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. ...
Friday, August 10, 2007
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. ...
Monday, July 30, 2007
SCHIP example .. attacks decline by 60%, hospitalization risk drops 70% ... yet Bush philosophically objects to the program
Monday, July 30, 2007 by The New York Times | An Immoral Philosophy | by Paul Krugman
When a child is enrolled in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (Schip), the positive results can be dramatic. For example, after asthmatic children are enrolled in Schip, the frequency of their attacks declines on average by 60 percent, and their likelihood of being hospitalized for the condition declines more than 70 percent.
Regular care, in other words, makes a big difference. That’s why Congressional Democrats, with support from many Republicans, are trying to expand Schip, which already provides essential medical care to millions of children, to cover millions of additional children who would otherwise lack health insurance.
But President Bush says that access to care is no problem - “After all, you just go to an emergency room” - and, with the support of the Republican Congressional leadership, he’s declared that he’ll veto any Schip expansion on “philosophical” grounds.
It must be about philosophy, because it surely isn’t about cost. One of the plans Mr. Bush opposes, the one approved by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the Senate Finance Committee, would cost less over the next five years than we’ll spend in Iraq in the next four months. And it would be fully paid for by an increase in tobacco taxes.
The House plan, which would cover more children, is more expensive, but it offsets Schip costs by reducing subsidies to Medicare Advantage - a privatization scheme that pays insurance companies to provide coverage, and costs taxpayers 12 percent more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare.
Strange to say, however, the administration, although determined to prevent any expansion of children’s health care, is also dead set against any cut in Medicare Advantage payments.
So what kind of philosophy says that it’s O.K. to subsidize insurance companies, but not to provide health care to children?
When a child is enrolled in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (Schip), the positive results can be dramatic. For example, after asthmatic children are enrolled in Schip, the frequency of their attacks declines on average by 60 percent, and their likelihood of being hospitalized for the condition declines more than 70 percent.
Regular care, in other words, makes a big difference. That’s why Congressional Democrats, with support from many Republicans, are trying to expand Schip, which already provides essential medical care to millions of children, to cover millions of additional children who would otherwise lack health insurance.
But President Bush says that access to care is no problem - “After all, you just go to an emergency room” - and, with the support of the Republican Congressional leadership, he’s declared that he’ll veto any Schip expansion on “philosophical” grounds.
It must be about philosophy, because it surely isn’t about cost. One of the plans Mr. Bush opposes, the one approved by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the Senate Finance Committee, would cost less over the next five years than we’ll spend in Iraq in the next four months. And it would be fully paid for by an increase in tobacco taxes.
The House plan, which would cover more children, is more expensive, but it offsets Schip costs by reducing subsidies to Medicare Advantage - a privatization scheme that pays insurance companies to provide coverage, and costs taxpayers 12 percent more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare.
Strange to say, however, the administration, although determined to prevent any expansion of children’s health care, is also dead set against any cut in Medicare Advantage payments.
So what kind of philosophy says that it’s O.K. to subsidize insurance companies, but not to provide health care to children?
Saturday, July 28, 2007
99,000 dies of hospital infections ...65% don't clean lab coat in a week ... don't wash hands enough ...
Hazardous Hospitals: How the Profit Motive Can Kill You | by Yves Engler / July 28th, 2007
A front–page article in Yesterday’s New York Times reports “The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention projected this year that one of every 22 patients would get an infection while hospitalized — 1.7 million cases a year — and that 99,000 would die, often from what began as a routine procedure.”
A little reported on New England Journal of Medicine study from a few months back concluded that 19,000 people die from preventable infections acquired during the insertion of catheters.
...
... several European countries have all but eliminated MRSA, .... The New England Journal of Medicine study reports that catheter related blood stream infections dropped 66% with some minor changes (including rigorous hand-washing, thorough cleaning of the skin around catheters, and wearing sterile masks, gowns and gloves as well as removing catheters from patients as soon as possible and avoiding inserting catheters in the groin area). ... concluded that up to 75 percent of deadly infections caught in hospitals could be avoided by doctors and nurses using better washing techniques. (Studies show that over half of the time physicians fail to clean their hands before treating patients and that 65 percent of physicians and other medical professionals go more than a week without washing their lab coat.)
...
The biggest barrier to improvement, however, is our economic system, which focuses on cures and technology because that’s where the biggest, quickest profits can be found. Pfizer isn’t likely to fund studies that look into the role hand-washing plays in hospital-acquired infections since they don’t see a profit in doing so. ...
...
... More than 70 per cent of hospital-acquired infections are resistant to at least one common antibiotic. ...
According to an analysis of 1.5 million insurance claims for antibiotic prescriptions in 2004, 40% of people who filled an antibiotic prescription had not seen a doctor in at least a month. Without seeing the patient, how can doctors determine whether their symptoms were the result of a viral infection — which don’t respond to antibiotics — or a bacterial infection that do. This over-prescription of antibiotics increases the growth of multi-resistant organisms.
... Additionally, half of all antibiotics sold each year are used on animals, according to New Scientist. ... The administration of low doses is especially problematic since it becomes a feeding ground for organisms to mutate. ...
To end this practice, the European Union recently banned antibiotic growth promoters. Washington and Ottawa, kowtowing to the animal industry, have done little. ...
A front–page article in Yesterday’s New York Times reports “The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention projected this year that one of every 22 patients would get an infection while hospitalized — 1.7 million cases a year — and that 99,000 would die, often from what began as a routine procedure.”
A little reported on New England Journal of Medicine study from a few months back concluded that 19,000 people die from preventable infections acquired during the insertion of catheters.
...
... several European countries have all but eliminated MRSA, .... The New England Journal of Medicine study reports that catheter related blood stream infections dropped 66% with some minor changes (including rigorous hand-washing, thorough cleaning of the skin around catheters, and wearing sterile masks, gowns and gloves as well as removing catheters from patients as soon as possible and avoiding inserting catheters in the groin area). ... concluded that up to 75 percent of deadly infections caught in hospitals could be avoided by doctors and nurses using better washing techniques. (Studies show that over half of the time physicians fail to clean their hands before treating patients and that 65 percent of physicians and other medical professionals go more than a week without washing their lab coat.)
...
The biggest barrier to improvement, however, is our economic system, which focuses on cures and technology because that’s where the biggest, quickest profits can be found. Pfizer isn’t likely to fund studies that look into the role hand-washing plays in hospital-acquired infections since they don’t see a profit in doing so. ...
...
... More than 70 per cent of hospital-acquired infections are resistant to at least one common antibiotic. ...
According to an analysis of 1.5 million insurance claims for antibiotic prescriptions in 2004, 40% of people who filled an antibiotic prescription had not seen a doctor in at least a month. Without seeing the patient, how can doctors determine whether their symptoms were the result of a viral infection — which don’t respond to antibiotics — or a bacterial infection that do. This over-prescription of antibiotics increases the growth of multi-resistant organisms.
... Additionally, half of all antibiotics sold each year are used on animals, according to New Scientist. ... The administration of low doses is especially problematic since it becomes a feeding ground for organisms to mutate. ...
To end this practice, the European Union recently banned antibiotic growth promoters. Washington and Ottawa, kowtowing to the animal industry, have done little. ...
Friday, July 27, 2007
SCHIP child coverage: with every 10 percent rise in the cigarette tax, youth smoking drops by 7 percent and overall smoking declines by 4 percent
July 25, 2007 by TruthDig.com | Children’s Healthcare Is a No-Brainer | by Amy Goodman
...
The major obstacle? President Bush is vowing to veto the bill, even though Republican and Democratic senators reached bipartisan agreement on it. The bill adds $35 billion to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program over the next five years by increasing federal taxes on cigarettes.
The conservative Heritage Foundation is against the tobacco tax to fund SCHIP, saying that it “disproportionately burdens low-income smokers” as well as “young adults.” No mention is made of any adverse impact on Heritage-funder Altria Group, the cigarette giant formerly known as Philip Morris.
According to the American Association for Respiratory Care, with every 10 percent rise in the cigarette tax, youth smoking drops by 7 percent and overall smoking declines by 4 percent. Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund, says: “It is a public health good in and of itself and will save lives to increase the tobacco tax. Cigarettes kill and cigarettes provoke lung cancer, and every child and every [other] human being we can, by increasing the cigarette tax, stop from smoking or slow down from smoking is going to have a public health benefit, save taxpayers money from the cost of the effects of smoking and tobacco.”
...
With children’s lives at stake, Edelman has no patience for political gamesmanship: “Why is this country, at this time, the richest in the world, arguing about how few or how many children they can serve? We ought to-this is a no-brainer. The American people want all of its children served. All children deserve health coverage, and I don’t know why we’re having such a hard time getting our president and our political leaders to get it, that children should have health insurance.” ...
...
The major obstacle? President Bush is vowing to veto the bill, even though Republican and Democratic senators reached bipartisan agreement on it. The bill adds $35 billion to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program over the next five years by increasing federal taxes on cigarettes.
The conservative Heritage Foundation is against the tobacco tax to fund SCHIP, saying that it “disproportionately burdens low-income smokers” as well as “young adults.” No mention is made of any adverse impact on Heritage-funder Altria Group, the cigarette giant formerly known as Philip Morris.
According to the American Association for Respiratory Care, with every 10 percent rise in the cigarette tax, youth smoking drops by 7 percent and overall smoking declines by 4 percent. Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund, says: “It is a public health good in and of itself and will save lives to increase the tobacco tax. Cigarettes kill and cigarettes provoke lung cancer, and every child and every [other] human being we can, by increasing the cigarette tax, stop from smoking or slow down from smoking is going to have a public health benefit, save taxpayers money from the cost of the effects of smoking and tobacco.”
...
With children’s lives at stake, Edelman has no patience for political gamesmanship: “Why is this country, at this time, the richest in the world, arguing about how few or how many children they can serve? We ought to-this is a no-brainer. The American people want all of its children served. All children deserve health coverage, and I don’t know why we’re having such a hard time getting our president and our political leaders to get it, that children should have health insurance.” ...
Bush: "I’ll veto the bill.”: State Child Health Insurance Program has reduced the number of [poor, uninsured] children by about a quarter
Wednesday, July 25, 2007 by CommonDreams.org | A Heartless “Philosophy” | by Robert Weissman
...
A case can be made that the administration’s effort to block expansion of the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) should top the list.
SCHIP is a complement to Medicaid, and provides health insurance to uninsured children from low-income families, typically those making up to 200 percent of the poverty line ($34,000). It has had enormous success in its 10 years of existence. Four million children receive health insurance through SCHIP. It has reduced the number of children in families at or slightly above the poverty line who are uninsured by about a quarter.
...
But President Bush says no.
He has a “philosophical” objection to expanding SCHIP.
“I believe government cannot provide affordable health care,” Bush said at a media event last week. “I believe it would cause the quality of care to diminish. I believe there would be lines and rationing over time. If Congress continues to insist upon expanding health care through the SCHIP program — which, by the way, would entail a huge tax increase for the American people — I’ll veto the bill.”
...
As against expanding SCHIP, the administration proposes a preposterous tax credit to help pay for individual insurance coverage. Because individual insurance coverage is both the least efficient component of the health insurance market and the one most rife with abuse, it is a certainty that the administration plan would be a failure.
...
A case can be made that the administration’s effort to block expansion of the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) should top the list.
SCHIP is a complement to Medicaid, and provides health insurance to uninsured children from low-income families, typically those making up to 200 percent of the poverty line ($34,000). It has had enormous success in its 10 years of existence. Four million children receive health insurance through SCHIP. It has reduced the number of children in families at or slightly above the poverty line who are uninsured by about a quarter.
...
But President Bush says no.
He has a “philosophical” objection to expanding SCHIP.
“I believe government cannot provide affordable health care,” Bush said at a media event last week. “I believe it would cause the quality of care to diminish. I believe there would be lines and rationing over time. If Congress continues to insist upon expanding health care through the SCHIP program — which, by the way, would entail a huge tax increase for the American people — I’ll veto the bill.”
...
As against expanding SCHIP, the administration proposes a preposterous tax credit to help pay for individual insurance coverage. Because individual insurance coverage is both the least efficient component of the health insurance market and the one most rife with abuse, it is a certainty that the administration plan would be a failure.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
People who drank one or more diet sodas each day developed the same risks for heart disease as those who downed sugary regular soda
Study: Diet Soda Linked to Heart Risks | By JAY LINDSAY | The Associated Press | Tuesday, July 24, 2007; 6:02 PM
BOSTON -- People who drank one or more diet sodas each day developed the same risks for heart disease as those who downed sugary regular soda, a large but inconclusive study found. The results surprised the researchers who expected to see a difference between regular and diet soda drinkers.
It could be, they suggest, that even no-calorie sweet drinks increase the craving for more sweets, and that people who indulge in sodas probably have less healthy diets overall. ...
BOSTON -- People who drank one or more diet sodas each day developed the same risks for heart disease as those who downed sugary regular soda, a large but inconclusive study found. The results surprised the researchers who expected to see a difference between regular and diet soda drinkers.
It could be, they suggest, that even no-calorie sweet drinks increase the craving for more sweets, and that people who indulge in sodas probably have less healthy diets overall. ...
[Iraq / Depleted Uranium shells] is facing about 140,000 cases of cancer, with 7,000 to 8,000 new ones registered each year ...
World | Iraqis blame U.S. depleted uranium for surge in cancer | 19:20 | 23/07/2007
CAIRO, July 23 (RIA Novosti) - Iraq's environment minister blamed Monday the use of depleted uranium weapons by U.S. forces during the 2003 Operation Shock and Awe for the current surge in cancer cases across the country.
As a result of "at least 350 sites in Iraq being contaminated during bombing" with depleted uranium (DU) weapons, Nermin Othman said, the nation is facing about 140,000 cases of cancer, with 7,000 to 8,000 new ones registered each year.
Speaking at a ministerial meeting of the Arab League, she also complained that many chemical plants and oil facilities had been destroyed during the two military campaigns since the 1990s, but the ecological consequences remain unclear.
...
CAIRO, July 23 (RIA Novosti) - Iraq's environment minister blamed Monday the use of depleted uranium weapons by U.S. forces during the 2003 Operation Shock and Awe for the current surge in cancer cases across the country.
As a result of "at least 350 sites in Iraq being contaminated during bombing" with depleted uranium (DU) weapons, Nermin Othman said, the nation is facing about 140,000 cases of cancer, with 7,000 to 8,000 new ones registered each year.
Speaking at a ministerial meeting of the Arab League, she also complained that many chemical plants and oil facilities had been destroyed during the two military campaigns since the 1990s, but the ecological consequences remain unclear.
...
Saturday, July 21, 2007
What country endures such long waits for medical care that even one of its top insurers recently admitted that care is "not timely" ...
Deborah Burger| BIO | Ugly Health Care Waiting Times? Look at the U.S | Posted July 11, 2007 | 11:09 AM (EST)
What country endures such long waits for medical care that even one of its top insurers recently admitted that care is "not timely" and people "initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is intolerable?"
If you guessed Canada, guess again. The answer is the United States.
...
But, here's the dirty little secret that they won't tell you. Waiting times in the U.S. are as bad as or worse than Canada. And, unlike the U.S., in Canada no one is denied needed medical care, referrals, or diagnostic tests due to cost, pre-existing conditions, or because it wasn't pre-approved.
U.S. waiting times are like the elephant in the room few of the critics care to address. Listen to what the chief medical officer of Aetna had to say in March.
Speaking to the Aetna Investor's Conference 2007, Troy Brennan let these nuggets drop:
* The U.S. "healthcare system is not timely."
* Recent statistics from the Institution of Healthcare Improvement document "that people are waiting an average of about 70 days to see a provider."
* "In many circumstances people initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is intolerable."
* In his former stint as an administrator and head of a physicians' organization he spent much of his time trying "to find appointments for people with doctors."
Brennan's comments went unreported in the major media. But some reports are now beginning to break through, spurred by the debate SiCKO has spawned.
Business Week, no great fan of a national healthcare system, reported in late June that "as several surveys and numerous anecdotes show, waiting times in the U.S. are often as bad or worse as those in other industrialized nations -- despite the fact that the U.S. spends considerably more per capita on health care than any other country."
...
Throughout Canada, there are multiple pilot programs that have succeeded in slashing wait times. "a new approach of targeting investments to reduce waiting times combined with transparent reporting of wait times is having a substantial impact on access in the Canadian system," wrote Robert Bell, MD, of Toronto's University Health Network, with several of his RN and physician colleagues in a letter to the Wall Street Journal Monday.
Statistics Canada's latest figures show that median wait times for elective surgery in Canada is now three weeks -- that's less time than Aetna's chief medical officer says Americans typically wait after being diagnosed with cancer. ...
What country endures such long waits for medical care that even one of its top insurers recently admitted that care is "not timely" and people "initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is intolerable?"
If you guessed Canada, guess again. The answer is the United States.
...
But, here's the dirty little secret that they won't tell you. Waiting times in the U.S. are as bad as or worse than Canada. And, unlike the U.S., in Canada no one is denied needed medical care, referrals, or diagnostic tests due to cost, pre-existing conditions, or because it wasn't pre-approved.
U.S. waiting times are like the elephant in the room few of the critics care to address. Listen to what the chief medical officer of Aetna had to say in March.
Speaking to the Aetna Investor's Conference 2007, Troy Brennan let these nuggets drop:
* The U.S. "healthcare system is not timely."
* Recent statistics from the Institution of Healthcare Improvement document "that people are waiting an average of about 70 days to see a provider."
* "In many circumstances people initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is intolerable."
* In his former stint as an administrator and head of a physicians' organization he spent much of his time trying "to find appointments for people with doctors."
Brennan's comments went unreported in the major media. But some reports are now beginning to break through, spurred by the debate SiCKO has spawned.
Business Week, no great fan of a national healthcare system, reported in late June that "as several surveys and numerous anecdotes show, waiting times in the U.S. are often as bad or worse as those in other industrialized nations -- despite the fact that the U.S. spends considerably more per capita on health care than any other country."
...
Throughout Canada, there are multiple pilot programs that have succeeded in slashing wait times. "a new approach of targeting investments to reduce waiting times combined with transparent reporting of wait times is having a substantial impact on access in the Canadian system," wrote Robert Bell, MD, of Toronto's University Health Network, with several of his RN and physician colleagues in a letter to the Wall Street Journal Monday.
Statistics Canada's latest figures show that median wait times for elective surgery in Canada is now three weeks -- that's less time than Aetna's chief medical officer says Americans typically wait after being diagnosed with cancer. ...
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
resources wasted by private health insurance on administration and profit ... could cover all necessary medical care ...
Monday, July 2, 2007 by | Rescue Plan: Single-payer System Is The Answer To Public Health Insurance Woes | by Andrew D. Coats
...
Two generations ago, when employer-based private health insurance definitively failed to provide for the elderly and the poor, Medicare and Medicaid were enacted.
As the most recent generation of Americans has grown up, the failures of private health insurance have come to touch each of us in some personal way.
It has failed to:
* Remain affordable. Premiums, co-pays and deductibles mushroom, and employers pass their costs on to employees. Health care benefits present a sticking point in nearly every union contract.
* Cover those who have it. Health care costs related to illness are the main cause of bankruptcies in America, according to a 2005 study by Harvard professors. Astonishingly, of those who were bankrupt because of medical bills, three out of four had health insurance at the outset of their illness.
* Protect the patient-physician relationship. Insurance company interference in decisions that should be made between doctor and patient has become routine. Insurance rules delay and deny payment for diagnostic tests as well as treatments and very often control where a patient may seek care.
* Contain spending. Health costs soar, both per capita and as a percent of gross domestic product.
* Improve quality. The United States lags far behind all other developed nations on a broad index of health outcomes.
* Reverse health disparities. Consider appalling data from the Centers for Disease Control that the ratio of black to white mortality among newborn babies has worsened in recent decades. A study by former Surgeon General David Satcher showed not only that blacks continue to die sooner than whites but that the overall ratio of black to white mortality changed very little between 1960 and 2000.
* Cover the uninsured. Census Bureau data show that more than one in five Americans lack insurance for part of the year and more than one in six have no health insurance for 12 consecutive months or more.
...
Americans know from personal experience that private health insurance ties up an enormous amount of resources in administrative costs and profits at least $350 million annually, according to an article in the New England Journal of Medicine. American and Canadian Medicare both have proven for decades that very low overhead costs are feasible in a public health program.
The resources wasted by private health insurance on administration and profit could be used instead to cover all necessary medical care, for everyone primary care, specialty care, hospital care, dental care, mental health care, home care, rehabilitation, nursing home care and prescription drugs. ...
...
Two generations ago, when employer-based private health insurance definitively failed to provide for the elderly and the poor, Medicare and Medicaid were enacted.
As the most recent generation of Americans has grown up, the failures of private health insurance have come to touch each of us in some personal way.
It has failed to:
* Remain affordable. Premiums, co-pays and deductibles mushroom, and employers pass their costs on to employees. Health care benefits present a sticking point in nearly every union contract.
* Cover those who have it. Health care costs related to illness are the main cause of bankruptcies in America, according to a 2005 study by Harvard professors. Astonishingly, of those who were bankrupt because of medical bills, three out of four had health insurance at the outset of their illness.
* Protect the patient-physician relationship. Insurance company interference in decisions that should be made between doctor and patient has become routine. Insurance rules delay and deny payment for diagnostic tests as well as treatments and very often control where a patient may seek care.
* Contain spending. Health costs soar, both per capita and as a percent of gross domestic product.
* Improve quality. The United States lags far behind all other developed nations on a broad index of health outcomes.
* Reverse health disparities. Consider appalling data from the Centers for Disease Control that the ratio of black to white mortality among newborn babies has worsened in recent decades. A study by former Surgeon General David Satcher showed not only that blacks continue to die sooner than whites but that the overall ratio of black to white mortality changed very little between 1960 and 2000.
* Cover the uninsured. Census Bureau data show that more than one in five Americans lack insurance for part of the year and more than one in six have no health insurance for 12 consecutive months or more.
...
Americans know from personal experience that private health insurance ties up an enormous amount of resources in administrative costs and profits at least $350 million annually, according to an article in the New England Journal of Medicine. American and Canadian Medicare both have proven for decades that very low overhead costs are feasible in a public health program.
The resources wasted by private health insurance on administration and profit could be used instead to cover all necessary medical care, for everyone primary care, specialty care, hospital care, dental care, mental health care, home care, rehabilitation, nursing home care and prescription drugs. ...
one significant victim of America's market-based health-care system is left out: ... market capitalism itself ...
Health Costs Screw Business, Too | he victim Sicko won't acknowledge. | By Timothy Noah | Posted Monday, July 2, 2007, at 2:01 AM ET
...
... Yet one significant victim of America's market-based health-care system is left out: market capitalism itself.
I refer not to health insurers, nor to health-maintenance organizations, nor to for-profit hospitals, but rather to businesses outside the health-care sector that are saddled with the growing cost of providing health insurance to their employees. This obligation puts American companies at a disadvantage with respect to foreign competitors whose governments provide health care. The most obvious victim, ironically, is a company Moore knows very well: General Motors. Because of health-care obligations, the automaker that Moore pilloried in his first film, Roger and Me, is fighting for its life.
...
It's tempting to demonize business for whittling away at health-care benefits, but over the past two decades the cost to business of providing those benefits has roughly doubled, to a great extent because health insurers and hospitals now employ vast bureaucratic armies to fight over medical bills. Health-care costs are now outrunning income gains by about 3 percentage points. This means that for the typical worker, raises are, for the foreseeable future, an artifact of the past. That's terrible news for labor, but it's terrible news for bosses, too, because it robs them of a necessary tool to get employees to perform good work.
...
...
... Yet one significant victim of America's market-based health-care system is left out: market capitalism itself.
I refer not to health insurers, nor to health-maintenance organizations, nor to for-profit hospitals, but rather to businesses outside the health-care sector that are saddled with the growing cost of providing health insurance to their employees. This obligation puts American companies at a disadvantage with respect to foreign competitors whose governments provide health care. The most obvious victim, ironically, is a company Moore knows very well: General Motors. Because of health-care obligations, the automaker that Moore pilloried in his first film, Roger and Me, is fighting for its life.
...
It's tempting to demonize business for whittling away at health-care benefits, but over the past two decades the cost to business of providing those benefits has roughly doubled, to a great extent because health insurers and hospitals now employ vast bureaucratic armies to fight over medical bills. Health-care costs are now outrunning income gains by about 3 percentage points. This means that for the typical worker, raises are, for the foreseeable future, an artifact of the past. That's terrible news for labor, but it's terrible news for bosses, too, because it robs them of a necessary tool to get employees to perform good work.
...
1,800,000 U.S. VETERANS HAVE NO HEALTH CARE
June 27, 2007 at 14:38:17 | 1,800,000 U.S. VETERANS HAVE NO HEALTH CARE | by Victor Martinez | http://www.opednews.com
As the nation struggles to improve medical and mental health care for
military personnel returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, about 1.8
million U.S. veterans under age 65 lack even basic health insurance or access to care at Veterans Affairs hospitals, a new study has found.
The ranks of uninsured veterans have increased by 290,000 since 2000, said Stephanie J. Woolhandler, the Harvard Medical School professor who presented her findings yesterday before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs.
About 12.7 percent of non-elderly veterans -- or one in eight -- lacked
health coverage in 2004, the most recent year for which figures are
available, she said, up from 9.9 percent in 2000. Veterans 65 and older are eligible for Medicare. About 45 million Americans, or 15 percent of the population, were uninsured in 2005, the Census Bureau reports.
"The data is showing that many veterans have no coverage and they're sick and need care and can't get it," Woolhandler said. ...
As the nation struggles to improve medical and mental health care for
military personnel returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, about 1.8
million U.S. veterans under age 65 lack even basic health insurance or access to care at Veterans Affairs hospitals, a new study has found.
The ranks of uninsured veterans have increased by 290,000 since 2000, said Stephanie J. Woolhandler, the Harvard Medical School professor who presented her findings yesterday before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs.
About 12.7 percent of non-elderly veterans -- or one in eight -- lacked
health coverage in 2004, the most recent year for which figures are
available, she said, up from 9.9 percent in 2000. Veterans 65 and older are eligible for Medicare. About 45 million Americans, or 15 percent of the population, were uninsured in 2005, the Census Bureau reports.
"The data is showing that many veterans have no coverage and they're sick and need care and can't get it," Woolhandler said. ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)