Talk Doesn’t Pay, So Psychiatry Turns Instead to Drug Therapy

New York Times, March 5th, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/health/policy/06doctors.html?src=me&ref=health

Due to the changes in how much insurance will pay, today's psychiatrists can no longer provide talk therapy to their patients. Instead, they are only able to prescribe medication after a brief consultation with each patient. This is just one of the many ways that medicine has drastically changed in the U.S. over the past few decades. At one time, it was a personal, service-based profession that developed a close relationship between caregivers and those who were treated. Today, it is dominated by large hospital group and corporations, coupled with a loss of intimacy between doctor and patient. This loss has most severely affected the psychiatry field. Instead of becoming interested in patient problems and offering therapeutic services, psychiatrists are forced to merely keep patients functional.

The story within this article is telling of a significant issue in the medical field. As the health care field continues to develop, it becomes driven by economic and technological pursuits, losing the core ethics of medicine. Health care has become an industry of competing services and devices - all towards the goal of economic and professional development. Yet, as the medical field becomes fueled by "big business" strategies and techniques, the values that uphold medical aid have disappeared. The importance of a single person, personal issues, developing trust, and ensuring safety and well-being have taken a back seat. Moreover, the community-based, selfless nature of being a doctor is being compromised in order to meet financial requirements, insurance policies, and visitor quotas. Doctors have transformed from personal, faithful healers to mechanized robots that practice in the most efficient, cost-effective way. For better or for worse.

US EPA says big budget cut would hurt public health

Reuters, March 2nd, 2011
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN0263677520110302?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Republican-led House of Representatives passed a bill that would have slashed the EPA's 2011 budget by about 30 percent just before Congress passed a stopgap spending bill to keep the government going for two weeks. Obama's budget proposal would cut EPA's budget $1.3 billion to $9 billion with reductions in a clean diesel program and in Great Lakes restoration projects. Republicans in the House of Representatives claim that the EPA's regulations on clean air and water hurt businesses. EPA officials report that for every dollar that goes toward protecting federal clean air and clean water laws save as much as $20 to $30 in costs for health problems. They claim that EPA initiatives act as preventative medicine. This week, the EPA released a report that said cutting pollution under the Clean Air Act will save $20 trillion by 2020 in health costs. It will also have prevented 230,000 premature deaths annually from heart attacks, and other health problems that can be caused by smokestack pollutants such as soot.

This article explains how the budget would affect funding for the EPA, an agency responsible for saving thousands of lives and millions of dollars, impacting its ability to uphold its current regulations. Federal environmental laws and regulations have a major impact on the nation's employment, economic conditions, and public health. While it is necessary for the budget to prevent unnecessary and costly requirements, the EPA has historically had an effective role in saving lives through environmental protection. Slashing EPA funding will result in the loss of critically important programs to maintaining human health.

US: Lack of Paid Leave Harms Workers, Children

Human Rights Watch, February 23rd, 2011
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/02/23/us-lack-paid-leave-harms-workers-children

This article condemns the lack of American work-family policies and considers the types of realities that American parents are forced to face, describing them as human rights violations. These include "little or no paid family leave after childbirth or adoption, employer reticence to offer breastfeeding support or flexible schedules, and workplace discrimination against new parents, especially mothers". It claims that the lack of such policies have health, financial, and career impacts on parents and urges reforms that will bring the U.S., which is now "an extreme outlier", in line with the rest of the world.

Paid maternity leave has far-reaching implications on health including increased breastfeeding, lower infant mortality, higher rates of immunizations and health visits for babies, and lower risk of postpartum depression. This issue also highlights social disparities, as low-income workers who need paid leave the most are often left out. It is the role of policymakers to help workers take care of their families. Moreover, giving mothers the time off to nurse for infants reduces risk to mothers for a plethora of health issues including weight control, diabetes, and several forms of cancer. In this way, paid leave not only impacts families in a positive way, but stands as a proactive form of health care. If we want to strengthen the health of tomorrow's future citizens, we cannot abandon children at their most vital, brain-shaping time. Families must nurture and care for them and support their development and well-being by being there for their children without having to worry about financial issues.

Soda: A Sin We Sip Instead of Smoke?

New York Times, February 14th, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/weekinreview/14bittman.html

Critics say the soft-drink industry is acting like the "Big Tobacco" industry did a generation ago: marketing heavily to kids and claiming its products aren't harmful. Sugar, like tobacco, is now shown to cause cancer, as well as contribute to diabetes, obesity, and other health problems. This article considers the White House's proposed ban of full-sugar sodas in schools and discusses the advisability of a penny-per-ounce soda tax. Such taxes have already passed in Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee. Other states are not far behind. Just as revenue from cigarette taxes is used, in part, to fund anti-smoking efforts, funds from soda taxes might be used to fund anti-obesity campaigns. While representatives from the beverage industry acknowledge that obesity is a problem, they claim it cannot be managed by eliminating only one food from the diet. On the other side, advocates argue that a soda tax would reduce consumption through preventative measures.

Over the past thirty years, consumption of sugary beverages in the United States has more than doubled, paralleling the rise in obesity. Substantial health care costs arise from this trend: obesity-related illnesses cost Americans billions of dollars each year, paying the price through higher taxes. This sugar beverage tax would raise awareness about the importance of diet and the link to obesity, to reduce the intake of calories and sugary drinks, and to improve the health of Americans. I support this action across the U.S. to promote healthier dietary choices in the general public and improve the long-term health of our communities.

Hospitals Shift Smoking Bans to Smoker Ban

New York Times, February 10th, 2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/us/11smoking.html?_r=3&ref=health

More U.S. hospitals and medical groups are not only banning smoking but are also turning away job applicants who smoke in more aggressive attempts to reduce health care costs and encourage healthy living. Companies feel obligated to instate these policies due to the lack of success from other efforts including banning smoking on company grounds, offering cessation programs, and increasing health care premiums for smokers. Now, applications explicitly warn of "tobacco-free hiring", which has fueled quite a debate regarding the policy implications of an employee's private life as criteria for job hiring. On one side, hospital executives claim that smoking employees cost approximately $3,000 more each year, making employees who maintain healthy lifestyles essentially pay for these costs. On the other hand, worker unions and other organizations strongly oppose the policies, deeming them as crossing the line between personal habits and professional employment. These groups are concerned that this ban may be a gateway for future policies that dictate the private choices that employees make in order to keep their jobs.

This article outlines an issue that is a crucial public health concern. Smoking harms not only the health of smokers, but of those around them as well. Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) has been common in workplaces, increasing the risk of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases. In addition, smoking costs employers money. These costs include: decreased productivity, higher annual health care costs and insurance premiums, and more employee absenteeism. Overall, the health and economical costs of smoker employment require the attention and engagement of public health officials. However, "tobacco-free" hiring goes too far. With the economic issues that we are facing today, it is not appropriate to begin threatening the livelihood of citizens who are otherwise productive members of society. Their tax dollars go to support the health care of individuals with other medical issues which could stem from poor eating habits or lack of physical activity. Medical centers do not have a right to discriminate against qualified job-seekers due to unhealthy, personal habits.

Starting solid foods early linked to obesity risk

MSNBC, February 7th, 2011
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41432714/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/

Feeding babies solid foods too early may increase their risk for childhood obesity, a new research study from the Children's Hospital Boston reports. The article highlights that giving formula-fed infants solid foods before four months has major consequences. The study, which looked at more than 840 children, found that infants who had been fed baby food before they were four months old had a significant increase in obesity by the time they were three years old. Surprisingly, infants who were breastfed saw no increase in obesity related to how soon they began solids. Still, researchers say parents should wait the recommended four to six months before starting any infant on solid foods.

The link between obesity and introduction of solid foods among formula-fed babies can be explained by the fact that solids may increase infant energy intake. The findings of this study are significant for parents who are wondering when they should begin solid foods with their baby. There is clearly some association between early food introduction and later obesity during the toddler years. Childhood obesity is a global epidemic and a critical public health challenge. This article emphasizes that the problem is not limited to school-aged children and adolescents. In fact, the prevalence of overweight American infants and toddlers has surged by 60 percent in the past thirty years. It also provides sound evidence for current guidelines. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that mothers breastfeed exclusively (no formula, water, juice, or solid foods) for at least four months, but preferably six months. The AAP also states that solid foods should be introduced between 4 and 6 months of age, just as the researchers suggest. The research also indicates that the first few months after birth may be a critical period in the fight against childhood obesity because feeding habits during early infancy can be readily controlled. In this way, the article provides crucial evidence in order to mitigate the prevalence of childhood obesity worldwide.

FDA and Dairy Industry Spar Over Testing of Milk

New York Times, January 25th, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/business/26milk.html?_r=1&ref=health

The Food and Drug Administration is concerned that antibiotics might be contaminating the milk of American dairy cows. This can result from poor management practices on farms such as exceeding the prescribed dose or injecting a drug into muscle instead of a vein. Consequently, the FDA hoped to begin testing milk this month from farms that have a reputation of selling cows with illegal levels of antibiotics in them. However, the dairy industry protested this decision because it would force farmers to dump millions of gallons of milk while waiting for test results. This has forced the FDA to postpone testing, as both sides battle over how much danger the antibiotics pose and how to avoid drug presence in milk supply. Industry officials claim that this plan's goals are "potentially very damaging to innocent dairy farmers", while food safety advocates voice the FDA findings address the overuse of antibiotics in livestock, potentially causing antibiotic resistance in humans. The FDA plan has been heavily criticized by state officials and the dairy industry, resulting in a review of testing plans.

This article presents an issue that stands as a major public health issue for Americans nationwide. The overuse of antibiotics in dairy cows puts innocent consumers at risk for antibiotic resistance. Intake of contaminated milk products from these cows including cheese, yogurt, and cream - all threaten public health, leaving Americans defenseless against antibiotics that fight human illnesses in the future. Also, these antibiotic residues can cause allergenic reactions in sensitive individuals. While lawmakers are looking to curb the use of antibiotics in raising livestock for the health and safety of the public, agribusiness interests prevent any major precautions due to the lengthy time of testing. This article is especially telling of the role that stakeholders and interest groups play in developing sound public health policy and the controversy that policy-making is constantly surrounded by. It presents the argument that this testing would hurt innocent small-scale farmers, but in reality it would impact "big business" dairy industies that have been continually negligent of animal and human health hazards and environmental degradation resulting from their poor farming practices. These officials are more concerned about maintaining their economic interests, disregarding the unintended consequences these techniques pose.