Offitt on the offense against National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine budget

The Los Angeles Times wrote about an essay in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association, stating:

“…many studies funded by NCCAM lack a sound biological underpinning, which should be an important requirement for funding. For example, NCCAM officials have spent $374 000 to find that inhaling lemon and lavender scents does not promote wound healing; $750 000 to find that prayer does not cure AIDS or hasten recovery from breast-reconstruction surgery; $390 000 to find that ancient Indian remedies do not control type 2 diabetes; $700 000 to find that magnets do not treat arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, or migraine headaches; and $406 000 to find that coffee enemas do not cure pancreatic cancer. Additionally, NCCAM has funded studies of acupuncture and therapeutic touch. Using rigorously controlled studies, none of these therapies have been shown to work better than placebo. Some complementary and alternative practitioners argue reasonably that although their therapies might not work better than placebos, placebos may still work for some conditions.

…

Although evaluating the research portfolio of any institute at the NIH is difficult, social and political pressures may influence area-of-interest funding, and decisions should be based on science. For complementary and alternative medicine, it seems that some people believe what they want to believe, arguing that it does not matter what the data show; they know what works for them. Because negative studies do not appear to change behavior and because studies performed without a sound biological basis have little to no chance of success, it would make sense for NCCAM to either refrain from funding studies of therapies that border on mysticism such as distance healing, purgings, and prayer; redefine its mission to include a better understanding of the physiology of the placebo response; or shift its resources to other NIH institutes.”

View the original article here

Read More

Offitt on the offense against National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine budget

The Los Angeles Times wrote about an essay in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association, stating:

“…many studies funded by NCCAM lack a sound biological underpinning, which should be an important requirement for funding. For example, NCCAM officials have spent $374 000 to find that inhaling lemon and lavender scents does not promote wound healing; $750 000 to find that prayer does not cure AIDS or hasten recovery from breast-reconstruction surgery; $390 000 to find that ancient Indian remedies do not control type 2 diabetes; $700 000 to find that magnets do not treat arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, or migraine headaches; and $406 000 to find that coffee enemas do not cure pancreatic cancer. Additionally, NCCAM has funded studies of acupuncture and therapeutic touch. Using rigorously controlled studies, none of these therapies have been shown to work better than placebo. Some complementary and alternative practitioners argue reasonably that although their therapies might not work better than placebos, placebos may still work for some conditions.

…

Although evaluating the research portfolio of any institute at the NIH is difficult, social and political pressures may influence area-of-interest funding, and decisions should be based on science. For complementary and alternative medicine, it seems that some people believe what they want to believe, arguing that it does not matter what the data show; they know what works for them. Because negative studies do not appear to change behavior and because studies performed without a sound biological basis have little to no chance of success, it would make sense for NCCAM to either refrain from funding studies of therapies that border on mysticism such as distance healing, purgings, and prayer; redefine its mission to include a better understanding of the physiology of the placebo response; or shift its resources to other NIH institutes.”

View the original article here

Read More

Offitt on the offense against National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine budget

The Los Angeles Times wrote about an essay in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association, stating:

“…many studies funded by NCCAM lack a sound biological underpinning, which should be an important requirement for funding. For example, NCCAM officials have spent $374 000 to find that inhaling lemon and lavender scents does not promote wound healing; $750 000 to find that prayer does not cure AIDS or hasten recovery from breast-reconstruction surgery; $390 000 to find that ancient Indian remedies do not control type 2 diabetes; $700 000 to find that magnets do not treat arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, or migraine headaches; and $406 000 to find that coffee enemas do not cure pancreatic cancer. Additionally, NCCAM has funded studies of acupuncture and therapeutic touch. Using rigorously controlled studies, none of these therapies have been shown to work better than placebo. Some complementary and alternative practitioners argue reasonably that although their therapies might not work better than placebos, placebos may still work for some conditions.

…

Although evaluating the research portfolio of any institute at the NIH is difficult, social and political pressures may influence area-of-interest funding, and decisions should be based on science. For complementary and alternative medicine, it seems that some people believe what they want to believe, arguing that it does not matter what the data show; they know what works for them. Because negative studies do not appear to change behavior and because studies performed without a sound biological basis have little to no chance of success, it would make sense for NCCAM to either refrain from funding studies of therapies that border on mysticism such as distance healing, purgings, and prayer; redefine its mission to include a better understanding of the physiology of the placebo response; or shift its resources to other NIH institutes.”

View the original article here

Read More

At Home Gel Manicure With Red Carpet Manicure

If you’ve heard about gel manicures, you know that they are long-lasting and help harden your nails.  They are also somewhat expensive and time consuming to get, which makes the concept of an at-home solution sound appealing to me.  When I was getting my hair cut and colored at Ulta a few weeks ago, I saw the Red Carpet Manicure pro kit, and decided to give it a try.  Although it is pricey, it includes everything you need to create your own gel manicure (and is a great value in comparison to a professional gel manicure).

So, how does it work?  Well, the first time I tried it, I went a little too quickly and applied the layers too thick.  So, while it dried very fast, the polish peeled off a few of the nails a day or two later.  I’ve learned that it’s essential to apply the layers super thin, and to take my time.

The kit does come with the prep solution, the structure solution, a bottle of color, the brilliance top coat, the LED lamp, the remover, and the purify cleanser.  The light works really well at drying the layers too – something I was concerned about.  I didn’t love the color that was included in the package, but lots of other colors are available.

You can find the Red Carpet Manicure Pro 45 – Starter Kit at Amazon.com.

Affiliate link

Tagged as: gel manicures, mom beauty, mom manicures

View the original article here

Read More

Patient satisfaction surveys don’t tell the whole story about health care quality

The following is a guest post by Harold DeMonaco, one of our expert editors for HealthNewsReview.org and director of the Innovation Support Center at the Massachusetts General Hospital.

————————————————————

A recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine is turning a few heads in the health policy arena.  The cost of satisfaction: A national study of patient satisfaction, health care utilization, expenditures and mortality  study examined the records of more than 34,000 adults for 4 years.  The results are a surprise to say the least.

For years, patients, insurers and government programs have pushed hard for improvement in the level of satisfaction of patients receiving healthcare.  The most recent push involves the development of Accountable Care Organization (ACO)  initiated by the Centers for Medicare  and Medicaid Services(CMS).  ACO’s link the quality and cost of healthcare directly to the reimbursement to providers.  Quality, as defined by CMS, is measured in five domains: patient/caregiver experience, care coordination, patient safety, preventative health, and at-risk population/frail elderly health.

The study in The Archives came to some interesting conclusions:

The most satisfied patients had an 8% lower rate of visits to the emergency room compared to the least satisfiedThe most satisfied patients had a 12% higher hospital inpatient admission rate.The most satisfied patients had a 9% higher prescription and total healthcare costsAND a 26% higher mortality.

I will apologize up front for providing only relative and not absolute numbers.  Absolute numbers are not provided in the article.  I get the lower ER visits but the rest comes as a surprise especially the higher mortality rate.  The least satisfied patients differed from the most satisfied at baseline in several ways.  The least satisfied tended to have poorer self rated health and there were more smokers.  But even after controlling for confounders, the authors concluded, “The association between higher patient satisfaction and mortality remained significant in an analysis that excluded patients with poor self rated health and three or more chronic diseases.”

A brief report published last September provided the results of a survey of primary care physicians on the topic of appropriate care.  Forty two percent of those responding thought that their patients were receiving too much care.  Only 6% thought that their patients did not receive enough. The reasons for over treatment remain a mystery but likely lie in both the clinicians and patient/family hands.

The Archives paper may suggest how great is the challenge of educating American health care consumers that “More Is Not Always Better.”  And it also suggests – once again – that patient satisfaction surveys don’t tell the whole story of quality health care.

View the original article here

Read More

Patient satisfaction surveys don’t tell the whole story about health care quality

The following is a guest post by Harold DeMonaco, one of our expert editors for HealthNewsReview.org and director of the Innovation Support Center at the Massachusetts General Hospital.

————————————————————

A recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine is turning a few heads in the health policy arena.  The cost of satisfaction: A national study of patient satisfaction, health care utilization, expenditures and mortality  study examined the records of more than 34,000 adults for 4 years.  The results are a surprise to say the least.

For years, patients, insurers and government programs have pushed hard for improvement in the level of satisfaction of patients receiving healthcare.  The most recent push involves the development of Accountable Care Organization (ACO)  initiated by the Centers for Medicare  and Medicaid Services(CMS).  ACO’s link the quality and cost of healthcare directly to the reimbursement to providers.  Quality, as defined by CMS, is measured in five domains: patient/caregiver experience, care coordination, patient safety, preventative health, and at-risk population/frail elderly health.

The study in The Archives came to some interesting conclusions:

The most satisfied patients had an 8% lower rate of visits to the emergency room compared to the least satisfiedThe most satisfied patients had a 12% higher hospital inpatient admission rate.The most satisfied patients had a 9% higher prescription and total healthcare costsAND a 26% higher mortality.

I will apologize up front for providing only relative and not absolute numbers.  Absolute numbers are not provided in the article.  I get the lower ER visits but the rest comes as a surprise especially the higher mortality rate.  The least satisfied patients differed from the most satisfied at baseline in several ways.  The least satisfied tended to have poorer self rated health and there were more smokers.  But even after controlling for confounders, the authors concluded, “The association between higher patient satisfaction and mortality remained significant in an analysis that excluded patients with poor self rated health and three or more chronic diseases.”

A brief report published last September provided the results of a survey of primary care physicians on the topic of appropriate care.  Forty two percent of those responding thought that their patients were receiving too much care.  Only 6% thought that their patients did not receive enough. The reasons for over treatment remain a mystery but likely lie in both the clinicians and patient/family hands.

The Archives paper may suggest how great is the challenge of educating American health care consumers that “More Is Not Always Better.”  And it also suggests – once again – that patient satisfaction surveys don’t tell the whole story of quality health care.

View the original article here

Read More

Patient satisfaction surveys don’t tell the whole story about health care quality

The following is a guest post by Harold DeMonaco, one of our expert editors for HealthNewsReview.org and director of the Innovation Support Center at the Massachusetts General Hospital.

————————————————————

A recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine is turning a few heads in the health policy arena.  The cost of satisfaction: A national study of patient satisfaction, health care utilization, expenditures and mortality  study examined the records of more than 34,000 adults for 4 years.  The results are a surprise to say the least.

For years, patients, insurers and government programs have pushed hard for improvement in the level of satisfaction of patients receiving healthcare.  The most recent push involves the development of Accountable Care Organization (ACO)  initiated by the Centers for Medicare  and Medicaid Services(CMS).  ACO’s link the quality and cost of healthcare directly to the reimbursement to providers.  Quality, as defined by CMS, is measured in five domains: patient/caregiver experience, care coordination, patient safety, preventative health, and at-risk population/frail elderly health.

The study in The Archives came to some interesting conclusions:

The most satisfied patients had an 8% lower rate of visits to the emergency room compared to the least satisfiedThe most satisfied patients had a 12% higher hospital inpatient admission rate.The most satisfied patients had a 9% higher prescription and total healthcare costsAND a 26% higher mortality.

I will apologize up front for providing only relative and not absolute numbers.  Absolute numbers are not provided in the article.  I get the lower ER visits but the rest comes as a surprise especially the higher mortality rate.  The least satisfied patients differed from the most satisfied at baseline in several ways.  The least satisfied tended to have poorer self rated health and there were more smokers.  But even after controlling for confounders, the authors concluded, “The association between higher patient satisfaction and mortality remained significant in an analysis that excluded patients with poor self rated health and three or more chronic diseases.”

A brief report published last September provided the results of a survey of primary care physicians on the topic of appropriate care.  Forty two percent of those responding thought that their patients were receiving too much care.  Only 6% thought that their patients did not receive enough. The reasons for over treatment remain a mystery but likely lie in both the clinicians and patient/family hands.

The Archives paper may suggest how great is the challenge of educating American health care consumers that “More Is Not Always Better.”  And it also suggests – once again – that patient satisfaction surveys don’t tell the whole story of quality health care.

View the original article here

Read More