May 16th, 2011 by admin in Health Policy
2 Comments »
In an economic downturn, two classic cost-reducing solutions come to mind in the healthcare services industry: reduce offerings (give fewer services) or control demand (limit access to healthcare or increase copayments). There are many more but these two are the most frequently used. Actually, budget cuts in the Spanish region of Catalonia fit in the first type: they will need fewer resources (both human and material) because their services offered will shrink.
It’s always controversial to cut healthcare services in Spain. Even talking about it leads to accusations of promoting total privatization, attacking the Welfare State and so on. But there is another way to cut services, drugs or technologies. It’s what Dr. Iñaki Gutierrez-Ibarluzea called ‘Evidenced-based disinvestment’ in an op-ed for Spain’s ‘Primary Care Journal’ (‘Revista de Atención Primaria’). It’s easy: just find out which services, technological means or drugs offer little or no benefit for patients’ health. In other words, stop financial support for anything inefficient. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Diario Medico*
May 10th, 2011 by admin in Health Tips, Research
No Comments »
Calcium is good for us, right? Milk products are great sources of calcium, and we’re told to emphasize milk products in our diets. Don’t (or can’t) eat enough dairy? Calcium supplements are very popular, especially among women seeking to minimize their risk of osteoporosis. Osteoporosis prevention and treatment guidelines recommend calcium and vitamin D as an important measure in preserving bone density and reducing the risk of fractures. For those who don’t like dairy products, even products like orange juice and Vitamin Water are fortified with calcium. The general perception seemed to be that calcium consumption was a good thing – the more, the better. Until recently.
In a pattern similar to that I described with folic acid, there’s new safety signals from trials with calcium supplements that are raising concerns. Two studies published in the past two years suggest that calcium supplements are associated with a significantly increased risk of heart attacks. Could the risks of calcium supplements outweigh any benefits they offer? Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
May 1st, 2011 by admin in Opinion
No Comments »
The rise of prophylactic double mastectomy in women with increased risk of breast cancer has been a topic of recent discussion. In particular, this trend has been observed amongst women with the diagnosis of unilateral carcinoma in situ, or pre-invasive breast cancer. While it has been known that in women with genetic cancer syndromes, including BRCA1 and BRCA2, double mastectomy reduces risk, the efficacy of the approach is uncertain in women with other risk profiles, yet more women and surgeons seem to be doing it.
Knowing when to test, treat and act is part of art of medical practice. The ability to convey this information effectively is also an art. Both patients and doctors may have a hard time embracing watchful waiting with respect to many forms of cancer and pre-cancer. In the case of cancer of the cervix, it is known that infection with human papillomavirus (HPV) is causative in cancer development. However, only a small percentage of those infected actually go on to get cancer. Low grade dysplasia, a condition that is early in the cervical cancer development continuum, frequently spontaneously resolves without treatment. Fortunately, in the case of cervical cancer, there is now a vaccine to prevent high risk HPV infection.
“Watchful waiting” has been most discussed as a treatment strategy for prostate cancer. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at ACP Internist*
April 30th, 2011 by admin in Health Tips
No Comments »
Extra fat that accumulates around the abdomen goes by many names: beer belly, spare tire, love handles, apple shape, middle-age spread, and the more technical “abdominal obesity.” No matter what the name, it is the shape of risk.
Abdominal obesity increases the risk of heart attack, stroke, diabetes, erectile dysfunction, and other woes. The danger zone is a waist size above 40 inches for men and 35 inches for women.
As I describe in the April 2011 issue of the Harvard Men’s Health Watch, beer is not specifically responsible for a beer belly. What, then, is to blame? Calories. Take in more calories with food and drink than you burn up with exercise, and you’ll store the excess energy in fat cells.
Many studies indicate that people who store their extra fat around the midsection (apple shape) are at greater risk for heart and other problems than people who carry it around their thighs (pear shape). An analysis of 58 earlier studies covering over 220,000 men and women suggests that excess fat is harmful no matter where it ends up. This work was published in The Lancet. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Harvard Health Blog*
April 22nd, 2011 by admin in Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
Despite the variety of health systems across hundreds of different countries, one feature is near-universal: We all depend on private industry to commercialize and market drug products. And because drugs are such an integral part of our health care system, that industry is generally heavily regulated. Yet despite this regulation, little is publicly known about drug development costs. But aggregate research and development (R&D) data are available, and the pharmaceutical industry spends billions per year.
A huge challenge facing consumers, insurers, and governments worldwide are the acquisition costs of drugs. On this point, the pharmaceutical industry makes a consistent argument: This is a risky business, and it costs a lot to bring a new drug to market. According to PhRMA, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry’s advocacy group, it cost $1.3 billion (in 2005 dollars) to bring a new drug to market. The industry argues that high acquisition costs are necessary to support the multi-year R&D investment, and considerable risks, in to meet the regulatory requirements demanded for new drugs.
But what goes into this $1.3 billion figure? Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
