Another sign that the economy is mired in muck, with prospects for improvement any time soon being very dim:

A new survey shows a family health plan in 2010 averages $4,000 a year, up 14% from 2009. Meanwhile, the average employer contribution to a family plan hasn’t increased at all. [...] Overall, premium growth slowed slightly this year to 3%, with the average annual cost of a family health plan reaching $13,370. Workers picked up 30% of that bill. The average plan for a single individual cost $5,049.

Slow job growth. Incremental premium increases. Higher out-of-pocket expenses for care. Forget about cost-sharing. This is massive cost shifting, and healthcare consumers are being forced to take the brunt of the cost of that coverage. | LINK

Lately, Doctor Pundit has been reporting some tidbits from the arena of medical research. Here are a few more to make the wires for 9/1.

• Is it really possible? For now you’ll just have to ask the mice taking it. Metformin, the country’s most widely used antidiabetic agent, could lead to the prevention of lung, breast, and prostate malignancies. | LINK
• Speaking of cancers, are certain heritable forms of breast cancer prevented by a certain surgical technique? | LINK
• Again, on the topic of cancer: an anti-tumor drug may be altered to serve as the basis for a novel agent to prevent the formation of senile plaques seen in the central nervous system in virtually all Alzheimer patients. | LINK
• Finally, on the lighter side of things — the all-star line-up for the “Stand Up to Cancer” telethon is almost finalized. | LINK

The massive increase in procedures over the past 20 years has added to the cost of providing care, to no one’s surprise. A study in the recent Radiology journal acknowledges this.

Part of the explosion in medical imaging over the past two decades may be attributable to overutilization, and steps need to be taken to cut back … Imaging services and their costs have grown at about twice the rate of other technologies in healthcare including lab procedures and pharmaceuticals…

Part of the problem fueling this growth has been the inclusion of many non-invasive standard imaging techniques as being procedure based — lumping the costs associated with uncomplicated, unenhanced CT imaging with, say, CT-guided renal biopsy — for example. Of course, bordering on the unethical side are the practices of self-referral within large imaging groups in many healthcare markets. | LINK

The initial impact of the new healthcare reform law won’t begin until late September/early October. But how much do Americans really know about the legislation’s benefits and changes? President Obama has embarked on some PR jaunts to remind the public of the virtues of reform, but is the White House’s awareness campaign really enough to get the word out that reform is actually imminent? Apparently not.

Many key parts of the new law, signed by President Obama in March, take effect in several stages beginning next month and continuing through 2015. Because it’s so complex, consumer advocates worry that people won’t take advantage of its benefits, so they have embarked on a nationwide education campaign. [..]

“People are still afraid that there are death panels . . . or that Medicare is going to go away,” says Cheryl Matheis of AARP, the nation’s largest seniors organization. “We have an obligation to get the information out there…”

It’s the new reality. Focus groups, polls, lobbies. To bad reform won’t cover the cost of these mechanisms of information dissemination. | LINK

As Doctor Pundit has always reported in this space, the driver of current Alzheimer disease research has been via biomarkers — the naturally occurring by-products (in this case, abnormal proteins found as the disorder shows initial symptoms and develops) of the body’s normal physiological processes in any organ system. In this case, the system studied is the body’s omniscient powerhouse, the central nervous system. The latest game-changing news is what can be gleaned via the cerebrospinal fluid obtained from within the spinal cord.

Researchers report that a spinal fluid test can be 100 percent accurate in identifying patients with significant memory loss who are on their way to developing Alzheimer’s disease. [...] A lot of work lies ahead, researchers say — making sure the tests are reliable if they are used in doctors’ offices, making sure the research findings hold up in real-life situations, getting doctors and patients comfortable with the notion of spinal taps, the method used to get spinal fluid.

The invasive nature of the spinal tap is a barrier, but the overarching point here is that biomarker research is gaining ground and setting the stage for extremely targeted therapies. All of this talk — even in the past 2 to 3 years — has largely been conjecture. At least until now. Exciting news. | LINK

Confirming what many, if not all providers in healthcare delivery already know, a study in the Annals of Int. Med. confirms the rampant favorability of results in pharma industry sponsored trials. In the meta analysis of over 500 trials, researchers found that industry-funded trials received positive outcomes approx. 80 percent of the time, compared to positive outcomes in just 50 percent of government-funded ones. Also, results of industry-funded studies were published within two years of study completion 32 percent of the time compared with 54 percent for government trials — suggesting not only certain bias in reporting in heavily invested outcomes, but also that government funding occurs sooner in trails when results may not seem as certain to produce a favorable outcome. The government’s registry of trials in development provides excellent information on study quality of over 90,000 investigations for those interested in getting at the true purpose of a proposed clinical trial. | LINK

Republicans and Dems are waiting to see just exactly how public opinion continues to be shaped on the issue of healthcare reform in this country in the run-up to the 2010 mid terms. If the results of a new tracking poll [PDF] are any indication, there is comfort for the latter party.

The July Health Tracking Poll indicates overall public support for the health reform law is steady from June, while unfavorable views of the law have trended downward.  Half the public (50%) now expresses a favorable view of the law, while 35 percent say they have an unfavorable opinion (down from 41% in June).

The results don’t exactly show that misconceptions do exist, however.

[L]arge shares of seniors mistakenly believe the law includes provisions that cut some previously universal Medicare benefits and creates “death panels.”

Results are over at the Kaiser (kff.org) website, a link from this blog in the Blogroll.

A conservative health and public policy think tank reports on the consequences of a federally managed pharmaceutical approval and regulatory process and how that impacts patient access to timely and appropriate care — with respect to pharma availability. The Pacific Research Institute released its white paper detailing what it describes as the bureaucratic morass of “stymied pharmaceutical regulation” within the FDA’s drug approval process. A snippet:

During a 12-month period in 2008 and 2009, the European Union’s European Medicines Authority (EMA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a total of 39 new medicines. Fifteen were approved only by the FDA, 11 were approved only by the EMA, and 13 were approved by both regulators.

In five of the 13 cases where the FDA and EMA both approved the medicine, the EMA was the first to approve, and it issued those approvals 552 days faster than the FDA, on average. Even if we include all 13 medicines approved by the FDA and the EMA, the EMA approved those 97 days faster, on average.

The report goes on to describe the effects on impassive procedures of the FDA and its correlation to unnecessary medical tourism for similarly approved pharmacological treatments elsewhere. Although the report confirms what we all know about the costs of healthcare respect to governmental and regulatory mechanisms, perhaps this is another area in which Obama’s pick to head another regulatory agency addresses the need to apply quality and efficiency to the rather staid and arcane process of pharma approval.

The New England Journal of Medicine, long a standard in peer-reviewed medical research, has updated its website and become a portal of an essential library of text, audio, and video — a thriving primary online brand of itself. What a treat.

Our electronic archive now includes every issue back to the first one, published in 1812. The NEJM Archive from 1812 to 1989 has more than 150,000 articles. All articles are fully searchable, with the content back to 1945 presented in an HTML format similar to that for the current issues. For all the articles in the archive, the PDF files show the original versions as they appeared in print, complete with ads, notices, and various curiosities from earlier eras.

Nice. It was enough for me to subscribe to the Journal (and its online content) for the first time in over 10 years. | LINK

Besides making news on the antidiabetic treatment front recently with Avandia, the FDA has also been tackling the push by some advocacy groups to tighten or restrict the use of some opioid medications — most notably drugs like oxycodone. The FDA voting panel rejected concerns of its various advisory panels on the subject to enforce the restrictions  (it usually follows its advisory recommendations).

Had the agency gone ahead with the recommendation to restrict usage, providers giving the drug would have been subjected to special training based upon the new rules for prescribing. At this time, only registration with the DEA is needed for physicians to give most opioids. Perhaps due to political pressures from providers and systems involved in chronic pain treatment, the FDA did not want to go down that road at a time when reform will probably produce more bureaucratic weight on the agency than what it can normally endure. Here’s to a sound decision on that point. | LINK

Embattled pharma company GSK may be celebrating the continued availability of its once-blockbuster drug Avandia on the market, but it’s bemoaning the fact that the FDA is putting the breaks (halting recruitment) on a safety trial it has begun initiating in an effort to restore positive PR for its troubled drug. As part of its 20-12 ruling to keep the drug on the pharma market, the FDA is also requiring the IOM to investigate the ethics surrounding GSK’s commission of the trial.The study, though not officially canceled, is suspended while the FDA continues to soak in the data and come to its own definitive conclusions regarding the safety of Avandia. | LINK

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an independent, non-partisan body made up of primary care physicians involved in developing preventive medical guidelines based upon evidence-based medicine, has always reveled in its staunch self-governance. That could change ever so slightly in the new age of health reform.

The academic research-oriented group will continue to make recommendations on best-preventive practices and supply ratings (“A”, “B”, etc.); but this time, under reform, insurers will be required to cover services that receive such a rating. The Obama administration hopes that this increase in access (which will require a small premium increase by insurers in the near term) will reap savings in the future — as costs for preventive testing, screening for certain chronic diseases, vaccinations, and well-child visits would be covered (without health plan co-pays and deductibles) if so rated by the USPSTF.

Besides having to consider methodology involved in formulating its ultimate recommendations, the group will also have to contend with the specter of political agenda setting if lobbying groups and disease advocacy organizations have their way under this bit of legislation — scheduled to go into effect in September. | LINK

Research into better treatments and possible cures of Alzheimer dementia is one of the bright spots in the potential for better healthcare delivery in the decade of the 2010s. There are many signs that bode well for the approach to this disorder at the dawn of the second decade of the 21st century.

New research into alternate pathways of disease development is starting to generate excitement among primary care physicians and geriatricians (such as myself) as potential arenas for new classes of drugs to combat Alzheimer’s. Better care delivery models in long term care of the elderly as part of new initiatives in the Affordable Care Act are already starting to impact chronic disease care management strategies.

Perhaps most important, there is new evidence to suggest that earlier detection of this cognitive disorder can enhance those developments, and more. At an annual meeting of top dementia researchers, guidelines were proposed to expand on the research from the ’00s to diagnose the disorder earlier — a strategy that benefits more than just those potentially afflicted with Alzheimer’s.

If the guidelines are adopted in the fall, as expected, some experts predict a two- to threefold increase in the number of people with Alzheimer’s disease. Many more people would be told they probably are on their way to getting it. The Alzheimer’s Association says 5.3 million Americans now have the disease.

Heavier use of newly discovered biomarkers for earlier detection of the pathology behind Alzheimer dementia will be a closely watched process by both physicians and health policy analysts alike. | LINK