March 30th, 2010 by RamonaBatesMD in Better Health Network, Health Tips, News, Research
No Comments »
The entire March issue of Archives of Dermatology appears to be dedicated to skin cancer — melanoma and non-melanoma.
Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) represents 65% to 75% of all skin cancers. Most occur on sun-exposed parts of the face, ears, scalp, shoulders, and back. Intense short-term UVB exposure is important in the formation of BCC. Clinical features include pearly translucent flesh-colored papules or nodules with superficial telangiectasias (broken blood vessels). More active lesions may have rolled edges or ulcerated centers.
Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) represent 30% to 65% of all cutaneous malignancies. SCCs are most attributable to UVB exposure, long-term or accumulative exposure over years. Clinical features include crusted papules and plaques that may become indurated, nodular, or ulcerated. SCC may arise in chronic wounds, scars, and leg ulcers. Recurrent SCC development within 3 years is 18%, a 10-fold higher incidence compared with initial SCC diagnosis in the general population.
Malignant melanoma (MM) represents the most serious of all cutaneous malignancies. It is estimated that approximately 65% to 90% are caused by UV exposure, predominantly UVA. Roughly 10% of all melanoma cases are strictly hereditary. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Suture for a Living*
March 29th, 2010 by Jonathan Foulds, Ph.D. in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion, Research
No Comments »
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) identified tobacco use as the single biggest cause of premature death in every state in the U.S. They recommended in 2007 that New Jersey state government should spend $120 million per year on tobacco control ($13.75 per person per year, and 12% of total tobacco-related revenue to the state).
Here in New Jersey, our Comprehensive Tobacco Control Program (CTCP) started in 2000, with annual funding of just over $30 million via the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA). The program was set up to follow CDC guidelines to have components for media, evaluation, community activities, youth prevention, and smoking cessation. With the post 9/11 recession causing severe budget problems for the state, funding was drastically cut by 66% to $11 million in 2004 and then in 2009 it was cut again to around $8m. The state brings in approximately $1 billion per year from tobacco sources (MSA plus tobacco taxes) and so New Jersey has recently been spending around 1% of tobacco revenues on tobacco control. Despite being drastically underfunded, the New Jersey CTCP has had many noteable achievements. Here’s just a few. Read more »
This post, Funding Tobacco Control Programs: A Dollar Well Spent, was originally published on
Healthine.com by Jonathan Foulds, Ph.D..
March 29th, 2010 by Gwenn Schurgin O'Keeffe, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion
1 Comment »
So, the healthcare reform bill passed in the House. Some people want to embrace this moment as a victory because any healthcare bill that becomes law is better than nothing. I heard a lot of “this was a long time coming,” “finally,” “it was our time yesterday,” and comments like that. I also heard a great deal of “time will tell,” “who’s the really winner?,” “is it a victory with a country and government so divided?,” “is this the right path?,” and comments like that.
I’m uncertain. As a physician, I so wanted to be able to feel good about it. I so wanted to believe that the “win” would push the healthcare industry in a positive direction, even if in baby steps and even if in just the insurance industry. But I have to be skeptical about a plan that doesn’t address the needs of American’s paying high co-pays today and having trouble getting timely doctors appointments today.
As a physician, I see too many patients not filling prescriptions and going without seeing doctors for these reasons. As a patient these have been my recent concerns, and I don’t see those being addressed. Do you? Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Dr. Gwenn Is In*
March 29th, 2010 by KevinMD in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion
2 Comments »
A personal health record (PHR) has been touted as a way for patients to better keep track of their health information. Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault lead the way. But what happens if the company storing your data gets bought, goes bankrupt, or simply decides to discontinue their system?
Well, those who stored their data with Revolution Health are finding out first hand. The troubled company, which started off with so much fanfare yet died in a whimper, recently announced they’re shutting down their personal health record service. According to American Medical News: “Industry insiders say Revolution joins a long list of vendors who launched PHRs with a big splash, only to find little interest from consumers.”
Most of my patients don’t use a personal health record, and prefer that I enter the data in myself, or export it from from my electronic record system. The problem is: a) there isn’t enough time in a 15-minute patient visit to help patients enter in their data (apart from what I already do in my own system), and b) many online personal health record sites aren’t compatible with the systems doctors are using.
Leaving the data entry to the patient is inefficient, and a sure way to minimize the adoption rate. Indeed, “the most successful PHR-type systems have been created by healthcare organizations and have benefits to patients, such as e-mailing with physicians, online appointment scheduling and the ability to look at information entered by their physicians.”
That means a successful personal health records have to be well-integrated with or designed by existing hospital and physician systems, making it harder for a third-party system, such as the defunct Revolution Health service, to gain traction.
*This blog post was originally published at KevinMD.com*
March 29th, 2010 by DrWes in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion, Quackery Exposed, True Stories
No Comments »
When hospitals mandate where patients are treated, it can lead to conspiracy and racketeering charges. Here’s an excerpt from a letter from the Chairman of the Board of Citizens Medical Center to one of the cardiologists filing suit:
“While it is certainly your right to exercise your medical judgement as you see fit, likewise, it is the responsibility of the Board of Directors at Citizens Medical Center to exercise their judgement as to what is in the interest of the business of Citizens Medical Center and its patients and Medical Staff. It is the Board’s firm belief that it is in the best interest of Citizens Medical Center for patients who are capable of being treated at Citizens Medical Center to be treated at Citizens Medical Center and not be transferred elsewhere.”
Business interests before doctor-patient interests? Ouch.
-WesMusings of a cardiologist and cardiac electrophysiologist.
*This blog post was originally published at Dr. Wes*
