Monday, October 24, 2011

Divide over when to use in-depth cholesterol tests (AP)

WASHINGTON � For heart health, you're supposed to know your numbers: Total cholesterol, the bad LDL kind and the good HDL kind. But your next checkup might add a new number to the mix.

More doctors are going beyond standard cholesterol counts, using another test to take a closer look at the bad fats � a count of particles that carry LDL through the blood.

Cardiologists are divided over the usefulness of that approach. Proponents contend it might help them spot at-risk patients that regular checks might miss, or get more information about how aggressively to treat them.

But so far, guidelines from major heart organizations don't recommend these extra tests. They're pricier than regular cholesterol exams, although Medicare and many other insurers pay for them. And it's not always clear what the results mean.

"I see a lot of people being confused," says Dr. Nieca Goldberg of New York University Langone Medical Center and the American Heart Association. Especially when they're used on lower-risk people, "you don't know how to make sense of the information."

Yet up to half of patients diagnosed with heart disease apparently had normal levels of LDL cholesterol, and some doctors say particle testing might help find some of them sooner.

"For most people, the standard lipid profile is fine," says Dr. Michael Davidson of the University of Chicago. But "I get referred people who said, `My cholesterol was fine, why do I have heart disease?' We're showing them, well, because your particle number's sky high and they were not aware that was a problem."

Davidson chaired a committee of the National Lipid Association which this month called the extra tests reasonable to assess which at-risk patients might need to start or intensify cholesterol treatment. That committee's meeting was paid for by a grant from eight pharmaceutical companies, including some makers of particle tests.

Cholesterol isn't the only factor behind heart disease. High blood pressure, smoking, obesity, diabetes or a strong family history of the disease can put someone in the high-risk category even if their cholesterol isn't a red flag. Some doctors also are testing for inflammation in arteries that may play a role, too.

On the cholesterol front, doctors have long focused on three key numbers:

_Total cholesterol should be below 200.

_An LDL or "bad" cholesterol level below 130 is good for healthy people, but someone with heart disease or diabetes should aim for under 100.

_For HDL, the "good" cholesterol that helps control the bad kind, higher numbers are better � 60 is protective while below 40 is a risk.

Where do particles come in? Scientists have long known that small, dense LDL particles sneak into the artery wall to build up and narrow blood vessels more easily than larger, fluffier particles. While overall LDL levels usually correlate with the amount of particles in blood, they don't always, just as a beach bucket of sand may weigh the same as a bucket of pebbles but contain more particles.

Only in recent years have commercial tests made particle checks more feasible � although there's no standard method, and different tests measure in different ways. The tests add another $100 to $150 to regular cholesterol checks.

But is knowing about your particles really useful, and if so when? That's where doctors are split.

A study published last spring used one particle test, from Raleigh, N.C.-based LipoScience, to analyze a database of more than 5,000 middle-aged people whose heart health was tracked for five years. Most people's overall LDL and particle counts correlated pretty well. But people had a higher risk of heart disease when their particle count was much higher than their LDL predicted � and, conversely, a lower risk if their particle count was lower than expected, says lead researcher Dr. David Goff Jr. of Wake Forest University.

"We could be treating some people who don't need to be treated ... and we may be missing some people who should be treated," Goff says. "But I'd also say that we haven't done all the research that needs to be done to prove that this will lead to better patient outcomes."

Many of those higher-risk patients could be caught by a closer look at standard tests "for no additional charge," says Dr. Roger Blumenthal of Johns Hopkins University and the American College of Cardiology.

Triglycerides, another harmful fat, are a good indicator, Blumenthal says. You're at risk despite a low LDL if your triglycerides are over 130, not to mention a low HDL, he said. People who are obese, diabetic of borderline diabetic also are at greater risk, because they often have higher LDL particle counts.

Another way to measure without an added test: Just subtract HDL from your total cholesterol number. The resulting bad-fat total should be no higher than 30 points above your recommended LDL level � and if they are, it's time for serious diet and exercise, adds Dr. Allen Taylor of Washington Hospital Center.

Still, even some doctors who don't think particle testing is for the masses say they use it sometimes to tip the scales on a borderline patient.

Others use it to guide therapy. Consider Denny Fongheiser of Santa Monica, Calif. At 52, his usual 3-mile-a-day walk suddenly left him panting, but his insurer wouldn't pay for a stress test because his cholesterol was normal.

A month later, chest pain sent Fongheiser to the hospital where he needed a stent to unclog an artery. It turned out he had high particle levels, which his cardiologist now aims to get below the LipoScience-recommended level of 1,000 with cholesterol-lowering drugs.

"I was basically a time bomb," Fongheiser says. He welcomes "being able to test this and know what's going on."



Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | Amazon Plugin | Settlement Statement

Demise of Obama long-term care plan leaves gap (AP)

WASHINGTON � It's the one major health expense for which nearly all Americans are uninsured. The dilemma of paying for long-term care is likely to worsen now that the Obama administration pulled the plug on a program seen as a first step.

The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program, or CLASS, was included in the health overhaul law to provide basic long-term care insurance at an affordable cost. But financial problems dogged it from the outset.

Those concerns prompted the administration to announce that CLASS would not go forward. Yet it could take a decade or longer for lawmakers to tackle the issue again, and by then the retirement of the Baby Boomers will be in full swing.

Most families don't plan for long-term care. Often the need comes unexpectedly: an elder takes a bad fall, a teen is calamitously injured in a car crash or a middle-aged worker suffers a debilitating stroke.

Nursing home charges can run more than $200 a day and a home health aide averages $450 a week, usually part-time. Yet Medicare doesn't cover long-term care, and only about 3 percent of adults have a private policy.

"Long-term care is a critical issue, and people are in total denial about it," said Bill Novelli, former CEO of AARP. "I am very sorry the administration did what they finally did, although I understand it. It is going to take a long time to get this back � and fixed."

The irony, experts say, is that paying for long-term care is the kind of problem insurance should be able to solve. It has to do with the mathematics of risk.

Most drivers will have some kind of accident during their years behind the wheel, but few will be involved in a catastrophic wreck. And some very careful drivers will not experience any accidents. The risks of long-term care are not all that different, says economist Harriet Komisar of the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute.

"A small percentage of people are going to need a year, two years, five years or more in a nursing home, but for those who do, it's huge," Komisar said. "Insurance makes sense when the odds are small but the financial risk is potentially high and unaffordable."

Komisar and her colleagues estimate that nearly 7 in 10 people will need some level of long-term care after turning 65. That's defined as help with personal tasks such as getting dressed, going to the toilet, eating, or taking a bath.

Many of those who need help will get it from a family member. Only 5 percent will need five years or more in a nursing home. And 3 in 10 will not need any long-term care assistance at all.

For those who do need extended nursing home care, Medicaid has become the default provider, since Medicare only covers short-term stays for rehab. But Medicaid is for low-income people, so the disabled literally have to impoverish themselves to qualify, a wrenching experience for families.

Liberals say the answer is government-sponsored insurance, like the CLASS plan the Obama administration included in the health overhaul law, only to find it wouldn't work financially.

The administration was unable to reconcile twin goals of CLASS: financial solvency and affordable coverage easily accessible to all working adults, regardless of health.

Conservatives have called for private coverage, perhaps with tax credits to make it more affordable.

Some experts say it will take a combination of both approaches.

"It almost has to be," said Robert Yee, a financial actuary hired by the Obama administration to try to make CLASS work.

Lower-income workers probably would never be able to afford private insurance, Yee explained. And a lavish public plan is out of the question.

"Anytime people talk about a social program, you are talking about a basic layer," he said.

Indeed, Yee had proposed to keep CLASS afloat by using some of the techniques of private insurers to attract the healthy and discourage the frail. The administration rejected that hybrid approach as incompatible with the law's intent to cover all regardless of health.

"Despite our best analytical efforts, I do not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told congressional leaders.

Although CLASS would have come too late to help his disabled mother, Jacob Bockser of Walnut Creek, Calif., says he is disappointed.

Bockser, 29, is a former emergency medical technician studying to become a respiratory therapist. His mother Elizabeth, 58, is struggling with an aggressive form of multiple sclerosis.

She had moved to lower-cost Washington state to save money, but as her condition worsens her son is trying to find a way to bring her back to California. She can still live in her own home, with help to keep safe.

"She did a lot of good saving. But because she did good, it disqualifies her from some kinds of public assistance," said the son. "When you are only 58 and looking at hopefully living another 20 or 25 years, it's scary to think the money just won't last."

Bockser says he doesn't expect the government to solve everything, but "even if there is the opportunity to try to piece together a couple of different programs that would be a start."



Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | Amazon Plugin | Settlement Statement