Category Archives: policy

New activity guidelines

  • 60 minutes physical activity per day
  • Add muscle strengthening exercise twice a week

http://theconversation.com/sit-less-move-more-new-physical-activity-guidelines-22948

Sit less, move more: new physical activity guidelines

If you’ve been sitting for an hour, you’ve been sitting for too long. Image from shutterstock.com

Australians should aim for around 60 minutes of physical activity per day, double the previous recommendation, according the new national physical activity guidelines, published today.

And for the first time, the guidelines urge the 12 million Australians who are sedentary or have low levels of physical activity to limit the time they spend sitting.

The recommendations aim to prevent unhealthy weight gain and reduce the risk of some cancers. Physical inactivity is the second-greatest contributor to the nation’s cancer burden, behind smoking.

The guidelines emphasise that doing any physical activity is better than doing none, but ideally adults will get 150 minutes of moderate physical activity each week. This includes brisk walking, recreational swimming, dancing and household tasks such as raking leaves.

This could be swapped for 75 minutes of high-intensity exercise that makes you “huff and puff”, such as jogging, aerobics, fast cycling and many organised sports. Ten minutes of vigorous exercise equals moderate-intensity activity.

The guidelines also recommend including muscle-strengthening activities at least two times a week. This could be achieved by going to the gym and using free weights or resistance exercise machines.

“But it also includes things like going to the store and carrying your shopping bags,” said Jannique van Uffelen, senior research fellow in active living at Victoria University. “It’s anything where you’ve got repeated stimuli with increasing weight or resistance for your muscles so they become stronger.”

Baker IDI’s laboratory head of physical activity David Dunstan said he was heartened to see the recommendations emphasise the health harms of prolonged sitting, for which there has been growing evidence over the past decade.

“For many people, sitting occupies a lot of their time. We need to be encouraging people to avoid long periods of sitting and break up sitting throughout the day,” he said.

“If you’ve been sitting for an hour, you’ve been sitting for too long. We should be aiming to break up sitting times with light-intensity activity one to two times per hour.”

The other major change to the guidelines is the inclusion of muscle strengthening activity, Associate Professor Dunstan said, and the acknowledgement that while brisk walking will improve heart fitness, it will not necessarily improve muscle strength.

“What happens is as we hit the age of 45, we start to lose our muscle mass and that’s accelerated once we get past 65,” he said. “As we lose our muscle mass, we lose our muscle strength, which is an important part of our daily lives.”

Dr van Uffelen said the guidelines were “thorough and comprehensive” and based on the latest international evidence. But with just 43% of Australians meeting the previous target of 30 minutes of moderate-intensity activity on most days of the week, many people found it difficult to work the recommendations into their day-to-day life.

“We live in a society where it’s often easier to jump in a car than to go for a walk or to get to places on your bike,” Dr van Uffelen said.

Governments must “make it easier for people to choose the active option, instead of the passive option – for example, good infrastructure for active transport,” she said.

Kids’ activity

The guidelines recommend children aged five to 12 accumulate at least 60 minutes of moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity each day and include activities that strengthen the muscles and bones three days per week.

“We’re not suggesting that young children go out and start lifting weights,” said Alfred Deakin Professor at Deakin University Jo Salmon, who co-authored the scientific review and recommendations for children.

“Strength training activities include running, jumping, skipping, sports like netball or basketball – anything that involves being on your feet and running around. Even hanging from the monkey bars, you’re holding their own body weight,” she said.

“This is based on evidence around strength training for optimising bone health for kids – that’s really going to see them have much less chance of developing osteoporosis in adulthood. Childhood is really a key period for laying down healthy bones.”

The guidelines also emphasise the importance of reducing the time children spend sitting. And it’s not just to promote physical health, Professor Salmon said, emerging evidence shows prolonged sitting affects cognitive development and educational outcomes.

Teachers can play a part by delivering standing lessons, she said, by delivering standing lessons, getting children up during class, giving active homework and encouraging students to complete their homework while standing.

“The other major part of sitting for a lot kids and adolescents is sitting in a car. So if you can promote active transport and even public transport and walking to school, you’re going to reduce the sitting time in transit,” Professor Salmon said.

Confectioners prepare for sugar batter

Industry response – resealable packages… SO CYNICAL!!

http://www.confectionerynews.com/Regulation-Safety/Sugar-health-concerns-overblown-claims-confectionery-industry

Confectionery industry prepares to battle its sugar demons

Scientists have linked added sugars to obesity, type two diabetes, heart disease and tooth decay, but the candy industry says the commodity is being unfairly demonized. Photo Credit: The Health Guardians

Scientists have linked added sugars to obesity, type two diabetes, heart disease and tooth decay, but the candy industry says the commodity is being unfairly demonized. Photo Credit: The Health Guardians

The US National Confectioners Association (NCA) and leading US firms say sugar has been ‘unjustly’ victimized in recent months and the public should be free to enjoy a sweet treat if they so desire.

Sugar came under fire at the turn of the year after scientists behind the Consensus Action on Salt and Health (CASH) set up Action on Sugar , a group urging manufacturers to curb global obesity by cutting sugar in brands by 30-40%.

Sugar ‘demonized’

The confectionery industry issued its response at the recent International Sweets and Biscuits Fair (ISM) in Cologne, Germany.

Larry Graham, president of the NCA, said that sugared confectionery was a sometime indulgence that could fit into a healthy diet.

“Sugar’s getting a bad rep unnecessarily. It’s a minority of NGOs and food activists that are demonizing sugar. There are these claims that sugar is addictive and toxic, but there’s no science that supports that.”

He said that almost 50% of Americans’ confectionery consumption came at four major holidays – Halloween, Christmas, Easter and Valentine’s – which meant candy had a limited impact on the population’s health.

A sometime indulgence

How much sugar do we consume?

According to FAO figures, global average added sugar consumption is about 24 kg a year – equivalent to 66 g a day or 260 calories a day. The EU figure is closer to 32 kg a year, or 350 calories a day.

The NCA chief continued that the major concern was ‘hidden sugars’ – sugars in product you may not expect, such as ketchup and pasta sauces. ”That’s not the case with us – it’s clear what’s in our products.”

Promotion In Motion CEO Michael Rosenberg added: “Candy is 2% of the diet, so when it comes to holidays or someone wanting to relax and enjoy a little treat, they ought to be able to.”

“We represent such a small share of the overall caloric intake of the average person and it’s only a small minority of groups that are blowing this way out of proportion.”

Recent science

Excessive consumption of added sugars in drinks, snacks and sweets was recently associated with an increased risk of dying from heart disease, according to a major US review published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Action On Sugar’s chairman Graham MacGregor, professor of Cardiovascular Medicine at the Wolfson Institute previously told ConfectioneryNews that unnecessary’ added sugar was indisputably linked to rising global obesity and type 2 diabetes. He said there was no commercial reason not to reduce sugar in products and called downsizing the preferred option.

The World Health Organization’s (WHO) recommends that no more than 10% of calories in a person’s diet should come from added sugars, but it is widely anticipated to cut its recommendation to 5% in light of scientific research linking sugar to tooth decay.

“Any fermentable carbohydrate left on your teeth will cause cavities. Some candies are a little stickier, but there’s no indication that there’s any increase in cavities because of the consumption of candy.” said NCA president Graham, who also claimed that current WHO sugar guidelines for sugar were not supported by science.

Jelly Belly: Educating consumers to exercise discipline

 “It’s all a question of discipline,” said Sharon Duncan, vice president of International Business at Jelly Belly.

“But candy is an indulgent treat – the body needs sugar – it’s not something we feel should be demonized and we’re doing everything we can to educate the public.”


Jelly Belly manufactures a sugar-free line for the US that uses Tate & Lyle’s sucralose sweetener Splenda. It plans to introduce the product in Canada and the Middle East, but indicated that demand was not yet great enough to warrant a global rollout.

“It’s a significant segment of the market but the demand for non-sugar-free is significantly higher. It seems a more pronounced request in the Middle East than in other markets. Quite honestly it’s such a small request that we don’t feel obligated to be doing it for the rest of the world.”

Portion control and reseal packs

The NCA said that many of its members were unwilling to sacrifice on taste for a reduced sugar product.

“But one thing we are seeing is more packaging that allows you to save the bar; you can eat half the bar and repackage it,” said Graham.

The NCA has earmarked education as a priority for the year ahead and said it would look to educate consumers on how confections fit into a healthy diet. The organization is also funding research. One recent NCA-backed study found that children could eat candy in moderation without increasing their risk of becoming obese and developing heart problems later in life.

Caroline Scott-Thomas, editor of our sister site FoodNavigator , said in a recent editorial that it was time for the food industry to embrace moderation for added sugars like the rest of us – or risk appearing like the tobacco industry.

Our recent special on sweeteners explored possible alternative sweeteners for confectionery. Click below to read about the most viable alternatives in:
Chocolate 
Sugar confectionery 
Gum

Big Sugar needs to tone down the rhetoric…

Interesting references in the comments.

sugar, health and bigotry

Following an exhaustive review of some 1500 studies on sugar published in the British Medical Journal last year, the authors Te Morenga et al noted that ““any link to body weight was due to overconsumption of calories and was not specific to sugars”. Walter Willett, a professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, responding to the study, pointed out that “the association between sugar and poor health has remained contentious over the past few decades.” A totally narrow focus on sugar is simply too limiting, as “Many starchy foods, particularly highly processed grains and potato products, have a high glycemic index, raising blood glucose and insulin more rapidly than an equivalent amount of sucrose.” He goes on to say that “Unfortunately, the 2003 WHO report disregarded evidence suggesting that refined grain and potato products have metabolic effects comparable to those of sugar.” It is apparent that the charlatans parading their medical and nutritional backgrounds, greedy for publicity, are quite prepared to attack sugar without reference to solid scientific evidence.

Posted by Arvind Chudasama

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Market-Trends/Smoke-signals-Sugar-industry-needs-to-embrace-moderation-like-the-rest-of-us/

Smoke signals: Sugar industry needs to embrace moderation (like the rest of us)

Sugar is not like tobacco. So why does the sugar industry keep borrowing tobacco industry terms?

Most of us could cut back on the sweet stuff. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends less than 10% of our calories should come from added sugars, but few of us manage that.

According to FAO figures, average global added sugar consumption is about 24 kg a year – equivalent to about 260 calories a day – but in the EU, the figure is closer to 32 kg a year, or an average of nearly 350 calories a day. (And Americans eat nearly half that again in the form of high fructose corn syrup.)

But does sugar warrant the bad press it’s had in recent months? I think not, but industry is not doing itself any favours with its response to genuine concerns about the health issues that come with too much sugar.

Even the most vociferous sugar critic (I’m looking at you, Robert Lustig ) doesn’t suggest that the odd spoonful of sugar is going to kill you. The problem is over-consumption – a big one, considering that most of us are guilty of it. What’s more, looking at average consumption is only helpful to a point; there are some consumers who eat and drink far, far more sugar than could be construed as healthy.

Tobacco, on the other hand, has no known ‘safe’ consumption level .

Cringeworthy, knee-jerk denial?

There has been a flurry of studies linking sugar with poor health outcomes – and every one of them is clear about the problem being large amounts of dietary sugar, rather than any sugar at all. But that’s not what you’d think from reading reactions from industry – and, to be fair, some pretty hysterical headlines from the media.

The industry needs to accept that there is a mounting pile of evidence suggesting that excessive sugar intake is worse for the body than we ever suspected. In particular, excessive consumption has been linked to heart disease and cancers , in some very large observational studies. Sugar users have been quick to point out that these are observational studies, which can prove association but not cause and effect.

“Importantly, demonstrating association is not the same as establishing causation,” said the American Beverage Association, after a major US review linked high sugar intakes with significantly increased risk of death from heart disease. This kind of knee-jerk protectionist reaction makes me cringe.

Where are the double-blind randomised controlled trials? Well, it’s simply not possible to design such a study – at least not without major ethical concerns. Who’s volunteering their children, from birth, for a strictly controlled diet alongside an intravenous solution that may or may not be sugar syrup for the next 50 years, so we can see once and for all which group has the highest rate of heart disease?

And doesn’t this sound familiar? That’s right, the tobacco industry rolled out the same message.

As recently as 2003, the British tobacco firm Imperial used as a defence in court documents:“Cigarette smoking has not been scientifically established as a cause of lung cancer. The cause or causes of lung cancer are unknown.”

The UK government had accepted the cancer-tobacco link in 1957. Thankfully, no one had to volunteer their kids to ‘prove’ that link in a controlled trial.

The middle road

Of course, there are exceptions to blundering PR messages in the sugar sector. It was refreshing to hear AB Sugar’s head of food science saying earlier this week that the company“would not advocate a high sugar diet”. Yes, sugar can have a role to play in making foods and drinks tasty, and it should be okay to say that; we don’t have to live on kale and açaï berries.

I have a message for sugar makers and sugar users: It may not be unhealthy per se, but you need to accept that sugar is not healthy either. Accept that intakes need to continue on a downward trajectory for a while yet. Diversify your portfolio to include zero-calorie sweeteners. Keep cutting sugar.

Then reap the rewards of a healthier population – that can keep eating moderate amounts of sugar for longer – and avoid the PR nightmare of constantly trying to defend a nutritionally questionable product.

Everyone loves sugar. Unlike the tobacco industry, you’ve got nothing to worry about.

5 COMMENTS

sugar, health and bigotry

Following an exhaustive review of some 1500 studies on sugar published in the British Medical Journal last year, the authors Te Morenga et al noted that ““any link to body weight was due to overconsumption of calories and was not specific to sugars”. Walter Willett, a professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, responding to the study, pointed out that “the association between sugar and poor health has remained contentious over the past few decades.” A totally narrow focus on sugar is simply too limiting, as “Many starchy foods, particularly highly processed grains and potato products, have a high glycemic index, raising blood glucose and insulin more rapidly than an equivalent amount of sucrose.” He goes on to say that “Unfortunately, the 2003 WHO report disregarded evidence suggesting that refined grain and potato products have metabolic effects comparable to those of sugar.” It is apparent that the charlatans parading their medical and nutritional backgrounds, greedy for publicity, are quite prepared to attack sugar without reference to solid scientific evidence.

REPORT ABUSE

Posted by Arvind Chudasama
12 February 2014 | 09h18

Why does the sugar industry keep borrowing tobacco industry terms?

“So why does the sugar industry keep borrowing tobacco industry terms?”

The answer is stunningly obvious – it is responding to tactics by the anti-sugar campaigners that are exact copies of the tactics of anti-tobacco advocates.

REPORT ABUSE

Posted by Stephen
11 February 2014 | 23h02

Meta knee-jerk

“This kind of knee-jerk protectionist reaction makes me cringe”

This is in itself pretty much a knee-jerk reaction. Too often the results of observational studies get completely blown out of proportion. Thus it is absolutely legitimate to point to the difference between correlation and causation. Just pointing at the tobacco industry is also not a very convincing argument because the similarity of the defense strategy of both industries does not tell us anything about the science. Yes, one can’t do double-blind randomised controlled trials but that doesn’t mean we can just skip ahead to the conclusion that suits our opinion.

REPORT ABUSE

Posted by PhD candidate
11 February 2014 | 18h21

Sugar is also addictive

Another key point the sugar industry denies: like tobacco, sugar is addictive. No wonder so many people have difficulty consuming it in moderation, especially when we are overloading kids on sugar and hooking them early.

REPORT ABUSE

Posted by Casey
11 February 2014 | 16h27

Sugar makes the mood go up

Several years ago our MIT research on the mood changes of premenstrual women found sugar along with other carbohydrates significantly improved mood. Our findings were published in leading ob/gyn journals. The reason: consuming sugar and other non-fructose carbohydrates increases serotonin which is inactive during PMS

REPORT ABUSE

Posted by Judith J Wurtman Ph.D
11 February 2014 | 15h16

 

Doctors move to salaried positions…

Spineless rent seeking psychopaths.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/us/salaried-doctors-may-not-lead-to-cheaper-health-care.html?_r=0

Apprehensive, Many Doctors Shift to Jobs With Salaries

By 

Launch media viewer
Dr. Suzanne Salamon, with a patient at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, said she has had trouble filling a prestigious fellowship because of relatively low salaries. Katherine Taylor for The New York Times
American physicians, worried about changes in the health care market, are streaming into salaried jobs with hospitals. Though the shift from private practice has been most pronounced in primary care, specialists are following.

Last year, 64 percent of job offers filled through Merritt Hawkins, one of the nation’s leading physician placement firms, involved hospital employment, compared with only 11 percent in 2004. The firm anticipates a rise to 75 percent in the next two years.

Today, about 60 percent of family doctors and pediatricians, 50 percent of surgeons and 25 percent of surgical subspecialists — such as ophthalmologists and ear, nose and throat surgeons — are employees rather than independent, according to the American Medical Association. “We’re seeing it changing fast,” said Mark E. Smith, president of Merritt Hawkins.

Health economists are nearly unanimous that the United States should move away from fee-for-service payments to doctors, the traditional system where private physicians are paid for each procedure and test, because it drives up the nation’s $2.7 trillion health care bill by rewarding overuse. But experts caution that the change from private practice to salaried jobs may not yield better or cheaper care for patients.

“In many places, the trend will almost certainly lead to more expensive care in the short run,” said Robert Mechanic, an economist who studies health care at Brandeis University’s Heller School for Social Policy and Management.

When hospitals gather the right mix of salaried front-line doctors and specialists under one roof, it can yield cost-efficient and coordinated patient care. The Kaiser system in California and Intermountain Healthcare in Utah are considered models for how this can work.

But many of the new salaried arrangements have evolved from hospitals looking for new revenues, and could have the opposite effect. For example, when doctors’ practices are bought by a hospital, a colonoscopy or stress test performed in the office can suddenly cost far more because a hospital “facility fee” is tacked on. Likewise, Mr. Smith said, many doctors on salary are offered bonuses tied to how much billing they generate, which could encourage physicians to order more X-rays and tests.

Mr. Mechanic studied 21 health systems considered good models of care — including the Mayo Clinic and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation — and discovered that many still effectively rewarded doctors for each procedure. “It doesn’t make any sense,” he said.

Hospitals have been offering physicians attractive employment deals, with incomes often greater than in private practice, since they need to form networks to take advantage of incentives under the new Affordable Care Act. Hospitals also know that doctors they employ can better direct patients to hospital-owned labs and services.

“From the hospital end there’s a big feeding frenzy, a lot of bidding going on to bring in doctors,” Mr. Mechanic said. “And physicians are going in so they don’t have to worry — there’s a lot of uncertainty about how health reform is going to play out.”

In addition, Medicare had reduced its set doctors’ fees over the last decade, while insurers have become more aggressive in demanding lower rates from individual practices that have little clout to resist. Dr. Robert Morrow, a family doctor in the Bronx, said he now received $82 from Medicare for an office visit but only about $45 from commercial insurers.

Dr. Cathleen London practiced family medicine for 13 years outside Boston, but recently took a salaried job at a Manhattan hospital. She said she accepted a pay cut because she could see that she was losing ground in her practice. “I think the days of what I did in 1999 are over,” she said. “I don’t think that’s possible anymore.”

The base salaries of physicians who become employees are still related to the income they can generate, ranging from under $200,000 for primary care doctors to $575,000 in cardiology to $663,000 in neurosurgery, according to Becker’s Hospital Review, a trade publication.

Because of the relatively low salaries for primary care doctors, Dr. Suzanne Salamon said that for the last two years she has had trouble filling a prestigious Harvard geriatrics fellowship she runs.

Dr. Howard B. Beckman, a geriatrician at the University of Rochester, who studies physician payment incentives, said reimbursements for primary care doctors must be improved to attract more people into the field. “To get the kinds of doctors we want, the system for determining salaries has to flip faster,” he said.

Dr. Joel Jacowitz, a cardiologist in New Jersey, and his 20 or so partners decided to sell their private practice to a hospital. In addition to receiving salaries, that meant they no longer had to worry about paying malpractice premiums themselves or finding health insurance for their staff members.

Dr. Jacowitz said that the economics drove the choice and that the only other option would have been to bring in more revenue by practicing bad medicine — ordering more heart tests on patients who did not need them or charging exorbitant rates to people with private insurance. He said he knew of one cardiologist in private practice who charges more than $100,000 for a procedure for which Medicare pays about $750.

“Some people are operators and give the rest of us a bad name,” he said, adding that he had changed his opinion about America’s fee-for-service health care system. “I’m fed up — I want a single-payer system.”

Dr. Kirk Moon, a radiologist in private practice in San Francisco, also sees advantages for the nation when doctors become employees. “I think it’s pretty clear that sooner or later we’re all going to be on salary,” he said. “I think there’ll be a radical decrease in imaging, but that’s O.K. because there’s incredible waste in the current system.”

Various efforts to change incentives for doctors and hospitals are being tested. An increasing number of employers or insurers, for example, pay health systems a yearly all-inclusive payment for each patient, regardless of their medical needs or how many tests are dispensed. If doctors order unnecessary tests, it costs the hospital money, rather than bringing it in.

And instead of offering bonuses for productivity — doctors cite pressures from hospital employers to order physical therapy for every discharged patient or follow-up M.R.I. scans on every patient who got an X-ray — some hospital systems are beginning to change their criteria. They are providing bonuses that reward doctors for delivering high quality and cost effective care, such as high marks from patients or low numbers of patients with asthma who are admitted to the hospital.

“The question now is how to shift the compensation from a focus on volume to a focus on quality,” said Mr. Smith of Merritt Hawkins. He said that 35 percent of the jobs he recruits for currently have such incentives, “but it’s pennies, not enough to really influence behavior.”

Grubby business, poor form, good riddance…

This should have never happened in the first place… what was Peta thinking appointing Furnival CoS!??

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/assistant-health-minister-fiona-nashs-chief-of-staff-alastair-furnival-resigns-20140214-32qol.html

Assistant Health Minister Fiona Nash’s chief of staff Alastair Furnival resigns

Date
  • 56 reading now

Fiona Nash’s Friday morning press conference

At a media call on Friday morning the Assistant Health Minister noticeably declined to give full backing to her chief of staff. His resignation was announced a few hours later.

The chief of staff of the embattled Assistant Health Minister Fiona Nash has resigned.

Fairfax Media had revealed Alastair Furnival had significant links to the junk food industry when he was involved in the pulling down of a new healthy food star rating website.

Both he and Senator Nash intervened to pull down the website, despite it being in development for two years and being approved by state and territory food ministers.

Fiona Nash: her chief of staff has quit.Fiona Nash: her chief of staff has quit. Photo: Peter Rae

Senator Nash made a late-night statement to the Senate on Tuesday to reveal Mr Furnival had a “shareholding” in lobbying outfit Australian Public Affairs, which is run by his wife, after she had previously stated he had “no connection” to the junk food industry.

Advertisement

Until two days ago Australian Public Affairs was listed on the federal lobbyists register as representing the Australian Beverages Council and Mondelez Australia, which owns the Kraft peanut butter, Cadbury and Oreo brands, among others.

It is still listed on state and territory registers as representing those companies, and others including Red Bull.

A screen grab of the website before it was discontinued.A screen grab of the website before it was discontinued.

On Friday Mr Furnival said he had tendered his resignation.

“I have done so with a clear conscience but with recognition that this political attack is a distraction from the important health issues being effectively addressed by this government,” he said.

“I accepted this role to contribute to the Australian government and appropriately managed potential conflicts.

Alastair FurnivalAlastair Furnival Photo: Supplied

“I resign in the knowledge that neither I, nor my wife, has acted improperly.

“I regret any embarrassment that may have been caused to the minister and especially to my wife, who has been dragged into this political smear campaign.”

Senator Nash has always insisted that Mr Furnival only owned the shares because of his previous employment with the lobbying company, and that he had distanced himself so that no conflict of interest occurred.

She has maintained that both she and the Prime Minister’s office were fully aware of his shareholding.

But at a press conference on Friday morning she began distancing herself, refusing to state he had her unqualified support.

Asked twice if he did, she said: “My chief of staff has done a great job for me” and “My chief of staff has done a terrific job for me for a considerable period of time”.

Labor has accused Senator Nash of misleading Parliament over the affair, with Senator Penny Wong saying on Thursday that she had repeatedly mislead parliament both in her explanation of Mr Furnival’s shareholding and why she and he had intervened to have the healthy food site taken down.

Senator Nash had said that she removed the site in part because the state and territory food ministers had unanimously agreed it required a cost-benefit analysis, however that was contradicted by official documents.

”On the face of the documents, including the communique from the meeting, this statement . . . is not true,” Senator Wong said.

”The communique reveals the forum made no decision unanimously or otherwise.”

However, on Friday, Senator Nash insisted it was the truth, despite the lack of records and the fact no vote was taken.

“No, there was no vote, there was no dissent, it was an unanimous decision,” she said. “Not everything is written in a communiqué.”

Follow us on Twitter

Senior Doctors rorting Queensland Health

  • double-billing
  • charging but not present
  • overtime while on holidays

Queensland auditor-general refers some public hospital doctors to CMC over possible fraud

By Melinda Howells

Updated Tue 11 Feb 2014, 7:15pm AEDT

The Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) has been asked to investigate whether some senior doctors have defrauded Queensland Health by claiming excess overtime and double-billing.

The auditor-general investigated 88 of the state’s 2,500 Senior Medical Officers.

He found that seven of them did not attend work during their rostered hours for more than 30 days, and that doctors who were on leave were paid $500,000 in overtime.

Health Minister Lawrence Springborg says the evidence gathered warrants further investigation.

Mr Springborg says the report shows systemic failings and ‘double-dipping’ by some doctors in the state’s public hospitals.

“The report highlights gaps in both rostering and attendance processes and treatment and billing practices, which have been open to exploitation,” he said.

He says some doctors were paid overtime while on holidays, turned up late but claimed overtime, or billed patients privately when they had no right of private practice.

“Inadequate oversight and administration, and we’ve had double dipping and we’ve had people that have taken advantage,” he said.

Mr Springborg admits better checks are needed.

“I’m talking here today about a small number of doctors – the majority of people are doing the right thing,” he said.

“Matters are going to be referred to the Crime and Misconduct Commission in Queensland.

“Also there are a number of recommendations which have been made to improve scrutiny and oversight in the system, which will all be implemented and adopted by the Government.”

Report a ‘smokescreen’ amid contract push

Alex Scott from the Together Union says the report comes as the State Government pushes for individual contracts with doctors.

“This Government is trying to use a smokescreen of this auditor-general’s report to completely misrepresent the true state of affairs in relation to the hours of work for doctors, the private practice arrangement for doctors,” he said.

Dr Shaun Rudd from the Australian Medical Association says it is an attack on the profession.

He says only a small percentage of Senior Medical Officers appear to be involved.

“If that’s correct that’s very worrying,” he said.

“However again it’s usually a system problem in the fact they’re probably working somewhere else in the public system, or it’s not been recorded what they’re actually doing.

“The problem with the Queensland Health system has been that it is a system which has been very difficult.

“It’s had its problems as well with the payroll system etcetera.

“The vast majority of doctors in the public system work long and hard.”

The report comes amid a dispute between the State Government and unions about putting senior doctors onto individual work contracts.

Rock Health: Treating patients like consumers

White House’s “Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights

keep your product dialed on:

  • Focused Collection
  • Transparency
  • Access, and
  • Control

http://www.gocovered.com/

http://rockhealth.com/2014/01/why-patients-need-to-be-treated-like-consumers-qa-noah-lang/

Why patients need to be treated like consumers

Sonia Havele 

January 28, 2014

Noahlang

We sat down for a little Q&A with Rock Health entrepreneur and Covered CEO and privacy expert Noah Lang.  You can catch Lang at Rock Health’s CEO Summit next week, where he’ll be diving into privacy issues on his panel, Privacy by Design.

What was your inspiration for Covered?

A year ago, I needed to select a health plan from my wife’s employer options.  There were only 4 choices, and we’re pretty healthy people, so it couldn’t be that hard, right? I searched for our favorite doctors, but had to do it in four different places. I tried to search for some preferred drugs to figure out what they would cost and found it nearly impossible to compare.  In search of an apples-to-apples comparison, I built an excel model to figure out what might happen if I tear my knee up skiing again or one of us needed emergency care, but very quickly realized it takes more data than a single person can wrangle with to find the answer to those questions. And that data is very hard to get.

Everybody told me there were already tools out there to help consumers with their coverage decisions. I tried all of them. None of the tools gave me confidence in my decision or helped me understand the product I was purchasing. In fact, none treated health insurance like a consumer product at all. The average consumer is willing to spend 9 minutes choosing a plan so often ends up taking an “educated guess.” It was clear to me that it was time for a new vocabulary: insurance in the context of the individual.  I set out to ensure consumers can make a logic-driven decision in that amount of time, or less—without picking up the phone, without confusion, and without resorting to educated guesses.

 Why must health transactions become more accessible to consumers?

 Nobody uses the word consumer in healthcare.  It’s a patient, an employee, an insured.  Healthcare companies are focused on the traditional “payers,” not the consumer.  Well, guess who pays the bills at the end of the day?  Us.  We are customers and deserve to be treated like we’re buying expensive, complex products.

Not only does health coverage come in just behind housing and transportation as one of the largest personal investments of the year, it’s the hub-of-the-wheel that impacts every downstream health transaction that a family makes. This is the reality in a world where only 14% of the employed population are able explain the four key concepts of insurance (deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance, and out-of-pocket maximums). When consumers don’t understand their own coverage, they’re not equipped to understand each subsequent transaction in their doctor’s office, the pharmacy, or the hospital.  As a result, we as Americans often under-use, overpay, and remain in a general state of confusion.

255M Americans see a doctor every year. Most have no idea how much they’ll pay.  150M Americans take a drug every month, but only 19% mail-order those drugs to save 30% of costs. Why? Because the matrix of plan “benefits” from our carriers and employers is pure cognitive overload for most of us. I believe in speaking the language of the consumer—not the insurance carriers—so I set out to simplify the experience, ensure product comprehension, and save consumers money.  At Covered, we translate coverage into a language everybody can understand.

 

How has your background in data collection and tracking influenced your approach to Covered?

Prior to founding Covered, I built and sold privacy products at Reputation.com for 5 years.  In the midst of the social media revolution, I witnessed both the underbelly of the personal data trade and the beautiful experiences that can be built when that data is used effectively.

Personalization is not a commonly used word in healthcare. The “payer” focus is traditionally on the population, rather than the individual. I think it can be done a different way, particularly if we want to liberate individuals and families to direct their own health spending. Covered borrows from streamlined consumer experiences in recommendation engines like Netflix and Amazon, and delivers them to health insurance transactions. Users can enjoy personalized experiences by sharing data with us, but we can only succeed so long as we’re honest about what we know about you as a consumer and how we use that information. The value at Covered for the user is explicit: you’re not wasting time starting from scratch filling out an overwhelming form. Covered uses your shared data to make the process easier and provide high-confidence recommendations. Then, we earn your trust for the long run by responding with value every time you share information, never asking for more information than we need at that point in time (“Focused Collection”), and never sharing it with 3rd parties unless you ask us to.

What role does privacy protection play in the digital health space?

 We have to start thinking of it in terms of the consumer perspective on privacy rather than just falling back on HIPAA as our only guide. Consumers stand to benefit from health data collection and analysis with tangible improvements to their health shopping experiences, but each individual must decide if they are comfortable with the trade-off. At Covered, there’s a lot of good we can do with personal health information.  The more a family shares with us the more refined a plan recommendation we can deliver.  But the only way to trump very real privacy fears and execute on our responsibility to protect your data is to design a privacy-centric experiences from the ground up (“Privacy by Design”).

In digital health today there’s an attitude we’ve seen before: collect as much information as you can about this person and there will be some way to monetize it later. The last go-round, many multi-billion dollar brands like Facebook and Experian were tarnished by personal data privacy fiascos in the social revolution.  Let’s make sure this doesn’t happen in the health tech revolution, I’d highly recommend reading the White House’s “Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights” to any consumer health entrepreneurs out there—keep your product dialed on Focused Collection, Transparency, Access, and Control.

—-

Noah Lang is the Founder and CEO of  Covered, Inc., aiming to translate health coverage transactions into simple language. He is a recognized expert in online behavioral tracking, consumer data collection, and digital PII publication, and he sits on the DMA’s Data Governance Advisory Board. Before Covered, Lang was a founding VP of Business Development at Reputation.com and in 2011, he was selected as a “Privacy by Design Amabassador.”

Obesity and cancer

  • OBESITY has become the biggest preventable risk factor for cancer in Australia after smoking, a study from the World Health Organization has shown.
  • The majority of cancer-related deaths in Western countries are due to lifestyle factors such as weight, alcohol intake and physical inactivity, said Terry Slevin, a spokesman for the Cancer Council Australia.
  • Approximately 5% of cancer incidence is caused by alcohol consumption.

http://www.medicalobserver.com.au/news/obesity-is-now-the-leading-preventable-risk-factor-for-cancer

Also: http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Ingredients/Alcohol-and-sugar-laws-needed-to-stem-cancer-tidal-wave

Obesity is now the leading preventable risk factor for cancer

Emily Dunn   all articles by this author

OBESITY has become the biggest preventable risk factor for cancer in Australia after smoking, a study from the World Health Organization has shown.

The 2014 World Cancer Report, last released six years ago, also showed that cancer has overtaken heart disease as the leading cause of death in Australia and almost every other country, killing an estimated eight million people globally each year, including more than 43,000 Australians.

This number is expected to rise to 20 million globally by 2025.

The majority of cancer-related deaths in Western countries are due to lifestyle factors such as weight, alcohol intake and physical inactivity, said Terry Slevin, a spokesman for the Cancer Council Australia.

Approximately 5% of cancer incidence is caused by alcohol consumption.

“For non-smokers, the single biggest preventable cause of cancer is obesity in terms of the number of cancer sites affected,” Mr Slevin told MO.

Australia also has one the highest incidence of cancer, third in the world behind Denmark and France, due to our ageing population and successful screening programs.
“In a perverse way, a high rate of cancer indicates a relatively healthy population because it indicates a longer life expectancy, Australia is in the top four in terms of life expectancy,” Mr Slevin said.

Mirroring worldwide trends, Australia has seen an increase in the incidence of breast cancer and prostate cancer, largely due to systematic screening, an effect that is expected to be seen also with the continued roll-out of bowel cancer screening.

Reassuringly, Mr Slevin said, mortality from cancer has also decreased in developing countries thanks to early detection and developments in treatment, and Australia has also seen a slight decrease in incidence of melanoma.

The report estimated the global cost of cancer to be $1.33 trillion a year in 2010, equating to 2% of the world’s GDP, a figure that could be reduced by up to $200 billion a year if more was done to prevent cancer.

Sugar and CV risk

  • JAMA study focused on added sugars
  • WHO recommend less than 10% of daily energy intake come from added sugars

http://www.medicalobserver.com.au/news/sugar-triples-cv-risk

Sugar triples CV risk

Press Association   all articles by this author

CONSUMING too many sugary sweets, desserts and drinks can triple your chances of dying from heart disease.

Scientists in the US have found a relevant association between the proportion of daily calories supplied by sugar-laden foods and heart disease death rates.

The researchers specifically focused on added sugar in the diet – that is, sugar added in the processing or preparing of food, rather than natural sources.

One sugar-sweetened beverage a day is enough to increase the risk of dying from cardiovascular disease (CVD).

For people obtaining a quarter of their calories from added sugar, the risk tripled compared with those whose sugar contribution was less than 10%.

Sugar consumption in the top fifth of the range studied doubled the likelihood of death from heart disease.

Dietary guidelines from the World Health Organization recommend that added sugar should make up less than 10% of total calorie intake.

A single can of fizzy drink can contain 35g of sugar, providing 140 calories.

The study, led by Dr Quanhe Yang, from the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, used US national health survey data to determine how much added sugar people were consuming.

The authors concluded: “Our findings indicate that most US adults consume more added sugar than is recommended for a healthy diet.

“A higher percentage of calories from added sugar is associated with significantly increased risk of CVD mortality.”

Professor Naveed Satta, from the British Heart Foundation Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre at the University of Glasgow, said: “We have known for years about the dangers of excess saturated fat intake, an observation which led the food industry to replace unhealthy fats with presumed ‘healthier’ sugars in many food products.

“However, the present study, perhaps more strongly than previous ones, suggests that those whose diet is high in added sugars may also have an increased risk of heart attack. Of course, sugar per se is not harmful – we need it for the body’s energy needs – but when consumed in excess it will contribute to weight gain and, in turn, may accelerate heart disease.

“Helping individuals cut not only their excessive fat intake, but also refined sugar intake, could have major health benefits including lessening obesity and heart attacks. The first target, now taken up by an increasing number of countries, is to tax sugar-rich drinks.”

JAMA Internal Med 2014; online 3 February 

Marion Nestle on Bariatric Surgery

The seething, self-serving, medical-pharma-device-publishing complex just can’t help itself some times.guess they picked the wrong academic to play spiv for them on this occassion…

Is surgery really the best way to deal with obesity?

Is surgery really the best way to deal with obesity?

I received an e-mail message from Dr. Justine Davies, the editor of The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, announcing a series of review articles on bariatric surgery for treatment of obesity.

Bariatric surgery, she says,

is the most effective treatment for both obesity and type 2 diabetes. In many people with type 2 diabetes, bariatric surgery not only limits disease progression, but also reverses complications.

She asks: So why is this procedure not being used more often to treat
patients with obesity?

Bariatric surgery has substantial benefits in terms of weight loss, metabolic status, and quality of life. It is safe and effective, and the future savings made through prevention of comorbid diseases could counterbalance its high cost. The surgery should, therefore, be available as an option to use when appropriate, and not only when all other options have been eliminated. Bariatric surgery offers a real opportunity for preventing comorbid diseases and complications of obesity. If it is only used as a final resort, this opportunity will be missed.

I can think of several good reasons: pain and suffering, treatment complications, questionable long-term prognosis, and cost, for starters.

Prevention is a better option.

If only we knew how….

Here are the papers: