Thursday, October 14, 2010

Texas Doctors Warning of a 'Medicare Meltdown'

Texas Doctors Warning of a 'Medicare Meltdown'

Medicare, TriCare patients are increasingly unable to find a doctor willing to treat them
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Texas seniors may find it more difficult to find a primary care physician or a specialist willing to deal with their health issues, due to what the Texas Medical Association ominously refers to as a 'Medicare Meltdown' in the state, 1200 WOAI news reports.
 
  "More and more physicians are deciding that they simply cannot keep seeing Medicare patients, and keep their offices running," TMA President Dr. Susan Bailey tells 1200 WOAI news.

  The 'meltdown' also affects patients who rely on TriCare, the military's health care system.

  The problem, Bailey says, is the inability of Congress to come up with a permanent solution to Medicare re-imbursements to physicians.  She says twice so far this year, doctors have seen the money they receive for treating Medicare patients slashed by 21%.  The funding is always replaced, but Bailey says that's no way to run a business.

  "Twice this year, physicians have sustained 21% cuts in their Medicare reimbursement," Dr. Bailey says.

  She says Texas is one of the states which has been designated as an 'access hot spot,' indicating patients are increasingly finding it difficult to find physicians.  A recent TMA survey reveals more than one third of Texas physicians say they already have to limit the number of new Medicare patients they see.

  Bailey says there are 2.9 million Medicare recipients in Texas, and more than 86,000 military families insurance by TriCare.

  Adding to the problem, Bailey says, is the fact that 41% of primary care physicians in Texas are over age 50, the age when doctors generally start reducing how many patients they see anyway.

  And the problem is even worse in rural areas, which have suffered from a general patient shortage for years.

  "Medicare reimbursement for physicians has been ratcheting down for years, and unfortunately the new health care law did not do anything to fix the Medicare payment formula," Dr. Bailey says.

  She says another cut in doctor reimbursement sis expected December 1, and since Congress found it more important to adjourn to campaign for re-election than to fix the problems before it, that cut is expected to again hit doctors hard.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Two Cups Of Water Before Each Meal Enhanced Weight Loss In Clinical Trial

Two Cups Of Water Before Each Meal Enhanced Weight Loss In Clinical Trial

24 Aug 2010

Researchers reporting the results of a clinical trial at a conference in the US said they found participants who drank two cups of water before each meal lost an average of 5 pounds more weight over a 12-week calorie controlled diet than those who followed the same diet but did not drink the water.

Dr Brenda Davy, associate professor in the Department of Human Nutrition, Foods and Exercise in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, and senior author of the study, told the 240th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS) that is taking place in Boston 22 to 26 August, that theirs was the first randomized controlled trial to show that increasing water intake is an effective way to lose weight.

The study, which is yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, is a follow-on from an earlier one where Davy and her team found middle aged and older people consumed between 75 and 90 fewer calories per meal if they drank two cups of water just before they started eating.

In the latest study, Davy said they found:

"Over the course of 12 weeks, dieters who drank water before meals, three times per day, lost about 5 pounds more than dieters who did not increase their water intake."

She urged people to cut down on sugary, high calorie drinks and drink more water:

"It's a simple way to facilitate weight management," said Davy.

Davy said while there are lots of anecdotal reports, some going back a long time, that water can help people lose weight, there is surprisingly little scientific evidence. Some studies have alluded to it, but this is the first "gold standard" clinically controlled trial to have looked at the claim by comparing those that did and those that did not drink water before meals.

For the study, Davy and colleagues enrolled 48 adults aged from 55 to 75 years and randomly assigned each to one of two groups: the water drinkers and the non-water drinkers.

The water drinkers drank two 8-ounce cups of water just before they started to eat each meal, while the non-water drinkers did not. An 8-ounce cup is half a pint, or just under a quarter of a litre (237 ml).

Both groups ate a low-calorie diet during the 12 weeks of the study. Over this period, the water drinkers lost an average of 15.5 pounds (7 kg) while the non-water drinkers lost 11 pounds (5 kg).

Davy said the reason drinking water before the meal works is simply because it has zero calories but you have the sensation of feeling partly full before you even start eating, resulting in fewer calories consumed during the meal.

She also said replacing sweetened calorie rich drinks during the day with water is also a good way to reduce calorie intake. For example a 12-ounce can of regular soda (about 350 ml) has about 10 teaspoons of sugar, or 150 calories.

Official bodies like the National Academies' Institute of Medicine, an agency that advises the Federal Government, say healthy people should let natural thirst guide them on how much water to drink, but they generally recommend this should result in about 9 cups of fluids a day, including water, for women and 13 cups for men.

However, drinking too much water can be dangerous and results in a rare but serious condition called water intoxication, warned Davy.



Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/198720.php
Main News Category: Obesity / Weight Loss / Fitness
Also Appears In:  Nutrition / Diet,  Water - Air Quality / Agriculture, 

Sunday, June 7, 2009

Debunking Canadian Health Care Myths

Debunking Canadian Health Care Myths

by Rhonda Hackett

As a Canadian living in the United States for the past 17 years, I am frequently asked by Americans and Canadians alike to declare one health care system as the better one.

Often I'll avoid answering, regardless of the questioner's nationality. To choose one or the other system usually translates into a heated discussion of each one's merits, pitfalls, and an intense recitation of commonly cited statistical comparisons of the two systems.

Because if the only way we compared the two systems was with statistics, there is a clear victor. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to dispute the fact that Canada spends less money on health care to get better outcomes.

Yet, the debate rages on. Indeed, it has reached a fever pitch since President Barack Obama took office, with Americans either dreading or hoping for the dawn of a single-payer health care system. Opponents of such a system cite Canada as the best example of what not to do, while proponents laud that very same Canadian system as the answer to all of America's health care problems. Frankly, both sides often get things wrong when trotting out Canada to further their respective arguments.

As America comes to grips with the reality that changes are desperately needed within its health care infrastructure, it might prove useful to first debunk some myths about the Canadian system.

Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.

In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.

Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.

The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.

Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.

Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.

What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.

Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.

While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.

There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks - unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.

Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.

There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.

Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.

Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.

Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.

Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.

Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.

From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S. Simply training and employing more doctors is not likely to have any significant impact on this specific problem. Whatever issues there are with having an adequate number of doctors in any one geographical area, they have nothing to do with the single-payer system.

And these are just some of the myths about the Canadian health care system. While emulating the Canadian system will likely not fix U.S. health care, it probably isn't the big bad "socialist" bogeyman it has been made out to be.

It is not a perfect system, but it has its merits. For people like my 55-year-old Aunt Betty, who has been waiting for 14 months for knee-replacement surgery due to a long history of arthritis, it is the superior system. Her $35,000-plus surgery is finally scheduled for next month. She has been in pain, and her quality of life has been compromised. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Aunt Betty - who lives on a fixed income and could never afford private health insurance, much less the cost of the surgery and requisite follow-up care - will soon sport a new, high-tech knee. Waiting 14 months for the procedure is easy when the alternative is living in pain for the rest of your life.

Rhonda Hackett of Castle Rock, Colorado is a clinical psychologist.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Tamiflu Resistant INFLUENZA in Texas

Flu Outbreak at Texas High School Raises Concerns
Recombinomics Commentary 18:40
January 13, 2009

Taylor High School had 168 students calling in sick today – that's 18 percent of the student body. Twenty percent of the staff are out, too.

The above comments describe an influenza like illness at a high school in central Texas that is likely to be Tamiflu resistant H1N1. All influenza sub-typed to date in Texas has been H1N1. Moreover sequences from H1N1 isolates in Texas match H1N1 in Sendai, Japan where the virus forced the closing of 10 elementary schools. Similarly, Tamiflu resistant H1N1 caused school closings in another prefecture.

Moreover, South Korea is reporting an explosion of H1N1 cases, and 16/17 tested H1N1 isolates have H274Y. The frequency of illness continues to grow in Korea and is already nearly double the rate of the peak week last season.

In the United States the flu season is just beginning to grow, and most of the flu in the United States is H1N1. The school closings in Japan, coupled with the explosion of cases In Korea and the above high school raise concerns because the H1N1 is Tamiflu resistant and the three changes flanking the receptor binding domain are not in the current H1N1 Brisbane/59 vaccine..

Saturday, December 27, 2008

The High Cost of Medical Education: $200,000+

This was reported a few days ago and only seems more dramatic since at the time of my medical school graduation, the average debt was about $100,000. Many of my colleagues in medical school and later in residency were concerned that primary care medicine--where they had their heart--was downright unhealthy on their finances since the average age of medical students appears to vary greatly and some of us have chosen this as a second career. Its in stark contrast to most European countries where medical education is part of the benefit of living in a society that values education of its citizens.

Almost one-quarter of U.S. medical students now graduate from medical school with $200,000 or more in debt, an expense that limits entry to the profession, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The median cost of attending a year of medical school, including all fees, is now $62,243 at private schools and $44,390 for state residents at public schools, reported the New York Times. Most of the $2.5 billion in financial assistance available to medical students comes in the form of non-subsidized loans, while few top schools have the resources to discount tuition for students from lower-income families, the Times noted. The steep costs may discourage low-income students from going to medical school, and sway graduates toward higher-earning specialties like radiology and away from lower-paying ones like primary care, the Times added.

New York Times, December 19, 2008