March 4th, 2011 by DavidHarlow in Health Policy, Opinion
Tags: ACA, Affordable Care Act, David Harlow, HealthBlawg, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare reform, medicaid, Mini-Med Waivers, National Governors Association, Single Payer System, State Healthcare Budgets, Wyden-Brown Bill
No Comments »
Medicaid has been front and center this week as President Obama addressed the National Governors Association, and several governors testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Obama told the governors that he supports the Wyden-Brown bill, which would accelerate the availability of waivers under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), so that states would not have to first create health insurance exchanges under the law, and then have the right to dismantle them and replace them with other mechanisms to achieve coverage goals of the law without additional cost to the federales. (See Wyden-Brown fact sheet.) The sponsors’ home states, Oregon and Massachusetts would otherwise have to dismantle parts of their own health reform efforts in order to align with the federal mandates. (Wyden has been a longer-term proponent of experimentation and innovation in health reform.)
The mini-med waivers granted to states (in addition to those granted to corporations and unions) are just one example of interim steps needed to harmonize federal and state health reform. When in 2014 mini-med plans will no longer be permitted at all under the federal health reform law, there will either need to be a significant dislocation of the underinsured “Young Invincibles” in Massachusetts and underinsured employees in capped health plans elsewhere in the country, or a change in the law.
Similar difficulties await state Medicaid programs, which will be faced with expanded eligibility, and other state agencies, which will need to set up exchanges per the ACA. The cost associated with eligibility expansion will be overwhelming — or maybe it won’t. There are, of course, expert opinions across the board on the financial impact of health reform on state budgets. As the saying goes, “Where you stand depends on where you sit.” Some reports inflate state expenses by not accounting for the fact that the federal share of Medicaid expansion covers 92 percent of the total. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at HealthBlawg :: David Harlow's Health Care Law Blog*
March 3rd, 2011 by StevenWilkinsMPH in Opinion, True Stories
Tags: Aging Parents, Anticipatory Care, Elder care, Elderly People, Family Practice, General Medicine, Geriatrics, Internal Medicine, Older Adults, Post-Fall Syndrome, Predictable Health Issues, Predictions In Medicine, Preventing Falls and Fractures, Preventive Health, Preventive Medicine, Primary Care, Prone To Falls, Quality of Life, Seniors Health, Steven Wilkins MPH, Unnecessary Medical Care
No Comments »
We hear about stories like this all time: An elderly person falls and breaks something — a hip, a wrist, or an arm. Soon what once was a healthy, independent senior begins an inexorable downhill slide. Such is the case of my 89-year-old mother who recently fell and broke her wrist.
Turns out that 30 percent of people age 65 and older fall each year. Predictably, seniors with the following risk factors are more prone to falls:
- Using sedatives
- Cognitive impairment
- Problems walking
- Urinary tract infection
- Eye problems
- Balance issues
Similarly, when a person does fall, a cascading series of predictable clinical events occurs. It even has a name: “Post-fall syndrome.” This syndrome is characterized by things like fear of falling again, increased immobility, loss of muscle and control, lack of sleep, nutritional deficits, and so on. Seniors susceptible to falls also have higher rates of hospitalization and institutionalization.
What strikes me about falls among the elderly is that they are seemingly predictable events. And once a fall does occur, the consequences seem pretty predictable as well — enter post-fall syndrome. So if falls and their consequences are so predictable, why aren’t primary care physicians more proactive in terms of:
- Preventing falls?
- Treating post-fall syndrome?
In the case of my mother, her primary care physician and orthopedist were both very diligent at treating her episodic needs (i.e. her pain and broken bones). But little attention, if any, was given to assessing her long-term needs, such as nutrition, inability to do anything with her left hand (she’s left-handed), sensitivity to new medications (she never took drugs because they make her loopy), gait analysis, and depression counseling. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Mind The Gap*
March 3rd, 2011 by Dinah Miller, M.D. in Opinion, Research
Tags: All In Your Head, CBT, CFS, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, David Tuller, Dr. Dinah Miller, Exercise Therapy, My Three Shrinks, New York Times, Psychiatry and Psychology, Psychological Factors, Psychotherapy, Shrink Rap, Stress-Related Health Conditions, Talk Therapy, The Lancet
1 Comment »
[Recently] in The New York Times, David Tuller [wrote] about a study published in The Lancet that shows that psychotherapy is an effective treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome. In his article “Psychotherapy Eases Chronic Fatigue, Study Shows,” Tuller writes:
The new study, conducted at clinics in Britain and financed by that country’s government, is expected to lend ammunition to those who think the disease is primarily psychological or related to stress.
The authors note that the goal of cognitive behavioral therapy, the type of psychotherapy tested in the study, is to change the psychological factors “assumed to be responsible for perpetuation of the participant’s symptoms and disability.”
In the long-awaited study, patients who were randomly assigned to receive cognitive behavioral therapy or exercise therapy, in combination with specialized medical care, reported reduced fatigue levels and greater improvement in physical functioning than those receiving the medical care alone — or getting the medical care along with training in how to recognize the onset of fatigue and to adjust their activities accordingly.
Interesting. Generally I like to stay away from the “it’s all in your head” debates. I’ll let the commenters do the talking here.
*This blog post was originally published at Shrink Rap*
March 3rd, 2011 by David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D. in Opinion, Quackery Exposed, Research
Tags: Cancer Research, Cancer Treatment, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, Dr. David Gorski, Dr. Mark Crislip, Dr. Michael Spector, Healthy Skepticism, Oncology, SBM, Science and Medicine, Science and Nihilism, Science and Skepticism, Science And The Media, Science Based Medicine, Skeptical Inquirer, War On Cancer
No Comments »
Last Friday, Mark Crislip posted an excellent deconstruction of a very disappointing article that appeared in the most recent issue of Skeptical Inquirer (SI), the flagship publication of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI). I say “disappointing,” because I was disappointed to see SI publish such a biased, poorly thought out article, apparently for the sake of controversy. I’m a subscriber myself, and in general enjoy reading the magazine, although of late I must admit that I don’t always read each issue cover to cover the way I used to do. Between work, grant writing, blogging, and other activities, my outside reading, even of publications I like, has declined. Perhaps SI will soon find itself off my reading list.
Be that as it may, I couldn’t miss the article that so irritated Mark, because it irritated me as well. There it was, emblazoned prominently on the cover of the March/April 2011 issue: “Seven Deadly Medical Hypotheses.” I flipped through the issue to the article to find out that this little gem was written by someone named Michael Spector, M.D. A tinge of familiarity going through my brain, I tried to think where I had heard that name before.
And then I remembered.
Dr. Spector, it turns out, first got on my nerves about a year ago, when he wrote an article for the January/February 2010 issue of SI entitled “The War on Cancer: A Progress Report for Skeptics.” I remember at that time being irritated by the article and wanting to pen a discussion of the points in that article but don’t recall why I never did. It was probably a combination of the fact that SI doesn’t publish its articles online until some months have passed and perhaps my laziness about having to manually transcribe with my own little typing fingers any passages of text that I wanted to cite. By the time the article was available online, I forgot about it and never came back to it — until now. I should therefore, right here, right now, publicly thank Mark (and, of course, Dr. Spector) for providing me the opportunity to revisit that article in the context of piling on, so to speak, Dr. Spector’s most recent article. After all, Deadly Hypothesis Seven (as Dr. Spector so cheesily put it) is:
From a cancer patient population and public health perspective, cancer chemotherapy (chemo) has been a major medical advance.
Dr. Spector then takes this opportunity to cite copiously from his 2010 article, sprinkling “(Spector, 2010)” throughout the text like powdered sugar on a cupcake. There’s the opening I needed to justify revisiting an article that’s more than a year old! And what fantastic timing, too, hot on the heals of my post from a couple of weeks ago entitled “Why Haven’t We Cured Cancer Yet?” Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
March 2nd, 2011 by Jessie Gruman, Ph.D. in Better Health Network, Opinion
Tags: BMJ, British Medical Journal, Center for Advancing Health, Doctor Patient Relationship, Dr. Jessie Gruman, Healthcare Dance, Healthcare reform, Participatory Medicine, Patient-Doctor Partnership, Shared Medical Decision Making, The Dance Of Good Medicine, Two To Tango
1 Comment »
The other day I came across this photo of a couple clasping each other in a dramatic tango on the cover of an old medical journal — a special issue from 1999 that was focused entirely on doctor-patient partnership. The tone and subjects of the articles, letters and editorials were identical to those written today on the topic: “It’s time for the paternalism of the relationship between doctors and patients to be transformed into a partnership;” “There are benefits to this change and dangers to maintaining the status quo;” “Some doctors and patients resist the change and some embrace it: Why?”
Two questions struck me as I impatiently scanned the articles from 12 years ago: First, why are these articles about doctor-patient partnership still so relevant? And second, why did the editor choose this cover image?
I’ve been mulling over these questions for a couple days, and I think an answer to the second question sheds light on the first. Here are some thoughts about the relationship between patients and doctors (and nurse practitioners and other clinicians) evoked by that image of the two elegant people dancing together:
It takes two to tango. Ever seen one guy doing the tango? Nope. Whatever he’s doing out there on the dance floor, that’s not tango. Without both dancers, there is no tango. The reason my doctor and I come together is our shared purpose of curing my illness or easing my pain. We bring different skills, perspectives and needs to this interaction. When in a partnership, I describe my symptoms and recount my history. I talk about my values and priorities. I say what I am able and willing to do for myself and what I am not. My doctor has knowledge about my disease and experience treating it in people like me; she explains risks and tradeoffs of different approaches and tailors her use of drugs, devices, and procedures to meet my needs and my preferences. Both of us recognize that without the active commitment of the other we can’t reach our shared goal: To help me live as well as I can for as long as I can.
Each dancer adjusts to his or her partner. In tango, each partner has different moves; the lead shifts subtly and constantly between them throughout the dance. In a partnership, when I am really ill, I delegate more decisions to my physicians; when I am well we freely go back and forth, discussing treatment options and making plans. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at CFAH PPF Blog*
