With the presidential contest heating up, bloggers’ thoughts turn to U.S. healthcare reform:
- Lisa Codispoti at Womenstake presents the numbers that show just how bad conditions are now.
- Brian Klepper at Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review explains the crucial element of healthcare reform that’s missing from the new Harry and Louise ad (via Health Wonk Review). (The 1994 Harry and Louise ad played a key role in blocking Clinton’s health plan.)
- Anna Wilde Matthews at WSJ’s Health Blog describes a Medicare experiment that points to a way to save money while improving care.
- Maggie Mahar at Health Beat suggests that payments to physicians be based at least in part on value, not just cost
- Harold Pollack at Ezra Klein’s blog tells us how Vladimir Putin could imperil the chances of U.S. health reform
At Enviroblog, Amanda enumerates problems with FDA’s draft assessment on BPA, while Jovana points out that the failure of two California measures to keep BPA and PFOA out of children’s products leave parents relying on Wal-Mart and Burger King to keep those chemicals out of their kids’ bodies.
Niko Karvounis and Maggie Mahar at Health Beat provide a grim, detailed picture of the toll of war on members of the U.S. military.
Julie Ferguson at Workers’ Comp Insider explores court rulings on suicides related to workplace injuries, providing a reminder of how important it is to address pain and depression in injury recovery plans.
Rachel Nugent at Global Health Policy considers the implications of the growing world population, which is projected to pass seven billion in 2012.
Ed Yong at Not Exactly Rocket Science brings us the good news from a recent study: more people living to extreme old age doesn’t necessarily mean soaring rates of costly dependence on caregivers and society.
Chris Mooney at Science Progress fact-checks the claim that U.S. institutions are producing fewer scientists, and offers a different explanation of what’s wrong with our scientific workforce.
Alicia Mundy at WSJ’s Health Blog revisits the Supreme Court case Wyeth v. Levine, in which the justices will decide whether FDA approval of a drug shields manufacturers from liability claims, in light of a New England Journal of Medicine editorial that argues against this kind of preemption.