In some ways, the United States has come a long way since Lyndon Johnson declared the "war on poverty." But in others, we're still at square one. We now have a variety of federally-supported nutrition programs, but the health care system remains senselessly disconnected from the "social determinants of health." In this regard, the United States has fallen behind the rest of the world. If a politician in India announced a public health plan that neglected malnutrition, he would be ridiculed. Here, leaders make this kind of omission all the time. Almost all of the debate about the 2010 Affordable Care Act was consumed with questions about health care access and quality. But if we really want to improve the health of millions of people, we have to address the conditions that make them sick.
Archive
-
▼
2011
(385)
-
▼
July
(38)
- Treating the Cause, Not the Illness - NYTimes.com
- The Epocrates App Provides Drug Information, and D...
- Rule Changes Proposed for Research on Humans - NYT...
- BioMed Central
- DOAJ -- Directory of Open Access Journals
- Journal of Medical Internet Research
- Why Would Anyone Choose to Become a Doctor? - NYTi...
- Patrolling Cancer’s Borderlands - NYTimes.com
- Medical 2.0 Pills - Ramblings of a Geek on Medicin...
- Doctor and Patient: When Hospital Overcrowding Bec...
- Empowered Patient - The Wise Patient's Guide to Be...
- Is the Internet replacing our own memory? - CNN.co...
- More Men Suffer From Eating Disorders - Health New...
- Understanding Male Eating Disorders - Kenneth L. W...
- An Eye-Opening Adventure in Socialized Medicine | ...
- The Good Short Life With A.L.S. - NYTimes.com
- Stinky socks could eradicate malaria
- Despite Zostavax, Drive Against Shingles Meets Few...
- A Kaleidoscope of Generics Puts Patients to the Te...
- More Medical Schools Are Screening Applicants Clos...
- Bringing Therapists to Patients, via the Web - NYT...
- In Defense of Antidepressants - NYTimes.com
- An intimate story about the American struggle with...
- The Shame of Low Health Literacy - NYTimes.com
- How a New Hope in Cancer Fell Apart - NYTimes.com
- Stressed and Depressed, Koreans Avoid Therapy - NY...
- Patient Commando Arsenal
- Medical Information for Children - Comic Book Store
- Does health coverage make people healthier? A new ...
- F as in Fat: How Obesity Threatens America's Futur...
- Ben Behind His Voices: One Family’s Journey from t...
- Hope or letting go: The final goodbye – The Chart ...
- Really? The Claim: Hospital Mortality Rates Rise i...
- New Autism Study Implicates Environmental Factors ...
- Drug companies in America: The costly war on cance...
- e-Patient Dave's Boot Camp
- The New Life of e-Patient Dave
- Music Therapy Helps the Dying - NYTimes.com
-
▼
July
(38)
Treating the Cause, Not the Illness - NYTimes.com
In some ways, the United States has come a long way since Lyndon Johnson declared the "war on poverty." But in others, we're still at square one. We now have a variety of federally-supported nutrition programs, but the health care system remains senselessly disconnected from the "social determinants of health." In this regard, the United States has fallen behind the rest of the world. If a politician in India announced a public health plan that neglected malnutrition, he would be ridiculed. Here, leaders make this kind of omission all the time. Almost all of the debate about the 2010 Affordable Care Act was consumed with questions about health care access and quality. But if we really want to improve the health of millions of people, we have to address the conditions that make them sick.
The Epocrates App Provides Drug Information, and Drug Ads - NYTimes.com
Epocrates has won over nearly half of the nation's doctors for its free smartphone apps that lets them look up information on drug dosing, interactions and insurance coverage while seeing a patient.
But like so much else on the Web, "free" comes with a price: doctors must wade through marketing messages on Epocrates that try to sway their choices of which drugs to prescribe.
The apps can select messages based on each doctor's search and prescription histories, and the company has ambitious plans for expanded smartphone offerings. One possibility is a virtual sales rep that would help drug makers get their wares in front of physicians who decline to see human sales representatives.
The marketing messages are difficult to ignore. For example, a psychiatrist in Massachusetts who recently opened Epocrates (pronounced ee-POC-ra-teez) on his iPhone said that before he could look up any drugs, he had to click past "DocAlert" messages onhypertension, bipolar disorder and migraines. Two of the three showed they had been paid for by pharmaceutical companies promoting their products.
"Some doctors will not have time for that nonsense," said the psychiatrist, Dr. Daniel J. Carlat, who also writes a blog and newsletter on medical issues.
Of course, any casual user of the Web is bombarded with ads derived from their browsing history.
However, the marketing through Epocrates is more insidious, according to Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, an associate professor of medicine at Georgetown University and founder of PharmedOut, a nonprofit group critical of drug companies' marketing practices.
"With targeted ads in Google, you may buy something that's an unwise purchase," she said. "But when a physician is influenced in Epocrates, it's the patient who's bearing the financial and health risk."
Dr. Fugh-Berman and other critics of drug marketing say the apps promote more expensive and sometimes less effective drugs. The companies say they are helping doctors find the best medicines.
Dr. Rachel E. Sherman, associate director of medical policy at the Food and Drug Administration, said the agency was trying to get a handle on all the emerging electronic channels of communication used by drug makers."It's a mess," she said.
Epocrates is betting that the 320,000 physicians who use its apps, much like those who use Google and other advertising-supported data services, will tolerate some marketing to get the information they want at no charge. Epocrates is also used by a million nurses, pharmacists and medical students.
One in five doctors will not see drug sales representatives at work, according to the market research firm SK&A, and Epocrates says that getting a smartphone sales pitch in front of doctors just as they are writing prescriptions is immensely valuable to pharmaceutical companies.
Epocrates says drug makers get $3 in increased sales from every dollar spent on DocAlerts. The claim comes from comparing prescription records of doctors who see DocAlerts with those who do not, company officials said. But they declined to share the research, saying it was paid for by drug companies and was confidential.
Pfizer, the world's largest drug maker, has certainly found the marketing channel to be an effective way to reach doctors. "The beauty of the work we do with Epocrates is that we literally put ourselves in the palm of their hand," said Dr. Freda Lewis Hall, chief medical officer at Pfizer.
Epocrates says drug makers can present alerts to doctors based on specific drugs or classes of drugs they have looked up and by specialty, geography and insurance plan. The company will also send alerts to "customer target lists" — specific physicians, like those identified by pharmaceutical manufacturers as being the most frequent prescribers.
Epocrates acknowledges the challenges of balancing the needs of its two groups of customers: medical professionals and drug companies.
"The credibility of our brand is dependent in large part on the medical community's continued perception of us as independent from our health care industry clients, particularly pharmaceutical companies," the company said in a securities filing this year.
Pharmaceutical companies provide at least 70 percent of Epocrates's revenue, which totaled $104 million last year and is projected to be $125 million this year, according to analysts at William Blair & Company, the investment house that helped underwrite the company's initial public offering in February. (Shares sold for $16 then and closed at $16.50 on Thursday.)
"Our first commitment is the value to the physician," Rosemary A. Crane, president and chief executive of Epocrates, said in an interview.
Ms. Crane said the company's drug descriptions were unbiased and opened "a trusted channel" for drug makers to communicate with physicians through doctor alerts, which are downloaded each time the doctor updates the frequently changing drug information on the app. Ms. Crane said that having alerts based on tracking what doctors look up made the alerts more relevant to the physicians receiving the messages.
But such data tracking is opposed by some doctors and lawmakers. The Supreme Court last month overturned a Vermont law that would have restricted IMS Health, an industry data firm, from providing to drug marketers the prescription histories of individual physicians.
"The physicians know we never share their identities with the pharmaceutical companies," Ms. Crane said. Epocrates acts as a middleman in focusing the alerts and proving they work based on prescription data from IMS.
Some doctors say they easily look past the commercial messaging in Epocrates, although studies suggest otherwise. Doctors exposed to drug company information often prescribe more often, at a higher cost and with less quality, according to a review of 58 studiespublished last year in PLoS Medicine, a journal of the Public Library of Science.
Epocrates is far larger than its main competitors. Medscape Mobile, from WebMD, offers a free but less comprehensive smartphone look-up service with pharmaceutical sponsorship. UpToDate, from Wolters Kluwer Health, has a Web-based disease reference guide that, it emphasizes, does not accept money from pharmaceutical companies. But UpToDate costs $395 to $495 a year, and its first iPhone app just became available on Monday.
Dr. Robert M. Schiller, chairman of family medicine at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York, said he often uses Epocrates to look up drugs and advises medical students to use it, too.
"I have it on my iPhone," he said. "It's great for the convenience, being in a room with a patient and checking a medication. But the biggest problem is that it's supported by the pharmaceutical industry."
Drug companies, Dr. Schiller said, sponsor information that favors them. "To extent that this is a product that will influence physician prescribing behavior because it's so efficient and useful, it really needs to have minimal bias," he said. "And how do you assure that?"
Epocrates has a staff of some 15 doctors of medicine and pharmacy, Ms. Crane said, who write their own unbiased content and are protected by firewalls against industry influence.
But the company as a whole is becoming more ingrained in drug maker's plans. The company is used by all of the top 20 drug makers, and in doctor's offices, as smartphones permeate the medical profession.
Epocrates introduced a product for small medical practices on Wednesday to help with electronic health records. It provides clinical advice, too, in disease areas selected by drug company sponsors. Ms. Crane said Epocrates picks the authors of those resource guides.
Epocrates was founded in 1998 by two Stanford students. Ms. Crane is the first former pharmaceutical executive to lead Epocrates, joining in 2008 after 26 years at Johnson & Johnson and Bristol-Myers Squibb. She succeeded Kirk Loevner, who had come from Apple and the Internet Shopping Network and declined to comment for this article.
"It is a unique market, unlike any I have seen before," Mr. Loevner said in a 2009 interview with a Silicon Valley consultant. "You have a drug industry that spends $14 billion a year to influence people who prescribe drugs. There are only 600,000 people who are allowed to prescribe drugs, so there is $14 billion spent against 600,000 people. If you have a channel to reach these physicians, it is a gold mine."
Rule Changes Proposed for Research on Humans - NYTimes.com
The government is proposing sweeping changes in the rules covering research involving human subjects, an effort officials say would strengthen protections while reducing red tape that can impede studies.
The officials said the changes were needed to deal with a vastly altered research climate, whose new features include genomics studies using patients' DNA samples, the use of the Internet and a growing reliance on studies that take place at many sites at once.
"These are the first substantial changes that have been made to the rules governing human subjects in decades, so this is really quite a historic moment," Kathy Hudson, a deputy director of the National Institutes of Health, said in a telephone news conference on Friday.
The changes would be in the rules that cover topics like the informed consent that research participants must provide and the institutional review boards that oversee research at universities and hospitals. Initially drawn up by the Department of Health and Human Services in the 1970s and '80s, the system was adopted by 14 other federal agencies and departments in 1991 and became known as the Common Rule.
But some experts said it had become too cumbersome.
"It's a terrible drag on getting good research done," said Dr. Robert J. Levine, a professor of medicine and a bioethicist at Yale who headed the university's institutional review board for 31 years. He said Sunday that while he had not thoroughly reviewed the government's lengthy proposal, he was encouraged by what he had seen.
The process is still at an early stage. The government has described possible changes and asked for public comment over the next 60 days; after that, specific rules will be formulated and again sent out for comment.
The government said its proposal was consistent with President Obama's executive order in January calling on agencies to weed out unnecessary regulations. But some of the proposed changes would add regulation.
One change would expand the rules' coverage to all studies conducted at institutions that receive money from any of the 15 federal agencies that have adopted the Common Rule. For example, if a university gets financing from the National Institutes of Health, then even a study at that university paid for by a drug company would be covered by the rules.
While that would encompass more medical research, it was not clear whether trials financed by drug companies and conducted at individual physicians' offices would be covered.
Another proposed change would allow a single institutional review board to oversee studies that take place at multiple sites.
Right now, the institutional review board at each location generally must endorse a trial, which can lead to long delays. Federal officials said that besides eliminating redundancy and delays, having a single reviewer that is truly accountable for its decisions might actually strengthen oversight.
Other proposed changes would be aimed at making it less cumbersome to do surveys or other social science research in which the risks to participants are usually less than for medical studies.
Carl Wieman, associate director for science at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said it was now difficult to observe teachers and students in classrooms to help determine what makes a good teacher, given all the consent required. "You're not doing anything here except watching people," he said.
Another possible change would be that donors of blood, DNA or tissue samples would be asked to give consent before those samples could be used in subsequent research. Now, if the identity of the donor cannot be determined, samples can often be used for further research without permission. But Dr. Hudson, of the health institutes, said that with modern DNA sequencing, biological specimens are "inherently identifiable." So the proposal would make consent required.
BioMed Central
BioMed Central is an STM (Science, Technology and Medicine) publisher which has pioneered the open access publishing model
All original research articles published by BioMed Central are made freely and permanently accessible online immediately upon publication. BioMed Central views open access to research as essential in order to ensure the rapid and efficient communication of research findings.
The research articles in all journals published by BioMed Central are 'Open Access'. They are immediately and permanently available online without charge. A number of journals require an institutional or a personal subscription to view other content, such as reviews or paper reports. Free trial subscriptions to these journals are available. |
DOAJ -- Directory of Open Access Journals
The proliferation of freely accessible online journals, the development of subject specific pre- and e-print archives and collections of learning objects provides a very valuable supplement of scientific knowledge to the existing types of published scientific information (books, journals, databases etc.). However these valuable collections are difficult to overview and integrate in the library and information services provided by libraries for their user constituency.
Allergy and Immunology (30 journals) Anesthesiology (14 journals) Cardiovascular (73 journals) Dermatology (23 journals) Gastroenterology (38 journals) Gynecology and Obstetrics (36 journals) Internal medicine (269 journals) Neurology (105 journals) Oncology (77 journals) Ophthalmology (26 journals) | Otorhinolaryngology (20 journals) Pathology (36 journals) Pediatrics (58 journals) Pharmacy and materia medica (77 journals) Psychiatry (49 journals) Sports Medicine (20 journals) Surgery (87 journals) Therapeutics (84 journals) Urology (26 journals) |
Journal of Medical Internet Research
The "Journal of Medical Internet Research" (JMIR; ISSN 1438-8871, Medline-abbreviation: J Med Internet Res), founded in 1999, is a leading health informatics and health services/health policy journal (ranked first by impact factor in these disciplines). JMIR was the first open access journal covering health informatics, and the first international scientific peer-reviewed journal on all aspects of research, information and communication in the healthcare field using Internet and Intranet-related technologies; a broad field, which is nowadays called "eHealth" [see also What is eHealth and What is eHealth (2)]. This field has also significant overlaps with what is called "consumer health informatics.", health 2.0/medicine 2.0, or participatory medicine. This focus makes JMIR unique among other medical or medical informatics journals, which tend to focus on clinical informatics or clinical applications. As eHealth is a highly interdisciplinary field we are not only inviting research papers from the medical sciences, but also from the computer, behavioral, social and communication sciences, psychology, library sciences, informatics, human-computer interaction studies, and related fields. Manuscripts are invited which deal for example with
- studies evaluating the impact of Internet use or specific eHealth interventions on individual health-related or social outcomes
- descriptions of the design and impact of Internet applications and websites for consumers/patients or medical professionals
- use of the Internet in the context of clinical information and communication, including telemedicine
- use of the Internet in medical research and the basic sciences such as molecular biology or chemistry (e.g. bioinformatics, online factual databases)
- medical information management and librarian sciences
- e-learning and knowledge translation, online-courses, web-based programs for undergraduate and continuing education,
- eHealth applications for public health and population health technology (disease monitoring, teleprevention, teleepidemiology)
- evidence-based medicine and the Internet (e.g. online development or dissemination of clinical guidelines, measuring agreement about management of a given clinical problem among physicians, etc.)
- the impact of eHealth, the Internet, or health care technology on public health, the health care system and policy
- methodological aspects of doing Internet research, e.g. methodology of web-based surveys
- design and validation of novel web-based instruments
- analysis of e-communities or virtual social networks
- comparisons of effectiveness of health communication and information on the Internet compared with other methods of health communication,
- effects of the Internet and information/communication technology on the patient-physician relationship and impact on public health, e.g. the studies investigating how the patient-physician relationship changes as a result of the new ways of getting medical information
- ethical and legal problems as well as cross-border and cross-cultural issues of eHealth
- systematic studies examining the quality of medical information available in various online venues
- methods of evaluation, quality assessment and improvement of Internet information or eHealth applications
- proposals for standards in the field of medical publishing on the Internet, including self-regulation issues, policies and guidelines to provide reliable healthcare information
- results and methodological aspects of Internet-based studies, including medical surveys, psychological tests, quality-of-life studies, gathering and/or disseminating epidemiological data, use of the Internet for clinical studies (e-trials), drug reaction reporting and surveillance systems etc.
- electronic medical publishing, Open Access publishing, and use of the Internet for traditional scholarly publishing (e.g. collaborative peer review)
- information needs of patients, consumers and health professionals, including studies evaluating search and retrieval behavior of patients
- web-based studies, e.g. online psychological experiments
- evaluations of mhealth (mobile) applications, as well as ambient / ubiquitous computing approaches, sensors, domotics, and other cutting edge technologies
Why Would Anyone Choose to Become a Doctor? - NYTimes.com
You hear it all the time from doctors — they would never choose medicine if they had it to do all over again. It's practically a mantra, with the subtle implication that the current generation of doctors consists of mere technicians.
When I first started in practice, I found such comments both perplexing and annoying. I loved medicine and was excited to come to work every day. I considered those naysayers jaded has-beens, fusty old-timers pining away for the nonexistent "days of the giants."
However, as the years have passed, the warts of medicine have grown more conspicuous to me. During some of the more stressful days — crushed by impossible time constraints and ever more onerous bureaucratic demands — I can't deny that the thought of giving up clinical practice has crossed my mind. Life would be so much easier….
Yet, each year, a new wave of enthusiastic medical students floods our clinics and our wards. Part of me always wonders: Why do these students still choose to become doctors?
It certainly can't be the money — Wall Street is the faster and more reliable route to wealth, as evidenced by the skyrocketing of applications to M.B.A. programs.
Applications to medical schools, surprisingly, have held steady over all, despite an exodus of top students to finance and banking. According to the American Association of Medical Colleges, about 40,000 students apply to medical school each year, with some 17,000 matriculating. (For comparison, there are about 45,000 students starting law school each year, and 100,000 starting business school.)
Incoming medical students, while steady in their numbers, have had a major shift in their demography. In 1970, medical students were nearly entirely white men. Now half are women, and a third are Asian, black or Hispanic.
I recently worked with a third-year student who'd just interviewed a patient with chest pain. The chest pain turned out to be nothing serious, just some acid reflux — a fairly ho-hum case in a medical clinic. But the student's eyes were ablaze with fervor. "This was such an exciting case," she said. "I had the chance to figure out whether or not the chest pain was life-threatening. And the patient was so happy when I reassured him that it wasn't."
The awe of discovering the human body. The honor of being trusted to give advice. The gratitude for helping someone through a difficult illness. These things never grow old.
But the frustrations of daily clinical life continue to mount. Administrative requirements increase exponentially, while the time allotted for the patient visit remains 15 to 20 minutes. The additional paperwork, electronic documentation, phone calls, insurance forms and quality assurance measures are all expected to be subsumed into the same workday.
I once tried to calculate how many thoughts a primary care doctor has to juggle on a given day. (My tabulations came to 550; you can read about it in an article I wrote for The Lancet.) We keep pushing so many more balls into the air that there's no doubt a few will fall. It's this feeling of not being able to do as good a job as I'd like that makes me consider walking away from clinical medicine. I can't countenance mediocrity, and I cringe whenever I feel that I can't get it all done.
But then I cringe when I think about what it would mean for patients if doctors walked away from medicine because of the frustrations.
On top of that, I have to wonder about the alternatives if I gave up clinical medicine — pushing papers, sitting in endless PowerPoint meetings, crunching numbers — and realize that I am lucky and immensely privileged to be able to work directly with patients.
When I close the door to the exam room and it's just the patient and me, with all the bureaucracy safely barricaded outside, the power of human connection becomes palpable. I can't always make my patients feel better, but the opportunity to try cannot be underestimated.
If I'm having a really rotten day in clinic, all I need is one of these new medical students to pop in, even if they make a long day even longer. The fact that medicine is still compelling enough for 17,000 people each year to commit a decade or more of their life to training is inspirational.
And when my students and I have our inevitable "career talk," I tell them that there is nothing else I'd rather do in my life than medicine. If I had it to do all over again, I'd end up right here in this office — telling them that there's nothing else I'd rather be doing.
Patrolling Cancer’s Borderlands - NYTimes.com
Three recent events highlight the extraordinary task that lies ahead for cancer prevention.
First: in late May, a World Health Organization panel added cellphones to a list of things that are "possibly carcinogenic" — a category that also includes pickles and coffee.
Second: in mid-June, the National Toxicology Program, countering years of lobbying by certain industries, finally classified formaldehyde (used in plywood manufacturing and embalming) as a carcinogen.
And third: in late June, the Food and Drug Administration issued newer and more graphic warning labels for cigarette packages. These include deliberately disturbing images of a patient with mouth cancer and of a man with tobacco smoke coming out of a tracheotomy stoma.
What connects these events? Together, they serve to remind us of three of the most potent challenges that cancer-control agencies face today. Indeed, it is essential to recognize these events as representing a progression: each corresponds to a crucial stage in the process of patrolling the borderlands of cancer. Effective cancer control depends on successful action at each of these complex stages.
The first challenge is scientific. It concerns the complexity of identifying new carcinogens, and the need for consistent standards for doing so. Take the purported link between cellphone radiation and brain cancer. This link is based largely on the so-called Interphone study. In Interphone, men and women with a variant of brain cancer (called glioma) were asked to recall their level of exposure to cellphone radiation. The results, at first glance, were provocative. Men and women who recalled moderate phone use seemed to havedecreased rates of brain cancer compared to those who rarely used cellphones. In contrast, men and women with the highest usage seemed to have an increased rate of brain cancer.
But pivotal uncertainties remain. Trials like Interphone depend on the ability of subjects to recall their prior exposures. Such recollections can be surprisingly inconsistent. Indeed, when some subjects' actual phone use was logged, there were broad discrepancies between actual and reported usage.
There are other difficulties. Despite a drastic increase in cellphone usage over the past decades, there has been no significant change in glioma cancer rates across the nation. Perhaps it is too early to judge, but the enormous increase in phone usage should have caused at least a minor blip in glioma rates over 20 years — but no such increase is apparent.
And finally, the kind of radiation emitted by cellphones — unlike the radiation emitted by X-rays or nuclear bombs — cannot directly damage DNA. X-rays and nuclear radiation possess the energy required to alter genes and thereby cause cancer. But the frequency of cellphone radiation is more than a million-fold lower. If cellphone radiation is causing cancer, it is doing so through a mechanism that defies our current understanding of carcinogenesis.
Brain cancer is a devastating illness, and it's worth being cautious, but the current data supporting the link between phone radiation and glioma are weak. The cellphone case is a reminder of how difficult it is to identify a new carcinogen — and how important it therefore is to have standards to make such classifications possible.
Discrepancies in standards for classifying carcinogens have led to confusion and turmoil in the public realm. In contrast to the World Health Organization, many agencies, including the National Cancer Institute, remain skeptical about the link between phone radiation and cancer, and are awaiting more definitive studies to clarify the issue. In part, the problem is semantic: the W.H.O.'s definition of "possibly carcinogenic" is much looser; coffee and pickles are included, even though the evidence for their carcinogenicity remains weak. But the split between the W.H.O. and other agencies on cellphones — emblematic of the split within the scientific community — has had the unfortunate effect of confounding the public, which now does not know which faction to believe.
The second challenge facing cancer control agencies is political. The formaldehyde case illustrates this. Unlike phone radiation, formaldehyde has a well-established mechanism to cause cancer: it is a strikingly reactive chemical that can directly attack DNA. Experiments performed in the 1970s demonstrated that the chemical causes cancer in mice and rats. Following this data, sophisticated trials showed that men and women exposed to formaldehyde — morticians, for instance — had higher rates of leukemia than unexposed people.
But some of these studies were performed three decades ago. Why have 30 years elapsed between them and the National Toxicology Program announcement? In part, because of active lobbying by various industries, in particular, plywood manufacturers, who have tried to thwart this classification.
Identifying a carcinogen, in short, isn't sufficient. Beyond the science — which, as the cellphone example shows, can be hard enough — cancer-control agencies need to bolster political support, and neutralize lobbying interests, before a culprit carcinogen can be revealed to the public.
The third challenge for the cancer community is social. The F.D.A.'s new labels on cigarette packages are a case in point. The human trials that established that tobacco smoke is a carcinogen were initially performed in the mid-1950s (some even earlier). The tobacco industry mounted an aggressive campaign to discredit the data, and continued marketing tobacco to the public. The landmark Surgeon General's Report on smoking and cancer was released in 1964. And it took yet another decade of innovative strategies, including powerful antitobacco advertisements and tort cases against tobacco companies, to alter the trajectory of smoking behavior in America.
But young men and women in some parts of the nation are smoking again: consumption in certain regions has been rising, and cancer rates will rise concomitantly. Evidently, identifying a carcinogen or advertising the risk to the public is not enough: cancer-control agencies need to invent and reinvent strategies continuously. Old warning labels generate habitual responses, so new, more disturbing labels are needed to invigorate attention.
Patrolling the world for real carcinogens, in short, is a complex task. Scientific challenges morph into political challenges that lead to social challenges. If reducing the incidence of cancer is a national goal — as it surely must be — then it is essential to recognize the many-dimensional nature of countering carcinogens.
Siddhartha Mukherjee is an assistant professor of medicine at Columbia University and the author of "The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/opinion/sunday/17Mukherjee.html?pagewanted=print
Medical 2.0 Pills - Ramblings of a Geek on Medicine, Genetics and Web Tools
Medical 2.0 Pills features debates on Medicine, essays on Medical Genetics, tips and links to online web 2.0 / medicine 2.0 resources, all in an brief and essential style.
Medical 2.0 Pills is indeed enthusiasticaly "social web" oriented.
The author is currently a med student, geneticist wannabe and - as you might have already assumed - a web 2.0 geek. He is a great supporter of prevention of disease through a healthy and physically active lifestyle (he keeps tracks of his efforts on dailymile).
Doctor and Patient: When Hospital Overcrowding Becomes Personal - NYTimes.com
Early in my residency, I realized that like Pavlov's Russian dogs of yore, the other surgeons-in-training and I had developed a conditioned response to our electronic pagers. Our blood would rush and our breath disappear at the sight of one five-digit extension on our beeper's screen.
The emergency room was calling.
It wasn't that we disliked the E.R. Some of our most memorable training experiences occurred there. It was just the sheer crowding of that area of the hospital that made our stomachs drop.
Day and night, the hallways of the E.R. were lined with gurneys, sometimes parked two rows deep. Patients were forced to wait, or "board," on those flimsy narrow stretchers until a bed became free at the "Inn," as the E.R. staff referred to the rest of hospital.
Stuck for hours and sometimes entire days, these patients were surrounded by the groans, cries and hacking coughs of others who waited with them. Doctors and nurses did what they could, pinning curtains around two stretchers to create makeshift semiprivate rooms and dimming the lights to bring some sense of calm to the chaos. But there were always more new patients, and the "boarders" would be left to continue their wait, calling out to whoever approached to ask for water, a bedpan or an extra blanket to keep warm in the chilly corridors.
None of my colleagues were surprised when we heard one day that a patient had died in those halls waiting for a bed. "I'm not sure there's much more we can do about this overcrowding," an E.R. nurse later confided to me. "It's not like we can turn people away; that's against the law."
Since 1986, when Congress passed a bill that made emergency care a legal right, emergency rooms have served as the safety net of the American health care system. But providing such care has become increasingly difficult in recent years. More and more hospitals are being forced to close their emergency departments, a major source of lost revenue, even as the demand for them continues to rise.
Once seen primarily as a problem of urban medical centers that affected only the poor and medically underserved, emergency room closings and overcrowding are increasingly viewed in a different light. More and more experts now believe that the current crisis in emergency care is a canary in the health care coal mine, a warning of more vexing challenges ahead for medicine in general.
And those challenges have the potential to affect every single one of us personally, patient and doctor.
The far-reaching implications were made painfully clear last month in The New England Journal of Medicine. In an eloquent and moving essay, Dr. John Maa, an assistant professor of surgery at the University of California, San Francisco, and a national leader in improving emergency care, describes the all-too-familiar story of a 69-year-old woman who is admitted to the E.R. for a procedure to correct an irregular heartbeat. Her operation is delayed because she has to board for a full day while waiting for a real bed. During the delay, she suffers a major stroke and dies.
The woman, we learn, was the author's mother.
"Emergency room overcrowding and boarding are formidable challenges that even I, as a surgeon dedicated to emergency care, couldn't address for my mother," Dr. Maa said recently. "What about other patients who don't have a physician as a family member?"
The major challenge for any patient in the emergency room is a reimbursement system that offers little incentive to decrease crowding or minimize boarding. Hospitals prefer patients who come in electively for scheduled procedures, at least from a financial perspective. For one thing, they are far more likely to be well insured than those admitted through the emergency room. By boarding E.R. patients in crowded halls, hospitals can offer the required emergency care for all while minimizing the effect on their bottom lines.
"It becomes a question of who can keep our hospital afloat," said Dr. Renee Y. Hsia, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and an author of two recent major studies on theemergency care crisis. "Being an emergency doesn't necessarily move you up to the head of the line."
In the last few years, several initiatives have attempted to address the overcrowding and boarding issues. In England, a new law limits the length of emergency room visits to four hours. Some American hospitals are reserving beds for emergency admissions and "smoothing admissions," distributing elective admissions more evenly throughout the week rather than clustering them on Monday mornings. Dr. Maa has led a "surgical hospitalist" initiative in his hospital that has now spread to hundreds of other hospitals across the country; it ensures that emergency rooms have a dedicated surgeon who will see patients within 30 minutes of arrival to speed their admission, discharge or follow-up care.
As promising as these efforts are, they have also revealed one thing: Truly effective changes won't occur until we have addressed the lopsided repercussions of a system that allocates care based on insurance coverage rather than clinical status. "In emergency care, in order to be efficient, you have to be equitable," Dr. Hsia said. "But as long as elective admissions take priority over emergency ones, then we will see the kinds of consequences that Dr. Maa's mother suffered."
Empowered Patient - The Wise Patient's Guide to Being an Empowered Patient
Patients find more and more that their healthcare is being compromised. Patient safety issues, money issues, lack of time andcommunication with their doctors... These days, wise patients are empowered patients, learning everything they can about the healthcare system, the obstacles to good care, and the steps they can take to get the best care possible.
If you are over the age of 45, you'll remember Dr. Marcus Welby. He was the skilled and kindly TV doctor who was able to solve most medical problems within the one hour he appeared each week on the small screen.
In those days, many of us thought our family doctors and general practitioners were just like Marcus Welby. They were mostly men, paternalistic and kindly, they seemed to know everything there was to know about taking care of us, they smiled at us when we arrived, they took their time and answered our questions, and most of us got well.
Times Have Changed
There are few Marcus Welbys practicing medicine today. The world of medicine has transitioned to a system that takes control away from both patients and their doctors, giving rise to a new paradigm that requires patients to take more responsibility for their medical care than in the past.
The move toward patient empowerment in America seems to have begun with the Civil Rights movement in the 1970s. It was a slow beginning, until 1999 when the Institute of Medicine, an agency of the US government, issued a report called To Err is Human which reported the deaths of between 44,000 and 98,000 Americans each year due to medical errors. Thus the flames of patient empowerment were fueled, and the movement began to grow.
Patient Empowerment Defined
Patient empowerment has a handful of definitions. Most focus on the concept of the patienttaking an active role in his own disease management, and supporting that participation by learning all he can about his disease or condition and treatment options.
Until the past few years, the thought that a patient would participate so fully was unheard of. Today, many patients realize that this level of participation is vital to maintaining health in the face of medical problems or challenges.
As an empowered patient, you'll need to:
- Take responsibility. Realizing that you know your body better than anyone else, you will refer to all the resources at your disposal -- from people to the printed word -- and you will use that knowledge to help make decisions about your treatment that are your decisions to make.
- Set goals. Understanding that the human body does not always react the way we expect it to; therefore, it's best to set a treatment goal and work toward that goal. In some cases a patient can have a goal to heal, another may simply want to manage a disease or condition, or another may need to learn to cope with a new medical problem.
- Collaborate with others. You'll be an active participant on your own healthcare team, including providers, support personnel, payors, even other patients, knowing that the collaboration helps you in the decision-making aspects of your diagnosis and treatment processes.
- Gather evidence. Including resources that range from observation, to recording symptoms and family histories, to participating in medical tests, to discussions with providers and other patients, to using the Internet and libraries for researching relevant diseases, conditions and treatments.
- Be a smart healthcare consumer. Sometimes the challenges a patient faces are related more to customer service and costs of service than they are to the health aspects of care. Understanding health insurance choices or learning when to walk away from a doctor's practice when necessary, are examples of these kinds of choices.
- Stay safe in the healthcare environment. We often read about major medical errors, but millions of "smaller" mistakes take place every day. Administration of the wrong drugs,acquiring infections in hospitals, even surgeries gone bad -- these are all examples of the safety problems an empowered patient should be aware of.
- Understand and support the tenets of patient advocacy. In the bigger picture, you can take advantage of those who have learned about your medical problems before you, and you can help patients who come after you find better medical outcomes. Advocacy runs the gamut from government and not-for profit organizations, to individual navigators that help patients transition through the steps of their diagnosis and care.
- Comply with decisions. Since you will have collaborated with knowledgeable members of your healthcare team to arrive at decisions, you will feel confident in the compliance aspects of your care.
The Empowerment Tipping Point
With more than 30 years of history, patient empowerment is approaching its tipping point. More and more, patients are realizing they can improve their medical outcomes by taking responsibility for their own healthcare decisions in partnership with their providers, and participating fully in the process.
Popular Posts
-
Electric-power transmission is the bulk transfer of electrical energy, from generating power plants to electrical substations located near ...
-
Derek K. Miller was an incredible man. He blogged his way through stage 4 metastic colorectal cancer. He coined the term "digital execu...
-
The Control of Communicable Diseases Manual (CCDM) is one of the most widely recognized reference volumes on the topic of infectious diseas...
-
Louise Levy attends regular Tai-chi classes, retired three years ago from her secretarial job and says she would still be driving today if h...
-
Hepatitis A (formerly known as infectious hepatitis ) is an acute infectious disease of the liver caused by the hepatitis A virus (HAV). Ma...
-
Back pain is pain felt in the back that usually originates from the muscles, nerves, bones, joints or other structures in the spine. Back...
-
Treating anxiety no longer requires years of pills or psychotherapy. At least, not for a certain set of bioengineered mice. In a study recen...
-
Palinopsia (Greek: palin for "again" and opsia for "seeing") is a visual disturbance defined as the persistent or rec...
-
Alpha-thalassemia (α-thalassemia, α-thalassaemia) is a form of thalassemia involving the genes HBA1 and HBA2. Alpha-thalassemia is due to...
-
Actinic keratosis (also called "solar keratosis" and "senile keratosis"; abbreviated as "AK") is a pre-cancer...