Tag Archives: health care

How Will We Know If Obamacare Is a Success?

Mother Jones

Will Obamacare be a success? Ross Douthat thinks we should all lay down some firm guidelines and hold ourselves to them. Here are his:

For my own part, I’ll lay down this marker for the future: If, in 2023, the uninsured rate is where the C.B.O. currently projects or lower, health inflation’s five-year average is running below the post-World War II norm, and the trend in the age-adjusted mortality rate shows a positive alteration starting right about now, I will write a post (or send out a Singularity-wide transmission, maybe) entitled “I Was Wrong About Obamacare” — or, if he prefers, just “Ezra Klein Was Right.”

Let’s take these one by one. I’d say a reduction in the uninsured of 25 million is a pretty good metric. If, by 2023, the number is substantially below that, it would be a big hit to the law’s success. Getting people covered, after all, has always been the law’s primary goal. What’s more, I’d be surprised if more states don’t expand Medicaid and get more aggressive about setting up their own exchanges by 2023. At some point, after all, Republican hysteria about Obamacare just has to burn out. (Doesn’t it?)

On health inflation, I think running below the post-WWII average is a pretty aggressive standard. That would require health care inflation of about 1 percent above overall inflation. If we manage to keep it to around 2 percent, I’d call that a reasonable result.

But my biggest issue is with the age-adjusted mortality rate. I know this is a widely popular metric to point to on both left and right, but I think it’s a terrible one. Obamacare exclusively affects those under 65, and mortality just isn’t that high in this age group. Reduced mortality is a tiny signal buried in a huge amount of noise, and I very much doubt that we’ll see any kind of clear inflection point over the next few years.

So what to replace it with? I’m less sure about that. Maybe the TIE guys would like to weigh in. But this is a longtime hobbyhorse of mine. Medical care does people a ton of good even if it doesn’t save their lives. Being able to afford your asthma inhaler, or getting a hip replacement, or finding an antidepressant that works—these all make a huge difference in people’s lives. And that’s not even accounting for reduced financial strain (and bankruptcies) and lower stress levels that come from the mere knowledge that a doctor is available if you need one—even if you don’t have a life-threatening emergency that requires a trip to the ER.

In addition, I’d probably add a few things. Douthat doesn’t include any negative metrics, but critics have put forward a whole bunch of disaster scenarios they think Obamacare will be responsible for. It will get harder to see doctors. Pharmaceutical companies will stop innovating. Insurance companies will drop out of the exchanges. Premiums will skyrocket. Etc. Without diving into the weeds on all these possible apocalypses, they count as predictions. If, in 2023, we all have to wait months for a routine appointment, or we can’t get the meds we need because drug companies have gone out of business, then Obamacare is a failure regardless of what else it does. I don’t think these things will happen, but they’re surely on my list of metrics for judging the law’s success.

UPDATE: Whoops. It turns out that one of the TIE guys, Austin Frakt, has already weighed in on this. You can read his comments here.

Visit site: 

How Will We Know If Obamacare Is a Success?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Will We Know If Obamacare Is a Success?

Meet the Preacher Behind Moral Mondays

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On a recent Sunday afternoon, the Reverend William Barber II reclined uncomfortably in a chair in his office, sipping bottled water as he recovered from two hours of strenuous preaching. When he was in his early 20s, Barber was diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis, a painful arthritic condition affecting the spine. Still wearing his long black robes, the 50-year-old minister recounted how, as he’d proclaimed in a rolling baritone from the pulpit that morning, “a crippled preacher has found his legs.”

It began a few days before Easter 2013, recalled Barber, pastor at the Greenleaf Christian Church in Goldsboro, North Carolina, and president of the state chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). “On Maundy Thursday, they chose to crucify voting rights,” he said.

“They” are North Carolina Republicans, who in November 2012 took control of the state Legislature and the governor’s mansion for the first time in more than a century. Among their top priorities—along with blocking Medicaid expansion and cutting unemployment benefits and higher-education spending—was pushing through a raft of changes to election laws, including reducing the number of early voting days, ending same-day voter registration, and requiring ID at the polls. “That’s when a group of us said, ‘Wait a minute, this has just gone too far,'” Barber said.

On the last Monday of April 2013, Barber led a modest group of clergy and activists into the state legislative building in Raleigh. They sang “We Shall Overcome,” quoted the Bible, and blocked the doors to the Senate chambers. Barber leaned on his cane as capitol police led him away in handcuffs.

That might have been the end of just another symbolic protest, but then something happened: The following Monday, more than 100 protesters showed up at the capitol. Over the next few months, the weekly crowds at the “Moral Mondays” protests grew to include hundreds, and then thousands, not just in Raleigh but also in towns around the state. The largest gathering, in February, drew more than 15,000 people. More than 900 protesters have been arrested for civil disobedience over the past year. Copycat movements have started in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama in response to GOP legislation regarding Medicaid and gun control.

With Moral Mondays, Barber has channeled the pent-up frustration of North Carolinians who were shocked by how quickly their state had been transformed into a laboratory for conservative policies. “He believed we needed to kind of burst this bubble of ‘There’s nothing we can do for two years until the next election,'” explains Al McSurely, a longtime NAACP organizer. But what may be most notable about Barber’s new brand of civil rights activism is how he’s taken a partisan fight and presented it as an issue that transcends party or race—creating a more sustained pushback against Republican overreach than anywhere else in the country.

Barber’s activism is rooted in his family’s history. In the 1960s, his parents moved back to eastern North Carolina from Indianapolis to help desegregate the local schools. His father, also a preacher, taught science at a formerly all-white high school. His mother became the school’s first black office manager. Students called her “nigger” before they finally learned to call her “Mother Barber.”

Barber fears that Republican lawmakers’ efforts to expand private-school vouchers will resegregate the very schools his parents worked to integrate. As NAACP president, he helped pass legislation establishing same-day voter registration and expanding death penalty appeals—bills that Republicans repealed in the last legislative session.

In 1993, a flare-up of his condition left him hospitalized, and he spent the next dozen years relying on a walker to get around. Exercise, faith, and “a little miracle and medicine” fueled his recovery—along with a good health plan. “I never want to have health insurance and see other members of the human family denied,” he says. “It’s immoral.” He shakes his head at lawmakers who receive generous benefits only to try to deny their constituents access to Obamacare or expanded Medicaid. “The logic doesn’t compute.”

Barber says his emphasis on morality is inspired by his predecessors in the civil rights movement. “They first had to win the moral high ground, and they had to capture the attention and consciousness of the nation,” he explains. “When those two things came together, it gave space for people like Lyndon Baines Johnson, who was a segregationist, to step out of his normal pattern of politics into a new way.” Barber says that Moral Mondays’ broad appeal is reflected in state Republicans’ sagging popularity: A February poll found that just 36 percent of North Carolina voters approved of Gov. Pat McCrory’s job performance; 28 percent approved of the General Assembly’s.

With North Carolina Democrats still in disarray following their drubbing in 2012, some progressives are looking to Barber to lead them out of the wilderness. “It’s our job to take this energy and turn it into reality at the polls,” says Democratic Party chairman Randy Voller.

But to Barber, the movement’s success is not tied to the ballot box. Rather, it’s in moments like the cold Saturday morning in February when tens of thousands of people flooded the streets of the capital. Black, white, gay, and straight, they came from churches and synagogues wearing rainbow flags for marriage equality, pink caps for Planned Parenthood, and stickers reading “North Carolina: First in Teacher Flight.” When it was Barber’s turn to speak, the crowd fell silent.

“Make no mistake—this is no mere hyperventilation or partisan pouting,” he intoned, his voice rising and breaking. “This is a fight for the future and soul of our state. It doesn’t matter what the critics call us…They can deride us, they can try to deflect from the issue. And we understand that, because they can’t debate us on the issue. They can’t make their case on moral and constitutional grounds.”

Read original article: 

Meet the Preacher Behind Moral Mondays

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Meet the Preacher Behind Moral Mondays

Behind the Scenes on Those Enormous Medicare Billing Numbers

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Yesterday’s data dump of how much Medicare pays doctors has generated predictable outrage about the vast amounts some of the top doctors bill. Obviously there are a lot of reasons for high billing rates, but Paul Waldman points to an interesting one: the way Medicare reimburses doctors for pharmaceuticals is partly to blame. The #1 Medicare biller on the list, for example, was a Florida ophthalmologist who prescribes Lucentis for macular degeneration instead of the cheaper Avastin. Since Medicare pays doctors a percentage of the cost of the drugs they use, he got $120 for each dose he administered instead of one or two dollars. That adds up fast. (More on Avastin vs. Lucentis here.)

In the LA Times today, a Newport Beach oncologist who’s also near the top of the Medicare billing list offers this defense:

For his part, Nguyen, 39, said his Medicare payout is misleading because all five physicians at his oncology practice bill under his name, and much of that money overall is reimbursement for expensive chemotherapy drugs on which he says doctors make little or no money. Other high-volume doctors voiced similar complaints about the data.

Anyway, Waldman wonders why we do this:

If nothing else, this story should point us to one policy change we could make pretty easily: get rid of that six percent fee and just give doctors a flat fee for writing prescriptions. Make it $5, or $10, or any number that makes sense. There’s no reason in the world that the fee should be tied to the price of the drug; all that does is give doctors an incentive to prescribe the most expensive medication they can. That wouldn’t solve all of Medicare’s problems, but it would be a start. Of course, the pharmaceutical lobby would pull out all the stops trying to keep that six percent fee in place. But that’s no reason not to try.

The backstory here is that Medicare used to set the reimbursement rate for “physician-administered drugs” based on an average wholesale price set by manufacturers. This price was routinely gamed, so Congress switched to reimbursing doctors based on an average sales price formula that’s supposed to reflect the actual price physicians pay for the drugs. Then they tacked on an extra 6 percent in order to compensate for storage, handling and other administrative costs.

I don’t know if 6 percent is the right number, but the theory here is reasonable. If you have to carry an inventory of expensive drugs, you have to finance that inventory, and the financing cost depends on the value of the inventory. More expensive drugs cost more to finance.

However, this does motivate doctors to prescribe more expensive drugs, a practice that pharmaceutical companies are happy to encourage. I don’t know how broadly this is an actual problem, but it certainly is in the case of Avastin vs. Lucentis, where the cost differential is upwards of 100x for two drugs that are equally effective. And the problem here is that Medicare is flatly forbidden from approving certain drugs but not others. As long as Lucentis works, Medicare has to pay for it. That’s great news for Genentech, but not so great for the taxpayers footing the bill.

Originally posted here: 

Behind the Scenes on Those Enormous Medicare Billing Numbers

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Behind the Scenes on Those Enormous Medicare Billing Numbers

Here’s Some Stunning and Unexpected Good News About Obamacare

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Today brings yet another take on Obamacare from Rand’s latest survey of the health insurance market. Rand’s sample size is fairly small, so there are large error bars associated with their numbers, but they also break them down in interesting ways. The number we’ve been tracking most closely in the other surveys on insurance is the number of uninsured who got coverage via Medicaid or the exchanges, which Rand displays in the top row of this table:

About 5 million previously uninsured people got coverage via Medicaid and the exchanges. This is slightly lower than other estimates, but only slightly. When you account for the March surge and the sub-26ers on their parents policies, you’re probably back up to about 8 million. We’ll have a better idea about this next month, but so far this is roughly consistent with other surveys we’ve seen.

But there’s one stunning number in the Rand survey that we haven’t seen before: the dramatic surge in people who have employer insurance (ESI). According to Rand, 8.2 million new people—7.2 million of them previously uninsured—have gotten employer insurance since mid-2013. Adrianna McIntyre is agog:

I can’t overstate how stunning this finding is if it’s true; CBO expected that ESI gains and losses would pretty much break even in 2014 and that employer coverage would decline modestly in future years.

If it’s correct, it was probably motivated multiple factors—I hate the word “synergy” on principle, but it comes to mind. The economy has been improving, so some of the previously unemployed have secured jobs with benefits. But CBO built in expectations about economic recovery, so I don’t think it’s quite right to try pinning all (or even most?) of the 8.2 million on that. The individual mandate, while weak in its first year, might be a stronger stick than we expected, nudging people to take their health benefits where they’d previously been opting out. Employers could be helping this move this trend along; the University of Michigan, for example, eliminated “opt out dollars” in 2014 (cash compensation for employees who declined coverage).

If this finding is confirmed, it’s a genuine shocker. Although CBO projected that ESI would stay steady, there’s been a lot of chatter about the likelihood of employers dropping coverage thanks to Obamacare. But that sure doesn’t seem to have happened. So in addition to the usual sources of coverage—Medicaid, exchanges, sub-26ers—it looks like Obamacare has yet another big success story to tell, one that was almost completely unexpected.

For now, this should all be considered tentative. We’ll have firmer numbers in April and May, once the March surge is fully accounted for and we know how many people have paid for coverage. But for now, it looks as if Obamacare is not merely hitting its target, but in a broadly unforeseen way, it’s wildly exceeding it. This is terrific news.

More: 

Here’s Some Stunning and Unexpected Good News About Obamacare

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s Some Stunning and Unexpected Good News About Obamacare

Gallup Confirms Further Fall in Uninsurance Rate

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The latest Gallup poll on the uninsured is out, and it shows that the uninsurance rate continues to drop. Using the same 2011-12 baseline I’ve used before, uninsurance has now dropped about 1.8 percentage points since the rollout of Obamacare. Since the Gallup poll includes everyone, not just the nonelderly, this amounts to about 5.6 million people. However, note that this 5.6 million drop doesn’t include sub-26ers who are on their parents’ insurance, since that policy change had already taken effect by 2011. Nor does it include the entire late surge in Obamacare enrollment. Add those in and the real number is probably in the neighborhood of 8-9 million. By the end of the year, we should hit 10 million or so.

The biggest declines in uninsurance were among the young, among blacks, and among the low-income. More details at the link.

Jump to original:  

Gallup Confirms Further Fall in Uninsurance Rate

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Gallup Confirms Further Fall in Uninsurance Rate

Here’s a Second Look at Obamacare and the Uninsured

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Here’s a quick follow-up on my guess earlier this week that Obamacare will reduce the ranks of the uninsured by about 10 million when we finally close out 2014. The Urban Institute has released its latest survey results and concludes that Obamacare insured about 5.4 million people through early March. This is a comparison with Fall 2013, so it doesn’t include the sub-26ers who have been covered by their parents’ policies since 2010. It also doesn’t include the March signup surge. If you add those in, we’re probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 million right now, which I think is consistent with a guess of 10 million by the end of the year.

There’s still a lot of guesswork in these numbers, but this is about the best we have right now. It’s less than the 13 million the CBO projected, but it’s a pretty healthy number nonetheless.

UPDATE: It turns out that the CBO uses pro-rated years. If you sign up for coverage on April 1, you count as three-quarters of a year. If you sign up on July 1, you count as half a year. I didn’t know that, and it changes my guess. By normal human terms, I think about 10 million of the previously uninsured will have Obamacare coverage by the end of 2014. By CBO terms, that might come to 9 million or so.

Source:  

Here’s a Second Look at Obamacare and the Uninsured

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s a Second Look at Obamacare and the Uninsured

Obama: "The Affordable Care Act Is Here to Stay"

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Tuesday afternoon, President Barack Obama announced in a speech at the White House that more Americans than predicted had signed up for health coverage through the insurance exchanges during the first six months of enrollment. “7.1 million Americans have now signed up for private insurance plans through these marketplaces,” the president said. “Seven point one. Yep.” And Obama slammed Republicans who haven’t let up trying to gut the law. “This law is doing what it’s supposed to do,” he said. “It’s helping people from coast to coast, all of which makes the lengths to which critics have gone to scare people or undermine the law or try to repeal the law without offering any plausible alternative so hard to understand…. The debate over repealing this law is over,” Obama added. “The Affordable Care Act is here to stay.” Watch:

Continued here:  

Obama: "The Affordable Care Act Is Here to Stay"

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama: "The Affordable Care Act Is Here to Stay"

LA Times: 9.5 Million Newly Insured By Obamacare

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

So how many people are newly insured thanks to Obamacare? Noam Levey of the LA Times provides the current best estimate, based on the latest enrollment and survey data:

As the law’s initial enrollment period closes, at least 9.5 million previously uninsured people have gained coverage. Some have done so through marketplaces created by the law, some through other private insurance and others through Medicaid, which has expanded under the law in about half the states.

The tally draws from a review of state and federal enrollment reports, surveys and interviews with insurance executives and government officials nationwide.

….Republican critics of the law have suggested that the cancellations last fall have led to a net reduction in coverage. That is not supported by survey data or insurance companies, many of which report they have retained the vast majority of their 2013 customers by renewing old policies, which is permitted in about half the states, or by moving customers to new plans.

Rand’s latest survey data suggests that the share of uninsured adults has declined from 20.9 percent last fall to 16.6 percent as of March 22. Gallup has also shown a decline in the uninsured, and its March poll will show a further decline, according to Gallup Editor in Chief Frank Newport. More details at the link.

View original article: 

LA Times: 9.5 Million Newly Insured By Obamacare

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on LA Times: 9.5 Million Newly Insured By Obamacare

My Interview With a Pediatrician Who Thinks Vaccines Are "Messing With Nature"

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The waiting room at Pediatric Alternatives in Mill Valley, a town in the affluent hippie enclave of Marin County, California, is a far cry from the drab doctors’ offices I remember from childhood. Instead of old copies of Highlights magazine and a few sticky Legos, there’s a veritable Montessori classroom’s worth of appealing toys: wholesome-looking wooden blocks, stacks of picture books, and even a ride-on Radio Flyer fire engine. For parents, there are bookshelves stocked with Moosewood cookbooks and herbal remedies and tomes about how French people get their children to eat. Black-and-white portraits of grinning kids line the walls. Even the patients and their parents look great: trim moms in yoga pants, a giggling, pigtailed preschooler playing with a sticker, an elementary-school girl holding an American Girl book. No one seems to have so much as a runny nose.

This scene isn’t the only impressive thing about Pediatric Alternatives. The practice’s five physicians have impeccable credentials, having trained and completed residencies at some of the nation’s top medical schools and institutions. Several are fellows of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Given all this, it might surprise you to learn that one of Pediatric Alternatives’ policies is extremely unorthodox: It suggests that families delay certain childhood immunizations—in some cases for years past the age recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—and forego others entirely. A little less than 20 percent of the families the practice treats choose not to vaccinate at all. The rest use a modified vaccine schedule.

While the American Academy of Pediatrics discourages alternative vaccine schedules, it doesn’t forbid them for its members. And the insurers that contract with Pediatric Alternatives—which include Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Aetna, and Cigna—haven’t raised any protest. As Aetna puts it, “We don’t dictate care.” The California Department of Health simply requests that “parents ensure their children are immunized according to the schedule recommended by their physician.” The state of California, meanwhile, makes it relatively easy to opt out of vaccines: Parents are not required to follow the federally recommended schedule, and those who wish to skip shots entirely need only obtain the signature of their child’s pediatrician. (Rules vary in other states. See our map.)

If these top-shelf pediatricians and the regulatory bodies that oversee them are willing to allow customized immunization plans for each patient, then is there a possibility they are onto something? Could it be that much of what we’ve heard about the importance of timely vaccines is wrong?

While it’s almost unheard of for a pediatrics practice to make alternative vaccine schedules part of its official policy, skipping immunizations is far from unusual among parents in Marin County. Kindergartners here have one of the nation’s lowest vaccination rates, so it’s probably no coincidence that the county also has the second-highest rate of pertussis (whooping cough) in California.

On a recent Wednesday, Stacia Kenet Lansman, the founder and lead physician of Pediatric Alternatives, greets me warmly. A veteran pediatrician with 20 years of experience, she has a slight frame, shoulder-length gray hair, and a kind of favorite-aunt vibe about her. Her manner is friendly and she smiles often. It’s easy to picture her comforting a sick child.

Seated across from me in her exam room, Kenet Lansman sums up her professional trajectory: After attending the Tufts University School of Medicine, she took a pediatrics residency at Children’s Hospital Oakland. In 1996, she moved to Marin and began seeing patients in a local pediatrics office. It didn’t take her long to notice a disconnect between her schooling and her practice: During her residency, she treated sick children, but the kids she saw in Marin were, for the most part, healthy. Her job, she decided, was to keep them that way. She began to study alternative medicine and was influenced by the work of Deepak Chopra and Andrew Weil.

In 1998, she founded Pediatric Alternatives, with the goal of combining Western medicine with nontraditional methods like homeopathy, herbalism, and dietary treatments. This approach, she hoped, would “start children and families out with healthy habits and routines so that they are more likely to stay healthy.” The practice flourished. Today, she and four other physicians at Pediatric Alternatives treat somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 patients from around the Bay Area.

Kenet Lansman tells me she would never deny any vaccine to parents who request it for their child. But she does share her personal beliefs with her patients: She fears that vaccines have contributed to the recent uptick in autoimmune disorders and other chronic conditions. “I think we’re just messing with nature, and we really don’t know what we’ve created,” she says. “We’ve reduced or largely eliminated many infectious diseases. But in their place, we have an epidemic of chronic illnesses in children. The incidence of asthma, allergies, and autism spectrum disorders has dramatically increased since the 1990s. And the reason for this we don’t know. But my concern is that vaccines have played a role.”

She has a policy of giving only one vaccination at a time, and only when a child is completely healthy. “I believe that the detoxification pathways in the body can be overwhelmed by too many vaccines given on one day,” she explains.

Pediatric Alternatives prioritizes childhood vaccines based on the perceived risk of a kid acquiring a given disease. “We live in a very healthy community,” Kenet Lansman says. “The incidence of these illnesses are very low, not only here, but nationwide. And so it’s safe to do a modified vaccine schedule, in my opinion.”

She does adhere to the federal schedule for certain shots: She encourages parents to get their children the DTaP shot—which protects against pertussis, diphtheria, and tetanus—during the child’s first year. She also recommends that babies get vaccinated for meningitis—which is dangerous and very contagious—when they are a few months old.

On the other end of the spectrum are diseases Kenet Lansman considers extremely low-risk for babies. For instance, she reasons that her patients have virtually no chance of catching hepatitis B, which is generally only transmitted through sex and intravenous drug use, “not something babies are commonly engaging in”—she advises parents to forego that vaccine altogether. She also suggests skipping the varicella (chicken pox) and rotavirus vaccines, because those diseases are not life-threatening for the vast majority of children. While she doesn’t list the polio vaccine among the shots she believes patients should skip, she tells parents that the risk of children contracting polio in the United States these days is essentially nonexistent.

And then there are diseases that fall into a grayer area: The risk is not high, but it’s not zero, either. For these, Kenet Lansman recommends a delayed schedule. Because the incidences of measles, mumps, and rubella in the Bay Area are very low, she suggests that parents put off the MMR vaccine for their kids, unless they are traveling to a place where these diseases are endemic. The federal guidelines recommend MMR at age one; Pediatric Alternatives typically waits until age three to administer the shot.

The main reason for the delay, Kenet Lansman says, is that she still believes there could be a link between vaccines and autism. She acknowledges that the scientific community has rejected this theory, yet she says she has seen children from her own practice who begin to show signs of autism shortly after being vaccinated. “My feeling is that if there is any risk that the vaccine is associated with autism, we should delay the vaccine during this vulnerable developmental window,” she says.

Several times during my visit, Kenet Lansman mentions that in her 16 years of offering alternative vaccination schedules, not one of her patients has come down with a vaccine-preventable disease. What’s more, she adds, she has noticed that patients in her practice actually seem healthier than most of their peers. “Our office tends to be quiet during flu season,” she says.

I have to admit she has a point. Where the risk of catching measles or mumps is practically zero, if there’s any possibility at all that vaccines could contribute to chronic health problems, then why not use them judiciously?

For a reality check, I call up some outside experts, including Alanna Levine, a pediatrician in Orangeburg, New York, and a spokeswoman for the American Academy of Pediatrics, to ask what they thought of this boutique approach to immunizations. “My blood is boiling right now,” Levine replies. “I think that policy is dangerous. I think it puts children at risk when they are most vulnerable.”

Saad Omer, a professor of public health and vaccine expert at Emory University, holds a similar view. “There is a reason why we give vaccines to young children,” he says. “That’s because the risk of disease is higher for certain age groups. You want to give vaccines as early as possible to protect the child. If you delay, you are leaving the most vulnerable period for the child open.”

While Omer declined to comment on Pediatric Alternatives specifically, he points out that the group that comes up with the official vaccination recommendations is interdisciplinary; the resulting schedule reflects the perspectives of epidemiologists, microbiologists, policy experts, and others, in addition to pediatricians. “There is a reason why the advisory committees make schedules—not an individual,” he tells me.

Omer adds that he considers it very risky to vaccinate only against diseases that are prevalent in a particular community. “Most practices don’t have a community surveillance system,” he says. “They don’t know whom these kids interact with or where they will travel. Infectious diseases are by nature infectious, so it’s not just individual behavior that matters. It’s everyone’s vaccinations.”

The concept that a critical mass of vaccinated people shields the rest is known as “herd immunity.” Within every community, there are people—mostly infants under one year of age and people with compromised immune systems—who can’t tolerate vaccines. And there are others whose vaccines may have worn off, or for whom a particular vaccine never elicited a strong immune response. The pertussis vaccine, for example, has a relatively low rate of effectiveness: It confers immunity on just 80 percent of people who receive it. “Anyone could end up not being protected,” Omer says. “So their protection depends on other people’s behavior.”

Paul Offit, a vaccine expert and chief of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, tells me he often encounters parents who are afraid that too many vaccines will overwhelm their child’s immune systems. But the contents of the vaccine, he says, are nothing compared to all the germs one encounters daily. “The shots are a drop in the ocean of what your body does every single day,” he says. “It looks bad, because the kid is stressed out, but it is certainly not actually bad.”

Still, I wonder, how much can an individual pediatrics office matter? Even if Pediatric Alternatives’ vaccine practices aren’t ideal, would a few thousand unvaccinated toddlers in California really bring about an epidemic? Maybe not, says Omer. But if the alternative-schedule trend catches on, we could be in trouble. Beyond the skipped vaccines, the one-shot-per-visit policy means more visits to the doctor, “so the parents have to take more time off to bring the child to get the vaccines,” he adds. That creates more chances for missed appointments—which means more undervaccinated children.

Pediatric Alternatives is hardly the only practice offering modified vaccine schedules. Dr. Robert Sears popularized the practice with his 2007 book, The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for your Child. A quick search of the Berkeley Parents Network, a local community forum, turned up recommendations for a handful of Bay Area pediatricians who don’t insist that their patients stick to the official schedule. A 2012 study in the journal Pediatrics found that the percentage of children in greater Portland, Oregon, receiving two or fewer immunizations per doctor visit tripled between 2006 and 2009, leading the authors to conclude that Portland parents had increasingly chosen to delay their children’s vaccines. A 2011 University of Michigan survey found that nationwide, 13 percent of parents use an alternative immunization schedule.

Not all pediatricians who offer delayed vaccines do so out of concerns about the shots’ safety. Some simply see the alternative schedules as a compromise. Janet Perlman, a pediatrician with offices in Oakland and Berkeley, figures late immunizations are better than no immunizations. “I will do anything to get the vaccines in,” she tells me. “I just want to get the kids vaccinated.”

But Levine, the New York pediatrician I spoke with, has a different approach: If parents won’t stick to the schedule, she just won’t treat their children. In the 11 years she has practiced, she’s had to convince many hesitant parents that vaccines are safe. “It’s a long conversation,” she says. “It takes time. But it is worth it, because most of the time, if you really listen to what their concerns are and address them, they end up vaccinating on time.”

At the end of my visit to Pediatric Alternatives, I found that I liked Dr. Kenet Lansman. I could tell that she was bright and caring and open-minded, and most impressively, she tried to think creatively about how to keep her patients healthy. She’s right that there is an epidemic of chronic autoimmune illnesses and autism among children, and a mounting body of research suggests that our aggressive pursuit of germs—both in our environment and in the human body—might have something to do with it: When we kill disease-causing germs, the theory goes, we kill beneficial bacteria, as well, making our bodies’ defense systems go haywire.

But there is no research supporting the notion that vaccines contribute to autoimmune disorders or autism—and plenty of evidence showing that diseases like measles can be deadly. By deviating from the scientifically proven vaccine schedule, Kenet Lansman is playing a dangerous game. No matter what she believes about children in her practice being exceptionally healthy, the threat of catastrophic infectious diseases is real—and outbreaks are very hard to predict.

So far this year, there have been confirmed clusters of measles in the United States—36 cases in California and 20 in New York City. The unvaccinated patients of Pediatric Alternatives don’t live in a bubble. People travel. Consider this scenario: A patient of Kenet Lansman catches measles from a visitor from a part of the world where measles is still endemic. He then spreads it to his neighbor’s newborn, who isn’t old enough to be immunized, or to the kid at school whose immune system is weak because she is going through chemo.

This scenario isn’t far-fetched. During the 2010 pertussis outbreak, 10 babies in California died of the disease.

I was glad to hear that none of Kenet Lansman’s patients have contracted vaccine-preventable diseases yet. I just hope her luck does not run out.

Link:

My Interview With a Pediatrician Who Thinks Vaccines Are "Messing With Nature"

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on My Interview With a Pediatrician Who Thinks Vaccines Are "Messing With Nature"

Health Insurance Rates Are Going Up Next Year, But It’s Nothing to Panic Over

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The LA Times has a piece today about the next battleground for Obamacare: rate increases for 2015. The warnings are already coming thick and fast:

WellPoint Inc., parent of California’s leading health insurer in the exchange, Anthem Blue Cross, has already predicted “double-digit-plus” rate increases on Obamacare policies across much of the country.

…. Health insurers aren’t wasting any time sizing up what patients are costing them now and what that will mean for 2015 rates. Hunkered down in conference rooms, insurance actuaries are parsing prescriptions, doctor visits and hospital stays for clues about how expensive these new patients may be. By May, insurance companies must file next year’s rates with California’s state-run exchange so negotiations can begin.

I hope everyone manages to restrain their Obamacare hysteria over this. Here in California, we’ve played this game annually for years. Health insurers in the individual market propose wild increases in their premiums—10 percent, 20 percent, sometimes even 30 percent—and then dial them back a bit after consumer outrage blankets the media and the Department of Insurance pushes back. But even then, we routinely end up with double-digit increases. Just for background, here are the average annual rate increases requested by a few of California’s biggest insurers over the last three years:

Anthem Blue Cross: 10.7%
Aetna: 12.1%
Blue Shield: 15.4%
HealthNet: 12.0%

And this doesn’t include changes in deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums. Add those in, and the annual proposed increases are probably in the range of 15-20 percent. Obamacare, of course, limits both those things, which means that in the future insurance companies will have to put everything into rate hikes instead of spreading the increases around to make them harder to add up.

Bottom line: if we end up seeing double-digit rate increases, it will be business as usual. Insurance companies will all blame it on Obamacare because that’s a convenient thing to do, but the truth is that we probably would have seen exactly the same thing even if Barack Obama had never been born. So let’s all keep our feet on the ground when the inevitable huge rate increase requests start flowing in. It’s mostly an insurance company thing and a healthcare thing, not an Obamacare thing.

This article is from – 

Health Insurance Rates Are Going Up Next Year, But It’s Nothing to Panic Over

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Health Insurance Rates Are Going Up Next Year, But It’s Nothing to Panic Over