Leaded aviation fuel a threat to public health, children

KUOW’s John Ryan used federal data and a few key sources to delve deep into issues surrounding one of the few remaining sources of airborne lead in the United States, a leaded aviation fuel known as “avgas.” In the process, he reveals damage that even low levels of lead exposure could be doing to children.

Avgas accounts for less than 1 percent of the nation’s liquid fuel use. Yet enough piston–engine planes fly enough miles on avgas to belch out half of all the lead going into the nation’s air.

Lead paint in old buildings remains a bigger threat, but even low levels of childhood exposure, one source tells Ryan, can manifest itself in “Decreases in IQ, changes in test scores, changes in attention, hearing threshold, all sorts of things like that.”

Earlier this month (January), an expert panel advising the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cut in half the levels of lead in children that should alarm parents or doctors. Researchers have yet to find any level of lead exposure that doesn’t cause harm.

Michael Kosnett, a medical toxicologist at the University of Colorado, told Ryan, “In any one child, it’s not something that’s going to necessarily cause them to display any kind of signs and symptoms. But if you can lower the lead exposure of a population of children, you’re going to give that population more of an opportunity to have gifted children and to have children who have higher IQs, and that’s certainly a desirable public health goal.”

Marie Lynn Miranda, an environmental health scientist and a dean at the University of Michigan, points out that “Living close to an airport can increase your blood lead level anywhere from 2 to 4 percent,” acknowledging that is a small amount but that evidence indicates even small amounts of lead are bad. She also notes that “lead is especially a problem for the low–income families that are most likely to live near airports.”

Pilots who still use avgas say their businesses would be dead in the water if they couldn’t get the leaded fuel, an argument Ryan contrasts with quotes from a Europe-based lead-free avgas producer, who sells it for 40 cents less a gallon, but hasn’t been able to break into the U.S. market “Because no one thinks that there will be demand for an unleaded–grade aviation gasoline.”

The federal database Ryan used, The National Emissions Inventory, is posted online by the EPA.

Investigation delves into Wash.’s prescription drug problem

Everything time we think prescription drug abuse stories have peaked, something comes along to push the story further. This time, InvestigateWest’s Carol Smith sets herself apart by starting from square one and clearly explaining the origins and dimensions of Washington’s particularly nasty drug issues, tracing back each facet of the problem to its source and spotlighting what makes the Evergreen State unique.

Washington has been one of the hardest hit states in the country, in part because of aggressive prescribing practices. That, coupled with lack of oversight of doctors who over-prescribe, has led to the spectacular run-up in the number of deaths from prescription overdoses.

The backdrop for her work is an epidemic that shows no signs of abating, despite a recently implemented state law Smith calls “a bold attempt to reduce overdose deaths by launching the first-ever dosing limits for doctors and others who prescribe these medicines.”

Prescription drug abuse is at epidemic levels throughout the state, and elsewhere in the country, despite lawmakers’ attempts to get a grip on it. Washington now has one of the highest death rates in the nation. Deaths from prescription drug overdoses in this state have skyrocketed nearly twenty-fold since the mid-1990s, and now outstrip those from traffic accidents.

Why caused it to leap so quickly? Smith tracks down several key tipping points. “There’s plenty of blame to go around for what caused the epidemic,” she writes. “Aggressive marketing of opiates by drug companies, nonexistent tracking of overprescribing, lack of insurance coverage for alternative treatments for pain, and demand by patients for quick fixes, to name a few.”

She drills down into many of those causes, with my personal favorites being two key origin stories:

• How marketing by OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma led to relaxed guidelines for chronic pain treatment and a “1999 law specified ‘No disciplinary action will be taken against a practitioner based solely on the quantity and/or frequency of opiates prescribed,’” both of which helped cause a jump in prescriptions.
• How “the rise in the death rates of Medicaid patients tracks along with the state’s cost-saving decision to move many of its poorest residents to the cheapest, most potent pain reliever available: Methadone.”

See the upper right-hand sidebar for more stories from the six-month investigation.

Share your thoughts on database design for tracking pharma payments to doctors

Curtis Brainard of Columbia Journalism Review reminds reporters that their input is needed on the design of a federal database that will track payments from drug and device makers to doctors.

Investigations and databases, such as Dollars for Docs by Propublica, have revealed payments to doctors who had been accused of professional misconduct, had been disciplined or lacked credentials. Researchers have found evidence that payments can influence doctors’ treatment decisions (PDF).

Provisions in the Affordable Care Act mean that companies will have to report such payments to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which will post the data on a public website. CMS has asked for “comments on how to structure this Web site for ultimate usability.”

There are a number of ways to submit your comments, detailed in this Federal Register announcement. Comments must be received by 5 p.m. EST on Feb. 17.

Reuters shows how shell companies hide Medicare fraud in plain sight

Reporting for Reuters, Brian Grow and Matthew Bigg used an analysis of public data to investigate the practice of using shell companies to defraud Medicare of millions while staying a step or two ahead of federal investigators.

While the specific damage inflicted by shell companies has not been tracked, “Last year, ‘improper payments’ resulted in $48 billion in losses to the Medicare program, nearly 10 percent of the $526 billion in payments the program made, according to a Government Accountability Office report last March.”

“Simply by reviewing the incorporation records of Medicare providers in two buildings” in Miami, they write, “reporters uncovered information that one government official said could prompt “a serious criminal investigation” of some of the companies.”

The fraud rings merge stolen doctor and patient data under the auspices of a shell company and then bill Medicare as rapidly as possible. Other shell companies are often layered on top to camouflage the fraud, law enforcement officials say.

Some of the shells purport to be billing companies; they form a buffer between the sham clinics and Medicare. Others pay kickbacks to doctors and patients who sign off on bogus medical claims or sell their Medicare ID numbers to enable the shell company to bill the government. Still other shells act as fronts to launder the profits.

The key to this kind of fraud, known as a “bust-out” scheme, is for each of the fake companies to bill as much as possible before authorities catch on. Shell companies become a tool that helps keep the crooks ahead of the cops.

The Armenian crime ring whose fraud made headlines last year used 118 shell companies in 25 states and bilked the feds out of at least $100 million. Varying incorporation rules make state-hopping and obfuscation “easy,” they write, especially since states don’t check to see if records are legit before they allow a company to incorporate. The reportes found that even a few simple safeguards would go a long way to detecting the boldest frauds.

In Florida, FBI agents say almost every Medicare fraud scheme involves shell companies. There, Reuters scrutinized incorporation documents for firms located in two buildings near the Miami International Airport. In a building with dimly lit corridors, a rickety elevator and almost no one in sight, a host of companies purport to provide services to Medicare recipients. But telltale signs of fraud abound.

Many of the 26 companies in the buildings had replaced corporate officers at least once in the last four years. Some had changed ownership, or their corporate executives represented more than one medical-related company. Law enforcement officials consider such activities to be red flags for fraud.

For its part, CMS told the reporters it simply didn’t have the resources necessary to conduct the widespread audits needed to catch fraud, though the $350 million allocated to such efforts under the 2010 health reform law should help.

Health journalists who will certainly want to review the “methodology” subheading at the end of the story.

Journalists should learn about study design, evidence-based medicine

Earlier this month I saw on Twitter one of those collisions between journalism and wonkdom. Maybe “collision” isn’t the right word; maybe it was some kind of interspecies mating dance. Anyhow, the gist of it was that we, journalists, don’t know how to evaluate evidence and someone should step in and teach us.

So I stuck in my two cents (or, rather, my two tweets) pointing out that, yes, there is a need for training and, yes, there are places to get the training, including through AHCJ. (See more after the Twitter discussion.)

So, before I remind you about those resources, just a word on why we need them:

On the surface, it may seem that AHCJ houses two kinds of health journalists – those of us who report on the science side of things, and those of us who are more in a policy world. But some of us do both – and research/evidence/evaluating science are also becoming an increasing part of the underpinnings of policy beats. Value-based purchasing, comparative effectiveness, benefits of screening/prevention, quality measures, outcome research … these are all part of the health care reform story.

That doesn’t mean all of us must become  economists/biologists/epidemiologists/statisticians. Old fashioned reporting – including calling experts who can help us make sense of numbers  – is certainly part of the job. But it’s also good to have some sense of what the experts are talking about, what these numbers mean. Why a study on N=16 patients doesn’t really tell us that much. What do we mean by “endpoints,” “outcomes,” “progression?” What’s relative versus absolute risk? Etc.

So for those of you who haven’t  taken a cyber-stroll through the AHCJ website, take five minutes and check out tip sheets, resources and slim guides. Of particular relevance to this discussion is Gary Schwitzer’s slim guide, “Covering Medical Research.”  There’s also a tip sheet/PDF presentation by Schwitzer on “Understanding studies.” His Health News Watchdog blog is also useful.

Reporting on Health (at USC) also has a lot of useful resources, and this essay “Tricks of the Trade: Finding Nuggets in the River of Medical Studies” is a good entry point to understanding data. It’s by Lauran Neergard, a longtime Associated Press health and science writer.

In addition,  there’s a course called Medicine in the Media, sponsored by National Institute of Health’s Office of Medical Applications of Research.  It’s free, but you have to apply, and there’s not room for everyone.  I know of at least one recent summer (the only one I, personally, could have managed the timing!) it wasn’t given, and as of now, there’s nothing on the website about this year. But you can sign up for email notifications, so if you are interested, do that now because the deadline in past years has been early.

The Poynter Institute has some online modules, too. Lots of the focus is on new media and writing and story telling, but there is a math basics refresher for those of you who haven’t taken it since the SATs, some online Excel training, and a unit on reporting on nonprofits