Politics of Aging

Abraxane™ The New Marketable Cancer Cure

April 29, 2013 By yvonne Leave a Comment

The parent of someone close to me was diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer last fall. At first, the parent, citing her age, determined that she would not do chemotherapy. Her husband, older than she, became very upset. So she agreed to see an Oncologist. The Oncologist, a young, energetic, positive individual suggested that the parent do chemotherapy to shrink the cancer and when it was small enough, surgery could be done and the cancer removed.

Thus, the parent entered the medical system. She was to do chemotherapy for five months and then be scheduled to have surgery. Fortunately, side effects to the chemo were not so intense that she could not continue to maintain her day to day activities. She did loose her hair.

Somewhere along the way, those she was relying on for medical care, decided they would not try to do surgery, yet. Instead, they suggested that she add a new drug, Abraxane ™, to the chemo regimen. This is a new drug that claims to improve the chances of survival for a person with Pancreatic Cancer.

According to an article in MNT (Medical News Today):

Results from the study revealed that 35% people on the combination of Abraxane™ and chemotherapy were alive at the end of the first year compared to only 22% who just underwent chemotherapy. This translates into a 59% increase in one-year survival as well as double the rate of survival in two years for the patients on Abraxane™ versus those who only received the chemotherapy. Those were solely on chemotherapy survived for only 6.7 months compared to a median of 8.5 months among those who also took Abraxane™.

Breaking this paragraph down, I see a claim that somehow the percentage of people who were alive at the end of the first year who were taking a combination of Abraxane™ and chemotherapy was 35% as compared to only 22% of people who were alive after a year of taking just chemotherapy. Those percentages are not very high. But somehow, this 13% differential “translates into a 59% increase in one-year survival” Hunh? Not only that, but if we take these numbers, as the researchers have done (there is no indication that there were any tests done to actually prove this to be fact), this doubles the survival rate in two years. Again, hunh?

The last line in the paragraph totally contradicts the claims above it by stating that (without qualifiers) those using only chemotherapy “only survived 6.7 months” and those who did chemo in combination with Abraxane™ survived “a median of 8.5 months.” Hard to imagine all those individuals who had Pancreatic Cancer and were only doing chemotherapy keeling over at 6.7 months from start of chemo regimen. Even if this were the case, the claims that adding Abraxane™ to the chemotherapy increases survival rates by an amount that is exciting seem a bit exaggerated if the median survival rate with this addition is only 8.5 months.

I would not be so offended by all of this if it in fact reflected an industry desperately wanting to find a cure for cancer and dedicating all their waking hours to that end. BUT, unfortunately, the facts do not demonstrate this. What the facts demonstrate is that this new drug, a bit short on its healing claims, is doing incredibly well in the area of generating income. From the same article:

Abraxane™ made sales of close to $386 million in 2011 for it’s use as breast cancer treatment. It is expected to generate close to $2.1 billion as a treatment for pancreatic cancer. Abraxis BioScience was the original company to develop the drug, they were bought out by Celegene in 2010 for $2.9 billion. Celegene can expect to see good sales of the drug [emphasis by author], although it might see strong competition from the drug Folfirinox™ which was found to similarly improve survival among pancreatic cancer patients.

In the meanwhile, dibillitating side effects have increased quite a bit in our 89 year old patient since the incorporation of Abraxane™ into her chemotherapy regimen.

Filed Under: Health, Politics of Aging, Yvonne's Blog Tagged With: Abraxane, chemotherapy, oncologist, Pancreatic cancer, survival rate

Chow Down

April 3, 2013 By yvonne Leave a Comment

“Americans are sick. Over 130 million [author's emphasis] are suffering from chronic disease.” So begins the documentary, Chow Down** a film by Julia Grayer and Gage Johnston, The film is tightly put together and does an excellent job of presenting a sobering view of the state of eating in our country. It focuses on the eating habits of Americans today, the influences which direct those eating habits, and more specifically, on the lives of three individuals who were told that unless they radically changed their approach to eating, they would die. Grayer and Johnston do not gloss over the fact that it is not so easy to change one’s eating habits even if it means potentially saving one’s life.

Charles, a man “who has it all,” including heart disease, has a very supportive wife and because of this, the whole family has changed their eating habits. Charles speaks about how as an Italian, whose grandfather owned a meat shop, large meals with lots of meat were a big part of life’s enjoyment. Yet he and his family have made the adjustment, to the point of bringing their own food when they take trips. (May Charles live to watch his grandchildren grow up and may he and his wife grow old together).

Two other individuals who are also working at changing their diets were interviewed. One interviewee lamented that he missed his Kentucky Fried Chicken™ The other spoke about how difficult it was to maintain a more plant-based diet when the rest of her family was not.

And yet the medical profession does not focus on nutrition and diet when interacting with patients, but rather pills and surgery. Dr. Esselstyn, a former heart surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic and one of the interviewees in both Forks Over Knives and Chow Down, learned through his practice that there was a direct relationship between diet and heart disease. He says that surgery does not prevent the disease. He states that the medical industry is “… selling sickness right now. We are selling sickness as a profession. You don’t get health out of a bottle of pills. You don’t get health out of a bunch of operative procedures. I know that as a former surgeon.”

Another interviewee in Chow Down, Neal Barnard, MD, shares that ” the most popular pill on the market today is Lipitor ™ ….a pill created to curb the effects of dietary excess.”

According to the www.chowdownmovie.com home page,

…. three factors …. fatally impact our country’s health: the medical community’s allegiance to the status quo, the government’s allegiance to the food industry, and Americans’ allegiance to cheap, convenient food.

Grayner and Johnson, through very tight interviews with key players in the medical industry, the food industry, and the government demonstrate how, at least at this stage in time, we, as consumers, are controlled by the relationship between the food industries, the government and the medical community.

Dr. Barnard points out that the USDA has two mandates. One is to promote health and the other is to promote American agricultural products. This could certainly become a potential conflict of interest, particularly since the Federal Government participates in creating generic advertising for certain products (Got Milk? for example) from a fund that they administer but which is provided by the food industry. In fact, the federal government even has worked with the fast food industry to help them advertise foods that include cheese, not because the foods are healthier but to promote the dairy industry.

Even the food pyramid, which has undergone many changes in recent years, is influenced by the needs of the Agro-business. One outcome is that we have come to believe that certain foods are more important than others, ie, meat rather than lentils, both sources of protein. Yet studies have shown that a primarily meat based diet can be harmful to one’s health. [Whether it is the meat itself or whether it is all the additives that farmers put into their livestock is a topic for further research and another article].

At one point in the documentary, Grayer and Johnson interview Louise Light, a nutritionist who was hired by the USDA in the late ’70′s to come up with a food pyramid. She and a team of experts had concluded that fruits and vegetables were the most important foods to eat, but when their pyramid came back from the Secretary’s office, it had been revised, emphasizing grains as the most important food. Apparently, when the meat industry heard about this, they put the pressure on for meats to be better represented. [Recently the food pyramid has undergone a further transformation to MyPlate].

During her tenure at the USDA, Ms. Light had created a nutrition course for the Red Cross. In the course, she cited several foods that had direct links to cancer. She states that she was approached by a representative from one of those food industries who offered her $60,000 to drop the word cancer from her coursework.

I applaud Ms. Grayner and Ms. Johnson’s superb documentary. As more and more information comes out about how our eating habits greatly influence our health, we might just be able to change the course that the food industry has taken in our country.

(As I was “going to press” I came across this link, which I think reflects how the movement for eating right is starting to take off http://www.upworthy.com/i-m-sick-of-rich-people-telling-me-how-to-spend-my-money-but-i-think-this-guy-is?c=ufb1

** Following my write up on the documentary Forks Over Knives, I received an e-mail from Julia Grayer, a filmmaker, who along with Gage Johnston, wrote, directed, and produced Chow Down.

Filed Under: Health, Politics of Aging, Yvonne's Blog Tagged With: diet, Disease, Health, medical profession, sick, state of eating

Our Expensive Health Care System

March 13, 2013 By yvonne Leave a Comment

The other day, I was reading an entry by Ronni Bennett in her blog posts in which she reviews an article entitled: Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills are Killing Us, a report written by Steve Brill, the founder of Court TV and American Lawyer. Shortly after reading her review of the article, I came across several other reviews of the same article. I am very happy that this topic is beginning to be looked at. I have written on the topic of expensive health care.

Although Ms.Bennett had some issues with Mr. Brill, she states:

Nevertheless, “Bitter Pill” is the best damned report about the sorry state of the U.S. Health care industry I’ve ever seen (and I read a LOT about health care).

What makes it so good is its clarity. It is filled with case and interview details, comparisons among costs, charges and profits, and written not for lawyers, doctors or policy wonks with the intention to obfuscate, but for you and me, the average reader.

Plus, it reads like a good novel in the sense that you can’t wait to get to the next paragraph, the next page. By the end, Brill shows what we old folks already know – that in health care delivery and in cost control, Medicare beats private coverage every time.

Brill’s conclusions about what to do to rein in health care costs appear to me to be weak but I want to spend more time considering them. What’s important, however, is that he gives us plenty of information to use as a basis for an honest, public conversation about how to change American health care.

Not that I’m holding my breath given the power of the medical industry lobby.

from the article, Ms. Bennett shares some interesting statistics. According to Mr. Brill:

we spend more on health care than the next 10 biggest spenders combined: Japan, Germany, France, China, the U.K., Italy, Canada, Brazil, Spain and Australia.

We may be shocked at the $60 billion price tag for cleaning up after Hurricane Sandy. We spent almost that much last week on health care.

Medicare pays $11.02 for a CBC [complete blood count] in Connecticut. Hospital finance people argue vehemently that Medicare doesn’t pay enough and that they lose as much as 10% on an average Medicare patient…..But even if the Medicare price should be, say, 10% higher, it’s a long way from $11.02 plus 10% to $157.61.” [which the hospital charges for the same test.]

In 2008, Gregory Demske, an assistant inspector general at the Department of Health and Human Services, told a Senate committee that ‘physicians routinely receive substantial compensation from medical-device companies through stock options, royalty agreements, consulting agreements, research grants and fellowships.’”

MD Anderson’s charge of $7 each for “ALCOHOL PREP PAD.” This is a little square of cotton used to apply alcohol to an injection. A box of 200 can be bought online for $1.91.”

”More than $280 billion will be spent this year on prescription drugs in the U.S. If we paid what other countries did for the same products, we would save about $94 billion a year.”

Ms. Bennett concludes:

Brill’s report reinforces more vividly what others before him have shown many times over – that what is wrong with our health care system is not Medicare, it’s the private sector.

When I googled Steve Brill’s article, there were pages and pages of respondents from around the United States. Most seemed to support the contents of Mr. Brill’s article. Although I have as yet to read it myself, I do look forward to it. I quote Ms. Bennett’s response to the article because in reading her reflections on Mr. Brill’s article, they reflected my concerns about our healthcare system.

Filed Under: Health, Politics of Aging, Yvonne's Blog Tagged With: expensive health care, health care costs, medical industry lobby, medicare, private sector

Oil: Can’t Live With It; Can’t Live Without It

February 20, 2013 By yvonne Leave a Comment

As I was driving into town, I noticed how much more expensive gasoline was this week than it had been last week. At least 25c more per gallon (at places like Sam’s Club — more at private stations). In fact, the ups and downs in prices on gasoline seem to be mimicking the ups and downs we have been experiencing with our weather of late. Anyway, I was wondering why the gas prices were once again on the rise.

I guess I have become quite cynical in my old age because it finally dawned on me that this past weekend, there had been a large gathering of people in Washington to protest any further drilling for oil on our lands. According to a friend of mine who attended, there were around 40,000 people who braved very frigid weather to protest the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to U.S. And so I concluded that the oil companies were raising the prices at the gas stations so that people would “buy into” the idea that drilling on our own lands would provide cheaper gasoline. What better way to make the point than in people’s wallets.

According to U.S. News and World Report:

There’s no business on the planet that gushes forth more profit than selling oil — nothing even close.

In 2007, Exxon beat its own one-year old record of the biggest corporate profits ever by 3 percent. If Exxon were a country, it would exceed the gross domestic product of nearly two thirds of the 183 nations in the World Bank’s economic rankings.

The article further asserts that at that time, Exxon’s profits were 80% higher than General Electric, once considered one of the most successful companies in the United States.

The most recent quarterly earnings (ie December 2012) for ExxonMobil shows a revenue of $449.89 billion with a profit margin of 9.98% or $41 billion in profits. Astoundingly enough, even with these kinds of numbers, Exxon gets tax breaks. Not only that, but they have the arrogance to gripe about the fact that President Obama is making noises of taking those tax breaks away.

In an article written by Katarzyna Klimasinska and Jim Snyder for Bloomberg News,

Chief Executive Officer Rex. W. Tillerson and four counterparts defended the $21 billion in U.S. tax breaks that Democrats are seeking to recapture to reduce the federal deficit.

The Democrats’ proposal would raise about $13 billion by blocking the five largest oil and gas companies from receiving a domestic-manufacturing deduction for exploration and extraction in the U.S……[and] generate $6.5 billion by curtailing the oil companies’ ability to claim tax credits for royalty payments made to foreign governments.

Unfortunately, and this is probably for another article, much of the drilling that goes on by these huge corporations are in impoverished parts of the world like Angola or Nigeria. We, on the most part, are ignorant of what goes on over there.
Because there are no stringent regulations in place with regard to environmental soundness, ecological areas are destroyed by the drilling that these companies do. It is not our backyard and we are so busy interacting in our own environment, we don’t have the time or take the time to look at what “we” are doing in other people’s backyards.

People in these parts of the world are displaced from their homes if their homes happen to be sitting on a site that may produce crude oil. Some people are even killed and the villages destroyed. These are terrible realities.

And last, what we have done to our environment in order to have access to this oil and the luxury of mobility is no minor topic. Whether we are talking oil spills on our coasts or acid rain destroying forests, the introduction of this “black gold” has done more to destroy than to create. I will be called an extremist for making such a statement, but it is true and we are becoming more and more cognizant of this fact every day. Unfortunately, I think it may be too late to reverse the damage done.

Filed Under: Politics of Aging, The Boomer's Corner Tagged With: environment, Exxon, price of gasoline, profits, protest

“Forks Over Knives”

January 21, 2013 By yvonne 2 Comments

The other day, my yoga teacher invited several of her students to share in a potluck lunch and to watch a documentary called, “Forks Over Knives.” The setting was beautiful, the company delightful and invigorating, and the documentary educational. The movie

examines the profound claim that most, if not all, of the degenerative diseases that afflict us can be controlled, or even reversed, by rejecting our present menu of animal-based and processed foods. The major storyline in the film traces the personal journeys of a pair of pioneering ….. researchers, Dr. T. Colin Campbell and Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn.

Dr. Campbell, a nutritional Biochemist at Cornell University had embarked on a research project in the late 1960′s to help bring high quality meat protein to the undernourished of the third world. In the Philippines, he made a life altering discovery: Children who lived on a meat based diet were more likely to develop cancer than children who lived on a plant based diet.

Dr. Esselstyn, a surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic, on his part, started to observe that many of the diseases he routinely treated were rarely found in countries where animal-based diets were not the norm.

Their separate but mutual discoveries brought them together and they have conducted many studies since. One of the most comprehensive was conducted in China. the 20-year China-Cornell-Oxford Project, led by Dr. Campbell, found that most degenerative disease can be reversed by changing one’s diet. Remove the meat, the sugars, the dairy and you remove the tendency towards many cancers, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and heart disease.

Through media, we have learned that we are at pandemic levels with cancers, diabetes, obesity and heart disease in our country. Yet over the years, we have been taught that meat is the best source of protein and milk is the best source of calcium. This belief system is so ingrained in us that many people are unwilling to change their diets. Not only that, but many nutritionists still insist that meat and dairy are primary sources of protein and calcium. Add to this the fact that fast food restaurants still dominate in our very busy world and empty calories (ie snacks, sugar filled cereals, and soda pop) continue to be a mainstay in most people’s daily lives, the truth of the matter becomes that we are all willingly poisoning ourselves.

the film [Forks Over Knives] advocates a whole foods, plant-based (vegan) diet as a means of combating a number of diseases. It suggests that “most, if not all, of the degenerative diseases that afflict us can be controlled, or even reversed, by rejecting our present menu of animal-based and processed foods.“

When my husband was first diagnosed with pancreatic cancer (and by the time they “uncovered” what was ailing him, it had already spread to his liver), we were told to go home and try and make him as confortable as possible. But our friends rallied and we learned of a clinic in Chicago, The Block Center on Integrative Cancer Care. I believe that going there and completely changing our diet had a lot to do with the fact that my husband came back from death’s door to live another year, most of that year with good quality of life. Had we foregone the chemotherapy, would he still be alive today? Clearly, there is no way of answering that question. His cancer was at a very advanced stage when found and he was at an age where the first two oncologists we saw basically gave the thumbs down. Our choices were very limited by that point.

BUT there is no question in my mind that a whole foods, plant based diet is healthier than a fast-food, meat/sugar/dairy based diet is and there is no question in my mind that the chronic diseases that are so prevalent in our society are caused by the foods we choose to eat. Unfortunately, the lower income citizens of our country have much less choice as to what is available for them to eat, and by turn, we see much chronic illness and obesity in that population.

Our country has a lot of work to do to turn this situation around. It may take years, but we have to start somewhere.

With regard to sugar, which is found in most processed foods, many of the symptoms related to withdrawal from other “drugs” are similarly experienced by individuals who remove sugar from their diet. it takes two weeks for withdrawal of sugar from the system. An individual can experience agitation, ill-temper, lethargy, headaches, a sense of depression. But these really are just withdrawal symptoms. If one recognizes this, one can control those symptoms and know that they will go away with a little time. No need to get pills from your doctor!

Filed Under: Health, Politics of Aging, Yvonne's Blog Tagged With: calcium, meat-based diet, plant-based diet, processed foods, protein, sugar, whole foods

Scams Everywhere

January 13, 2013 By yvonne 1 Comment

Over the past few years, it seems that every time you turn around, you are reading about how the elderly are being taken advantage of or, at the very least, how the elderly should be aware that they could be taken advantage of. I tend to get annoyed by all the trumpeting about scam artists and how the elderly need to protect themselves against these predators. I have, in the past, looked on this as a bit of fear mongering and making the elderly feel more vulnerable.

However, just recently, I found myself the victim of a situation that could have been avoided and in which I was taken advantage, thus helping me to recognize that scamming can happen to anyone at any time. This is what happened to me.

I needed to have some trees cut: they were too tall and too close to the house and winds have started to become much stronger in our area.

I looked at the newspaper and called a couple of numbers. One person answered. He came over to give me an estimate. He had his nephew with him and he seemed like an okay guy, so we agreed that he would do the work.

The day he came over, he came with another individual, his brother, he told me. This man had a wild look in his eyes. He also brought a different kid. So it was the two men and a kid. As I recount this story, I am aware that the outcome is just as much my fault as anything they may have done. But the element that allowed the outcome was that I felt intimidated by their numbers and by the wild look in the “brother’s” eyes.

They cut down some trees — did not cut down the tree that had originally been the reason to call a tree cutter. But, and again, this is on me, when we had originally talked about that tree, we had spoken about cutting it down. On reflection, what with the fact that it was a hardwood tree and actually acted as a block should any of the pine trees behind it be blown down, I decided that I only wanted to top it off. They claimed that they did not have the equipment to do that. The main fellow offered to bring me real firewood when they came back to finish the job and then charged me an exorbitant price for the work done. I really do not know why I did not negotiate, but in part it was because this kid was in our faces and the the wild “brother” standing a few feet away. Oh, and the fact that they would ask questions like: “So do you live here all alone?” and had spent ALL day hanging around the house doing their “work.” All of that added up to my writing a check for an amount that I did not feel I should be paying for the work done.

They claimed they would come back the following week to finish the job, but, of course, I have not seen hide nor tail of them. And, I just gave them the money. I have called every single day, leaving various messages of anger, guilt-riding, threats, but to no avail. I will give their names to the Better Business Bureau.

What did I learn from this? Yes, one can be taken advantage of if one is feeling vulnerable. What can be done to avoid this?

1) Do not call someone cold turkey. Get a reference from a friend or a neighbor.

2) When you call, tell them they were referred by the person who referred them.

3) if possible, ask someone else to be there when the person comes to give an estimate and when you are ready to pay for the work.

At least this is what I learned from my very expensive lesson.

Filed Under: Politics of Aging, The Boomer's Corner, Yvonne's Blog Tagged With: elderly, lessons, predators, scams

“Obama Care” summarized – part 4

January 4, 2013 By yvonne Leave a Comment

…and so here is the final entry to the long story of trying to implement universal health care in the United States.

The opposition fought a dirty war, even incorporating racism to try and prevent the Health Care Reform Act from becoming law. But politics is a dirty game and often has very little to do with us, the people.

The reality is that health care in this country has become so exorbitantly expensive, the system would become financially bankrupt were it allowed to continue in the direction it has been. Thus, all the posturing by the opponents of the bill had more to do with buying time in order to figure out how to ensure their interests under the new system. In the end, much of the original bill was watered down and implementing universal health care will be much more expensive than it would have been when originally considered. However, some important laws did get passed and, hopefully, States will recognize the benefits to them. Unfortunately, since so much of the focus on the part of big businesses is on how to take advantage of circumstances, (and by this I mean milk the system) we have become a society that is encouraged to look at how to take advantage of legislation. I really do not know a remedy for this since the example in front of us is that one can get away with milking the system (Wall Street being the biggest example of getting away with….).

So, in the end, what is the Health Care Reform Act? I think the following video will probably do a better job of explaining than I can. So view and enjoy.

Filed Under: Health, Politics of Aging, Yvonne's Blog Tagged With: Big Business, Health Care Reform, Obama Care

An Interesting Perspective

December 31, 2012 By yvonne Leave a Comment

I was looking up healthcare videos and came across this video which I found interesting. Other than the mis-pronounciation of President Obama’s name, some of the arguments being put forth are food for thought. Watch and tell me what you think:

http://youtu.be/I7pqRjHQ9BU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

Filed Under: Politics of Aging, The Boomer's Corner

Obama Care Part 3 – 2009: The Battle

December 24, 2012 By yvonne Leave a Comment

In my previous entries, I shared the history of the whole universal health care debate, a debate that has been going on for almost a hundred years in our country.

President Obama rolled out the details of the Health Care Reform Initiative in the summer of 2009. As you may recall, there was an unbelievable amount of acrimony around the topic. This was where older folks, who really did not know what was within the 906 page document, were encouraged to come to Washington, D.C. (free bus ride and free lunch) and hold up placards that “yelled out” such lines as “Don’t kill Grandma.” This phrase, it turns out, was referring to a clause, somewhere in the middle of the 906 page document in which every patient would have a right to talk with their doctors about end of life issues and it would be covered by insurance.

Ah, yes. It was quite a period of time, back then. Representatives, who backed the President’s health care initiative, would hold town meetings, facing really angry voters, who, quite frankly, did not fully understand how this health care initiative would benefit them. I remember our representative in the Fifth District of Virginia, Tom Perriello, one of the finest politicians I have ever met. He was a straight shooter and he had the most impeccable manners. He held town meeting after town meeting after town meeting, where angry folk would challenge the initiative. In fact, it was known that the opposition sent in individuals with prepared questions on specific, if not, obscure points within the document. Congressman Perriello had such a grasp on what those 906 pages contained, that he was able to answer most every single person’s question, no matter how obscure. On the rare occasion that he was unfamiliar with a clause that was brought up, he took the person’s name and address and promised to get back with him/her within the 24 hour period with an answer.

In spite of his efforts, not only did he loose re-election because he stood firmly behind the health care reform initiative, but the anger and fear that had been stirred up to such a frenzy, made his answers fall on deaf ears. The people were not there to learn, but rather to try and trip up or embarrass the Congressman.

During a June 2009 speech, President Obama outlined his strategy for reform. He suggested seven steps that would bring down the costs of our exhorbitant health care costs: 1) electronic record-keeping; 2) preventing expensive conditions; 3) reducing obesity; 4) refocusing doctor incentives from quantity of care to quality; 5) bundling payments for treatment of conditions rather than specific services; 6) better identifying and communicating the most cost-effective treatments; and, 7) reducing defensive medicine.^[8]

In September of 2009, the President added a a few more points to the original plan: 1) by having everyone be part of the insurance plan, the plan would be deficit neutral; 2) implementing laws that would prevent insurance companies to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions; 3) individuals would have a cap on how much they would have to spend out-of-pocket; 4) the creation of an insurance exchange for individuals and small businesses so that these entities would not be unfairly penalized for not having the numbers that larger companies have and thereby lack the means of equal coverage; 5) tax credits for individuals and small companies; 6) the creation of independent commissions to identify fraud, waste and abuse; 7) in order to lower insurance costs for doctors to protect themselves against malpractice suits, the President added malpractice reform projects to the package. ^[9]^[10]

Atul Gawande, a surgeon, writing in The New Yorker, further distinguished between the delivery system and the payment system. He argued that reform of the delivery system is critical to getting costs under control, but that payment system reform (e.g., whether the government or private insurers process payments) is considerably less important yet gathers a disproportionate share of attention. Gawande argued that dramatic improvements and savings in the delivery system will take “at least a decade.” His recommendations were to address the over-utilization of healthcare in our country. That the focus of healthcare needs to move back to keeping people healthy rather than making profits. He also suggested that a comparative analysis system of the cost of treatments and outcomes across various healthcare providers be initiated. Gawande argued:

this would be an iterative, empirical process and should be administered by a “national institute for healthcare delivery” to analyze and communicate improvement opportunities.^[13]

When I read these points, they certainly make sense to me. So why all the anger? Why all the hostility? Why all the emotion?

Because a group would stand to loose quite a bit if the Health Care Reform Act were to become law. What group? The Health Care Industry which is made up of the insurance companies, the pharmaceuticals, and the hospitals. Oh, and then the investors in this industry. (To be continued)

Filed Under: Health, Politics of Aging Tagged With: Health Care Industry, health care reform act, Obama Care

Abraxane™ The New Marketable Cancer Cure

Chow Down

Our Expensive Health Care System

Oil: Can’t Live With It; Can’t Live Without It

“Forks Over Knives”

Scams Everywhere

“Obama Care” summarized – part 4

An Interesting Perspective

Obama Care Part 3 – 2009: The Battle

Subscribe via Feedburner

Recent Posts

Boomers, The Plastic Fantastic Generation

Abraxane™ The New Marketable Cancer Cure

Transitions

Chow Down

Anorexia Hits Older Women

Aged Wisdom

Tag Cloud