1) Rather than shotgun the inflammatory response with a statin drug regardless of cause, doesn't it make more sense to ask why a specific individual has an increased CRP in the first place? For instance, if the answer is vitamin D deficiency, doesn't correction of the deficiency make more sense? (Vitamin D by itself reduces CRP around 60%--more than statin drugs.) Not to mention you obtain all the extraordinary benefits of vitamin D restoration, such as reduced cancer risk, increased bone density, relief from winter "blues," rise in HDL, etc. How about junk foods, obesity, and unrelated inflammatory conditions? Would we therefore indirectly be treating obesity with Crestor?
2) Crestor 20 mg per day, contrary to the study and to many statin studies, will not be tolerated for long by the majority. Muscles aches are not common--they are inevitable, sometimes incapacitating. While JUPITER showed 15% of both treatment and placebo groups experienced muscle effects--no different--this is wildly contrary to real life.
3) While there was a 55% reduction in the number of heart attacks, there continued to be a substantial number of heart attacks in the Crestor treatment arm. Clearly, reduction of CRP with Crestor, while helpful, is not a cure.
I view studies like JUPITER as simply an interesting piece of semi-scientific evidence, tainted to an unknown degree by commercial interests (including those of Dr. Paul Ridker, one of the principal investigators). It is not a mandate to use Crestor carte blanche in people with elevations of CRP.
My interpretation of these data in a practical sense is that Crestor 20 mg per day as sole therapy is useful in a disinterested, non-compliant patient who is unwilling to make substantial changes in lifestyle and nutrition. Helpful? Yes, but hardly an invitation for the world to take Crestor.
I believe that doesn't include any of the readers of this blog.
It is now a rare person who does not have at least some proportion of their LDL cholesterol as small particles. I estimate that, of the people who come to the office or report their data on the Track Your Plaque website, 90% have at least 40-50% small LDL particles. Some people have 100% small LDL particles. The sample NMR lipoprotein report shows the result for someone with a severe small LDL pattern (the tallest red bar labeled 1354 nmol/L, compared to the 74 nmol/L of the tiny red bar of large LDL.)
The nutritional approach for small vs. large LDL differs. Small LDL particles are most sensitive to carbohydrate intake; large LDL particles are more sensitive to saturated fats.
The conventional "heart healthy" diet that restricts saturated fat reduces large LDL but exerts no effect on small LDL. Thus, a diet that is restricted in saturated fat and weighed more heavily with "healthy whole grains" triggers small LDL particles. Followers of the conversations here recognize that small LDL particles are flagrant triggers for coronary plaque; they have, in fact, become the number one most common cause for heart disease in the U.S.
When you have lipoproteins tested, you can therefore gauge the likely result obtained when specific dietary changes are made. Follow the low saturated fat advice, large LDL will drop modestly, but small LDL skyrockets.
(Image courtesy Liposcience, Inc.)
Eliminate sugars, wheat, and cornstarch and you will see small LDL plummet (along with total LDL).
As an aside, my personal observation is that the "need" for statin cholesterol drugs can be reduced dramatically by paying attention to this important LDL size distinction.
Twenty years ago, the American farming industry experienced a dilemma: How to grow more soybeans, corn, or wheat from a limited amount of farmland, raise more cattle and hogs in a shorter period of time, fatter and ready for slaughter within months rather than years?
(Image courtesy Wikipedia)
The solution: Synthetically fertilize farmland for greater crop yield; “factory farms” for livestock in which chickens or pigs are crammed into tiny cages that leave no room to turn, cattle packed tightly into manure-filled paddocks. As author Michael Pollan put it in his candid look at American health and eating, The Omnivore’s Dilemma:
“To visit a modern Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) is to enter a world that for all its technological sophistication is still designed on seventeenth-century Cartesian principles: Animals are treated as machines—“production units”—incapable of feeling pain. Since no thinking person can possibly believe this anymore, industrial animal agriculture depends on a suspension of disbelief on the part of the people who operate it and a willingness to avert one’s eyes on the part of everyone else. . .”
Pollan goes on to argue that the cultural distance inserted between the brutal factory farm existence of livestock and your dinner table permits this to continue:
“. . .the life of the pig has moved out of view; when’s the last time you saw a pig in person? Meat comes from the grocery store, where it is cut and packaged to look as little like parts of animals as possible. The disappearance of animals from our lives has opened a space in which there’s no reality check on the sentiment or the brutality . . .”
The same disconnect has occurred in healthcare for the heart. The emotional distance thrust between the hospital-employed primary care physician, the procedure-driven cardiologist, the crammed-into-a-niche electrophysiologist (heart rhythm specialist) or cardiothoracic surgeon whose principal concerns are procedures—with an eye always towards litigation risk—mimics factory farms that now litter the landscape of the Midwest. The hospitals and doctors who deliver the process see us less as human beings and more as the next profit opportunity.
The “factory hospital” has allowed the subjugation of humans into the service of procedural volume, all in the name of fattening revenues. Never mind that people are not (usually) killed outright but subjected to a succession of life-disrupting procedures over many years. But whether livestock in a factory farm or humans in a factory hospital, the net result to the people controlling the process is identical: increased profits.
The system doesn’t grow to meet market demand, but to grow profits. The myth that allows this growth is perpetuated by the participants who stand to gain from that growth.
See hospitals for what they are: businesses. Despite most hospitals retaining "Saint" in their name, there is no longer anything saintly or charitable about these commercial operations. They are ever bit as profit-seeking as GE, Enron, or Mobil.
This post carries on the line of conversation begun in The Origins of Heart Catheterization:Part I and Part II.
While Dr. Sones labored in the relative obscurity of his catheterization laboratory, the American public was experiencing a crisis in healthcare availability, particularly among the over-65 age group. The population of elderly in the U.S. was growing rapidly. Between 1950 and 1963, their ranks grew from 12 million to 17.5 million. The cost of hospital care was also increasing 6.7% annually, several times the rate of increase in the cost of living of the time. From 1950 to the day of Dr. Sones’ discovery, the average cost for a day in the hospital jumped from $29 to $40. As a result, private health insurance carriers were forced to increase rates, driving premiums higher and farther out of reach for many. Half of all elderly were uninsured. Many feared that, while the sophistication of medical services advanced, healthcare was becoming increasingly unavailable to many, perhaps most, Americans.
The pivotal contribution that ignited wide dissemination of healthcare technology didn’t come from a physician, nor someone in healthcare. It was spurred by a nearly-forgotten bureaucrat. Without the behind-the-scenes laboring of this one man, the present healthcare system might be quite different.
It was largely the work of Nelson H. Cruikshank, an ordained Methodist minister with a Master of Divinity degree and veteran of battling for rights of the elderly and poor deprived of health care. For 10 years, Cruikshank served as director of the AFL-CIO's Social Security Department and had been instrumental in getting the Social Security Disability act passed. Working on the side of organized labor but maintaining the public demeanor of a church pastor, Cruikshank gained a reputation as a fighter for the working man, one who didn’t back down from a political brawl. In an interview regarding the question of corporate-retained earnings for capital investment, he blasted the practice, calling it "taxation by corporation without representation. Through prices paid for consumer goods, buyers are providing capital for industries over which they have no control and from which they receive no dividends” (Time Magazine, Dec. 20, 1948).
For years, Cruikshank lobbied tirelessly on behalf of American unions to bring the new national healthcare bill, known as Medicare, to a vote on the floor of Congress. Numerous efforts at a national program had languished for a decade before Medicare was drafted, and the Medicare legislation remained bottlenecked for years in committees. Cruikshank’s relentless and forceful persuasion was instrumental in finally bringing the bill to a vote. Among the most vocal opponents Cruikshank parried was the American Medical Association (AMA), terrified that the new program would lead to loss of control over healthcare delivery and reimbursement. The AMA labeled Medicare "the most deadly challenge ever faced by the medical profession."
Cruikshank proved how tough he was when he faced off with Dr Morris Fishbein, then president of the AMA, in a radio debate. Oscar R. Ewing, attorney and Democratic political organizer under the Truman administration, offered these reminiscences of the debate:
“Dr. Fishbein described the horrible confusion that existed in the [government-run] British Health Service that had recently been established in Britain. He told of the utter confusion that he found existed when he was in England a few weeks previously; that there were long queues in every doctor's office, that doctors were overburdened with paper work; that a mother who wanted an extra allowance of milk for her sick child had to get a doctor's prescription for it and then go to the Health Department for permission to buy the milk. Dr. Fishbein painted a picture of complete confusion.
“After Dr. Fishbein had described all these horrible details he found existing when in England a few weeks earlier, Mr. Cruikshank pulled out this particular diary [published in a nationally-syndicated column called “Dr. Fishbein's Diary” ] of Dr. Fishbein in which he described his last visit to London. He had arrived in London Friday morning and that afternoon had gone out to spend the weekend with Lord and Lady so-and-so at their country place; that he'd come back to London Monday morning, had stopped by the Health Department to pick up some papers, and had gone on to catch the noon plane for Paris. So the questioner then asked, "Well, is your appraisal of the British Health Service based on those few hours in London?" The question was a stinger and pretty much discredited Dr. Fishbein.”
(Interview by Mr. J.R. Fuchs, April 29, 1969; Harry S. Truman Library Archives)
Cruikshank went on to point out that Dr. Fishbein had indeed never visited the offices of British general practitioners and had spent his brief stay in the company of British aristocracy, attending the Olympics, then making the rounds of Parisian night clubs. Fishbein stumbled through the remainder of the interview, trying unsuccessfully to cover up his gaff. Dr. Fishbein was forced out of his post as AMA president by his peers shortly following the humiliating episode.
Largely due to the years of behind-the-scenes maneuvering by Mr. Cruikshank, on July 30, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Social Security Amendment that enacted the Medicare program. The legislation that survived into law included Medicare Part A, the portion of the program providing payment for hospital-based diagnostic and treatment services, and Medicare Part B, allowing payment for office-based services and outpatient diagnostic tests.
Finally, after decades of political battles, a national healthcare bill had been passed. Although benefits were restricted to only those eligible for Social Security benefits, it represented a start, a first step toward greater access to healthcare for the broader American public.
At first, the full implications of the Medicare program were not apparent. But as healthcare technology advanced, including that sparked by Sones’ innovation in coronary imaging, Medicare, much as engineered in large part by Nelson Cruikshank, proved a bonanza of payment for heart procedures. Medicare also set the pace for the payment for procedures by non-government, private health insurance.
Thus the stage was set. Thanks to Medicare, over the next 40 years cardiovascular healthcare services, yielding generous revenue for practitioners and hospitals, exploded on the scene, much to the surprise of many, including the AMA. When then president of the American College of Cardiology, Dr. Charles Fisch, was asked how the passage of Medicare affected cardiology, he replied, “It made cardiologists rich, as simple as that” (American Cardiology: The History of a Specialty and Its College, W. Bruce Fye, MD). Indeed, from its introduction in 1965 to 1980, Medicare payments for health claims ballooned 10-fold from $9.6 billion to $105.7 billion, a substantial portion of which went to pay for cardiology claims.
Little did Nelson Cruikshank, ministerial defender of the working man, anticipate that the Medicare he helped engineer would prove to be the catalyst for explosive growth of the modern cardiovascular healthcare system. Ironically, the program of healthcare-for-all that Cruikshank envisioned has, over the last 40 years, soured into a self-serving system that has been corrupted by the profit motive.
In too many instances, it’s a system that uses the working man as its victim, rather than its beneficiary.
The cycle of eating, satiety, and hunger is largely driven by insulin and blood sugar responses.
For instance, if I eat a bowl of Cheerios, my blood sugar will surge to 140 mg/dl or higher (how high depending on insulin sensitivity). The flood of sugar from this Frankenfood triggers the release of insulin; blood sugar then settles back down.
The decline in blood sugar back down to normal or below normal powerfully triggers hunger. Variable degrees of shakiness, mental fogginess, and irritability also commonly occur. Most people experience this to some extent; some experience an exagerrated version called "reactive hypoglycemmia" and can suffer peculiar personality changes, irrational and even violent behavior.
Foods made with wheat or cornstarch raise blood sugar higher and faster than table sugar. Accordingly, blood sugar and insulin swing more widely with these food: highs are higher, lows are lower. People who therefore follow the standard mantra of "eat plenty of healthy whole grains" therefore experience a 2-3 hour long cycle of eating, brief satiety, and recurrent hunger. Cravings for snacks, impulsive eating, and overeating all occur during the period when blood sugar has dropped and hunger is powerfully triggered.
Eliminating this up and down fluctuation is therefore key to regaining control over appetite, losing weight, reducing small LDL and triglycerides, reducing blood sugar, and putting out the fires of inflammatory responses.
You can accomplish this by:
1) Eliminating foods that trigger the exagerrated rises in blood sugar--Wheat, cornstarch, polished rices, white and red potatoes, and candy.
2) Adding a healthy oil to every meal--a strategy that prolongs satiety and helps suppress sugar-insulin fluctuations.
The ful nuts and bolts details of this diet will be released with the New Track Your Plaque Diet. Part I has already been released; part II is coming any day on the Track Your Plaque website.
"Your blockage is in the artery called the 'widow-maker.'"
Familiar lines? These are the well-rehearsed warnings commonly used by cardiologists to persuade a patient to undergo a procedure (heart catheterization and all that follow).
Something happens when you hear these words about your health. Most people's resolve to explore alternatives, get another opinion, think it over, promptly crumbles when they hear these words. These particular warnings have been time-tested and are surprisingly effective.
Unlike many other conditions, heart disease does indeed result in catastrophic events without warning. Unlike, say, cancer, heart disease can wreak damage suddenly. That's all true.
What bothers me is the vigor with which the opportunity for hospital procedures is pursued.
The thinking is that hospitals procedures = saving a life. In the vast majority of people, this is nonsense. Procedures like heart catheterization, stents, bypass, do save lives if someone is in the throes of a catastrophe. The problem is that most people who undergo procedures are not in the midst of catastrophe and have every hope of avoiding it altogether with some simple efforts towards prevention.
Imagine this conversation: "Yes, Mr. Smith, you do have heart disease, Even though you have no symptoms and your stress test is normal, I believe that we should 1) identify the causes of your heart disease, then 2) correct them. Of course, if you don't want to engage in this prevention process, then there may be a point at which heart procedures may be necessary. But I believe that you have great hopes of avoiding them and avoiding heart attack."
In the last Heart Scan Blog post, I listed the poll results on success vs. failure in trying to obtain requested blood work through doctors. The results of that informal poll revealed that a substantial number of people encounter resistance to one degree or another in trying to obtain blood tests.
But the world of self-directed testing is growing. In addition to your ability to circumvent your doctor by getting your own blood work done, you can now:
--Obtain many imaging tests on your own--Heart scans can be obtained without your doctor's involvement, for instance. The ultrasound screening services, like that offered by Lifeline, mobile services that provide carotid, abdominal aorta, and osteoporosis screening services; full body scans, and others. --Identify and treat some conditions--Internet information has gotten quite powerful to assist individuals in recognizing when a condition might be present. (However, this is also a landmine for trouble if not properly used.) --Genetic testing--While just in its infancy, direct-to-consumer genetic testing is now offered by two outfits that I'm aware of. --Unusual laboratory tests--e.g., heavy metals, omega-3 fatty acid content, cancer markers.
One drawback to the emerging world of self-directed testing: There is no insurance coverage. However, this will become less and less of an issue as time passes, since it is clear that most Americans will need to bear a greater portion of healthcare costs in future, since some conventional services may even be rationed for cost containment; higher copays and the emergence of medical savings accounts, providing the individual with more control over how healthcare dollars are spent; competition in self-directed healthcare services, which will reduce costs. Imagine, for instance, several more direct-to-consumer services to obtain blood tests appear. They will need to compete on price and service.
While my colleagues are terrified of the potential for abuse of such tests, my reaction is the opposite: I am enormously excited by the potential for individuals to seize more and more control over their health.
Of course, with greater freedom comes greater responsibility. But the long-term net result will be, in my view, a healthier, more satisfied healthcare consumer with reduced healthcare costs.
Here are the results of the latest Heart Scan Blog poll (84 respondents):
When you ask your doctor to perform a specific blood test, does he/she:
Do it without question? 38 (44%)
Do it but express reservations? 25 (29%)
Do it very grudgingly? 13 (15%)
Refuse outright? 9 (10%)
I was encouraged that 44% of respondents are/were able to obtain the blood work they requested without resistance. Sadly, however, the majority do either encounter reluctance or outright resistance.
Why would your doctor impose barriers to your ability to obtain laboratory tests? Well, several potential reasons:
1) He/she feels that they are charged with your health safety, and you might be led down a misleading, potentially dangerous path.
2) He/she feels that the tests are truly unnecessary and that you will be wasting the money of the "system."
3) He/she doesn't understand the tests, or is unfamiliar with them.
4) He/she feels that the doctor should be in complete control, not you. How dare you try to usurp the doctor-as-dictator of your health!
In reality, number 1 is understandable but rarely occurs. I have indeed have had requests, though rare, for outrageously inappropriate tests for the issue at hand, usually due to a misinterpretation of some information by the patient.
I'm not sure how often number 2 truly is. For instance, it is not uncommon for the doctor to have an ownership stake in the laboratory. There are several large primary care groups in Milwaukee who are notorious over-users of laboratory tests, with extraordinary batteries of dozens of tests every few months on the flimsiest reasons , clearly motivated by . . . money. On the other hand, there are physicians who do consciously try and order tests rationally and cost-effectively. I suspect that this is a minority.
I feel quite confident that number 3--your doctor's ignorance--is probably the most common reason he/she is reluctant or refuses to allow you access to a test. Most respondents I suspect are referring to many of the tests that I have been advocating, such as lipoprotein testing, lipoprotein(a), and vitamin D blood levels. I am uncertain how any of these could be construed to be dangerous. But ignorance of the value of these tests is rampant and resistance is nearly always based on not having explored these issues and having no appreciation for their importance. Of course, the beleaguered primary care physician is, no surprise, inundated by so much information across such a wide range that he/she has become expert at nothing, barely able to even deliver the full scope of genuine up-to-date primary services any longer. My colleagues, the cardiologists. . . well, you know my feelings about their attitudes: If it doesn't make money, then why should I bother? Devote months or years studying something that doesn't ring the cash register?
I see this dilemma as yet more evidence of the growing disenchantment with the doctor-as-gatekeeper model, the centuries old paternalistic "I will tell you what to do and you will do it." It worked when the doctor was educated and had access to knowledge you could never realistically obtain because you couldn't read, or you were too poor to afford books and education, or because medical information was made privy only to select people.
It's not that way anymore: The information you have access to is the same information my colleagues and I have access to: a level playing field. Along with the changing rules of the game, the game itself must eventually change.
I believe that people should have access to self-testing. Indeed, there is a growing industry of direct-to-consumer laboratory testing, such as that offered by Life Extension and LabSafe . For the most part, these offer tests without potential insurance reimbursement.
But the landscape is changing: We are just beginning a new age of self-empowerment, self-directed healthcare.
Whenever I say this, some people are angered that the majority of people will be too lazy, stupid, or poor to join the movement. What I am not saying is that we should agitate to make the system a patient-only directed process and completely remove the doctor. What I am saying is that the patient should and will play an increasingly important role in determining the content and direction of his/her care, especially as the patient becomes far more knowledgeable about issues relevant to his/her health.
The new tools of health measurement
If there were a new mantra of the new science of insight into health and long life, it would be “measure, measure, and measure.”
Never before in history have we had access to the analytical, laboratory, imaging, quantifying health tools that we have today. We can locate, scan, measure, all down as far as the level of basic codons of the genetic sequence.
The health-inquiring public has so far been permitted just a tip-of-the-tongue taste of these quantitative phenomena in such things as cholesterol values (“know your numbers!”) and blood pressure. Women now discuss their bone density scores over coffee, men their PSAs (prostate specific antigen).
But a curious irony has emerged: Like early 20th century males uncomfortable with women battling for suffrage, healthcare professionals, themselves comfortable with measurements and numbers, are distinctly uncomfortable when some of the same information falls into the hands of the healthcare consumer.
These phenomena play out in especially dramatic fashion in the world of heart health. The public now has broad access (many without a doctor’s order) to an extraordinary array of health measurement tools that can potentially yield enormous benefits for prevention of the most common conditions, information that can be applied by tracking over time.
Measures like heart scan scores, vitamin D blood levels, lipoprotein(a)--measures that most doctors have little or no interest in obtaining, yet they serve crucial roles in maintaining and tracking your health.
The new paradigm is emerging: the tools are getting better and better, they are becoming more accessible.
I continue my portrayal of the fictional hospital, St. Matthews. Though fictional, it is based on real facts, figures, and situations.
Despite their success, administrators at St. Matthews’s Hospital continually fret over how to further expand their enterprise.
Market share can be increased, of course, by competing effectively with other hospitals, but that can be a tough arena. After all, St. Matthews’ competitors deliver pretty much the same services, and draw areas for patients overlap. The last thing the hospital wants is the appearance that heart care is a “cookie cutter” process, the same everywhere. In fact, this trend has hospital administrators wringing their hands. Two competing hospital systems in town recently launched multi-million dollar ad campaigns employing some of the same aggressive tactics St. Matthews’ marketers used successfully in past.
If St. Matthews is going to grow, new markets will need to be explored. What other strategies can a hospital system use to continue climbing the growth curve?
St. Matthews’ hospital administrators have drawn a number of lessons from other businesses. How about squeezing more procedures out of the population you already take care of? That’s an age-old rule of business: your easiest sales come from repeat customers. A former stent patient is going to “need” annual nuclear stress testing ($4000), more stents (about $25,000–39,000 per hospitalization), CT angiogram ($1800–2400), bypass surgery ($84,000), and so on. “Check-up” catheterizations, though clearly of little or not benefit to patients, are silently encouraged, yet another example of the bonanza of repeat procedures possible.
The lesson that “once a heart patient, always a heart patient” has been honed to an art form in business practices at St. Matthews and other hospitals like it. If you enter the system through your primary care physician or cardiologist, there’s an excellent chance you’ll end up with several procedures, diagnostic and therapeutic, over the ensuing years. Accordingly, St. Matthews provides a very attentive after-discharge follow-up program, complete with access to friendly people, phone centers, “support groups,” and even an occasional festive get-together, all in an effort to ensure future return to the system.
All in all, the St. Matthews Hospital System is a hugely successful operation. It provides jobs for thousands of area residents and provides high-tech, high-quality healthcare. Like any business—and no doubt about it, St. Matthews is a business with all the trappings of a profit-seeking enterprise—it grows to serve its own interests. The tobacco industry didn’t grow to its gargantuan proportions by doing good, but by selling a product to an unsuspecting public. So, too, hospitals.
Curiously, hospitals like St. Matthews continue to operate under the sheltered guise of not-for-profit institution with the associated tax benefits, ostensibly serving the public good. This means that all end-of-year excess revenues are re-invested and not distributed to investors. But non-profit does not mean that individuals within the system can’t benefit, and benefit handsomely. Under St. Matthews’ non-profit umbrella, many businesses thrive: 35 pharmacies, extended care facilities to provide care after hospital discharge, drug and medical device distributors, even a venture capital arm to fund new operations. The financial advantage conferred by “non-profit” status has permitted the hospital to compete with other, for-profit businesses, at a considerable advantage. For this reason, attempts have been made over the years to strip them of what some believe is an unfair advantage; all have failed.
While profits may not fall to the bottom line, money does indeed get paid out to many people along the way. Executives, for instance, pay themselves generous salaries and consulting fees, often from several of the entities in this complex business empire. Physicians are brought in as “consultants” or are awarded “directorships” for hundreds of thousands of dollars per year—Director of Research, Director of Cardiovascular Services, etc. Don’t forget the $3.7 million dollar annual salary paid to the CEO.
Hospitals and doctors have a vested interest in preserving this financial house of cards. They will fiercely battle anyone or anything that threatens the stream of cash. During a recent meeting of important doctors at St. Matthews Hospital, one cardiologist bravely voiced his concern that bypass surgery was performed too freely on too many patients in the hospital. The doctor was promptly and quietly asked to remove himself from the meeting. Several days later, he received a letter announcing his dismissal from the committee.
The silent conspiracy conducted by hospitals and cardiologists serves their own purposes better than the good of the public. Under the guise of good works, hospitals continue to promote strategies which are, for the most part, outdated, inefficient, inaccurate, and expensive. But that’s the rub. Expensive to you and your insurance company means more money for the recipient: your hospital and cardiologist, and the powers that support them. All this occurs while the real solutions that are of benefit to the public continue to be overlooked, hidden in the shadows.
Dr. Robert Connors is the hospital’s most prized cardiologist.
Practically a fixture in the cath lab, he generates more revenues for the hospital than any of his colleagues. Last year alone, he performed over 1500 procedures, bringing in $18 million dollars to the cath lab, $27 million to the hospital. Dr. Connors is very good at what he does: 55-years old, he has been involved in high-tech heart care since the “early days,” 25 years ago, when hospital procedures really took off.
During his career, he has personally performed over 25,000 heart procedures and has built a reputation as a skilled operator of complex coronary procedures. Because of his skills, he enjoys a vigorous flow of referrals for procedures from dozens of primary care physicians. His skill has also earned him referrals from cardiologist colleagues who seek his abilities for difficult cases.
On any day, Dr. Connors typically schedules up to 12 procedures. His entire day is spent in the cath lab, usually from 7 am until 6 pm. He meets many patients for the first time on the catheterization laboratory table as staff shave their groin, preparing for the procedure. Much of the procedure itself is not even performed by Dr. Connors, but by one or another cardiologists-in-training, a “fellow,” or member of the fellowship the hospital proudly maintains as a clinical teaching institution. Nor will Dr. Connors talk to most patients at the close of the procedure. He leaves that to either the fellow or a nurse. Dr. Connors views himself as a procedural specialist, not someone who has to take care of patients. He gave up seeing patients in his office over 10 years ago.
Dr. Connors’ procedural enthusiasm gained him the attention of drug and medical device manufacturers. Because Dr. Connors lectures widely and advises colleagues, his comments can dramatically alter perceptions of the value of a technology. He has, on many occasions, catapulted an unpopular device to most-asked-for among colleagues, bringing millions in revenues to the manufacturer. One particularly lucrative arrangement he made around 10 years ago involved a “closure” device, a $400 single-use plug used to close the access site made during heart catheterizations. By swaying his colleagues at St. Matthews Hospital, 50 orders per day (one per procedure) tallied $20,000 every day, $7.1 million dollars per year for the manufacturer. Although he’d used other devices on the market, the 5,000 shares of stock he was offered encouraged him to issue glowing comments to colleagues on the superiority of this specific brand of closure device. Now over 90% of all catheterizations at St. Matthews conclude with the device manufactured by the company in which Dr. Connors maintains partial ownership.
Negative comments, on the other hand, topple other products when Dr. Connors sees fit to pan them. For this reason, device and drug manufacturers run straight to Dr. Connors to gain his good graces as soon as possible after a product is released into the market. Because the competition is just as likely to do the same, it has often come down to a bidding war, the company providing the most lucrative arrangement most likely to win.
Thus, Dr. Connors proudly boasts of how many times he has flown to Hawaii, Europe, and other exotic locations at industry expense. He also boasts of how, for $100,000 paid to him for a “consulting fee,” he can overturn the choice of products lining hospital shelves. As the hospital’s annual budget for coronary devices will top $84,000,000 this year, device manufacturers regard the sum paid Connors as a profitable investment.
Despite his lofty status in the hospital, Dr. Connors has long expressed a love-hate relationship with St. Matthews. While he enjoys his work and has made a more than comfortable income, he has long felt that the hospital administration didn’t truly appreciate his contributions. Five years ago, he therefore demanded that he be made “Director of Research.” After all, he had hired a nurse to help him coordinate enrollment of patients into several device trials brought to him by medical device manufacturers. When he encountered an initial lukewarm response from hospital administrators, he threatened to take his “business” elsewhere to a competing hospital. St. Matthews’ administrators gave in. They provided him with the title he wanted, along with $100,000 annual “stipend.”
True story, though names have been changed to protect the guilty.
Is Dr. Connors just an “outlier” among colleagues who toe a more conservative line? Or does his brand of commercial enterprise in hospital heart care represent the ideal that they seek, brazenly and ambitiously seeking to expand the procedural solution to heart disease to the exclusion of patient care and real human interaction?
