While Grand Rounds is normally the highlight of everybody’s week here in the medical blogosphere, this time it’s different. This week, we are all – each and every one of us  – completely distracted by the most wonderful sense of expectation and joy, to the exclusion of virtually every other human emotion. For DrRich, at least, the feeling puts him in mind of the giddy anticipation he experienced on, say, his 5th Christmas eve, when he was still young enough to consider Santa Claus a magical-but-real agent of earthly delights. (This was before DrRich realized that Santa, being obese, is actually a great menace to society.)

For this, dear reader, is the week when President Obama will turn his considerable powers of intellect, at long last, to the issue of jobs. The President indicated to us more than a month ago that he would, in his own good time, present to us his program for fixing the horrific and prolonged unemployment problem which now affects most American families in some way. And thus realizing that a solution is finally at hand, we in the great unwashed masses have waited, as patiently as we could, through earthquakes, hurricanes, Martha’s Vinyard vacations, and numerous pre-season football games, for the President to tell us the Answer. And, summoning together a Joint Session of Congress – a venue most often reserved for declarations of war and similar life-altering policy initiatives, thus confirming the momentous nature of his coming words – he will finally proclaim to us the Good News, a mere two days from now. One can cut the anticipation with a knife.

So, while it is indeed an honor to be hosting Grand Rounds during this historic week. DrRich must admit to finding it a little difficult to concentrate his efforts. No doubt readers will likewise find it a challenge to turn their attention away from the Big Event long enough to peruse the following posts – the best of the medical blogosphere this week.

But be assured that there is good stuff to follow. So, if you find yourself incapable of focusing your attention on Grand Rounds at the moment, simply bookmark this page, and return to it once your sense of soaring happiness returns (as it inevitably must) to a more normal state. Be assured that this week’s entries are timeless enough to outlive your ecstasy (an emotion which – alas! – to be effective, must always be transient).

So let us begin.

____

DrRich – having been informed not long ago, by an actual U.S. Attorney who at that moment had him under a form of official duress, that the DOJ is well aware of this blog and the general tenor of its content – always likes to mention early in any long post (so that his minders do not have to read the whole thing) any items that might be helpful to the Administration. Accordingly, we open Grand Rounds this week with the announcement, posted in The Examining Room of Dr. Charles, of the 2011 Charles Prize for Poetry. Dr. Charles has been hosting this prestigious contest – which seeks and awards excellence in poetry touching on health, science or medicine – for some time now, and it has proven to be an exceedingly popular annual event.

In addition to the significant intrinsic merits that accompany the Charles Prize for Poetry, DrRich must note that Dr. Charles is also awarding a not-inconsiderable cash prize to the winners. That is, he is creating what, in our present economic environment, must be considered damned-near jobs. Encouraging employment in the career of poetry is something, DrRich thinks, the President should seriously consider before Thursday night, lest he be tempted to make the huge mistake of attempting to whip up enthusiasm yet again for Green Jobs. (In the wake of the collapse just last week of the heavily-government-subsidized and heavily-Obama-promoted Solyndra Company, and of at least two other companies that received large federal funds for Green Jobs, treading that dead ground again would merely reveal that he is entirely bereft of ideas.) The Administration ought to thank DrRich, and especially Dr. Charles, for this critically important advice. Encouraging poesy, instead of Green Jobs, would demonstrate the kind of new thinking we are all looking for from our President at this critical juncture.

At Dr. Malpani’s Blog, Dr. M. outlines his 3-step approach for helping his patients understand the intricate concepts of in-vitro fertilization. First, you describe how the thing is supposed to work when everything is functioning normally (the “thing” in this case being the human reproductive system). Then, you describe to the patient where the system is breaking down in his/her case. And finally, you describe the options available for mitigating the breakdown. Dr. Malpani’s system, which he points out is generalizable, is aimed at creating a consensus for action when faced with a complex problem.

DrRich will only remark that Dr. M’s system, which works well enough for problems based in human physiology, is proving pretty worthless for problems based in the more social sciences, such as economics. This is because of a fundamental disagreement, among the debaters, on how the economy is “supposed to work when everything is functioning normally.” Progressives and conservatives have very different ideas about this. So Dr. M’s approach, which requires both logic and a fundamental consensus on what constitutes “normal” behavior, is unsuitable to non-physiologic systems.

Dr. Val at Better Health posts a recent interview with Dr. Dori Carlson, president of the American Optometric Association, regarding the importance of screening children for subtle but significant vision problems. (Dr. Val and Dr. Dori are referring here to the kinds of vision problems that involve optics, and not the kind suffered by our political leaders.) The type of gross vision screening which is conducted by most schools misses the majority of these vision problems in children, and those undetected vision problems not infrequently lead to impaired learning. Also, they often lead to misdiagnoses and inappropriate treatment, likely including the misdiagnosis of ADHD. (Missed vision problems constitute only one of the causes for the explosion in ADHD diagnoses in recent years. A more common cause, in our overly-feminized schools, is being a boy. Indeed, as nearly as DrRich can tell, being a boy today is a disease; they have drugs for it and everything.) In any case, if you are a parent of a school-aged child, you should strongly consider having your child’s vision checked by an ophthalmologist or optometrist – especially if somebody wants to put him on Ritalin.

Henry Stern at InsureBlog tells us the good news and bad news about a new study related to heart attacks. He notes that heart attack victims are receiving definitive therapy in American hospitals much more quickly than they were just a few years ago. And when you are having a heart attack, minutes count – the longer that coronary artery is occluded, the more permanent damage is done to your heart, and the higher your odds of death or disability. So the diminished delay to treatment is good news. As usual, though, there is bad news attached. DrRich, always the sunny optimist, does not wish to repeat the bad news. You can go to the InsureBlog to read it for yourself.

The ACP Internist reports a study showing that 80% of today’s doctors look up on-line information in front of their patients. DrRich, who admits to being an Old Fart, does not find this surprising, since young physicians these days are, well, young. And young people are on-line all of the time, reporting their every trivial thought and mundane action instantaneously to the Cloud. (If Andy Warhol were alive today he’d be talking about our 15 minutes of anonymity.) But you don’t have to be a young doctor to take up these new habits. It appears from this new survey that doctors of all age groups have ritualistically placed an LCD screen between themselves and their patients. In so doing, they have awarded to those distant, expert panels – the ones spinning out all those guidelines, pay-for-performance checklists, marching orders, &c – their appropriate and rightful physical position, that is, directly interposed between doctor and patient. This is more than mere symbolism, but the symbolism is delicious.

But, dear reader, please do not be too critical of today’s doctors. If you yourself were a savvy modern physician, realizing that you could go to jail if you do what you think is medically appropriate before checking with the Authorities to find out if it is also allowable, you’d have a computer screen in front of your face too, and you’d be looking stuff up in front of your patients the entire time they were blathering on about their symptoms or whatever. DrRich worries for the 20% of doctors (likely, his fellow Old Farts) who haven’t “gotten it” yet.

Beth Gainer at Calling the Shots makes an important observation about the two classic narratives to which all victims of breast cancer are assigned – the narrative of the triumphant hero, and the narrative of the courageous and noble victim. Ms. Gainer’s observation is that most women with breast cancer do not fit either of these prescribed narratives. Many women are thus left feeling guilty or diminished when they find that their experience is not meeting with society’s expectations. Ms. Gainer is absolutely correct, and indeed, her observation is generalizable. The same thing occurs whenever society’s designated narrative-makers assign a range of permissible attitudes, thoughts and behaviors to any defined group. Mercy on any member of the group who falls outside those designated norms.

David E. Williams at the venerable Health Business Blog addresses the question of how we – society – will cope with the next big trend in the drug industry – the development of “niche” drugs, drugs that are suitable for only a relatively small number of patients and which, therefore, are exceedingly expensive to develop and market. David goes directly to the real question – the problem of niche drugs makes the issue of healthcare rationing unavoidable.

So far, of course, we are doing our healthcare rationing covertly, and in the case of niche drugs that usually means interpreting clinical results in such a way as to minimize their potential benefits. We do this by saying that Drug X “only increases survival by 4 months,” and ignoring the fact that “4 months” is an average value, and that while many patients have no benefit at all, a non-negligible minority may live a lot longer. The question, “Is it worth $50,000 for only four more months of life?” is different from the question, “Is it worth $50,000 to have a realistic shot at living several extra years?” Covert rationing causes us to frame the question in such a way that the answer to any question beginning with “Is it worth. . .” is always, “no.”

At the Road to Hellth, Douglas Perednia, one of the best analysts of health policy writing today, looks at the rationale for the onerous penalties which are required under Obamacare for hospitals whose patients are readmitted at higher than the average readmission rates. Perednia describes the bogus math which the Feds are apparently using to determine what appropriate readmission rates ought to be – and points out the irony of requiring doctors to behave in an “evidence-based” fashion, while the Feds themselves are using frivolous statistics to dole out the equivalent of the NCAA Death Penalty to our hospitals.

Steven Seay, PhD discusses what ought to be second nature to any clinician – applying the principles of the scientific method to clinical practice. That is: gather the necessary data to formulate an hypothesis; institute therapy based on that hypothesis; measure the results of that therapy; revise the hypothesis to reflect this new data; repeat as necessary. This is the way clinical practice should be done. DrRich is happy to learn that it is still apparently OK for clinical psychologists to function in this manner. For physicians, especially PCPs, the scientific method has become forcibly compressed to: make a diagnosis; treat according to the guidelines. While the patient might not do so well with this new method, the physician will be OK, since “quality” will be measured according to one’s compliance with the guidelines. Measuring the actual results of the treatment, of course, would only lead to trouble, and in most cases will be avoided.

James Gault, MD, of the blog Retired Doc’s Thoughts, is a long-time champion of classical medical ethics (as opposed to the New Age medical ethics now formally espoused by all the major professional organizations).  As such, Dr. Gault often deconstructs arguments being published by modern medical ethicists supporting these New Age ethics, which require doctors to act for the benefit of the collective rather than for the benefit of their individual patients. In this post, Dr. Gault gives a very effective what-for to Professor Fuchs of Stanford, who, once again, has published a paper advancing the bankrupt argument that what’s good for the collective is necessarily good for the individual. These kinds of vapid arguments may fool the Whippersnappers, but they’re not fooling us Old Farts.

The ACP Hospitalist notes that, according to the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, a “grey market” is developing for life-saving medications that have been in severe short supply for the past few years. A grey market, DrRich thinks, is like a black market, but less illegal – though it is possible they are referring to Old Farts who are merchants. In any case, the ISMP says the grey market is price-gouging hospitals that need those important drugs, and have nowhere else to buy them. The solution, according to the ISMP, is (among other things) to empower the FDA to manage drug shortages and tighten regulations for drug distribution.

The growing, widespread shortage of important medications is indeed a bad problem. We should look for a solution to this problem. Shortages of any product occur when it costs companies more to make the product than they can get for it in the marketplace. Onerous regulatory policies by the FDA which, in the name of product safety, have greatly increased the cost of doing business for pharmaceutical companies, along with recent de facto price controls on generic drugs, have combined to make it economically unfeasible for drug companies to expend large resources to manufacture these drugs. It seems doubtful that piling on even more regulations will improve the situation. And attacking the grey markets will simply drive them further into the dark (since black markets are nature’s way of providing a product when governments act to limit it). Given the expected 500,000 pages of new regulations being conjured up out of the Obamacare legislation, drug shortages are merely the first of many critical medical shortages we will be seeing in the coming years. So it will be instructive to watch how our leaders handle this problem.

In any case, from the job-creation standpoint, DrRich believes there will be many employment opportunities in coming years in sundry black markets related to healthcare. Many skills will be needed, some of which should be quite exciting!

At the Prepared Patient Forum, Trudy Lieberman writes a post entitled “Health Insurance, Meet the Jolly Green Giant,” in which she discusses the new, patient-friendly labels that are supposed to accompany health insurance policies under Obamacare beginning no later than 2014. The labels sound like a good idea, but as Ms. Lieberman points out, there will be problems. For instance, for the Feds to mandate transparency in labeling is unlikely to be all that helpful when, at the same time, they often mandate utter secrecy on the part of providers (for instance, in creating severe anti-trust penalties for doctors who reveal the fees they have negotiated with insurance carriers). But as always, results are far less important than simply meaning well.

Sharp Incisions, a blog written by a self-described “fledgling” medical student, has sent in an affecting post about scrubbing in on a unique surgical case – the harvesting of six vital organs for transplantation from a patient who has been declared brain dead. DrRich prays that Dr. Incisions will maintain for a long time the same sense of wonder and gratitude, expressed in this post, for the gift of life.

A medical student who blogs anonymously at the D.O.ctor Blog, describes her first experience participating in cardiopulmonary resuscitation when it actually counted. DrRich, who in his days as a cardiac electrophysiologist ran hundreds of these things, and who became convinced over the years that three people was the optimal number to run a “code,” admits to being a little taken aback by this student’s description of the event, which sounds like it must have been as complex to coordinate as a Busby Berkeley production number. No wonder she was a little astonished by her experience. DrRich supposes that this must be the new-style CPR mandated by some new guideline or other, and would not be surprised to learn later this week that CPR procedures requiring 15 participants is part of the President’s new Jobs Plan.

Speaking of sudden death, one of DrRich’s recurrent themes here on the CRB is that sudden death is a great boon to our healthcare system (since not only is sudden death itself very cheap, but also it tends to remove individuals who would otherwise continue collecting Social Security, and who tend to have expensive chronic heart disease), and that therefore the government will tend to stifle the prevention of sudden death any time it can. Accordingly, Dr. Wes tells us that the Feds are about to further limit the use of the Zoll wearable defibrillator. Doctors have taken to using this device in high-risk patients during the first month or so after a heart attack, since guidelines specify that ICDs (implantable defibrillators) must not be implanted during this interval. Since sudden death is particularly likely during that first month, the Zoll device is being used as a “bridge to ICD.” Obviously, sudden death being the healthcare system’s friend, this must not be permitted. And so, Dr. Wes points out, soon it will not be.

At the HealthAGEnda Blog of the John A. Hartford Foundation, Marcus Escobedo describes how his father is coping with the decisions that need to be made as he deals with recurrent prostate cancer. Helping elderly patients deal with health issues is the thrust of Mr. Escobedo’s work at Hartford, and his new personal experience, he tells us, drives home the point. Specifically, Escobedo works to assure that elderly patients are considered to be more than just the sum of their disease and their age. DrRich is sorry to have to point out that no less an expert on American healthcare than President Obama has explicitly disagreed with this approach, and on national television to boot. Perhaps when he said this the President was suffering under the influence of teleprompterpenia, and perhaps if he had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Escobedo over a beer in the Rose Garden, he would possibly begin to revise his position to one that is more compatible with the mission of the Harford Foundation. On behalf of America’s Old Farts, DrRich would certainly hope so.

Dr. Thomas Pane writes in the Business, Surgery & Medicine Blog about tantrums, specifically, the kind occasionally thrown by surgeons in the operating suite. His post carries an important Labor Day lesson for anyone who hopes to make a career in the medical field in the coming years, so pay attention:

Everyone can agree that throwing tantrums in the operating room is never a good thing, and that quite often, it is a very bad thing. But Dr. Pane points out that, counterproductive as tantrums often are, they are nonetheless not the worst possible way in which a surgeon can express his/her utter frustration at a bureaucracy that blithely conspires to disrupt surgical procedures at critical moments. He reminds us, once again, that the biggest handicap one can ever have when working in an environment in which bureaucratic mud has fouled every gear is: giving a sh*t. So, while Dr. Pane may or may not agree, here’s the lesson: If surgeons would simply adopt the apathetic, indifferent attitude that classically characterizes long-term survivors in work environments mired by bureaucracy, all would be well.

Jaqueline writes Laika’s MedLiblog, a blog dedicated to medical information science. She submits a post entitled, “PubMed’s Higher Sensitivity than OVID MEDLINE… & other Published Clichés,” in which she shows how medical researchers doing literature searches for, among other things, meta-analyses, will stumble upon various “anomalies” in their searches of the PubMed and OVID databases, and then write additional, CV-padding papers about those anomalies. Jaqueline points out that these so-called “anomalies” are actually well-documented “clichés,” which are well-known to information specialists and anyone else who is competent in doing comprehensive literature searches. In other words, Jaqueline has documented that these meta-analysis researchers are rank amateurs at doing the most critical step in conducting meta-analyses – searching the literature for all the appropriate published studies. DrRich has always mistrusted meta-analyses, and Jaqueline has helpfully identified yet another reason to justify such mistrust. He thanks Jaqueline, and whoever planted those database anomalies which allow us to identify potentially incompetent meta-analysis researchers.

Nicholas Fogelson of Academic OB/GYN writes about taking care of the dying Jehovah’s Witness patient, or rather, taking care of the Jehovah’s Witness patient whose illness is potentially curable but who is dying because he or she refuses to accept blood products. DrRich can attest to how very difficult it is for a doctor to respect a patient’s religion when doing so results in their death. Dr. Fogelson’s description of his evolving attitude regarding this dilemma is compelling.

Need to be uplifted after reading the above post? Read Jordan Grumet’s submission from his blog, In My Humble Opinion. It’s brief and beautifully written, and it reminds us that sometimes our efforts as doctors – which all too often seem futile – can pay off in unimagined ways.

Pranab at the Scepticemia blog points to a news story about a medical school in Mumbai selling seats (that is, entry to medical school) to the highest bidder. He strongly objects to this practice, even though he postulates that his objection will make some of his readers call him “a leftist commie” (which DrRich finds to be the most common kind). DrRich does not agree with Pranab’s (tongue-in-cheek) conclusion that it is America’s fault that Mumbai medical schools are selling seats. (It is actually only George Bush’s fault.) But DrRich does agree entirely that the practice itself is an abomination. Indeed, we can all agree that entry to any career which requires a high degree of skill, talent, and/or intelligence ought to depend on merit, and nothing but merit. Can we not? Good.

____

DrRich will end by noting that he is finishing this Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Edition of Grand Rounds during the waning moments of Labor Day, which causes him to fondly recall those long-ago days of yesteryear, when the U.S. still had plenty of steel mills and DrRich was a card-carrying member of the United Steelworkers of America, and the thought of attending medical school had not yet penetrated his still-empty head. And he recalls how, while he was working one day as a lowly laborer, a union boss came over to him to explain (after DrRich had complained about it) the utility of his spending three painful days moving a large pile of slag, employing only shovel-and-wheelbarrow technology, from one location to another – AND THEN BACK AGAIN.  Now, those were the days when we knew how to make jobs!

Say, whatever happened to those steel mills, anyway?

In 2008, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced it would no longer pay for the treatment of “never events,” i.e., certain medical conditions in hospitalized patients which the Feds deem to be universally avoidable under all circumstances. These conditions included:

* Decubitus ulcers
* Two kinds of catheter-associated infections
* Air embolism
* Mediastinitis after coronary bypass surgery
* Transfusing patients with the wrong blood type
* Leaving objects inside surgery patients
* In-hospital falls

Then, having been delighted with the results of its original list (or dismayed that healthcare costs continued to skyrocket despite its original list) CMS subsequently proposed declaring several new conditions as “never events,” including:

* Surgical site infections following certain elective procedures
* Legionnaires’ disease
* Extreme blood sugar derangement
* A collapse of the lung resulting from medical treatment
* Delirium
* Ventilator-associated pneumonia
* Deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism
* Staph infection in the bloodstream
* Disease associated with Clostridium difficile infection

Numerous commentators have expounded on the advisability of declaring these particular conditions to be “never events.” All agree that while certain of them clearly should never be permitted to happen (e.g., leaving sundry tools inside a patient’s abdomen, or transfusing the wrong blood), certain other ones are going to continue happening to some patients no matter how high the quality of the institution and the medical professionals.

Because this topic has been so well-covered in the medical blogosphere, DrRich does not need to comment any further on the unfairness of insisting that doctors prevent every single instance of conditions that are often not particularly preventable; or on the fact that insurance companies quickly followed Medicare’s lead and now also refuse to pay for these “never events;” or that hungry attorneys have voraciously begun suing doctors and hospitals for unavoidable complications because those complications have been federally designated as avoidable; or even the fact that, having so deftly expanded the horizons of what can be considered a “never event,” the feds have cleared the path for defining virtually any medical condition they choose as a “never event.”

(As a case in point, DrRich notes that the feds’ own guidelines on preventing delirium, referred to in their own “fact sheet” that purports to justify the expanded list of “never events” admits that there are no effective means of reliably preventing delirium.)

There’s also no point in physicians complaining publicly about this expanded list of “never events,” since the public is foursquare behind the notion that no medical complications should ever occur, and if they do occur it is somebody’s fault, and equally behind the notion that the Feds can squeeze quality into the system simply by demanding it to be so. Therefore, any doctors who openly objects to these new, tough quality measures will reveal themselves to be both anti-quality and low-quality doctors.

Rather, DrRich will refer back to the true mission of this blog, and simply explain to his readers how this new “never event” strategy furthers the true mission of Medicare and the insurers, which is to say, the covert rationing of healthcare.

For covert rationing is the chief operating principle of both the Feds and the private insurers. Indeed, their behavior resembles nothing more than the behavior of the closet, white-collar narcotic addict: while smiling their pasty smiles and desperately pretending to us that all of their new initiatives are only concerned with quality and nothing else, in reality, with every ounce of their being, their devious minds are constantly inventing new schemes to manipulate, deceive and twist each and every opportunity into some means of scoring their next covert-rationing “hit.”

Consequently, we cannot go wrong if we ask, every time we see some new healthcare program ostensibly aimed at quality improvement: Where’s the rationing?

One might think the rationing in this case is easy to spot. After all, if the feds stop paying for “never events” that actually cannot be avoided, they will save dollars right up front simply by refusing to pay for services rendered. But Medicare itself has estimated that its up-front annual savings from its original list of “never events” will be only about $20 million. And that seems hardly worth the effort.

The real savings will come from a place far more sinister than that.

The “never events” initiative – just as the Feds insist to us – is aimed at changing physicians’ behavior. But quite predictably, that behavioral change will not be in the arena of quality improvement (since no amount of quality improvement can stop “never events” that are inevitable). Rather, the behavioral change will be in the arena of risk avoidance.

While it is unlikely that doctors will ever refuse to care for high-risk patients who are experiencing genuine medical emergencies, it is quite likely they will stop recommending elective medical therapy for high-risk patients. Patients who seem particularly prone to infection, bed sores, falls, blood sugar abnormalities, blood clots, delirium, or who seem likely to need intravenous antibiotics (which predispose to C. difficile) will be particularly targeted. Roughly speaking, these patients will include diabetics, the elderly, anyone with a clotting abnormality or a history of blood clots, the obese, people with immune disorders, and the chronically ill. Physicians know by experience and instinct the sorts of patients to whom they ought to avoid offering elective medical services.

But in an era of evidence-based medicine, it is inevitable that savvy doctors will not want to rely on instinct and experience in this important matter. In order to conduct their risk avoidance in the most cost-effective way, they will want to base it on firm statistical evidence.

Accordingly, it is notable that investigators reporting in the Archives of Surgery last year began the important work of providing the kind of evidence-based risk avoidance which today’s physician actually needs. They published a large study designed to show which sorts of patients are most likely to experience post-operative “never events.” To the authors’ credit, their article was not written with the overt goal of providing a roadmap for risk avoidance. Instead it was written to show that “never events” are not really “never events” at all, but rather, are sometimes unavoidable complications; and that in certain readily-identifiable and (and obvious) subpopulations of patients, the incidence of “never events” is particularly high. That is, the authors were trying to convince the Central Authority that its policy on “never events” is far too Draconian, and that some leeway ought to be made for doctors who care for these higher-risk patients.

But of course the Central Authority already knows this, and also knows that the public fully supports its “never events” policy just as it is. The Central Authority, DrRich suspects, will see the Archives article for what it will end up becoming – a roadmap for surgeons who want to avoid the risk of encountering career-threatening “never events.” DrRich thinks Central Authority is quite satisfied with this study, and hopes to see more like it.

Conducting a risk/benefit analysis is nothing new to doctors. Doctors have always computed a risk/benefit analysis before recommending elective services to their patients (such as hip replacement, coronary artery bypass grafting, back surgery, gall bladder surgery, anti-obesity surgery, &c.) And in making those risk/benefit estimates, they have always taken into account the increased risk of complications faced by the elderly, the sick, the fat, and the malnourished.

But now, the “risk” part of the risk/benefit analysis suddenly must include three important new risks, and this time they are risks to the doctor him/herself, and not to the patients: 1) If any of these complications occur, no payment will be made for the (often very expensive) treatment the complication will require; 2) If a complication occurs, another “never event” will be tabulated in the federal database next to the doctor’s (and the hospital’s) name, which will inevitably show up in a public report card; and 3) Such a complication, previously considered a predictable risk, will now engender malpractice suits, based on the declaration by the Feds that these “never events” always constitute, by definition, grievous examples of poor-quality medicine.  The Archives article serves to place this new variety of risk analysis on firmer ground, and as such is an important new addition to the medical literature.

Lest anyone think that doctors would not really stop recommending clinically indicated care to patients just because of the personal risk it would entail, remember that it’s already happened, and is well documented. The government and the insurance companies have already conducted that experiment; it’s been completed, the results have been tabulated, reported, and duly noted. It turns out that doctors, like most other people, respond quite logically to negative incentives.

CMS knows exactly what it’s doing here.

Two weeks ago DrRich wrote about the abuse of implantable defibrillator guidelines, as illustrated by a recent JAMA article claiming that over 22% of ICD (implantable cardioverter defibrillator) implantations are “non-evidence based.” The abuse of the guidelines, DrRich showed, was perpetrated less by ICD implanters, and more by the authors of that article. That fact being interesting but irrelevant, DrRich went on to speculate that perhaps the Feds would rouse themselves to take this issue to the next level.

It certainly did not take long. Indeed, just a days after DrRich’s post (which ought to completely absolve him of having any direct impact on the Feds’ action), it was revealed that the Department of Justice had already launched an investigation of ICD implants, as related to “proper guidelines for clinical decision making.”

This revelation was made on the website of the Heart Rhythm Society, the professional organization of electrophysiologists (EPs). HRS went on to say that it (HRS itself) had “agreed” to assist the DOJ in an advisory role in its investigation. Furthermore: “Because this is an ongoing investigation, HRS Staff or Leadership is not available for further comment. HRS will communicate additional information to its membership when permitted to do so by the DOJ.” (Emphasis DrRich’s.)

So here’s what we know:

1) The DOJ is actively investigating ICD implantations.
2) Their investigation has to do with the “proper use of guidelines” in selecting patients for ICDs.
3) HRS, the professional organization to which EPs pay huge dues each year in order that it might represent their interests, most especially their interests in Washington, has been preemptively co-opted by the Feds, and indeed has been gagged, so that any further communication to its own membership regarding the investigation is forbidden until further notice.

What will HRS tell the DOJ? It hardly matters, since the important thing has already been accomplished, i.e., effectively silencing the sole organization which represents the interests of EPs in Washington. But, while the HRS statement indicates that the organization is “assisting” the DOJ with “information that does not include either identifiable patient or facility level data,” and while DrRich has no doubt that this is the sincere intent of HRS, DrRich also believes it to be a sure thing that, at the end of the day, HRS (if it wishes immunity from any liability it might find itself subject to, regarding the advice, statements, educational materials, &c., it might have produced over the years, relating to clinical guidelines, or to any other matter of interest that might surface during the DOJ’s open-ended investigation), will tell the DOJ Anything It Wants To Know.

DrRich’s fellow bloggers who are also electrophysiolgists, Wes Fisher and John Mandrola, quickly noted the HRS statement on their respective blogs, and each expressed a certain amount of concern as to the implications of the DOJ’s investigation. But Larry Husten, who writes the excellent Cardiobrief blog, offers a calming voice: “I doubt that the DOJ is gearing up to tackle the vast majority of “reasonable” off-guideline implants. I think they will be going for the real outliers, and when and if they reveal the details of their case there will be little sympathy for their targets.”

Some of DrRich’s readers, who not inappropriately consider him to be a bit paranoid about the Central Authority, may find it surprising that, fundamentally, he agrees with Larry on this matter. He does not think the DOJ will round up large numbers (or even moderate numbers) of EPs who have been practicing basically sound electrophysiology, and who likely have reasonable explanations for any off-guideline ICD implantations they may have committed. DrRich agrees that the DOJ instead will go after a few outliers, figures who – very specifically – will garner little sympathy amongst the public, and indeed, who can be held out, with good effect, for public castigation. Preferably, these figures will be individuals about whom the marketing departments of one ICD manufacturer or another will have generated a few embarrassingly glowing e-mails, celebrating the sheer number of sales these doctors have produced, and discussing strategies – offering speaking engagements in exotic locations, putting on pig roasts, &c. – to keep the ball rolling.

In other words, it is likely at the end of the day the DOJ will produce a few doctors who are truly abusing the system, and harming patients to boot, and who will actually deserve what they will get.

There is no guarantee about this, of course. DrRich has written about how he himself, in his pristine innocence, was once the target of a federal investigation of ICD implants. And while he had on his side the virtues of good medical practice, truth, justice, the American Way, ethics, and even the law, and while he eventually was extricated from his situation with an entirely clean record, it was a close thing, and his escape was based more on luck than on being right. More recently, when DrRich had the “opportunity” to testify under oath in a DOJ investigation on another matter (which he is not yet at liberty to discuss, but regarding which, happily, he was only a witness this time, and not a target), DrRich was required by the DOJ to answer several questions about this very blog and its content, which (as far as DrRich could tell) had nothing whatsoever to do with the matter at hand. By this means DrRich was led to know that the Feds are either among his very great fans (Hi, Fellas!) – or something else.

DrRich’s paranoia, you see, is hard-won, not to mention evidence-based.

So it is indeed possible for innocents to get drawn into such matters – collateral damage is always unavoidable when one is at war – but odds are it won’t be You, or You, or You, so like Larry says, not to worry. They are looking for true evil-doers.

DrRich also agrees with Larry that this DOJ investigation is not a direct response to the JAMA article. The JAMA article appeared a mere week or two before HRS made its announcement – and its announcement obviously was so carefully lawyered-up that it must have taken weeks if not months to negotiate just that one detail with the DOJ. This has all been in the works for a while.  But DrRich does not believe for a moment that the DOJ was unaware that the JAMA article was coming out, or that its content, and the subsequent media attention it would create regarding the widespread ICD abuses being perpetrated by EPs, would dovetail nicely with the subsequent revelation by HRS of the DOJ investigation.

ICDs, and their implanters, have long been a target of the payers – both government payers and insurers – and this new enterprise is merely the latest battle in a long war.

As it happens, DrRich spoke at a certain investigators’ meeting just this past weekend, which was attended by a score or so of prominent electrophysiologists. He can report that the JAMA article (which defined off-guideline ICD usage as bad medicine and harmful to patients), followed by the intense publicity in the media this article generated (also emphasizing bad medicine and harm to patients), followed by the DOJ investigation related to the “proper use of guidelines” in ICD implantation, followed by the co-opting and the gagging of the EPs’ own professional organization, is having a delightfully chilling effect on the profession. DrRich thinks it is unlikely that very many off-guideline ICD implants will be performed for the foreseeable future, no matter how much individual patients might benefit from them, at least while this investigation continues. In fact, while the investigation is ongoing, DrRich suspects that even referrals to EPs for ICD implants will drop off. Because, until then, it will remain an open question just how rigorously one must stick to the letter of the guidelines in order for the DOJ to give one a pass, and to not be considered as guilty of crimes against humanity. The profession is duly intimidated.

Whatever the final outcome of this investigation, it has has already had its intended effect.  DrRich respectfully suggests that the DOJ might just as well take its time with it, and let the effect percolate to perfection.

______

Note: Further evidence came this afternoon (January 24) that the effect the Central Authority had in mind is being realized, when Wells Fargo Securities downgraded St. Jude Medical from Outperform to Market Perform. The downgrade was based on WFS’ assessment that ICD implants will be reduced by 10% in 2011, thanks to the DOJ investigation. That reduction doesn’t quite do it, of course, but it’s a start.

Last week the newswires hummed with reports that doctors from all over America are grossly over-utilizing implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), much to the detriment of patients themselves (whose persons are being physically violated by avaricious and/or ignorant physicians), and to the hard-pressed Medicare budget (ICDs being so incredibly expensive).

These reports were based on a study appearing in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which analyzed data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) in an attempt to determine the proportion of ICD implants in the US which constitute deviations from government guidelines. CNN put it like this: “Of more than 100,000 people who received ICDs, almost 23% did not need them according to evidence-based guidelines.” As the lead investigator of the JAMA study told CNN, “It’s a lot of people who are getting defibrillators who may not need them.”

Specifically the new study shows that a full 22.5% of patients receiving ICDs in the US from 2006 to 2009 received them outside of guidelines sanctioned by CMS. Furthermore, patients receiving “non-evidence-based” ICDs had a significantly higher rate of in-hospital mortality (0.57% vs 0.18%, p<.001), and of post-procedure complications ((3.23% vs 2.41%; p<0.001). Notably, ICDs implanted by non-electrophysiologists were significantly more likely to be non-evidence-based than ICDs implanted by electrophysiologists (24.8% vs. 20.8%).

The lead author stressed this latter point to theHeart.org: “Electrophysiologists — who do these procedures day in and day out and are more likely to be more familiar with the guidelines and the evidence that supports ICD use — were significantly less likely to use these non-evidence-based devices.” And an accompanying editorial in JAMA, also written by a couple of electrophysiologists, says that the results of this study indicate that the “intensive training” which electrophysiologists undergo “may improve both the preoperative evaluation of patients as well as the operative and immediate postoperative care of patients undergoing ICD implantation.”

So this study purports to tell us several things: A) Doctors who implant ICDs are surprisingly poor at following clear-cut, evidence-based guidelines; B) As a result, patients are receiving unnecessary medical devices, and suffering unnecessary harm; and C) At least one mitigation for this problem would be to make sure all ICD implantations are conducted by electrophysiologists. Further, ominously implied in some of the news stories regarding this study is the notion that, perhaps, so clear-cut an abuse ought to be looked into by federal prosecutors, similar to cases we have heard of lately involving the abuse of coronary artery stenting.

To all this, DrRich has a few observations:

1) Guidelines are No Longer Guidelines. “Guidelines” implies, literally, a guide, a signpost, a general set of factors that one ought to take into account when making specific decisions regarding specific individual patients. Guidelines are a strong set of recommendations which (all other things being equal) one ought to follow in the majority of cases, and when one chooses not to follow them, one ought to have a good reason for making that choice.

When the use of clinical guidelines is considered in view of this now-quaint notion, one does not expect 100% compliance. After all, patients being patients, they bring to the table lots and lots of special considerations one ought to take into account when deciding how to apply guidelines. Depending on the level of evidence upon which a certain set of guidelines were established, and considering the array of variations on the mean which patients still insist on bringing to a doctor’s notice, the optimal applicability of a given set of guidelines to a given population of patients ought to look something like a bell-shaped-curve. It is not immediately obvious, for instance, that a rate of compliance with a set of guidelines of 77.5% is simply too low. Indeed, a rate of compliance with your typical clinical guidelines well north of that number might imply, when one fully considers the matter, an abrogation of the physician’s duty to make informed clinical decisions based on ALL available evidence, including those introduced by an individual patient’s specific circumstances.

As a matter of fact, the very guidelines regarding ICDs which doctors are now accused of abusing admit that “the ultimate judgment regarding care of a particular patient must be made by the physician and the patient in light of all of the circumstances presented by that patient.”

In this light, a very striking feature of this new report is its baseline assertion that the strict following of guidelines is “evidence-based” practice, while any deviation is “non-evidence-based;” that is, by implication at least, it is good medicine vs. bad medicine. And so, “only” 77.5% of ICD implanters are practicing good medicine, and that is clearly a major concern – one for which urgent solutions should be sought.

It is one thing for the government to insist that doctors follow their guidelines to the letter, or face fines or worse; it is another for physicians themselves to internalize the same paradigm. Where does that leave patients who are relying on their doctors to use their clinical judgment for their own, individual benefit?

Anyway, guidelines are no longer guidelines; they are directives. Even the doctors agree with this.

2) Most of the Patients Who Received “Non-Evidence-Based ICDs” In This Study Actually Were Indicated For ICDs. News reports of this study, and public pronouncements from the authors themselves, imply that patients in this study who received ICDs outside of the guidelines were getting devices that were unnecessary; that their ICDs, which are deemed “non-evidence-based ICDs,” should never have been implanted. This is a misapprehension.

In the large majority of cases, the deviation from the guidelines was simply in the timing of ICD implantation. Patients received their indicated ICDs earlier than the guidelines specify. CMS guidelines say that patients who are indicated for ICDs should not receive them for 40 days after a heart attack, or three months after the diagnosis of heart failure. Most deviations occurred when patients who were supposed to get ICDs got them during the 40-day (or three-month) window.

So the doctors who violated the guidelines were deciding that, for one reason or another, their patients who needed ICDs would be better off receiving their potentially life-saving devices now rather than two or three months from now.

DrRich will leave aside for now the relatively weak evidence upon which CMS based its recommendation to delay ICD implantation following a heart attack or heart failure diagnosis, and simply assert that it is probably the least evidence-based portion of the ICD guidelines, and in fact, the language in the guideline’s supporting documentation, provided by CMS itself, admits to a certain amount of aribitrariness here. (Perhaps DrRich will discuss in detail in a future post the very “interesting” process CMS followed in establishing these ICD guidelines in the first place.)

But even if you buy the notion that the delay prescribed by the guidelines is fully legitimate, there are still many good reasons one might choose not to wait. Perhaps the patient also needs a pacemaker, and implanting a pacemaker now, and subsequently removing it and replacing it with an ICD (which also functions as a pacemaker) in less than 40 days makes little sense. Perhaps the patient will soon be losing her health insurance (not an uncommon situation these days). Perhaps there are features suggesting that the heart failure is particularly unlikely to improve during the next 3 months. Perhaps there are features that imply that a patient has a particularly high risk of sudden death in the near term.

Whatever. The point is that this study does not show that 22.5% of ICD implants are unnecessary. It shows that sometimes ICDs which everybody agrees are indicated are being implanted a few weeks earlier than the Central Authority would like. The NCDR database the authors used to determine guideline compliance did not allow them to assess the legitimacy of the doctors’ decisions to implant them earlier than CMS prescribes.

Back in the 1990s, when the enlightened idea of “medicine by guidelines” was first being promulgated, it was taken as a basic tenet that, after sufficient training and education had been accomplished regarding a set of guidelines, if deviations from the guidelines still exceeded expectations, then it is necessary to consider that there may be something amiss about the guidelines themselves, and the rationale behind the guidelines ought to be formally revisited. But that was back when guidelines were still guidelines, and not directives.

3) The Important Outcome Is Conspicuously Absent In This Study. One can surmise that the main reason doctors implanted ICDs earlier than the guidelines recommend, 22.5% of the time, is that they thought their patient might experience sudden death during the waiting period. That is, they wanted to protect their patient from sudden death now, instead of two or three months from now. Maybe they were just being obstinate, or stupid, but that was their rationale.

This being the case, the critical information we would want to know is whether the early implantation of ICDs might have led to an overall difference in survival. But alas, that critical information is also not available in the NCDR database. So we know (because the authors were quick to point out) that patients who received “non-evidence-based” ICDs had a worse in-hospital mortality (a difference of roughly 0.4%), and a worse post-procedure complication rate. But what was the difference in survival at, say, one year? Did the early implantation of ICDs increase overall mortality (which is the impression the authors and the newswires leave us with), or did it reduce overall mortality by offering extended protection from sudden death? An overall reduction in mortality was, after all, what the physicians intended when they selected a subset of patients they thought would benefit from not waiting for their ICDs. And it is entirely possible that their decisions did just that.

It seems to DrRich that we might want to know this information, before we castigate too severely (or submit for prosecution) the physicians who judged that “early” ICD implantation would be the best approach in a certain proportion of their ICD-indicated patients.

4) Electrophysiologists Can Be As Self-serving As Anyone Else. This last observation saddens DrRich, himself an exceedingly humble and self-effacing electrophysiologist, as his many thousands of great admirers will attest.

The authors of this study – and the editorialists who wrote in the same issue of JAMA – are all among DrRich’s brethren electrophysiologists. All of them seem to conclude from their analysis that ICDs ought to be implanted by electrophysiologists pretty much exclusively, since we EPs are demonstrated to be (thanks to this study) more likely to follow the guidelines, presumably because we are more “familiar with the guidelines and the evidence that supports ICD use,” by virtue of our “extensive training,” our vast experience, &c.

But once again, the majority of guideline “deviations” which were seen in this study were in the timing of ICD implantation, and not in the fact of ICD implantation. In effect, therefore, the authors are arguing that electrophysiologists are simply better at counting to 40 than those other kinds of doctors. DrRich does not find this a compelling argument for instigating an amendment to the guidelines aimed primarily at protecting the electrophysiologists’ turf.

Furthermore, DrRich suspects that the better compliance with the guidelines evidenced by electrophysiologists has less to do with their superior guideline-following prowess, and more with the fact that there tends to be a built-in delay when EPs implant ICDs. Patients with fresh heart attacks and recent heart failure diagnoses are under the care of non-electrophysiologists (many of whom can implant ICDs themselves, whenever they think they ought to), while patients seen by electrophysiologists generally have to first be referred – a process that introduces a fortuitous delay, and thus, of better guideline “compliance.”

Indeed, when one considers this built-in advantage enjoyed by EPs, one must wonder at the fact that, even for patients implanted by electrophysiologists, nearly 21% still received “non-evidence-based” (i.e., “early”) ICDs. This value, statistically-speaking, may indeed be significantly less than the overall value of 22.5%. But practically speaking it is pretty much the same rate of non-compliance. Which leaves one wondering: Why are electrophysiologists – who suggest that they alone ought to be doing these procedures – themselves so lousy at following the central directives?

Perhaps they, too, need remedial counting lessons. Or perhaps they, with their superior intellect and experience and so forth, actually agree with their non-EP colleagues that delaying ICD implantation in all patients with recent heart attacks and heart failure diagnoses may sometimes (roughly a fifth of the time) be counterproductive.

But no matter. Guidelines are guidelines, which is to say, they’re directives. Following them to the letter is good. “Interpreting” them is bad. It is now apparent that even sophisticated physicians, who should know better, have completely bought in to this new paradigm on guidelines favored by our Central Authorities, and appear less concerned about the implications of this paradigm on their patients and on the practice of medicine, than about how to turn it to their own, narrow advantage.

______

DrRich hates to be so darned prescient.  On January 19, it was revealed that the Department of Justice has launched an investigation regarding ICD implants, as related to “proper guidelines for clinical decision making.”  DrRich tells electrophysiologists, and other ICD implanters, what to make of this rather scary prospect, here.

From the ominously-titled book, “New Rules,” by Donald Berwick MD and Troyen Brennan MD:

“Today, this isolated relationship [between doctor and patient] is no longer tenable or possible. . . Traditional medical ethics, based on the doctor-patient dyad, must be reformulated to fit the new mold of the delivery of health care. . . The primary function of regulation in health care…is to constrain decentralized individualized decision making.”

Unfortunately, Dr. Berwick’s straightforward formulation of the appropriate role of the individual physician in our reformed healthcare system is not isolated to thinkers of the Progressive persuasion. The notion that most clinical decisions can be usefully made by a centralized authority is attractive even to some conservatives.

For example, a few years ago the noted economist Arnold Kling strongly defended the idea. “My own view is that a remote third party probably can use statistical evidence to make good recommendations for a course of treatment.”

Now, Kling is no far-left radical, pushing for centralized control of healthcare (and everything else). Indeed, he is now with the Cato Institute, and before that he taught economics at George Mason University. So he has earned his conservative and/or libertarian chops.

And to be fair, he is not really calling here for “remote third parties” to have final authority on what’s best for individual patients. Rather, he thinks patients should make that decision for themselves, weighing the recommendations of data-driven guidelines promulgated by remote experts, against the ego-toss’d recommendations from their all-too-fallible doctors, or, as Kling sarcastically refers to them, their “heroic personal saviors.” (Such sarcasm, regular readers will know, is as abhorrent to DrRich as it probably is to you.) Kling is saying: trust patients, armed with good evidence-based recommendations handed down from experts, to make the right decisions for themselves.

In concept even DrRich supports this latter notion. Indeed, a chief theme of this blog has been that doctors have been coerced into such a compromised position by the government and the insurance carriers that wise patients will no longer simply trust their doctors’ advice explicitly. As things now stand, patients who place full reliance on their doctors, assuming that they’ll get all the information they need to make good medical decisions, are putting themselves in peril. Smart patients will seek out all the information they can about their own medical conditions, so they can confirm that their doctors are indeed presenting them with all their reasonable options, and so they can more intelligently evaluate those options. And certainly, expert-endorsed guidelines would be an important part of that research.

But Kling’s remedy – that patients rely on the treatment recommendations made by expert panels as a remedy to the conflicted advice being doled out by their own doctors – is seriously flawed.

The first flaw, of course, is the idea that remote third parties, wielding evidence-based data, can make good treatment recommendations for individual patients. Evidence-based guidelines, almost by definition, are designed to improve the average outcome across a population of individuals, and are specifically designed not to optimize outcomes for each individual within that population.

Second, Kling apparently assumes that the remote third parties who are producing evidence-based treatment recommendations will be acting in a completely objective and unbiased manner. But this can never be the case. A major theme of the Covert Rationing Blog this past year has been to demonstrate that a) clinical science is probably the least exact of the sciences; b) the design and interpretation of clinical studies is inevitably attended by significant bias; and c) therefore, no matter who is producing them – whether it is medical professionals or GOD panelists (Government Operatives Deliberating) – these guidelines will always be produced with a particular agenda in mind. To assume that such agendas will be primarily – or even remotely – related to optimizing the outcomes of individual patients will often be a serious error.

Third, the idea that patients, even very intelligent patients armed with “perfect information,” can by themselves reliably sort through the morass of conflicting evidence and conflicting opinions that invariably inform any set of clinical recommendations (whether made by vaunted teams of completely objective experts from on-high, or by one’s inherently flawed, conflicted and ego-driven personal physician) is simply false. This would be the case even if the healthcare system were perfectly aligned to help patients. Which, of course, it is not. (It is aligned to affect the covert rationing of healthcare.)

Finally, while the advice patients get from their doctors is indeed biased, more and more it is biased (thanks to heavy-handed coercion) in favor of those same central authorities that are commissioning the expert panels.

As a result, patients – especially when they are sick and least able to fend for themselves – are generally incapable of negotiating the gratuitous complexities and hidden hazards laid out before them by a hostile healthcare system, a system which silently prays they will, in frustration, just go buy themselves some alternative medicine remedy, then crawl under a bush and die while contemplating their qi. Indeed, patients are as incapable of successfully navigating such a system as are accused felons of navigating a complex and hostile legal system that’s bent on sending them away for 15-20 years.

It is for this very reason that accused felons are assigned an advocate, an individual who is ethically and legally obligated to take their part, to help them navigate all the legal hazards, to do everything possible to see they are treated fairly, and that they are given every reasonable chance to prove their innocence. Lawyers, as much as we physicians might like to castigate them, are absolutely critical to a civil society.

And this is the reason why patients (according to traditional, though now quaint, medical ethics) are also supposed to have a personal advocate, an individual who is obligated to take their part, to help them navigate all the medical hazards, to do everything possible to see that they are treated fairly and that all available medical options are made open to them, and that they are given every reasonable chance of a good clinical outcome. Patients, in other words, need doctors who are devoted to the classic precepts of their profession. Such doctors, as much as Kling and others might like to diminish their importance, are also absolutely critical to a civil society.

But, as we have seen, and as has been publicly celebrated by Dr. Berwick and others, severing the classic doctor-patient relationship has been Job One under our system of covert rationing – whether that rationing is managed by insurance companies or by the government. Doctors simply cannot be allowed any longer to place their patients first. They’ve got to place the needs of their true masters first. They’ve got to keep the government and the insurers happy or they’re out of a job. They are no longer permitted to tailor clinical choices to best fit their individual patients, but they are simply to apply treatment directives as they are handed down by (from now on, government-appointed) panels of experts.

And this brings us back to Kling. DrRich of course agrees with his notion that patients ought to be armed with the high-quality information they need to determine their own medical destiny. DrRich can even agree that relying solely on the information provided by today’s doctor is generally not advisable. But DrRich cannot agree with the reason it’s not advisable. Doctors aren’t so much inherently flawed by ego and other intrinsic character flaws (at least, no more than any other group of humans), as they are operating under duress, under imposed constraints, and under external coercions that systematically and purposefully prevent them from discharging their professional obligations.

Nor can DrRich agree with Kling’s proposed solution. No centralized set of recommendations, evidence-based or not, can fix this problem for patients – especially when the expert bodies that make those recommendations are controlled by the same entities that have, with malice aforethought, killed the medical profession for the express purpose of stripping patients of their advocates, and therefore, of their medical options.

DrRich has trouble seeing a solution to this problem that is not radical. He does not see how doctors can resume their rightful place as their patients’ advocates and remain in what has become of the traditional healthcare system. Perhaps enough doctors to make a difference will leave the traditional healthcare system, shedding themselves of the third parties who now control their behavior, and re-establishing their practices (and revitalizing their profession) with a new commitment to the doctor-patient relationship. If not, then perhaps some brand new profession will establish itself (call it “personal healthcare advocates”) to fill the great void that threatens the safety of every American patient.

So yes, let individual patients weigh all the evidence and choose the healthcare option that suits them best. But unless they have a personal advocate to help them navigate the morass of biased choices – whether that advocate is their PCP like it’s supposed to be, or some new variety of professional advocate – those options will be limited to whatever healthcare is deemed best by the central planners.

A fine economist such as Dr. Kling should realize that a remote third party can no more make good recommendations for individual patients trying to survive in the rough and tumble of the healthcare system, than can a remote third party make good recommendations for individual businesses trying to compete in the rough and tumble of the marketplace. It is one thing for Progressives to hold to such a notion. It is far more disturbing to see respected conservative thinkers doing so.

In his last post, DrRich suggested that the Guideline Wars (i.e. the bloody battles over who gets to establish the patient-care guidelines that determine which patients will get which medical services, and which medical specialists will get to provide them) are about to enter the Obamacare phase, in which those who make the guidelines will no longer be medical professional organizations, but agents of the federal government. DrRich helpfully labeled the various guideline panels provided for by the Obamacare legislation as the “GOD panels” (for Government Operatives Deliberating), in order to avoid using the more inflammatory “death panels” terminology favored by certain less sophisticated commentators.

In addition, DrRich pointed out that his own tribe of medical specialists – the cardiologists – may perhaps be in a better position than most other physician tribes to manipulate the deliberations of these GOD panelists. The cardiologists would attempt such manipulations, DrRich suggested, by “pre-spinning” certain critical data from clinical trials, before that data is taken up by the government panels.

From their long experience in fighting the Guideline Wars, cardiologists understand that data from clinical science does not invariably lead to a fixed conclusion (as most proponents of evidence-based medicine seem to believe), but rather, can often be shaped into whatever sort of conclusion one might want to reach. Just as different primitive cultures discerned different constellations when they looked up into the same night sky, so will different groups of experts come to different conclusions when they look at the same clinical data.

Accordingly (DrRich submits), cardiologists have already embarked on the task of pre-spinning the data, such that when the GOD panelists look for the first time up into the vast and chaotic sky of clinical evidence, they will have in hand a map of the constellations as seen by the cardiologists.

To illustrate what he means, DrRich calls his readers’ attention to the SYNTAX trial, a clinical trial designed by cardiologists and their industry partners for the purpose of reaching a specific conclusion, but which (unfortunately for cardiologists) reached the opposite conclusion. If the data from the SYNTAX trial should ever fall into the hands of the GOD panelists (or any other guideline panels) in a pristine fashion, it could spell disaster. So the cardiologists have spent nearly two years attempting to make the data say what they want it to say, and today, after continuously massaging the data, issuing press release after press release, making presentation after presentation, and publishing academic paper after academic paper, it would be at least a little surprising if the God panelists, surveying this body of pre-spun data, would fail to produce clinical guidelines which provide the cardiologists at least some of what they’re after.

The SYNTAX trial randomized 1800 patients with complex coronary artery disease (i.e., CAD that produces either significant blockage in the left main coronary artery, or severe triple-vessel disease) to therapy with either bypass surgery or drug-eluting stents (DES), and assessed their long-term outcomes.

In general, patients with stable CAD (i.e., those who are not currently having a heart attack or unstable angina) do just as well with aggressive medical therapy as they do with invasive therapy. People like the ones enrolled in SYNTAX, however, are the exception to this rule. That is, patients with either of these two specific patterns of complex CAD have been shown to have improved survival if they receive bypass surgery. Indeed, these patients represent a virtual “last stand” for cardiac surgeons – they are nearly the only patients cardiologists (at least some cardiologists) still feel obligated to refer for bypass surgery. And, as one might expect, in their decades-long turf war with cardiac surgeons (a war from which they will not desist until they see the great majority of cardiac surgeons seeking jobs as beer vendors at sporting events), cardiologists have long chafed at this singular remaining obligation to refer.

Accordingly, SYNTAX, a study instigated by cardiologists and sponsored by Boston Scientific (a manufacturer of DES), was intended to show that with modern cardiac stents, stenting yields outcomes that are not significantly inferior to bypass surgery in these patients. Specifically, that is, SYNTAX was designed as a “non-inferiority trial.” This was certainly a modest goal – some might say too modest – but a positive result would enable cardiologists (the gatekeepers to all invasive CAD therapy) to simply keep these patients for themselves, just as they now do with all the other CAD patients. The SYNTAX trial asked the question, “Do I really have to refer these patients to the cardiac surgeon?” And the desired answer was, “No, it apparently is not statistically provable that you absolutely have to refer them, one supposes.” Judging from the study design, that answer would have been plenty rigorous enough for the study designers.

Alas, however, when the one-year follow-up data for the SYNTAX study was analyzed, the results turned out to be negative; stenting was significantly inferior to surgery. The endpoint of the study was a composite called MACCE (Major Adverse Cardiac and Cerebrovascular Events), and in this study included death, heart attack, stroke, and the need for more revascularization procedures. The bottom line is that in SYNTAX, the risk of MACCE was significantly higher for stenting than for bypass surgery. The study failed to meet even the modest non-inferiority goal the cardiologists had devised for it.

The one-year data for the SYNTAX trial was published in the spring of 2009 in the New England Journal of Medicine, just as the battle over healthcare reform was taking shape, and nearly six months after Sarah Palin had reported her mysterious vision of death panels. But whether one wanted to call them death panels, GOD panels, or panels of distinguished monkeys, it was clear by the time SYNTAX was published that the government, and no longer the physicians’ own specialist organizations, would be manufacturing all clinical guidelines in the near future. So disaster loomed.

But, the cardiology community quickly rallied, and launched into a concerted effort to spin the results of SYNTAX from a disaster into a victory, or at least, to something akin to victory. And the efforts of the cardiologists in this regard have been impressive over the last 18 months.

Within minutes of the publication of the original SYNTAX article, scores of press releases were launched, and scores of “experts” were dispatched to give interviews, implying that the SYNTAX study was a major, ground-breaking victory for stenting.

For instance, here’s the link to an article in the New York Times (subsequently reproduced in hundreds of newspapers around the country) entitled, “Heart Stents Found As Effective As Bypass For Many Patients.”

And here’s a triumphant press release from Boston Scientific, the study’s sponsor, in which the negative overall results of SYNTAX are buried deep within the 6th paragraph (following all kinds of positive-sounding fluff), and are difficult to locate even if you are specifically looking for them.

And here’s the more-than-triumphant press release from one of the leading clinical sites for the SYNTAX trial, which reads, in part:

“At NorthShore, we experienced stunning outcomes [emphasis DrRich's] in patients whose only option would have previously been bypass surgery,” said Ted Feldman, M.D, F.S.C.A.I., Director of Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory, NorthShore University HealthSystem, and a lead investigator of the trial. “The data in this study will provide cardiologists with additional information as they determine treatment therapy for patients with complex CAD.”

Most remarkable of all, we have the spectacle of the lead author of the SYNTAX paper, Dr Patrick W Serruys himself, telling Heartwire immediately after publication of the paper, that the paper’s concluding sentence (i.e., “CABG as compared with PCI is associated with a lower rate of MACCE at one year among patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease (or both) and should therefore remain the standard of care for such patients.”), is just plain wrong. Serruys declared that this concluding sentence actually “is not the essence of the trial.” He only allowed that concluding sentence to appear in the paper, he said, “because the New England Journal of Medicine wanted something more conservative.” (Apparently, having the paper appear in a prestigious journal overrode the necessity of having the paper accurately reflect what the authors meant to say.)

In any case, Serruys insisted (despite the conclusion expressed in his ink-not-yet-dry paper) that many patients like the ones enrolled in the SYNTAX trial can safely be treated with stents, and indeed, he announced that he and his co-investigators were hard at work teasing apart the SYNTAX data in order to develop a so-called “SYNTAX score,” that would help cardiologists determine which patients they can treat themselves, without referring them for surgery. So indeed, despite the negative results, and despite the conclusion written in their own paper, the SYNTAX trial was immediately spun by key trial participants themselves into a win (while not a complete victory, still a win).

Before his readers come down too hard on the cardiologists for such behavior, DrRich feels obligated to point out a partially mitigating truth. Namely, cardiologists believe to the depths of their souls, notwithstanding the largely negative body of medical literature to the contrary, that stenting coronary artery blockages – in virtually any configuration and any clinical situation – saves lives. And if they haven’t been able to prove that yet, it’s just because of the vagaries of clinical research. One must not let spurious results from imperfect research block the Truth, lest one allow great harm to come to humanity.

The results of the SYNTAX trial must simply be wrong, cardiologists believe, and so they would be gravely harming patients if they did not take whatever steps were necessary to render the results of SYNTAX more favorable to stenting. To do otherwise would cause thousands of clinicians to make inappropriate decisions.

In this way, DrRich believes, cardiologists are no more guilty than are Progressives, another category of humans who believe with their hearts and souls in something that is simply not true (in the case of Progressives, that the great mass of humanity will willingly suppress their own individual interests in favor of the interests of the collective). Like the Progressives, cardiologists are often very nice, well-meaning, sensitive and compassionate individuals, and some of them would even be fun to go out with for a beer.

In other words, DrRich pleads, cardiologists are not being particularly evil in spinning the SYNTAX trial results; they are simply doing what comes naturally, and what they deeply believe to be the right thing.

This is why the SYNTAX investigators were convinced that, buried within the vast body of clinical data the SYNTAX trial has generated, there simply MUST be something useful to cardiologists. Accordingly, the SYNTAX investigators dived head-first into the proverbial room full of manure, enthusiastically digging for the pony which simply must be in there somewhere.

And indeed they quickly found their pony.

And here it is: While a straightforward analysis of the SYNTAX study shows that bypass surgery wins hands down over stenting, if one delves a bit deeper into the data, one finds that one of the components of the MACCE endpoint – the incidence of stroke – was statistically higher among the patients randomized to bypass surgery. One also finds that the incidence of needing revascularization during follow-up was higher in the stent patients. So, taking these two interesting observations together, the cardiologsts have concluded that patients receiving bypass surgery are trading a reduced need for subsequent revascularization for an increased risk of stroke – a bad trade indeed. Therefore, despite the overall results of the study, they have concluded that stents are better than bypass surgery for at least some patients. (And they promised to discover for us, during the data-mining exercise from which their “SYNTAX score” was subsequently invented, which patients those are.)

And this – the reduced incidence of stroke seen in the stent patients – is the basis for the celebratory statements which were issued by the SYNTAX investigators upon publication of their original paper.

DrRich agrees that, as a general proposition, he would probably rather have an extra invasive cardiac procedure than a stroke, and suspects that most people would say the same thing. But before we all buy what cardiologists are selling here, DrRich would like to make a few observations.

First, the results of the SYNTAX trial are the results. Stenting did not meet even its modest non-inferiority endpoint, and it failed to meet it by quite a lot. Once the pre-designated endpoint of a randomized clinical trial is determined, any remaining observations that can be gleaned from the large amounts of data invariably generated by such trials must be viewed as inconclusive, as merely hypothesis-generating. Such observations are not to be regarded as having sufficient statistical surety to vastly change medical practice, or to figure into evidence-based guidelines. So, another clinical study would need to be conducted to prove the hypothesis that strokes are less frequent with stenting than with bypass surgery in patients like these.

Similarly, the “SYNTAX score” – which indeed was generated and subsequently published as a “guide” for cardiologists treating patients with complex CAD, and which is therefore presumably being used today by cardiologists all over the world to select which of these complex patients they can just go ahead and stent rather than refer for bypass surgery – has no business being incorporated into clinical practice. An exercise like this – in which investigators comb retrospectively through the clinical data, selecting out patients who had good results with stenting, then devising a group of characteristics that appears to differentiate them from those who did not – cannot possibly yield a validated, widely-applicable clinical tool. If they want to claim that their SYNTAX score is clinically useful, they need to conduct another randomized clinical trial to test that hypothesis.

Next, and most remarkably, there’s the almost universally-ignored fact (reported by Dr Friedrich W Mohr, co-principle investigator of the trial), that among patients assigned to bypass surgery in the SYNTAX trial who experienced a stroke, nearly half of them had their strokes PRIOR TO SURGERY. What this means is that, in reality, the bypass surgery itself did not cause those strokes, a fact that ought to cause serious damage to the chief assertion of the stent-proponents. This fact alone turns their pony into a pig. The claim that stenting instead of surgery would have avoided these strokes is largely, if not entirely, spurious. Indeed, if anything, the fact that patients “randomized” to surgery apparently had a lot of strokes in the brief period of time between the act of randomization and the surgery itself ought to make one question whether the selection of therapy was really and truly random, or whether, somehow, patients who looked particularly sick got sent preferentially to the surgeons.

And finally, the clinical choice as it has been starkly painted by many proponents of stenting – that the real trade-off in choosing between stenting and bypass surgery in these patients is the choice between the higher risk of stroke with surgery versus the higher risk of revascularization with stenting – is incomplete and misleading. Presenting the choice in this way clearly favors stenting, and this presentation entirely explains the positive press releases and subsequent media coverage of the SYNTAX trial. But this is not a valid comparison of risks for several reasons:

1) As noted above, the actual risk of stroke posed by performing bypass surgery in the SYNTAX trial has been substantially overstated for public consumption (by implying that the surgery caused those strokes, when half occurred prior to surgery).

2) Surgeons in the SYNTAX trial most often did not employ newer techniques now in routine use, such as off-pump surgery and LIMA grafts, both of which can substantially reduce the risk of stroke and other embolic phenomena.

3) Re-occlusion of the involved arteries (which occurred about equally in both groups in this study, and which spokespersons for SYNTAX seem to brush off as not such a big deal), is an entirely different phenomenon in patients who have received DES than it is in patients who have had bypass surgery. After bypass surgery, re-occlusion tends to occur gradually, and the patient generally experiences recurrent symptoms of angina. But in DES, re-occlusion much more commonly occurs acutely, and catastrophically, leading rapidly to permanent cardiac damage and often, to sudden death.

4) Item # 3 might explain why the composite endpoint of “death, heart attack and stroke” was equal in both groups, even though stroke was significantly higher in the surgery group. That is, in order for the math to work out, the remaining dyad of “death and heart attack” necessarily must have been higher in the stent group. As far as DrRich can tell, this point has never been discussed in public.

5) In order to avoid the catastrophic re-occlusions seen with DES, cardiologists now insist that their DES patients take long-term, even life-long, Plavix, a powerful blood thinner. As the purveyor of a patient-oriented website on heart disease, DrRich cannot tell you how many distressed and stented-up patients have written to him with the following lament:

“My doctor put in one of those drug coated stents and has me on Plavix. He says if I stop the Plavix I could die, and won’t let me stop it for any reason. But I need my gallbladder out because I keep having gallbladder attacks, and the last one gave me blood poisoning. My surgeon says I need the surgery but he won’t do it unless I stop Plavix, and my cardiologist says no stopping the Plavix for any reason. What can I do? Can they just take these stents out so I can stop the Plavix?”

There is no easy answer to this question, at least not that DrRich can find. The DES patient commonly is left in the middle of a pissing match between surgeon and cardiologist. The fear of the cardiologist is that when one stops Plavix, there is a risk of sudden, catastrophic thrombosis of the coronary artery. But surgeons simply cannot operate safely on patients taking this drug. Few cardiologists seem to explain this to their patients before placing DES.

And more to the point at hand, none of the cardiologists spinning the SYNTAX trial are explaining to the public the implications of long-term Plavix. Even if their claims that stenting yields significantly fewer strokes turned out to be accurate, the choice here is clearly NOT a simple one between a higher risk of stroke on one hand, and a higher risk of needing “revascularization” (if they survive the re-occlusion, that is) on the other. There’s a lot more to think about than that, and cardiologists who imply otherwise are being either disingenuous, or delusional.

Just last week, SYNTAX investigators reported on the three-year outcomes in patients enrolled in the trial. The results, similar to the one-year outcomes, remain strongly in favor of bypass surgery at three years, and indeed, the incidence of stroke in stented patients has “caught up” with the incidence of stroke in the surgery patients.

This persistently bad news still does not really phase the cardiologists, who are now saying that the results of SYNTAX don’t really apply any more in any case, because drug-eluting stents have been improved since the trial was done.

It would appear that the cardiologists are going for some sort of official announcement to the effect that that the results of SYNTAX are, for practical purposes, indeterminate, and that what is needed is a new clinical trial, in which patients randomized to DES will receive the latest generation of stents. (Since there is a new generation of stents every year or so, this entire process can be repeated as needed until the cardiologists finally get the results they’re looking for, at which point they can declare final victory and stop.)

Summary:

All medical specialists should take a lesson from the cardiologists. In an era in which specialist organizations will no longer be writing the clinical guidelines for their own specialty, it is necessary to aggressively pre-spin any important clinical data upon which the GOD panels will be deliberating.

Considering the SYNTAX trial as a case study, one sees how it is possible to take the most straightforward results from a very straightforward clinical trial and, if not turn a negative outcome into a positive one, at least introduce enough complications, nuance, spin and uncertainty to cause any self-respecting GOD panelist to hesitate in making a definitive pronouncement on those results. Then, if you couple all the uncertainty you’ve created with a loud call for yet another clinical trial – one that will take into account new equipment, new techniques, new scoring systems &c., and that promises to clear up all the confusion you’ve dug up as a result of the last clinical trial – then you stand a decent chance of at least getting a postponement on any new guidelines harmful to your cause.

And this, you neurologists, gastroenterologists, pulmonologists and all you other, less savvy medical specialists, is how one can manage the GOD panels.

DrRich’s last post addressed a recent issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine which, strikingly, was largely dedicated to trashing the JUPITER study.

The JUPITER study was a landmark clinical trial in which giving the statin drug Crestor to apparently healthy individuals who were at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (and most particularly, had high CRP levels) resulted in a significant improvement in outcomes. In particular, within two years, individuals taking the statin had a 20% reduction in overall mortality, a 54% reduction in heart attacks, a 48% reduction in stroke, and a 40% reduction in venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. All these findings were highly statistically significant.

DrRich attempted to show that the criticisms of JUPITER recently offered by the Archives were sufficiently spurious to raise the question of what the authors and the editors were really trying to accomplish, and for him to suggest that perhaps they were auditioning for appointments to the government’s expert medical panels, which will soon begin determining who gets what, when and how. Indeed, DrRich will actually be quite surprised if none of these individuals end up with such an appointment. They have clearly demonstrated they have the right stuff.

Still, as DrRich also pointed out, the JUPITER study, while a reasonably straightforward clinical trial whose results seem impressive, was anything but air-tight. No clinical trial is air-tight, however, and if medicine were still practiced the way it should be, the JUPITER trial could be smoothly incorporated – with all its limitations – into clinical practice without a hitch.

But, since medicine is now practiced by guidelines, JUPITER poses a major problem. In fact, it has led to major and contentious debates between those who insist its results must be incorporated into formal clinical guidelines, and who insist they should not. On one hand, many point out that JUPITER is an important clinical trial which has demonstrated a vital clinical benefit (prevention of heart attack, stroke and death) with a high degree of statistical significance, which meets the high standards demanded by evidence-based medicine, and which therefore obviously demands a change in the clinical guidelines. But on the other hand, many others insist that the JUPITER trial simply does not demonstrate enough of a benefit with Crestor to justify changing the guidelines.

DrRich’s position – that the results of the JUPITER trial are striking and important but incomplete, and ought to change the conversation between, but not dictate the actions of, doctors and patients – simply does not obtain in the modern era.

So, unable to side with either party, DrRich observes with great interest the debate between those who want to change the guidelines, and those who believe that changing the guidelines would be the greatest of travesties.

Those who want to change the guidelines have, in their favor, the virtue of consistency. For, if one insists that every action by physicians must be supported by evidence-based medicine, then one is pretty much obligated to fully embrace legitimate clinical trials like this one that give clear-cut and statistically significant results. Unfortunately, the evidence-based strict-constructionists have painted themselves into a corner when it comes to JUPITER. They will not be able to say, for instance, “Statins are pretty much alike, so we’ll make the guidelines say ‘statins’ instead of ‘Crestor.’” For JUPITER did not study “statins,” it studied only Crestor, the most expensive statin on the planet. Expanding the results to all statins (despite a large body of experience that suggests this would be just fine) does violence to the whole concept of evidence-based medicine. It’s just not possible. The strict constructionists have therefore boxed themselves in to advocating a new, multi-billion dollar annual expenditure.

It is even more amusing to observe those who do not want to change the guidelines.

These people fall into two general camps. First, and easier to dismiss, are those who believe that drug companies are the embodiment of evil, and that any clinical trial sponsored by a drug company must be dismissed out of hand, particularly if the drugs which are being promoted are statins. (This, in fact, is the level of argument on which the main article in the recent issue of Archives relies.)

DrRich simply notes, once again, that the advancement of clinically useful medical science – in America and in the world – is almost entirely dependent on drug companies and other corporate dens of iniquity. That companies must pay for our medical research is the system we’ve invented. Furthermore, our total capitulation to the dictates of evidence-based medicine means that companies must fund large, expensive clinical trials like JUPITER before they are allowed to sell a new product, or to create a new indication for an old product. This evidence-based paradigm is inherently a double-edged sword. Sure, it creates a huge barrier to the development and adoption of expensive new therapies (which is the covert rationing dividend of evidence-based medicine), but it also creates opportunities, for companies who manage to successfully complete such trials, to create iron-clad indications for their products. For, once a product has been “proven” in a randomized clinical trial, there is no easy way to legitimately keep that product out of the guidelines and off the shelves. The makers of Crestor have simply figured out the rules. One can whip up anti-corporate emotions by criticizing the sponsor for playing the game well, but the fact that the sponsor stands to gain does not negate in any way the results of a well-designed study.

That the anti-pharmaceutical and anti-statin crowds vociferously object to the results of the JUPITER trial is, of course, entirely expected and cheerfully acknowledged. DrRich will merely observe that their position is one of default. It is not dependent on the scientific merit of JUPITER (or any company-sponsored study), and thus it adds no useful information to the debate. We can only note their objections and move on.

The second group of people who object to changing the guidelines are less dogmatic and more open to reason, and indeed (and very interestingly so) claim to be proponents of evidence-based medicine, and thus claim to be willing to follow the data to where it will lead. It seems pretty clear (to DrRich, anyway), that the chief concern of these individuals, as it relates to JUPITER, is cost. That is, this group feels strongly that the implications of the JUPITER trial are simply too costly to follow to their logical conclusion. This, indeed, is a very reasonable position to take.

Unfortunately, the only legitimate way to turn aside the results of a costly but statistically definitive, evidence-based study is by rationing healthcare. (To ration, remember, is to withhold at least some useful medical services from at least some people who would be likely to benefit from those services.) But we can’t do that, because, well, it would be rationing. Because members of this second group are unable to invoke the “r” word, they are therefore forced to find other “reasons” for keeping the guidelines unchanged. This unfortunate situation leaves them little choice but to discover ways in which to impugn the legitimacy of the JUPITER trial.

In short, they find themselves forced to engage in statistical legerdemain in order to diminish the significance of the JUPITER trial. There are several useful statistical arguments they can employ.

From what DrRich has seen, many of the arguments that have been ginned up to this end have not come directly from the JUPITER trial itself, but instead from an editorial accompanying this study, written by Dr. Mark A. Hlatky.

Most of Dr. Hlatky’s editorial is measured and reasonable. But he threw in a key summary sentence that has been greedily grasped by the anti-alter-guidelinetarians, to wit: “The proportion of participants with hard cardiac events in JUPITER was reduced from 1.8% (157 of 8901 subjects) in the placebo group to 0.9% (83 of the 8901 subjects) in the rosuvastatin [Crestor] group; thus, 120 participants were treated for 1.9 years to prevent one event.”

This statement, at least taken at its face value as a stand-alone analysis, is statistically naive and wrong. DrRich realizes that one or two of his readers might not enjoy statistical arguments, so if you do not wish to wade through the reasons why, simply skip the next two indented paragraphs.

In a long-term clinical study in which the endpoints are events that can occur at any time (such as heart attack, stroke or death), then the probability that an enrolled patient will reach an endpoint in the trial increases the longer he/she has been enrolled in the trial. But in virtually all clinical trials, the length of time different people are enrolled varies greatly. This is because it often takes years to enroll people in clinical trials, so that when the trial ends, some will have been in the trial for many years, others for only a little while. This means that the risk exposure of each research subject is different, and is proportional to the total time they were enrolled. Not uncommonly, the enrollment process is not smooth – there are periods of more rapid enrollment, and periods of slower enrollment – so if all you do is average the enrollment time (as was done by Hlatky – 1.9 years) you are likely to get skewed results. So it is simply not statistically legitimate to do so.

There is a legitimate way of analyzing such longitudinal outcome statistics, and it’s called the Kaplan-Meier method. And indeed, the authors of the JUPITER trial presented in their paper a complete Kaplan-Meier analysis of their data (see Figure 1 of their paper), and the results look quite a bit different from Hlatky’s summary statement. The Kaplan-Meier analysis reveals that the risk of heart attack, stroke, and death all increase steadily through at least 4 years (5 years was the longest time anyone was enrolled in this study), so that at 4 years, the risk of reaching one of the “cardiovascular event” endpoints was about 8% (not 1.8%). Further, the Kaplan-Meier analysis shows that the protection imparted by Crestor persists through at least 4 years, and that indeed the magnitude of protection (i.e., the difference in outcomes between the treated group and the placebo group) increases throughout that entire duration. So, at 4 years, the placebo group had roughly an 8% event rate, compared to roughly a 3% event rate for the Crestor group – an absolute difference of about 5% (not 0.9%). This is a far greater benefit than is suggested by Hlatky’s shorthand summary.

Suffice to say, then, that Hlatky’s summary statement apparently ignores the appropriately analyzed data which is clearly presented in the JUPITER paper itself, and which documents that the clinical benefit of Crestor was substantially more impressive than his widely-quoted summary statement suggests.

But as illegitimate as this summary statement may be, let us accept it at face value for a moment just for the sake of discussion, since that’s the data the anti-alter-guidelinetarians have latched on to.

Taking these numbers, the “antis” make the following argument: While the relative reduction in “hard cardiac events” is 50% (1.8 to 0.9), the absolute reduction is only 0.9%, which, anyone would agree, is a pretty small number. So, they conclude, the actual benefit imparted by Crestor is actually quite small.

That’s a very interesting argument. Let’s look at it in a couple of ways.

So we’ve got a population of patients whose risk of heart attack, stroke, bypass surgery/stenting, or death is about 2% at about 2 years, and by giving them a pill we can reduce that risk to about 1%, and we’re arguing that the absolute drop of 1% is not very much to crow about. Well, OK. But what if we found a pill that reduced their risk to zero at 2 years? That is, it completely wiped out the risk of cardiovascular catastrophes altogether. Would that be a good thing? Or would we say, “It’s just a 2% drop, really not much greater than the 1% drop we had with Crestor, so it’s no big deal?” DrRich thinks not. DrRich supposes we would think that totally eliminating all cardiovascular risk would be a very big deal.

When you’re starting at a 2% risk, then any drop in risk is going to be an “absolutely” small number. And if we’re not going to pursue improvements in outcome of such a small magnitude, then why the heck are we worrying about preventative medicine in the first place? Once you get past the big things (drain the swamps, don’t drink the water downhill from the outhouse, etc.) then all preventative medicine tends to consist of small, incremental improvements in outcome. Popular pronouncements to the contrary notwithstanding, preventative medicine is largely the art of spending a lot of money for this kind of incremental improvement. If we decide we shouldn’t do this anymore, then DrRich would find it unfortunate but understandable. But it hardly seems reasonable to arbitrarily focus on this one, particular improvement in preventative cardiology, and (within a healthcare system that insists it is not rationing care) pronounce that this is the one we’re not paying for.

Another way of looking at this “the benefit is too small” argument is by considering that 7.4 million Americans fit the entrance criteria for JUPITER. By giving all these people a statin, we would be preventing about 66,600 major cardiovascular events over a 2 year period. If you’re going to say that 1% is a small number, DrRich will counter that 66,600 is a big number. So do statins offer a substantial benefit or not? It depends on whether you choose to focus arbitrarily on the 1% or the 66,600.

(DrRich understands that many of his readers are not focusing at this moment on the 66,600 cardiovascular catastrophes that could be prevented, but on the 7.4 million people who will be taking a drug that costs $120 per month. But we’re not talking about cost yet, we’re only talking about whether the drug does some good. If we decide it does, then we’ll need to link that “good” to a procedure that measures whether the “good” is worth the money we would need to spend to achieve it. The “antis” try to avoid talking about cost – since that would admit they’re rationing – by insisting that there’s just not enough “good” to bother with. DrRich is simply pointing out that such an argument – that preventing 66,600 very bad outcomes is not enough to bother with – is on its face absurd.)

Another argument invoked by the anti-alter-guidelinetarians is based on the “number needed to treat” (NNT) analysis. Again they rely on Hlatky’s unfortunate summary of the data: “120 participants were treated for 1.9 years to prevent one event.” This number – which the “antis” insist is just too high – is misleading for the reasons already discussed. The real NNT, based on more legitimate statistical analysis, is plainly laid out in the JUPITER paper itself. It turns out that the longer patients in this trial were treated with Crestor, the lower the NNT became. So: At 2 years, the NNT was 95; at 4 years, it was 31; and at 5 years, it was projected to be only 25. Whether you think it is reasonable to treat 25 people with a pill for 5 years to prevent one of them from having a heart attack, stroke, or death is, DrRich supposes, a matter of opinion. But based on NNT analyses for many widely-accepted therapies in medicine today, it looks pretty good.

All these arguments, of course, are merely distractions. The fact is that JUPITER showed a pretty striking reduction in nasty cardiovascular events over s pretty brief period of time, and the only real reason there’s any controversy at all is because of the cost of Crestor.

That cost is what makes us want to withhold Crestor, even though it is imparting at least some (and, DrRich, argues, quite a bit of) clinical benefit. In other words, the high cost makes us want to ration Crestor. The fact that we can only ration covertly, instead of openly, is what makes us want to bastardize the science and do a Kabuki dance with the statistics.

If we were rationing healthcare openly, then we could do an objective, full-bore cost-benefit analysis on the use of Crestor in JUPITER patients, using legitimate and not ginned-up statistical analysis, and taking into account not only the cost of the drug, but also the cost that would be incurred by failing to stop preventable heart attacks, strokes, etc., and then determining where the overall cost-benefit result fell within our coverage criteria. If it met the criteria we would cover it, if not, not. This decision would not be arbitrary. It would be a fully transparent process, so that if the sponsor did not like the results, they would try diligently to find a way to reduce the cost of Crestor (DrRich thinks they would succeed) to a value that would be compatible with their staying in business. (And for the first time, the price of medical products would be determined by a Laffer-like curve, where a price that was too high – like taxes that are too high – would reduce revenue, instead of increase revenue. Companies, being fairly rational, would ratchet their prices down to the optimal price point.)

But since we insist on doing our rationing covertly, DrRich is sorry to say that we’re destined to keep making spurious arguments, and using dumbed-down statistical analysis to back them up. The JUPITER trial, while it is imperfect and while it does not answer every question, really is pretty straightforward. That we get so wrapped around the axle trying to fold such clinical trials into our covert rationing paradigm is simply another demonstration of the fact that covert rationing corrupts everything it touches.

________________________________

Now, read the whole story.

DrRich explains it all in, Fixing American Healthcare – Wonkonians, Gekkonians and the Grand Unification Theory of Healthcare.

Now on Kindle!

DrRich has decided it is time to begin studying the 2700-page healthcare reform bill that the Senate passed on December 24, as that is the bill which will actually become the law of the land. In the fall, DrRich had spent quite a bit of time with the House bill. This was such a painful and useless exercise that DrRich decided he would not waste any more of his time with proposed legislation, but instead (as Nancy Pelosi has wisely suggested) would wait until Congress passed a bill so he could find out what’s in it.

Now, DrRich does not have the stamina to study the new law all at once, as a whole. He must bite off little pieces. And the first thing he sought in embarking on his study of our new healthcare system was evidence of how the new law would rescue the Primary Care Physician.

This is important, since everyone acknowledges that we have a severe shortage of PCPs already, and when we add 32 million Americans to the rolls of the insured, that shortage will become extremely acute. Further, we know that very few medical school graduates are deciding to become PCPs, and further, that the PCPs who are in practice today are becoming older rapidly, and many may not be around in 10 years (or even in 10 months, once this reform bill passes).

As we all have heard, our President and his Congress have explicitly recognized the problem, and have frequently explicated on the need to build up and support our beleaguered primary care workforce. They have promised that their healthcare reforms will aggressively address this issue. And it is largely due to this promise that prominent physician organizations, like the AMA (which really represents a relatively small minority of the medical profession) and the American College of Physicians (which represents a large proportion of internists, of whom many are PCPs), have come out in support of the President’s reform efforts.

DrRich believes, of course, that for the Feds to suddenly make themselves the champions of PCPs, after spending nearly two decades systematically rendering primary care medicine a completely untenable proposition for American physicians, would be an unlikely outcome for any reform bill. Just to remind his readers, here’s what DrRich has previously observed about the carefully engineered plight of the American PCP:

“Their pay is determined arbitrarily by Acts of Congress, not by what they’re worth to their patients or to the market, and indeed in this way PCPs have a lot in common with workers in the old Soviet collectives.

They are directed to “practice medicine” by guidelines and directives which are handed down from on high; guidelines which, being forcibly based on what is called “evidence-based medicine,” necessarily address the average response of some large group of patients to the treatment being considered and do not allow much if any latitude for an individual patient’s needs; and which are often promulgated less to assure the excellent care of patients and more to further the agenda of various and competing interest groups, professional, governmental and otherwise.

They are limited to between 7.5 and 12.5 minutes per patient encounter (depending on the third party that controls a given patient’s medical care), and the content of what must occur during those 7.5 minutes is strictly determined by sundry Pay for Performance checklists, so as to strictly limit any interchanges between doctor and patient that do not meet the approved agenda for such encounters.

Their every move must be carefully documented according to incomprehensible rules, on innumerable forms and documents, that confound patient care but that greatly further the convenience of healthcare accountants and other stone-witted bureaucrats who are employed specifically to second-guess every clinical decision and every action the PCP takes.

They are expected to operate flawlessly under a system of federal rules, regulations and guidelines that cover hundreds of thousands of pages in immeasurable volumes that are never available in any readily accessible form. If they do not operate flawlessly according to those rules, regulations and guidelines, they are guilty of the federal crime of healthcare fraud. Furthermore, the specific meanings of these rules, regulations and guidelines are not merely opaque and difficult to ascertain, but indeed they are fundamentally indeterminate – that is, no individual or group of individuals in existence can say what they mean. So, PCPs operate under a massive quantum cloud of rules as best they can, but their actual status (regarding healthcare fraud) is, like Schrodinger’s cat, fundamentally unknowable – until the “box is opened” (typically through criminal prosecution), whereupon the meaning of the rules is finally crystallized in a court of law, and doctors who had been practicing in good faith find that they have at least a 50- 50 chance (like the cat) of learning that they are actually professionally dead.

Worst of all, PCPs have been charged with the duty of covertly rationing their patients’ healthcare at the bedside, and they have been pressed to nullify the classic doctor-patient relationship, by the healthcare bureaucracy that determines their professional viability, by the United States Supreme Court, and by the bankrupt, new-age ethical precepts of their own profession.”

How does our new healthcare law propose to “fix” these problems? DrRich can find two proposed solutions in the Senate bill.

First, the new law promises to address some of the pay discrepancy which punishes doctors for going into primary care specialties. It is unclear to DrRich how much this new pay fix will bring to PCPs. He will merely observe that, until now, the Feds have intentionally rendered primary care medicine such a soul-wrenching, personally and professionally demeaning endeavor that it has pushed most PCPs beyond mere anger, frustration, or resignation. Many of them are desperately looking for any practicable exit strategy. And to DrRich’s thinking, since it is not primarily their relatively low income that has caused all this anguish, a mere boost in income cannot overcome it.

But, of course, that’s for the PCPs themselves to decide.

Second, the new law proposes to fund new training opportunities for PCPs. This also sounds nice. But DrRich wonders what effect these new training programs will have, when the training programs that already exist cannot come close to filling their slots.

DrRich contends that these two stated “fixes” for manufacturing more PCPs cannot possibly provide an actual solution to the PCP shortage, and further, that the authors of the Senate bill cannot possibly believe they will. And so, DrRich decided to look a little deeper.

The answer to the PCP shortage – at least, the answer our political leaders are actually relying upon – is revealed deep in the Senate bill, in Section 5501, where the definition of “Primary Care Practitioner” is actually provided. Note, first of all, that once this bill becomes the law of the land, “PCP” will no longer mean “primary care physician,” but rather, will mean “primary care practitioner.”

And here’s how the new law defines Primary Care Practioners:

The term ‘primary care practitioner’ means an individual who —

(I) is a physician (as described in section 1861(r)(1)) who has a primary specialty designation of family medicine, internal medicine, geriatric medicine, or pediatric medicine; or

(II) is a nurse practitioner, clinical nurse specialist, or physician assistant (as those terms are defined in 9 section 1861(aa)(5))

And so, to his readers who are primary care physicians, DrRich must report that the real “fix” your political leaders have envisioned for the PCP shortage has been to declare you and nurse practitioners to be functionally (and legally) equivalent. This, DrRich submits, is all you need to know.

Having painstakingly reduced you unfortunate practitioners of primary care medicine to tools of the state – whose job is to follow the guidelines and place chits on the checklists which are handed down from on high, and to fill out the electronic forms which are designed not to advance patient care but to convenience the healthcare accountants who will thereby judge your “quality” – it is only natural for the central authority to eventually notice that you really don’t need all that training to do the kind of job they have invented for you. Nurses – who can be “trained up” much more rapidly than you, who will work for much less money than you, and who (they think) will be much less recalcitrant about following handed-down directives than you – will fill the gap. And you, doctor, can go pound salt.

DrRich must hasten to add, by the way, that, regarding the nurse practitioners, he believes the Feds have miscalculated. DrRich knows a lot of nurse practitioners and greatly admires their professionalism. He believes that “PCP” has been so successfully demeaned that many fewer nurse practitioners than our political leaders think will actually jump at the opportunity to become one (especially when you take into account the liability you assume when you become a PCP in a non-tort-reform paradigm like the one our leaders have made for us). Trusting in their common sense, DrRich will leave the nurse practitioners to their own wise counsel.

To his primary care physician friends, who have bravely held on, clinging to the promises made by our political leaders that their noble efforts will not go unrewarded, and to the assurances made by their own professional organizations that all will be well once the system is reformed, DrRich is forced to say: Told you so.

He also reminds you that it is still not illegal to opt out, and urges you to consider that it soon might be.