How Buffett’s Cancer is Shaping National Dialogue on Science Friday Today

I will be on Science Friday today, sometime between 3:30 and 4:00 PM EST, with Ira Flatow. In New York, it will be on WNYC, on KQED in San Francisco at their time for the show (a three-hour time change). Check your local listings, or listen at your convenience on their podcast.

My last post, The Top 10 Reasons Why Buffett’s Decision to Get Treated for Prostate Cancer Bugs Me, resonated with a lot of people.

As some readers know, I have been writing about prostate cancer for a very long time. I have covered many annual meetings of the American Urological Association, breaking news in medical journals and in Urology Times. Over the years, I have spoken with key opinion leaders in the field. I also ran the urology blog and website at about.com. Like many of you, I have had relatives diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Issues linked to prostate cancer encompass everything from questions about diagnosis and treatment to health reform and reimbursement for medical services. Less hard to discuss in a public venue are concerns about how men feel about treatment: are impotence, incontinence, and quality of life impacted by aggressive treatment? –can you choose no treatment when the healthcare system is built around treatment?  Men and their significant others deserve nothing less than the best, unbiased information.

Posted in Prostate Cancer, Treatment decisions | Tagged , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Top 10 Reasons Why Warren Buffett’s
Decision to Treat Prostate Cancer Bugs Me

On April 17th, 81-year-old Warren Buffett told investors that he had very early prostate cancer. The Washington Post headline read: “Warren Buffett Has Prostate Cancer that is ”Not Remotely Life Threatening.’” Within hours, news accounts said that the story unfolded after discovering a high PSA in a routine appointment. Next, he had a prostate biopsy. A few hours later, news accounts said that Buffett decided to get radiation therapy for prostate cancer. What’s wrong with this picture?

10. He’s an icon who other men will follow, and there is limited (or no) evidence of benefit of aggressive treatment in men as old as Buffett. At 81, his life expectancy is 7.41 years, shy of the 10-year life expectancy mark doctors look for when they recommend aggressive treatment for prostate cancer.
9. Although Buffett can afford whatever care he so desires, it would cost a fortune if tons of men in his age group went for active treatment and there would be little yield and plenty of side effects.
8. For several years, many physician organizations, including those representing the radiologists and urologists (ASTRO and AUA) who stand to gain income from treating older men, have expressed skepticism about the value of treating and screening men as old as Buffett. That’s because prostate cancer is slow-growing.  Buffett is more likely to die from something else.
7. There are far better health care investments that would yield better, long-lasting outcomes. Limited healthcare dollars could be spent on things that actually help people.
6. In some circles, the evidence movement is flourishing and medicine is moving towards more of a scientific base. Yet despite years of intensified effort to base medicine on proof of benefit, or evidence, seemingly has not reached one of America’s smartest men.
5.The war on cancer seems very much alive, no matter what the evidence. Even powerful men, possibly more secure, cannot say no.
4. Buffett may well have side effects from the radiation, namely bowel, urinary incontinence, and impotence.
3. Besides being wasteful, it is not going to save his life.
2. The search for an active surveillance icon continues. I was kind of hoping Buffett could have assumed that role. Surgery has its heroic icons: General Norman Schwarzkopf and Senator Bob Dole. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani went with seeds.
1.If the tide shifts and many more older men choose treatment, it will be a step away from science-based medicine.

A previous version of this post had a different point #1.

Posted in Active Surveillance, men's health, Prostate Cancer, Treatment decisions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 17 Comments

PCORI Board Sets Listening/Webinar Mode
Only on Revised Research Priorities

It looks like The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Board of Governors will hold a special teleconference/webinar in watch-only mode via teleconference/webinar on Wednesday, April 25, 2012.

The Board will discuss and vote on PCORI’s revised National Priorities for Research and Research Agenda as well as review proposed Pilot Project funding awards.

What:     PCORI Board of Governors Meeting Teleconference
When:    Wednesday, April 25, 2012
2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. ET
Where:   Teleconference & Webinar

No public comment period is scheduled. Once you register,  you will receive detailed instructions for joining online and/or by telephone.

A meeting agenda will be circulated and posted on our website prior to the teleconference/webinar.

It’s great to see this move forward, but I have to say it is disappointing that the meeting will have no open discussion.

I hope that on April 25th, the PCORI Board makes it transparent that they truly considered the patient point of view on top-priority patient-centered outcomes research. It would also be most welcome if all remote participants had in their hands, in advance of the meeting relevant materials to reference, so we are truly on the same page as the PCORI Board of Governors.

More details are expected next week, the week of April 17th, when journals address comparative effectiveness research, one of the key strategies for doing patient-centered outcomes research.

 

 

 

 

Posted in patient-centered outcomes research, PCORI | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Seeking a Second, More Specialized,
Opinion for a Rare Genetic Disease

Guest post, by Ricki Lewis

Ricki Lewis is a geneticist and science writer. St. Martin’s Press just published “The Forever Fix: Gene Therapy and the Boy Who Saved It.” Ricki’s textbook Human Genetics: Concepts and Applications, from McGraw-Hill Higher Education, is in its 10th edition.

##############################
A challenge of living with a genetic disease, especially a very rare one, is that the mutation may affect different body parts. A health care practitioner may not consider a patient’s inherited condition, especially if the most recognizable symptoms don’t fall into his or her specialty.

Shirley Banks discovered the importance of seeking a second, specialized opinion when the doctor she’d been seeing for many years had a disturbing reaction to a question.

The Long Road to a Diagnosis

The Banks family has  osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) which affects 1 in 20,000 live births. Shirley, now 73, can trace the “brittle bone disease” back to her grandmother and a great uncle, who were two of seven children. They had type I OI, which is autosomal dominant, affecting each generation and both sexes.

Shirley remembers the disease appearing in first one brother, then another, when she was a child in upstate New York. “When my first brother was growing up he had many fractures, and the doctors told him to eat high calcium foods. We lived on a farm! All the dairy made no difference because of the mutation, but nobody knew.” Several cousins easily broke bones too, and Shirley had it but didn’t realize it. Years later, her son Todd inherited the family legacy.

“Todd was a very active kid. He had his first fracture at 2, when he tripped and broke his leg. I became suspicious because my brother’s child broke bones too. Finally, a doctor who had come across this disease as an intern explained it, and we were diagnosed. It wasn’t until the early 1960s that we recognized we had a disease,” Shirley says.

More Than Brittle Bones

Shirley’s OI is, thankfully, mild. “The only bones I’ve broken are in my toes from when I ran into furniture,” she explains. Like many with OI she has other symptoms. She wears digital hearing aids and the whites of her eyes (sclerae) have a bluish cast, a hallmark of the disease. The disease can also cause discolored brittle teeth, muscle weakness, fatigue, and loose joints.

Even a mild case of OI can lead to problems, which Shirley learned when she had a hysterectomy in 1983. She’d taken aspirin beforehand, and informed the medical staff of her OI, but “when they got in there everywhere they touched, I bled. And when the doctor went to sew me up, the tissue kept ripping.” She nearly died. OI makes many tissues fragile – but the medical staff had been unaware of this.

The Banks family has a mutation in a major gene for the connective tissue protein collagen. Their type I is usually manageable, with 1-100 fractures in a lifetime; other forms begin to break bones before birth, proving lethal in infancy. Before genetic testing for OI became possible, some parents of children with broken bones were falsely accused of
child abuse
. The other types began to be described when parents accused of child abuse “failed” the genetic test for type I. Eight forms of OI are now recognized.

Only a few cases of OI are known from history. An Egyptian mummy from 1000 B.C. had it, as did 9th century Viking “Ivan the Boneless,” who was reportedly comported into battle aboard a shield and whose remains were exhumed and burnt by King William I, forever obscuring the true diagnosis.

An OI Eye is Not a Normal Eye

People with OI are at higher risk for developing glaucoma, which results from high pressure in the eyeball. The corneas of people with OI are abnormally thin, which makes the pressure read as lower than it actually is, which can delay preventive treatment if a physician is unfamiliar with this and other effects of OI on the eye. That’s what happened to Shirley, who was diagnosed with glaucoma at 38.

Patients with osteogenesis imperfecta may have high intraocular pressure and glaucoma.

A few months ago, the ophthalmologist who’d been prescribing Shirley’s glaucoma drugs for many years told her she needed cataract surgery. “So I asked him if my OI would complicate anything. He looked at me and said no, it’s the same procedure.”

Had the doctor also been treating her glaucoma without considering her OI? Shirley grew concerned.

Todd had just had surgery to drain the fluid (aqueous humor) that was building up the pressure in his eyes. Would his doctor provide a second opinion, on Shirley’s glaucoma and cataracts? She sought a second, more experienced opinion from another ophthalmologist.

“I learned so much more in his exam, I took tests I’d never had with the other eye doctor, who wasn’t looking at the special condition of osteogenesis imperfecta,” Shirley says. The good news: the cataract surgery could wait. The disturbing news: She hadn’t been getting high enough doses of the glaucoma medicine, and the pressure in her eyes had already damaged her optic nerves.

“The other physician wasn’t looking at your special condition. You and your son are a whole different ballgame,” said the second doctor. OI can directly harm the optic nerve and the tissues that support it, plus the spongy tissue that normally drains fluid from the eye. “I might have ended up blind in 3 years,” Shirley says.

Lesson learned, according to Shirley Banks: “It pays to go to a specialist. People procrastinate, say ‘oh you don’t need a specialist for something as common as glaucoma.’ But it’s different if there’s a genetic disease.”

Posted in genetic diseases, rare diseases | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

MR Imaging, Electronic Test Ordering Creates Waste

Waste is what you get with rampant, uncritical use of MRI and health information technology, according to two papers out this week.  The authors of a companion editorial to one of the papers even go so far as to suggest we should make waste a quality of care measure. I applaud them.

MRI Use Soaring for Stroke Care

James F. Burke, MD, department of neurology, and colleagues from the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, take a look at neuroimaging for the evaluation of acute stroke in a paper in the February Annals of Neurology. A companion editorial by S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD, and Stephen L. Hauser, MD, neurologists at the University of California San Francisco, has the provocative title: “Modern Care for Neurological Problems Must Address Waste.”  Tame, yet critical at the same time.

Burke and colleagues acknowledge that imaging is a fundamental part of acute stroke evaluation and that it is more accurate than computed tomography (CT) for stroke diagnosis. However, they also point out that no data has shown that stroke patients undergoing MRI do any better than those who do not. They also note that the most recent American Heart Association Scientific Statement advises the routine use of MRI or CT angiography for stroke (not both). The American Academy of Neurology guideline states that MRI use should be limited to the first 12 hours of stroke onset.

What they found, in a study of neuroimaging for stroke in 11 states between 1999 and 2008, is an astronomical increase in MRI use.  In absolute terms, it is up 38%, relative utilization rose 235% (from use in 28% of strokes to two-thirds in 2008). At first glance, the numbers might seem like a reasonable jump, given the change in clinical practice guidelines.

Delving deeper, they show:

  •     95% of patients getting MRIs also had a CT;
  •    there was striking geographic variation in MRI utilization.
  •    MRI utilization was highest in Arizona (79%), lowest in Oregon (55%).
  •    Diagnostic imaging was the second leading cost center in percentage increase, outpaced only by room and board.
  •    MRI costs rose faster (up 413%), from 1999 to 2007, than overall diagnostic imaging.
  •   In 2008, in this analysis, MRI costs contributed 10% and CT 8% of total hospital costs.
  •    In states with the highest use of MRI, use has leveled off so that just about all eligible patients are getting MRIs.
  •     Head CT use was stable over the same time period.

Doctors order these tests, yet they don’t know yet whether they improve outcomes, according to the paper. Do patients need both tests? Doubtful. Also, all that variation reflects the uncertainty in the standard of care.

“No question, it is very satisfying to see that infarction on the MRI, but does it matter in terms of patient care?,” write Johnston and Hauser, in a companion editorial. “More importantly,” they continue, “would the ca. $700 be better spent focusing on maintaining better secondary prevention, a major problem after stroke that could be addressed with more aggressive disease management.”

When Health Information Technology Jacks Up the Bill

In a separate paper in the March Health Affairs, Danny McCormick, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and director of social and community medicine at Cambridge Health Alliance, and coauthors, challenge the contemporary mantra that health information technology will cure so many ills in our healthcare system.

Here, they demonstrate how the ease of access to electronic test results led to a 40% to 70% jump in ordering imaging studies. when doctors had access to computerized imaging. They argue electronic access to test results alone may offer enticements to additional ordering.

“What we’ve got are computer systems that are essentially built around the bill,” said David Himmelstein, MD, the paper’s senior author, and professor of CUNY School of Public Health at Hunter College, New York, NY, in an interview with Patient POV. “People are buying systems that  jack up the bill. These systems, with rare exception, are not built by clinicians on the ground, and so they tend to overlook clinical information, improving care, and saving dollars.”

I loved this part of the study: even though women received more imaging studies than men, they didn’t get more advanced imaging. Hey girls, I guess these docs just don’t find visualization of us as that interesting or worthwhile. The authors didn’t pursue this, but I wonder whether this reflects that doctors take illness less seriously in women. It’s not as if I want access to the same waste that men get, but don’t you think it’s a finding worth looking at further? It’s got to be hypothesis generating.

Himmelstein was hard on the purchase and dissemination of many off-the-shelf systems. “We keep hearing that we are going to save dollars by computerizing,” he said.“Yet there is not an iota of evidence that this is true.” Importantly, the paper looked at electronic test ordering, not electronic health records. In the paper, they point out that predictions of cost savings as high as $8.3 billion with computerization were based on data from a few stellar systems: the VA, Latter Day Saints, Regenstrief, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. These systems are not representative of what doctors are buying.

Together, these papers shine a light on how easy it is to order imaging tests and how imaging is the gee-whiz technology of our age. If we really ever get serious about waste and want to work on it equitably, we will have to invite patients to the table from the outset.

Bring the public in early and often in medical technology assessment discussions.

 Don’t say you are committed to “patient-centered care” if you don’t bring patients to the table. Warning: If you leave patients out, the public sees it as  smacking of benefits denied, arbitrariness, and cheapness.

But the other thing is that until we stop rewarding doctors based on volume, and instead, inspire outcomes, we are going to drown in the morass of waste.

Posted in health information technology, imaging, overuse | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Metal-on-Metal Hips: A Tale of Harm, Weak
Medical Device-Approval, and Lax Postmarket Scrutiny

Hip replacement, National Institutes of Health

Nearly 1 million metal-on- metal hips have been implanted in patients in the United States, making the US the world’s largest consumer of the implants. According to a BMJ/BBC Newsnight Investigation released today, the “risks associated with these devices have been known for decades, yet patients have been kept in the dark about their participation in what has effectively been a large uncontrolled experiment.” At issue are “leaky hips,” specifically, “release of metal ions that can seep into local tissue causing reactions that destroy muscle and bone and leaving some patients with long term disability,” writes Deborah Cohen, BMJ’s Investigations Editor. In a companion paper, Carl Heneghan, MD, director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and coauthors, point to the litany of safety warnings out on these implants for a decade or more.

Together, these reports point out:

  • internal memos deemed proprietary acknowledging safety issues dating back more than a decade;
  • lack of medium-to-long-term safety and reliability data on these devices;
  • uncertainty about safe levels of metal (cobalt and chromium) ion exposure;
  • design flaws;
  • a weak device regulatory approval process, seemingly more intent on rapid market entry, and not requiring clinical data submission prior to approval;
  • postmarketing databanks in the EU that alone are insufficient for flagging safety;
  • and despite all of this, exhibitors at a February 2012 American Academy of Orthopedic Surgery annual meeting, showcased metal-on-metal hips to thousands of attendees.

This story is hardly new, but what’s alarming is that the metal-on-metal hip story is emblematic of how thousands of medical devices like hip implants get out to market. FDA does not require clinical data submissions, but merely proof that the implants are “substantially similar” to other devices already out there through FDA’s 510(k) program.

Richard Deyo, MD, Professor of Evidence-Based Family Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, reviewed the report. In an email, Deyo wrote: “I think implanted medical devices should have much closer pre-approval scrutiny than they currently receive, and there is a need for much better post-marketing surveillance. The latter might uncover problems of this sort before too many patients are affected.”

As far as patients are concerned, Deyo wrote: “Patients may want to inquire as to the length of the track record for any implantable device. This is a situation where it’s not safe to assume that the latest is the greatest. It often takes years to learn about the durability of implants, and some new devices prove to be worse than older ones.”

Rita F. Redberg, MD, Professor of Medicine at the University of California San Francisco, told Patient POV:  ““We are dependent on foreign registries for data on hip implants and currently,there is no provision that would require collection and reporting of such data.” Redberg says we need more data in the  FDA premarket process, as well as more consistent and complete postmarketing surveillance. “A  US hip and knee registry would help,” Redberg said, adding that plans for such are moving very slowly.

Hip and knee replacement registries are further along outside of the United States. In 1999, Australia launched a mandatory, confidential hip and knee registry that generates detailed information on outcomes, implant performance, patient deaths, and revisions. Proponents say that it has been helpful in real-time quality control, in weeding out poorly performing implants, as well as pushing orthopods with less-than-optimal outcomes to improve their technique or stop doing implants. New Zealand similarly launched its registry in 1999.

In both Australia and New Zealand, individual surgeon data has not been discoverable, but this has been a sticking point for the US-based Association of Health Care Journalists and ProPublica, who have been fighting in the US to have the HHS National Practitioner Databank accessible at the provider level.

Patients need to think through who they should lobby to improve their odds of getting a safe, new hip, pacemaker, or new knee, should they need them. Thousands of devices become FDA approved through the 510(k) process, without clinical data submission. Sadly, I doubt most of us, including me, have tools available to make the best choice on where to go for a hip implant with a good track record and an orthopod with good outcomes. I haven’t found the websites of orthopedists very helpful.

A mandatory, real-time patient registry with uniform requirements would be a step in the right direction, but headway in this area has been slow. Putting safety first and insisting that industry submit clinical data before the FDA approves new devices is paramount. The 510(k) process needs to be abandoned and supplanted with clinical data reviewed by FDA. Postmarketing surveillance needs to be ramped up so that safety problems are flagged as early as possible. Comparative effectiveness research could also go a long way in evaluating the safety of implanted devices. Even though cost effectiveness research provisions are in place through the Accountable Care Act, orthopods have yet to contribute to the process.

An earlier version of this article misquoted Dr. Redberg. The corrected quote appears above.

 

Posted in medical devices | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Join Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Dialogue on National Research Priorities Today

Are you interested in participating in efforts to shape patient-centered outcomes research priorities. Then, don’t miss today’s meeting, webcast starting 9:30 am, or via telephone to 800 number line posted below. Got comments for the PCORI people: see submission guidelines. Disclosure: This blog is independent and not part of this effort.

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) will hold a National Patient and Stakeholder Dialogue on its first draft National Priorities for Research and Research Agenda on Monday, February 27, 2012, from 9:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EST, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

Agenda

View Webcast

The event will dedicate three and a half hours to receiving public comment, and include presentations by PCORI and a roundtable discussion involving patient advocates, clinicians and others from the health care community.

Individuals can register to attend and provide public comment here. A webcast and teleconference will be provided. A portion of the comment period will be reserved to receive input from individuals participating by phone.

Advanced Registration is now closed, as of February 23, because the event space has reached capacity. The webcast will remain open to the public. You do not need to register in advance to view the webcast.

The event webcast will feature full audio through your computer so there is no need to call in to the teleconference if you are watching online. We strongly encourage individuals with internet access to watch the webcast to keep the phone lines open to those who do not. You can access the Monday’s webcast here.

To listen to the event by telephone call: 800-704-5185.

The National Patient and Stakeholder Dialogue supports PCORI’s public comment period on the national priorities and research agenda and provides individuals an opportunity to speak directly to PCORI in an open, public format.

Guidelines for Public Comments

Posted in Patient stories, research | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Health Disparities and Behavior Change:
A Plea to Stop the Attack Ads

The NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene takes on a poor, white, single-mom, smoker in a harsh black-and-white tv spot. An off-camera announcer essentially tells her to quit smoking or risk leaving her children without a parent. That’s the latest spot, viewable in the New York/NJ/Connecticut market. The NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene has been running these in-your-face ads that press for healthy behavior change for awhile, but what’s changing is that more places are pushing them as well. Proponents of the ads claim that shock gets people to pay attention and consider changing their ways. I am not addressing the ads that show diseased lungs or people on oxygen here.

I do not like this television spot at all. Yes, it’s eye-catching, but so what? I don’t think it is going to get poor, white, single-mom smokers to quit smoking. Besides, the spot is completely unsympathetic to the woman.

Fighting Smoking, Confronting Poor Single Moms

The television spot opens with a somber male authoritatively stating:

“Mrs. Wadley, I am sorry. You have cancer.” You see an obviously poor white mom who must smoke, facing a harsh light, having trouble focusing. [Perhaps a harsh flash was used.]

The off-camera voice bellows: “What’s worse than finding out you have cancer?” 

The camera shifts to the woman anxiously facing her children. Their backs are to us and in the foreground. Everyone is fidgety: the woman facing her two kids, and her children facing her.

[The answer] “Telling your children that you have cancer,” states the announcer, who we never see.

For a second, the spot flashes on a list of resources to help you quit–thankfully.  Information flashes on and off so fast that any viewer would have to wait for the next spot to copy the information down.

The announcer sounds like a pompous creep and the woman is made to look like a parasite — as if she warrants a push to care for her children and not leave them without a parent.

Disclosure: I never smoked, but I recognize that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, and that smoking can kill. I’d like to see interventions that work.

Shock Tactics

I don’t know about you, but anyone who has tried to get me to change my lifestyle who attacks me, doesn’t get very far. Many years ago, a doctor made a snide remark about my weight. When I left the doctor’s office, I made a beeline for a hot fudge sundae. I had a neighbor once who was obese, who was bullied by neighborhood kids. As a result, he went on a crash diet, losing lots of weight. He told me that he was so mad that he wanted to show them he could do it. I wonder whether the weight loss was durable: it’s hard to imagine that bullying would lead to healthy behavior change and better health outcomes. If it works, it is not the kind of society that I want to live in.

An ad campaign by Children’s Health in Atlanta, Georgia,  featuring individual fat black and white kids, was yanked recently when the public objected to the strategy. I asked a few people for comment on these photos of 11-year-old children –isolated shots with each of them looking somewhat uncomfortable in their fat selves.

“At first, you look at it and you wonder if it is child abuse,” emailed one person, responding to the photos in the CNN story linked to in the preceding paragraph. She has an obese adult child and continued: “We probably should have started earlier. Now it is too late.” Another emailed me: “The ads are too harsh. If I were an obese child or youth, I would feel humiliated by them.  The ads also have the potential to give fodder to those who bully obese kids.”

An interesting footnote: in Georgia, more positive role models showing kids exercising and eating healthier are now being used to reduce childhood obesity in Georgia.

Another NYC Department of Health spot features an obese black model with a photoshopped, amputated leg to drive home the point that, if you eat supersize portions, you could end up with diabetes and a leg amputation.

Even though subsequent news coverage focused on the identity of the model, whether he knew he was photoshopped, and the ethics of using actors and photoshop, I’d like to see evidence that ads like this really work,  do not cause harm, or worse still, backfire, leading to even more distrust of health authorities.

In the meantime, I have seen another approach: Michelle Obama competing in push-up challenges and potato sack races on television talk shows and on the White House lawn. I’d like to see more concerted efforts to get the poor and minority regular access to healthy, affordable food. I’d like to see more sympathy regarding the barriers to quitting smoking, eating health food, and exercising when you are poor and you have few options.

Admittedly, my litany here is not scientific.

Many people may think whatever it takes to get people to stop smoking, lose weight, and maintain a normal weight, it is worth it. I disagree. I’d like to see the science that backs these kinds of ad campaigns before they are disseminated any more widely. I don’t think that shaming people who smoke or eat too much for their own good is an acceptable strategy. I can’t believe that a stimulus like this is durable either. If ads like this really work and they don’t harm, researchers ought to share the data. But so far, I just hear empty claims – no outcomes data, no follow-up. If people are motivated to quit smoking or adopt a healthier data as a result of the ads, where is the data?

Posted in disparities, obesity, smoking | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

The Year of Living Modestly…(if you can stand it that long)

 

exercise,
Walking Man in Munich, Germany,2004  by Stefan Eggert (User Bernau) (Own Work) GFDL (www.gnu.org/copy/leftfdl.html), Tags: exercise, wellness, behavior change, new year’s resolutions, obesity.

2012 began with more of a whimper than a bang, with new year’s resolutions taking a hit. Commentators urged people to take it slow, rather than set huge goals for change and wellness. Dramatic change sets you up for a fall, according to a slew of articles and blog posts. Better to opt for small, incremental change, and look inside for sustainable behavioral change and adopting healthy habits. I like the idea of your own existential despair guiding change, but I don’t think many Americans can wrap their head around much more than magic bullets. Clearly, news and blogs were absolutely schizophrenic about the new year: magic-bullet points ran side-by-side next to the “be at peace with yourself, be kind, go at your own pace” wellness articles.

Incremental change is not sexy and it hardly makes for compelling reading –at least most of the time.  How do you maintain interest in walking longer each day, giving up sugary drinks, or going to the gym twice a week? Is creating the structure yourself too much for many people?

Years ago, I worked with the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (AKA Mr. Fit), one of the first primary prevention programs, which strived to identify people (unfortunately, in that era, just working men!) at increased risk for coronary heart disease, stroke, and premature death. One goal of the program was to show people how their  behavior contributed to increased risk, for example, cigarette smoking, minimal exercise, eating salty and fried food, and the like, and poor fitness, more illness, and increased risk for heart attacks, strokes, and more. Intervention  programs were set up for participants to help them stop smoking, lose weight, and change their diet. For some high-risk individuals, changing diet, exercise, and smoking all at once worked very well, argued the researchers. I don’t know how people abandon bad habits and take better care.

So here we are in 2012. Recent CDC data suggests that obesity may be peaking at 1 in 3 adults and 1 in 6 children – but higher in some groups. Cigarette smoking is down in many groups, but not as much among poor and minority groups.

Do you have any insight into your own pitfalls in trying to live healthier? Why is it so impossible at times? What public policies might help people live better? Do you have any ideas about what sort of societal changes would help Americans live healthier?

 

Posted in wellness | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

On Caregiving, the Family Medical
Leave Act, and No Real Safety Net

Apologies to readers for not posting. A quick note here to let you all know that I have several interesting pieces in the hopper.

I have been distracted by caregiving for a close friend. Fortunately, this is not the beginning of a big slide for him and medical care plus self management are likely to fix things for him.

In the meantime, I would like to say this: even dealing with a transient situation like this, I realize that caregiving is tough. My heart goes out to people who do this for family and friends long-term, in the face of chronic, debilitating conditions.

As a self employed writer and blogger, I don’t get paid sick leave or personal days. As a friend and not a family member, the Family Medical Leave Act does not apply. Sick days and personal days are non-existent. Caregiving has economic fall-out. Plus for my friend, who is a self-employed consultant: this is rough. Few vendors make allowances for work accommodations. He has to make the accommodations and economic sacrifices on his own.

I am not bawling on this, but I want to thank some of the folks that are out there in social media, in service, academia, and more, who spend infinite time addressing caregiving long-term. To name a few, @ShelleyWebbRN @judith_graham and @IRememberBetter (for Alzheimer’s). There are many more. I have to run to the hospital now. There are some excellent blogs, books, and other resources on caregiving. Hope to highlight some of them soon.

 

Posted in caregiving | Tagged | 2 Comments