MCNTalk
News, Insights & Opinions

As the cost of health care coverage has increased markedly in recent years, many plans have increased co-pays and other out-of-pocket expenses. This article sheds some light on pricing as a controversial subject for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. 

 Many states are making efforts to introduce legislation to allow pharmacists the ability and right to tell customers that they could save money by paying in cash for prescription drugs instead of using their health insurance. Currently, some plan members are paying two to three times the amount for prescriptions using their insurance policy vs. what the cash price for the same medication would be. Because of contracts between pharmacists and some companies, some pharmacists must remain silent about price variations and are not allowed to educate customers on discrepancies in pricing based on how payment is made. 

 Steven F. Moore’s family owns Condo Pharmacy in Plattsburgh, New York. Moore says, “A consumer filling a prescription for a drug to treat diabetes or high blood pressure may owe $20 if he uses insurance coverage. By contrast, a consumer paying cash might have to pay $8 to $15” – the difference often going to the drug benefit managers. 

 States across the country are beginning to recognize this issue, and state legislatures are moving to pass new laws to cap ever-climbing prescription prices. Five states including North Dakota, Georgia, and North Carolina have made headway in changing laws so that pharmacists can suggest alternative ways for consumers to pay for their medication. 

 

The cost of health care has been a hot topic for years as politicians, doctors, and patients debate what health care should look like in the future. One trend that has gathered a lot of support from patients and corporations is the use of retail and urgent care clinics in strip malls or shopping centers instead of visiting primary care givers. This article in the New York Times presents some thoughts on both sides of the issue.

Those in favor of retail clinics and urgent care give these reasons for the shift:

1. Clinics and urgent care clinics have more flexible schedules. Patients can walk in without a scheduled appointment, and can go anytime. This makes it possible for people to go after work instead of having to take time off for an appointment.
2.     In many cases the co-pay expense is comparable to visiting a primary care physician.
3. Many basic needs, however  can be addressed much more cheaply than they would be in a physician’s office.
4. Patients can make same-day appointments.
5. Patients have the option of getting a virtual consultation at any time.

On the other side, some physicians believe the traditional method of medical care is the best practice because:

1. When patients meet with the same doctor over a long period of time, that doctor is better able to help meet their needs  because he or she is familiar with the patient’s health history.
2. While the retail clinics charge less, particularly compared with emergency rooms, they may increase overall health care spending. For example, “consumers who not long ago would have taken a cough drop or gargled with saltwater to soothe a sore throat now pop into their nearby retail clinic for a strep test.”
3. Primary care physicians can gain the trust of patients and their families.

This discussion has only just begun as companies such as Amazon, JP Morgan and Berkshire Hathaway have joined forced to create a new health care strategy for their employees. CVS Health and Aetna as well as Walmart and Humana have ventured into innovative health care plans as well.

 

Ann D. Koffsky set out to satisfy her anger and prove a point by publishing the book Judah Maccabee Goes to the Doctor. This article explains how Koffsky’s original motivation for her pro-vaccine children’s story was sparked from hearing about fellow Jewish families who claimed religious exemptions from vaccinations, and sent their children to school without receiving vaccinations. Her picture book puts a positive light on the importance of vaccinations for an individual’s health and their peers.

Shortly after Judah Maccabee Goes to the Doctor was listed on Amazon though, anti-vaccine advocates began a 48-hour campaign writing negative comments, bad ratings, and publishing disproving reviews. Although some may disagree with the necessity of vaccines, scientific studies have shown there are no links between autism and vaccines. The author of the 1998 report, with fewer than two dozen subjects, that proposed a connection between vaccines and autism has since been stripped by Britain of his medical license and charged with scientific fraud.

But even with overwhelming data, the battle still rages between the two groups, and they have adapted to new outlets to spread their messages such as children’s books. Pro-vaccine books such as You Wouldn’t Want to Live Without Vaccinations! and The Shot’s Book: A Little Brother’s Superhero Tale are sold side-by-side with books such as No Vaccines for Me! and Melanie’s Marvelous Measles. This article suggests reading articles posted on journals such as Science or Nature to establish your opinion instead of solely relying on comments and reviews to children’s books or Facebook posts.

While the number of health, fitness, and nutrition bloggers who send messages about life style habits, workout templates, and healthy recipes has skyrocketed in the US, the upward trend of obesity rates continues to climb un-phased. With all this and other research readily available, some wonder why we have not seen decreases in the amount of people gaining weight. In this article, Dr. James Krieger, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Washington and executive director of Healthy Food America, an advocacy group, says, “Most people know that being overweight or obese is unhealthy, and if you eat too much that contributes to being overweight. But just telling people there’s a problem doesn’t solve it.”

Experts credit lifestyle, genetics, and poor diets as factors for this. While all age groups have increasing percentages of obesity rates every year, the most surprising impacted age group is children 2 to 5 years old.

It is important for individuals to take control of their weight because obesity often leads to heart disease, diabetes, some cancers, and premature death. For examples of how you can change your diet read our previous blog post, Four Easy Steps to Limit Sugar.

Many Americans today analyze food labels, scouring for the dreaded ingredient: sugar. But the sugar industry has caught on quickly and created euphemistic names for sugar including dextrose, sucrose, agave, and clintose, making it harder for grocery shoppers to recognize the actual amount of sugar a product may contain. (Full list of 90 sugar synonyms here).

These alter egos are also called “added sugars” and it is this sugar that a recent article in The New York Times suggests to cut out of diets. The article gives four steps to limit sugar in your diet:

1. Fix your breakfast: Breakfast has easily become the most sugar-packed meal of the day. Pop Tarts, Captain Crunch, syrup, and fruit juices are just a few of the most popular offenders. Even some granola products are coated with sugar granules. Options like eggs, oatmeal, plain yogurt, fruits, nuts, Cheerios, and pita bread are filling and tasty substitutes.

2. Redo your pantry: spend a little time reading the ingredients of your family staples. Many sauces, crackers and breads have unnecessary sugars, but very similar substitutes.

3. Eliminate Soda: “Just get rid of it.” This article’s solution is to switch to flavored seltzer, diet sodas, or carbonated water.

4. Whip Portion Inflation: Specifically in the restaurant business, portion sizes just keep getting bigger and bigger. This author advises to view every dessert as a serving for two.

Deciding to decrease sugar intake is the first choice to a healthier body and quality of life. These four steps are just one way to kick-start that effort.

Homelessness plagues many cities throughout the nation and it’s all too common to see signs stating “anything helps.” Americans wrestle with how they can help the homeless, and often ask the question: Who were you and where were you before you were homeless?

The New York Times tried to answer these questions through one example. In this story they narrate the life of Nakesha Williams, an African American woman who pre-homelessness was known as “a bright light” of potential, personality, creativity, and intelligence, but somewhere along the way mental health disorders took hold and altered her course.

Nakesha’s reputation of being a “bright light” started in high school as she served as class president and a member of the National Honor Society. She had many friends and excelled academically. Nakesha attended Williams College where she studied dance, specifically emphasizing African origins. She was awarded a prize for the “best scholarly work submitted by a Williams undergraduate in the field of African studies.” With so much potential, success, and strong relationships, Nakesha seemed destined for a stable and happy future, but over the decade after college she spiraled downward as her mental disorders piqued and her future changed course.

Over the next few years Nakesha bounced between jobs and living with different friends all ending abruptly and without any explanation. Eventually, Nakesha became homeless. She still kept in touch with many college friends through emails and would express how she didn’t have any food, hadn’t showered in days/weeks, and was sleeping on benches, buses, and parks. Countless friends extended temporary offers of help (clothing, food, and gift cards), which she readily accepted, but when she was asked if she needed counselling, medication or help getting into a shelter or housing, she would deny that she was homeless and say she didn’t need any help. Slowly, she lost contact with her friends, and continued to believe she did not need assistance and was not “homeless.”

This article is an example of mental health being a leading cause of homelessness, and how it can severely alter a person’s ability to live a functional life if not remedied through appropriate care.

Per this article in The Washington Post, a new tax on soda in Great Britain seems to have had quite an impact in the mere two weeks since its introduction.

Soda taxes aren’t a new idea, and at MCNTalk we’ve been writing about them for a few years now (see “Big Soda, Big Problems” and “Americans are Starting to Drink Less Soda,” both from 2015). So what’s new about the British tax and why does it seem to be working? Because it’s not discouraging people from drinking sodas, but rather it’s encouraging soda makers to reduce the sugar content. To accomplish that, the tax rate is based upon the actual sugar content of the soda and so varies from brand to brand.

The tax is already being touted by people such as George Osborne, the former UK Finance Minister, as a model for this type of tax in other countries. However, another explanation for this most recent move by soda companies to reduce the amount of sugar in their drinks is simply to be more popular with customers and remain competitive with the whole range of sparkling water beverages.

Check out the article in The Post to see just how much the sugar levels — and therefore total number of calories and carbohydrates — in a variety of sodas including Coca Cola and San Pellegrino’s popular Limonata have recently been reduced.