It seems like there is a new social networking site every week. Just when I’ve mastered Facebook, everyone is talking about Twitter. It’s tough to keep up with it all. As a friend so aptly expressed, ‘This interweb twitblog thingy is confusing.’
It may be generational. I’m 43; my nieces and nephews introduced me to Facebook. Because I am a long-distance aunt, I loved being able to learn about their lives and watch them grow up via Facebook…until my nephew said I was ‘Facebook stalking.’ (I later learned that this slang does not necessarily imply stalking in the literal sense, but rather keeping up with friends’ activities by reading their Facebook pages.)
I enjoy getting in touch with old friends from high school and college. But I also have ‘friend’ requests from people I knew but with whom I didn’t associate in high school. They were not a part of my life then; why should I share my vacation photos with them now? How does one politely decline a friend request? And what if a colleague wants to ‘friend’ you? Do they need to see your current relationship status, or the silly comment you made about a friend’s party?
This week, Julie Stauffer brings us the first in her three-part series on etiquette for social networking media, starting us off with Facebook and LinkedIn. Forthcoming articles will discuss Twitter, blogging, and, yes, email (some people still need reminders).
HOC has Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter profiles, and we invite you to visit them. We’d even be happy to ‘friend’ you, link to you, or send you a tweet. And we hope these articles provide you with a little insight into navigating this brave new ‘interweb twitblog thingy.’
HOC has undergone an extreme makeover, thanks to your valuable comments from our survey.
In our on-line version of HOC, you will find new content each week. You will see familiar favorites such as articles on US and UK healthcare initiatives, interviews with industry and academic leaders, updates on HEOR research, and deadlines for abstract submission to key meetings, as well as tools and tips for writing and communicating effectively. As we move forward, you also will see synopses of our readers’ research, written by the investigators themselves, and job ads.
This site will be more interactive, so you can receive updates via RSS feeds and comment on individual articles to participate in on-line discussions. You will also have access to the full archive of previously-published HOC articles.
And, with the departure of our former Editor, David Woods, I will be filling his shoes as the new Editor of HOC. I have more than 15 years’ experience in medical writing and communications and have been a HOC contributor since its inception. Our team of experienced contributors is ready to bring you the latest information on HEOR.
To start us off, we have an article on how Medicare data can be used to understand the growth of healthcare costs in the USA, an especially timely review given the urgency of healthcare reform under President Obama. We also highlight a new research study that shows the substantial role of high medical bills in personal bankruptcies for many Americans.
We look forward to interacting with you as we move in a direction. Look for us in the future in places like Facebook and Twitter.
Please continue to send us your suggestions. My “door” is always open.Mary Gabb, MS
As President Obama continues his push for major healthcare insurance reform in the US, a recent study in the American Journal of Medicine on medical bankruptcy is grabbing headlines.
The headlines read something akin to, ‘Medical costs contribute to more than 60% of US bankruptcies’ – a startling statistic, indeed. The study, published by Dr. David Himmelstein, a primary care physician and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and 3 other authors, does report that illness or medical bills contributed to 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 in the US. Three fourths of those with ‘medical bankruptcy’ had health insurance and 92% had medical debts over US$5000 or more than 10% of pretax family income.
As always, the devil is in the detail. The headlines do not tell the entire story from the study.
Disclosure of potential conflict of interest — It first should be noted that two of the four study authors are co-founders of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), a “single-issue organization [claiming more than 16,000 members] advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program [in the USA].” Moreover, another co-author (Elizabeth Warren, JD) is the chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) – the US government’s financial bailout program. At least some of the authors have an agenda to promote.
Defining medical bankruptcy — The authors defined persons as being medically bankrupt if any of the following applied:
With the exception of mortgaging a home to pay medical bills (5.7% of all bankruptcies who were recent homeowners), these are rather loose definitions of medical bankruptcy. They also do not address the role of personal responsibility in saving for medical or other emergencies. As Dr Himmelstein readily concedes (in a phone interview), ‘Well, most Americans don’t have much in the way of savings.’
Distinguishing medical bills from cost of illness — Such liberal bankruptcy definitions also blur the lines between the truly debilitating effects of underinsurance or lack of insurance, and the simple cost of illness due to lost wages (which health insurance does not address), although 95% of lost-income debtors also had ‘high medical bills’ (presumably more than the US$5000/10% of income threshold) and almost all health insurance in the US is obtained through employment. In this study, 70% had health insurance at the time of bankruptcy filing.
In the published article, the data are broken down by cause of bankruptcy, but these specific figures and analyses are rarely reported in the general news media. In fact, the data are used by the media and Dr Himmelstein to promote a single-payer health insurance system in the US. As Dr Himmelstein noted in our interview, ‘Other people can reach different conclusions [based on the data]…You can quibble around the edges. Is it half of all bankruptcies that are caused by medical problems or is it two thirds? …We think 62% is probably the best estimate, but other people are free to use our data to reach different conclusions. But even if it’s only 50%, that’s still an indicator of a huge problem.’
Health economists should be aware of these studies as select data are quoted and referenced in the news media and by politicians. Irrespective of whether medical bankruptcies are increasing or whether single-payer health insurance is the correct path for Americans, the discussion should be clear about the data supporting a particular argument.