Now, there’s some evidence showing that you may be able to shape a yet-to-be-born child’s taste in food.

“The flavor and odors of what mothers eat show up in the amniotic fluid, which is swallowed by the fetus, and in breast milk. There is evidence that fetal taste buds are mature in utero by 13 to 15 weeks, with taste receptor cells appearing at 16 weeks, according to researchers.

“’With flavor learning, you can train a baby’s palate with repetitive exposure,” said Kim Trout, director of the nurse midwifery/women’s health nurse practitioner program at Georgetown University.

“Trout recently co-authored a paper that reviews the evidence on prenatal flavor learning and its implications for controlling childhood obesity and diabetes, among the country’s most pressing health problems…”

Although I’m just as skeptical of this claim as I am about the one for baby-and-Mozart, I see real benefit in giving this a try, whether it makes your baby want broccoli or not. That’s because, in my practice, I see too many women gaining too much weight during pregnancy, which can not only cause complications for mother and baby, but can be almost impossible to shed once your baby is born.

So, bring on the Brussels sprouts, and eschew the Twinkies. Pass by the apple pie and bite into a nice juicy apple instead. Whether it does a thing to change your baby’s mind about what tastes good later in life, it will do a world of good for you both right now.

- Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

But it’s important to put this into perspective. No matter what birth control pill you use, blood clots are a possibility, if an uncommon one. What you might not know is that blood clots are even more common in pregnancy. Fortunately, the vast majority of the millions of women who get pregnant and give birth each year don’t suffer blood clots. Just as millions of women take birth control pills with no such side effects.

So, is there a unique problem with YAZ? Yes, but not the one identified in the headlines. The problem is in the marketing.

YAZ was promoted to women as a pill for bloating and acne in addition to its contraceptive effects. While that might be a good marketing strategy, it’s not a good medical one. Contraceptives are for birth control, and the best one for you, based on your medical history, might have nothing to do with acne. People shouldn’t pick their birth control the way they pick their toothpaste—on the basis of consumer advertising. You should consult your doctor who will look at your history and decide what form of contraception meets your needs. If your family has a history of strokes, blood clots, or thrombophlebitis (a blood clot that causes swelling in a vein), your doctor will almost certainly order advanced testing due to the possibility that any birth control pill—YAZ, Yasmin, or older medicines—might be inappropriate for your condition.

But if your doctor has already determined that YAZ or Yasmin is a safe bet, and you’re on one of these now? Keep taking it unless your doctor says otherwise. The alternative could be unintended pregnancy. And pregnancy, ironically enough, is more likely to cause a blood clot than your birth control pills.

- Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

But testing of women under the age of 30 is inadvisable. Because, although at least half of all sexually active men and women will get genital HPV at some point in their lives, the immune system will fight off and remove most of these infections from the body with no treatment. Seventy percent are gone within a year and 90 percent within two years.

It’s that 10 percent of cases we have to watch for. Some of those will lead to precancerous lesions in the cervix which, if left untreated, can develop into cervical cancer. But this process takes from 15 to 20 years. So, testing women under 30 for HPV leads to false positives, more testing, and perhaps invasive procedures in women who are at little or no risk of developing cervical cancer from HPV.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) therefore recommends that women under 30 not be tested for this STI, and I agree. If a woman under 30 has one of the high risk types of HPV, and if it persists, there will be ample time to find it and treat it. If she has one of the lower risk strains, it will probably be gone with no intervention within a year or two.

- Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Does that mean you can skip the OB-GYN appointment until 2014?

No, no, no, and no.

You must have a pelvic exam every year. Pelvic examinations save lives. A Pap smear, which can help identify cervical cancer, is just one part of that examination. Your OB-GYN does much more during your annual. She also looks for any evidence of ovarian cancer, vaginal cancer, myoma (fibroids) and other abnormalities of the reproductive tract.

And while it’s true that cervical cancer is typically a slow-growing cancer that takes an average 10 years to spread, sometimes these cancers “don’t read the books” and spread in a shorter period of time.

In my new health book, INSIDE INFORMATION FOR WOMEN, I tell you in greater detail what to expect when you have a gynecologic examination.

Don’t take risks with your health. Your “annual” is called that for a reason. Make sure you see your OB-GYN for your pelvic examination every year.

- Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

A study published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine shows that when mothers-to-be ate healthful foods, such as those that make up the so-called Mediterranean diet, their babies had fewer birth defects such as cleft palates and neural tube defects.

The Mediterranean diet focuses on vegetables, beans, fruits, grains and fish, and is lower in meat, dairy and “empty” carbs.

Before you panic if you’re reading this while gorging on burgers and fries, no, your baby isn’t going to be born with birth defects just because you’re taking a vacation from your diet. The birth defects researchers looked at in the study are quite rare to begin with. It’s just that they are rarer still among women who eat well.

But the study does hint at something we know: your baby’s development depends, in part, on the nutrients you consume. So, give your little one a head-start on a good future. You’ll be doing a favor for both of you.

- Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

But is it really necessary to know your baby’s sex that early? For some parents, it can be.  The Times reports that European doctors routinely use such tests to:

… help expectant parents whose offspring are at risk for rare gender-linked disorders determine whether they need invasive and costly genetic testing. For example, Duchenne muscular dystrophy affects boys, but if the fetus is not the at-risk sex, such tests are unnecessary.

But the big downside, and one that concerns me greatly as a doctor and a mother, is that some cultures have such a bias against baby girls that the wide availability of such testing will result in ever more otherwise healthy female fetuses being aborted.

Several companies do not sell tests in China or India, where boys are prized over girls and fetuses found to be female have been aborted. While sex selection is not considered a widespread objective in the United States, companies say that occasionally customers expressed that interest, and have been denied the test. A recent study of third pregnancies in the journal Prenatal Diagnosis found that in some Asian-American groups, more boys than girls are born in ratios that are “strongly suggesting prenatal sex selection,” the authors said.
At least one company, Consumer Genetics, which sells the Pink or Blue test, requires customers to sign a waiver saying they are not using the test for that purpose. “We don’t want this technology to be used as a method of gender selection,” said the company’s executive vice president, Terry Carmichael.

Cultural preferences won’t be deterred by a signature on a form, but at least, it’s a start. At some point, all cultures will learn to value both genders equally. Until then, a test that holds promise for some, can be a terrible incentive for the ultimate act of bias against females in others.

- Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Starting Aug. 1, 2012, new health insurance plans will be required to cover women’s preventive care without charging a co-pay or deductible. The new guidelines require health insurers to provide FDA-approved birth control, including emergency contraception such as the morning-after pill, HIV screenings, and well-women visits, among other services.

The guidelines also include an amendment that allows religious institutions that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraception services.

- Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

The new health care law requires the Department of Health and Human Services to create a list of health services that new health insurance plans must provide without deductibles or co-pays. And the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine (IOM) has prepared a report recommending that birth control be on that list.

…the Guttmacher Institute estimates that 98 percent of sexually active women will use contraception at some point during their reproductive years, and that cost concerns are frequently cited as a reason for inconsistent use or use of a less then optimal method.

 

In fact, Guttmacher said in testimony submitted to the IoM earlier this year, “Women citing cost concerns were twice as likely as other women to rely on condoms or less effective methods like withdrawal or periodic abstinence.”

Along with the recommendations concerning birth control, the IOM recommended a number of other preventive care services for women be made available without deductibles or co-pays:

…annual “well-woman” visits; screening of pregnant women for gestational diabetes; screening for sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV; more support for breast-feeding mothers; and counseling and screening for possible domestic violence.

I urge HHS Secretary Sibelius to accept the IOM recommendations. Women’s health issues have taken a backseat for too long.

- Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

I don’t regret my career choices.  Becoming a doctor is as much a calling as a profession.

So, when I read an op-ed by a woman anesthesiologist, which criticizes a recent trend among women doctors to think of medicine as a part-time career, it struck a chord.

This section, in particular, offers food for thought:

Since 2005 the part-time physician workforce has expanded by 62 percent, according to recent survey data from the American Medical Group Association, with nearly 4 in 10 female doctors between the ages of 35 and 44 reporting in 2010 that they worked part time.

This may seem like a personal decision, but it has serious consequences for patients and the public.

Medical education is supported by federal and state tax money both at the university level — student tuition doesn’t come close to covering the schools’ costs — and at the teaching hospitals where residents are trained. So if doctors aren’t making full use of their training, taxpayers are losing their investment. With a growing shortage of doctors in America, we can no longer afford to continue training doctors who don’t spend their careers in the full-time practice of medicine.

… The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that, 15 years from now, with the ranks of insured patients expanding, we will face a shortage of up to 150,000 doctors.

When you look at training in the medical profession as a scarce resource, provided to a small number of people, in whose hands others place their lives, you can see that it isn’t the kind of career choice you make lightly. It’s a commitment. And those who don’t feel the need to fully commit, who think of it as a profession in which they can dabble, do a disservice to the patients who need them, as well as to those who would have committed fully to the profession, if only they could have gotten into medical school.

In our do-your-own-thing society, this might seem like a harsh, even an unfair judgment. But medicine isn’t practiced for the benefit of the practitioner. It’s a service to our fellow men and women. And as long as there are so few of us that some people have long waits for needed care, those who choose this profession must be willing to be there when they’re needed. And if they can’t? There are plenty of other professions with lesser requirements.

- Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

And your appeal won’t be decided by the same administrator who turned you down in the first place. Under the new healthcare reform law, health insurance appeals are decided by an independent decision-maker, one who has no financial stake in the outcome.

This provision can be a lifesaver … but only if you know about it and act on it within the 180-day timeframe permitted.

According to Kaiser Healthcare News:

The provision took effect for most plans Jan. 1. But in response to self-insured plans’ concerns about being able to meet some of the requirements, the government said it wouldn’t require the plans to tell members about their external appeals rights until plan years beginning after July 1. Since most plans start their new year in January, that means they won’t have to notify members about their right to external appeals and how to file them until next year.

However, the government isn’t granting enrollees more time to file appeals, said an official at the Department of Health and Human Services, who spoke only on the condition of not being identified. Patients have 180 days from the date of initial denials to file internal appeals to the plan. If the appeals are rejected, they then have another four months to appeal to outside arbiters.

If nobody tells patients about their rights, this provision, in other words, might not be discovered by the people who need it most until it’s too late.

So, I’m urging you to link to this post wherever you can: Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, any and all social networks. Explain the need to be informed. Tell your friends and family: you have a right to appeal. For some, it can be a matter of life and death.

Don’t let the chance slip away.

- Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH