Around the Mediverse: July 8, 2010

Fun tidbits, health-related and otherwise, from around the ‘tubes:

• OpenTable for physicians?  It does exist, apparently.  Be sure to click the link for HelloHealth to find out how that firm is bringing the power of the Internet to enhance patient care.

• As debates about research enter the public consciousness more and more often these days, Megan McArdle gives us a timely reminder of what “peer review” of publications means, and more importantly, what it doesn’t mean.  In a similar vein, Dr. Rich tries to get at the real reason for some of the outcry directed at the results of the recent JUPITER trial (statins for primary prevention in healthy adults).
  

• Some questions have emerged about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.  Reason asks if she would ban books.  Bloggers at the Volokh Conspiracy touch on what is arguably Kagan’s political manipulation of a medical specialty society’s statement on abortion.  It should be said that the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology comes out looking worse than the nominee.

• New York State voted to outlaw short-term housing rentals, dealing a blow to those seeking cheap Manhattan accommodations.  Prior to the vote, this situation prompted a Reason blogger to note wryly that owning property seems to be “a mug’s game.“  Relatedly, one of his colleagues argues that property rights have more importance than is often ascribed to them.

• How the response to the Gulf spill has been hampered by protectionism and inflexible environmental regulation:  the saga of the skimming Dutchmen.

• Though the response to the Deepwater Horizon spill has arguably been insufficiently aggressive, here are two commentators who argue that children should be taught to better express and receive aggression.

• What is a “scientific consensus?”  Reason’s Ronald Bailey takes on this issue.  Along the way, we stumble onto this gem of a web page explaining the relationship between animal models of carcinogenic toxicity and the actual exposure of humans to those substances.  Much more non-technical than I made it sound.  Do give it a read if only to attenuate your own “cancer panic” over some of those chemicals.

• Greg Mankiw asks what will happen to markets for life insurance and annuities given new advances in genetic testing and identification of markers for longevity.  Genetic discrimination?  An adverse selection death spiral?  Or something in between?

• As befits someone with an economics degree and a medical school acceptance agreement, I want to showcase some recent commentary on doctors and dollars.  A contrarian voice at Slate argues that drug companies should be allowed to buy physicians’ lunches.  The comments section of that article is surprisingly informative and thought-provoking.  An excerpt from the recent documentary The Vanishing Oath shows that many people think that doctors are in the profession ‘just for the money.’  Shadowfax argues that under some circumstances, fee-for-service is exactly the right way to pay physicians, whereas Dr. Wes thinks they should be paid by time, like lawyers (though I don’t know if he knows that there’s a movement among some lawyers towards flat fee payment structures).  He also presents pro and con arguments for what he terms “the corporate practice of medicine.”  Whatever choice you make, however, don’t make a mistake!  You will be crushed by a giant green Tyrannosaurus Rex.
  

• David Williams at the Health Business Blog reminds everyone that hospital visits should be BYOMD.

• Via Mark Perry comes this essay on wealth, wealth creation, the “rich,” and entrepreneurialism.  A similar theme is expressed more bluntly at The Volokh Conspiracy, discussing Ayn Rand. Coyote asks why government seems so hell-bent on putting more obstacles in front of entrepreneurs, in the context of tightened restrictions on “angel investments” in startups.

• Two recent guest posts at KevinMD point out that the concept of the patient-centered medical home is probably way overhyped, given the current evidence “for” it.

• Here are three articles on a lighter note to close out this week’s edition:  Foreign Policy seems to overreach in calling this next century “the Canadian Century;” The Economist takes on job-title inflation; finally, Hit & Run looks at San Francisco’s recent ban on soft drinks in municipal vending machines, and compares Coke to the alternatives.