A Nobel Prize-winning physicist sold his medal for $765,000 to pay medical bills

https://www.vox.com/health-care/2018/10/4/17936626/leon-lederman-nobel-prize-medical-bills

by pseudolus • 8 years ago

134 123 8 years ago

howeyc2• 8 years ago

The fact that losing the birth-lottery and getting sick can make someone financially-poor through absolutely no fault of their own is astonishing.

That so many people I personally know in America are absolutely fine with this is something that blows my mind. I think it's insane, but I'm a "socialist" Canadian who shouldn't be pushing my crazy ideas on the southerners.

mruts• 8 years ago

I'm currently living in Tanzania (I grew up in the US). My wife fell into a ditch and broke her tooth. The cost to get it fixed? 20,000TZS (~$10). The problem is with our third party payer system, not with the free market.

24gttghh• 8 years ago

Please explain how the US "healthcare" system is in any way run as a free market? I don't see it.

addicted• 8 years ago

I couldn’t easily find average incomes, but Tanzania has a GDP/capita that is more than 60 times less than that of the US. So the $10 is the equivalent of it costing $600 There.

You’re likely seeing cheaper prices because of cheaper labor and doesn’t really tell us anything about the efficacies of a free market system or a third party payer system.

as300• 8 years ago

This story isn't really about "losing the birth lottery", so to speak. Its about someone not being able to afford nursing home care.

The fact is that the US spends much of its money on caring for the elderly already, and there is, as the article notes, medicaid for those who cant afford to pay for nursing home care. As a result, im a bit confused as to why he had to sell his medal.

Brockenstein3• 8 years ago

It might be along the lines that you have to have a minimum of assets to and money to qualify for some of those things. You know to prevent middle class and wealthy people from abusing the system designed for people who can't afford care.

Having something that you could sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars therefore may be a disqualifer.

yostrovs2• 8 years ago

Sounds like he had a fancy nursing home with horses, etc...

Brockenstein3• 8 years ago

Lots of Americans agree with you. The problem is those that don't are:

1. Willing to gamble they'll never get sick 2. Don't want "their" tax dollars paying for other people's medical bills, other peoples anything for that matter. More aircraft carriers please! 3. Don't think there's a problem with the system because it hasn't destroyed them yet. 4. America is #1, best health care in the world, and any contrary information is ignored.

Unfortunately for a lot of people if a problem doesn't impact them directly, it's not a problem or doesn't really exist and anyone else can eff off. In a very real way it's not just anti-socialist, it's just anti-social.

howeyc2• 8 years ago

I think it really does come down to a disconnect of ideals, how much to support others by giving up some of your own?

For instance, I truthfully told my boss I wouldn't mind my tax rate increasing if it meant everyone got medical coverage. He almost lost it, like he was ready to kill me, he was so angry. The fact that he would lose even more of his money, the rage, it was ferocious.

I really saw first hand the "I got mine, fuck y'all" mentality. I didn't think it was real until then. I always thought that was sound-bite fox news talking point and the argument was over how much one should sacrifice for others. I stand corrected.

crispyambulance• 8 years ago

     > losing the birth-lottery

He actually WON the birth lottery, having died at age 96. The medal was probably a more practical asset to sell-off for the family than something like real-estate.

The cited rate for skilled nursing care in the article is not accurate. US 10K/month is about normal for a SHARED room for someone who is NOT in a memory unit. It only goes higher from there.

There's something to be said for keeling over from a sudden heart attack as a septuagenarian.

creaghpatr3• 8 years ago

The cost of receiving care in a nursing home can also present a significant burden. A private room in a nursing facility costs, on average, $7,698 per month. And Medicare, which covers the vast majority of Americans over 65, generally does not cover long-term nursing care.
Many Americans do end up getting Medicaid to cover nursing home bills — but that often requires selling off significant assets and dwindling down savings in order to fall below the public program’s income requirements.

The costs are so high is because much of that money goes to subsidizing Medicare and Medicaid, hence the socialist aspect of having to downsize your assets to qualify.

jonknee• 8 years ago

The costs are so high because people are expensive and it requires a ton of skilled labor. Medicaid also spends a crazy amount on it.

patient_zero• 8 years ago

Hospital costs are high... because of medicaid? You sure you don't want to trot out the old chestnut that they are also high because we're subsidizing the rest of the world's low medical costs? Pull the other one.

Also the last sentence you wrote doesn't make sense. Please justify your use of "socialist aspect of downsizing assets to qualify".

Brockenstein3• 8 years ago

I think he's trying to dog socialism by attaching it to the wealth requirements for qualifying for medicare/medicaid. IE you can't have hundreds of thousands of dollars in asestes and property and qualify. I don't perceive this as a problem with socialism, so much as preventing people that could pay for care trying to leech off government programs because they don't wanna and are butt hurt because poor people don't just die in a gutter.

creaghpatr3• 8 years ago

What is happening in this scenario is a re-distribution of wealth. The costs of subsidizing Medicare and Medicaid, programs which would collapse without the subsidy of private insurance pricing, are financed by the rich- including this nobel winner who will redistribute his asset(s) to those in need (Medicaid beneficiaries). That is the 'socialist aspect'.

If you'd like to learn more about how hospitals that serve Medicare/Medicaid patients need additional taxpayer funding to remain financially solvent, you can look at the statistics around Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH).

https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/finance/dsh/index.html

codegeek• 8 years ago

May be. But that's not all and not even scratching the surface of real reasons for healthcare mess. Do you think Insurance Companies should be the middle men for EVERY process with healthcare including a simple visit to the doctor ? The answer to that question will also help understand the crazy costs of healthcare.

Why do we need Health "Insurance" to just go see a doctor ? Why not pay the doctor directly which cuts out middlemen (insurance and billing companies) for simple stuff and keep insurance for you know the reason Insurance should exist: catastrophies.

onion2k• 8 years ago

To face a horrible illness and have that be compounded by having to give up a symbol of your life's biggest achievement must have been awful. The UK isn't perfect, but I'm very glad to live in a country where this sort of thing doesn't happen.

kwhitefoot2• 8 years ago

How do you come to that conclusion? The UK government won't fund a nursing home unless you have exhausted most of your assets. See, for instance, https://www.carehome.co.uk/fees/feesadvice.cfm. I dare say it might still be better than the US but I don't know for certain.

ryandrake2• 8 years ago

Hundreds of years from now, when this time period is documented in history books, my great great grandchildren will look back on our greed-driven for-profit healthcare system as a shameful black mark in American history, just like we look back at the history of slavery today. They’ll ask “How could a democracy have allowed random, treatable health conditions to ruin people financially?” They’ll be horrified by how greedy and barbaric we are as a people, same as how we look back at the Civil War era society that promoted slavery.

danharaj2• 8 years ago

No they won't, it'll be whitewashed in textbooks and only those who study history will know. There's already so many so-called black marks that are worse and already quietly overlooked.

selestify• 8 years ago

What are some of these worse black marks?

Judgmentality• 8 years ago

I'd love to learn more - got any sources?

readhn2• 8 years ago

It depends on what political system we have by then. If we do develop further and progress to a one whole planet mentality (no countries/borders etc) then we will know our history as it was.

If we continue on the current path then im afraid we'll still be divided with all the consequences (same old same old).

" No they won't, it'll be whitewashed in textbooks and only those who study history will know. There's already so many so-called black marks that are worse and already quietly overlooked. "

SolaceQuantum2• 8 years ago

I'm not actually certain that the Civil War era is viewed universally as a barbaric time, or that slavery is universally viewed as a black mark in American History. There is still plenty of popular music and subcultures that look on those times positively, perhaps even fondly. In some sense the culture behind the civil war is still very strong in America, and whether or not it was bad is still heavily debated.

save_ferris2• 8 years ago

What? There's certainly debate around whether or not slavery was the cause of the Civil War, but slavery is absolutely universally viewed as a black mark in American history.

jakelazaroff3• 8 years ago

Who is "heavily debating" slavery? Among whom is it not "universally viewed as black mark in American history"? Not any black people, I bet!

mnm13• 8 years ago

You mean just like we're still debating whether the Nazis were wrong and whether it was right to stop them? I bet you no Jewish people are debating that like no black people are debating whether slavery was wrong. How can you possibly make an argument that any type of slavery is not wrong? I'm very curious to hear this argument if you have one.

gnopgnip• 8 years ago

How are nursing home costs handled in other healthcare systems?

lovich2• 8 years ago

Are nursing homes even prevalent in other countries? When I visited Thailand they were appalled at idea of putting elderly relatives in a random building and not with family, but I don't know if they are the exception or the US is

minipci1321• 8 years ago

One thing people don't usually mention alongside high cost of nursing homes, is that it seems to be pretty well bounded in time: see for example, https://www.geripal.org/2010/08/length-of-stay-in-nursing-ho...

I had very similar figures (avg 18 months), although unofficial, from a person involved with nursing homes over here (western european well developed country with good medical system), although I obviously cannot cite.

So yes, please visit them as soon as you can after admission, don't put away...

dsfyu404ed• 8 years ago

I think comparing this to slavery, the Indian wars, Jim Crow, etc. more than a little hyperbolic.

There's a big difference between using violence to control other people, take their land or systemic disenfranchisement and the best healthcare being affordable to a big chunk of the population.

Things that are Really Bad(TM) involve people actively doing things that we consider highly immoral today. Healthcare is just a case of failing to find a workable solution. The situations are very different.

_bfhp3• 8 years ago

It's deeply immoral to use violence to control people. It's deeply immoral to hoard money and resources (to "be rich" in today's language) and ensure the system of resource hoarding continues over generations through lobbying and corruption. That's the extent of the comparison -- the magnitude of the immorality -- and I think it's fair?

mikeash• 8 years ago

It’s a case of failing to find a workable solution despite there being one right in front of you, because you’re pointedly ignoring it.

DanBC• 8 years ago

I agree with you, but

and the best healthcare

The US does worse across a wide range of health measures.

ABCLAW• 8 years ago

I think comparing this to slavery, the Indian wars, Jim Crow, etc. more than a little hyperbolic.
There's a big difference between [...] systemic disenfranchisement and [...] healthcare being affordable to a big chunk of the population.

I edited your post a bit. Frankly, I don't see the difference unless you don't classify healthcare as a right. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights would disagree with you, but that's okay.

If that doesn't float your boat, we can look at outcomes instead. In both cases, people are forced to live without dignity regardless of whether or not that end is achieved by systemic financial coercion, by strapping someone to a board and pouring water on their face, or by bludgeoning them.

All are inhumane.

Healthcare is not a 'we can't find a solution' problem. It is a 'a lot of people are making a lot of money off this combination of inelastic demand and opaque pricing for technical service' problem. Call a spade a spade.

Carlton87• 8 years ago

I find it funny that you think in hundreds of years we are not going to be greedy or barbaric. It is basically hardwired into the human condition.

longerthoughts• 8 years ago

Completely agree but don't think that changes the likelihood of future generations looking back shamefully. They'll look back just as we do and say "at least we don't do that anymore". They'll be hypocrites, but it doesn't mean they'll be wrong about us.

ronilan• 8 years ago

From when it was sold[1]:

"I'm shocked it sold at all," Lederman's wife, Ellen, told The Associated Press on Friday. "We would let little kids play with it and have their picture taken."
Auction manager Laura Yntema told NBC News that the winning bid was placed online — but she declined to provide further information about the buyer, citing the auction house's confidentiality rules.

So an anonymous person provided for Lederman’s retirement in exchange for “ownership” of a piece of metal, with little intrinsic value, no sentimental value, and that will forever be know as “Lederman’s Nobel medal” never as belonging to the buyer.

Just another way to look at how the “mechanics of society” worked in the case.

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/physicist-leon-...

lawlessquestion• 8 years ago

For one we are a Republic not a democracy. If we were a pure democracy its arguable whether we would be in better or worse shape. If we were a Republic as our constitution was drafted, prior to the supreme court gutting state and individual liberties with the commerce clause,etc. I think we would be in much better shape

skh• 8 years ago

What is the purpose of your first sentence? Colloquially we speak of democracy as being something with representation that is elected with a large majority of the adult population being eligible to vote. Surely you know this so I can't figure what the point of being so pedantic is. Your assertion in the last sentence certainly needs more evidence to support it. As it stands it's unlikely to sway anyone and quite frankly paints a picture of you being a fanatic. This is especially so since the Commerce Clause was the justification for the Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act greatly increased individual liberties.

mnm13• 8 years ago

Hundreds of years from now? I look at it that way now and I assume all decent people do too.

ryandrake2• 8 years ago

We evidently have many not-decent people who vote for like minded Congressional representatives. At least a majority otherwise this would have been fixed by now.

jackconnor2• 8 years ago

Anyone else surprised he could get so much for it?

pseudolus• 8 years ago

A Russian billionaire paid USD$4.1 million for James Watson's Nobel Prize. In an act of stunning decency he apparently returned the medal to James Watson.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/09/russian-bill...

jackconnor2• 8 years ago

Wow that's amazing

pmdulaney2• 8 years ago

You would think that University of Chicago could sacrifice 0.1% of their endowment to help out someone who had brought them so much prestige.

jmcgough• 8 years ago

They probably weren't even aware of his situation when this happened.

pmdulaney2• 8 years ago

Yeah, you're probably right...

sp332• 8 years ago

The endowment is over $7.5 billion, so it would be .01% https://annualreport.uchicago.edu/page/endowment

telchar• 8 years ago

But then how would we know the value of a Nobel prize? I'm sure the University of Chicago economists would tell us that you can't have an efficient market for Nobel medals without such transactions.

gfarah• 8 years ago

My thoughts exactly. Or at the very least, help fundraising with current and former university students. I am sure a lot of them would have had contributed.

tropdrop• 8 years ago

Lederman began suffering memory loss in 2011, as the article mentions. Four years later, it is unlikely that he had the energy and capability to launch a crowd-sourced fundraising campaign.

Professors aren't really known for their lack of hubris, either... begging students/faculty for money might have seemed to him an activity that would rob him of whatever dignity he had left. In other words, I am not shocked a renowned Nobel Prize-winning physicist refused to ask for help.

refurb• 8 years ago

Ummm.... this would happen in Canada as well. Nursing home care is subsidized, but only after you have exhausted your own personal assets or income.

My grandfather went into a nursing home in Canada and the gov’t took 80% of his pension income and then subsidized the rest. That includes savings as well.

kwhitefoot2• 8 years ago

If well known, well off, high profile people like Lederman get wiped out by ill health and no one cares just think how much worse it must be for the more average person. I really enjoyed his "God Particle" book. RIP.

readhn2• 8 years ago

wow that was his book???

absolutely crazy what we have become here. and i thought this stuff was only happening in 3rd world countries (like russia) where world known scientist live in poverty conditions.

firstplacelast• 8 years ago

This is one of the things that convinced me as a teenager that our entire healthcare system is fucked. My mom died of an aggressive form of cancer after ONLY 15 months of treatment.

My dad, making an upper middle class wage in a low cost of living area with good insurance, was almost bankrupt by the end of it. He had to borrow money from his siblings to bury my mother. On top of that, he is the kind of guy that makes /r/personalfinance proud. If someone like him that shuns most luxuries and makes a top 10% salary in the US can have his bank account decimated in under 2 years, I shudder to think about the 90% of people that make less than him and have less self-control.

As a society (US) we HAVE to solve this problem. Our healthcare system is a disaster from top to bottom.

yostrovs2• 8 years ago

He sold a lot of those books. What happened to the money? It's not like he didn't do well as a scientist and director of a major Department of Energy lab, and $1 million that comes with the Nobel.

rukittenme• 8 years ago

This will be unpopular...

He was rejected from our universal healthcare system because of the astronomical costs of keeping a 96 year old man (with a life ending disease) alive.

Those costs exist under every system regardless of whether or not the customer sees those costs.

This is not a defense of our "private" healthcare system. This is a defense of our public healthcare system. They made the rational decision to focus their resources on younger people with better chances of recovery. Dr. Lederman made the rational choice to sell his Nobel prize to extend his life. At least that option was available to him! The same can't be said for people like Charlie Gard.

IC4RUS3• 8 years ago

This is a good point - and something ignored by some advocates of universal healthcare (I'm partial to the idea of universal healthcare, but would like to see more honest debate of the issue).

extragood• 8 years ago

Me too. I spend more time in hospitals than the average person my age due to a hereditary condition.

I try very hard to stay well and do precisely what I'm told by medical professionals.

Many people that I've met in the hospital do not. They're often older and should know better, but they'll hear "No foods or liquids", and sneak in beef jerky before surgery anyway.

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Universal healthcare will need to cover all of these people who don't listen to medical advice, and will return because of it.

From a private insurance or single payer insurance perspective there may not be a difference between the two.

All I know is that I must have good medical insurance at all times, otherwise I will be screwed in so many ways.

stereo• 8 years ago

The United States routinely has health care prices well-above the rest of the country.

Above the rest of itself?

dredmorbius2• 8 years ago

Truly entering into a terminal infinite inflation spiral.

trumped• 8 years ago

Yes, you need to shop for medical care, the costs can be drastically different from one hospital to the next... I think there's a website designed to help you do that but I can't find it right now.

squozzer• 8 years ago

We should consider the possibility that Dr. Lederman's financial problems happened by design.

After all, why should ordinary people be allowed to slowly amass modest fortunes to pass onto their heirs?

If you want to know who is truly elite in America, see whose debts cannot be discharged through bankruptcy.

toast0• 8 years ago

The way Medicaid works is they'll pay for a nursing home once you run out of money. They also can claw back some related person gifts (or other transactions) that happened within the past few years.

If you have a lot of assets you want to pass to your heirs, but not enough assets you don't mind selling to pay for your end of life care, it's best to give to your heirs over the course of your life.

The downside is a substantial gift while the giver is alive has a paperwork burden, as well as a loss in the step-up in cost basis you get when giving after death. The upside is you get to see how your heirs use the gift and you can express your feelings directly, rather than through rolling in your grave.

creaghpatr3• 8 years ago

Very interesting way of looking at it, almost a philosophical approach.

lossolo• 8 years ago

People that do not benefit society at all, like celebrities that are known from that they are known, can buy a diamond ring for 1.5+ mil dollars. And the people awarded with highest, most prestigious award that human can receive for pushing humankind further and further can't afford to pay for medical bills. There is something really wrong with the world in which we live.

paulddraper• 8 years ago

There is something really wrong with the world in which we live.

"Something somewhere is wrong."

Undoubtedly.

Could you be more specific about the problem you have in mind?

Because I think you'll find that there isn't a consensus about what the problem is.

pkaye• 8 years ago

Which people do you think should be paid more? Those who develop useless social media apps or those who discovered novel drugs?

greeneggs• 8 years ago

Perhaps I am missing something, but the Vox story says that he could afford to pay his medical bills. He sold some assets, and paid his bills. There are much better arguments for universal health care than someone with almost $800K in unneeded assets. Taxes should first subsidize health care for those who can't afford it on their own.

zone411• 8 years ago

Very sad news. Dr. Lederman was an excellent teacher in addition to being a researcher. He encouraged lecture participation and making educated guesses (I had a freshman year class with him and I didn't even know he won a Nobel until the end of the semester).

jakelarkin2• 8 years ago

sensational headline ...

tenured professors are the top 1% of academia and they have a pension no?

maybe he sold it to live out his final days with premium care.

maybe they decided his surviving wife would've rather had a liquid estate instead of a shiny medal in a closet.

just_myles• 8 years ago

Don't they also have fairly high salaries to boot?

Balgair• 8 years ago

Mostly no, they do not. PIs are typically paid little, given their worth on the market for their skills. Even though he was 'famous', he got his Nobel at ~70 years old, meaning that he spent most of his earning years 'unrecognized'. I know you can look up any University of California professor's earnings here: https://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/state-pay/art...

For instance Professor Vickram Chandra of UC Berkeley [0] made ~$91k in 2016 [1]. Other professors make more, like Professor Alexandrova of UCLA who make ~$146k in 2016 [2]. You can poke around the UCs and compare. Do remember that most PIs labor in grad school for ~7 years, earning barely anything.

I do not know of other databases for other universities that do this, but many US states have sunshine laws that make professor's salaries public information. I know that Colorado also mandates that all public employee's emails are public information too and I think other states do this as well, though I do not have a list of them.

[0]https://english.berkeley.edu/profiles/22

[1]https://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/state-pay/art...

[2]https://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/state-pay/art...

jakelarkin2• 8 years ago

the question the article raises is not whether theyre paid their worth but rather whether theyre dying paupers

I looked up my friends PI at Berkeley. (no Nobel) $300k

pension 50-75% of salary + retiree healthcare benefits

hard to say someone in that position is going to end up destitute unless they make terrible life choices.

nunez• 8 years ago

This is extremely surprising to me. Healthcare plans from universities tend to be extremely good. How did this happen?

jiveturkey• 8 years ago

only in america, indeed! in many countries, he'd just die at home.

A Nobel Prize-winning physicist sold his medal for $765,000 to pay medical bills

Related Stories