Friday, May 3, 2013

Fiscal Standoff Could Cause Financial Pain for Health Care

Simple swab-based cleansing cut rates of some

By Barbara Bronson Gray

HealthDay Reporter

THURSDAY, Feb. 28 (HealthDay News) -- "Sequestration" is Washington-speak for the approximately $85 billion in annual federal spending cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011. Those cuts were originally set to take effect on Jan. 1, but were delayed in the deal to avert the so-called "fiscal cliff" of tax increases and budget reductions.

But those cuts are set to kick in Friday, with spending reductions coming to a wide range of areas and programs, including health care, defense, education, air travel and agriculture.

Portions of health care and related programs would be somewhat unscathed -- for instance Medicaid, the government-run insurance program for poorer Americans, would be left untouched.

But experts point to three key areas that health-care consumers should be concerned about, not just in the days ahead but as Congressional Republicans and President Barack Obama continue to wrangle over the budget for the next fiscal year starting in October:

Hospitals: Decreases in Medicare reimbursement for hospitals and skilled nursing facilities are set to total nearly $4.5 billion, or about $1.3 million for the average facility. Such cuts are expected to result in layoffs, especially of nurses, who represent the largest percentage of employees in hospitals.Physicians: Medicare payments to doctors could drop by as much as 3 percent to 4 percent, according to some estimates, totaling about $4.1 billion. The reduction in revenue could be the last straw for frustrated physicians who may stop accepting Medicare patients -- who tend to be 65 or older -- or decide to retire a little sooner than they had planned.Research: Federal agencies such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are each facing funding cuts of about 5 percent, or about $2.5 billion in all. The reductions could slow FDA reviews of proposed new drugs and medical devices, for example, and curtail some services at the CDC -- such as infection control and immunization. The real impact on research projects, which are typically long-term efforts, is harder to estimate.

While the mandated budget cuts are threatening in the short run, experts said the real challenge lies down the road. For instance, the combination of an increasingly tight federal budget and the growing number of retiring baby boomers could bring the financial challenges facing Medicare -- the government-run insurance program for older Americans -- to a whole new level.

"The real issue that the public should be concerned about is, what do the president and Congress plan to do next [fiscal] year, Oct. 1? They're twiddling their thumbs right now and what we need is a functioning government," said Joseph Antos, a health policy expert with the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.


View the original article here

Susanna, Fine Art Student


Browse through the street style and fashion photoblog online at Glamour.com. Check out the latest fashion, as worn by you!

Continue reading...

View the original article here

Justin Bieber two hours late to O2 London gig


Justin Bieber performed on stage at his O2 London gig – but it didn’t meet with everyone’s approval - Get the latest in celebrity style and fashion from Glamour.com. Visit Glamour.com to get all the latest celebrity styles, fashion and gossip.

Continue reading...

View the original article here

City Kids Exposed to More Lead From Contaminated Dust in Summer

Title: City Kids Exposed to More Lead From Contaminated Dust in Summer
Category: Health News
Created: 3/1/2013 2:35:00 PM
Last Editorial Review: 3/4/2013 12:00:00 AM

View the original article here

Emma Stone out and about in New York


Spider-Man actress Emma Stone battled against the elements yesterday as she struggled to have a phone call along a breezy street - Get the latest in celebrity style and fashion from Glamour.com. Visit Glamour.com to get all the latest celebrity styles, fashion and gossip.

Continue reading...

View the original article here

Higher Indoor Humidity Levels Might Slow Flu's Spread

Study found 86 percent of airborne virus

By Alan Mozes

HealthDay Reporter

THURSDAY, Feb. 28 (HealthDay News) -- As the flu season continues to pack a punch for some Americans, new research suggests there might be a simple way to reduce the risk for infection in an indoor setting: hike up humidity levels.

By raising indoor relative humidity levels to 43 percent or above, investigators reported that they were able to quickly render 86 percent of airborne virus particles powerless.

The finding is reported in the February issue of the journal PLOS One by a team led by John Noti, a senior service fellow with the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's Health Effects Laboratory Division at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Morgantown, W.V.

To assess the role of humidity in flu transmission, Noti and his colleagues relied on mechanized mannequins and tissue cultures rather than actual humans.

Placed in a tightly sealed and disinfected model of a hospital examination room, a coughing mannequin served as a flu patient and was outfitted with aerosolized viral solution. The viral solution was projected into the air via five mechanized "coughs," spread out over one-minute intervals.

At the same time, a breathing mannequin (serving as a caregiver) was set to face the coughing mannequin at a distance of a little less than 7 feet. The breathing model was programmed to inhale in sync with the coughing, and aerosol samples of inhaled air were collected at various points around the mouth of the caregiver for up to five hours post-coughing.

Throughout testing, humidity levels were adjusted from a low of 7 percent relative humidity to a high of 73 percent.

The result: the team found that when humidity levels were set to 43 percent, only 14 percent of the virus particles that were released were able to transmit the influenza virus, compared with a transmission rate of 70 percent to 77 percent in a relatively low-humidity environment (23 percent).

What's more, the protective impact of higher humidity levels appeared to be rapid, with the majority of viral inactivation taking place within 15 minutes of when viral particles were first "coughed" into a high-humidity environment.

The study authors cautioned that it remains to be seen whether humidity adjustments can undermine infection risk as effectively in a real-world setting.

If confirmed, however, the protective impact of humidity levels of 40 percent and above probably would be of the most practical benefit in hospital settings, where the ability to protect medical staff by strictly regulating humidity levels would be most feasible.

"I totally buy this," said Dr. Marc Siegel, a clinical associate professor of medicine at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City. "It's very hard to prove that lower humidity increases the risk of transmissibility, but it's not surprising because the reasoning makes sense, which is that droplets fall to the ground in high humidity because water travels on dry air, not on water. If you combine airborne viral droplets with water droplets, they fall."


View the original article here