October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, so I can’t let it pass without commenting on the American Cancer Society’s (ACS) recently updated screening mammogram guidelines. Before, the ACS recommended annual mammograms starting at age 40.
Now they recommend annual mammograms for ages 45 to 54, with screening mammograms done every other year after age 55.
But, they add, women should still have the choice to start screening at age …
This week the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) started a public health campaign called
The highlight is a short video featuring a catchy song and colorful South Park-esque kidneys peeing in all sorts of places—parks, swimming pools, on top of a car, etc.
OK, it’s cute, kind of. But here’s my problem with this video (other than the it’s a cartoon more appropriate for …
A friend of mine who is an avid reader of both
The New Yorker and my blog sent me the following link: Overkill: An avalanche of unnecessary medical care is harming patients physically and financially. What can we do about it?
The author is Atul Gawande, MD, one of my favorite surgeon/writers. It’s a long article, but if you are interested in saving money on your health care (and possibly …
read on is a term coined in the early 1990s that describes the government’s use of Healthism “ propaganda and coercion to establish norms of health” and its attempts “to impose norms of a ‘healthy lifestyle.'”
Think about the cities that have chosen to ban smoking or trans-fats or super-sized sodas.
Or the new federal school lunch program’s rather
rigid nutrition standards.
Or the Affordable Care Act. It mandates coverage of …
I’ve mentioned in several posts that I think screening tests, especially mammograms, are used too widely in this country. Every woman over age 40? Every year? It’s overkill.
Even the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) only recommends a screening mammogram
every other year between the ages of 50 and 75.
But most women still think the yearly mammogram is health care at its finest.
Related post: … Screening mammograms—benefits vs read on
I’ve written a couple of posts about the Number Needed to Treat, aka the NNT. That’s the number of people that must be treated with a drug, a procedure or a screening test to save one life.
The lower the number, the better.
Related post: Number Needed to Treat
Well, the dark twin of the NNT is the Number Needed to Harm, or the NNH. How many people can be …
Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a short article on screening mammograms that included a spiffy infographic on the benefits vs. the harms.
Looking at the graphic I can easily see that if 10,000 50-year-old women are screened, 10 will be “saved”, but 940 will undergo an unnecessary biopsy and 57 will be overdiagnosed. (For copyright reasons I can’t reprint the graphic here, but you can view …
read on Profits stay high, too
On Monday, the
New York Times published another brilliant piece by Elisabeth Rosenthal in her series “Paying Till it Hurts.”
Testing has become to the United States’ medical system what liquor is to the hospitality industry: a profit center with large and often arbitrary markups. From a medical perspective, blood work, tests and scans are tools to help physicians diagnose and monitor disease. But from a
read on Lack of support for vitamin D
several posts on vitamin D. That’s because it’s one of my pet peeves.
Because there was a lot of hype surrounding it several years ago when it became the latest health care fad. Suddenly a low vitamin D level was suspected of contributing to many types of cancer and chronic diseases. Physicians began testing everyone’s vitamin D levels and recommending …
read on New treatments for hepatitis C
an article online the other day in which the author practically shouted at her readers to “Run as fast as you can to your doctor’s office and get screened for hepatitis C!”
OK, what she actually wrote was:
Overall, the outlook for patients with hepatitis C is much better than it was just a couple of years ago. So if you’re a baby