Category: Health

One Cause of Increasing Burnout of Physicians Is “the Politicization of Science”

(p. A25) Ten years of data from a nationwide survey of physicians confirm another trend that’s worsened through the pandemic: Burnout rates among doctors in the United States, which were already high a decade ago, have risen to alarming levels.

Results released this month and published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, a peer-reviewed journal, show that 63 percent of physicians surveyed reported at least one symptom of burnout at the end of 2021 and the beginning of 2022, an increase from 44 percent in 2017 and 46 percent in 2011. Only 30 percent felt satisfied with their work-life balance, compared with 43 percent five years earlier.

“This is the biggest increase of emotional exhaustion that I’ve ever seen, anywhere in the literature,” said Bryan Sexton, the director of Duke University’s Center for Healthcare Safety and Quality, who was not involved in the survey efforts.

. . .

The increase in burnout is most likely a mix of new problems and exacerbated old ones, Dr. Shanafelt said. For instance, the high number of messages doctors received about patients’ electronic health records was closely linked to increased burnout before the pandemic. After the pandemic, the number of messages from patients coming into physicians’ In Baskets, a health care closed messaging system, increased by 157 percent.

And physicians pointed to the politicization of science, labor shortages and the vilification of health care workers as significant issues.

For the full story, see:

Oliver Whang. “New Survey Suggests An Alarming Increase In Physician Burnout.” The New York Times (Friday, September 30, 2022): A25.

(Note: ellipsis added.]

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Sept. 29, 2022, and has the title “Physician Burnout Has Reached Distressing Levels, New Research Finds.”)

Lethality of Ebola in West Africa Mainly Due to “the Contingent History of a Population Made Vulnerable”

(p. 22) As Farmer writes in his new book, “Fevers, Feuds, and Diamonds: Ebola and the Ravages of History,” by the time he arrived in the capital city of Freetown in late September, “western Sierra Leone was ground zero of the epidemic, and Upper West Africa was just about the worst place in the world to be critically ill or injured.”

. . .

Farmer notes that even severe cases of Ebola rarely produce the horror-film symptoms featured so prominently in Preston’s “Hot Zone”: patients bleeding from their eyeballs, their organs liquefied in a matter of hours. Most cases instead involve fluid and electrolyte loss caused by vomiting and diarrhea, which can often be treated with basic supportive and critical care, like intravenous fluid replenishment or dialysis. Ebola was so lethal in upper West Africa not because the virus itself conveyed an inevitable death sentence, but because countries like Liberia and Sierra Leone lacked these health care essentials. “For all their rainfall,” Farmer writes, “their citizens are stranded in the medical desert.”

. . .

“This was not,” Farmer writes, “a history of inevitable mortality that resulted from ancient evolutionary forces.  . . .   It was the contingent history of a population made vulnerable.”

For the full review, see:

Steven Johnson “A Preventable Epidemic.” The New York Times Book Review (Sunday, December 13, 2020): 22.

(Note: ellipses between paragraphs, added; ellipsis internal to last paragraph, in original.)

(Note: the online version of the review has the date Nov. 17, 2020, and has the title “The Deadliness of the 2014 Ebola Outbreak Was Not Inevitable.”)

The book under review is:

Farmer, Paul. Fevers, Feuds, and Diamonds: Ebola and the Ravages of History. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2020.

To Get Fed Funding, Rural Hospitals Must Agree to Transfer In-Patients to Bigger Hospitals that Do Not Want the Transfers

(p. A1) CASCADE, Idaho — It was 3 a.m. at the 10-bed hospital near the River of No Return, and by every measure, Ella Wenrich should have been dead.

Gastrointestinal bleeding had sent her hemoglobin level — typically above 12 — down to 3.3, and she needed an enormous blood transfusion at a larger medical center. But amid a surge in Covid cases, every major facility within 400 miles refused to take her. The smallest hospital in Idaho was, once again, on its own.

. . .

For 46 million Americans, rural hospitals are a lifeline, yet an increasing number of them are closing. The federal government is trying to resuscitate them with a new program that offers a huge infusion of cash to ease their financial strain. But it comes with a bewildering condition: They must end all inpatient care.

The program, which invites more than 1,700 small institutions to become federally designated “rural emergency hospitals,” would inject monthly payments amounting to more than $3 million a year into each of their budgets, a game-changing total for many that would not only keep them open (p. A16) but allow them to expand services and staff. In return, they must commit to discharging or transferring their patients to bigger hospitals within 24 hours.

The government’s reasoning is simple: Many rural hospitals can no longer afford to offer inpatient care. A rural closure is often preceded by a decline in volume, according to a congressional report, and empty beds can drain the hospital’s ability to provide outpatient services that the community needs.

But the new opportunity is presenting many institutions with an excruciating choice.

“On one hand, you have a massive incentive, a ‘Wow!’ kind of deal that feels impossible to turn down,” said Harold Miller, the president of the nonprofit Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform. “But it’s based on this longstanding myth that they’ve been forced to deliver inpatient services — not that their communities need those services to survive.”

Some rural health care providers and health policy analysts say the officials behind the rule are out of touch with the difficulties of transferring rural patients. Bigger hospitals — bogged down with Covid surges, pediatric R.S.V. patients and their own financial woes — are increasingly unwilling to accept transferred patients, particularly from small field hospitals unaffiliated with their own systems.

There are also blizzards, downed cattle fences and mountain pass roads that close for months at a time.

. . .

Cascade Medical Center, where Ms. Wenrich was treated, seems like exactly the type of hospital that federal officials had in mind.

This former lumber mill community is home to less than a thousand people, but the hospital serves patients from across 2,800 square miles; patients travel up to eight hours round trip from homes without addresses.

For the full story, see:

Emily Baumgaertner and Michael Hanson. “Hospital Funding Has Catch: Cut Inpatient Care.” The New York Times (Saturday, December 10, 2022): A1 & A18-A19.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story was updated Dec. 13, 2022, and has the title “A Rural Hospital’s Excruciating Choice: $3.2 Million a Year or Inpatient Care?”)

“It’s Not Clear What We Are and Aren’t Allowed to Say”

(p. B1) When Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill that would punish California doctors for spreading false information about Covid-19 vaccines and treatments, he pledged that it would apply only in the most “egregious instances” of misleading patients.

It may never have the chance.

Even before the law, the nation’s first of its kind, takes effect on Jan. 1 [2023], it faces two legal challenges seeking to declare it an unconstitutional infringement of free speech. The plaintiffs include doctors who have spoken out against government and expert recommendations during the pandemic, as well as legal organizations from both sides of the political spectrum.

“Our system opts toward a presumption that speech is protected,” said Hannah Kieschnick, a lawyer for the Northern California branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, which submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of one of the challenges, filed last month in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

That lawsuit and another, filed this month in the Eastern District of California, have become an extension of the broader cultural battle over the Covid-19 pandemic, which continues to divide Americans along stark partisan lines.

. . .

(p. B5) The plaintiffs in California have sought injunctions to block the law even before it goes into effect, arguing that it was intended to silence dissenting views.

One of them, Dr. Tracy Hoeg, a physician and epidemiologist who works in Grass Valley, near Sacramento, has written peer-reviewed studies since the pandemic began that questioned some aspects of government policies adopted to halt the spread of Covid-19.

Those studies, on the efficacy of masks for schoolchildren and the side effects of vaccines on young men, exposed her to vehement criticism on social media, she said, partly because they fell outside the scientific consensus of the moment.

She noted that the medical understanding of the coronavirus continues to evolve, and that doctors should be open to following new evidence about treatment and prevention.

“It’s going to cause this very broad self-censorship and self-silencing from physicians with their patients because it’s not clear what we are and aren’t allowed to say,” said Dr. Hoeg, one of five doctors who filed a challenge in the Eastern District. “We have no way of knowing if some new information or some new studies that come out are accepted by the California Medical Board as consensus yet.”

. . .

Dr. Jeff Barke, a physician who has treated Covid patients at his office in Newport Beach in Southern California, said the law was an attempt by the state to impose a rigid orthodoxy on the profession that would rule out experimental or untested treatments.

Those include treatments with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine that he said he had found to be effective at treating the coronavirus, despite studies suggesting otherwise. “Who determines what false information is?” he said.

. . .

“What comes next?” he said. “How I talk to patients about cancer? How I talk to patients about obesity or diabetes or asthma or any other illnesses? When they have a standard of care that they think is appropriate and they don’t want me going against their narrative, then they’ll say Barke’s spreading misinformation.”

For the full story, see:

Steven Lee Myers. “Law to Stem Medical Misinformation Is Facing a Free Speech Challenge.” The New York Times (Thursday, December 1, 2022): B1 & B5.

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

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Nov. 30, 2022, and has the title “Is Spreading Medical Misinformation a Doctor’s Free Speech Right?”)

Feds Gave Bigger Covid Subsidies to Hospitals Charging Higher Prices

(p. A1) When Covid-19 struck, the U.S. government gave hospitals tens of billions of dollars to help them cope with the strains of the pandemic.

Many of the hospitals didn’t need it.

The aid enriched some well-off systems, while failing to meet the needs of many that were struggling, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of federal financial-disclosure reports.

The mismatch stemmed in part from the way the federal government determined how much a hospital should get. A main factor used to allocate relief was a hospital’s revenue, rather than Covid caseload or financial distress. The idea was that revenue was a good indicator of a hospital’s size.

Among the recipients were large, wealthy hospital owners—including some nonprofits—that reported profits from patient care during the periods they got aid. Some were well off enough to put money into investment funds, while others spent on new facilities and ex-(p. A10)panded campuses.

Hundreds of other hospitals that got federal funding, however, reported losses. Some were forced to lay off nurses and make other cuts, saying they didn’t get enough aid to overcome their strains. Some served areas that had among the highest Covid death rates.

The revenue-based award system, especially prevalent in the early days of the pandemic, tended to favor hospitals with higher prices.

For the full story, see:

Melanie Evans, Liz Essley Whyte and Tom McGinty. “Covid Aid Went to Hospitals That Didn’t Need the Money.” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, Dec. 5, 2022): A1 & A10.

(Note: the online version of the story has the date December 4, 2022, and has the title “Billions in Covid Aid Went to Hospitals That Didn’t Need It.”)

Healthcare Spending Is Still Growing, but More Slowly

(p. A6) WASHINGTON—Growth in U.S. healthcare spending slowed to 2.7% last year after a 2020 surge in federal outlays on the pandemic, according to a new government report.

The analysis from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says national healthcare spending grew in 2021 to $4.3 trillion.

Overall health spending had risen by 10.3% in 2020, and the more moderate increase last year was largely driven by a drop off in federal spending related to Covid-19.

. . .

The healthcare share of the gross domestic product was 18.3% in 2021, down from 19.7% in 2020.

For the full story, see:

Stephanie Armour. “Healthcare Spending Growth Slows Down.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Dec. 15, 2022): A6.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Dec. 14, 2022, and has the title “U.S. Healthcare-Spending Growth Slowed in 2021, Report Finds.”)

Lancet Editorial Praised Chinese Communists’ Covid Policy of “Restricting Public Freedoms”

(p. A17) China’s zero-Covid policies have recently come under criticism from public-health leaders—including those at the World Health Organization—who once held them up as a model for the West.

“China’s success rests largely with a strong administrative system that it can mobilise in times of threat, combined with the ready agreement of the Chinese people to obey stringent public health procedures,” the Lancet editorialized on March 7, 2020. Western countries, it added, “must abandon their fears of the negative short-term public and economic consequences that may follow from restricting public freedoms as part of more assertive infection control measures.”

That hasn’t worn well. The negative social and economic consequences of lockdowns in the West—from learning losses and destroyed small businesses to alcoholism and drug abuse—weren’t “short-term.” Nor were China’s draconian zero-Covid policies, which three years later are only slowly being eased.

For the full commentary, see:

Allysia Finley. “LIFE SCIENCE; Western Scientists Cheered On China’s Covid Repression.” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, Dec. 12, 2022): A17.

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date December 11, 2022, and has the same title as the print version.)

Unintended Consequences Make “Government-Provided Health Care” a “Fiscal and Regulatory Nightmare”

(p. A17) The private plans participating in Medicare’s prescription-drug program, known as Part D, currently draw on three sources of revenue to finance prescriptions: out-of-pocket payments from patients, premium payments made by plan members, and subsidies from the federal government. In 2025, under the Inflation Reduction Act, both government subsidies and out-of-pocket payments by patients are scheduled to be cut sharply. The difference will have to be made up by premiums. But the statute inhibits this third revenue source, which is also subsidized, from increasing more than 6%. That’s hardly enough to cover inflation, let alone compensate for the other two revenue losses.

. . .

Existing plans have room to cut benefits, although the original Part D statute limits their ability to do so. As plans are under no obligation to take a loss, their other choice is to exit the market, which from the patient’s perspective means that all the benefits disappear. In essence, the Inflation Reduction Act statute may prohibit Part D plans from being economically viable, even if it doesn’t explicitly ban them.

. . .

Welcome to the fiscal and regulatory nightmare known as government-provided health care, where those writing the rules don’t understand the consequences of what they do. Democrats hate that Medicare Advantage has been available as a pseudo-private alternative to original Medicare’s single-payer arrangement. Yet they have (unwittingly?) passed a law that so thoroughly disrupts traditional Medicare as to render it the worst of the Medicare options.

For the full commentary, see:

Casey B. Mulligan and Tomas J. Philipson. “The Inflation Reduction Act Comes for Medicare.” The Wall Street Journal (Tuesday, November 22, 2022): A17.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date November 21, 2022, and has the same title as the print version.)

By 2030 mRNA Vaccines May Boost Immune Response of Metastatic Cancer Patients

(p. C4) The cofounders of BioNTech recently announced that vaccines targeting cancer may be available before the end of the decade. Researchers at Duke University are already developing a vaccine that targets mutations commonly arising in people with certain types of advanced breast cancer. Using the same mRNA technology deployed against Covid-19, these types of vaccines would not be administered prophylactically but, rather, used as a treatment to trigger a stronger immune response in patients with locally recurrent or metastatic disease. When it comes to conquering breast cancer, future medical historians will have plenty to write about.

For the full essay, see:

Lindsey Fitzharris. “A Medical Historian Confronts Breast Cancer.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, December 3, 2022): C4.

(Note: the online version of the essay has the date December 1, 2022, and has the same title as the print version.)

Project Entrepreneur Alex Oshmyansky Switched from Nonprofit to Profit to Raise Funds to Enable Project; Let Mark Cuban Take Credit for Project

(p. B1) DALLAS—When Mark Cuban got an email in 2018 from a stranger asking if he wanted to invest in a company dedicated to bringing down the cost of prescription drugs, he replied: “Tell me more.”

Today, the Dallas Mavericks owner and entrepreneur is helping steer the fledgling startup as it takes aim at high prescription drug prices and the industry middlemen who he says keeps them that way.

The Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Co. PBC, born from that brief email pitch from the company’s founder, Alex Oshmyansky, buys generic drugs from pharmaceutical manufacturers and sells them directly to patients online, rather than charging their insurance providers. By cutting out intermediaries and using a transparent pricing system, the pharmacy says it charges less than rivals for drugs: a 15% profit markup on a medicine’s cost, plus several dollars in fees for shipping and labor.

. . .

(p. B4) Several startups are attempting to reinvent parts of the pharmaceutical supply chain, removing costs by taking control of reimbursement, manufacturing and distribution.

Some firms, like ProvideGx and Civica Rx, are making drugs themselves so that they can control pricing and supply volumes. Others are selling directly to patients, bypassing the middleman known as pharmacy-benefit managers that traditionally handle drug coverage for health insurers.

A radiologist and former math prodigy, Dr. Oshmyansky received his undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado at Boulder at age 18, followed by an M.D. from Duke University and a Ph.D. in math from Oxford. He had the idea for a pharmacy after growing frustrated with pharmaceutical-industry pricing practices, such as companies hiking prices dramatically on decades-old drugs.

He planted the seed for the Cuban pharmacy in 2015 when he founded Osh’s Not-for-Profit Pharmaceuticals with a mission of manufacturing generic drugs and selling them to hospitals at a small markup on its costs.

He struggled to find investors to fund a nonprofit drug company, however, and eventually transitioned Osh’s into a for-profit entity. In 2018, he secured $1 million from investors through the Silicon Valley startup-incubator Y Combinator.

A few months later, in 2018, Dr. Oshmyansky emailed Mr. Cuban at his publicly available email address.

. . .

Eventually, Dr. Oshmyansky agreed to rename the company after Mr. Cuban in a bid to trade on his celebrity and attract free publicity.

For the full story, see:

Joseph Walker. “Mark Cuban Lands a Job at an Online Pharmacy.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Dec. 10, 2022): B1 & B4.

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

(Note: the online version of the story has the date December 9, 2022, and has the title “Mark Cuban Has New Job: Working at Online Discount Pharmacy.”)

After Getting $170 Billion in Government Subsidies, Hospitals “Were Major Financial Beneficiaries of the Pandemic”

(p. B12) . . . hospitals . . . were major financial beneficiaries of the pandemic, receiving more than $170 billion in subsidies to defray their operating losses. A study looking at the finances of more than 2,000 hospitals concluded that financial losses from Covid-19 were largely offset by government relief in 2020, keeping profit margins largely intact. What is more, says Dr. Ge Bai, a professor who conducted the study with two other academics, profit rose significantly in 2021 as government aid persisted even as non-Covid activity rebounded.

“Contrary to the public perception, the industry benefited from the pandemic,” says Dr. Bai, a professor of health policy at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

For the full commentary, see:

David Wainer. “A Profitable Prognosis.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, November 5, 2022): B12.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date November 4, 2022, and has the title “HEARD ON THE STREET; Hospitals Say They’re Still Ailing From Covid-19. Their Investors Feel Better.”)