Desperate for a Kidney Transplant

A recent NY Times article delves into the issues of kidney trafficking: NY Times Kidney Trafficking

Here’s an excerpt:

In the United States, the number of kidney transplants has remained static for a decade at 16,000 to 17,000 a year. During the same period, the waiting list for kidneys from deceased donors has nearly doubled, passing 100,000 this year. The median wait time for an adult [for a kidney transplant] is more than four years, and more than 4,000 die waiting each year.

Some physicians and ethicists question the relative morality of allowing thousands to die just because the means of saving them is considered repugnant. A regulated marketplace, they say, could all but eliminate the shortage. It is no accident, they argue, that the only country that allows compensation for donors — Iran — effectively has no waiting list.

Experts list China, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics as hot spots for organ trafficking. But illicit transplants usually go undetected unless there is a surgical mistake or a payment dispute. Prosecutions are thwarted by false affidavits, toothless laws and lack of international cooperation, particularly regarding extradition.

What Happens with Cost Transparency in Medicine?

While it is true that some tests, like MRI and CT scans, may be performed better (better images, better contrast administration, etc) at some locations than others, many times the test is similar but the costs to the patient may be widely divergent.  Yet, for most patients the exact costs are not known until the bill arrives in the mail.  A recent study shows that many patients will consider the costs of these expensive tests if they are provided beforehand.  Here’s the NY Times link, MRI study,  and an excerpt:

study released Monday in the journal Health Affairs suggests we are smarter than that.

The insurer WellPoint provided members who had scheduled an appointment for an elective magnetic resonance imaging test with a list of other scanners in their area that could do the test at a lower price. The alternative providers had been vetted for quality, and patients were asked if they wanted help rescheduling the test somewhere that delivered “better value.”

Fifteen percent of patients agreed to change their test to a cheaper center. “We shined a light on costs,” said Dr. Sam Nussbaum, WellPoint’s chief medical officer. “We acted as a concierge and engaged consumers giving them information about cost and quality.”

The program resulted in a $220 cost reduction (18.7 percent) per test over the course of two years, said Andrea DeVries, the director of payer and provider research at HealthCore, a subsidiary of WellPoint, which conducted the study. It compared the costs of scanning people in the WellPoint program with those of people in plans that did not offer such services.

Related blog posts:

Using Preoperative Aspirin to Prevent Postoperative Problems –Negative Study

A recent study has looked at whether giving aspirin prior to surgery can help those who take aspirin and also those who do not (NEJM 2014; 1494-503).  This trial called POISE-2 (Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation 2) was undertaken to determine if low-dose aspirin, as compared to placebo, would affect 30-day risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction.

The relevance of this study relates to aspirin’s known potential for preventing venous thromboembolism and the fact that “one-third of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery who are at risk for major vascular complications receive perioperative aspirin.”

The study enrolled 10,010 patients and employed a 2-by-2 trial design to account for whether they had been taking aspirin.  The study took place between 2010-2013 at 135 hospitals and 23 countries.  Mean age was 68 years in both groups.

Results:

  • The rate of death was similar in both groups: 7.0% for aspirin and 7.1% for placebo (hazard ratio 0.99)
  • Major bleeding was more common with aspirin than placebo: 4.6% vs. 3.8% (P=0.04).

Bottomline: Perioperative aspirin had no significant beneficial effect.

Related study: NEJM 2014; 370: 1504-13.  Conclusion: “Administration of low-dose clonidien in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery did not reduce the rate of” death or nonfatal myocardial infarction.  Patients who received clonidine had more frequent hypotension and nonfatal cardiac arrest.

Epidemic of Aggressive Care vis-a-vis Breast Cancer

In many areas of medicine, the need for increased certainty of cure and diagnostic certainty leads to other problems; sometimes, “the perfect is the enemy of the good.” While this happens in pediatric gastroenterology, the frequency is probably greatest in oncology.  A recent terrific article in the NY Times by Peggy Orenstein highlights an epidemic of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in the care of patients with breast cancer.

Here are a couple of points and the link –Wrong Approach to Breast Cancer:

  • According to a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2009, among those with ductal carcinoma in situ — a non-life-threatening, “stage 0” cancer — the rates of mastectomy with C.P.M. jumped 188 percent between 1998 and 2005. Among those with early-stage invasive disease, the rates went up 150 percent between 1998 and 2003. Most of these women did not carry a genetic mutation, like the actress Angelina Jolie, that predisposes them to the disease.
  • Overestimation of their actual chances of contracting a second cancer. In a 2013 study conducted by the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, for instance, women under 40 with no increased genetic risk and disease in one breast believed that within five years, 10 out of 100 of them would develop it in the other; the actual risk is about 2 to 4 percent.
  • Underestimated the potential complications and side effects of C.P.M. Breasts don’t just screw off, like jar lids: Infections can occur, implants can break through the skin or rupture, tissue relocated from elsewhere in the body can fail. Even if all goes well, a reconstructed breast has little sensation. Mine looks swell, and is a remarkably close match to its natural counterpart, but from the inside it feels pretty much like a glued-on tennis ball.
  • The most comprehensive study yet, published earlier this month in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, showed virtually no survival benefit from the procedure — less than 1 percent over 20 years.
  • How can that be? Well, first of all, it is extremely rare for a tumor on one side to spread to the other. Cancer doesn’t just leap from breast to breast.

Related blog post:

Facts, “Misfearing” and Women’s Health | gutsandgrowth

Disclaimer: These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications/diets (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician/nutritionist.  This content is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified healthcare provider. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a condition.

 

Medical School Student vs. Dr. Oz

A recent link from Vox (highlight on KT Park’s twitter feed) highlights a medical student’s actions against Dr. Oz’s pseudoscience.

Here’s an excerpt:

Benjamin Mazer is a third-year medical student at the University of Rochester. Last year, after becoming increasingly concerned with the public-health impact of Dr. Mehmet Oz’s sometimes pseudoscience health advice, he decided to ask state and national medical associations to do something about it.

“Dr. Oz has something like 4-million viewers a day,” Mazer told Vox. “The average physician doesn’t see a million patients in their lifetime. That’s why organized medicine should be taking action.”…

We had all of this first-hand experience with patients who really liked his show and trusted him quite a bit. [Dr. Oz] would give advice that was really not great or it had no medical basis. It might sound harmless when you talk about things like herbal pills or supplements. But when the physicians’ advice conflicted with Oz, the patients would believe Oz….

I wrote policy for the Medical Society of the State of New York [where Dr. Oz is licensed] and the American Medical Association asking them to more actively address medical quackery on TV and in the media—specifically Dr. Oz.

Related blog posts:

How Soccer Can Be Bad for Your Health

When people complain that “everything is bad for your health,” they just might be right.  After yesterday’s soccer match, the NEJM posted a link to a 2008 article (N Engl J Med 2008; 358:475-483).  Here’s part of the abstract:

Methods: Cardiovascular events occurring in patients in the greater Munich area were prospectively assessed by emergency physicians during the World Cup. We compared those events with events that occurred during the control period: May 1 to June 8 and July 10 to July 31, 2006, and May 1 to July 31 in 2003 and 2005.

Results: Acute cardiovascular events were assessed in 4279 patients. On days of matches involving the German team, the incidence of cardiac emergencies was 2.66 times that during the control period…On those days, the highest average incidence of events was observed during the first 2 hours after the beginning of each match.

Conclusions: Viewing a stressful soccer match more than doubles the risk of an acute cardiovascular event.

Take-home point: Some people are not lying when they say they live and die with their favorite team.

Pancreas Transplantation -Moving Personal Story

A recent lengthy article describes the story of one man’s wait and ordeal after pancreas transplantation (due to diabetes).  This article, written as a first-person account by a Cincinnati reporter, provides a detailed view from the patient’s viewpoint of both medical aspects and the social/emotional aspects of undergoing a transplantation.

Here’s the link, from USA Today: John Faherty, “How an Organ Transplantation Changed My Life.”

Vaccine Safety -Put into Perspective

For anyone concerned about vaccine safety, putting the risks into perspective may be helpful:

“The most dangerous aspect of giving your child vaccines is driving to the office to get them,” according to Paul Offit, chief of infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in Vaccine Safety Article from USA Today.

With regard to exemptions, a recent study has shown that private schools have higher vaccine exemption rates (4.25%) than public schools (1.91%) (J Pediatr 2014; 165: 129-33).  Using CDC data for 35 states (& district of Columbia), the authors noted that there were 48,931 exemptions in 2009-2010 with only 7146 for medical reasons.  For individual states, Hawaii had the highest private school exemption rate at 14.88% and Washington had the highest public school exemption rate at 6.08%.

The authors note that parents with “higher income and educational levels expressed more concerns about vaccine safety.”  However, they state that “parents who object to immunizations have been considered ‘free riders’ as they take advantage of the benefit created by children who assume any potential risk of adverse reactions.”

In a brief summary, Sarah Long, an infectious disease expert and associate editor of The Journal of Pediatrics, questions how these parents can be “so mistrustful of doctors…and yet so confident in their own musings? At the same time that they are attempting to advantage their children by attendant a private school, they are putting their children in harm’s way.”

Related blog posts:

ACA -A Report Card

A recent succinct commentary describes the ~20 million people who gained coverage as a result of the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare; the exact number who were uninsured prior is not known.  While the article provides a clearer picture of this expansion, it also makes the point that there are many issues that need to be addressed including cost containment.  Other subjects:

  • Cancelled policies
  • Risk pools and premiums (lower than projected thus far)
  • Narrow Provider Networks
  • Crucial Younger Age Group Enrollment
  • Small Business and Mandate
  • Individual Marketplaces
  • State Marketplaces
  • Medicaid Expansion (limited in many states)

Here is the link –the entire report is worth a read: ACA -20 million Americans

Here is an excerpt:

Taking all existing coverage expansions together, we estimate that 20 million Americans have gained coverage as of May 1 under the ACA (Figure 3 Categories of Expanded Health Insurance Coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).). We do not know yet exactly how many of these people were previously uninsured, but it seems certain that many were. Recent national surveys seem to confirm this presumption. The CBO projects that the law will decrease the number of uninsured people by 12 million this year and by 26 million by 2017. Early polling data from Gallup, RAND, and the Urban Institute indicate that the number of uninsured people may have already declined by 5 million to 9 million and that the proportion of U.S. adults lacking insurance has fallen from 18% in the third quarter of 2013 to 13.4% in May 2014.

However, these surveys may underestimate total gains, since some were fielded before the late March enrollment surge and do not include children. With continuing enrollment through individual marketplaces, Medicaid, and SHOP, the numbers of Americans gaining insurance for the first time — or insurance that is better in quality or more affordable than their previous policy — will total in the many tens of millions.

As we look to the future of the coverage provisions of the ACA and their effect on the U.S. health care system, several observations seem justified. First, as the number of individuals benefiting from the law grows, its wholesale repeal will grow less likely, although the law could still be importantly modified in the future.

Second, experience with the ACA will vary enormously among states. Those deciding not to expand Medicaid will benefit far less from the law, and since many of these states have high rates of uninsured residents and lower health status, the ACA may have the paradoxical effect of increasing disparities across regions, even as it reduces disparities between previously insured and uninsured Americans as a whole.17

Third, the sustainability of the coverage expansions will depend to a great extent on the ability to control the overall costs of care in the United States. Otherwise, premiums will become increasingly unaffordable for consumers, employers, and the federal government. Insurers who seek to control those costs through increasingly narrow provider networks across all U.S. insurance markets may ultimately leave Americans less satisfied with their health care. Developing and spreading innovative approaches to health care delivery that provide greater quality at lower cost is the next great challenge facing the nation.