Sunday, January 31, 2010

Lobbyists Played Major Role In Health Overhaul Debate - Kaiser Health News

Lobbyists Played Major Role In Health Overhaul Debate - Kaiser Health News
Jan 31, 2010


The New York Times Prescriptions blog explores how millions of dollars were spent lobbying on health care. Although President Barack Obama has blamed lobbyists for helping to stall the legislative effort, "many of those lobbyists actually worked to support his health care overhaul, not oppose it," the Times finds. "Health care and insurance lobbyists spent more than $648 million in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks the influence of money on elections and policy. That figure is not final; the center has not been able to process about 20 percent of the year-end lobbying reports. But even the incomplete tally shows that the money spent last year on health care dwarfs the amount spent on any other single issue in a single year."

The biggest spenders were drug companies, with $245 million on lobbying last year. Their trade group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, also spent $26 million for lobbying and another $120 million to $130 million for a television campaign and grass-roots activity, an industry official said.

"The campaign against a health care overhaul was led by the United States Chamber of Commerce, which spent about $144 million on lobbying. ... The chamber spent an additional $50 million on television commercials. Individual insurance companies, as well as their trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans, funneled money to the chamber to help pay for some of the commercials" (Seeley, 1/30).

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Paul Craig Roberts: How Wall Street Destroyed Health Care

Paul Craig Roberts: How Wall Street Destroyed Health Care

At my annual check-up, my doctor handed me a sheet explaining the reasons for office fee increases for Medicare Patients. It is worth reporting at length.

Medicare fixes the prices for Medicare patients’ health care. All office charges for Medicare, including office visit charges, have been set by the Federal government since 1984. In real terms (adjusted for inflation), these fixed prices are less today than they were three decades ago.

During the last four years, there have been large decreases in Medicare reimbursements for laboratory services provided in-house by private physicians. Payments for in-office blood work, for example, have been cut 35 to 47 per cent. Yet, a physician’s overhead continues to increase as a result of uncontrollable costs, such as property taxes, building insurance, electricity, maintenance, malpractice and workers compensation insurance.

As one result, my doctor had to close both the x-ray unit and the state and federally licensed medical laboratory on his premises. Now patients are inconvenienced by having to go to other locations for services that formerly were provided by the doctor at lower cost. A one day medical check-up is now a multiple day event and more expensive.

...

My doctor has more people employed doing paperwork than he does delivering health care.

...

It is obvious what is afoot. Corporate lobbies are using their whores in Congress to shift income from physician offices to corporate labs, corporate medical service providers, and hospitals that are owned by national corporations.

Legislation that cuts payments to private physicians and increases the payments to large corporate entities is intended to destroy private practice and to create in its place corporate bureaucracies in which doctors are wage slaves. The physician’s income is diverted to shareholders, CEO bonuses, and Wall Street. Health care is being replaced with health business.

As a result of the way American medicine is being reconstructed, patients will cease to have a doctor whom they know and who knows them. Important information is lost in a system of bureaucratized “health care” in which a patient sees whatever face happens to be on duty at the corporate provider. Impersonal health care thus brings a cost of its own, and its quality can be low compared to private practice. Indeed, the U.S. is creating a “health care” system that is more costly and less efficient than single-payer national health systems. But it will enrich corporations and provide play for Wall Street.

It turns one’s stomach to watch libertarians and “free market economists” defend bureaucratized impersonal health care as “free market medicine.” There is no free market present. Corporate lobbies and campaign contributions use government power to create bureaucratized monopolies that destroy medicine for the practitioner and the patient. Wall Street pushes for greater shareholder earnings, which are achieved by denying care. ...

Woman found dead 4 days after falling, said ambulance too expensive | desmoinesregister.com | The Des Moines Register

Woman found dead 4 days after falling, said ambulance too expensive | desmoinesregister.com | The Des Moines Register

A retired Des Moines woman who reportedly fell to the floor of her home last Friday and could not get up died on Tuesday.

A man who resides at the same address told police she refused an ambulance because she thought it would be too expensive.
...
Officer Huffman asked Toews why he did not call an ambulance earlier. Toews told him that Knutson thought it would be too expensive.

The police report says: "Toews said Knutson quit making noise sometime Monday afternoon and he thought she was finally asleep. Toews said he covered her with a blanket and left her until today (Tuesday) when around 2 p.m. he tried to wake up Knutson. Knutson's daughter was coming around 3 p.m. to see her." ....

Pfizer Sues Mylan Over Patents for Top-Drug Lipitor (Update2) - Bloomberg.com

Pfizer Sues Mylan Over Patents for Top-Drug Lipitor (Update2) - Bloomberg.com
June 15, 2009
...

June 15 (Bloomberg) -- Pfizer Inc., the world’s biggest drugmaker, sued rivalMylan Inc. asking a judge to prohibit sales of a generic version of its cholesterol-fighting medicine Lipitor until 2017.

In federal court papers filed today in Wilmington, Delaware, lawyers for New York-based Pfizer contend a Mylan affiliate has applied to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for permission to sell copies of Lipitor, the world’s best- selling drug, before three Pfizer patents expire.

“Defendants have taken immediate and active steps” to sell Lipitor copies in the U.S. and “Pfizer will be irreparably harmed” if Canonsburg, Pennsylvania-based Mylan succeeds, according to the complaint.

Pfizer officials have said they’re looking for cooperative ventures with other pharmaceutical makers to increase generic sales as patents expire. Lipitor logged $12.4 billion in revenue last year, $7.7 billion of it in the U.S.

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., India’s biggest drugmaker and majority owned by Japan’s Daiichi Sankyo Co., settled a lawsuit filed by Pfizer and plans to enter the market in November 2011. Pfizer already is suing Apotex Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. to prevent them from selling copies of the medicine before then. ...

Pfizer, Ranbaxy deal would delay generic Lipitor | Reuters

Pfizer, Ranbaxy deal would delay generic Lipitor | Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) said on Wednesday that Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd (RANB.BO) can begin selling a U.S. generic form of its Lipitor cholesterol fighter by late 2011 under a settlement deal, some five months later than Wall Street expectations.

DEALS | STOCKS

Industry analysts have long expected Lipitor's U.S. marketing exclusivity to lapse no later than June 2011, and for cheaper generic forms of the world's best-selling drug to then immediately flood U.S. drugstores.

But under Pfizer's settlement with India's Ranbaxy, which has long challenged Lipitor's patents in the courts, U.S. patients will not have access to Ranbaxy's copycat product until November 30, 2011.

Pfizer's shares rose slightly, giving up earlier gains. Ranbaxy closed up 2.9 percent at a three-year high of 598.20 rupees in Mumbai on speculation the company would reach a Lipitor settlement with Pfizer. Japan's Daiichi Sankyo Co (4568.T) last week said it would pay up to $4.6 billion for control of Ranbaxy.

The delay in Lipitor generics would buy a little extra time for Pfizer, whose earnings are expected to plunge once a copycat form of its $12 billion-a-year flagship product arrives and starts hammering away at Lipitor sales.

CONSUMER BACKLASH?

Asked if the delay could spark a backlash among patients and insurers who favor cheaper generics, David Reid, Pfizer's acting general counsel, said: "We're pleased with this settlement and we actually think it is pro-patient, pro-competitive and pro-intellectual property." ...

"It was best to bring certainty for both organizations," Ranbaxy Chief Executive Malvinder Singh said in an interview at Ranbaxy's London office. "The biggest part for us is in the United States where we will launch with certainty and without any risk."

...

The deal, while ending Pfizer's long-standing attempts to block Ranbaxy's product in the United States, would leave Pfizer free to eventually launch its own authorized generic form of Lipitor, Reid said. ...

Radiation Treatment for Cancer Causes Diabetes in Children

Radiation Treatment for Cancer Causes Diabetes in Children

(NaturalNews) People who are undergo radiation therapy for childhood cancers are significantly more likely to develop diabetes as adults, according to a new study conducted by researchers from Emory University and published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

A number of studies have found that radiation, chemotherapy, and other such treatments significantly shorten the lives of childhood cancer survivors.

"As a result of their curative therapies, childhood cancer survivors face an increased risk of morbidity and mortality," the researchers wrote. Nearly 75 percent of such children develop a chronic health condition within 30 years ofdiagnosis, while 42.4 percent develop severe, disabling or life-threatening health conditions. Because cardiovasculardisease is a major killer of childhood cancer survivors, the researchers examined the effect of radiation treatment on the risk of diabetes, a major correlate of cardiovascular mortality.

The researchers examined diabetes rates in 8,599 people who had been diagnosed with cancer before the age of 21, between 1970 and 1986. These rates were compared with 2,936 of their cancer-free siblings, who were randomly selected. All participants were screened for diabetes in 2003.

After adjusting for other diabetes risk factors including age, body mass index, ethnicity, exercise, income, insurance and race, the researchers found that those who had undergone cancer treatment as children were 1.8 times more likely to have diabetes as adults than their siblings were. Those who had been treated with abdominal radiation were 2.7 times more likely to have diabetes, while those who had been treated with whole-body radiation were a shocking 7.2 times more likely to be diabetic. ...

Sunday, January 24, 2010

The Radiation Boom - Radiation Offers New Cures, and Ways to Do Harm - Series - NYTimes.com

The Radiation Boom - Radiation Offers New Cures, and Ways to Do Harm - Series - NYTimes.com

As Scott Jerome-Parks lay dying, he clung to this wish: that his fatal radiation overdose — which left him deaf, struggling to see, unable to swallow, burned, with his teeth falling out, with ulcers in his mouth and throat, nauseated, in severe pain and finally unable to breathe — be studied and talked about publicly so that others might not have to live his nightmare.
...
A New York City hospital treating him for tongue cancer had failed to detect a computer error that directed a linear accelerator to blast his brain stem and neck with errant beams of radiation. Not once, but on three consecutive days.
...
But on the day of the warning, at the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, a 32-year-old breast cancer patient named Alexandra Jn-Charles absorbed the first of 27 days of radiation overdoses, each three times the prescribed amount. A linear accelerator with a missing filter would burn a hole in her chest, leaving a gaping wound so painful that this mother of two young children considered suicide.
...
Yet while Mr. Jerome-Parks had hoped that others might learn from his misfortune, the details of his case — and Ms. Jn-Charles’s — have until now been shielded from public view by the government, doctors and the hospital.
...

But patients often know little about the harm that can result when safety rules are violated and ever more powerful and technologically complex machines go awry. To better understand those risks, The New York Times examined thousands of pages of public and private records and interviewed physicians, medical physicists, researchers and government regulators.

The Times found that while this new technology allows doctors to more accurately attack tumors and reduce certain mistakes, its complexity has created new avenues for error — through software flaws, faulty programming, poor safety procedures or inadequate staffing and training. When those errors occur, they can be crippling.

...

Regulators and researchers can only guess how often radiotherapy accidents occur. With no single agency overseeing medical radiation, there is no central clearinghouse of cases. Accidents are chronically underreported, records show, and some states do not require that they be reported at all.

In June, The Times reported that a Philadelphia hospital gave the wrong radiation dose to more than 90 patients with prostate cancer — and then kept quiet about it. In 2005, a Florida hospital disclosed that 77 brain cancer patients had received 50 percent more radiation than prescribed because one of the most powerful — and supposedly precise — linear accelerators had been programmed incorrectly for nearly a year.

Dr. John J. Feldmeier, a radiation oncologist at the University of Toledo and a leading authority on the treatment of radiation injuries, estimates that 1 in 20 patients will suffer injuries.

Most are normal complications from radiation, not mistakes, Dr. Feldmeier said. But in some cases the line between the two is uncertain and a source of continuing debate.

“My suspicion is that maybe half of the accidents we don’t know about,” said Dr. Fred A. Mettler Jr., who has investigated radiation accidents around the world and has written books on medical radiation.

...

Even though many accident details are confidential under state law, the records described 621 mistakes from 2001 to 2008. While most were minor, causing no immediate injury, they nonetheless illuminate underlying problems.

The Times found that on 133 occasions, devices used to shape or modulate radiation beams — contributing factors in the injuries to Mr. Jerome-Parks and Ms. Jn-Charles — were left out, wrongly positioned or otherwise misused.

On 284 occasions, radiation missed all or part of its intended target or treated the wrong body part entirely. In one case, radioactive seeds intended for a man’s cancerous prostate were instead implanted in the base of his penis. Another patient with stomach cancer was treated for prostate cancer. Fifty patients received radiation intended for someone else, including one brain cancer patient who received radiation intended for breast cancer.

New York health officials became so alarmed about mistakes and the underreporting of accidents that they issued a special alert in December 2004, asking hospitals to be more vigilant.

...

Ms. Jn-Charles had been harmed by a baffling series of missteps, records show.

One therapist mistakenly programmed the computer for “wedge out” rather than “wedge in,” as the plan required. Another therapist failed to catch the error. And the physics staff repeatedly failed to notice it during their weekly checks of treatment records.

Even worse, therapists failed to notice that during treatment, their computer screen clearly showed that the wedge was missing. Only weeks earlier, state health officials had sent a notice, reminding hospitals that therapists “must closely monitor” their computer screens.

“The fact that therapists failed to notice ‘wedge OUT’ on 27 occasions is disturbing,” Dr. Tobias Lickerman, director of the city’s Radioactive Materials Division, wrote in a report on the incident. The hospital declined to discuss the case.

...

Accidents and Accountability

Patients who wish to vet New York radiotherapy centers before selecting one cannot do so, because the state will not disclose where or how often medical mistakes occur.

To encourage hospitals to report medical mistakes, the State Legislature — with the support of the hospital industry — agreed in the 1980s to shield the identity of institutions making those mistakes. The law is so strict that even federal officials who regulate certain forms of radiotherapy cannot, under normal circumstances, have access to those names.

Even with this special protection, the strongest in the country, many radiation accidents go unreported in New York City and around the state. After The Times began asking about radiation accidents, the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene reminded hospitals in July of their reporting obligation under the law. Studies of radiotherapy accidents, the city pointed out, “appear to be several orders of magnitude higher than what is being reported in New York City, indicating serious underreporting of these events.” ...

Martha Stewart: The Other Health Care Crisis -- America's Elderly

Martha Stewart: The Other Health Care Crisis -- America's Elderly

As the health care bill winds its way through Congress, sparking passions, heated debate and countless news stories, I have been struck by the dearth of discussion about a looming health care crisis: In 2011, the first of 78 million baby boomers will start turning 65. We, as a nation, are utterly unprepared for this rapidly approaching "silver tsunami." We do not have enough doctors skilled in the care of the very demographic group with the greatest overall health care needs. And we do not provide proper support for the more than 48 million men and women who, according to a recent report from the National Alliance for Caregiving, are caring for older family members and friends.

Our population is growing older and living longer. Life expectancy in the United States is at an all-time high of nearly 78 years. The oldest old, those who are age 85 and over, are the fastest growing segment of the population. Yet very few doctors are trained in the care of the elderly. Do you know that there is currently one geriatrician to every 10,000 baby boomers? There are about three times as many cosmetic surgeons, a fact that speaks volumes about how we view aging in this country.

[.. the wonders of the market at work ... distort the market, distort the incentives, live with the results. ed.]

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Aetna reinstates customer who made $64 error - latimes.com

Aetna reinstates customer who made $64 error - latimes.com

Los Angeles resident Stacey Owens found out after a recent doctor's visit that her health insurer, Aetna, had canceled her coverage, ostensibly because she'd missed a monthly payment.

Never mind the heartlessness of leaving people uninsured because of something as potentially trivial as a misplaced bill.

No, the problem in this case is that Owens, 25, never missed a payment -- and she has the bank records to prove it.

Yet when she confronted Aetna with what clearly appeared to be a clerical error on the company's part, Owens said, the insurer dug in its heels and refused to reinstate her coverage.
...
Owens said she found out that her coverage had been canceled only after a doctor's bill was rejected by Aetna in November.

She called the company and asked what was up. Owens said she was told by a service rep that her policy had been terminated because of a missed payment for October.

This simply wasn't the case. According to bank records produced by Owens, she wrote a check for $472.99 to Aetna on Sept. 28. The check was deposited by Aetna into a Citibank account in Delaware on Nov. 1.

Yet even when Owens appealed Aetna's cancellation of her coverage and asked to be reinstated, she was told -- via a form letter -- that there was nothing the company could do to help her.

While she pressed for reinstatement, Owens said she was careful to continue mailing monthly payments to Aetna. And Aetna kept mailing them back.

Finally, Owens brought her case to me. I took it back to Aetna.

"We could have done a better job with this situation," admitted Anjie Coplin, a company spokeswoman, after reviewing Owens' file.

The problem, Coplin said, resulted from a roughly $32 increase in Owens' premium that took effect in August. Although Owens continued sending in monthly checks, she neglected to pay the higher amount for two months.

She began paying the higher premium -- $472.99 a month -- as of October. But by then, at least in Aetna's eyes, it was too late. She was short by about $64 for the previous two months combined, and that was reason enough to have her join the 47 million other people in this country lacking health coverage.

Owens said she never received advance word that her premium was going up. She said she received a letter from Aetna in October saying that her rates had risen as of a couple of months earlier. ...

Over 7,000 women a year get false breast cancer alert - Times Online

Over 7,000 women a year get false breast cancer alert - Times Online

Thousands of women who attend routine breast screening checks are wrongly told that they have life-threatening cancer and undergo unnecessary treatment each year, researchers claim today.

An independent scientific review of the NHS breast screening programme accuses the Government of providing misleading propaganda to persuade women of the benefits of screening, without mentioning the drawbacks.

Ministers, health charities and the majority of doctors encourage women to have regular mammograms in middle age on the basis of estimates that the checks save 1,400 lives each year.

However, the review by the Nordic Cochrane Centre, in Copenhagen, disputes the value of the checks, saying that there is “no convincing evidence” that screening has saved so many lives.

Writing in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, the researchers say that improvements in breast cancer survival are more to do with improvements in treatment, rather than detection through screening. They add that many healthy women who attend screenings may have had benign conditions “overdiagnosed” by doctors and endured gruelling surgery, radiotherapy or chemotherapy.

...

As well as detecting tumours developing in the breast, mammography also identifies women who have ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) — precancerous lesions contained in the milk ducts, which may develop into cancer.

Up to half of women who receive a diagnosis of DCIS never go on to develop breast cancer but, as it is not possible to predict who will, all women with abnormalities are treated with surgery, radiotherapy or chemotherapy.

Professor Peter Gøtzsche, the lead author of the Cochrane review, said that more than 21,000 women aged 50 to 69 had breast cancer diagnosed in Britain in 2007. He added that one in three of the cancers diagnosed among the screened age group could be “unnecessary” diagnoses of benign DCIS.

“Each year 7,000 women in the UK receive an unnecessary breast cancer diagnosis and unnecessary breast cancer treatment because of overdiagnosis in the NHS breast screening programme,” he said. ...

Monday, January 18, 2010

Robert Kuttner: A Wake Up Call

Robert Kuttner: A Wake Up Call

How could the health care issue have turned from a reform that was going to make Barack Obama ten feet tall into a poison pill for Democratic senators? Whether or not Martha Coakley squeaks through in Massachusetts on Tuesday, the health bill has already done incalculable political damage and will likely do more. Polls show that the public now opposes it by margins averaging ten to fifteen points, and widening. It is hard to know which will be the worse political defeat -- losing the bill and looking weak, or passing it and leaving it as a piñata for Republicans to attack between now and November.
...

So, how did Democrats get saddled with this bill? Begin with Rahm Emanuel. The White House chief of staff, who was once Bill Clinton's political director, drew three lessons from the defeat of Clinton-care. All three were wrong. First, get it done early (Clinton's task force had dithered.) Second, leave the details to Congress (Clinton had presented Congress with a fully-baked cake.) Third, don't get on the wrong side of the insurance and drug industries (The insurers' fictitious couple, Harry and Louise, had cleaned Clinton's clock.)

But as I wrote in Obama's Challenge, in August 2008, it would be a huge mistake to try to get health care done right out of the box. Obama first needed to get his sea-legs, and focus like a laser on economic recovery. If he got the economy back on track, he would then have earned the chops to undertake more difficult structural reforms like health care.

Deferring to the House and Senate was fine up to a point, but this was an issue where the president needed to lead as only presidents can -- in order to frame the debate and define the stakes.

Cutting a deal with the insurers and drug companies, who are not exactly candidates to win popularity contests, associated Obama with profoundly resented interest groups. This was exactly the wrong framing. This battle should have been the president and the people versus the interests. Instead more and more voters concluded that it was the president and the interests versus the people.

As policy, the interest-group strategy made it impossible to put on the table more fundamental and popular reforms, such as using Federal bargaining power to negotiate cheaper drug prices, or having a true public option like Medicare-for-all. Instead, a bill that served the drug and insurance industries was almost guaranteed to have unpopular core elements.

The politics got horribly muddled. By embracing a deal that required the government to come up with a trillion dollars of subsidy for the insurance industry, Obama was forced to pursue policies that were justifiably unpopular -- such as taxing premiums of people with decent insurance; or compelling people to buy policies that they often couldn't afford, or diverting money from Medicare. He managed to scare silly the single most satisfied clientele of our one island of efficient single-payer health insurance -- senior citizens -- and to alienate one of his most loyal constituencies, trade unionists.

The bill helped about two-thirds of America's uninsured, but did almost nothing for the 85 percent of Americans with insurance that is becoming more costly and unreliable by the day -- except frighten them into believing that what little they have is at increased risk of being taken away. ...

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Johnson & Johnson Issues Massive Recall of Tylenol - ABC News

Johnson & Johnson Issues Massive Recall of Tylenol - ABC News

Johnson & Johnson issued a massive recall Friday of over-the-counter drugs including Tylenol, Motrin and St. Joseph's aspirin because of a moldy smell that has made people sick.

It was the second such recall in less than a month because of the smell, which regulators said was first reported to McNeil in 2008. Federal regulators criticized the company, saying it didn't respond to the complaints quickly enough, wasn't thorough in how it handled the problem and didn't inform the Food and Drug Administration quickly.
...
The FDA said about 70 people have been either sickened by the odor — including nausea, stomach pain, vomiting and diarrhea — or noticed it.

The smell is caused by small amounts of a chemical associated with the treatment of wooden pallets, Johnson & Johnson said. The FDA said the chemical can leach into the air, and traced it to a facility in Las Piedras, Puerto Rico.
...
"McNeil should have acted faster," said Deborah Autor, the director of the FDA's Office of Compliance of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. "When something smells bad, literally or figuratively, companies must aggressively investigate and take all necessary action to solve the problem." ...

Cold, Hard Cash as a Handwashing Incentive - Freakonomics Blog - NYTimes.com

Cold, Hard Cash as a Handwashing Incentive - Freakonomics Blog - NYTimes.com

Whenever you write a book, it’s interesting to see which parts of it people respond to en masse. With SuperFreakonomics, the global-warming chapter has certainly gotten its fair share of attention, and Levitt noted a lot of feedback about the perils of drunk walking.

But there’s a third strong contender: hand hygiene, or the lack thereof, especially in hospitals. Here’s one fascinating reply from Jeffrey R. Starke, a physician in Houston:

I am in charge of infection control at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, the largest children’s hospital in the U.S., and am on the faculty of Baylor College of Medicine. We also had difficulty getting hand hygiene rates where we want them to be. We tried all the usual methods that you mention in the book, and a few others, but had a difficult time getting the rates above 70 percent. (We measure rates by use of a “secret shopper,” an expert in infection control from outside the institution who observes the actual hand hygiene behavior of the workers.)

We decided to use a more direct incentive. Our employees participate in a bonus program called P3. Previously, all the required performance measures were financial. However, we made hand hygiene rates part of the program; employees had to achieve and sustain >96 percent compliance with hand hygiene to get their full bonus. (This is a pooled bonus plan — either everyone gets it or no one gets it.) We did much better, but still not quite good enough until we hit on a second idea: we made the hand-hygiene performance part of the hospital executives’ performance bonus, even though they don’t care for patients. Magically, we have attained and sustained a rate of hand hygiene >98 percent, and won a national award for quality improvement from the Children’s Hospitals Corporation of America. Equally interesting is that the rate of hand hygiene among physicians, who are not hospital employees and do not participate in any performance bonus program, also has a sustained rate >98 percent. I guess this is a positive externality, perhaps pressure from employees on physicians to make everyone look good. ...

Friday, January 15, 2010

A Predatory System: The Health Insurance Monopoly | The Smirking Chimp

A Predatory System: The Health Insurance Monopoly | The Smirking Chimp

Like pathetic knights of another era jousting at windmills, industry shrills attack health care reform, claiming it "tramples individual liberty" and stifles "free enterprise."

Far from protecting individual liberty or promoting free enterprise, these forces uphold monopoly control of health care insurance that has a stranglehold on American consumers. And they pay huge sums to control the debate and twist legislation to their advantage.

Since 1998, over 400 mergers left two conglomerates in control of the huge health care insurance industry. Mergers allowed insurers to raise prices, buy influence in Congress, and redistribute cost savings to shareholders. Consolidation increased rapidly. Between 2004 and 2005, 28 health care mergers, valued at $53 billion, outpaced the number of health care mergers in the previous eight years combined.

Low interest rates, leverage and lax anti-trust enforcement by the Bush Administration allowed conglomerates to take control of the health insurance in the U.S. A 2009 report from Fortune Magazine reveals that the revenue of the top two companies account for $142 billion or 36 percent of the health care insurance market, while the top four gross $202 billion, almost three quarters of all health insurance.

"During the Bush administration, there were no enforcement actions against health insurers' anticompetitive, deceptive or fraudulent conduct," David Balto, senior fellow, Center for American Progress, told the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in July 2009. "There was tremendous consolidation in the market, and the Justice Department simply required minor restructuring of two mergers. There were no cases against anticompetitive conduct by health insurers."

Health insurance monopolies do business under pseudonyms to hide their identities and project a false impression of competition in the industry. The largest, UnitedHealth Group, reported $81 billion in revenue in 2008 and sold products under such names as OptumHealth, Ovations and AmeriChoice. WellPoint, the second largest, has revenues of $61 billion and insures 35 million people under Unicare and Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Concentration is even greater on a state-by-state basis.

A 2006 study by the AMA found that health insurance is "highly concentrated" in 94 percent of the states, and in a majority of the nation's largest metropolitan areas a single insurer controlled more than half the business. A 2007 study by Health Care for America Now found that in 38 states, the top two insurers control 57 percent or more of the market, and in 15 states one insurer controlled 60 percent or more of the market.

Facing the monopoly power of UnitedHealth Group and Wellpoint, smaller firms cannot compete: Aetna ranks third with $31 billion in revenue, and Humana is fourth with $29 billion. Of the 14 health care insurers, the smallest eight have yearly revenue of less than $12 billion.

Such concentration stands in stark contrast to a "free enterprise" system where companies compete to lower costs and provide consumer choices. Instead, monopoly control raises prices unilaterally and controls every aspect of clients' health care. No wonder insurance premiums increased an average of 87 percent in the past six years, according to FamiliesUSA.

Economists point out that most wage increases went to pay for health insurance from 2000 to 2009. For example: In New York, the cost of health insurance increased 93 percent, while wages increased 14 percent; in California, health insurance increased 109 percent, while wages increased 26 percent; and in Texas, health insurance rose 80 percent, while wages rose 11 percent. Insurers also have "monopsony" power to dictate prices and coverage terms to hospitals and doctors, with profits redistributed to shareholders. Profits increased apace. ...

Deals to Restrain Generic Drugs Face a Ban - NYTimes.com

Deals to Restrain Generic Drugs Face a Ban - NYTimes.com
...
The group plans to ask Congress on Wednesday to block business deals in which they say makers of name-brand drugs directly or indirectly pay generic makers to delay competition from cheaper generic alternatives.
...

In recent years, critics say, deals between name-brand makers and generic makers have delayed the introduction of a range of generics including cancer drugs, antidepressants and prescription-strength antacids. The F.T.C. has estimated that such deals currently cost American consumers $3.5 billion a year.

“These are collusive, price-fixing deals,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, who is one of those urging Congress to ban the arrangements. “It means the consumer pays a lot more for their pharmaceuticals.”

Opponents of the generic agreements — maligned as “pay for delay” deals — say they are standard industry practice and help prop up monopoly pricing.

Generics account for only about 22 percent of prescription drug spending in this country, although they represent nearly three-quarters of the prescriptions written, according to the research firm IMS Health. That means 78 percent of the nation’s drug bill goes toward the 25 percent of prescriptions written for name-brand medicines.

But representatives of branded drug and generic makers said that settlements were a legitimate and expedient way to resolve expensive and time-consuming patent litigation.

Moreover, Kathleen Jaeger, the president of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, an industry trade group, contested the term “pay for delay.”

Settlements, she said, typically award the generic challenger the right to enter the market before a brand’s patent is due to expire, giving consumers earlier access to affordable drugs. And compensation, she said, is often for legitimate side deals, like the generic company’s supplying ingredients to the name-brand maker.

...

Under Hatch-Waxman, the first generic to challenge a name-brand drug’s patent gains the exclusive right to sell its generic version for six months before other generic makers can enter the market. But Hatch-Waxman also gives drug makers who sue generic infringers an automatic 30-month stay of generic market entry so that litigation can proceed.

Rather than litigate cases to the end, though, many drug makers choose to settle with generic challengers. Sometimes, the parties negotiate an earlier market entry date for the generic, without the generic maker’s receiving additional compensation.

...

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Monsanto's GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals

Monsanto's GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals

In a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers found that agricultural giant Monsanto's GM corn is linked to organ damage in rats.
...

In the conclusion of the IJBS study, researchers wrote:

"Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity....These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown."

Monsanto has immediately responded to the study, stating that the research is "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products." ...

‘Big Government’ Health Care - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com

‘Big Government’ Health Care - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com

The federal government released its latest estimates of health spending last week, and they allow for some telling comparisons. In 2008, the country spent $2.3 trillion on medical care, or 16.2 percent of gross domestic product and $7,681 per person.

Of this $2.3 trillion, the federal government spent $817 billion, while state and local governments spent $290 billion. The tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance amounted to about $250 billion in lost federal revenue — which is, effectively, a government subsidy for health care. Add up all of these sources, and you get about $1.35 trillion of health spending done by the public sector and slightly less than $1 trillion done by the private sector.

In per person terms, government agencies spent roughly $4,500 on medical care, while the private sector spent roughly $3,000.

Here’s what’s notable about that $4,500 figure: It’s more than what a lot of other rich countries spend on health care — including both the public and the private sectors. All told, Canada, Belgium and Germany each spend about $4,000 per person on health care. Australia and Britain spend about $3,500 each. Japan spends a little less than that. ..

Better Believe It's Journal - The Healthcare Loophole: No discrimination against pre-existing conditions is out the window!

Better Believe It's Journal - The Healthcare Loophole: No discrimination against pre-existing conditions is out the window!

anuary 8, 2010

Taken at face value, Senator John Ensign's amendment which was included in the final Senate healthcare bill sounds pretty decent: by meeting "wellness" standards people can receive discounts on their employer-based healthcare premiums. Stop smoking--pay less. Hit a certain weight--pay less. Meet a cholesterol target--you get the idea.

Dems probably should have stopped and realized since the amendment was offered by Ensign it probably wasn't motivated by "wellness" at heart.

In fact, it allows premiums to be raised from current levels, and then "discounts" would reduce the premiums to current rates. People who don't meet the insurance companies' targets could pay up to 30 percent more for coverage, roughly $4000 based on the average cost of family coverage. The amount could increase to 50 percent which is over $6,600 for a family.

There is also the problem that this is biased against people with a genetic predisposition to high blood sugar, hypertension, high cholesterol, being overweight and a host of other often hereditary conditions. It's also biased against a lower-income person working two to three jobs to pay the bills, who has to stop and chow down some fast food between jobs rather than get to the gym where he or she can't afford a membership anyway. It's even biased against communities that don't have grocery stores where they can find fresh fruits and vegetables.

So what does this all mean? Remember a central promise of healthcare reform--even the watered down version--how people with preexisting conditions weren't supposed to be denied coverage or forced to pay more for their insurance? That all sounded pretty good, right? Well, guess again. ...

Obama received $20 million from healthcare industry in 2008 campaign | Raw Story

Obama received $20 million from healthcare industry in 2008 campaign | Raw Story

While some sunlight has been shed on the hefty sums shoveled into congressional campaign coffers in an effort to influence the Democrats' massive healthcare bill, little attention has been focused on the far larger sums received by President Barack Obama while he was a candidate in 2008.

A new figure, based on an exclusive analysis created for Raw Story by the Center for Responsive Politics, shows that President Obama received a staggering $20,175,303 from the healthcare industry during the 2008 election cycle, nearly three times the amount of his presidential rival John McCain. McCain took in $7,758,289, the Center found. ...

Monday, January 11, 2010

Public says health care bill doesn’t go ‘far enough’ | Raw Story

Public says health care bill doesn’t go ‘far enough’ | Raw Story

Far from overreaching on health care reform, a plurality of the public thinks President Obama and Democrats have done too little to regulate the insurance industry, hold down costs and extend coverage, a new poll finds.

Forty-three percent of Americans said the health care bill goes "not far enough" in regulating health insurance companies, according to a new CBS survey released Monday evening. Just 18 percent deemed it "about right" and 27 percent thought it "go[es] to far."

Thirty-nine percent said the legislation doesn't achieve strong enough cost controls one of the leading goals of reform as opposed to 24 percent who believed it goes too far and 21 percent that are satisfied.

The public was also underwhelmed by the bill's provisions to extend coverage. Thirty-five percent said its efforts aren't strong enough, as opposed to 32 percent who believed it goes too far and 22 percent who were satisfied.

The study contradicts the common argument made by the Republican Party and some conservative Democrats that the bill forces too much change upon the American people. ...

Anthem seeks 22.9 percent rate increase in Maine | The Morning Sentinel

Anthem seeks 22.9 percent rate increase in Maine | The Morning Sentinel

PORTLAND — Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Maine has proposed a 22.9 percent rate increase for two health insurance plans targeting individuals.

The filing comes as Anthem awaits a judge's ruling on an earlier rate case. Maine Insurance Superintendent Mila Koffman last spring denied Anthem's proposed 18 percent rate hike for its individual insurance plans. Instead, she approved a revised request for a 10.9 percent increase, which provided for a zero percent profit margin.

The new filing focuses on the same two products that provide coverage for 11,066 Mainers.

Greg Howard from Maine Changes That Works, which advocates health care reform, says it "boggles the mind" that Anthem would file for another increase before the last one was settled. ...