March 16th, 2011 by Davis Liu, M.D. in Health Tips, Opinion
No Comments »
Colon cancer screening has a particular personal interest for me — one of my colleagues in residency training had her father die of colon cancer when she was a teenager.
No one should lose a loved one to a disease that, when caught early, is often treatable. But for both men and women, colon cancer is the third most common cancer behind lung cancer and prostate cancer in men, and behind lung cancer and breast cancer in women, it’s the second most lethal.
The problem is that patients are often confused about which test is the right one. Is it simply a stool test? Flexible sigmoidoscopy? Colonoscopy? Virtual colonoscopy? Isn’t there just a blood test that can be done? (No.)
In simple terms, this is what you need to know:
All men and women age 50 and older should be screened for colon cancer. Even if you feel healthy and well and have no family history, it must be done. Note that Oprah’s doctor, Dr. Oz, arguably a very health-conscious individual learned that he had a colon polyp at age 50 after a screening test. Left undetected, it could have cut his life short. This wake-up call caused him to abort his original second season premier on weight loss and instead show the country why colon cancer screening matters. He admitted that if it wasn’t for the show and the need to demonstrate the importance of screening to America, he would have delayed having any test done.
The least invasive test is a stool test. If it is to screen for colon cancer, then the test is done at home and NOT in the doctor’s office. Either the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are available to screen for unseen microscopic blood that could be a sign of a colon polyp or cancer. Research shows that when a stool test is done annually, the risk of dying from colon cancer can fall by 15 to 33 percent. If you don’t want any fiber optic cameras in your rectum and lower colon, this is the test for you. You must do it annually.
The next two tests are similar but often confused: The flexible sigmoidoscopy and the colonoscopy. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Saving Money and Surviving the Healthcare Crisis*
February 23rd, 2011 by Davis Liu, M.D. in Health Policy, Opinion
2 Comments »
With the creation of consumer-driven health plans and health insurance policies with high deductibles linked to a savings option, more financial responsibility shouldered by patients and employees and less by employers was completely inevitable. The American public likes to have everything, whether consumer electronics or other services, as cheap as possible. With escalating healthcare expenses rising far more rapidly than wages or inflation, it’s not surprising employers needed a way to manage this increasingly-costly business expense.
In the past, companies faced a similar dilemma. It wasn’t about medical costs, but managing increasingly expensive retirement and pension plan obligations. Years ago, companies moved from these defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans like 401(k)s. After all, much like healthcare, the reasoning by many was that employees were best able to manage retirement planning because they would have far more financial incentive, responsibility, and self-motivation to make the right choices to ensure a successful outcome.
How did that assumption turn out anyway? Disastrous, according to a recent Wall Street Journal article entitled “Retiring Boomers Find 401(k) Plans Fall Short.” An excerpt:
The median household headed by a person aged 60 to 62 with a 401(k) account has less than one-quarter of what is needed in that account to maintain its standard of living in retirement, according to data compiled by the Federal Reserve and analyzed by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College for The Wall Street Journal. Even counting Social Security and any pensions or other savings, most 401(k) participants appear to have insufficient savings. Data from other sources also show big gaps between savings and what people need, and the financial crisis has made things worse.
In others words, a lot of people don’t have enough money to retire. The options they have are simply “postponing retirement, moving to cheaper housing, buying less-expensive food, cutting back on travel, taking bigger risks with their investments, and making other sacrifices they never imagined…In general, people facing problems today got too little advice, or bad advice.” Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Saving Money and Surviving the Healthcare Crisis*
January 24th, 2011 by Davis Liu, M.D. in Better Health Network, Opinion
No Comments »
A recent post on the Health Affairs blog proclaimed “The End of Internal Medicine As We Know It.” What the post is really asking about is the future of primary care in the world of healthcare reform and the creation of accountable care organizations (ACOs). While doctors should be naturally concerned about change, I don’t completely agree with this article.
ACOs are organizations that are integrated and accountable for the health and well-being of a patient and also have joint responsibilities on how to thoughtfully use a patient’s or employer’s health insurance premium, something that is sorely lacking in the current health care structure. These were recently created and defined in the healthcare reform bill.
Yet the author seems to suggest that this is a step backwards:
Modern industry abandoned command-and-control style vertical integration decades ago in favor of flatter, more nimble institutions.
Not true. Successful organizations are ones that are tightly integrated, like Apple, FedEx, Wal-Mart, and Disney.
The author talks briefly about how Europe in general does better than the U.S. in terms of outcomes and costs and has a decentralized system. All true. However, contrasting Europe and America isn’t relevant. After all, who isn’t still using the metric system? Therefore solutions found outside the U.S. probably aren’t applicable due to a variety of reasons. Americans like to do things our way.
What I do agree on is that doctors need to be part of the solution and ensure that the disasters of decades ago — like labeling primary care doctors (internists and family physicians) as “gatekeepers” rather than what we really do — never happen. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Saving Money and Surviving the Healthcare Crisis*
January 3rd, 2011 by Davis Liu, M.D. in Book Reviews, Health Policy
1 Comment »
The best book on health care reform — or surviving it — is the “The Innovator’s Prescription: A Disruptive Solution for Health Care.” The decade worth of research spent understanding, studying, and ultimately offering solutions to make the health care system more accessible, higher quality, and affordable is clear.
Unlike other books, the authors, respected Harvard Business School (HBS) professor Clayton Christensen, Jerome Grossman, a doctor who also was the Director of Health Care Delivery Policy Program at Harvard Kennedy School, and Jason Hwang, another doctor and graduate of the MBA program at HBS, avoid the traps the plague most other solutions by taking a completely different perspective by looking at other industries where products and services offered were “so complicated and expensive that only people with a lot of money can afford them, and only people with a lot of expertise can provide or use them.” Yet convincingly through plenty of examples, it shows how telephones, computers, and airline travel moved from only accessible to those with the resources to become available and affordable to all.
The book tackles every aspect of health care and asks how will those in health care be disrupted and subsequently surpassed by other providers which deliver care that is more convenient, higher quality, and lower cost. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Saving Money and Surviving the Healthcare Crisis*
November 24th, 2010 by Davis Liu, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion, True Stories
1 Comment »
A recent medical error of a wrong-site surgery that occurred in one of the country’s best hospitals, Massachusetts General, reminded me why doctors need to be less like Chuck Yeager and more like Captain Sullenberger.
Growing up, I always wanted to be a fighter pilot, years before the movie “Top Gun” became a part of the American lexicon. My hero was World War II pilot Chuck Yeager, who later became one of the country’s premier test pilots flying experimental jet and rocket propelled planes in a time when they were dangerous, unpredictable, and unreliable.
Much like the astronauts in the movie “The Right Stuff,” Yeager and his colleagues literally flew by the seat of their pants, made it up as they went along, and never really knew if their maiden flight in a new aircraft might be their last. They were cowboys in the sky wrangling and taming the heavens.
Fast forward to January 2009, when shortly after takeoff, a one-in-a-million chance, a double-bird strike completely disabled a US Airways jetliner. Captain Chesley Sullenberger, with the help of his co-pilot Jeff Skiles, ditches the aircraft in the Hudson River in under four minutes even as the nation surely expected a tragedy. But not on that day. Not with that pilot. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Saving Money and Surviving the Healthcare Crisis*
