Patients 80 years and older who are in overall good health are perfectly able to withstand open-heart surgery, according to the latest study of Dr. Kevin Lachapelle of the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC). His findings were presented this morning in Toronto during the 2008 Canadian Cardiovascular Congress.

"Age should not be a reason for doctors to rule out the possibility of heart surgery for their octogenarian patients," explained Dr. Lachapelle. "If patients with heart problems are otherwise in good health, this surgery can significantly improve their quality of life."

Well that's fantastic. (It really is, I'm not being sarcastic.)

Economics is fundamentally the study of the allocation of scarce resources subject to effectively infinite demand, and while we like to think that healthcare is an infinite good, it most certainly is not. Specifically, normative economics is the process of incorporating value judgments into economic arguments. Most economists avoid making value judgments because there are always exceptional cases, and because it often leads to spectacular foot-in-mouth syndrome. That said, I can't help but have thoughts that tend toward the normative when I read paragraphs like the one I quoted.

Sure, octogenarians may survive and even have a net positive outcome. But what are the opportunity costs associated with operating on individuals who have already exceeded the mean lifespan for someone of their sex? Are we operating on these folks while leaving those that are younger — and therefore potentially more productive — in the lurch? Are we forgoing an operation on someone much younger? How does the fact that the average 80 year old is not as productive as the average 40 year old factor into this equation? Generally taxpayers want something in return for their investment. Do we want the government subsidizing a procedure on someone whose primary income is their monthly Social Security check, and if the answer is yes, how do we prioritize who goes first? How do we manage that inevitable wait list? Generally we subsidize healthcare because we expect some kind of benefit in return, usually in the form of economic output.

I've worded my questions provocatively, but I don't really have an opinion one way or the other, except to say that I'm glad that I won't be the one who has to make these decisions in the coming years. These questions aren't purely rhetorical either: these are very real, difficult questions that are going to have to be addressed as we move inexorably toward some kind of basic universal health coverage in the United States.

As I pointed out yesterday, Americans don't like to be told "No," and we don't like to wait for things, and I mostly include myself in that generalization. If we postpone, or worse, opt to forgo very costly surgeries on the elderly because a cost-benefit analysis doesn't add up, will our culture be able to accept it?

My guess is no, and as soon as it happens, there will be some very ugly public political lynchings.

What are your thoughts?

I'd imagine costs for DM2 care had risen, like everything else, but was surprised to hear the thoughts about public health & nationalized health insurance. It's been a long time since I took a public health class, but I'd been under the impression that they were cut from the same cloth. Now, that I think of it, I don't hear about Medicaid paying for diabetes education, but then, I'm not familiar with who utilizes the program, and who pays for it, whether Medicaid, Medicare, or private insurers would reimburse the provider for diabetes classes.

Because pharmacists and ancillary staff deal primarily with drug therapy, we tend to think of the rising cost of healthcare as a result of the increase in the cost of prescription drugs. However this isn't actually true. According to the CEO of Harvard Pilgrim, drug costs have been increasing at a rate of less than 5% per year, whereas medical expenses have been increasing at a rate of about 10%, so the increase in healthcare costs isn't really driven by prescription drugs as much as is commonly thought.

In the long run, drugs tend to be cost-savers rather than cost-centers when utilized correctly, but that's not news to anyone.

When you speak of $1 for public health are you saying 'education & prevention'. If so, I would agree conceptually. There are probably long-term studies that prove this beyond a doubt.

Yes, that is what I mean, but I was unintentionally vague in my first post. I consider public health to be education and prevention in the form of programs and legislation design to try to have a long-term impact. I also consider public health to be (mostly) a public good in the economic sense of the term.

But the government considers public health to be quite a bit more than that, ranging from the IHS to Medicare/Medicaid to the FDA. When you look at their FY2009 budget (121 page PDF), I would have to cherry-pick the bits and pieces that I consider public health, add up their budgets and calculate the percentage of the whole… So clearly that's not what Uncle Sam considers public health, and I should probably find a better term. "Education and prevention" like you suggested is good, but I think that's a bit limited, because I see the laws that are being passed that prevent the sale of certain types of food in public schools to be public health, as well. Then there's the work that the CDC does — particularly in containing and eradicating communicable diseases like smallpox and polio — and other things like providing clean drinking water and sanitation.

At the very least, though, I consider "public health" to be very separate from more traditional healthcare delivery.

And, so I'd venture your point is that any successful nationalized healthcare insurance-type or other type of program would need to incorporate a preventive arm with incentives for greater self-care. A lot of the obesity problem has to do with not bucking the current socially acceptable behaviors, i.e. too much availability of nutritionally cheap food, devaluation of importance of physical effort and exercise, sedentary lifestyle, plus knowledge deficits about foods and hidden human costs. Look at what happened when NYC banned trans fats, for example. I think the fallout will be realized in our lifetime, with a slowly falling domino effect.

Yes, a comprehensive wellness-type program would have to be instituted. I would go so far as to attach financial penalties to those who are wildly unhealthy. Think of it as almost like a Pigovian tax, if you will. Even if you return this money to the consumer at the end of the year in the form of an income subsidy, it's still a powerful motivator to change because there's a real financial pain associated with a specific aspect of their lifestyle. Then of course there's the perennial moral hazard problem that's never going to go away. It is true that if you are responsible for a greater part of your healthcare costs, you will go out of your way to make healthier choices to minimize the chances of becoming ill. (Just ask those who have consumer-directed health plans with high deductibles who pay out of pocket for "normal" medical care.)

But of course you need to fund pathways that would enable people to learn and make healthier lifestyle choices. You can't just take an overweight smoker who works in a coal mine and has less than a high school education and tell him to lose 100lbs or he'll pay more for his healthcare without setting a reasonable timetable and funding the education and exercise program that will help him get there. That's just rotten and doesn't help anyone.

What is troubling and will present problems in a nationalized system of healthcare is that Americans don't like to hear the word "No." We live in an entitled society where the customer is always right, and it's our God-given right to have cheap gas, drive SUVs, eat our fast food, and spend our the government's money on futile, end-of-life care. In other countries that have nationalized healthcare, there are very limited formularies in place, and many treatments and interventions aren't covered at all, or if they are, there may be a multi-month waiting period to have that procedure. That kind of rationing would be tough for America to swallow. We seem to have this bizarre notion that simply because we are living, breathing human beings, we are entitled to X, Y, and Z, and we should have it now.

Obviously we're not beautiful and unique snowflakes, and I think that the younger generations are beginning to recognize this as their thoughts linger on new ideas like "sustainability", but I get the sense that the baby boomers are going to resist these kinds of necessary limitations.

Anyway, hope I answered your question.

However, I am pleased to see that the Stanford researchers are interested in how much of this extra cost is due to costly new medications that may or may not be worth their price — a topic too rarely discussed in the Ivory Towers of academia. They cite Januvia and Byetta as potential cost centers, but I can't help but think that they're missing the mark just a little bit. In outpatient diabetes management — and I'm going to assume that institutions and hospitals are similar — Byetta and Januvia, while successful, aren't what I would consider blockbusters. They aren't super mainstream yet.

In terms of quantity and price, the TZDs — particularly Actos, since Avandia got thrown under the bus — are far more costly. Yeah, incretins, whether direct or indirect are the new CME hotness with the associated mindshare, but compared to your TZDs, biguanides, and sulfonylureas, they're a distant a second/third/fourth fiddle in volume, if not cost.

Drug companies market these new drugs with claims of greater convenience and better control of blood sugar levels, and physicians have increasingly used them as alternatives to injected insulin, Alexander said. Insulin use has correspondingly dropped from 38 percent of treatment visits in 1994 to 28 percent in 2007.

This particular sentence bugs me because the implication is that insulin is cheaper than most oral medications. This just isn't true, particularly with the modified human insulins that can be very costly indeed. At the very least, they're on par with the cost of oral meds, and let's not forget that most people with T2DM would prefer not to stick themselves with a needle, no matter how small.

Talk of direct costs aside, it is obvious that $1 spent in the name of public health has a greater marginal utility than $1 spent on a medical intervention — be that drug therapy, a procedure, or whatever. Ben Franklin was right, after all. Unfortunately, the long-run cost savings of public health programs are notoriously difficult to measure, and certainly nowhere near as sexy as a medical intervention. Perhaps that's why public health gets shortchanged? I've spent some idle moments wondering how much money we could save if we spent a third or even a quarter as much combating things like poor nutrition and obesity as we do on direct healthcare itself.

It seems like the bulk of the money spent on prescription drugs is spent to offset the poor lifestyle choices that we Americans like to make. Unfortunately we pay dearly for that privilege. Any sort of nationalized healthcare will have to take this God-given right tendency into account.

I have erred always on the side of accuracy, opting to omit a word when I couldn't be sure that it was correct. Users have submitted their own additions, and I have folded them in, after verifying their accuracy to the best of my ability. Many of the words are quite obscure, as most of you can imagine.

Most recently, someone from Australia has created an Australian localization for the work, and I have added that to the page as well.

I think this is a better option for students and anyone else that wants a pretty comprehensive spell check word list, and doesn't want to pay Stedman's $100 to get one. This is also much more comprehensive than those $15 shareware dictionaries that you see floating around — many of which have spelling errors. (I know, I've looked at most of them.)

MeDic is, of course, freeware. And always will be. It's also available for OpenOffice.org, for those of you who don't use Word.

If you think it's useful to you or someone you know, please bookmark it, Stumble it, or even throw me a link to the MeDic main page:

Arthur Firstenberg says he is highly sensitive to certain types of electric fields, including wireless Internet and cell phones.

"I get chest pain and it doesn’t go away right away," he said.

Firstenberg and dozens of other electro-sensitive people in Santa Fe claim that putting up Wi-Fi in public places is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Result:

The City Council has unanimously approved a plan to provide wireless Internet service in libraries and other city buildings, over the objections of those who say they are electrically sensitive.

That doesn't mean the legal wrangling is over, however.

Julie Tambourine, an advocate for the disabled and homeless, said after Wednesday's meeting that the legal analysis was flawed, because it didn't take into account those with diabetes, seizure disorders, respiratory ailments and other conditions that can be adversely affected by microwave radiation.

These idiots need to read up on the electromagnetic spectrum. Unless they're going to sit in a lead box all day long with no visible light on a carefully controlled diet, they're going to be exposed to all kinds of EM radiation, including gamma rays throughout their lifetimes. And even inside that theoretical lead box, there's no guarantee of being radiation-free.

For further comic value, these people's minds would explode if they had any idea of how many radio waves pass through their bodies each second. Theoretically, for physiologic purposes, 802.11b+g wi-fi signals (0.124-0.121m wavelength depending on channel) are no different than FM radio signals (~3m wavelength). Common sense would tell you that that's pretty insignificant.

But since common sense is often wrong, we look to the actual evidence. And the evidence in favor of wifi radiation sensitivity just isn't there.

This one's for The Angry Pharmacist:

And for keagirl and Dr Schoor:

God bless the tinfoil hat brigade:

Arthur Firstenberg says he is highly sensitive to certain types of electric fields, including wireless Internet and cell phones.

"I get chest pain and it doesn't go away right away," he said.

Firstenberg and dozens of other electro-sensitive people in Santa Fe claim that putting up Wi-Fi in public places is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Psst, Arthur, this is what we call a somatization disorder.

Sante Fe, the rest of the country is laughing at you.

I could stamp all the ridiculous prescriptions and fax 'em back to the douchenuggets who wrote them.

Lucky for me, I can have one made… I wonder if my company will pay for such a worthwhile piece of office equipment?

Knowing me, I'd probably go around stamping people, too.

This week's topic is panic disorder and relapse in patients with and without a history of substance abuse. Fun topic, really, and one close to my heart.

Case study:

[You are] working with a 32 year old man who comes to you for an evaluation of panic in August in Lowell. He meets the diagnostic criteria for panic disorder and has been experiencing untriggered episodes for the last 2 months. Name three factors that would guide your selection of medication and then discuss your pharmacologic plan for this unfortunate man.

One of the responses — by a prescriber in my area — was to encourage deep breathing, progressive relaxation, identifying triggers and avoiding the situation, CBT, and starting an SSRI. If panic continues, start a benzo.

This strikes me as fairly typical approach for a primary care provider in dealing with someone who presents during an acute panic attack, but I think that it's doing the patient a disservice. Perhaps it's also a typical response for a psychiatrist who is afraid to use benzodiazepines.

I'll post my response here, verbatim, because I think there's a deep (and common) misunderstanding of what panic is, and what having a panic attack is like.

It seems like you're thinking of panic as something that can be gotten out of, as though it's a normal fight-or-flight type response where removal from a stressful stimulus means no more panic.

This is dangerous thinking, and forgive me if I've read you wrong.

It can be harder than perhaps some practitioners think to identify a trigger. While triggers can often be identified, I think it's important to note that when a patient first presents, and you make a diagnosis of panic disorder, discovering these triggers will be more complex than simply avoiding a stressful situation, or simplifying and eliminating stressors from one's life. (Which is a very time-consuming process.)

You can't turn the ship on a dime.

Please don't fall victim to the idea that because you've been scared out of your wits a few times and your heartrate went up and your BP went through the roof that that is a panic attack. It's not. Panic attacks usually appear in a completely idiopathic manner, particularly the first time they hit. It's not an "Oh Gee, you scared me," type of thing, it's more of a "DEAR GOD I'M DYING, SOMEONE PLEASE DIAL 911" type of thing.* (The caps are appropriate there. )

Panic attacks can, and do hit without any warning in an otherwise comfortable, relaxed setting. Watching a movie in your living room, for example.

It's not like [situation] -> panic attack a few minutes or an hour later with a clear antagonist. It can come days after the stressors. It can also take a few weeks and lots of practice to build up an arsenal of effective coping mechanisms to return oneself to a calming state in the middle of an active attack.

Re: Deep breathing. This can also be problematic as at the point where one's lungs are fully inflated one can experience a PVC or PAC, which is VERY disconcerting to someone who's already acutely aware of what their heart is doing. I can actually trigger PVCs in myself by doing this.

–

I don't mean to lecture. I'm not the professor, and perhaps I've read too much between the lines of what you've written. As someone who didn't get out of bed for 3 weeks the first time I had a panic attack, I feel very strongly about the issue, and combatting it aggressively rather than taking a more laid back, it'll-fix-itself approach. Particularly this: "deep breathing, progressive relaxation, identifying triggers and avoiding the situation, CBT, [etc.]"

Those are all great long-term approaches, but the short-term is what someone with panic disorder in an active phase cares about most. Long term stuff can come after, just get me through right now.

And I am keenly aware that my personal experience should never cloud my clinical judgement inasmuch as that is humanly possible.

* I tried to dial 911 my first time, in the middle of a biochemistry lecture, no less. But I couldn't see well enough to dial the number. In retrospect, knowing what I know now, I'm glad I couldn't because that would have been a misuse of medical resources. :p

Early in panic, people are usually not capable of accessing the skills to use behavioral coping mechanisms. You usually need to halt the panic quickly and this is where BZDs are needed. Panic is such an uncomfortable and painful experience, the BZD's are in a way like pain medications in the early stages of treatment.

Do they think I'm stupid? I can't count the number of times I've put the phone down with the person still talking at me (without having said more than "May I help you?") done something, and then come back with them still blowing hot air.

The more words someone uses, the greater the chances are that they're full of shit.

This is in contrast to someone with a legitimate issue who will tell you their story in as few words as possible, and then ask what they need to do. Even people who typically blow smoke talk less when they're actually telling the truth and they have, for instance, a police report to back it up.

Every retail pharmacist in the world knows exactly what I'm talking about, and I'm sure most ED types do too. Remarkable that the bottom-feeders on the planet haven't figured out that if they just kept their mouths shut, I'd be 2-3x more likely to believe them. I would have thought such a skill would be accidentally uncovered and remembered. But perhaps idle chatter is the verbal form of a nervous twitch, and many of these folks are halfway decent candidates for the Darwin Awards anyway, so I shouldn't be surprised that they haven't learned from past successes.

In any event, they'd all be shitty poker players.

Got a phonecall from an FP's office across the street from the pharmacy. Medicaid patient had brought in his Risperdal Consta injection for his bi-weekly shot. The nurse dropped the injection in the office, which broke it, resulting in some non-emergent, but non-trivial lacerations to herself in the process.

Could we get another one? Of course, it's 4pm on a Friday, and MassHealth doesn't do lost/damaged precription overrides — if they did, their budget would probably double (TAP doesn't make this shit up, you know) — but could we pleeeeeeease try. And they would, of course, call MassHealth themselves.

Risperdal Consta is about $650 per dose.

Of course the answer was no, but with both of us on the phone, MassHealth said they could do it tomorrow (that would be today, I guess) as a once-in-a-lifetime early-fill don't-ever-ask-again override.

I'm so glad it worked out, and I feel terrible for this nurse. She's probably wishing she had dropped some cyanocobalamin instead. We'd have just given it to them for nothing had it been something like that.

Based on Dino's examples on the oops meter, I'd give this a solid 8. Right next to breaking wind in front of your boss. On the elevator.

:ninja:

7 years ago:
WTF is lisinopril?
Time: instantaneous

6 years ago:
I know how to spell lisinopril!
Time: ~0.5 seconds

5 years ago:
Lisinopril is for blood pressure!
Time: ~1-2 seconds

4 years ago:
Have I seen this before? Yes… I have because Aleve is naproxen sodium, and I've seen people take Naprosyn with lisinopril.
Time: ~2-3 seconds

3 years ago:
Lisinopril is an ACE inhibitor, and I see this combination every day.
"Sure, that's fine."
Time: ~0.75 seconds

2 years ago:
*Visual, mental review of systems, picturing the RAAS pathway and envisioning how naproxen is metabolized to see where and how the two intersect.*
"Sure, that's fine."
Time: ~0.5 seconds or so

Most recently:
How old is she? What's her creatinine clearance? Might she be better off with diclofenac or celecoxib? Eh, it's probably okay on a short-term basis, and it's not a terrible choice, but it's probably not the best choice, either.
"Sure, that's fine."
Time: ~1-2 seconds

What's the next step, I wonder? Quicker processing? Maybe. Deeper comprehension? Hopefully.

This development of thought processes is the difference between these two residents. The ability to take in a situation in its entirety, process it efficiently, while remaining calm and friendly takes time and exposure, and has very little to do with intelligence or any other innate quality.

* Naproxen is considered an unacceptable agent in geriatric patients even though it is used in the elderly pretty regularly. (My grandmother, for instance.) Probably because most internists, orthopods, and others are often not terribly familiar with geropharmacology, which is why geriatrics is its own specialty both in Medicine and Pharmacy.

This guide does not apply if you have a hybrid medicaid-medicare plan through your state. Those folks know who they are, and if you have no idea what I'm talking about, you don't need to worry about it.

Before you begin you'll need three things:

1. A complete drug list of the person you're doing the research for. This means you'll need drug names, strengths, and quantities. Calculations are done for a 30-day supply, so if you take something 3 times a day, the quantity for 30 days will be 90.
2. About five minutes
3. An Internet connection (har har)

Here's a walk-through, so you'll want to open the link in a new window or tab…

Click on "Find & Compare Plans" which brings you to this:

Click "Begin Personalized Search" which will bring you to this next screen. You will want to click where it says "click here." Do NOT click the Continue button. This might trigger a browser prompt asking you if you want to continue sending this information over an unsecured connection. You're not actually sending any information about yourself, so click Continue.

That brings you to this page:

You'll want to mimic what I've done: put in the zip code of the person who you're doing the search for, ignore the age range and health status, and then select "No" for all three of the next questions. They have no bearing on choosing the Part D plan for the average person. Click "Continue" at the bottom.

That brings you to this. Click the "Continue" button. (Top or bottom doesn't matter.)

Get out that drug list that you put together. Click "Enter My Drugs" on this screen:

That brings you to this screen, where you can begin typing what drugs you take. I'll fill in a couple of examples that someone might take, and run you through a couple of screens that you might run into.

So here's my list for Bob Smith. Click "Continue" at the bottom when you are done filling in the drug names:

The next screen allows you to adjust the strength and monthly quantity. Go through the list of drugs on the left and change the strengths to reflect the drugs that you use before you start changing the quantities. Each time you select a strength other than the default, the page reloads, and you may lose any changes that you've made to the quantity. I learned this the hard way.

This next screenshot is the default, and the one after that reflects the changes I've made. Click Continue when you're finished.

The next step is optional. You can choose a Password Date that allows you to save your drug and location information and pharmacy preferences. That means that when 2009 rolls around, you can more quickly retrieve your drug list and make changes rather than having to enter all of the information from scratch. I recommend using the person's date of birth because it doesn't change. I will skip this step because I'm working with a dummy profile, but it is pretty self explanatory.

If you choose to save your drug information, be sure to write down the number that medicare.gov gives you, as well as the date that you chose.

Next you can choose a pharmacy based on zip code. This doesn't matter overmuch if you're going to use a chain or independent pharmacy. If you're working with a specialty pharmacy (for example, your doctor's office has its own dispensary, or you're a college student and use the university health office), then you may want to specify the pharmacy that you'll be going to. Again, I'm going to skip this step since it doesn't matter for most people.

At this point, all of the plans that cover the drugs you entered will show up. I like to display 10 on a page, but that would be a huge screenshot, so I'll stick with 5 for demo purposes.

You can compare up to 3 plans to see an in-depth breakdown of the plan information (monthly premium, what the copays will be on various drugs and so on. Tick the checkbox for the plans you're interested in and hit "Compare". (On every page thus far, there has been a "Printer Friendly" link in the upper left corner. This is particularly helpful if you want to print out the plan summaries and detailed breakdowns for offline viewing and annotating. I use it regularly.)

Plans I don't recommend

There's one company that I would avoid right now and that is WellCare. They are the cheapest (as you can see from my screenshots), but they have been in some substantial hot water lately, thanks to some VERY shady accounting practices. Their stock recently plummetted from $130 to $27 at its lowest thanks to being raided by the FBI. They also regularly screw over their customers. Please, stay away from the them.

Enrolling

Enrolling in a plan can be done online or on the phone. Some companies, like Humana, like to send a rep to your house to sign you up. Some people love this, and some people hate it. I find it a little weird, personally. I'd rather call a phone number and do the whole process from beginning to end without having someone come into my home.

[tags]Medicare Part D, How-To, prescription drugs[/tags]

In a clinical trial made up of 22 men, half of which described themselves as "chocolate lovers" while the other half were "chocolate indifferent," participants ate chocolate or placebo over a five-day period. During this time, their blood and urine was monitored for various metabolite levels. The researchers found a "hallmark" profile in the men who described themselves as chocolate lovers: low levels of LDL-cholesterol and slightly raised levels of albumin protein. The same levels were found in the chocolate lovers even when they ate no chocolate. The researchers also noted that the activity of the gut microbes of chocolate lovers was distinctively different from the other subjects.

(They should have used women. :haw: )

But seriously… what the heck is a chocolate placebo? Wouldn't you know that you're not eating chocolate?

Excuse me? Excuse me, señor? May I speak to you please? I asked for a mai tai, and they brought me a piña colada. And I said no salt, NO salt on the margarita, but it had salt on it, big grains of salt, floating in the glass…

…And yes, I won't be leaving a tip, 'cause I could… I could shut this place down. Sir? I'll take my traveler's checks to a competing resort. I could write a letter to your nation's board of tourism and I could have this place condemned. I could put… I could put… strychnine in the guacamole. There was salt on the glass, BIG GRAINS of salt.

(Cookie for the reference.)

These, on the other hand, REQUIRE salt, and are the best part of autumn fairs here in New England.

If they were available year round, I'd probably try to eat myself to death on them. Nom nom nom.

I found this quiz, via Justin via Maria.

I haven't read the Bible in… ten years? But I can still quote large passages.

The ones that gave me trouble were:

1. Which saying of Jesus was not made from the cross?
2. Which was created on the fourth day?
3. Who were Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar?

#2 is the sun, moon, and stars, which is counterintuitive because the opening passage of the Torah contains "Let there be light." which most educated folks would think means the heavenly bodies. Evening and morning fell, and was the first day. In a heliocentric frame of reference, this means the sun, otherwise there is no "day". Unless you take this passage to be metaphorical, of course.

For #3, my first thought was the names of the three wise men. Then I remembered that they were Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthasar — except that they're not named in the traditional Christian Bible, contrary to popular belief. The Gospel According to Matthew doesn't dwell on them much, and Luke doesn't mention them at all. Their names were decided in the 8th Century, are handed down to us through Excerpta Latina Barbari which is itself a translation of an older Greek manuscript. They are not part of traditional Biblical Canon. (Incidentally, if any magi ever did visit Jesus, he'd probably have been walking and probably talking by the time they arrived — not lying in a manger.)

So therefore they must have been associates of Job, and probably descendants of Esau. (One of Esau's sons was named Eliphaz, and the self-referencing timeline in the Torah is probably about right for these two people to be one and the same.)

Regardless of your religious leanings, Judeo-Christian faith and its history is utterly fascinating, in part due to its huge influence on on western culture over the centuries. Personally, I am agnostic, but was raised as a hardcore fundamentalist Christian. (Yes, one of those.) This link is pretty much spot on regarding my religious feelings, or lack thereof, though my feelings on beauty and harmony do not align with Russell's precisely.

[tags]French fries[/tags]

"I don't know what to do anymore. On the first day of school, he throws up. On the last day of school, he throws up. Waiting in line for a roller coaster, he throws up. If he gets really happy for any reason, he throws up. And he throws up because he throws up and worries that he's going to throw up again.

"Is there anything I can give him so he stops throwing up?"

Straight Face held firmly in place — with superhuman effort — I stopped to think about the problem.*

And lest you think me an insensitive clod, I can assure you that I did (and still do) feel awful for this kid. I wonder what his home life is like. I wonder if he's chemically imbalanced. I wonder if it's a phase he'll grow out of. I wonder how to help him in the short term, today, hopefully without robbing him entirely of the excitement that an amusement park brings. I wonder about abuse, too. I wonder if this behavior is conditioned in some way, and if it might be self-reinforcing, not unlike that destructive positive feedback loop that plagues those with panic disorder. I wonder if he'll grow up with anxiety problems. I wonder if he'll end up a well-adjusted adult, hopefully without the need to be on long-term psych meds.

Most of all, right now, I hope mom has a talk with the pediatrician about it.

Given that my options are severely limited by a lack of prescribing powers, the best solution OTC would be Benadryl to blunt the edge, with the side effect of probably making him very sleepy. Not optimal, for sure, but better than puking before you get on the ride, no? Some would think Emetrol, maybe, but that's a poor solution because that's not going after the actual problem. If the child is overexcited, better to take that down a notch than merely cover the side effects of being in that condition in the first place.

What do you guys think? What would you have done?

* When I was in junior high, my friends and I used to talk about the worst, most absurd "super power" to have. We decided it would be the superhuman ability to crap your pants every time you got excited. "Haha! Yay!… ohhhh…." This is where I coined the phrase "My bowels are aquiver with excitement."

I'd say this child's difficulty ranks right up there…

In the no sub box, this guy had scrawled "no substitution" in handwriting that looked like calligraphy done with a squiggle pen. And of course the ink was black.

Yeah okay, buddy. I mean, I don't really care if you want the brand name, just drive up the road to New Hampshire and request it. Don't alter the damn prescription and think I'm not going to notice. There are two parties that should be writing things on the prescription, and you are not one of them.

I didn't rake him over the coals for it. It wasn't worth the time and emotional energy, and he seemed like a nice enough fellow. I hope it doesn't happen again.

The ending is that the insurance (Tricare) wouldn't cover brand name if there was a generic available. Big surprise. So he ended up with his clonazepam, generic Sinemet CR, and generic something else. What a bunch of idiotic hoops to jump through to end up back at square one.

But seriously, what person — who knows they can't write due to a medical condition — alters their own prescription? In the wrong colored ink, no less?

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Yesterday's Pluggers:

FWIW, I don't have a single pen with a drug name on it. I think the only non-edible swag I have is a Vioxx coffee cup…

Just bloody brilliant.