Tuesday, 5 April 2005

Princess Health and The Primary Care Squeeze: Who Will Be Part of the Solution?. Princessiccia

Princess Health and The Primary Care Squeeze: Who Will Be Part of the Solution?. Princessiccia

In stark contrast to stories of ever more expensive drugs for ever more expansively defined ills, government research leaders getting six figure consulting fees, and multi-million dollar CEOs, ... primary care is in progressively worsening crisis.
Last week the American Medical News reported that family medicine has seen its eighth consecutive yearly decline in the number of US medical students matching to its residency positions. Since 1997, the number of US students going into family medicine training has dropped from 2340 to 1117, more than a 50% decrease. Fewer US students have matched in all primary care fields over the last 5 years.
This data still seems to puzzle the leadership of major US medical organizations. For example, the article quoted Steven F. Weinberger, Senior Vice President of the Medical Knowledge and Education Division of the American College of Physicians, "There's a concern that being the physician responsible for the ultimate care of the patient means life becomes a little more unpredictable in terms of hours. But there are wonderful ways to build models of practice to counter that." Furthermore, he said "another important issue is giving students the sense of the long-term gratification of the longitudinal care of patients." This is similar to previous comments made by him, and by leaders of the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the American Academy of Family Practice (AAFP), (see this post) suggesting that the main reason that students were not going into primary care is that they hadn't learned about all its positive aspects.
I certainly agree that there are intellectual and emotional benefits to primary care practice. Maybe we aren't adequately teaching students about them. But it seems as if some of the folks leading large organizations like the ACP don't understand just how grueling primary care has become.
One way to understand its challenges is simply to page through some of the stories on Health Care Renewal.
On the other hand, see two articles from the Miami Herald last week. The first, "Primary Care MDs Under Pressure," described anecdotes of primary care doctors leaving practice "because they couldn't overcome the squeeze between low fees from insurers and soaring costs, or they refused to survive by cutting their time with patients." Ted Fisher, of the Florida Academy of Family Physicians, said as a result, "we see a big shortage coming in Florida...." The article included figures that primary care reimbursement has gone up 4.4% annually, while primary care overhead costs have gone up 7.7% annually. Discussions with physicians here in Rhode Island and southeastern Massachusetts suggest that we are being squeezed just as hard.
Why this story hasn't reached the leadership of the ACP, the AAMC, and the AAFP is not clear.
Robert Forster, Vice President, Health Care Services, and Medical Director of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, was quoted as acknowledging that reimbursement to primary care physicians has not kept up with inflation, much less their rising costs. However, in the second article ("Primary Care is Often Undervalued"), he blamed it on society: "The importance of the primary care doctor doesn't have societal backing. The problem is that it's hard to measure the value of talking to a patient." Furthermore, "since the 1950s, American medicine has emphasized specialties and procedures over primary care. It's going to take some major changes in our society and our thinking to turn that around." Of course, "society" may be enchanted by the marvels of high-technology, sub-specialized care. However, in 2004, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida announced it has 28% of the Florida market, more than twice the share of any competitor. Why its Vice President, Health Care Services and Medical Director denies any personal or organizational responsibility for inadequate reimbursement for primary care is not clear either.
In summary, primary care is under seige by progressively rising costs and lower reimbursement. Since this seems to be public knowledge, it shouldn't be surprising that medical students are increasingly going into other fields. What is surprising, and troubling, is that leaders of major medical organizations either fail to recognize how hard it is to practice primary care, or recognize it, but fail to acknowledge any responsibility to do anything about the problem.
By avoiding any responsibility for the solution, such leaders become part of the problem.
Princess Health and  The Primary Care Squeeze: Who Will Be Part of the Solution?.Princessiccia

Princess Health and The Primary Care Squeeze: Who Will Be Part of the Solution?.Princessiccia

In stark contrast to stories of ever more expensive drugs for ever more expansively defined ills, government research leaders getting six figure consulting fees, and multi-million dollar CEOs, ... primary care is in progressively worsening crisis.
Last week the American Medical News reported that family medicine has seen its eighth consecutive yearly decline in the number of US medical students matching to its residency positions. Since 1997, the number of US students going into family medicine training has dropped from 2340 to 1117, more than a 50% decrease. Fewer US students have matched in all primary care fields over the last 5 years.
This data still seems to puzzle the leadership of major US medical organizations. For example, the article quoted Steven F. Weinberger, Senior Vice President of the Medical Knowledge and Education Division of the American College of Physicians, "There's a concern that being the physician responsible for the ultimate care of the patient means life becomes a little more unpredictable in terms of hours. But there are wonderful ways to build models of practice to counter that." Furthermore, he said "another important issue is giving students the sense of the long-term gratification of the longitudinal care of patients." This is similar to previous comments made by him, and by leaders of the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the American Academy of Family Practice (AAFP), (see this post) suggesting that the main reason that students were not going into primary care is that they hadn't learned about all its positive aspects.
I certainly agree that there are intellectual and emotional benefits to primary care practice. Maybe we aren't adequately teaching students about them. But it seems as if some of the folks leading large organizations like the ACP don't understand just how grueling primary care has become.
One way to understand its challenges is simply to page through some of the stories on Health Care Renewal.
On the other hand, see two articles from the Miami Herald last week. The first, "Primary Care MDs Under Pressure," described anecdotes of primary care doctors leaving practice "because they couldn't overcome the squeeze between low fees from insurers and soaring costs, or they refused to survive by cutting their time with patients." Ted Fisher, of the Florida Academy of Family Physicians, said as a result, "we see a big shortage coming in Florida...." The article included figures that primary care reimbursement has gone up 4.4% annually, while primary care overhead costs have gone up 7.7% annually. Discussions with physicians here in Rhode Island and southeastern Massachusetts suggest that we are being squeezed just as hard.
Why this story hasn't reached the leadership of the ACP, the AAMC, and the AAFP is not clear.
Robert Forster, Vice President, Health Care Services, and Medical Director of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, was quoted as acknowledging that reimbursement to primary care physicians has not kept up with inflation, much less their rising costs. However, in the second article ("Primary Care is Often Undervalued"), he blamed it on society: "The importance of the primary care doctor doesn't have societal backing. The problem is that it's hard to measure the value of talking to a patient." Furthermore, "since the 1950s, American medicine has emphasized specialties and procedures over primary care. It's going to take some major changes in our society and our thinking to turn that around." Of course, "society" may be enchanted by the marvels of high-technology, sub-specialized care. However, in 2004, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida announced it has 28% of the Florida market, more than twice the share of any competitor. Why its Vice President, Health Care Services and Medical Director denies any personal or organizational responsibility for inadequate reimbursement for primary care is not clear either.
In summary, primary care is under seige by progressively rising costs and lower reimbursement. Since this seems to be public knowledge, it shouldn't be surprising that medical students are increasingly going into other fields. What is surprising, and troubling, is that leaders of major medical organizations either fail to recognize how hard it is to practice primary care, or recognize it, but fail to acknowledge any responsibility to do anything about the problem.
By avoiding any responsibility for the solution, such leaders become part of the problem.
Princess Health and More Downsides of a "Pill for Every Ill". Princessiccia

Princess Health and More Downsides of a "Pill for Every Ill". Princessiccia

Two recent stories from the NY Times also accent the possible unintended effects of pharmaceutical companies' efforts to market "a pill for every ill."
One story was about the rush to develop drugs to combat obesity. Of course, obesity has health risks. But critics of the drug industry fear that the real appeal of such drugs would be to the only slightly overweight. This could lead to a huge market for such drugs. According to the Times, 60% of the US population is overweight. Thus "everybody is just foaming at the mouth to make money from obesity drugs." The danger, of course, is that new drugs often have rare serious side effects that are not detected in controlled trials on even thousands of patients. New obesity drugs might be taken by millions of patients, thus any such rare adverse effects could still affect substantial absolute numbers.
The other NY Times article was about increasing apathy towards safe-sex measures to prevent the spread of HIV. Some think that this is partly due to "drug company [direct to consumer] advertisements that gloss over the disease's effects by portraying patients as the pictures of perfect health." For example, Michael Weinstein, President of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, cited an ad for Reyataz in Out magazine featuring two robust men on a beach. The ad includes an audio microchip. Opening the page "sets off the trill of a ringing phone and a man's voice essentially saying he is having too much fun to worry about his chronic illness." The San Francisco health department also fears that drugs for erectile dysfunction (ED, as the drug-makers like to call it) are another culprit, since they can counter the impotence caused by "crystal meth." ED drugs are widely marketed by direct to consumer advertisements, as anyone who has turned on network television in the last year must realize. Weinstein has called on Bristol-Myers-Squibb to stop running its audio enhanced ad, while the department of health is seeking to limit availability of "ED" drugs.
All the more reason to support the UK House of Commons Reports' call for "an industry led by the values of scientists, not those of its marketing force." (Quoted in the Guardrian.)
Princess Health and  More Downsides of a "Pill for Every Ill".Princessiccia

Princess Health and More Downsides of a "Pill for Every Ill".Princessiccia

Two recent stories from the NY Times also accent the possible unintended effects of pharmaceutical companies' efforts to market "a pill for every ill."
One story was about the rush to develop drugs to combat obesity. Of course, obesity has health risks. But critics of the drug industry fear that the real appeal of such drugs would be to the only slightly overweight. This could lead to a huge market for such drugs. According to the Times, 60% of the US population is overweight. Thus "everybody is just foaming at the mouth to make money from obesity drugs." The danger, of course, is that new drugs often have rare serious side effects that are not detected in controlled trials on even thousands of patients. New obesity drugs might be taken by millions of patients, thus any such rare adverse effects could still affect substantial absolute numbers.
The other NY Times article was about increasing apathy towards safe-sex measures to prevent the spread of HIV. Some think that this is partly due to "drug company [direct to consumer] advertisements that gloss over the disease's effects by portraying patients as the pictures of perfect health." For example, Michael Weinstein, President of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, cited an ad for Reyataz in Out magazine featuring two robust men on a beach. The ad includes an audio microchip. Opening the page "sets off the trill of a ringing phone and a man's voice essentially saying he is having too much fun to worry about his chronic illness." The San Francisco health department also fears that drugs for erectile dysfunction (ED, as the drug-makers like to call it) are another culprit, since they can counter the impotence caused by "crystal meth." ED drugs are widely marketed by direct to consumer advertisements, as anyone who has turned on network television in the last year must realize. Weinstein has called on Bristol-Myers-Squibb to stop running its audio enhanced ad, while the department of health is seeking to limit availability of "ED" drugs.
All the more reason to support the UK House of Commons Reports' call for "an industry led by the values of scientists, not those of its marketing force." (Quoted in the Guardrian.)
Princess Health and UK lawmakers slam slack pharmaceutical regulation. Princessiccia

Princess Health and UK lawmakers slam slack pharmaceutical regulation. Princessiccia

The UK is often more outspoken and less "politically correct" in many ways regarding healthcare matters than the US. In this article, I agree with the need for regulatory independence and better reporting and evaluation of adverse drug reactions (in fact, I believe entire domain of AE reporting uses 1950's approaches and needs significant modernization). I also agree with the charges of "disease mongering" by a part of the medical establishment that stands to profit from such line redrawing, damaging the credibility of all clinicians still further beyond what mismanagement, corruption, and managed care have already accomplished.

-- SS

UK lawmakers slam slack pharmaceutical regulation
Tue Apr 5, 2005 03:24 AM ET
By Ben Hirschler

LONDON, April 5 (Reuters) - Regulation of the pharmaceutical industry is inadequate, leaving powerful drug companies free to promote "a pill for every ill", an influential British parliamentary committee said on Tuesday.

Recent scandals, notably the worldwide withdrawal of arthritis drug Vioxx, highlighted significant failings in the system, according to the Health Select Committee.

"Like any industry, drug companies need effective discipline and regulation, and these have been lacking," said committee Chairman David Hinchliffe.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) -- the body charged with monitoring the industry -- lacked the discipline and leadership needed to protect patients, his committee said.

In future, new drugs should be more tightly controlled, with curbs on their promotion and restrictions on the ability of junior doctors to prescribe them, it recommended. There should also be a public inquiry whenever a drug was withdrawn on health grounds.

Overall, Hinchliffe said far greater transparency was needed in the oversight of medicines and scrutiny of clinical trials to ensure drugs were not over-prescribed before the full consequences of adverse side effects were known.

GLOBAL CAUTION

The strongly worded report is the latest sign of shift to a more cautious approach to medicines around the world in the wake of recent high-profile problems, which have triggered criticism of both drugmakers and regulators.

The global drugs industry was rocked in 2004 by the withdrawal of Merck & Co. Inc.'s Vioxx, after it was linked to increased risk of heart attack and strokes.

A serious safety problem also emerged last year over selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants, such as GlaxoSmithKline Plc's Seroxat/Paxil, which have been linked to suicidal behaviour in a minority of patients.

The UK committee said the pharmaceutical industry -- led in Britain by GSK and AstraZeneca Plc -- had produced many life-saving medicines but had become increasingly focused on marketing rather than science.

This was the source of many of the current problems, including a trend towards "disease mongering", whereby increasing numbers of people are defined as abnormal and therefore eligible for drug treatment, it concluded.

Recommendations for change include greater MHRA independence from both government and the pharmaceutical industry, and better reporting and evaluation of adverse drug reactions.

The lawmakers also want to see responsibility for the pharmaceutical industry transferred from the Department of Health to the Department of Trade and Industry, to ensure health priorities are not muddied by trade considerations.

The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry said it supported calls for improved information for patients and better reporting of side effects.

But director general Richard Barker said the report contained a number of "fundamental misconceptions" and he challenged the view that drug consumption was excessive, since Britain had one of the slowest uptakes of new drugs in Europe.

Princess Health and  UK lawmakers slam slack pharmaceutical regulation.Princessiccia

Princess Health and UK lawmakers slam slack pharmaceutical regulation.Princessiccia

The UK is often more outspoken and less "politically correct" in many ways regarding healthcare matters than the US. In this article, I agree with the need for regulatory independence and better reporting and evaluation of adverse drug reactions (in fact, I believe entire domain of AE reporting uses 1950's approaches and needs significant modernization). I also agree with the charges of "disease mongering" by a part of the medical establishment that stands to profit from such line redrawing, damaging the credibility of all clinicians still further beyond what mismanagement, corruption, and managed care have already accomplished.

-- SS

UK lawmakers slam slack pharmaceutical regulation
Tue Apr 5, 2005 03:24 AM ET
By Ben Hirschler

LONDON, April 5 (Reuters) - Regulation of the pharmaceutical industry is inadequate, leaving powerful drug companies free to promote "a pill for every ill", an influential British parliamentary committee said on Tuesday.

Recent scandals, notably the worldwide withdrawal of arthritis drug Vioxx, highlighted significant failings in the system, according to the Health Select Committee.

"Like any industry, drug companies need effective discipline and regulation, and these have been lacking," said committee Chairman David Hinchliffe.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) -- the body charged with monitoring the industry -- lacked the discipline and leadership needed to protect patients, his committee said.

In future, new drugs should be more tightly controlled, with curbs on their promotion and restrictions on the ability of junior doctors to prescribe them, it recommended. There should also be a public inquiry whenever a drug was withdrawn on health grounds.

Overall, Hinchliffe said far greater transparency was needed in the oversight of medicines and scrutiny of clinical trials to ensure drugs were not over-prescribed before the full consequences of adverse side effects were known.

GLOBAL CAUTION

The strongly worded report is the latest sign of shift to a more cautious approach to medicines around the world in the wake of recent high-profile problems, which have triggered criticism of both drugmakers and regulators.

The global drugs industry was rocked in 2004 by the withdrawal of Merck & Co. Inc.'s Vioxx, after it was linked to increased risk of heart attack and strokes.

A serious safety problem also emerged last year over selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants, such as GlaxoSmithKline Plc's Seroxat/Paxil, which have been linked to suicidal behaviour in a minority of patients.

The UK committee said the pharmaceutical industry -- led in Britain by GSK and AstraZeneca Plc -- had produced many life-saving medicines but had become increasingly focused on marketing rather than science.

This was the source of many of the current problems, including a trend towards "disease mongering", whereby increasing numbers of people are defined as abnormal and therefore eligible for drug treatment, it concluded.

Recommendations for change include greater MHRA independence from both government and the pharmaceutical industry, and better reporting and evaluation of adverse drug reactions.

The lawmakers also want to see responsibility for the pharmaceutical industry transferred from the Department of Health to the Department of Trade and Industry, to ensure health priorities are not muddied by trade considerations.

The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry said it supported calls for improved information for patients and better reporting of side effects.

But director general Richard Barker said the report contained a number of "fundamental misconceptions" and he challenged the view that drug consumption was excessive, since Britain had one of the slowest uptakes of new drugs in Europe.

Monday, 4 April 2005

Princess Health and One Hospital System Will Stop Aggressive Collection Tactics Targeted at the Uninsured. Princessiccia

Princess Health and One Hospital System Will Stop Aggressive Collection Tactics Targeted at the Uninsured. Princessiccia

Meanwhile, from the Minnesota Star Tribune, the state Attorney General's office has secured an agreement fromthe large Fairview Health Services system that it will stop aggressive collection tactics targeted at people without health insurance, and will start offering discounts off its "rack rates" to them. Sounds like a good idea, too. Previously, the Attorney General reported that "Fairview had become so narrowly focused on profits that bill collectors were sent after patients who didn't owe money or could have qualified for its patient-aid programs."
Perhaps these two small stories offer some little bit of hope that we can get away from the sort of culture described by the doctors surveyed by ACPE (see my post below), where "ultimately, the bottom line corrupts absolutely."