Rationing Health Care

I'm back from a lovely weekend, visiting my sister Susie and her husband Bob in Takoma Park, Maryland, and taking in the fireworks display in our nation's capital--a little muted by low-lying clouds (aka light rain), but maybe that's some sort of metaphor for our times.

Susie and I spent much of my visit viewing reels and reels of 8 mm movies, taken by our father, Alex, between about 1950 and 1966. So many birthday parties (there are four of us Strasser girls) and miniature train rides and pony rides at the Pittsburgh Children's Zoo and children (including some totally unrelated Dutch kids in Amsterdam) on swings! And a lot of really, really bad photography. This is not art; more a kind of obligatory "this is what fathers do" documentation of mid-twentieth-century family life.

But thinking about Alex, combined with reading a long article about the high--perhaps socially indefensible--cost of a new cancer drug in Sunday's New York Times, led me to muse, once again, about the cost of health care. More specifically, on the question of how much extension of whose life is worth how much money.

When my dad was in the hospital in Madison in the fall of 2002, being treated (unsuccessfully) for a staph infection that he contracted after hip surgery, he was quite adamant that I should read a particular book that presented the argument for rationing health care, spending more on pregnant woman, infants, and toddlers and less--much less--on the elderly. The book pointed out that, in our present system, by far the lion's share of expenditures goes toward keeping old people alive for the last six to twelve months of their lives.

My father, who was 84 at the time, was quite explicit about his belief that the focus on keeping old people alive was an abomination. He, himself, had a living will and a healthcare power of attorney, and made it clear to his wife and his daughters that he did not want any extraordinary measures taken to prolong his life. When he was trying to refuse a diagnostic CT scan on the grounds that it was too expensive a procedure for a man his age, I remember saying, "That may be good social policy, but we're not talking policy reform here. We're talking about you." He finally gave in.

(Despite his resistance to extreme--or even not so extreme--medical treatments, and his careful advance directives, he was subjected to resuscitation efforts that left him severely disabled after his heart stopped and his brain was deprived of oxygen for more than fifteen minutes. We had to argue with the hospital to withdraw life support--an argument that, ironically, we won only after I described to the chair of the ethics board how intensely my father insisted that I read the book about rationing health care. But that's another story.)

The Times article reminded me of that argument about the CT scan, and about the different perspectives that even a single person (like me) might have about rationing health care. The article raised the question of whether it makes sense to spend as much as $50,000 or $100,000 for a cancer treatment that may only extend a patient's survival by four months. In the scheme of things, four months is a tiny amount of time, a tiny fraction of a normal life span. Like Alex, I really do think it makes much more sense to invest that kind of money in prenatal and early childhood care--and even on young adults who can expect many more years of productive life--than on terminal cancer patients. But as a cancer patient who has now outlived her prognosis by four months thanks to very, very expensive treatments paid for by insurance and by the American taxpayers who fund Medicare, I can tell you that every good month--heck, every good day--is precious. (So thanks, you taxpayers out there.) And even if I didn't have cancer, I and many of my friends have already passed the arbitrary magic number--60, or 62, or 65--that in many rationing proposals would make us ineligible for open heart surgery or other very expensive treatments. That's a much more sobering reminder of mortality than becoming eligible for Social Security or Medicare.

In the long run, I suspect that rationing health care may be necessary. (In fact, one can and probably should argue that rationing exists now, determined by the market: poor and uninsured people don't get treated; wealthy and insured people do.) But "official" rationing, and the difficult decisions and heartache it will necessitate, can at least be delayed if we take a hard look at cutting health care costs. I recommend the Times article (available here), which explains some of the reasons for the outrageous cost of cancer drugs, as one place to start educating yourself on this issue. And then you might investigate the cost-saving advantages of a single-payer insurance system. They're considerable.