Monday, November 08, 2010

The Death Panels Among Us.

Unaccountable authority figures directing helpless patients into suboptimal care. Uncaring, unkind bureaucrats making life and death decisions based only on concern for the dollar. Life and death he said, which means people die based on edicts from the health care authorities. Like dead dead. Buried in the ground with worms picking your bones clean kinda dead. A future that I'll have to grant my teabagger friends, would be frightening if it ever came to pass.

And by "would be frightening" I mean "is frightening." Because that future is already here. Not in a socialistic Obamacare kinda way, but in a totally free market AstraZenecare kinda way.

Meet Dan Markingson, who is now dead.

Dan had issues, severe mental illness issues. Issues of the type that would lead him to write poems like this:

"I'm especially eager to attend this storm and SLAY those who deserve slaying.
I will choose victims immediately...
I HAVE NO EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENTS. I KILL FOR FUN!!"

Not surprisingly, Dan was committed and put on Risperdal in an attempt to make killing a little less fun for him. In Minnesota though, where Dan lived, a person can get a "stay of commitment," meaning that as long as they agree to follow their doctors orders, they will not be institutionalized.

So far, so good, right?

Six days after he was hospitalized, Dan's doctor asked the court for such a stay. The next day he recommended Dan enroll in an industry funded study of atypical antipsychotics.

Uh-oh. Most of you can probably sense where this is going. For those of you who need some clarification, I'll bring in the Bullshit Exposure Through Dramatization Players:

The scene, a large state mental hospital on a dark and stormy night. Three policemen burst through the front door carrying an obviously deranged and agitated individual.

Patient: Ah! The voices inside my head! They make me want to kill people! This sucks!

Policeman: We can't have you killing people son. You have to stay here now.

Patient: I don't want to stay here and I don't want to kill anyone, even though it would be great fun. Isn't there another way?

Doctor: Here. Take this.

Patient: Wow. I feel better now. Can I go?

Doctor: Absolutely. As long as you agree to follow my orders. Now sign this paper that will enroll you in a clinical study. I'm technically just recommending you take part, not ordering, but if you disobey my orders you stay here with a roommate who eats his own poo and thinks it's kinda fun to kill people too. So you really should sign.

Patient: What?

Doctor: Right by the X. I highly recommend it, and I have the power to have you committed.

The patient then signs.

The study that was highly recommended to Dan was designed to compare the effectiveness of Seroquel, Zyprexa and Risperdal, three newer "atypical" anti-psychotic medications that compete in the highly lucrative crazy market. Nothing wrong with that I guess. It's actually a good thing to have head to head effectiveness data in a country where all a med has to do is beat a placebo to be approved. This study was also designed and paid for by AstraZeneca, the maker of Seroquel.

Uh-oh. Here comes the list of entirely predictable facts.

- The study was too small to reliably detect any differences between the three meds. "In scientific terms this study is of very little value" said the editor of the British Journal of Psychiatry.

-It measured "effectiveness" by how many people stopped taking their drug. As long as you took your pill every day, it was effective. And if you stopped taking it, the reason why was not noted. "It does not make scientific sense to do a study and not measure one of the most important outcomes." said Dr. John Davis, professor of psychiatry at the University of Illinois-Chicago.

So why even bother to do a study that experts call out as junk science? Here's a clue.

In 1997, when Dr. Andrew Goudie, a psychopharmacologist at the University of Liverpool, asked AstraZeneca to fund a research study he was planning, a company official replied that "R&D is no longer responsible for Seroquel research—it is now the responsibility of Sales and Marketing." The official also noted that funding decisions would depend on whether the study was likely to show a "competitive advantage for Seroquel."

So....evidently some studies are to learn, and some are for show. So a sales rep can wave a shiny brochure under your nose that has a chart on it showing one bar dramatically different from the others.

So, after being stabilized on Risperdal, Dan Markingson was enrolled in a study in which he was randomly assigned to take one of  three subject medications. He was barred from being taken off his assigned drug, prohibited from being switched if the drug he was taking did not work. Other meds used to control depression, anxiety, or agitation were restricted. I'll let Mother Jones take it from here:

After Dan was enrolled, he stayed at Fairview for about two more weeks. By that point, Olson thought Dan's symptoms were under control, but (Dan's mother) Mary was still very worried by his erratic behavior. She recalls meeting with the doctor: "Olson came in and sat down and opened his file and said, 'Oh, Dan is doing so well.' And I said, 'No, Dr. Olson, Dan is not doing well.' I think he was taken aback." Even so, on December 8, 2003, Dan was transferred to Theo House, a halfway house in St. Paul. He was required to sign an agreement confirming that he understood he could be involuntarily committed if he didn't continue taking his medication and keeping his CAFE study appointments.
At the halfway house, Dan often stayed in his room for days. On March 26, 2004 nearly four months after his discharge from Fairview, his thoughts were still "delusional and grandiose," according to a social worker's note. An occupational-therapy report from April 30 detailed Dan's condition: "Personal appearance disheveled. Isolated and withdrawn. Poor insight and self-awareness." Entries in a personal journal that Dan kept during this period don't show any obvious changes, suggesting that he was improving little, if at all. Mary felt he was becoming angrier. "He was so tense, with this ready-to-explode quality."

About a week later.....

Dan had stabbed himself to death in the bathtub with a box cutter, ripping open his abdomen and nearly decapitating himself. His body was discovered in the early hours of the morning by a halfway-house worker, along with a note on the nightstand that said, "I left this experience smiling!" Later, when the blind on the study was broken, researchers found that Dan was being treated with Seroquel, the drug manufactured by the study sponsor, AstraZeneca.

Which would be sad enough if Dan had died in the pursuit of knowledge. Unfortunately, Dan Markingson died in the pursuit of a graph where one bar could be printed in color and be much bigger than the other two. A graph that then could then be waved under your nose for a few seconds in the hope you wouldn't look all that closely at it.

So perhaps, my teabagger friends, you need to worry less about the fictional and improbable death panels you fear under a future of Obamacare, and focus more on the AstraZenecare death panels of the present.

Just sayin'

Read the whole Mother Jones magazine article here. 

19 comments:

pillroller said...

say it ain't so DM big pharma is not really looking for a cure? they just want to treat you with really expensive meds and have the treatments go on and on. Do you think that if they found a cure for a major illness they would have the balls to bury that drug?

Anonymous said...

This is NOT fair DM to bring up mental illness. (Or orphan drugs for rare or congenital illnesses, or chemo agents, and especially anything to do with underground reporting.)

Mental illness is so stigmatized in this country that people 'turn off' their thinking when psychosis or other dirty words are mentioned.

Best to shove the mentally ill in a corner and hope they decide to 'get better' on their own if they don't like the corner they've been shoved.

Drug companies can get away with anything when it comes to mental disorders.

The medications are so expensive (and no patient who has been mentally ill for any length of time can pay for it!!), that the psych drug industry can sit comfortably in the back-pocket of politicians that are willing to 'protect' price-gouging drug companies because 'free' Patient Access Programs (immensely popular show of 'goodwill'). Therefore the drug companies MUST be okay in their attitude of benevolence--not unlike genteel slave-masters of the South.

Heck, the whole non-objective measures of patient improvement on a psych drug (or not) are tainted to begin with.

Please, don't ever, ever, ever bring up mental health and its treatment in this country. The issues are so convoluted (kinda like health insurance) that no one in their right mind can understand or make clear sense of what a patient can do to get better.

was1 said...

Congratulations on a well written article.

My only objection to your writing is with the use of the word "teabagger" to describe those who are politically conservative and therefore out of sync with your own beliefs. Why use a gay slur to cast aspersions on those whom you dislike? It shows a degree of intolerance that is unexpected from someone who is typically sensitive to the feelings of others as you are.

I have heard this word used frequently by the television establishment as well and it makes me wonder why they think such epithets are acceptable coming from them when they would no doubt go into convulsions if some right winger used a gay slur to describe a liberal.

Keep fighting the good fight but let's do it with facts and well reasoned opinion and leave the name calling to the ignorant, bigoted, stupid, uneducated, uninformed lame brains who are too ugly to be taken seriously.

Pharmacy Mike said...

"Tea bagger" is not a gay slur. Look up the meaning on Urban Dictionary.

They originally called themselves tea baggers. It wasn't until someone pointed out to them what "tea bagging" means that they changed it to Tea Party.

DrugMonkey, Master of Pharmacy said...

The great thing about using the word "teabagger" is that it isn't a slur at all. It's not really my thing, but I imagine all sorts of people do it. Gay, straight, and bi. To which I would say more power to you.

The only people it will annoy are the uptight prissy-ass conservatives who think anything other than 3 minutes of vaginal sex in the missionary position is an abomination to the holy creator. Precisely the kind of people I love to annoy. It would be like finding some clever way to describe my opinions as making me a "Jesus lover"

Which is why I plan on working in the word "teabagger" in whereever I can.

And the fact the teabaggers were the first ones to call themselves teabaggers does indeed make it even funnier....:)

The Redheaded Pharmacist said...

I think that the Unites States under treats mental illness no matter what healthcare model we use. Those patients always seem to slip through the cracks. And this is a dramatic example of what can happen when the wrong person slips through the cracks of our healthcare system!

Stephen Monteith said...

The free market is the evil villain, huh? Great work. After all, it's not like there are ethical guidelines we could enact to prohibit the awful abuses companies like this one perpetrates. Let's just place it all in the hands of the government, because not only are they wizards at directing scientific research, but they never, ever get bogged down by either bureaucracy or the politics of whomever happens to hold the keys to the capital at the time. We can trust them, right?

(Not affiliated with any party, by the way; that includes the Tea Party.)

DrugMonkey, Master of Pharmacy said...

Give me a choice between being enrolled in a study conducted by the National Institutes of Health and one conducted by AstraZeneca, and I pick the NIH every time.

Every. Time.

Breast cancer rates have fallen by 10% the last few years because of an NIH study on the effects of estrogen therapy. That's just one example. I could drown you with others. If you'd like me to, just let me know.

And if you'd rather base your mother's decision to take Premarin on research done by Wyeth, be my guest.

By all means......be my guest....

belovedparrot said...

I'm sick to death of the screaming ignorance taking center stage in this country, including so many of the teabaggers.

Doesn't have anything to do with Big Pharma, but this op-ed piece matches my mood:

http://www.kentucky.com/2010/11/08/1515352/poor-middle-class-vote-as-if-rich.html

Just sayin' . . . .

Anonymous said...

Wow! Drug Moneky slays Paultard. Bravo!

Anonymous said...

"Please, don't ever, ever, ever bring up mental health and its treatment in this country. The issues are so convoluted (kinda like health insurance) that no one in their right mind can understand or make clear sense of what a patient can do to get better."

Remember, kids, everything that is complicated and hurts people should never be talked about or explored.

harpy said...

what exactly do you mean by "gay slur"? is that a slur that gays use? or a slur that implies you're gay? I don't get it.

Anonymous said...

When Dan was enrolled in this drug study? Was it an informed consent? was the mother aware of this? How about the doctor?

It seems to me that that are plenty of blame to go around.

DrugMonkey, Master of Pharmacy said...

Anonymous 12:31

For the answers to your questions, I would refer you to the post that you ostensibly just read. Or to the Mother Jones article I took the time to link to.

Sigh.

Anonymous said...

Why SHOULD the care of the mentally ill be so complicated? And, why SHOULD patients be hurt (as well as the families, and whole of society) with how the mentally ill are treated (or NOT) in this country?

Don't we claim to be Christian and civilized, able to provide the state of art el primo therapy for other illnesses, such as open heart or angiography or TPA within 5 minutes of hitting the ER door for stroke or AMI?

Is it because the mentally ill don't contribute to the tax base or society? Or, that the mentally ill compete with those not mentally ill for the jobs?

Or, that we just FAIL to recognize the contributions of those that are treated, like NO ONE wants anyone to know they're being treated for a mental illness, because we can be so confidential and not violate HIPAA in sending patient names to the drug companies to enroll in their no-cost drug programs?

Most mental illness is treatable. Did you know that? Treatable, like hypertension, and erectile dysfunction and urinary urgency, as well as TB and MRSA colonization.

Yes! Treatable, and why aren't there more of us treated and functioning in society, contributing to our own welfare? Could it be because, NO ONE wants to be stigmatized with 'mental illness' unlike the little scarlet letter that stands out on the forehead of those with diabetes mellitus type 2 or Parkinson's disease?

This is even more reprehensible and less acceptable than the military quibbling over 'don't ask-don't tell' or 'pray, do tell'.

Anonymous said...

Yes, mental illness is stigmatized. The federal mental health parity law has finally made insurance companies treat mental illness like any physical illness. We should - as a society - talk more about mental health. Maybe someday, we'll be able to discuss such matters as openly as hypertension or cancer. We should - as a society - do more to help those who need help, and help those people recognize the signs that indicate help is needed.

I am bipolar and have ADD along with other conditions related to mood disorder. In the hiring or contracting process, after offer letters have been issued, I inform HR people I am under a doctor's care for ADD (chiefly because of the zero tolerance idiocy that has befallen this country), and invite them to copy my shrink's note that explains why I've got a vial of "mixed amphetamine salts" in my purse. This is for my protection - not theirs.

I refuse to go without treatment for my mental illness as it is a necessity for my productive, working life. After very short trials of Seroquel (for sleep) and Cymbalta (SNRI) - and having allergic rxns to both. I told my shrink we need to stick to mostly generic meds like extended release lithium, lamotrigine, et al. I'm willing to tweak, but not with the new crap on the market. The side effect profiles are uniformly crappy, and I don't feel like being a guinea pig for Big Pharma.

Dan's case is a true tragedy, and one that AstraZeneca should have to pay for. If it were up to me, the doctor that enrolled Dan in the trial would lose his license. How in hell can you get informed consent from someone you're threatening to commit involuntarily?

Those with illnesses as complex and difficult to treat as Dan's deserve more help and care than they are likely to get, which is a sad state of affairs.

As for the teabaggers, they should be made to forfeit their Medicare, Medicaid, VA, SSI, and any other government-run healthcare benefits, seeing as they dislike the concept so much. let them have the fun of buying individual insurance, getting into the state high-risk pool and all that. I'm sure they'd enjoy their "free market" experiences.

Stephen Monteith said...

Okay, as far as Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlements go, there is no hypocrisy in wanting to end entitlements but keep your personal benefits. Those taxes have been extracted from every paycheck to be returned as benefits at some point, which means the money is (theoretically) still theirs. End entitlements, yes; but for what the government has already taken from us, make sure we get compensated in some way.

Pharmacy Mike said...

Stephen, by that reasoning, the Teabaggers would be happy if the government simply cut them a check for all Medicare and SS taxes paid to date. That way they can do what they and Republicans (if they aren't the same thing) have been preaching for about a decade: invest it on their own.

I'd like to see the average Teabagger figure out a good way to invest his social security money. I'd like to see the average teabagger find a health care plan as good as Medicare with the sum of all the Medicare taxes he paid to date.

You know what the funny thing is? Medicare and Social Security had they been first thought of today would have never been passed. These programs are highly valued by just about all Americans at retirement age. However, if they were brought to Congress for the first time today, the Republicans would have universally stone-walled the legislation.

That's the irony of retirement age teabaggers bitching about social programs. Social programs have done this country a whole lot of good in the past. They even agree that social security and Medicare shouldn't be cut. However, any new social programs are evil and an attempt to turn this country into a socialist regime.

It doesn't make much sense to me.

Corinthian said...

I... No... Wow that just leaves me fucking speechless. My psychiatrist describes quetiapine (look, generic seroquel. Bet that's cheaper than AstraZeneca) as "the most useless anti-psychotic out there" but rather good for i) augmenting anti-depressants, and ii) treating insomnia.

And they left a guy who was actively highly psychotic on nothing but that? Doctors? Hippocratic oath? WTF?

That is a frightening frightening story.