Race Does Matter

On August 7, 2012, Allen Daniel Hicks, Sr., died of a stroke.  The Hillsborough County FL resident was 51 years old.  At the time of his death, he was coaching Little Leaguers.

It is a tragedy to lose someone so young to a stroke, but it is not uncommon.  And race matters with strokes.

According to the Office of Minority Health at the Department of Health and Human Services, African Americans are 60 percent more likely to have a stroke than their white counterparts.  And African American men like Mr. Hicks are also 60 percent more likely to die from a stroke than are white men.

But Allen Hicks’s death was especially tragic because the circumstances surrounding it eerily echo those surrounding the death of a young black woman named Anna Brown a year earlier and 1000 miles away.

Both died from blood clots.  Mr. Hicks’ was in his brain; Ms. Brown’s was in her lungs.  Both died young and left children behind.  Both suffered from pain and paralysis before they died.  And both deaths could have been prevented with prompt treatment.

But here’s what really ties these two tragedies tightly together.  Both Allen Hicks and Anna Brown were taken to jail when they were taken ill, and both lay there without treatment while they suffered.

I wrote about Anna Brown’s horrifying death last year.  You can read the full column here, so I won’t rehash those details again.

But Allen Hicks’ story is also worth telling, because, along with Anna Brown’s, it raises too many questions for us to ignore.

A headline in Health News Florida directs you to the Tampa Bay Times for the details.  According to the Times, when Allen Hicks suffered the stroke in May 2012 that led to his death he was driving along a highway.  Despite experiencing sudden partial paralysis that caused him to swerve and hit a guard rail, he managed to avoid other vehicles and stop his car on the side of the road.  While he waited, witnesses called 911.

The newspaper account noted the extent of his stroke at that time, when it reported that Hicks was “speaking incoherently and unable to move his left arm” when the officers arrived.  And what was their response when faced with such classic symptoms of a stroke?  In a scene absurdly reminiscent of the movie Meet the Fockers, “Hicks was arrested on a charge of obstructing a law enforcement officer when he did not respond to commands to exit his car.”

Then it got worse.  His left side paralyzed, Hicks was brought to a jail, where he was apparently given no medical screening.  He was placed face down on the floor of a cell.  “From time to time his right limbs twitched,” the newspaper reported, as he apparently tried to crawl to help using the non-paralyzed side of his body.

He waited three hours for a medical evaluation.  The conclusion?  His stroke went unnoticed, but it was recommended that he receive a psychiatric evaluation.

Two hours later, he was transferred to another jail (this is how we often treat psychosis in America – jails are our de facto psychiatric holding facilities), but did not even receive his unnecessary psychiatric evaluation until noon the next day.  He was found to be “delusional with a poor memory.”

As the old saying goes, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

By then, he was past the time period during which “clot buster” drugs can save the brains of stroke victims, and so his brain was probably already permanently damaged.  But his jailers did not notice this.  He was not transported to Tampa General Hospital until twelve hours later, almost 36 hours after he suffered his stroke.

He held on for three months before he died.

The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office gave the following statement to the Tampa Bay Times:  "It is clear that mistakes were made by Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office employees and contracted medical staff employed by Armor Correctional Health Services."

The two parties reportedly paid a million dollar settlement to the family.  I doubt that this will make their pain go away.

Nor will it resolve all the troubling questions this story raises.

How could first responders and jailers fail to recognize obvious symptoms of stroke?

When did incoherent speech and paralysis become synonymous with mental illness?

And – at a time when so many wonder if there is a different standard for whites and blacks – why were Anna Brown and Allen Hicks brought to jail in the first place?

Paul Gionfriddo via email: gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.  Twitter: @pgionfriddo.  Facebook: www.facebook.com/paul.gionfriddo.  LinkedIn:  www.linkedin.com/in/paulgionfriddo/

Is Medicare Clearing Better Pathways to Wellness for Men With Depression?

You would expect Medicare to spend about the same for a man with heart, lung, or kidney disease as it does for a woman.  And if you looked at the actual numbers, you would not be surprised.  On average, it does. 

So why does Medicare spend so much more on men when you couple these disease with depression? That is a question that deserves an answer.

The startling numbers, which show just how wide the disparity is, are in the chart accompanying this column.  They are very similar to some others that I shared in my column last week.

They all come from the 2010 CMS Medicare public use data files, the most recent ones available.  The CMS file includes information on all 48 million Medicare recipients. 

Last week, I wrote that men with depression in the 65-69 year old age group enjoyed an 11% Medicare spending advantage over women in the same age group.  (The men were those on Medicare only, not both Medicare and Medicaid.)  I also wrote that the disparity persisted both as they aged and when they were diagnosed as having both depression and dementia.

That column raised at least one troubling question – why are women with depression being undertreated relative to men, when they are two to three times more likely to be diagnosed with it?

I received a number of possible answers to that question, but the most common one was that perhaps men’s needs are more intensive.  Because they are diagnosed less frequently, they may simply be sicker by the time they are, and therefore need more treatment.

The Medicare data do not include a severity measure, so there is no way to tell for sure.  But there is at least some indirect empirical evidence for this. The Medicare spending gap in favor of men is wider for hospital care (Part A) than it is for outpatient treatment of drugs (Parts B/D).

If there were an intensity advantage, however, it should disappear as people get sicker.

But it doesn’t. If anything, it may get a little wider. 

This week, I looked at some groups with greater health needs – Medicare recipients in the 65-69 year old age group who were dually diagnosed with depression plus heart disease, depression plus lung disease, depression plus kidney disease, or depression plus cancer.  In every case, being sicker (i.e., having a second diagnosis of depression on top of the other chronic disease) led to a wider gap in spending.

Three of the examples are captured in the chart.  As expected, there’s very little gender bias in Medicare spending on heart disease (2% more on men), lung disease (1% more on men), or kidney disease (4% more on men).  There is a gender bias in spending on cancer, but it favors women (Medicare pays 26% less on men with cancer).

When you add depression to these conditions, the spending tilts in favor of men again.  

• The 2 percent difference in spending favoring men with heart disease grew to 9 percent when the men and the women had both heart disease and depression. 
• The 1 percent difference in spending on lung disease expanded to 13 percent when both lung disease and depression were present. 
• And the 4 percent difference in spending favoring men with kidney disease ballooned to 30 percent when both kidney disease and depression were present.

And the cancer spending gap dropped from 26 percent down to just 15 percent.

The difference is clearly the depression.

Medicare simply spends less on women with depression, even when they have other serious chronic conditions.  You can decide for yourself about the reason.  Are men underdiagnosed? Are women overdiagnosed?  Are men overtreated? Are women undertreated?

The CMS data set does not answer those questions.

But it does tell us this – Medicare-eligible men and women with depression, at least in this age group, are clearly being treated differently.  For whatever reason, the men are getting more, and the women are getting less.

Today is the start of Mental Health Month.  This year’s theme is “Pathways to Wellness.”  So here’s my question, similar to last week’s.   Is Medicare clearing better pathways to wellness for men with depression than it is for women?

To reach Paul Gionfriddo via email: gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.  Twitter: @pgionfriddo.  Facebook: www.facebook.com/paul.gionfriddo.  LinkedIn:  www.linkedin.com/in/paulgionfriddo/ 

Women and Depression - Stoicism or Neglect?

Are women with depression more stoic than men, or are men just getting preferential treatment?

According to the National Institute on Mental Health, women are 70 percent more likely than men to experience depression during their lifetime.  Depression hits women harder than men in nearly every age group.

But if some fascinating data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are any indication, we also spend a lot less on treating them than we do men.   

Are women more stoic, or are we just neglecting their mental health needs?

The data that shed some disturbing light on this subject come from the CMS Chronic Conditions Public Use Files.  These files include data for every 2010 Medicare beneficiary – approximately 48 million people.

In 2010, according to the CMS data, 9296 men between the ages of 65 and 69 who were newly-enrolled in Medicare Part B had depression and no other chronic condition.  And so did many more newly-enrolled women in the same age group - 23953 to be exact.

Medicare spent an average of $4650 (Part A, Part B, and Part D combined) on newly-eligible and enrolled 65-69 year old men with depression.  But it spent an average of only $4010 on women with depression in the same age group. 

In other words, Medicare spent 16 percent more on the men than it did on the women.

It is possible that those first-year data were an anomaly.  After all, they represented an average of just seven months of coverage.  It is possible that the men just got earlier, more aggressive treatment for depression when they first enrolled in Medicare, and that the women caught up later on in the year.

But this wasn’t the case.  When I looked at men and women in the same age group who had a full year of Medicare coverage in 2010, the disparity persisted. 

The numbers were just bigger.  There were around 35,000 men and over 85,000 women enrolled in both Parts A and B, and around half those numbers in Part D.  And we did spend more on women with depression - $5761 on average.  But we spent $6386 – or 11 percent more than that – on men.

The difference could be explained in part because men got more hospital-based care.  Medicare spent almost 50 percent more on Part A services, on average, for men.  But it still spent more on their Part B (physician/community) and Part D (prescription drug) care, too.

And here’s the interesting thing – the disparity seemed to persist as men and women aged.

I looked fifteen years down the road, at the 80-84 year old population.  Because women live longer, there were around three times as many women with depression in this age group as there were men.  But we were still spending more on the men.

Among 80-84 year olds with depression and no other chronic condition, Medicare spent 14 percent more overall on men than it did on women – an average of $7141 versus $6247.

And the disparity in spending also persisted when men and women had depression plus certain other chronic conditions – Alzheimer’s Disease and related disorders, and diabetes.

For example, Medicare paid out 23 percent more in first-year care for a 65-69 year old male with depression plus Alzheimer’s Disease or other dementia than it did for a 65-69 year old woman with the same two diseases.  And the difference over a full year was still 10 percent.

And Medicare paid out 34 percent more in the first-year care for a 65-69 year old male with depression plus diabetes than it did for a 65-69 year old woman with same two diseases.  And while that vast difference narrowed over a full year, it was still 7 percent.

These differences also persisted as people aged.  In the 80-84 age group, Medicare paid 22 percent more for men with depression plus diabetes than it did for women, and 7 percent more for depression plus dementia than it did for women.

This disparity cannot be explained away by suggesting that the men might also have other chronic conditions complicating their cases.  These are equivalent groups – neither the men nor the women had any other diagnoses at the time.

So as we enter another Mental Health Month and strive to strip away the stigma and misconceptions related to mental illnesses, perhaps one question we should be asking ourselves is this. 

Is stoicism or stigma the reason we spend less on mental health care for women with depression?

To reach Paul Gionfriddo via email: gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.  Twitter: @pgionfriddo.  Facebook: www.facebook.com/paul.gionfriddo.  LinkedIn:  www.linkedin.com/in/paulgionfriddo/ 

We Need Foundations to Innovate in Health Care

Implementing health reform in the states is a governmental responsibility.  But Kaiser Health News reported this week that states are turning to foundations to help them with the costs of implementing these reforms. 

Financing governmental duties has not traditionally been the role of a foundation.  Governmental programs should be implemented efficiently, but asking foundations to pay for this implementation is drawing dollars away from the most important work of foundations.

This important work involves investing resources in promising initiatives that aren’t yet “government ready.”  Foundations are uniquely equipped to provide seed funding to experimental and innovative programs before they are ready for governmental action.

On the other hand, funding governmental obligations leads to two unintended consequences. 

First, it relieves governments of their obligation to justify to the public the expenditures they need to make to implement their programs.  This always seems to lead to unrealistic public expectations about how much things costs, and problems down the road with funding them.

Second, it takes limited foundation dollars away from innovation and experimentation.  Not every foundation initiative will succeed, and that’s the point.  While some fail quietly, many have changed the way we understand and address health problems in America.  Some of the best fundamentally change American society for the better. 

To name just three recent examples that illustrate this point, consider our 30 year history with HIV/AIDS, our emerging approaches to addressing the mental health epidemic, and our understanding of health disparities across populations and regions.  

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation created the AIDS Health Services Program in 1986, five years after AIDS was first reported in the United States.  It was also the same year that President Reagan first mentioned AIDS publically.  While government responded slowly to the crisis, the RWJF initiative flourished and was responsible for enabling the Ryan White CARE Act, which wasn’t passed by Congress for four more years.  

Foundations are also leading the way in breaking down the barriers between health care and mental health care.  Primary and behavioral health “integration” emerged as a treatment strategy in the early 1990s, nurtured along by foundation investments.  It took the federal government fifteen more years before it began to make a serious commitment to integration through passage of the Mental Health Parity Act in 2008, the Medicare Mental Health parity law in 2008, and the Affordable Care Act in 2010.

Health disparities are underreported and poorly understood.  This is because they often offer no “local angle” to a story, but can only be understood in the context of comparing one group or region to another.  Such comparisons are easily dismissed as “apples to oranges” by local policymakers.

However, a government-supported university-based study shows vast and stunning differences in the life expectancies of various racial and geographic groups in the United States that can’t be so easily dismissed. 

The complete article, authored by Christopher Murray and others, is rich in comparative data, and its conclusions are more than troubling.  Asian Americans in well-integrated counties have a life expectancy that is 15 years longer than African Americans living in urban settings sometimes just a few miles away.  Rural white Americans in the Midwest have a 7 year life expectancy advantage over rural African Americans in the south. 

Native American and African American men have life expectancies of between 60 and 70 years, but Asian American and white women living in rural areas have life expectancies well into their 80s.  These numbers are underscored by readily-available CDC data tables. 

Nevertheless, the federal government did not make a major commitment to funding specific programs aimed at tackling disparities until more than four years after this study was published.  Just recently, HHS announced its Promotores de Salud community health workers initiative, a strategy specifically designed to address health disparities in minority populations.

However, as Grantmakers in Health points out, both local and national foundations have been focused on this problem for years, leading the way by funding important initiatives looking at both populations and place as determinants of health status for many years.

At their finest, foundations lead governments to action by experimenting with differing approaches to solving emerging policy problems, and finding and promoting those that work best.

It’s government’s job to bring them to scale.  Then it can solve the underlying problems – like AIDS treatment and prevention, mental health and primary health care integration, and health disparities – it may have been too timid to address, either because it didn’t know what would work or because it didn’t know what the public would support.

Asking foundations also to take on this job of government will reduce the dollars available for innovation and experimentation.  The risk is that we miss out on finding an early solution to the next public health crisis.

To receive an email notifying you when new columns are published, please email gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.  Want to find a source of data used in Our Health Policy Matters? Most data sources and past column charts can be accessed using the "data source" and "charts" tabs at the top of this page.