A ‘Tsunami’ Is In The Forecast For America’s Aging Population
This rapidly expanding population of aging Americans will put new demands on areas of medicine such as geriatrics and long-term care, yet the numbers of practitioners in these fields are dropping almost as fast as the numbers of their potential patients rise.
Herbert Sier, associate chief of geriatric medicine at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, said that the Alliance for Aging Research projects that 14,000 more geriatricians are needed to address the needs of the current aging population. Yet numbers in the field, which currently counts 7,600 practitioners, are falling, down 22 percent in the last 10 years. Meanwhile, the culture of geriatric care may be contributing to the shortage of nurses and doctors entering the field. Low pay and practice settings that appear unattractive may be driving away students.
And that doesn’t begin to consider the impact of the rationing predicted as a result of Obamacare.
Photo Credit: iStockPhoto/deanm1974
Labels: elderly, health care
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Can We Put a Price on a Healthy Society?
So, is this simple an economic issue? Can we put a price on a healthy society? First and most simplistically, yes. There is a price to everything and we have to set priorities. Failure to do that as a nation and individually has gotten us in the situation we're in today. We have to be responsible in spending and in developing programs for anything. And bottom line, each and every American needs to accept responsibility for himself or herself. Yes, we are used to having the best of everything, and frankly, I believe that the free market system can continue to provide a pretty good life for most of us. But we can't do and be and provide all things for all people and expect our nation to survive, especially if everyone isn't pulling their weight.
But more important, supporters make the assumption that ObamaCare will result in a healthier society. Most people who understand health care and economics believe that it will result in a much LESS healthy society. Let's be logical. First, take a look at the nations that have national health insurance. Look at the wait times for appointments and procedures. In England people are left waiting in ambulances for hours because the emergency rooms can’t keep up with the demand. In Canada (2007), citizens waited an average of 18.3 weeks for non-emergency surgery, 9.2 weeks for a specialty consultation, and 10.1 weeks for an MRI. Compared with the US, that's not an improvement. Second, let's be logical: there is simply no way to provide more care and cover more people for less money (or even with the same amount of money) without rationing. Can't be done. So how do we decide?
First, the problem isn't a 47 million-person problem, as the media and Democrats would have you believe. It's about a 12 million-person problem (those who want health insurance and can't get it and who are here legally). A 12 million-person problem does not require an overhaul of the entire system. It may require some tweaks to the existing system, but recent polls suggest that 83% of Americans are content with their health care. Like the old saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”
Second, although it’s hard to find comprehensive data, it’s safe to say that a majority of the health care problems are the result of life style choices. Until we as a people become more responsible for ourselves and the choices we make, any health care program is little more than a thumb in the dike.
I think it's time that we all take a deep breath, realize this is not a problem that needs to be solved yesterday, and logically and rationally fix only what's broken. What do you think?
Labels: elderly, national health care
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Will You Trust Google with Your Health Info?
Forbes.com announces that thanks to a partnership with IBM, Google has just released Google Health, a site where users can store and track information about their medical history, to connect to and stream data from medical devices. The service is now on the “More” page of the Google site.The computing giants clearly want to get a head start in the movement approved in the Generational Theft bill to put everyone’s medical records into a giant database by 2014. They believe that by make the service new, trendy, and ever so useful, consumers will come to accept, yea, even demand, this service.
I don’t know about you, but I do not want my medical information floating around out there in cyberspace. I know, some medical provider groups have computerized patient data, and it is a boon. My mom’s HMO has electronic record, and there is a benefit to it. Her primary can see what the specialist have done and vice versa. The doctor can electronically order her labs, x-rays, and even prescriptions, saving her a wait at the pharmacy. But, the system is limited to that HMO and she could opt out of it by changing health plans. That’s a far cry from having the government having access to the intimate details of my medical care. Especially when another part of the Gen Theft bill calls for rationing care to those of us over 50.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Labels: elderly, health care, medical records
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Stimulus Bill Endangers the Health of the Elderly and the Rest of Us
Buried about midway into the Stimulus package is language that will affect every Gen Sandwicher and every elderly person.Section 3001 establishes the office of The National Coordinator For Health Information Technology and requires the establishment of “an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014.” The electronic systems will be required to “ensure the comprehensive collection of patient demographic data, including, at a minimum, race, ethnicity, primary language, and gender information.” The law would require all health care providers, health plans, or health insurance issuers to implement these systems.
I don’t know about you, but I certainly don’t want my medical records in a federal database. Imagine the risks to privacy, regardless of the assurances in the bill. How often do we hear of breeches in electronic security as employees walk off with laptops? And imagine the cost to the medical system. Costs that will not provide patient care, but rather, “information systems” that will then be aggregated for government purposes.
Even more frightening, according to Betsy McCaughey on Bloomberg.com, are provisions that require the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, to “monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and ‘guide’ your doctor’s decisions. These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Tom Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.” Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” He says that seniors must be more accepting of the conditions that come with age rather than expecting treatment.
According to McCaughey, Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council in a plan modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis. In 2006, a U.K. health board determined that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision
In essence, this bill opens the back door to a National Health program. It’s dangerous to Boomers and more dangerous to our parents. There are still three Republicans (Spector, Collins, and Snowe) who are voting for the bill, as well as all Democrats. If you care about your health care, you might want to weigh in.
Labels: Baby Boomers, elderly, health care, sandwich generation, stimulus
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Depression Leads to Internal Body Fat in the Elderly
According to a study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, older people who are depressed are much more likely to develop a dangerous type of internal body fat -- the kind that can lead to diabetes and heart disease -- than people who aren't depressed.This is the first large study to track people over time to see if those with depression were more likely to gain weight. The participants, all in their 70s, were recruited in and around Memphis, Tenn., and Pittsburgh in 1997 and 1998 and were followed for five years.
Both groups, depressed and nondepressed, were overweight at the start of the study, with approximately the same average body mass index. When the researchers took into account other risk factors for obesity, including the depressed group's higher visceral fat levels in the beginning, they still found a connection between depression and visceral fat gain. The amount of fat gained could mean the difference between developing a cardiovascular disease or not.
Since many of our parents are depressed, this is important information to stay aware of. I’ve noticed that Mom has become increasingly depressed over the past few years. Anti-depressants caused worse side effects, but it’s important for her to stay active and engaged and it’s important for us to stay attuned to her mental health as well as her physical health.
Labels: depression, elderly