The Attack on the Dartmouth Research: Who is Richard A. Cooper and What is His Agenda?

Part 1

“It’s like whack-a-mole,” a Dartmouth researcher commented in a recent e-mail. He was referring to that fact that, as Congress moves closer to the day when it will reconcile House and Senate versions of health-care reform legislation, critics seem to be popping up everywhere to question more than two decades of  Dartmouth University research which exposes the waste in our health care system. 

Dartmouth’s researchers can barely keep up. No sooner have they responded to one Op-ed than another mole appears, attempting to undermine the credibility of the research.

Until very recently, “The Dartmouth Research” has been widely accepted. The work done by Drs. Jack Wennberg, Elliott Fisher and their colleagues has established the fact that in some regions of the country, patients receive far more aggressive and expensive care than in other communities. Yet—and here’s the shocker—when patients receive more intensive care, outcomes are no better. Sometimes they are worse.

Wennberg began this work in the 1970s, and for years, he stoically stood up to the skeptics. It was not easy for the medical establishment to accept the notion that when physicians “do more,” patients often derive no benefit. 

His response?  More research, more data, more facts—facts that would be very, very difficult to dispute.

"In the 1980s, people tried to poke holes in the data,” Glenn Hackbarth, chair of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) recalled when I interviewed him in 2007.

By the 1990s, it was getting harder and harder to shrug off Dartmouth's findings. “The fact that the work they have been doing is so rigorous, and the reputation of those doing it beyond reproach means that [it] brings issues to the table that we wouldn't be talking about otherwise—namely that more care leads to poorer quality,” Dr. George Isham, medical director of HealthPartners of Minnesota explained when I wrote a history of the Dartmouth research in 2007. “We are not just talking about wasting money," he added.   When patients undergo an unnecessary procedure, they are exposed to risk without benefit.

With the 1996 publication of the first Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care, Wennberg’s work began making headlines nationwide, not just in medical journals, but in the mainstream media: the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch,  the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Miami Herald  and the New York Times all trumpeted Dartmouth’s findings: “Less care can be better care.”

“What is so profound—and so scary—is that the data is so powerful, and it doesn't change,"  says Dr. Christine Cassell, president of the American Board of Internal Medicine.  "There is a stark correlation between reduced utilization and better outcomes.”

Most recently. New Yorker writer and surgeon Dr. Atul Gawande threw a spotlight on Dartmouth’s work in a widely-read June 1 article  which used Dartmouth data to expose overtreatment in a small town in Texas.  

Excess Capacity Drives Over-treatment

Two weeks ago the Washington Post published an op-ed by one of Dartmouth’s critics, Dr. Richard Cooper, a  hematologist and  professor of medicine with the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at the University of Pennsylvania. Cooper who claims that health care spending is higher in certain regions of the country because  patients in those regions are “poorer” and  “sicker”—“and they stay sicker, despite the best efforts of physicians and hospitals. . . .  poverty is expensive — the greatest ‘waste’ is the necessary use of added resources when coping with patients who are poor.”

What Dr. Cooper ignores is the fact that, when comparing academic medical centers across the nation, Dartmouth’s researchers adjust for differences in income, race, health, local prices, sex and age.  

As I explained in an earlier post, the researchers understand  that spending will be higher in areas where patients are  sicker.

Cooper also ignores the reams of Dartmouth research which shows a consistent, extremely high correlation between the number of specialists and hospital beds in a community and the cost and intensity of treatment. The numbers are stunning. According to a 2008 Dartmouth report , high-cost regions where patients receive more aggressive care boast 32% more hospital beds, 31% more physicians, 65% more medical specialists, 75% more general internists, and 29% more surgeons than regions where patients receive less expensive, more conservative care.

This is true not just in gold coast cities like Los Angeles or New York. If you live in Lubbock, Tex., or Hattiesburg, Mississippi—places where there are twice as many hospital beds per 1,000 residents as in the average low-spending region—you are more likely to find yourself in one of those beds. And once you are there,  “you are bound to see more specialists and subspecialists who prescribe  “more tests and minor procedures,” Dartmouth’s  Fisher observes, “because that's what we do to you when you're there."

Yet supply does not seem to be related to a community’s needs. “Differences in patient needs do not explain variation in the supply” of specialists in different regions,” Drs. Kevin Grubach and David Goodman reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association last year.

“In fact, studies show just the opposite: physician supply tends to be lower in communities with high proportions of minority and low-income residents with greater health needs, a pattern of resource distribution dubbed the ‘inverse care law.’ So while Macon, Georgia is in the top quartile when it comes to heart attacks per Medicare beneficiary, its per capita supply of cardiologists puts it in the lowest quartile nationwide.

As Jack Wennberg explains it, in areas where there are more specialists, very few of those doctors are consciously over-treating patients. The number of beds plays a subliminal role in a physician’s decision to hospitalize a borderline patient. If he knows that plenty of beds are available he’s more likely to use them. Similarly, if  a cardiologist works in a town like Miami, which boasts an embarrassment of heart specialists, he has time to see his patients more often.

 In a medical culture which traditionally has assumed that “more is always better” there is an automatic tendency to use whatever resources are available—whether time, beds or technology. The process proceeds quite naturally. Yet none of the factors shaping these decisions has much to do with medical science or the needs of the patient.  U.S. doctors are trained to be aggressive. “Let’s go in there and see what’s going on,” a surgeon might say.  “It can’t do any harm.”

 But of course it can.

No matter how skilled the physician, every treatment carries the possibility of side effects. And every patient who doesn’t absolutely need to be in the hospital runs the risk of falling victim to a hospital error—or a particularly resilient hospital-acquired infection.

   Obama is Elected: Dartmouth’s Critics Suddenly Find Flaws in the Research

It’s worth noting that those who have begun trying to undermine the Dartmouth research are, by and large, Johnny-come-latelies. When I was writing Money-Driven Medicine five years ago, I did exhaustive research, and heard barely a  word of skepticism regarding Wennberg’s work. Now, however, the doubters are coming out in force.

Why? Because some who profit from an estimated $800 billion in unnecessary treatments –one third of the dollars that we spend on health care– are threatened by White House budget director Peter Orszag’s conviction that we can cut back on Medicare spending without lowering the quality of care. Orszag has digested hundreds of pages of Dartmouth research, and he understands that we can enhance the quality of care by eliminating much of the waste in the system. Care will be better, not worse, if we protect patients from unnecessary and unproven treatments.  And on this subject, he has the president’s ear.

No wonder those who feed on health care inflation are now on red alert. When Cooper’s Washington Post op-ed was reprinted in the Monterey Herald, the headline was a little more direct: “Obama health pledge based on wrong data.” The attack on the Dartmouth research is, in truth, an attack on President Obama’s plan for health care reform.

In his op-ed Cooper makes his target clear: “President Obama pledged on Wednesday that reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid would pay for most of his health-care plan. This echoes remarks from Peter Orszag, his director of the Office of Management and Budget, who has claimed that one-third of health-care spending more than $700 billion, is wasted annually.” Cooper then dismisses the Dartmouth  data  as a “theory that doesn’t hold up.”

 According to Cooper, we could never have too much health care: “To really achieve health-care reform, and find a way to pay for it, the president will have to give up on the Dartmouth suggestion and grapple with some painful truths. .  . .  more is more and less yields less — the best care is the most comprehensive care, and it costs more.”

Really?  Boston surgeon Dr. Atul Gawande doesn’t agree: “nothing in medicine is without risks,” he warns in the June 1 New Yorker. “Complications can arise from hospital stays, medications, procedures, and tests, and when these things are of marginal value the harm can be greater than the benefits.  In recent years, we doctors have markedly increased the number of operations we do . . . In 2006, doctors performed at least sixty million surgical procedures, one for every five Americans. No other country does anything like as many operations on its citizens. Are we better off for it? No one knows for sure, but it seems highly unlikely. After all, some hundred thousand people die each year from complications of surgery—far more than die in car crashes.”

Yesterday, Cooper struck again–and the Washington Post again served as the vehicle for his views, quoting Cooper in  a news story headlined “Is the Mayo Clinic a Model Or a Mirage? Jury Is Still Out,” 

The Post's reporters noted that President Obama often points to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota as a model for health care reform.  This is true: the Dartmouth research shows that when a patient is treated at Mayo, it costs Medicare far less than when a  patient suffering from the same condition is treated at other, less efficient hospitals.

In a study comparing some of the nation’s most prestigious academic medical centers, including the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, researchers looked at outcomes and quality of care for heart attack, colon cancer and hip fracture patients, and found major variations in how much care very similar patients received.

One might think that marquee medical centers would all follow the same guidelines for “best practice.”  One would be wrong. After adjusting for underlying differences in health, race and income, and local prices Dartmouth found that centers located in high-spending cities like L.A. and Manhattan reflected the local medical culture, providing more expensive, and aggressive care than academic medical centers in places like Rochester, New York, or Columbia, North Carolina. As a result per-patient costs were about 60% higher in the areas where care is more aggressive– with no better outcomes or quality of care.

Why is Mayo so much less expensive? Patients see fewer specialists, undergo fewer tests and treatments, and spend fewer days in the hospital. Mayo’s doctors all work for the clinic, on salary and they collaborate. They are all looking at the same chart, and so there are fewer mis-communications, errors and medication mix-ups. Thus, the final bill is lower. Meanwhile outcomes, patient satisfaction and doctor satisfaction are higher. 

The Washington Post quotes President Obama: “So what we want to do is we want to help the whole country learn from what Mayo is doing. That will save everybody money.”

 But the headline on the Post story insists “The Jury is Still Out,” leaving readers uncertain as to whether they should trust Obama and the Dartmouth research.

Rather than weighing the facts and evidence on each side of the argument, the Post’s reporters quote Cooper, scoffing at Mayo’s reputation:  “If 98 percent of our patients were middle-class Scandinavians and no one was poor, we'd have low costs, too," Cooper declared, referring to the University of Pennsylvania where he works. 

Are 98% if the patients at Mayo really Swedish? Are they all blonde, middle-class, and above-average?  .

In part 2 of this post, I wiill consider the truth of Cooper’s many claims, both in the Washington Post and in articles he has published in Health Affairs and other journals.

 I’ll also look into why Richard Cooper is campaigning against the Dartmouth Research. What special interest does he represent?

Finally, I’ll explain why Dr. Cooper has been banned from publishing in Health Affairs for five years.

13 thoughts on “The Attack on the Dartmouth Research: Who is Richard A. Cooper and What is His Agenda?

  1. Cooper who claims that health care spending is higher in certain regions of the country because patients in those regions are “poorer” and “sicker”—“and they stay sicker, despite the best efforts of physicians and hospitals. . . . poverty is expensive — the greatest ‘waste’ is the necessary use of added resources when coping with patients who are poor.”
    Evidence from around the world indicates otherwise.
    Charles Kenny, an international development econonomist in D.C. is coming out with a book called “The Success of Development. A summary is posted at
    http://charleskenny.blogs.com/weblog/2009/06/the-success-of-development.html
    Kenny finds a lack of correlation between income and health outcomes. “The best things in life are cheap.”
    Kenny:
    “And rapid income growth doesn’t guarantee faster progress. Two things that do increase in line with GDP per capita are consumption and pollution. But across countries, there is little or no relationship between rates of GDP per capita growth and progress in health, education or human rights…If not money, then what? Global improvements in quality of life have been fostered by the spread of technology and ideas. Very cheap health technologies that can dramatically reduce mortality have spread rapidly across the world. The proportion of the world’s infants vaccinated against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus –the DPT shot—climbed from one fifth to nearly four fifths between 1970 and 2006.”
    Kenny’s international perspective shows that good public health is relatively inexpensive.

  2. Here’s one of your posts that I entirely agree with. I fully support the Dartmouth data. Of course, the medical industrial complex will push back hard against it. The geographical differences in cost and outcomes are present within individual cities, as well as in different regions of the countries. I suspect that differences could be demonstrated even within a single hospital. No issue has consumed me more in my career than excessive medical care. It wastes money, exposes patients to unneccessary risks and anxiety and spawns more testing as trivial ‘abnormalties’ are discovered. http://www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com

  3. Maggie,
    The spurious attacks against the Dartmouth Research will keep coming as long as the attackers, and those in the press who help them, are not publicly exposed on national TV.
    May I suggest you put forth your posts to Ed Schultz or Rachel Maddow?
    It won’t be the researchers at Dartmouth who will fend off these attacks, mainly because they’re arguing content, not motives and intents…which is exactly what this is all about.
    In a word, only a systematic counter attack on these corporate mercenaries will do.

  4. Excellent job. The WaPo editorial page is an outlet for politically motivated distortions of research. George Will’s work on climate change is notorious. It really galls me that they print things that are outright false, like the suggestion that the Dartmouth research didn’t control for factors like income and lifestyle. Even on the editorial page there should be some standards of accuracy, and it’s a shame that WaPo’s journalistic reputation keeps taking a hit because of the ideologues on the editorial staff.

  5. Dr. Cooper’s statement that “the best care is the most comprehensive care, and it costs more” is interesting in its ambiguity. If one subtracts the ambiguous word “comprehensive”, the resulting statement, “the best care is the most care” becomes unambiguously false, as documented by the Dartmouth findings and other sources. On the other hand, if “comprehensive” refers to integrated care that encompasses the entirety of a patient’s healthcare needs – potentially inherent in proposed “accountable care organizations” – it would undoubtedly imply more service and costs than any of its isolated parts, but less cost, fewer total services, and better outcomes than a typical haphazard collection of services provided in uncoordinated fashion. In that sense, “comprehensive” means getting more for less.
    Speaking of terminology, “inverse care law” is a gem. It will be relished by anyone with even vague recollections of past physics courses.

  6. Throughout this past summer I’ve found it frustrating that so much of what reformers have been forced to do is refute outlandish silliness. Cooper’s assertions are the high-brow version of Palin’s “Death Panels.”
    The strategy clearly is to obfuscate on all possible levels, forcing reform voices perpetually to play defense until the country tires of the noise, wishes a plague on both sides, and refuses to consider any change at all. Victory then goes to the unsustainable status quo. Very shrewd. And also very immoral.

  7. I agree with the comments below and the post that spawned them. This is perception and politcs not reality and numbers. The academics are ill equiped to deal with this.
    Singling out and investigating high profile bad-acting hospitals and their rulers will do much to solve this problem.
    I can’t understand why this isn’t being done, and it smacks of being controlled by the monied organizations.
    Will there be any mention of how the public feels about healthcare in Pittsburgh in the G20 coverage or will it be all accolades and triumph for the medico-academic complex for saving the town.
    Pittsburgh is an interesting quandry, are you against high-cost healthcare or for the jobs created by high cost healthcare providers and insurers?
    Its a focus on the issue, jobs vs. lower costing, less volume and ostensibly better healthcare and the scarey boogy man is behind every corner.

  8. One of the most interesting aspects of the Dartmouth data is the comparison of centers located and working in the same city or area.
    Dartmouth data demonstrate that centers like Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, Kaiser Bay Area, Group Health of Puget Sound, Geisinger Clinic, and many others outperform — cost less and have better results — than other centers in the same exact city or market. This negates all arguments that differences are due to regional, ethnic, economic, and other factors (including malpractice environment) and illustrates conclusively that the differences are due to practice patterns.
    I do expect a lot more push back on this in the future however, for two reasons.
    First it runs directly into the ego and reputation of many prestigious medical systems and supposedly sophisticated geographic areas of practice. The idea that people in small cities in the West and Midwest are doing a better job than silk stocking medical care in large cities on the coasts and in the Sunbelt is very threatening.
    Second, it remains a truism that one person’s medical waste is another person’s new beach house.

  9. John, Michael, Dr. Frankie, jrshipley,
    John– Yes, in medicine the most expensive is not necessarily the most effective and “good public healht is relatively inexpensive.”
    Bill Gates understands this– that is why he is donating his money to internatnional public health efforts rather than cancer reserach in the U.S.
    He knows that he can do more good (get a bigger bang for his bucks) by investing his money this way.
    It’s a tragedy that we don’t spend more on public health in the U.S. We, as a society, could be much healthier if we spent less on acute medical care and more on public schools with gyms, gym teachers and nutritous lunches,
    clean safe housing,
    smoking cessation clinics,
    etc. etc.
    Michael–
    While you and I disagree about some things, the fact that we agree here further demonstrates just how strong the consensus is about hte Dartmouth research.
    Dr. Frankie–
    I agree-and I wish I could bring this to Rachel Maddow’s attention. She’s intelligent enough to understand the Dartmouth Reserach, and articulate enough to explain what’s going on to a large audience.
    jrshipley–
    welcome to the blog.
    I’m afraid it isn’t just Wapo. Other, extremely reputable, highly-regarded newspapers have been publishing misinformation, particualrly in their op-eds, and letting people write op-eds who have an axe to grind, without full disclosure of their political motive.
    Fred– I’m afraid that by
    “more comprehensive,” what Cooper means is simply more care–and more expensive care.
    He firmly believes that what this country needs is more specialists.
    Chris–
    Yes, I’ve been exhausted all summer trying to counter the misinformation.
    It is a shrewd strategy–and immoral.
    Pat S.
    You write: “One of the most interesting aspects of the Dartmouth data is the comparison of centers located and working in the same city or area.
    “Dartmouth data demonstrate that centers like Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, Kaiser Bay Area, Group Health of Puget Sound, Geisinger Clinic, and many others outperform — cost less and have better results — than other centers in the same exact city or market. This negates all arguments that differences are due to regional, ethnic, economic, and other factors (including malpractice environment) and illustrates conclusively that the differences are due to practice patterns.
    “I do expect a lot more push back on this in the future however, for two reasons.
    “First it runs directly into the ego and reputation of many prestigious medical systems and supposedly sophisticated geographic areas of practice. The idea that people in small cities in the West and Midwest are doing a better job than silk stocking medical care in large cities on the coasts and in the Sunbelt is very threatening.”
    Well-put. I would add only that a few academic medical centers on teh coasts are doing a better job of providing value (better outcomes at a lower cost) than others.
    For instance UCSF and Duke
    both score better than many academic medical centers.
    This proves that there isn’t something about the East and West coasts that makes it impossible for deliver value for our health care dollars.

  10. Joe Says–
    Yes, powerful monied interests do resist investigating very wasteful hospitals.
    And those who protect these hospitals always raise the issue of jobs.
    But the goal of healthcare is not to create jobs.
    The goal of healthcare is to make people healthier.
    We cannot afford to waste our healthcare dollars on
    unsafe hospitals where there is too much waste and too many errors. Too many patients are harmed by wasteful care.

  11. Maggie –
    Of course it is possible to practice appropriately on the coasts and in the Sunbelt. Kaiser, Group Health, Intermountain, Mayo Scottsdale, Hitchcock, Duke,and others do it already, and as you say UCSF does better than most. From my point of view, Geisinger is on the East Coast too.
    This, as I said, proves that the problem is not the myriad excuses people cite to try to explain away the Dartmouth data, since others are already practicing effectively in their own back yard.
    It’s not in the water, it’s in the culture.

  12. Pat S.
    I agree.
    And that is what Atul Gawande made clear in his June 1 New Yorker article.
    Once a “money culture” develops in a medical community overtreatment follows.
    And this can happen in a community that is very close to another town (both geographically and in terms of demographics) where healthcare is less expensive, just as good (if not beter) and far less profit-driven

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>