Medical Economics (and Politics)
E. Wojtys
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1941738111401347
2011-03-01
Sports Health
Abstract:Get ready! The landscape in medicine is probably going to change rapidly. The starting bell rang in December 2010 in Washington, DC, with very little fanfare when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned doctors from prescribing Avastin to patients with advanced-stage breast cancer.1 Avastin, a potent but costly drug, has worked in some clinical trials by halting the spread of cancer and giving women another treatment option. The chief side effects include bleeding and hypertension, which appear to be manageable. The FDA stated that there was not “sufficient” benefit to balance Avastin’s risk. Interestingly, they didn’t claim that it didn’t work, just that it wasn’t good enough. I wonder how many women with end-stage breast cancer, or their families for that matter, would agree? It appears that the FDA made an economic decision—not a medical one. If Avastin were cheap, it probably would have been approved. Unfortunately, it is not; therefore, patients and their families were denied a treatment option. It certainly looks like a rationing decision. The FDA and other government agencies appear to be looking past safety and efficacy to cost-benefit ratios. It’s reasonable to examine these ratios, but it appears that this process has been taken out of the hands of patients and their physicians.
We may see this type of cost-benefit decision making even more frequently now that Congress has shifted its responsibility for many medical issues to the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).2 This unelected 15-member group, appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, has responsibility for controlling costs, starting with Medicare. Medicare spending will be capped starting in 2015. The cap level of spending will be determined by inflation in the general economy and in health care. In 2018, the upper limit will be set by the Gross Domestic Product Growth Index. Since this system will soon be implemented, it is timely and important to take a look at the politics involved. Realize that if Congress approves this board’s cost-controlling recommendations and the President signs them, they go into effect. If Congress does not want to deal with a sensitive or difficult issue and chooses not to vote on it, it stills go into effect. Worst of all, if Congress disagrees with the board’s recommendation but the President supports it and Congress cannot generate a two-thirds majority to override it, then the recommendation still goes into effect. This may lead to tighter control by unelected officials that can override the will of the people as expressed through the Congress.
These developments open the door wide for medical care rationing, which is something that sports medicine practitioners should be concerned about. After all, our practices do not deal with life-threatening issues. Some might view our work as nonessential. Sports medicine is about quality of life, which, we believe, is essential. The primary concern is, who will be deciding what is essential and/or cost-effective? Who will be judging quality? Well, for Medicare, which is where many medical trends adapted by third-party payers originate, it will be the IPAB. As anticipated, if the federal government does take further control of our health care system, the IPAB will probably play an even greater role beyond Medicare. This is why there should be genuine concern about the IPAB beyond the recent publicity generated about its “death panel” role. We should pay close attention to the 15 appointees of the IPAB.3
From a broader perspective, the lack of congressional oversight of the IPAB is troubling; this is truly an empowered independent board. The President and a two-thirds majority of Congress are the only means to halt the recommendations of this select group. Of much higher concern is that this board cannot currently be dismantled through any legislation—no matter how badly it performs—because of how the Affordable Healthcare Act was written. This setup, no doubt, raises serious constitutional issues, which will be challenged in court. Certainly, it does not provide for a check-and-balance system or balance of power.
As most of us know, there is plenty of room in medicine today for health care reform. Unfortunately, these current policy shifts do not address the inefficiencies and problems that we know could and should be addressed. Of great concern are the apparent loss of individual rights and the decimation of the patient-physician relationship in medical decision making in the name of the need for cost controls. With private insurance today, if your insurer denies coverage for a procedure, it’s at least based on the contract that medical consumers or their employers agreed to in some way or another. If the denial is not acceptable to the consumer, she or he can pursue other options, companies, and arrangements to some extent. With the proposed IPAB mandate, there will be no appeals, negotiations, or other options.
As a sports medicine specialist, I am deeply concerned about these developments. Our clinical care could see drastic changes soon. Cost control may soon be the lone deciding factor for patients, physicians, and hospitals. Not that we can, or should, ignore the realities of medical economics, but it should be a balanced approach using many important factors, including cost. We must make every effort to pursue validated outcome measures for those services that we provide. Our ability to justify the quality of life measures that we provide may be critical in the very near future.