Preparing for death as care

The role of insurance

 

I recently spent several hours talking with Bridget, who was in her final experimental cancer treatment.  She found meaning in “doing all I can” to survive, and had, in effect, donated her body to science while she was still in it. An attempted trial of an experimental drug left her so near death that the doctors pulled her off the medication.

 chemo1

That day, she was sunk into her bed as if none of the muscles in her body could bear her weight.  She had lost over ten pounds and suddenly her teeth didn’t quite seem to fit in her mouth.  Doctors came and went, offering the next experimental treatment. She described her journey as a “slippery slope” of experimental treatments, explaining “we tried that, now why don’t we try this?  And even now, we think will we regret not having done everything we could.”  She said she was ready to talk to hospice, but her physician said she “wasn’t there yet.”  Why?  Because she was still receiving low doses of chemotherapy to reduce her bone pain and blood transfusions to give her some energy in her last days.  These were defined by her insurance as “active treatment,” not “palliative care.”

 

Why shouldn’t patients be able to plan for death while hoping for life?  Shouldn’t this be part of caregiving by physicians and family members?  My interactions with Bridget and her doctor took me back many years to a meeting I attended with my husband’s oncologist.  He was facing his third cancer recurrence in five years, and had been offered a daunting array of experimental treatments.  She said, “There are no perfect answers, but there is a good answer for every patient, given their values.”  After a long discussion of the effects of various treatment possibilities, he said, “I’m either going to die of treatment or die of cancer, and I choose the latter.”  He was in home hospice for nine months, during which time he completed his own “bucket list” and enjoyed life until it ended. 

 

Clearly, insurance plays a major role in this conundrum.  Most insurers will not cover hospice visits while patients are still pursuing “active treatment.”  Nor will they authorize any treatment considered “curative” once a patient is in hospice care.  For example, once on hospice, Greg could not receive localized radiation on a large tumor that blocked the circulation in his right leg causing severe nerve pain and numerous falls.  Radiation treatment came under his insurer’s definition of active treatment.  Yet towards the end of life, most “active” treatment is palliative in nature if not by definition.

 

A few insurers have shifted to “open access hospice,” which allows patients to continue to receive treatment while also receiving the symptom management, counseling, and spiritual benefit of hospice care.  Large insurers such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield and Aetna have begun to experiment with open access and have found that patients are more likely to choose hospice if treatment is still an option.  Significantly, Medicare has not yet joined this shift.

 

Most insurers are wary of the potential cost of open access hospice, particularly for patients using high-cost experimental drugs to extend life.  Drugs that are typically used to extend life for only a few months can cost tens of thousands of dollars.  Tensions between choosing high-cost, often high-toxicity drugs that promise to extend life and lower cost, lower toxicity drugs that may also extend life but are prescribed for palliation are complicated by the “fight to the death” mentality of most oncologists and other physicians.  A recent study of attitudes among oncologists found that 62% of those surveyed believed that $70,000 was a reasonable price for a drug that extended life by 2-4 months, while an additional 20% approved if the drug promised 4-6 months.  Yet many high-cost drugs actually extend life a few weeks or even a few days.  These attitudes can lead doctors to prescribe costly, and sometimes debilitiating, treatments when the patient is not truly aware of the alternatives. And regardless of physican or patients priorities, these costs are likely to limit the adoption of a truly “open access” hospice insurance benefit for some time.

  

What do we lose as a potentially caring society when physicians and insurers define the fight for life in opposition to the search for a good death?  In this dichotomous definition, death is failure for patients, phycians and family members alike, even though it is a human inevitability. In this context. patients and families lose the ability to plan for, discuss the dying process, to say good-bye, I love you, to mend wounds.   We fail to manage pain  as effectively as we could.  We also often vacillate between one bad death and another, either overtreating and unnecessarily prolonging life in ICUs or undertreating in emergency rooms.  

 

I do not suggest that hospice is for everyone.  Even Alice wanted to leave no treatment stone unturned before she sought hospice help.  I do suggest that a caring society should provide patients and families with every resource to prepare for death and that patients should not need to face these tough decisions alone.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: End-of-life Care

Tags: , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

One Comment on “Preparing for death as care”

  1. hospicephysician Says:

    Great post. I agree 100% As a Hospice and Palliative Care Physician I have gone to bat many times for the patient to their insurance company. They don’t GET IT! If they maintain open access they will save money in the long run. Why? because if the patient is on hospice, they will be working with a team of experts in counseling, guiding and walking patients through their journey. With this kind of support system, patients often stop chemo/radiation on their own and also are less likely to be admitted to the hospital for life sustaining treatment such as resuscitation, feeding tubes, TPN etc. I have been successful on several occasions and the insurance companies or HMO’s have authorized a carve out for things like chemo, TPN, artificial nutrition etc. There is a patient on my hospice service now who has her TPN and hydration paid for by the insurance despite being on hospice. She talks to us daily about one day coming off the artificial hydration and nutrition and we are there to support her. I know that at some point when her cancer has progressed further and no longer wants to prolong her suffering, she will stop her artificial hydration and nutrition and allow nature to take its course. By having the hospice support she will not go to the hospital but will die peacefully at home. Why can’t these insurance companies see this as a whole. Everyone benefits, the insurance doesn’t spend as much, the patient receives great treatment and dies a peaceful and comfortable death and the hospice is allowed to maintain viability by not using resources on expensive interventions. Hopefully this will catch on.

    P.S.Please check out my blog at http://www.hospicephysician.wordpress.com, thanks.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: