One Way of Controlling Healthcare Costs?

The NHS should not always attempt to save someone’s life if the cost is too much, the medical regulator has ruled

By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Guidelines (Nice) has ruled for the first time that saving a life cannot be justified at any cost, in a review of its ethical guidelines.

The ruling - made by the board of the controversial organisation - contradicts advice it received from its own ‘Citizens Council’ which offers advice from a representative sample of the general public.

Nice is facing growing criticism over the number of drugs it is now rejecting which are available throughout Europe and in America. Last week, it refused to sanction four kidney cancer drugs which can double life expectancy.

It has now rejected the so-called “rule of rescue” which stipulates that people facing death should be treated regardless of the costs. The rule is based on the natural impulse to aid individuals in trouble.

In a report on “social values judgement” the regulator says: “There is a powerful human impulse, known as the ‘rule of rescue’, to attempt to help an identifiable person whose life is in danger, no matter how much it costs. When there are limited resources for healthcare, applying the ‘rule of rescue’ may mean that other people will not be able to have the care or treatment they need.

“Nice recognises that when it is making its decisions it should consider the needs of present and future patients of the NHS who are anonymous and who do not necessarily have people to argue their case on their behalf…The Institute has not therefore adopted an additional ‘rule of rescue’.”

The ruling contradicts the advice of Nice’s Citizens Council, which said that a rule of rescue was an essential mark of a humane society. The report said that where individuals are in “desperate and exceptional circumstances” they should sometimes receive greater help than can be justified by a “purely utilitarian approach”.

Doctors have also criticised the ruling. Tony Calland, chairman of the ethics committee of the British Medical Association, said: “We would be opposed to ignoring a rule of rescue when it introduces a degree of flexibility around extreme cases. So what if you waste a few pounds if you are doing your best for humanity?”

Nice defended its ruling last night saying that the Citizens Council provided useful input to its decisions but that the organisation’s role was to determine how best to allocate the health service’s limited resources.

Nice is facing increasing accusations that it is giving undue weight to financial considerations - rather than medical benefits - when making decisions on whether to allow drugs or other treatments on the NHS. Doctors and patients have alleged that they are treated with contempt by the organisation and that life-saving drugs are being unfairly denied.

The Daily Telegraph disclosed yesterday that Nice is preparing to offer patients advice on the medical benefits of drugs that are not available on the NHS. The disclosure is likely to anger patients who face paying tens of thousands of pounds for expensive drugs which may prolong their lives.

 

Multiple Deployments Raise Mental Health Risk

Research Shows Return Trips to Battle Increase Troops’ Alcholism, Suicide Risks

By MARILYN ELIAS
USA TODAY
Aug. 15, 2008—

Multiple combat deployments to Iraq are increasing serious mental health problems among soldiers, triggering drug and alcohol abuse and contributing to record suicide levels, suggest reports out Thursday at the American Psychological Association meeting in Boston.

In a typical unit headed to Iraq, 60 percent are on their second, third or fourth deployment, lasting about a year each, says U.S. Army Col. Carl Castro, who directs a medical research program at Fort Detrick, Md.

More time in Iraq means heavier exposure to violence, which leads more soldiers to develop symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression, Castro told the psychology meeting. By their third tour to Iraq, more than a quarter of soldiers show signs of mental problems, such as PTSD, and it’s about 1 out of 3 for those exposed to heavy combat, according to a U.S. Army Surgeon General report in March on more than 2,000 soldiers.

In another report at the meeting, deployment correlated with more heavy drinking and illegal drug use, according to anonymous questionnaires given to about 34,000 active duty troops, Reservists and National Guard members. Deployed Reserve troops had the highest traumatic stress symptoms and rates of “seriously considering suicide,” according to the Defense Department-funded study by RTI International, Research Triangle Park, N.C.

National Guard and Reservists sent to Iraq and Afghanistan are disproportionately represented in returning veteran suicides, according to a Departmentof Veterans Affairs analysis. There were 115 Army suicides and 935 reported attempts in 2007, a record high, show Army reports.

“There are concerns about the reserves,” says Lynn Pahland, a health promotion policy director in the Defense Department. But the military is increasing efforts to prevent, identify and treat troubled troops,she adds.

At a crisis hotline for veterans, about 75 percent of the 400 calls a weekcome from Reserve and National Guard troops or their families, says Shad Meshad, president of the National Veterans Foundation (1-888-777-4443), which runs the line. “Many have been sent back three or four times,” he says.

On Wednesday, a Texas Reservist going to Iraq for the fourth time called “in a hysterical state” because his house is being foreclosed on, and his wife is taking the kids and leaving him. Says Meshad: “We’re just trying to help him out with the financial stuff and keep him from hurting himself.”

Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon

Terminally Ill Denied Drugs for Life, But Can Opt for Suicide

By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES
Aug. 6, 2008 —

The news from Barbara Wagner’s doctor was bad, but the rejection letter from her insurance company was crushing.

The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.

What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50.

“It was horrible,” Wagner told ABCNews.com. “I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won’t give you the medication to live.”

Critics of Oregon’s decade-old Death With Dignity Law — the only one of its kind in the nation — have been up in arms over the indignity of her unsigned rejection letter. Even those who support Oregon’s liberal law were upset.

The incident has spilled over the state border into Washington, where advocacy groups are pushing for enactment of Initiative 1000 in November, legalizing a similar assisted-death law.

Opponents say the law presents all involved with an “unacceptable conflict” and the impression that insurance companies see dying as a cost-saving measure. They say it steers those with limited finances toward assisted death.

“News of payment denial is tough enough for a terminally ill person to bear,” said Steve Hopcraft, a spokesman for Compassion and Choices, a group that supports coverage of physician-assisted death.

Letter’s Impact ‘Devastating’
“Imagine if the recipient had pinned his hope for survival on an unproven treatment, or if this were the first time he understood the disease had entered the terminal phase. The impact of such a letter would be devastating,” he told ABCNews.com.

Wagner, who had worked as a home health care worker, a waitress and a school bus driver, is divorced and lives in a low-income apartment. She said she could not afford to pay for the medication herself.

“I’m not too good today,” said Wagner, a Springfield great-grandmother. “But I’m opposed to the [assisted suicide] law. I haven’t considered it, even at my lowest point.”

A lifelong smoker, she was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2005 and quit. The state-run Oregon Health Plan generously paid for thousands of dollars worth of chemotherapy, radiation, a special bed and a wheelchair, according to Wagner.

The cancer went into remission, but in May, Wagner found it had returned. Her oncologist prescribed the drug Tarceva to slow its growth, giving her another four to six months to live.

But under the insurance plan, she can the only receive “palliative” or comfort care, because the drug does not meet the “five-year, 5 percent rule” — that is, a 5 percent survival rate after five years.

A 2005 New England Journal of Medicine study found the drug erlotinib, marketed as Tarceva, does marginally improve survival for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who had completed standard chemotherapy.

The median survival among patients who took erlotinib was 6.7 months compared to 4.7 months for those on placebo. At one year, 31 percent of the patients taking erlotinib were still alive compared to 22 percent of those taking the placebo.

“It’s been tough,” said her daughter, Susie May, who burst into tears while talking to ABCNews.com. “I was the first person my mom called when she got the letter,” said May, 42. “While I was telling her, ‘Mom, it will be ok,’ I was crying, but trying to stay brave for her.”

“I’ve talked to so many people who have gone through the same problems with the Oregon Health Plan,” she said.

Indeed, Randy Stroup, a 53-year-old Dexter resident with terminal prostate cancer, learned recently that his doctor’s request for the drug mitoxantrone had been rejected. The treatment, while not a cure, could ease Stroup’s pain and extend his life by six months.

Playing With ‘My Life’
“What is six months of life worth?” he asked in a report in the Eugene Register-Guard. “To me it’s worth a lot. This is my life they’re playing with.”

The Oregon Health Plan was established in 1994 and the physician-assisted death law was enacted in 1997. The state was recently hailed by a University of Wisconsin study as having one of the nation’s top pain-management policies.

The health plan, for those whose incomes fall under the poverty level, prioritizes coverage — from prevention first, to chronic disease management, treatment of mental health, heart and cancer treatment.

“It’s challenging because health care is very expensive, but that’s not the real essence of our priority list,” said Dr. Jeanene Smith, administrator for the Office of for Oregon’s Health Policy and Research staff.

“We need evidence to say it is a good use of taxpayer’s dollars,” she said. “It may be expensive, but if it does wonders, we cover it.”

The state also regularly evaluates and updates approvals for cancer treatments. “We look as exhaustively as we can with good peer review evidence,” she said.

The health plan takes “no position” on the physician-assisted suicide law, according to spokesman Jim Sellers.

The terminally ill who qualify can receive pain medication, comfort and hospice care, “no matter what the cost,” he said.

But Sellers acknowledged the letter to Wagner was a public relations blunder and something the state is “working on.”

“Now we have to review to ensure sensitivity and clarity,” Sellers told ABCNews.com “Not only is the patient receiving had news, but insensitivity on top of that. This is something that requires the human touch.”

Sellers said that from now on insurance officials will likely “pick up the phone and have a conversation,” he said.

But a 1998 study from Georgetown University’s Center for Clinical Bioethics found a strong link between cost-cutting pressures on physicians and their willingness to prescribe lethal drugs to patients — were it legal to do so.

The study warns that there must be “a sobering degree of caution in legalizing [assisted death] in a medical care environment that is characterized by increasing pressure on physicians to control the cost of care.”

Cancer drugs can cost anywhere from $3,000 to $6,000 a month. The cost of lethal medication, on the other hand, is about $35 to $50.

Advocates for the proposed Washington law say that while offering death benefits but not health care can be perceived as a cost-cutting, “respectable studies” say otherwise.

“The reason is that hospice care, where most patients are at the end of life is relatively inexpensive,” Anne Martens, spokesman for Washington’s Death With Dignity Initiative, told ABCNews.com.

But even those who support liberal death laws say Wagner’s predicament is reflective of insurance attitudes nationwide.

Case Is Not Unique
“Her case is hardly unique,” said Michigan lawyer Geoffrey Fieger, who defended Dr. Jack Kevorkian’s crusade to legalize physician-assisted deaths. “In the rest of the country insurance companies are making these decisions and are not paying for suicide,” Fieger told ABCNews.com. “Involuntary choices are foisted on people all the time by virtue of denials.”

“I am surprised there hasn’t been a revolt in this country,” he said. “It happens every day and people are helpless.”

Indeed, one executive suffering from a rare and potentially fatal form of liver cancer is fighting his insurance company for coverage. Oncologists from a major teaching hospital in New York City have prescribed Sutent — a medication that costs about $4,000 a month and could extend his life expectancy.

“Most of my objections are that some second rate guy on the staff of the insurance company is second-guessing one of the foremost authorities and trumping his judgment,” said the 57-year-old executive, who didn’t want his name used to protect his privacy.

“I am fortunate to have the financial resources and the ability to fight these people who would rather these you die,” he told ABCNews.com.

Dr. Jonathan Groner, clinical professor of surgery at OSU College of Medicine and Public Health in Columbus, Ohio, said some patients may want to prolong their lives for a life-cycle event, like a birth or wedding.

“A course of chemo would not cure, but would subdue the cancer long enough to be meaningful,” he told ABCNEWS.com. “There are many people with slow-growing but nonetheless metastatic cancer for whom death, while inevitable, is many years away.”

“The problem with the Oregon plan is it sounds like administrators, not physicians, are making treatment decisions,” he said. “And if a patient can get assisted death paid for but not cancer treatment, the choice is obvious.”

Derek Humphry, founder of the Hemlock Society and author of “Final Exit,” who helped write the Oregon Death With Dignity Law, said only about 30 people a year choose an assisted death, which must be approved by two doctors.

“It’s purely optional and the patient and doctor can walk away from it,” the 78-year-old told ABCNEWS.com. “It’s not the mad rush our enemies predicted and for our residents it has worked out well.”

His own wife, Jean, was diagnosed with fast-growing breast cancer in 1975 and asked him to help find drugs to help her die. At 42, she chose to take them and ended her life.

Humphry says the Oregon Health Plan’s approach to coverage is sound.

“People cling to life and look for every sort of crazy cure to keep alive and usually they are better off not to have done it,” he said.

Meanwhile Wagner has faith in her medicine, not assisted death. Now, at the request of her doctor, the pharmaceutical company Genentech is giving her Tarceva free of charge for one year.

“The doctor did say it would put a lid on the cancer and I am hopeful,” she said.

Wagner’s daughter Susie May says her mother is a fighter. “I think we all knew that this is her last hope,” she said.

Even Wagner’s ex-husband, Dennis Wagner of Springfield, has weighed in on the ethical dilemma.

“My reaction is pretty typical,” he told ABCNews.com. “I am sick and tired of the dollar being the bottom line of everything. We need to put human life above the dollar.”
Rana Senol of ABC News Research contributed to this report.