Audit Finds Long Waits for Breast Exams

The audit examined waiting times at nine health care facilities in the 2009 fiscal year and found that the worst were at Elmhurst Hospital Center in Queens, where women had to wait 148 calendar days for routine screening mammograms and 50 working days for diagnostic mammograms, when cancer is suspected.

John C. Liu, the city comptroller, said in a statement accompanying the audit that the long waiting times “placed women in jeopardy” and violated the city’s policies, which recommend waits of no more than two weeks for routine screening.

He said women who had to wait long times for appointments were more likely to miss them.

Ana Marengo, a spokeswoman for the city’s Health and Hospitals Corporation, which runs the public health system, said that the comptroller’s data was outdated and that high-risk patients at its hospitals received mammograms within 24 to 72 hours.

“If there is a lump, if there is a family history, if there is a high-risk individual that had cancer before, all those are considered urgent,” and the patient would be seen within 72 hours, Ms. Marengo said. She conceded that “two years ago, the wait time was longer,” and that even now, in cases in which the risk of cancer was considered lower, the wait could still be longer.

At Elmhurst, she said, the wait as of December 2010 was 20 days for screening and 23 days for a general diagnostic test, as opposed to an urgent one.

At Queens Hospital Center, the wait for a screening test was 56 days in December, Ms. Marengo said. “It’s due to volume and higher demand,” she said. “We only have a certain amount of resources.”

The audit found that the longest waits for diagnostic tests were at Bellevue Hospital Center, with 17 working days; Gouverneur Healthcare Services, with 20; Kings County Hospital Center, with 21; Woodhull Medical Center, with 28; and Elmhurst, with 50.

For screening tests, the longest waits were 41 calendar days at Woodhull in Brooklyn, 49 days at Queens, and 148 days at Elmhurst.

Elmhurst Hospital conducted the most mammograms, 11,425, and Queens was second, with 10,544, the comptroller said.

Last year, public hospitals performed 100,000 mammograms systemwide, up from about 92,000 in 2009, Ms. Marengo said.

 

Low-Salt Diet Ineffective, Study Finds. Disagreement Abounds.

 

In fact, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention felt so strongly that the study was flawed that they criticized it in an interview, something they normally do not do.

Dr. Peter Briss, a medical director at the centers, said that the study was small; that its subjects were relatively young, with an average age of 40 at the start; and that with few cardiovascular events, it was hard to draw conclusions. And the study, Dr. Briss and others say, flies in the face of a body of evidence indicating that higher sodium consumption can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

“At the moment, this study might need to be taken with a grain of salt,” he said.

The study is published in the May 4 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association. It involved only those without high blood pressure at the start, was observational, considered at best suggestive and not conclusive. It included 3,681 middle-aged Europeans who did not have high blood pressure or cardiovascular disease and followed them for an average of 7.9 years.

The researchers assessed?the participants’ sodium consumption at the study’s start?and at its conclusion by measuring the amount of sodium excreted in urine over a 24-hour period.? All the sodium that is consumed is excreted in urine within a day, so this method is the most precise way to determine sodium consumption.

The investigators found that the less salt people ate, the more likely they were to die of heart disease — 50 people in the lowest third of salt consumption (2.5 grams of sodium per day) died during the study as compared with 24 in the medium group (3.9 grams of sodium per day) and 10 in the highest salt consumption group (6.0 grams of sodium per day).? And while those eating the most salt had, on average, a slight increase in systolic blood pressure — a 1.71-millimeter increase in pressure for each 2.5-gram increase in sodium per day — they were no more likely to develop hypertension.

“If the goal is to prevent hypertension” with lower sodium consumption, said the lead author, Dr. Jan A. Staessen, a professor of medicine at the University of Leuven, in Belgium, “this study shows it does not work.”

But among the study’s other problems, Dr. Briss said, its subjects who seemed to consume the smallest amount of sodium also provided less urine than those consuming more, an indication that they might not have collected all of their urine in an 24-hour period.

Dr. Frank Sacks of the Harvard School of Public Health agreed and also said the study was flawed.

“It’s a problematic study,” Dr. Sacks said. “We shouldn’t be guiding any kind of public health decisions on it.”

Dr. Michael Alderman, a blood pressure researcher at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and editor of the American Journal of Hypertension, said medical literature on salt and health effects was inconsistent. But, Dr. Alderman said, the new study is not the only one to find adverse effects of low-sodium diets. His own study, with people who had high blood pressure, found that those who ate the least salt were most likely to die.

Dr. Alderman said that he once was an unpaid consultant for the Salt Institute but that he now did no consulting for it or for the food industry and did not receive any support or take any money from industry groups.

Lowering salt consumption, Dr. Alderman said, has consequences beyond blood pressure. It also, for example, increases insulin resistance, which can increase the risk of heart disease.

“Diet is a complicated business,” he said. “There are going to be unintended consequences.”

One problem with the salt debates, Dr. Alderman said, is that all the studies are inadequate. Either they are short-term intervention studies in which people are given huge amounts of salt and then deprived of salt to see effects on blood pressure or they are studies, like this one, that observe populations and ask if those who happen to consume less salt are healthier.

“Observational studies tell you what people will experience if they select a diet,” Dr. Alderman said. “They do not tell you what will happen if you change peoples’ sodium intake.”

What is needed, Dr. Alderman said, is a large study in which people are randomly assigned to follow a low-sodium diet or not and followed for years to see if eating less salt improves health and reduces the death rate from cardiovascular disease.

But that study, others say, will never happen.

“This is one of those really interesting situations,” said Dr. Lawrence Appel, a professor of medicine, epidemiology and international health at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. “You can say, ‘O.K., let’s dismiss the observational studies because they have all these problems.’?” But, he said, despite the virtues of a randomized controlled clinical trial, such a study “will never ever be done.” It would be impossible to keep people on a low-sodium diet for years with so much sodium added to prepared foods.

Dr. Briss adds that it would not be prudent to defer public health actions while researchers wait for results of a clinical trial that might not even be feasible.

?Dr. Alderman disagrees.

“The low-salt advocates suggest that all 300 million Americans be subjected to a low-salt diet. But if they can’t get people on a low-salt diet for a clinical trial, what are they talking about?”

He added: “It will cost money, but that’s why we do science. It will also cost money to change the composition of food.”