Women’s health issues

...now browsing by category

 

Drug Company Reverse “Payola” Costs Families $Billions

Monday, December 14th, 2009

When I was a little girl, just beginning to play the saxophone in the all-girl family band that would one day win acclaim as The Thornton Sisters, the big scandal in the music industry was payola. Radio disc jockeys took money under the table in exchange for playing certain records on the air. The practice, equivalent to bribery, was illegal.

I recently learned payola is alive and well – but with a reverse twist, and in a different industry. Major pharmaceutical companies have been paying off generic drug companies in order to keep the generics off the market. So, instead of “pay to play” we have “pay to not play.” Without generic competition, major pharmaceutical companies can – and often do – charge exorbitant prices. It’s estimated that pharmaceutical reverse payola costs us $3.5 billion per year.

Here’s how the scheme works.

Let’s say a major pharmaceutical company manufactures a cholesterol-lowering drug that many doctors prescribe. Because the drug is patented, and the company has spent billions of dollars in research and development for that drug, the pharmaceutical company is then given a “head start” to charge whatever the market will bear in an attempt to recoup its investment and time spent developing the new drug.  The downside is that people whose doctors prescribe the drug either must pay the price or go without.

But the effective life of the drug patents on a name brand medicine is from seven to twelve years.  After the pharmaceutical company’s patent expires, other drug companies are permitted to manufacture and market identical chemical versions of the drug and cheaper generic versions of the drug become available to those who need it. How much cheaper? At Costco Pharmacy, a month’s supply of the name brand version of a popular tranquilizer costs $146.22. The generic version – which must by law provide the identical medication in identical amounts – costs just $8.32 for a month’s supply.

Obviously, if a drug company can continue to get close to 20 times the money for the same product, it’s going to look for ways to keep out generic competition. Some pharmaceutical companies are paying manufacturers of generic drugs in exchange for the generic manufacturers’ agreement not to market generic versions. A bipartisan effort is underway in the United States senate to make the practice illegal.

Such “reverse payola” could be compromising the health of our families and loved ones. According to a survey of 2,004 adults, done earlier this year by Consumer Reports, because prescription drugs costs are so high, 28 percent did one or more of the following:

  • Failed to fill a prescription (16 percent).
  • Skipped a dose (16 percent).
  • Took an expired medication (11 percent).
  • Cut pills in half (10 percent).
  • Shared a prescription (4 percent).

About 23 percent said they cut back on groceries in order to afford their prescriptions.

Although brand name medications often are better formulated with better bioavailability and, therefore, are often more effective than generic drugs, patients and physicians should have the option to choose which is the best under specific circumstances.  They must weigh the cost of the drug with the intended outcome.  However, the practice of “reverse payola” is unconscionable and violates the principles of good medical and pharmaceutical practice.

Generic drugs are far more likely to be affordable – and therefore available – than brand name versions. That’s where you and I come in. We need to contact our senators and congressional representatives and tell them to make such practices illegal. We need to contact our local newspapers, TV stations and other media, and ask why they aren’t covering this story. We must ensure that we and our loved ones can afford the medicines we need in order to stay well.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Yvonne Thornton on the Dr. Nancy Show: Should Pregnant Girls Play Contact Sports?

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

Today on Dr. Nancy, I was invited to appear to discuss a controversial issue. A young pregnant woman, whose high school took precautions against injury to her fetus by treating her differently than other girls on her volleyball team, has filed a complaint, claiming discrimination.

On the show, Dr. Nancy and I explained why this isn’t a discriminatory action but an appropriate one that protects the health of mother and fetus. Although some may not think of it this way, volleyball can be a contact sport. A player can get an elbow shoved into her abdomen when someone else reaches for the ball. A player can get pushed down on the court. There is always risk of injury but for most young women, the risk is minimal. Not so with a young pregnant woman. She risks harm to her fetus in the rough and tumble of such competitive sports.

While exercise is good for a pregnant woman’s health, contact sports are not, certainly not when the sorts of things we see happening in games have the potential to injure a fetus.

This isn’t a women’s rights issue. Dr. Nancy and I are both staunch defenders of women’s rights. It’s about keeping a baby and mother safe.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Pregnancy and Swine Flu: a Dangerous Combination

Friday, December 4th, 2009

The word from the Centers for Disease Control is that women who are pregnant are at high risk from the H1N1 virus, also known as the swine flu.

If you’re pregnant, you need to get vaccinated with both the seasonal and the H1N1 vaccines. It’s the single best way to protect yourself and your baby from the flu. And don’t let the anti-vaccination rumors swirling around the Internet scare you into delaying or avoiding a flu shot. According to the CDC, the seasonal flu vaccine has been administered to millions of women and has not been shown to harm women or their babies. The 2009 H1N1 flu shot is made in the same way and in the same places as the seasonal flu shot.  You may receive both flu shots at the same time; however, they should be given at different sites on your body, e.g., left arm and right arm.

Although recent cases of swine flu have been diminishing, influenza epidemics tend to come in waves. So even if there are few new cases of the flu in your area, it may just be a lull and you could get hit by the next wave. Get vaccinated now, if the vaccines are available in your area. Get everyone in your household vaccinated to prevent the disease from spreading among family members. Babies under 6 months of age are too young to get the vaccine so it’s especially important to their health that other members of the household are vaccinated to protect against family members spreading the virus.

Here are some other ways you can protect yourself from the germs all around us.

  • Wash your hands often with soap and water. Or use small bottles of alcohol-based hand sanitizer you can carry in your purse.
  • If you have flu symptoms, call your doctor immediately. Pregnant women tend to get more serious cases of this flu and it’s important to get treatment. Your doctor can prescribe medicines that will help.
  • Don’t assume that, just because you don’t have a fever, you don’t have the flu. This flu doesn’t always cause fever.
  • Try to avoid contact with others who appear ill. If someone in your family gets sick, ask your doctor to prescribe medications that may prevent you from getting sick, too, such as Tamiflu® or Relenza®.
  • Cover your nose and mouth with a tissue when you cough or sneeze and throw the tissue away immediately. If a tissue isn’t available, sneeze into your sleeve, not your hand.
  • Keep your cabinets well stocked with non-perishable foods as well as other basics and medicine that you might need if you got sick.

The CDC warns that if you are pregnant and experience any of the following, you must call 911 immediately:

  • Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath
  • Pain or pressure in the chest or abdomen
  • Sudden dizziness
  • Confusion
  • Rapid pulse over 100 beats per minute
  • Severe or persistent vomiting
  • A high fever that is not responding to Tylenol®
  • Decreased or no movement of your baby

Just remember, the nasal spray vaccine is not licensed for use by pregnant women because it is a live, attenuated virus. Pregnant women should not receive nasal spray vaccine for either seasonal flu or 2009 H1N1 flu. After delivery, women can receive the nasal spray vaccine, even if they are breastfeeding.

In summary, get vaccinated, practice good hygiene, and call your doctor immediately if you get sick, and you and your baby should come through this flu season just fine.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Labor & Delivery: Don’t try this at home

Monday, November 30th, 2009

Most women today have no idea how dangerous it once was for a woman to give birth. The maternal death rate today is about eight per 100,000 births.  When home births were in style, the maternal death rate was 83 per 100,000 births – 10 times the number of deaths.

Women today almost never die in childbirth because, when things go wrong during labor and delivery, medical professionals can step in and prevent emergencies from becoming tragedies.

Which is why I want to scream when I read nonsense like the following, from a website calling itself “Born Free.”


“Welcome to Bornfree! This site is based on the belief that childbirth is inherently safe and relatively painless provided we don’t live in poverty, and do not interfere either physically or psychologically. Drugs, machinery, and medical personnel are not only unnecessary in most cases, they are also no match for a woman’s own intellect and intuition.”

The site quoted above advocates for unassisted childbirth at home. No doctor. No midwife. And no professional help at the ready if something goes wrong.

Ordinarily, I wouldn’t get too exercised over an obscure website. But, it’s how I found this website that has me troubled. It was featured in an article on ABC News.com in the “Entertainment” section. The article mostly extolled the concept of women giving birth at home, with neither a midwife nor a doctor present, giving only the briefest nod to the caveats from an ob-gyn.

In the age of reality TV, maybe a piece about women risking their lives to experience “freebirth” makes good copy. Maybe, because it was in the Entertainment section, this quote from a mother who recently gave birth on her own didn’t raise any eyebrows: “…it is not risky if you do your homework.”

But ask an ob-gyn and you’ll get a much different albeit less entertaining quote.

Yes, so-called “freebirth” is risky. And no, you can’t mitigate the risk by doing “homework.” Approximately 40 percent of high-risk patients appear to be low-risk before labor and delivery. No amount of “homework” can prepare a woman for suddenly finding herself among those 40 percent. If she’s at home, without medical attention, she and her baby could be in serious danger.

Most certified nurse midwives are affiliated with hospitals today precisely because the unexpected can and does happen during childbirth and having medical and surgical teams within shouting distance can mean the difference between life and death. The birthing process is still the 11th leading cause of death in women between 15 and 44 years of age.

When I was in the military, we received a stat call about a home birth gone wrong. The woman lost all muscle tone in her uterus after the birth of her child. By the time the ambulance got her to Bethesda, she had bled to death.

So I’ve seen firsthand how “freebirth” can be a recipe for disaster.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Why you MUST get a gynecological exam every year. Period.

Monday, November 23rd, 2009

You may have heard that the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has just come out with new guidelines for how often women should get Pap smears. Rather than discussing the details of the guidelines, I want to stress one essential fact:

A Pap smear is not an annual pelvic exam. It’s just one small segment. If you’re over 21, you must still get a pelvic examination each year, every year, for as long as you live. Some years the Pap test will be part of the examination and some years, it may not be. Whether you get a Pap has nothing to do with whether you need to be examined.

You do. Here’s why.

During your annual pelvic exam, your physician evaluates you for many diseases and disorders that have nothing to do with Pap smears or cervical cancer. Among the most critical that your doctor checks for are ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, and vulvar cancer.

If caught early, such cancers are highly treatable. If left undetected for years, as I fear might happen should women skip pelvic exams in years when they don’t get Pap tests, such cancers can be killers.

So, no matter what you’ve heard about the change in the guidelines for Pap smears, the take-away is that this change should not affect your behavior in any way; it’s merely guidance for your doctor.

Get your annual pelvic exam as you have in the past. Let your doctor decide whether the Pap should be part of it every two years or three years or if that particular test is necessary after age 70.

Remember that you’re not going to the doctor for just one test that detects just one type of cancer. You’re going to ensure that you’re in good gynecological health, and to get treated promptly if your doctor finds anything wrong.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Confused about mammograms? Here’s what you need to know

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

You’ve probably heard the news that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has changed its recommendations about who should get mammograms, and how often. And you may be wondering what this means for you. If you’re 50 or older, should you only get mammograms once every two years as the new guidelines recommend? If you’re under 50, should you get a mammogram at all?

The first thing to understand is that the guidelines are general and may not apply to your situation. Only your own physician can say whether you should still get mammograms and whether you should get one on an annual or bi-annual basis.

The second thing to understand is that the new guidelines have not yet been endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists continues to recommend:

* Screening mammography every 1-2 years for women aged 40-49 years

* Screening mammography every year for women aged 50 years or older.

So why don’t the two authorities agree? There is evidence that supports both points of view. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists appears to be relying on the ability of mammograms to detect cancer at an earlier age, allowing for early treatment. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force considered evidence that early detection didn’t necessarily result in fewer breast cancer deaths and could lead to women experiencing unnecessary fear and anxiety when mammograms detect benign lumps.

My personal recommendation as a physician? I believe that early detection is the way to go. All of the actuarial tables relied upon by the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force do not put me at ease when I am recommending a certain course of management for my patients. Therefore, I would recommend continuing to have a screening mammography every two years, if you are younger than 50 years of age and every year for women 50 and older. I don’t believe that the endpoint should just be breast cancer deaths. One needs to take into consideration the quality of life regarding the different treatment modalities and the psychological toll of being diagnosed with breast cancer, whether you die from the disease or not. Early detection will minimize that risk. So, I would recommend what the National Cancer Institute and ACOG now recommend, and that is the regimen presently being used for screening. However, discuss this important and potentially life-saving test with your own doctor. Only your personal physician knows your history and your risk factors. Only your personal physician can determine what’s best for you.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Halfway to realizing real health care reform

Wednesday, November 11th, 2009

This past weekend, in the House of Representatives, our congressmen and congresswomen came together to pass a bi-partisan bill. In doing so, they took the first step toward ensuring that all Americans have access to health care when they need it.

If a final bill passes that includes the provisions of this bill, here’s what we can all look forward to:

* No more lifetime or annual caps on how much treatment health insurance will pay for. This is so very important for men, women and children with chronic illnesses, who often see their claims for care denied, just when they need it most.

* No more denial of insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions. As of right now, some health insurers consider having had a cesarean section a “pre-existing condition.” They deny claims to victims of domestic violence, calling it a “pre-existing condition.” Even perfectly healthy babies who are a bit chubby have been turned down by health insurers who claim their weight is a “pre-existing condition.”

* Adult children would be allowed to remain on their parents’ policies until age 27.

* Seniors on Medicare would pay less for prescriptions.

* And all would get a genuine choice of health insurance options, available from both health insurance companies and a government-administered plan (the public option).

None of us should have any illusions that this first step toward making health care affordable and available to all will make the next steps any easier. Powerful interests, particularly those of health insurance companies, will fight all that much more aggressively to prevent the senate from passing its own version of reform. Health insurers’ profits are as high as they are because they get to cherry-pick who they will and won’t cover; because they can refuse to provide care after someone has reached the annual or lifetime coverage cap; because they can call almost anything a “pre-existing condition.”

Through misinformation campaigns, spread by surrogates, these powerful special interests have done all they can to frighten Americans into believing that health care reform will be bad for them and for America. The misinformation often mirrors that which was spread back in the 1960s in an attempt to prevent Congress from passing Medicare.

As a physician who has seen, firsthand, how the lack of health insurance can devastate families, I know that we must fight back aggressively against the special interests. We must become informed about the realities of health care reform and help our friends and families understand the difference between information and misinformation.

This opportunity to provide health care for all may not come again for many years if it doesn’t succeed now. And if it fails today, next time, the fight will be even harder and will stand less chance of success.

As a doctor, a woman, and a mother, I urge our senators, no matter their party affiliation, to stand with our families and help us protect them when they are most vulnerable. And I urge my readers to contact their senators and tell them that nothing is more precious than health – and nothing more important than passing reform so that families can get the help they need when they need it.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Why getting the HPV vaccine (Gardasil®) makes sense

Friday, October 30th, 2009

Too often, the Internet is filled with rumors about the dangers of vaccines. And those rumors are typically based on misinformation, disinformation and fear.

That’s been the case with Gardasil® (Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus  (Types 6, 11, 16, 18) Recombinant Vaccine), the vaccine that protects girls and young women from the human papilloma virus (HPV).  Many people who have HPV may not show any signs or symptoms.  This means that they can pass on the virus to others and not know it. A male or female of any age who takes part in any kind of sexual activity that involves genital contact is at risk.

While all medicines carry some risk, the benefits of being vaccinated against HPV far outweigh the small potential dangers.

A large part of the backlash against this vaccine may be due to an effort by the drug’s manufacturer to make vaccination mandatory.

Do I believe that young girls and women should be forced to get the vaccine? Absolutely not. Coercion would be a mistake. And that attempt by the drug maker appeared, in this physician’s opinion, to place profits above the right to make a personal choice.

But, getting past the bad decisions of pharmaceutical companies, let’s look at the benefits for our daughters and ourselves. We know for a fact that HPV is connected to cervical cancer. And we know for a fact that cervical cancer is a horrible disease.

So, if you can get a vaccine that will largely protect you against HPV, then getting vaccinated is an absolute no-brainer. Gardasil® protects against four types of HPV: two types (Types 16, 18) that cause about 70 percent of cervical cancer cases, and two more types (Types 6, 11) that cause about 90 percent of genital warts.

The HPV vaccine is typically offered to girls and women between the ages of 9 and 26.  Given in a series of three injections (initial vaccine, another in two months and the last in six months).   For adolescents and younger, I would recommend discussing the vaccine with your gynecologist when your daughter comes in for her first gynecologic visit, which should be between 11 and 12 years of age. That first visit is only for an introduction to a gynecologist and a pelvic examination is not performed. It is a “get acquainted” visit and it is then that the benefits of the vaccine should be discussed.  Gardasil® is most effective if you can vaccinate before a woman risks being exposed to HPV … in other words, before she becomes sexually active.

As a woman gets older, her body isn’t as susceptible to the damage of HPV, so vaccinating isn’t recommended.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Should women do a breast self-exam each month?

Friday, October 9th, 2009

Most women know that mammograms save lives. A news story this week reported that three-quarters of breast cancer deaths occur among those women who did not get regular mammograms.

So, getting a mammogram is a no-brainer. It should be part of your annual exam if you’re over 50; women between 40 and 50 should get mammograms every 1-2 years. If there is a history of breast cancer in your family, you should start mammograms at age 35.

But what about breast self-exams?

Finding no evidence that breast self-examination saved lives, and “increased physician visits and higher rates of benign breast biopsies,” as a result of self-exams, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care recently recommended excluding routine self-examination from breast cancer screening.

So what do you do now? Does this mean that you can forget all those reminders your ob-gyn or family practice doc give you at each visit to check your breasts monthly?

In my view, no. Although cancer is much more likely to be discovered via mammogram, one of my patients did discover a cancerous lump through a routine self-examination. Even if she hadn’t, I’d still say, do the self-exam. However, don’t get excited and frightened because you “feel something.” Most “lumps” are totally benign (such as a fibroadenoma) or it just might be fibrocystic breast disease, which is benign and not cancerous. However, in any case, you need to be further evaluated by an experienced clinician.

Just remember, it has to be you examining your own breasts, not your boyfriend, not your husband. Because that way, you’ll get to know your own breasts and you’ll recognize if there’s some change.

– Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Health care reform will save the U.S. $250 billion per year says Institute of Medicine

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

No one should die in America for lack of health insurance. Yet so many people do – one every thirty minutes.

We know we have to change this. It’s one of the great moral issues our country faces. Yet, there are those who say, we can’t afford to cover everyone. I can’t fathom that argument. I believe that all deserve the right to life-saving treatment.

So I was happy to learn that we will soon have an economic argument as well as a moral argument to support making health care available to all.

The Institute of Medicine is about to release a study that reportedly found that, some years after reform is instituted, we  may save up to $250 billion per year over what we’d pay if we did nothing.

That gives us every reason to reform health care and no excuses not to. The moral imperative is obvious, at least to me, as a doctor who has treated both the very poor and the very wealthy. The economic argument should counter those who want to do less or nothing at all.

To save lives (and even, we now learn, to save money), it’s time to provide no loopholes, no fine print, real, affordable health care coverage for all.

– Yvonne  S. Thornton, MD, MPH

UPDATE: The above figures, showing that one person dies every 30 minutes due to lack of health insurance, are from The Institute of Medicine statistics of 2002. A new study, just released today by Harvard Medical School researchers, shows that it’s even worse than that: today, one person dies every 12 minutes due to lack of health insurance.