Who’s Afraid of Advanced Directives?

It’s bad enough that Conservatives like Sarah Palin and Betsy McCaughey are spewing wild charges that the House health reform bill will lead to “death panels” and the premature demise of grandma. But what really gets me about these lies—so clearly aimed at frightening seniors and blocking all action on reform—is that they are being advanced in the supposed interest of protecting patients.

In McCaughey’s now legendary battle with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show she identified herself as a “patient advocate” (although most of us know her as a former Lieutenant Governor of New York, vociferous opponent of Clinton’s health care plan and a newly-resigned director of a medical device manufacturer.)

First a little background: I have been a journalist for over 20 years but recently returned to school to pursue a Master’s degree in Health Advocacy at Sarah Lawrence College. Graduates of this program go on to take a wide range of jobs; a sizable portion end up as patient advocates in hospitals, nursing homes and hospice organizations. These trained professionals value autonomy and respect for all patients first and foremost—rejecting the older, paternalistic model of medicine where the doctor always knows best.

In fact, a basic tenet of patient advocacy is making sure all patients have so-called advance directives—living wills, durable power of attorney, health proxies, and orders for life-sustaining treatment—to help guide their care. These advance directives, which are dynamic and can be amended as a patient’s condition changes, allow patients—or if they become incompetent, a designated loved one—to make meaningful choices about what kinds of care they receive.

Continue reading

Does Medicare Under-Pay Hospitals?

Below, a guest-post by HealthBeat reader Pat S.

Medicare is the second largest health care payer in America, trailing only Medicaid.  The program is very popular with its enrollees, with polls showing a higher level of satisfaction than with private insurance. 
Medicare is less popular with hospitals.

Opponents of health care reform in general and of a strong public option in particular often cite hospital dissatisfaction with Medicare as a reason why the reform programs won’t work.  They report that evidence suggests that overall Medicare pays hospitals less than what it costs them to provide care. Private insurers pay more, and by “cost-shifting,” hospitals use these payments to make up the losses on Medicare.  Opponents worry that if a public option linked to or modeled on Medicare becomes the dominant payer for people under 65, hospitals will go broke without the “subsidy” from private insurers, and the health system will be destroyed. Data collected by hospital groups and the insurance industry suggests that this is unlikely to happen.

Continue reading

Finding the Waste in Our Health Care System – Low-Hanging Fruit

Too often, those who oppose health care reform say that while there may well be waste in our health care system, it’s hard to say where it is. One man’s waste is another man’s effective treatment. Many tests and surgeries may be controversial, but who is to say for sure what is unnecessary?

The truth is that we have stacks of medical evidence showing that many procedures and products are of little or no value to many patients who receive them.  These treatments may be useful to patients who fit a particular medical profile: women between the ages of 50 and 70, for instance, or patients suffering from left main coronary artery disease. In these cases, health care reformers agree: patients should receive the treatment. 

But typically a much larger group of patients are subjected to a procedure that provides no benefit. Thus, they are subjected to risk without gain. Keep in mind that one hundred thousand people die each year from complications of surgery—far more than die in car crashes. And some of those surgeries were unnecessary.

In a recent post on The Health Care Blog (THCB) (www.healthcareblog.com)  Dr. George Lundberg, former editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association,  wrote about seven areas where we have enough comparative effectiveness research to know that a great many patients are being over-treated. Lundberg, who is now president and chair of The Lundberg Institute suggests that we could begin to rein in health care spending NOW –if doctors  take “a good hard look” at the evidence (and “in the mirror”), and share medical evidence with patients about benefits and risks when discussing options for treatment. (For more on “Shared Decision-Making” see this Health Beat post)

Continue reading

Health Wonk Review—Top Health-Care Posts in the Blogosphere

Health Wonk Review, a round-up of some of the best posts in the Healthcare blogosphere over the last two weeks, is now up on Health Business Blog, hosted by David Williams here:.
http://www.healthbusinessblog.com/?p=2556
http://www.healthbusinessblog.com/

Just a few highlights:

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation presents a users’ guide to health reform. Key assertion: if we improve efficiency in health care we can avoid cost/coverage tradeoffs

Managed Care Matters offers the top ten misconceptions about health reform. Reason #2: “A public plan would crush private insurers and we’d all end up covered by the public plan,:

Heath Care Renewal thinks hospital Group Purchasing Organizations (GPOs) are acting more like Group Kickback Organizations. As Williams points out, Roy Poses, the editor of Health Care Renewal has  written about this problem “as far back as 2005, but now investigators are taking an interest”  This is very good news.

To find links to these, and other top posts, go to
http://www.healthbusinessblog.com/?p=2556
http://www.healthbusinessblog.com/

 

Please Don’t Believe Everything You Read…

Below, a response to novelist Jane Smiley that I am publishing on the Huffington Post tomorrow.  Earlier this week, Smiley posted on Huffington expressing her dismay that President Obama seems to be folding on health-care reform. I don’t blame her for coming to the conclusion: this is what the mainstream media has been telling her. My response begins:

An Open Letter to Jane Smiley: Please Don’t Believe Everything You Read

            (The Media Is Not Always a Reliable Narrator )

Continue reading

A Solution to the DTC Advertising Dilemma

The pharmaceutical industry has been settling into its “good guy” role in recent days; first committing to $80 billion in cost savings over ten years to help defray the cost of health reform and then forking over $150 million to finance an ad campaign championing the administration’s plan. (Of course there was that slight fall from grace when it looked as if, in exchange, PhRMA had secured guarantees that Medicare would not be able to negotiate drug prices…click here for Maggie’s take on that.)

But what else can the industry do to help burnish its image with the American people? How about finally consenting to some common-sense limits on the barrage of prescription drug ads confronting consumers every time they turn on the TV or open a magazine? While a complete ban is probably not possible (in part because such a ban might violate the First Amendment) how about making prescription drug ads a lot more educational and a lot less like a hard sell for a new BMW?

Continue reading

Is the Obama Administration Giving Up On a Public-Sector Insurance Plan?

I doubt it.  Progressives are in the middle of a long negotiation with conservatives that will end in  conference committee late this fall, where politicians will merge the Senate and House versions of the bills, hammering out the differences. We know that the House bill contains a strong public sector plan. It seems likely that the Senate plan will offer, at best, a weak public sector alternative. What will happen then? 

No one knows. But as I have suggested in the past, conference is what matters. Whatever compromises Senator Max Baucus does or doesn’t make in the Senate Finance Committee’s version of the bill may not, in the end, be that important. 

Continue reading

Money-Driven Medicine on Bill Moyers Journal, PBS, Friday, August 28 —

 

   DVDs Available for Sale Online This Week

As regular readers know, Academy-award-winning documentary film producer Alex Gibney (Enron: the Smartest Guys in the Room, and Taxi to the Dark Side) has made a 90-minute documentary based on my book, Money-Driven Medicine. 

Moyers and the film’s director, Andy Fredericks, have cut the film down to 56 minutes so that Moyers can show a preview of excerpts from the film on  Bill  Moyers' Journal, Friday, August 28 (Check local listings for the exact time.) 

 For those who would like to see the whole 90-minute film, DVD’s will become available for sale this week (Thursday, August 20).  

Institutional Use & House Parties

Screen the DVD in community dialogs, classes, staff trainings, policy forums, 'brown bag' lunches and conferences.  Arrange "house parties" for friends and neighbors to discuss what ordinary citizens can do.   Institutions can buy the DVD by going to this site http://www.newsreel.org/nav/title.asp?tc=CN0225  or by calling 877-811-7495. DVDs will begin shipping this week, August 20.

For High Schools, Public Libraries, HBCUS and Qualifying Community Organizations, or anyone who wants to organize a brown bag lunch or “house party” the price is $49.95.

For Colleges, Corporations, and Gov’t Agencies, the price is $195.000

Individual Use

Individuals can rent a digital version of the film for home use at Newsreel.org/Amazon anytime after August 28 for $2.99

What People Are Saying About the Film

“Money-Driven Medicine is one of the strongest documentaries I have seen in years and could not be more timely.  The more people who see and talk about it, the more likely we are to get serious and true health care reform.”—Bill Moyers

“Few Americans appreciate how the health care system is gamed against physicians’ professional commitment to focus only on their patients’ best interests.  This outstanding film helps us all understand why reform is essential.”
– Elliott S. Fisher, MD, Director
Dartmouth Center for Health Policy Research
Principal Investigator, Dartmouth Atlas Project

(Disclosure—I’m not making money on the sale or rental of DVDs or any showings of the film. I just want to get the word out there—mm.)

 

 

Smoking Memo—or Bad Journalism?

.

Yesterday, it seemed that the Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim had a scoop. He reported that Huffington has obtained a memo that “confirms” that the White House and the pharmaceutical lobby secretly made a deal—the deal that I wrote about a few days ago in a post titled “What Was Billy Tauzin Thinking?”  According to the memo, the White House supposedly pledged to oppose any Congressional efforts to let Medicare negotiate for discounts on drugs, or to import drugs from Canada.

The memo in question turns out to be typed—and unsigned.  How does the reporter know that it is authentic?  “A knowledgeable health care lobbyist” told him so. According to the lobbyist the memo “was prepared by a person directly involved in the negotiations [and it] lists exactly what the White House gave up, and what it got in return.

Wait a minute. As PhRMA senior vice president Ken Johnson points out later in the story: “Anyone could have written it. Unless it comes from our board of directors, it's not worth the paper it's written on. . . .”

And who is the “knowledgeable lobbyist” who gave the memo to Huffington?  His name is not disclosed.

What we have then, is a story based on what one unnamed source says—and a typed memo that probably is untraceable.

Continue reading