Alcohol overuse causes 140,000 American deaths annually. Why is it so undertreated?

Melinda Fawcett

Psychiatry.ufl.edu

Originally posted 28 Nov 23

Here is an excerpt:

How to treat the disorder

In the last decade, the medical community has come to recognize AUD as a disease that (like all others) needs medical treatment through a range of interventions. With new treatments coming out every day, hope exists that in the years to come more and more people will receive the care they need.

For those with the most severe forms of AUD, treatment aims at stopping the individual’s alcohol consumption entirely (while recognizing that having a drink or breaking abstinence isn’t a failure, but an almost inevitable part of the recovery cycle).

“What’s happened in the last probably 50 years or so is there’s a more medicalized understanding,” said Humphreys. “So there’s been the rise of neuroscience that looks at things like how the brain changes with repeated administration of alcohol, how that limits things like self-control, how that increases phenomena like craving.”

And as with any other mental health diagnosis, successful treatment for AUD often boils down to a combination of therapy and medication, the experts Vox spoke to said. Just as depression is treated with medication to balance chemicals in the brain, and therapy to help patients unlearn harmful behaviors, AUD often needs the same combination of treatments, said Disselkoen.

The Federal Drug Administration approved the first medication to treat AUD, disulfiram, in 1951. Disulfiram, whose brand name is Antabuse, is a daily pill that causes someone to fall ill — face redness, headache, nausea, sweating, and more — if they drink even a small amount of alcohol. Disulfiram is safe and effective, but the same characteristic that makes it successful (the way it induces illness) also makes it unpopular among patients, said Nixon.

The info is here.

Key points:

• Alarming death toll: 140,000 Americans die annually from alcohol overuse, highlighting a major public health crisis.
• Undertreatment disparity: Unlike other dangerous substances, alcohol issues lack the same attention and treatment resources.
• Neurological changes: Repeated alcohol misuse alters the brain, making it a serious health condition, not just a social issue.
• Market forces: The powerful alcohol industry and its growing revenue contribute to lax regulations and limited intervention.
• Policy gap: Inadequate taxation fails to curb consumption, while other harmful substances face stricter controls.
• Blind spot in drug policy: Recognizing alcohol as a harmful drug with addiction potential is crucial for tackling the problem.

This Is Your Brain on Zoom

Leah Croll

MedScape.com

Originally posted 21 Dec 23

Here is an excerpt:

Zoom vs In-Person Brain Activity

The researchers took 28 healthy volunteers and recorded multiple neural response signals of them speaking in person vs on Zoom to see whether face-processing mechanisms differ depending upon social context. They used sophisticated imaging and neuromonitoring tools to monitor the real-time brain activity of the same pairs discussing the same exact things, once in person and once over Zoom.

When study participants were face-to-face, they had higher levels of synchronized neural activity, spent more time looking directly at each other, and demonstrated increased arousal (as indicated by larger pupil diameters), suggestive of heightened engagement and increased mutual exchange of social cues. In keeping with these behavioral findings, the study also found that face-to-face meetings produced more activation of the dorsal-parietal cortex on functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Similarly, in-person encounters were associated with more theta oscillations seen on electroencephalography, which are associated with face processing. These multimodal findings led the authors to conclude that there are probably separable neuroprocessing pathways for live faces presented in person and for the same live faces presented over virtual media.

It makes sense that virtual interfaces would disrupt the exchange of social cues. After all, it is nearly impossible to make eye contact in a Zoom meeting; in order to look directly at your partner, you need to look into the camera where you cannot see your partner's expressions and reactions. Perhaps current virtual technology limits our ability to detect more subtle facial movements. Plus, the downward angle of the typical webcam may distort the visual information that we are able to glean over virtual encounters. Face-to-face meetings, on the other hand, offer a direct line of sight that allows for optimal exchange of subtle social cues rooted in the eyes and facial expressions.

The info is here.

Key findings:

• Zoom meetings are less stimulating for the brain than face-to-face interactions. A study by Yale University found that brain activity associated with social processing is lower during Zoom calls compared to in-person conversations.
• Reduced social cues on Zoom lead to increased cognitive effort. The lack of subtle nonverbal cues, like facial expressions and body language, makes it harder to read others and understand their intentions on Zoom. This requires the brain to work harder to compensate.
• Constant video calls can be mentally taxing. Studies have shown that back-to-back Zoom meetings can increase stress and fatigue. This is likely due to the cognitive demands of processing visual information and the constant pressure to be "on."

Implications:

• Be mindful of Zoom fatigue. Schedule breaks between meetings and allow time for your brain to recover.
• Use Zoom strategically. Don't use Zoom for every meeting or interaction. When possible, opt for face-to-face conversations.
• Enhance social cues on Zoom. Use good lighting and a clear webcam to make it easier for others to see your face and expressions. Use gestures and nonverbal cues to communicate more effectively.

Listen, explain, involve, and evaluate: why respecting autonomy benefits suicidal patients

Samuel J. Knapp (2024)

Ethics & Behavior, 34:1, 18-27

DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2022.2152338

Abstract

Out of a concern for keeping suicidal patients alive, some psychotherapists may use hard persuasion or coercion to keep them in treatment. However, more recent evidence-supported interventions have made respect for patient autonomy a cornerstone, showing that the effective interventions that promote the wellbeing of suicidal patients also prioritize respect for patient autonomy. This article details how psychotherapists can incorporate respect for patient autonomy in the effective treatment of suicidal patients by listening to them, explaining treatments to them, involving them in decisions, and inviting evaluations from them on the process and progress of their treatment. It also describes how processes that respect patient autonomy can supplement interventions that directly address some of the drivers of suicide.

Public Impact Statement

Treatments for suicidal patients have improved in recent years, in part, because they emphasize promoting patient autonomy. This article explains why respecting patient autonomy is important in the treatment of suicidal patients and how psychotherapists can integrate respect for patient autonomy in their treatments.

My lengthy summary, because the article is paywalled here.

Dr. Knapp's article discusses the importance of respecting patient autonomy in the treatment of suicidal patients within the framework of principle-based ethics. It highlights the ethical principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, respecting patient autonomy, and professional-patient relationships. The article emphasizes the challenges psychotherapists face in balancing the promotion of patient well-being with the need to respect autonomy, especially when dealing with suicidal patients.

Fear and stress in treating suicidal patients may lead psychotherapists to prioritize more restrictive interventions, potentially disregarding the importance of patient autonomy. The article argues that actions minimizing respect for patient autonomy may reflect a paternalistic attitude, which is implementing interventions without patient consent for the sake of well-being.

The problems associated with paternalistic interventions are discussed, emphasizing the importance of patients' internal motivation to change. The article advocates for autonomy-focused interventions, such as cognitive behavior therapy and dialectical behavior therapy, which have been shown to reduce suicide risk and improve outcomes. It suggests that involving patients in treatment decisions, listening to their experiences, and validating their feelings contribute to more effective interventions.

The article provides recommendations on how psychotherapists can respect patient autonomy, including listening carefully to patients, explaining treatment processes, involving patients in decisions, and inviting them to evaluate their progress. The ongoing nature of the informed consent process is stressed, along with the benefits of incorporating patient feedback into treatment. The article concludes by acknowledging the need for a balance between beneficence and respect for patient autonomy, particularly in cases of imminent danger, where temporary prioritization of beneficence may be necessary.

In summary, the article underscores the significance of respecting patient autonomy in the treatment of suicidal patients and provides practical guidance for psychotherapists to achieve this while promoting patient well-being.

Salve Lucrum: The Existential Threat of Greed in US Health Care

Berwick DM.

JAMA. 2023;329(8):629–630.

doi:10.1001/jama.2023.0846

Here is an excerpt:

Particularly costly has been profiteering among insurance companies participating in the Medicare Advantage (MA) program. Originally intended to give Medicare beneficiaries the choice of access to well-managed care at lower cost, MA has mushroomed into a massive program, now about to cover more than 50% of all Medicare beneficiaries and costing far more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare ever has. By gaming Medicare risk codes and the ways in which comparative “benchmarks” are set for expected costs, MA plans have become by far the most profitable branches of large insurance companies. According to some health services research, MA will cost Medicare over $600 billion more in the next 8 years than would have been the case if the same enrollees had remained in traditional Medicare. Opinions differ about whether MA enrollees experience better care and outcomes than those in traditional Medicare, but the weight of evidence is that they do not.

Hospital pricing games are also widespread. Hospitals claim large operating losses, especially in the COVID pandemic period, but large systems sit on balance sheets with tens of billions of dollars in the bank or invested. Hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86.2% higher per unit than in physician offices. A patient was billed $73 800 at the University of Chicago for 2 injections of Lupron depot, a treatment for prostate cancer, a drug available in the UK for $260 a dose. To drive up their own revenues, many hospitals serving wealthy populations take advantage of a federal subsidy program originally intended to reduce drug costs for people with low income.

Recent New York Times investigations have reported on nonprofit hospitals’ reducing and closing services in poor areas while opening new ones in wealthy suburbs and on their use of collection agencies for pursuing payment from patients with low income. The Massachusetts Health Policy Commission reported in 2022 that hospital prices and revenues increased during a decade at almost 4 times the rate of inflation.

Windfall profits also appear in salaries and benefits for many health care executives. Of the 10 highest paid among all corporate executives in the US in 2020, 3 were from Oak Street Health, and salary and benefits included, reportedly, $568 million for the chief executive officer (CEO). Executives in large hospital systems commonly have salaries and benefits of several million dollars a year. Some academic medical centers’ boards allow their CEO to serve for 6-figure stipends and multimillion-dollar stock options on outside company boards, including ones that supply products and services to the medical center.

The info is here.

My summary and warnings are here:

Greed is not good, especially in healthcare. This article outlines the concerning issue of greed pervading the US healthcare system. It argues that prioritizing profit over patient well-being has become widespread, impacting everything from drug companies to hospitals. The author contends that this greed is detrimental to both patients and the healthcare system as a whole. To address this, the article proposes solutions like fostering greater transparency and accountability, along with reevaluating how healthcare is financed.

What Is It That You Want Me To Do? Guidance for Ethics Consultants in Complex Discharge Cases

Omelianchuk, A., Ansari, A.A. & Parsi, K.

HEC Forum (2023).

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-023-09517-y

Abstract

Some of the most difficult consultations for an ethics consultant to resolve are those in which the patient is ready to leave the acute-care setting, but the patient or family refuses the plan, or the plan is impeded by deficiencies in the healthcare system. Either way, the patient is “stuck” in the hospital and the ethics consultant is called to help get the patient “unstuck.” These encounters, which we call “complex discharges,” are beset with tensions between the interests of the institution and the interests of the patient as well as tensions within the ethics consultant whose commitments are shaped both by the values of the organization and the values of their own profession. The clinical ethics literature on this topic is limited and provides little guidance. What is needed is guidance for consultants operating at the bedside and for those participating at a higher organizational level. To fill this gap, we offer guidance for facilitating a fair process designed to resolve the conflict without resorting to coercive legal measures. We reflect on three cases to argue that the approach of the consultant is generally one of mediation in these types of disputes. For patients who lack decision making capacity and lack a surrogate decision maker, we recommend the creation of a complex discharge committee within the organization so that ethics consultants can properly discharge their duties to assist patients who are unable to advocate for themselves through a fair and transparent process.

The article is paywalled.  Please contact the author for full copy.

Here is my summary:

• Ethics consultants face diverse patient situations, including lack of desire to leave, potential mental health issues, and financial/space constraints.
• Fair discharge processes are crucial, through mediation or multidisciplinary committees, balancing patient needs with system limitations.
• "Conveyor belt" healthcare can strain trust and create discharge complexities.
• The ethics consultant role is valuable but limited, suggesting standing "complex case committees" with diverse expertise for effective, creative solutions.

In essence, this summary highlights the need for a more nuanced and collaborative approach to complex discharges, prioritizing patient well-being while recognizing systemic constraints.

Deciding for Patients Who Have Lost Decision-Making Capacity — Finding Common Ground in Medical Ethics

Bernard Lo

The New England Journal of Medicine

Originally published 16 Dec 23

Here is an excerpt:

Empirical studies...show that advance directives do not work as was hoped.2 Only a minority of patients complete them. Directives commonly are not well informed, because patients have serious misconceptions about life-sustaining interventions and about their own prognoses. Designated surrogates are often inaccurate in stating patients’ preferences in specific scenarios. Patient preferences commonly change over time. Patients often want surrogates to have leeway to override their prior statements. And when making decisions, surrogates frequently consider aspects of patient well-being to be more important than the patient’s previously stated preferences.

Conceptually, relying completely on an incompetent patient’s prior directives may be unsound. Often surrogates must extrapolate from the patient’s previous directives and statements to a situation that the patient did not foresee. Patients generally underestimate how well they can cope with and adapt to new situations.

So the standard approach shifted to advance care planning, a process for helping adults understand and communicate their values, goals, and preferences regarding future care. Advance care planning improves satisfaction with communication and reduces the risk of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, or anxiety among surrogate decision makers.3 However, its use neither increases the likelihood that decisions are concordant with patients’ values and goals nor improves patients’ quality of life.3

Studies show that patients are less concerned about specific medical interventions than about clinical outcomes, burdens, and quality of life. Such evidence led advocates of advance care planning to begin focusing on preparing for in-the-moment decisions rather than documenting directives for medical interventions.

Many state legislatures rejected the strict requirements for surrogate decision making that Cruzan allowed. By 2004, 10 states allowed patients to appoint a health care proxy in a conversation with a physician as well as in formal documents. By 2016, 41 states — both conservative and liberal — had enacted laws allowing family members to act as health care surrogates for patients who lacked decision-making capacity and had not designated a health care proxy. Seven states included domestic partners or close friends on the list of acceptable surrogates.

The info is here.

Here is a quick summary:

Following the 1990 Supreme Court's Cruzan ruling, which emphasized clear evidence for life-sustaining treatment withdrawal, practices shifted. Advance directives like living wills gained popularity, but studies revealed their limitations. Advance care planning, focusing on communication and values, took hold. POLST forms were introduced for specific interventions, but studies show inconsistency with actual situations.

The emphasis is now on family decision-making and flexible guidelines. Rigid legal formalities have decreased, and surrogates consider not just past directives but also current situations and evolving values. Discussions involving patients, surrogates, and physicians are crucial. Different approaches like past commitments, current well-being, and "life story continuation" may be appropriate depending on the context.

The Cruzan framework is no longer the basis for medical ethics and law. Family decisions, flexible standards, and evolving values now guide care. This shift showcases how medical ethics can adapt through discussions, research, and legal changes. Finding common ground on critical issues in today's divided society remains a challenge, but it's more important than ever.

Doctors With Histories of Big Malpractice Settlements Now Work for Insurers

P. Rucker, D. Armstrong, & D. Burke

Propublica.org

Originally published 15 Dec 23

Here is an excerpt:

Patients and the doctors who treat them don’t get to pick which medical director reviews their case. An anesthesiologist working for an insurer can overrule a patient’s oncologist. In other cases, the medical director might be a doctor like Kasemsap who has left clinical practice after multiple accusations of negligence.

As part of a yearlong series about how health plans refuse to pay for care, ProPublica and The Capitol Forum set out to examine who insurers picked for such important jobs.

Reporters could not find any comprehensive database of doctors working for insurance companies or any public listings by the insurers who employ them. Many health plans also farm out medical reviews to other companies that employ their own doctors. ProPublica and The Capitol Forum identified medical directors through regulatory filings, LinkedIn profiles, lawsuits and interviews with insurance industry insiders. Reporters then checked those names against malpractice databases, state licensing board actions and court filings in 17 states.

Among the findings: The Capitol Forum and ProPublica identified 12 insurance company doctors with either a history of multiple malpractice payments, a single payment in excess of $1 million or a disciplinary action by a state medical board.

One medical director settled malpractice cases with 11 patients, some of whom alleged he bungled their urology surgeries and left them incontinent. Another was reprimanded by a state medical board for behavior that it found to be deceptive and dishonest. A third settled a malpractice case for $1.8 million after failing to identify cancerous cells on a pathology slide, which delayed a diagnosis for a 27-year-old mother of two, who died less than a year after her cancer was finally discovered.

None of this would have been easily visible to patients seeking approvals for care or payment from insurers who relied on these medical directors.

The info is here.

The ethical implications in this article are staggering.  Here are some quick points:

Conflicted Care: In a concerning trend, some US insurers are employing doctors with past malpractice settlements to assess whether patients deserve coverage for recommended treatments.  So, do these still licensed reviewers actually understand best practices?

Financial Bias: Critics fear these doctors, having faced financial repercussions for past care decisions, might prioritize minimizing payouts over patient needs, potentially leading to denied claims and delayed care.  In other words, do the reviewers have an inherent bias against patients, given that former patients complained against them?

Transparency Concerns: The lack of clear disclosure about these doctors' backgrounds raises concerns about transparency and potential conflicts of interest within the healthcare system.

In essence, this is a horrible system to provide high quality medical review.

Private equity is buying up health care, but the real problem is why doctors are selling

Yashaswini Singh & Christopher Whaley

The Hill

Originally published 21 Dec 23

Here is an excerpt:

But amid warnings that private equity is taking over health care and portrayals of financiers as greedy villains, we’re ignoring the reality that no one is coercing individual physicians to sell. Many doctors are eager to hand off their practices, and for not just for the payday. Running a private practice has become increasingly unsustainable, and alternative employment options, such as working for hospitals, are often unappealing. That leaves private equity as an attractive third path.

There are plenty of short-term steps that regulators should take to keep private equity firms in check. But the bigger problem we must address is why so many doctors feel the need to sell. The real solution to private equity in health care is to boost competition and address the pressures physicians are facing.

Consolidation in health care isn’t new. For decades, physician practices have been swallowed up by hospital systems. According to a study by the Physicians Advocacy Institute, nearly 75 percent of physicians now work for a hospital or corporate owner. While hospitals continue to drive consolidation, private equity is ramping up its spending and market share. One recent report found that private equity now owns more than 30 percent of practices in nearly one-third of metropolitan areas.

Years of study suggest that consolidation drives up health care costs without improving quality of care, and our research shows that private equity is no different. To deliver a high return to investors, private equity firms inflate charges and cut costs. One of our studies found that a few years after private equity invested in a practice, charges per patient were 50% higher than before. Practices also experience high turnover of physicians and increased hiring of non-physician staff.

How we got here has more to do with broader problems in health care than with private equity itself.

The info is here.

Here is my summary, which is really a warning:

The article dives into the concerning trend of private equity firms acquiring healthcare practices. It argues that while this might seem concerning, the bigger issue lies in understanding why doctors are willing to sell their practices in the first place.

The author highlights the immense financial burden doctors shoulder while running their own practices. Between rising costs and stagnant insurance reimbursements, it's becoming increasingly difficult for them to stay afloat. This, the article argues, is what's pushing them towards private equity firms, who offer immediate financial relief but often come with their own set of downsides for patients, like higher costs and reduced quality of care.

Therefore, instead of solely focusing on restricting private equity involvement, the article suggests we address the root cause: the financial woes of independent doctors. This could involve solutions like increased Medicare payments, tax breaks for independent practices, and alleviating the administrative burden doctors face. Only then can we ensure a sustainable healthcare system that prioritizes patient well-being.

Asexuality Is Finally Breaking Free from Medical Stigma

Allison Parshall

Scientific American

Originally posted 1 Jan 24

Here is an excerpt:

Over the past two decades psychological studies have shown that asexuality should be classified not as a disorder but as a stable sexual orientation akin to homosexuality or heterosexuality. Both cultural awareness and clinical medicine have been slow to catch on. It's only recently that academic researchers have begun to look at asexuality not as an indicator of health problems but as a legitimate, underexplored way of being human.

In biology, the word “asexual” typically gets used in reference to species that reproduce without sex, such as bacteria and aphids. But in some species that do require mating to have offspring, such as sheep and rodents, scientists have observed individuals that don't appear driven to engage in the act.

This behavior is more analogous to human asexuality, a concept rarely mentioned in medical literature until recently. In a pamphlet published in 1896, pioneering German sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld described people without sexual desire, a state he called “anesthesia sexualis.” In 1907 Reverend Carl Schlegel, an early gay rights activist, advocated for the “same laws” for “the homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals [and] asexuals.” When sexologist Alfred Kinsey devised his scale of sexual orientation in the 1940s, he created a “Category X” for the respondents who unexpectedly reported no sociosexual contacts or reactions—exceptions from his model whom he estimated made up 1.5 percent of all males between the ages of 16 and 55 in the U.S. Asexuality was largely absent from scientific research over the subsequent decades, although it was occasionally referenced by activists and scholars in the gay liberation movement.

The info is here.

Here are some quick bullet points:

• Asexuality is a sexual orientation characterized by a lack of sexual attraction to others.
• In the past, asexuality was often misunderstood and misdiagnosed as a mental health disorder.
• Today, asexuality is increasingly recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation.
• People who identify as asexual may or may not experience sexual attraction, and there is a spectrum of asexuality.
• Asexual people can face challenges in getting proper medical care, as some healthcare providers may not be familiar with asexuality.