Tag: Palliative care

  • Coronavirus: The importance of health care proxies

    Coronavirus: The importance of health care proxies

    Sadly, the novel coronavirus is wreaking havoc on the lives of older adults. Many more older adults are becoming very ill and dying from COVID-19 than younger people. Now, more than ever, it’s important to have advance directives–health care proxies and living wills–which make clear your health care treatment wishes if you cannot speak for yourself. If you’re diagnosed with COVID-19, you are likely to be better off if you have thought through the end-of-life care you want.

    No matter how old you are, it is always helpful to have designated someone to speak for you if there comes a time when you cannot speak for yourself. This person is your health care proxy. It is equally important for your peace of mind and your loved ones’ to talk about your health care wishes.

    Right now, many people are infected with or at risk of being infected with COVID-19 and dying, but anyone can get hit by a car or come down with a life-threatening illness at any time. Through a health care proxy, you can help ensure that you get the care you want. Palliative care–care that is comforting, that eases pain and improves quality of life for patients, involves no aggressive interventions. Curative care is intended to extend patients’ lives through aggressive interventions. The decision between palliative and curative care can take time, so it’s good to plan in advance and talk the decision through with the people you love.

    N.B. Medicare covers the cost of speaking with your doctor about your end-of-life wishes as part of the annual wellness benefit.

    Having a health care proxy is all the more important during a pandemic. Patients with COVID-19 tend to be socially isolated from their families. They generally cannot meet in person with their doctors. They need to have difficult conversations and understand their chance of living. Without a health care proxy, they might need to make rushed decisions about the care they want in the most stressful of situations.

    Hospitals often will help a person make end-of-life decisions on intake. But, in the midst of this health care pandemic, hospitals might not be able to. In some cases, hospitals will simply ask patients whether they want life support. Without understanding the benefits and risks or having the time to consider them, it can be hard to make good decisions. People might not understand that a decision to elect life support could mean two weeks alone on a ventilator, apart from your kids and grandkids, and then death.

    The choice of palliative care in the case of COVID-19 should mean that the palliative care provider is in touch with the patient’s kids and grandkids, keeping them apprised of the patient’s health. Patients are comfortable and will not go to the ICU or get put on a ventilator. Instead, patients might be able to spend time with their loved ones.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Five questions to ask your doctor to avoid overtreatment

    Five questions to ask your doctor to avoid overtreatment

    When your doctor suggests a particular test or treatment, it’s OK to have questions. (Overtreatment can be a problem.) These five questions, adapted from the book Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine is Making Us Sicker and Poorer, are intended to help you start a conversation and get the right care. If your doctor feels like there isn’t time to answer all of these questions in one appointment, it’s OK to ask for another.

    1. What are my options? For many conditions and illnesses, there can be more than one treatment. Sometimes changing your lifestyle, such as your eating or exercise habits, can reduce your symptoms or risk of a bad outcome enough to make additional treatment unnecessary. Sometimes, not getting treated at all is a reasonable choice. Ask your doctor what your options are, and to explain each one carefully.
    2. How exactly might the treatment help me? Sometimes patients have one idea about what a treatment can do, and the doctor has another idea.You need to know exactly what you stand to gain. A hip replacement, for example, might allow you to walk again with greater ease, but it won’t cure your arthritis, and you might need another replacement in 10 to 20 years. A drug might be able to relieve some symptoms and not others. Ask your doctor how the proposed drug or procedure is supposed to help you.
    3. What side effects can I expect, and what bad outcomes might happen? Every test, drug, surgery, and medical procedure has side effects, and some can be very serious. Simply being in the hospital exposes you to the possibility of bad reactions, medical errors, and hospital-acquired infections. You need to know the risks so you can decide if the danger or discomfort of your condition is more worrisome to you than the risks of the proposed treatment.
    4. How good is the evidence that I’ll benefit from the treatment? Many of the treatments and tests that doctors prescribe have never been adequately tested to find out if they work, or if they work in patients like you. You need to know if the treatment your doctor is recommending is a proven therapy. If not, your doctor should explain why he or she thinks it’s a good idea.
    5. If it’s a test, what do you expect to learn from it, and how might it change my treatment? If the test won’t change the treatment, ask your doctor if you really need the test.

    When you or someone you care about is in the hospital for a serious condition, such as heart failure, cancer, kidney failure, emphysema or any other advanced chronic condition, all of these questions are relevant. In addition, there is one more question and request you should make.

    • Do you have a palliative specialist in this hospital? If so, ask for a “palliative care consult.” Palliative care specialists are nurses, doctors ad other health professionals who are expert in controlling pain. They also help patients and their families with important decisions, such as whether or not to have surgery. For patients who are in the terminal stage of their disease, palliative care can explain various options patients have around end-of-life care, and help them and their families decide what kind of care they want and need. You should not have to pay out of pocket for a palliative care consult.

    _______________________________________

    This post was originally published on December 2, 2015

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Oregon may cut off opioids from Medicaid patients in chronic pain

    Oregon may cut off opioids from Medicaid patients in chronic pain

    At the height of the Tea Party and Republican campaign against the Affordable Care Act, the GOP raised a false alarm about “death panels”that would purportedly kill the disabled based on a subjective judgment and “pull the plug on Grandma.”

    But to real grandmothers like 60-year-old Wendy Morgan, who has suffered excruciating back and neck pain in the wake of two botched surgeries, degenerative disc disease and severe pain from MS for decades, there’s now a genuine death panel:  the Oregon Health Authority’s pain and evidence committees. They were slated on March 14 in Salem to finalize mandated opioid cut-offs to zero for Medicaid patients with chronic back and neck pain conditions, plus fibromyalgia.

    “This is going to come as quite a shock to a lot of people,” Wendy said before the vote. She had made preliminary plans with her husband to kill herself last spring after her opioid dosages were already cut 97 percent under pressure from government  agencies. “I never did anything wrong, always followed the doctor’s orders, but I was treated like a drug addict.” She managed to function as a homemaker even after she was forced to quit her sales job in 2009 and go on disability, but after her primary care doctor dropped her for using high doses of opioids and her pain specialist started a drastic taper in 2016, “I felt like killing myself,” she said. She went weeks without sleep, remained housebound, unable to even shower without agony and sunk into a deep depression. “It was an absolute nightmare,” she says.

    Her husband, Larry Gordon, a retired postal worker, briefly but angrily testified on her behalf at a hearing in January before OHA’s Health Evidence Review Committee (HERC), as his wife of over 40 years sat quietly next to him.

    If the plans are eventually voted in, the agency will target overwhelmingly disabled patients with 170 separate medical conditions that cause spine and neck pain for a total forced cut-off to zero opioids; these draconian limits  go far beyond even the CDC’s 2016 recommended voluntary 90 Morphine Milligram Equivalent (MME) upper limits for new — not long-term — pain patients. These voluntary guidelines have been “weaponized” in drastic cut-offs nationwide and spurred a wave of suicides by chronic pain patients.

    Larry, dressed in a blue ball cap, windbreaker and blue jeans, proclaimed, “Doctors are abandoning patients left and right. Look at what’s happening in the real world: there’s people dying. If you take opioids away from intractable pain patients, they only thing they have left is to go straight to suicide. I had to tell my children that their mom’s going to kill herself because no one else will help her.”

    Larry and his family have been petitioning local stakeholders, including the Oregon Medical Board and local newspapers, in order to bring attention to chronic pain patients’ access to painkillers. Click Here To Read The Gordon Family’s Full Story In Letters

    Fortunately, Wendy recently found through a network of pain patients a Portland clinician willing to quietly resume her high dosages of methadone and occasional oxycodone pills, amounting to a quite rare medication level of 1100 MME. It’s not clear how long this arrangement will last, but for now, she says, “This nurse practitioner saved my life.” Her pain is worse than before because the years of forced tapering worsened her MS, but at least she can visit her grandchildren, go to their recitals and ball games, take a shower. “I can live a normal life.”

    Now that the Oregon panel has tabled the vote, she can breathe a sigh of relief if her other supply of medication fails — for now.

    That option was about to be closed off to a significant portion of patients –variously estimated between 60,000 and 80,000 chronic pain patients — who are part of the 25 percent of  all Oregonians who are on Medicaid. This latest delayed Oregon action flies in the face of mounting alarms by three former White House drug czars and over 300 leading health professionals and academics who warned in an open letter to CDC and Congress about the dangerous, unintended consequences of the  harsh crackdown on opioids for legitimate pain patients, as chronicled recently in The New York Times. These professional critiques have been joined by over 120 pages of anguished testimony from patients across the country about the agonizing impact of the resulting  hard-line approaches in their lives.

    True, rigorous evidence that such policies are driving up suicides rates is relatively scarce, even though there are horrifying examples of patients like Jay Lawrence in Tennessee shooting himself on a park bench with his wife holding his hand. However, an important study published in 2017 in the peer-reviewed journal General Hospital Psychiatry found that veterans cut off from opioids after long-term use engaged in suicidal actions and thoughts at a rate nearly 300 percent higher than the overall veterans community, whose members are already killing themselves at a rate of 20 people a day.

    Oregon’s proposed but now tabled actions are even more extreme than the CDC guidelines spurring such tragedies, says the organizer of that open letter, Dr. Stefan Kertesz, a noted addiction researcher and primary care doctor specializing in vulnerable populations at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “They’re gambling with the lives of a subset of patients,” he says. “There’s something cruel in going after patients with these conditions: it’s completely untested and there’s no evidence that you can swap in yoga and cognitive therapy across the state for opioids.” (Note: Like Kertesz, most, but not all, of the hundreds of clinicians across the country protesting the national and Oregon opioid cut-offs actually don’t have a history of sleazy ties to the drug industry.)

    Look, for instance, at the dangers facing people like Sierra Brown, a former nurse who once had private insurance but is now a disabled Medicare-Medicaid patient who was denied pain medication for her damaged spine resulting from previously undiagnosed lupus and Sjorgen’s auto-immune disease . She fears she will continue to be treated like a drug-seeking addict if the influential Medicaid policies are eventually voted in. (She and others point out that Medicaid’s prescribing standards also influence private insurers.) Yet she has been given a reprieve of sorts: after showing up vomiting in agony at an ER last month, she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, but only after the admitting doctor first told her, “If you’re here for pain medications, we’re not giving you any.” Now, she is viewed as a near-angelic victim of cancer, and was generously provided with all pain medications she needed to be taken every few hours, from Dilaudid to Tramodol. “Pain-wise, I’m fine,” she says, relatively speaking. “Their attitude totally flipped. It’s totally disgusting.” But once she achieves her hoped-for remission  because they spotted her cancer early, “I’m scared I won’t be getting any pain medicines because of the law’s crackdown.”

    In Oregon, making the case for keeping opioids away from patients like Sierra when they don’t have cancer, is the alternative medicine community. Some of them don’t seem to be much more immune from conflicts of interest than drug company shills, critics say. In fact, the ad-hoc Chronic Pain Task Force, an advisory subcommittee that’s helping drive Oregon’s move to shut off opioids for pain patients, is dominated by holistic practitioners with a financial stake in ending opioids by hyping a smorgasbord of alternative therapies that have weak or limited evidence that they work for any chronic pain patients at all  — let alone with that minority of long-term chronic patients who use opioids.

    Indeed, OHA commissioned the nationally respected Oregon Health and Sciences University (OHSU) to do a review of the skimpy evidence on the efficacy of tapering and alternative therapies. In its rush to back alternative therapies as an “evidence-based” replacement for the removed opioids, the Medicaid agency brushed aside the OHSU findings that concluded the studies’ quality were variously “very low” for tapering, and “limited” or “insufficient” for the alternative therapies. Even the agency’s own summary of the available  evidence branded all of the holistic therapies, some with potentially major  new funding streams, as having “no clinically significant impact” on long-term pain. Instead, the agency seems to be relying in part on a 12-year-old survey of the personal opinions of an earlier OHA advisory panel that found these alternative medicine  treatments as somehow having “fair” to “good” evidence for “moderate benefit.” In addition, Kertesz asks about the OHA’s dismissive approach to the new OHSU review it commissioned: “Why are they ignoring their own report that says there’s no evidence that a mandatory taper has been properly assessed, and certainly hasn’t been proven to be safe and effective?”

    As of this writing, the OHA press office didn’t reply to repeated emailed and phoned requests for comment or rebuttal to the criticisms aimed at the now-tabled opioid proposal.

    Oregon-style forced taperings continue unabated, with doctors across the country reacting to mounting pressure from agencies including state licensing boards and the DEA to slash their opioid prescribing — and then kicking out their chronic pain patients who have become known as pain or opioid “refugees.” Human Rights Watch recently issued a stinging report condemning such actions: “Many patients are involuntarily cut off medications that improve their lives or say they are unable to find a doctor willing to care for them.” Yet Oregon is the only state — so far — that tried to move so decisively to adopt these potentially deadly practices as official state policies. One possible factor, argues University of Southern Illinois rehab specialist, Terri Lewis: The financially-strapped Oregon Medicaid system is moving under a Medicaid waiver to reduce spending and limit care for disabled chronic pain patients who merit palliative care but aren’t actually getting it.

    This proposed punishing crackdown doesn’t stem primarily from what patients often see as sheer sadism on the part of officials. Instead, it’s driven apparently both by a desire to save money and  a well-meaning yet misguided, simplistic and wrong-headed response to the alarming rise of opioid-related drug overdoses, largely from illegally manufactured fentanyl — not legally prescribed pills. It’s an oft-told story:  how Big Pharma companies and their crooked distributors ramped up an oversupply of opioid pills starting in the late 1990s, but much of the flooding of the marketplace was clearly fraudulent and intended to hook a new generation of substance abusers who already had addiction histories. Why else flood one West Virginia town of 9,200 people with nearly 21 million pills?  Yet while prescriptions have fallen nationally nearly 20 percent since 2012, overdose deaths haven’t been stemmed at all, rising to as high as 70,000 deaths in 2017, more than AIDS, guns and car crashes killed people in any one year. Yet as few as 15 percent of opioid deaths today are due to prescription drugs, often stolen — even as 75 percent of  new heroin users started by using  “diverted” opioid pills they weren’t prescribed. Kertesz has pointed out that today’s prescription drug dosage limits are  a “funhouse mirror image” of the drug industry’s earlier propaganda to lower the “pain score” of patients and give out way more pills: it is still a focus on a number, not on the actual well-being of  patients.

    Meanwhile, Oregon’s chronic pain patients remain political orphans whose plight is largely ignored by people across the political spectrum. They are scrambling on their own in blog posts, on Twitter and Facebook to try to get other people — or even their own factionalized pain community —  to fight back against the steamrolling impact of the Oregon Medicaid rules that will surely flatten them if the tabled rules come up for another vote.  Amara is a disabled Medicaid patient and co-founder of the Oregon Pain Action Group. She is suffering from a host of severe disc injuries following a botched epidural during childbirth and lives in intractable pain.  She told Tarbell, speaking anonymously for fear of retaliation, “It’s catastrophic and things are already so bad.”

    She and others have been given a reprieve, but the specter of this cutoff still looms in the future if Oregon decides to go ahead with their plans in a future date. Pain patients know that their quality of life — if not their lives — are hostage to a delayed state vote. Tarbell will keep monitoring this proposed vote to see if it returns.

    This article was originally published on Tarbell.org

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Barbara Bush chooses comfort care at end of life

    Barbara Bush chooses comfort care at end of life

    Nearing the end of her life, Barbara Bush opted for comfort care, sometimes called “palliative” care.  She chose not to seek medical interventions to treat her congestive heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Rather, she opted for an improved quality of life, with minimal pain. By sharing her decision publicly, she is helping to open up conversations about the value of palliative care that many people are not yet having.

    People with Medicare at the end of life always have the choice between medical interventions that attempt to cure a condition and hospice care, which includes palliative care, if they plan ahead. Planning ahead means talking to the people you love about the kind of treatments you would want if you were unable to speak for yourself. Life happens, so these conversations are important for adults of all ages. Considering these choices while you are healthy, sharing your thoughts with the people you love and putting them in writing allows you to ensure your health wishes are honored.

    To be clear, choosing palliative care means getting treatment that keeps you as pain-free as possible. It does not mean ending all medical treatment. In Bush’s case, it could mean receiving morphine to address struggles with breathing that come with COPD and diuretics to eliminate extra lung fluid. It likely means foregoing a breathing machine.

    Bush had seen the value of palliative care directly. She had once volunteered for the Washington Home, a residence for patients with chronic illnesses. And, Bush had launched its hospice program.

    The question you should consider is whether and under what circumstances would  you prefer care to ease pain, along with social and emotional supports over aggressive medical interventions. And you should ask the people you love the same question so that their end-of-life wishes are honored. You should also consider completing an advance directive, a legal document that allows you to put your end-of-life wishes in writing in a living will and to appoint a health care proxy, a person you know and trust to honor your wishes and direct your care if you cannot speak for yourself.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • US health care system fails to distinguish between needs of 65- and 95-year olds

    US health care system fails to distinguish between needs of 65- and 95-year olds

    In “Stop Treating 70- and 90-Year Olds the Same,” which appeared in the New York Times earlier this month, Louise Aronson highlights some ways in which our health care system fails people over 65.  There are many biological and physiological differences between a 65-year old and a 90-year old, but our health care system, in many important instances, treats them the same. 

    For example, when it comes to vaccines, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) offers advice to doctors broken down into two major groups: adults and children. The CDC then creates 17 subcategories for the children’s group (under 18) and five subcategories for people between 18 and 65. Yet, the CDC puts everyone over 65 into one group. 

    Of course, there are large differences between the health care needs of a 65-year old and a 95-year old. More than a generation stands between them. They look different, they partake in different activities, and they have different health care needs. It’s hard to imagine that their vaccine needs do not differ.

    The oldest old have far weaker immune systems than people in their sixties. The oldest old are more prone to illness, infections, hospitalizations and death than people in their 70’s. The oldest old tend to need different medications and care.

    Aronson suggests that we could be giving the oldest old too much or too little medicine, in different instances, possibly under- or over-vaccinating them as well, depending upon their age and other factors. For example, questions arise as to whether a 95-year old even benefits from a flu vaccine

    Similarly, Aronson suggests that people with cancer over 65 may have different cancer treatment needs, depending upon how old they are. Chemotherapy and radiation may do more harm than benefit to a frail 90-year old. Yet, our clinical research tends not to distinguish between the treatments people who are 90 need and the treatments people who are 70 or 50 need.

    Older adults are not usually allowed to participate in clinical trials. Yet, we tend to treat older people based on this research, since there is no other research available. Shouldn’t the NIH insist that older people participate in clinical trials?

    Aronson is clear that age is not the only factor that should be considered when making treatment decisions. We all age at different speeds. Income, work, stress, geography, health, all play a role. Moreover, our internal systems may age at different rates. We may lose our hearing, but keep our vision, for example. Treatment guidelines should reflect these differences.

    Aronson observes that we tend to treat older people as if their only desire is to live longer, without considering whether they might prefer a better quality of life, living on their own and without pain, to a longer life, with the help of extreme medical treatments, bedbound or hospitalized. Shannon Brownlee and others have highlighted the dangers of overtreatment. But, insurers tend to cover costly invasive procedures over less costly palliative care.

    Aronson recommends that our health care system start targeting “oldhood” so that we better understand how to treat people in their 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and 100’s. While we’re at it, I would urge that we come up with new words to describe 65-year olds and to distinguish people in their 60’s from 90-year olds. Today, anyone over 65 is an “older adult”, a “senior”, an “elderly person” or “Medicare beneficiary.”

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Three things to consider about end-of-life care

    Three things to consider about end-of-life care

    If you’re caring for someone at the end of life–with a life expectancy of no longer than six months–Medicare covers either curative care or palliative end-of-life care. It’s important to understand your loved one’s preferences. Here are three things to consider about end-of-life care.
    1. Would the person you are caring for prefer care to ease pain, along with social and emotional supports over aggressive medical interventions?  If so, Medicare will cover palliative nursing and therapy care, as well as home health aides, medical social services, durable medical equipment and drugs, through a Medicare-certified hospice agency.  There is only a small copay. This care is usually provided at home, but sometimes is available through a facility. To receive this coverage, the patient must forego Medicare coverage for medical interventions to treat the terminal condition. (Medical interventions to treat conditions unrelated to the terminal condition continue to be covered.) Also, the patient can end hospice coverage at any time and receive Medicare coverage for curative care to treat his or her condition whenever the patient chooses.
    2. Is care available to the person when the hospice team is not on site? The Medicare hospice benefit covers only a few hours a day of care.  As a general rule, the hospice agency will only accept patients who have someone to care for them when they are not on site.
    3. How do you find a Medicare-certified hospice agency?  Your local hospital should have a list of agencies in your community.  Ask the patient’s doctor to reach out to the hospice on behalf of the patient. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services just launched an online tool for comparing different hospice agencies, Hospice CompareKaiser Health News reports that right now it’s of no real value because it doesn’t do a good job of distinguishing among hospice agencies and suggests that nine out of ten hospices are very good. That said, Hospice Compare does let you know about hospice agencies you can contact in your community.  And, the Hospice Foundation of America offers a list of questions you should ask of hospice agencies before choosing one.

    Note: The hospice benefit includes some benefits for family caregivers, including respite care and bereavement services. Respite care will allow a family caregiver to take a break from caring for a loved one who is terminally ill.  And, after a loved one passes, a hospice may cover grief and loss counseling for family caregivers, support groups and memorial services. Counseling coverage for the family member can last up to a year after a loved one’s death.

    Here’s more from Just Care: