Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Thu, Mar-15-18, 11:58
LebenRedux LebenRedux is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 103
 
Plan: Dr. Westman
Stats: 242/225/150 Female 5' 5.5"
BF:39%/39%/24%
Progress: 18%
Location: Knoxville, TN (USA)
Default Bad news out of Medicare and the CDC

Medicare has announced that, in an effort to promote the prevention of type 2 diabetes through lifestyle changes in exercise and diet leading to weight loss, it is launching its new evidence-based Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (MDPP) that will be covered under Medicare Part B.

Curious about the specifics of the dietary changes advocated by this “evidence-based” program, I found this document which describes the CDC curriculum that Medicare requires participants (providers and patients) to follow for provider reimbursement and for, theoretically, the patients' successful sustained weight loss and diabetes prevention.

https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/preven...riculum_TOC.pdf

Of note, during the first 6 months of the curriculum, the topics include such things as “Be a Fat and Calorie Detective” and “Three Ways to Eat Less Fat and Fewer Calories.” And during the second 6 weeks, topics such as “Fats - Saturated, Unsaturated, and Trans Fat” and “More Volume, Fewer Calories.”

But not a word about carbs!

And we're going to be PAYING for this?!

Also, of interest, I ran across this fact sheet https://innovation.cms.gov/Files/fa...cy2018fr-fs.pdf that outlines the program's fee payments to providers based upon patient performance, essentially, the greater the patient's weight loss and the longer the weight loss is maintained, the more the provider is paid.

With fee generation contingent upon patient success in the program, it seems providers involved in this program would want to utilize the dietary guidelines, such as LCHF, that actually work toward weight loss and prevention of type 2 diabetes, not the old calorie-in-calorie-out and fat-will-kill-you rants.

What can the CDC be thinking here? Evidence based? Are they really discounting everything that has been coming out of Low Carb Breckenridge? It appears so.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Thu, Mar-15-18, 13:32
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,328
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

I am not a lawyer, nor did I read any of it. Nevertheless, my opinion follows.

Medicare is insurance, and like any other insurance, claims can be decided in court, and the court has its own rules. In the documents (which I did not read, but whatever), it seems there's two aspects to consider. First it's the method prescribed to conform (i.e. be eligible for coverage), and second it's the outcome required to obtain compensation. These two aspects can be further distinguished. For the first, the pertinent part is "conform", not "method prescribed", meaning that if one conforms regardless of method, one is eligible. For the second, the pertinent part is "outcome", meaning that if one produces prescribed outcome, one is entitled to compensation.

In the event a claim is made by the insured, if "method prescribed" was not followed as written, and since that's not the pertinent part yet can still be enforced, the rule here is what's called demonstrably justifiable, i.e. one has to demonstrate that one's method is justified (i.e. effective in conforming, but more specifically equally effective as whatever is prescribed by the clause) and this must be done in court. Ya it's a hassle but the good news is that for this clause (method prescribed) to be ruled invalid, only a single case needs to be argued successfully, then it creates a precedent. As a bonus, this can then be used to refute pretty much all the BS coming from the official guidelines and whatever else gets in the way of whatever alternative method is in fact demonstrated to be successful.

A parallel can be drawn with theft insurance where certain clauses can prescribe specific methods to make it harder for thieves to steal your crap, in order to be eligible for coverage and subsequently for compensation in the event of theft. We know all about theft and thieving methods and methods to prevent theft, so those clauses are pretty much standard, but there's still some who will try to put in absurd requirements, which the court is only happy to shoot down. Personally for example, I remember an insurance claim by a youth club way back, where stuff was stolen, but the insurer didn't pay, because the theft did not occur during a fire, which is what the insurance clause stated should occur in order to conform and be entitled to compensation. In other words, the place was not insured for theft nor fire, but only for theft during a fire. To illustrate the absurd. In order to conform to that clause, somebody would have to start a fire when he was being robbed, but then that would make him a fraud because arson is a crime. On the other hand, it's possible to be robbed during a fire since everybody (besides the thieves, of course) would get the hell out and nobody would be looking out for thieves.

Finally, whoever thought it would be a good idea to invade Medicare to push his own low-fat agenda, it's all gonna blow up in his face, because now it ain't just talk, it's the Law they're dealing with, and when it comes to Law, the court rules.

Anyways, until such hypothetical court ruling, here's what's gonna happen.

Whatever happens, low-fat will remain king on paper. People will try to conform, but will fail, so won't get coverage or compensation - Medicare costs less - success at the legislative level, i.e. look, we reduced health care costs! And, patients will be blamed for that failure precisely by pointing out they didn't follow prescribed method, which is "evidence-based" after all so it must be true! That's a bit of irony because failure of the prescribed method will be held as proof of its validity. Whoever will succeed with prescribed method will be held as proof low-fat is king.

Again, I am not a lawer, nor did I read the documents. Nor am I going to read them. No point.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Thu, Mar-15-18, 15:06
mike_d's Avatar
mike_d mike_d is offline
Grease is the word!
Posts: 8,121
 
Plan: PSMF/IF
Stats: 236/181/180 Male 72 inches
BF:disappearing!
Progress: 98%
Location: Alamo city, Texas
Default

Sickening ...
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Thu, Mar-15-18, 17:13
LebenRedux LebenRedux is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 103
 
Plan: Dr. Westman
Stats: 242/225/150 Female 5' 5.5"
BF:39%/39%/24%
Progress: 18%
Location: Knoxville, TN (USA)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
I am not a lawyer, nor did I read any of it. Nevertheless, my opinion follows.

Medicare is insurance, and like any other insurance, claims can be decided in court, and the court has its own rules. In the documents (which I did not read, but whatever), it seems there's two aspects to consider. First it's the method prescribed to conform (i.e. be eligible for coverage), and second it's the outcome required to obtain compensation. These two aspects can be further distinguished. For the first, the pertinent part is "conform", not "method prescribed", meaning that if one conforms regardless of method, one is eligible. For the second, the pertinent part is "outcome", meaning that if one produces prescribed outcome, one is entitled to compensation.

In the event a claim is made by the insured, if "method prescribed" was not followed as written, and since that's not the pertinent part yet can still be enforced, the rule here is what's called demonstrably justifiable, i.e. one has to demonstrate that one's method is justified (i.e. effective in conforming, but more specifically equally effective as whatever is prescribed by the clause) and this must be done in court. Ya it's a hassle but the good news is that for this clause (method prescribed) to be ruled invalid, only a single case needs to be argued successfully, then it creates a precedent. As a bonus, this can then be used to refute pretty much all the BS coming from the official guidelines and whatever else gets in the way of whatever alternative method is in fact demonstrated to be successful.

A parallel can be drawn with theft insurance where certain clauses can prescribe specific methods to make it harder for thieves to steal your crap, in order to be eligible for coverage and subsequently for compensation in the event of theft. We know all about theft and thieving methods and methods to prevent theft, so those clauses are pretty much standard, but there's still some who will try to put in absurd requirements, which the court is only happy to shoot down. Personally for example, I remember an insurance claim by a youth club way back, where stuff was stolen, but the insurer didn't pay, because the theft did not occur during a fire, which is what the insurance clause stated should occur in order to conform and be entitled to compensation. In other words, the place was not insured for theft nor fire, but only for theft during a fire. To illustrate the absurd. In order to conform to that clause, somebody would have to start a fire when he was being robbed, but then that would make him a fraud because arson is a crime. On the other hand, it's possible to be robbed during a fire since everybody (besides the thieves, of course) would get the hell out and nobody would be looking out for thieves.

Finally, whoever thought it would be a good idea to invade Medicare to push his own low-fat agenda, it's all gonna blow up in his face, because now it ain't just talk, it's the Law they're dealing with, and when it comes to Law, the court rules.

Anyways, until such hypothetical court ruling, here's what's gonna happen.

Whatever happens, low-fat will remain king on paper. People will try to conform, but will fail, so won't get coverage or compensation - Medicare costs less - success at the legislative level, i.e. look, we reduced health care costs! And, patients will be blamed for that failure precisely by pointing out they didn't follow prescribed method, which is "evidence-based" after all so it must be true! That's a bit of irony because failure of the prescribed method will be held as proof of its validity. Whoever will succeed with prescribed method will be held as proof low-fat is king.

Again, I am not a lawer, nor did I read the documents. Nor am I going to read them. No point.



Yes, my first thought was, well, this program is going to prove our case for us when the results of the low carb vs low fat dietary changes come in. But I was then deflated by the news that participants must adopt CDC's low fat approach. Under your legal layperson's theory, though, our LCHF docs might be able to argue for fee payment if their patients meet program goals using dietary guidelines other than the CDC's...? Don't worry -- it's a rhetorical Q only. Just fun to think about.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Fri, Mar-16-18, 05:37
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 10,320
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

As always, nicely argued, M Levac.

I think Virta Health has a bearing on this too; we have competition operating, so to speak.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Mon, Mar-26-18, 04:50
64dodger 64dodger is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 300
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 251/218.2/200 Male 76 inches
BF:
Progress: 64%
Default

I bet you didn't know red meat causes diabetes according to the American Diabetes Association.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Mon, Mar-26-18, 06:33
bluesinger's Avatar
bluesinger bluesinger is offline
Maintaining
Posts: 3,205
 
Plan: LCHF
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 62 inches
BF:22%
Progress: 100%
Location: Nevada Desert, USA
Default

Seems the only thing we can trust anymore is ourselves and our fellow citizens. It's another example of "Don't ask, don't tell." As long as my numbers are good, she won't ask me how I do it. This way there's no prob with compensation. Maybe if I were T2D it would be different.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Mon, Mar-26-18, 08:35
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,250
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/213/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 34%
Location: Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 64dodger
I bet you didn't know red meat causes diabetes according to the American Diabetes Association.

According to my red meat pot roast I'm about to cook, ADA causes diabetes!
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Mon, Mar-26-18, 09:14
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is online now
Posts: 2,064
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesinger
Seems the only thing we can trust anymore is ourselves and our fellow citizens. It's another example of "Don't ask, don't tell." As long as my numbers are good, she won't ask me how I do it. This way there's no prob with compensation. Maybe if I were T2D it would be different.

Well stated. The day is coming in the U.S. where those who don't follow the standards of care, whether it's a dietary approach or refusing to take prescribed medications, will be deemed a higher risk and pay more or lose coverage. It's driving people to accept prescriptions for medications and not take them, and distort how they eat in order to retain coverage. Interesting for those of us who get excellent results in tests and have good health by following what is considered a contrarian dietary approach, it definitely becomes "Don' tell."
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Thu, Mar-29-18, 12:16
keith v's Avatar
keith v keith v is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 730
 
Plan: Wheat belly
Stats: 235/220/200 Male 6 feet 2 inches
BF:
Progress: 43%
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA Earth
Default

Sounds like a setup to me. Follow these guidelines, if you succeed we will pay you. but the guidelines are designed to make you fail. So no payments will be made.
Bonus, you stay sick, so they make more money.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Thu, Mar-29-18, 15:03
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 5,156
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 247/242/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Massachusetts
Default



my thoughts when reading the first post.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Thu, Mar-29-18, 15:51
Meme#1's Avatar
Meme#1 Meme#1 is online now
Posts: 8,334
 
Plan: Atkins DANDR
Stats: 210/183/160 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 54%
Location: Texas
Default

The drug companies are the only ones that will gain anything from this!
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Fri, Mar-30-18, 09:39
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,328
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Another point I just thought of. It seems the focus is on calories, with fat and volume of food being merely proxies for calories, i.e. fat contains twice the calories as carbs, therefore eating less fat is the best way to eat less calories. The whole deal with calories is gaining and losing weight in the context of obesity. The whole deal with obesity is that it's blamed for a bunch of other diseases, i.e. obesity becomes the cause.

Low-carb is shown to do two things right off the bat, before we measure anything else. First, we lose fat. Obesity is fixed, conformance with prescription is established. Second, we eat less. The calories focus is adhered to, conformance with prescription is established again.

The fact that low-carb means to eat more fat could arguably be pointed at as failure to conform. However, since eating less fat is merely a proxy to the main prescription which is to eat fewer calories, the method used to eat fewer calories becomes irrelevant, so long as the effect is the same - we eat less.

If we argued that other measures are the focus, for example disease markers such as cholesterol and triglycerides and HbA1c and blood glucose and blood pressure and you-name-it, low-carb actually fixes this even in the absense of weight loss.

The best part is that there is actual genuine experimental evidence published in reputable scientific journals to support all of it. This ain't just a game of show your food log from yesterday.

Eating less fat (especially less saturated fat) could be argued as a way to prevent heart disease, so that low-carb could be argued to accelerate heart disease. However, since heart disease is deemed to be subsequent to obesity in the grand idea about calories->obesity->all other diseases, it becomes moot.

Just illustrating the logic, not arguing a hypothetical case.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:08.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.