U.S. Physicians’ Views on Financing Options to Expand Health Insurance Coverage: A National Survey

Background: Physician opinion can influence the prospects for health care reform, yet there are few recent data on physician views on reform proposals or access to medical care in the United States. Objective: To assess physician views on financing options for expanding health care coverage and on access to health care. Design and Participants: Nationally representative mail survey conducted between March 2007 and October 2007 of U.S. physicians engaged in direct patient care. Measurements: Rated support for reform options including financial incentives to induce individuals to purchase health insurance and single-payer national health insurance; rated views of several dimensions of access to care. Main results: 1,675 of 3,300 physicians responded (50.8%). Only 9% of physicians preferred the current employer-based financing system. Forty-nine percent favored either tax incentives or penalties to encourage the purchase of medical insurance, and 42% preferred a government-run, taxpayer-financed single-payer national health insurance program. The majority of respondents believed that all Americans should receive needed medical care regardless of ability to pay (89%); 33% believed that the uninsured currently have access to needed care. Nearly one fifth of respondents (19.3%) believed that even the insured lack access to needed care. Views about access were independently associated with support for single-payer national health insurance. Conclusions: The vast majority of physicians surveyed supported a change in the health care financing system. While a plurality support the use of financial incentives, a substantial proportion support single payer national health insurance. These findings challenge the perception that fundamental restructuring of the U.S. health care financing system receives little acceptance by physicians

A biomechanical analysis of the self-retaining pedicle hook device in posterior spinal fixation

Regular hooks lack initial fixation to the spine during spinal deformity surgery. This runs the risk of posterior hook dislodgement during manipulation and correction of the spinal deformity, that may lead to loss of correction, hook migration, and post-operative junctional kyphosis. To prevent hook dislodgement during surgery, a self-retaining pedicle hook device (SPHD) is available that is made up of two counter-positioned hooks forming a monoblock posterior claw device. The initial segmental posterior fixation strength of a SPHD, however, is unknown. A biomechanical pull-out study of posterior segmental spinal fixation in a cadaver vertebral model was designed to investigate the axial pull-out strength for a SPHD, and compared to the pull-out strength of a pedicle screw. Ten porcine lumbar vertebral bodies were instrumented in pairs with two different instrumentation constructs after measuring the bone mineral density of each individual vertebra. The instrumentation constructs were extracted employing a material testing system using axial forces. The maximum pull-out forces were recorded at the time of the construct failure. Failure of the SPHD appeared in rotation and lateral displacement, without fracturing of the posterior structures. The average pull-out strength of the SPHD was 236 N versus 1,047 N in the pedicle screws (P < 0.001). The pull-out strength of the pedicle screws showed greater correlation with the BMC compared to the SPHD (P < 0.005). The SPHD showed to provide a significant inferior segmental fixation to the posterior spine in comparison to pedicle screw fixation. Despite the beneficial characteristics of the monoblock claw construct in a SPHD, that decreases the risk of posterior hook dislodgement during surgery compared to regular hooks, the SPHD does not improve the pull-out strength in such a way that it may provide a biomechanically solid alternative to pedicle screw fixation in the posterior spine