Podcast appearances and mentions of Peter Bach

"In part two this ASCO Education Oncology, Etc. podcast, healthcare policy expert, pulmonary physician, epidemiologist, and writer Dr. Peter Bach shares what it was like to face his wife Ruth's cancer and eventual passing − as a husband and as a doctor. The episode also explores delivering difficult news to patients. If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org. Resources: Cancer Topics - Delivering Serious News" The Day I Started Lying to Ruth by Peter Bach, MD After a Cancer Diagnosis, Wishing for a Magic Number - The New York Times   TRANSCRIPT Pat Loehrer: Hi, I'm Pat Loehrer, Director of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University. I'm here with Dave Johnson, a Medical Oncologist at The University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. This is the second half of our Oncology, Etc. conversation with health policy and payment expert, pulmonary physician, epidemiologist, and writer, Peter Bach. In part one, we chatted with Dr. Bach about his upbringing, the trajectory of his career from English Literature to Medicine, and from academia to industry. We also explored his seminal work on drug pricing and improving health equity. Today, we're going to continue our conversation with Dr. Bach by asking about something deeply personal: his wife, Ruth, who sadly passed away from cancer at the age of 46. Probably about seven or eight years ago, you wrote a wonderful article in The New York Times, and there was another article you wrote, but the one that I liked reading was called, “The Day I Started Lying to Ruth”, and this is where cancer stabbed you very personally. Can you tell us a little bit about that, and tell us a little bit about your wife, Ruth? Peter Bach: So, it was in New York Magazine, just to give credit where it's due, I'm very grateful to them for running it. I wrote that after she died, and it followed on a series I had in The New York Times called, The Doctor's Wife, which I wrote while she was getting her initial treatment for breast cancer, and then I walked through the steps of adjuvant therapy that she received, in my experience. And then the piece in The New York Magazine talks about her last months basically, and my experiences then. The story goes that she was tragically taken from us and tragically taken from my son when he was very young, and my experience being at her side-- and I think I was a good husband, I was present -- was an alarmingly dissociative experience along every dimension. You know, I'd go to her appointment, I would swipe in with my badge. You know, this was my place, and the doctor who took care of her is and was a dear friend, and so were the other doctors in most cases. And the visits, you know, I had nurses and people in the hall would say "Hi" to me. And then I was going through this absolutely devastating experience, you know, tearing apart the sort of prevailing narrative and experience and structure of my life and our family. And so, for whatever reason, it was this out-of-body experience where I could see stuff very, very clearly. Not only clinical realities, like I knew what was happening, but also the mechanics of healthcare, the interactions, and I felt like I should journal it, if you will. And then when I journaled it, I thought I should publish it, and so I wrote about what it was like to stand there when my friend, Chip Cody, the surgeon said, "This is cancer, I can feel axillary lymph nodes, you've got cancer." And what that morning was like between the-- look, most people have a lump, what's the big deal? We'll go, we'll deal with it. She's young. She had just had a mammogram actually, to that. And then the experience of, you know, and I was in Biostat at MSK. So, I'd sat for a gazillion protocol reviews, I'd read a gazillion informed consent forms, and then there was one in front of her for a randomized trial for adjuvant therapy. I mean, it was Avastin versus placebo versus a longer period of Avastin, if I remember correctly, and ultimately a negative trial I saw at ASCO. But sitting there and actually thinking about like, "What is this like for somebody who doesn't know all of this stuff?" And my wife was way smarter than me, that you guys know me, that is the least surprising fact ever. But it was still dizzying for her. And so, I wrote about that, like, hawt was our conversation like that night after that whole, like, “Do you want to join this trial?" And her peppering me with questions, like, essentially, “What the hell is wrong with you guys? Why don't you know these answers?" And it was sort of like, "Okay, this is why we do randomized trials, this is why we have placebo. This is–” And she's smart, not irate. She was much more relaxed and philosophical through the whole thing up until the day she died, or a few days before, than I ever was. So, I wrote about that. Like, what was that conversation like? What was she being asked to do, and how important was it that she did it? And I remember sitting in the room when that trial was presented, and The Kaplan-Meier overall survival curves, and I was pretty sure I saw the step in that curve. I'm pretty sure I saw her on that graph. And it made me-- obviously, I'm desperately sad that she's gone - but it made me proud that she had contributed to it, even though, you know negative studies are important, too. So, I wrote about those things, and I wrote about prognosis and what it was like to have a conversation when she asked about prognosis, and in an article called ‘Waiting for a Magic Number', where I described her oncologist saying, "Fine, I'll tell you what are your chances of living five years, you tell me what's the cut point. Essentially, above or below, what number are you going to change things in your life? When you tell me that number, I'll tell you whether you're above it or below it." And it was like, "Wow, philosophy from an oncologist, fantastic." Really sunk in with both of us, and that was it. We never asked that question again, he never gave us a number. And I've been greatly rewarded over the years to run into people from here and there who say, "You know, I always hand my patients that article to put that in perspective." And then when she died, I wrote about the sheer horror of what was happening to me. And the title wasn't mine, but it was worked right on point. I found myself in a situation where I didn't want to reveal to her just how bad things were, and it was terribly weak of me. And ultimately, and I describe it in the article, got to a point where I just was ready for it to be over, before it was. And I think it's actually not that hard, to be honest, after you've gone through something like this like I don't really care what people think of me. I went through something really hard. And again, I'm someone with resources, I'm someone with knowledge, I could call her oncologist at two in the morning and he'd answer, that's not something normal people get. And you know, even for me, like this was completely disorienting. And so, that article was very rewarding to write because it allowed me to put it somewhere where I've gotten to revisit it. A couple of years ago, of course, he was young when I published it. He said he had read it; he liked the part about the dog. But I got a lot of notes afterwards from strangers saying that it provided them some comfort that even someone like me went through basically the same experience they went through. And look, this whole, like, "even something like me” seems odd, but I think to the external world, somehow, we're like, "You know, we get those white coats. Stuff is different for us," and of course, it isn't at all. Since that time, and we're all in the same world, so we have the same sets of friends. We probably have many of our overlapping friends who we know have lost spouses. In recent years, I routinely get phone calls from folks like, "I'm going through this, what's the first step?" You know, and it's about everything. "How do I deal with my kid? Should I go dating?" Stuff like that. Dave Johnson: You know, Peter, that article should be required reading for every Oncology fellow. I think it was beautifully written, clearly from the heart. I think your undergraduate degree shows in terms of your writing style, but to write that, I'm sure was emotionally challenging and difficult. In fact, Pat mentioned at the start of our podcast, Trillin's book, About Alice. In a book review that was written in The New York Times, About Alice, Trillin made a comment similar to the one you just made, where people that he didn't even know wrote letters in which they conveyed to him a sense of knowledge of Alice, even though he knew they had never met Alice. And I think your article about your wife conveyed that same sense to anyone who did not meet her. And I think you memorialized her in ways that are really fantastic. But I want to just read something from an article in The New York Times, and this is quoting Trillin. He says, "They may not have known her, but they knew how I felt about her." And he went on to say, "Yes, I got a lot of letters, like the one from a young woman in New York who wrote that she sometimes looked to her boyfriend and thought, "But will he love me like Calvin loves Alice?" I think the same could be written about your relationship with Ruth. And thank you for sharing that. I can't imagine how challenging that must be even all these years later, and I'm glad your son had the opportunity to read that. He should be proud of both his mother and his father. Pat Loehrer: It was a gift to all of us and mankind. You know, again, as I saw that article, there's a photo of you and Ruth on your last vacation. I think it was from Versailles, and I think you were in the Hall of Mirrors. And I think there's a poignant metaphor there about the reflection of your lives and being with her at that time, and we really thank you. We have all experienced this and it's so powerful there. There's this time when you get a result of a test of someone that you know and love and there's this limbo between, they're so naive and life is good, and it really is a time between heaven and hell in which you're the only one there, in which you know that you're going to go in the room now and change their lives forever by sharing this news. And we've been there and we pause, and again, you talked about that - I think being in a car looking at the x-ray. And that's the essence of when you said, the day you started lying to them, which is understandable because you just don't want to shatter that moment there. You know, we pause and reflect on that enormity of the moment there and I thank you deeply for sharing that with us because it's something that we physicians find, and this uniqueness of being a physician, and having someone you care about and knowing something that they don't quite know yet. Thank you for all of that. Peter Bach: The important message is that to patients, it's very isolating. And part of what I think the article did, and this was the message I got at least, was, send a message to other people that you're not alone. That others are going through it, others have gone through it, and I don't know what "it" is in that context, but loss. And there's that wonderful article in The New Yorker called ‘The Aquarium', which is by man who had a sick child-- and I don't remember all the details, but the aquarium metaphor is, I can't remember if he's in the aquarium and the rest of the world's outside or the other way around, but it's that isolation that is particularly frightening. And when I talk with my friends who've gone through it, it's part of it. As I just said, you know, there's a lot of us out there. I don't know if it gives so much reassurance. You know, 40,000 women die a year of breast cancer, so there's a lot of people out there. Dave Johnson: Pat, you had, I think, a final question? Pat Loehrer: Briefly. You know, now I'm asking to be an academic person there, but if you had a young medical student and you were going to try to give them one lesson about communicating bad news to patients, what would that be? Peter Bach: I've obviously been in this situation many times. I'm a Pulmonary Critical Care doc, so I've watched bad news be delivered many, many times. And the first mistake I see people make is trying to fill the silence with words, and I think I made earlier reference to it. One of the key skills doctors need to develop is the ability to listen. And sometimes listening to silence is a version of listening, but it's delivering what you have to say without euphemism, with directness. Not everyone's enamored with it, I am. But then giving time to listen, even just space for people to feel safe, that that communication is part of a relationship, not a sort of text message. You know, in today's metaphor, right, that just arrives and the person moves on. That is really hard for people to do; not experienced doctors, for trainees because it's frightening for a lot of reasons. Over my career, I've certainly rehearsed it many times with people. I made the mistake myself too, of just sort of talking over the thing in the room to avoid, you know, just sort of as you said, the enormity of what you just communicated. Dave Johnson: So, Peter, I think you're right on. I think that's one of the most difficult things to do, is to allow that pause to take place. And so many, even highly experienced physicians attempt to fill that void when it doesn't need to be filled. Been there, done that, been on the receiving end as well as the delivery end of that. It's always challenging. You know, we're out of time, and I'm sad about that because we could go on, I'm sure for quite a long time. Want to end this by asking you, Peter, we talked about a book on the front end, both Pat and I love to read, and we share recommendations all the time. I wonder, is there a book or a podcast, or anything that you think we should read or you think our listeners should know about? And by the way, you can include anything that you wrote if you'd like. Peter Bach: Yeah, it'd be very au courant to pitch my own stuff here, I would never do that. I like to read as well. And so, I just finished Rules of Civility by Amor Towles. Of course, there's a few health events in it, but it's not to do with anything, but, you know, it's a book about New York. I live in New York, so I just enjoyed every single word of it. I'm newly married- Dave Johnson: Congratulations. Peter Bach: -thank you. I feel very lucky. And my wife has noted that I often like to read nonfiction at night. Typically, books about how the world is just going completely to hell. And she's noted that outrage is my happy place, that I sleep extremely well if I read something that's absolutely infuriating. So, the other thing I'll recommend is the book about the Department of Justice has essentially lost its mojo when dealing with corporate crime. If your best soporific is being absolutely furious, it's right up there with a full dose of Ambien. So anyway, those are my two recs. Pat Loehrer: I love it. Yeah, Dave and I both love non-fiction. We love that. So, it's great. Dave Johnson: We've come to an end of another podcast, and we want to thank our listeners for tuning in. We really appreciate your participation. Remember, Oncology, Etc. is an ASCO Educational podcast, where we'll talk about virtually anything and everything. So, if you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like for us to interview, please email us at: education@asco.org. Thanks again. You know, speaking of interesting nonfiction, Pat, if ‘pro' and ‘con' are opposite, what's the opposite of progress? Pat Loehrer: Oh, I love that - Congress. Dave Johnson: Yes, Congress. I knew you would get that. Peter Bach: That is a ‘Dad joke' if I ever heard one. Dave Johnson: We don't have good jokes on this show. Pat Loehrer: We're going to have to redo the ending to this because, Dave, you said this was an ASCO Education Podcast. I'm not sure we've taught anybody anything on this one. Dave Johnson: Now, Peter has taught us a lot. Pat Loehrer: That's for sure. Thank you so much, Peter, for a wonderful interview. Dave Johnson: Absolutely perfect. Wonderful. Peter Bach: Thanks for the privilege. It's wonderful seeing you both.   Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click, "Subscribe." Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center at: education.asco.org.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy, should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

"In part one of this two-part ASCO Education Oncology, etc. podcast, hosts Patrick Loehrer and David Johnson chat with health policy and payment expert, pulmonary physician, epidemiologist and writer Dr. Peter Bach about his background and career. Dr. Bach, who created the Drug Abacus, shares his views on cancer drug pricing, based care, and health equity. If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at

Die DATEV zu Gast im Kurswechselpodcast Peter Bach und Dr. Michael Link sind zu Gast in unserer heutigen Episode. Peter Bach ist Betriebsratvorsitzender am größten DATEV-Standort in Nürnberg und Dr. Michael Link ist Personalleiter bei DATEV mit über 8.000 Mitarbeitern und Mitarbeiterinnen in Deutschland Kommunikation zwischen Betriebsrat und Mitarbeiter:Innen – gar nicht mal so einfach… Für den Kurswechselpodcast suchen wir immer wieder spannende Gesprächspartner zu aktuellen Themen. Zum Thema „Mitbestimmung“ hat sich dies als gar nicht mal so einfach herausgestellt. Die Kommunikation zwischen Mitarbeitenden und dem Betriebsrat scheint doch bei vielen Organisationen Probleme zu bereiten. Die DATEV: Kein Frischling in der Welt von „New Work“ Die DATEV ist sowas wie ein Vorreiter in den Themen „New Work“, „agil“ und eben auch „Mitbestimmung“. Immer wieder machen sie auf „New Work-Veranstaltungen auf sich aufmerksam oder treten sogar als Speaker zu den Themen der neuen Arbeitswelt auf. Entwicklung und Fortschritt wird behindert Wenn ich etwas neues Entwickeln möchte, dann muss ich es ausprobieren und wenn ich etwas für einen Moment ausprobieren möchte, kann ich nicht einen Monat oder noch länger auf eine Genehmigung warten. Aber das ist in vielen Organisationen noch Realität. Vertrauen als Antwort auf die steigende Dynamik und Antrieb für Innovation Es muss nicht jeder einzelne Schritt bis ins kleinste Detail von der Chefetage geprüft werden. Es lohnt sich Schutzräume aufzumachen, in denen mehr Menschen Mitbestimmen können und wenn ein Experiment geglückt ist, das vielleicht auch in anderen Bereichen fortzuführen. Viel Spaß beim Hören!

Dr. Peter Bach (Director, Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center) stops by the show to discuss the dangerous rise in cancer drug prices and how the Biden administration could tackle them. Watch this episode on YouTube: https://youtu.be/6h_rJmxe-eoAbout Dr. Peter Bach: Dr. Bach is the Director of Memorial Sloan Kettering's Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, is a physician, epidemiologist, researcher, and respected healthcare policy expert whose work focuses on the cost and value of anticancer drugs. Dr. Bach is leading efforts to increase understanding of the US drug development process and develop new models for drug pricing that include value to patients. Dr. Bach described a 100-fold increase in cancer drug prices since 1965 after adjusting for inflation, and that the cost of an additional year of life from a cancer treatment increases by $8,500 each year. In 2012, he and other physicians at MSK drew attention to the high price of a newly approved cancer drug and announced his hospital's unprecedented move not to offer it to patients because of its high price tag with no notable improved clinical outcomes. The drug price was later cut in half by the manufacturer. Dr. Bach's work in lung cancer screening has led to the development of several lung cancer screening guidelines and one of the first-ever risk-prediction models for this disease. He has also proposed a number of strategies for Medicare to link payment to the value of healthcare services delivered.Dr. Bach has been inducted into the National Academy of Medicine, American Society of Clinical Investigators and the Johns Hopkins University Society of Scholars. He served as a Senior Advisor for Cancer Policy at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 2005 and 2006. He has published more than 100 peer-reviewed articles and editorials in scientific journals such as the N Engl J Med and the Journal of the American Medical Association. He has also written numerous healthcare-related op-eds and been featured in mainstream media outlets such as the New York Times, New York magazine, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, NPR, and 60 Minutes. Dr. Bach completed his undergraduate studies at Harvard University and his medical studies at the University of Minnesota and the University of Chicago Harris School. He completed a residency in internal medicine at Johns Hopkins University followed by a fellowship in pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Chicago and Johns Hopkins. While at the University of Chicago, he was a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholar. Dr. Bach has been a faculty member in MSK's Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics since 1998 and a Senior Scholar at the International Agency for Research on Cancer since 2008.#cancermedication #sloanketteringmemorialcancercenter #healthcare #drpeterbach #caretalk

What does it mean when companies tell us their vaccines work? Turns out, clinical trials weren't set up to answer really important questions about how long immunity lasts, whether the shots stop disease transmission, or whether some of the many vaccines still in clinical testing might have advantages over the front runners. And since we're supposed to “stay vigilant” for months to come, we need better studies aimed at finding who's at risk and why, and how to distinguish big risks from small ones. “Follow the Science" is produced, written, and hosted by Faye Flam, with funding by the Society for Professional Journalists. Today's episode was edited by Seth Gliksman with music by Kyle Imperatore. If you'd like to hear more "Follow the Science," please like, follow, and subscribe!

Peter B. Bach is a physician, epidemiologist, researcher, and respected healthcare policy expert whose work focuses on the cost and value of anticancer drugs. Dr. Bach is leading efforts to increase understanding of the US drug development process and develop new models for drug pricing that include value to patients Dr. Bach described a 100-fold increase in cancer drug prices since 1965 after adjusting for inflation, and that the cost of an additional year of life from a cancer treatment increases by $8,500 each year. In 2012, he and other physicians at MSK drew attention to the high price of a newly approved cancer drug and announced his hospital’s unprecedented move not to offer it to patients because of its high price tag with no notable improved clinical outcomes. The drug price was later cut in half by the manufacturer. Dr. Bach’s work in lung cancer screening has led to the development of several lung cancer screening guidelines and one of the first-ever risk-prediction models for this disease. He has also proposed a number of strategies for Medicare to link payment to the value of healthcare services delivered. Dr. Bach has been inducted into the National Academy of Medicine, American Society of Clinical Investigators and the Johns Hopkins University Society of Scholars. He served as a Senior Advisor for Cancer Policy at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 2005 and 2006. Dr. Bach has published more than 100 peer-reviewed articles and editorials in scientific journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association. He has also written numerous healthcare-related op-eds and been featured in mainstream media outlets such as the New York Times, New York magazine, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, NPR, and 60 Minutes. View a comprehensive list of media coverage of Dr. Bach and his work. Dr. Bach completed his undergraduate studies at Harvard University and his medical studies at the University of Minnesota and the University of Chicago Harris School. He completed a residency in internal medicine at Johns Hopkins University followed by a fellowship in pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Chicago and Johns Hopkins. While at the University of Chicago, he was a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholar. Dr. Bach has been a faculty member in MSK’s Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics since 1998 and a Senior Scholar at the International Agency for Research on Cancer since 2008. In 2020, Dr. Bach co-founded EQRx, a biotechnology startup focused on developing affordable drugs. He currently serves an advisory role within the organization. Further information at: https://drugpricinglab.org/about/ or https://www.mskcc.org/news/media-coverage?keys=Peter+bach

Dr. Peter Bach, Director of Memorial Sloan Kettering’s Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, on his column: "Hospitals Need to Study How Well Remdesivir Works." Alan Crawford, Senior International Government Editor for Bloomberg, discusses his story, "A New World Order for the Coronavirus Era Is Starting to Emerge." Woo Jin Ho, Senior Technology Analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence, discusses Analog Devices buying Maxim for $21 billion, and how this impacts the landscape for chips. Matt Gertken, Geopolitical Strategist at BCA Research, on why Trump needs to side with the Dems and go big on the next round of stimulus. Hosted by Paul Sweeney and Vonnie Quinn.

Andy catches up with Chef José Andrés in a rare moment of rest. Chef Andrés has been jumping from one crisis to the next since February, feeding people around the world affected by the pandemic. His organization, World Central Kitchen, is now providing 250,000 fresh meals a day in dozens of cities across America. In total, they’ve served nearly 18 million meals worldwide. They talk about how the pandemic has exacerbated the global hunger crisis and what Chef Andrés is doing to try and solve it. Plus: how to re-open restaurants safely. Keep up with Andy on Twitter @ASlavitt and Instagram @andyslavitt. Follow Chef José Andrés @chefjoseandres on Twitter and Instagram. In the Bubble is supported in part by listeners like you. Become a member, get exclusive bonus content, ask Andy questions, and get discounted merch at https://www.lemonadamedia.com/inthebubble/ Support the show by visiting our sponsors! Teladoc provides access to certified doctors from the comfort and safety of home. Register now at www.teladoc.com/ Talkspace online therapy works with thousands of licensed therapists. Use the promo code BUBBLE to get $100 off your first month and help support the show at talkspace.com Check out these resources from today’s episode:  Zach Fact Update: How much will the COVID-19 drug Remdesivir cost? https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/06/29/remdesivir-gilead-coronavirus-covid-19-drug-price-criticism/ Dr. Peter Bach of Sloan Kettering Cancer Center weighs in on the price: https://twitter.com/peterbachmd/status/1277600751204917248 Check out Chef Andrés’s opinion piece in the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/opinion/restaurants-coronavirus-food-aid.html And in the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/20/our-people-are-hungry-we-need-leader-who-will-feed-them/ Read more about World Central Kitchen’s Covid-19 food relief efforts: https://wck.org/chefsforamerica Meet Masky, World Central Kitchen’s safety mascot: https://wck.org/masky Learn about how the Independent Restaurant Coalition is working to save local restaurants affected by COVID-19: https://www.saverestaurants.com Here’s more information about the RESTAURANTS Act, a bipartisan bill which would establish a revitalization fund for independent restaurants affected by COVID-19: https://restaurant.org/news/pressroom/press-releases/restaurants-act-of-2020 More on the FEED Act: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/voraciously/wp/2020/05/07/a-bipartisan-group-of-lawmakers-and-jose-andres-want-to-empower-fema-to-meet-americas-growing-hunger-crisis/ To follow along with a transcript and/or take notes for friends and family, go to www.lemonadamedia.com/show/in-the-bubble shortly after the air date. Stay up to date with us on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram at @LemonadaMedia. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In 1983, Congress passed the Orphan Drug Act which incentivized the development of treatments for rare diseases. Since passing, the legislation has helped to create hundreds of new treatments for rare diseases... but it may have also had some side effects. According to Dr. Peter Bach, a pulmonologist and intensive care physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the push towards finding cures for rare diseases has been so strong that drug companies are paying little attention to more common illnesses, including some of the leading causes of death in the United States, like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.

Dr. Peter Bach is director of the Center for Health Policy and Outcomes at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Managing Editor of the Journal. P.B. Bach. National Coverage Analysis of CAR-T Therapies - Policy, Evidence, and Payment. N Engl J Med 2018;379:1396-8.

Medicare's planned Part B pilot is either a necessary fix to a broken drug payment system — or the first step to President Donald Trump dismantling the Affordable Care Act. It all depends whom you ask. And this week, we asked Peter Bach and Ted Okon — a high-profile proponent and opponent of Medicare's pilot, respectively — to make their case. Bach joined Dan Diamond to discuss why drug spending has become such a huge problem (starts at the 2:00 mark), why Medicare's trying to change how it pays doctors for drugs (6:00), and how he defends the pilot against charges that it's an over-reach (14:15). Okon joined Dan to explain his criticism of Medicare's pilot (25:20), why he thinks the Part B demo is a dangerous over-reach (34:50), and why oncologists are especially vulnerable to payment changes (43:00). Plus: POLITICO's Sarah Karlin-Smith and Brett Norman join Dan to referee the Part B fight and predict what happens next. (49:17) We’d appreciate your help: Please share PULSE CHECK and rate us on your favorite podcast app! Have questions, suggestions or feedback? Email ddiamond@politico.com.

When Turing Pharmaceuticals raised the price of a life-saving drug from $13.50 to $750 a pill, it brought the issue of high drug prices to the spotlight. The prices of many important drugs have been rising for decades, and drug companies are able to set prices freely for drugs in this country, often leading to prescription drugs costing far less overseas. For this week's Please Explain, we are discussing drug prices: examining the history behind the reasons that drug companies charge what they do for prescription drugs, and if there is anything that government can do to make drugs more affordable in this country. Melissa Thomasson, professor of economics at Miami University’s Farmer School of Business, is a Research Associate for the National Bureau of Economic Research, and her work on the economic history of health insurance and health care has been published in top journals.  Peter Bach is the Director of the Center for Health Policy and Outcomes at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. He is a physician, epidemiologist, researcher, and healthcare policy expert whose work focuses on the cost and value of anticancer drugs. 

Reading by Peter Bach, MD, author of Indication-Specific Pricing for Cancer Drugs

Dr. Peter Bach B. Bach discusses the issue of terminally ill patients.

Richard Heffner continues the conversation with Dr. Peter Bach.

Richard Heffner speaks with Dr. Peter Bach of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

Radiographic imaging: evaluating its benefits and consequences; excerpts from presentations by William Black, MD, of Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, and Peter Bach, MD, MAPP, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, from a recent conference on Methodological Challenges in Comparative Effectiveness Research; plus a summary of all articles in the issue.

Guest: Peter Bach, MD Host: Bill Rutenberg, MD As former senior advisor to administration centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services for Cancer initiatives, our guest Dr. Peter Bach talks with host Bill Rutenberg about lessons learned while working on behalf of Medicare and Medicaid. Some highlights of this interview include discussion about physicians' use of evidence-based medicine, coverage under evidence clause, pay for performance, no-bid contracts, DRG and more. Join us for a great discussion.

Guest: Peter Bach, MD Host: Bill Rutenberg, MD We know that early detection of cancer can save lives. With this in mind, the focus turns to finding imaging mechanisms that will facilitate early detection. Does CT screening provide accurate information on lung cancer? Should high-risk patients undergo PET scans? Host Dr. Bill Rutenberg speaks with Dr. Peter Bach, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, about the perceived values of screening for lung cancer.

Host: Bill Rutenberg, MD Guest: Peter Bach, MD Dr. Peter Bach, from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, talks with host Dr. Bill Rutenberg about racial disparities in medicine and treatment today. What are the reasons for this disparity, and how can we work to eliminate the difference? Join us to learn more.

Guest: Peter Bach, MD Host: Bill Rutenberg, MD What is keeping our society from moving forward in our ability to cure disease? How can what is learned in the lab be brought to the frontlines more quickly and efficiently? How can individual medical institutions work together to make a more profound difference in our healthcare system? Our Guest Dr. Peter Bach talks with host, Dr. Bill Rutenberg about the questions above in addition to his recent WSJ commentary entitled Why We'll Never Cure Cancer.