February 19th, 2011 by AnnMacDonald in Health Tips, Research
No Comments »
A paper published in the February issue of Health Affairs — discussed at length in an article in the New York Times — contains the sort of blunt, plain-spoken language you seldom read in academic journals. The authors, who include some of the most prominent neuroscientists and ethicists in the world, warn that manufacturers are misusing the FDA’s humanitarian device exemption to promote deep brain stimulation as a “treatment” for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD).
In fact, they make clear that deep brain stimulation is very much an experimental procedure. Research is still at an early stage, and the risks to patients are not well defined. When suffering is severe and no other treatment has provided relief, there is value in making available an intervention like deep brain stimulation. But misleading or biased information, no matter where it comes from, certainly undermines patients’ ability to calculate benefits and risks.
To enable deep brain stimulation, a surgeon must first implant electrodes in the brain and connect them to a pair of small electrical generators underneath the collarbone. Deep brain stimulation uses electricity to affect how brain signals are transmitted in particular areas of the brain. The image to the left, from the National Institute of Mental Health, shows how deep brain stimulation depends on the implantation of pulse generators below the collarbone and electrodes in the brain.
Specific concerns are raised by the article in Health Affairs (and in our own article on this topic last year in the Harvard Mental Health Letter). Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Harvard Health Blog*
December 13th, 2010 by Lucy Hornstein, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion
1 Comment »
There was a series of ads on the radio awhile back that went something like this:
When Mrs. Willis had a stroke, her husband never slept alone. Her daughter never had to go dress shopping for the prom by herself. And her son didn’t have to sit out the Mother-Son dance at his wedding. Why? Because she came to Hospital A…and she didn’t die!
There’s another ad for one of the big downtown hospital’s cancer center (sorry, “advanced cancer center”):
Every cancer, every stage. Your life depends on it!
Let’s see: No one ever dies at Hospital A. And the big downtown cancer center can cure any cancer. That’s certainly what those ads would have you believe. Even the little local suburban hospitals have taken to advertising: Billboards around the neighborhoods, kiosks at the outlet malls, mainly pushing the lucrative stuff like cardiac care and bariatric surgery.
Every time I see this stuff, I can’t help but wonder how much it all must cost. And how much medical care could have been provided to the uninsured instead of enriching the ad execs and billboard owners who are already rolling in dough. Clearly there is still plenty of money to be made in the hospital business, because these people aren’t stupid. They wouldn’t spend this kind of money on marketing unless there was plenty more to be made from it. I believe it’s a little business concept known as “return on investment.” Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Musings of a Dinosaur*
November 12th, 2010 by RyanDuBosar in Better Health Network, News, Research
No Comments »
Physicians and particularly primary care doctors are reporting fewer industry ties than five years ago, according to a survey.
While 94% of doctors reported some type of perk from a drug or device maker in 2004, 83.8% did in 2009, researchers reported in the Nov. 8 Archives of Internal Medicine.
Researchers surveyed a stratified random sample of 2,938 primary care physicians (internal medicine, family practice, and pediatrics) and specialists (cardiology, general surgery, psychiatry and anesthesiology) with a 64.4% response rate. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at ACP Internist*
October 4th, 2010 by Bryan Vartabedian, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
Patients are the new darling of the medical-industrial complex. If you look around you will see patients advocating for one another. If you click a little closer you’ll find some with relationships to industry.
It makes perfect sense that the manufacturer of a drug or medical device would want the blessings of our nascent cybercelebs. Some want genuine patient input. Some, however, want to curry their favor. Chock up influence of the patient population as evidence of social health’s evolving maturity.
A couple of questions:
- Will industry be required to publicly list monies used for sponsorship, travel and swag support of high profile patients in the social sphere?
- Should high visibility patients who serve as stewards and advocates disavow themselves of contact with pharma just as many academic medical centers have begun?
As is often the case, I don’t have an answer. I’m just raising the questions. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at 33 Charts*
July 21st, 2010 by RyanDuBosar in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News
No Comments »
Harvard’s annual primary medicine conference, Pri-Med East 2010, will move the industry-supported portion of the program off-site, and marketing will be further restricted (advertisements had been allowed in bathrooms, for example.) A Harvard official said the new rules are meant to keep doctors from becoming or appearing as industry marketing agents. (The Boston Globe)
*This blog post was originally published at ACP Internist*
