DETCOG, Broadband and Health

Can you hear me now? That phrase, made popular by Verizon Wireless in the early 2000s, epitomizes the frustration of rural America over lack of reliable cell phone coverage. To this day – despite what cell phone carriers like AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon advertise – coverage in many areas (including at my house inside the Lufkin, Texas city limits) is suboptimal. AT&T’s answer? Just use WiFi calling! That may work for me; I have adequate internet access. But what about the majority of deep East Texans? More than just being an inconvenience, poor cell phone coverage and inadequate broadband access are harming our health.

Broadband is the infrastructure and information technology network that delivers high speed connectivity to the internet. Think of broadband as a pipeline of information. As with any pipeline, the rate of flow (water, gas, data, etc.) can depend on the number of users, time of day, and reliability of service. But you have to be able to connect to the pipeline.

In the early days, the internet was accessed through slow, often expensive dial-up connections. Today, high speed or broadband internet access is via DSL (or Digital Subscriber Line), fiber-optic, wireless, cable, and satellite services, often bundled with phone and TV subscriptions.

Broadband access is about more than faster access to Facebook and Instagram. Increasingly, reliable and high-speed internet access is important for community health. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is responsible for regulating the radio, television and phone industries, established a Connect2HealthFCC Task Force to raise consumer awareness about the value of broadband in the health and care sectors. You may know about heart-healthy diet and recipe apps and wearable fitness trackers, but did you know that we now have medical devices like pacemakers, defibrillators, glucose monitors, insulin pumps, and neuro-monitoring systems that can utilize wireless technology to control or program a medical device remotely and monitor and transmit patient data from the medical device to the healthcare team? Those without internet access can get delayed and inadequate care.

Maps showing lack of broadband coverage look just like maps of poor, rural America where healthcare is also lacking. In Kentucky, for example, the same areas where higher rates of lung cancer are seen are those with limited broadband access. These county-by-county maps are similar to what we see in deep East Texas with cancer deaths and health outcomes. This does not mean that lack of broadband access causes lung cancer, obviously! But the social determinants of health (such as education level and income) that are associated with smoking, lung cancer, heart disease, obesity, and overall health outcomes, are more pronounced in areas with limited broadband access.

So how could access to broadband increase the health of a community? The FCC believes that “broadband-enabled technology solutions can help us meet the health and care challenges of today and tomorrow by connection people to the people, services and information they need to get well and stay healthy.” Possible solutions that are especially important in deep East Texas include telehealth and telemedicine for improved access to physicians and specialists (including mental health services), health information technology and access, fall detectors, pharmacy connectivity, personal health data upload capability, and connectivity to hospitals and emergency rooms. With a growing and aging population compounded by a shortage of primary care physicians nationwide estimated in the tens of thousands –especially pronounced in rural areas – remote connectivity options for healthcare become even more important.

The Deep East Texas Council of Governments (DETCOG), under the leadership of Executive Director Lonnie Hunt, recently received a report titled Deep East Texas Broadband Growth Strategy, which detailed the potential economic growth (10,300 new jobs and $1.4 billion in GDP growth over 10 years) and growth in median household income associated with near complete broadband access, a loft goal. In IT, education, and telehealth alone, investments have the potential to impact the region with 2,500 jobs and $300 million in GDP over the next ten years.

DETCOG’s goal is to support development of a regional fiber optic-based broadband network throughout its twelve-county region. They hope to do this through creation of a non-profit or other entity that would manage the project, bring the necessary partners together to accomplish the goals, and oversee planning, financing, and implementation of the regional broadband network. Full implementation realistically will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. But it doesn’t have to all come at once.

In February, with support from the TLL Temple Foundation, DETCOG started the process to contract with a major law firm with offices in Washington, DC, to create an entity to manage broadband in East Texas. Funding such an entity and project will not be easy. Other COGs have tapped into grants like the FCC’s Rural Health Care Program, which provides funding to eligible health care providers for telecommunications and broadband services necessary for the provision of health care. Electric and telephone cooperatives, public utilities, internet providers, local, state, and federal entities, and foundations can and should play a role.

Do you hear me now? We must support DETCOG’s vision for a fiber optic network for all of deep East Texas. This will be a long term project requiring many players, both public and private, to accomplish. We need – we must have – high-speed broadband access in our entire region for jobs, for the economy, and for our health.

The Seduction of Technology

For Christmas, my wife gave me and my daughter an Apple TV 4K. Billed as a device to “watch select shows and movies in stunning 4K HDR,” this tiny little box-like contraption – which measures less than four inches square and is just 1.4 inches tall – caused a gargantuan amount of change at our house over the last 2 months. And for something that is priced at only $179, the true cost incurred to make it functional was at least an order of magnitude more.

Our largest TV up until now was a perfectly reasonable 42” screen. When we constructed our house 20 years ago, no one imagined the truly massive screens sold today. The built-in cabinetry where our TV sits certainly wasn’t made for big screens. Even our meager 42” TV didn’t fit well, with the side edges having to hide behind the frame opening of the cabinet. We don’t watch much TV, and it suited our needs. At least, I thought it did.

My wife was tired of paying exorbitant monthly fees for cable service that we didn’t really use, and she thought streaming was the way to go. Hence, the Apple TV 4K. But she didn’t realize that first we needed to get a 4K TV. One that fits into our predetermined and unchangeable space. Because I was certainly not allowed to rebuild the cabinets. And we were not going to rearrange furniture in order to have a big monster screen on a wall. Our 42” TV used to be considered big; now, you can hardly find anything that small! Some of the newer OLED TVs aren’t made in anything less than 55”. Finding a TV that fit our space and still had a 4K screen was a challenge. 

And did I mention Ultra High Definition? Because you need that, too. And to really take advantage of the technology, you need the Blu-ray player that plays 4K Ultra HD discs. Oh, and the receiver equipment must be compatible with all of these technologies or you won’t be able to tie in your surround sound with the TV and Blu-ray. (Luckily, I did not have to replace any speakers, as they were good enough.) Next, none of my prior HDMI cables that connect all of these components together were compatible with the 4K Ultra HD technology. Let me tell you, these new HDMI cables are expensive! And you need several!

Finally, we couldn’t stream 4K Ultra HD content at the internet speeds we were currently paying for, so we needed to upgrade the speed of our internet service and replace the internet modem and router as well. (On that subject, I am a little pissed that we are offered “speeds up to 1 Gb” in our Lufkin market when in reality only 400 MB download speed is achievable. Frankly, neither Suddenlink nor AT&T deliver on what they advertise locally. After years of complaining, I still don’t have a decent signal inside my house. Our market is just not that important to these guys.)

This last week, we got it all set up and watched our first 4K Ultra HD movie – Interstellar with Matthew McConaughey and Anne Hathaway. The sound and picture are, indeed, incredible! But my question is, do I enjoy it an order of magnitude more than when I first saw it? Is the quality of picture that much better to warrant the upgrade in technology? Does the technology emperor have any clothes?

Healthcare gave in to the seduction of technology years ago while seeking the holy grail of patient safety. Our own local hospitals have spent tens of millions of dollars each on computer hardware and software, and the annual maintenance spend is in the multimillions. I can’t say the corpulent healthcare technology emperor has absolutely no clothes, but he is not covered by much more than a Speedo. It ain’t a pretty sight. 

The promise of improved patient safety and better outcomes is, frankly, difficult to prove. That’s not to say that technological advances in cancer treatment and heart disease haven’t lengthened life expectancy. But how much does the average patient admitted to the hospital benefit from technology that constantly pulls the nurse’s attention away from bedside care?

All technology – not just in healthcare – needs to be evaluated both for its potential benefit as well as its often hidden effects and costs. The price we pay is not just in dollars and cents. Are any of us better humans with the distraction of smart phones and the life-sucking pull of their ever-present dementors known as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Snapchat? What about our 4K Ultra HD TVs? Ultra HD 4K garbage is still garbage, just in vivid detail. Let’s make sure we use technology to improve who we are as relational people and not let technology distract us, rule us, or as is increasingly the case, divide us. That would be worth an upgrade.

What I Learned in Medical School That Was Wrong

I recently attended my 30th medical school reunion at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. It was a grand time of reminiscing and reconnecting with war buddies from the trenches of medical school. Part of our reunion weekend included lectures on current hot topics, such as the absurdity and danger of the anti-vaccine movement. But the lecture most of us were anticipating was on what we were taught in medical school that turned out to be wrong.

The topic itself was quite an admission from one of the most prestigious academic institutions in the world. I mean, everything science tells us is true, factual, indisputable, and remains so forever, right?

One example where the teaching of the time was wrong was peptic ulcer disease. When we started medical school, surgery for ulcers was common. Ulcers were thought to be caused by stress-induced excessive secretion of acid in the stomach. The surgical procedure known as antrectomy (removal of the distal end of the stomach) and vagotomy (cutting the nerves that lead to acid secretion) was performed basically to stop acid production. But this was not a small operation. Patients were often left with really unpleasant gastrointestinal issues such nausea, vomiting after eating, and dumping syndrome (abdominal cramps and diarrhea after eating).

What we now know is that ulcers quite often are caused by a bacterium known as H. pylori, which can be easily treated with an antibiotic – to kill the infection – and antacids. Not only was this revolutionary (and simple), but the medical establishment refused to believe it at first. There were many reasons, but it just didn’t fit what they thought they knew. It was, so they thought, a psychosomatic illness. And bacteria weren’t thought to be able to live in the stomach. The Australian doctor who co-led the discovery was so desperate to prove his theory that he even drank a cocktail of the bacteria to prove his point. History shows he was vindicated. The whole bacteria/ulcer connection was a radical idea at the time. Yet it was right, and the two who discovered it were awarded the Nobel Prize in 2005.

In my own field of oncology, there has been significant progress over the last 30 years. We now cure 70% of cancer patients compared with just 50% a generation ago. It was still a fairly paternalistic time in medicine. You didn’t question what the doctor told you to do. Physicians were taught – wrongly – that we should treat all patients aggressively all the way up to the end of life; otherwise, we would be taking away hope and devastating our patients.

In retrospect, it seems obvious that was a ridiculous and cruel assumption. Informed consent demands honesty. Hope cannot be reduced simply to wanting to live one more day at all cost, especially when ravaged by an incurable disease. What about hope for reconciliation with estranged family members? Hope for a pain and symptom-free death? Hope to die at home surrounded by family and friends, not alone in an ICU? Of course, now we have an entire field of comfort care/palliative medicine – including hospice care – to help with end-of-life symptoms and care.

Another example is less about what we were taught that was wrong than with what we just didn’t know. My class of 1987 started medical school in 1983. The AIDS epidemic was so new at that time that we didn’t even know caused it. The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) – originally called HTLV-III, or human T-cell leukemia virus – wasn’t even called HIV until 1986. Fear and judgmentalism drove much of the public and academic response to this novel epidemic. We even had a classmate die of AIDS before the identification of the virus was made. These were scary times. With HIV/AIDS, we were living in and experiencing a time when urgent research and rapid discovery were needed to fight a terrible (and terribly misunderstood) disease. Our own fear and prejudice slowed that effort down.

I am curious what we will admit to being wrong about when the current medical school graduates have their thirty year reunion in 2047. Perhaps a brilliant discovery about Alzheimer’s, for example, will turn the medical world upside down. That is an illness where everyone would rejoice in acknowledging what we either got wrong or just didn’t know. Of course, more or unique discoveries in the field of cancer prevention and treatment would be welcome. In any case, we must be willing to admit that we don’t know everything there is to know today, and that we just might be wrong about some things. However, in today’s political climate I am not holding my breath to hear a mea culpa from the scientific community any more than when H. pylori was discovered. Maybe I’m wrong…

The Grass is Greener in Lufkin!

Sometimes our medical community gets a bad rap. In any community, there can be a tendency to think the grass is always greener somewhere else. This is true whether we talk about education, retail, quality of life, or in my case, medical care.

I have been accused of being critical of our local healthcare community. Perhaps my commentaries on healthcare in general, and the very real problems we all face, have been taken by some to mean I am not supportive of our local healthcare. Nothing could be further from the truth! 

Those who work with me know that I strive for excellence in all I do, and I expect the same from those who work with me. I have considered it an honor and a privilege to be part of this medical community for almost 25 years now, and had I not found this community to be welcoming, supportive, and high quality, I would not have stayed.

Think about it. We are a town of barely 35,000 people, and we have access to everything from neonatal intensive care to neurosurgery and open heart surgery. (Oh, and excellent cancer treatment as well!) These services are rarely seen in a town our size, and it happened for a number of reasons.

First of all, we are a destination for healthcare for patients coming from many surrounding counties. That give us an effective population of several hundred thousand - enough to support sophisticated specialties. Second, we have had visionary leadership from key physicians over the years. I won't try to mention all who have made a difference - there are many - but I do want to highlight just a few for what I see as having provided a significant and long lasting contribution to local healthcare.

Anyone's list would include Dr. Ravinder Bachireddy, a world-class cardiologist whose incessant focus on quality brought credibility and excellence to local cardiac care at a time when everyone in the state (indeed, the nation and the world) was headed to Houston. Along the same lines, Dr. Bill Shelton and Dr. Kavitha Pinnamaneni, in their respective radiation and medical oncology fields, made it possible for cancer patients to stay at home for outstanding cancer care, unifying many different physicians and surgeons involved in cancer treatment into a nationally accredited cancer program.

Dr. George Fidone's energy, intensity, vision, and incredible skill has brought pediatric care to virtually every child in the area. Our kids are healthier for it. Neurosurgery, neurology and stroke care are as good here as can be found in big cities, thanks not only to local medical leadership but also to philanthropic support. Robotic surgery has been embraced and mastered by our local surgeons and gynecologists to a far greater extent than our neighbor to the north or, frankly, most communities.

An early family practice pioneer, Dr. Anna Beth Connell led the way early on for women physicians to be not only allowed into the good ole boy network but also respected as colleagues. Women now make up the majority of medical school graduates and are coming to Lufkin in record numbers and in all specialties.

Finally, I cannot even begin to talk about healthcare without considering the incredible support of local foundations, especially the TLL Temple Foundation and the Kurth Foundation. Their contributions can hardly be totaled or their impact measured. We struggle at a national level to figure out how to care for all people, but that burden has been significantly lowered at the local level by the incredible generosity of our foundations. For that, I am eternally grateful.

Sometimes we all need a reminder of how green the grass is right here in Lufkin and Angelina County, and what a privilege it is to have the healthcare community and resources we have. Next time you see a local doctor, nurse, or other healthcare professional, thank them for living and working here!

What I Would Like to See in Healthcare Reform (Part 2)

Last month, I wrote about the bloated, incredibly inefficient federal bureaucracy that eats up hundreds of billions of dollars annually in administrative costs. I mentioned that Obamacare was not, in my opinion, true healthcare reform and did not address these inefficiencies; rather, it simply added people to the rolls of a broken system.

In this column, I am not intending to argue for or against Obamacare or whether we “repeal and replace” or go with “Obamacare Lite”, whatever that might be. I am simply pointing out areas where I see daily a burden for both patients and providers. My dream would be for simplification of much of the process of valuing, coding, and billing for healthcare services. Whether any of these thoughts are achievable or affordable, I don’t know.

Let’s start with that dreaded hospital bill. Medical billing is indecipherable. Even patients with advanced degrees can spend hours trying to interpret the bill they receive for a hospital stay. And that bill is obscenely higher than what either the hospital or the providers are going to get paid. What’s ironic is that bill often has no correlation with the actual cost of the care received or the value that the federal government (or the insurance company) places on that care. We must simplify how we charge for medical care and how hospitals and providers get paid. Unfortunately, the only patients who get stuck with the full, inflated bill are those without insurance – the ones who can least afford to pay it. That is unethical.

The overall cost of care (and your bill) is determined by coding every aspect of care, from the Kleenex and bedpan to the heart valve. For every cancer patient I treat, there are dozens of separate codes submitted for reimbursement covering all different aspects of planning, designing, QA’ing, and delivering treatment. I have no doubt that much of that could be combined into, say, a fixed reimbursement for treating prostate cancer. The problem is, when the government wants to bundle procedures together, they do it to cut overall reimbursement immensely. We still do the work; we deserve to get paid. Why can’t we work out a way to simplify, cut administrative costs, and make it a win-win both for the providers and the payors?

Along the same lines, consider a simple office visit to the doctor. The complexity required to determine whether I get paid a level 2 or level 3 office visit – which reimburse only $25 and $50 – is outrageous. These so-called Evaluation and Management (E&M) codes – and there are many of them – are based on four different possible levels of complexity of three aspects of the patient encounter: history, examination, and medical decision-making. Take history, for example. The proper level of complexity is determined by the presence or absence of documentation for four sub-elements: chief complaint, history of present illness, review of systems, and past, family, and/or social history. Do you see where I am going with this? Documentation of these encounters (consultations, follow up office visits) often takes longer than the encounter itself! And, any "error" in billing is considered fraud and abuse. It is common to hear patients complain that their doctor never looked at them, but was always looking at the computer screen. We need to simplify coding and put physicians back face-to-face with their patients.

Then there is the ever-increasing burden of deductibles and co-pays. We have such a mishmash of healthcare plans, each with their own deductibles and co-pays, that it is virtually impossible to keep it all straight. At the beginning of every year, doctors’ offices and hospitals cringe. Did a patient change insurance plans, or did their insurance lapse? What about the deductible for the new year? What about co-pays? More than half of Americans have less than $1,000 in savings. Deductibles for individuals enrolled in the lowest-priced Obamacare health plans will average more than $6,000 in 2017. Can the majority of Americans afford that? Certainly not! This is an unfair burden both on patients and on providers, who end up providing that care for free. Why? Most of it gets written off, but only after we spend a lot of personnel time and effort proving we try to bill for what we can’t collect in order to avoid the appearance of fraud and abuse. Those patients who are forced to pay may rack up credit card debt, get sent to a collection agency, and/or go bankrupt. Some go without the care they need rather than add to their debt. I truly believe co-pays and deductibles are a vestige of a bygone era. I would like to see the dollars saved by decreasing the administrative burden of healthcare go to actually paying hospitals and providers what they deserve and earn, and do away with co-pays and deductibles. There should be one price for a procedure or encounter, and that cost should be paid 100% by insurance.

What about insurance companies? In the best of circumstances, they pay fairly and quickly. But too often they can and do delay patient care and prevent patients from getting the care they need in a timely manner, if at all. They do this through a process called precertification or prior authorization (read: denial). And sometimes when they do give prior authorization, they still deny payment. This ought to be illegal. But it happens without recourse because the state insurance regulations are written in favor of the insurance companies. We need to loosen the precertification grip on the practice of medicine, and we need to be able to hold insurance companies accountable to their agreements. A preauthorization is a contract to pay.

The two hospitals in Lufkin (Woodland Heights Medical Center and CHI St. Luke’s Health Memorial) have spent tens of millions of dollars on electronic health records, not to mention what individual and group physician practices have spent, all mandated by the federal government. To what end? This was supposed to be about “quality”, but that emperor had no clothes. There is precious little improvement in communication between providers and hospitals than before electronic health records. The various doctor’s offices use a number of different vendors, and each hospital uses their own separate vendor. None of them share information with each other. I dream of a truly universal electronic health record language with seamless interconnectivity between offices and hospitals, but I sure don’t want to live through the incredible expense, time and effort it would take to get there. But I do dream.

Finally, let’s talk about rights. I have never felt that free or universal healthcare was a “right”. Hear me out. No one has a "right" to healthcare without some responsibility. That responsibility may be in purchasing insurance, but that is not the only way to contribute. The most glaring, but not the only, example is smoking. Half of long-term smokers will die of a smoking-related illness. If you smoke, the rest of us are burdened with some (or all) of your healthcare costs. On average, a pack of cigarettes in the US costs a smoker $5.51, while the combined medical costs and productivity losses attributable to each pack are approximately $18.05, according to researchers. This is where consumption taxes are attractive, but only if the tax truly goes to help offset the cost of healthcare. How we balance rights and responsibilities in healthcare is a good subject for a doctoral dissertation.

As well all hear about and read about proposed healthcare changes over the next year or two, look for what they are really trying to change, and ask yourself, are they really improving the system, or are they just trying to squeeze more people under a broken umbrella? Can they do both? Let’s hope they try.

What I Would Like to See in Healthcare Reform (Part 1)

I often tell people that if all I had to do was take care of patients, life would be grand. It is the countless hours of dealing with the administrative aspects of healthcare that have practically ruined the practice of medicine for many physicians. You should care; it takes away from our time with you.

TheHill.com, noted that physicians and their staff spent over 15 hours per week complying with quality reporting requirements and that for every hour a physician spends with patients, an additional two hours are consumed completing administrative tasks related to the visit. This meaningless (to physicians, anyway) work has costs in both time and money, leads to burnout, and is increasingly mentioned as the reason for early retirement. I, for one, found myself daydreaming in a committee meeting the other day and I calculated that it was 3361 days until my 65th birthday. That's 9 years, 2 months, and 15 days. No, am not planning to retire early, but sometimes I sure wish I could. Healthcare needs reform.

The average person thought Obamacare WAS healthcare reform. In reality, Obamacare did nothing to actually improve the healthcare system; it simply added more people to the rolls. Don't get me wrong. Having more people insured is not a bad thing. But we need more than just additional enrollees in a broken system.

After Trump was elected, there was an initial, overly optimistic assumption that Obamacare was on its last leg. Recent infighting among policy makers suggests Obamacare may be more like the proverbial cat with nine lives. I only hope true reform is part of whatever "replacement" or "repair" Congress and the President come up with.

In particular, let's hope some of that reform will significantly scale back a bloated, paranoid bureaucracy that sucks hundreds of billions of dollars out of healthcare that could go to those who actually care for patients. And, perhaps, some could go back into the taxpayers' pockets.

Back in 2012, Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett called healthcare "the tapeworm of the American economy". To be more accurate, the federal government is healthcare's tapeworm. In an online article in Medical Economics last year, Ryan Gamlin, who studies what drives inefficiency, waste, and harm in U.S. healthcare, found that "as countries spend a larger percentage of their healthcare dollars on administration (as opposed to public health, or providing patient care, for example), things get worse for patients and healthcare providers. High administrative expenditures seem to be associated with negative experiences of providing and receiving healthcare." That is a nice way of saying there's a ton of money wasted going to paper pushers.

Helen Adamopoulos, writing in Becker's Hospital Review in 2014, noted that US hospital administrative costs account for more than 25% of hospital spending, more than double that of Canada, for example, where hospitals receive global, lump-sum budgets. In contrast, US hospitals must bill per patient or DRG (diagnosis-related group), requiring additional clerical and management workers and specialized IT systems. They also have to negotiate payment rates with multiple payers with differing billing procedures and documentation requirements, driving up administrative spending. Not to mention all the personnel, time, and IT required to satisfy CMS’s (the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) monstrous appetite for "quality" and "safety" data, with the ever-present threat of fraud and abuse hanging over every unintentional misstep.

What should be a simple process of billing for services provided is a minefield. And anyone who has ever tried to understand a hospital bill knows it is an impossible task. Aliya Jiwani, writing in BMC Health Services Research, notes that billing and insurance-related (BIR) administrative costs in 2012 were estimated to be $471 billion and that fully 80% of this spending, which provides little to no added value to the healthcare system, could be saved with a simplified financing system. Jiwani predicted that greater use of deductibles under Obamacare will likely further increase administrative costs, stating, "Empirical evidence from similar reform in Massachusetts is not encouraging: exchanges added 4% to health plan costs, and the reform sharply increased administrative staffing compared with other states."

A CNBC report of a Health Affairs study tagged the extra administrative costs of Obamacare at more than a quarter of a trillion dollars, an average of $1,375 per newly insured person, per year, from 2012 through 2022. The Health Affairs blog authors reported, " The overhead cost equals a whopping 22.5 percent of the total estimated $2.76 trillion in all federal government spending for the Affordable Care Act programs during that time."

What do I wish we could be different in our healthcare system? In March, I will discuss some specific changes that would reduce the administrative burden on healthcare providers and, in many ways, return us to a simpler, more direct, and frankly better transaction of healthcare.

Lung Cancer Screening Saves Lives

For more than 50 years now, we have known the dangers of smoking. That smoking causes heart disease, emphysema, and lung and other cancers is not in dispute. For fifty years, we did not have an effective screening tool for lung cancer.

Now we do.

Medical imaging has improved so much that we are now able to do computerized tomography (CT) scans with significantly lower dose to the patient and at a low enough cost to warrant widespread use as a screening tool. Not everyone needs a scan, of course. But smokers who are at high risk of developing lung cancer now have an option for screening, much like mammography for early detection of breast cancer.

In 2011, the results of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) were published in the New England Journal of Medicine, arguably the foremost medical journal in the world. This trial screened current or former heavy smokers aged 55 to 74 with low-dose CT scanning of the chest and compared it to standard chest x-ray. The NLST primary trial results show 20 percent fewer lung cancer deaths among trial participants screened with CT compared to those who got screened with chest x-rays. This is huge news, because we haven’t cured a lot of lung cancer over the last 50 years! Based on these results, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) decided in 2015 to start paying for the procedure on January 1, 2016.

According to the American Cancer Society, in 2016 an estimated 224,390 people in the U.S. (117,920 men and 106,470 women) will be diagnosed with, and 158,080 men and women will die of, cancer of the lung and bronchus, the leading single cancer killer in the U.S. If everyone who was eligible got screened, more than 30,000 deaths from lung cancer could be averted every year.

There are more than 94 million current and former smokers in the U.S. at high risk for lung cancer. In 2014, an estimated 18.1 percent, or 40 million U.S. adults, were current cigarette smokers. Unfortunately, smoking rates in East Texas are higher than state and national averages. That means a lot of East Texans are eligible to be screened.

Starting last fall, CHI St. Luke’s Health Memorial began offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening to eligible patients. Medicare covers ages 55-77 (commercial insurance 55-80, but Aetna 55-79). Even within those age ranges, an eligible patient must be a current smoker (or quit no more than 15 years) with at least a 30 pack-year history of smoking (for example, smoking 1 pack per day for 30 years, or 2 packs per day for 15 years). And, eligible patients must have no symptoms of lung cancer (such as coughing up blood or unexplained weight loss of more than 15 pounds in the last year). If lung cancer is suspected, a standard CT chest should be done.

Finally,  Medicare requires “shared decision making” on the risks and benefits of lung cancer screening, which means you must meet face to face with your primary care provider to get an order for screening.

Since we started screening at CHI St. Luke’s Health Memorial, more than 70 patients have been screened. Six abnormalities have been found (including an incidental kidney mass), and two lung cancers have been diagnosed. Those two cancer patients’ lives may have been saved by screening; only time will tell.

Of course, the best way to prevent lung cancer is by not smoking. Ever. Quit if you do smoke. And if you meet the criteria listed above, talk to your doctor about getting screened for lung cancer. If you have questions, feel free to contact the Temple Cancer Center at (936) 639-7466 for more information.

New Cancer Fighting Technology in Lufkin

Last week, the Temple Cancer Center treated the first patients on our new Elekta Synergy linear accelerator, the first major investment of Memorial since the CHI acquisition. To say, "We got a new piece of equipment" understates the multi-year project of visiting other cancer centers, evaluating manufacturers, specking options, removing an older treatment machine and renovating the vault that houses the linear accelerator, and determining what other hardware and software is required to make this new piece of incredible technology work to treat cancer. No small task!

All told, this project, which also included a Toshiba large bore CT scanner, Vision RT image guided radiation alignment technology and other accessories, topped out at $4.5 million. It is a recognition of the importance of exceptional cancer treatment to our region and a signal that Memorial will remain the regional hub for cancer care in deep East Texas.

So, what does this new technology bring to our deep East Texas region? For our many patients currently being treated with IMRT - intensity modulated radiation therapy - we will be able to deliver their treatment in a fraction of the time it has taken up until now, often less than five minutes per treatment! Standard treatments can go even faster. And, these treatments are often even more precise with less dose to surrounding normal tissues, which will translate to even fewer side effects.

In addition, we will be able to implement a totally new procedure to the region called SBRT - stereotactic body radiosurgery. SBRT delivers high doses or radiation over very short courses - three to five sessions, typically - and requires much finer tuning and more rapid treatment delivery than we were previously able to do. We will start using this technology for small lung cancers first, but I anticipate over time treating cancers in other locations as well. The utility of the technology for lung cancer cannot be overstated. Lung cancer is almost always related to smoking, and heavy smokers often cannot undergo surgery, because they do not have enough normal lung function to survive removal of even a small part of a lung. However, these same patients can often be cured with SBRT. With low-dose CT lung cancer screening, we anticipate finding more early lung cancer; now we have the ability to treat them even if they cannot have surgery, with equal results and less morbidity.

Another site where we plan to implement stereotactic radiosurgery technology is in the brain, where small tumors can be ablated with radiation without having to be removed neurosurgically. Treating tumors such as these in an outpatient setting without having to resort to major chest or brain surgery is a remarkable benefit of this new technology. We will not start using this new technology immediately, however, because any new procedure requires establishment of appropriate protocols, quality assurance procedures, and training, all of which will be implemented over the coming months.

The Temple Cancer Center is also excited that our social worker, Appolonia Ellis, recently completed the Harold P. Freeman Patient Navigation Program, where she learned how to better assist our patients in accessing available services and programs so that they can successfully complete treatment. Patient navigation is fairly new to cancer programs, and we are excited to have the only navigator in the area.

At a time when other industries have announced plans to cut hundreds of jobs or move out of the area altogether, CHI's long term commitment to Lufkin and the Memorial system is reassuring. They are putting their money where there mouth is, so to speak. For that, I am grateful.