Blogs of the Rudd Center on Food and Health Policy, Yale University: Rebecca Puhl http://ruddsoundbites.typepad.com/rudd_sound_bites/rebecca_puhl
Blogs of the Rudd Center on Food and Health Policy, Yale University: Rebecca Puhl http://ruddsoundbites.typepad.com/rudd_sound_bites/rebecca_puhl
Physician Patient Communication about weight: The importance of being earnest. [Lancet. 2003] – PubMed Result
Book Chapter on Weight Bias
July 30, 2009 :: By Morgan Downey
The ongoing furor over President Obama’s pick of Dr. Regina Benjamin as the next Surgeon General is to prejudice and obesity as the Harvard Professor Henry Lewis Gates’s arrest by Sergeant James Crowley in Cambridge, Mass., is to prejudice and race.
In both cases, it seems that a great magnet pulls part of the population to one side and part to the other side. After positions are staked out, we sort out the facts to fix our positions or, in some rare cases, to actually change our mind.
Dr. Benjamin’s opponents say that an overweight person cannot carry the message of healthy living. An ABC News report Is Regina Bejamin, Surgeon General Nominee, Overweight? – ABC News quotes former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine Dr. Marcia Angell stating, “I think it (the Surgeon General nominee’s weight) is an issue but then the president is said to still smoke cigarettes. It tends to undermine her credibility. We don’t know how much she weighs and just looking at her I would not say she is grotesquely obese or even overweight enough to affect her health. But I do think at a time when a lot of public health concern is about the national epidemic of obesity, having a surgeon general who is noticeably overweight raises questions in people’s minds.”“Grotesquely obese?” Is this not the crassest view of obesity that it offends my sense of beauty? And, is Dr. Angell aware of the scientific literature that even modest amounts of overweight may lead to increased risk of disease such as hypertension and type 2 diabetes? Does this mean that the Surgeon General cannot be a disabled person or someone with HIV/AIDS? I doubt she would say that.
The ABC NEWS piece neglected to mention Dr. Angell’s controversial editorial of January 1998 in the New England Journal of Medicine. In this editorial, Dr. Angell observed that weight loss efforts (which she acknowledged were nearly impossible) were “virtually ubiquitous among adolescent girls and young women. In middle schools and colleges throughout the country, girls who are far from overweight believe they are obese, or “gross.” (No citations in original). While dissing weight-loss efforts and physician counseling, she advised physicians, “Until we have better data about the risks of being overweight and the benefits and risks of trying to lose weight, we should remember that the cure for obesity may be worse than the condition.” Really, Dr. Angell? Eleven years later with obesity rates going through the roof, do you want to revisit that advice? Contrary to her statements to ABC NEWS, Dr. Angell closed by stating, “Finally, doctors should do their part to help end discrimination against overweight people in schools and workplaces. We should also speak out against the public’s excessive infatuation with being thin and the extreme, expensive, and potentially dangerous measures taken to attain that goal.”
Dr. Angell’s editorial produced strong reactions from obesity experts. William Dietz, MD and director of the CDC Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity wrote prophetically,
“You endorse the prevention of obesity but suggest that physicians “should provide advice if an overweight patient asks for help in planning a weight-loss program and recommend weight loss if a patient is suffering from health problems that can be ameliorated by weight loss.” This passive approach will not prevent weight gain in those at risk, nor will it prevent further weight gain in those who are already overweight. Furthermore, the rapid increase in body-mass index in the U.S. population over the past 15 years will most likely continue unabated if this passive approach is used.
The Massachusetts Medical Society Committee on Nutrition went on record opposing Dr. Angell’s editorial. In addition, the Committee took issue with an interview Dr. Angell gave to the Wall Street Journal on Feb. 9, 1998, in which she stated that some people “just like to eat — and in that case, it (obesity) is no more of a disease than bank robbery is a disease.” The Committee stated that such broad, unsubstantiated statements are inaccurate, inappropriate and irresponsible. The committee, whose members are physicians with extensive training and expertise in the fields of nutrition and obesity treatment, stands firm in its belief that obesity cannot be blamed solely on lack of willpower to control eating and activity. It also results from genetic factors affecting energy metabolism and eating behavior. Statements that belittle the life-threatening disease of obesity make a mockery of the plight of obese patients and undermine the medical profession.
Doctor Angell, you should take your own advice and unequivocally support Dr. Benjamin as Surgeon General regardless of her BMI.
July 30, 2009 :: By Morgan Downey
The debate over President Obama’s selection of Dr. Regina Benjamin as the next Surgeon General has focused on whether someone who appears to be somewhat overweight can carry the messages of the public health community to eat better food and less of it and exercise more to achieve a healthy weight.
While the debate ranges over the BMI range of the top government spokesperson, no one, it seems, is looking at the message itself.
One can well question whether the educational messages are working. One recent study showed that adherence to the federal government’s five recommendations for healthy living has decreased from 15% to 8%. Adherence to healthy lifestyle habits in US adults…[Am J Med. 2009] – PubMed Result This has occurred during an extensive educational campaigns about obesity during this period.
Given the investment in getting out the message of the values of living a healthy lifestyle, there are some disconcerting findings. For example, a new, small study indicated that messages to exercise may lead to greater food intake. Immediate increase in food intake following exerci…[Obesity (Silver Spring). 2009] – PubMed Result This experiment showed that when subjects were receiving information on exercise from actual campaigns, their consumption of available foods increased over the control group which did not get the messages.
As much as I am wary of anecdotal messages, I am reminded of a recent meeting of persons wanting to lose weight. One woman said she was the mother of five children and they had a family gathering (Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, Passover, weddings, graduation, christenings, bar mitzvahs, bat mitzvahs, etc. ..fill in the blanks.) One daughter told the mother she needed to eat better. The mother was resentful. But when another daughter talked to her about changing her food choices, she was receptive. The second daughter was overweight and struggling with it; the first daughter was always lean.
We have assumed that the best messenger was one who walked the walk. But does that mean only a lean person can be the messenger? OR would we rather have a leader who is like us…struggling…sometimes failing and trying to get back into the saddle?
July 30, 2009 :: By Morgan Downey
A couple of weeks ago the New Jersey Department of Health (so-called) decided to stop reimbursement of drugs for obesity and impotency from a program for the elderly designed to supplement the Medicare drug coverage program (Known as Medicare Part D, it excludes drugs for treating obesity.)
An article in NJ.com N.J. to cease coverage of impotency drugs for seniors enrolled in state prescription plan – NJ.com quotes the Department of Health spokesperson stating that “cosmetic drugs” that treat obesity, hair loss or minor skin conditions as well as vitamins and cold medicines will no longer be covered saving the cash-strapped state $3.3 million. Amazingly, the state AARP chair said it shouldn’t result in significant hardships for vulnerable adults. Doug Johnson said the state, “could have easily slashed vital health care programs and services that vulnerable adults depend on, but they did not.” (Some advocate for the elderly, eh?)
Weight loss in the elderly is important and achievable. The Diabetes Prevention Program found that older participants actually had greater weight loss and higher levels of physical activity than younger participants. The influence of age on the effects of lifestyle m…[J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2006] – PubMed Result. It may be that younger older persons from 65 years of age to 74 years have reduced stress from their careers, children may be grown, and they may see friends and family struggling with health problems. These may all motivate them to improve their health and it clearly benefits the Medicare program if diabetes or cardiovascular diseases related to obesity can be postponed or avoided.
We thought the old canard that obesity is a trivial, cosmetic problem was put to rest years ago. Even as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention is conducting a three day conference on obesity and even as Congress and the Administration, employers and insurers are grappling with approaches to prevention and treatment of obesity, we see two leading health care institutions throwing up the ‘cosmetic’ view of obesity. This comes, of course, on the heels of the American Medical Association declaring that persons with morbid obesity who cannot work should not be eligible for disability payments. We might expect such attitudes from people or institutions who did not know better but these are respected health organizations who are taking us backward not forward. If supposedly science-based organizations dedicated to improving individual and public health take these attitudes how can we expect the public to take the obesity problem seriously?
June 18, 2009 :: By Morgan Downey
The Associated Press reported on June 17, 2009 that the American Medical Association has adopted a new policy to oppose defining obesity as a disability. According to the report, “Doctors fear using that definition makes them vulnerable under disability laws to lawsuits from obese patients who don’t want their doctors to discuss their weight.”
What’s wrong with this? Well, nearly everything.
First, doctors do not discuss weight with their patients now. A new study confirms previous papers on physician visits found that BMI and obesity status could not be computed in half of office visits because of missing height or weight data. 70% of persons with obesity did not receive a diagnosis of obesity from the physician and 63% of those with obesity received no counseling for diet, exercise or weight reduction. Rates were even low for obesity patients with related co morbid conditions.1
Second, disability statutes don’t just list diseases and call them disabilities. Disability status is decided on a case by case basis depending on a combination of the medical factors and the applicant’s ability to carry on their normal work activities. At the federal level, the Social Security Administration has extensive procedures which basically require morbid or severe obesity and cardiovascular, respiratory or musculoskeletal problems. 2 Few would assert that obesity as a Body Mass Index level of 30 in itself is a disability. But higher BMI levels, with accompanying functional limitations, certainly do or should qualify.
Third, when I look at a statement like the AMA’s I find a quick test helpful: When I see “obesity”, substitute another disease such as “cancer,” “diabetes,” “arthritis,” or “sexually transmitted diseases” and see how it reads. It is impossible to imagine the AMA, which after all submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in a 1998 to uphold the Americans with Disabilities Act against a dentist who would not treat a patient with HIV-positive patient3, as making such a statement about any other disease or condition.
All the AMA policy will do is to likely turn more physicians away from counseling patients with obesity, adding to the stigmatizing views of persons with obesity not only as ‘lacking self control’ but, now, ‘litigious’. It will support administrative judges deciding cases of who qualifies for disability in making negative decisions about an obese persons disability, cutting them off from perhaps their last economic support.
Too bad. On the gravest health issue of our time the AMA is AWOL. Whatever happended to ‘first, do no harm?’
1. Ma J et al Adult Obesity and office-based quality of care in the United States Obesity 2009, 17; 1077-1085
2. Social Security Administration policy on obesity as a disability http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/01/SSR2002-01-di-01.html
January 30, 2009 :: By Morgan Downey
These are exciting times for health care reformers. We seem to have a President who is truly committed to reform of the health care system with the political strength to get his program enacted, at least a good part of it. What is the President’s program and how does or can, obesity be part of it?
First, some parts have already been enacted in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), aka the Stimulus Bill. Millions of federal dollars are starting to flow into (a) expanded Health Care Information Technology, (b) comparative-effectiveness research and (c) expanded research at the National Institutes of Health. In addition, President Obama and several of his key aides, such as Melody Barnes, Director of Domestic Policy Council, and Peter Orszag, director of Office of Management and Budget have both addressed obesity and its important role in reducing health care costs and increasing the nation’s health.
Second, a major component to be worked on this summer is providing health insurance to millions of Americans without health insurance.
How might these plans affect obesity?
Healthcare Information Technology (HIT) may provide some interesting opportunities. In a few places, extensive clinical databases are already in use which track patients receiving bariatric surgery. The Surgical Review Corporation, for one, has 100,000 surgical patients which are being tracked for long-term outcomes. The Geisinger Medical Center in central Pennsylvania also has extensive database on patients in surgical and medical treatment. Such clinical registries can provide a vast improvement in understanding obesity and its co-morbidities as well as tracking long-term improvements. Doing this in real time with real-world patients can add tremendous information to clinical trials, which, by their nature, have more restrictive populations and end-points. Last year, the National Committee on Quality Assurance (NCQA) expanded the widely used HEDIS system which measures quality in managed care plans to capture Body Mass Index (BMI) for adults and children. The Administration’s emphasis on electronic medical records (EMR) in primary care practice, by requiring capture of BMIs, along with other clinical indicators, such as blood pressure, cholesterol levels and lipids, can provide a tremendous database for researchers and has the potential to greatly improve patient care. But there is a third level as well. Private entities, such as Google and Microsoft, are developing Personal Health Records (PHR) for individuals to track their own information, which might include nutritional and exercise patterns. One can almost envision a system whereby food and exercise diaries, clinical indicators, pharmaceutical and surgical information is available for patients, health care professionals and researchers.
Of course, such systems take a lot of effort. Common terminology must be agreed to. Data has to be able to be verified. Systems have to interface and patient privacy has to be protected. Who owns this information is a critical issue.
Comparative effectiveness research has already received a great deal of funding under ARRA. The Institute of Medicine has a panel recommending research priorities and, given the discussion at a public meeting on March 20, 2009, there is good reason to anticipate that obesity will be one of the priorities. But the question should not be just what is the best way to lose weight. The research should look at weight loss by various interventions against standard treatments for a number of the co-morbid conditions associated with obesity. And, while there is good data on the efficacy of weight loss for resolution of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, less is know about its efficacy in mobility problems, such as knee and hip replacements, asthma or breast cancer.
Finally, the Obama Administration has an enormous opportunity in the coverage of the uninsured to make a real change for persons with obesity. First, the Administration should oppose using overweight or obesity as a pre-existing exclusion. While we do not know what percent of the uninsured population is overweight or obese, it is unlikely that the rate is any lower than the national averages. To exclude 30-60% of the uninsured population because of their weight would be poor policy indeed. Next, the Administration should provide a full range of interventions from counseling on nutrition and physical activity to pharmaceutical and surgical interventions. Not only would this directly address the source of many of the uninsured population’s health care problems, it could break the logjam of resistance to coverage of obesity prevention and treatment. While these two steps will be costly, we have seen the rising rates of health care costs and obesity go hand-in-hand. Economists today see obesity as a major contributor to chronic illness and its costs. Finally, coverage should be tied into electronic records which can track long term outcomes.
In the April 15, 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Johathan Q. Purnell and David R. Flum estimate that gastric bypass surgery could save 14, 310 diabetes-related deaths over five years. The evidence on the power of weight loss to prevent and improve chronic disease is there, if not yet perfect. The Administration has an opportunity to make a major leap forward in addressing obesity. It should not miss this chance.
December 30, 2008
By Morgan Downey
At this time of year, millions of Americans are hoping the new Administration will solve our seemingly intractable problems at home and abroad. Millions are also hoping to lose weight in the New Year. The two are not unrelated.
Over the past three decades, obesity has increased among all segments of the population, in the United States and abroad. Obesity is now recognized as the fuel behind many major health problems from cancer to diabetes to heart disease, and a significant cause of increasing health care utilization and health care costs.
While this recognition has increased among both Republicans and Democrats (for the first time, both parties recognized obesity in their 2008 party platforms), changing public policy has not caught up with the problem. Under President George W. Bush, Medicare did undo its policy that obesity was not a disease and did expand coverage of surgery for the treatment of obesity. There have been modest increases in the research and prevention budgets at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But by and large, the efforts of the last eight years have been largely educational: tell people they should lose weight, eat more nutritiously, and exercise more.
Duh! We get it. And it doesn’t work. Frankly, other than bariatric surgery, nothing works very well to lose significant amounts for a long period of time. There simply is not one ‘fix’ that will reverse this disturbing trend.
So here is some advice to the incoming Administration. It should be noted that many appointees named so far have a solid exposure to obesity from a public policy perspective, including former Senator Tom Daschle, nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Peter Orszag, named to head the Office of Management and Budget, Governor Bill Richardson, nominated for Secretary of Commerce, and Melody Barnes, incoming chief of domestic policy at the White House.
Universal health insurance is often put forward as the panacea for all ills. However, Democrats may have to learn that expanding health insurance coverage alone does not translate to a healthier population, especially if obesity continues to increase among children and adolescents. Truth be told, we do not have adequate medical interventions to affect the rates of obesity and its effects. So, if we do not know how to truly prevent obesity or create a long term treatment, what should a new Administration do? Basically, it should focus on how to create the conditions where it is more likely than not that we will find effective strategies for prevention and treatment in the future.
The obesity epidemic is more likely than not to continue to grow over the next four to eight years. However, the new Administration can position the United States for meaningful change if it takes its time and devotes attention to organizing the effort. With any luck, we can make future New Year’s resolutions more likely to be successful.