Chronic challenges to healthcare policy

There were several news stories this week worth commenting on here. Each involved the relationship between medicines and the chronically ill, and each served to highlight the fact that conventional allopathic, Big Pharma-created and FDA-approved "drugs" are not getting the job done - at least not to the satisfaction of those who most need the relief they promise. The implications of this may range much further than that segment of our society.

The first was a Reuters piece on how dietary supplements are being used by our society; as it turns out, their most common use is among those with chronic disease, who've apparently discovered they get at least as much benefit from naturopathy as from more accepted methods. According to the article, "Having one or more chronic illness [sic] is the primary factor associated with the use of dietary supplements. Cancer survivors also use supplements to treat chronic medical conditions . a new study shows."

Of course, after these two introductory sentences, the Reuters story goes immediately into dutiful obeisance to the conventional idols of regulation and orthodoxy, quoting a National Cancer Institute representative (who led the study) on her concerns about the "dangers" of permitting such free choices on the part of patients. As Dr. Melissa Farmer Miller reportedly puts it, "We really are just beginning to build an evidence base on the benefits of dietary supplements." She then adds the kicker: "Even if there's not a benefit, there is a potential for them to cause harm." In other words, the assumption is of the negative effects of these supplements, rather than of their possible value - in spite of the obvious market evidence of their widespread use by the chronically ill.

Let's leave that one for a moment and turn to another story almost as significant. An entry from the National Center for Policy Alternatives deals with another study, this one showing that these same chronically ill people are getting far less quality in their healthcare, despite a huge increase in the quantity (and cost) of such care. It cites a report from the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, which examined spending patterns in this realm, focusing on the final two years of the lives of these chronic-illness patients.

The variations in the duration and extent of hospitalization for such patients were far more dependent on the geography around them than on any correlation with their degree of illness, chance of survival or other factors. The report found that hospital stays and number of doctor visits during those last two years of existence were between three and five times as long and/or prevalent in Manhattan or Los Angeles than in smaller cities in Oregon or Utah. The implications of this on Medicare spending (the primary funding source for such visits by those patients) are obvious.

A third story, about yet another study, is also somewhat related here. It addresses the issue of narcotic painkiller prescriptions (Oxycontin, Vicodin and even some stronger Pharma pain-treatment creations), and ways that physicians can continue to prescribe them to treat legitimate pain issues in their patients, without risking the loss of their medical licenses, in the face of Drug Enforcement Administration crackdowns against the resale or diversion of these powerful drugs to the black market. According to a Health News Digest article, a new study from the University of Michigan and the Ohio State University shows "how doctors and their office staff might be able to keep their balance" between these two conflicting arenas.

And finally, there was an MSNBC consideration of the recent increase in state-driven programs for "recycling" unused prescription pharmaceuticals - both to prevent them from ending up in the waterways (after "flushing unused meds" as was once routinely recommended), and to cut the costs of such medicines for the uninsured and the poor. (Most programs require an intermediate step, of vetting by a pharmacist to check for dosage and safety, before passing them on hospitals and charitable clinics for free distribution to those in need of them.) The story notes that these drugs "run the gamut and include antibiotics, antipsychotics, blood thinners and antidepressants."

What do these four stories have in common? At first glance, perhaps not a lot, since they each deal with rather diverse issues. However, on closer examination it might be said that each one addresses a different component of the same societal problem: the increased reliance of everyone on high-potency prescription drugs . and the relatively low effectiveness these have produced. Even the chronically ill, who by all expectations should be most locked into reliance on allopathic methodologies for relief, are now demonstrably seen as seeking out natural and alternative medical channels for the easing of their distress.

It's pretty clear that these folks, with very little to lose at this stage, are eager to find ANY solution that mitigates their pain and suffering; they're also more than willing to encounter a few possible side-effects (and in most cases, less severe ones than the accepted laundry-list attached to your average Big Pharma concoction), on the off-chance that one or more of these "folk remedies" might actually improve their conditions, or at least ease the agony that accompanies them. (Moreover, as shown by the second study, although this segment of society appears to be spending more time under physician care, if not in the hospitals themselves, the frequency seems driven more by demographics than by any evidence of healing.)

The other two stories deal with the societal costs of the attempts to control the process, and keep the ailing members of our population chained to the prescriptions and the painkillers, instead of seeking ways to not just mitigate symptoms, but actually move to more curative methods. The first tries to show how doctors can better control the distribution of the drugs they prescribe; the second deals with how state and local governments are finding ways to get even more people reliant on these high-potency pharmaceuticals, including those who cannot afford them on their own devices.

In both cases, the question never asked is this: Why are we so focused on expanding access to these Pharma-created substances, instead of working to promote a lesser NEED for such remedies, dealing with ailments we may be able to PREVENT in the first place, with a little more focus on healing and wellness?

We're not discounting the fact that for some people conventional medication may be the only solution to their ailments. Brain chemistry is affected, and therefore sometimes may be re-balanced, even with laboratory-created psychoactive substances; meanwhile, some major pain issues must also be treated using these synthetic Pharma-concoctions. However, for most of us, the real key to managing our lives still lies in developing our own lifestyles and habits to promote overall wellness and disease-prevention; relying on synthetic pharmaceutical devices (which mostly function by suppression and distortion of our body's normal functioning) is clearly not the first resort in achieving and maintaining a healthy physical condition.

Oddly enough (or perhaps not?), this week's Backgrounder posting, by Mike Adams of Natural News (fka News Target) is most appropriate to this consideration, since it does ask that question. The piece, published some four years ago, offers the basic premise that for most people (including those for whom advancing age has come hand-in-hand with almost automatic recommendations for pharmaceutical prescriptions from their family physicians) the avoidance of Big Pharma drugs is actually a good decision for their health and wellness!

Adams, the self-defined "Health Ranger," has been commenting on these matters for a while now. However, this piece from several years back presents his most basic thesis: We can affect our health and wellness, and resisting the temptation to medicate (mask symptoms), and instead seeking cures and healing, is part and parcel of that paradigm-shift.

Judging from these news stories, he would appear to have been onto something, even four years ago. He would also be the first to declare that his ideas are hardly original, but that he`s merely the latest messenger, reminding us of what previous cultures have known for millennia.

Source