The Control We Have Over Our Health Care System

The tremendous number of problems this country faces over our health care system can seem too overwhelming to ever be fixable. But perhaps one of the reasons we haven't cracked the puzzle is because our diagnosis is off. Despite everything we've been led to believe, it may not be because we're unhealthier than ever before.

According to the Health Care Cost Institute, an academic institute started two years ago, the rising health care spending of Americans under 65 in the last two years has been driven entirely by rising prices; not by more use:

The unit price of inpatient care jumped 5.9% last year, while the price for outpatient services increased 9.6%. And between 2009 and 2011, the fee for an outpatient visit to the emergency room rose 17%; the price of radiology services rose 12%. 

And again, despite what we've been led to believe, these prices may not actually be the dirty work of the evil health insurance companies or of the runaway Medicare program. A few months ago, Time Magazine published an article entitled "Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us" all about the financial practices of hospitals. Hospitals, which we (okay, at least innocent I) just assume by the nature of the services they provide are solely motivated by the prospect of making the sick well, are actually quite motivated by money - and lots of it.

To be fair, hospitals are businesses and they, like any other, deserve to make money and if they are "for profit," deserve to make a profit. But the lengths to which they go to do so make you think more than just twice. Especially since their customers (aka patients) are arguably more vulnerable than the customers of any other business - sick, scared and, when it comes to medicine and treatments, largely uneducated. Why else would they pay $77 for a box of gauze pads, $108 for Bacitracin and $18 for Accu-chek diabetes test strips when they only cost $.55 on Amazon? Apply those kinds of mark-ups to actual medical procedures and it spells DEBT for the average American incredibly quickly. That stress alone is surely enough to send one right back to the hospital. (Perfect strategy for a repeat customer, actually!)

More disturbing in the Time article was the exposure of incredibly large variances in costs between a procedure in one hospital, and the same one in another. Depending on the procedure, a 20% variance can mean thousands of dollars. I know when I go to Whole Foods, the same milk may cost a dollar more than if I buy it at Costco, but I didn't know I could save thousands on heart surgery 50 miles up the road. And if I need heart surgery, is price-shopping what I should be focused on? Or should I instead by finding a surgeon with whom I feel comfortable entrusting my life or that of my loved one. Surely the latter, no?

And still more disturbing was that, when pressed, many of the interviewed hospitals admitted the fees they charge are just starting points for negotiation. So... just like when I'm buying a faux Gucci at an NYC street fair? I don't know many great hagglers, but those I do get off on the game. The problem is that health isn't a game.

In this world, there are those you trust implicitly, those who always leave you with a little question in your mind, and those you don't trust at all. Hospitals always fell into the first bucket for me - in fact, Children's Hospital  in Boston saved my life when I was 18 months old and then saved one of my best friend's daughter's life six years ago. But I'm sad to say hospitals in general, after having read this article and a few others that have trickled in since, now fall into bucket number three.

I'm certainly not going to solve this alone, and nor are you. But we're not powerless either. Each of us can do our damnedest to steer clear of hospitals and their exorbitant price tags. Obviously, not everything is preventable, but a LOT more than you think is. 

To quote Dr. Andrew Weill, with most subjects, the deeper you go, the more complicated it gets. With nutrition, however, it's the opposite. Prevent the preventable with healthy relationships, real food - especially fruits and veggies, exercise and water. Because they can't charge us for goods and services we don't use. 

Superfoods: More super than other foods?

Check out a recent article from Mother Jones, questioning the efficacy of certain so-called 'superfoods.' The loose definition of which is a food that packs a huge health punch, brimming with a disproportionate share of vitamins, minerals, anti-oxidants, phyto-chemicals, you name it. I had to laugh a little to myself when I was reading this. Here I am part ad agency exec, and part health coach. And yet I've even found myself influenced by great food marketing from time to time.

Foods we never heard of five years ago are now positioned as the ones that will save us all from ourselves and the world. If you have a hard time figuring out which ones, you can often just look for the really exotic sounding ones you don't quite know how to pronounce.

Here's the thing: while these foods may be truly fabulous, the more fabulous fact is if you eat lots of fruits and veggies - the "normal" kinds you've eaten since childhood like broccoli and blueberries - it should be 'superfood' enough. (The not-so-fabulous fact is that this country doesn't actually GROW enough fruits and veggies to satisfy our daily recommended minimums. But let's ignore that for now.)

Superfoods have been in the produce section of our supermarkets forever, yet we're being brainwashed into thinking we need to jump from the middle aisles directly in a bowl of chia seeds to survive.

We don't.

So eat those gojis and that quinoa if you like them. They are good! But don't get overwhelmed by them and their brethren. Keep it simple! And then if you want to experiment with the more exotic, by all means go for it.

Now please excuse me while I go grab a bottle of premium water with 100% naturally-occuring electrolytes.

The GMO Debate: When Peer Pressure Is A Good Thing

Bravo, Connecticut!, the first state to pass a bill requiring food manufacturers to disclose the use of genetically modified ingredients.

But there's a catch.

That bill will only become an enforced law if at least four other states, and at least one of them bordering, agrees to do the same. Peer pressure at its finest! Unfortunately, my beloved New York fell victim to intense lobbying on Monday and unexpectedly went the way of California, who was unsuccessful in passing the bill a few months back.

But why the catch?

Because it would be an economically unwise move otherwise. While they want to do right by their residents, they also need to do right by their businesses. Among other consequences, smaller CT businesses could really suffer if CT were indeed the only state to require labeling - food manufacturers would be less including to play ball with them. But if they were one of at least a handful, the tables start to turn and it becomes increasingly economically unwise for the food manufacturers not to play ball.

Forgive the game analogy, but it seems silly enough to be a game, doesn't it? When you take a step back, it's almost unreal. The request isn't to end genetic modification (yet.) It's simply that its use is disclosed. The consumer then gets to make the decision if it's good, harmless or bad. Seems pretty logical to me. But politics have a way of trumping logic; this particular time (not the first or the last, unfortunately) it's our health that's in the middle.

Now of course, I get it. The worry is that by labeling, people will assume it's a warning: GMO's are bad. Maybe so. But tough luck. If GMO's really are harmless, take the money you're spending on lobbying government officials, and spend it on consumer education instead. To be honest, I'm neither convinced they are or they're not. That doesn't matter. What matters is my right to know if I'm eating them. I can then do my own research if I'm so inclined. Or not. The fact is there's a ton of food on the market with ingredient lists as long as the Nile chock full of stuff we can't pronounce and don't even try to. Most of it wouldn't be characterized as good. But for better or worse (depending on whose side you're on!) many choose to look the other way. Choose is the operative word.

So, Connecticut, be the little state that could! Bully away! Pressure your peers into doing right.

Real Food Grows and Dies

I have thrown out many an egg, many a head of lettuce, many an apple. Perhaps I bought too much or perhaps they got buried somewhere way back in the fridge, left to wither or rot. Regardless of the reason, it always irritates me - partly because it's terrible to waste food. And partly because this kind of food - the real kind - ain't cheap.

But better to have real food going bad every once in a while, than to stock up on only food-like stuff that magically remains fresh, months after purchase (and don't just pick on the poor old Twinkie; the finger can easily be pointed a thousand other ways as well.)

Just before Christmas, I received a big can full of popcorn at work. You know the kind that's split in three sections: yellow-ish, neon orange and caramel. I put it outside of my office for anyone to eat other than me. (Yes, yes, I should have just thrown it out, but what's done is done!) It wasn't all gone by the time the office closed for the holidays (proud of my co-workers!), so the cover went on. And it sat there ever since. Un-reopened. Until yesterday. And...




...it looked exactly like it did six months ago. Didn't smell. Hadn't rotted. No mold. So I had to do it. I picked a piece from each kind that was left - orange and caramel - and popped them in my mouth. Fresh and crunchy as they were six months ago. Scientifically impressive, perhaps. But actually quite disturbing.





Put simply, if food doesn't decompose, it means our bodies can't metabolize and digest it. While my popcorn may have started out as real food (corn, at least I hope), it lost its privilege to be labeled as such after everything was added to it in order to make it last for, well, maybe forever.

Our culture has made "health" into a big, powerful industry. Nutritional claims, crazy diet schemes, magic pills and formulas. One day it's this. The next day it's that. They've made it (intentionally?) complicated to know what's right and wrong. What's bad and good. But it's actually quite simple. As often as you possibly can:

EAT REAL FOOD. The kind that grows and dies.

Holding A Grudge Is Bad For Your Health

From the wise Nelson Mandela:

"Holding grievances and resentments is like drinking poison and hoping it will kill your enemy."

In other words, when you don't forgive, the person you're hurting more than anyone else is yourself. It can permeate your thoughts and taint otherwise joyful experiences. And for what? Punishment against the perpetrator? Over time, the punishment redirects itself inward, while the perpetrator likely gives up and moves on - believing there's really nothing more they can do or say to fix the situation. Or perhaps they don't really care. No matter the situation, you're left with the shorter end of the stick - and a fertile breeding ground for negative emotion.

I could go on and on about the negative effects of added sugar, hydrogenated oils, artificial this and that on our health. I have and will continue to. However, I firmly believe anger and stress are far, far worse for us than any food is. No leafy green can cure those.

Now, I fully recognize that a lot more than a lack of forgiveness contributes to anger and stress. I'm also aware that some things are a lot easier to forgive than others. I'm not suggesting this is snap-your-fingers easy. But it's really worth thinking about. And if you can...

Forgive not to alleviate their suffering; forgive to alleviate yours. And think of it not as a sign of weakness, but as a tremendous source of freedom and empowerment.

The Scientific 21-Minute Workout

Anything that sounds too good to be true typically is. Especially when it's health-related. These sound familiar... and ridiculous?

Only suckers believe this stuff. (Ummm, like me and you and everyone else I know - at least until we fall for it one too many times and finally wise up.)

But when I read about the Scientific 7-Minute Workout, I have to admit I was a little intrigued. Here I am, with a background in marketing and a certification in health coaching, and they still got me with "scientific!" Darn them! That said, SEVEN minutes? Even it were as beneficial physically as a long run, how could it possibly be able to provide the same high? The same opportunity to cleanse my mind? The same feeling of accomplishment? I decided to find out yesterday morning.

The verdict: it didn't. 

So I did it again. And then again. 21 minutes later I was sweating like crazy and feeling wholly powerful. My endorphins were as high as they are after an intense run around the park and my mind was prepared to take on my inbox (and my kids)! So I'm going to take the liberty of calling this the Scientific 21-Minute Workout, at least for me.

I did this three times in a row. You?

Try it for yourself and see how many times it takes for you. Though I've just done it once, I'm predicting this to be a really fun way to vary my workout. Feels like a gym class but it's absolutely free, totally convenient and a lot shorter. All you need is yourself, a wall, a chair and, ahem... an open mind :)

Being a Humanevore

hu·ma·ne·vore [hyoo-man-uh-vawr] noun:

a carnivore who only eats meat that has been raised in wholly natural environments, fed the most natural and healthy foods and treated humanely with as much care and respect as we expect ourselves.

Humanevore is not a real word.

It should be.

I’ve been reading a lot of Michael Pollan lately. I can’t get enough of him. I’ve been health-conscious all my life, and I’ve been actively studying nutrition for over a year now, but The Omnivore’s Dilemma opened my eyes and ears more than anything else has into the perils of being an uninformed meat eater, which I fully admit I was.

There are reasons why 100% grass-fed meat, pastured eggs and wild fish cost an arm and a leg (no pun intended.) Those reasons are worth it.

Pathfinder Farms, Catskill, NY

Another of Mr. Pollan’s books, In Defense of Food, led me to eatwild.com, a site dedicated to carefully-researched information (it's owned and operated by an investigative journalist) about eating the way nature intended. Among lots of other interesting facts and resources, it provides a directory of farms across North America that raise animals a Humanevore can safely eat. Each has met very specific criteria to be included in this directory.

What strikes me most about these criteria isn’t that these farms meet them, but that they even have to exist. Doesn’t it make you wonder what criteria all other farms meet? Or, unfortunately-but-likely-more-accurately, don't?

“You are what you eat” has taken on a whole new meaning for me. While it’s not my normal M.O., I’m going to get all spiritual on you. Beyond the nutritional (and of course animal rights) argument in becoming a Humanevore, there is another more poignant one: Most of us don’t choose to spend a whole lot of time hanging out with chronically sad and depressed people; eventually, their negative spirit would affect us. What kind of effect, then, is eating chronically sad and depressed animals having? I have to believe it’s compromising us in ways far beyond poor physical health.

It’s easy and financially convenient to “forget” all of this once the meat’s been packaged, the eggs are in cartons and the fish is in the case. I’d go so far as to say it’s inconvenient to remember, because for the most part, you have to go way far out of your way to shop as a Humanevore. But…

I think it’s worth it. What do you think?