July 24th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Expert Interviews
2 Comments »
A new study in the journal Sociology of Education suggests that obese girls are only half as
likely to go to college as non-obese girls.
I interviewed the study’s author, Dr. Robert Crosnoe, to learn more
about the relationship of weight, self-esteem, and peer popularity to the
education of young women.
Dr. Val: What did your study reveal about the impact of
obesity on the education of young girls?
Dr. Crosnoe’s response – audio 1
Dr. Val: How does popularity figure into the equation?
Dr. Crosnoe’s response – audio 2
Dr. Val: How do you explain the gender gap – that obesity
didn’t seem to influence whether or not boys went on to college?
Dr. Crosnoe’s response – audio 3
Dr. Val: What should we do based on the study results?
Dr. Crosnoe’s response – audio 4
This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
July 24th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in News
1 Comment »
A provocative press release crossed my desk today, “Study Finds Association Between Low Cholesterol Levels and Cancer” with subtitle: “Benefits of Statin Therapy Outweigh Small Risk.” Well that’s fairly terrifying, isn’t it? It sounds as if they’re saying that taking a statin (like lipitor or zocor) is good for your heart but might carry with it the “small” risk of developing cancer.
First of all, let me assure you that this is a gross misinterpretation of the metanalysis. The authors themselves never postulated a cause and effect between statins and cancer, and in fact did all they could to avoid drawing this conclusion. They merely observed that there was a slight trend towards higher cancer rates among people with low LDL cholesterol.
There are two very good explanations for the higher cancer rates in people with low cholesterol:
1. Everyone knows that “unexplained weight loss” is an ominous sign. Often times a patient’s first clue that they have cancer is sudden weight loss – since cancer has a voracious appetite and steals nutrients from the rest of the body. When people lose weight, their cholesterols decrease. So it’s possible that low LDL cholesterol is really just a surrogate marker for those who already have very early stages of cancer that have not yet been detected otherwise.
2. Statins are well known to reduce cholesterol and the atherosclerotic plaques that put people at risk for heart attacks and strokes. Lower cholesterol levels can reduce overall mortality risk/year by 30%, and so people live longer when they have lower cholesterol levels. People who live longer extend their opportunity to develop cancer. And so lower cholesterol levels inadvertently raise your cancer risk simply because they may extend your life.
Why else do I think the link between cancer and statins is faulty? Because the observed increase in cancer rates was in ALL cancer types – the genetics of cancer is so complex, and the reasons why certain cell types begin to divide in an uncontrolled manner is so diverse, that it’s hard to imagine any possible trigger could stimulate all cells to become cancerous. Also, most cancers develop very slowly, and the 5 year window in which the authors observed people taking statins and developing cancers is too short to be a cause and effect. And finally, previous statin safety studies showed no link between them and the development of any form of cancer.
The Journal of the American College of Cardiology admits in an
accompanying editorial, “In the 5 years that we have been stewards of
the Journal, no other manuscript has stimulated such intense scrutiny
or discussion.” Do I think they should have published this study? Yes – but to me the most interesting question out of all of this is: could cholesterol screening be used for early cancer detection? If an extra low LDL is observed, maybe that should prompt some additional investigations to rule out occult malignancies?
Obviously, more studies are needed to determine the potential validity of such an approach… but for now, there is absolutely no reason (based on this study) to cease statin therapy for fear of developing cancer. Hope that allays some fears!This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
July 24th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Announcements
No Comments »
From July 26-29 I’ll be in Chicago at the annual BlogHer conference. BlogHer is a community of women bloggers determined to make the world a better place. Revolution Health is proud to be a sponsor of BlogHer this year, and I’ve been asked to moderate a break out session contained within the “Earn Our Votes: What Questions Do Women Bloggers Want Candidates to Answer in Election 2008?” session. Revolution Health is non-partisan, and my role as moderator is to facilitate sincere discussion.
The break out session is 25 minutes long, and the goal is to distill all the important healthcare questions into only 3 key questions that women would like to ask presidential hopefuls about healthcare. In order to get the discussion going, I’ll present a list of questions featured recently on YouTube and in the BlogHer blogs. Please feel free to add questions in the comments section of this blog, and we’ll discuss them in Chicago on Saturday. Hope to see you there!
References
The recent CNN/YouTube Democratic Debate featured the following healthcare questions:
- How will your healthcare plan address the needs of the aging population, specifically those with Alzheimer’s, heart disease and diabetes?
- What will your healthcare plan do to address the need for affordable preventive medicine services?
- Does your healthcare plan cover undocumented workers?
- How do you intend to make sure that all Americans have some form of health insurance?
Various posts from the BlogHer conference blog:
Affordability / Universality
- How can we pay for healthcare in US sustainably?
- How can we make sure that anyone in the US not only has access to healthcare, but can afford it?
- How do we weed out those who choose not to have healthcare from those who desperately need it?
- How can we make healthcare a right, not a privilege, for every citizen?
- How can we mandate that all children in the US are insured?
- How do we protect families from insurance companies who deny claims in the face of a health crisis?
Women’s Issues
- How can we ensure increased access to family planning?
- How do we get birth control to be covered universally under health insurance policies?
- How do we achieve “scientific fairness” to women?
- How can we make women’s and children’s health issues a priority?
- How do we improve health education for women and children?
- How can we make childbirth and maternity leave less of a burden for working mothers? Especially as disability insurance is not offered to all nor is it usually enough. Women can afford to take time off after having a child.
- Can a woman’s reproductive rights be protected in US healthcare?
Ethics / Technology
- How can we ensure everyone has the same access to the same tests and treatments?
- How can we protect research, such as stem cell research, that has the possiblity to wipe out diseases?
This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
July 23rd, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Opinion
No Comments »
Many European countries have “presumed donor policies” where (unless otherwise stipulated) the untimely demise of one of its citizens results in potential organs for those on organ transplant waiting lists. In other words, the default assumption is that you want to be an organ donor should you die in an accident.
Britain is now undergoing internal debate over whether or not to institute a presumed donor policy. On the “no” side is Scotland and the Conservatives – suggesting that the government has no right to an individual’s remains. On the “yes” side are the Liberals and the British Medical Association – reminding the “no’s” that people are free to opt out, and that studies show that 70% of people have not formally registered to donate their organs even though they state that their wish would be to donate their organs in the event of sudden death.
Spain has been very successful with their presumed donor policy – doubling organ donations after enacting it into law. Austria quadrupled their organ donations after following suit.
I think that Europe’s presumed donor policy is a good idea and I would personally endorse a similar policy in the US, so long as next of kin had veto power. What do you think?This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
July 20th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Health Policy
No Comments »
Dinah at Shrink Rap had all her Medicare billing sheets returned to her this week. She had neglected to use the new forms with “red dropout ink.” These forms are not provided by Medicare, but must be purchased by the psychiatrist from a government or commercial printer. Good luck figuring out which parts of the form you’ll need, Dinah – seems as if there are many different versions (snapouts, continuation sheets, single sheets, part 1 and part 2) and they’ll cost you more than a few psychotherapy sessions will be reimbursed (not to mention the time you spend re-filling them out).
I suppose that if you do the math, it might be easier to just pay your patients to go elsewhere? The red tape (in this case “red ink”) never ceases to amaze me. Anyone else struggling with this problem?This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
