According to a recent report, Americans are not only fat, but they are getting fatter. The report, done by the Trust for America’s Health found that adult obesity increased in 23 states and did not decrease in a single state during the past year. Also, the report stated that childhood obesity is now at or above 30% in 30 states.

The highest rate of obesity was found in Mississippi, with a rate of 32.5 percent for adults (and an astounding 44.4 percent rate of child obesity). Three other states join Mississippi as having obesity rates over 30 percent: Alabama at 31.2 percent, West Virginia at 31.1 percent and Tennessee at 30.2 percent. Interestingly, 8 of the 10 top states with highest adult obesity are located in the South; where as the northern state of Colorado has the lowest rate at 18.9 percent. This is the fifth year in a row where Mississippi ranked the highest for adult obesity rates.

The fact that Americans are getting fatter is a concern for the healthcare industry because with obesity comes disease and illness and higher health insurance premiums. Despite the increase in nutritional standards from four to 19 states in public schools within the past five years, it is evident that the obesity epidemic is still flourishing. More has to be done by government, families, parents and individuals in order to promote healthy eating and life-styles, exercise and appropriate nutrition.

Quickly Compare Health Insurance Plans with Real Time Quotes at HealthPlanOne.com...Low Cost Alternatives for Every Budget.

This past fall, national pediatrician guidelines doubled the recommended amount of vitamin D for kids. There is also much more concern over vitamin D deficiency, as demand for testing has increased by 80% to 90% this year, according to the Financial Times. Vitamin D has long been thought of as important to health, but what are its real benefits? Well, this year a $20 million government-funded trial is going to study whether vitamin D and fish oil lower the risk of cancer, heart disease or stroke. The study will follow 20,000 healthy older adults for five years. At the heart of this question is whether or not vitamin D deficiency causes a higher rate of disease among African-Americans. Researchers have thought that it is harder for people with darker skin to make vitamin D from sunlight, and perhaps taking supplements will reduce the risk of some diseases. The Boston Globe points out that the goal is to have at least 25% of the participants be African-American. The results of this study should be fascinating. If the vitamin D has no effect on the participants, then I do not think vitamin D will be viewed as unimportant. Vitamin D helps maintain one’s calcium balance, regulate one’s blood pressure, and helps fight against osteoporosis. However, if the vitamin truly does help against cancer, stroke, and heart disease the effects could be remarkable. “If something as simple as taking a vitamin D pill could help lower these risks and eliminate these health disparities, that would be extraordinarily exciting,” said Dr. JoAnn Manson from Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital. For millions of individuals, vitamin D could prove to be a life-saver.

The American population remains highly divided in its opinion of President Obama’s proposed health reform plans. A national telephone survey recently found that 50% of U.S. voters at least somewhat favor the Democratic health care reform proposed by Obama, whereas 45% are at least somewhat opposed. Interestingly enough, more people have stronger opinions that oppose the plan than favor it. Only 24% strongly favor the plan, while 34% are strongly opposed to it.

Obama’s plan includes a new government-run health insurance plan that would allow Americans to choose their own doctors, although the capability to do that may diminish or be totally eliminated in the future. The government plan Obama proposes would compete with private insurers as a method of keeping healthcare costs down. However, many people believe this could lead to the destruction of private insurance companies.

These recent statistics exemplify the uncertainty surrounding healthcare reform. In fact, just 12% of people believe health care coverage will improve if the plan is passes while 37% believe coverage will worsen and 37% expect their coverage to stay about the same. Many people are also questioning whether now the time for health care reform is now given America’s current economic status. Surveys show that 44% of Americans think Obama should wait on health care reform until the economy improves and only 43% say reform should happen now.

Investigators found yesterday that two-thirds of the health insurance industry in the United States uses a faulty database that charges patients more for seeing out of network doctors. The database, operated by Ingenix, kept rates low in order to underpay doctors which then drove up costs for patients.

Ingenix is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group which is also used by nearly 20 regional and national health insurers. Ingenix agreed last January to pay $350 million in order to settle allegation that it kept its rate low to underpay doctors.  Other health insurers include Aetna, CIGNA, and Wellpoint.

Health insurers submit information to Ingenix to determine the costs for care received out of network. Health insurance companies often skew data to underestimate the costs of medical services so that patients would have to pay more in out of pocket costs.

“The result of this practice is that American consumers have paid billions of dollars for health care services that their insurance companies should have paid,” states the Senate Commerce Committee’s investigative staff.

“Insurers know that policyholders are so baffled by those notices they usually just ignore them or throw them away,” said Wendell Potter, a former insurance executive at CIGNA. “And that’s exactly the point. If they were more understandable, more consumers might realize that they are being ripped off.”

To see the full report, go to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g4s2×4w7hv-cWoKaCbdWmE1sQecAD991BJOO0.

Activities such as chess help improve brain health.

The life’sDHA Index of Brain Health recently evaluated the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia on 21 brain health indicators in areas like physical health, diet, mental health and social well-being. Some of these indictors included time spent sleeping, smoking, education state rankings and consumption of DHA-fortified foods such as fish. This index is the first comprehensive state measure of the nation’s brain health.

According to the index, the nation’s top ten states with the highest brain health, listed from first to tenth are: the District of Columbia, Maryland, Washington state, Vermont, Connecticut, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maine and New Hampshire. The five states with the lowest brain health rankings starting with the worst are: Louisiana, Alabama, Oklahoma, Mississippi and Tennessee.

D.C., ranked #1, has one of the highest percentages of people who read for personal interest which helps brain health and also has a high consumption of fruits and vegetables. Many of the states with high rankings exhibit people who eat fish, avoid smoking, read for pleasure, watch their weight and place a high priority on education. On the other hand, Louisiana which ranked last place has a high incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and has the lowest breastfeeding rate nationwide. Since breastfeeding naturally provides DHA, which is important for brain development in infants, this statistic contributes to Louisiana’s poor brain health.

In order to maintain good brain health, people should eat fruits and vegetables in addition to DHA omega-3 rich foods like fish. A minimum of 30 minutes of physical activity a day and playing mental games and learning new things also contribute to good brain health. Other social behavior such as involvement in religious/spiritual activities is also beneficial.

The US health care system boasts some of the most advanced technology, procedures and pharmaceuticals in the world, but is in urgent need of a checkup. We have more than 40 million uninsured Americans and face runaway growth in health care costs. Rapidly increasing costs will cause the Medicare trust fund to go broke in six years and Medicaid is devouring state and federal budgets at an alarming rate. Rising health care costs in the private sector are forcing employers and employees to reduce or drop coverage. The Obama Administration has trumpeted a national health plan as the panacea, but with two out of control federal health insurance programs, we should be cautious about introducing a third to “fix” the private system.

Today, the private sector bears much of the cost of the uninsured population. Millions of uninsured access the health system through hospital emergency rooms and receive care that is ultimately borne by the private sector. Insurance is available for many of them today. Twelve million uninsured are currently eligible for Medicaid but not enrolled. Surprisingly, in 2007 when Massachusetts mandated insurance coverage, they found that nearly half the 450,000 uninsured were eligible for Medicaid. Undocumented aliens represent an additional 10 to 12 million of the uninsured. And finally, some people can afford private insurance but opt not to purchase. In fact, 16 million uninsured live in households with annual earnings above $50,000. The private sector pays the bulk of the bills for the uninsured people, making private insurance even more expensive.

The private sector also pays for low payments made by the government’s existing programs. Medicaid and Medicare (which are the largest health care payers in the country) already pay less than the fair cost of hospital and physician services. This costs the private pay system $90 billion each year (about 25% of private pay spending) to make up the shortfall. As a cost-saving initiative, President Obama recently recommended reducing Medicare payments to hospitals and other providers by $300 billion over the next 10 years. Further cuts to physician and hospital reimbursement may be politically expedient, but do not address the underlying problems with Medicare and merely shift more and more costs to the private sector.

Before we contemplate an enormous expansion of the role of government in providing health care coverage, we should urge our leaders to start by reducing the rolls of the uninsured in ways that only the government can. First, the government must develop a workable plan for dealing with the 12 million undocumented immigrants, who cannot get insurance. Second, the government should take steps to enroll the 12 million citizens who are eligible for Medicaid, but remain uninsured. And finally, mandating minimum insurance requirements for all citizens – including the more than 10 million uninsured healthy younger Americans – would go a long way toward giving all people insurance, and reducing the cost of private insurance.

Unfortunately, taming the runaway costs of Medicare and Medicaid involves difficult political decisions, and the Obama administration and Congress seem inclined to kick the can down the road. It is much easier to introduce a new middle class entitlement and declare victory.

Price Waterhouse Coopers annual medical costs trends report suggests that a 9 percent increase in health insurance coverage will occur in 2010. This 9 percent increase is primarily for businesses and their employer sponsored health plans. Though employers may suffer a 9 percent cost increase in health insurance coverage, employees might have to cope with an even larger increase in coverage.

PWC implies that some of the reasons for this increase in costs is due to employees being concerned about losing their jobs therefore using their health insurance as much as possible while it is still available to them. Another reason for this increase is increasing medical costs as employment rises. More and more uninsured people are turning to Medicaid causing health coverage costs to rise.

A survey done by PWC that involved over 500 employers concluded that 42 percent will increase health care costs for employees in the form of higher premiums, deductibles, and copays.

“As the economy recovers, employers will refocus on more sustainable longer term approaches to medical cost containment based on an increasingly shared interest between employers and their workers,” says Price Waterhouse Coopers Principal Michael Thompson.

Check out the U.S. News article at http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2009/06/18/health-highlights-june–18–2009.html

Many of you probably read my recent post on the efficacy of the Gardasil HPV vaccine in older female populations. Gardasil innoculates against the 4 most common types of human papillomavirus, 2 of which are shown to cause cervical cancer. Though the vaccine is only approved for women under 24, recent studies have shown it also works in women 26 and older. Well, there’s a new chapter in the Gardasil story, one which has been filled with concerns not only about the vaccine’s efficacy but also it’s side effects.

When the vaccine first premiered, concerns were raised that in the long-term it could lead to infertility issues. Now, the shot’s maker, Merck, has been ordered by the FDA to include a revised label on the vaccine’s packaging and new warnings for its commercials. The new label informs readers of possible side-effects including syncope (fainting). It goes on to note that these fainting spells may sometimes include tonic-clonic (jerking) movements and seizure-like activity. This description is nearly identical to the one the Epilepsy Foundation uses to describe Grand Mal seizures. As it turns out, the label change is the result of many young girls vaccinated with Gardasil soon afterwards being diagnosed with epilepsy due to seizures. Tying these seizures or fainting with seizure-like symptoms is particularly concerning. It should also be noted that Gardasil’s manufacturer, Merck, is also the maker of Vioxx.

Check out my previous post on Gardasil here: HPV/Cervical Cancer Vaccine Protects Teens AND Older Women

President Obama has made clear his goal for universal health care for all Americans. When he addressed the American Medical Association on Monday, he called for an elimination of insurers’ practice of denying those with pre-exisiting health conditions, which got him a huge applause. “This is personal for me. I will never forget watching my own mother, as she fought cancer in her final days, worrying about whether her insurer would claim her illness was a preexisting condition so it could get out of providing coverage. Changing the current approach to preexisting conditions is the least we can do - for my mother and every other mother, father, son, and daughter, who has suffered under this practice.” While Obama does have support on this idea from the AMA, insurance companies are very hesitant to change many of their practices. Rescission has been a fiery issue between Congress and the insurance companies. This practice effectively cancels the coverage of some sick individuals. Rescission is particularly damaging because patients have gotten used to having coverage, and suddenly it is dropped. “No one can defend, and I certainly cannot defend, the practice of canceling coverage after the fact,” Rep. Michael C. Burgess, of Texas , told the Los Angeles Times. “There is no acceptable minimum to denying coverage after the fact.” Insurers claim, however, that the practice needs to stay in place to protect themselves from those who lied or committed fraud to get policies. The practice certainly saves the companies money, as a congressional investigation found that the canceling of 20,000 people in a five year period allowed the companies to avoid paying $300 million in claims. The problem is that not all of these people committed fraud or lied to obtain coverage. Many were simply dismissed because of their costly health conditions. The question over whether or not rescission will be allowed to be practiced by insurance companies will be a great debate for a long time.

On Wednesday June 17 the Senate Health, Labor and Pensions Committee began the public drafting of legislation that will overhaul the national health care system. This process will be a top priority for both sides of the Capitol for at least the next six weeks, if not longer. Democrat Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut took lead over the health committee proceedings earlier in June when his close friend Senator Edward M. Kennedy became to ill due to his battle against brain cancer.

In his opening statement, Senator Dodd described how the bills will have a huge affect on all Americans and that all Americans should be entitled to enjoy good health. Senior Republican Senator Michael E. Enzi of Wyoming used his opening statement to criticize Democrats by saying their legislation efforts are a “wasted opportunity” since the committee should be trying to produce legislation that would reflect a broad consensus. Enzi also said that Democrats are rushing health care reforms along too quickly to do a good job.

Some of the main issues being discussed by the Senate concerning the reform are cost, the new public insurance plan which would compete with the private market and whether employers must provide health care for their employees.