- Image via Wikipedia
Highlights of the important and the interesting from the world of health care:
The obesity backlash begins: Frustrated by rising health insurance premiums–and perhaps a host of other perceived problems–caused in part by obese Americans, “slim society” has had enough, the L.A. Times reports. The most egregious example comes from Mississippi, where legislators sought to pass a bill that would’ve allowed restaurants to prohibit obese people from dining. Not far behind is Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, which considered (and ultimately rejected) a plan to take the body mass index of every enrolling student and require the obese to lose weight or take a fitness class before they could graduate.
But the other side, too, is amassing (no pun intended). The wonderfully named 31-year-old National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance has seen its membership increase 20 percent each year for the last five years, the Times reports. One wellness executive said the backlash against obesity could lead to a backlash against foods that cause it, which seems more appropriate.
“Not long ago, the thought of not allowing people in a building to smoke wasn’t realistic; now it’s common,” he said. “Similarly, in some schools the thought of banning sugary drinks and junk food seems completely unrealistic, but that will change too. The changes will meet resistance, but over time, healthy ideas will gain acceptance.”
States push back on individual insurance mandate: Though the federal health overhaul may be dead, or at best on life support, that hasn’t stopped conservatives in some states from pushing back against one of its key provisions, the Boston Globe reports. Lawmakers in 34 states have filed or proposed amendments to their state constitutions or statutes rejecting health insurance mandates, in essence prohibiting penalties against those who refuse to buy health insurance. (Both federal bills would impose a penalty on people who do not have health insurance, except in cases of financial hardship.) Never mind that those state laws wouldn’t hold up if the federal government ever passed a health-insurance-purchase requirement.
“They are merely symbolic gestures,’’ said Michael Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Cornell University. “If this Congress were to pass an individual mandate, and if it is constitutional – which I believe it is – the express rule under the supremacy clause [of the US Constitution] is that the federal law prevails.’’
A Deep-dive Into Specialty Pharma
A specialty drug is a class of prescription medications used to treat complex, chronic or rare medical conditions. Although this classification was originally intended to define the treatment of rare, also termed “orphan” diseases, affecting fewer than 200,000 people in the US, more recently, specialty drugs have emerged as the cornerstone of treatment for chronic and complex diseases such as cancer, autoimmune conditions, diabetes, hepatitis C, and HIV/AIDS.
Nonetheless, like so many things in American politics, what’s useless policy is great politics. The state amendments are tasty red meat for conservative voters who oppose–or don’t understand–the federal health overhaul. If these empty gestures get more Republican voters to the polls in November, it could be an even longer, colder winter than what Democrats expected, significantly reducing Democrats’ margins in the House and Senate.
What Republicans think of Obama: It may not be directly related to health care, but the results of a poll of 2,000 self-identified Republicans are just too funny/depressing to pass up. I’ll hold off on passing judgment and let the numbers speak for themselves, except to remind you: Remember, these are your fellow Americans.
31 percent believe Obama “is a racist who hates white people.” 33 percent aren’t sure. 24 percent believe Obama “wants the terrorists to win.” 33 percent aren’t sure. 36 percent believe Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. 22 percent aren’t sure.
Follow the link to plenty more hilarity. And remember, these are your fellow Americans.
Whither personal health records? Once touted as away to help patients take control of their own health care, personal health records may not turn out to be the “wave of the future.” Though it’s certainly too early to draw that conclusion for PHRs–software that individuals can use to track and share all the treatment they’ve received–Revolution Health’s experience with PHRs was not a positive one. The once high-flying company, founded with $100 million of an AOL co-founder’s personal fortune, sought to “empower consumers to take more control of their health and their families’ health,” and part of its strategy was offering free PHRs.
No more, according to a report from Care Innovators. Citing low consumer demand, Revolution Health has dropped its PHRs, informing users that it’ll discontinue the service this month. A manager with the company “explained that the PHR suffered from inadequate usability testing prior to offering the product, a consumer audience not ready to control their own records, and the need for more physician involvement.”
