international-business – Page 3

Insurance requirements for prior authorization may prompt ‘devastating’ delays | CNN

Post By Health brand safety-nsf health issues, brand safety-nsf sensitive, business, business and industry sectors, Cancer, denials, diseases and disorders, domestic alerts, domestic-business, domestic-health and science, economy and trade, health and medical, Health Care, health insurance, iab-business and finance, iab-cancer, iab-diseases and conditions, iab-health insurance, iab-healthcare industry, iab-industries, iab-insurance, iab-medical health, iab-personal finance, Insurance, international alerts, international-business, international-health and science, medical fields and specialties, oncology

When Paula Chestnut needed hip replacement surgery last year, a pre-operative X-ray found irregularities in her chest.

As a smoker for 40 years, Chestnut was at high risk for lung cancer. A specialist in Los Angeles recommended the 67-year-old undergo an MRI, a high-resolution image that could help spot the disease.

But her MRI appointment kept getting canceled, Chestnut’s son, Jaron Roux, told KHN. First, it was scheduled at the wrong hospital. Next, the provider wasn’t available. The ultimate roadblock she faced, Roux said, arrived when Chestnut’s health insurer deemed the MRI medically unnecessary and would not authorize the visit.

“On at least four or five occasions, she called me up, hysterical,” Roux said.

Months later, Chestnut, struggling to breathe, was rushed to the emergency room. A tumor in her chest had become so large that it was pressing against her windpipe. Doctors started a regimen of chemotherapy, but it was too late. Despite treatment, she died in the hospital within six weeks of being admitted.

Though Roux doesn’t fully blame the health insurer for his mother’s death, “it was a contributing factor,” he said. “It limited her options.”

Few things about the American health care system infuriate patients and doctors more than prior authorization, a common tool whose use by insurers has exploded in recent years.

Prior authorization, or pre-certification, was designed decades ago to prevent doctors from ordering expensive tests or procedures that are not indicated or needed, with the aim of delivering cost-effective care.

Originally focused on the costliest types of care, such as cancer treatment, insurers now commonly require prior authorization for many mundane medical encounters, including basic imaging and prescription refills. In a 2021 survey conducted by the American Medical Association, 40% of physicians said they have staffers who work exclusively on prior authorization.

So today, instead of providing a guardrail against useless, expensive treatment, pre-authorization prevents patients from getting the vital care they need, researchers and doctors say.

“The prior authorization system should be completely done away with in physicians’ offices,” said Dr. Shikha Jain, a Chicago hematologist-oncologist. “It’s really devastating, these unnecessary delays.”

In December, the federal government proposed several changes that would force health plans, including Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, and federal Affordable Care Act marketplace plans, to speed up prior authorization decisions and provide more information about the reasons for denials. Starting in 2026, it would require plans to respond to a standard prior authorization request within seven days, typically, instead of the current 14, and within 72 hours for urgent requests. The proposed rule was scheduled to be open for public comment through March 13.

Although groups like AHIP, an industry trade group formerly called America’s Health Insurance Plans, and the American Medical Association, which represents more than 250,000 physicians in the United States, have expressed support for the proposed changes, some doctors feel they don’t go far enough.

“Seven days is still way too long,” said Dr. Julie Kanter, a hematologist in Birmingham, Alabama, whose sickle cell patients can’t delay care when they arrive at the hospital showing signs of stroke. “We need to move very quickly. We have to make decisions.”

Meanwhile, some states have passed their own laws governing the process. In Oregon, for example, health insurers must respond to nonemergency prior authorization requests within two business days. In Michigan, insurers must report annual prior authorization data, including the number of requests denied and appeals received. Other states have adopted or are considering similar legislation, while in many places insurers regularly take four to six weeks for non-urgent appeals.

Waiting for health insurers to authorize care comes with consequences for patients, various studies show. It has led to delays in cancer care in Pennsylvania, meant sick children in Colorado were more likely to be hospitalized, and blocked low-income patients across the country from getting treatment for opioid addiction.

In some cases, care has been denied and never obtained. In others, prior authorization proved a potent but indirect deterrent, as few patients have the fortitude, time, or resources to navigate what can be a labyrinthine process of denials and appeals. They simply gave up, because fighting denials often requires patients to spend hours on the phone and computer to submit multiple forms.

Erin Conlisk, a social science researcher for the University of California-Riverside, estimated she spent dozens of hours last summer trying to obtain prior authorization for a 6-mile round-trip ambulance ride to get her mother to a clinic in San Diego.

Her 81-year-old mother has rheumatoid arthritis and has had trouble sitting up, walking, or standing without help after she damaged a tendon in her pelvis last year.

Conlisk thought her mom’s case was clear-cut, especially since they had successfully scheduled an ambulance transport a few weeks earlier to the same clinic. But the ambulance didn’t show on the day Conlisk was told it would. No one notified them the ride hadn’t been pre-authorized.

The time it takes to juggle a prior authorization request can also perpetuate racial disparities and disproportionately affect those with lower-paying, hourly jobs, said Dr. Kathleen McManus, a physician-scientist at the University of Virginia.

“When people ask for an example of structural racism in medicine, this is one that I give them,” McManus said. “It’s baked into the system.”

Research that McManus and her colleagues published in 2020 found that federal Affordable Care Act marketplace insurance plans in the South were 16 times more likely to require prior authorization for HIV prevention drugs than those in the Northeast. The reason for these regional disparities is unknown. But she said that because more than half the nation’s Black population lives in the South, they’d be the patients more likely to face this barrier.

Many of the denied claims are reversed if a patient appeals, according to the federal government. New data specific to Medicare Advantage plans found 82% of appeals resulted in fully or partially overturning the initial prior authorization denial, according to KFF.

It’s not just patients who are confused and frustrated by the process. Doctors said they find the system convoluted and time-consuming, and feel as if their expertise is being challenged.

“I lose hours of time that I really don’t have to argue … with someone who doesn’t even really know what I’m talking about,” said Kanter, the hematologist in Birmingham. “The people who are making these decisions are rarely in your field of medicine.”

Occasionally, she said, it’s more efficient to send patients to the emergency room than it is to negotiate with their insurance plan to pre-authorize imaging or tests. But emergency care costs both the insurer and the patient more.

“It’s a terrible system,” she said.

A KFF analysis of 2021 claims data found that 9% of all in-network denials by Affordable Care Act plans on the federal exchange, healthcare.gov, were attributed to lack of prior authorization or referrals, but some companies are more likely to deny a claim for these reasons than others. In Texas, for example, the analysis found 22% of all denials made by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas and 24% of all denials made by Celtic Insurance Co. were based on lack of prior authorization.

Facing scrutiny, some insurers are revising their prior authorization policies. UnitedHealthcare has cut the number of prior authorizations in half in recent years by eliminating the need for patients to obtain permission for some diagnostic procedures, like MRIs and CT scans, said company spokesperson Heather Soules. Health insurers have also adopted artificial intelligence technology to speed up prior authorization decisions.

Meanwhile, most patients have no means of avoiding the burdensome process that has become a defining feature of American health care. But even those who have the time and energy to fight back may not get the outcome they hoped for.

When the ambulance never showed in July, Conlisk and her mother’s caregiver decided to drive the patient to the clinic in the caregiver’s car.

“She almost fell outside the office,” said Conlisk, who needed the assistance of five bystanders to move her mother safely into the clinic.

When her mother needed an ambulance for another appointment in September, Conlisk vowed to spend only one hour a day, for two weeks leading up to the clinic visit, working to get prior authorization. Her efforts were unsuccessful. Once again, her mother’s caregiver drove her to the clinic himself.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Source link

#Insurance #requirements #prior #authorization #prompt #devastating #delays #CNN

When we’ll be able to 3D-print organs and who will be able to afford them | CNN

Post By Health 3d printing, brand safety-nsf health issues, brand safety-nsf sensitive, business, business and industry sectors, computer science and information technology, dialysis, diseases and disorders, domestic alerts, domestic-business, domestic-health and science, economy and trade, health and medical, iab-business and finance, iab-computing, iab-diseases and conditions, iab-industries, iab-medical health, iab-surgery, iab-technology & computing, iab-technology industry, international alerts, international-business, international-health and science, kidney disease, medical treatments and procedures, surgery, Technology, transplant surgery, urogenital disorders and injuries

Sign up for CNN’s Wonder Theory science newsletter. Explore the universe with news on fascinating discoveries, scientific advancements and more.

CNN
—

What if doctors could just print a kidney, using cells from the patient, instead of having to find a donor match and hope the patient’s body doesn’t reject the transplanted kidney?

The soonest that could happen is in a decade, thanks to 3D organ bioprinting, said Jennifer Lewis, a professor at Harvard University’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering. Organ bioprinting is the use of 3D-printing technologies to assemble multiple cell types, growth factors and biomaterials in a layer-by-layer fashion to produce bioartificial organs that ideally imitate their natural counterparts, according to a 2019 study.

This type of regenerative medicine is in the development stage, and the driving force behind this innovation is “real human need,” Lewis said.

In the United States, there are 106,800 men, women and children on the national organ transplant waiting list as of March 8, 2023, according to the Health Resources & Services Administration. However, living donors provide only around 6,000 organs per year on average, and there are about 8,000 deceased donors annually who each provide 3.5 organs on average.

The cause of this discrepancy is “a combination of people who undergo catastrophic health events, but their organs aren’t high enough quality to donate, or they’re not on the organ donor list to begin with, and the fact that it’s actually very difficult to find a good match” so the patient’s body doesn’t reject the transplanted organ, Lewis said.

And even though living donors are an option, “to do surgery on someone who doesn’t need it” is a big risk, said Dr. Anthony Atala, director of the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine. “So, living related donors are usually not the preferred way to go because then you’re taking an organ away from somebody else who may need it, especially now as we age longer.”

Atala and his colleagues were responsible for growing human bladders in a lab by hand in 2006, and implanting a complicated internal organ into people for the first time — saving the lives of three children in whom they implanted the bladders.

Every day, 17 people die waiting for an organ transplant, according to the Health Resources & Services Administration. And every 10 minutes, another person is added to the waitlist, the agency says. More than 90% of the people on the transplant list in 2021 needed a kidney.

“About a million people worldwide are in need of a kidney. So they have end-stage renal failure, and they have to go on dialysis,” Lewis said. “Once you go on dialysis, you have essentially five years to live, and every year, your mortality rate increases by 15%. Dialysis is very hard on your body. So this is really motivating to take on this grand challenge of printing organs.”

“Anti-hypertensive pills are not scarce. Everybody who needs them can get them,” Martine Rothblatt, CEO and chairman of United Therapeutics, said in June 2022 at the Life Itself conference, a health and wellness event presented in partnership with CNN. United Therapeutics was one of the conference sponsors.

“There is no practical reason why anybody who needs a kidney — or a lung, a heart, a liver — should not be able to get one,” she added. “We’re using technology to solve this problem.”

To begin the process of bioprinting an organ, doctors typically start with a patient’s own cells. They take a small needle biopsy of an organ or do a minimally invasive surgical procedure that removes a small piece of tissue, “less than half the size of a postage stamp,” Atala said. “By taking this small piece of tissue, we are able to tease cells apart (and) we grow and expand the cells outside the body.”

This growth happens inside a sterile incubator or bioreactor, a pressurized stainless steel vessel that helps the cells stay fed with nutrients — called “media” — the doctors feed them every 24 hours, since cells have their own metabolism, Lewis said. Each cell type has a different media, and the incubator or bioreactor acts as an oven-like device mimicking the internal temperature and oxygenation of the human body, Atala said.

“Then we mix it with this gel, which is like a glue,” Atala said. “Every organ in your body has the cells and the glue that holds it together. Basically, that’s also called ‘extracellular matrix.’”

This glue is Atala’s nickname for bioink, a printable mixture of living cells, water-rich molecules called hydrogels, and the media and growth factors that help the cells continue to proliferate and differentiate, Lewis said. The hydrogels mimic the human body’s extracellular matrix, which contains substances including proteins, collagen and hyaluronic acid.

The non-cell sample portion of the glue can be made in a lab, and “is going to have the same properties of the tissue you’re trying to replace,” Atala said.

The biomaterials used typically have to be nontoxic, biodegradable and biocompatible to avoid a negative immune response, Lewis said. Collagen and gelatin are two of the most common biomaterials used for bioprinting tissues or organs.

From there, doctors load each bioink — depending on how many cell types they’re wanting to print — into a printing chamber, “using a printhead and nozzle to extrude an ink and build the material up layer by layer,” Lewis said. Creating tissue with personalized properties is enabled by printers being programmed with a patient’s imaging data from X-rays or scans, Atala said.

“With a color printer you have several different cartridges, and each cartridge is printing a different color, and you come up with your (final) color,” Atala added. Bioprinting is the same; you’re just using cells instead of traditional inks.

How long the printing process takes depends on several factors, including the organ or tissue being printed, the fineness of the resolution and the number of printheads needed, Lewis said. But it typically lasts a few to several hours. The time from the biopsy to the implantation is about four to six weeks, Atala said.

A 3D printer seeds different types of cells onto a kidney scaffold at the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

The ultimate challenge is “getting the organs to actually function as they should,” so accomplishing that “is the holy grail,” Lewis said.

“Just like if you were to harvest an organ from a donor, you have to immediately get that organ into a bioreactor and start perfusing it or the cells die,” she added. To perfuse an organ is to supply it with fluid, usually blood or a blood substitute, by circulating it through blood vessels or other channels.

Depending on the organ’s complexity, there is sometimes a need to mature the tissue further in a bioreactor or further drive connections, Lewis said. “There’s just a number of plumbing issues and challenges that have to be done in order to make that printed organ actually function like a human organ would in vivo (meaning in the body). And honestly, this has not been fully solved yet.”

Once a bioprinted organ is implanted into a patient, it will naturally degrade over time — which is OK since that’s how it’s designed to work.

“You’re probably wondering, ‘Well, then what happens to the tissue? Will it fall apart?’ Actually, no,” Atala said. “These glues dissolve, and the cells sense that the bridge is giving way; they sense that they don’t have a firm footing anymore. So cells do what they do in your very own body, which is to create their own bridge and create their own glue.”

Atala and Lewis are conservative in their estimates about the number of years remaining before fully functioning bioprinted organs can be implanted into humans.

“The field’s moving fast, but I mean, I think we’re talking about a decade plus, even with all of the tremendous progress that’s been made,” Lewis said.

“I learned so many years ago never to predict because you’ll always be wrong,” Atala said. “There’s so many factors in terms of manufacturing and the (US Food and Drug Administration regulation). At the end of the day, our interest, of course, is to make sure the technologies are safe for the patient above all.”

Whenever bioprinting organs becomes an available option, affordability for patients and their caregivers shouldn’t be an issue.

They’ll be “accessible for sure,” Atala said. “The costs associated with organ failures are very high. Just to keep a patient on dialysis is over a quarter of a million dollars per year, just to keep one patient on dialysis. So, it’s a lot cheaper to create an organ that you can implant into the patient.”

The average kidney transplant cost was $442,500 in 2020, according to research published by the American Society of Nephrology — while 3D printers retail for around a few thousand dollars to upward of $100,000, depending on their complexity. But even though low-cost printers are available, pricey parts of bioprinting can include maintaining cell banks for patients, culturing cells and safely handling biological materials, Lewis said.

Some of the major costs of current organ transplantation are “harvesting the organ from the donor, the transport costs and then, of course, the surgery that the recipient goes through, and then all the care and monitoring,” Lewis said. “Some of that cost would still be in play, even if it was bioprinted.”

Source link

#3Dprint #organs #afford #CNN

How human gene editing is moving on after the CRISPR baby scandal | CNN

Post By Health anemia, biochemistry, biology, Biotechnology, blood disorders, brand safety-nsf health issues, brand safety-nsf sensitive, business, business and industry sectors, Cancer, congenital diseases, diseases and disorders, domestic alerts, domestic-business, domestic-health and science, economy and trade, genes and chromosomes, genetic diseases, genetic engineering, genetics, health and medical, iab-biological sciences, iab-biotech and biomedical industry, iab-blood disorders, iab-business and finance, iab-cancer, iab-college education, iab-diseases and conditions, iab-education, iab-genetics, iab-healthcare industry, iab-industries, iab-medical health, iab-pharmaceutical drugs, iab-science, iab-technology & computing, international alerts, international-business, international-health and science, medical biotechnology, medical fields and specialties, pharmaceuticals, scandals, science, sickle cell disease, Technology

Sign up for CNN’s Wonder Theory science newsletter. Explore the universe with news on fascinating discoveries, scientific advancements and more.

London
CNN
—

For most of her life, Victoria Gray, a 37-year-old mother of four from Mississippi, had experienced excruciating bouts of pain.

Born with the blood disorder sickle cell disease, lengthy hospital stays and debilitating fatigue disrupted her childhood, forcing her to quit pursuing a college nursing degree and take potent and addictive painkillers.

“The pain I would feel in my body was like being struck by lightning and hit by a freight train all at once,” she said this week at the Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing in London.

In 2019, she received an experimental treatment for the inherited disease that used the gene-editing technique CRISPR-Cas9, which allowed doctors to make very precise changes to her DNA. While the procedure itself was grueling and took seven to eight months to fully recover from, she said it has transformed her life.

“The feeling is amazing. I really feel that I’m cured now,” Gray said. “Because I no longer have to face the battles that I faced on a day-to-day (basis). I came from having to have an in-home caregiver to help me take baths, clean my house and care for my children. Now I do all those things on my own.”

She’s now able to enjoy a life she once felt was passing her by. She holds down a full-time job as a Walmart cashier, and she’s able to attend her children’s football games and cheerleading events and enjoy family outings. “The life I felt I was just existing in I’m now thriving in,” she said.

Gray shared her experience with doctors, scientists, patient advocates and bioethicists who gathered in London for the human genome editing summit, at which participants reported on advances made in the field and debated the thorny ethical issues posed by the cutting-edge technology.

“I’m here really to be a light because there’s mixed feelings about gene editing. And I think people can see the positive result of it. You know that a person who was once suffering in life, was miserable, now is able to be a part of life and enjoy it,” Gray told CNN.

Gray’s uplifting story, which received a standing ovation from the audience, stood in contrast to a presentation made the last time the conference was held, in Hong Kong in 2018, when Chinese doctor He Jiankui stunned his peers and the world with the revelation that he had created the world’s first gene-edited babies.

The two girls grew from embryos He had modified using CRISPR-Cas9, which he said would make them resistant to HIV. His work was widely condemned by the scientific community, which decried the experiment as medically unnecessary and ethically irresponsible. He received a three-year jail sentence in 2019.

Questions about the baby scandal still linger more than four years later, and after being recently released from prison, He is reportedly seeking to continue his work. China has tightened its regulation of experimental biomedical research since 2018, but it hasn’t gone far enough, said Joy Zhang, a medical sociologist at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom.

“Ethical governance in practice is still confined to traditional medical, scientific, as well as educational, establishments. The new measures fail to directly address how privately funded research and other … ventures will be monitored,” Zhang said at the conference.

Ethically questionable experimental research isn’t an issue confined to China, said Robin Lovell-Badge, head of the Laboratory of Stem Cell Biology and Developmental Genetics at the Francis Crick Institute in London, who chaired the 2018 Hong Kong conference session in which He attempted to defend his work.

“(He Jiankui) is not the only concern in this area. One of our big concerns I always have is the possibility that there will be rogue companies, rogue scientists setting up to do genome editing in an inappropriate way,” Lovell-Badge said on Monday at the conference.

Gray shared her story at Monday's conference.

While the CRISPR baby scandal tarnished the technology’s reputation, CRISPR-Cas9 and related techniques have made a major impact on biomedical research, and two scientists behind the tool — Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer A. Doudna — won a Nobel prize for their work in 2020.

“Clinical trial results demonstrate that CRISPR is safe, and it’s effective for treating and curing human disease — an extraordinary advance given the technology is only 10 years old,” Doudna said at the conference in a video address. “It’s important with a powerful technology like this to grapple with the challenges of responsible use.”

In addition to the sickle cell trial that includes Gray, clinical trials are also underway to test the safety of gene editing in treating several other conditions, including a related blood disorder called beta thalassemia; leber congenital amaurosis, which is a form of inherited childhood blindness; blood cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma; type 1 diabetes; and HIV/AIDS.

DNA acts as a instruction manual for life on our planet, and CRISPR-Cas9 can target sites in plant and animal cells using guide RNA to get the Cas-9 enzyme to a more precise spot on a strand of DNA. This allows scientists to change DNA by knocking out a particular gene or inserting new genetic material at a predetermined site in the strand.

People with sickle cell disease have abnormal hemoglobin in red blood cells that can cause them to get hard and sticky, clogging blood flow in small vessels.

In the trial that Gray was part of, doctors increased the production of a different kind of hemoglobin, known as fetal hemoglobin, which makes it harder for cells to sickle and stick together. The process is invasive and involves removing premature cells from the bone marrow and modifying them — by using CRISPR-Cas9 in the lab — to eventually produce fetal hemoglobin. The patient has to undergo a round of chemotherapy before receiving the gene-edited cells to ensure the body doesn’t reject them.

The conference also shed light on new, more sophisticated gene-editing techniques, such as prime editing and base editing, which recently was used to modify immune cells and successfully treat a teen with treatment-resistant leukemia.

These next generation techniques will allow humans “to have some say in the sequence of our genomes so we are no longer so beholden to the misspellings in our DNA,” said David Liu, the Richard Merkin professor and director of the Merkin Institute of Transformative Technologies in Healthcare at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard University.

The gene therapy trials currently underway involve treating people who were born with a certain disease or condition by altering non-reproductive cells in what’s known as somatic gene editing.

The next frontier — many would say red line — is heritable gene editing: altering the genetic material in human sperm, eggs or embryos so that it can be safely passed onto the next generation. The goal would be to prevent babies from inheriting genetic diseases.

A researcher handles a petri dish while observing a CRISPR/Cas9 process through a stereomicroscope at the Max-Delbrueck-Centre for Molecular Medicine in 2018.

“It’s a very different set of ethical trade-offs when you’re not a treating disease in an existing individual but you’re in fact preventing an individual yet to be born from suffering from a disease. That’s a very different set of considerations,” said George Daley, Caroline Shields Walker Professor of Medicine and dean of the faculty of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

In a statement released at the end of the conference, the organizers said “heritable human genome editing remains unacceptable at this time.”

They added that public discussion and policy debates should continue and were important for resolving whether this technology should be used.

The hope offered by gene therapy is creating fresh ethical storms — primarily over who gets access to such treatments. The therapy Gray received, which is expected to soon receive regulatory approval, is likely to cost more than $2 million per person, putting it out of reach for many who need it in the United States and in low-income countries.

“If we want to be serious about equitable access to these kinds of therapies, we have to start talking early on about ways to develop them and make them available and make them cost effective and sustainable,” said Alta Charo, the Warren P. Knowles Professor Emerita of Law and Bioethics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Researchers want to develop CRISPR therapies that can be delivered though an injection rather than the chemotherapy and invasive bone marrow transplant Gray went through.

Worldwide, more than 300,000 children are born with sickle cell disease every year, over 75% of whom live in sub-Saharan Africa, where screening programs and treatment options are limited.

Even relatively affordable drugs to treat sickle cell disease, such as hydroxyurea, don’t reach everyone who needs them in India, said Gautam Dongre, the secretary of the National Alliance of Sickle Cell Organizations in India and father of two children with sickle cell disease.

“After 40 years if these drugs aren’t reachable for the common people, then what about gene therapy?” Dongre asked at the conference.

Julie Makani, an associate professor in the department of haematology and blood transfusion at Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences in Tanzania, said more genomic research should take place in Africa.

“The ultimate thing for me, particularly as a physician scientist, is not just discovery, but also seeing the application of knowledge…into (an) improvement in health,” Makani said.

Source link

#human #gene #editing #moving #CRISPR #baby #scandal #CNN

Eli Lilly to cut insulin prices, cap costs at $35 for many people with diabetes | CNN

Post By Health brand safety-nsf drugs negative, brand safety-nsf health issues, brand safety-nsf products and consumers negative, brand safety-nsf sensitive, business, business and industry sectors, chronic diseases, Companies, continents and regions, diabetes, diseases and disorders, domestic alerts, domestic-business, domestic-health and science, drug prices, economy and trade, eli lilly & co, endocrine system disorders, health and medical, Health Care, Health care costs, iab-business and finance, iab-diabetes, iab-diseases and conditions, iab-endocrine and metabolic diseases, iab-healthcare industry, iab-industries, iab-insurance, iab-medical health, iab-personal finance, iab-pharmaceutical drugs, iab-pharmaceutical industry, Insurance, international alerts, international-business, international-health and science, North America, pharmaceutical industry, pharmaceuticals, pharmacies and pharmacists, the americas, United States

CNN
—

Eli Lilly announced Wednesday a series of price cuts that would lower the price of the most commonly used forms of its insulin 70% and said it will automatically cap out-of-pocket insulin costs at $35 for people who have private insurance and use participating pharmacies.

Lilly says it will also expand its Insulin Value Program, which caps out-of-pocket costs at $35 or less per month for people who are uninsured.

President Joe Biden heralded the announcement as “a big deal.”

“For far too long, American families have been crushed by drug costs many times higher than what people in other countries are charged for the same prescriptions. Insulin costs less than $10 to make, but Americans are sometimes forced to pay over $300 for it. It’s flat wrong,” Biden said in a statement on Wednesday.

The President also urged other pharmaceutical companies to cut insulin prices.

“Last year, I signed a law to cap insulin at $35 for seniors and I called on pharma companies to bring prices down for everyone on their own. Today, Eli Lilly did that. It’s a big deal, and it’s time for other manufacturers to follow,” Biden said.

Eli Lilly says it will cut the list price of its nonbranded insulin to $25 a vial as of May 1, making it the lowest list-priced mealtime insulin available. Its current list price is $82.41 for a vial.

Lilly will also lower the list price of Humulin and its most commonly prescribed insulin, Humalog, in the fourth quarter of 2023. The current list price of a Humalog vial is $274.70, and the new list price will be $66.40. For people with commercial insurance who use participating pharmacies, the out-of-pocket costs will now be capped at $35.

Although insulin is relatively inexpensive to manufacture, the cost has been a problem for many Americans for years. At least 16.5% of people in the US who use it report rationing it because of cost.

The average price of insulin nearly tripled between 2002 and 2013, the American Diabetes Association says. GoodRx research shows that the trend has continued, with the average retail price of insulin rising 54% between 2014 and 2019.

Demand for insulin has grown significantly as diabetes has become the fastest-growing chronic disease in the world, a 2022 study found.

In the US alone, the number of adults with diabetes has doubled over the past 20 years, and more than 37.3 million people now have it, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Another 96 million Americans – 38% of the population – have prediabetes, a condition in which blood sugar levels are higher than normal but not high enough for a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. This can often lead to diabetes.

People with diabetes rely on insulin because their bodies have stopped producing enough of this hormone or aren’t using it efficiently to convert food into energy.

When a person eats, their body breaks down food, mostly into sugar. This sugar enters the bloodstream, and that signals the pancreas to release insulin, which works like a key that allows the sugar to energize cells. But if diabetes keeps sugar in the bloodstream for too long, it can lead to serious problems like kidney disease, heart problems and blindness. In 2019, diabetes was the seventh leading cause of death in the US, according to the American Diabetes Association.

This year’s Inflation Reduction Act capped insulin costs for seniors who get their health coverage through Medicare Part D at $35 a month. Congressional Democrats pushed to extend that price cap to people covered by private insurance, but Republicans stripped that measure from the bill.

The US Food and Drug Administration’s approvals of generic insulin and biosimilars – drugs similar to original versions that can be made differently or with slightly different substances – have driven down the price at least somewhat, according to GoodRx.

Some states have taken matters into their own hands. Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have price caps ranging from $25 to $100 for insulin as well as diabetes supplies and devices – but that’s only for people covered by insurance plans regulated by those states.

“While the current healthcare system provides access to insulin for most people with diabetes, it still does not provide affordable insulin for everyone and that needs to change,” David A. Ricks, Lilly’s chair and CEO, said in a statement. “The aggressive price cuts we’re announcing today should make a real difference for Americans with diabetes. Because these price cuts will take time for the insurance and pharmacy system to implement, we are taking the additional step to immediately cap out-of-pocket costs for patients who use Lilly insulin and are not covered by the recent Medicare Part D cap.”

Lilly has been one of the biggest players in the US insulin market since it became the first company to commercialize the lifesaving drug 100 years ago. The company said that its price changes should make a difference, but more is needed to help all Americans with diabetes – 7 out of 10 don’t use the company’s insulin.

The Medicare Part D cap “should be the new standard in America,” Ricks said on CNN This Morning on Wednesday.

He called on the insurance industry, policymakers and other manufacturers to join them in making insulin more affordable.

“We call on everyone to meet us at this point and take this issue away from a disease that’s stressful and difficult to manage already – to take away the affordability challenges,” Ricks told CNN’s Don Lemon.

Other companies have cut insulin costs over the years.

In 2019, Sanofi created the Insulin Valyou Savings Program, which charged patients $99 a month for insulin, regardless of income. In 2021, Novo Nordisk created a similar program called My$99Insulin.

Also that year, Novo Nordisk collaborated with Walmart to sell private-label analog insulin at a deep discount. Walmart said its ReliOn NovoLog vials and FlexPens save customers 58% to 75% off the cash price for branded insulin.

For Eli Lilly insulin, the new price cap will automatically apply at most pharmacies with no additional action from the patient. Otherwise, a coupon will be available for patients to use at the remaining 15% of pharmacies where the electronic system does not allow for the automatic price drop, Ricks said.

Source link

#Eli #Lilly #cut #insulin #prices #cap #costs #people #diabetes #CNN

Report shows ‘troubling’ rise in colorectal cancer among US adults younger than 55 | CNN

Post By Health american cancer society, banking, brand safety-nsf death, brand safety-nsf health issues, brand safety-nsf sensitive, business, Cancer, colorectal cancer, compensation and benefits, continents and regions, Death and dying, death rates, deaths and fatalities, diseases and disorders, domestic alerts, domestic-business, domestic-health and science, domestic-us news, economy and trade, employment and income status, finance and investments, gastrointestinal cancer, gastrointestinal disorders, health and medical, iab-bereavement, iab-business, iab-business and finance, iab-business banking & finance, iab-cancer, iab-digestive disorders, iab-diseases and conditions, iab-family and relationships, iab-industries, iab-medical health, iab-non-profit organizations, iab-personal finance, iab-retirement planning, international alerts, international-business, international-health and science, international-us news, labor and employment, non-profit and ngo organizations, North America, pension and retirement plans, Personal Finance, population and demographics, population trends, public employee retirement systems, retirement and retirees, savings (financial), social and economic status, society, the americas, United States, workers and professionals

CNN
—

Adults across the United States are being diagnosed with colon and rectal cancers at younger ages, and now 1 in 5 new cases are among those in their early 50s or younger, according to the American Cancer Society’s latest colorectal cancer report.

The report says that the proportion of colorectal cancer cases among adults younger than 55 increased from 11% in 1995 to 20% in 2019. There also appears to be an overall shift to more diagnoses of advanced stages of cancer. In 2019, 60% of all new colorectal cases among all ages were advanced.

“Anecdotally, it’s not rare for us now to hear about a young person with advanced colorectal cancer,” said Dr. William Dahut, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society. For example, Broadway actor Quentin Oliver Lee died last year at 34 after being diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer, and in 2020, “Black Panther” star Chadwick Boseman died at 43 of colon cancer.

“It used to be something we never heard or saw this, but it is a high percentage now of colorectal cancers under the age of 55,” Dahut said.

Although it’s difficult to pinpoint a cause for the rise in colorectal cancers among younger adults, he said, some factors might be related to changes in the environment or people’s diets.

“We’re not trying to blame anybody for their cancer diagnosis,” Dahut said. “But when you see something occurring in a short period of time, it’s more likely something external to the patient that’s driving that, and it’s hard not to at least think – when you have something like colorectal cancer – that something diet-related is not impossible.”

The new report also says that more people are surviving colorectal cancer, with the relative survival rate at least five years after diagnosis rising from 50% in the mid-1970s to 65% from 2012 through 2018, partly due to advancements in treatment.

That’s good news, said Dr. Paul Oberstein, a medical oncologist at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, who was not involved in the new report. The overall trends suggest that colorectal cancer incidence and death rates have been slowly declining.

“If you look at the overall trends, the incidence of colon cancer in this report has decreased from 66 per 100,000 in 1985 to 35 per 100,000 in 2019 – so almost half,” Oberstein said.

“Changes in the mortality rate are even more impressive,” he said. “In 1970, which was a long time ago, the rate of colorectal cancer death was 29.2 per 100,000 people, and in 2020, it was 12.6 per 100,000. So a dramatic, over 55% decline in deaths per 100,000 people.”

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death in the United States, and it is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in men younger than 50.

Dahut said the best way to reduce your risk of colorectal cancer is to follow screening guidelines and get a stool-based test or a visual exam such as a colonoscopy when it’s recommended. Any suspicious polyps can be removed during a visual exam, reducing your risk of cancer.

“At the ACS, we recommend if you’re at average risk, you start screening at age 45,” Dahut said. “Usually, then your subsequent screening is based on the results of that screening test.”

For the new report, researchers at the American Cancer Society analyzed data from the National Cancer Institute and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on cancer screenings, cases and deaths.

The researchers found that from 2011 through 2019, colorectal cancer rates increased 1.9% each year in people younger than 55. And while overall colorectal cancer death rates fell 57% between 1970 and 2020, among people younger than 50, death rates continued to climb 1% annually since 2004.

“We know rates are increasing in young people, but it’s alarming to see how rapidly the whole patient population is shifting younger, despite shrinking numbers in the overall population,” Rebecca Siegel, senior scientific director of surveillance research at the American Cancer Society and lead author of the report, said in a news release. “The trend toward more advanced disease in people of all ages is also surprising and should motivate everyone 45 and older to get screened.”

Some regions of the United States appeared to have higher rates of colorectal cancers and deaths than others. These rates were lowest in the West and highest in Appalachia and parts of the South and the Midwest, the data showed. The incidence of colorectal cancer ranged from 27 cases per 100,000 people in Utah to 46.5 per 100,000 in Mississippi. Colorectal cancer death rates ranged from about 10 per 100,000 people in Connecticut to 17.6 per 100,000 in Mississippi.

There were some significant racial disparities, as well. The researchers found that colorectal cancer cases and deaths were highest in the American Indian/Alaska Native and Black communities. Among men specifically, the data showed that colorectal cancer death rates were 46% higher in American Indian/Alaska Native men and 44% higher in Black men compared with White men.

The report also says that more left-sided tumors have been diagnosed, meaning an increasing percentage of tumors are happening closer to the rectum. The proportion of colorectal cancers in that location has steadily climbed from 27% in 1995 to 31% in 2019.

“Historically, we’ve been worried more about the tumors on what we call the right side,” said NYU Langone’s Oberstein.

“But the incidence increasing, especially among young people, seems to be happening not only in those worse tumors but the ones that we think are not as bad,” he said, referring to left-sided tumors. “It’s raising questions about whether something is changing about the risks and the future people who are going to get colon cancer.”

Looking forward, the researchers estimate that there will be 153,020 colorectal cancer cases diagnosed in the US this year and an estimated 52,550 colorectal cancer deaths, with 3,750 of them – or 7% – among people younger than 50.

“These highly concerning data illustrate the urgent need to invest in targeted cancer research studies dedicated to understanding and preventing early-onset colorectal cancer,” Dr. Karen Knudsen, CEO of the American Cancer Society, said in the news release. “The shift to diagnosis of more advanced disease also underscores the importance of screening and early detection, which saves lives.”

The report’s findings, including the rise in colorectal cancer in younger adults, are “troubling,” Dr. Joel Gabre, an expert in gastrointestinal cancers at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, said in an email.

“It reflects other recent published findings demonstrating a rising incidence of colorectal cancer in young people. Most concerning to me, however, is a lack of clear cause and patients being diagnosed late. I think this is an area where more funding for research is needed to understand this really concerning rise,” wrote Gabre, who was not involved in the report.

Gabre says he knows what it’s like to look into his young patients’ eyes and tell them they have colorectal cancer, and “it’s devastating.”

“They have young families and so much of their life ahead of them. That’s why I encourage my patients who are age 45 years and older to get screened,” Gabre said. “I also encourage people to let their doctor know if they have a family history of colon cancer. There is genetic testing we can do to identify some at-risk patients early before they develop cancer.”

The findings highlight the importance of colorectal cancer screening, Dr. Robin Mendelsohn, gastroenterologist and co-director of the Center for Young Onset Colorectal and Gastrointestinal Cancers at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, said in an email.

“The age to start screening was recently decreased to 45, which will help in an effort to screen more people, but we still need to understand more why we are seeing this increase which is something we are actively looking into,” wrote Mendelsohn, was not involved in the new report.

Mendelsohn says she has seen an increase in advanced colorectal cancers and diagnoses among her younger patients, and she says to watch for symptoms such as rectal bleeding, abdominal pain and changes in bowel habits.

“Until we understand more, it is important that patients and providers recognize these symptoms so they can be evaluated promptly,” she said. “And, if you are at an age to get screened, please get screened.”

Source link

#Report #shows #troubling #rise #colorectal #cancer #among #adults #younger #CNN

11 minutes of daily exercise could have a positive impact on your health, large study shows | CNN

Post By Health banking, brand safety-nsf death, brand safety-nsf health issues, brand safety-nsf sensitive, business, Cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic diseases, compensation and benefits, Death and dying, deaths and fatalities, diet, diseases and disorders, domestic alerts, domestic-business, domestic-health and science, economy and trade, employment and income status, exercise and fitness, finance and investments, health and medical, iab-bereavement, iab-business, iab-business and finance, iab-business banking & finance, iab-cancer, iab-diseases and conditions, iab-family and relationships, iab-fitness and exercise, iab-healthy living, iab-heart and cardiovascular diseases, iab-medical health, iab-personal finance, iab-retirement planning, international alerts, international-business, international-health and science, labor and employment, nutrition and fitness, pension and retirement plans, Personal Finance, public employee retirement systems, Public health, retirement and retirees, savings (financial), social and economic status, society, workers and professionals

Sign up for CNN’s Fitness, But Better newsletter series. Our seven-part guide up will help you ease into a healthy routine, backed by experts.

CNN
—

When you can’t fit your entire workout into a busy day, do you think there’s no point in doing anything at all? You should rethink that mindset. Just 11 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous intensity aerobic activity per day could lower your risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease or premature death, a large new study has found.

Aerobic activities include walking, dancing, running, jogging, cycling and swimming. You can gauge the intensity level of an activity by your heart rate and how hard you’re breathing as you move. Generally, being able to talk but not sing during an activity would make it moderate intensity. Vigorous intensity is marked by the inability to carry on a conversation.

Higher levels of physical activity have been associated with lower rates of premature death and chronic disease, according to past research. But how the risk levels for these outcomes are affected by the amount of exercise someone gets has been more difficult to determine. To explore this impact, scientists largely from the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom looked at data from 196 studies, amounting to more than 30 million adult participants who were followed for 10 years on average. The results of this latest study were published Tuesday in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

The study mainly focused on participants who had done the minimum recommended amount of 150 minutes of exercise per week, or 22 minutes per day. Compared with inactive participants, adults who had done 150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous aerobic physical activity per week had a 31% lower risk of dying from any cause, a 29% lower risk of dying from cardiovascular disease and a 15% lower risk of dying from cancer.

The same amount of exercise was linked with a 27% lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease and 12% lower risk when it came to cancer.

“This is a compelling systematic review of existing research,” said CNN Medical Analyst Dr. Leana Wen, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University, who wasn’t involved in the research. “We already knew that there was a strong correlation between increased physical activity and reduced risk for cardiovascular disease, cancer and premature death. This research confirms it, and furthermore states that a smaller amount than the 150 minutes of recommended exercise a week can help.”

Even people who got just half the minimum recommended amount of physical activity benefited. Accumulating 75 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week — about 11 minutes of activity per day — was associated with a 23% lower risk of early death. Getting active for 75 minutes on a weekly basis was also enough to reduce the risk of developing cardiovascular disease by 17% and cancer by 7%.

Beyond 150 minutes per week, any additional benefits were smaller.

“If you are someone who finds the idea of 150 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity a week a bit daunting, then our findings should be good news,” said study author Dr. Soren Brage, group leader of the Physical Activity Epidemiology group in the Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit at the University of Cambridge, in a news release. “This is also a good starting position — if you find that 75 minutes a week is manageable, then you could try stepping it up gradually to the full recommended amount.”

The authors’ findings affirm the World Health Organization’s position that doing some physical activity is better than doing none, even if you don’t get the recommended amounts of exercise.

“One in 10 premature deaths could have been prevented if everyone achieved even half the recommended level of physical activity,” the authors wrote in the study. Additionally, “10.9% and 5.2% of all incident cases of CVD (cardiovascular disease) and cancer would have been prevented.”

Important note: If you experience pain while exercising, stop immediately. Check with your doctor before beginning any new exercise program.

The authors didn’t have details on the specific types of physical activity the participants did. But some experts do have thoughts on how physical activity could reduce risk for chronic diseases and premature death.

“There are many potential mechanisms including the improvement and maintenance of body composition, insulin resistance and physical function because of a wide variety of favorable influences of aerobic activity,” said Haruki Momma, an associate professor of medicine and science in sports and exercise at Tohoku University in Japan. Momma wasn’t involved in the research.

Benefits could also include improvement to immune function, lung and heart health, inflammation levels, hypertension, cholesterol, and amount of body fat, said Eleanor Watts, a postdoctoral fellow in the division of cancer epidemiology and genetics at the National Cancer Institute. Watts wasn’t involved in the research.

“These translate into lower risk of getting chronic diseases,” said Peter Katzmarzyk, associate executive director for population and public health sciences at Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Katzmarzyk wasn’t involved in the research.

The fact that participants who did only half the minimum recommended amount of exercise still experienced benefits doesn’t mean people shouldn’t aim for more exercise, but rather that “perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the good,” Wen said. “Some is better than none.”

To get up to 150 minutes of physical activity per week, find activities you enjoy, Wen said. “You are far more likely to engage in something you love doing than something you have to make yourself do.”

And when it comes to how you fit in your exercise, you can think outside the box.

“Moderate activity doesn’t have to involve what we normally think of (as) exercise, such as sports or running,” said study coauthor Leandro Garcia, a lecturer in the school of medicine, dentistry and biomedical sciences at Queen’s University Belfast, in a news release. “Sometimes, replacing some habits is all that is needed.

“For example, try to walk or cycle to your work or study place instead of using a car, or engage in active play with your kids or grand kids. Doing activities that you enjoy and that are easy to include in your weekly routine is an excellent way to become more active.”

Source link

#minutes #daily #exercise #positive #impact #health #large #study #shows #CNN

Beware the budget butt lift, regulators warn amid social media-inspired boom | CNN

Post By Health beauty and personal care, brand safety-nsf death, brand safety-nsf health issues, brand safety-nsf sensitive, business, business and industry sectors, chemical industry and chemicals, continents and regions, cosmetic surgery and treatments, Death and dying, deaths and fatalities, domestic alerts, domestic-business, domestic-health and science, domestic-us news, domestic-us politics, economy and trade, elections and campaigns, florida, government and public administration, government bodies and offices, health and medical, Health Care, health care facilities, health care professionals, hospitals, iab-beauty, iab-bereavement, iab-business and finance, iab-computing, iab-cosmetic medical services, iab-elections, iab-family and relationships, iab-healthcare industry, iab-industries, iab-internet, iab-medical health, iab-personal care, iab-politics, iab-social networking, iab-style & fashion, iab-surgery, iab-technology & computing, international alerts, international-business, international-health and science, international-us news, international-us politics, internet and www, legislative bodies, medical fields and specialties, medical treatments and procedures, miami, North America, physicians and surgeons, plastic surgery, plastics, political candidates, politics, social media, society, southeastern united states, surgery, Technology, the americas, United States

In hindsight, Nikki Ruston said, she should have recognized the red flags.

The office in Miami where she scheduled what’s known as a Brazilian butt lift had closed and transferred her records to a different facility, she said. The price she was quoted – and paid upfront – increased the day of the procedure, and she said she did not meet her surgeon until she was about to be placed under general anesthesia.

“I was ready to walk out,” said Ruston, 44, of Lake Alfred in Central Florida. “But I had paid everything.”

A few days after the July procedure, Ruston was hospitalized due to infection, blood loss, and nausea, her medical records show.

“I went cheap. That’s what I did,” Ruston recalled recently. “I looked for the lowest price, and I found him on Instagram.”

People like Ruston are commonly lured to office-based surgery centers in South Florida through social media marketing that makes Brazilian butt lifts and other cosmetic surgery look deceptively painless, safe, and affordable, say researchers, patient advocates, and surgeon groups.

Unlike ambulatory surgery centers and hospitals, where a patient might stay overnight for observation after treatment, office-based surgery centers offer procedures that don’t typically require an inpatient stay and are regulated as an extension of a doctor’s private practice.

But such surgical offices are often owned by corporations that can offer discount prices by contracting with surgeons who are incentivized to work on as many patients per day as possible, in as little time as possible, according to state regulators and physicians critical of the facilities.

Ruston said she now lives with constant pain, but for other patients a Brazilian butt lift cost them their lives. After a rash of deaths, and in the absence of national standards, Florida regulators were the first in the nation to enact rules in 2019 meant to make the procedures safer. More than three years later, data shows deaths still occur.

Patient advocates and some surgeons – including those who perform the procedure themselves – anticipate the problem will only get worse. Emergency restrictions imposed by the state’s medical board in June expired in September, and the corporate business model popularized in Miami is spreading to other cities.

“We’re seeing entities that have a strong footprint in low-cost, high-volume cosmetic surgery, based in South Florida, manifesting in other parts of the country,” said Dr. Bob Basu, a vice president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and a practicing physician in Houston.

During a Brazilian butt lift, fat is taken via liposuction from other areas of the body – such as the torso, back, or thighs – and injected into the buttocks. More than 61,000 buttock augmentation procedures, both butt lifts and implants, were performed nationwide in 2021, a 37% increase from the previous year, according to data from the Aesthetic Society, a trade group of plastic surgeons.

As with all surgery, complications can occur. Miami-Dade County’s medical examiner has documented nearly three dozen cosmetic surgery patient deaths since 2009, of which 26 resulted from a Brazilian butt lift. In each case, the person died from a pulmonary fat embolism, when fat entered the bloodstream through veins in the gluteal muscles and stopped blood from flowing to the lungs.

No national reporting system nor insurance code tracks outcomes and patient demographics for a Brazilian butt lift. About 3% of surgeons worldwide had a patient die as a result of the procedure, according to a 2017 report from an Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation task force.

Medical experts said the problem is driven, in part, by having medical professionals like physician assistants and nurse practitioners perform key parts of the butt lift instead of doctors. It’s also driven by a business model that is motivated by profit, not safety, and incentivizes surgeons to exceed the number of surgeries outlined in their contracts.

In May, after a fifth patient in as many months died of complications in Miami-Dade County, Dr. Kevin Cairns proposed the state’s emergency rule to limit the number of butt lifts a surgeon could perform each day.

“I was getting sick of reading about women dying and seeing cases come before the board,” said Cairns, a physician and former member of the Florida Board of Medicine.

Some doctors performed as many as seven, according to disciplinary cases against surgeons prosecuted by the Florida Department of Health. The emergency rule limited them to no more than three, and required the use of an ultrasound to help surgeons lower the risk of a pulmonary fat clot.

But a group of physicians who perform Brazilian butt lifts in South Florida clapped back and formed Surgeons for Safety. They argued the new requirements would make the situation worse. Qualified doctors would have to do fewer procedures, they said, thus driving patients to dangerous medical professionals who don’t follow rules.

The group has since donated more than $350,000 to the state’s Republican Party, Republican candidates, and Republican political action committees, according to campaign contribution data from the Florida Department of State.

Surgeons for Safety declined KHN’s repeated interview requests. Although the group’s president, Dr. Constantino Mendieta, wrote in an August editorial that he agreed not all surgeons have followed the standard of care, he called the limits put on surgeons “arbitrary.” The rule sets “a historic precedent of controlling surgeons,” he said during a meeting with Florida’s medical board.

In January, Florida state Sen. Ileana Garcia, a Republican, filed a draft bill with the state legislature that proposes no limit on the number of Brazilian butt lifts a surgeon can perform in a day. Instead, it requires office surgery centers where the procedures are performed to staff one physician per patient and prohibits surgeons from working on more than one person at a time.

The bill would also allow surgeons to delegate some parts of the procedure to other clinicians under their direct supervision, and the surgeon must use an ultrasound.

Florida’s legislature convenes on March 7.

Consumers considering cosmetic procedures are urged to be cautious. Like Ruston, many people base their expectations on before-and-after photos and marketing videos posted on social media platforms such as Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram.

“That’s very dangerous,” said Basu, of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. “They’re excited about a low price and they forget about doing their homework,” he said.

The average price of a buttocks augmentation in 2021 was $4,000, according to data from the Aesthetic Society. But that’s only for the physician’s fee and does not cover anesthesia, operating room fees, prescriptions, or other expenses. A “safe” Brazilian butt lift, performed in an accredited facility and with proper aftercare, costs between $12,000 and $18,000, according to a recent article on the American Society of Plastic Surgeons’ website.

Although Florida requires a physician’s license to perform liposuction on patients who are under general anesthesia, it’s common in the medical field for midlevel medical practitioners, such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners, to do the procedure in office settings, according to Dr. Mark Mofid, who co-authored the 2017 Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation task force study.

By relying on staffers who don’t have the same specialty training and get paid less, office-based surgeons can complete more butt lifts per day and charge a lower price.

“They’re doing all of them simultaneously in three or four different rooms, and it’s being staffed by one surgeon,” said Mofid, a plastic surgeon in San Diego, who added that he does not perform more than one Brazilian butt lift in a day. “The surgeon isn’t doing the actual case. It’s assistants.”

Basu said patients should ask whether their doctor holds privileges to perform the same procedure at a hospital or ambulatory surgery center, which have stricter rules than office surgery centers in terms of who can perform butt lifts and how they should be done.

People in search of bargains are reminded that cosmetic surgery can have other serious risks beyond the deadly fat clots, such as infection and organ puncture, plus problems with the kidneys, heart, and lungs.

Ruston’s surgery was performed by a board-certified plastic surgeon she said she found on Instagram. She was originally quoted $4,995, which she said she paid in full before surgery. But when she arrived in Miami, she said, the clinic tacked on fees for liposuction and for post-surgical garments and devices.

“I ended up having to pay, like, $8,000,” Ruston said. A few days after Ruston returned home to Lake Alfred, she said, she started to feel dizzy and weak and called 911.

Paramedics took her to an emergency room, where doctors diagnosed her with anemia due to blood loss, and blood and abdominal infections, her medical records show.

“If I could go back in time,” she said, “I wouldn’t have had it done.”

Source link

#Beware #budget #butt #lift #regulators #warn #social #mediainspired #boom #CNN

Celebrities may have helped shape anti-vaccine opinions during Covid-19 pandemic, study finds | CNN

Post By Health arts and entertainment, brand safety-nsf health issues, brand safety-nsf sensitive, Celebrities, celebrity and pop culture, communicable disease control, coronavirus, Coronavirus Pandemic, diseases and disorders, Disinformation, domestic alerts, domestic-business, domestic-coronavirus, domestic-entertainment, domestic-health and science, domestic-us politics, epidemics and outbreaks, health and medical, iab-computing, iab-diseases and conditions, iab-infectious diseases, iab-internet, iab-lung and respiratory health, iab-medical health, iab-politics, iab-pop culture, iab-social networking, iab-technology & computing, iab-vaccines, Infectious Diseases, international alerts, international-business, international-coronavirus, international-entertainment, international-health and science, international-us politics, internet and www, life forms, microscopic life, political figures - us, Public health, respiratory diseases, social media, societal issues, society, Technology, ted cruz, vaccination and immunization, viruses

CNN
—

Covid-19 vaccines are known to be safe and effective, and they’re available for free, but many Americans in the US refuse to get them – and a recent study suggests that celebrities may share some of the blame for people’s mistrust.

Celebrities have long tried to positively influence public health, studies show, but during the Covid-19 pandemic, they also seemed to have a large influence on spreading misinformation.

Decades ago, in the 1950s, people could see stars like Elvis Presley, Dick Van Dyke and Ella Fitzgerald in TV ads that encouraged polio vaccination. This celebrity influence boosted the country’s general vaccination efforts, and vaccination nearly eliminated the deadly disease.

In 2021, US officials used celebrities in TV ads to encourage more people to get vaccinated against Covid-19. Big names like lifestyle guru Martha Stewart, singer Charlie Puth and even Senate Minority Leader Mitchell McConnell showed up in spots that had billions of ad impressions.

The world isn’t restricted to only three TV networks any more, so celebrities like actress Hilary Duff, actor Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, singer Dolly Parton and even Big Bird also used their enormous presence on Instagram and Twitter to promote a pro Covid-19 vaccine message.

But social media also became a vehicle for celebrities to cast doubt about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine and even to spread disinformation about Covid.

Their negative messages seemed to find an audience.

For their study, published in the journal BMJ Health & Care Informatics, researchers examined nearly 13 million tweets between January 2020 and March 2022 about Covid-19 and vaccines. They designed a natural language model to determine the sentiment of each tweet and compared them with tweets that also mentioned people in the public eye.

The stars they picked to analyze included people who had shared skepticism about the vaccines, who had Covid-related tweets that were identified as misinformation or who retweeted misinformation about Covid.

They included rapper Nicki Minaj, football player Aaron Rodgers, tennis player Novak Djokovic, singer Eric Clapton, Sen. Rand Paul, former President Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, TV host Tucker Carlson and commentator Joe Rogan.

The researchers found 45,255 tweets from 34,407 unique authors talking about Covid-19 vaccine-related issues. Those tweets generated a total of 16.32 million likes. The tweets from these influencers, overall, were more negative about the vaccine than positive, the study found. These tweets were specifically more related to antivaccine controversy, rather than news about vaccine development, the study said.

The highest number of negative comments was associated with Rodgers and Minaj. Clapton had “very few” positive tweets, the study said, and that may have had an influence, but he also caught flak for it from the public.

The most-liked tweet that mentioned Clapton and the vaccine said, “Strongly disagree with [EC] … take on Covid and the vaccine and disgusted by his previous white supremacist comments. But if you reference the death of his son to criticize him, you are an ignorant scumbag.”

Trump and Cruz were found to have the most substantial impact within this group, with combined likes totaling more than 122,000.

They too came in for criticism on the topic, with many users wondering whether these politicians were qualified to have opinions about the vaccines. The study said the most-liked tweet mentioning Cruz was, “I called Ted Cruz’s office asking to make an appointment to talk with the Senator about my blood pressure. They told me that the Senator was not qualified to give medical advice and that I should call my doctor. So I asked them to stop advising about vaccines.”

The most-liked tweet associated with Rogan was an antivaxx statement: “I love how the same people who don’t want us to listen to Joe Rogan, Aaron Rodgers about the covid vaccine, want us to listen to Big Bird & Elmo.”

Posts shared by news anchors and politicians seemed to have the most influence in terms of the most tweets and retweets, the study found.

“Our findings suggest that the presence of consistent patterns of emotional content co-occurring with messaging shared by those persons in the public eye that we’ve mentioned, influenced public opinion and largely stimulated online public discourse, for the at least over the course of the first two years of the Covid pandemic,” said study co-author Brianna White, a research coordinator in the Population Health Intelligence lab at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center – Oak Ridge National Laboratory Center for Biomedical Informatics.

“We also argue that obviously as the risk of severe negative health outcomes increase with the failure to comply with health protective behavior recommendations, that our findings suggest that polarized messages from societal elite may downplay those severe negative health outcome risks.”

The study doesn’t get into exactly why celebrity tweets would have such an impact on people’s attitudes about the vaccine. Dr. Ellen Selkie, who has conducted research on influence at the intersection of social media, celebrity and public health outcomes, said celebrities are influential because they attract a lot of attention.

“I think part of the influence that media have on behavior has to do with the amount of exposure. Just in general, the volume of content that is focused on a specific topic or on a specific sort of interpretation of that topic – in this case misinformation – the repeated exposure to any given thing is going to increase the likelihood that it’s going to have an effect,” said Selkie, who was not involved in the new research. She is an adolescent health pediatrician and researcher with UW Health Kids and an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health.

Just as people listen to a friend’s thoughts, they’ll listen to a celebrity whom they tend to like or identify with because they trust their opinion.

“With fandoms, in terms of the relationship between musical artists and actors and their fans, there is this sort of mutual love that fans and artists have for each other, which sort of can approximate that sense that they’re looking out for each other,” Selkie said.

She said she would be interested to see research on the influence of celebrities who tweeted positive messages about the Covid-19 vaccine.

The authors of the study hope public health leaders will use the findings right away.

“We argue this threat to population health should create a sense of urgency and warrants public health response to identify, develop and implement innovative mitigation strategies,” the study says.

Exposure to large amounts of this misinformation can have a lasting impact and work against the public’s best interest when it comes to their health.

“As populations grow to trust the influential nature of celebrity activity on social platforms, followers are disarmed and open to persuasion when faced with false information, creating opportunities for dissemination and rapid spread of misinformation and disinformation,” the study says.

Source link

#Celebrities #helped #shape #antivaccine #opinions #Covid19 #pandemic #study #finds #CNN

Saving water can help us deal with the climate crisis. Here’s how to reduce your use | CNN

Post By Health banking, brand safety-nsf oil negative, brand safety-nsf sensitive, business, business and industry sectors, Climate change, Companies, compensation and benefits, consumer reports, domestic alerts, domestic-business, domestic-climate crisis, domestic-health and science, domestic-international news, economy and trade, employment and income status, energy and environment, energy and utilities, environment and natural resources, environmental protection agency, environmental regulation and policy, finance and investments, government organizations - us, iab-business, iab-business and finance, iab-business banking & finance, iab-environment, iab-industries, iab-personal finance, iab-power and energy industry, iab-retirement planning, iab-science, international alerts, international-business, international-climate crisis, international-health and science, labor and employment, pension and retirement plans, Personal Finance, public employee retirement systems, retirement and retirees, savings (financial), social and economic status, society, us federal departments and agencies, us government independent agencies, workers and professionals

Editor’s Note: Sign up for CNN’s Life, But Greener newsletter. Our limited newsletter series guides you on how to minimize your personal role in the climate crisis — and reduce your eco-anxiety.

CNN
—

The reliability of our faucets providing water every time we turn them on can make water seem like a magical, never-ending resource.

But abusing the availability of this finite resource can contribute to water scarcity and harm our capacity to deal with the impact of the climate crisis.

“Four billion people today already live in places that are affected by water scarcity at least part of the year,” said Rick Hogeboom, executive director of the Water Footprint Network, an international knowledge center based in the Netherlands. “Climate change will have a worsening influence on the demand-supply balance,” he said.

“If all people were to conserve water in some way, that would help ease some of the immediate impacts seen from the climate crisis,” said Shanika Whitehurst, associate director of sustainability for Consumer Reports’ research and testing. Consumer Reports is a nonprofit that helps consumers evaluate goods and services.

“Unfortunately, there has been a great toll taken on our surface and groundwater sources, so conservation efforts would more than likely have to be employed long term for there to be a more substantial effect.”

Yes, businesses and governments should play a part in water conservation by, respectively, producing goods “water efficiently” and allocating water in a sustainable, equitable way, Hogeboom said.

But “addressing the multifaceted water crises is a shared responsibility. No one actor can solve it, nor is there a silver bullet,” he added. “We need all actors to play their part.”

Contrary to what you might think, the water used directly in and around the home makes up a minor portion of the total water footprint of a consumer, Hogeboom said.

“The bulk — typically at least 95% — is indirect water use, water use that is hidden in the products we buy, the clothes we wear and the food we eat,” Hogeboom said. “Cotton, for instance, is a very thirsty crop.”

Of the 300-plus gallons of water the average American family uses every day at home, however, roughly 70% of this use occurs indoors, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency — making the home another important place to start cutting your use.

Here are some ways to reduce your water footprint as you move from room to room and outdoors.

Since the kitchen involves dishwashing, cooking and one of the biggest water guzzlers — your diet — it’s a good place to start.

An old kitchen faucet can release 1 to 3 gallons of water per minute when running at full blast, according to Consumer Reports. Instead of rinsing dishes before putting them in the dishwasher, scrape food into your trash or compost bin. Make sure your dishwasher is fully loaded so you only do as many wash cycles as necessary and make the most use of the water.

With some activities you can save water by not only using less but also upgrading the appliances that deliver the water. Dishwashers certified by Energy Star, the government-backed symbol for energy efficiency, are about 15% more water-efficient than standard models, according to Consumer Reports.

If you do wash dishes by hand, plug up the sink or use a wash basin so you can use a limited amount of water instead of letting the tap run.

If you plan on eating frozen foods, thaw them in the fridge overnight instead of running water over them. For drinking, keep a pitcher of water in the fridge instead of running the faucet until the water’s cool — and if you need to do that to get hot water, collect the cold water and use it to water plants.

Cook foods in as little water as possible, which can also retain flavor, according to the University of Toronto Scarborough’s department of physical and environmental sciences.

When it comes to saving water via what you eat, generally animal products are more water-intensive than plant-based alternatives, Hogeboom said.

“Go vegetarian or even better vegan,” he added. “If you insist on meat, replace red meat by pig or chicken, which has a lower water footprint than beef.”

It takes more than 1,800 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of beef, Consumer Reports’ Whitehurst said.

The bathroom is the largest consumer of indoor water, as the toilet alone can use 27% of household water, according to the EPA. You can cut use here by following this adage: “If it’s yellow, let it mellow. If it’s brown, flush it down.”

“Limiting the amount of toilet flushes — as long as it is urine — is not problematic for hygiene,” Whitehurst said. “However, you do have to watch the amount of toilet paper to avoid clogging your pipes. If there is solid waste or feces, then flush the toilet immediately to avoid unsanitary conditions.”

Older toilets use between 3.5 and 7 gallons of water per flush, but WaterSense-labeled toilets use up to 60% less. WaterSense is a partnership program sponsored by the EPA.

“There’s probably more to gain by having dual flush systems so you don’t waste gallons for small flushes,” Hogeboom said.

By turning off the sink tap when you brush your teeth, shave or wash your face, you can save more than 200 gallons of water monthly, according to the EPA.

Cut water use further by limiting showers to five minutes and eliminating baths. Shower with your partner when you can. Save even more water by turning it off when you’re shampooing, shaving or lathering up, Consumer Reports suggests.

Replacing old sink faucets or showerheads with WaterSense models can save hundreds of gallons of water per year.

Laundry rooms account for nearly a fourth of household water use, according to the EPA. Traditional washing machines can use 50 gallons of water or more per load, but newer energy- and water-conserving machines use less than 27 gallons per load.

You can also cut back by doing full loads (but not overstuffing) and choosing the appropriate water level and soil settings. Doing the latter two can help high-efficiency machines use only the water that’s needed. If you have a high-efficiency machine, use HE detergent or measure out regular detergent, which is more sudsy and, if too much is used, can cause the machine to use more water, according to Consumer Reports.

Nationally, outdoor water use accounts for 30% of household use, according to the EPA. This percentage can be much higher in drier parts of the country and in more water-intensive landscapes, particularly in the West.

If you prefer to have a landscape, reduce your outdoor use by planting only plants appropriate for your climate or ones that are low-water and drought-resistant.

“If maintained properly, climate-appropriate landscaping can use less than one-half the water of a traditional landscape,” the EPA says.

The biggest water consumers outside are automatic irrigation systems, according to the EPA. To use only what’s necessary, adjust irrigation controllers at least once per month to account for weather changes. WaterSense irrigation controllers monitor weather and landscape conditions to water plants only when needed.

Source link

#Saving #water #deal #climate #crisis #Heres #reduce #CNN

Most Americans are uncomfortable with artificial intelligence in health care, survey finds | CNN

Post By Health artificial intelligence, brand safety-nsf health issues, brand safety-nsf sensitive, business, business and industry sectors, Companies, computer science and information technology, domestic alerts, domestic-business, domestic-health and science, economy and trade, health and medical, Health Care, health care professionals, iab-artificial intelligence, iab-business and finance, iab-computing, iab-healthcare industry, iab-industries, iab-medical health, iab-technology & computing, iab-technology industry, international alerts, international-business, international-health and science, openai, physicians and surgeons, Technology

CNN
—

Most Americans feel “significant discomfort” about the idea of their doctors using artificial intelligence to help manage their health, a new survey finds, but they generally acknowledge AI’s potential to reduce medical mistakes and to eliminate some of the problems doctors may have with racial bias.

Artificial intelligence is the theory and development of computer programs that can solve problems and perform tasks that typically would require human intelligence – machines that can essentially learn like humans can, based on the input they have been given.

You probably already use technology that relies on artificial intelligence every day without even thinking about it.

When you shop on Amazon, for example, it’s artificial intelligence that guides the site to recommend cat toys if you’ve previously shopped for cat food. AI can also help unlock your iPhone, drive your Tesla, answer customer service questions at your bank and recommend the next show to binge on Netflix.

Americans may like these individualized services, but when it comes to AI and their health care, it may be a digital step too far for many.

Sixty percent of Americans who took part in a new survey by the Pew Research Center said that they would be uncomfortable with a health care provider who relied on artificial intelligence to do something like diagnose their disease or recommend a treatment. About 57% said that the use of artificial intelligence would make their relationship with their provider worse.

Only 38% felt that using AI to diagnose disease or recommend treatment would lead to better health outcomes; 33% said it would lead to worse outcomes; and 27% said it wouldn’t make much of a difference.

About 6 in 10 Americans said they would not want AI-driven robots to perform parts of their surgery. Nor do they like the idea of a chatbot working with them on their mental health; 79% said they wouldn’t want AI involved in their mental health care. There’s also concern about security when it comes to AI and health care records.

“Awareness of AI is still developing. So one dynamic here is, the public isn’t deeply familiar with all of these technologies. And so when you consider their use in a context that’s very personal, something that’s kind of high-stakes as your own health, I think that the notion that folks are still getting to know this technology is certainly one dynamic at play,” said Alec Tyson, Pew’s associate director of research.

The findings, released Wednesday, are based on a survey of 11,004 US adults conducted from December 12-18 using the center’s American Trends Panel, an online survey group recruited through random sampling of residential addresses across the country. Pew weights the survey to reflect US demographics including race, gender, ethnicity, education and political party affiliation.

The respondents expressed concern over the speed of the adoption of AI in health and medicine. Americans generally would prefer that health care providers move with caution and carefully consider the consequences of AI adoption, Tyson said.

But they’re not totally anti-AI when it comes to health care. They’re comfortable with using it to detect skin cancer, for instance; 65% thought it could improve the accuracy of a diagnosis. Some dermatologists are already exploring the use of AI technology in skin cancer diagnosis, with some limited success.

Four in 10 Americans think AI could also help providers make fewer mistakes, which are a serious problem in health care. A 2022 study found that medical errors cost about $20 billion a year and result in about 100,000 deaths each year.

Some Americans also think AI may be able to build more equity into the health care system.

Studies have shown that most providers have some form of implicit bias, with more positive attitudes toward White patients and negative attitudes toward people of color, and that could affect their decision-making.

Among the survey participants who understand that this kind of bias exists, the predominant view was that AI could help when it came to diagnosing a disease or recommending treatments, making those decisions more data-driven.

Tyson said that when people were asked to describe in their own words how they thought AI would help fight bias, one participant cited class bias: They believed that, unlike a human provider, an AI program wouldn’t make assumptions about a person’s health based on the way they dressed for the appointment.

“So this is a sense that AI is more neutral or at least less biased than humans,” Tyson said. However, AI is developed with human input, so experts caution that it may not always be entirely without bias.

Pew’s earlier surveys about artificial intelligence have found a general openness to AI, he said, particularly when it’s used to augment, rather than replace, human decision-making.

“AI as just a piece of the process in helping a human make a judgment, there is a good amount of support for that,” Tyson said. “Less so for AI to be the final decision-maker.”

For years, radiologists have used AI to analyze x-rays and CT scans to look for cancer and improve diagnostic capacity. About 30% of radiologists use AI as a part of their practice, and that number is growing, a survey found – but more than 90% in that survey said they wouldn’t trust these tools for autonomous use.

Dr. Victor Tseng, a pulmonologist and medical director of California-based Ansible Health, said that his practice is one of many that have been exploring the AI program ChatGPT. His group has set up a committee to look into its uses and to discuss the ethics around using it so the practice could set up guardrails before putting it into clinical practice.

Tseng’s group published a study this month that showed that ChatGPT could correctly answer enough practice questions that it would have passed the US Medical Licensing Examination.

Tseng said he doesn’t believe that AI will ever replace doctors, but he thinks technology like ChatGPT could make the medical profession more accessible. For example, a doctor could ask ChatGPT to simplify complicated medical jargon so that someone with a seventh-grade education could understand.

“AI is here. The doors are open,” Tseng said.

The Pew survey findings suggest that attitudes could shift as more Americans become more familiar with artificial intelligence. Survey respondents who were more familiar with a technology were more supportive of it, but they still shared caution that doctors could move too quickly in adopting it.

“Whether you’ve heard a lot about AI, just a little or maybe even nothing at all, all of those segments of the public are really in the same space,” Tyson said. “They echo this sentiment of caution of wanting to move carefully in AI adoption in health care.”

Source link

#Americans #uncomfortable #artificial #intelligence #health #care #survey #finds #CNN

Zittrex Store

Cart

Cart

Tag: international-business

Insurance requirements for prior authorization may prompt ‘devastating’ delays | CNN

When we’ll be able to 3D-print organs and who will be able to afford them | CNN

How human gene editing is moving on after the CRISPR baby scandal | CNN

Eli Lilly to cut insulin prices, cap costs at $35 for many people with diabetes | CNN

Most Americans are uncomfortable with artificial intelligence in health care, survey finds | CNN