Avik Roy — who advised Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on health care policy — and Doug Holtz-Eakin published an op-ed for Reuters earlier this week in which they outlined their vision for a “free market” approach to health care reform. It’s a serious proposal, albeit one that makes the same fallacious argument as Whole Foods CEO John Mackey’s assertion that Switzerland’s health care is more “entrepreneurial” than Obamacare is. Unfortunately, that claim is simply the least worrying aspect of a plan that is riddled with benefit cuts and shifting health care costs onto consumers.

First of all, mentioning Switzerland in the piece at all is essentially a red herring, as the duo’s proposal doesn’t actually shift American health care in the direction of the Swiss system — quite the opposite, in fact. While Switzerland shares important aspects with Obamacare, particularly its federally-subsidized health insurance marketplaces — a fact that Roy and Holtz-Eakin acknowledge, to their credit — the country’s health care program can hardly be described as a less regulated system, since it actually provides more generous insurance subsidies, requires insurers to offer at least one “nonprofit plan” akin to a public option, and imposes stricter price controls and negotiations between the government, drug makers, and health care providers.

Instead, what Roy and Holtz-Eakin want to see is a modified, and far more regressive, version of the proposal that Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and former Sen. Michael Bennett (R-UT) proposed first in 2007 and then again in 2009 during the health care reform debate. Under Roy-Holtz-Eakin, Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries would be shifted away from public insurance into private plans on Obamacare’s insurance marketplaces, consumer protections and regulations governing the marketplaces would be rolled back to encourage “innovation,” federal insurance subsidies would be limited to Americans up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) instead of the Obamcare-mandated 400 percent FPL, and the Medicare eligibility age would be raised by three months every year indefinitely.

These are really poor ideas that would shift costs onto consumers and force many to forgo care, cut Americans’ health benefits by depriving them of Medicaid’s unique benefits, and create costlier private insurance premiums by siphoning seniors out of Medicare — all while doing absolutely nothing to lower the actual cost of American health care, which is the only real way to reduce national health expenditures.

Roy-Holtz-Eakin also caps federal insurance subsidies at 300 percent FPL rather than 400 percent FPL in an effort to contain government expenses. In the op-ed, the authors implicitly justify this by citing the example of Massachusetts — the birthplace of Obamacare — where reform has been working pretty well. But that ignores the fact that Massachusetts is a relatively wealthy state with unemployment and poverty below the national average. For the rest of the country, that cap would be pretty devastating, pricing millions of Americans out of the health care system. Roy and Holtz-Eakin also do not want subsidies to increase faster than inflation, even though that provision is meant to address the well-established reality that health care inflation tends to accelerate faster than regular inflation.

Although Roy-Holtz-Eakin may be an honest proposal for curbing costs, it is largely based on the dishonest notion that relinquishing more responsibility — a euphemism for shifting costs — onto consumers and making them pay more for their care will somehow magically curb the cost of health care. It won’t — but it will make Americans avoid receiving treatment, leading to a form of self-rationing that is particularly ironic given Roy and Holtz-Eakin’s goal of preventing government rationing of health care.

Oklahoma already prevents women from using their insurance plans to help cover abortion services, but Republicans aren’t stopping there. One state lawmaker wants to continue stripping insurance coverage for reproductive health services, advancing a measure that would allow employers to refuse to cover birth control for any reason — based solely on the fact that one of his constituents believes it “poisons women’s bodies.”

Under State Sen. Clark Jolley (R)’s measure, “no employer shall be required to provide or pay for any benefit or service related to abortion or contraception through the provision of health insurance to his or her employees.” According to the Tulsa World, Jolley’s inspiration for his bill came from one of his male constituents who is morally opposed to birth control, and wanted to find a small group insurance plan for himself and his family that didn’t include coverage for those services:

Jolley said the measure is the result of a request from a constituent, Dr. Dominic Pedulla, an Oklahoma City cardiologist who describes himself as a natural family planning medical consultant and women’s health researcher. [...]

Women are worse off with contraception because it suppresses and disables who they are, Pedulla said.

“Part of their identity is the potential to be a mother,” Pedulla said. “They are being asked to suppress and radically contradict part of their own identity, and if that wasn’t bad enough, they are being asked to poison their bodies.”

The bill has already cleared a Senate Health committee and now makes it way to Oklahoma’s full Senate. It is unlikely that either Jolley and Pedulla themselves rely on insurance coverage for hormonal contraceptive services — but if the measure becomes law, the two men could limit the health insurance options for the nearly two million women who live in Oklahoma.

Of course, contraception does not actually poison women. The FDA approved the first oral birth control pill in 1960, and that type of contraception is so safe that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends making it available without a prescription, as it is in most other countries around the world. Furthermore, considering that over 99 percent of women of reproductive age have used some form of birth control, the Oklahoma women who rely on insurance coverage for their contraception would likely disagree with Pedulla’s assertion that it “suppresses and radically contradicts part of their own identity.”

In reality, access to affordable birth control is a critical economic issue for women. When women have control over their reproductive choices, it allows them to achieve economic goals like completing their education, becoming financially independent, or keeping a job. But birth control can carry high out-of-pocket costs, and over half of young women say they haven’t used their contraceptive method as directed because of cost prohibitions. Nonetheless, Republican lawmakers have repeatedly pushed measures to allow employers to drop coverage for birth control.

Guam is being overrun by millions of snakes. The U.S. Government hopes air dropping drugged, dead mice can solve the problem.

Brown tree snakes came to Guam, naturally, on a plane (and on boats). In the 60 years since they arrived, the Brown Tree Snake has “ate almost all the birds.” There are only a few hundred birds left on the island.

The decimation of the bird population, in turn, has lead to an explosion in the spider population. During rainy season there are “40 times more webs” on Guam than on nearby islands.

The snakes — which can grow to 10 feet long — have also been “biting residents and even knocking out electricity by slithering onto power lines.” The poisoned mice targeting the snakes with be attached to “little parachutes” which the hopes that they get caught up in the trees where the snakes live.

The National Wildlife Research Center is working on developing a more sophisticated solution:

As a first step in development of an artificial attractant, NWRC scientists successfully characterized the odor of dead and decomposing mice. The next step will be to develop a suitable matrix in which this “mouse essence” can be embedded. Chemical cues involved in brown treesnake behavior, however, are complex and cues that elicit strong responses in the laboratory often have diminished effects in the field. So far, artificial matrix compounds as diverse as tofu, plaster-of-paris, and gelatin have shown promise as attractive lures but snakes have shown only limited interest.

Why is so much effort being poured into solving this problem? The Brown Tree snake could be headed to Hawaii next. Despite extensive screening efforts, “eight brown tree snakes have been found on Oahu since 1981, hitch-hiking on aircraft from Guam.” An economic analysis found that proliferation of the Brown Tree Snake in Hawaii could cost over 2 billion annually from “from medical incidents, power outages, and decreases in tourism.”

The problem illustrates the substantial economic and health risks posed by invasive species in an increasingly global economy. Other risks include the Emerald ash borer on imported Valentine’s Day flowers, the brown marmorated stink bug on citrus fruit and killer algae that grows in tropical fish tanks.

In the two centuries since vaccines were first developed, over a dozen of what used to be the most common infectious diseases have practically been eradicated, according to data compiled by the Centers for Diseases Control. The dramatic impact of vaccinations on Americans’ health is illustrated in an infographic compiled by designer Leon Farrant (“morbidity” refers to the number of people getting sick from, but not necessarily dying of, the diseases):

Of course, vaccines only safeguard Americans’ health when they’re taken effectively. Although children typically have to stick to a vaccination schedule in order to attend school, there’s no system currently in place to ensure that adults get their recommended vaccines — and the CDC warns that “unacceptably low” numbers of American adults are getting their shots for diseases like influenza, pertussis, and HPV.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the CDC, the EPA, and doctors and scientists around the world all agree that vaccines are safe. But some pockets of resistance still remain, and persistent myths about vaccines may dissuade some Americans from getting the shots they need.

(HT: Forbes)

The teen birth rate is nearly one-third higher in rural areas of the United States than it is in more populous areas of the country, and teen pregnancy rates have been much slower to decline in rural counties over the past decade, according to a new study from The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. The advocacy organization notes that while no single reason explains the difference in teen birth rates across regions, adolescents in rural areas likely have particular barriers to contraceptive services.

“The prevailing stereotype is that teen parenthood is primarily an urban and suburban phenomenon,” Bill Albert, the chief program officer for the National Campaign, told USA Today. But the group’s new data suggests that’s not actually the case.

As the nation has increasingly focused its efforts on preventing unintended teen pregnancies, there has been significant progress. Although the U.S. still has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the developed world, teen birth rates have plunged to record lows as adolescents have begun to use more effective forms of birth control when they become sexually active. But that trend has been slower to take root in rural areas. Between 1990 and 2010, the birth rate dropped 49 percent for teens in major urban centers and 40 percent for teens in suburban areas — but just 32 percent for adolescents who live in rural counties.

While teens across the country have largely been having less sex and using more contraception, teens in rural areas have actually been having more sex and using birth control less frequently. It’s not clear why that’s the case, but it could partly be because teens in rural areas still lack access to a range of comprehensive contraceptive services. There just aren’t as many sexual health resources in rural counties, where teens may have to travel farther to the nearest women’s health clinic. And deeply rooted attitudes about sex — including school districts that continue to cling to abstinence-only health curricula that don’t give teens enough information about methods to prevent pregnancy — may also play a role. Urban school districts, particularly in New York City, have made significant advances in expanding teens’ access to sexual education and resources, but there often aren’t similar pushes in rural places.

The United States’ culture of sexual repression has also created an environment where teen sexuality is stigmatized, and adolescents may feel too embarrassed to seek out the resources they need. The National Campaign points out that teens may feel like they can’t buy condoms in their rural town where everyone knows their name.

Missourinet reports that state Sen. David Pearce (R-Warrensburg) has introduced a bill into committee that would “mandate health insurance coverage for Missourians with eating disorders that would cover the diagnosis and treatment of the eating disorder as well as residential, medical, and psychiatric treatment.”

While Pearce’s proposal is capped at $30,000 per beneficiary — to be paid for out of the state’s general fund — it still represents one of the most comprehensive approaches to addressing a public health concern that often goes ignored:

Pearce says funding for the coverage would stem from the state’s heath plan. “The funding, I would assume would come from general revenue. A lot of this would be done by the Missouri consolidated health plan,” he said. “So a lot of that could be taken from existing information, statistics, that the state already has.”

Pearce says that by having this coverage, it can ward off the possibility of long-term hospital stays, or even death, by posing the questions, how much money can be saved in the long run and how many lives can be saved? “Eating disorders is treatable if it’s caught early,” he said. “And how we can save lives and improve the lives of folks, and yet, if we don’t catch it early eating disorders has the number one fatality of all mental illnesses.”

Pearce rightfully calls eating disorders what they are — mental illnesses — but it’s a bit more complicated than that. Eating disorders are extraordinarily complex conditions to treat, as effective regimens address the intertwining physical and mental components of the disease. That’s easier said than done in a health care system that does not assume parity between mental services and more “traditional” treatments. And while Obamacare will require insurance plans to offer some form of mental health coverage as one of its “essential health benefits,” states still have most of the discretion when it comes to determining how generous those benefits will be.

That’s also what makes Pearce’s bill important. Lack of adequate funding for comprehensive eating disorder coverage prevents nine out of ten Americans suffering from the condition from receiving treatment — $30,000 in comprehensive benefits could significantly shift that dynamic in Missouri.

In just a week, the United States will hit the deadline for the sequester — the automatic spending cuts that were negotiated during the 2011 debt ceiling deal. The spending cuts will begin going into effect on March 1 unless lawmakers broker a compromise to avert sequestration, as they did at the beginning of this year when they agreed to push the deadline back two months. But so far, there’s no sign of a deal.

The sequester’s across-the-board indiscriminate cuts were designed to force lawmakers to reach a deal to reduce the deficit. If they end up going into effect, they could have disastrous consequences on Americans’ health. Here are the top five ways that sequestration will make the nation a less healthy place:

1. More Americans could be put at risk for foodborne illnesses. The number of Americans who get sick or die after consuming contaminated food has increased 44 percent over the last two years. The FDA is currently stretched too thin after rounds of budget cuts to food safety programs, and the sequester will only worsen the situation even more. Cuts to the FDA would lead to 2,100 fewer food inspections across the country, putting more Americans at risk for contracting foodborne illnesses — which already cost the United States about $152 million each year to treat.

2. Medical researchers will be forced to delay the development of treatments that could help sick Americans. An 8.2 percent across-the-board cut to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) could set back medical science for a generation, according to a former NIH director. Existing research would have to be scaled back, and new research projects would have to be postponed — potentially eliminating thousands of research positions across the country, and preventing scientists from doing critical work to develop new treatments for chronic conditions and rare diseases.

3. The government will have fewer resources to provide Americans with health coverage. Under Obamacare, an estimated 9 million previously uninsured Americans will gain health coverage in health insurance marketplaces that states are getting ready for 2014 — but sequestration could slow the implementation of that provision by cutting $66 million in grants intended to help states set up those marketplaces. Similarly, the agency that oversees the public Medicare and Medicaid programs will lose more than $60 million for its program management if the sequester cuts go into effect. And reductions in grants that help fund community health centers, which often serve the most vulnerable Americans, could result in 900,000 fewer adults receiving medical care.

4. Thousands of Americans living with mental illnesses could go untreated. The sequester would result in a $275 million cut to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the Mental Health Block Grant program, which help Americans access the mental health care they need. That means that up to 373,000 “seriously mentally ill adults and seriously emotionally disturbed children” may be forced to go without the treatment they rely on, which could lead to an uptick in hospitalizations. And an estimated 8,900 homeless people with mental illnesses may not be able to receive the kind of support — including outreach, treatment, and housing assistance — that is critical to helping their recovery process.

5. Fewer Americans will get screened and treated for HIV. According to the Department for Health and Human Services, the sequestration cuts will have a serious impact on federal official’s ability to continue combating the nation’s HIV/AIDS epidemic. Since an estimated 20 percent of HIV-positive Americans still don’t know they have the virus, the CDC warns that testing needs to be a top priority — but the cuts to the CDC’s programs would result in about 424,000 fewer HIV tests conducted by state agencies. And an estimated 7,400 fewer patients would have access to their HIV medications through the AIDS Drug Assistance Program.