HealthyConcerns.com

Final stretch for BlogHers Act fundraising drive...Myanmar added to the list of projects

I've written before about BlogHer's Mother's Day fundraising initiative in partnership with Global Giving.

Today we announced two incentives to participate in this the final week before Mother's Day:

1. We've added a sixth donation option on top of the five worthy projects we're supporting: Provide Emergency Relief - Myanmar Cyclone Victims. The devastation is horrifying in the aftermath of the world's worst natural disaster since the 2004 tsunami. And the cries of governmental lack of transparency or fast action is reminding some of us, very uncomfortably, of Hurricane Katrina.

2. BlogHer and GlobalGiving are offering matching funds. Lisa lays it out as follows:

Whichever of the now six projects recommended via the BlogHers Act fundraising widget receives the most donations between now and the end of the week will get a $1,000 donation from BlogHer, which Global Giving has agreed to match. The other five worthy projects will also get a donation of $200 each from BlogHer.

Now, you know you can give a donation to one of these worthy projects in someone's honor, like, say, I don't know...your mother!!!

So, grab the widget, grab your wallet, let's get that number higher, knowing another $3,000 will be added on top of it, from BlogHer and Global Giving.

McCain's health care problem: pre-existing conditions

After Catherine Morgan asked "Did You Know John McCain's Health Care Plan Does Not Include Preexisting Conditions?" over at BlogHer, I thought to myself "huh, really? Wow." and moved along. You know, I've got coverage right now; I don't have any serious pre-existing conditions (knock on wood) and gee, does anyone expect the Republican candidate to really care about health care?

But then a fairly brief post by Joseph Paduda over at Managed Care Matters made the point that McCain's plan "manages to cost more than the Obama or Clinton plans, while insuring far fewer people", and I thought "huh, that sounds like a mess, ad some pretty bad government that should really concern me even if I don't see its immediate impact on my own health and life."

OK, maybe I didn't think it exactly like that...but I was motivated to click over to the analysis that Joseph recommended, over at Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review.

Here's Bob with the smackdown:

First, he is simply shunting the problem off to the states.

Second, he implies that one or more states have figured out what to do with people who can't get health insurance because of preexisting conditions. Just which state is that? I don't know of a single state that has been able to provide widely available access to health insurance for people who cannot get it.

Third, just who would finance this pool? States have tried so called high risk pools before. Time and again they are swamped by people trying to get in and there is never enough money. Since they have never worked before, how would they work this time? There were vague references to coming up with $7 billion in federal money here. Is that their proposal?

I really haven't been reading this blog enough to know whether his claims of a non-partisan approach are valid or not, but he does examine each candidate's plan, and I intend to subscribe and find out!

Here are links to his analyses of the candidate plans, so you can judge for yourself:

Clinton
McCain
Obama

Where politics, health and Mother's Day intersect

This Mother's Day two bloggers are organizing a BlogSwarm that I would like to bring to your attention. Bridget Magnus (aka ShortWoman) and The Arch Crone are sponsoring a Mother's Day event to bring attention to the women who are victims of not being able to get an abortion. You can read more
about it here.

If you read ShortWoman's post you'll see that this BlogSwarm is in response to a pro-life publicity stunt, a "funeral procession" in honor of aborted fetuses.

See, there's a lot of talk about those fetuses, and there's a lot of talk about maternal health...BlogHers Act particularly focuses on it, as one example.

But ShortWoman and ArchCrone wanted to draw attention to maternal death. (Which is still shockingly prevalent I might add.)

If you want to learn more about what they're planning, visit this post.

Me? I'm happy to see people focus on the persons who are already actual persons.

Life span, class, gender and race in America

Spurred on by a post on BlogHer by Health editor Catherine Morgan, I read with some dismay that while life expectancy has steadily risen in this country throughout the 20th century, that the trend is actually leveling off and even declining for some in the U.S., since 1983 actually.

If this trend has been happening for about 25 years why are we only hearing about it now? Well, the study was only published this past week. It's kind of disturbing considering the data stops at 1999, so it's not even taking into account what the policies and economic issues of the last eight years might have done to further exacerbate the problem!

Oh, and the problem? Most disturbing of all it seems to be all about class. Welcome to the Two Americas John Edwards was always talking about. if you didn't want to believe it was true, these studies may shake your faith.

Let's get to some excerpts from the two different NY Times stories i saw on the subject:

"Throughout the 20th century, it was an American birthright that each generation would live longer than the last. Year after year, almost without exception, the anticipated life span of the average American rose inexorably, to 78 years in 2005 from 61 years in 1933, when comprehensive data first became available.

But new research shows that those reassuring nationwide gains mask a darker and more complex reality. A pair of reports out this month affirm that the rising tide of American health is not lifting all boats, and that there are widening gaps in life expectancy based on the interwoven variables of income, race, sex, education and geography."

"The most startling evidence came last week in a government-sponsored study by Harvard researchers who found that life expectancy actually declined in a substantial number of counties from 1983 to 1999, particularly for women. Most of the counties with declines are in the Deep South, along the Mississippi River, and in Appalachia, as well as in the southern Plains and Texas."

"The first of the two reports, released two weeks ago by the Congressional Budget Office, declared that the life expectancy gap is growing between rich and poor and between those with the highest and lowest educational attainment, even as it is narrowing between men and women and between blacks and whites."

It's interesting that it's not as simple as to say those with lower income are less likely to have insurance, or to go to the doctor, or to get early diagnoses of ailments...all of which is true. There is also the fact that there are higher incidences of unhealthy behaviors in lower-income populations, such as smoking, alcohol abuse and poor management of chronic disease.

"Dr. Ezzati, of the Harvard School of Public Health, asked: “How much of this is pure material well being, the ability to purchase high-quality food, the ability to have a particular lifestyle? And how much of it is the impact of income on risk behaviors like alcohol and tobacco and stress mechanisms that are more psychosocial? There’s a series of debates around that that are unresolved.”

This may be the money excerpt form the entire series of articles:

"From 1961 to 1983, no county had a statistically significant decline in life expectancy, and reductions in cardiovascular disease led to a generally increasing length of life for both sexes. But after 1983, life expectancy declined an average of 1.3 years in 11 counties for men, and in 180 counties for women.

This lack of progress among the worst off was caused by a slowing or halt of reductions in cardiovascular disease, combined with increases in lung cancer and diabetes for women and in H.I.V. infection and homicide for men.

This rise in mortality for chronic diseases runs counter to trends in other developed countries, and the geographical differences are consistent with regional trends in smoking, high blood pressure and obesity. Dr. Ezzati speculates that data after 1999 will show more decreases in life span for the worst-off women. He expects to see a slight increase for men, with improved treatment for H.I.V. and AIDS.

“What’s driving the disparity is the worsening of the worst off,” Dr. Ezzati said. “In the U.S., there has always been a view, stated or unstated, that we can live with some inequality if everyone is getting better. This is the first sign that not everyone is getting better.”

So, is anyone else noticing that this decline started during the Reagan years? I consider that to be the starting point for the new Republican party values that eschewed (and continues to eschew) actual legislative or policy-driven solutions to our widening class gap...and in fact seems to celebrate it.l All while paying lip service to the concept of compassion...as long as it's someone else's problem.

Well, those chickens are coming home to roost, IMHO.

And here's something I found very odd: I scanned my usual suspects of medblogs looking for either concurring or opposing opinions, and found very little blogging about this.

What am I missing? Isn't this news disheartening? Does this not jive with how we think of ourselves here in the U.S.? Is this just old news to the medical community...are they so familiar with the problems that they're hardened to it? Where are the blog posts I'm missing? :(

Defend the MOTHERS Act against misinformation campaign!!

This comes direct from the blogosphere's foremost authority on postpartum depression, Katherine Stone from Postpartum Progress. As you may know Katherine guest blogs on BlogHer about postpartum depression and has spearheaded our efforts in the regard, including leading the charge on the Blog Day for The MOTHERS Act that BlogHer co-sponsored back in October. At that time the response was so immediate and passionate that the Senate had bumped up their schedule to work on the legislation, but since then a misinformation campaign has sprung up and is currently being louder and more insistent.

We need to reengage and reenergize. According to Katherine:

It's time to talk about the Melanie Blocker Stokes (MBS) MOTHERS Act again. I know, I know. We've heard this all before, you're thinking. I already called my Senator, you're thinking. I already wrote about this on my blog, you're thinking. Sheesh!, you may even be thinking. Well, apparently everything you and I have done so far in support of this bill hasn't been enough. As you may know, there are some people who are completely convinced that the MBS MOTHERS Act is a conspiratorial plot by the government to drug pregnant and postpartum women, and it must be STOPPED AT ALL COSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You and I know that's not true. So we've kind of ignored the negative campaign -- been slightly pissed and sometimes even truly annoyed but gone on with our day because it's silly and we have lots of more important things to worry about than some misguided folks. But the U.S. Senate can't ignore it when lots and lots and lots of people speak out. That's how they work, right? Polls. When they hear from lots of people on a certain issue, they tend to go in that direction. Right now our Senators are hearing from a whole host of people who think it's a really bad idea to pass this bill -- a bill that provides funding for increased research into the cause and treatments of postpartum mood disorders, provides better training for healthcare providers and provides for an awareness campaign so that more women will know about these illnesses and realize that they can get help. Those people, bless their hearts, are very vocal and have every right to be vocal about what they think. Conversely, those who believe in the MBS MOTHERS Act are not being anywhere near vocal enough. Our Senators are NOT HEARING from enough of those of us who support it. If this trend continues, this bill will not pass. What happened to us, and to hundreds of thousands like us, and to our friends and sisters and mothers and girlfriends will keep happening. Women will continue to think they've gone crazy, never to return to their old selves. They will continue to live in fear of speaking up and telling someone about it. They will continue to be afraid to lose their children. They will continue to suffer, hurting both their health and the health of their children, because they won't get treatment. Some might even kill themselves, or become so ill they harm their children. That is unacceptable to me. Is it acceptable to you? I started this blog because I was damn well not going to let anybody go through the isolation and terror and ineffective treatment from an untrained doctor that I received. Don't you feel the same? Postpartum Progress readers, and anyone who cares about postpartum mood disorders, I humbly ask you to complete two very easy assignments: 1. Click this link and sign this petition to support passage of the MBS MOTHERS Act. It is as easy as pie. Thanks to the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance for getting the petition going. All you have to do is fill out your name and address and click send, and it will be sent all the proper places. The petition is also supported by Postpartum Support International. 2. Forward the petition link to everyone you know and tell them to sign their name to it as well. We need thousands of people to do this. Not just a few hundred. Seriously, thousands. Get clicking.

I know that lately I've also asked you to donate (and you still totally shoud) but can you also please click and blog?

I just did, won't you join me?

Help save women's lives (and by extension, help save communities)

BlogHer launched the BlogHers Act activism initiative at last year's annual conference, and since then we've undertaken such projects as a Blog Action Day for the MOTHERS ACT, and a series of podcast interviews about postpartum depression and postpartum hemorrhage, among other topics.

Today we launched a BlogHers Act project that goes right to the bottom line: Raising funds to endow five different projects across the globe that directly address the health and welfare of women and children. We're partnering with Global Giving on this initiative, and we'll be tracking how much money the BlogHer Network can collect between now and Mother's Day in May.

BlogHer now reaches about 8 million unique visitors per month across our entire network. Just imagine the possibilities...won't you help turn them into reality?

I know I'm in!

This is why people are still scared of the Internet

I found this beyond-disappointing story on Engadget this morning: Hackers embed flashing animations on epilepsy support forum.

When I talk to people who aren't as embedded in the online world as I typically am, I notice that most of their questions and comments are fear-based.

This goes for companies wondering whether they should market on blogs.

This goes for people who hear about cyberstalkers or cyberbullies and consider the entire Internet to be a Wild West (yes, that well-worn cliche.)

This goes for people sure that they will have their identity stolen, their credit card compromised, and their computer hacked.

I usually talk about how most bad things don't reflect the culture of the Internet or the blogosphere, but rather they reflect the culture of sub-segments of our society in general. What the Internet does is provide a mechanism to more widely distribute and more loudly spread, for lack of a better word, dickishness.

This is an example, though, where it's hard to imagine how someone might find and visually assault a group of epileptics in the offline world. This does sound like an only-on-the-Internet story.

And it's pretty pathetic.

Speaking of vaccines: where do you stand?

Coincidentally, there's a story in yesterday's NY Times about an outbreak of measles amongst children in California, most of whom had not been vaccinated against it.

I have at least one friend who didn't vaccinate her children, and I know lots of parents who think parents like that are, to put it as impolitely as they do, idiots.

A recent decision by the federal "vaccine court" that conceded that vaccines may worsen an underlying condition that can lead to autism-like symptoms (is that enough qualifications for you?) certainly isn't clearing things up in one direction or the other.

Right now it seems like ti's providing supporting evidence for those who are convinced vaccines are unnecessarily risky, and the decision was worded narrowly enough that it proves nothing to those who dismiss such concerns.

Have any of you not vaccinated your children? Or had your children exposed to something because of other people's unvaccinated children?

how big a problem is this really?

AIDS vaccine study halted, my friend had the placebo

I only recently discovered that a friend of mine was a participant in a big, global AIDS vaccine blind trial.

And that they had to stop the trial and tell every participant whether they had the vaccine or the placebo.

Because people getting the vaccine were showing a higher incidence of sero-converting to HIV Positive status than those getting the placebo. Certainly not the expected or intended outcome.

My friend therefore discovered that he had been getting the placebo. Which, of course, doesn't mean he was bound to either get or not get HIV.

He told me this over a week ago, and somehow I didn't think that was a scoop or anything, but I only yesterday saw the story break on ABC News.com. (And confirmed yesterday seemed to be the day the news hit by checking Google News for additional mentions.)

Shows you that I am not a blogger who considers herself to be a journalist.

I don't know if they're back to square one on a vaccine effort, but it is disheartening.

Please take the BlogHer survey...it will make me feel good :)

Twice a year BlogHer does a survey to figure out who is reading the blogs in our advertising network. This helps us understand what topics you all are writing and reading about, and what kinds of activities, information and yes, ads, you enjoy (and don't enjoy) online.

The survey is about 15 minutes long, but it's all about you and what you love to do online, so I found it was pretty easy and fun to take.

So, please take the survey, pretty please?

Oh, and we will be drawing three random winner from the folks who compelte the survey and choose to enter, and those winners will be able to get a free pass to the BlogHer event of their choice. So, there's a carrot right there.

Thanks, and now we'll be back to our (not so) regularly scheduled programming.