Hospitals: Then and Now

It's 1920. The hospital in your city is a facility run by nuns or the church. It's a place for the very ill, often without hope of meaningful treatment, but nonetheless a place where surgeries take place, babies are born, the injured and chronically ill can find care. No one has health insurance and there's no Medicare. Everyone pays what they can. The hospital is accustomed to doling out plenty of care without compensation. For that reason, they welcome donations and sometimes will build new additions or other facilities in honor of a major donor.

Volunteeers are common, since the wards are understaffed and generally suffering from a shortage of trained nurses and personnel associated with the church. Drugs, such as they are, are often prepared from basic ingredients in the hospital pharmacy. Product representatives hawking medicines and devices are virtually unheard of.

Though their therapeutic tools are limited, the physicians are a proud group, dedicating their careers to healing. The majority of the medical staff volunteer large portions of their time to care for the poor who come to the hospital with very advanced stages of disease: metastatic tumors, advanced heart failure, debilitating strokes, overwhelming septicemia, etc.

Hospitals are usually governed by a board of clergy and physicians who make decisions on how to apply their limited resources and continually seek charitable donations.


Fast forward to present day: Hospitals are high-tech, professional facilities with lots of skilled people, complicated equipment,and capable of complex procedures. While they still house people with advanced illnesses, the floors are also filled with people with much earlier phases of disease. In general, they do a good job, with quality issues scrutinized by a number of official agencies to police practices, incidence of hospital-related infections, medication errors, care protocols, etc.

The hospital of 2006 is a more more effective place than the hospital of 1920. But its aims and operations are different, also. Though some churches are still involved in hospitals, more and more are owned by publicly-traded companies that answer to shareholders--shareholders who want share value to increase. Though donations are still sought, much of the revenues are obtained by concentrating on profitable, large-ticket procedures. More procedures are often generated by advertising.

Because they operate to generate profits, several hospitals in a single city or region compete with one another. The 21st century has therefore witnessed the phenomenon of hospital-owned physicians: more and more practicing physicians are employees of their hospital. That way, the physician brings all his patients and procedures to his hospital, not to a competitor. The top of the funnel is the primary care physician, who tends to see all disease when it first occurs. The primary care physician then sends the patient to the specialist, who is obliged (by contract) to perform his/her procedure in the hsopital paying their salary.




Representatives from companies manufacturing and selling expensive hospital equipment and drugs are everywhere, falling over themselves to gain attention of the physicians using their equipment and the hospital buyers who make purchasing decisions. Millions of dollars can be transacted with just one sale.

The number of volunteers has dwindled. The poor and uninsured are commonly diverted elsewhere, often to a government-funded, and often second-rate, institution. Hospitals measure success by comparing annual revenues and numbers of major procedures.

The hospital of 2006 is a vastly different place than 1920. If you're expecting charitable treatment, compassion, and selfless care, you're in the wrong century. In 2006, the hospital is a business. You don't expect charitable treatment at Wal-Mart or from your car dealer. Don't expect it from your hospital. They are businesses and you are a customer. Recognize this fact, lose the nostalgia for the hospitals of yesterday, and a lot more will become clear to you.
Loading
Everything has omega-3

Everything has omega-3

Walking the supermarket aisles, you may have lately noticed that numerous new products are appearing sporting "omega-3s" on the label.

Some products simply contain alpha-linolenic acid, a tiny amount of which is converted to the biologically active omega-3s, EPA and DHA. Natural Ovens' Brainy Bagel, for instance, carries a claim of "620 omega-3."



I find this confusing and misleading, since people will often interpret such a claim to mean that it contains 620 of EPA and DHA, similar to two capsules of standard fish oil (1000 mg capsules). Of course, it does NOT. I find this especially troublesome when people will actually stop or reduce their fish oil, since they've been misled into thinking that products like this bread contain active omega-3 fatty acids that yield all the benefits of the "real stuff."


Other products actually contain the omega-3, DHA, though usually in small quantities. Breyer's Smart with DHA is an example, with 32 mg DHA per container.


I find products with actual DHA (from algae) a more credible claim. However, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has looked at the actual contents of DHA in some of these products and found some discrepancies, including amounts of DHA less than the labeled amount and claims of omega-3 wihtout specifying DHA vs. linolenic acid. (It's probably linolenic acid, if it's not specified.)

All in all, the addition of DHA to food products is a nice way to boost your intake of this healthy omega-3. However, keep in mind that these are processed, often highly processed, foods and you will likely pay a premium for the little boost. For now, stick to fish oil, the real thing.

For a brief summary of the CSPI report and a link to the Nutrition Action Newsletter, see Omega-3 Madness: Fish Oil or Snake Oil.

Comments (5) -

  • ethyl d

    11/8/2007 5:38:00 PM |

    I get really annoyed sometimes when grocery shopping by all the food manufacturers trying to manipulate us into buying their product by trumpeting whatever health angle they can get away with. "Only 100 calories!" "Good source of fiber!" "Low-fat!" Only 1g carb per serving!" "25% less sugar!" They sniff the air for whatever the latest health trend is and see how they can get their product modified a little while still remaining junk to cash in on the trend. They don't care about our health, they just want our money.

  • Michael

    11/8/2007 7:00:00 PM |

    There is one thing I am unsure about regarding all of the 'omega-3' products -- is it even healthy for men to use omega-3 products derived from non-fish (flax)? ALA has been shown to raise the risk of prostate cancer, although some studies also show other aspects of flax decreases the risk (making it all nice and confusing). I've also read, that for some people, who can't convert ALA to omega very well in their bodies,  flax can also raise inflammation levels.

    Should men even bother taking flax or products with  flax omega, at all? My own cardiologist pushes flax on me, oddly enough, even though I guzzle down plenty of fish oil. When I mention possible problems from flax, she basically drops the subject, leaving me in the dark as to why she suggested it in the first place.

  • Cindy Moore

    11/9/2007 4:21:00 AM |

    I saw a commercial for baby food with added DHA being marketed at helping your baby's brain development.

  • Carl

    11/10/2007 9:02:00 PM |

    I found this little article to contain very useful advice.  

    How to Eat - in Seven Words

    "Eat food," said Michael Pollan. "Not too much. Mostly plants."

    Seven words - short ones, no less, totaling eight syllables. Easy to spell, translate, or jot on a sticky note. But really, is that all that needs to be said?

    Pollan - a journalism professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of the bestselling book The Omnivore's Dilemma - admits that boiling down advice on how human beings should eat to a mere seven words is dicey. A great deal, for example, depends on how one defines "food."

    But in a rousing presentation to a packed room of health professionals at the Fourth Annual Nutrition and Science Conference in San Diego, Calif., on May 2, 2007, Pollan argued that Americans have gone astray when it comes to thinking about food. While other cultures define food in terms of pleasure, sociability, religion or history, Americans are uniquely mesmerized by its scientific aspect.

    We are followers, Pollan said, of "nutritionism."

    "It is an ideology, a way of organizing experience," he said. "Like other 'isms' it rests on a simple set of assumptions, though we don't realize it." The connection between food, science, and health is "a real linkage," he said, "but it has overwhelmed all of the other linkages in our culture."

    Only in America, Pollan said, do people care more about food components - cholesterol, saturated fat, omega 3 oils, fiber and so on - than the foods themselves. And only in America can a low-fat craze grip the country, as it did from 1977 until 2002, to be displaced within a few months by a low-carb craze.

    The problem with nutritionism, Pollan said, is that it gives processed foods a huge advantage over whole foods. "A banana or potato cannot significantly change its structure. But any processed food can be changed overnight to correspond with food fads. You can even rejigger bread along Atkins lines." So the "loudest foods in the market" he said, are processed foods, touting their nutritional virtues via a $42 billion marketing industry, while "these poor whole foods just sit there silently."

    Thus, the irony: Americans are "a people obsessed with eating healthily, yet they are nonetheless very unhealthy."

    Nutrition science has value, Pollan said, but unbridled "nutritionism," pushed by processed food marketers has simply left people confused. In an attempt to simplify food, he came up with his seven-word, three-sentence manifesto, though he concedes that each sentence needs amplification:

    Eat food. The key term here, of course, is "food." We need to make hard distinctions between real food and "food-like products," Pollan said. Some guidelines:

    Don't eat food with more than five ingredients, or with ingredients you can't pronounce, or that contain high-fructose corn syrup (which serves as a 'marker' indicating that the food is highly processed).

    Eat only food that you have cooked, or could cook.

    Eat only food that your great, great grandmother would recognize as food.

    Not too much. The chief harm of nutritionism, Pollan said, is that processed food companies seize on "good nutrients" and "push us to eat more of them." The result is a tendency for Americans to eat more generally, which is one reason why we are consuming 300 calories more daily than in 1985. In the mass of verbiage surrounding food in America, plain overeating is "the elephant in the room." Pollan's advice to reverse the trend:

    Don't eat alone.

    Don't eat in front of the TV.

    Don't eat seconds.

    Perhaps most importantly, pay more and eat less. "I believe that the better quality food you eat, the less you need to feel satisfied."

    Mostly plants. "It's not that meat will kill you," he said. "I eat meat. Small amounts of meat have much to recommend them in terms of vitamins, minerals and taste. Most traditional diets - whether Mediterranean, Asian, Indian or Mexican, use meat sparingly, as a flavoring. I think that's an important lesson."

    By Brad Lemley
    DrWeil.com News

    http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/id/ART02840

  • Dr. Davis

    11/10/2007 11:20:00 PM |

    For anyone who has not read Michael Pollen's book, I would strongly urge you to read this logical and entertaining discussion that attempts to re-introduce rational thinking back into diet.

Loading
Vitamin D for $200?

Vitamin D for $200?

What if vitamin D cost $200 rather than $2?

In other words, what if cholecalciferol, or vitamin D3, was a patent-protectable agent that would sell for an extravagant price, just like a drug?

Vitamin D would be the hot topic. There would be TV ads run during Oprah, slick magazine two-page spreads with experts touting its outsized benefits, insurance companies would battle over how much your copay should be.

The manufacturer would host large fancy symposia to educate physicians on how wonderful vitamin D is for treatment of numerous conditions, complete with dinner, a show, and gifts. They would hire expert speakers to speak, scientists to have articles ghost-written, give out knick knacks with the brand label inscribed--just like Lipitor, Actos, Vytorin, ReoPro, Plavix . . .

After all, what other "drug" substantially increases bone density (up to 20% in adult females), enhances insulin responses 30% (equivalent to the TZD drugs, Actos and Avandia), and slashes colon cancer risk?

But it's not a drug. That is both vitamin D's strength and its weakness. It's a strong point because it's natural, phenomenally helpful across a variety of conditions, and inexpensive. It is also a weakness because, at $2 a month, no one is raking in the $12 billion annually that Pfizer makes for Lipitor that allows it to fund an enormous marketing campaign.

Vitamin D is a "discovery" of huge importance for health, including making reductions of CT heart scan scores far more likely for more people. And it comes without a prescription.

Comments (2) -

  • Edward

    3/14/2007 8:34:00 AM |

    http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/3/860
    This recent research shows the poor Vitamin D status of most UK white residents. 87% lower than ideal in Winter and 60% remain so throughout the year. Goodness knows what the situation is for those with brown or black skins but it will inevitably be worse as it takes longer for darker skins to make the same amount of D3.

  • Neil

    3/15/2007 12:42:00 AM |

    Poster Edward and Dr. Davis, I have been reading quite a lot about vitamin D, the subject to me is absolutely fascinating. Edward, your thought about darker skin pigmentation and low vitamin D status is verified throughout medical literature and news articles. Like this...

    "...92 percent of African-American babies and 66 percent of white infants found to have inadequate vitamin D concentrations in their blood at birth." Link… http://tinyurl.com/2xpjse

    This especially gives one pause when you then consider the rate of cardiovascular disease, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers, hypertension, fibromyalgia, Alzheimer's, and diabetes run much higher in the African American community, sometimes as much as 100-200% higher for some of these diseases.  Since these are all conditions strongly associated with vitamin D status, could it be all they need is this inexpensive vitamin supplement on an ongoing basis? And these strong associations with vitamin D status and rate of these serious diseases hold true for other racial backgrounds. One study of Southeast Asians living in England found they had a low Vitamin D status as well.

    To quote Dr. Davis from the other day "The whole vitamin D "discovery" sometimes worries me. Vitamin D has proven to be an unbelievable, remarkable, dramatic boon to health, including facilitation in dropping CT heart scan scores. Yet the answer was always right in front of us. It worries me that you and I might have the answer to important questions right within our grasp all along--but don't know it. What if the same were true, say, for cancer? That is, a profound answer is right there, but our eyes just pass right over it."

    In my recent reading I have run across so many articles on vitamin D that are just so stunning that I saved them.

    "Vitamin D deficiency is a major contributor to chronic low back pain in areas where vitamin D deficiency is endemic." Link...  http://tinyurl.com/2u4ayp

    “…...the vitamin plays a role in shutting down or activating at least 100 genes, many of which are involved in preventing diseases....family members of the Alzheimer's patients reported how well they were performing and acting within weeks of being put on large doses of prescription vitamin D, said lead author Robert Przybelski, an associate professor of geriatric medicine at the University of Wisconsin.”We hypothesize that good vitamin D levels might prevent or mitigate the disease," Przybelski said.”  Link… http://tinyurl.com/2uk2hy


    “…the deadliness of the 1918 killer flu could have been largely a result of vitamin D deficiency. Worldwide, an estimated 25 million people died from that flu.” Link… http://tinyurl.com/33ogga

    “…With respect to the modulation of cardiovascular effects by 1 ,25-(OH)2D3, further investigations are needed that could eventually lead to novel pharmacological approaches to manage hypertrophy, restenosis, and atherosclerosis or remodel the cardiovascular system.” Link… http://tinyurl.com/36897n

    “…71% of patients with severe PAD had serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels that were below 9 ng/mL” Link…  http://tinyurl.com/2gqe3r

    How could a two dollar a month supplement do all this!!! Pretty incredible stuff.

    My own family tree is littered with victims of cancer, heart attack (leading to sudden death MI’s in my Uncle and Grandfather both at the age of 52), stroke, Alzheimer’s, ALS, etc. Could vitamin D have been a strong contributing factor to their deaths??? Considering my own vitamin D level was EXTREMELY low and I now have to take about 6,000 IU daily just to normalize it, and I as well had a heart attack at 46, I consider this idea at least as a possible common factor.

    Dr. Davis...Thanks for keeping us informed on your patient experiences and your latest thoughts on Vitamin D and all the other treatments you are exploring. Your daily observations through your blog have helped me a great deal in becoming healthier. Reading your blog and webpage are constant sources of inspiration as well.

    Neil

Loading