more often in some cities than in others, costly variations government officials said they could not explain or justify. In some instances, higher billing rates appear to be associated with the burgeoning use of electronic medical records and billing software.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I can't quantify the impedance mismatches, the miscoding, and the upcoding. Regardless, medical coding is the key dataflow in the healthcare system :

"Roughly $250 billion is moving through those codes," [says Steve Parente, professor of finance at the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota]. On top of that, about 80% of medical bills contain errors, according to Christie Hudson, vice president of Medical Billing Advocates of America, making already-expensive bills higher. Today's complex medical-billing system, guided by hundreds of pages of procedure codes, allows fraud, abuse and human error to go undetected, Hudson says. "Until the fraud is detected in these bills the cost of health care is just going to increase. It's not accidental. We've been fighting these overcharges they continue to happen and we continue to get them removed from bills." These errors, which are hard to detect because medical bills are written in a mysterious code, can result in overcharges that run from a few dollars to tens of thousands.

That "mysterious code" is (now) ICD-10, and it's the mystery plus the profit motive that creates the phishing equilibrium. Kaiser Health News quotes the Denver Post :

Experts say there are tens of thousands more like Dziedzic across the country with strangling medical debts.

Medical Billing Advocates of America, a trade group in Salem, Va., says that eight of 10 bills its members have audited from hospitals and health care providers contain errors.

It's estimated that at least 3 percent of all health care spending – roughly $68 billion – is lost to fraud and billing errors annually. Some say new reform laws will only make things worse." Others say that errors occur largely because of "the complexity of deciphering bills and claims weighted down by complex codes."

Even if the "trade group" is talking it's book, it's still quite a book . NBC :

Accounts of medical billing errors vary widely. While the American Medical Association estimated that 7.1 percent of paid claims in 2013 contained an error, a 2014 NerdWallet study found mistakes in 49 percent of Medicare claims. Groups that review bills on patients' behalf, including Medical Billing Advocates of America and CoPatient, put the error rate closer to 75 or 80 percent.

Gee, I wonder if the errors are randomly distributed?

Neoliberal "Consumer"-Driven Solutions

My guts have started to gripe, so I won't go into detail about how you too, the citizen , can learn medical billing codes if you want to dispute your bill. See this cheery post from NerdWallet on "How to Read Your Medical Bill :

Once you have the itemized medical bill for your care, you're ready to analyze it for mistakes and overcharges.

Your medical bill is going to be chock-full of codes and words you may not understand, so the first step is gathering resources that will translate them into plain English.

Ivy , March 2, 2017 at 2:29 pm

One useful adjunct to the coding discussion concerns other billing details such as meds. There is wide variability in prices charged, and when you see $160 for a single pill (e.g., Hexabrix) or $26 for a single Tylenol, then something is not right. Of course, that does not include any allocation for nurses, pharmacy or other potential costs, since those are rolled into other line items to decipher. When hospital billing reps are asked about the reasonability and basis of their charges, they spout the canned line about being in line with their local competitors.

Why not have some program with mutual insurance companies, removing in theory some of the profit that is driving the typical health care insurers?

TheBellTolling , March 2, 2017 at 2:31 pm

Most services don't get paid based on ICD, they get paid based on HCPCs/CPTs (healthcare procedure codes) which is what is shown in the nerdwallet image. Also revenue codes will be used for facility services (such as the room charge in image).

ICD-Diaganosis codes just tell you what conditions the provider diagnosed you with. ICD-Procedure codes are sometimes used for payments but usually only on inpatient claims.

_________________________________

Additionaly, coding also affects "risk adjustment" in Medicare Advantage and ACA payments and this form of payment does use ICD codes. They use the codes on the claims to determine how "sick"(has conditions that will cost more) each member is and give insurers more or less money based on the average risk scores of their members. Since it relies on coding this system is also subject to gaming.

In Medicare Advantage this is done relative to non-Medicare Advantage population, so if the MA plans are upcoding they get more money from Federal government. In 2010 CMS was given the ability to use some adjustment factors to MA payments to address the issue but I don't really know how effective it is.

In ACA this is done relative to all the other insurers in the individual/small group market(so all the money is changing hands between the insurers). More established plans generally do better since they have more data on members from before ACA to make sure they get coded in addition to resources they probably built from Medicare Advantage. This ends up disadvantaging smaller and newer plans like co-ops.
_____________

[Mar 03, 2017] How to Read Your Medical Bill

Notable quotes:
"... That is not the bill you want. To know what you're actually being charged for, you'll want to call the clinic or hospital and ask for the complete, itemized bill for all services you received, with codes. It is your right to know what you're being charged for, but you will probably have to call and request the detailed charges. The body of that bill should look more like this: ..."
NerdWallet
Clerical errors are more likely than you might think, says Gross, who has seen small mistakes in names and addresses result in huge billing complications. Before you move on, make sure your name, address, insurance information and dates of care are correct on the top of the bill.

header

When you receive inpatient or outpatient care, the first statement you'll receive is most likely a summary bill. Often, but not always, health care providers will send only a summary of charges with a final charge at the end. The body of the bill has a few generic categories and no codes, looking something like this:

summarybill

That is not the bill you want. To know what you're actually being charged for, you'll want to call the clinic or hospital and ask for the complete, itemized bill for all services you received, with codes. It is your right to know what you're being charged for, but you will probably have to call and request the detailed charges. The body of that bill should look more like this:

detailed

Once you have the itemized medical bill for your care, you're ready to analyze it for mistakes and overcharges.

Next, know what the codes are for

Before we get into the nuts and bolts of reading your medical bill, it's worth noting that there's more than one type of code that may be listed on your bill.

svccode

HCPCS Level I, or CPT Codes, are universal, used by all providers in the U.S. and consist of five digits that identify procedures or tests. Often, they are listed as service codes.

svccode2

HCPCS Level II Codes identify supplies or products used during your visit. These codes often start with a letter, rather than a number, but are also referred to as service codes.

[Feb 27, 2017] Stents for stable patients prevent zero heart attacks and extend the lives of patients a grand total of not at all

Notable quotes:
"... Stents for stable patients prevent zero heart attacks and extend the lives of patients a grand total of not at all. ..."
"... It found that atenolol didn't prevent heart attacks or extend life at all; it just lowered blood pressure. ..."
"... Of course, myriad medical innovations improve and save lives, but even as scientists push the cutting edge (and expense) of medicine, the National Center for Health Statistics reported last month that American life expectancy dropped, slightly. There is, though, something that does powerfully and assuredly bolster life expectancy: sustained public-health initiatives... ..."
Feb 27, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
im1dc : February 26, 2017 at 11:18 AM , 2017 at 11:18 AM
If you are looking for a World Class Global Scam - you found it documented below

"Stents for stable patients prevent zero heart attacks and extend the lives of patients a grand total of not at all"

My takeaway: There are HERO Physicians doing WORLD CLASS MEDICINE (read article) but they are greatly outnumbered by those who put the health of their wallet ahead of patient health...so beware and be aware

https://www.propublica.org/article/when-evidence-says-no-but-doctors-say-yes

"When Evidence Says No, But Doctors Say Yes"

'Years after research contradicts common practices, patients continue to demand them and doctors continue to deliver. The result is an epidemic of unnecessary and unhelpful treatment'

by David Epstein, ProPublica...February 22, 2017

*This story was co-published with The Atlantic

"The 21st Century Cures Act - a rare bipartisan bill, pushed by more than 1,400 lobbyists and signed into law in December - lowers evidentiary standards for new uses of drugs and for marketing and approval of some medical devices. Furthermore, last month President Donald Trump scolded the FDA for what he characterized as withholding drugs from dying patients. He promised to slash regulations "big league. It could even be up to 80 percent" of current FDA regulations, he said. To that end, one of the president's top candidates to head the FDA, tech investor Jim O'Neill, has openly advocated for drugs to be approved before they're shown to work. "Let people start using them at their own risk," O'Neill has argued.

Stents for stable patients prevent zero heart attacks and extend the lives of patients a grand total of not at all.

So, while Americans can expect to see more drugs and devices sped to those who need them, they should also expect the problem of therapies based on flimsy evidence to accelerate...

...it's not hard to understand why Sir James Black won a Nobel Prize largely for his 1960s discovery of beta-blockers, which slow the heart rate and reduce blood pressure. The Nobel committee lauded the discovery as the "greatest breakthrough when it comes to pharmaceuticals against heart illness since the discovery of digitalis 200 years ago." In 1981, the FDA approved one of the first beta-blockers, atenolol, after it was shown to dramatically lower blood pressure. Atenolol became such a standard treatment that it was used as a reference drug for comparison with other blood-pressure drugs.

In 1997, a Swedish hospital began a trial of more than 9,000 patients with high blood pressure who were randomly assigned to take either atenolol or a competitor drug that was designed to lower blood pressure for at least four years. The competitor-drug group had fewer deaths (204) than the atenolol group (234) and fewer strokes (232 compared with 309). But the study also found that both drugs lowered blood pressure by the exact same amount, so why wasn't the vaunted atenolol saving more people? That odd result prompted a subsequent study, which compared atenolol with sugar pills. It found that atenolol didn't prevent heart attacks or extend life at all; it just lowered blood pressure. A 2004 analysis of clinical trials - including eight randomized controlled trials comprising more than 24,000 patients - concluded that atenolol did not reduce heart attacks or deaths compared with using no treatment whatsoever; patients on atenolol just had better blood-pressure numbers when they died...

...Replication of results in science was a cause-célèbre last year, due to the growing realization that researchers have been unable to duplicate a lot of high-profile results. A decade ago, Stanford's Ioannidis published a paper warning the scientific community that "Most Published Research Findings Are False." (In 2012, he coauthored a paper showing that pretty much everything in your fridge has been found to both cause and prevent cancer - except bacon, which apparently only causes cancer.) Ioannidis's prescience led his paper to be cited in other scientific articles more than 800 times in 2016 alone. Point being, sensitivity in the scientific community to replication problems is at an all-time high...

Of course, myriad medical innovations improve and save lives, but even as scientists push the cutting edge (and expense) of medicine, the National Center for Health Statistics reported last month that American life expectancy dropped, slightly. There is, though, something that does powerfully and assuredly bolster life expectancy: sustained public-health initiatives...

"Relative risk is just another way of lying."

At the same time, patients and even doctors themselves are sometimes unsure of just how effective common treatments are, or how to appropriately measure and express such things. Graham Walker, an emergency physician in San Francisco, co-runs a website staffed by doctor volunteers called the NNT that helps doctors and patients understand how impactful drugs are - and often are not. "NNT" is an abbreviation for "number needed to treat," as in: How many patients need to be treated with a drug or procedure for one patient to get the hoped-for benefit? In almost all popular media, the effects of a drug are reported by relative risk reduction. To use a fictional illness, for example, say you hear on the radio that a drug reduces your risk of dying from Hogwart's disease by 20 percent, which sounds pretty good. Except, that means if 10 in 1,000 people who get Hogwart's disease normally die from it, and every single patient goes on the drug, eight in 1,000 will die from Hogwart's disease. So, for every 500 patients who get the drug, one will be spared death by Hogwart's disease. Hence, the NNT is 500. That might sound fine, but if the drug's "NNH" - "number needed to harm" - is, say, 20 and the unwanted side effect is severe, then 25 patients suffer serious harm for each one who is saved. Suddenly, the trade-off looks grim.

Now, consider a real and familiar drug: aspirin. For elderly women who take it daily for a year to prevent a first heart attack, aspirin has an estimated NNT of 872 and an NNH of 436. That means if 1,000 elderly women take aspirin daily for a decade, 11 of them will avoid a heart attack; meanwhile, twice that many will suffer a major gastrointestinal bleeding event that would not have occurred if they hadn't been taking aspirin. As with most drugs, though, aspirin will not cause anything particularly good or bad for the vast majority of people who take it. That is the theme of the medicine in your cabinet: It likely isn't significantly harming or helping you. "Most people struggle with the idea that medicine is all about probability," says Aron Sousa, an internist and senior associate dean at Michigan State University's medical school. As to the more common metric, relative risk, "it's horrible," Sousa says. "It's not just drug companies that use it; physicians use it, too. They want their work to look more useful, and they genuinely think patients need to take this [drug], and relative risk is more compelling than NNT. Relative risk is just another way of lying."

A Different Way to Think About Medicine

For every 100 older adults who take a sleep aid, 7 will experience improved sleep, while 17 will suffer side effects that range widely in severity, from simple morning "hangover" to memory loss and serious accidents. As with many medications, most who take a sleep aid will experience neither benefit nor harm...

"There's this cognitive dissonance, or almost professional depression," Walker says. "You think, 'Oh my gosh, I'm a doctor, I'm going to give all these drugs because they help people.' But I've almost become more fatalistic, especially in emergency medicine." If we really wanted to make a big impact on a large number of people, Walker says, "we'd be doing a lot more diet and exercise and lifestyle stuff. That was by far the hardest thing for me to conceptually appreciate before I really started looking at studies critically."...

In the 1990s, the American Cancer Society's board of directors put out a national challenge to cut cancer rates from a peak in 1990. Encouragingly, deaths in the United States from all types of cancer since then have been falling. Still, American men have a ways to go to return to 1930s levels. Medical innovation has certainly helped; it's just that public health has more often been the society-wide game changer. Most people just don't believe it.

In 2014, two researchers at Brigham Young University surveyed Americans and found that typical adults attributed about 80 percent of the increase in life expectancy since the mid-1800s to modern medicine. "The public grossly overestimates how much of our increased life expectancy should be attributed to medical care," they wrote, "and is largely unaware of the critical role played by public health and improved social conditions determinants." This perception, they continued, might hinder funding for public health, and it "may also contribute to overfunding the medical sector of the economy and impede efforts to contain health care costs."

It is a loaded claim. But consider the $6.3 billion 21st Century Cures Act, which recently passed Congress to widespread acclaim. Who can argue with a law created in part to bolster cancer research? Among others, the heads of the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Public Health Association. They argue against the new law because it will take $3.5 billion away from public-health efforts in order to fund research on new medical technology and drugs, including former Vice President Joe Biden's "cancer moonshot." The new law takes money from programs - like vaccination and smoking-cessation efforts - that are known to prevent disease and moves it to work that might, eventually, treat disease. The bill will also allow the FDA to approve new uses for drugs based on observational studies or even "summary-level reviews" of data submitted by pharmaceutical companies. Prasad has been a particularly trenchant and public critic, tweeting that "the only people who don't like the bill are people who study drug approval, safety, and who aren't paid by Pharma."..."

[Feb 27, 2017] Why Markets Can't Cure Healthcare

Feb 27, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
anne -> anne... February 26, 2017 at 02:07 PM , 2017 at 02:07 PM
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/

July 25, 2009

Why Markets Can't Cure Healthcare
By Paul Krugman

Judging both from comments on this blog and from some of my mail, a significant number of Americans believe that the answer to our health care problems - indeed, the only answer - is to rely on the free market. Quite a few seem to believe that this view reflects the lessons of economic theory.

Not so. One of the most influential economic papers of the postwar era was Kenneth Arrow's "Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Health Care," * which demonstrated - decisively, I and many others believe - that health care can't be marketed like bread or TVs. Let me offer my own version of Arrow's argument.

There are two strongly distinctive aspects of health care. One is that you don't know when or whether you'll need care - but if you do, the care can be extremely expensive. The big bucks are in triple coronary bypass surgery, not routine visits to the doctor's office; and very, very few people can afford to pay major medical costs out of pocket.

This tells you right away that health care can't be sold like bread. It must be largely paid for by some kind of insurance. And this in turn means that someone other than the patient ends up making decisions about what to buy. Consumer choice is nonsense when it comes to health care. And you can't just trust insurance companies either - they're not in business for their health, or yours.

This problem is made worse by the fact that actually paying for your health care is a loss from an insurers' point of view - they actually refer to it as "medical costs." This means both that insurers try to deny as many claims as possible, and that they try to avoid covering people who are actually likely to need care. Both of these strategies use a lot of resources, which is why private insurance has much higher administrative costs than single-payer systems. And since there's a widespread sense that our fellow citizens should get the care we need - not everyone agrees, but most do - this means that private insurance basically spends a lot of money on socially destructive activities.

The second thing about health care is that it's complicated, and you can't rely on experience or comparison shopping. ("I hear they've got a real deal on stents over at St. Mary's!") That's why doctors are supposed to follow an ethical code, why we expect more from them than from bakers or grocery store owners.

You could rely on a health maintenance organization to make the hard choices and do the cost management, and to some extent we do. But HMOs have been highly limited in their ability to achieve cost-effectiveness because people don't trust them - they're profit-making institutions, and your treatment is their cost.

Between those two factors, health care just doesn't work as a standard market story.

All of this doesn't necessarily mean that socialized medicine, or even single-payer, is the only way to go. There are a number of successful healthcare systems, at least as measured by pretty good care much cheaper than here, and they are quite different from each other. There are, however, no examples of successful health care based on the principles of the free market, for one simple reason: in health care, the free market just doesn't work. And people who say that the market is the answer are flying in the face of both theory and overwhelming evidence.

* https://web.stanford.edu/~jay/health_class/Readings/Lecture01/arrow.pdf

anne -> anne... , February 26, 2017 at 02:44 PM
Correcting again and continuing:

Though Krugman always praises the work of Arrow on healthcare markets, Krugman never seems much been influenced by the work.

Though praising Arrow on healthcare markets, Krugman seemingly has spent no time on or possibly has dismissed research affirming Arrow and has not supported the sorts of healthcare insurance systems that would follow from accepting the work of Arrow:

https://promarket.org/there-is-regulatory-capture-but-it-is-by-no-means-complete/
/
March 15, 2016

"There Is Regulatory Capture, But It Is By No Means Complete"
By Asher Schechter

Kenneth J. Arrow, one of the most influential economists of the 20th century, reflects on the benefits of a single payer health care system, the role of government and regulatory capture.

Mr. Bill : , February 26, 2017 at 03:32 PM
So Anne, what your saying is that "health care" is a monopolistic industry that makes more money by restricting care and charging more ? Allowing people that can't afford to live, too die?

Well. yes, I agree with your presumed hypothesis, and I admire your boldness for stepping out in front of this moving freight train, risking your beloved tenure.

To me ? Thanks for asking.

I think that the 3 % administrative costs of the existing single payer system are more pareto optimal than the 25 % that the monopolists' extract. What do I know. This is America. Dumb is not an option.

anne : , February 26, 2017 at 06:33 PM
Turning again to Kenneth Arrow and healthcare markets, assuming that Arrow was correct for all these years, and subsequent research repeatedly has confirmed Arrow, then a typical American market-based healthcare insurance system is going to prove unworkable. Why then has the work of Arrow which is at least superficially so broadly praised by economists not been more influential in forming policy?
libezkova -> anne... , February 26, 2017 at 07:12 PM
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

― Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked

[Feb 26, 2017] Clowbacks to benefits manager is like crack cocaine

This is racket. Plain and simple.
Notable quotes:
"... Pusey's contracts with drug-benefit managers at his Medicap Pharmacy in Olyphant, Pennsylvania, bar him from volunteering the fact that for many cheap, generic medicines, co-pays sometimes are more expensive than if patients simply pay out of pocket and bypass insurance. The extra money -- what the industry calls a clawback -- ends up with the benefit companies. Pusey tells customers only if they ask. ..."
"... "Some of them get fired up," he said. "Some of them get angry at the whole system. Some of them don't even believe that what we're telling them is accurate." ..."
"... Clawbacks, which can be as little as $2 a prescription or as much as $30, may boost profits by hundreds of millions for benefit managers and have prompted at least 16 lawsuits since October. The legal cases as well dozens of receipts obtained by Bloomberg and interviews with more than a dozen pharmacists and industry consultants show the growing importance of the clawbacks. ..."
"... The cases arrive at a critical juncture in the quarter-century debate over how to make health care more affordable in America. President Donald Trump is promising to lower drug costs, saying the government should get better prices and the pharmaceutical industry is "getting away with murder." The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, a benefits-manager trade group, says it expects greater scrutiny over its role in the price of medicine and wants to make its case "vocally and effectively." ..."
"... Suits have been filed against insurers UnitedHealth Group Inc., which owns manager OptumRx; Cigna Corp., which contracts with that manager; and Humana Inc., which runs its own. Among the accusations are defrauding patients through racketeering, breach of contract and violating insurance laws. ..."
"... Benefit managers are obscure but influential middlemen. They process prescriptions for insurers and large employers that back their own plans, determine which drugs are covered and negotiate with manufacturers on one end and pharmacies on the other. They have said their work keeps prices low, in part by pitting rival drugmakers against one other to get better deals. ..."
"... The clawbacks work like this: A patient goes to a pharmacy and pays a co-pay amount -- perhaps $10 -- agreed to by the pharmacy benefits manager, or PBM, and the insurers who hire it. The pharmacist gets reimbursed for the price of the drug, say $2, and possibly a small profit. Then the benefits manager "claws back" the remainder. Most patients never realize there's a cheaper cash price. ..."
Feb 26, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
im1dc: February 24, 2017 at 05:26 PM
Real World Economics

"You're Overpaying for Drugs and Your Pharmacist Can't Tell You"

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-24/sworn-to-secrecy-drugstores-stay-silent-as-customers-overpay

"You're Overpaying for Drugs and Your Pharmacist Can't Tell You"

by Jared S Hopkins...February 24, 2017...9:52 AM EST

> Gag clauses stop pharmacists from pointing out a cheaper way

> Cigna, UnitedHealth and Humana face at least 16 lawsuits

"Eric Pusey has to bite his tongue when customers at his pharmacy cough up co-payments far higher than the cost of their low-cost generic drugs, thinking their insurance is getting them a good deal.

Pusey's contracts with drug-benefit managers at his Medicap Pharmacy in Olyphant, Pennsylvania, bar him from volunteering the fact that for many cheap, generic medicines, co-pays sometimes are more expensive than if patients simply pay out of pocket and bypass insurance. The extra money -- what the industry calls a clawback -- ends up with the benefit companies. Pusey tells customers only if they ask.

"Some of them get fired up," he said. "Some of them get angry at the whole system. Some of them don't even believe that what we're telling them is accurate."

Graphic

Clawbacks, which can be as little as $2 a prescription or as much as $30, may boost profits by hundreds of millions for benefit managers and have prompted at least 16 lawsuits since October. The legal cases as well dozens of receipts obtained by Bloomberg and interviews with more than a dozen pharmacists and industry consultants show the growing importance of the clawbacks.

"It's like crack cocaine," said Susan Hayes, a consultant with Pharmacy Outcomes Specialists in Lake Zurich, Illinois. "They just can't get enough."

The cases arrive at a critical juncture in the quarter-century debate over how to make health care more affordable in America. President Donald Trump is promising to lower drug costs, saying the government should get better prices and the pharmaceutical industry is "getting away with murder." The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, a benefits-manager trade group, says it expects greater scrutiny over its role in the price of medicine and wants to make its case "vocally and effectively."

Racketeering Accusations

Suits have been filed against insurers UnitedHealth Group Inc., which owns manager OptumRx; Cigna Corp., which contracts with that manager; and Humana Inc., which runs its own. Among the accusations are defrauding patients through racketeering, breach of contract and violating insurance laws.

"Pharmacies should always charge our members the lowest amount outlined under their plan when filling prescriptions," UnitedHealthcare spokesman Matthew Wiggin said in a statement. "We believe these lawsuits are without merit and will vigorously defend ourselves."

Mark Mathis, a Humana spokesman, declined to comment. Matt Asensio, a Cigna spokesman, said the company doesn't comment on litigation.

"Patients should not have to pay more than a network drugstore's submitted charges to the health plan," Charles Cote, a spokesman for the Phar