health policy

If health care fixes continue to undermine the doctor-patient relationship, financial costs won't be the only price paid.
A recent Pennsylvania Supreme court ruling, recognizing what it means to be a doctor, is not a solution but a problem. Authors in The New England Journal of Medicine beg to differ.  
With a constant surge of competing profit centers fragmenting healthcare, more layers than ever are conspiring to erode the doctor-patient relationship. Here is a guide to being your own advocate. It will help reduce your anxiety, eliminate unnecessary suffering and improve outcome and recovery.
First fallacy: the mere existence of an opioid pill is why there is a crisis. Finding solutions requires proper identification of a problem. The time is now for the public narrative to follow suit.
The negative impact of (1) "at-all-costs" breastfeeding campaigns, (2) the political zeal of "lactivism" and (3) societal pressures have done a proven disservice to women and families. So much so that formal health policy had to be changed.
Can the FDA's tactics – to impact the current opioid problem – also predict its successor? The goal is to head off escalation before problems are crises, and the move is a departure from the status-quo, reactive nature of prior policies.
Though well-intentioned, "at all costs" breastfeeding messages are routinely misguided. And even intellectually dishonest.
How far will behavioral economics go to improve our health and decrease costs?
To get us closer to an answer to that question, consider this example: The American Academy of Pediatrics’ recent strategy that makes it acceptable for doctors – as a last resort – to refuse to allow families who decline vaccination to be a part of their practice.
A hot rock massage and herbal tea might make you feel nice, but they don't actually cure anything. Pointing that out in China, however, might land a person in jail.
Supporting prior studies, investigative work published in the Journal of the American Medical Association underscores the disparities of disease burden within states. When will our policies reflect that?
In service of their ideological agenda, the "abstinence-only" nicotine religion is perfectly happy to withhold potentially life-saving e-cigarettes from smokers. If a few million smokers have to die along the way, those are casualties they're willing to accept in pursuit of their nicotine-free utopia.