Many of the health care journalists we review are brave, intrepid, or both.
Health care is not an easy beat. It’s quite a mash-up of science, politics, economics, ethics, law, technology and … well … us.
These are big topics. A bit unwieldy.
The writers featured in this week’s 5-Star Friday have taken on some very big topics — like race, economics, and health care reform — and done a great job of it. They’ve been both brave and intrepid and we admire them for it.
Race is something that health care journalists don’t write about much. But so-called “personalized” or “precision medicine” has become a very hot topic. And Rob Arthur — who, strangely enough, usually writes about baseball and crime for FiveThirty-Eight — has this compelling article connecting the two.
Apparently, the vast majority of genetic studies linking genes to diseases are done using subjects of European descent. Arthur argues this means that other racial groups may not benefit from these studies:
“Those same groups already receive worse health care in the United States than people of European descent get, and personalized medical treatment could make the gap in care larger”
It’s a sobering premise made all the more worrisome when you consider that the National Institutes of Health — which is aware of this problem — may not be able to address the disparity quickly enough given the pressure to get these (lucrative) precision treatments to market.
Writer-physician Ofri opens her piece with a telling anecdote. An internal medicine practice she once worked at bought a stress-test machine, after which, she writes: “The number of stress tests ordered skyrocketed. Many were for patients who didn’t really need them.”
She goes on to recount other instances of tainted medical decision-making and she cites studies that show how medical drug and device companies can influence physicians’ practices. Yes, even those free lunches.
Ofri wrangles all her evidence into an argument for a single-payer system. Even if you don’t agree with her conclusion, you cannot ignore her arguments for doing “something.“
On many days, websites like Vox and Kaiser Health News fill a void with their insightful news coverage of health policy and health care reform (does that exist anymore?). This Vox piece highlights what appears to be, based on the survey data cited, a big shift in public attitudes about “government-run health care.” From the piece:
Specifically, the percentage of Americans who think the government has an obligation to ensure coverage to all citizens has risen from 42 percent in 2013 to 60 percent in 2017.
The piece also offers conjecture from Harvard’s Robert Blendon about what could be reasons for these apparently changing numbers.
We also had 2 news stories over the past few weeks earn 5-star ratings from our review staff. Here they are:
STAT puts $950 DNA-based fertility test under the microscope
To taper or not to taper off opioids? Vox lays out strengths and weaknesses of new study
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like