Category Archives: policy

Menadue on cutting waste and costs in health

  • A universal health scheme does not have to be free. But it must be fair and efficient.
  • We need to change the perverse incentives, such as fee-for-service, which is associated with bulk-billing. Clinicians are rewarded by the number of transactions rather than health outcomes.
  • FFS is particularly inappropriate for chronic care like mental health and services with high fixed costs and low variable costs, such as imaging.
  • The government should move away from fee for service and set budgets for general practitioners when they prescribe drugs, order pathology tests or imaging services.
  • We need more doctors on salaries and capitation payments for caring for patients-not on a service by service basis.
  • The government should abolish the subsidy for private health insurance which costs all up about $6-7 billion p.a.
  • The real elephant in the room in health care cost reduction is avoidable mistakes, including deaths. They are euphemistically called “adverse events”. But Ministers, clinicians and managers do their best to avoid the issue. Based on earlier surveys in NSW and SA I estimated, very conservatively the cost of avoidable mistakes in our health sector at $5b pa (see my blog of June14, 2013).

From: http://johnmenadue.com/blog/?p=1217

More thoughts on cutting waste and costs from others:

  • Doggett: http://johnmenadue.com/blog/?p=1231
  • Dwyer: http://johnmenadue.com/blog/?p=1221
  • McAuley: http://johnmenadue.com/blog/?p=1219
  • Webster: http://johnmenadue.com/blog/?p=1223

John Menadue. Cutting waste and costs in health.

 

The Minister for Health, Peter Dutton, has said that we must reduce waste and reduce costs in health. I agree. In 2011/12 total health expenditure in Australia was $140b up from $83b in 2001/2. Costs are rising rapidly, partly due to population increase.

In a paper in July 2007 I estimated that there was at least $10 billion in possible savings and productivity improvements in health. That represented about 10% of our total health costs in that year. I have spoken and written extensively on the matter. See my web site.

It is important however that as we work to reduce waste and costs we do it in a way that is fair to all and does not prejudice quality care.

But to reduce waste and costs requires political will to stare down the powerful interests and rent seekers that are determined to protect their territory and their high costs –e.g.  the AMA, the Private Health Insurance firms, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and Medicines Australia. In the past no governments has been game to tackle these vested interests.

The lack of accountability in health

Despite the rapid increases in costs and escalating demand in the healthcare industry, there is no accountability in any meaningful way for what the health industry produces. Doctors are accountable for malpractice but not for their overall performance particularly in general practise. This is despite the fact that taxpayers pay 80% of doctors’ incomes. Taxpayers have a legitimate reason to ask – ‘Are we getting value for money?’  In a survey a couple of years ago by the Health Council of Canada, 97% of over 1,800 senior respondents said that healthcare providers should be required by law to reach certain service benchmarks in such areas as patient outcomes , the use of preventive strategies like screening and waiting times.

The Council also asked the group ‘Do you believe healthcare in Canada will improve if the government spends more money on healthcare?’  58% said ‘no’. There is the same lack of accountability in Australia.

Managing the demand for health services

The demand for health services is increasing rapidly across all age groups and not just among the old. We are over-diagnosed and over-treated. In 1984-85, medical services per head were 7.1 per annum. In 2007-08 they were 13.1 per annum – about double. The trend continues. We need to address this over servicing particularly by GPs and specialists such as pathologists and radiologists.

  • We must accept that we cannot have all that we want in health and that governments, in consultation with the community, have to set priorities. Can we afford continuing existing levels of funding for IVF and end-of-life treatments at the expense of funding for mental health and indigenous health?
  • We need to rationalise our co-payments to make them efficient and equitable. We all should take more responsibility for the way we use health services, particularly as we are now much wealthier than we were 30 years ago when Medicare was introduced. A universal health scheme does not have to be free. But it must be fair and efficient. But co-payments are a dog’s breakfast! We pay about 18% of health costs out of our own pockets, but there is very little rhyme or reason in how this is done. The $6 GP levy would make the confused situation worse.
  • We need to change the perverse incentives, such as fee-for-service, which is associated with bulk-billing. Clinicians are rewarded by the number of transactions rather than health outcomes. FFS is particularly inappropriate for chronic care like mental health and services with high fixed costs and low variable costs, such as imaging. The government should move away from fee for service and set budgets for general practitioners when they prescribe drugs, order pathology tests or imaging services. We need more doctors on salaries and capitation payments for caring for patients-not on a service by service basis.
  • We need to tackle the wide variations in the incidence of clinical practice across the country, e.g. caesarean sections and cataracts. Medicare should be much more proactive in exposing and limiting very expensive and inexplicable variations in clinical practice.

Getting costs down

  •  The government should abolish the subsidy for private health insurance which costs all up about $6-7 billion p.a. This subsidy favours the wealthy, is inefficient, has underwritten rising specialist fees through gap insurance, has not taken the pressure off public hospitals and has weakened Medicare’s ability to control costs. The immediate abolition of this subsidy would do more to improve our health system than almost anything else. This is corporate welfare big time-more even the welfare to the motor industry.
  • We need a more productive workforce. Health is the largest and fastest growing sector in the Australian economy. Despite all the talk of improving productivity in Australia no-one has been game to take on the entrenched privileges in the health workforce.Where is the honesty and consistency here? The blue collar workforce is fair game but not doctors and lawyers. We need expanded roles across the board particularly for nurses, pharmacists, allied health workers and ambulance officers. The Productivity Commission in its February 2007 report estimated that a 5% improvement in the productivity of health services would deliver savings of about $3 billion p.a. This is a very conservative estimate. The health sector in Australia is rife with demarcations and restrictive work practices. eg 5 % of normal births in Australia are delivered by mid wives. In the Netherlands it is 70%, in the UK 50% and in NZ 95%. We have a few hundred nurse practitioners when there should be thousands. The work practices at Holden, Toyota and Ardmona are light years ahead of the work practices in the health sector.
  • We could save about $2 billion p.a. in drug costs if we paid drug suppliers the same prices that are paid in NZ. See my blog of January 17.We also pay a high price for the protection of  pharmacists through the 5000 limit on the number of community pharmacies and the restrictions on where new pharmacies can be located. Pharmacies cannot be established in supermarkets.
  • We need to raise productivity in our hospitals. The Productivity Commission suggests that the productivity gap from best practice in public hospitals ranges from 3% to 89%. In private hospitals the range is 22% to 37%.  There is major governance problems in many hospitals with a dis- connect between management and clinical functions. Running hospitals is very difficult with clinicians coming and going from private practise like the cottage industries of old.
  • The Commonwealth/State fragmentation in healthcare results in blame-shifting, the evasion of responsibility and higher costs. If for example the Commonwealth Government or a joint Commonwealth/State body had responsibility for all health care in a state, there would be a clear incentive for focus on treatment in the community and in homes to ensure that the high cost hospitals are really a last resort. They are now often a first resort.
  • The real elephant in the room in health care cost reduction is avoidable mistakes, including deaths. They are euphemistically called “adverse events”. But Ministers, clinicians and managers do their best to avoid the issue. Based on earlier surveys in NSW and SA I estimated, very conservatively the cost of avoidable mistakes in our health sector at $5b pa (see my blog of June14, 2013). Despite a great deal of money and effort there is no sign of improvement. Insiders won’t solve the problem Good people are caught in a bad system

We need to address waste and cost-cutting in a measured way. We should not panic, but we should get it done.  Australian healthcare costs are 9-10% of GDP. This is not high by world standards. It is below the OECD average. A major reason why we have been able to do better than others is that we have Medicare as a public insurer. One lesson is clear all around the world. The countries that have high levels of private health insurance, like the US, have high costs.

 

 

Stanton on Sugar

Rosemary Stanton commentary on current state of play with regard to labeling and research.

Key point is that added sugar seems to be the key determinant of ill-health.

From: https://www.mja.com.au/insight/2014/4/health-cost-spoonfuls-sugar

Health cost of spoonfuls of sugar

Nicole MacKee
Monday, 10 February, 2014
Health cost of spoonfuls of sugar

RESEARCH showing high consumption of added sugar more than doubles the risk of cardiovascular mortality has prompted Australian experts to renew calls for labelling reform to help curb sugar consumption.

Leading nutritionist Dr Rosemary Stanton said labelling reform was needed to compel food manufacturers to disclose the percentage of added-sugar in their products, rather than just list total sugars.

“The body of research basically shows that it’s only added sugar that’s the problem … but the food industry has resisted putting added sugar on the label”, Dr Stanton said. “We need something to alert people to how much they are actually consuming, because I don’t think they really know.”

Dr Stanton was commenting after US researchers found that adults who consumed 17%–21% of daily calories from added sugars had a 38% higher risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, compared with those whose diet comprised 8% of calories from added sugars. (1)

The prospective cohort study of more than 31 000 people, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, also found that the risk of CVD mortality was more than double for those whose daily calorie intake was more than 21% from added sugar compared with those with less than 8% from added sugar.

An accompanying editorial said the study underscored “the appropriateness of evidence-based sugar regulations, specifically SSBs [sugar-sweetened beverages] taxation”. (2)

Dr Stanton said while in Australia the goods and services tax was applied to junk foods, this was not sufficient to moderate consumption of these foods.

“So many of the sugary foods are very cheap — you can buy a packet of six doughnuts for much less than you pay to buy six apples, for example. So we do need more taxes on these foods … if we could also have subsidies on things like fruit and vegetables”, Dr Stanton told MJA InSight.

She said fresh food subsidies were important to soften the blow for lower socioeconomic groups, pointing to Australian research published last week that found that the most disadvantaged groups in the Greater Western Sydney region experienced the greatest inequality in affordability of a healthy and sustainable diet. (3)

Professor Peter Clifton, professor of nutrition at the University of SA, agreed that a tax on SSBs might reduce consumption, but a labelling initiative alerting consumers to the health risks of these products may be more effective.

“No one needs to drink SSBs at all, so I don’t have any problem with the concept of taxation”, he said.

“This government is certainly not going to do anything in terms of legislation or control, but I think maybe labelling, like cigarette labelling, might have an effect on people’s behaviour more than the cost. Putting a label on [soft drinks] saying that ‘excessive sugar has been associated with heart disease and type 2 diabetes’ — that will surprise a few people.”

However, Professor Clifton was less concerned about singling out the added sugar content in labelling.

“I don’t think there is a difference in a sense between total sugar and added sugar and most of the sugar that we consume is going to be added sugar, unless we’re big fruit consumers, which we’re generally not.”

Professor Clifton said there had already been a change of behaviour in relation to SSBs. “There has already been … a significant reduction in sugar intake from this source by about 25% over the past 14 years — one in three soft drinks are now sugar-free.”

He said the US finding that a higher percentage intake of added sugar significantly increased the risk of CVD mortality meant some dietary guidelines would need to be revised.

“Most dietary guidelines say not to have more than 20% of your energy from sugar, so there will need to be some revision of some guidelines to lower them”, he said.

Dr Stanton said the 2013 Australian Dietary Guidelines, which she was involved in drafting, strengthened the wording around sugar consumption advising consumers to “limit intake of foods and drinks containing added sugars”. (4)

However, she said this latest data built the case to strengthen the wording even further. “With the majority of adults now overweight, I certainly think the stronger wording of ‘limit’ was justified and I would support something along the lines of ‘avoid sugar-sweetened drinks and limit intake of all foods with added sugar’.”

The federal Health Minister Peter Dutton was approached for comment, but was unavailable.

 

1. JAMA Int Med 2014; Online 3 February
2. JAMA Int Med 2014; Online 3 February
3. ANZ J Pub Health 2014; 38: 7-12 
4. NHMRC 2013; Australian Dietary Guidelines

Comments

Submitted by Rosemary Stanton on Mon, 10/2/2014 – 10:45

After two years of deliberations and eventual agreement, food industry, government and public health and consumer representatives developed a Health Star Rating system to appear prominently on the front of food labels. The Star Rating was based on a value derived from the content of sugars, salt and saturated fat in the product with some positive points being taken into account in the rating. Sugars, saturated fat, sodium and the food’s kilojoule content were also to be displayed on the fornt of the pack for easy reference.

Health ministers approved the final package in December 2013. On Wednesday Feb 5, a stand-alone website appeared and public health and consumer groups applauded. By next morning, the website had been taken down. Who ordered this and why?

The Australian Food and Grocery Council has been stating its lack of favour for the scheme even though their representatives had been part of the process that had eventually achieved agreement.

It’s increasingly difficult when we can’t make life a bit easier for shoppers to make healthier choices that fit with current research.

 

Submitted by JustMEinT on Mon, 10/2/2014 – 12:40

If people stopped buying (and therefore consuming) processed frankenfoods, the entire problem would be eliminated. Sounds too hard for some I know, but a drastic elimination of premade foods, canned, packaged, frozen etc, and a replcement with fresh foods, home cooked would substantially reduce the amount of unnecessary added chemicals we take into our bodies. Ultmately we are responsible for what we eat…………

Making of Medicare – review by Andrew Podger

PDF of book review:
AHv38n1_BR1_MakingOfMedicare_PodgerBookReview

More important than the ‘ideas’ were the interests and institutions. The medical profession won the battle in the 1940s for fee-for-service against not only the advocates of a salaried national health system along the lines of the British National Health Service, but also against advocates of private approaches, who saw advantage in the friendly societies’ use of ‘lodge payments’, which were like capitation grants. The subsequent challenge, debated for decades (and still relevant today), was to find an affordable and equitable system consistent with fee-for-service. Whatever the balance of public and private health insurance, fee-for-service exacerbated the problem of ‘moral hazard’ where doctors, professing interest in their patients, are able to add to costs beyond what their patients or customers may be willing to pay because the costs are met by third party insurers.

Other interests that needed to be managed over the decades included the private health insurance industry, the union movement and the States. There were also factions within each interest group, most significantly between specialists and general practitioners (GPs) within the medical profession, and among a range of GP organisations. It remains the case that governments will wisely avoid taking on both the specialists and GPs at the same time, and will ensure any proposal provides at least one group with benefits they value, whether in terms of narrow self-interest or genuine improvements for their patients.

A clear head shot on big sugar, soda etc…

Jenny Brand Miller commences her long-overdue capitulation…

http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/australian-paradox-author-admits-sugar-data-might-be-flawed-20140209-329h1.html

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2014-02-09/5239418#transcript

Is sugar innocent?

Sunday 9 February 2014 8:05AM

Controversial research by two leading nutritionists which claims sugar has had no role to play in Australia’s obesity crisis is now under investigation by Sydney University.   The paper claims that sales of soft drinks have declined by 10 per cent, but now it looks like the nutritionists themselves are walking away from that statistic, as Wendy Carlisle writes.

What role does sugar play in Australia’s obesity crisis?

According to research from two leading nutritionists, the answer is not much at all.

If that’s the case, it means Australia is unique and sugar is not implicated in our ever expanding girths.  If the research is true, then sugar and in particular soft drinks are off the hook.

The research comes from one of Australia’s best known nutritionists, Professor Jennie Brand Miller, and her colleague Dr Alan Barclay.

Professor Brand Miller devised the Low GI diet and has sold millions of Low GI cookbooks. ‘GI Jennie’, as she is also known, is associated with Sydney University’s  $500 million Charles Perkins Centre for Obesity Research.

Australia’s obesity problem is unique, says Professor Brand Miller: ‘Australia is actually bucking the trend with respect to added sugars; there is good evidence that we are not increasing our intake, with various lines of evidence suggesting our consumption has been in the process of a long decline for quite a long period of time.’

This article represents part of a larger Background Briefing investigation. Listen to Wendy Carlisle’s full report on Sunday at 8.05 am or use the podcast links above after broadcast

The pair examined  FAO datasets on  Australian sugar and  concluded there has been a ‘substantial and consistent decline’ in the consumption of sugar by Australians since 1980.

After examining industry data on soft drink sales, they found Australians have cut their consumption of soft drinks by 10 per cent since 1994.

Not surprisingly, the soft drink industry is thrilled and the findings have been cited widely by the industry in their case against government regulation. We might be getting heavier as a nation, but we can’t blame sugar, says the industry.

‘Soft drinks in particular seem to be in the firing line as some sort of unique contributor to obesity,’ says Geoff Parker CEO of the Australian Beverage Council.

‘The findings do confirm  the Australian Paradox in that there has been a substantial decline in refined sugars over the timeframe that obesity has increased, so the implication is that efforts to reduce sugar intake  may not reduce the prevalence of obesity.’

Are we drinking more or less?

Image: Source: Australian Beverages Council

 

The Australian paradox would seem to let the soft drink industry and sugar off the hook, except that research is now under intense scrutiny from both Sydney University and the dogged form of former Reserve Bank economist Rory Robertson, who calls the research a ‘menace to public health’.

Mr Robertson has been complaining long and loud to the journal Nutrition and to Sydney University and for two years he says they told him to ‘get lost’.

Late last year the university announced a initial inquiry into the research under its research code of conduct.  An external investigator has been appointed.  If the investigator finds there is case to answer, the inquiry will proceed.

Until then, the university will not comment.

One of the most glaring errors in the paper, Mr Robertson says, is the claim that we are drinking 10 per cent less soft drink since 1994.

‘They show a chart of sugary soft drinks sales in Australia between 1994 and 2006, and that chart shows a rise in sugary soft drink sales from 35 L per person per year in 1994 to 45 L per person per year in 2006,’ he says.

‘And in the paper they describe  as a 10 per cent decline, which is nonsense—obviously it’s a 30 per cent increase.’

Are we drinking more or less? Image: The Australian Paradox: ‘Food industry data indicate per capita sales of low calorie (non-nutritively sweetened) beverages doubled from 1994 to 2006 while nutritively sweetened beverages decreased by 10 per cent.’ (Source: Australian Beverages Council)

 

It seemed to be an easy point to fact check.  Graph 5A in the Australian Paradox does indeed trend up by around 30 per cent between 1994 and 2006.

How could the Australian Paradox maintain this was an decrease when the graph clearly showed sales had gone up?

The responses from Professor Jennie Brand Miller and Dr Alan Barclay to Background Briefings inquiries have been equivocal.

Last Wednesday Dr Alan Barclay emailed to say: ‘Your claim is most certainly wrong’.  After another series of email exchanges another answer came through on Thursday.

‘The 10 per cent decline could not possibly refer to per capita sales of nutritively sweetened soft drinks,’ wrote Dr Barclay.

‘I’m sorry I cannot make it more clear than this.’

The paper remains on the Sydney University website of the Glycemic Index Foundation.

 

Transcript

Hide

A transcript of this program will be made available by the Tuesday following the broadcast.

Credits

Reporter
Wendy Carlisle
Researcher
Anna Whitfeld
Supervising Producer
Linda McGinness
Sound Engineer
Executive Producer
Chris Bullock

Energy Drinks linked to illicit drug abuse in school children

  • teens who consume energy drinks are more likely to smoke, drink alcohol and abuse drugs
  • N=22,000 US high school students
  • self-reported
  • non-causal
  • “high-sensation seeking youths”

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Regulation/Study-links-US-teen-energy-drink-intake-to-illicit-drug-abuse/

Study links US teen energy drink intake to illicit drug abuse

Post a comment

By Ben Bouckley+

06-Feb-2014

Terry-McElrath et al. warn that 'high-sensation seeking youths' may be particularly likely to drink energy drinks and abuse drugs (Photo: Epsos.de/Flickr)

Terry-McElrath et al. warn that ‘high-sensation seeking youths’ may be particularly likely to drink energy drinks and abuse drugs (Photo: Epsos.de/Flickr)

US teens who consume energy drinks are more likely to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol and use abuse drugs according to a new cross-sectional survey of 20,000+ high school students.

Yvonne Terry-McElrath and colleagues at the Institute of Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor analyzed data taken from nearly 22,000 US secondary school students aged 13-16 (8th-10th grade) in 2010-11.

Taking part in the university’s ‘Monitoring the Future’ study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the students answered questionnaires on their use of energy drinks/shots, alcohol and drugs.

‘Strong association’ with substance use

Approximately 30% of teens reported using caffeine-containing energy drinks or shots; 40%+ said they drank regular soft drinks every day, while 20% drank diet soft drinks daily.

Summing up their findings, the authors write: “Beverage consumption was strongly and positively associated with past 30-day alcohol, cigarette and illicit drug use. The observed associations between energy drinks and substance use were significantly stronger than those between regular or diet soft drinks and substance use.”

Irrespective of age, Terry-McElrath and colleagues said teens who drank energy drinks/shots were 2-3 times more likely to report other types of substance use compared to those who didn’t.

The researchers’ results also showed that boys were more likely to use energy drinks than girls, while teens without two parents at home and those with less educated parents also drank more.

 “The current study indicates that adolescent consumption of energy drinks/shots is widespread and that energy drink users also report heightened risk for substance abuse,” the researchers write.

The masking effects of caffeine…

Caveating that their study does not demonstrate a causal link between substance abuse and energy drinks, Terry-McElrath and her colleagues nonetheless warn parents and the authorities.

“Education for parents and prevention efforts among adolescents should include education on the masking effects of caffeine in energy drinks on alcohol, and other substance related impairments,” they write.

“High sensation seeking youths” may be particularly likely to consume energy drinks and be substance users, Terry-McElrath et al. add, observing that energy drinks and shots should not be drunk by teenagers due to high caffeine and sugar content, as per American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations.

Title: ‘Energy drinks, soft drinks and substance use among US secondary school students’

Authors: Terry-McElrath, Y.M., O’Malley, P., Johnston, L.

Source: Journal of Addiction Medicine, January/February 2014, Volume 8, Issue 1. doi: 10.1097/01.ADM.0000435322.07020.53

Adolescent Salt – Inflammation – Obesity

  • association established
  • n=800 US teens

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/R-D/Is-salt-linked-to-obesity-Study-links-adolescent-salt-intake-to-obesity-and-inflammation/

Is salt linked to obesity? Study links adolescent salt intake to obesity and inflammation

07-Feb-2014

High intakes of salt throughout adolescence may be associated with levels of obesity and inflammation, regardless of calories consumed, say researchers.

New research published in the journal Pediatrics suggests that intakes of salt during our teen years may be linked to levels of obesity and inflammation – finding that a high intake of salt in adolecents is correlated to levels of fatness and inflammatory markers regardless of how many calories are consumed.

Led by Dr Haidong Zhu from the Medical College of Georgia and Georgia Regents University, the team analysed data from nearly 800 US teens – finding that 97% self-reported exceeding national guidelines and that this intake of dietary sodium is independently associated with a range of obesity measures and markers of inflammation including total body weight, BMI, percentage body fat, levels of leptin and levels of tumour necrosis factor-alpha.

“The majority of studies in humans show the more food you eat, the more salt you consume, the fatter you are,” said Zhu. “Our study adjusted for what these young people ate and drank and there was still a correlation between salt intake and obesity.”

“Obesity has a lot of contributing factors, including physical inactivity,” she explained. “We think that high sodium intake could be one of those factors.”

Study details

Zhu and her colleagues assessed the relationship between sodium intake, adiposity and inflammation in 766 healthy adolescents aged between 14 and 18 years old.

Dietary sodium intake was estimated by 7-day 24-hour dietary recall, while percentage body fat was measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Subcutaneous abdominal adipose tissue and visceral adipose tissue were also assessed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and fasting blood samples were measured for leptin, adiponectin, C-reactive protein, tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), and intercellular adhesion molecule-1.

Average sodium intake was found to be 3280 mg per day, with 97% of teens exceededing the American Heart Association recommendation for sodium intake.

Zhu revealed that analysis of their data showed dietary sodium intake to be independently associated with body weight, BMI, waist circumference, percent body fat, fat mass, subcutaneous abdominal adipose tissue, leptin, and TNF-alpha.

No relationship was found between dietary sodium intake and visceral adipose tissue, skinfold thickness, adiponectin, C-reactive protein, or intercellular adhesion molecule-1, they added.

“We hope these findings will reinforce for parents and pediatricians alike that daily decisions about how much salt children consume can set the stage for fatness, chronic inflammation and a host of associated diseases like hypertension and diabetes,” said study co-author Dr. Gregory Harshfield.

The team noted that while their new study does not prove a causal effect, it contributes to mounting evidence that high sodium could be a direct cause of obesity and inflammation.

Longitudinal or randomised clinical trials are needed to clarify the relationships, added the team.

Source: Pediatrics
Published online ahead of print, doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-1794 
“Dietary Sodium, Adiposity, and Inflammation in Healthy Adolescents”
Authors: Haidong Zhu, Norman K. Pollock, et al

sugar = heart disease

  • n=43,000 adults published in JAMA Int Med
  • a significant relationship between added sugar consumption and increased risk for CVD [cardiovascular disease] mortality”
  • 10%-25% of calories from added sugars had a 30% higher risk of heart disease vs less than 10% group
  • consuming more than 25% of calories from sugar (10% of the sample) were nearly 3 times as likely to die as a result of heart disease
  • In this latest study, sugar-sweetened beverages provided the largest amount of added sugar in participants’ diets, at 37.1%, followed by grain-based desserts at 13.7%, juice drinks (8.9%), dairy desserts (6.1%) and confectionery (5.8%).
  • “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.”
  • “The first target, now taken up by an increasing number of countries, is to tax sugar rich drinks. Whilst this may seem a blunt instrument, the food and drink industry are able to make positive changes in their food formulations and still remain very profitable. Ultimately, there needs to be a refocus to develop foods which not only limit saturated fat intake but simultaneously limit refined sugar content.”

 

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/R-D/Sugar-consumption-linked-to-heart-disease-death-risk/

Sugar consumption linked to heart disease death risk

The risk of dying from heart disease increased exponentially with the amount of added sugars consumed

The risk of dying from heart disease increased exponentially with the amount of added sugars consumed

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

The review, which looked at the sugar consumption habits of nearly 43,000 adult participants in a national health survey, found a significant relationship between added sugar consumption and increased risk for CVD [cardiovascular disease] mortality”.

Dr Quanhe Yang of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta and colleagues found that regularly consuming as little as one sugary fizzy drink a day was associated with an increased risk of death from heart disease. The results suggested that CVD mortality risk increased exponentially the greater the amount of sugar consumed on a regular basis.

“Our results support current recommendations to limit the intake of calories from added sugars,” they wrote.

This is not the first time that high sugar consumption has been linked to heart disease risk, but the researchers said that few studies had examined sugar consumption in connection with heart disease mortality.

WHO recommendations

The World Health Organisation recommends that fewer than 10% of a person’s daily calories should come from added sugars, but most people in Europe and the United States exceed that amount.

In this study, those who consumed 10% to 25% of calories from added sugars had a 30% higher risk of dying from heart disease compared to those whose sugar calorie consumption was less than 10% of total calories. Those for whom added sugars accounted for more than a quarter of calories – about 10% of the study sample – were nearly three times as likely to die as a result of heart disease.

A total of 71.4% of participants consumed more than 10% of their calories from added sugars.

Association…not causation

Commenting on the study, professor of metabolic medicine at the BHF Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, Professor Naveed Sattar, said that observational studies can never prove that sugar consumption causes heart attacks.

“However, to ignore the mounting evidence for the adverse health effects of excess sugar intake would seem unwise,” he said. “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.”

“…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.”

In this latest study, sugar-sweetened beverages provided the largest amount of added sugar in participants’ diets, at 37.1%, followed by grain-based desserts at 13.7%, juice drinks (8.9%), dairy desserts (6.1%) and confectionery (5.8%).

Sattar added: “The first target, now taken up by an increasing number of countries, is to tax sugar rich drinks. Whilst this may seem a blunt instrument, the food and drink industry are able to make positive changes in their food formulations and still remain very profitable. Ultimately, there needs to be a refocus to develop foods which not only limit saturated fat intake but simultaneously limit refined sugar content.”

 

Source: JAMA Internal Medicine

Published online ahead of print. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13563

“Added Sugar Intake and Cardiovascular Diseases Mortality among US Adults”

Authors: Quanhe Yang; Zefeng Zhang; Edward W. Gregg; W. Dana Flanders; Robert Merritt; Frank B. Hu.

US pricing transparency initiatives…

It looks like they’re moving in the right direction in the US… 11 states have established pricing databases already, but I’d be surprised if they’d incorporated sophisticated visualisation/prediction tools like I+PLUS.

Washington State Officials Want To Lift Veil On Health Care Pricing

TOPICS: STATESHEALTH COSTS

By Lisa Stiffler, The Seattle Times

FEB 05, 2014

This story was produced in collaboration with 

What if you had a headache that wouldn’t go away? At the area’s top trauma center, a brain MRI will cost more than $4,600, while an imaging center on the Eastside will charge $900.

Need your tonsils out? A Kirkland nasal-and-sinus clinic will charge you $2,200, but the surgery will be nearly $7,000 at a Seattle hospital. Which would you choose?

A prime objective of the Affordable Care Act is to bring down America’s health-care costs, which are the highest per person in the world. But how can the U.S. shrink its medical bills if patients are almost always buying health care with no idea what it costs?

Washington has been able to do little to shed light on health-care costs, and the state last year earned an “F ” for its cost-transparency laws, according to groups promoting health-care reform.

That soon could change.

Gov. Jay Inslee and some state lawmakers are pushing for new rules that would create a database listing hundreds of medical procedures, what they will cost at clinics and hospitals statewide, and information about the quality of the medical providers.

“We made a decision with the Affordable Care Act to use competition to control costs,” said Bob Crittenden, Inslee’s senior health-policy adviser. “Competition requires a number of things. You need enough information to make decisions, and we don’t have that right now.”

The proposal has backing from many big players in medicine and business, but the support is not universal. The state’s largest insurance companies — Regence Blue Shield and Premera Blue Cross — oppose requirements to share the treatment prices they’ve privately negotiated with clinics and hospitals.

There’s also the challenge of pairing cost data with information about the quality of a doctor or hospital. After all, who wants the cheapest physician if he’s also the worst?

And there are questions whether transparency can drive down prices. Hospitals and clinics have been consolidating, creating fewer, bigger companies and less competition. Lifesaving drugs and treatments might be available from only one company or location, giving patients little choice.

The biggest question is whether patients will seek this information and use it to shop more wisely. Transparency supporters think the public is ready for them to pull back the curtain on cost and quality.

“More information will beget more curiosity,” said Mary McWilliams, executive director of the Washington Health Alliance, a nonprofit that has earned national kudos for tracking the quality of health-care delivery.

“I think people have assumed it’s all the same quality and all the same cost,” she said. “Getting them to recognize that it’s not all the same is the first threshold.”

“Huge price variation”

When Jeff Rice was dinged $200 for cholesterol blood work that should have cost $20, the Tennessee-based physician turned his frustration into a business opportunity.

In 2008, Rice launched Healthcare Bluebook, a company that collects data on what insurance companies pay for medical care, then calculates a “fair price” for procedures from allergy tests to heart surgery. Consumers can search for prices for free online and use the information as a benchmark to shop around.

“Many patients don’t know there is this huge price variation,” Rice said.

There are other transparency tools available, but all have their limitations. Many insurance companies have online cost-comparison tools for their customers. A recent search on the Aetna site found prices for roughly 30 common procedures, while Regence lists prices for 350 services.

On the quality side, the Washington Health Alliance publishes “Community Checkup Report,” which evaluates the quality of doctors, clinics and hospitals. The national Leapfrog Group scores hospitals.

In coming months, lawmakers in Olympia will consider various proposals to expand and greatly improve such transparency. One bill would require insurance companies to enhance their shopping tools to include price and quality information side-by-side.

Recent hearing

A more controversial proposal would create an “All-Payer Claims Database.” Hospitals and clinics have a “billed” rate for services, but insurance companies negotiate lower “allowed” rates, the amount they agree to actually pay for a procedure. The legislation would require payers — mostly insurance companies — to reveal what they are spending on services at different locations, so the data could be compiled into a database available to everyone.

At a recent hearing for the bill, representatives from the Washington State Hospital Association, Washington State Medical Association, Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business all testified in support of creating the database.

Only Regence and Premera officials spoke against it.

The insurance companies carefully guard the rates they negotiate. They consider it proprietary information they are not keen to share with competitors, health-care providers and others.

“We simply do not believe that [the All-Payer Claims Database] has any history of demonstrating any meaningful cost or quality improvement,” said Premera’s Len Sorrin, at the hearing.

The companies do, however, support cost tools for their own customers. A spokesman for Regence testified that searching for prices drives patients to lower-cost options.

Databases in 11 states

So far, at least 11 states have created these databases in various forms, and many more are interested. Most of the databases were built in 2008 or later, and there’s little information on their effects on costs or quality.

But the world of health insurance is changing. Deductibles — the amount a patient must pay before an insurance company starts covering medical bills — are going up. More than one-third of insured workers have deductibles of $1,000 or more, and many plans also have “coinsurance,” which sets a percentage of medical bills patients must pay even if they’ve reached their deductible cap.

Gone are the days of visiting the doctor and paying a $15 copay. Patients are more frequently footing the bill.

“When it’s your money, you ask a lot more questions about what things cost,” said Rice, the founder of Bluebook.

But shopping for health care can be more complicated than buying other essentials.

Transparency supporters like to illustrate the influence of price by comparing it with buying gasoline. Most drivers check the posted per-gallon price before filling up. If one station offered gas at $4 a gallon, they would drive past the pump offering it for $20 a gallon — a degree of price difference seen in some medical services.

But is that the right metaphor? What if you’re driving on fumes and there’s no other pump for miles around? When you’re a desperate shopper, chances are you’ll pony up if you can.

Challenges, limitations

Some argue that by publishing the cost information, the cheaper locations will raise their prices rather than the expensive sites dropping theirs. Douglas Conrad, a professor in the University of Washington’s School of Public Health, called that argument a red herring. Over time, he said, the prices come down, whether through market forces or action by antitrust authorities.

The relationships patients develop with their doctors pose potentially more difficult complications.

Conrad acknowledges the challenges and limitations to how much influence transparency can exert on the health-care system, but he thinks it can make a positive difference.

“If price and quality information get out there, and there is a push by the state to force transparency where it’s been difficult to get … that could change things,” Conrad said. “The promise is there.”

We want to hear from you: Contact Kaiser Health News

Prescribing the BlueStar diabetes app

  • analyzes logged blood glucose
  • offers advice based on trends
  • sends a report to clinicians
  • WellDoc are chasing the money with insurers
  • Endorsed by Dr Katz

If they want Dr uptake, they will need to be able to fund scaled change management programs just like the drug companies do

  • Will Docs Write Rx for Apps?

Published: Jan 16, 2014 | Updated: Jan 16, 2014

By Kristina Fiore, Staff Writer, MedPage Today

Doctors can now write scripts for the first prescription-only app — but the question remains whether they’ll pick up a prescription pad to write for mobile technology.

The app, BlueStar, is a tracker for patients with diabetes. It analyzes logged blood glucose data and offers advice based on trends it detects — such as telling patients to adjust their diets based on sugar levels after meals. Clinicians also receive a report on their patients’ progress.

Parent company WellDoc just won $20 million in venture financing for the app, and the company has a track record of success with online disease management tools and applications. WellDoc’s argument is that better blood sugar control will lead to better patients outcomes, and, thus, less spending on healthcare in the long run.

FDA approved the BlueStar app in 2010 as a device, but the company’s strategy has recently focused on insurance and reimbursement. In June, WellDoc announced that BlueStar would be reimbursed as a pharmacy benefit for employees of a handful of top companies, including Ford Motor Company, RiteAid, and DexCom.

Only a handful of apps has been approved since the FDA’s social media guidance was released in September, but experts suspect that more app companies may be moving in the direction of requiring prescriptions in order to monetize their efforts.

Patrick Brady, a spokesperson for WellDoc, told MedPage Today that the program is out in full force and doctors are currently writing prescriptions for BlueStar.

Patients whose health plans don’t cover BlueStar can get the app by working with a customer advocacy team at WellDoc, he added. The team coordinates directly with the patient’s physician to negotiate with insurers.

In a statement from when the BlueStar app was launched in June, Richard Bergenstal, MD, a past president of the American Diabetes Association, said that in the “era of healthcare reform, it’s important that payers recognize that patients must have access to proven, novel digital tools.”

Many other clinicians contacted by MedPage Today said they’d feel comfortable writing a prescription for an app.

“I have looked at some of the data supporting the role of technology like this in the management of diabetes, and I think it may be the [wave] of the future,” said Fernando Ovalle, MD, an endocrinologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

David Katz, MD, of Yale’s Prevention Research Center, said he would feel comfortable writing the script provided patients were comfortable using it. “Overall, the literature suggests that extending our reach with technology that allows patient coaching to be continuous between office visits can be very effective,” Katz said.

Johnson Thomas, MD, an endocrinology fellow in New York City who developed anendocrinology reference app called Endo Tools, also said patient comfort would be a major factor, since “not all patients are tech-savvy.”

Still, he said if the app can deliver “timely, actionable advice” to patients in order to achieve better glucose control, it would be worth it.

Sue Kirkman, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said a prescription app could be helpful, but its usefulness may be limited in that the patients “who want the app and are willing to enter data and respond to prompts may already be the more proactive ones.”

Kirkman added that she hopes potential insurer reimbursement for apps opens the door wider to support of reimbursement for self-management tools such as contact with diabetes educators.

“Right now, pretty much only face-to-face visits are covered, not the ongoing contacts by phone, fax, email, etc., that are really needed to help someone sustain behavior changes and self-manage their diabetes optimally,” she said.

 

 

SMS supports diabetes self-care

  • Research into Auto SMS in chronic disease published in Health Affairs
  • HBA1C reduced
  • Costs of care reduced
  • Satisfaction with care increased
  • Content included reminders, questions and allowed for responses

Auto TXTing May Boost Diabetes Self-Care

Published: Feb 3, 2014

By David Pittman, Washington Correspondent, MedPage Today

Patients with diabetes who received a text message reminder about checking their blood sugar or refilling their medicines saw improvements in clinical outcomes and lower healthcare costs, researchers said.

The 74 patients enrolled in CareSmarts, a mobile phone-based program that provides automated self-management support, had HbA1c glucose levels that went from an average of 7.9% before the 6-month study period to an average of 7.2% afterward (P=0.01), reported Shantanu Nundy, MD, managing director at Evolent Health, in Arlington, Va., and colleagues in Health Affairs.

Costs also fell 8.8% in the intervention group, with a decline in the number and costs of outpatient visits, they added. No changes in clinical outcomes (P=0.08) or costs were seen in the 274 patients who were not enrolled in CareSmarts and made up the control group.

“Our study offers early evidence that [mobile health] can enable healthcare organizations to effectively support patients beyond the traditional healthcare setting and achieve the triple aim of better health, better healthcare, and lower costs,” they wrote.

Patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes with access to a personal cell phone were recruited for the study at the University of Chicago. Participants were responsible for any text messaging costs charged by their phone carriers, but they were given a $25 cash incentive at the completion of the study.

The average age of the study-arm patients was 53 and nearly 70% were African American, with an average diabetes duration of 8 years. One-third of patients had well-controlled diabetes (HbA1c of 7% or less). Of the 74 patients, 67 completed the 6-month program.

The text messages included reminders (“Time to check your blood sugar”) and questions, such as “Do you need refills of any of your medications?” The patients responded by text, and healthcare providers followed up depending on the responses. The patients also received educational materials.

The intervention group saw improvements in glycemic control (P=0.01) and reported better satisfaction with overall care (P=0.04), according to the authors.

However, broader use of such text messaging tools will require federal guidance and regulations, they cautioned.

“Although we found a business case for the use of [mobile health], the diffusion and sustainability … depends on a supportive policy environment,” they wrote.

While the FDA recently said it wouldn’t regulate mobile apps that don’t interface with an FDA-regulated device, such as glucometers and blood pressure monitors, uncertainty remains about apps used as an accessory to a medical device or those that support medical decision-making.

“In addition, more work is needed to clarify the overlapping roles of the FDA, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, and the Federal Communications Commission,” the authors wrote.

Nundy and colleagues called for government-driven privacy guidelines around provider-to-patient communication through mobile apps, saying organizations are “less likely to develop innovative programs in this area.”

Diabetes care has been one field with a large number of mobile apps for clinicians and patients to better monitor and control the disease. Some applications require a provider’s prescription.

This research was partially funded by the Alliance to Reduce Disparities in Diabetes of the Merck Foundation and received support from the Chicago Center for Diabetes Translation Research.

Nundy co-founded mHealth Solutions, a mobile health software company that provided the software for this research, but reported that he no longer has a financial relationship with the company. He also reported a grant from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Health Services Research Training Program.

One co-author is co-founder and owner of mHealth Solutions.

Other co-authors reported support from National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.