Washington Examiner has an opinion piece on Pres. Trump’s proposed (or initiated/) healthcare reforms:
“Patient choice and control are at the heart of Trump’s plan. It includes alternative forms of coverage, such as association health plans and short-term limited duration plans. It invests in telehealth services, which have been critical for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. It gives major discounts to seniors for their prescription drugs. The plan increases access to direct primary care, which all but eliminates the insurance bureaucracy that decides what patients will and won’t get.
Perhaps most importantly, it requires price transparency, so patients know what services and procedures cost before they are forced to pay for them. It tips the scales in favor of patients to lower premiums and the cost of care. There will be no more surprise billing bankrupting families.”
Like type 1 diabetics, many type 2’s need insulin shots
From Washington Times:
Most folks think of the AARP as a membership organization that gives older Americans discounts on magazine subscriptions and cellphone plans. In fact, those business lines are secondary to AARP’s real source of income, a lucrative partnership with United Healthcare.
AARP partners with United Healthcare to offer health insurance plans to its membership. On its face, there’s nothing inappropriate about this type of affinity branding; the problem is that United Healthcare (and, frankly, other insurance companies) have made some decisions at the expense of seniors and the Medicare program, which should run counter to what a seniors-focused advocacy organization endorses. Recent actions by United Healthcare to limit seniors’ access to less expensive versions of Medicare drugs calls into question whether the AARP is looking out for older Americans or its own bottom line.
This is one of many reasons why healthcare is so expensive in the U.S. Spending on prescription drugs here accounts for nine to 9% of total healthcare cost. Annual pharmaceutical spending per capita is $1,443 compared to a range of $466 to $939 in other high-income countries.
We in the U.S. spent $334 billion on prescription drugs in 2017.
I was glad to see this. The concept covered is one reason I’ve been working on my healthcare reform manifesto for months. Price transparency is a key component of fair and sane healthcare reform. Z has a huge audience compared to mine.
median decedent age was 78 years (median means half who died were over 78, half were under 78)
CDC didn’t have much clinical data on all 50,000 decedents. But they were able to collect supplementary data on close to 11,000 of them;
61% were male
75% were aged ≥65 years
24% were Hispanic
25% were black
35% were white
6% were Asian
3% were multiracial or other race
race/ethnicity was unknown for 6%
decedent age varied by race and ethnicity; median age was 71 years among Hispanic decedents, 72 years among all nonwhite, non-Hispanic decedents, and 81 years among white decedents. The percentages of Hispanic (35%) and nonwhite (30%) decedents who were aged <65 years were more than twice those of white decedents (13%)
What about underlying conditions among these 11,000 decedents for whom supplementary data was available?
At least one underlying medical condition was reported for 8,134 (76%) of decedents for whom supplementary data were collected, including 83% of decedents aged <65 years. Overall, the most common underlying medical conditions were:
cardiovascular disease (61%)
diabetes mellitus (40%)
chronic kidney disease (21%)
chronic lung disease (19%)
among decedents aged <65 years, 83% had one or more underlying medical conditions
among decedents aged ≥85 years, 70% had one or more underlying medical conditions
diabetes was more common among decedents aged <65 years (50%) than among those aged ≥85 years (26%).
From the CDC report
Regional and state level efforts to examine the roles of these factors in SARS-CoV-2 transmission and COVID-19-associated deaths could lead to targeted, community-level, mortality prevention initiatives. Examples include health communication campaigns targeted towards Hispanics and nonwhite persons aged <65 years. These campaigns could encourage social distancing and the need for wearing cloth face coverings in public settings. In addition, health care providers should be encouraged to consider the possibility of disease progression, particularly in Hispanic and nonwhite persons aged <65 years and persons of any race/ethnicity, regardless of age, with underlying medical conditions, especially diabetes.
Steve Parker, M.D.
Click the pic to purchase at Amazon.com. E-book versions also available at Smashwords. com.
Private health insurance companies routinely deny legitimate medical claims. Most denied claims for doctors are for in-network (so-called “contracted”) services. In these cases, patients never see a bill, and the doctor must separately try to resolve the dispute with the insurance company. For out-of-network (“non-contracted”) claims, however, the doctor is required by law to send the patient a bill while trying to resolve the billing dispute. Most of these denied claims are for legitimate emergency services. They are simply routine claims, not exorbitant or outlier charges as some folks lobbying for the insurance industry would have you believe. Don’t take my word for it. Consider recent comments from former health insurance executive Wendell Potter, who spent more than 20 years working for the giant health insurance companies Humana and Cigna. He explains the real cause of surprise medical bills. According to Potter, “It’s because of a scheme quietly hatched by insurance companies like the ones I worked at, where they decide which hospitals and doctors to include in their networks. They make these choices based largely on what will maximize profits and minimize care.”
…Connecticut and Massachusetts didn’t do very well either.
Artist’s rendition of Coronavirus
From New York Post:
More than 32,000 New Yorkers have died from the coronavirus, a toll higher than any other state. New York also ranks second to the worst out of all 50 states, in deaths per million residents. Only New Jersey did worse.
You wouldn’t know it, listening to Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who brags that his administration “tamed the beast.” Or the media that praise him and chide states with much, much lower death rates.
Cuomo is doing everything he can to coverup the errors. He’s stonewalling bipartisan efforts in Albany to investigate the deaths of thousands of elderly in nursing homes ravaged by the virus.
Legislators need to persevere, and in fact broaden their investigation to include the poor performance of many hospitals in the state. On March 2, one day after the first coronavirus case in New York was disclosed, Cuomo told New Yorkers not to worry because “we have the best health care system on the planet.” That’s a whopper. Patients treated for COVID-19 in hospitals here died at more than twice the national average.
Let’s assume that the events of the last five months are neither random nor unexpected. Let’s say they’re part of an ingenious plan to transform American democracy into a lockdown police state controlled by criminal elites and their puppet governors. And let’s say the media’s role is to fan the flames of mass hysteria by sensationalizing every gory detail, every ominous prediction and every slightest uptick in the death toll in order to exert greater control over the population. And let’s say the media used their power to craft a message of terror they’d repeat over and over again until finally, there was just one frightening storyline ringing-out from every soapbox and bullhorn, one group of governors from the same political party implementing the same destructive policies, and one small group of infectious disease experts –all incestuously related– issuing edicts in the form of “professional advice.”
Obesity is a risk factor for developing a more severe case of COVID-19, the novel coronavirus respiratory illness. Looks like the disease will be with us a while longer. Why not start working on that obesity problem today?
Posted onJuly 16, 2020|Comments Off on Yes: Does Legalization of Marijuana Increase Traffic Fatality Rates?
From JAMA Network:
By analyzing additional experimental states over a more recent time period, we have provided additional data that legalization of recreational marijuana is associated with increased traffic fatality rates. Applying these results to national driving statistics, nationwide legalization would be associated with 6800 (95% CI, 4200-9700) excess roadway deaths each year.