Posts Tagged ‘Health Care Reform’

Brittany
Allgood

On the 11th Anniversary of September 11: Expanded Coverage for Responders

Tuesday, September 11th, 2012

Firefighters and other 9/11 responders, and those who worked among the debris of the World Trade Center site have been faced with a host of health-related problems. On Monday, the federal government acknowledged that cancer is certainly among the conditions, adding 58 types of cancer to the list covered by the Zadroga Act. Signed into law by President Obama in 2011, the Zadroga Act ensures that those affected by 9/11 continue to receive monitoring and treatment services for 9/11-related health problems through at least 2015.

Often compared to coal miners, workers laboring in dust for months at the World Trade Center site were exposed to a never-before seen toxic mix of jet fuel residue, chemicals and building materials. Many developed cancer-related health problems, and some have died.

So, why did it take 11 years to make it official?

It takes time to gather research data, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) wanted evidence of a causal relationship between the 9/11 disaster and cancer found in survivors before agreeing to fund between $14.5 million and $33 million for an estimated 950 to 2,150 claims.

“We have urged from the very beginning that the decision whether or not to include cancer be based on science,” said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The catalyst for coverage? Science.

Insufficient scientific evidence of a causal relationship was the reason for omitting cancer from the docket of covered illnesses – until research funded by NIOSH found that responder firefighters were almost 10 percent more likely to develop cancer in the seven years post-9/11 than the general U.S. population with similar demographics and 19 percent more likely than their non-exposed counterparts.

Even with this research, NIOSH is only hesitantly adding cancer coverage. In the study’s conclusion, NIOSH says, “we remain cautious in our interpretation of this finding because the time since 9/11 is short for cancer outcomes… we cannot rule out the possibility that effects in the exposed group might be due to unidentified confounders.”

Science: The Great Validator.

This was an unprecedented environmental disaster and the NIOSH is accustomed to relying on extensive studies to help make public health-related decisions. In this case, the connection between 9/11 responders and cancer might have been obvious to some, but the scientific proof solidifies it as fact, giving credibility to the NIOSH decision to add it to the list of government-covered conditions.

What’s the key take away here? Knowing the science behind a decision is crucial–science promotes understanding and credibility.

Tags: , , , ,

 
Luke
Dickinson

Supreme Court Upholds the Affordable Care Act

Thursday, June 28th, 2012

President Obama signs the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010

Amid great anticipation, fanfare – and even a belly dancer – the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) announced a 5-4 ruling to UPHOLD the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – the health care reform legislation passed by President Obama in March 2010.

Question of Constitutionality

The ruling hinged on the question of constitutionality of the law; particularly the clause that would require Americans to purchase health insurance. The Court ruled that while it is unconstitutional for the government to command citizens to purchase insurance, as a part of its power to regulate commerce between states, five Justices agreed that Congress DOES have the authority to levy a tax on those who do not purchase insurance. As cited in Footnote #11, on page 44 of the 193 page ruling, this is laid out as:

“Those subject to the individual mandate may lawfully forgo health insurance and pay higher taxes, or buy health insurance and pay lower taxes. The only thing they may not lawfully do is not buy health insurance and not pay the resulting tax.”

In a move that came as a surprise to many, Chief Justice Roberts sided with the liberal element of the Court in voting to uphold the mandate as a tax. In his lengthy ruling, Roberts noted that “The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part,” while adding that the decision “makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income.” As experts have pointed out, the ACA’s primary provision is now more of an invitation to purchase insurance – as opposed to a requirement – with an, arguably light tax penalty for those who chose to go without.

States Access to Medicaid

While the ruling that the individual mandate is constitutional made moot many of the other constitutionality questions surrounding the law, the Court did rule on the Medicaid provision that required states to comply with new requirements or risk losing funding. In a complicated decision, that favors the supporters of states rights, the Court ruled that the provision is constitutional if states would only lose access to NEW funds if they chose not to comply with new requirements, rather than lose access to all Medicaid funding.

(more…)

Tags: ,

 
Luke
Dickinson

Supreme Court Hears Arguments Over Health Care Reform – Wednesday Update

Thursday, March 29th, 2012

As the third and final day of the oral arguments over Health Care Reform in the Supreme Court closed, the uncertainty over the Court’s anticipated decision grows even stronger. Many believe that the law is in jeopardy over the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the provision requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance. And the third day of arguments made it clear that if the individual mandate fails, there is a strong likelihood that the entire ACA will fall with it.

Day three kicked off with arguments around the severability issue of whether the ACA can remain in action if individual elements of it are deemed unconstitutional, specifically the individual mandate provision. As oral arguments and questioning developed, it quickly became clear that the Court is stuck on their political divisions.

Liberal Justices who support the ACA argued that there are too many vital elements of the law to be thrown out if one element fails, while conservative Justices questioned how Congress can salvage the law if central elements are picked apart.

“Is half a loaf better than no loaf? And on something like the [health insurance marketplace] exchanges it seems to me a perfect example where half a loaf is better than no loaf. The exchanges will do something.” – Justice Elena Kagan

(more…)

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

 
Luke
Dickinson

Supreme Court Hears Arguments Over Health Care Reform -Tuesday Update

Wednesday, March 28th, 2012

(Dana Verkouteren/AP Photo)

As the dust settles on the second day of arguments in the Supreme Court over Health Care Reform legislation, there is an overwhelming sense by observers that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is in jeopardy of being struck down by the Supreme Court.

Conservative Justices heaped pressure on U.S. Solicitor General Don Verrilli – who is arguing in support of the Obama Administration’s landmark piece of legislation – picking apart the individual mandate, the requirement that under ACA all Americans purchase health insurance. Setting aside the issue of quality or access to care, Justices focused on the commerce issue of the mandate, examining whether the government is changing its relationship with the people in making them purchase a commercial product and what else that might lead to.

“Everyone subject to this regulation is in — or will be in — the health care market. They are just being regulated in advance. That’s exactly the kind of thing that ought to be left to the judgment of Congress and the democratically accountable branches of government.” – U.S. Solicitor General Don Verrilli

“So can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services?” – Chief Justice John Roberts

(more…)

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

 
Kelly
Barrett

Patients, Advocates and Industry Alike Unite at FDA’s Rare Disease Day Meeting

Friday, March 9th, 2012

On Wednesday, February 29, the world celebrated the Fifth Annual Rare Disease Day (made all the more special by the “rareness” of this day’s appearance in our 2012 leap year calendar!) But that of course wasn’t what made this day so particularly impactful.

This year the cause was strengthened with a sense of collaboration, as the FDA hosted its first Patient Advocacy Day, dedicated to the over 30 million American patients in the rare disease community. I was fortunate to be able to attend this event, which featured speakers from various offices within the FDA, including Dr. Gayatri R. Rao of the Office of Orphan Products Development, Dr. Anne Pariser from the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Dr. Markham Luke from the Center for Devices and Radiological Health and Dr. Richard Klein from the Office of Special Health Issues. Amid the alphabet soup of these various departments, the FDA helped to showcase just how the regulatory side works with and really–relies on–patients to move orphan products to the market in the most efficient way possible. The FDA works to do so in number of ways, including:

  • Running a robust patient representative program to provide advisory committees with the unique perspective of patients and family members affected by life-threatening diseases
  • Awarding grants to further the development of drugs, biologics, medical devices and medical foods for the treatment of rare diseases
  • Assisting and supporting the research, development, regulation and approval of drug and biologic products
  • Collaborating with international regulatory agencies to address unmet medical needs of patients on a global scale
    (more…)

Tags: , , ,

 
Ken
Rabin

The Journal of Health Communication Celebrates 100 Issues – What’s Next?

Friday, March 2nd, 2012

Milestones matter, and achieving a century of anything is worth noting. In Poland, where I have lived and worked since 2005, birthdays are celebrated not with a chorus of “Happy Birthday to You,” but with a raucous song called “Sto Lat!” that means “100 Years.” My adopted country clearly gets the message.

There is no question that over the span of its existence, the Journal of Health Communications has made a real difference in advancing and diffusing knowledge in this critical sector of the communications discipline. As a member of the Journal’s editorial board, I’m excited to celebrate this 100 issue achievement, however, the question that I ask myself is, “Where do we go from here?” I think that the challenges of staying relevant in the years that lie ahead will be both plentiful and, hopefully, invigorating ones for this journal, its editors, contributors and readers.

The first change I expect to see is in the focus of the articles we publish. These changes will be driven by a combination of profound global demographic changes, ongoing economic pressures and the plethora of new media and media apps that are the currency of early 21stcentury communications. With respect to demographics, we are right now in the midst of two profound currents of change: on the one hand, western society is aging rapidly, and on the other hand, the number of young people in the developing societies of Asia, Africa and Latin America is growing at an extraordinary rate. (more…)

Tags: ,