Category Archives: Culture

Canada is looking better and better


O Canada!

In almost every election cycle people talk about moving to Canada if a presidential candidate they despise takes office. In practice few make the move. Things could be a little different this time around if a certain nationalist strongman comes to power.

There’s something else to fear this year: the Zika virus. According to NIH director Tony Fauci, mosquitoes with Zika are likely to arrive in the US mainland within the next month or two. One species will be all over the South, another will come up the East Coast as far as New England. Already, close to 300 pregnant women in the US are infected.

Congress is dithering with the President’s request for funds to combat Zika’s spread and is toying with the idea of canceling Ebola funds to partially support the Zika fight. It’s pretty irresponsible.

In the past I would have assumed that Congress would get it’s act together and do the right thing. But after seeing some members unconcerned about preventing a default I no longer take good intentions and common sense for granted.

Zika is serious and its spread could have a big impact on economic growth. In El Salvador, the government has advised women not to get pregnant for the next two years, lest they give birth to babies with severe birth defects. Can you imagine the impact such an advisory would have in the US?

Image courtesy of Vlado at

By healthcare business consultant David E. Williams, president of Health Business Group.

The false link between mental illness and gun violence

It would be nice if we could eliminate mass shootings by improving the mental health system, coaxing (or forcing) potential shooters into treatment before they have a chance to wreak havoc.  As the Washington Post (Most mass shooters aren’t mentally ill. So why push better treatment as the answer?) reports:

“It would be ridiculous to hope that doing something about the mental-health system will stop these mass murders,” said Michael Stone, a forensic psychiatrist at the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons and author of “The Anatomy of Evil,” which examines the personalities of brutal killers. “It’s really folly.”

This seems pretty obvious, and yet Republican and Democratic leaders, along with the general public and the media seem to think mental illness is the root cause of shooting sprees and that improving the mental health system can fix the problem.

After mass shootings, reporters often jump quickly to mental illness as the cause. Remember after the Sandy Hook shooting when there was speculation that the shooter’s Asperger’s diagnosis was to blame?

Asperger’s? Are you kidding me?

The danger of our fixation on mental illness as the root cause of violence is that we end up stigmatizing people with mental illness –and developmental disorders– while ignoring more direct causes of gun violence, such as ready access to guns.

Mass shootings are rare outside the US. Is there someone who can tell me with a straight face that the difference is due to better mental health systems abroad?

Meanwhile, Australia has seen a major decrease in gun violence over the past 20 years since adopting strong gun control after a mass murder. That seems like a more evidence and logic based response than what we’ve tried here.

By healthcare business consultant David E. Williams, president of Health Business Group.


The decline of white women’s health


The Washington Post (A great divide in American death: Statistics show widening urban-rural gap) examined death statistics and found that death rates for white women –especially rural white women– have been climbing fast. Key culprits? Self-destructive behavior such as over-eating, opioid abuse, heavy drinking, smoking, and suicide. White women still live longer than other groups, but the trend for them is bad.

According to the Post:

In at least 30 counties in the South, black women in midlife now have a lower mortality rate than middle-aged white women, The Post found. That’s up from a single such county in 1999.

Among them is Newton County, Ga., southeast of Atlanta, where the death rate for black women ages 35 to 54 dropped from 472 per 100,000 to 234. The rate for white women went the other way, from 255 to 472.

The article cites researchers who speculate that new sources of stress are contributing to poor health and higher death rates.

The Post also connects areas with rising white death rates to those supporting Donald Trump’s presidential bid. That makes intuitive sense to me, although I don’t know whether there’s a causal link. What I will say is that those who vote for Donald Trump are going to be disappointed that he won’t be a stress reliever, even if he is somehow elected.

Image courtesy of Ohmega1982 at

By healthcare business consultant David E. Williams, president of Health Business Group.

Most young men don’t know about emergency contraception. Is that ok?


About 40 percent of adolescent boys and young men know about emergency contraception, aka the “morning after pill” or Plan B according to a Journal of Adolescent Health study. Women who take the pill within a few days of unprotected sex or a condom break can avoid an unwanted pregnancy because emergency contraception prevents ovulation.

So how should we think about the 40 percent number?

The authors are pleased that the number is as high as it is, and take it as proof that educational campaigns are working. They’d also like to see the number go higher so that boys and men take responsibility for contraceptive planning. In an ideal world that’s undoubtedly true, but I wonder whether it would be better if men were less aware of emergency contraception rather than more.

After all, the possibility of pregnancy is not the only reason to avoid unprotected sex. Prevention of sexually transmitted diseases is right up there as well. If boys and men know that emergency contraception is an option, they may be less careful about protection and more likely to pressure their partners into having unprotected sex in the first place.

I’m not actually advocating for purposefully keeping people in the dark, but I’d focus the awareness message heavily on girls and women.

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at

By healthcare business consultant David E. Williams, president of Health Business Group.

Should patients choose doctors who are friends?

Come with me?

Can I help you?

In the social media era, it’s common to read articles discussing the blurring boundaries in the doctors/patient relationship. Usually it’s some version of, “Should a doctor accept friend requests from patients on Facebook?” or “Is it ok for doctors to Google their patients?”

The Wall Street Journal (The New Boundaries Between Doctors and Patients) explores these issues and goes on to explore what happens when patients and doctors become friendly during the course of treatment. In the midst of this there’s a throwaway paragraph:

“Some boundaries are clear. Professional medical organizations have strict rules against sex and romance with patients. Doctors are also advised not to treat family or close friends, situations that could compromise objectivity and judgment.”

I have no problem with the part about sex and romance. I also kind of understand the family issue. But the friend one is more interesting to me.

I read a few pieces that discuss this topic. (Here, here and here.) The typical scenario is a friend asking for medical advice in a casual setting, often on a topic that’s not related to the doctor’s specialty. I get why that’s a bad idea.

In my own case I know many practicing physicians socially, and most are in the prime of their careers: mid 40s to early 50s. A couple years ago when I was having trouble finding a new primary care doctor after mine retired, I asked physician friends who they went to. That was a little too clever on my part, since I forgot to account for the fact that physicians get treated differently than regular people when they go to the doctor’s office. No NPs for them!

But after some so-so experiences with a particular medical specialty, I decided to ask a specialist friend if he would be comfortable being my doctor. He said yes and I started seeing him. He’s a longtime friend but not an extremely close friend. I’ve been extremely satisfied with the experience. Partly because he’s an excellent doctor but also because I feel he understands me better and may even provide a little extra attention. He trusts me enough to exchange detailed emails. I’m not embarrassed to share personal medical details that I wouldn’t be comfortable with sharing someone who’s just a friend. Honestly, for me I don’t see the downside.

I did the same thing when I a needed a new dentist and that’s worked out well, too.

I hope I stay reasonably healthy and then die peacefully in my sleep when I turn 100, so I don’t have to spend a lot of time as a patient. But realistically it’s likely that I’ll be seeing more specialists as time moves along. I’m definitely planning to keep friends in mind when it comes time to find people to treat me.

Image courtesy of stockimages at

By healthcare business consultant David E. Williams, president of Health Business Group.

A wakeup call from the nanny state

Amber alert alert

Amber alert alert

My cellphone was off Friday night so I was lucky enough to miss the Amber Alert that was sent out at 1:45 am when a mom decided to drive home from Pennsylvania to have her son treated at Boston Children’s Hospital. I heard about it Saturday night from some friends who couldn’t believe this had occurred and were annoyed at being awoken.  From where I sit, the only good thing about it is that it’s literally a wake-up call to the whole community about how the system treats vulnerable people.

It’s hard to say exactly what happened. But from what’s been written, it goes something like this:

  • A nurse practitioner in Wilkes-Barre, PA told a mom to take her 2-month old to a nearby emergency room for treatment of severe dehydration
  • Mom felt she had gotten “the runaround” from the Pennsylvania clinic and decided to drive to Boston Children’s Hospital to have her son treated there. She is from Boston and apparently has a relationship with a doctor there
  • On the way back she dropped off her older son with a niece in Waltham so she could focus on the infant
  • Somewhere along the way, someone in PA decided to issue an Amber Alert –meant to be used when a child is abducted and “believed to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury”
  • The Amber Alert went out, waking everyone up
  • Infant made it to Children’s, where he’s been admitted and is improving –but now in custody of DCF (protective services)
  • Other child was also taken by DCF
  • Mom was arrested in MA as a fugitive from justice in PA. Judge listened to her story and released her on a token $250 bail

As I mentioned I don’t know exactly what happened. But I tend to give the mom the benefit of the doubt. In particular:

  • Who knows the quality of care and clarity of instructions the woman received at the clinic in PA?
  • A general ED is no place for a 2-month old. Many are still totally unprepared for kids, never mind babies
  • Boston Children’s is rated the #1 pediatric hospital in the country and she may have relationships there already. Depending on the kid’s condition, who wouldn’t at least consider making the drive?
  • It’s hard to drag a toddler all over the place during an emergency, so why not drop them off at a relative’s house along the way?

The mom apparently has some moving violations and a charge for prostitution. I wouldn’t be too quick to judge her for those things.

It’s hard to know what to do when your kid is sick and you’re trying to navigate the healthcare system. That’s true even for a well resourced, well educated dad like me who works in healthcare. Without those privileges it appears all too easy to end up with Amber Alerts, arrested moms, and kids taken by the state when a mom tries to do what’s best.

I don’t like it.

Image courtesy of mrpuen at

By healthcare business consultant David E. Williams, president of Health Business Group.

We want death panels!

Can you hook me up?

Can you hook me up?

From Kaiser Health News:

The public overwhelmingly supports Medicare’s plan to pay for end-of-life discussions between doctors and patients, despite GOP objections that such chats would lead to rationed care for the elderly and ill, a poll released Wednesday finds.

Of course it makes sense to pay physicians to discuss these difficult issues. The fear-mongering prompted by Sarah Palin’s characterizing these discussions as “death panels” has been harmful to patients and families.

It’s heartening to learn that most people have been able to cut through the nonsense on this one.

Image courtesy of foto76 at

By healthcare business consultant David E. Williams, president of Health Business Group.