Ralph Nader discusses a better approach to hernia repair surgery

This article at Common Dreams is ostensibly a discussion about hernia repair surgery, namely, an option to be treated more humanely and cheaply in Canada than in the U.S. The discussion turns to deeper criticisms of the American way of providing healthcare, however.

Too many general surgeons and hospitals have on average over 10 times the rate of recurrence, four times the rate of infection, and often use expensive mesh both to replace lack of surgical skill and to speed up the operation. Plus they charge much more before they quickly say “sayonara.” The Shouldice [Hospital, outside of Toronto] procedure is described by hospital officials as a “natural tissue repair that combines the surgical technique with the body’s natural ability to heal,” and takes, on average, forty-five minutes to complete. Except in rare circumstances, “the technique does not use artificial prosthetic material such as mesh because mesh can introduce unnecessary complications such as infections or migration, dramatically increasing the cost of the operation. Shouldice does not use laparoscopic technology because of the potential intestinal punctures and bladder and blood vessel injuries, which may lead to infection and peritonitis.” Shouldice staff note that laparoscopic surgery also requires general anesthesia and hugely higher costs for disposable items per surgery than is the case at their hospital. There are about one million abdominal wall hernia operations yearly in the U.S. Hospitals and general surgeons for the most part do not use the Shouldice Procedure. Still the deplorable “quick and dirty” that invites overuse of mesh – about 80 percent of the patients – has become a perverse incentive for higher billings in the United States. Superior talent is needed for the more natural procedure used by Shouldice.

Continue ReadingRalph Nader discusses a better approach to hernia repair surgery

End of life extravagance

In the Washington Post, Jonathan Kay writes:

Last week, I wrote a column about the problem of “unwanted care,” a term used to describe the aggressive, invasive, often debilitating heath treatments that are imposed on dying patients — frequently when they are senile or unconscious — during their last weeks or months of life. The example I provided, courtesy of Atlantic magazine author Jonathan Rauch, was of a 94-year-old man dying from internal bleeding and kidney failure in a U.S. hospital. Instead of providing palliative care, the doctors tried to get authorization to remove the man’s colon and put him on dialysis. “We are spending billions on health care that no one wants, and which often has no real effect except suffering and indignity,” I argued.
I often wonder how different it would be if we all agreed ahead of time in the abstract that insurance simply won't cover extending the heart beats of people who are inevitably dying, either unaware or unconscious. I suspect that if standard health policy insurance money weren't easily available, many of us would quickly decide that life was at an end, that it was a natural process, and that it is simply time for him (or her) to go. With the aid of easy medical insurance coverage, though, many of us take the position that every heartbeat of life is sacred, even when the patient is unlikely to regain consciousness, and if that, only for a few more weeks in an extremely frail state. In big families where many members recognize the futility of extending unconscious dying life, there is often one or a few outspoken members of the family vocally urging that every last dollar must be spent to extent the number of heartbeats, guilt-tripping those members of the family who know how to accept dying as a part of life. As it is whenever something is declared to be sacred. Dying in the presence of easy insurance coverage is something to be fought at all costs, with no compromises. Again, why don't we all agree, ahead of time, that when the cost-benefit becomes lopsided, that there will not be any standard insurance coverage to extent the heartbeats of dying people with little hope of further meaningful life? When I ask people I know this question, they vote overwhelmingly in favor of this. As a society, we should draw that line in the abstract, so that those put in this position will have only the option or their own money (or buying a special policy for this purpose). As the above article concludes, "These are discussions that need to take place earlier in life, without a medical crisis looming overhead.”

Continue ReadingEnd of life extravagance

Do it yourself fecal transplants

Fascinating. Fecal transplants--yes, the transplants of poo from one person to another--have cured some extremely sick people and probably saved some lives. Yet the FDA enacted some regulations making the medical technique of transplanting fecal matter difficult. This left many people suffering from ulcerative colitis without an effective remedy, but still with a willingness to try the technique themselves. The theory of the cure is that the intestinal bacteria (the microbiota) in some people are not well and and they need to be replaced with a collection of healthy bacteria. Given the current difficulty of finding a doctor to do the cure (given the current FDA restrictions) some people are stepping up to offer their own poo to help desperate friends and relatives. Here's a general article regarding fecal transplants. Here's a recent NYT story of one woman who successfully offered to help her friend. And for those who need to know how to accomplish a fecal transplant without the help of a doctor, here is a video produced by a women who has given fecal transplants to her daughter for about nine months, with resounding success. She describes the technique of performing the fecal transplant as "low cost, easy and effective," accomplishing the transplant with the help of an enema kit and some kitchen accessories. According to Wikipedia, many other conditions might benefit from fecal transplants, including autoimmune disorders, neurological conditions, obesity, metabolic syndrome and diabetes, and Parkinson's disease.

Continue ReadingDo it yourself fecal transplants

Time Magazine explores the destruction of American health care

Check out the feature article in this week's Time Magazine. It's called "Bitter Pill," and it's written by Steven Brill, a savvy insider. In addition to making me apprehensive that health insurance costs are about to spike upward due to Obamacare's lack of any meaningful price controls on health insurance, it gives an insider's look into the massively arbitrary pricing of health care services. In the absence of any competitive market, big hospitals (including the so-called non-profit hospitals) are freely allowed to concoct the prices they charge. They quietly maintain their made-up pricing on their non-public "chargemaster" price lists.

Continue ReadingTime Magazine explores the destruction of American health care

Delving into Obamacare

At Occasional Planet, Madonna Gauding takes a careful look at what Obamacare means for ordinary people and big corporations.

A generous (and seriously wrongheaded) view of Obamacare is that it was a progressive bill designed to be a steppingstone to single payer. But, in reality, it was designed to strengthen, expand, and more deeply entrench corporate control of healthcare delivery. What will happen when the ACA comes online in 2014? I think millions will decide (out of necessity) to take the IRS fine rather than go into further debt buying inadequate, high deductible insurance. The insurance companies, limited to a smaller profit margin, and not getting the numbers they want, will decide they can’t make enough money to keep their yachts afloat, and fold. Hospitals, tired of treating people in emergency rooms for free, will push for Medicare expansion, as will the general population. Slowly, in fits and starts, we will move to Medicare for all. That will be a huge improvement. But, in order for us to have humane healthcare for all, the profit taking throughout the system has to stop—the $200 a pill prescription, the $15 box of hospital tissues, the many unnecessary, but lucrative procedures that line the pockets of surgeons. The “free market” for-profit health care industry with its bloated costs is the underlying cancer of healthcare delivery in the United States.

Continue ReadingDelving into Obamacare