WaPo on Industry Influence of Clinical Trials

By Christopher Robertson

The Washington Post has an extensive story about the drug and device industry’s influence on the outcomes of clinical trials, which are published in leading medical journals and which then shape the prescribing decisions of physicians everywhere.  Below the fold, I share some of my own thinking on this issue, and link to some of my relevant publications.   Continue reading

The Readmission Penalty Begins to Bite

By Nicolas Terry

As is well known ACA § 3025 (§1886(q) Social Security Act) established the Hospital Readmissions Reduction program. This is operationalized through deductions built into the Hospital IPPS (Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems) Rule which sets the Medicare reimbursement amounts, here. The excess readmissions ratio initially only applies to readmissions based on MI, Heart Failure, and Pneumonia. Initially the maximum deduction is 1% but that rises to 2% in October 2013 and 3% in October 2015.

A parallel program for Medicaid designed to reduce hospital-acquired infections was introduced in the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act, here. However, Lee and colleagues, here, found no change in infection rates. Nevertheless, the dollars associated with readmissions reduction may give that program greater traction.

Jordan Rau in the New York Times, here, notes that 307 hospitals are already facing the maximum reduction involving many millions of dollars. Not surprisingly some hospitals view the penalties as a distraction while others blame their patients for everything from their level of sickness and poverty to non-compliance. Overall, however, Rau’s article and Amy Boutwell’s recent post at Health Affairs, here, suggest that CMS is succeeding in getting the industry’s attention.

The Ethics of Bike Shares: Some Tough Distributive Justice Questions about Helmets, Fatalities, and Obesity/Heart Disease

Boston recently followed many other world cities in implementing a bike share program. As the New York Times recently reported, North American cities face a dilemma: if the European experience is any guide, for bike shares to take off the city must do away with the helmet requirement. That turns out to be not a health versus leisure trade-off, but a complex health vs. health trade-off. As the New York Times puts it:

In the United States the notion that bike helmets promote health and safety by preventing head injuries is taken as pretty near God’s truth. Un-helmeted cyclists are regarded as irresponsible, like people who smoke. Cities are aggressive in helmet promotion. But many European health experts have taken a very different view: Yes, there are studies that show that if you fall off a bicycle at a certain speed and hit your head, a helmet can reduce your risk of serious head injury. But such falls off bikes are rare — exceedingly so in mature urban cycling systems. On the other hand, many researchers say, if you force or pressure people to wear helmets, you discourage them from riding bicycles. That means more obesity, heart disease and diabetes. And — Catch-22 — a result is fewer ordinary cyclists on the road, which makes it harder to develop a safe bicycling network.

Suppose hypothetically we came to the conclusion that more life years would be lost to obesity/heart disease related injuries from forbidding helmet laws than would be saved from putting helmets in place, would that justify doing away with our helmet laws? Does it matter that the injuries cause immediate death/injury in the un-helmeted case but are gradual to accumulate as to obesity and heart disease in the helmet case? That might in turn depend on whether we believe in the “rule of rescue” and whether we think of it as merely a rule about allocating aid versus preventing harm in the first place. If most bicyclists who are injured are younger, given the typical profile of the city biker, is there a dimension of age-weighting that might be relevant. Or, in fact, given that those who do not use bikes now due to the helmet laws will be older when they suffer from obesity/heart disease give us a reason to think age-weighting is inappropriate in this domain. This is somewhat similar to the arguments offered in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) context, that unlike Title VII or the ADA we will ALL (if things go well) eventually be old, so protection for the old benefits everyone. However, those who get hit by cars without helmets will likely die young. Finally, what role for choice, responsibility, resistance to the nanny state, etc?