Daily Rounds: What Kennedy Would Say; Blaming Carbs; Texas Medicaid Worries; AMA: Consider Costs

Health care ruling fulfills Kennedy's cause; Time to move on, widow says (The Boston Globe) - "'This health care reform was the cause of my husband’s life,' Vicki Kennedy said on ABC’s “This Week.” 'He believed that it was a moral issue, that it defined the character of who we were as a society, who we were as a country, and that decent, quality, affordable health care should be a fundamental right and not a privilege. And now, all three branches of our federal government have affirmed that right,’' she said. 'And I think if Teddy were here, he would tell us, 'Now it’s time to roll up our sleeves, get to work, fully implement the law, and move on with the business of our country.’”

What really makes us fat (Gary Taubes in The New York Times) - "If obesity is a fuel-partitioning problem — a fat-storage defect — then the trigger becomes not the quantity of food available but the quality. Now carbohydrates in the diet become the prime suspects, especially refined and easily digestible carbohydrates (foods that have what’s called a high glycemic index) and sugars."

Advocates worry Texas won't expand Medicaid (NPR) - "Texas has opposed the Affordable Care Act from the start. There's been little movement on setting up its insurance marketplace because officials said they were waiting for the Supreme Court ruling. Local health care workers are worried that even after the ruling, the state won't set up an exchange, and might even turn down the Medicaid money from the federal government."

Doctors advised to consider costs in care choices (amednews.com) - "Physicians have an obligation to recommend the less expensive option when the available medical alternatives offer a “similar likelihood” of patient benefit, according to ethics policy adopted at the AMA Annual Meeting. Doctors ought to be “prudent stewards of the shared societal resources with which they are entrusted,” says the ethical opinion. The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs report overcame objections that it could wrongly limit physicians’ ability to advocate for the interests of individual patients when those conflict with the need to constrain health care costs."