Healthcare

The horrific bombing that killed three innocents and ripped apart the lives of more than 170 people still haunted our nation this week, as a manhunt locked down Boston. A crime spree by the suspects left a college security officer dead and some 20 police officers wounded. The terrorist attack at the Boston Marathon will dominate our thoughts and prayers for days to come as events continue to unfold.

The recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, concluding that hospitals financially benefit from surgical complications of patients, suggests that hospitals are not motivated to contain costs. We disagree with the implication that hospitals deliberately benefit from patient harm, but we believe the current way we pay for health care in this country does not make the changes possible that can bring better outcomes and reduce costs.

Today, the Senate Committee on Aging is holding a hearing on the National Alzheimer’s Plan. The efforts outlined in the plan, as well as the research work shepherded by biopharmaceutical research companies, can only move forward if we have a consistent and comprehensive set of patient-centric public policies.

On Wednesday, members of the House will have a clear choice. Vote for H.R. 1549, the Helping Sick Americans Now Act, to defund a key ObamaCare slush fund and cripple the administration’s implementation efforts. Or, vote against the bill, which would allow for the continued implementation of the guts of ObamaCare through an unaccountable slush fund wielded by the administration.  

This week, a study released by a leading economist, Alex Brill, highlights shortcomings in how Congress estimates the costs of health proposals: our model timelines are too short to capture the true effects of good legislation.  So while we work to advance policies that help address the prevalence of chronic diseases – including obesity, diabetes and heart disease –our budgeters do not tell us whether these policies will work in the long-term and what savings they generate. Read more...

ObamaCare champions made many promises during debate about the law—such as that it wouldn’t add to the deficit and Americans who like their health insurance would get to keep it—which have since been broken. But there’s one promise the Administration can and should keep: the promise made to help people with pre-existing conditions.

Read more...

During the last three decades, the biopharmaceutical industry has invested significantly in new and improved vaccines. The results have provided remarkable new ways to prevent cases of cervical cancer, meningitis, pneumonia, pandemic influenza, and rotavirus diseases.
 
The collaborative efforts of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), World Health Organization (WHO), national governments and industry have led to major progress in addressing global immunization goals and reducing illness and death due to vaccine-preventable diseases.

Wikipedia changed the way we look up ideas. GPS revolutionized how we get from point A to point B.  Digital cameras transformed photography. What if new technology could do the same for tobacco? It could, if industry and government regulators were willing to reexamine their long held beliefs about tobacco harm reduction.

For too many years, tobacco policy has been mired in an all-or-nothing philosophy. Under this approach, smokers were presented with just one alternative: quit. This mindset, however, has led to a destructive debate that has prevented the implementation of a comprehensive public health strategy designed to reduce tobacco-related disease.

The Obama administration recently announced that later this year negotiations will start for a Transatlantic trade and investment agreement with the European Union. This move anticipates the completion of the Transpacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) negotiations this fall. In the coming weeks, the administration will be asking Congress for trade promotion – or “fast track” - authority to cover both treaties.

The TPPA has been touted as the model trade agreement for the 21st century, and the U.S. hopes that it will serve as a rough draft for the Atlantic treaty. Eleven countries are involved, with others in the pipeline, and it will be the largest trading regime in the world save the WTO. It also seeks to liberalize trade in new and significant ways, giving foreign corporate investors unprecedented rights and protections. It has been described as “NAFTA on steroids.”

Three years to the day after President Obama signed into law his massive healthcare overhaul, the Senate overwhelmingly approved a measure to repeal two provisions limiting families’ freedoms. For a brief moment in Washington, politics took a back seat, and the needs of nearly 33 million Americans were addressed.
 
These families, who take the initiative to budget for their healthcare expenses using flexible spending accounts (FSAs) or health savings accounts (HSAs), were some of the first to feel the impacts of the president’s health law. It requires them to obtain a doctor’s prescription to purchase over-the-counter (OTC) medications with their own money set aside specifically to cover health-related expenses. Beginning this year, it places a $2,500 cap on FSA contributions, limiting families’ abilities to use specialized accounts to pay for medical expenses sometimes not covered by health insurance.