“Nearly One in Four Americans Will Die of Cancer” (NYT)–Unless You Are a Woman, a Non-Smoker, Middle-Class or over 35 . . .

Summary-Not long ago, a New York Times editorial repeated a statistic that you may have heard before: "one in four Americans are projected to die of cancer."  Fortunately, this is a complete fabrication. For most Americans–including the vast majority of Times' readers– the risk is far lower.

 

A recent New York Times editorial announced that the war on cancer is reaching "a state of crisis."   Citing the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the Times called for boosting funds that support cancer trials while also raising the academic rewards to encourage researchers to run clinical trials. Appealing to readers' pre-dawn terrors, the editorial concludes by declaring that "Nearly one in four Americans are projected to die from cancer. It is vitally important to find the best treatments for them."

Continue reading

A Break from Health-Care Wonkery

Over on “Movin’ Meat,” an ER doctor living in the Pacific Northwest tells a true story titled “Where romance and medicine collide.”

 I suspect that many readers will view this tale as a welcome  respite from the details of health care legislation.  But I should warn that  some might find it in questionable taste. The opening should help you decide: 

A patient was brought in around midnight as a ‘possible stroke.’ She was a sixty-something woman who had suddenly become unresponsive.  She and her husband had been making love at the time, and he noticed that she was no longer conscious.” [Good For Him!- mm]

Many thanks to the “Happy Hospitalist” for calling attention to this post

You can find the full post here.

 

Myths & Facts about Health Care Reform: The Impact on Hospitals, Community Clinics, Nurses, Physician-Owned Specialty Centers, and Hospital Patients– Part 4


Summary: In Part 3 of “Myths & Facts about the Impact of Reform on Hospitals and Patients Who Need Hospital Care,”  I addressed the fear that  cuts in Medicare spending will threaten the financial health of the nation’s hospitals. Reform’s critics argue that hospitals already lose money on Medicare patients, and that if the government tightens its belt, they will lose revenues that they sorely need if they are going to provide high quality care. The truth is that, today, more efficient hospitals make money or at least break even on Medicare beneficiaries. The Medicare “cuts” will not affect needed care; they aim only at reducing waste, infections and inefficiencies that hurt patients. I also explain how Medicaid’s expansion will help hospitals.

Here, in Part 4, I respond to rumors that because government pays less than private insurers, hospitals will continue to shift costs to insurers, and thus, insurance premiums will rise. The truth is that private insurers are over-paying some hospitals, not because Medicare pays too little, but because large brand-name hospitals have more clout in the marketplace than insurers, and can force them to accept high charges. As reform regulations put insurers under financial pressure, it’s likely that they will begin to fight back. Meanwhile, states will follow Massachusetts in taking a closer look at “marquee hospitals” that charge more for basic services, without providing better care.

Continue reading

The American Cancer Society’s Dr. Len Lichtenfield on Provenge & Prostate Cancer:

Summary: I’m crossing posting this piece from Dr. Len’s Cancer Blog http://www.cancer.org/aspx/blog/Comments.aspx?id=353

because it seems to me a very wise and balanced assessment of what Provenge means—and doesn’t mean—for patients, for Medicare and for society as a whole. I’ve highlighted some sentences, and inserted a few comments in italic. Many thanks to HealthBeat reader Greg Pawelski for calling attention to this piece.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

Today’s announcement by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)   (FDA) that they approved Provenge for the treatment of advanced, hormone resistant prostate cancer is significant for several reasons, not the least of which that it offers new hope to men with advanced prostate cancer where progress in treatment has been very slow in coming.

 

Equally important, it closes the door on decades of unfulfilled hopes that tumor vaccines and immunotherapy would eventually play a significant role in cancer treatment.  We now have a demonstrated success, which is especially important given the many near-misses that have occurred over the years.  This reinforces for many the dream that one day we would be able turn on the body’s own defense mechanisms as one more approach to treat (or one day—perhaps—prevent) certain cancers.

 

As exciting as this announcement is, and with all of that hope it brings to patients, their families and the physicians who treat them, it is important that we keep this development in perspective for what it is: one small step in an otherwise complex and still difficult situation.  It is not a miracle cure, especially for men with very advanced, symptomatic disease.


Continue reading