Healthy lifespans are improving, do we know why?

Understanding the Improvement in Disability Free Life Expectancy In the U.S. Elderly Population

If you want to know the reason behind the improvement of healthy life expectancy in US, then you have to read this chapter.  Three fundamental conclusions:

First, we show that healthy life increased measurably in the US between 1992 and 2008. Years of healthy life expectancy at age 65 increased by 1.8 years over that time period, while disabled life expectancy fell by 0.5 years. Second, we identify the medical conditions that contribute the most to changes in healthy life expectancy. The largest improvements in healthy life expectancy come from reduced incidence and improved functioning for those with cardiovascular disease and vision problems. Together, these conditions account for 63 percent of the improvement in disability-free life expectancy. Third and more speculatively, we explore the role of medical treatments in the improvements for these two conditions. We estimate that improved medical care is likely responsible for a significant part of the cardiovascular and vision-related extension of healthy life.

And this is what I said two years ago in this post with Catalonia data:

Fortunately, new data about recent trends has been published and we can confirm that has increased over a period of 7 years, between 2005 and 2012 from 63 to 65.7 years for men and from 60.6 years  to 66.1 for women . In women the proportion of years lived in good health has gone up by 5 percentage points, from 72 to 77 % in men and has increased only one point from 81 to 82 %. In any case, in marginal and in absolute terms there is a substantial improvement . Nobody would have been able to foresee changes of this magnitude.

Unfortunately we don't know why.

PS. This is the post number 1.000 of this blog. Up to now, the visits reached 166.899. Thank you for your loyalty.

 Ramon Casas exhibition in Sitges

The growing evidence on compression of morbidity

Health, functioning, and disability in older adults—present status and future implications

There is currently a wide debate about chronic care and multimorbidity. Some messages appear that this is strictly connected with ageing, and forget the details. Though disease process have to be tackled, we have to ask ourselves about wellbeing in later life. A key issue is to understand its impact on functioning and disability. This is precisely what a recent article in The Lancet offers. The research question:

Will the years gained be productive and healthy, or will elderly people live longer lives in conditions of ill health? Three main hypotheses have been proposed to address this question.² The compression of morbidity hypothesis posits a situation for which the age of onset of morbidity is delayed to a greater extent than life expectancy rises, thereby compressing morbidity into a short period at a late age.³ The expansion of morbidity hypothesis maintains the opposite, that increases in life expectancy are matched or exceeded by added periods of morbidity.⁴ Both compression and expansion of morbidity could happen in absolute or relative terms—ie, changes in the absolute number of years lived with disability—or in terms of healthy life expectancy as a proportion of total life expectancy.

And a conclusion:

 Our systematic examination of the scientific literature shows that support for morbidity pattern hypotheses varies mainly according to the type of health indicator. Disability-related or impairment-related measures of morbidity tend to support the theory of compression of morbidity, whereas chronic disease morbidity tends to support the expansion of morbidity hypothesis.

This is an article to read and file for the future. The basic approach is defined, the difficulty is about the data. My impression is that we need to use morbidity adjusted life expectancy measures, as those I presented in this blog some months ago. The advantages are clear compared to healthy life expectancy that needs a lot of hypothesis and are based on surveys and self perceptions. Morbidity adjusted measures use  disease codes directly. Why not apply them widely?

PS. The whole series on ageing in The Lancet.

Healthy life expectancy: the key indicator

Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 306 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 188 countries, 1990–2013: quantifying the epidemiological transition

In former posts I have advocated that healthy life expectancy should be used as an aggregated indicator of outcomes of health determinants. Unfortunately although it is imperfect, it is the best we have, and today you can check the latest estimates in a salient article in The Lancet.

Countries with highest healthy life expectancy, both sexes, 2013

1	Japan
2	Singapore
3	Andorra
4	Iceland
5	Cyprus
6	Israel
7	France
8	Italy
9	South Korea
10	Canada

Spain has disappeared from the former top 10. I have always said that ordinal rankings have flaws, however, comparisons across time are worth taking into account.
Internally in Spain it is difficult to reverse this trend. If you consider geographic variations of the indicator you can see a range from 55 years up to 65 (p.25) .Therefore there is too much noise when you focus on the state as the unit of analysis. Forget the results and the ranking.
The only situation that is unique in the ranking is Andorra, it always appear at the top and it is a small state. That's remarkable and merits close analysis.

Henri Matisse, Promenades intérieures

Exposition du 12 juin au 4 octobre 2015

Musée Matisse

The successful recent trends in healthy life expectancy (3)

The Cost of an Additional Disability-Free Life Year for Older Americans: 1992–2005

We already know that the trend of healthy life expectancy is on the right track. If we all agree that under a universal coverage system, the aim should focus on being efficient and equitable at purchasing population health,  then a crucial question would be: how much does it cost an additional healthy life year?.
We do have such estimates for USA. A quite recent article says that the average discounted cost per additional disability-free life year is $71,000, assuming that half of the gains in healthy life expectancy were attributable to increases in spending.
Is this more or less than you would be willing to pay for it?. Recall how much we are spending per month of survival with cancer treatments. You can check it on p.254 of this article. As a society, currently we are paying from €562 (Erlotinib+Chemotherapy) up to €66,164 (Ipilimumab) for one month of additional survival and nobody cares about it. That's life!. Glups!

The successful recent trends in healthy life expectancy

Esperança de vida, lliure de discapacitat i en bona salut a Catalunya

If there is one measure to monitor continously in welfare policy, this is the case for healthy life expectancy. If somebody wants to track wether citizens, clinicians, health managers, politicians, firms, etc... are contributing to better life in the health arena, then this is the aggregate measure. If somebody were able to establish the right incentives for achieving the best benchmark, this would be great. Kindig suggested long time ago that "purchasing population health" should be valued according to healthy life expectancy.
Fortunately, new data about recent trends has been published and we can confirm that has increased over a period of 7 years, between 2005 and 2012 from 63 to 65.7 years for men and from 60.6 years  to 66.1 for women . In women the proportion of years lived in good health has gone up by 5 percentage points, from 72 to 77 % in men and has increased only one point from 81 to 82 %. In any case, in marginal and in absolute terms there is a substantial improvement . Nobody would have been able to foresee changes of this magnitude.
Some months ago I showed in this blog an alternative measure, the morbidity-adjusted life expectancy.  An alternative construct that allows easier geographic and temporal comparisons.
We are on the right track, contrary to those that thought with the crisis and cutbacks things would worsen. As you know and I have explained many times, there are lot of areas for improvement and we have not to reduce our effort to mantain this successful trend.

PS. My congratulations to the authors of the report. Excellent and helpful work.

The successful recent trends in healthy life expectancy (2)

Health at a Glance: Europe 2014

A new european health report by OECD has been released. It includes key data and information regarding how health systems are performing and citizen's health. Some days ago I was highlighting the successful achievement in healthy life expectancy in our country (as a temporal trend). Now we can compare these data with other countries and we can see that we are at the top 10 of EU-28.
Data can raise many comments. If you want to know the big change in health expenditure, look at p. 121. In 2000-2009 european expenditure growth rate was 4.7%, in 2009-2012 is -0.6%. In our specific case is still less. Now is the moment to remember those that some years ago said that health expenditure would never collapse because there were some factors (technology and ageing,...) beyond the control of decision makers.
In summary, we can confirm that healthy life expectancy has increased and resources have shrunk. That's all folks (up to now).

PS. On cross-fertilization between health economics and management.

 

Norman Rockwell. Rome exhibition. Must see.

Global health surveillance

Global, regional, and national age–sex specific all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 240 causes of death, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013

Is there any health convergence across countries?. You'll find the answer using the Global Burden of Disease study in a recent Lancet article (a must read).

Part of the answer depends on how the goals are framed—for example, what does convergence mean? In the development literature on economic convergence, convergence has been framed in terms of poverty rates or in terms of income inequality measured by the Gini coefficient or other measures of inequality. Work on convergence in life expectancy has tended to focus on measures of absolute difference rather than relative difference. We found unequivocal divergence in mortality rates for women aged 25–39 years and older than 80 years and for men aged 20–44 years and 65 years and older, similar to previous estimates of divergence of life expectancy at birth since the 1980s. In these age groups, both the Gini coefficient and the mean absolute diff erence in death rates are rising. In all other age groups, except girls aged 10–14 years, relative inequality is increasing but the absolute gap is  narrowing.

For most countries, the general pattern of reductions in age-sex specific mortality has been associated with a progressive shift towards a larger share of the remaining deaths caused by non-communicable disease and injuries. Assessing epidemiological convergence across countries depends on whether an absolute or relative measure of inequality is used. Nevertheless, age-standardised death rates for seven substantial causes are increasing, suggesting the potential for reversals in some countries.

If longevity is mostly improving everywhere, now the key issue should be to analyse global convergence on quality of additional years of life. 

PS. Check p.3499 of the supplementary information. And p. 150 for changes in total Life Expectancy 1990-2013,  (5,6 y men, 3,9 y women). If you read my previous post, you'll find interesting differences about what is going on with healthy life years for women.

Morbidity adjusted life-expectancy

OBTENCIÓN DE LA ESPERANZA DE VIDA Y DESCOMPOSICIÓN EN ESTADOS DE SALUD A PARTIR DE INFORMACIÓN CLÍNICA

I have always considered that any estimate of healthy life expectancy that is build upon many assumptions and coefficients in the end it is difficult to understand. The global burden of disease and its use of DALYs is an extraordinary effort, though if you dig into the results you'll find methological difficulties.
An alternative to such estimates is just to show how the burden of mordibity is distributed across lifetimes. That is precisely what we have presented at the last Health Economics Conference. I believe that such estimation is a promising way to present population life expectancy and health. As far as this is the first attempt, there is still room for improvement.

L'esperança de vida saludable: les percepcions i la realitat

 Understanding the drivers of healthy life expectancy: report

La gestió de la salut poblacional pretén assolir el nivell òptim d'anys de vida saludable. La qüestió immediata que sorgeix és: quins són els factors que hi contribueixen?. El govern britànic ha publicat un informe que va d'això.

I diu al principi:

• healthy life expectancy (HLE) can be defined as ‘a measure of the average number of years a person would expect to live in good health based on contemporary mortality rates and prevalence of self-reported good health’
• there are 2 components which determine the measure of HLE used: the prevalence of self-reported good health in the population and mortality rates

I si les premises per a mesurar l'esperança de vida són errònies, les conclusions seràn irrelevants. El motiu és el següent, la percepció individual de la salut no és la mateixa que la morbiditat registrada pels professionals. I les diferències són substancials, en aquest article queda explicat tot. Per exemple, un 27% de persones amb més de dues malalties cròniques importants diuen que tenien bona salut. I si això és així, llavors tota estimació basada en percepcions de salut trontolla. Aquest és un tema especialment rellevant perquè la percepció de la salut també s'utilitza com a punt de referència per a la planificació sanitària. 

I llavors quina seria l'alternativa? Doncs calcular les esperances de vida saludable basades en registres de morbiditat. Aquesta és la resposta per tractar d'aillar la subjectivitat de la mesura.

Joana Biarnés

 

The satisfaction paradox and the need for a dose of realism

A paradox is a "situation that is made up of two opposite things and that seems impossible but is actually true or possible". This is exactly what is happening to satisfaction with health services in times of economic recession. Everybody would think that less budget damages satisfaction perception. What's going on is exactly the opposite. Satisfaction with health services is increasing (from 79% of people satisfied with the public system in 2006 to 88% in 2013). And this is also happening in the UK, John Appleby et al. from King's Fund say:

Overall public satisfaction with the NHS increased to 65 per cent in 2014 – the second highest level since the British Social Attitudes survey began in 1983. Dissatisfaction with the service fell to an all-time low of 15 per cent.

One interpretation of the increase in overall satisfaction for the NHS is that it is likely to reflect a vote of support for the NHS as an institution in difficult times. A lack of objective improvement in NHS services and the fact that improvements in satisfaction appear to have been driven by an 11 percentage point increase in satisfaction among Labour supporters and those without recent contact with the service, may lend weight to this analysis. This may especially be the case given that some see the NHS as currently under threat, for example from privatisation, and some feel ministers and others have been too critical of the NHS and its staff.

Official measures of performance tell a different story: NHS funding has been under increasing pressure since 2010 and there have been well-publicised performance problems with high-profile targets such as the 4-hour A&E waiting time standard and the 18-week maximum wait from referral to treatment. At the same time, the media has featured negative stories about the financial position of NHS hospitals and the need for additional investment in the service.

This context suggests a possible alternative explanation for the increase in satisfaction in 2014. We know that what drives changes in satisfaction is not straightforward – and almost certainly is never simply satisfaction with the NHS per se, for all respondents to the survey. Political beliefs, attitudes towards the government of the day, media stories and expectations of the NHS will shape people’s satisfaction.

So, while satisfaction improved in 2014, this is not necessarily synonymous with an improvement in the actual performance of the NHS, nor does it simply reflect an actual improvement in satisfaction. Nevertheless, it is clear that public satisfaction with the NHS and support for it as an institution remains high.

I suggest you have a look at the report. Satisfaction is a different dimension from performance, good point. If overall performance is based on healthy life expectancy, then the conclusion for us would be the same. We have increased healthy life expectancy all these years.

Those that complain about austerity want to forget such results. Also journalists. They don't figure out that the issue is a balanced budget and cutbacks have not been applied on an ideological foundation as some pretend. Anybody can blame over budget cuts, but immediately they would have to understand what they would do at home if their income is 7 years less than  before (2013 GDP per capita is less than those in 2006!!!). For sure they would return to an expenditure level simliar to previously,  in one way or another. Can anyone defend that these are ideological budget cuts at home?.
You can't live permanently in increasing debt, I'm satiated of cheap populism. A dose of realism is required.

PS. As you may notice, realism begins after reading the data, but you have to read them.

Healthy longevity

Health at a Glance 2015

Every year OECD updates health database. The latest one was released yesterday. Japan, Spain and Switzerland are at the top of life expectancy at birth with 83 years. However,  in healthy life expectancy at 65,Switzerland is in the 9th position, and Spain in the 13th. Why is this so?. The priority on quality of life should increase.

Health across borders

Let's think of two countries artificially separated by political borders. Both have the same income per capita (~27,700 €) and belong to the EU. The first spends 11.1 % of GDP on health (5,513€ per capita, 77.7% public funding), while the second only 8% (3,898€ per capita, 65.8% públic funding).
Both countries have roughly the same life expectancy at birth. Healthy life expectancy at 65 is better in the country that spends less. The number of visits and hospitalizations is also less. Physicians are also paid less, 18% less in general practitioners income, up to 40% in specialists income.
There is only one border between them, an artificial border created by a treaty to end a war that lasted 30 years. This is the case of part of France and Catalonia. While the first can decide over the size of resources devoted to health, the second has no role on it, by now.

PS. Today at COMB, French health reform. I'll be there. #sanitatfrança

The size of the pie

From the WEF  report last year on non communicable diseases, I retrieve the size of worlwide health expenditure in 2009:

World expenditure on health in 2009 totalled US$ 5.1 trillion (US$ 754 per capita)13, of
which 61% was spent by public entities. The vast majority of this expenditure (US$ 4.4 trillion) took place in high-income countries, where spending per capita was US$ 3,971 and the share of public spending was 62% of the total. At the other end of the spectrum, low-income countries spent an average of US$ 21 per capita, of which 42% was supplied by public entities.

As far as we need to know the value created from such resources devoted to health care, the European Commission said recently in this document Investing in Health. Accompanying the documentCOMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS:

Increasing the return on health investments requires a solid assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of spending. Such an assessment faces three main methodological challenges.
The first is to verify that the evidence of efficiency gains and improvements in health obtained through better use of healthcare budgets remains valid when different definitions of health outcomes are used. A major problem is that much of the evidence focuses on crude measurements such as life expectancy, failing to consider the quality of the years of life gained. This is more clearly brought out by concepts such as Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY), or Healthy Life Years (HLY).
The second challenge is to disentangle the relative influence of health systems on health outcomes from the impact of other determinants of population health, especially living and working conditions, income, education and the most common lifestyle-related risk factors
The third is the time lags between policy changes and their impact on health outcomes, a problem that may involve ‘false savings’ because they may lead to increased costs or other unintended consequences in the long term.
Further assessment of the efficiency of health systems therefore requires a refined analytical framework, structured along three axes:
(1) the definition of sound, reliable indicator(s) of health outcomes, building on the existing European Community Health Indicators,
(2) a better understanding of the effects of health systems on health outcomes, as distinct from the impacts on health of other factors such as health determinants and lifestyles, and
(3) a better understanding of the mechanisms, and therefore the timing, of how health policies affect health outcomes.

Sounds familiar.

Per una nova societat d'obligacions recíproques

Can We Be Happier? Evidence and Ethics

La pregunta de si podem ser més feliços, motiu del comentari del llibre d'avui, hauria de ser posterior a la de saber si som feliços ara. I com sempre anem a petar al problema de la mesura. L'economista Richard Layard porta molts anys explicant que podem mesurar la felicitat, i que hi ha dos components, la satisfacció amb la vida que té cadascun de nosaltres (felicitat experimentada) i la felicitat creada, fruit de la interacció social amb els altres. I diu:

We need to replace the harsh culture in which we judge our lives by our success compared with others. That is a zero-sum game – the total of relative success can never be changed, however hard each person tries to improve their own position. Instead, we need a goal for each of us which can lead to progress for all. That goal has to be the positive-sum activity of contributing to a happier society.

If we want a happier society, we have to aim at it explicitly. We will never achieve a happier society as a by-product. And it is a single overarching concept that we need if we are to displace the false idol of GDP. A dashboard of wellbeing indicators is certainly better than nothing, but it has been tried for half a century by the ‘social indicators’ movement with relatively little success.

Més endavant recupera els 10 factors que contribueixen a la felicitat:

Curiosament, tant que parlem de desigualtat, la referida a la renda diu que només explica menys del 2% de les diferències en la felicitat. És el que diu, jo no ho puc contrastar. En canvi el més important a tenir en compte són les privacions, allò al que no es pot accedir. I es carrega plenament la jerarquia de necessitats de Maslow.

Entre països, allò que explica la variació en el nivell de felicitat són bàsicament sis factors que expliquen el 76%:

• trust (the proportion of people who think ‘most people can be trusted’)
• generosity (the proportion who have donated money to a charity in the present month)
• social support (the proportion who have relatives or friends they can count on to help them whenever they need them)
• freedom (the proportion who are satisfied with their freedom to choose what they want to do with their life)
• health (years of healthy life expectancy)
• income (GDP per head)

És el que diu. A la majoria de països la felicitat va augmentar entre 1980 i 2007, després hi ha hagut recorreguts diversos i el creixement econòmic no és garantia de més felicitat.

I el llibre parla dels mestres, dels metges, dels polítics, funcionaris, científics, economistes i tots aquells que poden contribuir a la felicitat i els ofereix una agenda per a l'acció.

There is no objective reason why so many lives in the West should be so stressful. We ourselves have created the stress by our goals, and the way our institutions respond to them. If we change our goals, we really can produce a happier society.

Future generations will be shocked by many of the unthinking and unskilful features of life today. They will be shocked at the neglect of mental illness, at the stresses imposed on our children, and at the common assumption that everyone is an egotist.

So the world happiness movement can indeed bring in a better, gentler culture and do it fast. But what happens will ultimately depend on each one of us. We can all be heroes in the happiness revolution

Llibre recomanable, amb alguns biaixos que es poden descomptar des de l'inici (com una èmfasi excessiva en la salut mental i el mindfulness). En Martin Wolf deia que no li agrada massa això de que la felicitat estigui al capdamunt de l'agenda política. Jo crec que el que cal és afavorir les condicions per a un alt nivell de satisfacció amb la vida, i no sé si la paraula felicitat ajuda o distreu, potser més el segon. Estic convençut que una societat amb menor stress és possible. Totes aquelles decisions i accions individuals i col·lectives que hi contribueixin seran benvingudes en una nova societat d'obligacions recíproques.

PS. Malauradament no hi surt Catalunya als rankings de felicitat que publica Layard. Miraré de trobar material si és que n'hi ha.

PS. Sobre les diferències de renda i la felicitat: "There have been thousands of surveys in hundreds of countries and they typically find that, holding all else constant, a person with double your income will be 0.2 points happier than you are. Similarly, a person whose income is one half of yours will be 0.2 points less happy"

PS. El concepte de societat d'obligacions recíproques és de Collier.

Reflexionem-hi

High-Value Testing Begins With a Few Simple Questions

Sabem que el valor de les proves diagnòstiques sorgeix de la informació marginal que aporten i la capacitat per modificar les probabilitats de patir una malaltia o el canvi en el seu curs. Per tant, el valor en si mateix és informació, un bé intangible crucial per a decidir el tractament. Tota prova diagnòstica té un cost, ara bé per tal que aquest cost acabi convertint-se en valor, de veritat, podem fer algunes preguntes clau que proposa l'Annals:

Did the patient have this test previously?
If so, what is the indication for repeating it?
Is the result of a repeated test likely to be substantively different from the last result?
If it was done recently elsewhere, can I get the result instead ofrepeating the test?
Will the test result change my care of the patient?
What are the probability and potential adverse consequences of a false positive result?
Is the patient in potential danger over the short term if I do not perform this test?
Am I ordering the test primarily because the patient wants it or to reassure the patient?
If so, have I discussed the above issues with the patient?
Are there other strategies to reassure the patient? 

i el darrer paràgraf clau:

Data suggest that unnecessary testing abounds. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that up to 5% of the nation’s gross national product is spent on tests and procedures that do not improve patient outcomes (6). The sixth edition of the ACP Ethics Manual specifically calls out responsible stewardship of resources as an ethical responsibility of physicians (7) and has been lauded for doing so (8). Such stewardship requires substantial and persistent effort with some hard decisions along the way. Addressing a few simple questions before ordering a test seems to be a reasonably easy way to start the journey toward high-value care.

A tots aquells que vulguin una retallada selectiva i no pas lineal, tal com alguns hem vingut demanant des de l'inici, el mateix Annals ofereix la llista de proves diagnòstiques en situacions clíniques que aportaran poc valor. Només fa falta llegir-ho i dur-ho a la pràctica. Qui s'hi apunta?

PS. La llista de proves diagnòstiques inacurades

1. Repeating screening ultrasonography for abdominal aortic aneurysm following a negative study
2. Performing coronary angiography in patients with chronic stable angina with well-controlled symptoms on medical therapy or who lack specific high-risk criteria on exercise testing
3. Performing echocardiography in asymptomatic patients with innocent-sounding heart murmurs, most typically grade I–II/VI short systolic, midpeaking murmurs that are audible along the left sternal border
4. Performing routine periodic echocardiography in asymptomatic patients with mild aortic stenosis more frequently than every 3–5 y
5. Routinely repeating echocardiography in asymptomatic patients with mild mitral regurgitation and normal left ventricular size and function
6. Obtaining electrocardiograms to screen for cardiac disease in patients at low to average risk for coronary artery disease
7. Obtaining exercise electrocardiogram for screening in low-risk asymptomatic adults
8. Performing an imaging stress test (echocardiographic or nuclear) as the initial diagnostic test in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease who are able to exercise and have no resting electrocardiographic abnormalities that may interfere with interpretation of test results
9. Measuring brain natriuretic peptide in the initial evaluation of patients with typical findings of heart failure
10. Annual lipid screening for patients not receiving lipid-lowering drug or diet therapy in the absence of reasons for changing lipid profiles
11. Using MRI rather than mammography as the breast cancer screening test of choice for average-risk women
12. In asymptomatic women with previously treated breast cancer, performing follow-up complete blood counts, blood chemistry studies, tumor marker studies, chest radiography, or imaging studies other than appropriate breast imaging
13. Performing dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry screening for osteoporosis in women younger than 65 y in the absence of risk factors
14. Screening low-risk individuals for hepatitis B virus infection
15. Screening for cervical cancer in low-risk women aged 65 y or older and in women who have had a total hysterectomy (uterus and cervix) for benign disease
16. Screening for colorectal cancer in adults older than 75 y or in adults with a life expectancy of less than 10 y
17. Repeating colonoscopy within 5 y of an index colonoscopy in asymptomatic patients found to have low-risk adenomas
18. Screening for prostate cancer in men older than 75 y or with a life expectancy of less than 10 y
19. Using CA-125 antigen levels to screen women for ovarian cancer in the absence of increased risk
20. Performing imaging studies in patients with nonspecific low back pain
21. Performing preoperative chest radiography in the absence of a clinical suspicion for intrathoracic pathology
22. Ordering routine preoperative laboratory tests, including complete blood count, liver chemistry tests, and metabolic profiles, in otherwise healthy patients undergoing elective surgery
23. Performing preoperative coagulation studies in patients without risk factors or predisposing conditions for bleeding and with a negative history of abnormal bleeding
24. Performing serologic testing for suspected early Lyme disease
25. Performing serologic testing for Lyme disease in patients with chronic nonspecific symptoms and no clinical evidence of disseminated Lyme disease
26. Performing sinus imaging studies for patients with acute rhinosinusitis in the absence of predisposing factors for atypical microbial causes
27. Performing imaging studies in patients with recurrent, classic migraine headache and normal findings on neurologic examination
28. Performing brain imaging studies (CT or MRI) to evaluate simple syncope in patients with normal findings on neurologic examination
29. Routinely performing echocardiography in the evaluation of syncope, unless the history, physical examination, and electrocardiogram do not provide a diagnosis or underlying heart disease is suspected
30. Performing predischarge chest radiography for hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia who are making a satisfactory clinical recovery
31. Obtaining CT scans in a patient with pneumonia that is confirmed by chest radiography in the absence of complicating clinical or radiographic features
32. Performing imaging studies, rather than a high-sensitivity D-dimer measurement, as the initial diagnostic test in patients with low pretest probability of venous thromboembolism
33. Measuring D-dimer rather than performing appropriate diagnostic imaging (extremity ultrasonography, CT angiography, or ventilation–perfusion scintigraphy), in patients with intermediate or high probability of venous thromboembolism
34. Performing follow-up imaging studies for incidentally discovered pulmonary nodules 4 mm in low-risk individuals
35. Monitoring patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by using full pulmonary function testing that includes lung volumes and diffusing capacity, rather than spirometry alone (or peak expiratory flow rate monitoring in asthma)
36. Performing an antinuclear antibody test in patients with nonspecific symptoms, such as fatigue and myalgia, or in patients with fibromyalgia
37. Screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with spirometry in individuals without respiratory symptoms

PS. Salut i crisi a Grècia. Explicat al blog de Liaropoulos. Algú creu que Grècia pot pagar un interès del 34% del bo a 10 anys? Tothom sap que això és qüestió de dies però mira cap un altre costat.

PS. Sobre el tema de falsificació de medicaments, documents de la OMS

Breslow, en el record

Si avui situem els hàbits i comportaments saludables a la capçalera dels factors que determinen la qualitat de vida i la longevitat, ho devem en bona part a Lester Breslow que ens ha deixat a l'edat de 97 anys. Ell va ser qui va capgirar l'orientació de la salut pública i va ser capaç de redefinir-ne les prioritats. Tinc la impressió que ha costat molt que féssim cas dels seus missatges, però sens dubte a hores d'ara han calat, i encara han de calar més. Llegeixo al NYT la notícia i destaco:

Dr. Breslow’s most lauded accomplishment was a study of 6,928 people in Alameda County, Calif., that examined their behavior over intervals of up to 20 years. It used quantitative analysis to prove that a 45-year-old with at least six of the seven healthy habits Dr. Breslow chose as important had a life expectancy 11 years longer than someone with three or fewer. Over a 70-year career, Dr. Breslow helped expand the very definition of public health, from the historical concentration on communicable disease to a new concern with individual behavior and the effects of community and environment. As people lived longer and had more cancer and heart attacks, he was a leader in emphasizing the mounting importance of chronic disease.

Ell ens va donar la pista a seguir, i voldria pensar que Kahneman-Thaler-Sunstein han perfilat com. He de dir que ho han fet per ara de forma insuficient. Fa uns dies ja vaig dir que calia tenir en compte el que deia l'Adam Oliver al seu blog. Però també vull recordar que el Behavioural Insight Team ha perdut pistonada, caldrà veure quin és el motiu. Mentrestant rellegir Breslow i un repàs a la seva autobiografia “A Life in Public Health: An Insider’s Retrospective” esdevé clau per comprendre un científic fonamental del segle XX.