As friends of mine know, I have changed my diet to “near” vegan for about 6 months now, based on reading and review of data that I had not seen before (but actually has been around for a while). Since so many people have asked me, and then want some place to go, I’m creating this post so I can refer people later.
Archive for the ‘Health Sciences & Medicine’ Category
So… restless leg syndrome does affect the quality of life of many people, and it is really troubling… now a solution.
My only question is… nobody figured this out before?
… and where did these guys get the idea in the first place? Right.
Sexual intercourse and masturbation: Potential relief factors for restless legs syndrome?
Luis F. Marin, a, , André C. Felicioa and Gilmar F. Pradoa
a Neuro-Sono Sleep Center, Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Received 2 January 2011; accepted 18 January 2011. Available online 4 March 2011.
Atul Gawande is at it again. This article really needs to be read by everyone in Health Care or who is interested in the Health Care debate. And particularly anyone who dose Health Care and Statistics. Courtesy of The New Yorker
Brenner wasn’t all that interested in costs; he was more interested in helping people who received bad health care. But in his experience the people with the highest medical costs—the people cycling in and out of the hospital—were usually the people receiving the worst care. “Emergency-room visits and hospital admissions should be considered failures of the health-care system until proven otherwise,” he told me—failures of prevention and of timely, effective care.
If he could find the people whose use of medical care was highest, he figured, he could do something to help them. If he helped them, he would also be lowering their health-care costs. And, if the stats approach to crime was right, targeting those with the highest health-care costs would help lower the entire city’s health-care costs. His calculations revealed that just one per cent of the hundred thousand people who made use of Camden’s medical facilities accounted for thirty per cent of its costs. That’s only a thousand people—about half the size of a typical family physician’s panel of patients.
Things, of course, got complicated. It would have taken months to get the approvals needed to pull names out of the data and approach people, and he was impatient to get started. So, in the spring of 2007, he held a meeting with a few social workers and emergency-room doctors from hospitals around the city. He showed them the cost statistics and use patterns of the most expensive one per cent. “These are the people I want to help you with,” he said. He asked for assistance reaching them. “Introduce me to your worst-of-the-worst patients,” he said.
They did. Then he got permission to look up the patients’ data to confirm where they were on his cost map. “For all the stupid, expensive, predictive-modelling software that the big venders sell,” he says, “you just ask the doctors, ‘Who are your most difficult patients?,’ and they can identify them.”
A quick hat-tip from ACEP weekend review:
Based on comments from ACEP and others, the Joint Commission is taking another look at its National Patient Safety Goal requiring medication reconciliation by emergency physicians. This goal will not be scored during reviews until at least July 2011, when revised language should be in place.
Some sanity exists in this world.
I found this article interesting, particularly from the eye of a statistician. Particularly since some of the same problems that results for “meta-analysis” studies are actually reflected in this articles, which deals with the aggregation of Video Game reviews. In many ways, we see that the problems are similar to the weakness in a meta-analysis study. Namely, different studies (or in this case, reviewers) have different purposes and designs to how they evaluate something, and trying to put them all together in a nice simple number is just, well, too simplifying.
Linked below for reference.
The world of game reviews is often difficult to navigate. Everyone uses different scores, and a large emphasis is placed on the single score given to games by Metacritic, a review-aggregation site. Metacritic uses a scale of 1 to 100 for reviews, a figure calculated by averaging multiple scores. What comes out after that averaging is seen as something akin to a gold standard for judging the quality of a game. Weve been asked numerous times why were not included in the game rankings given by Metacritic: our reviews arent linked from the site, and were not included in the final uber-score. Thats by design.
I’m honestly finding television harder and harder to watch. Still, even on CNN nobody bothers to argue over the claim that Americans have “overwhelmingly rejected” the bill. It seems that unsubstantiated claims are just the norm.
In the later phase of the health care debate, the argument most often heard from Republicans has been this: The American people have rejected this bill; we are only their messengers.The verb “rejected” is often amplified with words such as “overwhelmingly” or “resoundingly” or “again and again.”How can President Obama and his Democratic Congress possibly move a piece of social change legislation comparable to Social Security or Medicare without the support of the American people?
Sometimes you get an article that is simply refreshing. The problem with most political economic debate is that it is being done by amateurs to an audience that has no idea what is being discussed. It is far easier to simply give the mantra “private competition is better!” without actually looking to see if that’s true.
Newsweek published an article by Clayton Christensen, Professor at HBS, which actually lays out some of these misconceptions. (BTW, Newsweek website actually stinks at finding articles, I found it much easier to find the article, after getting an excerpt forwarded to me by email, by using Google News. kinda sad).
Those who debate insurance reform in Washington and pit public against privately funded care are framing the problem incorrectly. Here’s a better way to think about it: Economists are wrong in asserting that competition controls costs. Most often innovation and competition drive prices up, not down, because bringing better, higher-priced products to market is more profitable. Hospital-vs.-hospital competition causes providers to expand their scope and offer more premium-priced services. Equipment suppliers boost the capability and cost of their machines and devices. Drugmakers develop products that bring the highest prices. It’s because we have such competition, not because we lack it, that health costs are rising by 10% a year.
The type of competition that brings prices down is disruptive innovation. Disruption in health care entails moving the simplest procedures now performed in expensive hospitals to outpatient clinics, retail clinics, and patients’ homes. Costs will drop as more of the tasks performed only by doctors shift to nurses and physicians’ assistants. Hoping that our hospitals and doctors will become cheap won’t make health care more affordable and accessible, but a move toward lower-cost venues and lower-cost caregivers will.
Complete article copied, in link below, in case it gets deleted or paywalled: