Rational Discussion, or Discussion about Rationing?

In a recent post on the Health Beat blog, Naomi Freundlich comments that although life-expectancy is increasing, so is the incidence of multiple medical problems and chronic disease in the elderly. Which, once again, raises the question of how Medicare costs could possibly be tamed?

The author goes on to say that "we also face a more personal, moral challenge as life expectancy continues its relentless march forward: We must begin to separate new treatments that will help older people age better—avoiding long-term disability, dementia and frailty—from those that merely extend life at any cost. We can only do this by having honest conversations about end-of-life issues; in medical schools, among families and between doctors and patients. "

The Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research center, found in a 2009 report that the government could save $90.8 billion over 10 years by better managing end-of-life care. And, the Institute further concluded that much end-of-life spending isn’t sought by patients and goes against their families’ expressed preferences.

$90 BILLION dollars. Makes me wonder who would be receiving that money if it were spent. Surely, much of it would go to hospitals. And some of it to physicians. Makes me wonder also if this subject can be discussed rationally, rather than it being a discussion about rationing.

Can Hospice and Palliative Care Escape the R Word?

The question Why are Referrals to Hospice Slowing? seems to be making the rounds these days.
Misconceptions about hospice and palliative care have abounded well before the latest efforts to refrom the health care system. How else to explain the persistent and continuing reticence to refer to, and accept hospice services, in most US communities. What's different today is that the skeptics of hospice and palliative medicine are more vitriolic than their predecessors, and their talking points (arguments) are more vivid - "death panels, socialized medicine".
I served as the chief executive of a hospice affiliated with a highly-regarded academic health center in the 90s, and the reasons then were abundant for the low referral rate to hospice: patients were referred to academic health centers because they wanted to avail themselves of the most sophisticated medical care for cure; the attending physicians were providing palliative care; the patients' religious/cultural beliefs made them unready for hospice, etc. We've all heard them before, and we still hear these reasons now.
It's just that now, in the context of health reform, palliative care, for some, is considered 'rationing."
And it gains credence because there is so much money in late-life care.