From ob/gyn to surgery, MGH study found salaries for male doctors higher than #female #doctors at public US #medical #schools

From JAMA Internal Medicine:

  • Question Do differences in salary exist between male and female academic physicians in US public medical schools?

  • nci-vol-1926-150

    Just like the old days? 

    Relying on Freedom of Information laws that mandate release of salary information of public university employees in several states, this study analyzed sex differences in academic physician salary among 10 241 physicians in 24 public medical schools. Accounting for physician age, experience, faculty rank, specialty, scientific authorship, National Institutes of Health funding, clinical trial participation, and Medicare reimbursements, female physicians earned less than males.

  • Meaning Significant sex differences in salary exist in public medical schools after accounting for clinical and research productivity.

Well, not  everywhere. More from The New York Times

The researchers also found stark variations in the salary gap at different medical schools, suggesting some address pay inequities more aggressively than others.

“The biggest surprise is there are some schools where this doesn’t seem to be an issue,” said Dr. Anupam B. Jena, the study’s lead author and an associate professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School.

#Massachusetts cares if #doctors have conflicts of interest, but do #patients care?

The Globe offers a peek at the drug company marketing/meals at smaller hospitals

Years after many big academic medical centers cracked down on industry perks, drug companies still regularly buy meals bll-leg-pix-webfor doctors affiliated with smaller hospitals, a new analysis shows, with some physicians receiving dozens of lunches and dinners in a single year.

At a number of community hospitals, well over half of the affiliated doctorswere beneficiaries of industry payments, suggesting there may be fewer restrictions on meals there than at large teaching hospitals.

Worth noting a UMass led-research mentioned in an NYTimes  column on medical conflicts of interest. The study by orthopedic surgeons reported that about 80 percent of patients “felt it was both ethical and either did not influence, or actually benefited their health care, if their surgeons were consultants for surgical device companies.”

Here’s a look at more data from the study:

Six hundred ten of 642 surveys had complete data. The sample population comprised more females and was older and more educated than the American population. About 80% of respondents felt it was ethical and either beneficial or of no influence to the quality of health care if surgeons were consultants for surgical device companies. Most felt disclosure of an industry relationship was important and paying surgeons royalties for devices, other than those they directly implant, would not affect quality of care. Respondents support multidisciplinary surgeon-industry COI regulation and trust doctors and their professional societies to head this effort.

Almost 40% of respondents felt the quality of care would be adversely affected if a surgeon received royalty payments for a medical device that would be implanted by that surgeon….  When questioned about who should be involved in regulation of COI, a majority of respondents (64.3%) felt that a combination of doctors, hospitals/universities, government, and company representatives should be involved; 34.9% of respondents felt that medical professional societies run by doctors should have the most control over COI regulation, almost two times more than the next most frequent answer; and 44.9% and 26.3% (70.2% combined) of respondents felt medical company representatives and government officials should not be involved in the regulation of COI….

Our survey found that 91% of respondents felt it was important for surgeons to disclose consulting agreements regarding devices in their
surgery (Table 3). Furthermore, 60% of respondents thought it was appropriate for surgeons to disclose consulting arrangements with all patients regardless of the planned usage of such devices in their own surgery

Also noted in the study

Leaders of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons have recently made a consensus statement that the enhancement of patient care has and will continue to require orthopedic surgeons to collaborate productively with industry in the development of new technology and techniques

Also worth noting that a 2013  UConn study found the following

Overall, patients had a poor understanding of FCOI (financial conflict of interest.) Both level of education and previous discussions of FCOI predicted better understanding. This study emphasizes communication of FCOI with patients needs to be enhanced.

Finally, a Health Affairs blog post on patients and COI noted:

Physician ownership of orthopedic or spine hospitals has been correlated with higher rates of spine surgery. In these situations, doctors must keep these centers busy with procedures in order to generate profits and prevent losses; overhead costs are high, including financing, staffing, lease arrangements, and insurance. However, a busy center becomes a lucrative profit center for owning physicians.

 

 

NEJM: One man’s tragic try at “stem cell” therapy. Will we soon be seeing ads for overseas CRISPR clinics?

Capture

Ad for one program.

A local man has been crippled by a growth on his spine that developed after he traveled overseas to a so- called stem cell clinic. The growth was not from his own cells. So, not only is the treatment untested, doctors don’t know what to do about the bad outcomes.

Here’s the technical explanation from The New England Journal of Medicine:

Commercial stem-cell clinics have been highly publicized in the lay press and operate worldwide with limited or no regulation. We report the case of a 66-year-old man who underwent intrathecal infusions for the treatment of residual deficits from an ischemic stroke at commercial stem-cell clinics in China, Argentina, and Mexico. He was not taking any immunosuppressive medications. In reports provided to him by the clinics, the infusions were described as consisting of mesenchymal, embryonic, and fetal neural stem cells. Progressive lower back pain, paraplegia, and urinary incontinence subsequently developed. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a lesion of the thoracic spinal cord and thecal sac; a biopsy specimen was obtained

This from the Globe story

Brigham pathologists tested the tissue taken from Gass’s spine and determined it was a tumor-like growth but did not have mutations associated with cancer and therefore could not be treated with chemotherapy. Most of the cells were not Gass’s but from another source.

“It’s hard to know what to call it,’’ Chi said.

Doctors have treated Gass with radiation to shrink the mass, which has helped somewhat, but they are also searching for other solutions.

Doctors have been increasingly warning that stem cell clinics are proliferating around the world with little oversight. They are promoting their methods to patients suffering from strokes, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease), Alzheimer’s, and other conditions for which there are few good options. Professional athletes have helped popularize the clinics by seeking out stem cell therapy for strokes and shoulder and knee injuries.

 The NYTimes also has a story. 

My father’s brain is missing  

Not my father's brain

Not my father’s brain

Certain that years of meds, scotch, steak and surliness had gotten to my Mad Men-era dad, we agreed to donate his brain to Harvard. He came up clean – not a trace of damage or plaque.

The findings are actually missing, not the samples.

The Boston Globe reports:

McLean Hospital said Tuesday that information about 12,600 people who donated their brains to research has gone missing. McLean, a psychiatric hospital in Belmont owned by Partners HealthCare, said most of the people affected are deceased. The others are people who have committed to donating their brain tissue to medical research upon their death. Some family members of brain donors also were affected.

The hospital said four backup data tapes at its Harvard Brain Tissue Resource Center went missing on May 29. These tapes contained private information, including names, dates of birth, diagnoses, and some Social Security numbers. The tapes, which are unencrypted, were never found.

Should the FDA approve Vertex’s new cystic fibrosis drug?

The scene at the FDA hearing was familiar. All the  advisory committees have seen it play out again and again. Yesterday, it was the Pulmonary-Allergy Drug committee: The pharma doc with the convincing statement. The weeping patients. The drug likely to cost a couple thousand a month offering a slim  benefit over an existing drugs. But it works, and it’s safe.

From the Globe:VertexLogoSOP

“I think this is a much-needed advance for patients with cystic fibrosis,” said committee member Dr. Michelle S. Harkins, associate professor of medicine at the University of New Mexico Albuquerque, one of the majority voting to recommend approval.

The lone dissenter in the 12-1 vote recommending approval of the drug, Dr. Yanling Yu, the president and cofounder of Washington Advocates for Patient Safety in Seattle, said she was not convinced the data generated by the Vertex testing supported the approval of Orkambi.

“I really understand the patients critically need a new drug, but sometimes a new drug does not provide [the needed effectiveness],” she said.

From The New York Times story:

An issue for the advisory committee was that Orkambi had what the F.D.A. said was only modest effectiveness, improving lung function by only about 3 percentage points relative to placebo.

Some family members or advocates, some of them crying, pleaded with the committee to endorse the drug.

Some patients who took the drug in clinical trials said it had made a huge difference in their lives, reducing their coughing, allowing them to exercise better, helping them gain weight or reducing how often they ended up in the hospital…

Michael Yee of RBC Capital Markets, for instance, expects the price will be $225,000 to $250,000 a year.

The vote is advisory. The FDA staff will make the final call.

More here:

The financial stakes for Vertex.

FDA briefing for meeting.

Vertex briefing for the meeting

2 Boston studies: Breast cancer costs and medical records benefits

After pushing mammograms for years, breast cancer advocates have had a hard time pulling back. Still the evidence keep piling up that message about surviving breast cancer is more complicated than early detection.  What this study by Boston researchers doesn’t measure: the scores of women who say — If there’s a chance it’s cancer, I want to know.  From the AP, in the back pages of the Globe A section; buried in the web site.

Sharpening a medical debate about the costs and benefits of cancer screening, a new report estimates that the United States spends $4 billion a year on unnecessary medical costs due to mammograms that generate false alarms, and on treatment of certain breast tumors unlikely to cause problems.

On a lighter note, another study centers on the benefits of giving patients their own records. From the NYTimes.

ONC_PSA_BannerAd_300x250_Red_Button_1Some of the most advanced medical centers are starting to make medical information more available to patients. Brigham and Women’s, where Mr.  (Steven) Keating had his surgery, is part of the Partners HealthCare Group, which now has 500,000 patients with web access to some of the information in their health records including conditions, medications and test results.

Other medical groups are beginning to allow patients online access to the notes taken by physicians about them, in an initiative called OpenNotes. In a yearlong evaluation project at medical groups in three states, more than two-thirds of the patients reported having a better understanding of their health and medical conditions, adopting healthier habits and taking their medications as prescribed more regularly.

Here’s the Globe’s take.

Some patient advocates have been pushing for this for years, and having a little fun with it.

What is wrong with medical research? Boston health writers raise important questions

ss

Do we need evidence-based evidence? How effective is our medical research system? What are we getting for the $30 billion that goes into university and hospital labs? Here are a couple of stories from local writers with some discouraging answers to those questions.

Carolyn Johnson’s piece on poor quality of medical research was tucked under the Globe’s Sunday editorial urging Elizabeth Warren to run for president. If only it could get as much attention:

Evidence of a quiet crisis in science is mounting. A growing chorus of researchers worry that far too many findings in the top research journals can’t be replicated. “There’s a whole groundswell of awareness that a lot of biomedical research is not as strongly predictive as you think it would be,” said Dr. Kevin Staley, an epilepsy researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital. “People eventually become aware because there’s a wake of silence after a false positive result,” he added. The same is true in every field of science, from neuroscience to stem cells.

Ideally, science builds on and corrects itself. In practice, the incentives facing scientists can hamper the process. It’s more exciting and advantageous to publish a new therapeutic approach for a disease than to revisit a past discovery. Yet unless researchers point out the limitations of one another’s work, the scientific literature can end up cluttered with results that are partially or, in some cases, not at all true.

Recently, researchers and the US government alike have sought to assess how much research is irreproducible — and why — and are looking for systematic ways to retest experiments that make headlines but yield no further progress.

Her story follows a piece by another local writer on how stem cell research has not yet delivered on its promises. Karen Weintraub’s piece was in the New York Times in September.     

Stem cells broke into the public consciousness in the early 1990s, alluring for their potential to help the body beat back diseases of degeneration like Alzheimer’s, and to grow new parts to treat conditions like spinal cord injuries.

Progress has been slow. The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, an early supporter of stem cell research, pulled much of its financial backing two years ago, saying that it preferred to invest in research that was closer to providing immediate help for Parkinson’s disease patients.

But researchers have been slowly learning how to best use stem cells, what types to use and how to deliver them to the body — findings that are not singularly transformational, but progressive and pragmatic.

Finally, don’t miss this week’s Health Wonk Review, a digest of health policy blog posts.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,599 other followers

%d bloggers like this: