“This is Prostate Cancer Awareness Month, but it feels more like Prostate Cancer Propaganda Month,” Joel Keehn, senior editor at Consumer Reports Health.Org  observed in a recent phone conversation.

Consumer Reports Health.Org  has posted an excellent piece on why deciding to have a PSA test to detect early-stage prostate cancer is not a slam-dunk decision. We just don’t have any medical evidence that the test saves lives—or even lengthens life by one day. But we do have evidence that current treatments can lead to life-changing side-effects.  See the post here.

Meanwhile those who profit from prostate cancer treatments are taking full advantage of “Prostate Cancer Awareness Month.” On the post, Keehn notes that “during this year’s U.S. Tennis Open the former tennis star John McEnroe has been promoting prostate-cancer screening for men as young as age 40, citing new recommendations from the American Urological Association.” (No surprise, the urologists who administer the tests and treatments endorse them.) “But during his appearances on CNN’s Larry King Live and the Early Show on CBS, there’s been no mention that most organizations, including the American Cancer Society and the United States Preventive Services Task Force” no longer recommend routine testing.They “emphasize that the evidence for the test is sketchy,” Keehen writes. “As a result, those organizations say that men should discuss the pros and cons of the test with their doctor.

“Nor was it mentioned that McEnroe was being paid for his efforts by the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline,” Keehn adds, “which just happens to make dutasteride (Avodart), a prostate medication that GSK hopes may be used as a prostate-cancer prevention drug. And the Web site he promotes during those appearances, no surprise, is also funded by the drug maker.”For further information on treatments for prostate cancer—including “watchful waiting,” see these HealthBeat posts here and here.

Part 1

“It’s like whack-a-mole,” a Dartmouth researcher commented in a recent e-mail. He was referring to that fact that, as Congress moves closer to the day when it will reconcile House and Senate versions of health-care reform legislation, critics seem to be popping up everywhere to question more than two decades of  Dartmouth University research which exposes the waste in our health care system. 

Dartmouth’s researchers can barely keep up. No sooner have they responded to one Op-ed than another mole appears, attempting to undermine the credibility of the research.

Until very recently, “The Dartmouth Research” has been widely accepted. The work done by Drs. Jack Wennberg, Elliott Fisher and their colleagues has established the fact that in some regions of the country, patients receive far more aggressive and expensive care than in other communities. Yet—and here’s the shocker—when patients receive more intensive care, outcomes are no better. Sometimes they are worse.

Continue reading →

The nice thing about Bloomberg News is that no one accuses it of being a left-wing rag.

So when Bloomberg spotlights a  report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM)  that  counters “stingy” estimates from the Congressional Budget Office on how much health care reform could save, it’s worth paying attention. The analysis from the institute’s working group on health costs reveals that the type of reform that Congressional progressives support would save  “five times the amount that CBO acknowledges” according to Bloomberg’s Tim Mullaney.

“The report will help bolster the argument that covering the nation’s 46 million uninsured won’t bust the budget . . .”

According to Bloomberg, the IOM working group plans to release a preliminary version of its report “by about September 20 . . . to ensure its findings contribute to the debate in Congress . . . , with a more comprehensive paper to follow.”

Continue reading →

Most people don't know what is in the House bill to reform health care, yet it is, I think, close to what the Obama administration originally envisioned. When the House and Senate bills are reconciled, how close will the final product be to the House bill?  Hard to tell, but I see it as a benchmark for progressive reform. While it’s not perfect, it represents a very good start. Over the next three years, as it’s fleshed out, details are filled in, and Medicare is reformed in ways that enhances the quality of care, eliminates hazardous waste and reins in costs, it could become an excellent plan.  But you can’t root for it if you don’t know what’s in it.

As I mentioned yesterday, the House Committee on Education and Labor has put together an interactive graphic to help people figure out how “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act,” HR3200 would affect them.  Again here’s the link. Click on it, and you can find out what the legislation would mean for you, whether you’re self-employed, uninsured, on Medicare, or have employer-based insurance. It also tells you how the bill would affect both large and small employers.

Continue reading →

To combat all the rumors and myths out there, the House Committee on Education & Labor has  put together an interactive graphic to help folks figure out how the House Plan would effect them and their employers.

It looks excellent. Comments?

Last week I was travelling, and not able to respond to all of your comments. Though I did begin writing replies in the car, while driving down to D.C.

This is not as dangerous as it sounds—my husband was doing the driving. And we drove from our home in Manhattan to the hotel in D.C. in just four hours!

 Is this as dangerous as it sounds? Hard to say. In all of his years of driving my husband has never had an accident. And we’re certainly safer than if I were driving. (I tend to start thinking . . .  about healthcare, the problems, possible solutions  . . .)  

But all you really need to know is that you’re not likely to encounter me on a highway near you, and if you commented on a recent post, you’ll probably find my reply.

Secondly, readers have e-mailed me to ask whether individuals can buy the DVD of Money-Driven Medicine, the  documentary based on my book, produced by Alex Gibney (“Enron: The Smartest Guys In the Room” and “Taxi to the Dark Side,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary in 2007. 

Originally, the information on the website where you can buy the DVD (www.moneydrivenmedicine.org) was unclear.  But the fact is that individuals can buy the DVD from the film’s distributor for $49.95.  The distributor is hoping that you might then host a home screening—invite five or six friends over to watch the film, much the way you might invite them for dinner. (Or “pass the hat” and everyone can chip in for the film.)  Full disclosure: I have nothing to do with pricing, and will not profit from sales of DVDs. The distributor owns the rights.

The Book : Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason That Healthcare Cost so Much is now once again available, one-day shipping  When Bill Moyers showed an abridged version of the film on his PBS show, Bill Moyers Journal, demand for the book soared, and the publisher, Harper/Collins, ran out of copies. They immediately went into a second printing, and books are now available on www.barnesandnoble.com to be  shipped the next day.  Amazon.com also now hax copies, though their website hasn’t yet updated to say how quickly they can ship them.  

Correction: I’m afraid I created some confusion on the “Truth Squad: The House Bill Would Prevent Medical Bankruptcies” post below ( https://healthbeatblog.com/2009/09/truth-squad-the-house-bill-would-prevent-medical-bankruptcies.html)

Continue reading →

Last night, President Obama gave an excellent speech. He was clear; he was passionate. I did not expect him to draw a line in the sand regarding the public insurance option. That would only have given his opponents a clear target. The decision about the public option will be made at the very end of this process when the House and Senate bills are reconciled. There were no real surprises in the president’s speech. What stood out was the reaction to what he said:

“You lie!”

Representative Joe Wilson’s unprecedented outburst underlined the extraordinary hostility that President Obama faced last night.

Continue reading →

A story in today’s New York Times begins: “For years, health policy experts have said health care spending is much higher in New York City and Boston because doctors and hospitals there provide more services, practicing medicine in a more intensive way. But new government data show that Medicare costs per patient in those cities are slightly below the national average when the numbers are adjusted for the cost of living and other factors.”

The Times goes on to explain that President Obama “says that the nation could save huge sums if all doctors and hospitals were as efficient as those in lower-cost states like Iowa, Minnesota, Washington and Wisconsin. Lawmakers from those states have reached an agreement with House Democratic leaders that would increase federal Medicare payments to health providers in their states. Higher-cost states, which could see their Medicare payments reduced, are fighting back.”

Continue reading →

Here’s what we have been waiting for and waiting for and waiting for  –Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus’ outline for “bipartisan health care reform.” You’ll find the 18-page document here.

Keep in mind this is still a work-in progress. But I couldn’t help but notice a gift to the for-profit insurance companies near the very top of the document:

Continue reading →

Over at Jon Cohn’s TNR blog, The Treatment, Harold Pollack a, professor at the University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration and Special Correspondent for The Treatment points to a major piece of misinformation in today’s New York Times.

In an interview, a reporter asked: Would any of the plans under discussion on Capital Hill reduce the rate of medical bankruptcies?"

The single-payer advocate responded: "Only the single-payer plan sponsored by Representative John Conyers, Jr. and Senator Bernie Sanders. The others pretty clearly do little or nothing for medical bankruptcy.”

As Pollack points out, this simply isn’t true—the House bill caps how much money a family of four earning $55,000 a year can spend out-of pocket on health care at $368 a month–even if they were in an auto accident and ran up $300,000 worth of medical bills. (Their monthly medical premium would be capped at $322 a month)  See his full explanation here.

More reporters need to read the House bill and explain what is in it to their readers. Otherwise, people will continue to repeat lies like this one until everyone believes them. (Let me be clear: I am not suggesting that the single-payer advocate deliberately lied. My guess is that he just hasn’t read the House bill carefully, and is relying on what other single-payer advocates have told him.)

Pollack ends his post: “I don’t blame single-payer advocates for pushing their own bill, HR676. Still, I am baffled by the apparent hostility with which some single-payer advocates regard current health care reforms. I am also baffled by the apparent equanimity with which some regard the prospect of these measures [the House bill and the Senate HELP bill)  going down to defeat—a defeat that would badly damage the Obama presidency. Pollack links to this interview.

Addressing the single-payer advocates, Pollack writes: “Wake up guys. We need the  help.” Do they really want to see Obama become a one-term president?