Achieving Equitable Cancer Care Access in Texas

Much is known about what influences the health of a community, including individual health behaviors as well as social and economic determinants of health.[1] Health equity has been defined to mean that everyone has a fair and just opportunity to be as healthy as possible.[2] Being un- or under-insured puts people at serious disadvantage when it comes to access to healthcare and potential for positive health outcomes.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare) provides an opportunity for states to expand health coverage to low-income families through the Medicaid program. Multiple recent analyses demonstrate that Medicaid expansion is having an especially positive impact in rural areas in expansion states.[3] Many expansion studies point to improvements across a wide range of measures of access to care.[4] Finally, research shows that Medicaid expansions result in reductions in uninsured hospital or other provider visits and uncompensated care costs, whereas providers in non-expansion states have experienced little or no decline in uninsured visits and uncompensated care.[5]

Texas is one of thirteen states that has chosen not to expand Medicaid. The majority of states not participating in Obamacare expansion are in the Deep South,[6] and these states are also the states in the lowest quintile in overall health as ranked by United Health Foundation.[7] (The State of Texas ranks 37th in overall health in the United States.[8])

That’s not to say the State of Texas doesn’t spend a lot of money on healthcare. According to the Comptroller’s office,[9] healthcare spending represents nearly half the state budget - $42.9 billion in fiscal 2015 – spread across various agencies. Seventy percent, or $30.3 billion, went to spending for Medicaid and CHIP. That spending also includes direct support of various institutions.

For example, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, which markets itself heavily as “the nation’s top hospital for cancer care for 14 of the past 17 years”[10] and “one of the nation’s top two hospitals for cancer care every year since the [US News & World Report America’s Best Hospitals] survey began in 1990,”[11] has an operating budget of $5.2 billion and over 20,000 employees.[12] Of that $5.2 billion, 4% - $210.1 million – is general revenue appropriated by the State of Texas.[13]

As a radiation oncologist, I practice in the shadow of MD Anderson, even though I live 120 miles north of the Texas Medical Center. It is a long shadow. That shadow is often comforting, like an old friend. But it is a shadow that discriminates with strict financial barriers and selective insurance contracts. There is a joke in the medical community that the first and most important biopsy you get at MD Anderson is a wallet biopsy – no pay, no play.

MD Anderson does participate in the Texas Medicaid Program and has a financial assistance program for cancer patients who meet residency and certain financial eligibility requirements.[14] Uncompensated care in fiscal year 2018 at MD Anderson totaled only $170.4 million,[15] certainly less than the $210.1 million appropriated by the State of Texas and less than 3.3% of their operating budget. Modern Healthcare looked at the proportion of charity care provided by the country's 20 biggest not-for-profit hospitals and hospital systems by revenue in 2015 and 2016 and found that the average proportion of operating expenses devoted to charity care was 5.21%.[16]

In fiscal year 2017, MD Anderson provided care to a mere 420 people who primarily had no insurance and who met their financial assistance program requirements.[17] That is barely one unique patient a day at an institution that sees 141,600 patients a year.[18] MD Anderson’s first core value[19] is: “Caring: By our words and actions, we create a caring environment for everyone.” But not everyone gets in.

MD Anderson has a huge and wealthy donor base as well. As just one example, their Moon Shots Program,[20] launched in September 2012, has received $464 million in private philanthropic commitments so far.[21] In 2018 alone, 9.5% of their budget – $498 million – came from restricted grants and contracts and philanthropy.[22]

Let me say, I am in awe of the research that comes out of MD Anderson. They have every right to be proud of their #1 ranking and of having a Nobel Prize-winning scientist on staff.[23] The knowledge that comes out of an institution that sees 141,600 patients a year is staggering. The training of health care providers, including at Harris Health System facilities, is excellent. But I grieve when Texas residents who need the care MD Anderson can provide are prevented from going there.

Ultimately, quality health care is not just about rankings; it must be about access to care as well. As a state-supported institution, MD Anderson needs to loosen its requirements for providing uncompensated care and be willing to negotiate and accept reasonable contracts with insurance providers, especially Medicare Advantage and Obamacare plans. After all, a hospital cannot be “best” if it isn’t best for all. (That is not to let insurance providers off the hook. I have no doubt they shy away from contracting with MD Anderson, knowing less expensive care can be had elsewhere.)

The State of Texas should require minimum levels of charity care and insurance plan participation when hundreds of millions of state dollars are being allocated. State legislators, in view of the substantial economic[24] and health[25] benefits associated with the expansion of Medicaid, should invest in increased health insurance coverage in Texas via the Affordable Care Act. And finally, health care ranking organizations like US News & World Report should include access to care and charity care metrics when ranking hospitals.[26] These are the right – and equitable – things to do.

---

[1] https://www.angelinaradiation.com/blog/county-health-where-do-we-begin

[2] https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2017/05/what-is-health-equity-.html accessed 7/5/19

[3] https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/the-effects-of-medicaid-expansion-under-the-aca-updated-findings-from-a-literature-review-march-2018/ accessed 7/5/19

[4] https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/the-effects-of-medicaid-expansion-under-the-aca-updated-findings-from-a-literature-review-march-2018/ accessed 7/5/19

[5] https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/the-effects-of-medicaid-expansion-under-the-aca-updated-findings-from-a-literature-review-march-2018/ accessed 7/5/19

[6] https://familiesusa.org/product/50-state-look-medicaid-expansion accessed 7/4/19

[7] https://www.americashealthrankings.org/learn/reports/2018-annual-report accessed 7/5/19

[8] https://www.americashealthrankings.org/learn/reports/2018-annual-report/findings-state-rankings accessed 7/5/19

[9] https://comptroller.texas.gov/about/media-center/news/2017/170131-health-care-spending.php accessed 7/3/19

[10] https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/md-anderson-ranked-no-1-for-cancer-care-in-national-survey.h00-159226512.html accessed 7/1/19

[11] https://www.mdanderson.org/patients-family/becoming-our-patient/why-md-anderson.html accessed 7/1/19

[12] 2019 Quick Facts report of fiscal year 2018 data https://www.mdanderson.org/documents/about-md-anderson/about-us/facts-and-history/quick-facts.pdf accessed 7/1/19

[13] 2019 Quick Facts report of fiscal year 2018 data https://www.mdanderson.org/documents/about-md-anderson/about-us/facts-and-history/quick-facts.pdf accessed 7/1/19

[14] https://www.mdanderson.org/about-md-anderson/business-legal/office-of-health-policy/uncompensated-care-program.html accessed 7/5/19

[15] 2019 Quick Facts report of fiscal year 2018 data https://www.mdanderson.org/documents/about-md-anderson/about-us/facts-and-history/quick-facts.pdf accessed 7/1/19

[16] https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20170424/BLOG/170429935/how-much-charity-care-do-not-for-profit-hospitals-provide accessed 7/7/19

[17] https://www.mdanderson.org/about-md-anderson/business-legal/office-of-health-policy/uncompensated-care-program.html accessed 7/4/19 How does MD Anderson serve the low-income population?

MD Anderson has a long tradition of providing quality cancer care for many low-income residents of Texas.

In FY17, MD Anderson provided care to 420 people who primarily had no third-party insurance and who qualified for partial or full financial assistance under MD Anderson’s patient financial assistance program. The estimated unreimbursed cost associated with these patients was $17.5 million.

In addition, MD Anderson provided care to 3,717 people whose primary source of insurance coverage was a state or locally sponsored governmental program such as Medicaid, CHIP, Harris County Hospital District or other Texas county-specific indigent program. The estimated unreimbursed cost associated with these patients was $12.5 million.

MD Anderson’s combined estimated unreimbursed costs for these two categories of patients in FY17 was $30 million.

For the past 23 years, MD Anderson also has provided cancer services at Lyndon B. Johnson General Hospital for low-income Harris County residents. This program is staffed by MD Anderson faculty physicians, nurses and others at an annual cost to MD Anderson of $4 million. The MD Anderson program at LBJ General Hospital more than 1,000 new patients and had more than 12,000 follow-up patient visits in FY13.

[18] https://www.mdanderson.org/documents/about-md-anderson/about-us/facts-and-history/quick-facts.pdf At MD Anderson, everything we do revolves around our patients. In Fiscal Year 2018, more than 141,600 people sought the superior care that has made MD Anderson so widely respected — 45,000 of whom were new patients.

[19] https://www.mdanderson.org/about-md-anderson.html accessed 7/4/19

[20] https://www.mdanderson.org/cancermoonshots.html accessed 7/5/19

[21] https://www.mdanderson.org/documents/about-md-anderson/about-us/facts-and-history/quick-facts.pdf accessed 7/5/19

[22] https://www.mdanderson.org/documents/about-md-anderson/about-us/facts-and-history/quick-facts.pdf accessed 7/5/19

[23] https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/nobel-prize.html Jim Allison, PhD

[24] https://www.perrymangroup.com/media/uploads/reports/perryman-economic-benefits-of-expanding-health-insurance-coverage-in-texas-03-2019.pdf accessed 7/7/19

[25] https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/the-effects-of-medicaid-expansion-under-the-aca-updated-findings-from-a-literature-review-march-2018/ accessed 7/5/19

[26] Why did U.S. News adjust for socioeconomic status? In 2014, the National Quality Forum, an influential standard-setting body, recommended considering socioeconomic status in certain evaluations of hospital performance. Since our objective is to enable a patient who is consulting our ratings to make apples-to-apples comparisons among hospitals, it follows that we should adjust for patient attributes such as age, sex and socioeconomic status. https://health.usnews.com/health-care/best-hospitals/articles/faq-how-and-why-we-rank-and-rate-hospitals accessed 7/4/19

Continue CPRIT Cancer Research Funding

The Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) was created in 2007 when Texas voters supported legislation setting aside $3 billion for cancer research and prevention. Since then, results have been measurable and effective. In addition to clinical services that have reached every county in Texas, more than 1,200 grants have been awarded to fund cancer research, product development, and cancer prevention. That amounts to up to $300 million in grant funding annually with 90% dedicated to cancer research. Those dollars have brought world-class research teams and amazing recognition to Texas.

One CPRIT scholar, Jim Allison, PhD, chair of Immunology and executive director of the Immunotherapy Platform at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, was awarded the 2018 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for launching an effective new way to attack cancer by treating the immune system rather than the tumor. Another, Sean Morrison, PhD of The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, was elected to the National Academy of Medicine. A CPRIT grantee, Livia Schiavinato Eberlin PhD, an assistant professor of chemistry at The University of Texas at Austin, won a MacArthur Foundation Fellowship, unofficially called a “Genius Grant”.

CPRIT is governed by an appointed nine-member Oversight Committee, who operate under a Code of Conduct and Ethics. CPRIT grants are merit-based and peer reviewed and given to Texas-based entities and institutions for cancer-related research, product development and the delivery of cancer prevention programs.

In my area, the Angelina County & Cities Health District participates with researchers at UT Tyler and with the American Cancer Society to provide colorectal cancer screening and prevention services to indigent and uninsured patients in the East Texas area. This is but one example of how CPRIT funding reaches a local community and an underserved population.

But CPRIT funding is at risk. Legislators are being asked to authorize $600 million in funding for CPRIT over the next two years as well as to pass a bonding authority bill that would ensure sustainability of CPRIT for another 10 years. Programs like CPRIT cannot limp along a year or two at a time; they need sustained funding in order to plan, implement, complete, and report out research and prevention successes and failures.

Some have questioned whether or not CPRIT funding, while “unquestionably noble”, is really an essential function of state government. I get it. But, CPRIT is more than cancer research and prevention. It is an investment in our state and our economy. More than 98,000 jobs have been created and $10.9 billion in economic activity has been generated through CPRIT programs. Ray Perryman, president and CEO of the Perryman Group, an economic and financial analysis firm based in Waco, Texas, said that for every dollar taxpayers have invested into CPRIT since 2007, Texas has gained $2 in tax revenue.

Public opinion is behind CPRIT as well. According to a poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies, 70% of Texans would support reauthorizing the legislature to increase the bond issue for CPRIT by another $3 billion to extend the program for another 10 years. Nine out of ten voters (89%) say it is important for Texas to remain a national leader in cancer research and prevention by providing state funds for CPRIT.

Texas is doing the right thing when it comes to cancer research and prevention. We can all get behind CPRIT: for cancer research, for Texas, and for our future.

We Need Tobacco 21 Legislation Now

Who knew that candy apple, bubble gum, cherry cola, marshmallow, orange soda, s’mores, chocolate, and taffy were literally so addictive? Every one of those flavors – and thousands more! – are available in e-cigarettes today. Tobacco and e-cigarette use – seductively called vaping – are increasingly sucking our youth into a lifetime quicksand of addiction with health and financial costs certain to follow.

A coalition of many partners, including the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Heart Association, American Lung Association in Texas, Texas Medical Association, Texas Hospital Association, and numerous health systems throughout the state, have come together as Texas 21 to save lives by preventing tobacco use. One simple legislative change that Texas 21 supports can impact hundreds of thousands of lives down the line: raising the age to buy tobacco products to 21.

Almost all smokers start before age 21. In Texas alone, more than 10,000 kids become daily smokers every year. Lest you think raising the age to buy tobacco products to 21 is a radical idea, six states have already done so, as well as hundreds of cities across the country (including San Antonio in 2018). In fact, more than a quarter of the nation is covered by such T21 legislation.

My home county – Angelina County in deep East Texas – has the dubious distinction of ranking dead last in Texas for health behaviors according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (accessible online at www.countyhealthrankings.org). Our higher than average adult smoking rate is a major factor in that determination. If we are to change the health behaviors of an entire county, we must address some factors more globally. Smoking is one of them.

Raising the smoking age to 21 will not have a big economic impact on retailers, as only 2% of US cigarette sales go to those under age 21. But the long-term impact on our taxes, of which too much goes to smoking-caused healthcare, will be significant. In Texas, Medicaid costs caused by smoking amount to almost $2 billion annually. Total annual healthcare costs in Texas directly caused by smoking reach nearly $9 billion. If fewer kids start smoking, we will – over time – see a significant decrease in smoking-related expenditures. Not to mention that our kids will enjoy longer and healthier lives.

Our children are so vulnerable to influence when they are in their early teens. On average, kids in the US try smoking for the first time even before they are 14 years old. They get their first cigarettes from older teens. Most high school seniors can legally buy cigarettes even before they graduate high school, because the legal age to purchase currently is 18. This gives younger teens easy access to nicotine and tobacco though their peers.

States and cities that have enacted T21 legislation have seen a significant drop in youth smoking initiation. The Institute of Medicine (now the Health and Medicine Division of the National Academy of Medicine) notes that raising the tobacco sale age will not only significantly reduce the number of adolescents and young adults who start smoking, it will reduce smoking-caused deaths and immediately improve the health of adolescents, young adults and young mothers who would be deterred from smoking, as well as their children.

It’s not just about cigarette smoking, though. E-cigarettes must be included in any T21 legislation. The tobacco industry, seeing overall declines in US smoking rates, cleverly (and sinisterly) purchased e-cigarette companies and began refining and marketing these nicotine delivery systems to our kids. Vaping became mainstream.

The power of the tobacco industry to addict people to nicotine is evident in the fact that e-cigarette company Juul – in which tobacco giant Altria owns a large stake – has grown quickly to be worth as much as $38 billion by some estimates. Juul’s annual revenue is said to be $2 billion. Addicting teens with flavors like mango, creme brulee, and mint has resulted in more kids using electronic cigarettes than regular cigarettes. In fact, e-cigarette use among youth is now considered to be an epidemic.

Juul and other vaping devices are not toys. Evidence continues to build that for young people, using e-cigarettes increases the likelihood of smoking cigarettes. Some of the chemicals in e-cigarettes are harmful as well. And the effects of nicotine on developing brains are not fully known. Especially worrisome is evidence that nicotine can cause impaired brain development, especially of the prefrontal cortex, which affects judgement and impulse control. To flavor a highly addictive chemical and sell it to children is not only sinister and dangerous; it is appallingly profitable for the very tobacco companies who have been driving up our healthcare costs killing us with cancer, heart disease, COPD, and many other illnesses for decades.

What can we do right now? Polls show nearly 70 percent of voters across party lines favor T21 legislation. Over half of voters strongly favor it. Sen. Joan Huffman and physician Rep. John Zerwas have introduced Senate Bill 338 and House Bill 749 — both of which include e-cigarettes — to protect kids from tobacco addiction and save lives by raising the tobacco age in the state to 21. This something we can all agree on. Let’s pass T21 legislation in Texas this session.

The Financial Burden of Cancer Care

As a board-certified radiation oncologist, I’m trained to know all about cancer and its physical effects on people. Similarly, as a board-certified hospice and palliative care physician, I am well-versed about the psychosocial and spiritual trials patients go through, especially at the end of life. But a recent study I read stopped me in my tracks with a disturbing finding: Cancer is bankrupting an astounding number of patients.

Adrienne Gilligan, PhD, publishing her research in the American Journal of Medicine, found that 42% of cancer patients deplete their life savings within 2 years of diagnosis. This “financial toxicity” –  arguably every bit as serious as the emotional and physical toxicity associated with cancer treatment – risks forcing far too many cancer patients to make an agonizing choice between almost certain death and overwhelming debt.

The Advisory Board Company, a Washington, DC-based organization that researches best practices in healthcare and other industries, highlighted from Gilligan’s article that “the direct medical costs from cancer exceed $80 billion in the United States. [The authors] cited previous research finding that up to 85% of cancer patients leave the workforce during their initial treatment, and more than 50% of cancer patients at some point experience bankruptcy, house repossession, loss of independence, and breakdowns in their relationships.”

One observation from this research that should be even more concerning for those of us in deep East Texas is that in more vulnerable populations with lower socioeconomic status and clinical factors such as smoking and poorer health – this describes Angelina County and surrounding counties – the risk of asset depletion is even greater. Even for those with health insurance, the researchers wrote, deductibles and copayments for treatment, supportive care, and nonmedical or indirect costs (for example, travel, caregiver time, and lost productivity) may be financially devastating.

I see this financial burden all the time. Monthly, I get a report from my billing office on the bills that patients are not paying despite multiple contacts. Most of the time, these are deductibles and copays that patients – who live paycheck to paycheck and who have no savings to start with – never are going to be able to pay. Sometimes it is the entire bill, in the case of uninsured and indigent patients. As a physician, I really only have two options: send them to a collection agency to harass them and try to get whatever proverbial blood out of the turnip they can, or write them off. That my patients should suffer not only with a cancer diagnosis and treatment side effects but also possible bankruptcy is absurd. I am rightfully appalled and angered that our federal healthcare reimbursement system and the private insurance complex have achieved “cost savings” by placing more and more of the financial burden onto patients, who simply are unable to pay. The bankruptcy monster is always at the door.

Doctors are familiar with the Latin phrase primum non nocere – first, do no harm. The idea is really that we should balance the risks of treatment with the benefits. I imagine when that phrase was coined the author did not have financial harm in mind. Today, it has become one of the most important “risks” when weighed against the hoped for gains of treatment. Unfortunately, the provision of healthcare has become a commodity and providers are reduced to revenue-producing cogs on the wheel in a system that has replaced the patients’ needs with productivity metrics. The profession of medicine is less and less in charge of the provision of medicine.

In spite of this new reality, healthcare providers – doctors, hospitals, etc. – must recognize that the mission of any healthcare organization is first and foremost health, not profit. When profit alone drives healthcare decisions, the cart is before the horse. And forcing patients into bankruptcy with draconian billing and collection policies profits no one (except maybe collection agencies). Accounts that have little chance of being paid need to be written off quickly and completely.

In hospital systems, some critical services – for example, social work, patient navigation, discharge planning – may have no direct link to the bottom line in terms of a reimbursable, codable procedure or office visit, but nonetheless have a profound impact on preventing financial losses by impacting readmission rates and avoidable costs associated with inability to comply with prescribed courses of treatment. In addition, finding sources of payment for patients can bring dollars in that otherwise would not be seen. These services must not only continue, but be expanded.

Ultimately, legislators need to change the way healthcare services are valued and reimbursed so that the increasingly unmanageable financial burden that falls on everyone – even the insured, hardworking folk – doesn’t bankrupt us all. This isn’t about patient responsibility; it is about preventing personal financial catastrophe. And now it’s January with high deductibles and never-ending copays to meet. I’m afraid we are in for a bumpy ride. Happy New Year!

Fewer Women Need Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer

Less is more. When we find examples of that in medicine, we celebrate. In oncology – at least in fields like early breast cancer, where cure rates are high – the goal is to treat better, smarter – less – while maintaining high cure rates. In radiation oncology, strong scientific evidence has led to the widespread adoption of breast conserving surgery and radiation (less surgery) over mastectomy. Now, we have solid data that fewer women need chemotherapy as well.

It has taken a long time for that chemotherapy pendulum to swing back. In the 1980s, the prevailing mantra was high-dose chemotherapy for most women with breast cancer. Women even demanded and lobbied for the “right” to receive bone marrow transplants for aggressive breast cancers. My mother-in-law received a bone marrow transplant at an academic medical center in Lubbock, Texas. She stayed in the hospital for 30 days, much of that in the ICU, and nearly died from the treatment. Unfortunately, after recovering from the transplant she died from her cancer anyway. In retrospect, bone marrow transplant treatment for breast cancer can only be described as excessive, ineffective, and highly toxic. The scientific evidence just wasn’t there yet to support it.

Even putting aside bone marrow transplants, the promise of more and more chemotherapy that started around 1975 resulted in almost every woman with a cancer larger than a centimeter – not even a half inch – being recommended to get chemotherapy. That meant a lot of women were being treated with undeniably toxic chemotherapy who didn’t need it.

Thankfully, many advances along the way have helped determine who may or may not benefit from chemotherapy. Identification of receptors on an individual woman’s cancer for estrogen, progesterone, and HER2, for example, can guide certain treatment recommendations. In our modern era of often over-hyped personalized medicine, a test called Oncotype DX (developed in 2003) has actually revolutionized the way we decide for many women who gets chemotherapy and who doesn’t.

Oncotype DX is a 21-gene assay of a patient’s tumor that evaluates risk of recurrence with and without chemotherapy for women with early stage estrogen receptor-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer. The resultant individualized score quantifies the 10-year risk of distant recurrence and, therefore, the likelihood of chemotherapy benefit for that particular patient. Physicians receive a report indicating their patient is in a low risk, intermediate risk, or high risk group for recurrence. The practice until recently has been to offer chemotherapy in the high risk group and to consider it in the intermediate risk group as well.

On June 3, 2018, the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine published a practice-changing article that will have tens of thousands of women in the intermediate risk group celebrating each year, because they, too, won’t have to have chemotherapy. This is one of those game-changer moments when the news hype is real. The test is anticipated to spare nearly 70% of women from having to have chemotherapy who probably would have been recommended for it previously. One of the study’s authors estimated that around 60,000 women with breast cancer will benefit each year by not having to have chemotherapy.

In the US alone this year, about 266,000 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in women, and there will be about 41,000 deaths. The 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer is 99%! But women who won’t die from breast cancer don’t want to suffer through treatment they don’t need.

Breast cancer treatment remains quite complicated. There is not – and never will be – a one size fits all approach. Many women do need chemotherapy for breast cancer. Screening and early detection with mammography remain critically important to finding breast cancers earlier, when less aggressive treatments are much more likely to be recommended. Breast cancer treatment is an example where less can, indeed, be more.

The Truth about Big Tobacco

There was some big, big news recently that you probably haven’t heard. After years of legal wrangling, the tobacco industry has not only been found guilty of fraud, conspiracy, and racketeering, but they have been ordered to run television and newspaper ads admitting the truth that they fought so hard to suppress for decades.

Let’s go back to the beginning. It was more than 50 years ago, in 1964, when Luther Terry, the 9th Surgeon General of the United States, issued a landmark report linking smoking to lung cancer and a host of other diseases. Since that time, Big Tobacco lied, deceived, and in every way engaged in a no-holds-barred battle against every attempt to regulate or curtail the sale of tobacco products. In the meantime, tens of millions of U.S. citizens have died prematurely from tobacco use.

In 1999, the Department of Justice took on Philip Morris and other tobacco giants under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), alleging that the tobacco companies had engaged in a decades-long conspiracy to (1) mislead the public about the risks of smoking; (2) mislead the public about the danger of secondhand smoke; (3) misrepresent the addictiveness of nicotine; (4) manipulate the nicotine delivery of cigarettes; (5) deceptively market cigarettes characterized as “light” or “low tar,” while knowing that those cigarettes were at least as hazardous as full flavored cigarettes; (6) target the youth market; and (7) not produce safer cigarettes.

Seven years later, in 2006, Federal District Court Judge Judy Kessler ruled that Philip Morris and other tobacco companies engaged in fraud, conspiracy and racketeering – all to deliberately deceive the American public about the health risks of smoking and secondhand smoke. Her ruling noted that Big Tobacco had “marketed and sold their lethal product with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success, and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted.” Judge Kessler ordered that these companies admit their guilt publically by running newspaper and television ads detailing their deception.

It took eleven more years – and a lengthy appeal process – for Big Tobacco to finally agree to any sort of public mea culpa about the health effects of smoking and their role in addicting hundreds of millions of people. Their watered-down admissions of guilt (known in legal parlance as “corrective statements”) will appear in about 50 newspapers and for a year on major television networks. One startlingly honest (and obvious) fact that must be publicized is that Altria, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard, and Philip Morris USA intentionally designed cigarettes to make them more addictive.

Think about that. At a time when we rightly are criticizing pharmaceutical companies for how they market pain medications (which actually have a therapeutic use), we still give a pass to the companies that market the most addictive, useless, and deadly product around. At least Big Tobacco now must admit publically that “More people die every year from smoking than from murder, AIDS, suicide, drugs, car crashes, and alcohol combined.”

Other statements you may see are, “Many smokers switch to low tar and light cigarettes rather than quitting because they think low tar and light cigarettes are less harmful. They are not,” and “There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.” Sadly, we have known all of this for years. No, decades.

These ads started on November 26, but I have yet to see one myself. I wonder if anyone who needs to see them will see them. Major newspapers and even television are not the way our vulnerable youth consume media these days. I am sure Big Tobacco is counting on that.

In the meantime, tobacco sales continue at a brisk pace. A Wall Street Journal article in April of this year noted that revenues for U.S. tobacco companies hit $117 billion in 2016, up from $78 billion in 2001, despite lawsuits, rising taxes and declining smoking rates. Americans spent more than $90 billion on cigarettes in retail stores last year.

Stores that sell tobacco products today are complicit in the very deception that Big Tobacco is guilty of. The retail markup of tobacco products, according to the Wall Street Journal, is 17%, higher than that on groceries. No wonder grocery and convenience store chains put tobacco products front and center in their stores – or even out in front of their stores. Easy money. Dirty money.

The conservative/libertarian argument about supply and demand and “personal choice” is, pardon the pun, smoke and mirrors when people are knowingly addicted to the product in question. Cigarettes are not sugar water. I don’t mind companies making a profit – even obscene profits – as long as it isn’t by addicting us and killing us.

If nothing else comes from this mea culpa – these “corrective statements” – I hope tobacco and related products become so regulated and so taxed that not only is it not possible to become addicted, but it is too expensive for our youth to even consider starting. Nothing short of a world without tobacco will do. Perhaps that is a pipe dream, but our kids are worth it.

Why I Shout about Being a Cancer Doctor

A prestigious oncology journal recently published an opinion piece titled, “Why I Keep Quiet about Being a Cancer Doctor.” I was depressed after reading it, because the author self-identified as “someone who deals with the onslaught of disease and despair day in and day out.” If that is his true outlook, no wonder he keeps quiet! He seemed to have difficulty answering the question, “How do you do this every day?” When he managed to reflect poetically about the nuances and minefields of daily practice, it was almost apologetically. 

Let me just say, I love being asked what I do. Maybe that’s because I love what I do!

I love my patients, for one thing, and I try hard not fall into the easy trap of judging people based on lifestyle or insurance status. Whether their cancer was self-inflicted or environmental, genetically-linked or totally random, I find there is always something in everyone worthy of compassion and care. Cancer is a journey, and cancer patients need to trust that their physician is committed to going on the journey with them. I do that, honestly, out of respect for the dignity of each individual. It doesn’t hurt that I am constantly aware that my time may come, and I, too, want to be treated with compassion and respect.

I love being a provider of hope. That’s not limited just to hope for cure, as much of a desired goal that may be. Sometimes my most grateful patients have been the ones I have told are dying. They usually knew it, but nobody would talk to them about it (not to mention they were afraid to ask). Giving them hope - of comfort, of peace, of relief of pain - is very gratifying. Their care is no less important than the wonderful cures we prefer to celebrate. 

Of course, I love sharing the news of success in oncology. In the more than twenty five years I have been in practice, the cure rate of all cancers combined increased from 50% to 70%. That is a remarkable improvement! Many cancers have 5-year survival rates well above 90%. Last month – Breast Cancer Awareness Month – we celebrated the fact that the breast cancer death rate has dropped 40% over the same period of time.

Yes, the oncologist writer rightly pointed out how demanding (and emotionally exhausting) it can sometimes be to be a cancer doctor. We don’t cure pancreatic cancer often at all. And it is frustrating that the cancer that kills more people than any other – lung cancer – is almost entirely preventable. And we’ve all known that for more than 50 years. 

I do tire of dealing with the cancer conspiracy theories that inevitably come up, like, “Drug companies have a cure; they are just keeping it from us.” But rather than ignore or avoid opportunities to both dispel myths and celebrate research triumphs, I relish the chance to advocate not only for my specialty, but for organizations like the American Cancer Society and movements like hospice care, which help us with everything from research, prevention and early detection, treatment support and survivorship, to palliative and end of life care where needed.

Above all, being a physician (and specifically an oncologist) is for me a sacred calling. How can I keep quiet about what I love and am called to do? I can’t suppress talking or writing about my passion any more than a bird can stop chirping in the spring. That’s worth shouting about!

Moving the Needle on Health in Angelina County

Back in January, I wrote about the abysmal county health rankings in Deep East Texas and the fact that Angelina County has been named the county with the highest obesity rate in Texas. Almost four out of ten of us aren't merely overweight, we are downright obese. Let’s just admit it; we’re fat. And that fatness is a major factor in the development of high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, and many cancers, among other illnesses. 

Obesity is a two-edged sword that is both killing us early and costing us a lot in terms of ongoing healthcare expenditures and lost productivity. Smoking is, of course, another huge factor in our high cost of healthcare and poorer health outcomes. We must do better.

The rhetoric on the national stage is all about the skyrocketing cost of health insurance and how to tweak (or get rid of) Obamacare, as if that would solve our healthcare problems. The government can’t do it for us, folks. Regardless of what happens with healthcare reform, we need to collectively get off our fat behinds and take more responsibility for our own health. We need to do this individually, yes, but we also need to work on this as a community.

I mentioned in January the groundwork being laid by the Texas Forest Country Partnership. They hosted a series of strategic planning sessions to set goals for growth across a broad spectrum of our regional economy, from forestry and tourism to manufacturing and healthcare. Part of their healthcare recommendation was to raise our county health rankings in the region.

Since then, the $1 billion Episcopal Health Foundation, whose goal is to improve the health of the 10 million people living throughout the 57-county region served by the Episcopal Diocese of Texas, hosted a community meeting in Nacogdoches specifically to deepen their relationship with organizations working to improve community health in this area. Other foundations have expressed a similar interest.

But let’s be very clear: no foundation or partnership is going to do the work for us. We all have to be involved. The amazing thing about Angelina County is the number of resources we already have, along with the incredible people behind them! These resources need to intentionally focus on both individual and community health and work in a coordinated effort to put the pieces of our health puzzle together.

Hospitals must strengthen community outreach, especially with diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and cancer education. Physicians must expand care for the indigent in our communities. It is our duty. The Angelina County & Cities Health District deserves our full support for the incredible care they already provide, but they can and must do more. That requires funding, whether from grant support, state government, or from within Angelina County. Their primary care outreach is crucial to the health of our county.

Organizations like the American Cancer Society, The Coalition, ADAC, and the Burke Center must expand outreach and education about healthy lifestyles and disease prevention, cancer screening, smoking cessation, and immunizations. Women’s Special Services at CHI St. Luke’s Health Memorial will continue to apply for grants for low income women to get breast and cervical cancer screening. 

Lufkin went smoke free years ago and is better off for it. What about other cities? Diboll? Angelina County? Texas? Our state legislators need to use that proposed bathroom bill as toilet paper and instead pass smoke free legislation, which we know will both improve the health of our communities and save taxpayer dollars.

Chamber businesses need to provide or strengthen wellness programs for their employees, encouraging healthier lifestyles, diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. Maybe if people had to climb two flights of stairs to buy their cigarettes rather than drive through a barn or stop at a convenience store, fewer people would smoke. And they’d lose weight while they were at it! Is it just as easy for us to shop for healthy foods as it is tobacco and junk food? How do we encourage and facilitate healthy eating?

Our educational institutions from elementary school through college should have comprehensive, intentional programs to promote health and exercise. It is discouraging when I see employees at both our local hospitals riding the elevator to go up one floor when taking the stairs is much more beneficial.

Active events like the Neches River Rendezvous, Pineywoods Purgatory and Relay for Life are fantastic. What other events can we organize that will involve an even larger and broader swath of people year round? Find a reason to get outside. Participate in a fun run, even if you simply walk a mile or two. A stroll around the zoo can be good exercise and lots of fun. Or, spend an hour or two hiking the trails at Kit McConnico Park. It’ll do your heart and soul good! 

City sidewalks have been a great addition in recent years. Use them! Our Parks and Recreation Department has a website with programs and classes as well. Do we have a master plan for parks and recreation activities? If not, maybe we should.

I have a dream of a coordinated community effort where healthy living concepts infuse everything we do. Will Angelina County catch the vision to join in this effort? Lifestyle changes are hard. Nothing happens overnight. Changes in community health are measured over years - decades, even. We cannot get discouraged. Slow, meaningful progress over time will make a difference.

One early step coming up is the Texas Forest Country Partnership Economic Summit November 7-8, 2017 at the Pitser Garrison Convention Center. Included in that Summit will be a Rural Healthcare Symposium. Though it will address more than just Angelina County healthcare, it will be an important venue to discuss and brainstorm together. The Texas Forest Country Partnership should continue to take the lead in bringing groups together, applying for and administering grants, and monitoring progress and effectiveness.

As we plan for a healthy new direction in Angelina County, I encourage everyone to get involved. Be prepared to work! Come up with concrete ideas that you (or your business or organization) are willing to implement. Where philanthropic support is necessary, we will approach local, regional, and national foundations for assistance.

We must become the change we want to see and move the needle on health in Angelina County out of the red zone and into the green. Who’s with me?

A Truly Community-Wide Cancer Program

Every three months or so, I chair a meeting at CHI St. Luke’s Health Memorial in Lufkin of the Cancer Committee. As an accredited cancer program through the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) since 1995, we have many different standards we have to meet dealing with quality of care and services provided. Our Cancer Committee – which is composed of the radiation, chemotherapy, and surgical doctors, radiologists, pathologists, and others (nursing, social work, etc.) involved in cancer care – is charged with maintaining a program that meets or exceeds the CoC standards.

There are around 1,300 CoC-accredited cancer programs in the U.S. This represents about 25% of hospitals. However, accredited facilities treat nearly 70 percent of recently diagnosed U.S. cancer patients annually. A multidisciplinary approach to cancer treatment is a key defining feature of accredited programs. In other words, do your cancer physicians communicate with one another and work together on a plan of care for you. The patient is the center and focus of care.

The benefit to you as a cancer patient is knowing that you are receiving quality and comprehensive care, close to home, with a complete range of state-of-the-art services and equipment. A multidisciplinary team approach ensures you are offered current, national guideline-recommended treatment options, including access to clinical trials if desired. Prevention and early detection programs, cancer education and support services are available. Some of these services are in the Temple Cancer Center (radiation treatment) or the East Texas Hematology and Oncology Clinic (chemotherapy), but others may be in local surgeon’s offices or even in the hospital.

Actual diagnosis and treatment of cancer is just the tip of the iceberg of a comprehensive cancer program. As I chaired our Cancer Committee meeting last week, I heard reports about all the great things we are doing out in the community related to cancer patients. Our community outreach coordinator, Tina Alexander-Sellers, presents cancer prevention and screening information to literally thousands of people each year at health fairs and industry and workplace events, educating our community on getting screening mammograms and Pap smears, smoking cessation, colorectal cancer screening, and even lung cancer screening for smokers at high risk for getting lung cancer.

We got an update from Sharon Shaw on the colorectal cancer screening efforts for under- and un-insured patients through the Angelina County & Cities Health District as part of a state grant in which we participate. Angie Whitley, our nurse over Women’s Special Services, detailed the number of low income women reached for mammograms and Pap smears through our state grant in her area.

Jay Gilchrist, our Vice President of Mission Integration, talked about CHI’s Community Needs Assessment and a new FQHC (Federally Qualified Health Center) branch office to be opened soon in North Lufkin, further expanding the healthcare options for our minority and underserved populations.

We discussed how we can meet a need we have in the community for more and better palliative care, which extends beyond just cancer patients and end-of-life care. Palliative care is focused on providing relief from the symptoms and stress of any serious illness, even while curative or aggressive treatment is being administered. It is a recognition that all patients and families want to maintain or improve quality of life even when dealing with a serious illness, not just when an illness is terminal.

The American Cancer Society representative, Daisy Drinkard, updated us on the impact the ACS is having by reaching patients through our oncologists at the East Texas Hematology and Oncology Clinic and at the Temple Cancer Center as well as through their strong work at the ACS office.

The Temple Cancer Center social worker, Apollonia Ellis, described how she is helping meet the needs of dozens of cancer patients already this year with navigation needs, be it transportation, lodging, or psychosocial and spiritual support. Our nurse practitioner, Kim Burnett, and oncology nurse, Madelene Collier, reviewed programs we recently developed dealing with genetic counseling and testing as well as cancer survivorship.

In addition, patients that are diagnosed and/or treated at CHI St. Luke’s Health Memorial in Lufkin are tracked and followed by our Cancer Registry, which has entered more than sixteen thousand patients since 1990. Our certified tumor registrar, Ginger Strange, can analyze patient data over the years for type of cancer, stage, treatment given as well as results.

As you can see, a comprehensive cancer program is about so much more than “simply” treating cancer patients, as if that alone was simple! Quality, multidisciplinary care includes recognizing and providing solutions for the needs of cancer patients both in and out of the clinic. I am proud of our truly community-oriented cancer program at CHI St. Luke’s Health Memorial in Lufkin. Kudos to all who are a part!

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!