Health for life

According to this 2011 article in The Atlantic, the middle class is in trouble.  The Disease Management Care Blog agrees and wonders if they are ultimately doomed. Either way, there are important implications for health care in general and the care management industry in particular.

The amateur DMCB explains.

With the advent of the Gilded Age in the 1870s, the industrial revolution ushered in more than a century of heavy industry, railroads, mining, commercial farming and manufacturing that were powered by millions of skilled and unskilled workers. Wealth and power remained concentrated in an elite 1% plutocracy that had prevailed throughout most of human history, but a newly emergent "middle class" benefited from high wages and became an accepted part of the American political and cultural landscape.  Thanks to their labor, the quality of goods and services increased while simultaneously becoming cheaper.

While the middle class was in retreat at the turn of the millennium, The Great Recession suggests that their century-long party may be truly over. Global competition with the free movement of labor and capital combined with automation have made the costs of industry even cheaper. The plutocracy that has always been there can shrug off the effects of a recession, but the intrinsic value of traditional labor has popped, bubble fashion. 

In the last decade, persons in the nominal middle class with less than $90,000 a year in income have had flat wages and have been unable to increase their spending. Since 2000, American manufacturing - which has not only lost ground to China but become more mechanized - has lost about a third of its jobs. This has played itself out in geographic terms, where the elite hubs around Washington DC, San Francisco and Boston have high wage job listings, while cities like Detroit and Miami have been in the dumpster. In other words, much of the middle class is being hollowed out and being forced to downjob into personal services, retail and food preparation - while leading lives that are at risk for financial stress, partner conflicts, single parenting and troubled children.

In the meantime, the DMCB suspects that the "fat cat" billionaires so reviled by progressives are not any more numerous or fantastically wealthy.  The DMCB thinks that theyre only more visible.  It remains to be seen if government will be successful in moving wealth from that top 1% to the struggling 99%.  History suggests otherwise.

Long term implications for the health and care management industry:

Health care will sort into 1) high end, high touch, personalized care for a small elite that can not only afford it, but will be responsible for profitable top line revenue and 2) a strained publicly underfunded system with thin margins for the rest.  Care management providers will likewise sort into these two camps.  The first involves high margin value, the second involves low margin volume.  Given the disparate business models, its unlikely that single companies will be able to do both.

While universal access to affordable health insurance remains a bipartisan goal, high out-of-pocket costs combined with limited provider access for persons outside of the 1% will increase the popularity of cheap "DIY" care involving eHealth. This is a natural fit for the care management industry.

Lacking factory work, more workers than anticipated may be available as the U.S. population ages and the demand for personal health care attendants increases.

Classic health care "knowledge workers" may not be immune, since information tech and automation may enable machines to generate a differential diagnosis and read an x-ray, while cheap and highly trained remote labor may be able to deply robotics to perform routine surgeries.  For the care management industry, an on-line script that prompts a nominally-trained health educator may be able to replace nurse care managers.

Image from Wikipedia

Study highlights importance of social ties during midlife


Could marriage, and associated companionship, be one key to a longer life? According to new research, not having a permanent partner, or spouse, during midlife is linked to a higher risk of premature death during those midlife years. The work, by Dr. Ilene Siegler and colleagues from Duke University Medical Center in the US, is published online in Springers journal Annals of Behavioral Medicine.

Survival through middle age to become elderly is expected; theore understanding who does not survive to become elderly and why is important. Siegler and colleagues looked at the effect of marriage history and timing of marriage on premature death during midlife. They were also interested in testing the role of pre-marital personality and quantifying the role of health behaviors.

The researchers analyzed data for 4,802 individuals who took part in the University of North Carolina Alumni Heart Study (UNCAHS) - an ongoing study of individuals born in the 1940s. The authors were particularly interested in stability and change in patterns of marital and non-marital status during midlife, controlling for personality at college entry (average age 18), socioeconomic status and health risk behaviors.

They found that having a partner during middle age is protective against premature death: those who never married were more than twice as likely to die early than those who had been in a stable marriage throughout their adult life. Being single, or losing a partner without replacement, increased the risk of early death during middle age and reduced the likelihood that one would survive to be elderly. Even when personality and risky behaviors were taken into account, marital status continued to have a major impact on survival.

The authors conclude: "Our results suggest that attention to non-marital patterns of partnership is likely to become more important for these Baby Boomers. These patterns appear to provide different levels of emotional and functional social support, which has been shown to be related to mortality. Social ties during midlife are important to help us understand premature mortality."
Reference:
Siegler IC et al (2012). Consistency and timing of marital transitions and survival during midlife: the role of personality and health risk behaviors. Annals of Behavioral Medicine; DOI 10.1007/s12160-012-9457-3

In a randomized trial that included nearly 15,000 male physicians, long-term daily multivitamin use resulted in a modest but statistically significant reduction in cancer after more than a decade of treatment and follow-up, according to a study appearing in JAMA. The study is being published early online to coincide with its presentation at the Annual American Association for Cancer Research Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research meeting.

"Multivitamins are the most common dietary supplement, regularly taken by at least one-third of U.S. adults. The traditional role of a daily multivitamin is to prevent nutritional deficiency. The combination of essential vitamins and minerals contained in multivitamins may mirror healthier dietary patterns such as fruit and vegetable intake, which have been modestly and inversely associated with cancer risk in some, but not all, epidemiologic studies. Observational studies of long-term multivitamin use and cancer end points have been inconsistent. To date, large-scale randomized trials testing single or small numbers of higher-dose individual vitamins and minerals for cancer have generally found a lack of effect," according to background information in the article. "Despite the lack of definitive trial data regarding the benefits of multivitamins in the prevention of chronic disease, including cancer, many men and women take them for precisely this reason."

J. Michael Gaziano, M.D., M.P.H., of Brigham and Womens Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, (and also Contributing Editor, JAMA), and colleagues analyzed data from the Physicians Health Study (PHS) II, the only large-scale, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial testing the long-term effects of a common multivitamin in the prevention of chronic disease. The trial includes 14,641 male U.S. physicians, initially age 50 years or older, including 1,312 men with a history of cancer at randomization, who were enrolled in a multivitamin study that began in 1997 with treatment and follow-up through June 1, 2011. Participants received a daily multivitamin or equivalent placebo. The primary measured outcome for the study was total cancer (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer), with prostate, colorectal, and other site-specific cancers among the secondary end points.

PHS II participants were followed for an average of 11.2 years. During multivitamin treatment, there were 2,669 confirmed cases of cancer, including 1,373 cases of prostate cancer and 210 cases of colorectal cancer, with some men experiencing multiple events. A total of 2,757 (18.8 percent) men died during follow-up, including 859 (5.9 percent) due to cancer. Analysis of the data indicated that men taking a multivitamin had a modest 8 percent reduction in total cancer incidence. Men taking a multivitamin had a similar reduction in total epithelial cell cancer. Approximately half of all incident cancers were prostate cancer, many of which were early stage. The researchers found no effect of a multivitamin on prostate cancer, whereas a multivitamin significantly reduced the risk of total cancer excluding prostate cancer. There were no statistically significant reductions in individual site-specific cancers, including colorectal, lung, and bladder cancer, or in cancer mortality.

Daily multivitamin use was also associated with was a reduction in total cancer among the 1,312 men with a baseline history of cancer, but this result did not significantly differ from that observed among 13,329 men initially without cancer.

The researchers note that total cancer rates in their trial were likely influenced by the increased surveillance for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and subsequent diagnoses of prostate cancer during PHS II follow-up starting in the late 1990s. "Approximately half of all confirmed cancers in PHS II were prostate cancer, of which the vast majority were earlier stage, lower grade prostate cancer with high survival rates. The significant reduction in total cancer minus prostate cancer suggests that daily multivitamin use may have a greater benefit on more clinically relevant cancer diagnoses."

The authors add that although numerous individual vitamins and minerals contained in the PHS II multivitamin study have postulated chemopreventive roles, it is difficult to definitively identify any single mechanism of effect through which individual or multiple components of their tested multivitamin may have reduced cancer risk. "The reduction in total cancer risk in PHS II argues that the broader combination of low-dose vitamins and minerals contained in the PHS II multivitamin, rather than an emphasis on previously tested high-dose vitamins and mineral trials, may be paramount for cancer prevention. … The role of a food-focused cancer prevention strategy such as targeted fruit and vegetable intake remains promising but unproven given the inconsistent epidemiologic evidence and lack of definitive trial data."

"Although the main reason to take multivitamins is to prevent nutritional deficiency, these data provide support for the potential use of multivitamin supplements in the prevention of cancer in middle-aged and older men," the researchers conclude.