Health News and Scoops

A buzz has begun in response to research released this week about the benefits of organic food. The study showed that organic food does not actually contain more nutrients than non-organically grown food. Measurements for nutritional benefit were based on the amount of compounds such as phosphorous, zinc, copper, and Vitamin C. Acidity content and nitrogenous compound content were other factors measured in the comparison. It was found that between organically grown foods and those that aren’t organically grown, the only difference is nitrogen content and relative acidity. These results were not taken lightly by the food administration, which claimed the study has no foundation; they say that the researchers used data from as far back as 1958, used outdated techniques, and failed to explain why nearly all other studies comparing organically grown versus non-organically grown food showed significantly more nutrients in organic food.

This is an interesting study, and one that to me sounds like the researchers were set out to prove a point rather than to execute a well-thought out research project. As others have claimed in response to this study, the compounds that were measured were not compounds that the food administration has ever argued are more present in organic foods. Organic foods have more antioxidants, and other beneficial compounds, than non-organically grown foods, and having more antioxidants is significantly more important than having more or less zinc or copper.

In my opinion, the most important caveat to this study is that the whole idea of eating organic foods is to avoid the chemicals. Sure, it’s sometimes advertised that organic foods have more nutrients, but in most cases the advertising is telling you that organic food is more nutritious. Key difference. More nutritious meaning there are no pesticides, antibiotics, and various other chemicals that have been swimming around in our food for so long. They missed the point. Multiple studies to date have showed significant evidence that organic foods have far less chemicals than non-organic food; and thus, don’t be deterred by this “data.” Eat those organic foods, but at the same time, don’t pay $6 for an orange either.

A study released today in the public health journal Health Affairs detailed the financial impact of obesity on the United States health care system from 1998 to 2006.  The buzz of health care reform has led many to try and figure out where the money could come from.  Taxing? Hopefully not. Getting rid of insurance fraud and abuse? Potentially, but that would only be about a 3% savings.  Decreasing physician salaries and hospital budgets? Counterproductive.  Ah ha!  Reseachers discovered that obesity since 1998 has led to nearly $40 billion dollars in health care spending.  This includes perscription drug costs, which topped out at $7 billion.  The group estimates that with the incidence of obesity rising, costs will most likely have reached $147 billion dollars by 2008 (these studies have to be done in retrospect, as the data analysis is not possible until the year is over, and trends are typically seen over more than one year).
The most disconcerting part of their paper is when they show that in 1998, half of the $78.5 billion of medical spending due to obesity was paid for by Medicaid and Medicare.  If that is the case, then the researchers are correct in pointing out that a key to health care reform is going to have to focus on obesity.  It is calculated in this study that in the years between 1998 and 2006, the rate of obesity in the United States increased by 37%.  That’s 25.1% of our population.
The analysis found in this paper is not an attempt to attack obese people, but to illuminate how the medical problems caused by obesity are draining our health care system of its money.  Obesity is associated with some of the most expensive medical conditions possible: type 2 diabetes, stroke, heart disease, and cancer.  Obesity is not just a problem of weight gain; it is a problem of causing the body to divert to its worst state of being, often leading to more than one if not all of those conditions mentioned.  We must avoid playing the blame game, and treat this issue as one of general concern both for the health care of our population, and the economic welfare of our population.  This study tells me that obesity has to be a center of change in our country.  Employers should provide incentives for losing weight and staying healthy, and obesity must be treated early in childhood.  I don’t know about you, but next time you think that obesity is a topic that can’t be addressed because of stigma, remember this: $147 billion dollars in 2008.

A lawsuit was filed against Denny’s this week by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a nonprofit organization that serves as “a strong advocate for nutrition and health, food safety, alcohol policy, and sound science.” The organization has sued Denny’s for extreme sodium levels found in the food.  Although Denny’s management argues that anyone can simply go to their website to find the nutrition facts about their food, the CSPI wants more.  The lawsuit is calling for Denny’s to display the sodium content right on the menu, along with warnings to the customers about the effects of high sodium.  Unfortunately for the circulatory systems of many frequent Denny’s customers, Denny’s has refused these changes and asks that they be allowed to lower the sodium amounts in the food themselves.  Or in other words, Denny’s wants to take as long as possible to do anything about the situation.

The Center for Disease Control warns adults not to exceed 1,500mg of sodium each day.  To give you an idea of where the CSPI is coming from, on particular Denny’s dish called “Moons Over My Hammy” contains 2,580mg of sodium (item seen in picture on the right).  This item is not one of those extreme “lumberjack” breakfasts that you might have seen before; it is just a ham, egg, and cheese sandwich.  Customers who were interviewed about the Denny’s food, and who were told about the amount of sodium they were eating, unanimously agreed that they would not have ordered those dishes if they had known about the amount of sodium.

Denny’s is not backing down, however, and in response to the CSPI action the chain has relased the following statement:

“Denny’s believes the lawsuit filed by CSPI is frivolous and without merit, and the company will fight it aggressively in court. With hundreds of items on the menu, Denny’s offers a wide variety of choices for consumers with different lifestyles, understanding that many have special dietary needs. In June 2009, the company launched Better for You items, allowing guests to replace favorites with lower-sodium and fat alternatives. Additionally, earlier this month, Denny’s launched a Better for You kids menu. All nutrition information is available online at www.dennys.com.”

This story could go either way.  For one, we should all be educated enough to know that eating at any restaurant chain is not good for your health.  Denny’s does not make any promises to consumers that their dishes are healthy; they just promise that they taste great.  On the other hand, I think that people are going to eat there regardless of sodium content, so they should display the sodium content on their menus if anything to avoid liability.  After someone eats the food, the damage is done.  Consulting the website will not help at that point.  No one is telling Denny’s to get rid of any food options, and I believe that many people will still eat them no matter what, but at least they are keeping their customers informed.  The moral of the story? Eat breakfast at home. Save your money, save your arteries.

Patients, please listen.  I have some things to say to you, per an article today in the Washington Post.  The story details the ways in which patients can go online and rate their physicians, at websites such as RateMDs.com and Angie’s List.  Patients typically write about such horrible woes as waiting for forty five minutes, having to wait an hour in the waiting room, and other seemingly unbearable complaints.  Physicians are now doing the best that they can to enact some form of legislation that would disallow the public commentary about specific doctors and their practices.  Why? Because although it may make a patient feel better for a few minutes to completely rant on a doctor for their bad experience and warn the rest of the world never to attend the practice, it can literally crush the entire career of a physician or surgeon.  We all have to admit that we have been extremely peeved multiple times due to a doctor’s visit.  Our appointment was at 1, we waited until 3, or we sat unclothed in one of those paper robes sitting on the table in the nearly refrigerated room for forty five minutes.  In the end, though, did you really consider that a reason to end your doctor’s career or do enough damage where he can’t put enough food on his own table?
This may sound exaggerated, but I warn you it is not.  People ask for far more than physicians as individuals can do for them.  To become a doctor, you must have a genuine interest in relieving the suffering of another human being, and you must maintain that desire through many trials and tribulations, lasting years.  Physicians and surgeons would most likely do every small thing you ask for, if they could.  Insurance companies only reimburse physicians and surgeons for the dollar amount that they see fit, which is typically much less than it actually costs.  So before you go posting how terrible your experience was, keep in mind that your physician paid for about half of your visit out of his own pocket.  Also, if you want physicians to really listen to you and talk to you, answering all your questions, then be respectful if he runs late because that means he was doing just that with his previous patients.  He will do the same with you, and the next patient, until he is at work for an extra eight hours than planned.  Please do this for me: think of all of your issues with the doctor from his perspective, and it may actually be better than you thought.  Extra waiting time means that he will spend extra time with patients, regardless of his schedule (good thing!).  Posting good reviews is fine, because it helps other people receive good medical care, and it helps your physician as well, instead of ruining one and warning another.  Use your best judgment.

The baby boomers are arriving, and they are arriving into the ‘senior’ category.  All around the world, the number of seniors is expanding off the charts.  The US Census Bureau released data this week showing that the number of seniors will be greater than the number of children under the age of 5, which is a very rare situation.  A study based on the census report titled “An Aging World: 2008″ published the following findings:

• The world’s oldest country is…Japan! 21% of Japan’s population is over the age of 65, compared to 13% in the U.S.  The study points out, however, that because of the good ‘ol baby boomers, the U.S. will probably win this category relatively soon.
• In the year 2006, zero biological children were born to women between the ages of 40 and 44.
• Europe is the oldest continent, because it holds 23 of the 35 countries found to be the “oldest.”
• A set of people over the age of 80 are called the “oldest old,” and the number of the oldest old is growing faster than any other population category in most countries.
• Developed countries have more seniors.

Some of these findings come as no surprise, such as the first one.  We have all been waiting with our breaths held while the baby boomers age and our society shifts to accommodate.  I will assume that no one is surprised that China would win a category when it comes to any number of people (although if we have learned anything, it is that the whole age thing is relatively sketchy when it comes to China).
The second finding is just odd.  I’m not exactly sure what would make the researchers pull this statistic, but they claim that this may be a problem in the future when that set of women do not have children to take care of them.  I’m sure that the children they had prior to forty will be sufficient; or the children born to them in 2005 or 2007.  Don’t worry too much about these ladies, they’ll be fine.
The most important part of this study is not the specifics, however, it is the effect that this data will have on each nation’s society.  I can’t speak for other countries, but as far as the United States goes, the aging population will most likely have the most profound effect on the health care system (and probably something to do with retirement benefits, banks, etc, but I don’t understand any of that).  The aging population, and I truly do not mean any disrespect, will be using greater than 70% of the nation’s health care funds.  This is because the elderly are already using 70% as of 2008, so with the number of seniors increasing exponentially, we can expect this to increase.
In addition to funds being funneled into this newly aging population, there remains the question of who will be administering health care.  Will there be enough physicians to take on the new load?  As we all know, the elderly are generally the sickest, and in almost all cases have compounding medical problems rather than one.  Nearly all seniors suffer from one to three chronic conditions, and cancer is prevalent.  The health care reform that may take place not far from now should certainly take into account that the physicians will be the saviors of this era.  Money will not solve this impending situation.