26
Jan
latimes: Sterilized by North Carolina, she felt raped once more: Elaine Riddick was only 14 when the state decided that she was not capable of mothering children and quietly cauterized her fallopian tubes. The $50,000 now offered to her only makes her angrier. This is one of the most disturbing stories we’ve ever read. Between 1929 and 1974, nearly 7,600 people were sterilized under orders from North Carolina’s Eugenics Board. Nearly 85% were women or girls, some as young as 10. The state estimates that 1,500 to 2,000 of the victims are still alive. The board’s declared goal was to purify the state’s population by weeding out the mentally ill, diseased, feebleminded and others deemed undesirable. In a 1950 pamphlet, the Human Betterment League of North Carolina said the board was protecting “the children of future generations and the community at large,” adding that “you wouldn’t expect a moron to run a train or a feebleminded woman to teach school.” The pamphlet went on: “It is not barnyard castration!” Photo: Elaine Riddick, 57, listens as Dr. Laura Gerald, unseen, chairwoman of the Governor’s Eugenics Compensation Task Force, announces on Jan. 10 the panel’s recommendation of a $50,000 payment to each victim. The meeting was held in Raleigh, N.C. Credit: Shawn Rocco, Raleigh News & Observer

latimes:

Sterilized by North Carolina, she felt raped once more: Elaine Riddick was only 14 when the state decided that she was not capable of mothering children and quietly cauterized her fallopian tubes. The $50,000 now offered to her only makes her angrier.

This is one of the most disturbing stories we’ve ever read.

Between 1929 and 1974, nearly 7,600 people were sterilized under orders from North Carolina’s Eugenics Board. Nearly 85% were women or girls, some as young as 10. The state estimates that 1,500 to 2,000 of the victims are still alive.

The board’s declared goal was to purify the state’s population by weeding out the mentally ill, diseased, feebleminded and others deemed undesirable.

In a 1950 pamphlet, the Human Betterment League of North Carolina said the board was protecting “the children of future generations and the community at large,” adding that “you wouldn’t expect a moron to run a train or a feebleminded woman to teach school.”

The pamphlet went on: “It is not barnyard castration!”

Photo: Elaine Riddick, 57, listens as Dr. Laura Gerald, unseen, chairwoman of the Governor’s Eugenics Compensation Task Force, announces on Jan. 10 the panel’s recommendation of a $50,000 payment to each victim. The meeting was held in Raleigh, N.C. Credit: Shawn Rocco, Raleigh News & Observer

(Source: Los Angeles Times)

327 notes
30
Oct

Getting a return on the U.S.’s investment 

The amount of money the United States spends on health care is astronomical, as Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel writes in today’s The New York Times. But is it money - $2.6 trillion in 2010 - well spent?

According to Emanuel, the United States spent about $8,000 per person on health care in 2010. That’s roughly 35 percent more than other countries with high health care bills.

“The truth is, the United States is not getting 20 or 30 percent better health care or results than other countries,” Emanuel said in the article. “While there are peaks of greatness, especially at some of America’s leading academic health centers and in integrated health care plans, the quality is uneven.”

I wrote a summary of health care systems in other countries for USA TOAY in 2009 that really drove this point home. The United States spent more on health care than any other country I could get information on, but had the shortest life expectancy, highest infant mortality rate, and the highest amount of people who wanted to completely change the system.

“Even if you do not like comparing the United States with Europe, it is widely acknowledged that within the United States there is no clear link between higher spending on health care and longer life, less disability or better quality of life,” writes Emanuel.

Be sure to read Emauel’s editorial here, and check out other health care systems around the globe at the Commonwealth Fund’s website.

58 notes SPENDING / HEALTHCARE / COSTS / USA TODAY / NYTIMES / COMMONWEALTH FUND /
28
Oct
Americans are less in love with President Obama’s 2010 health overhaul law than ever before, says a new poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation. From September to October the number of Americans with a favorable opinion of the law dropped seven percentage points. A considerable drop since the number of Americans with a favorable view of the law remained consistent since July 2010. Additionally, the number of Americans with an unfavorable view of the law jumped eight percentage points, which means stealing one point from those that didn’t know or refused to answer in September. “While Democrats continue to be much more likely than independents or Republicans to support the law, the fall in favorability was largely driven by waning Democratic enthusiasm,” says the study. “The share of Democrats with a favorable view of the law dropped from nearly two‐thirds in September to just over half in October.” Another interesting tidbit in the study is that the number of people who thought the law would have some sort of personal impact fell by nine percentage points – from 27 percent to 18 percent. The number of people who felt the law “won’t make much difference” also grew by 10 percentage points – from 34 percent to 44 percent. So, why did this happen? Well, the Kaiser Family Foundation is probably right in saying, “this month’s findings come at a time when Republican presidential candidates have continued to level heavy criticism at the law during recent debates, and when the nation’s attention has been riveted by news of the flailing economy and the Occupy Wall Street protests.” The true test will be when more of the law’s provisions are put in place, and people see how it affects their lives. View the full report here: http://bit.ly/tOkYYG

Americans are less in love with President Obama’s 2010 health overhaul law than ever before, says a new poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

From September to October the number of Americans with a favorable opinion of the law dropped seven percentage points. A considerable drop since the number of Americans with a favorable view of the law remained consistent since July 2010. Additionally, the number of Americans with an unfavorable view of the law jumped eight percentage points, which means stealing one point from those that didn’t know or refused to answer in September.

“While Democrats continue to be much more likely than independents or Republicans to support the law, the fall in favorability was largely driven by waning Democratic enthusiasm,” says the study. “The share of Democrats with a favorable view of the law dropped from nearly two‐thirds in September to just over half in October.”

Another interesting tidbit in the study is that the number of people who thought the law would have some sort of personal impact fell by nine percentage points – from 27 percent to 18 percent. The number of people who felt the law “won’t make much difference” also grew by 10 percentage points – from 34 percent to 44 percent.

So, why did this happen? Well, the Kaiser Family Foundation is probably right in saying, “this month’s findings come at a time when Republican presidential candidates have continued to level heavy criticism at the law during recent debates, and when the nation’s attention has been riveted by news of the flailing economy and the Occupy Wall Street protests.”

The true test will be when more of the law’s provisions are put in place, and people see how it affects their lives.

View the full report here: http://bit.ly/tOkYYG

25 notes ACA / KAISER / POLL /
21
Sep

Current Special Focus Facilities as a Map 

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services uploads an updated list of Special Focus Facilities (SFF) to its website every month. Special Focus Facilities are nursing homes “that (a) have had a history of serious quality issues and (b) are included in a special program to stimulate improvements in their quality of care.” 

The program aims to better homes by subjecting them to a more stringent review process. However, critics say the program only stretches what limited resources states have.

The SFF program operates under the assumption that all states are created equal when it comes to poor performing nursing homes.  However, in 2009 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report that found the contrary. 

“Under GAO’s estimate…the most poorly performing homes are distributed unevenly across states, with 8 states having no such homes and 10 others having from 21 to 52 such homes,” said the report.

The SFF program allows for each state to have at least one SFF on the list, except Alaska, which is exempt.

According to the GAO, “CMS limits the SFF Program to 136 nursing homes nationwide (fewer than 1 percent of nursing homes) at any point in time because of resource constraints.”

Criticism aside, the list is still a valuable resource to see which homes tend to be the most poorly performing in a given state.

I went through the PDF list and created a quick Google Fusion Table for you to take a look at. You can find it below, or a larger version here.

KEY
Red: Homes that are not improving
Blue: Homes showing some improvement
Yellow: Homes recently added to the list
Green: Recent graduates of the SFF program
Purple: Homes no longer part of the Medicare or Medicaid programs 

44 notes CMS / SFF / GAO / MAP /
21
Sep
I haven’t learned anything new about what the federal exchange would look like.
— A state insurance official told reporters after a closed-door meeting yesterday. Alina Selyukh of Reuters has the complete story. 
55 notes EXCHANGES / REUTERS / HHS /
21
Sep

What am I reading today? 

Good morning to all of you in my tumblrdom. Here is a quick look at what I’m reading this morning.

  • The New York Times looks at what cutting Medicare and Medicaid payments does to providers and beneficiaries. http://nyti.ms/rq8v44
  • The Associated Press, by way of The Washington Post, examines President Obama’s proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. http://wapo.st/qHXEaj
  • The Health and Human Services spending bill doesn’t seem to be going anywhere soon, reports The Hill. http://bit.ly/n4oVAt
  • USA TODAY explains what Senior Medical Patrols are. http://usat.ly/ovTO4v
  • The new Health Care Cost Institute brings together medical claim information from some of the U.S.’s largest insurers to identify trends, reports Bloomberg. http://bloom.bg/rotMeT
  • The Los Angeles Times reports on the grants states are getting to help oversee health insurers. http://lat.ms/ob9NA2
  • Why doesn’t President Obama invite Secretary Sebelius to play basketball? TIME’s Amy Sullivan writes about President Obama’s “woman problem.” http://ti.me/pOsy2e
MORNING READING /
12
Sep

FDA Commissioner makes statement on drug shortage problem, announces public mtg 9/26 (FDA.gov)

germgirl:

Statement from FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, M.D. and Assistant Secretary for Health Howard Koh, M.D., M.P.H. on Drug Shortages

Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services convened a meeting of stakeholders to discuss and explore solutions to the drug shortages affecting patients in the United States. These shortages include cancer drugs, anesthesia drugs, and other critical medications in the U.S.

There is no quick solution that solves this critical public health issue; addressing it will require a multifaceted approach. FDA plays a unique role in responding to and helping to prevent drug shortages. Today’s meeting was a constructive step in the right direction.

All parties involved in the supply of drugs to Americans have a responsibility to make sure patients have access to the drugs they need. There are many factors that contribute to drug shortages, and FDA will soon release a report which reflects an important analysis of the problem and recommendations with respect to its role.

Promising solutions are also being rigorously examined. One suggestion is a mechanism for manufacturers to report impending supply disruptions and discontinuation of drugs, which could help to curb drug shortages and improve the continuity of the drug supply. The sooner the FDA learns of a drug shortage, the more effective it can be in helping to notify providers and minimizing the impact on patients.

Meanwhile, the FDA will continue its efforts to work with manufacturers to ameliorate shortages. For example, FDA already expedites requests to qualify new manufacturing sites, new production lines or new raw material suppliers to avert drug shortages. HHS remains committed to working with manufacturers, providers, patient advocates, and other stakeholders to help minimize drug shortages, protect patients, and identify solutions to this serious problem.

We look forward to continuing the dialogue at FDA’s public meeting on September 26th.

(My most recent drug-shortage coverage is here. - m.)

(via cornstein)

6 notes FDA / REBLOG /
Older