/PRNewswire-/ -- The following is a statement of Matthew L. Myers, President, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids:
The U.S. Surgeon General's report released today provides dramatic new evidence that smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke cause immediate harm to the human body, triggering physical changes that lead to cancer, heart attacks, lung disease and many other serious illnesses, including damage to the reproductive systems of both men and women.
The report also concludes that design changes to cigarettes, such as filter ventilation, flavoring agents and added chemical ingredients, have over time made them more addictive. Today's cigarettes deliver nicotine more efficiently to the brain, addicting kids more quickly and making it harder for smokers to quit. The tobacco industry's decades-long effort to finely engineer cigarettes, along with its use of deceptive (and now-banned) cigarette descriptions such as "light" and "low-tar," have undermined smoking prevention and cessation efforts, the report says.
Nearly 50 years after the first Surgeon General's report on tobacco was released in 1964, this latest report is a stark reminder of how lethal and addictive smoking truly is, with every cigarette doing you damage. It sends an unmistakable message to elected officials at all levels that reducing smoking is one of the most effective actions we can take to improve the nation's health and prevent some of the most deadly and costly diseases in our society.
The report also sends important messages to America's kids and smokers. If you do not smoke, don't start. If you do smoke, try to quit immediately and get the help you need to succeed. This is true not only for regular smokers, but also for the 22 percent of smokers who do not smoke every day and to those who consider themselves only "social" smokers and may think they are not at risk. This report's message is clear: You are at risk. There is no risk-free level of exposure to tobacco smoke, and you don't have to be a heavy or long-time smoker to develop a smoking-related disease.
The report underscores the importance of actions that we know work to prevent kids from starting to smoke, help smokers quit and protect everyone's right to breathe clean air, free of the hundreds of toxic chemicals in secondhand smoke. Despite progress in making workplaces and public spaces smoke-free, four in ten non-smokers – and more than half of children between 3 and 11 – are still exposed to secondhand smoke, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No one should have to breathe secondhand smoke at work or in public places, and parents should ensure that homes, cars and other places frequented by children are smoke-free.
Federal, state and local policymakers must redouble their efforts to implement proven measures that reduce tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke.
The federal government must fund and aggressively implement the new tobacco prevention plan that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced last month. The plan includes a national media campaign to prevent kids from smoking and encourage smokers to quit; expanded assistance and health insurance coverage for smokers trying to quit; effective regulation of tobacco products and marketing; and accelerated research to enhance strategies to reduce tobacco use.
The Food and Drug Administration must continue to vigorously exercise its new authority to regulate the manufacture, marketing and sale of tobacco products to keep these harmful products away from our children and reduce their devastating effects on public health.
The states must step up their efforts to reduce tobacco use by increasing tobacco taxes, enacting smoke-free workplace laws and fully funding tobacco prevention and cessation programs at levels recommended by the CDC. Unfortunately, states have slashed funding for tobacco prevention programs by 28 percent in the past three years and now fund such programs at the lowest level since 1999, when they first received funds from the settlement of state lawsuits against the tobacco industry. The states this year (Fiscal Year 2011) will collect $25.3 billion in revenue from the tobacco settlement and tobacco taxes, but will spend only two percent of it — $517.9 million — on programs to prevent kids from smoking and help smokers quit.
The Surgeon General's report details the serious health effects of even brief exposure to tobacco smoke. It concludes that:
* Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals and compounds, including hundreds that are toxic and at least 70 that cause cancer.
* Every exposure to the cancer-causing chemicals in tobacco smoke can damage DNA in a way that leads to cancer.
* Exposure to secondhand smoke has an immediate adverse impact on the cardiovascular system, damaging blood vessels, making blood more likely to clot and increasing risks for heart attack and stroke.
* Smoking makes it harder for women to get pregnant and can cause miscarriage, premature birth and low birth weight. It also harms male fertility.
The Surgeon General's report provides the grim details of how tobacco use kills more than 400,000 Americans each year and costs almost $100 billion in health care expenditures. It underscores the need for political will and urgent action to win the fight against tobacco.
The report, titled "How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease," can be found at: www.surgeongeneral.gov.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
Twitter: @FayetteFP
Showing posts with label report. Show all posts
Showing posts with label report. Show all posts
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Judicial Watch Uncovers FDA Records Detailing 16 New Deaths Tied to Gardasil
/Standard Newswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has received new documents from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), detailing reports of adverse reactions to the vaccination for human papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil. The adverse reactions include 16 new deaths (including four suicides) between May 2009 and September 2010. The FDA also produced 789 "serious" reports, with 213 cases resulting in permanent disability and 25 resulting in a diagnosis of Guillian Barre Syndrome.
Adverse report excerpts include:
* A nineteen year old girl with no medical history except occasional cases bronchitis received Gardasil and in 53 days, had "Headache, Nausea, dizziness, chilling, tiredness, shortness of breath, complained of chest plain, severe cramps." She experienced an Acute Cardiac Arrhythmia. Attempts to resuscitate her resulted in a sternal fracture, but were unsuccessful and the patient died. -- V. 356938
* A thirteen year old girl was vaccinated on July 17th, 2009. Ten days later, she developed a fever and was treated. However, "the patient did not recover and was admitted to the hospital on [August 8th]...She developed dyspnoea and went into a coma...she expired [that day] at around 9:00 pm. The cause of death was determined as 'death due to viral fever.' ... This event occurred after 23 days of receiving first dose of Gardasil. -- V. 380081
* Thirteen days after vaccination, a ten year old girl developed "progressive loss of strength in lower and upper extremities almost totally...Nerve conduction studies [showed Guillain Barre Syndrome]." Case was "considered to be immediately life-threatening." -- V. 339375
* One mother of a 13-year old girl who died 37 days after receiving the vaccination noted in a report: "I first declined getting her the vaccination but her doctor ensured me that it was safe..." After her daughter complained of a severe headache, no feeling in her foot and a tingling feeling in her leg, a doctor's appointment was set for October 23, 2009. "My daughter never made it to Oct[ober] 23rd, which is also her birthday," the mother noted. "She passed on Oct[ober] 17th, I found her cold unresponsive in her room at 7am...."
"To say Gardasil has a suspect safety record is a big understatement. These reports are troubling and show that the FDA and other public health authorities may be asleep at the switch," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "In the meantime, the public relations push for Gardasil by Merck and politicians on Capitol Hill continues. No one should require this vaccine for young children."
In 2008, Judicial Watch launched a comprehensive investigation of Gardasil's safety record. All previous FDA documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, as well as a Judicial Watch special report, entitled "Examining the FDA's HPV Vaccine Records: Detailing the Approval Process, Side-Effects, Safety Concerns & Marketing Practices of a Large Scale Health Experiment," are available at
www.JudicialWatch.org (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=hl94yxbab&et=1103726832989&s=13633&e=0019k-0tTevIIcuiGvoaAfx-_dDjhrytmKNsMXSa7cx1qOpHEE38bsioz_9OSnd-aZhrS_agrrYNSLxUqcZwuD57S3sJcHV_V_w04pJv06yfKf3xNcIuwQ7Dw==).
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
Twitter: @FayetteFP
Adverse report excerpts include:
* A nineteen year old girl with no medical history except occasional cases bronchitis received Gardasil and in 53 days, had "Headache, Nausea, dizziness, chilling, tiredness, shortness of breath, complained of chest plain, severe cramps." She experienced an Acute Cardiac Arrhythmia. Attempts to resuscitate her resulted in a sternal fracture, but were unsuccessful and the patient died. -- V. 356938
* A thirteen year old girl was vaccinated on July 17th, 2009. Ten days later, she developed a fever and was treated. However, "the patient did not recover and was admitted to the hospital on [August 8th]...She developed dyspnoea and went into a coma...she expired [that day] at around 9:00 pm. The cause of death was determined as 'death due to viral fever.' ... This event occurred after 23 days of receiving first dose of Gardasil. -- V. 380081
* Thirteen days after vaccination, a ten year old girl developed "progressive loss of strength in lower and upper extremities almost totally...Nerve conduction studies [showed Guillain Barre Syndrome]." Case was "considered to be immediately life-threatening." -- V. 339375
* One mother of a 13-year old girl who died 37 days after receiving the vaccination noted in a report: "I first declined getting her the vaccination but her doctor ensured me that it was safe..." After her daughter complained of a severe headache, no feeling in her foot and a tingling feeling in her leg, a doctor's appointment was set for October 23, 2009. "My daughter never made it to Oct[ober] 23rd, which is also her birthday," the mother noted. "She passed on Oct[ober] 17th, I found her cold unresponsive in her room at 7am...."
"To say Gardasil has a suspect safety record is a big understatement. These reports are troubling and show that the FDA and other public health authorities may be asleep at the switch," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "In the meantime, the public relations push for Gardasil by Merck and politicians on Capitol Hill continues. No one should require this vaccine for young children."
In 2008, Judicial Watch launched a comprehensive investigation of Gardasil's safety record. All previous FDA documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, as well as a Judicial Watch special report, entitled "Examining the FDA's HPV Vaccine Records: Detailing the Approval Process, Side-Effects, Safety Concerns & Marketing Practices of a Large Scale Health Experiment," are available at
www.JudicialWatch.org (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=hl94yxbab&et=1103726832989&s=13633&e=0019k-0tTevIIcuiGvoaAfx-_dDjhrytmKNsMXSa7cx1qOpHEE38bsioz_9OSnd-aZhrS_agrrYNSLxUqcZwuD57S3sJcHV_V_w04pJv06yfKf3xNcIuwQ7Dw==).
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
Twitter: @FayetteFP
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Report concludes that nearly 80 percent of oil from Gulf spill remains
A report released August 16 by the Georgia Sea Grant and the University of Georgia concludes that up to 79 percent of the oil released into the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon well has not been recovered and remains a threat to the ecosystem.
The report, authored by five prominent marine scientists, strongly contradicts media reports that suggest that only 25 percent of the oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill remains.
“One major misconception is that oil that has dissolved into water is gone and, therefore, harmless,” said Charles Hopkinson, director of Georgia Sea Grant and professor of marine sciences in the University of Georgia Franklin College of Arts and Sciences. “The oil is still out there, and it will likely take years to completely degrade. We are still far from a complete understanding of what its impacts are.”
Co-authors on the paper include Jay Brandes, associate professor, Skidaway Institute of Oceanography; Samantha Joye, professor of marine sciences, UGA; Richard Lee, professor emeritus, Skidaway; and Ming-yi Sun, professor of marine sciences UGA.
The group analyzed data from the Aug. 2 National Incident Command Report, which calculated an “oil budget” that was widely interpreted to suggest that only 25 percent of the oil from the spill remained.
Hopkinson notes that the reports arrive at different conclusions largely because the Sea Grant and UGA scientists estimate that the vast majority of the oil classified as dispersed, dissolved or residual is still present, whereas the NIC report has been interpreted to suggest that only the “residual” form of oil is still present.
Hopkinson said that his group also estimated how much of the oil could have evaporated, degraded or weathered as of the date of the report. Using a range of reasonable evaporation and degradation estimates, the group calculated that 70-79 percent of oil spilled into the Gulf still remains. The group showed that it was impossible for all the dissolved oil to have evaporated because only oil at the surface of the ocean can evaporate into the atmosphere and large plumes of oil are trapped in deep water.
Another difference is that the NIC report estimates that 4.9 million barrels of oil were released from the wellhead, while the Sea Grant report uses a figure of 4.1 million barrels since .8 million barrels were piped directly from the well to surface ships and, therefore, never entered Gulf waters.
On a positive note, the group noted that natural processes continue to transform, dilute, degrade and evaporate the oil. They add that circular current known as the Franklin Eddy is preventing the Loop Current from bringing oil-contaminated water from the Gulf to the Atlantic, which bodes well for the East Coast.
Joye said that both the NIC report and the Sea Grant report are best estimates and emphasizes the need for a sustained and coordinated research effort to better understand the impacts of what has become the world’s worst maritime oil spill. She warned that neither report accounted for hydrocarbon gasses such as methane in their oil budgets.
“That’s a gaping hole,” Joye said, “because hydrocarbon gasses are a huge portion of what was ejected from the well.”
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
The report, authored by five prominent marine scientists, strongly contradicts media reports that suggest that only 25 percent of the oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill remains.
“One major misconception is that oil that has dissolved into water is gone and, therefore, harmless,” said Charles Hopkinson, director of Georgia Sea Grant and professor of marine sciences in the University of Georgia Franklin College of Arts and Sciences. “The oil is still out there, and it will likely take years to completely degrade. We are still far from a complete understanding of what its impacts are.”
Co-authors on the paper include Jay Brandes, associate professor, Skidaway Institute of Oceanography; Samantha Joye, professor of marine sciences, UGA; Richard Lee, professor emeritus, Skidaway; and Ming-yi Sun, professor of marine sciences UGA.
The group analyzed data from the Aug. 2 National Incident Command Report, which calculated an “oil budget” that was widely interpreted to suggest that only 25 percent of the oil from the spill remained.
Hopkinson notes that the reports arrive at different conclusions largely because the Sea Grant and UGA scientists estimate that the vast majority of the oil classified as dispersed, dissolved or residual is still present, whereas the NIC report has been interpreted to suggest that only the “residual” form of oil is still present.
Hopkinson said that his group also estimated how much of the oil could have evaporated, degraded or weathered as of the date of the report. Using a range of reasonable evaporation and degradation estimates, the group calculated that 70-79 percent of oil spilled into the Gulf still remains. The group showed that it was impossible for all the dissolved oil to have evaporated because only oil at the surface of the ocean can evaporate into the atmosphere and large plumes of oil are trapped in deep water.
Another difference is that the NIC report estimates that 4.9 million barrels of oil were released from the wellhead, while the Sea Grant report uses a figure of 4.1 million barrels since .8 million barrels were piped directly from the well to surface ships and, therefore, never entered Gulf waters.
On a positive note, the group noted that natural processes continue to transform, dilute, degrade and evaporate the oil. They add that circular current known as the Franklin Eddy is preventing the Loop Current from bringing oil-contaminated water from the Gulf to the Atlantic, which bodes well for the East Coast.
Joye said that both the NIC report and the Sea Grant report are best estimates and emphasizes the need for a sustained and coordinated research effort to better understand the impacts of what has become the world’s worst maritime oil spill. She warned that neither report accounted for hydrocarbon gasses such as methane in their oil budgets.
“That’s a gaping hole,” Joye said, “because hydrocarbon gasses are a huge portion of what was ejected from the well.”
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Thursday, May 06, 2010
President's Cancer Panel Report Finds True Burden of Environmentally Induced Cancer Greatly Underestimated
/PRNewswire/ -- Even with the growing body of evidence linking environmental exposures to cancer in recent years, a report released today by the President's Cancer Panel finds that the true burden of environmentally-induced cancer is greatly underestimated. The Panel's report, "Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now," concludes that while environmental exposure is not a new front on the war on cancer, the grievous harm from this group of carcinogens has not been addressed adequately by the National Cancer Program.
"There remains a great deal to be done to identify the many existing but unrecognized environmental carcinogens and eliminate those that are known from our daily lives - our workplaces, schools and homes," said LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr., M.D., chair of the Panel. "The increasing number of known or suspected environmental carcinogens compels us to action, even though we may currently lack irrefutable proof of harm," he added.
Key Findings
With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the US, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or under-studied and largely unregulated, the report finds that exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread. Yet, the public remains unaware of many of these carcinogens as well as their own level of exposure, especially to many common environmental carcinogens such as radon, formaldehyde and benzene.
In addition to environmental carcinogens, the report found that while improved imaging technologies have facilitated great strides in diagnosing and treating diseases, including cancer, some of these technologies also carry risks from increased radiation exposures. Many health care professionals, as well as the public, are unaware of the radiation dose associated with various tests or the total radiation dose and related increased cancer risk individuals may accumulate over a lifetime.
In addition, the report found that health care providers often fail to consider occupational and environmental factors when diagnosing patient illness. Physicians and other medical professionals ask infrequently about patient workplace and home environments when taking a medical history, thereby missing out on information that could be invaluable in discovering underlying causes of disease.
The report also recognizes the United States military as a major source of toxic occupational and environmental exposures that can increase cancer risk. Information is available about some military activities that have directly or indirectly exposed military and civilian personnel to carcinogens and contaminated soil and water in numerous locations in the United States and abroad, such as radiation exposure due to nuclear weapons testing. Nearly 900 Superfund sites are abandoned military facilities or facilities that produced materials and products for, or otherwise supported, military needs. In some cases, these contaminants have spread far beyond their points of origin because they have been transported by wind currents or have leached into drinking water supplies.
The Panel concluded that Federal responses to the plight of affected individuals have been unsatisfactory, and that those affected lack knowledge about the extent of their exposure or potential health problems they may face.
Recommendations
The Panel recommends concrete actions that government; industry; research, health care, and advocacy communities; and individuals can take to reduce cancer risk related to environmental contaminants, excess radiation and other harmful exposures. Key recommendations include -
-- Increase, broaden and improve research regarding environmental
contaminants and human health.
-- Raise consumer awareness of environmental cancer risks and improve
understanding and reporting of known exposures.
-- Increase awareness of environmental cancer risks and effects of
exposure among health care providers.
-- Enhance efforts to eliminate unnecessary radiation-emitting medical
tests, and to ensure that radiation doses are as low as reasonably
achievable without sacrificing quality.
-- Aggressively address the toxic environmental exposures the US military
has caused, and improve response to associated health problems among
both military personnel and civilians.
Additional recommendations that are underscored in the report include those related to the needs for a comprehensive and cohesive policy agenda on the issue, stronger regulation and safer alternatives to many currently used chemicals, among other highlights.
The Panel concluded, "Just as there are many opportunities for harmful environmental exposures, ample opportunities also exist for intervention, change, and prevention to protect the health of current and future generations and reduce the national burden of cancer."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
"There remains a great deal to be done to identify the many existing but unrecognized environmental carcinogens and eliminate those that are known from our daily lives - our workplaces, schools and homes," said LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr., M.D., chair of the Panel. "The increasing number of known or suspected environmental carcinogens compels us to action, even though we may currently lack irrefutable proof of harm," he added.
Key Findings
With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the US, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or under-studied and largely unregulated, the report finds that exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread. Yet, the public remains unaware of many of these carcinogens as well as their own level of exposure, especially to many common environmental carcinogens such as radon, formaldehyde and benzene.
In addition to environmental carcinogens, the report found that while improved imaging technologies have facilitated great strides in diagnosing and treating diseases, including cancer, some of these technologies also carry risks from increased radiation exposures. Many health care professionals, as well as the public, are unaware of the radiation dose associated with various tests or the total radiation dose and related increased cancer risk individuals may accumulate over a lifetime.
In addition, the report found that health care providers often fail to consider occupational and environmental factors when diagnosing patient illness. Physicians and other medical professionals ask infrequently about patient workplace and home environments when taking a medical history, thereby missing out on information that could be invaluable in discovering underlying causes of disease.
The report also recognizes the United States military as a major source of toxic occupational and environmental exposures that can increase cancer risk. Information is available about some military activities that have directly or indirectly exposed military and civilian personnel to carcinogens and contaminated soil and water in numerous locations in the United States and abroad, such as radiation exposure due to nuclear weapons testing. Nearly 900 Superfund sites are abandoned military facilities or facilities that produced materials and products for, or otherwise supported, military needs. In some cases, these contaminants have spread far beyond their points of origin because they have been transported by wind currents or have leached into drinking water supplies.
The Panel concluded that Federal responses to the plight of affected individuals have been unsatisfactory, and that those affected lack knowledge about the extent of their exposure or potential health problems they may face.
Recommendations
The Panel recommends concrete actions that government; industry; research, health care, and advocacy communities; and individuals can take to reduce cancer risk related to environmental contaminants, excess radiation and other harmful exposures. Key recommendations include -
-- Increase, broaden and improve research regarding environmental
contaminants and human health.
-- Raise consumer awareness of environmental cancer risks and improve
understanding and reporting of known exposures.
-- Increase awareness of environmental cancer risks and effects of
exposure among health care providers.
-- Enhance efforts to eliminate unnecessary radiation-emitting medical
tests, and to ensure that radiation doses are as low as reasonably
achievable without sacrificing quality.
-- Aggressively address the toxic environmental exposures the US military
has caused, and improve response to associated health problems among
both military personnel and civilians.
Additional recommendations that are underscored in the report include those related to the needs for a comprehensive and cohesive policy agenda on the issue, stronger regulation and safer alternatives to many currently used chemicals, among other highlights.
The Panel concluded, "Just as there are many opportunities for harmful environmental exposures, ample opportunities also exist for intervention, change, and prevention to protect the health of current and future generations and reduce the national burden of cancer."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Monday, April 12, 2010
Feds Would Face Problems in a Bio Attack Clean-Up
/PRNewswire/ -- Following the 2001 anthrax attacks, the government and private sector undertook the task of cleaning up anthrax-contaminated facilities - a job that had never before been attempted on that scale. Decontaminating congressional office buildings, postal facilities, and media buildings cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and some of the facilities could not be reopened for more than 2 years.
Nine years later, what progress have we made in policy and practice that would make decontamination easier in the event of another attack? A recent assessment, sponsored by the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism (www.preventwmd.gov) and appearing in the journal Biosecurity and Bioterrorism, found that the process of environmental decontamination would still be very difficult and costly and that the lines of responsibility at the federal level are still unclear.
The 2001 anthrax attack is considered to be a small attack, because relatively few facilities were involved and anthrax contamination was limited to indoor environments. But a large-scale biological release could potentially result in hundreds of thousands of illnesses and deaths and could cost trillions of dollars to clean up. An attack on a U.S. city could contaminate both indoor and outdoor areas, including buildings, street, parks, and vehicles.
Researchers from the Center for Biosecurity of UPMC looked at current decontamination policy and technical practices at the federal level to determine what gaps exist that might hamper response to a future large-scale attack with a biological agent. The government agencies with primary responsibility for decontamination are the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Department of Defense (DoD). Federal roles and responsibilities for decontamination research and response are not clearly spelled out, overlap, and are often underfunded.
The article also describes some of the technical and scientific issues that remain unresolved: After an anthrax release, what is the risk of secondary aerosolization? What is the federal standard for decontamination - or, how clean is clean? How clean is safe?
The authors note that there are too few personnel trained in decontamination among all of the agencies and including private contractors. In the event of an attack, private building owners and government agencies would likely be calling on the same limited pool of experts and contractors to help with remediation.
Among the recommendations the authors propose:
-- DHS should clarify federal roles and responsibilities.
-- Congress should increase funding for decontamination research.
-- In addition to research, additional investment in personnel is needed.
"Environmental Decontamination Following a Large-Scale Bioterrorism Attack: Federal Progress and Remaining Gaps" by Crystal Franco and Nidhi Bouri appears ahead of the June 2010 print issue of Biosecurity and Bioterrorism. The full text is available at http://www.liebertonline.com/toc/bsp/0/0.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Nine years later, what progress have we made in policy and practice that would make decontamination easier in the event of another attack? A recent assessment, sponsored by the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism (www.preventwmd.gov) and appearing in the journal Biosecurity and Bioterrorism, found that the process of environmental decontamination would still be very difficult and costly and that the lines of responsibility at the federal level are still unclear.
The 2001 anthrax attack is considered to be a small attack, because relatively few facilities were involved and anthrax contamination was limited to indoor environments. But a large-scale biological release could potentially result in hundreds of thousands of illnesses and deaths and could cost trillions of dollars to clean up. An attack on a U.S. city could contaminate both indoor and outdoor areas, including buildings, street, parks, and vehicles.
Researchers from the Center for Biosecurity of UPMC looked at current decontamination policy and technical practices at the federal level to determine what gaps exist that might hamper response to a future large-scale attack with a biological agent. The government agencies with primary responsibility for decontamination are the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Department of Defense (DoD). Federal roles and responsibilities for decontamination research and response are not clearly spelled out, overlap, and are often underfunded.
The article also describes some of the technical and scientific issues that remain unresolved: After an anthrax release, what is the risk of secondary aerosolization? What is the federal standard for decontamination - or, how clean is clean? How clean is safe?
The authors note that there are too few personnel trained in decontamination among all of the agencies and including private contractors. In the event of an attack, private building owners and government agencies would likely be calling on the same limited pool of experts and contractors to help with remediation.
Among the recommendations the authors propose:
-- DHS should clarify federal roles and responsibilities.
-- Congress should increase funding for decontamination research.
-- In addition to research, additional investment in personnel is needed.
"Environmental Decontamination Following a Large-Scale Bioterrorism Attack: Federal Progress and Remaining Gaps" by Crystal Franco and Nidhi Bouri appears ahead of the June 2010 print issue of Biosecurity and Bioterrorism. The full text is available at http://www.liebertonline.com/toc/bsp/0/0.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Friday, October 30, 2009
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Review Verifies Safety of Synthetic Turf
/PRNewswire/ -- Representing the latest convincing data on the safety of synthetic turf, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), California Environmental Protection Agency, released a report last week dated July 2009 which indicated there is a negligible human health risk from inhaling the air above synthetic turf. The OEHHA summary also stated "it is unlikely that the new generation of artificial turf is itself a source of MRSA."
OEHHA searched the available literature related to the safety of new generation artificial turf fields, those which contained crumb rubber infill. They analyzed whether these fields emitted levels of chemicals or particulates into the air that are a health risk when inhaled, and also any potential risk factors for MRSA infection. Based on the data from two 2009 New York studies and a 2006 report of indoor fields, they found that "Both reports concluded that these fields did not constitute a serious public health concern, since cancer or non-cancer health effects were unlikely to result from these low-level exposures." Other key findings included:
-- Analyzing the chemicals detected above the fields in New York, OEHHA
noted that "many of these occurred at similar concentrations in the
air sampled upwind of the fields" - which suggests that the source of
these chemicals was not from the turf fields.
-- Cancer risks are negligible, lower than many common human activities.
OEHHA created a test scenario to determine the exposure and health
risks of an athlete playing on an artificial turf field from age five
until age 55 for nearly 100 chemicals. The results showed an exposure
to five chemicals with a lifetime cancer risk above one in one
million, which is considered a negligible risk. As OEHHA explains
"these estimated risks are low compared to many common human
activities." To give context, their website states that the cancer
risk of breathing California air (in 2000) due to diesel particles was
540 in one million.
-- Synthetic turf is not a source of MRSA. OEHHA stated that "It seems
unlikely that the new generation of artificial turf is itself a source
of MRSA, since MRSA has not been detected in any artificial turf
field." That conclusion is consistent with the findings of the Penn
State January 2009 study conducted on the lifespan of staph on grass
and synthetic turf, which was sponsored by the STC and the
Pennsylvania Turfgrass Council.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.artsacrossgeorgia.com
Arts Across Georgia
OEHHA searched the available literature related to the safety of new generation artificial turf fields, those which contained crumb rubber infill. They analyzed whether these fields emitted levels of chemicals or particulates into the air that are a health risk when inhaled, and also any potential risk factors for MRSA infection. Based on the data from two 2009 New York studies and a 2006 report of indoor fields, they found that "Both reports concluded that these fields did not constitute a serious public health concern, since cancer or non-cancer health effects were unlikely to result from these low-level exposures." Other key findings included:
-- Analyzing the chemicals detected above the fields in New York, OEHHA
noted that "many of these occurred at similar concentrations in the
air sampled upwind of the fields" - which suggests that the source of
these chemicals was not from the turf fields.
-- Cancer risks are negligible, lower than many common human activities.
OEHHA created a test scenario to determine the exposure and health
risks of an athlete playing on an artificial turf field from age five
until age 55 for nearly 100 chemicals. The results showed an exposure
to five chemicals with a lifetime cancer risk above one in one
million, which is considered a negligible risk. As OEHHA explains
"these estimated risks are low compared to many common human
activities." To give context, their website states that the cancer
risk of breathing California air (in 2000) due to diesel particles was
540 in one million.
-- Synthetic turf is not a source of MRSA. OEHHA stated that "It seems
unlikely that the new generation of artificial turf is itself a source
of MRSA, since MRSA has not been detected in any artificial turf
field." That conclusion is consistent with the findings of the Penn
State January 2009 study conducted on the lifespan of staph on grass
and synthetic turf, which was sponsored by the STC and the
Pennsylvania Turfgrass Council.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.artsacrossgeorgia.com
Arts Across Georgia
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Toys to Toxic Waste: New Report Details Corporations that Skirt Responsibility and Shun Consumer Safety to Save Money
/PRNewswire/ -- As the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform holds their annual summit - an event dedicated to championing corporate misconduct and evading accountability - a new report released today details true stories of corporations that knew their products were dangerous, yet failed to act and protect consumers.
"They Knew and Failed To" details numerous examples of medical devices, prescription drugs, and other consumer products that remained on the market after critical safety concerns had been raised within the company, while using all means necessary to avoid being held accountable for their misconduct.
In one example, police officer Tony Zeppetella of Oceanside, Calif. had paid $313 to "upgrade" his standard bullet proof vest. The Ultima body armor Zeppetella had purchased was widely used by law enforcement, military personnel, and even worn by the President and Mrs. Bush. Unfortunately, Zeppetella was shot and killed on a routine traffic stop in June 2003, when a bullet penetrated his vest.
Second Chance, the manufacturer, had known as early as 1998 that heat and sunlight caused the material to degrade, making the vests penetrable. Internal corporate memos from 2001 revealed an executive at the company had recommended notifying customers about the products' defect, saying, "Lives and our credibility are at stake." It was not until September 2003 that the company eventually recalled 130,000 vests, three months after Zeppetella was shot. The company had known for five years there were problems with their vests, but failed to notify consumers, putting law enforcement and service members' lives at risk. Several years later, Second Chance recalled another 98,000 vests.
"While most businesses act in good faith to serve their customers and communities, unfortunately some corporations recklessly put lives at risk for the sake of profit," said American Association for Justice President Anthony Tarricone. "While front groups like the Chamber stage events practically celebrating corporate misconduct, this new report convincingly illustrates the importance of holding wrongdoers accountable."
The full report, "They Knew and Failed To," is available at: www.justice.org/clips/TheyKnewAndFailedTo.pdf.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
"They Knew and Failed To" details numerous examples of medical devices, prescription drugs, and other consumer products that remained on the market after critical safety concerns had been raised within the company, while using all means necessary to avoid being held accountable for their misconduct.
In one example, police officer Tony Zeppetella of Oceanside, Calif. had paid $313 to "upgrade" his standard bullet proof vest. The Ultima body armor Zeppetella had purchased was widely used by law enforcement, military personnel, and even worn by the President and Mrs. Bush. Unfortunately, Zeppetella was shot and killed on a routine traffic stop in June 2003, when a bullet penetrated his vest.
Second Chance, the manufacturer, had known as early as 1998 that heat and sunlight caused the material to degrade, making the vests penetrable. Internal corporate memos from 2001 revealed an executive at the company had recommended notifying customers about the products' defect, saying, "Lives and our credibility are at stake." It was not until September 2003 that the company eventually recalled 130,000 vests, three months after Zeppetella was shot. The company had known for five years there were problems with their vests, but failed to notify consumers, putting law enforcement and service members' lives at risk. Several years later, Second Chance recalled another 98,000 vests.
"While most businesses act in good faith to serve their customers and communities, unfortunately some corporations recklessly put lives at risk for the sake of profit," said American Association for Justice President Anthony Tarricone. "While front groups like the Chamber stage events practically celebrating corporate misconduct, this new report convincingly illustrates the importance of holding wrongdoers accountable."
The full report, "They Knew and Failed To," is available at: www.justice.org/clips/TheyKnewAndFailedTo.pdf.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Most States Fail to Adequately Protect the Legal Rights of Abused Children, New Study Finds
/PRNewswire/ -- Most U.S. states do not adequately protect the rights of abused and neglected children, leaving our most vulnerable citizens exposed to the vagaries of the juvenile court system without adequate legal representation, according to a state-by-state study conducted by two national child advocacy organizations.
The peer-reviewed study -- A Child's Right to Counsel: A National Report Card on Legal Representation for Abused and Neglected Children -- was released today on Capitol Hill by First Star and the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law (CAI). To view the full report, visit www.firststar.org, or www.caichildlaw.org.
"The federal government reported that nearly 800,000 children were abused or neglected in 2007," said Amy Harfeld, Executive Director of First Star. "In the current economic recession, these children are suffering more than ever - reports of child abuse have skyrocketed while resources to help them have been placed in jeopardy. Most of these children will go through court proceedings that will determine their lives and futures. Yet while the state and the allegedly abusive or neglectful parent stand in court with attorneys by their sides, the children often stand alone and silent. They are herded through the system without a strong voice to advocate on their behalf. This is a troubling double-standard."
The report graded each state and the District of Columbia based on how well they protect the legal rights of abused and neglected children in dependency court. Twenty-nine states earned C's or lower:
-- Two states earned A+'s: Connecticut and Massachusetts
-- 9 states earned A's: Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New
Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Vermont, and West Virginia
-- 11 states earned B's: California, Kansas, New Jersey, North Carolina,
Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, and
Wyoming
-- 14 states earned C's: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Michigan,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia,
Washington DC, and Wisconsin
-- 8 states earned D's: Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri,
New Hampshire, South Dakota, and Washington
-- 7 states earned F's: Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Maine,
and North Dakota
"The level of legal protection these children receive should not vary depending on what state they call home," said Robert C. Fellmeth, CAI Executive Director. "The stakes in these cases are high for all involved, but especially for the child. Yet, in many states, not only have they been betrayed and mistreated by their own parents, they have also been abandoned by the very system that is supposed to protect their rights and their lives."
The study is the second of its kind. The first report, issued in April 2007, prompted 17 states to adopt new legislation in the right to counsel arena. In addition, advocates in many states have proposed legislative reforms, filed litigation, or launched other efforts to ensure children's rights are protected. States with improved laws include: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont and Wyoming.
In addition, the federal government recently announced a five-year, $5 million grant to research the benefits of providing counsel to children in these proceedings. Up to now, research has been scarce.
"The tide is turning," said Peter Samuelson, co-founder and Chairman of First Star. "Many jurisdictions are moving beyond the old legal paradigm that treated children as chattel, and are recognizing that their opinions are valuable in court proceedings that determine their futures. But there is still a long way to go before we create uniform, nationwide legal protections for these vulnerable children."
To build on this momentum, First Star and CAI recommend:
-- An amendment to the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(CAPTA) that would require all abused and neglected foster children
receive quality client-directed representation in dependency
proceedings;
-- Passage by the American Bar Association of a Model Act that would
serve as a prototype for states to establish uniform standards for
representing children in dependency cases;
-- Implementation of a loan forgiveness program for child advocate
attorneys, since compensation is prohibitively low;
-- Adoption of caseload limits of 100 clients so attorneys can focus
enough attention on each case;
-- Support to ensure that abused and neglected children receive quality
representation in all court proceedings that determine their futures.
State grades were based on a rigorous examination of state law by leading national child welfare experts, who established guiding principles and developed a 100-point grading system. Criteria included: whether state law mandates that attorneys be appointed for children in dependency proceedings; whether these attorneys represent the children in a client-directed manner; whether this representation continues throughout the case, including appeal; whether states have specialized education or training of a child's counsel; whether the child is given the legal status of a party to the proceedings; and whether rules pertaining to confidentiality and immunity from liability apply to attorneys representing these children. Extra credit was given if states have mandatory caseload limits for children's counsel. Officials and/or advocates from each state participated in the process and provided valuable feedback.
"We hope this Report Card will become a tool to increase public awareness of this issue, a rallying cry for advocates and lawmakers in poorly performing states, and a source of pride for states that have enacted strong laws," said Elisa Weichel, CAI's Administrative Director & Staff Attorney. "Tremendous progress has been made in the last two years; it is our aim to build on that momentum."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
The peer-reviewed study -- A Child's Right to Counsel: A National Report Card on Legal Representation for Abused and Neglected Children -- was released today on Capitol Hill by First Star and the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law (CAI). To view the full report, visit www.firststar.org, or www.caichildlaw.org.
"The federal government reported that nearly 800,000 children were abused or neglected in 2007," said Amy Harfeld, Executive Director of First Star. "In the current economic recession, these children are suffering more than ever - reports of child abuse have skyrocketed while resources to help them have been placed in jeopardy. Most of these children will go through court proceedings that will determine their lives and futures. Yet while the state and the allegedly abusive or neglectful parent stand in court with attorneys by their sides, the children often stand alone and silent. They are herded through the system without a strong voice to advocate on their behalf. This is a troubling double-standard."
The report graded each state and the District of Columbia based on how well they protect the legal rights of abused and neglected children in dependency court. Twenty-nine states earned C's or lower:
-- Two states earned A+'s: Connecticut and Massachusetts
-- 9 states earned A's: Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New
Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Vermont, and West Virginia
-- 11 states earned B's: California, Kansas, New Jersey, North Carolina,
Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, and
Wyoming
-- 14 states earned C's: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Michigan,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia,
Washington DC, and Wisconsin
-- 8 states earned D's: Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri,
New Hampshire, South Dakota, and Washington
-- 7 states earned F's: Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Maine,
and North Dakota
"The level of legal protection these children receive should not vary depending on what state they call home," said Robert C. Fellmeth, CAI Executive Director. "The stakes in these cases are high for all involved, but especially for the child. Yet, in many states, not only have they been betrayed and mistreated by their own parents, they have also been abandoned by the very system that is supposed to protect their rights and their lives."
The study is the second of its kind. The first report, issued in April 2007, prompted 17 states to adopt new legislation in the right to counsel arena. In addition, advocates in many states have proposed legislative reforms, filed litigation, or launched other efforts to ensure children's rights are protected. States with improved laws include: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont and Wyoming.
In addition, the federal government recently announced a five-year, $5 million grant to research the benefits of providing counsel to children in these proceedings. Up to now, research has been scarce.
"The tide is turning," said Peter Samuelson, co-founder and Chairman of First Star. "Many jurisdictions are moving beyond the old legal paradigm that treated children as chattel, and are recognizing that their opinions are valuable in court proceedings that determine their futures. But there is still a long way to go before we create uniform, nationwide legal protections for these vulnerable children."
To build on this momentum, First Star and CAI recommend:
-- An amendment to the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(CAPTA) that would require all abused and neglected foster children
receive quality client-directed representation in dependency
proceedings;
-- Passage by the American Bar Association of a Model Act that would
serve as a prototype for states to establish uniform standards for
representing children in dependency cases;
-- Implementation of a loan forgiveness program for child advocate
attorneys, since compensation is prohibitively low;
-- Adoption of caseload limits of 100 clients so attorneys can focus
enough attention on each case;
-- Support to ensure that abused and neglected children receive quality
representation in all court proceedings that determine their futures.
State grades were based on a rigorous examination of state law by leading national child welfare experts, who established guiding principles and developed a 100-point grading system. Criteria included: whether state law mandates that attorneys be appointed for children in dependency proceedings; whether these attorneys represent the children in a client-directed manner; whether this representation continues throughout the case, including appeal; whether states have specialized education or training of a child's counsel; whether the child is given the legal status of a party to the proceedings; and whether rules pertaining to confidentiality and immunity from liability apply to attorneys representing these children. Extra credit was given if states have mandatory caseload limits for children's counsel. Officials and/or advocates from each state participated in the process and provided valuable feedback.
"We hope this Report Card will become a tool to increase public awareness of this issue, a rallying cry for advocates and lawmakers in poorly performing states, and a source of pride for states that have enacted strong laws," said Elisa Weichel, CAI's Administrative Director & Staff Attorney. "Tremendous progress has been made in the last two years; it is our aim to build on that momentum."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
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
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Schools Failing When It Comes to Bullying, Violence Prevention
/PRNewswire/ -- Key to a child's successful education is an environment in which he or she can learn safely. According to a report released today by the C.S. Mott Children's Hospital National Poll on Children's Health, only 26 percent of parents would give their child's high school an "A" for preventing bullying and school violence, and 38 percent of parents would give their child's elementary or junior high an "A."
"Children who are victims of bullying can have serious health effects, including physical injuries and emotional problems such as depression, low self-esteem, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts and actions," says Matthew Davis, M.D., director of the poll and associate professor of pediatrics and internal medicine at the U-M Medical School. "Unfortunately, in the United States, we've seen some tragedies in the past few years regarding episodes of school violence that have gotten a lot of media coverage and upset many parents."
In the U.S., an estimated 160,000 children miss school every day out of fear of attack or intimidation by other students, according to the National Education Association. Since 1992, there have been 250 violent deaths in schools, and bullying has been a factor in many school shootings.
"What this poll shows is that parents are still very concerned about bullying in their schools. About three-quarters of states nationwide have implemented bullying prevention laws that are designed to encourage, and in some cases force schools to present and deliver bullying prevention curriculum to students," says Davis, who is also an associate professor of public policy at the U-M Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. "But based on these findings, it doesn't appear that those curricula or programs are working effectively."
The poll asked 1,087 parents across the U.S. in May 2009 to assign their child's school an A through F grade in five categories: overall safety, building security, bullying and school violence prevention, keeping students safe during a school-wide emergency, and keeping parents informed in the event of a school-wide emergency.
Parents grades for other school safety concerns:
-- Overall safety: 59 percent of parents would give their child's primary
school an "A," while 33 percent of parents would give their child's
secondary school an "A."
-- Keeping parents informed in a school-wide emergency: 64 percent of
parents would give their child's primary school an "A," while 46
percent of parents would give their child's secondary school an "A."
-- Keeping their child safe during a school-wide emergency: 62 percent of
parents would give their child's primary school an "A," while 36
percent of parents would give their child's secondary school an "A."
-- Building security: 49 percent of parents would give their child's
primary school an "A," while 33 percent of parents would give their
child's secondary school an "A."
What parents can do
Parents who have concerns about bullying in their child's school can get involved in a few ways. Davis suggests parents become active in local safe school and safe community programs where bullying and violence prevention programs already exist.
In the few states where bullying prevention programs do not exist, Davis suggests parents get involved in the legislative process by advocating for bullying programs to be put in place using other states as examples.
"But right at home, there's a way for parents to make a difference too," he says. "Parents can listen to their kids who are their eyes and ears in the schools, especially about issues of bullying. It can be really hard for children to bring up the topic of bullying so parents may need to ask directly about it and make home a safe place to talk about this important problem."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
"Children who are victims of bullying can have serious health effects, including physical injuries and emotional problems such as depression, low self-esteem, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts and actions," says Matthew Davis, M.D., director of the poll and associate professor of pediatrics and internal medicine at the U-M Medical School. "Unfortunately, in the United States, we've seen some tragedies in the past few years regarding episodes of school violence that have gotten a lot of media coverage and upset many parents."
In the U.S., an estimated 160,000 children miss school every day out of fear of attack or intimidation by other students, according to the National Education Association. Since 1992, there have been 250 violent deaths in schools, and bullying has been a factor in many school shootings.
"What this poll shows is that parents are still very concerned about bullying in their schools. About three-quarters of states nationwide have implemented bullying prevention laws that are designed to encourage, and in some cases force schools to present and deliver bullying prevention curriculum to students," says Davis, who is also an associate professor of public policy at the U-M Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. "But based on these findings, it doesn't appear that those curricula or programs are working effectively."
The poll asked 1,087 parents across the U.S. in May 2009 to assign their child's school an A through F grade in five categories: overall safety, building security, bullying and school violence prevention, keeping students safe during a school-wide emergency, and keeping parents informed in the event of a school-wide emergency.
Parents grades for other school safety concerns:
-- Overall safety: 59 percent of parents would give their child's primary
school an "A," while 33 percent of parents would give their child's
secondary school an "A."
-- Keeping parents informed in a school-wide emergency: 64 percent of
parents would give their child's primary school an "A," while 46
percent of parents would give their child's secondary school an "A."
-- Keeping their child safe during a school-wide emergency: 62 percent of
parents would give their child's primary school an "A," while 36
percent of parents would give their child's secondary school an "A."
-- Building security: 49 percent of parents would give their child's
primary school an "A," while 33 percent of parents would give their
child's secondary school an "A."
What parents can do
Parents who have concerns about bullying in their child's school can get involved in a few ways. Davis suggests parents become active in local safe school and safe community programs where bullying and violence prevention programs already exist.
In the few states where bullying prevention programs do not exist, Davis suggests parents get involved in the legislative process by advocating for bullying programs to be put in place using other states as examples.
"But right at home, there's a way for parents to make a difference too," he says. "Parents can listen to their kids who are their eyes and ears in the schools, especially about issues of bullying. It can be really hard for children to bring up the topic of bullying so parents may need to ask directly about it and make home a safe place to talk about this important problem."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Think the Economic Outlook Is Bad for You? Try Being an Aging Woman
/PRNewswire/ -- With major U.S. corporations declaring bankruptcy and the housing market persisting in its decline, can the financial picture get any worse? If you're an aging woman, the answer is yes.
A report released today by the Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement (WISER) tackles this issue head-on. Based on interviews and a day-long roundtable discussion with more than 30 retirement experts, How Can Women's Income Last As Long As They Do? moves beyond the traditional debate over how to amass savings for retirement and focuses instead on what to do with assets once retirement comes. The report asks the fundamental question: "How can our society protect our nation's older women against significant financial risks in retirement?"
Convened by WISER, retirement experts met in Washington to identify the appropriate role of government, employers, the financial services industry, families and women in making sure women's income lasts as long as they do. The WISER report is based on the roundtable discussion and survey research provided by Mathew Greenwald & Associates and the MetLife Mature Market Institute.
The concerns about retirement income insecurity are not new: People aren't saving enough, they're not investing intelligently, and they aren't going to have enough money to live 30 years or more in retirement. When it comes to women in particular, these concerns are far more pressing:
-- Women at age 65 are expected to live, on average, another 20 years --
four years longer than men. Money they have saved for retirement, if
any, must last longer than men's.
-- Less than half of today's working women have access to pension or
retirement savings plans at work.
-- Women are likely to spend some of their retirement years alone due to
widowhood or divorce. For women age 85 and older, only 13 percent are
married with a spouse present.
-- Nearly 40% of older women living alone depend on Social Security for
almost all of their income, and more than half would be living in
poverty were it not for their Social Security benefits.
"Women are at real risk of living a life of poverty in their older years," says Cindy Hounsell, President of WISER. "As a group, we tend to live longer, earn less, and take time away from paid work to care for our families, and we have less in retirement savings."
The reality is that one in five single women age 65 or older lives in poverty. But common retirement planning guidance leaves us all at risk. The goal, according to many advisers, is to save enough money to support our life expectancy. But people -- especially women -- don't need life expectancy income, they need lifetime income. The gap between these goals is the crisis confronting millions of women in retirement.
"With workers losing so much of their retirement savings to our volatile economy over the past year, being able to stretch what's left over a lifetime is even more important," says Hounsell. "All of us have a responsibility -- employers, government, the financial industry, and individuals -- to find a meaningful solution to retirement poverty for women."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
A report released today by the Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement (WISER) tackles this issue head-on. Based on interviews and a day-long roundtable discussion with more than 30 retirement experts, How Can Women's Income Last As Long As They Do? moves beyond the traditional debate over how to amass savings for retirement and focuses instead on what to do with assets once retirement comes. The report asks the fundamental question: "How can our society protect our nation's older women against significant financial risks in retirement?"
Convened by WISER, retirement experts met in Washington to identify the appropriate role of government, employers, the financial services industry, families and women in making sure women's income lasts as long as they do. The WISER report is based on the roundtable discussion and survey research provided by Mathew Greenwald & Associates and the MetLife Mature Market Institute.
The concerns about retirement income insecurity are not new: People aren't saving enough, they're not investing intelligently, and they aren't going to have enough money to live 30 years or more in retirement. When it comes to women in particular, these concerns are far more pressing:
-- Women at age 65 are expected to live, on average, another 20 years --
four years longer than men. Money they have saved for retirement, if
any, must last longer than men's.
-- Less than half of today's working women have access to pension or
retirement savings plans at work.
-- Women are likely to spend some of their retirement years alone due to
widowhood or divorce. For women age 85 and older, only 13 percent are
married with a spouse present.
-- Nearly 40% of older women living alone depend on Social Security for
almost all of their income, and more than half would be living in
poverty were it not for their Social Security benefits.
"Women are at real risk of living a life of poverty in their older years," says Cindy Hounsell, President of WISER. "As a group, we tend to live longer, earn less, and take time away from paid work to care for our families, and we have less in retirement savings."
The reality is that one in five single women age 65 or older lives in poverty. But common retirement planning guidance leaves us all at risk. The goal, according to many advisers, is to save enough money to support our life expectancy. But people -- especially women -- don't need life expectancy income, they need lifetime income. The gap between these goals is the crisis confronting millions of women in retirement.
"With workers losing so much of their retirement savings to our volatile economy over the past year, being able to stretch what's left over a lifetime is even more important," says Hounsell. "All of us have a responsibility -- employers, government, the financial industry, and individuals -- to find a meaningful solution to retirement poverty for women."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
U.S. Tax Dollars Still Spent in Sweatshops
/PRNewswire / -- Federal, state and local tax dollars are being used to buy products made in sweatshops, according to a new report released today by SweatFree Communities. But, the report says, more local and state governments are adopting policies that would require government contractors to meet a set of ethical standards, and advocates are calling on elected officials to join the Sweatfree Purchasing Consortium to end tax dollar support for sweatshops.
Findings include child labor, obligatory pregnancy tests, firing and blacklisting of workers who support a union, poverty wages, and forced and unpaid overtime. At least three workers in two factories who participated in interviews for this report have since been fired from their jobs, allegedly for having spoken publicly about conditions in their factories. Subsidizing Sweatshops II: How our tax dollars can foster worker rights and economic recovery rather than fuel the race to the bottom follows the groundbreaking 2008 first report. It is based on in-depth interviews with over 100 workers in 8 factories spanning five countries who produce uniforms for public employees such as police officers and parks service employees for nine major uniform brands. Four of the case studies are newly-researched factories, while four look at what improvements have been made in factories researched for the 2008 report.
"There are comparatively many adolescents and child workers, and their work is the same kind as that done by adult workers," said a worker from the Genfort Shoes factory in Guangdong Province, China, where Ohio-based Rocky Brands, a major government contractor, manufactures several lines of boots. "When people come to inspect, the children are told to hide," said another Genfort Shoes worker.
"Every week I have to choose which of the bills I will be able to pay. I pay $600 for rent, $200 for gas, $100 for car insurance, and then there is the telephone and other bills. But I only make $250 a week... and we haven't even talked about food!" says Lesbi, a worker at the Eagle Industries factory in New Bedford, Mass., which manufactures tactical gear for state governments and the United States military.
Elected officials, clergy, business owners, labor leaders, and students gathered today at U.S. Post Offices and state houses in at least 17 U.S. cities to release Subsidizing Sweatshops II and call for end to taxpayer support for sweatshops.
"We have a choice: we can use our tax dollars to elevate conditions for working people, or our tax dollars can fuel the race to the bottom that has cost hundreds of thousands of U.S. workers their jobs and led to inhumane sweatshop conditions around the world," said Bjorn Claeson, Executive Director of SweatFree Communities and author of the report. "By joining the Sweatfree Purchasing Consortium, our cities and states can make a real difference in the lives of working people while helping to create a more sustainable economy."
Groups are calling on governors and local elected officials to join the Sweatfree Purchasing Consortium, which would stop tax dollar support for sweatshop abuses and level the playing field for ethical U.S. businesses. Since the first report on taxpayer support for sweatshops was published in July 2008, more states and cities have committed to join the Consortium, including the State of Pennsylvania; the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; the City of Portland, Oregon; and the City of Olympia, Washington.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Findings include child labor, obligatory pregnancy tests, firing and blacklisting of workers who support a union, poverty wages, and forced and unpaid overtime. At least three workers in two factories who participated in interviews for this report have since been fired from their jobs, allegedly for having spoken publicly about conditions in their factories. Subsidizing Sweatshops II: How our tax dollars can foster worker rights and economic recovery rather than fuel the race to the bottom follows the groundbreaking 2008 first report. It is based on in-depth interviews with over 100 workers in 8 factories spanning five countries who produce uniforms for public employees such as police officers and parks service employees for nine major uniform brands. Four of the case studies are newly-researched factories, while four look at what improvements have been made in factories researched for the 2008 report.
"There are comparatively many adolescents and child workers, and their work is the same kind as that done by adult workers," said a worker from the Genfort Shoes factory in Guangdong Province, China, where Ohio-based Rocky Brands, a major government contractor, manufactures several lines of boots. "When people come to inspect, the children are told to hide," said another Genfort Shoes worker.
"Every week I have to choose which of the bills I will be able to pay. I pay $600 for rent, $200 for gas, $100 for car insurance, and then there is the telephone and other bills. But I only make $250 a week... and we haven't even talked about food!" says Lesbi, a worker at the Eagle Industries factory in New Bedford, Mass., which manufactures tactical gear for state governments and the United States military.
Elected officials, clergy, business owners, labor leaders, and students gathered today at U.S. Post Offices and state houses in at least 17 U.S. cities to release Subsidizing Sweatshops II and call for end to taxpayer support for sweatshops.
"We have a choice: we can use our tax dollars to elevate conditions for working people, or our tax dollars can fuel the race to the bottom that has cost hundreds of thousands of U.S. workers their jobs and led to inhumane sweatshop conditions around the world," said Bjorn Claeson, Executive Director of SweatFree Communities and author of the report. "By joining the Sweatfree Purchasing Consortium, our cities and states can make a real difference in the lives of working people while helping to create a more sustainable economy."
Groups are calling on governors and local elected officials to join the Sweatfree Purchasing Consortium, which would stop tax dollar support for sweatshop abuses and level the playing field for ethical U.S. businesses. Since the first report on taxpayer support for sweatshops was published in July 2008, more states and cities have committed to join the Consortium, including the State of Pennsylvania; the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; the City of Portland, Oregon; and the City of Olympia, Washington.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Midwestern and Southern States Receive Least Federal Funding for Disease Prevention
TT Note: Looking at the states' rankings based on the amount of federal dollars, that is, your and mine tax dollars, there appears to be an unequal distribution. Wonder if the new and improved tax revenues by the new administration will allow for those states who receive less federal help have lower taxes than those who dip mightily? Oops, sorry. Guess the caffeine isn't making my brain work too well. Of course not. We will all have to dig deep for the money.
/PRNewswire/ -- Trust for America's Health (TFAH) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) today released a new report that found Midwestern and Southern states received less funding from the federal government than Northeastern and Western states did in fiscal year (FY) 2008 for disease prevention programs, which can amount to millions of dollars in differences. The Shortchanging America's Health: A State-By-State Look at How Federal Public Health Dollars are Spent also examines how the economic downturn could lead to serious cuts to disease prevention and emergency preparedness programs at the state level.
The report found that states receive $17.60 per person on average from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to spend on public health. Midwestern states received an average of $17.69 per person and Southern states received $18.43 per person, while Northeastern states received $22.49 and Western states received $23.94 per person from the CDC.
"Even in better economic times, the country's investment in keeping the public healthy and safe is a tiny fraction of what we spend on treating people after they've become sick. Our priorities are upside down. And now in tough times, this balance could get worse, but we shouldn't forget that cutting public health programs to try to solve short-term budget problems will result in long-term negative financial and health consequences," said Jeff Levi, PhD, Executive Director of TFAH. "Public health programs help keep disease rates down, which in turn keeps health care costs down. It's going to be hard to get the economy healthy again if our workers and our health care system are both sick."
Alaska received the most funding from CDC of any state at $52.78 per person in FY 2008, while Indiana received the least at $12.74 - a $40 difference. Approximately 75 percent of CDC's budget is distributed through grants or cooperative agreements to states and communities to support programs to prevent diseases and prepare for health disasters.
Public health programs are supported through a combination of federal, state, and local resources. State funding is expected to drop significantly as state governments face severe budget crises. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), at least 46 states are facing shortfalls to their 2009 and/or 2010 budgets. CBPP estimates that combined budget gaps for states in the remainder of 2009, 2010, and 2011 could total more than $350 billion.
Some health programs at-risk for cuts include:
-- Cancer, diabetes, obesity, and other chronic disease prevention;
-- HIV/AIDS, MRSA, TB, and other infectious disease prevention;
-- Food and water safety;
-- Environmental health improvement; and
-- Bioterrorism and health emergency preparedness.
In addition, more than 11,000 state and local public health jobs have already been cut, and another 10,000 may be cut, according to surveys conducted by state and local health departments.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided an additional $1 billion for public health programs for next year, which will help provide additional support in many communities.
"The financial crisis makes it more important than ever for the country to make prevention a top priority," said Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, M.D., M.B.A president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "Even in these troubled times, prevention is an investment we can count on to deliver a big payoff - sparing millions of people from developing preventable diseases while saving billions in health care costs."
The full report includes state-by-state pages of key health statistics and funding information and is available on TFAH's Web site at www.healthyamericans.org. The report was supported by a grant from RWJF.
Rankings of CDC Funds for States (Based on Fiscal Year 2008)
1=Most funds; 50=Least funds. Funds are listed on a per person basis.
The national average CDC funding is $17.60 per person.
1. Alaska ($52.78); 2. Vermont ($35.15); 3. Wyoming ($32.43); 4. Rhode Island ($32.09); 5. New Mexico ($30.94); 6. South Dakota ($29.12); 7. North Dakota ($27.45); 8. Hawaii ($25.55); 9. Delaware ($24.98); 10. Montana ($24.33); 11. Maine ($23.53); 12. Maryland ($22.92); 13. West Virginia ($21.78); 14. New York ($21.39); 15. Washington ($21.34); 16. Louisiana ($21.25); 17. New Hampshire ($21.07); 18. Idaho ($20.97); 19. Massachusetts ($20.85); 20. Nebraska ($20.54); 21. Mississippi ($20.04); 22. Nevada ($19.67); 23. Arkansas ($19.19); 24. Oklahoma ($19.10); 25. North Carolina ($19.00); 26. South Carolina ($18.69); 27. Georgia ($18.68); 28. Connecticut ($18.63); 29. Colorado ($17.92); 30. Arizona ($17.30); 31. Texas ($17.16); 32. Alabama ($16.95); 33. Illinois ($16.66); 34. Iowa ($16.37); 35. Oregon ($16.33); 36. California ($15.94); 37. Michigan ($15.76); 38. New Jersey ($15.75); 39. Utah ($15.73); 40. Minnesota ($15.66); 41. Kansas ($15.14); 41. Missouri ($15.14); 43. Wisconsin ($14.97); 44. Tennessee ($14.96); 45. Pennsylvania ($13.99); 46. Kentucky ($13.94); 47. Florida ($13.29); 48. Virginia ($12.88); 49. Ohio ($12.76); 50. Indiana ($12.74).
*Regions are based on the U.S. Census Bureau definitions. Midwestern states include: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Northeastern states include: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Western states include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Southern states include: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. Washington, D.C. was not included in the analysis.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
/PRNewswire/ -- Trust for America's Health (TFAH) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) today released a new report that found Midwestern and Southern states received less funding from the federal government than Northeastern and Western states did in fiscal year (FY) 2008 for disease prevention programs, which can amount to millions of dollars in differences. The Shortchanging America's Health: A State-By-State Look at How Federal Public Health Dollars are Spent also examines how the economic downturn could lead to serious cuts to disease prevention and emergency preparedness programs at the state level.
The report found that states receive $17.60 per person on average from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to spend on public health. Midwestern states received an average of $17.69 per person and Southern states received $18.43 per person, while Northeastern states received $22.49 and Western states received $23.94 per person from the CDC.
"Even in better economic times, the country's investment in keeping the public healthy and safe is a tiny fraction of what we spend on treating people after they've become sick. Our priorities are upside down. And now in tough times, this balance could get worse, but we shouldn't forget that cutting public health programs to try to solve short-term budget problems will result in long-term negative financial and health consequences," said Jeff Levi, PhD, Executive Director of TFAH. "Public health programs help keep disease rates down, which in turn keeps health care costs down. It's going to be hard to get the economy healthy again if our workers and our health care system are both sick."
Alaska received the most funding from CDC of any state at $52.78 per person in FY 2008, while Indiana received the least at $12.74 - a $40 difference. Approximately 75 percent of CDC's budget is distributed through grants or cooperative agreements to states and communities to support programs to prevent diseases and prepare for health disasters.
Public health programs are supported through a combination of federal, state, and local resources. State funding is expected to drop significantly as state governments face severe budget crises. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), at least 46 states are facing shortfalls to their 2009 and/or 2010 budgets. CBPP estimates that combined budget gaps for states in the remainder of 2009, 2010, and 2011 could total more than $350 billion.
Some health programs at-risk for cuts include:
-- Cancer, diabetes, obesity, and other chronic disease prevention;
-- HIV/AIDS, MRSA, TB, and other infectious disease prevention;
-- Food and water safety;
-- Environmental health improvement; and
-- Bioterrorism and health emergency preparedness.
In addition, more than 11,000 state and local public health jobs have already been cut, and another 10,000 may be cut, according to surveys conducted by state and local health departments.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided an additional $1 billion for public health programs for next year, which will help provide additional support in many communities.
"The financial crisis makes it more important than ever for the country to make prevention a top priority," said Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, M.D., M.B.A president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "Even in these troubled times, prevention is an investment we can count on to deliver a big payoff - sparing millions of people from developing preventable diseases while saving billions in health care costs."
The full report includes state-by-state pages of key health statistics and funding information and is available on TFAH's Web site at www.healthyamericans.org. The report was supported by a grant from RWJF.
Rankings of CDC Funds for States (Based on Fiscal Year 2008)
1=Most funds; 50=Least funds. Funds are listed on a per person basis.
The national average CDC funding is $17.60 per person.
1. Alaska ($52.78); 2. Vermont ($35.15); 3. Wyoming ($32.43); 4. Rhode Island ($32.09); 5. New Mexico ($30.94); 6. South Dakota ($29.12); 7. North Dakota ($27.45); 8. Hawaii ($25.55); 9. Delaware ($24.98); 10. Montana ($24.33); 11. Maine ($23.53); 12. Maryland ($22.92); 13. West Virginia ($21.78); 14. New York ($21.39); 15. Washington ($21.34); 16. Louisiana ($21.25); 17. New Hampshire ($21.07); 18. Idaho ($20.97); 19. Massachusetts ($20.85); 20. Nebraska ($20.54); 21. Mississippi ($20.04); 22. Nevada ($19.67); 23. Arkansas ($19.19); 24. Oklahoma ($19.10); 25. North Carolina ($19.00); 26. South Carolina ($18.69); 27. Georgia ($18.68); 28. Connecticut ($18.63); 29. Colorado ($17.92); 30. Arizona ($17.30); 31. Texas ($17.16); 32. Alabama ($16.95); 33. Illinois ($16.66); 34. Iowa ($16.37); 35. Oregon ($16.33); 36. California ($15.94); 37. Michigan ($15.76); 38. New Jersey ($15.75); 39. Utah ($15.73); 40. Minnesota ($15.66); 41. Kansas ($15.14); 41. Missouri ($15.14); 43. Wisconsin ($14.97); 44. Tennessee ($14.96); 45. Pennsylvania ($13.99); 46. Kentucky ($13.94); 47. Florida ($13.29); 48. Virginia ($12.88); 49. Ohio ($12.76); 50. Indiana ($12.74).
*Regions are based on the U.S. Census Bureau definitions. Midwestern states include: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Northeastern states include: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Western states include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Southern states include: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. Washington, D.C. was not included in the analysis.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Report Finds Economic Crisis Hurting U.S. Preparedness for Health Emergencies
Report Finds Economic Crisis Hurting U.S. Preparedness for Health Emergencies; More Than Half of States Score 7 or Lower Out of 10 in Readiness Rankings
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Trust for America's Health (TFAH) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) today released the sixth annual Ready or Not? Protecting the Public's Health from Diseases, Disasters, and Bioterrorism report, which finds that progress made to better protect the country from disease outbreaks, natural disasters, and bioterrorism is now at risk, due to budget cuts and the economic crisis. In addition, the report concludes that major gaps remain in many critical areas of preparedness, including surge capacity, rapid disease detection, and food safety.
The report contains state-by-state health preparedness scores based on 10 key indicators to assess health emergency preparedness capabilities. More than half of states and D.C. achieved a score of seven or less out of 10 key indicators. Louisiana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin scored the highest with 10 out of 10. Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Montana, and Nebraska tied for the lowest score with five out of 10.
Over the past six years, the Ready or Not? report has documented steady progress toward improved public health preparedness. This year however, TFAH found that cuts in federal funding for state and local preparedness since 2005, coupled with the cuts states are making to their budgets in response to the economic crisis, put that progress at risk.
"The economic crisis could result in a serious rollback of the progress we've made since September 11, 2001 and Hurricane Katrina to better prepare the nation for emergencies," said Jeff Levi, PhD, Executive Director of TFAH. "The 25 percent cut in federal support to protect Americans from diseases, disasters, and bioterrorism is already hurting state response capabilities. The cuts to state budgets in the next few years could lead to a disaster for the nation's disaster preparedness."
Some serious 2008 health emergencies include a Salmonella outbreak in jalapeno and Serrano peppers that sickened 1,442 people in 43 states, the largest beef recall in history in February, Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, severe flooding in the Midwest, major wildfires in California in June and November, and a ricin scare in Las Vegas.
Among the key findings:
Budget Cuts: Federal funding for state and local preparedness has been cut more than 25 percent from fiscal year (FY) 2005, and states are no longer receiving any supplemental funding for pandemic flu preparedness, despite increased responsibilities.
-- In addition to the federal decreases, 11 states and D.C. cut their
public health budgets in the past year. In the coming year, according
to the Center on Budget and Policy and Priorities, 33 states are
facing shortfalls in their 2009 budgets and 16 states are already
projecting shortfalls to their 2010 budgets.
Rapid Disease Detection: Since September 11, 2001, the country has made significant progress in improving disease detection capabilities, but major gaps still remain.
-- Only six states do not have a disease surveillance system compatible
with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
National Electronic Disease Surveillance System.
-- Twenty-four states and D.C. lack the capacity to deliver and receive
lab specimens, such as suspected bioterror agents or new disease
outbreak samples, on a 24/7 basis.
-- Only three state public health laboratories are not able to meet the
expectations of their state's pandemic flu plans.
Food Safety: America's food safety system has not been fundamentally modernized in more than 100 years.
-- Twenty states and D.C. did not meet or exceed the national average
rate for being able to identify the pathogens responsible for food
borne disease outbreaks in their states.
Surge Capacity: Many states do not have mechanisms in place to support and protect the community assistance that is often required during a major emergency.
-- Twenty-six states do not have laws that reduce or limit liability for
businesses and non-profit organizations that help during a public
health emergency.
-- Only eight states do not have laws that limit or reduce liability
exposure for health care workers who volunteer during a public health
emergency.
-- Seventeen states do not have State Medical Reserve Corps Coordinators.
Vaccine and Medication Supplies and Distribution: Ensuring the public can quickly and safely receive medications during a major health emergency is one of the most serious challenges facing public health officials.
-- Sixteen states have purchased less than half of their share of
federally-subsidized antivirals to use during a pandemic flu outbreak.
-- Every state now has an adequate plan for distributing emergency
vaccines, antidotes, and medical supplies from the Strategic National
Stockpile, according to the CDC. In 2005, only seven states had
adequate plans. The CDC changed to a different grading system in
2007. However, questions still remain about the contents of the
federal stockpile.
"States are being asked to do more with less, jeopardizing our safety, security, and health," said Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, M.D., M.B.A., president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "We all have a stake in strengthening America's public health system, because it is our first line of defense against health emergencies."
The report also offers a series of recommendations for improving preparedness, including:
-- Restoring Full Funding. At a minimum, federal, state, and local
funding for public health emergency preparedness capabilities should
be restored to FY 2005 levels.
-- Strengthening Leadership and Accountability. The next administration
must clarify the public health emergency preparedness roles and
responsibilities at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
and U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
-- Enhancing Surge Capacity and the Public Health Workforce. Federal,
state, and local governments and health care providers must better
address altered standards of care, alternative care sites, legal
concerns to protect community assistance, and surge workforce issues.
-- Modernizing Technology and Equipment. Communications and surveillance
systems and laboratories need increased resources for modernization.
-- Improving Community Engagement. Additional measures must be taken to
engage communities in emergency planning and to improve protections
for at-risk communities.
-- Incorporating Preparedness into Health Care Reform and Creating an
Emergency Health Benefit. This is needed to contain the spread of
disease by providing care to the uninsured and underinsured Americans
during major disasters and disease outbreaks.
Score Summary:
For the state-by-state scoring, states received one point for achieving an indicator or zero points if they did not achieve the indicator. Zero is the lowest possible overall score, 10 is the highest. The data for the indicators are from publicly available sources or were provided from public officials. More information on each indicator is available in the full report on TFAH's Web site at www.healthyamericans.org and RWJF's Web site at www.rwjf.org. The report was supported by a grant from RWJF.
10 out of 10: Louisiana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin
9 out of 10: Alabama, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont,
8 out of 10: Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Washington
7 out of 10: California, Colorado, D.C., Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming
6 out of 10: Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, Texas
5 out of 10: Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Nebraska, Montana
A five minute video about the report is available at: http://healthyamericans.org/reports/bioterror08/video/
Trust for America's Health is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to saving lives by protecting the health of every community and working to make disease prevention a national priority. www.healthyamericans.org
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation focuses on the pressing health and health care issues facing our country. As the nation's largest philanthropy devoted exclusively to improving the health and health care of all Americans, the Foundation works with a diverse group of organizations and individuals to identify solutions and achieve comprehensive, meaningful and timely change. For more than 35 years the Foundation has brought experience, commitment, and a rigorous, balanced approach to the problems that affect the health and health care of those it serves. Helping Americans lead healthier lives and get the care they need -- the Foundation expects to make a difference in our lifetime. For more information, visit www.rwjf.org.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Trust for America's Health (TFAH) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) today released the sixth annual Ready or Not? Protecting the Public's Health from Diseases, Disasters, and Bioterrorism report, which finds that progress made to better protect the country from disease outbreaks, natural disasters, and bioterrorism is now at risk, due to budget cuts and the economic crisis. In addition, the report concludes that major gaps remain in many critical areas of preparedness, including surge capacity, rapid disease detection, and food safety.
The report contains state-by-state health preparedness scores based on 10 key indicators to assess health emergency preparedness capabilities. More than half of states and D.C. achieved a score of seven or less out of 10 key indicators. Louisiana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin scored the highest with 10 out of 10. Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Montana, and Nebraska tied for the lowest score with five out of 10.
Over the past six years, the Ready or Not? report has documented steady progress toward improved public health preparedness. This year however, TFAH found that cuts in federal funding for state and local preparedness since 2005, coupled with the cuts states are making to their budgets in response to the economic crisis, put that progress at risk.
"The economic crisis could result in a serious rollback of the progress we've made since September 11, 2001 and Hurricane Katrina to better prepare the nation for emergencies," said Jeff Levi, PhD, Executive Director of TFAH. "The 25 percent cut in federal support to protect Americans from diseases, disasters, and bioterrorism is already hurting state response capabilities. The cuts to state budgets in the next few years could lead to a disaster for the nation's disaster preparedness."
Some serious 2008 health emergencies include a Salmonella outbreak in jalapeno and Serrano peppers that sickened 1,442 people in 43 states, the largest beef recall in history in February, Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, severe flooding in the Midwest, major wildfires in California in June and November, and a ricin scare in Las Vegas.
Among the key findings:
Budget Cuts: Federal funding for state and local preparedness has been cut more than 25 percent from fiscal year (FY) 2005, and states are no longer receiving any supplemental funding for pandemic flu preparedness, despite increased responsibilities.
-- In addition to the federal decreases, 11 states and D.C. cut their
public health budgets in the past year. In the coming year, according
to the Center on Budget and Policy and Priorities, 33 states are
facing shortfalls in their 2009 budgets and 16 states are already
projecting shortfalls to their 2010 budgets.
Rapid Disease Detection: Since September 11, 2001, the country has made significant progress in improving disease detection capabilities, but major gaps still remain.
-- Only six states do not have a disease surveillance system compatible
with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
National Electronic Disease Surveillance System.
-- Twenty-four states and D.C. lack the capacity to deliver and receive
lab specimens, such as suspected bioterror agents or new disease
outbreak samples, on a 24/7 basis.
-- Only three state public health laboratories are not able to meet the
expectations of their state's pandemic flu plans.
Food Safety: America's food safety system has not been fundamentally modernized in more than 100 years.
-- Twenty states and D.C. did not meet or exceed the national average
rate for being able to identify the pathogens responsible for food
borne disease outbreaks in their states.
Surge Capacity: Many states do not have mechanisms in place to support and protect the community assistance that is often required during a major emergency.
-- Twenty-six states do not have laws that reduce or limit liability for
businesses and non-profit organizations that help during a public
health emergency.
-- Only eight states do not have laws that limit or reduce liability
exposure for health care workers who volunteer during a public health
emergency.
-- Seventeen states do not have State Medical Reserve Corps Coordinators.
Vaccine and Medication Supplies and Distribution: Ensuring the public can quickly and safely receive medications during a major health emergency is one of the most serious challenges facing public health officials.
-- Sixteen states have purchased less than half of their share of
federally-subsidized antivirals to use during a pandemic flu outbreak.
-- Every state now has an adequate plan for distributing emergency
vaccines, antidotes, and medical supplies from the Strategic National
Stockpile, according to the CDC. In 2005, only seven states had
adequate plans. The CDC changed to a different grading system in
2007. However, questions still remain about the contents of the
federal stockpile.
"States are being asked to do more with less, jeopardizing our safety, security, and health," said Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, M.D., M.B.A., president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "We all have a stake in strengthening America's public health system, because it is our first line of defense against health emergencies."
The report also offers a series of recommendations for improving preparedness, including:
-- Restoring Full Funding. At a minimum, federal, state, and local
funding for public health emergency preparedness capabilities should
be restored to FY 2005 levels.
-- Strengthening Leadership and Accountability. The next administration
must clarify the public health emergency preparedness roles and
responsibilities at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
and U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
-- Enhancing Surge Capacity and the Public Health Workforce. Federal,
state, and local governments and health care providers must better
address altered standards of care, alternative care sites, legal
concerns to protect community assistance, and surge workforce issues.
-- Modernizing Technology and Equipment. Communications and surveillance
systems and laboratories need increased resources for modernization.
-- Improving Community Engagement. Additional measures must be taken to
engage communities in emergency planning and to improve protections
for at-risk communities.
-- Incorporating Preparedness into Health Care Reform and Creating an
Emergency Health Benefit. This is needed to contain the spread of
disease by providing care to the uninsured and underinsured Americans
during major disasters and disease outbreaks.
Score Summary:
For the state-by-state scoring, states received one point for achieving an indicator or zero points if they did not achieve the indicator. Zero is the lowest possible overall score, 10 is the highest. The data for the indicators are from publicly available sources or were provided from public officials. More information on each indicator is available in the full report on TFAH's Web site at www.healthyamericans.org and RWJF's Web site at www.rwjf.org. The report was supported by a grant from RWJF.
10 out of 10: Louisiana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin
9 out of 10: Alabama, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont,
8 out of 10: Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Washington
7 out of 10: California, Colorado, D.C., Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming
6 out of 10: Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, Texas
5 out of 10: Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Nebraska, Montana
A five minute video about the report is available at: http://healthyamericans.org/reports/bioterror08/video/
Trust for America's Health is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to saving lives by protecting the health of every community and working to make disease prevention a national priority. www.healthyamericans.org
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation focuses on the pressing health and health care issues facing our country. As the nation's largest philanthropy devoted exclusively to improving the health and health care of all Americans, the Foundation works with a diverse group of organizations and individuals to identify solutions and achieve comprehensive, meaningful and timely change. For more than 35 years the Foundation has brought experience, commitment, and a rigorous, balanced approach to the problems that affect the health and health care of those it serves. Helping Americans lead healthier lives and get the care they need -- the Foundation expects to make a difference in our lifetime. For more information, visit www.rwjf.org.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
