The following is a guest post from blogger and writer Amanda Kidd. She is a regular follower of healthy living her health guide includes all the health related topics. Amongst all she likes to write on sexual health a lot:

Sexual urge or the libido is a natural phenomenon in men and women alike. It is widely believed and understood that couples enjoy intimacy more in their young age rather than in matured stage of their lives. Though apparently this may be a well accepted notion and may also look very true, the research indicates otherwise.

Sexual urge in older women, or middle aged women, is a subject of immense interest and research amongst the scientists and researchers all over the world. What happens to the sexual drive of a woman when she crosses the threshold of 30 and enters into the middle age era? Does she feel bored? Does her desire begin to wane? Or is it that sexual urge in women has no age bar? And at any point in time they remain equally active, if not more than the man?

An article published in a health magazine in UK suggests that middle aged women show more urge for indulging in sex than their younger counterparts. Elaborating further on the sexual drives and sexual health of older women, the article claims that these women are also more willing than younger women to have sexual escapade!

(more…)

On June 9, 2011, sanofi-aventis U.S. announced the “sanofi-aventis U.S. Innovation Challenge: Data, Design, Diabetes” at the National Institute of Health’s Health Data Initiative Forum. The challenge, which launched on July 1, integrates open data with a human-centered view into diabetes, and will award $220,000 in total prize money.

The challenge is designed for fast learning, so that innovators can create the needed service solutions for people living with diabetes. It brings together the richness of open data sets made available on healthdata.gov, the values of human-centered design, and the leading edge methodology of the top innovation accelerators.

Until July 31^st, innovators can submit their concepts on www.datadesigndiabetes.com.  In early August, an independent panel of expert judges (listed below) will review the submissions and five semi-finalists will be awarded $20,000 and professional mentoring to turn the concept into a prototype. In early September, the five teams will present at a demo day.  An open panel and our judges will select two finalists to receive an additional $10,000 to pilot their prototype in a real life diabetes community.  The findings and learnings from this exercise will inform the selection of a final winner who will receive an award of $100,000, along with a one- month stay at the RockHealth incubator in San Francisco to turn their prototype into a full, real solution for people living with diabetes.

Judges include:

• Jeff Hammerbacher – Founder and Chief Scientist, Cloudera
• Manny Hernandez – Founder, TuDiabetes
• Hilary Mason – Chief Scientist, Bit.ly
• Todd Park – CTO, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
• Sue Siegel – General Partner, MDV-Mohr Davidow Ventures
• Ida Sim – Director, UCSF Center for Clinical and Translational Informatics
• Dennis Urbaniak – VP U.S. Diabetes, sanofi-aventis

Diabetes is a chronic, progressive disease that has reached epidemic proportion, with 100 million people in the U.S. currently living with diabetes.  At this rate, the CDC estimates that by the year 2050 1 in 3 Americans will have diabetes. 

Visit www.datadesigndiabetes.com for more information, including criteria, official rules and deadlines.  For more updates, follow Data Design Diabetes on Twitter and Facebook.

Many of the debt-reduction plans being considered by Congress and the Administration include proposals that would achieve substantial savings from the Medicare program over time. A  side-by-side summary of the proposals allows users to easily compare the key Medicare provisions found in five major debt-reduction plans put forward by the White House, Congress and independent, bipartisan commissions. The five plans are: the President’s Framework for Shared Prosperity and Shared Fiscal Responsibility; the House Concurrent Budget Resolution; the Senate “Gang of Six” Proposal; the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (Bowles-Simpson); and the Bipartisan Policy Center Debt Reduction Task Force (Domenici-Rivlin).

The summary also includes brief descriptions of Medicare proposals in other deficit reduction proposals from American Enterprise Institute; Cato Institute; Center for American Progress, Sen. Tom Coburn; Congressional Progressive Caucus; Dr. Bill Galston and Ms. Maya MacGuineas; Heritage Foundation; Institute for America’s Future; Sen. Joseph Lieberman and Sen. Coburn; Our Fiscal Security; Dr. Alice Rivlin and Chairman Paul Ryan; Republican Study Committee; Roosevelt Institute Campus Network; and Chairman Ryan.

The side-by-side summary is part of the Foundation’s Project on Medicare’s Future, which focuses on producing timely analysis of leading Medicare reforms affecting people on Medicare.  .The Kaiser Family Foundation is a non-profit private operating foundation dedicated to producing and communicating the best possible analysis and information on health issues.

The sky is the limit it seems when it comes to mobile health. Proving once again the myriad possibilities for that smartphone apps present to every facet of the health sector, Orca MD — a company dedicated to producing apps aimed at educating patients and helping them find the most effective treatment for their ailments — just released two new patient education apps – these focusing on cosmetic procedures.
(more…)

By Archelle Georgiou.

“So, how was China?”

We recently returned from China and Vietnam and have been asked this question many times by curious friends, family, and colleagues.  Recognizing that we live in a world of soundbites and that no one really wants to hear every detail about our fourteen day trip, I’ve responded by focusing on the experiences and observations that had a lasting impact on how I think.  There were three: one is personal, one is political, and one is professional.

Personal: While “Made in China” is present on everything from chatchkas to clothing labels to housewares, and although China’s thriving economy is a frequent topic in the business world…I simply wasn’t expecting to see their ultra-modern infrastructure.  I went to China with a visual image that was pre-Mao.  Shame on me.  Instead, I saw 14 story shopping malls, a Shanghai skyline best described as “New York on steroids,” an efficient and clean subway system, and construction cranes on every square block. While analysts predict an economic and building bubble that will deflate soon…there is national confidence that China’s  5 Year Plan (for 2011-2015) will address these risks.  Take a look at the well-defined, measurable goals regarding their economic targets, innovation, the environment, people’s livelihood, social management, and reform.  The Plan is translated into action down to the individual citizen level to assure that they achieve their goals.  We may not agree with socialist/communist ideals, but step back for a moment and imagine how much progress the US would make if we had a unified plan regarding our nation’s advancement.

How was China? A strong world power.   Never again will I refer to China as an “emerging economy.” They have emerged, and there are a few things that the US can learn from them. (more…)

On the Quality Front: New Approaches in Improving Patient Safety

Thursday, July 28, 2011
1:30 – 2:45 pm ET

A key part of improving quality is in reducing medical errors and improving patient safety. Providers and payers are redoubling their efforts to address such problems, ranging from hospital acquired infections and preventable injuries to avoidable complications and adverse drug reactions.

The need is clear. A recent study published in the journal Health Affairs found that, on average, one third of hospital inpatients suffer an adverse event or medical error. That is nearly 10 times greater than shown by previous studies. As for Medicare, about 1 in 7 beneficiaries experience adverse events, costing the government some $4.4 billion each year.

Join Philips on July 28th, when their latest “Reimbursement Simplified” webinar explores some of the new approaches to improve patient safety including:

• A program by a Chicago hospital to remotely monitor ICU patients
• A JCAHO initiative with top health systems to design and disseminate new safety solutions
• A private payer’s perspective on identifying and managing serious adverse events

Speakers:

• Carolyn S. Langer, MD, JD, MPH
  Medical Director, Medical Management and Quality, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
• Klaus Nether
  Black Belt, Joint Commission Center for Transforming Healthcare
• Becky Rufo, DNSc, RN, CCRN
  Resurrection Health Care eICU® Program Operations Director, Resurrection Health Care
• Laurel Sweeney (moderator)
  Senior Director Global Reimbursement Policy, Philips Healthcare

To Register: Go to www.philips.com/reimbursement or call 202-263-2900. There is no fee to participate.

By Jane Sarasohn-Kahn. Patients who perceive their visit to the doctor was patient-centered, with more communication, receive fewer diagnostic tests and referrals, and yield lower expenses for diagnostic testing. A new study finds that patient-centered care leads to lower spending on health care over one year of care due to fewer specialty care referrals. A contributing factor to lower costs is increased patient participation during the visit, which reduces patients’ anxiety and perceived need for further investigations and referrals. In the milieu of more effective patient-physician communication, physician gets more knowledge about the patient. This brings greater trust between patient and doctor, as described in Patient-Centered Care is Associated with Decreased Health Care Utilization, published in the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine published in July 2011, and penned by Dr. Klea Bertaks and Dr. Rahman Azari.

This is not a new concept: ten years ago, the IOM’s seminal report, Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century, called for “patient-centeredness.”

What is patient-centered care? Bertakis and Azari call out four communication behaviors:

1. Eliciting understanding and validating the patients’ perspective
2. Understanding the patient within his or her psychosocial context
3. Reaching a shared understanding with the patient of the problem and its treatment
4. Creating a partnership in which “activated” patients share in decision making, power and responsibility.

These four precepts were codified in a 2007 publication from the National Cancer Institute, Patient-centered communication in cancer care: promoting healing and reducing suffering.

Health Populi’s Hot Points: Adopting a patient-centered approach isn’t solely about reducing health care costs: it’s about patient empowerment, effective communication between doctor and patient, and participatory medicine. The secret in this sauce is in the communication between the partners: greater sharing of information from each side of the conversation, building greater trust, and leading to a decreased use of unnecessary diagnostic testing, hospital care, and specialty referrals. While long-term outcomes haven’t yet been quantified in the patient-centric approach, this study adds to the growing evidence base that participatory medicine is a win for the patient, a win for the physician, and a win for the larger health system and health economics.

Originally posted on Health Populi on July 19th.

The following was originally posted on Masters In Public Health on July 13th.

Wherever there are citizens who are passionate about improving the public health of their communities, the potential exists to build a powerful movement for change. Usually, these individuals are activists in social movements and in voluntary associations including civic organizations, women’s associations and labor organizations. But, their passions can move mountains, as you’ll learn from our list of 10 historic movements that improved worldwide public health.

1. Cancer: On May 22, 1913, the American Society for the Control of Cancer was created at a meeting of ten doctors and five laymen. At that time, a cancer diagnosis amounted to near certain death. Rarely mentioned in public, this taboo disease was steeped in fear and denial. In 1936, Marjorie G. Illig, an ASCC field representative and chair of the General Federation of Women’s Clubs Committee on Public Health, made an extraordinary suggestion. She proposed creating a legion of volunteers whose sole purpose was to wage war on cancer. The Women’s Field Army, as this organization came to be called, was an enormous success. Today, the American Cancer Society continues the fight against cancer, and many groups — including the Susan G. Komen Foundation — join the fight.

2. Health Insurance: The U.S. is the only industrialized nation that does not have national health insurance. As early as 1915, the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL) proposed a national insurance system that would cover medical care, sick pay, maternity benefits, and funeral expenses for low-paid workers and their dependents. To this day, despite four other battles for national health insurance, about 16 percent of the population is uninsured. However, the Affordable Care Act recently brought an end to some of the worst abuses of the insurance industry, bringing new rights and benefits to Americans.

3. Hull House: Jane Addams, in 1889, worked with Chicago’s neediest families and helped them to become full participants in their communities. Today, the Jane Addams Hull House Association continues to provide services for child welfare and foster care, domestic violence victims, education and literacy, homelessness, eldercare and youth. They even provide workforce development and small business development. (more…)

The following is a guest post by Margaret Anderson, executive director of FasterCures/The Center for Accelerating Medical Solutions, an “action tank” working to improve the medical research system and speed up the time it takes to get important new medicines from discovery to patients. Margaret also serves as vice president of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA, board member for the Council for American Medical Innovation and the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, and member of the Prostate Cancer Foundation Government Affairs Committee and the Institute of Medicine’s Forum on Drug Discovery, Development and Translation. In 2011, the Clinical Research Forum recognized her with an award for leadership in public advocacy.

By Margaret Anderson. What’s missing today in the medical research system is a sense of urgency and a willingness to take risks. When it comes to developing new therapies for deadly and debilitating diseases, it takes too long, costs too much, and patients are left wondering – where are the cures? Last year only 21 new molecular entities were approved by the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, the fewest approved since 2007.  Can we honestly say that this is the kind of return we should be getting on our multi-billion dollar investment in scientific discovery?

Pharma and biotech companies, along with the federal government, provide the majority of funding for biomedical research in the U.S., however there is another group of nonprofit disease research foundations known as “venture philanthropies” that are bringing a sense of urgency to the medical research community and having an outsized effect on R&D.

Although they comprise only a small share of overall R&D spending in the United States (roughly three percent) these nimble, outcomes-focused organizations are making the high-risk investments that are moving promising science forward and, in doing so, increasing the likelihood that other parties will also invest.  In particular, venture philanthropy resources are helping to bridge valley of death – the gap between a promising discovery in the lab and the point at which a company is willing to pick it up and move its development forward.  This has traditionally been where many good ideas in the drug development pipeline drop off due to funding and knowledge gaps, and the influx of venture philanthropy support has been invaluable in ensuring forward progress. (more…)

By Hope Ditto. Most of the country is sweltering its way through this week’s heat wave, but there is one thing here in DC rising faster than the mercury in our thermometers – tensions on the Hill as the debt ceiling stalemate continues. Whispers [well, tweeted whispers] of default “what ifs” abound here in the nation’s capital as lawmakers continue to play a high-stakes game of chicken through day after day of floor debates, committee hearings and negotiating sessions. With interest rates, Social Security payments and America’s credit score dangling in the balance, and the clock ticking towards the Aug. 2 deadline, the air is even thicker with panic than it is with humidity (though my frizzy hair would say otherwise). (more…)

The recent outbreak of lethal E. coli in Germany is noteworthy for many reasons. While this time the source was sprouts and the location was Germany, we do not know what or where the next outbreak will be. However, the risk of this or the next outbreak are not equally borne by all in Germany, all in Europe, or all in the U.S.  

The heightened impact of E. coli in women means it joins a growing list of diseases and disorders that have distinct effects on women, perhaps for no other reason than her sex.  Women are experiencing more severe illness during the current E. coli outbreak than men and the only explanation being offered is that infected women may be more likely to consume raw vegetables than uninfected women.  But why are women more likely to be hospitalized with severe symptoms, including abdominal cramping, bloody diarrhea, and kidney injury?

Is it possible this current outbreak and this particular bacterium cause greater cellular destruction in women, leading to more severe symptoms? Science and history suggest that this would not be the first time, as female-biased morbidity and mortality has been documented in past outbreaks.  During the 1992 outbreak of E. coli O157 in Africa, women suffered from severe diarrheal disease more than men. Interestingly, women’s relative risk of infection during the 1992 outbreak was not affected by occupation, travel, or household factors. In other words, the risk of exposure to E. coli may not be the fundamental explanation for why women experience serious and sometime fatal disease outcomes.

From the few studies that have started exploring sex-based differences, we have seen that after exposure to E. coli, women experience greater abdominal symptoms and inflammatory immune responses than men.  Development of drug resistance in E. coli also can differ depending on whether the bacterium is isolated from a man or a woman. Thus, the answer may lie in uncovering how the biology of the human host or of the bacterium within the human host differs depending on whether the host is male or female. (more…)

By Jane Sarasohn-Kahn. Can a patient’s experience with health care providers be as engaging, entertaining and satisfying as time spent at amusement parks? The Disney Institute thinks so, and has established a program to help health providers delight health consumers called Building a Culture of Healthcare Excellence.

With the tagline, “D-Think Your Way to Success,” The Disney Institute offers programs that help organizations apply Disney’s lessons in customer service, creativity and leadership to their own situations. In the case of the Healthcare Excellence program, Disney is looking to re-focus health care delivery beyond clinical outcomes toward the overall patient experience.

Health Populi’s Hot Points:   The book The Experience Economy, published in 1998, talked about the value of transformation for a consumer encounter with a business. In the case of health care, what could be more relevant than a transformational experience, either for people who are sick seeking treatment to get well, or for people who want to improve their health status?

I’ve often asked the question of medical device, IT and health providers, “What would Steve Jobs do? What would Disney do? What would Procter & Gamble do?” when it comes to developing user-focused health products and services. Now Disney believes it has the answer to that question.

Originally posted on Health Populi on July 5th.

By Phyllis Greenberger and Marie Manteuffel. Our country has been at war for nearly a decade.  For many reasons, this war is like no other in American history.  Those in uniform represent a mere 1 percent of the U.S. population, with a significant number coming from the South and West.  Aside from reading a daily paper or catching an “In Memory” listing of the fallen on television, it is easy for many Americans to forget the men and women fighting these wars in defense of our nation.

Within this 1 percent is another invisible group:  women.  The recent conflicts are distinguished by the service of the largest ever presence of women deployed.  While not yet officially in combat, the risks seem the same for women and men when an attack can come at any time, and when there is neither a “front” nor a “line”.

As the Pentagon explores changing the policy that bans women from official combat roles, the medical community cannot wait to advance.  Women are coming back from deployments with the same conditions as deployed men, as well as some unique ones, and are lacking treatments that adequately factor in sex and gender differences. 

One area includes the high number of musculoskeletal concerns from women who have deployed.  Military women are holding their own in over 90 percent of military occupations.  This is not a question of women’s strength or capability to serve.  It is a research question needing a medical response.  What impact does the current gear have on female joint alignment?  What percentage of one’s body weight can be safely carried?  What role does increased elasticity play in development of chronic back pain or osteoarthritis after a tour of duty?

The harsh environment and impact of enemy weapons can have both immediate and long term effects on the genitourinary organs, as well.  Extreme temperatures and dehydration can contribute to startling rates of urinary tract infections in women.  Injury to the sex organs from explosives can impact men and women, while frequent heavy weight bearing over time has been suggested as a contributor to urinary issues and possible pelvic floor prolapse later in life.  Depending on the extent of the damage, sexual function and fertility may also be impacted.  (more…)

mHealth Summit to Highlight Groundbreaking Research Abstracts and Innovative Presentations

TOPIC AREAS:

• RESEARCH: Ground-breaking health research using mobile technologies in clinical medicine and public health outcomes.
• TECHNOLOGY: Categories that examine the technologies being deployed today while also exploring new technologies currently under development. 
• BUSINESS: Focus on moving the debate forward by addressing the business models that impact mHealth with a focus on lessons learned, best practices, and the emergence of commercially viable models to scale mHealth globally.
• POLICY: Showcase of healthcare, technology and investment communities seeking regulatory clarity on wireless medical technologies to accelerate this promising engine of health care innovation

The submission deadline is this Friday, July 8th. Click here to submit an abstract or presentation. For more information on the 2011 mHealth Summit click here.

Amplify Public Affairs is proud to be a media partner for the 2011 mHealth Summit – please consider participating in this event.

By Archelle Georgiou. The use of Avastin for breast cancer was addressed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration this week. The outcome was devastating for Roche and an emotional one for many women who believe the FDA is subjecting them to a death sentence.  As usual, there are a variety of perspectives to take into consideration.

The history: In 2008, Avastin was given preliminary approval by the FDA for the treatment of breast cancer on the condition that the company would do more studies to demonstrate its effectiveness. Many women have been successfully treated with Avastin — a billion dollar drug for Roche.

But when Roche submitted the required follow-up studies in 2010, the data showed that there was no benefit from the drug for treating breast cancer.  Studies did not show significant impact on mortality or  improvement in quality of life.  In addition, the drug was associated with some significant side effects such as high blood pressure and blood clots.

In December, 2010, an FDA panel voted to withdraw the drug’s approval as a treatment for breast cancer.  Roche appealed the decision, and earlier this week, an FDA panel hearing the appeal unanimously decided, in a 6-0 vote, to withdraw the drug’s indication for breast cancer.  The final decision on whether or not Avastin loses the indication is ultimately up to the FDA Commissioner, Dr. Margaret Hamburg.

If Hamburg supports of the panel’s recommendation is critical. At the same time, this will fuel even more emotion and protests among patients. Here’s why:

• From the FDA’s side: The FDA issued a provisional approval with the explicit understanding that the final decision would be based on more conclusive studies. If the FDA maintains the drug’s approval despite the lack of scientific data, this would likely impact all of their future decisions to offer provisional approvals for potentially life-saving drugs.
• From the patients’ side: Women who have benefited from the medication have clearly voiced their opinion that the doctors and patients, not regulators, should decide whether or not to get potentially life-saving treatment.

An important fact to keep in mind is that Avastin will remain on the market because it is FDA-approved for certain types of lung, colon, kidney and brain cancers. Therefore, Avastin will still be available “off label” for treating breast cancer when patients and their doctors believe that it is the best option.  In those situations, the only real challenge will be a barrier to access is a financial one since expensive drugs used “off-label” are frequently not a covered benefit and very few women can afford to $80,000 per year out of pocket for Avastin. (more…)