Farmer Emanuel has 10,000 head of cattle in his beef herd. He prides himself in staying up to date on all the latest methods, so he knows that adding a certain antibiotic to their feed will reduce the incidence of intestinal infections, and will increase his annual overall yield, measured in pounds of beef, by 7%. Unfortunately, he also knows that roughly one in 200 of his cattle will experience a likely fatal allergic reaction to the antibiotic. It is possible to do a blood test to determine which specific members of the herd are allergic, but the test itself is quite expensive, and the logistics of separating the allergic cattle at feeding time and providing them with their own antibiotic-free feed would be expensive enough to entirely wipe out his savings.

Obviously, the cost-effective solution is for Farmer Emanuel to give antibiotic-treated feed to all his cattle, accepting the losses of a few head as the necessary price for an impressive overall gain in productivity. He would be an ineffective and incompetent rancher indeed if he were to pass up this opportunity to achieve cost-effectiveness.

For the last two posts (here and here) DrRich has had some fun in deconstructing the Sixth edition of the American College of Physicians’ Ethics Manual, and especially in demonstrating how the ACP leadership has managed to wrap its collective tongue around the axle defending its unfortunate choice of the word “parsimonious” to describe the ideal mind-set of the modern physician. In the present post, DrRich will discuss a somewhat more serious aspect of the document, namely, what this re-statement of medical ethics really means, and why it was produced.

The Sixth Edition of the ACP Ethics Manual elevates the term “cost-effectiveness” to an ethical mandate; and furthermore, it locks this often ambiguous term down into its apparently final form, and in so doing formally launches the era of herd medicine.

Until now, efforts at covert healthcare rationing have been aimed mainly at coercing individual physicians to surreptitiously withhold certain medical services at the bedside. Mainly, doctors were to accomplish this withholding of care simply by failing to inform patients of all their medical options, or perhaps more commonly, by painting certain medical options in an unfavorable light (so that, while they were, in fact, offered, they were offered in such a way that the patient would almost certainly turn them down).

What the Central Authority has learned, over the past 15 years, is that this style of covert rationing simply doesn’t work. It still leaves medical decisions up to individual doctors and individual patients, who have apparently continued to act against the best interests of the collective despite all the coercion that has been brought to bear. The end result has been unremittingly bad – healthcare costs have continued to rise at multiples of both the GDP and the general level of inflation. It has become obvious to the Central Authority that, in order to set the matter right, all healthcare decisions will have to be made centrally, from the top down.

Accordingly, during the first decade of the New Millennium we saw a steadily rising emphasis on “guidelines.” Guidelines are not intrinsically a bad thing, and indeed, when properly used can be greatly beneficial to both doctors and patients. But in a relatively gradual process, guidelines came to be spoken of as more than merely guidelines – that is, as more than helpful considerations which doctors ought to take into serious account when deciding what’s best for an individual patient. Instead, guidelines have become directives for definite action.

In 2010, the Obamacare legislation took the concept of “guidelines” a giant step forward, and essentially rendered it a crime for doctors to “violate” guidelines, which are now to be handed down by federally-appointed panels of experts. As if to emphasize this new paradigm, the Department of Justice a year ago began a secretive investigation of an unknown number of electrophysiologists, for alleged violations of guidelines for using implantable defibrillators. We do not know if any criminal charges will be brought (and because the particular aspect of those guidelines which doctors have allegedly violated were based on rather flimsy evidence, perhaps not), but during the past year American electrophysiologists have certainly been intimidated into reducing the number of implantable defibrillators they offer to their patients. (And so, whether any charges come out of this “investigation” or not, mission accomplished!)

Dear Reader, how do you suppose some of these electrophysiologists must feel, after failing to offer implantable defibrillators to their patients who they believe have clear-cut indications for the device, knowing that by failing to offer this treatment their patients may very well (and very predictably) suffer sudden death? At least a few doctors, DrRich warrants, are probably feeling very guilty about it.

And here is the real import of the updated Ethics Manual. It aims to assuage the guilty conscience of physicians who follow handed-down guidelines to the letter, even against their better medical judgment, instead of tailoring the application of those guidelines to the benefit of their individual patients (which, DrRich feels compelled to remind his readers, was the original but now archaic intention of “guidelines.”) Doctors who had been feeling badly because they were preserving their own skin at the cost of their patients’ can now take heart. They are not behaving selfishly at all, the New Ethics assures them. They are in fact acting for the greater good of the collective – and therefore they are obeying a higher principle of ethics than those outmoded principles mentioned in the Hippocratic Oath.

While herd medicine was made the law of the land by Obamacare, until now it was still technically unethical. The ACP’s new Ethics Manual repairs that uncomfortable discrepancy, using, of course, what has become the traditional methodology. (That is, when it becomes  difficult or impossible to adhere to ethical precepts, change them.)

For those who missed it, the relevant passage of the new Ethics Manual states that physicians have an ethical obligation to “practice effective and efficient health care and to use health care resources responsibly. Parsimonious care that utilizes the most efficient means to diagnose a condition and treat a patient respects the need to use resources wisely. . .”

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel offers the midrash on this passage, in his editorial which accompanied the publication of the new Ethics Manual. Emanuel rhapsodizes that it is “truly remarkable” that an “authoritative medical body [is] using such words as ‘efficient’ and ‘parsimonious’ – and without ‘qualifications’ – to describe the ideal physician’s practices.” Dr. Emanuel notes further that to fulfill this new ethical obligation toward efficiency and parsimony, the Ethics Manual specifies that doctors should act based on “the best available evidence in the biomedical literature, including data on the cost-effectiveness of different clinical approaches.”

And that, readers, is the key, for it specifies how doctors, in pursuit of the new ethics, are to act. They are to follow the “best evidence,” in particular, the best evidence on “cost-effectiveness.”

In the past, when doctors were exhorted to practice cost-effectively, the term was used as a general admonition to not be wasteful. But here, in this formal ethics document (as in the Obamacare legislation), it has now become a term of art. “Cost-effective” now has a specific meaning. It is cost-effectiveness as determined by “best evidence,” and since any body of clinical evidence will inevitably have conflicts, and since doctors cannot be expected (or permitted) to determine for themselves which evidence is best in every clinical situation, Dr. Emanuel is talking about the “best evidence” which will be determined by one of his panels of experts.

Therefore, the ACP’s new Ethics Manual stipulates that it is now an ethical obligation for doctors to follow expert-produced guidelines to the letter.

But in the real world, there is no single “best” determination of cost-effectiveness. This is because any determination of cost-effectiveness depends entirely on who is making the assessment. For instance, when DrRich was deciding whether to buy a smoke alarm to protect himself and his family from dying in a fiery inferno, he judged it to be cost-effective to do so. For a mere $20, DrRich was able to protect himself and his family from death or injury, in the unlikely event that a fire should occur in his home. A bargain to be sure, and at least by DrRich’s lights it was highly cost-effective (if only for the peace of mind it brought him).

But if the purchase of fire alarms was covered under Obamacare (and why should it not be, since fire-related injury is certainly a medical problem, which produces a burden for our healthcare system), then the cost effectiveness calculation would look very different. For while fire alarms indeed save lives, they do so at an exorbitant cost – likely more than a million dollars per life-year saved. Clearly, from the perspective of the collective, the purchase of fire alarms ought to be made illegal, and owning one a crime.

And the only reason it’s not a crime is that such Fire Protection Appliances have not (yet) been designated as being subject to the rulings of the US Preventive Services Task Force.

It is axiomatic, therefore, that the assessment of the cost-effectiveness of any product or service will depend on which party of interest is doing the assessment. And often, what might very well be considered cost-effective by an individual might just as well be considered criminally cost-ineffective by the collective.

And so we have the situation, under both Obamacare and now under the new code of medical ethics, in which doctors are obligated to practice medicine cost-effectively, and the kind of cost-effectiveness being referred to is decidedly NOT the kind that applies to individuals. It’s the kind that applies to the collective.

Those assembling the GOD panels (Government Operatives Deliberating) – the panels which will determine the most cost-effective way to practice medicine, and which will distribute rules down to American physicians for deciding who gets what, when and how – tell us that what’s good for the herd is certainly what’s good for the individual. Indeed, this is the precise message of Dr. Hood, president of the ACP.

For the majority of Farmer Emanuel’s beef cattle, this may very well be the case. But for the unfortunate beeves who will turn out to have a fatal allergy to the antibiotic, and who could have been saved with a little extra effort aimed at optimizing the results for every individual, well, not so much. (Progressives like Keynes have been known to justify such results by noting that whatever we do has limited significance for individuals, since, in the end we individuals – like the beef cattle – are all dead anyway.)

Until last week American physicians were ethically obligated to optimize their medical care for every individual, as difficult and dangerous as it has become for doctors to do so in recent years.  No doubt some of them will be relieved to know that their ethical obligations now have been formally changed, to comport with the requirements of their masters, and the facts on the ground.

So open wide and say Moo.

A recurring theme of the CRB is that the rising cost of healthcare is the main internal threat to the continued viability of the US. Indeed, the very title of this blog reflects the chief mechanism which is being employed, fruitlessly and disastrously, in the attempt to reduce those costs.

Recently, DrRich pointed out that there are four ways – and only four ways – to reduce the cost of healthcare. He did this as a service to his readers, so that when politicians describe in their weaselly language how they will get the cost of healthcare under control, you will be able to figure out which of the four methods they are actually talking about.

While DrRich’s synthesis has been generally well-received, a few readers did offer one particular objection. DrRich, they assert, left out a fifth way to reduce the cost of healthcare, and the very best way at that. Namely, just get rid of the waste and inefficiency.

DrRich has talked about this before, but obviously it is time to revisit the issue.

It is, in fact, a central assumption of any healthcare reform plan ever proposed that we can get our spending under control simply by eliminating – or at least substantially reducing – the vast amount of waste and inefficiency in the healthcare system. Conservatives propose to do this by incorporating the efficiencies of the marketplace, thus eliminating the waste and inefficiency imposed by bureaucrats. Progressives propose to do it by adopting and enforcing strict, top-down regulations (ideally, through a single-payer system, employing the officially-perfect wisdom of various expert panels) that will control the wasteful and inefficient behaviors of healthcare providers. But one way or another, each scheme for reforming healthcare proposes to bring spending under control by eliminating waste and inefficiency.

Another way of describing what all the reformers across the political spectrum are telling us is: There is so much waste in the system that we can avoid healthcare rationing by getting rid of it. Most Americans believe this. Most policy experts believe this. DrRich suspects that even most of his loyal readers believe this, despite what he’s been telling you for many years.

But this is unfortunately false. No matter how much waste and inefficiency you think might be gumming up our healthcare system today, there’s not enough to explain the uncontrolled rise in healthcare spending we have been seeing for decades, and therefore, not enough to allow us to avoid rationing altogether in any publicly-funded healthcare system.

To understand why this is the case, we must first recognize the fundamental problem with our healthcare spending. The real problem is not simply that we’re spending a lot of money on healthcare, or even that we’re spending a larger proportion of our GDP on healthcare than any other country. The real problem is that our healthcare expenditures for years and years have been growing at double digit rates, several multiples faster than the overall inflation rate, such that, over time, an ever larger proportion of our annual GDP is being consumed by healthcare expenditures. Unless this disproportionate rate of growth is stopped, eventually healthcare spending will consume our entire economy. (Rather, what will actually happen is that it will grow to the point of producing societal upheaval, sending us back to a more typical era for mankind, where healthcare is a little-thought-of luxury, and not a necessity or a right. This will happen well before healthcare consumes 100% of the economy.)

To reiterate, it’s not the amount of spending on healthcare that is creating a fiscal crisis, it’s the rate of growth of that spending.

Once we understand the problem – that it’s the rate of growth of healthcare spending that threatens our society – then demonstrating that waste and inefficiency cannot possibly account for that rate of growth is a matter of simple mathematics.

What our politicians and policy experts are telling us, when they say they can fix the problem by eliminating waste, is that without all the waste, our healthcare spending would be economically well-behaved. That is, save for the waste and inefficiency, the annual rate of increase in our healthcare spending would be roughly the same as the general rate of inflation. To say it another way, our leaders are asserting that the “excess” in growth of our healthcare spending is entirely wasteful.

It is trivial to construct a simple spreadsheet to test this assertion, that is, a spreadsheet in which calculations assume that any increase in annual healthcare spending over and above the general rate of inflation must be due to wasteful spending.  In such a spreadsheet, for instance, we may take the annual rate of growth of healthcare spending to be 10% (a reasonably representative number for the past 30 years or so), and the annual rate of overall inflation to be 3%.

We now must “pick” the proportion of healthcare spending that we designate as being wasteful in Year 1 of our spreadsheet. Nobody really knows this value, especially since we all will define wasteful healthcare spending in different ways. Let’s just say, arbitrarily, that 25% of healthcare expenditures are wasteful in Year 1.

When we plug these values into our spreadsheet, the result is clear. In order to account for our unsupportable growth in healthcare spending by invoking waste and inefficiency, the proportion of healthcare spending that is caused by waste must increase to ridiculous proportions very rapidly, such that (for instance) by the Year 10 we will have more than doubled (59%) the proportion of all healthcare expenditures that are wasteful; and by the Year 20, nearly 80% must be wasteful. Similarly, the proportion of the annual increases in healthcare spending that would have to be due solely to waste and inefficiency rapidly climbs to equally ridiculous proportions. By Year 5, wasteful spending will have to account for 82% of the annual increase in healthcare expenditures, and that proportion continues to climb, eventually approaching 100%.

In real life, of course, we have enjoyed healthcare inflation of roughly 10% for over 30 years now. So if the assumptions behind our spreadsheet are accurate – and again, these are the assumptions our political and policy leaders expect us to swallow – we find ourselves in the position, at Year 30, where well over 90% of all of our healthcare expenditures must be wasteful, and virtually all of the annual increase in healthcare spending is entirely accounted for by waste and inefficiency. (This result is largely independent, after 30 years, of whatever value we may have chosen as the proportion of wasteful spending in Year 1.)

Such a result is completely absurd. If you think it is not absurd, but actually reflects reality, then (all of healthcare being entirely useless) there’s no point in worrying about healthcare at all – we should simply stop spending any money on it.

And this result indicates that the initial assumptions must be wrong. That is, the unsupportable rate of growth in our healthcare spending cannot be due to waste and inefficiency. Therefore, that growth must be due, fundamentally, to the growth of “useful” healthcare expenditures.*

____
*This analysis does not trivialize the waste and inefficiency we actually see in our healthcare system, which is large and inexcusable. What it likely means is that the level of inefficiency – which is certainly at least 25% of the total if not higher – likely attaches itself proportionately, sort of like a tax, to the underlying growth in healthcare expenditures.
____

Therefore, DrRich has demonstrated, using actual Math, that a substantial proportion of our growing healthcare expenditures must necessarily be coming from real, honest-to-goodness, useful healthcare. And if we’re going to substantially curtail that growth, we’re going to have to curtail useful spending. Which means that as long as we have publicly-funded healthcare (which we do), we have to ration.

But, once again, we’re Americans and Americans don’t ration. Which is why we commissioned first the big insurers and then the government to do the rationing covertly, a task they have accepted with great gusto.

DrRich is compelled to point out, once again, that waste and inefficiency is multiplied with great exuberance any time you have covert rationing. Disguising all the rationing activity as something other than rationing fundamentally requires opaque procedures, unnecessary complexity, bizarre incentives, Byzantine regulations arbitrarily and variably enforced or ignored, and the diversion of healthcare dollars to non-healthcare ends (such as corporate profits, expanding layers of government bureaucracies, and other massive bureaucracies within the healthcare system created to defend oneself against those government bureaucracies). Covert rationing greatly increases waste and inefficiency, and does so inherently and systematically.

To reduce the unavoidable rationing to the smallest amount possible, we will have to figure out a way to do it openly, and not covertly. Having viewed commercials featuring Congressman Ryan pushing elderly ladies off a cliff after he proposed a Medicare reform far less drastic than open rationing (a reform that would restore some individual responsibility for healthcare expenditures to at least some of the more well-off beneficiaries, and thus reduce to some extent the need to ration care), DrRich doubts whether the public is yet ready to engage in such an endeavor.

David Brooks last week penned a remarkable opinion piece for the New York Times suggesting that the root problem underlying our unsupportable national debt is the unreasonable desire of Americans to be cured of their illnesses. DrRich finds this an interesting formulation of the problem.

As DrRich has said many times, it is indeed true that our rising cost of healthcare is the chief driver of our national debt, and therefore is the chief threat to our long-term survival as a civil society. But while DrRich and others have proposed solutions to this problem that would rely on new systems for paying for America’s healthcare, Mr. Brooks’ problem statement admits no such solution.

For Mr. Brooks, since the root problem is the unreasonable attitude Americans have toward disease and death, the only solution must be for Americans to change their attitude*.

___
*The need to change the attitude of the masses – or to say it another way, the need to change human nature – always turns out to be the fatal flaw of the Progressive program.
____

Brooks opens his piece with a paen to Dudley Clendinen, a former colleague at the Times, who is suffering from ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease). Clendinen’s recent article in the Times Sunday Review revealed his plan to commit suicide before allowing himself to become completely incapacitated by his illness.

DrRich suspects that many of his readers will, as he does himself, understand, respect, and even support Mr. Clendinen’s plan. But understanding, respecting and supporting his plan to commit suicide is different from saying that Mr. Clendinen’s decision is so reasonable that, really, everyone ought to reach the same conclusion, and anyone in his position who does not is somehow being unreasonable (or worse).

But this is exactly what Mr. Brooks is saying. Specifically, Brooks says, “But it is hard to see us reducing health care inflation seriously unless people and their families are willing to do what Clendinen is doing — confront death and their obligations to the living.” In other words, Clendinen is doing no more than his rightful duty. He does not deserve praise as much as people who choose otherwise deserve criticism.

This is not Mr. Brooks’ only message. His other message is that medical progress is an illusion. He points out that the War on Cancer, announced in the early 1970s, has still not been won, and that despite all the research we have done, heart disease has still not been cured. He quotes some famous medical ethicists (DrRich’s favorite people, save the public health experts) as saying “our main achievements today consist of devising ways to marginally extend the lives of the very sick.”

DrRich will not argue that all of our investment in medical progress has been stunningly successful. He will simply remind his readers that neither has it all been futile. Hundreds of thousands of cancer survivors are leading happy lives today who would have been dead from their disease in 1970. And while the mortality rate from heart attacks approached 20% in 1970, today (in the U.S at least) it is around 2%. So while we haven’t cured all cancer or all heart disease, our efforts have still improved and extended the lives of a lot of people.

Mr.Brooks, who passes at the New York Times as a “conservative,” is pretty cozy with the Obama administration. And while DrRich would not suggest that his message to us is directly coordinated with the Obama folks, it is likely that it expresses certain beliefs which the administration, at the least, would not find objectionable.

DrRich has long attempted to convince his readers that the Progressive program is very sympathetic to efforts to stifle medical progress, and to hasten the end of life.

Mr. Brooks’ latest effort is a sign that Progressives may be finally beginning to come out of the closet, to stop beating around the bush – and to openly state their actual healthcare agenda. If so, DrRich praises his honesty and forthrightness.

____

As an aid to Mr. Brooks and his friends, DrRich has produced a very helpful and very detailed roadmap for how to sell assisted suicide to the masses.

Evidence is building that our pharmaceutical industry is becoming diminished.

Recently, for instance. Pfizer announced a $2 billion cutback in R&D funding. One does not so massively trim R&D because of mere cyclical economic conditions; one only does this as part of a fundamental restructuring in business strategy.

Furthermore, the Wall Street Journal has noted that the big drug companies have entered a period of rapid acceleration in company mergers – but decidedly not in the manner of “creative destruction” that usually typifies such deals. Rather, it is being done in the manner of constructing a hardened shelter from which to hunker down for the coming nuclear winter, which they believe will be brought on by government-induced disincentives for innovation and growth.

Now, nobody needs to remind DrRich that drug companies are evil. DrRich has watched along with all of you as the pharmaceutical industry has fired off a never-ending parade of wasteful “me too” drugs, mainly aimed at keeping the joints, bowels, bladders and genitalia of aging baby boomers nicely lubed up, then running a steady stream (so to speak) of television commercials regarding same, which renders prime time TV far too embarrassing to watch with adolescents (especially if one is of a certain age).

Other evil behaviors abound. We can all see the drug companies systematically fail to publish research that makes their products look less than spectacular; routinely over-hype research that suggests a modicum of effectiveness; callously corrupt doctors with plastic, logo’d ink pens, and likewise corrupt legislators with huge campaign contributions and rides on private jets equipped with plenty of booze and bimbos (causing the indignant legislators to propose laws against logo’d ink pens); and most annoying of all, gouge American citizens with astronomical prices for their new drugs, while selling those same drugs to Canadians and other undeserving foreigners at greatly discounted prices.

But still, most objective observers must reluctantly admit that, every now and then, and most likely by mistake, a drug company will do something worthwhile. Here and there they manage to come up with a real breakthrough product that cures a disease, prolongs survival, restores functionality, or relieves suffering. That is, the pharmaceutical industry (in spite of all its evil behavior, which DrRich hastens to remind his readers he has formally acknowledged, as recently as in the prior paragraph), has done a lot of good over the years. Ask a parent whose child has survived acute leukemia, or the person who has survived a life-threatening infection, or the woman whose heart attack or stroke was aborted with clot-busting drugs, or – yes, this too -  the aging Lothario who once again can enjoy fine and durable erections upon demand. Such individuals, even if today they would join us in cheering on the demise of the pharmaceutical industry, have undeniably had their lives improved by drug companies.

So the question we must address before allowing the pharmaceutical industry to roll itself into a ball and hide in the shadows for the duration, is not, “What have you done for me lately?” (since their inventions will live on even if they do not), but rather, “What can you do for me tomorrow?”  Some of us in the boomer class, for instance, would like to think that current research in the areas of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson disease, kidney disease, heart attack, stroke, arthritis, osteoporosis and cancer will allow us to remain healthy and functional for a few extra years. And judging from the massive amounts of money American citizens of all ages donate to medical research of all types, it is apparently not held among the whole of the populace that medical progress has already gone far enough. Many of us would not be entirely pleased to stand pat right here. Many of us would like to see more improvements.

And here is where we run into a dilemma.

Everyone agrees that the cost of new prescription drugs has been kept obscenely high in the name of maximizing profits, and that the rising cost of drugs has been one of the prime drivers of healthcare inflation. Accordingly, we hear much talk of federal price controls, drug re-importation, more restrictive FDA policies, and other tools the Central Authority can employ to greatly restrict if not eliminate the huge profits made by the evil men (and, one must say it, women) who run these drug companies.

The problem, of course, is that if the potential for reaping large (obscene, if you insist) profits from new drugs is significantly curtailed, the hugely expensive process necessary for drug companies to bring new drugs to market will be proportionally curtailed. So if we place price controls on drugs, then we’d better be happy with the drugs we have today, because those are likely the only drugs we’ll have tomorrow.

There are some who would be quite satisfied with this outcome, and who would readily sacrifice pharmaceutical progress to keep costs down. Still, others of us appreciate the fact that every few years some truly earth-shattering drug will hit the market, and would think it a shame if progress on such drugs – even if they are but a few scattered islands in a sea of boutique pharmaceuticals – were to come to a halt, and even if for a good reason.

So here’s the question: Can we have our cake and eat it too? Can we bring down the price of the drugs we buy, while at the same time allowing at least some pharmaceutical advances to continue?

DrRich is delighted to reply, “Yes, we can!”

And he hereby humbly offers a plan to achieve this very end. It is a system of voluntary price controls. Of course, DrRich is talking here about us doing the volunteering – we the consumers – and not the drug companies.

DrRich’s Voluntary Price Control System works like this:

1) Each American will make a formal declaration of whether or not he/she wants to participate in a system of voluntary price controls on drugs.

2) Those who opt to participate will receive immediate, substantial discount pricing on all available prescription drugs, such pricing to be fixed by a sympathetic government agency whose makeup will include a wide diversity of representation, except, of course, that drug company representatives and their physician shills will be specifically banned.

3) “Available prescription drugs” under this price control system will be any drug whatsoever appearing in the U. S. Pharmacopoeia – that is, any legal prescription drug – as long as that drug has been on the market for at least five years.

4) Individuals who choose not to participate in the price control system will pay whatever price the drug companies feel like charging them for all their prescription drugs, but they will be allowed to receive any drug, as soon as it is approved for marketing, with no five-year waiting period for new drugs.

5) Individuals may switch their status (between participant and non-participant) only during one 30-day window every 2 years, determined by their month of birth.

Why DrRich’s Voluntary Price Control System is brilliant:

For drug companies it is the prospect of making large profits from new drugs, and only that prospect, that drives drug development. So as long as we want new drugs to be invented we’ve got to allow for the profit incentive to continue, as odious as we may believe that to be. The chief advantage of DrRich’s system is that it maintains at least some of the profit motive – to whatever extent citizens opt to be non-participants in the Voluntary Price Control System.

Given the growing hue and cry for price controls on drugs, one can confidently predict that only rich people will opt for this non-participant status. Therefore, a side benefit of this plan is that the rich – those who, after all, can afford it, and who, by virtue of the very fact that they are rich, owe much to the rest of us – will fund virtually all progress in drug therapy. Again, this is a burden they ought to feel obligated to bear, being rich and therefore obligated.

In contrast, under the universal, mandatory price control system of the kind that many Progressives seem to favor, the drugs available to our citizens would be essentially “frozen in time,” and henceforth there would be little or nothing new under the sun.

Of course, under DrRich’s Voluntary Price Control System, access to new drugs would be similarly restricted for participants. Yet this voluntary system would be far better for even those who choose to participate than would be a universal price control system – because under DrRich’s plan at least some drug progress would continue. And as new prescription drugs matured in the marketplace, and once their hidden dangers and side effects – during the 5-year “shakedown period” -  manifested themselves on the physiology of the wealthy (another great benefit of DrRich’s plan), these drugs would, eventually become available even to plan participants, and at a substantial discount to boot. And because only the rich will be harmed for the first few years, perhaps the FDA can relax its safety standards a bit, and pass a higher percentage of the effective drugs that are submitted for approval.

The bottom line: a five-year lag in gaining access to new drugs is vastly better than never having any new drugs at all, especially when the burden of paying for all that drug development, and the risk of becoming early adopters of new, relatively unproven, relatively risky pharmaceuticals, falls entirely on the undeserving rich.

So, while at first blush you may not like DrRich’s system – it being two-tiered and all – on further objective and logical reflection DrRich is confident you will see that it is far better for everyone than the universal system of price controls which many now want.

DrRich suggests you contact your legislators immediately to recommend to them this brilliant new plan, before it is too late. In making your case, you might remind your dedicated congresspersons that a robust pharmaceutical industry is inherently good for America, what with all the campaign contributions, airplane rides, booze, bimbos, etc. it provides to grease the wheels of American democracy.

Podcast:

In the past few posts (in particular, here and here), DrRich has shown why the health insurance industry embraced Obamacare, and indeed, took extraordinary steps to assure that Obamacare became the law of the land. This, of course, is especially interesting in light of the common perception that Obamacare constitutes a major defeat for the greedy health insurance industry. But the fact that big health insurance gave critical support to Obamacare is far more than merely interesting. It has major implications both to supporters of Obamacare, especially the ones who hope for an eventual single-payer outcome, and to opponents of Obamacare, many of whom hope to repeal it after the 2010 mid-term elections.

For the health insurance industry to have supported Obamacare, especially in the manner that it did, leads us to three conclusions.

First, while almost nobody realized it at the time, the passage of healthcare reform – in some form or another – turns out to have been inevitable. Quite simply, the insurance industry was telling us in every way they knew how that they just could not tolerate the status quo any longer. And since the insurance industry is critical to maintaining the status quo, then one way or another, the status quo had to end.

Second, the health insurance industry has just succeeded in demonstrating its great and continuing worth to the Progressive agenda, a fact that might make it more difficult than many think for Progressives to achieve their real goal – a single-payer healthcare system. If our Progressive leaders have been paying attention, the health insurance industry has taught them two important lessens in this regard.

The insurance industry has taught them that running the American healthcare system, especially under a covert rationing paradigm, is a messy, ugly and painful job, and further, that it is destined to turn out badly. This, indeed, is the chief lessen that the health insurance industry has learned over the past 15+ years. DrRich believes that many of the Progressives who are now in a position of leadership, and who are on the brink of achieving at long last a primary goal of the Progressive agenda – government control of healthcare – are aware of this fact. So they are probably not quite as self-assured about their ability to achieve healthcare nirvana, for instance, as the insurance executives were in 1994. They can see, from the experience of the insurance industry, that even draconian efforts to covertly ration healthcare are very likely to fail to slow healthcare inflation over the long term.

Furthermore, the insurance industry has taught them, if such a lesson was even necessary, just what a great boon it is to have at one’s disposal a ready villain, especially a villain which assumes the form of a business, and in particular a villain which is satisfied to play its assigned villainous role whenever called upon to do so. When things go south with Obamacare, as things will, it will go a lot easier for our Progressive leaders if they still have the insurance industry – even in a greatly diminished form – to blame. Having a foil to absorb the blame will not solve the problem, of course, but it will buy the Progressives more time, during which they can do what Progressives always do, and institute another round of “tough regulations” to hold the villains in closer check. So keeping the health insurance industry around, rather than going to a single-payer system, will indeed provide a critical level of additional insurance – albeit to our political leaders, and not to patients.

One need only look at the mortgage crisis to see another good example of the great utility of having an evil foil at one’s disposal. As readers may recall, the mortgage crisis resulted when the government instituted a free-wheeling easy-loan policy that defied every known rule of free markets, engaged Fannie and Freddie to make the easy loans, and then recruited private businesses to absorb, distribute and hide the risk. When the excrement predictably hit the fan, the investment banks (which, like the health insurance companies, did indeed behave very badly in response to fundamentally unsound governmnent policies) were offered up as the bad guys. It proved so useful to have serviceable villains during the mortgage crisis that the taxpayers were called upon to bail the villains out lest they disappear, and then, most recently, financial regulations were completely overhauled to make sure the villains will always be there. (DrRich calls this policy “Too Evil to Fail.”) In this way, Fannie and Freddie can continue making unsustainable loans, without ever having to take the blame for the consequences.

In other words, villains who reside in the domain of private enterprise are extremely useful to the Progressive program. The health insurance industry has just graphically demonstrated that it is every bit as helpful to the government’s takeover of healthcare as the investment banks were to the government’s takeover of the housing market. So DrRich, for one, bets that the health insurance industry will have a long – if unhappy – life as a government-regulated public utility, which can be called upon, whenever necessary, to display its fundamentally evil nature, in order to prove yet again that the problem is (even now!) not enough government regulation.

In contrast, once the government assumes full, direct control of healthcare (or any other aspect of the economy), then there will be nobody to blame but the government when things go wrong. (This is not strictly true. All-powerful authorities can always find somebody to blame. Historically, for instance, they often begin with the Jews, though today one must speculate that the obese will also be near the top of the list. DrRich, and, he suspects, most of his American Progressive friends, would much rather submit corporate villains to an *auto de fe* than go once again down this well-trod historical path.)

The role of Court Villain may not be exactly what the health insurance executives had in mind when they saved Obamacare, but since they had no choice in the matter, it will have to serve.

And finally, the third conclusion. Since the health insurance industry has been telling us that they are at the end of their rope, to the point that their best option was selling themselves out to President Obama and his ruthless refomers, then the idea that Obamacare can simply be repealed, or de-funded, or de-featured, or declared unconstitutional, so that we can just go back to the healthcare system we’ve had since 1994, is absurd.

Indeed, even though Obamacare is now law, the health insurance companies are by no means out of the woods. There remains a real question as to whether the provisions of Obamacare will be sufficient for the short-term viability of the health insurance industry.  Most of the provisions of Obamacare – in particular, the individual mandates the insurance companies are relying upon for their One Last Windfall – do not go into effect until 2014.

At least until then, the insurance companies likely will need to keep increasing their annual premiums at astronomical rates in the attempt to remain sufficiently profitable. Can the system sustain such increases until 2014?  Or, will the provisions of Obamacare have to be accelerated? Or, will Obamacare have to be revised, for instance, to add the much reviled (or much desired, depending on your political views) “public option?”

But while Obamacare may need to be accelerated or further radicalized, it cannot just be repealed. For the same reason that healthcare reform was inevitable, we can’t just go back. The insurance industry simply will not tolerate it.

What we all have to remember – and the main point of this series of posts – is that we can’t just get rid of Obamacare and go back to the way things were.  If we think we need to substantially change Obamacare, so as to shed ourselves of the extremely disturbing spectre of government-controlled covert rationing (which will be far more destructive than the insurance-company-controlled covert rationing we’ve painfully endured for 15 years), we’ll need to have another solution in hand.

DrRich, of course, knows such a solution, and he has described it in detail elsewhere.

__

Why Big Health Insurance Supported Obamacare

Part I – Another Reason He Should Have Kept the Bust

Part II – Why the Health Insurance Industry Supported Obamacare

Part III – How the Health Insurance Industry Saved Obamacare
________________________________

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!

Podcast:

The fact that the health insurance industry supported Obamacare from the very beginning was entirely missed by the mainstream press. This is perhaps understandable, since a) the mainstream press does not understand the dynamics of the healthcare system, and b) during the Obamacare drama, the health insurance companies had been assigned, and had graciously accepted, their vital role as the Forces of Evil. To the famously credulous members of the mainstream press, it was easy to imagine that the insurers were actually among the opposition.

But the insurance industry supported Obamacare from the start – and even before the start. During the Presidential race of 2008, for instance, managed care companies donated far more money to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton than to any Republican candidate, even though both of these Democratic candidates publicly castigated the insurance companies for producing most of the problems in American healthcare, and promised to institute reforms that would drastically cramp their style and reduce their profits.

Why would the insurance industry support the very candidates whose chief healthcare strategy was to demonize them? Quite simply, it was because the insurance industry had nowhere else to go.

By the time Mr. Obama became president, the once proud, self-confident, and even arrogant American health insurance industry had been completely humbled. Like the old Soviet Union twenty years earlier, it still may have looked formidable from the outside, but it was really an empty shell.  The industry had run out its string; it was entirely bereft of ideas. Its business model was completely broken, and it desperately needed an exit strategy. And it was due to the need to find a serviceable exit strategy that the industry supported Obamacare.

To understand what landed the insurance industry in this sad state of affairs, it is necessary to review its recent history.

The Rise of the For-Profit HMOs

When the Clintons set out to reform the American healthcare system in 1993, the health insurance industry initially claimed to support them. The Clintons had promised them a vast new market – the millions of heretofore uninsured Americans whose premiums would be paid, presumably, by the government.

But the alliance fell apart the moment the insurance industry began reading the massive tome of regulations the Clintons finally produced, and found in it much they didn’t like. Chiefly, they they didn’t like the parts that ceded full control of their industry to the government. So Big Health Insurance immediately turned against the Clintons, and spent millions of dollars introducing us to Harry and Louise (a “typical” American husband and wife who were viewed in numerous TV commercials discovering various appalling provisions of the Clinton plan). In the end, when the Clinton’s reform plan went down to ignominious defeat, the powerful health insurance industry, appropriately, got most of the credit.

Most of us Americans were happy at the time that the Clintons’ plan had been defeated, but during the debate over healthcare reform we had become convinced that the old way of doing healthcare wasn’t any good either. The healthcare system, we all knew by now, was bankrupting us.  And something needed to be done about it. But with the Clinton plan off the table, what were our options?

In the ashes of the Clintons’ failed effort, the health insurers saw their golden opportunity.  And they presented the American people with a savior. The savior was, of course, them.

The insurance industry made its pitch in a new guise which we Americans had never seen before. For the big fee-for-service insurance companies had transformed themselves into HMOs, and had fully assimilated the language of managed care. These were not the touchy-feely, non-profit HMOs that had been puttering around in the healthcare system for a decade or so.  These were meat-and-potatoes, for-profit HMOs, run for the most part by hard-nosed business executives, and newly formulated for a new era of American healthcare.

And here is what they said: “Citizens! We all – employers, patients, physicians, hospitals, manufacturers and insurers – have just dodged a bullet. Thanks to us, the frightening socialist reforms of the Clintons have been soundly defeated. But where does this leave us? We stand now between Scylla and Charybdis, between the specter of nationalized healthcare on one hand, and the continued profligacy of traditional fee-for-service medicine on the other. And we cannot countenance either. But here,” they continued, “is a third way. A painless way, based on the sound principles of managed care, open markets, and free enterprise. Let healthcare become a business like any other business, and the market forces will find ways not only to cut costs but also to improve quality, and with no government intervention.”

The offer, in other words, was to turn healthcare over to the business professionals now running the New Model HMOs, who were cocky with the certainty that they could harness the efficiencies of the marketplace to control costs, make a big profit at the same time, and be feted as saviors to boot. Because we’re Americans and we know the benefits of capitalism, and because the other choices we faced looked even worse, we all said, “Go for it.”

This change led to the most rapid transformation the American healthcare system has ever seen, and within a few short years, the majority of Americans were enrolled in HMOs, or some other species of corporate managed care.

So HMO executives set out to control the cost of American healthcare, and to make a spectacular profit doing it. And for a few years, they seemed successful. Healthcare inflation slowed dramatically in the late 1990s, and HMO profits soared.

But it was all an illusion.

The Fall of the For-Profit HMOs

The initial impressive profitability of New Model HMOs was due to the one-time reduction in cost you always get when you implement efficiencies of scale (made possible by merging enterprises), and by instituting the new standardization techniques favored by managed care theory. These steps reduced the cost of healthcare for a while, but the underlying rate of healthcare inflation (which is mostly caused by new medical technologies and an aging population, neither of which are cured by managed care) was pretty much unchanged. So by the early 2000s, when these one-time cost reductions had been fully realized, healthcare inflation was right back on the same unsustainable trajectory it had been on before.

Unfortunately for the HMOs, the big profits they enjoyed throughout the 1990s could not last. Their rapidly expanding valuations were attributable not to their efficient management of healthcare, but instead, to the frenzy of mergers that rapidly ensued, and to the acquisition and privatization of not-for-profit public assets for a tiny fraction of their true value.

So not long after the turn of the century the for-profit managed care companies were getting very nervous. For the very first time in their history, HMOs were faced with the prospect of having to earn their profits, profits sufficient to satisfy their shareholders, by actually managing the healthcare of sick people. This is something they had never accomplished before, and, by the time the election of 2008 approached, they knew they never would.

By that time they had tried everything. Beginning in 1994, filled with confidence and enthusiasm and cheered on (initially, at least) by the public and by public officials alike, the health insurance companies had more than 15 years of more-or-less unfettered freedom to institute any efficiencies they wanted to. In the ensuing years insurance companies tried all kinds of legitimate ideas for reducing healthcare costs, such as managed care, gatekeepers, clinical pathways, disease management programs, pay for performance, wellness programs, medical homes, and even a ruthless consolidation of the industry to achieve “efficiencies of scale.”

They also tried every sneaky and underhanded idea they could think of for reducing costs, like cherry-picking the healthy patients, treating chronically ill patients like pariahs so they would go away, making access to specialty care as inconvenient as possible, forcing doctors to sign “gag clauses” to prevent them from telling their patients about certain treatment options, browbeating primary care physicians into zombie-like compliance with handed-down care directives, refusing to cover expensive-but-effective medical services, and canceling the policies of tens of thousands of patients after they get sick, based on trumped-up technicalities. Indeed, they tried everything short of dispatching teams of Ninjas in the dark of night to slaughter their most expensive subscribers in their beds.  And finally, when all else failed, they instituted huge and unsustainable annual increases in premiums, to the point of driving their customers out of the market. (This latter move, of course, was an open acknowledgment that the industry had entered its death spiral.)

All these efforts were to little avail. The cost of healthcare continued to skyrocket, entirely unabated. And by 2009, when President Obama began his push for healthcare reform, the insurance companies knew they had no prospect of long-term profitability. Their business model was no longer viable, and, while telling soothing stories to avoid shareholder panic, they were urgently casting about for an exit strategy.

A drowning man will cling to any piece of flotsam that comes his way.  What the insurance industry found floating by was Obamacare.

What Health Insurers  Get From Obamacare

In return for its support in the healthcare reform battle, President Obama offered the insurance industry the graceful exit strategy it so desperately needed.  Under Obamacare, for at least a few years the insurers hope to get One Last Windfall – namely, profits from the influx of previously-uninsured Americans whose premiums will be paid, or at least subsidized, by taxpayers.  Here, the insurers are relying on the likelihood that the inflow of new premiums will, for a year or two at least, greatly outweigh the outflow of money they will have to spend caring for these new subscribers. Obviously, they will use every trick in their well-worn book to stave off expenditures for these new subscribers for as long as they can, but if they actually knew how to avoid paying healthcare costs indefinitely, they wouldn’t be seeking a government bail-out today. In any case, an inflow of new subscribers will be a very temporary source of profit for insurers. Hence, at best it is One Last Windfall.

What happens to the insurers after they exhaust this last windfall is still up in the air. Obamacare may, of course, eventually transition to a single-payer system, an outcome which many conservatives desperately fear, and many liberals fervently desire. In this case, there may very well be some final compensatory buy-out (or a buy-off) for the insurance companies. But more likely, the insurance companies under Obamacare will continue to exist essentially as public utilities. That is, they will exist as companies chartered by the government, which administer healthcare under the direction of the government, with the products they may offer, the prices they may charge, the profits they may keep, and the losses they may incur, determined solely by the government.  It’s not glorious, but it’s a living.

And it’s much better than where they would have ended up without Obamacare. Which is why they supported it from the start.

Now that we know why the insurance industry supported Obamacare, in the next post we will explore how the industry, at no small cost to its own public image, supported the President when it counted most.

__

Why Big Health Insurance Supported Obamacare

Part I – Another Reason He Should Have Kept the Bust

Part III – How the Health Insurance Industry Saved Obamacare

Part IV – What It Means That the Health Insurance Industry Saved Obamacare

________________________________

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!

Now that the great campaign to transform the American healthcare system has passed a critical milestone – the passage of President Obama’s healthcare reform legislation – many Americans find themselves confused about what it all means. What just happened here? What will happen to our healthcare insurance? How much will it cost, and who will pay for it? Why does the whole process seem so darned difficult and confusing?

The confusion is quite natural, since, in fact, nobody really understands what the new legislation says. It is common knowledge that only one or two of our legislators actually read the whole 2700 pages, and those who did only read it so they could make trouble for the President at his Bipartisan Healthcare Roundtable this past spring. (You know who you are, Paul Ryan.)

Remember when Nancy Pelosi said, “We have to pass the bill so we can all find out what’s in it,” and all the Republicans jumped all over her for making such a stupid remark? Well, DrRich is here to tell you that Nancy was displaying uncommon wisdom. Because DrRich now has read large parts of the legislation himself, and can say with confidence that the bill is not merely lengthy, convoluted, and difficult to understand. Rather, its meaning is fundamentally indeterminate.

The indeterminacy of the bill’s language was, of course, intentional. It was done so that, for instance, some legislators could be assured that the bill disallowed Federally funded abortions, and other legislators could be assured that the bill encouraged Federally funded abortions, while the actual language of the bill could be construed to bolster either assertion. Therefore, Speaker Pelosi’s silly-sounding statement was not only correct, but also was probably the most insightful commentary on the bill we’ve heard from any public official.

The bill is now being torn into bits by multitudes of officious bureaucrats, and translated into millions of pages of rules, regulations and guidelines, and then key aspects of those new rules, regulations, &c. will be fought over in courts of law. Once all that is finished, we can all find out what was in it. Just like Nancy said.

In the meantime, whatever the details of our new healthcare system turn out to be, there is a certain clear narrative to our ongoing healthcare saga that, once you understand it, will go a long way toward enlightening you about what’s really going on.

And so, as a public service, DrRich will now explain all this to you in a very simple way, so that – whatever jive you’re hearing from politicians or journalists – you will always get it. For, once you understand a few key concepts, this thing is really pretty easy to follow.

The Fundamental Problem

The fundamental problem with American healthcare is this: None of the pools of money we have created (or ever could create) to pay for our healthcare – whether those pools of money reside with the insurance companies or the government or both – can possibly buy all the healthcare that might benefit all Americans. This means we have to ration healthcare (i.e., intentionally withhold at least some beneficial healthcare from at least some of the people who would benefit from it). But because we’re Americans and Americans don’t ration, we (and in particular, our political leaders) are unable to address this need to ration openly and forthrightly. Therefore, the unavoidable rationing is being conducted covertly.

Until now, most of the covert rationing has been overseen by the health insurance industry. This, indeed, from the very beginning was the primary purpose of modern health insurance companies, as determined by Congress itself when it legislated the formation of HMOs. (See the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Pegram et al. v. Herdrich (98-1949), 530 US 211, 2000.) So, when the health insurers engage in cherrypicking patients, denying medically necessary services, coercing doctors to ration at the bedside, retrospectively canceling the policies of patients after they get sick, and doing everything short of dispatching teams of Ninjas in the dark of night to slaughter some of their more expensive subscribers in their sleep, they are not really being evil. They are only carrying out the job that had been assigned to them by our society. Covert rationing is a dirty, thankless job, but somebody’s got to do it.

The major sin of the health insurers is that, despite their Herculean efforts to harness covert rationing to control costs – and despite the wondrous incentive of greater profits if they do so – they have utterly failed in their assignment. Healthcare costs continue to rise at 3 – 4 times the rise in the cost of living, and within the next couple of decades promises to bring our republic to its fiscal knees (even without all the other stuff that’s making our deficit explode).

This is the healthcare crisis, and it’s real. We simply cannot actually spend $40 trillion on Medicare patients over the next three or four decades (as we’ve explicitly promised the baby boomers). The only real question is whether we will avoid spending all that money thanks to societal disruption and revolution, or by some more civilized means. (The fiscal implosion of our society would of course finally fix our healthcare crisis. Healthcare, far from being an essential and indispensable human need, actually is a luxury, a recent artifact of our advanced, stable, and affluent culture. Runaway healthcare costs, by bringing down our societal stability, will eventually provide its own cure.) Our current “healthcare reform process,” such as it is, is our stab at a more civilized means of addressing our looming impossible fiscal obligations.

What Is Healthcare Reform Actually Going to Reform?

What we are witnessing today is merely a rather messy changing of the guard. The primary responsibility for covert healthcare rationing is going to shift from the health insurers to the government.

The health insurance industry has run out its string. They have had 15+ years of virtually unfettered opportunity to get healthcare costs under control, and they have utterly failed. Over those 15 years, their attitude has evolved from arrogance to concern to abject fear. They finally and starkly realize that they have no clue as to how to control costs. As DrRich has pointed out for three years, the insurance industry has not been looking to block healthcare reform, but rather, was partnering with the reformers in the hope of finding for themselves a graceful exit strategy. They hope to gain one last windfall in profits and stock prices (from mandates and insurance subsidies for the tens of millions of currently uninsured Americans), and once that happens, they hope to settle into the business of administering, and processing transactions for, government controlled healthcare. That is, the insurers hope to become public utilities, since that’s way better than collapsing into oblivion.

So the overriding aim of healthcare reform, with the complete support of the insurance industry, is to conduct an orderly transfer of the pools of money with which we pay for our healthcare – along with the responsibility of managing “risk” and controlling the cost of care (i.e., covert rationing) – away from private insurers and to the government.

Understanding the Players

Government control of healthcare, of course, is precisely what the Republicans accuse the Democrats of wanting, and what the Democrats angrily deny they want.

Understanding the Republicans. Republicans as a group cling to the quaint notion that competition among insurers is all that is needed to reduce healthcare costs; that given the right market incentives, the insurance industry – in its wisdom – will bring healthcare inflation under control. They utterly fail to hear what the insurance companies themselves have said (by their actions): “No mas!”

The Republicans’ arguments ring hollow. It is useless to protest that the Democrat plans will lead to rationing, when not only do we already have rationing, but covert rationing in fact has been the official cost-cutting “plan” assigned to HMOs for decades now. It is useless to protest that 85% of Americans like their current health insurance, when the fiscal reality is that health insurance will change drastically for all Americans over the next decade or so, whether we change it by design or not. It does not matter that a lot of Americans like the health insurance they have now. Keeping it over the long term is not an option.

To a very large extent (DrRich is sorry to say, what with his conservative leanings and all), with such arguments the Republicans have made themselves nearly irrelevant in the current discussion.

Understanding the Democrats. The Democrats were handed the opportunity of a generation. They had a major advantage that Democrats of the Clinton era did not have: the health insurance industry is finished, and the industry knows it. The insurance industry was not going to let this effort fail.

The chief difficulty remaining for the Democrats is that (for their own survival) they must pretend they are not engineering a government takeover of healthcare, when in fact they are. As we have seen, there is not really much choice here. They must take over healthcare even if they don’t want to (though many of them do), because the health insurance industry is finished. The pretense is necessary, however, because the notion of government-controlled healthcare is not something the people – or even many Democrats – want, or are willing to tolerate.

Like the odious job of rationing healthcare (which they have now inherited in entirety), the Democrats must attempt to keep the complete government takeover of the healthcare system as covert as possible.

Which brings us to the biggest problem of all for the Democrats. They now have to take control of covert healthcare rationing. Covert rationing will be much more difficult for a government-run system than it has been for insurance companies. A government healthcare system will not have the opportunity to incorporate the most effective rationing techniques that have been available to the insurance industry – cherrypicking patients, for instance, or canceling the policies of people who get sick. Nor will the government be able to get away with summarily denying patients needed medical services – a standard tactic of HMOs. This is especially true now that chief Republican intellectuals have called everyone’s attention to the possibility of death panels. The unwashed masses, having been duly alerted to the government’s intentions of withholding life-saving healthcare, will now be on the lookout for “unreasonable” denials of care. Any move by the government to refuse to pay for a particular medical service will have to be supported by extremely convincing clinical data (which itself will be very expensive to collect), and even then Americans may not quietly accept such denials. The “death panel watchdogs” will be alert for every move the government makes, and will be quick to howl an alarm.

So the Democrats have won a huge and historic victory. But they are just beginning to figure out what a tiger they have by the tail.

The Bottom Line

As long as we pretend we don’t have to ration our healthcare, any reforms we invent – whether we do it as Republicans or Democrats – will merely add to the confusion, inefficiency, waste, inequity, and ineffectiveness of our healthcare system. How anyone can think that a process so fundamentally grounded in obfuscation and deception as the one we’ve just witnessed will result in anything good is quite beyond DrRich’s comprehension.

Real reform would require us to:

A) Minimize the necessity of imposed rationing by having patients themselves make as many of the spending decisions as possible, using their own money. (Subsidies could be provided to people who don’t have enough of their own money to pay for routine healthcare.)

B) Provide everyone with a high-deductable, catastrophic insurance product to cover non-routine medical expenses. This is where the necessary rationing would take place, but the rationing would be open, transparent, and determined through a public process.

C) Create a private market for “extra” health insurance for those who choose to supplement the universal catastrophic plan with their own funds.

But of course, any plan that relies on both personal responsibility and open rationing is a non-starter. Which is why we are going to get what we are going to get.

A few days ago Mr. Doherty (who is also the ACP’s Senior Vice President of Governmental Affairs and Public Policy), graciously agreed to engage in this discussion, and promised to do so after consulting with the ACP’s Committee on Ethics, Professionalism, and Human Rights.

DrRich had hoped that Mr. Doherty would reply with a post on his ACP blog, which (since it likely has a vastly greater readership than the CRB), would more effectively give this topic some much-needed airing – and in particular, might engage some of the ACP’s membership (specialists in internal medicine) in this important discussion. DrRich was disappointed, then, when the reply came today in the form of a comment, which was tacked on to a long queue of reader’s comments at the end of DrRich’s posting.

DrRich was also very disappointed by the content of the reply which, fundamentally, was: This is a non-issue, and even if it was an issue, it’s now a settled issue. (So go away.)

Because he fears that his readers may not find the ACP’s response (buried as it is), DrRich will post it here in its entirety. But first he will very briefly summarize his complaint against the New Ethics promulgated by the ACP and other Millennialists. The New Ethics takes classical medical ethics (which obligates doctors to always place the welfare of their individual patients first) and adds on to it a new ethical obligation, called Social Justice, which obligates doctors to work toward “the fair distribution of healthcare resources.” This new obligation (which is to society) will inherently conflict, at least some of the time, with the physician’s traditional obligation to the individual patient. So, under the New Ethics, the doctor’s loyalty is now officially divided. DrRich asserts that this divided loyalty (which is now declared to be entirely ethical) leaves the patient in a dangerous position, and breaks the profession of medicine.

In the ACP’s response Mr. Doherty begins: “I asked Dr. Virginia Hood, chair of ACP’s Committee on Ethics, Professionalism, and Human Rights, to respond to Dr. Rich’s post. Her reply is below:”

Much ado?

We are surprised to see the comments about ACP and medical ethics. We urge readers to read the actual text of the ACP Ethics Manual (the College’s Code of Ethics) and the Professionalism Charter, which the College’s Foundation helped develop. Both say that social justice is a consideration in medical ethics, but the physician’s primary responsibility is to his or her patient. Resource allocation decisions are policy decisions and are most appropriately made at the system level, not at the bedside. The Ethics Manual discusses at length the clinician’s primary role as an advocate for individual patients. But it also notes the duty to practice effective health care and use resources responsibly, which are not incompatible with being a patient advocate. As the Manual notes, physicians should not overtest or otherwise overuse services:

Physicians have a responsibility to practice effective and efficient health care and to use health care resources responsibly. Parsimonious care that utilizes the most efficient means to effectively diagnose a condition and treat a patient respects the need to use resources wisely and to help ensure that resources are equitably available [i].

This is nothing new. Indeed using “effective and efficient health care and health care resources responsibly” for all patients is one way to minimize rationing as the result of an over costly system. The Manual also says that physicians and their professional societies should work toward ensuring access to health care for all and the elimination of discrimination, and deficiencies in availability and quality, in health care services. Likewise, the Charter on Medical Professionalism endorsed by ACP and 120 other medical organizations in the USA and internationally, states that professionalism involves commitments to improving quality of care, improving access to care, eliminating discrimination in health care, and yes, to a just distribution of finite resources. But the Charter explains the commitment to a fair distribution of finite resources as follows:

While meeting the needs of individual patients, physicians are required to provide health care that is based on the wise and cost-effective management of limited clinical resources. They should be committed to working with other physicians, hospitals, and payers to develop guidelines for cost-effective care. The physician’s professional responsibility for appropriate allocation of resources requires scrupulous avoidance of superfluous tests and procedures. The provision of unnecessary services not only exposes one’s patients to avoidable harm and expense but also diminishes the resources available for others [ii].

The patient-physician relationship and our medical ethics are the soul of medicine. The blog commentators are correct– it is important that we get it right.

Thank you.

Virginia Hood, MD, FACP
Chair, American College of Physicians Ethics, Professionalism and Human Rights Committee

As much as DrRich may feel he has been condescended to here (as if the ACP has found a fly buzzing around its head and has attempted to swat it away), and recognizing that the ACP has decided not to engage in a give-and-take (which, of course is their prerogative), but rather, has responded with a brush-off statement which they have chosen to bury in the comments section of DrRich’s obscure blog (which is also their prerogative), DrRich will attempt to reply as politely and as analytically as possible. (He does, however, sincerely hope that Mr. Doherty – who really seems like a good person and is an excellent writer – will not be called to the woodshed for obligating an august Ethics Committee Chairperson from this prestigious organization to issue a formal response to an annoying blogger such as himself.)

Dr. Hood’s artful (and dismissive, it seems to DrRich) statement can be fairly summarized thusly: After beginning with the implication that DrRich is making much ado (about nothing), and that she is surprised that anyone would dissent from ACP’s New Ethics, she says that the New Ethics does not entail the problem that DrRich alleges; indeed, there really is nothing new about it. Of course patients come first. (Just study the various documents the ACP has published on this point.) Cost-effective and efficient care is a part of good medicine, and always has been. What we mean by a fair distribution of finite resources is to practice medicine wisely, so as not to waste resources and not to expose patients to the risk of medical services they do not need. The legitimacy of the New Ethics is supported by the fact that it has been formally adopted by 120 medical organizations internationally (which to DrRich means that when you go to a doctor anywhere, this is the code of ethics under which they are now officially practicing).

There is a lot in her statement DrRich could comment on, but he does not want to bore his readers with a lengthy parsing of this finely crafted response. Rather, he will just talk about its main point.

Fundamentally, Dr. Hood is denying that there’s any problem. There’s no conflict between “the fair distribution of healthcare resources” and doing what’s best for individual patients – and furthermore, she’s surprised anyone would think so.

DrRich does not accuse her of sophistry. Perhaps she is just deceived.

The fact that there are huge conflicts between providing individuals with all the healthcare that would likely be useful to them, and the inability of society to pay for such a thing, is the fundamental problem with the public funding of healthcare. We simply can’t afford to buy everybody all the healthcare that would likely benefit them. There’s not enough money in the world to do that.

Consider just a few of the examples DrRich has discussed here over the years. Implantable defibrillators have been shown to significantly improve the survival of a substantial minority of patients who have heart disease, and indeed guidelines issued by cardiologists’ professional organizations indicate that defibrillators ought to be implanted at a rate of about five times their current actual implant rate. But if doctors actually did that, it would cost Medicare an extra $7 – $8 billion each year. Then there’s the fact that if doctors used the statin drug Crestor in the way the very well-designed and compelling JUPITER trial says doctors should use it, we would be spending an extra $10 billion per year on Crestor. In a thousand ways, the “best” healthcare for the individual is very often not cheaper (or better for society) than less-good healthcare, and DrRich is impressed that Dr. Hood is willing to say that it is.

Dr. Hood would likely deal with this problem, and implies so, by devising “guidelines” that doctors would be ethically obligated to follow. Obviously, it is entirely possible to convert “guidelines” from just that (i.e., a set of guidelines which doctors ought to take into strong account when deciding what’s best for their individual patients) into a set of formal rules that must be followed, and which will then be enforced by federal regulators (and their posse of ethicists). Indeed, such “guidelines” might be one of the ways in which society imposes its own goals over those of individual patients. But that is not the same thing as insisting that individual patients (who often do not fit the “average” profile) will necessarily profit if doctors always follow the guidelines as a matter of policy, or of enforced expectations, or of “quality”.

(Further, as DrRich has pointed out, the rapidly developing paradigm in which “guidelines” are becoming inviolate rules has led competing organizations to rush to issue their own sets of competing guidelines, that best comport with their individual agendas. While this phenomenon of “guideline wars” is endlessly amusing, it may not always serve the best interests of doctors or their patients.)

And then there’s the problem that, no matter how you define “waste” or “inefficiency” or “unnecessary care,” there simply cannot be enough of it to account for the runaway healthcare inflation we’re seeing (as DrRich has shown here). A substantial proportion of this fiscally disastrous healthcare inflation must necessarily derive from the delivery of healthcare that is actually useful.

So the crux of Dr. Hood’s reply – that all the ACP is talking about when it mandates that doctors fairly distribute limited resources is that they ought to practice good medicine, and if they did that simple thing no useful therapy would need to be withheld from any individual patient – is absurd on its face.

DrRich would be less disturbed by Dr. Hood’s assertion if he really thought it was simply a misapprehension of the truth. And perhaps it is. After all, her statement reads as if she is truly surprised that anyone would think otherwise.

Perhaps Dr. Hood came to her high station within the ACP’s Ethics Committee very recently, and is unaware of the history of the new Professionalism Charter which advanced this New Ethics, or of the controversy that was raised by many critics at the time of its adoption, or indeed, of some of the language that was in its penultimate version (and that was likely removed to silence some of those critics). Indeed, she cannot be aware if it, since she is “surprised to see” that anyone is bothered by the Charter, and since she believes that questioning it is but “much ado.” But to anyone who knows a little of that history, Dr. Hood’s assertion that controversy over this Charter is a novel experience, or most especially, her assertion that this New Ethics is really “nothing new,” would come as a very great surprise indeed.

First, we should note, if the new Professionalism Charter was really “nothing new,” and was just a restatement of the physician’s traditional obligation to place the patient first, and if fairly distributing society’s resources really was just a matter of practicing good medicine, then there would have been no need for a new Charter of medical ethics in the first place. And certainly the need would not have been pressing. It would have served quite nicely instead to produce some sort of document reminding doctors that unneeded healthcare services expose their patients to unneeded risk, so (based on the traditional ethical precept of patient welfare), to remain ethical they must stop being wasteful. Certainly, this kind of wasteful medicine would not produce a need to redefine medical ethics.

But the new Charter’s very first sentence describes something more dire, more pressing, than can be explained by Dr. Hood’s benign assertions. It says, “Physicians today are experiencing frustration as changes in the health care delivery systems in virtually all industrialized countries threaten the very nature and values of medical professionalism.” So: the whole purpose of this new Charter, its entire impetus, was the frustration of physicians.

Frustration? What frustration is that? Interestingly, the document does not come right out and say it. The closest it comes to spelling it out is to say, “We share the view that medicine’s commitment to the patient is being challenged by external forces of change within our societies.”

But even though the document seems strangely reticent about spelling out which frustration produced the very impetus for its creation, we can rely on the fact that the document must be designed to cure this mysterious frustration (whatever it is), and that the only revolutionary change in the document is an addition to the code of medical ethics requiring physicians to work for “the fair distribution of healthcare resources.” We can only conclude that this new ethical obligation is meant as a cure for that foundational frustration, and that therefore this frustration must be that doctors are finding it impossible to meet their traditional ethical obligation to to place their patients’ needs first.

But, as it happens, we do not really have to resort to this sort of documentary detective work to parse out the purpose of the new Professionalism Charter. That purpose was quite open at the time this document was being developed – and it produced robust controversy that was certainly no secret. One can read about this controversy in many places, but for our purposes now (i.e., in replying to Dr. Hood’s assertion that there’s nothing new here, and that it is a matter of some astonishment that anyone would find the Physicians Charter controversial) it might be best to refer to one of the ACP’s own publications from that time.

An article in the July, 2001 ACP-ASIM Observer, which was entitled, “Charter on medical professionalism addresses issues of finite resources,” goes into some length about the controversy. And it is very plain that the objection many raised to the new Charter was precisely that which DrRich is raising now in his challenge to the ACP: that the New Ethics being espoused in the Professionalism Charter fundamentally and explicitly divides the loyalty of the physician between the patient’s needs and society’s needs. When one listens to the defenders of the new Charter (quoted extensively in the ACP-ASIM Observer article), one finds the unmistakable tones of utilitarianism: We have to change our ethical precepts, the argument goes, because that’s just the way the world works now.

This article also indicates that the draft of the Physicians Charter presented to ACP general membership at their annual meeting in 2001, a few months before the final version was finally published, was perhaps more forthcoming than the final version, regarding what it was really all about. For instance, this nearly-final version of the Charter specifically admonished physicians that they must “be aware that the decisions they make about individual patients have an impact on the resources available to others.” One can only assume that this sort of explicit language was taken out of that final version in response to the critics (who were many, and vocal) to soften the blow.

Indeed, the “softer” language of this strange final version (which has all the hallmarks of a heavily edited document, beginning as it does with a heartfelt cry against the frustrations being experienced by physicians, then neglecting to spell out what those frustrations are, and never explicitly saying which aspect of the document addresses those frustrations), is now possibly soft enough, if not read carefully, to allow defenders of the Professionalism Charter to get away with asserting (as Dr. Hood has done) that the New Ethics is really pretty much the same as the old ethics, and does not change anything. (So move along, move along.)

But the New Ethics changes everything.

DrRich is very sorry about this, and is especially sorry that the ACP’s Ethics Committee, and the other 120 physicians organizations that have adopted this New Ethics, insist they do not see a problem here. DrRich assumes by this response that the ACP has little interest in revisiting its new ethical stance, and further, is undoubtedly busily training today’s medical students that doing what’s best for society is the same as doing what’s best for the individual.

This is a theme, DrRich thinks, he’s heard a lot lately.

Patients who want a true advocate in their life-and-death encounters with the healthcare system, an advocate whose loyalty is not divided between them and a society that, with increasing desperation, wants not to spend its money on them, had better go out and hire their own. Your doctor will now find it officially unethical to serve that office him-or-herself.

And meanwhile, we can now be sure that the physicians organizations which are responsible for protecting the ethical foundation of the profession of medicine are quite satisfied with the job they are doing.

Indeed, DrRich strongly suspects that at least 20 to 30% of all healthcare spending is completely wasted, and has seen claims (masquerading as proof) that the actual value is as high as 50%. So again, despite the title of this post, no matter how you look at it there is plenty of waste and inefficiency to go around.

It’s just that there’s not, well, enough.

Before you go away mad, let DrRich quickly explain (quickly, at least, for DrRich) what he means here. Healthcare reform is in the air, and we all know that any effective healthcare reform is going to have to find a way to control healthcare spending. And a central assumption of any reform plan yet proposed is that we can control spending by eliminating – or at least substantially reducing – the vast amount of waste and inefficiency in the healthcare system. Some propose to do this by incorporating the efficiencies of the marketplace (though these individuals have now been run out of town and won’t be bothering us anymore), some by adopting and enforcing stricter regulations, others by introducing a single payer healthcare system, and still others by mandating new technologies such as electronic medical records. But one way or another, each scheme for reforming healthcare proposes to bring spending under control by reducing waste and inefficiency.

Another way of describing what the reformers are telling us is: There is so much waste in the system that we can avoid healthcare rationing by getting rid of it. Most Americans believe this. Most policy experts believe this. DrRich suspects that even most of his loyal readers believe this, despite what he’s been telling you all this time.

But this is unfortunately false. No matter how much waste and inefficiency you think might be plaguing our healthcare system today, there’s not enough to explain the uncontrolled rise in healthcare spending we have been seeing for decades, and therefore, not enough to allow us to avoid rationing altogether.

And in this sense, there is not “enough” waste and inefficiency in healthcare.

DrRich has tried to explain this before, but he will now try to do it better, because it’s important. He will do it using one of the three universal languages, the language of Math (the other two being the language of Love and the language of Healthcare Rationing, both of which are encumbered by expressions of impassioned pledges, heartfelt exaggerations, and other blandishments, and are thus unsuited to a sober discussion of unpleasant truths).

But first, there is an underlying concept we must agree upon, a concept our political leaders are loath to address. To wit: The real fiscal problem with our healthcare system is not simply that we’re spending a lot of money on healthcare, or even that we’re spending a large proportion of our GDP on healthcare. Surely, if we simply had to live with continuing to spend 15% of our GDP on healthcare, we could figure out a way to do that. But that’s not really the problem. The real problem is that healthcare expenditures are growing at a double digit rate of inflation, several multiples faster than the overall inflation rate, such that, over time, an ever larger proportion of our annual GDP is being consumed by healthcare expenditures. Unless this disproportionate rate of growth is stopped, eventually healthcare spending will consume our entire economy. (Rather, what will actually happen is that it will grow to the point of producing societal upheaval, sending us back to a more typical era for mankind, where healthcare is a little-thought-of luxury, and not a necessity or a right. This will happen well before healthcare consumes 100% of the economy.)

To reiterate, it’s not the amount of spending on healthcare that is creating a fiscal crisis, it’s the rate of growth of that spending.

There are only two things that can possibly account for this excessive inflation in healthcare expenditures. Either it is caused by unrelenting growth in wasteful spending (as we are assured by our political leaders), or it is caused by unrelenting growth in useful healthcare spending. If it is the latter, then in order to get spending under control we must ration. So therefore (we all fervently pray), the rate of growth must be caused by wasted spending.

This desired conclusion, unfortunately, leads to mathematical absurdities, and therefore (for anyone who eschews magical thinking) turns out to be utterly false.

DrRich is going to show you data from a spreadsheet. It illustrates what would have to happen in order for wasteful spending to account for our current healthcare inflation. The spreadsheet is based on the following four assumptions:

Assumption 1) The proportion of healthcare spending today that is wasteful is taken as 25%. The actual number, of course, is not possible to discern with any real confidence. It depends, for one thing, on who gets to define “wasteful.” If I’m a 92-year-old man who gets a $12,000 stent procedure to eliminate my angina, I and my doctor might consider it money well-spent, while you might consider it wasteful. DrRich has arbitrarily chosen a number that falls within the range of popular estimates. But it’s a spreadsheet. If you don’t like 25%, substitute your own estimate. You will find that the rate of wasteful spending we assume for Year 1 in this spreadsheet has little effect on the outcome.

Assumption 2) The annual overall rate of growth of healthcare spending (i.e., healthcare inflation) is 10%.

Assumption 3) The annual growth rate of useful (i.e., not wasted) healthcare spending is economically well-behaved. That is, it matches the rate of overall inflation. The spreadsheet therefore assumes a 3% annual inflation rate for useful healthcare spending. (DrRich begs his readers to notice that this assumption is the one implicitly invoked whenever anyone says that all we need to do in order to control healthcare costs is to eliminate waste and inefficiency. In effect, our spreadsheet is designed to test the logic of this assumption. This assumption must be true if we are to to avoid healthcare rationing, because if useful healthcare spending were not economically well-behaved, then no matter what the rate of growth for wasted healthcare spending, we would still have disproportionate healthcare inflation – and rationing would be unavoidable.)

Assumption 4) The difference between the “well-behaved” growth of useful healthcare spending and the overall rate of healthcare inflation is accounted for by spending on waste and inefficiency. This of course, is the assumption that underlies all proposals for healthcare reform.

(Note: If you would like to play with the actual spreadsheet itself, e-mail DrRich and he’ll send it to you: DrRich at covertrationingblog dot com)

We see from this table several things. First, as expected, the amount of money we’re spending on healthcare, assuming a rate of healthcare inflation of 10%, is doubling roughly every 8-9 years, a growth rate that is ultimately unsupportable.

Second, in order to account for this unsupportable growth in healthcare spending by invoking waste and inefficiency, the proportion of healthcare spending that is caused by waste must increase to ridiculous proportions very rapidly, such that (for instance) by the 10th year we will have more than doubled (59%) the proportion of all healthcare expenditures that are wasteful; and by the 20th year, nearly 80% must be wasteful. Similarly, the proportion of the annual increases in healthcare spending that would have to be due to waste and inefficiency rapidly climbs to equally ridiculous proportions. By year 5, wasteful spending will have to account for 82% of the annual increase in healthcare expenditures, and that proportion continues to climb, eventually approaching 100%.

To DrRich, these numbers seem absurd on their face. But if you still need to be convinced, consider that in real life, runaway healthcare inflation has already been taking place for decades – so our position on such a spreadsheet would not be at year 1, but at year 20 (or higher). And no matter what value for wasteful spending we might have plugged in at year 1, by year 20 wasteful spending would have to be well above 80%, and more likely approaching 100%. In order for waste and inefficiency to account for the situation in which the American healthcare system finds itself today, therefore, one would have to believe that virtually all healthcare spending is wasteful. (And if you believe that, then what does it matter that tens of millions can’t afford healthcare?)

Now let us illustrate the same point in a slightly different way. This time, let’s assume that as recently as 2006, our healthcare system was 100% efficient. That is, only three years ago there was no waste whatsoever. Then let’s allow that the remaining three assumptions given above are still operative. The following table results:

We can see from these results that, even if only three years ago we had a completely efficient healthcare system, in order for waste to account for the excess growth in healthcare spending we’ve experienced since that time, then as much as 74% of today’s annual increase in spending has to be due to waste and inefficiency. Indeed, unless at some point within the second term of George W. Bush we actually had a completely efficient healthcare system (which seems doubtful), this spreadsheet tells us (again) either that our fervently held belief that waste and inefficiency accounts for healthcare inflation is completely wrong, or that today virtually all of our annual increase in healthcare spending must be due to waste and inefficiency, and none due to useful healthcare.

Play with the spreadsheet yourself. You will quickly see that as long as we insist that wasteful spending must account for the unsustainable growth we’re seeing in healthcare costs, then whatever our assumptions may be regarding the current proportion of wasteful healthcare spending – whether we say it’s 20% or 50% or 0% – we very quickly encounter the same mathematical absurdities.

One can only surmise from this analysis (done, DrRich reminds you, with actual Math) that our desired conclusion is wrong. A substantial proportion of our growing healthcare expenditures must necessarily be coming from real, honest-to-goodness, useful healthcare. And if we’re going to substantially curtail that growth, we’re going to have to curtail useful spending. Which means we have to ration.

But, once again, we’re Americans and Americans don’t ration. Which is why we’ve commissioned the big insurers and the government to do the rationing covertly, a task they have accepted with great gusto. DrRich is compelled to point out, once again, that waste and inefficiency is the sine qua non of covert rationing. Disguising all the rationing activity as something other than rationing fundamentally requires opaque procedures, unnecessary complexity, bizarre incentives, Byzantine regulations arbitrarily and variably enforced or ignored, and the diversion of healthcare dollars to non-healthcare ends (such as corporate profits, expanding layers of government bureaucracies, and other massive bureaucracies within the healthcare system created to defend against government bureaucracies). Covert rationing multiplies waste and inefficiency, and does so systematically. To reduce the necessary rationing to the smallest amount possible, we will have to figure out a way to do the rationing openly, and not covertly.

In the meantime, DrRich does not kid himself that exposing the mathematical absurdity of the chief assumption espoused by our political leaders, in their brave efforts to reform healthcare, will change hearts and minds. American political partisans, not to mention the American media, eat mathematical absurdities for lunch. And magical thinking amongst the populace, at least when it comes to the exuberant accumulation of household (and national) debt and the application of medical science, far from being discouraged, is actively promoted.