Independent Study Shows That Health Insurers Will Pay $1.3 Billion in Rebates

NEW YORK, NY--(Marketwire -04/27/12)- Health insurance companies' shares fell Thursday as independent study showed that health insurers will pay $1.3 billion in rebates. Nearly half of that sum is expected to be paid back from four major insurers: United Healthcare Group Inc., WellPoint Inc., Aetna Inc. and Coventry Health Care Inc. according to Goldman Sachs. The Paragon Report examines investing opportunities in the Health Care Plans Industry and provides equity research on WellPoint, Inc. (WLP - News) and Coventry Health Care, Inc. (CVH - News).

Access to full reports can be found at:

www.ParagonReport.com/WLP

www.ParagonReport.com/CVH

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act health insurers must spend 80 percent of premiums from individuals and small businesses, and 85 percent of premiums from large employers on health expenses and quality improvements. If an insurer does not spend enough on health costs it must refund the difference back to the consumer. According to a study published by the Kaiser Family Foundation approximately 31 percent of individual policyholders, or around 3.4 million people, are expected to get rebates.

Paragon Report releases regular market updates on the Health Care Plans Industry so investors can stay ahead of the crowd and make the best investment decisions to maximize their returns. Take a few minutes to register with us free at www.ParagonReport.com and get exclusive access to our numerous stock reports and industry newsletters.

WellPoint is expected to pay out around $94 million on $33.2 billion in eligible premiums. The company announced that first quarter 2012 net income was $856.5 million, or $2.53 per share, including net investment gains of $62.4 million after-tax, or approximately $0.19 per share. Net income in the first quarter of 2011 was $926.6 million, or $2.44 per share, including net investment gains of $35.6 million after-tax, or approximately $0.09 per share.

Coventry Health Care is a diversified national managed healthcare company based in Bethesda, Maryland. The Company announced that they will release first quarter 2012 financial results on Friday, April 27, 2012. Allen F. Wise, Chief executive officer, will be hosting a conference call at 8:30 a.m. ET on that day.

Paragon Report provides Market Research focused on equities that offer growth opportunities, value, and strong potential return. We strive to provide the most up-to-date market activities. We constantly create research reports and newsletters for our members. The Paragon Report has not been compensated by any of the above-mentioned companies. We act as independent research portal and are aware that all investment entails inherent risks. Please view the full disclaimer at:
www.ParagonReport.com/disclaimer

View the original article here

Health insurers to pay $1.3 billion in rebates: study

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Health insurers will pay $1.3 billion in rebates to consumers and employers this year under a provision of President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law that penalizes plans that devote too little of their premium revenues to health services, an independent study showed on Thursday.

The study, published by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, said the data illustrated some of the tangible benefits that consumers and employers could expect from the embattled 2010 law if it survives two major legal and political election-year challenges.

The rebates, which are due by August 1, stem from premiums paid in 2011 on plans representing nearly 16 million beneficiaries. But Kaiser, a nonprofit healthcare research group, said most of the money is expected to go to employers rather than consumers.

The healthcare law, Obama's signature domestic policy achievement, has proved unpopular with many voters and could be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court by the end of June or repealed next year if Republicans gain control of the Congress and White House in the November elections.

If the law were overturned or repealed, insurers would no longer be required to comply with the rebate provision.

"While the health reform law as a whole continues to divide the American public, there are tangible changes taking place that benefit consumers," said Kaiser President Drew Altman.

"Greater regulatory scrutiny of private insurance is improving value and helping to get excess costs out of the system," he added.

Under the law, called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, health insurers must spend at least 80 percent of premium revenues on health expenses and quality improvements. The rule is intended to limit what insurers devote to marketing, administration and profits.

Kaiser found that some of the biggest rebate payouts are expected in states, including Texas and Florida, where the law faces some of its stiffest opposition from Republican politicians and other conservatives.

The study's overall projection parallels separate findings by investment bank Goldman Sachs, which estimated this week that the $850 billion health insurance industry would pay out about $1.2 billion in rebates on 2011 premiums.

Goldman said just over half that sum - $600 million to $650 million - can be expected from four major health insurers: United Healthcare Group Inc, WellPoint Inc, Aetna Inc and Coventry Health Care Inc.

The bank said its forecast was lower than the $1.4 billion initially predicted by the administration, partly because the government adopted a more industry-friendly policy than anticipated but also because of proactive pricing by insurers.

"The latter dynamic has arguably contributed to the recent increase in industry price competition," Goldman said.

Kaiser also found that 31 percent of consumers in the individual insurance market could expect to receive a total of $426 million in rebates, for an average of $127 per person.

About 20 percent of the insurance industry's market for large employers could receive $541 million, while more than one-quarter of the small group market that serves small businesses could look forward to rebates totaling $377 million.

A main source of public dislike for healthcare law is a provision that requires most Americans to buy private health insurance by 2014 as part of a plan to extend health coverage to more than 32 million people who are uninsured.

Reform advocates insist that much of the public's dislike for the law stems from a lack of knowledge about the advantages it offers to consumers and others.

(Editing by Mohammad Zargham)

View the original article here

Health Insurance Premiums Will Surpass Median Household Income in 2033: Study

MONDAY, March 12 (HealthDay News) -- If current trends continue, health insurance premiums will surpass the median U.S. household income in 2033, a new study says.

Using data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and the U.S. Census Bureau, researchers calculated the premiums paid by Americans from 2000 to 2009 and compared them to incomes. They found that insurance premiums rose 8 percent from 2000 to 2009, while household incomes rose only about 2 percent.

If those same rates continue during the next two decades, the average cost of a family health-insurance premium will hit half of median household income by 2021 and surpass it by 2033, the study found.

The median household income was $49,800 in 2009.

The study is published in the March/April issue of the Annals of Family Medicine.

The calculations in the study include all premium costs -- including the portion paid by the employer and the employee. What the projections don't include are out-of-pocket costs, such as co-pays for treatments and drugs.

When co-pays are factored in, the situation looks even worse, said co-lead study author Dr. Richard Young, director of research at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas.

According to their projections, the employee portion of the premium plus out-of-pocket costs -- not including what the employer has to shell out -- will equal about half of family income by 2031.

Despite the worrisome trend, these latest numbers are slightly brighter than the prior projections, done in 2005, which estimated that premiums would surpass household income in 2025.

Two events have come into play that have curtailed spending somewhat, Young said. In the coming years, the reforms that will come as a result of the 2010 Affordable Care Act will help to reign in the cost trajectory, while the recent recession has also led more families to spend less on health care.

Yet neither is enough to make more than a minor dent in the looming issue, Young said.

"Even under optimal assumptions about how much the Affordable Care Act will affect the cost of health care, it's still growing faster than the overall economy, meaning the cost of health related to everything else in the economy is getting worse and worse," Young said. "If you look at what is being paid by employers for their employees, for an average-wage person, that cost is a huge percentage of their income. And that's not even getting into the cost of Medicare and Medicaid on the tax side."

Bob Phillips, director of the Robert Graham Center, a division of the American Academy of Family Physicians that researches health care to help inform policy-making, said the trend in increasing health-care costs has gone on for long enough that such projections are "realistic."

"This trend is real, and along the way we are going to be dropping more and more people as a lot of people are unable to afford health insurance," Phillips said.

As patients who get cancer or some other expensive illness run up bills they can't pay, more will end up in bankruptcy.

"This is going to leave a lot of working-class families destitute," Phillips said. "It adds to the anxiety of what you're going through and leads a lot of people to make choices that are not the right ones for their health, to forgo treatment or medications, or to pretend they don't have that illness. It's fair to say it's killing lots of people. Even after they've passed on it leaves the family holding incredible costs that they can't pay."

The solutions, Young and Phillips agreed, will not be easy. Tweaking payment systems isn't enough, Young said. Instead, health professionals, policy makers and U.S. health-care consumers have to be willing to accept more significant, structural changes.

"We have to decide: What is health care? What should be covered? What should we provide?" Young said. "Unless we're willing to talk about some difficult realities, there is nothing historically that has shown that any of these financing tweaks has made any substantive difference. If we want to avoid crushing our children and grandchildren with health-care-related debt, then we need to start having some deeper discussions."

One example cited in the paper: Medicare recently added coverage of the prostate cancer drug Provenge (sipuleucel-T), which will cost an estimated $93,000 for treatment to increase life expectancy by four months.

Young also believes in a greater reliance on family physicians and other primary-care doctors instead of more costly specialists, and in being more prudent in what tests are ordered.

Although much of the debate over health care has focused on who is paying for it -- single payer, private insurance or public insurance -- Young said that an even more fundamental discussion has to take place about what sort of health care should be provided, regardless of who is paying.

"Who writes the checks isn't the problem," he said. "The problem is a deeper sense of what the health care system should be and what kinds of things doctors should treat."

More information

The Kaiser Family Foundation has more on trends in health-care costs.

View the original article here

Health Insurance Premiums Will Surpass Median Household Income in 2033: Study

By Jenifer Goodwin
HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, March 12 (HealthDay News) -- If current trends continue, health insurance premiums will surpass the median U.S. household income in 2033, a new study says.

Using data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and the U.S. Census Bureau, researchers calculated the premiums paid by Americans from 2000 to 2009 and compared them to incomes. They found that insurance premiums rose 8 percent from 2000 to 2009, while household incomes rose only about 2 percent.

If those same rates continue during the next two decades, the average cost of a family health-insurance premium will hit half of median household income by 2021 and surpass it by 2033, the study found.

The median household income was $49,800 in 2009.

The study is published in the March/April issue of the Annals of Family Medicine.

The calculations in the study include all premium costs -- including the portion paid by the employer and the employee. What the projections don't include are out-of-pocket costs, such as co-pays for treatments and drugs.

When co-pays are factored in, the situation looks even worse, said co-lead study author Dr. Richard Young, director of research at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas.

According to their projections, the employee portion of the premium plus out-of-pocket costs -- not including what the employer has to shell out -- will equal about half of family income by 2031.

Despite the worrisome trend, these latest numbers are slightly brighter than the prior projections, done in 2005, which estimated that premiums would surpass household income in 2025.

Two events have come into play that have curtailed spending somewhat, Young said. In the coming years, the reforms that will come as a result of the 2010 Affordable Care Act will help to reign in the cost trajectory, while the recent recession has also led more families to spend less on health care.

Yet neither is enough to make more than a minor dent in the looming issue, Young said.

"Even under optimal assumptions about how much the Affordable Care Act will affect the cost of health care, it's still growing faster than the overall economy, meaning the cost of health related to everything else in the economy is getting worse and worse," Young said. "If you look at what is being paid by employers for their employees, for an average-wage person, that cost is a huge percentage of their income. And that's not even getting into the cost of Medicare and Medicaid on the tax side."

Bob Phillips, director of the Robert Graham Center, a division of the American Academy of Family Physicians that researches health care to help inform policy-making, said the trend in increasing health-care costs has gone on for long enough that such projections are "realistic."

"This trend is real, and along the way we are going to be dropping more and more people as a lot of people are unable to afford health insurance," Phillips said.

As patients who get cancer or some other expensive illness run up bills they can't pay, more will end up in bankruptcy.

"This is going to leave a lot of working-class families destitute," Phillips said. "It adds to the anxiety of what you're going through and leads a lot of people to make choices that are not the right ones for their health, to forgo treatment or medications, or to pretend they don't have that illness. It's fair to say it's killing lots of people. Even after they've passed on it leaves the family holding incredible costs that they can't pay."

The solutions, Young and Phillips agreed, will not be easy. Tweaking payment systems isn't enough, Young said. Instead, health professionals, policy makers and U.S. health-care consumers have to be willing to accept more significant, structural changes.

"We have to decide: What is health care? What should be covered? What should we provide?" Young said. "Unless we're willing to talk about some difficult realities, there is nothing historically that has shown that any of these financing tweaks has made any substantive difference. If we want to avoid crushing our children and grandchildren with health-care-related debt, then we need to start having some deeper discussions."

One example cited in the paper: Medicare recently added coverage of the prostate cancer drug Provenge (sipuleucel-T), which will cost an estimated $93,000 for treatment to increase life expectancy by four months.

Young also believes in a greater reliance on family physicians and other primary-care doctors instead of more costly specialists, and in being more prudent in what tests are ordered.

Although much of the debate over health care has focused on who is paying for it -- single payer, private insurance or public insurance -- Young said that an even more fundamental discussion has to take place about what sort of health care should be provided, regardless of who is paying.

"Who writes the checks isn't the problem," he said. "The problem is a deeper sense of what the health care system should be and what kinds of things doctors should treat."

Copyright © 2012 HealthDay. All rights reserved. SOURCES: Richard Young, M.D., director, research, John Peter Smith Hospital, Fort Worth, Texas; Robert Phillips Jr., M.D., MSPH, director, Robert Graham Center, Washington, D.C.; March/April 2012 Annals of Family Medicine

View the original article here

NY Assembly calls for fracking health impact study

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Environmental and health groups are praising the New York State Assembly for including an independent health impact study of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in its budget proposal on Monday.

Numerous physicians, health organizations and environmental groups have criticized the Department of Environmental Conservation for not including a comprehensive health impact study in its environmental review of gas drilling using high-volume hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

Gas drilling in New York's part of the Marcellus Shale has been on hold since the DEC review began in 2008. Gov. Andrew Cuomo and DEC Commissioner Joe Martens have said the review and new regulations are expected to be completed within a few months.

The Assembly bill would set aside $100,000 for a study by a school of public health within the state university system following a model recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Before the study, the school would have to prepare a document outlining its plans, and the public would have the opportunity to comment and suggest changes.

The study would include research into other states' experiences with fracking; estimated costs of any health impacts to the state, insurers, employers and the health care system; and a long-term plan for monitoring and mitigating health impacts.

"This study will go a long way to answer the many questions New Yorkers have about what fracking would mean for their health if this goes forward," Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton, who proposed the study, said in a prepared statement. Lifton is a Democrat from Ithaca.

There is no companion bill in the Senate.

The Medical Society of the State of New York has called for a moratorium on natural gas extraction using hydraulic fracturing until scientific information on health impacts is available. Fracking stimulates gas production by injecting a well with millions of gallons of chemically treated water at high pressure to fracture surrounding shale, releasing trapped gas. There are concerns about health impacts of chemicals used in the process, handling of large volumes of highly contaminated wastewater, air pollution, and other issues.

"We have county medical societies throughout upstate and downstate that are very concerned that the health impacts have not been studied," said Pat Clancy, the medical society's vice president for public health and education.

In October, 250 physicians and medical professionals signed a letter to Cuomo calling for a comprehensive public health impact assessment.

"DEC has fully considered the impact high-volume hydraulic fracturing could potentially have on public health and our communities if it goes forward in New York," the environmental agency said in a statement. The agency said it looked at ways the public could be exposed to hazards from gas drilling and proposed guidelines and regulations to prevent that exposure.

"DEC's approach is to address the potential causes of exposure to prevent them from happening in New York state. If there are no pathways of exposure in the first place, adverse health impacts cannot occur."

A formal health impact assessment such as the one described in the Assembly bill would be far more extensive and detailed than what DEC has done. In comments to DEC on its environmental review, the Natural Resources Defense Council said DEC looked at some health issues but ignored others.

NRDC noted that there are numerous reports of health complaints among people who live near natural gas drilling and fracking operations in other states and some have been investigated by researchers or governmental agencies. Reported health issues include eye irritation, dizziness, nasal and throat irritation, respiratory symptoms, nausea, fatigue, headaches, anxiety and other ailments.

"New York State has to date failed to take a hard look at the health impacts of fracking," said Katherine Nadeau of NRDC. "By calling for an independent study of fracking's health impacts, the Assembly is leading the charge to provide state leaders with the science necessary to make informed decisions."

View the original article here

Pink Slime, New Study Compound Red Meat Industry's Problems: New Health Risks on Consumption?

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Health Insurance Premiums Will Surpass Median Household Income in 2033: Study

MONDAY, March 12 (HealthDay News) -- If current trends continue, health insurance premiums will surpass the median U.S. household income in 2033, a new study says.

Using data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and the U.S. Census Bureau, researchers calculated the premiums paid by Americans from 2000 to 2009 and compared them to incomes. They found that insurance premiums rose 8 percent from 2000 to 2009, while household incomes rose only about 2 percent.

If those same rates continue during the next two decades, the average cost of a family health-insurance premium will hit half of median household income by 2021 and surpass it by 2033, the study found.

The median household income was $49,800 in 2009.

The study is published in the March/April issue of the Annals of Family Medicine.

The calculations in the study include all premium costs -- including the portion paid by the employer and the employee. What the projections don't include are out-of-pocket costs, such as co-pays for treatments and drugs.

When co-pays are factored in, the situation looks even worse, said co-lead study author Dr. Richard Young, director of research at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas.

According to their projections, the employee portion of the premium plus out-of-pocket costs -- not including what the employer has to shell out -- will equal about half of family income by 2031.

Despite the worrisome trend, these latest numbers are slightly brighter than the prior projections, done in 2005, which estimated that premiums would surpass household income in 2025.

Two events have come into play that have curtailed spending somewhat, Young said. In the coming years, the reforms that will come as a result of the 2010 Affordable Care Act will help to reign in the cost trajectory, while the recent recession has also led more families to spend less on health care.

Yet neither is enough to make more than a minor dent in the looming issue, Young said.

"Even under optimal assumptions about how much the Affordable Care Act will affect the cost of health care, it's still growing faster than the overall economy, meaning the cost of health related to everything else in the economy is getting worse and worse," Young said. "If you look at what is being paid by employers for their employees, for an average-wage person, that cost is a huge percentage of their income. And that's not even getting into the cost of Medicare and Medicaid on the tax side."

Bob Phillips, director of the Robert Graham Center, a division of the American Academy of Family Physicians that researches health care to help inform policy-making, said the trend in increasing health-care costs has gone on for long enough that such projections are "realistic."

"This trend is real, and along the way we are going to be dropping more and more people as a lot of people are unable to afford health insurance," Phillips said.

As patients who get cancer or some other expensive illness run up bills they can't pay, more will end up in bankruptcy.

"This is going to leave a lot of working-class families destitute," Phillips said. "It adds to the anxiety of what you're going through and leads a lot of people to make choices that are not the right ones for their health, to forgo treatment or medications, or to pretend they don't have that illness. It's fair to say it's killing lots of people. Even after they've passed on it leaves the family holding incredible costs that they can't pay."

The solutions, Young and Phillips agreed, will not be easy. Tweaking payment systems isn't enough, Young said. Instead, health professionals, policy makers and U.S. health-care consumers have to be willing to accept more significant, structural changes.

"We have to decide: What is health care? What should be covered? What should we provide?" Young said. "Unless we're willing to talk about some difficult realities, there is nothing historically that has shown that any of these financing tweaks has made any substantive difference. If we want to avoid crushing our children and grandchildren with health-care-related debt, then we need to start having some deeper discussions."

One example cited in the paper: Medicare recently added coverage of the prostate cancer drug Provenge (sipuleucel-T), which will cost an estimated $93,000 for treatment to increase life expectancy by four months.

Young also believes in a greater reliance on family physicians and other primary-care doctors instead of more costly specialists, and in being more prudent in what tests are ordered.

Although much of the debate over health care has focused on who is paying for it -- single payer, private insurance or public insurance -- Young said that an even more fundamental discussion has to take place about what sort of health care should be provided, regardless of who is paying.

"Who writes the checks isn't the problem," he said. "The problem is a deeper sense of what the health care system should be and what kinds of things doctors should treat."

More information

The Kaiser Family Foundation has more on trends in health-care costs.

View the original article here

New Study: Expanding Medicaid Reduces Access to Health Care

Ted Kennedy helped to create the S-CHIP program. Image via Wikipedia

Chapin White of the Center for Studying Health System Change has published an important new paper in Health Services Research, a journal of health economics, which suggests that a critical part of the Affordable Care Act—its expansion of Medicaid coverage to 16 million more Americans—may actually reduce those individuals’ access to health care.

White’s report comes on the heels of numerous studies that show that patients on Medicaid, our national government-run health-care program for the poor, do far worse on health outcomes than do those on private insurance, and in some cases, worse than those with no insurance at all. (For an extremely deep dive into these studies, see my three-part series on the topic.)

Medicaid underpays doctors for their expenses

Why does this occur? The main reason is that Medicaid underpays doctors and hospitals to care for Medicaid beneficiaries. Medicaid’s reimbursement rates are around half of those paid by private insurers. In many cases, Medicaid pays doctors less than it costs to care for Medicaid patients, meaning that doctors face the choice of caring for the poor, and going broke, or shutting their doors to Medicaid patients. One survey found that internists were 8.5 times as likely to accept no Medicaid patients at all, relative to those with private insurance. Another found that two-thirds of kids on Medicaid were denied a doctor’s appointment for a serious condition, relatively to only 11 percent for the privately-insured.

Believe it or not, physicians even do better caring for the uninsured than they do caring for Medicaid patients. Two MIT economists, Jonathan Gruber and David Rodriguez, have found that three-quarters of physicians receive lower fees for serving Medicaid patients than they do for the uninsured, because many people without health insurance are still able to pay out-of-pocket for routine health expenses. (Ironically, Gruber was the intellectual father of Obamacare, and remains an outspoken advocate of the law.)

Overall, Medicaid expansions do not lead to more doctor visits

Chapin White looked into this problem by examining the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or S-CHIP, which was created by Congress in 1997 as a way of expanding Medicaid to lower-income children who were above the income thresholds of traditional Medicaid. He found that CHIP was “not associated with any change in the aggregate quantity of physician services [consumed],” and concluded that “coverage expansions…do not necessarily increase physician utilization.”

The main reason for this non-effect, he surmised, was due to the fact that CHIP paid physicians less for their time and expenses. “Increasing Medicaid fees,” he wrote, “is…clearly related to a reduction in non-[cost-sharing]-related access problems among both low- and high-income children.”

White compared children in states which had undergone large CHIP expansions, and compared them to children in states with smaller expansions. He also examined increases versus decreases in Medicaid physician fees. He found, surprisingly, that physician utilization was lower in the states with the largest CHIP expansions, and that expansions of CHIP led many children to lose private insurance as the government program crowded out the private sector. “Supply-side effects of CHIP—either the use of managed care tools or the relatively low reimbursement rates, or both—may have limited the utilization effect of the coverage expansion,” White concluded.

PPACA’s Medicaid expansion could worsen physician access

As the below table shows, 11 percent of children in the lowest income quartile, who were uninsured, gained insurance; however, 13 percent of children in that quartile who had private insurance lost it, while Medicaid/CHIP expanded by 23 percent of children. In other words, for every two children who gained Medicaid coverage, one lost private coverage.

In the third-lowest and second-lowest quartiles, the proportion of those gaining Medicaid coverage and those losing private coverage were almost identical, suggesting that Medicaid was replacing private coverage in the majority of cases. Those individuals who are subject to the replacement will have poorer access to health care, because Medicaid pays less than private insurance. It is this cohort, represented especially by White’s third-lowest quartile, that is subject to Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid.

White concludes: “In general, these findings argue strongly against the idea that the effect of expanding utilization can be deduced simply from the reduction in patient cost sharing…Coverage expansions by themselves do not necessarily spur increases or decreases in overall utilization.”

Put more simply, health insurance is not the same thing as health care.

(This article originally appeared in The Atlantic, where I am guest blogging for Megan McArdle for two weeks.)

Follow Avik on Twitter at @aviksaroy.

View the original article here

Health Care Benefits Changes on the Horizon, Towers Watson/National Business Group on Health Study Finds

Thu, Mar 8, 2012, 7:00 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Area health study shows suicide prevention, substance abuse concerns

var archivedState=0;

The results of a study of health needs in nine Boston suburban communities underscore the demand for a deeper look at suicide prevention for teenagers, and at transportation options for senior citizens to get to doctor appointments, stores, and events.

The new study by Community Health Network Area 18 also urges more scrutiny on the number of emergency room visits by teens for substance abuse. The report covers Brookline, Dedham, Dover, Needham, Newton, Waltham, Wellesley, Weston, and Westwood.

There will be a public forum about the report’s findings tomorrow from 2 to 4 p.m. at the Wellesley Free Library.

Copies of the report will be available at the forum, and it will be available online at http://www.chna18.org/.

The study surveyed health care providers in the communities, and used statistics from government reports on hospitals and other health agencies. The study points out that 100 percent of the survey results came from health care workers who identified themselves as white and English-speaking.

“This is largely reflective of the composition of the community health workforce, which would ideally be more representative of the populations served,’’ says the study. “It also addresses the need for more outreach to minority providers in Phase 2 of this project.’’

Judy Fallows, cochairwoman of Area 18, said the providers in the study served residents who are nonwhite and speak languages other than English.

Fallows said that the second phase of the study would include interviewing residents in addition to more providers, and would be more focused on diversity.

“We should have been able to do some more on that,’’ said Fallows. “The intention is definitely to include those voices and bring those voices to the table. Over the course of the next year, we’ve got a list of people, now, that we want to talk to.’’

Fallows could not say how much the report cost. She said funds came from hospitals as part of the benefits they provide to their communities.

In general, while some concerns stood out, cities and towns in Area 18 fared well, beating state averages when it came to air quality, incidents of infectious and chronic diseases, smoking rates, and adult obesity. However, the study found that certain mental health issues call for a deeper look.

Waltham raised a flag in connection with suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts among high school students. Fourteen percent of the district’s students acknowledged “seriously considering’’ suicide in 2010, and 15 percent acknowledged an attempt, compared with state averages of 14 percent and 7 percent, respectively.

Marie DeSisto, director of nurses in the city’s school district, said the suicide-related numbers were identified in Waltham two years ago, and the district has been working with students, parents, and local mental health care providers to address the problem.

“The staff, as a whole, developed a what-to-do guide if they are concerned about a student’s safety or threatening remarks,’’ DeSisto said. “We have never had a suicide in the time I’ve been here. We have a very strong protective factor that I know is unique to Waltham.’’

Superintendent Susan Nicholson pointed out that the study found students feel connected to teachers and other adults at the high school.

“Certainly, we’re concerned about any student’s thoughts about suicide, but we did take some comfort that our students, by and large, feel very much connected to at least one adult at Waltham High School,’’ she said.

The Area 18 study also showed that, overall, hospitalizations for alcohol and substance abuse were lower than the state average in almost every community. Dedham was above the average state levels, and Waltham and Westwood were about the same as the state average.

But several communities exceeded state averages for the number of youths 19 or younger who went to emergency rooms for drinking or drug-related reasons.

Brookline, Newton, Waltham, and Wellesley all came in above the Massachusetts average in this category. The study called for a deeper look at why.

In Newton, Dori Zaleznik, commissioner of health and human services, said that the report “flies in the face’’ of Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System statistics that the city has logged with the federal Centers for Disease Control.

“The data we have wouldn’t suggest more reporting to hospitals’’ than the state average, Zaleznik said. “That’s not to say it isn’t happening. It is interesting, and we are interested in looking at everything, so I’d like to see the data in their report.’’

Lloyd Gellineau, human services coordinator in Brookline, suggested the study results had to do with a successful effort on the part of parents, teachers, and police in the community.

“Our numbers for alcohol use are down,’’ Gellineau said. “But that doesn’t necessarily reflect that ER visits will go down, too.’’

The town, said Gellineau is working hard to raise awareness of underage consumption and drug use. More awareness, he said, means more reporting and more young people being brought to hospitals for treatment when there is a problem.

The study also found that some residents in the area face problems associated with what they described to be a lack of transportation.

Despite public options, such as the MBTA’s the Ride service, seniors (but also younger people) reported having trouble finding ways to get to medical appointments, stores, and social opportunities.

In Needham, Emily Carroll, the public health program coordinator, said transportation was a key issue for elders.

“We do have the local Needham Council on Aging, and they do offer transportation to individuals 55 and over,’’ Carroll said, but she added that expansion of transportation resources would take more money. “I think we need to ramp up local transportation to the doctors and to grocery stores, and probably the only way we’ll be able to do that is if we can apply for grants.’’

Having the report in hand means more data to use in applying for funds, Carroll said.

Similarly, Waltham could be a candidate for funding during the second phase of the Area 18 project, when the network develops how to distribute what have typically been small grants administrated by its officials.

“This report makes it much more possible for the CHNA to direct those funds to areas of most need and also where it can make a difference,’’ said Fallows.

Other risks highlighted in the study included youth obesity in some communities at rates higher than Massachusetts as a whole, social pressures and stress related to unemployment and finances, and fall-related deaths among senior citizens.

Community Health Network Area 18 intends to develop a three- to five-year plan to address these and other issues raised by its report, Fallows said.

© Copyright 2012 Globe Newspaper Company.

View the original article here

Health Law Would Not Implode Without Mandate, RAND Study Finds

If the Supreme Court knocked out the health care reform law’s individual mandate, but preserved everything else, the sky would not fall, according to a new analysis from RAND Health.

The study, published on Thursday, looked at the effects of enrollment and premium increases in a universe in which health care reform stayed on the books without the controversial requirement that everyone have health insurance or pay a fine. In briefs before the Supreme Court, the Obama administration is arguing that the mandate is the key piece of a larger regulatory structure that  expands coverage without causing premiums to skyrocket.

The experiences of states that have tried insurance reforms without a mandate bear out this argument, and two prior studies of the federal law concluded that prices would go way up and enrollment way down without a requirement to buy insurance.

The argument for the mandate--originally made by conservatives during 1990s-era efforts at health care reform--is that without it, too many younger, healthier people will gamble on going without health insurance, driving up costs as only those with a greater immediate need for insurance buy it.

The RAND report agrees with those other analyses that fewer people would have health insurance without the mandate—87 percent of the non-elderly population versus 91 percent with a requirement. And it also concludes that insurance premiums would increase.

But by looking at the actual premiums new enrollees would pay, RAND finds that prices for most individuals would rise by only 2.4 percent, compared to the 10 percent or higher average premiums calculated by the prior studies. That could be a difference between what some critics have called a “death spiral” of adverse selection and the sort of change that would keep insurance relatively affordable for those who choose to buy it.

The RAND report did not, however, conclude that health care reform without a mandate would be a big bargain for the government. Because more people who bought insurance without a mandate would be old and sick, the government’s bill for tax credits to help middle-income Americans afford their premiums would not go down by very much. If Congress made no other policy changes, the cost would be $109 billion with a mandate versus $99 billion without—a difference in per-person cost of $7,468 versus $3,659.

According to RAND’s Christine Eibner, the report shows that the mandate could probably be severed from the rest of the law without causing calamitous results. But that doesn’t necessarily make it a good idea.

“That depends on your policy goals,” she said.

View the original article here

Popular Doctors Health Press e-Bulletin Supports Study that Frying Foods in Certain Oils has No Negative Health Effects

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 study showing that fried foods may not be bad for the heart, depending on which type of oil is used.

Boston, MA (PRWEB) February 05, 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 study showing that fried foods may not be bad for the heart, depending on which type of oil is used.

As reported in the Doctors Health Press e-Bulletin on Monday, January 30, 2012 (http://www.doctorshealthpress.com/food-and-nutrition-articles/is-there-such-a-thing-as-healthy-fried-foods), Spanish researchers have determined that cooking in olive or sunflower oil is not linked to heart disease or premature death.

Doctors Health Press e-Bulletin reports that, for their study, the researchers examined the cooking habits and health of nearly 41,000 adults, aged 29 to 69. None of the participants had heart disease at the start of the study, which lasted 11 years. The participants were divided into four groups depending on how much fried food they consumed.

The researchers found that there were 606 heart-disease-related events and 1,134 deaths during the study follow-up period, Doctors Health Press e-Bulletin. They found no association between the large amounts of fried foods eaten and the risk of heart disease or death.

According to Doctors Health Press e-Bulletin, in Spain, olive and sunflower oil are used for cooking, so the researchers’ results are based on these preferences. They caution that results taken in other countries may differ if the same types of oil are not used. Food fried in a solid oil like butter and/or re-used oils such as those commonly found in fast food restaurants have a different effect on the nutritional value of a particular food. This is because the food will absorb more oil and increase the calories of the food. It is also true that frying in saturated fat is less healthy than using monounsaturated fats like olive oil.

(SOURCE: Guallar-Castillon, P., et al., "Consumption of fried foods and risk of coronary heart disease: Spanish cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study," BMJ, Jan. 23, 2012; 344: e363.)

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 the Doctors Health Press, visit http://www.doctorshealthpress.com.

David Juan, MD, is the editor of The Vitamin Doctor newsletter that reveals some of the inside facts, including potential hazards, of today's popular world of vitamins and supplements. The Vitamin Doctor has released a new video revealing the foods that can have negative consequences when mixed with popular supplements. To see the video, visit http://www.doctorshealthpress.com/foods-never-to-mix.

# # #

For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2012/2/prweb9167835.htm

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

Kids' health predicts parents' future heart disease: study

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - When children have high cholesterol or blood pressure, their parents may have increased risks of diabetes and heart disease down the road, a new study finds.

The study, of 519 Ohio families, found that a 12-year-old's weight, cholesterol and blood pressure helped predict the odds of a parent developing heart disease, high blood pressure or diabetes over the next three decades.

Researchers say the findings suggest that screening kids could have the "bonus" of spotting at-risk parents.

"Pediatric risk factors -- cholesterol, triglycerides, high blood pressure -- identified families where parents were at increased risk," said Dr. Charles J. Glueck of Jewish Hospital of Cincinnati, one of the researchers on the study.

One reason that's important, he told Reuters Health, is that many parents may not get check-ups themselves, but will regularly take their kids to the doctor.

However, not everyone agrees that children should have numerous screening tests.

It's standard for children to have their weight and blood pressure measured at "well-child" visits to the pediatrician. But only recently did experts start recommending cholesterol checks.

In November, the U.S. National Institutes of Health issued new guidelines saying children should have their cholesterol measured between the ages of 9 and 11, and again between the ages of 17 and 21. The American Academy of Pediatrics also endorsed the recommendation.

That was a shift from what experts had traditionally recommended -- namely, screening cholesterol only in certain at-risk kids, like those with diabetes or a family history of early heart disease.

And some critics questioned the new guidelines, pointing out that there's no hard data showing that screening kids' cholesterol helps their heart health in the long run.

In 2007, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) -- an expert panel with federal support -- said there was "insufficient" evidence to recommend for or against routine cholesterol tests for children and teenagers.

"There is still a lot of debate going on," Glueck said.

But he thinks the current study, plus another recent analysis of the same group, give some needed information. "Our findings provide some hard data: If you know children's risk factors, what does that tell you? It tells you a lot," Glueck said.

HEART DISEASE, STROKE, DIABETES

The study, reported in the Journal of Pediatrics, included 852 school students who, at an average age of 12, had their cholesterol, blood pressure, triglycerides and weight measured. They were reassessed 26 years later -- as were their parents, who were 66 years old, on average.

In nearly half of the families -- 47 percent -- a parent had suffered a heart attack, stroke or needed a procedure to clear blocked heart arteries by the end of the study period. In 37 percent, a parent had developed diabetes.

Overall, Glueck's team found, parents were about twice as likely to suffer early heart disease or stroke (age 60 or younger) when their child had had high blood pressure at age 12.

Parents' odds of cardiovascular problems at any age were also higher when their child had had high levels of "bad" LDL cholesterol or triglycerides.

And when children were overweight, their parents' odds of developing diabetes or high blood pressure doubled.

In an earlier study, Glueck's team had found that childhood test results also predicted the kids' own risks of developing heart problems, diabetes and high blood pressure by their late-30s.

All of that suggests that childhood screenings can help predict future risks -- in kids and parents. But there is no hard evidence that screening children actually cuts their odds of diabetes or cardiovascular disease in the long run.

STUDY UNLIKELY

To pin that down, Glueck noted, researchers would have to follow a large group of screened children for decades into adulthood, and compare them to a group who'd been randomly assigned to forgo screening as kids.

"It's very unlikely a study like that would ever be done," Glueck said.

There's also a question of expense, since the cost of screening all children for high cholesterol adds up, for an uncertain benefit. And if a child were to be put on a cholesterol-lowering statin, no one is sure what the potential side effects of early and long-term use might be.

That's one reason the USPSTF did not come down on the side of universal screening.

According to Glueck, most children with high cholesterol could be treated with a healthier diet. It's estimated that about 15 to 20 children out of every 300 U.S. kids may have high cholesterol that's related to diet and lifestyle.

A smaller proportion -- about one in every 300 to 500 children -- have an inherited form of high cholesterol called familial hypercholesterolemia. That causes high LDL levels starting early in life, and often leads to heart disease by the time a person is in his 40s or 50s.

Those kids may be placed on statins.

SOURCE: http://bit.ly/xAS18e Journal of Pediatrics, online January 12, 2012.

View the original article here