Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The PT Barnum Factor in American Healthcare: One Prescription at a Time
So, who's the sucker born every minute in this healthcare and wealthcare mess? You and me. The patients. The family members. The concerned and committed citizens. The insured and the uninsured. The taxpayers. All of us.
I have watched many atrocities and many miracles unfold over the course of my husband's treatment for chronic artery disease during the past 20 years. I completely agree with the assessment I once heard Sen. Tom Daschle (soon to be this nation's top health policy czar and Secretary of Health and Human Services) make when he described the U.S. healthcare system as displaying "islands of excellence in a sea of mediocrity." My husband has been blessed with some of the finest care this nation has to offer. Yet he has had to struggle with dishonesty, indifference and, in my opinion, outright fraud as he has attempted to be that personally involved consumer we seem to be charging with some sort of ability to alter the forces raking massive profits out of this system without regard for patient health or national well-being.
Sen. Daschle often says that the healthcare system is complex in this nation and that reforming it will require knowledge of that complexity and efforts to mitigate negative outcomes of reform as we create better conditions for more people. I agree. But we have to start from a position of honesty and doing so requires that we tear apart the processes patients encounter every day and look at the costs and conditions driving costs higher and damaging lives.
I recently observed the process associated with just one of my husband's eight prescription medications and became troubled thinking about millions and millions of these transactions and the impact on the system.
My husband's cardiologist prescribed for him a drug called Niaspan, produced by pharmaceutical giant Abbott Labs. The drug offers an "extended release" high dose of niacin, also known as vitamin B3, and apparently is indicated for patients for whom traditional dietary modifications and cholesterol lowering drug therapy have not been sufficient to create the optimal artery protecting results. My husband trusts his cardiologist, and he filled the prescription. He was annoyed by the out-of-pocket costs on top of the Medicare premium he pays as well as the Medicare Advantage plan and supplemental coverage premium he pays to a private insurance company in order to keep his out-of-pocket costs down.
Within a short time, he experienced terrible flushing and itching after taking his Niaspan - some of the side effects of the drug which have been noted by many patients. He mentioned the side effects to the doctor and pharmacist who suggested he take an aspirin prior to taking the Niaspan to relieve the flushing a bit. He tried that. Sometimes it helped and sometimes it did not. So the next time he saw his doctor, he mentioned that he hates taking the Niaspan because of the cost and the flushing. The doctor then suggested he cut the tablets in half and wrote a new prescription.
Lo and behold, my husband used up the supply he had and then went to fill the new prescription, but then found out the first part of this troubling saga of just one drug prescribed to one patient. While he expected his out-of-pocket cost for Niaspan to also drop, it did not. Apparently, a one month supply costs approximately the same amount to him whether that one month supply is 15 pills or 30 pills or 45 pills. When my husband challenged the pharmacist, he was told he should take it up with his doctor and that the doctor could write the prescription for 30 pills.
The implication was that then my husband could fill the 30-pill, 30-day written prescription, but follow the verbal dosing orders from his doctor and cut the pills in half and then only refill the 30-pill prescription every couple of months. Wow. And this was the advice from pharmacists at a major pharmacy that fills millions of private insurance and government program prescriptions every month. Imagine the charging and cost implications if millions of patients and programs pay the same for 15 pills as for 30 or 45 and so on. No per unit pricing here. You may pay $2 a pill for Niaspan or you may pay $1.50 or even $1 a pill - and those cost differences are paid by insurance programs and government programs too.
Well, this isn't the end of the Niaspan story for my husband. I went to one of those community discussions called for by Sen. Daschle and the in-coming Obama administration during the past couple of weeks. We started talking about the issues we see and want fixed. I relayed the story about the Niaspan and the costs. Two of the people at the meeting were doctors and three were nurses. One piped up, "Why does he take that? Couldn't he just take over-the-counter niacin?"
I said I didn't think the drugs were the same. The healthcare professional laughed. She told me that one of the things she routinely see is patients prescribed costly "extended release" or otherwise formulated prescription medications that could fairly effectively be replaced by far cheaper over-the-counter versions of the same drug. The other health professionals nodded, some laughed. I did not laugh.
The joke's on us. I am dumbfounded. Not only did my husband's doctors not talk with him honestly about the relative effectiveness of Niaspan in comparison to vitamin B3 supplements, his pharmacist and pharmacy participated in a billing shell game that left him in the dark. And I am 100 percent sure by the reaction I saw at that healthcare community discussion that this happens a tremendous number of times within our system.
My husband is not stupid, and he tries to take personal responsibility for choosing cost-effective and appropriate treatment. He does not wish to end up needing more invasive and expensive care. And I try to help him negotiate the costs and care as best I can. We do often trust his medical professionals - from the doctors right down the line to the pharmacists - to be honest and forthright about treatment options. Clearly, we cannot trust that - and clearly, trying to force patients to be more personally responsible for their care is not going to address the rampant greed embedded in this system top to bottom. Think of every procedure and prescription in this light and oh my, think about costs.
A huge part of the cost escalation in our healthcare system is not caused by patients demanding more expensive care - and the complexity of this profit-based healthcare model with market forces bursting forward in all sorts of unregulated ways to scrape profit from every corner of the process cannot be fixed by glibly asking patients to take more personal responsibility. Try questioning a cardiologist one too many times and you'll be looking for a new cardiologist - patients know that. There are honest physicians in the system to be sure, but it can be daunting for patients to find a way to identify those people - especially in the face of serious illness.
We've got a system propped up by illusions of grandeur sprinkled with isolated illustrations of excellence. Some people get great care, some lives are saved that would not have been in the recent past, and some people feel comfortable with their healthcare situations. But we've also got a system that's a messy mix of profit-taking and misinformation that makes it nearly impossible for the vast majority of patients to truly advocate for themselves in any way that could be relied upon as a cost containment strategy. And the profit-taking and dishonesty is bursting the public programs like Medicare that otherwise provide the best model for reform - and that's also a truth we're often not told.
We've become the suckers born every minute in the circus tent of U.S. healthcare. And it's costing patients and the nation billions and billions of dollars - and an awful lot of lives. For that we are all responsible.
- Posted in




21 Comments so far
Show AllAs I've told people before, medical care is fundamentally different than shopping for a big-screen TV. Sick people lined up at the pharmacy desk do not constitute "consumer-power."
A big YES to the Conyers plan (H.R. 676).
I wouldn't call the suckers. Gullible, I think, is a better way to describe what is happening. We were raised to believe that our government was there to help take care of our lives, including medically. Our government was good and it looked our for the good of the people. These are great things to believe in. And maybe in the past they were true. But it's obvious today that we the people have been replaced by me the corporation. Corporate needs now determine how and what our government legislates. We the people are left to fend for ourselves as corporate America and our government try to keep our dying empire alive.
Hoa binh
But...but...we simply CAN'T cut into the profits of these greedy pharmaceutical, insurance, and other medical-related corporations. Just think of the poor shareholders!
Around two years ago a local doctor’s offices were raided by the Feds and State Medicare and Medicaid officials on suspicion of fraud. Colleagues in positions to know have told me, off the record, that prosecuting the doctor for fraud up to and including performing unnecessary surgeries should be child’s play.
To date there has been no legal action against the doctor.
The doctor also makes a few fair sized donations to the Republican Party and republican politicians. I am very suspicious that he is not being prosecuted by the Department of Justice stocked with Monica Goodling’s “Loyal Bushies” because of the donations.
All patients are different. While some might be delighted that their physician cares enough about them to prescribe expensive proprietary medicine for them (Niaspan in this case), others are troubled by the cost. One of the potential problems of free healthcare is that price controls once applied to the patient may no longer exist.
Niacin itself is cheap (about $16 per pound in bulk, a few pennies per pill in generic form, more for a sustained release form). Those troubled by the price might try the Web for lower prices. The manufacturer must pay for product development, clinical trials, advertising and promotion; these costs must be reimbursed by the purchaser. Note that cheaper, generic forms exist, although they may not work differently. Patients should not have to research their own medications (even on the web); that is what doctors and pharmacists should be for.
It is well for those not troubled by the flushing to cavilierly ignore this in their recommendation for a generic. However, this is most troubling to this patient, and presumably the sustained-release Niaspan was developed to reduce this.
For lower-cost medications, most of the dispensing cost is in the labor and paperwork. It is almost independent of the number of pills, as this patient found. The physician could write a prescription for several months once the patient had found the medication helpful.
I wonder how soon we'll be seeing Donna Smith appointed by Obama to some meaningful position in the healthcare bureaucracy. She should have Daschle's position, but she isn't "Tom Daschle", an empty name in an equally empty suit. How soon will Obama the Savior name Donna Smith to his healthcare team? How about "never"? I'm betting on never. She's way too partisan for the incoming non-partisan administration. She actually has critical judgment capacities, and that can't be a good thing when you're determined to never make any judgments about anything!
Gee, let me "thank you" for not publishing my or
Dr Paul Hochfeld articles on this subject. He's an
emergency room doctor in Corvallis Oregon who
is a stong advocate of single payer and has been
featured in a recent article in Common Dreams
for his work behalf of same. We both support
single payer.
How "do I show my apreciation" for such "wonderful
consideration"?
AD
I like this web site as an alternative US mainstream media hot air, but we progressives all want to help on this and other
issues across spectrum. I know this doctor based in Corvallis Oregon by the article that came out here recently on
this web site.
Let's just keep fighting the good fight!
AD
Let me clarify that I know that Paul Hochfeld, the doctor cited in a recent article on this web site is working for single payer by
what came out in that article. We're all doing what we can as progressive make this a better world.
AD
Let me clarify that I know that Paul Hochfeld, the doctor cited in a recent article on this web site is working for single payer by
what came out in that article. We're all doing what we can as progressive make this a better world.
AD
I regret the duplication of one of m posts, and it was entirely inadvertent.
AD
This article is just fine, and I'm not saying anything against this article. Let's pull together as progressives for single payer, the
solution to the problem.
AD
Obviously it should have been "my" instead of "m." I got in a hurry to send
this in.
AD
This is meant to be humorous; maybe you should change your name from AD to ADD.
I pay 17K a yr. for my Ins. plus co-pays. Is this a system or is it a hold up? Whatever it's become it's sucking the life out of our country while enriching a tiny elite. It's providing less and less for more and more & ironically more and more for fewer and fewer. Another part of our broken market system that desperately needs a fix.
Pharma is the most profitable industry. More of the profits go to increasing sales than go to research.
My wife is from Sweden. While living in America she found a small lump in her breast. Her doctor ($-caching) sent her to a radiologist($-caching) who sent her back to her doctor ($-caching) who sent her to a specialist ($-caching) who told her she needed a biopsy but the lump was too small for a needle biopsy so she needed to go into surgery ($$$$$-CACHINNNG).
So she said ,"I'm going to Sweden!
In Sweden the guy who does the ultrasound is the guy who does the needle biopsy is the guy who makes the diagnosis. Fortyfive minutes and seventyfive bucks later it was done and all was OK.
The doctor told her a story how he was teaching a group of USA doctors this technique and one MD said to him (in private of course) well this is a great idea but why would you want to do a $75 procedure when you could do a $5000 procedure?
We got a big prblem in America.
Exactly the process I grow so weary of as a patient and when seeking answers for my husband. And if I question all the visits to specialists, you never get to the bottom of your health concern while the issues are small and before they grow more serious and even more expensive.
Thanks for your comment.
Donna Smith, American SiCKO
This is not accidental. I worked in IT in hospitals. They would have us analyze each treatment in terms of how much it cost the hospital in staff time, facility use, equipment and materials. Then the procedure would be compared with the allowable reimbursment. Naturally this was part of the drive that pushed many procedures to an outpatient format, since you save on bed time and night staff etc.
I suppose that part was OK since you have to do some cost-accounting.
Finally, managemnt ordered reports to tally and rate in order which doctors used the profitable or non-profitable procedures. Why? I have no proof, but it looks like doctors who brought in revenue were rewarded with nice suites in the facility etc.
One of the most profitable procedures at the time was electro-shock therapy, which was performed exclusively on depressed females. One female ob-gyn I know was not on board with producing more revenue for births. She stubbornly insisted on performing too many vaginal deliveries vs. Caesarian sections. She was marginalized, maligned, made to feel unwelcome and finally left. The only brake on this mentality was the State of NY who periodically came in and cited too many C-sections as questionable public health practice.
There was an anti-woman undercurrent to all this. Women have to go to one doctor for the breast, one doctor for the reproductive tract, another for the rest of the body etc. Why not have a basic one stop facility for routine medical care? The procedure for investigating a breast anomaly in Sweden was was so sensible and humane. The way we do things here is actually cruel to people who are worried about whether they have cancer or not.
Joe
The reference to Sweden could have been to New Zealand, as New Zealand is a small country in the Pacific which adopted health care for all its citizens back about 70 years ago, which is likely before even Sweden. But the doctors and other health care providers aren't basically the problem. The problem is the health insurance industry domination of health care in this country which doesn't have a system but a thousand systems thanks to these same health insurance company rip off, con artists. Health care cost a great deal more in this country due to the health insurance industry parasites and provides Third World quality care. This is disaster capitalism in health care, and we got it. But no, as to this being humorous, this is a dead serious damn issue. But I won't get into personality garbage with anyone else here, due to that very fact and because I sincerely care about getting a solution-- thanks Ms Smith for the article.
AD
Profit Care comes ahead of Patient Care. http://www.wisecountyissues.com Affordable health care won't do much good unless we do something about Acceptable standards of health care. In East Tennessee, horrifying care = perfectly acceptable standards of care.