No more dieting and other things we do differently after reporting on healthcare

I wouldn't be trusting Vox for reporting on anything important like Healthcare. Anyone who tries to sell you the idea that a "narrow network" is better has no idea what they are talking about.

Nobody buys their insurance for yearly cholesterol checks.

They think they do, and a lot of the ecosystem (providers, employers, politicians) reinforce that idea, but it's not something that actually exists.

That's because regular, routine costs (like new tires for your car) are NOT underwriteable. You can't insure for them, nor can you buy insurance for them.

If your insurance company is providing new tires every year or giving you wellness checkups every year, you're paying cash money for that somewhere. Even though they say it's an insurance benefit. It's not. Because math.

It's very difficult to have any kind of discussion about this when even this most basic of accounting identities is misunderstood.

"Narrow" doesn't mean "inadequate". It just means that instead of having access to 75% of doctors in your area, you only have access to 25%. But you still have multiple specialists in each area, and you still have hospitals you can go to. Most people don't even scroll past the first page of results in a doctor search anyway, so would having access to 200 dermatologists provide much difference versus having access to 50?

Very little of what we do in modern medicine can't be done by local hospitals. Most diseases have well-understood treatment protocols that don't vary much between hospitals or doctors. Cutting edge treatments are only necessary in a very small percentage of cases, which often increases costs because if a hospital has a new piece of expensive equipment, they're going to be more inclined to use it, even in cases where it's not necessary and the old technology is better understood.

There is a false belief in this country that more health care or more advanced technology actually creates better outcomes for patients. In many cases, all the new technology creates are profits for the hospitals and medical device companies.

Maybe intent was good, but some advices are harmful. For example, 1 and 7. While in general it's not lie, but they can lead to thoughts "eat everything you want, just try to eat more "healthy" things, and "don't go to screenings at all".

this. I broke my ankle a few years back and needed surgery, the staff in the recovery room were surprised that I discharged myself the same day rather than stay overnight, and didn't look especially happy when the reason I gave was that I didn't want to get sick.

moderation

I don't think you'll really find a definitive answer on saturated fat. Reason being we know that foods very high in saturated fat are not healthy, but there are no natural foods with zero saturated fat (that I know of) so it's hard to imagine saturated fat is "unsafe at any level" like lead, which makes it much more difficult to handle.

Consider this: People are different. The answer may be specific to you.

One area that's getting some awareness in the literature is that some people are normally sensitive to insulin and some people are resistant to it. Now, I'm not talking about the people with conditions like hypoglycemia and diabetes. I'm talking about regular people have different insulin responses.

This means that the carb/protien/fat makeup of a given diet is going to have different results in the two groups of people.

IF you don't control for that in a study, you'll get confusing and inconsistent results.

Further, these studies are just at the level of "fat" not individual oils and the micronutrients.

It's possible coconut oil is very health for some people as part of a specific diet and terrible for other people as part of a different diet (or even the same diet.)

Consider this: many diseases correlate strongly with obesity.

Obesity correlates strongly (well, causates, but causation -> correlation even though correlation -!> causation) with calorie consumption.

Calorie consumption correlates strongly with food consumption of all types.

People who eat more (saturated fat | coconut oil | salt | carbohydrates | fat | protein | the brain tissue of Emperor Penguins that have naturally died) tend to eat more food, which leads to obesity, which leads to health problems.

Basically more studies need to control for obesity. It's appalling how few do.

Journos are - near universally - holding themselves to lower standards than we expect them to be.

At the more respectable papers and wire services, standards will be OK but with quality lower than someone well informed on the topic would be pleased with. (Time crunch, lack of experience in the topic domain, lack of access, etc)

The largest problem is that they don't correct faulty reader expectations. They're going to write authoritative articles and demand to be taken seriously even if they write for Gawker.

Blogs exist somewhere on a scale between "owned by WaPo" to "basically a tabloid that isn't printed on a broadsheet to tip you off." They generally tell themselves their standards are good enough to call themselves "Journalists" but but have glaring "It's OK if I X" holes where it actually matters for what they cover.

>>without being concerned about spreading harmful, false information.

So exactly which part do you think is "harmful" and "false"?

Read it carefully - the chart implies roughly equal weighting between 'cause' and 'prevent' for some foods, but the axes are scaled very differently either side of the dividing line.

The don't get healthcare isn't necessarily ridiculous.

It's always a good idea to ask your doctor "what happens if we don't do anything? If I don't take these meds / have this surgery"

After seeing the quality of a few articles on that site, you may be overqualified to be a reporter for Vox.

If you look for problems, you will find them. Medicine is a science, but it's not an exact science, so something that's a problem in one person may be normal for another person. There are also so many external factors that go into a diagnosis and recommendation that a simple scan can never give the whole story. Most often doctors do tests just because they can bill for them and it increases the amount of money they make per patient -- this is one of the biggest reasons the US spends so much on health care.

And there's no effort going in to doing these studies you describe. Sure, someone somewhere may be doing something, but there's not a critical mass of dollars behind it like there are in pharmaceuticals, medical devices, etc. Health care privacy laws also make it nearly impossible to do these kinds of studies. I used to work for a startup that tried this -- they eventually found a market in Canada and Europe but they ended up going under along with all of their competitors because nobody is willing to pay for these types of studies unless you can prove either a cost reduction or improved quality of care at the same cost.

Look at the thyroid cancer graph: over twenty years the detection rate has increased by about 15x without any concomitant decrease in mortality.

With any diagnostic measure, you must ask whether the information it produces is actionable. If anything, they way you've phrased it is backward: first we find a new treatment (via research) and once it gives us an action to perform, then we can justify the screening. If catching a cancer earlier helps, screen. If not (prostate or breast screenings too early in life), don't.

Obviously if you have family history, risk factors, or something with high specificity like a BRCA mutation, you treat. But many of those things are discovered with a simple history/physical (H&P), which is the important screening your primary physician should be performing.

But notice that pretty much every screen has a false positive rate. So some percentage of the healthy people screened are going to be incorrectly told that their sick, and therefore get treated for an illness they don't have. The more people you screen, the more that's going to happen. And when the treatments are things like surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, etc, that's a pretty big deal.

Also, not everything that shows up in a screen was going to be a problem. It could be that it might have never been a problem. Quoting Wikipedia about mammography:

>> While this ability to detect such very early breast malignancies is at the heart of claims that screening mammography can improve survival from breast cancer, it is also controversial. This is because a very large proportion of such cases will not progress to kill the patient, and thus mammography cannot be genuinely claimed to have saved any lives in such cases; in fact, it would lead to increased sickness and unnecessary surgery for such patients.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_cancer_screening#Critic...