Antidepressants for Every Man, Woman & Child

I recently posted on some telling "health" statistics in the U.S. It's so refreshing to know what Americans are really fighting for with regard to health care, because the strong belief of some is that every American has the right to be on as many drugs as their neighbor. For the mass American mentality--that's health! Awesome.

Americans are fighting for their inalienable right to drug their children. Yes, they are...that's health, remember? If parents can't understand their children, and public school officials can't understand their children, then their good doctors will be there to help. Yes...with anti-depressants. In fact, more children are on psychoactive drugs today than on any other drug ever before in history.

Is it me? Do I just not understand health or health care? Are we blessed--part of the "haves"--if we can get antidepressants for our children? Oh...maybe I'd better go back to doctor school. I thought health and wellness was something else.

According to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics study published in September 2011, antidepressants were the third most common prescription drug taken by Americans of all ages in 2005–2008.

And from 1988-1994 through 2005-2008, the rate of antidepressant use in the United States among all ages increased nearly 400%.

Isn't that awesome? Aren't we so fortunate here in the U.S.? Hope Obamacare brings antidepressant drugging to every citizen in the nation, especially children. It's our right to NOT be sad. Yay, Obamacare!!!

Here go some more stats for you:

• 11% of Americans aged 12 years and over take antidepressant medication.
• Females are more likely to take antidepressants than are males, and non-Hispanic white persons are more likely to take antidepressants than are non-Hispanic black and Mexican-American persons.
• About one-third of persons with severe depressive symptoms take antidepressant medication.
• More than 60% of Americans taking antidepressant medication have taken it for 2 years or longer, with 14% having taken the medication for 10 years or more.
• Less than one-third of Americans taking one antidepressant medication and less than one-half of those taking multiple antidepressants have seen a mental health professional in the past year.

I love these statistics. They show how much healthier we are as a result of the mass antidepressant prescription campaign. Thank you Obamacare, for caring so much that you want me and my children to have as many antidepressants as we need. No more sadness for us. We are so fortunate to have real health care in this country; and so fortunate that we may all get even more courtesy of our federal government and caring medical industry. Truly awesome.

Medical Technology Drives Choice & Cost

It's no secret that I think Obamacare is a bunch of horseshot, and for one simple reason: You don't 'fix' the American medical system by forcing everybody to buy insurance--that is the most overly-simplistic, erroneous notion of the last two centuries. Frankly, nothing is broken with the current system. It is what it is...and at that, it's the best in the world. Political leaders, namely one POTUS, are trying to pass this idea off to a public that does not think often about such matters. But please let me explain, and illustrate, why Obamacare will do nothing for the American medical system other than weaken it.

The first erroneous idea is that medical costs can be significantly curbed. No doubt, the feds can decrease costs by lowering reimbursements to doctors and hospitals (they do it through Medicare all the time). They can also reel-in fraudulent claims that lead to billions of wasted taxpayer dollars every year. But the idea that health care costs can be reduced significantly by preventing the uninsured from using emergency rooms as their primary care misses one major fact: As technology improves, costs go up because everybody--from doctors to patients--wants to take advantage of the newest in health care diagnostics and therapies. And I've got news for you--be prepared for more cutting-edge research and technology in medicine over the coming decades, because the only way it's NOT going to flourish is if the feds try to curb health care costs.

Case in point: A recent study showed that men will opt for the newest, and more costly, treatment for prostate cancer, despite there being scant evidence to its superiority over other treatments. Researchers analyzed the treatment choices over 20,000 men living inside or outside the regional market for Loma Linda University, a hospital in Southern California with a proton beam facility. All men were diagnosed with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer between 2003 and 2006.

They found that patients living near a proton beam facility (only nine in operation in U.S., with eight more in development, according to the National Association for Proton Therapy) were more than five times more likely to receive proton beam therapy than those living outside of the hospital's referral region. This despite there being no evidence showing proton therapy having better outcomes than other forms of prostate cancer treatment, including other forms of radiation, surgery or hormone therapy.

Proton therapy uses a beam of protons to irradiate diseased tissue. The chief advantage is its ability to more precisely localize the radiation dose, thus better targeting of tumor tissue while leaving healthy surrounding tissue intact. The treatment is marketed as having lower impotence and incontinence rates than other radiation treatment options, but, again, there's a lack of evidence to support this, according to Dr. David Aaronson, a urologist at Kaiser Permanente Medical Group in Oakland, California, and lead author of the study.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men, with more than 240,000 diagnosed cases in the U.S. in 2011. Nine out of 10 of those cases were localized prostate cancer, meaning the cancer hasn't spread outside the prostate gland. Nearly all men diagnosed with localized tumors survive at least five years after diagnosis.

What this study really illustrates is that people will gravitate toward the newest and more advanced therapy when available; and to no small part on the advice of doctors, who will also tend to favor the cutting-edge when making recommendations.

But new technology doesn't come cheap--estimates have proton beam therapy costing twice as much as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, another form of external radiation therapy and about five times more than radioactive seed implants (aka prostate brachytherapy). And according to some in the biz, institutions with proton beam facilities--which have been shown to be more effective in treating tumors of the brain, eye and spine (rare cancers)--often look to pad their numbers by treating prostate cancer (one of most common in men).

And this, dear reader, is the reality of medical care in the western world. What humors me, though, is the second erroneous notion: that universal health care will fix the current 'crisis.' As I have said before, there is no crisis, nothing to be fixed, at least not with regard to how the system currently runs.

We have the greatest medical system in the world here in America, at the forefront of modern technology, and we get to enjoy a pretty decent success rate for the treatment of most modern illnesses. What is a fantasy is that somehow it shouldn't cost money--yeah right. The only way that will change will be to stifle innovation, so that all Americans can get the same shoddy care as they do in Canada (don't even get me started, Canadians--I've personally treated too many Canucks who've come to the U.S. to receive the care they just couldn't for months in their own country).

Obamacare ain't gonna fix nutin' except one man's legacy. And the politicos spreading the myth that every man, woman and child needs to purchase health insurance to lower health care costs is the biggest laugh of the new millennium. The only aspects of health care 'in need' of fixing are the public perceptions--and practices--of health and wellness, and especially the regulation of the insurance industry. But that is another story altogether.

ADHD Industry Staying Relevant & Sustainable (Part 2)

So last post I discussed how all industries have an inherent drive toward sustainability.  It's only natural--no industry will work to render itself obsolete.  This is my best explanation for the significant rise in ADHD diagnoses over the last decade.  As that industry grows, many mouths are fed, from the diagnosticians, to the experts and researchers, to the drug manufacturers, to the authors, to the critics, and the list goes on and on.

Researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that between 2007-2009, an average of 9% of children between the ages of 5 and 17 were diagnosed with ADHD. This compared with just under 7% between 1998-2000.  Again I ask the question: Are more children being born with this disorder every year?  The genetic explanation is always popular, you know.  Or is it something in the environment?  Video games, social media, what?

Further, researchers have found a narrowing of prevalence among racial groups--that is, whites, blacks and some Hispanic groups are being diagnosed in comparable numbers.  You don't say?  With Obamacare on its way, you bet I do.

But astute doctors understand that increased numbers do not always tell the whole story.  According to study author, Dr. Lara J. Akinbami, a medical officer with the National Center for Health Statistics, "We don't have the data to say for certain what explains these patterns, but I would caution against concluding that what we have here is a real increase in the occurrence of this condition."  Precisely.

"In fact, it would be hard for me to argue that what we see here is a true change in prevalence," Akinbami added.  "Instead, I would say that most probably what we found has a lot to do with better access to health care among a broader group of children, and doctors who have become more and more familiar with this condition and now have better tools to screen for it. So, this is probably about better screening, rather than a real increase, and that means we may continue to see this pattern unfold."  Bingo!

You see, better access means "more widely accepted", and therefore, "reimbursable."  That is exactly why it is being diagnosed across a broader racial spectrum.  Universal health care means, "every ADHD diagnosis pays."  No worrying about the uninsured; everybody has the right to have a child labeled ADHD now.  What a magnificent country we live in--equality at its finest.

And "better tools to screen for it" means, "wider, more accepted parameters; acceptance of subjective criteria used by diagnosticians to account for variability, as this is a mental condition."  So darn near any non-conforming kid is a candidate for ADHD drugs, like Adderall or Ritalin, and the industry continues to sustain itself.  According to the National Institutes of Health, ADHD is the most common behavioral disorder among children.  Well, no shiitake mushrooms--I hope you see it, too.

This is really an interesting phenomenon if you take the time to analyze it.  The industry will keep growing, and it won't change until parents say, "Enough! No more!"  No more drugging my children, no more labeling them as dysfunctional, no more holding my child back because teachers don't understand how to inspire him, no more discouraging my kid by assuming something is wrong with him because he doesn't care about the same things an outdated school system tells him to care about.  It won't change until parents wake up.

Don't believe me when I tell you the ADHD industry is growing by keeping itself relevant and sustainable?  We'll let the good doctor, Akinbami, explain it in her own words:

"Children of ADHD use a lot more health care dollars than their peers, because the condition itself requires a lot of monitoring. And they are also much more likely to have other chronic health care conditions, such as asthma or learning disabilities or conduct diagnoses like conduct disorder, which makes managing them for schools and physicians and parents much more difficult. So, it's clearly something for public policy experts to be concerned about."

In other words, "Not done growing."  I'll keep opening my big mouth until people get it.

Chiropractic Clients are Healthier

http://www.drnickcampos.com/

When it comes to healthy lifestyle behaviors, regular bodywork is right up there with good diet and exercise.  And in the realm of bodywork, nothing beats chiropractic for keeping people healthy and full functioning throughout their lifetime.

According to a 2000 wellness study,

Chiropractic patients ages 65 and older who were under chiropractic care for five or more years experienced 50 percent fewer medical provider visits than their comparable peers and spent only 31 percent of the national average for health care services.  The health habits of patients receiving maintenance care were better overall than the general population, including decreased use of cigarettes and decreased use of prescription drugs.

I hope Obamacare bureaucrats are paying attention. 

Love and Honor in Death

Ready for some controversy?  Here goes: Our illusion that death is "bad" is costing us oodles in unnecessary health care, prolonging pain and suffering, and preventing people from finding beauty in their inevitable transformation.  According to a recent report, more and more Americans are being treated to death--that is, receiving costly and often ineffective care, instead of choosing to die in dignity and comfort.

More than 80% of all deaths in the U.S. are due to chronic and progressive illnesses such as cancer and heart failure.  Of these, more than 80% say they would like to avoid hospitalization and intensive care at the end of their lives; yet in actuality, Americans are being treated aggressively until their last dying breath.  Here are the numbers:

• The average time spent in hospice and palliative care (focused on comfort without curing) is decreasing.  In 2008, one third of people receiving hospice care had it for one week or less.
• Hospitalizations during the last six months of life are rising: from 1,302 per 1,000 Medicare recipients in 1996 to 1,441 in 2005, Dartmouth reports.
• 12% of cancer patients who died in 1999 received chemo in the last two weeks of life, up from nearly 10 percent in 1993. 
• Almost 20% of patients with colorectal cancer that has spread are on at least their fourth chemotherapy drug. The same goes for roughly 12% of patients with metastatic breast cancer, and for 12% of those with lung cancer. The analysis is based on more than 60,000 cancer patients. 

These numbers are particularly concerning since treating chronic illness in the last two years of life eats up nearly one-third of all Medicare dollars.

This controversy lies in that some people believe we should try to extend life under all circumstances.  As long as an inkling of hope remains, some say, people should fight on.  And the controversy is as much political as it is moral.  During the debates over universal health coverage (Obamacare), opponents stressed that health care rationing would take place, and that "death panels" would be responsible for determining who received further care and who was left to die.

Although I find this notion and fear of death panels ridiculous, I do think that our obsession with life at all costs dishonors the magnificence of the human life cycle.  We are born, we live, we die.  It has been said that the only thing certain in life is death, and in that we are all the same.  Not one person walking the planet today will be alive in 150 years.  In fact, neither will our planet live forever, nor our sun--all things move on to the next transformation. 

Does this mean people should not fight for their lives?  Well, it depends.  To a 92-year-old, I'd say, "For what?"  However, to a 22-year-old diagnosed with lung cancer, I'd say yes...with a catch.  If you have an inspired purpose, something driving you to live, I believe you can beat the odds.  But the purpose must be a part of your essence, a drive so strong that not even the sands of time can keep you from completing it.  It cannot be some fabricated deal you try to cut with your maker in an attempt to hold on; it must be in your heart, truly a part of you.  Even then you won't escape death for long.  Death is inevitable for all of us--something for the young and healthy to think about regarding their own life's purpose, and acting on your dreams...now!

No, I don't know for sure if having deep inspirational purpose will extend your life, but my intuition tells me it is so.  I think about some of the lives we have had the honor of observing, like Michael Jackson's or Tupac Shakur's, believing that some people know when they are not long for this earth.  When we observe how some people work long and hard at the ends of their lives to complete "unfinished business," it humbles you to the magnificence of living on purpose.

As far as dying is concerned, it is true that we all have opinions on how we will handle the inevitable, until it is our time to go.  Our survival instinct--the one hard-wired into all living things--makes it very challenging to accept death as we imagine within our philosophical belief system, but we can all ultimately appreciate that transformation is all there is; and one day everyone of us will move on to the next experience.  We can fear it, or we can see the beauty in the transition and be grateful.  Death is the completion of one cycle, and the beginning of a new one.

*This post is dedicated to my role model and inspiration, Nate Pressman, a lover of life and God.  You are dignified and beautiful in all your forms, Grandpa; and you will be with us, around us, always.  We love you.

Future of Health Care Presently Experienced

Last night I ran into a guy who ripped me off $5,000. Not one to hold a grudge, we actually had a brief conversation, in which he told me he's having two knee operations. I told a former assistant of mine of the encounter and she asked (knowing he's on a long collections list, including with the IRS) how he's paying for his surgeries. I said, "I'm paying for them--$5,000!" Then it occurred to me: he Obamacare'd me before Obama ever thought of it.

Vitamin D Better Than Flu Shot

Health care trumps sick care again, but this time on the road. That's right, health care traveled to sick care's arena--the illness center--and beat sick care at its own game. Booyah!

A recent Japanese study showed that children taking 1,200 IU of vitamin D supplements daily during the winter and early spring helped prevent seasonal flu and asthma attacks. A timely victory in my analysis of true health care versus government-championed sick care.

Sick care pushes the seasonal flu shot, which my regular readers might recall has been fingered by experts as inconclusive in its effectiveness. Proponents of health care, on the other hand, myself included, really push upping the vitamin D intake. I think 1,200 IU is pretty good for children, and most adults need much more, like 5,000 IU per day. As we become more aware of the pervasiveness of vitamin D insufficiency in all Americans, including children, getting adequate sunlight and supplementing becomes paramount.

The study conducted at Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo showed that children taking the vitamin D supplements were almost half as likely as catching the flu as those taking placebo. And as an added benefit, children taking vitamin D were almost six times less likely to suffer an asthma attack. Holy inhalers! That's quite a hit to pharmaceutical manufacturers. You mean, that a simple $8 bottle of vitamin D can prevent what a $30.00-$60.00 Albuterol inhaler treats. Well bless my Obamacare--I wonder if vitamin D is covered on the plan.

According to Dr. Adit Ginde, of University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, who was not involved in the study, told Reuters Health: "This is the first time a study has been done that rigorously shows that vitamin D supplementation can reduce a type of influenza in a dedicated clinical trial." Ginde and colleagues published a study a year ago showing that asthmatics with lower vitamin D levels were at five times the risk for colds and flu.

Take that, sick care. Another victory in the arena of truth in health. I'll keep 'em coming.

Yay, Obamacare! Now What?

A very intelligent lady posed an excellent question to me the other day. After asking me what my message to the world is, she said, "Don't you think that the medical profession should have a hand in changing health care?" I said, "Most certainly, but I don't think that on its own it can ever change the mind-frame immersed in this non-health system."

Let's take a step back and talk about what I mean. Obviously, this conversation started because of the celebrated, but not yet passed, health care reform bill. The young lady wanted to know my opinion on this historic measure. Truth is, I don't really care one way or the other what happens with regard to a national health care policy. Doesn't change a thing as far as I can see. Politically speaking, though, it was a victory of grand proportions. Obamacare achieved what had been unattainable for more than 60 years--a nationalized American health care law. Bravo!

But from a health perspective, is this really the change we've been waiting for? Is this momentous piece of legislation going to improve the health of all Americans? Doubt it. No, more directly: Obamacare might give more Americans medical insurance, but it will worsen health, period!

How do I know? Simple. Medical care is not health care. Emotional non-thinkers think it is. Fine. It's not and I can prove it. Medical care is sick care--it excels in saving lives. Saving lives is not health care. For the ignorant mind that scoffs at the notion, then certainly medical insurance is right up there with cell phones and Nikes as something every American must posses--because that's equality. Equality has nothing to do with health. Health is not a right, it is a condition; more accurately, it is self-administered, self-regulated condition. The same morons that believe medical insurance equals health don't really care about health or health care at all--it's ideological for them. My foolish party politics are better than your's are. Nya, nya, nya, nya, nya, nya.

So what would real health care reform look like? It would actually involve improving health (go figure). Should the medical profession have a hand in this? Yes, but they will never seriously push it, because there ain't no money in healthy people (we can all do that for next to nuttin'). There's a vested interest in sick people, even if it's not talked about or simply part of the professional unconscious.

And for all the BS about doctors getting back to their roots and caring for people, well, that's pure rhetoric. When doctors can't earn enough to pay their student loans AND turn a profit, you'll see law school applications go through the roof. Mark my words.

*Note: I will dedicate the rest of the month of March to showing exactly why health care reform isn't about health. Dare to read and learn, disputers.