June 27, 2007 (July 16, 2007 issue) | Michael Moore's Sicko | Christopher Hayes
...
But after introducing us to the horror stories all too typical among even the 250 million Americans fortunate enough to have health insurance, Moore takes a few moments for a brief history lesson. How, he asks, did we get here? And it's in this time warp that we encounter the Gipper. This is not Gipper the Governor or Gipper the President or even Gipper the B-list actor. This is Gipper, silver-tongued shill for the interests of capital.
...
So as momentum for national, universal healthcare built during the Truman Administration, foes such as the American Medical Association sought to build grassroots opposition. In an ingenious stroke, as Moore reports in Sicko, it organized thousands of coffee klatches across the country where suburban housewives could sip coffee, gossip and listen to a special recorded message about the evils of socialized medicine, a message delivered by the one and only Ronald Reagan.
...
Moore's solution is simple: Get rid of the health insurance companies. Don't just tinker with the healthcare system, banish profit from the delivery of healthcare altogether. Socialize it. Make it a public good. It's a testament to the health insurance industry's power that as "universal healthcare" lurches toward the political middle, this proposal seems in some ways more radical than ever. Moore recognizes that if single-payer is ever going to come to America, it's going to be over the insurance companies' dead bodies. One way of understanding Sicko is as the opening salvo in a battle to make that happen. The movie alone can't do that, which is part of the reason Moore has teamed up with the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, the labor union most zealously committed to single-payer. It'll be sending its members, along with like-minded doctors, to every single showing of the film's opening night to talk up single-payer to audiences. And it's currently rolling across the country in a multicity tour designed to leverage the film's publicity to push single-payer back into the national conversation.
...
... Then Oprah turned to the audience and said she finally "got it" when in the film Moore points out that we don't charge for the services of firemen or think profit should have anything to do with firefighting. ...
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
if the Robin Hood index were reduced from 30% to 25% (about where it is in England), deaths from coronary heart disease would be reduced by 25%
Steve's note: The following article describes two important studies (from Harvard and Berkeley) that impressively link income inequality to many various social problems, like higher mortality rates, crime, welfare, substance abuse and educational problems. It explains why the growing inequality of the Reagan Years, described in detail on this web site, played such a critical role in worsening our nation's social problems. An extremely important read!
ECONOMIC INEQUALITY AND HEALTH | By Peter Montague
...
What is not so obvious is that the health of the poor is harmed in proportion to the size of the gap between rich and poor. It isn't the absolute level of poverty that matters so much as the size of the gap between rich and poor. In other words, "...what matters in determining mortality and health in a society is less the overall wealth of that society and more how evenly wealth is distributed. The more equally wealth is distributed the better the health of that society," according to an editorial in the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL April 20th.[5] Two recent studies of the U.S. indicate that this is so,[6,7] and they are not the first to make the case.[8,9]
The two recent studies, published in April in the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, examine all 50 states within the U.S. Each study defines a measure of income inequality and compares it to various rates of disease and other social problems. Both the studies -- one from Harvard and one from University of California at Berkeley -- conclude that the greater the gap between rich and poor, the greater the chances that people will be sick and die young. It isn't the absolute level of wealth in a society that determines health; it is the size of the gap between rich and poor. Let's look at some of the details:
George Kaplan and his colleagues at Berkeley measured inequality in the 50 states as the percentage of total household income received by the less well off 50% of households.[6] It ranged from about 17% in Louisiana and Mississippi to about 23% in Utah and New Hampshire. In other words, by this measure, Utah and New Hampshire have the most EQUAL distribution of income, while Louisiana and Mississippi have the most UNEQUAL distribution of income.
This measure of income inequality was also tested against other social conditions besides health. States with greater inequality in the distribution of income also had higher rates of unemployment, higher rates of incarceration, a higher percentage of people receiving income assistance and food stamps, and a greater percentage of people without medical insurance. Again, the gap between rich and poor was the best predictor, not the average income in the state.
Interestingly, states with greater inequality of income distribution also spent less per person on education, had fewer books per person in the schools, and had poorer educational performance, including worse reading skills, worse math skills, and lower rates of completion of high school.
States with greater inequality of income also had a greater proportion of babies born with low birth weight; higher rates of homicide; higher rates of violent crime; a greater proportion of the population unable to work because of disabilities; a higher proportion of the population using tobacco; and a higher proportion of the population being sedentary (inactive).
Lastly, states with greater inequality of income had higher costs per-person for medical care, and higher costs per person for police protection.
The Harvard researchers used a slightly different measure of inequality, called the Robin Hood index.[10] The higher the Robin Hood index, the greater the inequality in the distribution of income. The researchers calculated the Robin Hood index for all 50 states and then examined its relationship to various measures of health and well being.
They found that the Robin Hood index correlated with the overall age-adjusted death rate. Each percentage point increase in the Robin Hood index was associated with an increase in total mortality of 21.7 deaths per 100,000 population.
The Robin Hood index was also strongly associated with the infant mortality (death) rate; with deaths from heart disease; with deaths from cancer; and with deaths by homicide among both blacks and whites.
The Harvard team concludes that reducing inequality would bring important health benefits. For example, if the Robin Hood index were reduced from 30% to 25% (about where it is in England), deaths from coronary heart disease would be reduced by 25%.
These studies are important because they confirm work that has previously found a relationship between income inequality and health, using data of good quality from all 50 states.[11] Inequality in the distribution of income and wealth[12] has been increasing in the U.S. for about 20 years.[13,14,15,16] In 1977 the wealthiest 5% of Americans captured 16.8% of the nation's entire income; by 1989 that same 5% was capturing 18.9%. During the 4-year Clinton presidency the wealthiest 5% have increased their take of the total to over 21%, "an unprecedented rate of increase," according to the British ECONOMIST magazine.[17]
...
The growing gap between rich and poor has not been ordained by extraterrestrial beings. It has been created by the policies of governments: taxation, training, investment in children and their education, modernization of businesses, transfer payments, minimum wages and health benefits, capital availability, support for green industries, encouragement of labor unions, attention to infrastructuire and technical assistance to entrepreneurs, among others. In the U.S., government policies of the past 20 years have promoted, encouraged and celebrated inequality. These are choices that we, as a society, have made. Now one half of our society is afraid of the other half, and the gap between us is expanding. Our health is not the only thing in danger. They that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind.
ECONOMIC INEQUALITY AND HEALTH | By Peter Montague
...
What is not so obvious is that the health of the poor is harmed in proportion to the size of the gap between rich and poor. It isn't the absolute level of poverty that matters so much as the size of the gap between rich and poor. In other words, "...what matters in determining mortality and health in a society is less the overall wealth of that society and more how evenly wealth is distributed. The more equally wealth is distributed the better the health of that society," according to an editorial in the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL April 20th.[5] Two recent studies of the U.S. indicate that this is so,[6,7] and they are not the first to make the case.[8,9]
The two recent studies, published in April in the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, examine all 50 states within the U.S. Each study defines a measure of income inequality and compares it to various rates of disease and other social problems. Both the studies -- one from Harvard and one from University of California at Berkeley -- conclude that the greater the gap between rich and poor, the greater the chances that people will be sick and die young. It isn't the absolute level of wealth in a society that determines health; it is the size of the gap between rich and poor. Let's look at some of the details:
George Kaplan and his colleagues at Berkeley measured inequality in the 50 states as the percentage of total household income received by the less well off 50% of households.[6] It ranged from about 17% in Louisiana and Mississippi to about 23% in Utah and New Hampshire. In other words, by this measure, Utah and New Hampshire have the most EQUAL distribution of income, while Louisiana and Mississippi have the most UNEQUAL distribution of income.
This measure of income inequality was also tested against other social conditions besides health. States with greater inequality in the distribution of income also had higher rates of unemployment, higher rates of incarceration, a higher percentage of people receiving income assistance and food stamps, and a greater percentage of people without medical insurance. Again, the gap between rich and poor was the best predictor, not the average income in the state.
Interestingly, states with greater inequality of income distribution also spent less per person on education, had fewer books per person in the schools, and had poorer educational performance, including worse reading skills, worse math skills, and lower rates of completion of high school.
States with greater inequality of income also had a greater proportion of babies born with low birth weight; higher rates of homicide; higher rates of violent crime; a greater proportion of the population unable to work because of disabilities; a higher proportion of the population using tobacco; and a higher proportion of the population being sedentary (inactive).
Lastly, states with greater inequality of income had higher costs per-person for medical care, and higher costs per person for police protection.
The Harvard researchers used a slightly different measure of inequality, called the Robin Hood index.[10] The higher the Robin Hood index, the greater the inequality in the distribution of income. The researchers calculated the Robin Hood index for all 50 states and then examined its relationship to various measures of health and well being.
They found that the Robin Hood index correlated with the overall age-adjusted death rate. Each percentage point increase in the Robin Hood index was associated with an increase in total mortality of 21.7 deaths per 100,000 population.
The Robin Hood index was also strongly associated with the infant mortality (death) rate; with deaths from heart disease; with deaths from cancer; and with deaths by homicide among both blacks and whites.
The Harvard team concludes that reducing inequality would bring important health benefits. For example, if the Robin Hood index were reduced from 30% to 25% (about where it is in England), deaths from coronary heart disease would be reduced by 25%.
These studies are important because they confirm work that has previously found a relationship between income inequality and health, using data of good quality from all 50 states.[11] Inequality in the distribution of income and wealth[12] has been increasing in the U.S. for about 20 years.[13,14,15,16] In 1977 the wealthiest 5% of Americans captured 16.8% of the nation's entire income; by 1989 that same 5% was capturing 18.9%. During the 4-year Clinton presidency the wealthiest 5% have increased their take of the total to over 21%, "an unprecedented rate of increase," according to the British ECONOMIST magazine.[17]
...
The growing gap between rich and poor has not been ordained by extraterrestrial beings. It has been created by the policies of governments: taxation, training, investment in children and their education, modernization of businesses, transfer payments, minimum wages and health benefits, capital availability, support for green industries, encouragement of labor unions, attention to infrastructuire and technical assistance to entrepreneurs, among others. In the U.S., government policies of the past 20 years have promoted, encouraged and celebrated inequality. These are choices that we, as a society, have made. Now one half of our society is afraid of the other half, and the gap between us is expanding. Our health is not the only thing in danger. They that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind.
Poverty [and Inequality] Can Make You Get Sick and Die
Thursday, May 03, 2007 | Poverty Can Make You Get Sick and Die
Several studies prove it. The policies of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and the GOP, in general, have harmed Americans by attacking the public health, increasing death rates as a result.
...
What might have been common sense has been left to researchers to prove: poverty and poor health go hand in hand. Poverty means many things to a growing number of people but two factors are obvious: bad nutrition and unhealthy living conditions. Indeed, every step down the economic ladder worsens overall health.
There is yet another factor. The latest research leads to the conclusion that the mere fact of inequality increases mortality rates. This is an increase having nothing to do with nutrition or living conditions. It is a matter of inequality in and of itself.
Some of these conclusions may be found in two studies published by the British Medical Journal. The conclusion is impossible for conservatives and Social Darwinists to refute: The more equally wealth is distributed the better the health of that society. There is the possibility, of course, that America's privileged elite, Bush's base, doesn't really care about the health of society. As they might say in London's East End: Oi'm awlroight, Jack!
Interestingly, states with greater inequality of income distribution also spent less per person on education, had fewer books per person in the schools, and had poorer educational performance, including worse reading skills, worse math skills, and lower rates of completion of high school.
States with greater inequality of income also had a greater proportion of babies born with low birth weight; higher rates of homicide; higher rates of violent crime; a greater proportion of the population unable to work because of disabilities; a higher proportion of the population using tobacco; and a higher proportion of the population being sedentary (inactive).
Lastly, states with greater inequality of income had higher costs per-person for medical care, and higher costs per person for police protection.
- Peter Montague, Economic Inequality and Health
Several studies prove it. The policies of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and the GOP, in general, have harmed Americans by attacking the public health, increasing death rates as a result.
...
What might have been common sense has been left to researchers to prove: poverty and poor health go hand in hand. Poverty means many things to a growing number of people but two factors are obvious: bad nutrition and unhealthy living conditions. Indeed, every step down the economic ladder worsens overall health.
There is yet another factor. The latest research leads to the conclusion that the mere fact of inequality increases mortality rates. This is an increase having nothing to do with nutrition or living conditions. It is a matter of inequality in and of itself.
Some of these conclusions may be found in two studies published by the British Medical Journal. The conclusion is impossible for conservatives and Social Darwinists to refute: The more equally wealth is distributed the better the health of that society. There is the possibility, of course, that America's privileged elite, Bush's base, doesn't really care about the health of society. As they might say in London's East End: Oi'm awlroight, Jack!
Interestingly, states with greater inequality of income distribution also spent less per person on education, had fewer books per person in the schools, and had poorer educational performance, including worse reading skills, worse math skills, and lower rates of completion of high school.
States with greater inequality of income also had a greater proportion of babies born with low birth weight; higher rates of homicide; higher rates of violent crime; a greater proportion of the population unable to work because of disabilities; a higher proportion of the population using tobacco; and a higher proportion of the population being sedentary (inactive).
Lastly, states with greater inequality of income had higher costs per-person for medical care, and higher costs per person for police protection.
- Peter Montague, Economic Inequality and Health
Fifty-one percent of the GOPers said universal healthcare coverage should be a right of every American ...
Poll shows many Republicans favor universal healthcare, gays in military | By Aaron Blake | June 28, 2007
A large nationwide poll of Republican voters shows that an increasing number consider themselves conservative, that about half favor universal healthcare and allowing gays in the military, and that the vast majority say spreading democracy shouldn’t be the United States’ top foreign policy goal.
...
Fifty-one percent of the GOPers said universal healthcare coverage should be a right of every American, and 49 percent favored allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. ...
A large nationwide poll of Republican voters shows that an increasing number consider themselves conservative, that about half favor universal healthcare and allowing gays in the military, and that the vast majority say spreading democracy shouldn’t be the United States’ top foreign policy goal.
...
Fifty-one percent of the GOPers said universal healthcare coverage should be a right of every American, and 49 percent favored allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. ...
walked into the only abortion clinic in Mississippi ... only state in the country where abortion is limited to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
Pregnant and poor in Mississippi | By Sharon Lerner
Mississippi law limits abortion to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. But for poor women short on time and money, that can be an impossible deadline.
July 2, 2007 | The other day, a quiet 17-year-old, let's call her Angie, walked into the only abortion clinic in Mississippi. A wiry teen with coffee-colored skin and delicate features, Angie had recently screwed up the courage to tell her mother she was pregnant. The pregnancy had blindsided her. (Sure, she had been nauseated and had thrown up a few times, but she figured it was just the stomach bug going around.)
But the real shock hit her inside the unassuming stucco clinic in Jackson. An ultrasound revealed that Angie was not eight or 10 weeks along, as she and her mother had assumed, but 14 weeks into her pregnancy. Then, as they were absorbing the news, a staff member informed them that at that stage of pregnancy, Angie wouldn't be able to get an abortion anywhere in the state.
One year ago, Mississippi became the only state in the country where abortion is limited to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. If the lone doctor, Joseph Booker, at the lone Mississippi clinic, the Jackson Women's Health Organization, were to perform any abortions after the first day of that week, he could face jail time. Angie and her mother aren't the only ones in the dark about the change, though; most patients who come to the clinic have no idea of the 12-week cutoff -- fully four weeks earlier than the 16-week limit the clinic had observed for the previous decade and at least 10 weeks earlier than federal law allows. Several other states have also shortened the window in which abortions are available, though not as drastically. In South Carolina, Indiana, Alaska and South Dakota, for instance, abortions are only available up to the 6th day of the 13th week of pregnancy. ...
Mississippi law limits abortion to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. But for poor women short on time and money, that can be an impossible deadline.
July 2, 2007 | The other day, a quiet 17-year-old, let's call her Angie, walked into the only abortion clinic in Mississippi. A wiry teen with coffee-colored skin and delicate features, Angie had recently screwed up the courage to tell her mother she was pregnant. The pregnancy had blindsided her. (Sure, she had been nauseated and had thrown up a few times, but she figured it was just the stomach bug going around.)
But the real shock hit her inside the unassuming stucco clinic in Jackson. An ultrasound revealed that Angie was not eight or 10 weeks along, as she and her mother had assumed, but 14 weeks into her pregnancy. Then, as they were absorbing the news, a staff member informed them that at that stage of pregnancy, Angie wouldn't be able to get an abortion anywhere in the state.
One year ago, Mississippi became the only state in the country where abortion is limited to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. If the lone doctor, Joseph Booker, at the lone Mississippi clinic, the Jackson Women's Health Organization, were to perform any abortions after the first day of that week, he could face jail time. Angie and her mother aren't the only ones in the dark about the change, though; most patients who come to the clinic have no idea of the 12-week cutoff -- fully four weeks earlier than the 16-week limit the clinic had observed for the previous decade and at least 10 weeks earlier than federal law allows. Several other states have also shortened the window in which abortions are available, though not as drastically. In South Carolina, Indiana, Alaska and South Dakota, for instance, abortions are only available up to the 6th day of the 13th week of pregnancy. ...
Americans get the right treatment only 55% of the time. ... less than 5% spent on prevention
U.S. Presidential Candidates' Prescriptions for a Healthier Future: A Side-By-Side Comparison | Posted July 9, 2007 | 03:18 PM (EST) | By Susan J. Blumenthal, M.D., Jessica B. Rubin, Michelle E. Treseler, Jefferson Lin, and David Mattos*
The next president of the United States will confront major health policy decisions that will affect the lives of all Americans. With the first of the presidential caucuses and primaries only six months away, the pressure is on for the candidates to provide Americans with their plans to improve the nation's health care system -- and rightfully so. Despite spending over $2 trillion a year on health care -- 18% of the U.S. GDP and twice as much as any other nation -- the United States ranks only 45th in life expectancy and 37th in a World Health Organization study on the performance of national health systems. 1,2 The U.S. federal government currently spends more on health care than on Social Security and national defense combined, the next most expensive items, but Americans get the right treatment only 55% of the time.3 Expenditures on health care in the United States -- already the highest per person in the world -- are predicted to nearly double by 2016, to $4.1 trillion, or 20% of GDP. That means, if this trajectory is not altered, in less than a decade, 20 cents out of every dollar produced in America will be spent on health care. Currently, more than 75% of health care dollars are spent on patients with chronic diseases, yet an estimated 80% of all chronic diseases are caused by preventable factors, such as smoking, obesity, and physical inactivity.4,5 But despite these statistics, less than 5 cents of every health care dollar is spent on prevention and public health.
A recent poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found health care to be the second most mentioned issue that Americans would like to hear presidential candidates discuss and for the government to address.6 Iraq remains the foremost concern, yet it is important to note that health care tops the list of Americans' domestic priorities. This means that no presidential hopeful can effectively meet the needs of the American people without addressing the essential issues of access, affordability, efficiency, and quality of our nation's health care system. ...
The next president of the United States will confront major health policy decisions that will affect the lives of all Americans. With the first of the presidential caucuses and primaries only six months away, the pressure is on for the candidates to provide Americans with their plans to improve the nation's health care system -- and rightfully so. Despite spending over $2 trillion a year on health care -- 18% of the U.S. GDP and twice as much as any other nation -- the United States ranks only 45th in life expectancy and 37th in a World Health Organization study on the performance of national health systems. 1,2 The U.S. federal government currently spends more on health care than on Social Security and national defense combined, the next most expensive items, but Americans get the right treatment only 55% of the time.3 Expenditures on health care in the United States -- already the highest per person in the world -- are predicted to nearly double by 2016, to $4.1 trillion, or 20% of GDP. That means, if this trajectory is not altered, in less than a decade, 20 cents out of every dollar produced in America will be spent on health care. Currently, more than 75% of health care dollars are spent on patients with chronic diseases, yet an estimated 80% of all chronic diseases are caused by preventable factors, such as smoking, obesity, and physical inactivity.4,5 But despite these statistics, less than 5 cents of every health care dollar is spent on prevention and public health.
A recent poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found health care to be the second most mentioned issue that Americans would like to hear presidential candidates discuss and for the government to address.6 Iraq remains the foremost concern, yet it is important to note that health care tops the list of Americans' domestic priorities. This means that no presidential hopeful can effectively meet the needs of the American people without addressing the essential issues of access, affordability, efficiency, and quality of our nation's health care system. ...
The current system is not a free market; it is a set of government rigged rules that ensure that the insurance and pharmaceutical industries prosper,
Fixing Health Care: Not Government vs. Market | By Dean Baker | t r u t h o u t | Columnist | Tuesday 10 July 2007
With "SiCKO" rallying popular support for universal health care coverage, defenders of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries are shifting into high gear with their scare tactics. The key to their efforts is to frighten people about the prospect of the government managing their health care.
Whether or not this sounds scary, the reality is that the government already structures the way in which we receive health care. However, the current pattern of government intervention ensures high profits for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries; it is not designed to provide adequate health care.
Starting with a very simple but important form of government intervention, insurance contracts are enforced in a very different way than most other types of contracts. When a person fails to disclose information on an insurance contract, it is grounds for voiding the contract. This means, as shown in "SiCKO," if a person did not report a pre-existing condition, even if it seemed trivial and irrelevant at the time, an insurance company can treat this fact as grounds for voiding a policy and not paying claims.
By contrast, most contracts have a buyer-beware structure. If I buy a house and didn't bother to notice that the roof was falling in, that's my problem.
...
It can be argued that if the government restructured the law on insurance contracts that the private insurance market would disappear. Given the incredible inefficiency of the private market (administrative costs in the United States are approximately 10 times as high as in Canada), it is not clear why we would want a government intervention that makes the market less efficient.
Similarly, patent monopolies are one way in which the government can promote innovation. It is almost certainly not the best mechanism. We need a real discussion of the alternatives to patent monopolies.
...
But, if we are ever going to think seriously about how best to restructure health care, we will have to clearly understand how the system works now. The current system is not a free market; it is a set of government rigged rules that ensure that the insurance and pharmaceutical industries prosper, and that tens of millions of people go without access to care.
With "SiCKO" rallying popular support for universal health care coverage, defenders of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries are shifting into high gear with their scare tactics. The key to their efforts is to frighten people about the prospect of the government managing their health care.
Whether or not this sounds scary, the reality is that the government already structures the way in which we receive health care. However, the current pattern of government intervention ensures high profits for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries; it is not designed to provide adequate health care.
Starting with a very simple but important form of government intervention, insurance contracts are enforced in a very different way than most other types of contracts. When a person fails to disclose information on an insurance contract, it is grounds for voiding the contract. This means, as shown in "SiCKO," if a person did not report a pre-existing condition, even if it seemed trivial and irrelevant at the time, an insurance company can treat this fact as grounds for voiding a policy and not paying claims.
By contrast, most contracts have a buyer-beware structure. If I buy a house and didn't bother to notice that the roof was falling in, that's my problem.
...
It can be argued that if the government restructured the law on insurance contracts that the private insurance market would disappear. Given the incredible inefficiency of the private market (administrative costs in the United States are approximately 10 times as high as in Canada), it is not clear why we would want a government intervention that makes the market less efficient.
Similarly, patent monopolies are one way in which the government can promote innovation. It is almost certainly not the best mechanism. We need a real discussion of the alternatives to patent monopolies.
...
But, if we are ever going to think seriously about how best to restructure health care, we will have to clearly understand how the system works now. The current system is not a free market; it is a set of government rigged rules that ensure that the insurance and pharmaceutical industries prosper, and that tens of millions of people go without access to care.
Monday, July 9, 2007
direct link has been made between treatment for gum disease and ... heart attack and stroke [but dental coverage is even lower than medical coverage]
Source: University College London Date: March 4, 2007 Treatment For Gum Disease Could Also Help The Heart
...
There is already established scientific evidence linking inflammation, the body's natural response to infection or injury, with the arterial changes that underlie stroke and heart attack. However, this is the first clinical trial to demonstrate that relief of inflammation in the mouth, through intensive treatment of periodontitis, results in improved function of the arteries.
Dr Francesco D'Aiuto, project leader and therapist, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, explained the method behind the research: "Middle-aged subjects with severe periodontitis, but no evidence of cardiovascular disease, were randomly allocated to dental treatments of two levels of intensity. After six months, those who received the more intensive periodontitis treatment, which resulted in a marked improvement in their gum disease, also demonstrated a significant restoration of blood vessel function.
"The intensive treatment involved removal of plaque through scaling and root planning techniques, as well as extraction of teeth that could not be saved. This initially resulted in some inflammation and dysfunction of the blood vessels and arteries. However, that was short-lived and six months later the treatment led to an improvement in both oral health and arterial function."
Professor John Deanfield, senior author, UCL Institute of Child Health, added: "Previous studies have shown an association between periodontitis and blood vessel dysfunction, heart attack and stroke. However, a clinical trial was required to test whether these links could be causal. This is the first time that a direct link has been made between treatment for gum disease and improved circulatory function, which is relevant to some of the UK's biggest killers: heart attack and stroke."
...
Professor Deanfield concluded: "This finding therefore has potential implications for public health, but further studies are now required to determine whether the treatment of severe periodontitis could directly contribute to the prevention of disease of the arteries (atherosclerosis), stroke and heart attacks."
..............................................
Columbia study suggests brushing your teeth may reduce risk of stroke and heart attack
"This is the most direct evidence yet that gum disease may lead to stroke or cardiovascular disease," said Moïse Desvarieux, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor of Epidemiology at Columbia University Medical Center’s Mailman School of Public Health and lead author of the paper. "And because gum infections are preventable and treatable, taking care of your oral health could very well have a significant impact on your cardiovascular health."
...
There is already established scientific evidence linking inflammation, the body's natural response to infection or injury, with the arterial changes that underlie stroke and heart attack. However, this is the first clinical trial to demonstrate that relief of inflammation in the mouth, through intensive treatment of periodontitis, results in improved function of the arteries.
Dr Francesco D'Aiuto, project leader and therapist, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, explained the method behind the research: "Middle-aged subjects with severe periodontitis, but no evidence of cardiovascular disease, were randomly allocated to dental treatments of two levels of intensity. After six months, those who received the more intensive periodontitis treatment, which resulted in a marked improvement in their gum disease, also demonstrated a significant restoration of blood vessel function.
"The intensive treatment involved removal of plaque through scaling and root planning techniques, as well as extraction of teeth that could not be saved. This initially resulted in some inflammation and dysfunction of the blood vessels and arteries. However, that was short-lived and six months later the treatment led to an improvement in both oral health and arterial function."
Professor John Deanfield, senior author, UCL Institute of Child Health, added: "Previous studies have shown an association between periodontitis and blood vessel dysfunction, heart attack and stroke. However, a clinical trial was required to test whether these links could be causal. This is the first time that a direct link has been made between treatment for gum disease and improved circulatory function, which is relevant to some of the UK's biggest killers: heart attack and stroke."
...
Professor Deanfield concluded: "This finding therefore has potential implications for public health, but further studies are now required to determine whether the treatment of severe periodontitis could directly contribute to the prevention of disease of the arteries (atherosclerosis), stroke and heart attacks."
..............................................
Columbia study suggests brushing your teeth may reduce risk of stroke and heart attack
"This is the most direct evidence yet that gum disease may lead to stroke or cardiovascular disease," said Moïse Desvarieux, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor of Epidemiology at Columbia University Medical Center’s Mailman School of Public Health and lead author of the paper. "And because gum infections are preventable and treatable, taking care of your oral health could very well have a significant impact on your cardiovascular health."
"Sixty-five to ninety percent or more of the substantial variation in violent crime in all these [9] countries was explained by lead."
Research Links Lead Exposure, Criminal Activity Data May Undermine Giuliani's Claims By Shankar Vedantam Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, July 8, 2007; Page A02
...
"I began with the city that was the crime capital of America," Giuliani, now a candidate for president, recently told Fox's Chris Wallace. "When I left, it was the safest large city in America. I reduced homicides by 67 percent. I reduced overall crime by 57 percent."
... Although crime did fall dramatically in New York during Giuliani's tenure, a broad range of scientific research has emerged in recent years to show that the mayor deserves only a fraction of the credit that he claims. The most compelling information has come from an economist in Fairfax who has argued in a series of little-noticed papers that the "New York miracle" was caused by local and federal efforts decades earlier to reduce lead poisoning.
The theory offered by the economist, Rick Nevin, is that lead poisoning accounts for much of the variation in violent crime in the United States. It offers a unifying new neurochemical theory for fluctuations in the crime rate, and it is based on studies linking children's exposure to lead with violent behavior later in their lives.
What makes Nevin's work persuasive is that he has shown an identical, decades-long association between lead poisoning and crime rates in nine countries.
"It is stunning how strong the association is," Nevin said in an interview. "Sixty-five to ninety percent or more of the substantial variation in violent crime in all these countries was explained by lead."
Through much of the 20th century, lead in U.S. paint and gasoline fumes poisoned toddlers as they put contaminated hands in their mouths. The consequences on crime, Nevin found, occurred when poisoning victims became adolescents. Nevin does not say that lead is the only factor behind crime, but he says it is the biggest factor.
Giuliani's presidential campaign declined to address Nevin's contention that the mayor merely was at the right place at the right time. ...
...
"I began with the city that was the crime capital of America," Giuliani, now a candidate for president, recently told Fox's Chris Wallace. "When I left, it was the safest large city in America. I reduced homicides by 67 percent. I reduced overall crime by 57 percent."
... Although crime did fall dramatically in New York during Giuliani's tenure, a broad range of scientific research has emerged in recent years to show that the mayor deserves only a fraction of the credit that he claims. The most compelling information has come from an economist in Fairfax who has argued in a series of little-noticed papers that the "New York miracle" was caused by local and federal efforts decades earlier to reduce lead poisoning.
The theory offered by the economist, Rick Nevin, is that lead poisoning accounts for much of the variation in violent crime in the United States. It offers a unifying new neurochemical theory for fluctuations in the crime rate, and it is based on studies linking children's exposure to lead with violent behavior later in their lives.
What makes Nevin's work persuasive is that he has shown an identical, decades-long association between lead poisoning and crime rates in nine countries.
"It is stunning how strong the association is," Nevin said in an interview. "Sixty-five to ninety percent or more of the substantial variation in violent crime in all these countries was explained by lead."
Through much of the 20th century, lead in U.S. paint and gasoline fumes poisoned toddlers as they put contaminated hands in their mouths. The consequences on crime, Nevin found, occurred when poisoning victims became adolescents. Nevin does not say that lead is the only factor behind crime, but he says it is the biggest factor.
Giuliani's presidential campaign declined to address Nevin's contention that the mayor merely was at the right place at the right time. ...
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
2 Million More Americans Joined Ranks Of Uninsured In 2006
CDC: Number Of Uninsured Adults Rises | 2 Million More Americans Joined Ranks Of Uninsured In 2006, Report Says | ATLANTA, June 26, 2007
(AP) The number of adults without health insurance jumped by 2 million from 2005 to 2006, according to a new federal report.
Uninsured Americans numbered 43.6 million last year, a 6 percent increase from 2005, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Almost all the increase was in the non-elderly adult population — a trend attributed to diminishing employer coverage and pricier private insurance.
The change in non-elderly adults was significant, but the overall increase was not, CDC officials said. The overall count of the uninsured has been fluctuating between 41 and 44 million over the last five years and is not really trending up, they said.
...
(AP) The number of adults without health insurance jumped by 2 million from 2005 to 2006, according to a new federal report.
Uninsured Americans numbered 43.6 million last year, a 6 percent increase from 2005, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Almost all the increase was in the non-elderly adult population — a trend attributed to diminishing employer coverage and pricier private insurance.
The change in non-elderly adults was significant, but the overall increase was not, CDC officials said. The overall count of the uninsured has been fluctuating between 41 and 44 million over the last five years and is not really trending up, they said.
...
Monday, June 25, 2007
64 percent supported the idea that "government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, ... but CBS says they do not
CBS's 'Sicko' Spin | Americans Don't Want Single-Payer Health—Except They Do | 6/25/07
On the June 22 broadcast of CBS Evening News, reporter Jeff Greenfield's critique of Michael Moore's documentary Sicko relied on a single premise: that the U.S. public and its political leaders do not embrace Moore's preferred solution (a single-payer system, where medical care is provided by private doctors and hospitals but paid for by the government). But that argument is at odds with the available evidence.
...
That assessment is contradicted by recent polling. In a recent CNN poll (5/4-5/6/07), 64 percent of respondents supported the idea that "government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes." And a recent CBS/New York Times poll (2/23-27/07) found 64 percent support for the idea that the federal government should "guarantee health insurance for all," and 60 percent supported paying higher taxes to provide such coverage. Additionally, 50 percent believed "fundamental changes" to the healthcare system were necessary, and another 40 percent thought the country needed to "completely rebuild" the system. ...
On the June 22 broadcast of CBS Evening News, reporter Jeff Greenfield's critique of Michael Moore's documentary Sicko relied on a single premise: that the U.S. public and its political leaders do not embrace Moore's preferred solution (a single-payer system, where medical care is provided by private doctors and hospitals but paid for by the government). But that argument is at odds with the available evidence.
...
That assessment is contradicted by recent polling. In a recent CNN poll (5/4-5/6/07), 64 percent of respondents supported the idea that "government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes." And a recent CBS/New York Times poll (2/23-27/07) found 64 percent support for the idea that the federal government should "guarantee health insurance for all," and 60 percent supported paying higher taxes to provide such coverage. Additionally, 50 percent believed "fundamental changes" to the healthcare system were necessary, and another 40 percent thought the country needed to "completely rebuild" the system. ...
Staph superbug may be infecting patients ... 10 times the rate that some health officials had previously estimated ...
Staph superbug may be infecting patients | By MIKE STOBBE, AP Medical Writer Mon Jun 25, 5:04 PM ET
ATLANTA - A dangerous, drug-resistant staph germ may be infecting as many as 5 percent of hospital and nursing home patients, according to a comprehensive study.
At least 30,000 U.S. hospital patients may have the superbug at any given time, according to a survey released Monday by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology.
The estimate is about 10 times the rate that some health officials had previously estimated. ...
ATLANTA - A dangerous, drug-resistant staph germ may be infecting as many as 5 percent of hospital and nursing home patients, according to a comprehensive study.
At least 30,000 U.S. hospital patients may have the superbug at any given time, according to a survey released Monday by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology.
The estimate is about 10 times the rate that some health officials had previously estimated. ...
boosting New Orleans' death rate last year by 47% compared with two years before the levees broke ... indigent suffered the brunt
New Orleans deaths up 47% | By Steve Sternberg, USA TODAY
Hurricane Katrina's tragic aftermath lingered for at least a year after the storm abated, boosting New Orleans' death rate last year by 47% compared with two years before the levees broke, researchers reported Thursday.
Doctors say the dramatic surge in deaths comes as no surprise in a city of 250,000 mostly poor and middle-class people who lost seven of 22 hospitals and half of the city's hospital beds. More than 4,486 doctors were displaced from three New Orleans parishes, creating a shortage that still hampers many hospitals, says a companion study released Thursday.
The indigent suffered the brunt of the health toll from the 2005 storm. The Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, two hospitals that made up the city's safety net for the uninsured, were severely damaged. Charity Hospital, oldest and best known of the two, remains closed. ...
...
That study, released in May, found a death rate of 14.3 per 1,000 people during the first three months of 2006, compared with 11.3 per 1,000 for three-month spans in 2002 and 2004.
But Stephens says the state's figure still tops the U.S. rate of 8.1 per 1,000. "We don't think that's a slight increase, we've think it's a tremendous increase in mortality," he says. He called the state's numbers "inaccurate and incomplete" because they don't count deaths of evacuees who left Louisiana. ...
Hurricane Katrina's tragic aftermath lingered for at least a year after the storm abated, boosting New Orleans' death rate last year by 47% compared with two years before the levees broke, researchers reported Thursday.
Doctors say the dramatic surge in deaths comes as no surprise in a city of 250,000 mostly poor and middle-class people who lost seven of 22 hospitals and half of the city's hospital beds. More than 4,486 doctors were displaced from three New Orleans parishes, creating a shortage that still hampers many hospitals, says a companion study released Thursday.
The indigent suffered the brunt of the health toll from the 2005 storm. The Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, two hospitals that made up the city's safety net for the uninsured, were severely damaged. Charity Hospital, oldest and best known of the two, remains closed. ...
...
That study, released in May, found a death rate of 14.3 per 1,000 people during the first three months of 2006, compared with 11.3 per 1,000 for three-month spans in 2002 and 2004.
But Stephens says the state's figure still tops the U.S. rate of 8.1 per 1,000. "We don't think that's a slight increase, we've think it's a tremendous increase in mortality," he says. He called the state's numbers "inaccurate and incomplete" because they don't count deaths of evacuees who left Louisiana. ...
Huge weight gains reported by patients on prescription drugs
25 June 2007 10:31 | Huge weight gains reported by patients on prescription drugs | By Roger Dobson | Published: 24 June 2007
Thousands of people who take prescription medicines for everyday conditions are gaining large amounts of weight as an unexpected side effect, scientists have warned.
Researchers, who found that some patients were putting on up to 22lbs in a year, say that the drugs may even be contributing to the nation's rocketing obesity epidemic.
All of the patients they studied, on medication for conditions as diverse as diabetes, epilepsy, depression, high blood pressure and schizophrenia, showed evidence of weight increase.
"Given the common and long-term use of many of these drugs," said the researchers, "it is likely that they play a significant contributory role in the increasing prevalence of obesity."
A team from Glasgow University and Glasgow Royal Infirmary reviewed and analysed data on drug use by more than 25,000 people to quantify the effects of prescription drugs. ...
Thousands of people who take prescription medicines for everyday conditions are gaining large amounts of weight as an unexpected side effect, scientists have warned.
Researchers, who found that some patients were putting on up to 22lbs in a year, say that the drugs may even be contributing to the nation's rocketing obesity epidemic.
All of the patients they studied, on medication for conditions as diverse as diabetes, epilepsy, depression, high blood pressure and schizophrenia, showed evidence of weight increase.
"Given the common and long-term use of many of these drugs," said the researchers, "it is likely that they play a significant contributory role in the increasing prevalence of obesity."
A team from Glasgow University and Glasgow Royal Infirmary reviewed and analysed data on drug use by more than 25,000 people to quantify the effects of prescription drugs. ...
Thursday, June 21, 2007
SiCKO America's health care system and explains why the whole system was actually designed to deny health care to the American people.
Why Michael Moore's SiCKO is a health care documentary every American must see | Tuesday, June 19, 2007 by: Mike Adams
America's disastrous health care system is heaving the country head-first into near-certain economic collapse. Just about everybody's either financially strained or going broke due to spiraling health care costs: the people, the employers, state governments and even the federal government. Multinational corporations are fleeing the United States due to health care costs, taking jobs and economic productivity with them. Meanwhile, 50 percent of personal bankruptcies in the U.S. are due to medical expenses.
But not everybody's doing badly. The drug companies, surgeons, medical specialists, health insurance companies and private hospitals are making out like bandits, raking in multi-million dollar CEO salaries and -- I'm not making this up -- greater than 500,000% markups on prescription drugs. And while the American people get sicker, the drug companies, insurance companies and many health "care" providers (it's really more like "sick care providers") are rolling in cash. Drug companies are now among the richest corporations in the world, and they got there by inventing fictitious diseases, then selling drugs to people who mostly don't need them. See my CounterThink cartoon, Disease Mongers, Inc. to learn more about this topic.
Meanwhile, the American people are the most diseased people in the world among advanced nations. We spend more on health care than anyone, we pay the highest prices for medications, and we're constantly told that we have the best medical technology in the world. But if our health care system is really so good, why do 50 million Americans have no health insurance? Why are hospitals literally dumping uninsured patients on the street, abandoning the sick to protect profits while our politicians actually negotiate on behalf of Big Pharma to make sure Americans keep paying the highest prices in the world for medications? (Click here to see our CounterThink cartoon on President Bush's price negotiations with drug companies.)
What's wrong with America's health care system?
America's disastrous health care system is heaving the country head-first into near-certain economic collapse. Just about everybody's either financially strained or going broke due to spiraling health care costs: the people, the employers, state governments and even the federal government. Multinational corporations are fleeing the United States due to health care costs, taking jobs and economic productivity with them. Meanwhile, 50 percent of personal bankruptcies in the U.S. are due to medical expenses.
But not everybody's doing badly. The drug companies, surgeons, medical specialists, health insurance companies and private hospitals are making out like bandits, raking in multi-million dollar CEO salaries and -- I'm not making this up -- greater than 500,000% markups on prescription drugs. And while the American people get sicker, the drug companies, insurance companies and many health "care" providers (it's really more like "sick care providers") are rolling in cash. Drug companies are now among the richest corporations in the world, and they got there by inventing fictitious diseases, then selling drugs to people who mostly don't need them. See my CounterThink cartoon, Disease Mongers, Inc. to learn more about this topic.
Meanwhile, the American people are the most diseased people in the world among advanced nations. We spend more on health care than anyone, we pay the highest prices for medications, and we're constantly told that we have the best medical technology in the world. But if our health care system is really so good, why do 50 million Americans have no health insurance? Why are hospitals literally dumping uninsured patients on the street, abandoning the sick to protect profits while our politicians actually negotiate on behalf of Big Pharma to make sure Americans keep paying the highest prices in the world for medications? (Click here to see our CounterThink cartoon on President Bush's price negotiations with drug companies.)
What's wrong with America's health care system?
SiCKO is a must-see documentary
SiCKO creator Michael Moore answers that all-important question in his best documentary yet. Forget whatever criticism you may have heard about SiCKO -- this is a Michael Moore masterpiece: A courageous, impactful and outrageous documentary that exposes the arrogance of modern medicine and the utter failure of America's corporate-controlled sick care system to provide decent health care to the people. Watching this movie will leave you either steaming mad or shedding tears (or both). It reveals the deep-rooted corruption in America's health care system and explains why the whole system was actually designed to deny health care to the American people. ...[45 percent of the population has no dental insurance. ] Americans travel to Mexico for stomach surgery, eye exams...[but mostly dentists]
Discount Dentistry, South of The Border | By Manuel Roig-Franzia | Washington Post Foreign Service | Monday, June 18, 2007; Page A01
...
... Salvador found herself in an international cyber-bazaar of dentistry come-ons targeting patients in the United States, where 45 percent of the population has no dental insurance. The Internet offers crowns in Costa Rica, where "a few miles buys beautiful smiles," root canals in Bangkok and Caracas, and implants in Budapest, where the "Hungarian medical level of training compares to UK or Irish practitioners," according to one Web site.
Tempted as she was to head for Bangkok, Salvador, 58, chose Mexico, which is quickly transforming its border cities into catch basins for millions of bargain-hunting and uninsured Americans. Arizona retirement communities now organize regular bus tours for Mexican dental work and inexpensive drugs. New hospitals have opened in Tijuana, because some U.S. health plans have begun covering services in Mexico. And tiny border communities, some about an hour from Ciudad Juarez, are becoming dentistry boomtowns to handle an ever-growing flow of American patients flying in from as far away as Alaska.
In a recent University of Texas study, 86 percent of low-income El Paso residents surveyed -- half of whom were illegal immigrants -- said they receive medical care or buy prescription drugs from Mexico. Similarly, a study published in the Pan-American Journal of Health found that more than 37 percent of uninsured New Mexico border residents get medical care in Mexico.
Americans travel to Mexico for stomach surgery, eye exams and routine checkups. But it is the dentistas -- thousands of them strung along the border -- who are in the vanguard in attracting U.S. health consumers. ...
...
... Salvador found herself in an international cyber-bazaar of dentistry come-ons targeting patients in the United States, where 45 percent of the population has no dental insurance. The Internet offers crowns in Costa Rica, where "a few miles buys beautiful smiles," root canals in Bangkok and Caracas, and implants in Budapest, where the "Hungarian medical level of training compares to UK or Irish practitioners," according to one Web site.
Tempted as she was to head for Bangkok, Salvador, 58, chose Mexico, which is quickly transforming its border cities into catch basins for millions of bargain-hunting and uninsured Americans. Arizona retirement communities now organize regular bus tours for Mexican dental work and inexpensive drugs. New hospitals have opened in Tijuana, because some U.S. health plans have begun covering services in Mexico. And tiny border communities, some about an hour from Ciudad Juarez, are becoming dentistry boomtowns to handle an ever-growing flow of American patients flying in from as far away as Alaska.
In a recent University of Texas study, 86 percent of low-income El Paso residents surveyed -- half of whom were illegal immigrants -- said they receive medical care or buy prescription drugs from Mexico. Similarly, a study published in the Pan-American Journal of Health found that more than 37 percent of uninsured New Mexico border residents get medical care in Mexico.
Americans travel to Mexico for stomach surgery, eye exams and routine checkups. But it is the dentistas -- thousands of them strung along the border -- who are in the vanguard in attracting U.S. health consumers. ...
Monday, June 18, 2007
30 percent of insurance premiums currently go toward administrative expenses and profit ...
Edwards Lays Out Health Care Plan | By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS | Published: June 14, 2007 | Filed at 11:04 p.m. ET
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Thursday proposed cutting health care costs by overhauling the patent process for breakthrough drugs and requiring health insurance companies to spend at least 85 percent of their premiums on patient care.
...
Edwards' plan would offer cash payments in place of long-term patents for companies that develop certain breakthrough drugs and then reap large profits because of the monopolies those patents provide.
He said offering cash incentives instead would allow multiple companies to produce generic and other versions of those drugs to drive down prices. Campaign officials said the payments could be voluntary for drug companies and would be aimed at spurring the development of drugs that cure diseases.
...
''Dealing with the health care crisis is about more than just about coverage,'' Edwards said. ''Our health care system is entirely too expensive. We put more money into health care than any country in the industrialized world and we get one of the worst products out in the other end.''
He also said his plan would require health insurance companies to spend at least 85 percent of the premiums they collect on patient care, adding that 30 percent of insurance premiums currently go toward administrative expenses and profit. He said New York, Minnesota, New Jersey, Florida already impose similar requirements. ...
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Thursday proposed cutting health care costs by overhauling the patent process for breakthrough drugs and requiring health insurance companies to spend at least 85 percent of their premiums on patient care.
...
Edwards' plan would offer cash payments in place of long-term patents for companies that develop certain breakthrough drugs and then reap large profits because of the monopolies those patents provide.
He said offering cash incentives instead would allow multiple companies to produce generic and other versions of those drugs to drive down prices. Campaign officials said the payments could be voluntary for drug companies and would be aimed at spurring the development of drugs that cure diseases.
...
''Dealing with the health care crisis is about more than just about coverage,'' Edwards said. ''Our health care system is entirely too expensive. We put more money into health care than any country in the industrialized world and we get one of the worst products out in the other end.''
He also said his plan would require health insurance companies to spend at least 85 percent of the premiums they collect on patient care, adding that 30 percent of insurance premiums currently go toward administrative expenses and profit. He said New York, Minnesota, New Jersey, Florida already impose similar requirements. ...
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
The Cuban health care system is producing a population that is as healthy as those of the world’s wealthiest countries at a fraction of the cost. ,,,
Summer 2007 Issue: Latin America Rising | Cuba's Cure | by Sarah van Gelder
Why is Cuba exporting its health care miracle to the world's poor?
They live longer than almost anyone in Latin America. Far fewer babies die. Almost everyone has been vaccinated, and such scourges of the poor as parasites, TB, malaria, even HIV/AIDS are rare or non-existent. Anyone can see a doctor, at low cost, right in the neighborhood.
The Cuban health care system is producing a population that is as healthy as those of the world’s wealthiest countries at a fraction of the cost. And now Cuba has begun exporting its system to under-served communities around the world—including the United States.
The story of Cuba’s health care ambitions is largely hidden from the people of the United States, where politics left over from the Cold War maintain an embargo on information and understanding. But it is increasingly well-known in the poorest communities of Latin America, the Caribbean, and parts of Africa where Cuban and Cuban-trained doctors are practicing. ...
Why is Cuba exporting its health care miracle to the world's poor?
They live longer than almost anyone in Latin America. Far fewer babies die. Almost everyone has been vaccinated, and such scourges of the poor as parasites, TB, malaria, even HIV/AIDS are rare or non-existent. Anyone can see a doctor, at low cost, right in the neighborhood.
The Cuban health care system is producing a population that is as healthy as those of the world’s wealthiest countries at a fraction of the cost. And now Cuba has begun exporting its system to under-served communities around the world—including the United States.
The story of Cuba’s health care ambitions is largely hidden from the people of the United States, where politics left over from the Cold War maintain an embargo on information and understanding. But it is increasingly well-known in the poorest communities of Latin America, the Caribbean, and parts of Africa where Cuban and Cuban-trained doctors are practicing. ...
[Eliminating $1.2B in cancer drug profits to doctors] ... doctors responded ... by performing additional treatments that give them best reimbursements
Incentives Limit Any Savings in Treating Cancer | By ALEX BERENSON | Published: June 12, 2007
When Medicare cracked down two years ago on profits that doctors made on drugs they administered to patients in their offices, it ended a windfall worth hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for each physicians.
The change, which mainly affected drugs to treat cancer and its side effects, had an immediate effect. In all, cancer doctors billed about $4.4 billion for chemotherapy and anemia medications in 2005, down from $5.6 billion in 2004, with Medicare covering 80 percent of the bills in each year. The difference mostly represented profit that doctors had made on the drugs.
But the change did not reduce overall federal spending on cancer care, which increased slightly. And cancer doctors say the change did nothing to reduce a larger problem in cancer treatment.
Some physicians say that cancer doctors responded to Medicare’s change by performing additional treatments that got them the best reimbursements, whether or not the treatments benefited patients. Those doctors also say that Medicare’s reimbursement policies are responsible.
“The system doesn’t value the time we spend with patients,” said Dr. Peter Eisenberg, a cancer doctor in Greenbrae, Calif., and director of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “The system values procedures.” ...
...
The ballooning cost of cancer treatment, one of Medicare’s most expensive categories, offers a vivid example of how difficult it may be to rein in the nation’s runaway health care spending without fundamentally changing the way doctors are paid.
...
In general, oncologists make money by providing chemotherapy, even when it has little chance of success. Oncologists naturally dislike telling cancer patients that they have exhausted all available treatments. Ending chemotherapy, after all, means acknowledging that a patient’s disease has become terminal. ...
...
Because the profits on different drugs varied enormously, doctors had an incentive to prescribe medications with the highest margins. Medicare requires a 20 percent co-payment by patients on chemotherapy medicines, but before 2005 doctors sometimes forgave those co-payments because their profits were so great.
...
When Medicare cracked down two years ago on profits that doctors made on drugs they administered to patients in their offices, it ended a windfall worth hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for each physicians.
The change, which mainly affected drugs to treat cancer and its side effects, had an immediate effect. In all, cancer doctors billed about $4.4 billion for chemotherapy and anemia medications in 2005, down from $5.6 billion in 2004, with Medicare covering 80 percent of the bills in each year. The difference mostly represented profit that doctors had made on the drugs.
But the change did not reduce overall federal spending on cancer care, which increased slightly. And cancer doctors say the change did nothing to reduce a larger problem in cancer treatment.
Some physicians say that cancer doctors responded to Medicare’s change by performing additional treatments that got them the best reimbursements, whether or not the treatments benefited patients. Those doctors also say that Medicare’s reimbursement policies are responsible.
“The system doesn’t value the time we spend with patients,” said Dr. Peter Eisenberg, a cancer doctor in Greenbrae, Calif., and director of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “The system values procedures.” ...
...
The ballooning cost of cancer treatment, one of Medicare’s most expensive categories, offers a vivid example of how difficult it may be to rein in the nation’s runaway health care spending without fundamentally changing the way doctors are paid.
...
In general, oncologists make money by providing chemotherapy, even when it has little chance of success. Oncologists naturally dislike telling cancer patients that they have exhausted all available treatments. Ending chemotherapy, after all, means acknowledging that a patient’s disease has become terminal. ...
...
Because the profits on different drugs varied enormously, doctors had an incentive to prescribe medications with the highest margins. Medicare requires a 20 percent co-payment by patients on chemotherapy medicines, but before 2005 doctors sometimes forgave those co-payments because their profits were so great.
...
Saturday, June 9, 2007
This doesn't help them at all, only lose profits when people don't throw away drugs anymore to buy new ones. ...
Unlike expired foods, which can be full of bacteria and fungi after the expiration, most drugs are good for at least 10 years after the expiration date. The reason they don't have longer expiration dates is that drug companies have to prove effectiveness beyond that time, which cost them a lot of time and resources to test. And why would they want to test for longer expiration dates? This doesn't help them at all, only lose profits when people don't throw away drugs anymore to buy new ones.
Many of our expired drugs go overseas, especially to Africa. Many are simply thrown away because we have too much money and paranoia to take expired drugs.
I'm not saying this from a conspiracy theory, either. Got this from a medical professor. ...
Many of our expired drugs go overseas, especially to Africa. Many are simply thrown away because we have too much money and paranoia to take expired drugs.
I'm not saying this from a conspiracy theory, either. Got this from a medical professor. ...
90 percent of the drugs were still safe and effective long after their expiration date
Drug Expiration Dates
Are the expiration dates on pharmaceu-ticals valid? In 1985, the U.S. military found that the expiration dates on $1 billion worth of their drugs were expir- ing so they decided to test the drugs to determine if the useful life of the drugs could be extended. They found that 90 percent of the drugs were still safe and effective long after their expiration date.
Some officials feel that expiration dates are put on drugs for marketing purposes
and have no bearing on whether a drug is still useable. The company chooses the expiration date, not the FDA. How-ever, FDA warns that the shelf life of drugs that must be refrigerated probably cannot be extended very long.
Are the expiration dates on pharmaceu-ticals valid? In 1985, the U.S. military found that the expiration dates on $1 billion worth of their drugs were expir- ing so they decided to test the drugs to determine if the useful life of the drugs could be extended. They found that 90 percent of the drugs were still safe and effective long after their expiration date.
Some officials feel that expiration dates are put on drugs for marketing purposes
and have no bearing on whether a drug is still useable. The company chooses the expiration date, not the FDA. How-ever, FDA warns that the shelf life of drugs that must be refrigerated probably cannot be extended very long.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
report condemned the current fragmented system of handling medical mistakes ... peer review, regulation, malpractice lawsuits, private evaluations
BMJ. 1999 December 11; 319(7224): 1519. | Copyright © 1999, British Medical Journal | Medical errors kill almost 100000 Americans a year | Fred Charatan | Florida
An expert panel from the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, found that medical errors kill from 44000 to 98000 Americans each year.
The chairman of the 19 member panel, William C Robinson, president of the W K Kellogg Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan, a private, grant making body, said, “These stunningly high rates of medical errors—resulting in deaths, permanent disability, and unnecessary suffering—are simply unacceptable in a medical system that promises first to ‘do no harm.’”
The panel's report, which was released in November, recommended that a new federal centre for patient safety should be set up in the Public Health Service and should have a budget of about $100m (£63m) a year, which is equivalent to just over 1%of the $8.8bn a year in costs estimated to be attributable to preventable medical injuries.
Healthcare providers would be required to inform state governments of any medical errors leading to serious harm; currently only 20 states have such reporting requirements. Doctors and nurses would also be re-examined periodically by state licensing boards to evaluate their competence and their knowledge of safety practices.
The report condemned the current fragmented system of handling medical mistakes, which relies on a combination of peer review, federal and state regulation, malpractice lawsuits, and evaluations by private accreditation bodies. ...
An expert panel from the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, found that medical errors kill from 44000 to 98000 Americans each year.
The chairman of the 19 member panel, William C Robinson, president of the W K Kellogg Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan, a private, grant making body, said, “These stunningly high rates of medical errors—resulting in deaths, permanent disability, and unnecessary suffering—are simply unacceptable in a medical system that promises first to ‘do no harm.’”
The panel's report, which was released in November, recommended that a new federal centre for patient safety should be set up in the Public Health Service and should have a budget of about $100m (£63m) a year, which is equivalent to just over 1%of the $8.8bn a year in costs estimated to be attributable to preventable medical injuries.
Healthcare providers would be required to inform state governments of any medical errors leading to serious harm; currently only 20 states have such reporting requirements. Doctors and nurses would also be re-examined periodically by state licensing boards to evaluate their competence and their knowledge of safety practices.
The report condemned the current fragmented system of handling medical mistakes, which relies on a combination of peer review, federal and state regulation, malpractice lawsuits, and evaluations by private accreditation bodies. ...
Drug-related morbidity and mortality have been estimated to cost more that $136 billion a year in United States. ... 1 in 15.2 exposures is a problem]
Drugs & Doctors May be Leading Cause of Death | by Joseph Mercola, D.O. | Published 8/21/2004 | Pharmaceutical Industry News
...
Interestingly, when I contacted Dr. Starfield by e-mail she disagreed with the headline I had come up with. She did not feel that doctors were the third leading cause of death, but thought they were the number one cause of death because of their failure to inform their patients about the truth of health. Now this might be a bit too harsh as even if people understand health truth they have freedom of choice and can choose to use sugar, soda and drugs (legal and illegal) to compromise their health and longevity.
However, JAMA actually published a study a year earlier that could support that doctors may be the leading cause of death in the United States ......
Medication-related problems (MRP) continue to occur at a high rate in ambulatory hemodialysis (HD) patients.
Medication-dosing problems (33.5 percent), adverse drug reactions (20.7 percent), and an indication that was not currently being treated (13.5 percent) were the most common MRP.
5,373 medication orders were reviewed and a MRP was identified every 15.2 medication exposures.
Medication administration errors (MAEs) were observed in two departments of a hospital for 20 days.
The medication administration error rate was 14.9 percent. Dose errors were the most frequent (41 percent) errors, followed by wrong time (26 percent) and wrong rate errors. Ten percent of errors were estimated as potentially life-threatening, 26 percent potentially significant and 64 percent potentially minor.
Serious and Fatal Drug Reactions in US Hospitals
- Drug-related morbidity and mortality have been estimated to cost more that $136 billion a year in United States. These estimates are higher than the total cost of cardiovascular care or diabetes care in the United States. A major component of these costs is adverse drug reactions (ADE).
...
As health reporter Nick Regush said last year:
"There is no way to be nice about this. There is no point in raising false hopes. There is no treatment or vaccine in sight. There is no miracle breakthrough on the horizon.
Medicine, as we know it, is dying. It's entering a terminal phase.
What began as an acute illness reached the chronic stage about a decade ago and progression toward death has been remarkably swift and well beyond anything one could have predicted.
The disease is caused by conflict of interest, tainted research, greed for big bucks, pretentious doctors and scientists, lying, cheating, invasion by the morally bankrupt marketing automatons of the drug industry, derelict politicians and federal and state regulators - all seasoned with huge doses of self-importance and foul odor."
Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Causing 250,000 Deaths Every Year ... + Other rankings
Doctors May Be Third Leading Cause of Death | by Joseph Mercola, D.O. | Published 3/15/2000 | Pharmaceutical Industry News | Rating: | Joseph Mercola, D.O.
Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Causing 250,000 Deaths Every Year
Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Causing 250,000 Deaths Every Year
This week's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) is the best article I have ever seen written in the published literature documenting the tragedy of the traditional medical paradigm.
This information is a followup of the Institute of Medicine report which hit the papers in December of last year, but the data was hard to reference as it was not in peer-reviewed journal. Now it is published in JAMA which is the most widely circulated medical periodical in the world.
The author is Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and she describes how the US health care system may contribute to poor health.
Another analysis (11) concluded that between 4% and 18% of consecutive patients experience negative effects in outpatient settings, with:ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:
- 12,000 — unnecessary surgery 8
- 7,000 — medication errors in hospitals 9
- 20,000 — other errors in hospitals 10
- 80,000 — infections in hospitals 10
- 106,000 — non-error, negative effects of drugs 2
- These total to 250,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes!!
- 116 million extra physician visits
- 77 million extra prescriptions
- 17 million emergency department visits
- 8 million hospitalizations
- 3 million long-term admissions
- 199,000 additional deaths
- $77 billion in extra costs
The high cost of the health care system is considered to be a deficit, but seems to be tolerated under the assumption that better health results from more expensive care.
However, evidence from a few studies indicates that as many as 20% to 30% of patients receive inappropriate care.
An estimated 44,000 to 98,000 among them die each year as a result of medical errors.2
This might be tolerated if it resulted in better health, but does it? Of 13 countries in a recent comparison,3,4 the United States ranks an average of 12th (second from the bottom) for 16 available health indicators. More specifically, the ranking of the US on several indicators was:
- 13th (last) for low-birth-weight percentages
- 13th for neonatal mortality and infant mortality overall 14
- 11th for postneonatal mortality
- 13th for years of potential life lost (excluding external causes)
- 11th for life expectancy at 1 year for females, 12th for males
- 10th for life expectancy at 15 years for females, 12th for males
- 10th for life expectancy at 40 years for females, 9th for males
- 7th for life expectancy at 65 years for females, 7th for males
- 3rd for life expectancy at 80 years for females, 3rd for males
- 10th for age-adjusted mortality
The poor performance of the US was recently confirmed by a World Health Organization study, which used different data and ranked the United States as 15th among 25 industrialized countries.
There is a perception that the American public "behaves badly" by smoking, drinking, and perpetrating violence. However the data does not support this assertion.
- The proportion of females who smoke ranges from 14% in Japan to 41% in Denmark; in the United States, it is 24% (fifth best). For males, the range s from 26% in Sweden to 61% in Japan; it is 28% in the United States (third best).
- The US ranks fifth best for alcoholic beverage consumption.
- The US has relatively low consumption of animal fats (fifth lowest in men aged 55-64 years in 20 industrialized countries) and the third lowest mean cholesterol concentrations among men aged 50 to 70 years among 13 industrialized countries.
Lack of technology is certainly not a contributing factor to the US's low ranking.
- Among 29 countries, the United States is second only to Japan in the availability of magnetic resonance imaging units and computed tomography scanners per million population. 17
- Japan, however, ranks highest on health, whereas the US ranks among the lowest.
- It is possible that the high use of technology in Japan is limited to diagnostic technology not matched by high rates of treatment, whereas in the US, high use of diagnostic technology may be linked to more treatment.
- Supporting this possibility are data showing that the number of employees per bed (full-time equivalents) in the United States is highest among the countries ranked, whereas they are very low in Japan, far lower than can be accounted for by the common practice of having family members rather than hospital staff provide the amenities of hospital care.
U.S. health care system the most expensive in the world ... but comes in dead last in almost any measure of performance
U.S. health care is bad for your health | César Chelala | Sunday, June 3, 2007
One of the most contentious issues of the U.S. presidential campaign will be how to fix what many agree is a malfunctional health-care system. Adding fuel to the fire is a study published last month detailing the shortcomings of U.S. health care when compared to the systems of other developed countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand.
The study, entitled "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care," released by the Commonwealth Fund in New York, finds that not only is the U.S. health care system the most expensive in the world (double that of the next most costly comparator country, Canada) but comes in dead last in almost any measure of performance.
Although U.S. political leaders are fond of stating that we have the best health-care system in the world, they fail to acknowledge an important caveat: It is the best only for the very rich. For the rest of the population, its deficits far outweigh its advantages. ...
...
...Although the most notable way in which the United States differs from the other countries is in the absence of universal coverage, the United States is also last on dimensions of access, patient safety, efficiency and equity.
... The United States spends $7,000 per person per year on health care, almost double that of Australia, Canada and Germany, each of which achieve better results on health status indicators than the United States. ...
...
... In a recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, from the Department of Clinical Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health stated, "The U.S. health-care system is considered a dysfunctional mess." Given the seriousness of the situation, this is an understatement.
One of the most contentious issues of the U.S. presidential campaign will be how to fix what many agree is a malfunctional health-care system. Adding fuel to the fire is a study published last month detailing the shortcomings of U.S. health care when compared to the systems of other developed countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand.
The study, entitled "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care," released by the Commonwealth Fund in New York, finds that not only is the U.S. health care system the most expensive in the world (double that of the next most costly comparator country, Canada) but comes in dead last in almost any measure of performance.
Although U.S. political leaders are fond of stating that we have the best health-care system in the world, they fail to acknowledge an important caveat: It is the best only for the very rich. For the rest of the population, its deficits far outweigh its advantages. ...
...
...Although the most notable way in which the United States differs from the other countries is in the absence of universal coverage, the United States is also last on dimensions of access, patient safety, efficiency and equity.
... The United States spends $7,000 per person per year on health care, almost double that of Australia, Canada and Germany, each of which achieve better results on health status indicators than the United States. ...
...
... In a recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, from the Department of Clinical Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health stated, "The U.S. health-care system is considered a dysfunctional mess." Given the seriousness of the situation, this is an understatement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)