Posted by: Caitlin on: December 18, 2009
This week, Congress threw out the public option in their health care bill, leaving the bill “weaker” and not as universal as lawmakers are initially wished. Instead of having two options for health insurance, government-run or private, citizens can only get private health insurance. Lawmakers in favor of the public option fear that private insurance companies will keep rates high whereas having a second option could force those rates down. Their reasoning for moving on with the bill without the public option was their desire to have a health care bill because the chance of this type of reform to come again could be a long time.
I understand the need for competition in the insurance market to give options to those who have few, but is it too premature to say that private insurance companies will not lower their rates to accommodate the increase in people who must have insurance? If there is now a greater market, wouldn’t companies want to grab as many people as possible? That isn’t guaranteed, as they could keep the rates the way they are or all agree to increase them. However, I think that in our economic climate right now, this may not fare well with potential customers.
The House does have a public option in their bill and after the Senate one passes, lawmakers may eventually work towards a public option if the need arises from implementation of the Health Care Bill. I think that time will tell whether taking the public option off the table was a good idea for America’s health care and for it’s pocket.
Additional Links:
Posted by: Caitlin on: December 18, 2009
Massachusetts’ health care system is getting another glance as another report has come out about one of the programs it established. The state’s Tobacco Cessation & Prevention Program targets poor people on Medicaid who statistically smoke more and who eventually have more ailments that lead to hospitalization.
According to the article, the program has seen the percent of smokers go from 38% when the program started to 28% in 2008, a “decrease of about 30,000 people in two and a half years, or one in six smokers.” The program covers most of the costs for medication and counseling that help participants ween themselves from tobacco. The article says that “Smoking-related illnesses cost the Medicaid system more than $22 billion a year…about 11 percent of overall Medicaid expenditures,” so this program has been sparking interest in doctors and lawmakers across the nation.
The health benefits and the money that Medicaid saves by investing in the treatment of their patients goes a long way in helping the lives of Americans. In this sense, treatment goes from just treating the cancers, heart disease, and other problems linked to tobacco use to preventing them from happening by actually treating the cause. This program has given treatment for tobacco use a whole new outlook and road to follow.
The program only targets those on Medicaid but there are others who can also benefit from a program like this. The article says that “Insurance plans for higher-income residents provide less coverage for smoking-cessation treatment…or none at all.” Insurance plans can reap the benefits just like Medicaid is now by giving their customers the chance to enter in a similar program. It looks promising that they will also save money and that their customers will appreciate the health benefits.
Posted by: Caitlin on: December 18, 2009
Do drug companies take advantage of your health problems? An article earlier this week discussed how medicine companies can exaggerate their products to make them more than they seem.The article discussed how women taking a certain menopause drug may have increased their chances of being diagnosed with breast cancer and other problems. One woman says that she agreed to take it after her doctor said that it could help not only with menopause sysptoms, but also help prevent heart disease and dementia. She said that the drug caused her breast cancer and needs to be labeled with all the risks involved in taking it.
How profitable is a drug that targets a stage in all woman’s lives? And how much risk are these drugs? I wrote a report that discussed how prolonged exposure to estrogen increases your risk of developing cancer and because these menopause drugs have estrogen in them, the risk of cancer is there. Do the profits generated by these sales make the companies overlook the known risks? The article states that there are documents that may suggest this.
The issue brought up in this article is how their advertising overlooks the risks associated with the drugs they are selling, risks that they know about but do not really allude to. Celebrities and actors as doctors in advertisement may also affect how patients assess the benefits and risks associated with the drugs.
Drug companies need to fully explain the risks associated with their drugs so that consumers can assess how the risks will affect their lives and whether the drug is right for them. Medicine should be about health, not profit, however when these companies may not be run by doctors with ethics, but by executives and others who look at profit margins.
Posted by: Caitlin on: December 18, 2009
Some new research from the University of Alberta reinforces the idea that having sex when you are ready is important to how you feel about it later.
It followed first year university students for 8 months and found that those who were “essentially on the correct developmental timeline with respect to maturity experience sexual behaviour in a positive way.” And those who were not had a negative look on sexual intercourse.
How might these findings affect sex education, particularly in high school? Are high school student mature mentally to engage in sexual intercourse? Sex education needs to look not only at the mechanics of intercourse, but the maturity and readiness of the participants.
Abstinence programs teach that you should not have sex until you are married. Marriage is definitely a mature relationship between two people and this research seems to help reinforce their stance that sex should wait until the time when both people are mature for not only marriage but intercourse.
I have always believed that students should be taught sex-education because health is very much the basis for teaching it in school and I have also believed that discussing when someone should have sex is also very important. The health of someone’s relationship and their own mental health should be taught in sex education. Not everyone is mentally mature, even in college, to have sex and this research shows that this is certainly something that needs to be discussed.
A combination of sex education and abstinence thought or something like it may help improve how students think about not only sex but relationships.
Posted by: Caitlin on: November 21, 2009
The release of two new suggestions for when women should be screened for cancer came this week in a fury of media coverage and confusion.
The United States Preventive Services Task Force released a statement early this week stating that women should not get mammograms until they are 50, instead of the previous recommendation of 40. They said that from the data they collected, women are more likely to develop breast cancer in their 50s than their 40s.
My mother has been getting her mammogram since I can remember. I would rather her get them than not. Tests can’t hurt, but cancer can. Especially if the cancer develops and spreads quickly. I would say based on your family history, your work environment (ex. work with chemicals that increase your risk of cancer), and discussions it with your doctor, you should get a mammogram done regardless if you are 40 or 50.
Another report released by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says that women should get pap smears every 3 years instead of every year. Before, it recommended that a woman have one every year, get her first one within 3 years of their first sexual intercourse or no later than 21.
The New York Times article says that the reason the number of pap smears should be reduced is because pap smears pick up pre-cancerous tumors and those tumors could either disappear on their own or eventually lead to cervical cancer which can take about 10 to 20 years to develop. The OB/GYNs believe that the tests cause more harm than good because doctors can remove the tumors when there is no need.
Again, I think that based on your family history and talking to your doctor, you should discuss whether getting a pap smear every year is the right plan for your health care.
Health care professionals are continually working on how to best screen for cancers and treat their patients when the tests come back. Screening procedures are still being tinkered with, so I wouldn’t be surprised if more screening announcements are made in the near future.
Posted by: Caitlin on: November 21, 2009
Are you traveling this Thanksgiving? A recent article from the Boston Globe discusses how some people are taking steps this season to avoid exposure to the H1N1 virus.
One women mentioned in the article that she and her family are driving this year instead of flying because she is afraid that her children, who have not been vaccinated, might catch the virus while “cooped up in an enclosed container.” Along with the thought of flying, airports are probably also a good way of spreading the virus faster. It is like the junction of a super highway with people from all over the country and the world touching everything and spreading germs and viruses. I told my boyfriend who is flying to visit me that he better pack a travel size Purell bottle with him. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than nothing.
Some people are even staying home for the holiday, citing health concerns for themselves or their children.
I do not think that health concerns has been brought up in the recent years are reasons for not traveling during Thanksgiving. It’s been either the economy, the cost of oil, or weather. People seem to be really taking the recommendations of health officials seriously and taking measures to protect themselves.
On campus, we have tons of sanitizer machines across campus and signs everywhere, including the bathroom. However, I haven’t seen anything yet about traveling for this upcoming holiday, but I do expect it in the coming days. My university has advertised many flu and a few H1N1 clinics this semester to get students vaccinated, so I would hope they would send students some sort of advisory since most of us have to leave campus and travel home or to a friends house.
So just as a reminder when you travel, use some alcohol based sanitizer if you can’t wash your hands with soap and water, which is always best. Also, cough and sneeze into your elbow, avoiding your hands. Always wash your hands immediately after if you do. When using public transportation, elevators, or surfaces, wash your hands afterwards.
Have a happy and healthy Thanksgiving!
Additional links:
Swine Flu Cases Seem to Be Dropping in U.S.- Time.com
Posted by: Caitlin on: November 7, 2009
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the House is close to voting on their version of the health care bill. The Democrats need at least 218 votes to have it pass.
One of the last steps that the Bill had to overcome before being pushed toward a final vote was approval of an amendment on abortion. Democrats were “divided” because “antiabortion lawmakers saying they couldn’t allow any federal funding of abortion under the new health-insurance exchanges the bill would establish.”
Rep. Bart Stupak (D., M.I.) said that his amendment “ensures that those who want abortions have access to it, without forcing anyone to pay for anyone’s abortion with tax dollars or their own private funds.” “He said it provides that federal subsidies cannot be used to purchase a health plan including coverage for abortions other than in cases of rape or incest.”
The article also says that under the new amendment, the government-option in the bill would not cover abortion so women would have to purchase a “separate insurance rider” to cover the procedure. I hope that there is a plan in the bill that gives more funding toward sex-education that will help reduce the amount of women who may want to purchase this rider.
Besides some democratic opposition to the abortion amendment, Rep. John Adler (D., N.J.) is asking that the bill not cost more than $1 trillion. “Health-care costs are rising faster than wages and inflation, and this bill does not change this trend.”
The next decade will test whether this bill will be as successful as everyone voting for it hopes.
UPDATE: The Baltimore Sun is reporting that the bill passed in the House with 220 votes vs. 215 votes, including one Republican voting for it. “The legislation – which includes more than $1 trillion of new health care spending over the next decade while also reducing the deficit by an estimated $106 billion – will ultimately have to be reconciled with the Senate bill.” The article states that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., N.V.) pushing for a vote on the Senate bill to be before Christmas.
Posted by: Caitlin on: November 7, 2009
I’ve read articles here and there about how our health care systems ranks against the rest of the world. I’ve even seen commercials that discourage Canadian-style health care and urge Americans to keep the system that they have.
I read Nicholas Kristof’s article “Unhealthy America” today about how we may believe that our health care system is the best in the world but when comparing it to other countries, we have a lot of room to improve.
Kristof’s article stated statistics from the World Health Organization about under age 5 mortality and maternal mortality. If you read the report it shows that ranked against some European countries, we are three times more likely to have children die before the age of 5 and mothers die giving birth.
Along the subject of women’s health, the percent of antenatal care coverage (“an indicator of access and use of health care during pregnancy (WHO).”) in the United States has no data listed. This is outrageous. They have statistics for Afghanistan for crying out loud (at 16%). Antenatal care is so important for women to have so that they can understand the options available to them for a healthy and successful birth of their child. I believe that it is important that we know the percent of women who have antenatal care in the United States because as of right now, we do not know if we are possibly looking at a problem of access to care.
Another topic that Kristof mentions is hospital stays. He says that although Americans wait less for care, “citizens of other countries get longer hospital stays and more medication than Americans do because our insurance companies evict people from hospitals as soon as they can stagger out of bed.” I think that there must be more variables to this including lack of beds in hospitals and the system’s focus on money and not patient care.
Another fact stated in the article was that “Americans take 10 percent fewer drugs than citizens in other countries — but pay 118 percent more per pill that they do take.” It seems that how much will it cost out ranks how will it help this person.
From these statistics and other information mentioned in the article, there definitely needs to be more attention toward improving a patient’s health and not how much will it cost. I hope that we will soon have a system that puts the person first and the dollar last.
Posted by: Caitlin on: October 11, 2009
When people question the reliability of a government run health care system, the first example given to them is Medicare. What about the government health care provided to veterans? How well does that work for them?
An article in The New Republic titled “Model Veterans” reports that “in a recent survey, 81 percent of VHA [Veteran's Health Administration] hospital patients expressed satisfaction with the care they received.” The article also says that their quality of care “at veterans’ health facilities was ’significantly better’ than Medicare.”
No system is without flaws, and the article says the VA is working on their own such as sorting through disability evaluations.
I think that if Congress wants to follow the VA’s lead, they will have to set up their own administration for national health care because organizing an entire health care system like the VA’s is going to take an entity that large to oversee all the facilities and care.
There will have to be some big adjustments on how to service the 300 million people living in America and the system will have to adapt to the kind of care hospitals offer such as emergency care.
The VA health care already has as much as 8 million people enrolled in their care, according to the article, and the increase of veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well as “aging Vietnam veterans has overwhelmed the system.” This along with the budget increasing at only $3 billion a year is a good example at the challenges facing national health care.
The health care reform bill needs to have in it enough money and resources to take on the 300 million people living in America and their health care needs. The system needs to be able to care for the increase of enrollments right out of the gate, or in this case, Capitol Hill. I think that using a system like what the VA has is a good start, but it isn’t a complete solution. Adjustments need to be made to accept the increase of patients and members as well as pay for their care. Adjustments also might need to be made on how the care already provided is going to be covered and accessed.
The government should look into what it already has available to them instead of starting from scratch. Then we might see some progress in this health care reform debate.
Posted by: Caitlin on: October 11, 2009
Most of the recent news coming from the mainstream media about the Swine flu has been a debate of whether the vaccine is safe for the public. A recent article from The New York Times discusses this issue among doctors and health care professionals.
David Onozoff, a doctor and chronic-disease epidemiologist as well as a professor at Boston University, says that the H1N1 virus is not unlike other flu viruses that have a “strain change”, but because it is a pandemic, it is affecting a different range of people, ie. younger, healthier adults. He is afraid that with all this controversy over who should get vaccinated, there will be those who would “create confusion about all vaccination and [it will] lead to deaths or unnecessary disability of infants and children.”
Gregory Dworkin, a pediatric pulmonologist, mentions that the biggest thing facing public health officials is the “under-addressed backlash against vaccination.” People’s fears about whether the vaccine is safe, although it is has been made like every other flu vaccine in the past, are not being answered in a way that shows the necessity of being vaccinated.
Robert Blendon, a professor of health policy and political analysis at Harvard, adds to the debate that people are not being vaccinated because they do not believe they are at serious risk of contracting the virus. He found that only 6 out of 10 people would get the vaccine if they knew of people in the community who were sick or dying from it. This seems like a realistic answer for people who will wait till the last minute to be inoculated because there didn’t seem to be a good enough reason for them to do so earlier.
Kevin Pho, a primary care doctor, brings up a scary fact that most doctors and other health care providers will not go to be vaccinated for the H1N1 virus, let alone the seasonal flu. This can cause a major issue as “a recent study showed that those infected with the H1N1 virus can be contagious for up to eight days after the onset of symptoms, significantly longer than strains of seasonal flu.” This can lead to greater exposure to sickness among patients who are already sick and come in contact with these doctors and nurses. I agree with Pho that doctors owe it to their patients to receive that vaccine so that they do not make them any sicker than what they already are.
Health care professionals need to figure out a way to bring attention to the necessity of getting vaccinated and address the fears of Americans. The swine flu vaccine was made like any other flu vaccine and even if you don’t believe you need to be vaccinated, based on your age or lack of the virus in your community, it is best to do it anyways.
Better safe than sorry.
