Financial ties link some docs, drug companies | Minn. law shines light into money big pharma spends on panel members | Updated: 3:54 p.m. CT Aug 21, 2007
ST. PAUL Minn. - A groundbreaking Minnesota law is shining a rare light into the big money that drug companies spend on members of state advisory panels who help select which drugs are used in Medicaid programs for the poor and disabled.
Those panels, most comprised of physicians, hold great sway over the $28 billion spent on drugs each year for Medicaid patients nationwide. But aside from Minnesota, only Vermont and Maine require drug companies to report payments to doctors for lectures, consulting, research and other services.
An Associated Press review of records in Minnesota found that a doctor and a pharmacist on the eight-member state panel simultaneously got big checks — more than $350,000 to one — from pharmaceutical companies for speaking about their products.
The two members said the money did not influence their work on the panel, and the lack of recorded votes in meeting minutes makes it difficult to track any link between the payments and policy.
But ethical experts said the Minnesota data raise questions about the possibility of similar financial ties between the pharmaceutical industry and advisers in other states. ...
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
The key years are early childhood -- with those children receiving the best nutrition and suffering the least illness growing the best
America Loses Its Stature as Tallest Country | By Rob Stein | Washington Post Staff Writer | Monday, August 13, 2007; Page A06
...
U.S. adults lost their position as the tallest people on Earth to the Dutch, who average about two inches taller than the typical American. In fact, American men now rank ninth and women 15th in average height, having fallen short of many other European nations.
"Americans, who have been the tallest in the world for a very long time, are no longer the tallest," said John Komlos of the University of Munich, who has published a series of papers documenting the trend. "Americans have not kept up with western European populations."
...
"We conjecture that perhaps the western and northern European welfare states, with their universal socioeconomic safety nets, are able to provide a higher biological standard of living to their children and youth than the more free-market-oriented U.S. economy," Komlos wrote in one of his latest papers, published in June in the journal Social Science Quarterly.
...
Komlos's most recent analysis excluded Hispanics and Asians to try to eliminate the effect of immigration. In another paper that has not yet been submitted for publication, Komlos produced similar findings examining military records that enabled him to exclude people whose parents were born elsewhere to further account for immigration. And another paper being published soon found identical trends among children -- height stagnated among children in the United States for several decades beginning in the 1950s but continued to increase among Europeans.
"That explains why the western Europeans overtook the Americans," Komlos said.
Height is considered a bellwether of a society's well-being. As wealth increases, often so does height. Wealth usually improves nutrition and medical care, enabling people to reach their maximum growth potential and live longer. The key years are early childhood -- with those children receiving the best nutrition and suffering the least illness growing the best. ...
...
U.S. adults lost their position as the tallest people on Earth to the Dutch, who average about two inches taller than the typical American. In fact, American men now rank ninth and women 15th in average height, having fallen short of many other European nations.
"Americans, who have been the tallest in the world for a very long time, are no longer the tallest," said John Komlos of the University of Munich, who has published a series of papers documenting the trend. "Americans have not kept up with western European populations."
...
"We conjecture that perhaps the western and northern European welfare states, with their universal socioeconomic safety nets, are able to provide a higher biological standard of living to their children and youth than the more free-market-oriented U.S. economy," Komlos wrote in one of his latest papers, published in June in the journal Social Science Quarterly.
...
Komlos's most recent analysis excluded Hispanics and Asians to try to eliminate the effect of immigration. In another paper that has not yet been submitted for publication, Komlos produced similar findings examining military records that enabled him to exclude people whose parents were born elsewhere to further account for immigration. And another paper being published soon found identical trends among children -- height stagnated among children in the United States for several decades beginning in the 1950s but continued to increase among Europeans.
"That explains why the western Europeans overtook the Americans," Komlos said.
Height is considered a bellwether of a society's well-being. As wealth increases, often so does height. Wealth usually improves nutrition and medical care, enabling people to reach their maximum growth potential and live longer. The key years are early childhood -- with those children receiving the best nutrition and suffering the least illness growing the best. ...
Many Americans are under the delusion that we have “the best health care system in the world,”
Editorial | World’s Best Medical Care? | Published: August 12, 2007
Many Americans are under the delusion that we have “the best health care system in the world,” as President Bush sees it, or provide the “best medical care in the world,” as Rudolph Giuliani declared last week. That may be true at many top medical centers. But the disturbing truth is that this country lags well behind other advanced nations in delivering timely and effective care.
...
Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th. More recently, the highly regarded Commonwealth Fund has pioneered in comparing the United States with other advanced nations through surveys of patients and doctors and analysis of other data. Its latest report, issued in May, ranked the United States last or next-to-last compared with five other nations — Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom — on most measures of performance, including quality of care and access to it. Other comparative studies also put the United States in a relatively bad light.
Insurance coverage. All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage, and most of them have comprehensive benefit packages with no cost-sharing by the patients. The United States, to its shame, has some 45 million people without health insurance and many more millions who have poor coverage ...
Access. Citizens abroad often face long waits before they can get to see a specialist or undergo elective surgery. Americans typically get prompter attention, although Germany does better. The real barriers here are the costs facing low-income people without insurance or with skimpy coverage. But even Americans with above-average incomes find it more difficult than their counterparts abroad to get care on nights or weekends without going to an emergency room, ...
Fairness. The United States ranks dead last on almost all measures of equity because we have the greatest disparity in the quality of care given to richer and poorer citizens. ...
Healthy lives. We have known for years that America has a high infant mortality rate, so it is no surprise that we rank last among 23 nations by that yardstick. But the problem is much broader. We rank near the bottom in healthy life expectancy at age 60, and 15th among 19 countries in deaths from a wide range of illnesses that would not have been fatal if treated with timely and effective care. ...
Quality. .... high marks for preventive care, like Pap smears and mammograms to detect early-stage cancers, and blood tests and cholesterol checks for hypertensive patients. But we scored poorly in coordinating the care of chronically ill patients, in protecting the safety of patients, and in meeting their needs and preferences, which drove our overall quality rating down to last place. American doctors and hospitals kill patients through surgical and medical mistakes more often than their counterparts in other industrialized nations.
Life and death ... United States ranked last in years of potential life lost to circulatory diseases, respiratory diseases and diabetes and had the second highest death rate from bronchitis, asthma and emphysema. ...
Patient satisfaction. ... American attitudes stand out as the most negative, with a third of the adults surveyed calling for rebuilding the entire system, compared with only 13 percent who feel that way in Britain and 14 percent in Canada. ... Americans face higher out-of-pocket costs than citizens elsewhere, are less apt to have a long-term doctor, less able to see a doctor on the same day when sick, and less apt to get their questions answered or receive clear instructions from a doctor. ...
Use of information technology. Shockingly, despite our vaunted prowess in computers, software and the Internet, much of our health care system is still operating in the dark ages of paper records and handwritten scrawls. American primary care doctors lag years behind doctors in other advanced nations in adopting electronic medical records or prescribing medications electronically. ...
...
... The main goal should be to reduce the huge number of uninsured, who are a major reason for our poor standing globally. But there is also plenty of room to improve our coordination of care, our use of computerized records, communications between doctors and patients, and dozens of other factors that impair the quality of care. ...
Many Americans are under the delusion that we have “the best health care system in the world,” as President Bush sees it, or provide the “best medical care in the world,” as Rudolph Giuliani declared last week. That may be true at many top medical centers. But the disturbing truth is that this country lags well behind other advanced nations in delivering timely and effective care.
...
Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th. More recently, the highly regarded Commonwealth Fund has pioneered in comparing the United States with other advanced nations through surveys of patients and doctors and analysis of other data. Its latest report, issued in May, ranked the United States last or next-to-last compared with five other nations — Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom — on most measures of performance, including quality of care and access to it. Other comparative studies also put the United States in a relatively bad light.
Insurance coverage. All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage, and most of them have comprehensive benefit packages with no cost-sharing by the patients. The United States, to its shame, has some 45 million people without health insurance and many more millions who have poor coverage ...
Access. Citizens abroad often face long waits before they can get to see a specialist or undergo elective surgery. Americans typically get prompter attention, although Germany does better. The real barriers here are the costs facing low-income people without insurance or with skimpy coverage. But even Americans with above-average incomes find it more difficult than their counterparts abroad to get care on nights or weekends without going to an emergency room, ...
Fairness. The United States ranks dead last on almost all measures of equity because we have the greatest disparity in the quality of care given to richer and poorer citizens. ...
Healthy lives. We have known for years that America has a high infant mortality rate, so it is no surprise that we rank last among 23 nations by that yardstick. But the problem is much broader. We rank near the bottom in healthy life expectancy at age 60, and 15th among 19 countries in deaths from a wide range of illnesses that would not have been fatal if treated with timely and effective care. ...
Quality. .... high marks for preventive care, like Pap smears and mammograms to detect early-stage cancers, and blood tests and cholesterol checks for hypertensive patients. But we scored poorly in coordinating the care of chronically ill patients, in protecting the safety of patients, and in meeting their needs and preferences, which drove our overall quality rating down to last place. American doctors and hospitals kill patients through surgical and medical mistakes more often than their counterparts in other industrialized nations.
Life and death ... United States ranked last in years of potential life lost to circulatory diseases, respiratory diseases and diabetes and had the second highest death rate from bronchitis, asthma and emphysema. ...
Patient satisfaction. ... American attitudes stand out as the most negative, with a third of the adults surveyed calling for rebuilding the entire system, compared with only 13 percent who feel that way in Britain and 14 percent in Canada. ... Americans face higher out-of-pocket costs than citizens elsewhere, are less apt to have a long-term doctor, less able to see a doctor on the same day when sick, and less apt to get their questions answered or receive clear instructions from a doctor. ...
Use of information technology. Shockingly, despite our vaunted prowess in computers, software and the Internet, much of our health care system is still operating in the dark ages of paper records and handwritten scrawls. American primary care doctors lag years behind doctors in other advanced nations in adopting electronic medical records or prescribing medications electronically. ...
...
... The main goal should be to reduce the huge number of uninsured, who are a major reason for our poor standing globally. But there is also plenty of room to improve our coordination of care, our use of computerized records, communications between doctors and patients, and dozens of other factors that impair the quality of care. ...
market based health-care: The doctor, not the patient, orders the care. There’s no easy exit from the market for patients.
Saturday, August 18, 2007 by The Toledo Blade | Tax-Financed Health Care Offers More Value | by Johnathon S. Ross
Shame on all of us, especially those of us in positions of public trust. Forty-five million of our friends, family, and neighbors, including 1.3 million Ohioans, have no health-care coverage at all.
Tens of millions more are at risk of bankruptcy even though they have insurance. Their coverage is too skimpy to protect them financially.
What do the current conservative leaders of many states and the nation have to say about the fact that we spend twice as much as any other industrial democracy in the world and yet fail to cover 16 percent of the population? To paraphrase Marie Antoinette, “Let them buy high-deductible health plans.”
But who are the uninsured? They are mainly (75 percent) lower-income working people and their kids. Most of these folks struggle to keep food on the table and the lights on. They can’t afford even bare-bones policies.
What are the facts, not the hype, on market-based reforms such as Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), high-deductible health plans, and mandated insurance (a la Massachusetts)? These represent the next bogus effort to keep private insurers in charge of our crumbling sickness care non-system. Remember how they promised that a competing insurance market of Health Maintenance Organizations was going to save American health care?
Unfortunately, despite the nostrums of the market ideologues, health-care costs have continued to soar at twice the growth rate of the gross domestic product while 10 million more have gone uninsured. Pound as they might on the square peg of market forces, health care will never be a nice round market commodity.
Why? The consumer’s not sovereign. The doctor, not the patient, orders the care. There’s no easy exit from the market for patients. When critically (and expensively) ill, you buy or die. The most expensive health care is not necessarily desired. If open-heart surgery were on sale would you have two?
There’s often inadequate information to make wise purchasing decisions. Sometimes the best doctors are unsure of the wisest course of action for a patient. It is the uncertainty of illness and its attendant costs that creates the need for insurance in the first place.
The profit motive runs contrary to the best cooperative and Samaritan traditions of medical practice and training. There are lots of natural monopolies. Should we build another hospital in Bowling Green so that the competition will leave them both half-empty? The market for medical services fails these tests of an effective market and will fail in the guise of health savings accounts.
The 10 percent of patients who are very ill generate 70 percent of the costs, averaging $39,000 per year. They will never save anything in their HSAs. Studies confirm that high out-of-pocket costs, the hallmark of HSAs, yield worse health outcomes for the poor, elderly, and chronically ill.
The health-care bureaucracy already consumes 31 percent of spending. The fees for tracking 300 million individual HSAs would only aggravate this shameful waste.
Half of personal bankruptcies are due to uncovered health-care bills, again the hallmark of HSAs. Even boosters of HSAs (Mckinsey and Co.) find 56 percent of employees less satisfied with their new accounts than their old health plans. ...
...
The Institute of Medicine estimates that 18,000 Americans die each year from lack of health insurance alone. ...
Shame on all of us, especially those of us in positions of public trust. Forty-five million of our friends, family, and neighbors, including 1.3 million Ohioans, have no health-care coverage at all.
Tens of millions more are at risk of bankruptcy even though they have insurance. Their coverage is too skimpy to protect them financially.
What do the current conservative leaders of many states and the nation have to say about the fact that we spend twice as much as any other industrial democracy in the world and yet fail to cover 16 percent of the population? To paraphrase Marie Antoinette, “Let them buy high-deductible health plans.”
But who are the uninsured? They are mainly (75 percent) lower-income working people and their kids. Most of these folks struggle to keep food on the table and the lights on. They can’t afford even bare-bones policies.
What are the facts, not the hype, on market-based reforms such as Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), high-deductible health plans, and mandated insurance (a la Massachusetts)? These represent the next bogus effort to keep private insurers in charge of our crumbling sickness care non-system. Remember how they promised that a competing insurance market of Health Maintenance Organizations was going to save American health care?
Unfortunately, despite the nostrums of the market ideologues, health-care costs have continued to soar at twice the growth rate of the gross domestic product while 10 million more have gone uninsured. Pound as they might on the square peg of market forces, health care will never be a nice round market commodity.
Why? The consumer’s not sovereign. The doctor, not the patient, orders the care. There’s no easy exit from the market for patients. When critically (and expensively) ill, you buy or die. The most expensive health care is not necessarily desired. If open-heart surgery were on sale would you have two?
There’s often inadequate information to make wise purchasing decisions. Sometimes the best doctors are unsure of the wisest course of action for a patient. It is the uncertainty of illness and its attendant costs that creates the need for insurance in the first place.
The profit motive runs contrary to the best cooperative and Samaritan traditions of medical practice and training. There are lots of natural monopolies. Should we build another hospital in Bowling Green so that the competition will leave them both half-empty? The market for medical services fails these tests of an effective market and will fail in the guise of health savings accounts.
The 10 percent of patients who are very ill generate 70 percent of the costs, averaging $39,000 per year. They will never save anything in their HSAs. Studies confirm that high out-of-pocket costs, the hallmark of HSAs, yield worse health outcomes for the poor, elderly, and chronically ill.
The health-care bureaucracy already consumes 31 percent of spending. The fees for tracking 300 million individual HSAs would only aggravate this shameful waste.
Half of personal bankruptcies are due to uncovered health-care bills, again the hallmark of HSAs. Even boosters of HSAs (Mckinsey and Co.) find 56 percent of employees less satisfied with their new accounts than their old health plans. ...
...
The Institute of Medicine estimates that 18,000 Americans die each year from lack of health insurance alone. ...
“Hundreds of thousands of people suffer needlessly from preventable hospital infections and medical errors every year,”
Medicare Says It Won’t Cover Hospital Errors | By ROBERT PEAR | Published: August 19, 2007
WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 — In a significant policy change, Bush administration officials say that Medicare will no longer pay the extra costs of treating preventable errors, injuries and infections that occur in hospitals, a move they say could save lives and millions of dollars.
Private insurers are considering similar changes, which they said could multiply the savings and benefits for patients.
...
Among the conditions that will be affected are bedsores, or pressure ulcers; injuries caused by falls; and infections resulting from the prolonged use of catheters in blood vessels or the bladder.
In addition, Medicare says it will not pay for the treatment of “serious preventable events” like leaving a sponge or other object in a patient during surgery and providing a patient with incompatible blood or blood products.
“If a patient goes into the hospital with pneumonia, we don’t want them to leave with a broken arm,” said Herb B. Kuhn, acting deputy administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
...
“Hundreds of thousands of people suffer needlessly from preventable hospital infections and medical errors every year,” Ms. McGiffert said. “Medicare is using its clout to improve care and keep patients safe. It’s forcing hospitals to face this problem in a way they never have before.”
Christine K. Cahill, a registered nurse who used to inspect hospitals for the California Department of Public Health, said: “This is a great start. Infection-control specialists have been screaming for 20 years that federal and state officials should pay more attention to this problem because hospital infections hurt patients and cost money.” ...
WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 — In a significant policy change, Bush administration officials say that Medicare will no longer pay the extra costs of treating preventable errors, injuries and infections that occur in hospitals, a move they say could save lives and millions of dollars.
Private insurers are considering similar changes, which they said could multiply the savings and benefits for patients.
...
Among the conditions that will be affected are bedsores, or pressure ulcers; injuries caused by falls; and infections resulting from the prolonged use of catheters in blood vessels or the bladder.
In addition, Medicare says it will not pay for the treatment of “serious preventable events” like leaving a sponge or other object in a patient during surgery and providing a patient with incompatible blood or blood products.
“If a patient goes into the hospital with pneumonia, we don’t want them to leave with a broken arm,” said Herb B. Kuhn, acting deputy administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
...
“Hundreds of thousands of people suffer needlessly from preventable hospital infections and medical errors every year,” Ms. McGiffert said. “Medicare is using its clout to improve care and keep patients safe. It’s forcing hospitals to face this problem in a way they never have before.”
Christine K. Cahill, a registered nurse who used to inspect hospitals for the California Department of Public Health, said: “This is a great start. Infection-control specialists have been screaming for 20 years that federal and state officials should pay more attention to this problem because hospital infections hurt patients and cost money.” ...
Number of Americans without health insurance hits new high ... jumped by 2.2 million in 2006
Number of Americans without health insurance hits new high
WASHINGTON — The continued loss of job-based coverage helped push the number of Americans without health insurance to 47 million last year, the highest total on record and the sixth straight year that the ranks of the uninsured have grown.
New annual Census Bureau survey data released Tuesday showed that the number of uninsured Americans jumped by 2.2 million in 2006, from 15.3 percent of Americans in 2005 to a record-tying 15.8 percent last year. The number of uninsured children increased for the second straight year as well, spiking by more than 611,000 last year to nearly 8.7 million.
...
The significant increases in the number of Americans without health insurance are unprecedented because they occurred in a fairly strong economy and at a time when health-care premium increases have been moderating, said Diane Rowland, executive vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which studies health-care issues.
"I think the bad news from the statistics today is that when the economy is doing fairly well, we're still seeing a continued erosion in the ability of working families to get health coverage through the workplace, which places more and more people at risk of being uninsured," Rowland said.
With health care a top concern going into the 2008 elections, America's health-care system and the growing numbers of uninsured also have become political issues.
...
The growing number of uninsured Americans during Bush's two terms in office reflects the administration's limited attention to the problem and its misguided policy proposals to address it, charged Cindy Mann, executive director of the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families.
While the president has pushed for health savings accounts and tax incentives to help people buy private coverage, those measures haven't taken off in the marketplace or won approval in Congress, Mann said.
WASHINGTON — The continued loss of job-based coverage helped push the number of Americans without health insurance to 47 million last year, the highest total on record and the sixth straight year that the ranks of the uninsured have grown.
New annual Census Bureau survey data released Tuesday showed that the number of uninsured Americans jumped by 2.2 million in 2006, from 15.3 percent of Americans in 2005 to a record-tying 15.8 percent last year. The number of uninsured children increased for the second straight year as well, spiking by more than 611,000 last year to nearly 8.7 million.
...
The significant increases in the number of Americans without health insurance are unprecedented because they occurred in a fairly strong economy and at a time when health-care premium increases have been moderating, said Diane Rowland, executive vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which studies health-care issues.
"I think the bad news from the statistics today is that when the economy is doing fairly well, we're still seeing a continued erosion in the ability of working families to get health coverage through the workplace, which places more and more people at risk of being uninsured," Rowland said.
With health care a top concern going into the 2008 elections, America's health-care system and the growing numbers of uninsured also have become political issues.
...
The growing number of uninsured Americans during Bush's two terms in office reflects the administration's limited attention to the problem and its misguided policy proposals to address it, charged Cindy Mann, executive director of the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families.
While the president has pushed for health savings accounts and tax incentives to help people buy private coverage, those measures haven't taken off in the marketplace or won approval in Congress, Mann said.
Monday, August 27, 2007
U.S. has second worst newborn death rate in modern world: beats Latvia ... For African-Americans, the mortality rate is nearly double ...
U.S. has second worst newborn death rate in modern world, report says Research: 2 million babies die in first 24 hours each year worldwide | By Jeff Green | CNN | Wednesday, May 10, 2006
(CNN) -- An estimated 2 million babies die within their first 24 hours each year worldwide and the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report.
American babies are three times more likely to die in their first month as children born in Japan, and newborn mortality is 2.5 times higher in the United States than in Finland, Iceland or Norway, Save the Children researchers found.
Only Latvia, with six deaths per 1,000 live births, has a higher death rate for newborns than the United States, which is tied near the bottom of industrialized nations with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with five deaths per 1,000 births.
"The United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but its newborn rate is higher than any of those countries," said the annual State of the World's Mothers report.
The report, which analyzed data from governments, research institutions and international agencies, found higher newborn death rates among U.S. minorities and disadvantaged groups. For African-Americans, the mortality rate is nearly double that of the United States as a whole, with 9.3 deaths per 1,000 births. ...
(CNN) -- An estimated 2 million babies die within their first 24 hours each year worldwide and the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report.
American babies are three times more likely to die in their first month as children born in Japan, and newborn mortality is 2.5 times higher in the United States than in Finland, Iceland or Norway, Save the Children researchers found.
Only Latvia, with six deaths per 1,000 live births, has a higher death rate for newborns than the United States, which is tied near the bottom of industrialized nations with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with five deaths per 1,000 births.
"The United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but its newborn rate is higher than any of those countries," said the annual State of the World's Mothers report.
The report, which analyzed data from governments, research institutions and international agencies, found higher newborn death rates among U.S. minorities and disadvantaged groups. For African-Americans, the mortality rate is nearly double that of the United States as a whole, with 9.3 deaths per 1,000 births. ...
a child who doesn’t receive adequate health care ... or adequate education ... doesn’t have the same chances in life as children who get both ...
Monday, August 27, 2007 by The New York Times | A Socialist Plot | by Paul Krugman
...
So let’s end this un-American system and make education what it should be - a matter of individual responsibility and private enterprise. Oh, and we shouldn’t have any government mandates that force children to get educated, either. As a Republican presidential candidate might say, the future of America’s education system lies in free-market solutions, not socialist models.
...
The truth is that there’s no difference in principle between saying that every American child is entitled to an education and saying that every American child is entitled to adequate health care. It’s just a matter of historical accident that we think of access to free K-12 education as a basic right, but consider having the government pay children’s medical bills “welfare,” with all the negative connotations that go with that term.
And conservative opposition to giving every child in this country access to health care is, in a fundamental sense, un-American.
Here’s what I mean: The great majority of Americans believe that everyone is entitled to a chance to make the most of his or her life. Even conservatives usually claim to believe that. For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, the former chairman of the Bush Council of Economic Advisers, contrasts the position of liberals, who he says believe in equality of outcomes, with that of conservatives, who he says believe that the goal of policy should be “to give everyone the same shot and not be surprised or concerned when outcomes differ wildly.”
But a child who doesn’t receive adequate health care, like a child who doesn’t receive an adequate education, doesn’t have the same shot - he or she doesn’t have the same chances in life as children who get both these things. ...
...
So let’s end this un-American system and make education what it should be - a matter of individual responsibility and private enterprise. Oh, and we shouldn’t have any government mandates that force children to get educated, either. As a Republican presidential candidate might say, the future of America’s education system lies in free-market solutions, not socialist models.
...
The truth is that there’s no difference in principle between saying that every American child is entitled to an education and saying that every American child is entitled to adequate health care. It’s just a matter of historical accident that we think of access to free K-12 education as a basic right, but consider having the government pay children’s medical bills “welfare,” with all the negative connotations that go with that term.
And conservative opposition to giving every child in this country access to health care is, in a fundamental sense, un-American.
Here’s what I mean: The great majority of Americans believe that everyone is entitled to a chance to make the most of his or her life. Even conservatives usually claim to believe that. For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, the former chairman of the Bush Council of Economic Advisers, contrasts the position of liberals, who he says believe in equality of outcomes, with that of conservatives, who he says believe that the goal of policy should be “to give everyone the same shot and not be surprised or concerned when outcomes differ wildly.”
But a child who doesn’t receive adequate health care, like a child who doesn’t receive an adequate education, doesn’t have the same shot - he or she doesn’t have the same chances in life as children who get both these things. ...
Monday, August 20, 2007
Army argued it bore no responsibility for his illness and medically discharged him in 2005 without the disability benefits
U.S. military practices genetic discrimination in denying benefits | By Karen Kaplan | August 18, 2007
Those medically discharged with genetic diseases are left without disability or retirement benefits. Some are fighting back.
...
Lurking in his genes was a mutation that made him vulnerable to uncontrolled tumor growth. After suffering back pain during a tour in Afghanistan, he underwent three surgeries to remove tumors from his brain and spine that left him with numbness throughout the left side of his body.
So began his journey into a dreaded scenario of the genetic age.
Because he was born with the mutation, the Army argued it bore no responsibility for his illness and medically discharged him in 2005 without the disability benefits or health insurance he needed to fight his disease.
...
While genetic discrimination is banned in most cases throughout the country, it is alive and well in the U.S. military.
...
Those medically discharged with genetic diseases are left without disability or retirement benefits. Some are fighting back.
...
Lurking in his genes was a mutation that made him vulnerable to uncontrolled tumor growth. After suffering back pain during a tour in Afghanistan, he underwent three surgeries to remove tumors from his brain and spine that left him with numbness throughout the left side of his body.
So began his journey into a dreaded scenario of the genetic age.
Because he was born with the mutation, the Army argued it bore no responsibility for his illness and medically discharged him in 2005 without the disability benefits or health insurance he needed to fight his disease.
...
While genetic discrimination is banned in most cases throughout the country, it is alive and well in the U.S. military.
...
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
"Something's wrong here when ... the one that spends the most on health care, is not able to keep up with other countries,"
U.S. life span shorter | By Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer | August 11, 2007
WASHINGTON --Americans are living longer than ever, but not as long as people in 41 other countries.
For decades, the United States has been slipping in international rankings of life expectancy, as other countries improve health care, nutrition and lifestyles.
Countries that surpass the U.S. include Japan and most of Europe, as well as Jordan, Guam and the Cayman Islands.
"Something's wrong here when one of the richest countries in the world, the one that spends the most on health care, is not able to keep up with other countries," said Dr. Christopher Murray, head of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. ...
...
Researchers said several factors have contributed to the United States falling behind other industrialized nations. A major one is that 45 million Americans lack health insurance, while Canada and many European countries have universal health care, they say.
...
-- A relatively high percentage of babies born in the U.S. die before their first birthday, compared with other industrialized nations.
Forty countries, including Cuba, Taiwan and most of Europe had lower infant mortality rates than the U.S. in 2004. The U.S. rate was 6.8 deaths for every 1,000 live births. It was 13.7 for Black Americans, the same as Saudi Arabia.
"It really reflects the social conditions in which African American women grow up and have children," said Dr. Marie C. McCormick, professor of maternal and child health at the Harvard School of Public Health. "We haven't done anything to eliminate those disparities."
...
"Even if we focused only on those four things, we would go along way toward improving health care in the United States," Murray said. "The starting point is the recognition that the U.S. does not have the best health care system. There are still an awful lot of people who think it does."
WASHINGTON --Americans are living longer than ever, but not as long as people in 41 other countries.
For decades, the United States has been slipping in international rankings of life expectancy, as other countries improve health care, nutrition and lifestyles.
Countries that surpass the U.S. include Japan and most of Europe, as well as Jordan, Guam and the Cayman Islands.
"Something's wrong here when one of the richest countries in the world, the one that spends the most on health care, is not able to keep up with other countries," said Dr. Christopher Murray, head of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. ...
...
Researchers said several factors have contributed to the United States falling behind other industrialized nations. A major one is that 45 million Americans lack health insurance, while Canada and many European countries have universal health care, they say.
...
-- A relatively high percentage of babies born in the U.S. die before their first birthday, compared with other industrialized nations.
Forty countries, including Cuba, Taiwan and most of Europe had lower infant mortality rates than the U.S. in 2004. The U.S. rate was 6.8 deaths for every 1,000 live births. It was 13.7 for Black Americans, the same as Saudi Arabia.
"It really reflects the social conditions in which African American women grow up and have children," said Dr. Marie C. McCormick, professor of maternal and child health at the Harvard School of Public Health. "We haven't done anything to eliminate those disparities."
...
"Even if we focused only on those four things, we would go along way toward improving health care in the United States," Murray said. "The starting point is the recognition that the U.S. does not have the best health care system. There are still an awful lot of people who think it does."
Friday, August 10, 2007
Adults aged 19 to 29 are the biggest group of the newly uninsured ... smaller businesses opting not to provide insurance
Young Adults Lead in Lacking Health Care: Report By Kim Dixon Reuters Wednesday 08 August 2007
Chicago - Adults aged 19 to 29 are the biggest group of the newly uninsured, according to an independent research group's report released on Wednesday
That age group made up 30 percent of the 45 million Americans without health insurance in 2005, according to the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund.
Young adults, many who are just entering the workforce and can't afford the high cost of individual insurance, are the big drivers of an increase in uninsured adults, the report said.
"They are at a vulnerable place in the labor market," said study author Sara Collins, an assistant vice president at the fund.
U.S. employers, especially smaller businesses, are increasingly opting not to offer health insurance, leaving workers to fend for themselves in the health insurance market. ...
Chicago - Adults aged 19 to 29 are the biggest group of the newly uninsured, according to an independent research group's report released on Wednesday
That age group made up 30 percent of the 45 million Americans without health insurance in 2005, according to the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund.
Young adults, many who are just entering the workforce and can't afford the high cost of individual insurance, are the big drivers of an increase in uninsured adults, the report said.
"They are at a vulnerable place in the labor market," said study author Sara Collins, an assistant vice president at the fund.
U.S. employers, especially smaller businesses, are increasingly opting not to offer health insurance, leaving workers to fend for themselves in the health insurance market. ...
Thursday, August 9, 2007
14% of U.S. physicians believe that their personal religious views should determine which perfectly legal medical treatments they offer
First, Do No Evangelizing
Should the medical care you receive from your doctor depend upon the quality of the available treatments? Or should it depend upon the doctor’s religious beliefs or political ideology? These are questions we should ask in light of Surgeon General nominee Dr. James Holsinger’s recent appearance before the Senate and because, as a country, we have become infatuated with the idea that religious devotion is good for our health. ...
...
This conflict between religious belief and medical science, it appears, is not uncommon, making it all the more dangerous. Recently, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that 14% of U.S. physicians, representing different regions of the country and different medical specialties, believe that their personal religious views rather than the needs of their patients should determine which perfectly legal medical treatments they offer and, more distressing still, that they are under no particular obligation to disclose this bias to their patients or to refer them to other physicians who will offer the treatment. Ethicists have noted that because doctors have state licenses giving them exclusive rights to practice medicine, they have an obligation to deliver medical care to all those who seek it, not just to those who share their religious convictions. That means understanding the best scientific evidence about which factors contribute to health and which ones don’t and practicing medicine accordingly. It means not permitting personal values, religious or otherwise, to supersede the best interests of patients.
...
... Already, the Christian Medical and Dental Association, a professional society with more than 17,000 members, publishes a handbook that instructs physicians on how to use their practices to evangelize. According to a recent article in the Des Moines Register, the Iowa City VA Hospital repeatedly attempted to convert a Jewish veteran to Christianity during hospitalizations over the past two year. In 2004, CBS News reported on a Colorado orthopedic surgeon who “requests” that patients pray with him while they are gowned and supine on the gurney, ready to be wheeled into surgery. Because medical patients very often are in pain and fearful, they are especially vulnerable to manipulation by physicians who, even in these days of medical consumerism, retain positions of authority in the physician-patient relationship. When doctors capitalize on this authority to pursue a religious rather than a medical agenda, they violate ethical standards of patient care.
...
Should the medical care you receive from your doctor depend upon the quality of the available treatments? Or should it depend upon the doctor’s religious beliefs or political ideology? These are questions we should ask in light of Surgeon General nominee Dr. James Holsinger’s recent appearance before the Senate and because, as a country, we have become infatuated with the idea that religious devotion is good for our health. ...
...
This conflict between religious belief and medical science, it appears, is not uncommon, making it all the more dangerous. Recently, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that 14% of U.S. physicians, representing different regions of the country and different medical specialties, believe that their personal religious views rather than the needs of their patients should determine which perfectly legal medical treatments they offer and, more distressing still, that they are under no particular obligation to disclose this bias to their patients or to refer them to other physicians who will offer the treatment. Ethicists have noted that because doctors have state licenses giving them exclusive rights to practice medicine, they have an obligation to deliver medical care to all those who seek it, not just to those who share their religious convictions. That means understanding the best scientific evidence about which factors contribute to health and which ones don’t and practicing medicine accordingly. It means not permitting personal values, religious or otherwise, to supersede the best interests of patients.
...
... Already, the Christian Medical and Dental Association, a professional society with more than 17,000 members, publishes a handbook that instructs physicians on how to use their practices to evangelize. According to a recent article in the Des Moines Register, the Iowa City VA Hospital repeatedly attempted to convert a Jewish veteran to Christianity during hospitalizations over the past two year. In 2004, CBS News reported on a Colorado orthopedic surgeon who “requests” that patients pray with him while they are gowned and supine on the gurney, ready to be wheeled into surgery. Because medical patients very often are in pain and fearful, they are especially vulnerable to manipulation by physicians who, even in these days of medical consumerism, retain positions of authority in the physician-patient relationship. When doctors capitalize on this authority to pursue a religious rather than a medical agenda, they violate ethical standards of patient care.
...
The pharmaceutical industry is adamant that these gifts have no influence on which drugs physicians prescribe to their patients.
Thursday, August 9, 2007 by The American Prospect | Tracking Pharma Gifts to Doctors | by Megan Tady
A slow wheel is beginning to turn in Congress in favor of forcing Big Pharma to disclose the amount of change it’s dropping into doctors’ pockets.
While it’s no secret that pharmaceutical companies lavish gifts on doctors — everything from free notepads and pens to meals to the more extravagant paid trips or seminars — most patients are in the dark about who, exactly, is courting their physicians. But Congress may be finally acknowledging this relationship, one important step toward creating a national gift registry so patients can track the perks Big Pharma is giving to their doctors. In June, the nonprofit government watchdog Public Citizen testified before the Senate Special Committee on Aging in favor of federal legislation that would require drug companies to disclose payments to doctors. But the group urged lawmakers, before jumping on the proposal, to examine a Petri dish of existing disclosure laws. Although four states and the District of Columbia already have disclosure laws on the books, the group says they are “inadequate” and do not give patients a clear picture of how money is changing hands.
The pharmaceutical industry spent an estimated $25.3 billion peddling prescription drugs in 2003, and much of that money went to physicians in the form of free samples, meals, conference fees, air fares, and continuing medical education activities. The only reins on Big Pharma’s giveaway are voluntary regulations set by the American Medical Association (AMA) and adopted by the trade association Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The AMA’s ethical guidelines, which are supposed to “prevent inappropriate gift-giving practices,” only sanction gifts valued at $100 or less.
The pharmaceutical industry is adamant that these gifts have no influence on which drugs physicians prescribe to their patients. But a growing body of evidence shows that drug companies’ generosity may in fact be guiding the pen across the prescription pad.
“The drug industry doesn’t spend $20 or $30 billion a year on advertising prescription drugs unless they believe it has an impact on doctors prescribing,” said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group. “You would probably like to know whether your doctor is getting no money, some money, a lot of money, or a huge amount of money, because it’s going to influence what that doctor decides for you.” ...
A slow wheel is beginning to turn in Congress in favor of forcing Big Pharma to disclose the amount of change it’s dropping into doctors’ pockets.
While it’s no secret that pharmaceutical companies lavish gifts on doctors — everything from free notepads and pens to meals to the more extravagant paid trips or seminars — most patients are in the dark about who, exactly, is courting their physicians. But Congress may be finally acknowledging this relationship, one important step toward creating a national gift registry so patients can track the perks Big Pharma is giving to their doctors. In June, the nonprofit government watchdog Public Citizen testified before the Senate Special Committee on Aging in favor of federal legislation that would require drug companies to disclose payments to doctors. But the group urged lawmakers, before jumping on the proposal, to examine a Petri dish of existing disclosure laws. Although four states and the District of Columbia already have disclosure laws on the books, the group says they are “inadequate” and do not give patients a clear picture of how money is changing hands.
The pharmaceutical industry spent an estimated $25.3 billion peddling prescription drugs in 2003, and much of that money went to physicians in the form of free samples, meals, conference fees, air fares, and continuing medical education activities. The only reins on Big Pharma’s giveaway are voluntary regulations set by the American Medical Association (AMA) and adopted by the trade association Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The AMA’s ethical guidelines, which are supposed to “prevent inappropriate gift-giving practices,” only sanction gifts valued at $100 or less.
The pharmaceutical industry is adamant that these gifts have no influence on which drugs physicians prescribe to their patients. But a growing body of evidence shows that drug companies’ generosity may in fact be guiding the pen across the prescription pad.
“The drug industry doesn’t spend $20 or $30 billion a year on advertising prescription drugs unless they believe it has an impact on doctors prescribing,” said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group. “You would probably like to know whether your doctor is getting no money, some money, a lot of money, or a huge amount of money, because it’s going to influence what that doctor decides for you.” ...
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Depleted Uranium: Veterans’ Rare Cancers Raise Fears of Toxic Battlefields
Monday, August 6, 2007 by the New York Sun | Veterans’ Rare Cancers Raise Fears of Toxic Battlefields | by R. B. Stuart
WASHINGTON - In the wake of an Iraqi official last month blaming America’s use of depleted uranium munitions in its 2003 “Shock and Awe” campaign for a surge in cancer there, the Defense Department is facing an October deadline for providing a comprehensive report to Congress on the health effects of such weapons.
The report is required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, which President Bush signed into law last year.
...
Even so, worries persist. According to Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat of Washington who pushed for the report from the Pentagon, “There are countless stories of mysterious illnesses, higher rates of serious illnesses, and even birth defects. We do not know what role, if any, DU plays in the medical tragedies in Iraq, but we must find out.”
Modern wars have produced a number of specific medical complaints, ranging from “Gulf War Syndrome” - a group of immune disorders and cancers whose connection to service in the 1991 Persian Gulf conflict is being studied - to the long-term effects of a defoliant, Agent Orange, for which some Vietnam veterans obtained a settlement in 1984.
While their causes can’t be pinpointed definitively, some soldiers who have avoided being killed or wounded in the current Iraq conflict are returning to America to find they have debilitating illnesses or cancers that they suspect are related to battlefield conditions, whether it is the depleted uranium used in projectiles, the remains of Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons, or the smoke from burning oil wells. ...
...was diagnosed with a rare condition only seen in teenage girls: Stage IV dysgerminoma, an ovarian germ cell cancer. ...
...
At the end of the month, Lauderdale saw a dentist in Kuwait City, who lifted his tongue and found a lesion. Biopsy results came back as Stage II squamous cell cancer of the mouth floor and tongue.
...
... While he was on assignment in Iraq in October 2005, he was diagnosed with a brain tumor and evacuated to Walter Reed, where an 8.5-by-4.5-inch nonmalignant meningioma was removed.
...
Sergeant Valentin was diagnosed with hemorrhoids eight times and sent back to work, but when the pain and discomfort did not abate, he instinctively knew something was wrong, he said. Finally, a reservist who was an oncologist diagnosed Sergeant Valentin with colon cancer.
The reservist oncologist told him that there were six other soldiers with newly found cancers in his unit, Sergeant Valentin said.
...
WASHINGTON - In the wake of an Iraqi official last month blaming America’s use of depleted uranium munitions in its 2003 “Shock and Awe” campaign for a surge in cancer there, the Defense Department is facing an October deadline for providing a comprehensive report to Congress on the health effects of such weapons.
The report is required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, which President Bush signed into law last year.
...
Even so, worries persist. According to Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat of Washington who pushed for the report from the Pentagon, “There are countless stories of mysterious illnesses, higher rates of serious illnesses, and even birth defects. We do not know what role, if any, DU plays in the medical tragedies in Iraq, but we must find out.”
Modern wars have produced a number of specific medical complaints, ranging from “Gulf War Syndrome” - a group of immune disorders and cancers whose connection to service in the 1991 Persian Gulf conflict is being studied - to the long-term effects of a defoliant, Agent Orange, for which some Vietnam veterans obtained a settlement in 1984.
While their causes can’t be pinpointed definitively, some soldiers who have avoided being killed or wounded in the current Iraq conflict are returning to America to find they have debilitating illnesses or cancers that they suspect are related to battlefield conditions, whether it is the depleted uranium used in projectiles, the remains of Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons, or the smoke from burning oil wells. ...
...was diagnosed with a rare condition only seen in teenage girls: Stage IV dysgerminoma, an ovarian germ cell cancer. ...
...
At the end of the month, Lauderdale saw a dentist in Kuwait City, who lifted his tongue and found a lesion. Biopsy results came back as Stage II squamous cell cancer of the mouth floor and tongue.
...
... While he was on assignment in Iraq in October 2005, he was diagnosed with a brain tumor and evacuated to Walter Reed, where an 8.5-by-4.5-inch nonmalignant meningioma was removed.
...
Sergeant Valentin was diagnosed with hemorrhoids eight times and sent back to work, but when the pain and discomfort did not abate, he instinctively knew something was wrong, he said. Finally, a reservist who was an oncologist diagnosed Sergeant Valentin with colon cancer.
The reservist oncologist told him that there were six other soldiers with newly found cancers in his unit, Sergeant Valentin said.
...
"The American way is not single-payer, government-controlled anything" ... ok to subsidize insurers ...
Tuesday, August 7, 2007 by The Daytona Beach Journal Online | Wordplay Props Up Racket In America’s Health System | by Pierre Tristam
Socialized medicine.
Say the words and you might as well be conjuring up the Ebola virus. Or terrorism. Or Dick Cheney. The words kill whatever chance there may be of having an intelligent conversation about health-care reform — the most relevant issue concerning most of us directly. The words are lethal, not because they’re true, but because they exploit a prejudice that seems perfectly acceptable to those who buy into it: That when government pays for something, it’s somehow un-American. In that case, we shouldn’t have public schools. They’re socialized education. We shouldn’t have public universities. They’re socialized higher-ed. We shouldn’t have Social Security. It’s socialized retirement. For that matter, we shouldn’t have a military. It’s socialized defense. ...
...
"... The American way is not single-payer, government-controlled anything. That’s a European way of doing something; that’s frankly a socialist way of doing something.” Rudy [Guiliani] is obviously not too familiar with the American way.
Or with the racket that passes for America’s health-care system — the worst of the industrialized world, judging from its costs, access and quality. At $5,267 (based on 2004 data), Americans spend on health care by far more, per capita, than any other country. (Canada is next at $2,931.) Despite that, between Canada, France and Britain — the three countries whose “socialized” medicine system we’re most often compared to — we have the lowest life expectancy, the highest infant-mortality rate and the fewest hospital beds per 1,000 people. We have the fewest nurses except in France, but France has more doctors.
Best care in the world? Think again. Opponents of a single-payer system quickly say that in other countries you have to wait umpteen months to get this or that elective procedure done, as if waiting times don’t exist here. Yet the 1.1 billion visits for care in 2004 added up to a combined 36 million days of waiting time for Americans, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, and that’s just in the waiting halls of doctors’ offices and emergency rooms — not the week- and month-long waits to see specialists. That’s if you’re lucky enough to have coverage. Once you do get to see a care-giver, good luck. Last March, The New England Journal of Medicine exploded the myth of quality care with a study that showed that half the time, patients don’t receive the care they need. They’re mis-diagnosed, mistreated (literally) and mis-referred. Then they’re billed enough to induce fresh coronaries. ...
In Giuliani-world, which is really the world most of us are stuck with at the moment, it’s not OK for the government to pay health-care providers directly with taxpayer money. But it’s OK for government to subsidize insurers who then pay health-care providers, taking their cut to fatten up some of American business’ most obscene profit margins. Why the middle man? Because the truth about Republican philosophy has as much to do with letting business roam free of any constraints as ensuring direct and lucrative business access to the nation’s biggest cash cow — taxpayers — while preaching the fiction that the private sector does it better. ...
Socialized medicine.
Say the words and you might as well be conjuring up the Ebola virus. Or terrorism. Or Dick Cheney. The words kill whatever chance there may be of having an intelligent conversation about health-care reform — the most relevant issue concerning most of us directly. The words are lethal, not because they’re true, but because they exploit a prejudice that seems perfectly acceptable to those who buy into it: That when government pays for something, it’s somehow un-American. In that case, we shouldn’t have public schools. They’re socialized education. We shouldn’t have public universities. They’re socialized higher-ed. We shouldn’t have Social Security. It’s socialized retirement. For that matter, we shouldn’t have a military. It’s socialized defense. ...
...
"... The American way is not single-payer, government-controlled anything. That’s a European way of doing something; that’s frankly a socialist way of doing something.” Rudy [Guiliani] is obviously not too familiar with the American way.
Or with the racket that passes for America’s health-care system — the worst of the industrialized world, judging from its costs, access and quality. At $5,267 (based on 2004 data), Americans spend on health care by far more, per capita, than any other country. (Canada is next at $2,931.) Despite that, between Canada, France and Britain — the three countries whose “socialized” medicine system we’re most often compared to — we have the lowest life expectancy, the highest infant-mortality rate and the fewest hospital beds per 1,000 people. We have the fewest nurses except in France, but France has more doctors.
Best care in the world? Think again. Opponents of a single-payer system quickly say that in other countries you have to wait umpteen months to get this or that elective procedure done, as if waiting times don’t exist here. Yet the 1.1 billion visits for care in 2004 added up to a combined 36 million days of waiting time for Americans, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, and that’s just in the waiting halls of doctors’ offices and emergency rooms — not the week- and month-long waits to see specialists. That’s if you’re lucky enough to have coverage. Once you do get to see a care-giver, good luck. Last March, The New England Journal of Medicine exploded the myth of quality care with a study that showed that half the time, patients don’t receive the care they need. They’re mis-diagnosed, mistreated (literally) and mis-referred. Then they’re billed enough to induce fresh coronaries. ...
In Giuliani-world, which is really the world most of us are stuck with at the moment, it’s not OK for the government to pay health-care providers directly with taxpayer money. But it’s OK for government to subsidize insurers who then pay health-care providers, taking their cut to fatten up some of American business’ most obscene profit margins. Why the middle man? Because the truth about Republican philosophy has as much to do with letting business roam free of any constraints as ensuring direct and lucrative business access to the nation’s biggest cash cow — taxpayers — while preaching the fiction that the private sector does it better. ...
Friday, August 3, 2007
"Republicans will fight these proposals," ... attacked proposals that call for a major expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program,
GOP Leaders Fight Expansion of Children's Health Insurance By Robert Pear The New York Times Wednesday 25 July 2007
Washington - Republican leaders of the House and Senate on Tuesday attacked proposals that call for a major expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program, to be financed with higher tobacco taxes.
"Republicans will fight these proposals," said the House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio.
...
The House bill, developed entirely by Democrats, would increase spending on children's coverage by $50 billion over five years, providing a total of $75 billion.
The bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee, 17 to 4, calls for an increase of $35 billion, for a total of $60 billion.
..
To Fund Children's Health Plan, House Would Pay Insurers Less The Associated Press Wednesday 25 July 2007
The proposal, introduced late Tuesday, also would eliminate a 10% cut due next year in the reimbursement rate for doctors who treat Medicare patients. Instead, the legislation would give doctors a 0.5% increase in their reimbursement rates each of the next two years when they treat Medicare patients.
Democrats would pay for the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, through a 45-cent increase in the federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes. They would also lower payments to many insurance plans participating in the Medicare Advantage program over four years. ...
Washington - Republican leaders of the House and Senate on Tuesday attacked proposals that call for a major expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program, to be financed with higher tobacco taxes.
"Republicans will fight these proposals," said the House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio.
...
The House bill, developed entirely by Democrats, would increase spending on children's coverage by $50 billion over five years, providing a total of $75 billion.
The bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee, 17 to 4, calls for an increase of $35 billion, for a total of $60 billion.
..
To Fund Children's Health Plan, House Would Pay Insurers Less The Associated Press Wednesday 25 July 2007
The proposal, introduced late Tuesday, also would eliminate a 10% cut due next year in the reimbursement rate for doctors who treat Medicare patients. Instead, the legislation would give doctors a 0.5% increase in their reimbursement rates each of the next two years when they treat Medicare patients.
Democrats would pay for the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, through a 45-cent increase in the federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes. They would also lower payments to many insurance plans participating in the Medicare Advantage program over four years. ...
opponents of universal health care appear to have run out of honest arguments
Sunday, July 15, 2007 Paul Krugman: The Waiting Game
Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President Bush. “I mean, people have access to health care in America,” he said last week. “After all, you just go to an emergency room.”
.......... The claim that the uninsured can get all the care they need in emergency rooms is just the beginning. Beyond that is the myth that Americans who are lucky enough to have insurance never face long waits for medical care.
.........This can lead to ordeals like the one recently described by Mark Kleiman, a professor at U.C.L.A., who nearly died of cancer because his insurer kept delaying approval for a necessary biopsy. “It was only later,” writes Mr. Kleiman on his blog, “that I discovered why the insurance company was stalling; I had an option, which I didn’t know I had, to avoid all the approvals by going to ‘Tier II,’ which would have meant higher co-payments.” He adds, “I don’t know how many people my insurance company waited to death that year, but I’m certain the number wasn’t zero.”
... The bottom line is that the opponents of universal health care appear to have run out of honest arguments. All they have left are fantasies: horror fiction about health care in other countries, and fairy tales about health care here in America. ......
insurance industry is increasingly concentrated, with three national firms, United Health, Wellpoint, and Aetna
Friday, July 13, 2007 by CommonDreams.org Upgrading To National Health Insurance (Medicare 2.0) by Leonard Rodberg & Don McCanne
The Case For Eliminating Obsolete Private Health Insurance ......
Health care has now become a major part of our national expenditures. The premium for an individual now averages more than $4,000 per year, while a good family policy averages more than $10,000 per year, comparable to the minimum wage and nearly one-fourth of the median family income. As a consequence, though the US spends far more on health care than any other nation, we leave millions of our people without any coverage at all. And those who do have coverage increasingly find that their plans are inadequate, exposing them to financial hardship and even bankruptcy when illness strikes. ..............
Supporters of insurance companies claim that they create efficiency through competition. However, the truth is that insurance industry is increasingly concentrated, with three national firms, United Health, Wellpoint, and Aetna, dominating the industry. And the high and rising cost of health care shows that whatever competition there was in the past has not worked to hold down costs.
Supporters of private insurance also claim that it expands consumer choice. However, the choice of plans that these companies offer is not what consumers want; it is the choice of their physician and hospital, exactly the choice that private insurance plans, in the guise of managed care, increasingly deny us.
What has been the response of the health insurance industry to this situation? To protect their markets and try to make premiums affordable, they have reduced the protection afforded by insurance by shifting more of the cost to patients, especially through high-deductible plans. They have also targeted their marketing more narrowly to the healthy portion of the population, so as to avoid covering individuals with known needs for health care. Yet premiums continue to rise each year, increasing by nearly 70% above inflation in just the last six years. ..............
The private insurance industry spends about 20 percent of its revenue on administration, marketing, and profits. Further, this industry imposes on physicians and hospitals an administrative burden in billing and insurance-related functions that consumes another 12 percent of insurance premiums. Thus, about one-third of private insurance premiums are absorbed in administrative services that could be drastically reduced if we were to finance health care through a single non-profit or public fund. Indeed, studies have shown that replacing the multiplicity of public and private payers with a single national health insurance program would eliminate $350 billion in wasteful expenditures, enough to pay for the care that the uninsured and the underinsured are not currently receiving. ....
In sum, we will not be able to control health care costs until we reform our method of financing health care. We simply have to give up the fantasy that the private insurance industry can provide us with comprehensive coverage when this requires premiums that average-income individuals cannot afford. Instead, the U.S. already has a successful program that covers more than forty million people, gives free choice of doctors and hospitals, and has only three percent administrative expense. It is Medicare, and an expanded and improved Medicare for All (Medicare 2.0) program would cover everyone comprehensively within our current expenditures and eliminate the need for private insurance. This is the direction we must go.almost always administered in hospitals, not doctors’ offices. As a result, doctors are not paid by Medicare and private insurers...[don't prescribe!]
Market Forces Cited in Lymphoma Drugs’ Disuse By ALEX BERENSON Published: July 14, 2007
All three recovered after a single dose of Bexxar or Zevalin, both federally approved drugs for lymphoma. And all three can count themselves as lucky.
Not just because their cancers responded so well. But because they got the treatment at all.
...
“Both Zevalin and Bexxar are very good products,” said Dr. Oliver W. Press, a professor at the University of Washington and chairman of the scientific advisory board of the Lymphoma Research Foundation. “It is astounding and disappointing” that they are used so little. The reasons that more patients don’t get these drugs reflect the market-driven forces that can distort medical decisions, Dr. Press and other experts on lymphoma treatment say. A result can be high costs but not necessarily the best care.
...
One reason is that cancer doctors, or oncologists, have financial incentives to use drugs other than Bexxar and Zevalin, which they are not paid to administer. In addition, using either drug usually requires oncologists to coordinate treatment with academic hospitals, whom the doctors may view as competitors.
“We cannot support a nominee with discredited and non-evidence-based views on sexuality,”
American Public Health Association Opposes Surgeon General Nominee
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 11, 2007, — The American Public Health Association (APHA) today announced its opposition to the nomination of James Holsinger, Jr., MD, as surgeon general. In letters to U.S. Sens. Edward Kennedy and Michael Enzi, APHA expressed its deep concern over past writings regarding Dr. Holsinger’s “views of homosexuality, which put his political and religious ideology before established medical science.”
...
“We cannot support a nominee with discredited and non-evidence-based views on sexuality,” wrote Benjamin. “While we have no doubt that Dr. Holsinger has made positive contributions throughout his medical and public health career, we believe his previously expressed views on sexuality are inconsistent with mainstream medicine and public health practice.”
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 11, 2007, — The American Public Health Association (APHA) today announced its opposition to the nomination of James Holsinger, Jr., MD, as surgeon general. In letters to U.S. Sens. Edward Kennedy and Michael Enzi, APHA expressed its deep concern over past writings regarding Dr. Holsinger’s “views of homosexuality, which put his political and religious ideology before established medical science.”
...
“We cannot support a nominee with discredited and non-evidence-based views on sexuality,” wrote Benjamin. “While we have no doubt that Dr. Holsinger has made positive contributions throughout his medical and public health career, we believe his previously expressed views on sexuality are inconsistent with mainstream medicine and public health practice.”
Americans get the right treatment only 55% of the time,
U.S. Presidential Candidates' Health Plans: Incorporating Information Technology to Provide 21st Century Care Posted July 25, 2007 04:56 PM (EST) By Susan J. Blumenthal, M.D., Jessica B. Rubin, Michelle E. Treseler*
...
but the incorporation of information technology (IT) in the practice of medicine is woefully lacking. Over 1.5 million Americans are injured and more than 100,000 die annually due to medical errors, and a recent study found that 80% of these mistakes began with miscommunication, missing or incorrect information about patients, or lack of access to patient records. The fact is that most health providers lack the information systems necessary to coordinate a patient's care with other providers, share needed information, monitor patient compliance, and measure and improve performance. In fact, in nearly one in seven visits, clinicians report that medical information integral to their patients' care is missing - a problem that was significantly less likely to be reported by physicians with access to patients' full electronic medical records. Additionally, a RAND study has revealed that despite spending twice as much on health care as any other nation -- 18% of our GDP -- Americans get the right treatment only 55% of the time, a problem that might be partially solved by health IT. It is also estimated that there is a 15 year science to service gap between the time of a new medical discovery and its wide dissemination in the community. In the Information Age, why shouldn't it be 15 seconds?
Currently, it is estimated that only 10-20% of health professionals and less than 25% of hospitals in the country use health information technology to reduce mistakes, increase efficiency, and decrease health care costs. It is estimated that if most health care providers adopted health IT the potential efficiency savings could average over $77 billion per year -- largely as a result of reduced hospital stays, reduced nurses' administrative time and more efficient drug utilization. ...
...
but the incorporation of information technology (IT) in the practice of medicine is woefully lacking. Over 1.5 million Americans are injured and more than 100,000 die annually due to medical errors, and a recent study found that 80% of these mistakes began with miscommunication, missing or incorrect information about patients, or lack of access to patient records. The fact is that most health providers lack the information systems necessary to coordinate a patient's care with other providers, share needed information, monitor patient compliance, and measure and improve performance. In fact, in nearly one in seven visits, clinicians report that medical information integral to their patients' care is missing - a problem that was significantly less likely to be reported by physicians with access to patients' full electronic medical records. Additionally, a RAND study has revealed that despite spending twice as much on health care as any other nation -- 18% of our GDP -- Americans get the right treatment only 55% of the time, a problem that might be partially solved by health IT. It is also estimated that there is a 15 year science to service gap between the time of a new medical discovery and its wide dissemination in the community. In the Information Age, why shouldn't it be 15 seconds?
Currently, it is estimated that only 10-20% of health professionals and less than 25% of hospitals in the country use health information technology to reduce mistakes, increase efficiency, and decrease health care costs. It is estimated that if most health care providers adopted health IT the potential efficiency savings could average over $77 billion per year -- largely as a result of reduced hospital stays, reduced nurses' administrative time and more efficient drug utilization. ...
wait times to see a doctor in the United States are worse than other industrialized countries
July 18, 2007 More Humane and More Efficient National Health Insurance By ROBERT WEISSMAN ...
The health insurance industry and its allies have worked hard to respond to SiCKO by promulgating a series of deceptions. It's awfully hard to defend the current U.S. system, so their emphasis is on criticizing other countries' healthcare systems.
They have a lot of practice at this stuff. Get on a call with people like Sarah Berk of Health Care America and Sally Pipes and John Graham of the Pacific Research Institute, and they will compellingly recite three key misleading arguments:
* People in other countries have to suffer through long waiting periods before seeing a doctor or getting treatment.
* National health plans ration care.
* "Government-controlled healthcare" or "government monopoly healthcare" is inherently of inferior quality.
When you don't feel well, or need treatment, you want to see a doctor right away. So, the image of waiting lists to get treatment has some resonance.
But exactly how easy is it to see a doctor in the United States?
It turns out that the answer is the same as in other countries: It depends.
Live in the United States and have a bad rash and need to see a dermatologist? ... [Washington DC] ... The average wait to get in the door is 36 days. ... OB/GYNs and asked how long the wait would be for a woman who found a lump on her breast. The answer on average: 16 excruciating days.
In fact, wait times to see a doctor in the United States are worse than other industrialized countries -- all of which have national health insurance -- except for Canada, where the system has been starved of funding (but overall performance is still better than the United States on most key measures).
In 2005, the Commonwealth Fund commissioned phone surveys of sicker adults in New Zealand, Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada and the United States.
In the United States, ... doctor's appointment the same day or the next day. This was worse than every other country except Canada. In New Zealand, 81 percent reported being able to see a doctor by the next day. ...
What about rationing?
In the private insurance system in the United States, rationing is done by the health insurance industry, which rations with an eye both to health needs and the insurers' profitability.
And, of course, the worst rationing is imposed on the 45 million people in the United States without insurance.
Rationing is far worse in the United States than in other countries. ... 40 percent of people in the United States said there has been a time when they did not fill a prescription because of cost -- twice the level of the next worst performing country. ...
...
But in the aggregate, U.S. healthcare indicators are terrible, for worse than other industrialized countries -- all of which have national health plans.
With SiCKO heating up the debate, Business Week profiled the French health system, which is treated favorably in SiCKO. "To grasp how the French system works, think about Medicare for the elderly in the U.S., then expand that to encompass the entire population." But, notes Business Week: "the French system is more generous to its entire population than the U.S. is to its seniors."
...
On top of which, French health expenditures amount to 10.7 percent of the national economy. In the United States, it is 16.5 percent.
It turns out that national health insurance is not just more humane, it is far, far more efficient, about which more in my next (and final) piece on SiCKO.
The health insurance industry and its allies have worked hard to respond to SiCKO by promulgating a series of deceptions. It's awfully hard to defend the current U.S. system, so their emphasis is on criticizing other countries' healthcare systems.
They have a lot of practice at this stuff. Get on a call with people like Sarah Berk of Health Care America and Sally Pipes and John Graham of the Pacific Research Institute, and they will compellingly recite three key misleading arguments:
* People in other countries have to suffer through long waiting periods before seeing a doctor or getting treatment.
* National health plans ration care.
* "Government-controlled healthcare" or "government monopoly healthcare" is inherently of inferior quality.
When you don't feel well, or need treatment, you want to see a doctor right away. So, the image of waiting lists to get treatment has some resonance.
But exactly how easy is it to see a doctor in the United States?
It turns out that the answer is the same as in other countries: It depends.
Live in the United States and have a bad rash and need to see a dermatologist? ... [Washington DC] ... The average wait to get in the door is 36 days. ... OB/GYNs and asked how long the wait would be for a woman who found a lump on her breast. The answer on average: 16 excruciating days.
In fact, wait times to see a doctor in the United States are worse than other industrialized countries -- all of which have national health insurance -- except for Canada, where the system has been starved of funding (but overall performance is still better than the United States on most key measures).
In 2005, the Commonwealth Fund commissioned phone surveys of sicker adults in New Zealand, Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada and the United States.
In the United States, ... doctor's appointment the same day or the next day. This was worse than every other country except Canada. In New Zealand, 81 percent reported being able to see a doctor by the next day. ...
What about rationing?
In the private insurance system in the United States, rationing is done by the health insurance industry, which rations with an eye both to health needs and the insurers' profitability.
And, of course, the worst rationing is imposed on the 45 million people in the United States without insurance.
Rationing is far worse in the United States than in other countries. ... 40 percent of people in the United States said there has been a time when they did not fill a prescription because of cost -- twice the level of the next worst performing country. ...
...
But in the aggregate, U.S. healthcare indicators are terrible, for worse than other industrialized countries -- all of which have national health plans.
With SiCKO heating up the debate, Business Week profiled the French health system, which is treated favorably in SiCKO. "To grasp how the French system works, think about Medicare for the elderly in the U.S., then expand that to encompass the entire population." But, notes Business Week: "the French system is more generous to its entire population than the U.S. is to its seniors."
...
On top of which, French health expenditures amount to 10.7 percent of the national economy. In the United States, it is 16.5 percent.
It turns out that national health insurance is not just more humane, it is far, far more efficient, about which more in my next (and final) piece on SiCKO.
owes more than $7,000 for an eight-hour hospital visit that involved, by his estimate, only about 15 minutes of actual care ...
Uninsured patient billed more than $12,000 for broken rib David Lazarus Friday, March 30, 2007
There are 47 million people in this country without health insurance. Richmond resident Joey Palmer is one of them.
He learned how costly this can be after fracturing a rib in a relatively minor motorcycle accident and subsequently being hit with a bill for more than $12,000 from San Francisco General Hospital.
"There's no way I could pay something like that," Palmer, 32, told me. "I'm not a bum, but I'm not making a lot of money right now. How is anyone supposed to pay a bill like that?"
Iman Nazeeri-Simmons, director of administrative operations at San Francisco General, said she sympathizes with Palmer's situation.
"It's not us," she said. "It's the whole system, and the system is broken. We need to look closely at making changes and at how we can deliver care in a rational way."
Palmer's story illustrates the broader problem of runaway health care costs in the United States and a system that leaves millions of Americans to fend for themselves.
It also underlines the importance of universal coverage that guarantees affordable health care to anyone, anywhere -- a goal that's become a central issue in California and in the current presidential campaign.
"We are the only developed country that doesn't cover all its people," said Stan Dorn, a senior research associate at the nonpartisan Urban Institute. "We also spend a lot more than the rest of the developed world."
...
"She asked how I intended to pay for everything," Palmer said. "I told her I didn't have any insurance. She looked at me and then asked if there was anyone I could sue."
...
That reduced the amount due by $4,659. But Palmer still owes more than $7,000 for an eight-hour hospital visit that involved, by his estimate, only about 15 minutes of actual care.
There are 47 million people in this country without health insurance. Richmond resident Joey Palmer is one of them.
He learned how costly this can be after fracturing a rib in a relatively minor motorcycle accident and subsequently being hit with a bill for more than $12,000 from San Francisco General Hospital.
"There's no way I could pay something like that," Palmer, 32, told me. "I'm not a bum, but I'm not making a lot of money right now. How is anyone supposed to pay a bill like that?"
Iman Nazeeri-Simmons, director of administrative operations at San Francisco General, said she sympathizes with Palmer's situation.
"It's not us," she said. "It's the whole system, and the system is broken. We need to look closely at making changes and at how we can deliver care in a rational way."
Palmer's story illustrates the broader problem of runaway health care costs in the United States and a system that leaves millions of Americans to fend for themselves.
It also underlines the importance of universal coverage that guarantees affordable health care to anyone, anywhere -- a goal that's become a central issue in California and in the current presidential campaign.
"We are the only developed country that doesn't cover all its people," said Stan Dorn, a senior research associate at the nonpartisan Urban Institute. "We also spend a lot more than the rest of the developed world."
...
"She asked how I intended to pay for everything," Palmer said. "I told her I didn't have any insurance. She looked at me and then asked if there was anyone I could sue."
...
That reduced the amount due by $4,659. But Palmer still owes more than $7,000 for an eight-hour hospital visit that involved, by his estimate, only about 15 minutes of actual care.
U.S.'s healthcare system does about as well as a Third World island that's been under economic sanctions for the past five decades
CNN vs. SiCKO 7/11/07
Filmmaker Michael Moore appeared on CNN's Situation Room on July 9 to talk about his new film Sicko—but ended up having an animated discussion with host Wolf Blitzer about a CNN "fact check" of the film that made several embarrassing errors.
The piece--dubbed a "Reality Check" by senior medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta--claimed that Moore "fudged the facts" when critiquing the U.S. health care system (click here to watch the clip). Gupta starts by acknowledging that the U.S. healthcare system placed 37th in the World Health Organization's rankings. The fact that Moore contrasts this with the Cuban system led Gupta to "catch" him: "But hold on. That WHO list puts Cuba's healthcare system even lower than the United States, coming in at number 39."
The fact that the U.S.'s healthcare system does about as well as a Third World island that's been under economic sanctions for the past five decades isn't much of a catch to begin with. But Cuba's WHO ranking actually appears in Moore's film.
...
Gupta's next fact check:
"Moore asserts that the American healthcare system spends $7,000 per person on health, whereas Cuba spends $25 per person. Not true, but not too far off. The United States spends $6,096 a year per person versus $229 a year in Cuba." ...
Filmmaker Michael Moore appeared on CNN's Situation Room on July 9 to talk about his new film Sicko—but ended up having an animated discussion with host Wolf Blitzer about a CNN "fact check" of the film that made several embarrassing errors.
The piece--dubbed a "Reality Check" by senior medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta--claimed that Moore "fudged the facts" when critiquing the U.S. health care system (click here to watch the clip). Gupta starts by acknowledging that the U.S. healthcare system placed 37th in the World Health Organization's rankings. The fact that Moore contrasts this with the Cuban system led Gupta to "catch" him: "But hold on. That WHO list puts Cuba's healthcare system even lower than the United States, coming in at number 39."
The fact that the U.S.'s healthcare system does about as well as a Third World island that's been under economic sanctions for the past five decades isn't much of a catch to begin with. But Cuba's WHO ranking actually appears in Moore's film.
...
Gupta's next fact check:
"Moore asserts that the American healthcare system spends $7,000 per person on health, whereas Cuba spends $25 per person. Not true, but not too far off. The United States spends $6,096 a year per person versus $229 a year in Cuba." ...
Dr. Sanjay Gupta today admitted that he was wrong about some of the facts in his CNN report on SiCKO
E-Mail Shows CNN, Gupta Given The Right Facts Before Getting Them Wrong | July 10, 2007 09:20 PM
Dr. Sanjay Gupta today admitted that he was wrong about some of the facts in his CNN report on SiCKO -- a report that led Michael Moore to blast Wolf Blitzer. The e-mail exchange below, between Moore's team and Gupta's producer, shows that Gupta and CNN had the facts -- including the one he apologized for -- a full day before the Gupta piece first aired on AC360 on June 29 (following Moore's first appearance regarding SiCKO on Larry King Live), and a full 10 days before the network re-aired it preceding Moore's volatile July 9 appearance on The Situation Room. ...
Dr. Sanjay Gupta today admitted that he was wrong about some of the facts in his CNN report on SiCKO -- a report that led Michael Moore to blast Wolf Blitzer. The e-mail exchange below, between Moore's team and Gupta's producer, shows that Gupta and CNN had the facts -- including the one he apologized for -- a full day before the Gupta piece first aired on AC360 on June 29 (following Moore's first appearance regarding SiCKO on Larry King Live), and a full 10 days before the network re-aired it preceding Moore's volatile July 9 appearance on The Situation Room. ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)