public health stuff
i always feel some embarrassment when former professors or other people i’m familiar with are publicly called out for wrongdoing, justifiably or not. such is the case with tee guidotti, former department chair at GWU SPHHS. a review panel found that “inattention to detail,” rather than interference from DC’s water utility, led him to the central conclusion in a published article that
there had been no identifiable health impact from the unprecedented concentrations of lead in [DC's] water from 2001 to 2004
subverting research for money, i can understand (but abhor). sloppy research? from a professor? inexcusable.
###
the draft of kennedy’s HELP bill currently circulating (his answer to health care reform) prohibits health insurers from excluding pre-existing conditions from coverage. it also limits what characteristics insurers may consider when setting premiums, to “family structure” (although i wonder if that means they could charge higher rates for same-sex couples), community rating area (minimum size set by HHS), actuarial value of the benefit, and age (with limitations).
because insurers are also prohibited from excluding potential enrollees or placing annual or lifetime limits on benefits, (“each health insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the individual or group market in a State must accept every employer and individual in the State that applies for such coverage”) this could force a greater pooling of risk – causing some premiums to rise, and others to fall – although i suspect the actual outcome would be that insurers would simply offer a wider variety of clinical coverage options, and charge more for more comprehensive plans.
the bill does set out minimum coverage requirements for all plans, which must include preventive services rated “A” or “B” by the US preventative services task force (such as regular mammograms for women age 40 or over, cervical cancer screening for sexually active women, cholesterol & blood pressure screening, and certain disease screening for pregnant women. all other OB-GYN screening guidelines are interestingly currently under revision.), immunizations, and non-adult preventive care and screenings in guidelines promulgated by HRSA.
(at page 40 of 615 they started talking about health insurance gateways, and lost me completely.)
and of course, it goes on and on, and is currently being marked up in committee. best quote so far, by barbara mikulski (paraphrased): “some call this bill a combination of rube goldberg and karl marx. well, the current system is a combination of adam smith, darth vader, and invasion of the body snatchers.”
###
update OH! and i totally forgot – my favorite public health news story of the week – yesterday’s news that a smoking ban is being rolled out in virginia’s prisons. in unsurprising republican fashion,
“I don’t have any problem with prisoners being denied the right to smoke,” said House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith (R-Salem). “The only question I have is what effect it would have on control.”
go figure.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Is selling out science for money sloppy research? Or just intentionally wrong research?
I’m thinking that Darth Vader and Invasion of the Body Snatchers should permanently follow anytime “Adam Smith” is used.
June 20th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
i think selling out science for money is intentionally wrong research – if you do it properly. it should be difficult to distinguish between sellout science and good science.
sloppy research is just, well…. sloppy.