https://youtu.be/h7-IAFogxcM?si=GwyloGoPFlaJ4y40
"God, Turn It Around" is a popular contemporary Christian song written by Jon Reddick, Anthony Skinner, and Jess Cates.
Showing posts with label Health Care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health Care. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 25, 2026
Friday, December 26, 2025
Quiz: Health Information and Coding?
How does the FOIA correlate with health information privacy policies? Tip the knowledge bass is beyon HIPAA.
Anser provided after January 2026!
Image Citation: https://www.healthcare-management-degree.net/faq/what-are-the-differences-between-health-information-management-and-health-informatics/
Tuesday, December 02, 2025
Sunday, June 01, 2025
Countries that never locked-down during COVID-19
Countries that never locked-down during COVID-19. Are still here and are prospering in their own right. Leaning towards freedom is not a risk but the best approach forward. What I do not like is when the public discusses such we are criticized or questioned that we claim to be an expert verses simply being concerned or seeking beet solutions. When I hear demands to shutter places of worship that is misdirection. In my graduate studies the very issue was addressed and my understanding of it; the verdict is a resounding 'NO statistics do not support lock downs were effective. Peace, love and freedom!
Sweden, Taiwan, Uruguay, Iceland and a few others
Source: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250304-the-countries-that-never-locked-down-for-covid-19
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Scientist make synthetic cell
Scientists are reporting that they have made a living cell from DNA that was originally synthesized in a lab. This isn't quite a synthetic organism. But the result is an important, and some would say troubling step on the road to creating life in the lab.
Craig Venter is the scientist behind the effort. Many scientists have strong opinions about Venter, but even his detractors will admit he's a man who thinks big.
Venter and his team have been working to create a synthetic cell since 1995. The idea is to use the 4 chemical constituents of DNA — named A, T, C and G — to put together a synthetic genome. Then they would put that synthetic genome into a cell, and have it direct the cell as it grew and multiplied. Now they've has succeeded.
Venter says there were two enormous hurdles to accomplishing his goals. First, he needed to figure out how to make a very big piece of DNA. Most chemical synthesis techniques stop working when you get to a few thousand of DNA letters. That means you can't copy a whole genome — you have to do it in parts.
But Venter says, "we wanted to make something close to a million." Solving all the chemistry has taken much of the last 15 years.
Venter and his colleagues eventually solved this problem by putting smaller fragments of synthesized DNA first into bacterial cells where they assembled into large fragments, and then into yeast cells that stitched those fragments together.
The second hurdle was figuring out how to transfer that large chunk of DNA into a cell without breaking it. To begin with, he wanted to show he could transfer a working chromosome from one species of bacteria to another.
Synthesizing Life
So he took the genome from a simple cell, a small bacteria called Mycoplasma mycoides, and spent several years trying to transfer it's genome into a related species, Mycoplasma capricolum. He finally succeeded.
"So it was the capricolum cell, with the mycoides genome in it," says Venter.
After he cleared those two hurdles, the last step was to make an exact copy of the mycoides genome in the lab, and transfer that synthetic genome into capricolum.
It took several more years of work, including determining a more accurate DNA sequence for the mycoides genome, to get the system to work. But now, as he and colleagues report in the journal Science, they've done it.
But this isn't really a new life form, says Jim Collins, a synthetic biologist at Boston University. "Its genome is a stitched together copy of the DNA of an organism that exists in nature."
Collins says Venter has created something remarkable, but it's not creating life.
"We don't know enough biology to create or synthesize life," says Collins. "I think we're far removed from understanding how would you build a truly artificial genome from scratch."
Even so, Venter's accomplishment of using DNA created in the lab to control a cell's behavior is bound to raise questions about whether the work is morally acceptable. That's a discussion bioethicists have been having for some time.
Inevitable Dilemmas
It's not as though we suddenly got to the point where particular moral questions are raised here that weren't already present in the field, says Gregory Kaebnick, a scholar at the Hasting Center, a bioethics think tank.
Kaebnick says there are two basic concerns about what Venter and others in the new field of synthetic biology are doing. First, that one of these synthetic organisms will escape from the lab and run amok. And the other is whether this kind of work crosses a line where humans start playing God.
"Up until now, organisms have come into being on their own as it were, they've evolved on their own." But Kaebnick says Venter's work says that may not longer be the case. "And for some that's a troubling development.
But for Venter, that's exactly the point of doing the work in the first place.
"We decided that writing new biological software and creating new species, we could create new species to what we want them to do, not what they evolved to do, says Venter.
Venter has founded a company called Synthetic Genomics where he intends to use these new species to do things like make new fuels and new vaccines.
For the moment, Venter and his colleagues are the only ones with the money and techniques to do this kind of genomic manipulation. But others are working in related areas, and a new world of synthetic microorganisms might not be far off.
Craig Venter is the scientist behind the effort. Many scientists have strong opinions about Venter, but even his detractors will admit he's a man who thinks big.
Venter and his team have been working to create a synthetic cell since 1995. The idea is to use the 4 chemical constituents of DNA — named A, T, C and G — to put together a synthetic genome. Then they would put that synthetic genome into a cell, and have it direct the cell as it grew and multiplied. Now they've has succeeded.
Venter says there were two enormous hurdles to accomplishing his goals. First, he needed to figure out how to make a very big piece of DNA. Most chemical synthesis techniques stop working when you get to a few thousand of DNA letters. That means you can't copy a whole genome — you have to do it in parts.
But Venter says, "we wanted to make something close to a million." Solving all the chemistry has taken much of the last 15 years.
Venter and his colleagues eventually solved this problem by putting smaller fragments of synthesized DNA first into bacterial cells where they assembled into large fragments, and then into yeast cells that stitched those fragments together.
The second hurdle was figuring out how to transfer that large chunk of DNA into a cell without breaking it. To begin with, he wanted to show he could transfer a working chromosome from one species of bacteria to another.
Synthesizing Life
So he took the genome from a simple cell, a small bacteria called Mycoplasma mycoides, and spent several years trying to transfer it's genome into a related species, Mycoplasma capricolum. He finally succeeded.
"So it was the capricolum cell, with the mycoides genome in it," says Venter.
After he cleared those two hurdles, the last step was to make an exact copy of the mycoides genome in the lab, and transfer that synthetic genome into capricolum.
It took several more years of work, including determining a more accurate DNA sequence for the mycoides genome, to get the system to work. But now, as he and colleagues report in the journal Science, they've done it.
But this isn't really a new life form, says Jim Collins, a synthetic biologist at Boston University. "Its genome is a stitched together copy of the DNA of an organism that exists in nature."
Collins says Venter has created something remarkable, but it's not creating life.
"We don't know enough biology to create or synthesize life," says Collins. "I think we're far removed from understanding how would you build a truly artificial genome from scratch."
Even so, Venter's accomplishment of using DNA created in the lab to control a cell's behavior is bound to raise questions about whether the work is morally acceptable. That's a discussion bioethicists have been having for some time.
Inevitable Dilemmas
It's not as though we suddenly got to the point where particular moral questions are raised here that weren't already present in the field, says Gregory Kaebnick, a scholar at the Hasting Center, a bioethics think tank.
Kaebnick says there are two basic concerns about what Venter and others in the new field of synthetic biology are doing. First, that one of these synthetic organisms will escape from the lab and run amok. And the other is whether this kind of work crosses a line where humans start playing God.
"Up until now, organisms have come into being on their own as it were, they've evolved on their own." But Kaebnick says Venter's work says that may not longer be the case. "And for some that's a troubling development.
But for Venter, that's exactly the point of doing the work in the first place.
"We decided that writing new biological software and creating new species, we could create new species to what we want them to do, not what they evolved to do, says Venter.
Venter has founded a company called Synthetic Genomics where he intends to use these new species to do things like make new fuels and new vaccines.
For the moment, Venter and his colleagues are the only ones with the money and techniques to do this kind of genomic manipulation. But others are working in related areas, and a new world of synthetic microorganisms might not be far off.
Monday, June 23, 2008
T. Kennedy, Jr. on cancer recovery
"By Adele Slaughter, Spotlight Health, with medical adviser Stephen A. Shoop, M.D.
As a healthcare attorney, Ted Kennedy, Jr. is a passionate advocate for cancer patients and people with disabilities. Kennedy is particularly dedicated to this work because he knows the anguish of surviving cancer intimately — 30 years ago he lost his leg to a type of bone cancer called osteogenic sarcoma.
"I remember the emotional isolation I experienced, losing my hair, and dealing with that as a seventh grader," says Kennedy. "No one ever asked me how I was doing, or thought that my mental attitude would have an impact on how I approached the challenges I faced. Even though my parents found the best, most brilliant doctors that existed at the time to treat the cancer in my body, no one really ever addressed how I was doing emotionally."
With Kennedy's help, The Wellness Community (TWC) launched Virtual Wellness Community, sponsored by Amgen. VWC is a place on the internet where cancer patients can join professionally moderated support groups. Kennedy remains passionate about the message that no one has to face cancer and the process of recovery without emotional support.
"I didn't know any other kids that had this kind of cancer," says Kennedy, who serves on the board of TWC. "It was a rare type of bone cancer. What I found helpful at the time was my parents identified a ski camp for kids who had lost a leg. I wanted to learn how to ski on one ski. I said to myself 'If they can do it, I can do it too.' A lot of times it's not what people say, it is simply that they show up, sit in a seat, are a source of strength, and provide the power of example."
Recently, TWC celebrated 20 years of providing free emotional support, education, and hope for people with cancer and their families.
"We're having a luncheon to celebrate the 20th year of The Wellness Community," says Kennedy. "It's interesting because I am right across the street from where I was diagnosed with cancer and lost my leg in 1973 — just a stone's throw away."
"Osteogenic sarcoma or osteosarcoma, is the primary tumor of bone cells, it arises from the cells that form bone," explains Stuart E. Siegel, Director of the Children's Center for Cancer and Blood Diseases, Children's Hospital Los Angeles. "The other tumor that commonly occurs in children is Ewing's sarcoma. About 7% of childhood cancers are bone cancers. Of those, Ewing's comprises 2.3% while 4.6% is osteosarcoma."
Approximately 12,500 children from birth to 21 years-old are diagnosed with cancer in the US every year. About 600 youngsters will develop osteosarcoma.
"It can occur in any bone and most commonly occurs in long bones and is in the legs and arms, but any bone can develop the tumor," says Siegel, who is also a professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine. "The usual symptoms that bring tumors to the attention of doctors are pain, a lump, or abnormality in the bone. Some patients actually present with a fracture and an x-ray is taken. Generally, the break is through the tumor which is discovered through the x-ray."
"I was 12 years old and noticed a pain in my leg and insisted that I have it looked at," says Kennedy. "The first doctor that I saw told me to soak my leg in Epsom salt and come back in a month."
"Obviously the pain didn't go away, and I came back and they did a quick biopsy and determined it was cancer," adds Kennedy. "I lost my leg the very next day and went through two years of chemotherapy."
Once diagnosed, the principles of treatment for children with bone cancer are similar.
"Today, treatment begins with chemotherapy since the cancer often gets into the muscles and the bone. We want to de-bulk the tumor before we take it out," says Siegel. "Once the tumor shrinks down in about two to three weeks we remove it. Then after about 12 weeks of chemotherapy we perform a 'limb salvage' procedure. We are able to remove the parts of the bone involved in the tumor and place advanced metal prostheses or cadaver bones to preserve the leg or the arm and its function. After surgery, additional chemotherapy is required for about nine to 18 months."
The vast majority of patients, about 80%, experience remission. Today, almost 70% of patients with osteosarcoma are long-term survivors and appear to be cured of the disease.
Well-being
"There are 8.5 million cancer survivors in the US today," says Mitch Golant psychologist and vice-president of research and development of TWC. "With the new treatments available, there will be more and more survivors and the need for support will increase dramatically."
Addressing the growing population of people living with cancer as a chronic disease, TWC has 22 facilities in the United States and two Wellness Communities overseas. Last year they served over 25,000 people living with cancer.
"Because of my personal experience," says Kennedy. "I know that patients who are more involved and have their questions answered feel more positively about their course of treatment and are less likely to get stressed out or depressed. It is so important for patients to ask a lot of questions and educate themselves about the different treatment options."
"We were founded on the Patient Active concept," says Kim Thiboldeaux, president and CEO of TWC. "This concept says that patients who participate in their recovery and are empowered by working with their physician will improve the quality of their life. The data show that the three most common things people with cancer face are a loss of control, isolation, and a loss of hope. Our programs combat those things."
In a study conducted by TWC, University of California San Francisco, and Stanford, 65 women were recruited to look at the efficacy of online support groups. The women were suffering from breast cancer and two-thirds were from rural areas. These women showed a decrease in depression and anxiety, and an increase in their knowledge about the disease and zest for life. Using the results of that study, TCW launched an online community last February.
In addition to professionally moderated, online groups in a secure site, patients can download information about the following:
mind / body programs
nutritional guidance
educational and research information
With communities like TWC and advocates like Kennedy, there is critical support for those living with cancer.
"Cancer had an enormous impact on how I approach my everyday life," says Kennedy. "It sensitized me to a lot of issues for people facing cancer and not just the psychosocial issues but the legal issues as well. That is why I'm a health advocate. I also learned to pay attention to my body, not in a hypochondriac way, but to listen to what my body tells me. I think anyone who has faced a life-threatening disease really has a chance to reflect on his or her life. For me, I am incredibly grateful for everything today.""
As a healthcare attorney, Ted Kennedy, Jr. is a passionate advocate for cancer patients and people with disabilities. Kennedy is particularly dedicated to this work because he knows the anguish of surviving cancer intimately — 30 years ago he lost his leg to a type of bone cancer called osteogenic sarcoma.
"I remember the emotional isolation I experienced, losing my hair, and dealing with that as a seventh grader," says Kennedy. "No one ever asked me how I was doing, or thought that my mental attitude would have an impact on how I approached the challenges I faced. Even though my parents found the best, most brilliant doctors that existed at the time to treat the cancer in my body, no one really ever addressed how I was doing emotionally."
With Kennedy's help, The Wellness Community (TWC) launched Virtual Wellness Community, sponsored by Amgen. VWC is a place on the internet where cancer patients can join professionally moderated support groups. Kennedy remains passionate about the message that no one has to face cancer and the process of recovery without emotional support.
"I didn't know any other kids that had this kind of cancer," says Kennedy, who serves on the board of TWC. "It was a rare type of bone cancer. What I found helpful at the time was my parents identified a ski camp for kids who had lost a leg. I wanted to learn how to ski on one ski. I said to myself 'If they can do it, I can do it too.' A lot of times it's not what people say, it is simply that they show up, sit in a seat, are a source of strength, and provide the power of example."
Recently, TWC celebrated 20 years of providing free emotional support, education, and hope for people with cancer and their families.
"We're having a luncheon to celebrate the 20th year of The Wellness Community," says Kennedy. "It's interesting because I am right across the street from where I was diagnosed with cancer and lost my leg in 1973 — just a stone's throw away."
"Osteogenic sarcoma or osteosarcoma, is the primary tumor of bone cells, it arises from the cells that form bone," explains Stuart E. Siegel, Director of the Children's Center for Cancer and Blood Diseases, Children's Hospital Los Angeles. "The other tumor that commonly occurs in children is Ewing's sarcoma. About 7% of childhood cancers are bone cancers. Of those, Ewing's comprises 2.3% while 4.6% is osteosarcoma."
Approximately 12,500 children from birth to 21 years-old are diagnosed with cancer in the US every year. About 600 youngsters will develop osteosarcoma.
"It can occur in any bone and most commonly occurs in long bones and is in the legs and arms, but any bone can develop the tumor," says Siegel, who is also a professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine. "The usual symptoms that bring tumors to the attention of doctors are pain, a lump, or abnormality in the bone. Some patients actually present with a fracture and an x-ray is taken. Generally, the break is through the tumor which is discovered through the x-ray."
"I was 12 years old and noticed a pain in my leg and insisted that I have it looked at," says Kennedy. "The first doctor that I saw told me to soak my leg in Epsom salt and come back in a month."
"Obviously the pain didn't go away, and I came back and they did a quick biopsy and determined it was cancer," adds Kennedy. "I lost my leg the very next day and went through two years of chemotherapy."
Once diagnosed, the principles of treatment for children with bone cancer are similar.
"Today, treatment begins with chemotherapy since the cancer often gets into the muscles and the bone. We want to de-bulk the tumor before we take it out," says Siegel. "Once the tumor shrinks down in about two to three weeks we remove it. Then after about 12 weeks of chemotherapy we perform a 'limb salvage' procedure. We are able to remove the parts of the bone involved in the tumor and place advanced metal prostheses or cadaver bones to preserve the leg or the arm and its function. After surgery, additional chemotherapy is required for about nine to 18 months."
The vast majority of patients, about 80%, experience remission. Today, almost 70% of patients with osteosarcoma are long-term survivors and appear to be cured of the disease.
Well-being
"There are 8.5 million cancer survivors in the US today," says Mitch Golant psychologist and vice-president of research and development of TWC. "With the new treatments available, there will be more and more survivors and the need for support will increase dramatically."
Addressing the growing population of people living with cancer as a chronic disease, TWC has 22 facilities in the United States and two Wellness Communities overseas. Last year they served over 25,000 people living with cancer.
"Because of my personal experience," says Kennedy. "I know that patients who are more involved and have their questions answered feel more positively about their course of treatment and are less likely to get stressed out or depressed. It is so important for patients to ask a lot of questions and educate themselves about the different treatment options."
"We were founded on the Patient Active concept," says Kim Thiboldeaux, president and CEO of TWC. "This concept says that patients who participate in their recovery and are empowered by working with their physician will improve the quality of their life. The data show that the three most common things people with cancer face are a loss of control, isolation, and a loss of hope. Our programs combat those things."
In a study conducted by TWC, University of California San Francisco, and Stanford, 65 women were recruited to look at the efficacy of online support groups. The women were suffering from breast cancer and two-thirds were from rural areas. These women showed a decrease in depression and anxiety, and an increase in their knowledge about the disease and zest for life. Using the results of that study, TCW launched an online community last February.
In addition to professionally moderated, online groups in a secure site, patients can download information about the following:
mind / body programs
nutritional guidance
educational and research information
With communities like TWC and advocates like Kennedy, there is critical support for those living with cancer.
"Cancer had an enormous impact on how I approach my everyday life," says Kennedy. "It sensitized me to a lot of issues for people facing cancer and not just the psychosocial issues but the legal issues as well. That is why I'm a health advocate. I also learned to pay attention to my body, not in a hypochondriac way, but to listen to what my body tells me. I think anyone who has faced a life-threatening disease really has a chance to reflect on his or her life. For me, I am incredibly grateful for everything today.""
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Less About 'Sick,' More About 'Normal'
"If you had died 50 years ago, your body would have stood a pretty good chance of serving science. In the 1960s, autopsy rates at US hospitals exceeded 50 percent. Pathologists weren't necessarily looking for what killed people — they were taking advantage of the fact that a body was available and ready for inspection. There was still much to learn about normal human biology, the thinking went, so every corpse was an educational opportunity.
These days, autopsy rates have fallen below 10 percent, a decline that's symptomatic of a larger deficiency. Medicine has become all about finding a problem — a tumor, a heart attack, a failing kidney — and deploying advanced treatment technologies. In the process, we seem to have given up on measuring and tracking what constitutes normal. That's an alarming — and potentially dangerous — trend.
What's normal matters because we're entering a new era of health care, one in which we look not for causes of illness but for risks. It's called predictive medicine, and its primary tool is the screening test. A good screening test should provide a range of results, distinguishing between a condition within normal parameters — which doesn't require intervention — and an anomaly, which demands it. That's how most blood tests work, for instance. But for all sorts of conditions, there's often no definition of normal. In heart disease, for example, CT screening tests can spot abnormalities in arterial plaque — but no research exists on whether that information is actually predictive of heart disease or stroke. "We need to know normal variation," says Pat Brown, a professor of biochemistry at Stanford University School of Medicine. "It's really underappreciated as a part of science." In too many areas, Brown argues, we're too quick to jump at any blip without understanding whether it's a true red alert or just normal background noise.
Consider prostate cancer. Right now, about two-thirds of men diagnosed with the disease get treated with surgery or radiation (both of which carry a significant risk of impotence or incontinence). But in February, researchers at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey found that 80 percent of men over age 66 with detectable prostate cancer who do nothing (so-called watchful waiting) will likely die of something else. In other words, most of those who get treatment — and could be impotent as a result — should have gone without it. "We're way overtreating the disease," says Peter Nelson, an oncologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. "Really, you only want to know about the ones that are potentially fatal."
Ironically, this problem is brought on by technology. Imaging and scanning tools are now so good at peering inside our bodies, they've surpassed our capacity to interpret the results. Many findings are what doctors call "incidentalomas," smudges that look like cancer but turn out — often after surgery — to be benign. Though new detection technologies like proteomics have made great progress in associating particular biomarkers with certain cancers or diseases, we still don't know how often those same markers turn up in nondisease situations.
It seems like it would be easy just to step back and survey the broad picture. But research costs money, and studying what's normal is generally considered trivial, dismissed as mere butterfly collecting. At the National Institutes for Health, for instance, all grants are given a "priority score," an indication of a project's novelty, originality, and "scientific merit." Normal need not apply.
But in these data-rich days, studying what's normal could be a project of startling originality and merit. With petabytes of storage and ample processing power at hand, there's an opportunity to create a sort of Normal Human Project — a macro understanding of human biology on a micro scale. Or, as Stanford's Brown describes it, a "comprehensive, quantitative molecular and cellular characterization of the normal human.'" That may sound daunting, but complementary projects are already under way. Seattle's Allen Institute for Brain Science, having completed a 3-D model of the mouse brain in 2006, is now aiming to model the human brain in its normal state. Even postmortem examinations are coming back into vogue, via high-volume autopsy centers, which can add their results to resources like Johns Hopkins' online autopsy database.
The annals of medicine are full of tidy explanations of how the body works, from Dr. Atkins all the way back to Hippocrates. Inevitably, though, someone comes along and shows that there's a little more to it. It would be wise, as Brown suggests, "to accept the fact that we don't know a tremendous amount about things we think we know. We could learn some humility." That, however, may be asking too much of science.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Japanese Pay Less for More Health Care
Japan has the longest life span on the planet.
"Japan produces cars, color TVs and computers, but it also produces the world's healthiest people. It has the longest healthy life expectancy on Earth and spends half as much on health care as the United States.
That long life expectancy is partly due to diet and lifestyle, but the country's universal health care system plays a key role, too.
Everyone in Japan is required to get a health insurance policy, either at work or through a community-based insurer. The government picks up the tab for those who are too poor.
It's a model of social insurance that is used in many wealthy countries. But it's definitely not "socialized medicine." Eighty percent of Japan's hospitals are privately owned — more than in the United States — and almost every doctor's office is a private business.
Health Care for Anyone at Anytime
Dr. Kono Hitoshi is a typical doctor. He runs a private, 19-bed hospital in the Tokyo neighborhood of Soshigaya.
Dr. Kono Hitoshi is a typical doctor. He runs a private, 19-bed hospital in the Tokyo neighborhood of Soshigaya.
"The best thing about the Japanese medical system is that all citizens are covered," Kono says. "Anyone, anywhere, anytime — and it's cheap."
Patients don't have to make appointments at his hospital, either.
The Japanese go to the doctor about three times as often as Americans. Because there are no gatekeepers, they can see any specialist they want.
Keeping Costs Low
Japanese patients also stay in the hospital much longer than Americans, on average. They love technology such as magnetic resonance imaging; they have nearly twice as many scans per capita as Americans do. A neck scan can cost $1,200 in the United States.
Professor Ikegami Naoki, Japan's top health economist, explains how Japan keeps MRIs affordable.
Japanese patients also stay in the hospital much longer than Americans, on average. They love technology such as magnetic resonance imaging; they have nearly twice as many scans per capita as Americans do. A neck scan can cost $1,200 in the United States.
Professor Ikegami Naoki, Japan's top health economist, explains how Japan keeps MRIs affordable.
"Well, in 2002, the government says that the MRIs, we are paying too much. So in order to be within the total budget, we will cut them by 35 percent," Ikegami says.
This is how Japan keeps cost so low. The Japanese Health Ministry tightly controls the price of health care down to the smallest detail. Every two years, the health care industry and the health ministry negotiate a fixed price for every procedure and every drug.
That helps keep premiums to around $280 a month for the average Japanese family, a lot less than Americans pay. And Japan's employers pick up at least half of that. If you lose your job, you keep your health insurance.
An Accommodating Insurance System
Japanese insurers are a lot more accommodating than their American counterparts. For one thing, they can't deny a claim. And they have to cover everybody.
Even an applicant with heart disease can't be turned down, says Ikegami, the professor. "That is forbidden."
Nor do health care plans covering basic health care for workers and their families make a profit.
"Anything left over is carried over to the next year," Ikegami says. If the carryover was big, "then the premium rate would go down." "
Med records subject to security breach
"CHICAGO, April 16 (UPI) -- Indiana-based Wellpoint Inc. says a security breach may have allowed Internet access to the personal medical information of 130,000 customers.The health insurance giant says "for a period of time" the Social Security numbers, pharmacy records and other personal health data of customers in several states, including Illinois, "were not properly secured," The Chicago Tribune reported Wednesday.The problem involved two computer servers maintained by a third-party vendor that Wellpoint declined to name, the Tribune said.Wellpoint has been notifying customers of the problem by letter and offering them one year of free credit-monitoring services.Company spokeswoman Cheryl Leamon says outside consultants have already been hired to reduce the risk of future incidents."We have not received any reports of identify theft or credit fraud," Leamon said. "We take the security of our members' personal health information very seriously.""
Internet Med Records: Convenience at a Cost?
"There are Web sites that allow you to keep information about your medical treatment online, where you and your doctor can access it easily. An article in the New England Journal of Medicine on Thursday asks if electronic medical records are the next big thing in health care. The answer? When it comes to keeping these records yourself, it depends.
Debbie Witchey is like many Americans: She wants to have all her medical records accessible online. Dozens of Internet sites offer the service, some free, some not.
Witchey knows about personal health records. She's senior vice president of government affairs for the Healthcare Leadership Council, a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying group for the health care industry. It's pushing something different: electronic health records, which doctors and hospitals keep on computers so they're quickly available to any doctor at any hospital. The council doesn't have a position on personal health records, which individuals maintain.
Witchey knows about personal health records. She's senior vice president of government affairs for the Healthcare Leadership Council, a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying group for the health care industry. It's pushing something different: electronic health records, which doctors and hospitals keep on computers so they're quickly available to any doctor at any hospital. The council doesn't have a position on personal health records, which individuals maintain.
A Personal Experiment
But Witchey, 44, was curious about the benefits of personal health records. She checked out promotional materials from one of the biggest sites, Revolution Health. "I was just about to switch doctors, and one of the things they talked about was how great it was to be able to keep all your records in one place," Witchey says. "I was having to go through the process of getting all my records and moving them around, and I thought, 'Well, this would be a good opportunity to give it a try.' So I signed up."
But Witchey, 44, was curious about the benefits of personal health records. She checked out promotional materials from one of the biggest sites, Revolution Health. "I was just about to switch doctors, and one of the things they talked about was how great it was to be able to keep all your records in one place," Witchey says. "I was having to go through the process of getting all my records and moving them around, and I thought, 'Well, this would be a good opportunity to give it a try.' So I signed up."
By filling out a few forms, she was able to get her old records scanned and uploaded onto the site, where she could print them out and bring them to her new doctor.
The doctor reviewed the records and put them into Witchey's file.
Then, during the physical exam, the doctor noticed Witchey's blood pressure was high and recommended medication. Witchey wanted to try diet first. The doctor said OK, so long as Witchey monitored herself closely, which she realized she could do easily on the Web.
"I tracked my weight and my blood pressure on the Revolution Health site, and then I printed it out and took it to her every month," Witchey says.
She weighed herself weekly and took her blood pressure every day, entering the information in a minute or two. The fact that she was paying daily attention helped her a lot, she says. She lost 50 pounds and dropped her blood pressure from 135/105 to 107/71.
A Time-Consuming Effort
For now, Witchey has to input everything she wants on the site — prescriptions, vaccinations, details of hospitalizations — because her doctor isn't connected to the system.
That's one of the drawbacks of personal health records, says medical records expert Joy Pritts of Georgetown University.
"The problem now is getting information from your family physician, for example," Pritts says. Such doctors typically have "small practices, and most of them don't have their health information in electronic form."
So they can't send it to a Web site.
That could change as big companies get involved. Right now, Microsoft and Google are in various stages of developing online medical records systems. Some major employers, including Intel and Wal-Mart, are piloting programs as well. Some health insurers already let you have access to your records, which includes some information from your doctors.
At the moment, however, creating and maintaining a full health record may be a job for the compulsive, Witchey says.
For now, Witchey has to input everything she wants on the site — prescriptions, vaccinations, details of hospitalizations — because her doctor isn't connected to the system.
That's one of the drawbacks of personal health records, says medical records expert Joy Pritts of Georgetown University.
"The problem now is getting information from your family physician, for example," Pritts says. Such doctors typically have "small practices, and most of them don't have their health information in electronic form."
So they can't send it to a Web site.
That could change as big companies get involved. Right now, Microsoft and Google are in various stages of developing online medical records systems. Some major employers, including Intel and Wal-Mart, are piloting programs as well. Some health insurers already let you have access to your records, which includes some information from your doctors.
At the moment, however, creating and maintaining a full health record may be a job for the compulsive, Witchey says.
"When I first sat down to sign up and get started, I had this vision that I was going to put all my information in here in one sitting, and I'd be all set and ready to go," she says. "And it quickly became clear to me, there's a lot more time to invest in it than I had originally thought about."
She hasn't put in her records from before 2003, for example. "
Monday, March 17, 2008
Where's the money?
The money is there for a different economic approach in America. Some however say there is no money. Why then was funding for War in Iraq immediately budgeted? The stance of Checks & Balances is that spending on Social Programs would result in far more in advancements in the economy and jobs than military spending because the benefits are domestic. It is estimated the Iraq War will cost the U.S. a trillion dollars. It has in fact cost $90 Billion every year since its inception. Now more facts; they say there is no money to solvate Social Security however one infusion of $90 Billion can completely revitalize the program. It is fact that they say there is no funding for a nationalized healthcare however combined with Medicare, Medicaid, fee for service and insurance in addition to annual government funding of $5 Billion per year such a program is achievable.
I wish the politics of government to be simpler where profit motives and partisan baloney has no place.
I wish the politics of government to be simpler where profit motives and partisan baloney has no place.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Broad Support for Requiring Health Coverage
" New poll on health care from NPR, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health finds that a majority of Americans are backing key elements in the health reform proposals of Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
The poll also found very strong support for doing something about the problem of 50 million Americans being uninsured — 93 percent call it a serious problem, with 74 percent saying it's a very serious problem.
"One thing that the survey shows is that Americans are concerned about the problem of the uninsured," says Mollyann Brodie of the Kaiser Family Foundation, co-director of the NPR/Kaiser/Harvard polling project. "We see a universal sort of agreement that they'd like to see more people covered — that it's a good goal to go after."
One aim of the poll was to find out how people feel about the idea of requiring all individuals to buy health insurance. That's a centerpiece of Clinton's plan.
When asked whether they would support a broad proposal that would require everyone to get coverage, 59 percent said they would support it. Such a proposal would require employers to provide coverage or pay into a pool. The government would help low-income people get coverage, and insurance companies would be required to take anyone who applies. People who don't get coverage through one of these channels or purchase it themselves would pay a fine.
But when the question was asked a different way — without emphasizing government subsidies, employer mandates and requirements on insurance companies — support dropped to 47 percent in favor and 44 percent against. That's an even split, given the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The finding suggests that support for requiring everyone to buy insurance may be iffy.
One of the people responding to the poll was Jeffreyna Harper of St. Clair Shores, Mich. She likes Clinton's plan better than Obama's, which would not require all adults to have coverage but would require that parents get their children covered.
"It's good that your children have insurance," Harper told NPR. "The parents need insurance too. Who's going to take care of the kids if the parents are sick?"
The poll finds most independents also support a requirement that everybody buy insurance. But many independents have trouble with that, including Lori Moyer of Roanoke, Va.
"That's a tough call for me because I don't know that the government should be requiring people to buy it," she says. "To me, that's too much involvement from the government by saying that you have to purchase health care."
Moyer favors Republican John McCain. But she also likes Obama's plan to require coverage for children.
"My main concern is children that are uninsured," she says. "I think it's important for the children to get the vaccines that they need and not be afraid to take them to the doctor because they can't afford a doctor visit to make them well."
Covering Children First
When asked whether they would favor a proposal that would not require all adults to get insurance, but one that would require parents to get health coverage for their children, support was higher: 65 percent support that proposal, including a majority (54 percent) of Republicans.
Robert Blendon of the Harvard School of Public Health, a co-director of the polling project, says support for covering children first may have something to do with last year's debate over the State Children's Health Insurance Plan. President Bush vetoed the proposal by Congress as too expansive. But the debate brought the problem of uninsured children to the public's attention.
"There was extraordinary support in this poll among all groups — Democrats, Republicans and independents — for the idea of requiring that every child has a health insurance policy and then provid[ing] help to parents that can't afford it," he says. "And we don't have as wide a consensus for what to do about adults. So it's the childrens' side of this which offers the possibility of a very quick breakthrough in the next Congress."
On the issue of employers' responsibilities, there's sharp difference between the parties. Three-quarters of Americans say employers should offer health insurance or pay into a government pool to provide coverage. But about twice as many Democrats as Republicans are strongly in favor of this approach.
"The employer issue is, I think, going to be a very important issue because that's going to be quite popular from the Democratic side — that the employers be asked to contribute," Blendon says. "And Sen. McCain is going to say absolutely no requirement for individuals and absolutely no requirements for business."
The poll also showed that there is a fairly low level of understanding about what the presidential candidates have proposed regarding health care. Only 48 percent could correctly answer the question, "Have any of the current candidates for president proposed a health plan requiring all Americans to have health insurance, or not?"
Some 42 percent correctly identified Clinton as having proposed such a plan, but only 11 percent knew correctly that Obama had not."
The poll also found very strong support for doing something about the problem of 50 million Americans being uninsured — 93 percent call it a serious problem, with 74 percent saying it's a very serious problem.
"One thing that the survey shows is that Americans are concerned about the problem of the uninsured," says Mollyann Brodie of the Kaiser Family Foundation, co-director of the NPR/Kaiser/Harvard polling project. "We see a universal sort of agreement that they'd like to see more people covered — that it's a good goal to go after."
One aim of the poll was to find out how people feel about the idea of requiring all individuals to buy health insurance. That's a centerpiece of Clinton's plan.
When asked whether they would support a broad proposal that would require everyone to get coverage, 59 percent said they would support it. Such a proposal would require employers to provide coverage or pay into a pool. The government would help low-income people get coverage, and insurance companies would be required to take anyone who applies. People who don't get coverage through one of these channels or purchase it themselves would pay a fine.
But when the question was asked a different way — without emphasizing government subsidies, employer mandates and requirements on insurance companies — support dropped to 47 percent in favor and 44 percent against. That's an even split, given the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The finding suggests that support for requiring everyone to buy insurance may be iffy.
One of the people responding to the poll was Jeffreyna Harper of St. Clair Shores, Mich. She likes Clinton's plan better than Obama's, which would not require all adults to have coverage but would require that parents get their children covered.
"It's good that your children have insurance," Harper told NPR. "The parents need insurance too. Who's going to take care of the kids if the parents are sick?"
The poll finds most independents also support a requirement that everybody buy insurance. But many independents have trouble with that, including Lori Moyer of Roanoke, Va.
"That's a tough call for me because I don't know that the government should be requiring people to buy it," she says. "To me, that's too much involvement from the government by saying that you have to purchase health care."
Moyer favors Republican John McCain. But she also likes Obama's plan to require coverage for children.
"My main concern is children that are uninsured," she says. "I think it's important for the children to get the vaccines that they need and not be afraid to take them to the doctor because they can't afford a doctor visit to make them well."
Covering Children First
When asked whether they would favor a proposal that would not require all adults to get insurance, but one that would require parents to get health coverage for their children, support was higher: 65 percent support that proposal, including a majority (54 percent) of Republicans.
Robert Blendon of the Harvard School of Public Health, a co-director of the polling project, says support for covering children first may have something to do with last year's debate over the State Children's Health Insurance Plan. President Bush vetoed the proposal by Congress as too expansive. But the debate brought the problem of uninsured children to the public's attention.
"There was extraordinary support in this poll among all groups — Democrats, Republicans and independents — for the idea of requiring that every child has a health insurance policy and then provid[ing] help to parents that can't afford it," he says. "And we don't have as wide a consensus for what to do about adults. So it's the childrens' side of this which offers the possibility of a very quick breakthrough in the next Congress."
On the issue of employers' responsibilities, there's sharp difference between the parties. Three-quarters of Americans say employers should offer health insurance or pay into a government pool to provide coverage. But about twice as many Democrats as Republicans are strongly in favor of this approach.
"The employer issue is, I think, going to be a very important issue because that's going to be quite popular from the Democratic side — that the employers be asked to contribute," Blendon says. "And Sen. McCain is going to say absolutely no requirement for individuals and absolutely no requirements for business."
The poll also showed that there is a fairly low level of understanding about what the presidential candidates have proposed regarding health care. Only 48 percent could correctly answer the question, "Have any of the current candidates for president proposed a health plan requiring all Americans to have health insurance, or not?"
Some 42 percent correctly identified Clinton as having proposed such a plan, but only 11 percent knew correctly that Obama had not."
Monday, March 03, 2008
Ginkgo helps memory, raises stroke
'By David Liu, Ph. D.Mar 2, 2008 - 10:17:50 PM
SUNDAY MARCH 2, 2008 (Foodconsumer.org) -- A study published online Wednesday Feb 27 in the journal Neurology suggests taking a ginkgo biloba extract may help maintain memory in elderly people.But the same study also showed that the users of ginkgo biloba extract were at higher risk of mini-strokes or mild strokes.
Ginkgo biloba extracts are sold as dietary supplements to enhance memory as some studies found that it may help improve memory and other mental functions in people with dementia.Dr. Hiroko H. Dodge at the Oregon State University in Corvallis and colleagues followed 118 people aged 85, half taking ginkgo biloba and half taking a placebo, for three years during which 21 of them developed mild memory problems or signs of dementia.Among those who had the memory problems, 14 took a placebo while only 7 took the ginkgo biloba extract. The researchers said although there was a trend showing that taking the ginkgo biloba extract seemed to reduce the risk for memory loss, the effect was not statistically significant.Among those who strictly followed the supplementation regimen, the risk for memory problems for those who took the ginkgo biloba extract was only 32 % of that for those who did not.However, a higher risk of strokes or mini strokes in the ginkgo biloba group was observed. What is interesting is that the type of stroke observed was vessel blockages, not bleeding, a finding that contradicts early studies."Further studies are needed to determine whether ginkgo biloba has any benefits in preventing cognitive decline and whether it is safe," Dodge said."
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Nation's Health Care Bill Hits All-Time High
"
by Joanne Silberner"
"For the first time ever, the total spent on health care topped $2 trillion in 2006, according to a government analysis. The details are in the current issue of the journal Health Affairs.
Fortunately, the rate of growth is slowing down.
But that news may not be as good as it sounds.
The analysis was headed by Aaron Catlin, an economist with the Department of Health and Human Services.
"Health spending in the U.S. accelerated slightly," he says. "It picked up in growth to 6.7 percent in 2006. That's up two-tenths of a percentage point from 2005."
That's not much of an increase in growth if you're an economist, especially when you consider it's been twice that rate in previous years.
But in one area, there was a pretty dramatic increase. Spending on prescription drugs went up 8.5 percent. That's $16 billion.
"We attribute about 50 percent of the increase in spending to increase in use," Catlin says. "Some of that increased use came from beneficiaries under Part D."
The Part D beneficiaries are people who have bought prescription drug insurance through Medicare. Some of them didn't have drug insurance until they purchased it through Medicare and were unable to afford certain prescription medications before the plan went into effect.
Where is the health care economy going? The government won't come out with its projections for the next decade until the end of February. But some other health experts say there are big problems ahead: Health care inflation is far from solved.
Health care consultant Bob Lasziewski says it's like a ship sinking at a reduced rate from how it was sinking before.
"Health care is still increasing at twice the rate of inflation," he says. "Five years ago, it was four times the rate of inflation."
But twice the rate of inflation is still unsustainable, he says, especially given what he sees for the future: Doctors and hospitals joining together to resist insurers' cost cutting, and baby boomers continuing to age.
Paul Ginsburg sees other problems. He's president of the Center for Studying Health Systems Change, which has been studying health care costs in 25 communities around the country. For one thing, Ginsburg says, if the economy hits a downturn and wages slump, health care costs will take a bigger bite out of every paycheck.
Plus he expects that the nation's obesity epidemic is going to drive up health costs. And in travelling around the country he's seen marketplace changes that worry him.
"What we've seen is that the hospitals and physicians have identified which services are the most profitable," he says. "So hospitals identify cardiac procedures and physicians have identified imaging. So what's profitable, they're building."
When a new hospital wing gets built, or doctors buy fancy new machines, those new buildings and machines are going to be used. And when they're used, somebody has to pay for them."
by Joanne Silberner""For the first time ever, the total spent on health care topped $2 trillion in 2006, according to a government analysis. The details are in the current issue of the journal Health Affairs.
Fortunately, the rate of growth is slowing down.
But that news may not be as good as it sounds.
The analysis was headed by Aaron Catlin, an economist with the Department of Health and Human Services.
"Health spending in the U.S. accelerated slightly," he says. "It picked up in growth to 6.7 percent in 2006. That's up two-tenths of a percentage point from 2005."
That's not much of an increase in growth if you're an economist, especially when you consider it's been twice that rate in previous years.
But in one area, there was a pretty dramatic increase. Spending on prescription drugs went up 8.5 percent. That's $16 billion.
"We attribute about 50 percent of the increase in spending to increase in use," Catlin says. "Some of that increased use came from beneficiaries under Part D."
The Part D beneficiaries are people who have bought prescription drug insurance through Medicare. Some of them didn't have drug insurance until they purchased it through Medicare and were unable to afford certain prescription medications before the plan went into effect.
Where is the health care economy going? The government won't come out with its projections for the next decade until the end of February. But some other health experts say there are big problems ahead: Health care inflation is far from solved.
Health care consultant Bob Lasziewski says it's like a ship sinking at a reduced rate from how it was sinking before.
"Health care is still increasing at twice the rate of inflation," he says. "Five years ago, it was four times the rate of inflation."
But twice the rate of inflation is still unsustainable, he says, especially given what he sees for the future: Doctors and hospitals joining together to resist insurers' cost cutting, and baby boomers continuing to age.
Paul Ginsburg sees other problems. He's president of the Center for Studying Health Systems Change, which has been studying health care costs in 25 communities around the country. For one thing, Ginsburg says, if the economy hits a downturn and wages slump, health care costs will take a bigger bite out of every paycheck.
Plus he expects that the nation's obesity epidemic is going to drive up health costs. And in travelling around the country he's seen marketplace changes that worry him.
"What we've seen is that the hospitals and physicians have identified which services are the most profitable," he says. "So hospitals identify cardiac procedures and physicians have identified imaging. So what's profitable, they're building."
When a new hospital wing gets built, or doctors buy fancy new machines, those new buildings and machines are going to be used. And when they're used, somebody has to pay for them."
Monday, December 31, 2007
FEATURE: Health Insurance, What is Reasonable?
A true story regarding America’s healthcare system. There is a range I see: the poor with no health coverage, working class with employee based insurance, and the wealthy possessing access to necessary in addition to elective, cosmetic procedures. Conservatives state that families should use their own resources in health care. I do not agree but let us entertain this view for this true circumstance. Paying monthly premiums for health insurance is an expression of such a resource. I ask then what role then do insurance companies have to deny coverage for a life extending procedure. What is reasonable? Should the government play a role in assuring insurance holders and patient rights? If and precisely in this true case a family (or individual) has health insurance but are denied claim to a procedure improving the quality of or the extension of life, there is fact supporting drastic changes in America’s profit driven health car system. -A.T. Brooks
“Every presidential candidate whose health plan rewards the health insurance companies by giving them more business via mandates needs to rethink that approach.
The lawyer for California teen Nataline Sarkisyan charged today that the only reason Cigna Health Care officials changed their minds and approved a liver transplant for the desperate girl was they knew it was too late and they wouldn't have to pay for it.
Sarkisyan, 17, died Thursday just hours after Cigna reversed its decision and approved the procedure it had previously described as "too experimental…and unproven." Now the Sarkisyan family hopes manslaughter or murder charges will be pressed.
Their lawyer, Mark Geragos, says he will refer the case to prosecutors for possible criminal charges against the insurer, Cigna HealthCare.
"All of the doctors there unanimously agreed that she needed and should have that liver transplant. And the only entity, if you will, who said no to that in the middle of that medical decision, was some piece of garbage who decided that making a couple of dollars, or saving them a couple of dollars, was worth more than the 65% chance over six months that she would survive," said Geragos.
I've been locked with my own battle with Blue Shield over what is really a minor (still unresolved) health issue, those who need far more expensive care as they fight for their lives are in far worse shape, and people are dying as a result.
A system that replaces the judgement of doctors for that of accountants is inherently broken and must be scrapped.
These Cigna execs should be charged with manslaughter or the murder of Nataline, while a more comprehensive solution to the nation's health care crisis must ensure that a for-profit health care system be scrapped for one that puts the health of the people first.
Every presidential candidate whose health plan rewards the health insurance companies by giving them more business via mandates needs to rethink that approach.
The lawyer for California teen Nataline Sarkisyan charged today that the only reason Cigna Health Care officials changed their minds and approved a liver transplant for the desperate girl was they knew it was too late and they wouldn't have to pay for it.
Sarkisyan, 17, died Thursday just hours after Cigna reversed its decision and approved the procedure it had previously described as "too experimental…and unproven." Now the Sarkisyan family hopes manslaughter or murder charges will be pressed.
Their lawyer, Mark Geragos, says he will refer the case to prosecutors for possible criminal charges against the insurer, Cigna HealthCare.
"All of the doctors there unanimously agreed that she needed and should have that liver transplant. And the only entity, if you will, who said no to that in the middle of that medical decision, was some piece of garbage who decided that making a couple of dollars, or saving them a couple of dollars, was worth more than the 65% chance over six months that she would survive," said Geragos.
I've been locked with my own battle with Blue Shield over what is really a minor (still unresolved) health issue, those who need far more expensive care as they fight for their lives are in far worse shape, and people are dying as a result.
A system that replaces the judgement of doctors for that of accountants is inherently broken and must be scrapped.
These Cigna execs should be charged with manslaughter or the murder of Nataline, while a more comprehensive solution to the nation's health care crisis must ensure that a for-profit health care system be scrapped for one that puts the health of the people first. (daily kos)”
“Every presidential candidate whose health plan rewards the health insurance companies by giving them more business via mandates needs to rethink that approach.
The lawyer for California teen Nataline Sarkisyan charged today that the only reason Cigna Health Care officials changed their minds and approved a liver transplant for the desperate girl was they knew it was too late and they wouldn't have to pay for it.
Sarkisyan, 17, died Thursday just hours after Cigna reversed its decision and approved the procedure it had previously described as "too experimental…and unproven." Now the Sarkisyan family hopes manslaughter or murder charges will be pressed.
Their lawyer, Mark Geragos, says he will refer the case to prosecutors for possible criminal charges against the insurer, Cigna HealthCare.
"All of the doctors there unanimously agreed that she needed and should have that liver transplant. And the only entity, if you will, who said no to that in the middle of that medical decision, was some piece of garbage who decided that making a couple of dollars, or saving them a couple of dollars, was worth more than the 65% chance over six months that she would survive," said Geragos.
I've been locked with my own battle with Blue Shield over what is really a minor (still unresolved) health issue, those who need far more expensive care as they fight for their lives are in far worse shape, and people are dying as a result.
A system that replaces the judgement of doctors for that of accountants is inherently broken and must be scrapped.
These Cigna execs should be charged with manslaughter or the murder of Nataline, while a more comprehensive solution to the nation's health care crisis must ensure that a for-profit health care system be scrapped for one that puts the health of the people first.
Every presidential candidate whose health plan rewards the health insurance companies by giving them more business via mandates needs to rethink that approach.
The lawyer for California teen Nataline Sarkisyan charged today that the only reason Cigna Health Care officials changed their minds and approved a liver transplant for the desperate girl was they knew it was too late and they wouldn't have to pay for it.
Sarkisyan, 17, died Thursday just hours after Cigna reversed its decision and approved the procedure it had previously described as "too experimental…and unproven." Now the Sarkisyan family hopes manslaughter or murder charges will be pressed.
Their lawyer, Mark Geragos, says he will refer the case to prosecutors for possible criminal charges against the insurer, Cigna HealthCare.
"All of the doctors there unanimously agreed that she needed and should have that liver transplant. And the only entity, if you will, who said no to that in the middle of that medical decision, was some piece of garbage who decided that making a couple of dollars, or saving them a couple of dollars, was worth more than the 65% chance over six months that she would survive," said Geragos.
I've been locked with my own battle with Blue Shield over what is really a minor (still unresolved) health issue, those who need far more expensive care as they fight for their lives are in far worse shape, and people are dying as a result.
A system that replaces the judgement of doctors for that of accountants is inherently broken and must be scrapped.
These Cigna execs should be charged with manslaughter or the murder of Nataline, while a more comprehensive solution to the nation's health care crisis must ensure that a for-profit health care system be scrapped for one that puts the health of the people first. (daily kos)”
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Scientists Develop Life-Extending Compounds
The scientists who discovered resveratrol, a substance in red wine that extends the lives of mice, say they've developed three drugs that work the same way, but much more powerfully. The most potent of the three controls blood sugar; it is also believed to fight other diseases of aging.
Sales of red wine took a big jump last year after researchers at Harvard published a study on resveratrol. The study showed that large doses of resveratrol helped obese mice live as long as regular mice. The substance also let the mice run longer on a treadmill. And it seemed to prevent a range of diseases associated with aging.
Sales of red wine took a big jump last year after researchers at Harvard published a study on resveratrol. The study showed that large doses of resveratrol helped obese mice live as long as regular mice. The substance also let the mice run longer on a treadmill. And it seemed to prevent a range of diseases associated with aging.
According to David Sinclair, the lead researcher, there was one snag for those looking to uncork a bottle of Pinot Noir to stay young.
"You would need to drink about 1,000 bottles of red wine to get the amount of resveratrol in your body to even have a chance of seeing those benefits," he said.
So Sinclair and a team of researchers have been searching for something like resveratrol, but more powerful.
They came up with three contenders and published a study of the compounds' effects in this week's issue of the journal Nature. All three were tested in rodents. Sinclair said they triggered the same set of chemical reactions in cells – the same chemical pathway – as resveratrol did.
"The best one in this paper is 1,000 times better at activating this anti-aging pathway than resveratrol is, which is great news," he said. "It means that we can potentially have a small pill that would treat many of the diseases of the Western world."
The list could include maladies such as type 2 diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's and heart disease.
The new compounds are the property of Sirtris, a company that Sinclair helped start. Unlike with resveratrol, which occurs naturally and is sold as a dietary supplement, Sirtris will need FDA approval to market the compounds.
"We're moving away from this molecule in red wine toward real drug discovery, pharmaceutical and rational drug design that most of the drugs we take these days come from," Sinclair said.
And drugs have to be approved to treat a specific disease. So the new study took the most potent new compound and studied its effect on mice and rats with diabetes.
The researchers found that it controlled blood sugar as well as a widely used diabetes drug.
Sinclair believes the compound also will work against other diseases of aging, including cancer.
Less sure is Dr. Randall Holcombe, the chief of hematology and oncology at the University of California-Irvine. He did an experiment comparing pure resveratrol to a powder made from grapes. The goal was to reduce the risk of colon cancer.
"We actually found that the grape powder was more effective than pure resveratrol," Holcombe said, "and that suggested that resveratrol is more active in combination with other compounds such as grapes than it is all by itself."
Holcombe says that raises the possibility that Sinclair's super-resveratrol compounds, by themselves, won't do much to prevent cancer.
Despite the lingering questions, Steven Helfand of Brown University says the research based on resveratrol does seem awfully promising.
"The surprising thing really is how well this molecule has worked so far," Helfand said. He added that he has mixed feelings about the research moving away from dietary supplements and toward more traditional drug development.
On the plus side, he said, the need for FDA approval ensures that any new products will get rigorous testing.
"I think the public should be pleased in that sense. The correct experiments will be done and the correct scrutiny will be given to these compounds," Helfand said. "They will now be scrutinized much more so than they were before."
The downside, Helfand said, is that any product to emerge from this research probably won't be cheap.
David Sinclair said that so far, his company has had no trouble raising money, despite the risk that no drug may ever emerge from the tests.
"The payoff is huge," Sinclair said. "Even diabetes in itself is roughly a $10 billion worldwide market. Some say even higher. And that's just one disease."
Sinclair said the first major studies of resveratrol used on people won't be published until next year. Human studies of the newer, more powerful compounds are even further off."
Saturday, December 01, 2007
World AIDS Day: A Challenge to 'Speak Life'
Source: God's Politics Blog
"On Dec. 1, the world commemorates World AIDS Day, a day in which we pause and remember the 25 million lives lost to the deadly epidemic. The day also challenges us to redouble our efforts to show greater solidarity with the estimated 33 million people worldwide living with HIV. The day's slogan is "Stop AIDS: Keep the Promise". This is a direct appeal to governments, policy makers, and regional health authorities to ensure that they meet the litany of targets in the fight against HIV and AIDS - especially the promise agreed to at the 2005 G8 Summit of universal access to HIV treatment, care, support, and prevention services by 2010. The 2007 theme of "leadership" highlights the stark reality that without a revolution in political will the epidemic will continue to outpace even our best response.
Dec. 1 represents a day for remembering the 2.1 million people that lost their lives this year due to this preventable and treatable disease. While we are starting to win victories in increasing access to treatment we are still losing the war to prevent new infections. Reports still show an alarming concentration of infections in the southern third of Africa, with nations such as Swaziland and Botswana reporting as many as one in four adults infected with HIV. Even closer to home, statistics released last week in Washington, D.C., reveal a state of emergency in which one in 20 residents is HIV positive - with 80 percent of cases among black men, women, and adolescents. The report shatters the common myth that AIDS is predominantly a gay disease, as 37.4 percent of newly reported cases were due to heterosexual contact. Behind these sobering statistics are real lives, real families, and real people made in the image of God.
We can give thanks to the degree to which Christians, including evangelicals, have now embraced AIDS as an urgent and legitimate cause. This weekend Pastor Rick Warren is convening thousands of faith leaders from across the country and world for his annual Summit on AIDS and the Church. I applaud his leadership in shining a spotlight on the indispensable role of the church in the fight against AIDS. However, past conferences have often shied away from the political nature of this epidemic and failed to deliver a clear call for political action to address the systemic injustices that so often fuel it. We can celebrate major advances in global treatment due in large part to increased funding through the President's Emergency AIDS Plan and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. Still, only 20 percent of people in need in the developing world currently have access. Thanks in large part to activism through the 2008 Stop AIDS campaign, all three leading Democratic Presidential candidates have agreed to a bold campaign promise to increase President Bush's pledge of $30 billion for AIDS prevention and treatment over the next five years to a figure more commensurate with the global need of $50 billion. Now we must pressure the Republican candidates to follow suit.
AIDS tests our faith as well as our humanity. Applying Matthew 25 to the contemporary age of AIDS, I believe God will also ask us "when I was living with HIV, did you love me, care for me, and use your prophetic voice to help stop the epidemic?"
The gospel music artist Donald Lawrence came out with a song last year titled "I Speak Life." As Christians we must speak life by loving and supporting people around us living with the virus. We can speak life by using our voices to challenge Congress and the Bush administration to make good on their promises to achieve universal access to treatment by the year 2010. We can speak life by breaking down the walls of stigma in our churches and communities, raising awareness, and encouraging testing. We can speak life by addressing the underlying injustices and issues that so often fuel the crisis of AIDS, including intravenous drug use, poverty, sexual violence, promiscuity, and infidelity.
An old African American Spiritual says it best:
Sometimes I feel discouraged, and think my work's in vain. But then the Holy Spirit revives my soul again. There is balm in Gilead to heal the wounded soul. There is a balm in Gilead to heal the sin sick soul.
Adam Taylor is director of campaigns and organizing for Sojourners. "
http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/
"On Dec. 1, the world commemorates World AIDS Day, a day in which we pause and remember the 25 million lives lost to the deadly epidemic. The day also challenges us to redouble our efforts to show greater solidarity with the estimated 33 million people worldwide living with HIV. The day's slogan is "Stop AIDS: Keep the Promise". This is a direct appeal to governments, policy makers, and regional health authorities to ensure that they meet the litany of targets in the fight against HIV and AIDS - especially the promise agreed to at the 2005 G8 Summit of universal access to HIV treatment, care, support, and prevention services by 2010. The 2007 theme of "leadership" highlights the stark reality that without a revolution in political will the epidemic will continue to outpace even our best response.
Dec. 1 represents a day for remembering the 2.1 million people that lost their lives this year due to this preventable and treatable disease. While we are starting to win victories in increasing access to treatment we are still losing the war to prevent new infections. Reports still show an alarming concentration of infections in the southern third of Africa, with nations such as Swaziland and Botswana reporting as many as one in four adults infected with HIV. Even closer to home, statistics released last week in Washington, D.C., reveal a state of emergency in which one in 20 residents is HIV positive - with 80 percent of cases among black men, women, and adolescents. The report shatters the common myth that AIDS is predominantly a gay disease, as 37.4 percent of newly reported cases were due to heterosexual contact. Behind these sobering statistics are real lives, real families, and real people made in the image of God.
We can give thanks to the degree to which Christians, including evangelicals, have now embraced AIDS as an urgent and legitimate cause. This weekend Pastor Rick Warren is convening thousands of faith leaders from across the country and world for his annual Summit on AIDS and the Church. I applaud his leadership in shining a spotlight on the indispensable role of the church in the fight against AIDS. However, past conferences have often shied away from the political nature of this epidemic and failed to deliver a clear call for political action to address the systemic injustices that so often fuel it. We can celebrate major advances in global treatment due in large part to increased funding through the President's Emergency AIDS Plan and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. Still, only 20 percent of people in need in the developing world currently have access. Thanks in large part to activism through the 2008 Stop AIDS campaign, all three leading Democratic Presidential candidates have agreed to a bold campaign promise to increase President Bush's pledge of $30 billion for AIDS prevention and treatment over the next five years to a figure more commensurate with the global need of $50 billion. Now we must pressure the Republican candidates to follow suit.
AIDS tests our faith as well as our humanity. Applying Matthew 25 to the contemporary age of AIDS, I believe God will also ask us "when I was living with HIV, did you love me, care for me, and use your prophetic voice to help stop the epidemic?"
The gospel music artist Donald Lawrence came out with a song last year titled "I Speak Life." As Christians we must speak life by loving and supporting people around us living with the virus. We can speak life by using our voices to challenge Congress and the Bush administration to make good on their promises to achieve universal access to treatment by the year 2010. We can speak life by breaking down the walls of stigma in our churches and communities, raising awareness, and encouraging testing. We can speak life by addressing the underlying injustices and issues that so often fuel the crisis of AIDS, including intravenous drug use, poverty, sexual violence, promiscuity, and infidelity.
An old African American Spiritual says it best:
Sometimes I feel discouraged, and think my work's in vain. But then the Holy Spirit revives my soul again. There is balm in Gilead to heal the wounded soul. There is a balm in Gilead to heal the sin sick soul.
Adam Taylor is director of campaigns and organizing for Sojourners. "
http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/
Clinton - Summit on AIDS and the Church
Presidential contender was only candidate to speak at international AIDS summit.
By MARTIN WISCKOLThe Orange County Register
LAKE FOREST – Many evangelical Christians have taken issue with Hillary Clinton for promoting abortion rights, gay rights and teen condom use, but you wouldn't have known it from the standing ovation that greeted her at Saddleback Church on Thursday afternoon.
Although all leading presidential candidates were invited, Clinton was the only one to show up for the annual Global Summit on AIDS and the Church. She delivered a bipartisan message that emphasized the role of the church in addressing AIDS.
"Twenty five years ago when people – mostly young gay men – started dying of an unnamed disease, we didn't talk about it in church," she said. "We've come a long way. Not only can we talk about AIDS in church, but churches can lead the way."
The three-day event leading up to World AIDS Day on Saturday is part of Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren's global assault on the disease, with an approach that claims churches worldwide as the most capable network to address the problem.
Besides praising the efforts of Warren and his wife, Kay, Clinton acknowledged the efforts of the current administration.
"I will build … on the leadership President and Mrs. Bush have shown," she said. She has vowed, if elected, to double AIDS spending to $50 billion – a statement that drew applause this afternoon. Clinton also received a standing ovation when she finished her 30-minute speech.
Many in the audience remain opposed to candidates who favor abortion rights.
"From a theological point of view, it's very difficult to embrace abortion," said the Rev. Claude Terry, a 57-year-old Baptist minister from Modesto.
Then there were others who not only found common ground when it came to addressing AIDs, but also found Clinton to be an attractive candidate.
"Those partisan issues have no place when you're addressing a pandemic," said Mission Viejo's Christine Stevens, a 63-year-old Saddleback Church member – and a Republican considering voting for Clinton. "She understands the magnitude of the problem and what it will take to address it. I was very impressed by her."
http://www.ocregister.com/community/clinton-gets-standing-1930735-ovations-from
By MARTIN WISCKOLThe Orange County Register
LAKE FOREST – Many evangelical Christians have taken issue with Hillary Clinton for promoting abortion rights, gay rights and teen condom use, but you wouldn't have known it from the standing ovation that greeted her at Saddleback Church on Thursday afternoon.
Although all leading presidential candidates were invited, Clinton was the only one to show up for the annual Global Summit on AIDS and the Church. She delivered a bipartisan message that emphasized the role of the church in addressing AIDS.
"Twenty five years ago when people – mostly young gay men – started dying of an unnamed disease, we didn't talk about it in church," she said. "We've come a long way. Not only can we talk about AIDS in church, but churches can lead the way."
The three-day event leading up to World AIDS Day on Saturday is part of Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren's global assault on the disease, with an approach that claims churches worldwide as the most capable network to address the problem.
Besides praising the efforts of Warren and his wife, Kay, Clinton acknowledged the efforts of the current administration.
"I will build … on the leadership President and Mrs. Bush have shown," she said. She has vowed, if elected, to double AIDS spending to $50 billion – a statement that drew applause this afternoon. Clinton also received a standing ovation when she finished her 30-minute speech.
Many in the audience remain opposed to candidates who favor abortion rights.
"From a theological point of view, it's very difficult to embrace abortion," said the Rev. Claude Terry, a 57-year-old Baptist minister from Modesto.
Then there were others who not only found common ground when it came to addressing AIDs, but also found Clinton to be an attractive candidate.
"Those partisan issues have no place when you're addressing a pandemic," said Mission Viejo's Christine Stevens, a 63-year-old Saddleback Church member – and a Republican considering voting for Clinton. "She understands the magnitude of the problem and what it will take to address it. I was very impressed by her."
http://www.ocregister.com/community/clinton-gets-standing-1930735-ovations-from
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
