Government’s failure to tackle the aftermath of Sandy points to the necessity of preparedness

 

 

 

 

The arrival of super storm Sandywas not sudden. Meteorologists had been warning of its landfall on the eastern seaboard for at least a week. This means the government and the general population had enough time to prepare for the storm. The government also claimed that everything was all right and all that needed attention had been taken care of. However, this statement contradicted what followed the storm. Sandy left behind an enormous trail of destruction, destroyed lives and left behind an example of optimum level of mismanagement.

http://www.naturalnews.com/037822_liberal_media_preppers_survivalists.html

 

Natural News reports that many people relied upon the government regarding the relief work and did little to support themselves in the days following the storm. They were invariably the biggest sufferers. The government not only failed to provide emergency supplies and services to the distressed citizens, it also charged money for the electricity that it never supplied. This points towards the necessity of being prepared before the onset of any calamity. Those who like to stay prepared have always been ridiculed but as per the demand of the situation, the government should apologize to them.

 

Even after the onslaught of Sandy, several states in the U.S. are unprepared to meet natural calamities. Natural News reports that though states like Maryland, North Carolina, Vermont, Wisconsin and Mississippi have done a relatively good job in preparedness, states like Kansas and Montana are still vulnerable to serious damages at the strike of calamities. A report entitled Ready or Not? on the preparedness has been published by a couple of nonprofit organizations recently. According to a report from Reuters no state has been able to meet all 10 benchmarks of complete preparedness. Only five states met eight benchmarks and 35 states met fewer than seven benchmarks.

http://www.naturalnews.com/038608_disaster_preparedness_emergencies_states.html#ixzz2HUxSD8zI

 

 

 

 

The arrival of super storm Sandywas not sudden. Meteorologists had been warning of its landfall on the eastern seaboard for at least a week. This means the government and the general population had enough time to prepare for the storm. The government also claimed that everything was all right and all that needed attention had been taken care of. However, this statement contradicted what followed the storm. Sandy left behind an enormous trail of destruction, destroyed lives and left behind an example of optimum level of mismanagement.

http://www.naturalnews.com/037822_liberal_media_preppers_survivalists.html

 

Natural News reports that many people relied upon the government regarding the relief work and did little to support themselves in the days following the storm. They were invariably the biggest sufferers. The government not only failed to provide emergency supplies and services to the distressed citizens, it also charged money for the electricity that it never supplied. This points towards the necessity of being prepared before the onset of any calamity. Those who like to stay prepared have always been ridiculed but as per the demand of the situation, the government should apologize to them.

 

Even after the onslaught of Sandy, several states in the U.S. are unprepared to meet natural calamities. Natural News reports that though states like Maryland, North Carolina, Vermont, Wisconsin and Mississippi have done a relatively good job in preparedness, states like Kansas and Montana are still vulnerable to serious damages at the strike of calamities. A report entitled Ready or Not? on the preparedness has been published by a couple of nonprofit organizations recently. According to a report from Reuters no state has been able to meet all 10 benchmarks of complete preparedness. Only five states met eight benchmarks and 35 states met fewer than seven benchmarks.

http://www.naturalnews.com/038608_disaster_preparedness_emergencies_states.html#ixzz2HUxSD8zI

Read More

FDA likely to make hydrocodone painkillers harder to prescribe

Prescription painkillers containing hydrocodone should be placed in a more restrictive federal category, a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel of experts voted on Friday. The changes would be an effort to stem the tide of prescription painkiller abuse and addiction in the U.S., much of it in rural areas, beginning in Central Appalachia. Painkillers containing hydrocodone are the most widely prescribed drugs in the country.

Sabrina Tavernise of The New York Times reports the FDA is likely to adopt the panel's recommendations, which include limiting access to hydrocodone drugs such as Vicodin by making them harder to prescribe. Refills wouldn't be allowed without a new prescription, and faxed or called-in prescriptions wouldn't be accepted. Only a hanwritten prescription from a doctor would be allowed, and pharmacists would be required to keep the drugs in special vaults.

Many said these changes would be a key step in reducing painkiller addiction. However, dissenters in the vote were concerned that this move wouldn't make a difference. Oxycodone, the main ingredient in the highly-abused painkiller OxyContin, has been classified in a restrictive category since it was first introduced on the market but it is still widely abused, dissenters said. They also said the change could create unfair obstacles for legitimate patients. (Read more)

Prescription painkillers containing hydrocodone should be placed in a more restrictive federal category, a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel of experts voted on Friday. The changes would be an effort to stem the tide of prescription painkiller abuse and addiction in the U.S., much of it in rural areas, beginning in Central Appalachia. Painkillers containing hydrocodone are the most widely prescribed drugs in the country.

Sabrina Tavernise of The New York Times reports the FDA is likely to adopt the panel's recommendations, which include limiting access to hydrocodone drugs such as Vicodin by making them harder to prescribe. Refills wouldn't be allowed without a new prescription, and faxed or called-in prescriptions wouldn't be accepted. Only a hanwritten prescription from a doctor would be allowed, and pharmacists would be required to keep the drugs in special vaults.

Many said these changes would be a key step in reducing painkiller addiction. However, dissenters in the vote were concerned that this move wouldn't make a difference. Oxycodone, the main ingredient in the highly-abused painkiller OxyContin, has been classified in a restrictive category since it was first introduced on the market but it is still widely abused, dissenters said. They also said the change could create unfair obstacles for legitimate patients. (Read more)

Read More

Health reform will let insurers charge smokers up to 50 percent higher premiums, which is likely to have a big impact in Kentucky

"Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance" because the health-care reform law will let health-insurance companies charge smokers as much as 50 percent more starting next year on individual policies, according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation," The Associated Press reports.

The provision is likely to have a major impact in Kentucky, where 29 percent of adults are smokers, a figure exceeded by no other state, and where 25 to 30 percent of people under 65 are estimated to have no health insurance.

"For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year" AP reports. "A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums. Younger smokers could be charged lower penalties under rules proposed last fall by the Obama administration."

A state health insurance exchange, now being created under the law, will be a place to buy insurance with tax credits depending on income. Gov. Steve Beshear has said he wants to expand the state Medicaid program to cover people in households with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, but many Republicans in the legislature are opposed to that because the state would ultimately have to pay 10 percent of the expansion's cost.

The provisions to discourage smoking would allow employees covered by employer plans to avoid penalties by joining smoking-cessation programs,"but experts say that option is not guaranteed to smokers trying to purchase coverage individually," AP reports.

There is concern about the provision's effect on older smokers who "could face a heavy hit on their household budgets at a time in life when smoking-related illnesses tend to emerge. . . . Several provisions in the federal health care law work together to leave older smokers with a bleak set of financial options," AP reports, citing Karen Pollitz, a health-insurance expert with the Kaiser Family Foundation and former deputy director of the Office of Consumer Support in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Pollitz notes that the reform law lets insurers charge older customers up to three times as much as their youngest customers; charge the full 50 percent penalty on older smokers while charging less to younger ones; and does not allow smokers to use tax credits to offset the cost of the penalty.

And there's a good argument to charge the full penalty, insurance consultant Robert Laszewski told AP: "If you don’t charge the 50 percent, your competitor is going to do it, and you are going to get a disproportionate share of the less-healthy older smokers,” said Laszewski. “They are going to have to play defense." (Read more)

"Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance" because the health-care reform law will let health-insurance companies charge smokers as much as 50 percent more starting next year on individual policies, according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation," The Associated Press reports.

The provision is likely to have a major impact in Kentucky, where 29 percent of adults are smokers, a figure exceeded by no other state, and where 25 to 30 percent of people under 65 are estimated to have no health insurance.

"For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year" AP reports. "A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums. Younger smokers could be charged lower penalties under rules proposed last fall by the Obama administration."

A state health insurance exchange, now being created under the law, will be a place to buy insurance with tax credits depending on income. Gov. Steve Beshear has said he wants to expand the state Medicaid program to cover people in households with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, but many Republicans in the legislature are opposed to that because the state would ultimately have to pay 10 percent of the expansion's cost.

The provisions to discourage smoking would allow employees covered by employer plans to avoid penalties by joining smoking-cessation programs,"but experts say that option is not guaranteed to smokers trying to purchase coverage individually," AP reports.

There is concern about the provision's effect on older smokers who "could face a heavy hit on their household budgets at a time in life when smoking-related illnesses tend to emerge. . . . Several provisions in the federal health care law work together to leave older smokers with a bleak set of financial options," AP reports, citing Karen Pollitz, a health-insurance expert with the Kaiser Family Foundation and former deputy director of the Office of Consumer Support in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Pollitz notes that the reform law lets insurers charge older customers up to three times as much as their youngest customers; charge the full 50 percent penalty on older smokers while charging less to younger ones; and does not allow smokers to use tax credits to offset the cost of the penalty.

And there's a good argument to charge the full penalty, insurance consultant Robert Laszewski told AP: "If you don’t charge the 50 percent, your competitor is going to do it, and you are going to get a disproportionate share of the less-healthy older smokers,” said Laszewski. “They are going to have to play defense." (Read more)

Read More

Health departments prepare for challenges posed by health-care reform law

No one really has a clue what changes from the health-care reform law will mean to Kentuckians and public health departments are preparing for the uncertainty, reports Kristy Cox of Business Lexington.

"The Affordable Care Act will have an impact on health departments.  It is going to put a whole lot more people out there on the street on health insurance" of one kind or another, Dr. Rice Leach, head of the Lexington-Fayette County Health Department, told Cox.

"I think how health departments are impacted is going to look a little different depending on what part of the state they're in," Rice said. "The United States has passed a law that creates an entitlement for 30 or 40 million people, and here in Lexington, for 10,000 or 20,000 more people to have health insurance. Now, who is going to take care of them?"

If the private sector can't handle the increased patient load, Leach said, the stress goes onto the health departments, meaning they may be expected to provide a broad "continuum" of care for acute medical needs, including doctors and laboratory services. Leach said he hopes other systems will step up to provide care so health departments can continue to focus on preventative services.

Many factors determine what health departments can and can't do as well as their ability to generate dollars. Leach called  the services mandates by state and federal governments as "mission critical activities," which include preventive health, communicable disease control, public health education, emergency response, sanitary code and restaurant inspection and public health policy, writes Cox. 

Despite the challenging economic environment created by budget cuts and managed-care non-payment issues, Kentucky health departments are trying to stay focused on their big-picture mission.  Some departments are writing grants and others, like the Lincoln Trail District Health Department, has sent nurses into school systems in attempt to increase revenue through expanded clinical services, Cox reports.

No one really has a clue what changes from the health-care reform law will mean to Kentuckians and public health departments are preparing for the uncertainty, reports Kristy Cox of Business Lexington.

"The Affordable Care Act will have an impact on health departments.  It is going to put a whole lot more people out there on the street on health insurance" of one kind or another, Dr. Rice Leach, head of the Lexington-Fayette County Health Department, told Cox.

"I think how health departments are impacted is going to look a little different depending on what part of the state they're in," Rice said. "The United States has passed a law that creates an entitlement for 30 or 40 million people, and here in Lexington, for 10,000 or 20,000 more people to have health insurance. Now, who is going to take care of them?"

If the private sector can't handle the increased patient load, Leach said, the stress goes onto the health departments, meaning they may be expected to provide a broad "continuum" of care for acute medical needs, including doctors and laboratory services. Leach said he hopes other systems will step up to provide care so health departments can continue to focus on preventative services.

Many factors determine what health departments can and can't do as well as their ability to generate dollars. Leach called  the services mandates by state and federal governments as "mission critical activities," which include preventive health, communicable disease control, public health education, emergency response, sanitary code and restaurant inspection and public health policy, writes Cox. 

Despite the challenging economic environment created by budget cuts and managed-care non-payment issues, Kentucky health departments are trying to stay focused on their big-picture mission.  Some departments are writing grants and others, like the Lincoln Trail District Health Department, has sent nurses into school systems in attempt to increase revenue through expanded clinical services, Cox reports.

Read More

Poll shows registered voters in Ky. favor expanding Medicaid

By Molly Burchett and Al Cross
Kentucky Health News

A statewide poll last month found that most registered voters in Kentucky, when presented with specific facts and options, generally favored expansion of Medicaid under federal health-care reform. Similar results were found in six other states surveyed by a bipartisan pair of pollsters working for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

"Respondents in the seven states polled were informed that federal funds are available to pay 100 percent of the costs to cover more uninsured people through Medicaid beginning in 2014, with the federal share gradually decreasing to 90 percent," the network said in a news release. "Respondents in each state were two to three times more likely to support accepting federal dollars to cover more people than they were to prefer turning down federal funds and leaving vulnerable populations uninsured." The poll asked:

Next I’d like to ask you about an issue being talked about by the governor and the state legislature. Under the new federal health care law, [number of] people in [state] who are uninsured right now could get health care coverage through Medicaid starting in 2014. The governor and state elected officials can choose to accept federal dollars that have been allocated to cover these people in [state], or to turn the money down and not cover these people. The federal dollars cover 100% of the costs in the first few years, and 90% of the costs after that.

The release said the result in Kentucky was 63 percent for expansion and 23 percent opposed. The results were not quite as strong, 60-30, when voters were presented with arguments from both sides of the debate:

Side A says we can cover more people in [state] and save taxpayer dollars that are currently spent on treating uninsured people in emergency rooms. Covering more people gives hard-working families the security of knowing they can get preventive care and see a doctor when they need to. The alternative is people showing up in the emergency room when they are sicker. By accepting the money, we could cover more people and save taxpayer dollars.

Side B says Kentucky will eventually have to pay 10% of the costs of covering these people, and even more if the federal government fails to follow through on its promises. We cannot afford to spend even more on health care coverage, which is already a big part of the state budget. We have too many other priorities in the state that need attention, like education and roads. By turning down the money, we could avoid future increases in state health care spending.

Which side do you agree with more?

The results in other states were Florida, 62-28; Iowa, 55-34; Michigan, 62-29; New Jersey, 65-29; New Mexico, 61-29; and Texas, 55-35. The Kentucky poll found that 49 percent of registered voters in Kentucky have close friends or family members who are uninsured, and 43 percent of voters who are not currently receiving coverage through Medicaid say they or someone close to them has been covered by it.

The poll did not mention the key standard for expansion, that a state must cover people in households with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty threshold. Kentucky now covers people with incomes below approximately 70 percent of poverty, and the federal government pays a little more than 70 percent of the cost. It would pay all the cost of expansion in 2014-16, then the state would have to start paying an increasing share, reaching 10 percent by 2020. Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear has said he wants to expand Medicaid if the state can afford it.

The telephone poll surveyed 812 registered voters, giving it an error margin of plus or minus 3.44 percentage points. It was conducted by Lake Research Partners, a Democratic firm, and GS Strategy Group, a Republican firm, between Dec. 13 and 22. For more details, click here.

By Molly Burchett and Al Cross
Kentucky Health News

A statewide poll last month found that most registered voters in Kentucky, when presented with specific facts and options, generally favored expansion of Medicaid under federal health-care reform. Similar results were found in six other states surveyed by a bipartisan pair of pollsters working for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

"Respondents in the seven states polled were informed that federal funds are available to pay 100 percent of the costs to cover more uninsured people through Medicaid beginning in 2014, with the federal share gradually decreasing to 90 percent," the network said in a news release. "Respondents in each state were two to three times more likely to support accepting federal dollars to cover more people than they were to prefer turning down federal funds and leaving vulnerable populations uninsured." The poll asked:

Next I’d like to ask you about an issue being talked about by the governor and the state legislature. Under the new federal health care law, [number of] people in [state] who are uninsured right now could get health care coverage through Medicaid starting in 2014. The governor and state elected officials can choose to accept federal dollars that have been allocated to cover these people in [state], or to turn the money down and not cover these people. The federal dollars cover 100% of the costs in the first few years, and 90% of the costs after that.

The release said the result in Kentucky was 63 percent for expansion and 23 percent opposed. The results were not quite as strong, 60-30, when voters were presented with arguments from both sides of the debate:

Side A says we can cover more people in [state] and save taxpayer dollars that are currently spent on treating uninsured people in emergency rooms. Covering more people gives hard-working families the security of knowing they can get preventive care and see a doctor when they need to. The alternative is people showing up in the emergency room when they are sicker. By accepting the money, we could cover more people and save taxpayer dollars.

Side B says Kentucky will eventually have to pay 10% of the costs of covering these people, and even more if the federal government fails to follow through on its promises. We cannot afford to spend even more on health care coverage, which is already a big part of the state budget. We have too many other priorities in the state that need attention, like education and roads. By turning down the money, we could avoid future increases in state health care spending.

Which side do you agree with more?

The results in other states were Florida, 62-28; Iowa, 55-34; Michigan, 62-29; New Jersey, 65-29; New Mexico, 61-29; and Texas, 55-35. The Kentucky poll found that 49 percent of registered voters in Kentucky have close friends or family members who are uninsured, and 43 percent of voters who are not currently receiving coverage through Medicaid say they or someone close to them has been covered by it.

The poll did not mention the key standard for expansion, that a state must cover people in households with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty threshold. Kentucky now covers people with incomes below approximately 70 percent of poverty, and the federal government pays a little more than 70 percent of the cost. It would pay all the cost of expansion in 2014-16, then the state would have to start paying an increasing share, reaching 10 percent by 2020. Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear has said he wants to expand Medicaid if the state can afford it.

The telephone poll surveyed 812 registered voters, giving it an error margin of plus or minus 3.44 percentage points. It was conducted by Lake Research Partners, a Democratic firm, and GS Strategy Group, a Republican firm, between Dec. 13 and 22. For more details, click here.

Read More

Kentuckians think their children's generation will be less healthy and worse off economically than current working-age generation

Forty percent of Kentucky adults think their children's generation will be less healthy than the current generation of working-age Kentuckians, and 61 percent think the newer generation will be worse off economically, according to a statewide poll conducted last fall.

The Kentucky Health Issues Poll also found that 54 percent think their parents' generation was better off economically, and 42 percent thought that generation was healthier than the current generation of Kentuckians.

“It is a cornerstone of the American Dream that, if we work hard, we will get ahead and be better off than our parents were,” said Dr. Susan Zepeda, President and CEO of the Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky, which co-sponsored the poll. “Our polling suggests that optimism for a better future may be slipping away.”

Zepeda added, “Policymakers in Kentucky and Washington are grappling with economic and health policy issues that have long term impacts. Our polling clearly indicates the concern Kentuckians have, on the need to do better for our kids.”

For details of the poll, go to the foundation's website, www.healthy-ky.org.

The poll was conducted for the foundation and the Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati from Sept 20 through Oct. 14 by the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Cincinnati. A random sample of 1,680 adults from throughout Kentucky was interviewed by landline and cell telephones. The margin of error for each figure is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

Forty percent of Kentucky adults think their children's generation will be less healthy than the current generation of working-age Kentuckians, and 61 percent think the newer generation will be worse off economically, according to a statewide poll conducted last fall.

The Kentucky Health Issues Poll also found that 54 percent think their parents' generation was better off economically, and 42 percent thought that generation was healthier than the current generation of Kentuckians.

“It is a cornerstone of the American Dream that, if we work hard, we will get ahead and be better off than our parents were,” said Dr. Susan Zepeda, President and CEO of the Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky, which co-sponsored the poll. “Our polling suggests that optimism for a better future may be slipping away.”

Zepeda added, “Policymakers in Kentucky and Washington are grappling with economic and health policy issues that have long term impacts. Our polling clearly indicates the concern Kentuckians have, on the need to do better for our kids.”

For details of the poll, go to the foundation's website, www.healthy-ky.org.

The poll was conducted for the foundation and the Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati from Sept 20 through Oct. 14 by the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Cincinnati. A random sample of 1,680 adults from throughout Kentucky was interviewed by landline and cell telephones. The margin of error for each figure is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

Read More

Evaluating outcomes for perineal urethrostomy in the cat

Ruda L and Heiene R. Short- and long-term outcome after perineal urethrostomy in 86 cats with feline lower urinary tract disease. J Small Anim Pract. 2012; 53: 693-8.

Perineal urethrostomy is a surgical procedure used to treat some cats experiencing obstruction in the lower urinary tract, especially those with complicated or recurrent disease. There are few published studies evaluating the long-term outcome of this surgery. The goal of this study was to evaluate the long-term prognosis, recurrent episodes, quality of life, and survival times in cats who underwent perineal urethrostomy.
 
The investigators collected data from the medical records of 86 cats that had received the surgery. The average length of survival after surgery was 3.5 years. Five cats did not survive 2 weeks after surgery, while another 6 cats did not survive 6 months. The vast majority lived longer than 6 months, with a majority remaining asymptomatic after surgery. For 19 cats, information was available for more than 6 years; among these, 13 were still alive at the time of the study. Six cats were euthanized due to diseases unrelated to the urinary tract. Quality of life was categorized as good by owners in 88% of the cases. This study showed that long term complications are minimal and quality of life is good after perineal urethrostomy. [MK]

See also: Bass M, Howard J, Gerber B and Messmer M. Retrospective study of indications for and outcome of perineal urethrostomy in cats. J Small Anim Pract. 2005; 46: 227-31.

More on cat health:
Winn Feline Foundation Library
Find us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Join us on Google+

Ruda L and Heiene R. Short- and long-term outcome after perineal urethrostomy in 86 cats with feline lower urinary tract disease. J Small Anim Pract. 2012; 53: 693-8.

Perineal urethrostomy is a surgical procedure used to treat some cats experiencing obstruction in the lower urinary tract, especially those with complicated or recurrent disease. There are few published studies evaluating the long-term outcome of this surgery. The goal of this study was to evaluate the long-term prognosis, recurrent episodes, quality of life, and survival times in cats who underwent perineal urethrostomy.
 
The investigators collected data from the medical records of 86 cats that had received the surgery. The average length of survival after surgery was 3.5 years. Five cats did not survive 2 weeks after surgery, while another 6 cats did not survive 6 months. The vast majority lived longer than 6 months, with a majority remaining asymptomatic after surgery. For 19 cats, information was available for more than 6 years; among these, 13 were still alive at the time of the study. Six cats were euthanized due to diseases unrelated to the urinary tract. Quality of life was categorized as good by owners in 88% of the cases. This study showed that long term complications are minimal and quality of life is good after perineal urethrostomy. [MK]

See also: Bass M, Howard J, Gerber B and Messmer M. Retrospective study of indications for and outcome of perineal urethrostomy in cats. J Small Anim Pract. 2005; 46: 227-31.

More on cat health:
Winn Feline Foundation Library
Find us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Join us on Google+

Read More