/PRNewswire/ -- As October 1, 2009 signals the beginning of the new fiscal year 2010, the American Health Care Association (AHCA) said cuts of up to $16 billion over ten years to Medicare funded nursing home care being put into effect today by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) must be taken into account by U.S. Senate and House leaders as they continue to refine the financing details of their respective health care reform bills.
"By any standard, the $16 billion ten-year cuts to Medicare funded nursing home care going into effect today represent an enormous blow to the stability our sector requires to ensure the ongoing provision of quality nursing home care," said Bruce Yarwood, President and CEO of AHCA. "As health reform deliberations continue, we respectfully urge lawmakers to keep in mind that any additional Medicare cuts will be on top of this $16 billion ten year regulatory cut implemented today. Without a doubt, the care and well being of the nation's most vulnerable seniors will clearly be at stake if any new cuts are excessive."
Yarwood said it is critical to keep in mind the nature as well as the structural fragility of America's nursing home patient-base and workforce. America's nursing homes provide care and services to 1.6 million patients annually. 52% are over age 85, 73% are women, 14% are non-white, and 54% have annual incomes of less than $10,000 annually. The AHCA leader noted nursing homes and other long-term care facilities employ over 2.1 million caregivers - 86% of whom are women, and 30% of whom are non-white. The average worker is a single, low income mother between the ages of 25 and 54.
"Arguments being made by some that seniors' benefits will not be reduced by cuts now contemplated ignore the fact that when Medicare cuts provider reimbursement, providers, in turn, are forced to cut staff because labor expenses comprise 70 percent of facility costs. Cutting staff within a facility, has a direct, immediate, negative impact on patients and their care - and that is what we fear most in terms of how the eventual final reform bill may be crafted."
Yarwood also urged lawmakers to take into account the fact the Medicaid program already under funds the cost of providing care by at least $4.2 billion annually, according to Eljay, LLC, thereby already placing enormous stress on facilities and staff before federal Medicare cuts even enter the picture.
The National Governors' Association (NGA), National Council of State Legislators (NCSL), and other independent policy analysts and organizations, he said, have already sounded the alarm that state Medicaid funding cuts coupled with poor economic conditions are already threatening vulnerable populations. "As independent research has corroborated time and again, Medicare and Medicaid funding must be viewed together - not in isolation," Yarwood continued. "The combination of cuts to both programs present a clear and present danger to every aspect of facility operations - and ultimately to patient care itself."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.artsacrossgeorgia.com
Arts Across Georgia
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Seniors in Medicare Advantage Receive Higher Quality Care, New Reports Show
TT Note: And this is the plan the current health care reform bill will cut? What's wrong with this picture?
/PRNewswire/ -- Seniors in Medicare Advantage spent fewer days in a hospital, were subject to fewer hospital re-admissions, and were less likely to have "potentially avoidable" admissions, for common conditions ranging from uncontrolled diabetes to dehydration, according to a new analysis of publicly available AHRQ data released today by America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).
The new study echoes the findings of an earlier analysis of AHIP member data showing that seniors in Medicare health plans can receive higher quality care compared to fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare.
"Medicare Advantage plans coordinate care, help seniors manage chronic conditions, and focus on prevention to help seniors stay healthy in the first place," said Karen Ignagni, President and CEO of AHIP.
Instead of focusing almost exclusively on treating beneficiaries when they are sick, Medicare Advantage plans place a strong emphasis on preventive health care services that detect diseases at an early stage and disease management programs for seniors with chronic illnesses to help them keep their conditions under control. These programs are working to help keep patients out of the hospital and avoid potentially harmful complications.
The new study analyzed statewide datasets on hospital admissions in California and Nevada compiled by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The unique data in these states allows for direct comparisons of utilization rates among enrollees in Medicare Advantage plans and in FFS Medicare. These comparisons were adjusted for health status using the Medicare risk score process for age, sex, and 70 Hierarchical Condition Categories that are used as a basis for Medicare risk adjustment. Key findings from the report include:
-- Medicare Advantage beneficiaries in California spent 30 percent fewer
days in the hospitals than patients with FFS Medicare, and in Nevada,
seniors in Medicare Advantage plans spent 23 percent fewer days in the
hospital.
-- Medicare Advantage enrollees were re-admitted to the hospital in the
same quarter for the same condition 15 percent less often in
California and 33 percent less often in Nevada compared to FFS
Medicare.
-- In both California and Nevada, seniors in Medicare Advantage were 6
percent less likely than seniors in FFS Medicare to be admitted to the
hospital for conditions described by AHRQ as "potentially avoidable,"
such as dehydration, urinary tract infection, or uncontrolled
diabetes.
The new analysis follows a previous AHIP study comparing utilization rates among patients in eight Medicare health plans compared to seniors in FFS Medicare. This study among seniors with certain chronic conditions in California and Nevada also found that:
-- Medicare Advantage beneficiaries spent an average of 18 percent fewer
days in the hospital than seniors in FFS Medicare.
-- Seniors in Medicare Advantage had an average of 27 percent fewer
visits to the emergency room than those seniors in traditional
Medicare.
-- Seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage health plans also experienced a
42 percent lower rate of hospital re-admissions than those seniors in
FFS Medicare.
-- Avoidable admissions to the hospital were 13 percent lower among
seniors in Medicare Advantage plans than those in traditional
Medicare.
Policymakers and stakeholders recognize that reducing preventable hospital admissions and readmissions are important steps towards improving the quality and safety of patient care and helping to put our health care system on a more sustainable path. These studies demonstrate that the programs Medicare Advantage plans have implemented provide a model for how this can be accomplished.
The health care reform proposals currently being considered in Congress include significant cuts to the Medicare Advantage program that would risk the health security of millions of seniors across the country. Seniors would face higher premiums, reduced benefits, and, in some parts of the country, would lose access to their Medicare Advantage plan altogether.
"The entire Medicare program, including Medicare Advantage, should be carefully evaluated as part of comprehensive health care reform. However, seniors in Medicare Advantage should not be forced to fund a disproportionate share of the costs to reform the health care system," said Ignagni.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
/PRNewswire/ -- Seniors in Medicare Advantage spent fewer days in a hospital, were subject to fewer hospital re-admissions, and were less likely to have "potentially avoidable" admissions, for common conditions ranging from uncontrolled diabetes to dehydration, according to a new analysis of publicly available AHRQ data released today by America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).
The new study echoes the findings of an earlier analysis of AHIP member data showing that seniors in Medicare health plans can receive higher quality care compared to fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare.
"Medicare Advantage plans coordinate care, help seniors manage chronic conditions, and focus on prevention to help seniors stay healthy in the first place," said Karen Ignagni, President and CEO of AHIP.
Instead of focusing almost exclusively on treating beneficiaries when they are sick, Medicare Advantage plans place a strong emphasis on preventive health care services that detect diseases at an early stage and disease management programs for seniors with chronic illnesses to help them keep their conditions under control. These programs are working to help keep patients out of the hospital and avoid potentially harmful complications.
The new study analyzed statewide datasets on hospital admissions in California and Nevada compiled by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The unique data in these states allows for direct comparisons of utilization rates among enrollees in Medicare Advantage plans and in FFS Medicare. These comparisons were adjusted for health status using the Medicare risk score process for age, sex, and 70 Hierarchical Condition Categories that are used as a basis for Medicare risk adjustment. Key findings from the report include:
-- Medicare Advantage beneficiaries in California spent 30 percent fewer
days in the hospitals than patients with FFS Medicare, and in Nevada,
seniors in Medicare Advantage plans spent 23 percent fewer days in the
hospital.
-- Medicare Advantage enrollees were re-admitted to the hospital in the
same quarter for the same condition 15 percent less often in
California and 33 percent less often in Nevada compared to FFS
Medicare.
-- In both California and Nevada, seniors in Medicare Advantage were 6
percent less likely than seniors in FFS Medicare to be admitted to the
hospital for conditions described by AHRQ as "potentially avoidable,"
such as dehydration, urinary tract infection, or uncontrolled
diabetes.
The new analysis follows a previous AHIP study comparing utilization rates among patients in eight Medicare health plans compared to seniors in FFS Medicare. This study among seniors with certain chronic conditions in California and Nevada also found that:
-- Medicare Advantage beneficiaries spent an average of 18 percent fewer
days in the hospital than seniors in FFS Medicare.
-- Seniors in Medicare Advantage had an average of 27 percent fewer
visits to the emergency room than those seniors in traditional
Medicare.
-- Seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage health plans also experienced a
42 percent lower rate of hospital re-admissions than those seniors in
FFS Medicare.
-- Avoidable admissions to the hospital were 13 percent lower among
seniors in Medicare Advantage plans than those in traditional
Medicare.
Policymakers and stakeholders recognize that reducing preventable hospital admissions and readmissions are important steps towards improving the quality and safety of patient care and helping to put our health care system on a more sustainable path. These studies demonstrate that the programs Medicare Advantage plans have implemented provide a model for how this can be accomplished.
The health care reform proposals currently being considered in Congress include significant cuts to the Medicare Advantage program that would risk the health security of millions of seniors across the country. Seniors would face higher premiums, reduced benefits, and, in some parts of the country, would lose access to their Medicare Advantage plan altogether.
"The entire Medicare program, including Medicare Advantage, should be carefully evaluated as part of comprehensive health care reform. However, seniors in Medicare Advantage should not be forced to fund a disproportionate share of the costs to reform the health care system," said Ignagni.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Thursday, August 27, 2009
White House Sued Over Free Speech Violations In Healthcare Battle: Doctor & Patient Groups Say White House Intended to Shut Up Opponents
TT Note: "When we first try to deceive...." Free speech with your fish, anyone?
/PRNewswire/ -- The Office of the President and other White House officials are defendants in a free speech lawsuit filed by a prominent physician group, and a non-profit advocate for inner-city poor.
The White House has "unlawfully collected information on political speech," thereby illegally using the power of the White House to chill opposition to its plans for health care reform, according to the complaint filed in District Court for the District of Columbia, by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE)
The lawsuit was prompted by the White House solicitation for the public to report any "fishy" comments to 'flag@whitehouse.gov.' Although the White House slightly revised its data collection procedure last week, the email address still exists, the illegal activity continues, and is part of an "unlawful pattern and practice to collect and maintain information" on the exercise of free speech, which "continues in violation of the Privacy Act and First Amendment even if the Defendants terminate a particular information-collection component due to negative publicity."
The lawsuit outlines how the White House has employed a form of "bait-and-switch" tactic of accusing the Plaintiffs and other opponents of spreading misinformation about the Administration's goals for health care reform, and thereby refusing to 'come clean' about its real agenda.
The lawsuit outlines that the White House knew that the data collection would chill free speech, and in fact, intended to do just that:
"43. As part of their effort to advance the White House healthcare
reform agenda, Defendants have accused opponents (including
Plaintiffs) of spreading misinformation on issues such as whether
(a) health reform would provide public funding for abortions, (b) put
"death panels" in place to deny care to the elderly or infirm,
(c) amount to a government takeover of healthcare, and (d) increase
healthcare costs..the Defendants and the administration have spread
misinformation, semantics, and disinformation on these topics.....
"45. By denying and continuing to deny that healthcare reform
legislation includes "death panels" that make individual life-or-death
decisions on the elderly or infirm, the Defendants and the current
administration have ignored and implicitly denied and continue to
ignore and implicitly to deny both that their healthcare reform agenda
involves rationing healthcare..."
"My hate mail started shortly after the White House issued the 'fishy' request," said Kathryn Serkes, Director of Policy and Public Affairs for AAPS. "We were quite visible and vocal before then, so it doesn't seem like a coincidence. Who did they share their data with? With whom might they share it?"
AAPS and CURE demand that the White House remove all information already collected, and further, be prohibited from collecting any personal data in the future.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
/PRNewswire/ -- The Office of the President and other White House officials are defendants in a free speech lawsuit filed by a prominent physician group, and a non-profit advocate for inner-city poor.
The White House has "unlawfully collected information on political speech," thereby illegally using the power of the White House to chill opposition to its plans for health care reform, according to the complaint filed in District Court for the District of Columbia, by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE)
The lawsuit was prompted by the White House solicitation for the public to report any "fishy" comments to 'flag@whitehouse.gov.' Although the White House slightly revised its data collection procedure last week, the email address still exists, the illegal activity continues, and is part of an "unlawful pattern and practice to collect and maintain information" on the exercise of free speech, which "continues in violation of the Privacy Act and First Amendment even if the Defendants terminate a particular information-collection component due to negative publicity."
The lawsuit outlines how the White House has employed a form of "bait-and-switch" tactic of accusing the Plaintiffs and other opponents of spreading misinformation about the Administration's goals for health care reform, and thereby refusing to 'come clean' about its real agenda.
The lawsuit outlines that the White House knew that the data collection would chill free speech, and in fact, intended to do just that:
"43. As part of their effort to advance the White House healthcare
reform agenda, Defendants have accused opponents (including
Plaintiffs) of spreading misinformation on issues such as whether
(a) health reform would provide public funding for abortions, (b) put
"death panels" in place to deny care to the elderly or infirm,
(c) amount to a government takeover of healthcare, and (d) increase
healthcare costs..the Defendants and the administration have spread
misinformation, semantics, and disinformation on these topics.....
"45. By denying and continuing to deny that healthcare reform
legislation includes "death panels" that make individual life-or-death
decisions on the elderly or infirm, the Defendants and the current
administration have ignored and implicitly denied and continue to
ignore and implicitly to deny both that their healthcare reform agenda
involves rationing healthcare..."
"My hate mail started shortly after the White House issued the 'fishy' request," said Kathryn Serkes, Director of Policy and Public Affairs for AAPS. "We were quite visible and vocal before then, so it doesn't seem like a coincidence. Who did they share their data with? With whom might they share it?"
AAPS and CURE demand that the White House remove all information already collected, and further, be prohibited from collecting any personal data in the future.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
No Taxes, Just the Give Me the Health Plan
TT Note: Hmmm. Illegal? Don't have to pay taxes? But Americans pay for health care of illegal aliens? Doesn't seem right, does it? Let your Congressman know your views on the subject.
Congressional Research Service: Illegal Aliens Can Receive Benefits Under House Health Care Bill
/PRNewswire/ -- Tuesday, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the "research arm" for the United States Congress, issued a report validating an analysis by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), that illegal aliens would be able to receive benefits under the House health care reform bill, America's Affordable Health Care Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200).
The report, Treatment of Noncitizens in H.R. 3200, states definitively, "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens - whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently - participating in the Exchange." H.R. 3200 establishes a Health Insurance Exchange which would provide individuals and small businesses with access to health care plans, including the "public option" to be managed by the government.
CRS also confirms FAIR's assessment that the House bill does not include a mechanism to prevent illegal aliens from receiving "affordability credits" that would subsidize the purchase of private health insurance. CRS specifically noted the absence "of a provision in the bill specifying the verification procedure." Because the language is ambiguous, all CRS could reasonably conclude is that any eligibility determination would be the responsibility of the Health Choices Commissioner.
The CRS analysis comes after weeks of denials by Members of Congress that illegal aliens could receive benefits under the House bill. These denials were echoed by countless media and health care "experts" who dismissed public concerns as myths, or as politically orchestrated attacks.
"Case closed. Illegal aliens will be eligible to participate in the health care program offered by the House bill unless Congress acts to amend the bill," stated Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "The loopholes and omissions in the House bill are not there by accident," continued Stein. "These loopholes were intended to extend benefits to illegal aliens while allowing Members of Congress to deny those facts to the American people."
The House Ways & Means Committee had the opportunity to include language that would have barred illegal aliens from enrolling in the proposed public option or receiving the affordability credits, but chose not to. An amendment offered by Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) would have applied the same eligibility verification procedures for coverage under H.R. 3200 that have been used for years to prove eligibility for Medicaid. That amendment was rejected by a party-line vote.
Based on its own findings and those of CRS, FAIR is calling on Congress to:
-- Adopt clear language that makes illegal aliens (and nonimmigrants)
ineligible for enrollment in publicly funded or subsidized health
insurance programs.
-- Require electronic eligibility verification for any health care reform
proposal through the existing Systematic Alien Verification for
Entitlements (SAVE) system.
-- Maintain a five-year eligibility waiting period for legal immigrants
to ensure that individuals don't come to the U.S. and immediately tap
the system.
"For the past month, irate citizens, concerned that their tax dollars will be used to fund health care for illegal aliens, have been unfairly portrayed as uninformed rabble by their elected representatives and a host of media organizations," said Stein. "It is time for the politicians to close the loopholes, and for the media establishment to acknowledge that they got it wrong."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.artsacrossgeorgia.com
Arts Across Georgia
Congressional Research Service: Illegal Aliens Can Receive Benefits Under House Health Care Bill
/PRNewswire/ -- Tuesday, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the "research arm" for the United States Congress, issued a report validating an analysis by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), that illegal aliens would be able to receive benefits under the House health care reform bill, America's Affordable Health Care Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200).
The report, Treatment of Noncitizens in H.R. 3200, states definitively, "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens - whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently - participating in the Exchange." H.R. 3200 establishes a Health Insurance Exchange which would provide individuals and small businesses with access to health care plans, including the "public option" to be managed by the government.
CRS also confirms FAIR's assessment that the House bill does not include a mechanism to prevent illegal aliens from receiving "affordability credits" that would subsidize the purchase of private health insurance. CRS specifically noted the absence "of a provision in the bill specifying the verification procedure." Because the language is ambiguous, all CRS could reasonably conclude is that any eligibility determination would be the responsibility of the Health Choices Commissioner.
The CRS analysis comes after weeks of denials by Members of Congress that illegal aliens could receive benefits under the House bill. These denials were echoed by countless media and health care "experts" who dismissed public concerns as myths, or as politically orchestrated attacks.
"Case closed. Illegal aliens will be eligible to participate in the health care program offered by the House bill unless Congress acts to amend the bill," stated Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "The loopholes and omissions in the House bill are not there by accident," continued Stein. "These loopholes were intended to extend benefits to illegal aliens while allowing Members of Congress to deny those facts to the American people."
The House Ways & Means Committee had the opportunity to include language that would have barred illegal aliens from enrolling in the proposed public option or receiving the affordability credits, but chose not to. An amendment offered by Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) would have applied the same eligibility verification procedures for coverage under H.R. 3200 that have been used for years to prove eligibility for Medicaid. That amendment was rejected by a party-line vote.
Based on its own findings and those of CRS, FAIR is calling on Congress to:
-- Adopt clear language that makes illegal aliens (and nonimmigrants)
ineligible for enrollment in publicly funded or subsidized health
insurance programs.
-- Require electronic eligibility verification for any health care reform
proposal through the existing Systematic Alien Verification for
Entitlements (SAVE) system.
-- Maintain a five-year eligibility waiting period for legal immigrants
to ensure that individuals don't come to the U.S. and immediately tap
the system.
"For the past month, irate citizens, concerned that their tax dollars will be used to fund health care for illegal aliens, have been unfairly portrayed as uninformed rabble by their elected representatives and a host of media organizations," said Stein. "It is time for the politicians to close the loopholes, and for the media establishment to acknowledge that they got it wrong."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.artsacrossgeorgia.com
Arts Across Georgia
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Statement from the American College of Surgeons Regarding Recent Comments from President Obama
/PRNewswire/ -- The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight.
-- Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts
completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg
amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and
$1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the
evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient
follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation.
Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for
this service.
-- Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon's decision to
remove a child's tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of
money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were
dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons
make decisions about recommending operations based on what's right for
the patient.
We agree with the President that the best thing for patients with diabetes is to manage the disease proactively to avoid the bad consequences that can occur, including blindness, stroke, and amputation. But as is the case for a person who has been treated for cancer and still needs to have a tumor removed, or a person who is in a terrible car crash and needs access to a trauma surgeon, there are times when even a perfectly managed diabetic patient needs a surgeon. The President's remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients.
We assume that the President made these mistakes unintentionally, but we would urge him to have his facts correct before making another inflammatory and incorrect statement about surgeons and surgical care.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
-- Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts
completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg
amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and
$1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the
evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient
follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation.
Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for
this service.
-- Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon's decision to
remove a child's tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of
money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were
dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons
make decisions about recommending operations based on what's right for
the patient.
We agree with the President that the best thing for patients with diabetes is to manage the disease proactively to avoid the bad consequences that can occur, including blindness, stroke, and amputation. But as is the case for a person who has been treated for cancer and still needs to have a tumor removed, or a person who is in a terrible car crash and needs access to a trauma surgeon, there are times when even a perfectly managed diabetic patient needs a surgeon. The President's remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients.
We assume that the President made these mistakes unintentionally, but we would urge him to have his facts correct before making another inflammatory and incorrect statement about surgeons and surgical care.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Health Care Reform Bill Allows Cities to get Grants for Beautification?
TT Note: Perhaps the good Congressmen should really read the current Health Care Reform Bill. Perhaps they should note all the non-health projects that have been slipped in to the bill. Has any American thought to ask their Congressman "why"? The Congressmen just may be hard pressed to explain how a new sidewalk or swing set are in the best interest of the country's health.
Health Care Bill Fact of the Day: Billions in Pork Barrel Spending for ‘Community Transformation’ and ‘Beautification’
Under the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee’s “Affordable Health Choices Act,” local governments can apply for “community transformation” grants to build jungle gyms, sidewalks, bicycle paths, and grocery stores, to install streetlights, and to establish new farmers’ markets.
The dollar amount of these grants, and of the total “community transformation” earmark program, is left to the discretion of the Obama administration....http://www.redstate.com/jeff_emanuel/2009/08/12/1health-care-bill-fact-of-the-day-billions-in-pork-barrel-spending-for-community-transformation-and-beautification/
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Health Care Bill Fact of the Day: Billions in Pork Barrel Spending for ‘Community Transformation’ and ‘Beautification’
Under the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee’s “Affordable Health Choices Act,” local governments can apply for “community transformation” grants to build jungle gyms, sidewalks, bicycle paths, and grocery stores, to install streetlights, and to establish new farmers’ markets.
The dollar amount of these grants, and of the total “community transformation” earmark program, is left to the discretion of the Obama administration....http://www.redstate.com/jeff_emanuel/2009/08/12/1health-care-bill-fact-of-the-day-billions-in-pork-barrel-spending-for-community-transformation-and-beautification/
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Monday, August 10, 2009
Rep. Tsongas Has Her Choice of Health Care, but What about the Little People?
TT Note: Members of Congress have their choice of health care. Does Rep. Tsongas really think the current health care reform bill will increase the choices for Americans? Does she really think the current health care reform bill will strengthen private health care?
Hmmm. Government exchange provision will provide any private insurance company? Gee, that's not what the White House said.
Yes. The system needs reworking-- but not by government mandates of an one payer system.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Hmmm. Government exchange provision will provide any private insurance company? Gee, that's not what the White House said.
Yes. The system needs reworking-- but not by government mandates of an one payer system.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Amid Democrat Division on Health Care, House GOP Unites Behind Better Solutions to Expand Access, Lower Costs
TT Note: These stories are quite disturbing. What I am seeing is a push to increase my taxes for the healthcare I already enjoy, and quite possibly having to give up my healthcare for what the Washington bean counters say is best for me. Take a stand America and let your representatives know your wishes on this subject.
Anyone watching the weekend news shows noticed a very clear trend: Democrats in Washington are all over the map about what to do on health care. Take a look:
ON A “PUBLIC PLAN,” WHICH IS A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTH CARE:
- On CNN’s State of the Union yesterday, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) predicted, “I don’t think the votes are there.”
- Yet on NBC’s Meet the Press, Vice President Biden insisted, “[The President] does want a public plan.”
ON A PLAN TO FINANCE A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER BY CUTTING HEALTH CARE DEDUCTIONS:
- On ABC’s This Week, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius expressed the President’s renewed support for “shaving” health care deductions.
- Sec. Sebelius made this assertion even as This Week host George Stephanopoulos reminded her, “All the major leaders on the Finance Committees and the Ways and Means Committee have said that’s not the way they want to go.”
ON A PLAN TO BANKROLL HEALTH CARE “REFORM” BY TAXING BENEFITS:
- On Fox News Sunday, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) said, “This is unnecessary.”
- Yet on Meet the Press, Vice President Biden left the door open to this tax hike. When asked if the President wouldn’t sign a bill that taxed Americans’ health care benefits, the Vice President responded, “I didn’t say that.”
As Democrats try to sort this out amongst themselves, House Republicans are moving forward with common-sense solutions that will reduce costs, expand access, and increase the quality of care in a way that America can afford. Led by Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), the House GOP’s and his Health Care Reform Solutions Group is crafting a plan to:
- Expand access to affordable, quality care regardless of pre-existing conditions;
- Protect Americans from being forced into a government-run plan, making certain that medical decisions are made by patients and their doctors, not Washington bureaucrats;
- Let Americans who like their health care coverage keep it, while giving all Americans the freedom to choose the plan that best meets their needs; and
- Reform medical liability rules to block junk lawsuits from driving up health care costs for families and small businesses.
The disagreements among Democrats on health care are a reflection of the Democratic leadership’s insistence on rushing legislation without a clear understanding of what the plan will do, who it will impact, and how it will be financed. In reality, health care reform is too important to get wrong. House Republicans believe that to make health care more affordable and accessible, it cannot deny care, raise taxes, and allow bureaucrats – rather than doctors and patients – to make key health care decisions. And their health care solutions are a reflection of that. Rather than wrangling with one another over a government-run plan, isn’t it time for Democrats to reach out to Republicans in support of a health care reform plan that works?
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Anyone watching the weekend news shows noticed a very clear trend: Democrats in Washington are all over the map about what to do on health care. Take a look:
ON A “PUBLIC PLAN,” WHICH IS A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTH CARE:
- On CNN’s State of the Union yesterday, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) predicted, “I don’t think the votes are there.”
- Yet on NBC’s Meet the Press, Vice President Biden insisted, “[The President] does want a public plan.”
ON A PLAN TO FINANCE A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER BY CUTTING HEALTH CARE DEDUCTIONS:
- On ABC’s This Week, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius expressed the President’s renewed support for “shaving” health care deductions.
- Sec. Sebelius made this assertion even as This Week host George Stephanopoulos reminded her, “All the major leaders on the Finance Committees and the Ways and Means Committee have said that’s not the way they want to go.”
ON A PLAN TO BANKROLL HEALTH CARE “REFORM” BY TAXING BENEFITS:
- On Fox News Sunday, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) said, “This is unnecessary.”
- Yet on Meet the Press, Vice President Biden left the door open to this tax hike. When asked if the President wouldn’t sign a bill that taxed Americans’ health care benefits, the Vice President responded, “I didn’t say that.”
As Democrats try to sort this out amongst themselves, House Republicans are moving forward with common-sense solutions that will reduce costs, expand access, and increase the quality of care in a way that America can afford. Led by Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), the House GOP’s and his Health Care Reform Solutions Group is crafting a plan to:
- Expand access to affordable, quality care regardless of pre-existing conditions;
- Protect Americans from being forced into a government-run plan, making certain that medical decisions are made by patients and their doctors, not Washington bureaucrats;
- Let Americans who like their health care coverage keep it, while giving all Americans the freedom to choose the plan that best meets their needs; and
- Reform medical liability rules to block junk lawsuits from driving up health care costs for families and small businesses.
The disagreements among Democrats on health care are a reflection of the Democratic leadership’s insistence on rushing legislation without a clear understanding of what the plan will do, who it will impact, and how it will be financed. In reality, health care reform is too important to get wrong. House Republicans believe that to make health care more affordable and accessible, it cannot deny care, raise taxes, and allow bureaucrats – rather than doctors and patients – to make key health care decisions. And their health care solutions are a reflection of that. Rather than wrangling with one another over a government-run plan, isn’t it time for Democrats to reach out to Republicans in support of a health care reform plan that works?
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Lyme Disease Epidemic Causing Healthcare Crisis
(BUSINESS WIRE)--An ongoing battle over the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease, a tick-borne illness, is pitting doctors against doctors, prompting health insurance companies to deny medical claims at an alarming rate, and leaving suffering patients stuck in the middle.
Transmitted through the bite of a tick, the number of Lyme disease cases in the United States has doubled since 1991—with at least 27,000 new cases reported each year. But because of inaccurate tests and under-reporting the actual numbers may be up to 12 times higher, according to the CDC, making Lyme disease an epidemic larger than AIDS, West Nile Virus and Avian Flu combined.
Tens of thousands of people suffer from what they say are the debilitating effects of chronic Lyme disease, which can lead to lifelong disabilities or even death. Yet many doctors deny that such a disease even exists, and doctors willing to treat it using long-term antibiotic therapy have faced losing their medical licenses.
The award-winning documentary Under Our Skin takes an unflinching look at the controversy surrounding Lyme disease and its impact on the national healthcare system, with billions of dollars of insurance claims, doctors’ medical licenses and patients’ lives hanging in the balance.
The implications are staggering. Irwin Vanderhoof, PhD professor at the New York University Stern School of Business, in 1993 estimated that Lyme disease cost society nearly $1billion per year. That estimate has since skyrocketed to about $2billion per year, including diagnosis, treatment, and lost wages, according to Contingencies, an actuarial trade publication for the insurance industry.
“Given the CDC’s admitted underreporting bias, the ultimate cost to society may prove to be even more alarming,” said Dr. Joseph Jemsek, a Charlotte-area physician featured in Under Our Skin. “The cost in lives unfulfilled by an illness that today’s medical profession refuses to acknowledge is incalculable.”
In a landmark prosecution announced last year, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal brought charges against the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) for abuse of Lyme disease treatment guidelines and conflicts of interest for guideline committee members. In response, the IDSA agreed to restructure its committee and revise its controversial Lyme Disease Guidelines. Meanwhile, as shown in Under Our Skin, patients continue to suffer through misdiagnosis while seeking treatment for a disease they’re often told is just in their heads.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Transmitted through the bite of a tick, the number of Lyme disease cases in the United States has doubled since 1991—with at least 27,000 new cases reported each year. But because of inaccurate tests and under-reporting the actual numbers may be up to 12 times higher, according to the CDC, making Lyme disease an epidemic larger than AIDS, West Nile Virus and Avian Flu combined.
Tens of thousands of people suffer from what they say are the debilitating effects of chronic Lyme disease, which can lead to lifelong disabilities or even death. Yet many doctors deny that such a disease even exists, and doctors willing to treat it using long-term antibiotic therapy have faced losing their medical licenses.
The award-winning documentary Under Our Skin takes an unflinching look at the controversy surrounding Lyme disease and its impact on the national healthcare system, with billions of dollars of insurance claims, doctors’ medical licenses and patients’ lives hanging in the balance.
The implications are staggering. Irwin Vanderhoof, PhD professor at the New York University Stern School of Business, in 1993 estimated that Lyme disease cost society nearly $1billion per year. That estimate has since skyrocketed to about $2billion per year, including diagnosis, treatment, and lost wages, according to Contingencies, an actuarial trade publication for the insurance industry.
“Given the CDC’s admitted underreporting bias, the ultimate cost to society may prove to be even more alarming,” said Dr. Joseph Jemsek, a Charlotte-area physician featured in Under Our Skin. “The cost in lives unfulfilled by an illness that today’s medical profession refuses to acknowledge is incalculable.”
In a landmark prosecution announced last year, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal brought charges against the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) for abuse of Lyme disease treatment guidelines and conflicts of interest for guideline committee members. In response, the IDSA agreed to restructure its committee and revise its controversial Lyme Disease Guidelines. Meanwhile, as shown in Under Our Skin, patients continue to suffer through misdiagnosis while seeking treatment for a disease they’re often told is just in their heads.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Co-Payment Increases Result in Gaps in Veterans' Prescription Usage
TT Note: It just doesn't seem right that our men and women who fought for our country should have to choose whether or not to take medicine.
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Fewer veterans filled their prescriptions for cholesterol-lowering drugs after an increase in co-payment costs for prescription drugs, researchers report in Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association.
In February 2002, the Veterans Administration (VA) increased prescription co-payments from $2 to $7 per 30-day drug supply.
To determine the impact of the co-payment increase on cholesterol-lowering medication adherence, researchers examined the electronic records of 5,604 veterans treated at the Philadelphia Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center from November 1999 to April 2004.
They compared veterans in the all co-payment group and the some co-payment group with veterans who were exempt from making prescription drug co-payments. The all co-payment group paid co-pays for all drugs and the some co-payment group paid co-pays only for drugs for non-service connected health problems with out-of-pocket expenses capped at $840 per year.
Researchers analyzed the differences in cholesterol-lowering medication adherence during the 24 months before and 24 months after the institution of co-payments. Evidence of veterans having cholesterol-lowering medication 80 percent or more of the time were considered adherent.
Researchers found:
-- The number of patients who had medications available for more than 80
percent of the time declined by more than 19 percent in both the all
co-payment group and the some co-payment group. In comparison,
veterans exempt from co-payments, used as controls in the study, had a
decline of 12 percent.
-- The odds of having a continuous gap without medications for more than
90 days was three times higher among patients in the all co-payment
group and twice as high in patients in the some co-payment group when
compared to the exempt group.
"The increase in co-payments adversely impacted lipid-lowering medication adherence among veterans," said Jalpa A. Doshi, Ph.D., lead author of the study and research assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. "Of even greater concern is our finding on the similar adverse effect of the co-payment increase in veterans who are at higher risk for coronary artery disease taking the medications for primary or secondary prevention."
Statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs have been shown to reduce the risk of future coronary events and cardiovascular mortality in patients at high risk, Doshi said.
"It is concerning to see that the increase in co-payments adversely affected the use of these usually long-term medications, especially since the prevalence of heart disease is higher in the VA population than in the general population," Doshi said. "These weren't just short gaps interspersed between lipid-lowering medication refills, but continuous gaps for 90 days or more."
The study did not look at the possible increase in use of medical care due to the lack of cholesterol-lowering drugs. Other studies have shown that not taking medications for chronic diseases increases healthcare costs.
"Policymakers need to realize that the one-size-fits-all approach in designing cost-sharing policies can adversely impact high-risk patient groups," Doshi said. "This seemingly small increase from $2 to $7 more than tripled the out-of-pocket costs for veterans, who were more likely to have a lower income than the patients in the private sector."
The VA should at least consider charging lower co-payments for generic drugs than for the brand-name prescription drugs, Doshi said. "Right now the VA charges a flat co-payment for a 30-day prescription, whether it is generic or a brand-name drug. This is particularly relevant in the case of lipid-lowering drugs such as statins, wherein two brand drugs became available as generics in 2006 and are available at significantly lower prices."
She said a more-promising approach is a "value-based insurance design" method that would link co-payments to the patient's need with lower co-payments for drugs with higher expected therapeutic benefit and higher co-payments for drugs with lower therapeutic benefit.
The co-payment was increased from $7 to $8 in 2006, and with present budget constraints, it's likely that the co-payment will be further increased, Doshi said.
The VA Center for Health Equity, Research and Promotion (CHERP), American Heart Association Pharmaceutical Roundtable Award, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the National Institute of Aging and the Penn Institute on Aging funded the study.
Co-authors are: Jingsan Zhu, M.B.A.; Bruce Lee, M.D., M.B.A.; Stephen Kimmel, M.D., M.S.C.E.; and Kevin Volpp, M.D., Ph.D. Individual author disclosures are available on the manuscript.
Statements and conclusions of study authors that are published in American Heart Association scientific journals are solely those of the study authors and do not necessarily reflect the association's policy or position. The association makes no representation or guarantee as to their accuracy or reliability. The association receives funding primarily from individuals, foundations and corporations (including pharmaceutical, device manufacturers and other companies) also make donations and fund specific association programs and events. The association has strict policies to prevent these relationships from influencing the science content. Revenues from pharmaceutical and device corporations are available at www.americanheart.org/corporatefunding.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Fewer veterans filled their prescriptions for cholesterol-lowering drugs after an increase in co-payment costs for prescription drugs, researchers report in Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association.
In February 2002, the Veterans Administration (VA) increased prescription co-payments from $2 to $7 per 30-day drug supply.
To determine the impact of the co-payment increase on cholesterol-lowering medication adherence, researchers examined the electronic records of 5,604 veterans treated at the Philadelphia Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center from November 1999 to April 2004.
They compared veterans in the all co-payment group and the some co-payment group with veterans who were exempt from making prescription drug co-payments. The all co-payment group paid co-pays for all drugs and the some co-payment group paid co-pays only for drugs for non-service connected health problems with out-of-pocket expenses capped at $840 per year.
Researchers analyzed the differences in cholesterol-lowering medication adherence during the 24 months before and 24 months after the institution of co-payments. Evidence of veterans having cholesterol-lowering medication 80 percent or more of the time were considered adherent.
Researchers found:
-- The number of patients who had medications available for more than 80
percent of the time declined by more than 19 percent in both the all
co-payment group and the some co-payment group. In comparison,
veterans exempt from co-payments, used as controls in the study, had a
decline of 12 percent.
-- The odds of having a continuous gap without medications for more than
90 days was three times higher among patients in the all co-payment
group and twice as high in patients in the some co-payment group when
compared to the exempt group.
"The increase in co-payments adversely impacted lipid-lowering medication adherence among veterans," said Jalpa A. Doshi, Ph.D., lead author of the study and research assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. "Of even greater concern is our finding on the similar adverse effect of the co-payment increase in veterans who are at higher risk for coronary artery disease taking the medications for primary or secondary prevention."
Statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs have been shown to reduce the risk of future coronary events and cardiovascular mortality in patients at high risk, Doshi said.
"It is concerning to see that the increase in co-payments adversely affected the use of these usually long-term medications, especially since the prevalence of heart disease is higher in the VA population than in the general population," Doshi said. "These weren't just short gaps interspersed between lipid-lowering medication refills, but continuous gaps for 90 days or more."
The study did not look at the possible increase in use of medical care due to the lack of cholesterol-lowering drugs. Other studies have shown that not taking medications for chronic diseases increases healthcare costs.
"Policymakers need to realize that the one-size-fits-all approach in designing cost-sharing policies can adversely impact high-risk patient groups," Doshi said. "This seemingly small increase from $2 to $7 more than tripled the out-of-pocket costs for veterans, who were more likely to have a lower income than the patients in the private sector."
The VA should at least consider charging lower co-payments for generic drugs than for the brand-name prescription drugs, Doshi said. "Right now the VA charges a flat co-payment for a 30-day prescription, whether it is generic or a brand-name drug. This is particularly relevant in the case of lipid-lowering drugs such as statins, wherein two brand drugs became available as generics in 2006 and are available at significantly lower prices."
She said a more-promising approach is a "value-based insurance design" method that would link co-payments to the patient's need with lower co-payments for drugs with higher expected therapeutic benefit and higher co-payments for drugs with lower therapeutic benefit.
The co-payment was increased from $7 to $8 in 2006, and with present budget constraints, it's likely that the co-payment will be further increased, Doshi said.
The VA Center for Health Equity, Research and Promotion (CHERP), American Heart Association Pharmaceutical Roundtable Award, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the National Institute of Aging and the Penn Institute on Aging funded the study.
Co-authors are: Jingsan Zhu, M.B.A.; Bruce Lee, M.D., M.B.A.; Stephen Kimmel, M.D., M.S.C.E.; and Kevin Volpp, M.D., Ph.D. Individual author disclosures are available on the manuscript.
Statements and conclusions of study authors that are published in American Heart Association scientific journals are solely those of the study authors and do not necessarily reflect the association's policy or position. The association makes no representation or guarantee as to their accuracy or reliability. The association receives funding primarily from individuals, foundations and corporations (including pharmaceutical, device manufacturers and other companies) also make donations and fund specific association programs and events. The association has strict policies to prevent these relationships from influencing the science content. Revenues from pharmaceutical and device corporations are available at www.americanheart.org/corporatefunding.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Saturday, December 29, 2007
FDA Warns Consumers Not to Eat Raw Oysters Harvested from the West Karako Bay Section of Growing Area 3 in Louisiana
Toxic Note: This is not a warning I'll have to heed as never in a bazillion years would you catch me letting one of these slimy buggers slither down my throat. If I were stranded on a desert island and that was it, I'd wait a few days to see if a fish wouldn't flop up onto the beach. I understand that there are those who love these critter, raw, stewed, fried or however else they might come. So to those who will be heading out to their favorite haunt to slurp a few, read on:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning consumers not to eat raw oysters harvested from West Karako Bay, a section of Growing Area 3 in Louisiana. These oysters, harvested from Dec. 3 through Dec. 21, may be contaminated with norovirus.
Symptoms of norovirus infection include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and stomach cramping. Affected individuals often experience low-grade fever, chills, headache, muscle aches, and a general sense of tiredness. Most people show symptoms within 48 hours of exposure to the virus, with the illness lasting one to two days. However, the illness can become serious for the very young, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems.
Consumers who ate raw oysters on or after Dec. 3 and experienced these symptoms are encouraged to contact their health care providers and local health departments. Consumers concerned about the origin of oysters they have recently purchased should contact the place of purchase to determine if the oysters were harvested from the identified area during the Dec. 3-21 period.
FDA has received reports of norovirus infection in seven individuals who ate raw oysters on Dec. 13 at a restaurant in Chattanooga, Tenn. The Tennessee Department of Health's test results from two of the ill patients were positive for norovirus. FDA confirmed the presence of norovirus in shell oysters harvested from the West Karako Bay section of Growing Area 3 and were served at the restaurant. Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals closed the affected growing area on Dec. 21. FDA is working with the states involved to determine if any additional actions may be necessary to ensure public health protection.
The original shipper of the oysters is Prestige Oyster Company of Theriot, La. The company shipped the oysters to Bon Secour Fisheries in Bon Secour, Ala. Bon Secour Fisheries, in turn, shipped the oysters to the restaurant in Chattanooga. Considering the shelf-life of the product, it is possible that suspect oysters from the designated area are still available in other retail and food service settings.
Persons with weakened immune systems, including those affected by AIDS, and persons with chronic alcohol abuse, liver, stomach or blood disorders, cancer, diabetes or kidney disease should avoid raw oyster consumption altogether, regardless of where the oysters are harvested.
Cooking destroys the virus, eliminating the risk of illness for both healthy and immunocompromised individuals. FDA advises that it's always best to cook seafood thoroughly to minimize the risk of foodborne illness. Consumers can continue to enjoy oysters in many cooked preparations by following this advice:
At Restaurants and other Foodservice Establishments:
Order oysters fully cooked.
In the Shell:
Purchase oysters with the shells closed. Throw away any oysters with shells already opened.
To prepare oysters for eating, choose one of the following methods:
Boil oysters until the shells open. Once open, boil for an additional 3-5 minutes.
Steamer - add oysters to water that are already steaming and cook live oysters until the shells open; once open steam for another 4-9 minutes.
Use smaller pots to boil or steam oysters. Using larger pots, or cooking too many oysters at one time, may cause uneven heat distribution, which may cause the oysters in the middle to not get fully cooked.
Discard any oysters that do not open during cooking.
Shucked Oysters:
To prepare oysters for eating, choose one of the following methods:
Boil or simmer shucked oysters for at least 3 minutes or until the edges curl.
Fry at 375 degrees for at least 3 minutes.
Broil 3 inches from heat for 3 minutes.
Bake at 450 degrees for 10 minutes.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning consumers not to eat raw oysters harvested from West Karako Bay, a section of Growing Area 3 in Louisiana. These oysters, harvested from Dec. 3 through Dec. 21, may be contaminated with norovirus.
Symptoms of norovirus infection include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and stomach cramping. Affected individuals often experience low-grade fever, chills, headache, muscle aches, and a general sense of tiredness. Most people show symptoms within 48 hours of exposure to the virus, with the illness lasting one to two days. However, the illness can become serious for the very young, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems.
Consumers who ate raw oysters on or after Dec. 3 and experienced these symptoms are encouraged to contact their health care providers and local health departments. Consumers concerned about the origin of oysters they have recently purchased should contact the place of purchase to determine if the oysters were harvested from the identified area during the Dec. 3-21 period.
FDA has received reports of norovirus infection in seven individuals who ate raw oysters on Dec. 13 at a restaurant in Chattanooga, Tenn. The Tennessee Department of Health's test results from two of the ill patients were positive for norovirus. FDA confirmed the presence of norovirus in shell oysters harvested from the West Karako Bay section of Growing Area 3 and were served at the restaurant. Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals closed the affected growing area on Dec. 21. FDA is working with the states involved to determine if any additional actions may be necessary to ensure public health protection.
The original shipper of the oysters is Prestige Oyster Company of Theriot, La. The company shipped the oysters to Bon Secour Fisheries in Bon Secour, Ala. Bon Secour Fisheries, in turn, shipped the oysters to the restaurant in Chattanooga. Considering the shelf-life of the product, it is possible that suspect oysters from the designated area are still available in other retail and food service settings.
Persons with weakened immune systems, including those affected by AIDS, and persons with chronic alcohol abuse, liver, stomach or blood disorders, cancer, diabetes or kidney disease should avoid raw oyster consumption altogether, regardless of where the oysters are harvested.
Cooking destroys the virus, eliminating the risk of illness for both healthy and immunocompromised individuals. FDA advises that it's always best to cook seafood thoroughly to minimize the risk of foodborne illness. Consumers can continue to enjoy oysters in many cooked preparations by following this advice:
At Restaurants and other Foodservice Establishments:
Order oysters fully cooked.
In the Shell:
Purchase oysters with the shells closed. Throw away any oysters with shells already opened.
To prepare oysters for eating, choose one of the following methods:
Boil oysters until the shells open. Once open, boil for an additional 3-5 minutes.
Steamer - add oysters to water that are already steaming and cook live oysters until the shells open; once open steam for another 4-9 minutes.
Use smaller pots to boil or steam oysters. Using larger pots, or cooking too many oysters at one time, may cause uneven heat distribution, which may cause the oysters in the middle to not get fully cooked.
Discard any oysters that do not open during cooking.
Shucked Oysters:
To prepare oysters for eating, choose one of the following methods:
Boil or simmer shucked oysters for at least 3 minutes or until the edges curl.
Fry at 375 degrees for at least 3 minutes.
Broil 3 inches from heat for 3 minutes.
Bake at 450 degrees for 10 minutes.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Nearly One in Five Americans Say They Can't Afford Needed Health Care
Nearly one in five U.S. adults - more than 40 million people - report they do not have adequate access to the health care they need, according to the annual report on the nation's health released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The report, "Health, United States, 2007," is a compilation of more than 150 health tables prepared by CDC's National Center for Health Statistics.
The report also contains a special section focusing on access to care, which shows that nearly 20 percent of adults reported that they needed and did not receive one or more of these services in the past year - medical care, prescription medicines, mental health care, dental care, or eyeglasses - because they could not afford them.
"There has been important progress made in many areas of health such as increased life expectancy and decreases in deaths from leading killers such as heart disease and cancer. But this report shows that access to health care is still an issue where we need improvement," said CDC Director Julie Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H.
In 2005, nearly one in 10 people between the ages of 18 and 64 said they were unable to get necessary prescription drugs during the past 12 months due to cost. Nearly 10 percent said they delayed receiving needed medical care. This report did not study the relationship between access to health care services and health outcomes.
Other major findings of the report include:
* Young adults 18-24 years of age were more likely than children or older adults to lack a usual source of care and to be uninsured. About 30 percent of these young adults did not have a usual source of health care, and an equal percentage were uninsured.
* One in 10 adults ages 45-64 years did not have a usual source of health care, and more than 5 percent of adults in this age group who had diagnosed high blood pressure, serious heart conditions, or diabetes reported not having a usual source of medical care.
* In 2005, one out of five people under the age of 65 reported being uninsured for at least part of the 12 months prior to being interviewed. The majority of this group reported being uninsured for more than 12 months.
* One in 10 women aged 45-64 years with income below the poverty level reported delaying medical care due to lack of transportation.
* About one-third of all children living below the poverty level did not have a recent dental visit in 2005, compared with less than one-fifth of children with higher income.
The report features data on virtually every health topic from all stages of life, and does show a number of important gains:
* In 2006, 87 percent of children age 19-35 months received three or more doses of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, an increase from 41 percent in 2002.
* In 2001-2004, the age-adjusted percentage of adults with high blood cholesterol was 17 percent down from 21 percent in 1988-94.
* In 2001-2004 about 25 percent of adults 20-64 years of age had untreated cavities, down from nearly 50 percent in 1971-74.
The full Health, United States: 2007 is available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/. For more information about the latest Department of Health and Human Services initiatives proposed to provide affordable health care coverage to every American visit www.hhs.gov/everyamericaninsured for more information.
The report, "Health, United States, 2007," is a compilation of more than 150 health tables prepared by CDC's National Center for Health Statistics.
The report also contains a special section focusing on access to care, which shows that nearly 20 percent of adults reported that they needed and did not receive one or more of these services in the past year - medical care, prescription medicines, mental health care, dental care, or eyeglasses - because they could not afford them.
"There has been important progress made in many areas of health such as increased life expectancy and decreases in deaths from leading killers such as heart disease and cancer. But this report shows that access to health care is still an issue where we need improvement," said CDC Director Julie Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H.
In 2005, nearly one in 10 people between the ages of 18 and 64 said they were unable to get necessary prescription drugs during the past 12 months due to cost. Nearly 10 percent said they delayed receiving needed medical care. This report did not study the relationship between access to health care services and health outcomes.
Other major findings of the report include:
* Young adults 18-24 years of age were more likely than children or older adults to lack a usual source of care and to be uninsured. About 30 percent of these young adults did not have a usual source of health care, and an equal percentage were uninsured.
* One in 10 adults ages 45-64 years did not have a usual source of health care, and more than 5 percent of adults in this age group who had diagnosed high blood pressure, serious heart conditions, or diabetes reported not having a usual source of medical care.
* In 2005, one out of five people under the age of 65 reported being uninsured for at least part of the 12 months prior to being interviewed. The majority of this group reported being uninsured for more than 12 months.
* One in 10 women aged 45-64 years with income below the poverty level reported delaying medical care due to lack of transportation.
* About one-third of all children living below the poverty level did not have a recent dental visit in 2005, compared with less than one-fifth of children with higher income.
The report features data on virtually every health topic from all stages of life, and does show a number of important gains:
* In 2006, 87 percent of children age 19-35 months received three or more doses of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, an increase from 41 percent in 2002.
* In 2001-2004, the age-adjusted percentage of adults with high blood cholesterol was 17 percent down from 21 percent in 1988-94.
* In 2001-2004 about 25 percent of adults 20-64 years of age had untreated cavities, down from nearly 50 percent in 1971-74.
The full Health, United States: 2007 is available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/. For more information about the latest Department of Health and Human Services initiatives proposed to provide affordable health care coverage to every American visit www.hhs.gov/everyamericaninsured for more information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
