What Cardiologists Think About the Apple Watch's Heart-Tracking Feature (sfgate.com) 90
An anonymous reader quotes a report from SFGate: The newest Apple Watch can now flag potential problems with your heartbeat -- a feature that's been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration and that Apple is marking as a major achievement. But some doctors said that including heart-monitoring tools in such a popular consumer product could prompt unnecessary anxiety and medical visits. Physicians say the watch could be good for patients who have irregular heart rhythms but may not realize it. Some people who have atrial fibrillation, the condition for which the watch is screening, don't always have noticeable symptoms. In an ideal situation, someone who doesn't know they have a problem could get a warning from their watch and take that data to their doctor.
But there is also concern that widespread use of electrocardiograms without an equally broad education initiative could burden an already taxed health-care system. Heart rhythms naturally vary, meaning that it's likely that Apple Watch or any heart monitor could signal a problem when there isn't one -- and send someone running to the doctor for no reason. "People are scared; their heart scares them," John Mandrola, a cardiologist at Baptist Health in Louisville, said. "That leads to more interaction with the health-care system." An extra visit to your doctor may not sound like a bad thing, but Mandrola said it would potentially lead to another round of tests or even unnecessary treatment if there are other signs that can be misinterpreted. And doctors might wind up facing a crowd of anxious Apple Watch users getting false signals -- something physicians have already had to deal with as fitness trackers that monitor heart rates have become popular.
But there is also concern that widespread use of electrocardiograms without an equally broad education initiative could burden an already taxed health-care system. Heart rhythms naturally vary, meaning that it's likely that Apple Watch or any heart monitor could signal a problem when there isn't one -- and send someone running to the doctor for no reason. "People are scared; their heart scares them," John Mandrola, a cardiologist at Baptist Health in Louisville, said. "That leads to more interaction with the health-care system." An extra visit to your doctor may not sound like a bad thing, but Mandrola said it would potentially lead to another round of tests or even unnecessary treatment if there are other signs that can be misinterpreted. And doctors might wind up facing a crowd of anxious Apple Watch users getting false signals -- something physicians have already had to deal with as fitness trackers that monitor heart rates have become popular.
Doctor visits maybe harmful? (Score:3, Insightful)
it would potentially lead to another round of tests or even unnecessary treatment if there are other signs that can be misinterpreted.
The same could be said for any visit to any doctor for any reason, so that means any visit to the doctor may be harmful?
Sound like a problem with American doctors than with anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
If you make people pay for it directly, they might be a bit more remiss to see a doctor over a reading from their gadget. I don't know much about the watch beyond some headlines, bu
Re: (Score:2)
To the point, however, more data isn't bad. It needs to be appropriately identified and indemnified. Didn't wear your watch? Uh oh. Lots of possible data points to miss.
These aren't EKG quality, and given their wearing position, are unlikely to be at that level. But they can detect a few things, and send alerts. Maybe they do blood sugar one day. Trauma. Propensity to become reactive to media currently being viewed for political analytic effect.
The boundaries are undefined, but I don't believe a preponderan
Re: (Score:2)
How foolish. Even with a single payer system those seeking heal care bear a cost. The costs can vary depending on the system but at the very least - it costs a pile of time. There is always an incentive to not seek medical attention.
The argument for gadgets is that costs associated with prevention (like extra visits to the doctor) are far less then the costs associated with a late diagnosis. If only 1 in 100 of the visits turns out to be a valid concern it can not only save lives but also reduce overall
Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful? (Score:2)
Wow, I want to go to your doctor! It sounds like you have such a good time with him/her.
Although I do see your point. If people could go to the doctor everyday, they surely would. Unless, of course, they had a job. Or a hobby. Or liked to do
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why single-payer systems typically have gatekeeping mechanisms, such as GP referrals.
This is a solved problem.
Re: (Score:2)
In single-payer, who's the gatekeeper to the GP/PCP?
Re: (Score:2)
No need for one. The problem of patients needlessly taking GPs' appointment slots is much smaller than the problem of patients on a GP's list who don't come to the practice when they really should. The UK runs free-at-point-of-use GP service where patients have no co-pays etc and can see the doctor as many times as they need to, in theory, and until the Tories decimated primary care in the last 8 years (taking it from an average 9% of NHS spend down to 6%), many practices were routinely able to provide an a
Re: (Score:2)
How did ignoring the doctors work out for Steve?
If they didn't care about his health: no different if he had listend to them. Gee, your straw man needs a doctor. But don't ask me, ask a doctor who actually cares about their patients.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, it struck me as an odd comment. I mean, suppose 9 in 10 alerts are false positives (which I'd assume is an absurdly high number). The cost for a false positive in this sort of situation is relatively low: patients go in, get some simple tests, confirm they're fine, and go home. There are no ongoing costs to the patient or the system.
But what about that 1 in 10 who isn't a false positive? If we assume that they wouldn't have otherwise had their heart problems noticed until years later after the symptom
Re: Doctor visits maybe harmful? (Score:1)
Yeah but all those false positives are clogging up the doctors office, thatâ(TM)s were the problem is people that need the care canâ(TM)t get in because weâ(TM)ve made healthcare on the us artificially unavailable
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but all those false positives are clogging up the doctors office, thatâ(TM)s were the problem is
No, the problem is that people who didn't catch the problem early enough are clogging up the office on an ongoing, continual, significant basis. False positives would be a drastic improvement to that situation if they helped reduce the ongoing appointments.
Re: (Score:1)
Follow the trail of money to the overly expensive tests done on relatively inexpensive machines, funded by your premiums to in$urance companies and your copayment$.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking for me and mine (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Spoken like a true brainwashed idiot who buys Fox News agitprop. Hook. Line. Sinker.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Speaking for me and mine (Score:4, Interesting)
"Collectively, you will overburden the healthcare system."
We have a "concern" to that effect from a single doctor who hasn't been anywhere near the device in question. In fact, the software that does the heart analysis and ECG won't even ship with the product on launch, but will arrive later.
And yet there's "concern" that some as yet unknown number of "false positives" could overwhelm the health care system. As opposed to potentially reducing the number of emergency room visits due to heart attacks, the number of heart surgeries required due to late treatment of symptoms, and even deaths.
On the flip side, the head of the American Heart Association was on stage during the introduction, thrilled with the announcement and the advantages it would provide.
Let's see... head of the American Heart Association... some unknown doc from Kentucky... head of the American Heart Association... some unknown doc from Kentucky... hmmm.
mandated coverage and socialized costs (Score:2)
Well, and that's a problem when you mandate coverage, set insurance rates, socialize costs, and have third-party payer systems: people don't apply good jud
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Why is that a problem? We (in the US) would have more money for healthcare and education subsidies if we stopped mass-incarceration, enforcement of victimless crimes, and military thuggery in countries we have no business intervening in.
The US needs MORE access to healthcare, not more rationing via economic means.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, let's be realistic here.... The funding going for things like mass incarceration and military exercise in foreign countries won't just get fully redirected to healthcare and education subsidies if you put a stop to those things. It's a powerful "selling point" to get a point across, but government funds often go to one area because of a complex underlying situation. It's not just a general pot that all the money piles up in until they decide how to divvy it up.
If you believe some of the reports about
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has nothing to do with this except for a comment from him at one point that he wanted to investigate the missing funds.
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:1)
If you are going to promote your Left Think Platform, you cannot cherry-pick the planks. You need to accept the other planks as well.
ICE is out and open borders is in.
All refugees welcome and Amnesty for everyone.
Strict price controls on pharmaceuticals.
Progressive taxation on high income individuals - say doctors and specialists.
Now we will be the world's doctor too - the only barrier is getting here somehow - perhaps the EU will export them?
How long will this last before it consumes itself and all we hav
Re: (Score:3)
Congratulations, this is the stupidest post I've read on the internet today. It's a high par to pass but you passed it.
Your argument is: GP wants single payer healthcare. Some stupid straw man you've invented says that some people who want single payer also want open borders. OMFG GP SI TEH MORAN single healthcare means open borders.
Your post has everything:
* reactionary bigotry about anyone who disagrees on any aspect of politics
* aggresive stupidity
* entire armies of straw men
* ignoring that places other
Re: (Score:2)
So you are telling me the leftist agenda does not promote (sources below are from left-leaning sites, and one centrist site):
Socialized/single payer medicine [americanprogress.org]
Open borders [thehill.com]
Controlling "Big Pharma" [rollcall.com]
Progressive taxation, especially on the rich [vox.com]
Because this is what the far left is pushing right now.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what passes for the "leftist agenda" in your head.
What I do know is that plenty of countries have single payer healthcare and don't have open borders.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what passes for the "leftist agenda" in your head.
Funny because I just posted a bunch of links to it.
This country does not have open borders, has universal health care, and has an ongoing problem with abuse of the system by foreigners:
Japan has a socialized medical system where people get insurance through their employers or from the government. It's a really good system as well - top notch medical treatment, safe, effective prescription drugs, and costs (unlike in the U.S.) are much lower.
T
Re: (Score:2)
Funny because I just posted a bunch of links to it.
Thing is I don't really care whay your idea of the "leftist agenda" is. It's clearly blatantly stupid so precise the details of the stpidity are unimportant.
This country does not have open borders, has universal health care
WTF? S is the leftist agenda both together or not? Make up your mind.
People come in for the express purpose of gaining (or faking) residency, promptly getting expensive medical treatment, and leaving without paying anything into the syst
Re: (Score:2)
At least I post sources and stay on topic.
You contribute nothing except ad-hominems.
Re: (Score:2)
At least I post sources and stay on topic.
Wow you have no shame!
Re: (Score:1)
We don't need more money for healthcare or education in the US; we are already paying several times as much as countries that are doing better than we are.
I'm all for ending that. Unfortunately, last time I voted for a guy that promised to end some of these government abuses and move money from cron
Re: (Score:2)
We're fucked (humans), here in the UK we have an extremely decent guy running the Labour party, it's not in power, he probably won't win, even if he does win there will be endless shitheads causing problems for him and all the media will rail against him as it already has. He nearly won the last election despite the media putting in the boot but too many people let TV and newspapers do their thinking for them. Having an honest politician run the country is not what most people want, they want more money and
Re: (Score:3)
Corbyn is a self-described socialist. In light of that and the history of socialism, the rest of your comment is profoundly ironic.
But Americans need object lessons in real-world socialism and fascism again, now that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany are gone. So go for i
Re: (Score:2)
Americans and Brits take socialism to mean different things, in the US socialism seems to mean communism. I'd rather have his style of socialism any day over the dystopian capitalist dog eat dog world that is the US today with it's absurdly expensive health costs, insane prison population etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I was born in Europe, and unlike you Brits, have first-hand experience with the tender mercies of socialism, democratic and otherwise.
Ah, yes, the ignorance and anti-Americanism so typical of educated Europeans. As I wa
Re: (Score:2)
US has tens of millions of people in poverty, if telling the truth is anti-American then yes I'm anti-American. US populace is so brain-washed it can't tell fake news from real news. US population is the Turkey who votes for Xmas.
Re: (Score:2)
In 2016, 21.6% (13.4 million) of Brits lived in poverty by UK standards, [wikipedia.org] whereas only 12.7% of Americans did in 2016. [wikipedia.org] The US poverty rate has been below 20% since the early 1960's.
But the actual situation is a lot bleaker because "poverty" is measured relative to median income, which is considerably lower in the UK. If measured against US standards, 40% of the UK is low income [pewresearch.org]. On top of that, the US has numerous benefits for people "in poverty" that aren't counte
Re: (Score:2)
In 2016, 21.6% (13.4 million) of Brits lived in poverty by UK standards, [wikipedia.org] whereas only 12.7% of Americans did in 2016. [wikipedia.org]
Even ignoring the fact that the US link doesn't have your US number anywhere (you'l have to go to the Census to find that) - you are comparing two different definitions of poverty.
Re: (Score:2)
It's right there in the first figure.
Quite right. As I pointed out later, according to the US definition of poverty, about 40% of UK citizens live in poverty. Conversely, if you count in kind benefits in the US (which is needed to make it comparable to Europe), the US poverty rate drops even further.
So the actual discrepancy between
Re: (Score:2)
It's right there in the first figure.
Nope, it says 12.3% right there. You are not making any points.
you are comparing two different definitions of poverty
Quite right. As I pointed out later, according to the US definition of poverty, about 40% of UK citizens live in poverty.
And if you use the UK standard "starting in the 1930s, relative poverty rates have consistently exceeded those of other wealthy nations." So the US loses as do you - oh BTW: Trump is poor.
Re: (Score:2)
I gave the number for 2016 (just like UK). Notice how the figure was updated just Saturday?
You're still confusing absolute and relative poverty, and you obviously don't understand the different ways of measuring even relative poverty.
If that belief makes your life tolerable, I encourag
Re: (Score:2)
You mean crony capitalism.
Without government powers, the things you identified would not happen.
Re: (Score:2)
The history of being infinitely better for 95% of the population than capitalism - right up until the government is overthrown by the CIA.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? The people of the Soviet Union, Cuba, East Germany, Poland, Hungary, all those countries were "infinitely better off" than with capitalism?
Your level of ignorance isn't just astounding, it is offensive.
Re: (Score:2)
God no. What we have is a duplictius, anti-semitic arsehole.
Anti semitic: no he's never said anything anti semitic. However the party under him, with him at the helm takes a strong stance against well founded accusations of antisemitism and a very gentle stance towards the anti-semites. At some point if you keep standing in the way you're part of the problem.
He's also cut from the same cloth as David Cameron, underneath. Cameron was the kind of arsehole prepared to put party before country which is why he h
Re: (Score:2)
Of course he's not anti-semitic, get real, what trash newspapers are you reading? And if you haven't noticed anyone who criticises Israel is immediately dubbed anti-semitic, take that crap with a pinch of salt.
Re: (Score:2)
I ended up with a president that created kill lists of Americans, followed the advice of Keynesians, engaged in even more unwise military adventures, massively increased the cost of my medical insurance, created moral hazards all over the place, and for good measure accused me of having white privilege and not having built my business. So, not doing that again. (I left the Democratic party after being a lifelong Democrat.)
Go home, Russian troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I moved to the US to get away from European authoritarians.
Now let's look at you: in 2011, you decided to move to Goldman Sachs, a company that had made billions from the taxpayer funded bailout at the time and lied about it to Congress, a company that was in bed with Hillary Clinton and paid her massively inflated speaking fees, getting reassurance and insider information. And then you joined Credit Suisse and moved to an enclave of the super rich and since that was long be
Like cardiologists are going to turn down business (Score:2)
Now pull the other one.
Perfect for the USA (Score:1)
This device fits the way Muricans generally think, i.e. "As long as I get mine and don't have to be considerate about anyone else, then that's just great. Who cares if I choke up the healthcare system with false positives. I won't bother me."
Improvement (Score:1)
Must complain (Score:2)
No one will read the article unless it's about people complaining.
Sure, that’s what cardiologists say (Score:2)
But what does Cardi B say?
tl;dr (Score:2)
The Mixed Message (Score:2)
On my first child, we did the new parent thing, went to the training sessions the Ob recommended, learned various facts and warning signs. One of which is "if the fever is above , come to the ER immediately, it's the law." So a couple years go by, and as it happens the kid gets a fever, it's shooting up over 105, we rush him to the ER. Anyway, doctor sees the kid, the kid throws up, temp comes down. Doctor diagnoses him with a stomach bug, and chastises me for an unnecessary ER visit in the most condescendi
Re: (Score:2)
At this point I imagine bottles of asprin say "If you have a headache while using this product, consult a physician. Do not use if you are susceptible to mortality."
At this point any over-the-counter medication has so many warnings and cautions on the label that the label wraps all the way around the bottle with warnings.
If you want to find out how many of the pill you should take (the actual usage recommendation) you need to peel the label back and scan the REST of the warnings wrapping down the BACK of the label to some small print at the very bottom that says how many pills to take.
Re: If Apple had cured cancer (Score:2)
Goddammn assholes and their bitching and moaning! People are TOTALLY moaning and bitching ... bitching and moaning ... all the time. ABOUT SHIT! About shit I tell you! I mean, can you imagine? People bitching and then people moaning, and doing it about shit and doing it about shit all the time, and assholes coming
Ruke #314,012 of Human Nature (Score:2)
Our visits are always legitimate, even if they turn up nothing, it's better to be safe than sorry.
Other people need too much peace of mind, though. Damn other people! They are they so worried about themselves? I don't get it? I mean, I'm not worried about them! Why are they???
If other people go to the doctor too much, I might be able to get an appointment when I have a (totally legitimate, mind you) concern,
Oh no, now I'm worried about me. If
Re: (Score:2)
Our visits are always legitimate, even if they turn up nothing, it's better to be safe than sorry.
Unfortunately not. The trouble is that visits can and do turn up false positives. Those false positives inevitably end up with treatment which does come with risks.
We're starting to slowly wake up to this with poulation scale screening for certain diseases. They've always been tilted in favour of low false negatives because hey, who wants to miss cancer? The trouble is the overall outcomes are not actually the
Seems a strange article... (Score:2)
He's much in favour of this and will buy this new Apple watch. So at least there is some disagreement in the medical community with respect to this very strange 'false positive' claim before the product is actually available.
Personally, I still won't buy this wrist-hanging, freedom imposing, fashion showoff piece of redundancy. I have the time on my Huawei phone, and there's nothing wrong with my heart :-)
New challenge for doctors (Score:2)
Ultimately though, vast numbers of ECG readings and other electronic health records may ultimately serve as training exam
Be wary (Score:2)