http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/01/reader-letters-primary-care-crisis-dont.html#comments
I was just thinking (living) this. On a related note, Medicare wants to cut payments to physicians by 10%, and almost all insurers base their pay scale on Medicare. One congressman said this would not be a problem because doctors will keep taking Medicare because it is covers so many patients. We'll stop covering patients when we go out of business. I gotta figure a way to see more people in less time while providing more comprehensive care.
http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2007/08/wall-street-can.html#more
A post about approval for a drug for prostate cancer. It brings up a variety of important issues. Makes you shudder, too.
http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2007/11/your-yearly-phy.html
OK, I've found a new favorite blog. This post echoes my thoughts about the annual check up or physical. Of course, this writer is a heck of a lot better than me.
http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2007/11/autismanother-e.html
Did you know that autism affects 1 out of every 150 children? Me neither.
And finally, click on this link to help donate a free mammogam to someone, or something like that.
http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
Showing posts with label drugs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drugs. Show all posts
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
More Avandia news
There's an old saying,"There's lies, damned lies, and statistics." I think the varying reactions to the Avandia study by Glaxo show this to be true.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/06/health/06fda.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1181189602-EX1reIBUf/kYB+kfUp7hKg
So who's right?
For my money- I'd like to see more studies present results with "Number Needed to Treat" and "Number Needed to Harm" data. For instance, "This study shows if you treat 50 patients with drug x- you will prevent one death and two heart attacks. You need to treat 1500 people to get liver function problems that are reversible. You need to treat 20,000 people to kill someone with drug x." Instead, I get a lot of statistical static and an editorial that emphatically states I need to prescribe more drug x.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/06/health/06fda.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1181189602-EX1reIBUf/kYB+kfUp7hKg
So who's right?
For my money- I'd like to see more studies present results with "Number Needed to Treat" and "Number Needed to Harm" data. For instance, "This study shows if you treat 50 patients with drug x- you will prevent one death and two heart attacks. You need to treat 1500 people to get liver function problems that are reversible. You need to treat 20,000 people to kill someone with drug x." Instead, I get a lot of statistical static and an editorial that emphatically states I need to prescribe more drug x.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)