• MSN
  • Hotmail
  • More
    • Autos
    • My MSN
    • Video
    • Careers & Jobs
    • Personals
    • Weather
    • Delish
    • Quotes
    • White Pages
    • Games
    • Real Estate
    • Wonderwall
    • Horoscopes
    • Shopping
    • Yellow Pages
    • Local Edition
    • Traffic
    • Feedback
    • Maps & Directions
    • Travel
    • Full MSN Index
  • Bing
  • NBCNews.com
  • TODAY
  • Nightly News
  • Rock Center
  • Meet the Press
  • Dateline
  • msnbc
  • Breaking News
  • Newsvine
  • Home
  • US
  • World
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Sports
  • Entertainment
  • Health
  • Tech
  • Science
  • Travel
  • Local
  • Weather
Advertise | AdChoices
  • Recommended: Alzheimer's drug was too good to be true, studies find
  • Recommended: H7N9 bird flu spreads much like ordinary flu
  • Recommended: 'Mystery' illness in Alabama mostly cold and flu, tests show
  • Recommended: Birth control requirement in health law up for appeal

One body. One mind. That's what each of us gets to last a lifetime. Get the critical news and views to keep yours healthy, sharp -- and safe.

  • ↓ About this blog
  • ↓ Archives
    • Icons Email E-mail updates
    • Icons Twitter Follow on Twitter
    • Icons Feed Subscribe to RSS
  • 12
    Nov
    2012
    2:27pm, EST

    Big question in treating heart disease: cost

    By Deena Beasley, Reuters

    LOS ANGELES - The cost of treating heart disease has become a key factor in decisions by U.S. cardiologists grappling with the nation's No. 1 killer.

    Record prices for drugs and devices, reduced reimbursement by insurance plans and the looming full implementation of the healthcare reform law are convincing doctors to consider not only novel treatments, but also how to get the most bang for the buck.

    The trend was reflected at the annual scientific meeting of the American Heart Association, generally a forum for groundbreaking research on medications and devices to combat heart disease.

    The conference for the first time last year featured an entire session on the economics of healthcare, including a study showing that eliminating drug co-payments for heart attack victims significantly reduced the chance that they would suffer another major cardiovascular problem.

    The 2012 meeting, held last week in Los Angeles, included several dual presentations with companion studies on the economic impact of a drug or therapy as well as its safety and effectiveness.

    "We have an unsustainable economic model in healthcare delivery in the U.S.," said Dr. Elliott Antman, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and chairman of the AHA Scientific Sessions Committee. "We all have to be conscious of ways we can be more cost efficient, and that includes understanding what the big breakthroughs mean in terms of cost."

    Heart disease is the leading cause of death for both men and women in the United States, accounting for one of every four deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    It also is very expensive. AHA estimates that annual U.S. medical costs of cardiovascular disease will reach $800 billion by 2030 - nearly triple the $272 billion spent in 2010.

    "Rising costs of medical care make it very pertinent for us to assess value," said Dr. Mark Hlatky, director of the cardiovascular outcomes research center at Stanford University.

    President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act, which has now survived a challenge in the Supreme Court and a presidential election, is structured to reward quality of care, not the traditional fee-for-service model that can result in unnecessary treatment.

    But the equation is not always simple.

    One study presented at the AHA meeting showed that diabetics with diseased arteries not only fared better if they underwent bypass surgery rather than a less expensive stent procedure, but the surgery was also more cost effective.

    Researchers, funded by the National Institutes of Health, found that up-front costs for bypass surgery and hospitalization were about $8,600 higher than costs for stent patients. But more stent patients either died or needed repeat artery clearing, while those who had surgery lived longer, higher-quality lives, resulting in lower, long-term healthcare spending for them.

    Another study found that angioplasty to clear blocked arteries costs more at hospitals not equipped for emergency heart surgery, due mainly to follow-up costs. Elective angioplasty is becoming increasingly common at hospitals that do not conduct more complicated heart procedures.

    "Surprisingly, there was no difference in procedure cost," said Dr. Eric Eisenstein, lead author of the study and assistant professor of medicine at Duke University Medical School in North Carolina. "We did find a difference in follow-up cost."

    New research paid for by Johnson & Johnson, one of the makers of the new anti-clotting drug Xarelto, showed that the costs of a heart attack, angina, or chest pain go well beyond actual hospital care.

    The study, led by Robert Page, a clinical specialist in the division of cardiology at the University of Colorado School of Pharmacy in Aurora, Colorado, found that every short-term disability claim for acute coronary syndrome cost employers nearly $8,000, and each long-term claim carried a price tag of more than $52,000.

    Annual healthcare costs for each worker, including out-of-pocket expenses, totaled nearly $8,200 during the four-year period studied.

    About half of all patients with acute coronary syndrome - a term used to describe conditions in which the blood supply to the heart is blocked - are working adults under the age of 65, Page said. That means the burden for their care will more likely fall on employers and employee co-payments rather than on the Medicare system.

    The AHA estimates the rate of coronary heart disease in the United States will increase by 16 percent between 2010 and 2030.

    Xarelto is one of three new blood-thinning medicines that offer potential advantages over older drugs to prevent strokes and other dangerous conditions caused by blood clots. Another is Pradaxa, made by Germany's Boehringer Ingelheim.

    "These drugs are expensive. They cost more than warfarin which is relatively cheap to use," said Dr. Stuart Connolly, director of the cardiology division at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada. "Cost-effectiveness studies have been favorable. The reason is that even though purchase of the drug is not cheap, there are savings from preventing ischemic strokes."

    Even so, physicians can face significant hurdles to secure insurance coverage for patients they think need to be on a new, more expensive drug.

    "It is a cost firewall," Antman said, explaining that it can take considerable time for him to talk to insurance telephone operators, claims supervisors and, eventually, medical directors to secure coverage for a patient.

    Comment

    Show more
    Explore related topics: health, heart
  • 4
    Nov
    2012
    11:02pm, EST

    Heartbeat, not battery, could one day power pacemakers

    By Deena Beasley, Reuters

    LOS ANGELES - Your own beating heart may generate enough electricity to power a heart-regulating pacemaker, ending the need for expensive surgeries to replace expiring batteries, according to an early study of an experimental energy-converting device.

    Researchers at the Department of Aerospace Engineering at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor tested an energy-harvesting device that runs on piezoelectricity - the electrical charge generated from motion, according to the study which was released at the annual American Heart Association scientific conference on Sunday.

    The approach is a promising technological solution for pacemakers, because they require only small amounts of power to operate, said M. Amin Karami, the study's lead author and a research fellow at the university.

    The implanted devices, which send electrical impulses into the heart to help maintain a normal heartbeat, have to be replaced every five to seven years when their batteries run out.

    Researchers measured heartbeat-induced vibrations in the chest. They then used a "shaker" to reproduce the vibrations in the laboratory and connected it to a prototype cardiac energy harvester they developed.

    Measurements of the prototype's performance, based on a wide range of simulated heartbeats, showed the energy harvester generated more than 10 times the power required by modern pacemakers.

    The device is about half the size of batteries now used in pacemakers and includes a self-powering back-up capacitor, Karami said. Researchers hope to integrate their technology into commercial pacemakers.

    "What we have proven is that under optimal conditions, this concept is working," Karami said, adding that the next step is to integrate the device into a pacemaker.

    The researcher, who presented the study here at a scientific meeting of the American Heart Association, said the technology might one day also power other implantable cardiac devices, such as defibrillators.

    The study was funded by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

    About 700,000 people worldwide who have heart rhythm disturbances get a pacemaker or defibrillator each year.

    In the United States, pacemakers sell for about $5,000, which does not include the cost of surgery, a hospital stay and additional care.

    3 comments

    Show more
    Explore related topics: health, heart
  • 4
    Nov
    2012
    11:02pm, EST

    Heartbeat, not battery, could one day power pacemakers

    By Deena Beasley, Reuters

    LOS ANGELES - Your own beating heart may generate enough electricity to power a heart-regulating pacemaker, ending the need for expensive surgeries to replace expiring batteries, according to an early study of an experimental energy-converting device.

    Researchers at the Department of Aerospace Engineering at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor tested an energy-harvesting device that runs on piezoelectricity - the electrical charge generated from motion, according to the study which was released at the annual American Heart Association scientific conference on Sunday.

    The approach is a promising technological solution for pacemakers, because they require only small amounts of power to operate, said M. Amin Karami, the study's lead author and a research fellow at the university.

    The implanted devices, which send electrical impulses into the heart to help maintain a normal heartbeat, have to be replaced every five to seven years when their batteries run out.

    Researchers measured heartbeat-induced vibrations in the chest. They then used a "shaker" to reproduce the vibrations in the laboratory and connected it to a prototype cardiac energy harvester they developed.

    Measurements of the prototype's performance, based on a wide range of simulated heartbeats, showed the energy harvester generated more than 10 times the power required by modern pacemakers.

    The device is about half the size of batteries now used in pacemakers and includes a self-powering back-up capacitor, Karami said. Researchers hope to integrate their technology into commercial pacemakers.

    "What we have proven is that under optimal conditions, this concept is working," Karami said, adding that the next step is to integrate the device into a pacemaker.

    The researcher, who presented the study here at a scientific meeting of the American Heart Association, said the technology might one day also power other implantable cardiac devices, such as defibrillators.

    The study was funded by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

    About 700,000 people worldwide who have heart rhythm disturbances get a pacemaker or defibrillator each year.

    In the United States, pacemakers sell for about $5,000, which does not include the cost of surgery, a hospital stay and additional care.

    Comment

    Show more
    Explore related topics: health, heart
  • 4
    Nov
    2012
    10:54pm, EST

    Angioplasty costs higher at non-surgery hospitals

    By Deena Beasley, Reuters

    LOS ANGELES - Angioplasty to clear blocked arteries costs more at hospitals not equipped for emergency heart surgery, according to a study presented on Sunday at the American Heart Association scientific meeting.

    Elective angioplasty is becoming increasingly common at hospitals that do not conduct more complicated heart procedures. During angioplasty, doctors insert a balloon-tipped catheter into an artery and inflate a balloon to open the narrowed blood vessel.

    Researchers from Duke University Medical School in North Carolina analyzed billing data from more than 18,000 patients and found that the average cumulative medical costs were $23,991 in surgery-equipped hospitals, versus $25,460 in those without surgical centers.

    "Surprisingly, there was no difference in procedure cost," said Dr. Eric Eisenstein, lead author of the study and assistant professor of medicine at Duke. "We did find a difference in follow-up cost."

    The difference was due mainly to the fact that non-surgery hospitals used intensive care units for post-angioplasty care, as required by the study, and patients treated at these hospitals were more likely to be readmitted nine months after treatment.

    "Rising costs of medical care make it very pertinent for us to assess value," said Dr. Mark Hlatky, director of the cardiovascular outcomes research center at Stanford University.

    Eisenstein said, "there is no guarantee that a community hospital can provide angioplasty services at costs comparable with those of major hospitals with on-site cardiac surgery."

    More than 1 million coronary artery opening procedures are performed in the United States each year, according to the American Heart Association.

    Comment

    Show more
    Explore related topics: health, heart
  • 4
    Sep
    2012
    6:46pm, EDT

    'Code Blue' efforts to re-start the heart can go a little longer, study finds

    Universal Images Group via Getty Images

    Hospitals where staff try a little longer and a little harder to re-start a stopped heart might see better survival rates, new research finds.

    By Maggie Fox, Senior Writer, NBC News

    They’re called “code blue,” “code alert,” “full code” and other dramatic names and without last-ditch resuscitation attempts, television hospital dramas would be nowhere. But common wisdom holds that in real life, drawn-out efforts to save someone whose heart has stopped are often a waste of time. But are they?

    Maybe not, researchers report on Tuesday. They found that in hospitals where resuscitation teams try a little longer and a little harder, patients are more likely to survive. And they are not any more likely to be disabled or brain-damaged than patients who revive more quickly.

    “Our findings suggest that prolonging resuscitation efforts by 10 or 15 minutes might improve outcomes,” said Dr. Zachary Goldberger of the University of Washington, who led the research published in the Lancet medical journal.

    There aren’t any firm guidelines on how long to keep trying to revive someone whose heart has stopped. Skilled doctors, nurses or technicians can keep the blood pumping and supply oxygen to the brain and other organs while working to re-start a stopped heart. The American Heart Association has detailed pointers on which measurements show a patient has a better chance of living, and on which treatments to give, from simple cardiopulmonary resuscitation or CPR to defibrillation and drugs. 

    But how long do you keep trying?

    Facebook Follow us on Facebook

    Twitter Follow me on Twitter

    “There is this thought that it is futile, or that even if you get immediate survival, that in the long-term you are not doing these patients any favors,” said Dr. Brahmajee Nallamothu of the University of Michigan and the Ann Arbor VA Medical Center, who worked on the study.

    Each patient is different, so the researchers looked at hospitals, comparing the average time spent trying to resuscitate patients and tracking how many patients survived until they were released. “How long do hospitals try for before they call the code?” Nallamothu said. 

    They looked at the records of 64,000 patients from 435 U.S. hospitals who suffered cardiac arrest in hospitals between 2000 and 2008. They divided the hospitals into four groups -- those whose staff tried on average for 25 minutes to revive patients, those where the average time was 22 minutes, then 19 minutes and then 16 minutes.

    It is clearly bad news for the heart to stop; only 15 percent of all the patients lived. And the hospitals clearly didn’t give up easily. Usually a patient revived quickly if at all. But looking at the hospital averages showed trying a little longer could pay off.

    “Patients at hospitals where resuscitation attempts lasted the longest were significantly more likely to be successfully revived (achieve restoration of a pulse for at least 20 minutes) and survive to be discharged from hospital than those at hospitals where attempts were shortest,” Nallamothu’s team wrote.

    “The whole resuscitation team, the code team is already there,” Nallamothu said in a telephone interview. “To try a bit longer -- I don’t think it is too much of a burden. It didn’t seem that those patients at the hospitals where attempts were longer were having a worse outcome, neurologically.”

    There could be other factors at work, Nallamothu said. It could be the patients are sicker at some hospitals than others. Some hospitals could be treating patients who are older and less likely to survive. Some hospitals may have staff who are more skilled at reviving patients.

    “My gut feeling is when I think about this situation, it is an incredibly difficult clinical situation,” Nallamothu said. “We don’t want to give hard and fast rules. This is a first step.”

    Another caveat -- the findings apply to hospital resuscitation only, and not CPR or other rescue attempts outside a hospital. But two British doctors, Jerry Nolan of the Royal United Hospital NHS Trust in Bath and Jasmeet Soar of Southmead Hospital in Bristol said it’s clear that trying for longer doesn’t necessarily hurt.

    “If the cause of cardiac arrest is potentially reversible, it might be worthwhile to try for a little longer,” they wrote in a commentary in the Lancet.

    Related stories:

    • Risky cooling therapy saves mom, baby
    • Hands-only CPR is enough, studies find
    • New CPR guidelines switch up the pace

     

    Gabe Shallouf, 19, raced into action after spotting an unconscious elderly man on a front lawn off the side of the road. KGW's Abbey Gibb reports.

     

    22 comments

    Show more
    Explore related topics: heart, featured, resuscitation, code-ble, crash-cart

Browse

  • featured,
  • cdc,
  • fda,
  • cancer,
  • health-care,
  • food-safety,
  • fungal-meningitis,
  • childrens-health,
  • salmonella,
  • womens-health,
  • health,
  • mental-health,
  • obesity,
  • bird-flu,
  • hiv,
  • aids,
  • pregnancy,
  • heart-health,
  • sexual-health,
  • necc,
  • aging,
  • flu,
  • alzheimers,
  • breast-cancer,
  • behavior,
  • birth-control,
  • diabetes,
  • vaccines,
  • smoking,
  • recall,
  • meningitis,
  • influenza,
  • autism,
  • health-insurance,
  • obamacare,
  • h7n9,
  • sleep,
  • heart-disease,
  • children,
  • mens-health,
  • china,
  • psychology
Also
Advertise | AdChoices

Maggie Fox, Senior Writer, NBC News

Senior health writer for NBCNews.com. With 20 years experience reporting on health, science, medicine and technology, Maggie now specializes in writing health stories that the average reader can understand. Former global health and science editor, Reuters, who established an award-winning and agenda-setting science and health file for the news agency.

Archives

  • 2013
    • May (110)
    • April (127)
    • March (126)
    • February (107)
    • January (111)
  • 2012
    • December (92)
    • November (131)
    • October (171)
    • September (110)
    • August (90)
    • July (94)
    • June (67)
    • May (91)
    • April (89)
    • March (87)
    • February (66)
    • January (62)
  • 2011
    • December (64)
    • November (50)
    • October (63)

Most Commented

  • Court strikes down Arizona 20-week abortion ban (741)
  • Mysterious respiratory illness strikes 7 in Alabama; 2 dead (228)
  • ADHD in childhood linked to adult obesity, study finds (172)
  • Tornado birth: Mom endures labor as twister destroys hospital (128)
  • Dirty dogs: Homes with pooches loaded with bacteria (145)
  • Pulling the plug: ICU 'culture' key to life or death decision (131)
  • Doctors print up a splint for baby's blocked throat (56)

Other blogs

  • The Body Odd
  • Cosmic Log
  • Red Tape Chronicles
  • PhotoBlog
  • US News
  • Open Channel

NBCNews.com top stories

3147,10
© 2013 NBCNews.com
  • Health on NBCNews.com
  • About us
  • Contact
  • Help
  • Site map
  • Careers
  • Closed captioning
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy policy
  • Advertise