Vol. 216 July 1, 2019 Public Opinion About High Health Care Costs

June 30, 2019

‘TIS THE SEASON FOR POLS AND POLLS

 

As the presidential election summer season heats up with Democrat’s TV food fights and President Trump’s relentless echoes of 2016 campaign rhetoric, the frequency of public opinion polls on political issues and candidates is increasing. What do polls show about what people think about health care costs? The New England Journal of Medicine just published an analysis by three authors of 14 public opinion polls on health care costs done in 2018-2019 (1)

Two-thirds of the U.S. public thinks that reducing health care costs is a top priority for both President Trump and Congress in 2019 (second only to “strengthening the economy” at 70%).

About 90 % of respondents picked the following priorities as “extremely important”:
Reduce prescription drug prices
Reduce the overall cost of healthcare
Do not cut Medicare insurance benefits
Maintain insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Half of respondents reported that health care costs had “actually affected their household a lot”.
40% were “not satisfied” with how much they had to pay for health care.

Why did respondents think that health care costs were so high?
drug companies charge too much …………. 78%
hospitals charge too much ……………………. 71%
Insurance companies charge too much ….. 71%
new drugs, treatments, and technology…….62%

The expert opinion consensus is that the over $500 Billion (yes, that’s a “B”) cost of “unnecessary services”, “inefficient delivery” , and “excessive administrative cost” is a significant cause of the high cost of our health care, but only 23% of public poll respondents thought so.

“At this level, unnecessary health care costs and waste exceed the 2009 budget for the Department of Defense by more than $100 billion (OMB, 2010). Health care waste also amounts to more than 1.5 times the nation’s total infrastructure investment in 2004, including roads, railroads, aviation, drinking water, telecommunications, and other structures. To put these estimates in the context of health care expenditures, the estimated redirected funds could provide health insurance coverage for more than 150 million workers (including both employer and employee contributions), which exceeds the 2009 civilian labor force. And the total projected amounts could pay the salaries of all of the nation’s first response personnel, including firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical technicians, for more than 12 years.” (2)

How did people think we could reduce healthcare cost?
Nearly 90% want the federal government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare
65% want the government to limit charges by hospitals and health professionals
65% want to allow 50-64 year olds to buy into Medicare
52% support “Medicare For All” with little or no private insurance.

Which government?
State 50%  (favored by 60% of Republicans)
Federal 50%  (favored by 70% of democrats)

By what mechanism?
Private insurance competition  (60% of Republicans)
Government insurance program (65% of Democrats)

A majority agreed on two unacceptable ways to reduce costs?

  1. Restrict access to treatments and prescription drugs via “expert opinion” of cost/benefit ratios.
  2. Tax incentives to individuals to buy high-deductible insurance plans.

Only 25% of the public polled were concerned that Medicare would run out of money in 10 years, i.e. little concern about the aggregate cost of health care. Most considered the cost problem as one of high prices rather than of over utilization.
Also, the public is highly skeptical that ANY approach will greatly reduce healthcare prices.

So, despite the consensus that reducing health care costs should be a high priority for President Trump and Congress, there is an obvious partisan divide about how to do it; a partisan divide that continues to make us (the U.S.) unique as the only developed nation lacking universal health care insurance for its people.

References
1. NEJM 380;26 June 27, 2019
2. Best Care At Lower Cost, National Academy of Medicine, Institute of Medicine, 2013


Vol. 215 June 15, 2019 Sometimes Even Good News is “Fake” News

June 16, 2019

A lesson in evaluation of a cost-reducing health care program:
a learned, scientific critique of a controversial Medicare reimbursement program.

 

“The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) was established in 2010 by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) with a “goal of reducing ‘preventable’ re-hospitalizations by imposing financial penalties on hospitals with higher-than-expected readmission rates in the 30 days after a hospital discharge”. This was one of several new “Pay For Performance” (PFP) programs aimed at lowering federal health care costs by tying Medicare reimbursement to hospitals, physicians, and even home care agencies to the use of more appropriate (read “lower cost”) medical care delivery settings.

After implementation of the HRRP, hospital readmission rates did decrease nationwide for the targeted diagnoses of heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia. So, the federal government ended up reimbursing less money to those hospitals that had higher-then-expected “preventable” patient readmission rates . “Great!”, said some policy makers, “it saved us some money. Let’s expand the program to ALL conditions treated in the hospital.”

“Whoa”, said by a group of research physicians from Harvard and Washington University Medical Schools, both known as liberal academic institutions, ”let’s look at the data.”

  1. The proportion of patients that returned to the hospital within 30 days after discharge actually did NOT change.
    .        .Patients returned to the hospital within 30 days after discharge for care, BUT they weren’t “readmitted”. Instead a significant number of those returning to the hospital were treated for up to 3 days in Observation Beds/Units or overnight in an Emergency Room bed. HRRP did not measure use of Observation Units or overnight stays in the ER. No wonder the “readmission” rates went down.
  2. If a patient dies within 30 days after hospital discharge they obviously can’t be “readmitted”.
    .         .The HRRP statistics did not measure mortality rates. A hospital keeping sicker patients alive by readmitting them for appropriate care rate might have the better outcomes, i.e. a lower death rate, but it would be penalized for having a higher readmission rate. In fact, the financial penalties for higher readmission rates under HRRP are much higher than the penalties for a higher death rate under Hospital Value-Based Purchasing program (HVBP), another federal PFP program.
  3. “Risk adjustment” of patient illness severity is notoriously varied and difficult to standardize.
    .          . “Risk-adjusting” of illness severity, for example, recording the different illness severity between the heart failure patient on two drugs and slightly swollen ankles versus the patient on multiple heart drugs for decompensated heart failure, is very difficult to standardize. Some of the early enthusiasm for HRRP and its reported improvement of risk-adjusted readmission rates may have been the result of improved medical record coding of co-existing conditions. (This is well-known as “gaming the system”, legal and even ethical, sort of like taking advantage of tax code loopholes, but it does nothing to improve the quality of care.)
  4. Social risk factors like patient poverty and poor community resources like lack of public transportation and diminished access to primary care were omitted from risk-adjustment factors.
    .          .Safety-net hospitals (those in poor areas) can be penalized under HRRP as a result of such factors. “The evidence that social risk factors influence readmission rates is incontrovertible.”
  5. HRRP may even have increased the death rates for patients with heart failure.
    .          .Four independent studies showed that the death rates for patients with heart failure INCREASED significantly after implementation of HRRP. The increase was concentrated among the patients who were NOT readmitted, suggesting that the use of ER beds and Observation Units “may adversely affect patients who would benefit from higher-level care.” Two other studies found different results which suggested that HRRP was more beneficIal to patients with acute heart conditions rather than patients with chronic heart failure.The three authors urge several steps to correct what they consider a faulty, positive evaluation of HRRP before jumping into expanding the program to ALL patients admitted to a hospital. This failure to correctly evaluate HRRP “underscores the consequences of implementing national policies after [evaluation that does not include] a control group.”They also urge “policymakers to seek input from frontline clinicians and patients who understand the real-world effects of HRRP. . . . If HRRP is improved it might be transformed from a regressive penalty program to a progressive program that improves patient care.”

    Q.E.D.

    Reference:
    “The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program—Time for a Reboot”, Drs. Wadhera, Yeh, and Maddox, NEJM 380;24 June 13, 2019.


Vol. 206 January 15, 2019 Updates on 2018 Blogs

January 15, 2019

Causes of Deaths of U.S. Children in 2016
Firearms-related deaths are #2, just behind motor vehicle crashes.  60 % of the three thousand plus firearms-related deaths were homicides. 35% were suicides. Both motor vehicle and firearms-related deaths percentages have increased every year since 2013. The ratio of causes of firearms-related deaths of adults (over 20 yo.) was the opposite: 62% suicide and 37% homicide. Cancer was #3 at 9% of all children deaths both years.

Continued resistance to gun safety reform legislation has been called “another example of U.S. public health intervention being cast as an attack on individual liberty.”

Driver safety being the other example, of course.

Benefits of Aspirin in Elderly or Diabetics
Three studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine this October showed that daily low dose aspirin provided no benefit to the elderly against all types of deaths, cancer-related deaths, dementia, physical disability, or cardiovascular events. They did reveal an increase in non-fatal significant bleeding events. 3% of those taking the aspirin suffered such an event compared to 2% taking the placebo.

A fourth study published in the same issue appeared to show that low dose aspirin reduced the incidence of non-cardiac vascular events in adults (all ages) with diabetes. The percentages of adverse bleeding events (mostly gastrointestinal) was again 1% higher in those taking the aspirin. In contrast to other studies the use of aspirin did not reduce the incidence of gastrointestinal cancer.

Immigrant Children in Detention
The latest independent estimate of children held in 9 U.S. centers is 15,000. The Department of Home Security does not publish statistics, and, in fact, is not too sure itself how many they have. There have been two instances when Home Security could not account for 1400-1500 children. Most of the children are held in large centers with up to a thousand children. The length of stay has been from 104 to 240 days. Currently nearly 300 are children whose parents have already been deported, so that their eventual disposition is up for grabs. 

The recent deaths of two Guatemalan children in detention (one 7 yo. and the other 8 yo.) remain under investigation, but in reading between the lines I suspect that they were caused by flu-like illnesses in dehydrated, malnourished, and tired kids, i.e. eminently preventable deaths.

More About the Southern Border Immigrants
The number of people arrested trying to illegally cross the Mexican border has been decreasing each year since 2005 (President Bush) and is now at the lowest point since 1971. The number of “people in families” arrested monthly during the same period has increased 2.5X from under 10,000 to 25,172 this November. Hence, one reason for the recent development of an “humanitarian crisis”. The number of arrests of “unaccompanied children” has remained the same at about 5,000 per month

The Mexican border is the primary entry point for cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine which is mostly carried by trucks through official border crossings.

Texas is the only state that has statistics on crimes by immigrants (the federal agencies have none). In 2015 the relative rates of crimes per 100,000 residents in Texas analyzed by the Cato Institute were:

All Crime – (3307 per 100,000 persons) – 
           54 % native born
           27% undocumented immigrants
          18%  legal immigrants

Larceny – (403 per 100,000 persons)
           66% native born
           15% undocumented immigrants
           18% legal immigrant

Sex crime – (64 per 100,000 persons)
            45% native born
            41% undocumented immigrants
            14% legal immigrants

Probiotics for Diarrhea/Effects on Your Microbiome
Two recent very large studies in children showed that twice daily doses of a certain probiotic did NOT shorten the duration of diarrhea or reduce the number of bowel movements per day. This is yet another study showing no real benefit from probiotics, but believers point out that maybe they were using the “wrong” probiotic. 

In other probiotic news: In contrast, another recent study suggests that probiotics can change a person’s own gut microbiome in such a way to make the person’s gut microbiome LESS protective against illnesses.

The Microbiome and Obesity
A study of multi-generational Southeast Asian immigrants showed that soon after arrival in the U.S. the diversity of their gut microbiome began to decrease to the level resembling the less-varied microbiome of European Americans. “Just living in the U.S. reduced their microbiome diversity by 15%.” At the same time their obesity rate spiked!  Previous studies indicated that the more diverse gut microbiome in people in less developed countries protected them from developing metabolic diseases like diabetes.

We Are All Getting Heavier
In the U.S. both the average man and the average woman gained 24 pounds from 1960 to 2002.
By 2016 men had gained an average of 8 pounds more; women 7 pounds.
Both white and black men increased an inch in waist size. White woman increased their waist size by 2 inches; black women reduced theirs by an inch.
The average American man is now 5 feet 9 inches, weighs 198 pounds, and has a 40 inch waist. The average American woman is 5 feet 4 inches, weighs 171 pounds, and has a 39 inch waist. Both have a BMI near or at 30, the “high end of overweight.”
These results are from actual measurements because “ people tend to overreport their height and underreport their weight.”

Editorial note: Our local YMCA “free sign-up day” on January 1 was mobbed. On January 6 the men’s locker room was quite crowded. Overheard from the next cubicle: “Just wait 3 weeks. There’ll be plenty of room again.”
Update in the near future.


Vol. 200 October 1, 2018 “Memories Are Made Of This” (apologies to Dean Martin)

October 1, 2018

Hub thumbnail 2015

The man [or woman] with a clear conscience probably has a poor memory. ~Author Unknown

 

 

He said. She said. Which one has the correct memory? That’s a very good question . . . and there are a variety of answers.

Before the memory is made, of course, perception has to occur. As the police, lawyers, and judges know, perceptions of the same event can vary considerably between witnesses. Much has been written about the unreliability and inaccuracy of eyewitnesses to a crime. Extreme stress during a criminal act, presence of weapons, brief time durations, racial disparities, and lack of significant physical characteristics are some of the causes of much different perceptions. But some of it is due to how our brain works.

As an example of perceptual differences in viewing even non-stressful events click here and watch a video of an attentiveness test. It is a variation of the famous 1999 “Invisible Gorilla” perception test.

In the recent confirmation hearing of a Supreme Court judge dominating our current media only the two principals will be telling their story. Since he denies the event as described by her, and no eyewitness is available, we are back to the reliability of memories.

Memories are thought to be reconstructed like a puzzle rather than being played back like a videotape. Other people questioning the memory, challenging details, asking for repeated retelling (as in the “telephone” party game), or unintentionally giving non-verbal clues can actually alter how the puzzle is reconstructed. Police line-ups as a way of identifying criminals has long thought to be rife with such errors.

False memories have intentionally been created in experiments where researchers present to a number of adults four stories of their own early childhood. Three are true memories. The false story contains some true, irrelevant, but known to the reader, details provided by relatives. Each adult is asked to add any other details they can remember to the stories. In the end one-third of the adults believed that the false memory was true. In follow-up interviews 25% still felt that the false memory was true. This, of course, was a highly structured, experimental manipulation not easily mimicked in real life, but it shows that false memories can be created by outside influences.

Mitchell Garabedian, the lawyer that represented victims of Catholic clergy sexual abuse feels that victims often come forward because they feel obligated to for the sake of others. He also notes that both persons believe wholeheartedly that their memory is true, so that both will appear to be equally credible. (1)  This suggests that lie detector test results are irrelevant to characterizing memories as either true or false.

The debate about whether recovered memory in child abuse cases is false or true flared to a peak in the 1990’s. “Recent debates between differing schools of scientific thought, fueled by the media and by lay organizations with varied political agendas, have left the public confused and misinformed regarding the nature of traumatic memories” – ( this was writtenin in 1994!)  In an effort to reconcile the differences of scientific opinion of recovery memory in child abuse cases, a national symposium of all kinds of experts with all kinds of theories was convened in 2012. It did not produce a consensus, but it did produce a 255 page book that you are welcome to read.  (Full disclosure by my true memory: I did not read the whole thing)

“Emotional arousal appears to increase the likelihood of memory consolidation during the retention (storage) stage of memory (the process of creating a permanent record of information). A number of studies show that over time, memories for neutral stimuli decrease but memories for arousing stimuli remain the same or improve. Others have discovered that memory enhancements for emotional information tend to be greater after longer delays than after relatively short ones. This delayed effect is consistent with the proposal that emotionally arousing memories are more likely to be converted into a relatively permanent trace, whereas memories for non-arousing events are more vulnerable to disruption. Several studies have demonstrated that the presentation of emotionally arousing stimuli (compared to neutral stimuli) results in enhanced memory for central details (details central to the appearance or meaning of the emotional stimuli) and impaired memory for peripheral details.  A few studies have even found that emotionally arousing stimuli enhance memory only after a delay.”

We know from PTSD studies that traumatic memories can be either haunting or forgotten. Traumatic memories that are a single event, involve an adult victim, and receive validation and support are more apt to be retained as a “continuous memory”. (i.e.; a rape, assault) Trauma that is repetitive, involving a child victim, and is followed by denial and secrecy is more apt to produce “disassociation/amnesia” (i.e.; incest, abuse, torture).

After reading this you may still be uncertain about who has the correct memory, as well as being undecided about whether the Senate Judicial Committee hearing was a kangaroo court or not. “A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides. The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority who intentionally disregards the court’s legal or ethical obligations. A kangaroo court is often held to give the appearance of a fair and just trial, even though the verdict has in reality already been decided before the trial has begun. This could be because of the biases of the decision-maker, or because the structure and operation of the forum result in an inferior brand of adjudication.”

HAVE A NICE DAY! If you do, please make sure to remember it.

References:
1. Boston Globe, Sept 23, 2018, B2, Steve Annear

 


Vol. 196 July 15, 2018 Consequences of Separating Children From Their Parents

July 15, 2018

Hub thumbnail 2015

“Home Security and Family Values –
Is that an oxymoron?”

 

 

Hundreds of children in immigrant families wishing to enter the U.S. from Mexico have been separated from their parents by U.S. policy. The administration has not released the actual number, but the number of unaccompanied children held in U.S. detention centers jumped up by 20% from 8,000 to a little over 10,000 children after implementation of the “zero tolerance policy”.

In 2016 the Secretary of Home Security John Kelly began to talk about such a separation policy as a deterrent to families seeking entrance either illegally or even if legally seeking asylum on our Mexican border. In response to that proposed policy a coalition of pediatricians, psychiatrists, and social scientists published “Separating Families at the Border – Consequences for Children’s Health and Well-Being” in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) June 15, 2017 and founded the Child Advisory Network   to advocate against the “zero tolerance policy”.

Now, nobody really believes that separating children from their parents, unless the children are being maltreated or abused, is good for the children. Our own legal system has a very high threshold for removing children from their parents. And maybe, administration policy makers were probably counting on this universal belief (in all languages, of course) to make their action an effective deterrent to immigration.

The NEJM article summarized the many studies that document the deleterious effects of separating children from parents; all based on the over-activation of the stress response system of the child’s brain and specific hormone producing organs. Proper balance of that system is necessary for normal physical growth, proper and appropriate regulation of emotions, and maintenance of good health. In fact, such stress and anxiety is apparently cumulative and can ever result in an earlier-than-expected death!

The high costs of separating and detaining the children, especially the costs of finding and supporting foster care for U.S.-citizen children of parents who have already been deported, was cited in this review. In many states the foster care system for American children is overwhelmed and an occasional source of horror stories of maltreatment by foster parents.

Perhaps you’re thinking that these are moot points after the announcement of the reversal of the “zero tolerance policy”, but NPR reported on July 12 that in a response to a court order deadline only 57 of the 100 under the age of 5 years had been reunited with their parents (49 other were not). NPR also reported that the total number of separated children is 3000. The next court order deadline in about two weeks calls for 2000 families to be reunited. Both court orders stem from suits brought by the ACLU against the U.S. Department of Home Security.

Reason cited by the Home Security Department for some “failures to reunite” include criminal charges against a parent(s), parent not available since already deported, and a lack of match between the child’s DNA and the parents’ DNA. Wow, talk about opening up another Pandora’s box for the U.S. border staff, Home Security Department, and our judicial system, already creaking under “zero tolerance policy” consequences. Resolution of those instances of DNA “mismatch” will become another nightmare for already stressed-out families and children who were seeking sanctuary from the stress of living in their own country in the first place; a uniquely modern negative consequence of political policy once again trumping science.


Vol. 191 April 15, 2018 The Gun Violence Epidemic

April 15, 2018

Hub thumbnail 2015

“EPIDEMIC” continues to be a common catch word for headlines. Apparently we have lots of epidemics; the flu, HIV, opioid, Zika, gun violence, etc. We spend a lot of tax money investigating and containing epidemics. . . . Oh, . . . all except for that last one: gun violence.

Why is that? In 1996 the Communicable Disease Center (CDC), our federal bulwark against harmful epidemics, was expressly instructed by Congress NOT to study anything related to guns, i.e. don’t give research grants, don’t establish data bases to track events, and don’t sic the EIS on the gun violence epidemic. In one of his rare Executive Orders President Obama instructed the CDC in 2012 to resume their gun violence research and asked Congress to allocate $10 million dollars for that purpose. Congress never did.

EIS stands for the Epidemic Intelligence Service, a division of the CDC. It has a stellar reputation for laser-focussed field analysis of incipient epidemics to guide early actions to contain them, to reduce any harm to people. Just last week the CDC launched an investigation into a cluster of 53 new HIV cases in Lowell, MA. (In 2007 Boston had a “cluster” of 92 gun-related homicides.) Ironically, the CDC remains hamstrung in any effort to collect and analyze data on the gun violence epidemic at a time when it is asking the general public to participate in identifying any other kind of potential epidemic via internet “crowd sourcing” .

The CDC does keep mortality statistics and issues an annual report of causes of death for each state. The difference of gun-related death rates  between states is huge, and  no one really knows why. Massachusetts had the lowest number of gun-related deaths in 2016: 3.4 deaths per 100,000 population, or 242 gun-related deaths in Massachusetts that year. Texas, Florida, and California had 3,353, 2,704, and 3,184 gun-related deaths respectively that same year. Those three states also had the most suicide deaths and the most accident-related deaths of all the states. That’s interesting, but those rates may not be related in any way to each other . Food for thought? Too bad the CDC can’t collect more data on gun deaths.

A gun is the harmful agent in this epidemic just as a virus is the harmful agent in the AIDS epidemic. True, human behavior is the cause for both of the epidemics spreading, but while we are developing a HIV vaccine we have implemented effective measures to contain the epidemic with “safe sex” campaigns, identification of risk factors, pre-natal treatment of HIV-positive pregnant women, early treatment of exposed newborns, and development of successful medical treatments. All of this was accomplished with the support of the CDC and NIH. Why not provide government support for similar interim steps to reduce the gun violence epidemic? Medical societies and many citizen groups have picked up the “safe gun” banner. Why hasn’t the federal government done so?

One answer is, of course, money. The NRA contributed money to 205 House members (189 Republicans and 16 Democrats) and 42 Senators (35 Republicans and 4 Democrats) in 2012. The Democratic Senator that got the most NRA money got less than the 41 Republicans above him or her on the list. 95 of the top 100 NRA money receivers in the House were Republicans. Most analysts actually consider this as “chump change” ($5,000-10,000 per Congressman) compared to the $18.6 million that the NRA spent on NRA-favorable candidates in the 2012 elections. Analysts speculate that the money buys “allegiance” rather than “influence” (whatever that means). We all know it buys lots of “thoughts and prayers.”

Another answer may be that there are more guns than people in the U.S. It is as if everyone had AIDS, or as if HIV- infected people considered it their constitutional right to do anything with it they wished to. We as a nation did a lot to reduce the harm of HIV without abolishing the HIV virus. Why can’t we take the same approach to gun violence? We could do quite a bit without abolishing guns if we could do research about how guns are spread, how they are used for harm (In fact, 50% of gun deaths are suicides), how we could reduce harmful use (electronic signatures, smart guns, trigger locks, no multiple cartridge magazine, etc.).

The significant reduction of auto accidents deaths was accomplished by multiple means (seat belts, car seat regulations, air bags, electronic sensors, changes in car manufacture, speed limit regulations, etc,) and not by abolishing cars or drivers’ licenses. With better data perhaps we could take effective action to reduce the gun death epidemic.

Claritin:gun cartoon


Vol. 188 March 1, 2018 St. Valentine’s Day Massacre #2

March 1, 2018

Hub thumbnail 2015St. Valentine’s Day Massacre,
Chicago, Ill. 1929:
7 gangsters killed.

St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, Parkland, Fla. 2018:
17 kids & staff killed.

Firearm safety is a public health issue”
-Massachusetts Medical Society, February 2018

The 1929 massacre was partly responsible for the 1934 Illinois and 1935 Federal laws regulating machine guns. The laws actually did NOT ban the guns, They taxed them! The tax was $200 (about equivalent of $8000 today) and the annual license to own one was also very expensive. It effectively doubled the price of a tommy gun, the gangsters favorite. In 1986 the sale of fully automatic guns was prohibited by federal law “except those already existing in owners hands” that were grandfathered in. (1)

This year’s St. Valentine’s Day Massacre was the 30th mass shooting (more than 4 victims) in 2018 . . . so far. It was also the 17th time a gun had been fired on school grounds in 2018 . . . so far. AND on February 14, 2018 there were 28 additional gun deaths elsewhere in our country. (2)

Just to numb your brain with some more statistics (I know, I know . . .your eyes are already glazed over having read these numbers or others like them so many times), but during the period of 2009-2013 there were 722 per year firearm-related injuries Massachusetts, a state well-know nothing for its extensive of gun regulations . When you subtract the average of 121 suicides per year and 187 unintentional injuries per year some might say, “Only half are homicides. What’s the big push against gun violence.?”

And that’s when you can reframe the conversation into “gun safety”, not gun banning, not gun restrictions. That is the tack the medical profession is taking, and it might prove to be less confrontational to vested interests and more successful than other efforts.  Gun safety measures target preventing ALL of the 722 annual gun injuries. (pun intended).

The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly recommended a few years ago that pediatricians ask about gun safety as part of their usual assessments of household risks during a well visit; i.e. “If you have guns in the house,are they stored safe from the access of children?” One response was Florida legislature passing a law making it a crime for a physician to ask a patient or parent about gun ownership. The law was rescinded by the US Court of Appeals after the AMA brought suit.

In the same Feb. 24 2018 newspaper that Trump called for the arming of school teachers the Associated Press reported that 9,070 pupils (1 in 105 students) had to be physically restrained in Massachusetts school during the 2016-2017 school year.   244 of those incidents resulted in an injury to student or staff. Nationally the U.S. Education Department estimates that figure of physical restraint is at least 22,000 incidences per year. So, let’s just throw a gun into THAT equation! (CCT Feb. 24, 2018)

A relevant model of effective action is the decrease in auto fatalities by passing multiple laws and regulations, technological advances, and public education (Seat belts, airbags, speed limits, car cameras, etc.)

Smart gun technology  now exists to make guns safe, but they would still allow the owner to “repel any invaders of his house . . . or country”,  and might cut the number of gun injuries by 50%. Reducing mass homicides would require more regulation of automatic guns.

Organized Medicine’s new recommendations are to focus on gun safety.
1. Physicians should talk to their patients and families about gun accessibility, storage, and safety in the home.

2. The CDC should be allowed to conduct gun violence research (collect and analyze data)  like in any other public health epidemic.

3. Increase federally funded research on this “urgent health care crisis” of gun violence.

Many physicians belong to the NRA, “and that’s OK”. A physician friend of mine from Massachusetts was interviewing for a medical license by a physician panel in New Mexico. The chairwoman, noting his home state, asked him if he knew about gun control in New Mexico. He pleaded ignorance, and she responded, “A steady hand. Would you like an application to the NRA?”

 

 


%d bloggers like this: