SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : vitamins herbs supplements longevity and aging -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: E. Charters who wrote (12967)11/9/2015 7:37:09 AM
From: Pogeu Mahone1 Recommendation

Recommended By
E. Charters

  Respond to of 17109
 
Eating Homemade Meals Reduces Risks For Type 2 Diabetes
Tech Times - ?1 hour ago?

Two home cooked meals a day can help in reducing risk of type 2 diabetes. Researchers suggest that home cooking could be the first step in keeping diabetes and cardiovascular diseases at bay.



To: E. Charters who wrote (12967)11/10/2015 9:34:38 AM
From: Pogeu Mahone  Respond to of 17109
 
The 'Expertise Fallacy' and Cancer Screening Recommendations

Posted: 11/10/2015 8:58 am EST Updated: 30 minutes ago

The American Cancer Society (ACS), an advocacy organization that has fairly recently (and very positively) taken a more appropriate, evidence-based approach to cancer screening, recently revised its mammography recommendations. While it still recommends more mammograms than the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force(which doesn't recommend starting until age 50, and then screening only every other year), it has raised the starting age from 40 to 45, and has recommended changing from annual to biennial screening at age 55.

This prompted the usual outrage from the usual quarters making all the usual uninformed arguments. I followed these with a mixture of remorse, amusement, infuriation and boredom--boredom borne of the fact that this very "debate" has been going on largely the same way for most of my professional life. Yes, there has been some new evidence within the last 20 to 30 years, but most of it suggests that mammography is less effective, not more, than we used to think. Hence the revised ACS guidelines.

But when an op-ed appeared in the New York Times, written by three doctors making ill-informed arguments, I had to speak up. It's embarrassing when physicians don't seem to understand what constitutes meaningful evidence. There are many points in that op-ed I take issue with, but I'm focusing on one idea here: the oft-stated, yet incorrect, view that clinical experience and expertise are necessary in order to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of screening tests.

The authors of this op-ed, who identify themselves as "two breast radiologists and one breast surgeon," state:

We think it's noteworthy that while there were medical specialists involved in an advisory group, the panel actually charged with developing the new guidelines did not include a single surgeon, radiologist or medical oncologist who specializes in the care and treatment of breast cancer. Not one.

At first blush, this sounds reasonable: if you're trying to determine the value of breast cancer screening, shouldn't you ask people who have the most experience screening for, and treating, breast cancer? Well, no, you shouldn't, and here's why: screening is undertaken at a population level, and its value can be assessed and understood only in the context of the entire population. Individual patients' anecdotes aren't informative; worse, they tend to be misleading.

Radiologists see people who come for mammograms, not those who don't; surgeons and oncologists see people with positive mammograms, not the rest. Thus, their experience (while certainly critically important with regard to reading mammograms or treating cancer) provides no useful information about whether screening itself is valuable, neutral or harmful. Only appropriately collected and analyzed data can tell you about that.

There is a pernicious aspect of this "expertise fallacy": once you understand that patient-level experience cannot provide useful information to assess screening, it becomes clear that clinical experience tends to provide misleading information. Among the many reasons for this:

SELECTION BIAS: People who get screened are different from those who don't. Individuals who come in for screening tests tend, on average, to be wealthier, better educated and more concerned about their health than those who don't get screened. These features tend to lead to better health outcomes in those patients, whether they get screened or not. But there's also an opposite bias: people get screened because they have a higher-than-average risk of the condition they're being screened for, which would tend to lead to worse health outcomes. LEAD-TIME BIAS: Let's say there's someone out there with undiagnosed breast cancer destined to die from it in 2020. If we don't screen her, let's say she develops a large lump, or signs of illness, and gets her cancer diagnosed in 2018; she therefore dies two years after her diagnosis. Imagine instead that we screen her next year, but there's no effective treatment available: she will still die in 2020, four years after her diagnosis. She's now living twice as long after diagnosis, but is that of any real value to her? LENGTH-TIME BIAS: Some cancers grow more quickly than others. These aggressive cancers are more likely to kill you; they are also less likely to be identified by screening tests compared with slower-growing tumors, since they spend less time in a subclinical (and hence screen-detectable) state. Given that, tumors identified by screening are generally going to have a better prognosis than those that show up because of a lump or symptoms. AVAILABILITY BIAS: Since human beings are not computers, we are more likely to remember and take note of dramatic or meaningful events than of more-mundane ones. For a doctor, nothing is more dramatic than a potentially avoidable death. A surgeon who sees a patient who presents with an advanced case of breast cancer is likely to see this as a case that "could have been saved" had she been screened, and can think this argues for the efficacy of screening, even though it doesn't. Almost as memorable as an avoidable death is a life saved; when a screened patient thanks her surgeon for saving her life, it makes a powerful impact on the physician, even though it says nothing about the value of screening. These "availability bias"-influenced perceptions are made even more problematic by the... POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC FALLACY: A woman gets screened for breast cancer, and five years later she's alive. Another woman without screening presents with advanced breast cancer, and she dies. It's compelling to attribute the outcome to the screening, or lack thereof, but such an attribution is not logically necessary. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: If you spend your time doing mammograms, you have a strong vested interest in believing that they are of value. Even if we ignore the impact of financial incentives, there is an easily understandable tendency to care about and defend that which you do every day.So when it comes to screening recommendations, must we ask the doctors who do the tests or treat the patients to give us guidance? I'd say no. After all, we seem to understand that if we have questions about how good the new iPhone is, we should probably find an independent review rather than asking the leadership of Apple what it thinks. Why is it so different in medicine?

This post was originally published on The Doctor's Tablet, the blog of Albert Einstein College of Medicine.
MORE:



To: E. Charters who wrote (12967)11/11/2015 11:02:51 AM
From: Pogeu Mahone  Respond to of 17109
 
Severe Obesity Costs Medicaid $8 Billion Annually, Study Finds

By Alan Mozes, HealthDay News

And health care expenses for heaviest adults is nearly $2,000 more a year per patient.

Obesity has tripled over the last 30 years in the United States, according to the study authors.Hemant Mehta/Getty Images

Tuesday, November 03, 2015

Severe obesity is putting a huge financial strain on both the U.S. Medicaid system and severely obese patients themselves, new research suggests.

The study pegs the national bill for providing obesity-related health services for the severely obese at $69 billion a year. Severely obese is defined as a body mass index (BMI) of 35 or higher, the study authors said. (BMI is a rough estimate of a person's body fat based on their height and weight.)

Medicaid pays just over 10 percent of the annual cost of treating the severely obese. That works out to about $8 billion a year, the researchers said. And that figure is likely to rise as Medicaid -- the government-run insurance program for poorer Americans -- expands under the health-reform law known as the Affordable Care Act, sometimes called Obamacare.

"Severe obesity affects one in seven adults," said study co-author Michael Long, an assistant professor at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "And it increases the risk of disease and death at a much higher rate than moderate obesity," he added.

Moderate obesity is a BMI between 30 and 35, the study authors noted.

Managing Type 2 Diabetes
type2-diabetes-info.com
Get Free Tools To Help Track Blood
Sugar, Log Your Exercise & More.

"So although severe obesity accounts for only 41 percent of the 81.5 million Americans who are obese, the costs associated with treating it are actually 60 percent of all obesity-related costs combined," Long explained.

"And Medicaid patients, who have low resources and a high burden of disease and obesity, are not covered completely," he said. "So severe obesity is a big burden on both Medicaid and patients."

Long and his colleagues reported their findings in the November issue of Health Affairs.

Obesity has tripled over the last 30 years in the United States, according to the study authors.

RELATED: Does Your Doctor Know How to Treat Obesity?

Dr. David Katz is director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center in New Haven, Conn. He said that "obesity is, inevitably, enormously expensive, because it is on the causal pathway to every major chronic disease that plagues modern societies, diabetes most indelibly."

Katz explained that "the costs of obesity extend out to the costs of all such conditions: heart disease, cancer, diabetes, stroke, arthritis, dementia, and more."

Those disease risks and costs are even higher for the 33 million Americans now considered severely obese. (For example, Long noted that for a 5-foot 4-inch woman, being severely obese means weighing about 204 pounds, or 60 pounds above normal. For a 5-foot 9-inch man, that would be a weight of about 236 pounds, or 67 pounds above normal.)

To get a better idea of the costs of obesity, the team crunched data from two national studies conducted between 2007 and 2013. The studies included more than a half million people.

The researchers found that the moderately obese pay $941 more per year for health care, compared with someone of normal weight. By contrast, people who are severely obese pay $1,980 more, the findings showed.

Private insurances covered more than one-quarter of these expenses, while Medicare covered about 30 percent. State-run Medicaid programs footed 11 percent of those bills, the investigators found.

And, patients were left to cover 30 percent out of their own pockets, the study said.

Some state Medicaid programs pay more than others. For example, Wyoming's program now covers 58,000 severely obese adults at a cost of $64 million per year (at the low end of the scale). Meanwhile, California spends about $9.1 billion for 3.2 million adults (at the high end), the study reported.

Regardless, the study authors concluded that severe obesity appears to be "disproportionately responsible" for a lion's share of the whole nation's health care bill.

"Our primary public health goal has been trying to reduce and prevent childhood and adult obesity," Long said. "But that effort, while important, is unlikely to reverse the problems faced by adults already struggling with severe obesity, or the health care costs related to those problems."

Any solution, he suggested, will have to address two issues: identifying cheaper but effective clinical interventions, while also expanding treatment access for the severely obese.

"That might actually cost more money in the short-run," he acknowledged. "But it will have long-term payoffs, for both the patients and Medicaid. And we have to do something, because this problem is just the tip of the iceberg. If we just let this continue as is, the costs will only grow over time," Long said

Katz added, "The only hope for the future of public health and the economy alike is to change the trajectory we are on, and put out this fire." But he said that, in his opinion, "the answer is not more drugs and surgery, but a culture-wide commitment to better use of feet, and forks." In other words, exercise more and eat healthier.

Last Updated: 11/3/2015