|
Health
|
|
|
Overall, 42% of the physicians surveyed across 29 specialties reported feeling some sense of burnout. Photo: Philip Montgomery for The Wall Street Journal
|
|
|
Middle age can mean being stuck between competing stresses caring for kids and older parents, all while juggling peak career demands. For physicians that may be exacerbating burnout. Physicians between the ages of 40 and 54 experience a higher rate of burnout than older or younger doctors, according to a recent survey of more than 15,000 physicians.
Many cited administrative tasks and work hours as key drivers of their stress, though it was older, Boomer doctors who highlighted electronic medical records, reporter Brianna Abbott writes.
Burnout can occur in any profession, especially those that are high-stress, but there's evidence that it's particularly acute for health-care providers such as physicians and nurses. Risk for burnout among physicians is significantly greater than that of general U.S. working adults, and physicians also report being less satisfied with their work-life balance, according to a 2019 study published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings.
What are your thoughts? Are you a health-care professional who has experienced burnout? Email me your stories or advice, which may be edited before publication in the newsletter. Please be sure to include your name and location.
– Stefanie Ilgenfritz, Health & Science Bureau Chief, WSJ
Reach me at stefanie.ilgenfritz@wsj.com or Twitter: @stefaniei
|
|
|
|
Cold-Blooded? For nearly 150 years, 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit has been the standard body temperature. But at least two dozen modern studies have concluded the number is too high. The Numbers column explains.
|
|
|
The Gym of the Future: As populations age, Japanese fitness centers are offering new options for retirees: Less sweat, more massage chairs, brain exercises and steps into the pool instead of ladders.
|
|
|
Virus Is Part of a Growing Threat: The virus implicated in a mysterious outbreak in China is a so-called coronavirus--a class of pathogens that can cause colds, but also global infectious diseases like SARS.
|
|
|
|
Google Has Patients' Data
|
|
|
|
From Our Audience: WSJ reader John Miller says that tech giants owe people “total transparency.”
|
|
|
Beyond Google's deal with hospital system Ascension that was recently revealed, the tech giant is striking partnerships with some of the country’s most high-profile hospital systems and health-care providers.
|
|
|
In just a few years, the company has achieved the ability to view or analyze tens of millions of patient health records in at least three-quarters of U.S. states, according to a Journal analysis of contractual agreements. In certain instances, the deals allow Google to access personally identifiable health information without the knowledge of patients or doctors.
-
Podcast: Why Google Is Pushing Into Health Data
|
|
|
$8.8 Million
|
The amount Endo Pharmaceuticals agreed to pay to settle claims by the state of Oklahoma that the company’s marketing played a role in the opioid abuse crisis. (Read more)
|
|
|
|
|
Will These Ideas Curb Drug Prices?
|
|
|
|
|
Heart Disease Where You Least Expect It
|
|
|
|
Michael Wailes jumps rope outside of his home in Johnstown, Colo., part of his workout regimen after three heart attacks. Photos: Chet Strange for The Wall Street Journal.
|
|
|
Deaths from heart disease are on the rise everywhere, even in Colorado, one of America’s healthiest states, and among middle-age people in the prime of life. The Journal looked at three cities in Colorado that boast robust access to exercise, good health care--and rising death rates from heart disease.
|
|
|
“The ACMG calls on Myriad Genetics to end its practice of maintaining a proprietary ... database and to join the international community of genetic testing laboratories who share." (Read more. And read the Journal story about BRCA testing that prompted this.)
|
— The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, calling on Myriad to publicly share its genetic-testing data to help understand traits like BRCA gene variants.
|
|
|
|
|
-
Ex-Bristol R&D Chief to Helm Seattle Cancer Center (Read more)
-
Bristol’s Merger With Celgene Is Already Paying Dividends, CEO Says (Read more)
-
Abbott Labs Appoints CFO on the Heels of New CEO Hire (Read more)
-
Plan to Revamp Medicaid-Eligibility Checks Draws Criticism (Read more)
|
|
|
|
Regarding last week's question on the development of antibiotics:
|
|
|
A:
|
While I am in favor of the government aiding antibiotic discovery and development efforts, I am less in favor of providing additional support by means of increased reimbursement or other mechanisms that have a longer-term impact on health care. My reasons are: 1. Increasing reimbursement will not drive up the volume of prescriptions of the new antibiotic. 2. Increasing reimbursement pricing will not help combat antimicrobial resistance. 3. The main reason for the use of less-expensive antibiotics stems from the inability to know whether the new antibiotic is the appropriate one to use to treat a patient. — Rajesh Krishnamurthy, Washington, D.C.
|
|
|
A:
|
I think we should have a combination of let the market work things out and encouraging startups. I don't think a free market should force medical personnel to use less-effective drugs, but neither should it let them use the latest just because it's there. Also, there will come a time where developing antibiotics will become so expensive that other treatments, just as effective and cheaper, will become viable. — Rich Irwin, Ohio
|
|
|
A:
|
Because of the overuse of antibiotics and the development of resistant strains, new antibiotics must be developed. These new antibiotics must survive for use in the future. The government should take over in these instances. I personally had a serious bout with MRSA [a drug-resistant strain of bacteria]. If specific antibiotics had not been developed I would probably not have survived. — Bob Grenitz, Weston, Fla.
|
|
|
A:
|
As someone who works in marketing for a pharmaceutical company, I've been watching this story for a little while now and am confused as to why this market is failing so badly. We have plenty of examples in recent years of drugs that are used only hundreds or thousands of times a year that address high unmet need—and are priced accordingly. What was happening with respect to payers that a higher price could not be agreed on? Did these companies not do their homework to figure out what would be a viable marketing strategy for a sustainable return on their investment? How exactly is the market different here than with other diseases with high unmet need that are seeing financially viable treatments come to market? It seems like answering some of these questions could lead to a market response without government subsidies and limited if any policy changes. — Madhan Gounder,
Hoboken, N.J.
|
|
|
|