At the CRC for efficient hospitals stakeholder meeting.
Nick Graves has just cited the observation that bureaucrats are budget and status maximizers.
I believe doctors are almost exactly the same.
At the CRC for efficient hospitals stakeholder meeting.
Nick Graves has just cited the observation that bureaucrats are budget and status maximizers.
I believe doctors are almost exactly the same.
Awesome quote from th CIA re. gait identification:
If there’s one entity that knows the value of the health data uploaded to these devices, it’s the CIA. Last year, at a data conference in New York, the CIA’s chief technology officer, Ira Hunt, gave a talk on big data. During the discussion, he told the crowd that he carries a Fitbit. “We like these things,” he said. “What’s really most intriguing is that you can be 100% guaranteed to be identified by simply your gait—how you walk.”
These popular fitness companies say they aren’t selling your info, but privacy advocates and the FTC worry that might change.
—By Dana Liebelson | Fri Jan. 31, 2014 3:00 AM GMT
Lately, fitness-minded Americans have started wearing sporty wrist-band devices that track tons of data: Weight, mile splits, steps taken per day, sleep quality, sexual activity, calories burned—sometimes, even GPS location. People use this data to keep track of their health, and are able send the information to various websites and apps. But this sensitive, personal data could end up in the hands of corporations looking to target these users with advertising, get credit ratings, or determine insurance rates. In other words, that device could start spying on you—and the Federal Trade Commission is worried.
“Health data from [a woman’s] connected device, may be collected and then sold to data brokers and other companies she does not know exist,” Jessica Rich, director of the Bureau for Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, said in a speech on Tuesday for Data Privacy Day. “These companies could use her information to market other products and services to her; make decisions about her eligibility for credit, employment, or insurance; and share with yet other companies. And many of these companies may not maintain reasonable safeguards to protect the data they maintain about her.”
Several major US-based fitness device companies contacted by Mother Jones—Fitbit, Garmin, and Nike—say they don’t sell personally identifiable information collected from fitness devices. But privacy advocates warn that the policies of these firms could allow them to sell data, if they ever choose to do so.
Nike, which makes the Nike + Fuel Band, says in its privacy policy that the company may collect a host of personal information, but doesn’t say that it can be shared with advertising companies. Joy Davis Fair, a Nike spokesperson, says that the company, “does not share consumer data” with outside advertisers, but selectively shares it with other companies under the Nike’s corporate umbrella, including Converse and Hurley. Garmin’s policy says that users have to consent in order for the company to sell personal information. A Garmin spokesman says the company doesn’t sell personal or aggregated information to advertisers, and doing so isn’t part of the company’s business model. (Polar Flow, which makes the Polar Loop band, is the only company with a privacy policy that explicitly says it won’t sell personally identifiable data for advertising. It is based in Finland and subject to stringent European Union privacy laws.)
Jeffrey Chester, executive director for the Center for Digital Democracy, says that these privacy policies are so broad that they could allow the companies to sell health data—even if they aren’t doing so now. “When companies promise that they aren’t selling your data, that’s because they haven’t developed a business model to do so yet,” Chester says.
Scott Peppet, a University of Colorado law school professor, agrees that companies like Fitbit will eventually move toward sharing this data. “I can paint an incredibly detailed and rich picture of who you are based on your Fitbit data,” he said at a FTC conference last year.“That data is so high quality that I can do things like price insurance premiums or I could probably evaluate your credit score incredibly accurately.”
Even if the companies that make these devices aren’t selling the data, there is another potential privacy concern. Users can send their data to dozens of third-party fitness apps on their phone. Once users do that, the data becomes subject to the privacy policies of the app companies, and these policies do not afford much protection, according to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. The group examined 43 popular health and fitness apps last year, and found that, “there are considerable privacy risks for users.” A spokesperson for the FTC told Mother Jones that “fitness devices often work by having apps associated, and [Privacy Rights Clearinghouse’s] analysis here may be relevant.”
If there’s one entity that knows the value of the health data uploaded to these devices, it’s the CIA. Last year, at a data conference in New York, the CIA’s chief technology officer, Ira Hunt, gave a talk on big data. During the discussion, he told the crowd that he carries a Fitbit. “We like these things,” he said. “What’s really most intriguing is that you can be 100% guaranteed to be identified by simply your gait—how you walk.”
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Regions/Middle-East/Overweight-Middle-East-struggles-with-heart-disease-and-diabetes/
The Middle East is grappling with a rise in non-communicable diseases such as heart disease and diabetes, the roots of which are in a rise in obesity among its populace, a new study has found.
According to report, ischemic heart disease is now the leading cause of death in middle and high-income Arab nations – and it comes in at number 4 even in the lowest-income countries in the region.
Stroke is also a leading cause of death, and Kuwait, Lebanon, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE are now among the 10 nations with the highest global prevalence of type 2 diabetes, it said.
The study’s authors put most of the blame for this on the change in dietary habits among the region’s population.
Fat of the land
The report added that the prevalence of overweight and obesity has increased in both young and adult populations of GCC countries, including Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain.
According to the report, 66-75% of the adult population (over 18) and 25-40% of children and adolescents (under 18) in the Middle East are estimated to be overweight or obese.
“The traditional Arab diet has changed from high-fibre and low-fat food with increased integration of the Arab world into the global market over the past four decades,” the study’s authors said.
“Unhealthy dietary habits are prevalent in children, adolescents, and adults, especially in the wealthy GCC countries where a wide variety of global fast-food chains are near ubiquitous,” they added.
According to the report, people in the Arab countries have a high intake of fast food and carbonated beverages and a low intake of milk, fruits, and vegetables, and frequently consume snacks rich in calories, salt, and fat between meals.
Pricing policies?
According to the report, national policies, programmes, and action plans to improve diet and increase physical activity are undeniably important for non-communicable disease prevention.
“But the realities of implementation are likely to be very different from the written policies,” the authors said.
According to the results of a review of diet and physical activity policies in low-income and middle-income countries, only Jordan had a policy that addressed all four risk factors: salt, fat, fruits and vegetables, and physical activity.
“In particular, the review reported that diet and physical activity policies tended not to be associated with specific action plans, timelines, and budgets, and they were also mostly focused on individual behavioural changes,” they said.
“Policies that link to specific budgets and priority actions, and involve a broader range of stakeholders, are needed. Importantly, pricing regulations are needed to ensure that fruits and vegetables are more affordable than processed foods, thus targeting both obesity and micronutrient deficiencies.”
Salt and trans fats need attention
According to the authors, even slight reductions in salt intake will result in substantial reductions in medical costs and cardiovascular events.
“Reduction in salt intake can be achieved with behaviour modification efforts (through advertising and health education campaigns) and reformulation of food products by industry. In the Arab world, bread is a big source of salt in the diet, and should be the first target for reformulation by gradual reduction,” they said.
The authors pointed out that in high-income and middle-income countries, reduction of trans-fat consumption has been addressed through mandatory labelling of the trans-fat content in foods and voluntary agreements.
“But little information about trans-fat intake in the Arab world is available. A recent study in Jordan showed a high and variable content of trans fat in both locally produced and imported foods,” they said.
“The WHO has proposed various policies to reduce trans-fat intake, including further studies on trans fat with respect to labelling, pricing regulations, and import restrictions. Health education campaigns are needed to educate consumers about trans fats,” they recommended.
Source: The Lancet
Non-communicable diseases in the Arab world
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62383-1
Authors: Dr. Hanan F Abdul Rahim. Prof Abla Sibai, Yoused Khader, Prof Nahla Hwalla, Ibtihal Fadhil, Huda Alsiyabi, Awad Mataria, Shanthi mendis, Prof Ali H Mokdad, Abdullatid Husseini
http://www.foodnavigator-asia.com/Policy/Academics-call-for-ban-on-child-facing-junk-food-advertising/
A ban on manipulative junk food advertising to children is urgently needed to help fight increasing rates of childhood obesity, say University of Otago Wellington researchers.
Free toys, gifts, discounts and competitions, promotional characters and celebrities, and appeals to taste and fun, are just some of the techniques used by marketers to promote junk food to kids, according to a recent systematic literature review.
The university’s Department of Public Health has for some time been on a drive to research the causes of obesity in a country where the obesity rate among children aged between five and 11 jumped from 8% to 11% in just six years. At least 20% of New Zealand’s children are considered overweight.
From Happy Meals to ‘open happiness’
Lead researcher Gabrielle Jenkin says most children and parents will be familiar with the offer of free toys at McDonalds, slogans such as “open happiness” with Coke, and the use of licensed characters such as Spiderman or Spongebob Squarepants to promote junk food to children.
Persuasive food marketing is manipulative, especially for children, Jenkin said, adding: “Such marketing has been proven to increase children’s requests for the advertised foods, their food preferences and ultimately their diets. For example, free toys, discounts and competitions promote brand loyalty and repeat purchases.”
Meanwhile, Jenkin’s colleague at UOW’s Department of Public Health, Louise Signal, has been researching the extent of junk food advertising on kids by equipping 200 schoolchildren with wearable cameras and recording the instances they come in contact with advertising from billboards, shops and the back of buses.
“Children tell us that they do see a lot of advertising, but we’ve never quantified it across the entire range of media,” said Signal.
“As a parent myself, I’m very interested because parents aren’t with their older children all of the time, they don’t necessarily know where they go, and a lot of it slides under the radar anyway.”
Bringing legislation in line with other countries
Jenkin and her review team are now calling for an outright ban on junk food advertising to children under 16, as has been done in Norway.
In the absence of a ban, new rules would need to be added to the advertising codes around the use of persuasive techniques, as has been done in the UK, Australian and Ireland, they say.
The study claims to be the first of its kind to focus on common techniques used to promote food to children on television. The research has been published in the latest edition of the international journal, Obesity Reviews.
Heart Foundation lays it all down… we need to lose a combined 120million KGs to return to normal healthy weight range… not as easy as it sounds.
http://www.medicalobserver.com.au/news/being-overweight-or-obese-now-the-norm
AUSTRALIANS need to lose a combined 120 million kilograms to return to a healthy weight range.
The average Australian man now weighs 85.9kg – that’s 6.5kg heavier than he was in 1989 – according to a National Heart Foundation analysis on the severity of the nation’s weight problem.
A breakdown of Heart Foundation national health surveys and government data also revealed that the average woman has gained 5.7kg in the past 25 years and now tips the scales at 71.1kg.
The Heart Foundation’s national director of cardiovascular health, Dr Rob Grenfell, said two-thirds of Australians now fall outside the healthy weight range, with nearly half a million people morbidly obese (BMI > 40).
“To return to a healthy weight range, an average man would need to lose 8.9kg and a woman would need to lose 5.7kg,” Dr Grenfell said.
“The combined weight loss required is just short of 120 million kilograms across the nation.”
The analysis highlights that the average BMI for men is up from 25.3 to 27.9 since 1989, and the average for women is up from 24.3 to 27.2.
Obesity has increased from 8.4% of the population in 1980, to 28.3% in 2011–12.
“It’s scary that two in three Australians are now above the healthy weight range, making overweight and obese weight ranges more ‘normal’ than healthy,” he said.
“The healthiest BMI is relatively lean, at around 22.5–24.9, which is equivalent to a weight of 70–77kg for an Australian man of average height and 59–65kg for an Australian woman of average height.”
In comparison to 1980, the proportion of obese adult Australians has tripled, while the number of people in the healthy weight range has almost halved.
WA and Queensland now have the highest average male BMIs at 28.2, according to the Australian Health Survey of 2011/12, with the highest average female BMIs, 27.7, occurring in SA and Tasmania.
Victoria has the lowest average BMIs at 27.6 for men and 26.9 for women.
http://www.medicalobserver.com.au/news/a-fast-way-to-lose-weight
FASTING is not a new diet fad: the effects of three main regimes have been researched scientifically.
Not all fasting is the same: the amount and type of energy consumed, frequency of eating occasions in a day or number of fasting days per week may vary.
The three types of fasts below have been researched since the 1960s.1
Ramadan
During the month-long, religious obligation during the Islamic calendar, Muslims adhere to strict fasting (no food or fluids) from dawn to sunset, some 13—18 hours.
All adult Muslims fast, except those who are ill, travelling, pregnant, breastfeeding or menstruating. Those with chronic medical conditions such as diabetes are not expected to fast but many do.
Research has found Ramadan appears to have positive effects on blood pressure (BP) and blood lipids for those with stable cardiac conditions, metabolic syndrome, hyperlipidaemia and hypertension.2
However, in those with diabetes, daylight fasting increases blood lipids 2 and results in higher insulin levels,3 risk of hypoglycaemia 4 and deterioration of glycaemic control.5 HbA1c can improve after Ramadan ceases, however.5
Patients with diabetes need to monitor their condition during Ramadan and may require assistance with alteration of drug dosage and timing, and dietary counselling.6
A small weight loss, around 1kg, is seen in those observing Ramadan but it is normally regained the following month.7-9 Ulcers and epigastric pain may be more common during this time.10
Alternate Day Fasting (ADF)
ADF is a dietary pattern with a ‘feed day’ when food and fluids are consumed ad libitum alternated with a ‘fast day’ when only 25% of an individual’s energy requirement is consumed in a 24-hour period. A research group at the University of Illinois at Chicago has been testing the effect of this regime in overweight/obese people since 2009. Overall they have found:
Intermittent Fasting (IF)
IF is a modified version of ADF where, on two non-consecutive days a week, only 25% of energy requirements are consumed, leaving five days of ad libitum diet.
Made popular by the recent book The Fast Diet by UK journalists Dr Michael Mosley and Mimi Spencer, IF has been researched by the University Hospital of South Manchester.20
Over six months 53 obese, premenopausal women followed an IF regime with two days consuming ~2700kJ/day and five days their habitual diet with usual exercise, compared to 54 women on a chronic energy restriction (CER) diet of ~6276 kJ/day for seven days a week.
Other researchers have studied similar IF patterns but only over 12 weeks with similar results for weight and insulin, cholesterol and glycaemic control.21-23
Although compliance was not as high, like ADF, IF may be an alternative dieting regime that may work for some patients.
Summary
http://www.medicalobserver.com.au/news/lives-extended-by-genetic-algorithm
A retrospective study used data from an ovarian cancer registry to genetically profile over 3000 ovarian tumour samples from patients already on one of three common ovarian cancer drugs – paclitaxel, cyclophosphamide and topotecan – to discover differences between tumours that responded to treatment and tumours that didn’t.
The Canadian researchers said site-specific cancers have traditionally been considered to be homogenous, but increasingly, evidence is pointing to significant heterogeneity within the disease.
They also noted that “because it has been so difficult to predict which ovarian cancers will respond to each of the three available drugs, doctors have largely been forced to guess which will work best”, which can lead to treatment failure.
The model, called COXEN (CO-eXpresssion gENe analysis), allowed the researchers to identify the heterogeneity and genetic signatures of tumours that responded to each drug.
They were also able to show that patients who had, by chance, been given the drug that the COXEN model would have picked for them lived 21 months longer than patients who had been initiated on a different drug.
The researchers said their study shows that biomarker-based personalised chemotherapy selection could improve survival of patients with advanced ovarian cancer.
While the model would need to be validated with a prospective clinical trial before use in a clinical setting, the authors said that COXEN led to similar results in patients with bladder cancer in a previous study.
A prospective clinical trial of COXEN in bladder cancer is underway.
PLOS One 2014; 5 February
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303650204579375242842086688
How to Bring the Price of Health Care Into the Open
There’s a Big Push to Tell Patients What They’ll Pay—Before They Decide on Treatment
By MELINDA BECK
Updated Feb. 23, 2014 5:03 p.m. ET
Unlike other industries, prices for health care can vary dramatically depending on who’s paying. The list prices for hospital stays and doctor visits are often just opening bids that insurers negotiate down. The deals insurers and providers strike are often proprietary, making comparisons difficult. Even doctors are generally clueless about what the tests, drugs and specialists they recommend will cost patients.
Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt likens using the U.S. health-care system to shopping in a department store blindfolded and months later being handed a statement that says, “Pay this amount.”
The price-transparency movement aims to lift that veil of secrecy and empower patients and other payers to be smarter health-care consumers. Federal and state agencies are gathering reams of price information from doctors and hospitals and posting them for the public. Health plans are offering online tools that let members calculate their out-of-pocket costs. Startup companies are ferreting out and publishing the long-secret rates that providers negotiate with insurers.
When consumers can compare prices for doctor visits, hospital stays and other services, the theory goes, market competition will help keep them down.
This is new territory for health care. Doctors and hospitals have rarely competed on cost. Third-party payers still foot the bulk of the bills, and many players in the health-care industry benefit from keeping their costs and profit margins murky.
“The time for transparency has clearly arrived—but is everybody ready to have real pricing power brought to bear in a way that could destabilize the health-care sector?” asks Susan Dentzer, a senior policy adviser at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. “It means upsetting a lot of apple carts.”
The pressure to change is rising, however. Experts expect consumers to be much more price-sensitive as they shoulder a growing proportion of health costs themselves. Last year, 38% of Americans with employer-sponsored insurance had a deductible of $1,000 or more—up from 10% in 2006, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Silver and bronze plans created by the Affordable Care Act carry average family deductibles of $6,000 and $10,386, respectively. More than half of bronze plans also require patients to pay 30% of doctors’ fees, according to health-information site HealthPocket.com. “Most of us still don’t have much financial incentive to shop around for cheaper care,” says Suzanne Delbanco, executive director of Catalyst for Payment Reform, a nonprofit that works on behalf of employers. “That’s changing rapidly.”
Efforts to raise transparency are coming from a number of corners, including the Obama administration. But some have mainly shown how confusing health-care pricing is.
Hoping to shine a light on the variations in hospital charges, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, grabbed headlines last May when it released a list of the average prices 3,300 U.S. hospitals charged Medicare for the 100 most common inpatient services during 2011.
The variations were stunning. The average charge for joint-replacement surgery, for example, ranged from $5,300 in Ada, Okla., to $223,000 in Monterey Park, Calif. Even in the same city, there were huge swings. The charge for treating an episode of heart failure was $9,000 in one hospital in Jackson, Miss., and $51,000 in another.
A month later, CMS released a second database comparing average hospital charges for 30 common outpatient procedures, and the variations were just as great. A hospital in Pennington, N.J., charged $3,036 for a diagnostic and screening ultrasound, while one in Bronx, N.Y., billed just $88.
Many hospital executives dismiss those list prices—also known as chargemaster prices—as meaningless and misleading, since few patients ever pay them. Commercial insurers often use them as a starting point for negotiating big discounts. Medicare itself pays hospitals predetermined rates based on diagnoses, regardless of what they charge.
Industry experts say list prices vary so much in part because hospitals use different accounting methods and have different patient populations. List prices also reflect all the costs of running a hospital, including keeping ERs, burn units and other costly services running 24 hours a day. What’s more, many hospital executives say they have to mark up charges for privately insured patients because Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements don’t cover those patients’ cost—a shortfall the American Hospital Association puts at $46 billion nationwide last year.
Hospitals “are absolutely in favor of price transparency,” says AHA president Rich Umbdenstock, and they support a bill in Congress that would let individual states determine price-disclosure rules. He also says hospitals would like to end the confusing chargemaster and cost-shifting practices, but they can’t do it without big changes in payment practices by both the government and the insurance industry.
“If this were in our power to solve, we would have done it a long time ago,” Mr. Umbdenstock says. “But it’s not something we can do on our own.”
Jonathan Blum, deputy administrator of the CMS, counters that chargemaster prices do matter, particularly to uninsured patients who sometimes get stuck with those inflated bills. He says the administration’s goal was to spark discussion about price variations, and that “a tremendous number” of visitors had downloaded the data.
“We’ve discovered that oftentimes, even health-care providers don’t fully realize the extent of those variations,” he says. “Our hypothesis is that a lot of the variations aren’t warranted.”
The prices insurers negotiate with hospitals and doctors are more important to consumers, experts say. Traditionally, those rates have been proprietary. Neither insurers nor providers want competitors and other business partners to know what they’re willing to settle for. Some contracts include gag clauses barring disclosure.
But states are increasingly requiring payers and providers to reveal that information. A few states specifically outlaw gag clauses in health-care contracts. Sixteen states have “all-payer claims databases” designed to collect insurance claims data and use it to monitor trends and identify high- and low-price providers. And some 38 states now require hospitals to report at least some pricing information, although only two—Massachusetts and New Hampshire—rated an “A” in Catalyst for Payment Reform’s annual report card for making the information accessible and usable by patients.
Meanwhile, entrepreneurs are sleuthing out negotiated rates from claims data and making them available to consumers and employers in various forms. Healthcare Bluebook aims to do for health care what the Kelley Blue Book does for used cars: It analyzes negotiated rates paid for thousands of medical services in every ZIP Code—supplied by employers and other clients—and posts what it considers a “fair” price for each so consumers can evaluate what they’re being charged.
Bluebook’s founder and CEO, Jeffrey Rice, says the rates insurers pay for, say, an MRI or knee surgery can vary as much as chargemaster prices do, particularly if a local hospital is dominant or prestigious.
“The difference may not be much between Nashville and Chicago—the big difference may be just down the block,” he says.
Mr. Rice says the employers Healthcare Bluebook works with have saved as much as 12% on their health-care costs by making price information available to their employees, with most savings coming on imaging studies, endoscopies, cardiac testing and other outpatient procedures.
Another service, PricingHealthcare.com, asks users to anonymously supply information from their own medical bills to help it amass the list prices, cash prices and negotiated rates for common procedures. It currently shows rates for some 500 procedures in 11 states. Founder Randy Cox says some providers are furious when asked what their rates are, while others are eager to have their entire price list posted. “I get calls from hospital CEOs who know people are concerned about price and think this is an opportunity for their business,” he says.
One of the most widespread initiatives comes from insurers themselves—who say they are eager to help plan members and employers cut their health-care bills. Some 98% of health plans now offer their members some online tool that lets them calculate their out-of-pocket costs, according to a survey by Catalyst for Payment Reform. A few let users compare different providers in the same network.
UnitedHealth Group Inc. has one of the most extensive tools. More than 21 million members can log into myHealthcare Cost Estimator and compare the negotiated rates for more than 500 individual services at in-network providers across the country, as well as their individual out-of-pocket costs for each one. Hundreds of thousands of plan members have used the tool since it launched in 2012, the company says.
Nationwide, only about 2% of health-plan members who have access to such tools have used them, according to Catalyst for Payment Reform. But Ms. Delbanco expects that number to rise as more patients become aware of the tools and see their out-of-pocket costs growing.
Proponents say it is too early to tell how much impact transparency efforts will have on costs overall. California has required hospitals to make their chargemaster prices public since 2003, with little effect on prices.
But one approach called “reference pricing” has yielded some savings. Where local prices differ substantially for a service like a colonoscopy, an insurer publishes a list of providers’ rates and agrees to pay a set amount. If patients choose a provider that charges more, they must pay the difference themselves.
In one pilot project, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, found prices for hip and knee replacements ranging from $15,000 to $110,000 in the San Francisco area. It agreed to pay up to $30,000, and some 40 hospitals cut their prices to match. Such initiatives have helped Calpers save nearly $3 million in the past two years, one study found.
Experts say that as consumers increasingly compare prices, it’s critical to provide them with information about quality of care as well—otherwise, they might assume high cost equates with high quality.
A growing body of research has found that there is no clear connection between price and outcomes such as mortality rates, blood clots, bed sores and hospital readmission. “Until you break that connection in peoples’ minds, there is a perverse incentive for hospitals and health systems to continue to raise prices,” Ms. Dentzer says.
Indeed, critics fear that some price-transparency efforts could backfire and spur higher prices: If providers see that insurers are paying competitors more, they might hold out for higher rates, and insurers might be less inclined to give some providers favorable deals.
Some skeptics think that without fundamental changes in how health care is priced and paid for, transparency may confuse consumers more than it empowers them.
But there’s a growing consensus that while price transparency alone cannot transform the health-care system, it is necessary to help reveal which costs are excessive and let consumers make better-informed choices.
“At the end of the day, it’s our money,” Ms. Delbanco says. “We have a right to know what our health care is going to cost.”
Ms. Beck covers health care and writes The Wall Street Journal’s Health Journal column. She can be reached at melinda.beck@wsj.com.
c/o Josh Wills (Cloudera, ex Google) from this presentation.
Three simple rules in life: