Month: December 2024

Health Insurance Firms Tell Regulators Surgery Prices Are Lower than What They Actually Charge, Undermining Price Transparency

Insurance firms that negotiate low prices with hospitals will be viewed more favorably by regulators, legislators, and the public. So they have a substantial incentive to inaccurately report prices as lower than they are. For true transparency, prices would need to be reported by those with no incentive to fudge the figures. Would that be hospitals, doctors, Consumer Reports, or academic economists?

(p. A11) How much does a new hip cost in New York? The answer isn’t at all clear, despite Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s efforts to improve price transparency.  . . .

. . . Michael Frank, a 52-year-old Westchester County executive . . . had his left hip replaced in 2015. The Manhattan hospital charged roughly $140,000. The insurance company paid a discounted rate of about $76,000, . . .

. . .

After hearing his story, I told Mr. Frank what I thought was an odd twist: I’d recently had two hips replaced, six months apart, at the same hospital that had treated him.

. . .

Eventually I learned that the hospital had charged $175,000 for my right hip and $180,000 for the left. The insurance company had paid discounted rates of $75,000 and $77,000.

. . .

In 2009, New York’s then-attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, announced the creation of a nonprofit organization called FAIR Health. Its mandate is to provide consumers accurate pricing information for all kinds of medical services.

I found the FAIR Health website and queried its database. It reported that the out-of-network price for a hip replacement in Manhattan was $72,656, close to what Mr. Frank’s and my insurance companies had paid. The problem: We were both in-network, and FAIR Health estimated that cost as only $29,162.

Something didn’t make sense, so I called FAIR Health. “Maybe you had complications,” the spokesperson suggested. Happily, I hadn’t. I was discharged from the hospital each time in under 24 hours, with no issues and no need for a home health aide. How many data points did FAIR Health use to calculate its price estimate? I was told “4,500 in Manhattan over the last six months.” Who submitted these prices? “The insurance companies.”

. . .  Rather than relying on insurers, it might be more effective if FAIR Health collected pricing information directly from hospitals and doctors. That way the data would be less susceptible to selective reporting or massaging. That’s what happened in the early 2000s, when class-action lawsuits revealed the main pricing database was being manipulated to the advantage of insurance companies.

For the full commentary see:

Steve Cohen. “You Can’t Put a Price on a Hip Replacement, and That’s a Problem.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, July 14, 2018 [sic]): A11.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date July 13, 2018 [sic], and has the title “Heard on the Street; New Biden Law Won’t Kill Drug Cures. It Will Reshape Them.” In the next to last paragraph quoted above, the second quoted sentence appears in the online, but not the print, version of the commentary.)

The American Academy of Pediatrics Ignored Early Evidence that Having Infants AVOID Peanuts CAUSES Peanut Allergy

I have praised Marty Makary’s Blind Spots in earlier posts, partly for its compelling examples of where mainstream medicine has failed to adapt to new, strong, sometimes observational evidence. His opening major example is the American Academy of Pediatrics’s long ban on giving peanuts to infants and toddlers. Instead of protecting them from peanut allergy, the ban caused a large increase in peanut allergy. In the essay quoted below, Makary summarizes the peanut example from Blind Spots.

(p. C4) In 1999, researchers at Mount Sinai Hospital estimated the incidence of peanut allergies in children to be 0.6%. But starting in the year 2000, the prevalence began to surge. Doctors began to notice that more children affected had severe allergies.

What had changed wasn’t peanuts but the advice doctors gave to parents about them. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) wanted to respond to public concern by telling parents what they should do to protect their kids from peanut allergies. There was just one problem: Doctors didn’t actually know what precautions, if any, parents should take. Rather than admit that, in the year 2000 the AAP issued a recommendation for children 0 to 3 years old and pregnant and lactating mothers to avoid all peanuts.

. . .

Dr. Gideon Lack, a pediatric allergist and immunologist in London, had a different view. In 2000 he was giving a lecture in Israel on allergies and asked the roughly 200 pediatricians in the audience, “How many of you are seeing kids with a peanut allergy?” Only two or three raised their hands. Back in London, nearly every pediatrician had raised their hand to the same question.

Startled by the discrepancy, he had a eureka moment. Many Israeli infants are fed a peanut-based food called Bamba. To Lack, this was no coincidence, and he quickly assembled researchers in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem to launch a formal study. It found that Jewish children in Israel had one-tenth the rate of peanut allergies compared with Jewish children in the U.K., suggesting that genetic predisposition was not responsible, as the medical establishment had assumed.

Lack and his Israeli colleagues titled their paper “Early Consumption of Peanuts in Infancy Is Associated with a Low Prevalence of Peanut Allergy.” However, the 2008 publication was not enough to uproot groupthink. Avoiding peanuts had been the correct answer on medical school tests and board exams, which were written and administered by the American Board of Pediatrics. For nearly a decade after AAP’s peanut avoidance recommendation, neither the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) nor other institutions would fund a robust study to evaluate whether the policy was helping or hurting children.

Meanwhile, the more that health officials implored parents to follow the recommendation, the worse peanut allergies got. From 2005 to 2014, the number of children going to the emergency department because of peanut allergies tripled in the U.S. By 2019, a report estimated that 1 in every 18 American children had a peanut allergy.  . . .

In a second clinical trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2015, Lack compared one group of infants who were exposed to peanut butter at 4-11 months of age to another group that had no peanut exposure. He found that early exposure resulted in an 86% reduction in peanut allergies by the time the child reached age 5 compared with children who followed the AAP recommendation.

. . .

When modern medicine issues recommendations based on good scientific studies, it shines. Conversely, when doctors rule by opinion and edict, we have an embarrassing track record. Unfortunately, medical dogma may be more prevalent today than in the past because intolerance for different opinions is on the rise, in medicine as throughout society.

For the full essay see:

Marty Makary. “Who’s Responsible for America’s Peanut Allergy Epidemic?” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Sept. 21, 2024): C4.

(Note: the online version of the essay has the date September 19, 2024, and has the title “How Pediatricians Created the Peanut Allergy Epidemic.”)

Makary’s essay is adapted from his book:

Makary, Marty. Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2024.

The So-Called “Inflation Reduction Act” Reduces Incentives to Develop Small Molecule Drugs and Drugs for Seniors

A recent blog entry suggested that the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act” “creates an incentive for Pharma firms to develop many middling drugs rather than a couple of blockbuster drugs.” In the passages quoted below from a different David Wainer commentary, he suggests that the Act also incentivizes pharma firms to reallocate development funds away from drugs for seniors and away from biologics. He assumes that the reallocation is “unintended” rather than based on the government believing that seniors matter less than others, or that biologics deserve more funding than the previous semi-free market allocated to biologics.

(p. B14) . . . the Inflation Reduction Act, . . . requires the federal government to negotiate prices for some drugs. Merck Chief Executive Officer Robert Davis was just one of many to warn it will be “highly chilling on future innovation.”

The 274-page legislation passed in 2022 doesn’t look likely to be a massive damper on innovation, but it will surely have an impact on how capital is allocated. When companies look at their R&D budgets, they will have to consider the law’s ramifications.

. . .

. . ., there is no arguing with the fact that the bill is reshaping many incentives drug companies face. For example, critics of the law point out that it eliminates the incentive to conduct additional research once a drug has been approved—a common strategy to extend patent protection for a drug—because prices are negotiated after nine years for small-molecule drugs and 13 years for biologics. As Kirsten Axelsen, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute explains, many oncology medications are first approved for severely ill patients and over time those drugs are tested for patients in earlier stages of the disease.

“Thanks to that, we’re now able to hold back the progression of cancer so that many of the major cancers have five-year survival rates of longer than 90%,” says Ms. Axelsen, who is also a policy adviser to law firm DLA Piper.

. . .

The law . . . could shift investment toward drugs that target the general population and away from seniors. That is because it only empowers Medicare to negotiate prices, leaving the commercial market wide open.

. . .

Perhaps the most serious concern is that the law picks winners and losers by favoring biologic drugs over small molecules, which face price reductions four years sooner than their larger molecule counterparts.

Small molecule drugs are chemically derived and simpler to make and can usually be taken orally by patients. These drugs—think medicine cabinet essentials like aspirin or statins—dominated the pharmaceutical industry during the 20th century. Biologics, therapies that are extracted from living organisms, are usually given through an injection and, because of their higher price tags, make up the bulk of today’s top-selling drugs. While biologics are at the cutting edge of medicine, discoveries of new small-molecule drugs continue to be made.

Eli Lilly’s CEO, David Ricks, noted in a recent earnings call that “it sends a signal to investors” that small molecules “aren’t wanted and are worth a lot less.” That could tip the scales toward more development in biologics, a likely unintended consequence of the law.

MIT’s Professor Lo says that is like effectively creating a tax on small molecules, or a subsidy for larger ones.

For the full commentary see:

Wainer, David. “Heard on the Street; Drug Industry’s Secret Weapon: ‘Guided Missiles’.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Jan. 7, 2023 [sic]): B14.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date January 6, 2023 [sic], and has the title “Heard on the Street; New Biden Law Won’t Kill Drug Cures. It Will Reshape Them.” In the next to last paragraph quoted above, the second quoted sentence appears in the online, but not the print, version of the commentary.)

Regulators Wanted to Renege on Promise to Clinical Trial Volunteers Who Got the Placebo

Everyone agrees that those who receive the placebo in a randomized double-blind controlled trial (RCT) are losers in the clinical lottery. The question is whether the epistemic gain from RCTs justifies the pain for the losers? I am not a fan of Fauci, but his proposed solution to the dilemma in the case discussed below seems plausible, if we assume (as I do not) that RCTs are a necessary condition for all actionable medical knowledge and yet we still attempt to treat clinical trial volunteers ethically. My even better solution is to allow all willing volunteers to take the experimental drug, with no-one receiving a placebo. Then use some Bayesian updating technique to gather information from the comparison of results for study participants who volunteered to take the drug, with results for study participants who did not volunteer to take the drug. The study would not be blind, but useful information could be obtained, for instance if no one who takes the drug suffers from the disease, but many who do not take the drug, do suffer from the disease. In that case we have evidence that the drug is effective.

(p. A7) In October [2020], Judith Munz and her husband, Scott Petersen, volunteered for a coronavirus vaccine trial. At a clinic near their home in Phoenix, each got a jab in the arm.

Dr. Petersen, a retired physician, became a little fatigued after his shot, and developed redness and swelling on his arm. But Ms. Munz, a social worker, didn’t notice any change. “As much as I wanted it, I couldn’t find a darned thing,” she said. “It was a nothing burger.”

She knew there was a 50-50 chance that she would get the vaccine, developed by Johnson & Johnson. Judging from her lack of symptoms, she guessed she had received the placebo.

At the time, Ms. Munz thought that anyone who had received the placebo would get the real vaccine as soon as the trial showed it was safe and effective. She looked forward to the peace of mind it would bring. But last month, she was asked to sign a modified consent form indicating that people who got the placebo might have to wait up to two years to get the vaccine, if they got one at all.

Ms. Munz found the form vague, confusing and, most of all, unfair. “You put yourself out there with that risk,” she said. “I am owed that vaccine.”

. . .

But on Wednesday [Dec. 2, 2020], 18 leading vaccine experts — including a top regulator at the Food and Drug Administration — argued that vaccinating placebo groups early would be disastrous for the integrity of the trials. If all of the volunteers who received placebo shots were to suddenly get vaccinated, scientists would no longer be able to compare the health of those who were vaccinated with those who were not.

“If you’re going to prioritize people to get vaccinated, the last people you should vaccinate are those who were in a placebo group in a trial,” said Richard Peto, a medical statistician at the University of Oxford. Mr. Peto and his colleagues laid out their concerns in a new commentary in The New England Journal of Medicine.

. . .

Yet the prospect of giving people something useless in the face of a life-threatening disease has always been fraught. Even Jonas Salk balked at the idea of giving people placebos when researchers designed a trial to test his new polio vaccine in 1953.

“I would feel that every child who is injected with a placebo and becomes paralyzed will do so at my hands,” he complained. The study, Dr. Salk declared, “would make Hippocrates turn over in his grave.”

. . .

Dr. Fauci sketched out one possible way to balance the obligation owed to people who took the placebo against the need for more data from the trials. Vaccine makers could give everyone who got the placebo the vaccine — while also giving everyone who got the vaccine the placebo. None of the trial participants would know which order they got the doses. The trial could therefore continue to be blinded.

. . .

After learning that it may take two years before Johnson & Johnson will provide her with the real vaccine, Ms. Munz, who is 68, is considering trying to get Pfizer or Moderna’s version as soon as she’s eligible thanks to her age.

“I’ll drop out, which I can do, and I’ll get the vaccine,” she said.

Holly Janes, a biostatistician at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, and her colleagues are preparing for this kind of erosion. She and her colleagues are now working on statistical methods to squeeze the most insight out of the trials no matter what their fate.

“It won’t be ideal from a purely scientific vantage point, because we lose the direct comparison between vaccine and placebo,” she said. “But we’re trying to strike a balance between doing what some would argue is right for the participants, and maximizing the public health value that comes out of these trials.”

For the full story see:

Carl Zimmer and Noah Weiland. “Should Volunteers Who Got Placebo Be First to Get the Real Thing?” The New York Times (Thursday, December 3, 2020): A7.

(Note: ellipses, and bracketed year and date, added.)

(Note: the online version of the story was updated Dec. 18, 2020 [sic], and has the title “Many Trial Volunteers Got Placebo Vaccines. Do They Now Deserve the Real Ones?”)

Regulations Discourage Search for Magic Bullet Cures

The so-called “Inflation Reduction Act” mandates that several of the biggest blockbuster drugs must have prices negotiated between Medicare and Pharma firms. As the commentary quoted below suggests, this creates an incentive for Pharma firms to develop many middling drugs rather than a couple of blockbuster drugs. Paul Ehrlich’s “magic bullet” may be impossible, but we will never know if no-one is trying to discover it.creates an

(p. B10) A true home run in the drug industry is when a company develops a mega-blockbuster that transforms its finances for years.

But with Medicare trying to bring costs down by targeting the industry’s most expensive drugs, a portfolio of medium-size moneymakers that can keep your name off the U.S. government’s naughty list can be a wise strategy.

That is at least one reason why big pharma is investing heavily in biotech companies developing antibody-drug conjugates. Known as ADCs, these treatments work like a guided missile by pairing antibodies with toxic agents to fight cancer. In short, they enable a more targeted form of chemotherapy that goes straight into the cancer cells while minimizing harm to healthy cells.

. . .

One reason most ADCs aren’t likely to become mega-blockbusters like Keytruda, a cancer immunotherapy that has earned 35 approvals across 16 types of cancer, is that they aren’t one-size-fits-all drugs. Instead, they are designed to target a specific protein that is expressed on the surface of a cancer cell. That means that each drug is made with an antibody targeting a subset of cancer. There are more than 100 ADCs being tested in humans by pharma and biotech companies.

For the full commentary see:

David Wainer. “Heard on the Street; Drug Industry’s Secret Weapon: ‘Guided Missiles’.” The Wall Street Journal (Friday, Oct. 27, 2023 [sic]): B10.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date October 26, 2023 [sic], and has the title “Heard on the Street; ‘Guided Missile Drugs’ Could Be Big Pharma’s Secret Weapon.”)

Dr. Marty Makary Refuses to Stop Asking Questions

I am almost finished reading Marty Makary’s Blind Spots book that is discussed in the passages quoted below from a column by Pamela Paul. Makary writes with wit and clarity. But the thought-provoking examples are what make the book great. And the thought that the examples provoke is that medicine would progress more quickly to more cures if doctors had greater freedom in what they say, write, research, and prescribe.

Marty Makary has been named by President-Elect Trump to head the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.)

(p. A22) You probably know about the surge in childhood peanut allergies. Peanut allergies in American children more than tripled between 1997 and 2008, after doctors told pregnant and lactating women to avoid eating peanuts and parents to avoid feeding them to children under 3. This was based on guidance issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2000.

You probably also know that this guidance, following similar guidance in Britain, turned out to be entirely wrong and, in fact, avoiding peanuts caused many of those allergies in the first place.

. . .

As early as 1998, Gideon Lack, a British pediatric allergist and immunologist, challenged the guidelines, saying they were “not evidence-based.” But for years, many doctors dismissed Dr. Lack’s findings, even calling his studies that introduced peanut butter early to babies unethical.

. . .

Finally, in 2017, following yet another definitive study by Lack, the A.A.P. fully reversed its early position, now telling parents to feed their children peanuts early.

But by then, thousands of parents who conscientiously did what medical authorities told them to do had effectively given their children peanut allergies.

This avoidable tragedy is one of several episodes of medical authorities sticking to erroneous positions despite countervailing evidence that Marty Makary, a surgeon and professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, examines in his new book, “Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health.”

. . .

While these mistakes are appalling, more worrisome are the enduring root causes of those errors. Medical journals and conferences regularly reject presentations and articles that overturn conventional wisdom, even when that wisdom is based on flimsy underlying data. For political or practical reasons consensus is often prized over dissenting opinions.

“We’re seeing science used as political propaganda,” Makary told me when I spoke to him by phone. But, he argues, mistakes can’t be freely corrected or updated unless researchers are encouraged to pursue alternative research.

“Asking questions has become forbidden in some circles,” Makary writes. “But asking questions is not the problem, it’s the solution.”

For the full commentary see:

Pamela Paul. “Why Medicine Still Has Such Blind Spots.” The New York Times (Friday, September 20, 2024): A22.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Sept. 19, 2024, and has the title “The Medical Establishment Closes Ranks, and Patients Feel the Effects.” In the print version the word “caused” is emphasized by italics.)

The book praised in my opening comments and in Pamela Paul’s commentary is:

Makary, Marty. Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2024.

F.D.A. Regulation “Guaranteed Failure” of a Powerfully Effective Anti-Pain Drug That, Unlike Opioids, Is Nonaddictive

Christmas is a time of good will and hope. I should have worked harder to post an entry that exudes both. Instead I provide another example of how government regulation increases our pain.

(p. A19) Injectable Toradol IV/IM is a great drug. Many doctors, primarily in emergency rooms, use it daily. Yet most patients would rather swallow a pill than get a shot. Responding to this well-known preference, Syntex developed an oral version and submitted it to the FDA. The agency approved Toradol Oral in 1991 but gave it a label that essentially precluded its use—limiting the drug’s dosage to about a third of its effective amount, imposing a strict limit of five days of use, and mandating that the oral tablets follow an injection or intravenous dose of Toradol IV/IM.

The upshot? You could receive Toradol Oral from your pharmacist only after you had received it via an injection, say, from an emergency-room doctor. The requirement—along with the super low dose and limited duration—guaranteed failure.

. . .

Toradol IV/IM is well-established, relatively safe and works about as well as morphine to reduce pain. It’s also nonaddictive and abuse-proof because it doesn’t provide an opioid “high.” What we really need is an oral formulation with the proper dose for use at home, at work and while traveling. Such a drug could help alleviate the opioid crisis.

For the full commentary see:

Charles L. Hooper. “How the FDA Helped Fuel the Opioid Epidemic.” The Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, May 3, 2023 [sic]): A19.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date May 2, 2023 [sic], and has the same title as the print version.)

Medicare Bureaucrats Let Pretty in Pink Boutique Defraud Taxpayers

Fraudsters are scamming the Medicare bureaucracy out of billions of taxpayer dollars. How boldly audacious the fraudsters are. They don’t even bother to give their fraudulent catheter supply firm a plausible name. Pretty in Pink Boutique? Are the fraudsters high, are they stupid, or do they take malicious pleasure in seeing how far they can go and still get away with it? And who is working for the Medicare bureaucracy? Are they simply bitter because they work for a bureaucracy that neither rewards competent hard work, nor punishes incompetent dereliction of duty? Does anyone in the government know the meaning of the phrase “due diligence”? Does anyone care? Congress creates the incentives and constraints and so is more responsible than the bureaucrats. The article quoted below gives one more example of why we flourish when free enterprise grows and government shrinks.

Yes I take this personally–my identity was stolen by fraudsters borrowing government Covid money in my name for an alleged potato farm. Of course the truth is more complicated than my rant implies. Bureaucrats can be conscientious and entrepreneurs can be corrupt. But I do believe that the incentives and constraints of government bureaucracy encourage corruption, or at least lethargic inertia. And the incentives and constraints of free enterprise encourage conscientious hard work and innovative dynamism.

(p. A1) Linda Hennis was checking her Medicare statement in January [2024] when she noticed something strange: It said a company she had never heard of had been paid about $12,000 for sending her 2,000 urinary catheters.

But she had never needed, or received, any catheters.

Ms. Hennis, a retired nurse who lives in a suburb of Chicago, noticed that the company selling the plastic tubes was called Pretty in Pink Boutique, and it was based in Texas. “There’s a mistake here,” Ms. Hennis recalled thinking.

She is among more than 450,000 Medicare beneficiaries whose accounts were billed for urinary catheters in 2023, up from about 50,000 in previous years, according to a new report produced by the National Association of Accountable Care Organizations, an advocacy group that represents hundreds of health care systems across the country. The report used a federal database of Medicare claims that is available to researchers.

The massive uptick in billing for catheters included $2 billion charged by seven high-volume suppliers, according to that analysis, potentially accounting for nearly one-fifth of all Medicare spending on medical supplies in 2023. Doctors, state insurance de-(p. A15)partments and health care groups around the country said the spike in claims for catheters that were never delivered suggested a far-reaching Medicare scam.

. . .

Catheters and other medical supplies are frequent targets of billing schemes. Last April [2023], the federal government brought criminal charges against 18 defendants who had submitted bills for nonexistent coronavirus tests and other pandemic-related services. And in 2019, the Department of Justice said it had broken up an international fraud ring involving more than $1 billion in phony billing for back and knee braces.

. . .

Patients and doctors who have been reporting mysterious catheter claims to Medicare for months say they are frustrated by a lack of communication from the government about whether billions of dollars have been lost to an ongoing billing scam.

One of the advocacy group’s members, Dr. Bob Rauner, runs a large network of doctors in Nebraska. In an interview, he said his patients had been collectively billed nearly $2 million in 2023 for phantom catheters. (He tracks such spending because his organization gets bonus payments from Medicare when patients have good health outcomes with low overall medical spending.)

. . .

The vast majority of the suspicious claims identified by the new analysis came from seven companies, many of which have shared executives, according to public documents and the advocacy group’s report. Only one of the businesses had a working phone number, and it did not return a request for comment. The other numbers were either disconnected, went to different businesses or, in one case, went to a previous owner.

Pretty in Pink Boutique is registered with Medicare to a street address of a house in El Paso. Its phone number goes to an auto body shop called West Texas Body and Paint, where an employee who answered a call from a reporter said the shop receives “calls all day, every day” from Medicare enrollees concerned about fraudulent bills.

Pamela Ludwig runs an unrelated business in Nashville that is also called Pretty in Pink Boutique. She has received so many catheter complaints that she added a page to her website explaining that her business was not part of any scam.

“I have people calling me, cussing, screaming,” Ms. Ludwig said. “They feel violated.”

For the full story see:

Sarah Kliff and Katie Thomas. “Billions in Claims for Catheters Suggest Medicare Billing Scam.” The New York Times (Saturday, February 10, 2024): A1 & A15.

(Note: ellipses, and bracketed years, added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Feb. 9, 2024, and has the title “Staggering Rise in Catheter Bills Suggests Medicare Scam.”)

Dislodging Entrenched Special Interests Requires the Courage to Be the Target of Ill-Will

Many years ago, for reasons I forget, I listened to an interview posted online with Charlie Munger, who for decades was Warren Buffett’s sidekick at Berkshire Hathaway. One portion of Munger’s comments struck me as particularly insightful, so insightful, that I replayed that portion several times so I could write down a rough transcript of the comments. I am posting that rough transcript a few paragraphs below.

A lot of progress in healthcare, and in the world more broadly, depends on individual heroes who have the courage to be the target of ill-will in order to champion truth and virtue, against the powerful special interests that benefit from falsehood and corruption. Those who speak out are often cancelled and have their careers ruined. We remember a few of the names of those who eventually were vindicated. For example Ignaz Semmelweis was cancelled by the medical establishment for arguing that doctors should wash their hands before delivering babies. He eventually was vindicated and remembered, though long after he died of a beating in an insane asylum. Several much-more-recent examples can be found in Marty Makary’s thought-provoking Blind Spots. (Makary has been named by President-Elect Trump to head the Food and Drug Administration.)

Those like Semmelweis who suffered but were vindicated, are painful to ponder. How much more painful to ponder are those who fought the good fight but were never vindicated, and so are utterly forgotten? We justly honor the unknown soldier. We should find a way to also justly honor the unknown speaker of truth to power.

I cringe at Donald Trump’s occasional rudeness and bullying, but I hope that his courage to be the target of ill-will, allow him to succeed in unbinding the entrepreneurs who create breakthrough innovations.

Below is my transcript of a small portion of Charlie Munger’s comments at the University of Michigan in 2010. My memory is that Munger made his comments in answers to expansive questions from Becky Quick as part of a celebration to honor Munger’s donations to the University of Michigan. Munger’s story below is from health care, but the moral from the story applies much more broadly. (Munger’s interest in health care led him to chair the board of trustees of Good Samaritan Hospital in Los Angeles for over 30 years.)

And so there’s a lot of abuse in health care. And one of the ways you fix it is to, is for the people who have the power, they exercise it to prevent the abuse.

In a lot of places you have live and let live, in the hospitals it’s live and let live, because nobody wants to criticize anybody. That’s a huge mistake, a huge mistake.

In our leading academic hospitals (I’m sure this isn’t happening in Michigan); [1:41:03 of recording] but I have a friend whose daughter is head of infectious diseases and something at a medical school hospital, a great hospital.

And of course the doctors there are fishing the patients out of nursing homes, and bringing them in so they can walk by the beds, and bill them. And they are bringing in these terrible infections. And that takes a lot of treatment, and a lot of walks by the bed, and so on, and so on.

Of course the parents of this particular doctor recognize that she is sort of risking her life going through medical school because of the abuse of the system by some of the doctors in a hospital where nobody is stopping the abuse.

It’s like Burke said, for evil to triumph in the world, all that is necessary is that good men do nothing. And all over America some people are intervening to stop some of these abuses. And, and you have to identify them; you have to rationalize them; you have to be willing to take the ill-will.

I have a friend, this is another wonderful story on human nature, chief of the medical staff, southern California hospital.

A bunch of non-board-certified anesthesiologists, who came out of, I forget the sub-branch of medicine; but it’s not, it’s not chiropractic, but it’s . . . anyway they got in control of the anesthesia department of the hospital.

[1:42 of recording]

And he could see that they had created three totally unnecessary deaths and had covered up every single one. And he knew that this was just gonna to ruin his life. So he got rid of them all. Changed the whole system. He ruined families, he ruined incomes, he cleaned house. And he told me the story 20 years later, and I said what happened. And he said, to this day none of the people I cleaned out and none of their friends has ever spoken to me. He was willing to take all that ill will to do the Lord’s work, and do it right.

And you can say, why did he wait for the third death? Maybe he felt he needed that much horror to accomplish the fix.

But all over America, there are stories like that. That’s a GOOD story about human nature. That’s a story about wisdom and virtue triumphing; and of course they don’t always win.

Even in a bull fight, the bull sometimes wins.

[1:44 of recording– relevant segment over]

The interview with Munger is:

Quick, Rebecca (interviewer). “A Conversation with Charlie Munger.” University of Michigan Ross School of Business, Sept. 14, 2010.

(Note: at three places in the recording I roughly indicate in brackets the time into the posted recording, in case anyone wants to watch the video and check the accuracy of my rough transcript. Let me know if you find an error.)

The Marty Makary book that I praise in my initial comments is:

Makary, Marty. Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2024.

“More Than 60%” of Medicines Are Based on Chemicals First “Produced by Living Organisms”

Over millennia life (plants, microbes, fungi) developed toxins to protect them from predators. If humans can identify these toxins, they can use them to likewise protect themselves against diseases. Through serendipitous accident and random trial and error, over tens of thousands of years, indigenous peoples discovered and made use of some of these toxins. We should make use of this knowledge even though it is not certified by any randomized double-blind clinical trials performed by highly credentialed academics. Cassandra Quave, author of the essay quoted below, is working to do this, as is Berkeley professor Noah Whiteman, the author of Most Delicious Poison.

(p. C4) My team moved in unison to clip bits of plants, press them into sheets of paper and stuff them into large collection bags. Later, in my research lab at Emory University, we would test their chemical compounds against antibiotic-resistant pathogens. The possibility of developing new drugs from elements of nature such as our leaf clippings is important for everyone, but it’s personal for me; after losing my leg as a child, I nearly died as a result of postsurgical infection.

In recent decades, with the advance of high-tech methods for synthesizing molecules, the search for useful medical compounds from the natural world, especially plants, has faded. Fortunately, just as we’ve started to recognize the limits of artificial synthesis, even newer technology is now helping scientists like me to release more of nature’s medicinal secrets.

Plants have been the source of countless revolutionary medicines since the 19th century. Scientists derived aspirin from the willow tree, for instance, and morphine from opium poppies. They found quinine, the first treatment for malaria, in the bark of the Amazon’s fever tree (and more than a century later, scientists in China found that artemisinin from sweet wormwood was also a powerful anti-malarial agent). Many groundbreaking cancer drugs also came from plants—Taxol from the Pacific yew tree, vincristine from the Madagascar periwinkle.

Microbes found in soil and fungi launched a golden era of advances in antibiotics, starting with the discovery of penicillin in a mold in 1928. By the peak in the 1950s, scientists were isolating a wide range of antimicrobial compounds from microbes found in nature. But such work ended all too soon, as scientists stopped discovering effective new compounds.

Many of the drugs originally drawn from nature are now synthesized in pharmaceutical factories, using the blueprint of their chemical structures. Natural products (that is, chemicals genetically encoded and produced by living organisms) account for more than 60% of the pharmaceuticals that we possess.

Over the past 30 years, however, the focus on nature waned as scientists instead built large chemical libraries filled with tens of thousands of lab-made molecules. One hope was that the next antibiotic breakthrough would emerge from making and testing enough of these synthetic compounds. But that effort has fallen flat: Though other medicines have been developed in the lab, no new registered classes of antibiotics have been discovered since the 1980s.

For the full essay see:

Cassandra Quave. “Hunting for Medicines Hidden in Plants.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, November 20, 2021 [sic]): C4.

(Note: the online version of the essay has the same date and title as the print version.)

Quave’s essay is adapted from her book:

Quave, Cassandra Leah. The Plant Hunter: A Scientist’s Quest for Nature’s Next Medicines. New York: Viking, 2021.

The Noah Whiteman book I praise in my introductory comments is:

Whiteman, Noah. Most Delicious Poison: The Story of Nature’s Toxins―from Spices to Vices. New York: Little, Brown Spark, 2023.

Patients Who Benefit From a Drug in a Clinical Trial, Should Not Be Banned by the F.D.A. From Continuing the Drug After the Trial Ends

Especially for a fatal disease for which there is no known cure, like A.L.S., patients in a clinical trial who benefit from an experimental drug should not be banned by the F.D.A. from continuing to take the drug after the trial ends. Such a ban violates the liberty of free citizens. Such regulators appear arrogant and unsympathetic. If the regulator, or someone the regulator loves, had A.L.S., would the regulator discover a sense of urgency?

(p. A17) It’s hard to process what the doctor is saying: You have a disease that will rapidly paralyze you until it eventually suffocates you to death. But you are one of the lucky ones: You qualify for a clinical trial of a promising experimental drug. There is a 30% to 50% chance of receiving a placebo instead of the experimental therapy.  . . .  Still, you are grateful to qualify for the trial; most patients don’t.

Fortunately, the trial has a design that is friendly to patients, and so six months later, after the randomized portion is complete, all patients may receive the real drug as part of what’s called an “open label extension.” Without this, you may only get the placebo. And the access to the real drug may end once the trial is complete, even if it was helping you.

My husband, Mike Cimbura, was one of the 36 participants who received the drug NurOwn in a Phase 2 clinical trial for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Mike regained some function, but he was able to get only one dose before the trial ended. Mike and I fought for continued access to treatment and to improve an archaic regulatory pathway. He died waiting for change in 2019.

. . .

. . . patients need a more flexible regulatory process moving with urgency to help find treatments and cures for this deadly disease.

For the full commentary see:

Nicole Cimbura. “A Slow FDA Is Denying ALS Patients Their Only Hope.” The Wall Street Journal (Tuesday, April 27, 2021 [sic]): A17.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date April 26, 2021 [sic], and has the same title as the print version.)