February 5th, 2008 by Dr. Val Jones in Quackery Exposed
5 Comments »
The financial burden of snake oil
Prickly snake oil seeds are taking root in the soil of our broken healthcare system. Consumer discontent and feelings of helplessness are the manna of charlatans – and they are growing fat in our lean times. Unprecedented opportunity for promotion via the Internet, coupled with chronically short audience attention spans and generalized patient exhaustion (from the treadmill of life) are creating the perfect climate for the spread of pseudoscience.
I must admit that I had turned a blind eye to the whole pseudoscience movement until fairly recently. I figured it was harmless enough – placebos that might engage peoples’ minds in a more optimistic view of disease. But little did I realize that this tumor on the face of medicine would become life threatening to the advancement of science and truth.
Take for example the money that Americans spend on weight loss supplements – 1.3 billion dollars per year, and yet the American Academy of Family Physicians has found no evidence to support the use of a single one. That’s more money than the World Health Organization’s annual budget, and more than Great Britain spends on cancer research in a year. The supplement industry in general rakes in 20 billion dollars a year, which is more than the total amount spent by the US government in the wake of hurricane Katrina.
And what do snake oil salesmen think of this colossal waste of resources? Why, they’re touting it as a new era of enlightenment of course. They weave in “all natural” products, “mindfulness” practices, and “detoxification” programs into a comprehensive feel-good message that is a soothing balm to anxious souls. In reality they are leading the public down a garden path towards a false wellness nirvana, fleecing them as they go, and sowing seeds of mistrust for science-based medicine.
The rise of snake oil salesmen
The strongest potion in the snake oil salesman’s repertoire is the placebo. Placebos are treatments that work based solely on the power of suggestion. A so-called placebo effect occurs when a patient’s symptoms are altered in some way (i.e., alleviated or exacerbated) by an otherwise inert treatment, due to the individual expecting or believing that it will work. If a snake oil salesman is to become truly successful, he must build a case for his wares through anecdotes and testimonials. To obtain these, he must be a master of the power of suggestion, cultivating a small number of “true believers” from which to conjure evidence for the effectiveness of his oil. He need not convince the majority, a small minority of passionate believers will do. As Mark Twain writes, “The most outrageous lies that can be invented will find believers if a man only tells them with all his might.” Therefore, a common denominator with many snake oil salesmen is charisma and charm.
Once the charlatan has developed his small but passionate following, and some miracle cure anecdotes, he will then start playing the role of a victim. He will look for individuals who are willing to challenge his pseudoscientific claims, and then cry out to his loyal followers that he is being persecuted. He will use racism imagery to describe an illusionary bias against himself and the “good” that he is trying to do for those who are open-minded and willing to forsake “paternalistic” science. His followers will be further emboldened to carry the banner of this “downtrodden hero” as they continue to fall for his under-dog psychology.
The snake oil salesman, of course, will not gain traction with key opinion leaders in medicine, so he is left to draw from the Hollywood celebrity pool to further evangelize the masses. Medical leaders will roll their eyes and ignore his obvious pseudoscience, much to the detriment of the general public who have a hard time discerning science from pseudoscience. The charlatan then points to the medical profession’s silence as “proof” that they cannot deny his claims, further convincing susceptible listeners.
Then years later as snake oil salesmen realize that there is further strength in numbers, they gather together to form the first snake oil union. They create a continuum of oily treatments, gathering anecdotes and testimonials from one another in pseudoscientific “meta-analyses” to further strengthen their assault on science and reason. They find wealthy donors and benefactors who are impressed by their growing numbers, and match them with cash-strapped academic centers who will desperately accept funds for any vaguely scientific purpose. The snake oil team now has won a respectable platform from which to grossly inflate statistics about public use of “alternative medicine” (lumping “prayer” into the list of therapies which, combined together, would have you believe that over 60% of Americans are using alternative therapies like homeopathy).
Snake oil goes mainstream
Now that the very same snake oil that medical experts didn’t wish to dignify with a response is being promoted by academic centers, we are obligated to fund research into the potential therapeutic uses of these placebos, wasting countless millions in government funding to study implausible therapies. With a critical mass of snake oil believers, few dare to challenge the wisdom of this approach, and have become passive observers in a downward spiral that is harming the credibility of the very centers founded to promote objective scientific inquiry.
Can good science separate the wheat from the alternative chaff? Yes, but the problem is that few people seem to care about truth any more. While the American Academy of Family Physicians demonstrates that no single weight loss supplement is recommended for public use, the public is spending 1.3 billion dollars per year on these very supplements. Why? Maybe the AAFP is not reaching the public with their message, or maybe people are simply unable to resist the sweet lure of false promises?
Nonetheless, there is a growing movement in medicine to reclaim scientific territory stolen while we shrugged passively at the snake oil lobby. Blogs like Science-Based Medicine and Respectful Insolence are uniting physicians who believe in the importance of objective scientific inquiry as the foundation for the best therapeutic decision-making.
As the healthcare budget crunch looms, further pressure will be placed on providers and pharmaceutical companies to demonstrate the efficacy of their treatments in order to be eligible for coverage. This will be a boon to scientific medicine, as therapies that actually work will (by budgetary necessity) be preferentially selected for reimbursement. While Big Pharma undergoes further scrutiny, they will also turn to science to demonstrate the utility (or lack thereof) of their drugs. Therefore, those in search of truth will not be completely thwarted by pseudoscience.
Yet patients are free to pay out-of-pocket for any number of alternatives to scientifically proven medicine. I predict that further healthcare access limitations will drive more people to look for placebos than ever before, much to the detriment of those who have diseases that are treatable or curable through proven therapies. I worry far more about missed therapeutic opportunities than the dangers of the snake oil itself.
So my final advice is this: eat a well-balanced, calorie controlled diet, engage in regular exercise, stay within a healthy weight range, sleep well, participate in loving relationships, don’t smoke, do drugs, or drink in excess. At least 60% of your medical problems will be prevented if you do these things. You do not need to waste your money on supplements and snake oil – put that money into a savings account that you can access in case you become seriously ill and your insurance doesn’t cover all the best, evidence based care that you need.
Do not tithe to the snake oil salesman. Resist the dulcet tones of the false promises. Save your money to do good, and listen to your own voice of reason.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
February 3rd, 2008 by Dr. Val Jones in Health Policy, Medblogger Shout Outs
1 Comment »
One of my favorite healthcare policy blogs is Dr. Rich’s Covert Rationing. In his most recent post he discusses a research study linking New York State’s public report card system to increased heart patient death rates. Doctors’ names are published alongside their procedure-related mortality figures, so if a patient dies while undergoing a risky (though potentially life-saving) procedure, the doctor’s grade suffers.
It’s no surprise that doctors are more hesitant to operate on high risk patients if their professional reputation is on the line. The result is that patients with heart problems in New York State are less likely to receive life saving therapies.
Now here’s where my outrage increased exponentially – Dr. Rich argues that report cards are actively promoted by payers (health insurance companies and the government) under the guise of patient empowerment (they deserve transparency about their doctors’ performance record, right?) But the real truth is that the payers are benefiting financially from the report card system. Fewer procedures mean lower pay outs, and if high risk patients die sooner, then they save even more on care costs.
Man, that’s depressing. So many reforms with “good intentions” result in unanticipated harm. Though strangely I can’t think of too many reforms that harm the payers. Can you?This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
December 15th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Health Policy, Opinion
5 Comments »
More healthcare dollars are spent on end-of-life measures than perhaps any other single expense. About 25% of Medicare’s 2.8 trillion dollar budget is spent on care for people in the final year of life. That works out to be about $2500/person/year that we spend on government funded end-of-life care. Medicare spending overall is closer to $10k/person/year in this country… and given that the average household pays $6K in taxes/year… you can see that we’re in a real pickle when it comes to healthcare spending (and that’s just for Medicare).
In a recent blog post, PandaBearMD suggests that it’s time to “put granny down.” This gallows humor speaks to what the medical community has been been discussing in more academic terms. Here are some interesting sound bites (click on links for full references):
Terminally ill patients should be treated outside of acute care facilities. …Acute care hospitals are, by definition, set up for handling acute conditions – trauma, childbirth, orthopedics, heart attacks, etc. Terminal illnesses are not acute conditions, and therefore should be treated in a facility or setting that is chronic-care oriented.
The technological advances that medicine has witnessed in the last few decades are no more apparent than in the ICU. Yet when used inappropriately, this technology may not save lives nor improve the quality of a life, but rather transform death into a prolonged, miserable, and undignified process.
Hospice care can reduce the cost of end-of-life care by 30% or more (though this is debated).
“We don’t operate in a closed health care system, where there is a fixed number of dollars for health care, and thus the need to choose how to allocate those dollars,” said Dr. Weissman. “Our health care system is open-ended, which is why the cost of health care goes up every year. So we’re not making a tradeoff of spending more on the elderly and thus not using those resources on children’s care.
While it is fairly obvious that we deliver a lot of unnecessary, costly, and heroic medical care at the end of life, determining how to ration this care is fraught with moral and ethical dilemmas.
What sort of population-based rules should we institute to govern access to acute care services at the highest level? Would limiting care to people based on age or comorbidities sit well with Americans? Imagine that you’re 65 – just entering retirement and expecting to enjoy another 20 years of life – and you’re disqualified from top tier medical treatments because of your age. Who has the right to judge your worthiness of top medical technology?
I know of an elderly woman who accidentally took too many diuretics over the period of two weeks. She became delirious and was admitted to a hospital where the doctors assumed she had end stage Alzheimer’s disease and sent her home with hospice care. Another doctor later discovered the error, rehydrated her and she returned to her usual state of health. It was a close call for that “granny.”
My parents are in their late 70’s and in excellent health, enjoying book writing and traveling. I asked them to read PandaBear’s analysis of end-of-life care in the United States – and how billions of dollars are spent on heroic measures for the frail elderly.
My mother said tersely, “I hope I die in Europe.”
My father replied, “Whether you’re old or young, it’s nice to be alive.”
But I can’t help but think of that patient who was sent home with hospice care for delirium caused by severe dehydration. Will we turn our backs on the elderly and not carefully consider their differential diagnoses simply because of their age? As long time tax payers, are they not the most deserving of access to top technologies if so desired?
This is one tough dilemma – and the best I can advise is that we each create living wills, and save our own money for that rainy day when we need critical care, but are ineligible based on some future population-based rule to save money on futile care. In that case, the wealthy would always maintain access to the best care available.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
November 18th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Health Policy, Opinion
5 Comments »
A recent blog post at Terra Sigillata really disturbed me. The author describes how, in the face of increasing healthcare costs, Medicare now declines coverage of life saving medicines for lymphoma patients. This is one example of rationing healthcare that will become ever more common (as it is in other leading industrialized nations) as we move towards further cuts in government programs and funding. In Canada, expensive chemotherapies are not commonly covered by the national health plan, and in Britain, age is a determinant for transplant eligibility.
But what troubles me about the apparent capriciousness of denying coverage to certain types of cancer patients over others, is that government programs are – at the same time – allocating millions of dollars to researching implausible alternative medicine treatments while denying coverage of proven therapies to patients who will likely die without them.
Take homeopathy, for example. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine lists homeopathy as an eligible area of research, and boasts several ongoing studies in the area of stroke, dementia, fibromyalgia, and prostate cancer. And yet, there is no plausible mechanism of action to support its potential use as anything more than a placebo. Homeopathy operates on the assumption that water has memory, and that once it has been exposed to certain substances, such as arsenic, it obtains curative properties for illnesses that bear resemblance to poisoning from those very substances (though the water itself may no longer contain a single molecule of the substance).
Research into scientifically implausible theories should not be funded by our tax dollars at the expense of offering life saving treatments to cancer patients. It is time for scientists to stand up and point out that the Emperor has no clothes when it comes to homeopathy and other similarly flawed alternative medical treatments.
As we move towards rationing limited healthcare resources, we have a moral obligation to prioritize the money correctly. “Open-mindedness” is no excuse for poor stewardship.
Dr. Wallace Sampson sums this up in a provocative recent editorial. Here is an excerpt:
We now see accumulation of useless information in journals and information data bases — hundreds of clinical trials (RCTs) on implausible methods, such as homeopathy, unrefined plant products, prayer, and acupuncture. Initial plausibility retreats before two 20th-century development ideologies of relativism — a principle that all facts and opinions have equal or similar value, and postmodernism — that regards facts as social constructions.
Once thought to be too esoteric for relevance to medicine, these twin ideologies now mold the thinking of policy makers and granting agency officials. Ancient and traditional cultural practices are not diminished for lack of plausibility, but are investigated by RCTs because they are there.
Plausibility depends on prior reliable observations, physical and chemical laws, pharmacological principles, and advocates’ economic and legal misadventures. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine spends $100 million/year on implausible research and training grants. In performing RCTs on implausible proposals, clinical research has taken a wrong turn and departed from rationality.
This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
November 1st, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in News
No Comments »
A recent research study suggests that as many as 7% of adults over 45 have had a stroke without even realizing it. Researchers performed brain MRI scans of 2000 “normal” (asymptomatic) Dutch men and women between the ages of 45 and 96, and found that 7.2% of them (145 people) had evidence of an infarct (stroke), 1.8% (36 people) had small aneurysms, and 1.6% (32 people) had benign tumors (usually a small malformation of the blood supply to the brain).
Interestingly, they also found one person with a primary brain cancer, one person with a previously undiagnosed lung cancer that had metastasized to the brain, one person with a life-threatening subdural hematoma (brain bleed), and one person with an aneurysm large enough to require surgery. So altogether, they found 4 people out of 2000 who needed urgent medical intervention.
Although the authors of the article emphasized the point that many “normal” people have harmless brain abnormalities – I was a bit surprised by the fact that they found 4 asymptomatic people unaware of a ticking time bomb in their brains.
Keep in mind that the study was conducted on middle class Caucasian adults in the Netherlands – so we cannot generalize these findings to more diverse populations. But I do think it’s a bit of an eye-opener.
MRI scans are quite expensive (well over $1000 in most cases) and are therefore not offered to the general population as a screening test. But it does make you think about saving up for one. Your radiologist may find something unimportant, or she may find something that you hadn’t bargained for. Or maybe one day the technology will be inexpensive enough to offer as a screening test in a primary care setting. But that’s not going to happen any time soon.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
