Direct-to-consumer advertisements (DTCA) take up much of the air time for commercials in today's society. These advertisements help promote new drugs to consumers that they would not usually know about. It gives consumers the opportunity to ask their doctors about new drugs that may be helpful to their conditions.

The advertisements also create large amounts of revenue for pharmaceutical companies. Many times in the limited 30 second commercial segment, drug companies don't have time to get in all of the necessary information (especially the risks). Is DTCA really helping society be more informed, or is it hurting?

According to an article by the New York Times, Yaz and Yasmin, the most popular birth control pill has not been following FDA requirements with their DTCA. Yasmin was first released to the public by Bayer as a contraceptive, but it also claimed that it cleared up acne, help with emotional problems caused by premenstrual dysphoric disorder. Although it can effectively be used for these things, the company did not put a large enough emphasis on the risks. Bayer has been served with 74 lawsuits of women who say they have suffered major health problems after taking Yasmin, such as blood clots and stroke. The company will fight against these lawsuits, but they have had to make a $20 million corrective advertising campaign. It may be difficult for the victims to win the cases if they say they were ignorant to the side effects, because they are printed on the prescription. What they may be able to win is that the advertisements were misleading and they enticed the women to take the pills.

It will be hard to say who will win these cases, but this is not the only prescription drug to have misleading information in their DTCA. Some major drugs have been taken off the market because of this very reason. So the question is, is DTCA hurting the American public or helping it?  

www.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/health/26contracept.html?pagewanted=2

Internet Addiction to be covered???

Are you addicted to Facebook…Twitter…blogging?  Is it affecting your life and daily activities to the point of no return?  In an article written a few weeks ago in the Baltimore Sun, a new debate was brought to the table: Internet addiction.  The article focuses on a University of Iowa student who flunked out on account of an addiction to Internet gaming.  He is now attending a $14,000 residential treatment center for Internet addiction, the very first in the United States.  Internet addiction is not recognized as a disorder by the American Psychiatric Association here in the United States, but it is a very serious issue is places such as China, South Korea, and Taiwan.  Some say this addiction is comparable to that of an alcohol addiction, leaving people without jobs, marriages, and in life-threatening situations.  Believe it or not, people can die from being on the computer for excessive amounts of time. Blood clots form as a result of being sedentary.

Should this addiction treatment be covered by health insurance? While there does not seem to be enough evidence just yet, we may see Internet addiction listed as a illness in the 2012 edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. If it makes the cut, health insurance will cover this issue.  

Check out the article here: http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/sns-health-internet-addiction,0,4290154.story 

Sweeping Cuts To State Safety Net Affect Half-Million Low-Income Elderly

A new study done by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research found that thousands of seniors suffering from Alzheimer's would lose their long-term care due to budget cuts from the state of California. The most vulnerable to these cuts are seniors with disabilities and low incomes who rely on state funded Alzheimer's Centers. These seniors have few resources and not much support from family members and have no where else to turn. Starting October 1, 2009, the state of California made cuts that will affect many Alzheimer's long-term care programs. Alzheimer's day care resource centers will lose all state funding from the cuts which will affect about 3,200 seniors. Supplemental Security Income will be cut 8 to 10 percent affecting those seniors with Alzheimer's who are blind or very low income. And finally In-Home Supportive Services Program (IHSS) will cut 30 percent of services to 445,584 individual, 60% of which are elderly. 

The State of California have already made devastating cuts to healthcare regarding Alzheimer's patients. Other states will probably follow suit if they haven't already. One of the main problems with these cuts, besides the obvious effects, is that Alzheimer's is a growing epidemic. Cuts should not be made to care for patients, it should be increasing.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/166064.php

Crowley Discusses AIDS Policy at HLS

According to The Harvard Crimson Congress has been debating health care reform for months, and yesterday evening the dialogue came to Harvard when Jeffrey Crowley, the current White House Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy and Senior Advisor on Disability Policy, spoke to an audience of 50 at the Law School. What he discussed with the students was how the new health care plan was going to cover everyone living with HIV/AIDS even those that are living with some type of disability. Crowley feels that this could possibly be the key to solving our health care crisis, along with our economic crisis. Crowley stated that "He noted that the Obama administration is the first to create a specific national AIDS policy. “You have to have not been paying attention to see that the Obama administration has put health care at the forefront of its agenda,” Greenwald said when introducing Crowley. This is a good thing for our society to hear, because a lot of people have begun to lose hope when it comes to the health care policy. They feel that nothing is really being done to help those that are living with HIV/AIDS because people are still dying because they're not able to get the treatment that they need in order to help fight against or maybe even cure their virus. Now that Crowley has made it clear that President Obama is doing everything in his power to change the health care policy that will make it focus a lot on those with the virus, people will now have hope again.

Taxes on Rich May Extend to Middle Class

While the main goal of health care reform has always been to provide insurance for the 47 million people that currently have none, it does not come without a price. It is generally accepted that something needs to be done in order to allocate some finances to pay for this health care reform, but what to do is still a debated issue. In an article entitled "Congress is Split on Effort to Tax Costly Health Plans" written by Herszenhorn and Pear of the New York Times, they discuss the possibility of a tax on the more expensive "Cadillac" health insurance plans. Supporters for this tax include many senators including Max Baucus, the Finance Committee Chairman, and Barack Obama. These supporters state that the tax will only be implemented on the insurance companies most expensive plans and will force them to provide more value for their money. Also, this tax could give an incentive for employers to bargain hunt for the best possible plan for the least amount of money. This will in turn lower the cost of health insurance for everyone. Critics of the tax, which include House Members and labour unions, believe that the new tax will simply make the insurance companies pass along this additional cost to the consumers. They believe that any tax on the Cadillac plans will cause an increase in middle class plans, which they refer to as "minivan plans", and the cost of health insurance for the majority will rise. Also, a tax on the employers health care coverage will cause a decrease in both wage and benefits to the employees, simply so the cost of the increase in health insurance will be beared by the employees, rather than the business. This debate is essential for the effectiveness of health care reform and if the Legislative Branch does not incorporate the most effective decision into the new health care bill, it could cause catastrophe for both Cadillacs, and minivans alike.

To read the full article go to
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/health/policy/13plans.html?scp=6&sq=finance%20health%20care&st=cse

HIV Vaccine: Researchers Spoke Too Soon

In recent news it has come to light that the research data on the new AIDS vaccine that had been presented to the public in September may not be as promising as previously thought. When first presented researchers claimed that the vaccine was 31% effective. When they first announced these findings, they admitted their support was weak. However, recent analysis of the study shows that it is even weaker than originally thought. The announcement of a HIV vaccine was the biggest news since ARV cocktails, which changed HIV from a death sentence into a manageable disease. However, at only a rate of effectiveness of 26%, results are far from conclusive and actually not even significant from a statistical standpoint. Much of the controversy is over the differences in opinion about what data should be included: those who participated in the study or those who finished the entire regiment. Researchers are receiving much criticism for prematurely releasing such fragile findings, and many think they were trying to cover up the failure of the six year trial. However, those involved claim that they were only trying to simplify data for the public, and that if they are guilty of anything, it is only making the announcement too soon.

An Alternative Approach to Health Care Reform

In an October 12th article from Forbes, author John E. Girouard offers a unique solution in the ongoing battle to reform health care. The centerpiece of Girouard's solution--eliminating the profit motive and its consequences by forming nonprofit health centers to deal with primary care concerns. Girouard begins his piece by referencing early 20th century America to show that community based medicine is not unprecedented in the US. He proceeds to outline the three major facets of his reform package. First, these nonprofit companies would charge lower premiums and cover all citizens (by means of a government mandate similar to what is being proposed now). Second, nonprofit insurance companies would purchase insurance. The author proposes "reinsurance", where competition and market forces would be retained by the actual insurers. Finally, the author defines the role of the government in his plan. The government would act as a regulator and ultimate insurer. He draws an analogy to the government's role in insuring bank deposits to clarify the extent of government involvement. The author touts his proposal as appeasing to all parties--particularly liberals disdain for the role of the market in health care and conservatives disdain for large government interference.