tagged w/ US Health and Human Services
-
Women with advanced breast cancer who were treated with Roches Avastin were more likely to develop heart failure than other women, according to an analysis released on Tuesday that raised more concerns about the already troubled drug.
http://www.indiareport.com/India-usa-uk-news/reuters/Health/76227Women with advanced breast cancer who were treated with Roches Avastin were more... more
-
-
-
A firestorm of criticism erupted after Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Michael Leavitt proposed a new health care refusal regulation that could create serious barriers to publicly funded family planning services for the women and men most in need. Below, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association has outlined the top five reasons why you should protest the new regulations.
Our top five list of objections, offered below, should provide you some inspiration as you begin to draft your own comments. Pass this inspiration on to your friends and neighbors and be sure to get your comments in by Thursday evening. A flood of comments from the general public can change the minds of our leaders -- and it is the most direct way to participate in the creation of the policies that affect us all.
1. These new regulations could allow community health centers, hospitals and individuals to refuse to provide family planning counseling and contraception all in the name of moral objections.
Leavitt insists that these regulations are about protecting the "conscience rights" of providers, but it's clear that this justification is just a ruse to continue the war on contraception, which 90 percent of Americans use to be sexually responsible and raise families. These regulations are unnecessary, as there are already laws on the books that balance provider protections with patient's rights. Indeed, this rule appears to extract the health care needs from the equation altogether.
2. The definition of who may refuse service and what falls under the "service" category appears to have been broadened and could include even the most basic information, counseling on contraception and referral for important health care services.
Right now, an individual who walks into a health center goes in with the understanding and guarantee that they will receive access to the services they need or at the very least information. This includes access to various types of contraception. Under this proposed rule, however, that same individual will go in to their health center with no such guarantee and could be subject to the individual political whims and ideology of their provider.
3. This rule does nothing to contribute to the universal goal of reducing the number of unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion.
Myriad state and federal programs have actually increased access to family planning. Bush's rule essentially negates these successful policies, which have reduced unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion. Such state and federal laws have helped lawmakers achieve those feats because they provide for services such as counseling and contraception.
4. The proposed rule completely ignores the existing framework of patient protections found in federal law.
Existing federal laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, create a robust legal framework for balancing the rights of health care providers to exercise their religious and moral beliefs with the needs of patients to access crucial health care services, including family planning. The proposed rules make no mention of this existing legal framework, a telling and disturbing silence.
5. Publicly funded family planning health centers actually save money and are successful.
At a time when insurance costs are skyrocketing and the numbers of the uninsured are increasing, it seems highly irresponsible to propose a rule change that would actually hamper successful programs. A recent Guttmacher Institute report shows that for every dollar spent nationally on publicly funded family planning health centers, $4.02 is saved in pregnancy-related and newborn costs to Medicaid.
So get your comments in and make sure your voice is heard at HHS today. Go to regulations.gov and search for docket ID "HHS-OS-2008-0011" to leave your comments online. A firestorm of criticism erupted after Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary... more
-
-
Healthcare Should Be Free For Everyone.
-
-
Ro_Lew
-
added this
-
4 years ago
- |
-
Gore, Bono speak in Davos 3:33
Nobel Prize laureate Al Gore on global warming and U2 frontman Bono discuss poverty at the World Economic Forum.
Added: January 24, 2008
Amazing, time goes fast but we really should concentrate ourselves on things that really matters. We are in part the ones helping America to "remember" and from their recollection supply their need to act for change. The time is now!Gore, Bono speak in Davos 3:33
Nobel Prize laureate Al Gore on global warming and U2... more
-
-
The point here is:
Are he is going to listen to it and act in order to protect our Citizens from Noise?
Let us all find out how good he is to this Country...
January 25, 2008
Rear Admiral Steven K. Galson, MD, MPH
Office of the Surgeon General
5600 Fishers Lane
Room 18-66
Rockville, MD 20857
Dear Doctor Galson:
I am a retired physician with an interest in the public health aspects of
noise pollution. With each passing year, noise pollution increases. As it
does, so do noise-related, adverse medical, social, and economic effects.
Noise pollution affects every American in countless negative ways both day and night. Among its many adverse effects, noise damages hearing, disturbs
communication, disrupts sleep, impairs cardiovascular function, interferes with teaching and learning, reduces productivity, harms relationships, provokes unwanted behaviors, and increases accidents. It is a major source of recurring and often unrecognized stress, which, itself, degrades the quality of life and adversely affects health. These are not potential effects; they are real. They are medically, socially, and economically important.
Your predecessors have spoken out about the hazards of pollution with unquestioned effect. They brought problems to public attention and contributed to their solutions. I am writing to you because you are in a position to do the same for noise pollution.
Most citizens are concerned about pollution and the ways it degrades the
quality of life. These concerns center around the environment in which we
live, the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the water we drink. Citizens want and expect the government to protect us from the various pollutants in our environment, all of which directly affect our health and well being.
Our society has been slow to deal with all the pollutants to which we are
exposed. It has dealt with them irrationally and inconsistently. This is
especially true of air pollution. Air borne pollution exists in two very
different forms. The most noticeable form of air pollution consists of particles. Vehicle emissions, factory emissions, tobacco smoke, and other particulate forms of air pollution are known to produce illness; they are justifiable concerns of citizens. Thus, we have many laws aimed at protecting the environment from air borne particles that pollute.
Part 1- Ending
Part 2- [continuing...]The point here is:
Are he is going to listen to it and act in order to protect our... more
-
