Medical Groups Warn About Unnecessary Tests

Dozens of types of tests and treatments are too often recommended by doctors when patients don't need them, according to a warning issued Thursday by a coalition of leading medical groups in the United States.

This unnecessary care wastes time and money and sometimes causes harm to patients, according to the organizations that represent more than 350,000 doctors, the Associated Press reported.

The Choosing Wisely Coalition said patients need to ask their doctors, "Do I really need that?". The coalition was formed by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation.

Too many people "think that more is better, that more treatment, more testing somehow results in better health care," Dr. Glen Stream, former president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, told the AP. "That really is not true."

The academy contributed to this year's list of 90 examples of potentially needless care, which adds to 45 examples included on last year's list. Among the newly-added warnings:

Don't screen for a clogged neck artery in healthy people with no stroke signs. It could lead to risky surgery for a blockage that would cause no harm.Don't try feeding tubes in people with advanced dementia. Helping them eat is a better approach.Don't routinely give heartburn medicine to infants with reflux. This treatment hasn't been proven effective in babies and could cause side effects.Don't prescribe opioid painkillers for migraines except as a last resort. Opioids can carry the risk of addiction and can actually worsen migraines. Instead, use more migraine-specific drugs.Don't induce labor if a pregnant woman misses her due date and both mother and baby are doing fine.

View the original article here

EPA’s Costly, Unnecessary Soot Proposal

EPA continues to act tone deaf to the real-world needs of U.S. businesses and regular Americans. Its particle standards proposal issued this week is a good example of the kind of investment-squelching overregulation that ultimately could hurt the country’s energy future.

With the country’s air continuing to improve under the existing fine-particle soot standard, EPA proposed tightening it. The rule is scheduled to be finalized in December. Howard Feldman, API’s directory of regulatory and scientific affairs, says the rule’s benefits aren’t worth its costs:

“Air quality will continue to improve dramatically under the current government standards, but EPA’s proposal could substantially increase costs to states, municipalities, businesses and ultimately consumers without justified benefits. We are concerned that it could come at a significant economic cost and lost investments and limit our ability to produce the energy our nation needs.”

Between 2000 and 2010 concentrations of fine-particle soot fell by 27 percent, according to EPA. Feldman says three-fourths of Americans today live in areas where air quality meets today’s standards, and that the trend will continue – which suggests the new standard is unnecessary.

Feldman also says EPA based its proposal on “faulty scientific analysis,” that important data have been ignored and some of its purported findings are actually misinterpretations. How tightly the standards are set is a policy judgment. Because there is no bright line to guide the standard setting, the impacts of the standards matter. Feldman:

“A more stringent rule will discourage economic investment in counties that fail to meet new federal standards.  It’s in our interest to have both clean air and a vibrant domestic economy. However, the new standards would put many regions out of attainment, and companies considering a place to build a plant or refinery could perceive non-attainment as non-investment.”

Again, in the context of an economy trying to regain its footing, EPA is tossing out banana peels – with potential costs on a number of fronts that ultimately will hit real people. This economic anti-stimulus also is an unnecessary energy impediment.

It illustrates why, if we’re serious about a secure energy future, a common-sense regulatory structure is needed. By that we mean a regulatory process that’s open to all and based on sound science and legitimate cost-benefit analysis. By that standard EPA’s proposal falls well short.

View the original article here