Is this double dipping? A new bipartisan House bill on oncology reimbursements

Here is another gem from the House of Representatives: a bipartisan bill to increase Medicare reimbursements to community oncology practices. While at first glance this seems like a reasonable idea, this detail is puzzling:

The so-called "prompt pay" legislation excludes certain discounts extended to wholesalers when calculating Medicare reimbursements and is strongly supported by oncologists.

Confused? Met too. Here is how I understand it. Many community oncology practices have set up infusion clinics, where they administer intravenous chemotherapy on site to their patients. To stock these infusion centers they deal with drug manufacturers and distributors to purchase the drugs at wholesale prices. The bigger the buy, the bigger the manufacturer discount. To the best of my knowledge these discounts are proprietary information, guarded like state secrets. Yet despite these discounts, the clinics charge Medicare a premium for the drugs themselves as well as for the service of administering. The way this legislation looks to me is that it will completely eliminate any reduction in reimbursement related to these discounts. Double dipping, anyone?

Now, I have many friends who are oncologists, and this is really not a slur against them. But these infusion clinics have always represented a cash cow for these practices. And who would not want to have a steady source of income to maintain a robust practice and have some money left over for a life? Again, this is not an indictment of community oncology practices. If, however, one takes an external perspective, this bill becomes something of an anathema to improving efficiency of healthcare delivery. If the reimbursement rates for administering these already exorbitantly expensive drugs improve further, will it not become even more difficult for an oncologist to tread the fine line of the conflict of interest between treatment only when it is in the patient's best interest and treatment for income optimization? Again, I want to point out that I am not singling out oncologists, as it is a part of the human condition to rationalize our selfish decisions by putting them in an altruistic light. And given the amount of uncertainty about who might respond to these drugs, it is easy to convince oneself that a trial of a therapy may be a reasonable idea, with the reimbursements providing a nudge in that direction.

A couple of quotes from the sponsors of the legislation are also worth reprinting:

"On any legislation today, you have to find a way to pay for it. And like any legislation, that's an issue with this one," Whitefield said. 

"But to be truthful, because of the oncologist groups and patient groups and others, we think that there may be some provisions in the healthcare bill that passed last year that we may be able to utilize some of those funds for this. All of it's about healthcare, and if we can convince people that this is more important than the others then we can do it."     

On any legislation today? You mean it has not always been like this? I guess we have all gotten used to credit as a life style, and now it is time to pay the piper.

Now, what about this: "Because of the oncologist groups and patients groups and others..."? Are they saying what I think they are saying? That because groups are likely to benefit are saying that this is vital, it is in fact vital? I also have to wonder who those "others" are. Hmmm, I wonder...

And this: "All of it's about healthcare, and if we can convince people that this is more important than others then we can do this." OK, so the statement is so grammatically abominable and non-sensical that I can interpret it any way I like. And it seems to me that they are implying that increasing these already hefty reimbursements is more important than stuff like paying for prenatal care and immunizations to the poor? And other essential services to the Medicare population? Well, if this is not the a poster child for why we need to be articulating the value of healthcare, I do not know what is.  

The cost-effectiveness of patient empowerment

I think by now there is not a person in the US who cannot quote at least approximately how much we spend annually on healthcare. Fewer people appreciate that nearly 1/3 of this $2.2 trillion bill is eaten by hospitalizations, amounting to about $680 billion. Although the data in the diagram below represent a single year, the overall distribution of expenses is remarkably constant over time.

Of this staggering amount of money, no less staggering is the ICU expenditure, quantified at nearly $60 billion in 2000.

The role of the ICU is to support a patient through his/her critical illness. The reason ICUs exist is that these patients require more intense human and technological interventions, and this geographic segregation allows for more efficiently concentrated care. The philosophy behind putting a patients in the ICU is that of a therapeutic trial. In other words, no one knows for sure a priori whether the ICU intervention will make any difference in the individual patient's outcome. What we have to go by is evidence from studies of similar patients that tells us what on average the expected outcome may be.

Until about a decade ago we never had the luxury of inquiring about what an ICU survivor might be doing a year later: we were fixated only on getting the patient through the acute illness. In fact, about 10 years ago, when I had the chance to ask a very well known and respected academic intensivist whether he cared about what happened to the patient once the ICU doors closed behind him, he, like so many of his peers, gave a resounding "no". Well, we have learned a lot over the last two decades about how to improve ICU outcomes -- more patients are surviving to leave the ICU. So now we have started to be concerned about their longer-term outcomes. After all, surviving an ordeal today just to die or, even worse, wish you were dead, tomorrow is not the kind of a victory anyone would want to claim. Unfortunately, what we are learning is that their long-term outcomes are not particularly encouraging. More than half of those patients who survive a prolonged critical illness die within the subsequent year. Even more discouraging is that fewer than 10% are actually at home living independently. So, when starting a therapeutic trial of an ICU, both the clinician and the family of the patient need to have a clear end in mind, so as to minimize pain and suffering for both, the patient and the family. And a byproduct of this conscious minimization of suffering through inappropriate care is potential avoidance of economic ruin.

What triggered this rumination for me is the paper published in this week's New England Journal of Medicine looking at the clinical course and outcomes of nursing home residents with advanced dementia.
In this prospective study following 323 patients, more than one-half were dead by 18 months. This is not in and of itself surprising. What should, however, shock an uninitiated reader is that 4 out of 10 of these unfortunate patients undergo at least one burdensome intervention, including a hospitalization or an ED visit, in the last 3 months of life. Although as a former clinician I have no trouble believing this number, as a member of the human species I am absolutely appalled! Is there really ever a point to such torment knowing that any potential postponement of death is at best temporary and at worst painful for the patient?

Another interesting point in this study is that what reduced the likelihood of this infliction of pain was a clear understanding by the patients' loved ones of their dismal prognosis. So, although some of the less informed yet loud and disingenuous voices tout them as government-sponsored death panels, the reality is that end-of-life discussions are not intended to limit necessary care. Rather, their intent is to create an honest and transparent dialogue between the clinicians and the patient and his/her family, thus empowering them to make the right choices according to their values. Perhaps the fear-mongers in their torrent of feverish activity have been too busy to notice that the age of paternalistic medicine is over. In the 21st century patient empowerment is the mantra. End of life discussions are just that, empowering.

If I were a politician driving a message, I would stop here. I would not connect this message of empowerment to dollars. But I am an outcomes researcher, so I must. There are examples in corporate America who say that if you do the right thing for the customer, the money will follow. To me this is simply an extension of the golden rule. Call it karma, call it what you will, but doing what is right is often contagious and causes a domino effect. And yes, in the case of spending the necessary time with the patient and the family to discuss the best course of action, the desired byproduct may be to help curb the waste of Medicare dollars on useless interventions, thus ensuring not only the best for the patient, but also the program's sustainability.