B.C. now has about 26,000 patients in subsidized residential care, essentially seniors who compensate most of their grant income towards a price of their room, house as well as 24-hour nursing care for formidable illness problems. The new rate make up is totalled to assign them up to 80 % of their income, as well as outcome them with during slightest USD$275 a month to cover particular writes off.

NDP illness censor Adrian Dix settled a enlarge functions out to $1,900 a year for a comparison whose sum income is $22,000 a year.

Patients during which income turn compensate $16,700 for room as well as board, withdrawal them though sufficient to cover dental care, hygiene supplies, wire TV & recreational activities, Dix stated.

health Minister Kevin Falcon voiced a new values in October, emphasizing a rate mangle for a lowest-income seniors. He concurred which a shift will enlarge sum supervision income by scarcely $54 million per year, observant a supervision simply needs more income to compensate a taking flight price of comparison care.

The limit rate for a residential care customer is capped during $2,932 a month, which a wellness method says is a full price of room as well as board. With nursing care, a method calculates which any residential care bed costs a range $6,000 a month.

Dix records which residential care comforts will face an in effect cut to their funding upon Jul 1 when they have to begin profitable a harmonized sales taxation upon their engaged services such as washing & food.

B.C. Ombudsperson Kim Carter released a inform Dec. seventeen which calls for a origination of a singular provincial website so patients as well as their family groups can review residential care facilities. Patients should be means to see what a informal wellness management pays any trickery per studious per day, how most care hours per day are provided, as well as how complaints are handled, Carter stated.

Dix pronounced illness authorities compensate in between $95 to $262 a day to residential care comforts for any patient, though now a open can’t find out what rate is paid to a specific facility. & a ultimate Statistics Canada interpretation uncover B.C. has a lowest normal care turn in Canada, totalled by staff hours per patient.

Released on July 28, A healthier future for all Australians marks “the biggest shakeup since Medicare”, SBS News said on July 27. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said it was “a major report with major implications for the nation”. The report said: “We need to re-design health services around people.”

Yet the main thrust of the report is a determined push on competition, user-pays health care and a bigger role for the private sector.

The commission put the state-based health system in its crosshairs. It proposed the creation of “competing health plans” that would force state governments to compete with private insurers, overseen and funded by the federal government.

In a blatant swing towards greater privatisation of health care, the commission proposed the government introduce federally subsidised “health plans” for a range of basic health services.

This would enable private health funds to compete directly against the chronically underfunded and overstretched public health system to provide services covered by Medicare. Unsurprisingly, private health funds have welcomed the proposal heartily.
The federal government set up the commission in February 2008 to review the nation’s health system.

The report recognised the crisis in healthcare across Australia. The report found “hospitals are under severe pressure, directly influencing their ability to provide safe, high quality, accessible and timely care to all patients”.

It offered five priorities for the health system. These included: address the appalling health situation of Indigenous people, improve care for people with mental illness, more support for people living in remote areas, and improve access to dental care. “Timely access to quality care in public hospitals”, was the fifth priority.

Despite these “priorities”, the report has been criticised by health professionals for a failure to move beyond mere rhetoric and generalities.

The report recommended the formation of a new national authority for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health funding and services. However, the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) chairperson Mick Adams criticised the plan for being “barely developed” in a July 27 statement.

“There’s no detail on how the $58 million Health Authority might work to ensure Aboriginal people’s role in setting the priorities to improve our health for example”, Adams said.

The Rural Doctors Association of Australia said that a lack of clear proposals for improving remote health — supposedly another priority — is a gaping omission. “Rural Australia is already suffering from a shortage of 17,000 health professionals”, said the association’s Dr Nola Mayfield on July 27.

“The crucial element missing from the report is any recommendation for substantial new initiatives to get more doctors and other healthcare professionals to the bush”, she said.
Private healthcare in Australia is already considerably expensive. It is heavily subsidised by the government. The Doctors Reform Society said the changes proposed in the report would mean private healthcare would expand. Market-based competition instead of universal access will be encouraged.

Doctors Reform Society President Dr Tim Woodruff said the report had some “excellent ideas” but was still “ultimately about entrenching those vested interests, about a long term vision for health care as a commodity to be subject to competition and the market”, according to the Crikey.com health blog Croakey.

The report also proposed a 0.75% rise in the Medicare levy to pay for a national dental scheme to cover basic dental services — Denticare.

Oral health is a critical part of overall health. Yet many Australians lack access to affordable dental health services. In 2006, the Australian Dental Journal estimated 35% of people do not have access to proper dental care. Eighty-five percent of dentists are private practitioners.

Woodruff welcomed the proposal to make dental care a universal entitlement. However, he pointed out: “The Denticare proposal is at odds with the Commission’s comment that ‘we want to translate universal entitlement into universal access’. Denticare will encourage dentists to stay in areas of relative affluence, supported by taxes.

“Those without teeth unfortunate enough to have limited mobility and live in poorer areas will remain toothless,” said Woodruff.

“Denticare also guarantees that those who have the money for private insurance can get faster access. That’s choice before equity. It should be the opposite.”

The Denticare proposal would not provide genuine universal coverage. People would be able to “choose” between private dental care or the public system. The government would pay for about 85% of private dental services, leaving the patient to cover the shortfall.

Greens Senator Bob Brown criticised the Denticare plan on July 27 for its heavy reliance “on subsidised private health insurance. Getting good dental care should be like Medicare — available to all regardless of wealth or privilege.”

On July 28, Rudd spoke at length about the “guiding principles” of the government’s plan for healthcare. The emphasis, he said, was a system that “focused on people”, is concerned with prevention, minimises waiting times and provides better access, quality and safety.

However, the report’s key recommendations will not achieve any of these things. Health reform, in the eyes of the government, is code for neoliberal, market-inspired changes that increase the power and profits of private companies.

Health campaigner and policy advisor Fiona Armstrong summed up many of the problems with the report on Croakey on July 28.

“Not content with the current status quo of a two-tier system in hospital care, the commission has recommend[ed] we extend this to all health care and, in a highly risky first step towards managed care system, proposes a greatly increased role for the private sector and private health insurers,” she said.

“This report should make the poor, the disadvantaged, the truly sick, and anyone with an sense of fairness very afraid for what lies ahead.”

A better health outcome is not the goal here. If that were the case we would have seen proposals for a dramatic expansion of Medicare, the end of government subsidies to private health insurance and a health care system based on free, equal and timely access for all.

The Centre for Health Protection of the Hong Kong Department of Health urged members of the public and management of institutions to take preventive measures against influenza-like illness (ILI) by observing strict environmental and personal hygiene.

The appeal was made following CHP’s investigation into a report of parainfluenza outbreak in a child care centre, affecting a total of 18 children.

The centre concerned is SKH St. Thomas’ Child Care Centre in Shek Kip Mei, which had been closed earlier to avoid the spread of human swine influenza (Influenza A H1N1)in the centre. Yet, the centre still provided day care service to around 60 children who are in need.

The affected comprised 12 males and six females, aged between five months and three years.

They developed symptoms of ILI, including fever, cough, runny nose and sore throat between July 14 and 28.

Among them, five were admitted to hospital in stable condition. Another 12 children sought medical treatment and did not require hospitalization.

The nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA) specimen taken from a hospitalized case was tested positive to parainfluenza virus.

A CHP spokesman said, “In view of an increased number of sick children, CHP advised the centre to reinforce infection control measures.”

CHP officials have conducted field visit to the centre and provided health advice to the staff.

To prevent respiratory tract infection, the public are advised to adopt the following measures:

* Build up good body immunity by having a proper diet, regular exercise and adequate rest, reducing stress and avoiding smoking;

* Maintain good personal hygiene, wash hands after sneezing or coughing, and wear a mask when having symptoms of respiratory tract infection;

* Maintain good ventilation; and

* Avoid visiting crowded places with poor ventilation.

Members of the public, particularly children, elderly people and those with chronic diseases, should wear face masks and consult doctors promptly if they develop symptoms of respiratory tract infection.

Yes, dentists still need to restore, replace, or straighten teeth, in addition, to increasing awareness of the role of oral inflammatory conditions, such as periodontitis (gum disease) associated with diabetes and other disorders which lead to heart disease and stroke.

Evolving from barber surgeons, those who treated the teeth and surrounding structures have been called dentists for more than 400 years, but as early as 500 BC they were considered physicians of the mouth (Herodotus). In addition to hospital-based training in medicine and surgery, modern dentists study the development and treatment of several hundred diseases, many of which can affect the rest of the body.

Thus, dentists are already de facto oral physicians, who are already providing nutritional and tobacco cessation counseling and are well-prepared to screen and refer to other health care professionals for hypertension, diabetes, osteoporosis, eating and neurological disorders, substance and child/domestic abuse, oral and skin cancer, and mental disorders. Dentists as oral physicians can be available during bioterrorism or disasters for triage and for administering vaccines and other medication.

Recognizing these capabilities and potential of dentists to increase their participation in overall health care, the Massachusetts legislature is considering House Bill #2081, An Act Relative to the Title of Practitioners of Dentistry,” to permit dentists to be designated oral physicians as the appropriate term for what dentists can and should do as true health care professionals. Note that the legislature has already granted podiatrists and chiropractors the right to be podiatric physicians and chiropractic physicians, respectively (Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 112, Section 8A).

To reduce costs and increase access to dental care, nondentists are being trained in Alaska and Minnesota to provide simple routine dental care under supervision by dentists. Also, medical doctors can now provide preventive and emergency dental care in Maine. These changes should be alerting dentists to the need for a new superordinate classification as oral physicians who will oversee all dental care, including that provided by nondentists, similar to the ophthalmologist with eye care provided by optometrists and opticians.

The proposed oral physician legislation only needs the endorsement of the dental profession, which can then re-organize itself to free up time to do only what it can do, leaving routine tasks to nondentists. Dentists will then be able to expand their responsibilities as oral physicians to provide limited preventive primary care. If monitoring of blood pressure and administering vaccines are now being done in shopping centers and pharmacies, why not take these vital signs, including height and weight, in the dental office? Most people routinely see their dentists more often than their primary care physician.

While some dentists may object to these changes as idealistic, impractical, and confusing to patients, third parties, and regulatory agencies, the real reasons relate to their unwillingness to accept additional patient responsibilities without compensation and/or be subjected to the bureaucracy associated with the costly process of third party payment for health care. The public is already confused by having two dental degrees, DDS and the perceived superiority of the DMD degree. Becoming an oral physician, as either a DDS or DMD, similar to osteopaths who retain their DO as licensed physicians, would reduce such confusion.

The fact that dentists currently enjoy high social and economic status may auger against change. The recent New York Times article, “Boom times for dentists, but not for teeth,” also documented the higher average incomes than primary care physicians, which reinforces the perception that dentistry is more of a business than a health profession.

Becoming an oral physician who can help relieve the present onerous burden on primary care physicians would offset these negative perceptions. Unfortunately, the leadership of the Massachusetts Dental and Medical Societies, who represent their respective professions rather than the public, have testified that they oppose the proposed oral physician designation. Their reasons, however, seem to me and others to be antediluvian, inaccurate, self-serving, and regressive.

If you agree, please help your dentist and your legislators understand the benefits of permitting and in fact encouraging dentists to become oral physicians willing to increase their participation in your overall health care. Massachusetts would be the first state to do so.

Donald B. Giddon, DMD, PhD, is a clinical professor of developmental biology, Harvard University, and a member of the Faculty of Medicine and former Dean, New York University College of Dentistry.berkshireeagle

Colchicine has been used by healthcare practitioners for many years to treat gout but had not been approved by the FDA. The FDA has an initiative underway to bring unapproved, marketed products like colchicine under its regulatory framework. This initiative promotes the goal of assuring that all marketed drugs meet modern standards for safety, effectiveness, quality and labeling.

Physicians historically have given colchicine hourly for acute gout flares until the flare subsided or they had to stop treatment because the patient began experiencing gastrointestinal problems. A dosing study required as part of FDA approval demonstrated that one dose initially and a single additional dose after one hour was just as effective as continued hourly dosing for acute gout flares, but much less toxic. As a result, the drug is being approved for acute gout flares with the lower recommended dosing regimen.

The FDA is alerting healthcare professionals to this new dosing regimen and also warning about the potential for severe drug interactions when patients take colchicine.

The medicinal value of using colchicum was first identified in the first century A.D. and its use for treating acute gout dates back to 1810. Physicians have prescribed the medication since then. Although single-ingredient colchicine has not been approved by the FDA until now, a combination product containing colchicine and an agent that increased the excretion of uric acid in the urine was approved by the FDA in 1939.

FMF is the most common of the hereditary periodic fever syndromes and is characterized by recurrent episodes of fever, arthritis and painful inflammation of the lining layers of the lungs and abdomen. Though rare in the United States, it is more common in Mediterranean countries. Physicians have prescribed colchicine for FMF for many years based on studies showing that it reduced the frequency of attacks but use of colchicine for FMF had never been approved. With this approval, Colcrys becomes the first drug approved to treat FMF.