Zeke Emanuel Speaks Out on End of Life Care

  • by: |
  • 01/04/2013
In doing so he confirms his original work on the cost of end of life care:  It is a small percentage of total health care spending that (as a percentage) has remained fairly stable for decades...

Emanuel has been a high profile writer on healthcare and an Obama health adviser.  I think he is one of the more sensible and data-driven analysts. I don't agree with a lot of what he says but what fun is it to agree on everything?  In any event,  this a thoughtful and sensitive article that should be widely shared and discussed.   If anything, it sets the right tone for future (and what will be endless) discussions about health care reform..

Better, if Not Cheaper, Care

Ezekiel J. Emanuel

Ezekiel J. Emanuel on health policy and other topics.


IT is conventional wisdom that end-of-life care is an increasingly huge proportion of health care spending. I’ve often heard it said that people spend more on health care in the year before they die than they do in the entire rest of their lives. If we don’t address these costs, the story goes, we can never control health care inflation.

Wrong. Here are the real numbers. The roughly 6 percent of Medicare patients who die each year do make up a large proportion of Medicare costs: 27 to 30 percent. But this figure has not changed significantly in decades. And the total number of Americans, not just older people, who die every year — less than 1 percent of the population — account for much less of total health care spending, just 10 to 12 percent.


The more important issue is that just because we spend a lot on end-of-life care does not mean we can save a lot. We do know that costs for dying patients vary widely among hospitals, which suggests that we can do better. And yet no one can reliably say what specific changes would significantly lower costs. There is no body of well-conducted research studies that has proved how to save 5, 10, much less 20 percent.

Recent studies find that hospice may reduce costs in the last year of life for cancer patients by 10 to 20 percent. But they find no savings from hospice care for patients who die of other conditions, like emphysema or heart failure. No one is sure why hospice care doesn’t save more. It may be because patients are enrolled in hospice care too late, or because hospice services themselves are labor-intensive and not cheap.

Even if we can never save a dime, however, there are good reasons to think about changing end-of-life care practices. While end-of-life care has improved considerably over the last 30 years, many Americans still die in hospitals when they would rather die at home. Nearly 20 percent of deaths occur in an intensive care unit or immediately after discharge, and too many patients experience symptoms like pain that are controllable with appropriate palliative care.

Here are four things the health care system should do to try to improve care for the dying, even if they won’t save money.

First, all doctors and nurses should be trained in how to talk to patients and families about end-of-life care. When I was starting out, I was lucky enough to be able to witness how a great oncologist communicated with patients and their families when it was clear they were going to die, but I received no formal training whatsoever. It is hard to improve care for the dying if health professionals don’t know how to talk about it. Fortunately, there are excellent communication techniques and training programs available — they don’t have to be invented from scratch.

A related intervention — an idea that never actually was in the Affordable Care Act but inspired the death panel accusation — is that physicians should be paid a one-time fee to talk with patients about their preferences for end-of-life care. Even if physicians are well trained in communication, these conversations take time and are emotionally draining. This should be recognized through compensation.

Third, every hospital should be required to have palliative care services available both in the hospital and at the homes of dying patients who are discharged. Over 40 percent of hospitals with more than 50 beds do not have palliative care services. And we don’t know how many actually have palliative care services once patients are sent home. These services should be delivered by trained experts in diagnosing and managing common symptoms of the dying, like pain, nausea, insomnia, shortness of breath, fatigue and depression.

Finally, we need to revise eligibility for hospice care. Right now doctors must certify that patients have six months or less to live and patients must agree to forgo life-sustaining treatments. The decision about whether to put a patient in hospice care should not be based on unreliable predictions about how long he has left to live but rather on his needs for specialized care, like morphine infusions.

These changes could be made in at least two ways. The Joint Commission — the nonprofit group that certifies health care organizations — could make training physicians and nurses to talk about end-of-life care and having palliative care available a requirement for hospital accreditation. Alternatively, Medicare, private insurers and, after 2014, state exchanges could require hospitals to provide communication training and palliative services as a condition for payment.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence that these interventions will save money. And I can’t definitively prove they will make the care of dying patients better. But doing nothing to try to help the dying when the rest of the health care system is improving care is not an option.



Center for Medicine in the Public Interest is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization promoting innovative solutions that advance medical progress, reduce health disparities, extend life and make health care more affordable, preventive and patient-centered. CMPI also provides the public, policymakers and the media a reliable source of independent scientific analysis on issues ranging from personalized medicine, food and drug safety, health care reform and comparative effectiveness.

Blog Roll

Alliance for Patient Access Alternative Health Practice
Better Health
Biotech Blog
CA Medicine man
Cafe Pharma
Campaign for Modern Medicines
Carlat Psychiatry Blog
Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look
Conservative's Forum
Club For Growth
Diabetes Mine
Disruptive Women
Doctors For Patient Care
Dr. Gov
Drug Channels
DTC Perspectives
Envisioning 2.0
FDA Law Blog
Fierce Pharma
Fresh Air Fund
Furious Seasons
Gel Health News
Hands Off My Health
Health Business Blog
Health Care BS
Health Care for All
Healthy Skepticism
Hooked: Ethics, Medicine, and Pharma
Hugh Hewitt
In the Pipeline
In Vivo
Internet Drug News
Jaz'd Healthcare
Jaz'd Pharmaceutical Industry
Jim Edwards' NRx
Kaus Files
Laffer Health Care Report
Little Green Footballs
Med Buzz
Media Research Center
More than Medicine
National Review
Neuroethics & Law
Nurses For Reform
Nurses For Reform Blog
Opinion Journal
Orange Book
Peter Rost
Pharm Aid
Pharma Blog Review
Pharma Blogsphere
Pharma Marketing Blog
Pharmacology Corner
Pharmaceutical Business Review
Piper Report
Prescription for a Cure
Public Plan Facts
Real Clear Politics
Shark Report
Shearlings Got Plowed
Taking Back America
Terra Sigillata
The Cycle
The Catalyst
The Lonely Conservative
Town Hall
Washington Monthly
World of DTC Marketing
WSJ Health Blog