April 20th, 2008 by Dr. Val Jones in Health Tips, News
3 Comments »
I just discovered this wonderful non-profit organization devoted to rating the quality of the journalism behind health news reports. Health News Review was founded by Gary Schwitzer, a journalist devoted to consumer empowerment through accurate, spin-free health reporting.
The fun part of this website is that if you see a health segment on Good Morning America, the CBS Evening News, or other TV or major media outlet you can check with the experts at Health News Review to find out if the information you heard was accurate.
Here’s an excerpt from a recent review of a news story that was reported in an irresponsible manner:
This story about a spa-based treatment for reduction of adipose deposits provided little viewer education. Its sole purpose appeared to be as a hook for a more in-depth broadcast which was to occur in that night’s prime time programming. It did not inform viewers about lipo-dissolve in a balanced way or in a manner that would allow them to understand the likelihood of having the adverse outcomes.
The story did not discuss the quality of the evidence available supporting this treatment as effective or ineffective. It contained only anecdotal examples about lipo-dissovlve gone bad. However – this is inadequate information on which to base a decision, even a cosmetic one. Although the women interviewed had adverse effects from the treatment, the story gave no indication of whether these outcomes were exceptions or were the rule.
The approach followed a typical TV news formula: promote something as “sweeping the country…new phenomenon…hottest thing since Botox… reportedly tens of thousands of procedures completed”, then slam it as expensive and unsafe.
Where was the shoe leather journalism to hang some facts on those bones? Why did they have to say “reportedly” tens of thousands of procedures completed? Reported by whom? What did ABC’s own investigation find? Were any trials done? What were the quantifiable benefits and quantifiable harms?
Maybe that evening the ABC 20/20 program answered some of these questions. But for the viewers up early (and possibly not staying up for the 20/20 program), the morning program was a shoddy tease.
If the Health News Review gains enough momentum and recognition, maybe we can raise the quality of health journalism on a national basis. Fear of exposure of shoddy journalism could pressure the media to do a better job of giving us accurate and trustworthy information. Here at Revolution Health our medical experts are doing their best to clarify and comment on the news for you in their blogs. Don’t believe everything you hear on television… if something sounds too good to be true, check it out with the Health News Review or Revolution Health experts to get to the bottom of things.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
March 13th, 2008 by Dr. Val Jones in News
4 Comments »
There have been some recent news stories about a new type of identity theft – people (presumably without health insurance) are able to get coverage by stealing your insurance information and posing as you during hospital visits. Alternatively, hospital employees can steal your information and sell it on the black market. Some people estimate that medical identity theft may account for up to 3% of all identity theft in the US. Yikes! I even blogged about an infuriating previous encounter I had with a medical identity thief in the inner city.
I had my identity stolen once about 7 years ago – it was a very sobering experience. One day my credit card company called me to ask about some suspicious activity… which led to tracing events and purchases with eventual police involvement, further investigations, culminating in a Nigerian crime ring apprehended in upstate New York. Wild stuff. But I still use credit cards.
I would hate to think that medical identify theft could stall our good faith efforts at streamlining the healthcare experience. Sharing information securely and safely is a critical piece of the continuity of care and quality puzzle. Will there be hackers? Probably. Will some people be victimized? No doubt. But the vast majority of folks (if appropriate precautions are taken) will benefit from having all their providers on the same page, their medications, tests and procedures de-duped, and accurate records available for loved ones in emergencies.
The elephant in the room is whether or not people will be excluded from insurance coverage based on their electronic health records. To me, that’s scarier than potential medical identity theft, and probably the largest reason why patients are hesitant to digitize their health information (i.e. use PHRs).
What do you think about this elephant? Is there anything that can be done about him?This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
July 30th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Opinion
1 Comment »
You may remember the horrifying story of a young French woman who passed out after taking some sedatives, and her dog tried to wake her up by gnawing on her face. She was the first recipient of a face transplant, and is on immunosuppressant therapy to this day to prevent rejection of the donor tissue. This immunosuppression puts her at greater risk for cancer and infections and raises the issue of whether the benefits (a closer approximation of a normal appearance than reconstruction of her face from her own body tissue) outweigh the risks (a shortened lifespan and potential hospitalizations for infections, eventual tissue rejection, and perhaps cancer.)
Many people suffer severe facial disfigurement from accidents and burns every year. Face transplants could give them a chance at a relatively normal appearance – but American doctors are unwilling to put them at risk for what is in essence a cosmetic procedure. However, Harvard physicians are now offering face transplants to those who are already on immunosuppressants for organ transplants they’ve previously received. As you may imagine, the number of people who qualify for face transplants is rather small – as you’d have to have had an organ transplant and then coincidentally sustained severe trauma and tissue loss to the face.
The Boston Globe ran an interesting story on a man who was severely disfigured by facial burns and could have been eligible for a face transplant in France. He chose to undergo reconstruction from his own tissues, which requires no immunosuppression. He says that he is glad that his body is healthy, that he requires no medications, and that the risks of a face transplant are not worth the benefits, though he remains severely disfigured.
I think it’s interesting that the French took a different stand on this issue – allowing people to choose to have a cosmetic procedure at the expense of general health, longevity, and risk for life-threatening illness.
I have known patients who decline limb amputations for fear of disfigurement – even though the gangrene in the limb is sure to result in sepsis and eventual death. A person’s appearance and personal identity are sometimes inextricably linked – so that some would choose death over disfigurement (even of a limb). Is this choice pathological, or is it their right to choose? Given the choice between disfigurement or death, I’d choose disfigurement. I’d also not choose a face transplant over reconstruction from my own tissues, even if the aesthetic outcome is inferior. Still, I’m hesitant to say that those who’d rather live a shorter, less healthy life with a more natural face are unilaterally making the wrong choice for them. For the time being, though, people who wish to make that choice will need to do so outside of the US.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.
June 17th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Medblogger Shout Outs
No Comments »
In response to recent concerns about healthcare blogging (potential privacy violations in particular), a group of bloggers got together to create the first Healthcare Blogger Code of Ethics. All health bloggers who agree to abide by the ethical principles listed in the code will be given the HBCE seal to display on their blogs. If anyone suspects the bloggers of violating that code, they can be reported to the HBCE website for further investigation.
I think this is a great step forward for health blogs – and a good reminder to respect confidentiality, transparency, and courtesy while blogging. To request a copy of the seal for your blog, please write to: healthcare.bloggers@gmail.com
Many thanks to Dr. Rob for taking the lead on this project. Also thanks to Medi-mation who worked on the logo with me.
The 5 principles:
- Clear representation of perspective – readers
must understand the training and overall perspective of the author of a
blog. Certainly bloggers can have opinions on subjects outside of their
training, and these opinions may be true, but readers must have a place
to look on a blog to get an idea of where this author is coming from.
This also encompasses the idea of the distinction between advertisement
and content. This does not preclude anonymous blogging, but it asks that even anonymous bloggers share the professional perspective from which they are blogging.
- Confidentiality – Medical bloggers must
respect the nature of the relationship between patient and medical
professionals and the clear need for confidentiality. All discussions
of patients must be done in a way in which patients’ identity cannot be
inferred.
- Commercial Disclosure – the presence or
absence of commercial ties of the author must be made clear for the
readers. If the author is using their blog to pitch a product, it must
be clear that they are doing that. Any ties to device manufacturer
and/or pharmaceutical company ties must be clearly stated.
- Reliability of Information – citing sources when appropriate and changing inaccuracies when they are pointed out
- Courtesy – Bloggers should not engage in
personal attacks, nor should they allow their commenters to do so.
Debate and discussion of ideas is one of the major purposes of
blogging. While the ideas people hold should be criticized and even
confronted, the overall purpose is a discussion of ideas, not those who
hold ideas.
Happy blogging!This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
