Skip to main content

Our **ed-up healthcare system

If you've followed my blog from the start, you may recall that I had a brain MRI in Germany. It cost 843 Euros, or less than $900. (We paid the full cost out-of-pocket and were reimbursed 100%.) When we told the staff how much an MRI in the US costs, they were incredulous.

Earlier this week, I paid for my portion of the MRI I had last month. It cost nearly $11,000 dollars, of which I paid $461. 

But wait, there's more. 

Before I met my deductible earlier this year, I discovered that I was paying $126 per month for the large (at-home) oxygen concentrator that I haven't used in about 15 months. (After I hit my deductible, I pay 10%, or $12.60. My portable costs $36 before deductible and $3.60 after, so $16/month total.) I asked my pulmonologist to write a script indicating that I only need the portable concentrator (for exercise) and don't need the large concentrator. (You can't get a portable anywhere--used or new--without a prescription, so I can't just go buy one on Amazon or eBay.) 

Long story short, PSU's Highmark concierge, who often investigates these problems for me, was told by the oxygen supplier that they are a package deal: you can't have the portable unless you also have the large concentrator. Why? Because otherwise they wouldn't make enough money!!!!! They admitted this to her.

Imagine going to CVS to get a prescription for, say, amoxicillin. It comes to $5. But then they tell you, "You also have to order this other antibiotic for $20, even though you don't need it. Otherwise we wouldn't make enough money. So if you want the amoxicillin, you have buy buy this other medication, too."

That is what these oxygen companies are doing. The Highmark concierge called around to see if any other suppliers would provide only the portable concentrator. Nope. They all operate this way -- essentially stealing money from insurance companies, employers, patients, and the public.

This system is so ass-backwards: forcing people and insurance companies to pay for treatments/supplies that aren't needed. So I've been paying, and will continue to pay, about $375 per year for an apparatus that is just sitting in the basement collecting dust. 

***
This year I'm serving as a Faculty Senator on the Faculty Benefits Committee, which pertains to health insurance, among other benefits, for all employees (except for unionized Teamsters). I was dismayed to learn that HR is considering requiring prior authorization for advanced imaging such as CT scans, MRIs, and PET scans. I obviously have a personal stake in this, but more importantly, research shows that in many cases, prior auth delays, interrupts, or denies care, resulting in worse health outcomes (not to mention bureaucratic headaches for doctors). 

This is a hill I will die on. (Note to self: cut back on # of hills I will die on.) I've learned that research shows there are some conditions, such as orthopedics (e.g., knee or back pain), where early advanced imaging doesn't lead to better outcomes. So prior auth would make sense in those cases. I'm working on plans to demand/request that HR get data from Highmark about their prior auth plan and whether it would apply to advanced imaging for certain conditions or all conditions, including cancer, as well as the denial rates and reasons and how many appeals are overturned. In true Penn State fashion, the document discussing the proposed changes is confidential...but that doesn't mean I can't talk about it.

Since I was in Germany when I was diagnosed with lung cancer, I didn't need prior auth for anything (we paid everything up-front and were then reimbursed). When my doctor said I should get a CT scan, I just went down the street to the nearest imaging clinic. My doctors at the LungenClinic didn't need prior auth for the CT scans, MRI, or genetic testing. I wonder how long my diagnosis and treatment might have been delayed if I'd been in the US. One reason we decided to stay in Germany for my treatment rather than flying home 6 weeks early is that I could start targeted therapy just 2 weeks after my biopsy--and that is exactly what happened. I could be wrong, but I cannot imagine that quick of a timeline happening here. 

Comments

  1. That is so messed up. I can't even imagine. I can't begin to understand how people without really good insurance manage. And then, those who do have it are being gouged!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lately I’ve been wondering if most of our galacial pace to align with EU standards is because after 300 years we still don’t know who is in charge… and when we find out, they’ve resigned or onto something else. Also, I have this analogy for other things like sustainability issues; it’s like we’re in middle school while they’ve acquired their PhD.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

regular update

I had my regular oncology appointment in Pittsburgh yesterday. Dr. Villaruz said the scans look good and everything is stable. Although I don’t have much scanxiety nowadays, it’s always a relief to get good news. Just to be sure that my understanding was correct, I asked her why I’m not a candidate for surgery. It’s because of the cancer’s growth pattern. The one nodule that’s visible on the CT scan could just be scarring; she’s not sure if it’s a tumor. When I was diagnosed, I was told the lung cancer was “lepidic.” This means that the tumor cells were growing along the lining of the alveolar structures (air sacs).* That’s why my lungs looked like they were draped in cobwebs. You can’t do surgery in enough places to get all of it. Thankfully, Tagrisso swept out those cobwebs – and continues to do so. We go back in December for a regular appointment. *Lepidic spread tends to be slow-growing, with minimal invasion of nearby tissues, less chance of metastasis, and overall better progno...

38.6 months

September 18 marked 38.6 months (3 years, 2 months, 18 days) since I first started taking Tagrisso. Why is 38.6 months significant? Because it is the median overall survival in the FLAURA study, a landmark study (2014-16) comparing Tagrisso and older targeted therapies among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, EGFR mutation, and no prior treatment. 279 patients received Tagrisso and 277 people received an older drug (in addition, all patients received at least one dose of a trial drug). Nearly 58% of patients had died when data collection stopped. However, patients in the Tagrisso group lived nearly 7 months longer (median) than the control group. When Leland and I initially read that number – 38.6 months – in the Tagrisso promotional materials, we were stunned. This was supposed to be good news? The median age in the FLAURA study was 64 and at the time (August 2022), I had just turned 50. But still, it was a sobering statistic. For the longest time, I didn't feel ...

A failure of institutional care

I just hit "send" on this letter to my dean and associate dean. Mic drop. I've never sent such a scathing letter, but it's definitely called for in this situation. I'm not expecting anything other than a "Oh, that wasn't how we intended to make you feel; our hands were tied" email. Dear Dean Lawless and Associate Dean Lloyd, When I wrote to Professor Land [my department head] to see if I could get a course release this fall due to having lung cancer plus complications from pulmonary embolism and COVID, I had no idea what I was in for. When faculty friends in other colleges have had health crises (ones that don’t warrant a full-semester medical leave), their department head or dean has simply said, “Don’t worry about teaching this semester. We’ll figure it out.” I figured the same would happen in my case. To be blunt, the way that my case was handled was a colossal failure of leadership. As my husband and I have shared my story with colleagues at PSU ...