Search This Blog

Sunday, September 2, 2018

What Every Woman Needs to Know About Ovarian Cancer


Women need to know the symptoms of ovarian cancer and see a doctor if they have them, an ob-gyn expert says.
Ovarian cancer is the fifth-leading cause of death in American women, claiming more lives than any other cancer of the female reproductive system, according to the American Cancer Society.
About 22,240 women in the United States will be diagnosed with the disease in 2018, and over 14,000 will die from it, according to the U.S. National Cancer Institute.
September is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month.
“Any woman who experiences unexplained bloating, an upset stomach, an urgency to urinate or abdominal pain for a few weeks, should go see a doctor, and if her doctor does not take these symptoms seriously, she should see another doctor,” said Dr. Stephanie Blank. She is director of gynecologic oncology for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.
Other symptoms include pelvic pain, fatigue, unexplained weight change, and abnormal bleeding or any bleeding after menopause.
“Too often, women are sent to the wrong doctor, or [are] told they’re just aging or gaining weight when experiencing these kinds of symptoms, and by then they have lost valuable time,” Blank said in a Mount Sinai news release.
Women who are diagnosed with ovarian cancer before it has spread have a five-year survival of 93 percent, researchers have found. But detection of ovarian cancer is difficult and often delayed.
Women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations are at increased risk for ovarian cancer, and the risk for all women increases with age. Half of all ovarian cancers are diagnosed in women who are 63 and older.
Long-term use of birth control pills reduces the risk of ovarian cancer by about 50 percent, according to the news release. Removing fallopian tubes and ovaries is the best means of ovarian cancer prevention, but is not appropriate for all women.
More information
The American Cancer Society has more on ovarian cancer.
SOURCE: Mount Sinai Health System, news release, Aug. 28, 2018

You might not need as much sleep as you think


  • Fitbit researchers compared how much people slept with their scores on Think Fast, an app Fitbit offers on its smartwatches.
  • Fitbit researchers find that people who slept an average of 5 hours and 50 minutes to 6 hours and 30 minutes per night performed better on the test than people who slept more or less.
  • In both men and women over age 40, reducing the amount of time spent awake at night increases cognitive performance by 10 percent.
You might not need as much sleep as you think, but you might need better sleep.
Using sleep data from its wearable devices, Fitbit researchers compared them to users’ scores on Think Fast, an app Fitbit offers on its smartwatches. They found that people who slept an average of 5 hours and 50 minutes to 6 hours and 30 minutes per night performed better on the test than people who slept more or less.
These amounts are shorter than what doctors typically advise. Public health officials and physicians have long recommended adults sleep for at least seven hours, if not more, each night. They’ve become increasingly vocal about this as people work longer hours and spend more time in front of screens before bed.
Fitbit research scientist Jonathan Charlesworth said these guidelines are based on how much time people spend in bed as opposed to how much time people actually sleep. However, he said even Fitbit’s numbers are just averages, and the numbers can vary per person, especially based on factors like age and gender.
“There are a couple things to take home here: The amount of sleep you’re getting is significantly lower than the time you spend in bed, and the optimal time is probably largely lower than what you think,” Charlesworth said.
Still, the ideal number Fitbit found reflects time people spent actually sleeping. Those same people likely spent about seven hours in bed when adding in the time they were awake before falling asleep and in the middle of the night.
Researchers also found how much sleep you need depends on your gender. Women need about 30 minutes more than men, according to their data.
And it’s not just about quantity. It’s also about quality, especially for older people.
Researchers found in both men and women over age 40, reducing the amount of time spent awake at night increases cognitive performance by 10 percent. For people ages 20 to 40, there was no correlation between the amount of deep sleep, interruption during the night and cognitive performance, Charlesworth said.
“This suggests that if people can maintain a high sleep quality as they get older, we may be able to slow decline by a significant amount,” Charlesworth said.
Fitbit devices identify sleep based on users’ heart rate and motion. It’s not a perfect measure since the wearable does not track brain waves, but it’s been shown to accurately determine sleep stages.
The company collected data from more than 3 billion nights of logged sleep for this research. It plans to use the findings to send users personalized insights so they can improve their sleep, Charlesworth said.
That may include sending users notifications saying they didn’t sleep well last night along with suggestions like removing their phone from their bedroom, he said.

Technology is changing the way you see a doctor, but is that good for your health?


One morning, Charlie Latuske woke up feverish and somewhat delirious in his home in Surrey in the UK, leaving him unable to function and in need of a doctor.
He’d endured a sore throat and general malaise for a few days, believing it would get better, but that morning in August 2017, he knew that he had to do something about it.
“I was quite out of it,” said 27-year old Latuske, who was also due to go on vacation with his wife in just three days.
Short on time, he dreaded the idea of calling his local general practitioner only to wait days or even a week for an appointment, or to wait in a queue for an emergency appointment.
“I just needed to be seen without messing around with queues,” he said. “When you’re that ill, that’s the last thing you want to do.”
These days, this solution is somewhat easier, thanks to the internet.
Latuske’s wife showed him a private medical app with which he could see a doctor within the hour — virtually. For a fee of £30 ($38), he could sign up, share his symptoms and video-call a doctor in the UK using the digital health provider Push Doctor
“I was highly skeptical,” he said, adding that his instincts were to not trust such a service and question the credentials of doctors available through it. “But I was desperate.”
Within 20 minutes, he was speaking with a doctor, who soon diagnosed him with tonsillitis.
Within the hour, he was his nearest pharmacy, collecting prescriptions for antibiotics and pain relievers. And three days later, he was on vacation, as planned.
“I was impressed by the efficiency of the whole thing,” he said.
The service treated more than 1,000 different conditions last year, it says, with the majority of people getting the help they needed first time. “Patients have come to expect the same level of responsiveness from their health care services that they receive from online shops, TV providers and social network,” said Wais Shaifta, CEO of Push Doctor.
Symptoms can be entered and appointments promptly made on new health care apps. Here, a patient uses the GP at hand app provided to people living in London by the UK's National Health Service.
The app is one of many now available in the UK and worldwide to help people in need of medical attention who are unable to get to a doctor for various reasons, such as an overburdened practice, being too ill to move or being too remote to access one.
Some programs are even exploring the use of artificial intelligence to speed the process, quickly analyzing your symptoms to send you to the right expert. Experts in the field hope AI will also enhance the accuracy of diagnoses — more so than a real-life doctor.

The true test of AI

A recent study led by another online health service provider, Babylon Health, found that when answering diagnostic questions typically found on a doctor’s exam in the UK, its AI technology diagnosed patients better than the doctors taking the test, with 81% accuracy compared with an average of 72% over the past five years among real-life doctors.
A subsequent test of the technology on clinical scenarios provided by the Royal College of Physicians in the UK looked at 100 independent symptom sets in need of diagnosis. Again, the AI achieved 80% accuracy, with the seven experts tested scoring between 64% and 94%.
The point of it all is efficiency, says Dr. Mobasher Butt, medical director at Babylon Health. The private app provides health care consultations for a small initial fee, but the company also powers the online service GP at hand, which is provided for free in London through the country’s National Health Service.
“We have to find ways of helping our NHS service to be more efficient,” Butt said, adding that this use of AI can help patients get to the right services and help them manage long-term conditions, improve compliance with medication, give reminders and help with follow-ups and repeat prescriptions.
“When we start working smarter and using technology, you can see the great advantages that offers and frees up the time of doctors and nurses to do what they do best: to provide that human care to patients.”
Babylon's health care app.
A team at Moorfields Eye Hospital in London partnered with the Google company DeepMind came to a similar conclusion in a recent study in Nature Medicine. Their AI technology, designed to read eye scans and identify signs of disease, correctly identified over 50 eye diseases with 94% accuracy — matching the abilities of the world’s leading eye experts.
“The number of eye scans we’re performing is growing at a pace much faster than human experts are able to interpret them,” Dr. Pearse Keane, a consultant ophthalmologist at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust who led the research, said in a statement. “The AI technology we’re developing is designed to prioritize patients who need to be seen and treated urgently by a doctor or eye care professional. If we can diagnose and treat eye conditions early, it gives us the best chance of saving people’s sight.”
Next, this research will undergo clinical trials to see how the technology might improve patient care in practice.
But professional organizations like the Royal College of Physicians want to ensure that the value of a real-life physician is not lost as technology continues to evolve.
“AI to support patient care is being developed in a variety of ways and has huge potential to support doctors and enable them to spend more time with patients,” Jane Dacre, the group’s president and a professor of medical education at University College London, said in a statement. “Although this technology is exciting, the physician still holds the crucial role of the oversight of the vital human and caring side of medicine — an aspect of care that cannot be underestimated.”
She stressed that despite the positive results of recent studies, AI cannot yet replace a fully trained doctor.
“We need much more robust trials and evidence to work out how it can best be used. We need studies in real patients, in real time, in the real NHS,” she said.

The value of relationships

Among all these changes and improvements in time, accuracy and efficiency, experts are concerned that another crucial aspect of health care is being forgotten: continuity of care, an ongoing relationship with a particular doctor or health care provider who knows your history and knows you.
On that front, “the trend is going in the wrong way,” said Dr. Denis Pereira Gray, a former family physician and professor emeritus at the University of Exeter in the UK.
This is down to the fact that the UK, compared with other European countries, is seriously short on doctors, and continuity is not valued by policymakers, he said.
But in a recent study, Pereira Gray found that seeing the same doctor can in fact save lives, with those seeing the same physician over time having lower death rates based on a review of 22 studies across nine countries. Eighteen of the studies, 82%, found that repeated contact with the same doctor meant fewer deaths.
In some studies, the effect doubled, he added.
Patients have long known that it matters which doctor they see and how well they can communicate with them, say some experts.
The review also found that this benefit applies beyond family physicians, extending to specialists in general medicine, surgery and psychiatry, according to Pereira Gray, who noted this outcome across countries, cultures, languages and health systems. “This is much more likely to indicate a serious human effect,” he said.
“Patients have long known that it matters which doctor they see and how well they can communicate with them,” Pereira Gray said. “Until now, arranging for patients to see the doctor of their choice has been considered a matter of convenience or courtesy; now, it is clear it is about the quality of medical practice and is literally ‘a matter of life and death.’ “
Research has also shown that continuity of care results in patients being more satisfied, significantly more likely to follow medical advice and much more likely to take up personal protective care, like immunizations or cancer screening, Pereira Gray said. They also show more efficient use of hospitals and a reduced likelihood of using emergency departments.
“All of those are advantages, as well as [avoiding] death,” he said.
And it’s not just long-term relationships. Short-term ones are just as beneficial, according to Pereira Gray. For example, in one study in the United States, mortality was greater among people who were readmitted to the same hospital after colorectal surgery but saw a different medical team, he said.
“Sheer familiarity with a doctor reduces anxiety,” he added. “And patients are more likely to disclose important information that can sometimes be sensitive and embarrassing.”
Alongside that, the more doctors get to know patients, they become more responsive to them as individuals. “Trust goes up in the patient, and the doctors become more sensitive to the patient,” Pereira Gray said.
“People talk more freely to people they trust and know.”

Is seeing the same doctor ‘outdated’?

Is familiarity or technological efficiency better for our health in the long run? Butt believes that the idea of seeing the same general practitioner for life “is now outdated” but argues that good care needn’t be an either-or situation.
“We’re not trying to replace doctors,” Butt said. It’s not “man vs. machine.”
Instead, he says the future is about humans working with machines, adding that with his health care app, users can request to speak to the same doctor they have previously.
“Continuity of care is important, and where it’s needed, we offer that,” Butt said, giving the example of mental health care. But he also highlighted that many practices today do not enable patients to see the same doctor, due to limited staff and the use of temporary or substitute doctors. “It’s just not the reality in most cases.”
More than 200 doctors provide their services to Babylon Health, Butt said, and he hopes to make the technology more sophisticated and interactive, for example by using a phone’s microphone to help doctors listen to a patient’s chest remotely. A physical health check service is also now available, with people inputting information about their current health and diet to see how they’re doing in general and what lifestyle factors they could improve to “prevent some diseases from happening,” he said.
Eighty-five percent of issues can be dealt with via a video call, Butt added, with more serious issues or blood tests needing an in-person appointment, which is then obtained through the patient’s NHS practice or a private physician.
Babylon has already expended its reach to Rwanda.
“What’s important is continuity of the medical record, so any clinician involved in that person’s care can pick it up,” Butt said.
Pereira Gray agrees that it needn’t be a tradeoff. “I don’t think technology and personal care are in opposition. They should complement each other,” he said, but he feels that with remote consultations, social determinants of health are less accounted for, such as a person’s environment, poverty level, family or work.

“All of that feeds into the sort of illnesses that people get,” he said. “If you’re talking about a doctor doing a quick-fix consultation, it’s very much less likely that will be unraveled or understood.”
But he admits that certain conditions are quick and simple and that any doctor anywhere can handle those quickly and simply, to Butt’s point.
The current selling point for the use of technology is access, Butt believes, either where in-person appointments are limited or where mobility is an issue — both among the frail and elderly or in low-income countries where communities can be miles from the nearest health care center with no means of transport.
The Babylon team is providing mobile health services in Rwanda as well as the UK, with plans to extend to other countries on the African continent, as well as North America and the Middle East.
According to Push Doctor, the need for remote access is in high demand among middle-age and older people in countries like the UK. “It’s not just millennials who are embracing [these] platforms,” Shaifta said. “Research shows that digital health has universal appeal, with high demand from over-45s citing an increased need for remote services and the convenience they bring.”
For now, which option is ultimately better for your health? The results just aren’t in yet.

Big Tobacco Accused of Using Social Media ‘Influencers’ to Target Youth


Barred by law from almost all forms of traditional advertising in the U.S., tobacco companies are now aggressively using social media platforms to market cigarettes to a new generation of potential smokers, an anti-tobacco group is charging.
A 2-year investigation conducted by the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids (CTFK) and the online research firm Netnografica, targeting four multinational tobacco giants, alleges that all four violated their own internal marketing standards by using Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms to target young people online with cigarette marketing.
Specifically, the investigation found evidence that social media “influencers” with large online followings of young people are being paid to post images of cigarettes and smoking in dozens of countries. The young influencers reported receiving payment for posting photos featuring specific cigarette brands. The influencers also reported receiving training on which cigarette brands to promote, when to post pictures for maximum exposure, and how to take photos that looked natural and not like staged advertisements.
CTFK, along with the American Heart Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and seven other public health groups, have asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to order tobacco companies to disclose that their social media campaigns are paid advertising for tobacco products by including the hashtags “#Sponsored,” “#Promotion,” or “#Ad” in the content.
The petition, filed late last week, charged that Philip Morris International, British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International, and Imperial Brands are violating federal law by marketing to minors in the United States through social media.
A Philip Morris International media relations manager, Corey Henry, insisted to MedPage Today that the company does not market any products in the United States, “whether on social media or otherwise.”
“We have been absolutely clear that we are building our future on smoke-free products that are a better choice than continuing to smoke cigarettes,” he said. “Our vision is that these products replace cigarettes as soon as possible.”
“Our global marketing standards follow four core principles, for all of our products worldwide,” Henry said: “1 – We market and sell our products to adult smokers; 2 – We warn consumers about the health effects of our products; 3 – Our marketing must be honest and accurate; and 4 – We respect the law. None of our marketing is aimed at recruiting new smokers.”
But the investigation found evidence that Philip Morris International, which makes and markets the world’s leading cigarette brand, Marlboro, has engaged in social media influencer campaigns in multiple countries, including Indonesia and Uruguay.
“[Philip Morris International] is the company that proclaims the loudest about its desire for a smoke-free future, but we found them running these social media campaigns in 29 different countries,” CTFK President Matthew Myers told MedPage Today.
In the United States, the FTC has rules against paying someone to endorse a product without disclosing that fact, which is why CTFK and the other health groups petitioned the agency to address the issue of paid media influencers.
But Myers noted that since country boundaries mean little in the social media universe, influencer campaigns originating outside the U.S. are routinely seen by American youth.
The investigation concluded that tobacco company-initiated social media campaigns have been viewed more than 25 billion times worldwide, including 8.8 billion times in the United States.
“We identified campaigns in 40 different countries,” Myers said. “In countries where English is not spoken, most of these campaigns were still in English.”
Robin Koval, president and CEO of the anti-tobacco group Truth Initiative, told MedPage Today that the report is “more proof that the industry’s rhetoric about a smoke-free world is just blowing smoke.”
“These latest exploits of secretly paying social media influencers to do the tobacco companies’ dirty work will likely backfire once young people know the truth revealed in this report,” she said. “Influencers who are willing to go on the industry’s deadly payroll to sell cigarettes through social media are putting both their reputations, and most importantly the lives of their young fans, at risk.”

Indonesia to work with Alibaba’s Jack Ma to increase exports: minister


Indonesia will partner with Alibaba’s CEO Jack Ma to look into ways to use Alibaba’s ecosystem to increase its exports, particularly to China, its communications minister told Reuters on Sunday.

“We are also discussing how to work together to develop tech talents to meet the needs of Indonesia and the region,” Indonesian minister Rudiantara said after meeting Ma and Indonesian President Joko Widodo on Saturday.
The Alibaba founder and CEO, who was in Jakarta for the 2018 Asian Games, was named an e-commerce adviser to the Indonesian government in 2017.
McKinsey estimated in a report released on Aug. 30 that the value of Indonesia’s e-commerce market will grow to at least $55 billion (£42.4 billion) by 2022 from $8 billion in 2017.
Alibaba is China’s biggest e-commerce firm, but its ecosystem includes payments platform Alipay and a cloud computing arm.
Rudiantara, who uses only one name, told Reuters the details of the deal would be finalised during a second visit by Ma in October.

Disproportionate power of anecdotes


Humans, it seems, have an innate tendency to overgeneralize from small samples. How many times have you been caught in an argument where the only proof offered is anecdotal? Perhaps your co-worker saw this bratty kid make a mess in the grocery store while the parents appeared to do nothing. “They just let that child pull things off the shelves and create havoc! My parents would never have allowed that. Parents are so permissive now.” Hmm. Is it true that most parents commonly allow young children to cause trouble in public? It would be a mistake to assume so based on the evidence presented, but a lot of us would go with it anyway. Your co-worker did.
Our propensity to confuse the “now” with “what always is,” as if the immediate world before our eyes consistently represents the entire universe, leads us to bad conclusions and bad decisions. We don’t bother asking questions and verifying validity. So we make mistakes and allow ourselves to be easily manipulated.
Political polling is a good example. It’s actually really hard to design and conduct a good poll. Matthew Mendelsohn and Jason Brent, in their article “Understanding Polling Methodology,” say:
Public opinion cannot be understood by using only a single question asked at a single moment. It is necessary to measure public opinion along several different dimensions, to review results based on a variety of different wordings, and to verify findings on the basis of repetition. Any one result is filled with potential error and represents one possible estimation of the state of public opinion.
This makes sense. But it’s amazing how often we forget.
We see a headline screaming out about the state of affairs and we dive right in, instant believers, without pausing to question the validity of the methodology. How many people did they sample? How did they select them? Most polling aims for random sampling, but there is pre-selection at work immediately, depending on the medium the pollsters use to reach people.
Truly random samples of people are hard to come by. In order to poll people, you have to be able to reach them. The more complicated this is, the more expensive the poll becomes, which acts as a deterrent to thoroughness. The internet can offer high accessibility for a relatively low cost, but it’s a lot harder to verify the integrity of the demographics. And if you go the telephone route, as a lot of polling does, are you already distorting the true randomness of your sample size? Are the people who answer “unknown” numbers already different from those who ignore them?
Polls are meant to generalize larger patterns of behavior based on small samples. You need to put a lot of effort in to make sure that sample is truly representative of the population you are trying to generalize about. Otherwise, erroneous information is presented as truth.

Why does this matter?

It matters because generalization is a widespread human bias, which means a lot of our understanding of the world actually is based on extrapolations made from relatively small sample sizes. Consequently, our individual behavior is shaped by potentially incomplete or inadequate facts that we use to make the decisions that are meant to lead us to success. This bias also shapes a fair degree of public policy and government legislation. We don’t want people who make decisions that affect millions to be dependent on captivating bullshit. (A further concern is that once you are invested, other biases kick in).
Some really smart people are perpetual victims of the problem.
Joseph Henrich, Steven J. Heine, and Ara Norenzayan wrote an article called “The weirdest people in the world?” It’s about how many scientific psychology studies use college students who are predominantly Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD), and then draw conclusions about the entire human race from these outliers. They reviewed scientific literature from domains such as “visual perception, fairness, cooperation, spatial reasoning, categorization and inferential induction, moral reasoning, and the heritability of IQ. The findings suggest that members of WEIRD societies, including young children, are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans.”
Uh-oh. This is a double whammy. “It’s not merely that researchers frequently make generalizations from a narrow subpopulation. The concern is that this particular subpopulation is highly unrepresentative of the species.”
This is why it can be dangerous to make major life decisions based on small samples, like anecdotes or a one-off experience. The small sample may be an outlier in the greater range of possibilities. You could be correcting for a problem that doesn’t exist or investing in an opportunity that isn’t there.
This tendency of mistaken extrapolation from small samples can have profound consequences.
Are you a fan of the San Francisco 49ers? They exist, in part, because of our tendency to over-generalize. In the 19th century in Western America and Canada, a few findings of gold along some creek beds led to a massive rush as entire populations flocked to these regions in the hope of getting rich. San Francisco grew from 200 residents in 1846 to about 36,000 only six years later. The gold rush provided enormous impetus toward California becoming a state, and the corresponding infrastructure developments touched off momentum that long outlasted the mining of gold.
But for most of the actual rushers, those hoping for gold based on the anecdotes that floated east, there wasn’t much to show for their decision to head west. The Canadian Encyclopedia states, “If the nearly 29 million (figure unadjusted) in gold that was recovered during the heady years of 1897 to 1899 [in the Klondike] was divided equally among all those who participated in the gold rush, the amount would fall far short of the total they had invested in time and money.”
How did this happen? Because those miners took anecdotes as being representative of a broader reality. Quite literally, they learned mining from rumor, and didn’t develop any real knowledge. Most people fought for claims along the creeks, where easy gold had been discovered, while rejecting the bench claims on the hillsides above, which often had just as much gold.
You may be thinking that these men must have been desperate if they packed themselves up, heading into unknown territory, facing multiple dangers along the way, to chase a dream of easy money. But most of us aren’t that different. How many times have you invested in a “hot stock” on a tip from one person, only to have the company go under within a year? Ultimately, the smaller the sample size, the greater role the factors of chance play in determining an outcome.
If you want to limit the capriciousness of chance in your quest for success, increase your sample size when making decisions. You need enough information to be able to plot the range of possibilities, identify the outliers, and define the average.
So next time you hear the words “the polls say,” “studies show,” or “you should buy this,” ask questions before you take action. Think about the population that is actually being represented before you start modifying your understanding. Accept the limits of small sample sizes from large populations. And don’t give power to anecdotes.

Comcast Reinventing Health Benefits


It’s hard to think of a company that seems less likely to transform health care.
It isn’t headquartered in Silicon Valley, with all the venture-backed start-ups. It’s not among the corporate giants — Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase — that recently announced, with much fanfare, a plan to overhaul the medical-industrial complex for their employees.
And it is among the most hated companies in the United States, according to many surveys on customer satisfaction.
It’s Comcast. The nation’s largest cable company — the $169 billionPhiladelphia-based behemoth that also controls Universal Parks & Resorts, “Sunday Night Football” and MSNBC — is among a handful of employers declaring progress in reaching a much-desired goal. In the last five years, the company says, its health care costs have stayed nearly flat. They are increasing by about 1 percent a year, well under the 3 percent average of other large employers and below general inflation.
“They’re the most interesting and creative employer when it comes to health care benefits,” said Dr. Bob Kocher, a partner at Venrock, a venture capital firm whose portfolio companies have done business with Comcast. (The cable company declined over several months to provide executives for an interview on this topic.)

Comcast, which spends roughly $1.3 billion a year on health care for its 225,000 employees and families, has steered away from some of the traditional methods other companies impose to contain medical expenses. It rejected the popular corporate tack of getting employees to shoulder more of the rising costs — high-deductible plans, a mechanism that is notorious for discouraging people to seek medical help.
Most employers now require their workers to pay a deductible before their insurance kicks in, with individuals on the hook for $1,500, on average, in upfront payouts, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Instead, Comcast lowered its deductible to $250 for most of its workers.
“We believe that no one should be required to be an expert in health care,” Shawn Leavitt, the executive overseeing benefits at Comcast, said in a 2015 interview with a consultant. “Our model is based on providing employees support and assistance in making the right decisions for themselves and their families. Employees should not feel alone, confused and overwhelmed when it comes to understanding and selecting their benefits.”
Cable TV subscribers who have felt confused and overwhelmed when dealing with Comcast customer service may be surprised to learn how nimbly the company has upgraded services for its employees. While Comcast continues to work with insurers, it has largely shunned them as a source of innovation. Instead, it has assembled its own portfolio of companies that it contracts with, and invests in some of them through a venture capital arm, Comcast Ventures.

Turning to health start-ups for new benefits

One such company is Accolade, in which Comcast is an investor, and which provides independent guides called navigators to help employees use their health benefits. Another, called Grand Rounds, offers second opinions and help in finding a doctor. Comcast was also among the first major employers to offer workers access to a doctor via cellphone through Doctor on Demand, a telehealth company.
“We see the start-up community as where the real disruption is taking place,” said Brian Marcotte, the chief executive of the National Business Group on Health, which represents large employers. “We weren’t seeing enough innovation.” The group now vets some of these companies for employers, including Comcast.
Comcast “is the tip of the spear,” Mr. Marcotte said.
The corporation, of course, is controlling costs and offering these unusual benefits out of self-interest. And these services are sometimes handed out at the expense of improving wages. In a tight labor market, Comcast also needs to remain competitive for not only highly skilled employees, but also lower-wage workers whose direct contact with customers has generated so much dissatisfaction over the years. “We do these things because it’s great for business,” Mr. Leavitt said.
But much of what sets Comcast apart is its willingness to directly tackle its medical costs rather than relying on others — insurers, consultants or associations. It’s a luxury only the largest companies can afford, and roughly a fifth of big companies continue to see annual cost increases of more than 10 percent, according to Mercer, a benefits consultant.
While fate may play a role — a single expensive medical claim can drive up a company’s costs in any given year — employers, like Comcast, that use a variety of strategies tend to have the lowest annual increases. “You attack this thing from different angles,” said Beth Umland, Mercer’s director of research for health and benefits. “The intensity of effort pays off.”

Some companies are shaking up hospitals and doctors

Other employers are focusing more attention on unsatisfying hospitals and doctors. Walmart has been at the forefront of efforts to direct employees to specific providers to get medical care, even if it means paying their travel to places like the Mayo Clinic.
The retailer said it had found, for example, that employees were being told they needed back surgery even when they would not benefit from the procedure. “Walmart isn’t going to stand for this,” said Marcus Osborne, a benefits executive, at a health business conference. “We aren’t going to sit around to try to build another coalition or bureaucracy.”
The majority of working-age Americans — some 155 million — get their health insurance through an employer, and most companies cover their own medical costs. The companies rely on insurers to handle the paperwork and to contract with hospitals and doctors. Insurers may also suggest programs like disease management or wellness to help companies control costs.

But employers, including that Amazon-Berkshire-JPMorgan alliance, are increasingly unhappy with the nation’s health care systems. Companies are paying more than they ever have. And their employees, saddled with escalating out-of-pocket costs and a confusing maze, aren’t well served, either. “The results haven’t been there,” said Jim Winkler, a senior executive at Aon, a benefits consultant. “There’s frustration.”
At Comcast, some workers probably miss out on the new ventures altogether and others don’t have much choice but to go along. The company’s relationship with labor is often strained, and it has largely managed to fend off efforts by groups like the Communications Workers of America to organize its employees. Robert Speer, an official with a local of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in New Jersey that represents about 180 workers, noted the company’s use of independent contractors to do much of its work, none of whom are eligible for benefits and can be paid by the job rather than hourly. “You are making no money,” he said.
And, like many other workers, many employees are being pinched by the rising cost of premiums, Mr. Speer said.
Comcast workers with company coverage are told to go to Accolade first. Its phone number appears on the back of their insurance cards and on the benefits website. “The key to Accolade’s success is being the one place to go,” said Tom Spann, a co-founder of the company.
Geoff Girardin, 27, used Accolade when he worked at Comcast a few years ago and he and his wife were expecting. “Our introduction to Accolade was our introduction to our first kid,” Mr. Girardin said. He credits Accolade for telling him his wife was eligible for a free breast pump and helping find a pediatrician when the family moved. “It was a huge, huge help to have somebody who knew the ins and outs” of the system, he said.
For employees like Jerry Kosturko, 63, who survived colon cancer, Accolade was helpful in steering him through complicated medical decisions. When he needed an M.R.I., his navigator recommended a free-standing imaging center to save money. “They will tell me what things will cost ahead of time,” Mr. Kosturko said.
A nurse at Accolade helped him manage symptoms after he had surgery for bladder cancer in 2014. He developed terrible spasms because, he said, he wasn’t warned to avoid caffeine. The Accolade nurse thought to ask him and quickly urged him to call his doctor for medicine to ease his symptoms.

Mr. Kosturko also turned to Grand Rounds when his doctor thought he might need to stay overnight in the hospital to be tested for sleep apnea. The second opinion convinced him he did not.
In complicated cases, Grand Rounds can serve as a check on the network assembled by the insurer. It pointed to the case of Ana Reyes, 39, who does not work for Comcast and had contacted Grand Rounds after treatment for cervical cancer. When she continued to have symptoms, she says, she was told to wait to see if they persisted.
“This is my life at stake,” she recalled in an interview. “I need to know what I’m doing is the best plan.” Grand Rounds asked a specialist at Duke University School of Medicine, Dr. Andrew Berchuck, to review her case.
“Grand Rounds was able to get all my medical records, which is over 1,000 pages,” Ms. Reyes said. Dr. Berchuck reviewed and wrote his opinion in one week, recommending a hysterectomy because she was likely to have some residual cancer. “The same day, my treating physician, she called me to schedule a hysterectomy,” Ms. Reyes said.
Insurers are usually none too pleased with the employers’ use of alternatives: They’re reluctant to share information with an outside company and poised to undercut a potential competitor by offering a cheaper price. They may even refuse to work with some of the companies.
The largest employers push back. Fidelity Investments insists on cooperation between insurers and outsiders, said Jennifer Hanson, an executive at Fidelity Investments. “Those who don’t will be fired,” she said at a health business conference.
For Comcast, the next frontier is the financial well-being of its employees, many of whom live paycheck to paycheck and may not be able to afford even a small co-payment toward a doctor’s visit. Employees who run into financial trouble have no independent source of information, Mr. Spann said.