Adam W Gaffney Profile picture
Oct 23, 2021 6 tweets 2 min read Read on X
"Treatable Mortality" -- i.e. deaths potentially preventable via medical care -- is much higher in the US than 4 "peer" nations. Moreover, we've stopped making progress in the past 10 years, widening the divide.
Meanwhile, blood pressure control — a big way modern medicine saves lives — has been deteriorating over this same period for the general US population.
Similarly, among adults with diabetes, both glycemic control and blood pressure control are worsening.
Meanwhile, while a feared and predicted 2020 surge in uninsurance did not come to fruition (for a number of reasons, including aggressive policy), the number of insured has gradually risen since 2016 according to three benchmark federal surveys:
Uninsurance and underinsurance among children rose from 2016-2019:
To be clear, I'm emphasizing the worsening trends in blood pressure and glycemic control as a failure of the healthcare system — we're doing something wrong.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Adam W Gaffney

Adam W Gaffney Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @awgaffney

Jul 1
We have an article just up in @thenation on Medicare "Dis-Advantage": on the waste and inequities that Medicare Advantage imposes on our healthcare system.

With @swoolhandler & David Himmelstein.

A Brief 🧵. Image
There is not too much controversy at this point that Medicare Advantage bilks taxpayers.

MedPAC, Congress' nonpartisan Medicare advisory board, in March estimated some $83 billion in overpayments.

A New York Times 2022 expose shed some light on insurers' dodgy maneuvers. Image
But here's the thing: if it were simply a matter of overpayments, we could give insurers a haircut in payments and just move on.

As we argue , however, the problems with Medicare Advantage are far more fundamental — they undermine Medicare's very foundations.
Read 15 tweets
Jun 29
Maybe we need more trials, but this must not be waved away & deserves attention: intensive blood pressure lowering reduces major vascular events per new RCT in the @TheLancet, & also all-cause mortality (as a secondary outcome).

Brief thread.

1/6

thelancet.com/journals/lance…
I understand caution or even skepticism about such findings, but we need to take a step back & look at the big picture: for decades, RCTs again & again show major benefits of medical blood pressure reduction. SPRINT & now ESPRIT show benefits of more intense lowering.

2/6
I understand methodological critiques - but at the very least burden of proof has now shifted to those who favor less intensive lowering, not the other way around.

I also want to make a point also about our orientation towards blood pressure treatment culturally/socially.

3/6
Read 6 tweets
Apr 3
Pfizer's EPIC-SR study is (finally) published (what took this so long?).

1: Primary finding: No benefit from Paxlovid on symptom alleviation among vaccinated or unvaccinated people.
Image
Image
2: Not a significant difference, but 0.8% of those who got paxlovid and 1.6% of those who got placebo had a COVID-19 hospitalization or death from any cause. Underpowered for this outcome & not really high-risk group (e.g. a single death from any cause among 1,288 participants). Image
Given this, should not extrapolate to truly high-risk patients, e.g. an octogenarian with severe emphysema.

UK-based PANORAMIC study, which enrolled almost 30,000 people may have something more to say about effects for truly high-risk people. But no idea when. Image
Read 5 tweets
Feb 13
Great reporting by @rmc031 on how some states are using Medicaid funds to help cover housing costs for some, i.e. "a prescription for housing."

I have some thoughts on the issue —  concerns, from a Left perspective.

1/X

vox.com/2024/2/13/2406…
First, to be clear, there is zero question that social goods like housing are critically important for health, usually more than medical care — it is an urgent social and political prerogative to realize them.

That's not what's up for question to my mind.

2/X
What's up for question is instead three-fold: (1) the role of medical institutions in providing access to these goods; (2) whether Medicaid should be the funding source; (3) the likelihood that there will be "returns on investment" in form of reduced medical spending.

3/X
Read 11 tweets
Aug 31, 2023
As a general principle, if the reproductive number largely determines the share of a population that will be infected before a respiratory viral wave ends, then only those behavioral/interventional changes that permanently change the reproductive number will reduce ...
the share of the population infected in a wave.

So the term "wave" can be misleading in this context because it suggests that waves eventually "pass through" a population with time: instead, they (typically) end because of the rise in population immunity.
In this context, reducing social contacts / reproductive number would be expected to only reduce the number of infections if such changes are permanent. For those seriously interested in altering respiratory viral epidemiology this reality needs to be honestly acknowledged,
Read 7 tweets
Jun 8, 2023
Our new study just up in @JAMANetworkOpen :

We modeled health outcomes from three 2022 Supreme Court Decisions with major ramifications for health, finding that they could lead to nearly 3,000 deaths over a decade and many other adverse health outcomes.

jamanetwork.com/journals/jaman…
We examined:

> NFIB v. OSHA, which voided COVID-19 workplace protections

> NYS Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which invalidated state laws restricing hand-gun carry

> Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade
Our research group brought to together experts on firearm injuries, abortion policy, and COVID-19 from multiple institutions, including David Himmelstein, Samuel Dickman, Caitlin Myers, David Hemenway, Danny McCormack, and @swoolhandler. Image
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(