Disease engineering

Imagine you catch pneumonia.

You have a fever of 103, you’re coughing up thick, yellow sputum. Breathing is getting difficult. You hobble to the doctor, who then fails to prescribe you antibiotics. You get some kind of explanation about unnecessary exposure to antibiotics to avoid creating resistant organisms, yadda yadda. So you make do with some Tylenol®, cough syrup, and resign yourself to a few lousy days of suffering.

Five days into your illness, you’ve not shown up for work, you’re having trouble breathing, and you’re getting delirious. An emergency trip to the hospital follows, where a bronchoscopy is performed (an imaging scope threaded down your airway) and organisms recovered for diagnosis. You’re put on a ventilator through a tube in your throat to support your breathing and treated with intravenous antibiotics. Delayed treatment permits infection to escape into the fluid around your lungs, creating an “empyema,” an extension of the infection that requires insertion of a tube into your chest through an incision to drain the infection. You require feeding through a tube in your nose, since the ventilator prevents you from eating through your mouth. After 10 days, several healing incisions, and a hospital bill totaling $75,000, you’re discharged only to be face eights weeks of rehabilitation because of the extreme toll your illness extracted. Your doctor also advises you that, given the damage incurred to your lungs and airways, you will be prone to more lung infections in the future, and similar situations could recur whenever a cold or virus comes long.

A disease treatable by taking a 10-day, $20 course of oral antibiotics at home was converted into a lengthy hospital stay that generated extravagant professional fees, testing, and costly supportive care. You’ve lost several weeks of income. You’re weak and demoralized, frightened that the next flu or virus could mean another trip to the hospital. You are susceptible to repeated bouts of such episodes in future.

Such a scenario would be unimaginable with a common infection like pneumonia, or it would be grounds for filing a malpractice lawsuit. But, as horrific as it sounds in another sphere of health care, it is, in effect, analogous to how heart disease is managed in current medical practice.

First, you’re permitted to develop the condition. It may require years of ignoring telltale signs, it may require your unwitting participation in unhealthy lifestyle practices, like low-fat diets, "eat more whole grains," and "know your numbers."

It then eventuates in some catastrophe like heart attack or similar unstable heart situation, at which point you no longer have a choice but to submit to major heart procedures. That’s when you receive your heart catheterization, coronary stents, bypass, defibrillators, etc.

Of course, none of these procedural treatments cures the disease, no more than a Band Aid® heals the gash in your leg. The conditions that were present that created heart disease continue, allowing a progressive disease to worsen. At some point, you will need to return to the hospital for yet more procedures when trouble recurs, which it inevitably does.

A coronary bypass operation costs, on average $67,823. That includes the cost for the heart catheterization performed by a cardiologist to provide the surgical roadmap of your coronary arteries, the surgeon’s fees, the hospital charges. If there are any complications of your procedure, then your hospital bill may total a substantially higher figure.

$67,823 is just the upfront financial pay-off. Over the long run, your life is actually worth far more to the cardiovascular health care system because no heart procedure yields a permanent fix. In fact, repeated reliance on the system is the rule.

In fact, over 90% of people who enter the American cardiovascular health care system do so through a revolving door of multiple procedures over several years. It is truly a rare person, for instance, who undergoes a coronary bypass operation, never to be seen again the wards of the hospital because he remains healthy and free of catastrophe. A much more familiar scenario is the man or woman who undergoes two or three heart catheterizations, receives 3,4, or 6 stents, followed a few years later by a heart bypass, pacemaker, defibrillator, as well as the tests performed for catastrophe management, such as nuclear stress test, echocardiogram, laboratory blood analysis, and consultation with several specialists. The total revenue opportunity is many-fold higher than the initial 60-some thousand dollars, but instead totals hundreds of thousands of dollars per person.

A heart attack alone is a $100,000 revenue opportunity (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2004).

Of all coronary bypass procedures performed, 25% are “re-do’s”, or bypasses in people who’ve had a previous one, two, or three bypass procedures.

Perhaps it's excessively cynical to label it "disease engineering." But, whether from benign neglect or purposeful failure to diagnose, the fact remains: Heart disease is, all too often by the standard path, undiagnosed and neglected for years until the procedural payoff strikes.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Comments (10) -

  • Ketogenic Diet

    3/21/2008 2:44:00 PM |

    This is very well written.  Great perspective.

  • Anonymous

    3/21/2008 4:12:00 PM |

    And how many of these procedures are ABSOLUTELY necessary after they get you into the hospital?  

    I recently changed cardiologists.  The new doctor, after reviewing my history and talking with him (yeah, a dialog!), he made the comment that he wonders why I even had a pacemaker installed (keeps heart rate from dropping below 60)!!  Talk about being left speechless!!  

    You see, I had passed out.  It was discovered that I had severe blockage of the left descending artery.  A stent was inserted.  Then the doctor said that if a pacemaker were not installed I could experience sudden death due to low heart rate.  I can still hear his booming voice that could be heard on the entire floor stressing the words "sudden death."  What would you do?  

    Hey, is the thinking that if it is not really necessary it is at least innocuous, then cha-cling . . . $65,000?  Scary.    

    Anyway, my new doctor said that it is something that needs more study, etc.   I know the "control unit" can be changed out for new batteries but I've never heard of the wiring being removed from the heart muscles.  Geeez.

  • Anonymous

    3/21/2008 6:07:00 PM |

    Ignatius Semmelweiss had the same problem;  He railed against the conventional wisdom that 'knew' there was no reason for handwashing before surgeries.

  • Anne

    3/22/2008 1:33:00 AM |

    "A much more familiar scenario is the man or woman who undergoes two or three heart catheterizations, receives 3,4, or 6 stents, followed a few years later by a heart bypass, pacemaker, defibrillator, as well as the tests performed for catastrophe management, such as nuclear stress test, echocardiogram, laboratory blood analysis, and consultation with several specialists. "

    I think you have been following me around. I am glad to say that I did not go on to pacemaker/defibrillator, but I had all the rest. The day I got my first stent, my doctor told my husband "I fixed her" and proudly handed us a before and after picture. Funny, I did not get any pictures when I had more angioplasies.

    I am so tired of band-aid medicine. Finally, I think that I am on the right track of lifestyle changes, thanks to information here and other forward thinking websites.

  • LJ

    3/22/2008 2:08:00 PM |

    Agreed, great perspective... but my goodness! Pardon this slightly off topic comment, but you just described word for word what a good friend of mine is going through with pneumonia -  except she was sent home from a doctor's office twice. By the time she was admitted to hospital, her blood pressure was about 60/40 and she was in agony from a collapsed lung.

  • Rich

    3/24/2008 5:12:00 AM |

    Brilliant. Where is your monthly column in the Wall Street Journal?

  • Carrie Tucker

    9/15/2008 2:44:00 AM |

    "Perhaps it's excessively cynical to label it "disease engineering." But, whether from benign neglect or purposeful failure to diagnose, the fact remains: Heart disease is, all too often by the standard path, undiagnosed and neglected for years until the procedural payoff strikes."

    What an incredibly ballsy statement!  My hat is off to you.  

    I have been a Respiratory Therapist for 23 years.  To hear a cardiologist make such a statement is the most validating thing I have heard in all these years.

    I have almost been fired more times than I can count, for trying to address a low oxygen level.

    Shoot some docs take everything personally!  I'm not trying to save anyone, just make them feel better while they're on the planet.

    You and I both know that they can save themselves.  It is just a matter of education.

    Many blessings

  • Jenny

    10/20/2008 2:58:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    What makes you think that people who show up with all the symptoms of serious infection get antibiotics?

    One of my kids is permanently deaf in one ear because the pediatrician gave us that speech about how antibiotics just cause bacterial resistance and refused treatment.

    And there have been quite a few stories in the press recently of young people dying of pulmonary MRSA because their initial symptoms were ignored.

    You're a cardiologist so you see this problem in the context of heart disease. But the problem of only treating complications is widespread through all medical specialties.

    Years ago when my blood sugars were routinely going into the 200s after every meal I visited the guy who was supposed to be the "best" endo in our area, who offered me no treatment and told not to come back to see him until I'd spent a year with an A1c over 8%--an A1c high enough to guarantee complications. He told me he didn't bother treating people whose blood sugar wasn't that bad.

    My guess is that this attitude grows out of the way physicians are trained with hospital-based residencies that concentrate on heroic medicine.

    This makes people who are not in the throes of a massive complication look "fine" and keeps them from getting proper preventative treatment.

  • Anna

    10/20/2008 5:02:00 PM |

    Your post and Jenny's comment make the point that people can't be lax about their own care; they need to be willing to learn, be informed, get second and third (or even 4th) opinions sometimes, and to be assertive when the recommended care doesn't seem to match with their intuition or condition.

    There's a continuum between throwing all the available treatments at a condition and waiting to let nature take care of it, and there are cases to be made for approaches on either end and those in between, but it takes good judgement to know when and how to apply the appropriate approach.  Too many people have abdicated their own responsibility in the decision and judgement process.

  • Anonymous

    10/20/2008 5:43:00 PM |

    You could also include thyroid disease in there as a problem that doctors routinely ignore, until it gets to the state where the patient has major problems (full blown hypo/nodules, etc).

    And prevention, for many health problems, seems to be a dirty word to doctors. The system is very flawed across all specialties.

Loading