There are two key questions: (1) is the improvement in the job picture sustainable and (2) if it is, how long will it take get back where we started in December 2007? While there is considerable disagreement in terms of general economic policies, most agree that jobs are the key to the economic recovery.

Summary of the release

In November, the Establishment Survey showed that only 11,000 jobs were lost. There were some favorable revisions to October and September data.

The BLS also reports Household Data and there can be big differences between the Household and Establishment Surveys. For example, October, the Establishment Survey showed a decrease in nonfarm payrolls of (revised) 111,000. However, the Household data suggested a staggering increase of 558,000 to the ranks of the unemployed. In November, the news was much better on the Household Survey. The Household Survey showed that unemployment decreased by 325,000.

To get the unemployment rate, you take the Household Survey unemployment (15.375 million) and divide by the civilian labor force (153.877 million) and you get 10.0% (actually, 9.9992% — so we technically lost the ten-handle!)

There was other good news. The all-in unemployment rate (U-6) dropped from 17.5% to 17.2%. Temporary hiring (a good leading indictator continued to increase (adding 52,400 to the rolls). Finally, the average work week increased by 0.2. This means more money in the pockets of consumers.

All of this is good. However, there are some issues (which I am sure you expect from me). Read the rest of this entry »

by Kevin Schulman

One of the most obscure organizations in the federal government is the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force which began in 1984. While convened by the government, the group is comprised of outside experts in medicine, health services research, and epidemiology.1 The task force’s job is to review the evidence around primary care services and to make recommendations to physicians about the quality of the evidence to support specific recommendations for what services should or should not be included as part of routine clinical practice.

The group’s efforts are very disciplined and scripted. Specific services are assessed on the basis of the risks and benefits to ascertain the potential “net benefit” to patients, with recommendations graded A through D (a grade of I means there is insignificant evidence to make a recommendation). A grade of A indicates high probability there is substantial benefit, B indicates high probability of moderate benefit or moderate probability of substantial benefit, C is a recommendation against a service with at least moderate evidence that the benefit is small, D is a recommendation against a service with a moderate or high evidence that there is no benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits. The probability estimates in these statements are based on the quality of the evidence in the clinical literature on these topics.2

This group recently performed a periodic update of its 2002 recommendations for breast cancer screening.3 The task force conducted an evidence review to assess all of the new clinical studies on breast cancer screening since its last report, and it commissioned a decision analysis of different screening strategies for breast cancer to assess the net benefit or harm for each strategy.

Read the rest of this entry »