Since the adoption of the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) by 168 member countries in 2005, it has been illegal for companies to publicly advertise tobacco products via any medium — including the internet. But as News-Medical reports, the tobacco industry is circumventing this public health convention by exploiting lax oversight in the smartphone app market, peddling pro-smoking, often youth-targeted digital content in violation of international and local laws.

A recent study on tobacco advertising undertaken by the University of Sidney finds that the popular Apple and Android app marketplaces are filled with “pro-tobacco” apps — i.e., apps that provide information on various tobacco brands, point users towards tobacco vendors, or contain depictions or simulations of tobacco product use — that do not meet most countries’ regulatory standards:

“The regulation of these apps is lagging behind the legislation in Australia and many other countries which ban tobacco advertising including through the internet and virtual stores,” said Nasser Dhim, lead author of the study and a PhD candidate from the [University of Sidney's] School of Public Health.

“This is despite the fact that the Apple and Android app stores have the technological infrastructure to block the sale of apps in accordance with local laws. As we show in our study Apple has already used this technology to ban access to certain content on its app store, in both China and Saudi Arabia.”

The study identified 107 English language pro-smoking apps looking at the two dominant marketplaces – 65 from the Apple app store and 42 from the Android app store.

By February 2012, the pro-smoking apps available in Google Play were downloaded by an average of 11 million users worldwide over the lifetime of the apps. These figures are only for the Android apps as those for Apple apps are unavailable but are likely to be even higher, given the greater popularity of its store.

Strikingly, many of these apps are available under categories more likely to appeal to children, such as “Entertainment” and “Games” — others, ironically, under “Lifestyle” and “Health and Fitness.” Smoking simulation apps might be cleverly branded as resources to help smokers kick the habit — but the University of Sydney study’s Nasser Dhim believes they actual serve a far more nefarious purpose. “This is because other independent studies have shown that such virtual images of cigarettes are more likely to trigger smoking craving behavior than to help them quit,” Dhim says. And youth-targeted advertising aimed at recruiting lifelong users at a vulnerable age is nothing new for alcohol and tobacco distributors.

Unfortunately, despite a concerted anti-tobacco backlash by elected officials in the last decade, global smoking rates are still quite high and investment in anti-smoking initiatives relatively low — this, despite the fact that investments in anti-tobacco programs can have up to a 50:1 return on investment.

Americans living in Arizona, California, Illinois, and Ohio are in luck. USA Today highlights a new Healthgrades study which finds that patients in these four states enjoy access to the safest hospitals in America — a designation that translates to a 55 percent lower risk of dying while receiving treatment.

The Healthgrades study assesses how well hospitals treated patients across a multitude of medical conditions and procedures from 2005 through 2011, including coronary artery bypass graft, heart attack, pneumonia, and sepsis — altogether, these four areas of medical care account for 54 percent of hospital-related deaths in America. The findings are meant to provide consumers with as much information as possible to help them make their medical decisions, as well as encourage lower-performing hospitals to work on improving their care:

“People need to know how to make informed decisions,” says Roger Holstein, Healthgrades CEO.

“This is the first time we’ve been able to show linkage between a doctor and hospital. It’s particularly important if you’re going to have a surgery. A person can make the best choice by discussing options with his doctor.”

Hospitals in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Nevada, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Washington, D.C., got the lowest grades, although not all the hospitals in those states performed below average. Healthgrades also grades each hospital; the report says there can be large variances locally.

The differences between states are “substantial,” says Evan Marks, a lead author. “For instance, in Alabama you have a 42% higher risk of dying from a heart attack in a hospital than in Arizona.”

The study is based on official data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on 4,500 hospitals across the nation and their treatment records across nearly 30 of the most common medical ailments. The widespread disparities found from state to state are the result of numerous confounding factors, including the historical tendency for doctors to be concentrated near their medical schools and regional income inequality.

ATKINSON, New Hampshire — Two years ago, Ovide Lamontagne was running for the U.S. Senate and said he “will use every means possible to repeal the trillion dollar Obamacare takeover.” This year, running for governor of New Hampshire, Lamontagne is embracing Obamacare money.

Stumping at a Rotary Club meeting Friday morning, Lamontagne discussed health care and how New Hampshire can “partner with Washington” to improve the state’s system. “Take those dollars under Obamacare but apply them to a free-market private health insurance exchange” in New Hampshire, he told the audience, failing to mention his past opposition to the landmark health law.

LAMONTAGNE: The delivery system really is local and we ought to continue to work on a New Hampshire solution for health care reform, not turning over our health care system to Washington again. I think we have an opportunity to partner with Washington to come up with a New Hampshire solution. Take those dollars under Obamacare but apply them to a free-market private health insurance exchange with more insurance companies competing and with high-risk pooling or high-risk premium support for those individuals who can’t access the private insurance market because coverages are pricing them out of coverage. That’s where resources should be allocated to.

Watch it:

What Lamontagne proposed to do with Obamacare funds is precisely what they’re intended for: to help states set up “a free-market private health insurance exchange with more insurance companies competing.” It is the same law that he vehemently opposed as a Senate candidate in 2010 because it was a “takeover of our country’s health care system.”

Thus far, Republican legislators in the state have been working to impede creating an exchange. Earlier this year, New Hampshire passed a law barring state officials from setting up an exchange without legislative approval. If New Hampshire doesn’t submit a plan for their own exchange prior to January 1, 2013, federal officials will set up one for the state.

Still, even though Lamontagne is now promising to take advantage of Obamacare funds for the Granite State’s benefit, he also promised earlier this year that he would fight the new law as governor. “The very first thing I would do is direct the attorney general to repeal Obamacare or to fight it and stop it every step of the way,” he said. “We need to make sure we don’t have Obamacare.”

Several studies have already debunked the conservative assumption that President Obama’s health care reform law will negatively impact the economy by discouraging small business owners from hiring. In fact, there is no evidence to suggest that Obamacare will require small businesses to provide expensive health care plans that they can’t afford.

And a new study assuages similar fears that small business owners might drop coverage for their employees before Obamacare takes effect in order to avoid being hit with crippling expenses. The Midwest Business Group on Health surveyed businesses across 16 states, ranging in size from small companies with fewer than 1,000 employees to larger corporations that employ more than 5,000, and found “little indication that employers plan to drop health care coverage.”

As Forbes reports, while employers understand that they may want to adjust the scope of their health benefits plans, they are not anticipating the need to drop coverage for their employees because of the health reform law’s implementation:

“Employers still believe that health benefits are vital to attract talented employees and maintain a productive workforce,” said Scott Thompson, president of the healthcare practice of The Benfield Group, a market research and strategy firm that collaborated with the Midwest Business Group on the study. “This research found that most employers, especially those with more than 200 employees, will not drop employee benefit coverage in the foreseeable future.” [...]

“After 2013, the majority of employers responded that they will be adjusting to the ‘new normal,’ making changes to their benefit design strategy in response to the post-ACA environment,” said Larry Boress, president and chief executive of Midwest Business Group, which represents more than 100 companies that purchase more than $3 billion in health care services annually. “The majority plan to continue to offer benefits.”

In fact, some studies project that the health care reform law may actually lower costs for small business owners, thanks to the tax credits that Obamacare provides employers to help them purchase insurance. And that isn’t Obamacare’s only positive impact on the economy. Nearly 29 million Americans will receive significant tax cuts under the health reform law, and it will also help create nearly 4 million jobs over the next decade.

In the second legal victory for Planned Parenthood this week, a federal appeals court has ruled that Indiana may not deny federal Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood affiliates in the state.

Indiana has the unfortunate distinction of being the first state that passed a law to exclude Planned Parenthood from the pool of its Medicaid-eligible providers, a tactic that anti-choice lawmakers often use to target the women’s health organization for performing abortions, despite the fact that abortion services represent just three percent of the care Planned Parenthood provides. Even though an estimated 9,300 low-income women in Indiana rely on Planned Parenthood for their health care — including cancer screenings, STD testing, and birth control — Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN) signed a law in May 2011 to cut off the Medicaid funding that finances the organization’s general health screenings.

Today’s decision from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is not the first ruling to strike down Indiana’s attempt to defund Planned Parenthood. The 2011 law was also blocked in an administrative ruling from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services over the summer. Under federal law, Medicaid beneficiaries have the right to choose between the full range of qualified providers for their health care, and states are not permitted to restrict women’s freedom to choose their health care provider on arbitrary grounds.

A similar ruling yesterday in Arizona ensured that the Planned Parenthood clinics in that state will also be able to retain their Medicaid funding. Low-income women in Texas are not so lucky, however. The Texas Health and Human Services department adopted regulations last week that will end federal funding to their Women’s Health Program, as Republican officials there continue to insist that the Medicaid program should be able to discriminate against Planned Parenthood clinics. Cutting off Planned Parenthood’s funding streams in Texas is already forcing health clinics to close their doors, including those that aren’t even affiliated with the national organization.

In an effort to remind members of Congress how a woman’s body works, a group of reproductive rights advocates is sending copies of Our Bodies, Ourselves — a classic book that covers topics like birth control, pregnancy, body image, and menopause — to Congressional offices.

Executive director of the National Women’s Health Network, Cynthia Pearson, told the Washington Examiner that she thinks many politicians could use a lesson in the science of reproduction:

“What seems to be going on somewhat right now,” she said, “is public figures’ willingness to make statements of fact that are so badly wrong.”

Women’s health care expert Diana Zuckerman agreed that health care leaders are a “bit alarmed by some of the misstatements among legislators about what is and isn’t true about medical technology,” but maintained that this initiative wasn’t meant to single out a particular party.

“This is something that is really bipartisan,” she said. “I think there’s ignorance on both sides.”

While confusion about women’s anatomy may be bipartisan, recent examples of incorrect science come mainly from Republicans. Rep Todd Akin (R-MO), who is currently bidding for a Senate seat, claimed in 2008 that women “who are not actually pregnant” get abortions; Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) recently tried to argue that an abortion is never needed to save a woman’s life; and Republicans across the country have cited outdated science to claim that the morning after pill — known widely as Plan B — flushes a fertilized egg from a woman’s body, when in fact it merely prevents an egg from becoming fertilized.

(HT: National Journal)

Despite increased access to affordable health insurance under Obamacare, Americans will be forced to confront a stark reality in the coming years: the U.S. simply does not have a large enough pool of doctors to care for its patients.

The disparity has been decades in the making, driven by an aging baby boomer population whose treatments are considerably more complex and time-consuming than younger patients’ care, as well as aging population of doctors who will likely retire in the coming decade. As Bloomberg reports, the current shortage stands at an estimated 13,000 doctors and is expected to balloon to ten times that number by 2024:

“This is a national problem across the board and it is going to get much worse,” said Christiane Mitchell, director of medical affairs for the [Association of American Medical Colleges]. “We have an aging population and a whole lot of doctors retiring. We need to increase the pipeline of new doctors.” [...]

For years, hospitals and medical schools have been trying to find solutions to meet the growing demand from patients. Schools have increased the number of nurse practitioners and physician assistants they train to do some of the work currently done by doctors. Hospitals are using video conferencing systems to reach people in remote areas. The U.S. government has offered incentives, like loan repayments and scholarships, to get doctors to practice in under-served areas. [...]

Still, those solutions aren’t coming fast enough in places like Nevada. The state has the fifth-lowest ratio of doctors to patients in the country with 188 physicians per 100,000 people, according to 2007 data, the most recently available from the Census Bureau. Wyoming, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Idaho are the only states with greater shortages, the Census figures show.

Obamacare tackles several of these problems head-on by encouraging primary and preventative care, funding community health clinics in sparsely-serviced communities, and holding providers accountable for inefficiency by withholding reimbursements from low-performing centers and mandating the use of electronic health records. And some medical schools have followed suit, encouraging young doctors to dedicate themselves to much-needed family and primary care.

But this does little to make up for the overall shortage, since the crux of the dilemma is a basic issue of supply and demand. The American consumer’s demand for health services — fueled by an aging populace and increased access to care — has increased rapidly in the last decades, but the supply of medical professionals has not experienced a corresponding boom.

Nevertheless, increased health coverage under Obamacare isn’t to blame for the current shortage. While it is true that Obamacare provides tens of millions of Americans with access to health services, any subsequent burden on doctors is a symptom of a disease that was festering long before the health law came to pass. The hard reality is that not enough Americans are becoming doctors anymore, and until that dynamic changes, American consumers will continue to face a shortage.

At last night’s foreign policy debate, the presidential candidates took several opportunities to frame their positions in terms of gender equality. Irin Carmon at Salon counted up nine vague allusions to women’s rights as an important component to achieving stable development in countries around the world.

However, even though Mitt Romney was the first candidate to utter the phrases “women in public life” and “gender equality,” he is on the record as supporting at least one policy that would serve to directly undermine those goals abroad. Before Romney’s campaign started tacking to the center in an attempt to obscure his extreme anti-choice record, Romney bolstered his “severely conservative” credentials by publicly supporting the reinstatement of the so-called global gag rule.

Officially know as the “Mexico City Policy,” the global gag rule is a Reagan-era policy — repealed under Clinton, reinstated under the Bush administration, and rolled back again after Obama took office — that restricts USAID funding for women’s health organizations abroad, an indirect method of targeting reproductive freedom across the world. Under the rule, organizations that even so much as mention abortion services to their clients, even for purely educational purposes as part of comprehensive sexual health instruction, are totally ineligible for funding from the United States. Health clinics are forced to choose between censoring the health programs they have developed to serve women’s needs or being denied the funding they need to keep their doors open at all — severely crippling family services programs for women abroad, just as far-right attacks on Planned Parenthood serve to do here in the U.S.

On several occasions, Romney has pledged to reinstate the global gag rule if he is elected to office. For the 47,000 women who die each year from unsafe abortions around the world, this is no small matter. Romney may claim he is committed to promoting gender equity in foreign countries. But until he revokes his support for policies that undermine women’s safety and deny them the resources to promote their own physical and economic autonomy, he is merely playing lip service to women everywhere.