All Health News

The biggest electricity blackout to occur in the United States resulted in 90 additional deaths in New York City, caused both by accidents and disease-related problems, according to a new analysis of data from the summer of 2003.

“Our results from this study indicate that power outages can immediately and severely harm human health,” said Brooke Anderson, the lead author of the study and a researcher at Johns Hopkins University.

Anderson said her study is the first to show that the death toll of an outage comes not only from more accidents — like carbon monoxide poisoning from generators — but also from cardiovascular, respiratory and other chronic health conditions.

Little is known about the health impact of power outages, Anderson and a colleague write in the journal Epidemiology. They note that estimates of mortality in natural disasters, like hurricanes, typically include only directly attributable deaths, such as from drowning, even though power is usually lost in the disaster as well.

To get a sense of the mortality stemming from a power outage itself, they collected data on New York City’s weather conditions, air pollution levels and causes of deaths reported during the blackout in August of 2003.

Though most of New York City was dark for only about a day, August 14 to 15, the blackout affected a wide swath of the northeastern United States and Canada, lasting as long as four days in some places, including pockets within the city.

Afterwards, the New York City health department attributed only six deaths to the blackout, most of them from carbon monoxide poisoning.

Anderson, however, found there was an overall 28 percent spike in deaths during the city’s power outage.

Twelve of those additional deaths were caused by accidents, 38 by cardiovascular conditions, three from respiratory problems and 37 by various other health conditions.

Conditions during the blackout might explain why health problems can worsen during a power outage.

For instance, “people were trapped in the subway in the dark and didn’t know what happened. Especially after September 11, people are more scared, and stress can trigger a heart attack or exacerbate asthma,” said Shao Lin, an epidemiologist with the New York State Department of Health, who was not involved in this study.

Firefighters also had to rescue hundreds of people from elevators and many residents in high-rise apartments had no running water for the duration.

In an email to Reuters Health, Anderson pointed out that people also could have had difficulty managing their diseases.

“For example, most food sources and pharmacies were closed, which could be a serious problem for someone with diabetes or someone who is low on prescription medicines,” she said.

Ambulances were slower, home medical equipment that used electricity couldn’t operate and cell phones didn’t work during part of the blackout.

The weather was very warm, but did not qualify as a “heat wave” during the disruption.

Pollution monitors weren’t working through the outage, but shortly afterward there was an uptick in certain air pollutants, the researchers found.

Lin told Reuters Health that increased air pollution from idling buses or other sources could also aggravate respiratory conditions and lead to increased deaths.

In a previous study, she and her colleagues found that hospital admissions for respiratory conditions increased during the blackout.

Anderson said that because of increased stress on power grids, blackouts could become more common in the future.

Lin said she and others are continuing to study the effects of power outages to help emergency responders better address the needs of communities and target help to the people at the most risk.

Energy companies are also working to stop power outages from happening in the first place, such as during heat waves when power grids struggle, Anderson said.

“The most direct way to reduce excess deaths from a blackout is to try to prevent blackouts,” she said.

NEW YORK, NY, Jan 27, 2012 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) –
(Leadership Directories, Inc.) — Leadership Directories’ new
healthcare contact database, Leadership(R) Health Focus, is the
winner for Best Medical and Health Information Product in the
Software Information Industry Association’s 27th Annual CODiE
Awards.

“We are delighted to receive this industry recognition,” said
Gretchen G. Teichgraeber, Leadership Directories’ Chief Executive
Officer. “While developing Leadership(R) Health Focus last year, we
believed it would become an essential tool for customers to identify
and reach key decision-makers across the healthcare spectrum. This
prestigious award validates our product concept and the value it
brings to our growing list of subscribers.”

Established in 1986, the CODiE Awards recognize excellence in the
digital content industry. CODiE finalists are reviewed by independent
judges (whose ranks include educators, technology writers,
information managers, business consultants, and experts on fields
varying from science to politics to business). Winners are chosen
based on the accuracy and detail of the content, unique and special
features of the product, ease of use and the significance the product
holds for its specialized industry. Winners were announced at an
awards ceremony in New York City on January 24th. See the full list
of winners at
www.siia.net/codies/2012/winners.asp .

Leadership(R) Health Focus launched in June 2011, and features
professional profile and direct contact information for over 150,000
executives in the healthcare sector. Updated daily with verified
content, this powerful online tool includes the most important health
industry decision-makers in business, hospitals, government,
nonprofits, and associations. Leadership(R) Health Focus also
features extensive organization profiles that display networks and
relationships between organizations, with demographic data such as
annual revenue, budget, and number of employees. To learn more about
Leadership(R) Health Focus visit
www.leadershipdirectories.com .

About SIIA

The Software Information Industry Association (SIIA) is the
principal trade association for the software and digital content
industry. SIIA provides global services in government relations,
business development, corporate education and intellectual property
protection to 500 leading software and information companies. For
further information, visit
www.siia.net .

About Leadership Directories, Inc.

For over 40 years, Leadership Directories has specialized in
researching, compiling, and publishing high-quality contact and
profile information of key decision-makers in the U.S. With editorial
offices in New York City and Washington, D.C., LDI is dedicated to
providing subscribers with up-to-date information on influential
leaders of U.S. government, business, legal, media, healthcare, and
non-profit organizations in a format that best suits their individual
needs and objectives.

        For more information about Leadership Directories, please contact:

        Matthew Brown
        Assistant Vice President, Marketing
        Leadership Directories, Inc.
        Phone: (212) 627-4140
        Fax: (212) 645-0931
        Email Contact

www.leadershipdirectories.com            

SOURCE: Leadership Directories, Inc.

http://www2.marketwire.com/mw/emailprcntct?id=3E916860C496ED37

http://www.leadershipdirectories.com/

Copyright 2012 Marketwire, Inc., All rights reserved.

(01-26) 17:38 PST Sacramento, Calif. (AP) –

The state Assembly on Thursday passed a set of bills intended to broaden the mental health and health care services covered by private insurance plans.

Lawmakers approved AB154, which would require insurers to cover the diagnosis and treatment of mental illnesses, and AB171 for coverage of developmental disorders such as autism. They also approved legislation to cover oral chemotherapy treatments and mammograms regardless of age.

The bills now move to the Senate ahead of a Tuesday deadline to pass legislation that was introduced last year.

Supporters say many people with mental illness and substance abuse problems are unable to obtain treatment and end up in public health care programs, emergency rooms and state and county jails.

“The bill is a cost-effective way to help people who are paying for health insurance actually to get (the) full-scope health insurance they need,” said Assemblyman Jim Beall, a San Jose Democrat who authored the mental health and autism bills. “Mental health and substance abuses are treatable, and treatment reduces incarceration, homelessness, and most importantly human suffering.”

Getting people treated earlier also will save taxpayer money, he said.

Republican lawmakers said the legislation will drive up insurance costs, particularly as government broadens the definition of mental illness. They worry more people would use mental illness to access drugs like medical marijuana.

“Our insurance rates will increase because of this clandestine broadening of the coverage,” said Assemblyman Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber. “And I think you’re further legitimizing drug abuse and encouraging it even more.”

Beall estimated it would add between 6 cents to 61 cents per month to insurance premiums.

Supporters say the bill would provide new coverage benefits for non-severe mental illness for 4.5 million people and substance abuse treatment for 6.3 million people.

They say people struggling with mental illnesses can quickly reach coverage limits on their private insurance plans and have no choice but to turn to public health programs. Supporters say that’s discriminatory because health plans should cover both the mind and body.

Under current law, California requires health care plans to cover treatment for some serious mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, autism and anorexia. Beall’s bill would expand coverage to other mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety.

The mental health bill expands on new federal health care requirements that require group health plans with more than 50 employees to offer equal medical and mental health benefits.

Opponents say it’s premature for the state to act because California risks going beyond federal health care exchange guidelines, which are still being worked out. Such a move could end up costing the state money in the long run.

“With AB 154 mandating coverage for almost every mental health condition on the books, almost 400 conditions, this is a sizeable mandate that should be put in the context of the full benefit package that federal dollars are contingent upon,” said Patrick Johnson, president of the California Association of Health Plans.

Although the state already requires health plans to cover autism and other developmental disorders, Beall said his bill was necessary because some insurers continue to deny claims.

The mental health bill passed on a 47-18 vote while the autism bill passed 45-13.

The Assembly also approved AB137, which would require insurance plans to cover mammograms based on medical need, regardless of the patient’s age. It was passed 67-0.

Lawmakers passed AB1000 requiring insurance companies to cover oral chemotherapy treatments at the same rate they cover intravenous chemotherapy. The bill passed 51-15.

Henry Perea, D-Fresno, said he was inspired to change the law after meeting other patients as he accompanied his mother to intravenous chemotherapy treatments. He said many of them had to travel long distances from rural areas to medical centers, even though there are pill forms of chemotherapy drugs available for 57 types of cancer.

For some patients, co-payments for the pill form of treatment ran as high as $10,000 a month, but they paid only an office-visit co-pay for an intravenous treatment, Perea said.

Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Linda, said the bill would “increase the price and premiums for the people of California,” and said the legislation was premature. Perea’s office said 13 other states and the District of Columbia already have adopted similar laws.

Also, a bill to create a government-run health care system in California fell short of the votes it needed in the state Senate, and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg predicted it won’t succeed this year.

Author Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, argued that California should take the lead in creating a single-payer universal health care system, despite the new federal health care law taking effect in 2014.

But Republican lawmakers objected to creating what they said would be a huge, expensive new bureaucracy. The bill failed on a 19-15 roll call, two votes short of the majority it needed, after several Democrats also declined to vote for the measure.

Previous similar measures were vetoed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

___

Associated Press writers Juliet Williams and Don Thompson contributed to this report.

January 27, 2012, 7:44 AM EST

By Marcus Bensasson

(See EXT4 for more on the debt crisis.)

Jan. 27 (Bloomberg) — Greece was told to focus exclusively on spending reductions to meet 2012 deficit-cutting conditions of a second bailout package, the country’s international creditors said in a report to the government.

The report, dated Jan. 23, put the military, health care and state-run companies at the center of austerity measures amounting to about 1 percent of gross domestic product, estimated last year at 217 billion euros ($285 billion).

Representatives of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund, collectively known as the troika, prepared the recommendations amid concern that the interim government of Lucas Papademos is falling short of expectations in controlling its budget.

“We’re not terribly positive about what has been done but we want to put together a program for the country,” IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said in an interview today with Bloomberg Television in Davos, Switzerland.

Papademos came into office in November charged with securing a 130 billion-euro financing package set at an October summit of European Union leaders, Greece’s second in less than two years, and negotiating a debt swap with private creditors that will lop 100 billion euros off the country’s 350 billion- euro debt load.

The “document addresses suggested refinements to possibly be incorporated into a new program,” said the report, which was posted on Capital.gr news website. “The list at this stage reflects the analysis of the staffs of the EC, ECB and IMF and is expected to be refined as the Greek authorities present their own suggestions.”

Selling Companies

Greece needs to implement reforms agreed after previous rounds of talks with the troika and introduce structural economic reforms including to the labor market and tax administration, the report said. The state should “offer two to three large companies for privatization” in the second quarter to be consistent with asset-sales targets.

The report also suggested Greece should recapitalize its banks using instruments without voting rights. Banks should have a core tier 1 capital ratio of 10 percent from 2013. This year the banks’ core tier 1 requirement would be 9 percent.

The 2012 measures should “be achieved on the expenditure side only and should be a few big ticket items,” said the report. Cuts in health spending would focus on reducing pharmaceutical costs. Greece should also start a program to reduce state employees by 150,000 by 2015, the report said.

In the electricity sector, the report recommends Greece “combine the sale of lignite with hydro plants owned by the incumbent electricity company,” Public Power Corp. SA, “to create competition in the generation side of the market.”

–With assistance from Paul Tugwell and Christos Ziotis in Athens. Editors: James Hertling, Eddie Buckle

To contact the reporter on this story: Marcus Bensasson in Athens at mbensasson@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Craig Stirling at cstirling1@bloomberg.net.

(AP)  WASHINGTON — America may be a technology-driven nation, but the health care system’s conversion from paper to computerized records needs lots of work to get the bugs out, according to experts who spent months studying the issue.

Hospitals and doctors’ offices increasingly are going digital, the Bipartisan Policy Center says in a report being released Friday. But there’s been little progress getting the computer systems to talk to one another, exchanging data the way financial companies do.

“The level of health information exchange in the U.S. is extremely low,” the report says.

At the consumer level, few people maintain a personal health record on their laptop or electronic tablet, partly due to concerns about privacy, security and accuracy that the government hasn’t resolved.

“How will sensitive health data be kept confidential and secure in digital data-sharing environments?” the report asks. “Many consumers … are waiting for a reassuring answer to this question.”

The report offers a window on progress toward a goal set by President Barack Obama, and President George W. Bush before him, that everyone in the United States should have an electronic medical record by 2014.

While making no predictions, the report offers a collection of details indicating that the goal is a long shot at best.

“Will 100 percent of our nation have electronic health records by 2014?” asked Janet Marchibroda, who directs the center’s health technology initiative. “I would say getting to that last mile is difficult.” She expects the majority of hospitals and doctors to meet the goal, but it’s another matter when it comes to consumers.

In politically polarized Washington, the center tries to tackle national problems from a pragmatic perspective. The report, more than six months in the making, was produced by a panel representing hospitals, doctors, insurers, consumers and technology companies. The review was led by two former senators with ties to the health care industry, Democrat Tom Daschle of South Dakota and Republican Bill Frist of Tennessee.

Electronic medical records are seen as a crucial component in creating a system that’s more efficient and less prone to error. The government has committed up to $30 billion to encourage this shift, mostly through incentive payments to hospitals and doctors that were authorized in 2009 under Obama’s economic stimulus law. Payments started flowing last year.

The report found that 5 percent of eligible doctors received payments last year, while about 33 percent had registered with the government that they intend to qualify.

Overall, about one-third of doctors’ offices had some form of electronic records last year, compared with one-fourth in 2010.

Among hospitals, 32 percent received the incentive payments last year, the report said, while 61 percent notified the government they intend to qualify.

Those are signs of momentum, but the report found little progress in devising ways for the different computer systems to communicate with each other.

Part of the problem is that there isn’t much financial incentive for competing health care providers to share information.

If an emergency room orders a test on a patient that a family doctor had run a week ago, the hospital gets paid for it. If the emergency room doctor relies on the test results from the family doctor, that’s less revenue for the hospital.

“Health information exchange will not occur at optimal levels … without a viable, sustainable business model,” the report said.

Only from 7 percent to 11 percent of individuals have a personal electronic medical record. Some early adopters still run into problems with basic tasks such as downloading test results, renewing prescriptions online or scheduling appointments.

The report also says the government must address gaps in privacy protections. For example, a federal health privacy law that applies to hospitals, doctors, insurers and data transmission companies doesn’t apply to companies that market electronic medical records directly to the public.

“This uneven coverage of federal health privacy law can be confusing for consumers and contributes to reluctance,” the report said.

____

Online:

Bipartisan Policy Center: www.bipartisanpolicy.org

Scientific American

• Report: Electronic health records still need work

• In 2010, 6% of nonelderly adults reported spending 10% or more of family income on out-of-pocket health care costs, significantly lower than in 2006.

• The share of nonelderly adults with a usual source of care increased between 2006 and 2010. For most, that source of care was a physician or a private clinic.  (Remember all those stories in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere on how nobody in MA could get a doctor because of our reform law?)

• In 2010, for the first time since implementation of MA health reform, there were significant reductions in emergency department (ED) use among nonelderly adults.

• Between 2006 and 2010 there were reductions in unmet need for care for nonelderly adults, including reductions in unmet need for doctor care; medical tests, treatment, or follow-up care; and preventive care screening. (Are you going to write about this, Wall Street Journal?)

• The share of nonelderly adults who were spending 10% or more of family income on out-of-pocket (OOP) health care costs was lower in 2010 than 2006.

• The share of nonelderly adults who reported unmet need for care because of costs was lower in 2010 than 2006 overall and for most of the types of care, including doctor care; specialist care; medical tests, treatment, or follow-up care; and preventive care screenings.

Here’s the best one, in my opinion:

• In 2010, 9% of nonelderly Massachusetts adults who were insured for the full year were underinsured. This is substantially lower than the national underinsurance estimate of 19% in 2010.

This is what’s in store for vulnerable Americans if the Affordable Care Act gets fully implemented. More coverage, more care, better care.

It is far from perfect. Too many Massachusetts adults still are living with medical debt; costs are still too high for too many. In comparison with other advanced nations, we are backwards. In comparison with the rest of the United States, Massachusetts is a beacon of a better future.

Legislation to create a universal health care system in California stalled in the state Senate Thursday ahead of a key legislative deadline, signaling it will likely fail to advance this year./ppThe so-called “Medicare for all” proposal, Senate Bill 810, fell short of the 21 votes needed to pass the upper house, by a vote of 19-15. Four moderate Democrats abstained and one joined Republicans in voting against the bill./ppThe Assembly, meanwhile, approved several health-related bills, including measures requiring private health insurance plans to cover costs of oral chemotherapy and the treatment of mental illness and substance abuse./ppThe apparent defeat of SB 810, which faces a Tuesday deadline for passing the Senate, was the latest setback for supporters of the single-payer movement, who have pushed the proposal multiple times in recent years./ppThe last version to win legislative approval was vetoed by then-GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger./ppThe bill’s author, Democratic Sen. Mark Leno, said the system would stabilize health care costs and ensure all Californians have access to health care coverage./ppHe called the bill, which does not include funding to cover the projected $250 billion annual cost of the single-payer system, the first step in a “many-year project” that will likely require asking voters to approve financing./pp”It makes sense to continue to keep this ball moving so we can have the debate, so we can better educate Californians as to what single payer is and single payer is not so that when it reaches the ballot they won’t vote against their own health care interests,” the San Francisco Democrat said./ppRepublicans said the proposal is misguided and would increase costs and bureaucracy at a time when the state can least afford it./pp”This is just the wrong approach,” said Sen. Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga./pp”I think it’s a worthy goal, but the fact of matter is that this isn’t going to solve your problem. It’s just going to make our problems even worse.”/ppSenate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, told reporters after the vote that he didn’t feel the bill had a shot at getting approved and signed into law this year./pp”The single-payer movement, it’s a movement and the bills are vehicles to give visibility to the issue,” he said./ppDemocratic Assemblyman Jim Beall of San Jose crafted the bill covering mental health and substance abuse treatment, Assembly Bill 154./ppIt passed the lower house, 47-18, with no GOP votes and will now go to the Senate for consideration./ppCurrent law only requires private insurers to cover severe mental illness, while AB 154 targets other types of disorders, including depression and substance abuse but not bereavement or anti-social behavior. /ppemTo read more, visit a href=”http://www.sacbee.com/” target=”_blank”www.sacbee.com./a/em

BY CHRISTOPHER WEAVER AND ANNA WILDE MATHEWS

The nation’s second-largest health insurer is shaking up its approach to paying doctors, putting a major investment behind the idea that spending more for better primary care can save money down the road.

Starting this summer, WellPoint Inc., which insures some 34 million Americans, will offer primary-care doctors a fee increase, typically of around 10%, with the possibility of additional payments that could boost what they get for treating the patients it covers by as much as 50%.

The new approach could pour an additional $1 billion or more into primary care, which WellPoint is betting will pay off in …

House Republicans have tried to repeal various pieces of President Barack Obama’s health reform law, but they haven’t touched the least popular piece: the individual mandate.

One reason for that: They don’t want to give the Supreme Court a reason not to strike it down.

Continue Reading

The Supreme Court’s review of the constitutionality of the law, which is expected to lead to a ruling this summer, is weighing heavily on the GOP’s strategic decisions — including House Republicans’ announcement this week that they’re preparing an alternative health plan that would respond to the various ways the court could deal with the law. Their message to the justices: We’re ready to deal with what remains of the law after you’re done with it.

The court isn’t the only reason the Republicans are avoiding a vote on the mandate. They also don’t want to make Democrats’ reelection bids any easier by giving them a chance to vote against the widely hated requirement for nearly all Americans to buy health insurance.

Still, congressional Republicans are keenly aware that the Supreme Court could do what they have been unable to do for nearly two years: put a stake in one of the most significant pieces of the health law.

And they’re doing all they can to stay out of the way.

House Republicans voted last year to repeal or defund nearly a dozen pieces of the health law, and another vote is planned for next week to repeal the law’s CLASS Act. But the House hasn’t taken up repeal of the individual mandate, which polls prove is the least popular piece of the law.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), possibly the House’s most vocal opponent of the health law, said he doesn’t want the mandate repealed by Congress. He, like some other House Republicans, doesn’t want to send mixed messages to the Supreme Court.

“It might scramble the court’s thinking and I want to see the court rule,” King said.

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) argues that he doesn’t want to risk passing a repeal bill — which the Senate would never approve, and Obama would never sign if it did — before the courts can weigh in on the lawsuit filed by 26 states, almost all Republican attorneys general.

“I’m sure they weren’t interested in us trying to void the individual mandate while they were trying to fight it in court,” Burgess said. He would rather ensure that the court killed the mandate so it can never come back in a future law.

Plus, some worry that voting against the mandate alone could provide cover to Democrats in tight reelection races who voted for the health law last year.

A vote on the mandate alone would allow them to say they voted against the law’s least popular provision, and they can count on Majority Leader Harry Reid not allowing such a bill to come up in the Senate.

“They would be hypocritical at best to vote for it,” said Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), sponsor of the mandate repeal bill. “The reality is it’s a house of cards, and without [the mandate], the rest would fall apart.”

He said the House could send a strong public message with a vote opposing the mandate. And so do some of the advocacy groups that oppose the law.

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

One of the lesser known—but highly useful— creations of the Affordable Care Act is a provision which requires heath insurance companies to provide plan summaries that allow people to read, in simple and clear English, what they are getting for their premium dollar. It is a provision that is nicely described by the Washington Post as a “Cliff Notes” version of the small print and technical language contained in the typical, impossible to decipher health insurance policy that arrives in the mail each year.

It was, and is, a great idea.

Who among those of us who are lucky enough to be insured against illness would not like to be able to understand, in advance, what it is likely to cost us out-of-pocket should we find ourselves engulfed in a battle with cancer or some other unpleasant medical experience?

Of course, the devil will always be found in the details and those details are established in the regulations created by the Department of Health Human Services.

The good news is that the requirement is set to go into effect this year. The bad news is that we are in an election year where the word ‘regulation’ is not at the top of the approved campaign jargon for the White House— particularly when the insurance companies are arguing that this particular regulation will result in increased costs being passed along to consumers.

This has some people worried that the White House is going to water down the final version of the rules which are currently under review by the Administration and due out very soon.

In a proposed ‘template’ put out by HHS last summer, the department floated three health situations where the insurance companies would be required to provide their customers with an understanding of what the consumer’s costs would be in addition to their normal premium charges. The three examples would include the out-of-pocket costs for maternity , breast cancer and the on-going treatment for diabetes.

When I had my own adventure in ‘cancer land’, I ended up paying about $50,000 out-of-pocket. This was in addition to what my insurance company paid. It would have been nice to have some idea that this would be the case when I was shopping for an insurance policy and this new requirement would go a long way towards making that possible.

The concern now being expressed by consumer and health care advocates has to do with some rumors (neither HHS nor the White House is commenting on what will be contained in the final regulations currently under review) that only the maternity scenario will make it into the final expression of the rules.

Lynn Quincy, a senior policy analyst for Consumers Union, said the advocacy groups have learned that two of the coverage examples may be omitted in the final regulation, leaving only a comparison of maternity costs, at least at the outset. Additionally, the requirement for employer plans to provide the benefit summaries may be delayed or weakened.

Via Washington Post

Should the scuttlebutt prove true, we are left to wonder why the White House might choose to water down these regulations when it doesn’t seem like a very big deal to require the three examples laid out in the template.