The Health Care Blog – Page 283 – Everything you always wanted to know about the Health Care system. But were afraid to ask.

Above the Fold

Questioning the Link Between Sports-Related Concussions and CTE

Feb 12, 2018• 9

By JASON CHUNG, PETER CUMMINGS MSc, MD and UZMA SAMADANI

On Jan. 18, an article by Dr. Lee Goldstein of Boston University and colleagues in Brain, a leading neurological journal, was released and touted as proving the link between subconcussive hits to the head and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) (“Real risk of CTE comes from repeated hits to the head, study shows,” Feb. 4). That same day the CTE advocacy group — the Concussion Legacy Foundation — announced a national campaign called F14G Football to convert all under-14 football into flag football, thereby eliminating tackle football.

The message sent to assembled media and onlookers was that eliminating tackle football for youth is the key to safeguarding the brains and futures of America’s youth.

The truth is not so simple.

The scientific evidence linking youth casual sports play to brain injury, brain injury to CTE, and CTE to dementia is not strong. We believe that further scientific research and data are necessary for accurate risk-benefit analysis among policymakers for two reasons.

First, evidence-based science calls for research to be conducted under generally accepted principles. The case series presented by the Boston University group, primarily due to its ascertainment bias, is weaker than the evidentiary standard sufficient to demonstrate an association or causation and conflicts with pathologic findings in other studies.

CTE pathology in the brain has been shown by British pathologists to be present in approximately 12 percent of normal healthy aged people who died at an average age of 81 years (Ling et al. Acta Neuropathologica). The presence of CTE pathology in the brain on autopsy has not been shown to correlate with neurologic symptoms before death.

To be clear, CTE pathology could be present in a normal person.

The Doctor Squared Movement: An Alternative to Regulatory Burden

Feb 12, 2018• 14

By NIRAN AL-AGBA, MD

The 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution shields an individual (or business) from unreasonable government intrusion. It is inferred this right extends to ALL people, regardless of profession. Advanced nurse practitioners are independently practicing medicine in 23 states yet are not subject to onerous Maintenance of Certification (MOC) requirements– physicians are not equally protected under the law. Physicians must fight, as one group, against the burden of MOC. We have two choices: become a Doctor Squared (Dr. ²) or join an alternative certification organization such as the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons (NBPAS.)

A Doctor Squared (Dr. ²) denotes one who obtains both an MD and a DNP (Doctor of Nurse Practitioner) degree. This allows independent practice and eliminates the power of MOC. Reviewing a list of affordable DNP programs in the country shows a degree from the University of Massachusetts – Boston DNP program only costs $10,180. Coursework is online, and will take only 3 years if attending part-time. Renewal of an MD license in Washington State costs $697 biannually while DNP license costs $125, putting more money in my pocket. Additionally, the continuing education requirement is different; advanced practice nurses must complete 15 hours annually while physicians need 50 hours annually even though both professions are independently practicing medicine. According to Medscape, malpractice insurance rates are $12,000 yearly (2012) for a family physician, while a family nurse practitioner pays $1200, one-tenth as high. Remember, the cost of MOC for internal medicine is $23,600 every 10 years.

Health in 2 point 00, Episode 1

Feb 12, 2018

We are going to start some new content on THCB in the next few weeks including a lot more video hosted by Jessica DaMassa. And one weekly show will be her asking me as many questions as I can answer in two minutes. Here’s the first crack at it. Hope you enjoy it!–Matthew Holt

Artificial Intelligence & How Doctors Think: An Interview with Thomas Jefferson’s Stephen Klasko

Feb 11, 2018• 1

AJAY KOHLI, MD

As I walk into the building, the sheer grandiosity of the room is one to withhold — it’s as if I’m walking into Grand Central station. There’s a small army of people, all busy at their desks, working to carry out the next wave of innovations helping more than a million lives within the Greater Philadelphia region. However, I’m not here to catch a train or enjoy the sights. I’m at the office of the President and CEO of Thomas Jefferson University, Dr. Stephen Klasko, currently at the helm of one of the largest healthcare systems in the U.S.

Let me backup a little.

The theme of nearly every conversation about the future of technology now revolves around Artificial Intelligence (AI). Much weight is placed on the potential capacity of AI to disrupt industries and change them to the very core. This pressure has been felt to a large extent within nearly every aspect of healthcare where AI has been projected to improve patient care delivery while saving billions of dollars.

Unfortunately, most discussions exploring the implications of AI only superficially look at either the product or the algorithm that powers these products. The short-sightedness of this approach is not an easy one to fix. Yes, clinical studies validating AI backed products are vital but AI cannot be viewed just like any other drug or a medical device. There’s much more to be considered when we examine the broader role of this technology, because this technology can shape the entire healthcare system. To place the impact of a far reaching technology, you need an even longer sighted vision. It’s a rare breed of people that have experienced the tumultuous history of change within medicine but can still call upon the lessons learned to execute innovations and bring meaningful results.

Why Raising Hospital Prices is a Zero Sum Game

Feb 9, 2018• 8

By ROBERT PEARL, MD

In the early 1960s, President John F. Kennedy said, “The time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining.” It was a clarion call, a full-throated warning against national complacency in an era of great prosperity.

It was during this same period that community hospitals stood as the dominant force in American healthcare. By the mid-20th century, some 6,000 inpatient facilities had spread throughout the country, often serving as the financial glue of their respective communities. With well-paying jobs and boards made up of dignitaries, local hospitals aroused a great chorus of civic pride.

But in recent times, the proverbial roof over America’s hospitals has fallen into disrepair. Thanks to operational inefficiencies and declining utilization, more and more hospitals are experiencing financial problems and waning influence.

As health plans, pharmaceutical companies and new care-delivery entrants gain market clout at the expense of the hospital industry, panic is starting to set in. These developments have spurred a recent uptick in hospital mergers, which look more like deals of desperation than long-term growth strategies.

The Doctor and the CFO

Feb 9, 2018• 4

By SUHAS GONDI, MD

When my classmates and I returned to Boston to continue our first year of medical school early last month, we returned to a very different type of course, called “Essentials of the Profession.” In it, we explored health policy, social medicine, ethics, and other topics outside the realm of traditional physiology and disease but just as important to our roles as physicians. In the health policy class, we learned about escalating healthcare costs and how the landscape of American healthcare is changing. While the inclusion of these topics in our curriculum reflects a significant advance in medical education, our health policy teachings also exposed a critical gap in our training – one that will leave us ill-prepared to meet our future obligations as physicians.

Healthcare providers, we learned, are increasingly expected to consider the cost of clinical care, and the costs of care we deliver will influence how much we’ll be paid. Medicare is increasingly tying physician payment to spending benchmarks such that wasteful healthcare services will be punished with lower reimbursements. Further, providers are being pressured by public and private payers to enter into alternative payment models that force physicians to bear financial risk. This means that doctors may lose money if they spend more on patient care than government-set benchmarks. The goal is to incentivize cost-effective care and penalize inefficiency, in stark contrast to the traditional fee-for-service scheme, which encourages overutilization and contributes to cost growth.

The Conference Created by Innovators for Innovators

Feb 8, 2018

Get set for a new exciting conference experience coming this spring from Health 2.0 and HIMSS, focused on the collaboration between developers and healthcare providers on building emerging digital health technologies: Dev4Health.

Join hundreds of developers, innovative leaders, designers, chief technology officers, chief innovation officers, start-ups, and health tech enthusiasts for two days of strategic networking, idea generation, and innovative workshops – plus live demos some of the newest health tech start-ups.

Top Reasons to Attend Dev4Health:

Innovation Leaders: Hear cutting edge ideas to infuse your technology strategy with the latest insights and methodologies.
Developers: Benefit from immersive content and hands-on learning by sharing open-source code, applications, interfaces and other resources with like-minded developers.
Health Systems: Discover the latest health tech products to hit the market with live demos by some of the most innovative start-ups in healthcare.
All Attendees: Join in-depth panel sessions focusing on health tech trends, including open tools in the U.S. healthcare server; healthcare focused developer programs; artificial intelligence and machine learning; blockchain; and more!

What are you waiting for? If you’re looking to collaborate with developers on building new applications

or discover new tools to enhance the healthcare experience, then Dev4Health is the place to be this spring.

Take advantage of the early bird savings. Save up $100 when you register by March 16, 2018.

Looking for sponsorship opportunities? Please contact Patrick Ryan at 781-424-2755.

The Skeptical Oncologist

Feb 7, 2018• 1

By BISHAL GYAWALI, MD

Why conduct post approval studies at all?

Atezolizumab previously received accelerated approval in second-line metastatic or advanced urothelial cancer based on response rates from a single arm trial. The results of post approval confirmatory phase 3 are now published and demonstrate that atezolizumab did not improve survival versus chemotherapy (11.1 v 10.6 months, HR 0.87, p = 0.41). The concept of accelerated approval is to grant early and conditional approval and access to drugs in diseases of unmet need, and that the decision to fully approve or revoke be made based on results of confirmatory phase 3 trials. That means, if the confirmatory larger phase 3 trial shows that the assumed benefit with the drug didn’t exist, the approval be revoked. Naturally, the FDA has decided to revoke the approval. No, I am joking. The post approval studies don’t seem to matter at all. You can improve response rate in a single arm trial, gain an expedited approval and your approval will always remain. Previously, we also saw that a drug that was given accelerated approval based on response rates in a phase 2 received full approval after it failed to improve survival in a subsequent confirmatory phase 3. Why bother conducting confirmatory studies at all?

Sexism in Healthcare Reporting

Feb 6, 2018• 12

By NIRAN AL-AGBA, MD

NBC should consider re-branding as the “anti-woman” network. Our culture needs to change so women feel valued and respected, comfortable and safe in the workplace, and are provided ample opportunities for leadership and growth. NBC actions show they care little about gender equality in the workplace, prioritizing the comfort of males over that of females. During a recent interview, former “Today Show” anchor Anne Curry asked a poignant question after “not being surprised by the allegations” against “golden boy” Matt Lauer. “What are we gonna do to make sure these women work and are not sidelined and prevented from contributing to the greater good?” My answer is we must continue to call attention when major networks push women aside.

Morgan Radford is an NBC correspondent who reported on parents who were concerned about their children playing football due to risks of long-term neurologic damage. She interviewed two physicians for her segment — a pediatrician by the name of Dyan Hes, MD and Lee Goldstein, MD, PhD, an internal medicine physician. One would think both physicians were interviewed as experts in their fields; however, at some networks there appears to be “a power imbalance where women are not valued as much as men” according to Anne Curry. Dr. Hes is a physician and a mother to a teenage son, whom she understandably, will not allow to play football. Dr. Goldstein is a researcher and recently completed a study about the risk of brain injury resulting from even mild head trauma.

Global Risk Report: Davos, Trump and Climate Change

Feb 6, 2018

By DAVID INTROCASO

During the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, President Trump once again noted his objection to the Paris climate accord. In an interview with Piers Morgan, Trump again called it a “horrible deal” because, as has been widely reported, climate change or global warming is, per the president, a “hoax” perpetrated by the Chinese. “There is cooling and there’s a heating – I mean look,” Trump explained to Morgan, “it use to not be climate change. It used to be global warming. That wasn’t working too well because it was getting too cold all over the place. The ice caps were going to melt. They were going to be gone by now, but now they’re setting records, okay?”

Trump was asked about climate change because the topic was on the Forum’s agenda. Not surprisingly, in the days leading up to the confab, climate scientists once again found the proceeding calendar year one of the warmest on record. NASA ranked 2017 the second warmest since 1880 (or since reliable record keeping began), or after 2016. NOAA, using a slightly different methodology, ranked it the third warmest after 2016 and 2015 respectively. Not only were the last three years the warmest on record, the five warmest years on record have occurred since 2010, 17 of the 18 warmest since 2001 and last year marked the 21^st consecutive year the contiguous United States had above average temperatures. Record 2017 temperatures were somewhat unanticipated however because of the lack of an El Niño (or Pacific trade wind), effect that is associated with increased global temperatures. Because air temperatures are largely determined by ocean temperatures, also not surprisingly the five warmest ocean temperature years recorder have been 2017, 2015, 2016, 2014 and 2013 respectively. Ocean temperatures in 2017 were exceptionally warm. Measured as heat energy in Joules, 2017 ocean temperatures exceeded 2015 by 1.51 x 10^22 Joules, or the amount of electrical energy China produces annually.