December 12th, 2010 by Toni Brayer, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion
1 Comment »
The Oregon Health and Science University has published its fifth report card since 2000. It grades and ranks the United States on 26 health-status indicators for women. In 2010, not one state received an overall “satisfactory” grade for women’s health, and just two states — Vermont and Massachusetts — received a “satisfactory-minus” grade. Overall, the nation is so far from meeting the goals set by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that it receives an overall grade of “unsatisfactory.”
The national report card uses status indicators to assess women’s health:
Women’s access to healthcare services (medically under-served area, no abortion provider, no health insurance and first trimester prenatal care)
Wellness (screening mammograms, colorectal cancer, pap smears, cholesterol)
Prevention (leisure time physical activity, obesity, eating five fruits and veggies/day, binge drinking, annual dental visits, smoking)
Key conditions (coronary heart disease death rate, lung cancer death, stroke death, breast cancer death)
Chronic conditions (high blood pressure, diabetes, AIDS, arthritis, osteoporosis)
Reproductive health (chlamydia, maternal mortality, unintended pregnancies)
Mental health
Violence against women
Infant mortality rate
Life expectancy
Poverty
High school completion
Wage gap
The score on these varied status indicators fluctuated depending upon which state a woman lives. California and New Jersey ranked highest on state health policies, while Idaho and South Dakota ranked last on policies. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at EverythingHealth*
December 6th, 2010 by Glenn Laffel, M.D., Ph.D. in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion
1 Comment »
Flush from their big win in the midterms, the Boehners are vowing to repeal and replace the Big O’s health reform law. They pose a legitimate threat, but an even larger one lies in the courts, where suits challenging the constitutionality of the law have been popping up like fireflies on a late August night.
In Virginia for example, Republican-appointed Federal District Court Judge Henry Hudson has indicated that the Individual Mandate — a key provision of the law that has been challenged in a suit filed in his court by the state’s Republican Attorney General — might not pass his sniff test.
Hudson said he’d rule on the matter this month. If he deems the provision to be unconstitutional, he might (it’s unlikely, but he might) enjoin the law altogether until higher courts rule on the matter. Holy Kazakhstan, Batman!
An official at Camp Obama, who spoke with the New York Times under the condition that his name not be WikiLeaked, acknowledged that Hudson’s thumbs appear to be pointing downward, indeed. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Pizaazz*
November 22nd, 2010 by EvanFalchukJD in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion
No Comments »
There’s a country with an unusual healthcare system. In it, you often spend about as much time with your lawyer as you do your doctor. There are special courts set up to decide what kinds of treatment you are allowed to have. And doctors have to be careful that they don’t say or do the wrong thing, or else they risk being blackballed by insurance companies.
The country: The United States of America.
You may not realize it, but if you hurt your back at work you end up in a different healthcare system than if you hurt your back at home. Sure, you may end up with similar doctors or hospitals, but your experience of healthcare will be completely different. Here’s why.
If you get hurt at work, you’re covered by the “workers compensation” system. That system has its roots over a century ago, when employers didn’t do much to take care of workers. So the system is based on laws that mandate employers to take care of injured workers, often for the rest of their lives. In exchange for this very comprehensive coverage, employers and their insurers get a great deal of control over what care workers get and where they get it.
Does the workers compensation system represent a model of how a future American healthcare system might work? It might. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at See First Blog*
November 22nd, 2010 by RamonaBatesMD in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion
No Comments »
Do you recall the severe rationing of food and water the Chilean miners had to endure to survive? The rationing was done to stretch their limited resources. I would argue the state of Arizona’s new policy to not cover organ transplants for patients on Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) or their version of Medicaid is a similar form of rationing.
AHCCCS, as many Medicaid programs, is underfunded. They are trying to operate on a limited budget. Something has to give. Sadly in this case, many (NPR reports 98) had already been granted approval for organ transplants which they may not receive.
Francisco Felix, 32, who due to hepatitis-C needs a liver transplant, is reported to have made it to the operating room, prepped and ready for his life-saving liver transplant when doctors told him the state’s Medicaid plan wouldn’t cover the procedure. The liver he was to receive went to someone else. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Suture for a Living*
November 22nd, 2010 by Shadowfax in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion
No Comments »
Freshman Republican Congressman Andy Harris, who was elected on a promise to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), is outraged that he’s going to go a whole month before his government-provided health insurance kicks in. From Politico:
A conservative Maryland physician elected to Congress on an anti-Obamacare platform surprised fellow freshmen at a Monday orientation session by demanding to know why his government-subsidized health care plan takes a month to kick in.
Republican Andy Harris, an anesthesiologist who defeated freshman Democrat Frank Kratovil on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, reacted incredulously when informed that federal law mandated that his government-subsidized health care policy would take effect on Feb. 1st –- 28 days after his Jan. 3rd swearing-in.
“He stood up and asked the two ladies who were answering questions why it had to take so long, what he would do without 28 days of health care,” said a congressional staffer who saw the exchange. The benefits session, held behind closed doors, drew about 250 freshman members, staffers and family members to the Capitol Visitors Center auditorium late Monday morning.”
All the more embarassing because he’s a doctor, for Pete’s sake. You’d think he’d have a better idea of how insurance works. Guess the dude’s never heard of COBRA. Also, it’s pretty standard that this is how enrollment happens. And it’s idiots like this that want to repeal the PPACA. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Movin' Meat*
