A Survey of Battlefields in the War on Cancer: Oncologists Reporting from the Front Lines

In 2008, we launched an oncology market surveillance program, “Oncologists Look at Oncology: Prognosis for U.S. Cancer Care.” We were moved to do this by what we were hearing from oncologists as we conducted in-depth interviews with them on behalf of our clients. Our clients in the field, who range from small startups to leading “Big Pharma” companies, shepherd innovative molecules from the bench to the clinic and, if successful, to the commercial marketplace. But over 35 years after the “War on Cancer” was famously declared by President Nixon in 1971, what we were hearing from oncologists on the front lines of cancer care was a sense of frustration, even despair.

A significant part of oncologists’ frustration at the time was financial. In 2006, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement to physicians for in-office intravenous cancer medications was cut dramatically. Private practice oncologists had been earning 50 percent or more of their total personal income from profits on IV medication -- profits earned directly from reimbursement paid by public and private payers. The industry published fictional “average wholesale prices” (AWP) that set the reimbursement physicians would receive, but physicians were able to purchase drugs at prices substantially below AWP. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ updated reimbursement policy based on actual average selling prices rationalized reimbursement but changed the game for oncologists.

But loss of personal income wasn’t the only thing that seemed to have disheartened oncologists. They told us that they were sending more patients to hospitals for drug administration when coverage was uncertain -- even though patients generally feel more comfortable receiving treatment in familiar, less institutional treatment settings -- because private practices could no longer absorb unreimbursed drug costs. They told us that they were unable to treat patients with the best available care because of patients’ inability to afford requisite out-of-pocket co-payments. They told us that they did not see how providers or patients or payers could keep pace with the escalating costs of new cancer therapies. They told us that their colleagues were retiring and their children were pursuing specialties other than oncology because both financial compensation and lifestyle were better in procedure-oriented fields.

So What if Statins Increase Diabetes? The Real Risk May be Patient Non-Adherence

Just when we thought we had clarity on statin safety …

Last week’s leading health headline was a startling new finding that statin use increases the risk for diabetes mellitus (DM) in post-menopausal women by 50 percent, from six percent to nine percent.

While the data source -- the Women’s Health Initiative -- is an observational rather than a prospective study, the finding persists in a variety of patient subgroups, and even after the authors adjusted for baseline patient characteristics. This makes it unlikely that the increase in DM rate is due to women’s pre-statin risks of developing DM. Since diabetes is probably the single most important cardiac risk factor -- often considered the equivalent of a first MI in certain predictive models -- this news was both unsettling and perplexing. How might physicians and their patients interpret and act on this new information?

We were curious, so last week we conducted a small survey of full-time, office-based U.S. primary care physicians (PCPs) from the Epocrates physician panel* to test our hunches. Seven out of 10 PCPs had heard the recent mass media news coverage and, as a point of interest, two-thirds of them found the coverage “sensational” rather than “balanced/informative” -- despite the fact that clinicians interviewed on NBC Nightly News emphasized that they expected to keep their patients on statins.

Certainly, the news got patients’ attention. As of our survey date, at least one-third of PCP offices had received inquiries from statin patients. Balanced coverage or not, this sort of news event raises alarms, and it’s impossible for patients to draw implications on their own. What should patients, in fact, make of it?

Soda and Teen Violence: Hazards of Correlational Analysis Can Put Truth in Harm’s Way

Statistical Ammo for the Twinkie Offense: Guns Don’t Kill People, Soda Kills People?

No one with an interest in public health and a zest for social engineering can go wrong by criticizing soda. That particular cup runneth over with empty calories and plausible links to obesity, as well as tooth decay. The carbonated beverage industry is fighting a pitched battle in municipalities across the US to avoid punitive taxation meant to price soda beyond the reach of citizens who seem most at risk of making poor nutritional choices -- choices that ultimately all of us must pay for. No matter what you think of coercive taxation, it’s really hard to defend soda.

Now, though, thanks to research published by two Harvard-trained researchers, Sara Solnick of University of Vermont and David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health, soda has come under another sort of fire.

An analysis performed on the Boston Youth Survey database shows a significant correlation between soda consumption and violence in teens, including a propensity to carry guns and exhibit violent behavior with partners. The paper, which appeared in the Journal of Injury Prevention, got a two-day flurry of press attention because it has a provocative thesis that keyed off the famous “Twinkie Defense.” It gives everyone even more reason to worry about what dangers may lurk in our refrigerators.

Or does it?