May 3rd, 2009 by admin in Better Health Network
2 Comments »
I have said it before and I will say it again. Diet pills do not work and can be dangerous. For proof of the dangerous part, check out the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notice of the recall of Hydroxycut.
In all, there are 14 products that have been recalled including:
- Hydroxycut Regular Rapid Release Caplets
- Hydroxycut Caffeine-Free Rapid Release Caplets
- Hydroxycut Hardcore Liquid Caplets
- Hydroxycut Max Liquid Caplets
- Hydroxycut Regular Drink Packets
- Hydroxycut Caffeine-Free Drink Packets
- Hydroxycut Hardcore Drink Packets (Ignition Stix)
- Hydroxycut Max Drink Packets
- Hydroxycut Liquid Shots
- Hydroxycut Hardcore RTDs (Ready-to-Drink)
- Hydroxycut Max Aqua Shed
- Hydroxycut 24
- Hydroxycut Carb Control
- Hydroxycut Natural
Why the recall?
The FDA says there have been 23 reports of liver damage, elevated liver enzymes, or liver damage requiring transplant. Other reported problems include seizures, muscle damage, and cardiovascular problems. One death of a 19 year old man is also thought to be associated with using Hydroxycut.
If you are using Hydroxycut currently, throw it away or return them to where you purchased them. There are numerous ingredients in the 14 different products recalled and right now it is not clear which ingredients are thought to be the most dangerous and cause problems.
Diet and exercise
I know you are tired of hearing it, but I am not tired of saying it. 🙂
Reducing calories and increasing calorie burn by moving more are the best way to lose weight. Many dietary supplements on the market are safe. But some can have dangerous consequences. use caution and when in doubt, don’t use something you think may be dangerous.
*This post, Hydroxycut Recall, was originally published on Healthline.com by Tara Gidus, MS, RD.*
January 21st, 2009 by Dr. Val Jones in Primary Care Wednesdays
4 Comments »
By Alan Dappen, M.D.
“Doc, you’re the best! You saved my life, and my wife’s. You delivered my kids and brought them through sickness — time and again. I trust you, and can confide in you … Hey, wait a minute … Are you still a Preferred Provider?” Â
This is a statement I heard all too often as a primary care doctor beholden to third-party providers. When a long-time patient asked this question, I felt like the mythological Damocles, who precariously sat beneath a sword suspended by a horse hair, for if I answered “No” to that question of “Are you a Preferred Provider” the sword would fall, swiftly.
No matter skill, knowledge, talent, caring, quality, experience, price or level of trust of their current primary care practitioner, 90-95% of patients who ask “Are you my preferred provider?” paradoxically will exit one primary care provider’s office to entrust the decisions of their day-to-day health care to another physician picked by their insurance company, even though this new doctor may be a stranger who signs a contract to do the job for less money.
For decades now patients have been led, like lemmings, by the belief that the vast majority of healthcare is virtually free because they have health insurance usually wholly and partially funded by someone else, like their employers of the government. Furthermore, patients trust that the providers of this health insurance know what is best for their care.
Because someone else is footing the bill, we as patients have absolved ourselves of the responsibilities associated with finding and consuming good care. Instead, the hope of getting what appears to be virtually free health care trumps all other considerations of care, whether it is quality, level of expertise, convenience or accessibility. Few of us are immune to wanting to get something for less, or better yet, something for nothing. This behavior leads to moral hazards, which are most easily explained by the WIFM (“What’s in it for me”) concept, and best exemplified by the way we eat at a buffet, drink at an open bar, or most recently by how the banks flocked to the sub-prime market to make easy, big money.
In health care, these moral hazards mean patients do not hold themselves accountable for finding the quality of care they desire at a price that makes sense. Instead, patients often rush for more health care believing that more care is better care; or to specialists because this means more competent care; or to more tests because this translates to more comprehensive results; and finally to more drugs and more treatments because these mean a longer, happier life. And patients do so because they believe their care is “free.”
Most patients are loathe to believe the numerous studies contradicting many of these beliefs. Due to the set up of the current “free” care healthcare system, patients are shielded from the actual costs of care, so they do not carefully consider these costs when assessing care. Take, for example, that a new chemotherapy drug for colon cancer cost $40,000, and yet only adds an average 1.5 months onto a patient’s life. Or that the newest brand name antidepressant costs 6 times more than its older, generic cousin (Prozac), with no evidence that it works any better. And finally, consider this example: a 70 year-old man with severe, irreversible chronic end-stage heart and renal failure, who has been bed-ridden for 3 months with numerous deep bed sores, and whose family demands “keep him alive no matter the cost.”
Unfortunately, the WIFM game doesn’t end with the patient. Imagine the beauty of running a business when all your customers say, “Don’t worry, just send the bill to Mom (the employer) and Dad (the government) and they’ll pick up the tab.” It is not rocket science to understand how this led physicians to a business model that guaranteed customers as long as they played by the providers’ rules; nor to understand how drug companies produce more and more “me too” drugs that offer no advantages over generic precursors but cost 6 times more; nor to see primary care physicians moving to specialization, with little difference in training compared to primary care while doubling or tripling fees; nor insurance companies keeping 30-40% of all collected money for “administration, policing, and profits,” and their executive team pocketing exorbitant rewards, like the United Health Care CEO who amassed almost $2 billion in just a few years. How dare he?!
This then is the systemic toxic effects of our health care system. The moral hazard of free healthcare binds us into one big dysfunctional family. Whatever happens, let’s make sure someone else is paying for care.
Here’s the rub: insurance has a social value for protection against large or chronic, recurring costs to help ensure your financial well-being. Primary care, on the other hand, is something all of us need, on average 1-2 hours a year and a can cost the patient as little as $300. What minimal cost to pay for staying healthy today, building for a healthy tomorrow, and ideally decreasing our need for more expensive healthcare later on. Yet few are willing to pay only a little bit today for their day-to-day care – no matter its level of quality, accessibility or convenience, unless it is “free.” So, in a world of moral hazards, what is going to happen to typical primary care?
Stay tuned and we’ll review the dirty little secrets primary care plays to survive and why it really does matter to you.
Until next time, I remain yours in primary care,
Alan Dappen, M.D.
