The following article is taken directly from the April 30th issue of the weekly e-newsletter of the American Medical Directors Association: "Weekly Round Up."
The H1N1 Flu (first called the Swine flu), is spreading throughout the United States, Canada and Europe. There is lots of talk about this moving into a pandemic—an epidemic of an infectious disease—in the U.S. Daily, the government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is reporting increasing numbers of cases of this flu. As of April 28th, it is confirmed in 10 states in this country, in Canada and several areas in Europe, with Germany as the latest site.
Of course, it is natural to worry about your loved one in a long term care (LTC) facility. LTC facilities have processes in place to try to keep infectious diseases such as flu from coming in and making patients/residents sick. For example, they will request that employees or visitors who have a fever or other signs of illness stay home. Also, they will monitor that staff is washing their hands, not touching or breathing on food, and wearing masks and gloves around someone who is sick. Normally the facility will make sure those patients/residents who are well enough get flu shots and other preventive care. However, there is no flu shot at this time to prevent H1N1 flu.
What are the signs of H1N1 flu? People with the condition usually have the same complaints as people with any flu-like virus, except some people with the H1N1 virus are reporting some nausea and diarrhea. Suspect that someone has H1N1 if he/she has respiratory illness with fever within seven days of close contact with a person who has the illness or within seven days of travel to someplace where people have the H1N1 illness; or they live in a community (like a LTC facility) where people have been proven to have H1N1. Like seasonal flu, H1N1 flu may cause other medical problems to get worse.
Eating pork products does not cause the illness (although it is best to avoid exposure to pigs from Mexico), so you don’t have to worry if the facility is serving ham for lunch.
The medical director makes sure that the facility has flu control practices and policies that go beyond a vaccination program. Such a program is the first step in preventing flu outbreaks, but other steps are needed; and the medical director and his team will make sure that these steps are taken. Facilities have ways to prevent flu illness from spreading if someone gets it. This is often called infection control or outbreak control measures. The facility’s first goal is to protect your loved one and keep him/her safe. So take heart. Doctors, nurses, and others are on alert when there is flu like this going around, and they take steps to try to prevent everyone from getting sick.
Your physician can tell you what you can do to prevent bringing an illness into the facility and how to keep from getting sick if you visit a loved one in a facility where people have or have had the flu. In the meantime, fighting illnesses like H1N1 flu starts with common sense. If you don’t have to go somewhere, don’t—especially if you are sick. Avoid close contact with people who are sick, and wash your hands several times during the day.
Questions to Ask Your Physician:
• What will happen if there is an outbreak in the facility? What outbreak control means will be used?
• How will family members be notified if there is a case or outbreak of H1N1 flu at the facility?
• How will my loved one be treated if he/she gets H1N1 flu? Will he/she have to go to the hospital?
• How will my loved one be protected from getting H1N1 flu if others in the facility have it?
• How can I help prevent the spread of H1N1 flu?
• What will happen if there is a pandemic? Will the facility be closed to the public?
• If a vaccination for H1N1 flu becomes available, will my loved one get this?
• What else will the facility do to prevent patients/residents from getting the flu?
What You Can Do:
• Don’t visit your loved one if you are sick or feel like you are getting sick.
• Wash your hands often.
• Cover your face if you cough or sneeze and then wash your hands.
• Don’t bring small children to visit your loved one if they have been exposed to the flu at school or in the community.
• Let the facility know if you recently visited a country (such as Mexico) connected with a flu outbreak or outbreak of other infectious illness.
• Urge your loved one to tell a nurse if he/she has any signs of the flu.
• Urge your loved one to avoid close contact with others during flu season or outbreaks.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
How much did the Smithfield Easter Ham Really Cost?
© Imelda Maurer, cdp April 28, 2009
For several weeks I’ve wanted to use my blog to write about food. It’s an issue that, for the last couple of years, has stayed with me and it won’t let go. Since the original purpose of this blog included reflections on healthy aging and quality of life in later years, the topic of food is quite apt. The issue goes far beyond issues of the individual, however, because our food choices also impact the animals raised as commodities on factory farms, the environment, the economy, the viability of family farmers, and public health.
Last week I finished listening to the audio version of the book, “The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter” by Peter Springer and Jim Mason. Just a few days later, news of the swine flu and its potential to become a pandemic hit the airwaves.
The mainstream media has only addressed the number and location of diagnosed cases of swine flu, number of deaths, the actions of public health officials, etc. None has addressed the cause. Web sites such as The Huffington Post, The Environmentalist, Farmers Weekly, Marion Nestle, however, do clearly make the connection between this global wave of swine flu and factory hog farming. Specifically, Smithfield Foods is mentioned as being the source.
Smithfield, an American-owned meat producer, owns confined animal feeding operations ‘CAFOs’ in Veracruz, México where the swine flu outbreak originated.
We Americans are accustomed to low-priced food. The hidden cost of our grocery bill is in subsidies to the factory farm owners --- corporations such as Smithfield, ConAgra, ADM, Cargill, etc.
One of the ways in which Smithfield is subsidized is by the fact that --- even here in the United States --- there are scant regulations directing the treatment of animal excrement in these CAFOs. A single farm may house (very inhumanely) tens of thousands of hogs. Their excrement far exceeds that produced by humans living in a city of up to 400,000 people. Human excrement is regulated and there is no environmental degradation as a result. On factory farms, excrement is held in ‘manure lagoons’. It is possible, according to several reports that I have read, that the carrier of the swine flu is a fly that reproduces in pig excrement. The fly can infect people by biting.
Smithfield does not have to pay for treating millions of tons of animal excrement. The result is an increase in air and water pollution, respiratory and other health problems of employees, early disability and shortened life spans of these underpaid workers. Think of the costs to city, state and federal agencies in this all-out effort to contain the spread of swine flu. Smithfield gets the break, the bigger corporate profits.
What was the REAL cost of that Easter ham?
What can each of us do to support sustainable farming, individuals and groups who practice humane and healthy farming methods?
For several weeks I’ve wanted to use my blog to write about food. It’s an issue that, for the last couple of years, has stayed with me and it won’t let go. Since the original purpose of this blog included reflections on healthy aging and quality of life in later years, the topic of food is quite apt. The issue goes far beyond issues of the individual, however, because our food choices also impact the animals raised as commodities on factory farms, the environment, the economy, the viability of family farmers, and public health.
Last week I finished listening to the audio version of the book, “The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter” by Peter Springer and Jim Mason. Just a few days later, news of the swine flu and its potential to become a pandemic hit the airwaves.
The mainstream media has only addressed the number and location of diagnosed cases of swine flu, number of deaths, the actions of public health officials, etc. None has addressed the cause. Web sites such as The Huffington Post, The Environmentalist, Farmers Weekly, Marion Nestle, however, do clearly make the connection between this global wave of swine flu and factory hog farming. Specifically, Smithfield Foods is mentioned as being the source.
Smithfield, an American-owned meat producer, owns confined animal feeding operations ‘CAFOs’ in Veracruz, México where the swine flu outbreak originated.
We Americans are accustomed to low-priced food. The hidden cost of our grocery bill is in subsidies to the factory farm owners --- corporations such as Smithfield, ConAgra, ADM, Cargill, etc.
One of the ways in which Smithfield is subsidized is by the fact that --- even here in the United States --- there are scant regulations directing the treatment of animal excrement in these CAFOs. A single farm may house (very inhumanely) tens of thousands of hogs. Their excrement far exceeds that produced by humans living in a city of up to 400,000 people. Human excrement is regulated and there is no environmental degradation as a result. On factory farms, excrement is held in ‘manure lagoons’. It is possible, according to several reports that I have read, that the carrier of the swine flu is a fly that reproduces in pig excrement. The fly can infect people by biting.
Smithfield does not have to pay for treating millions of tons of animal excrement. The result is an increase in air and water pollution, respiratory and other health problems of employees, early disability and shortened life spans of these underpaid workers. Think of the costs to city, state and federal agencies in this all-out effort to contain the spread of swine flu. Smithfield gets the break, the bigger corporate profits.
What was the REAL cost of that Easter ham?
What can each of us do to support sustainable farming, individuals and groups who practice humane and healthy farming methods?
Monday, April 27, 2009
When It Comes to Dementia, Forget the Drugs
This article appeared in the Los Angeles Times, March 19, 2009
As Alzheimer's and similar diseases affect growing numbers of people, billions of dollars are being spent on the medications that offer marginal benefits. Instead, let's invest in the human touch.
By Ira Rosofsky
March 19, 2009
Pete Townshend of The Who concluded his baby boomer anthem, "My Generation," with these words: "I hope I die before I get old." And my boomer generation may well still wish for that.
I am 62 -- old enough to cash in my 401(k), too young for Medicare -- and standing with my peers on the edge of a dementia precipice.
Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia afflict up to 5 million people in the United States and about 26 million people worldwide. By 2050, there could be 13 million cases of Alzheimer's alone among U.S. baby boomers and the aging Generations X and Y, according to the National Institutes of Health. Some reports have the global prevalence of Alzheimer's growing to as many as 100 million people by midcentury. The U.S. comptroller general estimates that annual long-term care costs for the elderly -- which includes treatment for dementia -- could quadruple by 2050 to $379 billion.
How should President Obama and his healthcare policymakers, who are working to overhaul our system, prepare for my generation's future? Based on my experience, they can begin by finding a way to end the over-dependence on drugs in treating dementia.
As a psychologist who works in nursing homes, I am intimately aware of the large number of residents who take one or both of two FDA-approved drugs for dementia -- known generically as donepezil and memantine, which together account for more than 90% of the anti-dementia drug market. The most popular brand-name versions, Aricept and Namenda, make up 75% of the market.
I'm also aware of the huge and growing expenditures for these medications -- close to $3 billion annually worldwide for Aricept and more than $500 million for Namenda. Big Pharma spends as many billions of dollars on promotion as it does on research and development.
Examine the documents supporting the Food and Drug Administration's approval of Aricept, and you will see upon what a slim reed this drug's empire was built. Those taking the drug scored, on average, three points better on a 70-item cognitive assessment scale. That's about a 4% difference, mostly reflecting a slower decline rather than positive improvement. And the differences disappear when the drug is discontinued -- indicating that the drugs "do not represent a change in the underlying disease." At best, these effects may be only marginally more effective against dementia than garlic was against the Black Death in the 14th century.
What we do know today, from studies and observation, is that donepezil, memantine and drugs like them fall short on cure and comfort.
Even on Aricept's website, the claims are sketchy on the drug's effectiveness when it comes to cognition: "People who took Aricept did better on thinking tests than those who took a sugar pill."
How much better? The company doesn't say.
Many studies of the effects of drugs for dementia also speak about statistical significance, but statistical significance can be highly overrated if the differences aren't meaningful. Take my extremely nearsighted wife, for example. Suppose a drug enabled her to read the giant E at the top of an eye chart without her glasses, but none of the smaller letters. Her eyesight would show statistically significant enhancement, but -- despite her being a much better driver than me -- I'd still refuse to ride in a car she was driving if she wasn't wearing her glasses.
There are similar effects at play with anti-dementia drugs.
In 2004, Richard Gray of the University of Birmingham in Britain compared hundreds of patients with mild to moderate dementia who were taking Aricept or a placebo. The drug did improve mental functioning, but at disappointingly small levels -- about one point on a 60-point scale. More important, there was no delay in the dementia's progression or the rate of patients' institutionalization. And there were no significant differences in mood, behavior or cost of care.
Based on results such as these, the British National Institute for Clinical Excellence -- the functional equivalent of our FDA -- recommended in 2005 that Britain's National Health Service greatly restrict the use of drugs for dementia. Donepezil can be prescribed only by a psychiatrist or a neurologist, and its use is restricted to cases of mild to moderate -- not severe -- dementia. And memantine is restricted to clinical trials.
Could the thousands of dollars spent annually per patient and the billions overall be better directed?
Yes, says Gray: "Doctors and healthcare funders need to question whether it would be better to invest in more doctors and nurses and better social support rather than spending huge sums of money prescribing these expensive drugs."
A survey released in 2002 by the Kaiser Foundation found that the staffs in a typical nursing home spend a total of about two hours and 20 minutes a day with each resident. For the remaining 21 hours and 40 minutes, residents are left to their own -- mostly medicated -- devices.
Where is the comfort in that?
Some proponents of drug therapy argue that despite some disappointing results, the drugs do slow the worsening of symptoms for some people. But in our medicalized institutions for the frail and elderly, drugs are the first recourse for most problems. And often the second and third recourse.
In the United States, those over 65 consume 30% of the prescription drugs, according to a 2004 report. Dementia sufferers in nursing homes are not only taking donepezil and memantine but other similarly questionable drugs for depression, anxiety, psychosis or for simply being ornery. Many of those without dementia are also on a variety of mind- and mood-altering drugs.
It's easier to medicate than to engage. And when the chemical restraints don't work, nursing homes return to a time before modern psychotropics and use physical restraints.
But why not admit the failure of medication and instead spend some of those billions of dollars on more staff to hold the hands of both patients and their families? Beyond nurturance, much of the savings from giving up on cost-ineffective medications could be diverted to basic research that might yield not only statistically significant but meaningful and large improvements -- even a cure.
There is some comfort in believing, as our medieval ancestors did, that a tangible nostrum -- like a pearl-hued donepezil tablet -- will do some good, but it may be more comforting simply to comfort.
Instead of drugs, I'd bet many patients are wishing someone would just say the words of another ancient rock anthem: I want to hold your hand.
Ira Rosofsky is a psychologist and the author of "Nasty, Brutish, and Long: Adventures in Old Age and the World of Eldercare."
As Alzheimer's and similar diseases affect growing numbers of people, billions of dollars are being spent on the medications that offer marginal benefits. Instead, let's invest in the human touch.
By Ira Rosofsky
March 19, 2009
Pete Townshend of The Who concluded his baby boomer anthem, "My Generation," with these words: "I hope I die before I get old." And my boomer generation may well still wish for that.
I am 62 -- old enough to cash in my 401(k), too young for Medicare -- and standing with my peers on the edge of a dementia precipice.
Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia afflict up to 5 million people in the United States and about 26 million people worldwide. By 2050, there could be 13 million cases of Alzheimer's alone among U.S. baby boomers and the aging Generations X and Y, according to the National Institutes of Health. Some reports have the global prevalence of Alzheimer's growing to as many as 100 million people by midcentury. The U.S. comptroller general estimates that annual long-term care costs for the elderly -- which includes treatment for dementia -- could quadruple by 2050 to $379 billion.
How should President Obama and his healthcare policymakers, who are working to overhaul our system, prepare for my generation's future? Based on my experience, they can begin by finding a way to end the over-dependence on drugs in treating dementia.
As a psychologist who works in nursing homes, I am intimately aware of the large number of residents who take one or both of two FDA-approved drugs for dementia -- known generically as donepezil and memantine, which together account for more than 90% of the anti-dementia drug market. The most popular brand-name versions, Aricept and Namenda, make up 75% of the market.
I'm also aware of the huge and growing expenditures for these medications -- close to $3 billion annually worldwide for Aricept and more than $500 million for Namenda. Big Pharma spends as many billions of dollars on promotion as it does on research and development.
Examine the documents supporting the Food and Drug Administration's approval of Aricept, and you will see upon what a slim reed this drug's empire was built. Those taking the drug scored, on average, three points better on a 70-item cognitive assessment scale. That's about a 4% difference, mostly reflecting a slower decline rather than positive improvement. And the differences disappear when the drug is discontinued -- indicating that the drugs "do not represent a change in the underlying disease." At best, these effects may be only marginally more effective against dementia than garlic was against the Black Death in the 14th century.
What we do know today, from studies and observation, is that donepezil, memantine and drugs like them fall short on cure and comfort.
Even on Aricept's website, the claims are sketchy on the drug's effectiveness when it comes to cognition: "People who took Aricept did better on thinking tests than those who took a sugar pill."
How much better? The company doesn't say.
Many studies of the effects of drugs for dementia also speak about statistical significance, but statistical significance can be highly overrated if the differences aren't meaningful. Take my extremely nearsighted wife, for example. Suppose a drug enabled her to read the giant E at the top of an eye chart without her glasses, but none of the smaller letters. Her eyesight would show statistically significant enhancement, but -- despite her being a much better driver than me -- I'd still refuse to ride in a car she was driving if she wasn't wearing her glasses.
There are similar effects at play with anti-dementia drugs.
In 2004, Richard Gray of the University of Birmingham in Britain compared hundreds of patients with mild to moderate dementia who were taking Aricept or a placebo. The drug did improve mental functioning, but at disappointingly small levels -- about one point on a 60-point scale. More important, there was no delay in the dementia's progression or the rate of patients' institutionalization. And there were no significant differences in mood, behavior or cost of care.
Based on results such as these, the British National Institute for Clinical Excellence -- the functional equivalent of our FDA -- recommended in 2005 that Britain's National Health Service greatly restrict the use of drugs for dementia. Donepezil can be prescribed only by a psychiatrist or a neurologist, and its use is restricted to cases of mild to moderate -- not severe -- dementia. And memantine is restricted to clinical trials.
Could the thousands of dollars spent annually per patient and the billions overall be better directed?
Yes, says Gray: "Doctors and healthcare funders need to question whether it would be better to invest in more doctors and nurses and better social support rather than spending huge sums of money prescribing these expensive drugs."
A survey released in 2002 by the Kaiser Foundation found that the staffs in a typical nursing home spend a total of about two hours and 20 minutes a day with each resident. For the remaining 21 hours and 40 minutes, residents are left to their own -- mostly medicated -- devices.
Where is the comfort in that?
Some proponents of drug therapy argue that despite some disappointing results, the drugs do slow the worsening of symptoms for some people. But in our medicalized institutions for the frail and elderly, drugs are the first recourse for most problems. And often the second and third recourse.
In the United States, those over 65 consume 30% of the prescription drugs, according to a 2004 report. Dementia sufferers in nursing homes are not only taking donepezil and memantine but other similarly questionable drugs for depression, anxiety, psychosis or for simply being ornery. Many of those without dementia are also on a variety of mind- and mood-altering drugs.
It's easier to medicate than to engage. And when the chemical restraints don't work, nursing homes return to a time before modern psychotropics and use physical restraints.
But why not admit the failure of medication and instead spend some of those billions of dollars on more staff to hold the hands of both patients and their families? Beyond nurturance, much of the savings from giving up on cost-ineffective medications could be diverted to basic research that might yield not only statistically significant but meaningful and large improvements -- even a cure.
There is some comfort in believing, as our medieval ancestors did, that a tangible nostrum -- like a pearl-hued donepezil tablet -- will do some good, but it may be more comforting simply to comfort.
Instead of drugs, I'd bet many patients are wishing someone would just say the words of another ancient rock anthem: I want to hold your hand.
Ira Rosofsky is a psychologist and the author of "Nasty, Brutish, and Long: Adventures in Old Age and the World of Eldercare."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
