CQ HEALTHBEAT NEWS | Feb. 20, 2008 – 4:37 p.m. | Study Finds Health Benefits, Not Wages, Key to Increasing Coverage | By Jesse Stanchak
...
The study found that the average number of Americans who lost their insurance each year increased faster during the economic recovery of 2004-2006 than the recession years of 2000-2004. The study concludes this is because the number of Americans receiving coverage from their jobs continued to decline, while wage increases failed to match growing insurance premiums.
“In good economic times and bad, the dominant factor behind the growing number of uninsured was the decline in employer-sponsored health coverage,” study lead author John Holahan says.
During the recession of 2000-2004, when real median household wages fell from $49,163 to $47,323, the poverty level rose from 11.3 to 12.7 percent and the number of uninsured rose by 6 million.
In contrast, between 2004 and 2006, median real income levels rose by nearly $800 and the poverty rate fell by 0.4 percent, two common indicators of a robust economy. Yet the number of uninsured Americans increased by 3.4 million during those years, to an annual average rate of 1.7 million newly uninsured persons during 2004-2006, versus an average of 1.5 million during the recession years of 2000-2004.
...
Population increases also are a factor in rising rates of the uninsured. The U.S. population rose by 10 million people between 2000 and 2004 and by another 10 million people between 2004-2006. The study also concludes that illegal immigrants are a factor in the rising number of uninsured persons, comprising about 20 percent of the newly uninsured. The study found that the biggest decline in employer coverage came in the southern and western parts of the country, where population levels are rising faster and there are fewer manufacturing jobs.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
“many [poor] children ... experience unhealthy levels of stress hormones, which impair their neural development.” ... yet poverty increasing ...
Monday, February 18, 2008 by The New York Times | Poverty Is Poison | by Paul Krugman
“Poverty in early childhood poisons the brain.” That was the opening of an article in Saturday’s Financial Times, summarizing research presented last week at the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
As the article explained, neuroscientists have found that “many children growing up in very poor families with low social status experience unhealthy levels of stress hormones, which impair their neural development.” The effect is to impair language development and memory - and hence the ability to escape poverty - for the rest of the child’s life.
So now we have another, even more compelling reason to be ashamed about America’s record of failing to fight poverty.
L. B. J. declared his “War on Poverty” 44 years ago. Contrary to cynical legend, there actually was a large reduction in poverty over the next few years, especially among children, who saw their poverty rate fall from 23 percent in 1963 to 14 percent in 1969.
...
Mainly, however, excuses for poverty involve the assertion that the United States is a land of opportunity, a place where people can start out poor, work hard and become rich.
But the fact of the matter is that Horatio Alger stories are rare, and stories of people trapped by their parents’ poverty are all too common. According to one recent estimate, American children born to parents in the bottom fourth of the income distribution have almost a 50 percent chance of staying there - and almost a two-thirds chance of remaining stuck if they’re black.
That’s not surprising. Growing up in poverty puts you at a disadvantage at every step.
...
Poverty rates are much lower in most European countries than in the United States, mainly because of government programs that help the poor and unlucky.
And governments that set their minds to it can reduce poverty. In Britain, the Labor government that came into office in 1997 made reducing poverty a priority - and despite some setbacks, its program of income subsidies and other aid has achieved a great deal. Child poverty, in particular, has been cut in half by the measure that corresponds most closely to the U.S. definition. ...
“Poverty in early childhood poisons the brain.” That was the opening of an article in Saturday’s Financial Times, summarizing research presented last week at the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
As the article explained, neuroscientists have found that “many children growing up in very poor families with low social status experience unhealthy levels of stress hormones, which impair their neural development.” The effect is to impair language development and memory - and hence the ability to escape poverty - for the rest of the child’s life.
So now we have another, even more compelling reason to be ashamed about America’s record of failing to fight poverty.
L. B. J. declared his “War on Poverty” 44 years ago. Contrary to cynical legend, there actually was a large reduction in poverty over the next few years, especially among children, who saw their poverty rate fall from 23 percent in 1963 to 14 percent in 1969.
...
Mainly, however, excuses for poverty involve the assertion that the United States is a land of opportunity, a place where people can start out poor, work hard and become rich.
But the fact of the matter is that Horatio Alger stories are rare, and stories of people trapped by their parents’ poverty are all too common. According to one recent estimate, American children born to parents in the bottom fourth of the income distribution have almost a 50 percent chance of staying there - and almost a two-thirds chance of remaining stuck if they’re black.
That’s not surprising. Growing up in poverty puts you at a disadvantage at every step.
...
Poverty rates are much lower in most European countries than in the United States, mainly because of government programs that help the poor and unlucky.
And governments that set their minds to it can reduce poverty. In Britain, the Labor government that came into office in 1997 made reducing poverty a priority - and despite some setbacks, its program of income subsidies and other aid has achieved a great deal. Child poverty, in particular, has been cut in half by the measure that corresponds most closely to the U.S. definition. ...
Cardiac arrest: avoid nights and weekend: study ... at least partly because of inadequate staffing ...
Cardiac arrest: avoid nights and weekend: study | Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:16pm EST | By Julie Steenhuysen
CHICAGO (Reuters) - People who have a cardiac arrest in the hospital at night or on the weekend are far less likely to survive than those who suffer one during the day, U.S. researchers said on Tuesday.
Studies suggest this may be at least partly because of inadequate staffing at off-peak hours.
The researchers found only 14.7 percent of people whose hearts stop pumping during the night survive, compared with nearly 20 percent of people during the day. ...
CHICAGO (Reuters) - People who have a cardiac arrest in the hospital at night or on the weekend are far less likely to survive than those who suffer one during the day, U.S. researchers said on Tuesday.
Studies suggest this may be at least partly because of inadequate staffing at off-peak hours.
The researchers found only 14.7 percent of people whose hearts stop pumping during the night survive, compared with nearly 20 percent of people during the day. ...
Music helps stroke patients recover faster ... 60% better improvement in verbal memory
Music helps stroke patients recover faster | Agencies via Xinhua News Agency February 20, 2008
A new Finnish study has revealed that listening to music can help stroke patients recover faster, according to the journal Brain as quoted by media reports Wednesday.
Researchers said that stroke patients who listened to music for a couple of hours each day were able to recover faster than those who did not listen to music.
...
The stroke patients who listened to music showed a 60 percent better improvement in verbal memory. ...
A new Finnish study has revealed that listening to music can help stroke patients recover faster, according to the journal Brain as quoted by media reports Wednesday.
Researchers said that stroke patients who listened to music for a couple of hours each day were able to recover faster than those who did not listen to music.
...
The stroke patients who listened to music showed a 60 percent better improvement in verbal memory. ...
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Bush threatens to veto bill to improve health care for American Indians -- get 50% less than felons and Medicaid
Vetoing History’s Responsibility | Published: January 28, 2008
President Bush’s threat to veto a bill intended to improve health care for the nation’s American Indians is both cruel and grossly unfair. Five years ago, the United States Commission on Civil Rights examined the government’s centuries-old treaty obligations for the welfare of Native Americans and found Washington spending 50 percent less per capita on their health care than is devoted to felons in prison and the poor on Medicaid. ...
President Bush’s threat to veto a bill intended to improve health care for the nation’s American Indians is both cruel and grossly unfair. Five years ago, the United States Commission on Civil Rights examined the government’s centuries-old treaty obligations for the welfare of Native Americans and found Washington spending 50 percent less per capita on their health care than is devoted to felons in prison and the poor on Medicaid. ...
Blue Cross wrote last week asking doctors to rat out their patients with undisclosed prior medical conditions so the insurer can dump them ...
Blue Cross letter brings outrage | Julia Prodis Sulek | Mercury News | Article Launched: 02/12/2008 06:21:15 PM PST
...
Doctors, patient advocacy groups, small business associations - and even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton - piled on the outrage. It came in response to a letter Blue Cross wrote last week asking doctors to rat out their patients with undisclosed prior medical conditions so the insurer can dump them from its rolls.
The move comes just months after Blue Cross was fined $1 million by the state for unfairly revoking coverage to scores of its policy holders.
"For a company that has gotten a real black eye over the issue of rescinding coverage over the past year - to actually be more aggressive rather than less is simply stunning," Anthony Wright, executive director of HealthAccess California, a health care advocacy organization. ...
...
Doctors, patient advocacy groups, small business associations - and even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton - piled on the outrage. It came in response to a letter Blue Cross wrote last week asking doctors to rat out their patients with undisclosed prior medical conditions so the insurer can dump them from its rolls.
The move comes just months after Blue Cross was fined $1 million by the state for unfairly revoking coverage to scores of its policy holders.
"For a company that has gotten a real black eye over the issue of rescinding coverage over the past year - to actually be more aggressive rather than less is simply stunning," Anthony Wright, executive director of HealthAccess California, a health care advocacy organization. ...
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Baghdad drowning in sewage: Iraqi official
Baghdad drowning in sewage: Iraqi official | Sun Feb 3, 1:56 PM ET
BAGHDAD (AFP) - Baghdad is drowning in sewage, thirsty for water and largely powerless, an Iraqi official said on Sunday in a grim assessment of services in the capital five years after the US-led invasion.
One of three sewage treatment plants is out of commission, one is working at stuttering capacity while a pipe blockage in the third means sewage is forming a foul lake so large it can be seen "as a big black spot on Google Earth," said Tahseen Sheikhly, civilian spokesman for the Baghdad security plan.
Sheikhly told a news conference in the capital that water pipes, where they exist, are so old that it is not possible to pump water at a sufficient rate to meet demands -- leaving many neighbourhoods parched.
A sharp deficit of 3,000 megawatts of electricity adds to the woes of residents, who are forced to rely on neighbourhood generators to light up their lives and heat their homes. ...
BAGHDAD (AFP) - Baghdad is drowning in sewage, thirsty for water and largely powerless, an Iraqi official said on Sunday in a grim assessment of services in the capital five years after the US-led invasion.
One of three sewage treatment plants is out of commission, one is working at stuttering capacity while a pipe blockage in the third means sewage is forming a foul lake so large it can be seen "as a big black spot on Google Earth," said Tahseen Sheikhly, civilian spokesman for the Baghdad security plan.
Sheikhly told a news conference in the capital that water pipes, where they exist, are so old that it is not possible to pump water at a sufficient rate to meet demands -- leaving many neighbourhoods parched.
A sharp deficit of 3,000 megawatts of electricity adds to the woes of residents, who are forced to rely on neighbourhood generators to light up their lives and heat their homes. ...
Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and Milwaukee—may face elevated health risks from being exposed to dioxin, PCBs, ...
Great Lakes | Danger Zones? | By Sheila Kaplan
Here’s the report that top officials of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention thought was too hot for the public to handle—and the story behind it.
For more than seven months, the nation’s top public health agency has blocked the publication of an exhaustive federal study of environmental hazards in the eight Great Lakes states, reportedly because it contains such potentially “alarming information” as evidence of elevated infant mortality and cancer rates.
The 400-plus-page study, Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in the Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern, was undertaken by a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at the request of the International Joint Commission, an independent bilateral organization that advises the U.S. and Canadian governments on the use and quality of boundary waters between the two countries. The study was originally scheduled for release in July 2007 by the IJC and the CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
The Center for Public Integrity has obtained the study, which warns that more than nine million people who live in the more than two dozen “areas of concern”—including such major metropolitan areas as Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and Milwaukee—may face elevated health risks from being exposed to dioxin, PCBs, pesticides, lead, mercury, or six other hazardous pollutants.
In many of the geographic areas studied, researchers found low birth weights, elevated rates of infant mortality and premature births, and elevated death rates from breast cancer, colon cancer, and lung cancer. ...
Here’s the report that top officials of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention thought was too hot for the public to handle—and the story behind it.
For more than seven months, the nation’s top public health agency has blocked the publication of an exhaustive federal study of environmental hazards in the eight Great Lakes states, reportedly because it contains such potentially “alarming information” as evidence of elevated infant mortality and cancer rates.
The 400-plus-page study, Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in the Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern, was undertaken by a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at the request of the International Joint Commission, an independent bilateral organization that advises the U.S. and Canadian governments on the use and quality of boundary waters between the two countries. The study was originally scheduled for release in July 2007 by the IJC and the CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
The Center for Public Integrity has obtained the study, which warns that more than nine million people who live in the more than two dozen “areas of concern”—including such major metropolitan areas as Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and Milwaukee—may face elevated health risks from being exposed to dioxin, PCBs, pesticides, lead, mercury, or six other hazardous pollutants.
In many of the geographic areas studied, researchers found low birth weights, elevated rates of infant mortality and premature births, and elevated death rates from breast cancer, colon cancer, and lung cancer. ...
Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I
Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | By Sara Robinson | February 4th, 2008 - 4:23pm ET
...
I'm both a health-care-card-carrying Canadian resident and an uninsured American citizen who regularly sees doctors on both sides of the border. As such, I'm in a unique position to address the pros and cons of both systems first-hand. ...
...
1. Canada's health care system is "socialized medicine."
False. In socialized medical systems, the doctors work directly for the state. In Canada (and many other countries with universal care), doctors run their own private practices, just like they do in the US. The only difference is that every doctor deals with one insurer, instead of 150. ...
2. Doctors are hurt financially by single-payer health care.
True and False. Doctors in Canada do make less than their US counterparts. But they also have lower overhead, and usually much better working conditions. ... One unsurprising side effect of all this is that the doctors I see here are, to a person, more focused, more relaxed, more generous with their time, more up-to-date in their specialties, and overall much less distracted from the real work of doctoring. You don't realize how much stress the American doctor-insurer fights put on the day-to-day quality of care until you see doctors who don't operate under that stress, because they never have to fight those battles at all. Amazingly: they seem to enjoy their jobs. ...
3. Wait times in Canada are horrendous.
True and False again -- it depends on which province you live in, and what's wrong with you. ... When I lived in California, I had excellent insurance, and got my care through one of the best university-based systems in the nation. Yet I routinely had to wait anywhere from six to twelve weeks to get in to see a specialist. Non-emergency surgical waits could be anywhere from four weeks to four months. After two years in the BC system, I'm finding the experience to be pretty much comparable, and often better. The notable exception is MRIs, which were easy in California, but can take many months to get here. ...
4. You have to wait forever to get a family doctor.
False for the vast majority of Canadians, but True for a few. ... It is, absolutely, harder to get to a doctor if you live out in a small town, or up in the territories. But that's just as true in the U.S. ...
5. You don't get to choose your own doctor.
Scurrilously False. Somebody, somewhere, is getting paid a lot of money to make this kind of stuff up. ... For the record: Canadians pick their own doctors ...
More preposterious bogosity. They are exactly the same drugs, made by the same pharmaceutical companies, often in the same factories. The Canadian drug distribution system, however, has much tighter oversight; and pharmacies and pharmacists are more closely regulated. If there is a difference in Canadian drugs at all, they're actually likely to be safer. ...
8. Publicly-funded programs will inevitably lead to rationed health care, particularly for the elderly.
False. And bogglingly so. ...
9. People won't be responsible for their own health if they're not being forced to pay for the consequences.
False. ... Third, there's a somewhat larger awareness that stress leads to big-ticket illnesses -- and a somewhat lower cultural tolerance for employers who put people in high-stress situations. Nobody wants to pick up the tab for their greed. ...
10. This all sounds great -- but the taxes to cover it are just unaffordable. And besides, isn't the system in bad financial shape?
False. On one hand, our annual Canadian tax bite runs about 10% higher than our U.S. taxes did. On the other, we're not paying out the equivalent of two new car payments every month to keep the family insured here. When you balance out the difference, we're actually money ahead. When you factor in the greatly increased social stability that follows when everybody's getting their necessary health care, the impact on our quality of life becomes even more signficant.
And True -- but only because this is a universal truth that we need to make our peace with. Yes, the provincial plans are always struggling. So is every single publicly-funded health care system in the world, ...
...
I'm both a health-care-card-carrying Canadian resident and an uninsured American citizen who regularly sees doctors on both sides of the border. As such, I'm in a unique position to address the pros and cons of both systems first-hand. ...
...
1. Canada's health care system is "socialized medicine."
False. In socialized medical systems, the doctors work directly for the state. In Canada (and many other countries with universal care), doctors run their own private practices, just like they do in the US. The only difference is that every doctor deals with one insurer, instead of 150. ...
2. Doctors are hurt financially by single-payer health care.
True and False. Doctors in Canada do make less than their US counterparts. But they also have lower overhead, and usually much better working conditions. ... One unsurprising side effect of all this is that the doctors I see here are, to a person, more focused, more relaxed, more generous with their time, more up-to-date in their specialties, and overall much less distracted from the real work of doctoring. You don't realize how much stress the American doctor-insurer fights put on the day-to-day quality of care until you see doctors who don't operate under that stress, because they never have to fight those battles at all. Amazingly: they seem to enjoy their jobs. ...
3. Wait times in Canada are horrendous.
True and False again -- it depends on which province you live in, and what's wrong with you. ... When I lived in California, I had excellent insurance, and got my care through one of the best university-based systems in the nation. Yet I routinely had to wait anywhere from six to twelve weeks to get in to see a specialist. Non-emergency surgical waits could be anywhere from four weeks to four months. After two years in the BC system, I'm finding the experience to be pretty much comparable, and often better. The notable exception is MRIs, which were easy in California, but can take many months to get here. ...
4. You have to wait forever to get a family doctor.
False for the vast majority of Canadians, but True for a few. ... It is, absolutely, harder to get to a doctor if you live out in a small town, or up in the territories. But that's just as true in the U.S. ...
5. You don't get to choose your own doctor.
Scurrilously False. Somebody, somewhere, is getting paid a lot of money to make this kind of stuff up. ... For the record: Canadians pick their own doctors ...
6. Canada's care plan only covers the basics. You're still on your own for any extras, including prescription drugs. And you still have to pay for it.
True -- but not as big an issue as you might think. The province does charge a small monthly premium (ours is $108/month for a family of four) for the basic coverage. However, most people never even have to write that check: almost all employers pick up the tab for their employees' premiums as part of the standard benefits package; and the province covers it for people on public assistance or disability. ... "The basics" covered by this plan include 100% of all doctor's fees, ambulance fares, tests, and everything that happens in a hospital -- in other words, the really big-ticket items that routinely drive American families into bankruptcy ...
More preposterious bogosity. They are exactly the same drugs, made by the same pharmaceutical companies, often in the same factories. The Canadian drug distribution system, however, has much tighter oversight; and pharmacies and pharmacists are more closely regulated. If there is a difference in Canadian drugs at all, they're actually likely to be safer. ...
8. Publicly-funded programs will inevitably lead to rationed health care, particularly for the elderly.
False. And bogglingly so. ...
9. People won't be responsible for their own health if they're not being forced to pay for the consequences.
False. ... Third, there's a somewhat larger awareness that stress leads to big-ticket illnesses -- and a somewhat lower cultural tolerance for employers who put people in high-stress situations. Nobody wants to pick up the tab for their greed. ...
10. This all sounds great -- but the taxes to cover it are just unaffordable. And besides, isn't the system in bad financial shape?
False. On one hand, our annual Canadian tax bite runs about 10% higher than our U.S. taxes did. On the other, we're not paying out the equivalent of two new car payments every month to keep the family insured here. When you balance out the difference, we're actually money ahead. When you factor in the greatly increased social stability that follows when everybody's getting their necessary health care, the impact on our quality of life becomes even more signficant.
And True -- but only because this is a universal truth that we need to make our peace with. Yes, the provincial plans are always struggling. So is every single publicly-funded health care system in the world, ...
[Vietnam and Agent Orange] 800,000 people continue to suffer serious health problems and are in need of constant medical attention
Agent of suffering | A third generation of Vietnamese are suffering deformities caused by US chemical warfare and still Washington refuses to accept responsibility | Tom Fawthrop, Guardian | February 10, 2008
Not only are Vietnamese still maimed from treading on unexploded bombs, they are also victims of this insidious scourge that poisons water and food supplies, causing various cancers and crippling deformities. Eighty million litres of Agent Orange were sprayed on the jungles of Vietnam, destroying swathes of irreplaceable rainforest through massive defoliation and leaving a toxic trail of dioxin contamination in the soil for decades. The legacy of this chemical warfare can even be inflicted on the unborn, with Agent Orange birth deformities now being passed on to a third generation.
In the 3,160 villages in the southern part of Vietnam within the Agent Orange spraying zone, 800,000 people continue to suffer serious health problems and are in need of constant medical attention. Last month, members of a US Vietnamese working group reported that it will cost at least $14m to remove dioxin residues from just one site around the former US airbase in Danang. The cost of a comprehensive clean-up around three dioxin hotspots and former US bases is estimated at around $60m. The $3m pledged by US Congress last year is a pathetically inadequate amount set against the billions spent in waging war and deploying weapons of mass destruction.
The recent study of one Agent Orange hotspot, the former US airbase in Danang, found dioxin levels 300 to 400 times higher than internationally accepted limits. The study confirmed that rainwater had carried dioxin into city drains and into a neighbouring community that is home to more than 100,000 people. ...
Not only are Vietnamese still maimed from treading on unexploded bombs, they are also victims of this insidious scourge that poisons water and food supplies, causing various cancers and crippling deformities. Eighty million litres of Agent Orange were sprayed on the jungles of Vietnam, destroying swathes of irreplaceable rainforest through massive defoliation and leaving a toxic trail of dioxin contamination in the soil for decades. The legacy of this chemical warfare can even be inflicted on the unborn, with Agent Orange birth deformities now being passed on to a third generation.
In the 3,160 villages in the southern part of Vietnam within the Agent Orange spraying zone, 800,000 people continue to suffer serious health problems and are in need of constant medical attention. Last month, members of a US Vietnamese working group reported that it will cost at least $14m to remove dioxin residues from just one site around the former US airbase in Danang. The cost of a comprehensive clean-up around three dioxin hotspots and former US bases is estimated at around $60m. The $3m pledged by US Congress last year is a pathetically inadequate amount set against the billions spent in waging war and deploying weapons of mass destruction.
The recent study of one Agent Orange hotspot, the former US airbase in Danang, found dioxin levels 300 to 400 times higher than internationally accepted limits. The study confirmed that rainwater had carried dioxin into city drains and into a neighbouring community that is home to more than 100,000 people. ...
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
UnitedHealth Group / Pacificare: alleged that 30% of the medical claims it reviewed were improperly denied ... 133,000 alleged violations ...
Health Plan Faces Fines of $1.33 Billion | By Lisa Girion | The Los Angeles Times | Tuesday 29 January 2008
California regulators are expected to announce today that they are seeking as much as $1.33 billion in penalties from Cypress-based PacifiCare as a result of widespread problems stemming from its takeover two years ago by healthcare giant UnitedHealth Group Inc.
In an investigation prompted by widespread complaints, the state Department of Insurance uncovered 133,000 alleged violations of state laws and regulations regarding payments for medical care. Each violation carries a maximum penalty of $10,000 for a possible total of $1.33 billion.
Separately, the state Department of Managed Health Care alleged that 30% of the medical claims it reviewed were improperly denied. That agency is seeking an additional $3.5 million in fines.
"These were very serious violations," said Cindy Ehnes, executive director of the Department of Managed Health Care. "The most fundamental promise of insurance is that they will pay when you are sick, and they will pay those physicians and hospitals in a fair manner." ...
...
The potential fines are the latest black eye for UnitedHealth. Longtime Chief Executive William McGuire resigned in 2006. Last month, in the first settlement of its kind under post-Enron corporate reforms, he agreed to pay $468 million to avoid trial on charges that he secretly padded his paycheck by manipulating stock options. ...
California regulators are expected to announce today that they are seeking as much as $1.33 billion in penalties from Cypress-based PacifiCare as a result of widespread problems stemming from its takeover two years ago by healthcare giant UnitedHealth Group Inc.
In an investigation prompted by widespread complaints, the state Department of Insurance uncovered 133,000 alleged violations of state laws and regulations regarding payments for medical care. Each violation carries a maximum penalty of $10,000 for a possible total of $1.33 billion.
Separately, the state Department of Managed Health Care alleged that 30% of the medical claims it reviewed were improperly denied. That agency is seeking an additional $3.5 million in fines.
"These were very serious violations," said Cindy Ehnes, executive director of the Department of Managed Health Care. "The most fundamental promise of insurance is that they will pay when you are sick, and they will pay those physicians and hospitals in a fair manner." ...
...
The potential fines are the latest black eye for UnitedHealth. Longtime Chief Executive William McGuire resigned in 2006. Last month, in the first settlement of its kind under post-Enron corporate reforms, he agreed to pay $468 million to avoid trial on charges that he secretly padded his paycheck by manipulating stock options. ...
Vitorin: found to work no better than lower priced Zocor ... $3 a pill compared with 3 cents a pill
Tuesday, January 29, 2008 by CommonDreams.org | Pay No Attention to That Clinical Data or Squandered Tax Payer Dollars for Medicaid Drugs | by Martha Rosenberg
“The American Heart Association is cautioning patients if they stop taking Vytorin abruptly, Schering-Plough and Merck’s stock price will fall.”
That’s how a cartoon showing a news anchor would read after revelations that the American Heart Association–which receives nearly $2 million a year from Vytorin makers Merck and Schering-Plough–and the American College of Cardiology told patients to stay on the drug despite a recent damning study.
Cholesterol drug, Vytorin was hyped as treating “cholesterol from two sources: food and family” but found to work no better than lower priced Zocor in the Enhance clinical study whose results were released in January.
...
The state of New York, for example, spent $21 million for Medicaid prescriptions for Vytorin in the last two years–it costs $3 a pill compared with 3 cents a pill for Zocor–prompting New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to also launch an investigation.
“Drug companies are on notice that concealing critical information about life-saving prescription drugs, profiting at the expense of patients’ health, and wasting taxpayer dollars, is simply unacceptable,” said Cuomo. ...
“The American Heart Association is cautioning patients if they stop taking Vytorin abruptly, Schering-Plough and Merck’s stock price will fall.”
That’s how a cartoon showing a news anchor would read after revelations that the American Heart Association–which receives nearly $2 million a year from Vytorin makers Merck and Schering-Plough–and the American College of Cardiology told patients to stay on the drug despite a recent damning study.
Cholesterol drug, Vytorin was hyped as treating “cholesterol from two sources: food and family” but found to work no better than lower priced Zocor in the Enhance clinical study whose results were released in January.
...
The state of New York, for example, spent $21 million for Medicaid prescriptions for Vytorin in the last two years–it costs $3 a pill compared with 3 cents a pill for Zocor–prompting New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to also launch an investigation.
“Drug companies are on notice that concealing critical information about life-saving prescription drugs, profiting at the expense of patients’ health, and wasting taxpayer dollars, is simply unacceptable,” said Cuomo. ...
Monday, January 21, 2008
1 in 5 returning troops may have brain injury
1 in 5 returning troops may have brain injury | Many do not know symptoms can be treated, U.S. Army officials said | AP | Jan. 17, 2008
WASHINGTON - As many as 20 percent of U.S. combat troops who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan leave with signs they may have had a concussion, and some do not realize they need treatment, Army officials said Thursday.
Concussion is a common term for mild traumatic brain injury, or TBI. While the Army has a handle on treating more severe brain injuries, it is "challenged to understand, diagnose and treat military personnel who suffer with mild TBI," said Brig. Gen. Donald Bradshaw, chairman of a task force on traumatic brain injury created by the Army surgeon general. ...
WASHINGTON - As many as 20 percent of U.S. combat troops who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan leave with signs they may have had a concussion, and some do not realize they need treatment, Army officials said Thursday.
Concussion is a common term for mild traumatic brain injury, or TBI. While the Army has a handle on treating more severe brain injuries, it is "challenged to understand, diagnose and treat military personnel who suffer with mild TBI," said Brig. Gen. Donald Bradshaw, chairman of a task force on traumatic brain injury created by the Army surgeon general. ...
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Drug trails bias[ed] toward reporting positive results: 94 percent of the positive studies ... [only] 14 percent of disappointing results
Antidepressant Studies Unpublished | By BENEDICT CAREY | Published: January 17, 2008
The makers of antidepressants like Prozac and Paxil never published the results of about a third of the drug trials that they conducted to win government approval, misleading doctors and consumers about the drugs’ true effectiveness, a new analysis has found.
In published trials, about 60 percent of people taking the drugs report significant relief from depression, compared with roughly 40 percent of those on placebo pills. But when the less positive, unpublished trials are included, the advantage shrinks: the drugs outperform placebos, but by a modest margin, concludes the new report, which appears Thursday in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Previous research had found a similar bias toward reporting positive results for a variety of medications; and many researchers have questioned the reported effectiveness of antidepressants. But the new analysis, reviewing data from 74 trials involving 12 drugs, is the most thorough to date. And it documents a large difference: while 94 percent of the positive studies found their way into print, just 14 percent of those with disappointing or uncertain results did.
The finding is likely to inflame a continuing debate about how drug trial data is reported. ...
The makers of antidepressants like Prozac and Paxil never published the results of about a third of the drug trials that they conducted to win government approval, misleading doctors and consumers about the drugs’ true effectiveness, a new analysis has found.
In published trials, about 60 percent of people taking the drugs report significant relief from depression, compared with roughly 40 percent of those on placebo pills. But when the less positive, unpublished trials are included, the advantage shrinks: the drugs outperform placebos, but by a modest margin, concludes the new report, which appears Thursday in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Previous research had found a similar bias toward reporting positive results for a variety of medications; and many researchers have questioned the reported effectiveness of antidepressants. But the new analysis, reviewing data from 74 trials involving 12 drugs, is the most thorough to date. And it documents a large difference: while 94 percent of the positive studies found their way into print, just 14 percent of those with disappointing or uncertain results did.
The finding is likely to inflame a continuing debate about how drug trial data is reported. ...
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Heart attack patients waited eight minutes in 1997 but 20 minutes in 2004
ER waits dangerously long in U.S.: study | Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:45am EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Patients seeking urgent care in U.S. emergency rooms are waiting longer than in the 1990s, especially people with heart attacks, U.S. researchers reported on Tuesday.
They found a quarter of heart attack victims waited 50 minutes or more before seeing a doctor in 2004. Waits for all types of emergency department visits became 36 percent longer between 1997 and 2004, the team at Harvard Medical School reported.
Especially unsettling, people who had seen a triage nurse and been designated as needing immediate attention waited 40 percent longer -- from an average of 10 minutes in 1997 to an average 14 minutes in 2004, the researchers report in the journal Health Affairs.
Heart attack patients waited eight minutes in 1997 but 20 minutes in 2004, Dr. Andrew Wilper and colleagues found. ...
...
"Emergency physicians have said for years that crowding and long wait times are hurting our patients -- insured and uninsured equally," ACEP president Dr. Linda Lawrence said in a statement.
"Ever-lengthening waits are a frightening trend because any delays in care can make the difference between life and death for some patients. The number of emergency patients is increasing while the number of hospital beds continues to drop. It is a recipe for disaster." ...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Patients seeking urgent care in U.S. emergency rooms are waiting longer than in the 1990s, especially people with heart attacks, U.S. researchers reported on Tuesday.
They found a quarter of heart attack victims waited 50 minutes or more before seeing a doctor in 2004. Waits for all types of emergency department visits became 36 percent longer between 1997 and 2004, the team at Harvard Medical School reported.
Especially unsettling, people who had seen a triage nurse and been designated as needing immediate attention waited 40 percent longer -- from an average of 10 minutes in 1997 to an average 14 minutes in 2004, the researchers report in the journal Health Affairs.
Heart attack patients waited eight minutes in 1997 but 20 minutes in 2004, Dr. Andrew Wilper and colleagues found. ...
...
"Emergency physicians have said for years that crowding and long wait times are hurting our patients -- insured and uninsured equally," ACEP president Dr. Linda Lawrence said in a statement.
"Ever-lengthening waits are a frightening trend because any delays in care can make the difference between life and death for some patients. The number of emergency patients is increasing while the number of hospital beds continues to drop. It is a recipe for disaster." ...
France best, US worst in preventable death ranking
France best, US worst in preventable death ranking | Tue Jan 8, 2008 12:15am EST | By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON, Jan 8 (Reuters) - France, Japan and Australia rated best and the United States worst in new rankings focusing on preventable deaths due to treatable conditions in 19 leading industrialized nations, researchers said on Tuesday.
If the U.S. health care system performed as well as those of those top three countries, there would be 101,000 fewer deaths in the United States per year, according to researchers writing in the journal Health Affairs.
...
Nolte said the large number of Americans who lack any type of health insurance -- about 47 million people in a country of about 300 million, according to U.S. government estimates -- probably was a key factor in the poor showing of the United States compared to other industrialized nations in the study. ...
...
France did best -- with 64.8 deaths deemed preventable by timely and effective health care per 100,000 people, in the study period of 2002 and 2003. Japan had 71.2 and Australia had 71.3 such deaths per 100,000 people. The United States had 109.7 such deaths per 100,000 people, the researchers said.
After the top three, Spain was fourth best, followed in order by Italy, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, Austria, Germany, Finland, New Zealand, Denmark, Britain, Ireland and Portugal, with the United States last.
...
The researchers compared these rankings with rankings for the same 19 countries covering the period of 1997 and 1998. France and Japan also were first and second in those rankings, while the United States was 15th, meaning it fell four places in the latest rankings. ...
WASHINGTON, Jan 8 (Reuters) - France, Japan and Australia rated best and the United States worst in new rankings focusing on preventable deaths due to treatable conditions in 19 leading industrialized nations, researchers said on Tuesday.
If the U.S. health care system performed as well as those of those top three countries, there would be 101,000 fewer deaths in the United States per year, according to researchers writing in the journal Health Affairs.
...
Nolte said the large number of Americans who lack any type of health insurance -- about 47 million people in a country of about 300 million, according to U.S. government estimates -- probably was a key factor in the poor showing of the United States compared to other industrialized nations in the study. ...
...
France did best -- with 64.8 deaths deemed preventable by timely and effective health care per 100,000 people, in the study period of 2002 and 2003. Japan had 71.2 and Australia had 71.3 such deaths per 100,000 people. The United States had 109.7 such deaths per 100,000 people, the researchers said.
After the top three, Spain was fourth best, followed in order by Italy, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, Austria, Germany, Finland, New Zealand, Denmark, Britain, Ireland and Portugal, with the United States last.
...
The researchers compared these rankings with rankings for the same 19 countries covering the period of 1997 and 1998. France and Japan also were first and second in those rankings, while the United States was 15th, meaning it fell four places in the latest rankings. ...
Monday, January 7, 2008
Death by Profit Margin: Let's start with a fundamental truth: Insurance companies are in the business of not paying claims.
Death by Profit Margin | Posted by Christy Hardin Smith, Firedoglake at 11:10 AM on December 25, 2007.
This is not an isolated incident. The next one could be you or someone you love...
This is not an isolated incident. The next one could be you or someone you love...
Let's start with a fundamental truth: Insurance companies are in the business of not paying claims.
By not paying your claim, they get to keep all those premiums you pay. Maximizing their benefit by minimizing their risk, by finding loopholes and other reason to deny claims unless and until they are either cornered into paying them or a claim is so clear-cut they can't avoid it under risk of bad faith. Welcome to the wonderful world of profit and to hell with the consequences.
From AP via the Insurance Times:
Many successful companies are known for taking risks. Cigna Corp. isn't one of them....
The lack of risky business, Wall Street analysts say, has helped Cigna avoid many problems associated with rising health costs, an issue plaguing competing health plans. And the company's low profile has made it less of a target for class action suits filed in recent years accusing HMOs of putting profits ahead of patient care. Cigna has been named in only two of six lawsuits, most of which are either pending or that have ended with rulings in the industry's favor. But Cigna officials say their quiet stance means the company's accomplishments aren't well known....
Insurance companies make money by finding ways to not pay claims. That's the truth of it. This past week, we sadly saw the result of this in the death of Nataline Sarkisyan. From the CA Nurses Association:
On Dec. 11, four leading physicians, including the surgical director of the Pediatric Liver Transplant Program at UCLA, wrote to CIGNA urging the company to reverse its denial. The physicians said that Nataline "currently meets criteria to be listed as Status 1A" for a transplant. They also challenged CIGNA's denial which the company said occurred because their benefit plan "does not cover experimental, investigational and unproven services," to which the doctors replied, "Nataline's case is in fact none of the above." ...
Monday, December 31, 2007
Healthcare: The insurance companies have been "taxing" you for half a century and you take it in stride.
Get real, Americans! | You have been ripped off! | By Mary Pitt
12/27/07 "ICH" -- -- At long last, the age-old problem of health care for the poor and near-poor is being discussed in open forum. The problem has existed since the ethos of class differentiation was begun with the invention of wampum. In this modern age, it is only through the acivities of individual greed that it continues, despite the glaring fact that one solution is the only alternative.
Mitt Romney's Massachusetts experiment has already been exposed as a failure as will be any other program for "mandatory insurance". As with the assistance that is provided to the elderly holders of policies for Medicare Part D, recipients of the plan must be totally destitute in order to be free of the required "deductible and co-payment" muddle. Even if they have "insurance coverage" they still cannot afford the cash outlay that is necessary in order to obtain the necessary treatment.
..
Half a century ago, a good businessman named Henry Kaiser joined other automobile and equipment manufacturers in ceasing the making of their former product in order to make the needed equipment that the country needed in order to effectively engage in World War II. He built huge shipyards on the West Coast and people poured in from all over the beleaguered nation to work in them. Soon it was apparent that these folks were physically devastated by the medical neglect, malnutrition, and other maladies inflicted by the Great Depression. The absenteeism troubled him until he reached one infallible conclusion: "It is less costly to keep people healthy than to get them well once they become ill."
...
There are many arguments from those who oppose the Universal Health Care plans as proposed by Dennis Kucinich and others. One is that it would raise taxes. Horrors! Have you computed the amount that you pay in insurance premiums each year? The insurance companies have been "taxing" you for half a century and you take it in stride. The added taxes to cover your health care would not be likely to be more than you are paying now to the insurance company and the coverage would be better.
Another is that it would "destroy an industry". Perhaps an unfeeling industry should be brought to account for the exhorbitant profits that they have amassed as the result of denying care, requiring co-payments and deductibles to deter people from fully utilizing their benefits, and refusing coverage to "high-risk individuals". Let them go back to insuring lives and property, cars, houses, and business liabilities.
The third argument against free universal health care is that it would cost too much. This argument is the least effective when viewed in the light of realism. The insurance companies declare an annual profit of some Ten Billion Dollars! How many of the 40% of Americans without adequate health care could be kept healthy by the addition of that amount to be paid to physicians, hospitals, and pharmacists?
...
... As they "cream the market", insuring only the healthy and discontinuing coverage for those with serious illnesses, those left uninsured must liquidate their homes and other assets to pay for their own medical care until they are destitute and qualify for Medicaid and welfare.
That is why our nation, which spends more for health care than any other can only rank 45th in the quality of care. Those who can afford it have access to the most modern technology and life-saving procedures where those who cannot are left with medical care that is reminiscent of the nineteenth century. This is the great shame of our vaunted democracy where we expound that "all men are created equal". The big lie is exposed when you learn that the rich get the best while the poor are shunted aside to die of neglect. When a plan is suggested that would care for the poor while costing the rich no more, we owe it to ourselves to give it serious consideration.
12/27/07 "ICH" -- -- At long last, the age-old problem of health care for the poor and near-poor is being discussed in open forum. The problem has existed since the ethos of class differentiation was begun with the invention of wampum. In this modern age, it is only through the acivities of individual greed that it continues, despite the glaring fact that one solution is the only alternative.
Mitt Romney's Massachusetts experiment has already been exposed as a failure as will be any other program for "mandatory insurance". As with the assistance that is provided to the elderly holders of policies for Medicare Part D, recipients of the plan must be totally destitute in order to be free of the required "deductible and co-payment" muddle. Even if they have "insurance coverage" they still cannot afford the cash outlay that is necessary in order to obtain the necessary treatment.
..
Half a century ago, a good businessman named Henry Kaiser joined other automobile and equipment manufacturers in ceasing the making of their former product in order to make the needed equipment that the country needed in order to effectively engage in World War II. He built huge shipyards on the West Coast and people poured in from all over the beleaguered nation to work in them. Soon it was apparent that these folks were physically devastated by the medical neglect, malnutrition, and other maladies inflicted by the Great Depression. The absenteeism troubled him until he reached one infallible conclusion: "It is less costly to keep people healthy than to get them well once they become ill."
...
There are many arguments from those who oppose the Universal Health Care plans as proposed by Dennis Kucinich and others. One is that it would raise taxes. Horrors! Have you computed the amount that you pay in insurance premiums each year? The insurance companies have been "taxing" you for half a century and you take it in stride. The added taxes to cover your health care would not be likely to be more than you are paying now to the insurance company and the coverage would be better.
Another is that it would "destroy an industry". Perhaps an unfeeling industry should be brought to account for the exhorbitant profits that they have amassed as the result of denying care, requiring co-payments and deductibles to deter people from fully utilizing their benefits, and refusing coverage to "high-risk individuals". Let them go back to insuring lives and property, cars, houses, and business liabilities.
The third argument against free universal health care is that it would cost too much. This argument is the least effective when viewed in the light of realism. The insurance companies declare an annual profit of some Ten Billion Dollars! How many of the 40% of Americans without adequate health care could be kept healthy by the addition of that amount to be paid to physicians, hospitals, and pharmacists?
...
... As they "cream the market", insuring only the healthy and discontinuing coverage for those with serious illnesses, those left uninsured must liquidate their homes and other assets to pay for their own medical care until they are destitute and qualify for Medicaid and welfare.
That is why our nation, which spends more for health care than any other can only rank 45th in the quality of care. Those who can afford it have access to the most modern technology and life-saving procedures where those who cannot are left with medical care that is reminiscent of the nineteenth century. This is the great shame of our vaunted democracy where we expound that "all men are created equal". The big lie is exposed when you learn that the rich get the best while the poor are shunted aside to die of neglect. When a plan is suggested that would care for the poor while costing the rich no more, we owe it to ourselves to give it serious consideration.
2002: combined profits of top 10 drug companies EXCEEDED combined profits of other 490 Fortune 500 companies
How Scientific Is Modern Medicine? | By Dana Ullman, North Atlantic Books | Posted on December 3, 2007, Printed on December 30, 2007 | http://www.alternet.org/story/68065/
...
The following is an excerpt from The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy, by Dana Ullman.
...
In 2002, the combined profits ($35.9 billion) of the ten largest drug companies in the Fortune 500 were more than the combined profits ($33.7 billion) of the remaining 490 companies together (Angell, 2004, 11).1 The only reason these drug companies did not maintain this shocking financial advantage is that the oil companies' profits have increased considerably with the Iraq War, thus raising the 490 non-drug companies' profits slightly higher. But then again, one would assume that the profits of 490 of the largest companies in the world would be substantially more than just ten companies in one commercial field. This economic information is important, even essential, because learning how to separate the "science" of medicine from the business of medicine has never been more difficult. The combined efforts of the drug companies and the medical profession, which together may be called the "medicalindustrial complex," have been wonderfully effective in convincing consumers worldwide that modern medicine is the most scientific discipline that has ever existed. Before discussing homeopathy, it is important, if not necessary, to raise basic questions about what "scientific"medicine is -- and is not.
Physicians today rarely run drug companies. Instead, businessmen run them. It is, therefore, not surprising that Marcia Angell,MD, a Harvard professor of medicine and former editor of the famed New England Journal of Medicine , wrote:
Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. ... Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the U.S. Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself. (Levi, 2006)
There is big big money to be made in drug sales, and brilliant marketing has led too many of us to ignore or excuse this bully side of medicine.
...
Sadly and strangely, physicians do not see that there is something fundamentally wrong with the present medical model. Instead, once an old drug is found to be ineffective or dangerous, doctors and drug companies simply assert the "scientifically proven" efficacy of a new drug. Despite this recurrent pattern, doctors are prescribing drugs at record-breaking rates:
- In 2005 the volume of prescription drugs sold in the U.S. was equal to 12.3 drugs for every man, woman, and child in that year alone (compared to 1994, when 7.9 prescription drugs per year were on average purchased by every American). (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2006)
- According to a 2005 study, 44 percent of all Americans take at least one prescription drug and 17 percent take three or more prescription drugs (This number increased 40 percent between 1994 and 2000). ( Medscape , 2005)
...
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
nation’s second-largest physician group - endorsed a single-payer health-care system yesterday
Tuesday, December 4, 2007 by The Philadelphia Inquirer | American College of Physicians Endorse Single-Payer | by Stacey Burling
The Philadelphia-based American College of Physicians - the nation’s second-largest physician group - endorsed a single-payer health-care system yesterday.
But the organization stopped short of saying that a single-payer system like Medicare, in which the government would get and pay most bills, is the best way to achieve universal health coverage.
..
After analyzing health care in the United States and 12 other industrialized countries, the group concluded that universal coverage had been successfully achieved elsewhere through single-payer and pluralistic systems.
Either could work here, the report said. The pluralistic system gives consumers more choice, but also leads to higher administrative costs and inequalities. Because it is what the United States already has, it is less of a political challenge. “It’s like remodeling your house to make it better for your whole family,” Dale said.
Single-payer has lower administrative costs, but is not politically popular, he said. “I’m not a political analyst. I’m just a doctor,” Dale said. “But I think there will probably be resistance to that. That’s why we don’t have it now.” He said his group added it to its proposal to “heighten the debate.” ...
The Philadelphia-based American College of Physicians - the nation’s second-largest physician group - endorsed a single-payer health-care system yesterday.
But the organization stopped short of saying that a single-payer system like Medicare, in which the government would get and pay most bills, is the best way to achieve universal health coverage.
..
After analyzing health care in the United States and 12 other industrialized countries, the group concluded that universal coverage had been successfully achieved elsewhere through single-payer and pluralistic systems.
Either could work here, the report said. The pluralistic system gives consumers more choice, but also leads to higher administrative costs and inequalities. Because it is what the United States already has, it is less of a political challenge. “It’s like remodeling your house to make it better for your whole family,” Dale said.
Single-payer has lower administrative costs, but is not politically popular, he said. “I’m not a political analyst. I’m just a doctor,” Dale said. “But I think there will probably be resistance to that. That’s why we don’t have it now.” He said his group added it to its proposal to “heighten the debate.” ...
Monday, December 3, 2007
FDA so underfunded, consumers are put at risk
Report: FDA so underfunded, consumers are put at risk | Updated 21h 11m ago | By Julie Schmit, USA TODAY
The Food and Drug Administration is so underfunded and understaffed that it's putting U.S. consumers at risk in terms of food and drug safety, an advisory panel to the FDA says in a report to be discussed Monday.
The report — developed in the past year by experts from academia, industry and other government agencies — delivers a scathing review of the state of the FDA, which regulates 80% of the nation's food, its drugs, vaccines and medical devices.
The report details a "plethora of inadequacies" in the agency, including:
•Inadequate inspections of manufacturers, noting that foodmakers, for example, are inspected about once every 10 years.
•A "badly broken" food-import system and food supply "that grows riskier each year." In the past 35 years, FDA inspections of the food supply have dropped 78% due to soaring numbers of products and inadequate FDA funding.
..
William Hubbard, a former FDA associate commissioner who supports the Coalition for a Stronger FDA, says the report stands out because of the "intensity of the feelings" expressed by the subcommittee.
"These people were horrified by what they found," he says. While the subcommittee was supposed to look ahead to where the FDA needs to be, Hubbard says it came away concluding that "it cannot even do its job now."
The Food and Drug Administration is so underfunded and understaffed that it's putting U.S. consumers at risk in terms of food and drug safety, an advisory panel to the FDA says in a report to be discussed Monday.
The report — developed in the past year by experts from academia, industry and other government agencies — delivers a scathing review of the state of the FDA, which regulates 80% of the nation's food, its drugs, vaccines and medical devices.
The report details a "plethora of inadequacies" in the agency, including:
•Inadequate inspections of manufacturers, noting that foodmakers, for example, are inspected about once every 10 years.
•A "badly broken" food-import system and food supply "that grows riskier each year." In the past 35 years, FDA inspections of the food supply have dropped 78% due to soaring numbers of products and inadequate FDA funding.
..
William Hubbard, a former FDA associate commissioner who supports the Coalition for a Stronger FDA, says the report stands out because of the "intensity of the feelings" expressed by the subcommittee.
"These people were horrified by what they found," he says. While the subcommittee was supposed to look ahead to where the FDA needs to be, Hubbard says it came away concluding that "it cannot even do its job now."
healthy people could choose not to buy insurance — then sign up for it if they developed health problems later
Mandates and Mudslinging | By PAUL KRUGMAN | Published: November 30, 2007
From the beginning, advocates of universal health care were troubled by the incompleteness of Barack Obama’s plan, which unlike those of his Democratic rivals wouldn’t cover everyone. But they were willing to cut Mr. Obama slack on the issue, assuming that in the end he would do the right thing.
...
The central question is whether there should be a health insurance “mandate” — a requirement that everyone sign up for health insurance, even if they don’t think they need it. The Edwards and Clinton plans have mandates; the Obama plan has one for children, but not for adults.
Why have a mandate? The whole point of a universal health insurance system is that everyone pays in, even if they’re currently healthy, and in return everyone has insurance coverage if and when they need it.
And it’s not just a matter of principle. As a practical matter, letting people opt out if they don’t feel like buying insurance would make insurance substantially more expensive for everyone else.
Here’s why: under the Obama plan, as it now stands, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance — then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. Insurance companies couldn’t turn them away, because Mr. Obama’s plan, like those of his rivals, requires that insurers offer the same policy to everyone. ...
From the beginning, advocates of universal health care were troubled by the incompleteness of Barack Obama’s plan, which unlike those of his Democratic rivals wouldn’t cover everyone. But they were willing to cut Mr. Obama slack on the issue, assuming that in the end he would do the right thing.
...
The central question is whether there should be a health insurance “mandate” — a requirement that everyone sign up for health insurance, even if they don’t think they need it. The Edwards and Clinton plans have mandates; the Obama plan has one for children, but not for adults.
Why have a mandate? The whole point of a universal health insurance system is that everyone pays in, even if they’re currently healthy, and in return everyone has insurance coverage if and when they need it.
And it’s not just a matter of principle. As a practical matter, letting people opt out if they don’t feel like buying insurance would make insurance substantially more expensive for everyone else.
Here’s why: under the Obama plan, as it now stands, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance — then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. Insurance companies couldn’t turn them away, because Mr. Obama’s plan, like those of his rivals, requires that insurers offer the same policy to everyone. ...
Trimming the salt content in processed and restaurant foods by half could save up to 150,000 lives a year ...
UPDATE 1-US FDA mulls stricter regulation of salt in food | Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:18pm EST | By Kim Dixon
COLLEGE PARK, Md., Nov 29 (Reuters) - Public health advocates on Thursday called for tighter restrictions on salt content in food, arguing that cutting the nutrient's overuse by most Americans could save thousands of lives annually.
...
Trimming the salt content in processed and restaurant foods by half could save up to 150,000 lives a year by reducing heart-related disease, according to the consumer group, whose petition to the FDA prompted the public hearing.
"I am sure no one would tolerate so many deaths from airline crashes, so why tolerate it from food?" Dr. Stephen Havas, vice president for science and public health at the American Medical Association, said.
The CSPI, backed by several public health groups, wants the FDA to beef up labeling, require manufacturers to cut salt in packaged foods, and revoke salt's "generally recognized as safe" status, subjecting it to stricter regulations as a food additive. ...
COLLEGE PARK, Md., Nov 29 (Reuters) - Public health advocates on Thursday called for tighter restrictions on salt content in food, arguing that cutting the nutrient's overuse by most Americans could save thousands of lives annually.
...
Trimming the salt content in processed and restaurant foods by half could save up to 150,000 lives a year by reducing heart-related disease, according to the consumer group, whose petition to the FDA prompted the public hearing.
"I am sure no one would tolerate so many deaths from airline crashes, so why tolerate it from food?" Dr. Stephen Havas, vice president for science and public health at the American Medical Association, said.
The CSPI, backed by several public health groups, wants the FDA to beef up labeling, require manufacturers to cut salt in packaged foods, and revoke salt's "generally recognized as safe" status, subjecting it to stricter regulations as a food additive. ...
Saturday, December 1, 2007
27% interest on the portion of your medical bill not covered by insurance? That's what some Americans are facing ...
Medical Bills On SteroidsDECEMBER 3, 2007 | The Business Week -- News You Need to Know | Harry Mauer & Cristina Linblad
How would you like to pay 27% interest on the portion of your medical bill not covered by insurance? That's what some Americans are facing. Hospitals and other health-care providers are converting bills of uninsured and underinsured patients into consumer debts in a bid to boost payment. Finance outfits, including big banks and credit-card companies, acquire the debts for a discount, then charge double-digit rates on past due bills. Hospitals get paid quickly, but the practice can leave lower-income patients in a worse financial bind.
How would you like to pay 27% interest on the portion of your medical bill not covered by insurance? That's what some Americans are facing. Hospitals and other health-care providers are converting bills of uninsured and underinsured patients into consumer debts in a bid to boost payment. Finance outfits, including big banks and credit-card companies, acquire the debts for a discount, then charge double-digit rates on past due bills. Hospitals get paid quickly, but the practice can leave lower-income patients in a worse financial bind.
hardly an anomaly: Medicare pays more than double for oxygen equipment ... $8,280 vs. $3,500
Golden Opportunities | Oxygen Suppliers Fight to Keep a Medicare Boon | By CHARLES DUHIGG | Published: November 30, 2007
Millions of people with respiratory diseases have relied on oxygen equipment, delivered to their homes, to help them breathe. A basic setup, including three years of deliveries of small oxygen tanks, can be bought from pharmacies and other retailers for as little as $3,500, or about $100 a month.
Unless, that is, the buyer is Medicare, the government health care program for older Americans.
Despite enormous buying power, Medicare pays far more. Rather than buy oxygen equipment outright, Medicare rents it for 36 months before patients take ownership, and pays for a variety of services that critics say are often unnecessary.
The total cost to taxpayers and patients is as much as $8,280, or more than double what somebody might spend at a drugstore.
The high expense of oxygen equipment — which cost Medicare over $1.8 billion last year — is hardly an anomaly.
Medicare spends billions of dollars each year on products and services that are available at far lower prices from retail pharmacies and online stores, according to an analysis of federal data by The New York Times. The government agency has paid above-market costs for dozens of items, a comparison of Medicare figures with retail catalogs finds.
For example, last year Medicare spent more than $21 million on pumps to help older and disabled men attain erections, paying about $450 for the same device that is available online for as little as $108. Even for a simple walking cane, which can be purchased online for about $11, the government pays $20, according to government data.
These widespread price discrepancies, including those for oxygen services, have been noted in dozens of regulatory reports.
But when officials and politicians have tried to cut these costs, they have often encountered a powerful foe: the companies that sell these devices, who ask their elderly customers to serve, in effect, as unpaid lobbyists, calling and writing to their representatives in Congress, protesting at rallies, and even participating in political attacks against individual lawmakers who take on the issue.
Millions of people with respiratory diseases have relied on oxygen equipment, delivered to their homes, to help them breathe. A basic setup, including three years of deliveries of small oxygen tanks, can be bought from pharmacies and other retailers for as little as $3,500, or about $100 a month.
Unless, that is, the buyer is Medicare, the government health care program for older Americans.
Despite enormous buying power, Medicare pays far more. Rather than buy oxygen equipment outright, Medicare rents it for 36 months before patients take ownership, and pays for a variety of services that critics say are often unnecessary.
The total cost to taxpayers and patients is as much as $8,280, or more than double what somebody might spend at a drugstore.
The high expense of oxygen equipment — which cost Medicare over $1.8 billion last year — is hardly an anomaly.
Medicare spends billions of dollars each year on products and services that are available at far lower prices from retail pharmacies and online stores, according to an analysis of federal data by The New York Times. The government agency has paid above-market costs for dozens of items, a comparison of Medicare figures with retail catalogs finds.
For example, last year Medicare spent more than $21 million on pumps to help older and disabled men attain erections, paying about $450 for the same device that is available online for as little as $108. Even for a simple walking cane, which can be purchased online for about $11, the government pays $20, according to government data.
These widespread price discrepancies, including those for oxygen services, have been noted in dozens of regulatory reports.
But when officials and politicians have tried to cut these costs, they have often encountered a powerful foe: the companies that sell these devices, who ask their elderly customers to serve, in effect, as unpaid lobbyists, calling and writing to their representatives in Congress, protesting at rallies, and even participating in political attacks against individual lawmakers who take on the issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)