[cdn-nucl-l] Low dose radiation therapy is suppressed by drug preferences in medicine

["Jerry Cuttler" <jerrycuttler@rogers.com>]

This is very interesting!
(I wrote an article on Ed Bauser for the CNS Bulletin in Year 2000.)
Jerry

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Muckerheide, James" <jimm@WPI.EDU>
To: <rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>; <mbrexchange@list.ans.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 11:55 AM
Subject: LDR therapy is suppressed by drug preferences in medicine


> Friends,
>
> This report addresses the same problem Ed Bauser found when seeking low
dose
> radiation therapy.  His oncologist, who was making $100s thousands per
year
> working in a well organized "poison factory" operation, refused to follow
his
> condition after he obtained his LDR treatment by Dr. Welsh at Johns
Hopkins.
> LDR is similarly limited to the "non-proprietary" treatments that affect
much
> of normal medical practice.
>
> Regards, Jim Muckerheide
> ====================
> Dear Reader,
>
> Imagine sitting down with your doctor to receive the shocking news that
you
> have bone cancer and only a couple of years to live. Even worse, he tells
you
> that your life expectancy will be considerably shorter unless you
immediately
> begin an intensive round of chemotherapy.
>
> Then imagine saying, "No thanks; no chemo for me," and going on to live
for
> well over a decade.
>
> Against the odds, that's what happened to Michael Gearin-Tosh, a don of
> English literature at Oxford University. In the e-Alert "Land of the
Living"
> (3/11/03) I told you about Mr. Gearin-Tosh's remarkable book, "Living
Proof:
> A Medical Mutiny," in which he describes the rigorous nutritional regimen
he
> used to control his cancer.
>
> "Living Proof" is not an attack on chemotherapy use, but it offers a
reminder
> that the need for chemotherapy should always be questioned because this
harsh
> treatment is sometimes prescribed for cancers that simply don't respond to
> chemo. Why? The answer to that question uncovers a disturbing business
aspect
> of chemotherapy that few patients ever get a glimpse of.
>
> -------------------------------------------- 
> Offsetting costs
> -------------------------------------------- 
>
> Cancer patients often receive chemotherapy drugs in the offices of their
> oncologists. This procedure, now fairly standard, was established in the
> early 90's to avoid the high costs of administering the drugs in a
hospital.
> The wrinkle that makes this situation unique is that the oncologists
purchase
> the drugs themselves and bill their patients. And the wrinkle that makes
this
> situation a potential problem is that oncologists typically charge
patients
> far higher amounts than they pay for the drugs. This practice is known as
> "chemotherapy concession."
>
> The oncologists say they require the additional revenue from selling the
> drugs to offset the cost of special facilities and staff to administer the
> drugs. And because chemotherapy has become such a standard treatment,
> virtually all prescriptions for it are covered by insurance or Medicare,
so
> the markups are generally not paid for by patients.
>
> At face value, this would seem to be reasonable. But I'm sure you won't be
> surprised to find out there's much more to it than that.
>
> -------------------------------------------- 
> Everyone pays
> -------------------------------------------- 
>
> The problem with this "concession" system it that it perpetuates the use
of
> chemotherapy - a problem that can be broken down into three distinct
> problems.
>
> PROBLEM 1: Taxpayers are footing a large portion of the payout that goes
to
> oncologists.
>
> According to the New York Times, the amount that the government pays may
be
> more than $1 billion per year. That's $1 billion more than the actual cost
of
> the drugs. This amount doesn't include the additional totals paid to
doctors
> by insurance companies - totals for which there are no current estimates,
> although the chance is very good that the burden carried by insurance
> companies is at least equal to the amount carried by Medicare. And as
we've
> often seen, when insurance claims rise, our insurance premiums follow.
>
> The Times quotes Dr. Larry Norton, an oncologist and former president of
the
> American society of Clinical Oncology, as saying that he and other doctors
> are just trying to "break even." Well, things are tough all over, but
don't
> pass the hat just yet to help your local oncologist squeak by, because
> according the Medical Group Management Association, over the last ten
years
> oncology has become one of the most lucrative fields of medical practice,
> largely due to the chemotherapy concession. By some estimates, two-thirds
of
> a typical oncologist's total revenue comes from the concession.
>
> -------------------------------------------- 
> Research suffers
> -------------------------------------------- 
>
> PROBLEM 2: Because oncologists have a strong monetary incentive to
prescribe
> chemotherapy (after all, they're just "breaking even"), they are less
likely
> to refer patients to clinical research exploring possible cancer cures and
> less abrasive therapies.
>
> Natural Health Line recently interviewed Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D. - a
clinical
> researcher who has treated cancer with nutrition for many years. When Dr.
> Gonzalez was recruiting patients for a federally funded study of a cancer
> treatment based on a nutrition regimen, enrollment in the trial was
> complicated by the fact that many oncologists were reluctant to refer
> patients and lose the revenue that the chemotherapy concession would
bring.
>
> -------------------------------------------- 
> Hard to justify
> -------------------------------------------- 
>
> PROBLEM 3: The most important problem is the way chemotherapy concession
> affects the treatment of patients.
>
> Two years ago, Ezekiel J. Emanuel, M.D. (an oncologist and bioethicist),
> presented the results of a study that examined the medical records of
almost
> 8,000 cancer patients. Dr. Emanuel found that in cases where chemotherapy
was
> administered in the final six months of life, ONE-THIRD of the patients
> suffered from cancers that are known to be unresponsive to chemotherapy!
>
> In Dr. Emanuel's words, "providing chemotherapy to patients with
unresponsive
> cancers is hard to justify."
>
> I'd say that's putting it mildly.
>
> Specific types of cancer that are not responsive to chemotherapy include:
> pancreatic, melanoma, hepatocellular, renal cell, and gallbladder. If you
are
> diagnosed with one of these cancers and are prescribed chemotherapy, it's
> time for a second opinion.
>
>