Naseem S. Miller

Bill Targets Radiation Dose

Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) have introduced a proposal to create minimum education and credentialing standards for people who deliver radiation therapy and imaging procedures to Medicare patients. The CARE (Consistency, Accuracy, Responsibility, and Excellence) in Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy Act (S. 3737) would, however, grandfather in technicians and others who do not meet the bill's standards. “This bill will reduce the risk of medical errors associated with misdiagnosis or inappropriate exposure to medical radiation, and save millions of health care dollars by decreasing the number of examinations that must be repeated due to poor quality,” said Sen. Harkin in a statement. The CARE act was introduced in the House (H.R. 3652) in September 2009 by Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.).

Part D Premiums Edge Up

Medicare beneficiaries can expect their monthly Part D prescription drug premiums to rise next year, but only by about $1, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Officials at the agency estimated that the average monthly premium for standard Part D drug coverage will be $30, about $1 more than in 2010. By shopping around, beneficiaries may be able to find plans with lower premiums than they are paying now, CMS Administrator Donald Berwick said during a press conference to announce the new rates. He and other officials said premium rates will remain relatively steady in 2011 because minor cost increases for the Part D plans have been offset by increased use of generic drugs. Also starting in 2011, Medicare beneficiaries will be eligible for 50% discounts if they spend enough on brand name prescriptions to reach the Part D coverage gap, or doughnut hole. “These very modest increases in premiums, along with the new discounts for brand name drugs that are made available through the Affordable Care Act, are going to make medications more affordable, more accessible to Medicare beneficiaries in 2011 and thereafter,” Dr. Berwick said.

Teens' Headaches Related to Habits

Migraines and other headaches are more likely to affect teens who are overweight, smoke, and rarely exercise, according to the American Academy of Neurology's journal Neurology. Overweight teens were 40% more likely to have frequent headaches than were those without any of the three negative factors, teens who smoked were 50% percent more likely to have them, and teens who exercised less than twice a week were 20% more likely. “The study is a vital step toward a better understanding of lifestyle factors and potential preventive measures that can be taken,” said Dr. Andrew D. Hershey of the University of Cincinnati in an editorial accompanying the study. These factors have rarely been studied in teens, Dr. Hershey added. The findings were part of a study in Norway for which researchers interviewed 5,847 students ages 13-18.

Hispanic Mothers Need More Folic Acid

Since the establishment of intake guidelines for folic acid in the United States and mandatory fortification of some cereal grain products, fewer children have been born with neural tube defects (NTDs). But according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, opportunities for improvement remain, especially among Hispanics. In 1995-1996, approximately 4,000 U.S. pregnancies were affected by NTDs, but that number declined to 3,000 pregnancies in 1999-2000, the year after folic acid enrichment was mandated. National Birth Defects Prevention Network data from 2005 to 2007 show that Hispanic women are at significantly greater risk of having babies with neural tube defects than are white and black women (prevalence ratio, 1.21), according to the report in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The CDC authors pointed out that corn tortillas and other products made from masa flour are not currently fortified with the folic acid.

Consumers Worry About Drug Influence

Almost 70% of Americans who take prescription drugs believe that drug makers have too much influence over doctors when it comes to those prescriptions, and 50% believe that doctors prescribe drugs even when a person's condition could be managed without medication. The data are the result of a Consumer Reports magazine poll. On the basis of the survey of more than 1,150 adults, the magazine asserted that 51% of Americans don't think their doctors consider patients' ability to pay for prescribed drugs and 47% think gifts from pharmaceutical companies influence doctors' drug choices. In the 20% of respondents who had asked for a drug that they had seen advertised, 59% of them said their doctors prescribed what they requested.

Bill Targets Radiation Dose

Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) have introduced a proposal to create minimum education and credentialing standards for people who deliver radiation therapy and imaging procedures to Medicare patients. The CARE (Consistency, Accuracy, Responsibility, and Excellence) in Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy Act (S. 3737) would, however, grandfather in technicians and others who do not meet the bill's standards. “This bill will reduce the risk of medical errors associated with misdiagnosis or inappropriate exposure to medical radiation, and save millions of health care dollars by decreasing the number of examinations that must be repeated due to poor quality,” said Sen. Harkin in a statement. The CARE act was introduced in the House (H.R. 3652) in September 2009 by Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.).

Part D Premiums Edge Up

Medicare beneficiaries can expect their monthly Part D prescription drug premiums to rise next year, but only by about $1, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Officials at the agency estimated that the average monthly premium for standard Part D drug coverage will be $30, about $1 more than in 2010. By shopping around, beneficiaries may be able to find plans with lower premiums than they are paying now, CMS Administrator Donald Berwick said during a press conference to announce the new rates. He and other officials said premium rates will remain relatively steady in 2011 because minor cost increases for the Part D plans have been offset by increased use of generic drugs. Also starting in 2011, Medicare beneficiaries will be eligible for 50% discounts if they spend enough on brand name prescriptions to reach the Part D coverage gap, or doughnut hole. “These very modest increases in premiums, along with the new discounts for brand name drugs that are made available through the Affordable Care Act, are going to make medications more affordable, more accessible to Medicare beneficiaries in 2011 and thereafter,” Dr. Berwick said.

Teens' Headaches Related to Habits

Migraines and other headaches are more likely to affect teens who are overweight, smoke, and rarely exercise, according to the American Academy of Neurology's journal Neurology. Overweight teens were 40% more likely to have frequent headaches than were those without any of the three negative factors, teens who smoked were 50% percent more likely to have them, and teens who exercised less than twice a week were 20% more likely. “The study is a vital step toward a better understanding of lifestyle factors and potential preventive measures that can be taken,” said Dr. Andrew D. Hershey of the University of Cincinnati in an editorial accompanying the study. These factors have rarely been studied in teens, Dr. Hershey added. The findings were part of a study in Norway for which researchers interviewed 5,847 students ages 13-18.

Hispanic Mothers Need More Folic Acid

Since the establishment of intake guidelines for folic acid in the United States and mandatory fortification of some cereal grain products, fewer children have been born with neural tube defects (NTDs). But according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, opportunities for improvement remain, especially among Hispanics. In 1995-1996, approximately 4,000 U.S. pregnancies were affected by NTDs, but that number declined to 3,000 pregnancies in 1999-2000, the year after folic acid enrichment was mandated. National Birth Defects Prevention Network data from 2005 to 2007 show that Hispanic women are at significantly greater risk of having babies with neural tube defects than are white and black women (prevalence ratio, 1.21), according to the report in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The CDC authors pointed out that corn tortillas and other products made from masa flour are not currently fortified with the folic acid.

Consumers Worry About Drug Influence

Almost 70% of Americans who take prescription drugs believe that drug makers have too much influence over doctors when it comes to those prescriptions, and 50% believe that doctors prescribe drugs even when a person's condition could be managed without medication. The data are the result of a Consumer Reports magazine poll. On the basis of the survey of more than 1,150 adults, the magazine asserted that 51% of Americans don't think their doctors consider patients' ability to pay for prescribed drugs and 47% think gifts from pharmaceutical companies influence doctors' drug choices. In the 20% of respondents who had asked for a drug that they had seen advertised, 59% of them said their doctors prescribed what they requested.

Bill Targets Radiation Dose

Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) have introduced a proposal to create minimum education and credentialing standards for people who deliver radiation therapy and imaging procedures to Medicare patients. The CARE (Consistency, Accuracy, Responsibility, and Excellence) in Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy Act (S. 3737) would, however, grandfather in technicians and others who do not meet the bill's standards. “This bill will reduce the risk of medical errors associated with misdiagnosis or inappropriate exposure to medical radiation, and save millions of health care dollars by decreasing the number of examinations that must be repeated due to poor quality,” said Sen. Harkin in a statement. The CARE act was introduced in the House (H.R. 3652) in September 2009 by Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.).

Part D Premiums Edge Up

Medicare beneficiaries can expect their monthly Part D prescription drug premiums to rise next year, but only by about $1, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Officials at the agency estimated that the average monthly premium for standard Part D drug coverage will be $30, about $1 more than in 2010. By shopping around, beneficiaries may be able to find plans with lower premiums than they are paying now, CMS Administrator Donald Berwick said during a press conference to announce the new rates. He and other officials said premium rates will remain relatively steady in 2011 because minor cost increases for the Part D plans have been offset by increased use of generic drugs. Also starting in 2011, Medicare beneficiaries will be eligible for 50% discounts if they spend enough on brand name prescriptions to reach the Part D coverage gap, or doughnut hole. “These very modest increases in premiums, along with the new discounts for brand name drugs that are made available through the Affordable Care Act, are going to make medications more affordable, more accessible to Medicare beneficiaries in 2011 and thereafter,” Dr. Berwick said.

Teens' Headaches Related to Habits

Migraines and other headaches are more likely to affect teens who are overweight, smoke, and rarely exercise, according to the American Academy of Neurology's journal Neurology. Overweight teens were 40% more likely to have frequent headaches than were those without any of the three negative factors, teens who smoked were 50% percent more likely to have them, and teens who exercised less than twice a week were 20% more likely. “The study is a vital step toward a better understanding of lifestyle factors and potential preventive measures that can be taken,” said Dr. Andrew D. Hershey of the University of Cincinnati in an editorial accompanying the study. These factors have rarely been studied in teens, Dr. Hershey added. The findings were part of a study in Norway for which researchers interviewed 5,847 students ages 13-18.

Hispanic Mothers Need More Folic Acid

Since the establishment of intake guidelines for folic acid in the United States and mandatory fortification of some cereal grain products, fewer children have been born with neural tube defects (NTDs). But according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, opportunities for improvement remain, especially among Hispanics. In 1995-1996, approximately 4,000 U.S. pregnancies were affected by NTDs, but that number declined to 3,000 pregnancies in 1999-2000, the year after folic acid enrichment was mandated. National Birth Defects Prevention Network data from 2005 to 2007 show that Hispanic women are at significantly greater risk of having babies with neural tube defects than are white and black women (prevalence ratio, 1.21), according to the report in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The CDC authors pointed out that corn tortillas and other products made from masa flour are not currently fortified with the folic acid.

Consumers Worry About Drug Influence

Almost 70% of Americans who take prescription drugs believe that drug makers have too much influence over doctors when it comes to those prescriptions, and 50% believe that doctors prescribe drugs even when a person's condition could be managed without medication. The data are the result of a Consumer Reports magazine poll. On the basis of the survey of more than 1,150 adults, the magazine asserted that 51% of Americans don't think their doctors consider patients' ability to pay for prescribed drugs and 47% think gifts from pharmaceutical companies influence doctors' drug choices. In the 20% of respondents who had asked for a drug that they had seen advertised, 59% of them said their doctors prescribed what they requested.

WASHINGTON — Over the past 2 decades, women's mortality from cardiovascular disease and breast and cervical cancer has declined, thanks to research focused on women's health; however, little progress has been made in addressing debilitating conditions such as autoimmune diseases, addiction, lung cancer, and dementia, according to an Institute of Medicine committee.

“We are pleased with how much progress has been made, but there are some caveats,” Nancy E. Adler, Ph.D., chair of the IOM Committee on Women's Health Research and director of the Center for Health and Community at the University of California, San Francisco, said at a press briefing held to release the report.

Based on the report, “Women's Health Research: Progress, Pitfalls, and Promise,” the committee recommended:

▸ Undertaking initiatives to increase research in high-risk populations of women.

▸ Ensuring adequate participation of women in research and analysis of data by sex.

▸ Creation of a task force to communicate health messages about research results to women and prevent them from receiving conflicting messages from various venues.

Communication is one area in which office-based physicians can play an important role, translating research into their practices, said committee member Alina Salganicoff, Ph.D., vice president and director of women's health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “Their recommendations hold a lot of weight” with their patients, she said.

The report comes 20 years after the creation of the Office of Research on Women's Health Research at the National Institutes of Health and 25 years after a Public Health Service task force concluded that excluding women from medical research had compromised women's health care.

Before those landmark events, women were not included in research studies as often as men were because of concerns about fetal exposure to potentially harmful substances, the “flux” of hormones, and the assumption that research findings in men would translate to women, according to the report.

The committee found that requiring researchers to enroll women in clinical trials had resulted in advances, yet the benefit of increased participation by women has not yet reached its full potential because researchers usually don't separate the results by sex.

Committee members could not pinpoint why progress was made in some conditions and not others, according to the report, which offered possible explanations such as the extent of attention from government agencies, interest from researchers, understanding of the condition, and political and social barriers.

In addition to major progress in cardiovascular diseases and breast and cervical cancers, the report noted that some progress had been made in reducing the burden of conditions such as depression, HIV/AIDS, and osteoporosis in women.

However, there has been little progress research having an impact on conditions such as unintended pregnancy, maternal morbidity and mortality, autoimmune diseases, addiction, lung cancer, gynecologic cancers other than cervical cancer, and Alzheimer's disease, according to the report.

“Knowledge about differences in manifestation of diseases is crucial for further studies to identify the underlying biology of disease in women vs. men and to develop appropriate prevention, diagnosis, and treatment strategies for women,” wrote the committee members.

WASHINGTON — Over the past 2 decades, women's mortality from cardiovascular disease and breast and cervical cancer has declined, thanks to research focused on women's health; however, little progress has been made in addressing debilitating conditions such as autoimmune diseases, addiction, lung cancer, and dementia, according to an Institute of Medicine committee.

“We are pleased with how much progress has been made, but there are some caveats,” Nancy E. Adler, Ph.D., chair of the IOM Committee on Women's Health Research and director of the Center for Health and Community at the University of California, San Francisco, said at a press briefing held to release the report.

Based on the report, “Women's Health Research: Progress, Pitfalls, and Promise,” the committee recommended:

▸ Undertaking initiatives to increase research in high-risk populations of women.

▸ Ensuring adequate participation of women in research and analysis of data by sex.

▸ Creation of a task force to communicate health messages about research results to women and prevent them from receiving conflicting messages from various venues.

Communication is one area in which office-based physicians can play an important role, translating research into their practices, said committee member Alina Salganicoff, Ph.D., vice president and director of women's health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “Their recommendations hold a lot of weight” with their patients, she said.

The report comes 20 years after the creation of the Office of Research on Women's Health Research at the National Institutes of Health and 25 years after a Public Health Service task force concluded that excluding women from medical research had compromised women's health care.

Before those landmark events, women were not included in research studies as often as men were because of concerns about fetal exposure to potentially harmful substances, the “flux” of hormones, and the assumption that research findings in men would translate to women, according to the report.

The committee found that requiring researchers to enroll women in clinical trials had resulted in advances, yet the benefit of increased participation by women has not yet reached its full potential because researchers usually don't separate the results by sex.

Committee members could not pinpoint why progress was made in some conditions and not others, according to the report, which offered possible explanations such as the extent of attention from government agencies, interest from researchers, understanding of the condition, and political and social barriers.

In addition to major progress in cardiovascular diseases and breast and cervical cancers, the report noted that some progress had been made in reducing the burden of conditions such as depression, HIV/AIDS, and osteoporosis in women.

However, there has been little progress research having an impact on conditions such as unintended pregnancy, maternal morbidity and mortality, autoimmune diseases, addiction, lung cancer, gynecologic cancers other than cervical cancer, and Alzheimer's disease, according to the report.

“Knowledge about differences in manifestation of diseases is crucial for further studies to identify the underlying biology of disease in women vs. men and to develop appropriate prevention, diagnosis, and treatment strategies for women,” wrote the committee members.

WASHINGTON — Over the past 2 decades, women's mortality from cardiovascular disease and breast and cervical cancer has declined, thanks to research focused on women's health; however, little progress has been made in addressing debilitating conditions such as autoimmune diseases, addiction, lung cancer, and dementia, according to an Institute of Medicine committee.

“We are pleased with how much progress has been made, but there are some caveats,” Nancy E. Adler, Ph.D., chair of the IOM Committee on Women's Health Research and director of the Center for Health and Community at the University of California, San Francisco, said at a press briefing held to release the report.

Based on the report, “Women's Health Research: Progress, Pitfalls, and Promise,” the committee recommended:

▸ Undertaking initiatives to increase research in high-risk populations of women.

▸ Ensuring adequate participation of women in research and analysis of data by sex.

▸ Creation of a task force to communicate health messages about research results to women and prevent them from receiving conflicting messages from various venues.

Communication is one area in which office-based physicians can play an important role, translating research into their practices, said committee member Alina Salganicoff, Ph.D., vice president and director of women's health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “Their recommendations hold a lot of weight” with their patients, she said.

The report comes 20 years after the creation of the Office of Research on Women's Health Research at the National Institutes of Health and 25 years after a Public Health Service task force concluded that excluding women from medical research had compromised women's health care.

Before those landmark events, women were not included in research studies as often as men were because of concerns about fetal exposure to potentially harmful substances, the “flux” of hormones, and the assumption that research findings in men would translate to women, according to the report.

The committee found that requiring researchers to enroll women in clinical trials had resulted in advances, yet the benefit of increased participation by women has not yet reached its full potential because researchers usually don't separate the results by sex.

Committee members could not pinpoint why progress was made in some conditions and not others, according to the report, which offered possible explanations such as the extent of attention from government agencies, interest from researchers, understanding of the condition, and political and social barriers.

In addition to major progress in cardiovascular diseases and breast and cervical cancers, the report noted that some progress had been made in reducing the burden of conditions such as depression, HIV/AIDS, and osteoporosis in women.

However, there has been little progress research having an impact on conditions such as unintended pregnancy, maternal morbidity and mortality, autoimmune diseases, addiction, lung cancer, gynecologic cancers other than cervical cancer, and Alzheimer's disease, according to the report.

“Knowledge about differences in manifestation of diseases is crucial for further studies to identify the underlying biology of disease in women vs. men and to develop appropriate prevention, diagnosis, and treatment strategies for women,” wrote the committee members.

Major Finding: U.S. health care spending is projected to rise to about $4.6 trillion by 2019, growing at an average rate of 6.3% a year.

Data Source: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary.

Disclosures: The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

WASHINGTON — By 2019, nearly 93% of U.S. residents will be covered by health insurance, with nearly 20% of the gross domestic product being consumed in the process, federal actuaries announced at a press briefing.

U.S. health spending is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 6.3% over the next 10 years, 0.2% faster than was projected before passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and reach an estimated $4.6 trillion by 2019, according to an analysis by the Office the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (doi:10.1377/hlfaff.2010.0788

The projections, which update an analysis done in February, take into account the impact of the ACA as well as changes to the COBRA premium subsidies and Medicare physician fee schedule. With those changes, the average annual growth rate for health care spending will increase from 6.1% before reform to 6.3% after, the authors noted.

“While the estimated net impact of the [ACA] and other legislative and regulatory changes on national health spending are moderate, the underlying effects of these changes on coverage and financing are more pronounced,” Andrea Sisko, lead author of the analysis and a CMS economist, said during the press briefing. “For example, we projected increases in spending by a greater number of insured persons, which is largely offset by slower projected Medicare spending growth as well as lower Medicaid prices paid to providers.”

Meanwhile, the implementation of ACA provisions including the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan and the extension of coverage of dependents under age 26 years are estimated to increase national health spending by $10.2 billion through 2013, according to the analysis.

The authors also looked at administrative spending by federal and state governments, projecting that to cost $71.1 billion over the next decade.

But Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, wrote in a blog post that the report by the Office of the Actuary “confirms a central point of the [ACA] … The act will make health care more affordable for all Americans with insurance.”

She added that by 2019, per capita health spending will average $14,720 instead of the $16,120 projected by the Actuary before the act was enacted into law. “A close look at this report's data suggest that for average Americans, the [ACA] will live up to its promise,” she wrote.

This year, health spending is projected to reach $2.6 trillion – 17.5% of the gross domestic product – a 0.2% increase from the pre-reform projections. Authors noted the increase is driven largely by postponement of physician payment cuts under the Medicare sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula and changes to the COBRA legislations.

The major spike in health spending will be in 2014 when an additional 30 million Americans are expected to gain coverage. Overall spending is projected to increase 9.2% that year, compared with the 6.6% that was estimated in February.

Meanwhile, patients' out-of-pocket health care spending is expected to decrease by 1.1%, instead of rising 6.4%, since more people will be insured. By 2019, private health insurance spending is projected to account for 32% of national health spending (compared with 30% in the February analysis); Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) are to account for 20% (up from 18%). Medicare, out-of-pocket expenses and other public programs make up the rest of the spending.

As the provisions are implemented, their impact may “differ considerably from these estimates,” the authors wrote.

Major Finding: U.S. health care spending is projected to rise to about $4.6 trillion by 2019, growing at an average rate of 6.3% a year.

Data Source: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary.

Disclosures: The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

WASHINGTON — By 2019, nearly 93% of U.S. residents will be covered by health insurance, with nearly 20% of the gross domestic product being consumed in the process, federal actuaries announced at a press briefing.

U.S. health spending is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 6.3% over the next 10 years, 0.2% faster than was projected before passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and reach an estimated $4.6 trillion by 2019, according to an analysis by the Office the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (doi:10.1377/hlfaff.2010.0788

The projections, which update an analysis done in February, take into account the impact of the ACA as well as changes to the COBRA premium subsidies and Medicare physician fee schedule. With those changes, the average annual growth rate for health care spending will increase from 6.1% before reform to 6.3% after, the authors noted.

“While the estimated net impact of the [ACA] and other legislative and regulatory changes on national health spending are moderate, the underlying effects of these changes on coverage and financing are more pronounced,” Andrea Sisko, lead author of the analysis and a CMS economist, said during the press briefing. “For example, we projected increases in spending by a greater number of insured persons, which is largely offset by slower projected Medicare spending growth as well as lower Medicaid prices paid to providers.”

Meanwhile, the implementation of ACA provisions including the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan and the extension of coverage of dependents under age 26 years are estimated to increase national health spending by $10.2 billion through 2013, according to the analysis.

The authors also looked at administrative spending by federal and state governments, projecting that to cost $71.1 billion over the next decade.

But Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, wrote in a blog post that the report by the Office of the Actuary “confirms a central point of the [ACA] … The act will make health care more affordable for all Americans with insurance.”

She added that by 2019, per capita health spending will average $14,720 instead of the $16,120 projected by the Actuary before the act was enacted into law. “A close look at this report's data suggest that for average Americans, the [ACA] will live up to its promise,” she wrote.

This year, health spending is projected to reach $2.6 trillion – 17.5% of the gross domestic product – a 0.2% increase from the pre-reform projections. Authors noted the increase is driven largely by postponement of physician payment cuts under the Medicare sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula and changes to the COBRA legislations.

The major spike in health spending will be in 2014 when an additional 30 million Americans are expected to gain coverage. Overall spending is projected to increase 9.2% that year, compared with the 6.6% that was estimated in February.

Meanwhile, patients' out-of-pocket health care spending is expected to decrease by 1.1%, instead of rising 6.4%, since more people will be insured. By 2019, private health insurance spending is projected to account for 32% of national health spending (compared with 30% in the February analysis); Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) are to account for 20% (up from 18%). Medicare, out-of-pocket expenses and other public programs make up the rest of the spending.

As the provisions are implemented, their impact may “differ considerably from these estimates,” the authors wrote.

Major Finding: U.S. health care spending is projected to rise to about $4.6 trillion by 2019, growing at an average rate of 6.3% a year.

Data Source: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary.

Disclosures: The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

WASHINGTON — By 2019, nearly 93% of U.S. residents will be covered by health insurance, with nearly 20% of the gross domestic product being consumed in the process, federal actuaries announced at a press briefing.

U.S. health spending is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 6.3% over the next 10 years, 0.2% faster than was projected before passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and reach an estimated $4.6 trillion by 2019, according to an analysis by the Office the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (doi:10.1377/hlfaff.2010.0788

The projections, which update an analysis done in February, take into account the impact of the ACA as well as changes to the COBRA premium subsidies and Medicare physician fee schedule. With those changes, the average annual growth rate for health care spending will increase from 6.1% before reform to 6.3% after, the authors noted.

“While the estimated net impact of the [ACA] and other legislative and regulatory changes on national health spending are moderate, the underlying effects of these changes on coverage and financing are more pronounced,” Andrea Sisko, lead author of the analysis and a CMS economist, said during the press briefing. “For example, we projected increases in spending by a greater number of insured persons, which is largely offset by slower projected Medicare spending growth as well as lower Medicaid prices paid to providers.”

Meanwhile, the implementation of ACA provisions including the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan and the extension of coverage of dependents under age 26 years are estimated to increase national health spending by $10.2 billion through 2013, according to the analysis.

The authors also looked at administrative spending by federal and state governments, projecting that to cost $71.1 billion over the next decade.

But Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, wrote in a blog post that the report by the Office of the Actuary “confirms a central point of the [ACA] … The act will make health care more affordable for all Americans with insurance.”

She added that by 2019, per capita health spending will average $14,720 instead of the $16,120 projected by the Actuary before the act was enacted into law. “A close look at this report's data suggest that for average Americans, the [ACA] will live up to its promise,” she wrote.

This year, health spending is projected to reach $2.6 trillion – 17.5% of the gross domestic product – a 0.2% increase from the pre-reform projections. Authors noted the increase is driven largely by postponement of physician payment cuts under the Medicare sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula and changes to the COBRA legislations.

The major spike in health spending will be in 2014 when an additional 30 million Americans are expected to gain coverage. Overall spending is projected to increase 9.2% that year, compared with the 6.6% that was estimated in February.

Meanwhile, patients' out-of-pocket health care spending is expected to decrease by 1.1%, instead of rising 6.4%, since more people will be insured. By 2019, private health insurance spending is projected to account for 32% of national health spending (compared with 30% in the February analysis); Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) are to account for 20% (up from 18%). Medicare, out-of-pocket expenses and other public programs make up the rest of the spending.

As the provisions are implemented, their impact may “differ considerably from these estimates,” the authors wrote.

WASHINGTON — Roughly 8.7% of Americans aged 12 years or older used illicit drugs in 2009, an increase of 0.7% from 2008, according to a national survey. The rise was largely driven by an increase in marijuana use.

Rate of illicit drug use among youth aged 12–17 years also increased by 0.7%, from 9.3% in 2008 to 10% in 2009.

The data are part of the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

The increase in drug use is driven by several factors, SAMHSA officials said, including economic stress and unemployment, but also by the increased discussion about medical marijuana.

"This survey is really important," said Gil Kerlikowske, director of White House Office of National Drug Control Policy during a press briefing to release the data. "This is a big wake-up call. We need to be doing more."

Dr. H. Westley Clark, director of the SAMHSA Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, said that physicians can pay closer attention to signs of illicit drug use in their patients, and get familiar with federal substance abuse resources for health professionals such as the National Institute of Drug Abuse's NIDAMed.

Approximately 67,500 U.S. residents were interviewed for this year's installment of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. They were queried on use of illicit drugs including marijuana/hashish, cocaine/crack, heroin, hallucinogens, and inhalants, as well as nonmedical use of prescription-type psychotherapeutic medications.

According to estimates provided in the survey, marijuana was the most-commonly used drug – with approximately 16.7 million current-month users – followed by psychotherapeutics (7 million), cocaine (1.6 million), hallucinogens (1.3 million), inhalants (0.6 million), and heroin (0.2 million).

The rate of nonmedical use of prescription-type drugs among users aged 18–25 years increased steadily from 2002 to 2009, according to the survey, rising from 5.5% in 2002 to 6.3% in 2009. The increase was primarily driven by misuse of pain relievers. Overall, for U.S. residents 12 years or older, pain relievers had the highest rate of nonmedical use (2.1%), followed by tranquilizers (0.8%), stimulants (0.5%), and sedatives (0.1%).

The rate of misuse decreased for just two drugs – cocaine and methamphetamine – according to the survey. Misuse of cocaine decreased from 2.0% in 2008 to 1.4% in 2009 and the rate for methamphetamine decreased from 0.6% to 0.2% over the same period. Officials attributed the drops to more public awareness about the drugs.

The rates of alcohol and tobacco use remained relatively stable between 2008 and 2009, according to the survey.

WASHINGTON — Roughly 8.7% of Americans aged 12 years or older used illicit drugs in 2009, an increase of 0.7% from 2008, according to a national survey. The rise was largely driven by an increase in marijuana use.

Rate of illicit drug use among youth aged 12–17 years also increased by 0.7%, from 9.3% in 2008 to 10% in 2009.

The data are part of the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

The increase in drug use is driven by several factors, SAMHSA officials said, including economic stress and unemployment, but also by the increased discussion about medical marijuana.

"This survey is really important," said Gil Kerlikowske, director of White House Office of National Drug Control Policy during a press briefing to release the data. "This is a big wake-up call. We need to be doing more."

Dr. H. Westley Clark, director of the SAMHSA Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, said that physicians can pay closer attention to signs of illicit drug use in their patients, and get familiar with federal substance abuse resources for health professionals such as the National Institute of Drug Abuse's NIDAMed.

Approximately 67,500 U.S. residents were interviewed for this year's installment of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. They were queried on use of illicit drugs including marijuana/hashish, cocaine/crack, heroin, hallucinogens, and inhalants, as well as nonmedical use of prescription-type psychotherapeutic medications.

According to estimates provided in the survey, marijuana was the most-commonly used drug – with approximately 16.7 million current-month users – followed by psychotherapeutics (7 million), cocaine (1.6 million), hallucinogens (1.3 million), inhalants (0.6 million), and heroin (0.2 million).

The rate of nonmedical use of prescription-type drugs among users aged 18–25 years increased steadily from 2002 to 2009, according to the survey, rising from 5.5% in 2002 to 6.3% in 2009. The increase was primarily driven by misuse of pain relievers. Overall, for U.S. residents 12 years or older, pain relievers had the highest rate of nonmedical use (2.1%), followed by tranquilizers (0.8%), stimulants (0.5%), and sedatives (0.1%).

The rate of misuse decreased for just two drugs – cocaine and methamphetamine – according to the survey. Misuse of cocaine decreased from 2.0% in 2008 to 1.4% in 2009 and the rate for methamphetamine decreased from 0.6% to 0.2% over the same period. Officials attributed the drops to more public awareness about the drugs.

The rates of alcohol and tobacco use remained relatively stable between 2008 and 2009, according to the survey.

WASHINGTON — Roughly 8.7% of Americans aged 12 years or older used illicit drugs in 2009, an increase of 0.7% from 2008, according to a national survey. The rise was largely driven by an increase in marijuana use.

Rate of illicit drug use among youth aged 12–17 years also increased by 0.7%, from 9.3% in 2008 to 10% in 2009.

The data are part of the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

The increase in drug use is driven by several factors, SAMHSA officials said, including economic stress and unemployment, but also by the increased discussion about medical marijuana.

"This survey is really important," said Gil Kerlikowske, director of White House Office of National Drug Control Policy during a press briefing to release the data. "This is a big wake-up call. We need to be doing more."

Dr. H. Westley Clark, director of the SAMHSA Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, said that physicians can pay closer attention to signs of illicit drug use in their patients, and get familiar with federal substance abuse resources for health professionals such as the National Institute of Drug Abuse's NIDAMed.

Approximately 67,500 U.S. residents were interviewed for this year's installment of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. They were queried on use of illicit drugs including marijuana/hashish, cocaine/crack, heroin, hallucinogens, and inhalants, as well as nonmedical use of prescription-type psychotherapeutic medications.

According to estimates provided in the survey, marijuana was the most-commonly used drug – with approximately 16.7 million current-month users – followed by psychotherapeutics (7 million), cocaine (1.6 million), hallucinogens (1.3 million), inhalants (0.6 million), and heroin (0.2 million).

The rate of nonmedical use of prescription-type drugs among users aged 18–25 years increased steadily from 2002 to 2009, according to the survey, rising from 5.5% in 2002 to 6.3% in 2009. The increase was primarily driven by misuse of pain relievers. Overall, for U.S. residents 12 years or older, pain relievers had the highest rate of nonmedical use (2.1%), followed by tranquilizers (0.8%), stimulants (0.5%), and sedatives (0.1%).

The rate of misuse decreased for just two drugs – cocaine and methamphetamine – according to the survey. Misuse of cocaine decreased from 2.0% in 2008 to 1.4% in 2009 and the rate for methamphetamine decreased from 0.6% to 0.2% over the same period. Officials attributed the drops to more public awareness about the drugs.

The rates of alcohol and tobacco use remained relatively stable between 2008 and 2009, according to the survey.

For the first time in several years, U.S. workers are footing nearly the whole bill for the premium increases associated with their employer-provided health insurance. According to a nationwide survey, employers are declining to take more than a tiny share of the load.

The Employer Health Benefits 2010 Annual Survey shows that the average annual premium for employer-provided family health insurance is $13,770 this year. Of that, employees are paying an average of $3,997, an increase of $482, or 14%, from 2009, according to the survey, which was conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.”

“It's the first time that I can remember seeing employers cope with rising health care cost by shifting virtually all of the cost to the workers and it just speaks to the depths of recession and the pressure that employers have been under to hold the line on cost while trying as best as they can to avoid layoffs,” Drew Altman, Ph.D., president and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation, said during a press briefing.

The survey authors note that employer-provided health insurance is one piece that has not received enough attention in the health reform debate. They predicted that the increased out-of-pocket cost for employees is not going to stop in the next few years, despite implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

“The longer term trend is that what workers pay for health insurance continues to go up much faster than their wages, while at the same time their insurance continues to get less comprehensive,” Dr. Altman said. “So the insurance that workers get just looks less and less like the more comprehensive coverage that their parents got.”

The survey was conducted between January and May 2010. The findings are based on a telephone survey of benefit managers for 2,046 randomly selected, nonfederal public and private companies with three or more employees.

The survey findings show a modest increase in premiums from last year: The average annual cost of premiums for single coverage was $5,049 in 2010, up 5% from 2009. The average premium for family coverage rose 3% to $13,770.

The average primary care office visit copayment increased from $20 in 2009 to $22 in 2010, and from $28 to $31 for a specialist office visit, according to the findings.

Among the surprising findings of the survey was a significant increase in the percentage of companies offering health benefits in 2010 (69%) compared with 2009 (60%). The researchers attributed the increase to the fact that a greater percentage of very small companies — those with 3–9 employees — offer health insurance as a benefit.

Why the increase occurred was unclear, they noted. One possible explanation was that more very small companies that previously did not offer health insurance as a benefit have failed, shrinking the pool of companies to measure.

More than 150 million nonelderly Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance, making it the leading source of coverage.

Source Elsevier Global Medical News

For the first time in several years, U.S. workers are footing nearly the whole bill for the premium increases associated with their employer-provided health insurance. According to a nationwide survey, employers are declining to take more than a tiny share of the load.

The Employer Health Benefits 2010 Annual Survey shows that the average annual premium for employer-provided family health insurance is $13,770 this year. Of that, employees are paying an average of $3,997, an increase of $482, or 14%, from 2009, according to the survey, which was conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.”

“It's the first time that I can remember seeing employers cope with rising health care cost by shifting virtually all of the cost to the workers and it just speaks to the depths of recession and the pressure that employers have been under to hold the line on cost while trying as best as they can to avoid layoffs,” Drew Altman, Ph.D., president and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation, said during a press briefing.

The survey authors note that employer-provided health insurance is one piece that has not received enough attention in the health reform debate. They predicted that the increased out-of-pocket cost for employees is not going to stop in the next few years, despite implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

“The longer term trend is that what workers pay for health insurance continues to go up much faster than their wages, while at the same time their insurance continues to get less comprehensive,” Dr. Altman said. “So the insurance that workers get just looks less and less like the more comprehensive coverage that their parents got.”

The survey was conducted between January and May 2010. The findings are based on a telephone survey of benefit managers for 2,046 randomly selected, nonfederal public and private companies with three or more employees.

The survey findings show a modest increase in premiums from last year: The average annual cost of premiums for single coverage was $5,049 in 2010, up 5% from 2009. The average premium for family coverage rose 3% to $13,770.

The average primary care office visit copayment increased from $20 in 2009 to $22 in 2010, and from $28 to $31 for a specialist office visit, according to the findings.

Among the surprising findings of the survey was a significant increase in the percentage of companies offering health benefits in 2010 (69%) compared with 2009 (60%). The researchers attributed the increase to the fact that a greater percentage of very small companies — those with 3–9 employees — offer health insurance as a benefit.

Why the increase occurred was unclear, they noted. One possible explanation was that more very small companies that previously did not offer health insurance as a benefit have failed, shrinking the pool of companies to measure.

More than 150 million nonelderly Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance, making it the leading source of coverage.

Source Elsevier Global Medical News

For the first time in several years, U.S. workers are footing nearly the whole bill for the premium increases associated with their employer-provided health insurance. According to a nationwide survey, employers are declining to take more than a tiny share of the load.

The Employer Health Benefits 2010 Annual Survey shows that the average annual premium for employer-provided family health insurance is $13,770 this year. Of that, employees are paying an average of $3,997, an increase of $482, or 14%, from 2009, according to the survey, which was conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.”

“It's the first time that I can remember seeing employers cope with rising health care cost by shifting virtually all of the cost to the workers and it just speaks to the depths of recession and the pressure that employers have been under to hold the line on cost while trying as best as they can to avoid layoffs,” Drew Altman, Ph.D., president and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation, said during a press briefing.

The survey authors note that employer-provided health insurance is one piece that has not received enough attention in the health reform debate. They predicted that the increased out-of-pocket cost for employees is not going to stop in the next few years, despite implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

“The longer term trend is that what workers pay for health insurance continues to go up much faster than their wages, while at the same time their insurance continues to get less comprehensive,” Dr. Altman said. “So the insurance that workers get just looks less and less like the more comprehensive coverage that their parents got.”

The survey was conducted between January and May 2010. The findings are based on a telephone survey of benefit managers for 2,046 randomly selected, nonfederal public and private companies with three or more employees.

The survey findings show a modest increase in premiums from last year: The average annual cost of premiums for single coverage was $5,049 in 2010, up 5% from 2009. The average premium for family coverage rose 3% to $13,770.

The average primary care office visit copayment increased from $20 in 2009 to $22 in 2010, and from $28 to $31 for a specialist office visit, according to the findings.

Among the surprising findings of the survey was a significant increase in the percentage of companies offering health benefits in 2010 (69%) compared with 2009 (60%). The researchers attributed the increase to the fact that a greater percentage of very small companies — those with 3–9 employees — offer health insurance as a benefit.

Why the increase occurred was unclear, they noted. One possible explanation was that more very small companies that previously did not offer health insurance as a benefit have failed, shrinking the pool of companies to measure.

More than 150 million nonelderly Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance, making it the leading source of coverage.

Source Elsevier Global Medical News

For the first time in several years, U.S. workers are footing nearly the whole bill for the premium increases associated with their employer-provided health insurance. According to a nationwide survey, employers are declining to take more than a tiny share of the load.

The Employer Health Benefits 2010 Annual Survey shows that the average annual premium for employer-provided family health insurance is $13,770 this year. Of that, employees are paying an average of $3,997, an increase of $482, or 14%, from 2009, according to the survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.

“It's the first time that I can remember seeing employers cope with rising health care cost by shifting virtually all of the cost to the workers and it just speaks to the depths of recession and the pressure that employers have been under to hold the line on cost while trying as best as they can to avoid layoffs,” Drew Altman, Ph.D., president and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation, said during a press briefing. “It also of course means added economic pressure and insecurity and burdens for working people in an already tough economy.”

The survey authors note that employer-provided health insurance is one piece that has not received enough attention in the health reform debate. They predicted that the increased out-of-pocket cost for employees is not going to stop in the next few years, despite implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

“The longer term trend is that what workers pay for health insurance continues to go up much faster than their wages, while at the same time their insurance continues to get less comprehensive,” Dr. Altman said. “So the insurance that workers get just looks less and less like the more comprehensive coverage that their parents got.”

The telephone survey, conducted between January and May 2010, involved benefit managers for 2,046 randomly selected, nonfederal public and private companies with three or more employees.

The survey findings showed that the average annual cost of premiums for single coverage was $5,049 in 2010, up 5% from 2009. The average premium for family coverage rose 3% to $13,770.

The average primary care office visit copayment increased from $20 in 2009 to $22 in 2010, and from $28 to $31 for a specialist office visit.

“High out-of-pocket expenses and premiums affect health care decisions for patients,” Maulik Joshi, Dr.P.H., president of Health Research & Educational Trust, said in a statement. “If premiums and costs continue to be shifted to consumers, households will face difficult choices, like forgoing needed care, or reexamining how they can best care for their families.”

The survey showed the impact on mental health coverage since passage of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008. The law applies to firms with more than 50 workers; 31% of such firms reported that they had changed their mental health coverage because of the law. Two-thirds of the 31% reported that they had eliminated limits on mental health coverage, 16% reported increased utilization management for mental health benefits, and 5% said they had dropped coverage.

Among the surprising findings of the survey was a significant increase in the percentage of companies offering health benefits in 2010 (69%) compared with 2009 (60%). The researchers attributed the increase to the fact that a greater percentage of very small companies – those with three to nine employees – offer health insurance as a benefit. Why the increase occurred was unclear, they noted. One possible explanation was that more very small companies that previously did not offer health insurance as a benefit have failed, shrinking the pool of companies to measure.

Meanwhile, the percentage of workers enrolled in consumer-driven health plans – such as health savings accounts or health reimbursement arrangements – rose from 8% in 2009 to 13% in 2010.

More than 150 million nonelderly Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance, making it the leading source of coverage.

“We've been very focused on expanding coverage and other things in the health reform debate, and I think we've missed beneath that the nature of health insurance in the country has been changing,” Dr. Altman said at the briefing. “But we should have a clear national discussion about what we actually think health insurance should be in the country.”

Source Elsevier Global Medical News

For the first time in several years, U.S. workers are footing nearly the whole bill for the premium increases associated with their employer-provided health insurance. According to a nationwide survey, employers are declining to take more than a tiny share of the load.

The Employer Health Benefits 2010 Annual Survey shows that the average annual premium for employer-provided family health insurance is $13,770 this year. Of that, employees are paying an average of $3,997, an increase of $482, or 14%, from 2009, according to the survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.

“It's the first time that I can remember seeing employers cope with rising health care cost by shifting virtually all of the cost to the workers and it just speaks to the depths of recession and the pressure that employers have been under to hold the line on cost while trying as best as they can to avoid layoffs,” Drew Altman, Ph.D., president and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation, said during a press briefing. “It also of course means added economic pressure and insecurity and burdens for working people in an already tough economy.”

The survey authors note that employer-provided health insurance is one piece that has not received enough attention in the health reform debate. They predicted that the increased out-of-pocket cost for employees is not going to stop in the next few years, despite implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

“The longer term trend is that what workers pay for health insurance continues to go up much faster than their wages, while at the same time their insurance continues to get less comprehensive,” Dr. Altman said. “So the insurance that workers get just looks less and less like the more comprehensive coverage that their parents got.”

The telephone survey, conducted between January and May 2010, involved benefit managers for 2,046 randomly selected, nonfederal public and private companies with three or more employees.

The survey findings showed that the average annual cost of premiums for single coverage was $5,049 in 2010, up 5% from 2009. The average premium for family coverage rose 3% to $13,770.

The average primary care office visit copayment increased from $20 in 2009 to $22 in 2010, and from $28 to $31 for a specialist office visit.

“High out-of-pocket expenses and premiums affect health care decisions for patients,” Maulik Joshi, Dr.P.H., president of Health Research & Educational Trust, said in a statement. “If premiums and costs continue to be shifted to consumers, households will face difficult choices, like forgoing needed care, or reexamining how they can best care for their families.”

The survey showed the impact on mental health coverage since passage of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008. The law applies to firms with more than 50 workers; 31% of such firms reported that they had changed their mental health coverage because of the law. Two-thirds of the 31% reported that they had eliminated limits on mental health coverage, 16% reported increased utilization management for mental health benefits, and 5% said they had dropped coverage.

Among the surprising findings of the survey was a significant increase in the percentage of companies offering health benefits in 2010 (69%) compared with 2009 (60%). The researchers attributed the increase to the fact that a greater percentage of very small companies – those with three to nine employees – offer health insurance as a benefit. Why the increase occurred was unclear, they noted. One possible explanation was that more very small companies that previously did not offer health insurance as a benefit have failed, shrinking the pool of companies to measure.

Meanwhile, the percentage of workers enrolled in consumer-driven health plans – such as health savings accounts or health reimbursement arrangements – rose from 8% in 2009 to 13% in 2010.

More than 150 million nonelderly Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance, making it the leading source of coverage.

“We've been very focused on expanding coverage and other things in the health reform debate, and I think we've missed beneath that the nature of health insurance in the country has been changing,” Dr. Altman said at the briefing. “But we should have a clear national discussion about what we actually think health insurance should be in the country.”

Source Elsevier Global Medical News

For the first time in several years, U.S. workers are footing nearly the whole bill for the premium increases associated with their employer-provided health insurance. According to a nationwide survey, employers are declining to take more than a tiny share of the load.

The Employer Health Benefits 2010 Annual Survey shows that the average annual premium for employer-provided family health insurance is $13,770 this year. Of that, employees are paying an average of $3,997, an increase of $482, or 14%, from 2009, according to the survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.

“It's the first time that I can remember seeing employers cope with rising health care cost by shifting virtually all of the cost to the workers and it just speaks to the depths of recession and the pressure that employers have been under to hold the line on cost while trying as best as they can to avoid layoffs,” Drew Altman, Ph.D., president and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation, said during a press briefing. “It also of course means added economic pressure and insecurity and burdens for working people in an already tough economy.”

The survey authors note that employer-provided health insurance is one piece that has not received enough attention in the health reform debate. They predicted that the increased out-of-pocket cost for employees is not going to stop in the next few years, despite implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

“The longer term trend is that what workers pay for health insurance continues to go up much faster than their wages, while at the same time their insurance continues to get less comprehensive,” Dr. Altman said. “So the insurance that workers get just looks less and less like the more comprehensive coverage that their parents got.”

The telephone survey, conducted between January and May 2010, involved benefit managers for 2,046 randomly selected, nonfederal public and private companies with three or more employees.

The survey findings showed that the average annual cost of premiums for single coverage was $5,049 in 2010, up 5% from 2009. The average premium for family coverage rose 3% to $13,770.

The average primary care office visit copayment increased from $20 in 2009 to $22 in 2010, and from $28 to $31 for a specialist office visit.

“High out-of-pocket expenses and premiums affect health care decisions for patients,” Maulik Joshi, Dr.P.H., president of Health Research & Educational Trust, said in a statement. “If premiums and costs continue to be shifted to consumers, households will face difficult choices, like forgoing needed care, or reexamining how they can best care for their families.”

The survey showed the impact on mental health coverage since passage of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008. The law applies to firms with more than 50 workers; 31% of such firms reported that they had changed their mental health coverage because of the law. Two-thirds of the 31% reported that they had eliminated limits on mental health coverage, 16% reported increased utilization management for mental health benefits, and 5% said they had dropped coverage.

Among the surprising findings of the survey was a significant increase in the percentage of companies offering health benefits in 2010 (69%) compared with 2009 (60%). The researchers attributed the increase to the fact that a greater percentage of very small companies – those with three to nine employees – offer health insurance as a benefit. Why the increase occurred was unclear, they noted. One possible explanation was that more very small companies that previously did not offer health insurance as a benefit have failed, shrinking the pool of companies to measure.

Meanwhile, the percentage of workers enrolled in consumer-driven health plans – such as health savings accounts or health reimbursement arrangements – rose from 8% in 2009 to 13% in 2010.

More than 150 million nonelderly Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance, making it the leading source of coverage.

“We've been very focused on expanding coverage and other things in the health reform debate, and I think we've missed beneath that the nature of health insurance in the country has been changing,” Dr. Altman said at the briefing. “But we should have a clear national discussion about what we actually think health insurance should be in the country.”

Source Elsevier Global Medical News

Major Finding: U.S. health care spending is projected to rise to about $4.6 trillion by 2019, growing at an average rate of 6.3% a year.

Data Source: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary.

Disclosures: The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

WASHINGTON – By 2019, nearly 93% of U.S. residents will be covered by health insurance, with nearly 20% of the gross domestic product being consumed in the process, federal actuaries announced at a press briefing.

U.S. health spending is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 6.3% over the next 10 years, 0.2% faster than was projected before passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It is expected to reach an estimated $4.6 trillion by 2019, according to an analysis by officials in the Office the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (Health Affairs 2010 Sept. 9 [doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0788]).

The projections update an analysis done in February. This time, they take into account the impact of the ACA as well as changes to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) premium subsidies and Medicare physician fee schedule.

With those changes, the average annual growth rate for health care spending will increase from 6.1% before reform to 6.3% after, according to the authors.

“While the estimated net impact of the Affordable Care Act and other legislative and regulatory changes on national health spending are moderate, the underlying effects of these changes on coverage and financing are more pronounced,” Andrea Sisko, lead author of the analysis and a CMS economist, said during the press briefing. “For example, we projected increased spending by a greater number of insured persons, which is largely offset by slower projected Medicare spending growth as well as lower Medicaid prices paid to providers.”

Meanwhile, the implementation of ACA provisions, including the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan and the extension of coverage of dependents under age 26 years, is estimated to increase national health spending by $10.2 billion through 2013, according to the analysis.

The authors also looked at administrative spending by federal and state governments, projecting that to cost $71.1 billion over the next decade.

But Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, wrote in a blog post that the report by the Office of the Actuary “confirms a central point of the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress and signed by President Obama: The Act will make health care more affordable for all Americans with insurance.”

She added that by 2019, per capita health spending will average $14,720 instead of the $16,120 projected by the Actuary before the Act was enacted into law. “A close look at this report's data suggest that for average Americans, the Affordable Care Act will live up to its promise,” she wrote.

This year, health spending is projected to reach $2.6 trillion − 17.5% of the gross domestic product – a 0.2% increase from the pre-reform projections. Authors noted the increase is driven largely by postponement of physician payment cuts under the Medicare sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula and changes to the COBRA legislations.

The major spike in health spending will be in 2014, when an additional 30 million Americans are expected to gain coverage. Overall spending is projected to increase 9.2% that year, compared with the 6.6% that was estimated in February.

Meanwhile, patients' out-of-pocket health care spending is expected to decrease by 1.1%, instead of rising 6.4%, since more people will be insured.

By 2019, private health insurance spending is projected to account for 32% of national health spending (compared with 30% in the February analysis); Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) are to account for 20% (up from 18%). Medicare, out-of-pocket expenses and other public programs make up the rest of the spending.

The authors said that they didn't change any of the economic or demographic information from their February report, and that the analysis focuses on health spending only. The data analysis was done at payer level only and the authors said they had no sector-level data.

They cautioned that “As the provisions are implemented over time, their actual impact may well differ considerably from these estimates.”

The office's 2011 national health spending projections will shift the analysis to an additional year into the future, the authors wrote, “and continue the work of estimating the impact of reform on overall national health spending.”

Major Finding: U.S. health care spending is projected to rise to about $4.6 trillion by 2019, growing at an average rate of 6.3% a year.

Data Source: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary.

Disclosures: The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

WASHINGTON – By 2019, nearly 93% of U.S. residents will be covered by health insurance, with nearly 20% of the gross domestic product being consumed in the process, federal actuaries announced at a press briefing.

U.S. health spending is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 6.3% over the next 10 years, 0.2% faster than was projected before passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It is expected to reach an estimated $4.6 trillion by 2019, according to an analysis by officials in the Office the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (Health Affairs 2010 Sept. 9 [doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0788]).

The projections update an analysis done in February. This time, they take into account the impact of the ACA as well as changes to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) premium subsidies and Medicare physician fee schedule.

With those changes, the average annual growth rate for health care spending will increase from 6.1% before reform to 6.3% after, according to the authors.

“While the estimated net impact of the Affordable Care Act and other legislative and regulatory changes on national health spending are moderate, the underlying effects of these changes on coverage and financing are more pronounced,” Andrea Sisko, lead author of the analysis and a CMS economist, said during the press briefing. “For example, we projected increased spending by a greater number of insured persons, which is largely offset by slower projected Medicare spending growth as well as lower Medicaid prices paid to providers.”

Meanwhile, the implementation of ACA provisions, including the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan and the extension of coverage of dependents under age 26 years, is estimated to increase national health spending by $10.2 billion through 2013, according to the analysis.

The authors also looked at administrative spending by federal and state governments, projecting that to cost $71.1 billion over the next decade.

But Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, wrote in a blog post that the report by the Office of the Actuary “confirms a central point of the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress and signed by President Obama: The Act will make health care more affordable for all Americans with insurance.”

She added that by 2019, per capita health spending will average $14,720 instead of the $16,120 projected by the Actuary before the Act was enacted into law. “A close look at this report's data suggest that for average Americans, the Affordable Care Act will live up to its promise,” she wrote.

This year, health spending is projected to reach $2.6 trillion − 17.5% of the gross domestic product – a 0.2% increase from the pre-reform projections. Authors noted the increase is driven largely by postponement of physician payment cuts under the Medicare sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula and changes to the COBRA legislations.

The major spike in health spending will be in 2014, when an additional 30 million Americans are expected to gain coverage. Overall spending is projected to increase 9.2% that year, compared with the 6.6% that was estimated in February.

Meanwhile, patients' out-of-pocket health care spending is expected to decrease by 1.1%, instead of rising 6.4%, since more people will be insured.

By 2019, private health insurance spending is projected to account for 32% of national health spending (compared with 30% in the February analysis); Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) are to account for 20% (up from 18%). Medicare, out-of-pocket expenses and other public programs make up the rest of the spending.

The authors said that they didn't change any of the economic or demographic information from their February report, and that the analysis focuses on health spending only. The data analysis was done at payer level only and the authors said they had no sector-level data.

They cautioned that “As the provisions are implemented over time, their actual impact may well differ considerably from these estimates.”

The office's 2011 national health spending projections will shift the analysis to an additional year into the future, the authors wrote, “and continue the work of estimating the impact of reform on overall national health spending.”

Major Finding: U.S. health care spending is projected to rise to about $4.6 trillion by 2019, growing at an average rate of 6.3% a year.

Data Source: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary.

Disclosures: The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

WASHINGTON – By 2019, nearly 93% of U.S. residents will be covered by health insurance, with nearly 20% of the gross domestic product being consumed in the process, federal actuaries announced at a press briefing.

U.S. health spending is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 6.3% over the next 10 years, 0.2% faster than was projected before passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It is expected to reach an estimated $4.6 trillion by 2019, according to an analysis by officials in the Office the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (Health Affairs 2010 Sept. 9 [doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0788]).

The projections update an analysis done in February. This time, they take into account the impact of the ACA as well as changes to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) premium subsidies and Medicare physician fee schedule.

With those changes, the average annual growth rate for health care spending will increase from 6.1% before reform to 6.3% after, according to the authors.

“While the estimated net impact of the Affordable Care Act and other legislative and regulatory changes on national health spending are moderate, the underlying effects of these changes on coverage and financing are more pronounced,” Andrea Sisko, lead author of the analysis and a CMS economist, said during the press briefing. “For example, we projected increased spending by a greater number of insured persons, which is largely offset by slower projected Medicare spending growth as well as lower Medicaid prices paid to providers.”

Meanwhile, the implementation of ACA provisions, including the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan and the extension of coverage of dependents under age 26 years, is estimated to increase national health spending by $10.2 billion through 2013, according to the analysis.

The authors also looked at administrative spending by federal and state governments, projecting that to cost $71.1 billion over the next decade.

But Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, wrote in a blog post that the report by the Office of the Actuary “confirms a central point of the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress and signed by President Obama: The Act will make health care more affordable for all Americans with insurance.”

She added that by 2019, per capita health spending will average $14,720 instead of the $16,120 projected by the Actuary before the Act was enacted into law. “A close look at this report's data suggest that for average Americans, the Affordable Care Act will live up to its promise,” she wrote.

This year, health spending is projected to reach $2.6 trillion − 17.5% of the gross domestic product – a 0.2% increase from the pre-reform projections. Authors noted the increase is driven largely by postponement of physician payment cuts under the Medicare sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula and changes to the COBRA legislations.

The major spike in health spending will be in 2014, when an additional 30 million Americans are expected to gain coverage. Overall spending is projected to increase 9.2% that year, compared with the 6.6% that was estimated in February.

Meanwhile, patients' out-of-pocket health care spending is expected to decrease by 1.1%, instead of rising 6.4%, since more people will be insured.

By 2019, private health insurance spending is projected to account for 32% of national health spending (compared with 30% in the February analysis); Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) are to account for 20% (up from 18%). Medicare, out-of-pocket expenses and other public programs make up the rest of the spending.

The authors said that they didn't change any of the economic or demographic information from their February report, and that the analysis focuses on health spending only. The data analysis was done at payer level only and the authors said they had no sector-level data.

They cautioned that “As the provisions are implemented over time, their actual impact may well differ considerably from these estimates.”

The office's 2011 national health spending projections will shift the analysis to an additional year into the future, the authors wrote, “and continue the work of estimating the impact of reform on overall national health spending.”

WASHINGTON – Roughly 8.7% of Americans aged 12 years or older used illicit drugs in 2009, an increase of 0.7% from 2008, according to a national survey. The rise was largely driven by an increase in marijuana use.

Rate of illicit drug use among youth aged 12-17 years also increased by 0.7%, from 9.3% in 2008 to 10% in 2009.

The numbers are part of the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

The increase in drug use is driven by several factors, SAMHSA officials said, including economic stress and unemployment, but also by the increased discussion about medical marijuana.

“This survey is really important,” said Gil Kerlikowske, director of White House Office of National Drug Control Policy during a press briefing to release the data. “This is a big wake-up call. We need to be doing more.”

Dr. H. Westley Clark, director of the SAMHSA Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, said that physicians can pay closer attention to signs of illicit drug use in their patients, and get familiar with federal substance abuse resources for health professionals such as the National Institute of Drug Abuse's NIDAMed.

Approximately 67,500 U.S. residents were interviewed for this year's installment of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. They were queried on use of illicit drugs including marijuana/hashish, cocaine/crack, heroin, hallucinogens, and inhalants, as well as nonmedical use of prescription-type psychotherapeutic medications.

According to the survey estimates, marijuana was the most commonly used drug – with approximately 16.7 million current-month users – followed by psychotherapeutics (7 million), cocaine (1.6 million), hallucinogens (1.3 million), inhalants (0.6 million), and heroin (0.2 million).

The rate of nonmedical use of prescription-type drugs among users aged 18-25 years increased steadily from 2002 to 2009, according to the survey, rising from 5.5% in 2002 to 6.3% in 2009. The increase was primarily driven by misuse of pain relievers. Overall, for U.S. residents 12 years or older, pain relievers had the highest rate of nonmedical use (2.1%), followed by tranquilizers (0.8%), stimulants (0.5%), and sedatives (0.1%).

Of those who misused prescription-type pain relievers, 55% of people 12 years or older got prescription-type pain relievers from a friend or relative for free. More than 17% got their pain relievers from one doctor, 5% got them from a dealer or stranger, and 0.4% bought them on the Internet.

The rate of illicit drug use also rose among U.S. residents aged 50-59 years, from 2.7% in 2002 to 6.2% in 2009 during the month prior to the survey.

The trend, according to the survey, reflects the growing aging population.

The rate of misuse decreased for just two drugs – cocaine and methamphetamine.

Misuse of cocaine decreased from 2.0% in 2008 to 1.4% in 2009 and the rate for methamphetamine decreased from 0.6% to 0.2% over the same period. The rates of alcohol and tobacco use remained relatively stable between 2008 and 2009, according to the survey.

Federal officials called for more community collaboration to increase awareness about the dangers of illicit drug use.

Dr. J. Calvin Chatlos said in an interview that he thinks it is notable that the increase in illicit drug use mostly occurred among those in the 12-17 and 18-25 age groups. The key focus among those groups was on marijuana and psychotherapeutics, mostly painly pain relievers, he pointed out.

“We must ask ourselves to what degree is this related to increased acceptability of medical marijuana and the overall increase nationally in prescribing pain relievers to adults,” said Dr. Chatlos, a child and adolescent addiction psychiatrist who serves as associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the Unversity of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Brunswick. “This is supported in the survey results that show a decreased perceived risk of marijuana use for the past 2 years.”

Dr. Chatlos also found the increase in past month illicit drug use among people aged 50-54 to be fascinating. “Are these the parents of those in the 18-25 age group that shows increased tolerance or promotion of use?”

WASHINGTON – Roughly 8.7% of Americans aged 12 years or older used illicit drugs in 2009, an increase of 0.7% from 2008, according to a national survey. The rise was largely driven by an increase in marijuana use.

Rate of illicit drug use among youth aged 12-17 years also increased by 0.7%, from 9.3% in 2008 to 10% in 2009.

The numbers are part of the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

The increase in drug use is driven by several factors, SAMHSA officials said, including economic stress and unemployment, but also by the increased discussion about medical marijuana.

“This survey is really important,” said Gil Kerlikowske, director of White House Office of National Drug Control Policy during a press briefing to release the data. “This is a big wake-up call. We need to be doing more.”

Dr. H. Westley Clark, director of the SAMHSA Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, said that physicians can pay closer attention to signs of illicit drug use in their patients, and get familiar with federal substance abuse resources for health professionals such as the National Institute of Drug Abuse's NIDAMed.

Approximately 67,500 U.S. residents were interviewed for this year's installment of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. They were queried on use of illicit drugs including marijuana/hashish, cocaine/crack, heroin, hallucinogens, and inhalants, as well as nonmedical use of prescription-type psychotherapeutic medications.

According to the survey estimates, marijuana was the most commonly used drug – with approximately 16.7 million current-month users – followed by psychotherapeutics (7 million), cocaine (1.6 million), hallucinogens (1.3 million), inhalants (0.6 million), and heroin (0.2 million).

The rate of nonmedical use of prescription-type drugs among users aged 18-25 years increased steadily from 2002 to 2009, according to the survey, rising from 5.5% in 2002 to 6.3% in 2009. The increase was primarily driven by misuse of pain relievers. Overall, for U.S. residents 12 years or older, pain relievers had the highest rate of nonmedical use (2.1%), followed by tranquilizers (0.8%), stimulants (0.5%), and sedatives (0.1%).

Of those who misused prescription-type pain relievers, 55% of people 12 years or older got prescription-type pain relievers from a friend or relative for free. More than 17% got their pain relievers from one doctor, 5% got them from a dealer or stranger, and 0.4% bought them on the Internet.

The rate of illicit drug use also rose among U.S. residents aged 50-59 years, from 2.7% in 2002 to 6.2% in 2009 during the month prior to the survey.

The trend, according to the survey, reflects the growing aging population.

The rate of misuse decreased for just two drugs – cocaine and methamphetamine.

Misuse of cocaine decreased from 2.0% in 2008 to 1.4% in 2009 and the rate for methamphetamine decreased from 0.6% to 0.2% over the same period. The rates of alcohol and tobacco use remained relatively stable between 2008 and 2009, according to the survey.

Federal officials called for more community collaboration to increase awareness about the dangers of illicit drug use.

Dr. J. Calvin Chatlos said in an interview that he thinks it is notable that the increase in illicit drug use mostly occurred among those in the 12-17 and 18-25 age groups. The key focus among those groups was on marijuana and psychotherapeutics, mostly painly pain relievers, he pointed out.

“We must ask ourselves to what degree is this related to increased acceptability of medical marijuana and the overall increase nationally in prescribing pain relievers to adults,” said Dr. Chatlos, a child and adolescent addiction psychiatrist who serves as associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the Unversity of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Brunswick. “This is supported in the survey results that show a decreased perceived risk of marijuana use for the past 2 years.”

Dr. Chatlos also found the increase in past month illicit drug use among people aged 50-54 to be fascinating. “Are these the parents of those in the 18-25 age group that shows increased tolerance or promotion of use?”

WASHINGTON – Roughly 8.7% of Americans aged 12 years or older used illicit drugs in 2009, an increase of 0.7% from 2008, according to a national survey. The rise was largely driven by an increase in marijuana use.

Rate of illicit drug use among youth aged 12-17 years also increased by 0.7%, from 9.3% in 2008 to 10% in 2009.

The numbers are part of the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

The increase in drug use is driven by several factors, SAMHSA officials said, including economic stress and unemployment, but also by the increased discussion about medical marijuana.

“This survey is really important,” said Gil Kerlikowske, director of White House Office of National Drug Control Policy during a press briefing to release the data. “This is a big wake-up call. We need to be doing more.”

Dr. H. Westley Clark, director of the SAMHSA Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, said that physicians can pay closer attention to signs of illicit drug use in their patients, and get familiar with federal substance abuse resources for health professionals such as the National Institute of Drug Abuse's NIDAMed.

Approximately 67,500 U.S. residents were interviewed for this year's installment of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. They were queried on use of illicit drugs including marijuana/hashish, cocaine/crack, heroin, hallucinogens, and inhalants, as well as nonmedical use of prescription-type psychotherapeutic medications.

According to the survey estimates, marijuana was the most commonly used drug – with approximately 16.7 million current-month users – followed by psychotherapeutics (7 million), cocaine (1.6 million), hallucinogens (1.3 million), inhalants (0.6 million), and heroin (0.2 million).

The rate of nonmedical use of prescription-type drugs among users aged 18-25 years increased steadily from 2002 to 2009, according to the survey, rising from 5.5% in 2002 to 6.3% in 2009. The increase was primarily driven by misuse of pain relievers. Overall, for U.S. residents 12 years or older, pain relievers had the highest rate of nonmedical use (2.1%), followed by tranquilizers (0.8%), stimulants (0.5%), and sedatives (0.1%).

Of those who misused prescription-type pain relievers, 55% of people 12 years or older got prescription-type pain relievers from a friend or relative for free. More than 17% got their pain relievers from one doctor, 5% got them from a dealer or stranger, and 0.4% bought them on the Internet.

The rate of illicit drug use also rose among U.S. residents aged 50-59 years, from 2.7% in 2002 to 6.2% in 2009 during the month prior to the survey.

The trend, according to the survey, reflects the growing aging population.

The rate of misuse decreased for just two drugs – cocaine and methamphetamine.

Misuse of cocaine decreased from 2.0% in 2008 to 1.4% in 2009 and the rate for methamphetamine decreased from 0.6% to 0.2% over the same period. The rates of alcohol and tobacco use remained relatively stable between 2008 and 2009, according to the survey.

Federal officials called for more community collaboration to increase awareness about the dangers of illicit drug use.

Dr. J. Calvin Chatlos said in an interview that he thinks it is notable that the increase in illicit drug use mostly occurred among those in the 12-17 and 18-25 age groups. The key focus among those groups was on marijuana and psychotherapeutics, mostly painly pain relievers, he pointed out.

“We must ask ourselves to what degree is this related to increased acceptability of medical marijuana and the overall increase nationally in prescribing pain relievers to adults,” said Dr. Chatlos, a child and adolescent addiction psychiatrist who serves as associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the Unversity of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Brunswick. “This is supported in the survey results that show a decreased perceived risk of marijuana use for the past 2 years.”

Dr. Chatlos also found the increase in past month illicit drug use among people aged 50-54 to be fascinating. “Are these the parents of those in the 18-25 age group that shows increased tolerance or promotion of use?”

WASHINGTON – Over the past 2 decades, women's mortality from cardiovascular disease and breast and cervical cancer has declined, thanks to research focused on women's health; however, little progress has been made in addressing debilitating conditions such as autoimmune diseases, addiction, lung cancer, and dementia, according to an Institute of Medicine committee.

"We are pleased with how much progress has been made, but there are some caveats," Nancy E. Adler, Ph.D., chair of the IOM Committee on Women's Health Research and director of the Center for Health and Community at the University of California, San Francisco, said at a press briefing on Sept. 23 to release the report.

Based on the report, "Women's Health Research: Progress, Pitfalls, and Promise," the committee recommended:

– Undertaking initiatives that increase research in high-risk populations of women;

– Ensuring adequate participation of women in research and analysis of data by sex; and

– Creation of a task force to communicate health messages about research results to women and prevent them from receiving conflicting messages from various venues.

Communication is one area in which office-based physicians can play an important role, translating research into their practices, said committee member Alina Salganicoff, Ph.D., vice president and director of women's health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. "Their recommendations hold a lot of weight" with their patients, she said.

The report comes 20 years after the creation of the Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health and 25 years after a Public Health Service task force concluded that excluding women from medical research had compromised women’s health care.

Before those landmark events, women were not included in research studies as often as men were because of concerns about fetal exposure to potentially harmful substances, the "flux" of hormones, and the assumption that research findings in men would translate to women, according to the report.

The committee found that requiring researchers to enroll women in clinical trials had resulted in advances, yet the benefit of increased participation by women has not yet reached its full potential because researchers usually don't separate the results by sex.

Committee members could not pinpoint why progress was made in some conditions and not others, according to the report, which offered possible explanations such as the extent of attention from government agencies, interest from researchers, understanding of the condition, and political and social barriers.

In addition to major progress in cardiovascular diseases and breast and cervical cancers, the report noted that some progress had been made in reducing the burden of conditions such as depression, HIV/AIDS, and osteoporosis in women.

However, there has been little progress research having an impact on conditions such as unintended pregnancy, maternal morbidity and mortality, autoimmune diseases, addiction, lung cancer, gynecologic cancers other than cervical cancer, and Alzheimer's disease, according to the report.

"Knowledge about differences in manifestation of diseases is crucial for further studies to identify the underlying biology of disease in women vs. men and to develop appropriate prevention, diagnosis, and treatment strategies for women," wrote the committee members.

Read Related Story:

Office of Research on Women's Health Celebrates 20 Years, Plans Next Decade

WASHINGTON – Over the past 2 decades, women's mortality from cardiovascular disease and breast and cervical cancer has declined, thanks to research focused on women's health; however, little progress has been made in addressing debilitating conditions such as autoimmune diseases, addiction, lung cancer, and dementia, according to an Institute of Medicine committee.

"We are pleased with how much progress has been made, but there are some caveats," Nancy E. Adler, Ph.D., chair of the IOM Committee on Women's Health Research and director of the Center for Health and Community at the University of California, San Francisco, said at a press briefing on Sept. 23 to release the report.

Based on the report, "Women's Health Research: Progress, Pitfalls, and Promise," the committee recommended:

– Undertaking initiatives that increase research in high-risk populations of women;

– Ensuring adequate participation of women in research and analysis of data by sex; and

– Creation of a task force to communicate health messages about research results to women and prevent them from receiving conflicting messages from various venues.

Communication is one area in which office-based physicians can play an important role, translating research into their practices, said committee member Alina Salganicoff, Ph.D., vice president and director of women's health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. "Their recommendations hold a lot of weight" with their patients, she said.

The report comes 20 years after the creation of the Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health and 25 years after a Public Health Service task force concluded that excluding women from medical research had compromised women’s health care.

Before those landmark events, women were not included in research studies as often as men were because of concerns about fetal exposure to potentially harmful substances, the "flux" of hormones, and the assumption that research findings in men would translate to women, according to the report.

The committee found that requiring researchers to enroll women in clinical trials had resulted in advances, yet the benefit of increased participation by women has not yet reached its full potential because researchers usually don't separate the results by sex.

Committee members could not pinpoint why progress was made in some conditions and not others, according to the report, which offered possible explanations such as the extent of attention from government agencies, interest from researchers, understanding of the condition, and political and social barriers.

In addition to major progress in cardiovascular diseases and breast and cervical cancers, the report noted that some progress had been made in reducing the burden of conditions such as depression, HIV/AIDS, and osteoporosis in women.

However, there has been little progress research having an impact on conditions such as unintended pregnancy, maternal morbidity and mortality, autoimmune diseases, addiction, lung cancer, gynecologic cancers other than cervical cancer, and Alzheimer's disease, according to the report.

"Knowledge about differences in manifestation of diseases is crucial for further studies to identify the underlying biology of disease in women vs. men and to develop appropriate prevention, diagnosis, and treatment strategies for women," wrote the committee members.

Read Related Story:

Office of Research on Women's Health Celebrates 20 Years, Plans Next Decade

WASHINGTON – Over the past 2 decades, women's mortality from cardiovascular disease and breast and cervical cancer has declined, thanks to research focused on women's health; however, little progress has been made in addressing debilitating conditions such as autoimmune diseases, addiction, lung cancer, and dementia, according to an Institute of Medicine committee.

"We are pleased with how much progress has been made, but there are some caveats," Nancy E. Adler, Ph.D., chair of the IOM Committee on Women's Health Research and director of the Center for Health and Community at the University of California, San Francisco, said at a press briefing on Sept. 23 to release the report.

Based on the report, "Women's Health Research: Progress, Pitfalls, and Promise," the committee recommended:

– Undertaking initiatives that increase research in high-risk populations of women;

– Ensuring adequate participation of women in research and analysis of data by sex; and

– Creation of a task force to communicate health messages about research results to women and prevent them from receiving conflicting messages from various venues.

Communication is one area in which office-based physicians can play an important role, translating research into their practices, said committee member Alina Salganicoff, Ph.D., vice president and director of women's health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. "Their recommendations hold a lot of weight" with their patients, she said.

The report comes 20 years after the creation of the Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health and 25 years after a Public Health Service task force concluded that excluding women from medical research had compromised women’s health care.

Before those landmark events, women were not included in research studies as often as men were because of concerns about fetal exposure to potentially harmful substances, the "flux" of hormones, and the assumption that research findings in men would translate to women, according to the report.

The committee found that requiring researchers to enroll women in clinical trials had resulted in advances, yet the benefit of increased participation by women has not yet reached its full potential because researchers usually don't separate the results by sex.

Committee members could not pinpoint why progress was made in some conditions and not others, according to the report, which offered possible explanations such as the extent of attention from government agencies, interest from researchers, understanding of the condition, and political and social barriers.

In addition to major progress in cardiovascular diseases and breast and cervical cancers, the report noted that some progress had been made in reducing the burden of conditions such as depression, HIV/AIDS, and osteoporosis in women.

However, there has been little progress research having an impact on conditions such as unintended pregnancy, maternal morbidity and mortality, autoimmune diseases, addiction, lung cancer, gynecologic cancers other than cervical cancer, and Alzheimer's disease, according to the report.

"Knowledge about differences in manifestation of diseases is crucial for further studies to identify the underlying biology of disease in women vs. men and to develop appropriate prevention, diagnosis, and treatment strategies for women," wrote the committee members.

Read Related Story:

Office of Research on Women's Health Celebrates 20 Years, Plans Next Decade

WASHINGTON – Over the past 2 decades, women’s mortality from cardiovascular disease and breast and cervical cancer has declined, thanks to research focused on women’s health; however, little progress has been made in addressing debilitating conditions such as autoimmune diseases, addiction, lung cancer, and dementia, according to an Institute of Medicine committee.

“We are pleased with how much progress has been made, but there are some caveats,” Nancy E. Adler, Ph.D., chair of the IOM Committee on Women’s Health Research and director of the Center for Health and Community at the University of California, San Francisco, said at a press briefing on Sept. 23 to release the report.

Based on the report, “Women’s Health Research: Progress, Pitfalls, and Promise,” the committee recommended:

– Undertaking initiatives that increase research in high-risk populations of women;

– Ensuring adequate participation of women in research and analysis of data by sex; and

– Creation of a task force to communicate health messages about research results to women and prevent them from receiving conflicting messages from various venues.

Communication is one area in which office-based physicians can play an important role, translating research into their practices, said committee member Alina Salganicoff, Ph.D., vice president and director of women’s health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “Their recommendations hold a lot of weight” with their patients, she said.

The report comes 20 years after the creation of the Office of Women’s Health Research at the National Institutes of Health and 25 years after a Public Health Service task force concluded that excluding women from medical research had compromised women’s health care.

Before those landmark events, women were not included in research studies as often as men were because of concerns about fetal exposure to potentially harmful substances, the “flux” of hormones, and the assumption that research findings in men would translate to women, according to the report.

The committee found that requiring researchers to enroll women in clinical trials had resulted in advances, yet the benefit of increased participation by women has not yet reached its full potential because researchers usually don’t separate the results by sex.

Committee members could not pinpoint why progress was made in some conditions and not others, according to the report, which offered possible explanations such as the extent of attention from government agencies, interest from researchers, understanding of the condition, and political and social barriers.

In addition to major progress in cardiovascular diseases and breast and cervical cancers, the report noted that some progress had been made in reducing the burden of conditions such as depression, HIV/AIDS, and osteoporosis in women.

However, there has been little progress research having an impact on conditions such as unintended pregnancy, maternal morbidity and mortality, autoimmune diseases, addiction, lung cancer, gynecologic cancers other than cervical cancer, and Alzheimer’s disease, according to the report.

“Knowledge about differences in manifestation of diseases is crucial for further studies to identify the underlying biology of disease in women vs. men and to develop appropriate prevention, diagnosis, and treatment strategies for women,” wrote the committee members.

WASHINGTON – Over the past 2 decades, women’s mortality from cardiovascular disease and breast and cervical cancer has declined, thanks to research focused on women’s health; however, little progress has been made in addressing debilitating conditions such as autoimmune diseases, addiction, lung cancer, and dementia, according to an Institute of Medicine committee.

“We are pleased with how much progress has been made, but there are some caveats,” Nancy E. Adler, Ph.D., chair of the IOM Committee on Women’s Health Research and director of the Center for Health and Community at the University of California, San Francisco, said at a press briefing on Sept. 23 to release the report.

Based on the report, “Women’s Health Research: Progress, Pitfalls, and Promise,” the committee recommended:

– Undertaking initiatives that increase research in high-risk populations of women;

– Ensuring adequate participation of women in research and analysis of data by sex; and

– Creation of a task force to communicate health messages about research results to women and prevent them from receiving conflicting messages from various venues.

Communication is one area in which office-based physicians can play an important role, translating research into their practices, said committee member Alina Salganicoff, Ph.D., vice president and director of women’s health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “Their recommendations hold a lot of weight” with their patients, she said.

The report comes 20 years after the creation of the Office of Women’s Health Research at the National Institutes of Health and 25 years after a Public Health Service task force concluded that excluding women from medical research had compromised women’s health care.

Before those landmark events, women were not included in research studies as often as men were because of concerns about fetal exposure to potentially harmful substances, the “flux” of hormones, and the assumption that research findings in men would translate to women, according to the report.

The committee found that requiring researchers to enroll women in clinical trials had resulted in advances, yet the benefit of increased participation by women has not yet reached its full potential because researchers usually don’t separate the results by sex.

Committee members could not pinpoint why progress was made in some conditions and not others, according to the report, which offered possible explanations such as the extent of attention from government agencies, interest from researchers, understanding of the condition, and political and social barriers.

In addition to major progress in cardiovascular diseases and breast and cervical cancers, the report noted that some progress had been made in reducing the burden of conditions such as depression, HIV/AIDS, and osteoporosis in women.

However, there has been little progress research having an impact on conditions such as unintended pregnancy, maternal morbidity and mortality, autoimmune diseases, addiction, lung cancer, gynecologic cancers other than cervical cancer, and Alzheimer’s disease, according to the report.

“Knowledge about differences in manifestation of diseases is crucial for further studies to identify the underlying biology of disease in women vs. men and to develop appropriate prevention, diagnosis, and treatment strategies for women,” wrote the committee members.

WASHINGTON – Over the past 2 decades, women’s mortality from cardiovascular disease and breast and cervical cancer has declined, thanks to research focused on women’s health; however, little progress has been made in addressing debilitating conditions such as autoimmune diseases, addiction, lung cancer, and dementia, according to an Institute of Medicine committee.

“We are pleased with how much progress has been made, but there are some caveats,” Nancy E. Adler, Ph.D., chair of the IOM Committee on Women’s Health Research and director of the Center for Health and Community at the University of California, San Francisco, said at a press briefing on Sept. 23 to release the report.

Based on the report, “Women’s Health Research: Progress, Pitfalls, and Promise,” the committee recommended:

– Undertaking initiatives that increase research in high-risk populations of women;

– Ensuring adequate participation of women in research and analysis of data by sex; and

– Creation of a task force to communicate health messages about research results to women and prevent them from receiving conflicting messages from various venues.

Communication is one area in which office-based physicians can play an important role, translating research into their practices, said committee member Alina Salganicoff, Ph.D., vice president and director of women’s health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “Their recommendations hold a lot of weight” with their patients, she said.

The report comes 20 years after the creation of the Office of Women’s Health Research at the National Institutes of Health and 25 years after a Public Health Service task force concluded that excluding women from medical research had compromised women’s health care.

Before those landmark events, women were not included in research studies as often as men were because of concerns about fetal exposure to potentially harmful substances, the “flux” of hormones, and the assumption that research findings in men would translate to women, according to the report.

The committee found that requiring researchers to enroll women in clinical trials had resulted in advances, yet the benefit of increased participation by women has not yet reached its full potential because researchers usually don’t separate the results by sex.

Committee members could not pinpoint why progress was made in some conditions and not others, according to the report, which offered possible explanations such as the extent of attention from government agencies, interest from researchers, understanding of the condition, and political and social barriers.

In addition to major progress in cardiovascular diseases and breast and cervical cancers, the report noted that some progress had been made in reducing the burden of conditions such as depression, HIV/AIDS, and osteoporosis in women.

However, there has been little progress research having an impact on conditions such as unintended pregnancy, maternal morbidity and mortality, autoimmune diseases, addiction, lung cancer, gynecologic cancers other than cervical cancer, and Alzheimer’s disease, according to the report.

“Knowledge about differences in manifestation of diseases is crucial for further studies to identify the underlying biology of disease in women vs. men and to develop appropriate prevention, diagnosis, and treatment strategies for women,” wrote the committee members.