As Congress debates the future of health care in America, the focus is on the insurance companies, but they aren’t causing the entire problem. It’s more complex than that.
David Leonhart of the New York Times explains in a column (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/business/economy/08leonhardt.html?partner=rss&emc=rss) why he uses prostate cancer as a benchmark for reform.
Doctors can choose from several treatment options for their patients, from a “watchful waiting” option, which costs very little and is often appropriate, especially for older men; surgery to remove the prostate, which costs under $25,000; targeted radiation, which costs about twice as much as surgery; and proton radiation therapy, which costs about $100,000.
Research is scant, but the first two options are proven to work pretty well, and the two most expensive options aren’t really proven to work any better.
Billions of dollars are spent every year for high-tech solutions that aren’t proven to be any more effective than the lower-tech treatments and diagnostics. Billions more are spent on high-priced drugs that aren’t any more effective than lower-cost ones.
The high-tech and high-end diagnostics, treatments and drugs are necessary for some people, but not for every case. Just because the patient sees an ad on TV and wants the newer drug doesn’t mean it’s appropriate. Most prostate cancer patients don’t need proton radiation therapy.
For a 75-year-old man with early-stage prostate cancer, which likely won’t cause a problem, the money saved by treating him with the lower-tech but appropriate wattchful waiting could pay for a lot of mamograms and colonoscopies.
The system is broken in a lot of places, and one thing won’t fix it all. You can call it rationing care to use best practices in most cases; I call it common sense.
Post a comment