Category Archives: news-you-can-use

Congress is up to something and only you can stop them

news-you-can-use
January 23 Update

After this blog was written, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced S. 160, which would repeal the tax described below. No need to look at the facts – just bow to special interests while trying to kill Obamacare! To see which 5 Democrats and 23 other Republicans who support a bill that would help destroy Obamacare, scroll below this blog. And make sure they hear from you!

Congress is Up to Something | The Huffington Post

by guest blogger Diana Zuckerman, PhD, National Center for Health Research

If you think health insurance should be affordable and you didn’t get a 65 percent raise over the last two years, keep reading!

Congress is up to something, and only you can prevent it from happening. Even though the upcoming Supreme Court decision about the Affordable Care Act could drastically curtail it, that may not be the greatest threat to the millions of Americans who don’t want to lose their health insurance.

A greater threat comes from certain U.S. companies and from hundreds of members of Congress, and the culprits might surprise you.
The senators and representatives you need to worry about include some of the most conservative Republicans, but also some Democrats that are usually strong supporters of patients and consumers–including Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, and Barbara Mikulski.

And they’re bowing to pressure from companies that advertise on NPR, your favorite TV shows, and other media, touting how they save lives every day. In truth, these companies do save lives. But they also make billions of dollars and don’t feel like giving any of it to help pay for the Affordable Care Act, as the legislation requires. And that could be fatal to countless Americans.

This is what happened: The three industries that would benefit from millions more insured Americans were asked to make small financial compromises to help pay the cost of subsidies that would make health insurance affordable to millions more Americans. The compromises included lowering certain prices, limiting profits, or paying a small excise tax on products sold.

Two of the industries kept their agreements, but the third immediately tried to repeal the part of the law that affected it.

No, it’s not Big Pharma that is the problem. Those companies understand how the Affordable Care Act helps their bottom line and their patients.

It’s not the insurance companies, either. They fought the Affordable Care Act but eventually agreed to the terms that have helped keep prices under control. They haven’t reneged, and they even lined up in greater numbers to sell policies at lower costs through the state exchanges this year.

The problem includes companies that make lifesaving heart valves and stents, hip and knee replacements, PT scanners and mammography machines, and the contact lenses that millions of us rely on.

The medical device companies selling these and other products spent more than $150 million to try to repeal a 2.3 percent tax on the devices they sell in the U.S. These include implants that cost $20 to make but that sell for $500, as well as devices that sell for half a million dollars but are as obsolete as your iPhone 2 after a few years.

They’re complaining to Congress that the tax is killing jobs and cutting funds for the research and development needed to create the innovative products that patients deserve. If they get their way and the tax is repealed, there will be $29 billion less to pay for health insurance over the next decade, and we can expect Pharma and the insurance companies to try to get out of their contributions, as well.

I’m a scientist, so I decided to examine the evidence for the “job killing” and other claims made by the device companies.

First we looked at stock prices–all publicly available online. Not all device companies have publicly traded stock, but the ones complaining the loudest about the device tax do. We looked at the 12 largest U.S.-based companies that sell nothing but devices (not ones that also sell pharmaceuticals or appliances). In the two years since the tax started, their stock went up a whopping 65 percent on average–much more than the NY Stock Exchange (25 percent) or the largest U.S.-based pharmaceutical companies (54 percent).

Then we looked at sales. Sales steadily increased over the last decade, including after the device tax was implemented. So, there would seem to be no reason to cut jobs and every reason to hire more workers.

What about R & D costs to develop new products and possibly hire new workers? Again, a steady increase over the decade, and after the tax went into effect.
What about profit margins? These were stable over the decade for most companies, despite the 2008 economic meltdown and despite the device tax. Again, no reason to cut jobs or raise a ruckus about the tax.

And yet, the House of Representatives has passed several bills that include repealing the tax, and the Senate passed a bipartisan resolution declaring its opposition to the tax. Fortunately, the resolution specified support for repeal only if another source is designated to make up for the $29 billion in revenues that the tax would provide.

Finding another $29 billion seems unlikely, yet congressional leaders keep saying there is overwhelming support to repeal the tax, and journalists repeatedly report that “widespread bipartisan opposition” to the tax will inevitably result in a repeal.

If that happens, the dominoes start to fall and the Affordable Care Act would become unaffordable.

Don’t let that happen. Here’s more information and the Senate voting record on repealing the tax. Let your voice be heard.

Diana Zuckerman is the president of the National Center for Health Research. She received her PhD from Ohio State University and was a post-doctoral fellow in epidemiology and public health at Yale Medical School. After serving on the faculty of Vassar and Yale and as a researcher at Harvard, Dr. Zuckerman spent a dozen years as a health policy expert in the U.S. Congress and a senior policy adviser in the Clinton White House. She is the author of five books, several book chapters, and dozens of articles in medical and academic journals, newspapers, and websites.

Around the same time this blog went online, 29 Senators co-sponsored a new bill to repeal the medical device excise tax: 5 Democrats and 23 Republicans. Contact the senators who haven’t co-sponsored S. 149, to urge them to reject this bill.
And if any of your senators have signed on, let them know how you feel:
S.149: Medical Device Access and Innovation Protection Act
Sponsor: Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] (introduced 1/13/2015) Cosponsors (28)
Related Bills: H.R.160
Latest Major Action: 1/13/2015 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
________________________________________
COSPONSORS(28), ALPHABETICAL:
Sen Alexander, Lamar [TN] – 1/13/2015
Sen Ayotte, Kelly [NH] – 1/13/2015
Sen Barrasso, John [WY] – 1/20/2015
Sen Blunt, Roy [MO] – 1/21/2015
Sen Burr, Richard [NC] – 1/13/2015
Sen Capito, Shelley Moore [WV] – 1/21/2015
Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. [PA] – 1/13/2015
Sen Cassidy, Bill [LA] – 1/13/2015
Sen Coats, Daniel [IN] – 1/13/2015
Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] – 1/20/2015
Sen Crapo, Mike [ID] – 1/20/2015
Sen Donnelly, Joe [IN] – 1/13/2015
Sen Flake, Jeff [AZ] – 1/22/2015
Sen Franken, Al [MN] – 1/13/2015
Sen Gardner, Cory [CO] – 1/20/2015
Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] – 1/20/2015
Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] – 1/13/2015
Sen Kirk, Mark Steven [IL] – 1/20/2015
Sen Klobuchar, Amy [MN] – 1/13/2015
Sen Lankford, James [OK] – 1/21/2015
Sen Moran, Jerry [KS] – 1/20/2015
Sen Murkowski, Lisa [AK] – 1/13/2015
Sen Portman, Rob [OH] – 1/13/2015
Sen Roberts, Pat [KS] – 1/20/2015
Sen Scott, Tim [SC] – 1/13/2015
Sen Shaheen, Jeanne [NH] – 1/13/2015
Sen Toomey, Pat [PA] – 1/13/2015
Sen Wicker, Roger F. [MS] – 1/13/2015

Free patient booklet on ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)

Breast Cancer, In the News, news-you-can-use, Uncategorized

To view, download, or print a free copy of our patient booklet, here is a PDF of DCIS: What You Need to Know.

The Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund has developed a free, easy-to-read 32-page color booklet for women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). It explains DCIS and commonly used medical terms in plain language and helps women make informed decisions about their treatment.

If a woman has a particularly low-risk type of DCIS, she may choose “active surveillance” instead of surgery and other treatment. Active surveillance consists of closely watching the patient’s DCIS to make sure it does not develop into breast cancer. The patient can choose surgery and other treatments if the DCIS develops into breast cancer, or if she decides she wants surgery for any other reason. Another option for women with particularly low-risk types of DCIS is to take the hormone pills tamoxifen to prevent breast cancer, rather than surgery.

Experts estimate that at least half of all women diagnosed with DCIS would never develop breast cancer even if they never received any treatment for their DCIS. Since no one knows for sure which women with DCIS will develop breast cancer and which won’t, most women with DCIS choose to get some form of surgery. This booklet focuses on helping women decide what kind of surgery to get and what other kinds of treatment they might want or need.  Patients should keep in mind that if their physician tells them that they have a particularly low-risk type of DCIS, they may want to consider active surveillance or tamoxifen only, rather than surgery in addition to other treatments.

The current booklet was approved and funded by a grant from the D.C. Cancer Consortium through the Department of Health, Government of the District of Columbia, and a grant from the Jacob and Hilda Blaustein Foundation.  To request copies of the free patient booklet, write  info@stopcancerfund.org   or call    202-223-4000.

We are currently updating the booklet to include information about active surveillance. 

The Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund Responds to CDC study on Camp Lejeune Drinking Water Health Hazards

news-you-can-use, ,
By Anna E. Mazzucco, PhD and Diana Zuckerman, PhD, President of the Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund
Updated March 24, 2014

The contaminated water at the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps base is a national disgrace that has jeopardized the health of many adults and children. Now the government’s focus needs to be on assisting all those who have been harmed – and that should include preventing cancer and other diseases in those who are not currently sick but at risk because of their exposure years ago. Righting the wrong that was done to our armed service families requires more than research and passing the buck – it requires a plan of action based on solid scientific information.

The Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund expresses its strong support for the adults and children who have been harmed by contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base.  This unprecedented environmental disaster has been a tragic disservice to the courageous men and women of our military.

The new analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that pregnant women who were more exposed to contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune were 4 times as likely to give birth to children with serious birth defects such as spina bifida, compared to women who were less exposed.  There was also a slight increase in childhood cancers such as leukemia among these children.  A study published (reported) in 2014 found increased risk of death among Camp Lejeune residents from several cancers including kidney, liver, cervical, esophageal, multiple myeloma and Hodgkin lymphoma, in comparison to residents of another military base which did not have contaminated water.  Previous reports have indicated that men living or working on the base from the mid-1950s until 1987 were much more likely to develop breast cancer than men in the general population, but that study has not yet been completed.  Breast cancer is a rare occurrence among men, and is especially dangerous because men often do not recognize the symptoms or seek treatment in a timely manner. In addition, men with breast cancer often experience unique and significant physical, social and psychological issues.

The Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund is dedicated to helping children and adults reduce their risks of getting all types of cancer, and assists them in choosing the safest and most effective treatments. We use research-based information to encourage more effective programs, policies and medical treatments. We strongly urge the federal government to continue investigating the link between exposure to trichloroethylene (TCE) and other known contaminants in the Camp Lejeune drinking water, and an increased risk for diseases among children and adults.  It is likely that the exposures could cause several different types of cancer, but those other cancers would not be as noticeable as male breast cancer, since that is so rare.

June 13th, 2014 Conference "Evidence for New Medical Products: Implications for Patients and Health Policy"

news-you-can-use, Uncategorized

Co-hosted with Harvard Medical School and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, our conference “Evidence for New Medical Products: Implications for Patients and Health Policy” broke new ground in understanding the public health implications of FDA criteria for approval.  A video is available here. 

harvard_medical

AAAS logo

Rosa
Keynote speaker Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro delivers her welcoming address.

 

Red Meat: The News is Not Good

Diet, Habits, & Other Behaviors, news-you-can-use
Langan Denhard, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund

Americans love red meat, but a March 2012 study of over 170,000 men and women may change that. The study found that eating just one 3-ounce portion a day of pork, beef, or lamb may significantly increase your risk of dying early.[1] And, unfortunately, a 3-ounce portion is much smaller than a typical American portion – it is about the size of a bar of soap. A double quarter pounder would be almost 3 day’s worth of meat,

The research team, led by doctors An Pan and Frank Hu of Harvard University, tracked a group of 51,529 male health professionals and 121,700 female nurses for over 20 years, beginning in the 1980s. Men and women with a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer were excluded from the study. Every four years, the researchers sent the participants detailed surveys asking them about their dietary habits. The researcher kept track of deaths and determined the cause of death. By the end of the study in 2008, 23,926 of the participants had died, 5,910 of them due to cardiovascular disease and 9,464 due to cancer.

The participants were analyzed by comparing 5 groups that were designated according to their daily consumption of red meat. The group that consumed the lowest amount of meat—Group 1—ate on average a quarter serving of red meat a day, or about 2 standard-size servings (3 ounces) weekly. Group 3, the group in the middle, ate about one standard-size serving of red meat per day. Group 5, with the highest level of consumption, ate on average 2 servings a day—or 14 servings of red meat each week.

The people who ate the most red meat were also the people least likely to exercise regularly, mostly likely to smoke and drink, and had the highest body mass index—an index which uses height and weight to calculate if you are overweight.But by controlling for age, body mass index, level of physical activity, smoking status, and family history, the researchers were able to determine to what degree red meat alone played a role in people’s death. They found that the men who belonged to the one serving a day group—Group 3—were 20% more likely to have died in the course of the study than were the men in Group 1 who only ate a quarter serving every day. Meanwhile, the “hard core” red meat eaters in Group 5 were 37% more likely to have died than Group 1.

Eating larger or more servings of meat did not affect women as dramatically as it did men. Women in the moderate meat-eating group (Group 3) were 11% more likely to have died than women in Group 1, whereas Group 5 women were 24% more likely to have died than women in Group 1.

Combining the data for men and women, the researchers were able to evaluate the dangers of eating unprocessed and processed red meat: an additional serving per day of unprocessed red meat increased the risk of dying early by 13%. An additional serving per day of processed red meat (such as 2 slices of bacon, 1 hot dog, or 1 slice of lunch meat), increased the chances of dying prematurely by 20%.

A one-serving-per-day increase of unprocessed red meat increased the risk of dying from cardiovascular disease by 18%, and it increases the risk of dying from cancer by 10%. And if the red meat is processed, your risk of dying from cardiovascular disease goes up by 21% and your risk of dying from cancer by 16%.

The researchers determined that 9.3% of deaths in male participants and 7.6% in females would have been prevented had they limited themselves to an average of one half serving of red meat per day (1.5 ounces.)

If by this point you’re considering cutting down on red meat, you may be wondering what to eat instead. The research team used substitution analysis to determine how much people could lower their risk of premature death by eating one serving per day of fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy products, or whole grains instead of a daily serving of red meat. They found that for each serving consumed in place of one serving of red meat daily, the risk of premature death decreased as follows: 7% for fish, 14% for poultry, 19% for nuts, 10% for legumes, 10% for dairy, and 14% for whole grains.[1] It is impossible to know why fish was not as beneficial as the other alternatives, but perhaps it is because the most popular fish meals in the U.S. tend to be tuna salad or fried fish, both of which have high fat content.

How Worried Should I Be?

This study does not confirm a “cause and effect” relationship between red meat consumption and premature death. All it shows is that when meat-eating goes up, death is more likely. This study relied on food records that were updated by the participants once every four years, and while this is standard for a study of this immense size, it isn’t always that reliable. Try remembering how and what you ate four years ago!

Although meat is a popular protein source, it is not the healthiest. Red meat tends to be higher in saturated fat, which raises cholesterol in the blood. High cholesterol levels can result in cardiovascular disease. While processed and unprocessed read meats are both high in saturated fat, the high sodium content of processed red meat makes it even more harmful. When the body gets more sodium than the kidneys can handle or can be excreted through urine, sodium begins to build up in the bloodstream. This makes it harder to pump blood through blood vessels, which increases the pressure on the arteries. Americans consume about 3400 mg of sodium day, on average—much more than the USDA’s recommended limit of 2300 mg a day. Processed red meats generally have four times the amount of sodium and 50% more preservatives than unprocessed red meats.[2] You can read more about the differences between processed and unprocessed red meats here.

This study suggested a higher rate in cancer deaths among red meat eaters; however, the connection remains vague and poorly understood. It is not known why red meat could cause cancer, or whether it is only certain types, but studies indicate that people who eat a lot of red meat—regardless of whether it’s grilled (charred) or not—are at higher risk for various cancers, including colon,[3] breast,[4] and prostate cancer.[5]

Cutting Back on Red Meat

Giving up meat entirely would be tough for many, but the mounting evidence against regular meat consumption is hard to ignore. Try eating chicken or fish (but not fried!) as your protein source, rather than hamburgers, pork chops, or deli meats. Dr. Frank Hu, the lead author of the study, suggests eating unprocessed red meats no more than 3 times a week—that’s nine ounces of beef, lamb or pork over seven days. Bacon, hot dogs, bologna and other processed meats, although tasty, should only be eaten occasionally—at a baseball game or picnic.

Remember that a healthy diet combined with regular physical activity is the best way to improve the quality and length of your life! Check out our 10 easy steps to get your family eating healthy!

References:

  1. An, Pan, Qi Sun, Adam M. Bernstein, Matthias B. Schulze, JoAnn E. Manson, Meir J. Stampfer, Walter C. Willett, and Frank B. Hu. “Red Meat Consumption and Mortality.” Archives of Internal Medicine (2012). Web. 15 Mar. 2012.
  2. Cole, Megan. “Are Processed Meats More Dangerous than Other Red Meats? Yes and No!” Center for Research. National Research Center for Women and Families. Web. 3. Apr. 2012.
  3. Biger, Noy; France De Bravo, Brandel. “Colon Cancer: Who is at Risk and How Can it Be Prevented?” Stop Cancer Fund. Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund. Web. 3, April. 2012.
  4. “Does Red Meat Cause Breast Cancer?” Center For Research. National Research Center for Women and Families.December 2006.Web.3, April 2012.
  5. Porte-Antoine, Stephanie; France De Bravo, Brandel. “Prostate Cancer: Diet and Dietary Supplements.” Stop Cancer Fund. Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund. August 2009. Web. 3, Apr. 2012.

Consumer Reports: Unsafe Medical Devices

News Stories & Editorials, news-you-can-use
Consumer Reports: May, 2012

Most Medical Implants Have Never Been Tested for Safety

Tens of millions of Americans live with medical devices implanted in their bodies-artificial joints, heart defibrillators, surgical mesh. And it’s a safe bet that most of them assume that someone, somewhere, tested the devices for safety and effectiveness.

But that is rarely the case. For most implants and other high-risk devices brought to market, manufacturers do nothing more than file some paperwork and pay the Food and Drug Administration a user fee of roughly $4,000 to start selling a product that can rack up many millions of dollars in revenue. Often, the only safety “testing” that occurs is in the bodies of unsuspecting patients-including two of the three people whose stories are told in this report.

As for the smaller number of high-risk products for which advance safety studies are required, government rules allow them to be sold based on studies that are smaller and less rigorous than those required for prescription drugs.

“Standards for devices exist, they just don’t make sense,” says Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D., a vocal critic of the current system and president of the National Research Center for Women & Families, a nonprofit advocacy organization.

To read the entire article, click here: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/consumer-reports-magazine/May-2012/medical-devices.htm