I swear!
I swear I haven’t forgotten about this blog. My daily life is impeding my ability to blog 
I’ve probably said before, but I’m quite busy. I did want to briefly share something vaguely intellectual.
B and I made it up to Ottawa for the first time a week and a half ago (sightseeing, not so good, it was rainy and Parliament was closed to the public, but we did see this: 350 protest in Ottawa). I was going up for this: 1st Annual Global Health Research Learning Forum. I’ve been to conferences before (and I’ll be in Toronto for CBIE next week for work) but this was actually the first conference that I’ve been to specifically for my educational pursuits. Aside from learning about new assessment tools and ongoing research projects, it was so refreshing and so inspiring to be around people who were passionate about similar issues! Once I get through the backlog of work/class assignments, I can’t wait to get started on my protocol, research and thesis! God, I’m such a keener…
Off-label free speech?
In an effort to take a break from cleaning, I’ve been reading health news again. Ages and ages ago, I had an internship with a pharmaceutical company (in their QA area) so issues regarding prescription drug use can be quite interesting to me.
It seems that the makers of Botox are suing the FDA over restrictions on discussing unapproved uses for their products (aka off-label use) with doctors. (story here) They say their 1st amendment rights are being infringed upon. Now why is this even an issue? At present, drug companies have to submit documentation to the FDA proving that their drug is essentially safe and effective for a specific condition. If the FDA agrees, they are allowed to put (on the label) that their drug is approved for use in XYZ condition. Makes sense, right? Checks and balances and a stamp of approval. Well, this is an issue because at the same time the company is trying to figure out what other conditions can be treated using their drug. Maybe there isn’t enough evidence (as determined by the FDA) to say that this drug is effective and should be approved for use for a new condition (we certainly need to be careful about what drugs are approved, for example the COX-2 inhibitor litigation). Now we get to the key issue here. Even if a drug is not approved for use in a condition, Doctors are still allowed to prescribe it for said unapproved use. However, drug companies are not allowed to influence Doctors to do so. They are not allowed to recommend off label uses of their drugs.
And I agree that they shouldn’t. And this regulation is not, in my opinion, impugning on their first amendment rights.
Why? What the Executive VP of Allergan said is at the heart of it “Allowing physicians to use drugs off-label, but at the same time prohibiting drug companies from proactively sharing relevant and truthful information with physicians regarding the risks and benefits and techniques for off-label uses does not serve the public health or patient care…” The problem of it all is that the FDA, which regulates your industry, does not agree that you are telling the “truth”. You have not proven sufficiently (yet) that your drug really is effective in treating an off-label condition. If you had, it wouldn’t be off-label! If a Doctor and their patient want to use what is essentially an experimental treatment for a condition, that should be allowed. However, you, as the maker of that drug, do not get to tell them that your product is safe and effective when that is not presently the truth. The burden of prescribing an experimental treatment is on the doctor and they should rely on many sources (not just one with a vested interest in selling their product) before making that decision with their patient.
Now… off to do laundry
Oh the things people believe…
From this website:
Majority of Americans Believe Health Care Reform ‘Myths’
- 67 percent of respondents believe that wait times for health care services, such as surgery, will increase (91 percent of Republicans, 37 percent of Democrats, 72 percent of Independents).
Mmm… there may be some truth in this, at least initially. If you have more people using the system, there will be a rough period while the system changes and acclimates. I can’t believe that wait time for surgeries would be increased dramatically though, I could see wait times for general care/health clinics increasing though. Wait times are a major complaint in Canada, but we have a “single payer” system up here. Drastically different.
- About five out of 10 believe the federal government will become directly involved in making personal health care decisions (80 percent of Republicans, 25 percent of Democrats, 56 percent of Independents).
HA! Who really makes your personal health care decisions now? In an ideal world your health care decisions would be made in consultation between you and your health care practitioner(s) (this could include your family doctor, specialists and any complementary/alternative practitioners that you may visit). As it is, a lot of the choices that you have in your health care decisions are dictated by companies whose main motivation is to turn a profit. Yes, that is a highly jaded and highly simplified comment.
- Roughly six out of 10 Americans believe taxpayers will be required to pay for abortions (78 percent of Republicans, 30 percent of Democrats, 58 percent of Independents)
No, just no. There are laws against this. I think this comes from some fear of surpluses being shifted over to programs which perform and support abortion (eg. Planned Parenthood). I find it more than a bit distasteful that the same people who are so scared of the government making personal health care decisions for them are advocating that the government make personal (reproductive) health care decisions for others. My own personal thought is that a woman (or couple) should not be prevented (be it access to facilities or financial constraints) from having a legal abortion (or accessing contraceptives).
- 46 percent believe reforms will result in health care coverage for all illegal immigrants (66 percent of Republicans, 29 percent of Democrats, 43 percent of Independents).
How did this one sneak in there? Smacks of fear mongering. Again, what is being proposed is not a “single payer system” (and even in Canada you have to either buy private health insurance or you go without if you are eligible for one of the provincial health insurance plans). The US gov’t is not “giving” health coverage to people in the public plan, they are purchasing it. I have no idea what the regulation would be on illegal immigrants opting in to such a plan. I’m guessing if they do not have a legal status in the US they will probably avoid any actions that would encourage to deport them though.
- 54 percent believe the public option will increase premiums for Americans with private health insurance (78 percent of Republicans, 28 percent of Democrats, 58 percent of Independents).
Increased competition means increased cost? Really? I thought it was the opposite. ‘Nuff said.
- Five out of 10 think cuts will be made to Medicare in order to cover more Americans (66 percent of Republicans, 37 percent of Democrats, 44 percent of Independents).
I wonder about this one… if this is referring to what I think it is referring to… (shifting money away from the Medicare program to subsidize the “public health insurance option”) then this one is a tough one to answer because any cuts to the Medicare program are not popular. Period. That being said, if unnecessary tests (tests that do not improve health and are not needed to diagnose an illness) and referrals/visits were eliminated from a program, there would be a natural surplus available in said program that could be used effectively in other programs. Its not a cut, per se, but it is semantics my friend, semantics.
The fact of the matter is… at present we spend far more than any other country on healthcare and we aren’t reaping the benefits of this. There need to be changes! It is far more important to get something that might not work perfectly in place than to continue on the path we are currently on.
Filed under Health Issues | Comment (1)Not so good at this, eh?
I wrote this on Aug. 19, and I’ve been debating if I should post this or not… I would rather discuss health than politics but I think this is probably important. I will be turning off comments on this post, I dealt with political backlash enough during my Undergrad years (aka the Bush years) in Canada. Without further ado… Continue reading »
Filed under General, Health Issues, Life | Comments OffGives me hope
A couple days ago my friend Kim introduced me to a website called ‘Gives me hope“. It was a refreshing change to read real peoples’ positive stories. So, because I’m very, very sleepy (it has been a long week), I’m going to share two articles that GMH.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article6721590.ece
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090806/ap_on_re_us/us_clinton_hiv_drugs
There are inarguably many other challenges (social, medical, and logistical to name a few) to controlling the transmission and treatment of HIV/AIDS worldwide but that gives me hope that for an increased number of people it will no longer be a death sentence.
Filed under Health Issues | Comment (0)Small changes, big benefits?
I’ve been a little delayed in posting and this will be a short one. I’m back home visiting my parents.
I’m a news junkie so I will leave you with something I read on Yahoo today. This caught my eye because the last time I went grocery shopping back home I walked through the mall and noticed that there is an ongoing campaign to promote breastfeeding. I think this is a great thing! Not only does it help with building an infant’s immune system but there is statistical data suggesting it may play a part in preventing diabetes and obesity later in life and may help with allergies. Its also good for the mother, helps with bonding, has health benefits and on a side note its a semi-effective birth control method and may help with weight loss 
But wow… breastfeeding could save 1.3 million lives! What a staggering number for what seems like such a simple action.
Filed under Health Issues | Comment (1)Getting to the point
When I first got the idea in my head that I wanted to have a blog, it was because I wanted a forum to babble about issues that interest me. My academic background, as you can see from my profile, is Health. Community Health to be precise. In my undergrad studies I took courses in Health Promotion, History of Medicine/Disease and Development of Healthy Communities. On Monday I turned in the capstone project to the last course of a Certificate in Field Epidemiology (excellent program if you are so inclined: look here). So from now on I am going to try to blog once every day or two about some issue or news article that I am passionate about. Please be forewarned, I have lots of interests, I believe that health is more than simply biological and hereditary and that social, political and environmental issues (a.k.a. social determinants of health) have an important place in the discussion surrounding health (and improving it!).
That all being said… today I read an article about a study from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. This study looked at the results of other studies (side note: this type of study is called a meta analysis) over the past 50 years which examined the difference in nutritional content between organic and commercially produced foods. Well, the results suggest there is no significant difference! Does this mean that we are wasting money buying organic? Well, perhaps not. This study does not address the issue of pesticides, whose effects on human health in the long term are not fully understood.
If you are concerned about pesticides, and want to get the most “bang for your buck” with organic fruits and veggies, the Environmental Working Group has a list of the “Dirty Dozen” and “Clean 15″. Have a look.
Oh and… don’t use tanning beds.
Filed under Health Issues, School | Comment (0)
