Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Economics of Health Care’ Category

Old US Public Health Service Hospital (known as Pacific Tower during its tenure as Amazon HQ building) to become new satellite campus for allied health professions programs of Seattle Central Community College and serve as site for public agencies and NGOs. AmazonBeaconHillHQ*304

Seattleite Jeanne Sather, author of Assertive Cancer patient  blog ,died from metastatic breast cancer  15 years after her original diagnosis

In June the King County Board of Health unanimously approved creation of drug take-back system for county residents , to be financed by a 2-cent per Rx tax. On Dec. 1, PhRMA filed a lawsuit against King County , claiming that the plan causes a financial burden for patients and that in-home disposal of  medicines is the best way to keep Rx drugs out of the wrong hands.

State to review hospital affiliations — Catholic and otherwise

Public hospital CEO gets pay cut to $1 M per year, at Renton’s Valley Medical Center

Harborview to close  pediatrics, women’s, & family clinics

Health Care Reform for American Indians and Alaska Natives 2013  including WA-specific page

Read Full Post »

Recent news of note:

Report: Debt Collectors Work In Emergency Rooms, Demand Payment Before Patients Receive Care

Abbott To Pay $1.6 Billion To Settle Depakote Probes

Discrepancies on Medical Bills Can Leave a Credit Stain

American Pain Foundation Shuts Down as Senators Launch Investigation of Prescription Narcotics

Insurers back FDA plan for new drug category

Patients Share Of Expensive Specialty Drugs Is Rising

Racial, Socioeconomic Disparities Alleged In Autism Spending

Premera tries to gut drug benefits, Kreidler says no 

and a shout out to an excellent source of news and analysis with a focus on Oregon and the broader context:

The Lund Report: Unlocking Oregon’s Healthcare System

Read Full Post »

Those who have been following the saga of the leukemia wonder drug imatinib mesylate or Glivec (spelled Gleevec in North America to standardize pronunciation) may recall that it was said to be the first medicine for which a global price was set. At the time of its 2001 FDA approval, the worldwide price was US$2400/month, for  a base dosage of  a 30 day supply of 400mg caps.  Indeed, Novartis CEO  Daniel Vasella went to great lengths to discuss and justify both the high price and the pricing decision in his subsequent infomercial-type book  Magic Cancer Bullet: How a Tiny Orange Pill Is Rewriting Medical HistoryThe Gleevec story is notable too in that the typical pharma claim that the price is justified by R & D costs, was refuted by researcher Brian Druker MD, who detailed how most of the initial work on imatinib was publicly funded and he had to convince Novartis to  produce enough of it to begin clinical trials with CML patients. Dr. Druker has also gone on record to criticize  the price being charged for Glivec.

Since then patients in wealthy countries mostly have been clamoring for their  public or private insurance to cover  the drug (and its second-line successors) not that something be done about the price that is exorbitant even in their economies. Novartis  invested heavily in worldwide patient relationship marketing for Glivec , which has contributed to this phenomenon, a topic  explored previously in this blog. In recent years,  it has become much more common to hear complaints from US patients and even some of the big-box disease associations, about the escalating price of  drugs like Glivec and  especially for new biologics. But it has  been rare to to hear demands that something be done about drug prices.

So the recent posting of a patient petition on change.org calling for action to reduce the price of Gleevec is notable:  Novartis and US Representatives in Congress: Reduce to patients the cost of the drug, Gleevec.

The introduction of the petition reads:

Novartis developed this drug in the 1990s. In the years since then the price of the drug has increased astronomically. Novartis must have paid their research costs long ago, but the price just keeps rising. Patients with CML leukemia are dependent on the drug to keep them alive. Our US representatives should work with FDA to pressure Novartis to reduce the cost

Setting aside the issue of  misunderstanding that there are no price controls on prescription drugs in the US open market and that the FDA does not regulate drug prices, the petition is significant as a reflection of the increasing desperation of middle-class privately insured patients. They are among the majority here whose insurance status and/or income levels typically disqualify them for the patient assistance programs much touted by Novartis, whose global Gleevec sales generated $4.7B in 2011.   Many US patients are now finding that the Gleevec price has skyrocketed at the same time that insurers are requiring them  to pay a much larger share of its  hefty price tag.  The situation is quite simply unsustainable.

One person who signed the online petition shared:

I started taking Gleevec June 1, 2001, when it was first approved by the FDA. It cost $2400 for 30 pills. Now, these same pills cost $7367 per month. I pay $1035 per month for insurance to cover this cost. My insurance Co. gets billed for the drug. Why has Novartis raised the price so much? …

A look at  Costco’s online pharmacy, which has a reputation, anecdotal at least, for offering “good value” retail prices on Rx meds in the US, found the following cash price for a month’s supply of an  average dose (dosage  is individualized) of  30 tabs :  GLEEVEC 400 MG TABLET      $6,264.59

While Novartis is continuing its drag on its patent fight to combat the imatinib generics already on the market in India, these cannot yet be exported to the US.  The original  US patent for Glivec expires in 2015. In 2009, Sun Pharma  filed for and received tentative FDA approval for a generic imatinib for when that day comes.

Given the power of the pharma lobby the future remains very uncertain for any relief on the price of Gleevec , but the clamor of voices from the grassroots is a healthy development.

Read Full Post »

In these times of intense attention to healthcare from all quarters of the US,  a new study by USA Today and Kaiser Health News reporters focused on community clinics.  Over the past 2 decades community clinics have  developed from origins often as volunteer-run efforts, to become a vital part of  what is called the safety-net. Frequently they now are the sole source of care available to over 20 million people, often as the only providers who will accept patients covered by Medicaid,  and for the growing ranks of the uninsured. The sorry state of healthcare access would be far worse if it were not for community clinics.  These centers will play an important role too in the reforms set to start in 2014. It is expected that many who will become newly insured  by Medicaid will be seeking  care at community clinics. Long woefully underfunded, clinics will be eligible to receive help from the $10 billion approved by Congress for expanding their  service capacity.   

The report entitled  Community clinics have odds stacked against them  looked  at almost 1200 community clinics across the country, and ranked them based on the 6 categories of performance quality measures which federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) must report to the federal government.  The categories cover care for patients with diabetes and high blood pressure, rates of screening for cervical cancer and childhood immunizations, plus timeliness of prenatal care and rates of low birth-weight babies.

Using  2010 clinic performance data obtained by FOIA request, the reporting team found wide variations in care by center,  by region of the country, and between specific centers in the same city.  Generally, clinics in the South performed worse that those in New England, the Midwest, and California. Overall, their  survey showed community clinics not performing as well as the national averages for the study parameters .

There is more context to understanding the survey results however, that was not part of the report.  The National Association of Community Health Centers issued a statement about the report which while recognizing the value of examining clinic performance, expressed concern about the wrong impressions that the media study might give:

The article disregards the better quality care that most health centers achieve when compared to care provided to other low-income patients elsewhere.  However, at least the article does reveal what few Americans realize– that every health center reports on the quality of care their patients receive….

<snip>

…When you compare the federal data that is the focus of the USA Today article with national data from the National Center for Health Statistics, health centers performed better than national averages for entering women into prenatal care during the first trimester, childhood immunization rates, reduced low birth rates and hypertension control…..

NACHC recently published its report Health Wanted – The State of Unmet Need for Primary Health Care in America  which takes an in-depth look at the factors behind the consistent and increasing demand for community clinics, the links to social determinants of health and how funding has not kept up to meet population needs.  In FY 2011 for example, only 67 out of some 1900 applications for new health center service sites were funded.

Seattle/Local Health Guide extracted localized  figures from the report to create a Washington State Comparison Chart.  Janna Wilson, Senior External  Relations Officer for the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health shared additional concerns with me  in a personal  communication, about implications and lack of context  for specific data used for the local news article:

The data provided for Public Health represents a small subset of the patients we see—our homeless primary care patients. This is because Public Health’s federal health center grant comes under a targeted program called Health Care for the Homeless. Our federal data report, therefore, is specific to our homeless patients per federal reporting requirements.  As you know, homeless patients face barriers that often exacerbate medical and behavioral health conditions and complicate treatment plans.
 

While most community health center grants and programs are for the general low-income population, some — like ours — target special population groups such as homeless people or migrant workers.  There is nothing in the USA Today article that provides this important context. That said, quality improvement is a big part of our program for all our patients, whether homeless or housed.

Read Full Post »

Recent developments in Washington and neighboring Oregon are reminders of the clout and lobbying power of Big Pharma on the local level.

Seattle City Councilmember Tom Rasmussen announced that he was working to implement a  discounted prescription drug program for Seattlites , a program of the National League of Cities.  At first glance this might seem like a boon most of us, cash-strapped and increasingly uninsured and underinsured, but in reality the plan is not needed, won’t offer much in the way of bargains, and is linked to a questionable PBM. With all due respect to Rasmussen, who undoubtedly has good intentions , he seems unaware that we already have a drug discount program available at no charge to all state residents, the Washington Prescription Drug Program , which offers discounts up to 60% on generics and 20% on branded drugs, while the NLC program  offers maximum discounts up to 23% of full retail prices.  Another concern is that the NLC card is an offering of CVS Caremark, the mega-PBM which has earned itself notoriety for  unethical business practices, including overcharging government employee health plans ( including the federal plan) for Rx medicines and drug-switching on scripts. The Seattle-only program is due to start next month, so now is a good time to weigh in with Rasmussen and his fellow City Councilmembers , as well as with Mayor Mike McGinn on the issue.  In addition to helping to increase awareness of the WPDP, our city elected officials could really offer a public service by creating a drug price comparison tool that surveys Seattle pharmacies.

And in the Washington Legislature, among several bills dealing with prescription drugs ( look for my comments in the future), for the third year in a row we saw  Drug Companies Fight Take-Back Program for Unused Medicine. They claim that take-back programs, which they would be required to help pay for, would do little to stop  abuse of prescription drugs and that environmental concerns about trashing meds are essentially bogus. Take Back Your Meds, a group of over 260 health organizations, police, drugstores, local governments, environmental groups and concerned individuals vows to keep up the fight.

In Oregon, a legislative defeat with direct negative impact there and for partner WA in the Northwest  Drug Purchasing Consortium , pharma and insurance industry muscle united to make sure that  Oregon Prescription Drug Program Bill Dies a Second Death. SB 1577 would have required all state agencies to purchase medicines for beneficiaries through the Oregon Prescription Drug Program, reversing the current optional  status.  When the OPDP and the WPDP were created in 2005, they formed the Northwest Prescription Drug Purchasing Consortium to achieve better prices through pooled volume purchasing but left participation optional for state agencies. In both states, for example,  the Dept. of Corrections does not participate.  And with efforts to control Rx costs stymied, we are seeing scenarios such as this year’s state budget proposal in Washington to eliminate completely prescription drug coverage for adults in the Medicaid program, only now with some hope of possible mitigation if competitive bidding for generic drugs is approved by the Legislature now in Special Session.

Read Full Post »

With almost nothing but a steady stream of dire news about public services in 2011 , and  the prospect of even more budget cuts facing us as the Washington State Legislature convenes work today, it is heartening to hear some good news. For the third year in a row, Washington has earned bonuses for enrolling children in Apple Health for Kids, our state’s plan for low- and middle-income kids, which includes the Children’s Health Insurance Program. As Crosscut reported:

Tens of thousands more children have health insurance now, despite the state’s having reached the grim milestone of 1 million uninsured residents last year. Washington is also the only Western state to win federal awards in 2011 for both early learning and children’s insurance programs.

Of course, one of the reasons that so many children are now enrolled in Apple Health is because their parents have lost their jobs and/or health insurance. And some 100,000 eligible children are not enrolled in the program, highlighting the need to continue outreach efforts, which lost  state funding in 2009.  Nevertheless the ceaseless efforts of advocacy groups like  the Children’s Alliance are a driving force which led to this performance award, which  in turn will help the State do even more for our kids.

Read Full Post »

As the new year starts, some ome items of note from near and far:

The breast implant scandal strips away the glossy euphemisms of cosmetic surgery

S. Korea approves Asia’s first anti-leukemia drug

Nicotine Gum and Skin Patch Face New Doubt

No Benefits for Sick Job Seekers: After battling leukemia, man is denied unemployment benefits

Opinion: Why are Washington’s nonprofit health insurers sitting on huge surpluses?

“Gizmo idolatry,” robotic prostatectomy, and real data

Final Thoughts from A Dying Cancer Researcher

Number of uninsured in WA hits 1 million

Drug research routinely suppressed, study authors find

FBI crackdown on unproven stem cell therapies

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.