Health – Page 3 – artdiamondblog.com

Dog Health Insurance Is Simpler and More Transparent Than Human Health Insurance

Why is dog health insurance simpler and more transparent than human health insurance?

Dog healthcare is mostly provided in a true marketplace, while human healthcare is provided in a hyper-regulated mishmash of market and government. Because there are more regulations and more risks of malpractice for human healthcare, more and more providers work for large healthcare firms. It’s much easier to have a small independent veterinary practice than a small independent human healthcare practice. So we find more competition in veterinary practices, resulting in prices that are lower and more transparent.

For humans the mega-providers gain with lack of transparency. Insurers are vertically integrated with hospitals, doctor practices, and obscure middlemen called Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs). I would like to confirm my strong guess: few dog health insurance firms own veterinary practices.

(p. A24) I rushed around the patient as he lay motionless with his eyes closed in the emergency room. He was pale and sweaty, his T-shirt stained with vomit. You didn’t have to be a health-care worker to know that he was in a dire state. The beeps on the monitor told me his heart rate was dangerously slow. I told the man that he was going to be admitted to the hospital overnight.

After a pause, he beckoned me closer. His forehead furrowed with concern. I thought he would ask if he was going to be OK or if he needed surgery — questions I’m comfortable fielding. But instead he asked, “Will my insurance cover my stay?”

This is a question I can’t answer with certainty. Patients often believe that since I’m part of the health-care system, I would know. But I don’t, not as a doctor — and not even when I’m a patient myself. In the United States, health insurance is so extraordinarily complicated, with different insurers offering different plans, covering certain things and denying others (sometimes in spite of what they say initially they cover). I could never guarantee anything.

. . .

The killing of Brian Thompson, the chief executive of UnitedHealthcare, the country’s largest health insurer, has reignited people’s contempt for their health plans. It’s unknown if Mr. Thompson’s tragic death was related to health care, and the gleeful responses have been horrifying. But that reaction, even in its objectionable vitriol, matters for how it lays bare Americans’ deep-seated anger toward health care. Around the country, anecdotes were unleashed with furor.

Among these grievances is the great unknown of whether a treatment recommended by a doctor will be covered. . . .

Unsurprisingly, despite my platitudes, my patient did worry. Instead of resting on the stretcher, he and his wife began calling his insurance company. To keep him from leaving, I tried to be more persuasive, even though I didn’t know what kind of health plan he had: “I’m sure your insurance will pay. I’ll document carefully how medically necessary this admission is.” I added that social workers and other advocates could also assist in sorting out his insurance once he was admitted. And worst-case scenario, if they couldn’t, I crossed my fingers that the hospital’s charity care would help.

I said what I could to get him to stay, but I understood why he wanted to be certain. The average cost of a three-day hospital stay is $30,000.

. . .

My one family member with solid insurance is my dog. He got elective surgery recently, and I was astounded by the straightforward nature of his insurance. Once we meet the deductible, everything is simply covered by 80 percent. This is clearly described in a packet I received when I first signed him up. It’s an imperfect comparison to insurance for humans — I pay in full first, then get reimbursed — but it’s incredible to think that insurance for pets and possessions is easier to navigate and more consumer-friendly than insurance for people.

For the full commentary see:

Helen Ouyang. “What I Know About Americans’ Anger at Health Care.” The New York Times (Thursday, December 12, 2024): A24.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Dec. 8, 2024, and has the title “What Doctors Like Me Know About Americans’ Health Care Anger.”)

Allow Those with Skin in the Game to Help Find Quicker Cures

The New York Times devoted more than two and half full pages to the article that I quote from below. Very very few articles receive that much space. The story is meant to inspire and it does. Linde has a terrible genetic disease, as did her mother and grandmother, as do her two sisters, and as might her two daughters. She is uncredentialled, but determined. She reads scientific articles, gives talks at scientific meetings, creates a foundation to raise funds, and with her sisters gave samples from her skin to create cell lines that can be used for research to find a cure. Linde, both literally and figuratively, has skin in the game.

In the article, victims of the disease wish that there were more clinical trials to test more possible cures. If the price of clinical trials were lower, more of them would be supplied. One way to reduce the price would be for the F.D.A. to only mandate testing for safety, not to mandate testing for efficacy. After all, it was concerns over the safety, not the efficacy, of thalidomide, that first accelerated the F.D.A.’s clinical trial mandates. Testing only for safety (Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials), would hugely reduce the price, resulting ultimately in more and quicker cures.

(p. A1) Linde Jacobs paced back and forth across her bedroom, eyeing the open laptop on the dresser and willing the doctor to appear. Her husband was dropping off their older daughter at school. Their younger daughter was downstairs, occupied by a screen. Linde wanted to be alone when she learned whether she carried the family curse.

Linde’s mother, Allison, had died just four weeks before, after a mutant gene gradually laid waste to her brain. In her 50s, Allison transformed from a joyful family ringleader into an impulsive, deceptive pariah. She drove like a maniac on cul-de-sacs. She pinched strangers, shoplifted craft supplies and stole money from her daughter.

Now, on this morning in September 2021, Linde would find out if she had inherited the same vile genetic mutation.

. . .

The doctor finally popped up on the computer. Wasting no time on pleasantries, she shared her screen and zoomed in on one line of laboratory paperwork: POSITIVE.

. . .

Soon, Linde’s husband, Taylor, pulled into the garage and opened the car door. He could hear her sobbing.

. . .

Linde looked at Taylor. “I don’t want you to feel stuck with me,” she said.

(p. A12) Leaving had never crossed his mind. Allison’s miserable experience, he told Linde, did not have to be hers. “You have all this time,” he said. “Do something about it.”

Even as they spoke, scientists were working on projects that might one day help her. Some had discovered how to cure grave conditions with gene editing. Others were tinkering with patients’ skin cells to test experimental drugs. And pharmaceutical companies were developing new Alzheimer’s therapies, one of which happened to target the rare defect in Linde’s brain.

Linde didn’t know any of that yet. But she decided to take Taylor’s advice. She would use the time she had, somehow, to find influential scientists and make them care about what was happening to her — and what might happen to her girls.

Linde and Taylor scoured the internet for any scrap of hope about treating frontotemporal dementia, or FTD. There was little to read.

Taylor remembered a Netflix documentary about a new way to edit genes. The method, called CRISPR, had cured some children with sickle cell disease. He searched “FTD treatment CRISPR” and found the website of Dr. Claire Clelland, a neurologist at the University of California, San Francisco. She had collected skin cells from patients with FTD, reprogrammed them into neurons and tried to edit the faulty genetic code within.

The website listed a phone number. Taylor called and left a message — a Hail Mary, he figured.

Within a day, Dr. Clelland responded by email. “Happy to help if I can,” she wrote.

. . .

(p. A13) “Could I ask a question?” one young scientist said. How much risk, she wondered, was Linde comfortable taking on an experimental treatment? Editing genes with CRISPR was new, after all, and could come with serious side effects.

“Sign me up, patient zero, sounds good,” Linde said.

“What choice do I have,” she added, “if I don’t want the same future for myself as my mom had, and her mom?”

When she wasn’t working or coaching her daughter’s soccer team, Linde threw herself into the scientific research on MAPT — a niche but growing subfield. The gene provides the instructions for cells to make tau, a protein in the brain.

One day she came across news of a project investigating how tau can go awry. She wrote to the scientist leading the work, Dr. Kenneth Kosik of the University of California, Santa Barbara, describing her family and asking to talk.

Dr. Kosik was sitting in his home office when her note landed in his inbox. “It was the second time in my life that I realized, I’ve got to get back to this person in, like, a nanosecond,” he recalled.

. . .

Dr. Kosik told Linde that an elite group of researchers, known as the Tau Consortium, would gather in Boston in a few months for its annual meeting. Dr. Clelland would be there, as would other “Michael Jordans” in the field. We should try to get you there, he said, so the scientists can be reminded of the human toll of tau-related diseases.

A few weeks later, Linde received an invitation to be the keynote speaker. Jenica and Ashlyn could come, too.

She texted her sisters, “Holy shit.”

One morning in Boston in June 2023, Linde and her sisters got all dolled up, only to arrive in a grand hotel ballroom filled with 100 scientists in oxfords and sneakers.

Dr. Kosik introduced Linde to the members of the Tau Consortium. Too nervous to look anyone in the eye, she stared at a screen showing her slides and read from her prepared remarks.

“You will notice the lack of credentials following my name,” she began. But she said her life had brought her other titles: Caregiver. Jail-Bailer. Carrier. She was the heartbeat, she said, of the cells they studied.

. . .

After the Boston talk, Linde received a flurry of invitations to tell her story. She was interviewed on YouTube by Emma Heming Willis, the wife of the actor Bruce Willis, the most famous person known to have frontotemporal dementia. She came face to face with monkeys that carried MAPT mutations in Madison, Wis. And though she detested the crowds and grime of big cities, she flew to places like Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., to at-(p. A14)tend scientific meetings.

Linde, who by then had moved to River Falls, Wis., always returned home exhausted. But the trips were also fortifying. Learning about the latest research quelled her anxiety — and her husband’s. . . .

During her travels, Linde met other families with MAPT mutations. They were all frustrated by the lack of clinical trials for their genetic glitch, especially because several promising treatments were in the pipeline for other dementia genes. Linde and the others started a global survey of people with MAPT mutations. If an opportunity came along for a clinical trial, they would make it as easy as possible for scientists to find volunteers.

. . .

A few months later, Linde and the group started a nonprofit, called Cure MAPT FTD. They have since found more than 500 people with confirmed or possible MAPT mutations in 10 countries, all of whom have expressed interest in participating in future clinical trials.

In March of this year, Linde got an astonishing offer from Dr. Clelland. Along with collaborators at Washington University and the Neural Stem Cell Institute in New York, she wanted to collect skin cells from Linde and her sisters and turn them into clusters that divide infinitely, known as cell “lines.”

“We propose to make new lines that can be shared with academics and also with industry so that people can do drug screening” and CRISPR projects, Dr. Clelland wrote.

. . .

Based on what happened to Allison and Bev, Linde figures she has at least 10 more years before she starts showing symptoms. But there’s no guarantee; some MAPT carriers begin to change in their 20s. Whenever Linde tells a joke a little too loudly, or has a dulled emotional response to a dramatic event, she worries: Is this tau?

That anxious metronome never shuts off. It compels her to fill any moment of downtime reading the latest study or sending another email. She has spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of unpaid hours on travel. But sometimes, like when she finds herself alone in a hotel room, FaceTiming her daughter about a rough day at school, she questions whether these scientific pursuits are really the best way to run out the clock.

. . .

Dr. Clelland said designing a CRISPR molecule that could precisely excise the MAPT mutation from a cell’s genome was not the hard part. The major unsolved challenge is delivering those molecular scissors into the brain. Still, she and her colleagues at U.C.S.F. have set an ambitious goal of getting MAPT therapy into clinical trials within four years.

For the full story see:

Virginia Hughes. “A Mother’s Race to Beat a Genetic Time Bomb.” The New York Times (Wednesday, December 25, 2024): A1 & A12-A14.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story was updated Jan. 2, 2025, and has the title “Fighting to Avoid Her Mother’s Fate, for Her Daughters’ Sake.” I have omitted a few subhead titles that appear in both the online and print versions.)

In Europe Citizens Self-Medicated with Coca Plant Before Official Use in Hospital

Bones from the 1600s in a hospital crypt reveal the use of coca leaves, even though the records from the hospital do not record any use of coca leaves. The records do indicate the early use of derivatives of the opium poppy plant, so if coca leaves were being officially used, you would expect that would also be in the records. One of the researchers, Cristina Cattaneo, concludes that the coca plant was not an official medicine but was “something lurking among the population” (as quoted in Nazaryan 2024, p. D3).

The findings of Giordano are summarized in:

Alexander Nazaryan. “Cocaine Use in Europe Is Dated to the 1600s.” The New York Times (Tues., September 17, 2024): D3.

(Note: the online version of the Steve Lohr article was updated Sept. 13, 2024, and has the title “Europeans Used Cocaine Much Earlier Than Previously Thought, Study Finds.”)

The academic paper co-authored by Cattaneo is:

Giordano, Gaia, Mirko Mattia, Lucie Biehler‐Gomez, Michele Boracchi, Alessandro Porro, Francesco Sardanelli, Fabrizio Slavazzi, Paolo Maria Galimberti, Domenico Di Candia, and Cristina Cattaneo. “Forensic Toxicology Backdates the Use of Coca Plant (Erythroxylum Spp.) in Europe to the Early 1600s.” Journal of Archaeological Science 170 (Oct. 2024): 106040.

An earlier related academic paper, on evidence of early official use of derivatives of the opium poppy, is:

Giordano, Gaia, Mirko Mattia, Lucie Biehler-Gomez, Michele Boracchi, Stefania Tritella, Emanuela Maderna, Alessandro Porro, Massimiliano Marco Corsi Romanelli, Antonia Francesca Franchini, Paolo Maria Galimberti, Fabrizio Slavazzi, Francesco Sardanelli, Domenico Di Candia, and Cristina Cattaneo. “Papaver Somniferum in Seventeenth Century (Italy): Archaeotoxicological Study on Brain and Bone Samples in Patients from a Hospital in Milan.” Scientific Reports 13, no. 1 (2023): 3390.

Mainstream Approach to Alzheimer’s Is Built on Doctored Data

Widespread fraud among highly credentialled, and richly financed, medical researchers results in fewer and slower cures. Many millions of dollars are required to bring a major drug to market, much of it due to the hyper-costly and mandated Phase 3 randomized double-blind clinical trials. There are more good ideas than can received such financing. The intense competition creates a temptation to cut various corners, as the book review quoted below emphasizes.

Aaron Rothstein, the reviewer of Piller’s Doctored book, emphasizes the sad revelation of widespread fraud. But in an earlier entry on this blog, I quoted an essay of Piller’s that suggests that Piller also has something substantive to say about how to cure Alzheimer’s. The current system is broken, vastly reducing the diversity of approaches to curing important diseases like Alzheimer’s. Piller suggests that the ruling clique among Alzheimer’s researchers may in effect be silencing other approaches that could bring us a better faster cure.

Rothstein downplays this substantive aspect of Piller’s book. (It probably reflects too much cynicism on my part to wonder how close Rothstein himself is to the ruling clique?)

I look forward to reading Piller’s book, both for what it has to say about widespread fraud and for what it has to say about Alzheimer’s. Doctored is scheduled for release in a few days, on February 4, 2025.

(p. C9) In 2023 my colleagues and I were preparing to enroll patients in a clinical trial of a new drug that promised to mitigate brain damage in stroke victims. The National Institutes of Health, a governmental organization that funds billions of dollars of research every year, had committed $30 million to the trial. The drug was, in part, the brainchild of Berislav Zlokovic, a neuroscientist at the University of Southern California.

Then, suddenly, the NIH paused the trial. Charles Piller, an investigative journalist for Science magazine, had published an article alleging that multiple papers from Dr. Zlokovic, including many supporting the new drug, contained seemingly altered data. Though Dr. Zlokovic disputed some of the concerns, this news stunned us. We might have put patients at risk, while offering groundless hope. A fraud of the sort Mr. Piller described would violate the basic ethics of clinical trials and overturn the presumption of trust on which the practice of medicine relies.

I thought of this episode often as I read Mr. Piller’s “Doctored,” which brings together his long-form journalism about neuroscience-research malfeasance, including that alleged of Dr. Zlokovic. Though the book sometimes attempts to do too much—diving into scientific theories about the causes of Alzheimer’s, for example—its strength lies in Mr. Piller’s dramatic and damning investigation of scientific transgression. The author’s reporting is largely based on the research of Matthew Schrag, a Vanderbilt neurologist who uses technical expertise to identify episodes of misconduct.

. . .

Mr. Piller thoroughly double checks Dr. Schrag’s work. He asks researchers and image analysts to confirm Dr. Schrag’s findings, and they concur.

. . .

“Doctored” demonstrates how some of the most accomplished and elite scientific gatekeepers may have lied, cheated, squandered trust and endangered lives. How did this happen? The temptations of ego and fame perennially entice humans, but our system of peer review, grant funding and administrative oversight is meant to check these temptations.

The scientific publication process does not contain all the safeguards one might expect. Peer reviewers do not always see the original data from authors. Thus they trust that numbers or images in a manuscript accurately reflect the experiment. And determining whether an image is fraudulent requires skilled image analysis that peer reviewers may not possess. Furthermore, digging for such mistakes is costly: It takes time away from other research, from teaching, from seeing patients and from home life.

What can be done about this? Making raw data available to peer reviewers and giving them time to review articles could help. Mr. Piller suggests a less professionally incestuous relationship between researchers, the Food and Drug Administration, the NIH and pharmaceutical companies could reduce favoritism in funding. A major overhaul of the finances and administrative swell of our system would help, as well.

For the full review see:

Aaron Rothstein. “Medical Promise Betrayed.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Jan. 25, 2025): C9.

(Note: the online version of the review has the date January 24, 2025, and has the title “‘Doctored’ Review: Medical Promise Betrayed.”)

The book under review is:

Piller, Charles. Doctored: Fraud, Arrogance, and Tragedy in the Quest to Cure Alzheimer’s. New York: Atria/One Signal Publishers, 2025.

Surgeons Respond More to Individual Incentives Than to Group Incentives

Medicare introduced a new billing code that reimburses surgeons more for repairing hernias that are at least 3 cm long. As a result the percent of repaired hernias that were less than 3 cm dropped from 60% to 49%. It is probably not too hard for surgeons to justify this change. Probably surgeries on hernias just under 3 cm, are just as hard to do as surgeries on hernias that are just above 3 cm. So probably it seems arbitrarily unfair to reimburse more for the slightly larger ones. So look at the close calls closer until you find an angle where one that on first glance was less than 3 cm, now appears to be more than 3 cm.

On the other hand, consider the response when Blue Cross Blue Shield in Michigan offered to pay more to urology group practices that had more patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. (A growing consensus suggests that most low-risk prostate cancer patients would be better off with active surveillance, rather than quick prostate surgery by urologists.) The response by Michigan urologists–no change in the percent of prostate cancer patients on active surveillance.

Why the difference? I suggest that surgeons, like other people, respond more to individual incentives than to group incentives. A person who responds to group incentives bears the costs themselves, but shares the benefits with others who may be free-riders. If the incentive is individual, no one free rides.

I became aware of the recent academic articles on how incentives do or don’t influence surgeons by reading:

Millenson, Michael L. “It’s Money That Changes Everything (or Doesn’t) for Surgeons.” Forbes.com, Jan. 26, 2025 [cited Jan 27, 2025]. Available from https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelmillenson/2025/01/26/its-money-that-changes-everything-or-doesnt-for-surgeons/ .

The academic article showing that individual incentives matter to some surgeons is:

Hallway, Alexander, Erin Isenberg, Ryan Howard, Sean O’Neill, Jenny Shao, Leah Schoel, Michael Rubyan, Anne Ehlers, and Dana Telem. “Medicare Coding Changes and Reported Hernia Size.” JAMA (published online on Jan. 16, 2025).

The academic article showing that group incentives don’t seem to matter to surgeons is:

Srivastava, Arnav, Samuel R. Kaufman, Addison Shay, Mary Oerline, Xiu Liu, Monica Van Til, Susan Linsell, Corinne Labardee, Christopher Dall, Kassem S. Faraj, Avinash Maganty, Tudor Borza, Kevin Ginsburg, Brent K. Hollenbeck, and Vahakn B. Shahinian. “Physician Payment Incentives and Active Surveillance in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer.” JAMA Network Open 8, no. 1 (Jan. 8, 2025): e2453658-e58.

At Age 84 Scolnick Has the Passion to Persevere at Curing His Son’s Illness

Many of those with the passion to persevere in overcoming the necessary and unnecessary (regulatory) obstacles to medical innovation, do so because they have a sense of urgency due to skin in the game–they or a relative is directly affected by the disease they are passionate to cure. Dr. Edward Scolnick whose story I quote below, is a great example. In the story, we find another example, Ted Stanley, who donated $100 million to Scolnick because Stanley’s son is also suffering mental illness. And perhaps an indirect example? Rienhoff does not directly have skin in the game, but he is playing a key role because of Scolnick’s passion, and Scolnick’s passion is due to his skin in the game.

If we want more cures we will reduce the unnecessary (regulatory) obstacles so that those with less skin in the game (and so less passion to persevere) will also innovate.

[“Skin in the game” has been emphasized by Taleb in his book with that title.]

(p. A1) Dr. Edward Scolnick figures he needs five, maybe 10 more years to solve one of the brain’s greatest mysteries.

Scolnick, 84 years old, has spent most of the past two decades working to understand and find better ways to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, mental illnesses suffered by tens of millions of people, including his son.

“I know I can crack it,” said Scolnick, a noted drug developer who spent his career plumbing the building blocks of DNA for new treatments.

Long before his latest quest, Scolnick spent 22 years at Merck, mostly as head of the drug giant’s laboratory research. He led development of more than two dozen medicines, including the first approved statin to lower cholesterol, an osteoporosis treatment and an anti-HIV therapy.

. . .

(p. A9) In 2021, Scolnick learned that a group of scientists analyzing DNA from thousands of people with schizophrenia had found mutations in 10 genes that substantially increased the risk of developing the illness. They estimated that a mutation on a single gene, called Setd1a, raised the risk 20-fold.

“It got my blood boiling,” Scolnick said. He began pursuing an emerging class of treatments called LSD1 inhibitors, hoping to develop a new drug. Scolnick enlisted Dr. Hugh Young Rienhoff Jr., who recently developed an LSD1 inhibitor to treat blood disorders.

. . .

Rienhoff anticipates testing a new drug for safety as early as next year, first in animals. He said he saw Scolnick’s passion about fielding a breakthrough treatment but didn’t fully understand why until Scolnick shared about his son’s lifelong struggles with mental illness.

Jason Scolnick, 54, said his doctor has been regularly fine-tuning his medications for bipolar disorder over the years to minimize their debilitating side effects. Using the drugs currently prescribed for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder is like undergoing chemotherapy, he said. “There’s no guarantee it will work and it makes you feel terrible, but the cancer will feel worse or kill you.”

There remains a long road ahead for any new medicine. It takes more than a decade, on average, to get a drug from the research lab through government approvals to patients.

. . .

After leaving Merck, Scolnick was hired in 2004 by the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard to lead research on psychiatric disorders. He fostered ties with Ted Stanley, a memorabilia entrepreneur whose son also suffered with mental illness. In 2007, Stanley gave $100 million to launch the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research at the Broad, headed by Scolnick for five years.

. . .

Scolnick and Rienhoff had sat together at a Blackstone dinner years earlier. During the meal, Scolnick shared stories with his table companions about Merck’s development of Crixivan, the anti-HIV drug. “I was hearing a piece of history,” Rienhoff said, “not just HIV history.”

Scolnick became emotional describing how the drug developers, facing various obstacles, wrestled with whether or not to keep going. He pushed for the study to continue, given the urgency. At the time, AIDS was killing tens of thousands of people a year in the U.S.

“I said to Ed, ‘You are thinking like a doctor not a scientist,’” Rienhoff said. “That was the beginning of our relationship.”

. . .

Rienhoff has a team of chemists making and testing compounds at labs in the U.S. and abroad.

“I am optimistic something will come of this,” Rienhoff said. “I can do it, but I wouldn’t have done it if not for Ed. I am, really, doing this in a way for Ed.”

. . .

Biotech company Oryzon Genomics in Spain is developing LSD1 inhibitors for cancer and other conditions. Columbia University researchers tried Oryzon’s drug in mice and found it reversed cognitive impairments caused by the Setd1a genetic mutation connected to schizophrenia. Oryzon is running a small trial in Spain of the LSD1 inhibitor in patients with schizophrenia.

Dr. Joseph Gogos, who led the Columbia research, said it was possible such treatments would be approved for people.

Scolnick is more certain—of both a revolutionary new treatment and his living to witness it.

“Before I die, we will see new medicines, new diagnostics, better outcomes for patients burdened by schizophrenia or bipolar illness,” he said. “I will not be happy to die. But I will die happy that my life helped.”

For the full story see:

Amy Dockser Marcus. “Aging Scientist Races Against Time.” The Wall Street Journal (Friday, Nov. 29, 2024): A1 & A9.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date November 26, 2024, and has the title “A Scientist’s Final Quest Is to Find New Schizophrenia Drugs. Will He Live to See Them?”)

The Free Market Gets a Bum Rap When Blamed for High and Chaotic Drug Prices

The Law of One Price in economics says that in the absence of transaction costs, similar goods will have the same price. If the price of a Tesla truck is $100,000 in Omaha and $200,000 in Des Moines, some enterprising arbitrager will buy a few in Omaha for $100,000, and sell them for slightly less than the going price in Des Moines. As the arbitrager arbitrages, the price of the truck in Omaha will converge with that in Des Moines, a close-enough confirmation of the Law of One Price. If this does NOT happen then either transaction costs are very high or we are not dealing with a free market. As the article quoted below shows, prices of medical drugs vary widely and persistently. Medical drugs are NOT sold in a free market. Arbitrage is NOT allowed. Who can sell to whom is highly regulated. To blame the free market for high and chaotic drug prices is an outrageous bum rap.

(p. A1) The cost of prescription drugs in the U.S. isn’t like the tabs for other products. The price for a single medicine can range by thousands of dollars depending on the drug plan.

It is a symptom of America’s complicated—and costly—system for paying for medicines.

Medicare is paying wildly different prices for the same drug, even for people insured under the same plan.

. . .

Take commonly used generic versions of prostate-cancer treatment Zytiga. They have more than 2,200 prices in Medicare drug plans. The generics ring in at roughly $815 a month in northern Michigan, about half of what they cost in suburban Detroit, while jumping to $3,356 in a county along Lake Michigan, according to a recent analysis of Medicare data.

The same is true with other popular medicines such as psoriasis treatment Otezla, blood thinner Xarelto and generic versions of the cancer drug Tykerb, known as lapatinib, which has 460 prices, according to the analysis by 46brooklyn Research, a nonprofit drug-pricing analytics group.

. . .

(p. A2) The reason for the huge price differences: America’s complicated drug-reimbursement system, which uses middlemen to negotiate prices.

. . .

Not only is it confusing and costly for seniors, the wide range of drug prices costs Medicare. The program, which farms out drug-price negotiations to the firms, pays tens of millions of dollars extra for prescriptions.

“It’s a broken system. It’s really confusing for seniors. It’s really confusing for providers. It’s costing the government way too much,” said Dared Price, who owns eight pharmacies in the Wichita, Kan., area, and complains the stores are underpaid.

The middlemen [are] known as pharmacy benefit managers or PBMs, . . .

. . .

“The inconsistent and disconnected way that PBMs arrive at drug prices makes Medicare look less like a trustworthy marketplace intended to yield low, sober prices and more like a casino,” said 46brooklyn Chief Executive Antonio Ciaccia.

. . .

To find out the prices that the big three and other PBMs negotiated, 46brooklyn looked at what standalone Part D and Medicare Advantage plans say they will reimburse pharmacies on behalf of Medicare for branded and generic drugs during the second quarter. They reported the prices that Medicare would pay.

Some 61 drugs had monthly prices that diverged by at least $30,000, including a $223,037 range for a drug, called nitisinone and sold under the brand name Orfadin, treating a rare metabolic disorder. About 300 medicines had more than 1,000 monthly prices when the difference between the lowest price and the highest was more than $1,000.

It didn’t matter that the same PBM was negotiating the prices. Prices varied widely among health plans, even if a plan used the same PBM.

The 30 mg dose of Otezla had among the most different prices among branded medicines. It had 633 different prices across health plans that used Express Scripts, while Optum Rx carried 569 different prices and Caremark had 431.

The largest PBMs notched some of the biggest number of different prices for lower-priced copies of Zytiga, which is sold as a generic under the drug’s chemical name abiraterone acetate.

Caremark has logged 643 different prices for Zytiga generics, while Express Scripts has 500 and Optum Rx carries 445. By comparison, Capital Rx, a PBM with fewer beneficiaries than the three largest firms, had two prices.

Capital Rx had few prices—either $106 or $117—because it pegged them to the benchmark that the U.S. government uses to calculate drug costs, called the National Average Drug Acquisition Cost, which is based on a survey of retail pharmacy prices, said Chief Executive Anthony Loiacono. Capital Rx’s prices were much less than the sums that many other health plans reported.

“We don’t make money on drug spend, and I do not set prices. I use what CMS gives us as the starting point,” Loiacono said.

For the full story see:

Jared S. Hopkins and Josh Ulick. “Medicare Payouts Vary Widely for Same Drug.” The Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, Nov. 27, 2024): A1-A2.

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

(Note: the online version of the story has the date November 26, 2024, and has the title “Same Drug, 2,200 Different Prices.” Where there is a slight difference in wording between the print and online versions, the passages I quote above follow the online version.)

Patients Are Too Patient About the Time They Waste in Worthless Healthcare

Healthcare appointments are often too numerous, too time-consuming, too stressful, and too harmful. Journalist Paula Span, often citing the words and research of MD Ishani Ganguli, presents this as an outrageous revelation. Dr. Ganguli tells us “there are opportunity costs” and “you don’t have infinite time, energy and attention” (Ganguli as quoted in Span 2024, p. D3). Outrageous it is, but to few of us is it a revelation. Patients know because they experience. If they are smart (I am often stupid) they will stifle their complaints so they do not annoy their care-givers. But care-givers know also. Those implementing the time-wasting or onerous practices are not evil. But they often do not have the incentive, or sometimes even the power, to change.

Every time I go into a doctor’s office, I am weighed. I always ask, “Do you want me to take my shoes off?” The nurse or medical assistant always shrugs and says they do not care. If my weight mattered, shouldn’t it be taken consistently, either always with shoes on or shoes off? I have had my weight taken countless times but I cannot remember a single time when the doctor mentioned the weight measure from earlier in the appointment. Prescription lists are endlessly requested, even by those who do the prescribing. Many lab tests are done out of the inertia of routine. In many hospitals sleeping patients are interrupted by a “care-giver” who comes in and performs a routine task, like asking them how much pain they are feeling. The “care-giver” records the answer and departs, taking no other action, but in the meantime diminishing the healing sleep of the patient. Tasks of this sort must be damaging to the morale of the care-giver. They signed up to do good, not to do harm. But they must do harm to follow the mandated protocol, or they risk being punished.

Why do these practices continue? Because they have been done in the past. No one will be rewarded for dropping them, and the care-giver who fails to do them is at risk of being criticized or punished. In a non-entrepreneurial, litigious, and highly regulated system, much that is done is not done for the benefit of the patient. It is done for CYA (“Cover Your Ass”).

But hope abides. We could deregulate healthcare. Then doctors could tell their nurses to only take the patient’s weight when it is actually needed. Hospital entrepreneurs could tell staff to only ask patients of their pain when they are awake and complaining of pain. Options in healthcare would be more diverse. But some of the options would actually make sense. Care-givers providing options that make sense would expand their own practice and be imitated by others. We would have better care and less wasted time.

The commentary by Paula Span, mentioned above, is:

Paula Span. “Too Much Time Spent on Doctors.” The New York Times (Tuesday, November 26, 2024): D3.

(Note: the online version of Span’s commentary has the date Nov. 23, 2024, and has the title “So Many Days Lost at the Doctor’s Office.”)

An academic article co-authored by Ganguli presents empirical evidence on how much time patients spend in healthcare activities:

Ganguli, Ishani, Emma D. Chant, E. John Orav, Ateev Mehrotra, and Christine S. Ritchie. “Health Care Contact Days among Older Adults in Traditional Medicare: A Cross-Sectional Study.” Annals of Internal Medicine 177, no. 2 (Feb. 2024): 125-33.

In an academic op-ed piece, Ganguli justly laments how the healthcare system often wastes patients’ time, sometimes even resulting in worse health. She uses the example of the severe cardiac side-effects from the eight weeks of Monday through Friday radiation that her 81-year-old father was given for his recently discovered prostate cancer:

Ganguli, Ishani. “How Does Health Care Burden Patients? Let Me Count the Days.” New England Journal of Medicine 391, no. 10 (Sept. 7, 2024): 880-83.

600,000 Americans Projected to Die of Cancer in 2025

Progress has been made against some specific cancers for some specific people. But overall there’s still a lot of cancer to be cured.

(p. A1) More Americans are surviving cancer, but the disease is striking young and middle-aged adults and women more frequently, the American Cancer Society reported on Thursday [Jan. 16, 2025].

. . .

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States, but the leading cause among Americans under 85. The new report projects that some 2,041,910 new cases will occur this year and that 618,120 Americans will die of the disease.

Six of the 10 most common cancers are on the rise, including cancers of the breast and the uterus. Also increasing are colorectal cancers among people under 65, as well as prostate cancer, melanoma and pancreatic cancer.

For the full story see:

Roni Caryn Rabin. “Cancer Striking Younger Women.” The New York Times (Friday, January 19, 2025): A1 & A18.

(Note: ellipsis, and bracketed date, added.)

(Note: the online version of the story was updated Jan. 17, 2025, and has the title “Cancer’s New Face: Younger and Female.”)

The academic article that is the basis for the summary statistics quoted above is:

Siegel, Rebecca L., Tyler B. Kratzer, Angela N. Giaquinto, Hyuna Sung, and Ahmedin Jemal. “Cancer Statistics, 2025.” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 75, no. 1 (Jan./Feb. 2025): 10-45.

Some of the key statistics from the academic article appear in:

American Cancer Society. “Cancer Facts & Figures 2025.” Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2025.

Keep Raging at “the Dying of the Light”

I still remember as an undergraduate at Wabash College reading in our intro psychology textbook of an experiment in which a dog was put in a box. Every time the dog tried to leap out of the box, he received an electric shock. Eventually the electric current was turned off. But the dog never again tried to leap. Are we like the dog, too discouraged by past constraints, so that we are resigned to accept the Biblical limit of “three score and 10” (Psalm 90:10)?

But there is a paradox. Kloc cites an article claiming a very high market value for expanded lifespans. But then where are the voters urgently demanding that medical entrepreneurs be unbound? Where are the citizens demanding that regulators stop mandating Phase 3 clinical trials? Citizens with a sense of urgency can make a difference–see the Act-Up movement in the early years of AIDs. When will they?

(p. 1) The longevity industry is coming off perhaps its best run on record. The expected span of an American life has increased by about three decades since 1900 — to around 78 as of 2023. But for many people, even 78 years just won’t do.

The Methuselah Foundation, a biomedical charity, for example, wants to “make 90 the new 50,” and scientists at one biotechnology firm have argued that, unencumbered by disease, the body could potentially make it all the way to age 150. Even more optimistic estimates put the number closer to 1,000.

Whatever the maximum human life span may be, people appear increasingly determined to find it — in particular men, who are more inclined to favor radically extending life, maybe even indefinitely. Last year, nearly 6,000 studies of longevity made their way onto PubMed, a database of biomedical and life sciences papers; that’s almost five times as many as two decades ago.

Along with the creation of dozens of popular podcasts and a sizable supplement industry, that zeal has led to efforts to preserve organs, search out life-extending diets and even try to reverse aging itself.

. . .

(p. 24) Researchers at Harvard and Oxford recently tried to gauge that interest in the marketplace today. They estimated that the total value of any scientific breakthrough that added another decade to global life expectancy would be worth $367 trillion.

For the full story see:

Joe Kloc. “Gilgamesh, Ponce and the Quest to Live Forever.” The New York Times, First Section (Sunday, January 19, 2025): 1 & 24.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Jan. 18, 2025, and has the title “The Centuries-Old, Incredibly Male Quest to Live Forever.”)

When Kloc mentions estimates of possible human lifespan “closer to 1,000” he links to a Scientific American interview with João Pedro de Magalhães, professor of biogerontology at England’s University of Birmingham. João Pedro de Magalhães believes that in principle humans could live to 1,000:

Gifford, Bill. “How Old Can Humans Get?” Scientific American (July 31, 2023). Available from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-old-can-humans-get/.

When Kloc says that some “even try to reverse aging itself” he links to:

Poganik, Jesse R., Bohan Zhang, Gurpreet S. Baht, Alexander Tyshkovskiy, Amy Deik, Csaba Kerepesi, Sun Hee Yim, Ake T. Lu, Amin Haghani, Tong Gong, Anna M. Hedman, Ellika Andolf, Göran Pershagen, Catarina Almqvist, Clary B. Clish, Steve Horvath, James P. White, and Vadim N. Gladyshev. “Biological Age Is Increased by Stress and Restored Upon Recovery.” Cell Metabolism 35, no. 5 (2023): 807-20.

Kloc also links to estimates of the economic value of extending lifespans by one year, and by a decade, as given in:

Scott, Andrew J., Martin Ellison, and David A. Sinclair. “The Economic Value of Targeting Aging.” Nature Aging 1, no. 7 (July 2021): 616-23.

“Rage, rage against the dying of the light” is a line from Dylan Thomas’s poem “Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night.”

For Quicker Cures, Do Not Cancel Those Who See What We Do Not See

Dogs smell odors that we do not smell. They say Eskimos can distinguish 40 or more kinds of snow. Physical differences in biology and differences in past experiences allow some people to perceive what other people miss. We should encourage, not cancel, those who see differently. They can communicate and act on what they see, giving us more cures more quickly.

In the passages quoted below, a case is made that Pasteur’s artistic experiences allowed him to see a structural difference (chirality) in crystals; a difference that turns out to matter for medical drug molecules.

(p. D5) In a paper published last month in Nature Chemistry, Dr. Gal explains how a young Pasteur fought against the odds to articulate the existence of chirality, or the way that some molecules exist in mirror-image forms capable of producing very different effects. Today we see chirality’s effects in light, in chemistry and in the body — even in the drugs we take.

And we might not know a thing about them if it weren’t for the little-known artistic experience of Louis Pasteur, says Dr. Gal.

. . .

As a teenager, Pasteur made portraits of his friends, family and dignitaries. But after his father urged him to pursue a more serious profession — one that would feed him — he became a scientist. At the age of 24 he discovered chirality.

To understand chirality, consider two objects held up before a mirror: a white cue ball from a pool table and your hand. The reflection of the ball is exactly like the original. If you could reach into that mirror, pull out the reflection and cram it inside the original, they’d match up point for point. But if you tried the same thing with your hand, no matter how much you tried, the mirror image would never fit into the original.

At the molecular level some objects are like cue balls, and they are always superimposable. But other things are like hands, and they can never be combined.

. . .

During winemaking, a chemical called tartaric acid builds up on vat walls. In the 18th and 19th centuries, makers of medicine and dyes used this acid.

In 1819, factory workers boiled wine too long and accidentally produced paratartaric acid, which had unique properties that intrigued scientists like Pasteur.

. . .

When studying the paratartaric acid, Pasteur found that it produced two kinds of crystals — one like those found in tartaric acid and another that was the mirror opposite. The crystals were handed, or what the Greeks call chiral (kheir) for hand.

. . .

“Several famous or much more accomplished scientists, some well along their illustrious careers, studied the same molecules, the same substances,” said Dr. Gal. “Realistically you would think they’d have beaten him to the punch, and yet they missed it.”

So why did this young, inexperienced chemist get it right?

Dr. Gal thinks the answer might lie in the artistic passions of Pasteur’s youth. Even as a scientist, Pasteur remained closely connected to art. He taught classes on how chemistry could be used in fine art and attended salons. He even carried around a notebook, jotting down 1-4 ratings of artwork he visited.

And then Dr. Gal stumbled upon a letter Pasteur had written to his parents about a lithographic portrait he had made of a friend.

Lithography back then involved etching a drawing onto a limestone slab with wax or oil and acid, and pressing a white piece of paper on top of it. The resulting picture was transposed, like a mirror image of the drawing left on the slab.

In his letter, Pasteur wrote:

“I think I have not previously produced anything as well drawn and having as good a resemblance. All who have seen it find it striking. But I greatly fear one thing, that is, that on the paper the portrait will not be as good as on the stone; this is what always happens.”

Eureka. “Isn’t this the explanation of how he saw the handedness on the crystals — because he was sensitized to that as an artist?” Dr. Gal proposed.

. . .

We now know that many drugs contain molecules that exist in two chiral forms, and that the two forms can react differently in the body. The most tragic example occurred in the 1950s and ’60s, when doctors prescribed Thalidomide, a drug for morning sickness and other ailments, to pregnant women. The drug also contained a chiral molecule that caused disastrous side effects in many babies.