Actiq is a narcotic taken in lollypop form, a technique that gets the drug to the pain centers quickly. Developed for break-through cancer pain, evidence now suggests that only 10% of Actiq users have cancer.The high-powered narcotic has been the subject of several recent reports and a state attorney general investigation concerning off-label use.
Continue reading Actiq – the off-label poster child
Controversy over treatment types, overly generous payments to physicians to endorse a product, lawsuits alleging faulty research, the FDA under fire for inadequate evaluation, fights over reimbursement for a new procedure, and confusion over the usefulness of a common and very expensive procedure.
If you want to know why the US health care system is so dysfunctional, I give you low back pain.
Continue reading my aching back
Kudos to USAToday for publishing a pretty good article on variations in practice patterns related to back surgeries. In a front page story today, the paper that has been derided by some as “McNews” explores the issues surrounding the explosion in the number of spinal fusions.
The reporting is balanced, insightful, and thorough, a bit of a surprise coming from a paper that prides itself on short sentences, really short words, and lots of color, not depth and nuance.
Noted throughout the article is the primary problem – no one knows how many spinal fusions are the right number, and there is significant disagreement among stakeholders re when a patient should have surgery. (free registration required) That’s all true, and that’s where workers compensation comes in.
Continue reading Workers’ Comp – the answer to the spinal fusion question
There has been a substantial increase in the use of emergency departments in recent years. A new report from the Centers for Disease Control indicates the number of ED visits reached an all-time high of 114 million in 2003.
The increase was attributed to adults, and more specifically Medicaid recipients who used EDs four times as often as those with private insurance. One of the report’s editors noted that the ED has become the provider “of first resort” for many of the poor and uninsured.
With the present political wrangling over the future of Medicaid and the uninsured, this report points out one of the most troubling aspects of the “delivery systems” used by the poor. Care delivered through the ED is typically more expensive, time-consuming, and less coordinated than care delivered through a primary care provider. Tests and imaging are often duplicated, there are often problems with continuity of care, and patients with chronic conditions seek care for acute episodes in the ED rather than through their primary doc.
It is impossible to calculate exactly how much money is wasted in this process, but it is certainly in the billions of dollars.
Clearly the industry needs to do a better job of directing patients to appropriate levels and locations of care. Having been involved (albeit years ago) in a state Medicaid reform effort, I have some understanding of the problems involved. However, it is clear that the quality of care delivered is too low and the cost of that care is too high when it is provided at an emergency department.
What does this mean for you?
Redouble efforts to direct patients to primary care. Work with providers to set up streamlined primary care access next to the ED. Yes this is a big problem with lots of issues, but we can’t afford to not address it.
Bob Laszewski of Health Policy and Strategy Associates (no affiliation with HSA) notes that CMS’ latest health care cost report includes the following:
“in 2002, the percentage of health insurance premiums spent on profit and admin expense was 12.8%; in 2003, the expense and profit ratio had rised to 13.6%. Undoubtedly, this gain is not in expenses but in health insurance company profits.”
This occured at a time when overall health care costs were still increasing by almost 9% a year.
At the risk of stating the obvious, profits and admin expenses have increased at a rate greater than that of total medical expenses. Not only does this not say much for the “efficiency” of the private market, it also may add fuel to the argument againts private insurance.
We’ll have more details on the CMS report’s notable findings in a future post.