Stem cell injections have not been approved by the FDA. As one official notes in this story from the Washington Post, “The facilities argue they aren’t subject to FDA regulation because they use surgical procedures to administer patients’ own cells – meaning they aren’t making new drugs.” Other doctors counter that the FDA is trying to take a  stand against the stem cell industry to eliminate competition for pharmaceutical companies.

The Post article  details a troubling situation. A woman named Doris Tyler received a stem cell injection in her eyes with the promise of improved vision. The outcome: her retina detached in both eyes, and she was blind within a few months.

Opinions vary about whether stem cell clinics offer a useful service or are a scam. In some cases state officials have or are planning to introduce legislation requiring stem cell clinics to be transparent and honest by posting warnings related to their treatments. Despite the disputes though, stem cell clinics are popping up in vast numbers across the United States. While there were only two clinics in 2009, there are now over 700 across the country.

“Somewhere in the United States at this moment, a patient with chest pain, or a tumor, or a cough, is seeing a doctor. And the question we have to ask is whether the doctor is set up to meet the needs of the patient, first and foremost, or to maximize revenue.” This is the overall question posed, discussed, and answered in this article from The New Yorker.

Economists have pointed out that a key problem in our system of healthcare is that doctors are paid for quantity, not quality, of services. They are also paid as individuals with varying rates they can determine themselves, instead of as members of a team who work together.

The Cost Conundrum takes a deep dive into why healthcare is so expensive. The author explores behaviors of doctors and patients in different parts of the country to establish his stance on the matter. One of his stops was McAllen, Texas, which has the most costly healthcare in the country. Medical expenses skyrocket it this small town because of an overuse of medicine. Doctors in McAllen on average prescribe more medicine, order more tests, request more doctor’s visits and overnight hospital stays, and schedule more surgeries than anywhere else in the country.

“Americans like to believe that, with most things, more is better. But research suggests that where medicine is concerned it may actually be worse.” Studies show that in areas where more money is spent on tests, office visits, drugs, and surgeries, the patients show little to no increase in survival, ability to function, or satisfaction with the care they received when compared to areas that had far less medical expenses.

The article also talks about the Mayo Clinic, which has created a reputation for itself because of its core belief “The needs of the patient come first.” The Mayo Clinic changed the relationship between money, doctors, and patients when they “pooled all the money the doctors and the hospital received and began paying everyone a salary.” By doing this, the doctors’ goals automatically shifted from how much money they could make on a patient to how much they could help the patient. How they help patients does not affect their income, which allows them to work without alternative motives.

According this article the best solution for reduce outrageous healthcare expenses is for doctors of different specialties need to collaborate to increase prevention and quality of the care. Many doctors may work with the same patient, but because they all work individually and charge individually, the patients’ problems are not solved together. Rather it becomes a disjointed effort with endless bills and office visits. Having an every-doctor-for-him/herself attitude is fostering self-interest and over-spending.

This article invites readers to decide between the McAllen model and the Mayo Clinic for the future of our healthcare practice.

As the cost of health care coverage has increased markedly in recent years, many plans have increased co-pays and other out-of-pocket expenses. This article sheds some light on pricing as a controversial subject for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. 

 Many states are making efforts to introduce legislation to allow pharmacists the ability and right to tell customers that they could save money by paying in cash for prescription drugs instead of using their health insurance. Currently, some plan members are paying two to three times the amount for prescriptions using their insurance policy vs. what the cash price for the same medication would be. Because of contracts between pharmacists and some companies, some pharmacists must remain silent about price variations and are not allowed to educate customers on discrepancies in pricing based on how payment is made. 

 Steven F. Moore’s family owns Condo Pharmacy in Plattsburgh, New York. Moore says, “A consumer filling a prescription for a drug to treat diabetes or high blood pressure may owe $20 if he uses insurance coverage. By contrast, a consumer paying cash might have to pay $8 to $15” – the difference often going to the drug benefit managers. 

 States across the country are beginning to recognize this issue, and state legislatures are moving to pass new laws to cap ever-climbing prescription prices. Five states including North Dakota, Georgia, and North Carolina have made headway in changing laws so that pharmacists can suggest alternative ways for consumers to pay for their medication. 

The cost of health care has been a hot topic for years as politicians, doctors, and patients debate what health care should look like in the future. One trend that has gathered a lot of support from patients and corporations is the use of retail and urgent care clinics in strip malls or shopping centers instead of visiting primary care givers. This article in the New York Times presents some thoughts on both sides of the issue.

Those in favor of retail clinics and urgent care give these reasons for the shift:

1. Clinics and urgent care clinics have more flexible schedules. Patients can walk in without a scheduled appointment, and can go anytime. This makes it possible for people to go after work instead of having to take time off for an appointment.
2.     In many cases the co-pay expense is comparable to visiting a primary care physician.
3. Many basic needs, however  can be addressed much more cheaply than they would be in a physician’s office.
4. Patients can make same-day appointments.
5. Patients have the option of getting a virtual consultation at any time.

On the other side, some physicians believe the traditional method of medical care is the best practice because:

1. When patients meet with the same doctor over a long period of time, that doctor is better able to help meet their needs  because he or she is familiar with the patient’s health history.
2. While the retail clinics charge less, particularly compared with emergency rooms, they may increase overall health care spending. For example, “consumers who not long ago would have taken a cough drop or gargled with saltwater to soothe a sore throat now pop into their nearby retail clinic for a strep test.”
3. Primary care physicians can gain the trust of patients and their families.

This discussion has only just begun as companies such as Amazon, JP Morgan and Berkshire Hathaway have joined forced to create a new health care strategy for their employees. CVS Health and Aetna as well as Walmart and Humana have ventured into innovative health care plans as well.

Ann D. Koffsky set out to satisfy her anger and prove a point by publishing the book Judah Maccabee Goes to the Doctor. This article explains how Koffsky’s original motivation for her pro-vaccine children’s story was sparked from hearing about fellow Jewish families who claimed religious exemptions from vaccinations, and sent their children to school without receiving vaccinations. Her picture book puts a positive light on the importance of vaccinations for an individual’s health and their peers.

Shortly after Judah Maccabee Goes to the Doctor was listed on Amazon though, anti-vaccine advocates began a 48-hour campaign writing negative comments, bad ratings, and publishing disproving reviews. Although some may disagree with the necessity of vaccines, scientific studies have shown there are no links between autism and vaccines. The author of the 1998 report, with fewer than two dozen subjects, that proposed a connection between vaccines and autism has since been stripped by Britain of his medical license and charged with scientific fraud.

But even with overwhelming data, the battle still rages between the two groups, and they have adapted to new outlets to spread their messages such as children’s books. Pro-vaccine books such as You Wouldn’t Want to Live Without Vaccinations! and The Shot’s Book: A Little Brother’s Superhero Tale are sold side-by-side with books such as No Vaccines for Me! and Melanie’s Marvelous Measles. This article suggests reading articles posted on journals such as Science or Nature to establish your opinion instead of solely relying on comments and reviews to children’s books or Facebook posts.

While the number of health, fitness, and nutrition bloggers who send messages about life style habits, workout templates, and healthy recipes has skyrocketed in the US, the upward trend of obesity rates continues to climb un-phased. With all this and other research readily available, some wonder why we have not seen decreases in the amount of people gaining weight. In this article, Dr. James Krieger, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Washington and executive director of Healthy Food America, an advocacy group, says, “Most people know that being overweight or obese is unhealthy, and if you eat too much that contributes to being overweight. But just telling people there’s a problem doesn’t solve it.”

Experts credit lifestyle, genetics, and poor diets as factors for this. While all age groups have increasing percentages of obesity rates every year, the most surprising impacted age group is children 2 to 5 years old.

It is important for individuals to take control of their weight because obesity often leads to heart disease, diabetes, some cancers, and premature death. For examples of how you can change your diet read our previous blog post, Four Easy Steps to Limit Sugar.

Many Americans today analyze food labels, scouring for the dreaded ingredient: sugar. But the sugar industry has caught on quickly and created euphemistic names for sugar including dextrose, sucrose, agave, and clintose, making it harder for grocery shoppers to recognize the actual amount of sugar a product may contain. (Full list of 90 sugar synonyms here).

These alter egos are also called “added sugars” and it is this sugar that a recent article in The New York Times suggests to cut out of diets. The article gives four steps to limit sugar in your diet:

1. Fix your breakfast: Breakfast has easily become the most sugar-packed meal of the day. Pop Tarts, Captain Crunch, syrup, and fruit juices are just a few of the most popular offenders. Even some granola products are coated with sugar granules. Options like eggs, oatmeal, plain yogurt, fruits, nuts, Cheerios, and pita bread are filling and tasty substitutes.

2. Redo your pantry: spend a little time reading the ingredients of your family staples. Many sauces, crackers and breads have unnecessary sugars, but very similar substitutes.

3. Eliminate Soda: “Just get rid of it.” This article’s solution is to switch to flavored seltzer, diet sodas, or carbonated water.

4. Whip Portion Inflation: Specifically in the restaurant business, portion sizes just keep getting bigger and bigger. This author advises to view every dessert as a serving for two.

Deciding to decrease sugar intake is the first choice to a healthier body and quality of life. These four steps are just one way to kick-start that effort.