Healthcare reform and hypogonadism - Part 1

A little background first, then on to healthcare reform...

Treatment of profound hypogonadism uses hormone products to replace the hormones of the ovaries (female gonads) with the same hormones, in the same levels, just as if the ovaries were still working. The 'HRT' used in clinical trials like the Women's Health Initiative creates hormone levels that are never seen in healthy women during their entire lifetime and in no way even remotely resembles appropriate ovarian hormone levels as completely unnatural and unhealthy levels of hormones are created. It is inaccurate and misleading to label what was used in these trials as 'HRT'. Intentionally using misleading terminology is an abuse of the public's trust by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the sponsor of the Women's Health Initiative.

Now on to the blog...

A few years ago I was asked to give a lecture on how much money the state of Washington would save if profound hypogonadism (name for the illness caused by menopause) was effectively treated in women. The answer was $330 million per year in the state of Washington alone. Multiply those savings for 50 states and you will begin to see the financial impact that appropriate treatment of profound hypogonadism in women can have.

The reason for the savings was quite clear. Osteoporosis would be virtually eradicated and as a bonus the occurrence of breast cancer would be lowered by at least 80%. The reduction in both osteoporosis and breast cancer was due to the effective treatment of the illness that causes both of these diseases, profound hypogonadism.

These savings were just for women. Preventing osteoporosis in men by treating hypogonadism would also add significant savings. The bonus for men would be a significant decrease in prostate disease. Yes, you guessed it. Chronic hypogonadism is the leading cause of prostate disease not aging.

So if the occurrence of expensive, devastating diseases can be significantly reduced and the treatment is at our fingertips why isn't it used?

That is a very good question with a straightforward answer.

Preventing disease means preventing income, status, and profits.

The healthcare industry knows only too well that when devastating diseases are prevented lots of money is saved. For instance, when diabetes or hypothyroidism are well controlled a person is much healthier. Healthier people translate into lower medical costs. Only when the cost of an illness exceeds the amount collected through premiums is a push toward prevention made. Once the premiums cover the cost of healthcare, the insurance industry has no incentive to prevent disease.

Also, the pharmaceutical industry has even less incentive to prevent disease. The pharmaceutical industry then has the opportunity to provide long term drug treatment for chronic illnesses that would not exist if the underlying illness were adequately treated. Osteoporosis is the best and most profitable example. Here is an illness that is 100% preventable and yet no one comes forward to point this out. Billions of dollars are spent on the treatment of a completely preventable illness. There are other illnesses like acid reflux or GERD, depression, high blood pressure, and breast cancer which are all a result of chronic profound hypogonadism. If these illnesses were to be significantly reduced what do you think would happen to the gravy train that the pharmaceutical companies are on now? There is absolutely no incentive for the drug companies to come up with replacement regimens that work, particularly for women. There is simply too much money to be made in keeping women sick for as long as possible. Does it make sense to you now why treatment for profound hypogonadism is not even acknowledged in women?

From a medical standpoint there is no reason not to prevent disease because the body does not change how it works. When something as devastating as organ failure occurs (i.e. ovarian failure), no matter the age of the person, it is completely understandable that disease ensues. Disease strikes because the body is not getting what it needs so it does the only thing it can do, it gets sick.

Many people think that Mother Nature provided ovarian failure and the loss of fertility as a way of protecting women as they age. There are abundant theories that are supposed to help us accept the physical and emotional harshness of profound hypogonadism.

To what end? When the average life span was 45 years ovarian function lasted until a woman's last day. From a dollars and cents point of view ovarian failure is not protective at all. Women outlive their supply of eggs and when they are exhausted the body, mind, and society suffers terribly. The medical community does nothing or worse by primarily only treating men and refusing to treat women for the identical illness. I don't think Mother Nature is trying to protect women. I think that human kind is failing to protect women when it fails to offer treatment for a treatable illness like profound hypogonadism.

Next time we will look at the numbers. The number of people who get sick and the number of doctors that are then required to treat them.