Morning Briefing
Summaries of health policy coverage from major news organizations
Viewpoints: Fetal Tissue's Importance; Getting Sen. Kirk's Health Plan; Revamping Medicare
The New England Journal of Medicine: Planned Parenthood At Risk
Planned Parenthood is under attack — again. This time, a campaign of misinformation about the retrieval of fetal tissue used in research and therapy is the excuse. When women have made the decision to terminate a pregnancy, Planned Parenthood allows them the opportunity to have the fetal tissue that would otherwise be discarded be used by qualified researchers to help answer important medical questions. The organization does so carefully, following all applicable laws and ethical guidelines. ... We strongly support Planned Parenthood not only for its efforts to channel fetal tissue into important medical research but also for its other work as one of the country’s largest providers of health care for women, especially poor women. (George P. Topulos, Michael F. Greene and Jeffrey M. Drazen, 8/12)
The New England Journal of Medicine: Fetal Tissue Fallout
We have a duty to use fetal tissue for research and therapy. This statement might seem extreme in light of recent events that have reopened a seemingly long-settled debate over whether such research ought even be permitted, let alone funded by the government. Morality and conscience have been cited to justify defunding, and even criminalizing, the research, just as morality and conscience have been cited to justify not only health care professionals' refusal to provide certain legal medical services to their patients but even their obstruction of others' fulfillment of that duty. But this duty of care should, I believe, be at the heart of the current storm of debate surrounding fetal tissue research, an outgrowth of the ongoing effort to defund Planned Parenthood. And that duty includes taking advantage of avenues of hope for current and future patients. (R. Alta Charo, 8/12)
The New York Times: Pro-Choice Questions, Pro-Life Answers
Last week I turned a little bit intemperate in arguing about abortion with members of the conflicted center-left. Now I’m going to try to be a little calmer in pursuing a conversation with the not-at-all-conflicted pro-abortion left, by answering some of the questions that Katha Pollitt posed to her pro-life opponents last fall. (Ross Douthat, 8/12)
The Chicago Tribune: Every American Needs The Kirk Health Plan Insurance
Forget the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), I want the Mark Kirk health insurance plan for every American. ... I'm referring to the health insurance that covered Kirk's recovery from a serious stroke .... I give Kirk credit for noting after his stroke that Medicaid, the state insurance plan for our poorest residents, wouldn't have paid for all of the visits to a rehabilitation clinic that he required. Before his stroke, Kirk said, he didn't realize that sort of health care coverage was a necessity, but now he did. (Phil Kadner, 8/12)
Forbes: Like A 1965 Ford Mustang, Medicare Needs A Redesign
Medicare is the 1965 Ford Mustang of healthcare. It was cutting-edge back in the day. But, like that half-century old car, Medicare no longer runs very well and needs a remake. The real issue is not its finances .... It’s about redesigning how it delivers care, which is what really matters to older Americans. ... Medicare is not set up to care for those with chronic disease. It does not provide long-term supports and services .... Much of the care these patients need isn’t strictly medical at all. Yet medical treatment is pretty much all Medicare will pay for. Worse, the fee-for service Medicare system upon which two-thirds of beneficiaries rely still encourages aggressive treatment and tests even if they are likely to harm patients rather than help them. (Howard Gleckman, 8/12)
USA Today: Medical Scopes Alert Came Too Late: Our View
When you go to a hospital, you don’t expect the device used for treatment to harm you. Yet since 2008, scores of patients across the country have been sickened, and some have died, from infections linked to contaminated medical scopes. Compounding the tragedy is that many of the illnesses might have been prevented if the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates medical devices, had done its job with a greater sense of urgency. (8/12)
USA Today: FDA: We’re Working To Reduce The Risks
The FDA’s first priority is patient safety. The FDA has been working for several years to reduce the risk of patient infections associated with reusable endoscopes — small, flexible lighted tubes that allow doctors to see inside patients and treat certain medical conditions in a less invasive manner than traditional surgery. The devices, which include duodenoscopes, are reprocessed, or cleaned and disinfected, for use between patients. (William Maisel, 8/12)
Los Angeles Times: Sugar Is A Problem, But Are Proposed New Labels A Solution?
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is shifting its obesity focus from fat to sugar, as it should. Recent studies have provided evidence of how overconsumption of sugar, often through sodas and energy drinks, has contributed to the rise of weight-related health problems among Americans. But the FDA's draft proposal to add labeling information on sugar has so many problematic inconsistencies that it could backfire. (8/12)
The New York Times: The Pain Medication Conundrum
MY patient Mr. W. wheeled himself into my office for a checkup. He’d lost a leg to diabetes and was also juggling hypertension, obesity, vascular disease and elevated cholesterol. He was an amiably cranky fellow in his mid-60s who’d used heroin in the past though had been clean for decades. As we finished up and I handed him his stack of prescriptions, he said, “Oh, by the way, Dr. Ofri, I was wondering if you could prescribe me the oxycodone I use for my back.” (Danielle Ofri, 8/13)
