High Costs (and Profits) of Prescription Drugs Make Me Sick

This is my latest post on the AAFP’s Fresh Perspectives Blog. You can also check out my recent Scope Radio podcast on this topic with Erin Fox, PharmD.

169346_600

Reggie is a spunky, 38-year-old patient of mine who makes my clinic day more enjoyable. His collection of chronic health problems — including type 2 diabetes, near-complete hearing loss, bipolar disorder, active hepatitis C from prior IV drug use with no current liver fibrosis and chronic migraines — certainly make life more difficult for him, making his buoyant personality all the more remarkable.

Reggie and I have been working on these conditions since I started practice a few years ago — well, except for the hepatitis C, even though he does have a treatable strain. Because many of his other conditions would likely be significantly worsened by the standard treatment regimen of interferon and ribavirin, he has never been a good candidate for therapy.

Likely every family physician has stories like this, whether about patients with hepatitis C or other conditions requiring expensive medications. If every person in Utah afflicted with active hepatitis C disease were to receive treatment with Sovaldi, it would consume the entire Medicaid budget for my state. The average cost of medications for complicated conditions such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis is now higher than the median household income in the United States. So it’s no surprise that rising prescription drug costs are now the biggest health care concern for the general public.

After years of ignoring the problem (and, in some cases, contributing to it), politicians and policymakers have started discussing the crisis. HHS recently hosted a summit on prescription drug prices. Presidential candidates have weighed in on the topic in their stump speeches and debates. A Senate committee recently grilled President Obama’s nominee to head the FDA on this issue. All this may or may not lead to change, but at least the issue is reaching a national level of discourse.

imrs

But what has led to exorbitant price increases in medications? Why do Americans pay so much more for the exact same medications than do patients in other countries? There are multiple likely culprits:

  • Price of innovation — It simply costs money to come up with new, effective medications, but how much is “reasonable” for a company to spend on research and development of new drugs is a controversial question. Many think that the investment drug companies claim to make in R&D is an excuse to reap higher profits, whereas others argue it is simply the cost of doing business.You can imagine my excitement when many new treatment regimens with considerably fewer side effects began receiving FDA approval, beginning with sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) and simeprevir (Olysio) in 2013. I began coordinating with a hepatologist at that point to get Reggie the care he needed, but we quickly discovered that none of these regimens would be approved for him because of the exorbitant cost, reportedly more than $84,000 for a 12-week treatment course. Reggie is covered by both Medicaid and Medicare, but neither payer would cover the cost because, ironically, his disease had not yet progressed far enough.
  • Direct-to-consumer advertising — The FDA loosened regulations on advertising pharmaceutical products directly to patients in 1999. There has been a significant increase in drug prices since that time, but it is unknown if the agency’s action was the cause. The AMA recently came out against this practice as have many patient advocacy groups, and the AAFP says direct-to-consumer ads should not mention prescription drugs by name.DTC ads
  • Patent laws — Many laws passed during the past two or three decades have lengthened the life of pharmaceutical patents. This keeps generic medications from coming to market until much later, allowing the developing company a larger profit on its product. And 27 percent of generic medications increased in price in 2013, including the long-time generic medications doxycycline and pravastatin. Because of this, it is unclear if changing patent laws would significantly decrease prices. Nevertheless, the higher prices of brand name drugs remain under the purview of the pharmaceutical company for many years.
  • Changing insurance market — The long-term trend in health insurance is leading to more out-of-pocket costs, including those for medications. Patients may be simply more aware now of the high costs of medication.
  • Medicare restrictions on price negotiations — Medicare is prohibited from directly negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies, leading to significantly higher prices compared with those of national systems in countries that do negotiate prices. Correcting this is one of the most widely discussed potential solutions, likely because it is in direct control of the federal government, and because the bulk buying power of Medicare could significantly alter drug costs in the United States. For these reasons, it is my opinion that this is the most likely first step to be taken in addressing the problem.drug prices
  • Reimportation ban — It is illegal to reimport medications from other countries for cheaper sale. Many Americans do travel elsewhere, particularly to Canada, to buy prescription drugs, but opponents claim that raises potential safety issues. Whether that is a significant concern or not, the limited supply of medications in other countries makes reimportation an unrealistic solution on a broad scale.

So what about Reggie and treatment for his hepatitis C? I have tried multiple avenues, but there is likely no hope for getting any appropriate regimen covered for him at this time. There is a limit to what I can do for my patients. Many pharmaceutical companies offer rebate or discount programs for medications, and occasionally, direct appeals to insurance companies (beyond prior authorizations) can be successful, but there is no easy fix to this problem.

Considering the immense power of the pharmaceutical lobby, the solution may need to come from patients up, instead of from the government down.

What the New York Mets Can Teach You About Talking to Your Doctor

 

mets

At the end of the 2013 Major League Baseball (MLB) season, the New York Mets, Chicago Cubs, and Toronto Blue Jays all had losing records. They were all in the bottom 1/3 of all MLB teams that year. The Cubs and Blue Jays finished last in their respective divisions, and the Mets finished right in the middle of theirs. The Kansas City Royals finished 3rd in their own division despite winning 53% of their games. The Cubs and Mets were still lost more than half of their games in 2014. Some of these teams had hope for the near future, but if you had told MLB officials that the final 4 teams in the 2015 playoffs would be Toronto against Kansas City, and Chicago against New York, they wouldn’t have believed you on ANY of those teams.

Even as recently as the start of this season, almost nobody picked any of these teams (even 2014 playoff darling Kansas City) to make the playoffs, let alone be on the doorstep to the World Series. Forty-two percent of ESPN’s “experts” picked the Washington Nationals to win it all, with the Seattle Mariners being the most popular choice to play them in the World Series, and neither team even made the playoffs! The results were very similar among the writers at Fan Graphs and Baseball Prospectus.

These are smart people who watch and analyze baseball every day, and yet nearly every single one of them missed these picks. Why? How could so many individual, competent professionals, and even our best computer prediction models, been so far off?

The answer has to do mainly with probability. While the possibility was recognized, the odds were against any of these teams making the playoffs. Many of these teams achieved what was only about a 5% chance for success. If this exact season was played 100 times, this would only happen in around 5 of those seasons, for each individual team. But this is the season that was played, and this is the season where hope overcame doubt. As they say, that’s why we play the games.

***

Physicians are taught to think in this probabilistic way. When a patient begins telling a doctor her/his symptoms, we immediately start to formulate differential diagnoses, or all of the possible things that could be causing the problem. We listen and ask for things that will guide our thinking of the differential to shorten the list. We then create relative probabilities of what the most likely issue is, though not in specific numbers.

For example, if a person tells us that they have abdominal pain, then we begin to think of the 100+ possible problems. If it hurts in their upper abdomen that could mean a whole slew of different things then if the pain is lower. So we ask, and prod, and examine, and use all of the available information that we have to establish the most likely diagnosis. Sometimes this requires lab or imaging studies, mainly when there are multiple possibilities that are equally likely after hearing the story and examining the patient. Tests will also follow commonly if a serious diagnosis is a strong possibility, even if it is less likely than the most apt diagnosis. So while we recognize pancreatic cancer as a potential cause of their abdominal pain, it is rarely the most likely.

But bad things, such as pancreatic cancer, DO happen, even when they are improbable. So how might one differentiate between pain from a viral gastroenteritis (stomach bug) and cancer? Usually by trial and error. We do the tests or try treatments and if the patient doesn’t respond, then we start checking things off of our list and looking at the next most likely.

Most people do not think like this. People are mainly driven by stories as opposed to mathematics. This is human nature; probabilities are abstract and not always well understood, whereas experiences and stories make sense to us. It is not uncommon for a patient to come see their primary care physician with a preconceived notion of what is wrong that does not fit the probabilistically-trained physician. This can often lead to patient dissatisfaction and frustration. “I have some abdominal pain and have been a little constipated. My cousin had these same symptoms and it turned out that she had colon cancer.” It’s possible the doctor will roll his/her eyes at this notion, not because it’s impossible that colon cancer could be causing the problem, but because there are other reasons that are much more likely to produce this ailment.

The trick is then for patients and physicians to work together to figure out the best approach. Maybe simple explanation of why each of them are thinking the way they do is enough, or possibly starting treatment for the most likely cause with close follow up. But it is important for both patients and physicians to not judge one another based on the eventual outcome.

 

“Boy, I saw the stupidest patient who was convinced that she had colon cancer merely because she was constipated! But she doesn’t drink water or eat any fiber, so why in the world would she think its cancer?!?”

“That doctor I saw for this pain was a moron! He told me to change my diet and gave me a laxative, and completely missed my cancer diagnosis.”

 

surgery-cartoon

 

It’s this disparate thinking that is the biggest underlying reason for malpractice suits. We all come from different backgrounds with different experiences and different ways of approaching problems. Just because you do it differently from me doesn’t make you stupid. But the lack of recognition and communication of this problem is a big driver of over-testing when it’s unnecessary. Most physicians and patients accept the other person’s point of view once proper communication takes place. Being open lessens the diagnostic errors, as well as decreases unneeded and potentially dangerous procedures, tests, and treatments.

So are all of those baseball prognosticators idiots? Maybe, but it’s not because of their playoff picks. They evaluated all of the information at their disposal, figured what would be the most likely outcome, and picked accordingly. Even though almost none of them were correct, they can hardly be faulted for why they chose the teams that they did. So it is in medicine. Physicians will be wrong. Patients will be wrong. That’s how it works when you play the percentages. We just need to remember that impossible and improbable are not the same thing.

How Jet Engines Impact Health Care

I have never met a person who has been sucked into a jet engine. Why, you may ask? BECAUSE YOU DON’T SURVIVE SUCH AN ACCIDENT! Okay, one gentleman did actually survive, but he is the only one known after much research (mainly performed by others). I would like to believe that this is a rare occurrence, but it appears that no one knows how common it is. Most of these occur on aircraft carriers, and the military is (understandably) not eager to share this information. So why do I bring this up? Because it represents the ludicrous direction of medicine that is occurring despite the outcry of many physicians and organizations.

The 10th iteration of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, also known as ICD-10, launches today. This offers completely different and more unambiguous labeling of an individual’s diagnoses by increasing the amount of diagnosis codes (or clinical “labels”) by over 4 times. From a clinical perspective, it makes great sense to have greater specificity in understanding the problems patients have. From a billing perspective, this offers opportunities to better define how “sick” the population is that you care for. It stands to reason that the unhealthier your patient population is, the more you should be reimbursed for your care of that population. But many of these go well beyond quality health care, including a diagnosis code for the sequela of Being Sucked Into a Jet Engine.

Listed below are some of my favorite ridiculous diagnosis codes that the health industry has spent multiple millions of dollars (maybe even billions) to implement. We all will indirectly pay to allow the opportunity to be diagnosed with implementation of all these crazy diagnoses. It almost makes you wish that you would be sucked into a jet engine.

 

Bizarre ICD-10 Codes (alphabetically):

Image result for icd 10

Accidental striking against or bumped into by another person, sequela (W51.XXXA)

Accident while knitting or crocheting (Y93.D1)

Activities involved arts and handicrafts (Y93.D)

Art gallery as the place of occurrence of the external cause (Y92.250)

Asphyxiation due to being trapped in a discarded refrigerator, accidental (T71.231D)

Bitten by pig (W55.41XA)

Bitten by sea lion (W56.11)

Bizarre personal appearance (R46.1)

Burn due to water skis on fire (V91.07) (this is probably my favorite)

Hit or struck by falling object due to accident by canoe or kayak (V91.35)

Hurt at the library (Y92.241)

Hurt at the opera (Y92.253)

Other contact with cow (W55.29XA)

Other contact with dolphin (W56.09XA)

Other superficial bite of other specified part of neck (S10.87XA)

Pecked by a chicken (W61.33)

Pedestrian on foot injured in collision with other non-motor vehicle in non-traffic accident (V06.00XA)

Pedestrian on foot injured in collision with roller skater (V00.01)

Problems in relationships with in-laws (Z63.1)

Prolonged stay in weightless environment (X52)

Sucked into jet engine (V97.33)

Swimming pool of prison as the place of occurrence of the external cause (Y92.146)

Unspecified balloon accident injuring occupant (V96.00)

Unspecified spacecraft accident injuring occupant (V95.40)

Walked into lamppost (W220.2XD)

 

Which one is your favorite?