Take medical uncertainty.
Add financial incentive to treat.
Voila! Increased utilization.
Now take away financial incentive to treat. Guess what you get?
MedPageToday explains in the case of hormone therapy for prostate cancer:
Medicare accomplished what clinical guidelines and evidence-based medicine couldn’t: it reduced unnecessary use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in prostate cancer.
Inappropriate use decreased by almost 30% from 2003 to 2005, following enactment of the Medicare Modernization Act, which lowered physician reimbursement for ADT. Appropriate use of ADT did not change during the same time period, according to an article in the Nov. 4 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
“Our findings suggest that reductions in reimbursement may influence the delivery of care in a potentially beneficial way, with even the modest [reimbursement] changes in 2004 associated with a substantial decrease in the use of inappropriate therapy,” Vahakn B. Shahinian, MD, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and co-authors wrote in conclusion.
“The corollary is that reimbursement policies should be carefully considered to avoid providing incentives for care for which no clear benefit has been established. The extreme profitability of the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists during the 1990s probably contributed to the rapid growth in the use of ADT for indications that were not evidence-based.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Gregory D. Pawelski
November 4, 2010 at 12:33 pmI first became aware of the chemotherapy concession in 2000 when the Clinton administration was attempting to change Medicare reimbursement practices. NYT’s Reed Abelson wrote about it in January 2003 that brought it to my attention again. I found out the this issue (i.e. physicians having a financial incentive to select certain forms of treatment over others because they received higher reimbursement) was first raised in official, recorded testimony at a Medicare Executive Committee meeting in Baltimore in March, 2000.
There was a gastroenterologist in attendance who complained that Medicare had cut his reimbursement for colonoscopies from $400 to $108 and how all the doctors in his large, multi-specialty internal medicine group were hurting, save for two medical oncologists, whom he said were making a killing running their in-office retail pharmacies.
It apparently was finally receiving some public scrutiny. CMS was going to force steep reductions in Medicare drug reimbursement to physicians for chemotherapy infusion procedures. That triggered Congress to act with pressure from cancer doctors. What resulted was the introduction of the “The Quality Cancer Care Preservation Act of 2003.” It would increase Medicare reimbursement for practice expenses while reimbursing chemotherapy drugs at rates closer to cost.
The concept of having a system which rewards doctors for giving chemotherapy, and doesn’t reward them for spending a half hour talking to a patient to explain why chemotherapy wouldn’t help is a bad system. But money will always corrupt. And the chemotherapy reimbursement system was corrupting. A bad system that created bad incentives that creates bad medicine.
I would imagine that some are influenced by the whole state of affairs, possibly without even entirely admitting it. Social science research shows that people can be biased by self-interest without being aware of it. There are so many ways for humans to rationalize their behavior.
Caleb
November 4, 2010 at 2:23 pmMy dad has protate cancer, and I think it’s absolutely appalling that doctors sell unnecessary drugs to patients for their own gain.
Glenn Laffel, MD, PhD
November 11, 2010 at 7:59 pmThe “Man bites Dog” angle on this story is that inappropriate use of medical castration therapy was reduced by only 25% as a consequence of the reimbursement shift. There were still very high rates of inappropriate use after the cuts!
Go figure. Maybe the offending docs should be asked to swallow a bit of their own medicine?
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like