Architect of Health Care Law Admits Republicans Could Repeal It

One of the main architects of President Obama's health care reform cautioned that Republicans could be successful in tearing it down if they won both chambers of Congress and the White House this fall.

"I think they could do it," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., on CSPAN's Newsmakers on Sunday.

"I think the American people have to understand that. If they vote for Romney and they vote for the Republicans to have control of the House and the Senate, there's a good chance the health care bill will be wiped out, and all of these benefits will be wiped out," he added.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., has said that the House will vote to overturn the law on July 11, a largely symbolic move as such a measure would never pass the Democratic-led Senate. Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney is also running on a repeal platform.

Waxman's comments come in contrast to statements made by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in a separate interview aired on Meet the Press on Sunday. She asserted that Republican attempts to repeal the law are "unrealistic."

"I think that that part of it is over," she said.

Though Waxman disagreed on the capacity of Republicans to repeal the law, he agreed with Pelosi on the idea that Democrats and Republicans alike should move past the fight over the law's validity, saying that Congress should be doing something to improve the economy, rather than "carping" about health care.

"When this bill is fully in effect in 2014, the American people are going to be very, very happy and they're gonna ask, what was the brouhaha all about?" he said.

He did, however, admit that Republicans had thus far won the messaging battle on health care, and that they were successful again in shifting the conversation in their favor with respect to packaging the penalty imposed upon those who don't buy health care as a tax. But he said that he wasn't sure how to change that dynamic, preferring instead to focus on crafting sound policy.

"Well, I'm going to elect some of the public relations experts to figure this out. That's not my strength," he said.

View the original article here

Exchanges could survive even if health reform dies

Even if the Supreme Court strikes down the health care law, industry experts expect some states will still proceed with establishing health insurance exchanges.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The Supreme Court's review of health reform means any or all of the law's mandates, such as coverage of adult dependents up to age 26 and protections for people with pre-existing conditions, could be in jeopardy.

But health insurance exchanges -- which also must be set up as part of the law -- may survive and flourish even if the entire Affordable Care Act is struck down, industry experts said. Exchanges are meant to offer cheaper health plans, so more of the nation's 32 million uninsured can afford coverage.

Regardless of what happens to the health reform law, "there is bipartisan support for states having some kind of health insurance exchanges," said Christopher Condeluci, a tax attorney with law firm Venable LLP and former tax counsel to the Senate Finance Committee.

Among other things, health reform mandates that by 2014 all states set up a health insurance "exchange," an online marketplace where consumers who are underinsured or uninsured will be able to shop for subsidized coverage, and small businesses can buy more affordable plans for their workers.

The law also gives states federal grants to help build their exchanges.

The Court, which is expected to announce its ruling on the constitutionality of the Act later this month, could uphold the law, overturn it partially, or completely strike it down.

If the law is struck down completely, the loss of federal grants will make it harder for states to start exchanges, said Brett Graham, head of the Insurance Exchange Practice at law firm Leavitt Partners in Salt Lake City, Utah.

But the "train has already left the station" and some states will establish exchanges anyway, Graham said.

Indeed, even before health reform passed in 2010, Massachusetts and Utah already operated insurance exchanges. And a handful of states were exploring setting them up as a way to cut their health care spending by getting more residents insured, said Dan Schuyler, former director of technology who helped launch Utah's exchange in 2009.

With fewer uninsured people, there's less financial burden on states' public health-care programs such as Medicaid.

Soon after health reform became law, two dozen states reached out to learn more about Utah's program, said Schuyler, now a director with Leavitt Partners.

Two years later, many of those same states remain committed to establishing exchanges. California, Oregon, Maryland, Colorado and New York have already passed legislation to establish state-based exchanges by 2014, said Brett Graham, head of Leavitt Partners' Insurance Exchange Practice.

That's in contrast to some other states that have asked for waivers on meeting the deadline for setting up exchanges, are taking a wait-and-see approach, or are actively fighting health reform.

In any case, consumer demand for the exchanges is already there, said Condeluci. "Whether it's individuals buying their own coverage or employers buying it for them, people want a consumer-friendly place to buy health insurance," he said.

Still, if the law is struck down, creating exchanges will get trickier, said Jeff Munn, vice president of benefit policy development with Fidelity Investments.

"Without the mandate of a uniform structure, states themselves have to figure out what the exchanges look like," said Munn. "It will be a little bit of a Wild Wild West."

Another big question is how the exchanges will be financed if the federal government doesn't pony up money for them, said Munn.

Also unclear is whether states that already got federal grants to set up exchanges would have to give it back, said Munn.

But despite these questions, Munn believes more exchanges will begin to roll out.

"In many states the scaffolding is already there for health exchanges," he said. "The hope is that if they build it, people will come." 

View the original article here

Exchanges could survive even if health reform law dies

Even if the Supreme Court strikes down the health care law, industry experts expect some states will still proceed with establishing health insurance exchanges.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The Supreme Court's review of health reform means any or all of the law's mandates, such as coverage of adult dependents up to age 26 and protections for people with pre-existing conditions, could be in jeopardy.

But health insurance exchanges -- which also must be set up as part of the law -- may survive and flourish even if the entire Affordable Care Act is struck down, industry experts said. Exchanges are meant to offer cheaper health plans, so more of the nation's 32 million uninsured can afford coverage.

Regardless of what happens to the health reform law, "there is bipartisan support for states having some kind of health insurance exchanges," said Christopher Condeluci, a tax attorney with law firm Venable LLP and former tax counsel to the Senate Finance Committee.

Among other things, health reform mandates that by 2014 all states set up a health insurance "exchange," an online marketplace where consumers who are underinsured or uninsured will be able to shop for subsidized coverage, and small businesses can buy more affordable plans for their workers.

The law also gives states federal grants to help build their exchanges.

The Court, which is expected to announce its ruling on the constitutionality of the Act later this month, could uphold the law, overturn it partially, or completely strike it down.

If the law is struck down completely, the loss of federal grants will make it harder for states to start exchanges, said Brett Graham, head of the Insurance Exchange Practice at law firm Leavitt Partners in Salt Lake City, Utah.

But the "train has already left the station" and some states will establish exchanges anyway, Graham said.

Indeed, even before health reform passed in 2010, Massachusetts and Utah already operated insurance exchanges. And a handful of states were exploring setting them up as a way to cut their health care spending by getting more residents insured, said Dan Schuyler, former director of technology who helped launch Utah's exchange in 2009.

With fewer uninsured people, there's less financial burden on states' public health-care programs such as Medicaid.

Soon after health reform became law, two dozen states reached out to learn more about Utah's program, said Schuyler, now a director with Leavitt Partners.

Two years later, many of those same states remain committed to establishing exchanges. California, Oregon, Maryland, Colorado and New York have already passed legislation to establish state-based exchanges by 2014, said Brett Graham, head of Leavitt Partners' Insurance Exchange Practice.

That's in contrast to some other states that have asked for waivers on meeting the deadline for setting up exchanges, are taking a wait-and-see approach, or are actively fighting health reform.

In any case, consumer demand for the exchanges is already there, said Condeluci. "Whether it's individuals buying their own coverage or employers buying it for them, people want a consumer-friendly place to buy health insurance," he said.

Still, if the law is struck down, creating exchanges will get trickier, said Jeff Munn, vice president of benefit policy development with Fidelity Investments.

"Without the mandate of a uniform structure, states themselves have to figure out what the exchanges look like," said Munn. "It will be a little bit of a Wild Wild West."

Another big question is how the exchanges will be financed if the federal government doesn't pony up money for them, said Munn.

Also unclear is whether states that already got federal grants to set up exchanges would have to give it back, said Munn.

But despite these questions, Munn believes more exchanges will begin to roll out.

"In many states the scaffolding is already there for health exchanges," he said. "The hope is that if they build it, people will come." 

View the original article here

Health overhaul 'could save billions'

An overhaul of health policy in Australia could save taxpayers billions of dollars each year, analysis by a social policy think-tank suggests.

The study calculated the savings that could be achieved if the health action plan, proposed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2008, was implemented.

The WHO report said the health gap between rich and poor could be closed within a generation if the international community addressed social inequality factors such as education, employment and housing.

Analysis commissioned by Catholic Health Australia found the most socially disadvantaged people in Australia are twice as likely to suffer long-term chronic illness as the least disadvantaged.

That equated to 500,000 Australians, and $2.3 billion in hospital costs that could be saved each year if the group was lifted above the poverty line, The Cost of Inaction on the Social Determinants of Health report said.

Social policies to help the at-risk group to finish school and gain secure employment could result in 60,000 fewer people being admitted to hospital each year, the figures suggest.

As a result, access to Medicare services would drop by 5.5 million a year, delivering a saving of $2.3 billion.

And the same number of Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme scripts would no longer be needed, saving $185 million.

In addition, an extra 170,000 Australians would enter the workforce each year, generating $8 billion in additional earnings and $4 billion worth of savings in welfare support payments.

Catholic Health Australia chief executive officer Martin Laverty says the staggering opportunities could be realised if a new approach to health policy was adopted.

'The opportunity requires action outside of the formal health system,' he said, flagging a 'health in all policies' approach.

A parliamentary inquiry to better understand the health inequalities in Australia was also needed, he said.

View the original article here

Court could dent US federal power in health case

A rejection of President Barack Obama's health reform would mark a rare rebuke by a conservative Supreme Court eager to limit the powers of the US federal government, analysts say.

The stakes are high, a "wrecking operation," according to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who noted that "the more conservative approach would be salvage rather than throwing out everything."

After three days of historic debates in the highest court in the land this week, the conservative justices who hold a narrow 5-4 majority seemed inclined to relegate the Democratic president's signature reform to the scrap heap of history.

A decision from the nine justices is due in June. But, in light of their exchanges, the conservatives appeared set to rule as unconstitutional the law's linchpin requirement mandating that nearly every American must be insured.

The remainder of the reform, all 2,700 pages of it, could also go down with it -- greater medical coverage for the poorest, insurance for all Americans regardless of health condition and insurance for 32 million Americans who lack coverage.

But a decision to strike down the Affordable Health Care for America Act would be "even more radical" than the court's 5-4 split decision in the 2010 Citizens United case that paved the way for unlimited corporate funding of election campaigns, said Thomas Mann of The Brookings Institution.

"The prospect is so breathtaking in its audacity that it may lead (Chief Justice John) Roberts to pull back and write a narrow decision upholding the law," Mann told AFP, adding that a repeal of the reform would "call into question much of what the federal government does routinely."

The fate of the law may rest in the hands of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who plays the role of swing vote in many major Supreme Court cases.

"Now the big question is: will the court go backward, would it rule three-quarters of a century of jurisprudence and go back to the pre-New Deal era" of economic programs in the 1930s, asked American University historian Allan Lichtman.

The court would then replicate the profoundly ideological maneuver of a conservative court under president Franklin Roosevelt in 1935, when it nullified the National Industrial Recovery Act intended to help stimulate economic recovery through a public works program.

In 1936, the Supreme Court also declared a farming subsidy law known as the Agricultural Adjustment Act unconstitutional.

"I think there are number of justices that would like to go back to the 20s when the Supreme Court rigidly held the federal government," Lichtman said.

He said a repeal of so-called Obamacare "would be a signal that this court is interested in turning back the New Deal revolution in constitutional interpretation and much more rigidly control what the federal government can do, in regulation and in welfare."

For lawyer Simon Lazarus of the National Senior Citizens Law Center, "these five conservative justices have to decide clearly if they want to go back to that kind of a cliff."

Kennedy will probably see his decision followed by Roberts, the conservative chief justice who is seeking a true majority on the key ruling.

"Roberts and Kennedy seemed to be aware of the enormity of taking such a political step," Lazarus said, who has backed the Obama administration on the health reform.

Constitutional law expert Elizabeth Papez, a litigation partner at Winston & Strawn, noted that "if they strike the whole law, they would affirm very clear limits on the federal government's commerce power."

Critics have charged that the so-called individual mandate of the law is a violation of the US Constitution's Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

"It was a very, very, very partisan bill that has created a partisan controversy in the US," said Randy Barnett, professor at Georgetown Law and lawyer for the National Federation of Independent Business, a plaintiff in the case.

He said the text was passed by a "solely party vote" in Congress when Obama's fellow Democrats held a majority in both chambers.

Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia admitted during the hearings that the 26 states suing the federal government have Republican governors.

"It came as a Republican proposal to cover the uninsured," recalled George Washington University law professor Jonathan Siegel.

"Now it's embraced by a Democrat president, the Republicans have turned against it. That's just politics; the Supreme Court is supposed to be above that kind of thing."

View the original article here

Court's health ruling could shake fall elections

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul is likely to shake the presidential election race in early summer. But the winners in the court will not necessarily be the winners in the political arena.

No doubt, a decision to throw out the entire law would be a defeat for Obama. His judgment and leadership, even his reputation as a former constitutional law professor, would be called into question for pushing through a contentious and partisan health insurance overhaul only to see it declared unconstitutional by the court.

But it would not spell certain doom for his re-election. In fact, it would end the GOP argument that a Republican president must be elected to guarantee repeal of the law. It also could re-energize liberals, shift the spotlight onto insurance companies and reignite a debate about how to best provide health care.

If the court upholds the law, Obama would be vindicated legally. Republican constitutional criticisms would be undercut because five of the nine justices were nominated by Republican presidents.

But opposition would intensify in the political world. Without legal recourse, Republicans would gain new energy to argue that the only path to kill the law would be to elect a Republican president and enough GOP candidates to control the House and Senate. They might be wary of promising overnight repeal because a filibuster-proof Senate majority seems beyond their reach in the November election.

Central to the dispute over the law is a provision that requires individuals to have health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty. Polls show that this mandate is opposed by 3 of 5 Americans. Among Republicans, calls for its repeal are a surefire applause line.

Of the four federal appeals courts that have ruled, two upheld the law, one struck down only the insurance mandate and one punted, saying an obscure tax law makes it premature to decide the merits until the main coverage provisions take effect in 2014.

With the court hearing arguments Monday through Wednesday, operatives from both parties have been playing out the potential outcomes. It's a calculation complicated by the intensely polarized public attitudes toward the law, by the still unsettled race for the Republican nomination and, most important, by the range of potential decisions by the court.

"A lot of the arguments that are being made against it right now are that they violate basic constitutional rights and principles," said Tad Devine, a veteran consultant of Democratic presidential politics. "If the Supreme Court, controlled by Republicans, doesn't agree with that, I think it's going to be hard to make that argument."

"If they strike down the mandate," he added, "it takes away a lot of the attack against the president on that issue."

White House and Obama campaign officials would not publicly discuss the options ahead, worried they would be perceived as trying to influence the court. But the Obama campaign has begun to draw attention to the benefits of the law, hoping to counter the beating the law has taken from the GOP presidential candidates.

This past week, it posted a new health care app online where users can find out how the health care law affects them. It also launched a website that features testimonials about the law.

The campaign's Obama Twitter account drew attention Thursday to that "Faces of Change" website and to the law's second anniversary, a day after White House spokesman Jay Carney dismissed any observance of the bill's signing as something "that only those who toil inside the Beltway focus on."

On Friday, the White House released a report that promoted achievements such as coverage for young adults and omitted any mention of problems, including the little or no progress toward carrying out the law in many states. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement the law "gives hard working middle-class families the security they deserve."

Privately, many Democrats concede that repeal of the law would be represent a huge public relations problem for Obama, though one he could overcome if the court issues its opinion in June, as expected.

Republicans appear divided on the results.

Republican strategist Greg Mueller, who works on many conservative causes, said that if the law is upheld, the conservative base will be energized; if the law is declared unconstitutional, it will display Obama's overreach.

"I don't think there is a bad scenario for Republican candidates," he said.

Not all see it that way.

Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa said this past week an Obama victory would be more assured if the court strikes down the individual mandate, as King would like.

"I think then that there is more risk that President Obama will be re-elected because people will think they are protected from this egregious reach into our freedom," King said.

"If the Supreme Court finds it constitutional," he added, "then I believe Barack Obama will not be re-elected because they will understand that they have to vote him out of office to repeal it."

The public's broad respect for the Supreme Court as an institution is also a factor.

"I think a wide swath of the people will say 'if the court says it's kosher, then it's kosher.' I think in many ways that will be the final word," said John Feehery, a former top Republican House leadership aide. "That doesn't mean the controversy is going to go away because this law is so massive and has so many parts that haven't been implemented yet, including the individual mandate."

The court's decision could affect the Republican presidential contest, too.

A court opinion in June would come at the tail end of the GOP primaries and ahead of the Republican National Convention.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania has elevated the health care law to his top campaign issue. He argues he would be best equipped to carry the repeal banner. Front-runner, Mitt Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, signed into law a health overhaul similar to Obama's, with an insurance requirement as part of it.

Romney has said he would seek to repeal the federal health care law, but has stood behind Massachusetts'. He argues these decisions should be left to states.

"Well, that's pretty compelling," Santorum countered sarcastically Wednesday at a rally near the shores of Louisiana's Lake Pontchartrain.

"Why would conservatives, Republicans, take the biggest issue in this race — freedom, and its impact on the economy, on your life, on your economic well-being, on your religious liberty — why would we take that issue and turn it around and give it to Barack Obama instead of using it like a sledge hammer?" he asked.

It's a case that Santorum pledges to take all the way to the floor of the convention, if he somehow manages to accomplish his long-shot goal of denying Romney enough delegates to win the nomination outright.

___

Online:

Health care law: http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/PPAACA.aspx

EDITORS NOTE _ This is part of a weeklong package of stories previewing the Supreme Court's consideration of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law.

View the original article here

Could employers dumping health insurance coverage decrease the deficit?

???initialComments:true! pubdate:03/15/2012 16:47 EDT! commentPeriod:14! commentEndDate:3/29/12 4:47 EDT! currentDate:3/15/12 8:0 EDT! allowComments:true! displayComments:true!Posted by Sarah Kliff at 04:47 PM ET, 03/15/2012 TheWashingtonPost

In the debate over health reform, there’s a lot of crystal ball-gazing over whether employees will continue to offer health insurance, or send their employees to the new health insurance marketplaces where many could purchase subsidized coverage. One concern is that if lots of employers do this, the health reform law’s price tag would skyrocket as more Americans have the federal government footing part of their insurance bill.

Avik Roy notices something interesting in a new CBO report out today, which comes to a different conclusion: Employer-dumping into the exchange could actually reduce the deficit, rather than increase it. That scenario would only play out, however, if employers compensated for dropped coverage by upping their employees’ salaries.

You can see this in this chart, under the Scenario 3, where the CBO modeled a high level of employer dumping:

If employers drop14 million, currently-insured workers into the exchange, the CBO projects that the federal deficit would actually decrease by $13 billion, since those workers could no longer use the current tax deduction for employer-sponsored insurance. Here’s how the CBO explains it:

In this scenario, those extra costs would be almost entirely offset by higher tax revenues stemming from an increase in taxable wages and salaries that would occur as firms reduced their nontaxed payments for employment-based health insurance. That increase in revenues would amount to $351 billion. In addition, revenues from penalties collected from uninsured individuals and especially employers who do not provide minimum health benefits would be higher in this scenario than in the baseline.

The government would have to spend $372 billion for workers who received their coverage through the exchanges, Medicaid and CHIP. But it would also net more in revenue, from newly-taxable income from fees imposed on employers who drop coverage (generally $2,000 per employee). Do the math, and the federal government ends up with $13 billion in deficit reduction.

There is, however, one big caveat to this analysis: It assumes that when employers drop coverage, the money previously spent on insurance will get tacked onto a worker’s paycheck. “So, for example, if your boss is paying you $50,000 a year, and spending $20,000 a year on your health insurance, under the ACA, he’ll drop your health coverage and give you $70,000 in wages,” writes Roy.

If employers cut coverage without a corresponding pay bump, the government wouldn’t see the increase in tax revenue—and that could leave the government in the red.

The Post Most: BusinessMost-viewed stories, videos and galleries int he past two hours

Blog Contributors

Ezra Klein is the editor of Wonkblog and a columnist at the Washington Post, as well as a contributor to MSNBC and Bloomberg. His work focuses on domestic and economic policymaking, as well as the political system that’s constantly screwing it up. He really likes graphs, and is on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook. E-mail him here.

Suzy Khimm covers the budget, economic policy, and financial regulatory reform. Before coming to Washington, she was based in Brazil and Southeast Asia, where she wrote for the Economist, Slate, and the Wall Street Journal Asia. Follow her on Twitter here, and email her here.

Sarah Kliff covers health policy, focusing on Medicare, Medicaid and the health reform law. She tries to fit in some reproductive health and education policy coverage, too, alongside an occasional hockey reference. Her work has appeared in Newsweek, Politico, and the BBC. She is on Twitter and Facebook.

Brad Plumer is a reporter focusing on energy and environmental issues. He was previously an associate editor at The New Republic. Follow him on Twitter. Email him here.

Associated Press 

Associated Press 

Hayley Tsukayama 

Christine Harper 

Joshua Topolsky 

Ezra Klein 

Associated Press 

Associated Press 

Steven Mufson 

David S. Hilzenrath 

::unspecified:: 

Associated Press 

Sarah Kliff 

Ezra Klein 

Brad Plumer 

Hayley Tsukayama 

Hayley Tsukayama 

Eric Pianin 

View the original article here

Restaurant play-area health rules could loom

by Edythe Jensen - Mar. 4, 2012 09:28 PM
The Republic | azcentral.com

A Chandler mother's crusade against unsanitary restaurant playgrounds has prompted proposed changes to Maricopa County's health code.

"This is a giant step in the right direction," said Erin Carr-Jordan, 37, a mother of four with a Ph.D. in developmental psychology.

She has been working with Supervisor Fulton Brock and other county officials on the wording of the potential regulations, which would expand the county's oversight of restaurant-cleanliness inspections to include play areas. They also would require sanitized cleaning of those areas after every shift, detailed cleaning protocols, permanent signs encouraging children's hand washing before meals and immediate closure of the play areas "when vomiting and/or fecal accidents occur."

Woman fighting bacteria banned from McDonald's

But getting those changes into law isn't a sure thing. The approval process takes months, Brock is leaving office at the end of the year and a candidate for another supervisor's seat is president of the Arizona Restaurant Association.

Carr-Jordan is getting support from the county's public-health director, Dr. Robert England.

"It's just common sense. You don't want to facilitate something that's going to make kids' hands filthy dirty right before they handle food," he said. "But we also don't want to do anything that discourages physical activity. For some, this is the best playground equipment available."

England said he hasn't read the proposed health-code changes but would support "reasonable" play-equipment-cleanliness requirements.

The mother's outrage started about a year ago when she took her then-3-year-old son to a Tempe McDonald's. He asked to go on the slide and Carr-Jordan followed him.

"Inside I saw filth and grime coupled with clumps of dirt, matted hair and rotting food ... the entire structure was riddled with swear words and gang signs," she said.

She pulled her children out of the area and notified the manager.

The next day she returned, alone, and said the play area was still dirty.

Over the next month, Carr-Jordan complained several times and photographed the conditions.

"I was so appalled that I spent my own money and hired a lab to run tests," she said.

According to the test report by Legend Technical Services Inc., her samples contained "opportunistic human pathogens" that can cause disease and are found in fecal material, mucus, matted hair and food.

"I was shocked by the results," Carr-Jordan said.

Since then she has traveled across the country testing samples of playground filth and seeking law changes that would mandate cleanliness.

"In every state, in every city, the results indicate the presence of potentially dangerous, opportunistic pathogens, including those that can cause meningitis; sepsis; hair, scalp and skin infections; abscesses ... and more. Some of the strains we found are multiple-drug resistant," she said.

There are no state or federal regulations governing playground cleanliness nor are they regulated in most of the counties and cities she visited in 15 states, Carr-Jordan said. One county in Texas may regulate them, she said, "but to the best of my knowledge, that's the only one."

Today she is meeting with officials in Illinois about what she hopes will become the first state law granting health officials jurisdiction over restaurant play areas.

Bruce Bartholomew, Brock's chief of staff, said the supervisor contacted Carr-Jordan after seeing news reports of her crusade and discovering she is one of his constituents.

"She impressed him with the importance of the issue," he said.

The Maricopa County Board of Health will discuss the proposed health-code changes April 23, Bartholomew said. At that time, board members can authorize the Environmental Services Department to proceed with stakeholder meetings and public participation.

"We hope to have that process completed in time to bring a final ordinance back to the Board of Health at their July 23 meeting," he said.

If the health group recommends approval, the proposal could go to the Board of Supervisors by the end of August. However, delays or lack of a quorum could extend the process for months as the Board of Health meets only four times a year.

During that time, candidate Steve Chucri will be campaigning for a seat on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. Chucri, longtime president and chief executive of the Arizona Restaurant Association, is seeking the District 2 post that will be vacated by Don Stapley, who recently announced he is running for Congress. Campaign-finance records show Chucri raised more than $63,000 in January, and many of his contributors were restaurant owners and suppliers.

Chucri said he has received a copy of the proposed restaurant play-area regulations and will discuss them with association members at the next meeting. The group has not yet taken a position on them, he said.

Sherry Gillespie, government-relations manager for the restaurant association, said the organization would prefer advisory, not mandatory, cleaning standards for play areas.

"Our restaurants do everything in their power to make sure these locations are clean," she said.

View the original article here

Doctors Health Press Supports Study Showing That Diabetes Could Boost the Risk of Hearing Loss

The Doctors Health Press, a publisher of various natural health newsletters, books and reports, including the popular online Doctors Health Press e-Bulletin, is lending its support to a new study showing that diabetes, if not controlled well, boosts the risk of hearing loss.

Boston, MA (PRWEB) February 04, 2012

The Doctors Health Press, a publisher of various natural health newsletters, books and reports, including the popular online Doctors Health Press e-Bulletin, is lending its support to a new study showing that diabetes, if not controlled well, boosts the risk of hearing loss.

As reported in the Doctors Health Press e-Bulletin on Wednesday, February 1, 2012 (http://www.doctorshealthpress.com/diabetes-articles/how-diabetes-could-rob-you-of-your-hearing), when examining women between 60 and 75 years of age, researchers found that those with well-controlled diabetes had better hearing than women with poorly controlled diabetes. They also found far worse hearing in women younger than 60 who have diabetes.

The Doctors Health Press e-Bulletin article reports that this study wanted to see about hearing differences among patients with well-controlled diabetes and poorly controlled diabetes, and those who do not have diabetes. They looked at records for 990 patients between 2000 and 2008. Patients were categorized by gender, age, and whether they had diabetes. For what may be the first time, they studied blood glucose levels and compared them to levels of hearing loss.

Women between 60 and 75 with poorly controlled diabetes had significantly worse hearing than those whose diabetes was well-controlled and the control group. Women under 60 with diabetes, reports Doctors Health Press e-Bulletin, had worse hearing than healthy controls regardless of how well their condition was controlled.

According to Doctors Health Press e-Bulletin, about 26 million Americans have diabetes. Another 34.5 million have some degree of hearing loss. Signs of hearing loss include difficulty hearing background noises or hearing conversations in large groups, as well as regularly needing to turn up the volume on a radio or TV.

(SOURCE: "Study: Diabetes affects hearing loss, especially in women," Henry Ford Health System, Jan. 26, 2012.)

Doctors Health Press e-Bulletin is a daily e-letter providing natural health news with a focus on natural healing through foods, herbs and other breakthrough health alternative treatments. For more information on Doctors Health Press, visit http://www.doctorshealthpress.com.

Victor Marchione, MD is the Chairman of the Doctors Health Press Editorial Board. He is also the editor of The Food Doctor and has released a new video revealing 12 fighting foods to help virtually all of your current health problems. To see the video, visit http://www.doctorshealthpress.com/12-fighting-foods.

###

For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2012/2/prweb9167827.htm

View the original article here

Electronic Health Records Could Improve Care for Type 2 Diabetics

KEY POINTS

* Switching from paper records to electronic records does not adversely affect the care of patients with type 2 diabetes older than 40, according to a new study in Health Services Research.

* Patients older than 40 with type 2 diabetes at a clinic that uses electronic records are more likely to meet blood pressure target levels, refrain from smoking and take aspirin daily than patients at clinics that continue to use paper records.

* Switching to electronic records might not help patients older than 40 with type 2 diabetes to control their cholesterol levels or improve their HbA1c levels.

Newswise — Use of electronic health records shows promise for improving care and outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes, but still has considerable room for improvement, according to a new study in the journal Health Services Research.

With the U.S Department of Health and Human Services currently offering incentives for medical practices to move their records to electronic systems—and Medicare payment penalties to those who don’t convert by 2015—doctors and hospitals are increasingly incorporating these tools into their practices. However, the notion that electronic health records can improve care measurably has been under significant debate, said study co-leader Jeph Herrin, Ph.D., of Yale University.

“What’s unknown is whether moving to an electronic health records system would actually improve health outcomes,” he said. “So far, different studies have shown different results.”

Seeking more evidence, Herrin, co-author David Ballard, M.D., Ph.D., and their colleagues took advantage of two concurrent initiatives at the HealthTexas Provider Network, a northern Texas primary care medical group subsidiary of Baylor Health Care System. The first is a long-term effort made by the group to collect health data on their diabetes patients. The second is the roll out, started in 2006, of an electronic health record system to the Network’s nearly 100 clinics.

Herrin and his colleagues followed 14,051 diabetes patients from 34 group clinics over a four-year period. They looked at optimal diabetes care as a whole as well as individually examining each of five measures of diabetes management: HbA1c (a measurement that indicates average blood sugar control over time), LDL cholesterol, diastolic blood pressure, systolic blood pressure, aspirin prescription and non-smoking status.

They report that over the rollout period, the 29 practices that had the electronic health record system saw 6,376 diabetic patients. Comparing those exposed to the system to those that were not, the researchers found a significant improvement in all of the variables except for HbA1c and LDL cholesterol in the electronic health records group.

Herrin explained that certain features of the electronic health record system might be responsible for the better health measures among patients whose doctors used it. For example, even if patients visited their physician for something unrelated to diabetes—such as a flu shot—the system reminded their doctor to ask questions related to diabetes care. The researchers also noted that part of the increase might be due to better documentation in electronic health records than in paper records.

“This study offers evidence and reassurance that switching to electronic medical records isn’t going to hurt patients and may in fact help them,” Herrin said.

However, despite the significant increase in the number of patients who met some optimal care and outcome standards, Spyros Mezitis, M.D., an endocrinologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, noted that doctors and electronic health records still have a long way to go.

“This study showed mixed results,” he said. “There’s much room for improvement here.”

Mezitis points out measures for HbA1c and LDL cholesterol, two very important elements in diabetes care, did not improve in this study in the electronic health records group. With the extra initial expense, time and effort it takes to set up electronic health records, he added, more research is needed to develop systems that improve all measures of diabetes care.

TERMS OF USE: This story is protected by copyright. When reproducing any material, including interview excerpts, attribution to the Health Behavior News Service, part of the Center for Advancing Health, is required. While the information provided in this news story is from the latest peer-reviewed research, it is not intended to provide medical advice or treatment recommendations. For medical questions or concerns, please consult a health care provider.

# # #

Health Services Research is the official journal of the Academy Health and is published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. on behalf of the Health Research and Educational Trust. For information, contact Jennifer Shaw, HSR Business Manager at (312) 422-2646 or jshaw@aha.org. HSR is available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1475-6773/

Herrin, J. et al. (2012). The effectiveness of implementing an electronic health record on diabetes care and outcomes. Health Services Research, DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01370.x

View the original article here