John La Puma, M.D.

The homicide that Jack Kevorkian is charged with committing in September and the videotape that 60 Minutes broadcast around Thanksgiving seemed to elicit barely a ripple of medical reaction. University of Chicago medical ethicist Mark Siegler, M.D., was horrified, as was Linda Emanuel, M.D., the AMA's vice president for ethics. So should we all be. But most of us are not.

Just a month before, Joanne Lynn, M.D., and her colleagues reported in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society that neither patients' preferences nor the seriousness of their illnesses could explain the dramatic geographic disparities in end-of-life care across the country. In some states, patients get a lot more morphine and hospice care than in others.

Are these events — euthanasia and inequitable end-of-life care — related?

I think they are. The link is resources.

Misplaced priorities

Euthanasia is the taking of a patient's life by a physician for illness or mercy. Ill U.S. patients are terrified of dying in pain, alone, in discomfort. That this is so is a failing of modern medicine and shows misplaced priorities, not inhumanity.

The U.S. medical community, though still largely opposed to euthanasia, appears to tolerate it. This is terrible public policy, and yet, it is not that far away.

Inequitable end-of-life care, like outcomes in hysterectomies or coronary artery bypass grafts, is a measurable, correctable problem. On one end of the scale is La Crosse, Wis. A few years ago, its Gundersen Lutheran Medical Center and bioethicist, Bud Hammes, Ph.D., decided to make knowing patient preferences a priority.

In La Crosse, medical officials now know what 82 percent of its adults want near the end of life. Nationwide, between 15 and 25 percent of people have a living will or durable power of attorney for health care. But only a fraction of these forms ever make it to the medical record.

The medical community appears to accept the supply and demand theory of care that John Wennberg, M.D., at Dartmouth promulgated decades ago. This too is terrible public policy, and it is already here.

Less than a month

Hospice is based on estimated life expectancy. Too few patients receive a full six months of Medicare hospice benefits; even fewer take advantage of the little-known six-month renewal.

But most patients last less than a month, and many die within a few days of referral. Why? Many different problems.

Doctors are afraid of losing their patients. Hospice is associated with giving up. No severity-of-need index is available. Hospice providers may be unknown to referring physicians.

And then there are resources. The hard plain truth is that outside of those six months of Medicare hospice, managed care doesn't pay well or easily for end-of-life care. Patients and families are often devastated by the cost of terminal illness. Currently, the care that is available is the care delivered.

If hospital beds and hospital treatment are what is available, then that's what patients will get.

Confronting death

As we baby boomers age and are confronted with our mortality, perhaps we will begin to grapple with the cost of managing death. Perhaps it will not be only disabled ALS patients gasping for air on CBS. Perhaps patients who are disabled, but whose wishes are not quite audible, will also be dispatched. Will their muffled breaths also make it to network television?

I hope they never do, because I hope we show more compassion towards our most vulnerable patients than Kevorkian does. But right now, he's the angel of death, because at least he is willing to sit and listen to people when they say they are in pain and want to die. Most practicing licensed physicians do not sit and listen.

Hit the road, Jack

We can do better. There is more money that is available for end-of-life care research and education now than there has ever been. The Soros Foundation has given millions. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is in the tens of millions. Well-intended, skilled hospice organizations are everywhere. Whole, excellent journals are now devoted to palliative medicine, and medical seminars on communication near the end of life are often filled.

End-of-life care initiatives now assume that patients, armed with autonomy and medical information, can and will make better choices and control their treatment and care while dying. Not so. Unless they go to Kevorkian.

We have a systemic quality problem that cannot be fixed with flow charts and rules. What the system needs, desperately, is doctors who are not penalized for doing the right thing. Spending time with patients should be rewarded and required.

Financial incentives, local resources and medical-practice styles must adjust to meet dying patients. Unless physicians form teams with other professionals, and focus on communication skills first and foremost, neither patient preferences nor illness will be most important at the end of life. Resources will.

That's the wrong message to send to patients, dying or not. The values of business should never replace the values of the profession. It's all we have.

End-of-life help online

Here are top resources and their internet locations for anyone in managed care committed to building or improving an organization's end-of-life program and avoiding euthanasia:

John La Puma, M.D., is a Chicago-based internist and author of Managed Care Ethics: Essays on the Impact of Managed Care on Traditional Medical Ethics (Hatherleigh, New York, 1998). He practices at Alexian Brothers Medical Center in Elk Grove Village, Ill.

Managed Care’s Top Ten Articles of 2016

There’s a lot more going on in health care than mergers (Aetna-Humana, Anthem-Cigna) creating huge players. Hundreds of insurers operate in 50 different states. Self-insured employers, ACA public exchanges, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care plans crowd an increasingly complex market.

Major health care players are determined to make health information exchanges (HIEs) work. The push toward value-based payment alone almost guarantees that HIEs will be tweaked, poked, prodded, and overhauled until they deliver on their promise. The goal: straight talk from and among tech systems.

They bring a different mindset. They’re willing to work in teams and focus on the sort of evidence-based medicine that can guide health care’s transformation into a system based on value. One question: How well will this new generation of data-driven MDs deal with patients?

The surge of new MS treatments have been for the relapsing-remitting form of the disease. There’s hope for sufferers of a different form of MS. By homing in on CD20-positive B cells, ocrelizumab is able to knock them out and other aberrant B cells circulating in the bloodstream.

A flood of tests have insurers ramping up prior authorization and utilization review. Information overload is a problem. As doctors struggle to keep up, health plans need to get ahead of the development of the technology in order to successfully manage genetic testing appropriately.

Having the data is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Applying its computational power to the data, a company called RowdMap puts providers into high-, medium-, and low-value buckets compared with peers in their markets, using specific benchmarks to show why outliers differ from the norm.
Competition among manufacturers, industry consolidation, and capitalization on me-too drugs are cranking up generic and branded drug prices. This increase has compelled PBMs, health plan sponsors, and retail pharmacies to find novel ways to turn a profit, often at the expense of the consumer.
The development of recombinant DNA and other technologies has added a new dimension to care. These medications have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other 80 or so autoimmune diseases. But they can be budget busters and have a tricky side effect profile.

Shelley Slade
Vogel, Slade & Goldstein

Hub programs have emerged as a profitable new line of business in the sales and distribution side of the pharmaceutical industry that has got more than its fair share of wheeling and dealing. But they spell trouble if they spark collusion, threaten patients, or waste federal dollars.

More companies are self-insuring—and it’s not just large employers that are striking out on their own. The percentage of employers who fully self-insure increased by 44% in 1999 to 63% in 2015. Self-insurance may give employers more control over benefit packages, and stop-loss protects them against uncapped liability.