On HAIMUSIQUE, this Saturday, on Kozman sou anvironman, we identified and analyzed the ecological importance of Salt Marshes and the way climate changes will alter their functionality. As one of the most productive ecosystems on earth, salt marshes have a rich and diversified plant and other aquatic lives ecology. They help to filter grease and pesticide related waste, along with aqueous and solid wastes prior releasing them into their adjacent waterbodies. They capture sediment through a low-high tide dynamic system and cleanup substrate to establishing functional plant communities.As a result of global warming, waterbodies (primarily oceans) will raise up and displace low and high-benchmark' s tides, reduce low and mid-tide surfaces and disturb the plant communities and the physiology of this ecotype.
Our listeners, local citizens and "Collectivité s Territoriales" elected officials were advised to educate their neighbors, fellow citizens and constituents on preventive measures to help local salt marshes sustain their ecological functionality. Some of the ways mentioned during that broadcast were:
* To avoid illegal dumping (industrial, household, universal wastes) particularly, plastic and glass-based products,
* To reinforce or strengthen the plant communities by maintaining current plots and diversifying their species,
* To encourage community services and organize waterfront cleanup projects to remove floatables from the shore, etc.
The same broadcast will be aired tomorrow at 2 PM (ET).SALT MARSHES ARE VERY IMPORTANT AND SERVED AS MORBIDITY REDUCERS FOR ADJACENT HUMAN POPULATIONS.. ..Please help us spread the words!HAIMUSIQUEMMedozile
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
1.1 billion dollars to access health treatment & effectiveness in USA
On February 16th, Robert Pear published an article in The New York Times, in which he reported that the Obama administration will invest $ 1.1 billion dollars towards the assessment and the effectiveness of health treatment in United States (as part of the stimulus package). This money will be used to improve several types of treatments including drugs, surgeries and medical technologies; and the President will appoint a
15-member commission to suggest how to allocate the fund. Historically, medical treatment in United States has been, for the most part, ineffective and uncompetitive when comparing the country's health care cost-benefits (efficiency) with different industrialized nations in the world. For examples, although the US is the world leader in newborn intensive care, but its international standard has declined from 6th to 27th for infant mortality rate (David, 2007). The cost of health care administration in United States is over thirty times bigger that the one in Canada (Aaron, 2003). In contrast, United States is the world's leader in medical technologies, where patients have access the most diverse (offer/demand basis) health care system. According to the Harvard School of Public Health, in 1974, doctors in United States performed 2.4 million unnecessary operations (surgeries), which cost about $3.9 billion and caused 11,900 deaths (Leape, 1992). The United States government, through Medicaid, spend billions of dollars each year to cover the cost of second/additional surgeries, ineffective drug treatments, treatment for medical/health conditions related to malpractice, etc. African Americans have been stereotyped, offered inferior treatment or treatment with lack of respect (Yu, 2009) that has created conditions for health care disparities in United States. Their health treatment has been conditioned in terms of biological difference _" race"_, which widens the country's health disproportion between African-American and Euro-American. All those facts affect the quality of health care in the country. Investing $ 1.1 billion to improve health treatment in United States _ at a time where more than 10% of the country's workforce is unemployed and over 47 million people are uninsured and/or don't have access to medical care _ is a moral and civic responsibility of the government. This initiative will help reduce unnecessary or wasteful treatments if the government's appointees find ways to work effectively with medical advocate groups, insurance and health care providers (among others) to set up medical guidelines for practitioners and change/improve the country's medical paradigm. A patient doesn't have to undergo medical surgery because his/her physician either thinks that is the best way to proceed or will benefit financially from that procedure. An African American cardiac patient doesn't have to be prescribed any race-based drug (BiDil) because of his physical difference (skin color or any type of anthropometric variable), but because the active ingredients will help cure his/her disease (not the label). Patients should be referred to specialist for further tests and analyses instead of being trapped by their primary health providers and watched their cases worsened. As a way to strengthen this initiative, Congress should enact laws to eliminate those wasteful procedures. Under the United States health care system, the doctor-patient relationship has always been ambiguous. Educated patients _ who learn about their conditions and available procedures to annihilate their health issues or cure them _ have a different relationship with their physicians than those who are socio-economically disadvantaged; those who do not ask questions about their treatment possibilities, who do not ask why they have an MIR or an Echocardiogram at each visit. Since most of those patients are classified as "poor" and covered by Medicaid, a government's intervention to help them fully benefit from their doctor's appointment is more than acceptable. This is not the only way to save money on the health care system; this may not be the best way to do so _ since we know that United States spend $ 294.3 billion on health care administrative cost, while Canada spend only 9.4 billion (Aaron, 2003): reducing the US health administrative cost in half would be ideal. However, I do think this is one way to save money on the system by eliminating all the non-useful drug prescriptions, unnecessary surgeries and updating the medical technology (which can help reduce on administrative cost) to improve data entries, patients' charts, and all medical information in general, which will reduce duplication of tests and diagnoses. This will provide a duo-advantage, for the government and the patients will save some money.
Literature cited:
Lucian L. Leape. Harvard School of Public Health: Annual Reviews. 1992 13:363-83
Richard David (et al.). Disparities in Infant Mortality: What’s Genetics Got to Do With it? American Journal of Public Health. July 2007, vol. 97, No. 7 pp.1191-1197
Henry J. Aaron. The Cost of Health Care Administration in the United States and Canada. NEJM 349:8. Aug. 2003 pp. 801-803
15-member commission to suggest how to allocate the fund. Historically, medical treatment in United States has been, for the most part, ineffective and uncompetitive when comparing the country's health care cost-benefits (efficiency) with different industrialized nations in the world. For examples, although the US is the world leader in newborn intensive care, but its international standard has declined from 6th to 27th for infant mortality rate (David, 2007). The cost of health care administration in United States is over thirty times bigger that the one in Canada (Aaron, 2003). In contrast, United States is the world's leader in medical technologies, where patients have access the most diverse (offer/demand basis) health care system. According to the Harvard School of Public Health, in 1974, doctors in United States performed 2.4 million unnecessary operations (surgeries), which cost about $3.9 billion and caused 11,900 deaths (Leape, 1992). The United States government, through Medicaid, spend billions of dollars each year to cover the cost of second/additional surgeries, ineffective drug treatments, treatment for medical/health conditions related to malpractice, etc. African Americans have been stereotyped, offered inferior treatment or treatment with lack of respect (Yu, 2009) that has created conditions for health care disparities in United States. Their health treatment has been conditioned in terms of biological difference _" race"_, which widens the country's health disproportion between African-American and Euro-American. All those facts affect the quality of health care in the country. Investing $ 1.1 billion to improve health treatment in United States _ at a time where more than 10% of the country's workforce is unemployed and over 47 million people are uninsured and/or don't have access to medical care _ is a moral and civic responsibility of the government. This initiative will help reduce unnecessary or wasteful treatments if the government's appointees find ways to work effectively with medical advocate groups, insurance and health care providers (among others) to set up medical guidelines for practitioners and change/improve the country's medical paradigm. A patient doesn't have to undergo medical surgery because his/her physician either thinks that is the best way to proceed or will benefit financially from that procedure. An African American cardiac patient doesn't have to be prescribed any race-based drug (BiDil) because of his physical difference (skin color or any type of anthropometric variable), but because the active ingredients will help cure his/her disease (not the label). Patients should be referred to specialist for further tests and analyses instead of being trapped by their primary health providers and watched their cases worsened. As a way to strengthen this initiative, Congress should enact laws to eliminate those wasteful procedures. Under the United States health care system, the doctor-patient relationship has always been ambiguous. Educated patients _ who learn about their conditions and available procedures to annihilate their health issues or cure them _ have a different relationship with their physicians than those who are socio-economically disadvantaged; those who do not ask questions about their treatment possibilities, who do not ask why they have an MIR or an Echocardiogram at each visit. Since most of those patients are classified as "poor" and covered by Medicaid, a government's intervention to help them fully benefit from their doctor's appointment is more than acceptable. This is not the only way to save money on the health care system; this may not be the best way to do so _ since we know that United States spend $ 294.3 billion on health care administrative cost, while Canada spend only 9.4 billion (Aaron, 2003): reducing the US health administrative cost in half would be ideal. However, I do think this is one way to save money on the system by eliminating all the non-useful drug prescriptions, unnecessary surgeries and updating the medical technology (which can help reduce on administrative cost) to improve data entries, patients' charts, and all medical information in general, which will reduce duplication of tests and diagnoses. This will provide a duo-advantage, for the government and the patients will save some money.
Literature cited:
Lucian L. Leape. Harvard School of Public Health: Annual Reviews. 1992 13:363-83
Richard David (et al.). Disparities in Infant Mortality: What’s Genetics Got to Do With it? American Journal of Public Health. July 2007, vol. 97, No. 7 pp.1191-1197
Henry J. Aaron. The Cost of Health Care Administration in the United States and Canada. NEJM 349:8. Aug. 2003 pp. 801-803
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)