Equally, the swine flu vaccine, which was produced a record five months after the first reported cases of the virus in Mexico, has arguably been 2009’s most far-reaching health breakthrough. But this year has also seen many other important health innovations, all of which we might have thought were impossible just a year ago. Among them:

The Electric Eye – MIT researchers are developing a microchip that will regain partial eyesight. The chip will be implanted into the patient’s eyeball, and make previously blind individuals able to recognize faces, see shadows, and navigate their movements without assistance.

Lyric Hearing Aid – A new kind of hearing aid that does not require batteries, or having to remove the device before showering or sleeping.

Wooden Bones – Scientists in Italy have developed a new technique to generate broken bones by using small pieces of wood.

Antimicrobial paint – University of South Dakota scientists have invented a germ-killing molecule that can be added to wall paint and cloth to give it antimicrobial properties.

Electronic Stethoscope – Scientists at 3M have invented the Littmann Electronic Stethoscope Model 3200, the first electronic stethoscope that uses Bluetooth technology to transfer information to a computer.

JaipurKnee – Stanford Engineers have developed the world’s cheapest knee replacement, at $20 apiece. The JaipurKnee mimics natural joint movements, and is already in use by 300 people in India.

Some of these innovations are still in the development stage, while others are in the early stages of production, but I believe all of them are products that could have a very real and important benefit for the health of patients around the world.

View a previously written post by Mouli Cohen about health innovations

The Wall Street Journal ran a piece yesterday that appeared to be little more than a platform for Iowa Senator Charles Grassley’s opposition to the potential government run health care option. Grassley “used the Canadian health-care system as a foil, decrying what he said were long wait times. He echoed many other Republicans” by painting a picture of Washington bureaucracy standing between people in need of care and their doctors.

The media coverage of the health care issue has been sensationalism at its worst, and I think has skewed the perception of the issues. Yes, the right wing has consolidated its problems with the legislation, and has capitalized on less-informed popular opposition, but the media has truly gone overboard with coverage of that opposition.

As of this point in the debate, I think the co-op plan seems to be the most practical, and will probably be the closest thing we can get to a solution for spiraling health care costs. The co-op plan will leave many details up to individual states to decide, which should be viewed as a positive step, so long as it doesn’t inhibit coverage across state lines. I’ll be curious to see how the story evolves in the media going forward.

[image via K3nna]

Obviously, the job of changing health care in a country with such a large population is difficult, especially when we consider the growing divide between the haves -those Americans satisfied with the coverage they pay for or receive from employers - and the have-nots – many remain uninsured.

And while this debate is certainly a necessary one that has rightfully generated heated discussion, the way it’s been framed by opponents and proponents alike, is the aspect I find deserving of the most attention.

Those against the current plan in the House have used buzzwords like “rationed care” to ignite firestorms of popular dissent during town hall style gatherings led by representatives of the plan, and have used the blogosphere, social media, and traditional media to spread dissent.

Which has prompted President Obama to embark on a PR crusade to ensure that the facts of the plan don’t get skewed by the opposition’s campaign. But those on the left have also been guilty of manipulating certain facets of the plan.

The Huffington Post reported today on a poll conducted by SurveyUSA, who receives support from the progressive website Move On, a major proponent of current health care legislation, which “puts support for a public option at a robust 77 percent, one percentage point higher than where it stood in June.” The spin on this poll, released today, was that “more than three out of every four Americans feel it is important to have a “choice” between a government-run health care insurance option and private coverage.” However, when the word “choice” was dropped from the statement, the results were extremely different.

In fact, “earlier in the week, after pollsters for NBC dropped the word “choice” from their question on a public option, they found that only 43 percent of the public were in favor of creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies.”

In a debate where the baseline knowledge of the issue is already slim, it is clear that both sides have used their own “interpretation” of polls, town halls and media coverage to sway public opinion on the topic. And if the government’s role is still about working for the greater good, then this is certainly no way to achieve a consensus, particularly on an issue as vital as health care solution.

[image via sophiea]

For those who believe the government shouldn’t take on too much power or sway in a person’s life, it’s easy to see how the looming trillion dollar price tag on updating our health care system could seem frightening. And for those who believe the government owes it to its constituency to look after its citizens in a responsible, fair, and decent way, it’s not hard to see why such passion exists for change.

And now we’re beginning to hear news of an alternative option, the public health plan, adding a new wrinkle to the already contentious debate. Though it will drive down premiums due to increased competition, a co-op plan is much harder to define – the details will probably be left up to state governments in terms of how to implement treatment and organize costs – and as a result it has gotten much less coverage, further complicating matters in the eyes of the public.

The New York Times has an excellent piece covering the specifics, but it remains unclear whether this will be a viable option once Congress finishes its recess. But I think it’s important to note that even if it is still on the table at that point, co-op care will only work if it is funded both publicly and privately, and I am of the mind that without a certain amount of charitable donation, it will be impossible.

In either case, if we have any hope of moving the conversation forward, both the public and the politicians need to have a clear idea of what exactly is at stake.

[image via stevenverlander]

Having taken many lessons from last year’s presidential campaign, the administration will be using the internet to debunk many of the tactics being undertaken to bring down the healthcare initiative, including circulated chain mails with falsehoods over the details of the plan, whisper campaigns on social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook, and addressing web ads sponsored by right wing groups looking to throw a wrench into the process. The Republican minority has attempted to provide disinformation to the public, the Obama administration said.

According to Politico, the accusations on the table are clear: “conservatives have charged that Obama’s healthcare proposal would promote euthanasia, encourage federal funding of abortions, end private insurance and force every American into a public insurance plan. The White House and Democratic congressional leaders dispute each charge.”

Press secretary Robert Gibbs has been the most prominent face of the PR offensive so far, speaking out against Rick Scott, founder of Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, who reportedly took credit for town halls in which crowds became rowdy, booing and shouting down answers to valid questions. David Axelrod and Linda Douglass, two of Obama’s closest advisers, have also found themselves on the front line.

With every week that passes, reaching common ground on this issue only becomes more difficult. Though it would be preferable to see progress being made on healthcare reform, bringing the public squarely into the debate with with all of the facts is essential, not only to push the matter forward, but to maintain the level of transparency that we were promised. If spearheading an offensive against this campaign of disinformation will achieve this, then it the proper course of action to take.

First, some background. The CDC released statistics earlier this year that report that around 32 percent of children in the US are overweight but not obese, 16 percent are obese, and 11 percent are extremely obese. Accordingly, big companies like PepsiCo are under pressure to promote healthier products. Their “Smart Spot” marketing campaign highlights somewhat dubious products – Cheetos, Diet Pepsi, reduced-fat Doritos, and Cap’n Crunch cereal, for example – along with more nutritious offerings like Tropicana orange juice and Quaker Oats.

Though this initiative seems like a step in the right direction, Ludwig points out that “ultimately makers of popular junk foods have an obligation to stockholders to encourage kids to eat more—not less—of the foods that fuel their profits.”

Despite any new healthy marketing to children, food giants like PepsiCo spend billions of dollars advertising to the adolescent demographic via television and now the internet. (Nestle’s own estimation puts that figure to an approximate $10 billion annually, as reported in the 2006 Journal of Public Health Policy.)

Furthermore, research and development entities hired by companies such as Coca-Cola also lobby directly to professional nutrition organizations. The American Dietetic Association accepts money from companies which then “get access to decision makers in the food and nutrition marketplace via ADA events and programs.” Nestle notes on her blog that the group even distributes nutritional fact sheets that are directly sponsored by specific industry groups.

Ludwig and Nestle also point out that alternatives offered to unhealthy foods like sugary sodas are often just as packed with sugar, preservatives and calories – sports drinks and vitamin waters, for example. Add this to the fact that food packages often tout healthy factors – “No Trans Fats” or “Whole Wheat” –  that distract consumers from other less healthy ingredients that are themselves hidden on confusing nutritional labels, and we seen the true complexities of nutritional marketing come to light. Education and standardization will be essential to counteracting these issues.

For more nutrition facts and inside industry details, read Food Politics by Marion Nestle.

One factor in this debate is the general costs applied to the healthcare systems as a whole over these types of screenings. For example, if a person goes in for a checkup and requests a quick screening for thyroid cancer, that person could go through a number of different experiences. They could be found to have absolutely nothing wrong with them; they could be found to have some minor irregularities requiring further testing; or they could be found to have a malignant tumor which requires a full array of cancer treatment. The vast majority of cancer screenings come out as negative tests, but those tests still add to the overall costs to the system.

What’s worse, whenever there are false positives in cancer screening tests, the patient not only must suffer through round after round of subsequent tests, but he or she will also fall victim to the anxiety that comes with the uncertainty of the situation.

According to the Journal of General Internal Medicine, “Breast cancer affects over 175,000 women in the United States each year, but its impact is felt by far more individuals than just those who have the diagnosis. With increased public awareness of the disease have come increased levels of anxiety. Women perceive breast cancer as their greatest health risk, even though they are far more likely to die from coronary heart disease. This erroneous perception is probably magnified by many women’s personal experience with a friend or relative struck with the disease in the prime of her life. The fear of breast cancer often factors into a woman’s decision on whether to pursue hormone replacement therapy. Yet, despite these fears, not every woman is being screened appropriately, and a host of other issues, including cost, inconvenience, and discomfort from the procedure, are often cited by patients as the reason.”

New cancer awareness and screening campaigns do much to exacerbate the fallacy that more screening represents the key to protecting oneself from cancer. Not to mention the added costs and burden on the healthcare system. In a New York Times article by Natasha Singer, Dr. Ned Calonge, the chairman of the United States Preventive Services Task Force, is quoted as saying, “There are five things that can happen as a result of screening tests, and four of them are bad…the possible bad outcomes are results that falsely indicate cancer and cause needless anxiety and unnecessary procedures that can lead to complications; that fail to diagnose an existing cancer, which could lull a patient into ignoring real symptoms as the cancer progresses; that detect slow-growing or stable cancers that are not life-threatening and would not otherwise have required treatment; and that detect aggressive life-threatening cancers whose outcome is not changed by early detection.”

Obviously cancer screening is not going to go away, nor should it, but there remains a fundamental question of what is the most efficient and effective way of assuaging the public fears about the disease.