Popular Articles

Statistics Show Drop In Births, Lower Demand For Infertility Services During Recession
More people in the Atlanta area and across the U.S. are delaying pregnancy in a possible reaction to the current economic recession, leading to a decline in the number of couples seeking infertility treatments, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports. According to the Journal-Constitution, 13 states saw a decrease in the number of recorded births in 2008 compared with 2007. The Georgia Hospital Association reports that there were 5,352 fewer recorded births in Georgia in 2008 than in 2007. Mark Perloe of Georgia Reproductive Specialists said there has been a 20% decline in the number of people seeking infertility services. To retain business during the economic downturn, Perloe said Georgia Reproductive Specialists is offering a discount on select services of as much as 70%.Elisabeth Burgess, a Georgia State University sociology professor who focuses on families, said, "In times of economic downturns, different people react in different ways." For some people, "[f]amily becomes more important, so you might decide to have a child." The Journal-Constitution reports that one cycle of treatment can cost $15,000 or more, which some people pay for through credit, retirement savings or home equity loans. Evelina Sterling, co-author of a book on budgeting finances for infertility treatments, said that 70% of infertility patients cover the costs of the treatments completely out of pocket. She added that some older infertility patients "can"t wait on" the economy to recover to start a family.Carol Hogue, a professor of maternal and child health at Emory University, said there has been a "very predictable" pattern of reduced births during periods of economic recessions dating back to the Great Depression. The Journal-Constitution reports that some people delay planned pregnancy because of concerns over job security, health insurance, income and the cost of raising a child. Statistics from USDA show that the average middle-class family will pay $11,000 to raise a child in the first year, with the largest portion of that cost going to child care. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reported in 2007 -- the latest year for which data are available -- that prenatal care and routine delivery costs about $7,600 after insurance (Cash, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/24).

Opinion Pieces React To Obama's Nomination Of Sotomayor To Supreme Court
Several newspapers on Wednesday included editorials and opinion pieces on President Obama"s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Summaries appear below. ~New York Times: Obama "seems to have made an inspired choice" in selecting Sotomayor as his nominee because she "has an impressive judicial record, a stellar academic background and a compelling life story," a Times editorial states. According to the editorial, "Based on what we know now, the Senate should confirm her so she can join the court when it begins its new term in October." The editorial notes that, "Conservative activists have already begun trying to paint Judge Sotomayor as a liberal ideologue, but her carefully reasoned, fact-based decisions indicate otherwise." The editorial continues, "If Judge Sotomayor joins the court, it will be a special point of pride for Hispanic-Americans," and "will also bring the paltry number of female justices back to two." It adds, "Judge Sotomayor, though, is more than just a distinguished member of two underrepresented groups. She is an accomplished lawyer and judge, who could become an extraordinary Supreme Court Justice" (New York Times, 5/27).~Gerard Magliocca, New York Times: In addition to sharing Obama"s "experience and intellect," Sotomayor "also mirror"s the president"s measured temperament," Magliocca, a law professor at Indiana University, writes in a Times opinion piece. Magliocca writes that he has known Sotomayor for 13 years and notes that although he is a conservative and has at times been "at odds with" Sotomayor professionally, he does not dispute her qualifications. According to Magliocca, "For those of us who think that intellectual rigor and fairness are the crucial factors" to be a Supreme Court justice, "no matter which party the president hails from, there is no question that Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed" (Magliocca, New York Times, 5/27).~USA Today: Upon hearing that Sotomayor was Obama"s nominee, Republican critics "quickly insisted that the Senate assure itself that Sotomayor would not make rulings based on her "personal politics, feelings and preferences,"" a USA Today editorial states. According to the editorial, "To some extent, the entire argument is overblown. People inevitably are the product of their experiences, and they can hardly shed their history and character at the courthouse door." The editorial continues, "That is why the court is enriched by having an eclectic mix of justices who can bring differing perspectives to bear on the case at hand." The editorial concludes, "Sotomayor"s education and experience make her far more than a political twofer who allowed Obama to check the "female" and "Hispanic" boxes. But there"s a limit to the application of empathy and heritage to the law, and her confirmation hearings will be an opportunity for her to spell out exactly where she believes that line falls," (USA Today, 5/27).~ Steven Waldman, Wall Street Journal: "Everyone seems to assume" that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is "ardently for abortion rights," but there is "stunningly little information about her abortion views -- and what we do know hardly paints her as a pro-choice activist," Waldman, president and editor-in-chief of Beliefnet.com and author of "Founding Faith," writes in a Journal opinion piece. He continues that Sotomayor has ruled only on three cases "indirectly related to abortion," and each time ruled in a way preferred by abortion-rights opponents, "albeit for reasons unrelated to the merits of abortion." Although Sotomayor"s decisions in the cases were related "to matters of constitutional law and criminal procedure, ... at a minimum, it showed that whatever her abortion views, it didn"t produce some powerful inclination against the pro-life position," according to Waldman. "Now all of this might not mean anything. She may prove to be a strong advocate of Roe v. Wade. But it"s telling that the abortion interest groups took sides without knowing anything about her abortion
News of the day
Huntington's: Researchers Gain Insight Into Mechanism Underlying The Disease
Researchers at the University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center and Graduate Center for Toxicology (GCT) have gained new insight into the genetic mechanisms underlying Huntington"s disease and other neurodegenerative or neuromuscular disorders caused by trinucleotide repeats (or TNRs) in DNA.
Cardiovascular

Number Of Uninsured California Kids May Double

A new deal to balance California"s budget may have serious repercussions for the health of the state"s children, while South Carolina grapples with health cuts of its own. Meanwhile, New Jersey may become one of the first states to publically disclose hospital errors. "California"s budget deal is expected to nearly double the state"s number of uninsured children and puts a spotlight on a key provision in the health-care bills in Congress," the Wall Street Journal reports. "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger this week signed a revised annual budget to close California"s $24 billion shortfall, including a $1.4 billion cut to Medi-Cal, the state"s version of Medicaid. In addition, California slashed $178.6 million from Healthy Families, its version of the Children"s Health Insurance Program. In all, California"s cuts could raise the number of uninsured children in the state to two million, up 915,000 from about 1.1 million in 2007, estimated the Children"s Defense Fund, an advocacy group that backs coverage for uninsured children. The UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, a nonpartisan research organization, called the estimates reasonable." California"s cuts "throw into question some aspects of the federal health-care bill now winding its way through Washington. The Senate bill calls for states to expand their health-care programs to more of the uninsured, even as the federal government would start scaling back funding for such state programs in 2015. California"s predicament suggests some states could only afford to expand coverage with 100% federal funding, said Gerald F. Kominski, associate director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research" (Knutson, 8/1). Monique Kolster and her two children, one of whom has a chronic illness, are waiting to find out "if the children can keep their medical coverage from California"s budget-ravaged Healthy Families program, the safety net for hundreds of thousands of children. Kolster and her husband don"t earn much money," the Sacramento Bee reports. "Their budget would be stretched thin if they had to turn to private insurance for Tadd and Elle. Yet the family isn"t poor enough for the children to qualify for Medi-Cal." In Sacramento and throughout California, "news of the Healthy Families cuts has brought more turmoil to families already struggling with an economic downturn, a looming school year with its demands for health exams and vaccinations, and a raft of difficult household budget decisions. Cuts in the program could be further deepened by a loss of federal matching funds, which provide two dollars for every state dollar spent on Healthy Families. In total, the program may lose more than $500 million" (Calvan, 8/3). In South Carolina, "The state agency that serves people with mental retardation and brain injuries might have sidestepped cuts to in-home care if state money and federal stimulus funding had been used differently, say legislators and agency officials," Greenville Online reports. "Instead, next year, hundreds of families will lose some of the in-home respite care, adult companions and other services that they say are vital to helping them maintain jobs while keeping disabled relatives out of institutions. Top officials at the state Department of Disabilities and Special Needs said massive budget cuts made the reductions unavoidable - but that it would have been possible to maintain services if the Legislature had allowed the agency to keep more of the $40 million in federal stimulus it qualified for" (Szobody, 8/3). Meanwhile, "New Jersey is poised to become one of the few states that will publicly disclose preventable medical errors on a hospital-by-hospital basis," Congress Daily reports. "The Legislature passed the measure in June and Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine is expected to sign it. The state"s Department of Health and Senior Services would be required to report information on 14 pre-established patient safety indicators, such as a foreign body left after a medical procedure or surgery performed on the wrong side. Under current law, hospitals voluntarily collect information about errors and report them to the state. Those figures are disclosed in the aggregate but they do not show specific hospital events" (Jordan, 8/3). This information was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with kind permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives and sign up for email delivery at kaiserhealthnews.org. © Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.


Add your comment:
Name:
Site address: http://
Your message:
Enter today\\\\'s date, 2 digits
(spam protection):