Category Archives: Mortality

Why I hope to live until I die

Seventy-five years is all I want to live. I want to celebrate my life while I am still in my prime. My daughters and dear friends will continue to try to convince me that I am wrong and can live a valuable life much longer. And I retain the right to change my mind and offer a vigorous and reasoned defense of living as long as possible. That, after all, would mean still being creative after 75.

So wrote Ezekiel J. Emanuel, director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at the U.S. National Institutes of Health and head of the Department of Medical Ethics & Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, in the Atlantic magazine of September 17, 2014.

He argues that:

  1. He will have lived a complete life by then.
  2. Increased life expectancy has been accompanied by increased disease, accompanied by physical and mental disability.
  3. If we change our goals to match our ages, we still burden our children and alter their memories of us as decrepit rather than vibrant.
  4. “But 75 defines a clear point in time: for me, 2032. It removes the fuzziness of trying to live as long as possible.”

He concludes that certain medical tests and interventions that the larger population would consider quite normal should be ruled out after age 65, after age 70, after age 75.

It is a thoughtful and provocative essay that has attracted a lot of attention, presumably to the satisfaction of publisher and author. It could be that he wished to attract an audience, or it could be that as a bioethicist, he wished to begin a national conversation about end-of-life issues, rather than to be taken at face value. I would not question the sincerity of Dr. Emmanuel, nor would I question his education, which surpasses my own. I question his wisdom.

First, his choice of 75 is by his own admission arbitrary. Why not 74 or 76? Why not 79 or 81? Choosing an arbitrary age, or arbitrary criterion for anything, is a logical one-size-fits all or Procrustean standard. Such standards assume a homogeneity of population that does not exist, and Dr. Emmanuel presents counter-examples and outliers himself.

He further claims that a country that achieves life expectancy of 75 for both men and women need no longer concern itself with further life-lengthening efforts. This is a statistical fallacy. He does not state which life expectancy.

Our life expectancies change as we age. Much of the life expectancy quoted is at birth, including the risks of infant mortality. Life expectancy at age 18 is much different. Furthermore, life expectancy at age 70 is considerably higher, as there is a heightened risk of mortality in the fifties and sixties, with those reaching their seventies enjoying a much longer expectancy. On top of that, those are averages that say nothing about the experience of any one individual, and we live life as individuals not as averages, except for those rare individuals with precisely 2.4 children.

Second, when he points to the increase in disability and disease in extended old age, those figures apply to the general population, including the obese we see among us. They may not apply to those who climb Mt. Kilimanjaro in their fifties, as has Dr. Ezekiel.

Third, he is concerned about burdening his children, but he may prove to be a greater burden on his children by refusing available medical interventions than had he accepted them. A person with atrial fibrillation who has a pacemaker is less likely to experience a debilitating stroke than someone who refuses medical treatment. The only difference is that the stroke disability occurs in the person’s seventies rather than their eighties. That doesn’t sound the ethical high road to me.

Fourth, it is ironic that Dr. Ezekiel in pointing out the “spiritual and existential” reasons for his position to be rejected overlooks the religious drive behind his position: the desire for certainty in the face of life’s ambiguity. That drive motivates most religious belief in the same way that desiring to die at a fixed age “removes the fuzziness of trying to live as long as possible.”

Fifth, it could be that as a physician on record as opposing active euthanasia and recognizing that people do have disabilities that radically degrade their quality of life at an increasing rate with age; he is left with the only alternative being a form of very passive self-euthanasia, which he describes in other terms in the essay.

Now, the essay is replete with disclaimers that Dr. Ezekiel is not trying to convince us nor does he think it unethical to conclude otherwise and so forth. In short, he is restricting his conclusion to a population of one that we cannot know as well as he does. If that were truly so, the essay need not be published anywhere but a diary. So, I find the disclaimers to be disingenuous.

At the outset, I challenged Dr. Ezekiel’s wisdom but not his sincerity. I did so on two grounds.

First, in academic research, with which any physician is familiar, it is a cardinal rule to state what you know, what you don’t know, and what should be the next steps. My impression is that Dr. Ezekiel confuses what he knows with what he doesn’t know. Among the things he doesn’t know, not because he is not intelligent and knowledgeable, but because he is not omniscient are:

  1. What the outcomes of two personal time lines would be, one being the refusal of interventions and the other being the acceptance of interventions.
  2. What medical advances will occur in the next fifteen years to address some of his concerns about disability accompanying expanded life expectancy.

Have we not all wondered at some time, what if we had married person A instead of person B, what if we had taken job A rather than job B, visited country A rather than country B, and an almost infinite number of similar questions that are summarized in Robert Frost’s The Road Not Taken? And the power of the poem lies in our understanding that we simply cannot see the path that disappears in the underbrush, nor can Dr. Ezekiel.

In the field of economics, everyone becomes familiar with work of Thomas Malthus, who predicted widespread war and famine accompanying population growth. It may still happen, but it has not happened yet because Malthus was unable to take into account the impact of technological advance. The same technological advance that has helped us lengthen our lives by declining infant mortality and more hopeful outcomes to heart disease and cancer may yet address the disabilities accompanying aging. What I know is that at my age (67) I can walk 5 miles easily and 10 miles less easily whereas my parents’ generation could not at my age. I carry two stents in my heart, which have no lengthened my life but improved its quality such that I can climb a hill without feeling faint. Such qualitative improvements from technology should not be overlooked.

Second, the ancient Greeks had a word that survives in our studies of their literature and ours, hubris, an excessive pride or self-confidence. And, to me that is the lack of wisdom in an otherwise well-written, thoughtful essay. We have come a long way as a species. With luck and wisdom that we do not always demonstrate, we will have a long way to go. Part of that wisdom is a certain humility that I found lacking in the essay. Even about ourselves we know less than we pretend to know. A person contemplating his death at 75 does not know he will not be hit by a car at 60 or suffer a heart attack or learn he has pancreatic cancer. By the same token, there are imponderables on the other side of 75 as well, good and bad, desired and feared. A person cannot plan that way, but the humility of admitting those possibilities should come through in this essay.

Many years ago I lived in the backyard converted garage of an older couple in Miami, Florida. They had an old dog. One day, the man about 70 years old was musing about how the dog was arthritic, had trouble walking and could not climb up on his lap, and how perhaps it was time to put him down. It gives me pause and a needed dose of humility in thinking about such things to recall that the dog outlived the man.

Getting your teeth into health care

We all know the reasons for going to the dentist regularly:

  1. Early detection (cavities, gum disease, oral cancer, bruxism)
  2. Checking existing fillings for structural weakness or peripheral decay
  3. Review of oral health practices

These are dental reasons, but there are other reasons as well.

The relationship between dental health and other medical health is not a new concept, with studies going back to the 1980’s. For example, the statistical relationship between heart attacks and poor dental health was noted in a 1989 Finnish study.

Managed care organizations have a strong financial incentive to lower health care costs. Healthier members have lower medical costs, so improving the health of members is an attractive alternative to cutting benefits in order to lower costs.

Aetna has been a leader in “Dental-Medical Integration” (DMI) as an approach to that end.

A study in 2006 found significant relationships between treatment for gum disease ( a proxy for having gum disease) and higher medical costs for cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and diabetic conditions, heart, stroke, and diabetes, respectively.

In 2009, Aetna reported considerable success in getting dental care for at risk members:

In 2008, nearly 67,000 medically at-risk members sought dental care after being enrolled in Aetna’s Dental Medical Integration program. At-risk members are identified as those with diabetes, heart disease and pregnant women who have not seen a dentist in 12 months or more.

A 2011 University of Pennsylvania study in collaboration with Cigna Dental established lower medical costs two years after periodontal (gum) treatment:

2011_UPa_Dental

Earlier this month Aetna reported:

  • Lowered their medical claim costs by an average of 17 percent
  • Improved diabetes control by 45 percent
  • Used 42 percent less major and basic dental services
  • Required 3.5 percent fewer hospital admissions year-over-year compared to a 5.4 percent increase for non-members

With the caveat that the Aetna programmed targeted individuals with particular diagnoses who had not seen a dentist in a year, we are nonetheless facing an important question:

Is it time to end the division between dental and medical insurance, treating health care for the mouth as a medical specialty like others, and dentists as medical specialists like others?

What we almost know

The impact of intestinal flora on health conditions is known, thus fecal transplants for numerous conditions. Last week I wrote about an experiment with mice verifying the impact on obesity.

As a consequence, there are numerous products being marketed as “probiotic.” We have no idea whether those products are helpful, harmful, or simply benign.Bacterial flora are an instance where we know some bacteria are essential, and we know some can be added beneficially, but we do not know which ones to add. There are promising studies with lactobacillus acidophilus shown: lactobacillus We almost know about GI flora, but not quite enough yet.

There are other topics where we are at a similar place. We know a lot about what mental illness is and isn’t. We know that increasing serotonin in the interstitial spaces of the brain helps with depression and that too much serotonin is associated with schizophrenia. As of this point, however, we don’t have imaging or blood tests or biopsies that will tell us who is mentally ill–we use written testing and observation not laboratory tests to diagnosis it. When physicians attempt to treat it, it is largely a matter of trial and error. We do not know beforehand whether a particular selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI), such as fluoxetine or venlafaxine will work with an individual, or if any SSRI will work. Some people will do better with buproprion, which uses a different mechanism. Others will do better with a serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) such as duloxetine. Others will experience no clinical effect at all. We almost know about mental illness, but not quite enough yet.

These examples lead to a more general question about what we know and do not know. It is usually phrased as “nature vs. nurture,” but it is really genetics vs. environment. I am not sure if the the “versus” between them is appropriate–something else I do not know–as it is the relative interaction of the two rather than a false choice between them that is a more likely source of the truth about who we really are.

Researchers often conduct identical twin studies, controlling for genetic variation by comparing the environmental impact of twins with nearly identical DNA. Molecular computer graphic of DNA double helix However, the studies are limited: it is intriguing if they both smoke the same brand of cigarettes or like the same foods despite very different upbringings, but it does not neatly tell us which behaviors are genetic and which are environmental.

Similarly, we know that 3/4 of children of two bi-polar parents are likely to have bi-polar disorder, which seems to indicate a Mendelian genetic inheritance, but we only almost know about the inheritability of mental illness, not quite enough.

Even where we know that a trait is inherited, we often do not know what genes or constellation of genes are associated with a given, visible trait. We almost know about the human genome, but not quite enough yet.

As scientists or those of a scientific bent, we are obligated to say what we know and what we don’t know, being able to distinguish the difference. It is not always an easy distinction to make, but is central to our effort to know more, and eventually know enough.

Disease and National Defense

In Biblical times, where historical accounts and historical myth sometimes mingle, there are accounts of great armies being destroyed by disease. Conflicting accounts of the siege of Jerusalem circa 701 BCE by the Assyrian king Sennacherib are of that nature.

Fast forward two thousand years. Evans, Kleinman, and Pagano write:

In 1334 an epidemic struck the northeastern Chinese province of Hopei. This “Black Death” claimed up to 90% of the population, nearly five million people. The epidemic eventually reached and decimated Tartar forces that had been attacking Kaffa, a Genoese colony on the Crimean Peninsula. In 1347, the departing Tartars catapulted plagueinfested bodies into Kaffa. The Genoese quickly dumped these bodies into the sea, however it was too late. Four ships escaped back to Italy carrying the plague that in just two years killed one-third of the European population.

The relationship between disease and national defense is not a new one in the US. Just a simple web search revealed this 72-year-old article from the American Journal of Public Health on the dangers of venereal disease to military preparedness. Another article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) of the same year reports that venereal disease has been a concern of the US Army and Navy since 1778.

There is continued concern about the impact of infectious disease on national defense, for example, the emergence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens and the threat from tick-borne diseases, and from influenza.

Indeed, with anthrax and ricin scares, preventing and managing bio-terrorism is a major part of contemporary national preparedness.

In addition, the Department of Defense is participating in prevention initiatives. As Dr. Jonathan Woodson, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs in the Department of Defense, put it:

At the Department of Defense, we’ve moved from a concept of health care to health, meaning that we understand health really is a much more involved concept other than just freedom from disease. It relates to healthy communities and healthy and active lifestyles and also addresses mental wellness and spiritual wellness as well. For us to create a fit and ready force, we need to make sure that we’re paying attention to all these dimensions of health and wellness.

All of these efforts center upon a single premise: national defense depends upon maintaining the health of the civilian and military populations.

That raises an important question: does it matter whether the threat to our health is a foreign enemy, a small band of domestic terrorists, or what we do to ourselves?

As we eat too much, as we eat too much of the wrong foods, as those foods provide biological encouragement to continue those habits, as we exercise too little, and as we create our own national health epidemic, is that not more than what any adversary could do to us?

Or as Walt Kelly’s cartoon Pogo once famously stated: We is met the enemy, and he is us.

The things we already know–but don’t often do

There is the old Middle Eastern story of the one who journeyed East in search of wisdom. He came upon a stone where he read, “Turn me over.”
He picked up the stone and read on the underside: Why do you seek new knowledge when you do not use that which you already have?

A recently reported Swedish study that followed 71,000 individuals over a 13-year period found that consuming less than five daily servings of fruits and vegetables was associated with higher mortality and shorter survival periods. Those eating one serving of fruit daily lived 19 months longer on average, while those eating 3 servings of vegetables lived 32 months longer.

Now by itself, this is not very surprising. We know that heavy meat consumption is linked to colorectal cancer, particularly in combination with genetic mutations, as described in a recent issue of Smithsonian Magazine. So, the possibility that a different diet would be protective, even by contrast, makes some sense.

Fornaciari subsequently analyzed bone collagen of King Ferrante and other Aragonese nobles, revealing a diet extremely reliant on red meat; this finding may correlate with Ferrante’s cancer. Red meat is widely recognized as an agent that increases risk for mutation of the K-ras gene and subsequent colorectal cancer. (As an example of Ferrante’s carnivorous preferences, a wedding banquet held at his court in 1487 featured, among 15 courses, beef and veal heads covered in their skins, roast ram in a sour cherry broth, roast piglet in vinegar broth and a range of salami, hams, livers, giblets and offal.)

In a similar vein, one out of three Americans suffers from hypertension (high blood pressure), a major risk factor for serious cardiovascular events such as stroke and heart attack. A recent study in JAMA showed that 18 months after the beginning of a study in which the experimental group did home blood pressure monitoring along with pharmacist case management, 71.8 percent had controlled blood pressure compared to the control group with usual care at 57.1 percent.

It would be easier if we had pills that would lower our body weight or a vaccination against high blood pressure. We don’t. But we have knowledge that we are not using: walk more, eat less processed foods and more whole grains, vegetables, and fruits, monitor blood pressure and pulse regularly. No, it is not magic–just the best that we can do.

Obesity confusion

We are agreed that obesity is a problem, for individuals and for society.

We are agreed that dieting alone will not help. The latest popular diet approach is part of the background noise not part of the solution. Here is some noise from my Facebook feed as I was writing this posting.

Obesity diet noise

Exercise and dieting combined would work, but is probably beyond the ability of many if not most people facing obesity. Indeed, starting any exercise program may be a challenge to both will and health of someone morbidly obese.

We know that bariatric surgery can work; however, it is invasive, expensive, and there are debates among specialists about what works sufficiently.

Indeed, after Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey announced that he had had a gastric band implanted, there was considerable debate about whether that was sufficient compared to gastric bypass surgery, particularly given the failure rate of the laparascopic gastric band or “lap band.”

There is open debate about whether obesity prevention measures are cost-effective.

As if the problem were not challenging enough, a study has shown that physicians fail to demonstrate to obese patients the empathy necessary to effect change.

Al Lewis argues that many of our workplace wellness programs are ill-conceived and ineffective.

The seriousness of the problem is underscored by a Metlife study showing that obesity contributes $1,723 per person per year to the Medicare budget, or 8.5 percent of the total.

We are not left with a solid place to make a stand against obesity. My plan is to walk a bit more and eat a bit less as I contemplate next steps. What are your thoughts?

Are we making progress or falling behind?

In health care we don’t need to look far for bad news. In the past week, I have read:

  1. The prevalence of diabetes has increases 75 percent from the early nineties to the late naughts. A more extensive discussion (may require free Medscape subscription registration) is at New Statistics Shed Light on ‘Worrisome’ Diabetes Epidemic
  2. Leapfrog Hospital Safety Scores ‘Depressing’
  3. Study finds jump in ER-related admissions

And certainly we could include partisan bickering in Washington among politicians more focused on the next election than any meaningful policy debate or measures.

However, the simple fact is that none of this matters. We have no choice. If we do not adequately address our health care needs, then we will no survive as individuals or as a society.

If that premise, the premise of this blog, is correct, then we must assure access to healthcare for everyone. We must get the public health epidemics of obesity, diabetes, and gun violence, among others, under control.

On this Memorial Day, as we reflect on how many Americans have given up their lives at a young age to protect the American experiment, let us consider our debt to them: we owe it to them to insure that our society does not fail and that individuals not on battlefields do not give up their lives at a young age because they ate too much or someone bought a gun out of fear.

We are Americans: we do not accept failure in ourselves. The rest is trivial distraction.

Are we doing ourselves in faster than we think?

We know that our health is adversely affected by obesity, a sedentary lifestyle and fat consumption, not to mention tobacco and lack of access to healthcare. These factors are holding down what should otherwise be continued gains in life expectancy. They also adversely affect those who survive: the strains of obesity on the skeletal structure, emphysema from tobacco consumption, chronic heart disease, cancer that takes over lives, etc.

Recent studies indicate that not only are we experiencing indirect and long-term impacts on our lives and health, but the rate of suicide is increasing, surpassing deaths by motor vehicles in 2009. What adverse lifestyles are not doing to us in the long-term, we are doing directly to ourselves in the now.

The recent CDC study Suicide Among Adults Aged 35–64 Years — United States, 1999–2010 showed that the largest increase in the suicide rate was among whites between ages 45 and 64, in contrast to the common concern about teen and geriatric suicide.

In general, the suicide rate is related to stressors and the availability of means. The following chart, with data from the National Vital Statistics system, is from that CDC study:

Suicide by Sex and Means 1999-2010

Noteworthy are the increased use of firearms, which account for about half of all suicides among men, and suffocation (euphemism for hanging). The study lists the rates of suicide by state as well as the rate of increase from 1999 to 2010. I wondered about the ownership of firearms in those states.

I found that the study, “Association of suicide rates, gun ownership, conservatism and individual suicide risk,” was published online in the journal Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology in February.

The title a bit provocative, but if the availability of firearms reflects the political views of a population, and if the availability of firearms is related to the suicide rate, then it is possible to find statistical correlations among the three, without implying that a particular political view is suicidal or causes suicide any more than suicide causes a political view.

The study by researchers at the University of California, Riverside presented the following map of suicide rates by state:

Suicide_2000_2006

The map seems to show higher rates in states where one might expect more gun ownership, but, being a data person, I did a little experiment of my own.

I ran a couple of regressions, down and dirty, not up to publishable, academic standards. I used MS Excel, probably acceptable for this purpose but not a tool I would use for a publishable regression analysis.

My data sets were gun ownership from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System for 2001 and Median Income from the US Census Bureau for 2006. First, regressing gun ownership by state on income found that income was a significant factor, inversely related to gun ownership, and explaining 35 percent of the unexplained variation. This is not surprising as rural states are generally poorer and are more likely to have traditions of gun ownership for protection as well as for hunting.

It also meant that the cross correlation of income and firearms ownership might cloud the findings when I looked at the suicide rate from the latest CDC report and its separate relationships to the two factors. Those figures were for only 39 states, so that is how I handled it. My informal findings were that gun ownership rates were strongly correlated with the suicide rate, p=.00025 with R squared =.308, accounting for 30.8% of the unexplained variation. Income was inversely related to suicide and was much weaker, with p=.045 and R squared = .104.

Now, you might say, “Oh, suicide is related to economic factors. With recent economic challenges, of course suicide is rising.” You would be correct. Researchers from Rutgers have provided a graph of the relationship between suicide and unemployment.

Suicide and Unemployment
Source: Social Fact: The Great Depressions?

That is not, however, the public health issue, as there will always be stressors causing suicide. We need to find a way to block access to guns in the same way that we block access to bridges for suicidal people. Of course, there are a lot more guns than bridges. In the United States we ban automatic weapons from private ownership, so the issue is not whether the right to bear arms can be restricted: the entire debate is how extensive those restrictions should or should not be. The data on suicide suggests that greater restrictions on access would have a positive public health impact.

How Do We Implement What Works?

Medicare is abandoning the one experimental program that works. So claims Ezra Klein of the Washington Post in “If this was a pill, you’d do anything to get it.”

Klein describes a program by Healthy Quality Partners (HQP) where nurses make home visits to geriatric patients with chronic illnesses. It has been subsidized by Medicare as an experiment, in which some randomly chosen patients receive the intervention while some do not. The results have been better outcomes at lower cost to Medicare per the article as well as a study published last July.

Let’s assume that the claims are true: better outcomes and lower costs. How do we take an experiment, and by definition experiments have a beginning and an end, and generalize it into practice?

There are numerous possibilities:

First, we could do what the article implies: provide more government funds to Healthy Quality Partners, instructing them to expand the experiment operationally beyond the 1,736 members in Pennsylvania. I am assuming that maintaining indefinitely a small-scale experiment that works makes no sense–onward and upward.

Second, we could change the reimbursement scheme at Medicare to provide reimbursement for such services so that anyone in the country could create a similar program with the financial incentive of knowing that Medicare would reimburse the services.

Here is how that second possibility has developed:

The Clinical Procedure Terminology (CPT) codes were created and are owned by the American Medical Association. Recently Medicare adopted additional CPTs for coding reimbursement for coordination of care services.

Care Coordination CPTs

A statement by the American Nurses Association (ANA) is enthusiastic about the addition of the codes. Note: the ANA participates on the AMA CPT and RVU Update Committee.

ANA Care Coordination

Eileen Shannon Carlson RN, JD of the ANA points out that it is rare for CPTs to be adopted that only apply to nurses, as do two of chronic care coordination additions.

To be fair, the new codes only reimburse care coordination after a hospitalization and for a short period of time, why the HQP initiative addressed the needs of the elderly with chronic conditions. Nonetheless, I can imagine the next step being a protocol to target care coordination for the elderly independent of a hospitalization. Contrary to much in the popular press, government programs are very aware of spending dollars and getting value in return, so they limit risk by taking baby steps in developing programs.

Ezra Klein may well be correct, or he might be underestimating the challenge of turning a large ship, particularly when the upfront costs of such a turn may be prohibitive. What do you think?

Sugar and spice, and salt is not very nice Part II

Last time we looked at the danger of dietary sodium, likely to shorten the lives of a million Americans. If knowledge is power, then here is some power for you:

Let’s start simple, with the major sources of dietary sodium from the CDC.
CDC Sources of Sodium

Unless we make our own bread (a fun thing to do with a bread maker, not as much fun by hand), we have little control over the amount of salt in bread. We can look for low-sodium alternatives or we can wait for government action. By the way, the government has been regulating bread for a long time, in Europe before the founding of this country and since the 17th century by colonies/states such as Massachusetts. Since 1941 the US government has been mandating nutritional additives to bread, including folic acid, iron, and other nutrients. Regulating sodium content is not even a stretch.

Take a look at this graphic from the CDC–sodium can be reduced by half in nearly identical sandwiches with a bit of care in choosing ingredients:

Low Sodium Sandwich

Reducing sodium in our diets is one of those simple things we can do to improve our health. Doing the easy thing is sometimes better than the difficult. 2 Kings 5:13

Here is some further reading on dietary sodium:

UCSF Low Sodium Guidelines
CDC Sodium Tip Sheet
Medline Plus: Dietary Sodium