From a CDC report released today: "Among 33 participating states with data for both periods, the age-adjusted incidence of diabetes increased 90% from 4.8 per 1,000 in 1995--1997 to 9.1 in 2005--2007."
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5743a2.htm
Thursday, October 30, 2008
What Baseball Can and Can't Teach Us About Healthcare Delivery
Greetings all,
I thought that I'd like to direct everyone's attention to an interesting opinion piece about what how healthcare systems can alter their best-practices through statistics-rich evidence-based medicine. The article notes how baseball management has changed its methods through sabermetrics (valuable baseball-y statistics), and how similar successful efforts have been attempted in the health field. If you're a tad skeptical, a nice rebuttal is provided here from one of my favorite health care blogs. At the least it is something for us HPMers to think about before we nod off at the 8 AM biostatistics class.
Enjoy!
Also, a little self-promotion for the site that I'm contributing to about public-private interventions in the developing world. For anyone who is at all interested in learning about new methods of health delivery in the developing world give it a read over. The chief dude behind the site, Dominic Montagu at UCSF, is co-teaching a class next semester on the topic. Check it out at www.ps4h.org.
UPDATE: Apropos of the article above, I forgot to mention that the lead writer is the one and only Billy Beane the A's awesome GM, and the co-writers are John Kerry and Newt Gingrich, so read it.
I thought that I'd like to direct everyone's attention to an interesting opinion piece about what how healthcare systems can alter their best-practices through statistics-rich evidence-based medicine. The article notes how baseball management has changed its methods through sabermetrics (valuable baseball-y statistics), and how similar successful efforts have been attempted in the health field. If you're a tad skeptical, a nice rebuttal is provided here from one of my favorite health care blogs. At the least it is something for us HPMers to think about before we nod off at the 8 AM biostatistics class.
Enjoy!
Also, a little self-promotion for the site that I'm contributing to about public-private interventions in the developing world. For anyone who is at all interested in learning about new methods of health delivery in the developing world give it a read over. The chief dude behind the site, Dominic Montagu at UCSF, is co-teaching a class next semester on the topic. Check it out at www.ps4h.org.
UPDATE: Apropos of the article above, I forgot to mention that the lead writer is the one and only Billy Beane the A's awesome GM, and the co-writers are John Kerry and Newt Gingrich, so read it.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The FDA and Bisphenol A
Earlier this year, the Canadian government put Bisphenol A on its list of toxic substances and started drafting regulations to ban the sale of baby bottles containing the substance. BPA is a chemical that can mimic the hormone estrogen. Its harmful effects are more acute for infants, whose bodies cannot expel the chemical as fast as older children and adults. When the story first broke, the reaction was swift: I remember seeing several news stories about it, and it was next to impossible to find either plastic baby bottles or glass baby bottles in stores - the former because they had been pulled by manufacturers, and the latter because concerned parents had bought them all up because they were "safe."
In the United States, the FDA recently released a report stating that the low doses of BPA that humans get from eating out of plastic containers that contain the chemical are not harmful. This finding has seemingly been controversial, however, with many scientists questioning the initial report. In response, the FDA asked an independent panel to review the findings, and it has found that the margins of safety used by the FDA for BPA are inadequate. Further, the panel said that the FDA failed to consider all of the relevant scientific literature about BPA when it made its initial conclusion. It is not known yet whether or not (or when) the FDA will review its decision on BPA, but the findings of the panel will likely put pressure on the agency to do so. For more information, there is an article on the CBC's website: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/10/29/bpa-fda.html.
In the United States, the FDA recently released a report stating that the low doses of BPA that humans get from eating out of plastic containers that contain the chemical are not harmful. This finding has seemingly been controversial, however, with many scientists questioning the initial report. In response, the FDA asked an independent panel to review the findings, and it has found that the margins of safety used by the FDA for BPA are inadequate. Further, the panel said that the FDA failed to consider all of the relevant scientific literature about BPA when it made its initial conclusion. It is not known yet whether or not (or when) the FDA will review its decision on BPA, but the findings of the panel will likely put pressure on the agency to do so. For more information, there is an article on the CBC's website: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/10/29/bpa-fda.html.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Lloyd Dean - Sunday Chron
I am still thinking about the amazing session with Lloyd Dean from last week....quite a visionary leader and someone we will have to watch to see what he does if the election tracks to the current polls and Obama is elected.
Coincidentally, this Sunday the Business section of the SF Chronicle had an interview with Mr Dean:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BUL613LU85.DTL&hw=lloyd+dean&sn=001&sc=1000
Kim
Coincidentally, this Sunday the Business section of the SF Chronicle had an interview with Mr Dean:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BUL613LU85.DTL&hw=lloyd+dean&sn=001&sc=1000
Kim
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Canadian Election Results
The results of the Canadian election are in: the Conservatives are back in power with a strengthened minority of 143, while the Liberals took 76, the NDP 37, and the Bloq 50. Although the Conservatives strengthened their minority, they still do not have a majority, which means that they will need the cooperation of at least one of the other parties to pass legislation. When I last posted about the election, I mentioned that the Conservatives had no health care policies to speak of (and, in fact, no platform at the time). However, on October 9, Stephen Harper (the Canadian Prime Minister) announced plans to invest $10 million dollars between now and 2010 to support the development of a National Lung Health Framework, which is a strategic action plan to promote lung health, and to provide $15 million for a study of how Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease affect Canadians. Over the past two years, the Conservatives have invested in important health care initiatives, such as the establishment of the Canadian Mental Health Commission and provincial wait times guarantees, so there is no reason to believe that they will not make good on these promises. At the same time, the more far-reaching health care platforms of the other parties will likely not be realized over the next four years unless the parties can work together to force the passage of new health care legislation.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Women's interest in health vs. pop culture
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7662942.stm
I read this article from BBC News that tries to compare women's interest in popular culture vs. their interest in breast cancer. The statistics from the 1000 women surveyed show that 4 out of 5 women can name celebrities but only half check themselves for breast lumps once a month. It is true that over 40, 000 women in the UK are diagnosed with breast cancer each year, however I do not believe it is true that women are more interested in the gossip page than their risks at contracting this disease.
Pretty much everyone in this class has our 200C Core class, and we all listened to Lori Dorfman speak about media advocacy. I believe that this article is a perfect example of framing. This article does mention the seriousness of breast cancer and the concern women should have about their own health. It also illustrates the lack of care some women take in their own regular examination. Yet, the article frames the issue in such a way that it blames the victim. Women are the victims of breast cancer, and often are uninformed about their risks unless they have someone in their life who has been a victim of the disease. It may be true that more women read tabloid magazines and know who is dating whom, than their risks of developing cancer. However, this does not indicate to me the apathy surrounding breast cancer health the article suggests.
A more productive framework for this article would be to inform about the problem and then give suggestions on what women can do to get more information. The article mentions the Breast Cancer Campaign, (whatever that is) but there is no suggestion on where the public can even get a breast exam. There is no mention of how to be proactive about one's breast health and no guidance on what women should do should they find a breast lump at all.
I believe that part of the problem of lack of information is articles like this one. By blaming women for being more interested in celebrity drama than their health, we ignore the fundamental problem with the system. Information about popular culture is just easier to acquire. People absorb what is put in front of them and with articles like this, we miss the point: breast exams should be done regularly by all women and a conversation about breast cancer should be had with one's doctor. When reading this the majority of people would ignore the institutional shortcomings of lack of information about this topic, and blame the personal choices of women to not give themselves monthly exams.
I read this article from BBC News that tries to compare women's interest in popular culture vs. their interest in breast cancer. The statistics from the 1000 women surveyed show that 4 out of 5 women can name celebrities but only half check themselves for breast lumps once a month. It is true that over 40, 000 women in the UK are diagnosed with breast cancer each year, however I do not believe it is true that women are more interested in the gossip page than their risks at contracting this disease.
Pretty much everyone in this class has our 200C Core class, and we all listened to Lori Dorfman speak about media advocacy. I believe that this article is a perfect example of framing. This article does mention the seriousness of breast cancer and the concern women should have about their own health. It also illustrates the lack of care some women take in their own regular examination. Yet, the article frames the issue in such a way that it blames the victim. Women are the victims of breast cancer, and often are uninformed about their risks unless they have someone in their life who has been a victim of the disease. It may be true that more women read tabloid magazines and know who is dating whom, than their risks of developing cancer. However, this does not indicate to me the apathy surrounding breast cancer health the article suggests.
A more productive framework for this article would be to inform about the problem and then give suggestions on what women can do to get more information. The article mentions the Breast Cancer Campaign, (whatever that is) but there is no suggestion on where the public can even get a breast exam. There is no mention of how to be proactive about one's breast health and no guidance on what women should do should they find a breast lump at all.
I believe that part of the problem of lack of information is articles like this one. By blaming women for being more interested in celebrity drama than their health, we ignore the fundamental problem with the system. Information about popular culture is just easier to acquire. People absorb what is put in front of them and with articles like this, we miss the point: breast exams should be done regularly by all women and a conversation about breast cancer should be had with one's doctor. When reading this the majority of people would ignore the institutional shortcomings of lack of information about this topic, and blame the personal choices of women to not give themselves monthly exams.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Emma's Field Trip to the Alameda County Public Health Department
This afternoon, I was invited by Pam Willow, a legislative analyst at the Alameda County Public Health Department, to sit in on one of the Department's Legislative Council meetings. For all of you public health policy wonks, this was heavenly. The goal of this Council is to raise awareness of public health issues throughout the County, and to ensure that public health policies and programs are appropriately targeted to community needs. The Council is an engine within the department for legislative advocacy and the development of effective health policy. It is the only council of its kind within any of Alameda County's departments, and Ms. Willow was not sure if a similar council exists anywhere else in the country. On the agenda today was the Council's 2009 legislative platform, which is to include issues such as fighting health inequities and chronic disease, reducing inequities in HIV/AIDS, and promoting a healthier built environment. If you want more information about the Legislative Council, you can access their website here: http://www.acphd.org/user/services/AtoZ_PrgDtls.asp?PrgId=55.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)