End-of-living spending is often tagged as a particular source of inappropriate health care, particularly in Medicare. Most studies estimate that while only about 5% of Medicare beneficiaries die in a year, they account for 21% of spending. The implication is that a lot of this spending must be wasteful, since the people ended up dying. A study reported in the journal Science debunks this notion. (Science Article) The obvious, commonsense fact, which apparently eludes many academic researchers, is that people who die are very sick, and whether they die in a particular year or not, they are going to incur substantial medical spending. This is a “backfilling” method. If instead you take all spending for all beneficiaries for a year and look at how much of it went to people who died, the ones who died only account for 15% of all spending. The authors attempt to further eliminate the effects of knowing who did die and their costs by developing an algorithm that attempted to predict likely mortality and then look at spending. The beneficiary sample is divided into a development group, used by the computers to develop a prediction algorithm, and a test group to generate results. The algorithm shows how hard it is to figure out who is likely to die. Less than 10% of the beneficiaries who do die in a year had a predicted likelihood of dying of over 50%. Now maybe it is just a bad algorithm, which the authors acknowledge as a possibility, but I don’t think so because it comes up with the same answer as other similar algorithms. The importance of this is apparent, because if you don’t have a good sense of who is going to die, how can you decide that you ought to provide less care for them? I don’t think someone who is really sick is eager to have medical personnel saying, well, you might die so we aren’t going to waste money on health care for you. The study confirms that what is really tied to high spending is being very sick. Duh. But very sick people don’t always, or even frequently, die. So the idea that we can save a lot of money by limiting care to people about to die is nonsense, unless and until we have a much better way of identifying people who might die.
✅ Subscribe via Email
About this Blog
The Healthy Skeptic is a website about the health care system, and is written by Kevin Roche, who has many years of experience working in the health industry. Mr. Roche is available to assist health care companies through consulting arrangements through Roche Consulting, LLC and may be reached at [email protected].
Healthy Skeptic Podcast
This is an outstanding report on total global drug spending and trends, with projections out to 2025. It helps you understand this important area of health care, which does much...
June 1, 2021
MedPAC 2019 Report to Congress
June 18, 2019
In an attempt to swiftly revive two floundering health care companies, a PE firm has announced the merger and recapitalization of Revive Health and SwiftMD. You know they are...
January 30, 2023
Investors have not yet learned their lesson, as Pearl Health gathers a new round of $75 million in capital for its business of supporting physicians who want to participate in...
January 30, 2023
Now here is a tale from the glory days of epidemic investing, as the Feds pumped trillions into the economy and a lot of it went to investing, some to...
January 10, 2023
Access ACO Care Management Chronic Disease Comparative Effectiveness Consumer Directed Health Consumers Devices Disease Management Drugs EHRs Elder Care End-of-Life Care FDA Financings Genomics Government Health Care Costs Health Care Quality Health Care Reform Health Insurance Health Insurance Exchange HIT HomeCare Hospital Hospital Readmissions Legislation M&A Malpractice Meaningful Use Medicaid Medical Care Medicare Medicare Advantage Mobile Pay For Performance Pharmaceutical Physicians Providers Regulation Repealing Reform Telehealth Telemedicine Wellness and Prevention Workplace