Category Archives: chronic disease

Is Soda the Next Big Tobacco?

Posted on by
3

Prevention is always a big buzzword in health care reform, and lifestyle choices that decrease the risk of developing costly and debilitating chronic diseases are a huge part of this frequent conversation. A glance at the cover of this week’s Time magazine shows an issue devoted to prevention and wellness throughout the lifespan, and an article called “Food as Pharma” leaves no question about the impact of what we put into our mouths in terms of health and wellness.

With uncanny timing, the magazine arrived the day I had a scheduled interview with renowned nutrition/obesity expert Dr. Barry Popkin, author of The World is Fat as well as recent research linking the consumption of sugary beverages to negative health outcomes. He claims drinking one extra 12-ounce can of regular soda a day, at 140 calories, can cause you to gain 13 pounds in a year.

Dr. Popkin is a strong supporter of taxing beverages like soda and whole milk the way cigarettes are; in fact, he considers soda “the next big tobacco.”

When Massachusetts announced a plan to require chains to list the calories in their items staring next year, the gamut of reactions was predictably wide: some thought it was a great way to make consumers more conscious of their choices; others thought it was an egregious governmental interference into our lives. Against this backdrop, I was certainly excited to discuss Dr. Popkin’s research with him. Here is some of our conversation:

Why is soda the next big tobacco?

Like tobacco, soft drinks and sugary beverages have no health benefits beyond pleasing us, and they have many drawbacks.

According to Dr. Popkin, what makes sugary beverages unique in terms calorie intake is that drinking these calories does not reduce our food intake—normally when we eat food, even junk food, we cut other food intake down.

From an evolutionary point of view, he pointed out that humans always drank water or breast milk. If we go without water for three days, we could die but if we don’t eat, it could take a month to two months to die. Over time, we developed mechanisms where the food and thirst mechanisms are separate, which adds to the unique caloric qualities of sugary beverages.

“Not only don’t they benefit us but they a 100 percent to our poor health by adding to our calories,” he says. What’s more, research suggests that the fructose in sucrose (natural sugar) or high fructose corn syrup adds directly to visceral fat, which is the fat around the heart and liver—and it is the only substance known to do this. It is the most toxic type of fat in terms of diabetes and metabolic syndrome as well as some cancers, so removing sugary beverages is a prime prevention method. (You knew I’d circle back to prevention, right?)

What about the tax and health reform?

Comparing this to the decrease in smokers (and by extension, the health consequences of smoking) as a result of the cigarette tax, Popkin maintains that taxing soda and sugary beverages will reduce the risk of overweight, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. (He also has forthcoming research in this area). Massachusetts is one of a handful of states considering this kind of tax. Popkin also noted that on a larger scale, the United States lags behind many high-end nations in reducing the consumption of sugary beverages.

“We are good at causing disease but not good at fixing it,” Popkin says, a comment that goes beyond the idea of the soda tax and hits on the basic structure of our current medical system. Right now, we spend too much on band-aids for the problems rather than taking steps to correct them at the source. To that end, Popkin sees the beverage tax as a major way to help fund reform and improve health and quality of life.

What is the response to those who think such policies might go too far?

In response to this sentiment, Popkin pointed to previous public health initiatives that were initially met with resistance, like seatbelt use, measures to curb smoking, and putting fluoride in the water. “Clearly there isn’t a single public health initiative that hasn’t faced these arguments,” he says.

He also counters with the following facts: Right now, we’re ranked between 30-35th percent in life expectancy and health care costs are swamping us. Need more statistics on sugary beverages? Forty percent of soda drinkers consume a whopping 600-900 calories a day from their drinks. And, as many of us might now realize, he says natural sugar is just as bad as drinks sweetened with high fructose corn syrup—they both contain fructose, and both add to visceral fat and calorie count.

The way I see it, framing soda as the next big tobacco is also an extension of an even broader debate: if prevention is a fundamental component of health reform, what is the best way to accomplish it?

It’s your turn to weigh in: is soda the next big tobacco?

For more information, check out the video posted below, where Dr. Popkin and colleagues discuss the health impacts of sugary beverages at a recent International Chair on Cardiometabolic Risk (ICCR) conference:

Talking Health Reform with President Clinton

Posted on by
4

“I’ll be surprised if we don’t get health care reform,” President Clinton said yesterday.

I should note two things about that statement—first of all, coming from someone with such an informed view of the situation, it is encouraging. Secondly, I didn’t get that quote from a press release or a conference call. I was actually sitting next to Clinton in a conference room where a few other bloggers and I had the chance to converse with him about health care, clean energy, and some of his projects at the Clinton Foundation.

Now, since most of my conversations take place in my home office with a speaker phone, a digital recorder, and frantic attempts to keep the dogs from barking and none of them typically involve sitting with a former leader of the free world, clearly this was an amazing experience.

Given its traction right now it was no surprise that we spent a lot of time discussing health care and health reform. As a resident of Massachusetts and a rare disease patient,
I came prepared with questions about primary care shortages with increased access to insurance as well as the treatment of existing chronic diseases.

Perhaps the comparisons between the current push for health care reform and Clinton’s efforts in the 1990s are inevitable, but the overriding sentiment I got yesterday was that yes, things really are different now. For one, Clinton noted the political and psychological landscape the Obama administration faces is much different. Disparate groups like health insurance companies, small businesses, and many other groups with different stakes in the debate are more willing to collaborate.

More tellingly, as Clinton said, “everything is worse now.” I know many readers of this blog can attest to that fact. Fifty million Americans remain uninsured, and as I mentioned to a fellow blogger before the meeting started, those who are underinsured often face calamitous situations. Adjusting for inflation, we have two-thirds of the disposable income we had when Clinton left office, and health care costs have doubled.

We’ve heard much of this before—our system is the most expensive but has poor outcomes; for our economic and physical health, reform is imperative; better prevention and care now means a healthier nation down the road. The real challenge is to change the way health care is delivered while still keeping costs down. It sounds so simple and yet so daunting at the same time, doesn’t it?

The Clinton Foundation is heavily involved in HIV/AIDS care in developing nations, and in discussing some of these initiatives the President mentioned the reluctance governments have to set up stable health care systems that account for malaria, TB, and the other very real health threats that end up affecting so many. As he said that, it occurred to me that our own switch from an acute, reactive system to a preventive, proactive system is no less significant and necessary. A piecemeal approach will not do it.

One of the most common concerns raised about Obama’s public option relates to Medicare reimbursements. (Of course it is the purchasing power of that potentially enormous patient population that many hope will curb health costs with more competitive private rates.) Anyway, an interesting distinction Clinton made is that reimbursement is not the problem; inefficiency is. It makes sense, but when I hear people talking about Medicare and modeling the public insurance option after it, so often the conversation stalls at reimbursements.

Related to this, when pointing to successful delivery models in Green Bay, WI and other places, President Clinton acknowledged that health care is both “an art and a science.” A viable public option would need to be outcome-based if we’re to reach a goal of more efficient care.

Obviously there are many compelling reasons to embrace outcome-based treatments. For “clinically interesting” patients like myself, I hope a revamped health care system really does still leave room for the “art”—more often than not, that has made all the difference for me.

(Stay tuned for more posts from this event, but I need to add that not only does President Clinton read blogs and turn to them for information, he has also read Mountains Beyond Mountains and is friends with its main character, Paul Farmer—if you’ve read my post on narrative medicine, you know how fanatical I am about that book. If you care about public health and health disparities, it is an absolute must-read. But don’t just take my word for it, take President Clinton’s as well.)

3rd Summit Conversation: Interview and Insights on Health Care Reform

Posted on by
2

If you’ve read recent headlines, scanned online sites, listened to President Obama speak at recent news conferences, or followed the flurry of Twitter updates and Facebook status messages, then you know that health care reform is a topic reaching across all types of media.

And with good reason, given the huge economic toll rising health care costs places on us, not to mention the quality of life issues involved for people without access to care or access to appropriate care.

Obviously, health care reform is not a new topic on this blog. A few months ago I wrote about the consensus-building Summit talks sponsored by The America’s Agenda Healthcare Education Fund. Today, April 7th, is the third Health Care Summit Conversation, hosted by Tommy G. Thompson, former Wisconsin governor, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and Republican presidential candidate, together with the University of Wisconsin School of Law. Click here for streaming video of the event.

The point of these talks is to bring high-profile individuals from all different stakeholders involved in reform together. In a sense, the fact that individuals from across the health care spectrum (politicians, policy experts, health care providers, labor leaders, health insurance and pharmaceutical companies, etc) are engaging in these kinds of talks proves there is consensus: everyone agrees something must change, and that now is the time to do it. These conversations focus on how we can actually make that happen.

I tend to focus on the patient aspect of health care reform since it is what I live with every day, so I was interested in the opportunity to speak with Summit panelist David Y. Norton, Company Group Chairman, Worldwide Commercial and Operations of Johnson & Johnson this morning.

Given that chronic disease accounts for 75 percent of all health care costs and this is a chronic illness blog, you can probably figure out what topics I centered our conversation on. Here are some highlights:

On the best ways to reform how we approach patients with chronic disease—“There is no holistic view of the patient,” he says, pointing to our current fragmented nature of health care delivery. Whether it’s hospital care, medication, doctor appointments, etc, a more collaborative and holistic approach would not only reduce costs but increase health outcomes.

Related to this notion of holistic care is the medical home, with its emphasis on quality primary care. In addition, he feels that electronic medical records will help ensure information is shared “evenly and equally” with relevant parties.

He echoes the sentiments expressed by many right now that shifting our focus from acute treatment to incentives for wellness and prevention would make a big difference. “We currently reward treatment on fee-for-service basis, therefore the more tests you, you get paid more. But that’s necessarily quality care, so we need to focus on prevention and wellness.”

Co-pays are a disincentive for patients, particularly those with chronic diseases, since increased co-pays shift the burden of cost to them. People who don’t take their drugs see doctors more, end up in hospitals more, and end up accruing more health care costs later.

In terms of wellness initiatives and incentives, Johnson & Johnson already has a “very active program” for its employees. It includes a smoking cessation program, financial incentives for employees, healthier food options in the cafeteria, in-house fitness centers, etc. The annual savings in employee health costs is about $400. While there are other private companies doing similar things, Norton believes “we need to change the health care system to incentivize those patients in the private system and the public system to address prevention and wellness.”

On treatment of patients with rare/genetic/existing chronic disease (you knew I’d ask!)—Fundamentally, the goal is for affordable access to quality care for all citizens, and he believes pre-existing conditions should not exclude anyone from getting that quality care. More specifically, he points to stem cell research and other innovations as keys to eliminating or alleviating certain diseases.

(An aside: as a rare disease patient I would love to see even more innovative drugs come down the pipeline—can we agree we have enough nose sprays and acid reflux pills and look to sound policies that encourage the research and development of drugs that tackle smaller and rarer disease populations? Like much of this, it’s a collaborative effort.)

On the role pharmaceutical companies have in health care reform: Norton mentions that currently, pharmaceuticals account for 10 cents of every health care dollar spent. He sees improved patient education—better knowledge of their medications can lead to better compliance and less cost down the road—and physician education as important parts of reform.

(As another personal side note, check out this recent Boston Globe article on major changes in consumer education being proposed by the FDA. )

As he mentioned earlier, drug innovation is another essential component, as are policies that help patients who need medication access affordable prescriptions.

* * *
Any type of consensus involves different parties with different agendas, priorities, and perspectives. Getting them altogether is the first step; seeing results that accommodate everyone’s needs is much more difficult. Be sure to check out the Summit Conversations and hear what David Y. Norton, Tommy Thompson, and a diverse group of other panelists are saying about health care reform.

Doctors, Patients and Health Care Reform

Posted on by
3

There’s been a lot of talk about the economic stimulus plan, comparative effectiveness and health care reform lately. And with good reason—health care reform is integral for our physical as well as our fiscal health.

But in today’s Well column, Tara Parker-Pope raises an important point: in all this talk of methods and outcomes, where is the doctor-patient relationship?

The column touches on a core critique of our medical system, one that right now is better equipped for acute care then prevention and wellness. Specifically, it explores our propensity to want prescriptions that might be unnecessary, or to favor newer or more expensive treatments or procedures when older or less expensive ones might suffice:

“Whether it’s invasive back surgery, medical scans or expensive drugs, patients and doctors alike often refuse to believe that costly treatments aren’t worth it.”

What I find interesting about this column is that it doesn’t posit the blame on just the patients who ask for drugs or the doctors who write the scripts—rather, it points towards the need for both parties to work together to achieve the best outcome.

I’ve written a lot about the doctor-patient relationship, and while I have much more to say about this particular manifestation, I can’t help but feel so much remains true—in the end, mutual trust and respect is fundamental to a healthy relationship and thus a healthier outcome.

The medical education our providers have and the experiential wisdom we have about our own bodies are not at odds with each other. If we combine them and ask the right questions of each other, hopefully we can filter out the unnecessary treatments and tests.

* * *
Another great edition of Grand Rounds is up at Health Business Blog. Check it out!