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

Pin1 Modulates the Type 1 Immune Response

BACKGROUND/ABSTRACT: Immune responses initiated by T cell receptor (TCR) and costimulatory molecule mediated signaling culminate in maximal cytokine mRNA production and stability. The transcriptional responses to co-stimulatory T cell signalling involve calcineurin and NF-AT, which can be antagonized by interference with the cis-trans peptidyl-prolyl isomerases (PPIase), cyclophilin A and FKBP. Signalling molecules downstream of CD28 which are essential for the stabilization of cytokine mRNAs are largely unknown. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We now show that Pin1, a third member of the PPIase family mediates the post-transcriptional regulation of Th1 cytokines by activated T cells. Blockade of Pin1 by pharmacologic or genetic means greatly attenuated IFN-γ, IL-2 and CXCL-10 mRNA stability, accumulation and protein expression after cell activation. In vivo, Pin1 blockade prevented both the acute and chronic rejection of MHC mismatched, orthotopic rat lung transplants by reducing the expression of IFN-γ and CXCL-10. Combined transcriptional and post-transcriptional blockade with cyclosporine A and the Pin1 inhibitor, juglone, was synergistic. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: These data suggest Pin1 inhibitors should be explored for use as immunosuppressants and employed with available calcineurin inhibitors to reduce toxicity and enhance effectiveness

Health economic evaluation in lumbar spinal fusion: a systematic literature review anno 2005

The goal of this systematic literature review was to assess the evidence for cost-effectiveness of various surgical techniques in lumbar spinal fusion in conformity with the guidelines provided by the Cochrane Back Review Group. As new technology continuously emerges and divergent directions in clinical practice are present, economic evaluation is needed in order to facilitate the decision-makers’ budget allocations. NHS Economic Evaluation Database, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched. Two independent reviewers (one clinical content expert and one economic content expert) applied the eligibility criteria. A list of criteria for methodological quality assessment was established by merging the criteria recommended by leading health economists with the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. The two reviewers independently scored the selected literature and the disagreement was resolved by means of consensus following discussion. Key data were extracted and the level of evidence concluded. Seven studies were eligible; these studies reflected the diversified choices of economic methodology, study populations (diagnosis), outcome measures and comparators. At the conclusion of quality assessment, the methodological quality of three studies was judged credible. Two studies investigated posteolateral fusion (PLF) ± instrumentation in different populations: one investigated non-specific low back pain and one investigated degenerative stenosis + spondylolisthesis. Both studies reflected that cost-effectiveness of instrumentation in PLF is not convincing. The third study concerned the question of circumferential vs anterior lumbar interbody fusion and found a non-significant difference between the techniques. In conclusion, the literature is limited and, in view of the fact that the clinical effects are statistically synonymous, it does not support the use of high-cost techniques. There is a great potential for improvement of methodological quality in economic evaluations of lumbar spinal fusion and further research is imperative