Tuesday, August 5, 2014

How does an ULTRA-MARATHON sound to you?


A new and growing challenge for extreme sports is the  ultramarathon.  A normal marathon which is just over 26 miles long is a piddling distance compared to the ultramarathon, that is four times as long. The most common distances are 50 kilometres (31.069 mi), 100 kilometres (62.137 mi), 50 miles (80.4672 km), and 100 miles (160.9344 km), although many races have other distances. The 100 kilometers is recognized as an official world record event by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)

A recent ultramarathon which attracted about a dozen runners lasted 24 to 48 hours as well as an elevation change of 17,000 feet.

A standard typical marathon presents some dangers to unconditioned athletes. Extending the distance increases the liklihood of serious complications. These include  hyponatremia, edema of the extremities and life threatening pulmonary edema.  These are caused by a fluid shift from the extracellular space to the cell resulting in swelling of the cells.

There is some evidence that extreme runs can produce some heart scarring, however suprisingly joints seem to do well. Each runner must develop their skill carefully and tailored to the feedback they receive from their body.  Fluid balance and caloric intake are critical. Some runners experience gastrointestinal cramping during runs.

Science Friday Podcast:



There have been no long term studies on the effects of these extreme runs.  So if you are bored with it all, ramp things up after studying the longer events. However, extend your distances gradually, allowing your physiology to condition itself .

Try to keep up with me.....hehehe


                                                                                                  Pedal Edema= Swelling of Ankles
                                                                                                 

Monday, August 4, 2014

Uber: House calls on demand? Uhhhh...

New App Requests Physician House Calls


 A new service called Pager - similar to Uber and Lyft - has launched in New York City where a person can request a house call with a physician.  Currently it is cash only, ranging between $199-$299 per visit depending on the time of day; the physician keeps 80% of each visit while the company who created the mobile app gets the rest.  However, the company is hoping to negotiate with insurance companies in the future so that patients would only be responsible for a copay at the time of the visit. 




Comments from Sermo MD Social Media Web Site:
Obstetrics & Gynecology
More than 100 posts and more than 1000 comments
Posted via iPhone August 01, 2014 - 08:17AM EDT
This is a great service, but should start at $500.
Mark this comment helpful  |  13 physicians found this comment helpful
said
Obstetrics & Gynecology
More than 1000 comments
Posted August 01, 2014 - 08:37AM EDT
Right, let capitalism thrive. Spoke with a Brit, a wealthy brit last night. Their secondary market for health care for those with money is doing just fine. Great service and docs get paid.
Mark this comment helpful  |  9 physicians found this comment helpful
said
Family Medicine / Practice (FP)
More than 1000 comments
Posted via iPhone August 01, 2014 - 08:43AM EDT
I think I like it.
Mark this comment helpful  |  2 physicians found this comment helpful
said
Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (Physiatry)
More than 100 posts and more than 1000 comments
Posted via iPhone August 01, 2014 - 08:57AM EDT
Low overhead, but travel expenses. I can imagine getting one call for one side of town and the next on the other side, then back again.
Inevitably, there will be people who need to go to UC or ER, or even just an regular office for equipment or tests not carried around. Then they will be upset that they didn't get what they wanted through the home visit and want their money back.
Mark this comment helpful  |  11 physicians found this comment helpful
said
Pediatrics (excluding surgery)
More than 100 posts and more than 1000 comments
Posted August 01, 2014 - 08:59AM EDT
I would have more of a concern for the physician's safety.
Mark this comment helpful  |  17 physicians found this comment helpful
said
Orthopedic Surgery
More than 1000 comments
Posted August 01, 2014 - 09:03AM EDT
I have done house-calls in Detroit, and now in a small rural town.
No fee, as these are always post-op patients in the 90 day global period.
I do it for patients who are more-than-average home-bound by their injury.
Patients love it.
In Detroit, the patients could barely believe that I would do it!
I would never do this for a non-op or pre-op patient.
Mark this comment helpful  |  7 physicians found this comment helpful
said
Family Medicine / Practice (FP)
More than 100 posts and more than 1000 comments
Posted August 01, 2014 - 09:20AM EDT
Wealthy new parent with a fussy baby? Call to break up fecal impaction hanging in a 90 y/o DuPont?

This "service" calls for abuse on both sides of the bargain -- not a good idea, IMO; plus being a monumental waste of physician resources (thus calling for mid-levels to do it cheaper).
Both thumbs down.
Mark this comment helpful  |  7 physicians found this comment helpful
said
Neurology
More than 1000 comments
Posted August 01, 2014 - 09:22AM EDT
Some will think that there is a disparity because of wealth because the medicare and medicaid will suffer discrimination. Can you imagine opening this up to the medicaid crowd- calls every2 minutes to make house call for colds or stubbed toes at 3am for$18? Hell no.
Mark this comment helpful  |  4 physicians found this comment helpful
said
Internal Medicine
More than 100 posts and more than 1000 comments

Sunday, August 3, 2014

Workforce in Medicine

The Affordable Care Act is expected to  influence Graduate Medical Education funding in many ways that are unexpected.



Our sister publication, Digital Health Space has covered relevant information about the influence of GME upon provider accessibility, which remains a major concern regarding the success of the Affordable Care Act. More  here and here




Federal Graduate Medical Education  funding has largely been appropriated to big eastern institutions in Boston, New  York, and the Eastern United States. Expected changes will include a more equitable distribution of federal GME funding, as well as prioritizing the primary care physician workforce.

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Hospitals pay to use U.S. News 'Best Hospitals' logo



The same skepticism about motive applies to Health grades.Healthgrades They portray themselves as the ultimate arbiter of hospital and physician quality but they are just out to sell hospitals the right to proclaim themselves a Healthgrades champion and and to sell ad clicks on their physician rating pages, while providing out of date information from public databases.

Children's Mercy Hospitals and Clinics pays $42,000 a year to use the logo, 


No, hospitals do not pay to be ranked in the U.S. Best Hospitals annual ranking, But some organizations won't reveal how much they spend

U.S. News releases 2014-15 Best Hospitals rankings

This edition of RANKINGS marks the first time the publication assembled the list using a new methodology, according to U.S. News. Not only did the publication double the weight of patient safety in 12 specialties from 5 to 10 percent of the hospital's overall score, it reduced the weight of hospital reputation for those specialties from 32.5 to 27.5 percent.
U.S. News credits the methodology change to increased public reporting of "rigorously studied" hospital quality measures. A study released earlier this year criticized what it called U.S. News' out sized emphasis on hospital reputations in its previous methodology, noting a weak correlation between hospital prices and reputations, and patient outcomes.

The top 10 hospitals on this year's Honor Roll were:
  1. Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota
  2. Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston
  3. Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore
  4. Cleveland Clinic
  5. UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles
  6. New York-Presbyterian University Hospital of Columbia and Cornell in New York City
  7. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania-Penn Presbyterian in Philadelphia
  8. UCSF Medical Center in San Francisco
  9. Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston
  10. Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago

Big name, expensive hospitals don't necessarily provide best care


Hospitals' reputations and prices have little bearing on their care quality, according to a new study published in Health Affairs.
For the study, researchers analyzed almost 25,000 insurance claims from current and retired autoworkers in 10 metropolitan areas: Cleveland; Detroit; Indianapolis; Kansas City; St. Louis; Flint, Mich.; Warren, Mich.; Toledo, Ohio; Youngstown, Ohio and Buffalo, N.Y. The workers visited 110 hospitals, divided into three categories:
  • Thirty "low-price" hospitals, where prices were at least 10 percent below average;
  • Fifty "medium-price" hospitals, which were not defined in the study; and 
  • Thirty "high-price" hospitals, where prices were 10 percent or more above average.
High-priced hospitals were twice the size of low-priced ones, and had three times their market share, according to the researchers, led by Chapin White of the RAND Corporation. The expensive hospitals were also much more likely to be included inU.S. News & World Report's national hospital rankings. Twenty-five percent of high-priced hospitals appeared in the U.S. News rankings, while none of the low-priced ones appeared on any of the publication's lists, according to the study

Attribution:


Monday, July 28, 2014

Whipple Procedure....One Place to Go

              


   Advances in General Surgery  reduce morbidity and mortality

The Whipple procedure, a surgery in which a tumor is removed from the pancreas, used to have a mortality rate of 25 percent 25 years ago, says Dr. John Cameron, the Alfred Blalock Distinguished Service Professor of Surgery atThe Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. The procedure involves surgeons removing a third of the pancreas, most of a part of the small intestine, a portion of the bile duct, the gallbladder and associated lymph nodes. 

It takes about six hours to complete, and most patients stay in the hospital for one to two weeks afterward. Hopkins performs more pancreas cancer surgeries than any other institution in the country, and has brought the mortality rate down to 2 percent, according to its website. Cameron has performed more Whipple procedures than anyone in the world. "It's the only operation I do," he says.






Attribution ( U.S.News )


Sunday, July 27, 2014

Health Care in Danger: Deliberate Attacks on Health Care during Armed Conflict

During the past several years the number of armed conflicts has grown. Following the removal of tyrannical leaders multiple organizations both internally and externally have gained power as a result of the power vacuum and withdrawal of American power as a stabilizing leader.


The number of regugees has skyrocked, and health issues become paramount, infectious disease, social strife, malnutrition, and public health. Dealing with any one of these in a challenge in lesser developed nations.  Combining these with instability of a central government, destruction of pre-existing health facilities and organization increases morbidity and mortality rates.

Public LibPLOS (Public Library of Science) is an open source platform of peer reviewed articles. This month PLOS focuses on "Health Care in Danger: Deliberate Attacks on Health Care during Armed Conflict"  

Citation: The PLOS Medicine Editors (2014) Health Care in Danger: Deliberate Attacks on Health Care during Armed Conflict. PLoS Med 11(6): e1001668. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001668


Since 2001, June 20th has been the day when the world considers the plight of refugees and internally displaced people by commemorating World Refugee Day [1]. This year's theme is a continuation of the “1” campaign, in which the world is asked to take 1 minute to consider the situation for a family forced to flee, many of whom may have just 1 minute to get ready [2]. Keeping with the time theme, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that world-wide, one person is forced to flee to become a refugee or internally displaced person every 4.1 seconds [3].

PLOS Medicine supports the importance of research on practical approaches to prevent such attacks, as well as studies that evaluate interventions to improve health care in conflict settings more broadly. Such research is difficult and fraught with “real world” factors, but, as a recent article published in PLOS Medicine argues, disaster health interventions and decision-making can benefit from an evidence-based approach [13]. In this article, Martin Gerdin and colleagues from the initiative Evidence Aid argued that health care decision-making in disaster preparedness and response needs to move towards a reliable and robust evidence base for all interventions being considered in disaster risk reduction, planning, response, and recovery [13].

Deliberate attacks on patients, hospitals, and clinics are atrocious acts. While of course improved data collection on the number and nature of the attacks is important, practical action is also necessary to help improve the health outcomes of people terrorised, harmed, and displaced by such attacks. The PLOS Medicine editors welcome the research, debate, and discussion on how such practical measures can be implemented. Let's hope that next year's World Refugee Day will have more positive news.

To further add to the destruction and chaos of conflict, the past few years have brought mounting concern over the deliberate attacks on health care facilities and health workers, perpetrated to cause maximum damage to the health of populations. In 2011, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) published a landmark report that documented attacks on health care in 16 countries affected by conflict [7]. As the ICRC says: “Statistics represent only the tip of the iceberg: they do not capture the compounded cost of violence–health-care staff leaving their posts, hospitals running out of supplies, and vaccination campaigns coming to a halt” [7]. These knock-on effects of attacks dramatically limit access to health care for entire communities. Furthermore, such attacks are an insult to the Geneva Conventions, and the international community has responded with several initiatives and activities. For example, the ICRC launched the Health Care in Danger campaign, with the slogan “Violence against health care must end” [8]. And several organizations worldwide have recently joined forces to form the Safeguarding Health in Conflict Coalition, with the aim of promoting respect for international humanitarian and human rights laws for the safety of health facilities, health workers, ambulances, and patients during conflict [9].

With such concerted activity attempting to tackle the egregious acts of attacks on health care, it is disappointing to note the distinct lack of progress in reducing the number of such attacks. A report by Human Rights Watch and the Safeguarding Health in Conflict Coalition, released to coincide with last month's World Health Assembly, catalogued recent examples of attacks on health workers and facilities [12]
The report makes depressing reading and provides explicit examples from 18 countries of attacks on health care, some better known than others. For example, in September 2013 the UN-mandated Independent International Commission on the Syrian Arab Republic stated that Syrian health workers and facilities have been deliberately and systematically targeted [12]. And the report states that since December 2013, South Sudan's conflict has led to widespread attacks on civilians, including in hospitals, and massive destruction of dozens of hospitals and clinics [10]. The report notes that the level of attacks has escalated recently and calls on the global community to recognize attacks targeted against health care as a critical human rights issue [12]. The report also adds to the Bellagio call for action and stresses that more action is urgently needed, including expanding and coordinating research on attacks and on the interference with health care, through in-depth qualitative studies [12].


Citation: The PLOS Medicine Editors (2014) Health Care in Danger: Deliberate Attacks on Health Care during Armed Conflict. PLoS Med 11(6): e1001668. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001668


Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Affordable Care Act---F.U.B.A.R. Supreme Court Throws out Subsidies for Federal Health Benefit Exchanges

Court Deals Setback to Health Care Law


WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the government could not subsidize health care premiums for people in three dozen states that use the federal insurance exchange, a ruling that could upend President Obama’s health care law.
The 2-to-1 ruling could potentially cut off financial assistance for more than 4.5 million people who were found eligible for subsidized insurance in the federal exchange, or marketplace.
Under the Affordable Care Act, the court said, subsidies are available only to people who obtained insurance through exchanges established by states.
The law “does not authorize the Internal Revenue Service to provide tax credits for insurance purchased on federal exchanges,” said the ruling, by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The law, it said, “plainly makes subsidies available only on exchanges established by states.”


For many people, their share of premiums could increase sharply, making insurance unaffordable

More

Share Your Experience With the Affordable Care Act