UAB Medicine’s Post

The cost of cancer care is a topic at the center of a national discourse on fiscal responsibility and resource allocation. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, national health expenditures as a percentage of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) totaled 5% in 1965, but are expected to total 20% of GDP by the middle of this decade [1]. Although spending on cancer care comprises only 5% of the overall health care budget [2], these costs continue to rise at a pace more rapid than any other area of health care [3]. National cancer expenditures are projected to increase from $125 billion in 2010 to $173 billion in 2020 [4]. As an increasing number of expensive targeted therapies are adopted as standards of care, the average cost of treating common cancers is rising rapidly, with drugs accounting for approximately 40% of the overall cost of cancer care [1]. Another area of increasing costs is the use of diagnostic imaging. Significant annual increases in imaging have occurred across all major cancer types, and imaging costs have been rising at a faster rate than average total costs of care [5]. As a sequela of these rising expenditures, patients are shouldering an increasing proportion of the health care cost burden, often placing them under significant financial stress. Treatment-related costs have been shown to significantly increase financial burden among underinsured patients [6]. As we struggle to control rising national cancer expenditures, oncology providers are forced to examine practice patterns and their contributions to the overall health care cost burden. In 2010, Dr. Howard Brody presented a challenge to the leaders of all medical subspecialties to devise “top five” lists of costly treatments or diagnostics that lack the evidence base to support common use [7]. In response, the American Board of Internal Medicine has promoted the Choosing Wisely campaign, encouraging physicians to choose tests and treatments that are grounded in a solid evidence base. The American Society for Clinical Oncology, along with many other specialty societies, responded to the challenge and identified the top five areas for change in current oncology practice (Table 1) [8].

The cost of cancer care is a topic at the center of a national discourse on fiscal responsibility and resource allocation. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, national health expenditures as a percentage of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) totaled 5% in 1965, but are expected to total 20% of GDP by the middle of this decade [1]. Although spending on cancer care comprises only 5% of the overall health care budget [2], these costs continue to rise at a pace more rapid than any other area of health care [3]. National cancer expenditures are projected to increase from $125 billion in 2010 to $173 billion in 2020 [4]. As an increasing number of expensive targeted therapies are adopted as standards of care, the average cost of treating common cancers is rising rapidly, with drugs accounting for approximately 40% of the overall cost of cancer care [1]. Another area of increasing costs is the use of diagnostic imaging. Significant annual increases in imaging have occurred across all major cancer types, and imaging costs have been rising at a faster rate than average total costs of care [5]. As a sequela of these rising expenditures, patients are shouldering an increasing proportion of the health care cost burden, often placing them under significant financial stress. Treatment-related costs have been shown to significantly increase financial burden among underinsured patients [6]. As we struggle to control rising national cancer expenditures, oncology providers are forced to examine practice patterns and their contributions to the overall health care cost burden. In 2010, Dr. Howard Brody presented a challenge to the leaders of all medical subspecialties to devise “top five” lists of costly treatments or diagnostics that lack the evidence base to support common use [7]. In response, the American Board of Internal Medicine has promoted the Choosing Wisely campaign, encouraging physicians to choose tests and treatments that are grounded in a solid evidence base. The American Society for Clinical Oncology, along with many other specialty societies, responded to the challenge and identified the top five areas for change in current oncology practice (Table 1) [8].

To learn about our innovation and unique approach to target cancer, watch the short video bellow.

Smart and very innovative approach to fight cancer solid tumors.

Do you have patients with central lines, feeding tubes, or PD catheters? Gus Gear protects them while they are in-patient and long after they leave the hospital. [Image Description: Blue cursive font in a white text box: “Testimonial.” Below, in a standard font, “She is a wild sleeper and diaper changes are a wrestling match. The [Central Line] Vest protects from pulls when her line is attached to tubing and it protects from her grabby hands when she is not connected to anything and in her diaper.” Below: “Frances Shaw.” There’s a white Gus Gear logo in the upper right hand corner.] #DaretoBeRare #PatientEmpowerment #HealthcareSolutions #PatientSafety #BeAnythingButOrdinary #LifeWithoutLimits #ChallengeWhatsPossible #PatientEmpowerment #DreamBigWithGusGear #GusGearAcrosstheGlobe https://bit.ly/47F0t1b

Thanks for sharing Jonathan Snicker. Brain health in sport is an important duty of care that’s currently not being addressed quickly or adequately enough. This research once again suggests females are more susceptible to brain injury, such as sub concussion or concussion, and the impact of a brain trauma might be more significant on female brains. We know the problem. We have the interventions (eg Rezon | Certified B Corp Rezon Halo) Why are we still doing so little? Findings from this study show, in large animal models of concussion, females had a higher population of smaller axons, which researchers demonstrated are more vulnerable to injury. They also reported that in these models, females had greater loss of sodium channels after concussion. “The differences in brain structure not only tell us a lot about how brain injury affects males and females differently but could offer insights in other brain conditions that impact axons, like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease,” said Smith. “If female brains are more vulnerable to damage from concussion, they might also be more vulnerable to neurodegeneration, and it’s worth further research to understand how sex influences the structure and functions of the brain.” #brainhealthmatters #womeninsport #femaleathletehealth #empowerwomen #gendergaps #gebderdatagap

According to a recent ESMO Study (Cancer cachexia in adult patients: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines) Cachexia remains an underdiagnosed and undertreated, complex condition which affects 50% of all cancer patients!!! The fast and precise assessment of overall Muscle Mass or more specific indicators such as Appendicular Muscle Index or Phase Angle can help to identify cachexia early, especially in patients with hidden cachexia which is masked by increased adipose tissue. The seca mBCA 554 is validated against Full Body MRI and provides precise information about muscle quantity (as well as adipose tissue, hydration and phase angle) within seconds and makes every nutritional assessment more objective with clear numbers to follow up. https://lnkd.in/eTTpj6jy

Marching towards digital twin based surgical planning with soft-tissue and posture specific planning. Personalized Arthroplasty Society

Robotic left hepatectomy for CRC with surfing of the middle hepatic vein given close seg 4 tumor, utilizing Glissonian pedicle approach.. and then left adrenalectomy through lesser sac approach.. https://lnkd.in/gRiGQQtX #robot4HPB

https://lnkd.in/egSiRWc6 Step closer to the infamous tricorder