BICMG

Business Information Consulting & Management Group

Loveland student creates FDA-registered medical device by Maytal Levi

LOVELAND, OH (FOX19) - A student from Loveland about to graduate from colleged already has a patent and and U.S. Food and Drug Administration-registered medical device of his own.

Spencer Janning is a senior at the University of Dayton. When he was a freshman he was assigned a project during his Engineering Innovations class. Janning describes it as “fun and stressful”.

At the time he didn’t realize he was going to change someone’s life.

"We were assigned to create a new knee and hip abductor for a child who had cerebral palsy," Janning said.

Every student built a device specifically designed to help Lianna, a teenager with cerebral palsy.

“People who have cerebral palsy do what’s called scissoring of the legs which is where they will take one leg and wrap it around the other leg continually where they cause themselves a lot of pain,” he said.

Maytal Levi✔@MaytalLeviWXIX

A @univofdayton student (and Loveland native) created his own patented, FDA medical device! I'll tell ya all about it this morning on @FOX19

11

1:13 AM - Jul 24, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

After various devices were presented to the class, Lianna and her mother chose Janning’s device which would later get a brand name of “Freedom Brace."

The class ended but Janning kept trying to perfect his device with feedback from Lianna.

Now, as a senior preparing to graduate next year, his final product is on the market. It’s available for purchase on his website and on Amazon.

“It feels good to know that I improved the quality of life for someone who is living with cerebral palsy,” Janning said.

Source: https://www.fox19.com/2019/07/24/local-student-creates-fda-approved-medical-device/

Near-Term Outlook for Medical Services Industry Looks Bright by Urmimala Biswas

The Zacks Medical Services industry comprises third-party service providers and caregivers appointed by core healthcare companies for economies of scale. With growing importance of efficient healthcare management, the industry, which focuses particularly on handling medical costs, improving quality of medical care and increasing administrative efficiencies, has become an integral part of health care.

The industry includes pharmacy benefit managers, contract research organizations, mobile and wireless medical technology companies, third-party testing labs, surgical facility providers and healthcare workforce solutions providers among others.

Here are the three major industry themes:

Workforce Solution Supply Market in Focus : With rising cognizance about the benefits of specialized medical caregiving, the need for healthcare workforce/staffing service providers has increased significantly. For example, the demand for nurses has increased manifold and is expected to remain high. Going by a study published by Georgetown University, the economy will create 1.6 million openings for nurses through 2020.

Volume to Value-based Care : Over the past few years, the healthcare industry has been strategically moving from volume to value-based care. This changing pattern of care calls for efficient and better-quality facilities, thus gradually increasing the need to appoint specialized external service providers. Currently, a lot of public and private health organizations are keeping their core group of caregivers and third-party caregivers under one roof to gain competitive advantage.

Reduced Regulatory and Tax Burden Offers Scope : With a significant reduction in regulatory and tax burden on U.S. healthcare companies, the space is finally making progress in terms of technology adoption. This is creating opportunities for mobile and wireless medical technology companies. This apart, thanks to the specialized skills and advanced techniques of surgical facility providers, treatments are becoming less invasive with shorter recovery times. Accordingly, things like 'bedless hospitals' are expected to be the future of healthcare. Third-party laboratory testing providers and contract research organizations are also experiencing increasing demand, thanks to growing need for complex tests, services and clinical research.

Zacks Industry Rank Indicates Encouraging Prospects

The Zacks Medical Services industry falls within the broader Zacks Medical sector. It carries a Zacks Industry Rank #83, which places it in the top 33% of more than 250 Zacks industries.

The group's Zacks Industry Rank , which is basically the average of the Zacks Rank of all the member stocks, indicates bright near-term prospects. Our research shows that the top 50% of the Zacks-ranked industries outperforms the bottom 50% by a factor of more than 2 to 1.

We will present a few stocks that have the potential to outperform the market based on a strong earnings outlook. But it's worth taking a look at the industry's shareholder returns and current valuation first.

Industry Underperforms Sector and S&P 500

The Medical Services Industry has underperformed the S&P 500 as well as its own sector over the past year. The industry has declined 21.2% in the said time frame compared with the Medical sector's 4.1% decline. Meanwhile, the Zacks S&P 500 composite witnessed a rise of 6.8%.

One-Year Price Performance

Industry's Current Valuation

On the basis of forward 12-month price-to-earnings (P/E), which is commonly used for valuing medical stocks, the industry is currently trading at 31.78X compared with the S&P 500's 17.17X and the sector's 19.97X.

Over the last five years, the industry has traded as high as 45.17X, as low as 25.74X, and at the median of 31.78X, as the charts below show.

Bottom Line

Over the past five years, the third-party medical services industry has expanded rapidly, creating huge scope for companies within this niche as well as for those in the broader healthcare value chain. This industry is gaining prominence on a rising number of healthcare applications and services that help core healthcare companies run their operations in an optimal way. Going by a 2018 McKinsey report, this industry is currently working to address half a trillion dollars of annual medical spending resulting from low productivity and waste.

On the flip side, third-party medical service providers are currently facing issues related to a tough capital spending environment. This has lengthened core healthcare companies' decision process related to investment and purchases of services. Also, smaller biotechnology companies that are customers of these medical services companies depend on the credit and capital markets. With unfavorable economic conditions, many of them are not being able to properly access credit or equity funding. This is gradually reducing demand for third-party service providers.

Below are three stocks within the Medical Services industry that have been witnessing positive earnings estimate revisions and carry a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) or #2 (Buy). You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank stocks here .

AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. (AMN): The company is a prominent name in the field of healthcare workforce solutions and staffing services to healthcare facilities in the nation. It delivers managed services programs, healthcare executive search solutions, vendor management systems, recruitment process outsourcing, predictive labor analytics, mid-revenue cycle management, credentialing solutions and other services.

Price and Consensus: AMN

The company has a Zacks Rank #1. It has an impressive long-term growth rate of 38.1%. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for fiscal 2019 sales indicates year-over-year growth of 3.3%. The company delivered average positive earnings surprise of 6.03% in the trailing four quarters.

HealthEquity, Inc. (HQY): The company provides various solutions for managing health care accounts, health reimbursement arrangements, and flexible spending accounts for health plans, insurance companies and third-party administrators.

Price and Consensus: HQY

The company has a Zacks Rank #2. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for fiscal 2019 earnings indicates year-over-year growth of 11.76%. The company delivered average positive earnings surprise of 19.19% in the trailing four quarters.

Medpace Holdings, Inc. (MEDP): This is a scientifically-driven, global, full-service clinical contract research organization, providing Phase I-IV clinical development services to biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device industries.

Price and Consensus: MEDP

The company has a Zacks Rank #2. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for fiscal 2019 earnings indicates year-over-year growth of 1.93%. The company delivered average positive earnings surprise of 17.10% in the trailing four quarters.

Breakout Biotech Stocks with Triple-Digit Profit Potential

The biotech sector is projected to surge beyond $775 billion by 2024 as scientists develop treatments for thousands of diseases. They're also finding ways to edit the human genome to literally erase our vulnerability to these diseases.

Zacks has just released Century of Biology: 7 Biotech Stocks to Buy Right Now to help investors profit from 7 stocks poised for outperformance. Our recent biotech recommendations have produced gains of +98% , +119% and +164% in as little as 1 month. The stocks in this report could perform even better.

Source: https://www.nasdaq.com/article/near-term-outlook-for-medical-services-industry-looks-bright1-cm1180889

Judge denies cancer patient’s lawsuit against state over medical marijuana access by Amy Biolchini

A federal judge has denied a lawsuit brought by a cancer patient against the state of Michigan over her access to medical marijuana.

The Thursday ruling means the supply chain of medical marijuana to licensed provisioning centers remains unchanged.

Sherry Hoover, a 57-year-old retired nurse from Rochester, sued the state in June in an attempt to re-open the direct sale of caregiver marijuana to licensed provisioning centers.

Living with severe pain from treatments for a rare form of leukemia, Hoover uses medical marijuana -- specifically Rick Simpson Oil -- to help her through her experimental treatments.

Cancer patient sues Michigan over access to medical marijuana

A Rochester woman lost access to her medicine as a result of state action. Her federal court suit seeks to re-open the caregiver market.

In her lawsuit, Hoover said she's been unable to find that product in provisioning centers since May, after a Medical Marihuana Licensing Board resolution took effect that ended the direct sale of caregiver marijuana to provisioning centers.

Hoover's lawyer, Michelle Donovan, said the state has violated Hoover’s due process rights. The lawsuit sought a temporary restraining order on that board resolution to temporarily reintroduce caregiver marijuana back into the regulated market until the end of the year.

Thursday, July 18, U.S. Eastern District Court Judge Paul Borman denied the motion for a temporary restraining order.

Borman said in a 16-page opinion that his court lacked the jurisdiction to rule on the case because "the Complaint fails to allege a colorable federal question," and because the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs is immune from a lawsuit under the 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"Because Plaintiff has no likelihood of success on the merits of her claims because the Defendant LARA is a state agency entitled to absolute Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Court must and does DENY the motion for preliminary injunctive relief," Borman wrote in the conclusion of his opinion.

The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs filed a motion June 28 asking Borman to dismiss the case. Borman has not yet ruled on that motion but is expected to soon.

Marijuana grown by caregivers has supplied the launch of the regulated medical marijuana market in Michigan while newly licensed growers have cultivated their first crops.

State regulators allowed the direct sale of caregiver marijuana to licensed provisioning centers for months. Though there was no legal mechanism for the sale, state officials promised not to punish the businesses that sourced their product from caregivers. That practice ended in May.

Some provisioning centers claim that the licensed growers that they now have to source all of their inventory from aren’t yet producing the specialized oils that medical marijuana patients like Hoover need.

Without medical marijuana oil, Hoover said she’s in severe pain.

“My whole system feels like my bones are being twisted,” Hoover said in a June press conference. “If I get back on the medication, it takes all that away. I don’t want to go back to the Norco; the fentanyl.”

Source: https://www.mlive.com/news/2019/07/judge-denies-cancer-patients-lawsuit-against-state-over-medical-marijuana-access.html

Medical mistakes harm more than 1 in 10 patients. Many are preventable. by Linda Carroll

1.jpg

More than 1 in 10 patients are harmed in the course of their medical care, and half of those injuries are preventable. Among the preventable errors, 12 percent led to a patient’s permanent disability or death, according to the report published Wednesday in The BMJ, a medical journal.

The study, which included information on more than 300,000 patients from 70 earlier reports, highlights how serious the problem is, said the study’s lead author, Maria Panagioti, a senior lecturer at the University of Manchester.

“We need strategies in place to detect and correct the key causes of patient harm in health care,” Panagioti said in an email. “Our study finds that most harm relates to medication, and this is one core area that preventative strategies could focus on.”

While the study was international in scope, the findings would be applicable to the U.S., Panagioti said.

The new findings come two decades after a jarring report from the Institute of Medicine concluded that medical errors resulted in the deaths of as many as 98,000 Americans each year.

“It’s a reminder that 20 years into our realization about the problems with patient safety, the rate of preventable harm caused by health care continues to be unacceptably high, causing a huge burden of unnecessary patient suffering and even death,” said Dr. Albert Wu, an internist and professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who was not involved in the new research.

“This is one of the largest studies ever conducted on the frequency and severity of patient harm,” Wu said. “And it provides evidence that these harms occur in all medical care settings. It’s a problem that needs our attention.”

For the new study, Panagioti and her colleagues combed through the medical literature looking for studies that examined medical errors and patient harms. They settled on 70 studies that contained information on 337,025 mostly adult patients, 28,150 of whom experienced harmful incidents, of which 15,419 were preventable.

While 49 percent of the harms reported in the study were “mild,” 36 percent were considered to be “moderate,” and 12 percent “severe.”

Incidents relating to drugs and other therapies accounted for 49 percent of the harms, and injuries related to surgical procedures accounted for 23 percent. Health care infections and problems arising from diagnoses each accounted for 16 percent of the harms.

There’s no “silver bullet” for reducing medical errors, experts say. It requires a combination of patient and staff engagement, consistent management focus and, sometimes, technology, said Tami Minnier, chief quality officer of UPMC, Pittsburgh.

In 2005, UPMC established “Condition H” — for Help — so patients and families could call for a rapid response team to the bedside for any care concerns, including communication breakdowns, Minnier told NBC News. "While infrequently used, we believe that Condition H has averted significant patient harm over the years," she said.

Other hospitals have made changes in hopes of diminishing the numbers of errors and harms, said Dr. Karl Bilimoria, director of surgical outcomes and quality improvement at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine.

"For example, registries have been created to measure harms of various kinds and to allow hospitals to compare themselves to other institutions," Bilimoria said.

When possible, patients and their families can protect against medical errors by becoming their own advocates.

“The more people observing and participating in the patient’s medical care the better,” Bilimoria said. “I would encourage patients to ask physicians to explain things and make sure all have a common understanding.”

Don’t be intimidated by busy doctors or other medical staff, advised Minnier.

“There are some basic things to keep track of,” she said. For example, “make sure they are washing their hands to prevent infections and are using the right protective equipment.”

If you’re not comfortable with what’s happening, “make them pause so you can ask questions,” Minnier said. “Checklists have become very popular. One of the important purposes of checklists is that they force people to pause and think about what is happening.”

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/medical-mistakes-harm-more-1-10-patients-many-are-preventable-n1030996

Why Doctors Are Drowning in Medical School Debt by Daniel Barron

It’s four o’clock on a roasting Wednesday last July. I am a resident physician at Yale University, and I am sitting beside my wife, Kristin Budde, who just became an attending physician, also at Yale. We are both opposite our new accountant.

As directed, we have dutifully organized our combined student loans on an Excel spreadsheet. Each row lists a different loan: account number, interest rate and amount. They total just under $300,000.

We have never spoken to an accountant; we’re not from families that have accountants. And 300,000 is an unfathomable amount of dollars. Wide-eyed and disillusioned, we hang on our accountant’s every word and encouragement; it’s the way I’ve seen my patients look as I explain diagnosis and treatment.

Around 5:30, we leave with the clear directive to pay off our student debt ASAP. Our accountant has no confidence in loan forgiveness programs. “Knock down these loans as fast as possible,” he stated with clinical coolness. If we pay off our loans in 10 years, we might be in a good position to, one day, have financial security.

Neither of us questions whether going to medical school was a good investment. Our question is more basic, a more direct extension of the budgetary quandary we’re in now: what did we actually pay for?

“You know, I heard tuition doesn’t even pay for education but that it goes into some kind of slush fund.” I declare, as my fingers curl tightly around the steering wheel, which is sticky with heat. The AC hasn’t kicked in yet.

“That sounds a little dramatic,” my wife says, fiddling with the AC.

There’s a pause.

“N.Y.U. medical students don’t pay tuition anymore.”

“Jealous,” she says. “I thought I was getting a good deal.” She went to medical school in Texas, where tuition is among the lowest in the country.

I mention that Robert Grossman, the dean and CEO of NYU Langone Health, spent over a decade building a $650 million endowment to replace tution. Curious how he did it and whether other schools will follow suit, I decide to go meet Grossman.

I’m sitting on the 15th floor of N.Y.U.’s Langone Medical Center. I’ve taken the train from New Haven to meet Robert Grossman.

When Grossman became the dean and CEO in 2007, the school was hopelessly in the red. Following his appointment, he oversaw what one author called “the most hopeful and positive healthcare stories of our time.”

Under Grossman’s leadership, revenue rose from $2 billion to $10 billion. Research funding more than doubled and, with 1.2 million added square feet of hospital and research space, the total number of employees ballooned from 7,000 to 40,000.

In addition to learning more about academic finances, I want to meet Grossman in person to size him up, to understand why he’d spend 10 years building an endowment to give away tuition. He announced the endowment in 2018 as a “moral imperative,”saying the opportunity cost of student debt crippled young doctors. Critics disagreed, arguing that Grossman’s endowment was no more than a calculated business move to recruit students.

I arrive early and notice that his staff endearingly calls him “Bob.” I’m flipping through a coffee-table book when Grossman rounds the corner. He extends a warm handshake and we walk to his office, an expansive room with a circle of plush sofas.

Grossman agrees to let me ask personal questions, about his family and childhood. He grew up poor, sharing a bedroom with his uncle and brother. During high school, Grossman’s glamorous side-hustles included washing dishes at a local summer camp, a paper route, and cleaning a butcher shop each night. He describes working in Connecticut during the summer and, with a chisel and hammer, scraping the paint off Glen Island Casino’s siding. He still remembers the buzz of pleasure boats as he stood on a ladder for hours tap-tap-tapping away.

“I always saw myself as an underdog,” he says with a charming, toothy grin, “because I was an underdog.”

After medical school, Grossman and his wife (also a physician) raised two children while paying off $12,000 in student debt—a large amount at that time, but a far cry from the $55,000 that the N.Y.U. medical students used to pay each year in tuition.

Tuition has increased exponentially since Grossman was a medical student—more than twice as fast as inflation. Now, physicians graduate with a median $194,000 in student debt. I mention that each year, N.Y.U.’s 450 medical students paid a total of $25 million in tuition.

“So where does this money go?” I ask Grossman.

“Well, where do you think?” he asks, smiling, raising his hands and shrugging shoulders. I think I know what he’s about to say, but I’m surprised when he says it so bluntly.

“It supports unproductive faculty,” he states coolly.

Unproductive faculty, Grossman explains, are people who draw a monthly paycheck, but don’t write grants, teach, or see patients. Tution also funds other expenses, but the vast majority of tuition is not spent educating students.

“Think about it,” Grossman continues, “How many full-time faculty does it take to teach a group of medical students? Twelve or 13?”

I think back to my own medical education and tally up the faculty instructors. Thirteen sounds about right.

Grossman continues: “You only need say 12 or 13 FTEs [FTE is a full-time employee] because there’s one teacher at a time for 150 medical students.”

“Well, you could easily pay that salary with 25 million dollars,” I state the obvious. “N.Y.U.’s annual budget is nine point seven billion—"

“Almost 10 billion,” Grossman corrects me with a grin. He tracks every dollar N.Y.U. makes—from clinical revenue, to research grants, to tution.

“OK,” I say, rolling my hand in the air, “Let’s call it ten billion–ish. So then 24–25 million of that is what? A quarter of a percent?”

“A rounding error.”

“A rounding error.”

We both nod.

It’s easy to get lost in the numbers. Rounding error or not, before Grossman’s endowment, N.Y.U.’s medical students paid $25 million in tuition each year, only a small fraction of which was needed to support their education. I want to know whether tution is equally divorced from educational costs at other schools.

It strikes me as a question for a regulator. Physicians have one of the strongest, most organized lobbies in the U.S. and they carefully regulate medical programs to ensure that future doctors are well-trained and not exploited.

The Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) regulates programs that train U.S. physicians. When a program doesn’t meet the LCME’s 12 standards, a program is placed on probation and might lose its accreditation and ability to graduate medical students.

The final LCME standard concerns student finances. The LCME ensures that schools “minimize the impact of direct educational expenses (i.e., tuition, fees, books, supplies) on medical student indebtedness.”

Curious how this works, I call Robert Hash, of the LCME’s Executive Staff Secretariat. Hash tells me that (in another LCME standard) the LCME ensures that the dean controls the price of tuition and that deans raise philanthropic funds to offset educational costs. For example, Grossman held annual galas explicitly to build his tuition endowment.

I recount Grossman’s assertion that tuition supports unproductive faculty and ask how the LCME ensures that tuition is spent on student education and doesn’t end up in a dean’s discretionary account.

“The schools have to provide documentation of where their funding goes.” Hash told me. “They’re audited just like every other institution that deals with money in the country.”

“So you can see where student tuition is going?”

“Not really. We can see that funds aren’t being diverted into a storehouse somewhere,” he says with a chuckle.

I ask Hash whether they paint tuition dollars red and ensure that tuition is spent educating students. The answer is no. The LCME cannot access this information.

Hash notes that the LCME recognizes and is concerned about medical programs’ lack of financial transparency. Instead of comparing tuition to educational costs, they instead justify the cost of tuition with “indirect measures” like sufficient faculty, clinical and laboratory resources, and classrooms per student.

The LCME can ensure that education quality meets their standards, but they have no visibility into how much medical education actually costs or whether a school spends tuition on student education.

The LCME tasks itself with ensuring that medical programs don’t financially exploit their students. And yet the one financial tidbit that would help them assess this—how education cost compares to tuition—is beyond their grasp. Without knowing what education costs, they focus on education quality.

But education does have a cost. Somewhere, in some office, an actual person is paying actual bills: desks cost concrete amounts of money, electricity costs a known number of dollars, faculty are paid real money in exchange for real services, etc. The cost of educating a medical student ought to be concrete and countable because it is paid for with concrete, countable dollars.

I’m willing to admit that no two schools have precisely the same expenses: real estate costs more at N.Y.U. than it does at the University of North Dakota; group-based curricula cost more than lecture-based curricula. But the fact that tuition ranges from $16,000 to $93,000 per year has to be explained by more than just a real estate market or an educational philosophy. It sounds like a question for an economist.

I call Amitabh Chandra, the director of health policy research at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Chandra explains that, “in any industry—and medicine is no different—the price of the service depends on the cost of producing the service.”

“But!” Chandra emphasizes, “But it also reflects the willingness to pay for that service.” Tuition is part of a basic supply-demand market equilibrium: each school sets its price tag to maximize the amount its officials they think they can get for their product.

“Even if the cost were zero, it is not the case that medical student tuition would be zero.” Chandra continues, “It would be high because people’s willingness to pay for the degree is high.… That’s the harsh economics of pricing.”

In addition to the LCME, I tell Chandra that I also spoke with a representative from the American Association of Medical Colleges who, it appeared, was convinced that medical school finances were impenetrably opaque, that the marginal cost of educating one medical student was in some weird, Borgesian way, uncountable.

Chandra stops me, reminding me that the numbers are all there (i.e., someone pays the bills), but most schools simply don’t spend the effort to sort out their cost structure.

“Why not?” I ask, “That boggles my mind!”

“I think it should. One of the reasons that health care is 20 percent of our GDP is that nobody knows their cost structure and yet everybody thinks that they’re losing money somehow. I think this is the key irresponsibility at the heart of medicine: the inability and unwillingness to learn one’s underlying cost.”

Tuition is skyrocketing because college kids keep lining up to pay whatever price the schools set. The more kids line up, the higher the price.

Each year, only 41 percent of applicants are accepted into medical school. Because demand outstrips supply, medical schools have the economic upper hand and, because lenders invariably approve loans to cover tuition, schools can effectively set the price of tuition to be whatever they want. College kids who don’t like it need not apply—somewhere in the remaining 59 percent, an applicant is willing to pay.

So if a college kid wants to become a doctor, she is forced to give her medical school carte blanche. Schools withdraw.

Schools withdraw so much that despite scholarships and cash payments, each year a class of new doctors graduates with a total of $2.6 billion in loans, with a median student debt of $194,000. And no one—not even the regulator tasked with protecting students—can say where this money goes.

It dawns on me that tuition is easy money. If you’re dean of a medical school staring at a deficit, withdrawing progressively larger sums of money from a yet-unknown student is easier than having an uncomfortable conversation with your faculty.

Grossman is a true anomaly. When he became dean/CEO, N.Y.U. Langone Health was running a $150 million annual deficit; hardly a time to build an endowment to fund a $25 million tuition giveaway. Yet, as a self-identified underdog, he wanted to spare his fellow underdog medical students from shouldering N.Y.U.’s budget problems.

Sitting in Grossman’s office, I’m curious whether he’s something of a celebrity genius among academics—or at least among other medical school deans.

“Have you been contacted by other medical schools or other deans or CEOs? You know, for a playbook?” I ask Grossman.

“No. Nothing.”

“Fascinating.” I say, more to myself than to Grossman, trying to make sense of that.

I try a different approach: “A lot of people got on board with the philanthropy at N.Y.U. because they could see you making changes, trimming, as it were. I wonder why other schools don’t try the same thing?” I ask, leaning forward.

“I think that it takes some courage, right? It’s not so easy to do that. It’s easy to say ‘Hey, we’re going to continue inertia.’” Grossman sighs and pauses thoughtfully. “This is a process that took a decade and, a time frame that most medical school deans don’t have.”

I press him on what makes N.Y.U. different.

“Some institutions don’t want to address it.... They don’t view [tuition] as their most important prerogative. They want donors to give money for buildings, bricks and mortar, and—”

“Professorships?” I add to show I’ve been paying attention.

“Professorships, all the usual stuff. The students,” Grossman chuckles, “students are the caboose. These kids....” Grossman pauses pensively, perhaps remembering raising two children while paying his $12,000 debt, “they’re looking a little like I was, but probably worse. So I thought it was really a moral imperative for us to support them in a substantive way.”

A few months later, I’m moonlighting at a local hospital to make some extra money. I just admitted my last patient of the night and am sitting at my computer.

I call my Kristin, who’s at home with our sleeping two-year-old son, and tell her that I can’t decide how to end this story.

“Well, what’s your main point?” she asks, invariably cool, rational.

“Each year, thousands of doctors graduate with debt that has nothing to do with their education. And no one really bothers to sort out where that money goes.”

“Sounds like a stupid system,” she says.

“Does the idea that our debt might have subsized unproductive faculty bother you?”

“Um, yeah,” she says, “I sacrificed much of my youth to be a doctor.”

“What does that have to do with it?”

“I think I imagined that my life would be really glamorous once I was an attending,” she pauses. “We’re fortunate. We have a roof over our head, we can start a family and all that. But we’ve got a crushing amount of student debt and it’s probably going to be a decade before we can see actual daylight.”

“Fair enough—" I try to chime in as my fingers hurry to transcribe what she’s saying.

She continues: “And what’s frustrating is the idea that even though we’ve sacrificed so much already, our debt is an amount of money that schools might not actually need. In order for a school to have a little bit of breathing room on their books, we spend years digging ourselves out of debt? How is that fair?”

“Well, it’s not.”

“And what I worry about is that if this is happening to doctors—if doctors can’t even do something about student loan debt—what hope is there for anyone else?”

Source: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-doctors-are-drowning-in-medical-school-debt/

California doesn’t have enough doctors. To recruit them, the state is paying off medical school debt by Melody Gutierrez

1.JPG

Reporting from Sacramento —

Bryan Ruiz’s hands were still shaking an hour after he learned the $300,000 in medical school loans he took out to become a dentist were being wiped away by California taxpayers.

A year out of medical school, Ruiz thought it would take decades to pay off the debt, particularly since he had accepted a less lucrative position at a community health clinic that primarily serves low-income Medi-Cal patients.

“This really is life-changing,” he said.

Ruiz was among the first physicians and dentists told this month that their medical school debt was being paid off by the state. In exchange, doctors must pledge that at least 30% of their caseloads will be devoted to Medi-Cal patients for five years.

“He’s committed his life to this kind of service, and that’s what our loan repayment program is about,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said of Ruiz at a news conference last week touting healthcare investments in the newly enacted California budget. “If you support providing quality care to Medi-Cal patients, we are going to support your journey by providing a little bit of relief on these loans.”

Federal, state and local governments have increasingly turned to loan forgiveness programs as the competition for doctors has become more aggressive nationwide. Two-thirds of physicians finishing their training said they’d been contacted more than 50 times by job recruiters, according to a 2019 survey by physician staffing firm Merritt Hawkins.

California will spend $340 million paying off doctors’ debts using Proposition 56 tobacco tax revenue. This month, the state offered its first awards — 40 dentists received $10.5 million in debt relief while 247 physicians received $58.6 million.

California’s program is aimed at increasing the number of doctors who see Medi-Cal patients in a state experiencing a shortage of healthcare providers. The number of physicians who accept Medi-Cal patients — and the low reimbursement rate that comes with them — hasn’t kept pace with the rapid expansion of the state’s healthcare program for the poor, which covers 1 in 3 residents in the state.

“The loan repaying program is huge,” said Sandra R. Hernández, a physician and president of the California Health Care Foundation. “You have a lot of young physicians who graduate from medical school with tremendous debt. We think this is a good long-term win for getting physicians to serve in under-served areas.”

As California’s doctor shortage has grown, the state’s residents are growing older, with an aging baby boomer population increasing the need for healthcare workers. And one-third of the state’s doctors and nurse practitioners are baby boomers who are reaching retirement age, further depleting the workforce.

Those trends led healthcare, education and business leaders to form the California Future Health Workforce Commission in 2017 to study the state’s impending healthcare crisis, with the task force ultimately proposing a $3-billion plan over the next 10 years to address it.

Newsom included $300 million in new money to address the provider shortage in the budget he signed last month for the fiscal year that began July 1. Much of that money was allocated to training and recruitment programs recommended by the commission, including an additional $120 million for loan forgiveness incentives that’s meant to ensure physicians and dentists take on Medi-Cal patients.

But some costly and politically fraught recommendations by the commission will not be tackled this year, which could slow the state’s efforts to fix gaps in healthcare access. Among the commission’s recommendations was legislation to allow nurse practitioners, who undergo more training than registered nurses, to care for patients on their own without a physician’s supervision.

Commission member Assemblyman Jim Wood (D-Healdsburg) authored the bill that would have allowed nurse practitioners more autonomy. But it stalled in May amid pushback from the California Medical Assn., the lobbying arm of doctors in the state. Wood said he would revive the bill next year.

The commission’s report said the state would have seen an immediate, substantial increase of nurse practitioners working in rural areas in 2020 had the bill moved forward and, over time, would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars by treating conditions that otherwise result in trips to the emergency room.

“California is facing a perfect storm — elderly who will need care and a lack of healthcare providers,” said Karen Bradley, president of the California Assn. for Nurse Practitioners. “This bill would have allowed nurse practitioners to be part of the solution.”

Many more doctors will need to be trained in California if the state wants to meet the healthcare needs of residents, said Janet Coffman, a professor at Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies at UC San Francisco.

More than 60% of California’s students who attended medical school in 2017 left the state for their schooling, according to the commission’s report. The national average of medical school students per 100,000 people is 30.3; California has 18.4 students per 100,000. That’s the third-lowest rate among the 45 states that have at least one medical school.

Despite this, California has made relatively few investments in increasing enrollment at medical schools in the state. The only new public medical school to open in California in the last four decades is at UC Riverside.

“And it’s relatively small,” Coffman said. “We’ve expanded class sizes in other medical schools some but not much.”

State Sen. Richard Roth (D-Riverside) introduced a bill this year to give UC Riverside $80 million to construct a new facility for its medical school, allowing the campus to double its enrollment from 250 students to 500 students. But the money was not included in the recently signed budget, and the bill was amended to exclude the funds. Instead, the budget promises only a future bond to pay for the construction.

Lawmakers have approved spending some $115 million for residency training positions, which the health commission says have historically been underfunded. Included in that is $33 million for California’s Song-Brown Program, which funds residency programs that increase diversity among students studying to be doctors or that serve high-needs areas of the state.

The budget made the funding for that program permanent for future years, a key priority for the commission.

“A significant down payment has been made with this budget,” said David Carlisle, president of Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science in Los Angeles and a member of the healthcare commission. “It represents a significant realization and response to the challenges that exist. We have to continue to work on this topic, because there is more work to be done.”

Source: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-doctor-shortage-medical-debt-20190716-story.html

How Medical Technology Obstructs the Humanity of Patients Emeka Onyedika

Patients are people too. This may seem like an odd statement or one that need not be uttered. “Of course patients are people,” you may think. “How can you lose sight of that?

For most of my medical career and training, my knee-jerk response used to be something like this until I honestly assessed my relationship with and perspective on patients. In actuality, I did not relate to patients as people most of the time — barely as human beings even. As a student and resident, patients were tools for my education and the physical manifestation of concepts I read about in textbooks and heard about in lectures.

I trust many of you remember as a student or intern being called over to an exam room or hospital bed by an attending physician or senior resident to observe an interesting or rare clinical finding. In fact, many of you in academic settings may be regularly practicing this with students and/or residents. I agree that it is a critical part of medical training, however, how often do you see it from the perspective of the patient? 

What if you pictured a family member or dear friend in their shoes or reminded yourself that they are someone’s family member and/or dear friend? Does it change your view? It certainly did and continues to do so for me. In traditional clinical settings, I classified patients by their appointment time (“My 10 o’clock on Wednesday”) or their ailment (“The appy in Bed 2”). Thankfully, I am now aware that this disconnect prevents the formation of the patient-doctor partnership, which patients yearn for and is lacking. The modernization of health care has introduced a gift/curse that impedes this endeavor — technology. 

Technological distractions

Thanks to technology, we now have the ability to retrieve and review a patient’s complete medical history during their visit. We also have the ability to interact and assess patients virtually anywhere and anytime with telemedicine. These tools and abilities are great additions to our armamentarium; however, I don’t believe they should become the main focus. 

I have fallen into the trap of interacting more with the computer screen than the patient in the room with me during an exam. Telemedicine allows us to provide care for individuals in rural areas that may not be accessible otherwise or at hours that may be inconvenient for an office visit; however, should it be the basis of a practice solely in the name of convenience? Technological advances are driving a wedge between people in our society. They’re also fueling an overarching desire for comfort and accommodation. The implications of both have been detrimental to healthcare.

Doctors built medicine on a foundation of basic human interactions. There is nothing more intimate than examining or manipulating parts of the body or a person’s anatomy as a whole. Doing this should be viewed as a privilege rather than a right bestowed upon us by our title and profession. Without a patient-doctor relationship, this can and should be seen as a violation of privacy. As significantly helpful as computers in their varying forms can be and have been, they will never replicate or enhance the connection achieved between persons working for a common goal. 

As important and vital as our education, training, practice and convenience may be, it should never be pursued or exalted at the expense of the humanity of our patients. The general public looks to us for care to regain and/or refine aspects of health consistent with human nature. Out of respect, we should make sure to welcome them and interact with them consistently and fully as fellow members of the human race. 

Source: https://www.mdlinx.com/physiciansense/how-medical-technology-obstructs-the-humanity-of-patients/

Doctors aren’t much better at picking the best medical treatments than laypersons by Michael Hiltzik

In recent years, the idea has spread that forcing consumers to pay more for healthcare — giving them “skin in the game” is the usual mantra — will prompt them to become more discerning medical shoppers.

The goal is to improve the efficiency of the healthcare system by saddling consumers with higher costs if they opt for less useful or more overpriced services. Experts have identified numerous flaws with this concept, as we’ll get to in a bit.

But a new paper by Michael D. Frakes of Duke, Jonathan Gruber of MIT and Anupam Jena of Harvard raises an important and oft-overlooked point: Even if consumers have better information about the efficacy of particular treatments, will they be any good at using that information?

The answer is: probably not.

There really should be 100% consumption of high-value and 0% of low-value care. On those benchmarks, doctors don’t do a whole lot better than non-doctors.

The authors tested the theory behind “consumer-driven healthcare” by examining the behavior of the best-informed consumers of all: doctors. (Their sample of physicians as patients came from the massive Military Health Service.) What they found was that doctors are better at picking high-value treatments and avoiding low-value care — but “not by much and not always.”

The message is that “purely relying on consumer cost-sharing and high deductibles won’t get us to the best outcome,” Gruber says.

The authors’ examples of low-value care included caesarean sections, which are judged by experts to be vastly overused; and pre-operative diagnostic tests for low-risk surgeries, such as chest X-rays prescribed for patients undergoing eye operations. The high-value examples included comprehensive diabetes care, statin use for patients with cardiac risk, and child vaccinations.

“There really should be 100% consumption of high-value and 0% of low-value care,” Gruber told me. “On those benchmarks, doctors don’t do a whole lot better than non-doctors.”

The finding is important because it suggests there’s a limit on how much more efficient the healthcare system can become by making consumers better informed. If doctors, the best-informed medical consumers, can’t consistently be steered to the most cost-effective treatments, then obviously average consumers will do much worse.

“If our approach is just to get more information to patients,” Frakes says, “that may not give us a great deal of return.”

This study isn’t the first to cast doubts on the theory that high deductibles and co-pays alone will lead consumers to make better and more cost-effective choices on healthcare. In 2015, a team from UC Berkeley and Harvard examined what happened when a large company shifted from an all-expenses-paid health plan to a high-deductible plan in a single year.

They found that total medical spending fell by as much as 13.8%, but that consumers cut spending on “potentially valuable care” such as preventive services as well as potentially wasteful care, such as X-rays and scans. They found “no evidence of consumers learning to price shop after two years in high-deductible coverage.” That confirmed a 1993 study by the Rand Corp. that also found that consumers reduced spending on good treatments and bad alike.

The latest study found that physician families did reduce their rate of C-sections, but only modestly and not enough to bring the rate into line with what medical experts say is proper. (Medical professionals say the rate, which is about 30%, should be only 10% to 15%.) Physician patients received unnecessary pre-surgical diagnostic tests nearly 20% of the time, less than non-physicians but still much too often.

That led the authors to conclude that “even the best informed patients do not make any less use of low-value health services.”

As for high-value care, physician patients failed to receive comprehensive diabetes care 30% of the time. There was virtually no difference between doctors and laypersons in receiving post-cardiac care, or in vaccinations for diptheria/tetanus/pertussis and hepatitis. There were “small improvements” in compliance for child vaccinations for chicken pox, polio and measles/mumps/rubella.

The findings don’t show that there’s no place for deductibles and co-pays in the U.S. healthcare system. “There’s no step forward in healthcare that doesn’t have pros and cons,” Gruber says. “Absent any consumer cost-sharing, healthcare will be overused; the potential con is that people will forgo both more valuable and less valuable care.”

That points to a more nuanced system of deductibles and charges, he says. Often this is termed “value-based healthcare,” in which flexible cost-sharing steers consumers to more effective care. That means lower co-pays for generic drugs, higher charges for unnecessary tests or higher-cost treatments not shown to have better results than lower-cost alternatives.

“The right answer for our system is not to tell patients they can’t have service X,” Gruber says, “but to say service X isn’t cost-effective — if you want it you have to pay for it. That’s controversial and hard, but the lesson from this paper is that we should bring expert analysis into cost sharing, rather than relying on consumers to figure it out.”

Source: https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-doctor-consumers-20190708-story.html

The cutting edge of contact lens technology in the latest Medical Technology by Medical Device Network

With the launch of Johnson & Johnson Vision’s photochromic contact lens, the first to adapt to changing light conditions, the future of contact lens technology is looking bright. We take a look at how the field has developed in recent years and where the next breakthroughs may lie.

Also, we speak to Dr Loubna Bouarfa, CEO and founder of Cambridge-based healthcare AI company OKRA Technologies, to find out more about how environmental and health data can help pharmaceutical companies determine when and where to deploy their medications, round up the state of medical device regulation around the world, and examine the fallout from illegally marketed devices to see what can be done to stop them harming patients.

Plus, we take a look at the ways that manufacturers can demonstrate eco-conscious design principles in a product’s design, development and production, and explore the state of play for the medical devices used for blood management and transfusion.

And, as always, we round up the latest news from the medical device industry, and get comment and analysis from GlobalData’s healthcare analysts.

Eye on the prize: how contact lens technology is changing

With the launch of Johnson & Johnson Vision’s photochromic contact lens, the first to adapt to changing light conditions, Abi Millar looks at the growing field of contact lens technology, how it has developed over the years, and where the next breakthroughs may lie.

Okra technologies: accessible AI for smarter healthcare

Okra technologies has developed an artificial intelligence platform which can use environmental and health data to tell pharmaceutical companies where and when to deploy their medications. Chloe Kent caught up with company founder and chief executive Dr Loubna Bouarfa to find out more.

The implant files: their impact on global device regulation

Governments around the world are calling for stricter regulations on medical devices following an international probe into improperly designed implements. But, how are different countries approaching this issue? Chloe Kent rounds up the state of medical device regulation worldwide.

A wolf in sheep’s clothing: clamping down on unauthorized medical devices

Recently, the FDA released a statement cautioning consumers against using unapproved apps and devices for diagnosing concussions. But, how are manufacturers getting away with illegally marketing devices and what can be done to stop them harming patients? Abi Millar finds out.

Making sustainable medical devices: five top tips

The need for sustainable manufacturing practices is more pressing than ever and medical devices are no exception. Chloe Kent caught up with thought leaders from across the industry to pull together five top tips for manufacturers.

Cell salvage: the tech at the cutting edge of blood management

In April 2019, Illinois-based Ecomed Solutions launched HEMAsavR, a blood management device that can be installed in operating theatres to collect a patient’s lost blood during surgery and return it to their body. Known as cell salvage, this technology could have a huge impact on the way surgeries are carried out, bypassing the cost and risk associated with allogeneic blood transfusion. Chloe Kent reports.


Source: https://www.medicaldevice-network.com/features/the-cutting-edge-of-contact-lens-technology-in-the-latest-medical-technology/

How to protect medtech from hackers by Nancy Crotti

Virtual_Health_Texas_Instruments-768x503.jpg

Healthcare is undergoing a technological renaissance, with untethered medical devices, more data-gathering and ever-improving accessibility. As more devices become mobile, hackers have extra opportunity to hijack equipment. The more data gathered, the more data is vulnerable. As accessibility improves, so does the potential threat of an attack.

To address the increasing cybersecurity risks that these trends bring, vendors implement whatever best practice they see fit. But are these best practices good enough? Given the number of recent data breaches, the answer is no. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) listed 27 reported incidents of information breaches at healthcare providers nationwide in April 2019 alone involving IT incidents — the highest number of reported incidents since the HHS began tracking them. April is not an isolated month, as every month in 2019 has seen an increased number of incidents compared to 2018.

Making data safer

Medtech vendors could implement stronger crypto algorithms or software that securely transfers data from devices to the cloud, but how can they be certain that their implementations are actually secure? This uncertainty represents a security gap, and the best way to fill that gap is to use government-approved security.

From a medical perspective, the term “government-approved security” seems a bit vague. Regulators such as the FDA and the HHS have rules related to cybersecurity, but the rules don’t specify any feature standards. The FDA’s 2016 postmarket regulations provide guidance on how to manage “ cybersecurity vulnerabilities for marketed and distributed medical devices,” including how to assess, contain and prevent threat sources in existing products. In October 2018, the agency issued an updated draft premarket guidance that includes some postmarket information. It also held a public workshop in January 2019 to get feedback on that guidance and worked on a joint security plan.

The HHS’s Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule defines those to whom it applies as “health plans, health care clearinghouses and any health care provider who transmits health information in electronic form.” When it comes to technical safeguards, there are no requirements for exact security features. The rule only states to implement encryption “whenever deemed appropriate.”

Seeking clarity elsewhere

Without clear guidance from healthcare regulators, the de-facto guidance falls on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the top authority for security standards in the U.S. NIST is a non-regulatory agency that operates several programs to validate aspects of security from the algorithm level all the way to cloud computing. The Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) 140-2 is one of these programs used to certify cryptographic security of electronic hardware.

FIPS is a requirement in several government agencies that transmit data from unclassified all the way to top-secret. If FIPS is trusted by government agencies for handling sensitive data, medical technology vendors should see it as a design requirement for their devices all the way down to the wireless microcontrollers (MCU).

With core hardware like wireless MCUs, FIPS pertains to the cryptographic algorithms and codes used to store and transmit the data. NIST-approved algorithms such as secure hash (SHA) or advanced encryption standard (AES) all have publications dictating the standard for implementing the algorithms correctly. Any silicon manufacturer can take the standards and try to include them in the chips.

NIST provides validation procedures

There is still a problem of certainty with the implementation of these algorithms. Healthcare professionals and patients may not use wireless medical devices without knowing their data is secure. This is where NIST comes with procedures for third-party validation of the FIPS algorithms.

“Third-party” is an important distinction. Silicon manufacturers surely do some sort of validation, but this validation could be flawed. For example, a manufacturer could implement AES that technically works and passes their tests, but in reality, the algorithm does not randomize the data enough. If this flaw ends up being implemented in a medical device, it leaves room to crack transmitted data or even take over devices.

To avoid these potential flaws, NIST requires silicon manufacturers to submit their designs to accredited third-party testing labs in order to earn the moniker “FIPS Validated.” This label truly means government-approved security. “FIPS Validated” is the standard that medical technology vendors should be thinking of from concept to production of their devices.

Making government-approved, “FIPS Validated” security a mainstay in medical devices is a worthwhile investment. With it, healthcare professionals and patients can be assured that their data are handled by the highest standard of security. It means that the trend of untethered devices can continue instead of being stifled by fear.

The consequences without validation are obvious: the medical technology sector is handling lives, and any security flaw could mean life or death. Today’s technological trends in healthcare are improving the industry, and it is worthwhile for vendors to observe a high level of security to keep these improvements moving forward.

Source: https://www.medicaldesignandoutsourcing.com/how-to-protect-medtech-from-hackers/

New technology helps treat skin cancer without surgery by Radiant Therapy

The face of skin cancer is changing, as awareness is at an all-time high and medical technology is rapidly advancing.

Still, the Skin Cancer Foundation reports that more than 5.4 million cases of nonmelanoma skin cancer are treated each year in the U.S., affecting 3.3 million people. More people are diagnosed with skin cancer each year in the U.S. than all other cancers combined, with one in five Americans developing skin cancer by the age of 70.

There is good news, though. More and more cases of skin cancer are being detected and treated early. This is a result of a combination of better awareness for the signs and symptoms of skin cancer and its improved treatments. The American Cancer Society reports that across all stages of melanoma, the average five-year survival rate in the U.S. is 92%. The estimated five-year survival rate for patients whose melanoma is detected early is about 98%.

Skin cancer -- including non-melanoma skin cancer, basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma -- should never be taken lightly. It is very important for people to advocate for themselves when it comes to the best practices in awareness, detection and treatments.

Anita Saluja is a board-certified dermatologist who practices in Melbourne, Fla. She said that while the message to wear sunscreen is heeded by most people, the rules of re-application are not widely known.

“The number one mistake I see when it comes to skin protection is not reapplying sunscreen based on its recommended SPF,” Saluja said. “The ‘sun protection factor’ refers to the number of minutes the sunblock is recommended. For example, SPF 30 means 30 minutes of sun protection.”

The American Academy of Dermatology also recommends that people take the following precautions to reduce the risk of skin cancer:

  • Seek shade, keeping in mind that the strongest sun rays happen between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.

  • Cover up with lightweight long-sleeve shirts, wide-brimmed hats and sunglasses.

  • Never use tanning beds. Ultraviolet light from tanning beds causes skin cancer and premature skin aging.

  • Prioritize consistent skin self-exams to detect skin cancer early.

Old technology modernized for skin cancer treatments

Better prevention and skin cancer awareness are just the first steps to successfully raising survival rates. Improved treatment options also give patients a better chance at eradicating skin cancer.

Radiotherapy has been used for the treatment of nonmelanoma skin lesions since the late 1890s, but since that time, the experience of using radiotherapy among dermatologists has diminished and the technology became impractical for dermatologists in the late 1990s. This was partially due to large obsolete machines that were difficult to maintain and use for the average community dermatologist.

Now newer radiotherapy technology developed by Xstrahl makes it possible for local dermatologists to use radiotherapy with ease through a more practical approach for their patients, especially when surgical options may not be recommended or possible.

“The two best ways to treat skin cancer are surgery and radiation treatments and I always recommended radiation for people who are elderly, or wheelchair bound,” said Ken Takegami, a dermatologist with a private practice in Tullahoma, Tenn.

Xstrahl is a company trying to provide a practical application of radiotherapy that sidesteps surgery for successful options for patients. Xstrahl’s RADiant technology uses radiotherapy to remove skin growths, both cancerous and benign without surgery. This lessens pain and down time for many patients.The applications of RADiant include non-melanoma skin cancer such as basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma.

Takegami was one of the first physicians in the U.S. to make use of a RADiant therapy device in his office and says that the choice he offers his patients is a welcome one.

“Most of my patients are older, with my oldest patient being 101 years old, and having a non-surgical option like RADiant is such a wonderful thing to offer them,” Takegami said.

Using a quick procedure that can lessen pain and down time, with faster recoveries, is why professionals like Takegami choose RADiant over traditional skin cancer treatments.

Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sponsor-story/radiant-technology/2019/07/08/new-technology-helps-treat-skin-cancer-without-surgery/1637912001/

10 Medical Myths We Should Stop Believing. Doctors, Too. by Gina Kolata

You might assume that standard medical advice was supported by mounds of scientific research. But researchers recently discovered that nearly 400 routine practices were flatly contradicted by studies published in leading journals.

Of more than 3,000 studies published from 2003 through 2017 in JAMA and the Lancet, and from 2011 through 2017 in the New England Journal of Medicine, more than one of 10 amounted to a “medical reversal”: a conclusion opposite of what had been conventional wisdom among doctors.

“You come away with a sense of humility,” said Dr. Vinay Prasad of Oregon Health and Science University, who conceived of the study. “Very smart and well-intentioned people came to practice these things for many, many years. But they were wrong.”

Some of those ideas have been firmly dislodged, but not all. Now Dr. Prasad and his colleagues are trying to learn how widespread are discredited practices and ideas.

Here are 10 findings that contradict what were once widely held theories.

Peanut allergies occur whether or not a child is exposed to peanuts before age 3.

Pediatricians have counseled parents to keep babies away from peanuts for the first three years of life. As it turns out, children exposed to peanuts before they were even 1 year old have no greater risk of peanut allergies.

Fish oil does not reduce the risk of heart disease.

At one point, the notion that fish fats prevented heart trouble did seem logical. People whose diets contain a lot of fatty fish seem to have a lower incidence of heart disease. Fatty fish contains omega-3 fatty acids. Omega-3 supplements lower levels of triglycerides, and high levels of triglycerides are linked to an increased risk of heart disease. Not to mention that omega-3 fatty acids seem to reduce inflammation, a key feature of heart attacks.

But in a trial involving 12,500 people at risk for heart trouble, daily omega-3 supplements did not protect against heart disease.

A lifelike doll carried around by teenage girls will not deter pregnancies.

These dolls wail and need to be “changed” and “cuddled.” The idea was that girls would learn how much work was involved in caring for an infant. But a randomized study found that girls who were told to carry around “infant simulators” actually were slightly more likely to become pregnant than girls who did not get the dolls.

Ginkgo biloba does not protect against memory loss and dementia.

The supplement, made from the leaves of ginkgo trees, was widely used in ancient Chinese medicine and still is promoted as a way to preserve memory. A large federal study, published in 2008, definitively showed the supplement is useless for this purpose. Yet ginkgo still pulls in $249 million in sales. Did people just not get the message?

To treat emergency room patients in acute pain, a single dose of oral opioids is no better than drugs like aspirin and ibuprofen.

Yes, opioids are powerful drugs. But a clinical trial showed that much safer alternatives relieve pain just as well among emergency room patients.

Testosterone treatment does not help older men retain their memory.

Some men have low levels of testosterone and memory problems, and early studies had hinted that middle-aged men with higher testosterone levels seemed to have better preserved tissue in some parts of their brains. Older men with higher testosterone levels also seemed to do better on tests of mental functioning.

But a rigorous clinical trial showed that testosterone was no better than a sugar pill in helping older men avoid memory loss.

To protect against asthma attacks, it won’t help to keep your house free of dust mites, mice and cockroaches.

The advice from leading medical groups has been to rid your home of these pests if you or your child has asthma. The theory was that allergic reactions to them can trigger asthma attacks. But intensive pest management in homes with children sensitized to mouse allergens did nothing to reduce the frequency of their asthma attacks, researchers reported in 2017.

Step counters and calorie trackers do not help you lose weight.

In fact, dieters may be better off without digital assistance. Among 470 dieters followed for two years, those who wore devices tracking the steps they took and calories they burned actually lost less weight than those who just followed standard advice.

Torn knee meniscus? Try physical therapy first, surgery later.

An estimated 460,000 patients in the United States get surgery each year to fix knee cartilage that tears, often because of osteoarthritis. The tear is painful, and many patients fear that if it is not surgically treated, the pain will linger.

But when patients with a torn meniscus and moderate arthritis were randomized to six months of physical therapy or surgery, both groups improved, and to the same extent.

If a pregnant woman’s water breaks prematurely, the baby does not have to be delivered immediately.

Sometimes, a few weeks before a woman’s due date, the membrane surrounding her fetus ruptures and amniotic fluid spills out. Obstetricians worried that bacteria could invade what had been a sterile environment around the fetus, causing infection. Better to deliver the baby immediately, doctors thought.

But a clinical trial found that if obstetricians carefully monitor the fetus while waiting for labor to begin naturally, the fetus is at no greater risk for infection. And newborns left to gestate were healthier, with less respiratory distress and a lower risk of death, than those who were delivered immediately after a break.


Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/health/medical-myths-doctors.html

Medical Technology Takes Hit From Tariffs While Fighting Off Tax by Ayanna Alexander

Makers of pacemakers, surgical gloves, and patient monitoring systems may have to dig even deeper in their pockets by 2020 if the federal government continues to increase tariffs on goods from China and doesn’t completely repeal the medical device tax.

President Donald Trump proposed a 25 percent tariff spike in May, affecting up to $1.3 billion worth of medical devices, according to The Advanced Medical Technology Association. At the same time, the industry has been lobbying Congress—unsuccessfully so far—to repeal the 2.3 percent excise tax on product sales imposed on manufacturers and producers.

AdvaMed and other medical technology manufacturers asked the office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to remove certain devices from the potential tariff inflation list during the agency’s June 20 hearing on the recent round of tariffs.

“If tit-for-tat retaliation continues, the administration’s objectives for a strong domestic medical technology industry will be undermined,” Ralph Ives, executive vice president of global strategy and analysis for AdvaMed, said.

Medical cameras, MRIs, and contact lenses, for example, could be subject to an increase.

U.S. sales, production time, and innovation will be significantly hurt if the tariffs are imposed, according to AdvaMed.

Medtech companies, such as Medtronic Plc and GE Healthcare, have submitted many requests to have their products excluded from any additional tariffs. The chances for an exemption from the tariffs, however, are slim. So far, USTR has approved roughly 2,421 exclusion requests from items on the first two lists of those subject to tariffs and denied 7,550 across all industries as of June, according to USTR’s tally of requests.

There are four tariffs lists in total—USTR hasn’t released the requests for the third list since it came out in May and list four is currently in the works.

“We believe our economic relationship with China has been unbalanced and grossly unfair to American workers, farmers, and businesses for decades,” Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said during a June 19 Ways and Means Committee hearing.

“After an exhausting process, we put tariffs on certain Chinese products and are prepared to put more tariffs in place if certain issues are not resolved satisfactorily.”

Device Tax Stability

Meanwhile, the device tax, a component of the Affordable Care Act, remains a pressing problem for manufacturers of everything from bandages to surgical robots. The tax is due to come into effect in 2020 after Congress delayed it twice, but the medical device industry is pushing Congress to remove it altogether.

Medical device advocates say another delay of the tax implementation date is more likely because a full repeal of the medical device tax alone would require lawmakers to come up with some $20 billion in offsets over 10 years.

The Senate Finance Committee launched a series of task forces in May to scrutinize the medical device tax and other levies under Obamacare. The bipartisan study group includes Sens. Patrick Toomey (R-Pa.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.), and Mark Warner (D-Va.).

Democrats have been reluctant in the past to repeal the medical device tax without generating additional revenue elsewhere, but that could be shifting. Presidential candidate Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), for example, and other Democrats have signed on to bipartisan bills recently to do away with the tax.

Steve Kelly, a spokesman for the group’s co-chair Toomey, who favors repealing the tax, previously told Bloomberg Law that he’s encouraged by the wide bipartisan support those bills have gotten so far.

Members of the study group say they intend to have a solution to the medical device tax by the end of the year.

Congressional Pushback

Some lawmakers have asked the USTR to remove medical devices from any tariff list since July 2018, when the Trump administration’s first tariffs on Chinese goods came into effect.

A 2018 letter from lawmakers including Reps. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) and Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.) cited the possibility that the Chinese device market could present a significant growth opportunity for U.S. manufacturer as a reason for medtech to be removed from the first tariff list—especially since China imported more than 70 percent of its medical devices.

The president’s use of tariffs as a bargaining chip on different goods, in general, has prompted mixed reactions from Congress more recently.

“Any gains made with respect to the trade agenda will be eroded if the administration continues to use existing tariff authority in this manner,” Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) said during the June 20 committee hearing.

The medical technology industry may not be able to count on Neal as an advocate for medical device tax repeal, though, due to lack of cost offsets. That’s despite Massachusetts being the home of major device makers like Boston Scientific Corp.

BSCI is slated to lose up to $25 million if the tariffs are approved, according to Jason McGorman, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst.

The Ways and Means committee’s ranking member, Kevin Brady (R-Texas), applauded the president’s decision to take China to task during the recent hearing.

“President Trump is the first president to truly take China straight on,” Brady said. “Tariffs are the tool that the president has chosen to bring China to the table for constructive discussions.

Brady has also been a huge supporter of repealing the device tax repeal and tried to appease both industry and congressional counterparts with another delay in the medical device tax in the 115th Congress.

The package, which wasn’t well received by Senate Democrats, failed to gain enough support to overcome procedural roadblocks and come to a vote.

Should the tariff increase go into effect on device makers, there are other ways the industry can reduce some of the impact, said Francesca Guerrero, of counsel with Winston and Strawn LLP.

“There may be free or reduced duty rates for devices used for patients with disabilities, for example. There’s also ways you can change your supply chain, in order to mitigate having to pay the tariffs,” she said. “Some of the Chinese manufacturing companies have operations in other countries. You could be working with the same company but if it’s made in other countries, it’s no longer of Chinese origin.”

Source: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/medical-technology-takes-hit-from-tariffs-while-fighting-off-tax-1

Medical Technology Focuses on Patient Engagement, Care Coordination by Fred Donovan

111.jpg

The medical technology industry is increasingly focused on patient safety, monitoring, engagement, and care coordination, according to a new report by Frost & Sullivan.

The business consulting firm estimates that the growth segments of the medical technology industry will see a combined incremental value of $64.1 billion in 2019, above the $413.9 billion traditional market size.

The firm forecasts the longer-term growth opportunity to be $173 billion by 2024, with a robust compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 22.0 percent, compared to the traditional market, which is estimated to slow down from the current 5.8 percent CAGR to around 5.2 percent CAGR by 2024.

According to Frost & Sullivan, top medical technology companies are adopting the following strategies to tap into growth opportunities:

  • Focus on smartphone-based solutions, which will offer a $2.11 billion opportunity by 2020. Technologies such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, augmented/virtual reality, Internet of Things, and big data analytics, coupled with existing smartphone tools like cameras and external sensors, are transforming smartphones into cost-effective diagnostic tools.

  • Offer software-as-a-medical-device. These will become the building blocks of platforms of care aimed at solutions for diagnosis, surgery, surgical navigation, treatment planning, and disease management.

  • Improve care coordination and information exchange for patients. Medical technology companies are building risk-sharing contracts that are enabled by data-sharing models to understand the role of vendor solutions in care and outcomes management as a part of the overall strategy to become partners with hospitals.

  • Define the endpoints and measurement criteria to prevent disease adjacencies.

  • Foster partnerships with smart home ecosystem participants to aid early diagnosis and disease management.

“Patient centricity is a major theme for the medtech industry … Patient safety, for instance, which traditionally involves areas such as surgical site infections, is now expanding the scope to cover diagnostics safety, pressure ulcers and preventing unnecessary emergency department admissions,” commented Sowmya Rajagopalan, advanced medical technologies global director at Frost & Sullivan.

“The medtech industry has been challenged by the lack of innovation in conventional segments, increasing focus on efficiencies, changing device ecosystem to digital enablers, and rising domestic competition in certain growth markets. This has resulted in a series of industry strategies broadly classified into increasing personalization, data and tech leverage, enhanced post-acute care coordination, and a focus on value-based care models,” Rajagopalan observed.

Source: https://hitinfrastructure.com/news/medical-technology-focuses-on-patient-engagement-care-coordination

These common drugs may increase dementia risk by Maria Cohut

The drugs in question, called anticholinergics, work by inhibiting a chemical messenger called acetylcholine.

Their effect is to help relax or contract muscles, and doctors can prescribe them to help treat bladder conditions, gastrointestinal problems, and some of the symptoms of Parkinson's disease.

In their new study, which looked at data from tens of thousands of participants, the researchers concluded that anticholinergics may increase a person's risk of developing dementia.

The National Institute for Health Research funded this study, and the scientists published their findings yesterday in JAMA Internal Medicine.

An almost 50% increase in risk

For their study, lead researcher Prof. Carol Coupland and team analyzed the medical records of 58,769 people with dementia and 225,574 people without dementia. They were all 55 years old or above at baseline.

Among those with dementia, 63% were women and the average age was 82. For each person with dementia, the researchers found five control matches of the same age and sex and who attended the same general practice to receive medical care.

Prof. Coupland and colleagues sourced the data from the QResearch database and looked at medical records from between January 1, 2004 and January 31, 2016.

The researchers found that anticholinergic drugs in general were associated with a higher risk of dementia. More specifically, however, anticholinergic antidepressants, antipsychotic drugs, anti-Parkinson's drugs, bladder drugs, and epilepsy drugs were associated with the highest increase in risk.

Can blood pressure drugs help reduce dementia risk?

Can blood pressure drugs help reduce dementia risk?

Drugs that control blood pressure could help reduce the risk of dementia.

Among these, the most frequently prescribed drugs were antidepressants, anti-vertigo drugs, and bladder antimuscarinic drugs (for the treatment of overactive bladders).

inRead invented by Teads

These results remained even after the researchers controlled for confounding variables (or known risk factors for dementia), including body mass index (BMI), smoking status, alcohol use, cardiovascular problems, and the use of other medication, such as antihypertensive drugs.

All in all, the researchers concluded that people aged 55 or over who had taken strong anticholinergics on a daily basis for at least 3 years had an almost 50% higher chance of developing dementia than people who had not used this type of medication.

"This study provides further evidence that doctors should be careful when prescribing certain drugs that have anticholinergic properties," explains study co-author Prof. Tom Dening.

"However," he warns, "it's important that [people] taking medications of this kind don't just stop them abruptly, as this may be much more harmful. If [people] have concerns, then they should discuss them with their doctor to consider the pros and cons of the treatment they are receiving."

'Risks should be carefully considered'

To assess the strength of anticholinergic drugs and how often the participants took them, the team looked at available information about prescriptions over a period of 10 years.

However, they note that this is an observational study, so they cannot confirm whether the drugs are directly responsible for the increased risk of dementia.

The researchers add that doctors may have prescribed some of these drugs to their patients precisely for the treatment of very early dementia symptoms.

Nevertheless, Prof. Coupland argues that the "study adds further evidence of the potential risks associated with strong anticholinergic drugs, particularly antidepressants, bladder antimuscarinic drugs, anti-Parkinson's drugs, and epilepsy drugs."

Source: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325553.php

Medical Groups Warn Climate Change Is A ‘Health Emergency’ by Elana Schor

WASHINGTON (AP) — As Democratic presidential hopefuls prepare for their first 2020 primary debate this week, 74 medical and public health groups aligned on Monday to push for a series of consensus commitments to combat climate change, bluntly defined by the organizations as “a health emergency.”

The new climate change agenda released by the groups, including the American Medical Association and the American Heart Association, comes amid early jostling among Democratic candidates over whose environmental platform is more progressive. The health organizations’ policy recommendations, while a stark departure from President Donald Trump’s approach, represent a back-to-basics approach for an internal Democratic climate debate that has so far revolved around the liberal precepts of the Green New Deal .

“The health, safety and well-being of millions of people in the U.S. have already been harmed by human-caused climate change, and health risks in the future are dire without urgent action to fight climate change,” the medical and public health groups wrote in their climate agenda, shared with The Associated Press in advance of its release.

Among other things, the groups are pressing elected officials and presidential candidates to “meet and strengthen U.S. commitments” under the 2015 United Nations climate agreement from which Trump has vowed to withdraw. They’re also pushing for some form of carbon pricing, although without any reference to potential taxation of emissions, and “a plan and timeline for reduction of fossil fuel extraction in the U.S.”

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s climate change plan, released earlier this month, tracks broadly with several of the medical and public health groups’ priorities. While the groups call for a reduction in petroleum and natural gas use in transportation, they do not go as far as several of Biden’s rivals in supporting an outright ban on the oil and gas extraction technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which involves injecting high-pressure mixtures of water, sand or gravel and chemicals into rock.

Other groups signing onto the list of climate policy priorities include the American Lung Association, the American College of Physicians and multiple state-level and academic public health organizations. That the agenda’s endorsing groups do not operate with “a political axe to grind” could help them draw more attention to climate change, said Ed Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University.

For voters who view climate change “primarily as a threat to things in the environment, like polar bears,” talking about the issue as a health problem could reframe their thinking, Maibach said.

“It’s incredibly helpful when health professionals point out the actual reality of the situation, point out that this is also a threat to our health and well-being now ... and it’s likely to get worse, much worse, if we don’t take action to address it,” he said.

Source: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/medical-groups-climate-change_n_5d10b341e4b0a3941865de66

Stem Cell Therapy helps patient live pain free after 4 days

Stem cell therapy is helping chronic pain sufferers avoid invasive surgery and harmful medications. Riverside Spine and Physical Medicine in Clarksville is on the cutting edge of this exciting regenerative medical technology that can get pain sufferers back to an active and pain-free lifestyle.

Catherine’s Story:

Catherine was living with constant knee pain. She attended a Stem Cell Educational seminar to learn about regenerative medicine.

Here’s how Catherine became pain free after 4 days. “I was walking, getting in and out of the truck without pain. To me, it was a miracle.”

Catherine M. Knee Pain Testimonial – Vitality Healthcare from Vitality Healthcare on Vimeo.

“Surgery and medication are NOT your only options for chronic pain,” says Dr. John Stanton, Orthopedic Surgeon & Medical Director at Riverside Spine & Physical Medicine.

Stem Cell Therapy is revolutionizing the healthcare industry by offering a way for patients to avoid the risks and long recovery times associated with surgery and pain medication. Stem cells can reduce inflammation, decrease pain and improve range-of-motion within weeks of treatment.

HOW DOES STEM CELL THERAPY WORK?

Stem cells have the ability to regenerate damaged tissue. What makes them so amazing is that they can actually rebuild tissue in your body. These special cells seek out areas of injury, disease, and degeneration where they are capable of regenerating cells, which enables an accelerated and natural healing process without the need for drugs or surgery. Stem cells appear to be particularly effective in repairing cartilage and degenerative joints.

IMAGINE AN ACTIVE AND PAIN FREE LIFE

If you are living in constant joint, knee, shoulder, hip, arthritis or neuropathy pain and are tired of taking pain medication or want to avoid invasive surgery, you may be a candidate for this innovative medical procedure. Riverside Spine & Physical Medicine in Clarksville is on the cutting edge of this exciting regenerative medicine technology that can get you back to an active and pain-free lifestyle.

Source: https://clarksvillenow.com/local/stem-cell-therapy-helps-patient-live-pain-free-after-4-days/

What does personalised medicine mean for you? by Dr Emma Davenport

Medicine has always been personal to some extent - a doctor looks for the best way to help the patient sitting in front of them.

But with advances in technology, it is becoming possible to use the most unique of characteristics - our genomes - to tailor treatments for individuals.

Genomes are made up of a complete set of our DNA, including all of our genes, and are the instruction manual on how to build and maintain the 37 trillion cells in our bodies.

Any two people share more than 99% of their DNA. It's the remaining less than 1% that makes us unique, and can affect the severity of a disease and effectiveness of treatments.

Looking at these small differences can also help us understand the best way to treat a patient for a range of diseases - from cancer and heart disease to depression.

Testing cancers

Cancer is the most advanced area of medicine in terms of developing personalised treatments.

In the UK, differences in the DNA sequence are being used by the NHS to help doctors prevent and predict cancer.

For example, women with an increased risk of developing breast or ovarian cancer have been identified by screening for changes to the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes.

Mutations in these genes increase a woman's risk of breast cancer by four-to-eightfold and can explain why some families see many relatives with the disease. A BRCA1 mutation gives women a lifetime risk of ovarian cancer of 40-50%.

Screening has helped women make informed choices about treatment and prevention - for example, whether to have a mastectomy.

It is steps like these - splitting patients into ever smaller groups to identify the best treatments - that is taking us towards personalisation.

'New era' of personalised cancer drugs

'Dismantling cancer' reveals weak spots

Targeted checks 'prevent 10% of heart attacks'

For certain cancers, measuring gene activity is becoming commonplace.

Gene activity is a little like the dimmer switch on a light - it can be set to low, high or anywhere in between. Measuring this allows us to see how active a particular gene is in a tissue or cell.

In breast cancer, a test measuring the activity of 50 genes in tumours can be used to guide decisions about whether the patient will benefit from chemotherapy.

To extend this approach to other cancers, researchers are switching off all of the genes in hundreds of tumours grown in the laboratory. In doing so, scientists are looking for cancer's weaknesses - to try to produce a detailed rule book for precision treatment.

The development of personalised medicine

Genome sequencing is being offered in England to children with rare diseases - and has led to a change of treatment for some

An 11-year-old became the first patient to use a leukaemia drug called CAR-T, which re-programmes the immune system to fight cancer

The entire genetic code of women diagnosed with breast cancer is being mapped by scientists in Cambridge

There are plans to sequence one million genomes in the UK in the next five years

Lifestyle factors

The development of such techniques raises the question: how far can personalisation go?

For illnesses like heart disease, diabetes and infectious diseases, a combination of genetic, lifestyle and life events also play a part.

This means that information about small differences in the DNA sequence alone will not be enough to predict susceptibility and outcome.

Measuring the activity of our genes also captures information about current stresses to the body. For example, certain genes will have a higher or lower activity depending on the type of infection.

Yuvan Thakkar, 11, is the first to receive a drug called CAR-T. His mother, Sapna, said: 'This new therapy is our last hope'

Looking at gene activity could also provide important clues as to how to best treat a patient.

One life-threatening illness where these techniques could help is sepsis.

It is a condition in which the immune system damages its own organs when trying to fight an infection.

Anyone can develop sepsis and it kills 52,000 people each year in the UK - more than breast, bowel and prostate cancer combined. Worldwide, a third of patients who develop sepsis die.

To save lives, general antibiotics are given first to reduce the infection. A blood test is done to find out which particular bacteria have caused the sepsis, so a more targeted antibiotic can be given.

More like this

Can exercise reverse the ageing process?

The disease that returned from the past

Which countries eat the most meat?

The places where too many are fat and too many are thin

But these blood tests take precious time and cannot always identify the bacterium causing the infection.

In our research, we are looking at gene activity in sepsis patients' immune systems, to give us clues as to why different people respond in different ways.

We hope to pinpoint which part of their immune systems are not working properly - helping doctors decide how other drugs could be used.

This demonstrates how personalised medicine could be used for short-term treatment in intensive care, as well as for longer-term illnesses like cancer.

What's next?

One challenge personalisation faces is speed - measuring what is happening in our genes is currently a slow, laboratory-based process.

In order to be most effective in a medical setting, we need to be able to measure gene activity in a patient's blood instantly.

New technology like the microelectrode biosensor device - which flags real-time critical changes in the blood - is being developed to make rapid analysis a reality.

Through such advances it is hoped that genomic information, including gene activity, could become part of a GP's toolkit.

Given recent advances in research and technology, the information in our genomes is likely to be used more and more often and in settings beyond cancer.

Researchers are looking at the genetic links to depression and anxiety, to help them understand the causes and develop new personalised treatments.

They are also accessing large datasets like the UK Biobank to use the small differences in DNA sequence to identify people at high risk of a heart attack later in life.

It is unlikely that information from your genome will result in a "personalised pill" being manufactured just for you. Rather it could help doctors to tailor the right combination of medicines to treat the right person at the right time.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-48254137

Study Finds Hundreds of Medical Procedures To Be Ineffective by Jessica Baron

Before any medical product or procedure is adopted, it must undergo clinical trials to evaluate its effectiveness. In a randomized clinical trial, subjects are assigned to two or more groups with some receiving the treatment and others receiving none, or a placebo. By comparing outcomes between the two groups, we should be able to see just how useful a treatment is. The subjects (and in the gold standard, the double-blind trial, the scientists as well) are not told which group they’ve been assigned to, theoretically ensuring that there is no bias in reporting about outcomes.

Unfortunately, not all randomized control trials are conducted under ideal circumstances – there can be ethical misconduct (such as financial pressures) as well as design flaws. If the pool of test subjects is too small or heterogeneous, for example, we might not get statistically significant data.

There’s also the issue of reproducibility – a trial may show positive results but those results can never be replicated. Inadequate trials can be enough to get the ball rolling on a treatment or, in some cases, off-label usage of an FDA-approved treatment can be suggested by a small study and be taken up by the medical community despite inadequate evidence. That’s why we (should) continue to conduct trials on treatments even after they’re in use.

In a recent analysis of 3,000 articles from the world’s leading medical journals, a team of researchers has found nearly 400 instances in which a treatment turned out to be of little or no use and in need of a reversal. A medical reversal occurs when a superior clinical trial contradicts current clinical practices.

In order to get this number, the team analyzed randomized clinical trials published over the last 15 years in three of the world’s leading medical journals: the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine.

Identifying low-value medical practices (those that either don’t work or have a cheaper and equally effective alternative) is key to reducing the cost of health care and assuring public trust in medicine. The researchers hope that their work will help eliminate the use of these practices.

So what doesn’t work?

The list represents practices from all disciplines of medical care, but reversals were most common in procedures related to cardiovascular disease (accounting for 20% of the 400 ineffective measures) followed by public health/preventive medicine and critical care.

Regarding the type of intervention, medications were the most likely to have the effectiveness called into question by later studies (in 33% of the 3000 articles), followed by a procedure (20% of articles), vitamin/supplement (13%), devices (9%), and system intervention (8%).

A summary of selected reversals found in the course of their research indicates that the following were found to be ineffective or no better than cheaper alternatives:

The use of sertraline and mirtazapine in those with Alzheimer's disease

The use of compression stockings to reduce the risk of deep vein thrombosis after stroke

Mammographic screening every 1–2 years for women ages 40–49

Wearable technology for long-term weight loss

Vitamin A supplementation among neonates at birth

The use of Zopiclone, a non-benzodiazepine sleeping pill, for insomnia

Automated chest compression devices for resuscitation (compared to manual)

Pulmonary Artery Catheterization after congestive heart failure

External hip protectors to prevent hip fractures

Epidural glucocorticoid injections for lumbar stenosis

You can learn more about the details here.

The researchers also mentioned that these practices add to a previous report in 2013 that listed 146 medical reversals published during the years 2001–2010.

If you’re wondering about the cost, it’s enormous. Prior studies have shown that among Medicare recipients alone a large number are receiving treatments which were later deemed ineffective. In a 2014 study of 26 low-value services provided to older adults through Medicare, the estimated spending was between $1.9 and $8.5 billion in 2008-2009 alone, with 25% of recipients receiving treatments later found to be ineffective or economically inefficient.

The medical reversals were not confined to doctors’ offices, but also included “behavioral practices (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy or mindfulness interventions), complementary or non-traditional practices (e.g., acupuncture), dietary supplements (e.g. omega-3 fatty acids or vitamin A supplementation), community practices (e.g., programs to prevent teenage pregnancy or self-poisoning), or wearable technology.”

There is a tremendous amount of research that shows up in journals and is implemented based on flawed studies, studies that are too small to be meaningful, and studies whose funding comes from the company selling or licensing the product or procedure. The researchers point out that their study highlights “the importance of independent, governmental and non-conflicted funding of clinical research.”

The majority of reversal studies we found were funded by such sources (63.9%), with a minority funded solely by the industry (9.1%). Conversely, industry-funded research represented between 35–49% of trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov during years 2006 through 2014.

So what should we be doing differently?

For starters, we should continue to perform randomized clinical trials on both novel and established practices in order to gauge their long-term effectiveness and reproducibility. Next, we should be wary of rushing treatment into practice without good data. Once a treatment becomes widespread, it’s difficult to get people – physicians included – to abandon it.

By aiming to test novel treatments before they are widespread, we can reduce the number of reversals in practice and prevent harm to patients and to the reputation of the medical field.

Nevertheless, the goal, say the researchers, is the de-adoption of low-value medical practices, not only for the sake of patient well-being but for massive cost savings in medical care.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessicabaron/2019/06/13/study-finds-hundreds-of-medical-procedures-to-be-ineffective/#4708edc11138

Medical cuts could cause irreversible damage by Michael Cowan

Change is a constant in the military. Military medicine has undergone numerous sea-changes over the past four decades, including the switch from a drafted force to an all-volunteer force, downsizing, the development of the TRICARE system, the implementation of TRICARE for Life, and now — more downsizing.

Through to the present, the system has handled all these challenges successfully (some smoother than others). In these past evolutions, there was sufficient time and flexibility for the system to absorb the changes without damaging its foundations.

However, veterans of these exercises, myself included, are concerned the magnitude and timeline of today’s proposed changes are too great to absorb without fundamental damage to its infrastructure.

DoD’s FY 2020 budget is calling for the elimination of 18,000 medical billets, or about 20% of the force. While DoD has provided few specifics, the stated goals are to streamline the Military Health System (MHS), empower the Defense Health Agency to expand and execute its assigned mission, and move excess medical manpower resources to enhance warfighting “lethality” while improving the delivery of health care to MHS beneficiaries. These objectives seem sound and reasonable and deserve to be fully supported. The question is, will the plans — as outlined — accomplish those missions?

My college physics professor was fond of stating that a 20% change in a physical system was a threat to the system itself. The current proposal to implement a 20% reduction in forces without compensating resources represent an existential threat to military medicine.

Complexity = Vulnerability

The structure of military medicine is complex. The system recruits, educates, and trains physicians, dentists, nurses, additional health care professionals and an administrative structure with a unique ability to provide high quality traditional medical care and to deploy worldwide with U.S. forces to a fight anywhere in the world. No other allied nation can duplicate the capabilities of U.S. military medical departments, and many allied nations are highly dependent on our medical force support for their ability to deploy their own troops. The U.S. military medical capability isn’t just an American treasure; it is a critical part of the defense structure of the free world.

The complexity of that system is its vulnerability. Military medicine must compete to attract health care professionals with the rest of American medicine. Military health care professionals take on two specialties: their primary peacetime role (e.g., internist, psychiatrist, surgeon) and a warfare specialty (e.g., flight surgeon, undersea medicine, special operations). The “pool” of health professionals both willing and able to take on such responsibilities is not deep.

Post-graduate medical education is a complex ecosystem that requires an infrastructure of supporting specialties and functionalities. Military medicine already struggles with the adequacy of the programs because of size limitations, and further qualitative cuts could be lethal to the greatest attraction to military medicine for young professionals.

No way back

Health care has been the top-rated benefit affecting retention of military members in all services for decades. An all-volunteer force requires not only good medical care for deployed forces but also care for dependents left at home. A deployed soldier whose child is sick back home in Nebraska is not, in military jargon, “a full up round.” That soldier needs the peace of mind that his family is being well cared for by a health care system he understands and trusts.

Military people expect their health care system to follow them into retirement. Retired personnel and their dependents have grown to be the majority of the beneficiaries of the MHS due to the demographics of an all-volunteer force. A typical Marine in Vietnam was 18 and single — whose only military aspiration was to serve his term and go back to civilian life. By contrast, a typical Marine in the Gulf War was 23 years old, married with one or two children, working toward a college equivalent degree, and considering a career in the Marine Corps. More careers, more dependents, and a deep personal identification with military medicine are all structurally ingrained and must be factored for any major system changes.

Should these concerns come to pass, the unintended consequences could be profound and long lasting. If the system implodes, it cannot be rebuilt overnight. There is a cautionary saying in medicine that “once the medication has been shot out of the syringe, there is no getting it back.” If the MHS undergoes 20% uncompensated manpower reductions, as outlined in the current proposals, I fear there will be no way to get the system back.

Source: https://www.militarytimes.com/opinion/commentary/2019/06/13/medical-cuts-could-cause-irreversible-damage/