February 2010

You are currently browsing the monthly archive for February 2010.

“We are not cutting Medicare benefits. We are trying to eliminate waste.”

“Our country’s too big, too complicated, too decentralized for Washington, a few of us here, just to write a few rules about remaking seventeen percent of the economy all at once.”

“We can’t afford this. That is the ultimate problem here.”

Tags: ,

How did Obama’s Healthcare Summit go?  It was basically a pile of bad ideas.  Senator Harkin gave the best explanation of what’s truly needed, but I’ll save that for last.

Examples of BAD IDEAS include

Starting over.  John McCain asked to “Go back to the beginning” and Republican Senator Lamar Alexander said ”If we can start over, we can write a healthcare bill.”  The whole start over rhetoric is dumb.  If you don’t like the current proposals, say what you don’t like about them.  If you have suggestions on how to do it better, say them.  Suggesting a “do over” is not helpful.  Even if you think health care in the U.S. is perfect and prefer the status quo, you should stand up and say that rather than asking for a clean slate.

Health Reform will lower the deficit. Expanding federal entitlement programs will NOT lower the deficit.  In the short-run, additional tax revenue and cuts to other programs may decrease the deficit in the very short run, but adding or expanding big government programs never lowers the deficit.

Reforming medical malpractice.  I have documented that the medical malpractice system does not work well (see here and here).  However, malpractice costs are a small share of the overall health care dollars.  If physicians prescribe too many tests and treatments because they wish to avoid being sued, than tort reform could decrease costs more drastically.  However, this issue is more of a partisan one where Republicans can pander to their physician supporters and Democrats can pander to their attorney supporters.

End Waste and Abuse.  This is a laudable goal, but determining what is waste and abuse is difficult.  If you get an MRI for an injury, you may not need the MRI, but it will provide the doctor with some helpful information.  This is certainly not fraud, but it may be waste.  Having Medicare administrators who are far from the hospital floor determine what is wasteful is not as easy as political rhetoric makes it sound.  Further, although there is much waste in the Medicare system, there is much waste when doctors are paid by private insurers as well.  Every President promises to reduce Medicare fraud and waste, but few succeed.

We actually create more diabetes through the food stamp program and the school lunch program.”  - Senator Coburn.  Do poor people buy more unhealthy food?  Yes.  Is it because of these programs?  No.  The poor have less money and fast food is cheap.  Fresh fruits and vegetables are expensive.  Increasing redistribution would allow the poor to eat healthier, but if Senator Coburn wants to mandate that poor people eat healthy, I think that is going too far.  People on food stamps aren’t all of a sudden start shopping at Whole Foods.  The food police are not the solution to health reform.

Here’s where the GOOD IDEAS were:

Incremental Reform doesn’t work.  Senator Wyden said, “The evidence says incremental reform not only does less, it costs more.”

The most sensible comments came from Senator Harkin.  In order to reduce health insurance premiums and Medicare expenses, we need cost control (i.e., rationing).  We need to limit the medical care we make available to ourselves.  Every person should not be able to receive every medical treatment they think will improve their lives.  Determining which treatments to exclude form Medicare or private insurance is full of tough decisions, but they must be made, otherwise health insurance premiums will gobble up more and more of our wages.

Of course, no senator could support rationing care, but that is what Senator Harkin is essence supporting.   Here is a quotation:

Well, quite frankly, if we want insurance reforms you can only do that if everybody is in the pool. You can only get everybody in the pool if you make it affordable for middle class families and others. You can only make it affordable for middle class families and others if you have cost controls.

The full transcript of the summit can be found in three parts (1, 2, 3).  NPR also has some good analysis here.

Tags: , , ,

Irreversibility occurs when treatment in the current period alters the efficacy of treatments in the future. A paper by Zivin and Neidell (2010) give the following simple example:

Examine the following table.  In the first scenario, the individual has disease X in two periods.  If he takes treatment 1 (T1) then he will recover 6 units of health in each period; if he takes treatment 2 (T2) then he will recover 4 units of health in each period. Because 12 is bigger than 8, the person should take T1 in this case.

However, scenarios 2 shows how irreversibility may affect the optimal treatment chosen. Let us assume that the person still has disease X in periods 1 & 2, but can contract disease Y with probability p. When this disease occurs, the individual loses 8 units of health. He can be cured with only one type of treatment (TY). However, TY is only effective for patients who have not previously received T1. Thus, if there is a high probability that the individual contracts disease Y, it is likely optimal to treat patients with disease X with T2.  Irreversibility has affected the optimal choice for X, since the option value of T2 is high when the probability of contracting disease Y is large.

Real world examples include the following: “

  • “…treatment of certain types of cancer patients with a bone marrow transplant and massive doses of chemotherapy will reduce the patient’s ability to tolerate and respond to chemotherapy in the future, should some form of cancer recur.
  • Drugs that are subject to resistance are another example.
  • Indeed, these concerns may help explain why there is still no consensus about when to start therapy in HIV patients. Some advocate the ‘hit hard and hit early’ approach, which suggests the initiation of complete treatment at the time of diagnosis in order to prevent the disease from progressing. Others are concerned that starting therapy at early stages, when T-cell counts are high and viral loads are low, may lead to the development of viral resistance to these drugs and related compounds.

Failure to consider the option value of drug treatment can make drugs that seem promising in clinical trials actually perform poorly in real world situations.

  • Zivin and Neidell (2010) “Medical technology adoption, uncertainty, and irreversibilities: is a bird in the hand really worth more than in the bush?” Health Economics, v19(2):142-153.

Tags: , , ,

David Williams of the Health Business Blog hosts the latest edition of the Cavalcade of Risk.  Some of the highlights include:

Tags:

Links

Tags:

Before a drug can come to market, it must receive FDA approval.  This involves 3 phases of testing with Phase I having 20-80 volunteers and Phase III often testing more than 1,000 people.  Despite the FDA approval, patients can sue drug companies if they are injured by a drug.  Patients can generally sue manufacturers under one of three theories of legal liability:

  • defective design (design of a drug or device was inherently unsafe)
  • defective manufacturing
  • defective warnings, the firm failed to provide sufficient warning of the possibility of an adverse event if it knew or shown have known about the risks.

Is it efficient to maintain a system of product liability in addition to government licensing or does this legal framework simply drive up the costs of pharmaceuticals?

A paper by Philipson, Sun, and Goldman (2009) argues that when FDA approval is binding, the removing the drugs product liability increases efficiency.  This is because the product liability “has no additional effect on the level of safety firms choose to provide, but raises prices and thus restricts access.”   I believe, this is the system adopted by the UK where drugs that are approved by NICE are not liable for lawsuits.  If the drug turns out to perform poorly in practice, NICE will pull it off the market (readers, can you confirms this is correct?).

The authors use American policy on vaccine liability to elucidate their point. “The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) provides a useful case study. This program shielded vaccine makers from liability in exchange for a special compensation program funded by an excise tax on vaccines. This program therefore essentially mimicked pre-emption by lowering the cost of liability dramatically.”

However, the problem with the paper is knowing whether the FDA safety procedures are binding in practice.  For some drugs, the FDA approval provides firms with more than enough incentive to produce evidence of the safety of their projects.  On the other hand, for other cases FDA approval may not provide sufficient incentives to make the drugs safe.

In the larger view, if the FDA approval does a good job of monitoring safety, then product liability could be abandoned to increase safety.  However, if the FDA approval does not induce firms to make their drugs safe, the product liability acts as a costly but effective backup to insure the firms manufacture products that are safe for consumers.

Tags: , , ,

Gross misperception, especially in the minds of noneconomists, often prompts the claim that ‘the market’ (or ‘capitalism’) either works or does not work without constraints, a claim that is demonstrably unsupportable, either in analytical logic or in empirical reality.”

Tags:

Links

Tags:

The book The Boids and the Bees by A.H. Jones and Jerry Bozeman can be summarized in one acronym: CASY.  This stands for Complex Adaptive Systems.  The point of the book is that CASYs are more complex than we think and that most of life is make up of CASYs.

Let us take the example of your car (which is not a CASY).  If you have a problem with a cracked part in your engine, by replacing the part, the engine will be as good as new.

However, if you address the problem in such a direct manner for a CASY, the effect may not be what was intended.  For instance, antibiotics kill bacteria.  One would think that the use of antibiotics will make humans healthier.  However, bacteria adopt to the antibiotics through evolution.  The strong survive and then the most prevalent bacteria strains becomes the ones that are drug resistent.  Using antibiotics may, in the long-run, make humans more susceptible to disease.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: ,

The latest edition of the Health Wonk Review is up at Medicaid First Aid.

Tags:

« Older entries