General health news

...now browsing by category

 

When New Moms – or New Dads – Get the Pregnancy Blues

Friday, May 21st, 2010

Most women are familiar with the term post-partum depression.  Start with all the stresses of adding a new member to the family – not just the financial burden, but the schedule upheaval, the sleep deprivation, and the demands of a tiny person who can only make his or her needs known by wailing. Add the wild surge of hormones flooding a woman’s body, and is it any wonder that she might not be the picture of serenity and assurance? Estimates vary on the prevalence but as many as 25 percent of new moms may experience some level of depression either before or after delivery.

That’s bad enough, but now a study suggests that new fathers, just like new mothers, can find themselves overwhelmed when baby makes three (or more).

“The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Assn., found that 10.4% of men experienced serious depression at some point between his partner’s first trimester and one year after childbirth, more than double the depression rate for men in general. American men were more likely to experience prenatal or postpartum depression compared with men in other countries, 14.1% in the U.S. compared with 8.2% internationally.”

What can you do when the guy you depend upon to keep you sane is going through his own blue period?

Your most important step –the one you should take if either you or your partner starts to feel sadness, agitation or hopelessness – is to talk to your doctor. Don’t try to tough it out. Reach out for help at the first signs that something isn’t quite right. It’s possible that all you need to get back to your cheery old selves is a good night’s sleep, but sometimes, you need more. The good news is that help is available. But first, you have to be aware of the signs of depression.

Post-partum depression can be debilitating if you let it go, so take steps immediately to get yourself and your new family back into the swing of enjoying things together again.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Why do black women wait longer for breast cancer diagnosis and treatment than white women?

Wednesday, April 28th, 2010

Among pundits, there is a tendency to proclaim that we live in a post-racial society. We’ve had laws on the books banning racial discrimination for decades now. In 2008, we elected our first African-American president. Perhaps the most popular talk show host of our time is a black woman.

While all these signs of progress are encouraging, they are still only steps along the road to equality; we haven’t yet reached our destination. That reality becomes painfully evident in the results of a recent study about the disparities in diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer between white and black women.

In a five-year study, using initial screening data that reached back 12 years, researchers at The GW Cancer Institute examined the effect of race and health insurance status on the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. What they found was startling:

• insured black women and uninsured white women waited more than twice as long to reach their definitive diagnosis than insured white women;

• lack of health insurance decreased the speed of diagnosis in white women, but having insurance did not increase the speed of diagnosis in black women; and

• overall, black women waited twice as long as white women for treatment initiation following definitive diagnosis.


The researchers had, quite reasonably, expected to find that any insured woman, of any color, would get diagnosed and treated earlier than any woman of any color without insurance.

What do we make of the data that suggest that being black is as great a barrier to treatment as being uninsured?

It’s a question without an answer but it shows that we have a long way to go on this journey. For those quick to proclaim the “post-racial” era has arrived, this is a call, first for introspection but most urgently, for action. Neither insurance status nor race should get in the way of life-saving treatment.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

A court says that genes can’t be patented – and why that’s good news for women

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

For many years, corporations have been filing patents to claim ownership of the genes that researchers have discovered. Nevermind that these genes exist in our bodies and were designed, not by scientists, but by nature. Once a corporation or other institution gets a gene patent, that gene becomes its property.

Those who control the genes get to decide whether to allow other researchers to use the gene in further research. The gene’s “owners” also get to corner the market in potentially life-saving tests involving the gene.

That’s led to some pretty significant price-gouging of women whose genetics put them at risk for certain breast and ovarian cancers. Myriad Genetics controls the patents for the genes that are associated with about 10 percent of breast and ovarian cancers. So if your doctor told you that you needed a test to see whether you carry a gene that makes you more susceptible to these cancers, you could get hit with a bill from Myriad for a whopping $3,000.

But that’s about to change.

This week, a federal court ruled, in a lawsuit against Myriad Genetics, that its gene patents were invalid because genes occur naturally. From an article about the court’s ruling that appeared in The New York Times:

Judge Sweet… said that many critics of gene patents considered the idea that isolating a gene made it patentable “a ‘lawyer’s trick’ that circumvents the prohibition on the direct patenting of the DNA in our bodies but which, in practice, reaches the same result.”

The case could have far-reaching implications. About 20 percent of human genes have been patented, and multibillion-dollar industries have been built atop the intellectual property rights that the patents grant.

“If a decision like this were upheld, it would have a pretty significant impact on the future of medicine,” said Kenneth Chahine, a visiting law professor at the University of Utah who filed an amicus brief on the side of Myriad. He said that medicine was becoming more personalized, with genetic tests used not only to diagnose diseases but to determine which medicine was best for which patient.

Mr. Chahine, who once ran a biotechnology company, said the decision could also make it harder for young companies to raise money from investors. “The industry is going to have to get more creative about how to retain exclusivity and attract capital in the face of potentially weaker patent protection,” he said.

I take issue with anyone who claims that denying patents on what nature creates will thwart research. And I am in total agreement with the court’s decision to invalidate these patents on genes. Patenting genes invites a type of commercial perversion of what is a natural occurrence. As a researcher myself, I disagree that invalidating gene patents removes incentives for future research. There will always be research. However, the results of that research will have checks and balances rather than the current focus on the “bottom line” of profit, that takes advantage of patients and the medical community.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Pregnant or new mom and feeling depressed? Get help now.

Tuesday, March 9th, 2010

Pregnancy and childbirth alter the hormonal balance, which may explain why depression is so common at this stage of women’s lives. Up to 23 percent of pregnant women experience symptoms of depression and that figure rises to up to 25 percent among new mothers.

Many women decide to simply suffer through it without seeking help, but that could be a big mistake. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

“… untreated maternal depression negatively affects an infant’s cognitive, neurologic, and motor skill development. A mother’s untreated depression can also negatively impact older children’s mental health and behavior.”

Everyone feels sad some of the time. It’s normal to have a bad day. But if your bad day stretches into weeks, for your own sake and the sake of your baby, you need to get help. If you don’t have a therapist, ask your ob-gyn for a referral if you experience feelings of hopelessness, sadness or despair. Don’t suffer needlessly. Help is available.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

The controversy over male circumcision: facts and falsehoods

Monday, March 1st, 2010

For parents of baby boys, the question of whether to circumcise is likely to come up. You might make the decision to circumcise or not, depending on your religious, family, or cultural traditions. Or your decision might involve considerations about your newborn’s health. Hygiene is easier and urinary infections are less prevalent among boys and men who have been circumcised. Circumcised men are less prone to cancer of the penis. And there is some evidence that circumcised men are at slightly less risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.

Still, you may not wish to have a surgical procedure that isn’t absolutely necessary performed on your baby.

Whatever you decide, that decision should be based on the facts and not the false controversies that have been swirling around the Internet.

Contrary to some inflammatory claims that have appeared on popular websites, there is no similarity whatsoever between male circumcision and the disfiguring procedure done on girls in some Third World countries that’s referred to as female circumcision. Male circumcision is a generally safe, simple procedure that removes only the foreskin of the penis. Female circumcision, by contrast, removes the entire clitoris and sometimes parts of the labia.

Female circumcision is a brutal, abusive act that has a negative lifelong effect on sexual function and pleasure in adulthood. Male circumcision has no effect on sexuality.

So don’t be swayed by false claims, even those made by experts. And, if you’re undecided, discuss the pros and cons of circumcision with your doctor.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Think you don’t need health care reform if you’re covered by your employer? Wrong.

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

You may have heard that Anthem-Blue Cross proposed raising its rates for individual health insurance policies by as much as 39 percent in California. President Obama and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius have both decried this outrageous hike. A recent report from the Associated Press shows that similarly huge rate hikes are coming to individual policies in many states including Maine, Kansas, Oregon and Indiana.

“You’re going to see rate increases of 20, 25, 30 percent” for individual health policies in the near term, Sandy Praeger, chairwoman of the health insurance and managed care committee for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, predicted Friday.

But you might think that this has nothing to do with you if you’re employed by a company that provides you with health insurance. Unfortunately, all of us are affected, no matter where we get our insurance.

The Anthem-Blue Cross increase is the harbinger of things to come in employer-provided policies as well.

Last week, I heard from someone whose employer had to switch from a comprehensive policy to bare bones insurance because the insurer raised the company’s group rate by about 30 percent. So now, instead of offering employees a policy that covers just about anything, from a broken ankle to a liver transplant, the company will offer its employees a policy with an annual cap of just $25,000.

That’s employer-provided insurance that’s in danger now. And that means that more Americans are at risk of having either no insurance or inadequate insurance when a medical emergency strikes.

As a doctor, I am well aware of the high cost of medical care and can assure you that a policy with a $25,000 annual cap won’t cover much if you need hospitalization. I’ve dealt with that reality, not just as a physician, but as a mother. As I wrote on this blog before, when my daughter had to be hospitalized a few years ago, we learned too late that her school-provided policy had a $25,000 annual cap. Lucky for Kimmie that her parents are both doctors and could afford to pay the tens of thousands of dollars in hospital and medical bills that her insurance didn’t cover.

What would you do if one of your loved ones needed medical care and your insurance was inadequate?

This is no longer an issue for the uninsured. It’s an issue for us all. Please tell your Senators and Congressional representatives that you support health care reform. The life of someone you know, maybe someone you love, maybe your own, may depend on what happens next in Washington, DC.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

The End of the Horrible Hospital Gown?

Thursday, February 11th, 2010

The open-backed, modesty-destroying, ugly hospital gown is set for oblivion, at least in the United Kingdom:

To address the shortcomings of the much-abused medical garb, the U.K.’s Department of Health recruited designer Ben de Lisi to give the hospital gown a design overhaul, the BBC reports. De Lisi, who has outfitted stars such as Kate Winslet, came up with a solution that offers more coverage while also including “entrance points” for the necessary medical access.

It’s about time.

Back when I was on the faculty of Cornell in the 1980s, I decided that no woman who visited my Cornell practice would be forced to wear one of those open-backed monstrosities.

They always made a woman feel all exposed. As a woman myself, I was especially sensitive to the indignity of it all.

So I designed a pretty blue poncho with an opening that fit over a woman’s head. It covered everything, and allowed for easy examination.

I’m surprised that more doctors and hospitals haven’t done anything similar but I like the U.K.’s new plan. Here’s hoping the U.S. follows suit.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Why Health Care Reform Is Essential to You and Your Family – Even if You’re Insured

Thursday, January 28th, 2010

Last night, President Obama, in his State of the Union address, reminded us why we need real health care reform.

First, I’ll quote a few of the points the president made and then I’ll explain why it matters to each of us, currently insured or not:

“The approach we’ve taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market.  It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care.

“… It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office – the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress – our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.”

When the president spoke of the insurance companies “worst practices” he didn’t elaborate. But it’s those practices that make us all, insured or not, vulnerable, and in need of reform. Too many Americans believe that they have great health insurance – right up to the moment when they get sick and find that their insurance won’t cover their medical bills.

Recently, one of the organizations advocating on behalf of health care reform shared the case histories of numerous people who, although insured, were unable to get their medical bills paid when they got sick. The following few cases are among dozens of similar stories. If we don’t think it can happen to you, you’re wrong. I speak from experience. Although I’m a doctor, when my daughter became ill, her insurance refused to cover all her medical costs and I had to pay tens of thousands out of pocket.

  • An AT&T worker from Arkansas was in a coma for three weeks after a 2004 horseback riding accident. She and her husband had to pay more than $200,000 in medical bills because UnitedHealthcare wouldn’t cover her emergency surgery.
  • A Realtor from Delaware, has a health care plan that forces her to pay for her cancer care “out of pocket.” She has turned to getting her chemotherapy medication from India in order to afford it.
  • A minister from Tennessee has almost $175,000 in medical debt due to his wife’s muscular disorder. The family had health insurance through his wife’s job as an insurance claims adjuster, but the health insurance would only cover 14 days of her 91 days in intensive care.

Don’t let anyone tell you that if you’re insured, you don’t need to support health care reform. As the above cases illustrate, this affects us all. While there is no longer any chance of passing a new bill through the United States Senate, the House can vote for the Senate bill that passed over Christmas eve now and make changes over time.  It may be our last chance for reform in a generation. Please call your Congressperson today and remind him or her what’s at stake.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Compared to white babies, twice as many African-American babies die in their first year of life

Monday, January 18th, 2010

As we celebrate the birthday of one of America’s greatest African-American leaders, Dr. Martin Luther King, and we take pride in the leadership of our first African-American president, Barack Obama, it’s easy to assume that racial disparities are a thing of the past.

But our infant mortality rates tell us that that’s not so.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), infant mortality among African-American babies is more than twice that of white babies. Among the other troubling statistics in the CDC report:

  • African Americans had 1.8 times the sudden infant death syndrome mortality rate as non-Hispanic whites, in 2005.
  • African American mothers were 2.5 times more likely than non-Hispanic white mothers to begin prenatal care in the 3rd trimester, or not receive prenatal care at all.
  • The infant mortality rate for African American mothers with over 13 years of education was almost three times that of Non-Hispanic White mothers in 2005.

America is still a country where people of color face discrimination at every turn, even if it’s less overt than it was in our past. Bias limits educational opportunities, employment opportunities, and it even limits the opportunity of pregnant women to get access to good healthcare.

If Dr. King could see us today, I know he’d be pleased at how far we’ve come. But if we haven’t provided our youngest and most vulnerable citizens equality in medical care, we still have a long way to go.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

The best Christmas present the Senate could give us: Health care for all

Thursday, December 24th, 2009

Despite months of bluster and disinformation from those who hope to maintain the status quo, 60 U.S. senators came together this Christmas Eve morning and voted to make health care available to virtually all Americans.

The House had passed its version of health care reform months earlier. Now the two legislative bodies will have to come together and agree to a blended version.

That blended version almost certainly won’t have a public option because it would require 60 votes in the senate to get one. But here’s what we can be assured of getting in any final combination of the two bills:

  • Insurance companies will have to cover everyone – you can no longer be turned down due to pre-existing conditions.
  • Insurance can’t be snatched away from you via “rescission” when you get sick, i.e., voiding the policy when you need it the most.
  • There will be limits on how much more insurers can charge you as you get older.
  • Your insurance won’t run out when you need it due to annual or lifetime caps.
  • Most lower and middle-income people will get subsidies to help pay for insurance.

For those who say the senate bill doesn’t do enough, remember that getting this passed was a Herculean task. This is just the start of reform. Over the years, our lawmakers can continue to improve the bill, just as they’ve done with Social Security and Medicare. This is a long overdue beginning to regulating the health insurance companies, which have been given carte blanche for so many years.

The Centers for Disease Control recently reported that 58.4 million Americans were uninsured for at least part of the year and almost 32 million had been uninsured for more than a year. The situation will only get worse if we do nothing. As President Obama is fond of saying, we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is a good bill. And it’s the best present that the U.S. Senate could give us this holiday season.

Merry Christmas to all.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH