NewsTrust - For Review

The Emerging Importance of Patient Amenities in Hospital Care

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 00:00:00 -0800

The New England Journal of Medicine - By Dana P. Goldman, Mary Vaiana, John A. Romley - Dec. 01 (News Analysis) - In crowded hospital markets, especially in areas populated by well-insured patients, ... amenities play an increasing role in the competition for market share. This development raises important questions about the definition of hospital quality and its benefits and costs to patients and society. Radio, print, and outdoor advertisements touted its “Better Way to Get Better,” with private and family-friendly rooms, magnificent views, hotel-style room service for meals, massage therapy, and “a host of other unexpected amenities.”

NewsTrust Rating: 4.2 average (not enough reviews) - See Review » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

NEJM -- Private-Party Gun Sales, Regulation, and Public Safety

Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0700

The New England Journal of Medicine - By Garen J. Wintemute, M.D., M.P.H., Anthony A. Braga, Ph.D., David M. Kennedy - Jun. 30 (News Analysis) - Perhaps 40% of all gun sales nationwide — roughly 6.6 million transactions in 2008 — are made by private parties. Moreover, private parties can sell handguns to anyone 18 years of age or older; licensed retailers cannot sell handguns to anyone under 21 years of age. The private-party gun market, sometimes called the informal gun market, has long been recognized as a leading source of guns used in crimes. Although private-party sales are primarily a convenience for the law-abiding purchaser (since they involve no paperwork, no background check, and no waiting period), such sales are also the principal option when the prospective purchaser is a felon, a domestic-violence offender, or another person prohibited by law from owning a gun.

NewsTrust Rating: Not rated yet - See Info » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Communicating Medical News -- Pitfalls of Health Care Journalism

Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:00:00 -0800

The New England Journal of Medicine - By Susan Dentzer - Dec. 31 (Opinion) - In my view, we in the news media have a responsibility to hold ourselves to higher standards if there is any chance that doctors and patients will act on the basis of our reporting. We are not clinicians, but we must be more than carnival barkers; we must be credible health communicators more interested in conveying clear, actionable health information to the public than carrying out our other agendas. There is strong evidence that many journalists agree — and in particular, consider themselves poorly trained to understand medical studies and statistics.5 But not only should our profession demand better training of health journalists, it should also require that health stories, rather than being rendered in black and white, use all the grays on the palette to paint a comprehensive picture of inevitably complex realties. Journalists could start by imposing on their work a "prudent reader or viewer" test: On the basis of my news account, what would a prudent person do or assume about a given medical intervention, and did I therefore succeed in delivering the best public health message possible?

NewsTrust Rating: 4.6 average (not enough reviews) - See Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Screening for Prostate Cancer among Men 75 Years of Age or Older

Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:00:00 -0800

The New England Journal of Medicine - By Michael J. Barry, M.D. - Dec. 11 (Special Report) - Prostate-cancer screening with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test remains one of the most controversial issues in modern medicine. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), an independent group of experts supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality under a mandate from Congress, recently revised its recommendations regarding prostate-cancer screening. The USPSTF concluded that "the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening in men younger than age 75 years," but it now "recommends against screening for prostate cancer in men age 75 years or older."1 In its 2002 statement, the task force did not recommend for or against screening in either age group. The implication of the new recommendation for medical practice is that clinicians should discuss the potential benefits and known harms of screening with men between 50 and 74 years of age, but not necessarily with older men.

NewsTrust Rating: 3.4 average (not enough reviews) - See Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Voters and Health Reform in the 2008 Presidential Election

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:00:00 -0800

The New England Journal of Medicine - By Robert J. Blendon, Sc.D., Drew E. Altman, Ph.D., John M. Benson, M.A., Mollyann Brodie, Ph.D., Tami Buhr, A.M., Claudia Deane, M.A., Sasha Buscho, B.A. - Nov. 05 (News Report) - First, we examine the public's perceptions of the state of health care. Second, we look at the role of health care in this election and compare its relative importance with that in previous elections. Third, we report and contrast the health policy views of registered voters who say they intend to vote for Senator John McCain with those of supporters of Senator Barack Obama. In analyzing these views, we will focus on the issues that have been raised by the presidential candidates during the campaign. Finally, we will discuss our view of the implications of our findings for the prospects of health reform in the next administration.

NewsTrust Rating: 4.5 average (not enough reviews) - See Review » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

Safer Drugs for the American People

Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:38:59 -0700

The New England Journal of Medicine - By Gregory D. Curfman, M.D., Stephen Morrissey, Ph.D., Jeffrey M. Drazen, M.D. - Jul. 18 (Editorial) - By wide margins, both the House and the Senate have now passed bills that aim to ensure the safety of the drug supply in the United States.1,2 Given the serious safety problems that have arisen with drugs taken by millions of Americans, this legislation is long overdue. It is now up to both houses of Congress to resolve the differences between the two versions and agree on a strong final bill to send to the President. This year, Congress had to consider reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), which it must do every 5 years. Under PDUFA, the major funding for the review of new drugs by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) comes from user fees paid by pharmaceutical companies. This mechanism has been controversial because, although it was designed to accelerate the drug-approval process and can make new drugs available to patients without delay, it has directed no money to the postmarketing assessment of drug safety. In addition, some believe that user fees pose a conflict of interest for the FDA. Nonetheless, to ensure that the FDA has adequate financial resources, both the House and the Senate versions of the bill not only maintain these user fees but increase them (with some of the money now directed to safety assessment).

NewsTrust Rating: 2.9 average (not enough reviews) - See Reviews » - Review It Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer